While aspects of transformative capacity identified in the literature may facilitate far-reaching change, there is limited evidence of actual transformations as an outcome of adaptation. While community led resilience agendas may tackle poverty related issues, they struggle to tackle city-wide structural forms of inequality . Processes of shared learning and co-production of knowledge can reinforce existing power dynamics and be limited by technical framings of vulnerability that marginalise political issues . These issues are especially acute in relation to land use decisions where short-term fiscal and commercial interests conflict with long-term vulnerability reduction objectives . It can be difficult for adaptation actions to target cities' underlying political-economic structure, such as entrenched political-economic interests, elite influence over decision making or neoliberal planning logics that maintain and reproduce inequality . Urban resilience plans may be formulated in disconnection from broader development strategies, which leads to a limited ability to tackle underlying structures of political power and urban development practices . Evidence from Kolkata demonstrates the limitations of resilience plans to address underlying conditions of vulnerability, including the commodification of hazardous land, under-provision of informal settlements and spatial segregation of the urban poor .
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report