9.11 Conclusion
The project’s theory of change are an important resource to track the extent that
projects realized their intended results. Nevertheless there is a need to go beyond a
project’s theory of change for a fuller understanding of “why” and “how” the
observed change took place. While the theory of change is useful, it by itself is
not sufficient because other factors may turn out to be more influential in effecting
the observed change. Under these conditions dependence on the project’s theory of
change runs the risk of functioning as a blinder hindering assessment of unexpected
factors and making it difficult to get a handle over the unintended consequence and
alternative explanations to the results realized. This risk can be mitigated going
beyond a mere assessment the extent to which intended results of projects were
achieved and the causal links between project activities and results and carry out an
analysis of the forms in which the project intervention interacts with other components of the system. In other words to fully assess the contributions of an intervention vis- a-vis other interventions and other factors, the evaluator must assess project
interventions as part of the system that is targeted. This requires the evaluator to
develop a good understanding of the system that the project has targeted, including
the system boundaries, components, interactions among components and the unexpected changed resulting from these interactions.
References
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a pod or
apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13, 439–455.
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage.
Eberhard, A. A., & Tokle, S. E. (2004). GEF climate change program study. Washington, DC:
Global Environment Facility.
Garcia, J. R., & Zazueta, A. (2015). Going beyond mixed methods to mixed approaches: A systems
perspective for asking the right questions. IDS Bulletin, 46, 30–43.
GEF IEO. (2013). OPS 5 technical document #12: Progress towards impact. https://www.thegef.
org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/EO/TD12_Progress%20toward%20Impact.pdf
GEF IEO. (2012, October). GEF support in the South China Sea and adjacent areas. https://www.
thegef.org/gef/Impact%20Evaluation%3A%20South%20China%20Sea%20and%20Adjacent
%20Areas
GEF IEO. (2014). Fifth overall performance study of the global environment facility (Final report:
At the crossroads for higher impact). https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/docu
ments/OPS5-Final-Report-EN.pdf
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.
Impact Evaluation: GEF International Waters Support to the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas |
Global Environment Facility [WWW Document] (n.d.). https://www.thegef.org/gef/Impact%
20Evaluation%3A%20South%20China%20Sea%20and%20Adjacent%20Areas.
Accessed
14 July, 2015.
Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. (ILAC Brief
Number 16).
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
169
The project’s theory of change are an important resource to track the extent that
projects realized their intended results. Nevertheless there is a need to go beyond a
project’s theory of change for a fuller understanding of “why” and “how” the
observed change took place. While the theory of change is useful, it by itself is
not sufficient because other factors may turn out to be more influential in effecting
the observed change. Under these conditions dependence on the project’s theory of
change runs the risk of functioning as a blinder hindering assessment of unexpected
factors and making it difficult to get a handle over the unintended consequence and
alternative explanations to the results realized. This risk can be mitigated going
beyond a mere assessment the extent to which intended results of projects were
achieved and the causal links between project activities and results and carry out an
analysis of the forms in which the project intervention interacts with other components of the system. In other words to fully assess the contributions of an intervention vis- a-vis other interventions and other factors, the evaluator must assess project
interventions as part of the system that is targeted. This requires the evaluator to
develop a good understanding of the system that the project has targeted, including
the system boundaries, components, interactions among components and the unexpected changed resulting from these interactions.
References
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a pod or
apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13, 439–455.
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage.
Eberhard, A. A., & Tokle, S. E. (2004). GEF climate change program study. Washington, DC:
Global Environment Facility.
Garcia, J. R., & Zazueta, A. (2015). Going beyond mixed methods to mixed approaches: A systems
perspective for asking the right questions. IDS Bulletin, 46, 30–43.
GEF IEO. (2013). OPS 5 technical document #12: Progress towards impact. https://www.thegef.
org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/EO/TD12_Progress%20toward%20Impact.pdf
GEF IEO. (2012, October). GEF support in the South China Sea and adjacent areas. https://www.
thegef.org/gef/Impact%20Evaluation%3A%20South%20China%20Sea%20and%20Adjacent
%20Areas
GEF IEO. (2014). Fifth overall performance study of the global environment facility (Final report:
At the crossroads for higher impact). https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/docu
ments/OPS5-Final-Report-EN.pdf
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.
Impact Evaluation: GEF International Waters Support to the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas |
Global Environment Facility [WWW Document] (n.d.). https://www.thegef.org/gef/Impact%
20Evaluation%3A%20South%20China%20Sea%20and%20Adjacent%20Areas.
Accessed
14 July, 2015.
Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. (ILAC Brief
Number 16).
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
169