structural inequalities and vulnerabilities (Olsson et al. 2014a). Others, like the MGNREGA in India may have eroded relational poverty as a desirable side effect rather than an intrinsic priority (Taylor 2013). Furthermore, adaptive social protection only exists in LICs and MICs. Attention is needed to understand how protection has worked for the poor in HICs, comparing welfare state records with social welfare programs squeezed by neo‐liberal policies, for instance in the context of heat waves.

Figure 9 also depicts poverty traps and successful adaptation. The former is likely to occur when multidimensional vulnerability is high, adaptive options sparse, risk from simultaneous or cumulative stressors and exposure high, results from efforts within the four risk management channels meager, and social protection absent, too late, non‐portable, or ill‐suited to address inequalities, possibly even reinforcing them. In practice, however, little evidence exists that provides such a clear picture. In fact, what might seem like a poverty trap to some investigators could be interpreted as resilience‐enhancing by others. Leichenko and Silva (2014) use the case of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras in 1998 to reveal limitations in existing methodologies to clearly identify and delineate poverty traps. One of their reviewed studies reports long‐lasting and durable impacts among poor and poorest households, partially resulting from defensive, low‐risk economic strategies, suggesting indeed poverty traps. Another study, however, identifies opportunities for increased local resilience after such an extreme event. The latter entails institutional changes for more efficient flood protection, and positive changes in land tenure, agricultural production removed from risky floodplains, and income diversification. More nuanced and rigorous analyses would be needed to identify clearly who becomes trapped and who benefits, understanding that these two often form a relational pair in which both traps and enhanced resilience can co‐exist.

Successful adaptation is more likely when the constraining factors are reversed, or at least most of them. Chapter 13 Livelihoods and Poverty provides evidence that points toward positive effects of autonomous adaptation on reducing poverty, including successful migration, productive diversification of livelihoods, food storage, and saving systems and relations of mutual support. Yet, diversification and storage are often not available options to the poorest while other options may drain their labor resources and deteriorate people’s health (Olsson et al. 2014a). Moreover, some successful adaptation among certain members of a household or a society can mean worsening conditions for the less fortunate or powerful, including local elite capture of adaptation projects or male outmigration. Few larger‐scale adaptation projects have been systematically evaluated for their impacts on poverty reduction. Among the few is India’s Karnataka Watershed project that apparently increased income, employment, and agricultural productivity among the poorest and landless, thus also lifting equity (Olsson et al. 2014a).

Finally, Figure 9 illustrates the linkage between ‘the arch of structural constraints’ and climate hazards. For instance, uneven development pathways shape energy policies and mitigation strategies. And climate policies are explicitly designed to lower emissions or contribute to carbon capture and storage. At the same time, mitigation measures have their own impacts on poor people’s vulnerability. Chapter 13 Livelihoods and Poverty summarizes the so far rather sparse and premature evidence with respect to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest 39