1. Key finding

 

Overall
Community-based adaptation (CBA) emerged as an essential strategy for climate change resilience by leveraging local knowledge and addressing vulnerabilities at the community level. Effective CBA requires participatory approaches, support across multiple governance scales, and integration with broader development goals.

 

Women and girls-related
While the review does not focus specifically on gender, it acknowledges that marginalized groups, including women, are often most vulnerable to climate impacts. Their inclusion in participatory CBA processes enhances the adaptability and equity of outcomes.

 

2. Short summary
This review analyzes the evolution, key enablers, and challenges of community-based adaptation (CBA) to climate change, drawing on 128 academic studies from 2000–2015. CBA is highlighted as a critical approach for addressing local climate vulnerabilities through the integration of local knowledge, socio-political considerations, and community-driven processes. Early research shifted from top-down, techno-centric models to locally focused strategies emphasizing vulnerability reduction, resilience, and pro-poor development.

 

Key enablers include participatory approaches that involve communities in adaptation planning and multilevel governance linking local actions with broader policy frameworks. Challenges include scaling local solutions, managing community diversity, and avoiding elite capture. Recent studies emphasize the need for innovation, iterative learning, and alignment with broader objectives like poverty reduction and sustainable development. 

 

3. Long summary

 

3.1 PICOS
Population: Vulnerable communities globally, particularly in regions like the Pacific Islands, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Canadian Arctic.

 

Intervention: Community-based climate change adaptation (CBA) interventions designed to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience.

 

Outcome: Enhanced resilience, local adaptive capacity, and integration of local knowledge into adaptation strategies.

 

Study design: Systematic literature review
 

 

3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed

 

3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed

 

3.4 Findings
Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) has developed as an important approach to addressing localized climate change impacts, moving away from traditional top-down methods to community-driven strategies. This shift emphasizes the role of local knowledge systems in understanding vulnerabilities and building resilience. Local insights are crucial for tailoring adaptation measures to specific socio-environmental contexts, making them more relevant and effective for the communities directly affected.

 

Key factors contributing to the success of CBA include participatory approaches that actively involve community members in the design and implementation of adaptation strategies. These approaches ensure solutions are tailored to local needs and increase community ownership of projects. Linking local adaptation efforts with broader governance frameworks at national and international levels is also essential to provide the necessary policy and institutional support. Addressing social dynamics within communities is another critical factor, as adaptation efforts must consider internal inequalities and power structures to achieve fair outcomes.

 

CBA faces challenges, including scaling local solutions to broader regions while maintaining relevance, addressing the risks of elite capture in participatory processes, and bridging gaps between community-level actions and higher-level policy frameworks. These issues can limit the effectiveness and sustainability of adaptation efforts if not addressed.

 

3.5 Sensitivity analysis – Not assessed

 

4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review

 

1.		Did the the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)?	Yes
2.		Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods               were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?  (i.e. was there a protocol)	No
3.		Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?	Yes
4.		Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?	No
5.		Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?	No
6.		Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?	No
7.		Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?  (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview)	No
8.		Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?	N.A
9.		Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?	No
10.		If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?	N.A
11.		Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?	N.A
12.		If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?	N.A
13.		Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?	Yes
		Overall (lowest rating on any critical item)	Low

 

5. Count of references to the following words 

 

Sex	0
Gender	0
Women	0
Intra-household	0