Page - (000070) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

3. Given these questions, the appropriate evaluation approaches and tools and methods canbe found to address them. 4. Lastly,byframingtheevidenceintime,spaceandscale theevaluationcanbetter explain why evidence is generated in the way that is chosen, and why other methods (such as randomized controlled trials in the case of complex interven- tions, ormixedmethods case studies in the case of a straight-forward interven- tion that is localized and focuses on testingone causalmechanism). TheCentre forDevelopment Impact inBrightonwill continue towork on this tool and aims to further develop it along these lines. References Bamberger, M. (2012). Introduction to mixed methods in impact evaluation. InterAction [etc.] [ImpactEvaluationNotes:No.3August 2012]. Bruyninckx,H.(2009).Environmentalevaluationpracticesandthe issueofscale. InM.Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation,122, 31–39. Garcia,J.R.,&Zazueta,A.(2015).Goingbeyondmixedmethodstomixedapproaches:Asystems perspective for asking the right questions. IDSBulleting, 46(1), 30–43. GEFEO (2006). The role of local benefits in global environmental programs.Washington, DC: EvaluationOffice,GlobalEnvironment Facility. GEFIEO(2013).Climatechangemitigation impact evaluation.GEFsupport tomarket change in China, India, Mexico and Russia. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Office, Global EnvironmentFacility [Unedited version, downloaded fromgefieo.org inAugust 2015]. Hilde´n, M. (2009). Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies. In M. Birnbaum & P.Mickwitz (Eds.),Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressingmethodolog- ical challenges.NewDirections forEvaluation, 122, 9–18. IPCC.(2014).Climatechange2014:Synthesis report.ContributionsofworkinggroupsI, IIandIII tothefifthassessmentreportof theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.[CoreWriting Team,R.K.Pachauri andL.A.Meyer (eds.)].Geneva: IPCC. Ittyerah, A. C., Choudhary, R., Narang, S., Choudhary, S. D. (2005). Terminal evaluation and impact assessment of the UNDP/GEF project – IND/91/G-31 – optimizing development of smallHydelResources in theHillyRegions of India.S.l., s.n. Jerve,A.M.,etal. (1999).Aleapof faith:AstoryofSwedishaidandpaperproduction inVietnam – theBaiBangproject, 1969–1996. Stockholm:SIDA. Kennedy,E.T.,Balasubramanian,H.,&Crosse,W.E.M. (2009). Issuesof scale andmonitoring status and trends in biodiversity. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. NewDirections for Evaluation,122, 41–51. RatnaReddy,V.,Uitto, J. I., Frans,D.R.,&Matin,N. (2006).Achieving global environmental benefits through local development of clean energy? The case of small hilly hidel in India. EnergyPolicy, 34, 4069–4080. Rowe,A. (2012). Evaluation of natural resource interventions.American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 384. Rowe, A. (2014). Evaluation at the nexus: Principles for evaluating sustainable development interventions. In J. I. Uitto (Ed.), Evaluating environment in international development. London:Routledge. 50 R.D. vandenBerg