ABSTRACT
Evaluation of intervention in environmental disputes has largely relied on retrospective approaches. These are summative in nature, usually conducted at the conclusion of the intervention effort, and sometimes after one or two years. Retrospective analyses can offer insight into whether or not an intervention process was successful on a number of important dimensions. For example, success can be assessed according to whether or not an agreement was reached and whether it was feasible and sustainable; how the decisionmaking process compared with other alternative processes; whether the agreed-upon actions were taken; whether adversarial relationships changed; to what extent parties were satisfied with process, representation, and outcome; whether parties' relationships improved, or at least did not worsen; and whether or not learning took place. 1 All of these kinds of assessments can be particularly beneficial to the stakeholders should they participate in subsequent intervention or consensus-building efforts. They provide cumulative insights for agencies and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practitioners, and even for stakeholders who meet again. However, they do not offer participants an opportunity for reflection about a process in which they are currently engaged and which could benefit from the evaluative information.
