among stakeholders, an approach also supported by Preskill (2009)
11 and Preskill
and Boyle (2008).
12 This was done by simplifying various climate change and
M&E definitions and processes with the county officials and WAPCs e.g. climate
variability, maladaptation, outputs, outcomes, impacts, indicators, evaluation and
assumptions, before ToCs and M&E plans were developed with facilitation from
the researchers.
15.2.4 Baseline Data
Two types of baseline data were collected from Isiolo. Track 1 (top-down) and
Track 2 (bottom-up).
The sources included:
• Key informant interviews using semi-structured questionnaires
• Semi-structured group interviews
• Secondary data sources from county development plans were used for triangulating primary data collected from communities e.g. livestock numbers per ward,
number of households accessing potable water.
15.2.4.1 Track 1 (Top-Down)
For the CRM processes under Track 1, the scores that were agreed upon through the
use of the score card were the baseline values. The outputs of this exercise are
shown in the results section. This exercise also highlighted the weak areas in CRM
in the County, and as such, interventions that could address the weaknesses were
prioritized. These were strengthening early warning systems, county budgeting and
planning, and county coordination and planning.
15.2.4.2 Track 2 (Bottom-Up)
After the development of the ward ToCs, communities were given basic training in
collecting baseline data against the indicators they had developed to measure their
perceptions of resilience/adaptive capacity, for their respective ToCs, with a data
collection tool that had been designed by the research team. This data was collected
over a period of 3 months by the six wards.
11 Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A conceptual model of evaluation capacity building: A
multidisciplinary perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 29 (4), pp. 443–459.
12 Preskill, H. (2009). Reflections on the dilemmas of conducting evaluations. In Birnbaum, N., &
Mickwitz, P. (Eds), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological
challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 97–103.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
277
11 and Preskill
and Boyle (2008).
12 This was done by simplifying various climate change and
M&E definitions and processes with the county officials and WAPCs e.g. climate
variability, maladaptation, outputs, outcomes, impacts, indicators, evaluation and
assumptions, before ToCs and M&E plans were developed with facilitation from
the researchers.
15.2.4 Baseline Data
Two types of baseline data were collected from Isiolo. Track 1 (top-down) and
Track 2 (bottom-up).
The sources included:
• Key informant interviews using semi-structured questionnaires
• Semi-structured group interviews
• Secondary data sources from county development plans were used for triangulating primary data collected from communities e.g. livestock numbers per ward,
number of households accessing potable water.
15.2.4.1 Track 1 (Top-Down)
For the CRM processes under Track 1, the scores that were agreed upon through the
use of the score card were the baseline values. The outputs of this exercise are
shown in the results section. This exercise also highlighted the weak areas in CRM
in the County, and as such, interventions that could address the weaknesses were
prioritized. These were strengthening early warning systems, county budgeting and
planning, and county coordination and planning.
15.2.4.2 Track 2 (Bottom-Up)
After the development of the ward ToCs, communities were given basic training in
collecting baseline data against the indicators they had developed to measure their
perceptions of resilience/adaptive capacity, for their respective ToCs, with a data
collection tool that had been designed by the research team. This data was collected
over a period of 3 months by the six wards.
11 Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A conceptual model of evaluation capacity building: A
multidisciplinary perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 29 (4), pp. 443–459.
12 Preskill, H. (2009). Reflections on the dilemmas of conducting evaluations. In Birnbaum, N., &
Mickwitz, P. (Eds), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological
challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 97–103.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
277