Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review

Abstract

Many cities around the world are increasingly developing plans and policies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. These plans and policies are often focused on either mitigation or adaptation. This dichotomized approach can be problematic and result in trade-offs. In other words, efforts aimed at enhancing mitigation (adaptation) may hinder achieving adaptation (mitigation) objectives. Additionally, conflicts may arise as there might be inconsistencies between some mitigation and adaptation measures. Since trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and mitigation measures can undermine effectiveness and efficiency of municipal activities, efforts should be made to avoid or minimize them. This study aims to provide a better understanding of potential trade-offs and conflicts through reviewing literature on the interactions between urban adaptation and mitigation measures. This is done through bibliographic analysis and detailed content analyses of selected papers. Results of this review show that research on trade-offs and conflict has gained traction since the publication of the fourth assessment report of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, there is still a lack of empirical studies. In particular, limited research exists on the Global South cities. Also, according to the findings, existing research is mainly focused on trade-offs associated with measures related to energy, land use, transport, water, building, green infrastructure, and waste sectors. It is found that mitigation measures may have negative impacts on adaptation by increasing exposure to risks such as the urban heat island effect and flooding and/or by eroding livelihood options of poor and marginalized groups and causing equity concerns. In contrast, adaptation measures may increase greenhouse gas emissions by, among other things, reducing efficiency and increasing energy demand. It is discussed that integrated assessment frameworks should be utilized to deal with trade-offs and conflicts. Finally, some recommendations for better uptake of integrated frameworks are provided.