Presented at the World Bank Central Asia Climate Knowledge Forum, Almaty Kazakhstan. Full report can be found at http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=4969

1. Analytical tools to identify
priority actions for climate-
resilient communities: A case
study
SVRK Prabhakar et. al. and Kenta Usui
IGES
13 May 2014
Presented at the World Bank Central Asia Climate Knowledge
Forum, Almaty Kazakhstan

2. This presentation is based on the work
published in:
Prabhakar, S.V.R.K (Ed.). 2014.
Adaptation decision making
frameworks and tools: Multi-criteria
decision making tools for prioritizing
adaptation actions at community level
Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies.
http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/enviroli
b/view.php?docid=4969
This work is funded by the "Environment Research
and Technology Development Fund" of the Ministry
of the Environment, Japan
2

3. Community decides
• Appropriate decision-making at the community
level is critical for adaptation
– Adaptation is highly context-specific and no one-size-fits-
all.
– Adaptation require engagement of local community
• But how do communities decide?
– Community members have varying understanding on
climate change and adaptation measures
– What criteria underlies their decisions?
– What factors influence their decisions?
3

4. Analysing decision-makings
• A decision-making process on adaptation has been
analyzed through Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
– Bangladesh, India and Nepal
– Drought-prone and flood-prone communities
– Male and female group
4

5. 5
Drought-prone Flood-prone
Bangladesh Chapainawabganj
district
Rajbari district
India Kanpur Dehat district Udham Singh Nagar district
Nepal Birganj district Bardiya district

6. Methodology: AHP
• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
– AHP allows users to employ multiple criteria to
assess and compare various alternatives
– Each criteria is weighed (each criteria has different
importance)
– The weight of each criteria is determined by
pairwise ranking process(comparing two criteria
to see which one is more important)
6

7. 7
Salad CurryFried chickenSushi
Price Taste Healthy
Choose dinner for tonight
GoalCriteriaAlternatives
0.10 0.65 0.25
0.250.050.4 0.35
AHP application: An example
e.g. How to choose from a restaurant menu?
5
Price Taste
9 7 3 1 3 5 7 9

8. Case 1: Nepal – drought -male
8
Escape
drought
Cost
effectiveness
Harvesting
surface water
Pump for
groundwater
Alternative
Crops
Pest Control
Drought
resistance
varieties
Increase in
crop yield
Availability of
water
Bring effect
on policy
Replicable
Easy to see
the benefit
Less
investment
Reduce drought sensitivity and improve adaptive
capacity
GoalCriteriaIndicatorsPractices
0.39 0.38 0.06 0.06 0.12
0.65 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.05
0.78 0.11 0.11

9. Case 1: Nepal – drought -male
9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Pump for groundwater
Harvesting surface water
Pest control
Alternative crops
Drought resistant varieties
Aggregated score of adaptation practices and their
composition
Availability of Water
Increase in Crop Yield
Escape drought
Cost effectiveness
Less investment

10. Case 2: Bangladesh – flood-female
10
Improved
communication
Balanced
nutrition
Embankment
Modern ag.
knowledge
Income
diversification
Increase in
income
Increase in
yield
Cost
effectiveness
Communicabil
ity
Relates to
alternative income
Homestead
elevation
Reduce flood sensitivity and improve adaptive capacity
GoalCriteriaIndicatorsPractices
0.12 0.77 0.10
0.14 0.14 0.27 0.10 0.34
0.04 0.78 0.18

11. Case 2: Bangladesh – flood-female
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Modern agriculture
knolwedge
Embankment
Income diversification
Increase in yield
Increase in income
Improved communication
Balanced nutrition
Homestead elevation
11

12. – Considerable variation from community to
community
– In drought-prone areas, boring wells were
generally preferred over surface water. Water-
saving activities such as change in cropping
pattern and organic farming were also preferred.
– In flood-prone areas, saving assets/lives through
embankment, as well as access to alternative
employment also preferred.
– Limited but visible difference identified between
male and female groups
12
Key findings

13. • AHP can reveal the decision-making
process, identify priority actions, and also
suggest adaptation indicators.
• However, pairwise ranking process can be
time consuming and difficult to be
understood.
• AHP more understood in relatively well-
educated community.
• Clear incentives (e.g. possibility of project
funding) desirable to engage community
members
13
Role of AHP to identify priority
actions

14. 14
iges.or.jp
Contact for details on this study: prabhakar@iges.or.jp

15. Criteria
Hazard
India Drought Male Easy to understand (0.5), easy to observe (0.5)
Female Easy to understand (0.5), easy to observe (0.5)
Flood Male Prior experience (0.9)
Female N/A
Bangla
desh
Drought Male Cost effectiveness (0.76)
Female Relates to production (0.5), Relates to economic well-
being (0.31), cost effectiveness (0.30)
Flood Male Communicability (0.76)
Female Communicability (0.78)
Nepal Drought Male Bring effect on policy (0.78)
Female Easy to see benefits (0.71)
Flood Male Easy to see impacts (0.79)
Female Easy to see effect (0.76) 15

16. Indicators
Country Hazard Gender Indicators
India Drought Male Reduction in soil erosion (0.36), Water availability
(0.33)
Female Water availability (0.75)
Flood Male Reduction in erosion (0.60)
Female N/A
Banglad
esh
Drought Male Availability of irrigation water (0.56),
Female Irrigation water availability (0.36), increase in income
(0.19)
Flood Male Improved communication (0.4), increase in yield (0.38)
Female Homestead elevation (0.34), improved communication
(0.27)
Nepal Drought Male Availability of water (0.65)
Female Availability of water (0.52)
Flood Male Land saved (0.37), property saved (0.24)
Female Human lives saved (0.44) 16

17. Practices
Country Hazard Gender Practices
India Drought Male Land levelling(1.0), Bore well (0.83)
Female Water availability (1.0), Land levelling (0.47)
Flood Male River embankment (1.0),
Female N/A
Banglad
esh
Drought Male Groundwater (1.0)
Female Groundwater (1.0)
Flood Male Embankment (1.0)
Female Embankment (1.0)
Nepal Drought Male Pump for groundwater (1.0), Harvesting surface water
(0.98)
Female Pump for groundwater (1.0), Harvesting surface water
(0.94), Green manures (0.84)
Flood Male Early warning (1.0), Embankment (0.67)
Female Evacuation of livestock (1.0), Evacuation of assets
(0.82) 17