The complementarity and comparability of climate change adaptation and mitigation

Abstract

Both mitigation and adaptation can reduce the risks of climate change. This study reviews the complementarity and comparability between the two, looking first at the global level and then at the national‐to‐local domain. At the global level, the review finds differing definitions and viewpoints exist in the literature. Much of the economic literature reports that global mitigation and adaptation are substitutes (in economic terms). In contrast, the scientific literature considers them to be complementary (in policy terms), as they address different risks that vary temporally and spatially. The degree of complementarity and comparability therefore depends on the perspective taken, although there is a policy space where the two can overlap. However, the governance, institutional, and policy‐based literature identifies that even if a global mitigation and adaptation mix could be defined, it would be highly contentious and extremely difficult to deliver in practice. The review then considers the complementarity and comparability of mitigation and adaptation at the national‐to‐local domain, in national policy and at sector level. The review finds there is greater potential for complementarity at this scale, although possible conflicts can also exist. However, the institutional, governance, and policy literature identifies a number of barriers to practical implementation, and as a result, complementary mitigation and adaptation action is unlikely to happen autonomously. Finally, the lessons from the review are drawn together to highlight policy relevant issues and identify research gaps. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:541–557. doi: 10.1002/wcc.368 This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Methods of Integrated Assessment of Climate Change The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation Climate and Development > Sustainability and Human Well‐Being

Comparing Climate Change Policy Adoption and Its Extension across Areas of City Policymaking

“…That I did not observe a similar relationship between these financial considerations and adaptation could suggest that the cities studied do not currently see that investments in adaptation can similarly help them deal with immediate budgetary challenges. If this is the case, it would conflict with claims that local governments will perceive that adaptation offers more immediate returns on investment than mitigation (Tol, ; Watkiss et al, )—at least currently. On the other hand, while there were not any statistically significant results concerning my measures of prevailing socioeconomic conditions (unemployment, median household income, and bachelor's attainment) and the number of policymaking areas influenced by mitigation, the city having a higher unemployment rate and higher median income were both positively associated with adaptation influencing more areas of policymaking.…”

Links between Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation and Development in Land Policy and Ecosystem Restoration Projects: Lessons from South Africa

“…It is worthwhile noting at this point, however, that important exceptions have been highlighted in the literature, particularly in the land and water management, as well as in the urban planning sectors. For instance, urban green spaces help to improve the physical and mental well-being of residents, while delivering at the same time adaptation benefits (e.g., cooling and storm-water drainage) and mitigation benefits through, for example, the shading of buildings [5]. Reforestation and agroforestry schemes can help, for instance, to sequester carbon, prevent flooding, enhance biodiversity, rehabilitate degraded lands, provide a local energy supply for the rural poor and improve land use and watershed management [6].…”

Adaptation to climate change

“…Yet from an aggregate perspective, the relative role of adaptation and mitigation in the global response to climate change is an important question. Policy makers generally think of the two measures as complements, in the sense that the optimal policy response contains both adaptation and mitigation (Watkiss et al 2015). However, in strict economic terms adaptation and mitigation are more likely to be substitutes.…”