The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from North Central Victoria,Australia

This two-part paper considers the complementarity between adaptation and mitigation in managing the risks associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect. Part one reviews the application of risk management methods to climate change assessments. Formal investigations of the enhanced greenhouse effect have produced three generations of risk assessment. The first led to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), First Assessment Report and subsequent drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The second investigated the impacts of unmitigated climate change in the Second and Third IPCC Assessment Reports. The third generation, currently underway, is investigating how risk management options can be prioritised and implemented. Mitigation and adaptation have two main areas of complementarity. Firstly, they each manage different components of future climate-related risk. Mitigation reduces the number and magnitude of potential climate hazards, reducing the most severe changes first. Adaptation increases the ability to cope with climate hazards by reducing system sensitivity or by reducing the consequent level of harm. Secondly, they manage risks at different extremes of the potential range of future climate change. Adaptation works best with changes of lesser magnitude at the lower end of the potential range. Where there is sufficient adaptive capacity, adaptation improves the ability of a system to cope with increasingly larger changes over time. By moving from uncontrolled emissions towards stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mitigation limits the upper part of the range. Different activities have various blends of adaptive and mitigative capacity. In some cases, high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity may lead to large residual climate risks; in other cases, a large adaptive capacity may mean that residual risks are small or non-existent. Mitigative and adaptive capacity do not share the same scale: adaptive capacity is expressed locally, whereas mitigative capacity is different for each activity and location but needs to be aggregated at the global scale to properly assess its potential benefits in reducing climate hazards. This can be seen as a demand for mitigation, which can be exercised at the local scale through exercising mitigative capacity. Part two of the paper deals with the situation where regional bodies aim to maximise the benefits of managing climate risks by integrating adaptation and mitigation measures at their various scales of operation. In north central Victoria, Australia, adaptation and mitigation are being jointly managed by a greenhouse consortium and a catchment management authority. Several related studies investigating large-scale revegetation are used to show how climate change impacts and sequestration measures affect soil, salt and carbon fluxes in the landscape. These studies show that trade-offs between these interactions will have to be carefully managed to maximise their relative benefits. The paper concludes that when managing climate change risks, there are many instances where adaptation and mitigation can be integrated at the operational level. However, significant gaps between our understanding of the benefits of adaptation and mitigation between local and global scales remain. Some of these may be addressed by matching demands for mitigation (for activities and locations where adaptive capacity will be exceeded) with the ability to supply that demand through localised mitigative capacity by means of globally integrated mechanisms.     

Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods

Adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate change are policy substitutes, as both reduce the impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation should therefore be analysed together, as they indeed are, albeit in a rudimentary way, in cost-benefit analyses of emission abatement. However, adaptation and mitigation are done by different people operating at different spatial and temporal scales. This hampers analysis of the trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. An exception is facilitative adaptation (enhancing adaptive capacity), which, like mitigation, requires long-term policies at macro level. Facilitative adaptation and mitigation not only both reduce impacts, but they also compete for resources.     

Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis

Integrating mitigation and adaptation (M&A) is a practical reality for climate change response policy, despite a range of conceptual and methodological challenges. Based on the papers in this special issue, some preliminary findings about appropriate integrated portfolios are offered, along with several implications for climate policy.     

Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies

As climate changes due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, agriculture will be one of the key human activities affected. Projections show that while overall global food production in the coming decades may keep pace with the food requirements of a growing world population, climate change might worsen existing regional disparities because it will reduce crop yields mostly in lands located at lower latitudes where many developing countries are situated. Strategies to enhance local adaptation capacity are therefore needed to minimize climatic impacts and to maintain regional stability of food production. At the same time, agriculture as a sector offers several opportunities to mitigate the portion of global greenhouse gas emissions that are directly dependent upon land use, land-use change, and land-management techniques. This paper reviews issues of agriculture and climate change, with special attention to adaptation and mitigation. Specifically, as adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture are implemented to alleviate the potential negative effects of climate change, key synergies need to be identified, as mitigation practices may compete with modifications to local agricultural practices aimed at maintaining production and income. Under future climate and socio-economic pressures, land managers and farmers will be faced with challenges in regard to selecting those mitigation and adaptation strategies that together meet food, fiber and climate policy requirements.     

Extended impacts of climate change on health and wellbeing

Anthropogenic climate change is progressively transforming the environment despite political and technological attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming. Here we propose that greater insight and understanding of the health-related impacts of climate change can be gained by integrating the positivist approaches used in public health and epidemiology, with holistic social science perspectives on health in which the concept of ‘wellbeing’ is more explicitly recognised. Such an approach enables us to acknowledge and explore a wide range of more subtle, yet important health-related outcomes of climate change. At the same time, incorporating notions of wellbeing enables recognition of both the health co-benefits and dis-benefits of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies across different population groups and geographical contexts. The paper recommends that future adaptation and mitigation policies seek to ensure that benefits are available for all since current evidence suggests that they are spatially and socially differentiated, and their accessibility is dependent on a range of contextually specific socio-cultural factors.     

Examining adaptation and mitigation opportunities in the context of the integrated watershed management programme of the Government of India

India occupies 2.4% of the world’s geographical area with a large percentage of its land under agriculture. About 228 Million hectares (Mha) of its geographical area (nearly 69%) fall within the dryland (arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid) region. Of the total cultivated area of 142 Mha, major part of agriculture in the country is rainfed, extending to over 97 Mha and constituting nearly 68% of the net cultivated area, therefore making the agricultural sector vulnerable and exposed to the vagaries of weather conditions. Climate change adds to this dimension of stress. A strong need is felt for targeting programmes in these areas that address issues related to employing suitable soil and water conservation measures. In this context this paper seeks to examine the case for watershed development as an adaptive strategy. An examination of the possibility of fortifying the existing programme with a view to adapting to expected changes in climate in future is undertaken. Also, the possibility of watershed development integrating into a suitable mitigation strategy for the country is assessed.

Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings

Between 1999 and 2003, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) made a preliminary effort to integrate an analysis of mitigation and adaptation to climate change impact vulnerabilities in two ways: top-down and bottom-up. This paper briefly describes these early experiments and summarizes their findings, both about climate change vulnerability reduction and about the challenges of integrated analysis, expanding upon results previously reported [Wilbanks et al. (Environment 45/5:28–38, 2003); ORNL (Integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation as responses to concerns about impacts of global climate change, ORNL Working paper 2003); ORNL and CUSAT 2003; Wilbanks 2005]. The U.S Government’s right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright is acknowledged     

Issues in developing a capacity for integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation

As policymakers and stakeholders increasingly consider relative merits and complementarities of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, it is important to improve analytical capacities to support this process. Because a single analytical approach is unlikely to fit all needs, this paper explores potentials for an integrated analytical framework that incorporates both top–down and bottom–up approaches.     

The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy

Factors influencing support for climate mitigation policy in the United States are well researched, however, research regarding individuals’ support for climate adaptation policy is relatively sparse. This study explores how an individual’s perception of climate change impacts may influence their support for adaptation actions. Results of a survey of the U.S. public (n = 653) indicates that individuals who believe climate change impacts are unlikely to happen or will primarily affect other people in other places are less likely to be concerned about climate change impacts and less likely to support climate adaptation. However, an individual’s support for climate change adaptation measures is not influenced by their perception of when climate change impacts will occur even when taking into account concern for climate impacts. Critical for policy-makers, a belief that climate adaptation measures will not be effective attenuates the relationship between psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and adaptation policy measures. Our results indicate that to effectively communicate about climate change, policy-makers should emphasize that: (i) climate change impacts are occurring, (ii) that their constituents are being affected now, or will be in the future, and (iii) communicate that adaptation measures can be effective in addressing risks associated with climate change impacts.     

Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy

Climate change adaptation and mitigation decisions made by governments are usually taken in different policy domains. At the individual level however, adaptation and mitigation activities are undertaken together as part of the management of risk and resources. We propose that a useful starting point to develop a national climate policy is to understand what societal response might mean in practice. First we frame the set of responses at the national policy level as a trade off between investment in the development and diffusion of new technology, and investment in encouraging and enabling society to change its behaviour and or adopt the new technology. We argue that these are the pertinent trade-offs, rather than those usually posited between climate change mitigation and adaptation. The preference for a policy response that focuses more on technological innovation rather than one that focuses on changing social behaviour will be influenced by the capacity of different societies to change their greenhouse gas emissions; by perceived vulnerability to climate impacts; and by capacity to modify social behaviour and physical environment. Starting with this complete vision of response options should enable policy makers to re-evaluate the risk environment and the set of response options available to them. From here, policy makers should consider who is responsible for making climate response decisions and when actions should be taken. Institutional arrangements dictate social and political acceptability of different policies, they structure worldviews, and they determine the provision of resources for investment in technological innovation and social change. The importance of focussing on the timing of the response is emphasised to maximise the potential for adjustments through social learning and institutional change at different policy scales. We argue that the ability to respond to climate change is both enabled and constrained by social and technological conditions. The ability of society to respond to climate change and the need for technological change for both decarbonisation and for dealing with surprise in general, are central to concepts of sustainable development.     

Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: an insurance perspective

As the world’s largest industry, the insurance sector is both an aggregator of the impacts of climate change and a market actor able to play a material role in decreasing the vulnerability of human and natural systems. This article reviews the implications of climate change for insurers and provides specific examples of insurance-relevant synergisms between adaptation and mitigation in the buildings and energy sectors, agriculture, forestry, and land use. Although insurance is far from a “silver bullet” in addressing climate change, it offers significant capacity and ability to understand, manage, and spread risks associated with weather-related events, more so today in industrialized countries but increasingly so in developing countries and economies in transition. Certain measures that integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation also bolster insurers’ solvency and profitability, thereby increasing their appeal. Promising strategies involve innovative products and systems for delivering insurance and the use of new technologies and practices that both reduce vulnerability to disaster-related losses and support sustainable development. However, climate change promises to erode the insurability of many risks, and insurance responses can be more reactive than proactive, resulting in compromised insurance affordability and/or availability. Public–private partnerships involving insurers and entities such as the international relief community offer considerable potential, but have not been adequately explored.

Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some general perspectives

To study mitigation and adaptation to climate change, social scientists have drawn on different approaches, particularly sociological approaches to the future and comparative history of past societies. These two approaches frame the social and temporal boundaries of decision-making collectivities in different ways. A consideration of the responses to climate variability in three historical cases, the Classic Maya of Mexico and Central America, the Viking settlements in Greenland, and the US Dust Bowl, shows the value of integrating these two approaches.     

Coastal flood protection: What perspective in a changing climate? The THESEUS approach

Coastal areas are vital economic hubs in terms of settlement, industry, agriculture, trade and tourism to mention some key sectors. There are already many coastal problems including erosion, flood risk and long-term habitat deterioration. As economies continue to develop the asset base at risk will grow, while accelerating climate change will increase the likelihood of damaging extreme events, as well as accelerate habitat decline. Existing coastal management and defence approaches are not well tuned to these challenges as they assume a static situation.THESEUS project is developing a systematic approach to delivering both a low-risk coast for human use and healthy habitats for evolving coastal zones subject to multiple change factors. The project examines innovative mitigation and adaptation technologies and integrate the best of these technical measures in a strategic policy context through overarching guidelines. THESEUS activities are carried out within a multidisciplinary framework using 8 study sites across Europe, with specific attention to the most vulnerable coastal environments such as deltas, estuaries and wetlands, where many large cities and industrial areas are located.This paper describes THESEUS approach, and specifically: the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consquence model for coastal risk assessment; the engineering, social, economic and ecological mitigation measures under analysis; the participatory approach with end users and coastal authorities for the selection and identification of the appropriate defence strategy to be planned in sudy sites.     

Moving towards ambitious climate policies: Monetised health benefits from improved air quality could offset mitigation costs in Europe

Air quality and related health effects are not only affected by policies directly addressed at air pollution but also by other environmental strategies such as climate mitigation. This study addresses how different climate policy pathways indirectly bear upon air pollution in terms of improved human health in Europe. To this end, we put in perspective mitigation costs and monetised health benefits of reducing PM_2.5 (particles less than 2.5 μm in diameter) and ozone concentrations.Air quality in Europe and related health impacts were assessed using a comprehensive modelling chain, based on global and regional climate and chemistry-transport models together with a health impact assessment tool. This allows capturing both the impact of climate policy on emissions of air pollutants and the geophysical impact of climate change on air quality.Results are presented for projections at the 2050 horizon, for a set of consistent air pollution and climate policy scenarios, combined with population data from the UN's World Population Prospects, and are expressed in terms of morbidity and mortality impacts of PM_2.5 and ozone pollution and their monetised damage equivalent.The analysis shows that enforcement of current European air quality policies would effectively reduce health impacts from PM_2.5 in Europe even in the absence of climate policies (life years lost from the exposure to PM_2.5 decrease by 78% between 2005 and 2050 in the reference scenario), while impacts for ozone depend on the ambition level of international climate policies. A move towards stringent climate policies on a global scale, in addition to limiting global warming, creates co-benefits in terms of reduced health impacts (68% decrease in life years lost from the exposure to PM_2.5 and 85% decrease in premature deaths from ozone in 2050 in the mitigation scenario relative to the reference scenario) and air pollution cost savings (77%) in Europe. These co-benefits are found to offset at least 85% of the additional cost of climate policy in this region.     

Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions

The potential for developing synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation has become a recent focus of both climate research and policy. Presumably the interest in synergies springs from the appeal of creating win–win situations by implementing a single climate policy option. However, institutional complexity, insufficient opportunities and uncertainty surrounding their efficiency and effectiveness present major challenges to the widespread development of synergies. There are also increasing calls for research to define the optimal mix of mitigation and adaptation. These calls are based on the misguided assumption that there is one single optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation options for all possible scenarios of climate and socio-economic change, notwithstanding uncertainty and irrespective of the diversity of values and preferences in society. In the face of current uncertainty, research is needed to provide guidance on how to develop a socially and economically justifiable mix of mitigation, adaptation and development policy, as well as on which elements would be part of such a mix. Moreover, research is needed to establish the conditions under which the process of mainstreaming can be most effective. Rather than actually developing and implementing specific mitigation and adaptation options, the objective of climate policy should be to facilitate such development and implementation as part of sectoral policies. Finally, analysis needs to focus on the optimal use and expected effectiveness of financial instruments, taking into account the mutual effects between these instruments on the one hand, and national and international sectoral investments and official development assistance on the other.     

Emissions associated with meeting the future global wheat demand: A case study of UK production under climate change constraints

Climate change, population growth and socio-structural changes will make meeting future food demands extremely challenging. As wheat is a globally traded food commodity central to the food security of many nations, this paper uses it as an example to explore the impact of climate change on global food supply and quantify the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Published data on projected wheat production is used to analyse how global production can be increased to match projected demand. The results show that the largest projected wheat demand increases are in areas most likely to suffer severe climate change impacts, but that global demand could be met if northern hemisphere producers exploit climate change benefits to increase production and narrow their yield gaps. Life cycle assessment of different climate change scenarios shows that in the case of one of the most important wheat producers (the UK) it may be possible to improve yields with an increase of only 0.6% in the emission intensity per unit of wheat produced in a 2 °C scenario. However, UK production would need to rise substantially, increasing total UK wheat production emissions by 26%. This demonstrates how national emission inventories and associated targets do not incentivise minimisation of global greenhouse gas emissions while meeting increased food demands, highlighting a triad of challenges: meeting the rising demand for food, adapting to climate change and reducing emissions.     

Climate change and financial adaptation in Africa. Investigating the impact of climate change on the robustness of index-based microinsurance in Malawi

This paper discusses the applicability of crop insurance for the case of Malawi and explores the potential impact of climate change on the viability of the Malawi weather insurance program making use of scenarios of climate change-induced variations in rainfall patterns. The analysis is important from a methodological and policy perspective. By combining catastrophe insurance modeling with climate modeling, the methodology demonstrates the feasibility, albeit with large uncertainties, of estimating the effects of climate variability and climate change on the near- and long-term future of microinsurance schemes serving the poor. By providing a model-based estimate of insurance back-up capital necessary to avoid ruin under climate variability and climate change, along with the associated uncertainties and data limitations, this methodology can quantitatively demonstrate the need for financial assistance to protect micro-insurance pools against climate-induced insolvency. This is of major concern to donors, NGOs and others supporting these innovative systems, those actually at-risk and insurers providing insurance. A quantitative estimate of the additional burden that climate change imposes on weather insurance for poor regions is of interest to organizations funding adaptation. Further, by linking catastrophe modeling to regionalized climate modeling, the analysis identifies key modeling inputs necessary as well as important constraints. We end with a discussion of the opportunities and limits to similar modeling and weather predictability for Sub-Saharan Africa beyond the case of Malawi.

Adapting to climate change: reducing water-related risks in Europe – EU policy and research considerations

Climate change impacts on the hydrological cycle, e.g. leading to changes of precipitation patterns, have been observed over several decades. Higher water temperatures and changes in extremes hydrometeorological events (including floods and droughts) are likely to exacerbate different types of pressures on water resources with possible negative impacts on ecosystems and human health. In addition, sea-level rise is expected to extend areas of salinisation of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas. Furthermore, climate-related changes in water quantity and quality are expected to affect food availability, water access and utilisation, especially in arid and semi-arid areas, as well as the operation of water infrastructure (e.g. hydropower, flood defences, and irrigation systems). This paper serves as an introduction to the special issue of Environment Science & Policy dealing with climate change impacts on water-related disasters. It provides a brief background about relevant EU water policies and examples of EU-funded research trends which illustrate on-going efforts to improve understanding and modelling of climate changes related to the hydrological cycles at scales that are relevant to decision making (possibly linked to policy).     

Accounting for risk and uncertainty in determining preferred strategies for adapting to future climate change

Individuals, businesses, and policymakers face the problem of selecting a preferred strategy for adapting a managed ecosystem to future climate change when there is risk and/or uncertainty about future climate change and its ecosystem impacts, and the conditional outcomes of adaptive strategies (i.e., performance of an adaptive strategy given a particular future climate change scenario occurs). Evaluation methods for this purpose are described for two cases; one in which the decision-maker can (climate risk case) and cannot (climate uncertainty case) assign probabilities to future climate change scenarios. Fuzzy sets are used to characterize uncertainty regarding both future climate change, and the conditional outcomes of adaptive strategies. The preferred conditional adaptive strategy for a future climate change scenario is determined by ordering the adaptive strategies for that scenario using a fuzzy set operation. Two methods are described for determining the adaptive strategy that is preferred across all climate change scenarios. The preferred overall adaptive strategy for the climate risk case is determined by maximizing a performance index for strategies. The preferred overall adaptive strategy for the climate uncertainty case is determined using the minimax regret criterion, which selects the strategy that minimizes the maximum loss in performance that can occur across all strategies and climate change scenarios. Ways for making the evaluation methods dynamic are considered.