|
Description
|
Question
|
Coding
|
Report identification
|
Unique study identification # |
|
E.g. PES001 |
First author ‐ impact evaluation |
Surname |
Surname |
Other papers used for coding |
First author surname and type of paper of any qualitative, descriptive quantitative, process evaluations or project documents used for coding |
|
General comments |
(1) General comments Any general comments on study not coded elsewhere (2) Issues of comparability Please report any potential issues of comparability between different documents (e.g. different documents assess a programme/intervention at different scales [geographic/time scale]). If the issue of comparability related only to a certain secion of a document (e.g. cost data), please put in brackets in relevant cell. |
Open answer |
Publication date |
Year (letter) |
XXXX (a) |
Publication type |
What is the impact evaluation publication type? |
1= Peer‐reviewed journal
2= Book chapter/book
3= Conference paper
4= Organisation report
5= Working paper
6= Implementation document
7= other grey
8= PhD thesis / dissertation |
Funding agency |
Who is funding the evaluation/study? |
1= Public institution (e.g. govt, NGO, university, research institute)
2= Private institution (e.g. private company) 3= Multilateral Organisation (World Bank, UN)
4 = Foundations
8= Not clear
9= Not applicable (Non‐funded) |
Name of funding agency |
Please add name of the agency funding the evaluation |
Open answer |
Independence of evaluation |
What level of independence is there between the impleenting agency and study team? |
1=Funding and author team independent of implementers/ funders of programme
2=Funding independent of implementers/ funders of programme, but includes authors from funder/ implementer
3=Evaluation funded and undetaken by funders/ implementers
8=Unclear |
Independent data collection |
Has the data been collected by an independent party? |
1= Yes 2=No 8=Not clear |
Conflict of interest |
Is there a potential conflict of interest associated with study which could influence results collected/reported? (eg. Is there a declaration of conflict of interest? Is any of the authors related in any way to the funding or implenting institution?) |
1=Yes 2=No 8=Not clear |
Comments on conflict of interest |
Please add reason for your answer to whether there is a conflict of interest. |
Open answer |
Language of publication |
Language of publication of the impact evaluation, e.g. Spanish, English etc. |
Open answer |
Other methods |
If the impact evaluation addresses other questions than effectiveness note questions and methods used here. |
Open answer (this will include for example mixed‐methods to assess implementation, adherence, participant views etc) |
Intervention descriptives
|
Programme or project name |
State the programme or project name. If no name, then list the location (e.g. Town, village etc.). |
Open answer |
Intervention type |
Indicate type of intervention |
1 = PES alone
2 = PES + other intervention |
Type of ecosystem targeted |
Indicate the type of ecosystem targeted |
1 = Forests
2 = Farmland
3 = Grassland
4 = Mangroves
5 = Wetlands |
Intervention description |
Provide descriptive details about the intervention. Include detail on any other intervention provided alongside the PES, including alternative livelihoods strategies, awareness raising activities, increased forest monitoring etc.
|
Open answer |
Objectives of intervention |
Type of objective(s) of intervention |
1=Conservation only
2=Restoration
3=Environmentally beneficial/ preferable to BAU land‐use
4= Socioeconomic (livelihoods, poverty reduction etc)
5=Other (add description in comments) |
Objectives of intervention |
State any objectives stated in study or project document, including whether the study targets both environmental and poverty objectives. |
|
Size of payment |
Indicate the size of the regular payment |
Open answer, $ |
Frequency of payment |
Indicate how frequently the payment is made (annual, monthly, etc). |
Open answer |
Method of payment |
Indicate how payment made to participants |
Open answer |
Conditionality |
Indicate the stated conditions of the PES programme |
Open answer |
Intervention scale |
What is the scale of the intervention? |
1=Local
2=Regional
2=National |
Intervention implementing agency |
Who is implementing the intervention? State the name (and department) of the implementing agency. |
Open answer |
Intervention funding agency |
Type of funder |
1=Government
2=User financed (companies using env service)
3=NGO
4=Multilateral/bilater organisation
5=Carbon offset mechanism
6=Other |
Intervention funding agency |
Name of intervention funding agency |
Open answer |
Intervention target group |
What were the characteristics of beneficiaries used to target the intervention? |
Open answer |
Targeting methods |
How were beneficiaries targeted for the programme (Eg: how was the targeting implemented)? |
Open answer |
Intervention start |
Start date (if not stated, state study date) of intervention |
XX/XXXX |
Intervention end |
State end date (if ongoing state ongoing) |
XX/XXXX |
Follow up |
How long after the last payment was outcome data collected? |
indicate number of months (numerical only). If not clear state so |
Program theory |
Do the authors make explicit reference to program theory, theory of change or similar? |
1=Yes 2=No 8=Not clear |
Program theory |
Report any description/statement of program theory as stated by author(s). |
Open answer |
Context
|
Country |
List countries the study was conducted in |
Country 1, Country 2, etc. |
Detailed location |
If provided, give detailed information on where the study took place within a country, for example regions/districts covered |
Open answer |
World Bank Region |
Select region(s) the study was conducted in according to World Bank. For more info on region classification see http://data.worldbank.org/country
|
1= East Asia & Pacific
2= Europe & Central Asia
3= Latin America & Caribbean
4= Middle East & North Africa
5=South Asia
6=Sub‐Saharan Africa |
WB Income category |
Select the World Bank income classification of the country at the time of the study |
1 = Low income country
2 = Lower‐middle income country
3 = Upper‐middle income country |
REDD+ status |
Is the country where the evaluation took place a REDD+ country? |
1= Yes, 2 = No, 3 = Unclear |
Environmental performance index |
How does the country rank on the Environmental Perfomance Index: http://epi.yale.edu/?
|
Open answer ‐ to be filled in after coding complete |
Baseline deforestation rates |
Report any data / description on deforestation rates in programme / comparison area |
Open answer |
Baseline socio‐economic status of participants |
Report any data / description on baseline socio‐economic status of participants |
Open answer |
Property right regime |
Report any description in the primary evaluation or qualitative documents of the existing property rights regime |
Open answer |
Process and implementation
|
Information about program take‐up/adherence (among beneficiaries) |
Is there any information about program take‐up/adherence (among beneficiaries)?
Commentary by authors should be used when information on program adherence etc. is not backed up by some sort of research / when the authors do not report that/how they collected data to assess these areas. |
1=Yes, commentary from author; 2=No; 4= Yes, formally assessed |
Methods of assessing take‐up/adherence |
Which methods are used to assess program take‐up/adherence? |
1= Observation by intervention staff
2= Reporting by participants
3= Other
4= Commentary from author
9= Not measured |
Results of the assessment of take‐up/adherence |
What is the result/ information provided of the assessment of program take‐up/adherence? |
Open answer |
Information about implementation fidelity / service delivery quality |
Is there any information on implementation fidelity/ service delivery quality?
Commentary by authors should be used when information on program adherence etc. is not backed up by some sort of research / when the authors do not report that/how they collected data to assess these areas. |
1=Yes, commentary from author; 2=No; 4= Yes, formally assessed |
Methods of assessing intervention fidelity |
Which methods are used to assess implementation fidelity/ service delivery quality |
1= Observation by intervention staff
2= Reporting by participants
3= Other
4= Commentary from author
9= Not measured |
Results of the assessment of intervention fidelity |
What is the result/ information provided of the assessment of implementation fidelity/ service delivery quality |
Open answer |
Other description of process factors |
Any other description of process factors not covered above |
Open answer |
|
Barriers and facilitators |
Do the study identify any barriers and facilitators not included above? |
Open answer |
Cost
|
Cost |
Are any unit cost data / cost‐effectiveness estimates provided? |
1=Yes 2=No |
Cost details |
If yes, report any details of unit cost and/or total cost. Please also report year and currency. |
Open answer |
External Validity
|
Length of study |
Length of study in months (Where study length not reported, code as length of intervention, noting that in brackets) |
# months, if not reported N/A |
Efficacy or effectiveness trial |
Was the intervention implemented under “real world” conditions? By real world we mean a programme implemented independently of the evaluation, either by government, NGO or international agency. Eg: the programme is not designed and implemented for the purpose of research |
1=Yes 2=No 9= N/A |
Personell implementing the programme |
Who was in charge of implementing the program? |
1=PI/ researchers (study authors); 2= implementing agency staff, 3= external agency (eg: survey firm); 4=Others; 8= Not clear |
Sampling frame for the study |
State the sampling frame (list of all those within a population who can be sampled, ie. households, communities) for selection of study participants (i.e. Census, etc). |
Open answer |
Author discussion of external validity |
Do the authors discuss or explicitly address generalisability / applicability? |
Open answer |
Theory |
Is there any reference to theory of change underlying intervention? |
1=Yes 2=No 9= N/A |
Theory based evaluation |
Is the study using theory to inform the evaluation design and analysis? |
Open answer ‐ describe if and how the authors use theory in the evaluation. Do they for example use it to inform data collection? Do they do any causal chain analysis? |
Equity
|
Consideration of equity |
Does the study consider equity? |
1=Yes 2=No |
Equity methods |
How does the study consider equity? |
1=intervention target a disadvantaged group
2=study measures inequality
3=sub‐group analysis by dimension of inequity |
Equity dimension |
What dimension(s) of equity does the study consider? |
1=gender
2=socioeconomic status
3=place of recidence
4=land ownership
5=landsize |