Understanding Resilience and M&E of Interventions: Insights from the Climate Resilience Alliance
Reinhard Mechler, Raquel Guimaraes, and Jung Hee Hyun of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) presented work on measuring community climate resilience and evaluating related interventions. The session centred on the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance and its Climate Resilience Measurement for Communities tool. The tool assesses natural, physical, human, financial, and social capital. Its participatory measurement process is also intended to build awareness and capacity among communities and partner organisations.
10 November 2025 | 12:15 GMT to 12:45 GMT | Belém, Brazil
One study used a quasi-experimental econometric design covering 66 communities in seven countries. It examined whether measured resilience before a flood was associated with injuries and mortality afterward. Higher social and human capital were associated with fewer flood-related injuries. None of the five resilience capitals showed a statistically significant relationship with immediate deaths. Natural capital was unexpectedly associated with more delayed deaths from disease three months after flooding. The presenters treated this result cautiously and argued that ecosystem protection alone may not address unsafe settlement conditions. They also stressed the importance of reporting null and unexpected findings. A second analysis catalogued more than 200 interventions across roughly 300 communities in more than 15 countries. The interventions included infrastructure, nature-based solutions, asset protection, community engagement, planning groups, and early-warning systems. Mapping showed that adaptive capacity was addressed most often, while transformative capacity received less attention. Intervention patterns also differed between more vulnerable and more resilient communities. The speakers therefore distinguished established interventions suited to activity and outcome tracking from innovative interventions requiring flexible, process-oriented monitoring. They cautioned that evidence from the 66 communities was internally informative but not universally generalizable. For climate-action practitioners, the session showed why resilience measurement must reflect context, multiple capacities, health outcomes, and uncertainty rather than rely on a single universal indicator.