Search

By Mirumachi N. and Hautsch M.


Climate and development represent urgent challenges that can hardly be apprehended separately. Although it adresses both issues, low carbon development is similar to any other form of development as it has perverted impacts and uneven manifestations. Adaptation interventions would thus benefit from adopting a conflict sensitive lens, to adequately identify who the winners and losers of such projects are and mitigate conflict. Through the examples of dam Gibe III and the Lake Turkana Wind Farm, the article considers how scrutinising renewable energy projects' winners and losers in both relative and absolute terms can be beneficial for development. It stresses the need to continually ask how engagement in FCACs is a ‘force of good’ for whom.


Read the full article here: https://fpc.org.uk/publications/a-force-for-good/

Watch the recorded webinar discussing the paper here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=463896808614489

By Lambe F., Ran Y., Jürisoo M., Holmlid S., Muhoza C., Johnson O. and

Osborne M.



Many interventions that aim to improve the livelihoods of vulnerable people in low-income settings fail because the behavior of the people intended to benefit is not well understood and /or not reflected in the design of interventions. Methods for understanding and situating human behavior in the context of development interventions tend to emphasize experimental approaches to objectively isolate key drivers of behavior. However, such methods often do not account for the importance of contextual factors and the wider system. In this paper we propose a conceptual framework to support intervention design that links behavioral insights with service design, a branch of the creative field of design. To develop the framework, we use three case studies conducted in Kenya and Zambia focusing on the uptake of new technologies and services by individuals and households. We demonstrate how the framework can be useful for mapping individuals’ experiences of a new technology or service and, based on this, identify key parameters to support lasting behavior change. The framework reflects how behavior change takes place in the context of complex social-ecological systems – that change over time, and in which a diverse range of actors operate at different levels – with the aim of supporting the design and delivery of more robust development-oriented interventions.


Read the full article here: doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104703.

By Jake Lomax, Matthew Osborne, Vane Aminga, Naho Mirumachi & Oliver Johnson





International development aid is widely considered essential to support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries. There has been a rapid increase in the number and geographic range of case studies reporting outcomes of low-carbon development projects, while a limited number of complementary analytical frameworks have also been produced to enable insights to be translated into tangible guidelines and recommendations for policy makers. A particularly important outcome from this body of research has been to demonstrate how poor design and implementation of these projects can create significant negative socio-economic and ecological outcomes at a local level. However, unpicking the causal mechanisms through which these unintended outcomes are created within complex systems remains a challenge. Making use of Sovacool et al.’s (2015) influential 4Es framework and combining it with the ‘Mechanisms of Social Change’ (MOSC) language for analysing systems, our study aims to provide an approach for setting out causal pathways that explain how the implementation of adaptation projects creates negative as well as positive impacts. To illustrate this approach, we map the system of solar mini-grid projects in northern Kenya and use this to analyse impact on local communities. We suggest that this approach can strengthen analysis of existing climate change programmes and support better design of future adaptation interventions.


Read the full article here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102296



1
2