IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v108y2025ics0149718924001149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Mavrot, Céline
  • Potluka, Oto
  • Balzer, Lars
  • Eicher, Véronique
  • Haunberger, Sigrid
  • Heuer, Christine
  • Viallon, François-Xavier

Abstract

This literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the use of evaluation criteria across five policy fields: social services, land-use planning, teaching in higher education, vocational education, and the environment. Though it is a key part of the evaluation process, the question of how criteria are defined, chosen, and applied generates surprisingly little debate among the evaluation community. In evaluation practice, criteria are often taken for granted – and occasionally even used in ways that are neither explicit nor transparent. This cross-field literature review shows a strong presence of routinized evaluation criteria (relating to the specifics of each policy field), while some new sets of higher-degree criteria also emerge in the face of social challenges relating to sustainability, public acceptance, or social justice. Criteria development draws on both inductive bottom-up processes (which can include policy stakeholders) and top-down deductive processes (which derive criteria from the literature, as well as from national and international standards). A more profound reflection on evaluation criteria (that is, the dimensions used by societies to assess the success of policy interventions) might be required in the future of evaluation research and planning; a deeper cross-field dialogue could support this endeavor.

Suggested Citation

  • Mavrot, Céline & Potluka, Oto & Balzer, Lars & Eicher, Véronique & Haunberger, Sigrid & Heuer, Christine & Viallon, François-Xavier, 2025. "What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:108:y:2025:i:c:s0149718924001149
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001149
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102512?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. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    2. Abma, T. A., 2000. "Stakeholder conflict: a case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 199-210, May.
    3. Muñoz Gielen, Demetrio & Mualam, Nir, 2019. "A framework for analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of land readjustment regulations: Comparison of Germany, Spain and Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    5. van den Hove, Sybille, 2000. "Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 457-472, June.
    6. Portney, Paul R & Stavins, Robert N, 1994. "Regulatory Review of Environmental Policy: The Potential Role of Health-Health Analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 111-122, January.
    7. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1994. "Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 97-112, July.
    8. Mark Daniel & Margaret Cargo & Elisabeth Marks & Catherine Paquet & David Simmons & Margaret Williams & Kevin Rowley & Kerin O’Dea, 2009. "Rating Health and Social Indicators for Use with Indigenous Communities: A Tool for Balancing Cultural and Scientific Utility," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 241-256, November.
    9. María del Carmen Bas & Stefano Tarantola & José Miguel Carot & Andrea Conchado, 2017. "Sensitivity Analysis: A Necessary Ingredient for Measuring the Quality of a Teaching Activity Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 931-946, April.
    10. Kim, Sang-Hoon, 2007. "Evaluation of negative environmental impacts of electricity generation: Neoclassical and institutional approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 413-423, January.
    11. Dickinson, Pauline & Adams, Jeffery, 2017. "Values in evaluation – The use of rubrics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 113-116.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Fabio Antoniou & Roland Strausz, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Taxation and Feed-in Tariffs," CESifo Working Paper Series 4788, CESifo.
    3. Touitou Mohammed, 2021. "Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions in North African Countries," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 25(2), pages 67-77, June.
    4. Carsten Helm & Mathias Mier, 2020. "Steering the Energy Transition in a World of Intermittent Electricity Supply: Optimal Subsidies and Taxes for Renewables Storage," ifo Working Paper Series 330, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    5. Jonathan M. Lee, 2015. "The Impact of Heterogeneous NOx Regulations on Distributed Electricity Generation in U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers 15-12, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Xinkuo Xu & Liyan Han, 2017. "Diverse Effects of Consumer Credit on Household Carbon Emissions at Quantiles: Evidence from Urban China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Mbéa Bell & Sylvain Dessy, 2017. "Market Power and Instrument Choice in Climate Policy," Cahiers de recherche 1704, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    8. Veith, Stefan & Werner, Jörg R. & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "Capital market response to emission rights returns: Evidence from the European power sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 605-613, July.
    9. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    10. Christopher Jeffords, 2014. "Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-606, March.
    11. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Céline Dutilly & José-Alberto Lara-Pulido & Gwenolé Le Velly & Alejando Guevara-Sanginés, 2016. "Payments for Environmental Services in a Policymix: Spatial and Temporal Articulation in Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Kirsty L. Blackstock & Elizabeth A. Kirk & Alison D. Reeves, 2005. "Sociology, Science and Sustainability: Developing Relationships in Scotland," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 10(2), pages 125-140, July.
    13. Zhang, Zibin & Yang, Wenxin & Ye, Jianliang, 2021. "Why sulfur dioxide emissions decline significantly from coal-fired power plants in China? Evidence from the desulfurated electricity pricing premium program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    14. Lehmann, Paul, 2010. "Combining emissions trading and emissions taxes in a multi-objective world," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2010, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    15. Benjamin Jones & Michael Keen & Jon Strand, 2013. "Fiscal implications of climate change," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(1), pages 29-70, February.
    16. Larry Hughes & Moniek Jong & Zach Thorne, 2021. "(De)coupling and (De)carbonizing in the economies and energy systems of the G20," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5614-5639, April.
    17. Dietrich Earnhart & Sarah Jacobson & Yusuke Kuwayama & Richard T. Woodward, 2023. "Discretionary Exemptions from Environmental Regulation: Flexibility for Good or for Ill," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(2), pages 203-221.
    18. Aydın, Cem İskender, 2020. "Nuclear energy debate in Turkey: Stakeholders, policy alternatives, and governance issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    19. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    20. Julie Anne Cronin & Don Fullerton & Steven Sexton, 2019. "Vertical and Horizontal Redistributions from a Carbon Tax and Rebate," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(S1), pages 169-208.

    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:108:y:2025:i:c:s0149718924001149. 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.