When metrics miss the point: why climate adaptation metrics must reflect plural worldviews

Why worldviews matter for measuring adaptation success in the Blue Pacific and beyond

Climate change adaptation ‘success’ is being defined and measured through metrics that often fail the communities they are meant to support.

Across the Pacific, ‘success’ is still largely defined far from the places most affected, often by institutions grounded in Western worldviews. The result is not just a technical mismatch, but a form of epistemic injustice and the systematic sidelining of the knowledge systems that underpin local resilience.

Consider the widely used Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN). Used by governments including Australia , it measures adaptation progress through standardised, quantitative indicators focused on asset-based economic growth and infrastructure. What it does not capture are the cultural, relational and place-based dimensions that are central to Pacific worldviews and foundational to community resilience across the region.

This is not a minor gap, because these monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL) tools, and the systems in which they are embedded, are not neutral. Rather, MERL systems privilege certain ways of knowing while systematically excluding others. In practice, dominant approaches to measuring adaptation are shaped by Western ways of thinking and prioritise technical, quantitative and standardised forms of evidence which are often assumed to have universal relevance. This can overlook the fact that adaptation is shaped by local context, culture and values, especially in places with strong local knowledge and decision-making systems like the Blue Pacific . And when these dimensions are excluded, adaptation is mismeasured and potentially misdirected.

My own research with Australian NGOs (ANGOs) implementing climate adaptation projects in the Pacific shows how these biases shape the way success is defined and measured , and is among the few empirical studies examining how worldviews shape adaptation success.

Worldviews influence how we understand the world. Different worldviews lead to different ideas about what counts as success. Western frameworks prioritise what can be counted; Pacific systems prioritise relationships, place, and collective wellbeing—and these are rarely captured in MERL frameworks.

While this research focuses on ANGOs operating in the Pacific, its insights are relevant far beyond the region. It highlights the limits of universalised indicators, and points to the importance of bringing together multiple worldviews and local knowledge in how adaptation success is understood and measured.

Measuring success in climate adaptation: whose knowledge counts?

Measuring success is central to climate action . Governments, NGOs and donors invest significant resources in helping communities adapt to climate change. But how do these organisations measure what is working?

Over recent years, a growing range of indicators, frameworks and tools—just like ND-GAIN—have emerged to track adaptation progress . These are intended to help decision-makers assess impact, allocate funding and improve programs. However, these approaches still predominantly reflect a narrowly economic and technical view of what adaptation is and what ‘success’ looks like.

This matters because how we measure success shapes what gets prioritised, and can influence what gets funded. If the metrics do not reflect local realities and values, they risk missing what actually makes communities more resilient.

Evidence from work with Australian NGOs in the Pacific shows a consistent pattern:

• Western metrics dominate, privileging what can be counted over what matters to communities.
• Local knowledge is included only superficially, rather than shaping how success is defined.
• The most important aspects of adaptation in Pacific communities (relationships, trust, and collective wellbeing) remain outside formal reporting systems altogether.

These patterns are not accidental. They reflect the influence of global climate governance systems .

Major institutions, such as the UNFCCC , IPCC and international donors , play a powerful role in shaping how adaptation is defined and measured. Their frameworks, often grounded in Western scientific approaches, set the standards that others follow. The recently introduced Bèlem Adaptation Indicators from COP30 illustrate this dynamic. While intended to support countries in tracking adaptation progress, their core indicators across water, food systems, health and finance remain overwhelmingly quantitative while qualitative measures are largely confined to governance and process.

As a result, project-level measurement systems used by NGOs often mirror these global models, even when they are not well suited to local contexts.

This has real consequences. When external frameworks override local knowledge systems, they can weaken existing cultural practices that support community resilience such as systems of reciprocity, collective decision-making and trust.

More broadly, this raises questions of climate justice. If some ways of knowing are consistently prioritised over others, it risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than addressing them.

Turning the tide towards plural worldviews

If adaptation is to be both effective and just, three changes are urgently needed.

First, major donors (including bilateral programs and multilateral climate funds) should require that adaptation MERL systems are co-designed with local communities, and are grounded in local knowledge systems to define success, rather than just adopting global metrics. Recognising locally defined success is not at odds with donor priorities—it strengthens them: programs that align with community values are more likely to be adopted, maintained and sustained over time, improving both efficiency and return on investment, which are core values of donors and funders.

Second, organisations from outside the Pacific need to reflect on their own assumptions and roles, especially when designing MERL frameworks for Pacific contexts. They need to ask themselves: How are we defining success, and why? Whose knowledge is shaping our metrics? Are we reinforcing or challenging existing power dynamics?

Third, NGOs and implementing agencies must work within the constraints of donor reporting requirements while actively creating space for locally led measurement systems. Although upward accountability remains essential for maintaining funding, organisations can challenge purely extractive approaches by embedding community-defined indicators alongside standardised metrics, even where these sit uneasily within existing reporting frameworks.

Rethinking what success looks like

Ultimately, improving how we measure adaptation is not just a technical task, it is a political and ethical one, requiring a redistribution of authority over what counts as knowledge.

If we want climate action to be both effective and just , we need to rethink who gets to define success. This means moving beyond standardised metrics towards approaches that reflect the diversity of knowledge, values and experiences shaping adaptation on the ground.

Until communities define success on their own terms, adaptation metrics will continue to miss the point and risk reinforcing the very inequalities they claim to address.