A Systematic Review of Collective Efficacy for Supporting Adaptation-Related Responses to Climate Hazards

Abstract

Given the reality of unprecedented climate change, which has negatively impacted and continues to impact societies and economies, exploring the collective efficacy (CE)-)–adaptation nexus is urgent. Against this backdrop, the current contribution systematically reviews the literature on CE and adaptation by utilising the reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses (RoSES). The aim is to establish the state of knowledge on the association between CE and adaptation to climate change and its variability globally. The appraisal of eight articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria demonstrates the limited and geographically skewed distribution of publications on the CE–adaptation nexus. CE has not been extensively operationalized in parts of the highly vulnerable African continent. CE and adaptation research in African countries is imperative considering their collectivistic culture, high vulnerability, and low adaptive capacity. Evidence on the positive association between CE and adaptation to climate change and climate-related hazards has been accrued. This is the context within which this paper advances the need for increased research across socio-cultural contexts to advance knowledge on the CE–adaptation nexus and facilitate effective and sustainable adaptation.

1. Introduction

The current accelerated rate of climate change is presenting a disproportionate impact across socio-ecological systems at the global level [1,2,3,4,5]. Climate hazards, defined as climate conditions with adverse effects on natural systems and society (such as tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, and heatwaves), are among the diverse effects of climate change [6] (p. 1875). Climate change is a collective problem and induces a situation in which individuals have limited power to respond, requiring multi-actor efforts [7,8]. Climate change losses have motivated adaptation-related responses (henceforth referred to as adaptation). A global systematic review of evidence on human adaptation to climate change reveals that severe precipitation, precipitation variability, inland floods, and drought are the most common motivators for adaptation [9]. Droughts in the United States (2012) have led to a decrease in agricultural production; this, in turn, leads to food insecurity [5]. South Africa experienced the most extreme drought in 2015 [10]. Approximately 2.7 million households experienced water shortages, and agricultural production declined [11], resulting in massive economic losses worth USD 250 million [12]. A wide range of responses to drought are reported in the literature. For example, in the United Kingdom, this has involved the modification of planting and harvesting practices and selling livestock [13]. Other adaptation measures include growing drought-resistant seeds, reducing the cultivation area, improving water transfer schemes, reducing livestock, and introducing supplementary feed [14]. Given that climate hazards are projected to become more pervasive, both the global momentum to adapt and the interest in documenting adaptation have increased.

Adaptation constitutes any adjustments made in human systems in anticipation or response to climatic stimuli or their impacts, to moderate adverse impacts, and to optimize positive impacts [6] (p. 2215). Adaptation is a complex process that may be carried out individually or collectively [15]. Many of the most effective adaptation measures require concerted effort and multiple levels of governance [16]. This entails individuals coordinating with others and banding together resources for the group’s goal attainments [17]. However, the effectiveness of any collective depends on ‘collective efficacy’ (CE). Bandura conceptualized CE as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” [18] (p. 477). Exploring the association between CE and adaptation is urgent with unprecedented climate change, which has negatively impacted and continues to impact societies.

The problem is that, despite the proliferation of academic adaptation-related research, studies examining the CE–adaptation nexus are scarce, and no publication has synthesized the available studies to date. Given this gap, the current contribution systematically reviews the global literature using the rigorous methodological reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses (RoSES) to establish the state of knowledge on the association between CE and adaptation to climate change globally. This raises the question: What is the state of the knowledge on the association between CE and adaptation to climate hazards globally? To respond to this question, this review is structured as follows: the second section provides an overview of CE as a construct to contextualize the lines of thought upon which the current contribution is based. Section three outlines the methods used in this study, while section four presents the results and discussion. Section five includes limitations of the study and future directions for further research, and the final section synthesizes key findings.

2. Collective Efficacy in the Adaptation Context

CE is an extension of self-efficacy (SE), Bandura’s core construct of the social cognitive theory (SCT), which is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” [18] (p. 3). There are several conceptual definitions of CE; see, e.g., [18] (p. 477), [19] (p. 1604), and [20] (p. 919), because CE is rooted in both psychology and sociology [21,22]. However, Bandura’s conceptualization remains widely accepted. According to the SCT, perceptions about SE and CE are primary motivators of individual and collective action, respectively. Efficacy beliefs link an individual’s knowledge to action [23]. Although this contribution is primarily focused on CE, there is the recognition that there are complex interconnections between SE and CE in the context of adaptation [23]. To this extent, perceptions of SE and CE influence each other in recursive loops [24].

Although the CE construct was initially introduced in psychology and sociology, it has been transplanted to other fields and its relevance has expanded. Studies have demonstrated that CE is one of the critical socio-psychological factors related to the success of adaptation efforts; see, e.g., [16,25,26]. This is because CE requires a collaborative effort and cooperation from several actors (e.g., community members, governments, and academics). Hence, there have been calls to examine CE beliefs in addition to, and sometimes instead, of SE [27]. Indeed, there is the recognition that individuals with a high level of SE may perform poorly in activities that require group members to coordinate [16].

According to the social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA), CE turns perceptions of climate change threats into motivation to act [28]. Thus, it is evident that CE is necessary to understand behaviours relevant to adaptation [17] and is often associated with effective adaptation as it captures the capacity to adapt and effectively reorganize community life following a climate hazard [29]. However, there is a paucity of research on the relationship between CE and adaptation [30]. It appears that overlooking or underestimating the role of CE in adaptation may lead to no adaptation, unsuccessful adaptation, agnostic adaptation, and/or maladaptation. Much remains to be known to advance the CE–adaptation nexus. Thus, we seek to fill this gap.

3. Methodology

3.1. Identification Screening and Eligibility Assessment

This review adopted the rigorous methodological reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses (RoSES) [31] (see Figure 1). The RoSES protocol includes the following steps: formulation of the research question, identification, screening, eligibility, evaluation of data quality, and data abstraction and analysis [31]. The mnemonic PICo—population, interest, and context—was utilized to formulate the research question [32]. In this paper, population refers to any community affected by climate hazards, while interest relates to the role of CE in adaptation to climate hazards, and the context is global.

Three digital databases (Web of Science Core Collections, Scopus, and Science Direct) were selected for this review. These databases are ideal for systematic reviews because they provide interdisciplinary literature coverage and efficiently provide reproducible results; see [33]. Unindexed publications were searched in Google Scholar, the supplementary search engine for this review process, as recommended by several researchers; see, e.g., [33,34,35]. Muhammad suggests combining database and manual searches to improve systematic reviews [36]. Hence, the references of selected publications were systematically searched to further identify relevant publications. The screening process focused on identifying publications that satisfied our PICo criteria. The authors screened titles, abstracts, keywords, and the year of publication against the English search terms and study scope (see

Table 1. Combination of keywords used in the systematic search.

Databases	Keywords Used
Web of Science Scopus Science Direct	TITLE-ABS-KEY(collective* efficacy*) AND (“climate* chang*” OR “climate* risk”* OR “climate* variabilit*” OR “climate* extreme*” OR “climate* uncertaint*” OR “climate* hazards*” “climate* warming*” OR “climate* shock*” OR “global warming*” OR “extreme weather*”)
	AND (“adapt* abilit*” OR “adapt* strateg*” OR “adapt* capacit*” OR “adapt* capabilit*” OR “adapt* strength*” OR “adapt* potential*” OR “adopt* abilit*” OR “adopt* strateg*” OR “adopt* capacit*” OR “adopt* capabilit*” OR “adopt* strength*” OR “adopt* potential*” “risk reduction” or “mitigating impacts”)

The wildcard *: This function allows us to search for various keyword spellings.

for search terms). The search strategy was implemented from 1 to 30 April 2022 and the search terms were diversified to ensure an extensive search, which resulted in the retrieval of 73 publications.

This means that 73 articles were evaluated against the inclusion and exclusion criteria to establish eligibility. The search results were restricted to full-text academic peer-reviewed publications that report on the association between CE and adaptation strategies adopted by human actors. All study types were accepted (empirical and non-empirical), and studies were not restricted to any population or geographic area. However, a temporal limit was established, requesting only publications since 1997—having insight that the CE construct was conceptualized by Bandura in 1997; see [18] (p. 477)—to 30 April 2022 (date of the last update). Non-English publications were excluded due to linguistic constraints and to avoid confusion in translation. Grey literature, including reports, dissertations, guidelines, and opinion pieces, were excluded as well. Furthermore, papers whose content was unrelated to the CE–adaptation nexus were excluded, including papers whose primary focus was on climate mitigation and pro-environmental behaviour and papers focused on biophysical adaptation rather than human systems. Eight articles were identified as eligible for detailed review and analysis (see Figure 1).

3.2. Quality Appraisal and Data Extraction and Analysis

The 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the studies. MMAT is a validated tool that focuses on methodological quality criteria [37]. All (eight) publications were classified as being of high quality and thus included in the data extraction and analysis phase. The data were captured into an extraction template, synthesized, and analysed using thematic analysis to identify and critically examine emerging themes and subthemes in relation to the research question.

4. Results and Discussion

The analysis is divided into seven sections. The first section presents findings from our descriptive analysis of the reviewed articles. The second section reports on CE conceptualization, while the third section presents theories deployed in reviewed studies. The fourth section presents CE operational methods. The fifth section explores the association between CE and adaptation, the sixth section discusses intersectional gaps in CE for adaptation, and the last section proffers CE antecedents.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

4.1.1. Publication Trend since 1997

Despite searching for articles published since 1997, the earliest article identified through review was published in 2016 (see

Table 2. Eligible studies from systematic review of CE-–adaptation nexus.

Author	Year	Journal	Country	Study Type & Method Type	Level of CE Analysis	Data Collection Instrument	Tool Content (Item Number/CE Construct/Scales of Measurement)
Thaker et al. [16]	2016	American Meteorological Society	India	Cross- sectional Quantitative	Individual & group	Questionnaire	CE measured by 2 items & Aggregate mean of individuals’ perceptions within an assembly constituency.
Ayal et al. [25]	2021	Climatic Change	Ethiopia	Cross- sectional Mixed methods	Individual	Interview, FGD, observation & Questionnaire	Not specified
Thaker et al. [38]	2019	Environmental Communication	India	Cross- sectional Quantitative	Individual	Questionnaire	CE measured by 2 items.
Haas et al. [39]	2021	Environment and Urbanization	India	Cross- sectional Mixed methods	Individual	Questionnaire & in-depth interviews	5 indicators
Pakmehr et al. [40]	2020	Land Use Policy	Iran	Cross- sectional Quantitative	Individual	Questionnaire	CE measured by 4 items
Panigrahi and Suar [41]	2021	International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction	India	Cross- sectional Qualitative	Individual	Semi Structured interview
McLoughlin [42]	2021	Climatic Change	Theory- based
Bechtoldt et al. [43]	2021	Climate Policy	Review

). No publications were acquired between 2017 and 2018, and five articles were published in 2021. The analysis revealed a modest number of articles on CE and adaptation globally amidst a growing body of knowledge on adaptation and the increasing gravity of climate change and associated climate hazards. The dearth of articles published before 2016 and the recent temporal clustering imply that this topic is still in its infancy and therefore requires further exploration. The dearth of articles may be related to the perception that CE has a lesser influence on adaptation. However, the temporal clustering of articles in 2021 may indicate scholars’ growing interest. More importantly, this is indicative of the fact that climate change impacts have become more salient, stimulating research on issues related to adaptation in the social sciences. This underscores the need to systematically examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current body of knowledge, to aid future researchers in their CE–adaptation nexus exploration.

4.1.2. Geographical Distribution of Publications

The CE construct has been operationalized mainly in Asia, specifically in India and Iran, with a total of five publications (see Table 2). The first published study was conducted in 2016 in India, see [16]. During this period, it became evident that multi-actor efforts, as opposed to individual efforts, are required to address climate change and associated hazards. India is regarded as one of the world’s most vulnerable countries due to its population’s sensitivity to water stress and heavy reliance on climate-sensitive sectors for livelihoods [38]. No studies on the CE–adaptation nexus have been conducted in North America, South America, Australia, or Europe. This suggests a geographical gap in the distribution of publications on the CE–adaptation nexus. Yet climate change manifests globally, and adaptation is not limited to a particular region. In fact, more adaptation studies are conducted in Africa and Asia, consistent with global regions of the greatest climate vulnerability [9]. However, CE and adaptation studies are mainly in Asia, while reporting in Africa is limited to Ethiopia. Given that CE is context-dependent, the lack of geographic diversity limits the ability to generalize findings in the global south. CE and adaptation research in Africa is critical given that, in addition to high vulnerability, adaptive capacity is low, and African communities are characterized by a more collective social–cultural setting, suggesting that CE is relevant to adaptation. Therefore, exploring the CE–adaptation nexus in African countries is necessary. Members of collectivist cultures believe they are more efficacious in achieving a group’s goal [44]. In such a setting, CE is deemed to be a stronger predictor of people’s behaviour [44].

The scarcity of literature on the connection between CE and adaptation in the South African context is concerning, given the conceptual support for linking CE and adaptation and that South Africa remains susceptible to climate change and variability. Climate projections reveal that the severity and intensity of climate hazards have increased and will continue to do so. Henceforth, there is a strong consensus that adaptation is critical to protect lives and livelihoods.

4.2. Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis revealed five dominant themes in the literature: (1) CE conceptualization, (2) CE operational methods, (3) theories, (4) the association between CE and adaptation, (5) intersectional gaps in CE for adaptation, and (6) CE antecedents.

4.2.1. Collective Efficacy Conceptualization

This section explores the conceptualization of CE by examining the definitions of CE adopted in the studies reviewed. The construct has origins in both psychology and social science, hence the variation in CE conceptualization. In the psychology literature, Bandura defined CE as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” [18] (p. 477). Whereas Sampson et al. conceptualized CE in the social science literature as the process of utilizing social ties (social cohesion and trust) among neighbours to accomplish common goals [20]. However, Bandura originated the term in 1986, and his conceptualization remains widely accepted among applied psychology scholars [45].

Several studies, see [16,38,39,40], reviewed herein adhere to Bandura’s conceptualization of CE, despite the many subject-specific definitions available in the literature. Implicit in this definition is the focus on shared agency/group capabilities [46] and the operationalization of CE at the individual and group levels. The emphasis of publications reviewed herein was not on CE conceptualization. In fact, a few studies did not specify the CE definition adopted; see [25,41]. This is discouraged because the CE construct requires a context definition due to its nuanced nature in the literature, which has implications for CE’s measurable characteristics/indicators and methods. That is, the lack of conceptual clarity translates to low comparability of findings, limiting research conclusions. Hence, here, we evidence the importance of defining CE.

CE theorizing is required to eliminate conceptual ambiguity and/or to develop a consistent conceptual definition [47]. Therefore, the question of whether to keep one of the existing conceptualizations, or to reformulate/expand current conceptualizations, or to develop an alternative conceptualization remains. While pondering the question, it is important to note that current CE conceptualizations fit within a particular historical context (mainly the western world) that has been extended to the developing world. On this basis, is CE perceived and understood differently across the globe? Should we rely on current CE conceptualizations or challenge them based on context? Once CE’s conceptualization has been established, researchers can improve CE’s theoretical understanding and practical application and operationalize CE based on the agreed-upon measures [47].

4.2.2. Theories Used to Explore the CE–Adaptation Nexus

This section presents the theoretical and conceptual framings of the studies reviewed. Most studies had a clear theoretical foundation, but overall reliance is on a small number of environmental psychology theories. The SCT is well-known within the realm of environmental psychology and was deployed by Thaker et al. [16,38]. According to the SCT, perceptions about SE and CE motivate action in diverse contexts, but SE alone cannot explain group performance [18]. CE, a group-level attribute, best explains agency in collective efforts [18]. Thaker et al. [16] used the SCT as a basis to examine the role of CE in influencing the capacity to adapt to drinking water scarcity. While Thaker et al. [38] draw on the SCT to assess the role of CE in promoting public support for government adaptation policies, McLoughlin did not specify the theoretical framework employed in the study but loosely referred to the SCT in the literature [42].

Pakmehr et al. [40] used the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to evaluate farmers’ adaptation to water shortage due to climate change. The PMT is a social cognition theoretical model of behaviour change that presents an analytical framework for investigating motivations to engage in adaptive behaviours in response to risk. While the PMT is useful and explains threat and coping appraisals, it is not fully explanatory because it does not incorporate other variables with explanatory value relevant to adaptation, such as CE [42]. Hence, Pakmehr et al. [40] extended the PMT framework to include CE to understand collective adaptation from a psychological perspective. Ayal et al. [25] draw on Stern’s ‘psychological dimensions of climate change’ model. According to Stern’s model, psychology offers knowledge and concepts that can help explain human understanding, causes, and consequences of climate change and inform adaptation [25]. Haas et al. [39] draw on Grothmann and Patt’s model of private proactive adaptation to climate change, and on Thaker et al.’s [16] research, to develop a conceptual framework of socio-cognitive climate change adaptation. This framework demonstrates how community resilience and its key dimensions (visionary leadership, social network, social support, trust, place attachment, and CE) influence climate change adaptation behaviour at the household level in conjunction with risk appraisal. Panigrahi and Suar [41] note several less-prevalent theories and models (e.g., resilience theory, challenge model, protective model) that specify key attributes (physical, psychological, and social) to growth in adversity but do not explicitly deploy any particular theory. The Bechtoldt et al. [43] publication lacks a clear theoretical basis as it is a review paper.

It is clear that researchers occasionally fall short and fail to apply appropriate theories, and, when they do, they do not clearly articulate them. To enrich scholarship on the CE–adaptation nexus, various theoretical perspectives from multiple disciplines must be drawn, as no single theory is all-encompassing, and each theory is useful to reveal what others elide. Furthermore, additional theories must be outside of environmental psychology to gain new insights. Among other theories, the actor-network theory (ANT) and intersectional feminist political ecology (FPE) proffer avenues worthy of further insight. For example, through the actor-network perspective, scholars may investigate and theorize how networks form and trace what relations exist, how they are transformed, how actors are enrolled into a network, and how these networks are mobilized for adaptation. A more intersectional and politicized investigation of the CE–adaptation nexus could further understanding on how gender dynamics (re)combine in various forms to shape experiences of extreme weather and adaptation.

4.2.3. Collective Efficacy Operational Methods

In this contribution, CE is operationalized, measured, and analysed differently, suggesting that CE is an interesting field of study characterized by variability (see Table 2). Most of the studies reviewed herein were quantitative in nature, cross-sectional, and questionnaire-based (employed scales to measure CE); see, e.g., [16,38,39,40]. This is commonplace, supporting the claim that CE is a measurable construct [48]. With reference to CE scales, it appears that no single CE scale is applicable in all cases, because CE is context-specific rather than global, and efficacy is present relative to a particular activity [49]. That is, CE cannot be divorced from situational demands and circumstances. However, studies should transparently describe and justify scales, as this will improve validity and reliability. In general, questionnaires cannot capture the diversity of human behaviour; this, in turn, hinders the identification of CE components. Therefore, a deeper understanding of CE is required. Concerns, therefore, remain as to whether these scales adequately measure the breadth and depth of CE, or are unintended characteristics being measured? That is, is there evidence of coherence between CE conceptualization and the measurement scales employed? Thus, researchers are urged to refer to Bandura’s guidance for scale construction to ensure that scale items reflect the construct and nothing else.

In 2016, Thaker et al. [16] examined CE at the individual and community level. Two items were used to measure CE at the individual level, while community-level CE was measured by aggregating the mean of individuals’ perceptions within an assembly constituency. Whether to assess CE at the individual or group level depends on the researcher’s objective. However, the conceptual definition needs to specify the unit of analysis, which demonstrates the significance of conceptual clarity. Despite being conceptualized at the group level, CE is often measured at the individual level. However, one level of analysis does not reflect the complete picture of CE [50]. For instance, the individual-level CE analysis introduces biases because individuals may hold fragmented CE perceptions. Consequently, lower efficacy agreement may translate to reduced capability [51]. On the other hand, group-level measures may be unreliable due to their susceptibility to social desirability bias [38] and disregard for individual beliefs [52]. Thus, ecological fallacy may arise when group-level measures are used to make inferences at the individual level. Thus, it is argued that the appropriate level of analysis depends on the research question and should be determined on a case-to-case basis [53]. While most studies have employed response-restricting CE scales, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess CE perceptions in Panigrahi and Suar’s [41] study. However, it is important to note that interviews are also prone to social desirability bias and overlook group differences. Comparability of findings across the studies reviewed herein is limited by the use of various CE measures, which do not necessarily measure the same items. Hence, caution is exercised when evaluating the findings with respect to theory.

The operationalization of CE is complicated by validity and reliability issues. Evidently, validity and reliability measures differ between studies. For instance, Thaker et al. [16] verified the construct validity of the CE measure using correlational analysis, t-tests, and analysis of variance. Pakmehr et al.’s [40] measurement scales and indicators were validated by prior research. Additionally, the questionnaire was discussed with researchers, agriculture experts, and farmers in the region, and a small pilot study was conducted to determine the questionnaire’s internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. In Panigrahi and Suar’s [41] study, a psychologist analysed the transcripts and process to strengthen the validity of the analysis. High levels of agreement between the researcher and the psychologist were used to examine the reliability of themes, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. In Haas et al.’s [39] study, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was carried out to test the compatibility of the indicators and demonstrate that they consistently measured the variables (including CE). In addition, IBM Amos software was utilized to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to validate the adjusted variables within the structural equation model. Although the study heavily relied on the quantitative survey data, interviews were conducted and provided additional insights and validated the quantitative analysis. Ayal et al.’s [25] publication did not present validation or reliability. It appears the CE construct is not studied in a sufficiently comprehensive way. This raises the question of whether the CE measure actually measures CE and not something else.

Given CE’s socially and culturally distinctive nature [49], cultural adaptation of CE tools is critical but appears overlooked, and this limits the analysis. Moreover, scholars have measured CE as a stable construct, yet CE fluctuates based on group members’ updated appraisals [49]. Updating refers to the process of reassessing one’s sense of efficacy based on new information [18]. The implications of updated appraisal have not been studied in the context of CE and adaptation. Scholars must be cognizant that CE occurs from a process, and the dynamic nature of this process must be considered when studying its effects [54]. Overall, there is room for methodological improvement within the CE—adaptation research field, and while current heterogeneity is encouraged, it necessitates a nuanced interpretation of the relationship between CE and adaptation.

4.2.4. The Association between CE and Adaptation to Climate Hazards

The positive association between CE and adaptation in the studies reviewed herein is consistent with the previous theorizing by Bandura. CE bolsters societal responses; for example, Thaker et al. [16] provide an initial exploration of CE and adaptation by examining CE in relation to water conservation activities in India in the context of climate change. They discovered a positive correlation between CE and community-level adaptation. Using the same dataset as Thaker et al. [16], Thaker et al. [38] assessed the public’s support for adaptation policies and behaviours in India to address drinking water scarcity in the climate change context. In this study, higher levels of CE were positively correlated with greater support for water conservation policies, even though these policies place a financial burden on individuals. This study is unique because it examines CE in relation to government adaptation policies, whereas the previous study focused on a subgroup of the population.

A study conducted by Pakmehr et al. [40] in southwest Iran investigated farmers’ adaptation to climate change-induced water scarcity. The study findings, consistent with Thaker et al. [16], indicate a significant positive relationship between CE and adaptation. The authors reasoned that water management issues exist on a large scale, and individual capacity is insufficient for adaptation; hence, CE encourages farmers to break down major problems into smaller, more manageable ones [40]. In the aftermath of the 2018 Kerala (India) floods, Panigrahi and Suar [41] investigated the antecedents of resilience among survivors. To elaborate, the study investigated how flood survivors responded immediately to the disaster and built resilience over time. Panigrahi and Suar [41] report that the community coordinated efforts to bring people to safety during the flood and provided them with necessary supplies. The collective effort strengthened the capacity to survive, and CE was one of the attributes (together with social support and community embeddedness) that mediated the adverse effects, thereby facilitating flood resilience.

Recent work by Haas et al. [39] explored ways to improve our understanding of the effects of community resilience and risk appraisal on climate change adaptation behaviour within the context of the Kannagi Nagar resettlement site in Chennai, India. Similar to Panigrahi and Suar [41], CE was one of the five parameters that facilitated resilience to flooding and water scarcity. Together these parameters significantly increased people’s predispositions towards adaptive behaviours. It is evident that CE positively influences adaptation behaviour, but a critical question remains: To what degree do CE perceptions influence adaptation behaviours? Contrary to the studies mentioned above, Ayal et al. [25] found no association between CE and farmers’ drought adaptation in Berehet District, North Shoa, Ethiopia. The farmer’s CE to counteract the impact of drought was found to be low. According to the researchers, recurrent drought episodes had drained farmers’ CE. Despite the low CE, farmers adopted several measures in response to climate variability, which suggests that CE may have less relevance to adaptation in this case.

The findings of this review indicate that the CE–adaptation nexus literature is still in its pioneering phase. Findings are mixed regarding the association between CE and adaptation, as one study found no association between CE and adaptation. However, most publications reveal sufficient evidence that CE facilitates adaptation, and there is no evidence that CE impedes adaptation. Thus, the boosting of CE for adaptation purposes is recommended. However, it is important to note that while the association between CE and adaptation is clearer, it is still context-dependent, complex, and dynamic. Therefore, we urge readers to interpret the association with caution. Generalisability is limited, as the positive association observed in studies cannot be inferred to other populations because socio-cultural contexts vary. Furthermore, CE conceptual ambiguity limits the results of the reviewed studies, as there were studies that did not specify the CE definition adopted; see [25,41].

While it is evident that people are adapting and have been doing so for some time, adaptation measures have not been categorized according to existing typologies. Yet, the nature of adaptation is critical, and it is unclear whether these measures are sustainable over the medium to long term. The adaptation measures offer future studies on CE and adaptation avenues to extend knowledge claims. Most studies examining the association between CE and adaptation are primarily in response to water scarcity in the context of climate change. Only two studies examined adaptation to flooding. This is likely a reflection of academic interests, the severity of water scarcity, or the prevalent climate hazard based on geography. The value of this work is restricted to the aforementioned climate hazards. Opportunities to examine other climate hazards in relation to CE and adaptation should be leveraged in the future because climate change can potentially exacerbate most climate hazards.

4.2.5. Intersectional Gaps in CE for Adaptation

Few studies [16,25] look at how different constellations of social identities influence CE. For instance, Ayal et al. [25] recently used a regression model to examine the predictive potential of key demographic variables in CE measures. Collectively, sex, age, and educational level of farmers accounted for approximately 18.1% of the variance in CE perceptions. The older a farmer was, the less efficacious he/she would be in coping with adverse climate variability impacts. Also, male farmers were found to be more efficacious than female farmers, and the higher the educational level of the farmer, the greater their confidence in their community’s ability to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate variability. These findings suggest that socio-demographic variables have the potential to shape farmers’ CE to manage or adapt to climate variability. Other scholars are ambiguous about the role of social identities and subsequently homogenize individuals and groups. This limits the analysis, because people are multi-dimensional and complex and identify with multiple intersecting identities, which are posited to influence the CE level and therefore should not be discounted in adaptation research. This demonstrates the importance of intersectionality in CE and, subsequently, adaptation efforts.

The intersectional approach provides a unique framework for analysing how CE perceptions are informed simultaneously by multiple social identities. It would be interesting to study CE and adaptation beyond ‘big’ social identities, where other key economic and cultural identities and environmental worldviews are considered. Thus, scholars must consider building an intersectional CE model for adaptation. To accomplish this, we need a plethora of valid and reliable ways of measuring and analysing how multiple social identities influence CE perceptions and, consequently, adaptation behaviour.

4.2.6. Beyond the Measures: The Antecedents of CE for Adaptation to Climate Hazards

Bandura’s seminal work presents mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states as CE antecedents [16,18,55]. Using Bandura’s classification of CE antecedents, we attempted to tease out CE antecedents in the studies reviewed. Though CE antecedents remain elusive, a few exceptions are discussed below. Thaker et al. [16] discovered that residents of communities with high CE levels were more engaged in adaptation efforts than those with low community CE levels. That is, adaptation efforts were modelled in areas with high community CE, indicating vicarious learning. Ayal et al.’s [25] study revealed that farmers in Berehet District exhibit a negative affective state, and, as a result, they have lost interest in adaptation efforts. In other words, their negative affective state has drained CE. Hence, the CE level was low, and no association was discovered between CE and adaptation. Furthermore, Ayal et al.’s [25] study shows that risk exposure, socio-demographic variables, and resource potential influence farmers’ SE and CE to manage risk. In Haas et al.’s [39] study, CE determinants are social networks of trust and support, as these feelings intensified CE.

According to Thaker et al. [16,38], the media can increase CE levels, and this action may be classified as social persuasion, according to Bandura’s [18] CE antecedents. McLoughlin [42] recently noted that efficacy-evoking information had been understudied or neglected in climate change communication. The scholar emphasizes the importance of balancing threat and efficacy communication through social persuasion by providing opportunities for mastery experiences, to enable people to feel confident about their actions, and by vicarious learning—sharing the success stories of others and modelling their behaviour to increase CE. It appears CE antecedents were not unveiled in the Pakmehr et al. [40] and Panigrahi and Suar [41] studies. However, Pakmehr et al. [40] note the importance of CE antecedents and recommend that future research should investigate farmers’ CE in more detail.

Overall, these studies do not examine CE antecedents in depth. Several unanswered and partially answered but critical questions remain. For instance: Have there been shifts in CE perceptions over time? Where were interventions to build/boost CE, and were they effective and linked to adaptation? Since CE manipulation is not mentioned, What interventions could have a positive impact on CE for adaptation? Are there CE measures designed to evaluate the effect of intervention activities to boost CE? Do the four CE antecedents work in concert? If not, which combinations of CE antecedents increase the likelihood of adaptation? The answers to these questions can advance our thinking about CE and its association with adaptation. Scholars need to be cognizant of ways to build, strengthen, and manipulate CE for the attainment of adaptation goals. Therefore, greater research effort needs to be directed to CE antecedents.

5. Limitations of the Study and Future Directions

When interpreting the findings of this study, several limitations should be considered. The first methodological limitation stems from the recency of literature on the CE–adaptation nexus. The review is not exhaustive and provides only a proxy sample of the literature on the CE–adaptation nexus because only three databases were consulted. To reduce publication bias, we propose that future research should consult more databases. Due to linguistic constraints, the search criteria were limited to full-text peer-reviewed English papers, omitting non-English publications. Future studies should consider more languages and publication types (e.g., grey literature). Due to the limited search keywords, some articles may have been missed. For example, articles that quantify CE in the adaptation context but exclude the term in the title, abstract, or keywords. This limitation stems from CE’s conceptual ambiguity. Notably, caution should be taken when linking CE to adaptation, as only eight publications were included in this review. The associations reported may be due to reporting bias. Further exploration of the CE–adaptation nexus is therefore necessary.

In addition, this review has examined how CE is conceptualized, constructed, and enacted for adaptation. Despite the strengths of extant work, much remains to be explored to untangle the potential of CE for adaptation. Most studies reviewed were conducted in Asia recently; hence, geographical and temporal diversity is lacking. Current findings should not be generalized to other geographies because social-cultural contexts vary. It is critical to understand the CE–adaptation nexus across the globe, given the global impact of climate change and associated climate hazards and the variation in adaptive capacity.

CE theorizing is required to eliminate conceptual ambiguity and to develop a consistent conceptual definition. Scholars have restricted their investigations to a narrow range of theoretical foundations, mainly in environmental psychology. To guide future research on the CE–adaptation nexus, we propose the consideration of power dynamics and network theories. CE theorizing should not stifle innovation with reference to CE methods/measures, as we have established that there is no optimal CE measure. Therefore, we urge scholars to employ appropriate methods consistent with CE conceptualization and to describe methods in sufficient detail. CE measures should not be generalized or absolute, as this limits the validity of findings; instead, they should be relevant to the area being investigated. A multi-level approach (individual and group) for measuring CE is recommended, if feasible. For CE measures geared to quantitative methods, we advocate for mixed methods. Mixed methods can complement each other far beyond what is practiced in the CE–adaptation nexus literature and provide clarity and depth to findings. We also urge scholars to assess CE measures’ validity and reliability to ensure the assessment’s quality. Moreover, an intersectional approach and cultural adaptation of CE measures is encouraged, to advance the understanding of CE in various social-cultural contexts.

The lack of research on CE antecedents in the context of adaptation should be explored. This will assist scholars and decision-makers in making informed decisions to develop/strengthen CE, if necessary. Moreover, CE cannot be conceptualized as a stable attribute, due to its malleability. Cross-sectional studies have established some degree of causality. However, longitudinal studies are proposed to avoid snapshots of the CE effect on adaptation and to examine the CE antecedents using a temporal approach, as this will provide more information about the effects of feedback loops within groups. The CE–adaptation feedback loop was not considered in any of the studies reviewed, yet CE in the adaptation context may be an input or output. That is, CE may influence adaptation, and future CE may be influenced by adaptation. This information is particularly important, as it can be used to build or enhance CE for adaptation purposes. Considering feedback loops will strengthen the results for empirical and theoretical development of the area. Longitudinal studies may also inform policies and interventions regarding what must be done to strengthen CE and improve adaptation actions.

6. Conclusions

This systematic review aimed to establish the state of knowledge on the association between CE and adaptation to climate hazards globally. Exploration of this relationship facilitates mapping evidence (of success or otherwise in the context of CE in adaptation) across sectors and regions. Additionally, it aids in identifying gaps in the literature and facilitates sharing best practices to develop/strengthen CE if necessary. In this regard, what comes to the fore in this systematic review is that the literature on CE and adaptation is limited in terms of the number of publications, indicating that this topic is still nascent. In addition to the sectorial gap, the geography of studies is not diverse, reflecting a temporal and geographic knowledge gap. CE has not been extensively operationalized in the highly vulnerable African continent, and in South Africa, CE (in the adaptation context) remains untested. CE and adaptation research in African countries is imperative considering their collectivistic culture—at least in theory—high vulnerability, and low adaptive capacity. Evidence on the positive association between CE and adaptation to climate change and climate-related hazards has been accrued. However, the relationship is dynamic, and its strength varies depending on the population and instruments used to measure CE. The studies reviewed herein were cross-sectional in nature, and, thus, some caution about knowledge claims for this area are needed until longitudinal studies are conducted as recommended.

The conceptualization of CE remains contested. Theorizing is recommended to clarify the conceptual ambiguity and improve CE’s theoretical understanding and practical application. The operationalization of CE varies among the studies reviewed. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the methods and instruments employed to measure CE represent Bandura’s conceptualization of CE under the umbrella of SCT. Moreover, CE antecedents are not proffered in some studies, despite their significance in bolstering CE. Increased research output is urged to advance knowledge claims on the CE and adaptation nexus globally, because CE is context-dependent and important for climate adaptation. The authors contend that this contribution will serve as a research agenda for scholars interested in the CE–adaptation nexus, enhance CE research, and facilitate effective and sustainable adaptation.