A municipality decides to plant a new forest along a local river. Is this a mitigation response to climate change, or an example of adaptation? We would see it as both, at the same time, and the integrated planning required for this is what we call adaptigation.
A conclusion from our recent research on the varieties of climate change response is that the separation of planning for mitigation and for adaptation is becoming obsolete. In studying how different administrations have acted with regard to climate change there has recently been a dramatic emphasis on adaptation policy. This comes after years of focusing almost exclusively on mitigation activity. Such radical shifts in emphasis have at times led to contradictory measures. Let's consider for a moment what the two terms mean.
The most authoritative and exhaustive source of knowledge about climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. According to the IPCC, "Mitigation means implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks." When it comes to our new forest, it helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by storing carbon in its biomass; it is a sink. Climate change is mitigated.
When it comes to adaptation, the IPCC states, "Adaptation means initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects." Our new forest helps to strengthen the riverbanks against the increased rainfall that is anticipated from climate change. We are adapting to the hazards of climate change.
Good planning integrates both perspectives. As anybody who has ever tried to integrate anything knows, the process of doing so is different from simply combining them. The concept of synergy is just one example of the qualitative difference implied. In order to signal this insight about integration in planning for climate change, we have coined the term "adaptigation." Adaptigation is a response to climate change that integrates a focus on adaptation with a focus on mitigation, to avoid conflicts and create synergies (Langlais, 2009; Langlais & Dymén, 2009). Seeing a forest as both an adaptation—it buffers the impact of flooding—and as mitigation—it absorbs carbon—is smart planning.
Looking for adaptigation-smart alternatives helps us to avoid conflicts, too. Planning greater housing density, for example, might be good as mitigation, by reducing transportation needs, but might also result in filling in green areas that otherwise are good for adaptation. Keeping adaptigation in mind at least alerts us to potential conflicts and helps us to "think outside the box." We might decide to keep just a part of the forest, but have more trees on the rooftops. While these are all just examples, the important insight remains: adaptation and mitigation can be outcomes of the same measures, and an integrated approach is probably more sustainable.
By Richard Langlais, former Senior Research Fellow, Nordregio