{"id":101,"date":"2025-10-02T15:16:42","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T19:16:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/?post_type=chapter&p=101"},"modified":"2026-05-25T12:47:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-25T16:47:08","slug":"2-2-introduction","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/chapter\/2-2-introduction\/","title":{"raw":"2.2 Introduction","rendered":"2.2 Introduction"},"content":{"raw":"In a century characterized by unprecedented environmental and social challenges, evaluators can influence societal improvements by encouraging consideration of the broader impacts of actions. However, to have this influence, evaluators must adopt a moral stance that works towards planetary health; one that requires more than narrowly meeting a client\u2019s request or the siloed analysis of work for the public good but instead championing broader engagement on the determinants of planetary health (Brousselle et al., 2024a; Brousselle & McDavid, 2021). This approach involves considering and including the dimensions critical for the whole planet to thrive and also choosing the approach that is right for the political, cultural, and social contextual dynamics. Adopting planetary health lenses can help us implement holistic and positive actions.\r\n\r\nPlanetary health is a concept representing the interconnections between the ecosystem and living species, and the conditions necessary to support the well-being of all life forms. It is a different notion from \u201cecosystem\u201d as ecosystems may or may not support human life. Planetary health was defined by Whitmee and colleagues as:\r\n
the achievement of the highest attainable standard of health, wellbeing, and equity worldwide through judicious attention to the human systems\u2014political, economic, and social\u2014that shape the future of humanity and the Earth\u2019s natural systems that define the safe environmental limits within which humanity can flourish\u00a0 (Whitmee et al., 2015, p. 1978).<\/blockquote>\r\nRedvers and colleagues found this definition too human-centric and not reflecting the perspective that all kinds of lives are equal (Redvers et al., 2022). We thus propose the following definition:\r\n
\u201cPlanetary health is an approach that considers the interdependence between the elements (air, soil and water) and living beings (plants, animals including humans), emphasizing the importance of cultivating a positive ecosystem to support the flourishing of all forms of life\u201d (Brousselle, Bemner, et al., 2024, p. 175; Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024).\r\n\r\nInterestingly, in French and in English, we are creating new concepts and new words to represent the deep interconnections between the ecosystem and living species, when such concepts have existed for multi-generations in some Indigenous cultures. This disparity illustrates how culture and language represent and frame our worldviews, which impact the way we think and the way we act. For example, in the language of Nuu-chah-nulth people (Canada, BC) the expression\u00a0 hesook-ish tsawalk means everything is one, everything is connected (Umeek Atleo, 2011); in the language of Haida people (Canada, BC) gina waadluxan gud ad kwaagid means everything depends on everything else (https:\/\/www.haidanation.ca\/because-gina-waadluxan-gud-ad-kwaagid-everything-depends-on-everything-else-a-summary-of-haida-gwaii-marine-protected-areas-virtual-open-house\/). In the southern part of Africa, the concept of ubuntu exists: Ubuntu \u2018is an essentially relational ethics, which prizes relationships of interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation, relationality, community friendliness, harmonious relationships and other-regarding actions such as compassion and actions that are likely to be good for others, in which actions are morally right to the extent that they honour the capacity to relate communally, reduce discord or promote friendly relationships with others, and in which the physical world and the spiritual world are fundamentally united\u2019 (Ewuoso & Hall, 2019, p. 100). (Brousselle, Bemner, et al., 2024, p. 175)<\/blockquote>\r\nCreating new planetary health language to help us consider the whole system of relationships necessary for all forms of life to thrive is not enough. We also need support to help us navigate and apply this concept in all our actions. This is where frameworks, approaches, and tools can be helpful.\r\n\r\nThe Planetary Health Framework (presented below) was developed with this objective: to help us consider and include the key dimensions that matter for both human and natural systems when designing and implementing projects, programs, and policies that lead to thriving communities. The framework was created to identify sets of factors that, when considered, improve the design and successful implementation of interventions that will make a positive difference. It can be used in evaluation projects to systematically include dimensions that matter for planetary health. Since the framework\u2019s development, different approaches and tools have been created to support the work of evaluators (Brousselle et al., 2024b; Brousselle et al., 2022). This work has been developed based on three main premises:\r\n
First, we need to design and implement interventions contributing to a positive ecosystem, one that presents conditions for life to thrive and conditions that protect, restore, and regenerate (Hopkins, 2014; Wahl, 2016).\u00a0 By \u2018regenerative\u2019 we mean that we need to think about and actively design projects, programs, and policies that contribute to the \u2018good\u2019, and reverse current depletion trends (Hopkins, 2014; Wahl, 2016). The status quo is harmful; evidence shows we are reaching tipping points that will create dangerous feedback loops that cause more harm. As professionals, we need to think about and design interventions that contribute to regeneration. Regeneration can take place at different levels and in different domains. It could mean, for example: preserving existing or creating new carbon sinks for absorbing carbon emissions; reducing and repairing economic, social, and political injustices; as well as promoting healthy environments.\r\n\r\nSecond, a holistic approach that recognizes the intrinsic interconnectedness of us, rooted in the biosphere, is needed to tackle the multiple and embedded crises all societies are experiencing. Trying to address one crisis at a time, without considering broader impacts on the environment and community, increases risk potential in other areas (e.g. nuclear energy as a climate change solution). Further, a siloed approach is likely to contribute to worsening environmental and population health and well-being because it creates blind spots at the seams in our solution designs. All kinds of impacts should be considered: direct effects and externalities; short-term to long-term; and intended and unintended (Brousselle & McDavid, 2020; Rowe, 2019). (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024, p. 270)\r\n\r\nThird, deliberative democratic practices (House & Howe, 2000), interpretive approaches to policy making (Fischer, 2019, 2021; Yanow, 2000), and culturally responsive approaches (Chouinard & Cram, 2020) need to be implemented. In societies increasingly divided by distrust and strategic disinformation (Brousselle, 2024; Fischer, 2021; House & Howe, 2000; House, 2020; McIntyre, 2018), we will face resistance in making our work relevant and credible (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024). Evaluators should explore engagement approaches to navigate dynamic contexts characterized by polarized perspectives and to empower communities while leading a transformation agenda. \u201cAn approach that creates space for deliberation, dissent, and divergent thinking can generate new perspectives based on lived experiences, and particular values and representations\u201d (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024, p. 271). Furthermore, listening to and carrying a diversity of voices, from the usually heard to the marginalized, oppressed, and excluded can make the evaluation project a direct contributor to increasing social and environmental justice, \u201crather than being complicit in sustaining an oppressive status quo\u201d \u00a0(D. Mertens, 2023, p. 12).<\/blockquote>","rendered":"

In a century characterized by unprecedented environmental and social challenges, evaluators can influence societal improvements by encouraging consideration of the broader impacts of actions. However, to have this influence, evaluators must adopt a moral stance that works towards planetary health; one that requires more than narrowly meeting a client\u2019s request or the siloed analysis of work for the public good but instead championing broader engagement on the determinants of planetary health (Brousselle et al., 2024a; Brousselle & McDavid, 2021). This approach involves considering and including the dimensions critical for the whole planet to thrive and also choosing the approach that is right for the political, cultural, and social contextual dynamics. Adopting planetary health lenses can help us implement holistic and positive actions.<\/p>\n

Planetary health is a concept representing the interconnections between the ecosystem and living species, and the conditions necessary to support the well-being of all life forms. It is a different notion from \u201cecosystem\u201d as ecosystems may or may not support human life. Planetary health was defined by Whitmee and colleagues as:<\/p>\n

the achievement of the highest attainable standard of health, wellbeing, and equity worldwide through judicious attention to the human systems\u2014political, economic, and social\u2014that shape the future of humanity and the Earth\u2019s natural systems that define the safe environmental limits within which humanity can flourish\u00a0 (Whitmee et al., 2015, p. 1978).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Redvers and colleagues found this definition too human-centric and not reflecting the perspective that all kinds of lives are equal (Redvers et al., 2022). We thus propose the following definition:<\/p>\n

\u201cPlanetary health is an approach that considers the interdependence between the elements (air, soil and water) and living beings (plants, animals including humans), emphasizing the importance of cultivating a positive ecosystem to support the flourishing of all forms of life\u201d (Brousselle, Bemner, et al., 2024, p. 175; Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024).<\/p>\n

Interestingly, in French and in English, we are creating new concepts and new words to represent the deep interconnections between the ecosystem and living species, when such concepts have existed for multi-generations in some Indigenous cultures. This disparity illustrates how culture and language represent and frame our worldviews, which impact the way we think and the way we act. For example, in the language of Nuu-chah-nulth people (Canada, BC) the expression\u00a0 hesook-ish tsawalk means everything is one, everything is connected (Umeek Atleo, 2011); in the language of Haida people (Canada, BC) gina waadluxan gud ad kwaagid means everything depends on everything else (https:\/\/www.haidanation.ca\/because-gina-waadluxan-gud-ad-kwaagid-everything-depends-on-everything-else-a-summary-of-haida-gwaii-marine-protected-areas-virtual-open-house\/). In the southern part of Africa, the concept of ubuntu exists: Ubuntu \u2018is an essentially relational ethics, which prizes relationships of interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation, relationality, community friendliness, harmonious relationships and other-regarding actions such as compassion and actions that are likely to be good for others, in which actions are morally right to the extent that they honour the capacity to relate communally, reduce discord or promote friendly relationships with others, and in which the physical world and the spiritual world are fundamentally united\u2019 (Ewuoso & Hall, 2019, p. 100). (Brousselle, Bemner, et al., 2024, p. 175)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Creating new planetary health language to help us consider the whole system of relationships necessary for all forms of life to thrive is not enough. We also need support to help us navigate and apply this concept in all our actions. This is where frameworks, approaches, and tools can be helpful.<\/p>\n

The Planetary Health Framework (presented below) was developed with this objective: to help us consider and include the key dimensions that matter for both human and natural systems when designing and implementing projects, programs, and policies that lead to thriving communities. The framework was created to identify sets of factors that, when considered, improve the design and successful implementation of interventions that will make a positive difference. It can be used in evaluation projects to systematically include dimensions that matter for planetary health. Since the framework\u2019s development, different approaches and tools have been created to support the work of evaluators (Brousselle et al., 2024b; Brousselle et al., 2022). This work has been developed based on three main premises:<\/p>\n

First, we need to design and implement interventions contributing to a positive ecosystem, one that presents conditions for life to thrive and conditions that protect, restore, and regenerate (Hopkins, 2014; Wahl, 2016).\u00a0 By \u2018regenerative\u2019 we mean that we need to think about and actively design projects, programs, and policies that contribute to the \u2018good\u2019, and reverse current depletion trends (Hopkins, 2014; Wahl, 2016). The status quo is harmful; evidence shows we are reaching tipping points that will create dangerous feedback loops that cause more harm. As professionals, we need to think about and design interventions that contribute to regeneration. Regeneration can take place at different levels and in different domains. It could mean, for example: preserving existing or creating new carbon sinks for absorbing carbon emissions; reducing and repairing economic, social, and political injustices; as well as promoting healthy environments.<\/p>\n

Second, a holistic approach that recognizes the intrinsic interconnectedness of us, rooted in the biosphere, is needed to tackle the multiple and embedded crises all societies are experiencing. Trying to address one crisis at a time, without considering broader impacts on the environment and community, increases risk potential in other areas (e.g. nuclear energy as a climate change solution). Further, a siloed approach is likely to contribute to worsening environmental and population health and well-being because it creates blind spots at the seams in our solution designs. All kinds of impacts should be considered: direct effects and externalities; short-term to long-term; and intended and unintended (Brousselle & McDavid, 2020; Rowe, 2019). (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024, p. 270)<\/p>\n

Third, deliberative democratic practices (House & Howe, 2000), interpretive approaches to policy making (Fischer, 2019, 2021; Yanow, 2000), and culturally responsive approaches (Chouinard & Cram, 2020) need to be implemented. In societies increasingly divided by distrust and strategic disinformation (Brousselle, 2024; Fischer, 2021; House & Howe, 2000; House, 2020; McIntyre, 2018), we will face resistance in making our work relevant and credible (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024). Evaluators should explore engagement approaches to navigate dynamic contexts characterized by polarized perspectives and to empower communities while leading a transformation agenda. \u201cAn approach that creates space for deliberation, dissent, and divergent thinking can generate new perspectives based on lived experiences, and particular values and representations\u201d (Brousselle, Curren, et al., 2024, p. 271). Furthermore, listening to and carrying a diversity of voices, from the usually heard to the marginalized, oppressed, and excluded can make the evaluation project a direct contributor to increasing social and environmental justice, \u201crather than being complicit in sustaining an oppressive status quo\u201d \u00a0(D. Mertens, 2023, p. 12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-101","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless"],"part":40,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":526,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/101\/revisions\/526"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/40"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/101\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=101"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=101"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}