Progress towards achieving outputs around the improved financing and
budgeting is making slow progress however it should be noted that the county
water department has provided financing for ward level adaptation activities such as
rehabilitation and construction of sand dams. This indicates that implementation of
climate change adaptation activities at local level have been able to influence
targeted county adaptation financing.
15.6 Track 2 Outputs and Outcomes
The Track 2 adaptation interventions implemented at ward level by (WAPCs) were
similar to development actions with the only difference being that they were
formulated through resilience assessments conducted before the TAMD initiative
begun. The ward level interventions were categorised as follows:
• Natural resource management
• Construction/rehabilitation of water structures and water management
• Strengthening of traditional resource governance structures
• Construction of other infrastructure (veterinary lab, animal holding yards).
Over 90 % of the activities were completed by the end of the study period. Early
outcomes from the interventions was achieved around reduction of distances to
water points, increased access to good quality water for the resident and
neighbouring communities, increased capacity of traditional natural resource governance committees (dedhas), proper diagnosis of livestock diseases and strengthened local capacity for natural resource management.
With respect to measuring resilience literature has shown that there are no
universal or generally applicable indicators of resilience (or of vulnerability or
adaptive capacity), as these phenomena are highly context-specific. However, a
number of studies have sought to define dimensions of resilience, with each
dimension gathering together a suite of related factors that might be represented
by context-specific indicators (Alexander 2013
16 ; Nguyen and James 2013
17 ).
However for the purposes of this study, social or livelihood resilience as defined
by Eakin (2012)
18 and Tanner et al. (2015)
19 was used as it was fit for purpose.
16 Alexander, D. E. (2013) ‘Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey.’
Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 13(11): 2707–2716.
17 Nguyen, K. V., & James, H. J. (2013) ‘Measuring household resilience to floods: A case study in
the Vietnamese Mekong river delta’, Ecology and Society 18(3): 13.
18 Eakin, H., Benessaiah, K., Barrera, J. F., Cruz-Bello, G. M., & Morales, H. (2012) ‘Livelihoods
and landscapes at the threshold of change: disaster and resilience in a Chiapas coffee community,
Regional Environmental Change 12(3): 475–488.
19 Tanner, T.M. et al. (2015) ‘Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change’, Nature Climate
Change 5: 23–26.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
283
budgeting is making slow progress however it should be noted that the county
water department has provided financing for ward level adaptation activities such as
rehabilitation and construction of sand dams. This indicates that implementation of
climate change adaptation activities at local level have been able to influence
targeted county adaptation financing.
15.6 Track 2 Outputs and Outcomes
The Track 2 adaptation interventions implemented at ward level by (WAPCs) were
similar to development actions with the only difference being that they were
formulated through resilience assessments conducted before the TAMD initiative
begun. The ward level interventions were categorised as follows:
• Natural resource management
• Construction/rehabilitation of water structures and water management
• Strengthening of traditional resource governance structures
• Construction of other infrastructure (veterinary lab, animal holding yards).
Over 90 % of the activities were completed by the end of the study period. Early
outcomes from the interventions was achieved around reduction of distances to
water points, increased access to good quality water for the resident and
neighbouring communities, increased capacity of traditional natural resource governance committees (dedhas), proper diagnosis of livestock diseases and strengthened local capacity for natural resource management.
With respect to measuring resilience literature has shown that there are no
universal or generally applicable indicators of resilience (or of vulnerability or
adaptive capacity), as these phenomena are highly context-specific. However, a
number of studies have sought to define dimensions of resilience, with each
dimension gathering together a suite of related factors that might be represented
by context-specific indicators (Alexander 2013
16 ; Nguyen and James 2013
17 ).
However for the purposes of this study, social or livelihood resilience as defined
by Eakin (2012)
18 and Tanner et al. (2015)
19 was used as it was fit for purpose.
16 Alexander, D. E. (2013) ‘Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey.’
Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 13(11): 2707–2716.
17 Nguyen, K. V., & James, H. J. (2013) ‘Measuring household resilience to floods: A case study in
the Vietnamese Mekong river delta’, Ecology and Society 18(3): 13.
18 Eakin, H., Benessaiah, K., Barrera, J. F., Cruz-Bello, G. M., & Morales, H. (2012) ‘Livelihoods
and landscapes at the threshold of change: disaster and resilience in a Chiapas coffee community,
Regional Environmental Change 12(3): 475–488.
19 Tanner, T.M. et al. (2015) ‘Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change’, Nature Climate
Change 5: 23–26.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
283