Tegucigalpa, the capital city of Honduras is vulnerable to extreme weather events. The city has experienced land invasions and building of precarious housing located in mountainous areas with irregular topography, partly linked to the lack of land-use plans, inadequate land management and property speculation. Informal settlements are exposed to landslides, while inadequate drinking water and sewerage services worsen living conditions. Annual losses caused by rain, floods and droughts amount to US$100 million, almost 2.7% of the city’s GDP.

Climate vulnerability is compounded by poverty, inequality, public insecurity, conflict and urban violence. The effects most frequently identified by residents during the APCA project were not necessarily major disasters. Heatwaves, droughts, short periods of heavy rainfall and dust from strong winds gradually eroded wellbeing, homes, small businesses and other community assets. The perceptions differed between the two contiguous informal neighbourhoods: residents in Los Pinos were mainly affected by heat, while residents in Villa Nueva identified cold and rain as their main concerns.

The APCA project pursued four main objectives:

• Give residents of low-income neighbourhoods a voice so they could identify the vulnerability of their assets to severe weather and prioritise adaptation strategies.
• Give residents a leading role in negotiating with local government and other institutions to plan and implement technically feasible, quick and low-cost solutions aligned with community efforts.
• Encourage partnerships in which residents, local government and public and private institutions provide resources and expertise based on their comparative advantages.
• Strengthen the capacity of local institutions to integrate climate change asset adaptation into their strategic and operational plans.

The APCA project was implemented in the informal settlements of Los Pinos and Villa Nueva between November 2014 and October 2017. It used a conceptual and operational framework based on the portfolio of assets held and managed by individual households, small businesses and communities. These assets included physical resources such as housing, infrastructure and basic services; financial resources such as savings, credits and income; human resources such as health and education; social resources such as rules, reciprocity and mutual trust; and natural resources such as land, water and forests.

Participatory tools enabled residents to identify the climate events that affected them, assess the vulnerability of their assets and prioritise responses. Residents already used several strategies to protect their homes, household plots, infrastructure, small businesses and access to basic services. These included building community storage tanks and domestic rainwater butts, installing water filters, repairing and maintaining latrines, improvement of retention walls, improving gutters and steps, organising rubbish clean-up days and participating in preventive health campaigns.

Residents and partners used the findings from the participatory appraisal to develop and prioritise project profiles in Asset Planning workshops. Proposed measures were assessed for their technical, legal, financial and social feasibility. The process built on community practices and brought together residents, municipal staff, researchers, NGOs and technical organisations.

The project identified and implemented several measures:

• Improvement of stairways and interior roads in Los Pinos: The measures included resting places on steep routes, soil protection to prevent minor landslides and improved drainage systems. The aim was to reduce the speed of water flowing down slopes during the rainy season and to provide resting places for residents walking uphill, particularly during heatwaves. Additional activities included soil protection and conservation, green spaces for resting, tree planting on individual household plots, and technical guidance on stabilising the foundations of homes built on steep slopes and shading poorly ventilated houses.
• Strengthening of retaining walls made from used tyres: Residents in both neighbourhoods identified the improvement of retaining walls as a priority. Many homes, especially female-headed households, had built such walls to reduce the risk of landslides and mudslides. In Villa Nueva, APCA partners implemented a pilot to improve the walls. GOAL (NGO) and the AMDC (Municipality of Tegucigalpa) provided technical guidance, while architects and engineers prepared a construction and maintenance manual. Women and local masons received training, and community members and municipal staff participated in reinforcing a wall at one housing unit.
• Strengthening of rainwater harvesting systems: Residents highlighted the need for improved rainwater harvesting technology in households, schools, health centres and community facilities. On higher ground, heavy concrete tanks could destabilise the soil and contribute to subsidence. Sealed plastic tanks, filters, geomembranes and high-capacity tanks were therefore used to improve water quality and increase supply. Rainwater harvesting systems were installed in seven elementary schools in the two neighbourhoods.
• Improved rubbish collection: Mapping identified existing municipal collection points and locations where container capacity was inadequate. The municipal waste collection and territorial planning departments installed additional containers. Where collection trucks could not enter, community operators collected rubbish from designated points. A calendar for large-scale street cleaning was organised with community volunteers and the AMDC.
• Housing-related improvements: The project addressed walls, roofs, foundations and plots, recognising that housing also functioned as a community and productive asset for households operating small businesses. At the time of the APCA, housing improvement financial support by formal banks and microfinance institutions was practically inexistent.

Training and technical assistance were provided to teachers, health workers, neighbourhood organisations and water committees on the installation, management and maintenance of rainwater harvesting technologies. The overall approach depended on collaboration between residents, local government, social institutions, technical staff and other public and private institutions.

The APCA project was supported by a technical cooperation grant of US$328,202 from the Nordic Development Fund (NDF), administered through the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 50% of the resources were allocated to implementing the APCA approach, 22% to implementation of pilot projects, 18% to strengthening local capacities, 5% to dissemination, and 5% to administration.

The project was led by a team from the University of Manchester, which contributed expertise in participatory asset planning, climate change adaptation and urban development. The AMDC contributed municipal planners, social promoters, political representatives and technical departments. GOAL and FUNDEVI contributed practical experience in community work, housing improvement, architecture, engineering, outreach and self-help housing schemes. COPECO contributed expertise in disaster risk management and preparedness.

Residents, neighbourhood organisations, water committees, teachers, and health workers contributed local knowledge and participated in planning and implementation, with residents also providing labour for selected activities. It is estimated that between 10 and 15 per cent of the different measures implemented were in-kind and labour contributions from community residents.

In Villa Nueva, for example, council staff, engineers and architects provided technical support for a pilot to strengthen a retaining wall made from used tyres, while women and local masons received training. The pilot cost approximately US$3,500: around 25 per cent was allocated to materials and tools, 60 per cent to manual labour and 15 per cent to technical assistance. Residents contributed approximately US$500 in in-kind resources and labour, the AMDC allocated around US$1,000 and the remaining US$2,000 was covered by the APCA project.

The APCA project led to the identification, planning and implementation of practical adaptation measures in Los Pinos and Villa Nueva. These included improvements to stairways and drainage, rainwater harvesting, rubbish collection, green and soil-protection measures, housing improvements and the pilot strengthening of retaining walls made from used tyres.

The participatory appraisal showed that climate risks were experienced differently both within and between the two neighbourhoods. Heat, rain, drought, wind and cold affected homes, health, plants, animals, water supplies, small enterprises, mobility and access to services. It also showed that households and communities were already developing adaptation strategies, including domestic rainwater harvesting, water storage, repairs to gutters and stairs, latrine maintenance and community clean-up activities.

The implemented measures built on these existing practices and produced several practical effects. Improved waste collection reduced rainwater accumulation, thus helping maintain road access during intense rainfall and reducing the threat of well-water contamination, as well as access of water tanks to upper hill sites within the two neighbourhoods. Rainwater harvesting increased water provision for households and community facilities, helping to address water stress. The retaining-wall pilot combined physical improvements with training for women and local masons.

Together, the interventions also illustrate how adaptation and mitigation can reinforce each other. Tree planting and green infrastructure can help prevent mudslides and capture carbon dioxide. Rainwater harvesting can alleviate drought and reduce water stress. Retaining walls made from recycled tyres can help reduce landslide risks while also helping to avoid the open burning of tyres. More efficient waste collection can reduce open burning and associated greenhouse gas emissions and health-damaging pollutants.

The project also produced six handbooks on building and maintenance of retaining walls, latrines, rainwater harvesting, stairs and kerbs, housing improvements, and solid waste management. These handbooks had been downloaded more than 67,400 times in a period of three years.

The project also received external recognition for its contribution to urban sustainability. In its 2018 Sustainability Report, the Inter-American Development Bank identified APCA as a best-practice case contributing to urban sustainability and to the achievement of SDG Target 11.8.

The project operated in two neighbourhoods with very high levels of insecurity and territorial control by criminal gangs. Violence affected the safety of residents, community leaders and external teams. It also made it difficult to define neighbourhood sectors and identify feasible locations for interventions. To reduce risks, partners negotiated where the team could enter, worked with recognised community leaders acting as project gatekeepers, and held focus groups and planning workshops outside the neighbourhoods.

Institutional coordination was another challenge. The IDB initially preferred the Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS) as the main counterpart rather than the AMDC. The AMDC had also expressed concerns about limited municipal involvement in infrastructure decisions in an existing programme, even though local government would later be responsible for operation and maintenance. APCA therefore required sustained coordination among municipal departments, national institutions, the IDB, NGOs, the University of Manchester and community representatives.

A central challenge during the asset appraisal, focus group discussions and planning process was identifying community representatives who were both legitimate and broadly trusted. The project partners sought to avoid relying exclusively on individuals perceived to be aligned with the political party governing the AMDC, as this could have undermined the neutrality and inclusiveness of the process. Building broad community consensus was therefore essential, both to ensure credible representation and to strengthen the community’s negotiating position with local authorities.

The team also encountered mistrust related to previous experiences in which external organisations had used municipal data without working collaboratively with the AMDC. Staff changes and institutional reorganisation within the municipality added to the challenge. At community level, low literacy constrained participation in some groups. This was addressed through drawing, storytelling, paired work and repeated discussions.

Finally, the turnover of AMDC employees with each political cycle constitutes a challenge to the continuation and follow-up by local authorities of the programme.

The APCA experience indicates that adaptation in informal settlements can move from research to implementation through a participatory process that starts with residents’ existing knowledge and practices. Solutions do not need to begin with a predefined menu of externally selected projects. They can be developed through an iterative process in which communities, municipal staff, researchers and technical organisations assess what is feasible in a specific location.

A central lesson is the importance of the municipality as the long-term institution responsible for services and infrastructure, while other partners contribute complementary knowledge, skills and resources. Shared ownership of appraisal, planning and implementation can strengthen the connection between community priorities and municipal planning.

The asset-based framework positioned residents not only as beneficiaries but also as actors who could identify vulnerabilities, develop priorities and negotiate with public institutions. The project also shows the value of combining community efforts with the technical expertise and resources of local government, universities, social institutions and other partners. Adaptation and mitigation can be addressed together through measures such as green infrastructure, rainwater harvesting, recycled-tyre retaining walls and improved waste collection.

The APCA led to rethink the implementation processes by placing community-based solutions at the centre and setting priorities in response to limited resources. Rather than working from a predefined menu of solutions, the participatory methodology helped the municipality assess which interventions were feasible within the available budget and could deliver immediate, tangible benefits for the neighbourhoods.

The APCA also highlighted the role of housing as a productive and community asset. Many informal home-based enterprises provided employment and income for low-income families. During severe weather events, when access to the neighbourhoods was disrupted, these enterprises also helped meet immediate food security needs within the community. While international development agencies such as the IDB often treat housing primarily as a private good, the APCA demonstrated that, in the context of climate change, housing can also have wider community and productive value. This has important implications for the design of accessible financial and technical support mechanisms for climate-resilient housing improvements.

The approach is suitable for other cities with informal settlements exposed to climate risks, especially where resources are limited. Transfer requires locally adapted participation methods, trusted community and institutional partners, technical guidance, attention to safety and inclusion, and funding for implementation as well as research and planning. Measures should consider the links between public infrastructure, household conditions, livelihoods, waste management, water services and natural assets. The project also highlights that housing in informal settlements can function as a community and productive asset, not only as a private good.

The handbooks produced through the project were downloaded more than 67,400 times in a period of three years, providing a strong indication of interest in the practical knowledge and tools developed through APCA. Furthermore, the APCA approach was also replicated in Mexico and inspired a participatory process in Medellin, Colombia, where a consortium of British and Colombian universities, grassroots organisations and the local municipality drew on experiences from other contexts, including the APCA work in neighbourhoods in Honduras. The Tegucigalpa case was also used to train professors from different campuses of Tecnológico de Monterrey in how to teach and structure climate change adaptation appraisal and planning projects, as well as disaster risk reduction, using community-participatory methods associated with the APCA approach.

Stein, A., Moser, C., & Vance, I. (2018). Asset Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in Poor Neighborhoods of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. https://doi.org/10.18235/0001074

Stein, A. (2024, February 14). Tegucigalpa: From climate change adaptation to mitigation strategies in informal urban settlements. International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/tegucigalpa-climate-change-adaptation-mitigation-strategies-informal-urban-settlements