A wide range of inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation have been identified through examples in the published literature. Taylor et al. (2006) present an inventory of published examples including full citations (available in an abbreviated form on the CD-ROM accompanying this volume as supplementary material to support the review of this chapter). The many examples have been clustered according to the type of linkage and ordered according to the entry point and scale of decision-making (Figure 18.2). Table 18.1 lists all of the types of linkages documented. The categories are illustrative; some cases occur in more than one category, or could shift over time or in different situations. For example, watershed planning is often related to managing climatic risks in using water. But if hydroelectricity is an option, then the entry point may be mitigation, and both adaptation and mitigation might be evaluated at the same time or even with explicit trade-offs.
In Figure 18.2 and Table 18.1, many of the examples are motivated by either mitigation or adaptation, with largely unintended consequences for the other (e.g., Tol and Dowlatabadi, 2001). Where adaptation leads to effects on mitigation, the linkage is labelled A^M. The categories of linkages include:
• individual responses to climatic hazard that increase or decrease greenhouse-gas emissions. For example, a common adaptation to heatwaves is to install air-conditioning, which increases electricity demand with consequences for mitigation when the electricity is produced from fossil fuels;
• more efficient community use of water, land, forests and other natural resources, improving access and reducing emissions (e.g., conservation of water in urban areas reduces energy used in moving and heating water);
• natural resources managed to sustain livelihoods;
• tourism use of energy and water, with outcomes for incomes and emissions (generally to increase both welfare and emissions);
• resources used in adaptation, such as in large-scale infrastructure, increases emissions.
Similarly, mitigation actions might affect the capacity to adapt or actual adaptation actions (M^A). These categories include:
• more efficient energy use and renewable sources that promote local development;
• CDM projects on land use or energy use that support local economies and livelihoods, perhaps by placing a value on their management of natural resources;
• urban planning, building design and recycling with benefits for both adaptation and mitigation;
• health benefits of mitigation through reduced environmental stresses;
• afforestation, leading to depleted water resources and other ecosystem effects, with consequences for livelihoods;
• mitigation actions that transfer finance to developing countries (such as per capita allocations) that stimulate investment with benefits for adaptation;
• effects of mitigation, e.g., through carbon taxes and energy prices, on resource use (generally to reduce use) that affect adaptation, for example by reducing the use of tractors in semi-subsistence farming due to higher costs of fuels.
As noted in Section 18.4.3, the effect of increased emissions due to adaptation is likely to be small in most sectors in relation to the baseline projections of energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions. Land and water management may be affected by mitigation actions, but in most sectors the effects of mitigation on adaptation are likely to be small. At least some analysts are concerned with the explicit trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation (labelled adaptation or mitigation, J(A,M)). Categories include:
• public-sector funding and budgetary processes that allocate funding to both adaptation and mitigation;
Was this article helpful?