Over the last decade, hundreds of climate change adaptation projects have been funded and implemented. Despite the importance of these first-generation adaptation projects for establishing funders and implementors' best practices, very little is known about how early adaptation projects have endured, to what ends, and for whom. In this article, I propose a community-based methodology for ex-post assessment of climate change adaptation projects. This methodology contributes to recognitional justice by asking the individuals and collectives tasked with sustaining adaptation initiatives to define adaptation success and what criteria for success should be assessed. I apply this subjective assessment approach in 10 communities across Ecuador that participated in an internationally funded adaptation project that concluded in 2015. My analysis draws together participatory mapping, walking interviews with local leaders, participant observation, and surveys with former project participants. The results highlight that even adaptation projects that were deemed highly successful at their closure have uncertain futures. I find that the sustainability mechanisms that were envisioned by project implementors have not functioned, and communities are shouldering the burden of reviving failing adaptation interventions. These findings highlight that the current model of episodic funding for climate change adaptation projects and evaluation processes needs to be revisited to acknowledge the long-term challenges faced by communities. This analysis also calls attention to the importance of ex-post assessment for adaptation projects and the potential of subjective assessment approaches for building more ontological and epistemological pluralism in understandings of successful climate change adaptation.
Mills-Novoa, M
What happens after climate change adaptation projects end: A community-based approach to ex-post assessment of adaptation projects
Global Environmental Change-Human And Policy Dimensions