Success in urban adaptation is most often understood as requiring measurable outcomes and evaluation . However, many adaptation outcomes are not measurable  . Adaptation action solely focused on action tends to ignore areas in the city for which there is no existing data even though actions in these areas may play an essential role in shaping resilience and its limits. Informal settlements and informal economies, which are integral in managing urban resources for effective climate adaptation, are not routinely included in formal urban and national monitoring. The resulting understanding and monitoring of city needs, capacities and actions that feed into policy is incomplete. The innovation, as well as particular concerns and capacities of the informal sector, which is often highly gendered, are not always measured . An emphasis on measurable adaptation outcomes may lead to prioritising techno-economic measures to adaptation at the local level. Technocratic approaches to environmental policy continue to shape local sustainability politics . The deployment of such technocratic approaches at the local scale is detrimental for democratic and collaborative practices . For example, while China has received praise in terms of delivering urban policies that put climate change at its core, thus suggesting its role providing leadership in climate change debates , other analyses suggest that processes of planning should take greater account of certain groups and interests . Urban sustainability policy may, as a result, fail to deliver collaborative social and environmental objectives, and this is maladaptive in terms of CRD.
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report