Measuring the impact of adaptation and resilience work has long posed challenges in the realm of climate change. No universally applicable system of metrics provides an accurate analysis of adaptation success. As the world gears up for the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29), the subject of measuring adaptation success remains highly relevant. A key focus of COP 29 is on climate finance and furthering the targets of the Paris Agreement. To achieve these targets and channel funding towards adaptation measures, developing insightful metrics remains key. This blog focuses on how using localised metrics catalyses equitable funding and argues for measuring climate adaptation success in a way that respects local nuances.
A recent insights report by Transitions Research for the Adaptation Research Alliance highlights the growing recognition of the power of qualitative methods and advocates for developing context-specific metrics to measure adaptation success. Real resilience is not found in numbers, it lies in understanding the lives of those impacted. This is why developing context specific metrics matters; they tell us authentic stories and ways of living, and allow us to measure the true value of interventions.
As countries present their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Baku this year, these climate plans must look for genuine adaptation that roots itself in the community’s unique idea of resilience. But how do we measure stories? How do we immerse ourselves in a place to understand how its people live and what affects them? To develop context specific metrics means to understand the story of the place, to listen more, to learn to speak the same language. There remains a lack of definition of local adaptation goals and a poor understanding of how specific adaptation actions lead to vulnerability reductions and resilience increases. There is a way people speak about climate, their connection to nature, and what resilience means to their community. To capture this, we must listen to how they speak, developing an understanding of the vocabulary with which they connect with the environment. For instance, understanding how fisherfolk comprehend the sea rather than modern mapping. We should prioritise listening first to measure accurately.
A human-centred approach to measuring climate resilience values local and indigenous methods of knowledge production. It is about rooting the understanding of concepts like climate, adaptation and resilience in place. The Urban Imaginaries of Adaptation study used visuals produced through art-science collaboration to advocate for local imaginations of ‘good’ climate adaptation. Visuals were co-created with local governments, non-governmental organisations, educational organisations, civic associations, and businesses and professional illustrators to capture participants’ view of adaptation in their city. Such a process enables the development of goals and metrics driven by context and communities. This approach also leads to greater ownership because the resilience action evolves with the metric, instead of beginning with a preconceived idea of the ‘ideal’. Both the action and the metric are framed by lived experiences of the people, that accurately capture their reality to move towards an imaginary that belongs to them.
Generic metrics do not capture the challenges of specific regions. A study conducted on the sustainability of Community-Based Adaptation projects in the Blue Nile Highlands of Ethiopia highlights how tailored metrics can evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. They found CBA sustainability depends on adaptive and learning-based management, underscoring the necessity of focusing on local markets for sustainable adaptation efforts. Projects that adapt their metrics during their duration based on ongoing learning create iterative processes that reflect true resilience and capacity building. The use of context-specific metrics can lead to more enduring strategies by aligning the distinct needs and conditions of the community.
While quantitative metrics remain critical in measuring resilience, a more nuanced mixed-methods approach paints a holistic picture. It remains most critical for funders and decision makers to evaluate metrics of measuring adaptation resilience. ‘Adaptation Resilience Impact: A Measurement Framework for Investors’ provides a conceptual framework for investors to measure the impact of adaptation and resilience investments. The framework involves contextualising the assessment of adaptation and resilience to enable investors to articulate a theory of change that has the investment’s climate risk context as its starting point. One must also take into account the political ecology of the place and consider multiple dimensions of change. Metrics should tie across disciplines to reflect their interconnectedness. Look for who was involved in deciding these metrics, who had a seat on the table and more importantly, who didn’t?
In the establishment of a new collective quantified goal on climate finance in 2024, context-specific metrics highlight the distinctive opportunities and challenges a place and community holds. It ensures funding is allocated appropriately for community-driven climate goals. Using these to measure adaptation success ensures placing equity and climate justice at the core of resilience efforts. They promote a deeper understanding of socio-economic realities, and in their application empower community voices, fostering greater ownership for adaptation and resilience efforts.
