An context-specific and actor-oriented framework for evaluating coping and

in this context (i.e. being actor-oriented), and about what resultant strategies look like (i.e. being positioned in evaluation research) provides a good basis to pose the question “what is actually good coping and adaptation?”. In order to come to a satisfying answer to this question, an innovative context-specific and actor-oriented evaluation framework has been developed for this research.

Evaluation is viewed as strategic, retrospective assessment of the merit, worth and value of objects, processes and results of actions on the basis of which adaptation barriers and strategic points of intervention can be identified (Huitema et al. 2011: 182; Vedung 2008: 2). In contrast to most of the scholarly works in the field of evaluation, this research aims to consider more than just one or a limited number of strategies. This study wants to provide a comprehensive overview of all relevant strategies; only in that way can decisions for or against an option be sufficiently understood. As previously outlined in the context of adaptation appraisal (see decision-making section 2.4.3), people first have to know what their options are before they can evaluate which one of them would be the best one to choose. Therefore, an adaptable evaluation framework was developed through which different types of social practices can be appropriately and comparatively evaluated. According to the current research foci (see section 1.3), its goal is to look at: coping as well as adaptation processes; risk-specific and more general risk-related strategies; public actions at the various administrative levels as well as household strategies at the local level; and potential strategy option and actually implemented actions.

This evaluation framework builds on the anatomy of adaptation and coping presented above (see process of adaptation/coping depicted on the left side of Figure 2.15) and thereby combines the benefits of the most common evaluation concepts identified by Silva Villanueva (2011) presented in section 2.3.2 (see columns in the centre of Figure 2.15; the dark grey boxes in each of the columns depict which aspect of the evaluation process is included in the respective evaluation approach). Firstly, analysing the overall risk context facilitates evaluations that require the identification of system characteristics as baseline and as outcome (baseline is depicted as “stimulus & system” box, outcome is depicted as “outcomes & impacts” box on top respectively on the bottom of the anatomy of adaptation column in Figure 2.15). These components are of particular importance to efficiency- based economic evaluations (see section 2.3.2 for a detailed description of economic evaluations).

In addition, effectiveness-based evaluations can be undertaken with the information provided by an analysis based on the current framework. In the analysis of decision-making processes, goals and

values are identified. They provide the basis of each effectiveness assessment and are therefore of central importance in the evaluation context. One example for effectiveness-based evaluations is process-based evaluation. Thereby, goals in the form of process-oriented criteria can, for instance, be taken as foundation for assessing the quality of some (particularly governmental) measures (see second of the evaluation approach columns in Figure 2.15 and section 2.3.2 for a definition of process-based evaluations). Result chains and logic frameworks (input-output-outcome) as well as behavioural change assessments also evaluate strategies based on predetermined goals against a set of implementation and outcome characteristics (depicted as input-output-outcome respectively behavioural change oriented approaches in Figure 2.15 and defined in section 2.3.2). Subjective judgements of the response efficacy and self-efficacy, as described in the decision-making component of this framework, have only rarely been taken as a basis to evaluate strategies and are accordingly also not included in the most common evaluation frameworks depicted in Figure 2.15. Nevertheless, it is these components which convey an understanding of the differential distribution of subjectively perceived costs/benefits and facilitate an identification of potential stakeholder and value conflicts. Aspects of subjective evaluation are therefore explicitly addressed in the current evaluation frame as part of the decision-making component.

Figure 2.15: Novel evaluation framework based on the anatomy of adaptation and coping (Source: author,

anatomy mainly based on Turner et al. 2003, Grothmann 2005, GEF 2007, UNFCCC 2010, Jacob and Mehiriz 2012; classification of evaluation approaches based on Silva Villanueva 2011)

This evaluation framework not only considers a multitude of approaches for evaluating different strategies but also looks at a large range of evaluation criteria. Strategies can therefore be evaluated, in the sense of multi-criteria analyses (see section 2.3.2), against a set of different indicators. The present research means to take on a multi-stakeholder perspective by analysing and comparing the views of different groups on a set of strategies. Therefore, especially the most relevant evaluation criteria to the stakeholders on site shall be taken into consideration and shall be acknowledged in their differential value. This is intended to serve as a foundation not only for expert-based but particularly for stakeholder- and household-based evaluations. Accordingly, not only are public,

scientific or project goals meant to be acknowledged but also the preferences of different actor groups on site. These actor groups will include the respective target group and other groups.

Each of the identified evaluation concepts and criteria are the basis for a more comprehensive evaluation and shall be considered when evaluating the range of relevant options. However, it is not intended to arrive at an evaluation which applies all approaches/criteria to all strategies. It is an

adaptable framework where the respective assessment component will only be applied when

appropriate and possible.