This document discusses the role of evaluation in sustainable development. It defines evaluation as a tool that can help communities understand what sustainability means for them by connecting perceptions with realities. The document advocates using both qualitative and quantitative methods and involving local stakeholders. It also discusses six principles of sustainable development and gives two local examples of how evaluation could provide insight.

1. Chris
Danderfer
THE ROLE OF EVALUATION
IN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

2.  What is Evaluation?
 Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.
 Style of Evaluation.
 Six Principles of Sustainable Development.
 Sustainable Development and Evaluation.
 A Local Example.
 Questions
OVERVIEW

3.  The classical definition of evaluation is “the determination of
the value or worth of something…judged according to
appropriate criteria, with those criteria explicated and
justified” (House, 1993).
 This definition is an accurate description of some evaluation forms,
especially in businesses.
 A more progressive definition states, “(Evaluation is) a form of
applied research, where the researcher becomes a facilitator
in helping those being studied to also become actively
engaged in the quest for information and ideas to guide future
efforts”(Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
WHAT IS EVALUATION?

4.  To me, evaluation is a useful tool for helping communities or
organizations understand what sustainable is in their specific
context. Evaluation aids in connecting perceptions with
potential realities.
WHAT IS EVALUATION?

5.  There exists a “…large body of evidence that shows
conclusively how difficult it is to get accurate information
about what is in people’s minds and how difficult it is to
detect and deal with the cognitive biases of respondents and
processors” (Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
 We may assume that we know the truth, but we often don’t.
 “No such thing as an error-free method of inquiry exists.
Moreover, it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to know even
the direction of error…” (Rossman & Wilson, 1985).
 Despite attempts to minimize issues, quantitative and qualitative
measures will have some degree of inaccuracy.
INTEGRATION OF METHODS

6.  Classical Evaluation: External evaluator, independent
implementers. Focuses on objective, logical approaches using
experimental and quasi-experimental designs.
 Partnership Evaluation: Collaboration between evaluators and
local partners. Partners help design and conduct the
evaluation.
 Participatory Evaluation: Based in the belief that knowledge is
socially constructed and developed by the stakeholders.
Attempts to increase utility of evaluation by increasing
stakeholder participation.
 Naturalistic Evaluation: Change can best be assessed by
observing stakeholders in their natural settings. Conscious
participation is minimized.
(Cummings, 2015)
STYLE OF EVALUATION

7. 1. Harmony with nature: Development activities should support
the essential cycles and life-support functions of
ecosystems.
2. Liveable built environments: The quality of development
should enhance fit between people and urban form.
3. Place-based economy: A local economy should strive to
operate within natural system limits.
4. Equity: Equitable access to social and economic resources is
essential.
5. Polluters pay: Interests that cause adverse community
impacts bear the cost of their actions.
6. Responsible regionalism: Communities should not act in
their interests to the detriment of others.
(Berke & Conroy, 2000)
PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

8.  Sustainability requires “Reflexive scientific practice in order
to enable the co-generation of solutions that account of
uncertainty and multiple forms of knowledge” (Blackstock et
al., 2006).
 Consideration must be given not only to beliefs and values held by
communities and individuals, but also to the reality of the situation
presented.
 “Qualitative research aims to provide an in-depth
understanding of people’s experiences, perspectives, and
histories in the context of personal circumstances” (Spencer
et als., 2000).
 Evaluation can make explicit community values, beliefs, and personal
values and biases. Assuming these things without evidence can be
problematic.
SUSTAINABILITY AND EVALUATION

9.  The “Aim of inquiry is to answer some question or other. We
conduct and inquiry when we are uncertain about something”
(Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
 We are largely unable to accurately determine whether sustainability
exists. Perceptions are valuable, but may not be accurate.
 “True empowerment is based on strong organization of the
…group, something that can happen only when all members
are clear about their values and share a common vision of a
better future” (Brunner & Guzman, 1989).
 Evaluation can reveal information about potential futures for the
group, allowing them to make better informed decisions about a
sustainable future.
SUSTAINABILITY AND EVALUATION

10.  I have been working with the Guelph-Wellington Business
Enterprise Centre for the past few months conducting an
internal process evaluation regarding leadership change.
 The following are significant:
 Change in management style
 Change in management gender
 Strong personal relationships
 Altered work environment
 Change in focus
A LOCAL EXAMPLE

11.  My family is from a farm in rural Saskatchewan. The nearest
town is Biggar, about 15-20 minutes away. While the
population is remaining stable, there are a number of less
obvious issues facing the town.
 If you asked some of the townspeople, many would say that to
become sustainable the community would need to find a way
to restore factors (jobs, businesses, farms, etc…) that had
disappeared over the last 20 years.
 If you asked council members, they might suggest a different
path forward. Returning to a previous state, which is unlikely
to be possible, would only delay the degradation of the
community.
 Evaluation can help consolidate the views and wishes of the
community with the reality of the situation they face.
A SECOND EXAMPLE

12.  How might evaluation hamper sustainable development?
 How does evaluation differ from research? Does it differ?
 How can we consolidate people’s perceptions with the
information generated through evaluative programs?
QUESTIONS

13.  Berke, P., and Conroy, M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable
development? Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1),
21-33.
 Blackstock, K., Kelly, G., & Horsey, B. (2007). Developing and applying a
framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability.
Ecological Economics, 60, 726-742.
 Garaway, G. (1995). Participatory evaluation. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 21, 85-102.
 Guzman, A., and Brunner, I. (1989). Participatory evaluation: A tool to
asses projects and empower people. International Innovations in
Evaluation Methodology, 42, 9-18.
 Sechrest, L., and Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods:
Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-
87.
 Spencer L., Lewis, J., Ritchie, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative
evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. National
Centre for Social Research, 1-17.
REFERENCES

14.  https://theenergy.coop/our-impact/commitment-to-
sustainability
 http://www.guelphbusiness.com/
REFERENCES - PICTURES