A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research.

With high and increasing expectations for research to have social and environmental impact, there is a corresponding need for appropriate methods to demonstrate (for accountability) and analyze (for learning) whether and how research projects contribute to change processes. Evaluation is especially challenging for problem-oriented research that employs inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and intervenes in complex systems, where experimental and statistical approaches to causal inference are inappropriate. Instead, theory-based evaluation can be applied to identify and test causal processes. This paper presents a detailed explanation of the Outcome Evaluation approach applied in Belcher et al. (2019b). It draws on concepts and approaches used in theory-based program evaluation and the more limited experience of theory-based research evaluation, providing a brief overview of conceptual strengths and limitations of other methods. The paper offers step-by-step guidance on application of the Outcome Evaluation approach, detailing how to: document a theory of change; determine data needs and sources; collect data; manage and analyze data; and present findings. This approach provides a clear conceptual and analytical framework in addition to actor-specific and impact pathway analyses for more precision in the assessment of outcomes. Specifically, the Outcome Evaluation approach: •Conceptualizes research within a complex system and explicitly recognizes the role of other actors, context, and external processes;•Utilizes a detailed actor-centred theory of change (ToC) as the analytical framework; and•Explicitly tests a set of hypotheses about the relationship between the research process/outputs and outcomes.

Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis.

This paper presents results from a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8000 households in 24 developing countries collected by research partners in CIFOR's Poverty Environment Network (PEN). Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests. Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile, compared to the two lowest quintiles.