MSc Dissertation 2015 PRS4799 - Final - 7 Oct 2015 · 2019-09-16 · Dissertation MSc Environmental...

Dissertation

MSc Environmental Health

Can an educational visit to a sewage treatment works influence future

behavioural changes in children which encourages them to act in a more

environmentally considerate manner?

PRS 4799

Geraldine McKinney

(M00386773)

Supervisor – Dr Sally Priest

October 2015

PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health

Geraldine McKinney M00386773 of 60

Abstract

The unique aspect of this research is the focus is on school children and how

they engage with environmental messages. The wider implications are that

their attitudes and actions will have an impact in the future on the

environmental and public health agenda; the provision of environmentally

sustainable and economically affordable drinking water and the effective

removal and treatment of sewage.

This research project sets out to investigate if an educational visit to a sewage

treatment works by school children would result in increased knowledge of

water resources, the sewerage system and the sewage treatment process

which would then influence the student’s attitude to reducing water wastage,

protecting the sewerage assets and treatment process and ultimately influence

their future behaviour to be pro-environmental in other aspects of daily life.

The methodology adopted was primarily though questionnaires (pre and post

visit) and supplemented by focus groups (post visit) where possible.

The results demonstrated that there was a significant increase in pro-

environmental behaviours after the visit; a reported decrease in flushing wet

wipes down the toilet and spending less time in the shower. In general, girls

were more likely to have ‘greener’ credentials than boys; and primary school

students were ‘greener’ than secondary school students. The report also

reviewed the importance of educational trips away from the traditional

classroom as a method to enhance the learning experience of students and

how the physical location of the ‘classroom’ can further stimulate learning,

especially for boys.

The report concludes that pro-environmental teaching and learning which

directly relates to the student’s ‘real life’ experience and can demonstrate and

convince students that their actions can directly impact the environment will

have the best long term outcomes for continual pro-environmental attitudes

and behaviours.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd (researcher’s employer) were aware that this

research was being carried out and gave their permission to carry out the

study, however, they did not seek to influence the direction or content of the

research.



Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my

supervisor Dr Sally Priest for her time, guidance, commitment and

professionalism over the course of this research.

I would also like to thank the Programme Leader Michael Hewitt for

developing an engaging MSc Environmental Health course.

I am grateful to all the teachers and pupils who agreed to take part in this

study and completed questionnaires and took part in discussion groups, and to

Jack McKinney for his help loading the data.

I would like to acknowledge and thank my employer Thames Water Utilities Ltd

who has provided me with amazing opportunities and employment over the

past 25 years and to my colleagues (past and present) who have made the

experience so enjoyable.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my Mum and Brian for their

love and continuing support.



Contents

Page

Abstract 2

Acknowledgement 3

Table of contents 4

List of Figures 5

List of Tables 5

Glossary 6

Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction 7

1.2 Aims and objectives 11

Chapter 2 Literature Review 12

Chapter 3 Methodology 15

Chapter 4 4.1 Results and Discussion 21

4.1 Knowledge 22

4.2 Attitude 25

4.3 Behaviour 28

4.4 Summary discussion 38

Chapter 5 Conclusion 42

References 43

List appendices

A. Children’s Questionnaire 46

B. Adult’s Questionnaire 49

C. Consent Form 53

D. Ethics Form 55

E. Transcripts of Focus Groups 58



List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 – Image of the water and wastewater companies in the UK 6

Figure 2 – Image of FOG and wet wipes restricting the flow in a sewer 8

Figure 3 – Image of surcharging manhole in a field 9

Figure 4 - Timescale and activities 18

List of Tables

Table 1 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who have heard of

Thames Water ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment

works.

21

Table 1a – Graph showing how well students thought that Thames

Water did its job.

22

Table 2 – Written responses to why waste food and FOG should not

be discharged into the sewerage system

23

Table 3 – Shows the reported responses to their attitude to the

importance of saving water

24

Table 4 – Cross-tabulation of reasons why it is important to save

water.

24

Table 5a – Shows the shift in attitude to thinking about saving water 25

Table 5b – Shows the number of students providing a comment in a

free text question.

26

Table 6 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who report to flushing

wet wipes down the toilet, shown ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the

sewage treatment works.

27

Table 7 – Showing the percentage of students taking a quick shower 28

Table 8 – Showing the percentage of students having a shallow bath 28

Table 9 – Showing the differnce in responses between boys and girls

in primary and secondary school.

29

Table 10 – Shows whether they told family or friends how to save

water showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ results.

30

Table 10b – Comparing the responses between gender and age 31

Table 11 – Question 10b – Overall Frequency 31

Table 12 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare

Primary and Secondary children

32



Table 13 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare

Boys and Girls)

32

Table 14 – Frequency of responses 33

Table 15 – Q10e - Comparison of results between boys and girls 33

Table 15b - Q10e Comparison of results between adult male and

female responses

34

Table 16 – Q10e - Comparison of results between primary and

secondary students

35

Table 17 – Q10e - Comparison of results between all ‘agree’

statements and all ‘disagree’ statements

35

Table 18–Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ and all ‘disagree’

statements

36

Glossary

• Environmental Responsible behaviour (ERB) or pro-environmental

behaviour, this is behaving in a way they is not detrimental to the

environment and could be actively exhibiting positive environmental

behaviour which could benefit the environment.

• Fats, oil and grease collectively known as ‘FOG’.

• Wet wipes – moist wipes designed for single use before disposable;

including those intended to supplement toilet paper, make-up removal,

cleaning surfaces and baby wipes.



Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction

The UK water industry is divided into a number of geographical boundaries.

Some of the companies provide both water and sewerage services to

customers while smaller companies are located within these boundaries and

provide only the water supply services (see Figure 1 below). As part of

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) many of these companies have an

education team and dedicated Education Centres. The main purpose of the

education centres is ‘customer engagement’ and facilitating students to

experience a tour of a sewage treatment works and partake in curriculum

linked activities to increase their understanding of water treatment and

consumption as well as the treatment of sewage and associated issues. In

doing so, visitors are informed of the key issues which the UK water industry

face; namely (i) water efficiency (with the aim to reduce the amount of water

used per person) and (ii) reducing blockages in the sewerage system (by not

disposing of inappropriate items down the sink or toilet).

Figure 1 – Image of the water and wastewater companies in the UK

Source – Water UK: http://www.water.org.uk/consumers/find-your-supplier



Water efficiency - The Environment Agency (EA) has a duty to manage water

resources in England (Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Act 2003). The

EA routinely measures, monitors and reports on the water situation across

England. This helps them to assess the national and local water situation and

the prospects of any water shortages for the environment.

The south east of England has been identified by the EA as ‘water stressed’

(Water Resources South East 2013). Water stress can be defined by the water

exploitation index (WEI). WEI divides the total water abstraction by the long

term annual average (LTAA) resource (European Environment Agency).

Water companies have a legal duty to develop and maintain an efficient and

economical system of water supply (Water Industry Act 1991, Section 37) and

every five years under the Water Industry Act 1991, Sections 37A to 37D (as

amended by the Water Act of 2003) they are required to produce a Water

Resources Management Plan (WRMP) which set outs how they intend to plan

and maintain the balance between supply and demand for water over a 25

year period. Thames Water set out how it intends to do this in its Water

Resources Management Plan 2015 – 2040 (known as WRMP14).

Thames Water is the UK’s largest water and wastewater services company,

serving over 13.5 million customers in London and the south east. Each day it

supplies an average of 2,600 million litres of potable water and treats

approximately 2,800 million litres of sewage (http://www.thameswater.co.uk).

The Government set out its policy priorities for secure, sustainable and

affordable supplies of water in Water White Paper “Water for Life” (Defra

2011). One of the aims is ‘reducing the demand for water by managing

leakage and providing services to help customers use water efficiently’

(WRMP14). Thames Water’s Education Centres is one of a number of

initiatives to promote water efficiency.

In England, the average person uses about 150 litres of water a day, in the

Thames Water catchment this is estimated to be 163 litres of water per day;

this volume is predicted to rise (Thames Water website). The aim for water

companies is to reduce the volume used by each person to 130 litres per day

by 2030 in line with government targets (Defra 2008). The ‘Love your Rivers’

campaign launched by Defra in 2013 aims to ‘encourage people to value their

local river and make the connection between the water in rivers and the water

used at home’(Defra 2013). As droughts and hosepipe bans are rare in the UK



people are not constantly reminded of the importance of using water

efficiently.

Reducing blockages in the sewerage system - Thames Water deal’s with

approximately 55,000 sewer blockages each year. The vast majority of these

are due to fat, oil and grease (FOG) and wet wipes (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2 – Image of fat, grease and wet wipes restricting the flow in a sewer

Blockages in sewers lead to disruption for domestic customers as toilets and

sinks have restricted use because the sewage cannot flow freely in the sewers.

In the worst case scenarios this can result in sewage flooding inside properties

resulting in emotional trauma for customers; or manholes surcharging above

ground and sewage escaping though manhole covers and being deposited on

roads, pavements, parkland etc, the sewage often flows into roadside gullies

which discharge directly to watercourse resulting in pollution of rivers and

streams and the associated environmental damage this can cause (see Figure

3).



Figure 3 – Image of surcharging manhole in a field (due to blockage in sewer)

Thames Water is committed to initiatives that engage with customers to raise

awareness of water efficiency and help reduce the frequency of sewer

blockages. As well as supporting the ‘Love your Rivers’ campaign it also

provides free water saving devices (available from its website) which include

shower timers, ‘save-a-flush’ bags for the toilet cistern and water efficient

shower heads to fit in the home.

People in the UK do not have a ‘connection’ with the water and wastewater

providers and there is a disconnection between their actions and the bigger

picture. People will often think about these issues only when there is a failure

of the service; for example there is no water due to burst water main or a

sewer blockage results in odours or the inability to use the sink or toilet at

home or at work. Recent media campaigns have raised awareness of problems

of FOG in sewers but there is rarely a direct impact of a sewer blockage on the

individual who has caused the problem as the impact (manifested by a

blockage or sewerage flooding) is often located some distance away.

Individuals in society should act in an ethical manner to ensure that their

activities do not have a detrimental impact locally, nationally and

internationally. This ethos is promoted in Agenda 21, chapter 18

(Management and Use of Water Resources) which is a blueprint for

sustainability and amongst other things it seeks to have sustainable water and

sanitation systems with the decision making processes and consultations

aimed at encouraging everyone to get involved at national, community and

individual levels.



1.2 Aims and Objectives

The unique aspect of this research is the primary focus is on school children

and how they learn and engage with the environmental messages. The wider

implications are that their attitudes and actions will have an impact in the

future on the environmental and public health agenda; the provision of

environmentally sustainable and economically affordable drinking water and

effective removal and treatment of sewage.

The aim and purpose of this research project is to determine if a visit to a

sewage treatment works will raise awareness and help promote behavioural

change in individuals. The types of behavioural change being sought are

conscious decisions to:

(i) Not to waste water

(ii) Take positive steps not to block sewers and drains ie by not disposing

of FOG down the sink and not flushing inappropriate items down the

toilet.

The objective of this research is to establish and measure if the amount of

knowledge, awareness and a site visit will influence the visitors to such an

extent that it will lead to changes in individual behaviour and an understanding

of their role in the wider environmental issues.

The hypothesis: A visit to a sewage treatment works (which includes

communicating factual information and hands-on activities) will result in a

measured increased environmental awareness, attitude and behaviour by the

visitors.



Chapter 2

Literature review

Charles Roth coined the term ‘environmentally literate’ in 1968 with the

question “How shall we know the environmentally literate citizen?" He goes

on to say “Those decisions are made daily by everyone in one or more contexts

of their activity as consumers, producers, recreators, procreators, and voters.

The ability to make those decisions and choices in a fashion that will permit a

sustainable human society is dependent upon the degree of environmental

literacy of each citizen. The degree achieved is largely a function of education

and character development.” (Roth 1992, pg 11). It is often assumed that

individuals who are knowledgeable and concerned about the environment will

engage in environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB), (Mobley et al 2010).

This is an area that will be explored during this research project to see if there

is a link between an individual’s knowledge and their ERB.

However, is being environmentally literate and having knowledge enough to

promote change “students will neither care about nor retain the knowledge

they gain unless they are first emotionally and ethically engaged by place,

community, and content” (Goralnik and Nelson 2011, pg 183) An aim of this

research is to determine if an educational visit which exposes students to

issues of water stress and sewer blockages is enough to engage them into

more environmentally responsible behaviour.

Hungerford and Volk (1990) have extensively researched environmental

education and stress that in order that people engage with the environmental

issues people must have (i) cognitive knowledge, (ii) a sense of personal

ownership and (iii) feel empowered that their actions can help reach the

desired solution. Similarly, Volk and Hungerford (2003) state ‘We must help

[learners] develop a sense of personal ownership in environmental issues and

a sense of empowerment to work toward the solution of these issues.’ This

research seeks to verify whether visitors to a sewage treatment works feel that

their actions and behaviours can have an impact on the wider environmental

issues of water resources and sustainability and if they feel a desire to own the

issues and empowered to take pro-environmental activities.

Hsu (2004) carried out a study into environmental behaviour on students in

Taiwan to see if they had adopted ERB after completing an environmental

module which was designed to foster ERB. Two months after completion of

the module the students were ‘tested’ and found to have adopted ERB, thus



concluding on page 47 ‘Therefore, it is suggested that the characteristics of

environmental education as an education for all and for a lifetime should be

put into practice, and cultivation of a responsible environmental citizenry may

look more promising.’ Hsu’s research is relevant to this research as it reported

sustained ERB in the students following an education programme.

The UK Cabinet Office has produced a document MINDSPACE Influencing

behaviour through public policy (2010) which describes the use of “hard”

instruments such as legislation and regulation to compel citizens to act in

certain ways or sometimes the use of “nudges” which gently push its citizens in

the desired direction. Each of these mechanisms has benefits and constraints

and their success or failure depends on a number of interdependent

relationships. This research project is considering if ERB can be achieved

through gentle “nudges” by engaging with visitors on educational visits; thus

raising awareness and changing behaviour through an emotional connection,

without having to resort to draconian methods of; compulsion, sanctions and

legislation to achieve the desired outcomes.

There are tangible benefits of ‘learning outside the classroom’ school trips and

visits are an important part of childhood learning; decades later adults can

recall details (three or more aspects) of the things they experienced, touched

and learnt about on their school trips Dierking & Falk (1997), interestingly,

most participants said that they had thought about their field-trip experience

subsequently. For primary school children the trips are an adventure and they

are excited and engaged, relishing the experience at being in a new

environment away from their usual learning environment. A trip to an

industrial site is an opportunity for students to experience of the ‘actual’ world

which they can directly relate to Reiss & Braund (2006). The change of scene

will add additional dimensions to the learning experience resulting in increased

enthusiasm, interest and motivation in the topic King & Glackin (2014) and

Behrendt & Franklin (2013). Girls tend to prefer the familiarity of the

classroom whereas “boys respond to more active learning opportunities than

do girls. Therefore, lessons that take place in the outdoors can enhance EE for

elementary school students” (Carrier 2009 pg11).

Environmental education is taught in schools within a number for subjects

including science, geography and citizenship, ‘the ultimate goal of

(Environmental Education) is to produce an environmentally literate and

responsible citizen, one who can make decisions that will help check many of

the environmental problems that will arise in the 21st century’ (Knapp 2000,

pg34). Farmer et al (2007) discussed how an educational environmental field



trip had long term effects on knowledge, attitude and the individual’s

responsibility to the environment. However, when the teaching of science and

the environment is restricted to the items in the national curriculum it can

leave students unconnected with the impact of their actions, therefore, there

is a requirement to link concepts in science to real life contexts, in order to

help develop students attitudes and the impact that their actions can have on

the environment so that they can make informed life-style and environmental

choices, Littledyke (2008).

As well as having a global understanding of environmental issues, students

should have knowledge of their local area and it’s unique environmental

issues; the results of a Maltese study, Mifsud (2011) indicated that students

were less knowledgeable about local environmental issues than global issues,

and although they had a positive attitude towards the environment they

demonstrated few positive actions.

Reviewing the literature on gender and environmental behaviour Zelezny et al

reported differences between males and females in relation to pro-

environmental attitudes and behaviours and concluded that females reported

stronger environmental attitudes and behaviours than men and “female youth,

compared to male youth, reported stronger personal responsibility for

improving the environment” (Zelezny et al, pg 154). This was further

supported by Carrier, “Girls have been shown to express greater nurturing and

sensitivity to the environment than have boys” (Carrier 2009 pg11).

Several environmental psychologists have reported on the difficulties of

measuring pro-environmental behaviour. Gamba & Oskamp (1994) found that

self-reported pro-environmental behaviour (kerbside recycling) was slightly

overstated when individuals self-reported their behaviour, but also determined

that relevant knowledge was the most significant predictor of pro-

environmental behaviour. This was also demonstrated by Corral-Verdugo’s

(1997) research which showed a low association between self-reported pro-

environmental behaviour (recycling) and the actual observed pro-

environmental behaviour. Self-reports, though related to actual behaviour,

may still overestimate the frequency of pro-environmental behaviour, Chao &

Lam (2011) suggests that social desirability would affect people’s readiness to

take pro environmental actions especially if they are easily observed by the

others. The types of behaviour changes being sought in this study are not

activities which are available for others to observe, therefore the self-reported

responses should be treated with a degree of caution.



Chapter 3

Methodology

The method selected for this research is mainly in the form of questionnaires

as the primary candidates in this research are children; the questionnaires

contained open and closed questions to collect both quantitative and

qualitative data and where possible substantiated with group discussions and

interviews. Using this mixed method approach (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011)

with children is supported by Bell 2007 pg 461 ‘While qualitative research can

produce extremely valuable results, the collection of quantitative data from

children themselves seems an important expression of the modern western

perception of them as social and economic actors in their own right, with their

own unique perspectives on their social worlds’.

Pilot Study: Lanphear (2001) supported the significance of pilot studies in

research to avoid pit falls and make amendments before the full survey is

underway. Several drafts of the questionnaires were prepared to ensure that

the questions were meaningful and relevant Bell (2010). Once they were

deemed appropriate a pilot survey was undertaken and feedback sought on

the questionnaire. The draft wording was sent to three primary school

teachers (one final year undergraduate, one newly qualified teacher and one

experienced primary school teacher). The undergraduate was the only one

who suggested rewording eg ‘Told other people how they could save water’

was amended to a more child appropriate language of ‘Told friends or family

how they could save water’. As suggested by Bell (2007), the language, style

and length of sentences was kept short and simple. Therefore, by using

language suitable for 7 year olds the same questions could be used for children

up to 18 years old as well as adults. The adult version of the questionnaire had

all the same questions but included some additional questions aimed solely at

adults. As there were no significant queries or revisions required the pilot

questionnaire was adopted and implemented for the full study, and the results

from the pilot questionnaires were included in the final dataset.

Data collection: The methodology adopted for this investigation was to have

the questionnaires completed twice; pre and post the educational visit to a

sewage treatment works. Focus group discussions were held when possible to

enable the researcher to probe deeper into the views and attitudes of the

children to see if they confirmed the analytical data collected.



General data was collected from participants at the start of the questionnaire;

age range and gender. However, all data was anonymous and stored

confidentially, no details of the educational establishments participating in this

research are included in the final report.

The questions were designed to be used primarily by children aged 7-11 years

old as these make up the vast majority of visitors to the Education Centres.

Individuals were instructed to read the questions and self-select their answers.

There are a variety of questions, some of which are concerned with

‘knowledge’, ‘attitudes’ and some focused on ‘behaviours’. The ‘attitude’

questions generally followed the Likert style of responses (originally devised by

R. Likert in 1932); these record the attitude of the respondent who selects

from a scale of answers ie ‘strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree or

agree, agree and strongly agree’. Bell (2007) suggests that these verbal labels

are more easily understood by children than numeric scales which are often

used in adult questionnaires. Consideration was given to using visual images

such as smiley/unhappy faces when designing the questionnaire instead of

verbal labels, however, to avoid influencing the child’s responses ‘Young

children have a particular tendency to want to please adults by agreeing with

them or being overly positive in their responses’ (Bell 2007 pg 464) so it was

felt they may opt for the ‘smiliest’ face more often than they would with verbal

label equivalent ‘strongly agree’ and giving ‘false’ positive results.

There were a range of questions to ascertain behaviours of the individual; such

as do you carry out a particular activity ‘always’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’. Each

question also has a ‘Not sure’ response; this should mean that respondents do

not feel obliged to select an ‘affirming’ response from the list of options.

There were a number of ‘open’ questions where the participants are asked to

give a reason for their response; this is to gauge the level of understanding or

‘environmental literacy’ and also the opportunity to reaffirm their

environmental credentials or to provide an insight into potential barriers which

are preventing them from behaving in an environmentally positive way.

Focus Groups: In addition to questionnaires, ‘focus group’ interviews and

discussions were carried out (on two occasions) after the visit and completion

of the questionnaires to enable the interviewer to explore the breath and

depths of the sentiment behind the answers; this provided an additional

qualitative angle to the research. The process and style of this activity was



developed during the course of the investigation once the data analysis has

begun. Two focus groups were held; the first was a group of six children aged

8-9 years old, their classroom teacher was not present so they were not ‘under

pressure’ to give the ‘correct’ answers. The second focus group were

approximately 12 students aged 9-11 years who were members of a school

‘Eco Club’, this was not an in-depth focus group as the majority of the time was

spent by the children presenting their own projects on ‘global’ environmental

issues which were important to them. By signing up to the Eco Club they had

affirmed their own environmental credentials and an active interest in the

environment. The finding of each focus group session will be discussed in the

results and transcripts of each are in Appendix E.

Analysis: Questionnaires were selected as the appropriate method to collect

this data. Once collected the quantitated data was input into the statistical

analytical package; Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), to capture

and analyse the data with appropriate tests such as the significance level ‘p’,

chi-squared and Cramer’s V for trends and verification. The qualitative data

was not substantial enough to be loaded into a statistical package to be

analysed, it was studied and key themes were collated. The data was

predominately presented in graphical form for visual impact of the frequency,

percentages and significance.

The relationships between two variables have been analysed in SPSS using

Person’s chi-squared test. Which as Field (2005, p682) describes as “an

extremely elegant statistic based on the simple idea of comparing the

frequencies you observe in certain categories to the frequencies you might

expect to get in those categories by chance”. When this test was carried out a

number of different statistics were reported. Firstly, the chi-square value is

given alongside a measure of the statistical significance of the result (p=?).

Statistical significance has been taken to be those relationships that have a p-

value less than 0.05 (ie a 95% significance level). Additionally, Cramer’s V

values are presented to provide an indication of the strength of association

between two variables, which is between 0 and 1; with those closest to 1

having a stronger association. The number of valid responses is also provided

and denoted as the ‘n’ value. In addition to SPSS, Excel spreadsheets were

used to create the graphical representation of the data and an on-line

calculator ‘Social Science Statistics’ (http://www.socscistatistics.com) was used

as a tool to check and verify the results.



Population Sample: The geographical focus of this research is the area

covered Thames Water Utilities Ltd in the south east region of England. All

schools in this location are able to participate. The main participants were

school children on educational visits to sewage treatment works, there was

one group of ‘home educated’ students. The age range was from 7 to 18 years

old. The questionnaire was the same for everyone aged 18 years or under. In

order to be able to invite children to participate in this study consent had to be

provided on their behalf. Even where consent was provided the child was

under no obligation to participate in the questionnaire and could decline from

taking part without having to give a reason. The main cohorts were children in

primary school (aged 8-11) and secondary school student (aged 14-18). There

were very few student in the age range 12-13 years olds visiting the education

centres so there is a gap in the dataset, therefore, conclusions will not be

drawn about this proportion (Years 7, 8 and 9 of secondary school) of the

population.

In addition to school visits there are also educational visits by university

students. Teachers and support staff were also invited to participate in the

survey. The questionnaires for persons over the age of 18 years are similar in

style and content to the children’s questionnaire but have additional questions

aimed specifically at adult behaviours including the disposal of products down

the toilet such as; sanitary products, make-up wipes, condoms, tablets etc.

Participation in the survey is voluntary; however, written consent is not

required to be given by the adults taking part as the act of voluntarily

completing the questionnaire is deemed as consenting to participate.

A follow-up questionnaire was sent to those educational institutions that had

participated in the initial questionnaire which invited them to complete a

second questionnaire. The time frame for this was a minimum of three weeks

after the site visit, the reason for this relatively short period is due to the time

constraints of this research project and school holidays. The follow-up

questionnaire was identical to the first questionnaire but with an additional

question at the end to collect information on their view of their own impact on

the environment and environmental attitudes. A direct comparison can

therefore be made by comparing the results of their knowledge, attitude and

behaviours before and after the visit.

Incentives: During the educational visit the participants were offered a

number of ‘freebies’ to help reinforce the key messages and help promote

behavioural change. For children these included; ‘fuzzybugs’ with straplines



“I’m being waterwise” or “Bin it, don’t block it”, a card game based on water

efficiency, a workbook and a 4 minute shower timer; and for adults a water

efficient shower head, FOG collection boxes, leaflets and save-a-flush bags

(placed in toilet cisterns to reduce the volume of water used for each toilet

flush) and tap aerators (to reduce the water flow). The majority of these

products are also available for free to domestic customers via water company

websites.

Research Constraints

Timescale: There was a limited timescale to collect this data due to school

summer holidays and children changing classes and possibly schools which

meant the data collection process had to be completed by the middle of July

2015.

Ethical considerations (Consent): In order for children under the age of 18

years to participate in the research written consent had to be obtained.

Therefore, for the participation of school children there were a number of

steps which had to be taken; in general the class teacher asked the head

teacher for permission to participate, if this is granted there are two possible

outcomes; the head teacher/class teacher gave written consent in their

position of ‘in loco parentis’ or the questionnaire and consent form was sent

home for the parents to provide written consent, the latter option inevitably

resulted in less participation.

Budget: There is no additional budget requirement to carry out this research

(the free products given out at the education centres are also available to

order free of charge by customers through the Thames Water website).

Photocopying of questionnaires was either done at a Thames Water site or on

Middlesex University Campus.

Figure 4 - Timescale and activities: Timescale Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Research

Design

Pilot Study

Project

Proposal

Data Collection

Focus Groups

Data Analysis

Write Up

Submission

Viva voce



Methodological Limitations: this research will only capture a specific point in

time covering a period of a few months at the most. The participants are not

randomly selected from the general population as their tutor has specifically

requested an educational visit to a sewage treatment works so they are

already inclined to have an interest in the topics being cover during the visit.

Also, although this research is measuring the data collected ‘before’ and ‘after’

a visit to a sewage treatment works, this activity cannot be used to solely

account for any perceived or measured changes as other influences could be

taking place, such as; additional work reinforcing the issues back in the

classroom or media campaigns which may have been happening concurrently.

Children may tend to give answers that they think the researcher wants or they

know to be ‘right’ rather than giving their ‘true’ answer (Bell 2007). This is

addressed in the Consent Form which has a statement to be read out to the

children reiterating that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer as it is their

‘views’ that are being sought.

The self-reported responses to questionnaires have their limitations as people

often overstate their pro-environmental behaviours Gamba & Oskamp (1994),

Corral-Verdugo’s (1997) and Chao & Lam (2011). However, when including the

comments from focus groups it can give a clearer insight into the ‘true’

behaviours and the barriers to the behaviours which are being sought.

Positionality: “It is critical to pay attention to positionality, reflexivity, the

production of knowledge and the power relations that are inherent in research

processes in order to undertake ethical research” (Sultana 2007, pg 382),

recognising that I am both a student carrying out research and an employee of

Thames Water I acknowledge and respect these positions to ensure validity

and credibility in this research.



Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

The relevent and significant results of the key findings from the data collected

are presented in this section along with the general discussion of the results,

this layout should aid the reader as the different themes are presented and

discussed under the relevent headings.

Although data was collected from adult participants those results have

generally been excluded from this report, the main reason was to concentrate

on the data collected from the children. The adult data was used when gender

was being discussed.

In total, 503 questionnaires were completed by students, 264 prior to the visit

and 239 were completed post visit. Of these 353 were primary school students

and 150 were secondary; 212 boys and 286 girls took part (5 students did not

complete the gender question). In the adult survey there were 90 completed

questionnaires, 51 prior to the visit and 39 post vist; of these 32 were male and

53 were female (5 adults left this question blank). The average number of days

from the date of the visit until the surveys were returned was 62 days (the

longest was 119 days and the shortest was 25 days).

Over 25,000 items of data was collected from the participants and loaded into

SPSS, not all the data was analysed or cross-referenced due to its

extensiveness but the main themes and relevent results are reported

graphically and discussed in the following section.



4.1 Knowledge

This section looks at reported changes in knowledge.

Question 1 - Have you heard of Thames Water?

Table 1 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who have heard of Thames Water

‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment works.

Table 1 demonstrates the awareness of Thames Water increased following the

educational visit to the sewage treatment works. Prior to the visit 56% of

students were aware of Thames Water, the follow-up questionnair reported

this had increased to 92%. This demonstrates an awareness of the company

which is providing them with the esential service that is the bases for a healthy

life; the provision of drinking water and the removal of sewage. It is a basic

concept for students to understand, ie the existance of a company whose role

it is to intercept the natural ‘water cycle’ and to make this water available to

customers and that this it does not happen by ‘chance’ but that it has to be

engineered, managed and paid for. The students increased understanding of

this is demonstrated is further demonstrated in Table 1a below, showing the

change in response to the question ‘How well do you think Thames Water does

its job?’ after the visit to the sewage works .

56%

92%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q1 - Have you heard of Thames Water?

Before After



Table 1a – Graph showing how well students thought that Thames Water did

its job.

The chi-square statistic is 123.561. The p-value is < 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.496,

n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.

The significance of these results demonstates that following the visit the

students knowledge has increased and they are now aware of the existance of

the company and the role it plays, they then are able to select how they feel

the company performs it role. Prior to the visit 44% of students either were

not sure of left this section blank, after the visit this category had reduced to

4%. The majority 89% felt it was doing this role ‘good’ or ‘very good’ an

increase from 45% prior to the visit because they now had a greater

understanding of the role the water company plays in providing this service.

The National Ciricullum has a statutory requirement for Key Stage 2 (years 4, 5

and 6) students to ‘identify the part played by evaporation and condensation

in the water cycle’ there is no requirement to understand where their water

comes from or their role as responsible citizens in safeguarding the supply and

treatment of water.

23% 22%

7%0%

3%

44%

58%

31%

6%0% 2% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very good Good Ok Poor Very poor Blank/Not

sure

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q2 - How well do you think Thames Water does

its Job?

Before After



Question 8 – Waste food, fat and grease should not be put in the sink or toilet

– Do you know the reason why?

Table 2 – Written responses to why waste food and FOG should not be

discharged into the sewerage system

The chi-square statistic is 39.6144. The p-value is < 0.00001. Cramer’s V is 0.281,


The ‘unknown’ or ‘blank’ responses reduced from 36% to 15% whilst the

correct response that FOG causes blockages rose from 58% to 84% in the

follow-up questionnaire. This clearly demonstrates an increase in knowledge,

the problem caused by FOG and wet wipes in the sewerage system often

comes as a surprise to teachers so this issue would not be something that a

teacher would cover back at school. However, it remains a major problem

which is continually increasing and is impacting all water companies in the UK

(and abroad). It is hoped that by increasing the knowledge and raising the

awareness of the impact of FOG and wet wipes the students will act in a more

pro-environmental manner (see Table 6 later in this section for the results of

changes in behaviour).

Blockages

58.3%

Pollution

/Other,

6.1%

Not

sure,

35.6%

BEFORE

Blockages,

83.7%

Pollution

/Other

1.3%

Not

sure,

15.1%

AFTER



4.2 Attitude

This section looks at reported changes in attitude.

Question 4a – How important do you think it is to save water?

Table 3 – Shows the reported responses to their attitude to the importance of

saving water

The chi-square statistic is 2.0945. The p-value is .147829, n=503. The result is

not significant at p < .05.

This table shows a 5% shift in the attitude of saving water from ‘fairly

important’ to ‘very important’. Although the results are not statistically

significant it reflects that over 97% of students (both before and after the visit)

feel that is is ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’ to save water. This is an

excellent basis on which to build pro-environmental behaviour as they do not

have to be convinced that the issue is important.

Question 4b – Why do you think it is important to save water?

Blank Health Resource

, save it

Not

sure

Poor

people

Save money,

energy cleaning it

Other Total

Before 52 110 67 4 17 6 8 264

After 37 116 56 1 14 9 6 239

Total 89 226 123 5 31 15 14 503

The chi-square statistic is 2.1957. The p-value is .138399, Cramer’s V=0.104,

n=503. The result is not significant at p < .05.

81

16

3

86

111

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1 - Very 2 - Fairly 3 - Neither 4 -

Unimport

5 - V

Unimport

6 - Not sure

Q4a - How important do you think it is to

save water %

Before After



There was not a statistically significant difference between the responses

before or after the visit. The main reasons stated for the importance to save

water was because it was vital for health and a limited and valuable resource,

although these are valid reasons why water is ‘important’, it does not address

the reason why it is important to ‘save’ water.

Interestingly, 6% of students (no difference between the pre and post survey)

felt the reason to save water was because poor people or other areas of the

world did not have water. This is a similar concept to ‘eat your dinner because

there are people starving in the world’.

None of the students stated the correct reason which is that’s it’s a local issue;

ie that the reason to save water is due to the increasing population, the

already high and increasing volume used by each person every day and the

scarcity of water in the south east of England. This finding is a failure on the

water company to get this key message across.

Question 5f – Have you thought about ways you could save water?

Table 5a – Shows the shift in attitude to thinking about saving water

The chi-square statistic is 22.188. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.210,


This is a significant shift in the attitude of students following the visit with 20%

more reporting that they have thought about ways to save water.

33.3

46.6

16.3

3.8

53.1

29.7

12.6

4.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Yes No Not sure Blank

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q5f - Thought about ways that you could save

water %

Before After



Question 9 – This was a free text field where students were invited to write

comments prior to and after the visit. The extract from SPSS shows the

number of comments completed. Before the visit 21 students (8%) left a

comment. After the visit this had increased to 153 students (64%), most of the

comments were about things they had learnt, the majority of comments

related to what should and shouldn’t be flushed down the toilet such as “you

can only put human waste and paper down the toilet”, “wet wipes don’t go in

the toilet” but included other observations; “don’t waste water”, “good to

learn more about sewage”, “the trip was really fun”, “methane from waste

products used for power”, “sewage can be used to create electricity”, “sewer

workers have a hard time when public do something wrong”. This

demonstrates that they have thought about the experience and the wider

implications.

Table 5b – Shows the number of students providing a comment in a free text

question.

The chi-square statistic is 174.2468. The p-value is < .00001, Cramer’s V=0.589,


The results indicated that following the visit the students were significantly

more engaged in the questionnaire which led them to provide a comment.



4.3 Behaviour

This section looks at reported changes in behaviour.

Table 6 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who report to flushing wet wipes

down the toilet, shown ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment

works.

The chi-square statistic is 32.4426. The p-value is < 0.00001, Cramer’s V=0.254,


The correct answer to this question is ‘no’ and the correct response was high

before the visit (61%), there was an increase of 16% giving this response to

77% in the follow-up questionnaire. This question came directly after a set of

four questions where the correct answer was ‘yes’, so the students needed to

actively change tack and select ‘no’. Even though there was a reduction of 13%

of students who still reported to flush wet wipes down the toilet (from 21% to

8%) it stills remains that nearly a quarter of those questioned after the visit did

not report that they didn’t flush wet wipes down the toilet.

Yes 21%

No 61%

Not

sure 7%

Blank

11%

Q7E - DO YOU FLUSH

WET WIPES DOWN THE

TOILET? (BEFORE VISIT)

Yes 8%

No

77%

Not sure

0.4%

Blank

14.2%

Q7E - DO YOU FLUSH WET

WIPES DOWN THE

TOILET? (AFTER VISIT)



Question 5c – Had a quick shoer rather than a long shower?

Table 7 – Showing the percentage of students taking a quick shower

The students reported having a quick shower increased from 56% to 70%, and

thereby using less water. This 14% shift is likely to have been assisted by the

free “4 minute shower timer” which was given to all the students who came

for an educational visit, the primary school children who were particularly eger

to try it out. It does not necessarily mean that this pro-environmental

behaviour will continue, it could have been a ‘one-off’ activity, but it does

demonstrate a willingness by the students to change behaviour and give it a

try.

Question 5d – Filled a bath half way with water instead of full up with water?

Table 8 – Showing the percentage of students having a shallow bath

Before, 56%

After, 70%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Before After

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q5c - Had a quick shower rather than a

long shower

Before 40%

After 46%

Q5d - % of students who reportrf to fill a

bath half way instead of full up with water



Table 8 shows a 6% increase in pro-environmental behaviour by students

reporting to use less water in the bath following the visit. This is 8% less than

those reporting to have had a quick shower (see Table 7). When this data was

seperated into boys and girls and primary and secondary students the range of

results are more interesting and could suggest reasons for this.

Table 9 – Showing the differnce in responses between boys and girls in primary

and secondary school.

All students apart from primary aged boys reported an increase in pro-

environmental behaviour after the visit by having a shallow bath (see Table 9),

one possible reason could be that parents of boys may be more likely to run

their baths so they may not have direct control. The most significant increase

in pro-environmental behaviour came from secondary school aged students,

especially girls who reported an increase of 16.4%, all girls were more

generally likely to use less water than boys following the visit. While primary

school students were generally more likely to report pro-environmental

behavoiur than secondary school students.

The chi-square statistic is 46.592. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.304. The

result is significant at p < .05.

51.4

21.7

47.4

24.5

60.7

38.142.5

34.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Py Girls % Sy Girls % Py Boys % Sy Boys %

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q5d - Half filling a bath

Before After



Question 5e – Have they told family and friends how they could save water?

Table 10 – Shows whether they told family or friends how to save water

showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ results.

The chi-square statistic is 38,865. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.278,


The percentage increase of students who reported talking to other people

about ways they could save water significantly increased after the visit, from

22% to 47%.

21.6

65.2

8.74.5

47.3

40.6

7.54.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Yes No Not sure Blank

Q5e - Told friends or family how to save water (%)

Before After



Table 10b – Comparing the responses between gender and age

For this gender analysis the results from the adult questionnaire was included.

Table 10 shows that that primary school girls and adult females are more

inclined to tell other about saving water, however, secondary school girls were

less likely to do so than secondary school boys.

The following section compares the results of environmental attitude between

boys and girls and primary and secondary school students.

Question 10b – I try to respect the environment and I think about

environmental issues

Table 11 – Question 10b – Overall Frequency

27.1

15.2

70

19.3 18.9

5055.4

28.6

81

43.837.9

58.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Py Girls % Sy Girls % Adult Female Py Boys % Sy Boys % Adult Males

5e - Told people how to save water (%)

Before After

Strongly Agree,

45%

Agree , 29%

Neither 11%

Disagree,

Strongly

disagree, 3%

Blank/ Not

sure12%

Q10b - I try to respect the

environment (%)



Table 11 reports that 45% of students report that they ‘strongly agree’ and

29% ‘agree’ that they try to respect the environment, so overall 74% of

students agree (or more) with the statement. However, when this is broken

down into primary and secondary students (see Table 12) the primary students

are much stronger in their conviction to ‘strongly agree’ (52% compared to

22%).

Table 12 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare Primary

and Secondary children)

The chi-square statistic is 35.6706. The p-value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at

p < .05.

Table 13 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare Boys and

Girls)

51.6

23.9

6.93.7

13.8

21.6

47.1

27.5

0.03.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly

Disagree

Blank/Not sure

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q10b - I try to respect the environment %

Primary Secondary

36.332.4

12.7

3.9

14.7

52.6

26.3

9.0

2.3

9.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly

disagree

Blank/Not Sure

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Axis Title

Q10b - I try to respect the environment %

Boy Girl



Although girls report a higher conviction of ‘strongly agree’ than boys and

overall the girls agreeing (or higher) that they respect the environment (78.9%

compared to 68.7% of boys) the statistical results are not significant.

The chi-square statistic is 6.5874. The p-value is .159368. The result is not

significant at p < .05.

Question 10e – The visit to the sewage works made me realise that my actions

can make a difference to the environment

Table 14 – Frequency of responses

The vast majority of students (72%) felt that their actions can make a

difference.

Table 15 – Q10e - Comparison of results between boys and girls

Strongly Agree

47.3%

Agree 24.7%

Neither, 12.1%

Disagree/Strongly

disagree 5%

Blank/ Not sure

10.9%

Q10E - MY ACTIONS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

43.1

22.5

13.77.8

12.7

51.1

27.1

10.52.3

9.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q10e - The visit to the sewage works made me

realise my actions can make a difference (%)

Boy Girl



When the results were analysed by gender the girls reported a stronger

tendency to feel that their actions can make a difference (78.2% compared to

the boys at 65.6%). However, this result is not statistically significant.

The chi-square statistic is 6.341. The p-value is .17509. The result is not


Table 15b - Q10e Comparison of results between adult male and female

responses

The chi-square statistic is 22.511. The p-value is .032, Cramer’s V=0.354, n=35.

The result is significant at p < .05.

The data from the adult surveys were analysed and it gave a similar result to

the students, ie that the females reported more strongly that they believed

that their actions can make a difference. Adult females reported that they

‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that their actions can make a difference; 90%

compared to 42% of males. Therefore, adult females are more convinced than

the female students at 78% that their actions can make a difference.

21% 21%

7%

29%

7%

0%

14%

33%

57%

10%

0% 0% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Notsure Blank

Pe

rce

nta

ge


realise that my actions can make a difference

Male Female



Table 16 – Q10e - Comparison of results between primary and secondary

students

The majority of primary students ‘strongly agree’ (56%) that their actions can

make a difference compared with the majority of secondary students who

mostly selected the ‘agree’ (41%) statement.

The chi-square statistic is 41.7625. The p-value is < 0.00001. The result is


Table 17 – Q10e - Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ statements and all

‘disagree’ statements

The ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ responses were combined to see if the overall

responses between primary and secondary students were similar. The reason

that all the ‘agree’ and all the ‘disagree’ statements were combined was to

determine if there was in fact a similar response between primary and

55.9

20.2

9.62.1

12.215.7

41.2

21.615.7

5.9

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge


realise my actions can make a difference to the

environment (%)

Primary Secondary

76.1

9.6

2.1

12.2

56.9

21.615.7

5.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Agree Neither Disagree Not sure

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Q10e - Combining responses on the Likert Scale

(%)

Primary Secondary



secondary students be removing the ‘strength’ of the conviction, as the Likert

scale is not linear. However, there was still a significant difference between

their responses with 76% of primary students believing that their actions can

make a difference compared to 57% of secondary students.

The chi-square statistic is 22.9878. The p-value is .000041. The result is


Table 18–Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ and all ‘disagree’

statements

When the results are separated to show the different age ranges and gender it

further suggests that males not only become less inclined to feel that their

actions can make a difference as they get older but become more inclined to

‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ (36%) that their action can make a difference.

On the other hand, adolescent girls are less likely than adolescent boys to feel

that their actions can make a difference but rather than disagreeing with the

statement they shift towards ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (29%), however,

adult females (90%) believe that their action can make a difference compared

to 43% of adult males.

68%59%

43%

82%

57%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Primary Boys Secondary

Boys

Adult Male Primary Girls Secondary

Girls

Adult Female


realise that my actions can make a difference

Agree/Strongly Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly Disagree Blank/Not sure



4.4 Summary Discussion of the Results

Knowledge

Have you heard of Thames Water? This is a fundamental concept,

underpinning the whole research, that students are aware that a company

provides clean water and removes and treats waste water. The percentage of

students who reported being aware of Thames Water had increased from 56%

to 92%, this sets the foundations on which to build the attitudes and thereby

the pro-environmental behaviours which are being sought. The added

dimension is the understanding that these services are managed by the

company but influenced by its customers.

Why should FOG and waste food not be discharged into the sewerage

system?

The correct response to this question that is causes blockages was high at 58%

prior to the visit but following the visit it increased by 25% to 84%, this

demonstrates a clear understanding of the operational problems that FOG can

cause. During the classroom sessions at the education centres the children

often say that they have seen programmes about this issue on the television.

So it clear that these messages are filtering through to students but the visit

encourages them to understand that they could be contributing to the issue.

Attitude

Attitude to the importance and reasons to save water. There was not a

statistically significant change in attitude following the visit because 97% of

student agreed that it was ‘fairly important’ or ‘very important’ before the visit

to save water. However, following the visit there was a 5% shift from ‘fairly

important’ on the Likert scale to ‘very important’ to save water. In addition,

20% more students had thought about ways in which they could save water

following the visit. The free text available in Question 9 invited students to

leave a comment, following the visit it was filled in with positives comments

increasing from 8% before the visit to 64% providing a comment after the visit;

these generally related to the things they had learn during the visit in

particular the items not to flush down the toilet. This demonstrates a higher

level of engagement with the themes and key issues that the visit focused on.



Behaviours

The results from the survey from Questions 5c, 5d and 5e all show an increase

in pro-environmental behaviour following the visit to the sewage treatments

works. Students were having quicker showers, using less water in the bath and

telling other people how they could save water (which rose from 22% to 47%

after the visit). The percentage that reported that they did not flush wet wipes

down the toilet had increased from 61% to 77%.

However, the attitudes and behaviours showed interesting results when the

age and gender of students were looked at independently.

Gender of students and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours

Girls generally reported more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours

than boys (see Table 10 – Telling others how to save water, Table 13 –

Respecting the environment and Table 15 – believing their actions can make a

difference). However, these results did not necessarily result in statistically

significant results, in fact adolescent females reported less pro-environmental

behaviour than male adolescents which challenges Zelezny et al (2000) and

Carrier (2009) findings. However, adult females (Table 15b) results were

statistically significant to males in believing that their actions can make a

difference (90% for females compared to 42% for males).

Adult females were generally more likely to behave in an environmentally

sustainable manner than males.

Age of students and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours

Primary school students reported statistically significant attitudes (Table 12 –

respecting the environment) and behaviours (Table 9 – half filling the bath)

when compared to secondary students.

Secondary school girls were less likely to report pro-environmental behaviours

than boys the same age or younger girls. However, adult females reported

pro-environmental behaviours than adult males.

ir

Teenagers are the ones who these messages need to reach, they are less likely

to come out of school for these ‘enhancement’ days due to pressures of

national curriculum and exams, we need to reach out to them and make the

visit more relevant to their exam syllabuses, because that age they are focused

on passing their exams. One teenager was overheard asking their teacher “will

this be in the exam” as a society we not only need to be educating students to



pass exams we need to ensure that we are helping to produce environmentally

engaged citizens.

Local verses global

Students did not make the connection between the need to save water and

the fact that they are living in a water scarce area in the UK. 6% of students

stated that the reason to save water was because poor people in other parts of

the world did not have water. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of

their local environmental conditions and how they can reduce water wastage.

This has been a fundamental finding from the research as it demonstrates that

this message is not getting across during the visit, it is being taught in school

and Thames Water is also failing to get this key message across to the public

through publicity campaigns and through the media.

Focus group discussion

The primary school students who took part in the focus groups were positive

and enthusiastic about their role in looking after the environment. Each group

had an even mix of boys and girls. When asked who was responsible for

looking after the sewers; group 1 replied “all of us, even children” and “you

(Thames Water)”, group 2 replied “the Government” and “everyone”. When

asked what might prevent them from behaving in an environmentally

appropriate manner, group 1 replied, “Special treat to have a long shower”,

“My Granddad and Grandma, difficult to change, they don’t have a (shower)

timer” and “My Mum keeps forgetting, she has a lot to remember”, group 2

“it’s a routine” and “it takes time to change a habit”. When asked if they have

spoken about the FOG and wet wipes group 1 replied “My Dad has stopped

doing it, he puts it in the bin”, and “My Mum said you’re allowed to because it

says they’re ‘washable’ but I said “No Mum” and group 2 said they had spoken

to their peers and given advice.

The children in the focus groups could empathise with the barriers that other

people might face when trying to act in a pro-environmental manner but they

still believed in their ability to do the right thing and continued to promote the

messages.

The importance of Learning Outside the Classroom

Students benefit from learning outside their usual classroom. They are more

alert and engaged. One of the written comments from Question 9 was “good

how we were shown the stuff in real life and not just pictures”. The benefits

are multi-layered, including the social and physical aspects and experiences.



To get the most out of these experiences teachers must have follow-up the

messages back in the classroom to reinforce the learning and promote pro-

environmental behaviours so it is not considered a ‘one off’ activity and

separate to the things they usually learn in school.

This research has benefitted from keeping the message simple and

encouraging students to make small changes to their lifestyle which can have a

significant impact, it was not seeking huge changes, but gave alternative

suggestions; having a quick shower and using less water in the bath. Targeting

young children helps promote habit forming behaviour from a young age.

It does not necessarily follow that acting in a pro-environmental manner in one

aspect of life will spread to other areas, so we cannot conclude that the type of

positive behaviour recorded here will encourage other positive behaviour, but

if the student feels they behave in an environmental manner it is a good spring

board for continuing pro-environmental behaviour eg recycling and turning off

light switches, not dropping litter, likewise, these activities do not require

significant behaviour changes, they are not obvious to the casual observer so

they will not receive positive reaffirming messages, but they just become the

norm.



Chapter 5

Conclusion

The results from this research and the focus groups show a significant increase

in environmental knowledge, attitude and behaviour. However, as these

results were self-reported some environmental psychologists such as Gamba &

Oskamp (1994) argue that there are limitations to their validity, but this

research clearly demonstrates the shift in a pro-environmental direction (even

if they were over-stated) when the pre and post visit surveys are compared.

This this end, the aim of this research, to determine if an educational visit to a

sewage treatment works can lead to reported changes pro-environmental

behaviour have been met. Following the visit students were very clear that fat

and grease block sewers (knowledge), the majority considered themselves to

care for the environment and felt empowered that their actions could make a

positive contribution to the environment. They were more engaged and

demonstrated this by their willingness to think about and discuss (attitude)

ways to save water with other people. The majority said they did not flush wet

wipes down the toilet and there were significant increases in students

reporting to take quicker showers and shallow baths (behaviour) in order to

engage in water saving activities.

As a result of this research further ways of engaging with adolescents during

these visits were reviewed and a slightly different approach used (include more

cross-curriculum linked topics) to help influence their attitudes and promote

altruistic and environmental attitudes, as well as linking the learning directly to

their school syllabus.

Further research could be conducted to cover a larger dataset and extend the

geographical area to include other parts of the UK (and abroad). There would

be real benefit in carrying out a longitudinal study which would follow students

as they enter the education system and especially as they go through

adolescence and into adulthood to see if their views and behaviours change

though these stages.

Word count = 10,225



References

(All websites accessed between Feb and Oct 2015)

http://www.postgrad.com/editorial/advice/exams/dissertations_and_theses/dissertation_proposal/ http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/gradschool/on_course/for_taught_masters/dissertations/guidelines Agenda 21, chapter 18 - http://www.un-documents.net/a21-18.htm Agyeman, J. & Kollmuss, A. 2002, "Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?", Environmental Education Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 239-260. Behrendt M & Franklin T, 2013, ‘A review of Research on school Field Trips and their role in Education’ International Journal of Environmental Science and Education (2014) 9,235-245 Bell, A. 2007, "Designing and testing questionnaires for children", Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 461-469. Bell, J. 2010, ‘Doing Your Research Project (5th Edition)’ IBSN 9780335235827 Carrier, S. 2009, "Environmental Education in the Schoolyard: Learning Styles and Gender", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 2-12 Chao, Y. & Lam, S. 2011, "Measuring Responsible Environmental Behavior: Self-Reported and Other-Reported Measures and Their Differences in Testing a Behavioral Model", Environment and Behavior, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 53-71. Corral-Verdugo, V. 1997, "DUAL ‘REALITIES’ OF CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR: SELF-REPORTS VS OBSERVATIONS OF RE-USE AND RECYCLING BEHAVIOR", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 135-145. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. 2011, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. Dijkstra, E, & Goedhart, M 2012, 'Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge', Environmental Education Research, 18, 6, pp. 733-749, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 February 2015. Defra 2008 - Future Water The Government’s water strategy for England (ID5746225 02/08) Defra 2008 - A FRAMEWORK FOR PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOURS https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69277/pb13574-behaviours-report-080110.pdf Defra 2011 – Water for Life - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228861/8230.pdf Defra 2013 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/how-can-you-love-your-river



Dierking, L. D. and Falk, J. H. (1997) School field trips:assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211–218. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I. 2012, "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way", Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 264-277. European Environment Agency - http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/featured-articles/water-scarcity Farmer, J., Knapp, D. & Benton, G. 2007, "An Elementary School Environmental Education Field Trip: Long-Term Effects on Ecological and Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Development", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 33-42. Field, A.P. 2005, Discovering statistics using SPSS: and sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, 2nd edn, SAGE, London. Gamba, R.J. & Oskamp, S. 1994, "Factors Influencing Community Residents' Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs", Environment and Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 587-612. Gov.UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/maintaining-secure-water-supplies-high-standards-of-drinking-water-and-effective-sewerage-services/supporting-pages/water-resource-management Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. The journal of environmental education, 21(3), 8-21. Hsu, S.-J. (2004). Environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students.The Journal of Environmental Education 35 , 37–48. King, H & Glackin M, 2014 http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/cppr/Research/currentpro/Enterprising-Science/ES06-King-and-Glackin-2014-Supporting-science-learning-in-out-of-school-contexts.pdf Last accessed 22 Sept 2015 Knapp, D. 2000, "The Thessaloniki Declaration: a wake-up call for environmental education?", The Journal of Environmental Education [H.W.Wilson - EDUC], vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 32. Lanphear, J.H, 2001, "Commentary: Pilot Studies", Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 33-35. Littledyke, M. 2008, "Science education for environmental awareness: approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains", Environmental Education Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-17. Mifsud, M. C. (2011). An Investigation on the Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior of Maltese Youth. Online Submission (assessed 22 Sept 2015) Mobley, C., Vagias, W.M. & DeWard, S.L. 2010, "Exploring Additional Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental Literature and Environmental Attitudes", Environment and Behavior, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 420-447.



Özden, M. 2008, "Environmental Awareness and Attitudes of Student Teachers: An Empirical Research", International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40-55. Priest, S.J., Clark, M.J. and Colclough, S. (2008) Public awareness of flood risk: The Role of the Environment Agency Flood Map - Nominated report submitted to the ESRC, June 2008. Reiss, M. & Braund, M. 2006, "Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning", International Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1373-1388. Roth, C. E. (1968). On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon,pp. 38-41. Roth, C.E (1992) Environmental Literacy - Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in the 1990s Charles E. Roth Education Development CenterNewton, Massachusetts September 1992 Steg, L. & Vlek, C. 2009, "Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 309-317. Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374-385. Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan - http://www.thameswater.co.uk/tw/common/downloads/wrmp/WRMP14_Section_0.pdf Volk, T. & Hungerford, H. 2003, "Notes From Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 4-6. Water Resources South East - http://wrse.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/WRSE_Phase_2B_Final_report_24Apr2013.pdf Woods, K. 2010, Human rights and environmental sustainability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Zabkar, V. & Hosta, M. 2013, "Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap?", International journal of consumer studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 257-264. Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P. & Aldrich, C. 2000, "Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism", Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 443. Zimbardo, P.G., Ebbesen, E.B. & Maslach, C. 1977, Influencing attitudes and changing behavior: an introduction to method, theory, and applications of social control and personal power, Addison-Wesley, London; Reading, Mass.



Appendix A Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 1 of 3)



Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 2 of 3)



Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 3 of 3)



Appendix B Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 1 of 4)



Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 2 of 4)



Appendix C Consent Form (Pg 1of 2)



Consent Form (Pg 2 of 2)



Appendix D

Ethics Form (Pg 1 of 3)



Appendix E

Transcripts from Focus Groups (Pg 1 of 3)

Focus Group 1



Transcripts from Focus Group (Pg 2 of 3)



Transcripts from Focus Group (Pg 3 of 3)

Focus Group 2 2 June 2015 Xxxxxxxxx School Year 5 and 6 students presented their ‘Global Scholars’ projects, followed by a very truncated discussion and focus group. Students were asked:

• Who is responsible for saving water? o The Government, Everyone

• What might stop you? o Routine, it takes time to change habits

• Have you told anyone? o Yes, we’ve spoken to our Peers and gave advice

MSc Dissertation 2015 PRS4799 - Final - 7 Oct 2015 · 2019-09-16 · Dissertation MSc Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of MSc Dissertation 2015 PRS4799 - Final - 7 Oct 2015 · 2019-09-16 · Dissertation MSc Environmental...