Adaptation to climate change has the potential to reduce vulnerability and generate significant socio-economic benefits (Tubi and Williams, 2021). However, the success or failure of adaptation efforts is influenced by the varied and widespread impacts of climate change, as well as a society’s ability to recognize and manage these effects (Smit and Pilifosova, 2003; UNFCCC, 2007; Torabi et al., 2018; Piggott-McKellar et al., 2020). As Dapilah and Nielsen (2020) highlights, adaptation strategies, irrespective of their intent or type, may fail to meet their objectives if they do not account for broader contextual issues and long-term implications.

Research on climate change adaptation distinguishes between adaptation in general and “successful” adaptation (Magnan et al., 2016). Some scholars, including Adger et al. (2005), define successful adaptation as the balance of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity achieved through decision-making structures that incorporate learning. On the other hand, Magnan et al. (2016), referencing Barnett and O’Neill (2010), adopt a more cautious perspective, suggesting that while unsuccessful adaptation may fail to meet its goals, it does not necessarily lead to significant harm.

Piggott-McKellar et al. (2020) describe successful adaptation as any adjustment that reduces climate-related risks or vulnerabilities to an acceptable level, without compromising economic, social, or environmental sustainability. Jones et al. (2015) further argue that successful adaptation should yield measurable benefits in reducing climate risks, without negatively impacting community well-being, while unsuccessful adaptation has little or no impact on mitigating these risks. However, there remains little consensus on how to define successful adaptation (Dilling et al., 2019; Westoby et al., 2020). Much of the debate stems from the fact that determining success is often tied to the specific goals of adaptation programs, which themselves are subject to critique and revision by the scientific community (Neset et al., 2019).

The success of an adaptation effort is typically assessed by its ability to reduce or avoid damage that would otherwise have occurred. However, this method of evaluation presents temporal and spatial challenges (Barnett and O’Neill, 2013). Some researchers argue that defining success solely based on goal achievement is problematic for two main reasons. First, an action may fulfill its immediate objectives but have unintended consequences at other scales, both in time and space. Second, adaptation actions that benefit one group may inadvertently create negative externalities, such as spillover effects, which increase risks for others or limit their adaptive capacities (Adger et al., 2005; Dapilah and Nielsen, 2020).

The international community is committed to achieving 169 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 and, in alignment with the Paris Agreement, advancing adaptation to climate change. However, researchers have pointed out that while there is potential for synergy between these objectives, the alignment remains challenged due to a limited understanding of the complex interactions between SDGs and climate change adaptation efforts (Fuldauer et al., 2022). A review of documented adaptation experiences in developing countries suggests that many responses to climate impacts have, in fact, contradicted sustainable development principles (Eriksen and Brown, 2011; Sakapaji and Puthenkalam, 2023). Additionally, several studies indicate that inefficient or unsustainable adaptation measures can worsen the effects of climate change and heighten community vulnerabilities (Adger et al., 2005). Such maladaptive approaches not only increase vulnerability but also risk undermining progress toward sustainable development (Guodaar et al., 2020).

Sustainable adaptation has emerged as a crucial component of efforts to raise awareness of climate change impacts on vulnerable communities and the broader implications for sustainable development (Yang et al., 2020). This approach advocates for targeted interventions that support climate adaptation, risk reduction, and poverty alleviation (Brown, 2011). The concept of sustainable adaptation recognizes the growing necessity of adaptation in the coming decades but acknowledges that there is still limited understanding of the broader, long-term impacts of these actions, and uncertainty remains about whether current responses are truly socially and environmentally sustainable (Eriksen and Brown, 2011). From the perspective of Shoko Kori and Kori (2022), sustainable adaptation involves strategies aimed at reducing vulnerability, enhancing resilience, and addressing underlying factors such as poverty that exacerbate vulnerability in the face of climate change. Meanwhile, Eriksen et al. (2011) define sustainable adaptation as “adaptation that contributes to socially and environmentally sustainable development pathways, including social justice and environmental integrity,” two fundamental pillars of sustainable development (Brown, 2011).

While the concepts of successful adaptation and sustainable adaptation share some commonalities, they are distinct in several key respects, particularly in terms of their focus and temporal frameworks (Santos et al., 2021). This distinction complicates the conceptual exchange between the two. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of adaptation strategies that properly address the concerns underlying the above concepts, there is a complementary concept that largely reflects the uncertainty of achieving the ideals of successful and sustainable adaptation: maladaptation.

The effectiveness of adaptation strategies has increasingly been called into question by researchers from multiple perspectives (Antoci et al., 2020). Despite the importance of reducing community vulnerability through adaptation, significant challenges remain in implementing these strategies (Guodaar et al., 2020; UNEP, 2019). In fact, many interventions not only fail to help communities cope with climate change but may also exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, limit future adaptive capacities, or undermine sustainable development efforts (Guodaar et al., 2020). These adverse outcomes are referred to as maladaptation (Fazey et al., 2011).

Maladaptation, a deviation from successful climate adaptation, manifests across various sectors and scales, influencing both individual behaviors and public policies (O’Hare et al., 2016; Reckien et al., 2023). Recognizing its profound implications, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has identified maladaptation as one of the emerging environmental challenges (UNEP, 2019). Broadly, maladaptation refers to actions intended to reduce vulnerability to climate change but that ultimately have detrimental effects on other systems or sectors, increasing their vulnerability (Barnett and O’Neill, 2013). Borrowed from evolutionary biology, the term was first applied to climate adaptation literature by Scheraga and Grambsch (1998), who noted that adaptive responses can sometimes have negative consequences for human health, the environment, and social welfare. The concept was later formalized in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, where maladaptation is defined as “any change in natural or human systems that inadvertently increases vulnerability to climatic stimuli, or adaptation that fails to reduce vulnerability but instead increases it” (IPCC, 2001, p. 990).

Another prominent definition is provided by Barnett and O’Neill (2010), p. 211, who describe maladaptation as actions that, while ostensibly designed to reduce vulnerability to climate change, inadvertently increase vulnerability in other systems, sectors, or social groups. They identify five pathways through which maladaptation can occur, serving as a framework for evaluating adaptation decisions to prevent potential negative outcomes (Brown, 2011). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines maladaptation as the reduction of a community’s adaptive capacity resulting from ineffective adaptation measures (UNFCCC, 2007). At its core, maladaptation refers to adaptation strategies that ultimately heighten the vulnerability of critical social groups and ecosystems essential for health and livelihoods (Christian-Smith et al., 2015). Juhola et al. (2016) extend the discussion by explaining that maladaptation arises when adaptation policies or measures directly increase the vulnerability of the targeted or external actors and erode the preconditions for sustainable development, thereby increasing societal vulnerability indirectly (Juhola et al., 2016, p. 139). They identify three potential maladaptive outcomes: rebound vulnerability, vulnerability displacement, and undermining sustainable development (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018). Schipper (2020) frames maladaptation as part of a continuum, with successful adaptation at the opposite end, emphasizing its evolving nature over time. This view aligns with Jones et al. (2015), who suggest that successful adaptation minimizes the risk of maladaptation. Consequently, the conceptual framework for this study is presented in Figure 1.

Local adaptation measures aimed at mitigating climate change can sometimes produce unintended negative consequences for natural resources, agriculture, and forests. Research has demonstrated that while community-level adaptation strategies are intended to address climate impacts, they may inadvertently lead to maladaptation and ecosystem degradation. For example, in Zimbabwe, adaptation efforts have, paradoxically, increased the long-term vulnerability of socio-ecological systems and reduced their adaptive capacity (Tanyanyiwa and Madobi, 2017). Similarly, in British Columbia, Canada, genomics-based assisted migration, a forest adaptation initiative, has been associated with technical failures, increased opportunity costs, and path dependency, potentially undermining its intended benefits (Findlater et al., 2021). Moreover, maladaptive responses can create self-reinforcing cycles, exacerbating the very climate challenges they aim to alleviate. A study of Indonesia’s Sadang watershed revealed that upstream deforestation as a drought response not only damaged local ecosystems but also increased downstream vulnerability by diverting water and creating new hazards (Naufal et al., 2023). In Ghana, agricultural and irrigation expansion (implemented as an adaptation measure) has contributed to deforestation, thereby disrupting the carbon cycle, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and intensifying climate change vulnerability (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018). Similarly, in California, drought adaptation efforts have unintentionally heightened vulnerabilities in other sectors, notably aquatic ecosystems and marginalized social groups (Christian-Smith et al., 2015). Masson-Delmotte et al. (2021) states that maladaptive practices in forest management and natural resource use often result from short-term solutions that overlook long-term ecological impacts. For instance, some afforestation projects or land use changes aimed at increasing carbon sequestration can unintentionally disrupt biodiversity, alter water cycles, or heighten fire risks.

These examples highlight that local adaptation strategies, if not carefully designed and implemented, can have far-reaching and detrimental effects on ecosystems. Such interventions may disturb the delicate balance between ecosystems and human societies, compromising essential resources like forests and groundwater, and diminishing ecosystem resilience. Ultimately, these disruptions jeopardize the fundamental well-being of human communities (Allen et al., 2010; Flannigan et al., 2009; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

While researchers have expressed concerns that a lack of understanding about maladaptation could significantly weaken the broader field of climate adaptation studies (Tubi and Williams, 2021), Magnan (2014) highlights that maladaptation remains underexplored within academic discourse, with limited attempts to investigate its diverse dimensions thoroughly. Despite its growing importance, maladaptation has attracted insufficient research attention (Chi et al., 2021). Some scholars, emphasizing the context-specific nature of adaptation, are reluctant to propose a universal definition of maladaptation (Westoby et al., 2020; Dilling et al., 2019). In contrast, others argue that establishing a shared terminology and definition is essential to effectively address challenges like maladaptation. Such clarity is not only vital for recognizing the extent of its effects but also provides a structured basis for advancing scholarly discussion (Noble et al., 2014).

This study aligns with the latter perspective, seeking to redefine the concept of maladaptation from a more comprehensive standpoint. By examining existing definitions in the literature and soliciting expert opinions, the aim is to develop a more robust and inclusive understanding of maladaptation.

Content analysis encompasses a family of systematic review techniques used to examine the informational content of written, verbal, or visual communications (Forman and Damschroder, 2007; Kyngäs et al., 2019). Initially applied in the 19th century to analyze newspaper and magazine articles (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008), it has since gained prominence in fields such as health, psychology, and sociology (Forman and Damschroder, 2007; Rimmel and Cordazzo, 2021).

As both a research method and a data analysis tool, content analysis offers a structured and objective means of describing and interpreting concepts, enhancing the analysis of theoretical issues (Sandelowski, 1995). It involves grouping words into related categories under the assumption that terms classified together share similar meanings (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Kyngäs et al., 2019). This process supports a deeper understanding of texts and facilitates the discovery of underlying messages (Shrivastava and Ansari, 2010).

Originally grounded in a quantitative, positivist framework, content analysis has evolved over time, transitioning into a more interpretive approach within the hermeneutic paradigm (Lindgren et al., 2020). Although various types of content analysis now exist within both quantitative and qualitative research, they all share the fundamental goal of systematically classifying textual data to improve understanding. The primary distinctions lie in how categories are generated and applied, as well as the techniques used to analyze the findings (Forman and Damschroder, 2007; Sheydayi and Dadashpoor, 2023).

In this phase, the identified categories and subcategories from the previous stage are refined through a third round of coding. This step ensures the accuracy of the relationships between subcategories and their corresponding higher-level categories, as well as clarifies any ambiguous subcategories or overly broad categories. The coding process is revisited at the level of subcategory components, allowing for a more comprehensive and precise understanding of the extracted definitions. The refined coding tree is presented in Table 6, offering clearer insights into the structure and interrelations of the data.

In this stage, the categories and subcategories identified in previous phases are consolidated into a cohesive framework. This framework lays the foundation for a comprehensive definition, synthesizing insights from the diverse definitions encountered in the research literature. Using an inductive qualitative content analysis approach, we systematically reviewed, compared, and categorized the data, which led to the development of a well-rounded definition of maladaptation. Furthermore, after gathering feedback and comments from 6 researchers involved in the study of maladaptation worldwide through a focus group and incorporating their suggestions and critiques, the study proposes the following refined definition:

This definition was developed by analyzing various dimensions of maladaptive behaviors and their impacts from multiple perspectives of researchers and experts in this field over the past three decades. It is derived from key conceptual elements present in prominent definitions of maladaptation found in the literature and reflects critical insights emphasized by leading scholars in this domain.