The CBA literature promises much and, as Dodman and Mitlin28 note, its advocates argue that it is a highly effective approach for assisting adaptation and building adaptive capacity at a local level. As CBA has become mainstream, however, some have begun to question the de facto assumption that engaging communities in this manner is always the best or most successful approach for adaptation.6, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Such reflections have been primarily articulated in the context of research in low‐to‐middle income nations, and critique the often uncritical way CBA is portrayed within research and practitioner communities, with limited examination of the power relationships that influence the outcomes of local level projects or analysis of the challenges associated with undertaking CBA in cross‐cultural contexts.33, 34, 35 There remains a need for further such reflective attention and to extend this to work taking place to indigenous populations in high‐income nations—what Young36 called the ‘third world in the first’ and others ‘the fourth world’37—to ensure that CBA is undertaken appropriately and productively with, by, and for indigenous peoples and communities. In the Arctic, e.g., community‐based research is being widely promoted by communities, governments, indigenous groups, and funding organizations; yet concerns have been noted over potential for tokenistic engagement of communities, consultation fatigue, and imbalance between Western and indigenous knowledge in this work.13, 15, 38, 39, 40