Within international development, formative evaluation is becoming increasingly important to make rapid assessments of project design and support adaptive learning in early implementation of ongoing interventions. Such evaluation is critical for institutions with short funding cycles, which need early evidence to assess the utility of new initiatives to inform donors’ decision-making for upcoming funding cycles. However, obtaining quantitative evidence is difficult in formative evaluation as results are not yet available or visible early in the project cycle. Geospatial multi-criteria suitability analysis provides one method for evaluating the relevance of program and project design through creating a quantitative spatial index, combining data on several spatial indicators to evaluate project site selection and help inform future priority geographies. This study demonstrates the use of such a geospatial analysis in the formative evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s food systems integrated programs.
BaptistaSR (2014) Design and use of composite indices in assessments of climate change vulnerability and resilience. United States Agency for International Development. Available at: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K67Z.pdf (accessed 31 August 2023).
BostonC (2002) The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation8: 9.
5.
CarugiC (2016) Experiences with systematic triangulation at the Global Environment Facility. Evaluation and Program Planning55: 55–66.
6.
ChenCNobleIHellmannJ, et al. (2015) University of Notre Dame global adaptation index: Country index technical report. Available at: https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/ (accessed 31 August 2023).
7.
CurtisPGSlayCMHarrisNL, et al. (2018) Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science361(6407): 1108–11.
DefournyP (2019) ESA land cover climate change initiative: Global land cover maps, version 2.0.7. Centre for Environmental Data Analysis. Available at: https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/ (accessed 31 August 2023).
de Souza Ferriera FilhoJBde Freitas VianCE (2016) The evolving role of large and medium farms on Brazilian agriculture. Agricultural Economics47(Suppl. 1): 215–25.
Famine Early Warning System Network (2021) Food security classification data: Current situation (non-projection) shapefiles. Available at: https://fews.net/data/acute-food-insecurity (accessed 31 August 2023).
GEF IEO (2018a) OPS6: The GEF in the Changing Environmental Finance Landscape. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. Available at: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/ops6-report (accessed 31 August 2023).
17.
GEF IEO (2018b) Formative Review of the Integrated Approach Pilot Programs. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. Available at: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/iaps-2017 (accessed 31 August 2023).
18.
GEF IEO (2021) Formative Evaluation of the GEF Integrated Approach to Address the Drivers of Environmental Degradation. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. Available at: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/environmental-degradation (accessed 31 August 2023).
19.
GilbertMNicolasGCinardiG, et al. (2018) Global distribution data for cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Scientific Data5: 180227.
20.
GriscomBWAdamsJEllisPW, et al. (2017) Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(44): 11645–50.
21.
HoffmanMKoenigKBuntingG, et al. (2016) Biodiversity hotspots (version 2016.1). Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/3261807 (accessed 31 August 2023).
KatesAWCorynCL (2021) Use of geographic information systems by American evaluation association members in their professional practice. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation17(38): 33–49.
24.
KerleNGhaffarianSNawrotzkiR, et al. (2019) Evaluating resilience-centered development interventions with remote sensing. Remote Sensing11(21): 2511.
25.
LechMUittoJIHartenS, et al. (2018) Improving international development evaluation through geospatial data and analysis. International Journal of Geospatial and Environmental Research5(2): 3.
26.
LesivMLaso BayasJCSeeL, et al. (2018) Estimating the global distribution of field size using crowdsourcing. Global Change Biology25(1): 174–86.
27.
Lopez-GonzalezADomenechBFerrer-MartiL (2018) Formative evaluation of sustainability in rural electrification programs from a management perspective: A case study from Venezuela. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews95: 95–109.
MaslowskiRVisscherA (1999) The potential of formative evaluation in program design models. In: Van den AkkerJGustafsonKNieveenN, et al. (eds) Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Dordrecht: Springer, 137–44.
30.
Morra ImasLGRistRC (2009) The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Available at: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-7891-5 (accessed 31 August 2023).
31.
OdendallWAtkinsSLewinS (2016) Multiple and mixed methods in formative evaluation: Is more better? Reflections from a South African study. BMC Medical Research Methodology16(1): 173.
32.
OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf (accessed 31 August 2023).
33.
RamonaSE (2011) Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative information risk approaches. Chinese Business Review10(12): 1106–10.
34.
RunfolaDBatraGAnandA, et al. (2020) Exploring the socioeconomic co-benefits of global environment facility projects in Uganda using a quasi-experimental geospatial interpolation approach. Sustainability12(8): 3225.
35.
SantoroMCartusO (2019) ESA biomass climate change initiative: Global datasets of forest above-ground biomass for the year 2017, v1. Centre for Environmental Data Analysis. Available at: https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/biomass/ (accessed 31 August 2023).
36.
ScrivenM (1991) Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In: McLaughlinMWPhillipsDC (eds) Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 18–64.
37.
SidmanGFuhrigSBatraG (2020) The use of remote sensing analysis for evaluating the impact of development projects in the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. Sustainability12(9): 3628.
ThiemeAGlennieEAnandA (2020) Application of remote sensing for ex ante decision support and evaluating impact. American Journal of Evaluation43(1): 26–45.
40.
Van HaarenRFthenakisV (2011) GIS-based wind farm site selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA): Evaluating the case for New York state. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews15: 3332–40.
41.
WatkinsRWest MeiersMVisserYL (2012) A Guide to Assessing Needs: Essential Tools for Collecting Information, Making Decisions and Achieving Development Results. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Available at: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-8868-6 (accessed 31 August 2023).
YiCSLeeJHShimMP (2009) Site location analysis for small hydropower using geo-spatial information system. Renewable Energy35: 852–61.
45.
YuQYouLWood-SichraU, et al. (2020) A cultivated planet in 2010—Part 2: The global gridded agricultural-production maps. Earth System Science Data12: 3545–72.
46.
ZuccaASharifiAMFabbriAG (2007) Application of spatial multi-criteria analysis to site selection for a local park: A case study in the Bergamo Province, Italy. Journal of Environmental Management88: 752–69.
47.
ZuluSJerieS (2017) Site suitability analysis for solid waste landfill site location using geographic information systems and remote sensing: A case study of Banket Town Board, Zimbabwe. Review of Social Sciences2(4): 19–31.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
