Changing Environmental Behaviour: A review of evidence from Global Action Plan

Changing Environmental Behaviour: A review of the evidence from Global Action Plan page 1

1. IntroductionWhether it is fighting climate change, saving water or increasing recycling,Government policies increasingly call for people to change their behaviour. Thismight be altering daily habits such as switching off lights or turning off the tapwhilst cleaning teeth or influencing purchasing such as buying fuel efficient cars or organic foods.

Deciding how to achieve these behaviour changes is difficult for Government – too much intrusion leads to accusations of a ‘nanny state’, too little leaves people feeling that there is no leadership. This challenge has resulted in a growing level ofresearch being commissioned to explore how Government can help encourage positive changes of behaviour. Much of this research laments the lack of evidenceabout the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions.

Global Action Plan is a charity that encourages people to change their behaviour toprotect the environment. Through our activities we have discovered that:

• Behaviour change projects can achieve significant environmental savings andsocial benefits providing that they are carefully structured, professionally run andproperly resourced.

• Collecting data and evidence from these projects is complex, fraught withuncertainty and requires resourcing.

• Government funding is usually directed to awareness-raising campaigns forwhich little or no evidence of effectiveness is sought, rather than towards behaviour change initiatives where evidence is demanded.

This report summarises the evidence available from Global Action Plan and posesrelated questions to policy makers.


2. Global Action Plan and its programmesGlobal Action Plan was founded in the US in 1989 and is now established in 14 countries including theUK. Throughout the 1990s each Global Action Plan organisation explored various approaches to environmental behaviour change.

In the UK, between 1994 and 1999 over 30,000 households participated in ‘Action at Home’. Householdswere sent a questionnaire designed to assess their environmental impact and then received a series offive Action Packs outlining a number of different lifestyle changes that they could make to reduce theseimpacts. Throughout the programme support and advice was available from teams of local volunteers.

Once participants had worked through the packs, they were encouraged to fill in a second questionnaireto assess the changes they had made. Action at Home achieved substantial savings – roughly 30% of participants installed one or more low-energy light bulb and 40% adjusted their toilet cisterns to savewater1.

These results however paled in comparison to those achieved by the EcoTeams programme operated byGlobal Action Plan in the Netherlands2. Global Action Plan UK commissioned independent research3 tosee how their programmes might be improved. This research suggested that programmes needed to combine three elements:

1. a structured information provision;2. a facilitator-led group process offering participants the chance to discuss the information presented

and the challenges of the lifestyle changes suggested; and3. feedback on how the changes being made succeed in reducing environmental impacts.

Global Action Plan UK used this research to create Action at School, Environment Champions andEcoTeams.

1Ginn (2004)2Staats and Harland (1995)3Hobson (2001); Maiteny (2000)


2.1 Action at SchoolSchools participating in Action at School decide which environmental issue they intend to cover such as waste, energy, water or transport. A ‘Lead Teacher’ is selected withinthe school who works with Global Action Plan to draw together an ‘Action Team’ of roughly 20 pupils who volunteerto participate. Ideally the team will be made up of pupils fromacross different year groups.

A Global Action Plan facilitator runs a training day with theLead Teacher and Action Team. This training outlines the localand global issues surrounding the school’s selected environmental issue and highlights the sorts of behaviouralsolutions available to it. Pupils then perform an environmentalaudit. In the case of waste, rubbish bags will be collectedfrom different areas of the school and will be weighed andsorted into different types, e.g. paper, plastic, and metal. Thepupils are then encouraged to discuss ways of reducing theirwaste.

Following the audit, the Action Team creates a strategy toreduce the school’s impacts. This strategy usually has twoparts, the first detailing structural issues that require actionand the second outlining a campaign to encourage otherpupils and teachers to change their behaviour.

Most schools organise a launch event at which the ActionTeam gives a presentation at an assembly letting the rest ofthe school know what is planned and why it is important tochange their behaviours. The campaign is then launched andlasts for a few months.

Towards the end of the campaign, a second audit is undertaken in which the team is able to see how their strategy has made a difference. After this audit, the studentsare given a certificate endorsed by UNEP which may be presented at an assembly, and the team is often awardedsome kind of celebration such as a trip to the cinema. Thewhole process takes two or three terms.

2.1.1 Action at School case studyThe ‘Wiseman Waste’ Team at Cardinal Wiseman RC Schoolcreated a plan to reduce waste at their school and met regularly to monitor their progress. Prior to the project therewas minimal recycling, but as a result of their participation inAction at School waste was reduced by 76.9% which equatesto 31 tonnes diverted from landfill each year.

The waste reduction was achieved through a range of imaginative initiatives. To ensure that teachers were involved, students created a ‘Green Handed Award’ which rewardedteachers for taking positive environmental action. To spreadthe learning throughout the school the CitizenshipCoordinator ran a recycling module linked to PSHE. To furthercommunicate their message to the community the ActionTeam wrote a song about recycling and a play about litter andrats to support the ‘Bin the Rats’ campaign in Southall. Theyperformed these two pieces at a pre-election meeting ofcommunity members and councillors which persuaded thecouncil to address the rat problem.


2.2 The Environment Champions programmeEnvironment Champions focuses on one or two areas of environmental impact, such as waste and/or energy. Once anorganisation has decided to take part, a team of volunteer‘Environment Champions’ consisting of up to about 20employees, who ideally represent all parts of the organisationand with varying degrees of seniority, is established. The teamis then facilitated through an initial training session in whichthey meet, learn the aims of the programme and carry out aninitial audit of the organisation’s environmental impacts in thechosen area. This audit may involve weighing the waste produced in offices or establishing energy usage with thefacilities manager.

The facilitator then compiles an audit report detailing theorganisation’s environmental impacts. The team is reconvened for a second meeting where it designs a strategyto reduce impacts. These strategies generally have two mainparts – establishing the structural changes required such asgetting recycling bins, installing low-energy light bulbs, etc.,and planning a communications campaign directed towardsthe rest of the employees.

Campaigns have historically involved face-to-face communication; displays and events; email and intranet messages and putting up posters. Some campaigns have hadcreative elements including a glass painting workshop whichencouraged employees to use their own individually designedglass rather than disposable plastic cups and an employeedressed up as a ‘green man’ who welcomed employees towork and encouraged them to recycle their waste. The implementation of the strategies generally lasts for betweenthree and five months during which time the facilitator meetswith the team on a monthly basis for progress meetingsdesigned to iron out problems and maintain momentum.

At the end of the campaign a second audit is performedusing the same methods as in the first and the facilitatorcompiles a report detailing the changes made and the environmental savings achieved. The team then meets againto celebrate their success and plan the next steps.

2.2.1 Britannia Building Society case studyBritannia Building Society recruited a team of employees whomeasured the environmental impacts of the two Head Officesites in Leek and the offices in Plymouth and London. TheEnvironment Champions created three months of action looking at energy use, paper consumption and recycling.

In energy month, the group built an exercise bike that generated electricity to highlight energy efficiency messagesand placed energy reminders on people’s screens if they lefttheir monitors on overnight. In paper month, the group created a sculpture of empty paper boxes in the office reception that represented the amount of paper used in afew hours. In recycling month, the TV character ‘Dusty Bin’was brought to life to walk the offices, communicating the 3 R’s of reduce, reuse and recycle.

Thanks to their efforts, the Leek office cut paper consumptionover six months by 2.25 million sheets, which stacked upwould stand over twice the height of Big Ben. Energy use wascut by almost 3 million footballs worth of CO2, avoiding over£3,000 in energy bills in the first months after their campaign.In London, paper recycling and plastic recycling increased by59% and 32% respectively and the number of monitors lefton overnight was reduced by 44%. In Plymouth and Londonpaper content of the waste sent to landfill decreased by 46%and 59% respectively. A survey of staff attitudes at the LeekHead Office showed the far reaching effect of the campaignwith 73% of employees saying they had changed their habitsat work and 30% had changed habits at home.

EnvironmentChampions


2.3 The EcoTeams programmeEcoTeams helps households to change their environmentalbehaviour. Teams of six to eight people are recruited eitherfrom the same neighbourhood, through workplaces, orthrough existing social groups. The teams meet every monthfor four months. Each meeting concentrates on a differentlifestyle area. The first meeting is an introductory session, thesecond focuses on waste and shopping, the third concentrates on energy and transport issues and the fourthlooks at water and household chemicals.

In each meeting participants are led through a series of discussions on the local and global issues surrounding eachtheme and discuss a number of proposed behaviouralchanges to address the issues. In between each meeting, participants are encouraged to record their household’swaste, recycling, electricity, gas and water usage and send thedata to Global Action Plan where savings are calculated. Atthe end of the programme, participants are given a report ontheir progress and the environmental savings their behaviourchanges have achieved. They are also given the option of a‘next steps’ meeting to discuss their achievements and follow-up the process however they choose.

The meetings are overseen by a facilitator whose role it is tohelp participants through the process and encourage discussion. Facilitators offer information, help and advice buttake a hands-off approach, encouraging participants to findinformation out for themselves and letting them decide whatactions to take. Facilitators deliberately do not criticise participants.

2.3.1 British Gas EcoTeams case studyBritish Gas ran EcoTeams in late 2004, recruiting 18 volunteersfrom across the country to act as EcoTeam Coordinators.Global Action Plan ran a training day for the Coordinatorsafter which each was asked to recruit six colleagues to jointhem in an EcoTeam. The volunteers succeeded in recruiting130 households who participated in the four-month programme.

Based upon the measurements taken by the households, theBritish Gas employees succeeded in reducing the level ofwaste being thrown into their dustbins by 31.5%, increasingtheir recycling rate by 25%, cutting their electricity use by16.5%, reducing their gas consumption by 10% and cuttingthe CO2 emissions from their direct energy use by 16%.

In addition to achieving environmental savings at home participants translated their environmental concerns back intothe workplace. Many involved sought to further improve theirrecycling facilities in the office and encouraged their colleagues to put paper in the right bins. British Gas gained agroup of employees who were more motivated and receptiveto environmental change programmes, succeeded in boosting staff morale and participants even had an opportunity to inform others of their achievements at a highprofile House of Commons event.


3. The evidence baseIn this section evidence is presented from the three programmes. Whilst there are weaknesses within this evidence, Global Action Plan is one of the few organisations that collects this type of data and analyses the effectiveness of behaviour change programmes. The evidence is presented as a model which can be learnt fromand built upon.

3.1 Action at SchoolAction at School has operated in 164 schools across the country. In total 3,361 pupils have been facilitatedthrough the training process, with a further 138,117 influenced by the programme. The vast majority of schoolshave sought to reduce their waste, mainly due to the availability of funding in this area. Other schools have usedAction at School to reduce their energy use, water consumption and environmental impact of transport.

3.1.1 Action at School – waste reductionChart 3.1 shows the very high level of success the Action at School programme has in reducing waste in schools.On average 42.65% of waste is saved with a maximum saving of 83.00% and a minimum of 2.10%. Chart 3.1shows the distribution of these savings rates across all schools which have participated in the programme.

Schools with under 500 pupils achieved an average waste saving of 51.94%, schools with between 500 -1,000students achieved a 40.37% waste saving and schools with over 1,000 pupils achieved a 35.73% saving. This evidence suggests that the programme is effective across a range of schools.

3.1.2 Action at School – further resultsLess data is available for the other issues covered by Action at School however the following headline results havebeen achieved to-date:

• For nine energy programmes an average saving of 12% was achieved with a maximum saving of 34% andworst result of a 15% increase in energy use4.

• For two water programmes an average saving of 22.5% was achieved with a maximum saving of 25% and aminimum saving of 20%.

• For two transport programmes there was an average 5% increase in walking, a 5% increase in publictransport use, and a 3% decrease in car use.

0.4000

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000AVG

0.3423

0.1962

Action at School – Waste Programmes: Headline Results CHART 3.1

42.65%

kg/p

erso

n/w

eek

83.00%

2.10%

MAX

0.2615

0.0423

MIN

0.1647

0.1616

� Before

� After

CHART 3.1

4 These figures are not based on ‘degree day’ data whichmay account for this increase in energy use.


3.2 Environment ChampionsA total of 62 organisations have participated, or are participating, in Environment Champions. These organisations come from across the UK, represent both businesses and local authority/civil service organisationsand range in size from 22 to 6,442 employees. In total, 924 people have been through the EnvironmentChampions process and this has impacted upon more than 54,000 people.

Through Environment Champions 51 organisations have sought to address waste issues and 29 have examinedtheir energy use. This report explores data from these two areas. There was insufficient data available to look atthe impact on water consumption and transport.

3.2.1 Environment Champions – waste reductionAn average waste reduction of 37.96% was achieved across all of the Environment Champions’ waste programmes, with a maximum saving of 70% and a minimum of 13%. In all cases where it has beenoperated, the programme has achieved substantial savings. Chart 3.2 shows the headline results from thewaste programmes.

The size of the participating organisation had no significant impact on the waste savings achieved.Organisations with less than 250 employees achieved average waste savings of 37.62% and those withover 250 employees achieved average waste savings of 38.22%. The type of organisation made very littledifference. Local authorities achieved average waste savings of 38.75% whilst private sector organisations achieved average waste savings of 37.13%.

More substantial savings were achieved when organisations chose to focus solely on waste rather thandividing their attentions between more than one issue, with average savings of 41.17% being achieved inthese cases.

4.0000

3.0000

2.0000

1.0000

0.0000AVG

2.1163

1.2983

Environment Champions – All Waste Programmes: Headline Results CHART 3.2

37.96%

kg/p

erso

n/w

eek

70.00%

13.00%

MAX

3.2967

0.9890

MIN

1.1855

1.0274

� Before

� After

CHART 3.2


3.2.2 Environment Champions – energy savingsData was available for 14 energy programmes in which an average saving of 12.07% was achieved. Chart3.3 shows the distribution of savings across the energy programmes and indicates substantial savings inall but one of the 14 programmes analysed.

The organisation where energy use increased was due to a growth in the size of the organisation resulting in more computers, a larger server and an overall growth in other electrical equipment. Theenergy savings achieved by staff behaviour change were eclipsed by this wider growth. Global Action Planneeds to further refine its measurement process to assess impact in growing organisations.

200.0000

150.0000

100.0000

50.0000

0.0000AVG

62.1062

55.2539

Environment Champions – Energy Programmes: Headline Results CHART 3.3

12.07%

kwh/

per

son/

wee

k

22.00%

-3.74%

MAX

24.4363

20.5832

MIN

173.9052

180.4028

� Before

� After

CHART 3.3

3.0000

2.5000

2.0000

1.5000

1.0000

0.5000

0.0000AVG

2.5757

1.9844

EcoTeams – Rubbish: Headline Results CHART 3.4

19.66%

kg/p

erso

n/w

eek 46.90%

-23.93%

MAX

1.5043

0.7988

MIN

1.6875

2.0913

� Before

� After

CHART 3.4

3.3 The EcoTeams programmeThe EcoTeams project has been undertaken by roughly 385 different teams, made up of around 2,300people and thus impacting upon about 4,830 people in total5. The project has been run in all parts ofthe UK.

This report looks at waste savings, recycling rates and savings in electricity. Data has been captured forgas use but has not been included because it has not been seasonally adjusted. As gas is predominantlyused for heating, not having seasonally adjusted figures significantly weakens the data. There was insufficient data on water use due to the small number of households who have water meters. No datawas collected on transport and shopping.

3.3.1 EcoTeams - waste reductionData on waste reduction was available for 58 different EcoTeams. An average waste saving of 19.66% was achieved across these teams. In absolute terms this equates to a saving of 0.59kg per person perweek. Chart 3.4 outlines the headline results from these teams:

A total of 53 EcoTeams achieved waste savings with a maximum saving of 46.9%. Four teams increasedtheir waste with the worst result being a 23.93% increase in waste production.


5 In some cases all householders are part of the team butmore often a single householder joins the team andthus the programmes outcomes are taken back to the household where it impacts upon more people.


3.3.2 EcoTeams - recycling ratesAs chart 3.5 illustrates, recycling rates only increased by 7.71%. This shows that the majority of the overall savings were achieved by reducing waste in the first place. This illustrates how effective EcoTeamsis at encouraging households to reduce and reuse waste.

Chart 3.6 shows the widely spread distribution of changes in recycling rates. This is largely due to the availability of local recycling facilities. In some areas households can recycle nearly all materials on the doorstepwhereas in others there may be no doorstep collection and poor facilities available in the local area.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EcoTeams – Recycling: Average change in proportion of recycling CHART 3.5

49.67%

50.33% 42.62%

57.38%

� Rubbish

� Recycling

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

EcoTeams – Recycling: % change in proportion of recycling (n=51) CHART

N

-9 to 5

3

8

12

9

11

43

1

-4 to 0 1 to 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

% change in proportion of recycling

CHART 3.5

CHART 3.6


3.3.3 EcoTeams - electricity savingsElectricity savings have not yet been seasonally adjusted by Global Action Plan but have been includedbecause, unlike gas, electricity is not predominantly used for heating. On average, EcoTeams reduce theirelectricity consumption by 6.86% which translates into an absolute saving of 713.85kWh per person peryear. Chart 3.7 summarises the headline results from the programme.

The data indicates that the EcoTeams programme has a significant effect in reducing environmentalimpacts across a number of different household consumption areas. Further still the impacts are achievedin a relatively short amount of time – 3 to 4 months rather than the ‘decades’ suggested for attitude andbehaviour change campaigns.

8000.00

6000.00

4000.00

2000.00

0.00AVG

5408.82

4694.97

EcoTeams – Electricity: Headline Results CHART 3.7

6.86%

kwh/

per

son/

year

40.64% -57.69%

BEST

5973.25

3545.71

WORST

4253.01

6706.60

� Before

� After

CHART 3.7


In this respect, the messages could not be communicated in a more local and relevantfashion.

Global Action Plan’s programmes avoid theuse of jargon and break down communications into meaningful and manageable chunks as they permit participants to understand and questionthe messages in their own words. If anyconfusion does arise, a facilitator is onhand to clarify issues without delay.

Finally, communication is always positiveand practical. Facilitators actively encourage participants and never criticiseany opinions or actions that are shared.This ensures that team members do notfeel guilty about their actions, but insteadfeel positive that they are going through aprocess which will help them make

changes.

4.3 Measurement and feedbackThe importance of the measurement andfeedback process within Global ActionPlan’s programmes is essential. By measuring and experiencing at first-handthe environmental impacts their lifestylesor organisations have, team members aremore easily able to understand the needfor changes to be made. In this respect themeasurement process acts as a continualsource of motivation for the groups.

By receiving feedback on the savings theyhave made, participants gain a greatersense of efficacy. Alongside the othermembers of their team, they are able tosee that individuals can make a differenceif they all act together.

4.4 ProcessGlobal Action Plan’s programmes neveroperate on the basis of a one-off engagement they all involve a process ofchange. The programmes recognise thatbehavioural change does not occurovernight, but requires continued supportover time. By providing team memberswith this support throughout the durationof their programmes, Global Action Plan’sfacilitators ensure not only that changesoccur, but that they are likely to endure.

4. Discussion – Whydo the programmeswork?Despite the recognised problems withthe data, Global Action Plan’s programmes are extremely successful inchanging behaviour and reducing environmental impacts across a rangeof areas and in different settings. Thereare four key factors contributing to thesuccess of the programmes

1) Groups, 2) Effective communications, 3) Measurement and feedback, and 4) Process.

4.1 GroupsPerhaps the most distinctive feature is theuse of groups to encourage people tomake behavioural changes. In a group setting, particularly one that is supportedby a facilitator, participants are encouragedto question their habits and lifestyle practices in a supportive environment withothers who are going through a similarprocess. Participants are able to discusstheir own lifestyles and learn about alternative ways of living. Through thisprocess they are able to make new connections between their own lifestylesand sustainability issues and are able tonegotiate new ways of behaving6. In thecase of the Environment Champions andAction at School programmes, the teamsact almost as a debating group, negotiating why practices are done in theways they are, what it is possible tochange, and how change might best beachieved.

At the same time, groups create a newsocial network for their members fromwhich support and encouragement can bedrawn. It has been suggested that thegroups offer many wider social benefits aswell as environmental savings, and one ofthese social benefits is a sense of empowerment for their members. Groupmembers feel less isolated in makingchanges as they can see that others arefacing similar challenges and goingthrough the same process at the sametime.

Groups also help to overcome issues of‘trust’ in sustainable lifestyles initiatives.Rather than simply being told what to doby a distant authority, participants sharethoughts and question issues with theirpeers, whose judgements being based onpersonal experience often carry moreweight7.

4.2 Effective communicationsAnother core element of Global ActionPlan’s success is the manner in which itcommunicates to its participants aboutsustainable lifestyles. The communicationsare entirely tailored to the specific needs ofthe individual participants or to the organisation. Group discussions allow teammembers to understand sustainablelifestyles issues in relation to their own circumstances.

6 Phillips (2000) calls this process of making new connections ‘interdiscursivity’. Hobson (2001) sees thisas critical to a process of ‘discursive positioning’ inwhich participants are able to negotiate their own position in relation to sustainability issues.

7 Macnaghten et al (1995); Macnaghten and Jacobs (1997)


5. Global Action Plan’s call for actionThe evidence illustrates that substantial savings are achieved by the programmes.These behavioural changes are often to daily habits which are recognised asamongst the hardest to ‘unfreeze’. There is a real opportunity to fight many of theenvironmental problems that we are currently facing by extending these types ofprogrammes to a much wider audience. In order to do this new thinking and policies are needed.

5.1 Greater investment in behaviour change projects isrequiredThere appears to be a disconnection between what Government and its agenciessay they want to happen and what they are willing to invest in. Government seemsto be comfortable making large scale investment in media advertising campaignsthat are designed to increase awareness but are not willing to invest in programmesthat are designed to change behaviour. There is a growing level of academic evidence that increased awareness does not translate into changes of behaviour.

If Government is serious in its desire to encourage people to change behaviour itneeds to invest specifically in behaviour change programmes. This investment isessential because by their nature these programmes are time-consuming andlabour-intensive. Creating space for people to participate effectively is a real challenge in businesses where commercial pressures exist, in schools which are trying to deliver the national curriculum and in households facing the day-to-daypressures of life.

The intensity of the programmes and the use of facilitated groups necessarily addsto the cost. A considerable amount of Global Action Plan’s time is spent talking toorganisations persuading them of the value of investing in the process and inpreparing bids to funding bodies for work in households and schools.

The type of grants available has a significant impact on the environmental issuesthat are covered by projects. The predominance of schools concentrating on wasteissues is entirely due to the level of funding available for this topic. If theGovernment wishes to get schools to concentrate on other issues such as energyand water they need to make funding available.

Global Action Plan has also discovered that the longer a project runs in an area theeasier it is to find people who are willing to volunteer for the programmes and evento train as facilitators. The recruitment and training of these volunteers buildstronger communities and increases the impact of the programmes. Long-termfunding is essential to enable the programmes to become established within thecommunity. Unfortunately most available funding – particularly from local authorities - is only available on a short-term basis.


5.2 Periods of environmental stress should be used to promote the importance of behaviour changeThe stress and strains that we are placing on our environment are becoming evermore apparent notably with climate change and water shortages. There is a dangerthat coverage of these issues will make people feel that they are too large for themto personally address. Global Action Plan believes that these environmental pressures should be used to encourage people to take practical action in socialgroups.

This level of encouragement will help to reduce the major challenge of persuadingpeople to participate in a project that involves them meeting with people fromtheir community.

In addition to this overall ‘call for action’ more sophisticated approaches are neededto encourage people to participate. These approaches need to concentrate onareas where people are already in social groups or where there is a cohesive senseof community. Global Action Plan is currently testing a range of these including:

• Door knocking campaigns in specific streets.• Recruiting people through their workplace.• Creating partnerships with organisations such as the Women’s Institute, religious

groups and other voluntary organisations.• Establishing an EcoTeam at School programme and encouraging pupils to take

messages home to their parents/carers.• Holding meetings in neutral venues such as libraries or church halls.

These different routes are already starting to generate larger numbers of participants and from different backgrounds – particularly recruitment through theworkplace. This suggests that there are opportunities for central and local government and companies to effectively promote behaviour change programmessuch as EcoTeams.

Once people do start participating in an EcoTeam many of them feel that the programme should be extended to cover more issues and to allow more time fordiscussion.


5.3.1 Collecting data from participantsGlobal Action Plan is one of the few organisations that collects hard data on theimpacts of behaviour changes. In all programmes, participants are shown how tomeasure and record their results. Global Action Plan believes that this process isimportant but it does have weaknesses. These include:

• Many people do not know how to measure their electricity or gas meters oreven where they are on occasion. This can lead to the wrong measurementsbeing taken or none being received.

• Many households are reluctant to weigh their rubbish even when they are provided with scales. Global Action Plan realises that standing in the kitchen weighing bin bags is not a normal thing to do and illustrates the conflictbetween the need to collect accurate and reliable data on sustainable lifestylesand making the process socially acceptable.

• The accuracy of readings vary. For example, schools may fail to incorporate foodwaste into one of their audits but include it into another or office employeesmay not be able to accurately weigh the waste from all of the office’s bins.

• Circumstances change between audits. For instance relatives might be visitingor businesses may change rapidly with more staff or through relocation.

Global Action Plan would welcome support to refine and improve the way we andother organisations collect data.

5.3.2 Assessing the wider impacts of the programmesAnecdotal evidence from all of Global Action Plan’s programmes indicates that theyhave a wider range of benefits than just environmental savings. In the school programme for instance a facilitator states:

“The big thing, and this is what I really love about the project, is that we ask thekids what they think. We empower teenagers and I don’t think there’s many thingsthat do empower teenagers, and do ask them their opinion, and do let them be incharge.”

Environment Champions also offers a number of wider social benefits. As anEnvironment Champions facilitator stated:

“We can’t actually measure all the benefits…There are so many socialbenefits…We know that the message goes home, we’ve had team members saying ‘Oh, I was talking to my Mum yesterday, and she was talking to her nextdoor neighbour’…you feel the ripple effect. The message really does go out.”

The feedback received from Environment Champions suggests that organisationsbenefit socially due to the different mix of people involved in the teams. Suchcross-departmental working is unusual in many organisations and participants haveregularly commented that the chance to meet new friends from within the sameorganisation is a great benefit of the programme.

Due to no resources being available, Global Action Plan currently cannot collect andmeasure these wider impacts and, as a result, the full benefits of the programmesare not captured.

5.3.3 Assessing the long-term impactDutch evidence8 suggests that the behavioural changes achieved by EcoTeams lastfor up to two years after the programme has ended. No UK based data is availableto assess the longevity of the programme’s impacts. Anecdotal evidence does suggest, however, that UK EcoTeams have continued to meet after the formal programme has ended. Further research is required to capture the full extent ofthe long-term changes the EcoTeam programme produces9.

8 Staats and Harland (1995); Staats et al (2004)9 A post-doctoral researcher is in the process of being

appointed to work jointly with GAP and UniversityCollege, London on the effectiveness of EcoTeams.Assessing the longitudinal effects of the programmemay well be one area of research which is pursued.


5.4 Behaviour change targets should be incorporated intoschools and other educational establishmentsAction at School demonstrates that behaviour change projects within schools havean environmental, financial and educational benefit. By incorporating behaviourchange programmes into their strategic thinking DfES and DEFRA can achieve manyof their stated targets.

5.5 Government should show leadership by running behaviour change programmes within their central estateand incorporate them into their wider strategiesGovernment has increasingly recognised the leadership role it can play in promoting sustainable development. It has set targets for making its buildings carbon neutral and has initiated a sustainable procurement strategy. These initiatives could be greatly reinforced by setting targets for running behaviourchange programmes with its employees and giving Managers the space and timeto implement these programmes effectively.

5.6 Government and industry should illustrate the impact ofindividual choice by phasing out environmentally damagingproducts and penalising environmentally harmful lifestylechoicesGlobal Action Plan believes that people will respond positively to signals fromGovernment and industry that demonstrate the importance of buying products andmaking choices that do are less environmentally damaging. Phasing out inefficientlightbulbs, making people pay more tax on inefficient cars would send a clear message to consumers.

7. SummaryThis report has presented evidence that proves the effectiveness of Global Action Plan’s programmes in changing people’s behaviour.There are many challenges to be overcome by both Global Action Plan andGovernment to increase the effectiveness of these programmes. We believe it isimperative that these challenges are met and that the success of the programmesis more widely replicated to address the growing level of environmental challengesthat we face.


Bibliography

Barr, S. 2003, "Strategies for Sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour", Area, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 227-240.Bedford, T., Jones, P., & Walker, H. 2004, "Every little bit helps...": Overcoming the challenges to researching, promoting andimplementing sustainable lifestyles, Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Westminster.Blake, J. 1999, "Overcoming the 'Value-Action Gap' in Environmental Policy: tensions between national policy and local experience", Local Environment, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 257-278.Brook Lyndhurst 2004, Bad Habits and Hard Choices: In search of sustainable lifestyles, Brook Lyndhurst, London.Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G., & Harrison, C. M. 2003, "(Un)sustainable consumption," in NegotiatingEnvironmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science, F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones, eds., Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, pp. 261-292.Burgess, J. 2003, "Sustainable consumption: is it really achievable?", Consumer Policy Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 78-84.Carvalho, A. & Burgess, J. 2005, "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985-2003", Risk Analysis,vol. 25, no. 6, pp.1457-1469.Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R., & Wilsdon, J. 2003, Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for environmentalgoals Demos/Green Alliance report produced for DEFRA, London.Darnton, A. 2004a, The Impact of Sustainable Development on Public Behaviour: Report 1 of Desk Research commissioned byCOI on behalf of DEFRA, Andrew Darnton Research and Analysis, London.Darnton, A. 2004b, Driving Public Behaviours for Sustainable Lifestyles: Report 2 of Desk Research commissioned by COI onbehalf of DEFRA, Andrew Darnton Research and Analysis, London.Defra & DTI 2003, Changing Patterns: UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production Defra.Eden, S. E. 1993, "Individual environmental responsibility and its role in public environmentalism", Environment and Planning A ,vol. 25, pp.1743-1758.Futerra 2005a, The Rules of the Game: Principles of Climate Change Communications, Futerra Sustainability CommunicationsLtd./DEFRA, London.Futerra 2005b, UK Communications Strategy on Climate Change, Futerra Sustainability Communications Ltd./DEFRA, London.Gilg, A. & Barr, S. 2005, "Encouraging 'Environmental Action' by Exhortation: Evidence from a Study in Devon", Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 593-618.Ginn, F. 2004, Consuming Passion: Do we have to shop until we drop?, Global Action Plan, London.Global Action Plan. 2003a. 'Education for Sustainable Development' House of Commons Environmental Audit CommitteeEnquiry: Memorandum by Global Action Plan. Online at www.globalactionplan.org.uk Global Action Plan. 2003bConsultation Response: Response by Global Action Plan to the joint Defra/DTI consultation on the setof 'decoupling' indicators for sustainable consumption and production. Online at www.globalactionplan.org.ukGlobal Action Plan 2004a, EcoTeams: A Global Action Plan Initiative, Global Action Plan, London.Global Action Plan. 2004b Taking It On: Developing UK sustainable development strategy together - Consultation Response,Global Action Plan. Online at www.globalactionplan.org.ukGlobal Action Plan. 2004c The 'Environmental Education – A follow-up to Learning the Sustainability Lesson' Inquiry:Memorandum by Global Action Plan. Online at www.globalactionplan.org.ukGordon, W. 2002, Brand Green: Mainstream or Forever Niche? Green Alliance, London.Halpern, D., Bates, C., Beales, G. & Heathfield, A. 2004, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: The state of knowledge and its implications for public policy, The Prime Ministers Strategy Unit/The Cabinet Office, London.Haq, G. & Whitelegg, J. Forthcoming. Breaking the Habit: Fostering Voluntary Behavioural Change for a Sustainable Lifestyle.Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York. Harrison, C. M. & Davies, G. 1998, Lifestyles and the Environment: Environment and Sustainability Desk Studyt Prepared for the ESRC April 1998, ESRC.Hinchliffe, S. 1996, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home: The social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities", GlobalEnvironmental Change, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53-62.HM Government 2005, Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Strategy, The Stationery Office, London, Cm6467.Hobson, K. 2001, Talking Habits into Action: An investigation into Global Action Plan's 'Action at Home' Programme,Unpublished PhD Thesis, University College, London.Hobson, K. 2002, "Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the 'Rationalisation of Lifestyles' Make Sense?",Environmental Politics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 95-120.Hobson, K. 2003, "Thinking Habits into Action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household consumption practices", Local Environment, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 95-112.


Bibliography

Holdsworth, M. & Steedman, P. 2005, 16 pain-free ways to help save the planet, National Consumer Council, London.Hounsham, S. 2006, Painting the Town Green: How to persuade people to be environmentally friendly – A report for everyoneinvolved in promoting greener lifestyles to the public, Green-Engage, London.Jackson, T. 2005a, Lifestyle Change and Market Transformation: A briefing paper prepared for Defra's Market TransformationProgramme, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.Jackson, T. 2005b, Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change,SDRN/ESRC STP.Macnaghten, P., Myers, G., & Wynne, B. 1995, Public Rhetorics and Environmental Sustainability: ambivalence and effects,Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change.Macnaghten, P. & Jacobs, M. 1997, "Public Identification with Sustainable Development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation", Global Environmental Change, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-24.Maiteny, P. 2000, Learning to Live with the Earth as Our Home: Exploring the meaning, use and experience of Global ActionPlan UK's Action at Home Programme, The Grubb Institute, London.McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000, "Promoting Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing", Journal ofSocial Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 543-554.Moisander, J. & Pesonen, S. 2002, "Narratives of sustainable ways of living: constructing the self and the other as a green consumer", Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 329-342.Myers, G. & Macnaghten, P. 1998, "Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: commonplaces and places", Environment andPlanning A, vol. 30, pp. 333-353.Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., Uzzell, D., & Muckle, R. 2005, Increasing Recycling Through Community Action: Summary Report of theSurrey Scholar Research Project to Guildford Borough Council, Environmental Psychology Research Group, University of Surrey.Phillips, L. 2000, "Mediated Communication and the Privatization of Public Problems", European Journal of Communication, vol.15, no. 2, pp. 171-207.Staats, H. & Harland, P. 1995, The EcoTeam Program in the Netherlands: Study 4 – A longitudinal study on the effects of theEcoTeam Program on environmental behaviour and its psychological backgrounds, Centre for Energy and EnvironmentalResearch, Leiden University.Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. M. 2004, "Effecting Durable Change: A Team Approach to Improve EnvironmentalBehaviour in the Household", Environment and Behavior, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 341-367.Steedman, P. 2005, Desperately Seeking Sustainability: Summary of NCC research into information and advice on sustainablelifestyles, National Consumer Council, London.Steedman, P. Forthcoming. Communities of Interest - and Action? A Sustainable Consumption Roundtable Briefing.

To find out moreGlobal Action Plan8 Fulwood PlaceLondon WC1V 6HG

T: 020 7405 5633F: 020 7831 6244

E: [email protected]

Registered charity number 1026148

Designed by Life on Mars T: 01276 61600

Changing Environmental Behaviour: A review of evidence from Global Action Plan

Documents

Transcript of Changing Environmental Behaviour: A review of evidence from Global Action Plan