This paper reports upon the development of a policy assessment tool designed to evaluate the outcomes of policies promoting increased accessibility to services in rural areas. Much public policy is now concerned with addressing issues (such as accessibility) that span traditional organisational responsibilities and boundaries and thus require ‘joined-up’ thinking. At the same time, public policy is also increasingly required to be ‘evidence based’. As a consequence, it becomes necessary to develop appraisal and evaluation tools capable of assessing the achievements of joined-up policy interventions and their broader impacts on decision making and delivery across a diverse number of stakeholders. The Accessibility Policy Assessment Tool has been developed as a way of focusing more on the wider impacts of policy initiatives and is based upon a realist synthesis and multimethod approach to policy assessment. Through this focus, it has the potential to contribute to broader evaluation practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongH WKehrerBWellsPWoodA M, 2002, “The evaluation of community economic development initiatives”Urban Studies39457–481
2.
BarnesMMatkaESullivanH, 2003, “Evidence, understanding and complexity”Evaluation9265–284
3.
BristowGCowellRMarsdenT, 2001, “Tensions, limits and potentials: Evaluating rural development policies in Scotland”European Urban and Regional Studies8235–252
4.
Cabinet Office, 1999aModernising Government Cm 4320 (The Stationery Office, London)
5.
Cabinet Office, 1999bRural EconomiesPerformance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet Office (The Stationery Office, London)
6.
CowellRMurdochJ, 1999, “Land use and the limits to (regional) governance in England”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23354–369
7.
DaviesH T ONutleyS MSmithP C, 1999, “Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice”Public Money and Management19(1) 3–5
8.
DiezM-A, 2002, “Evaluating new regional policies”Evaluation8(3) 285–305
9.
FarringtonJFarringtonC, 2005, “Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: Towards conceptualisation”Journal of Transport Geography131–12
10.
FarringtonJShawJRichardsonTMacleanMBristowGHaldenDLeedalM, 2004a, “Putting accessibility policy evaluation into practice”Town and Country Planning73(6) 196–198
11.
FarringtonJShawJLeedalMMacleanMHaldenDRichardsonTBristowG, 2004bSettlements, Services and Access: The Development of Policies to Promote Accessibility in Rural Areas in Great BritainWelsh Assembly Government, Cardiff
12.
GrayDShawJFarringtonJ, 2006, “Community transport, social capital and social exclusion in rural areas”Area38(1) 89–98
13.
GreeneJ CCaracelliV J (Eds), 1997Advances in Mixed-method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms: New Directions for Evaluation 74 (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
14.
HanbergerA, 2001, “What is the policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy evaluation”Evaluation745–62
15.
TreasuryHM, 2003Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central GovernmentHM Treasury, London
16.
KhakeeA, 2003, “The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice”Evaluation9340–352
17.
KushnerS, 2002, “I'll take mine neat: Multiple methods but a single methodology”Evaluation8249–258
18.
LewisJ, 2001, “Reflections on evaluation in practice”Evaluation7387–394
19.
LowndesVSkelcherC, 1998, “The dynamics of multi-organisational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance”Public Administration76313–333
20.
MajoneG, 1989Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
21.
MarsdenTBristowG, 2000, “Progressing integrated rural development: A framework for assessing the integrative potential for sectoral policies”Regional Studies34455–469
22.
MeadowsPMetcalfH, 2003, “Special issue on policy evaluation: Introduction”National Institute of Economic and Social Research number 186, 57–58
23.
MidmoreP, 1998, “Rural policy reform and local development programmes: Appropriate evaluation procedures”Journal of Agricultural Economics49409–426
24.
MurtaghBMcKayS, 2003, “Evaluating the social effects of the EU Urban Community Initiative programme”European Planning Studies11193–211
25.
MurtaghBSterrettK, 2006, “Instrumental and interpretative methods in evaluating urban programmes”Urban Policy and Research24(1) 83–96
26.
ODPM, 2004, “Assessing the impact of spatial interventions: regeneration, renewal and regional development. ‘The 3R's guidance’”, May, Interdepartmental Group on the EGRUP Review, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London
27.
PawsonR, 2002, “Evidence-based policy: The promise of ‘realist synthesis’”Evaluation8340–358
28.
PlewisI, 2000, “Educational inequalities and education action zones”, in Tackling Inequalities: Where Are We Now and What Can Be done Eds PantazisCGordonD (Policy Press, Bristol)
29.
SandersonI, 2002, “Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making”Public Administration901–22
30.
SandersonI, 2003, “Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making”Research Papers in Education18331–345
31.
Scottish Executive, 2005a, “Transport assessment and implementation: a guide”, Scottish Planning Policy 17, Scottish Executive Development Department, Edinburgh
32.
Scottish Executive, 2005b, “Planning for transport”, Planning Advice Note 75, Scottish Executive Development Department, Edinburgh
33.
Scottish Office, 1992Rural Framework (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh)
34.
SEU, 2003Making the Connections: Transport and Social ExclusionSocial Exclusion Unit, London
35.
TaylorD, 2001, “‘Governing through evidence’: Participation and power in policy evaluation”Journal of Social Policy34601–618
36.
WalkerR, 2001, “Great expectations: Can social science evaluate New Labour's policies?”Evaluation7305–330
37.
Welsh Office, 1996Working Countryside for Wales Cm 3180 (The Stationery Office, Cardiff)
