Development geography II: Community-based adaptation and locally-led adaptation

Abstract

In this report, I review the concept of community-based adaptation, showing how it morphed from a participatory development-informed approach centred around agency and empowerment to one which is often externally driven, focusing on a spatial, rather than social, definition of community. I then highlight how locally-led adaptation is attempting to re-focus attention on agency, whilst also managing a conceptualisation of ‘local’ that is not limited to the community-level. Since the concept of locally-led adaptation is emerging, it is critical to learn from participatory development and the critiques of community-based adaptation to ensure that it is not also diluted from its intentions.

Keywords

Climate change agency participatory development United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change power relations

I Introduction

Critical and post-development theory ask us to interrogate hegemonic knowledge systems and unequal power relations when considering what ‘development’ is and who decides. This is particularly pertinent in the face of global development challenges, such as climate change. The most recent IPCC Assessment Report noted that we have a ‘small and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future’ (IPCC, 2022). Urgent adaptation is required – and questions arise in how to enable this in the most equitable and effective manner.

In my first progress report, I highlighted how co-production has significant potential to ‘promote inclusion, interrogate power relations and hegemonic knowledge systems and create the new knowledge required to promote more just and sustainable development outcomes’ in line with critical and post-development theory (Vincent, 2022: 88). However, I also cautioned that this potential is unlikely to be met if we do not learn from the critiques of participatory development. In this second report, I examine the links between two different concepts that have arisen in adaptation to climate change: community-based adaptation and locally-led adaptation. Similarities in critiques between participatory development and community-based adaptation have already arisen, and it is essential that the more recently emerging concept of locally-led adaptation learns from them in order to avoid the same pitfalls.

Community-based adaptation was closely aligned with the concept of participatory approaches to development. These participatory approaches to development recognise that local populations have significant useful experiential knowledge and should drive their own development, as opposed to it being externally-imposed by outsiders. The same applies to adaptation, where local needs, priority and agency can be capitalised upon in order to reduce climate risk. Although non-government organisations have long been prominent in supporting community-based adaptation, as the number of successful examples increased, more outside actors (such as donors) began to focus on this mechanism. However, this risked dilution of the original intention. Critiques have subsequently shown that, rather than being community-driven and inclusive of different knowledges, much community-based adaptation became a synonym for adaptation activities that happened to take place among a group of people (typically in one spatial location).

More recently, the concept of locally-led adaptation has begun to gain traction. This terminology is still relatively new – even if the underlying idea is not. Emerging literature (presented below) shows that locally-led adaptation often signals a return to the original intentions of community-based adaptation, aligned with participatory development, that is, ownership, agency and empowerment. However, in this case ‘locally-led’ may be relative. Thus, whilst it may refer to community-driven adaptation, on a global scale it may also encompass higher units of analysis (e.g. in the international policy arena, an idea generating from a country may be considered locally-led). As locally-led adaptation evolves, it is important to learn from the lessons of both participatory development and community-based adaptation and ensure that these intentions do not get watered down or fade through capture by other actors.

II Community-based adaptation

Community-based adaptation grew in popularity around the turn of the century as evidence on climate change, and hence the need to adapt, became stronger. In the international policy arena under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate change has typically been polarised into mitigation (of the causes) and adaptation (to the consequences). At least in the early days, there was also a scale-discontinuity here, with the global commons nature of the atmosphere meaning that mitigation efforts had to be planned at the global scale, whilst adaptation had to take place at the local level (Ayers, 2011). As such, community-based adaptation grew in popularity.

Community-based adaptation to climate change can be defined as ‘a community-led process, based on communities' priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should empower people to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change’ (Reid et al., 2009:13). There is therefore clear alignment with participatory approaches to development, which recognise that local populations have significant useful experiential knowledge and should drive their own futures, as opposed to it being externally-imposed by outsiders. As with participatory development, early community-based adaptation focused on grassroots level identification of climate risk and appropriate adaptation solutions through participatory processes that were intended to be inclusive and empowering of community members in process as well as outcome (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). There was a particular focus on poor and marginalised communities, with many examples from across the global South, spanning Asia Pacific, South Asia and Africa (many examples of the latter, in particular, are also found in grey literature). However, community-based adaptation has also been observed in the global North, for example, in Canada among Arctic communities (Ford et al., 2016).

Like participatory development, community-based adaptation was often supported by non-government organisations, but also arose autonomously in many circumstances. In the Solomon Islands, for example, where sea level rise is a hazard, men and women from two villages worked together to independently fund and build a raised walkway between two villages, and seawalls to protect areas that are regularly flooded (Asugeni et al., 2019). Many other examples exist from around the world covering different sectors: including rural livelihoods and agriculture (e.g. Wright et al., 2014) urban environments (e.g. Fox et al., 2021), health (e.g. Bardosh et al., 2017), and particular population groups, for example children (Mitchell and Borchard, 2014).

With success stories arising from case studies, attention on community-based adaptation evolved over time. This included discussion of how to scale up successes (e.g. Schipper et al., 2014), and how to integrate the approaches in higher level processes, such as national level planning (Reid and Huq, 2014). In Nepal, for example, as well as national level adaptation planning, Local Adaptation Plans of Action provided some opportunities to link across scales through top-down and bottom-up approaches that were otherwise sometimes challenging (e.g. Ghimire and Chetri, 2022). As the body of evidence for community-based adaptation increased, it was also possible to begin teasing out the nature of enablers of and barriers to success. A meta-analysis of 128 publications found that enablers of community-based adaptation included the use of participatory approaches, recognition that adaptation is a social process, and the support of initiatives at various scales (McNamara and Buggy, 2017). Community-based adaptation was also more likely to be successful when the initiatives exhibited local ownership and appreciation of local realities and provided shared access and benefit from initiatives (McNamara et al., 2020).

III Critiques of community-based adaptation

In a similar way that a growing body of evidence and maturity of concept enables identification of enablers, it also raises the opportunity for critiques. Whilst not necessarily a critique of community-based adaptation itself, one major realisation has been that vulnerabilities and inequalities are (re)produced across scales (e.g. Barnett, 2020; Sultana, 2021). A community focus alone was insufficient to meet required adaptation needs, and instead adaptation needs to take place across scales, from community to sub-national to national to international, and what it looks like varies at these different levels (Adger et al., 2005). Scaling up community-based adaptation is very difficult, as community-level actions are not necessarily appropriate at other scales (Forsyth, 2013). Even though community-based adaptation can successfully promote participatory processes, many examples have not made attempts to link with the broader political structures, nor to engage with the more structural drivers of vulnerability, for example, market forces and service access (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013; Dixit et al., 2011). Thus, on their own, even multiple examples of community-based adaptation are insufficient at a macro-scale.

In addition, scrutiny of much community-based adaptation highlights issues at the intra-community level. Critiques of participatory development showed that many efforts were performative and reinforced existing power differences, rather than challenging and dismantling them (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). In a similar vein, the nature of participation in community-based adaptation is not automatically inclusive. Communities are not homogeneous groups that are free of power relations and conflict (Li, 1996). Failure to consider existing power relationships and conflict, particularly by externally supported projects, can run the risk of reinforcing exclusion and undermining success in community-based adaptation as it did in participatory development. A review of community-based projects in Vanuatu over the past 50 years found that the biggest inhibitor of success related to issues of social dynamics, power relations and changing traditional norms (Buggy and McNamara, 2016).

Gender differences are a prominent example of social dynamics and power relations that can easily be overlooked in community-based adaptation. In a Decentralised Climate Funds project in Senegal, women participated to differing extents, from nominally and passively to substantively and actively. Drivers behind the differential levels of inclusion related to women’s social capital and networks, the extent to which they play active roles in income generation, and the nature of intrahousehold dynamics (Patnaik, 2021). In Vanuatu, religion played a key role, with community-based adaptation projects being more successful when there was equal participation and benefit among those of Christian faith (Clissold et al., 2019). Although there is less published literature on it, other dimensions of social identity and the power accorded to them are likely to influence community-based adaptation in the same way that they influence vulnerability.

Cleavages also began to arise between community-based adaptation that was autonomous and driven by communities themselves compared with efforts that were externally-enabled by projects. When projects are externally supported, there can be a disconnect between the objectives of the project implementer and the priorities and perspectives of the local communities. When this happens, participants are likely to prioritise personal benefits over collective gain (Masud-All-Kamal et al., 2022). It can also lead to intended goals being undermined – for example in the Vanuatu example, an evaluation of an externally-enabled project showed that there were both negative outlooks on sustainability and a lack of improvement in natural assets (Clissold et al., 2019). Likewise in tidal flood-prone coastal communities in the Philippines, seawalls and rainwater collectors were installed by a project to reduce flooding and saline intrusion on freshwater, but there was poor community participation. This was in contrast to the preferred adaptation options for communities, which was raising the floors of their homes using coral rubble and plastic waste. Whilst community members attempted to implement these latter options, there was little external funding for these autonomous adaptations (Jamero et al., 2018).

External support to community-based adaptation is often very well-intentioned. However, in addition to competing priorities, the intense difficulty of clashing knowledge systems can still undermine success even when efforts are explicitly made to be sensitive to local norms. One project in coastal Bangladesh, for example, sought to address gender inequality and support local agency through facilitating the building of social capital through the formation of community-based organisations led by vulnerable groups. This had the potential to address the critiques of potential for exclusion and showed good intentions in appreciating local dynamics. However, a combination of the embedded socio-cultural norms and the assumptions by the external organisations about what social capital looked like and how to build it did not fully align and hence it was also not successful post-project (Masud-All-Kamal et al., 2021).

It is perhaps unsurprising that two meta-analysis studies on barriers to community-based adaptation both focused on examples of planned activities implemented by outsiders (whether donors, non-government organisations or climate finance). From these examples, they also identified common barriers to the success of community-based adaptation (Piggott-McKellar et al., 2019; Spires et al., 2014). The most commonly-observed barriers were socio-political. Socio-political barriers relate to the context in which community-based adaptation projects are implemented, and include inconsistencies between project and community priorities, poor coordination among governance structures (e.g. between communities and regional and national government), difficulties of communication including across scientific and traditional knowledge systems, and uneven power relations that can lead to inequitable access to benefits as a result of elite capture. Resource barriers were the next most common category of obstacles, comprising limitations of finances, human resources, technology, information and infrastructure that impede implementation. Other barriers that were noted as impeding success on more limited occasions were defined as physical and included examples of project benefits being undone by climate exposure (for example erosion of flood protection).

In short, community-based approaches were intended to be community-driven and bottom-up, informed by learning from participatory development. There are examples of community-based adaptations that have improved the resilience of livelihoods. Mapping the achievements of community-based adaptation initiatives in Timor-Leste and the Solomon Islands against 10 resilience criteria showed that community-based adaptation does often build resilience (Ensor et al., 2018). However, the chances of sustainable success tend to be greater when they are community-driven and not externally-managed. Many non-governmental organisations and other actors have sought to support community-based adaptation. However, far from being automatically ‘good’, many of these examples have often been contradictory to the very intentions of enabling local agency (Masud-All-Kamal and Nursey-Bray, 2021; Kirkby et al., 2018). This mirrors what happened with participatory development when it rose in popularity. Here also various development partners were keen to embrace the approach of participatory development as being both efficient and empowering (Cleaver, 1999). However, simplistic notions of community, the failure to fully recognise the starting local dynamics and too much external influence and competing knowledge systems undermines success (Masud-All-Kamal and Nursey-Bray, 2021). In short, such initiatives failed when people did not participate (Reid, 2016). ‘Community’ was captured to become the place where projects are rolled out, as opposed to an appreciation of a socio-political context (Buggy and McNamara, 2016).

IV Emergence of locally-led adaptation

As cracks began to appear in community-based adaptation, the allied concept of locally-led adaptation has grown in prominence in recent years, again with particular focus on the global South. Locally-led adaptation offers the potential to address some of the critiques of community-based adaptation. First, whilst community-based adaptation focuses at the grassroots level at the expense of other levels, locally-led adaptation can take relative definitions of ‘local’. Within a country, this may include the grassroots level, but in the global policy arena through the UNFCCC, it may also reflect greater intention for agenda setting at national level by countries, particularly from the global South. Second, it offers the opportunity to get back to the original ethos of community-based adaptation that became somewhat diluted and hijacked by external actors – that is, local ownership, agency and empowerment. To date, literature has focused on the concept of locally-led adaptation, although there are emerging examples in Asia Pacific, South Asia and Africa (following the trends seen with community-based adaptation).

Examples from Asia Pacific show exactly how locally-led adaptation may be able to return to the original ethos of community-based adaptation and address some of its critiques. Research in the coastal belt of Bangladesh, a peri-urban informal settlement in the Philippines and a small rural island in Vanuatu shows that there is still a great need for adaptation to occur locally and, with appropriate financial support, it is possible to achieve more equitable, effective and sustainable adaptation outcomes through appropriately addressing local vulnerabilities (Westoby et al., 2021). In particularly, locally-led adaptation can capitalise on the fact that communities do not exist in isolation, and enable some of the cross-scalar changes that are needed to enable and sustain adaptation at community level (Westoby et al., 2020). Although locally-led adaptation is an emerging concept and thus appears much less in the literature than community-based adaptation, where it does appear, it refers to the importance of local framings of issues (Beauchamp et al., 2021); or to more inclusive governance processes (Mfitumukiza et al., 2020).

However, whilst there is potentially for locally-led adaptation to re-centre local issues, there is also the risk that these agendas may be captured and diverted as with community-based adaptation (and participatory development before it). Particular concerns arise here because, although locally-led adaptation is still happening autonomously, the concept (and hence politicisation) of locally-led adaptation is being strongly pushed through the international policy arena under the UNFCCC. One of the driving motivations for the growth of the concept has been to improve the distribution of adaptation finance, which has been subject to its own critiques of a landscape too driven by external actors and donors than the intended recipient countries, and people within countries, that such finance is intended to support (e.g. Mikulewicz, 2020).

Adaptation finance is made available under the UNFCCC through various funds intended to support climate action, such as the Green Climate Fund, Least Developed Countries Fund, Special Climate Change Fund and Adaptation Fund. For adaptation there is a particular focus on transfer of resources from global North to global South in recognition of the inequities in the causes and consequences of climate change, i.e the fact that adaptation has to happen in the global South despite this region contributing historically fewer greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Despite this aim for North-South transfer, and stated commitments to local delivery, there are long-held and entrenched critiques around how this finance is inadequate and not getting to where it is intended (e.g. Garschagen and Doshi, 2022; Saviddou et al., 2021). Given gaps in receipt at national level, it is not surprising that there remain strong challenges around its inaccessibility to the intended recipients. Evidence shows that very small proportions of the international finance flows make it to the local level (Omukuti et al., 2022). When it does reach local level, its distribution is rarely linked to vulnerability and need (Barrett, 2014). Even at micro-level, access to and the distribution of benefits from adaptation finance is subject to patronage and elite capture (e.g. Browne and Razafiarimanana, 2022).

The imperative to overcome the failures of adaptation finance has contributed to the development of eight principles of locally-led adaptation that are currently being promoted and championed by a small group of organisations working in adaptation (Table 1). Over 100 non-governmental organisations, research institutions, and donors have now signed up in commitment to follow these principles. These principles place strong emphasis on participation, ownership, driving agendas and leading decisions (incorporating inclusion of indigenous and generational knowledge). Intentions are thus firmly aligned with the original aim of community-based adaptation to be locally driven. In addition, and reflecting the adaptation finance critiques, elements of equitable allocation of adaptation finance are also explicit in the third, seventh and eighth principles.

Table 1.

Principles of locally-led adaptation (Source: Soanes et al., 2021).

• Devolving decision making to the lowest appropriate level

• Addressing structural inequalities faced by women, youth, children, disabled, displaced, Indigenous Peoples and marginalised ethnic groups

• Providing patient and predictable funding that can be accessed more easily

• Investing in local capabilities to leave an institutional legacy

• Building a robust understanding of climate risk and uncertainty

• Flexible programming and learning

• Ensuring transparency and accountability

• Collaborative action and investment

In terms of origins, the drive for locally-led adaptation was from the global South, through the Least Developed Countries Group under the UNFCCC. This group launched a 2050 Vision at the 2019 Climate Action Summit which includes that all LDCs should be on climate-resilient development pathways by 2030. Whilst the origin was from a group of countries that could be considered ‘local’ on the global stage, the subsequent development of the principles was spearheaded by the Global Commission on Adaptation in partnership with the World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development. Thus, whilst the predominant framing of locally-led adaptation to date may be very well-intentioned, it is being driven at the high level in the international policy arena and by international organisations that are, themselves, very far from the grassroots. Care will therefore need to be taken over coming years to ensure that the agenda is not (inadvertently) diluted and diverted from well-intentioned aims.

V Conclusion

The magnitude of climate change as a problem has grown over time, and the imperative for adaptation action remains ever more pressing. The entry points for adaptation are critical (Conway and Mustelin, 2014), and are now recognised to require actions at a variety of levels. Community-based adaptation was a common approach that initially arose at the turn of the century and was aligned with the concept of participatory development, recognising that local populations should be able to identify challenges of climate change and lead the solutions for them through empowering and inclusive processes. There are successful examples of this – and autonomous, community-driven, community-based adaptation still happens and will continue to be important for local adaptation. However, much community-based adaptation evolved to be externally implemented from non-government organisations and other development actors. This impeded its success in reducing climate risk, and the initial intentions for community-driven actions were supplanted by ‘community’ being viewed as a place for action, rather than a socio-political entry point. Many of the critiques of community-based adaptation mirrored those seen earlier in participatory development, that is, that priorities became externally rather than internally defined, which undermined the intention of supporting local agency and reinforced existing power relations – both within communities, and between communities and the external actors.

That said, there remains widespread understanding that equitable and effective adaptations are more likely when communities themselves determine their own strategies and development actors can provide enabling support (Pisor et al., 2022). The concept of locally-led adaptation has emerged to try and recapture some of the initial intentions of community-based adaptation, with a focus on agency, and a reconceptualisation of ‘local’. However, locally-led adaptation is currently being led mainly in the international policy arena, with a prominent role by international actors. Care thus needs to be taken to ensure that it too learns from the critiques of participatory development and community-based adaptation and does not lose sight of its intentions over time in supporting adaptation to climate change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Nina Laurie and Noel Castree for helpful editorial comments.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katharine Vincent

References

Adger

Arnell

Tompkins

(2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15: 77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005.

Asugeni

Redman-MacLaren

Asugeni

, et al. (2019) A community builds a “bridge”: An example of community-led adaptation to sea-level rise in East Kwaio, Solomon Islands. Climate and Development 11(1): 91–96. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2017.1411239

Ayers

(2011) Resolving the adaptation paradox: Exploring the potential for deliberative adaptation policy-making in Bangladesh. Global Environmental Politics 11(1): 62–88. DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00043

Ayers

Forsyth

(2009) Community based adaptation to climate change: Strengthening resilience through development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51: 22–31. DOI: 10.3200/ENV.51.4.22-31

Bardosh

Ryan

Ebi

, et al. (2017) Addressing vulnerability, building resilience: community-based adaptation to vector-borne diseases in the context of global change. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 6: 166. DOI: 10.1186/s40249-017-0375-2

Barnett

(2020) Global environmental change II: Political economies of vulnerability to climate change. Progress in Human Geography 44(6): 1172–1184. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519898254

Barrett

(2014) Subnational climate justice? Adaptation finance distribution and climate vulnerability. World Development 58: 130–142.

Beauchamp

Sainsbury

Greene

, et al. (2021) Aligning resilience and wellbeing outcomes for locally-led adaptation in Tanzania. Sustainability 13(16): 8976. DOI: 10.3390/su13168976

Browne

Razafiarimanana

(2022) Adaptation finance failing to reach the most vulnerable: A multi-level model of household political power in Madagascar. PLOS Climate 1(12): e0000050.

10.

Buggy

McNamara

(2016) The need to reinterpret “community” for climate change adaptation: A case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Climate and Development 8(3): 270–280. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2015.1041445

11.

Cleaver

(1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development 11: 597–612.

12.

Clissold

McNamara

(2019) Exploring local perspectives on the performance of a community-based adaptation project on Aniwa, Vanuatu. Climate and Development 12(5): 457–468. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1640656

13.

Conway

Mustelin

(2014) Strategies for improving adaptation practice in developing countries. Nature Climate Change 4: 339–342. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2199

14.

Cooke

Kothari

(eds) (2001) Participation, the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

15.

Dixit

McGray

Gonzales

, et al. (2011) Ready or not: Assessing national institutional capacity for climate change adaptation. Lessons for Planners from the Pilot Applications of the National Adaptive Capacity Framework. In: WRI Working Paper. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

16.

Dodman

Mitlin

(2013) Challenges for community-based adaptation: discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development 25(5): 640–659. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1772

17.

Ensor

Park

Attwood

, et al. (2018) Can community-based adaptation increase resilience? Climate and Development 10(2): 134–151. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2016.1223595

18.

Ford

Stephenson

Cunsolo Willox

, et al. (2016) Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change 7(2): 175–191.

19.

Forsyth

(2013) Community-based adaptation: a review of past and future challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4(5): 439–446.

20.

Fox

Ziervogel

Scheba

(2021) Strengthening Community-Based Adaptation for Urban Transformation: Managing Flood Risk in Informal Settlements. Cape Town: Local Environment. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2021.1923000

21.

Garschagen

Doshi

(2022) Does funds-based adaptation finance reach the most vulnerable countries? Global Environmental Change 73: 102450. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102450

22.

Ghimire

Chhetri

(2022) Challenges and prospects of Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPA) initiative in Nepal as everyday adaptation. Ecology and Society 27(4): 28. DOI: 10.5751/es-13630-270428

23.

Jamero

Onuki

Esteban

, et al. (2018) Community-based adaptation in low-lying islands in the Philippines: Challenges and lessons learned. Regional Environmental Change 18: 2249–2260. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-018-1332-8

24.

IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 3056. DOI: 10.1017/9781009325844.

25.

Kirkby

Williams

Huq

(2018) Community-based adaptation (CBA): Adding conceptual clarity to the approach, and establishing its principles and challenges. Climate and Development 10(7): 577–589. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2017.1372265

26.

(1996) Images of community: Discourse and strategy in property relations. Development and Change 27: 501–527.

27.

Masud-All-Kamal

Nursey-Bray

(2021) Socially just community-based climate change adaptation? Insights from Bangladesh. Local Environment 26(9): 1092–1108. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2021.1962829

28.

Masud-All-Kamal

Nursey-Bray

Hassan

(2021) Challenges to building social capital through planned adaptation: Evidence from rural communities in Bangladesh. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 3: 100091. DOI: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100091

29.

Masud-All-Kamal

Nursey-Bray

(2022) Best intentions and local realities: Unseating assumptions about implementing planned community-based adaptation in Bangladesh. Climate and Development 14(9): 794–803. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2021.2003177

30.

McNamara

Buggy

(2017) Community-based climate change adaptation: A review of academic literature. Local Environment 22(4): 443–460. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1216954

31.

McNamara

Clissold

Westoby

, et al. (2020) An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands. Nature Climate Change 10(7): 628–639. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0813-1

32.

Mfitumukiza

Roy

Simane

, et al. (2020) Scaling local and community-based adaptation. In: Global Commission on Adaptation Background Paper. Rotterdam and Washington, DC. Available online at www.gca.org/global-commission-on-adaptation/report/papers

33.

Mikulewicz

(2020) The discursive politics of adaptation to climate change. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(6): 1807–1830. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1736981

34.

Mitchell

Borchard

(2014) Mainstreaming children's vulnerabilities and capacities into community-based adaptation to enhance impact. Climate and Development 6(4): 372–381. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.934775

35.

Omukuti

Barrett

White

PCL

, et al. (2022) The Green Climate Fund and its shortcomings in local delivery of adaptation finance. Climate Policy 22(9): 1225–1240. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2022.2093152

36.

Patnaik

(2021) Gender and participation in community based adaptation: Evidence from the decentralized climate funds project in Senegal. World Development 142: 105448. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105448.

37.

Piggott-McKellar

McNamara

Nunn

, et al. (2019) What are the barriers to successful community-based climate change adaptation? A review of grey literature. Local Environment 24(2): 374–390. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2019.1580688

38.

Pisor

Basurto

Douglass

, et al. (2022) Effective climate change adaptation means supporting community autonomy. Nature Climate Change 12: 213–215. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01303-x

39.

Reid

(2016) Ecosystem and community-based adaptation: Learning from community-based natural resource management. Climate and Development 8(1): 4–9. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2015.1034233

40.

Reid

Huq

(2014) Mainstreaming community-based adaptation into national and local planning. Climate and Development 6(4): 291–292. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.973720

41.

Reid

Alam

Berger

, et al. (2009) PLA 60: Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change. IIED, 224.

42.

Savvidou

Atteridge

Omari-Motsumi

, et al. (2021) Quantifying international public finance for climate change adaptation in Africa. Climate Policy 21(8): 1020–1036. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1978053

43.

Schipper

ELF

Ayers

Reid

, et al. (2014) Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change: Scaling it up. London: Routledge.

44.

Soanes

Bahadur

Shakya

, et al. (2021) Principles for Locally Led Adaptation: A Call to Action. London: IIED. http://pubs.iied.org/10211IIED

45.

Spires

Shackleton

Cundill

(2014) Barriers to implementing planned community-based adaptation in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Climate and Development 6(3): 277–287. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.886995

46.

Sultana

(2021) Climate change, COVID-19, and the coproduction of injustices: A feminist reading of overlapping crises. Social and Cultural Geography 22(4): 447–460. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2021.1910994

47.

Vincent

(2022) Development Geography I: Co-production. Progress in Human Geography 46(3): 890–897.

48.

Westoby

McNamara

Kumar

, et al. (2020) From community-based to locally led adaptation: Evidence from Vanuatu. Ambio 49: 1466–1473.

49.

Westoby

Clissold

McNamara

, et al. (2021) Locally led adaptation: Drivers for appropriate grassroots initiatives. Local Environment 26(2): 313–319. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2021.1884669

50.

Wright

Vermeulen

Laganda

, et al. (2014) Farmers, food and climate change: Ensuring community-based adaptation is mainstreamed into agricultural programmes. Climate and Development 6(4): 318–328. DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.965654