Beyond the Snapshot: A Survival-Based Systems Framework for Measuring Resilient Impact in Global Development.

Development projects often fail to produce lasting change once external funding and support disappear. This is particularly visible in agricultural sectors where initial gains in productivity frequently evaporate within a few seasons. The persistence of this pattern suggests that our current evaluation methods are limited: we tend to measure success as a static outcome rather than a dynamic system property. This paper introduces Resilient Impact Systems Analysis (RISA), a framework designed to determine whether development impact can survive real-world pressures. Unlike traditional evaluations that focus on point-in-time estimates, RISA integrates four key dimensions: core causal effects, behavioural persistence, exposure to external risks, and the capacity of local institutions. The framework is built on a survival-based mathematical model. By applying exponential decay to adoption rates, RISA moves beyond simple snapshots to provide predictive insights. A central feature of this model is the introduction of the Impact Half-Life (T½ = ln(2)/k), which identifies the specific point in time when systemic friction and adoption decay reduce the initial benefits by half. This metric identifies the specific point in time when systemic friction and adoption decay reduce the initial benefits by half. This provides a clear benchmark for durability, allowing for more honest comparisons between different interventions. Through an illustrative application in agriculture using longitudinal adoption data and post-exit follow-up surveys, the paper shows how projects deemed successful by traditional metrics may be highly fragile. RISA provides a practical tool for designers and donors to move from short-term wins toward investments that are truly anchored in the systems they aim to change.

Impact Evaluation, Sustainability, RISA Framework, Systems Thinking, Impact Half-Life, Adoption Decay, Resilience Metric.

1. Abonguie, D. F., Nyam, Y. S., & Hoeyi, P. K. (2025). A systematic analysis of systems thinking and the sustainability of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs): A global evaluation. Scientific African, 28, Article e02738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bamberger, M., Vaessen, J., & Raimondo, E. (2016). Dealing With Complexity in Development Evaluation: A Practical Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/dealing-with-complexity-in-development-evaluation [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barrett, C. B., Ortiz-Bobea, A., & Pham, T. (2023). Structural transformation, agriculture, climate, and the environment. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 17(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/725319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199841608.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Copestake, J. (2025). Mixed-methods impact evaluation in international development practice: distinguishing between quant-led and qual-led models. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 17(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2024.2351892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187–220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2021). The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security: 2021. Rome: FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/30c0d98d-1c21-48ef-b5d9-8d988e6fa6f2/content [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Gates, E. F., Walton, M., Vidueira, P., & McNall, M. (2021). Introducing systems- and complexity-informed evaluation. In E. F. Gates, M. Walton, & P. Vidueira (Eds.), Systems and Complexity-Informed Evaluation: Insights from Practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021, 13–25.https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20466 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Glewwe, P., & Todd, P. E. (2022). Impact Evaluation in International Development: Theory, Methods, and Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/dd5a1c37-56a7-5b90-a1f9-508e7a3a7632 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kpoviwanou, M. R. J. H., Sourou, B. N. K., & Ouinsavi, C. A. I. N. (2024). Challenges in adoption and wide use of agroforestry technologies in Africa and pathways for improvement: A systematic review. Trees, Forests and People, 17, Article 100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Manning, R., Goldman, I., & Hernández Licona, G. (2020). The impact of impact evaluation: Are impact evaluation and impact evaluation synthesis contributing to evidence generation and use in low- and middle-income countries? (UNU-WIDER Working Paper 2020/20). United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2020-20.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Marra, M. (2025). Bridging the gaps in sustainability assessment: A systematic literature review, 2014–2023. Evaluation and Program Planning, 105, 102502. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102557 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Montano, L. J., Elsenbroich, C., Font, X., & Ribeiro, M. A. (2025). Impact evaluation with process tracing: explaining causal processes in an EU-interreg sustainable tourism intervention. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 33(8), 1752–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2024.2358115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mulugeta, T., & Heshmati, A. (2023). Impacts of improved agricultural technology adoption on welfare in Africa: A meta-analysis. Heliyon, 9(6), e16671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17463 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Redman A and Wiek A (2021) Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6:785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785163 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743222099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Rurii, M. W., & Nzengya, D. M. (2026). A scoping review of literature on adoption and impact of climate smart agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers in Africa. Frontiers in Climate, 7, Article 1692929. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2025.1692929 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zimek, M., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2024). Systemic sustainability assessment: Analyzing environmental and social impacts of actions on sustainable development. Cleaner Production Letters, 7, Article 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Weaver, M., Fonseca, A. P., Tan, H., & Pokorna, K. (2026). Systems thinking for sustainability: shifting to a higher level of systems consciousness. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 77(1), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2025.2486698 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. World Bank. (2024). A framework for understanding and measuring resilience: Social Sustainability and Inclusion Global Practice. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/2bf2596c-7aa8-48b1-a799-c50472cbaadf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Drone-Based Phenotyping and its Utilization in Crop Improvement: A Review
• An IoT-Enabled Smart Healthcare Monitoring System Using Machine Learning for Early Health Risk Prediction
• Strategic Integration of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving Operational Excellence in Container Freight Stations Using Evidence from Chennai, India
• Adoption of OTT platforms: Analyzing User Behavior through the UTAUT2 Model
• Customers’ Buying Behaviour in Relation to Online Food Delivery (Evidence from National Capital Region (NCR) of India)