That CBA can have a positive role in community adaptation is widely acknowledged in the literature and by participants in the workshop, but it is important to note that CBA is not a panacea as sometime presented in the literature, and has limitations and potential negative impacts. Indeed, participants in the workshop believed that the often uncritical belief that CBA approaches are ‘better,’ is reducing space for critical reflection on which approaches and methods are most appropriate for a given context and question. For instance, not all communities want or have the capacity to be involved to the level of engagement implied by CBA approaches, or are they necessarily suitable or desirable for all research questions. Furthermore, participation also engenders challenges: personal views may become more entrenched through participation if not structured properly, participants may become more confused through exposure to different viewpoints and ideas, and local power dynamics (which may go unnoticed or unappreciated by outsiders) may preclude the inclusion of all voices in the process or engagement maybe limited to most politically active and interested community members.31, 35, 94 Arguably, in some cases, more conventional researcher‐led projects may have a more important role to play in adaptation research, especially where communities actually want someone to independently respond to a pressing issue or need; yet in the context of the current literature, this might be deemed ‘inappropriate.’ Similar concerns have been recently articulated in the literature with regards to practice‐orientated approaches to adaptation in general.4, 31, 34