|
Session Title: Should Environmental Sustainability be a Core Value for an Evaluator?
|
|
Panel Session 453 to be held in California A on Thursday, Nov 3, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the AEA Conference Committee
|
| Chair(s): |
| Leslie Cooksy, University of Delaware, ljcooksy@udel.edu
|
| Abstract:
Humanity is running up against the natural limits of aquifers, soils, fisheries, forests, even our atmosphere. In system after system, our collective demands are overshooting what nature can provide.
The AEA guiding principles state that "evaluators have obligations that encompass the public interest and good." The principles call on evaluators to consider multiple values but do not specifically address environmental sustainability. How do we enact the AEA guiding principles with environmental issues in mind? How do the links between the values of environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and economic well-being affect the work of evaluators?
Participants will form small groups following presentations on environmental sustainability and evaluation. They will discuss how evaluators consider environmental sustainability when they develop evaluation designs, build logic models, consider theories of change, and help clients frame goals, desired outcomes, and strategies for implementing programs, producing products, and engaging in other types of evaluation activities.
|
|
Why Environmental Sustainability is an Important Value for Evaluators
|
| Beverly Parsons, InSites, bparsons@insites.org
|
|
Natural scientists see a world economy that is destroying its natural supports. We are in a time when the world population is increasing by 80 million annually, and 215 million women worldwide who want to plan their families lack access to family planning services. Dense populations and their livestock herds degrade land and undermine food production while some 3 billion people seek to eat more grain-intensive livestock products.
Roughly one-third of the world's cropland is losing topsoil faster than it can be re-formed. Topsoil loss reduces productivity, eventually leading farmers and herders to abandon their land. Countries such as Haiti, Mongolia, and North Korea are losing the ability to feed themselves. Saudi Arabia became self-sufficient in wheat production by tapping a non-replenishable aquifer-now largely depleted.
Is a "perfect storm" gathering that could create unprecedented economic and political upheaval for civilization? What does this mean for evaluators?
|
|
|
Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice: How Can Evaluators Consider the Holistic Nature of Social Problems?
|
| Veronica Thomas, Howard University, vthomas@howard.edu
|
|
Many scholars recognize the relationship between social justice and environmental sustainability. Social justice is equal access to the social and economic resources of society, which results in balance in both society's burdens and benefits. Substantial evidence indicates that the wealthiest of society consume significantly more than their fair share of environmental resources with the poorest one-third of the world having little alternative but to utilize resources in an inefficient, less sustainability manner. In the U.S., in particular, environmental inequality is manifested through the disproportionate share of environmental burdens (e.g., waste transfer stations, power plants, truck routes) borne by low-income minority communities. As a practice intent on improving society, how might issues of environmental sustainability and social justice be infused into the teaching and practice of evaluation through a more holistic consideration of social problems? Critical theory evaluation, as a theoretical lens for exploring this question, will be considered.
| |
|
Sustainability and Economic Evaluation: Transforming "Is It Cost-Beneficial?" Into "Is It Sustainable?
|
| Brian Yates, American University, brian.yates@mac.com
|
|
Traditional economic evaluation asks whether a program or practice is cost-beneficial, i.e., whether the monetary value of its outcomes exceeds the monetary value of resources consumed to produce those outcomes. A program with a net positive benefit can be judged sustainable, however, only if the monetary value of resources is all that needs to be sustained. This could result in "sustainable" programs that consume irreplaceable resources.
Money, of course, is not an actual resource: money is only a means of valuing and obtaining resources. From the perspective of sustainability, the primary question in cost-benefit evaluation is transformed into, "Does the program produce resources (e.g., services, space, energy, resource savings) that fully replace, or improve upon, the resources it consumes?" An example of cost-benefit analysis performed from a sustainability perspective is provided; more examples are developed with participation from members of the audience and the panel.
| |