Step 2: Ensuring your evaluation methods are gender-responsive
Mixed methods are key to gender-responsive evaluations. This means that you should aim to combine quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.
Commonly used data collection methods, such as desk research, surveys, interviews, and consultations, can be used in evaluations to address gender equality.
To ensure that your standard data collection methods integrate gender equality and environmental concerns, you can use this checklist (see here) to check your work.
In 2019, the WoMin[1] African Alliance collaborated with Lumière et Synergie pour le Développement and Gender Action to develop and implement an innovative (eco)feminist framework for investigating and exposing the detrimental effects of the Sendou I coal-fired power plant in Bargny, Senegal, on women. The objective was to analyse the extremely negative impacts of this large-scale coal-fired power plant on the lives and livelihoods of women and on the natural resources that women and their communities rely on for their survival. The project was financed by the African Development Bank (AfDB).
The implementation of the framework involved a participatory research process that actively engaged with the Association of Women Fish Processors of Bargny Guedj Khelcom. As part of this framework, the initiative developed an (eco)feminist cost–benefit analysis. Such cost benefit analyses aim to encompass the principles of ecofeminism and cross-generational equity, reflecting a strong dedication to addressing the environmental and climate crises. They consider the immediate costs and the long-term impacts on the planet and human lives, both currently and for future generations. An (eco)feminist cost benefit analysis considers the potential costs and benefits of the activities for women and incorporates multiple means and measures (beyond market-based actions) aimed at strengthening resilience and benefits for women. The framework asks the following questions.
What are the benefits and who enjoys the benefits at different levels, in different contexts and over time? It should consider:
- the national, regional, subregional and local economies;
- communities immediately adjacent to the project and those indirectly affected;
- women and men, differentiated by class, location, religious and cultural identity
- future generations.
What are the costs at different levels, for different groups of women and men, and over time? What is the cost, both now and in the future, of destroying ecosystems on which life rests now and into the future?
What costs are required now by this generation, and what are the losses for future generations in terms of wealth, choice and a compromised environment and climate?
When comparing development options, (eco)feminist analysis cannot be considered comprehensive unless it evaluates and compares multiple projects or development alternatives that aim to achieve similar objectives. In the present case, this includes:
- different approaches to energy provision or electricity;
- strategies for building local economies and supporting livelihoods or employment;
- initiatives that enhance people’s access to water and market infrastructure.
An (eco)feminist analysis engages affected communities, with a particular focus on women, in discussions regarding costs and benefits. This process should enable individuals to assess the costs and benefits of various options based on their own development aspirations, which may not align with those of large-scale development projects.
The (eco)feminist analysis of the Sendou I coal-fired power plant in Bargny[2] found that the plant undermined livelihoods and the local economy, compromised the environment and people’s well-being, and negatively affected community relations. In particular, the plant affected people in the artisanal fishing value chain in Bargny. Many women lost access to plots of land on the Sendou I project site, where they grew cereal crops and other vegetables for subsistence and income-generating activities. Given the central role of women in food production, processing and preparation, this created social and economic stress and family conflicts. The impacts of this were largely unacknowledged and insufficiently compensated. Compensation was primarily paid to men, who were seen as the heads of households due to prevailing gender norms.