evaluation criteria (i.e. outcomes
5 ); intermediate outcomes (IOs) that lead to each
evaluation criterion; and types of programme interventions implemented in achieving each IO. What this step enabled was a comparative analysis of the CCA
programmes where similar interventions or activities across different CCA
programmes were implemented. In other words, the meta-analysis conducted the
following steps: identification and extraction of key IOs toward an outcome (each
evaluation criterion); categorization of interventions to generate the corresponding
IOs; development of hypothesis of programme theories that necessarily lead to an
IO. And since this meta-analysis is based on the realist approach, it then sought
contextual conditions that may or may not activate an underlying mechanism in
generating IOs, and thus outcomes. It sought to identify theories of change for each
outcome (evaluation criterion).
The following sections present first the M-O (mechanism ¼ outcome) combinations for each criterion that can be estimated from analysing the CCA evaluations; and second, C (context) conditions which may or may not activate these M-O
combinations, thereby showing a set of hypothesized CMO configurations. Each
criterion is presented first only with M-O sequences, which represents a deterministic view. The latter half of the sections presents the contextual conditions, thereby
completing the presentation of the hypothesized CMO configurations. Tables in the
following sections present the summary of C-M-O configurations.
13.5 Mechanism-Outcome Sequences
13.5.1 Relevance M-O Sequences
Overall, a high degree of relevance is seen in all the studied CCA programmes. The
joint programme for managing climate change risks in Egypt is found to be highly
relevant in supporting Egypt to develop its climate change adaptation strategies.
The programme in Mozambique is also found to be highly relevant to the national
policy context, responding to the necessity to support institutional progress on
CCA. Armenia’s programme focusing on its mountain forest ecosystem was evaluated to be well aligned with the national needs and priorities. Nonetheless, the
aspect of relevance does not end with alignment at a national level. Tanzania’s
programme has addressed problems of fuelwood availability and other means of
5 Note that these four evaluation criteria are used as “outcomes (O)” within the CMO configurations. In each of the four criteria, the authors have hypothesised certain sets of CMO configurations. For example, efficiency criterion – which itself is the relationship between inputs and
outputs – a CMO configuration will treat efficiency itself as “O” (outcome) that is achieved
through several key IOs, through generative mechanism (“M”), under certain context, (“C”). Thus
within each evaluation criterion, CMO configurations were constructed, even when one criterion is
not related to (project’s overall) outcome.
13 What Do Evaluations Tell Us About Climate Change Adaptation? Meta-analysis. . .
241
5 ); intermediate outcomes (IOs) that lead to each
evaluation criterion; and types of programme interventions implemented in achieving each IO. What this step enabled was a comparative analysis of the CCA
programmes where similar interventions or activities across different CCA
programmes were implemented. In other words, the meta-analysis conducted the
following steps: identification and extraction of key IOs toward an outcome (each
evaluation criterion); categorization of interventions to generate the corresponding
IOs; development of hypothesis of programme theories that necessarily lead to an
IO. And since this meta-analysis is based on the realist approach, it then sought
contextual conditions that may or may not activate an underlying mechanism in
generating IOs, and thus outcomes. It sought to identify theories of change for each
outcome (evaluation criterion).
The following sections present first the M-O (mechanism ¼ outcome) combinations for each criterion that can be estimated from analysing the CCA evaluations; and second, C (context) conditions which may or may not activate these M-O
combinations, thereby showing a set of hypothesized CMO configurations. Each
criterion is presented first only with M-O sequences, which represents a deterministic view. The latter half of the sections presents the contextual conditions, thereby
completing the presentation of the hypothesized CMO configurations. Tables in the
following sections present the summary of C-M-O configurations.
13.5 Mechanism-Outcome Sequences
13.5.1 Relevance M-O Sequences
Overall, a high degree of relevance is seen in all the studied CCA programmes. The
joint programme for managing climate change risks in Egypt is found to be highly
relevant in supporting Egypt to develop its climate change adaptation strategies.
The programme in Mozambique is also found to be highly relevant to the national
policy context, responding to the necessity to support institutional progress on
CCA. Armenia’s programme focusing on its mountain forest ecosystem was evaluated to be well aligned with the national needs and priorities. Nonetheless, the
aspect of relevance does not end with alignment at a national level. Tanzania’s
programme has addressed problems of fuelwood availability and other means of
5 Note that these four evaluation criteria are used as “outcomes (O)” within the CMO configurations. In each of the four criteria, the authors have hypothesised certain sets of CMO configurations. For example, efficiency criterion – which itself is the relationship between inputs and
outputs – a CMO configuration will treat efficiency itself as “O” (outcome) that is achieved
through several key IOs, through generative mechanism (“M”), under certain context, (“C”). Thus
within each evaluation criterion, CMO configurations were constructed, even when one criterion is
not related to (project’s overall) outcome.
13 What Do Evaluations Tell Us About Climate Change Adaptation? Meta-analysis. . .
241