Short communicationRedefining maladaptation
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)
- et al.
An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and adaptation alternatives in urban areas
Clim. Risk Manag.
(2015) - et al.
Maladaptation
Glob. Environ. Change
(2010) - et al.
Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies
Glob. Environ. Change
(2010) - et al.
From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy
Clim. Policy
(2002) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research
Global Environ. Chang.
(2007)Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity
Global Environ. Chang.
(2006)- et al.
Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change
Global Environ. Change
(2005) - et al.
A framework for Nordic actor-oriented climate adaptation research
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2014) - et al.
Discourse and desalination: Potential impacts of proposed climate change adaptation interventions in the Arizona-Sonora border region
Glob. Environ. Change
(2012) Autonomous household responses and urban governance capacity building for climate change adaptation: Georgetown, Guyana
Urban Clim.
(2014)