The preceding example raises questions about the role of research in adaptation in absence of broader level of support and commitment from various levels of government; a context within which much CBA work takes place, even in the North where there is strong emphasis on responding to community needs at various levels of government. CBA faces a dilemma here: research is needed to develop an evidence base on adaptation, yet the very participatory process used to create this evidence base can generate significant expectations for positive change, which, if not followed with visible developments, can reduce local interest in and valuation of research or, worse, become maladaptive (Table 1). Moreover, with research having an increasingly active role in developing and funding interventions, there is the potential for decision makers at various levels of government to download adaptation to the research community, a role researchers neither have the mandate, capacity, or legitimate authority to take on. There has been significant debate in the general literature about the ways in which the local focus of CBA can direct attention away from underlying structural determinants of vulnerability.84, 88, 89 The substantial research focus on developing community adaptation may also foreclose opportunity for local institutions to spearhead this work independently, perpetuating colonial patronage relationships and uneven power dynamics between Northern and academic research partners.