{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024300441826215022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meaningful Measurement for Community‐Based Adaptation

Evidence indicates ongoing tensions over effective climate change adaptation measurement. Focusing on community‐based adaptation (CBA), we stress that some of these tensions stem from a lack of transparency around the knowledge and learning needs of different stakeholders engaged in CBA investments. Drawing on a participatory assessment of stakeholder information needs and appropriate scales required for effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for CBA, this article presents a new M&E for CBA framework. The framework identifies four levels at which M&E is to be undertaken by CBA practitioners and associated project stakeholders: participatory M&E at community level; M&E at individual project level and comparison across multiple project sites; M&E of capacity of institutions implementing CBA; and M&E of community of practice. The proposed framework tailors its M&E approaches according to these levels. By moving beyond the existing dominant donor‐driven M&E perspective, we argue that this more nuanced approach enhances the usefulness of M&E by ensuring that the accountability of stakeholders engaged in CBA landscapes is legitimate across multiple scales. The framework is applicable for M&E of general development practice, as well as the climate change adaptation and resilience remit.