This paper outlines the results of a systematic review of the literature on adaptive comanagement (ACM). Adaptive comanagement is an emergent governance approach for complex social-ecological systems that links the learning function of adaptive management (experimental and experiential) and the linking (vertically and horizontally) function of comanagement. Given the rapid growth of adaptive comanagement scholarship, there is value in a systematic analysis of how the concept is being conceptualized to elucidate agreement and discrepancies and to examine the challenges this presents for cross-case comparisons and the possibility of arriving at more generalizable insights. A synthesis-based methodology has been developed involving a comprehensive search and screening of academic databases and the internet. A detailed analysis of 108 documents was undertaken to characterize the state of the ACM literature, unpack the construct of ACM, and examine relationships among aspects of ACM based on accumulated experiences to date. The systematic review and analysis reveals imprecision, inconsistency, and confusion with the concept. Robust evidentiary insights into how the variables or components of ACM interrelate as well as relate to goals and outcomes are, therefore, presently not possible. These findings lead to the discussion of a series of challenges for ACM scholarship. Opportunities remain for ACM scholars to pursue theoretical development in rigorous ways that facilitate empirically based cross-site comparisons

Lack of public support for coastal adaptation can present significant barriers for implementation. In response, policy makers and academics are seeking strategies to build public support for coastal adaptation, which requires a deeper understanding of peoples’ preferences for coastal adaptation and what motives those preferences. Here, we conduct a systematic literature review to understand preferences for coastal adaptation options and the factors influencing these preferences. Ninety peer-reviewed publications meet the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that hard protection options were often the most frequently preferred, likely due to a desire to maintain current shoreline, for the protection of recreational spaces and private property, and a perceived effectiveness of hard protection options. Soft protection, including nature-based approaches, accommodation, and no action were the next most preferred options. Finally, retreat options were the least preferred, often due to strong place attachment. We identify twenty-eight factors that could influence preferences, with risk perception, place attachment, and financial considerations occurring most frequently in the literature. In the conclusion, we outline the most significant research gaps identified from our analysis and discuss the implication for adaptation research and practice.