AEA365 | A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators

CAT | Environmental Program Evaluation

I’m Marti Frank, a researcher and evaluator based in Portland, Oregon. Over the last three years I’ve worked in the energy efficiency and social justice worlds, and it’s given me the opportunity to see how much these fields have to teach one another.

For evaluators working with environmental programs – and energy efficiency in particular – I’ve learned two lessons that will help us do a better job documenting the impacts of environmental programs.

Lessons Learned:

1) A program designed to address an environmental goal – for example, reduce energy use or clean up pollution, will almost always have other, more far reaching impacts. As evaluators, we need to be open to these in order to capture the full range of the program’s benefits.

Example: A weatherization workshop run by Portland non-profit Community Energy Project (where I am on the Board), teaches people how to make simple, inexpensive changes to their home to reduce drafts and air leaks. While the program’s goal is to reduce energy use, participants report many other benefits: more disposable income, reduced need for public assistance, feeling less worried about paying bills, having more time to spend with family.

2) Not all people will be equally impacted by an environmental program, or even impacted in the same way. Further, there may be systematic differences in how, and how much, people are impacted.

Example #1: Energy efficiency programs assign a single value for energy savings, even though the same quantity of savings will mean very different things to different households, depending in large part on their energy burden  (or the percent of their income they spend on energy).

Example #2: A California energy efficiency program provided rebates on efficient household appliances, like refrigerators. Although the rebates were available to everyone, the households who redeemed them (and thus benefited from the program) were disproportionately wealthy and college-educated, relative to all Californians.

Rad Resources:

I’ve found three evaluation approaches to be helpful in identifying unintended impacts of environmental programs.

Outcome harvesting. This evaluation practice encourages us to look for all program outcomes, not just those that were intended. Ricardo Wilson-Grau, who developed it, hosts this site with materials to get you started.

Intersectionality. This conceptual approach originated in feminist theory and reminds us to think about how differing clusters of demographic characteristics influence how we experience the world and perceive benefits of social programs.

Open-ended qualitative interviews. It’s hard to imagine unearthing unexpected outcomes using closed-ended questions. I always enjoy what I learn from asking open-ended questions, giving people plenty of time to respond, and even staying quiet a little too long. And, I’ve yet to find an interviewee who doesn’t come up with another interesting point when asked, “Anything else?”

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Kara Crohn and Matt Galport here – we’re consultants with EMI Consulting, an evaluation and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington that focuses on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and policies. More than ever, evaluators must consider how their clients’ programs impact the well-being of the communities and environments in which they are embedded. It is also important for evaluators to consider how their clients’ program goals relate to state, national, or global sustainability goals. In this post, we offer five types of systems-oriented sustainability metrics that evaluators can use to connect clients’ program contributions to broader environmental, economic, health, and social metrics of well-being.

But first, what do we mean by “sustainability”?

In this post, we’re not talking about the longevity of the program, but rather the extent to which a program’s outcomes, intended or otherwise, contribute to or detract from the future well-being of its stakeholders. We are also using an expanded definition of “stakeholders” that includes communities and environmental resources affected by the program.

Hot Tip:

Consider incorporating these five types of sustainability metrics into your next evaluation:

#1: Public health: The extent to which a program contributes to or detracts from the health of program and community stakeholders

#2: Environment and energy: The extent to which a program implements environmental and energy conservation policies that support resource conservation

#3: Community cohesion: The extent to which a program promotes or detracts from the vibrancy and trust of the communities in which it is embedded

#4: Equity: The extent to which a program contributes to or detracts from fair and just distribution of resources

#5: Policy and governance: The extent to which a program’s policies support civil society, democratic institutions, and protect the disadvantaged

So, what would this look like in practice?

Here’s an example of how to connect program-specific metrics for a small, local after-school tutoring program to the broader set of social goals.

Rad Resources:

Resources for municipal and global sustainability metrics:

Municipal: STAR Rating system for U.S. cities

Global: United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals

Continue the conversation with us! Kara kcrohn@emiconsulting.com and Matt mgalport@emiconsulting.com.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

My name is Allison Van and I am currently an evaluator at the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and the owner of Allison Van Consulting.  Previously I managed The Pasture Project for Winrock International, which was an effort to build a movement among farmers in the Midwest to reintegrate livestock rotation both for greater profit and environmental benefit.  The project benefitted from funders that were willing to take chances with us, allowing for a budget where resources could be shifted to account for new information or opportunities.  Our strategies were highly diverse – demonstration sites on farms, supporting a collaboration of farmer educators, training dedicated farmers in public speaking – yet all directed at influencing the decision-making of individual farmers. Some strategies were about direct influence while others focused on building capacity – in both cases results wouldn’t be seen for years and were highly dependent on external circumstances.

As both the program manager and default evaluator, my goal was to test strategies relatively quickly, rigorously, and cheaply – then modify, end or expand them within 6-18 months.  I needed an approach for the team to compare the development of different strategies so money could be funneled where it was most likely to make a difference.  Understanding that the core challenge was one of budget allocation amidst uncertainty and long time horizons was critical to selecting the right evaluation approach.

Rad Resources: The combination of Michael Quinn Patton’s Developmental Evaluation and E. Jane Davidson’s Real Evaluation were my constant guides to developing an evaluation approach and making decisions in the context of extreme uncertainty and long time horizons.

Hot Tip:  There are profound trade-offs and opportunity costs in social change, making value for money a critical measure of program effectiveness.  How programs invest their resources can be the most fundamental determinant of success.  A bootstrap method combining cost-effectiveness analysis, the logic model for each strategy, and rubrics of early stage indicators of behavior change allowed us to thoughtfully consider how to make and shift investments.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hello, I am Marcie Weinandt and have been working with Minnesota rural and agricultural communities my entire career, as an elected official, program manager and policy developer.  My state, “The Land of 10,000 Lakes” has had to face a hard truth: water quality in Minnesota is being threatened by agricultural field runoff.  My current work is as operations coordinator of the Minnesota Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP), designed to bridge the urban/rural divide and protect water quality by providing the regulatory certainty farmers need and the assurance the public demands.

MAWQCP has pioneered a new model of conservation delivery that works on a field-by-field, whole farm basis to identify and mitigate agricultural risks to water quality. Once a farmer has mitigated their farm’s risks to water quality the farmer is eligible to become certified and sign a 10 year contract with the State indicating the certified farmer will be in compliance with any new state water laws or rules. Through the contract farmers receive the regulatory certainty they need to make long-term decisions and the general public is assured that farmers are managing their operations to protect water.

Central to the program’s success is the collaboration among Minnesota’s state agencies. The Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources all support the program, uphold the contract provision of regulatory certainty, and are implementing additional benefits to MAWQCP-certified farmers within their respective agencies.

Recognizing early that this intergovernmental MAWQCP has several partners, funding streams and constituents, we realized it did not fit neatly into any single evaluation approach. Multiple evaluation methods were developed at inception to triangulate expected project outcomes. Formative Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) surveys were used during the pilot phase to inform program direction and to set a baseline. Later, summative KAP surveys yielded a second database against which behavioral changes could be measured in specific watersheds over time. In addition, advisory committee members were interviewed, and a post-certification farmer survey was done. MAWQCP gathers information on three other levels: environmental, participatory and political.

Lessons Learned:

  • Farmers have a very high concern for water quality and especially for reducing soil erosion.
  • They are also concerned about public perception of agriculture.
  • KAP Study revealed that technical assistance from a trusted source and that financial assistance was appreciated but not necessary to adopt and maintain an agricultural conservation or management practice.

Rad Resources:

MAWQCP:  Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Study Final Report June 20, 2016

This KAP Study was conducted to better inform the implementation process of the MAWQCP.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

My name is Karlyn Eckman and I research the human dimensions of natural resources programs in Minnesota and also in developing countries.  While working in Somalia in the 1980s I learned to use the KAP (knowledge, attitudes and practices) study method to evaluate project outcomes. Since 2006 our University of Minnesota team has conducted about forty KAP studies on a variety of environmental projects.  Most studies assess whether people have adopted and maintained recommended conservation practices, or acquired new knowledge about an environmental issue.

One such project is the Native Shoreland Buffer Initiatives (NSBI) project of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  NSBI encouraged shoreland property owners on three northern Minnesota lakes to adopt conservation practices to improve water quality. Many lakes are impaired by excess nutrients such as nitrates and phosphorus from agricultural operations, or bacteria from septic systems.  The NSBI designed customized conservation messages for landowners based on specific impairments, and tested different ways of delivering those messages (radio programs, social clubs and gatherings, peer-to-peer messaging, visits by technical experts, brochures, etc.).

The KAP study provided us with an economical and focused way of planning an evaluation-ready project. We began with a “gap exercise” to review what we didn’t know about landowners, and would need to know before designing NSBI outreach efforts. Based on the gaps we identified, we developed a questionnaire that was administered as a formative evaluation. Outreach messages were based upon survey results. Two years later we repeated the survey. Data from the two surveys was directly comparable. We had solid evidence that the NSBI was not only effective in changing people’s behaviors and adopting conservation practices, but also in improving their knowledge about water quality. We also learned which message delivery approaches were most effective: peer-to-peer messaging, social gatherings and visits by technical experts.

KAP studies are effective in many environmental projects. We have used method to evaluate:

* The outcome of water quality projects on urban and suburban residents (for example, changes in knowledge and attitudes of residents about local water bodies)

* Effectiveness of training (for example whether snowplow drivers reduce the application of de-icing chemicals)

* Adoption of best practices by farmers to reduce soil erosion and agrochemical use

* Cost-effectiveness of water quality projects as measured by reduced purchases of road salt by county public works departments

KAP studies can be used at any scale, with qualitative or quantitative data, and with multiple methods.  We have used KAP studies to evaluate the human dimensions of invasive species, use of agricultural practices, recreational behaviors, shifting cultivation in developing countries, application of road salt by snowplow drivers, and many other issues. In each case the KAP study method has provided critical data demonstrating project success, which is important to donors and state agencies wanting evidence of the value of investment of public resources in environmental efforts.

Rad Resources

The final evaluation report for the NSBI project can be found here.

Photo: The author (left) and team triangulating survey data on Johnson Lake in Itasca County, Minnesota

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hi, I’m Rupu Gupta, Conservation Psychologist, Co-Chair of AEA’s Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group, and Researcher at NewKnowledge.org, a research and evaluation think tank.

For the past five years, I have evaluated the EECapacity project, supported by a cooperative agreement between Cornell University and the US Environmental Protection Agency. It aimed to expand the critical role environmental education (EE) plays in fostering healthy environments and communities. The project’s overall strategy was to link an emerging cadre of diverse EE professionals working in urban environmental stewardship, community, and environmental justice organizations with established environmental educators who are active in nationwide professional and government networks. A number of resources, online learning opportunities, and professional development activities, were employed to engage groups of environmental educators across the country.

A number of key insights emerged from the findings that are relevant for evaluating environmental programs, and as Earth Week approaches, even more so in thinking about the intersections between environmental and human outcomes.

Lessons Learned:

  • Environmental educators in the US are more racially and ethnically diverse than is documented through professional associations – this means, that when evaluating environmental projects focused on diversity, we have to be mindful of the characteristics of the population of interest to understand change
  • Environmental educators hold multiple perspectives about the goals of EE – perception of apparent differences in EE’s purpose (to connect kids with the outdoors versus to foster youth leadership in community gardening) often overlooks shared outcomes for young audiences) 
  • Culturally responsive approaches are critical to initiate relationship building between educators affiliated with professional EE and those aligned with community-focused goals – the processes of interaction are as important as outcomes of potential partnerships.
  • Social identities tied to groups defining unique approaches to environment-focused work are important to consider – if the goal is to foster collaboration, a proxy may be the development of a superordinate identity that recognizes the shared goals of groups that have not previously connected.
  • Differences in power and status are inherent in environmental projects with stakeholders from organizations ranging from national-level EE organizations to community focused programs – project outcomes will be meaningfully interpreted only when the evaluation context and interactions between the key stakeholders are honestly examined.

Earth Week is a reminder of the global imperative to protect our planet’s flora and fauna, in ways that complement social goals of altruism, equity and justice. For evaluating environmental programs, it is a humbling moment for us to reflect on the motivated, human-led actions and approaches that create environmental and inevitably societal change.

Rad Resources:

For more information:

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hi, I’m Katherine Dawes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I’m currently on a year-long assignment as a Visiting Scholar at The George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration (find me at kdawes [at] gwu [dot] edu).

Earth Day 2016 theme is “Trees for the Earth. Let’s get planting.” Everyone knows that trees changing with the season are perfect metaphors for transitions. Every four to eight years, as spring trees start blooming, evaluators in the United States’ federal sector start contemplating our major upcoming seasonal change – the transition to a new Presidential Administration. We wonder: What will be our new federal evaluation goals and policies?  How will we change (or continue) our work to meet the needs and expectations of a new, energetic Administration?

Aside from tree leaves, what On Earth can an evaluator read to learn what the next Administration cares about (or is hearing from national experts) concerning evaluation, management, accountability, data… any issue that will directly or indirectly influence my work?

To understand the forest…err…big picture of U.S. presidential transitions and to learn what prospective federal leaders are considering planting, veteran transition watchers have many Rad Resources. Some of my favorites for evaluation-relevant info:

  • The White House Transition Project provides information to prospective federal leaders to help “[streamline] the process of transition from one administration to the next.” The Project coordinates with government agencies and non-government groups like the Partnership for Public Service and National Academy of Public Administration.
  • The National Academy of Public Administration’s Transition 2016 publishes articles and papers intended “to inform incoming national leaders about the policy and management challenges facing the nation.”
  • The Partnership for Public Service established the Center for Presidential Transition supporting the “Ready to Govern®” initiative. It has a repository for documentation from previous transitions and “shares management recommendations for the new administration to address government’s talent and operational challenges…”
  • As part of Ready to Govern, the IBM Center for the Business of Government joined with the Partnership in launching the Management Roadmap. The Roadmap presents “a set of management recommendations for the next administration – enhancing the capacity of government to deliver key outcomes for citizens.”

Daily news organizations and social networks with a federal focus supply fantastic transition information in short, readable bites – check out Government Executive and GovLoop. In addition to daily reporting, Federal News Radio co-sponsors longform interviews that are available as podcasts.  A recent interview with Professor Martha Kumar, a White House Transition project director, shares the rich history of U.S. presidential transitions. (You can also find fascinating interviews focused on program evaluation.)

Share your Rad Resources for government transitions. Let’s get reading!

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hi, I’m Rupu Gupta, Co-Chair of AEA’s Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group and Researcher at NewKnowledge.org, a research and evaluation think tank.  Earth Week brings with it an ideal time to critically consider the potential of environmental education programs to create opportunities for professionals to protect the planet for a living!

Rad Resource: I have been leading the evaluation of The Nature Conservancy’s LEAF (Leaders in Environmental Action for the Future) Program.  This national conservation internship program aims to create skilled and empowered environmental stewards. Across different cohorts, we have consistently found that high school youth are motivated and keenly interested in pursuing higher education in environment-related majors and joining environmental careers.

With the most recent cohort of this program we expanded our evaluation framework to study how the interns conceptualized and thought about the activities involved and the skills that are necessary for in environmental careers. Our multi-phase evaluation revealed striking shifts in how the youth perceived environmental careers.

Before they participated in the internship, teens had vague understandings of environmental jobs. After the program, they recognized that persistence and impacts on ecosystems, animals, and people were the defining features of these careers. They could also connect these attributes to different disciplines (e.g., law, environmental education) and activities (e.g., conducting research, participating in activism). Moreover, five months after the internship, their perceptions had grown sharper, so that they could think about the skills, activities, and recipients in discrete ways.

Lessons Learned:

  • Emphasize the multiple disciplinary pathways to environmental careers– programs need to create greater awareness of the diverse educational backgrounds that can contribute to an environmental career.
  • Character traits are critical in an environmental career – a determined, action-oriented personal attribute was perceived by the youth to be a key component of careers aiming to protect the environment.
  • The environmental workforce may be a psychologically resilient group – if persistence, a character-based aspect is a necessary aspect of the job, its implications on being adaptive and responsive to changing circumstances are worth studying.
  • Pathways to environmental careers for youth need to be extended – beyond broadening the career horizons for youth to pursue environmental careers, conservation programs need to create access to these careers for youth, and especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups.
  • Every day can be Earth Day! A more diverse environmental workforce means greater, sustained engagement in environmental protection by a larger segment of the population, and more professionals working, in their own unique ways, to save the world!

Rad Resources: Read more about Diversity in the Environmental Workforce to discover more about the possibilities of environmentally-minded careers!

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hi! I’m Shari Grossarth from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Evaluation Support Division. I’m part of a team at EPA that’s trying out a knowledge synthesis approach to inform our work to advance sustainable purchasing in the federal government and other large institutions. The project is still underway, but I’ll share a bit about it and some of the resources we’re using to guide our approach.

Our focus is on understanding outcomes and lessons learned from servicizing approaches. Servicizing is the procurement of a function of a product rather than the product itself, like bike-sharing instead of bike ownership or purchasing a floor covering system instead of carpet. Servicizing should lead to more sustainable outcomes, like fewer products being produced, products being made to last and customers using only what they need, but we want to see what the existing knowledge base tells us about outcomes.

We’re casting a broad search for existing evaluative knowledge relevant to outcomes and lessons learned from servicizing approaches, and synthesizing the key findings to inform EPA’s efforts and share with others. Our general approach is depicted in the graphic below. We’ll search a broad range of evaluative knowledge, including grey literature, published literature, evaluations, and discussions with experts. We’ll synthesize the knowledge we find and create an online collection to share the key findings and knowledge sources. We hope that the collection will ultimately become a collaborative space where others add and share additional related knowledge. We’re working with IssueLab, a knowledge sharing platform, and collaborating with the Environmental Evaluators Network (EEN) in their efforts to develop an Architecture for Environmental Evaluation, or ArchEE.

Grossarth

Rad Resources: We’re truly trying this out, borrowing from other related endeavors and learning as we go. These are some of the resources we’ve referenced to shape our efforts.

Image courtesy of Shari Grossarth

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

I’m John Fraser, a conservation psychologist and President & CEO of the non-profit think tank, NewKnowledge.org.  Our research on climate change has taken a very interesting direction in the past few years. For generations, we’ve focused on individual sustainability behaviors as a gateway to more conservation action. Unfortunately, that’s turning out not to be true.  We’ve been working with the National Network for Ocean and Climate Change Interpretation, studying how people who visit informal learning environments engage in sustainability, and whether programs can increase their likelihood to do something.

Lesson Learned: There were two findings from our work that seemed counter-intuitive to the prevailing wisdom. First, the educators themselves exercised self-censoring and, like the majority of the population, thought their values were discordant to those in their community.  It turned out that most people weren’t talking about the need to address climate change because they thought they were more concerned than others in their area. But surprisingly, almost everyone in our surveys estimated that their personal concern was greater than other organizations. And that perception led them to be less likely to engage others in talking about climate change solutions.

Our research has also corroborated a growing body of data suggesting that individual behaviors are more likely to help people feel self-assured and may not promote more global sustainability.  If we truly believe that we need a more sustainable society, then one of the highest priorities in environmental action is promoting change in how organizations and groups choose to change their technologies away from carbon producing energy.

Therefore, this Hot Tip comes from our team.  We’ve decided to stop using likelihood to engage in individual sphere behaviors as a representation of achieving sustainability outcomes. We suggest that unless we assess likelihood that individuals are working to engage others in their innovation, technology transfer, substitution and curtailment at a wholesale level, there is no way we’ll logically end up with the impacts that are the goal of most environmental education.

Connections between messaging, understanding, hope, and action.

Connections between messaging, understanding, hope, and action.

Image credit: NewKnowledge

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Older posts >>

Archives

To top