User Tools

Site Tools

INDICATOR 21: % of people that have actively engaged in reducing their vulnerabilities to the shocks that affect them
Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for?
The rationale for this indicator is to capture the extent to which CARE’s impact groups have strengthened their capacity to anticipate, absorb and adapt to shocks and stresses by reducing the underlying causes of vulnerability as well as various other drivers of risk; and transform their lives in response to new hazards and opportunities.
What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to?
Though there is no one single SDG indicator that maps on to this indicator, SDG target 1.5 is closely related. Target 1.5 aims by 2030, to build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.
Definitions and key terms
Increasing resilience is an on-going process, not a final outcome that can be achieved within a specific time-frame. CARE’s approach for increasing resilience can be summarized as.
* Resilience is increased when A.) the capacities and assets to deal with various shocks, stresses, uncertainty and change are built and supported; and B.) the drivers of risk are reduced; and C.) when these actions are supported by an enabling environment.
* It is important that change takes place and be sustained in all three domains to achieve this impact. The following activities can be included when measuring the total number of people that have actively engaged in reducing their vulnerability to shocks and stresses, including their underlying drivers
Actions that aim to :
· Reduce the likelihood of shocks arising in the first place, or limiting their severity. This usually requires action and advocacy at a level beyond the community. At an international level, examples might be reducing carbon emissions to limit climate change, which requires global action, or brokering peace negotiations between warring factions through third party mediation. At the national level, examples might be controlling price fluctuations using buffer stocks or tariffs, regulating commodity speculation, or setting up early warning and weather forecast information. Issues that can be addressed at a more local level might include reforesting degraded landscapes, or adopting more tolerant crop varieties and animal breeds.
* · Address the conditions that make people more exposed to those shocks and stresses. This is more likely to be within communities’ sphere of influence (e.g. voluntary relocation, or building earthquake resistant housing), though will usually require action by others also (e.g. making alternative livelihood opportunities available).
* · Reduce Vulnerability to particular risks. This is addressed by increasing capacities and assets, in ways that do not exacerbate or drive new risks (e.g. new economic activities that do not result in deforestation, harmful land use change or social divisions). We break this down in:
o anticipate risks: foresee and therefore reduce the impact of hazards that are likely to occur and be ready for them when events are unexpected through prevention, preparedness and planning;
o absorb shocks: accommodate the impact shocks and stresses have on their lives, well-being and livelihoods, by making changes in their usual practices and behaviors using available skills and resources, and manage adverse conditions:
o adapt to evolving conditions: adjust their behaviors, practices, lifestyles and livelihood strategies to respond to changed circumstances and conditions under multiple, complex and at times changing risks;
o transform: influence the enabling environment and drivers of risks to create individual and systemic changes on behaviors, market economics, and policies and legislation.
Data and information required to measure the indicator
Evidence is needed around both the measurable (quantitative) and intangible (qualitative) dimensions of resilience.
Examples of proxy indicators that projects have adopted, which contribute to global indicator 21
* % households/people applying positive coping strategies to reduce their vulnerability to shocks (e.g. use of own savings)
* % households/people applying strategies promoted by the project to reduce vulnerability/risk
* % households/people carrying out actions included in local disaster risk reduction plans by their own means
Note: projects can use other proxy indicators. These are examples of the ones most frequently used.
Suggested method for data collection
* Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) can elicit key information about change processes
* Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with impact groups typically draw out commonly held perceptions of change
* Process tracing of how participants are reducing vulnerabilities and facing shocks and stresses
* Guided participatory observations
* Most significant change
* Surveys among participants (% men, women, boys and girls) that report to have actively engaged in reducing their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them.
Possible data sources
* This indicator is not part of the SDG indicators, therefore, it will need to be measured by CARE and partners, when relevant.
Resources needed for data collection
The more intangible side of the indicator will require in-depth trainings of data collectors to ensure they can capture in the most unbiased way. The resources needed to ensure this level of data quality will be:
* Time for training and pilot of the methodology proportional to the size of expected impact
* Time for reviewing tools and the initial methodological approach during each evaluation
* A certain number of appointed and trained data collectors for the whole duration of a project in order to facilitate incremental quality of data collection processes
* Any additional costs to digitize and share large-scale evidence on selected evidence of change
Reporting results for this indicator
The reporting of this result will be to the responsible team/focal point in overseeing and streamlining the resilience approach tied with selected kind of changes across CARE-led projects.
Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)
* Are people aware of the shocks and stresses they face, and do people recognize and understand their vulnerabilities?
* Are vulnerabilities and drivers of risk different for women, men, girls and boys?
* How do people anticipate, absorb and adapt to shocks? Do women, men, girls and boys absorb shocks differently?
* Which capacities and assets enable a person’s opportunities for anticipating, absorbing, adapting and transforming in the face of shock and stresses? Are these capacities and assets strengthened by CARE’s work?
* What kind of strategies do people put in place to adapt their livelihoods and/or living conditions, even after having gone through a shock?
* What kind of enabling environment exists to help people increase their capacities and reduce various drivers of risks?
* Are there stories how CARE’s actions have helped to prevent or mitigate shocks and stresses from happening. E.g. in comparison to neighboring communities
* How does CARE influence people’s ability to become more resilient?
Other considerations
For further background information see the Increasing Resilience Guidance note (hyperlink
indicator_21.txt · Last modified: 2020/08/07 10:14 by admin