Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

===== 17.5.1.1.1 Defining and assessing success in adaptation vis a vis maladaptation =====

<div id="h4-20-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

The highly contextual nature of adaptation, a multitude of applied definitions of adaptation (e.g., cost effectiveness versus outcomes), its overlaps with development interventions, and the long time horizons over which outcomes accrue, deter a universal definition of adaptation success (Dilling et al., 2019; [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1.2]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ). [[#Moser--2013|Moser and Boykoff (2013)]] , [[#Olazabal--2019b|Olazabal et al. (2019b)]] and [[#Sherman--2013|Sherman and Ford (2013)]] suggest criteria against which successful adaptation could potentially be tracked. The literature is converging to suggest that successful adaptation broadly refers to actions and policies that effectively and substantially reduce climate vulnerability, and exposure to and/or impacts of climate risk ( [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ; [[#Juhola--2016|Juhola et al., 2016]] ), while creating synergies to other climate-related goals, increasing benefits to non-climate-related goals (such as current and future economic, societal and other environmental goals) and minimise trade-offs ( [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al., 2019]] ) across diverse objectives, perspectives, expectations and values ( [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019a|Gajjar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ).

Maladaptation refers to current or potential negative consequences of adaptation-related responses that lead to an increase in the climate vulnerability of a system, sector or group ( [[#Barnett--2010|Barnett and O’Neill, 2010]] ) by exacerbating or shifting vulnerability or exposure now or in the future ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2014|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2014]] ; [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ; [[#Juhola--2016|Juhola et al., 2016]] ; [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ) and eroding sustainable development ( [[#Juhola--2016|Juhola et al., 2016]] ). Conceptually, maladaptation differs from ‘failed’ or ‘unsuccessful’ adaptation ( [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ), which ‘describes a failed adaptation initiative not producing any significant detrimental effect’ ( [[#Magnan--2016|Magnan et al., 2016]] : 648). Several frameworks have been proposed to explain and better assess maladaptation ( [[#Hallegatte--2009|Hallegatte, 2009]] ; [[#Barnett--2010|Barnett and O’Neill, 2010]] ; [[#Magnan--2014|Magnan, 2014]] ; [[#Magnan--2016|Magnan et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019b|Gajjar et al., 2019b]] ). To limit the risk of maladaptation, a common focus of these frameworks is on intentionally avoiding negative consequences of adaptation interventions, anticipating detrimental lock-ins and path dependence, and minimising spatio-temporal trade-offs/ dis-benefits.

The adaptation literature challenges the simplistic dichotomy of interventions being either successful or maladaptive (e.g., [[#Moser--2013|Moser and Boykoff, 2013]] ; [[#Singh--2016|Singh et al., 2016]] ; [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ). There is no clear-cut boundary between these two categories; rather, successful adaptation and maladaptation need to be considered as the two ends of a continuum of risk management strategies (Figure 17.10), emphasising that:

<div id="_idContainer049" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:f204079052da564353ff3d5d93a83f2f IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_010.png]]

'''Figure 17.10 |''' '''Successful adaptation and maladaptation are conceptualised as the two end points of a continuum, with adaptation options being located along the continuum based on outcome criteria (how they benefit humans and ecosystems; how they contribute to or hinder equity goals; whether they enable transformative change to climatic risks; and synergies and trade-offs with climate mitigation).''' As indicated in SM 17.1 and Figure 17.10, adaptation options might rate largely positive and slightly negative across outcome criteria (tending towards successful adaptation), while other adaptation options might have small positive aspects and larger negative ones across different outcome criteria (tending towards maladaptation). The figure draws on [[#Singh--2016|Singh et al. (2016)]] , [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al. (2020)]] and [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper (2020)]] .

* no options are ‘bad’ or ‘good’ ''a priori'' with respect to reducing climate risk/vulnerability.
* positive and negative outcomes of adaptation depend on local context specificities (including the presence/absence of enabling conditions [1] ), how adaptation is planned and implemented, who is judging the outcomes (i.e., adaptation decision maker, planner, implementer or recipient) and when adaptation outcomes are assessed.
* ''ex ante'' assessment of where options fall on the continuum can help anticipate maladaptive outcomes.

Along the adaptation–maladaptation continuum, adaptation options can score high or low on different outcome criteria identified in this section such as: benefits to the number of people, benefits to ecosystem services, equity outcomes (for marginalised ethnic groups, gender, low-income populations), transformational potential and contribution to GHG emission reduction (see SM 17.1 for full descriptions). Importantly, the outcome of the assessment, and consequently location of a given adaptation option along this continuum, is dynamic, depending on multiple components, including changes in the characteristics of climate hazards and the effects of iterative risk management. Unfortunately, this temporal dimension is understudied in the literature (including studying thresholds or speed), preventing advances on this specific point.

<div id="17.5.1.1.2" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="empirical-evidence-on-success-of-adaptation-vis-a-vis-maladaptation"></span>