World Development 141 (2021) 105383

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing

countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?
Siri Eriksen a,⇑, E. Lisa F. Schipper b, Morgan Scoville-Simonds c,d, Katharine Vincent e,f, Hans Nicolai Adam g,
Nick Brooks h,i, Brian Harding j, Dil Khatri k, Lutgart Lenaerts l,n, Diana Liverman m, Megan Mills-Novoa m,
Marianne Mosberg n, Synne Movik o, Benard Muok p, Andrea Nightingale q,r, Hemant Ojha s,t, Linda Sygna u,
Marcus Taylor v, Coleen Vogel w, Jennifer Joy West x
a
Department of Public Health Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
b
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK
c
Department of Global Development and Planning, University of Agder, Norway
d
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
e
Kulima Integrated Development Solutions, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
f
School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
g
Section for Water and Society, Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway
h
Garama 3C Ltd., Norwich, UK
i
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
j
Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, United States
k
Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS), Kathmandu, Nepal
l
Department of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
m
School of Geography, Development and Environment, University of Arizona, USA
n
Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
o
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
p
Centre for Research Innovation and Technology, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST), Kenya
q
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Norway
r
Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
s
Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance,, University of Canberra, Australia
t
Institute for Study and Development Worldwide, Sydney, Australia
u
cCHANGE Transformation in a Changing Climate, Oslo, Norway
v
Global Development Studies, Queen’s University, Canada
w
Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
x
CICERO Centre for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate
Accepted 23 December 2020 change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently rein-
Available online 22 January 2021 force, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive out-
comes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation
Keywords: in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas;
Climate change adaptation and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how ‘adaptation success’ is defined. Emerging literature shows
Vulnerability
potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability:
Climate resilient development
Maladaptation
first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations par-
Post-adaptation ticipating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of ‘local’ vulnerability
Development interventions to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation
interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of
engagement with ‘vulnerable’ populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulner-
ability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: siri.eriksen@nmbu.no (S. Eriksen), Lisa.schipper@ouce.ox.ac.uk (E. Lisa F. Schipper), morganss@uia.no (M. Scoville-Simonds), katharine@kulima.com (K.
Vincent), Hans.adam@niva.no (H.N. Adam), nb@garama.co.uk (N. Brooks), bharding@gcfund.org (B. Harding), dil@sias-southasia.org (D. Khatri), Lutgart.lenaerts@nmbu.no (L.
Lenaerts), liverman@email.arizona.edu (D. Liverman), mmillsnovoa@email.arizona.edu (M. Mills-Novoa), Marianne.mosberg@nmbu.no (M. Mosberg), Synne.movik@nmbu.no
(S. Movik), bmuok@yahoo.com (B. Muok), Andrea.nightingale@sosgeo.uio.no (A. Nightingale), hemant.ojha@ifsd.com.aucom (H. Ojha), Linda.sygna@cchange.no (L. Sygna),
taylorm@queensu.ca (M. Taylor), Coleen.vogel@wits.ac.za (C. Vogel), j.j.west@cicero.oslo.no (J.J. West).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383
0305-750X/Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations
must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship
and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of
ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adapta-
tion and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of
framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse
effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation.
Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction: The cause for concern who instead emphasised the underlying sources of vulnerability
located in a wide range of social stressors, as well as the biophys-
Inequalities in climate change adaptation have long been on the ical ones (Bassett and Fogelman, 2013). Transformative adaptation
radar of international institutions. The 1994 United Nations Frame- requires shifting inequitable socio-political relations as well as the
work Convention on Climate Change, for example, recognised the worldviews and paradigms within which they are (re)produced
inequity underlying climate change causes and effects, subse- (O’Brien, 2018; Tschakert, van Oort, St. Clair, & LaMadrid, 2013)
quently enshrining mechanisms of financial support and technol- In this paper, we see vulnerability as a fundamentally relational
ogy transfer to developing countries to enable adaptation. state. Rather than referring to ‘vulnerable people’, a term that con-
Notwithstanding such measures, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond stitutes a common but problematic categorisation of groups such
Tutu warned over a decade later of an ‘adaptation apartheid’ in as women as inherently vulnerable (Arora-Jonsson, 2011), we refer
which those in the developing world who are most exposed to to ‘marginalised people’ in order to direct attention to the socio-
stark new climatic challenges would not have the resources to political relations, such as gender and race relations, that produce
adapt (UNDP, 2007). The broader 2030 agenda and associated Sus- socially differentiated vulnerability (Eriksen et al., 2015).
tainable Development Goals now highlight the need to ’leave no In surveying the adaptation literature, we review past and cur-
one behind’, yet studies continue to warn of the risk of unintended rent interventions to highlight the specific mechanisms that
negative consequences stemming from adaptation interventions increase the risk of maladaptive outcomes. This review paper orig-
for poverty and other goals (Magnan et al., 2016; Work et al., inated as a request by the Norwegian Minister for Development
2019). A large body of literature now documents how social divi- Cooperation to document how adaptation policy and programmes
sions on the basis of gender, race, age, (dis)ability or class deter- are affecting vulnerability, including both positive and negative
mine who is vulnerable to climate change and who has greater impacts. In response, we gathered a large number of adaptation
ability to adapt (Pearse, 2017; Vincent et al., 2014). As a conse- and development scholar-practitioners to examine empirical case
quence of entrenched discrimination in society, one person’s adap- studies of adaptation across the developing world. These were
tation may be accomplished at the cost of another’s increased identified through keyword searches and snowballing from refer-
vulnerability (Taylor, 2015; Thomas et al., 2019). In short, inequal- ence lists, encompassing both scholarly and grey literature, begin-
ity shapes climate change adaptation and, if it is not accounted for ning with interventions familiar to the authors. In total 34
in adaptation design, implementation or evaluation, interventions empirical studies of adaptation interventions were reviewed1.
may either be ineffectual or – worse – increase the vulnerability The cases were selected on the criteria that actual adaptation actions
of those they seek to aid (Ireland and McKinnon, 2013; were implemented through programmes and projects all nominally
Shackleton et al., 2015; Schipper et al., 2020). labelled ‘adaptation’ in their objectives. The selected interventions
Identifying the mechanisms through which negative effects can were either funded directly through multilateral organisations or
unfold in adaptation interventions must inform future adaptation mechanisms, or through national or local actions supported by bilat-
policy. So far, however, examinations of adaptation interventions eral or multilateral aid. The cases were iteratively analysed to distin-
have either focused on a narrow range of technical or economic guish impacts of the actions on different groups within a
objectives or assessed the adaptation approaches or design, rather vulnerability context, on the socio-environmental conditions com-
than the wider social impacts of interventions on the drivers of prising a vulnerability context, and on the processes and inequitable
vulnerability (Kuhl et al., 2020). Hence, to date there has been no relations generating socially differentiated vulnerability. Findings
independent review of the impacts on social vulnerability of inter- from this analysis were situated in the broader adaptation and crit-
national or bilateral funded interventions. However, a large num- ical development literature, including reviews and conceptual devel-
ber of theoretical developments and individual empirical case opment. Evidence of how different ways of planning and
studies are emerging that provide a basis to identify systemic fea- implementation contributed to the impacts of the interventions on
tures of the framing, financing, planning, implementation, moni- vulnerability was then examined. For the second component, we
toring and evaluation of adaptation interventions. complemented our analysis of empirical case studies with a review
In addition to this literature, there is also growing interest in of a broader set of past studies that describe the mechanisms
transformative adaptation, which looks beyond a programmatic
approach to adaptation and views it instead as an opportunity ‘to
1
reconfigure the meaning and trajectory of development’ (Pelling, As examined in section 2: Abbink et al. (2014), Artur and Hilhorst (2012), Barrett
(2014), Beckman (2011), Bergius et al. (2018), Buggy and McNamara (2016), Camargo
2011: 167; Pelling et al., 2015). Transformation is thus distinct and Ojeda (2017), Carr & Owusu-Daaku, 2016, Dodman and Mitlin (2015), Donner and
from incremental adaptation in ‘the extent of change, in practice Webber (2014), Ferdous et al. (2020), Haji and Legesse (2017), Kita (2019), Kothari
manifesting either in the maintenance of an incumbent system (2014), Magnan et al. (2016), Mehta et al. (2019), Mikulewicz (2020a), Milman and
or process, or in the creation of a fundamentally new system or Arsano (2014), Murtinho et al. (2013), Nightingale (2017), Murtinho, Eakin, López-
Carr, & Hayes, 2013, Nelson and Finan (2009), Ojwang et al. (2017), Omukuti (2020a),
process’ (Park et al., 2012, p. 119). This distinction between ‘incre-
Pak-Uthai and Faysse (2018), Paprocki (2018), Tänzler, Maas, & Carius, 2010, Taylor
mental’ adaptation and ‘transformative’ adaptation is reminiscent and Bhasme (2020), Thomas and Warner (2019), Tschakert et al. (2016), Warner and
of the debates between the ‘natural hazards’ school that located Kuzdas (2016), West et al. (2018), Yates (2012), Karlsson, Naess, Nightingale &
risk in the hazard itself, in contrast to the political economists Thompson (2018). The analysis in sections 3 and 4 drew on further empirical studies
as referenced in the text.

2
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

through which adaptation interventions are implemented, including political power that end up with compounded vulnerability. The
planning, assessment, monitoring, evaluation, knowledge and partic- idea that an adaptation intervention can result in vulnerability is
ipation processes. embodied in the notion of maladaptation (Antwi-Agyei, Dougill,
Our examination was carried out acknowledging that Stringer, & Codjoe, 2018; Juhola, Glaas, Linnér, & Neset, 2016;
internationally-funded interventions are only a sub-set of adapta- Magnan et al., 2016). While many of the examples described below
tion actions. Such actions range from daily decision-making by can be considered maladaptive, rather than label them as such, we
individuals, to collective action and formal adaptation policy mak- are seeking to unpack the reason why they are increasing vulnera-
ing, and together make up the processes of adaptation to climatic bility rather than reducing it.
uncertainty and change by societies (Pelling, 2011; Wang et al.,
2013; Eriksen et al., 2015). Our focus was nonetheless on the pro- 2.1. Reinforcing existing vulnerability
liferation of programmes and projects, taking place as part of
national and local adaptation planning, that collectively frame cli- Despite aiming to meet the needs of disadvantaged socio-
mate interventions on the ground. economic groups and those who are most vulnerable to climatic
An independent, critical review of adaptation interventions is shocks and stresses, adaptation interventions are prone to elite
timely as the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement requires capture, a long-standing problem in development whereby power-
countries to measure progress on climate adaptation. However, ful people expropriate funds, resulting in interventions that rein-
in order for adaptation interventions to contribute to equitable force existing power relations (Artur & Hilhorst, 2012; Dasgupta
and sustainable vulnerability reduction, and to measure progress & Beard, 2007; Kita, 2019; Rusca, Schwartz, Hadzovic, & Ahlers,
in this endeavour, the structures around financing, planning, 2015). Our review indicates that goals and priorities for adaptation
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of interventions that interventions are often set in a top-down manner by relatively
frame climate intervention processes may need to be redesigned. privileged groups rather than being framed by the intended bene-
In particular, our findings suggest that adaptation knowledge ficiaries, leading to a skewed distribution of benefits in favour of
within interventions, and within the adaptation-development local elites.
funding apparatus itself, may need to change towards more reflex- Evidence for elite capture and manipulation exists from around
ive, multi-scalar and inclusive learning and evaluation processes. the world. A process of reliance on privileged insiders for imple-
The paper is divided into four sections. In section two, we mentation has been observed in adaptation interventions in Nepal,
explore how adaptation interventions have impacted vulnerability India and Tanzania, where the relatively wealthy and influential
in both intended and unintended ways, illustrating how they can community members monopolise benefits and manipulate new
reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. In projects for political ends (Yates, 2012; Nightingale, 2017; Taylor
section three we synthesise the literature to identify the primary and Bhasme, 2020; Omukuti, 2020a). Sometimes this process is
reasons that some adaptation interventions have inequitable explicitly political, wherein national-level resources are directed
impacts. We highlight four features: namely, (i) the failure to com- for the specific purposes of patronage and obtaining political sup-
prehensively consider the vulnerability context; (ii) the lack of port within target constituencies, as observed in Brazil and
inclusive and equitable participation in the design and implemen- Mozambique (Nelson and Finan, 2009; Artur and Hilhorst, 2012).
tation of interventions; (iii) the retrofitting of adaptation project In other instances, people’s vulnerability is used explicitly as an
goals to match existing development efforts; and (iv) pervading excuse for not including them in projects. Examining cases around
the three first features, the tendency of interventions to insuffi- the world, Thomas and Warner (2019) identify a tendency to
ciently conceptualise what ‘adaptation success’ comprises. Little ‘weaponise vulnerability’ where vulnerable groups are seen as
attention is paid to how the meaning of such success varies and potential security threats, legitimising measures aimed at protect-
is contested between different groups. As a result, dominant devel- ing the elite from these marginalised people. In northern Colombia,
opment discourses implicitly define such success, contributing to a an Adaptation Fund project selected beneficiaries for post-disaster
conserving of the status quo rather than imagining more transfor- housing from the national registry, yet the most vulnerable were
mative measures required in the face of climate change and largely unable to navigate the bureaucratic processes involved to
inequity. In section four we explore how better linking of adapta- register, resulting in exacerbation of existing social exclusions
tion research, policy and programming could help overcome these and increased out-migration (Camargo and Ojeda, 2017).
challenges by first, shifting the terms of engagement between Elite capture may also emerge inadvertently through poor
adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating intervention design. As a precondition for participation, projects
in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding an under- often require investments such as commitments of land, time,
standing of ‘local’ vulnerability to encompass global contexts and labour or material inputs, which the poorest and disadvantaged
drivers of vulnerability. frequently lack (Camargo and Ojeda, 2017; Nagoda and
Nightingale, 2017; Mikulewicz, 2020a). Adaptation measures may
2. Evidence of the effect of adaptation interventions on support particular agricultural practices or livelihood changes that
vulnerability disproportionately benefit those with land, while penalising the
land-poor, as exemplified for the case of Vietnam (Chapman
Despite assertions in policy, practice and academia of adapta- et al., 2016). Similarly, adaptation measures in São Tomé and Prin-
tion reducing vulnerability to climate change, we found clear evi- cipe were found to exacerbate inequitable labour relations, push-
dence to the contrary. In particular, three features emerge. First, ing small-scale farmers into casual labour for larger landowners
some interventions reinforce existing vulnerability; second, others (Mikulewicz, 2020a).
simply redistribute vulnerability; and third, some measures intro- Exclusion of marginalised groups from adaptation interventions
duce new sources of vulnerability. In this section we elaborate on may also take place due to geographical constraints, particularly
these three features. In all cases, it is worth noting that the rein- when intervention design and participatory processes take place
forcement, redistribution or creation of new vulnerability tends in locations that are convenient to funding and/or implementing
to follow the same social cleavages that create differential vulner- agencies, agendas and well-connected groups (typically, those liv-
ability and equality in the first place – such as gender, race, age ing near administrative centres and well-maintained roads) yet
(dis)ability and class. Consequently it is typically those who are distant from the most marginalised communities. Similarly, to
most marginalised and to whom society accords the least socio- ensure rapid success of interventions, implementing agencies often
3
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

return to communities and networks where established institu- Maas, & Carius, 2010; Levine et al., 2014). Climate change and con-
tional capacity exists while remote and marginalised areas remain flict resolution/peacebuilding efforts also have traditionally oper-
excluded (Barrett, 2014; Pak-Uthai and Faysse, 2018). For example, ated as two entirely separate sectors with very limited
a study of 27 bilateral and multilateral donors to Malawi found engagement between them (Matthew, 2014). This means that syn-
that proportionately less adaptation finance arrived in the areas ergies are largely ignored, although there are some recent attempts
of highest need, with the poorest receiving the least (Barrett, to bring them together within the field of environmental peace-
2014). This occurred despite the stated commitment of multilat- building (Schilling et al., 2017; Ide, 2020).
eral (World Bank, African Development Bank) and bilateral (Nor- Furthermore, there are increasing concerns that climate change
way, Japan, UK) development agencies working in the country to interventions may not only reinforce inequitable power relations,
design interventions targeting the needs of the most vulnerable. but also serve to exacerbate existing political tensions or conflict
Actual distribution of funding nevertheless reflected donor utility dynamics – especially in situations where interventions reinforce
– such as pre-existing aid activities in the area and ease of access particular livelihood activities, alter power relations and institu-
– and the ability to absorb capital. The latter has sometimes been tions of environmental governance, or shift patterns of authority
an explicit selection criterion for receiving support (Climate over natural resources that are already highly contested (Corbera
Investment Funds, 2009). While organising interventions through et al., 2017; Nightingale, 2017). As highlighted by a growing num-
local intermediaries already known to agency staff can fast-track ber of scholars, such as Abrahams & Carr, 2017; Tänzler, Maas, &
implementation of activities, it also risks making the project reliant Carius, 2010, and Work (2019), conflicts may not necessarily
on established power relations and processes of elite capture emerge as a direct result of climate change, but instead as a conse-
(Artur and Hilhorst, 2012; West et al., 2018; Taylor and Bhasme, quence of climate change interventions implemented ‘in the name
2020). In addition to potential duplication of efforts, this also opens of climate change’. These dynamics are illustrated by the case of
opportunities for political manipulation, which was observed in Gambella, Ethiopia, where Milman and Arsano (2014) found that
the case of adaptation to water scarcity in Colombia (Murtinho, climate change adaptation efforts served to increase rather than
Eakin, López-Carr, & Hayes, 2013). Here, funding was overly dis- decrease tensions in the region, due to their differentiated impacts
tributed to least-affected regions, while regions with severe water on human security. The Villagisation Programme targeting pas-
scarcity received less, in part due to pre-existing development toralists and the Ethiopian Agricultural Development Led Industri-
activities but also due to political connections in the more favoured alisation (ADLI) strategies were intended to reduce vulnerability.
regions. However, by creating areas that were off-limits to local popula-
In cases of both deliberate and inadvertent elite capture, a tions, these strategies effectively reduced these people’s access to
monopolisation of project resources can lead to a form of ‘accumu- land and resources traditionally relied upon during periods of
lation by adaptation’ that widens inequality and undermines stress like floods and droughts, thereby increasing vulnerability
broader adaptation goals. In addition and related to such an ‘accu- for some groups and exacerbating socio-political tensions in the
mulation by adaptation’, adaptation interventions can also rein- region (Milman and Arsano, 2014). Of particular concern is how
force existing inequalities in the distribution of decision-making interventions operating in (semi-)authoritarian contexts may end
authority. For example, Mikulewicz (2020a) shows that in São up avoiding topics considered too sensitive for the government –
Tomé and Príncipe, adaptation interventions are only offered to but which are root causes of vulnerability – such as widespread
those who have land, ignoring the landless. On a broader level, discrimination of minority ethnic- and religious groups, intra-
adaptation policies often fail to alter the social and political state conflict and violence, or violations of human rights. This
dynamics that have produced vulnerability patterns in the first has been a particular concern within the humanitarian arena (del
place (Pelling et al., 2015; Nagoda and Nightingale, 2017). It has Valle and Healy, 2013; Décobert, 2020) extending Dodman and
been demonstrated that even adaptation processes specifically Mitlin’s (2015) observation that local and national political con-
aiming to foster participation and social inclusion can entrench, texts matter greatly for the effectiveness of development interven-
rather than challenge, existing power relations (Buggy and tions, and in particular their ability to reach the most vulnerable
McNamara, 2016). For example, a study by Karlsson et al. (2018) groups of people.
of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), an approach that seeks to There is thus an expanding literature that shows that the cli-
address mitigation, adaptation, and enhanced food security, illus- mate change adaptation process itself – as any societal change –
trates that interventions have implications for both asset distribu- takes place through convergence and tensions between different
tion and decision-making. CSA may unjustly shift the burden of interests, as well as contestations over who has the authority to
responsibility for mitigation to marginalised producers and make decisions (Taylor, 2015; Tschakert et al., 2016). Adaptation
resource managers (a problem of distributive equity, or ‘‘who gets takes place through socio-political and environmental disruptions
what”). At the same time, CSA often fails to overcome existing and turbulence; indeed, adaptation itself may need to be disruptive
power relations (a problem of procedural equity, or ‘‘who deci- or transformative in order to overcome a status quo that produces
des”). The political nature of change is seldom acknowledged, vulnerability (Wilson, 2014). Power here is conceptualised as fun-
resulting in lost opportunities for enhancing institutions that damentally relational with the focus on its exercise through
underpin the bargaining power of marginalised groups (Karlsson authority, knowledges and subjectivities (Eriksen et al., 2015;
et al., 2018). Ahlborg and Nightingale, 2018). Social actors exercise power as
The tendency of interventions to reinforce inequitable socio- they attempt to shape the institutional and discursive contexts
political relations is particularly acute in the context of conflict. through which programmes are designed, enacted, legitimatised
Some adaptation efforts take place in violent settings, where con- and contested (Nightingale, 2017). At the same time, such efforts
flict is a major cause of vulnerability to climate change, and vio- to shape adaptation processes always contain an element of uncer-
lence and insecurity may stall or delay implementation of tainty and resistance. Successfully influencing how planning pro-
interventions (Peters et al., 2019). However, climate change inter- ceeds, including shaping the official and informal aims of
ventions seldom tackle inequitable power relations head-on, and projects, the ways in which funds and contracts are distributed,
often assume that adaptation takes place in peaceful, non- the forums and mechanisms for participation and decision making,
conflictual settings. As a result, adaptation measures are often seen and the discursive parameters that shape the identities assumed
as purely technical interventions and implemented without prop- by subjects within adaptation practices bolsters authority. In con-
erly considering conflict dynamics or political contexts (Tänzler, trast, the inability to assert authority over such parameters rein-
4
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

forces subordinate social and political relations, serving to further the IPCC Special Report on the impacts of 1.5 °C warming identified
marginalise those without influence (Mosse, 2010; Taylor, 2015). several ways in which adaptation efforts can increase economic,
The exercise of power is therefore inherently relational: it is simul- social and environmental costs, or undermine existing local adap-
taneously enabling or facilitating for some and constraining or dis- tation strategies: increased (unregulated) fertiliser and pesticide
abling for others in ways that strongly influence the distribution of use can create risks to both human health and ecological systems;
authority, resources and risks across adaptation projects. increased irrigation in agriculture may reduce water availability for
Climate change policies and interventions are therefore nested domestic and other purposes; and some adaptation measures
in existing power relations and political contestations. At the core increase workloads, economic costs or debt to farmers (IPCC,
of these contestations, we find struggles connected to identity and 2018).
belonging (Nightingale, 2017). Questions such as ‘who are the A first type of risk that can be introduced by adaptation efforts
rightful owners of this environment and resources?’ and ‘who results from implementing measures that address short term con-
should make decisions about how we use this environment in cerns but inadvertently introduce longer-term risks. A particular
the face of climate change?’ are essentially political questions that form of risk arises when a moral hazard known as a ‘safe develop-
cannot be addressed only through technocratic climate change ment paradox’ is promoted, such as building dykes to protect from
interventions. In bypassing such discussions and effectively flooding (Burby, 2006). These efforts can create a false sense of
depoliticising climate change efforts, development actors may security in a location that encourages high-risk activities. Evidence
reproduce rather than challenge the political and social status of this is found in many places, including in Bangladesh, where a
quo, and unintentionally contribute to further marginalise the large project that focused on upgrading coastal infrastructure to
interests and needs of the least powerful people. They may also protect it from tropical cyclones, storm surges, floods and sea-
serve to ultimately entrench systems and behaviours that are level rise, served to encourage people to remain in these high-
unsustainable in the face of climate change, particularly where risk areas, thus resulting in maladaptation (Magnan et al., 2016).
adaptation actions are manipulated to support existing priorities This case illustrates what can happen when decision making
and interests (Atteridge & Remling, 2018; Levine et al., 2014). focuses on the trade-off between avoiding near-term disruption
and reducing future risk, in which the preference is for incremental
2.2. Measures that redistribute vulnerability adaptation that protects and preserves existing systems and beha-
viours, over transformative adaptation that will disrupt them or
Alongside reinforcing existing inequalities and vulnerability, require their abandonment or displacement. Policymakers often
there is a risk with some interventions that there may be offsite see incremental adaptation and its infrastructural fixes as the only
effects that lead to a redistribution of vulnerability over a broader option. This failure to imagine more transformative adaptation
spatial area or among other groups (Atteridge & Remling, 2018; options by thinking more holistically about the overall problem
Thomas & Warner, 2019). may introduce new risks in the long term.
Interventions related to water and coastal areas are common In addition, initiatives that do not consider long-term projected
examples of spatially shifting vulnerability and risk and failing to climate impacts may be unsustainable or produce negative path
recognise how infrastructural and technical interventions reshape dependencies in the long term. ‘Reactive’ adaptation initiatives –
power relations. In Vietnam, hydroelectric dam and forest protec- which might also be described as ‘coping’ – are commonplace.
tion policies may contribute to regulating floods in lowlands and These are responses to existing and well-known recurrent impacts
thus at first appear beneficial for reducing vulnerability to specific over the short term such as infrastructure to combat flooding or
hazards there (Beckman, 2011). However, at the same time, these efforts to increase agricultural productivity in areas that see
policies undermine access to land and forest resources for moun- increasing drought, observed both at household and policy level
tain peoples (who are already socio-politically marginalised), (Ojwang et al., 2017; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018). While addressing
which directly interferes with their abilities to exercise power in vulnerability to current climate variability and impacts is impor-
relation to who controls their resources and what knowledges tant, it is rarely enough to adapt to future climate change (Dilling
and practices they use to govern them, reducing their adaptive et al., 2015; Mikulewicz and Taylor, 2020). A review of 31 adapta-
capacity. Other examples include how flood embankments protect- tion case studies across the world found evidence of temporal ‘re-
ing one community can increase the vulnerability of downstream bound’ effects: for example, hard seawall infrastructure that
communities, and how coastal infrastructure designed to reduce decreases flexibility of future options; redirecting traditional liveli-
risk can negatively affect neighbouring coastal areas or the local hoods to (over)specialized options that may only be effective in the
ecology (Donner and Webber, 2014; Ferdous et al., 2020). Also in short run; and irrigation and water management interventions
Vietnam, the Ecopark housing development in Hanoi is described with negative impacts on the environment as well as on longer
as a sustainable living environment, yet it required the eviction term adaptive capacity (Juhola, Glaas, Linnér, & Neset, 2016). These
of 4000 families who had previously been living on the land temporal reboud effects constitute a risk given uncertainty regard-
(Thomas and Warner, 2019). Similar processes can occur at any ing the future manifestations and impacts of climate change (Levin
scale (cases reviewed in Atteridge & Remling, 2018). Adaptation et al., 2012; IPCC, 2018), combined with the preference for techni-
in one area may also alter regional or global market conditions. cal adaptation solutions, for example infrastructure, which have
For example, increased use of expensive and sophisticated agro- long lifespans and cause lock-in (UNEP, 2017). Managing uncer-
technologies as a response to drought by politically and economi- tainties through more flexible, inclusive, and locally appropriate
cally advantaged social actors introduces new risks through divert- technologies, knowledge and assessments is thus key towards
ing resources away from agrarian development programmes achieving more transformative adaptation pathways (Mehta
intended to target the rural poor (Warner and Kuzdas, 2016). et al., 2019).
Second, several studies have documented cases of climate ini-
2.3. Introducing new risks and sources of vulnerability tiatives undermining local adaptation strategies through (often
unintended) negative consequences on resource access and land
In addition to the danger of interventions reinforcing or redis- rights critical to local populations’ livelihoods and environmental
tributing existing inequalities and vulnerability, empirical studies governance systems. In a case study of municipal funding of adap-
of adaptation interventions suggest that some adaptation efforts tation to water scarcity by 111 rural water associations in Colom-
introduce new risks and sources of vulnerability. For example, bia, top-down interventions (i.e. fund distribution decisions taken
5
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

by actors external to the community) were associated with clien- (dis)ability and class; (ii) inequitable participation by vulnerable
telism and control and were less effective than locally-driven ini- and affected groups in planning and implementation, leading to
tiatives by community water organisations, which were ‘crowded top-down processes and poor representation of marginalised
out’ by external interventions (Murtinho, Eakin, López-Carr, & groups’ perspectives; (iii) retrofitting adaptation into existing
Hayes, 2013). development ideas, projects, and forms of assistance; and (iv)
The most extreme cases of top-down interventions introducing insufficient engagement with what ‘adaptation success’ consti-
vulnerability come from (re)settlement policies. Pastoralists in the tutes, dominant development discourses implicitly defining such
peripheral lowlands of Ethiopia have recently been forced to settle success.
as part of the country’s Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy.
While the resettlement aims to build climate resilience, current 3.1. Insufficient understanding of contextual vulnerability
and past settlement programmes in Ethiopia’s peripheral lowlands
have led to further marginalisation, decreased food security, and Reducing the vulnerability of the most marginalised requires a
exacerbated vulnerability for pastoralists (Abbink et al., 2014; deep understanding of the history of past and current socio-
Haji and Legesse, 2017). In the lower Zambezi valley of Mozam- politics of vulnerability and adaptation processes, including how
bique, international climate adaptation finance has played an inad- the resilience and incomes of some groups is related to the vulner-
vertent role in supporting the government’s controversial ability of others through resource access, distribution and power
relocation policies. These relocations, focusing on some of the most relations (Taylor, 2015). Alas, these uneven socio-political eco-
politically and economically marginalised groups in Mozambique, nomic relations are often overlooked (Bassett and Fogelman,
have been accomplished through persuasion, threat of military 2013), with most studies focusing on adjusting to impacts. Vulner-
force or arrest, and the withdrawal of basic services (e.g. schools ability reduction also requires attention to the exercise of power in
and clinics) from villages that refuse to relocate. While donors relation to knowledge across scales. Interventions need to support
and donor-funded NGOs may not explicitly support or participate shifting actions and learning processes as new knowledge arises
in relocations, the promotion by such actors of increased focus and as adaptation and vulnerability patterns unfold. Yet, vulnera-
on climate change hazards can provide governments with spurious bility assessments carried out as part of project development are
justifications for policies involving relocation and coercive liveli- often structured by predetermined indicators and approaches
hood transformations (Arnall, 2014; Artur and Hilhorst, 2012; developed elsewhere, reflecting the exercise of power within the
Kothari, 2014). entire process. Thus, they do not adequately capture the social
As these cases emphasise, adaptation measures imposed from and environmental processes that produce specific distributions
above often lead to disruptive changes – with short-sighted goals of vulnerability in a given place, such as the socio-political rela-
– that cannot easily be reversed. This lock-in effect, whereby com- tions and processes through which particular groups are margina-
munities become wedded to potentially negative pathways of lised, including gender, race, age (dis)ability and class (Tschakert
change, has been observed in diverse contexts (Wilson, 2014). et al., 2013; Nyborg and Nawab, 2017). In particular, vulnerability
Bergius et al. (2018) describe how ‘green economy’-oriented assessments are often gender-blind, and thus run a high risk of vul-
public-private partnerships in Tanzania supported by the Norwe- nerability being redistributed or unequally exacerbated (Morchain
gian Fund for International Development (Norfund), including et al., 2015), as outlined in Section 2. Despite the prevalence of gen-
investments in agriculture, conservation, and climate measures, der strategies in various funding streams such as the Green Climate
entailed the forced replacement of small-scale farming and livestock Fund, the Adaptation Fund, and Global Environment Facility mech-
herding with wetland conservation and commercial farming. This anisms, for example, gender sensitivity often takes the form of dis-
transformation of land use and production systems has increased aggregating data by gender, but not actually designing
the vulnerability of many households, in addition to undermining interventions to account for how gender shapes the exercise of
the economic sustainability of agricultural production. In Bangla- power (Persson & Remling, 2014). A recent review of the Adapta-
desh, Paprocki (2018) found that local elites and donors used pro- tion Fund also showed that less than half of surveyed Implement-
jects supported by adaptation finance to move vulnerable ing Entities, board members, Designated Authorities and NGOs
populations out of agrarian livelihoods and into urban livelihoods, thought that policies and programmes sufficiently take into
such as factory labour, further marginalising agrarian communities account gender considerations (Adaptation Fund, 2019).
and promoting the developmental priorities of elites. Together, A further, underlying reason for the failure to understand and
these examples of top-down interventions or efforts to enforce monitor the evolution of vulnerability is insufficient knowledge
livelihood transformations raise the concern that adaptation inter- and capacity at the various levels of project implementation. Adap-
ventions can become a means of increasing government and elite tation is still a relatively new field and its context- and scale-
control over marginalised people’s livelihoods, natural resource specificity makes it difficult for governments and NGOs to have
management, and autonomous adaptation strategies, further dis- sufficient dedicated expertise (Ojwang et al., 2017). Inadequate
empowering them and creating new sources of vulnerability. understanding and an ignoring of the local vulnerability context
and drivers of vulnerability often pervade governmental, non-
3. Mechanisms undermining equitable vulnerability reduction governmental and development organisations tasked with funding,
planning and implementing adaptation interventions. This gap is,
As our examination of past adaptation case studies and reviews in turn, both reflected in and reinforced by the projectisation of
has revealed, interventions—despite good intentions and positive adaptation initiatives, both by bilateral and multilateral donors
effects on some groups—can contribute to reinforcing, redistribut- and through international adaptation finance (Mikulewicz,
ing or creating new sources of vulnerability. In this section, we 2020b; Mikulewicz and Taylor, 2020). Outsourcing of different
draw on the empirical cases examined above, as well as a growing components of project design, implementation and evaluation –
body of literature on adaptation processes and the practical expe- all taking place on different timeframes and with limited alloca-
rience of the authors, in order to identify the mechanisms through tions – impedes optimal learning and rarely involves local and
which such unintended consequences occur. Four such key mech- international research expertise. The short time frames and the
anisms emerge from this analysis: (i) insufficient understanding of (perceived) limited expertise within developing countries means
contextual vulnerability by interventions planners and imple- adaptation planning is often done as short-term consultancies,
menters, including socio-political relations of gender, race, age with a high reliance on external experts and insufficient local
6
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

involvement. Complicated application and evaluation procedures Finally, M&E frameworks tend not to fully interrogate any neg-
also increase the reliance on external experts who know how to ative or unwanted outcomes of adaptation interventions. Report-
negotiate the application process, but who may not have a deep ing templates for adaptation M&E typically focus on effective
knowledge about the vulnerability context. management of the planned activities, rather than identifying
There is often little opportunity for critical analysis of how an potential negative impacts on areas, socio-political relations and
intervention may affect (or has affected) vulnerability, nor to inte- groups outside the sphere of control of the intervention
grate lessons from past development successes and failures (Atteridge & Remling, 2018). Even at a technical level, tools do
(Horstmann, 2011; Remling and Persson, 2015). The competitive not always fit the climate context: for example, the Environmental
project-based nature of funding exacerbates this problem: con- and Social Management Framework used by the World Bank and
ducting a comprehensive vulnerability assessment can be Green Climate Fund aims to provide guidelines for screening pro-
resource-intensive, but is typically not budgeted, and incentives jects to identify risk, but does not necessarily account for the
to share information between organisations are almost nonexis- longer-term nature of climate risk. Maladaptation and the extent
tent. A political commitment to fund particular technical and to which measures fit adaptation needs are key gaps in M&E frame-
infrastructural interventions (such as climate services or reforesta- works (Bours et al., 2013), along with the evaluation of how adap-
tion) persists in the absence of compelling evidence for the positive tation activities affect socio-political relations, resilience,
impacts of these interventions on vulnerability reduction, sustain- development performance and human well-being in the longer
ability, and institutionalisation. Climate change adaptation inter- term (Brooks et al., 2019).
ventions would benefit from compiling and integrating the
lessons learned of previous projects, to enable improvement 3.2. Inequitable participation in planning and implementation of
(West et al., 2018). interventions
The subsequent monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks
through which adaptation interventions are assessed are often A second key mechanism that weakens the way that vulnerabil-
similarly ill equipped to assess whether or not vulnerability is ity is addressed is insufficient participation by a range of margina-
reinforced or redistributed by adaptation interventions. Rather lised groups in the design, planning and implementation of
than interrogating the underlying drivers of vulnerability and adaptation interventions. Inclusive and representative participa-
the longer-term qualitative dimensions of building resilience, tion is important to ground interventions in a sound understanding
assessments and monitoring frameworks are often focused on of how multiple causes of vulnerability affect groups differently
outputs (goods and services delivered; number of people tar- (Forsyth, 2018). Equally important, political marginalisation
geted) and value for money (Kaika, 2017). While the language shapes vulnerability (and vice versa); hence the process of planning
around adaptation interventions increasingly emphasises moni- and implementing adaptation measures needs to give space to
toring, evaluation and learning (MEL), the focus of M&E/MEL socio-politically marginalised and often invisible groups and their
remains on single-loop learning and assessing how well adapta- needs in deliberating adaptation alternatives, in order to avoid
tion activities are being implemented, rather than double- or exacerbating marginalisation (Tschakert et al., 2013; Taylor,
triple-loop learning, which questions the appropriateness of those 2015; Nightingale, 2017).
activities in the first place and encompasses iterative, participa- Despite good intentions and provisions for participation, project
tory and action learning interactions (Argyris and Schön, 1978). planning and management is often top-down, risking the genera-
A focus on beneficiaries reached and the delivery and uptake of tion of measures that exacerbate inequalities. Community-level
intervention outputs means that M&E frameworks usually pay lit- participation in planning, although often required, is frequently
tle attention to longer-term outcomes or impacts as reflected in problematic (Omukuti, 2020b). At worst, adaptation interventions
the subsequent socio-political relations, resilience or well-being are legitimised through seemingly ‘participatory processes’, while
of beneficiary populations, or indeed the impacts on non- local communities and marginalised people have limited say over
beneficiary populations. the process through which the adaptation responses are framed
This is due to a combination of factors. First, the fact that M&E is and defined (Khatri, 2018; Mikulewicz, 2020b). When consulta-
overwhelmingly specific to individual interventions means that it tions do take place, the pressure to deliver quick results encour-
is carried out over timescales that are generally too short to inter- ages a reliance on existing governance institutions and following
rogate adaptation success in terms of longer-term outcomes and established power relations, such that marginalized voices remain
impacts. Second, the normative and contested nature of what ‘suc- unheard and existing inequalities are reinforced, including on the
cessful’ adaptation looks like (Dilling et al., 2019) means that there basis of gender, literacy and caste (Nightingale, 2017; Mosberg
is no agreement on what metrics to use to evaluate success. Some et al., 2017). Hence, many participatory climate change adaptation
have argued that ultimate purpose of adaptation is a normative policies and action plans exclude the most marginalised as a result
one: to sustain and enhance development performance and human of their inherent power relations (Khatri, 2018; McNamara et al.,
well-being in the face of climate change. In this view, adaptation 2020; Omukuti, 2020b).
success ultimately should be measured – at the impact level – Experiences with learning in adaptation suggests that in order
using development and well-being metrics contextualised using for initiatives to foster real engagement, they must be designed
climate information (Barrett et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2019). How- for openness to listen and learn from stakeholders as well as being
ever, we follow others who have argued that indicators of success adaptive to distinct local contexts (Tschakert et al., 2016). Climate
in adaptation cannot be universal nor neutral, as success is histor- interventions have often struggled to address the complexities and
ically contingent, normative and context specific (Moser and power relations involved in ensuring participation and engage-
Boykoff, 2014). Like vulnerability itself, what constitutes enhanced ment of marginalised groups, however. For example, NGO facilita-
development and well-being is bound up in the exercise of power tors of participatory processes are often aware of how power
in contestations over authority, knowledges and identities. As such, relations inhibit active participation of the most marginalised,
social and process-oriented indicators, which would be required to but do not have the mandate to address these at the local or
dynamically monitor changes in vulnerability or resilience, are broader levels, nor the tools to identify the causes of exclusion in
complex, context-specific and therefore resource-intensive to these interactions (Nagoda and Nightingale, 2017). Widely-used
attempt to define and measure (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007; Brooks participatory methodologies are similarly inadequate for overcom-
and Fisher, 2014). ing entrenched power relations at district level (Regmi et al., 2016).
7
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

Importantly, an uncritical focus on participation may disguise that improved meteorological services and forecasting, micro-finance,
local actors are unable to ensure the meaningful inclusion of the and index-based insurance. For example, a review of 56 activities
most marginalised. supported by the DFID StARCK+ programme in Kenya concluded
that some two thirds focused principally on familiar, existing risks,
3.3. Retrofitting adaptation into development assistance and only a handful could be said to be explicitly and deliberately
targeting the (already observed) impacts of climate change
As a consequence of insufficient capacity, learning and partici- (Brooks, 2017).
pation processes in adaptation funding – as well as interests vested Various institutional factors also act to impede the modification
in ongoing development agendas – there is a tendency to ‘retrofit’ of development intentions into effective adaptation. The preoccu-
or ‘rebrand’ existing development projects as adaptation efforts. pation of donors with avoiding ‘double dipping’ of development
The complementary aims of adaptation and development, and projects in adaptation funds means that they typically apply the
the rapid increase in funding available for the former, encourages logic of additionality, whereby the adaptation finance covers the
retrofitting of adaptation activities to fit existing development additional costs of ‘climate proofing’ a project (Stadelmann et al.,
agendas. However, whilst related, adaptation and development 2011). This approach is likely to favour incremental approaches
are not the same, with a major difference being that the former to adaptation that seek to protect and preserve existing systems
addresses current and future climate risk and the socio- and practices, and inhibit the transformative adaptation that might
environmental causes of vulnerability, which often demands a be required where current institutions and socio-political relations
rethink of how current development may in fact be producing vul- are likely to be unviable in future and need to be radically modi-
nerability relations. fied, replaced with alternatives, or abandoned altogether (Brooks
Finance intended for climate change adaptation often ends up et al., 2019). At the same time, the longer-term viability of projects
funding existing development activities that are simply rebranded is impeded by artificially drawn boundaries between activities
because they address climate-sensitive sectors or livelihoods within climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and
(Schipper et al., 2020a). As a result, they are not typically designed achieving sustainable development goals. Although these fields
with an emphasis on reducing vulnerability, or it is a secondary are closely linked, they are usually addressed by different local to
goal overshadowed by a different environmental or development national level (government) departments and in particular through
goal. ‘Mainstreaming’, whereby adaptation needs are integrated different funding instruments, which means that the synergies
into an existing development portfolio, has been shown also to between activities are rarely maximized (Schipper et al., 2016). A
have detrimental effects, as adaptation is often co-opted to support lack of communication and collaboration across organisations, pro-
existing development agendas rather than genuinely addressing jects and initiatives that are implementing adaptation activities in
climate change risks (Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020). The two pro- similar regions may lead to duplication of adaptation efforts as
cesses hence dovetail as a form of retrofitting; existing develop- well as reducing the overall effectiveness of interventions and
ment activities are rebranded as adaptation and new adaptation undermining the potential for cross-sectoral and cross-
projects are co-opted to support existing development agendas. institutional learning.
Such retrofitting hinders addressing the root causes of vulnerabil-
ity, including changing those development paradigms, discourses, 3.4. ‘Adaptation success’ implicitly defined by dominant development
interventions and related socio-political relations that produce agendas
vulnerability.
Where existing development activities are simply rebranded as Pervading all these three mechanisms is the tendency of pro-
adaptation, funding may serve to entrench unsustainable practices, jects to insufficiently conceptualise and evaluate what constitutes
increasing vulnerability to climate change. The largest Public ‘adaptation success’ and how the meaning of such success varies
Works Programme in the world, India’s Mahatma Gandhi National and is contested between different groups. The insufficient engage-
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), is one example of ment with what ‘adaptation success’ looks like for a given inter-
development being rebranded as adaptation. Adam (2015) found vention is in part due to a lack of contextual understanding and
that the scheme provides an important ‘lifeline’ to livelihoods at narrowly framed project-based monitoring and evaluation that is
the margins, but misses opportunities to promote longer lasting, more concerned with ensuring the project delivered what it
transformative adaptation. For this to happen, the scheme’s proce- intended than with its broader impacts on vulnerability. But this
dures and mechanisms would need to be tailored explicitly failure also reflects inequitable power relations and participation
towards adaptation, and not limited to the design of traditional processes in planning and implementation and how such skewed
social security programmes. Such a reform has to be informed processes come to make normative judgements of what constitutes
through empirical research (e.g. contextual vulnerability assess- ‘good’ adaptation . Employing a social justice interpretation of
ments), in addition to promoting awareness within departments, adaptation, this paper highlights how adaptation actions are
and incorporating the climate-development interface at various always embedded within the exercise of power in socio-
scales from local to national (Adam, 2015). environmental contexts. This interpretations suggestst that the
Retrofitting tends to lead to a focus on the ‘adaptation deficit’ focus needs to be on reducing climate related risks and their social
(the gap between current practices and the practices that would production and unequal outcomes across groups, and shifting
be well adapted to existing climate hazards (Burton, 2004)) or per- socio-political relations that marginalise groups in decision-
ceived immediate development needs rather than on what is making.
needed to address anticipated future risks or the social and envi- The space for real local participation in defining ‘adaptation suc-
ronmental causes of vulnerability. This means the vulnerability cess’ is often limited by the politics of funding and prevailing
context and the gravity of future climate risks may be underesti- development discourses, as well as an exclusion of local knowl-
mated, potentially undermining adaptation to future climate edges. A fundamental challenge for participation is the fact that
change (Dilling et al., 2015; Ojwang et al., 2017). Eriksen et al. dominant views within funding and implementing organisations
(2015) note that adaptation interventions have often taken the regarding what constitutes ‘good development’ implicitly or
form of supporting activities that largely deal with current climate explicitly frame the objectives of adaptation measures. These
variability such as disaster risk reduction, social safety nets, water pre-existing views and the organisational mandates of develop-
management, ecosystems management, agricultural practices, ment actors can limit real participation in deciding on project
8
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

objectives and design. For instance, Conservation Agriculture is ere climate change (Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006), and continues to pro-
promoted as an environmentally and socially sustainable agricul- vide an effective means of navigating climatic uncertainty and
tural development strategy in Zambia. However, in practice, envi- variability (Krätli et al., 2013). With appropriate policies that facil-
ronmental and participation concerns are side-lined, and a new itate mobility and allow pastoralists access to key resources, pas-
green revolution is promoted with a focus on private sector-led toralism has the potential to play a key role in adaptation, and
agricultural development (Westengen et al., 2018). Particular could replace sedentary agriculture in marginal areas where cli-
development agendas are also reflected in the priorities of funding mate change makes the latter less viable in the future (Jones and
mechanisms. For example, although 130 civil society organisations Thornton, 2009). In contrast, adaptation policies that result in the
participated in the design and development of the Green Climate involuntary sedentarisation of pastoralists, or the displacement
Fund, their values of civic environmentalism, which focused on or loss of livelihoods of other marginalized groups, directly threa-
human rights and pro-poor climate finance, were undermined by ten people’s tangible and intangible heritage and may exacerbate
an overall emphasis on financial and economic calculation vulnerability (Brooks, Clarke, Ngaruiya, & Wangui, 2020).
(Bruun, 2018). These examples reflect dominant preoccupations
with economic growth, efficiency and private sector commerciali-
4. Avenues for strengthening vulnerability reduction in
sation. More fundamentally, the retrofitting of adaptation to serve
adaptation efforts
existing development agendas implicitly defines adaptation suc-
cess in relation to those agendas. The paradigm out of which adap-
The previous sections have identified how many current adap-
tation is defined – performed through planning, implementation,
tation interventions reinforce, redistribute or create new vulnera-
monitoring and evaluation – determines what is justified as ‘good
bility as a result of (i) failing to understand the complexity of the
adaptation’ within decision-making, which actors and interests are
vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in
heard, and which groups or options are silenced (Mikulewicz,
the design and implementation; (iii) retrofitting adaptation into
2020b).
development assistance; and (iv) insufficient conceptualisation
The examples of top-down interventions and coercive liveli-
and evaluation of ‘adaptation success’. These shortcomings
hood transformations described in Section 2.3 draw attention to
together point to the multi-scalar nature of adaptation, combined
the dangers of enrolling adaptation into dominant development
with how power and politics define adaptation practices, as signif-
discourses framed by ideas about modernity and progress. For
icant factors in the failure of many adaptation interventions to
example, views that pastoralists need to undergo sedentarisation
reduce vulnerability. Whether vulnerability is reinforced, redis-
because they are ‘backward’ and therefore need to modernise, as
tributed or created depends on the object and scale of analysis.
expressed in the context of the Gambella case study discussed
However, the issue of scale and knowledge is not just one of
above (Milman and Arsano, 2014), can be located firmly within
whether location-specific project monitoring and evaluation cap-
models of progressive social evolution rooted in Enlightenment
tures negative effects elsewhere or at other spatial or time scales.
philosophical traditions originating in Western Europe and North
As we have shown in the previous section, the effects of adaptation
America. These models, involving the universal, progressive ‘ad-
interventions are related to questions of adaptation for whom, who
vancement’ of human societies through a series of fixed stages,
is authorised to decide, whose problem framings and understand-
from hunting and gathering, through mobile pastoralism, to settled
ings count, who decides whether adaptation is successful using
societies and finally to cities and states (Sanderson, 1990), were
what criteria, and who is responsible for carrying out adaptation
propagated through European colonialism (Olroyd, 1983; Cooper,
activities in practice. Ideas of ‘adaptation success’ are normative,
1997), and have been reproduced, modified and extended in the
contextual, and socially contingent; that is, they depend on whose
fields of economics and development (Balakrishan et al., 2003).
vulnerability and which risks are deemed acceptable or unaccept-
Development models based on transitions from subsistence to
able and are therefore nested in the politics of definitional power
commercialisation, and transitions from ‘traditional’ to ‘modern’,
which are distinctly uneven between adaptation actors. These
market-based, services-driven, consumer societies, represent an
actors – whether making adaptation decisions or being the target
extension of these ideas (Cooper, 1997; Balakrishan et al., 2003).
of them – operate at different scales, as does their knowledge
While policies based on transitions to commercial farming can
(Ahlborg and Nightingale, 2018). Adaptation interventions are
benefit smallholders if they address climate risks, protect tenure
imbued with the exercise of power in participation, definition,
and genuinely enhance livelihoods (see, for example, some of the
scale and knowledge, often embodying a skewed politics that con-
interventions under the StARCK+ programme described by
tradicts the very goal of vulnerability reduction. For example, top-
Brooks (2017)), they may also result in the further marginalisation
down projects that authorize actors at international or national
of vulnerable groups, for example if they favour the expansion of
levels (organisations or consultants) to govern adaptation or other
larger commercial growers at the expense of smallholders, as
climate actions, while placing responsibility for carrying out such
observed in Section 2.1.
actions at the local level (for example with small-scale farmers)
In being co-opted by existing development agendas, adaptation
may both disempower and marginalise actors, exacerbating their
risks entrenching ideologically driven development models whose
vulnerability (Arora-Jonsson et al., 2016; Schilling et al., 2017;
core assumptions might be fundamentally at odds with vulnerabil-
Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020). Here we review emerging literature
ity reduction and support for marginalised groups. A key function
showing potential avenues for overcoming these challenges.
of adaptation should be to interrogate whether existing develop-
ment agendas involving the commercialisation of agriculture, the
expansion of certain services, the sedentarisation of pastoralists, 4.1. Shifting the terms of engagement with ‘local’ socio-political
and other land use, land rights and livelihood transformations vulnerability contexts
are likely to reduce or enhance vulnerability (Mikulewicz, 2020a;
Webber & Donner, 2017). More fundamentally, adaptation inter- Over the course of the last decade, scholars and practitioners
ventions need to critically examine the validity of the implicit have reflected on how the terms of engagement for vulnerability
(and sometimes explicit) assumptions about relationships between reduction and adaptation intervention design can be shifted. In
development, modernity and progress. For example, while mobile particular, they emphasise the importance of: rethinking the
pastoralism is often seen as inimical to modernity, it evolved and notion of ‘participatory’ design (i.e. addressing what participation
was propagated in Africa as a pragmatic response to rapid and sev- really means); ensuring that all relevant actors’ knowledge and
9
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

experience genuinely are as valued as those of so-called ‘experts’; communities to critically reflect on state responsibilities, capaci-
that all those engaged are respectful of ‘ownership’ to the process; ties, and weaknesses.
and, above all, of considering power relations – particularly in Importantly, ‘marginalised people’ are not a homogeneous
regard to those who are at the receiving end of adaptation funding group: people’s interests, sources of vulnerability, and adaptation
(Ludi et al., 2014). Emerging literature explores tools such as delib- knowledges differ (Lade et al., 2017). Hence shifting the terms of
erative dialogues and M&E (Ojha et al., 2020), underscoring that engagement through ontological pluralism and learning spaces
until the diversity of worldviews and aspirations, including those entails engaging actively with this heterogeneity and the related
of science and local knowledge interactions (Jasanoff, 2003) are socio-political dynamics. Paying attention to the social context
taken into consideration, progress on adaptation will be limited. means taking seriously the values, priorities, and worldviews of
An expanding literature shows the importance of recognising a marginalised groups. However, equally importantly, attention to
diversity in ways of understanding the world – ontological plural- the social and political context means realising that the values, pri-
ism – for shifting the terms of engagement with local vulnerability orities and worldviews will vary – and are continuously negotiated
contexts (Klenk et al., 2017; Goldman et al., 2018; Nightingale – between (sub)groups of stakeholders affected by a given inter-
et al., 2020). This reflects the diverse interests, values, visions, vention (Arifeen and Eriksen, 2020). This heterogeneity as well as
desired futures, and knowledges that shape who decides, and socio-political dynamics highlight why the common practice of
whose values count, in making adaptation decisions, and how identifying ‘vulnerable groups’ and assuming that ‘communities’
these lead to differential effects of interventions. A key challenge are homogeneous entities when targeting adaptation investments
for efforts to shift socio-political relations is the tendency, as is deeply problematic (Titz et al., 2018). Specifically, intersectional-
described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, for interventions to be increas- ity – the way in which multiple subjectivities that divide social
ingly framed by the way that global actors, including consultants, groups interact to reinforce each other (including gender, race,
’experts’ and development organisations, understand the prob- class and (dis)ability) – needs to be acknowledged and studied
lems, needs and solutions as part of adaptation, while the adapta- (Nightingale, 2017). Thus, exploring gender or caste issues inde-
tion knowledge and needs of the most marginalised is rendered pendently of understanding how they come to reinforce each
invisible (Mikulewicz, 2020b). This biased valuing of knowledge, other, can give a false understanding of the causes of vulnerability
and the privileging of certain cultural frameworks and norms as (Carr & Owusu-Daaku, 2016; Ray-Bennett, 2009).
if they are axiomatic, is a problem for developing effective mea- A specific entry point for operationalising the shifting of terms
sures, but more importantly, the process itself reinforces the social of engagement with the vulnerability context is to ensure that all
and political exclusion that drive vulnerability to climate change in stages of planning and implementation of interventions consis-
the first place. tently approach communities as heterogeneous in terms of values,
Several authors highlight the transformative potential of knowl- worldviews, priorities, power relations and livelihoods. This
edge and learning processes as part of the adaptation process involves, for example, M&E frameworks that use indicators that
(Tschakert et al., 2016; Ziervogel et al., 2016; Tran et al., 2020). are differentiated between groups, reflecting differences between
Ontological pluralism and justice in adaptation entails processes them in priorities, risks and impacts (rather than a uniform set of
of negotiation and contestation of development goals, knowledges indicators for all groups). Similarly, the social heterogeneity of
and norms between diverse actors and interests (Klenk et al., 2017; communities is critical in learning and deliberation processes, such
Ziervogel et al., 2017). Engaging directly with contested and as how the power relations, institutional structures and cultural
diverse knowledges, and tackling the power dynamics inherent norms that perpetuate gender, class, caste and ethnic discrimina-
in knowledge processes such as co-production, are identified as tion in turn shape who has access to decision-making fora, whose
key to building resilience. An expanding literature argues that it interests and values are represented, and whose voices are heard
is only through deliberating adaptation alternatives and opening and taken seriously (Figueiredo & Perkins, 2012; Tschakert et al.,
up space for the contestation of predominant development choices 2016).
and inequitable knowledge and authority relations that the socio-
political relations driving vulnerability can be transformed (Taylor,
2015; Eriksen et al., 2015; Nightingale, 2017; Kaika, 2017). Taking 4.2. Broadening the focus from ‘local’ vulnerability to the global
an explicitly deliberative approach to adaptation means involving context and multi-scalar processes producing vulnerability
a broader set of people than ‘experts’, ‘policy-makers’ and ‘local
leaders’ in decision making, strengthening the role of marginalised Many of the shortcomings in efforts to reduce vulnerability
people in defining problems and solutions (Mees et al., 2014; identified in this review relate to the fact that adaptation initiatives
Goldman et al., 2018; Ojha et al., 2020). More fundamentally, delib- address the observed symptoms of vulnerability, rather than the
eration involves going beyond stakeholder engagement to explic- cause (Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020). Moreover, they typically take
itly explore differential understandings, knowledges, values, and a spatially-restricted approach which further increases the risk
political interests between groups related to what the causes of that reduction of vulnerability within that location may end up
vulnerability are and what constitutes ‘good development’, ‘adap- redistributing it or reinforcing it elsewhere. Broadening the focus
tation’ or ‘transformation’ (Forsyth, 2019; Klenk et al., 2017). In from local vulnerability to the global context and multi-scalar pro-
particular, challenging rather than perpetuating development cesses that drive and reinforce vulnerability opens up opportuni-
agendas and paradigms that marginalise populations is critical ties for identifying and addressing the root causes.
for effective adaptation to take place (Mikulewicz and Taylor, Taking a broader approach that considers how cultural and
2020). Some promising examples exist: Ziervogel et al. (2016) socio-political contexts are entangled in processes across scales is
demonstrates how shifting from ‘strengthening the science–policy one way of making visible potential impacts that reinforce or redis-
interface to the knowledge–policy interface’ helped integrate tribute vulnerability beyond a project’s boundaries (Symons,
diverse knowledge forms and development interests within 2014). In the context of agriculture, for example, Vermeulen
municipal adaptation planning in South Africa (p. 455). Studying et al. (2018) have highlighted that there can be many opportunities
the case of Little Andaman, Blackburn (2018) found that for transformation of practices, but these require an expansion of
community-based, rights-oriented education and advocacy pro- the focus of adaptation planning in order to take the multi-
grammes were potentially transformative for the ways local people functionality of agriculture into account, as well as a system-
interact with the state because of their role in opening up space for wide view of food production and consumption.
10
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

A key question, then, is how these proposed changes that shift whether development institutions, which are embedded in exist-
the terms of engagement with ‘local’ socio-political vulnerability ing power relations and development logics, can address develop-
contexts and broaden the focus from ‘local’ vulnerability to the glo- ment problems (including climate change) they have played a role
bal context and multi-scalar processes producing vulnerability can in creating. How can we address the fact that adaptation is embed-
take place? Adaptation has been highlighted as an opportunity to ded in and largely supportive of existing power relations that have
rethink how we ‘do development’ in order to support more equita- caused the very problems adaptation ostensibly seeks to address?
ble and sustainable ‘climate resilient development pathways’ and Can the adaptation machinery step outside of, and challenge, these
confront, rather than sidestep, difficult development issues relations? The above discussion suggests some possible entry
(Denton et al., 2014; Schipper et al., 2020b). However, to date, points for deeper reflection. For example, in academic circles, there
adaptation has not altered the way that societies plan for the is a growing focus on transformative adaptation as the radical
future, but instead (at best) integrated a set of climate-related risks restructuring, replacement or abandonment of systems and prac-
into traditional planning approaches, often retrofitting existing tices whose viability climate change throws into question. This
development interventions, as observed in Section 3. This suggests thinking is yet to penetrate into development practice, and raises
that changes ‘at home’ and within existing development paradigms a number of very difficult questions for development practitioners.
may be required to engender transformation of the unjust develop- Nonetheless, it provides an entry point for challenging the wide-
ment pathways that produce climate change as well as inequality spread assumption in practice that adaptation is about protecting
and vulnerability (Lade et al., 2017). A critical implication of these and preserving existing systems and enabling the continuation of
observations is that adaptation does not necessarily entail the need existing practices (IPCC, 2018; Brooks et al., 2019), and thus repre-
for more expert knowledge to direct how marginalised groups sents one avenue for addressing the retrofitting of adaptation to
should transform their practices or knowledge; instead, it entails existing development priorities. O’Brien (2018) argues that ques-
shifting the knowledge and learning processes that take place tioning predominant assumptions, beliefs and worldviews is a
within implementing organisations, funding structures, and key leverage point for transforming power relations and practices.
research. Simply put: it is the adaptation organisations and experts Adaptation practitioners might interrogate how dogmas of growth
– rather than the marginalised people and their livelihoods – that and progress frame and drive actions that increase vulnerability,
need to transform. and challenge the validity of such frameworks and their universal
Recent literature suggests that an entry point for shifting how application through a critical examination of their origins and
organisations ‘do adaptation’ is to generate processes for learning impacts on marginalised people (Brooks, Clarke, Ngaruiya, &
and reflection within aid organisations themselves, addressing fun- Wangui, 2020).
damental barriers to learning such as lack of feedback and account-
ability. Rarely do we connect the critique of adaptation to asking
how learning takes place within organisations responsible for plan-
ning and implementing adaptation. Such learning spaces are 5. Conclusion: A post-adaptation turn?
instrumental for enabling transformative measures (Tschakert
et al., 2016; Matin et al., 2018; Ojha et al., 2020). Fundamentally, The proliferation of adaptation projects around the world – and
learning requires processes for obtaining feedback on the results the focus on marginalised groups that they represent – should be a
of actions taken, such as adaptation outcomes, as well as institu- cause for celebration. Yet our review of climate change adaptation
tional structures for ensuring accountability for those actions. interventions reveals that, contrary to common rhetoric, adapta-
Development aid is particularly fraught with mechanisms and tion does not necessarily reduce vulnerability. Indeed, there are
uneven relations that impede feedback and accountability, and multiple ways in which adaptation efforts may instead increase,
thus learning (Eyben, 2005). Learning spaces are important redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. We have cate-
because, in the absence of a profound understanding of vulnerabil- gorised the underlying mechanisms through which adaptation
ity, resilience-building efforts run the risk of perpetuating prob- efforts end up exacerbating vulnerability as relating to: the shallow
lematic assumptions and marginalising the least entitled in understanding of the vulnerability context; the inequitable nature
terms of assets and social relations (MacKinnon and Derickson, of stakeholder participation in the design and implementation of
2013). adaptation; the retrofitting of adaptation into existing develop-
Adaptation interventions are often focussed on achieving speci- ment agendas; and lack of critical engagement with how ‘adapta-
fic targets and impacts in the short term (Mikulewicz, 2020a, tion success’ is defined. A retrofitting hinders addressing the
2020b). Far less time is spent reflecting on how projects are framed socio-political causes of vulnerability; in addition, elite capture
and how expectations around outcomes are developed and how we and an ’accumulation by adaptation’ can widen inequalities. Our
can Monitor, Evaluate and Learn (MEL) from approaches and pro- review concludes that addressing these mechanisms demands a
jects. Creating mechanisms and spaces for reflection and question- rethink of how adaptation and development are done. In particular,
ing within implementing organisations regarding their own instead of designing projects to change the practices of margina-
assumptions around questions such as who is vulnerable and lised populations, placing learning processes within organisations
why, what constitutes ‘good development’, what adaptation inter- and with marginalised populations at the centre of adaptation
ventions are needed, and who can best make decisions about and objectives is key to shifting the terms of engagement and broaden-
implement them, is a key vehicle for tuning in to the complexity ing the focus for successful and inclusive adaptation.
of climate adaptation and vulnerability reduction. An important Our findings resonate with Thomas and Warner’s (2019) frame-
implication of the need for ontological pluralism and engaging work of how people are made more vulnerable through climate
with marginalised groups as socially heterogeneous is the need change adaptation, and reinforces the growing volume of work
for adaptation processes to hold tensions and conflicting interests on maladaptation (Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, Stringer, & Codjoe,
– and to be transparent and just in decision-making. Are current 2018; Juhola, Glaas, Linnér, & Neset, 2016; Magnan et al., 2016;
planning, implementation and MEL instruments designed to do Work, Rong, Song, & Scheidel, 2019). However, our findings go
this? beyond a maladaptation focus on unintended negative conse-
However, learning and reflection need to go even further, and quences of adaptation measures, to suggest that adaptation inter-
question many of the fundamental and often unacknowledged ventions risk becoming tools for marginalisation and instruments
assumptions that underpin development. Pelling (2011) asks of abuse.
11
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

We argue that climate change adaptation has often repeated the bility – of government and aid organisations. However, adaptation
same patterns behind the principal failings of development assis- projects, despite their worrying track record to date, at the very
tance since the end of the colonial era (Ferguson, 1990; Escobar, least provide some important lessons regarding how vulnerability
1995; Ireland and McKinnon, 2013). This so-called post- reduction can (or cannot) take place. The evidence suggests that
development critique is centred on the notion that a Western model they may play a useful role in the adaptation process as arenas
of development, especially development as ‘progress’ emerges as a for rethinking what good adaptation is, for whom, and how it
form of domination that repeats many of the patterns of colonial- can be done differently to transform inequitable socio-political
ism (Sultana, 2019). Yet, post-development as a movement has relations and address marginalisation processes. If experimenta-
been unable to reverse the unequal structures and institutions that tion, collaboration, and deeper learning among adaptation actors
make up development assistance. Calls have been made for the become a central goal of adaptation projects rather than delivering
next generation of adaptation measures to move from incremental measurable material outputs according to ‘development as usual’
and technical adaptation to transformation, where adaptation is standards, more equitable and lasting vulnerability reduction
seen as a social change process which also entails transforming may be possible.
systems and structures. Such adaptation requires paying close Second, ontological pluralism and opening up the ownership of
attention to the paradigms we are in and addressing the underly- adaptation knowledge to effectively include marginalised groups,
ing causes of vulnerability and climate change (Pelling, 2011; deliberation of conflicting interests and assumptions behind what
Denton et al., 2014; O’Brien, 2018). Our review echoes previous is legitimised as ‘good adaptation’ within currently dominant ide-
findings that there are latent risks associated with decision- ological frameworks, as well as a close integration of learning,
makers translating the concept of transformation into policies research and practice within adaptation projects are key to achiev-
and practices if such processes are viewed as ‘‘apolitical, inevitable, ing more inclusive and innovative adaptation interventions. This
or universally beneficial” (Blythe et al., 2018, p. 13). If stuck within observation, however, directs attention to the limits to radical
the same development paradigm that is in part generating vulner- rethinking and redesigning that are possible within the current
ability, interventions aimed at transformation risk having even adaptation-development apparatus. A key question is how funding
more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current structures, power relations, and the organisation and implementa-
adaptation, such as through coercive transformation of people’s tion of adaptation interventions may open up or close down space
livelihoods. Within such a conception of ‘transformation’, the mar- for reflective learning processes within organisations as well as
ginalised become responsible for adapting to a climate change deliberative processes within projects.
problem created by others, adding insult to injury. Awareness of Much of the research reviewed in this paper points out that
these latent risks are therefore necessary along with recognition supporting adaptation in developing countries is anything but a
of the political, social, cultural, and spiritual dimensions of trans- quick and easy fix. This observation does not mean that adaptation
formative adaptation (Blythe et al., 2018). Adaptation is increas- policy and interventions should not be carried out – they are crit-
ingly being scrutinized through a post-development lens, ical to address the global inequality inherent in climate change
emphasising that the mechanisms leading to the current failure pointed out at the outset of this paper. Climate and adaptation
of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability need to be funding have led to much-needed investment in a number of crit-
addressed (Ireland and McKinnon, 2013; Mikulewicz and Taylor, ical sectors in developing countries, such as agriculture, infrastruc-
2020). Within current adaptation cum development paradigms, ture and health. There has, however, been little holistic or
inequitable terms of engagement with ‘vulnerable’ populations connected understanding and learning about how such investment
are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerabil- may reduce, enhance, or redistribute vulnerability across scales. It
ity remain largely ignored. As a consequence, we pose the question is our hope that the post-adaptation turn we call for can generate
of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation renewed critical engagement – based on robust empirical insights
turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas – with the multi-scalar politics of vulnerability and adaptation
about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas interventions.
form part of the politics of adaptation and the processes (re)pro-
ducing vulnerability. Post-adaptation is an appropriate term CRediT authorship contribution statement
because it mirrors the situation whereby development was shown
to be perpetuating colonialism – in this case post-adaptation refers Siri Eriksen: Conceptualization (main); Methodology (main);
to the reproduction of power relations and poverty caused by Writing – original draft (main); Writing - review and editing
development projects, and reflects that we now have sufficient (main); Project administration (main). Lisa Schipper: Conceptual-
experience on the ground with adaptation to warrant a fresh start ization (main); Methodology (main); Writing – original draft
with a different and more informed approach. First introduced by (main); Writing - review and editing (main). Morgan Scoville-
Webber (2016), post-adaptation is a concept that has potential to Simonds: Conceptualization (main); Methodology (main); Writing
point to the risks of overly technocratic and Western-driven mod- – original draft (main); Writing - review and editing (main).
els of adaptation. Katharine Vincent: Conceptualization (main); Writing – original
Such a post-adaptation turn has several implications for how draft (main); Writing - review and editing (main). Hans Nicolai
formal adaptation interventions are planned, implemented and Adam: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original draft
funded. First, vulnerability reduction cannot take place through (supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). Nick
formal projects alone. A premise of this review, as mentioned at Brooks: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original draft
the outset, is that planned adaptation interventions are only one (supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). Brian
of many types of action – from daily livelihood actions, to corpo- Harding: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original draft
rate business decisions, civil society actions, and international (supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). Dil Kha-
trade policy reform – that form part of the adaptation process. A tri: Writing - review and editing (supporting). Lutgart Lenaerts:
key issue, which the current COVID-19 pandemic has further high- Methodology (main); Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing –
lighted, is how our collective futures are governed by a wide set of original draft (supporting); Writing - review and editing (support-
shifts and disruptions, policies and decision-making processes, ing). Diana Liverman: Writing - review and editing (supporting).
beyond those concerning climate change. Hence adaptation Megan Mills-Novoa: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing –
includes but is not contained within the realm – and the responsi- original draft (supporting); Writing - review and editing (support-
12
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

ing). Marianne Mosberg: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing Africa. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Paper No. 154.
http://hdl.handle.net/1887/27586.
– original draft (supporting); Writing - review and editing. Synne
Abrahams, D., & Carr, E. R. (2017). Understanding the connections between climate
Movik: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original draft change and conflict: Contributions from geography and political ecology.
(supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). Benard Current Climate Change Reports, 3(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-
Muok: Writing - review and editing (supporting). Andrea Nightin- 017-0080-z.
Adam, H. N. (2015). Mainstreaming adaptation in India – the Mahatma Gandhi
gale: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original draft (sup- National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and climate change. Climate and
porting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). Hemant Ojha: Development, 7(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.934772.
Writing - review and editing (supporting). Linda Sygna: Conceptu- Adaptation Fund. (2019). Assessment report on the progress in the implementation
of the Adaptation Fund’s Gender Policy and Gender Action Plan. AFB/B.34/Inf.9,
alisation (supporting); Writing – original draft (supporting). Mar- 43p.
cus Taylor: Conceptualisation (supporting); Writing – original Ahlborg, H., & Nightingale, A. J. (2018). Theorizing power in political ecology: The
draft (supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). where of power in resource governance projects. Journal of Political Ecology, 25
(1), 1–25.
Coleen Vogel: Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing - Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A. J., Stringer, L. C., & Codjoe, S. N. A. (2018). Adaptation
review and editing (supporting). Jennifer Joy West: Writing – orig- opportunities and maladaptive outcomes in climate vulnerability hotspots of
inal draft (supporting); Writing - review and editing (supporting). northern Ghana. Climate Risk Management, 19, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2017.11.003.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Declaration of Competing Interest Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Arifeen, A., & Eriksen, S. (2020). The politics of disaster vulnerability: Flooding, post-
disaster interventions and water governance in Baltistan, Pakistan. Environment
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- and Planning E: Nature and Space, 3(4), 1137–1157. https://doi.org/10.1177/
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared 2514848619880899.
Arnall, A. (2014). A climate of control: Flooding, displacement and planned
to influence the work reported in this paper.
resettlement in the Lower Zambezi River valley, Mozambique. The
Geographical Journal, 180(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12036.
Acknowledgements Arora-Jonsson, S. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender
and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 744–751. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005.
An earlier version of this manuscript was submitted to the Nor- Arora-Jonsson, S., Westholm, L., Temu, B. J., & Petitt, A. (2016). Carbon and Cash in
wegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 2018 as a back- Climate Assemblages: The Making of a New Global Citizenship. Antipode, 48(1),
74–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12170.
ground paper in response to a request by the Norwegian Minister Artur, L., & Hilhorst, D. (2012). Everyday realities of climate change adaptation in
of International Development to document how adaptation policy Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 529–536. https://doi.org/
and programmes are affecting vulnerability, including both posi- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.013.
Atteridge, A., & Remling, E. (2018). Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or
tive and negative impacts. The considerable time and effort con- redistributing it? WIREs Climate Change, 9(1), e500. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tributed by 20 authors representing 24 institutions around the wcc.500.
world draw on the experiences and knowledge generated by Balakrishan, U., Duvall, T., & Primeaux, P. (2003). Rewriting the bases of capitalism:
Reflexive modernity and ecological sustainability as the foundations of a new
diverse research as well as adaptation interventions in which the
normative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 299–314. https://doi.org/
authors have been involved, either in design, implementation or 10.1023/A:1027309918415.
evaluation. While the writing largely took place through authors Barrett, S. (2014). Subnational climate justice? Adaptation finance distribution and
climate vulnerability. World Development, 58, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/
volunteering their free time, our joint expertise emerges from a
j.worlddev.2014.01.014.
multitude of past and present research projects, such as those Barrett, S., Brooks, N., Quadrianto, N., Anderson, S., & Nebsu, B. (2020). Measuring
funded by the following grants: the Swedish Research Council climate resilience by linking shocks to development outcomes. Climate and
Development grant (#2015-03323) ‘‘Conflict, Violence and Envi- Development, 12(7), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2019.1676689.
ronmental Change: Investigating resource governance and legiti- Bassett, T. J., & Fogelman, C. (2013). Déjà vu or something new? The adaptation
macy in transitional societies”; the Swiss National Science concept in the climate change literature. Geoforum, 48, 42–53. https://doi.org/
Foundation grant (#168266) ‘‘Adapting to a changing discursive 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.010.
Beckman, M. (2011). Converging and conflicting interests in adaptation to
climate”; the Research Council of Norway grant (#289957) ‘‘Trans- environmental change in central Vietnam. Climate and Development, 3(1),
formation as Praxis: Exploring Socially Just and Transdisciplinary 32–41. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0065.
Pathways to Sustainability in Marginal Environments’ Bergius, M., Benjaminsen, T. A., & Widgren, M. (2018). Green economy, scandinavian
investments and agricultural modernization in Tanzania. The Journal of Peasant
(TAPESTRY)”; the Research Council of Norway grant (#244551) Studies, 45(4), 825–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1260554.
‘‘CiXPAG - Interaction of Climate Extremes, Air Pollution and Blackburn, S. (2018). What does transformation look like? Post-disaster politics and
Agro-ecosystems”; the University of Arizona, US, Office of Research the case for progressive rehabilitation. Sustainability, 10(7), 2317. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10072317.
grant (#2107534); the National Science Foundation Geography and
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Moore, M.-L., Morrison, T.
Spatial Sciences Program - Doctoral Dissertation Research H., & Brown, K. (2018). The dark side of transformation: latent risks in
Improvement Awards (#2002829); the Swedish Research Council contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206–1223. https://doi.
org/10.1111/anti.12405.
(VR) Sustainability and Resilience grant (#2018-05866) ‘‘Govern-
Bours, D., McGinn, C., and Pringle, P. (2013). Monitoring & evaluation for climate
ing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolu- change adaptation: A synthesis of tools, frameworks and approaches. SEA
tion in resource management (JUSTCLIME)”; the Research Council Change CoP, Phnom Penh and UKCIP, Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:
of Norway grant (#250434/F10) ‘‘Adaptation: Combining Old and 8a5b5ca6-aeb6-494f-98e5-371f08659008.
Brooks, N., Anderson, S., Aragon, I., Smith, B., Kajumba, T., Beauchamp, E., et al.
New kNowledge to Enable Conscious Transformation to Sustain- (2019). Framing and tracking 21st century climate adaptation (Working Paper),
ability (AdaptationCONNECTS); and the Research Council of monitoring, evaluation and learning; Climate change. London, UK: International
Canada grant (#1232014-435). We would like to thank two anony- Institute for Environment and Development.
Brooks, N., Clarke, J., Ngaruiya, G. W., & Wangui, E. E. (2020). African heritage in a
mous reviewers for their useful comments. The views and perspec- changing climate. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 55(3), 297–328.
tives presented in this publication remain the responsibility of the https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2020.1792177.
authors, however. Brooks, N., & Fisher, S. (2014). Tracking adaptation and measuring development: A
step-by-step guide. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
References Brooks, N. (2017). Adaptation and Resilience Learning from the Kenya. Starck+
Programme. DFID/Starck+, Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.starckplus.com/index.
php/starck-results-against-icf-kpis/learning-reports.
Abbink, J., Askew, K., Dori, F.D., Fratkin, E., Gabbert, E.C., Galaty, J., Tosky, S.L., Lydall,
Bruun, J.A. (2018). Climate changing civil society: the role of value and knowledge
J., Mahmoud, H.A., Markakis, J., Schlee, G., Strecker, I., and Turton, D. (2014).
in designing the Green Climate Fund, in S. Bracking, A. Fredriksen, S. Sullivan, P.
Lands of the future: transforming pastoral lands and livelihoods in Eastern

13
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

Woodhouse (eds). Valuing Development, Environment and Conservation. Figueiredo, P., & Perkins, P. E. (2012). Women and water management in times of
Creating Values that Matter. Routledge, London, pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/ climate change: Participatory and inclusive processes. Journal of Cleaner
9781315113463. Production., 60(1), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.025.
Buggy, L., & McNamara, K. E. (2016). The need to reinterpret ‘‘community” for Forsyth, T. (2018). Is resilience to climate change socially inclusive? Investigating
climate change adaptation: A case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Climate and theories of change processes in Myanmar. World Development, 111, 13–26.
Development, 8(3), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1041445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.023.
Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster Forsyth, T. (2019). Beyond narratives: Civic epistemologies and the coproduction of
policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The environmental knowledge and popular environmentalism in Thailand. Annals of
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 171–191. the American Association of Geographers, 109(2), 593–612. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205284676. 10.1080/24694452.2018.1549470.
Burton, I. (2004). Climate Change and the Adaptation Deficit. Adaptation and Goldman, M. J., Turner, M. D., & Daly, M. (2018). A critical ecology of human
Impacts Research Group (AIG) Occasional Paper 1, Environment Canada. dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Climate
Camargo, A., & Ojeda, D. (2017). Ambivalent desires: State formation and Change, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.526 e526.
dispossession in the face of climate crisis. Political Geography, 60, 57–65. Haji, J., & Legesse, B. (2017). Impact of sedentarization program on the livelihood
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.04.003. and food security of Ethiopian pastoralists. Journal of Arid Environments, 13,
Carr, E. R., & Owusu-Daaku, K. N. (2016). The shifting epistemologies of 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.10.007.
vulnerability in climate services for development: The case of Mali’s Horstmann, B. (2011). Operationalizing the adaptation fund: Challenges in
Agrometeorological Advisory Program. Area, 48(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/ allocating funds to the vulnerable. Climate Policy, 11(4), 1086–1096. https://
10.1111/area.12179. doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579392.
Chapman, A. D., Darby, S. E., H ng, H. M., Tompkins, E. L., & Van, T. P. D. (2016). Ide, T. (2020). The dark side of environmental peacebuilding. World Development,
Adaptation and development trade-offs: Fluvial sediment deposition and the 127, 104777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104777.
sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta. Climatic IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner,
Change, 137(3-4), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1684-3. H.O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C.,
Climate Investment Funds (2009). The selection of countries to participate in the pilot Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy,
program for climate resilience (PPCR): Report of the expert group to the E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., and Waterfield. T. (Eds.) Global warming of 1.5°C. An
subcommittee of the PPCR. Washington, DC: World Bank. IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
Cooper, F. (1997). Modernizing bureaucrats, backward africans, and the industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the
development concept. In F. Cooper & R. Packard (Eds.), International context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,
Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, World
Knowledge (pp. 64–92). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
California Press. Ireland, P., & McKinnon, K. (2013). Strategic localism for an uncertain world: A
Corbera, E., Hunsberger, C., & Vaddhanaphuti, C. (2017). Climate change policies, postdevelopment approach to climate change adaptation. Geoforum, 47,
land grabbing and conflict: Perspectives from Southeast Asia. Canadian Journal 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.005.
of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 38(3), Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing
297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2017.1343413. science. Minerva, 41, 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320.
Dasgupta, A., & Beard, V. A. (2007). Community driven development, collective Jones, P. G., & Thornton, P. K. (2009). Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood
action and elite capture in Indonesia. Development & Change, 38(2), 229–249. transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environmental Science &
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00410.x. Policy, 12(4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.08.006.
Décobert, A. (2020). ‘The struggle isn’t over’: Shifting aid paradigms and redefining Juhola, S., Glaas, E., Linnér, B. O., & Neset, T. S. (2016). Redefining maladaptation.
‘development’ in eastern Myanmar. World Development, 127, 104768. https:// Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104768. envsci.2015.09.014.
del Valle, H., & Healy, S. (2013). Humanitarian agencies and authoritarian states: A Kaika, M. (2017). ‘‘Don’t call me resilient again!” : The New Urban Agenda as
symbiotic relationship? Disasters, 37, S188–S201. immunology . . . or . . . what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated
Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K. with ‘‘smart cities” and indicators. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 89–102.
L., O’Brien, and K. Warner. (2014). ‘Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816684763.
mitigation, and sustainable development’ In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Karlsson, L., Naess, L. O., Nightingale, A., & Thompson, J. (2018). ‘Triple wins’ or
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental climate-smart agriculture (CSA). The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1),
Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1351433.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Khatri, D.B. (2018). Climate and development at the third pole: Dynamics of power
Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White and knowledge reshaping community forest governance in Nepal. PhD
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. https://pub.
NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131. epsilon.slu.se/15564/.
Dilling, L., Daly, M. E., Travis, W. R., Wilhelmi, O. V., & Klein, R. A. (2015). The Kita, S. M. (2019). Barriers or enablers? Chiefs, elite capture, disasters, and
dynamics of vulnerability: Why adapting to climate variability will not always resettlement in rural Malawi. Disasters, 43(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/
prepare us for climate change: Dynamics of vulnerability. WIREs Clim Change, 6 10.1111/disa:12295.
(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.341. Klenk, N., Fiume, A., Meehan, K., & Gibbes, C. (2017). Local knowledge in climate
Dilling, L., Prakash, A., Zommers, Z., Ahmad, F., Singh, N., de Wit, S., Nalau, J., Daly, adaptation research: Moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co-
M., & Bowman, K. (2019). Is adaptation success a flawed concept? Natute production. WIREs Climate Change, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.475.
Climate Change, 9(8), 572–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0539-0. Kothari, U. (2014). Political discourses of climate change and migration:
Dodman, D., & Mitlin, D. (2015). The national and local politics of climate change Resettlement policies in the Maldives: Political discourses of climate change
adaptation in Zimbabwe. Climate and Development, 7(3), 223–234. https://doi. and migration. The Geographical Journal, 180(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/
org/10.1080/17565529.2014.934777. 10.1111/geoj.12032.
Donner, S. D., & Webber, S. (2014). Obstacles to climate change adaptation Krätli, S., Huelsebusch, C., Brooks, S., and Kaufmann, B. (2013). Pastoralism: A
decisions: A case study of sea-level rise and coastal protection measures in critical asset for food security under global climate change. Animal Frontiers.
Kiribati. Sustainable Science, 9(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- Vol.3: 42-50. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2013-0007.
014-0242-z. Kuhl, L., Van Maanen, K., & Scyphers, S. (2020). An analysis of UNFCCC-financed
Eriksen, S. H., & Kelly, P. M. (2007). Developing credible vulnerability coastal adaptation projects: Assessing patterns of project design and
indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and contributions to adaptive capacity. World Development, 127, 104748. https://
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(4), 495–524. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104748.
10.1007/s11027-006-3460-6. Kuper, R., & Kröpelin, S. (2006). Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the
Eriksen, S. H., Nightingale, A. J., & Eakin, H. (2015). Reframing adaptation: The Sahara: Motor of Africa’s evolution. Science, 313, 803–807. https://doi.org/
political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 35, 10.1126/science.1130989.
523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014. Lade, S. J., Haider, L. J., Engström, G., & Schlüter, M. (2017). Resilience offers escape
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third from trapped thinking on poverty alleviation. Science Advances, 3(5), e1603043.
World. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603043.
Eyben, R. (2005). Donors’ Learning Difficulties: results, relationships and Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of
responsibilities. IDS Bulletin. Vol, 36(3): 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global
j.1759-5436.2005.tb00227.x climate change. Policy Science, 45(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-
Ferdous, M. R., Di Baldassarre, G., Brandimarte, L., & Wesselink, A. (2020). The 012-9151-0.
interplay between structural flood protection, population density, and flood Levine, S., Peters, K. and Fan, L. (2014). Conflict, climate change and politics – Why a
mortality along the Jamuna River, Bangladesh. Regional Environmental Change, techno-centric approach fails the resilience challenge. London, UK:
20(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01600-1. Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG), ODI.
Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine. development, depoliticization, and Ludi, E., Wiggings, S., Jones, L., Lofthouse, J., & Levine, L. (2014). Adapting
bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge University Press. development: How wider development interventions can support adaptive

14
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

capacity at the community level. In E. L. F. Schipper (Ed.), Community Based Omukuti, J. (2020a). Challenging the obsession with local level institutions in
Adaptation: Scaling it Up (pp. 36–52). Routledge. country ownership of climate change adaptation. Land Use Policy, 94, 104525.
MacKinnon, D., & Derickson, K. D. (2013). From resilience to resourcefulness: A https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104525.
critique of resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), Omukuti, J. (2020b). Country ownership of adaptation: Stakeholder influence or
253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512454775. government control?. Geoforum, 113, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Magnan, A. K., Schipper, E. L. F., Burkett, M., Bharwani, S., Burton, I., Eriksen, S., & j.geoforum.2020.04.019.
Ziervogel, G. (2016). Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Pak-Uthai, S., & Faysse, N. (2018). The risk of second-best adaptive measures:
WIREs Climate Change, 7(5), 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.409. Farmers facing drought in Thailand. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Matin, N., Forrester, J., & Ensor, J. (2018). What is equitable resilience? World Reduction, 28, 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.032.
Development, 109, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.020. Paprocki, K. (2018). Threatening dystopias: Development and adaptation regimes in
Matthew, R. (2014). Integrating climate change into peacebuilding. Climatic Change, Bangladesh. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(4), 955–973.
123(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0894-1. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1406330.
McNamara, K. E., Clissold, R., Westoby, R., Piggott-McKellar, A. E., Kumar, R., Clarke, Park, S. E., Marshall, N. A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M., Mendham, E., et al.
T., Namoumou, F., Areki, F., Joseph, E., Warrick, O., & Nunn, P. D. (2020). An (2012). Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of
assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands. transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 115–126.
Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020- Pearse, R. (2017). Gender and climate change: Gender and climate change. WIREs
0813-1. Climate Change, 8(2), e451. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.451.
Mees, H. L. P., Dijk, J., van Soest, D., Driessen, P. P. J., van Rijswick, M. H. F. M. W., & Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation.
Runhaar, H. (2014). A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of London: Routledge.
policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation. Ecology and Society, 19 Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic
(2), 58. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06639-190258. Change, 133(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.
Mehta, L., Srivastava, S., Adam, H. N., Alankar Bose, S., Ghosh, U., & Kumar, V. V. Persson, Å., & Remling, E. (2014). Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: Initial
(2019). Climate change and uncertainty from ‘above’ and ‘below’: Perspectives experiences of the Adaptation Fund. Climate Policy, 14(4), 488–506. https://doi.
from India. Regional Environmental Change, 19(6), 1533–1547. https://doi.org/ org/10.1080/14693062.2013.879514.
10.1007/s10113-019-01479-7. Peters, K., Mayhew, L., Slim, H., van Aalst, M. & Arrighi, J. (2019). Double
Mikulewicz, M. (2020a). Disintegrating labor relations and depoliticized adaptation vulnerability: The humanitarian implications of intersecting climate and
to climate change in rural São Tomé and Príncipe. Area, 00, 1–9. https://doi.org/ conflict risk. London, UK: ODI, ICRC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate
10.1111/area.12630. Centre.
Mikulewicz, M. (2020b). The discursive politics of adaptation to climate change. Ray-Bennett, N. S. (2009). The influence of caste, class and gender in surviving
Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(6), 1807–1830. https:// multiple disasters: A case study from Orissa, India. Environmental Hazards, 8(1),
doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1736981. 5–22. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0001.
Mikulewicz, M., & Taylor, M. (2020). Getting the resilience right: climate change Regmi, B. R., Star, C., & Leal Filho, W. (2016). An overview of the opportunities and
and development policy in the ‘African Age’. New Political Economy, 25(4), challenges of promoting climate change adaptation at the local level: A case
626–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1625317. study from a community adaptation planning in Nepal. Climatic Change, 138(3-
Milman, A., & Arsano, Y. (2014). Climate adaptation and development: 4), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1765-3.
Contradictions for human security in Gambella, Ethiopia. Global Environmental Remling, E., & Persson, Å. (2015). Who is adaptation for? Vulnerability and
Change, 29, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.017. adaptation benefits in proposals approved by the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund.
Morchain, D., Prati, G., Kelsey, F., & Ravon, L. (2015). What if gender became an Climate and Development, 7(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
essential, standard element of Vulnerability Assessments?. Gender & 17565529.2014.886992.
Development, 23(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Rusca, M., Schwartz, K., Hadzovic, L., & Ahlers, R. (2015). Adapting generic models
13552074.2015.1096620. through bricolage: Elite capture of water users associations in peri-urban
Mosberg, M., Nyukuri, E., and Næss, L.O. (2017). The power of ‘know-who’: Lilongwe. European Journal of Development Research, 27(5), 777–792. https://doi.
Adaptation to climate change in a changing humanitarian landscape in Isiolo, org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.58.
Kenya. IDS Bulletin. Vol. 48(4):79-92. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.154. Sanderson, S. K. (1990). Social evolutionism: A critical history. Cambridge, USA:
Moser, S., & Boykoff, M. (2014). Climate change and adaptation success: The scope Blackwell.
of the challenge. In S. Moser & M. Boykoff (Eds.), Successful Adaptation to Climate Schilling, J., Nash, S. L., Ide, T., Scheffran, J., Froese, R., & von Prondzinski, P. (2017).
Change: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly Changing World (pp. 1–33). Resilience and environmental security: Towards joint application in
London, UK: Routledge. peacebuilding. Global Change, Peace & Security, 29(2), 107–127. https://doi.
Mosse, D. (2010). A Relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power. org/10.1080/14781158.2017.1305347.
Journal of Development Studies, 46(7), 1156–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Schipper, L., Eriksen, S., Fernandez-Caril, L., Glavovic, B., & Shawoo, Z. (2020).
00220388.2010.487095. Turbulent Transformation: Abrupt societal disruption and climate resilient
Murtinho, F., Eakin, H., López-Carr, D., & Hayes, T. M. (2013). Does external funding development. Climate and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/
help adaptation? Evidence from community-based water management in the 17565529.2020.1799738.
Colombian Andes. Environmental Management, 52(5), 1103–1114. https://doi. Schipper, E. L. F., Tanner, T., Dube, O. P., Adams, K. M., & Huq, S. (2020). The debate:
org/10.1007/s00267-013-0156-z. Is global development adapting to climate change? World Development
Nagoda, S., & Nightingale, A. J. (2017). Participation and power in climate change Perspectives, 18, 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100205.
adaptation policies: Vulnerability in food security programs in Nepal. World Schipper, E. L. F., Thomalla, F., Vulturius, G., Davis, M., & Johnson, K. (2016). Linking
Development, 100, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.022. disaster risk reduction, climate change and development. IJDRBE, 7(2), 216–228.
Nelson, D. and Finan, T. (2009). Praying for Drought: Persistent Vulnerability and https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2015-0014.
the Politics of Patronage in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. American Anthropologist. Scoville-Simonds, M., Jamali, H., & Hufty, M. (2020). The hazards of mainstreaming:
Vol. 111(3): 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01134.x. Climate change adaptation politics in three dimensions. World Development,
Nightingale, A. J. (2017). Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: 125, 104683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104683.
Struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability. Shackleton, S., Ziervogel, G., Sallu, S., Gill, T., & Tschakert, P. (2015). Why is socially-
Geoforum, 84, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.05.011. just climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review
Nightingale, A. J., Eriksen, S., Taylor, M., Forsyth, T., Pelling, M., Newsham, A., Boyd, of barriers identified from empirical cases: Barriers to adaptation in SSA. WIREs
E., Brown, K., Harvey, B., Jones, L., Bezner Kerr, R., Mehta, L., Naess, L. O., Ockwell, Climate Change, 6(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.335.
D., Scoones, I., Tanner, T., & Whitfield, S. (2020). Beyond technical fixes: Climate Stadelmann, M., Roberts, J. T., & Michaelowa, A. (2011). New and additional to
solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development, 12(4), 343–352. what? Assessing options for baselines to assess climate finance pledges. Climate
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1624495. and Development, 3(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Nyborg, I., and Nawab, B. (2017). Social Vulnerability and Local Adaptation in 17565529.2011.599550.
Humanitarian Response: The Case of Pakistan. IDS Bulletin. Vol.48(4): 63-78. Sultana, F. (2019). Decolonizing development education and the pursuit of social
https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.153 justice. Human Geography, 12(3), 31–46.
O’Brien, K. (2018). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of Symons, K. (2014). Anti-politics, apocalypse and adaptation in Kenya’s national
transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 153–160. climate change response strategy. Scottish Geographical Journal, 130(4),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010. 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.907442.
Ojha, H., Regmi, U., Shrestha, K. K., Paudel, N. S., Amatya, S. M., Zwi, A. B., Nuberg, I., Tänzler, D., Maas, A., & Carius, A. (2010). Climate change adaptation and peace.
Cedamon, E., & Banjade, M. R. (2020). Improving science-policy interface: WIREs Climate Change, 1(5), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.66.
Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal’s community forest Taylor, M. (2015). The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods,
governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 114, 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/ agrarian change and the conflicts of development. London, UK: Routledge.
j.forpol.2019.101997. Taylor, M., & Bhasme, S. (2020). Between deficit rains and surplus populations: The
Ojwang, L., Rosendo, S., Celliers, L., Obura, D., Muiti, A., Kamula, J., & Mwangi, M. political ecology of a climate-resilient village in South India. Geoforum. https://
(2017). Assessment of coastal governance for climate change adaptation in doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.007.
Kenya: Local coastal governance in KENYA. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1119–1132. Thomas, K., Hardy, R. D., Lazrus, H., Mendez, M., Orlove, B., Rivera-Collazo, I.,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000595. Roberts, J. T., Rockman, M., Warner, B. P., & Winthrop, R. (2019). Explaining
Olroyd, D. R. (1983). Darwinian impacts: An introduction to the Darwinian revolution differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review. WIREs
(2nd Edn. ed.). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Climate Change, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565.

15
S. Eriksen, E. Lisa F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds et al. World Development 141 (2021) 105383

Thomas, K. A., & Warner, B. P. (2019). Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Warner, B. P., & Kuzdas, C. (2016). Manufactured global-change risk pathways in
Global Environmental Change, 57, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/ industrial-based agrarian development. Climate and Development, 8(5),
j.gloenvcha.2019.101928. 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1085359.
Titz, A., Cannon, T., & Kruger, F. (2018). Uncovering ’community’: Challenging an Webber, S. (2016). Climate change adaptation as a growing development priority:
elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies, 8(71), 1–28. Towards critical adaptation scholarship. Geography Compass, 10(10), 401–413.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8030071. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12278.
Tran, T. A., Pittock, J., & Tran, D. D. (2020). Adaptive flood governance in the Webber, S., & Donner, S. D. (2017). Climate service warnings: Cautions about
vietnamese mekong delta: A policy innovation of the North Vam Nao scheme, commercializing climate science for adaptation in the developing world. WIREs
An Giang Province. Environmental Science & Policy, 108, 45–55. https://doi.org/ Climate Change, 8(1), e424. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.424.
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.004. West, J.J., Daly, M.E., and Yanda, P.Z. (2018). Evaluating User Satisfaction with
Tschakert, P., Das, P. J., Shrestha Pradhan, N., Machado, M., Lamadrid, A., Buragohain, Climate Services in Tanzania 2014-2016. Summary Report to the Global
M., & Hazarika, M. A. (2016). Micropolitics in collective learning spaces for Framework for Climate Services Adaptation Programme in Africa. CICERO
adaptive decision making. Global Environmental Change, 40, 182–194. https:// Report No.7. Oslo, Norway.
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.004. Westengen, O. T., Nyanga, P., Chibamba, D., Guillen-Royo, M., & Banik, D. (2018). A
Tschakert, P., van Oort, B., St. Clair, A. L., & LaMadrid, A. (2013). Inequality and climate for commerce: The political agronomy of conservation agriculture in
transformation analyses: A complementary lens for addressing vulnerability to Zambia. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(1), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/
climate change. Climate and Development, 5(4), 340–350. https://doi.org/ s10460-017-9820-x.
10.1080/17565529.2013.828583. Wilson, G.A. (2014). Community resilience: Path dependency, lock-in effects and
UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: transitional ruptures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke/New York. Vol.57(1): 1-26. https://doi.org/1080/09640568.2012.741519.
UNEP. (2017). Adaptation gap report 2017, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Work, C. (2019). Climate change and conflict: Global insecurity and the road less
Environment Programme (UNEP), http://www.unenvironment.org/resources/ traveled. Geoforum, 102, 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/
report/adaptation-gap-report-2017. j.geoforum.2018.11.004.
Vermeulen, S. J., Dinesh, D., Howden, S. M., Cramer, L., & Thornton, P. K. (2018). Work, C., Rong, V., Song, D., & Scheidel, A. (2019). Maladaptation and development
Transformation in practice: A review of empirical cases of transformational as usual? Investigating climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in
adaptation in agriculture under climate change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Cambodia. Climate Policy, 19(sup1), S47–S62. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Systems., 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00065. 14693062.2018.1527677.
Vincent, K.E., Tschakert, P., Barnett, J., Rivera-Ferre, M., and Woodward, A. (2014). Yates, J. S. (2012). Uneven interventions and the scalar politics of governing
Cross-chapter box on gender and climate change. In Climate Change 2014: livelihood adaptation in rural Nepal. Global Environmental Change, 22(2),
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.007.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Ziervogel, G., Archer van Garderen, E., & Price, P. (2016). Strengthening the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D. knowledge–policy interface through co-production of a climate adaptation
J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., plan: Leveraging opportunities in Bergrivier Municipality, South Africa.
Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., Environment and Urbanization, 28(2), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/
and White, L.L. (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA, 0956247816647340.
pp. 105-107. Ziervogel, G., Pelling, M., Cartwright, A., Chu, E., Deshpande, T., Harris, L., Hyams, K.,
Wang, J., Brown, D. G., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Climate adaptation, local institutions, Kaunda, J., Klaus, B., Michael, K., Pasquini, L., Pharoah, R., Rodina, L., Scott, D., &
and rural livelihoods: A comparative study of herder communities in Mongolia Zweig, P. (2017). Inserting rights and justice into urban resilience: A focus on
and Inner Mongolia, China. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1673–1683. everyday risk. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.014. 10.1177/0956247816686905.

16