Key insights for the design of environmental evaluations

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2009, Issue 122, 2009, Pages 105-112

  Mickwitz, Per ^a,b   Birnbaum, Matthew ^c  

^a Finnish Environment Institute   (United States)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^c National Fish and Wildlife Foundation   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950752683     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.300     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Conservation Measures Partnership.(2007). Open standards for the practice of conservation. Version 2.0. Available at http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Docs/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf
2. Mickwitz, P., (2003).A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts.Evaluation, 9(4), 415-436.
3. Patton, M. Q., (1997).Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.).London: Sage.
4. Weiss, C., (2000).Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In P. J.Rogers, T. A.Hacsi, A.Petrosino, &T. A.Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 35-45.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Weiss, C. H., (1995).The four “I’s” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals.Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592.
6. Weiss, C. H., and Bucuvalas, M., (1980, April). Truth test and utility test: Decision makers’ frame of reference for social science research.American Sociological Review, 302-313.