Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Hello, I am Joy Mukoma, a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning specialist working across a range of programs including peace, conflict, gender and conservation. When working in these different spaces, I spend a lot of time thinking about how complexity shapes how we understand change. As we celebrate Earth Day, I want to share what that means for how we look at environmental efforts- from conservation projects to community and policy programs.
Are we really evaluating change, or are we mostly evaluating projects?
This distinction has started to matter more and more, especially at a time when interventions must evolve to respond to shifting ecological, economic and political conditions.
Many interventions are thoughtfully designed and well-implemented. But ecosystems do not operate within project cycles. They are embedded in broader political, economic and social systems that shape how environmental change unfolds.
Recognizing this tension has led me to explore lessons about how conservation interventions interact with the systems around them.
Across the world, environmental initiatives report progress. Forests are restored. Farmers are trained. Policies are adopted. Targets are met.
Yet, biodiversity loss accelerates. Climate shocks intensify. Enforcement weakens.
This is not a failure of projects – it is because of systemic pressure.
Environmental challenges are often driven by interconnected systems including markets, governance incentives, and social and cultural norms. Because interventions operate within these political, economic and ecological dynamics, even well-designed and well-implemented projects can be constrained if the surrounding systems push back.
For example, a marine protected area in East Africa successfully reduced fishing pressure and fish stocks began to recover. But when fish prices rose and enforcement budgets fell, overfishing returned, showing how economic and political forces can undo ecological gains.
Environmental change does not happen in isolation. Understanding that projects exist within systems that have their own rules and feedback loops is the first step toward meaningful impact.
What we measure signals what matters. When we measure outputs, we focus on delivery. This is not problematic, but it narrows strategic thinking.
If evaluation instead asks about governance dynamics, structural conditions and incentive systems, it encourages us to think beyond implementation. The key then is not only to assess what was delivered but to also ask evaluation questions differently: What structural factors, political, economic, or social, are constraining or enabling this intervention? What conditions must shift for change to be sustainable?
These questions shift our thinking from projects to systems, turning evaluation from a reporting tool into a strategic function that engages initiatives with the broader systems they operate in.
Resilience, in this context, means more than bouncing back. It reflects whether institutions and social systems can absorb shocks, learn, and adapt to uncertainty. When evaluation centers this kind of resilience, it shifts our focus beyond outputs toward the complex structural conditions that shape whether change is sustainable.
For example, a fisheries program in the Pacific tracked not only fish stocks, but whether communities had the knowledge and institutions to adjust as ocean conditions changed. When a coral bleaching event occurred, those communities adapted their livelihoods faster than output-focused neighbors.
In today’s climate, marked by accelerating environmental pressures, adaptive systems are needed for sustainability. Systems-oriented evaluation is not about adding complexity – it’s about recognizing that lasting impact depends on whether systems are strengthening their capacity to adapt.
Ultimately, evaluation can serve as a powerful lever for encouraging environmental initiatives to look beyond immediate results and towards long-term resilience that serves both human and environmental systems.
The American Evaluation Association is hosting Environmental Program Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Environmental Program Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our EPE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.