IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v47y2014icp45-53.html

A framework for monitoring social process and outcomes in environmental programs

Author

Listed:
  • Chapman, Sarah

Abstract

When environmental programs frame their activities as being in the service of human wellbeing, social variables need to be integrated into monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. This article draws upon ecosystem services theory to develop a framework to guide the M&E of collaborative environmental programs with anticipated social benefits. The framework has six components: program need, program activities, pathway process variables, moderating process variables, outcomes, and program value. Needs are defined in terms of ecosystem services, as well as other human needs that must be addressed to achieve outcomes. The pathway variable relates to the development of natural resource governance capacity in the target community. Moderating processes can be externalities such as the inherent capacity of the natural system to service ecosystem needs, local demand for natural resources, policy or socio-economic drivers. Internal program-specific processes relate to program service delivery, targeting and participant responsiveness. Ecological outcomes are expressed in terms of changes in landscape structure and function, which in turn influence ecosystem service provision. Social benefits derived from the program are expressed in terms of the value of the eco-social service to user-specified goals. The article provides suggestions from the literature for identifying indicators and measures for components and component variables, and concludes with an example of how the framework was used to inform the M&E of an adaptive co-management program in western Kenya.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:47:y:2014:i:c:p:45-53
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891400086X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.07.004?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Margoluis, Richard & Stem, Caroline & Salafsky, Nick & Brown, Marcia, 2009. "Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 138-147, May.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Plummer, Ryan & Armitage, Derek, 2007. "A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 62-74, February.
    5. Chambers, R. & Conway, G. R., 1991. "Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century," IWMI Books, Reports H032821, International Water Management Institute.
    6. A. J. Dougill & E. D. G. Fraser & J. Holden & K. Hubacek & C. Prell & M. S. Reed & S. Stagl & L. C. Stringer, 2006. "Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 259-275, July.
    7. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    8. Chuenpagdee, Ratana & Jentoft, Svein, 2007. "Step zero for fisheries co-management: What precedes implementation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 657-668, November.
    9. Reed, Mark S. & Fraser, Evan D.G. & Dougill, Andrew J., 2006. "An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 406-418, October.
    10. Fisher, Brendan & Christopher, Treg, 2007. "Poverty and biodiversity: Measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 93-101, April.
    11. Scherr, Sara J., 1995. "Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: Patterns observed in Western Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 787-804, May.
    12. Marwa Khalifa & Stephen Connelly, 2009. "Monitoring and guiding development in rural Egypt: local sustainable development indicators and local Human Development Indices," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 1175-1196, December.
    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. 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.
    2. McConnell, Jesse, 2019. "Adoption for adaptation: A theory-based approach for monitoring a complex policy initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 214-223.
    3. 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.
    4. Yashwant S. Rawat & Vikram S. Negi & Shreekar Pant & Rakesh Kumar Bachheti, 2023. "Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship for Invasive Alien Plants Management in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.

    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. Venghaus, Sandra & Selbmann, Kirsten, 2014. "Biofuel as social fuel: Introducing socio-environmental services as a means to reduce global inequity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 84-92.
    2. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    3. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Uta Schirpke & Lukas Egarter Vigl & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Spatial Congruencies and Mismatches between Supply, Demand and Flow of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    8. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    10. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    11. Arantza Murillas‐Maza & Jorge Virto & María Carmen Gallastegui & Pilar González & Javier Fernández‐Macho, 2011. "The value of open ocean ecosystems: A case study for the Spanish exclusive economic zone," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(2), pages 122-133, May.
    12. Xiaoping Zhou & Lan Yang & Xiaokun Gu & Lufa Zhang & Li Li, 2022. "Scarcity Value Assessment of Ecosystem Services Based on Changes in Supply and Demand: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta City Cluster, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    14. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    15. Marina Bravi & Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna, 2024. "An Application of the Life Satisfaction Approach (LSA) to Value the Land Consumption and Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2988-3013, March.
    16. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    19. Dumax, Nathalie & Rozan, Anne, 2011. "Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 53-59.
    20. Zhang, Biao & Li, Wenhua & Xie, Gaodi, 2010. "Ecosystem services research in China: Progress and perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1389-1395, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:47:y:2014:i:c:p:45-53. 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.