purposes has different requirements for M&E which makes it possible to preselect
M&E approaches that meet those requirements. For example, monitoring the
integration of adaptation into planning processes does not require complex statistical analysis. Rather, a qualitative or quantitative approach focusing on the planning processes and involving stakeholders seems more suitable. It could take the
form of interviews with key informants or of a set of indicators illustrating progress.
This example demonstrates that there is still a variety of possible M&E approaches
even for the same specific M&E purpose. Therefore, the Adaptation M&E Navigator does not lead users to the one and only M&E approach, but rather directs them
to a short list of relevant M&E approaches. Indeed, the Adaptation M&E Navigator
helps to filter among the many existing M&E approaches those that seem most
relevant for a given purpose.
The M&E approaches which are associated with the same specific purpose each
constitute a very distinctive way of assessment, e.g. assessing improvements in
resilience through either a set of high level national indicators or through household
level questions as part of a census (Welle et al. 2014). Every M&E approach can in
turn be implemented in a variety of ways. For example, the exact interview procedures, number and composition of interviewees of the M&E approach “Qualitative assessment based on interviews” can vary greatly. In fact, the final M&E design
is typically tailored to the specific context, as demonstrated by the M&E methodology of the United Kingdom’s capacity building support to help implement
Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy described in Adler et al.
(2015). The Adaptation M&E Navigator is supporting decision makers and their
technical advisors to identify a suitable M&E approach which can then be tailored
to the particular context.
18.4 Supporting the Selection of a Suitable M&E Approach
The suitability or appropriateness of a particular M&E approach can only be
determined in light of the specific context of application. The Adaptation M&E
Navigator includes five criteria which are useful to consider:
1. The main intention or general purpose the M&E approach is mainly catering to,
i.e. learning, management or accountability
2. A focus on process or outcome-orientation
3. The degree of complexity of implementing the M&E approach
4. The degree of subjectivity of the M&E findings
5. The level of available experience in applying the M&E approach
A detailed description of each criterion and its relevance is provided in
Table 18.1. Criteria 3–5 are rated on a 5 point scale (low, low to medium, medium,
medium to high, high). The M&E approaches are rated relative to each other, i.e. if
one is relatively more complex to carry out or leads to more subjective findings than
another M&E approach.
18 The Adaptation M&E Navigator: A Decision Support Tool for the. . .
331
M&E approaches that meet those requirements. For example, monitoring the
integration of adaptation into planning processes does not require complex statistical analysis. Rather, a qualitative or quantitative approach focusing on the planning processes and involving stakeholders seems more suitable. It could take the
form of interviews with key informants or of a set of indicators illustrating progress.
This example demonstrates that there is still a variety of possible M&E approaches
even for the same specific M&E purpose. Therefore, the Adaptation M&E Navigator does not lead users to the one and only M&E approach, but rather directs them
to a short list of relevant M&E approaches. Indeed, the Adaptation M&E Navigator
helps to filter among the many existing M&E approaches those that seem most
relevant for a given purpose.
The M&E approaches which are associated with the same specific purpose each
constitute a very distinctive way of assessment, e.g. assessing improvements in
resilience through either a set of high level national indicators or through household
level questions as part of a census (Welle et al. 2014). Every M&E approach can in
turn be implemented in a variety of ways. For example, the exact interview procedures, number and composition of interviewees of the M&E approach “Qualitative assessment based on interviews” can vary greatly. In fact, the final M&E design
is typically tailored to the specific context, as demonstrated by the M&E methodology of the United Kingdom’s capacity building support to help implement
Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy described in Adler et al.
(2015). The Adaptation M&E Navigator is supporting decision makers and their
technical advisors to identify a suitable M&E approach which can then be tailored
to the particular context.
18.4 Supporting the Selection of a Suitable M&E Approach
The suitability or appropriateness of a particular M&E approach can only be
determined in light of the specific context of application. The Adaptation M&E
Navigator includes five criteria which are useful to consider:
1. The main intention or general purpose the M&E approach is mainly catering to,
i.e. learning, management or accountability
2. A focus on process or outcome-orientation
3. The degree of complexity of implementing the M&E approach
4. The degree of subjectivity of the M&E findings
5. The level of available experience in applying the M&E approach
A detailed description of each criterion and its relevance is provided in
Table 18.1. Criteria 3–5 are rated on a 5 point scale (low, low to medium, medium,
medium to high, high). The M&E approaches are rated relative to each other, i.e. if
one is relatively more complex to carry out or leads to more subjective findings than
another M&E approach.
18 The Adaptation M&E Navigator: A Decision Support Tool for the. . .
331