Rapid outcome mapping approach: a guide to policy engagement and influence - Young, John; Shaxson, Louise; Jones, harry; Hearn, Simon; Datta, Ajoy; Cassidy, Caroline (ODI, 2014)

Engaging Stakeholders in Planning for Sea Level Rise and Resilience - Yusuf, Juita-Elena (Wie); John, Burton St; Covi, Michelle; Nicula, J. Gail (Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 2018)
This case study describes a region-wide, multi-sectoral, and whole-of-community stakeholder engagement approach for addressing sea level rise (SLR) and flooding. This approach was implemented through a university-led community engagement event, the Hampton Roads Resilient Region Reality Check (H4RC), which allowed an examination of its effectiveness as a mechanism for capturing community-wide perceptions regarding SLR, flooding, and associated risks; engaging stakeholders in discussion within and across different groups; and assessing community willingness to address flooding and SLR. The results show that the event helped participants broaden their perspectives and understanding of flooding and SLR. In an approach that called for participants to engage in social learning across social networks, the event had some effect on individual efficacy. However, there was little impact on participants' already-established perception that the region does not possess significant willingness to take action.
Keywords: Social learning; flooding; resilience; social capital; stakeholder engagement

Data and monitoring needs for a more ecological agriculture - Zaks, David P. M.; Kucharik, Christopher J. (Environmental Research Letters, 2011)
Information on the life-cycle environmental impacts of agricultural production is often limited. As demands grow for increasing agricultural output while reducing its negative environmental impacts, both existing and novel data sources can be leveraged to provide more information to producers, consumers, scientists and policy makers. We review the components and organization of an agroecological sensor web that integrates remote sensing technologies and in situ sensors with models in order to provide decision makers with effective management options at useful spatial and temporal scales for making more informed decisions about agricultural productivity while reducing environmental burdens. Several components of the system are already in place, but by increasing the extent and accessibility of information, decision makers will have the opportunity to enhance food security and environmental quality. Potential roadblocks to implementation include farmer acceptance, data transparency and technology deployment.

Inclusive participatory approaches: A facilitator’s guide - Zaremba, Haley; Elias, Marlène; Devi, J. Tulasi; Priyadarshini, Pratiti (2021)
In community engagement and participatory processes, facilitators must make intentional efforts and adopt inclusive strategies to include marginalized and frequently overlooked groups. Yet, there is a lack of guidance on how to inclusively facilitate participatory processes. Facilitators are therefore often poorly prepared to engage with the power relations that underlie these processes, including those between the facilitator and participants and among participants themselves. This guide addresses this shortcoming by presenting strategies that have been shown to enhance the meaningful participation of women and marginalized groups in participatory processes. The aim is to equip facilitators with tools to create inclusive participatory spaces and community engagement. Although it refers to processes related to natural resource management, the guide is also applicable to the facilitation of participatory processes focusing on other issues or fields of significance to communities.

USAID Wildlife Asia as a case study in adaptive rigour - Ziegler, Jessica (Briefing Paper, 2020)
This briefing note looks at how the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Wildlife Asia programme has operationalised the concepts of adaptive rigour and adaptive management as part of its approach to collaborating, learning and adapting. As described by the Global Learning for Adaptive Management (GLAM) initiative, adaptive rigour is about ensuring that the data, information, methods, processes and systems that underpin adaptive management are robust, systematic and high‑quality. Key messages When faced with programmatic complexity, it is important to take an adaptive approach driven by continuous and iterative monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). USAID Wildlife Asia, which works to advance regional action towards ending illegal wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia and China, has embraced this approach as a way of operationalising adaptive rigour. Throughout programming, MEL approaches should reflect the characteristics of adaptive rigour: comprehensiveness, usefulness, practicality, timeliness and support. Utilising performance monitoring and research in order to test and revise technical approaches and employing mixed methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data, as well as looking for relevant lessons generated by others, can ensure access to the most useful information for decision-making throughout implementation. For adaptive management, it is not enough to monitor, evaluate and learn; it is also essential to pause and reflect in order to analyse and process evidence gained through MEL with colleagues and stakeholders to reach the right conclusions and make good decisions.

Adapting data collection and utilisation to a Covid-19 reality: Monitoring, evaluation and learning approaches for adaptive management - Ziegler, Jessica; Mason, Paige (Briefing Paper, 2020)
This briefing note focuses on the remote collection and use of data for adaptive management during the Covid-19 pandemic, setting out key considerations to help practitioners think through a transition from more ‘traditional’ monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) to MEL for adaptive management (MEL4AM) that reflects the unique data collection challenges presented by Covid-19. The brief provides an overview of some key considerations in remote data collection, when this is required, and identifies other sources that address these issues in more detail. It concludes with a discussion of how to bring the information resulting from remote monitoring into decision-making to enable adaptive management. Key messages - When planning for remote data collection during the Covid-19 pandemic, first determine what information is still necessary, because data needs may have changed, e.g. if programming has pivoted or needs to pivot due to Covid-19. Then identify how the programme’s information needs align with existing data sources and what gaps remain, which will guide the need for remote data collection. - Also consider what data is ‘good enough’ for current decision-making needs in order to provide sufficient information to the right people at the right time to an acceptable standard of rigour. - There may be pragmatic reasons to reduce the number or scope of MEL activities, such as logistical constraints or ethical considerations introduced by the pandemic. - MEL activities should be accompanied by frequent feedback loops and pause points to reflect on emergent needs and challenges, information needs that have been met, and contextual changes that may affect MEL. - Be clear with decision-makers about the assumptions and gaps in the data, including proxies used and their limitations, sampling changes, and how these changes and assumptions may affect the decisions/options being discussed.

Evaluability Checklist for Post Project Evaluation - Zivetz, Laurie; Cekan, Jindra (Valuing Voices, 2020)
Considerations for planning a post project evaluation during the project, at the end, or after it has closed.

Participatory evaluation. What is it? Why do it? What are the challenges? - Zukoski, A.; Luluquisen, Mia (Community-based public health policy & practice, 2002)
Yogi Berra was right when he remarked, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll wind up somewhere else.” When we collectively apply our hopes and energies to improving our communities, how do we know if we’re making the right choices along the way? How will we notice when we are spinning our wheels and what changes to make? How will we know that we are making a difference? And how will we know what success looks like to everyone in the group? By taking a community-based public health approach to our work, we create an opportunity to engage in a particular type of evaluation—participatory evaluation – that can help answer those questions. For those groups that are interested in this approach, this policy brief discusses the key concepts of participatory evaluation and some tips for applying it. We also present some real-life examples from two evaluators who work with grantees of the Partnership for the Public’s Health Initiative.

Strengthening the results chain: Synthesis of case studies of results-based management by providers - Zwart, Rosie (OECD, 2017)
This paper presents an analysis of evidence from seven case studies of results-based management by development co-operation providers. Analysis of themes from the case studies reveal six interrelated challenges which providers face in their efforts to manage for the results of development co-operation. The six challenges are: linking results to development goals, ensuring the purpose of results systems is well-defined, weighing up the benefits of aggregating and attributing results from standard indicators, enabling country ownership, using performance information alongside results information, and building and embedding a results culture. Providers continue to adopt a range of approaches to pursue a focus on results and there are many examples of good practice. The case studies suggest that in a complex development landscape some providers are prioritising the use of aggregated results information for domestic accountability, communication, and performance management over their use for learning and policy direction. In this context, the paper argues that in agency-wide results frameworks development co-operation results are often detached (or de-contextualised) from development results and discusses the implications of this, including the use of standard indicators to measure aggregated outputs. The paper uses case study evidence to discuss and suggest practical ways providers can build and maintain a strong results focus which enables analysis, insights and learning, and has achievement of development outcomes as its objective.