communities themselves were possible at the sub-national (county) and ward
(community) levels.
15.2 Approach
The TAMD framework is for use in many contexts and at many scales to assess and
compare the effectiveness of interventions that directly or indirectly assist
populations in adapting to climate change. It also provides an explicit framework
for two tracks; Track 1 entails assessing the capacity of institutions to undertake
effective climate risk management (CRM) actions (also called top-down), while
Track 2 entails assessing impacts of interventions aimed at reducing vulnerability
and the extent to which such interventions keep development on track (development performance or bottom-up) – Fig. 15.1.
The TAMD operational framework
8 has a set of eight commonly used indicators
that can be used to measure top down/climate risk management processes being
implemented by government institutions using a score card (these indicators are
further described under the top-down process – Track 1). The operational framework then suggests that theories of change (ToCs) be used to measure the change
pathways from adaptation interventions to development performance in bottom up
processes (Track 2). It further suggests that linkages between climate risk management processes and development performance/adaptive capacity can be shown in a
ToC. Thus the development of ToCs can be within one track or between tracks. The
researchers therefore chose to measure top bottom processes with a score card and
ToCs to show changes in adaptive capacity using bottom up approaches. In addition
the researchers used a ToC to make the linkage between Tracks 1 and 2.
15.2.1 Top-Down (Track 1) Process
For Track 1, county technical officers from the departments of water, livestock,
natural resource management, meteorology, planning and the National Drought
Management Authority (NDMA) were brought together to identify and prioritize
CRM activities required to build adaptive capacity at community level. These
activities were screened from the NDMA strategic plan, the Isiolo County Integrated Development Plan (ICIDP), and sectoral plans of the county.
8 Brooks, N., Anderson, S., Burton, I., Fisher, S., Rai, N., & Tellam, I. (2013). An operational
framework for tracking adaptation and measuring development (Climate Change Working Paper
No. 5). London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Environmental Development (IIED).
Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10038IIED.pdf
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
273
(community) levels.
15.2 Approach
The TAMD framework is for use in many contexts and at many scales to assess and
compare the effectiveness of interventions that directly or indirectly assist
populations in adapting to climate change. It also provides an explicit framework
for two tracks; Track 1 entails assessing the capacity of institutions to undertake
effective climate risk management (CRM) actions (also called top-down), while
Track 2 entails assessing impacts of interventions aimed at reducing vulnerability
and the extent to which such interventions keep development on track (development performance or bottom-up) – Fig. 15.1.
The TAMD operational framework
8 has a set of eight commonly used indicators
that can be used to measure top down/climate risk management processes being
implemented by government institutions using a score card (these indicators are
further described under the top-down process – Track 1). The operational framework then suggests that theories of change (ToCs) be used to measure the change
pathways from adaptation interventions to development performance in bottom up
processes (Track 2). It further suggests that linkages between climate risk management processes and development performance/adaptive capacity can be shown in a
ToC. Thus the development of ToCs can be within one track or between tracks. The
researchers therefore chose to measure top bottom processes with a score card and
ToCs to show changes in adaptive capacity using bottom up approaches. In addition
the researchers used a ToC to make the linkage between Tracks 1 and 2.
15.2.1 Top-Down (Track 1) Process
For Track 1, county technical officers from the departments of water, livestock,
natural resource management, meteorology, planning and the National Drought
Management Authority (NDMA) were brought together to identify and prioritize
CRM activities required to build adaptive capacity at community level. These
activities were screened from the NDMA strategic plan, the Isiolo County Integrated Development Plan (ICIDP), and sectoral plans of the county.
8 Brooks, N., Anderson, S., Burton, I., Fisher, S., Rai, N., & Tellam, I. (2013). An operational
framework for tracking adaptation and measuring development (Climate Change Working Paper
No. 5). London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Environmental Development (IIED).
Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10038IIED.pdf
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
273