Short communication
Redefining maladaptation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.014Get rights and content

Highlights

  • There is a need to increase the understanding of negative effects that might occur as a result of adaptation.

  • Maladaptation is a result of an intentional adaptation policy or measure directly increasing vulnerability for the targeted and/or external actor(s), and/or eroding preconditions for sustainable development.

  • Three types of maladaptive outcomes can be identified: rebounding vulnerability, shifting vulnerability and eroding sustainable development.

  • The recognition of adaptation as an intentional action and the importance of setting clear spatial and temporal boundaries is key.

Abstract

As experiences of implementation of climate change adaptation are accumulating, there is a need to increase the understanding of the potential negative consequences of adaptation actions that might occur, and the capacity of research to assess them. Maladaptation used in this context has remained elusively defined and sparingly used, and therefore difficult to apply. Based on a literature review, we discuss the conceptual boundaries of maladaptation and how it can be used to analyse negative outcomes of adaptation and propose a refined definition. We present a typology of maladaptation that distinguishes between three types of maladaptive outcomes – rebounding vulnerability, shifting vulnerability and eroding sustainable development, and argue that maladaptation can be defined as a result of an intentional adaptation policy or measure directly increasing vulnerability for the targeted and/or external actor(s), and/or eroding preconditions for sustainable development by indirectly increasing society's vulnerability. We note that the recognition of adaptation as an intentional action and the importance of setting clear spatial and temporal boundaries, as well as thresholds, are key to analysing negative outcomes.

Section snippets

From adaptation to maladaptation

The need for adaptation to climate change has been widely recognised (Pielke et al., 2007, IPCC, 2007, IPCC, 2007), and the study of adaptation as a social process has generated a field of research that is rapidly accumulating (Smit et al., 2000, Kelly and Adger, 2000, Adger et al., 2005, Smit and Wandel, 2006, Gallopín, 2006, Füssel, 2007a, Füssel, 2007b, Ford et al., 2011). This development can be characterised with a move from impact-led research towards a better understanding of social

A review of recent literature

With regards to maladaptation, the IPCC states that ‘[T]he adaptation literature is replete with advice to avoid maladaptation, but it is less clear what is precisely included as “maladaptation”’ (Noble et al., 2014: p. 28). These difficulties stem from a number of sources. Granberg and Glover, for example, argue that ‘…there are neither widely accepted criteria nor yardsticks that have been developed to identify maladaptation’ (2013: p. 4). Furthermore, in addition to the varying local

Applying the maladaptation concept – elements to consider

The above typology reflects the way in which the concept has been used in the literature in recent years. It raises a number of interesting questions when placed next to the existing definitions of maladaptation. The IPCC AR5 definition and the one offered by Barnett and O’Neill and our typology based on the review of the literature share some similarities but some differences can also be observed.

First, all three definitions appear to acknowledge that maladaptation occurs when there are

Redefining maladaptation

The reviewed literature suggests that it is important to consider the intentionality behind the adaptation action leading to the negative outcome(s). The way maladaptation has been defined previously – i.e. by the IPCC – it covers both the outcomes of intended and unintended adaptation actions.

In order to facilitate the operationalisation, we argue that autonomous adaptation should be excluded from the analysis of maladaptive outcomes. When considered autonomous, the action is not intended to

Conclusion

We have explored the analytical strength and operational dimension of the concept. We argue that the potential for maladaptation as a concept is twofold. First, it has and can continue to be utilised to open up the debate on the effectiveness, equitability and appropriateness of adaptation policies and measures and the acknowledgement of their diverse effects. Towards this end, the existing definitions of maladaptation, provided by e.g. Barnett and O’Neill (2010) and the IPCC AR5, seem apt.

References (57)

  • B. Smit et al.

    Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2006)
  • W.N. Adger et al.

    Resilience implications of responses to climate change

    Wileys Clim. Change

    (2010)
  • W.N. Adger et al.

    Successful adaptation to climate change across scales

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2005)
  • W.N. Adger et al.

    Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?

    Clim. Change

    (2009)
  • W.N. Adger et al.

    Adaptation to climate change in the developing world

    Prog. Dev. Stud.

    (2003)
  • W.N. Adger et al.

    Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

  • J. Agard et al.

    IPCC WGII glossary

  • J. Barnett et al.

    Islands, resettlement and adaptation

    Nat. Clim. Change

    (2012)
  • J. Barnett et al.

    Minimising the risk of maladaptation: a framework for analysis

  • R. Beilin et al.

    Farmers and perverse outcomes: the quest for food and energy security, emissions reduction and climate adaptation

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2011)
  • D. Bélanger et al.

    Use of residential wood heating in a context of climate change: a population survey in Québec (Canada)

    Public Health

    (2008)
  • M. Benito-Garzón et al.

    Habitat restoration and climate change: dealing with climate variability, incomplete data, and management decisions with tree translocations

    Restor. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • G.-R. Biesbroek et al.

    On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation

    Reg. Environ. Change

    (2013)
  • K. Brown

    Sustainable adaptation: an oxymoron?

    Clim. Dev.

    (2011)
  • N. Brooks et al.

    Development futures in the context of climate change: challenging the present and learning from the past

    Dev. Policy Rev.

    (2010)
  • I. Burton

    Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of climate and climate change

    Clim. Change

    (1997)
  • City of Santa Barbara

    Desalination. Project status

    (2015)
  • S.H. Eriksen et al.

    Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment

    Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text