An approach to design long-term monitoring and evaluation frameworks in multi-actor systems-A case in water management

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 427-438

  Hermans, Leon M ^a   Naber, Arienne C ^a   Enserink, Bert ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dynamic Actor Network Analysis, Assumption based planning; Long term planning; Monitoring; Multi actor systems; Theory based evaluation; Water management

Indexed keywords

FRESH WATER;

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; ASSESSMENT METHOD; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MONITORING; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; WATER MANAGEMENT;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; STATISTICS; TIME; WATER SUPPLY;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FRESH WATER; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; TIME FACTORS; WATER SUPPLY;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84857663576     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Baur V.E., Van Elteren A.H.G., Nierse C.J., Abma T.A. Dealing with distrust and power dynamics: Asymmetric relations among stakeholders in responsive evaluation. Evaluation 2010, 16:233-248.
2. Bots P.W.G. Dynamic actor network analysis. Software and overview 2009, http://dana.actoranalysis.com.
3. Bots P.W.G., Van Twist M.J.W., Van Duin J.H.R. Designing a power tool for policy analysts: Dynamic Actor Network Analysis. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences 1999.
4. Bryson J.M., Patton M.Q., Bowman R.A. Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning 2011, 34.
5. Bussmann W. Evaluation of legislation: Skating on thin ice. Evaluation 2010, 16:279-293.
6. Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations 1992, Greenwood Press, New York. H. Chen, P.H.-T. Rossi (Eds.).
7. Cundill G., Fabricius C. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:3205-3211.
8. Dewar J.A. Assumption-based planning: A tool for reducing avoidable surprises 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Dewar, J. A., Builder, C. H., Hix, W. M., & Levin, M. H. (1993). Assumption-based planning. A planning tool for very uncertain times. RAND Report MR-114-A. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
10. Eden C. Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). Rational analysis for a problematic world 1989, Wiley, Chichester. J. Rosenhead (Ed.).
11. Eden C., Ackermann F. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 2004, 152:615-630.
12. Enserink B., Hermans L., Kwakkel J., Thissen W., Koppenjan J., Bots P. Policy analysis of multi-actor systems 2010, The Hague, Lemma.
13. Friedman V.J. Designed blindness. An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 2001, 22(2):161-181.
14. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. Fourth generation evaluation 1989, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park.
15. Gysen J., Bruyninckx H., Bachus K. The modus narrandi: A methodology for evaluating effects of environmental policy. Evaluation 2006, 12(1):95-118.
16. Hermans L.M., Thissen W.A.H. Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts. European Journal of Operational Research 2009, 196:808-818.
17. Jenkins, M. (1994). A methodology for creating and comparing strategic causal maps. Cranfield School of Management Working Paper Series, SWP 2/94. Cranfield: Cranfield University.
18. Leeuw F.L. Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation 2003, 24(1):5-20.
19. Leeuw F., Vaessen J. Impact evaluations and development. Nonie guidance on impact evaluation 2009, NONIE, Washington, DC, www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie/.
20. Levine R., Savedoff W.D. The evaluation agenda. Rescuing the world bank. A CGD Working Group Report & Selected Essays 2006, 183-193. Center for Global Development, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. N. Birdsall (Ed.).
21. Lindblom C.E. Inquiry and change. The troubled attempt to understand and shape society 1990, Yale University Press, New Haven.
22. Majone G. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process 1989, Yale University Press, New Haven.
23. Margoluis R., Stem C., Salafsky N., Brown M. Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32:138-147.
24. Mason R.O., Mitroff I.I. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques 1981, New York, Wiley.
25. Parkinson S. Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32:229-237.
26. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective 2006, SAGE, London.
27. Pawson R., Tilley N. Realistic evaluation 1997, SAGE, London.
28. Sabatier P.A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 1988, 21:129-168.
29. Schön D.A., Rein M. Frame reflection. Toward the resolution of intractable controversies 1994, Basic Books, New York.
30. Swanson D., Barg S., Tyler S., Venema H., Tomar S., Bhadwal S., et al. Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2010, 77:924-939.
31. Toulmin S.E. The uses of argument 1958, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. Van der Meer F.B.L., Edelenbos J. Evaluation of multi-actor policy processes: Accountability, learning and cooperation. Evaluation 2006, 12(2):201-208.
33. Van Eeten M.J.G. Dialogues of the deaf. Defining new agendas for environmental deadlocks 1999, Delft, Eburon.
34. Vedung E. Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation 2010, 16(3):263-277.
35. Walker W.E., Rahman S.A., Cave J. Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policymaking. European Journal of Operational Research 2001, 128(2):282-289.