3.1. Barnett and O’Neil [2] without verstehen

Barnett and O’Neil’s [2] schema has dominated several studies worldwide. McEvoy and Wilder [10] relied on it to assess the impacts of a desalination project in the US Arizona-Sonora region, highlighting greenhouse gas emissions and disproportionate burdening of the poor as unintended consequences. Though the longitudinal study included interviews, it did not present verstehen perspectives in support of the authors’ claims. Similarly, while Guodaar et al. [11] argued that adaptation strategies, such as the application of agrochemicals to increase crop yields, increase greenhouse gas emissions, using organic or alternative nitrogen-fixation methods significantly reduced emissions. Thus, it is misleading to conclude that fertilizer application results in emissions without interrogating different types of agrochemicals. In another case, Albizua et al. [3] quantitatively analyzed maladaptive outcomes of an irrigation project, arguing that it would disproportionately burden small-scale farmers. However, without engaging farmers, the assessment is incomplete.

Chapman et al. [12] followed Barnett and O’Neil’s [2] maladaptation framework. In Vietnam, Chapman et al. [12] highlighted the trade-offs associated with transitioning from double- to triple-cropping in rice production. While this may suggest maladaptation, the authors failed to support this claim by engaging participants. The study nonetheless concluded that shifting from double- to triple-cropping incurs significant costs and path dependency. When trying to understand how adaptation strategies are producing maladaptive outcomes, it is vital to engage local knowledge.

Relatedly, Boutroue et al. [13] followed Barnett and O’Neil’s [2] typology to assess maladaptation in Spain, France, and South Africa. Although they included interviews, their work reveals a lack of verstehen. Indeed, their conclusions that the French Aqua Domitia project, the South African iceberg melting, and Spanish irrigation modernization would result in maladaptive outcomes were based on available typologies, not local people’s views. Work et al.’s [14] study on potential maladaptation in three projects in Cambodia follows the same pattern. Interviews form the core of their methodology; yet, participant perspectives are largely absent from the analysis. The authors identified maladaptation outcomes from three projects: rehabilitation of the Lum Hach irrigation dam, a management initiative for protected forest areas, and the Think Biotech Cambodia reforestation project. Based on Barnett and O’Neil’s [2] work, they outlined outcomes such as environmental costs, worsening of existing vulnerabilities, and greenhouse gas emissions. Similar findings emerged in Rodriguez-Solorzano’s [15] assessment of adaptation strategies in the Calakmul and Maya biospheres, reporting that strategies such as diversification, migration, and pooling could lead to increased deforestation. The author employed a mixed-methods approach, but the quantitative analysis overshadowed the discussion, with no evidence of participant experiences.

3.2. Juhola et al. [5] without verstehen

Other researchers have applied Juhola et al.‘s [5] typology to assess maladaptation outcomes. In Ghana, Asare-Nuamah et al. [4] demonstrated that adaptation strategies employed by smallholder farmers resulted in maladaptation characterized by rebounding and shifting vulnerability, and depletion of sustainable development. However, their qualitative work lacks an essential component: verstehen, relying instead on Juhola et al. [5]. Similarly, in São Tomé and Príncipe, Mikulewicz [16] observed that the production of “aguardiente,” a sugarcane-based alcoholic beverage, inadvertently led to maladaptation. Embraced by women and youth as a substitute for their struggling livelihoods, the aguardiente production value chain relies on intermediaries who exploit local distillers. While I do not dispute the validity of this analysis, participant perspectives on rebounding vulnerability would make a significant contribution to maladaptation literature. Both Asare-Nuamah [4] and Mikulewicz [16] conducted qualitative studies; yet, they overlooked a fundamental element of qualitative research: participant input.

Pritchard and Thielemans [17] reported that the construction of embankments in rural India exacerbated social and economic inequality. They noted that embankments constructed to protect flood-prone areas led to social maladaptation, diminishing women’s privacy, personal hygiene, and meals. This form of maladaptation falls within the scope of Juhola et al.’s [5] typology of rebounding vulnerability; however, the study failed to provide evidence of participant engagement in reaching this conclusion. While they identified maladaptation from farmers’ interventions using Juhola et al. [5], they did not show how participants interpreted maladaptation. Relatedly, Antwi-Agyei et al. [18] assessed maladaptation but did not adequately demonstrate how people defined and understood it. Indeed, only two of the sixteen verstehen perspectives in their work address maladaptation, not enough to serve as a basis for determining maladaptation. They simply listed Juhola et al.’s [5] typology as the expected outcome of farmers’ adaptation strategies. Also relying on Juhola et al.’s [5] typology, Biella et al. [19] identified archetypes for maladaptive outcomes such as “fixes that fail, band-aid solutions, success to successful, tragedy of the commons, and eroding ambitions”. Given their objective to analyze the risks of maladaptation arising from climate services, verbatim quotations from participants would have provided greater insight into how they constructed the maladaptive types.