psroi seminar presentation for pnuma climate change vulnerability workshop

Participatory Social Return on Investment (PSROI)

Community Based Prioritization and Costing Framework for Resilience Building Interventions

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)

24 April 2013 Taller de Intercambio de experiencias sobre Análisis de Vulnerabilidad al cambio

climático en la región de América Latina y el Caribe

Workshop for the exchange of experiences related to climate change Vulnerability Analyses in the Latin American and Caribbean region

Science to Cultivate Change

Introduction• Write your answers to the introduction

questions on the post-it notes in front of you. • Only one idea per post-it.• You can use as many as you need.

1. What do you want to get out of this session?

2. What kind of work are you engaged in? Ex. planner? implementer? Researcher? Work with communities? National decision-making?


Introduction• Write your answers to the introduction

questions on the post-it notes in front of you. • Only one idea per post-it.• You can use as many as you need.

1. What do you want to get out of this session?

2. What kind of work are you engaged in? Ex. planner? implementer? Researcher? Work with communities? National decision-making?

You just used one of the key techniques

of our participatory workshop:

- Sharing individual ideas as a group

- Clustering similar ideas together

- Identifying themes arising from the

group

*More on this later*


Presentation Outline

1. Context

2. PSROI Framework1. Track 1: Participatory Workshop

2. Track 2: Costing

3. Lessons

4. Future Directions


Context

• Changing climate need for adaptation

• Increased international funds for climate change

• Uncertainty yet need to act• Simplified tools needed for immediate

actions by governments• What adaptation action are needed to build

resilience?


Definitions

Resilience– “the capacity of a system to experience

shocks while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identify”

– Moving towards desired characteristics

– Adaptation as building resilience

1. Of what2. To what

3. Over what time frame4. From whose

perspective(Helfgott, 2011)


• Identity should be defined by those within the system in question

• Culture and identity are fluid

• Resilience depends on perspective

• Need to understand what is really important to communities

(Gary Larson, 1984)

“Anthropologists! Anthropologists!”


Prioritizing and costing adaptation options - integral to planning and policy

Decision makers need tools that:1. select adaptation options and guide distribution of

funds effectively, efficiently, and appropriately

2. prioritize interventions from scientific and social perspectives

3. scale up processes, not prescriptions

4. take into account local context

5. measure impact reflective of on the ground realities


Need to understand costs and benefits

Currently: Top-down studies often underestimate adaptation costs and benefits

Goal: Develop a bottom-up costing framework to complement existing approaches to inform policy


Participatory Social Return on Investment (PSROI)

Community-Based Climate Change Adaptation Prioritization, Planning, and Costing

PSROI is a novel framework that combines innovative participatory

methods and the SROI costing framework

Systemic approachStakeholder-centric


Economic

EnvironmentalSocial

Core Principles• Systemic approach

• Stakeholder-centric

• Participatory prioritization

• Strength based - matches CC interventions with local resources

• Plan from a future Vision not a current or future Problem


Partnership, Research, and Capacity Building to Inform Policy

THREE: Dodji, SenegalTHREE: Dodji, Senegal

ONE: Kochiel, Kenya ONE: Kochiel, Kenya

TWO: Othidhe, Kenya TWO: Othidhe, Kenya

• 2011-2012: 7 field studies• Africa – NGOs• SE Asia – Gov’t partners


P(SROI)

Adds framework for Participation to

Social Return on Investment

Track 1: Adaptation Prioritization and Planning Workshop - “P” in PSROI

Track 2: Economics of Adaptation Priorities – P(SROI)


Step 1: Participatory Workshop

Identify Key Stakeholders

Identify Environmental Challenges

Explore Responses, Available Assets. Community Resources

Prioritize Adaptation Interventions

Plan Intervention through Backcasting

Track 1: Adaptation Prioritization and Planning

Explore Values, Norms, Aspirations

Step 2: Intervention Technical

Design

Consultation with Local Informants or External Experts to

Identify Technical Design Requirements

Step 3: Baseline Cost-Benefit

Analysis

Consultation of Academic Literature, Local Informants,

Market and Statistical Databases to Assess Preliminary Costs and

Benefits

Track 2: Economics of Adaptation

Step 4: Field Trial

(Stakeholder Interviews)

BASELINE IMPACT MAP Version 1

Sharing of Technical Benefits

Stakeholder Validation of Input Costs and Perceived Benefits

Practitioner Discovery of New Inputs, Benefits, Barriers to

Implementation, and Success Indicators

ACTUAL IMPACT MAP Version 2

PSROI Methodological Framework

(Sova et al., 2012)


Uses of PSROI• Guide selection and planning of community

interventions• Track 1 Workshop: identify local values, adaptive

capacity (responses/strengths), priorities • Pilot studies to date have:

– assessed climate change adaptation actions, but can be a generally planning tool for development

– forecasted impact of adaptation (not

• Could use for evaluation and long term monitoring• Can assess ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ interventions• Community level currently – could be developed for

higher levels, limit = representation


THEORY track one

Integrated pluralistic theoretical and methodological frameworks:

(1) Resilience and Adaptation Theory

(2) Systems Thinking

(3) Strength-Based Development

Asset-based community development

Appreciative Inquiry

(4) Participatory Action Research


Fog Collection Nets In Operation (1994), El Tofo, Chile

Anyone know this story?

FogQuest


Fog Collection Nets and Storage Tank in Operation (1994)

FogQuest


In 2002, only 9 of the 94 mesh collectors were still hanging…

No one involved the community in planning, and therefore missed what the community really wanted

(Dale, 2013)

FogQuest


Why we need participatory approaches

Risks of failing to understand the context of intervention and identify appropriate objectives:

• Interventions resulting in unexpected adverse outcomes

• Wasting resources on unachievable operational goals

• Inability to measure effectiveness(Helfgott, 2011)


Participation

• The ladder of participation

• What level are you comfortable with for your project?

(Arnstein, 1969)

Participants can advise but not decide

Majority of decision-making and full managerial power


TRACK 1

Stakeholder Analysis:

(1) Gather basic demographic information

(2) Identify key informants and ‘gate keepers’

(3) Identify different groups within community

(4) Identify marginalized groups

(5) Invite representative group to workshop

(6) Continue analysis throughout workshop - include missed sectors in interviews


TRACK 1- Community Workshop

1:Past

Values

Challenges

Challenge links

Responses

2:Future

Visions of the Future

3:Present

Current Assets

-Physical-Human

-Institutional

4:Planning

Prioritize

Backcast

Research categories and methods used within each step can shiftSample Schedule (p.58) and Methods outlined in CCAFS Working Paper 16

Want to see challenge links?


Track 1 Workshop

Full Group Sessions Break-out Groups


What is important to you?

Clustering what is important...

WORKSHOP DAY 1: Look to the Past

Community value mapping, perceptions of environmental change and coping mechanisms

Activity: What is important to you? (Clustering and ranking exercise)

Note: Largest group possible 15 minutes for reflecting and writing one idea per post-it note to allow similar ideas to be clustered. 1hr for clustering and discussing

Science to Cultivate ChangeChallenge-Response Response Clustering

Prioritizing challenges & responses

WORKSHOP DAY1 (continued): PastCommunity value mapping, perceptions of environmental change and coping mechanisms

Activity: What environmental challenges are you facing/have you faced in the past? How have you coped so far?

Note: Post- it notes (challenges and possible responses). 1.5 hours for clustering and ranking of challenges and responses . If time allows, supplement with ‘event ecology’ narratives in story circles (1.5 hours).


Track 1 Day 1


Track 1 Day 1

ChallengesInfluenceDiagram


Track 1 Day 1


A variety of activities are used during this phase of the workshop:

Collages of visions and aspirations (1 hour 10 people)

Maps: What will your village look like in 20 years? What do you want your village to look like in 10-15 years? (1.5 hour 10 people)

Reflective exercises:When you think about the future how far ahead do you think? Do you think about your grandchildren’s futures? etc. (1 hour)Village Future Map

Aspirations Collage

WORKSHOP DAY 2: The FutureVisions and Aspirations for the future


Track 1 Day 2

Collage


Track 1 Day 2


Track 1 Day 2

Maps of Village: Current and Future


Back-casting of strategies in space and time…

…and identifying barriers and costs

WORKSHOP PART 3: PlanningBack Casting – How do we reach our vision of the future?

Activity: List adaptation strategies and tools which can take us from where we are now to where we want to go (3 groups, 20 minutes reflection ,40 minutes clustering)

ASK: Who will decide which strategies who uses? Why?

ASK: Where will we seek knowledge?

ASK: Where should resources come from to implement each strategy?

ASK: How do you see these interventions being situated in space and time?

Activity: Brainstorm all of the possible positive and negative impacts (incl. environmental) of these strategies, assign costs, identify barriers and opportunities ( 1hour)


Adaptation Planning via

Visioning & Backcasting

(Helfgott, 2012); Workshop methods outlined in CCAFS working paper 16 (Sova et al. 2012)Example – Van Yen

TRACK 1- Community Workshop

Workshop is a capacity development tool in itself


Track 1 Day 3


*ACTIVITY*

BACK-CASTING


Village_________

• Remote mountainous area• Steep slopping hills• Households are close together

surrounded by farming land• Access to local markets and within 30

minutes on motorbike to regional market• Weather change is perceived:

unpredictable, warmer


Village Challenges

1. Maize and pest disease

2. Lack of finances

3. Low selling price for agricultural goods

4. Decreased soil fertility

5. Lack of technical agricultural training

6. Water shortage

Prioritize and PlanSurplus food supply

Water Supply

Increased forest area

NOW FUTURE

Rain

Local seeds for trees and

crops

Basic farmi

ng tools

Farming

knowledge

Local mark

et


Track 1 Day 3

Congrats! You just finished the workshop


Workshop is a capacity development tool in itself

TRACK 1- Workshop Feedback

Feedback from participants (ranking 1-5)• Participate again: 4.9• Changed their thinking about their

community: 4.5• Surprised by presented visions: 4.1• Feasible for community to repeat

independently and present to local government: 2.8


TRACK 2

“SROI is an approach to understanding and managing the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of a project, organization or policy. It is based on stakeholders and use financial proxies to reveals the value of outcomes that do not have direct market values”

(Nicholls, Lawlor et al. 2009)


TRACK 2

• SROI is NOT: A new economic theory (CBA, Proxies, NMV)

• SROI IS: A new way of gathering and displaying information for decision making


TRACK 2

• Semi-structured interviews to collect data directly from stakeholders

• IMPACT MAP to store data associated with each stakeholder group


TRACK 2 – Economics of Adaptation

(P)SROI RATIO = NPV Benefits : Investmentse.g. Net benefits of $1.5 for each $1 invested (50% return)

National Baseline vs. Community Insights


Economics of Adaptation

1. Technical design of community prioritized intervention (community features + expert consult)

2. Baseline SROI costing with secondary sources and key informants

3. Revisions (validation and discovery at community level)

1. Field trial for Semi-structured household interviews

TRACK 2


SROI:Social Return on Investment

Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

page 34 PSROI working paper…


Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

Who is affected by this intervention?



Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

What investment is needed?



STAKEHOLDERS INTENDED/UNINTENDED CHANGES OUTPUTS

1. Who will be effected, who will effect?

2. What will change for the stakeholder? 3. What is invested? 4. Value (KES) Notes5. Summary of the activity

in numbers

Time (Labour)- Initial Planting and Maintenance 4,550 1

Land (Already exists) - Does not compete with crops for space

0

Seedlings - 100 Gravelia Long Term Tree + 9000 Sesbania Short Term Tree

1025 2

Water - Rain Fed (No additional cost is assumed) 0

Tools (Spade, water can etc) 1,000

As above

Energy Security

NGO's (Agro Forestry Training)

Training to sensitize farmers to benefits of agro-forestry and capacity building exercise

to transfer planting skills

Cost to train one farmer- Including administration, capacity building, logistical and provision of seeds (USD 17)

1,530 3

FARMER GROUP (CARBON PROJECT)

Carbon Offsets Time 0

CARBON PROJECT - World Bank

Carbon projectCost of setting up and operations of carbon project (approx $1/acre)

90 4

KOCHIEL VILLAGE POPULATION (Kombewa)

Overall Improved wellbeing, benefits captured above

Total: 8,195

INPUTS

FARMERS

Inter Cropped Tree Plantation ( Agro

Forestry) - 100 Long Term Trees (Gravelia/

Markhamia) + 9,000 Short Term Trees

(Sesbania/Calliandra)

Improve Livelihoods & Food Security

Environmental Benefits

As above

STEP 1: INPUTS “WHO CONTRIBUTES TO ADAPTATION, AND HOW MUCH?”

1

Who is affected by this intervention?

INPUTS | OUTCOMES | ADJUSTING IMPACT | DISCOUNTING AND SCORING


Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

1. How will this intervention affect you/ your community?

2. How do you know that change has occurred?

3. How can we value the change?



2

6. Description: How would you describe the change?

7. Indicator: How do you measure the change? Source8. Quantity: How

much change occurred?

9. Duration: How long does it last?

10. Financial Proxy: What would you use to value the

change?

11. Value of the change (KES)

Source

Diversification of income - Trees provide additional source of income

Sale of Trees per Year after reaching maturity in year 10 (10%)

Via Team (2011) 101 year (but after

year 10)Timber value of each

tree10,000

Market Price/Farmers

Improved Yield of Crop because of soil improvements

Increased Yield of MaizeResearch (Selishi 2008) -

Via Team (2011)0.5/ ton/Acre 1 Year

Market price of Maize per ton (@KES 33/Kg)

33,000 National Cereal

& Produce Board

Improved yield and income leads to better nutrition and improved health

Lower number of hospital trips (SCC 2011) 4 (1 trip every 3

months)Indefinite (10 years)

Hospital Charges per Trip

500Hospital Charges

- Inquiry

Community empowerment through train the trainer programmes

Increased capacity & knowledge - The benefits captured above

(SCC 2011) N/A Indefinite (10 years) Increased livelihoods N/A

Animal fodder generated from short term trees

Cost saving on purchase of fodder for typical homestead

Via Team (2011) + Key informant farmer

365 bundles (1 bundle per day)

Indefinite (10 years) Market Price of Fodder 50 Key informant

Reduction of soil erosion and improvement in soil productivity by

acting as organic fertilizerCost saving on purchase of fertilizer

Water Productivity - Improved absorption of water

Benefit captured in increased yield but also cost savings of water

Shade & reduced heat stressImprovement wellbeing for humans

and livestock - Value difficult to capture

Firewood from short term trees Cost saving on purchase of firewood SCC (2011)365 bundles (1 bundle /day)

Indefinite (10 years) but after 1 year

Market Price of Firewood

30Market Price -

Inquiry

Time saved by young girls in collecting firewood- Now can attend school

Value of education - Benefits covered above

Carbon sequestering Amount of CO2 sequestered SALM (WB 2010) 1 Acre

Till the duration of trees but will

commence after 9 years

Carbon finance revenue - WB ($1.6/acre)

144SALM (Carbon

Finance)

OUTCOMESSTEP 2: OUTCOMES “WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF ADAPTION, AND HOW DO WE MEASURE THEM?”

How do you know that change has occurred?

How can we value the change?


*

*

*

How will this intervention affect you/ your organization?


Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

1. Would this change happen even without this intervention?

2. Who/ what else could have contributed to the change?

3. Do the benefits/non-benefits decrease with time?



DEADWEIGHT (%) ATTRIBUTION (%) DROP-OFF (%) IMPACT

12. What would have happened without the adaptation?

13. Who else contribution to the change?

14. Does the outcome drop off in later years?

15. Quantity times (*) Financial Proxy minus (-) deadweight,

attribution and drop-off

0 0 0 100,000

0 0 5% 16,500

0 0 0 2,000

0 0 0 18,250

0 0 0 10,950

0 0 0

144

Total: 147,844

STEP 3: ADJUSTING IMPACT “WHAT ELSE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CHANGE?”

3

Who/ what else could have contributed to the change?

Do the benefits/non-benefits decrease with time?



Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

1. Do the values of the impacts decrease with time?

2. What are the total impacts worth today?



16. Year 1 (after activity)

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

100,000

16,500 15,675 14,891 14,147 13,439 12,767 12,129 11,523 10,946

2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250

10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950

144 144

- 47,700 46,875 46,091 45,347 44,639 43,967 43,329 42,867 142,290 - 36,068 30,821 26,353 22,545 19,299 16,529 14,164 12,185 35,172

213,137 204,942 25

STEP 4: DISCOUNTING “WHAT IS THE VALUE IN TO THE FUTURE?” DISCOUNT RATE (15%) - KES

4

Do the values of the impacts decrease with time?

INPUTS | OUTCOMES | ADJUSTING IMPACT | DISCOUTNING AND SCORING


Stakeholders

InputsOutcom

es

Adjusting

Impact

Discounting

PSROI RATIO

After discounting future values, what

are the total impacts worth today?



16. Year 1 (after activity)

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

100,000

16,500 15,675 14,891 14,147 13,439 12,767 12,129 11,523 10,946

2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250

10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950

144 144

- 47,700 46,875 46,091 45,347 44,639 43,967 43,329 42,867 142,290 - 36,068 30,821 26,353 22,545 19,299 16,529 14,164 12,185 35,172

213,137 204,942 25

STEP 4: DISCOUNTING “WHAT IS THE VALUE IN TO THE FUTURE?” DISCOUNT RATE (15%) - KES

4

Knowing that we must discount future values,

what are the total impacts worth today?

INPUTS | OUTCOMES | ADJUSTING IMPACT | DISCOUTNING AND SCORING


Complexities for SROI from the field


1. Who will be effected, who will effect?

2. What is invested? 3. Value (VND) 4. Source 5. Summary of activity

in numbers

Calculation Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Community members Costs for Cinnamon and Cassava Intercropping 50ha

Labor for Planting Cassava

Ha of land x Mandays/ha x price VND/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interview

Maintain Intercropping system and

carry out harvest in

50ha

Labor for Weeding Cassava and Cinnamon simultaneously

Ha of land x Mandays/ha x price VND/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interview

Labor for Harvesting Cassava

Ha of land x Mandays/ha x price VND/day 0 0 156,884,000 156,884,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interview

Labor for Harvesting Cinnamon

Ha of land x Mandays/ha x price VND/day 0 0 0 0 0 132,609,003 132,609,003 132,609,003 132,609,003 132,609,003 0 Interview

Labor for Drying Cassava

Ha of land x Mandays/ha x price VND/day 0 0 118,554,386 118,554,386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interview

Cassava Drying Oven Maintenance yearly during cassava harvest

Ha of land x 1/oven hectare x price VND/oven 0 0 22,076,923 22,076,923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interview

Cinnamon - Inputs


Future Development

Step 1 Workshop

Step 2 Technic

al Design

Step 3 Baseline Costing

Step 4 Verificatio

nRevision

to Costing

• PSROI can be modified both to simplify the framework and to add components.

• This section focuses on additional components that could be explored to further develop and add depth to the framework as a prioritization, planning, and costing tool for climate change adaptation interventions.

(Full set of modifications)


Integrate technical information - Changes in climactic conditions in Lao will effect crop suitability (Lefroy et al. 2010)

CFuture Development

(Lefroy, Collet, and Groverman 2010)


Future DevelopmentStep

1 Workshop

Step 2 Techni

cal Design

Step 3 Baselin

e Costing

Step 4•Verificati

on •Revision

to Costing

Step 5 Beyond

initial PSROI study

5

1. Introduce ‘menus’ of climate smart adaptation options to assist with community prioritization

2. Experiment with when and at what levels to incorporate technical information on climate change and interventions - do more with community

3. Community exchanges to understanding outcomes4. Incorporate scenarios into costing5. Cost interactions between interventions

41 2 3 43 34


Challenges & Potential Solutions

Time intensiveBreak up process

PSROI vs. ‘PSROI light’

Criteria of when to do what steps

CapacityLocal facilitators are ideal, intervention

specialists

Create local training and learning networks

ScopeSet clear boundaries

in workshopCould experiment

with a menu approach

Score doesn’t say it all!Cost what you can,

but even proxies have issues

Emphasize qualitative components


PSROI ‘lite’FAST – SIMPLE – SCALABLE

1. Keep key steps in workshop, change components

2. Bring in menu for technical design, limit community design

3. Cost from national level and limit local costing to verification of outcomes / inputs / indicators

1. Cost key variables

2. Cost locally when outcomes are new

4. Only cost locally when local knowledge is base of intervention, limited understanding of intervention at national level.


Towards a Community Involvement Protocol

(Corner-Dolloff, C and J. Moll-Rocek, submitted)


Conclusions• PSROI has immediate value for

• getting at the heart of what communities desire for

their future and what is needed for them to get there

• planning adaptation interventions to utilize allocated

funding

• evaluating impact over time of interventions

• its transferability to different regions, partners, and

governance structures

• local level assessments

• empowering communities through the process


Conclusions

• Bottom-up vs. Top-down costing

• Include local communities as much as

possible in costing, but don’t always need to

conduct entire costing at the local level

• Research needed to finalize a protocol describing

when local information is essential for costing

• Community level planning and costing must

be integrated with cross level and cross

sector planning


Thank You!

Caitlin [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Acknowledgements and References not included on slides

Some slides were adapted from a unpublished national level trainings on PSROI in March and April of 2012 for staff of the Vietnamese Academy of Agricultural Science, created in collaboration between Caitlin Corner-Dolloff, Chase Sova, and Ariella Helfgott.

Other slides were adapted from the following presentations with permission:• Chaudhury, A. 2012. Unlocking the Power of Local Knowledge and

Partnerships: participatory framework for costing adaptation to climate change. Presentation at the Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2) 28 October 2012: Punta del Estate, Uruguay.

• Corner-Dolloff, C and C. Thuy. 2013. Participatory Community Based Prioritization and Costing of Adaptation Interventions in Lao PDR and Viet Nam. Presentation at the Mekong Environment Symposium 6 March 2013: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

• Corner-Dolloff, C. 2013. Lessons Learned. Presentation at the PSROI Climate Change Planning and Costing Study: Results and National Feedback Workshop 17 January 2013. Vientiane, Lao PDR: CIAT.


References• Arnstein, Sherry R. July 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP. 35(4): 216-224.• Corner-Dolloff, C., and J. Moll-Rocek. Submitted 2013. Getting to the Source: understanding

community involvement in adaptation planning and costing. In Eds. Louis Lebel, Chu Thai Hoanh, and Chayanis Krittasudthacheewa. Forthcoming. Livelihoods, ecosystem services and the challenges of regional integration in the Mekong region. Bangkok: Springer.

• Dale, Stephen. 2013. Collecting fog on El Tofo. IDRC. http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=698

• Helfgott, A. 2011. Lecture 1, Resilience, Adaptation and Development. University of Oxford, unpublished.

• Helfgott, A., Corner-Dolloff, C., Sova, C., Chaudhury, A. 2012. Systemic Community-Based Adaptation Planning. Poster at the ‘Sixth Community Based Adaptation Conference’ hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development. March 2012: Hanoi, Vietnam.

• Lefroy, R.D.B., Collet, L., and C. Grovermann. 2010. Study on Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Land Use in the Lao PDR. A report prepared for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.

• Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E, Goodspeed T. 2009. A guide to Social Return on Investment. London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office.

• Sova CA, Chaudhury AS, Helfgott A, Corner-Dolloff C. 2012. Community-based adaptation costing: An integrated framework for the participatory costing of community-based adaptations to climate change in agriculture. Working Paper No. 16. Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org

http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=698


Additional Reading on PSROI and beyond• PSROI working paper

– http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/ccafs-wp-16-psroi.pdf

• CDKN blog on PSROI work in Southeast Asia– http://cdkn.org/2012/09/a-new-perspective-on-adaptation-priori

tisation-and-costing-in-the-mekong-region/

• CCAFS scenarios work– http://

ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/which-way-food-security-four-plausible-futures-east-africa

• CARE visioning approach - Vietnam– http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CARE_docs/CARE_V

N_Visioning_Document.pdf

• Red Cross – games to engage communities on climate risk– http://www.climatecentre.org/site/games-exercises

http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/ccafs-wp-16-psroi.pdf



http://cdkn.org/2012/09/a-new-perspective-on-adaptation-prioritisation-and-costing-in-the-mekong-region/

http://cdkn.org/2012/09/a-new-perspective-on-adaptation-prioritisation-and-costing-in-the-mekong-region/

http://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/which-way-food-security-four-plausible-futures-east-africa



http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CARE_docs/CARE_VN_Visioning_Document.pdf

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CARE_docs/CARE_VN_Visioning_Document.pdf

http://www.climatecentre.org/site/games-exercises

http://www.climatecentre.org/site/games-exercises

psroi seminar presentation for pnuma climate change vulnerability workshop

Technology

climate need foradaptation

kind of work

workwith communities

national decisionmaking

change identity shouldbe

building resilience1

adaptation action

adaptation options