IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Participatory adaptation planning and costing. Applications in agricultural adaptation in western Kenya

Listed author(s):
  • Abrar S. Chaudhury


    (University of Oxford
    CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS))

  • Ariella Helfgott

    (University of Oxford
    CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
    University of Adelaide)

  • Thomas F. Thornton

    (University of Oxford)

  • Chase Sova

    (University of Oxford
    CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS))

Registered author(s):

    Abstract Adaptation to climate change is an important theme in the strategy and policy of institutions around the world. Billions of dollars are allocated every year, based on cost estimates of actions to cope with, or benefit from the impacts of climate change. Costing adaptation, however, is complex, involving multiple actors with differing values and a spectrum of possible adaptation strategies and pathways. Currently, expert driven, top-down approaches dominate adaptation costing in practice. These approaches are subject to misallocation, with global funds not always reaching vulnerable communities in most need. This paper introduces an analytical framework called Participatory Social Return on Investment (PSROI), which provides a structured framework for multi-stakeholder planning, selection and valuation of appropriate methods of adaptation. The broader economic, social and environmental impacts of these adaptation actions are explored and valued through a participatory process. PSROI is strength-based, building local capacity and generating stakeholder buy-in. The financial valuation generated provides an additional tool for examining and prioritizing adaptation actions based on their impact. Results from a pilot of the PSROI framework in a smallholder farming community in Western Kenya provide empirical evidence for the difference between expert driven desk-based and ground-based cost estimates that involve local communities. There was an approximate 70 % reduction in the valuation of an agroforestry intervention, selected by the local community, when compared between the desk-based valuation and that of the local community, using primary field data. This reduced expectation of the desk-based PSROI is justified by coherent explanations such as lack of knowledge about the intervention, misconception about the potential costs and benefits, and the risk-averse nature of the farmers. These and other important insights are fundamental for planning and decision-making, as well as appropriate targeting and delivery of funding for adaptation.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

    Volume (Year): 21 (2016)
    Issue (Month): 3 (March)
    Pages: 301-322

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:21:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11027-014-9600-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-014-9600-5
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. W. Neil Adger & Saleemul Huq & Katrina Brown & Declan Conway & Mike Hulme, 2003. "Adaptation to climate change in the developing world," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 3(3), pages 179-195, July.
    2. Robinson, John Bridger, 1982. "Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 337-344, December.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Willis, Kenneth G. (ed.), 2001. "Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU , and developing Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199248919.
    4. Saleemul Huq & Hannah Reid & Mama Konate & Atiq Rahman & Youba Sokona & Florence Crick, 2004. "Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs)," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 25-43, March.
    5. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    6. Asim Ijaz Khwaja, 2004. "Is Increasing Community Participation Always a Good Thing?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 427-436, 04/05.
    7. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    8. William D. Nordhaus, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 686-702, September.
    9. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    10. Martin L. Weitzman, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 703-724, September.
    11. Patrick Biernacki & Dan Waldorf, 1981. "Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 141-163, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:21:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11027-014-9600-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.