Integrating climate mitigation and adaptation in the UK: A new anticipatory narrative for achieving “Climate Resilient Net Zero” in preparing for heat risk

• Limited research considers integrating mitigation and adaptation for heat risk resilience. • Mitigation and adaptation integration considered important and feasible by key heat risk practitioners. • Climate mitigation and adaptation integration typically not implemented in practice. • Enablers and challenges exist when considering integration in context of heat risk. • “Climate resilient net zero” framing is more effective than “integration”, for engagement. Climate Policy Integration (CPI) is key to mainstreaming and harmonising mitigation and adaptation in policy responses to climate change worldwide. However, little is known about how CPI can be applied in practice, beyond single policy areas, particularly in the integration of adaptation and mitigation responses. We investigate this in the context of responding to climate impacts such as extreme heat, a climate risk growing in international importance. Using the 2022 UK heatwaves as a case study, our paper explores: (a) the extent to which key stakeholders consider the integration of adaptation and mitigation to be important; (b) perceptions of the feasibility of integration; and (c) main enablers and/or challenges with integration of adaptation and mitigation. To do this, interviews (N = 38) and four focus groups (N = 21) were conducted with policymakers, first responders, utility providers, and civil society responsible for managing heat risks. Our findings reveal a tension that CPI is essential to achieving a “climate resilient net zero”, yet unrealised. To facilitate CPI, we present a new anticipatory narrative with international and multi-contextual significance, that considers the convergence of key elements integral to effective CPI decision-making in the context of heat risk: (1) ‘Challenges’ − that may hinder, undermine, or act as a barrier to the integration of mitigation and adaptation; (2) ‘Enablers’ − which support, or help to facilitate greater integration, or synergies, between mitigation and adaptation; (3) ‘Framings’ − different ways participants described, defined or interpreted the issue of integration; (4) ‘Importance’ – the extent to which participants thought that integrating mitigation and adaptation was important; and (5) ‘Feasibility’ – or how possible integration is. We conclude that unless all five elements are fully addressed iteratively by end-users when tackling and understanding heat risks, new problems may emerge.