Open AccessA conceptual framework for evaluating cooking systems
Author(s) -
Tami C. Bond,
Christian L’Orange,
Paul R. Medwell,
George Sizoomu,
Samer Abdelnour,
Verena Brinkmann,
Philip Jd Lloyd,
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
environmental research letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.37
H-Index - 124
ISSN - 1748-9326
DOI - 10.1088/1748-9326/ac536f
Subject(s) - computer science , action (physics) , metric (unit) , order (exchange) , conceptual framework , risk analysis (engineering) , psychological intervention , complex system , information system , conceptual model , process management , metric system , management science , environmental economics , knowledge management , business , marketing , sociology , artificial intelligence , psychology , economics , engineering , social science , physics , finance , quantum mechanics , psychiatry , database , astronomy , electrical engineering
Provision of household energy is a major global challenge, and realizing the health, environmental, convenience and economic benefits that can come from improved energy services requires altering a complex situation. We describe a Conceptual Framework to guide stakeholders and consumers of information in evaluating performance of interventions. Programs act on cooking or kitchen systems (systems of action) in order to alter the consequences for larger systems in which they are embedded (systems of desired impact). These larger systems also influence the behavior of the systems that they contain. The relationship among systems is formalized by identifying required elements of a theory of change, including a performance metric that represents the system of action and connections to the system of desired impact. A series of 12 questions guides stakeholders in (i) quantifying what needs to be known, and how well; (ii) identifying evaluation approaches suitable for a given situation; and (iii) interpreting evaluation data and making claims about outcomes. A supplemental example illustrates thought processes and tradeoffs while navigating the 12 questions.