Evaluation Report Barnet’s Behaviour Change Pilot Programme 20 November 2009 Compiled by Futerra Sustainability Communications with support from London Borough of Barnet, Groundwork and Do the Green Thing.
1
Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1. 1.2. 1.3.
About this document ................................................................................................. 3 The context ............................................................................................................... 3 The brief ................................................................................................................... 3
2. Executive summary ............................................................................................... 4 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.
Programme phases .................................................................................................. 4 Top 5 recommendations ........................................................................................... 5 Key recommendations for a communications strategy ............................................. 6 Results overview ...................................................................................................... 8
3. Full evaluation ...................................................................................................... 11 3.1. 3.2. 3.3.
Programme strategy ............................................................................................... 11 Communications tactics .......................................................................................... 14 Programme management ....................................................................................... 17
4. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 18 4.1. Rationale for the programme .................................................................................. 18 4.2. Summary of pre-pilot activity .................................................................................. 19 4.3. Pilot Projects Activity .............................................................................................. 21 4.4. Measurement framework ........................................................................................ 23 4.5. Pilot briefs ............................................................................................................... 24 4.5.1. Pilot 1 – Carbon Reduction ............................................................................. 24 4.5.2. Pilot 2 – Waste Minimisation ........................................................................... 32 4.5.3. Pilot 2 – Littering .............................................................................................. 41 4.6. Results reports ....................................................................................................... 50 4.6.1. Barnet’s Green Thing – Online Portal Project Evaluation................................ 50 4.6.2. Groundwork Evaluation Report ....................................................................... 55
2
1.
Introduction
1.1. About this document This document is designed to evaluate the success of Barnet’s behaviour change pilot programme. The analysis is based on a series of measures designed to test the effectiveness of a variety of innovative approaches to driving behaviour change around sustainability through communications. The document is Futerra’s synthesis of the evaluation reports submitted by each of the other project partners, London Borough of Barnet, Groundwork and Do the Green Thing. Each of their reports can be found in the appendix, along with more information about the programme methodology, actions and the pilot project plans. The key recommendations that have been drawn out of the collective evaluation are designed to complement the Behaviour Change Guide Futerra has written for London Borough of Barnet.
1.2. The context Government policy increasingly faces the challenge of driving behaviour change around sustainability. Local government is tasked with engaging communities on more sustainable lifestyles that will help meet national and international environmental targets. Historically, this has been achieved through ‘top down’ incentives and penalties, or through shifts in political agenda. These approaches tend to be unpopular and slow respectively. As a result the question of whether there is a way to encourage behaviour change through social processes rather than political, is being asked increasingly frequently. London Borough of Barnet’s investigation into finding a new way to communicate on a local level, which helps to drive behaviour change around sustainability, was designed to build a clearer understanding of how best to answer this question.
1.3. The brief In May 2008 Barnet’s Communications Unit (now Strategic Hub) commissioned Futerra Sustainability Communications to provide recommendations on how the council could move towards more innovative forms of communications and service delivery that are effective in changing behaviours (in relation to environmental and sustainability challenges). The objective of this programme was to: Test innovative communications approaches to driving behaviour change around sustainability in a local context.
3
2.
Executive summary
2.1. Programme phases The programme breaks down into 5 parts. The diagram below gives an overview of each phase.
1. Research and testing
• Identify how behavior change tactics could improve Barnet’s current communications. • Identify target audience segments. • Test findings with key council staff.
2. Strategy development
• Develop a strategy for how Barnet council can communicate to change behaviours around sustainability.
5. Pilot plans
• Produce three pilot plans to test social marketing methods with the objective of reducing carbon, waste and litter across three areas of the Barnet
4. Pilot implementation
• Barnet Council project manage • Futerra provide strategic input, behaviour change and design expertise • Groundwork engages residents face-to-face. • Do the Green thing develops the online resource
3. Evaluation
• Partners report back their findings • Futerra produce evaluation report 4
2.2. Top 5 recommendations From all of the evaluation material we have considered, our top recommendations for your ongoing communications around behaviour change, in addition to those contained in the behaviour change guide, are as follows:
Be bold. Break the mould from information delivery and legislation to engaging, exciting and exemplary communications. This will require you to take ambitious, innovative actions that will overcome green, council fatigue. Be local. The great strength of local authority communications is local context. People care about their locality, you can leverage this by using local people as messengers and tailoring your communications to local needs and motivations. Be connected. Your relationship with the community is fundamental to engaging people on sustainability and changing behaviours. Build and nurture relationships with the community groups that lead thinking, action and interest in the area. Be precise. Focus your attention on changing specific behaviours. Developing a communications approach aimed at testing too many behaviour change tactics can dilute focus and confuse residents. Making clear direct requests about specific behaviours is more likely to succeed. Be patient. Behaviour change is not an instant process. It will take time to engage the community, but if you can start to mobilise a change group that will normalise sustainable behaviours, you could find change happens quicker than you expect.
5
2.3. Key recommendations for a communications strategy The table below provides recommendations against the communications strategy produced earlier in the project. The recommendations are split by communications element (audience, message, channel, measures) and by approach to the project, communications tactics and project delivery.
Audience
Message
Approach • Take into account audience barriers, e.g. a lack of internet access and time were cited as reasons for a lack of people using the website •
Use different messengers for different audience groups. A teenager is unlikely to respond to the same messenger as a retired person
•
Start conversations, effective engagement is a two way process. The evaluation survey showed that when Champions engaged people, they were the most preferred messenger.
•
Be bolder, in order to cut through the rest of the communications the audience receives daily
Tactics • Personalise the messages as much as possible, this comes from greater audience insights
Delivery • The project team would benefit from local communications knowledge
•
Greater engagement is needed. Communications need to bold and not just seek to inform your audience.
•
The audience profiles need further refinement. Greater emphasis needs to go on the initial audience research and segmentation.
•
Provide people with social proof. Equip people with means to show their participation, in future make sure that online and offline channels are better aligned.
•
Communications must be delivered alongside service delivery. Communication alone, will not deliver behaviour change.
•
The council needs to lead and exemplify more. The residents need to feel that those asking them to act are also acting. It lends far more weight to your messages
6
Channels
Measurement
Project management
•
Offer rewards for those that change and incentives for those that don’t.
•
Require further research into the preferred communications channels for the audience group
•
Make greater efforts to recruit Champions from the local community, start earlier.
•
Internet access and online habits/preferences need to be researched before an online resource is developed.
•
Make links with local community groups and business, these are key channels
•
Identify, use and nurture relationships with the local environmental champions during the process Quantitative measures need to provide useful data at a household level (e.g. waste tonnage over a waste collection route does not tell a story at the household level).
•
Extend the measurement period in order to get robust and useful data.
•
•
Plan the management process in the action plan stage. Make sure expectations meet council resources.
•
Champions’ training is vital. You must not expect local residents to effectively deliver the right messages without some training.
•
The project will benefit from the project manager taking responsibility for the measurement. At the outset of the project, greater thought must go into how useful data will be produced and what the pilot needs to know. Don’t rush the campaign. Three months is not long enough to affect behaviour change
•
•
7
2.4. Results overview The table below provides an overview of the results from the measurement of the pilot activities. The measures are split into process measures, outcome measures (changes in attitudes or behaviours), and impact measures (actual reductions in carbon and waste). Carbon Process Pilot implementation: • Campaign covered 6 streets (approximately 700 households in the West Finchley area) • •
Champions spoke to 156 residents in total, a response rate of 22% When asked what residents currently do to be greener the top three were: 1. Not leaving electrical items on standby 2. avoiding using the car 3. turning down the heating
Evaluation survey: • The evaluation questionnaires generated a 7% response rate •
70% of those who completed the evaluation survey (51) spoke to a Green Champion
•
82% of residents felt that the campaign and its messages were clear
•
Of those who received an OWL meter just under half felt
Outcome Attitude • 58% of resident would like to do a bit more and 14% would like to do a lot more to help the environment Behaviour • 92% of those spoken to stated that they do “load” or “a bit” to save the environment • 57% of residents fed back that they now do things differently as a result of the campaign • 86% of respondents stuck to pledges • 8% of respondents made further green lifestyle changes following their pledges
Impact • 52% of residents felt that the campaign has helped them save carbon •
53% of those that received an OWL meter felt that it was helpful
•
Green Thing have attributed carbon savings of 45,119kg to the users of the online tool.
8
that the it was easy to use •
38% fed back that they didn’t know if the OWL meter was easy to use, suggesting that they did not install it
•
Popularity of pledges: 1. Switching things off 2. Upgrading appliances 3. Drying clothes outside 4. Turning down the thermostat 5. Washing at 30 degrees
Waste Process Pilot implementation: • Campaign covers 1500 households mainly in the Temple Fortune area •
Outcome Attitude: • 97% of residents felt the 3Rs are either very or fairly important
The three most popular steps to reducing household waste were: 1. Donating unwanted items 2. Reusing items 3. Using up every last bit
•
27% of residents felt that the recycling system is confusing
•
53% of all residents would like to do a bit more to help save the environment
Champions spoke to 440 residents, a response rate of 29%
•
The least popular pledge was resisting the urge to buy the latest gadgets
Evaluation survey: • The evaluation questionnaire generated a response rate of 9.5%
•
The main reasons why people changed their behaviour were: 1. helping the environment
•
Impact • When plotting refuse tonnage against campaign activities there are very clear peaks and troughs which correspond positively to campaign activities •
Few streets showed significant net reductions in waste or increases in recycling over the pilot period.
9
•
Nearly three quarters of respondents felt that the campaign was clear
•
7% of residents surveyed were unaware of the campaign
•
Over half of respondents were contacted by a Green Champion. Of those the majority found the experience great or okay.
•
•
The residents favourite pledges were: 1. buy things without packaging 2. eating leftovers 3. swapping something 4. finding a new use for old things The most popular communications were found to be: 1. Conversation with a Green Champion (35%) 2. Bin sticker (16%) 3. Sticker booklet and pledge card (11% each)
2. want to feel part of the community 3. save money Behaviour: • The biggest barrier to recycling was the range of items that can be put in boxes for weekly collections (35%) •
Over half of all residents put out two or more boxes of recyclables every week
•
Kitchen waste is recycled by just over a third of all residents
•
57% of respondents to the evaluation survey stated that the campaign helped them to reduce their waste
•
58% of respondents to the evaluation survey stated that they do things differently as a result of the campaign.
•
92% of respondents stuck to their pledges
•
8% of respondents adopted further green behaviours after making a pledge
10
3.
Full evaluation
3.1. Programme strategy Successes Understanding the audience: In order to produce effective communications we must first understand our audience. At the end of this pilot we have a far better understanding of Barnet residents, particularly regarding the most appropriate channels to reach residents and secure engagement. For example, the slow take up of online resources and the reluctance to engage with Groundwork’s door knocking campaign. Resident engagement: The project succeeded in engaging 596 residents, with an overall response rate of 27%. This is a significant sample size for a pilot project of this nature and provides a strong evidence base for further behaviour change interventions in Barnet and beyond. Clear and effective: It has been difficult to measure the exact carbon and waste impacts of the pilot. The majority of residents (82%) in the carbon pilot, however, felt that the campaign and its messages were clear and 52% felt that the campaign helped them save carbon. 57% of all respondents to the evaluation survey stated that the campaign had helped them reduce their waste. Challenges Face-to-face engagement: We know that engaging people face-to-face is one of the most effective ways to affect change in an audience. But, it proved difficult in Barnet (particularly the Temple Fortune Area). Groundwork remarked that there was a marked difference in the willingness of Barnet residents to engage in conversation compared to previous Boroughs they had worked in (e.g. Islington). Level of audience control: The limitations of resident action need to be recognised. Discussions with residents highlighted that they felt that there was much that was beyond their control e.g. packaging from supermarkets. We need to ask residents what they can control, what they can’t control and what they’d like to control. Measuring the success of the projects: Effectively measuring behaviour change is extremely difficult. A number of difficulties can be identified: • The quantitative measurements are not fine grained enough to be able to draw conclusions about the success or failure of the project (i.e. waste tonnage over a waste collection route does not tell a story at the household level). • It is tough to measure meaningful changes over a three month period. It is worth considering further measurement in 6 -12 months. • Door-to-door surveys have their limitations. Respondents are inclined to make themselves sound good by over emphasizing their commitments (e.g. it is highly unlikely that 92% of people stuck to their pledges). • The council did not have the infrastructure or resources to measure the impact of the behaviour changes. The data from OWL meters was sporadic with residents out, on holiday or unable to work them.
11
“We’ve heard all this before”: Look at where the gaps are and avoid repetition. The council had carried out a series of campaigns highlighting waste issues, in particular recycling; most residents were familiar with the subject. Because they were already aware of the issue it was difficult to engage them in conversation. They felt that it was a waste of their time to hear it again. Getting people online: The reason, most regularly cited, for not signing up to the “Do the Green Thing” website was a lack of time and internet access. A substantial number of residents also felt that the website might be of interest to their children, but that it was of little interest to adults. Internet access and online habits/preferences need to be researched before an online resource is developed. Learning Be bold: The campaign activities were not bold enough to reach an audience which is largely unengaged with environmental issues. Communications need to do something different and, if possible, they need to be allied with enabling infrastructure change and tangible incentives. Futerra suggested a long list of ideas for the pilot campaigns. Many of these were rejected either because they were operationally infeasible or they carried a high resource implication (e.g. taking a thermal imaging picture of every household in the carbon pilot area). The pilot has found that ambitious behaviour change programmes require resources that proportional to the challenge. Integrate online and offline activity: Online and offline communications need to be fully integrated. There were definite difficulties for residents in the transition from online to offline, due either to a lack of connection with the initial message delivery, or apathy on the part of the residents. Online behaviour of residents should be investigated prior to the building of a website. The 4 E’s: Futerra’s initial analysis of Barnet’s communications suggests that a four pronged approach is necessary: enable, engage, encourage, exemplify. The pilot engagement activity may have been valuable in terms of building awareness and buy-in to the issues but there was not enough ‘encouraging’ residents to change or providing them with positive examples of change. Some of this was due to resource constraints. Forge better links with community groups or local ‘environment champions’: We have residents/community organisations who are advocates of environmental issues. They are potentially more effective messengers than the council as they may already have wider links to the community and may be more trusted. The pilot projects suffered from not knowing who these people were or how to contact them. The council may therefore benefit from nurturing these relationships as they may be able help with delivery. Communications should be delivered alongside service delivery: Residents need to be encouraged, not just through conversation, but also through practical changes to service delivery/provision. This would also give us an ‘angle’ when we are speaking to residents. Timing is everything: The analysis of the waste pilot has shown a very clear relationship between campaign activities and waste tonnage (not dry recycling). We can clearly see reductions in waste following the baseline survey, pledge cards, bin stickers and posters. These campaign activities obviously work. What needs further investigation is how to time activities so that these peaks and troughs are eliminated and a steady reduction in waste or energy use is achieved. 12
13
3.2. Communications tactics The table below contains the behaviour change communications tactics that were being tested during the pilots. For each tactic, we have identified the challenges and successes that resulted, and a learning point for using this tactic in the future. Tactic Objectives Refreeze good behaviours Audience Keep it personal
Change groups
Catch them when they’re open to change
Messaging Make it a pleasure
Challenge
Success
Learning
Continued engagement beyond the pilot period.
Residents did adopt behaviours based on the pledges they took
It is difficult to create long term change, by freezing behaviours, in a 3 month period. Longer is needed.
Engaging residents in conversation. Groundwork reported that they found Barnet residents less willing to engage than in other local authorities. Getting people to visibly demonstrate they are taking action. Especially hard to do this online.
In the waste pilot Champions spoke to 440 residents, a response rate of 29%. 156 residents were spoken to during the carbon pilot, a response rate of 22%. Bin stickers were the 2nd most popular channel, showing that people wanted to identify themselves as members of the pilot group.
It is essential that we establish how residents would prefer to be engaged. We would recommend sourcing local people to work as door-knockers wherever possible. Make sure we equip people with means to show their participation, in future make sure that online and offline channels are better aligned.
Creating periods of change is difficult without the resources to offer residents. For examples, equipping all residents with energy saving light bulbs.
The OWL meters were successful interventions in most cases.
There were few existing opportunities in the pilot areas to catch people when they are open to change. Events, new home-owners, new parents are good examples.
Showing residents that the requested behaviours can be combined with leisure, pleasure or fulfilment behaviours.
The pledges and feedback posters emphasised the pleasurable aspects of the behaviours.
Greater emphasis is needed on this. Events could be held and examples need to be shown that demonstrate that the new behaviours are fun. 14
Tactic Label people
Challenge Without greater face-to-face contact from Champions and engagement from residents it was difficult to label.
Success Bin stickers were the 2nd most popular channel, showing that people wanted to identify themselves as people who cut waste.
Give feedback
The collection of meaningful data to feedback to residents has been a challenge.
The feedback posters provided residents with feedback and thanked them. It is difficult, however, to judge how effective they have been.
Use salesman’s tactics
Getting a foot in the door. Groundwork reported that Barnet residents were peculiarly reluctant to open to engage with the Green Champions. The collection of meaningful statistics suitable to feedback to residents.
If the data is to be believed the small actions asked for in the pledges were successful, the vast majority of residents stuck to them.
Take care when using statistics Make clear direct requests
Use inclusive language
To remain inclusive even when the campaign is generating the support hoped for.
Use empathy and Collecting meaningful stories of past emotions, tell stories success
There were enough statistics in some areas to initiate the feedback stage of the strategy. The pledges asked people to do specific actions, the evaluation survey showed that people felt that the campaign was clear. All the communications spoke about community and group action, normalising behaviours
Learning Providing labels is only half the battle, you also need to create the desire to be labelled. More exciting, innovate behaviours and channels would have helped. Posters are good for feedback but are not very engaging. Greater success with the online portal would be good, or holding events where successes are celebrated publicly. Select a door-knocking team that is from the local area. They will be more acceptable to local residents.
Greater thought must go into the measurement of success across a project area.
Existing good practice examples from within the community need to be found and used in the campaign messaging
15
Tactic Use consistent imagery
Channels Not all messengers are equal
Challenge Ensure that all the products and channels used were recognisably part of the same campaign.
Success The posters and website used strong, stylized, imagery.
Learning Collect images of members of the community and events. During the campaign keep an image bank.
Recruiting Green Champions from within the community.
When Green Champions spoke with residents the response was largely positive. The pilot process has been useful for reaching ‘interested’ residents. These residents may be willing to be involved in future projects. Figures from the website suggest many have taken an interest in looking at links, articles, videos that were posted on the website.
Put greater emphasis on and resources into the recruitment of Champions. Incentives may have to be provided.
Seeing is believing
Generating interest, in the online resource, among residents.
Remind, remind, remind
Getting people to use the retrieval cues provided e.g. bin stickers, and making sure feedback posters are visible.
Evaluation Prime them
Bin stickers were the 2nd most popular channel
If such forums are seen as being valuable then greater thought is needed to drive activity and get then most out of the potential that online networks hold. The cues need to be tailored to the audience in terms of their needs, habits and motivations e.g. if people spend lots of time in the pub, place cues in there.
Looking at the data, plotted against campaign activities, the baseline survey clearly had a positive influence on residents’ behaviour
16
3.3. Programme management Successes Management of a complex process: The project team successfully managed a complex process involving a number of partner organisations. The pilot covered issues that many of the team were not initially familiar or comfortable with, e.g. behaviour change, but it provided a valuable learning experience for all involved. Challenges Internal capacity: The delivery of three pilot projects was perhaps too ambitious given the resource allocated to the project. Also, the programme did not have enough internal capacity to help deliver the project. Although external providers were commissioned to implement aspects of the project, greater internal delivery capacity was needed. The lack of capacity meant that there was a limit to what could be delivered. It also resulted in much of the project management role being spent on delivery rather than oversight. Difficulty recruiting ‘local’ volunteers/champions: Groundwork struggled to recruit local Barnet residents to undertake face-to-face engagement (i.e. at the doorstep). The intention had been to recruit people from the pilot area so that they would carry more credibility when talking to residents. This proved difficult and in the end they were forced to recruit from outside of Barnet. We may potentially have more success with face-to-face engagement had the messenger been local. Internal local communications expertise was lacking at stages of the project: The project was heavily focused on communications and engagement. Social marketing skills were at the heart of the project (finding the right messages and channels to reach residents). Staff shortages/changes in personnel in Barnet’s Communications Team meant that, at certain times, in-house communications expertise was lacking. Decisions about communication channels and messaging were therefore guided by Futerra, but may have benefited from local communications knowledge. It is difficult to know what impact this may have had on the delivery of communications material. Time constraints: The pressure to deliver findings to both Members and DCLG meant that there was an emphasis on delivering the project quickly. In hindsight, behaviours are tough to change and it is questionable as to whether 3 months is a long enough period to have made a substantial impact Learning Nurture connections with local community groups and business community: The council had no ongoing relationships with community groups or business. This made attempts to engage local community groups, who could be useful conduits and advocates for getting messages out, difficult. It is likely that we would have had more success with resident engagement had we been able to form links with these intermediary groups. In the future greater time and resources need to be invested in recruiting partners, the efforts will reap the rewards at a later stage.
17
4.
Appendix
4.1. Rationale for the programme Improving social outcomes often relies on the active participation of citizens. The delivery of a number of public service challenges (e.g. tackling obesity, smoking cessation, waste prevention, litter, reducing anti-social behaviour) require that citizens take responsibility for changing their behaviour. While both local and national government have a long history of shaping citizen behaviour, this has often relied on top-down regulation and controls – laws, penalties, inducements. However, these instruments can be relatively blunt. Public consent is required to use coercion and can take time to build. Arguably, we do not yet have public consent to take a coercive approach on issues such as tackling obesity or reducing waste. In many of these more complex areas there is no social consensus around the most appropriate policy response. Traditional approaches have tended to assume that we are rational beings who will respond logically to incentives or disincentives. Insight from social psychology indicates that the picture is more complicated and that it is important to understand irrational responses, mental shortcuts, conditioned behaviours and norms. Insights drawn from sociology show the importance of social relationships and human interaction, the powerful impact of a sense of reciprocity and importance of social values such as consistency. Changes in the physical environment can also influence our behaviour. The work of the academic Caldini has tended to emphasise the idea that our interaction with residents must appeal to human emotion as well as rationality. He argues that human decision making is not always guided by rational thought – people tend to bring their own norms, values and emotions to the decision-making process and will interpret the same information in different ways. He therefore emphasises the need for smarter communication, which understands the motivations and interests of its targets audience. Furthermore, information alone will not necessarily suffice; we also need to work with the grain of human nature. Informed by this, the London Borough of Barnet have been exploring ways that residents can be encouraged to take responsibility for their own behaviour, in a manner which relies less on top-down coercion and more on persuasion. The literature on behavioural change in public policy is still largely theoretical and therefore the council were keen to test some of these approaches through a pilot project. It was hoped that learning could be extracted from empirical research about what approaches work and could be used to inform borough-wide approaches.
18
4.2. Summary of pre-pilot activity Phase 1: Research In the first phase of the programme (May 2008 – October 2008) Futerra conducted a review into our current communications and outreach activity, as well as audience analysis and mapping. This followed a ‘traditional’ posters/leaflets campaign on litter prevention in High Barnet in December 2007 that cost £10k and had little discernable impact. There were a number of emerging findings from this exercise that had fed into a draft behavioural change strategy for Barnet: • • • • •
That the majority of council communications are designed to inform rather than engage That the use of channels with the potential to engage (face to face, online) tended to be neglected in favour of reinforcing interventions (posters, letters) That all important emotional appeal/argument in the messages were lacking There was a need for more focus on specific audience groups, the absence of which dilutes the effectiveness of the communications. That there was a need to engage more (rather than just inform) and to lead by example and exemplify the behaviour being asked of residents
Phase 2: Strategy Futerra developed a communications strategy to be used as a practical guide by Barnet to implement effective communications for behaviour change. The strategy is built on the findings of the research, combined with Futerra’s evidence based communications tactics, and provides guidance on the following elements of a communications strategy: • • • • •
Setting communications objectives Identifying target audience groups and understanding their motivations and barriers to change Developing messaging with tone and content that will drive behaviour change Identifying appropriate communications channels Measuring the success of your communications
Phase 3: Pilot plans Using this information, Futerra were tasked with designing three pilot campaign and engagement projects which aimed to achieve a sustainable step change in the uptake of environmental behaviours. At the beginning of this year, they produced project briefs outlining the overall architecture and methodology of the pilots. They also proposed a number of ideas for campaign activities within each of these projects. These were developed into project plans and once resource had been identified to deliver the projects, implementation started in May 2009. We have engaged a number of external providers in the project: Futerra Sustainability Communications (for communications/marketing expertise), Groundwork London (to deliver face-to-face engagement) and Do the Green Thing (to develop an on-line portal). Each of the pilot projects has its own project plan, but there are principles common to each: 19
• • • •
•
•
•
Clarity about the profile of the target audience – It has been important to understand our audience’s motivations, the drivers behind people’s choices and behaviour. Action focused messages – Tried to move away from simply imparting information to residents to giving clear, positive and action-focused messages that appeal to the motivations of our audience Optimism not fear – Tried to get away from using fear as a way of getting people to change as can often lead to inertia Peer led face-to-face engagement with residents and households – There has been an emphasis on using the ‘right messengers’. The council telling residents to change their behaviour is not always the most effective approach. It is therefore important to work with brands, organisations and messengers that are most effective in terms of getting the message across. Caldini for example argues that our peers are one of the biggest influencers on our behaviour. Hence, the council partnered with Groundwork and tried to recruit local Barnet residents as volunteers to undertake face-to-face engagement (doorto-door knocking) Peer support and challenge – If people feel that they are alone in taking action then they’ll be more likely to give up. However, if they feel that they are part of a bigger movement and that their neighbours etc are involved, then they may be more willing to join in. We have tried to reinforce this through wider communications in the pilot areas as well as through the on-line community portal Social proofing – We have sought to ‘normalise’ certain behaviours. Hence, there has been an element of feeding back to residents about positive actions that others are taking in the hope that those behaviours will are ‘normalised’. For example, residents have made pledges about actions that they will take and these have been feed back to residents via posters on a street by street basis There is also be an element of providing practical support and information provision to enable people to change their behaviour
20
4.3. Pilot Projects Activity Carbon Pilot: This campaign covers 6 streets (approximately 700 households) in the West Finchley area. The audience (based on Mosaic Profiling) are environmentally aware but with potential to do more. The aim of the campaign is to persuade residents to adopt low carbon behaviours by focusing on changing their ‘habits’ (e.g. switching off plugs, washing machine at lower temperature). May: •
Baseline surveys conducted in local area. These were carried out to get a sense of peoples’ motivations, attitudes and also to get a sense of what they were already doing. That way, we could better target our engagement and communication activity. Response rate of 16% (Groundwork expected 10% based on previous experience). 58% of surveyed residents felt that there was more that they could do. June/July: • Volunteers carried out a door knocking exercise. They undertook face-to-face engagement with residents to discuss practical actions they could take. • Specifically this involved: asking residents to sign up to pledges about practical actions they would take. • Face-to-face engagement (i.e. conversations with resident about issue) with 239 households (approx 35% of total households); • We gave residents energy meters (approx 40 households) to help them increase their energy efficiency • Also gave them Home Energy Questionnaires about their energy use. • Also carried out a visit to a local school in the area to talk about energy efficiency • Held an eco-fair • Encouraged residents to sign up to an online portal ‘Do the Green Thing’ to share their stories/hints/tips about how they were making changes. Sign up 54 residents July/August: • Posters in local streets – relevant and personal feed back progress to residents. Posters were put up on each street in the pilot area and featured stats about their streets – how many people had signed up to pledges to increase their energy efficiency. This builds on the idea of building a wider movement of change and trying to normalise behaviours Late August/September: • Green Champions carried out an evaluation survey to assess the effectiveness of the campaign overall and the different elements that made up the campaign. September: • Posters giving feedback and thanking residents. October: • Evaluation of the pilot – based on the evaluation survey, energy meter readings installed in residents’ houses, and anecdotal evidence from the partner organisations
21
Waste Pilot: 1500 households in Temple Fortune area. The audience are environmentally aware, potential to do more (based on Mosaic profiling). The aim of the campaign is to persuade residents to minimise the amount of waste disposed of by reducing and reusing waste. In summary, the outcomes of engagement activities were: May: •
Baseline surveys conducted in local area. These were carried out to get a sense of peoples’ motivations, attitudes and also to get a sense of what they were already doing. That way, we could better target our engagement and communication activity. This was a response rate of 19% (Groundwork expected 10% based on previous experience). A majority of surveyed residents (97%) believed that reducing, reusing and recycling were very or fairly important. 41% of surveyed residents felt that there was more that they could do. June/July: • Volunteers carried out a door knocking exercise. They undertook face-to-face engagement with residents to discuss practical actions they could take. • Specifically this involved: asking residents to sign up to pledges about practical actions they would take • Face-to-face engagement with 317 households (approx 21%); 297 pledges made • We gave residents information about recycling services and links to sites like Love Food, Hate Waste so that they could download recipes for using their leftovers • We also have residents stickers that they could put on their bins to signal commitment to the project – idea was to create a sense that the whole neighbourhood is trying to do their bit and that people are not on their own • Also, visited a local school in the area to talk about waste issues • Held an eco-fair • Encouraged residents to sign up to an online portal ‘Do the Green Thing’ to share their stories/hints/tips about how they were making changes. 55 residents signed up July/August: • Posters in local streets – relevant and personal feed back progress to residents. Posters were put up on each street in the pilot area and featured stats about their streets – how many people had signed up to pledges to reduce their waste This builds on the idea of building a wider movement of change and trying to normalise behaviours Late August/September: • Green Champions carried out an evaluation survey to assess the effectiveness of the campaign overall and the different elements that made up the campaign. September: • Will have posters giving feedback and thanking residents. October: • Evaluation of the pilot – based on the evaluation survey, energy meter readings installed in residents’ houses, and anecdotal evidence from the partner organisations
22
4.4. Measurement framework Process (campaign measures)
Carbon • Number of people reached by the campaign: - Door knocking - Poster views - Uses of collateral - Online hits - Pledges made
Waste • Number of people reached by the campaign: - Door knocking - Poster views - Uses of collateral - Online hits - Pledges made
• How effective were our different communication tactics? - Timings of carbon decrease (are there any spikes around key activities/messages?) - Understanding of campaign and messages
• How effective were our different communication tactics? - Timings of waste decrease (are there any spikes around key activities/messages?) - Understanding of campaign and messages
Outcome (attitude and behaviour change)
• How have people’s attitudes and behaviours around carbon changed? - Surveys - Pledges taken - How did each activity make residents feel? - Which activity did they like/dislike?
• How have people’s attitudes and behaviours around waste changed? - Surveys - Pledges taken - How did each activity make residents feel? - Which activity did they like/dislike?
Impact (carbon and waste savings)
• Actual carbon savings - OWL meters - Inferred from Do the Green Thing measures
• Actual waste savings – measurement of a single waste route compared against a control. - Decreases in refuse weights - Increases in recycling - Percentage filling of black bins
23
4.5. Pilot briefs The following briefs were developed by Futerra, based on our audience research and messaging analysis. Each brief was accompanied b a channels matrix, which listed possible channels and activities for the pilot. NB. The litter pilot was not implemented due to limitations on council resource and budget.
4.5.1. Pilot 1 – Carbon Reduction Introduction This document presents options for the development of a pilot strategy to reduce Barnet residents’ carbon emissions. It provides: 1. Objectives 2. Audience profile 3. Pilot structure 4. Rationale 5. Next steps 6. Ideas matrix (attached as an Excel spreadsheet) It has been designed to be used in tandem with the Barnet Behaviour Change Strategy BETA Version 1. The Strategy paper sets out the framework and process to work through to create an effective behaviour change campaign. This Pilot Brief addresses the topic of residential carbon reduction, giving specific channel ideas on how to engage residents to change their behaviour. By working through the questions in the strategy document, and drawing on this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints, the Council will create a detailed carbon reduction pilot campaign. 1. Campaign objectives Strategic: To persuade Barnet residents to take up low carbon behaviours. Tactical: To break habits, engage residents on low carbon behaviours, and refreeze the low carbon behaviours. 2. Audience profile The audience for the pilot are residents of Garden Suburb, West Finchley and Totteridge (approximately 4,100 households). The Mosaic segmentations best LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
24
represented in the target area are ‘New Urban Colonists’ and ‘Cultural Leadership’. We have cross-referenced these with the Defra framework for pro-environmental behaviours, which demonstrates that the target audience are most likely to be ‘Positive Greens’, ‘Concerned Consumers’, ‘Cautions Participants’, or ‘Honestly Disengaged’. New Urban Colonists and Cultural Leadership – Defra segments representation Honestly disengaged 14% Positive greens 38%
Stalled starters 6% Cautious participants 13% Sideline supporters 8%
Concerned Consumers 17%
Waste watchers 4%
Positive Greens tend to be pioneers; the group of people who are likely to adopt environmental behaviours earliest and most freely. Cautious Participants are more likely to be prospectors; they are open to change, but only if it’s trendy and others are doing it too. Generally, the audience is relatively engaged on environmental issues. The exception is the Honestly Disengaged group, which has little interest. The strongest chance of influencing this group is through social proof. Once low carbon behaviours become the norm, they will participate through lack of options. Creating a ‘change group’ using the other three segments will start this process. For the large, engaged groups, carbon emissions are likely to result more from a lifestyle of relatively high consumption, and from ‘bad habits’ than from a lack of awareness of climate change, or knowledge of how to live in a more low-carbon way. Given this, we would expect the key audience characteristics, with relation to key carbon reduction areas, to be as follows: Behaviour Home energy use Food consumption Travel
Current carbon emissions High High Mid
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
Ability to do more High High High
Willingness to change High Mid - Low Mid
25
3. Pilot structure Behaviours: sleep-walking or retail therapy? The target audience is relatively environmentally aware. When it comes to big decisions that have implications for carbon reduction, they are the most likely group of any to make the green choice. These are decisions such as whether to buy an economical vehicle, or whether to fit roof insulation. They are usually considered, and can be termed ‘conscious’ or ‘retail therapy’ behaviours. The behaviours that are probably more pertinent in this case are habits – things people do without consideration (such as filling a kettle, or leaving a light switched on). These ‘sleep-walking’ behaviours are where we will be able to make important ongoing changes that will result in carbon reduction. They are also tough behaviours to change. Strategy: phased approach Changing habits is an ongoing process, but we can identify three key stages, around which the phases of this pilot can be organised. Changing the behaviours requires you to take the following steps: 1. First wake people up to their current, unsustainable behaviours – make them aware of their bad habits. 2. Then new, low carbon alternatives need to be introduced, to provide people with replacement behaviours for their bad habits. 3. Finally, you need to ‘re-freeze’ those new behaviours – to establish them as the new ‘habit’. Tactics: phase overview This section breaks down the objectives and methodology for each phase, and suggests example ideas for how these might be actioned. The ideas presented can be found in the attached ideas matrix if more information on them is required. Phase 1: Breaking bad habits Objective To wake people up to their current bad habits. What needs to happen? People need to be made aware not only that their current habits are unsustainable, but that they are costing them (especially financially in the current climate). Carbon emissions are tough to visualise – how can you make them tangible to people and LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
26
demonstrate their negative effects? People are loss averse – highlight the costs they are incurring as a result of their behaviour, which will also help make carbon-related activities more relevant to them personally. For example Use thermal imaging cameras or smart meters to record the audience’s energy use, so that you can show them what the effect of energy loss (and therefore money loss) looks like. You can also use the results to suggest personal, bespoke adjustments that can be made to the house to help save energy, as well as suggesting some new energy saving behaviours (and introducing the next phase). Phase 2: Introducing new behaviours Objective To provide people with low carbon alternatives to their current bad habits. What needs to happen? In this phase, you will need to enable the audience to make the required changes, and begin to engage them on the new behaviours so that they continue them on an ongoing basis. New ideas need to be introduced in a positive way: they will cut losses and they will be a pleasure. Use positive and inclusive language, highlight achievements already made. For example Once you’ve woken the audience up to their bad habits, and have provided them with bespoke suggestions on how they might change for the better, you need to enable them to do so. An eco road show that provides solutions to the issues identified in phase 1 could work well. It would need to be an interactive, engaging process – hook people in with gimmicks or free stuff (like a light bulb amnesty) and provide them with interesting things to do (like the top trumps cards for their local area, or a recipe form to add to the Barnet cookbook).Think carefully about the messengers you use – local heroes or celebrities would work well. Phase 3: Re-freeze the new behaviours Objective To establish the new behaviours as the norm – reform habits, but this time, using the low carbon behaviours from phase 2. What needs to happen? In order to make the new behaviours ‘stick’ beyond the pilot, they need to be ingrained. A good way to achieve this is through thanks and feedback – congratulate people on what they’ve achieved and they’re more likely to keep doing it. As part of that process label residents as ‘people who care about the community/environment’, LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
27
which will help convince them of their own commitment to the cause. Finally, remind people of what they should be doing. Strategically-placed ‘retrieval cues’ help people catch themselves reverting to their bad habits, and remind them to do the alternative instead. For example A survey at the end of phase 2 is a great idea. It means you can feedback achievements to people, and establish people who have done the best as role models for others (increasing the social proof around the new behaviours). Retaking the smart meter or thermal imaging readings and pointing out the improvements is a great way of doing this. Retrieval cues can work in many ways – stickers on kettles and light switches work at the point where the behaviour takes place, whereas something like the Barnet cookbook provides an ongoing resource to help people to stay on track.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
28
Integration: example pilot overview The diagram below maps the elements of the pilots within the phases to demonstrate how they could be integrated in your planning process.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
29
4. Rationale The table below provides a high-level view of the rationale behind the actions and tactics suggested for each of the phases. It is broken down by which of the 4Es from the Defra model (Enable, Engage, Exemplify and Encourage) are most applicable at each stage. See the strategy document for more information of the 4Es framework. The tactics suggested are taken from the strategy document, and are evidencebased behaviour change tactics most applicable in each phase Phase Break habits
New Behaviours
Re-freeze behaviours
Objective Enable > Demonstrate financial loss resulting from carbon savings, e.g. real-time energy use, petrol costs Engage > Make the impacts of the ‘bad habits’ tangible and relevant to the audience Enable > Ensure the infrastructure and information for the new behaviours is accessible Engage > Build social proof for low carbon behaviours > Communicate the behaviours using accessible, inclusive language > Make the alternatives aspirational Encourage > Use rewards and penalties to incentivise low carbon behaviours, e.g. council tax rebates Exemplify > Use the opportunity to demonstrate the steps the council is taking to reduce its own carbon emissions Enable > Ensure infrastructure and information provision continues > Feedback on achievements from previous phase and thanks Engage > Begin to normalise the low carbon behaviours, e.g. retrieval clues to remind about low-carbon behaviours, reinforce through labelling Encourage > If possible, choice edit so that residents opt out of low carbon solutions (rather than opt in to them)
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
Tactics from Strategy Seeing is believing Keep it personal We are loss averse
Clear direct requests Make it a pleasure Change groups Use salesman tactics Use empathy and emotions, tell stories
Feedback and thanks Labelling Default actions Remind, remind, remind
30
5. Next steps Developing the campaign To develop a campaign plan for the carbon reduction pilot, the Council should work through the questions in the strategy document, using this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints. During the campaign Futerra are available on a call-off basis to support where needed. This could include: > Reviewing and critiquing the campaign plan > Advising on copy and design > Acting in an advisory or steering capacity Post-campaign The results of the campaign will be recorded which, together with evaluation from the campaign team, Futerra will use to review and revise the Behaviour Change Strategy in preparation from the next pilot.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
31
4.5.2. Pilot 2 – Waste Minimisation Introduction This document presents options for the development of a pilot strategy to minimise Barnet residents’ waste. It provides: 1. Objectives 2. Audience profile 3. Pilot approach 4. Rationale 5. Next steps 6. Ideas matrix (attached as an Excel spreadsheet) It has been designed to be used in tandem with the Barnet Behaviour Change Strategy BETA Version 1. The Strategy paper sets out the framework and process to work through to create an effective behaviour change campaign. This Pilot Brief addresses the topic of residential waste minimisation, giving specific channel ideas on how to engage residents to change their behaviours. By working through the questions in the strategy document, and drawing on this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints, the Council will create a waste minimisation pilot campaign. 4. Objectives Strategic: To persuade Barnet residents to minimise the amount of waste they dispose of. Tactical: To raise the status of behaviours around reducing and reusing. 5. Audience profile The audience for the pilot is made up predominantly of people from the Mosaic segmentations of ‘New Urban Colonists’ and ‘Cultural Leadership’. We have crossreferenced these with the Defra framework for pro-environmental behaviours, which demonstrates that the target audience are most likely to be ‘Positive Greens’, ‘Concerned Consumers’, ‘Cautious Participants’, or ‘Honestly Disengaged’. Positive Greens tend to be pioneers; the group of people who are likely to adopt environmental behaviours earliest and most freely. Cautious Participants are more likely to be prospectors; they are open to change, but only if it’s trendy and others are doing it too.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
32
The groups we are targeting have a relatively high awareness of green actions, with aspects of waste minimisation, especially recycling, featuring particularly highly. Although members of these groups have a high awareness of the issues, they are also often those who consume the most (as they are relatively well-off), and therefore produce improbably high quantities of waste. We would expect the key audience characteristics, with relation to waste minimisation behaviour areas, to be as follows: Behaviour
Current uptake
Ability to do more
Reduce Reuse Recycle
Low Low Mid-high
High High High
Willingness to change Low Mid High
It is likely that the uptake of recycling is already quite high. In order to minimise the quantity of waste (including recycling, which is also a drain on Council resources), this audience lends itself well to investigating ways of encouraging reductions in consumption and the reuse of items that might ordinarily be disposed of. 6. Pilot approach Strategy: reduce and reuse The audience is a mixture of pioneers (people who will take on green behaviours because they feel it’s the right thing to do) and prospectors (people who will take on green behaviours because they are part of a growing trend). While the pioneers are more likely to already be doing the right thing, the prospectors provide a huge opportunity for change. We recommend you focus on the reduce and reuse aspects of waste minimisation for two main reasons. Firstly, the target audience is likely to already have higher than average recycling rates. Secondly, the more interventions made early in the waste cycle, the less disposal and recycling is required later on. As the key audience barriers table in the Rationale section shows (see pages 8-9), driving the desired actions around waste minimisation will require the Council to engage as well as to enable residents to reduce and reuse. The tactics below have been selected with this in mind. Tactics: ideas into action We have provided a list of campaign ideas in the appended Excel ideas matrix. In order to put these ideas to their most effective use, we have presented a few of the LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
33
most relevant tactics that you will need to adhere to when crafting your messaging and choosing your channels. For each tactic, we’ve included an example from the ideas matrix about how this might be implemented.
Words that sell Using the right language to communicate the issue is important for two main reasons. Firstly, the language of waste minimisation (like the topic!) can seem extremely dull, and makes the subject uninspiring to engage with. Secondly, uninspiring language rarely confers high status. In order to get people to feel good about reducing and reusing, you will need to use inspiring and understandable language. For example… Draw up a list of alternative terms for the least inspiring and most complex terms around waste minimisation. This could also act as a glossary in the Green Behaviours guide. It would be great to tie the waste minimisation language in with beating the credit crunch. See Futerra’s Words that Sell as an example. http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf
The right messengers Targeting a prospector audience is often difficult for a Council, given that they are rarely associated with leading trends. In order to effectively position waste minimisation behaviours as trendy and high-status, you will need to partner with organisations and individuals who are already thought of as trend-setters in these areas. For example… Partner with organisations that are already making a positive and popular statement on the actions you will be talking about. For example you may want to adopt Swishing (clothes swapping parties – www.swishing.org) which has proved an extremely popular way of cutting waste and keeping fashionable. You can provide a venue, but get active/famous community members to run and promote the event using a ‘Run your own Swish’ pack you provide.
Labelling Prospectors like to be labelled, provided they feel the label they have been given adds to their status. People who are ‘labelled’ as someone who cares about their community/environment are more likely to respond next time you address people about the community/environment. For example… Providing residents who are taking positive steps to minimise their waste with a badge of approval (this can literally be a badge or a sticker) which allows them to showcase their achievements will work. The stickers can be applied to windows,
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
34
bins and other visible places. Labelling can also work with business partners – the Barnet Green Tick could be established to award businesses making progress on helping residents with waste minimisation (by altering packaging or not providing plastic bags for instance) a Green Tick of approval by the Council.
Feedback and thanks Feedback and thanks are essential, and tie in closely with the labelling. If you can demonstrate to people that they are making a positive difference, and that they are appreciated for doing so, they are more likely to feel a sense of agency to do more. Waste minimisation comes with a measurable set of actions, which can be recorded and fed back to the people taking action. For example… Feedback and thanks can be tied in neatly with your measurement and evaluation. On target streets, do a baseline survey of waste types and quantities. Half way through the pilot, take a second survey and feed back the positive results visibly, through a targeted poster campaign. The posters should contain inclusive language, and recognise a specific street/area so that the residents feel that their efforts are being recognised and commended. This mid-pilot feedback will boost the residents already taking action to continue/do more, and encourage those who are not to get involved.
Pilot structure: measurement and feedback We would recommend structuring the pilot activities around a system of measurement. There are two main reasons for this: first, you already have a system for measuring waste, which could be applied here with relatively small resource outlay. Secondly, measurement will provide you with real statistics with which to support your messages. Being able to feedback positive achievement will allow you to label good performers, which will appeal to your prospector audience. We recommend you undertake three key surveys: 1. Baseline survey – at the start of the pilot, this will provide you with baseline information to work from, as well as valuable insights into the motivations and barriers of your target audience. 2. Mid-point survey – this will allow you to test the impact of your initial campaign ideas, as well as measures on early progress. Feeding back this progress in a personal way will provide a confidence boost to residents. This survey also allows you to identify people making the greatest improvements, and use them as case-studies/examples in poster campaigns. 3. End-point survey – this will give you final results for your pilot, but can also be used to contribute to a leave-behind guide that will help residents keep the behaviours going. LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
35
Integration: example pilot overview
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
36
4. Rationale In order to work out our approach, we have examined the waste generation process and the specific barriers to action faced by the target group in order to find out: 1. Which points in the ‘waste cycle’ interventions will have the greatest impact 2. Which are the key barriers to changing behaviours at these points 1. The waste cycle The waste cycle
Point of sale, where you can choose to reduce the quantity of what you buy, and the quantity of the packaging
End of use not end of life. Where the product is no longer needed. This presents the choice of whether to dispose of it, or reuse it.
If the product is disposed of, the choice is whether to recycle it, or throw it away to landfill.
Intervention points for waste minimisation There are three key intervention points in the ‘waste cycle’; where residents are confronted with key decisions about the behaviours they take. These apply to all waste types. The intervention points, the key behaviour decisions, and the desired behaviour at each point are laid out in the table below: Intervention point
Key behaviour decision
Desired behaviour
Purchase
Type and quantity of product
End of Use
Reuse vs dispose
Disposal
Recycle vs landfill
Reduce quantity Buy more sustainable products Avoid excess packaging Reuse products rather than disposing of them Do not send any recyclables to landfill
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
37
Impact on waste minimisation Waste minimisation involves reducing the quantity of waste (which includes recycling). It follows that the less residents purchase in the first place, the less there will be to throw away. The earlier in the ‘waste cycle’ the interventions occur, the greater the impact on overall waste minimisation they will have. The pyramid below shows the size of the potential impact on waste minimisation at each intervention point. The larger the segment, the greater the potential impact on waste minimisation The more done to reduce at the initial stages of the cycle, the less needs to be done to reuse and to recycle later on.
Ability for residents to bring about change At each of the intervention points, residents can effect changes. However, their ability to create change is not the same at each point. At the purchase point, residents’ decisions are constrained by the availability of products without packaging on them, and at the disposal point they are constrained by what recycling infrastructure exists. The diagram below shows the ability for residents to effect change at each intervention point, and the key areas where change can be effected. The larger the segment, the greater the ability to bring about changes desired Key impact areas for residents Reduce consumption
Reuse rather than dispose
Do not throw any recyclables into landfill bin
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
38
Highest impact interventions for residents Although the purchase point is potentially the area of greatest impact for waste minimisation, residents do not have a great deal of control over what they are able to buy. In order to fulfil the potential at this stage, retailers and businesses will need to be on board, offering sustainable products as standard (rather than as an alternative) and driving schemes to reduce excess packaging (such as not issuing plastic bags). The disposal point has been constrained until recently by infrastructure, however residents can now recycle a wide range of products, including cardboard and plastic bottles. There is some scope for encouraging recycling at the disposal point, and this would follow on well from the communications you have already used. We feel that the greatest opportunity for residents to effect change lies at the end of use point. The decision whether or not to dispose of something is entirely down to the residents. It also has the potential for a large impact on waste minimisation, and fits in well with the current external context: Credit Crunch – reusing offers a ‘crunch-busting’ alternative to buying new Swapping is the new shopping – recently there has been a resurgence in ‘swapping parties’, such as Swishing and Twiggy’s Frock Exchange 2. Key barriers to action For the key group of prospectors in the target audience, the personal barriers to action are most likely to be status-driven. The table below breaks down the likely personal barriers to achieving the desired behaviours for different sorts of waste, and files them under the 4Es framework presented in the Behaviour Change Guide BETA version 1. Intervention point Purchase
Desired behaviours Reduce
End of use
Reuse
Disposal
Recycle
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
Key barriers Engage Buying less considered low status Habit of buying same products they’ve always bought Enable Lack of availability of unpackaged goods Engage Reusing considered lower status behaviour than buying new Enable Lack information for how to reuse products Enable Lack of facilities to recycle 39
Engage Habit of throwing to the landfill bin
6. Next steps Developing the campaign To develop a campaign plan for the waste minimisation pilot, the Council should work through the questions in the strategy document, using this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints. During the campaign Futerra are available on a call-off basis to support where needed. This could include: > Reviewing and critiquing the campaign plan > Advising on copy and design > Acting in an advisory or steering capacity Post-campaign The results of the campaign will be recorded which, together with evaluation from the campaign team, Futerra will use to review and revise the Behaviour Change Strategy in preparation for the next pilot.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
40
4.5.3. Pilot 2 – Littering Introduction This document presents options for the development of a pilot strategy to minimise littering in Barnet. It provides: 1. Objectives 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Audience profile Pilot approach Rationale Next steps Ideas matrix (attached as an Excel spreadsheet)
It has been designed to be used in tandem with the Barnet Behaviour Change Strategy BETA Version 1. The Strategy paper sets out the framework and process to work through to create an effective behaviour change campaign. This Pilot Brief addresses the topic of littering, giving specific channel ideas on how to engage residents to change their behaviours. By working through the questions in the strategy document, and drawing on this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints, the Council will create a littering pilot campaign. 1. Objectives Strategic: To persuade Barnet residents not to litter. Tactical: Run collaborative mini-pilots to test a variety of behaviour change tactics for reducing litter. 2. Audience profile Defining a target audience for litterers is not easy, as people often litter in places where they don’t live (as evidenced by areas of high footfall around town centre’s being litter hotspots). However, we can look into the mosaic profiles found in Barnet who are ‘likely to have litter and rubbish in their area’. The group most likely to have litter in their area is Welfare Borderline, followed by Ties of Community and Urban Intelligence.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
41
The graph shows the likelihood of litter/rubbish in the area for the 6 most numerous mosaic groups in Barnet.
These three groups have the following key characteristics which we can use to inform how they should be communicated to. Welfare Borderline
This group has a low income and tends to live in small, council accommodation. Living in public accommodation does little to encourage a sense of ownership over a place, so pride in the surroundings is unlikely to be high. The post office is a vital hub for this group.
Ties of Community
This group tends to be young, with strong social ties, which makes it a key group for social proofing of non-littering behaviours. Although environmental knowledge is likely to be low, a sense of pride of place is likely to be high, which offers a hook for reducing litter.
Urban Intelligence
This group is different to the other two in that it is made up of young, affluent prospectors. It is likely that this group is less responsible for the littering in their area, however unlike the previous groups this one includes a large portion of pro-green people who could have an interest in reducing litter in the area.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
42
Neither Ties of Community nor Welfare Borderline groups comprise of many people with pro-environmental attitudes. Instead they are typically ‘honestly disengaged’, or ‘stalled starters’ – they feel they have more immediate concerns than the environment, or are constrained from taking action by lack of money and resources. Unlike the previous two pilots, this one will not focus on a predominantly proenvironmental audience. It will be vital to identify what issues, people, places, things these groups care about, and to link littering behaviours with them in order to create a meaningful case for changing behaviours. Ideally, more research would be conducted into this in the early stages of the pilot, but it is likely that motivators for a young, environmentally disengaged audience would include status derived from clothing or possessions, pride of place, and social/peer pressure. For these audience groups, a collaborative approach will be the most effective. Including them in the decision making and the implementation of the pilot campaign will improve the results of the pilot itself, and win you allies among traditionally hardto-reach groups for future campaigns on littering. 3. Pilot approach Structure: phased, collaborative approach This pilot can be used to test a variety of different approaches to litter reduction; each of the ideas included in the attached ideas matrix can be tested in isolation. However, we recommend that you break your approach down into four broad phases: consultation, preparation, implementation and measurement and feedback. This will allow you to consolidate your results more easily and will also enable a greater degree of engagement with the target audience, which with hard-to-reach groups is particularly important. In this pilot we recommend that you involve the audience in collaborative manner that means they get a real say in which projects are delivered. For example, young people from the target mosaic groups could vote on which 3 pilot ideas (from a shortlist selected by the Council) they would like to see implemented in their area. They could then be involved in the preparation phase, for example designing new bin decorations, to build a sense of ownership over the project. Once these two phases are complete, they are likely to act as ambassadors voluntarily during the implementation phase as they have a sense of ownership over the project. This will be especially effective for the campaigns as the strong social LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
43
networks in the target groups are likely to be extremely receptive to peer-to-peer communication. Tactics: phase detail We recommend a four phased approach to this pilot brief. 1. Consultation Objective Better understand the barriers and motivations of the target audience around littering behaviours. How We recommend you run face-to-face surveys with the members of the target Mosaic groups, and at the littering hotspots. It would be useful to find out the following key information: The barriers to disposing of litter correctly What motivates litterers – not necessarily environment-related, more likely to revolve around social status, peers What programmes they would like to see implemented The best people to run the surveys will be volunteers from the same community as they people they are talking to. 2. Preparation Objective To build a sense of ownership over the project within the target audience, and to prepare channels for the implementation phase. How Work with groups or individuals from the target audience (schools may work well as partners) to prepare the channels for the implementation phase. This can involve them making bins more colourful or engaging or designing posters for the local area. 3. Implementation Objective Implement the idea – see the ideas matrix for options for this phase.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
44
How In this phase the people who were engaged in the consultation and preparation phases will feel a sense of ownership over the project. The implementation of the ideas should include support for peer-to-peer communication, such as key messages for the ‘ambassadors’ to engage their friends, or instructions and location suggestions for encouraging a (controlled) flash mob tidy. 4. Measurement and feedback Objective Reinforce the value of these actions and a sense of achievement around litter reduction. How This is a vital phase of the collaborative process. Your measurement of the impact must be fed back to the ambassadors and the communities which have brought about the change. Hard to reach groups of young people will be motivated by a sense of achievement, which also has the potential to establish them as ambassadors for the cause into the future. They then have the best chance of converting the ‘anti-establishment’ litterers on a peer-to-peer level. 4. Rationale Audience segmentation and behaviour type As well as strategically identifying the groups of people most likely to litter, we can look at littering behaviours more tactically to try and identify the actual behaviours involved. Pioneering work into littering behaviours from Australia offers some interesting categories into which litterers can be divided, and splits littering behaviour into 7 different categories. Audience segments The Environmental Protection Agency of New South Wales developed the following broad profiles for litterers, based on their motivations for littering:
Non-litterers: environmentally conscious, don't litter and usually pick up litter of others Inconvenients: too hard, too much trouble, someone else's problem Ignorants: these people are simply unaware of a link between the environment and their litter behaviour
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
45
Willful Arrogants: usually litter in a context ie "it's OK to litter in urban areas but not in the countryside" Anti-establishments: make a statement with purposeful littering
Littering behaviours From your previous measurement, the most common litter sources are food/packaging, cigarettes and plastics/bags. There is also a significant amount of fly-tipping along roads. Melbourne-based social psychologists Community Change, have identified 7 different specific littering behaviours, which breakdown the food/packaging, plastics and cigarette littering behaviours:
Foul shooting: Litter is thrown at a bin, it misses the bin and the person walks away
Clean sweeping: On arriving at a table in park where others have littered, waste is swept onto the ground
Flagrant flinging: Litter is through the air or drop without any apparent concern
90%ing: Most of the rubbish is put into bin, but some is left behind, or smaller items are dropped
Wedging: Pieces of litter are stuffed into gaps between seats and other places
Grinding: Smokers who grind their cigarettes into the ground
Inching: Litter is left and the person slowly moves away from it
Undertaking: Litter is buried, often under sand at the beach / in the dirt / bushes
These breakdowns can be used to work out the types of behaviour that need to be changed. The behaviours range from habits/laziness (the ‘inconvenients’ and ‘foul shooters’) to a lack of knowledge (‘the ignorants’) to a deliberate action meant to be unhelpful (‘the anti-establishments’ and ‘flagrant flingers’). The following section uses these categories as a platform to identify the objectives for changing littering behaviours, the barriers standing in the way, and the tactics needed to overcome these. As well as their theoretical benefit, these categories are also engaging enough to appear in your messaging and publicity.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
46
Barriers, objectives and tactics In order to identify the barriers to action, we have compared the audience and behaviour categories above with the Defra 4E’s framework examined in the Barnet Behaviour Guide BETA Version 1. The framework can be used to categorise the barriers you will face trying to change behaviours, and also the approach you will need to take to overcoming them. The ideas in the attached ideas matrix take into account the information below, as well as the likely barriers and motivations of the audience based on their mosaic profiles. E
ENABLE
Mosaic segment Audience type
ENGAGE
ENCOURAGE
Ties of Community, Welfare Borderline, some Urban intelligence Ignorants Inconvenients
Behaviours Clean sweeping Foul shooting 90%ing Grinding Wedging Undertaking
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
Inconvenients Willful arrogants Anti-establishments Foul shooting Flagrant flinging Wedging Grinding Inching 90%ing Clean sweeping
Anti-establishments
Flagrant flinging Clean sweeping
47
EXEMPLIFY Urban intelligence, some Ties of Community and Welfare Borderline Non-litterers
Barriers
Lack of knowledge of the environmental effects of littering. They don’t view the item as litter, often the case with cigarette butts. Number, placement and appearance of bins We live in throwaway society with a ‘snack culture’ and too much packaging The bins are not suitable for disposing of dog mess or cigarette ends The bins are dirty
Bad habits & laziness People who litter often feel no sense of pride/ownership in the areas they are littering. Lack of social pressure to do the right thing. Everybody does it! Litter considered worthless, so it doesn’t matter what you do with it
Absence of penalties or consistent enforcement
Broken Windows Theory*: The more litter present the more people are inclined to litter
Objective
People know what counts as litter, and they have access to sufficient infrastructure to dispose of it properly.
People think twice about littering, and position litters negatively and non-litterers positively.
Reinforce perception that litterers are penalized, and non-litterers are rewarded (which can be social as well as financial).
Make sure people can’t use existing litter as an excuse to drop more.
Tactics
Agency Make it a pleasure
Symbolic self completion Keep it personal Change groups Labelling Thanks and feedback
Penalties and rewards Labelling
Set an example Help people to help
*
The Broken Windows Theory was conceived by Malcolm Gladwell, who noticed that crime rates in New York could be reduced by fixing broken windows in areas of high crime. He notes that crime is more likely to take place in areas that look disreputable. It is likely that the same applies to littering; people are more likely to discard litter in areas where litter has already been discarded. Littering therefore becomes a problem that can, to an extent, be improved by a one-off big tidy.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
48
7. Next steps Developing the campaign To develop a campaign plan for the littering pilot, the Council should work through the questions in the strategy document, using this paper and the attached ideas matrix, as well as their own experiences and knowledge of resource constraints. During the campaign Futerra are available on a call-off basis to support where needed. This could include: >
Reviewing and critiquing the campaign plan
>
Advising on copy and design
>
Acting in an advisory or steering capacity
Post-campaign The results of the campaign will be recorded which, together with evaluation from the campaign team, Futerra will use to review and revise the Behaviour Change Strategy in preparation for the next pilot.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
49
4.6. Results reports 4.6.1. Barnet’s Green Thing – Online Portal Project Evaluation Barnet’s Green Thing Groups - Objectives To provide an online forum for Barnet residents to connect and share their stories and progress on the pledges they made under the carbon and waste pilot schemes. The aim of the portal was also to provide continued inspiration, positive feedback, useful information and on-going support to help residents maintain their pledges in the longer term. This was to be achieved by posting interesting and relevant blogs, as well as regular email interaction, and responding to user comments, queries and feedback as appropriate. Group Structure and Member Stats Groups There are 3 Barnet Green Thing groups: the parent group called Barnet’s Green Thing which contains 2 sub-groups: Barnet’s Use it Up Group (waste) and Barnet’s Plug Out & Walk Group (carbon). The parent group currently has 93 unique members, with some users being members of both sub-groups. These were signed up in two ways: • individuals visiting the site and signing up directly themselves • individuals providing email addresses to allow sign-up by the group admin
CO2 Savings Green Thing is also able to estimate carbon (CO2) savings using methodology based on the average savings of Green Thing members, and the results obtained from customer research panels. (There is also a CO2 survey available within the user’s online profile, which calculates more accurate figures based on their lifestyle should they choose to complete it). NB: All figures in this document are for the period 1st June 2009 to 31st August 2009, however there was an unexpected final sign-up to the Use it Up group on 6th September so this member has also been included in the final analysis. Group member statistics and carbon savings: Group Name Barnet’s Green Thing (parent group) Use it Up Plug Out & Walk
Members
Estimated CO2 Savings
93 (unique)
45,119 kg
58 54
29,084 kg 28,512 kg
The members of the two Barnet sub-groups can be broken down as per the following: LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
50
Use it Up Group
Plug Out & Walk Group
26
37
12
2
BC/GT members
20
15
Total
58
54
Residents providing email addresses for manual sign-up Residents directly signing up to portal
Although it is difficult to generalise as the sample numbers are so small, residents signing up autonomously represented approximately 32% of the Use it Up members and 5% of the Plug Out & Walk members (excluding BC/GT members). Engagement and User Interaction Email engagement process • Emails were sent at regular intervals to help provide inspiration and assistance with pledges, as well as encourage members to share their stories and experiences with their pledges. They also gave the opportunity to flag up events happening in the area, such as the Barnet Eco-fair and other local summer festivals, and publicise stalls providing information and advice. In addition each member also received the general Green Thing fortnightly newsletter. •
Some emails were deliberately staggered to prevent users from being inundated with multiple emails at the same time (for example, manual signups to the Plug Out & Walk group were being received throughout June).
•
Those members who were manually signed up received an automatic email welcoming them to the group, together with a second manual email with their username and password details, and a joint welcome email with details of what the group is for, how to participate, prize draw details and links to the group home pages.
•
It was hoped that the emails could also be used to promote how residents are fulfilling their pledges, thus inspiring and motivating others to do the same, however the lack of interaction meant this kind of content couldn’t really be included.
•
Email content included links to online blog posts which were updated several times a week.
•
It was decided that once the majority of Use it Up and Plug Out users were signed up, a joint email would go to both groups to limit the traffic.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
51
•
One person asked to be unsubscribed from the emails (this could be interpreted that the majority were happy receiving them?).
Emails were sent on the following dates: 12 Jun - 1st Use it Up email 22 Jun - 2nd Use it Up email 25 Jun - 1st Plug Out email 03 Jul - joint to both groups 17 Jul - joint to both groups 03 Aug - joint to both groups 14 Aug - joint to both groups 28 Aug - joint to both groups Group Home Page Views The following charts show the weekly views of both group home pages to give some idea of the level of interaction with the site. Unfortunately it is not possible to track what any one individual is viewing, therefore information such as which blog posts or videos drew more views from Barnet residents is not available. Use it Up Group Home Page Views (Weekly):
Plug Out & Walk Group Home Page Views (Weekly)
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
52
The Use it Up group drew far more views than the Plug Out group. This may be because of the sample size of the pilot area and because the Use it Up pilot ran for slightly longer. There is also a general downward trend in the number of views over time. The Plug Out & Walk group is slightly more sporadic. This may be due to it starting later and because of the staggered nature of the manual email signups – there were 37 email addresses provided compared with Use it Up’s 26, and were provided over a longer period of time. Just to reiterate, these views are for group home pages only and does not take into account blog posts and story views which were linked to from the regular emails that were sent. User Interaction It was hoped that the forum would become a hub for members to share experiences and discuss their progress. Direct user interaction has been disappointingly minimal, being limited to the following: • One unsubscribe request on 22/08/09 from a member who signed up directly • One story posted by a Barnet Group member on 06/09/09 (this member joined the Barnet Use it Up group in September). • Six of the residents did try out the CO2 slider surveys stored on their profile, representing approximately 9% of all Barnet group residents.
Project Conclusions Direct engagement from Barnet residents was disappointing, particularly posting of stories despite the prize draw incentives, although the group home page views were more encouraging than expected.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
53
The reasons behind this will need further discussion and investigation, however here are some brief opening ideas: • Difficulties/disconnect in the transition from off-line to online communications, either through lack of connection with the initial message delivery, or apathy on the part of the residents (or perhaps partly both). A critical part of the success of the online communication would have rested on the initial door-todoor engagement with residents, since if this was not effective, then subsequent efforts to engage were also less likely to be effective. To enable stronger engagement and commitment, the process may have benefited from being carried out either by people familiar to the pilot households, such as other local residents, or those of a similar social background or demographic. •
A proportion of the email addresses provided also failed to go through (either through inaccuracies in data collection, or in some cases perhaps incorrect information was given by residents), so this may well have affected the level of user interaction with the site.
•
Perhaps something to look into is Barnet residents’ online behaviour and whether they use online services generally. If the vast majority of residents use online services very little, or not at all, then paper-based / physical engagement is likely to produce vastly better results.
•
Potentially the sample size of the pilot schemes may have been too localised, and a wider scheme with a wider demographic may have produced better results.
•
Having a local community ‘champion’ or a physical ‘hub’ like a local shop may have helped to engage the residents.
•
Timing – current economic climate may have played its part, other concerns of a greater priority?
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
54
4.6.2. Groundwork Evaluation Report
Executive Summary Groundwork carried out a door knocking campaign on behalf of Barnet Council aimed at encouraging residents to lower their carbon emissions (in the carbon pilot area) and to reuse, reduce and recycle (in the waste pilot area). Groundwork employed and managed a team of Green Champions to undertake the door knocking campaign. Messages and communications material for the campaign were developed by sustainable communications agency Futerra and “Do the Green Thing� created a web portal to create an online community for Barnet residents and a forum to share tips and ideas. The project succeeded in engaging a substantial number of residents (596), an overall response rate of 27%. The campaign showed that door knocking, personalising messages and asking people to pledge to make small yet valuable changes to their lifestyle works, highlighted by the evaluation survey which showed that the vast majority stuck to their pledges (92% in the waste and 86% in the carbon pilot area). The campaign demonstrated that the main motivator for people to change their behaviour was to safeguard the environment. Saving money was also a powerful motivator in the carbon area, while in the more affluent waste pilot area feeling part of the community was the second most cited reason for behaviour change.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
55
Table of Contents Page Number 1. Introduction
3-4
1.1 About Groundwork 1.2 Project Background 1.3 Aims and Objectives 1.4 Pilot Areas
2. Methodology
4-6
2.2 Green Champions- Recruitment and Training 2.3 Communications Material 2.4 The door knocking campaign 2.4.1 Baseline Study 2.4.2 Door Knocking Campaign 2.5 Evaluation Survey
3. Results
6-10
3.1 Waste Pilot 3.1.1 Baseline Survey 3.1.2 Door Knocking Campaign 3.1.3 Evaluation Survey 3.2 Carbon Pilot 3.2.1 Baseline Survey 3.2.2 Door Knocking Campaign 3.2.3 Evaluation Survey
4. Conclusions
11-12
Appendices Appendix A- Before Surveys Appendix B- Evaluation Surveys Appendix C- Baseline Report- Carbon Appendix D- Baseline Report- Waste Appendix E- Evaluation Report- Carbon Appendix F- Evaluation Report- Waste
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
56
1. Introduction 1.1 About Groundwork Groundwork is an urban regeneration charity focusing on the most deprived neighbourhoods to improve the local environment in partnership with communities, local authorities, social housing providers and other stakeholders. We believe that all open spaces have the potential to be valuable resources for local communities and throughout our landscape architectural work we ensure that people are fully involved in designing and improving the spaces that matter to them. Our work ranges from discrete community gardens to master planning of housing estates, major open space redevelopments and extensive, complex, multi-partner regeneration projects. We have expertise in creating innovative play and sports spaces, building local identity, designing out crime, improving access and rejuvenating spaces.
1.2 Project Background The London Borough of Barnet’s, Policy and Intelligence Team commissioned a programme of activities to help deliver three pilot projects which were aimed at promoting achieving a sustainable step change in the uptake of environmental behaviours. The pilot projects focused on promoting lifestyle and behaviour changes amongst residents in Barnet. Each of the pilots focused on a different environmental challenge: carbon reduction, household waste minimisation and litter prevention. The pilot projects were aimed at trialling different approaches to changing residents’ behaviour. The objective was to learn from these approaches to mainstream activity across the borough. Barnet Council appointed Groundwork to recruit and manage a team of Green Champions and to carry out a door knocking campaign to encourage residents to make greener lifestyle choices.
1.3 Project Aims & Objectives •
To carry out a door knocking campaign giving residents information about the practical changes that they can make to their lifestyles to reduce their carbon emissions and to reduce, reuse and recycle.
•
Conducting a baseline survey at the start of the pilot that will give an insight into current behaviours and the motivations and barriers of the target audience.
•
Asking householders to make pledges on practical actions that they will take.
• Carrying out an evaluation survey to assess the effectiveness of the campaign. LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
57
1.4 Pilot Areas The waste pilot area encompassed Golders Green and Cricklewood. It consisted of approximately 1,500 units and included the following roads: Hurstwood Road, Decoy Avenue, Monkville Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue, Decoy Avenue, Ashbourne Avenue, Eastside Road, Alberon Gardens, Hallswelle Road, Hayes Crescent, Cranbourne Gardens, Park Way, Grosvenor Gardens, Leeside Court, Hendon Park, St. Georges Road, Highcroft Gardens, Portsdown Avenue, Andrew’s Road, St. John’s Road, St. Edward’s Close, Templar’s Avenue, Brent Terrace. Woodvale Way, Ophelia Gardens and Hamlet Square. The carbon pilot area encompassed Finchley Central. It consisted of approximately 700 units and included the following roads: Elm Park, Eversleigh Road, Grosvenor Road, Landsdown Road, Dollis Road and Gordon Road
2. Methodology 2.1 Green Champions- Recruitment and Training Groundwork recruited and managed seven Green Champions, including three team leaders who had worked for Groundwork on similar campaigns previously. Adverts were posted in local job centres, community centres and local shops. Adverts were also circulated to local community groups. Posts were advertised in April and the Green Champions commenced work in May 2009. Green Champions attended the following training sessions in May 2009: • • • • • •
Health and Safety Training & Door Knocking Etiquette Provided by Groundwork Waste Training provided by LBB Carbon and Climate Change Training provided by LBB Communication and Engaging Residents provided by Futerra “Do the Green Thing” Web Portal Training Feedback and Update sessions provided by Groundwork and LBB
2.2 Baseline Survey The Green Champions carried out a baseline study in June 2009 to gain an understanding of residents’ current levels of awareness, perceptions and actions in regards to saving energy and reducing waste and to be able to meaningfully assess the impact that the project has had at the end of the campaign (Appendix A).
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
58
2.3 Door knocking campaign The second phase of the project consisted of the Green Champions carrying out a door knocking campaign between July- August 2009 to engage residents in a dialogue about how they could make simple yet effective changes to their lifestyle to reduce their impact on the environment. The Green Champions spoke to residents on their door step and linked environmental issues to Barnet residents’ every day lives and highlighted how simple changes to people’s behaviour can have immediate benefits to them, their families and neighbourhood. Futerra developed communications material for the campaign, which the Green Champions gave to the residents at the end of their conversation, which consisted of: pledge cards, sticker booklet, bin sticker, leaflet promoting the website and council recycling leaflets (for the waste pilot). “Do the Green Thing” developed a web portal on the Do the green thing website for Barnet residents to create an online community and to encourage residents to share their ideas. To encourage residents to sign up to the website prizes, including a year’s free green electricity, were given away. The Green Champions knocked on each door up to three times. If the householder was not in when a Green Champion knocked for the third time, they posted communications material through people’s letter boxes with a letter informing residents about the campaign. Based on results of the door knocking campaign Futerra developed posters to feedback to the residents and to encourage residents to join in. The Green Champions carried out shifts weekdays as well as on the weekend.
2.4 Evaluation Survey The final phase of the project saw Green Champions carry out an evaluation survey to assess the effectiveness of the campaign overall and the different elements that made up the campaign: • • • •
Speaking to people on their door step Communication materials developed by Futerra Posters developed by Futerra and put up in the pilot areas Do the Green Thing Website
The evaluation survey was carried out in September 2009 (Appendix B).
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
59
3. Results 3.1 Carbon Pilot 3.1.1 Baseline Survey Carbon The carbon baseline survey showed that the vast majority of residents, 97%, stated that they actively try and save energy in the home. The three most popular ways in which residents save energy in the home are: 1. Turning off the lights 2. Turning off the TV, rather than leaving it on standby 3. Installing Energy Saving light bulbs & Turning the thermostat down Donating unwanted items was respondents favourite way to be greener, followed by not leaving electrical items on standby and wrapping up. The majority of residents, 58% would like to do a bit more and 14% would like to do a lot more to help the environment. Please see appendix C for the full report and graphs.
3.1.2 Carbon Door Knocking Campaign Champions spoke to 156 residents in total, a response rate of 22%. Graph 1 shows that switching things off was the most popular pledge, followed by upgrading appliances, drying clothes outside, turning down the thermostat and washing at 30 degrees. Only six people pledged to get their loft insulated.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
60
Pledges- Carbon Pilot 30
Number of Residents
25
20
15
10
5
0 P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
Graph 1: Carbon Pledges
Pledge 1- Plug Out: switch things of when not using them Pledge 2- Dry Out: dry clothes outside instead of using the tumble dryer Pledge 3- Turn Down the thermostat by 1 degree Pledge 4- Walk More: walk, pedal or use public transport Pledge 5- Wash at 30: wash my clothes at 30 degrees Pledge 6- Get Better Bulbs: switch to energy saving light bulbs Pledge 7- Get Better Electricity: find a green electricity supplier Pledge 8- Get Better Machines: upgrade old appliances Pledge 9- Wrap Up My Home: get loft insultation
3.1.3 Carbon Evaluation Survey 51 completed questionnaires were received, a response rate of 7%. 92% of those spoken to stated that they do “loads” or “a bit” to save the environment. The majority of residents, 82%, felt that the campaign and its messages were clear. Over half of all residents, 52%, felt that the campaign has helped them save carbon, while 57% fed back that they do things differently now as a result of the campaign. The main motivator for behaviour change was to help the environment, followed by saving money. The three most popular pledges were 1. Plug Out 2. Better Bulbs 3. Dry Out LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
61
While Better Machines and Better Electricity were the least popular pledges. 86% of respondents stuck to pledges, 8% of whom also made further green lifestyle changes. The majority of those surveyed, 70%, spoke to a Green Champion. Three quarters of those who had spoken to a Green Champion felt that the experience was great or ok. When asked about the most helpful piece of communication, 21% mentionned the conversation with the Green Champion, followed by OWL metres and posters (14% each) and the sticker booklet (13%). Please see Appendix E for the full evaluation report, including graphs.
3.2 Waste Pilot 3.2.1 Waste Baseline Survey The vast majority of residents, 97%, felt that the 3Rs are either very or fairly important. In terms of practical steps taken to reduce their household waste, the three most popular measures are: 4 5 6
Donating unwanted items Reusing items Using up every last bit
Over half of all residents put out two or more boxes of recyclables every week. In terms of recycling, kitchen waste is recycled by just over a third of all resident, while the vast majority of all residents made full use of recycling items that they can put in their black and blue boxes. The biggest barrier to recycling was the range of items that can be put in boxes for weekly collection (35%). 27% felt that the system is confusing. When asked what residents currently do to be greener, not leaving electrical items on standby came out on top, followed by avoiding using the car and turning down the heating. Over half of all residents, 53%, would like to do a bit or a lot more to help save the environment. Please see Appendix D for the full report and graphs. LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
62
3.2.2 Waste Door Knocking Campaign Champions spoke to 440 residents on their door step, a response rate ofs 29%. Residents favourite pledge was to buy things without packaging, followed by eating leftovers, swapping something and finding a new use for old things. “Sticking with it” or resisting the urge to buy the latest gadgets was the pledge the least number of residents made (Graph 2). Pledges- Waste Pilot Area 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
Graph 2: Pledges Waste
Pledge 1- Unpack It- buy things without packaging Pledge 2- Eat the Fridge: love your food leftovers Pledge 3- Recycle It: recycle when you can what you can Pledge 4- Swap It: swap something you don’t want for something you do Pledge 5- Borrow It: borrow instead of buy Pledge 6- Reinvent It: give your rubbish a second chance Pledge 7- Stick With It: resisist the urge to buy the latest Pledge 8- Buy an Old Thing: if you can’t resist, buy it second hand Pledge 9- Buy Recycled: buy recycled things
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
63
3.2.3 Waste Evaluation Survey 142 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 9.5%. Over half of all respondents, 57%, stated that the campaigned helped them to reduce their waste, while 58% fed back that they do things differently as a result of the campaign. Helping the environment was the main reason why people changed their behaviour, followed by those who changed their behaviour because they wanted to feel part of the community and those who changed their behaviour to save money. Nearly three quarter of residents felt that the campaign was clear, while 19% felt that it could have been clearer. 7% were unaware of the campaign. The three most popular pledges were: 1. Recyle It 2. Eat the Fridge 3. Unpack it “Swap It” was the least popular pledge. The vast majority of residents, 92%, stuck to their pledges, 8% of whom stuck to their pledges and adopted further green behaviours. Over half of respondents were contacted by a Green Champion. Of those who were contacted, the majority, found the experience great or okay. The conversation with the Green Champion was the most effective way of communication (35%), followed by the bin sticker (16%) and sticker booklet and pledge card (11% each). Of those who received an OWL metre just under half felt that the OWL meter was easy to use, while 38% fed back that they didnt’ know if the OWL meter was easy to use, which suggests that they did not install it. 53% felt that the OWL meter was helpful. Of those who signed up to website, 6 people felt that it provided useful hints and tips while 5 people fed back that it helped them reduce waste. Please see Appendix F for the full report and graphs.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
64
4. Conclusions The project succeeded in engaging a substantial number of residents (596), an overall response rate of 27%. The majority of residents spoken to care about the environment- over 90% of residents believe that reducing, reusing and recycling waste is important, while the same proportion claim to be actively saving energy in the home. Over 70% of residents in the carbon area would like to do a bit or a lot more to help the environment. Residents in the waste pilot area were more affluent than in the carbon area and as a result money saving was less of an incentive for people to make change to their behaviour in the waste area, compared to the carbon pilot area. Further, as the council had carried out a series of campaigns highlighting waste issues, in particularly recycling, most residents were familiar with the subject matter and were harder to engage in conversation. 52% of people fed back that the campaign helped them save carbon, 57% stated that they do things differently as a result of the campaign (Carbon Pilot). Pledging is an effective way to encourage people to change their behaviour, highlighted by the fact that 78% of respondents stated that they stuck to their pledges, while an additional 8% stuck to their pledges and adopted further green behaviours (Carbon Pilot), the corresponding figures for the waste area are 84% and 8% respectively. Only relatively few people signed up to the “Do the Green Thing� website and the incentive of winning prizes, including a year’s free green electricity, did not pursuade substantial numbers of people to sign up. Reason given for not signing up to the website included a lack of time and no internet access. A substantial number of residents also felt that the website might be of interest to their children, but that it was of little interest to adults. Only a very small minority of residents were prepared to let champions have their e-mail address on their door step so that they could be signed up by Barnet Council, as most residents wanted to have a look at the website first before deciding whether or not they were going to sign up to it. The majority of those who had spoken to a Green Champion felt that the conversation was helpful and an effective means to engage people and encourage them to make greener lifestyle choices. The main motivator driving behaviour change was the desire to safeguard the environment, closely followed by saving money in the carbon pilot area. Safeguarding the environment was followed by feeling part of the community in the waste pilot area. Interestingly not one person in the carbon pilot area said that they had changed their behaviour because other people on their street had joined the
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
65
campaign, while 25 people in the waste are said that other people had encouraged them to take part. The campaign showed that personalising messages and conversations with Green Champions, in combination with pledging is an effective way of engaging residents and encouraging them to change their behaviour. The social norming elements of the campaign (feedback posters, bin stickers, making people feel part of a community via the website) were successful to a degree. Further, campaign to explore social norming theories and working with communities of interest might provide further interesting insights into how behaviour change theory could be translated into pratice.
LBC Barnet Littering Pilot
66