The Politics of Maladaptation

Abstract

An emerging component of the adaptation discourse, embracing theory, practice and review, is that of the negative assessment of adaptation, namely, maladaptation. Political theories and concepts have been applied as one of these assessment tools, giving rise to a political critique of maladaptation. Such a critique contrasts with the more conventional scientific and technical assessments of adaptation policies, programs and practices. Key political themes in studies of maladaptation include resource management and allocations, decision making processes, equity and fairness, gender, power and influence, and Nature and ecology. Within the scholarship on the politics of maladaptation, overlapping frameworks can be identified. Critiques of adaptation have been applied to the preconditions of adaptation, adaptation decision making processes and institutions, and to adaptation outcomes. There are a number of conceptual challenges in undertaking political analyses of adaptation. In this article, we outline the origins of the adaptation and maladaptation concepts, we describe the key political issues, we identify the application of politics in the maladaptation discourse and identify the major political perspectives. Finally, we draw conclusions on the state of the maladaptation discourse.

Maladaptation as a concept and a metric in national adaptation policy- Should we, would we, could we?

“…So far, maladaptation literature has considered the unintended and harmful outcomes of adaptation, often focusing on rather direct physical impacts [20][21][22], and increasingly emphasises the politics of maladaptation as a process as well as an outcome [23,24]. Somewhat absent have been approaches that define maladaptation in the different types and phases of policy processes, particularly beyond the community scale.…”

“…In addition, Milhorance et al [35] (p.183) describe the Brazilian mainstreaming of national adaptation policy resulting 'in the layering of existing sector-based instruments [and becoming] a mix of loosely coordinated and inconsistent strategies, lacking a common implementation approach'. Research on adaptation as government activity [and not, for example, as private or autonomous actions] has shown that the failures identified as maladaptation relate to the preconditions of adaptation, the adaptation processes and the outcomes [23].…”

Governance and planning in a ‘perfect storm’: Securitising climate change, migration and Covid-19 in Sweden

“…Securitising and de-securitising climate change have to a great extent been conducted as a dual technological, science-based challenge, thus legitimizing de-politicized policy, planning and implementation ( Klepp & Chavez-Rodriguez, 2020 ). What is not acknowledged to the same extent is that action on climate change may have serious in-securitising consequences, for example when adaptation creates or increases vulnerabilities (‘maladaptation’) or creates harm through policy and planning implementation ( Barnett & O’Neill, 2010 ; Glover & Granberg, 2021 ).Alternatively, it may also be understood as counter-securitising; that is when citizens, non-governmental organizations and scholars argue that ‘business-as-usual’ climate change action on different societal scales is insufficient and counter-productive, when it should rather lead to far-reaching and radical measures ( Aldunce et al, 2016 ; Lynas, 2020 ; Ripple et al, 2020 ; Rockström, 2020 ).…”