What counts as “effective”? Local framings of adaptation effectiveness in flood-prone farming systems

Abstract

Assessing climate adaptation effectiveness remains a central yet unresolved challenge in global climate governance. Existing adaptation approaches largely prioritize standardized, top-down quantitative metrics and often overlook the cultural, relational, and place-based dimensions central to people directly affected by climate risks and foundational to community resilience. In this study, we examine how smallholder farmers in the flood-prone Ouémé Valley of Benin conceptualize and assess adaptation success in everyday practices. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 83 farmers, complemented by participatory group discussions and framing analysis, we demonstrate that externally driven metrics are a useful first step but fail to capture local experiences and values that also count for adaptation tracking at the local level. Farmers facing compounding hazards understand adaptation primarily as a process of spreading and managing risks, as most adaptation actions address more than one hazard. As a result, individual-level assessments of adaptation effectiveness can capture only one side of the landscape and remain incomplete because farmers face multiple, co-occurring risks. Farmers assess adaptation effectiveness across six interrelated framing dimensions: livelihood continuity, processual adaptability, loss management and acceptance of limits, social legitimacy, cultural and spiritual alignment, and psychological well-being. Our findings suggest that integrating local perspectives can enhance the relevance and equity of adaptation assessments, informing policies that better reflect the complex realities of flood-prone farming systems.