IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v60y2017icp112-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Failing better: The stochastic art of evaluating community-led environmental action programs

Author

Listed:
  • Dunkley, Ria A.
  • Franklin, Alex

Abstract

This article provides insights into the evaluation of a government-funded action for climate change program. The UK-based program aimed to reduce CO2 emissions and encourage behavioral change through community-led environmental projects. It, thus, employed six community development facilitators, with expertise in environmental issues. These facilitators supported and learnt from 18 community groups over an 18-month period. The paper explores the narratives of the six professional facilitators. These facilitators discuss their experiences of supporting community groups. They also explain their contribution to the wider evaluation of the community-led projects. This paper reflects on the facilitator experience of the program’s outcome-led evaluation process. In turn, it also explores how the groups they supported experienced the process. The facilitator’s narratives reveal that often community-group objectives did not align with predefined outcomes established through theory of change or logic model methodologies, which had been devised in attempt to align to program funder aims. Assisting community action emerges in this inquiry as a stochastic art that requires funder and facilitator willingness to experiment and openness to the possibilities of learning from failure. Drawing on in-depth accounts, the article illustrates that a reflexive, interpretive evaluation approach can enhance learning opportunities and provides funders with more trustworthy representations of community-led initiatives. Yet, it also addresses why such an approach remains marginal within policy circles.

Suggested Citation

  • Dunkley, Ria A. & Franklin, Alex, 2017. "Failing better: The stochastic art of evaluating community-led environmental action programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 112-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:112-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916302762
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brousselle, Astrid & Champagne, François, 2011. "Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-78, February.
    2. Burch, Sarah, 2010. "In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7575-7585, December.
    3. Peters, Michael & Fudge, Shane & Sinclair, Philip, 2010. "Mobilising community action towards a low-carbon future: Opportunities and challenges for local government in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7596-7603, December.
    4. Geof Wood & Meera Tiwari & Stephen A. Bell & Peter Aggleton, 2012. "Integrating Ethnographic Principles In Ngo Monitoring And Impact Evaluation," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 795-807, August.
    5. Fishman, Daniel B., 1992. "Postmodernism comes to program evaluation : A critical review of Guba and Lincoln's fourth generation evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 263-270.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    7. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    8. Chapman, Sarah, 2014. "A framework for monitoring social process and outcomes in environmental programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 45-53.
    9. Fishman, Daniel B. & Neigher, William D., 2004. "Publishing systematic, pragmatic case studies in program evaluation: collatoral on a `promisory note'," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 105-113, February.
    10. Cabrera, Derek & Colosi, Laura & Lobdell, Claire, 2008. "Systems thinking," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 299-310, August.
    11. Schwartz, Robert & Mayne, John, 2005. "Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-14.
    12. Moloney, Susie & Horne, Ralph E. & Fien, John, 2010. "Transitioning to low carbon communities--from behaviour change to systemic change: Lessons from Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7614-7623, December.
    13. Annecke, Wendy, 2008. "Monitoring and evaluation of energy for development: The good, the bad and the questionable in M&E practice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2829-2835, August.
    14. Acosta, Anne Starks & Douthwaite, Boru, 2005. "Appreciative Inquiry: An approach for learning and change based on our own best practices," ILAC Briefs 52516, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Forman, Alister, 2017. "Energy justice at the end of the wire: Enacting community energy and equity in Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 649-657.
    2. Foote, J. & Midgley, G. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. & Hepi, M. & Earl-Goulet, J., 2021. "Systemic evaluation of community environmental management programmes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 207-224.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azalia Mohamed & Zelina Zaiton Ibrahim & Abu Daud Silong & Ramdzani Abdullah, 2016. "Distributed Leadership in a Low-Carbon City Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    3. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    4. Kailun Fang & Suzana Ariff Azizan & Yifei Wu, 2023. "Low-Carbon Community Regeneration in China: A Case Study in Dadong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    6. Conradie, Peter D. & De Ruyck, Olivia & Saldien, Jelle & Ponnet, Koen, 2021. "Who wants to join a renewable energy community in Flanders? Applying an extended model of Theory of Planned Behaviour to understand intent to participate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Peretz, Jean H. & Das, Sujit & Tonn, Bruce E., 2009. "Evaluating knowledge benefits of automotive lightweighting materials R&D projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 300-309, August.
    8. Volden, Gro Holst, 2018. "Public project success as seen in a broad perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 109-117.
    9. Anzoise, Valentina & Sardo, Stefania, 2016. "Dynamic systems and the role of evaluation: The case of the Green Communities project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 162-172.
    10. Nick Eyre, 2013. "Decentralization of governance in the low-carbon transition," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 27, pages 581-597, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Jae-Seung Lee & Jeong Won Kim, 2017. "The Factors of Local Energy Transition in the Seoul Metropolitan Government: The Case of Mini-PV Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Rogers, Jennifer C. & Simmons, Eunice A. & Convery, Ian & Weatherall, Andrew, 2012. "Social impacts of community renewable energy projects: findings from a woodfuel case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 239-247.
    13. Panos Xidonas & Haris Doukas & George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak, 2016. "Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 395-413, December.
    14. Jiang, Ping & Chen, Yihui & Xu, Bin & Dong, Wenbo & Kennedy, Erin, 2013. "Building low carbon communities in China: The role of individual’s behaviour change and engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 611-620.
    15. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Lazarus, Michael & Chandler, Chelsea & Erickson, Peter, 2013. "A core framework and scenario for deep GHG reductions at the city scale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 563-574.
    17. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    18. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    19. Aparna Katre & Arianna Tozzi, 2018. "Assessing the Sustainability of Decentralized Renewable Energy Systems: A Comprehensive Framework with Analytical Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Sanya Carley & Sara Lawrence, 2014. "Energy-Based Economic Development," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4471-6341-1, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:112-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.