rigour and participatory goals of evaluating a community-based CCA project.
Secondly, asking questions that prompted communities to think about what it
means to be more resilient, is not only a way to ascertain how the project has
helped improve understanding, but is also key to enabling this resilience. And
thirdly, by asking communities “what else is needed?” beyond project activities
to date helps to inform the details of subsequent activities, and also helps to inform
how and what changes to look out for as measures of community-defined success.
This example also illustrates that there are practical limits to the “ideal” evaluation process but that it is possible to usefully draw on key principles to inform the
approach to evaluating a CCA practice. There were practical limits to full application of a right-based approach, and the extent to which children themselves are
included in the development of the approach and the analysis and articulation of
learnings. There were also limits to what ‘can be known or found out’ through an
evaluation about causal relationships between activities and outcomes, when there
are a myriad of interacting factors at play. It was nevertheless particularly useful to
use the project’s general theory of change to guide the evaluation, but allowing
flexibility for the specific links and relationships – such as how knowledge,
combined with formal and informal communication activities would assist communities to advocate for change and influence practice and policy – would emerge.
In practice, we developed strong team and organisational partnerships between
the NGOs and research organisations involved in the evaluation and the project,
which proved particularly valuable given the type of project and the project context.
Whilst not ‘developmental evaluation’ to its full extent – researchers were not
embedded in the team on a continuous basis – the approach was far from the
‘conventional’ end of the research spectrum where external groups of academic
researchers seek out an existing applied project in order to test or calibrate a model
or theory. The process involved joint learning and reflection from both
implementing and research organisations throughout the project. The project was
adjusted in real time to integrate lessons learned from the evaluative research;
concurrently, the evaluative approach itself evolved to reflect lessons from the
project’s activities on the ground. Embedding research within practice – in the
inherently uncertain context of supporting a community to adapt to climate change
– provided new pathways for realising and sharing learnings from the ground, to
achieve better adaptation outcomes.
Acknowledgements We thank the many children, youth and their communities for sharing their
views and perspectives with us in: Las Navas (including in Barangays of San Isidro and Hangi) in
Northern Samar; Salcedo (including Barangays Matarinao, Garawon and Alog) and Hernani in
Eastern Samar; and Maria Aurora (including Barangay San Joaquin), Dinalungan and Baler
(including Barangay Zabali) in Aurora.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
303
Secondly, asking questions that prompted communities to think about what it
means to be more resilient, is not only a way to ascertain how the project has
helped improve understanding, but is also key to enabling this resilience. And
thirdly, by asking communities “what else is needed?” beyond project activities
to date helps to inform the details of subsequent activities, and also helps to inform
how and what changes to look out for as measures of community-defined success.
This example also illustrates that there are practical limits to the “ideal” evaluation process but that it is possible to usefully draw on key principles to inform the
approach to evaluating a CCA practice. There were practical limits to full application of a right-based approach, and the extent to which children themselves are
included in the development of the approach and the analysis and articulation of
learnings. There were also limits to what ‘can be known or found out’ through an
evaluation about causal relationships between activities and outcomes, when there
are a myriad of interacting factors at play. It was nevertheless particularly useful to
use the project’s general theory of change to guide the evaluation, but allowing
flexibility for the specific links and relationships – such as how knowledge,
combined with formal and informal communication activities would assist communities to advocate for change and influence practice and policy – would emerge.
In practice, we developed strong team and organisational partnerships between
the NGOs and research organisations involved in the evaluation and the project,
which proved particularly valuable given the type of project and the project context.
Whilst not ‘developmental evaluation’ to its full extent – researchers were not
embedded in the team on a continuous basis – the approach was far from the
‘conventional’ end of the research spectrum where external groups of academic
researchers seek out an existing applied project in order to test or calibrate a model
or theory. The process involved joint learning and reflection from both
implementing and research organisations throughout the project. The project was
adjusted in real time to integrate lessons learned from the evaluative research;
concurrently, the evaluative approach itself evolved to reflect lessons from the
project’s activities on the ground. Embedding research within practice – in the
inherently uncertain context of supporting a community to adapt to climate change
– provided new pathways for realising and sharing learnings from the ground, to
achieve better adaptation outcomes.
Acknowledgements We thank the many children, youth and their communities for sharing their
views and perspectives with us in: Las Navas (including in Barangays of San Isidro and Hangi) in
Northern Samar; Salcedo (including Barangays Matarinao, Garawon and Alog) and Hernani in
Eastern Samar; and Maria Aurora (including Barangay San Joaquin), Dinalungan and Baler
(including Barangay Zabali) in Aurora.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
303