Methodology for Urbanism

.

Evaluation Frameworks

← The report
Supplementary guide · Feeds your report: Evaluation

Evaluate your regional strategy

An objective-led guide using the Methodology course frameworks.

A strong regional strategy does not become stronger by collecting frameworks like badges. It becomes stronger when its objective, values, interventions and evidence fit together. This guide helps you select the smallest useful set of evaluative lenses, test the strategy rigorously and explain what still remains uncertain.

↓ Download the guide (PDF)

Prepared from the Q3 course presentations Frameworks Provided by the MET Course, Ontology Epistemology Axiology and Communication Different Audiences (2026).

The basic rule

Less is more

The basic rule is simple: complete the common evaluation core, choose one primary pathway that matches your objective, and add no more than one challenge lens.

1
Common core

Everyone completes it. Six criteria every strategy must answer.

+
1
Primary pathway

Choose the one that matches your objective. It defines what success means.

+
≤ 1
Challenge lens

Add no more than one. It tests the blind spots of your pathway.

Two pathways seem equally important. What now?
Open the answer +
Decide which one defines success and which one tests its blind spots. The first is your primary pathway; the second becomes your challenge lens.
Basic, Robust or Advanced: which frameworks should we use?
Open the answer +
The course marks frameworks as Basic, Robust or Advanced. These labels indicate conceptual demand, not quality. An accurately used Basic framework is better than an Advanced framework added for decoration.
  • Basic: use the common course lenses clearly and consistently.
  • Robust: explain mechanisms, institutions, ethical choices and evidence in greater depth.
  • Advanced: use a pluriversal perspective only when different ways of knowing, being or inhabiting are central to the strategy.
The evaluation sequence

Six moves, in this order

Each move produces something the next one needs. Click a card to jump to the step on this page.

1
Step 1 · Before you evaluate

Diagnose before choosing a framework

Before evaluating the proposal, identify what kind of strategy you have made. These questions concern different levels of inquiry and should not be bundled together. Open each level to see examples.

Ontology
What does the strategy treat as real and changeable?
Examples +
Examples: Physical systems and flows; institutions and social relations; lived experience; or possible spatial futures.
Epistemology
What can count as knowledge about it?
Examples +
Examples: Measurements, models, documents, lived experience, local knowledge, professional judgement or design testing.
Methodology
How are the question, evidence and judgement connected?
Examples +
Examples: The reasoned structure of the inquiry, not a list of techniques.
Methods
How is evidence produced and analysed?
Examples +
Examples: Mapping, modelling, interviews, observation, policy analysis, scenarios or design iterations.
Axiology
Which values and obligations define success?
Examples +
Examples: Efficiency, sustainability, justice, democracy, care, stewardship or transformation.

Which level is this question about?

“Should the strategy give priority to the households most exposed to flooding?”

○ Ontology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Epistemology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methodology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methods
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Axiology
Yes
Yes. It is about which values and obligations define success.

“Can residents’ accounts of past floods count as evidence alongside the hydraulic model?”

○ Ontology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Epistemology
Yes
Yes. It is about what can count as knowledge.
○ Methodology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methods
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Axiology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.

“We will map flood exposure and interview twelve households.”

○ Ontology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Epistemology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methodology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methods
Yes
Yes. It says how evidence will be produced.
○ Axiology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.

“Is the region mainly a set of water flows, or a web of institutions and relations?”

○ Ontology
Yes
Yes. It is about what the strategy treats as real and changeable.
○ Epistemology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methodology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methods
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Axiology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.

“How do our research question, our evidence and our final judgement connect?”

○ Ontology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Epistemology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Methodology
Yes
Yes. It is about the reasoned structure of the inquiry.
○ Methods
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
○ Axiology
Not quite
Not quite. Look again at what the question is about.
Write the strategy claim

Complete this sentence before selecting a pathway:

Because [intervention] changes [mechanism], we expect [outcome] for [people, places or ecosystems] at [scale] over [time], provided [conditions]. We will test this using [evidence].
See the sentence filled in
Open the example +
An invented example, for illustration only:
Because a regional bus network with fixed 15-minute frequencies changes travel times between small towns and the regional hospital and college, we expect better access to care and education for households without a car in the eastern municipalities, at the regional scale, over ten years, provided the provinces fund operations beyond the pilot period. We will test this using travel-time analysis, ridership data and interviews with users and non-users.
If you cannot complete the sentence

The evaluation problem is not yet the choice of framework. The strategy itself needs a clearer causal and institutional logic.

2
Step 2 · Every team, every strategy

Complete the common evaluation core

Six criteria set the minimum quality of any evaluation. Answer all six, whatever pathway you choose.

1Objective and scale+
Questions every team must answer
Is the problem specific? Is the regional scale justified? Are the intended beneficiaries and time horizon clear?
2Intervention logic+
Questions every team must answer
How should each action produce the claimed change? Which actors, institutions, resources and prior decisions does it depend on?
3Evidence+
Questions every team must answer
What baseline, comparison, local knowledge or model supports the claim? What evidence could contradict it?
4Integrated sustainability+
Questions every team must answer
How do social, environmental and economic effects interact? Are burdens displaced to another place, group or generation?
5Spatial justice+
Questions every team must answer
Recognition: who and what is visible? Procedure: who shapes the decision? Distribution: who gains, who pays and who is exposed to risk? How to evaluate this ↓
6Alternatives and uncertainty+
Questions every team must answer
What serious alternative was considered? Which assumptions are fragile? What happens if the strategy underperforms?
Minimum evidence rule

Do not present an aspiration as a finding. A map can show a proposed relationship; it does not prove that the relationship will occur. Connect every important claim to an indicator, observation, precedent, comparison, model or documented judgement.

2+
Go deeper · Common core criterion 5, and pathways B and D

Spatial justice as an evaluative lens

Spatial justice asks whether the benefits and burdens of living together in cities and regions are shared fairly, through fair procedures and with recognition of who people are (Rocco, 2026).

Space is not a neutral stage on which justice happens. It is produced by social relations, and it produces them in turn: a motorway, a zoning plan or a gated estate shapes who can move, work, speak and be seen (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 2010).

The framework has three dimensions. They are not boxes to tick one by one. Each needs the other two, and the benchmark for all three is parity of participation: can everyone affected take part in shaping the region as a peer? (Fraser, 2008).

SPATIAL JUSTICE RECOGNITION DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURE

Three dimensions, nine indicators

Open each dimension. The three questions under it are the indicators you can use in the criterion column of your claim and evidence table.

Distributive justice
Who gets what, where, and why?
Open the indicators +

How the benefits of urban life (housing, transport, green space, services) and its burdens (pollution, displacement, risk) are shared across people and places.

Ask of your strategy
  1. Are essential goods and services shared in a way that reduces historic and structural inequalities?
  2. Can marginalised groups actually use them: are they affordable, close, safe and culturally accessible?
  3. Do spatial and policy conditions let communities adapt resources and organise themselves?

Where it comes from: Harvey (1973) on territorial social justice; Fainstein (2010) on equity in the Just City.

Procedural justice
Who decides, and how?
Open the indicators +

The fairness, transparency and inclusiveness of the processes that shape space. Being invited to a meeting is not the same as having a say in the outcome.

Ask of your strategy
  1. Do the people most affected shape the decision, or are they only informed or consulted?
  2. Can the planning institution recognise its mistakes, absorb feedback and change course?
  3. How do public bodies respond to claims from marginalised groups?

Where it comes from: Arnstein (1969) on the ladder of participation; Healey (1997) on collaborative planning; Fraser (2008) on parity of participation.

Recognitional justice
Whose identities, histories and knowledge count?
Open the indicators +

Whether the identities, histories, ways of life and knowledge of different groups are seen and valued, or ignored, stigmatised and erased.

Ask of your strategy
  1. Do legal and planning frameworks uphold the rights and voice of groups historically denied full membership?
  2. Are everyday and collective care practices, such as mutual aid and grassroots governance, valued and protected?
  3. Does the plan make room for different worldviews and knowledge traditions, not only the dominant one?

Where it comes from: Fraser (2000) on misrecognition; Young (1990) on group-based oppression; Fricker (2007) on epistemic injustice.

When one side of the triangle is missing

What happens with recognition without redistribution?
Open the risk +
Justice shrinks to symbolic affirmation. A mural celebrating a neighbourhood’s history does not fix its missing sewer.
What happens with redistribution without fair procedure?
Open the risk +
Resources arrive from above and reproduce technocratic domination. New housing is built, but residents had no say in where, how or for whom.
What happens with participation without recognition?
Open the risk +
Inclusion can re-inscribe privilege. Everyone is invited, but only those who speak the planners’ language, at the planners’ hours, are heard.
Avoid spatial fetishism

A map showing that one district has fewer parks does not, by itself, prove injustice. Spatial patterns are unjust because of the processes that produce and keep them: who decided, who profited, whose claims were ignored (Pirie, 1983). Pair every map with an explanation.

Five things the framework does in your report

1 · Descriptive

Map the injustice.

Where are evictions concentrated? Who lacks access to green space?

2 · Explanatory

Explain why it exists.

Which histories, policies, markets or laws produced this pattern?

3 · Normative

Say what ought to be.

Should secure housing be treated as a right rather than a commodity?

4 · Prescriptive

Propose what to do.

Which instruments (land trusts, zoning, participatory budgeting) could change it?

5 · Analytical

Hold it all together.

Where do your proposals help one dimension of justice but harm another?

A worked example: social urbanism in Medellín

In the 2000s, Medellín, Colombia, targeted its poorest hillside neighbourhoods with integrated urban projects. Read through the three dimensions, the same programme shows real gains and real limits.

Distributive
Gain: Cable cars, libraries and public spaces were concentrated in steep, long-neglected hillside neighbourhoods, cutting journey times to jobs and services (Echeverri & Orsini, 2011).
Limit: Upgrades were unevenly spread, pressing needs such as housing and sanitation remained, and rising values raised fears of gentrification.
Procedural
Gain: Participatory budgeting gave residents a formal say in how part of the budget was spent.
Limit: Participation could be captured by local elites, armed groups or the municipality, and often legitimised decisions already made (Sotomayor, 2017).
Recognitional
Gain: Visible, high-quality investment signalled that these neighbourhoods were part of the city, not problems at its edge.
Limit: The same areas were subjected to militarised security operations that continued to stigmatise residents (Sotomayor, 2017).

The lesson for your own evaluation: a strategy can score well on one dimension and fail on another. Report both, and do not let the gains hide the limits.

3
Step 3 · One primary pathway

Choose the pathway that matches the objective

Choose the sentence closest to your principal objective. Use one pathway as the basis of evaluation. A second pathway may be used as a challenge lens, but do not quietly turn the exercise back into a checklist of everything. Open your pathway to see what it asks.

A Our strategy mainly aims toReduce environmental pressure or improve the performance and resilience of a regional systemPrimary evaluation family: Integrated sustainability and consequences +
Pathway A · Ecological transition and system performance

Use this pathway when the central claim concerns emissions, biodiversity, water, energy, mobility, circularity, resilience or another regional system outcome.

Primary lenses: integrated sustainability and consequential reasoning. Consequentialism asks about likely results; only utilitarian versions reduce this to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Success means the strategy improves ecological performance while accounting for social and economic effects, rather than exporting burdens to another place or generation.

Your four pathway questions
1What baseline and ecological limits define the problem?
2Through what mechanism should each intervention change the system?
3Who gains, who loses and where might rebound effects or displaced burdens appear?
4How do short-term transition costs relate to long-term and intergenerational benefits?
Useful evidence

System and flow maps, scenario comparisons, environmental indicators, distributional analysis, local experience and implementation evidence.

Challenge lens

Spatial justice and care. Efficiency does not excuse displacement, unaffordable services or new dependencies imposed on groups with little power.

B Our strategy mainly aims toImprove access, well-being, opportunity or the quality of shared servicesPrimary evaluation family: Capabilities, public provision and spatial justice +
Pathway B · Access, well-being and human capabilities

Use this pathway when the strategy aims to improve access to housing, mobility, health, education, work, public space or another condition of flourishing.

Primary lenses: capabilities, public provision and distributive spatial justice. Capabilities concern what people are actually able to be and do, not simply whether a facility exists on a map.

Success means different groups can use high-quality opportunities in practice, at acceptable cost, time and risk.

Your four pathway questions
1Which capabilities should expand, for whom and according to whose account of a good life?
2Is access merely physical, or also affordable, safe, understandable and culturally appropriate?
3What shared benefit or public provision is created? If exclusion is possible, do not automatically call it a public good in the strict economic sense.
4Do equal inputs produce unequal outcomes because people start from different positions?
Useful evidence

Accessibility and service-quality analysis, disaggregated indicators, time and cost data, lived experience, observation and comparison between groups and places.

Challenge lens

Recognition and care. Ask whose needs, identities, dependencies and everyday labour disappear when success is reduced to average access.

C Our strategy mainly aims toGovern, restore or protect a shared resource, landscape or body of knowledgePrimary evaluation family: Commons and stewardship +
Pathway C · Commons and shared stewardship

Use this pathway when the strategy concerns a shared landscape, ecosystem, space, infrastructure, cultural resource or body of knowledge that requires collective governance.

Primary lenses: commons and care. A commons is not simply something shared; it joins a resource, a community and rules for access, use and stewardship.

Success means the resource can be sustained through legitimate, workable and fair arrangements across the relevant regional levels.

Your four pathway questions
1What exactly is the resource, and where are its ecological or institutional boundaries?
2Who belongs to the governing community, who is excluded and who speaks for future or more-than-human interests?
3Who may use the resource, who monitors it, how are conflicts resolved and how are responsibilities financed?
4How are local arrangements nested within municipal, regional, national or ecological systems?
Useful evidence

Tenure and legal analysis, institutional and actor mapping, resource-use patterns, conflict histories, interviews, governance precedents and ecological monitoring.

Challenge lens

Rights and power. A community is not automatically inclusive, and collective language can hide internal hierarchies or informal exclusion.

D Our strategy mainly aims toDemocratise decisions, improve participation or strengthen community agencyPrimary evaluation family: Communicative planning and procedural justice +
Pathway D · Democratic governance and community agency

Use this pathway when the central objective is to improve participation, co-production, representation, accountability or the capacity of communities to shape regional decisions.

Primary lenses: communicative planning with procedural and recognitional spatial justice. Participation is meaningful when it changes the question, evidence, alternatives or decision, not when attendance is merely counted.

Success means affected groups can influence decisions, decision-makers remain accountable and participation builds rather than consumes community capacity.

Your four pathway questions
1Who sets the agenda, who is present, who is missing and what barriers keep them out?
2Whose knowledge is treated as credible, and can participants question professional assumptions?
3Where does decision-making authority remain, and can the final decision be traced to public input?
4What time, money, translation, information or organisational support enables participation on less unequal terms?
Useful evidence

Stakeholder and power analysis, participant profiles, process records, decision-traceability tables, interviews, feedback and evidence of capacity gained.

Challenge lens

Consequences. A fair process can still produce harmful outcomes; a polished consultation can still be tokenistic.

E Our strategy mainly aims toTest a spatial proposition, design intervention or transition scenarioPrimary evaluation family: Design and socio-technical transformation +
Pathway E · Spatial propositions and socio-technical change

Use this pathway when the principal contribution is a spatial vision, design intervention, typology, scenario or transition pathway.

Primary lenses: design inquiry and socio-technical analysis. Regional change joins spatial form to technologies, practices, institutions, finance, regulation and meaning.

Success means the proposition makes relationships visible, can be examined against alternatives and shows how spatial change could be implemented and revised.

Your four pathway questions
1What does the design make possible, for whom, and through which spatial or institutional mechanism?
2Which actors must act, in what sequence, with what authority, land, finance and maintenance capacity?
3Which alternatives and design iterations were rejected, and according to which criteria?
4Under what conditions would the proposition fail, create lock-in or require adaptation?
Useful evidence

Documented iterations, maps and sections, scenario and precedent comparisons, phasing, models, stakeholder feedback and explicit evaluation criteria.

Challenge lens

Justice and evidence. Visual coherence is not proof. Test who benefits, who bears risk and whether the institutional story is as carefully designed as the image.

F Our strategy mainly aims toChallenge dominant development assumptions and make room for multiple worlds or futuresPrimary evaluation family: Pluriversal evaluation +
Pathway F · Pluriversal and transformative futures

Use this pathway when the strategy challenges a supposedly universal model of progress or must accommodate different relations to land, time, knowledge, memory or more-than-human life.

Primary lenses: the pluriverse. This is not a diversity checklist; it asks whether several ways of knowing and being can shape the strategy without being translated into one dominant worldview.

Success means the strategy creates room for multiple legitimate trajectories, acknowledges conflict and supports experimentation without forcing premature closure.

Your four pathway questions
1Whose account of the region defines the problem, and which worlds or histories remain outside the frame?
2Which linear timeframes (electoral, investment or development cycles) crowd out slower, cyclical or ancestral temporalities?
3How are relations among humans, ecosystems, land, memory and more-than-human life represented?
4Can disagreement or incommensurability remain visible, and who decides when a collective decision is nevertheless required?
Useful evidence

Co-produced maps and narratives, oral histories, situated knowledge used with consent, multiple scenarios, conflict records and documentation of experimentation.

Challenge lens

Rights, accountability and feasibility. Plurality does not make every claim harmless or exempt from evidence, ecological limits or duties to others.

Practise: which pathway fits?

A province wants its strategy to protect a shared peat landscape, with farmers, water boards and residents agreeing on rules for its use.

○ A
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ B
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ C
Yes
Yes.
○ D
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ E
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ F
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?

A team designs three transition scenarios for a port region and compares them with maps, phasing and precedents.

○ A
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ B
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ C
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ D
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ E
Yes
Yes.
○ F
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?

A strategy aims to cut the region’s car dependency and emissions by 40% by 2040.

○ A
Yes
Yes.
○ B
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ C
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ D
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ E
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ F
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?

A strategy sets up citizens’ assemblies to decide how a regional climate fund is spent.

○ A
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ B
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ C
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ D
Yes
Yes.
○ E
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
○ F
Not quite
Not quite. Which sentence in the table describes the main aim?
4
Step 4 · Find the serious weakness

Apply one ethical pressure test

Ethical frameworks do different work. Select the one most likely to expose a serious weakness in your strategy. Do not average incompatible judgements into a reassuring score.

Consequences
Use it

When outcomes, trade-offs or uncertainty dominate

Question

What are the likely benefits and harms for different groups, places and generations?

Rights and duties
Use it

When displacement, exclusion, coercion or non-discrimination is at stake

Question

Which rights and duties must be respected even if violating them appears efficient?

Care
Use it

When dependency, vulnerability, maintenance or social reproduction is central

Question

Who depends on whom, whose care work sustains the strategy and are responses attentive to context?

Virtue
Use it

When professional judgement and institutional conduct matter

Question

What qualities of judgement, integrity, courage, humility and responsibility does the strategy require?

Which lens would expose this weakness?

The plan relocates 300 households to make room for a water-retention park.

○ Consequences
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Rights and duties
Yes
Yes. Displacement puts rights and duties at stake.
○ Care
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Virtue
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?

The new neighbourhood hubs can only stay open if volunteers keep running them.

○ Consequences
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Rights and duties
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Care
Yes
Yes. Maintenance and dependency are central.
○ Virtue
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?

The team knows its flood model is uncertain, but shows the council a single confident figure.

○ Consequences
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Rights and duties
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Care
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Virtue
Yes
Yes. This is about integrity and honesty in professional judgement.

A cheaper bus route saves money but doubles the journey to school for rural pupils.

○ Consequences
Yes
Yes. It weighs benefits and harms for different groups.
○ Rights and duties
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Care
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
○ Virtue
Not quite
Not quite. Which weakness would this lens expose best?
5
Step 5 · One row per major claim

Build a claim and evidence table

Use one row for every major claim. A claim is major if the strategy would be weaker without it. The first row is an invented example; the empty rows are for you, in your report.

ClaimFramework criterionIndicator or evidenceSource or methodWho or what may be missedJudgement
Faster buses will improve access to the regional hospital for households without a car.Pathway B: capabilities; common core 3, evidenceTravel time by bus to the hospital, before and afterAccessibility analysis; interviews with 15 usersPeople with limited mobility who cannot reach a bus stopPartly supported (score 1): travel times fall, but the last kilometre is not addressed

On a phone, swipe the table sideways. The downloadable guide (PDF) has the same table, which you can copy into your report.

6
Step 6 · Locate weak reasoning

Score for revision rather than decoration

Use the same three-point scale for each common criterion and each of your pathway’s four questions. The purpose is to locate weak reasoning, not to manufacture mathematical certainty.

0
Absent or contradicted

The report does not address the criterion, or evidence conflicts with the claim.

1
Asserted or partial

The issue is mentioned, but the reasoning, evidence or consequences remain incomplete.

2
Explicit and supported

The criterion is connected to evidence, alternatives and a reasoned judgement.

A strategy scores 19 out of 20 but removes a community without its consent. Is it a good strategy?
Open the answer +
No. Do not rely only on the total. A strategy with a high score can still fail if it violates rights, hides severe harm or lacks an implementable mechanism.
Red flags that require revision
!A serious benefit or burden is shifted to another community, territory or generation and then disappears from the evaluation.
!People most affected by the strategy are absent, misrepresented or consulted only after the decisive choices have been made.
!A rendering, map, model or participation event is treated as proof without evidence of the mechanism or outcome claimed.
!Implementation has no credible actor, authority, land arrangement, finance, sequence or maintenance responsibility.
!The strategy violates rights or creates severe avoidable harm. A high total score cannot compensate for this.
7
Step 7 · Same claim, different words

Communicate the evaluation to different audiences

The underlying claim and evidence should remain the same. What changes is vocabulary, emphasis and form. Do not increase certainty simply because the audience is not academic.

Academic abstract

Audience: Reviewers and examiners

Length: 250–300 words

The evaluation story, in this order
  1. Problem
  2. Aim or question
  3. Frameworks and methods
  4. Principal finding or proposition
  5. Significance and limitation
Professional post

Audience: Practitioners and policymakers

Length: 150–300 words

The evaluation story, in this order
  1. Lead claim
  2. Regional context
  3. Intervention
  4. Evidence
  5. Trade-off
  6. Implication for practice or policy
Public visual post

Audience: Communities and wider publics

Length: 100–150 words plus one image

The evaluation story, in this order
  1. Place and community
  2. The change proposed
  3. Who is affected
  4. One honest uncertainty
  5. Question or invitation
Across all formats

Name the place and community, lead with the most important finding, and state one unresolved trade-off. Communication is part of accountability: people should be able to see how evidence became judgement.

Before you submit

Submission-ready checklist

Tick each statement your team can honestly sign. The ticks are not saved: download or print the guide to keep a copy.

Go further

Framework origins and further reading

Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press.

Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1).

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

Sources for the spatial justice section

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Echeverri, A., & Orsini, F. M. (2011). Informalidad y urbanismo social en Medellín. Sostenible?, 12, 11–24. http://hdl.handle.net/2099/11900

Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.

Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Edward Arnold.

Pirie, G. H. (1983). On spatial justice. Environment and Planning A, 15(4), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1068/a150465

Rocco, R. (2026). Spatial justice: The basics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003643128

Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.

Sotomayor, L. (2017). Dealing with dangerous spaces: The construction of urban policy in Medellín. Latin American Perspectives, 44(2), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X16682758

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.

← Back to
The report
Download ↓
The evaluation guide (PDF)