{"id":247,"date":"2025-10-03T18:31:21","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T22:31:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/?post_type=chapter&p=247"},"modified":"2026-05-26T14:41:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T18:41:15","slug":"critical-planetary-health-dimensions","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/chapter\/critical-planetary-health-dimensions\/","title":{"raw":"8.7 What about the critical planetary health dimensions when evaluating impacts?","rendered":"8.7 What about the critical planetary health dimensions when evaluating impacts?"},"content":{"raw":"Planetary health dimensions have generally not been considered in effect analysis, contribution analysis, or impact analysis unless the intervention specifically targets one of these dimensions\u2014either directly or because it is a focus of the evaluation project. As demonstrated, effect analysis using experimental research designs generally focuses on effects that are specifically and narrowly defined. This focus arises from the need to minimize biases and ensure that the research design and measurement procedures allow for the assessment of the causal relationship under study. The objective of such designs is to isolate the experiment from its context to focus on the causal relationship being tested. It is not natural to integrate new variables into such research settings, particularly if these variables are diffuse and occur over the longer-term.\r\n\r\nHowever, even in effect studies relying on experiments, dimensions of planetary health can and should be included. The impact on the environment and human systems is real for interventions that are evaluated through experiments. For example, pharmaceuticals, which are tested in controlled experimental conditions, are typically released into the water system when they are consumed, thus contaminating rivers and deeply affecting life under water (Brodin et al., 2024). In this example, identifying the potential impacts of these interventions early allows for raises awareness about potential risks, supports the implementation of mitigation measures alongside drug approval (Benton et al., 2025).\r\n\r\nConsidering potential impacts on the critical dimensions of planetary health may be easier and more natural in some research designs for effects analysis and impact evaluations. Several research designs listed in Table 8.2, including contribution analysis, case-based analysis, participatory approaches, synthesis studies, and even statistical analysis and modelling, readily allow for considering impacts on human and natural systems.\r\n\r\nContribution analysis, in particular, could directly benefit from existing theory-based approaches for designing interventions contributing to planetary health (Brousselle et al., 2022), as the underlying principles are the same. For most research designs listed in Table 8.2, except for experimental research, integrating planetary health dimensions would primarily involve explicitly identifying these dimensions and exploring the intervention\u2019s impacts on them. A systematic assessment of the intervention\u2019s effects on health, equity, prosperity, pollution, land and water, and biodiversity could be readily integrated.\r\n\r\nFor other research designs, such as experimental research, considering impacts on human and natural systems would require integrating a complementary research step. The analysis would likely be two-fold: one stage relying on experiments, and the other dedicated to analyzing impacts on planetary health dimensions. For this second, complementary step, existing tools such as the Planetary Health Rapid Impact Assessment Tool (Brousselle et al., 2024b) combined with expert consultation and a review of published scientific literature, could serve as a basis for a holistic effect research design. To overcome the limitations of high-quality experimental designs, this strategy would support the adoption of a mixed methods research design rather than relying solely on experimental research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).","rendered":"

Planetary health dimensions have generally not been considered in effect analysis, contribution analysis, or impact analysis unless the intervention specifically targets one of these dimensions\u2014either directly or because it is a focus of the evaluation project. As demonstrated, effect analysis using experimental research designs generally focuses on effects that are specifically and narrowly defined. This focus arises from the need to minimize biases and ensure that the research design and measurement procedures allow for the assessment of the causal relationship under study. The objective of such designs is to isolate the experiment from its context to focus on the causal relationship being tested. It is not natural to integrate new variables into such research settings, particularly if these variables are diffuse and occur over the longer-term.<\/p>\n

However, even in effect studies relying on experiments, dimensions of planetary health can and should be included. The impact on the environment and human systems is real for interventions that are evaluated through experiments. For example, pharmaceuticals, which are tested in controlled experimental conditions, are typically released into the water system when they are consumed, thus contaminating rivers and deeply affecting life under water (Brodin et al., 2024). In this example, identifying the potential impacts of these interventions early allows for raises awareness about potential risks, supports the implementation of mitigation measures alongside drug approval (Benton et al., 2025).<\/p>\n

Considering potential impacts on the critical dimensions of planetary health may be easier and more natural in some research designs for effects analysis and impact evaluations. Several research designs listed in Table 8.2, including contribution analysis, case-based analysis, participatory approaches, synthesis studies, and even statistical analysis and modelling, readily allow for considering impacts on human and natural systems.<\/p>\n

Contribution analysis, in particular, could directly benefit from existing theory-based approaches for designing interventions contributing to planetary health (Brousselle et al., 2022), as the underlying principles are the same. For most research designs listed in Table 8.2, except for experimental research, integrating planetary health dimensions would primarily involve explicitly identifying these dimensions and exploring the intervention\u2019s impacts on them. A systematic assessment of the intervention\u2019s effects on health, equity, prosperity, pollution, land and water, and biodiversity could be readily integrated.<\/p>\n

For other research designs, such as experimental research, considering impacts on human and natural systems would require integrating a complementary research step. The analysis would likely be two-fold: one stage relying on experiments, and the other dedicated to analyzing impacts on planetary health dimensions. For this second, complementary step, existing tools such as the Planetary Health Rapid Impact Assessment Tool (Brousselle et al., 2024b) combined with expert consultation and a review of published scientific literature, could serve as a basis for a holistic effect research design. To overcome the limitations of high-quality experimental designs, this strategy would support the adoption of a mixed methods research design rather than relying solely on experimental research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":7,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-247","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless"],"part":228,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/247","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":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/247\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":648,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/247\/revisions\/648"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/228"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/247\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=247"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=247"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}