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?

Presentation Outline
1. Context
2. PSROI Framework
1. 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 what
2. To what
3. Over what time frame
4. 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 approach
Stakeholder-centric

Economic
Environmental
Social
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, Senegal
ONE: Kochiel, 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 shift
Sample 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

Challenge-Response Response Clustering
Prioritizing challenges &
responses
WORKSHOP DAY1 (continued): Past
Community 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
Challenges
Influence
Diagram

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 Future
Visions 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:
Planning
Back 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 Plan
Surplus
food
supply
Water
Supply
Increased
forest
area
NOW FUTURE
Rain
Local
seeds for
trees and
crops
Basic
farming
tools
Land
Farming
knowledge
Stream
Local
market
Community
groups

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 : Investments
e.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:
Stakeholders Inputs Outcomes
Adjusting
Impact
Discounting
PSROI
RATIO
page 34 PSROI working paper…

Adjusting
Impact
Discounting
PSROI
RATIO
Who is affected by
this intervention?
SROI:

Adjusting
Impact
Discounting
PSROI
RATIO
What investment is
needed?
SROI:

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) Notes
5. 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 project
Cost 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

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?
SROI:

2
6. Description: How would you describe the
change?
7. Indicator: How do you measure the change? Source
8. 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) 10
1 year (but after
year 10)
Timber value of each
tree
10,000
Market
Price/Farmers
Improved Yield of Crop because of soil
improvements
Increased Yield of Maize
Research (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
500
Hospital 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 fertilizer
Cost 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 stress
Improvement 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
30
Market 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)
144
SALM (Carbon
Finance)
OUTCOMES
STEP 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?

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?
SROI:

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?

Adjusting
Impact
Discounting
PSROI
RATIO
1. Do the values of the
impacts decrease with
time?
2. What are the total
impacts worth today?
SROI:

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

Adjusting
Impact
Discounting
PSROI
RATIO
After discounting
future values, what
are the total impacts
worth today?
SROI:

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
Intercroppin
g 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
Technical
Design
Step 3
Baseline
Costing
Step 4
Verification
Revision 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.

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

Future Development
Step 1
Workshop
Step 2
Technical
Design
Step 3
Baseline
Costing
Step 4
• Verification
• 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 outcomes
4. Incorporate scenarios into costing
5. Cost interactions between interventions
4
1 2 3 4
3 3
4

Challenges & Potential
Solutions
Time
intensive
Break up process
PSROI vs.
‘PSROI light’
Criteria of when to
do what steps
Capacity
Local facilitators
are ideal,
intervention
specialists
Create local
training and
learning networks
Scope
Set clear
boundaries in
workshop
Could 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

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

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

PSROI seminar presentation for PNUMA climate change vulnerability workshop

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a PSROI seminar presentation for PNUMA climate change vulnerability workshop

Similar a PSROI seminar presentation for PNUMA climate change vulnerability workshop (20)

Más de Decision and Policy Analysis Program

Más de Decision and Policy Analysis Program (20)

Último

Último (20)

PSROI seminar presentation for PNUMA climate change vulnerability workshop