Community versus donor and implementer-defined success metrics in climate mitigation and adaptation projects: A systematic literature review of what matters

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:This review provides a systematic framework for studying metric misalignment in climate projects, offering a foundation for future empirical work on community-based indicators.

🏢実務担当者:Practitioners in climate project design and M&E should use these findings to incorporate community-defined success metrics and shift from output to outcome-oriented evaluation.

🏛政策担当者:Policymakers and funders should recognize that metric alignment is a governance issue and require participatory approaches and multi-scale indicators in climate project guidelines.

The definition of mitigation and adaptation project success is sometimes problematic, especially when donor agencies and implementing organizations’ metrics are misaligned with those of vulnerable communities they are designed to serve. In evaluating their success, climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies depend on the metrics and indicators used to define and track them. A systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to understand what communities may define as project success, as compared to what donors and implementers may define as project success across regions. The review finds a notable difference that donors and implementers tend mainly to focus on output-oriented indicators, such as the number of beneficiaries reached and activities completed, while communities define success in outcomes, process-oriented terms, such as access to resources, services and income stability. Further, the review notes that monitoring and evaluation systems in climate projects are predominantly output-focused, poorly integrated across governance levels and insufficiently participatory, which makes it difficult for them to capture community-level outcomes upon which long-term adaptation sustainability depends. The differences between community and donor metrics are shown to be a governance problem rather than a technical implementation challenge, with donor-dominated project design and less incorporation of Local Knowledge and community co-design and locally defined project success. The review calls for an integrated definition of metrics from both donors and implementers, as well as communities that foster climate project sustainability. It also advocates for the reorientation of climate monitoring and evaluation towards locally led, outcome-oriented and a multi scale indicator framework that empowers the very communities they intend to serve to define and own climate projects.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2026.30.3.1698first seen 2026-07-09 05:03:30