Evaluation framework assesses urban pilot impacts in communities, indicating a path for effective urban transitions.
Urban ReLeaf promotes collaboration between local communities and public authorities to address urgent climate issues and support innovations that enable more just and green urban transitions. This document describes the evaluation and impact assessment framework and related processes for Urban ReLeaf city pilots, which are the procedural and methodological basis for conducting and reporting on the outcomes of the ex-post-evaluation and assessment in the final year of the project. To build the framework, Urban ReLeaf follows the principles for consolidated impact assessment in citizen science, builds on the concept of a Theory of Change, and draws from rule-of-thumb criteria for impact assessment and indicator development. The Urban ReLeaf pilots evaluation and impact framework is a multi-level and multi-purpose framework to address the intricacies of impact assessment as well as the diversity of aims and actors in the project, contextual variation of pilots unfolding in the different cities and the different audiences for the assessment results. It consists of four distinct building blocks: Procedural monitoring of pilot implementation and respective outcomes towards anticipated project impacts with a focus on monitoring inclusive engagement targets. Ex-post assessment of the joint impact of Urban ReLeaf city pilots on society, economy, environment, science and technology, and governance, using the standardised MICS platform approach as well as dedicated and city-specific assessments of pilot impacts on governance and policy. Exploratory cost-benefit analysis. Communicating impact results to different audiences, using impact stories. While such a multi-purpose and multi-level approach poses the risk of being too demanding, the framework tries to form effective synergies with related project activities (project reporting, communications, capitalising on prior activities for baselining etc.), make use of off-the-shelf methods and only tailors methodologies where relevant and necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hager et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: