GAP EcoTeams evaluation - UK by Alexander Mehlmann

EcoTeams Evaluation Report Global Action Plan June 2008

This report aims to summarise the extensive evaluation work carried out on the EcoTeams household engagement process, since it was first introduced to the UK in 2000.

Contents

Executive summary.......................................................................................................................3 Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................7 1. What are EcoTeams?..............................................................................................................7 2. The history of EcoTeams.........................................................................................................7 Section 2: Evaluation methodology...........................................................................................10 1. Household measuring and monitoring ...................................................................................10 2. Participant survey: Attitudes and behaviour change ..............................................................11 3. Participant focus groups and interviews.................................................................................12 Section 3: Results of the evaluation ..........................................................................................15 1. Evidence of reduction in household environmental impact.....................................................15 2. Evidence of changes in attitudes and behaviours ..................................................................19 3. How the EcoTeams programme is delivered .........................................................................22 4. Why the EcoTeams approach works .....................................................................................29 5. The added value of EcoTeams..............................................................................................31 6. Reasons for participation in EcoTeams .................................................................................36 Section 4: Conclusions and next steps .....................................................................................38 Section 5: Appendix....................................................................................................................39 Appendix A – Example measuring sheets .................................................................................39 Appendix B – Example EcoTeams feedback report...................................................................39 Appendix C - Impact mapping exercise .....................................................................................39 Appendix D - EcoTeams survey with summary results ..............................................................39 Appendix E – DEFRA SID5 summary report .............................................................................39

Executive summary EcoTeams are small groups of households who meet once a month for approximately five months to learn how to reduce their environmental impact, and in doing so measure their waste and recycling production, and energy and water consumption. To date, 3,602 households have participated in the EcoTeams programme. Evaluation of the EcoTeams programme EcoTeams has been running in the UK since 2000. To date it has been run with 36 different local authorities and organisations. The programme has been evaluated by: •

•

• •

Testing the EcoTeams programme with various community groups. This has resulted in a refinement of the delivery model used – to ensure that it is cost effective and reaches as wide an audience as possible. This process has also enabled Global Action Plan to develop a body of data regarding effective community engagement tools (summarised later in this report). Development of an online or (‘web’) database to allow participants direct access to environmental reporting, to help evaluate the EcoTeams programme consistently and to build a body of data on actual behaviour change, (rather than just awareness-raising). Development of a participant survey to help evaluate the EcoTeams programme in terms of attitudinal and specific behaviour changes Working in partnership with the University of East Anglia (UEA) to hold in-depth interviews with past EcoTeams participants – analysing how the process works and assessing the longevity of impact. (Nye, M. Burgess, J. (2008) ‘Promoting Durable Change in Household Waste and Energy Use Behaviour’. Technical Report submitted to DEFRA, February 2008).

Effectiveness of the EcoTeams programme in engaging communities in pro-environmental behaviours Analysis of the quantitative data held on the EcoTeams web database shows how successful EcoTeams is at helping households reduce their environmental impact. Households who participated in EcoTeams projects delivered on a ‘semi-facilitated’ basis: • • • • • • •

reduced their waste by an average of 20.0%, increased their recycling as a proportion of total waste by an average of 5.1%, reduced their electricity consumption by an average of 7.0%, reduced their gas/ heating energy consumption by an average of 20.8% (seasonally adjusted figures), reduced their direct CO2 emissions by an average of 16.6%, reduced their water use by an average of 14.9%, and made average savings of £148 per year on their energy and water bills.

Feedback in response to the participant survey was extremely positive in terms of the effect that EcoTeams has on participants’ attitudes and behaviour towards the environment. Having completed EcoTeams: • • • •

94% reported that they were doing more to reduce environmental impact than before, 94% stated that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to maintain the changes they implemented during EcoTeams, 89% rated their understanding of their household’s impact on the environment as ‘high’ or ‘very high’, 83% stated that they feel confident talking to other people about environmental issues and 84% would recommend EcoTeams to people they know, and

•

81% rated the EcoTeams meetings as ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in encouraging them to make small (but significant) changes in their lifestyle.

These survey results are significant because they support the notion that the EcoTeams programme results in long term behaviour change. How EcoTeams is delivered Global Action Plan has piloted various different delivery models to find the most effective way to engage with as many households as possible and yield the best environmental results. Results from the evaluation of these different delivery models show that the ‘semi-facilitated’ method of engagement is beneficial in terms of; cost-effectiveness, reduction in environmental impact, and reach to a large number of households. Global Action Plan accesses large number of households in a variety of communities through this delivery mechanism by working in partnership with local authorities or organisations. Volunteer EcoTeams facilitators (team leaders) are recruited from the organisation or community and are then trained by Global Action Plan to recruit and run their own EcoTeams. Support is provided through the training, the web database and on-going advice and guidance. What makes EcoTeams successful The UEA EcoTeams interviews identified some key aspects of the EcoTeams programme that, when combined, make it a successful tool for engaging communities in pro-environmental action. These include: • • •

Team-based approach (group dynamics) - providing both support and pressure to change behaviours, Household measuring, monitoring and feedback reinforces participants’ progress, Incorporation of small (but significant) changes into pre-existing lifestyles, which become habitual.

Feedback in response to the participant survey revealed the aspects of the EcoTeams programme which participants felt made it successful. 99% felt that the programme made them more aware of their own responsibility towards the environment and 96% reported that being given practical (and local) advice about ways to reduce environmental impact was important. Other ways in which participants felt it helped them reduce their impact were as follows: • • • • • • •

‘(EcoTeams has) made me believe that what I do actually makes a difference to the environment / facts on how my everyday life impacts on the environment’. ‘(EcoTeams has) made me more confident. I can actually do things that are needed to reduce my impact’. ‘(EcoTeams has) shown me examples of what other people are doing to reduce environmental impact in their everyday lives’. ‘(EcoTeams has) given me information on where to go for advice/ to get environmentally friendly products/ services’. ‘(EcoTeams) shown me what personal benefits I can get from reducing my environmental impact’. ‘(EcoTeams has) shown me what Government and business are doing to reduce environmental impact’. ‘(EcoTeams has) persuaded me that being ‘green’ is normal’.

The added value of EcoTeams The in-depth interviews with past participants also looked at the long-term impact of EcoTeams. All the participants interviewed reported that they were still carrying out the pro-environmental actions started through EcoTeams, even six months to two years after finishing the programme. Some reported that they were taking even more pro-environmental actions than they were during the programme. This is backed up by the survey data. Those respondents who finished the programme up to three years ago are now engaged in more pro-environmental actions than those who just finished in the last year. They are also starting to engage in the ‘next level’ of activities – i.e. those things that require more effort and investment. From the interviews, it was concluded that this long term (‘durable’) impact was mostly due to the holistic nature of EcoTeams, and also because it fits with pre-existing lifestyles. The introduction of small (but significant) changes, which fit with a pre-existing lifestyle, are likely to be sustained long term. EcoTeams acts as a test-bed for new behaviours, which then become habit and routine over a longer time frame. Because EcoTeams deals with a whole range of sustainable lifestyle issues, (including waste, recycling, shopping, energy, water, transport), the links can be made between them. Participants can see how changes in one aspect of their lives affect another and start to benefit from ‘economies of scale’. Bundles of ‘green’ routines become ‘mutually sustaining’ and the continuation of these becomes necessary to sustain the self-identity of belonging to a ‘green group’ and living a ‘green lifestyle’. Using the semi-facilitated delivery model for EcoTeams it is also possible to access a wider variety of people in different segments of the community: •

Team leaders (or ‘facilitators’), who volunteer to work directly with an environmental charity and run an EcoTeam, are likely to have prior ‘green’ intentions (DEFRA segments 1-3). This is evidenced by the dataset which indicates that team leaders tend to have less waste, recycle more, use less energy and less water prior to EcoTeams than their team members.

•

Team members, who are peer-recruited by the volunteer team leaders (from social groups, colleagues, family, friends), are likely to be less ‘green’ at the outset as they have social as well as environmental motives for joining. This is shown in the data-set, which indicates that team members are generally doing less environmentally than team leaders prior to taking part in EcoTeams. They tend to produce more waste, recycling less, use more energy and more water prior to EcoTeams than team leaders. The data and survey results also indicate that people who have participated in semi-facilitated EcoTeams take more pro-environmental actions as opposed to those people who have volunteered to work directly with Global Action Plan under the fully-facilitated model. The assertion is that participants from this method of engagement have more potential to make changes in their lives (possibly accessing DEFRA segments 4 -5).

•

The team-based approach of EcoTeams is vital in sharing best practice and ideas, and can be a very effective way of mixing DEFRA segments 1-5 and encouraging further action.

•

The EcoTeams programme is not ideal in accessing harder-to-reach communities. However, another engagement process has been developed (on the back of EcoTeams), which tackles this issue. The EverGreen process uses a more time-intensive, practical delivery mechanism for community engagement, which results in favourable environmental savings as well as community capacity-building.

Reasons for participation in EcoTeams The UEA research identified three main reasons which participants gave for wanting to take part in EcoTeams. These were: • • •

A desire to get to know others in their community with ‘green’ intentions. The provision of trustworthy information on how to reduce environmental impact. The fulfilment of prior ‘green intentions’, which were not yet fully realised.

From a government perspective, EcoTeams fits with DEFRA’s priorities on sustainable consumption and production because it promotes more sustainable behaviour by individuals. EcoTeams takes a holistic view of sustainability. It encourages households to address the issues of waste, energy, transport, shopping and wider community action. It collects before and after data that measures actual behaviour change rather than just increased awareness. A strategy for working with local authorities is seen as vital in extending the reach of EcoTeams nationally. Working through local communities provides the vital ‘local expert’ aspect of the programme. The local authority itself acts as an important broker in terms of facilitating what is possible and helping to break down systemic barriers. There are a number of reasons why local authorise may be attracted to the semi-facilitated EcoTeams programme. These include the ability to: • Raise environmental awareness within the council, businesses and voluntary sector in their locality. • Provide a delivery mechanism for engaging the community in environmental action. (The EverGreen process can also be used to access and engage harder to reach communities). • Help deliver on climate change and sustainability strategies. • Help meet energy efficiency, waste and recycling targets. For organisations, another aspect of the national expansion of EcoTeams is engaging with other potentially interested organisations, (such as membership organisations, utility companies, housing associations and corporate organisations), and thereby to gaining access to members, customers, residents, and employees.

Section 1: Introduction 1. What are EcoTeams? Global Action Plan’s EcoTeams programme is designed to help households make improvements across a wide range of consumption activities including energy use, transport, water, waste and shopping. It seeks to change consumer behaviour at the community level through education, training and support, and gives practical advice and ideas on how to improve household efficiency, reduce environmental impact and save resources. EcoTeams are groups of approximately six people who each represent their household. They meet once a month for five months, and are provided with a set of resources to enable them to discuss topics such as the environmental issues of waste and shopping, energy, transport and water. With the help of these materials and their facilitators, participants discuss the issues and map out practical actions they can take to reduce their impact in each area. They are encouraged to share their experiences, local knowledge and ideas for pro-environmental action, and to support each other in making further changes to their households’ behaviours. Throughout the project, participants are asked to weigh their household rubbish and recycling output and measure their energy and water consumption (see the example measurement form in Appendix A). At the end of the project, this data is used to create a personalised feedback report for each household. These feedback reports show seasonally adjusted energy consumption, waste, water and recycling levels over the course of the project, and (ideally) demonstrate improvements in these areas (see the example household feedback report in Appendix B). A final EcoTeams meeting is held to celebrate the collective achievements of the group and to discuss potential next steps or future actions the participants may wish to take in their communities.

2. The history of EcoTeams The core EcoTeams process was developed by Global Action Plan in the Netherlands in 1990, and run very successfully with a large proportion of the Dutch population through the 1990s. Simultaneously, Global Action Plan in the UK had begun experimenting with the ‘Small Change’ programme: a team-based initiative aimed at promoting pro-environmental behaviour through community development among less advantaged communities in London and the North West. However, lack of funding for the Small Change initiative drove Global Action Plan towards a more mainstream social marketing approach called ‘Action at Home’, which was used by local authorities to support their LA 21 initiatives. Following a fairly critical review of the outcomes and rationale for the ‘Action at Home’ programme, Global Action Plan returned to the idea of achieving change through small teams of people. As part of this review, we looked to the efforts of our sister organisation in the Netherlands, and specifically, their work with EcoTeams. The outcome of this critical self-examination and refocusing period was the renewed commitment to using team-based approaches across all of Global Action Plan’s activities and programmes, and the subsequent roll-out of the EcoTeams programme with households in the UK. The first stage of this roll-out was to modify the EcoTeams programme into something which would work better in the UK context by reducing it from a nine month process, to a five month process. EcoTeams was first introduced to the UK in Nottingham, where it has been running since 2000. The next stage of development was to try to find ways of making EcoTeams more cost-effective to deliver to large numbers of participants. This led, in 2002, to pilot projects with a number of organisations, which tested three different delivery models: ‘fully-facilitated’, ‘semi-facilitated’ and ‘standalone’.

• • •

Fully-facilitated: Global Action Plan project officers were employed in the community to deliver the project (Rushcliffe, Broxtowe, Nottingham City). Semi-facilitated: Global Action Plan trained groups of volunteer facilitators to run their own EcoTeams (Surrey, Northumberland, Shropshire, Reading, British Gas, DEFRA). Stand-alone: The materials were provided for the organisation to deliver the project autonomously (Surrey, Angus, East Renfrewshire, Stoke, St. Helens)

Organisations were initially most interested in the stand-alone model as it represented a very costeffective method of delivery. However, feedback on the difficulty in recruiting teams and poor take-up of the project by volunteers led to this delivery model being abandoned. It was apparent that a greater level of support was needed to recruit participants and to deliver the project. Fully- and semi-facilitated delivery models provided the greater level of support required. The third stage of development was to test the relative effectiveness of delivering EcoTeams in different community groups. Global Action Plan received funding from DEFRA’s Environmental Action Fund (EAF) to support EcoTeams development between 2005 and 2008. DEFRA’s Environmental Action Fund (EAF) has allowed the EcoTeams programme to move on and be refined since its initial development and introduction in the UK. Through the EAF project Global Action Plan has been able to: •

Test the EcoTeams programme with various types of community groups and to evaluate its effectiveness in delivering pro-environmental behaviour change. This has allowed Global Action Plan to test various delivery models to see which was the most cost-effective way to reach as many households as possible. It also allowed us to build a very useful body of data on effective community engagement tools: to date EcoTeams have been run with 3,602 households.

•

Develop an attitude and behaviour change survey. Global Action Plan worked with the New Economics Foundation, to develop a ‘before’ and ‘after’ questionnaire which allows us to see how participants’ attitudes have changed through taking part in the programme. The survey also allows us to drill-down into the detail of what actions people have taken through their participation in EcoTeams.

•

Produce a new EcoTeams handbook to accompany the programme. The new ring-binder format was designed using feedback from the pilot studies, and provides a greater degree of flexibility, since it enables local authorities or organisations to prioritise the programme according to local context and/ or to add local information. The content has also been revised to make it more interactive and accessible.

•

Develop the EcoTeams web database. Global Action Plan has developed a new web-based data collection system for EcoTeams. The availability of the online EcoTeams database and web portal means that EcoTeams participants are now able to enter their household measurement data directly onto the database, through the website. This not only makes the programme more participative, but also exponentially increases the number of households Global Action Plan can work with at any one time. Prior to the web database, all feedback reports were produced manually by Global Action Plan staff using Microsoft Excel, (which was a very time-intensive method of working, and did not allow for the sophisticated and seasonally-adjusted analysis of data* which the web database provides). The web database enabled a full quantitative evaluation of the programme, and is a legacy to future participants. It is an invaluable tool without which Global Action Plan could not hope to expand EcoTeams nationally. *A major function of the web database is the degree-day adjustment to take account of the impact of seasonal variations in outside temperature on individual household’s heating energy requirements. This, in particular, adds value and innovation to the EcoTeams process.

Global Action Plan also received funding from DEFRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Waste Research fund; running in parallel to the EAF-funded project. This has allowed a qualitative analysis of EcoTeams to be carried out in the form of focus groups and in-depth interviews. This report summarises all of the work carried out on EcoTeams to date, including the research outcomes, achievements and lessons learnt.

Section 2: Evaluation methodology This section gives details of the various evaluation methods, approaches and information sources used in support of the findings in this report. It looks at the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from EcoTeams participants, to evaluate the efficacy of the EcoTeams programme.

1. Household measuring and monitoring Evaluation aims Evaluation of household measuring and monitoring data allows us to quantify how much participants have saved in terms of waste sent to landfill, energy and water consumption and carbon emissions. This provides a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the EcoTeams process at converting environmental awareness to actual behaviour change. Evaluation description Weighing and measuring forms an integral part of the EcoTeams programme. Historically, participants recorded their waste, energy and water consumption measurements on forms provided with their EcoTeams handbooks. These sheets were passed back to Global Action Plan at the end of the project for processing. Simple feedback reports were produced using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft Word. However, the system did not provide the level of sophisticated analysis required, was very time-consuming and prone to inconsistency. Using the EAF funding, Global Action Plan has developed a superior web-based data collection system for EcoTeams. The EcoTeams web portal now allows household measurement data to be input simply and directly, and the database algorithms enable fast and sophisticated analysis of that measurement data. The database automatically produces a tailored feedback report for each household, and can be used for higher-level reporting on aggregate environmental savings. Evaluation method Sample All available household data from historical EcoTeams participants has been input and uploaded to the web database, excluding data collected from school pupils. Some data quality control was necessary during this process. At the time of writing, the web database contains a dataset of 1096 EcoTeams households. Procedure â&#x20AC;˘ Rubbish and recycling: EcoTeams participants are asked to weigh their household rubbish and recycling every week. This is because the weekly variation of household waste is high. It is recommended that they weigh their rubbish and recycling separately (ideally the night before they put it out for collection), by hanging each bag on the fishing scales provided by Global Action Plan, and then adding up the totals for each. Participants are also asked to record the number of people in their household that week so that the average amount of rubbish and recycling produced per person per week can be calculated. â&#x20AC;˘ Energy and water meters: EcoTeams participants are asked to record their gas, electricity and water meter readings every month (if available). We recommend that they do this the night before each topic meeting. Materials EcoTeams participants are provided with fishing scales with which to weigh their waste. They could also use their own kitchen or bathroom scales if they prefer. Record sheets are provided in the EcoTeams handbook, if required (Appendix A), and households receive a feedback report (Appendix B).

Timing Participants are asked to weigh and measure their household consumption throughout the EcoTeams project. We have therefore accumulated a large dataset which provides robust quantitative evidence of household environmental behaviour change.

2. Participant survey: Attitudes and behaviour change Evaluation aims The EcoTeams participant survey aims to provide a deeper understanding of the impact that the EcoTeams programme has on a participant’s motivation, behaviour and lifestyle. The aim was to refine previous surveys and to produce a record that can be used for future EcoTeams projects and possibly other Global Action Plan projects as a measure of effectiveness. Additionally, comparisons will be made with the results of the EcoTeams Evaluation Report from December 2006. The analysis of the survey results allows us to evaluate: • • • •

the overall impact of EcoTeams on attitude and behaviour change, a further understanding of drivers for change, the effectiveness of different delivery models, the long term impact of EcoTeams.

Evaluation description In 2006, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) helped Global Action Plan to develop a ‘before’ and ‘after’ attitude and behaviour change survey for EcoTeams participants (Appendix C). This was then uploaded onto the Survey Monkey online tool www.surveymonkey.com to help improve response rates to the survey, and to facilitate analysis of the results. The post-participation (‘after’) survey was further refined in 2007 and emailed to EcoTeams participants who had completed the project within the past two years (see Appendix C). A paper version of the survey was also posted to those participants who did not supply email addresses. The survey was designed to capture information about the effects of EcoTeams in terms of: environmental knowledge, reasons for taking part, the social benefits of EcoTeams, and the most common types of behaviour change. Evaluation method Sample In total 400 surveys were sent out to participants who had completed EcoTeams from 2005 onwards. 159 participants responded to the survey, of which 76% were female and 24% were male. The response rate was therefore 40%. To allow for comparisons when evaluating the survey data, two levels of differentiations were made: between participants who had completed the project during 2005-06 and those who completed during 2006-07, and also between semi-facilitated (hereafter referred to as ‘SF’) and fully-facilitated (hereafter referred to as ‘FF’) delivery models. A substantial number of past EcoTeams participants did not supply contact details and were therefore not able to be contacted. The number of participants contacted represents the total number of participants who completed EcoTeams from 2005 onwards that supplied contact details. Procedure All surveys included a cover letter which explained what it was for and assured confidentiality and anonymity of the results. In addition, participants who provided contactable email addresses were sent an email with a link to the survey which included the equivalent cover letter. Recognising that the survey was of significant length, it was split into two parts in order to boost the response rate (where the first part consisted of general behaviour change and attitude questions, and the second part consisted of detailed behaviour change actions questions). Halfway through, participants were asked if they would like to complete the final part of the survey, and therefore given the option to complete the first part only.

Materials The complete set of questions with percentage response summaries can be found in Appendix D. The first page of questions asks for general demographic information and details of when the respondent took part in the project. Following this, there is a set of questions regarding the effectiveness of the group meetings, the methodologies involved during the EcoTeams process, and how EcoTeams has affected participant’s knowledge of relevant local and national governments initiatives and services. Questions 813 ask about the social impacts and behavioural changes encouraged by the project, and whether participants would recommend EcoTeams to people they know. The second part of the survey looks at specific actions prompted by EcoTeams under the headings of: waste, shopping, lighting and appliances, heating and hot water, cooking and refrigeration, transport, water use and household chemicals. Timing The survey was collected in paper format from 2005 and was sent out in electronic format during November 2007 and all responses were collated and inputted by the beginning of January 2008.

3. Participant focus groups and interviews Evaluation aims Global Action Plan and the University of East Anglia (UEA) received funding from DEFRA’s Waste Research fund to evaluate EcoTeams. The primary objective of the two-year waste research project, conducted by UEA, was to address the question of how individuals and households can be encouraged to change their behaviour in order to reduce their level of waste, and also to sustain this behaviour change. The research sought to better understand how a team-based action project and the mechanisms within it foster long-term (or ‘durable’) behaviour change with regards to waste and recycling activities. In doing so, the research also addressed demand-side waste prevention measures and the development of tools and instruments for other pro-environmental behaviour change. Two primary questions guided the research inquiry: • How can individuals and households be encouraged to change their behaviour in order to reduce their level of waste production, recycle more of their remaining waste, and reduce their energy consumption? • How can such changes in domestic routines be sustained beyond the life of an action project? In order to address these questions, the research examined the following themes: • The motivation of individuals and households to participate in the programme, including the extent to which the demographic profiles of EcoTeams participants conform to the general demographic profile of the neighbourhoods in which they live. • The relative behavioural contributions and importance of the different elements of the EcoTeams programme. These include social interaction and group deliberation, information provision, and personalised feedback on waste and energy use behaviours. • The types and extent of behaviour change achieved through the programme. • How and why pro-environmental behaviour changes are, or are not, sustained beyond the life of the programme. The answers to the questions and themes above were not easily found in the existing academic literature. Previous investigations concentrated overwhelmingly on individuals’ intentions to change aspects of their behaviour, rather than the drivers of actual behaviour change when it occurs. The UEA research sought to address these important gaps in understanding. Although the primary focus was on waste, other environmentally significant behaviours, such as energy consumption, water conservation measures and shopping activities were also addressed and are discussed in support of the research conclusions.

Evaluation description Funding from the DEFRA Waste Research fund allowed for in-depth qualitative interviews with past EcoTeams participants from the last three years as well as focus group workshops to get feedback on the programme. The UEA full report (Nye and Burgess 2008) presents findings regarding the drivers of long-term (‘durable’) change in waste and energy behaviour stemming from EcoTeams, and how that behaviour change is produced in terms of the techniques and processes achieved via the programme. (Nye, M. Burgess, J. (2008), ‘Promoting Durable Change in Household Waste and Energy Use Behaviour’. Technical Report submitted to DEFRA, February 2008). For the executive summary of this research see Appendix E. Evaluation method Sample The UEA research team conducted in-depth interviews with 49 volunteer EcoTeams participants across the South East, South West and Nottingham. Four focus group workshops were held with, on average, 10 participants in each. Procedure A qualitative, interview-based methodology was employed for the UEA research. Data collection occurred in three distinct stages that were separated by periods of analysis and refinement of the research questions and approach. Pilot interviews During the five pilot interviews, participants were asked simply to tell the story of their participation in EcoTeams, or in the case of facilitators, to describe the programme and its components in detail. Focus group workshops Focus group workshops covered behaviour change and the EcoTeams programme in five broad areas that were informed by the pilot interview data, including: • • • • •

Recruitment. Group dynamics (including diffusion of information from within and outside the groups). The types of changes made as a result of participation in EcoTeams. Potential barriers to making change (including the challenges of making changes in the context of a household), and the potential for long term change to result from EcoTeams. The potential for wider social benefits to be realised as a result of participation.

In-depth interviews On average, each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Whenever possible, interviews were conducted in the participant’s home, in order to focus the discussion around domestic pro-environmental behaviour change and to meet the respondents in ‘their own territory,’ which the UEA research team hoped would make them feel more comfortable and more able to speak candidly. All of the interviews followed a similar format. After a brief introduction, respondents were asked to recall how they heard about the EcoTeams programme and what prompted them to get involved. The conversation was then guided into a discussion of the key topics identified in the pilot interviews and workshops, including: • • • • • • •

Method of recruitment and motives for joining. Changed behaviour(s) as a result of participation. Group dynamics and feelings about other group members. The topics covered and diffusion of ideas in team meetings. The experience of weighing and measuring. The challenges of making changes in the context of a household. The longevity of behaviour or likelihood of reverting to bad habits.

Materials Whenever possible, interviews were recorded on mini-disc for transcription by a professional typing service. However, a total of 10 interviews were not recorded or were not transcribed for various reasons. The total usable data-set for this research consists of 43 transcripts from 39 interviews and four workshops. Timing • The series of five pilot interviews were conducted in August and September 2006 with former EcoTeams participants in the South East. • The series of four focus group workshops were then held in November and December 2006 with former EcoTeams participants in the South East. • The 49 in-depth interviews were conducted from January to September 2007 with former EcoTeams participants in the South East, South West and Nottingham.

Section 3: Results of the evaluation 1. Evidence of reduction in household environmental impact Through the measuring processes (described earlier), and the development of the EcoTeams web database, Global Action Plan can summarise what has been achieved with the 3,602 households we have worked with to date. A full analysis has been carried out to examine the effectiveness of the EcoTeams programme in delivering environmental behaviour change and reducing the environmental impact of participating households. The following section provides information on the overall results, across the entire data set and including all delivery types (i.e. stand alone, fully-facilitated and semi-facilitated): Summary of the data-set

In data-set In total

Number of teams

212

697

Number of households

1,096

3,602

Number of people

2,750

9,041

Average number of households per team 5.15 Average number of people per household 2.51

Overall results on residual waste (rubbish) output

Kilograms per household per month

Residual w aste per household per m onth (kg)

• • • • •

25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

Entire dataset

Before

19.5

After

15.8

Overall, the entire group of households reduced their waste by an average of 19.2%. Average waste before the topic meeting was 19.5 kg per household per month (or 234 kg per household per year). Average waste after the topic meeting was 15.8 kg per household per month (or 189 kg per household per year). If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to a saving of 45 kg of waste per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total of 162 tonnes of waste will be diverted from landfill per year.

Overall results on recycling output Combined waste and recycling (kg) per month

Kg per household per month

45.0

• • • • •

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

Before

After

Recycling

21.3

22.3

Rubbish

19.5

15.8

Overall, the entire group of households increased their recycling by an average of 4.7%. Average recycling before the topic meeting was 21.3 kg per household per month (or 256 kg per household per year). Average recycling after the topic meeting was 22.3 kg per household per month (or 268 kg per household per year). If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to an increase of 12 kg of recycling per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total saving of 43 tonnes of recycling produced per year. Overall results on electricity consumption

Kilowatt hours per household per month

E lec t ricit y co ns umpt io n pe r ho use ho ld pe r m o nt h ( k Wh)

• • • • • • •

350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0

Entire dataset

Before

304.8

After

289.4

Overall, the entire group of households reduced their electricity consumption by an average of 5.1%. Average electricity consumption before the topic meeting was 304.8 kWh per household per month (or 3,657 kWh per household per year). Average electricity consumption after the topic meeting was 289.4 kWh per household per month (or 3,472 kWh per household per year). If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to a saving of 185 kWh of electricity per household per year. Estimated financial savings from reduced electricity consumption (based on the average UK price in 2007) is approximately £21.46 per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total of 666,370 kWh less electricity will be consumed per year. This corresponds to an estimated total financial saving from reduced electricity consumption (based on the average UK price in 2007) of approximately £77,299.

Overall results on heating energy consumption (from gas, electricity, coal, oil, wood)

Kilowatt hours per household per month

Heating energy consum ption per household per m onth (kWh)

• • • • • • •

2000

1500

1000

500

Entire dataset

Predicted

1784.8

Actual

1467.4

Overall, the entire group of households reduced their heating energy consumption by an average of 17.8%. Average predicted heating energy consumption after the topic meeting was 1,784.8 kWh per household per month (or 21,418 kWh per household per year). Average actual heating energy consumption after the topic meeting was 1,467.4 kWh per household per month (or 17,608 kWh per household per year). If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to a saving of 3,810 kWh of heating energy per household per year. Estimated financial savings from reduced gas consumption (based on the average UK gas price in 2007) is approximately £114.30 per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total of 13,723,620 kWh less heating energy will be consumed per year. This corresponds to an estimated total financial saving from reduced gas consumption (based on the average UK gas price in 2007) of approximately £411,709. Assumptions made: The calculations in this section are based upon the assumption that space heating accounts for approximately 60% of household energy consumption in the UK [www.energysavingtrust.org.uk]. This means that where electricity was the only fuel type recorded, 60% of that electricity consumption has been attributed to heating. Where households have supplied gas meter readings or fuel oil measurements, we have assumed that these fuels are used to provide 100% of the household's space heating needs. Note on seasonal change adjustment for heating energy Households have to use more energy to heat their homes in colder weather, but this can make it look like they are not doing so well in their efforts to reduce household energy consumption. Fortunately, it is possible to adjust the figures to account for these seasonal variations in outside temperature. This allows us to evaluate whether households are actually using energy more efficiently, even though they are using more because it is colder. Adjusting for any seasonal variation in outside temperature, Global Action Plan calculates the expected (or ‘predicted’) amount of heating energy consumed if a household had maintained its baseline behaviour after the energy topic meeting. The graph above shows the predicted amount of heating energy consumed by the average household compared to the actual amount of heating energy consumed by the average household. (NB. Predicted figures are approximate due to variations in weather and individual buildings). It shows that the actual amount of heating energy consumed was less that the predicted amount we would expect according to the seasonal variation in outside temperature. This difference can be thought of as a 'saving', (i.e. the reduction in heating energy consumption) achieved by the

average household as a result of changing behaviour and putting in place various energyefficiency measures. Overall results on carbon dioxide emissions from direct household energy consumption

Kilograms per household per month

C a rbo n dio xide e mis s io ns f ro m direc t ho us eho ld ene rgy c o ns um pt io n pe r ho us eho ld per mo nt h ( kg)

• • • • •

450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0

Entire dataset

Before

396.5

After

341.5

Overall, the entire group of households reduced their direct CO2 emissions from household energy consumption by an average of 13.9% Average direct CO2 emissions from household energy consumption before the topic meeting was 396.5 kg per household per month (or 4,758 kg per household per year). Average direct CO2 emissions from household energy consumption after the topic meeting was 341.5 kg per household per month (or 4,098 kg per household per year). If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to a saving of 660kg of CO2 per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total of 2377 tonnes less CO2 will be produced from household energy consumption per year. Overall results on water consumption Water consum ption per household per m onth (litres)

Litres per household per month

9000.0 8000.0 7000.0 6000.0 5000.0 4000.0 3000.0 2000.0 1000.0 0.0

• • • • • •

Entire dataset

Before

8013.9

After

7115.2

Overall, the entire group of households reduced their water consumption by an average of 11.2%. Average water consumption before the topic meeting was 8,013.9 litres per household per month (or 96,167 litres per household per year). Average water consumption after the topic meeting was 7,115.2 litres per household per month (or 85,382 litres per household per year). Estimated financial savings from reduced water use (based on the average UK water price in 2007) is approximately £10.79 per household per year. If participants maintain their new behaviour, this equates to a saving of 10,785 litres of water per household per year. Scaled up, if 3,602 households maintain their new behaviour this means that a total of 38,847,500 litres less water will be consumed per year.

•

This corresponds to an estimated total financial saving from reduced water consumption (based on the average UK water price in 2007) is approximately £38,865 per year

Overall, EcoTeams is achieving substantial savings in all areas: waste, energy, carbon dioxide and water (as well as increasing the proportion of household waste that is being recycled). Given that EcoTeam participants are generally positively inclined towards pro-environmental behaviour change before embarking on the programme, it is perhaps unsurprising that the savings made are not universal across the different subject areas (on average 6 out of 10 households made savings in each of the subject areas). Participants may be already actively engaged in one or two areas of activity, and use the EcoTeams programme to concentrate on the areas not currently being tackled by their households.

2. Evidence of changes in attitudes and behaviours Analysis of the survey results from past participants gives us an important insight into the way people have changed their attitudes towards the environment, and how their actual behaviour has changed through participating in the programme. The full table of results is included in the Appendix D. Attitudes Having completed EcoTeams: • 94% reported that they were doing more to reduce environmental impact than before. • 94% stated that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to maintain the changes they implemented during EcoTeams. • 89% rated their understanding of their household’s impact on the environment as ‘high’ or ‘very high’. • 83% stated that they feel confident talking to other people about environmental issues and 84% would recommend EcoTeams to people they know. • 81% rated the EcoTeams workshops as ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in encouraging them to make small (but significant) changes in their lifestyle. These questionnaire results are significant in that they support the finding that the EcoTeams programme results in long term (durable) behaviour change. Behaviours Participants completed a section of the survey regarding particular pro-environmental behaviours they took up as a result of participating in EcoTeams. With a particular focus on actions regarding waste and recycling, as a result of EcoTeams: • 58% of participants now buy products that can be recycled over products that cannot. • 56% of participants now buy products with minimal or no packaging. • 45% of participants now buy products made from recycled materials where possible. • 45% of participants now compost kitchen and garden waste. Though 87% of participants said they were already recycling, many improved their recycling rate, as evidenced by their comments (as well as the quantitative data). From the feedback regarding what respondents liked most about EcoTeams, the most prominent aspect was with regards to waste and recycling element of the programme:

What did you like most about the EcoTeams meetings? Making you more aware of what was rubbish and what could be recycled Weighing rubbish, we now recycle more Tips about recycling

New ideas on how to recycle more and save energy We discovered a place where we can recycle plastic, not far from here Info on local organisations for recycling etc Website addresses and catalogue ideas for recycled goods

Regarding shopping, the most significant findings were that as a result of EcoTeams: • • •

48% of participants now avoid food produce that is not in season 44% of participants now buy produce as locally as possible. 40% of participants now buy fair-trade and make ethical purchasing decisions.

With regards to household energy (i.e. lighting and appliances, heating and hot water, cooking and refrigeration), as a result of EcoTeams: • • • • • • •

52% of participants now switch off appliances at the wall when not in use. 40% of participants reduced the need for heating by putting on a jumper or only heat the rooms in the house that are used the most. 37% of participants installed energy efficient light bulbs. 32% of participants replaced their fridge, freezer or washing machine with an energy efficient model. 32% of participants turned the thermostat down for central heating and hot water to 60°C. 30% of participants have taken a home energy check. 29% of participants now only fill the kettle with the required amount of water.

In terms of transport, the most significant findings were that as a result of EcoTeams: • •

35% of participants have reduced the number of short trips taken by car. 21% of participants have increased their use of public transport for regular journeys.

Looking at water use (and household chemicals), the most significant findings were that as a result of EcoTeams: • 66% of participants have now stopped using antibacterial products or now use natural cleaning alternatives. • 43% of participants now buy environmentally friendly cleaning products. • 39% of participants added a ‘hippo’ or ‘flush-saver’ to the cistern of older toilets. • 35% of participants now keep a jug or watering can next to the sink for excess water run when waiting for the hot tap to run hot. • 31% of participants have installed a water butt. Finally, the table below shows examples of the most common responses given when asked to report any other actions taken since participating in EcoTeams. Common actions included buying less, recycling and re-using as much as possible (especially bags). Many respondents reported that they were taking other actions as a result of raised general awareness in terms of the impact of everyday behaviours on the environment. Other actions (common responses) Joined ‘Freecycle’, which has been very successful Using own shopping bags and don't accept shop plastic bags I buy less- try to buy only what I need Much more aware of not leaving lights on Re-use envelopes where possible Recycle or re-use as much as possible It has encouraged me to give talks in school on global warming. Continued to monitor gas and electricity usage monthly Support local independent shops as much as I can My involvement helped me show my children my commitment and on going commitment to eco issues & hopefully taught them how important it is. Generally been more aware of my actions and how they could affect the planet.

Interestingly, there were some actions that respondents were less inclined to adopt. Some of these may have proved impractical for participants who experienced barriers of some kind. A common problem for many people is the expense of upgrading the house and installing energy-saving features e.g. installing solar hot water or replacing an old boiler with an energy efficient one. Another possible barrier (particularly regarding transport) is the lack of services and unreliability of public transport, as well as convenience. Some of the other actions above may not have been adopted for other reasons such as a lack of conviction that they would make a difference (e.g. converting a diesel car to biodiesel, stop using bleach) or possibly because some habits are hard to change. The following table displays those actions where the largest proportion of respondents indicated that they had ‘no plans to do this action’. Actions not adopted ("Have no plans to do this action")

Installed solar hot water heating Have a food box delivered from a local supplier Stopped using bleach Joined a green energy tariff Converted diesel car to biodiesel Car sharing/ form a car club Installed reflective panels behind radiators on external walls Increased cycling trips Replaced old boiler with energy efficient one Installed a water meter Borrow or rent items rather than buy if item is only needed occasionally

79 76 65 63 61 59 51 49 47 45 41

Variations and similarities in behaviour change activities A detailed analysis of behaviour change within each of the six categories reveals some important variations and similarities between them. •

•

Changes in waste and recycling behaviour: respondents recycle and compost more due to participation in EcoTeams. They also make other decisions based on waste, mainly related to shopping habits, (e.g. a commitment to use washable or biodegradable nappies). Changes in shopping behaviour: the actions noted here are also heavily influenced by waste, transport and health concerns, such as buying seasonally, buying local, seeking to reduce packaging, reducing plastic bag consumption. Changes in energy use behaviour: participants most commonly: switch to energy saving light bulbs, increase diligence in switching off appliances, and generally make more of an effort to use less energy. Some make investments such as buying energy efficient appliances. Changes in transport behaviour: this is commonly referred to as the most difficult area to address due to issues of time and convenience. Despite this, participants were encouraged to: take a more holistic approach to car travel – combining journeys, using public transport more, reducing unnecessary trips abroad. Changes in water use behaviour: The majority of participants decided to stop using antibacterial cleaning products and choose more environmentally-friendly alternatives. Many installed watersaving devices to the cisterns of toilets and some installed water butts to collect and redistribute rainwater.

A previous evaluation report of EcoTeams was produced in December 2006 incorporating the feedback from focus groups, impact mapping (developed by NEF) and questionnaires. The results from the 2006 evaluation were broadly similar to the current evaluation despite the delivery model changing from fullyfacilitated to semi-facilitated. The results from both evaluations support the notion that EcoTeams increases knowledge and awareness of environmental issues whilst motivating participants to make small behavioural changes to reduce their households’ environmental impact. The 2006 evaluation highlighted the need for the questionnaires to be simplified in order to produce a higher response rate. Based on this feedback, the 2007 surveys were shortened and simplified which generated a higher response rate (40% in 2007, compared to 25% in 2006). Furthermore, in 2006

participants were initially given a ‘before’ (or ‘pre-programme’) survey at their first meeting, however the response rate for this was extremely poor. In addition, the 2006 evaluation highlighted the issue that the survey and other evaluative tools were targeting those participants who had completed EcoTeams in ‘the last few months’, and was therefore unable to speak with reliable authority about whether the reported behavioural changes were indeed long-term and durable. Conversely, the 2007 survey was sent to past EcoTeams participants who completed the project up to three years ago, thereby providing a more robust set of data spanning a much longer period of time. From the feedback regarding what respondents liked least about EcoTeams, there were two prominent themes; the first was that the project was ‘preaching to the converted’, and the other was a lack of support or contact after EcoTeams project had ended. The first issue is perennial to EcoTeams (and was highlighted in the 2006 evaluation), however, it is apparent that despite this contention, the data shows that significant reductions have been made by ‘the converted’ in terms of waste and recycling production, and energy and water consumption. This strongly indicates that there significant validity in the EcoTeams programme, and that further improvements can always be made, irrespective of how ‘green’ participants thought they were prior to joining. Nonetheless, this does highlight Global Action Plan’s ongoing challenge to recruit those groups not already committed to change. This is partly addressed by the use of the semi-facilitated approach, and partly by the creation of the EverGreen process (which is discussed below). The second issue, with regards to the provision of support once each EcoTeams project has finished, is being addressed through future developments for EcoTeams. Current ideas are: • • •

To create a repeat-visitor section on the web database so that past participants can continue to measure. To create a forum on the website to help facilitate a ‘virtual community’ of EcoTeams participants. To develop an EcoTeams ‘master class’ for those wish to take further steps to reduce their environmental impact.

In terms of the social benefits of EcoTeams, the feedback clearly demonstrates that the programme does provide a social function for participants. Some participants have been encouraged to take further environmental action in their localities. One participant responded to the survey by reporting that ‘at the school I work at I've started a school paper recycling scheme through the city council - supported by all staff and pupils’.

3. How the EcoTeams programme is delivered It is estimated, that through the EcoTeams programme Global Action Plan has engaged with 3,602 households, which corresponds to approximately 9,041 people directly benefiting from the project. From testing the EcoTeams programme with different local authorities, organisations and delivery models, Global Action Plan has been able to develop a strategy for extending the reach of EcoTeams nationally. Delivery options have been developed that incorporate the needs of local authorities and organisations in providing the right level of support in a cost-effective manner to reach as many households and community sectors as possible. This section explores the way in which Global Action Plan piloted a number of different delivery models to find the most cost-effective way to reach large numbers of households, through a local community based initiative, and the way in which we arrived at the current delivery model for EcoTeams.

EcoTeams delivery models Fully-facilitated (high cost)

Semi-facilitated (medium cost)

Stand alone (low cost)

Description of Model • Full-time Global Action Plan project officers based in the community, responsible for team recruitment*, dissemination of materials and delivering all the topic meetings. • Materials provided: EcoTeams handbooks and DVDs. • Household feedback reports provided by Global Action Plan. • Partner organisations responsible for recruiting 15 volunteers to lead EcoTeams in their localities or organisations. • Global Action Plan provide a training workshop for the 15 volunteer facilitators (team leaders) to demonstrate how to deliver EcoTeams. • Each facilitator recruits and runs a team of 6 – 8 households. • Materials provided: EcoTeams handbooks, facilitator packs, EcoTeams DVDs. • Household feedback reports provided by Global Action Plan. • Initial meeting with leads from each of the partner organisations. • Materials provided: EcoTeams handbooks, facilitator packs, EcoTeams DVDs. • Partner organisations responsible for all recruitment, dissemination of materials and delivery of the process with their participants. • Household feedback reports provided by Global Action Plan.

*The following charts give a breakdown of the various methods used by project staff to recruit participants onto the fully facilitated EcoTeams programme. It was a very time intensive and, therefore, costly process, as nearly all participants were recruited directly by Global Action Plan: Percentage recruited by different methods 15% 27% 4%

Doorknocking Event

Partner organisation Word of mouth

Written info Not known/other

42%

400 300 200 100 0

er th

no wn

e sit W

,l in e

m ag

-G h ap

er ,

ou t m

Method used

of d or W

co -E h

ou t m of d W

em . ..

.. Te .

m d

or or

Pa Summary category

Number of people recruited

e. ..

h ou t

p of

ity W

r tn

er /C

m un

en t( Pr es

or Do

gr ou

ti o n) ta

Potential EcoTeamer EcoTeamer

kin

Number of people

Number of people recruited by methods currently used

Estimated number of events

Estimated hours per event

Estimate of total staff hours

Estimated hours per recruit

Door knocking

225

400

1.8

Event

359

134

1340

3.7

Partner organisation

Word of mouth

Written info

Not estimated

Not known/other

126

N/A

Not estimated 0.0

EcoTeams has now been delivered and tested with 36 different organisations and communities across the country. Community types

Name of community / organisations

Delivery model FF (fully facilitated)

Number of Households

SS (semi-facilitated) SA (stand alone) Local Authority communities

Housing Associations Organisations

Interest Groups

Media groups

Totals

Lewes District

194

Tonbridge & Malling District

191

Rushcliffe Borough

349

Broxtowe Borough

386

Gedling Borough

Dawlish Town

154

Hastings Borough

197

Thanet Borough

317

Nottingham City

Broxtowe Estate

Angus Council

SA & SF

Canterbury City Council

No data

Carmarthenshire County Council

East Renfrewshire Council

Northumberland County Council

Reading Borough Council

Shropshire County Council

St Helens Council

Stoke on Trent City Council

Surrey County Council

Hanover in Hackney Housing Association Barbican City Housing Association

Evergreen SF

Devon & Cornwall Housing Association British Gas

SF SF

11 54

DEFRA

John Laing plc

National Federation of Womens’ Institutes Christian Ecology Group

SF SF

812 5

Quakers

Serene/ CARE Blackerton/ En-Form

Chris Gathercole

FREDA+

BBC

Cambridge Women’s Hour

Metro London newspaper

Community Radio Southall

No. of Groups = 36

FF = 9, SF = 20, SA = 7

157

340 No data

No data

No. of HH = 3,602

Quantitative evaluation of delivery methods An analysis was carried out to test the effectiveness of the various different delivery models used by Global Action Plan. This, in turn, has facilitated an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of delivery. Residual waste (rubbish) Kilograms per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Before

22.8

19.4

19.2

After

17.9

15.8

15.3

Change (kg)

-4.8

-3.6

-3.8

Change (%)

-21.2

-18.5

-20.0

Recycling as a proportion of total waste Kilograms per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Before

21.1

21.9

23.2

After

21.8

22.8

Recycling as a proportion of total waste before (%)

48.1

53.0

54.7

Recycling as a proportion of total waste after (%)

54.8

57.9

59.8

6.7

4.9

5.1

Percentage change in recycling as a proportion of total waste Electricity kWh per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Before

325.8

302.9

311.6

After

322.6

291.0

289.9

Change (kWh)

-3.2

-11.9

-21.7

Change (%)

-1.0

-3.9

-7.0

Heating energy kWh per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Predicted

2081.5

1852.5

1685.6

Actual

1892.1

1524.4

1335.2

Change (kWh)

-189.4

-328.1

-350.4

-9.1

-17.7

-20.8

Change (%) Carbon dioxide emissions from direct household energy consumption Kilograms per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Before

385.0

417.8

376.4

After

362.1

361.7

313.9

Change (kg)

-22.9

-56.1

-62.5

Change (%)

-5.9

-13.4

-16.6

Water consumption Litres per household per month

Delivery model Stand alone

Fully facilitated

Semi facilitated

Before

5412.7

7947.0

After

5508.9

7592.0

6788.3

96.3

-355.0

-1185.3

1.8

-4.5

-14.9

Change (litres) Change (%)

7973.6

Results by delivery model show that, as expected, the stand-alone method was not as effective at delivering environmental behaviour change. The stand-alone delivery model attracted a lot of initial interest as it was a seemingly a cost-effective way to engage with communities. This delivery model was the least expensive to deliver, (as little staff time was required), but returned the least impressive environmental savings. Alhough waste results were comparable to other delivery models, energy and water figures were very low (e.g. reductions in carbon emissions were 6% through the stand-alone method, compared to 17% through the semi-facilitated method). Recruiting people from the community for stand-alone EcoTeams proved to be very time consuming and difficult for organisations, resulting in a poor participant take-up rate. Many teams required more support than anticipated in order to complete the project, and few returned sufficient data for meaningful analysis. For these reasons the stand-alone delivery model has been abandoned.

Comparing the data from fully- and semi-facilitated EcoTeams, the results from the latter model are consistently better. Summary of results from fully- and semi-facilitated EcoTeams Savings Fully-facilitated Semi-facilitated Reduction in waste to landfill (%) 18.5 20.0 Increase in recycling as a proportion of total waste (%) 4.9 5.1 Reduction in electricity consumption (%) 3.9 7.0 Reduction in heating energy consumption (%) 17.7 20.8 Reduction on CO2 emissions (%) 13.4 16.6 Reduction in water use (%) 4.5 14.9 This supports the notion that semi-facilitated EcoTeams reaches elements of the community not already so inclined to making environmental lifestyle changes: Whereas participants recruited to EcoTeams through the fully-facilitated model are volunteering to work directly with an environmental charity (and might, therefore, be expected to be ‘already converted’), semi-facilitated EcoTeamers are recruited by volunteers – their peers (family members, colleagues, fellow club members etc). This latter group may have slightly different motivations for joining (social as well as environmental), and therefore not be as ‘green’ at the outset as the fully-facilitated EcoTeams volunteers. There is, therefore, more opportunity for improvements to be made by semi-facilitated EcoTeams participants. Survey-based comparison of delivery models The following section explores the variations and similarities between the fully-facilitated and semifacilitated delivery models used over the past few years using feedback from the participant survey. From the surveys completed, 21 respondents reported that their team had been led by a volunteer (i.e. semi-facilitated = SF), and 98 reported that their team had been led by a member of Global Action Plan staff (i.e. fully-facilitated = FF). From the above sample, the key results from the first part of the survey are as follows: • • • • • •

90% SF & 93% FF reported that they were doing more to reduce environmental impact than before. 90% SF & 96% FF stated that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to maintain the changes they implemented during EcoTeams. 85% SF & 91% FF rated their understanding of their household’s impact on the environment as ‘high’ or ‘very high. 90% SF & 80% FF stated that they feel confident talking to other people about environmental issues. 89% SF & 85% FF would recommend EcoTeams to people they know. 57% SF & 86% FF rated the EcoTeams meetings as ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in encouraging them to make small (but significant) changes in their lifestyle.

Even though the sample sizes for the delivery models were quite different, the survey results from both the fully- and semi-facilitated delivery models are very similar. Both sets of participants viewed the programme as very successful in delivering environmental behaviour change and building community awareness and confidence in environmental issues. Given that the semi-facilitated model is a much more ‘hands-off’, extensive delivery model (delivered through volunteers) it is perhaps surprising that there is such a high degree of correlation between the results. Analysis of the responses to the second part of the survey yields some interesting results. Proportionally, semi-facilitated respondents reported that they had started doing substantially more actions ‘as a result of EcoTeams’ than did fully-facilitated respondents. The table below displays examples of some of the actions taken and the percentage difference between semi- and fully-facilitated respondents.

Started doing this action as a result of EcoTeams

Compost / wormery / etc. for kitchen organic waste

31%

18%

Buy produce as locally as possible

64%

41%

Switch off appliances at the wall when not in use (eg TV, video)

57%

49%

Only heat 1 or 2 rooms in the house that are used the most

29%

16%

Only fill kettle with water required

50%

25%

Used bus or rail for a holiday rather than plane

23%

15%

Turn off taps when cleaning teeth

43%

17%

Stopped using ‘anti-bacterial’ products

36%

23%

The survey data mirrors the quantitative data. The explanation offered is that that semi-facilitated participants had less prior ‘green’ intentions than fully-facilitated participants before taking part in EcoTeams. Because semi-facilitated participants are drawn to the project through peers and colleagues they may not have such a high level of pre-existing pro-environmental behaviours (compared to fullyfacilitated participants, for the reasons explained above). Once introduced to some of the concepts and ideas which could fit easily within their existing lifestyles, they are able to implement a greater number of small (but significant) changes, because many initial changes are easier to implement. The fully-facilitated EcoTeams projects delivered in Nottingham, the South East and South West were recognised for providing effective community engagement. The dedicated member of staff for each locality provided a high level of support and enabled teams to achieve good environmental savings. However, the main disadvantage of the fully-facilitated delivery model was the time intensity required. The project officers (who were based in specific local authority geographical areas) spent a great deal of time recruiting participants, contacting team members, setting up and attending team meetings. This in turn reduced the number of households that could be engaged with at any one time, and made it a very expensive delivery method. The dataset shows that the results from semi-facilitated EcoTeams, where the project is delivered through volunteers, are in fact better than for those from fully-facilitated EcoTeams, (where Global Action Plan delivered the project directly). Feedback from partner organisations shows that they find the semi-facilitated EcoTeams programme attractive because it is a ‘ready made, off the shelf’ package (including recruitment materials), which has been tried and tested by an experienced ‘behaviour change’ organisation. They are very willing for Global Action Plan to train their volunteer facilitators (team leaders) and make sure that they have the materials and resources necessary to run effective teams. Partner organisations prefer to oversee the project and provide a modest level of support and arrange press coverage to celebrate the achievements of the participants. The ability to reach wider audiences with the EcoTeams programme (and not just the ‘already converted’), as well as the excellent results from the projects has led Global Action Plan to concentrate its efforts on the semi-facilitated model of delivery, which will be used to expand EcoTeams coverage nationally. This means that Global Action Plan can reach larger numbers of households (using trained volunteer facilitators or team leaders) in a much more cost-effective way, whilst achieving very significant results in terms of reducing environmental impact.

4. Why the EcoTeams approach works The research carried out by UEA has identified three specific aspects of EcoTeams which, together, make it a successful process for delivering pro-environmental behaviour change. Team-based approach (group dynamics) The team support element is important in EcoTeams on many levels: Mixing with like-minded people provides participants with a sense that others live in a similar way and they are not alone in making further changes towards a ‘greener’ lifestyle. The EcoTeam meetings provide a test-ground for exchanging ideas on how to reduce environmental impacts. Being part of a collective also helps to overcome the feeling of impotence in the face of global environmental issues. The element of social pressure provided by the team aspect is also a crucial factor in encouraging participants to measure, monitor and make changes. In the team setting, the pressure to ‘be seen to be green’ is stronger because one is surrounded by other members of the ‘green group’. It’s a bit like people who go to Weight Watchers ® when you’re reporting back to a group there’s a bit of pressure there to do well…and it was partly the embarrassment if any of…the group saw me driving to school every morning. (respondent 33) The team-based discussions also provide the local intelligence necessary to facilitate making changes within the bounds of shared local systems (which include local shopping facilities, public transport systems, recycling and waste facilities). This provides participants with highly tailored and personally relevant information where individual participants act as local experts. Monitoring and feedback Weighing and measuring offers a sense of control and empowerment, (through positive feedback), to help overcome feelings of helplessness with regards the scale of environmental problems. It gave me a feeling of…being more in control…I mean reading the meter’s now not an issue for me, you know it’s something that is effortless…And I don’t feel in control with an awful lot of the paraphernalia of life so it’s really nice to have that one (respondent 8) Most importantly, measuring and monitoring (either weekly or monthly) also provides the connection between everyday actions and environmental impact. Making waste production and energy consumption tangible re-enforces green behaviour (e.g. composting, avoiding packaging, switching off appliances). Incorporating small changes into pre-existing lifestyles It is evident from the interviews with participants that small changes, which are introduced and fit with a pre-existing lifestyle, are more likely to be sustained in the long term. These small changes are not insignificant (as reflected by the data-set). The EcoTeams programme acts as a test-bed for new proenvironmental behaviours and small changes which become habit and routine over a longer time frame. This in turn can lead to greater investment in time and commitment and larger changes in the future. This notion is supported by the fact that one hundred percent of interviewees reported they were still carrying out the green behaviours they started during the programme, and a great many professed to be doing even more. I know now what a difference it will make. And I think it’s that really…as I say I’ve always been quite aware of things. But I think it is just realising that you know it isn’t a sacrifice it is a very simple thing to do and it just becomes your behaviour pattern then and you just sort of do it (respondent 33) Carrying out these new ‘green’ routines eventually leads to a greener lifestyle. The maintenance of these new patterns of behaviour, over time, becomes intrinsic to maintaining that lifestyle – it becomes self-sustaining through a sense of self-identity, of belonging to a ‘green group’ with a shared set of values associated with green living.

The survey results reveal some specific examples of aspects of the EcoTeams programme that made it successful in changing awareness into action. Participants were asked how important a number of factors had been in helping them to reduce their environmental impact. The table below displays the percentage split of responses to these factors. If you answered a) or b) above, thinking about why the EcoTeams project has helped you to reduce your environmental impact, how important have the following factors been... Answer Options

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not at all important

Given me practical advice on what I can do to reduce my impact.

63%

33%

Given me information on new products or services so I can take action to reduce my environmental impact.

52%

44%

Made me believe that what I do actually makes a difference to the environment.

58%

38%

Given me facts on how my everyday life impacts on the environment.

51%

43%

Made me feel more strongly that environmental action is my personal responsibility, not someone else's.

70%

29%

Made me more confident I can actually do the things that are needed to reduce my impact.

55%

40%

Shown me examples of what other people are doing to reduce environmental impacts in their own lives.

46%

47%

Helped me to meet other people like me who are trying to reduce environmental impact in their everyday lives.

43%

41%

14%

Given me information on where to go for advice/ to get environmentally friendly products.

38%

46%

14%

Shown me what personal benefits I can get from reducing my environmental impact.

38%

49%

11%

Shown me what government and business are doing to reduce environmental impact.

42%

53%

Persuaded me that being 'green' is normal.

32%

42%

23%

Ostensibly most factors were identified as significant, with 99% of respondents reporting that taking personal responsibility for environmental action was ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’, and 96% of respondents reporting that being given practical advice about ways to reduce their environmental impact was ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’. Other important factors included; the belief that small actions can make a difference, the confidence to make changes, understanding of the personal benefits, and meeting like-minded people.

5. The added value of EcoTeams Long term (durable) behaviour change Survey Results Previous EcoTeams surveys have only been able to obtain feedback from participants who had recently completed the project. In contrast, during the 2007 survey, participants who had completed EcoTeams from 2005 to 2007 were contacted. In order to make reliable comparisons between the experiences of participants who completed some time ago and those who completed more recently, the sample was separated into two sections: 109 respondents reported completing the project between 2005 and 2006 (’05-06’), and 43 reported completing the project between 2006 and 2007 (’06-07’). The results indicate that those participants who completed EcoTeams during 2005 and 2006 generally perceive that they are now doing slightly more to reduce their environmental impact, than those who completed more recently (in 2006 and 2007). The key results from the first part of the survey are as follows: • • •

93% ’06-07’ & 94% ’05-06’ reported that they were doing more to reduce environmental impact than before. 93% ’06-07’ & 95% ’05-06’ stated that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to maintain the changes they implemented during EcoTeams. 78% ’06-07’ & 85% ’05-06’ stated that they feel confident talking to other people about environmental issues.

Correspondingly, the results from the second part of the survey show that respondents who completed the project during 2005 and 2006 have now adopted dramatically more actions because of EcoTeams than respondents who completed during 2006 and 2007. The table below displays examples of some of the actions taken and the percentage difference between the ’05-06’ and ’06-07’ respondents. Started doing this action as a result of EcoTeams

2005/2006 2006/2007

Recycle mobile phones, printer cartridges through local collection

34%

27%

Buy produce as locally as possible

48%

35%

Avoid food produce that is not in season

52%

37%

Installed energy efficient light bulbs

39%

31%

Installed solar hot water heating

Reduce need for heating by putting on a jumper

25%

15%

Installed reflective panels behind radiators on external walls

25%

12%

Will ensure that your next car is fuel efficient or an electric hybrid

33%

Decreased number of baths taken per week

23%

17%

Use natural cleaning alternatives (eg bicarbonate of soda, lemon juice)

44%

26%

Stopped using ‘anti-bacterial’ products

29%

21%

Consequently, these results strongly suggest that the behaviour changes adopted by EcoTeams participants are extremely durable and therefore sustainable. Proportionally, a greater number of actions have been adopted by EcoTeamers who finished in 2005 and 2006 compared to those who finished in 2006 and 2007. Moreover, the results demonstrate that those actions or changes that may have been difficult to implement in the short term, have subsequently been introduced over a longer time period (e.g. ‘ensuring that your next car is fuel efficient or an electric hybrid’, or ‘installing solar hot water heating’) further supporting the contention that EcoTeams produces long-term behaviour changes.

Interview results Of those interviewed by the UEA research team, 35% had finished within the last six months and 50% had finished more than six months prior to taking part in the study. One hundred percent of respondents reported that they were still engaging in the green behaviours initiated through the programme, a great many said they were doing more. The analysis of the interview data points to the breadth of the programme as key to maintaining long term (durable) behaviour change. Because the EcoTeams programme deals with a whole range of sustainable lifestyle issues (waste, recycling, shopping, energy, transport, water) the links are made between them. Participants can see that changes in one small area affect another area, and begin to benefit from ‘economies of scale’ in terms of effort expended on new ‘green’ patterns of behaviour. For example, respondents commonly reported the sustainable shopping activity of looking for products with less packaging; this reinforces and is reinforced by efforts to reduce waste and makes the task of recycling easier. The focus of EcoTeams is not making individual behaviours (such as recycling) self sustaining, but is looking at how bundles of ‘green’ routines can be made ‘mutually sustaining’ through adopting a generally ‘greener’ lifestyle. This more joined-up way of thinking about the impacts of lifestyle leads to durable behaviour change.

Reaching different segments of the community Social over geographic community When we worked with communities of interest or employees (through organisations using the semifacilitated delivery model), recruitment was a much easier and cost-effective process than when we had project officers based in the community (fully-facilitated). This is because we were recruiting volunteer team leaders (facilitators) from the organisation, who then went on to recruit their own teams. The conclusion is that, for EcoTeams, geographic community has less prevalence than other forms of community created by interest, e.g. membership organisations, or employment. Level of prior ‘green’ intentions of participants It has often been stated that EcoTeams only accesses those in the community who have prior green intentions already – it ‘preaches to the converted’. It has already been suggested that semi-facilitated EcoTeams allows us to access a wider segment of society through peer recruitment of participants by volunteer facilitators. An analysis has been made of the data to show the difference between those who have volunteered to be team leaders or facilitators (under the semi-facilitated model), verses those who are non-facilitator team members. The rationale behind this was to assess the baseline environmental standard (and progress made) of people attracted to the project, at different levels of commitment. The theory is that, using the semi-facilitated delivery model, it is the volunteer facilitators who are more likely to have prior green intentions, and the peer recruited participants to be from a broader level of environmental commitment.

Quantitative data by participant type Residual waste (rubbish) Kilograms per household per month Before After Change (kg) Change (%)

Recycling as a proportion of total waste Kilograms per household per month Before After Recycling as a proportion of total waste before (%) Recycling as a proportion of total waste after (%) Percentage change in recycling as a proportion of total waste

Electricity kWh per household per month Before After Change (kWh) Change (%)

Heating energy kWh per household per month Predicted Actual Change (kWh) Change (%)

CO2 emissions from direct household energy Kilograms per household per month Before After Change (kg) Change (%)

Water consumption Litres per household per month Before After Change (litres) Change (%)

Participant type Team leaders Team members 17.4 19.5 13.1 15.8 -4.3 -3.8 -24.9 -19.2 Participant type Team leaders Team members 24.8 22.8 25.7 22.3 58.8 53.9 66.2 58.6 7.5

4.7

Participant type Team leaders Team members 320.9 309.5 299.8 287.7 -21.1 -21.8 -6.6 -7.0 Participant type Team leaders Team members 1542.3 1714.7 1258.1 1350.9 -284.2 -363.8 -18.4 -21.2 Participant type Team leaders Team members 346.7 382.8 298.5 317.2 -48.2 -65.6 -13.9 -17.1 Participant type Team leaders Team members 7236.3 8134.8 6125.8 6964.9 -1110.4 -1169.9 -15.3 -14.4

The team leaders are volunteers recruited to be trained by Global Action Plan to recruit and run their own EcoTeam. It might be expected, therefore, that they are the ones who are doing most already – they are the community leaders in making pro-environmental choices. The baseline figures support this theory; team leaders are producing less waste, recycling more, using less energy and less water prior to EcoTeams. However, team leaders are still able to make significant savings, as the results for both leaders and participants show: • Waste reduction: team leader = 24.9% / team member = 19.2% • Increase in recycling proportion: team leader = 7.5% / team member = 4.7% • Reduction in electricity: team leader = 6.6% / team member = 7% • Reduction in heating: team leader = 18.4% / team member = 21.2% • Reduction in CO2: team leader = 13.9% / team member = 17.1% • Reduction in water: team leader = 15.3% / team member = 14.4% This analysis has significance in terms of the segments of society the EcoTeams process can help engage with.

Encouraging those with pro-environmental behaviour to do more: Of those participants interviewed by UEA research team, most fell into DEFRA segments 1 – 3 (‘positive greens’, ‘concerned consumers’ and ‘waste-watchers’). The programme seems most attractive to those with prior ‘green’ interests and intentions. This is perhaps unsurprising, as those interviewed had participated in the fully-facilitated version of EcoTeams – in other words they had been recruited to the programme directly by Global Action Plan. You might, therefore, expect them to be ‘the already converted’ (i.e. more pre-disposed to participation in environmental projects). However, delivering EcoTeams through the semi-facilitated model allows us to access a wider variety of people from the community (through peer recruitment of participants). Through this delivery model it is the team leaders who are most likely to fall into DEFRA segments 1 – 3. Looking at the quantitative data (above) it is possible to make some assumptions about team leaders as opposed to non-facilitator team members. Team leaders have volunteered to lead their individual team through the process. It might, therefore, be expected that they are the members of the community that already hold the most pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, as well as the willingness to participate. This is backed up by the quantitative data, which shows that on average, team leaders start at a lower baseline position (i.e. they are already acting in a pro-environmental way). However, there are still additional things they can do to achieve significant savings in their impact (demonstrated by the levels of savings made by team leaders and participants being very similar). Engaging hesitant participants: Delivering EcoTeams through the semi-facilitated model means that the participants are peer-recruited by the team leaders – from friends, members of a group, family, colleagues. The motives for joining are slightly different to those of team leaders. They may, for example, be influenced by the social ties developed through the common organisation they belong to (social influence as well as environmental). Because they are not directly volunteering to work with an environmental charity, there is more likelihood of reaching the ‘cautious participants’ and ‘sideline supporters’ of DEFRA’s segments 4 and 5. From the data-set (above) we can see that, generally, team members start at a higher baseline level (i.e. they are not doing as much as the team leaders to start with), although both groups can achieve similarly significant savings through the programme. From the survey data it is evident that those participating in semi-facilitated EcoTeams carried out a far greater proportion of pro-environmental actions through taking part in the programme – suggesting there is more potential with this group as they are not already engaged in these activities at the outset. The team-based approach of EcoTeams is very effective in terms of encouraging the sharing of best practice amongst participants. Mixing segments 1-3 and segments 4-5 through semi-facilitated EcoTeams could be very beneficial to cascading pro-environmental action in the community.

Engaging harder to reach communities: From projects carried out in low income and middle income ‘areas’ it is evident that the EcoTeams programme is very much geared towards middle income households. Even where we have worked geographically in low income ‘areas’, it tends to be the middle income families living in these areas that are recruited to the programme. For example, from the past participants interviewed 80% were women, 64% were middle aged (26% were between 50 and 70), and 75% were home owners. The gender, age and housing findings from the sample suggest that the EcoTeams programme tends to attract women who are financially comfortable, well established in their communities and careers, and who have sufficient time to engage in monthly meetings. Many were also involved in other national or community based organisations such as the Women’s Institute. There may be all sorts of reasons for this, including lifestyle priorities etc. However, in one area we have developed an off-shoot of EcoTeams which has proved very successful in helping us to engage with

harder-to-reach communities. This programme is called EverGreen and was developed at the Hanover in Hackney Housing Association. The EverGreen process is a much more intensive community development programme. Global Action Plan employs a project officer to work with the community. Engagement involves: developing trust and communication in the community, creating pro-environmental participatory activities to engage communities (e.g. allotment schemes, scrap workshops etc), installations (e.g. recycling facilities, energy efficient lighting). On the back of this work, EcoTeams-style workshops are run with the community, facilitated by the Global Action Plan project officer. As a result, the EverGreen programme achieves similarly impressive results in terms of improving environmental impact as EcoTeams. The programme provides additional benefits such as improving aspects of quality of life and social cohesion. It is this latter aspect that Global Action Plan seeks to better evaluate going forwards. EverGreen EcoTeams Hanover in Hackney Housing Association provides housing and support services for 850 people of pensionable age in the London Borough of Hackney. The first EverGreen project directly involved 340 of their tenants within 14 housing schemes. These residents are now taking environmental actions that they were not before the project began. The standard method of data-collection used for EcoTeams households was clearly not appropriate for residents living in sheltered accommodation with communal facilities and taking part in the first EverGreen project. Adjustments were made accordingly, and using data gained from the London Borough of Hackney’s Recycling Team and the latest DEFRA figures on carbon dioxide emissions associated with waste disposal, Global Action Plan calculated that the recycling initiatives have resulted in 28 tonnes of household waste being recycled and therefore diverted from landfill, which has saved 34 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The programme has also brought noticeable improvements to the social dynamic of residents’ quality of life. Residents are more physically active, while emotional health improvements have been reported due to a common hobby and a more pleasant physical environment. In particular, the EverGreen project has helped encourage Hanover tenants to begin to use and take greater ownership of their outside spaces again, and feel more confident about doing this despite their fears of crime. The project has also brought social benefits such as increased team work, knowledge-sharing and increased inter-generational confidence and understanding. As a result of the lessons learnt through the Hanover in Hackney project, Global Action Plan is using the EverGreen process as a separate programme to engage households in harder-to-reach communities. It may be that using this process could help to engage DEFRA’s segments 6 – 7 (‘stalled starters’ and ‘honestly disengaged’). Global Action Plan is now focussing the EcoTeams programme at a middle income target audience – which, as a group, is high impact in terms of environmental footprint.

6. Reasons for participation in EcoTeams Motivations for participants to join EcoTeams Through the interviews carried out it was possible to identify three key motivational factors in joining EcoTeams: Getting to know others in the community with similar ‘green’ values. A key reason for joining EcoTeams was to make links in the community, particularly with people who hold similar ‘green’ views or live in similar ways: I became involved because it was local and I was looking to do something in this community. I thought it would be an interesting way to meet people with similar ideas…I wanted to learn what I could do here (workshop respondent 6) Provision of trustworthy information on how to reduce environmental impact All of the respondents indicated that a desire for new information on how to live in ‘greener’ ways was a primary motivation for taking part in EcoTeams. Particular focus was given to learning to do more within the confines of specific local systems – the ‘local factor’. Prior ‘green’ intentions Of the interview sample most had prior ‘green’ intentions before joining EcoTeams, even if they were not all living ‘green’ lifestyles. The behaviour change actions initiated through the programme, therefore, fit with what people were already doing, (or aspired to be doing), with their lifestyle.

How EcoTeams fits with government priorities EcoTeams helps achieve DEFRA’s priorities on sustainable consumption and production because it promotes more sustainable behaviour by individuals. EcoTeams takes a holistic view of sustainability. It encourages households to address the issues of waste, energy, transport, shopping and wider community action. It provides a process for collecting before and after data that measures actual behaviour change rather than just increased awareness. Through this approach EcoTeams concentrates on three of the priority areas within the sustainable production and consumption strategy. The EcoTeams programme influences sustainable consumption with households in local communities. It increases the capacity within these communities by training facilitators who can inspire and support their peers to live more sustainably. This increased capacity within the community contributes towards DEFRA’s target of creating active and informed citizens. It also helps widen the public debate on sustainable consumption; another of the strategy targets. EcoTeams uses an innovative social engagement model that provides practical ongoing support for households and enables them to take practical action. The EcoTeams materials increase awareness (for example, of existing labelling schemes), and widen public awareness of other steps being taken by the Government to promote sustainable production and consumption. The EcoTeams programme also fits very well with the ‘Every Action Counts’ programme. It has proven difficult to recruit past EcoTeams participants onto the BTCV training scheme to become ‘Community Champions’. This is because participants are already very actively engaged through the EcoTeams programme and the time commitment required is seen as excessive. However, if the Community Champion training could be incorporated into the end of the EcoTeams programme it would make a very sensible next step for EcoTeams participants, who often say they want to go on and do more once their EcoTeams project has finished. The EcoTeams programme is a very useful community capacity-builder in this respect.

How EcoTeams fits with local authority targets Global Action Plan is developing the delivery options for engaging with local authority communities. This is seen as vital in extending the reach of EcoTeams nationally using the semi-facilitated delivery model. Volunteer team leaders (facilitators) will be recruited through pre-existing communities like sports, church groups or employee groups (thereby engaging with people who share similar values or lifestyles, as well as sharing the same geography). There are a number of reasons why local authorities may be attracted to the semi-facilitated EcoTeams programme: • In order to raise environmental awareness within the council, businesses and voluntary sector in their locality. • In order to find ways to engage the community. • In order to help with climate change and sustainability strategies. • In order to help meet energy efficiency, waste and recycling targets. Geography is still an important aspect of the programme as it helps to provides and opportunity for localised information exchange (on where to shop for local organic food, where to recycle certain items etc groups share local knowledge and overcome barriers to change, for example). In this respect local authorities are very important brokers - facilitating what is possible and helping to break down systemic barriers. The EverGreen programme can be used with local authorities in areas where it has been hard to engage communities using more general awareness-raising methods. The EverGreen programme demonstrated that one of its keys to success was the independence that Global Action Plan brings. This independence (from tenant and landlord, or employee and employer) can bring benefits to all parties involved. It means that the parties are better able to put aside other issues and focus on the environmental imperative to make pro-environmental behaviour changes.

Working in partnership with organisations Another aspect of the national expansion of EcoTeams is engaging with other potentially interested organisations. These include: • Large membership groups (such as the recent project run with the National Federation of Women’s Institutes) • Utility companies (engaging with customers to reduce consumption) • Corporate organisations (engaging with their employees and local communities to address corporate social responsibility)

Section 4: Conclusions and next steps Conclusions The analysis confirms that EcoTeams’ two spheres of influence (i.e. weighing and measuring, and group activity) operate in both distinct and complementary ways to facilitate behaviour change. It reveals that the process of weighing and measuring plays a crucial role in helping participants to connect their daily routines to waste output and energy consumption, which in turn connects environmental impact to everyday activities. It also suggests important linkages between the group-based support and localised information exchange, which when combined with personalised feedback from the weighing and measuring, lead to new ‘joined-up thinking’ regarding everyday behaviour and a personalisation of environmental impact. A key part of joined-up thinking is a wholesale examination of everyday routines and practices for evidence of bad habits. Doing so encourages participants to look for small but significant changes within their existing routines that will add up to a more aggregately sustainable lifestyle. The lifestyle concept proves to be the key variable for understanding durable change. The analysis indicates that behaviour changes which fit easily with what the individual is already doing are more likely to become habit and routine, and are therefore more likely to be sustained long term. The wide range of EcoTeams also promotes long term changes to lifestyle – as the links are made between shopping, waste, transport and carbon etc. This concept essentially mirrors that of ‘economies of scale’: as green behaviour ‘production’ increases, the ‘costs’ or inputs required for maintaining those behaviours decrease over time. Results from the quantitative and qualitative evaluation confirm that EcoTeams is a successful community engagement tool for converting environmental awareness to actual (measurable) behaviour change. The EcoTeams programme actively engages middle income households, reducing high environmental footprints. The EverGreen programme was developed from EcoTeams to help involve harder-to-reach communities and has been proven successful in reducing environmental impact through practical engagement methods. Policy implications The work and research carried out through the EcoTeams programme may help to contribute evidence in support of the social segmentation-based framework developed by DEFRA. Use of the semi-facilitated delivery model of EcoTeams has implications for reaching and integrating DEFRA’s segments, from positive greens to sideline supporters. The more community development focussed EverGreen programme is very effective at engaging harder-to-reach communities and may be used to involve the disengaged and stalled starters in DEFRA’s social framework document. The research findings suggest that policy-makers should seek to design interventions that produce gradual (but not insignificant), shifts towards greener daily routines. Newly introduced behaviours need to fit with the rest of what an individual is already doing in a holistic way (looking at integrating varied sustainability issues, not single-issue based) in order to increase the likelihood of their durability. There are other specific findings from the research that could help to inform policy-makers, including: • The evidence from weighing and measuring would suggest that a waste-charging scheme would make consumers more aware of their waste habits and connection to daily activities. • Choice-editing fits well with the research in terms of the importance of the systems of provision in pro-environmental behaviours. In the case of waste policies, the phasing out of plastic bags would reduce the pool of less responsible behaviours open to the consumer.

Next steps Global Action Plan will disseminate the results of the EcoTeams evaluation widely to non-governmental organisations, policy-makers, academics and public bodies. A new partnership with British Sky Broadcasting, (the operator of the UK’s largest digital pay television platform and leading broadcaster of sports, movies, entertainment and news), will also enable Global Action Plan to reach a wider audience for the EcoTeams programme and develop innovative digital media to further improve the programme and extend delivery opportunities. A number of immediate developments to the existing EcoTeams web database are envisaged. These include: •

•

A repeat visitor function, so past participants can revisit the site and enter measuring data to monitor their performance over a longer time period. This will provide invaluable data on the longterm impact of the project going forward. A forum, to enable communication between geographically dispersed EcoTeams participants so that they may share ideas and best practice and create a ‘virtual community’ of EcoTeams participants. A facility to allow householders to upload data using SMS (text message) communications technology.

Global Action Plan would also like to extend this online facility for its work with schools and businesses. This will help re-enforce pro-environmental behaviour, not only through the home, but also in the workplace and through school. Further research and development of EcoTeams could include a study of the networks established through EcoTeams and the cascade effect on the wider community as well as the social and quality-oflife implications of the EverGreen programme.

Section 5: Appendix Appendix A – Example measuring sheets Appendix B – Example EcoTeams feedback report Appendix C - Impact mapping exercise Appendix D - EcoTeams survey with summary results Appendix E – DEFRA SID5 summary report