manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

and qualitative, and measure changes that occur as the result of project activities. Analysis of the
relationship between the two indicator types is essential for understanding the chain of cause and
effect or attribution.
Projects with clear goals will be more likely to develop a hierarchy of indicators that link process to
impact and thereby allow evaluators to form judgments at all levels (activity-output-outcomeimpact),
to assess cause-effect linkages, and to form a view about overall project coherence and
effectiveness.
The choice between qualitative versus quantitative indicators has been the subject of frequent
discussion and debate over the years. The tendency has been a shift away from indicators that
require quantitative data (e.g., number or percentage of dollar value, tonnage, number of
participants) toward descriptive, qualitative indicators. While the numerical precision of qualitative
indicators tends to lead to more agreement on the interpretation of results, qualitative indicators
provide texture or richness of information. Even when a result is qualitative, it is still possible to
develop an indicator that offers some measure of the magnitude of change. For example, if the
proportion of people who perceived the local natural resource management committee as “very
participatory” increases from 35 per cent to 60 per cent over a certain period of time, this increase
provides some measure of the degree of qualitative change. In all likelihood, most projects will have
a mixture of quantitative and qualitative indicators, selecting each indicator that is most appropriate
for the output/outcome/impact being measured.
T9.4 Approaches for Selecting Indicators
Once a set of impact goals has been agreed upon, the next step is to identify indicators. The choice
of indicators makes a difference. If the wrong thing is measured, or if it is measured in the wrong
way, the data may be misleading and the impact of a project may not be properly ascertained.
In general, good indicators share a number of features. As already discussed, they must be relevant,
a direct and clear measure of progress, and can be tracked in a cost effective manner at a desired
frequency. However, there is unlikely to be any “correct” set of indicators for assessing the
outcomes and impact of a particular intervention or activity. Instead, there are a range of possible
signs which can be used to help measure these, with varying degrees of certainty. A key task
therefore is to make the selection of indicators and their analysis more useful, less arbitrary and
more accountable (Mayoux, 2001).
Employing a Logical Framework when developing indicators can assist the project proponent in
visualizing the logical relationship or the ‘causal chains’ as a hierarchy between different levels
(impact/objective, outcomes, outputs, activities or inputs), the indicators, and the assumptions or
risks. This will help ensure that each indicator is directly and logically related to an output, outcome,
impact or objective. Different indicators are needed to monitor different aspects of a project. While
impact indicators may best for assessing changes in overall well-being, the intermediate output
indicators can be cost-effective proxies and provide useful information throughout project
implementation.
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 107