A meta-evaluation of climate policy evaluations: findings from the freight transport sector

IF 9.5 1区 工程技术 Q1 TRANSPORTATION
Lina Trosvik , Johanna Takman , Lisa Björk , Jenny Norrman , Yvonne Andersson-Sköld
{"title":"A meta-evaluation of climate policy evaluations: findings from the freight transport sector","authors":"Lina Trosvik ,&nbsp;Johanna Takman ,&nbsp;Lisa Björk ,&nbsp;Jenny Norrman ,&nbsp;Yvonne Andersson-Sköld","doi":"10.1080/01441647.2023.2175275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Knowledge about how implemented policy instruments have performed is important for designing effective and efficient policy instruments that contribute to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper carries out a meta-evaluation of ex-post evaluations of climate policy instruments in the freight transport sector. By analysing the outcomes and quality of evaluations, the aim is to identify whether estimated effects of policy instruments can be compared between evaluations and if the results are appropriate to use for evidence-based decision making. To analyse these aspects, commonly applied evaluation criteria are assessed and classified according to an assessment scale. We confirm that few ex-post evaluations are carried out and that there is a gap between evaluation theory and how ex-post policy evaluations are performed in practice, where evaluation criteria recommended in policy evaluation guidelines are found to often be neglected in evaluations. The result is a lack of systematic climate policy evaluation which hinders reliable conclusions about the effect of policy instruments. There is a need for more systematic monitoring and evaluation of implemented policy instruments and we suggest that evidence-based decision making can be improved by adjusting current policy evaluation guidelines and by introducing an evaluation obligation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48197,"journal":{"name":"Transport Reviews","volume":"43 5","pages":"Pages 867-887"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0144164723000132","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Knowledge about how implemented policy instruments have performed is important for designing effective and efficient policy instruments that contribute to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper carries out a meta-evaluation of ex-post evaluations of climate policy instruments in the freight transport sector. By analysing the outcomes and quality of evaluations, the aim is to identify whether estimated effects of policy instruments can be compared between evaluations and if the results are appropriate to use for evidence-based decision making. To analyse these aspects, commonly applied evaluation criteria are assessed and classified according to an assessment scale. We confirm that few ex-post evaluations are carried out and that there is a gap between evaluation theory and how ex-post policy evaluations are performed in practice, where evaluation criteria recommended in policy evaluation guidelines are found to often be neglected in evaluations. The result is a lack of systematic climate policy evaluation which hinders reliable conclusions about the effect of policy instruments. There is a need for more systematic monitoring and evaluation of implemented policy instruments and we suggest that evidence-based decision making can be improved by adjusting current policy evaluation guidelines and by introducing an evaluation obligation.

气候政策评价的元评价:货运部门的调查结果
摘要了解已执行的政策工具的执行情况,对于设计有助于减少温室气体排放的有效政策工具非常重要。本文对货运部门气候政策工具的事后评估进行了元评估。通过分析评价的结果和质量,目的是确定政策工具的估计效果是否可以在评价之间进行比较,以及结果是否适合用于循证决策。为了分析这些方面,根据评估量表对常用的评估标准进行评估和分类。我们证实,很少进行事后评估,评估理论与事后政策评估在实践中的执行方式之间存在差距,政策评估指南中建议的评估标准在评估中往往被忽视。其结果是缺乏系统的气候政策评估,阻碍了关于政策工具效果的可靠结论。需要对已执行的政策文书进行更系统的监测和评估,我们建议,可以通过调整现行政策评估准则和引入评估义务来改进循证决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transport Reviews
Transport Reviews TRANSPORTATION-
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
1.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Transport Reviews is an international journal that comprehensively covers all aspects of transportation. It offers authoritative and current research-based reviews on transportation-related topics, catering to a knowledgeable audience while also being accessible to a wide readership. Encouraging submissions from diverse disciplinary perspectives such as economics and engineering, as well as various subject areas like social issues and the environment, Transport Reviews welcomes contributions employing different methodological approaches, including modeling, qualitative methods, or mixed-methods. The reviews typically introduce new methodologies, analyses, innovative viewpoints, and original data, although they are not limited to research-based content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信