128 ■ CITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
For example, municipal competencies are critical with respect to the regulating
and provision modes, and sources of additional fi nance and involvement with
transnational networks are critical in terms of an enabling mode of climate
governance. In the case studies that follow, we consider how these diff erent
“modes” of governing climate change have been deployed and with what eff ect.
Adapting to Climate Change
Adaptation policy is crucial for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate
change, but this has so far been underemphasized at the urban level around the
world. Th e economic cost of adapting to the eff ects from climate change will be sig-
nifi cant; in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries alone, making new infrastructure and buildings resilient to climate
change is estimated to cost around $15 to $150 billion a year (0.05 to 0.5 percent
of gross domestic product; Stern 2006). Adaptation addresses the consequences of
climate change, such as heavy rainfall, fl ooding, or extreme temperatures. Th ese
are issues already aff ecting societies, independent of their role in causing climate
change. As a result, the benefi ts from urban adaptation can be direct for a city, in
contrast with the rather indirect benefi ts felt in the case of mitigation in the form
of political or economic gains or improvements in the local environment. Not only
does adaptation provide many local benefi ts, it can also be realized without long
lead times (Stern 2006). Even though the impetus for economic development has
traditionally been viewed as incompatible with considerations for environmental
protection or climate change policies, mitigation and adaptation are increasingly
being reframed as economic opportunities (Halsnæs and Verhagen 2007; Hay and
Mimura 2006; Tanner and others 2008; UK WGCCD 2007).
Although the notion that adaptation and mitigation can be pursued simulta-
neously is increasingly being advocated, important trade-off s must also be con-
sidered when devising mitigation and adaptation strategies. Some mitigation
options may exacerbate urban vulnerability to climate change. For example,
although increasing urban density may contribute toward reducing emissions
from transport, this will have negative implications for adaptation, such as
intensifying the urban heat island eff ect and posing problems for urban drain-
age. Improving our understanding of the synergies, confl icts, and trade-off s
between mitigation and adaptation measures would enable more integrated
and eff ective urban climate policy (McEvoy, Lindley, and Handley 2006).
In addition, adaptation-specifi c challenges make urban governance and
planning in this area particularly challenging. Th e lack of data and expertise at
the local level is perhaps even more critical when it comes to adaptation than
mitigation. Th ere is a lack of scientifi c assessment as to what impacts might be
expected and of social, economic, and scientifi c research as to potential impacts