The cardinal question addressed in this paper is: Are there cases when adaptation to climate change does not work in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)? The answer to this critical question is in the affirmative. This paper aims to investigate why and how certain adaptation strategies in SSA fail to achieve their intended outcomes, a phenomenon currently referred to in the literature as maladaptation [1]-[5]. It highlights key drivers of maladaptation, including top-down planning, poor stakeholder engagement, socio-cultural disconnects, and short-termism. By unpacking empirical cases from Kenya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nigeria, the paper aims to generate lessons that can inform future adaptation practice and policy in Africa and beyond. The first assignment undertaken in this paper is to provide a brief history of the debate, second, to identify the appropriate theoretical and conceptual underpinnings for analysis, and third, to offer some relevant examples from SSA where adaptation to climate change has not been effective. After that, the paper concludes and provides some recommendations.

The use of maladaptation as a concept in the space of climate change dates back to the late 1990s. For example, [6] referred to it indirectly through nine principles that characterize effective adaptation, including the importance of accounting for “potential adverse side effects of adaptive strategies… to avoid solutions that are worse than the problem” (p. 85). According to their interpretation, “maladaptation can result in negative effects that are as serious as the climate-induced effects being avoided” (p. 87). The term also appears in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, which defines maladaptation as “an adaptation that does not succeed in reducing vulnerability but increases it instead” ([7], p. 990). On the other hand, [8] and [9] also mention the term maladaptation in their work. More recently, [1], [10] and [11], while describing the responses to water stress engineering in the city of Melbourne (Australia), refer to “an action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups” (p. 211). Very recently, the IPCC Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5-WGII) [12] contains numerous references to the concept, including a one-page section dedicated to “Addressing Maladaptation” [13]. From the above, there is every indication that there is a scholarship of maladaptation, and that the concept is making its way into the mainstream, but it does not yet imply clarity on what it means. The glossary of the AR5-WGII report proposed to define maladaptation as: “Actions that may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, increased vulnerability to climate change, or diminished welfare, now or in the future” [12]. This definition is partly derived from that developed in November 2012 by sixteen experts during a three-day workshop on the maladaptation issue: “Maladaptation is a process that results in increased vulnerability to climate variability and change, directly or indirectly, and/or significantly undermines capacities or opportunities for present and future adaptation” ([3], p. 3).

The maladaptation debate gained traction as development and adaptation projects, especially in the Global South, came under scrutiny for failing to account for local contexts, perpetuating inequalities, or locking communities into unsustainable practices [1]. For instance, large-scale irrigation, seawalls, or reliance on air conditioning have at times provided short-term relief but intensified long-term environmental or social vulnerabilities. [1] were instrumental in advancing the maladaptation debate by proposing five key characteristics of maladaptive actions: they increase greenhouse gas emissions, disproportionately burden the most vulnerable, reduce incentives to adapt, have high opportunity costs, or set paths that limit future options. As aptly stated by [14], our main focus should be to achieve sustainable adaptation that embraces: 1) reducing risk using existing methods to ensure prosperity, 2) strengthening adaptive efforts by increasing the capacity of marginalized communities, and 3) addressing the causes of community vulnerability. The maladaptation lens was further refined in the 2010s, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and other climate-vulnerable regions, where adaptation funding and practices were scrutinized for failing to deliver equitable outcomes [5][15]. Scholars highlighted how power relations, institutional dynamics, and socio-political contexts can transform well-intended adaptations into maladaptive outcomes. Today, maladaptation is increasingly mainstreamed in climate risk assessments, adaptation planning, and policy evaluations, including the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report [16], which stresses that avoiding maladaptation requires inclusive, long-term, and flexible decision-making processes.

This paper used a narrative literature review to examine cases of climate change maladaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Relevant literature was identified through searches of major academic databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, and by consulting reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international organizations. The search focused on peer-reviewed journal articles, policy reports, and book chapters published primarily between 2000 and 2025. Key search terms included: “climate change maladaptation”, “failed adaptation”, “adaptation failure”, “transformative adaptation”, “vulnerability”, “political ecology”, “Sub-Saharan Africa”, “climate-smart agriculture”, “resettlement”, “irrigation”, “afforestation”, “water harvesting”, and “coastal adaptation”.

The inclusion criteria comprised studies that: i) examined climate change adaptation interventions in SSA; ii) documented unintended negative social, ecological, or economic outcomes associated with adaptation actions; and iii) provided empirical evidence or detailed conceptual analysis relevant to maladaptation. Studies were excluded if they focused solely on mitigation, lacked clear evidence of maladaptive outcomes, or were outside the SSA context. Studies that addressed equity, governance, and vulnerability were also prioritized.

The case studies presented in this paper—drawn from Kenya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Senegal—were selected purposively to represent diverse forms of maladaptation across ecological, socio-political, and livelihood contexts in SSA. These cases collectively capture a broad spectrum of maladaptive outcomes, including resource conflict, exclusion, ecological degradation, displacement, and inequitable access to adaptation benefits. They are not intended to be exhaustive but rather illustrative examples that demonstrate recurring patterns and drivers of maladaptation within climate adaptation practice in the region.

In this section, we operationalize climate change maladaptation to refer to any deliberate or unintended action, policy, or strategy implemented to address the impacts of climate change that, in practice, increases vulnerability to climate risks, transfers risks to other systems or groups, or undermines long-term adaptation capacity, resilience, or sustainability. To understand theories of climate change maladaptation, we build on a multi-theoretical framework integrating Vulnerability Theory, Political Ecology, and the Maladaptation Lens. Together, these theories provide a robust foundation for analyzing why certain climate adaptation strategies fail or lead to unintended consequences in SSA. The vulnerability theory posits that the impacts of climate change are mediated not only by the biophysical hazards but also by the social, economic, and political conditions that shape people’s ability to respond [17]. This theory speaks to this study by explaining how adaptation strategies may fail when they overlook the differentiated vulnerabilities of communities. For example, interventions that assume homogeneity may inadvertently increase risks for marginalized groups (e.g., women, pastoralists, or ethnic minorities).

On the other hand, the political ecology theory examines the relationships between political, economic, and social factors with environmental issues and changes [18]. It emphasizes power relations, resource access, and institutional dynamics. In this study, the theory reveals how adaptation decisions are shaped by unequal power relations, governance structures, and political interests. It explains how elites may capture the benefits of adaptation or how external interventions may undermine local institutions and knowledge systems. The maladaptation lens, introduced by [1], focuses specifically on identifying and understanding adaptation actions that inadvertently increase vulnerability, reinforce existing inequalities, or cause environmental harm. This lens directly informs the assessment of failed adaptation efforts in the paper. It helps to classify and evaluate adaptation outcomes not just by intentions but by actual social and ecological effects. Table 1 summarizes how these three theories are integrated in the present study and which cardinal questions they address.

Table 1. Interaction of the three theories in this study.

Source: Processed from various literature sources, 2025.

The integration of vulnerability theory, political ecology, and maladaptation analysis provides a critical and comprehensive lens for understanding why not every adaptation effort works (Figure 1Figure 1). It enables the study to go beyond technical assessments and probe the social, political, and institutional underpinnings of adaptation failures in SSA.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework integrating three critical theories that speak to the study (Source: Author’s conceptualization based on various literature sources, 2025).

From the proposed theoretical framework (Figure 1Figure 1), we can now conceptualize a framework illustrating how climate change adaptation interventions, when shaped by specific mediating factors, may result in either successful adaptation or maladaptation (Figure 2Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual framework showing the input, mediating, and output parameters in climate adaptation and maladaptation (Source: Author's conceptualization based on various literature sources, 2025).

This framework draws on the theoretical perspectives of vulnerability, political ecology, and maladaptation (Table 1) to explain the causal logic behind adaptation failure. The core components of the framework include:

A. Climate change adaptation interventions

These are planned or spontaneous responses to climate risks, including:

Irrigation schemesResettlement programsAfforestation projectsClimate-smart agriculture

The above interventions are triggered by governments, NGOs, or communities to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience.

B. Mediating factors (Contextual conditions)

These determine the outcome of adaptation efforts. Key mediators include:

Socioeconomic Inequality (e.g., class, gender, land tenure)Governance Structures (e.g., participation, transparency, decentralization)Cultural and Institutional Fit (e.g., respect for indigenous practices)Ecological Suitability (e.g., appropriateness to local ecosystems)Power Relations (e.g., elite capture, marginalization)

These factors influence how adaptation is designed, implemented, and received.

C. Outcomes of adaptation

Based on how the above mediating factors interact with the interventions, outcomes diverge:

Successful AdaptationReduces vulnerabilityEnhances resiliencePromotes equityEnsures ecological sustainabilityMaladaptationIncreases vulnerabilityReinforces inequalityCauses ecological harmWeakens local institutions

Figure 2Figure 2 shows the following:

Input: Climate Change Adaptation InterventionsMediated by: Contextual/Mediating FactorsOutput: Two divergent pathways: Successful Adaptation or Maladaptation

In the ensuing subsections, we provide examples of maladaptation to climate change in SSA. At the outset, we appreciate that climate change maladaptation in SSA refers to adaptation interventions or strategies, whether by governments, communities, or development partners, that inadvertently increase vulnerability to climate change rather than reduce it. In this region, maladaptation arises primarily from limited adaptive capacity, weak institutions, poor policy coherence, and socio-economic inequalities that shape how climate responses are designed, implemented, and experienced. Many adaptation efforts in SSA are externally funded, technically driven, and often fail to incorporate local ecological knowledge, social contexts, and long-term sustainability considerations. For example, donor-promoted climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices such as conservation tillage or high-input monoculture may impose additional labor or financial burdens on smallholder farmers, reduce agrobiodiversity, or lead to dependence on external inputs, thereby compromising resilience. Similarly, large-scale irrigation schemes meant to enhance water security can marginalize pastoralists and downstream users, creating new conflicts or exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. Maladaptation in the region is further shaped by intersecting vulnerabilities, such as gender, ethnicity, poverty, and land tenure insecurity, that determine differential access to resources and benefits from adaptation initiatives. Additionally, short-term political incentives, inadequate risk assessments, and a focus on technocratic fixes often overlook systemic and structural causes of vulnerability.

Thus, maladaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa is not merely a failure of individual projects but a symptom of deeper governance and development challenges. Addressing it requires inclusive, context-sensitive, and long-term approaches that center equity, flexibility, and local participation in climate adaptation planning and implementation. It is with this in mind that voices for transformative adaptation to climate change impacts are gaining traction, given the shifting pathway towards more equitable and climate-resilient development [19]-[21]. Transformative adaptation promises “transformation of broader aspects of development through adaptation activity” ([22], p. 6). This means that, alongside the goal of reducing climate risk, there is also a goal of simultaneously addressing issues of social justice and the root causes of risk [23][24]. Capacity building efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), however, often focus on incremental adaptation, with limited attention to power and justice [25]. We argue that the growing focus on transformative adaptation requires attention to new types of capacity building that rely on knowledge creation at the grassroots level as the first phase, and on the empowerment of community actors to meaningfully inform and implement adaptation responses as the second phase [26].

The cases analyzed in this paper were assessed using a common set of analytical criteria derived from vulnerability theory, political ecology, and the maladaptation framework. Specifically, the analysis evaluated whether adaptation interventions: i) increase vulnerability to climate risks; ii) reinforce social inequalities or exclusion; iii) generate ecological degradation or unsustainable resource use; iv) disrupt local livelihoods, institutions, or indigenous knowledge systems; v) prioritize short-term technocratic solutions over long-term resilience; and vi) exhibit governance deficits such as weak participation or elite capture. Applying these criteria consistently across cases enabled a more systematic comparison of maladaptive outcomes and helped identify recurring structural drivers of adaptation failure in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This paper is based entirely on published secondary literature and selected illustrative case studies, and therefore has several limitations. First, the analysis depends on the availability, quality, and interpretation of existing studies, which may vary across countries and sectors within Sub-Saharan Africa. Second, the cases are purposively selected to illustrate different forms of maladaptation and are not intended to represent the full range or frequency of maladaptive outcomes across the region. Consequently, the paper does not establish how widespread or prevalent each form of maladaptation is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Third, because the study relies on literature-based case analysis rather than primary empirical research, it cannot directly assess local perceptions, long-term outcomes, or the evolving dynamics of adaptation interventions on the ground. Despite these limitations, the selected cases provide valuable insights into recurring mechanisms and structural drivers of maladaptation, informing future research, policy, and adaptation practice.

This paper has demonstrated that not all climate change adaptation efforts in Sub-Saharan Africa yield positive outcomes. Through a critical examination of empirical cases from Kenya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Senegal, the study has shown how well-intended adaptation initiatives can inadvertently reinforce existing vulnerabilities, deepen social inequalities, and cause environmental harm—hallmarks of maladaptation. By employing an integrated theoretical lens combining vulnerability theory, political ecology, and the maladaptation framework, the study has unpacked how contextual factors such as power asymmetries, institutional weaknesses, socio-cultural disconnects, and ecological unsuitability mediate adaptation outcomes.

The findings underscore that maladaptation in SSA consistently emerges where adaptation interventions combine ecological unsustainability, social exclusion, weak participation, and short-term technocratic planning. Adaptation interventions that ignore local realities, exclude marginalized voices, or pursue short-term fixes are likely to produce unintended negative consequences. Conversely, sustainable adaptation requires inclusive, participatory, and justice-centered approaches that are rooted in local knowledge, responsive to differential vulnerabilities, and adaptive over time [57].

Moving forward, policy and practice must shift from purely technocratic or donor-driven models toward transformative adaptation frameworks that address structural inequalities and embed climate resilience within broader development agendas. Strengthening institutional capacity, enhancing social learning, and promoting co-production of knowledge with communities are essential for avoiding maladaptation. Ultimately, adaptation must not only reduce climate risks but also contribute to more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable futures across Sub-Saharan Africa.

We thank the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS) for providing a Fellowship to the authors while in residence for the period July-September 2025.

C.A.S. conceptualized, prepared the original draft; and reviewed and edited the final draft; T.E.M. and C.W.R. reviewed and edited the draft. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

This study has received a generous grant from the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS).

This study is based entirely on analysis and synthesis of published literature and secondary sources. No primary datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. All sources used are cited in the reference list.

This is original work that has not been submitted anywhere for publication

Not applicable.