You are here: Home / Toolbox / Details

---

Toolbox home References

Community vulnerability assessments using a participatory stakeholder method are commonly practiced by NGOs and civil society organisations working at the local scale. Early examples include Capacities and Vulnerability Analysis (CVA) (Anderson and Woodrow, 1989) and the Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Tool (IFRC, 1999). Although many organisations use their own approaches, some generic toolkits and guides have been produced in order to outline good practice in procedure which might be followed (e.g. Twigg, 2007; Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). Common understanding of good practice is that they should be based around a participatory methodology (e.g. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Rapid Rural Appraisal tools), require local ownership, and integrate other processes (Davis et al, 2004).

Whilst participatory vulnerability assessments may yield valid data, reflections after many years of their use has also raised criticisms. Concerns have been expressed over the uncritical use of tools, without adapting appropriately to local circumstances and, related to that, viewing communities as homogeneous (and harmonious) social units (Davis et al, 2004). A study by the Red Cross/Red Crescent highlighted the important of keeping community risk assessments simple enough for wide application, which typically requires attention in the modification of tools, and in the guidance for interpretation of outcomes (van Aalst et al, 2008).

At their most basic, many community vulnerability assessments are designed to use low technology and thus be appropriate even in impoverished and remote environments. But the same principles of knowledge elicitation are similarly popular in higher technology developed country contexts. Here there is often scope (and greater existing data availability) for a more comprehensive approach.

Box 3-9: Multi-stakeholder processes Engaging stakeholders means recognising that each and every actor has a valid view and relevant information to contribute to a task. Multi-stakeholder processes are increasingly encouraged as they encourage better decision-making by ensuring that the views of main actors are incorporated and that a consensus is reached (Hemmati, 2002). Facilitating multi-stakeholder processes requires willingness to participate on the part of the stakeholders. It also requires a sensitive and delicate process of facilitation. The facilitator must, therefore, be able to adapt to varying circumstances and be willing to deviate from a plan, if needs arise, whilst still ensuring that the end goal is achieved. A number of books and guidance tools exist around such participatory processes: Chambers, R. 2002. Participatory Workshops: A Source Book of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. Earthscan. Available from http://www.earthscan.co.uk/. Good source book of information about how to run workshops including lots of practical advice and common mistakes. Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). 2001. Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A Resource Book on Participation. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). e-mail:publications@iirr.org. A collection of short reviews of participatory approaches and experiences. Pretty, J.N., I. Guijt, I. Scoones and J. Thompson. 1995. Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers Guide. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Available from http://www.earthprint.com. A valuable collection of advice, tips, and methods for participatory approaches. The focus is mostly on participatory rural appraisal but much would also be relevant to APF workshops. Kaner, S., L. Lind, C. Toldi, S. Fisk and D. Berger. 1996. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. New Society Publishers. An introduction to how to build consensus and make sustainable agreements with groups. Also gives advice on how to handle difficult group dynamics and individuals.

Community vulnerability assessments vary in their scope. Some focus specifically on adaptive capacity, whilst others also include the other parts of the impacts equation: exposure and sensitivity. NOAA developed a Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CVAT), that supports the linking of environmental, social and economic data in the coastal zone. It is a static GIS map overlay procedure that enables a relative risk or vulnerability analysis of coastal communities to a series of existing threats. Seven steps are followed in the procedure:

Case study: CRiSTAL Screening Tool CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods) is a screening tool designed to help project designers and managers integrate risk reduction and climate change adaptation into community-level projects. It helps project designers and managers: Understand the links between livelihoods and climate in their project areas; Assess a project’s impact on community-level adaptive capacity; and Make project adjustments to improve its impact on adaptive capacity and reduce the vulnerability of communities to climate change. The CRiSTAL toolkit is available in multiple languages, and formats (hard copy and excel). It works through eliciting answers to four questions divided into two modules: Synthesising information on climate and livelihoods What is the climate context? What is the livelihood context? Planning and managing projects for adaptation What are the impacts of project activities on livelihood resources that are vulnerable to current climate hazards / are important to local coping strategies? How can project activities be adjusted to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive So far it has been applied in Central and South America (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru); Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Tanzania and Zambia) and Asia (Sri Lanka) (www.cristaltool.org) For more information, see www.cristaltool.org

Case study: CARE Community Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment process CARE created its Community Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (CVCA) process in order to analyse the various factors that determine vulnerability to climate change. The process involves participatory analysis, which engages all stakeholders in understanding climate-related challenges, identifying adaptation solutions, and taking steps towards those solutions. As with all participatory approaches, the process provides a framework for dialogue within communities, as well as between communities and other stakeholders. The CVCA handbook is currently available in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese, and provides an overview of the methodology, as well as practical guidance for using it in the design and implementation of adaptation actions. One example of the use of the CVCA process was in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for the Regional Project for Adaptation to the Impact of Rapid Glacier Retreat in the Tropical Andes (PRAA). Glacial retreat not only limits water availability, but also increases exposure to geomorphological hazards, such as landslides, mudslides and lake outbursts. Use of CVCA highlighted the differential nature of vulnerabilities, and thereby enabled appropriate adaptation responses to be identified. For more information, see www.careclimatechange.org/cvca