Friction to synergy: Aligning climate adaptation and mitigation

The built environment is both a culprit and a victim of climate change. Roughly 35% of Dutch CO₂ emissions are embedded in construction materials, while another 12% comes from buildings in operation. At the same time, the sector is increasingly exposed to climate damage: floods, droughts, heatwaves, and subsiding foundations. By 2050, adaptation costs for the Netherlands are estimated in the tens of billions.

The urgency is obvious. Yet when it comes to strategy, climate mitigation and adaptation often clash. “We see many frictions,” says Samaneh Nickayin (WUR), who coordinates the Domain Acceleration Team (DAT) on Climate Adaptation & Mitigation in the 4TU.Built Environment Center. “Urban densification helps reduce mobility emissions, but it also amplifies the urban heat island effect. Flood protection infrastructure is vital, but cement-heavy construction contributes to CO₂ emissions. Even energy-efficient buildings can create overheating and health risks.”

The DAT, representing Wageningen University, TU Delft, TU Eindhoven, and the University of Twente, is working on a white paper that frames these tensions as “missed opportunities.” Their mission: shift the debate from trade-offs to synergies.

Misalignment by design

Why are adaptation and mitigation so often at odds? The DAT points to structural misalignments:

• Time horizons. Mitigation focuses on long-term global carbon reduction, while adaptation is about short-term local safety and comfort.
• Measurement. Mitigation has clear national and international targets, with CO₂ emissions tracked in detail. Adaptation lacks agreed metrics and often remains reactive.
• Governance. Each challenge - like housing, energy transition, and flood protection - operates in separate policy silos, with its own funding streams and timelines. “Everyone works on their own sectoral goals,” says Beau Warbroek (UT). “That makes integrative planning the exception rather than the rule.”

The result is that climate measures are often bolted onto projects afterwards instead of driving their design. As Robert van Dongen (TU/e) puts it: “Of the goal of adding one million homes in the Netherlands, the majority is projected to be built in the west of the Netherlands, below sea level, because that’s where the demand is. Not because it’s the most future-proof place to build.”

Domain Acceleration Team (DAT) on Climate Adaptation & Mitigation in the 4TU.Built Environment Center.

Opportunities for synergy

The DAT’s vision is straightforward: adaptation and mitigation must reinforce each other. “Doing adaptation without mitigation is like mopping the floor with the tap still running,” says Van Dongen. AnneMarie Eijkelenboom (TU Delft) adds: “Combining them can save costs, improve health, and make cities and their buildings livable now and in the future.”

The 4TU Domain Acceleration Team on Climate Adaptation & Mitigation highlights three domains of action: Cross-sector collaboration, shared tools and digital playgrounds, and climate-driven design. Let’s take a look at each of them.

1. Cross-sector collaboration

Urban projects often involve hundreds of stakeholders, including municipalities, water boards, housing associations, utilities, and developers. Too often, they dig up the same street twice, once for energy infrastructure and again for water adaptation. “If they collaborate early, you can do both at once. That’s cheaper, faster, and with less nuisance for residents,” says Warbroek.

The rules of engagement in urban planning are typically provided either by past collaboration experiences or current policy frameworks, Warbroek explains. “Making the implicit explicit could assist in providing a perspective for how to collaborate to pursue synergies between climate mitigation and adaptation.” Applied to urban planning, it helps clarify roles and incentives, allowing different actors to genuinely pursue shared outcomes.

Collaboration and flexibility are key to innovating construction

Innovation in construction is complex. To get innovation off the ground, scientists must apply their expertise flexibly.

Read More

2. Shared tools and digital playgrounds

Another barrier is the reliance on fragmented tools. For instance, the Dutch Klimaateffectatlas supports adaptation planning, while CO₂-monitoring tools focus on mitigation, but these systems operate in isolation. “It’s like puzzle pieces that don’t fit,” says Nickayin. “A systematic overview of existing tools for both adaptation and mitigation across sectors could help identify overlaps and gaps. Linking these tools would not only improve the accuracy of measurements but also generate insights that benefit both adaptation and mitigation strategies simultaneously.”

The DAT has helped develop “digital playgrounds” in municipalities like Eindhoven. These platforms let water managers, health officials, mobility planners, and citizens express their priorities and overlay them on maps. Algorithms then reveal optimal spots for green infrastructure or heat grids. “It’s not about perfect accuracy,” says Shahryar Sarabi (TU/e), who develops decision-support systems. “It’s about activating the conversation and finding equilibria where most stakeholders benefit.”

Such integrative tools make synergy visible, practical, and negotiable. They also offer transparency, so that decisions aren’t perceived as imposed but as co-designed.

3. Climate-Driven Design

The most powerful intervention is to design with climate from the start. Historically, Dutch cities did so instinctively: turf houses in the north insulated against cold; southern European towns maximized ventilation and shade. Modern planning, however, often removes trees before construction and retrofits greenery later.

Examples from Utrecht illustrate an alternative approach. In the Rijnenburg polder case study, a master’s thesis experiment explored how design could explicitly integrate climate as an active actor in shaping space. The project tested what it would mean to design with prevailing climatic forces, rather than only against them. For instance, orienting buildings along summer wind directions was shown to enhance natural ventilation and cooling at the neighborhood scale, while forest belts were positioned to buffer harsh winter gusts. 

These interventions were not proposed as ready-to-implement plans, but rather as exploratory “what-if” scenarios, demonstrating the potential of climate-driven design thinking. “Climate should be the driver of urban development, not an afterthought,” says Nickayin. “If we design with energy, water, and comfort in mind, adaptation and mitigation reinforce each other. It’s the most efficient way.”

Why isn’t it happening yet?

If climate-driven design and cross-sectoral collaboration are so obviously beneficial, why aren’t they the norm already? The answers are varied and intertwined.

One part of the problem is economic. Developers and municipalities often face strong short-term incentives: build quickly, meet housing quotas, and keep costs down. In practice, this means constructing buildings according to current guidelines to mitigate energy use, while investments in the adaptability of buildings are limited.

Institutional routines reinforce these choices. Planning processes are shaped by established policy silos, such as housing, energy, mobility, and water, each with its own rules, funding streams, and deadlines. Local governments must often deliver numbers of homes within their own boundaries, even if the most suitable land lies elsewhere. 

And then there is the everyday complexity of practice. Practitioners already struggle with the enormous challenge of the energy transition. Adding adaptation on top of mitigation can feel like one task too many. Each actor can solve only a part of the problem. The absence of coordination creates waste, higher costs, and frustration for residents.

Economic drivers reward short-term efficiency, governance structures fragment responsibility, and habits resist innovation; combined, these factors lead to powerful inertia. The DAT’s challenge is to make synergy not only desirable but feasible within this tangled reality.

Collaboration with construction industry is crucial for academia

The outgoing and incoming chairs of 4TU.Built Environment reflect on their role: “We need to get off our academic island.”

Read More

An opportunity, not a burden

The DAT insists on framing synergy as an opportunity, not a burden. “We could emphasize worst-case scenarios,” says Eijkelenboom. “But it’s stronger to show what can be gained: lower costs, healthier cities, a better quality of life.”

That optimism echoes Stephen Covey’s definition of synergy, adds Nickayin: “One plus one equals ten, or a hundred, or a thousand.” In the built environment, that could mean integrating dike strengthening with nature restoration, embedding mobility with cooling green corridors, or planning energy infrastructure alongside water systems.

“We’re not claiming to solve everything at once,” says Nickayin. “But we can at least show it is solvable in the first place. Each project that proves the case is a step toward wider adoption.”

Many opportunities, still some friction

Mitigation remains more important than adaptation in the long run; reducing emissions is the only way to stop the tap from running. Yet adaptation is unavoidable to keep cities livable in the short term. Pursued in isolation, they risk undermining each other. Pursued in synergy, they multiply benefits.

The sources of misalignment - different timelines, metrics, and governance structures - are real. But so are the solutions: cross-sector collaboration, integrative tools, and climate-driven design. If those become standard practice, Dutch cities can remain safe, resilient, and sustainable. Not by choosing between adaptation and mitigation, but by weaving them together.

If you want to know more about the Domain Acceleration Team on Climate Adaptation & Mitigation, check their website.