A new study has warned that the way climate adaptation is measured around the world often fails to reflect the realities and priorities of the communities it is meant to support. Researchers argue that current assessment systems rely too heavily on Western scientific frameworks, overlooking local knowledge, cultural values and community resilience, particularly in vulnerable regions such as the Pacific Islands.
The study, published by the Toda Peace Institute says climate adaptation success should be measured through a wider range of perspectives rather than relying mainly on standardised economic and technical indicators.
Current Metrics Overlook Community Priorities
According to the research, many widely used climate adaptation tools, including the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), focus on measurable indicators such as infrastructure development and economic growth. While these indicators provide useful data, they often fail to capture values that are central to many Indigenous and local communities, including relationships, cultural identity, collective well-being and connections to place.
The study argues that these monitoring and evaluation systems are not neutral. Instead, they tend to prioritise Western ways of understanding climate resilience while sidelining local knowledge systems that have helped communities adapt to environmental change for generations.
Research based on Australian non-governmental organisations implementing climate adaptation projects in Pacific Island nations found that local knowledge is frequently included only in a limited way and rarely influences how adaptation success is actually defined or measured.
Call for More Inclusive Climate Adaptation
The study highlights that global climate institutions and international donors often shape adaptation measurement frameworks, encouraging the use of standardised indicators that may not reflect local realities. Researchers warn that this approach can weaken traditional practices such as collective decision-making, reciprocity and community trust, all of which contribute significantly to resilience.
To address these challenges, the report recommends that climate adaptation monitoring systems should be co-designed with local communities. Donors and funding agencies are encouraged to recognise locally defined measures of success alongside conventional reporting requirements.
The researchers also urge governments, NGOs and international organisations to examine whose knowledge shapes climate policies and whether existing systems unintentionally reinforce inequalities. They argue that adaptation programmes are more likely to succeed when they reflect the values, priorities and experiences of the communities they are intended to benefit.
The study concludes that improving climate adaptation is not only a technical challenge but also an ethical and political one. It stresses that giving communities greater authority to define success in their own terms is essential for ensuring that climate action is both effective and socially just.