3. Given these questions, the appropriate evaluation approaches and tools and
methods can be found to address them.
4. Lastly, by framing the evidence in time, space and scale the evaluation can better
explain why evidence is generated in the way that is chosen, and why other
methods (such as randomized controlled trials in the case of complex interventions, or mixed methods case studies in the case of a straight-forward intervention that is localized and focuses on testing one causal mechanism).
The Centre for Development Impact in Brighton will continue to work on this
tool and aims to further develop it along these lines.
References
Bamberger, M. (2012). Introduction to mixed methods in impact evaluation. InterAction [etc.]
[Impact Evaluation Notes: No.3 August 2012].
Bruyninckx, H. (2009). Environmental evaluation practices and the issue of scale. In M. Birnbaum
& P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 122, 31–39.
Garcia, J. R., & Zazueta, A. (2015). Going beyond mixed methods to mixed approaches: A systems
perspective for asking the right questions. IDS Bulleting, 46(1), 30–43.
GEFEO (2006). The role of local benefits in global environmental programs. Washington, DC:
Evaluation Office, Global Environment Facility.
GEFIEO (2013). Climate change mitigation impact evaluation. GEF support to market change in
China, India, Mexico and Russia. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Office, Global
Environment Facility [Unedited version, downloaded from gefieo.org in August 2015].
Hilde ´n, M. (2009). Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies. In M. Birnbaum &
P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 9–18.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contributions of working groups I, II and III
to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC.
Ittyerah, A. C., Choudhary, R., Narang, S., Choudhary, S. D. (2005). Terminal evaluation and
impact assessment of the UNDP/GEF project – IND/91/G-31 – optimizing development of
small Hydel Resources in the Hilly Regions of India. S.l., s.n.
Jerve, A. M., et al. (1999). A leap of faith: A story of Swedish aid and paper production in Vietnam
– the Bai Bang project, 1969–1996. Stockholm: SIDA.
Kennedy, E. T., Balasubramanian, H., & Crosse, W. E. M. (2009). Issues of scale and monitoring
status and trends in biodiversity. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental
program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for
Evaluation, 122, 41–51.
Ratna Reddy, V., Uitto, J. I., Frans, D. R., & Matin, N. (2006). Achieving global environmental
benefits through local development of clean energy? The case of small hilly hidel in India.
Energy Policy, 34, 4069–4080.
Rowe, A. (2012). Evaluation of natural resource interventions. American Journal of Evaluation,
33, 384.
Rowe, A. (2014). Evaluation at the nexus: Principles for evaluating sustainable development
interventions. In J. I. Uitto (Ed.), Evaluating environment in international development.
London: Routledge.
50
R.D. van den Berg
methods can be found to address them.
4. Lastly, by framing the evidence in time, space and scale the evaluation can better
explain why evidence is generated in the way that is chosen, and why other
methods (such as randomized controlled trials in the case of complex interventions, or mixed methods case studies in the case of a straight-forward intervention that is localized and focuses on testing one causal mechanism).
The Centre for Development Impact in Brighton will continue to work on this
tool and aims to further develop it along these lines.
References
Bamberger, M. (2012). Introduction to mixed methods in impact evaluation. InterAction [etc.]
[Impact Evaluation Notes: No.3 August 2012].
Bruyninckx, H. (2009). Environmental evaluation practices and the issue of scale. In M. Birnbaum
& P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 122, 31–39.
Garcia, J. R., & Zazueta, A. (2015). Going beyond mixed methods to mixed approaches: A systems
perspective for asking the right questions. IDS Bulleting, 46(1), 30–43.
GEFEO (2006). The role of local benefits in global environmental programs. Washington, DC:
Evaluation Office, Global Environment Facility.
GEFIEO (2013). Climate change mitigation impact evaluation. GEF support to market change in
China, India, Mexico and Russia. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Office, Global
Environment Facility [Unedited version, downloaded from gefieo.org in August 2015].
Hilde ´n, M. (2009). Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies. In M. Birnbaum &
P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 9–18.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contributions of working groups I, II and III
to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC.
Ittyerah, A. C., Choudhary, R., Narang, S., Choudhary, S. D. (2005). Terminal evaluation and
impact assessment of the UNDP/GEF project – IND/91/G-31 – optimizing development of
small Hydel Resources in the Hilly Regions of India. S.l., s.n.
Jerve, A. M., et al. (1999). A leap of faith: A story of Swedish aid and paper production in Vietnam
– the Bai Bang project, 1969–1996. Stockholm: SIDA.
Kennedy, E. T., Balasubramanian, H., & Crosse, W. E. M. (2009). Issues of scale and monitoring
status and trends in biodiversity. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental
program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for
Evaluation, 122, 41–51.
Ratna Reddy, V., Uitto, J. I., Frans, D. R., & Matin, N. (2006). Achieving global environmental
benefits through local development of clean energy? The case of small hilly hidel in India.
Energy Policy, 34, 4069–4080.
Rowe, A. (2012). Evaluation of natural resource interventions. American Journal of Evaluation,
33, 384.
Rowe, A. (2014). Evaluation at the nexus: Principles for evaluating sustainable development
interventions. In J. I. Uitto (Ed.), Evaluating environment in international development.
London: Routledge.
50
R.D. van den Berg