Search results

This paper aims to present the “Vulnerability Sourcebook” methodology, a standardised framework for the assessment of climate vulnerability and risk in the context of adaptation planning. The Vulnerability Sourcebook has been developed for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and has been applied in more than twenty countries worldwide.

It is based on a participative development of so-called climate impact chains, which are an analytical concept to better understand, systemise and prioritise the climate factors as well as environmental and socio-economic factors that drive climate related threats, vulnerabilities and risks in a specific system. Impact chains serve as the backbone for an operational climate vulnerability assessment with indicators based on quantitative approaches (data, models) combined with expert assessments. In this paper, the authors present the concept and applications of the original Vulnerability Sourcebook, published in 2015, which was based on the IPCC AR4 concept of climate vulnerability. In Section 6 of this paper, the authors report how this concept has been adapted to the current IPCC AR5 concept of climate risks.

The application of the Sourcebook is demonstrated in three case studies in Bolivia, Pakistan and Burundi. The results indicate that particularly the participative development of impact chains helped with generating a common picture on climate vulnerabilities and commitment for adaptation planning within a region. The mixed methods approach (considering quantitative and qualitative information) allows for a flexible application in different contexts. Challenges are mainly the availability of climate (change) and socio-economic data, as well as the transparency of value-based decisions in the process.

The Vulnerability Sourcebook offers a standardised framework for the assessment of climate vulnerability and risk in the context of adaptation planning.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of a common approach to impact assessment across the Global Libraries (GL) portfolio of grants. It presents an overview of two systems, the Performance Metrics (PMs) and the Common Impact Measurement System (CIMS). By providing a standard set of definitions and methods for use across countries, these systems enable grantees to collect data that can be compared and aggregated for the purpose of collective learning, improvement, accountability, and advocacy.

The PMs offer a standard methodology to collect library project performance management data, whereas the CIMS is a standard survey of public library users. The paper describes how the PM and CIMS data are being visualized and used, with examples of findings and lessons learned.

The paper cites examples of the type of PM and CIMS data available, with a focus on employment, gender, and case studies from Botswana and Indonesia. These highlights illustrate how libraries’ user demographics differ from other types of public internet access venues and how libraries can contribute to strong employment and growth.

The measurement systems rely on different partners collecting data for the same metrics across different countries; while each grantee adheres to a standard methodology, small procedural, and methodological differences are inevitable. Future research could focus on conducting similar studies elsewhere, outside the cohort of countries in the GL portfolio of grants.

The paper offers insights and lessons for library agencies or institutions interested in implementing a common measurement system. Recognizing that few library projects have the resources to track a comprehensive set of indicators, a case study is presented about how smaller initiatives can adapt these systems to their needs.

The indicators described in this paper enable public libraries to shift their focus from services provided to the outcomes they help individuals and communities realize, potentially increasing the potency of their programming and advocacy.

Common measurement systems are not new, but their application in the public library field is novel, as is the Data Atlas, a platform grantees use to compare results across metrics, track progress, and conduct advocacy.

Many early-career researchers (ECR) are motivated by the prospect of creating knowledge that is useful, not just within but also beyond the academic community. Although research facilities, funders and academic journals praise this eagerness for societal impact, the path toward such contributions is by no means straightforward. In this essay, we address five common concerns faced by ECRs when they strive for societal impact. We discuss the opportunity costs associated with impact work, the fuzziness of current impact measurement, the challenge of incremental results, the actionability of research findings, and the risk of saying something wrong in public. We reflect on these concerns in light of our own experience with impact work and conclude by suggesting a “post-heroic” perspective on impact, whereby seemingly mundane activities are linked in a meaningful way.

This impact assessment provides empirical evidence from household producer surveys to test the assumptions surrounding the contribution of participatory varietal selection (PVS) activities on seed sector development. The purpose of this paper is to focus on household access and adoption of common bean varieties from seed provision services and local markets to determine if, and under what social conditions, PVS activities stimulated seed uptake and market participation.

The propensity score matching technique and simple regression analysis were used to estimate the impact and compare household performance across three farmer groups located in Hoima, Uganda.

PVS increased access to and adoption of improved varieties and supported additional intermediate development outcomes when farmer group characteristics were aligned with PVS efforts. Specifically, PVS was more likely to stimulate market purchases of newly introduced varieties in the farmer group located closest to markets. The project did not however, improve all the development objectives that were evaluated. PVS most critically, did not increase the probability that households received the specific varieties they desired.

This study found that PVS can support the key pillars of seed sector development. In addition to increasing household access to new varieties, free seed dissemination promoted market participation and stimulated local seed market development.

This study addressed the need to consider intermediate development outcomes in impact assessments of development interventions. The findings clarified the contribution of PVS in the context of broader development goals and identified farmer group dynamics associated with enhanced impacts among rural producers in Uganda.

This chapter insists that evaluation of the process and results of cocreation is a precondition for continuous improvement and helps maintain support from external sponsors and funders. The main benefits of systematic evaluation of cocreation are learning and legitimacy rather than control and allocation. The chapter scrutinizes the two most common evaluation tools, formative and summative evaluation, and finds that they both fail to appreciate the emergent character of cocreation processes. The solution to this problem is to supplement formative and summative evaluation with developmental evaluation, which prompts the participating actors to engage in a critical interrogation of what they are doing, the reasons for doing it, and the results they achieve. Finally, the chapter explains how the commitment of developmental evaluation to using real-time data in the evaluation of change theories can be pursued through a collective impact strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Fama–French common risk-factor portfolio investors herd on a daily basis for five developed markets, namely, Europe, Japan, Asia Pacific ex Japan, North America and Globe.

To examine the herd behavior of common risk-factor portfolio investors, this paper utilizes the cross-sectional absolute deviations (CSAD) methodology, covering a daily data sampling period of July 1990 to January 2019 from Kenneth R. French-Data Library. CSAD driven by fundamental and non-fundamental information is assessed using Fama–French five-factor model.

The results do not provide evidence for herding under normal market conditions, either when reacting to fundamental information or non-fundamental information, for any region under consideration. However, Fama–French common risk-factor portfolio investors mimic the underlying risk factors in returns related to size and book-to-market value, size and operating profitability, size and investment and size and momentum of the equity stocks in European and Japanese markets during crisis period. Also, no considerable evidence is found for herding (on fundamental information) under crisis and up-market conditions except for Japan. Ancillary findings are discussed under conclusion.

Further research on new risk factors explaining stock return variation may help improve the model performance. The performance can be improved by adding new risk factors that are free from behavioral bias but significant in explaining common stock return variation. Also, it is necessary to revisit the existing common risk factors in order to understand behavioral aspects that may affect cost of capital calculations (e.g. pricing errors) and valuation of investment portfolios.

This is the first paper that examines the herd behavior (fundamental and non-fundamental) of Fama–French common risk-factor investors using five-factor model.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Libraries (GLs) initiative approach to advocacy and how it informs, guides, and integrates impact data to support sustainability of GL program results.

The paper defines advocacy in the context of GL, and explores the GL grant planning process, tools, and collaboration between advocacy and impact specialists. Results are demonstrated through grantee examples that illustrate a variety of approaches to library advocacy using impact data at local, country, and regional levels.

The paper demonstrates the importance of identifying community needs, designing impact measures to demonstrate how libraries help to address those needs, and the variety of ways impact evidence can be used to effectively advocacy for public libraries. This basic formula can be applied to advocacy efforts ranging from a broad national policy to a small incremental change in perceptions of libraries by local decision makers.

This paper reinforces the essential link between library impact measurement data and successful advocacy.

The purpose of this paper is to report on performance measurement and impact assessment progress made in 14 countries as part of the Global Libraries initiative, starting with the early country grants in Mexico and Chile. For the mature grants in Bulgaria, Botswana, Poland, Romania, Ukraine and Viet Nam which were recently completed or are approaching completion, the nature of the country program is outlined, before the impact assessment work is described and some recent results and conclusions are reported. A similar approach is adopted with pilot and new grants in Colombia, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey and Lithuania.

The country reports are presented as a series of case studies, in some cases supplementing those in an earlier special issue of this journal.

Where appropriate, recent country-specific survey findings are reported.

This paper shares Global Libraries IPA learning at country level with people in other countries who may be contemplating public library evaluation at regional, national or local level or who are interested in performance measurement and impact evaluation.

These cases studies reflect concentrated impact assessment and performance measurement work at country level across a range of countries over more than 12 years.

This paper explores quality science and quality management as a potential pathway to resolve the challenges of corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) by establishing the need for a common understanding of sustainability and sustainable development.

Secondary research on key documents released by regulatory institutions working at the intersection of sustainability, corporate reporting, measurement and academic papers on quality science and management.

Existing measurement frameworks of CSR are limited. They are neither aligned nor appropriate for accurately measuring a company's ecological footprint for mitigating climate change. Quality for sustainability (Q4S) could be a conceptual framework to bring about an appropriate level of measurability to better align sustainability reporting to stakeholder needs.

There is a lack of primary data. The research is based on secondary literature review. The implications of Q4S as a framework could inform research studies connected to sustainable tourism, energy transition and sustainable buildings.

The paper connects to CSR stakeholders, sustainability managers, company leaderships and boards.

The implications of sustainability on people, purpose and prosperity are a part of World Economic Forum's stakeholder capitalism.

This paper fills a research gap on diagnosing and understanding the key reporting challenges emerging from the lack sustainability definitions.