MSc Dissertation 2015 PRS4799 - Final - 7 Oct 2015 · 2019-09-16 · Dissertation MSc Environmental...
Transcript of MSc Dissertation 2015 PRS4799 - Final - 7 Oct 2015 · 2019-09-16 · Dissertation MSc Environmental...
Dissertation
MSc Environmental Health
Can an educational visit to a sewage treatment works influence future
behavioural changes in children which encourages them to act in a more
environmentally considerate manner?
PRS 4799
Geraldine McKinney
(M00386773)
Supervisor – Dr Sally Priest
October 2015
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 2 of 60
Abstract
The unique aspect of this research is the focus is on school children and how
they engage with environmental messages. The wider implications are that
their attitudes and actions will have an impact in the future on the
environmental and public health agenda; the provision of environmentally
sustainable and economically affordable drinking water and the effective
removal and treatment of sewage.
This research project sets out to investigate if an educational visit to a sewage
treatment works by school children would result in increased knowledge of
water resources, the sewerage system and the sewage treatment process
which would then influence the student’s attitude to reducing water wastage,
protecting the sewerage assets and treatment process and ultimately influence
their future behaviour to be pro-environmental in other aspects of daily life.
The methodology adopted was primarily though questionnaires (pre and post
visit) and supplemented by focus groups (post visit) where possible.
The results demonstrated that there was a significant increase in pro-
environmental behaviours after the visit; a reported decrease in flushing wet
wipes down the toilet and spending less time in the shower. In general, girls
were more likely to have ‘greener’ credentials than boys; and primary school
students were ‘greener’ than secondary school students. The report also
reviewed the importance of educational trips away from the traditional
classroom as a method to enhance the learning experience of students and
how the physical location of the ‘classroom’ can further stimulate learning,
especially for boys.
The report concludes that pro-environmental teaching and learning which
directly relates to the student’s ‘real life’ experience and can demonstrate and
convince students that their actions can directly impact the environment will
have the best long term outcomes for continual pro-environmental attitudes
and behaviours.
Thames Water Utilities Ltd (researcher’s employer) were aware that this
research was being carried out and gave their permission to carry out the
study, however, they did not seek to influence the direction or content of the
research.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 3 of 60
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my
supervisor Dr Sally Priest for her time, guidance, commitment and
professionalism over the course of this research.
I would also like to thank the Programme Leader Michael Hewitt for
developing an engaging MSc Environmental Health course.
I am grateful to all the teachers and pupils who agreed to take part in this
study and completed questionnaires and took part in discussion groups, and to
Jack McKinney for his help loading the data.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my employer Thames Water Utilities Ltd
who has provided me with amazing opportunities and employment over the
past 25 years and to my colleagues (past and present) who have made the
experience so enjoyable.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my Mum and Brian for their
love and continuing support.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 4 of 60
Contents
Page
Abstract 2
Acknowledgement 3
Table of contents 4
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 5
Glossary 6
Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction 7
1.2 Aims and objectives 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review 12
Chapter 3 Methodology 15
Chapter 4 4.1 Results and Discussion 21
4.1 Knowledge 22
4.2 Attitude 25
4.3 Behaviour 28
4.4 Summary discussion 38
Chapter 5 Conclusion 42
References 43
List appendices
A. Children’s Questionnaire 46
B. Adult’s Questionnaire 49
C. Consent Form 53
D. Ethics Form 55
E. Transcripts of Focus Groups 58
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 5 of 60
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 – Image of the water and wastewater companies in the UK 6
Figure 2 – Image of FOG and wet wipes restricting the flow in a sewer 8
Figure 3 – Image of surcharging manhole in a field 9
Figure 4 - Timescale and activities 18
List of Tables
Table 1 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who have heard of
Thames Water ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment
works.
21
Table 1a – Graph showing how well students thought that Thames
Water did its job.
22
Table 2 – Written responses to why waste food and FOG should not
be discharged into the sewerage system
23
Table 3 – Shows the reported responses to their attitude to the
importance of saving water
24
Table 4 – Cross-tabulation of reasons why it is important to save
water.
24
Table 5a – Shows the shift in attitude to thinking about saving water 25
Table 5b – Shows the number of students providing a comment in a
free text question.
26
Table 6 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who report to flushing
wet wipes down the toilet, shown ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the
sewage treatment works.
27
Table 7 – Showing the percentage of students taking a quick shower 28
Table 8 – Showing the percentage of students having a shallow bath 28
Table 9 – Showing the differnce in responses between boys and girls
in primary and secondary school.
29
Table 10 – Shows whether they told family or friends how to save
water showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ results.
30
Table 10b – Comparing the responses between gender and age 31
Table 11 – Question 10b – Overall Frequency 31
Table 12 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare
Primary and Secondary children
32
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 6 of 60
Table 13 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare
Boys and Girls)
32
Table 14 – Frequency of responses 33
Table 15 – Q10e - Comparison of results between boys and girls 33
Table 15b - Q10e Comparison of results between adult male and
female responses
34
Table 16 – Q10e - Comparison of results between primary and
secondary students
35
Table 17 – Q10e - Comparison of results between all ‘agree’
statements and all ‘disagree’ statements
35
Table 18–Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ and all ‘disagree’
statements
36
Glossary
• Environmental Responsible behaviour (ERB) or pro-environmental
behaviour, this is behaving in a way they is not detrimental to the
environment and could be actively exhibiting positive environmental
behaviour which could benefit the environment.
• Fats, oil and grease collectively known as ‘FOG’.
• Wet wipes – moist wipes designed for single use before disposable;
including those intended to supplement toilet paper, make-up removal,
cleaning surfaces and baby wipes.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 7 of 60
Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
The UK water industry is divided into a number of geographical boundaries.
Some of the companies provide both water and sewerage services to
customers while smaller companies are located within these boundaries and
provide only the water supply services (see Figure 1 below). As part of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) many of these companies have an
education team and dedicated Education Centres. The main purpose of the
education centres is ‘customer engagement’ and facilitating students to
experience a tour of a sewage treatment works and partake in curriculum
linked activities to increase their understanding of water treatment and
consumption as well as the treatment of sewage and associated issues. In
doing so, visitors are informed of the key issues which the UK water industry
face; namely (i) water efficiency (with the aim to reduce the amount of water
used per person) and (ii) reducing blockages in the sewerage system (by not
disposing of inappropriate items down the sink or toilet).
Figure 1 – Image of the water and wastewater companies in the UK
Source – Water UK: http://www.water.org.uk/consumers/find-your-supplier
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 8 of 60
Water efficiency - The Environment Agency (EA) has a duty to manage water
resources in England (Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Act 2003). The
EA routinely measures, monitors and reports on the water situation across
England. This helps them to assess the national and local water situation and
the prospects of any water shortages for the environment.
The south east of England has been identified by the EA as ‘water stressed’
(Water Resources South East 2013). Water stress can be defined by the water
exploitation index (WEI). WEI divides the total water abstraction by the long
term annual average (LTAA) resource (European Environment Agency).
Water companies have a legal duty to develop and maintain an efficient and
economical system of water supply (Water Industry Act 1991, Section 37) and
every five years under the Water Industry Act 1991, Sections 37A to 37D (as
amended by the Water Act of 2003) they are required to produce a Water
Resources Management Plan (WRMP) which set outs how they intend to plan
and maintain the balance between supply and demand for water over a 25
year period. Thames Water set out how it intends to do this in its Water
Resources Management Plan 2015 – 2040 (known as WRMP14).
Thames Water is the UK’s largest water and wastewater services company,
serving over 13.5 million customers in London and the south east. Each day it
supplies an average of 2,600 million litres of potable water and treats
approximately 2,800 million litres of sewage (http://www.thameswater.co.uk).
The Government set out its policy priorities for secure, sustainable and
affordable supplies of water in Water White Paper “Water for Life” (Defra
2011). One of the aims is ‘reducing the demand for water by managing
leakage and providing services to help customers use water efficiently’
(WRMP14). Thames Water’s Education Centres is one of a number of
initiatives to promote water efficiency.
In England, the average person uses about 150 litres of water a day, in the
Thames Water catchment this is estimated to be 163 litres of water per day;
this volume is predicted to rise (Thames Water website). The aim for water
companies is to reduce the volume used by each person to 130 litres per day
by 2030 in line with government targets (Defra 2008). The ‘Love your Rivers’
campaign launched by Defra in 2013 aims to ‘encourage people to value their
local river and make the connection between the water in rivers and the water
used at home’(Defra 2013). As droughts and hosepipe bans are rare in the UK
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 9 of 60
people are not constantly reminded of the importance of using water
efficiently.
Reducing blockages in the sewerage system - Thames Water deal’s with
approximately 55,000 sewer blockages each year. The vast majority of these
are due to fat, oil and grease (FOG) and wet wipes (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2 – Image of fat, grease and wet wipes restricting the flow in a sewer
Blockages in sewers lead to disruption for domestic customers as toilets and
sinks have restricted use because the sewage cannot flow freely in the sewers.
In the worst case scenarios this can result in sewage flooding inside properties
resulting in emotional trauma for customers; or manholes surcharging above
ground and sewage escaping though manhole covers and being deposited on
roads, pavements, parkland etc, the sewage often flows into roadside gullies
which discharge directly to watercourse resulting in pollution of rivers and
streams and the associated environmental damage this can cause (see Figure
3).
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 10 of 60
Figure 3 – Image of surcharging manhole in a field (due to blockage in sewer)
Thames Water is committed to initiatives that engage with customers to raise
awareness of water efficiency and help reduce the frequency of sewer
blockages. As well as supporting the ‘Love your Rivers’ campaign it also
provides free water saving devices (available from its website) which include
shower timers, ‘save-a-flush’ bags for the toilet cistern and water efficient
shower heads to fit in the home.
People in the UK do not have a ‘connection’ with the water and wastewater
providers and there is a disconnection between their actions and the bigger
picture. People will often think about these issues only when there is a failure
of the service; for example there is no water due to burst water main or a
sewer blockage results in odours or the inability to use the sink or toilet at
home or at work. Recent media campaigns have raised awareness of problems
of FOG in sewers but there is rarely a direct impact of a sewer blockage on the
individual who has caused the problem as the impact (manifested by a
blockage or sewerage flooding) is often located some distance away.
Individuals in society should act in an ethical manner to ensure that their
activities do not have a detrimental impact locally, nationally and
internationally. This ethos is promoted in Agenda 21, chapter 18
(Management and Use of Water Resources) which is a blueprint for
sustainability and amongst other things it seeks to have sustainable water and
sanitation systems with the decision making processes and consultations
aimed at encouraging everyone to get involved at national, community and
individual levels.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 11 of 60
1.2 Aims and Objectives
The unique aspect of this research is the primary focus is on school children
and how they learn and engage with the environmental messages. The wider
implications are that their attitudes and actions will have an impact in the
future on the environmental and public health agenda; the provision of
environmentally sustainable and economically affordable drinking water and
effective removal and treatment of sewage.
The aim and purpose of this research project is to determine if a visit to a
sewage treatment works will raise awareness and help promote behavioural
change in individuals. The types of behavioural change being sought are
conscious decisions to:
(i) Not to waste water
(ii) Take positive steps not to block sewers and drains ie by not disposing
of FOG down the sink and not flushing inappropriate items down the
toilet.
The objective of this research is to establish and measure if the amount of
knowledge, awareness and a site visit will influence the visitors to such an
extent that it will lead to changes in individual behaviour and an understanding
of their role in the wider environmental issues.
The hypothesis: A visit to a sewage treatment works (which includes
communicating factual information and hands-on activities) will result in a
measured increased environmental awareness, attitude and behaviour by the
visitors.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 12 of 60
Chapter 2
Literature review
Charles Roth coined the term ‘environmentally literate’ in 1968 with the
question “How shall we know the environmentally literate citizen?" He goes
on to say “Those decisions are made daily by everyone in one or more contexts
of their activity as consumers, producers, recreators, procreators, and voters.
The ability to make those decisions and choices in a fashion that will permit a
sustainable human society is dependent upon the degree of environmental
literacy of each citizen. The degree achieved is largely a function of education
and character development.” (Roth 1992, pg 11). It is often assumed that
individuals who are knowledgeable and concerned about the environment will
engage in environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB), (Mobley et al 2010).
This is an area that will be explored during this research project to see if there
is a link between an individual’s knowledge and their ERB.
However, is being environmentally literate and having knowledge enough to
promote change “students will neither care about nor retain the knowledge
they gain unless they are first emotionally and ethically engaged by place,
community, and content” (Goralnik and Nelson 2011, pg 183) An aim of this
research is to determine if an educational visit which exposes students to
issues of water stress and sewer blockages is enough to engage them into
more environmentally responsible behaviour.
Hungerford and Volk (1990) have extensively researched environmental
education and stress that in order that people engage with the environmental
issues people must have (i) cognitive knowledge, (ii) a sense of personal
ownership and (iii) feel empowered that their actions can help reach the
desired solution. Similarly, Volk and Hungerford (2003) state ‘We must help
[learners] develop a sense of personal ownership in environmental issues and
a sense of empowerment to work toward the solution of these issues.’ This
research seeks to verify whether visitors to a sewage treatment works feel that
their actions and behaviours can have an impact on the wider environmental
issues of water resources and sustainability and if they feel a desire to own the
issues and empowered to take pro-environmental activities.
Hsu (2004) carried out a study into environmental behaviour on students in
Taiwan to see if they had adopted ERB after completing an environmental
module which was designed to foster ERB. Two months after completion of
the module the students were ‘tested’ and found to have adopted ERB, thus
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 13 of 60
concluding on page 47 ‘Therefore, it is suggested that the characteristics of
environmental education as an education for all and for a lifetime should be
put into practice, and cultivation of a responsible environmental citizenry may
look more promising.’ Hsu’s research is relevant to this research as it reported
sustained ERB in the students following an education programme.
The UK Cabinet Office has produced a document MINDSPACE Influencing
behaviour through public policy (2010) which describes the use of “hard”
instruments such as legislation and regulation to compel citizens to act in
certain ways or sometimes the use of “nudges” which gently push its citizens in
the desired direction. Each of these mechanisms has benefits and constraints
and their success or failure depends on a number of interdependent
relationships. This research project is considering if ERB can be achieved
through gentle “nudges” by engaging with visitors on educational visits; thus
raising awareness and changing behaviour through an emotional connection,
without having to resort to draconian methods of; compulsion, sanctions and
legislation to achieve the desired outcomes.
There are tangible benefits of ‘learning outside the classroom’ school trips and
visits are an important part of childhood learning; decades later adults can
recall details (three or more aspects) of the things they experienced, touched
and learnt about on their school trips Dierking & Falk (1997), interestingly,
most participants said that they had thought about their field-trip experience
subsequently. For primary school children the trips are an adventure and they
are excited and engaged, relishing the experience at being in a new
environment away from their usual learning environment. A trip to an
industrial site is an opportunity for students to experience of the ‘actual’ world
which they can directly relate to Reiss & Braund (2006). The change of scene
will add additional dimensions to the learning experience resulting in increased
enthusiasm, interest and motivation in the topic King & Glackin (2014) and
Behrendt & Franklin (2013). Girls tend to prefer the familiarity of the
classroom whereas “boys respond to more active learning opportunities than
do girls. Therefore, lessons that take place in the outdoors can enhance EE for
elementary school students” (Carrier 2009 pg11).
Environmental education is taught in schools within a number for subjects
including science, geography and citizenship, ‘the ultimate goal of
(Environmental Education) is to produce an environmentally literate and
responsible citizen, one who can make decisions that will help check many of
the environmental problems that will arise in the 21st century’ (Knapp 2000,
pg34). Farmer et al (2007) discussed how an educational environmental field
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 14 of 60
trip had long term effects on knowledge, attitude and the individual’s
responsibility to the environment. However, when the teaching of science and
the environment is restricted to the items in the national curriculum it can
leave students unconnected with the impact of their actions, therefore, there
is a requirement to link concepts in science to real life contexts, in order to
help develop students attitudes and the impact that their actions can have on
the environment so that they can make informed life-style and environmental
choices, Littledyke (2008).
As well as having a global understanding of environmental issues, students
should have knowledge of their local area and it’s unique environmental
issues; the results of a Maltese study, Mifsud (2011) indicated that students
were less knowledgeable about local environmental issues than global issues,
and although they had a positive attitude towards the environment they
demonstrated few positive actions.
Reviewing the literature on gender and environmental behaviour Zelezny et al
reported differences between males and females in relation to pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviours and concluded that females reported
stronger environmental attitudes and behaviours than men and “female youth,
compared to male youth, reported stronger personal responsibility for
improving the environment” (Zelezny et al, pg 154). This was further
supported by Carrier, “Girls have been shown to express greater nurturing and
sensitivity to the environment than have boys” (Carrier 2009 pg11).
Several environmental psychologists have reported on the difficulties of
measuring pro-environmental behaviour. Gamba & Oskamp (1994) found that
self-reported pro-environmental behaviour (kerbside recycling) was slightly
overstated when individuals self-reported their behaviour, but also determined
that relevant knowledge was the most significant predictor of pro-
environmental behaviour. This was also demonstrated by Corral-Verdugo’s
(1997) research which showed a low association between self-reported pro-
environmental behaviour (recycling) and the actual observed pro-
environmental behaviour. Self-reports, though related to actual behaviour,
may still overestimate the frequency of pro-environmental behaviour, Chao &
Lam (2011) suggests that social desirability would affect people’s readiness to
take pro environmental actions especially if they are easily observed by the
others. The types of behaviour changes being sought in this study are not
activities which are available for others to observe, therefore the self-reported
responses should be treated with a degree of caution.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 15 of 60
Chapter 3
Methodology
The method selected for this research is mainly in the form of questionnaires
as the primary candidates in this research are children; the questionnaires
contained open and closed questions to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data and where possible substantiated with group discussions and
interviews. Using this mixed method approach (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011)
with children is supported by Bell 2007 pg 461 ‘While qualitative research can
produce extremely valuable results, the collection of quantitative data from
children themselves seems an important expression of the modern western
perception of them as social and economic actors in their own right, with their
own unique perspectives on their social worlds’.
Pilot Study: Lanphear (2001) supported the significance of pilot studies in
research to avoid pit falls and make amendments before the full survey is
underway. Several drafts of the questionnaires were prepared to ensure that
the questions were meaningful and relevant Bell (2010). Once they were
deemed appropriate a pilot survey was undertaken and feedback sought on
the questionnaire. The draft wording was sent to three primary school
teachers (one final year undergraduate, one newly qualified teacher and one
experienced primary school teacher). The undergraduate was the only one
who suggested rewording eg ‘Told other people how they could save water’
was amended to a more child appropriate language of ‘Told friends or family
how they could save water’. As suggested by Bell (2007), the language, style
and length of sentences was kept short and simple. Therefore, by using
language suitable for 7 year olds the same questions could be used for children
up to 18 years old as well as adults. The adult version of the questionnaire had
all the same questions but included some additional questions aimed solely at
adults. As there were no significant queries or revisions required the pilot
questionnaire was adopted and implemented for the full study, and the results
from the pilot questionnaires were included in the final dataset.
Data collection: The methodology adopted for this investigation was to have
the questionnaires completed twice; pre and post the educational visit to a
sewage treatment works. Focus group discussions were held when possible to
enable the researcher to probe deeper into the views and attitudes of the
children to see if they confirmed the analytical data collected.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 16 of 60
General data was collected from participants at the start of the questionnaire;
age range and gender. However, all data was anonymous and stored
confidentially, no details of the educational establishments participating in this
research are included in the final report.
The questions were designed to be used primarily by children aged 7-11 years
old as these make up the vast majority of visitors to the Education Centres.
Individuals were instructed to read the questions and self-select their answers.
There are a variety of questions, some of which are concerned with
‘knowledge’, ‘attitudes’ and some focused on ‘behaviours’. The ‘attitude’
questions generally followed the Likert style of responses (originally devised by
R. Likert in 1932); these record the attitude of the respondent who selects
from a scale of answers ie ‘strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree or
agree, agree and strongly agree’. Bell (2007) suggests that these verbal labels
are more easily understood by children than numeric scales which are often
used in adult questionnaires. Consideration was given to using visual images
such as smiley/unhappy faces when designing the questionnaire instead of
verbal labels, however, to avoid influencing the child’s responses ‘Young
children have a particular tendency to want to please adults by agreeing with
them or being overly positive in their responses’ (Bell 2007 pg 464) so it was
felt they may opt for the ‘smiliest’ face more often than they would with verbal
label equivalent ‘strongly agree’ and giving ‘false’ positive results.
There were a range of questions to ascertain behaviours of the individual; such
as do you carry out a particular activity ‘always’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’. Each
question also has a ‘Not sure’ response; this should mean that respondents do
not feel obliged to select an ‘affirming’ response from the list of options.
There were a number of ‘open’ questions where the participants are asked to
give a reason for their response; this is to gauge the level of understanding or
‘environmental literacy’ and also the opportunity to reaffirm their
environmental credentials or to provide an insight into potential barriers which
are preventing them from behaving in an environmentally positive way.
Focus Groups: In addition to questionnaires, ‘focus group’ interviews and
discussions were carried out (on two occasions) after the visit and completion
of the questionnaires to enable the interviewer to explore the breath and
depths of the sentiment behind the answers; this provided an additional
qualitative angle to the research. The process and style of this activity was
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 17 of 60
developed during the course of the investigation once the data analysis has
begun. Two focus groups were held; the first was a group of six children aged
8-9 years old, their classroom teacher was not present so they were not ‘under
pressure’ to give the ‘correct’ answers. The second focus group were
approximately 12 students aged 9-11 years who were members of a school
‘Eco Club’, this was not an in-depth focus group as the majority of the time was
spent by the children presenting their own projects on ‘global’ environmental
issues which were important to them. By signing up to the Eco Club they had
affirmed their own environmental credentials and an active interest in the
environment. The finding of each focus group session will be discussed in the
results and transcripts of each are in Appendix E.
Analysis: Questionnaires were selected as the appropriate method to collect
this data. Once collected the quantitated data was input into the statistical
analytical package; Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), to capture
and analyse the data with appropriate tests such as the significance level ‘p’,
chi-squared and Cramer’s V for trends and verification. The qualitative data
was not substantial enough to be loaded into a statistical package to be
analysed, it was studied and key themes were collated. The data was
predominately presented in graphical form for visual impact of the frequency,
percentages and significance.
The relationships between two variables have been analysed in SPSS using
Person’s chi-squared test. Which as Field (2005, p682) describes as “an
extremely elegant statistic based on the simple idea of comparing the
frequencies you observe in certain categories to the frequencies you might
expect to get in those categories by chance”. When this test was carried out a
number of different statistics were reported. Firstly, the chi-square value is
given alongside a measure of the statistical significance of the result (p=?).
Statistical significance has been taken to be those relationships that have a p-
value less than 0.05 (ie a 95% significance level). Additionally, Cramer’s V
values are presented to provide an indication of the strength of association
between two variables, which is between 0 and 1; with those closest to 1
having a stronger association. The number of valid responses is also provided
and denoted as the ‘n’ value. In addition to SPSS, Excel spreadsheets were
used to create the graphical representation of the data and an on-line
calculator ‘Social Science Statistics’ (http://www.socscistatistics.com) was used
as a tool to check and verify the results.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 18 of 60
Population Sample: The geographical focus of this research is the area
covered Thames Water Utilities Ltd in the south east region of England. All
schools in this location are able to participate. The main participants were
school children on educational visits to sewage treatment works, there was
one group of ‘home educated’ students. The age range was from 7 to 18 years
old. The questionnaire was the same for everyone aged 18 years or under. In
order to be able to invite children to participate in this study consent had to be
provided on their behalf. Even where consent was provided the child was
under no obligation to participate in the questionnaire and could decline from
taking part without having to give a reason. The main cohorts were children in
primary school (aged 8-11) and secondary school student (aged 14-18). There
were very few student in the age range 12-13 years olds visiting the education
centres so there is a gap in the dataset, therefore, conclusions will not be
drawn about this proportion (Years 7, 8 and 9 of secondary school) of the
population.
In addition to school visits there are also educational visits by university
students. Teachers and support staff were also invited to participate in the
survey. The questionnaires for persons over the age of 18 years are similar in
style and content to the children’s questionnaire but have additional questions
aimed specifically at adult behaviours including the disposal of products down
the toilet such as; sanitary products, make-up wipes, condoms, tablets etc.
Participation in the survey is voluntary; however, written consent is not
required to be given by the adults taking part as the act of voluntarily
completing the questionnaire is deemed as consenting to participate.
A follow-up questionnaire was sent to those educational institutions that had
participated in the initial questionnaire which invited them to complete a
second questionnaire. The time frame for this was a minimum of three weeks
after the site visit, the reason for this relatively short period is due to the time
constraints of this research project and school holidays. The follow-up
questionnaire was identical to the first questionnaire but with an additional
question at the end to collect information on their view of their own impact on
the environment and environmental attitudes. A direct comparison can
therefore be made by comparing the results of their knowledge, attitude and
behaviours before and after the visit.
Incentives: During the educational visit the participants were offered a
number of ‘freebies’ to help reinforce the key messages and help promote
behavioural change. For children these included; ‘fuzzybugs’ with straplines
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 19 of 60
“I’m being waterwise” or “Bin it, don’t block it”, a card game based on water
efficiency, a workbook and a 4 minute shower timer; and for adults a water
efficient shower head, FOG collection boxes, leaflets and save-a-flush bags
(placed in toilet cisterns to reduce the volume of water used for each toilet
flush) and tap aerators (to reduce the water flow). The majority of these
products are also available for free to domestic customers via water company
websites.
Research Constraints
Timescale: There was a limited timescale to collect this data due to school
summer holidays and children changing classes and possibly schools which
meant the data collection process had to be completed by the middle of July
2015.
Ethical considerations (Consent): In order for children under the age of 18
years to participate in the research written consent had to be obtained.
Therefore, for the participation of school children there were a number of
steps which had to be taken; in general the class teacher asked the head
teacher for permission to participate, if this is granted there are two possible
outcomes; the head teacher/class teacher gave written consent in their
position of ‘in loco parentis’ or the questionnaire and consent form was sent
home for the parents to provide written consent, the latter option inevitably
resulted in less participation.
Budget: There is no additional budget requirement to carry out this research
(the free products given out at the education centres are also available to
order free of charge by customers through the Thames Water website).
Photocopying of questionnaires was either done at a Thames Water site or on
Middlesex University Campus.
Figure 4 - Timescale and activities: Timescale Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Research
Design
Pilot Study
Project
Proposal
Data Collection
Focus Groups
Data Analysis
Write Up
Submission
Viva voce
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 20 of 60
Methodological Limitations: this research will only capture a specific point in
time covering a period of a few months at the most. The participants are not
randomly selected from the general population as their tutor has specifically
requested an educational visit to a sewage treatment works so they are
already inclined to have an interest in the topics being cover during the visit.
Also, although this research is measuring the data collected ‘before’ and ‘after’
a visit to a sewage treatment works, this activity cannot be used to solely
account for any perceived or measured changes as other influences could be
taking place, such as; additional work reinforcing the issues back in the
classroom or media campaigns which may have been happening concurrently.
Children may tend to give answers that they think the researcher wants or they
know to be ‘right’ rather than giving their ‘true’ answer (Bell 2007). This is
addressed in the Consent Form which has a statement to be read out to the
children reiterating that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer as it is their
‘views’ that are being sought.
The self-reported responses to questionnaires have their limitations as people
often overstate their pro-environmental behaviours Gamba & Oskamp (1994),
Corral-Verdugo’s (1997) and Chao & Lam (2011). However, when including the
comments from focus groups it can give a clearer insight into the ‘true’
behaviours and the barriers to the behaviours which are being sought.
Positionality: “It is critical to pay attention to positionality, reflexivity, the
production of knowledge and the power relations that are inherent in research
processes in order to undertake ethical research” (Sultana 2007, pg 382),
recognising that I am both a student carrying out research and an employee of
Thames Water I acknowledge and respect these positions to ensure validity
and credibility in this research.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 21 of 60
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
The relevent and significant results of the key findings from the data collected
are presented in this section along with the general discussion of the results,
this layout should aid the reader as the different themes are presented and
discussed under the relevent headings.
Although data was collected from adult participants those results have
generally been excluded from this report, the main reason was to concentrate
on the data collected from the children. The adult data was used when gender
was being discussed.
In total, 503 questionnaires were completed by students, 264 prior to the visit
and 239 were completed post visit. Of these 353 were primary school students
and 150 were secondary; 212 boys and 286 girls took part (5 students did not
complete the gender question). In the adult survey there were 90 completed
questionnaires, 51 prior to the visit and 39 post vist; of these 32 were male and
53 were female (5 adults left this question blank). The average number of days
from the date of the visit until the surveys were returned was 62 days (the
longest was 119 days and the shortest was 25 days).
Over 25,000 items of data was collected from the participants and loaded into
SPSS, not all the data was analysed or cross-referenced due to its
extensiveness but the main themes and relevent results are reported
graphically and discussed in the following section.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 22 of 60
4.1 Knowledge
This section looks at reported changes in knowledge.
Question 1 - Have you heard of Thames Water?
Table 1 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who have heard of Thames Water
‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment works.
Table 1 demonstrates the awareness of Thames Water increased following the
educational visit to the sewage treatment works. Prior to the visit 56% of
students were aware of Thames Water, the follow-up questionnair reported
this had increased to 92%. This demonstrates an awareness of the company
which is providing them with the esential service that is the bases for a healthy
life; the provision of drinking water and the removal of sewage. It is a basic
concept for students to understand, ie the existance of a company whose role
it is to intercept the natural ‘water cycle’ and to make this water available to
customers and that this it does not happen by ‘chance’ but that it has to be
engineered, managed and paid for. The students increased understanding of
this is demonstrated is further demonstrated in Table 1a below, showing the
change in response to the question ‘How well do you think Thames Water does
its job?’ after the visit to the sewage works .
56%
92%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q1 - Have you heard of Thames Water?
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 23 of 60
Table 1a – Graph showing how well students thought that Thames Water did
its job.
The chi-square statistic is 123.561. The p-value is < 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.496,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
The significance of these results demonstates that following the visit the
students knowledge has increased and they are now aware of the existance of
the company and the role it plays, they then are able to select how they feel
the company performs it role. Prior to the visit 44% of students either were
not sure of left this section blank, after the visit this category had reduced to
4%. The majority 89% felt it was doing this role ‘good’ or ‘very good’ an
increase from 45% prior to the visit because they now had a greater
understanding of the role the water company plays in providing this service.
The National Ciricullum has a statutory requirement for Key Stage 2 (years 4, 5
and 6) students to ‘identify the part played by evaporation and condensation
in the water cycle’ there is no requirement to understand where their water
comes from or their role as responsible citizens in safeguarding the supply and
treatment of water.
23% 22%
7%0%
3%
44%
58%
31%
6%0% 2% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very good Good Ok Poor Very poor Blank/Not
sure
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q2 - How well do you think Thames Water does
its Job?
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 24 of 60
Question 8 – Waste food, fat and grease should not be put in the sink or toilet
– Do you know the reason why?
Table 2 – Written responses to why waste food and FOG should not be
discharged into the sewerage system
The chi-square statistic is 39.6144. The p-value is < 0.00001. Cramer’s V is 0.281,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
The ‘unknown’ or ‘blank’ responses reduced from 36% to 15% whilst the
correct response that FOG causes blockages rose from 58% to 84% in the
follow-up questionnaire. This clearly demonstrates an increase in knowledge,
the problem caused by FOG and wet wipes in the sewerage system often
comes as a surprise to teachers so this issue would not be something that a
teacher would cover back at school. However, it remains a major problem
which is continually increasing and is impacting all water companies in the UK
(and abroad). It is hoped that by increasing the knowledge and raising the
awareness of the impact of FOG and wet wipes the students will act in a more
pro-environmental manner (see Table 6 later in this section for the results of
changes in behaviour).
Blockages
58.3%
Pollution
/Other,
6.1%
Not
sure,
35.6%
BEFORE
Blockages,
83.7%
Pollution
/Other
1.3%
Not
sure,
15.1%
AFTER
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 25 of 60
4.2 Attitude
This section looks at reported changes in attitude.
Question 4a – How important do you think it is to save water?
Table 3 – Shows the reported responses to their attitude to the importance of
saving water
The chi-square statistic is 2.0945. The p-value is .147829, n=503. The result is
not significant at p < .05.
This table shows a 5% shift in the attitude of saving water from ‘fairly
important’ to ‘very important’. Although the results are not statistically
significant it reflects that over 97% of students (both before and after the visit)
feel that is is ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’ to save water. This is an
excellent basis on which to build pro-environmental behaviour as they do not
have to be convinced that the issue is important.
Question 4b – Why do you think it is important to save water?
Blank Health Resource
, save it
Not
sure
Poor
people
Save money,
energy cleaning it
Other Total
Before 52 110 67 4 17 6 8 264
After 37 116 56 1 14 9 6 239
Total 89 226 123 5 31 15 14 503
The chi-square statistic is 2.1957. The p-value is .138399, Cramer’s V=0.104,
n=503. The result is not significant at p < .05.
81
16
3
86
111
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
1 - Very 2 - Fairly 3 - Neither 4 -
Unimport
5 - V
Unimport
6 - Not sure
Q4a - How important do you think it is to
save water %
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 26 of 60
There was not a statistically significant difference between the responses
before or after the visit. The main reasons stated for the importance to save
water was because it was vital for health and a limited and valuable resource,
although these are valid reasons why water is ‘important’, it does not address
the reason why it is important to ‘save’ water.
Interestingly, 6% of students (no difference between the pre and post survey)
felt the reason to save water was because poor people or other areas of the
world did not have water. This is a similar concept to ‘eat your dinner because
there are people starving in the world’.
None of the students stated the correct reason which is that’s it’s a local issue;
ie that the reason to save water is due to the increasing population, the
already high and increasing volume used by each person every day and the
scarcity of water in the south east of England. This finding is a failure on the
water company to get this key message across.
Question 5f – Have you thought about ways you could save water?
Table 5a – Shows the shift in attitude to thinking about saving water
The chi-square statistic is 22.188. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.210,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
This is a significant shift in the attitude of students following the visit with 20%
more reporting that they have thought about ways to save water.
33.3
46.6
16.3
3.8
53.1
29.7
12.6
4.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Yes No Not sure Blank
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q5f - Thought about ways that you could save
water %
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 27 of 60
Question 9 – This was a free text field where students were invited to write
comments prior to and after the visit. The extract from SPSS shows the
number of comments completed. Before the visit 21 students (8%) left a
comment. After the visit this had increased to 153 students (64%), most of the
comments were about things they had learnt, the majority of comments
related to what should and shouldn’t be flushed down the toilet such as “you
can only put human waste and paper down the toilet”, “wet wipes don’t go in
the toilet” but included other observations; “don’t waste water”, “good to
learn more about sewage”, “the trip was really fun”, “methane from waste
products used for power”, “sewage can be used to create electricity”, “sewer
workers have a hard time when public do something wrong”. This
demonstrates that they have thought about the experience and the wider
implications.
Table 5b – Shows the number of students providing a comment in a free text
question.
The chi-square statistic is 174.2468. The p-value is < .00001, Cramer’s V=0.589,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
The results indicated that following the visit the students were significantly
more engaged in the questionnaire which led them to provide a comment.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 28 of 60
4.3 Behaviour
This section looks at reported changes in behaviour.
Table 6 – Graph showing the % of indivduals who report to flushing wet wipes
down the toilet, shown ‘Before’ and ‘After’ the visit to the sewage treatment
works.
The chi-square statistic is 32.4426. The p-value is < 0.00001, Cramer’s V=0.254,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
The correct answer to this question is ‘no’ and the correct response was high
before the visit (61%), there was an increase of 16% giving this response to
77% in the follow-up questionnaire. This question came directly after a set of
four questions where the correct answer was ‘yes’, so the students needed to
actively change tack and select ‘no’. Even though there was a reduction of 13%
of students who still reported to flush wet wipes down the toilet (from 21% to
8%) it stills remains that nearly a quarter of those questioned after the visit did
not report that they didn’t flush wet wipes down the toilet.
Yes 21%
No 61%
Not
sure 7%
Blank
11%
Q7E - DO YOU FLUSH
WET WIPES DOWN THE
TOILET? (BEFORE VISIT)
Yes 8%
No
77%
Not sure
0.4%
Blank
14.2%
Q7E - DO YOU FLUSH WET
WIPES DOWN THE
TOILET? (AFTER VISIT)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 29 of 60
Question 5c – Had a quick shoer rather than a long shower?
Table 7 – Showing the percentage of students taking a quick shower
The students reported having a quick shower increased from 56% to 70%, and
thereby using less water. This 14% shift is likely to have been assisted by the
free “4 minute shower timer” which was given to all the students who came
for an educational visit, the primary school children who were particularly eger
to try it out. It does not necessarily mean that this pro-environmental
behaviour will continue, it could have been a ‘one-off’ activity, but it does
demonstrate a willingness by the students to change behaviour and give it a
try.
Question 5d – Filled a bath half way with water instead of full up with water?
Table 8 – Showing the percentage of students having a shallow bath
Before, 56%
After, 70%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Before After
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q5c - Had a quick shower rather than a
long shower
Before 40%
After 46%
Q5d - % of students who reportrf to fill a
bath half way instead of full up with water
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 30 of 60
Table 8 shows a 6% increase in pro-environmental behaviour by students
reporting to use less water in the bath following the visit. This is 8% less than
those reporting to have had a quick shower (see Table 7). When this data was
seperated into boys and girls and primary and secondary students the range of
results are more interesting and could suggest reasons for this.
Table 9 – Showing the differnce in responses between boys and girls in primary
and secondary school.
All students apart from primary aged boys reported an increase in pro-
environmental behaviour after the visit by having a shallow bath (see Table 9),
one possible reason could be that parents of boys may be more likely to run
their baths so they may not have direct control. The most significant increase
in pro-environmental behaviour came from secondary school aged students,
especially girls who reported an increase of 16.4%, all girls were more
generally likely to use less water than boys following the visit. While primary
school students were generally more likely to report pro-environmental
behavoiur than secondary school students.
The chi-square statistic is 46.592. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.304. The
result is significant at p < .05.
51.4
21.7
47.4
24.5
60.7
38.142.5
34.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Py Girls % Sy Girls % Py Boys % Sy Boys %
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q5d - Half filling a bath
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 31 of 60
Question 5e – Have they told family and friends how they could save water?
Table 10 – Shows whether they told family or friends how to save water
showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ results.
The chi-square statistic is 38,865. The p-value is .000. Cramer’s V = 0.278,
n=503. The result is significant at p < .05.
The percentage increase of students who reported talking to other people
about ways they could save water significantly increased after the visit, from
22% to 47%.
21.6
65.2
8.74.5
47.3
40.6
7.54.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Yes No Not sure Blank
Q5e - Told friends or family how to save water (%)
Before After
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 32 of 60
Table 10b – Comparing the responses between gender and age
For this gender analysis the results from the adult questionnaire was included.
Table 10 shows that that primary school girls and adult females are more
inclined to tell other about saving water, however, secondary school girls were
less likely to do so than secondary school boys.
The following section compares the results of environmental attitude between
boys and girls and primary and secondary school students.
Question 10b – I try to respect the environment and I think about
environmental issues
Table 11 – Question 10b – Overall Frequency
27.1
15.2
70
19.3 18.9
5055.4
28.6
81
43.837.9
58.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Py Girls % Sy Girls % Adult Female Py Boys % Sy Boys % Adult Males
5e - Told people how to save water (%)
Before After
Strongly Agree,
45%
Agree , 29%
Neither 11%
Disagree,
Strongly
disagree, 3%
Blank/ Not
sure12%
Q10b - I try to respect the
environment (%)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 33 of 60
Table 11 reports that 45% of students report that they ‘strongly agree’ and
29% ‘agree’ that they try to respect the environment, so overall 74% of
students agree (or more) with the statement. However, when this is broken
down into primary and secondary students (see Table 12) the primary students
are much stronger in their conviction to ‘strongly agree’ (52% compared to
22%).
Table 12 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare Primary
and Secondary children)
The chi-square statistic is 35.6706. The p-value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at
p < .05.
Table 13 – Question 10b – I try to respect the environment (compare Boys and
Girls)
51.6
23.9
6.93.7
13.8
21.6
47.1
27.5
0.03.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
Blank/Not sure
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q10b - I try to respect the environment %
Primary Secondary
36.332.4
12.7
3.9
14.7
52.6
26.3
9.0
2.3
9.8
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly
disagree
Blank/Not Sure
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Axis Title
Q10b - I try to respect the environment %
Boy Girl
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 34 of 60
Although girls report a higher conviction of ‘strongly agree’ than boys and
overall the girls agreeing (or higher) that they respect the environment (78.9%
compared to 68.7% of boys) the statistical results are not significant.
The chi-square statistic is 6.5874. The p-value is .159368. The result is not
significant at p < .05.
Question 10e – The visit to the sewage works made me realise that my actions
can make a difference to the environment
Table 14 – Frequency of responses
The vast majority of students (72%) felt that their actions can make a
difference.
Table 15 – Q10e - Comparison of results between boys and girls
Strongly Agree
47.3%
Agree 24.7%
Neither, 12.1%
Disagree/Strongly
disagree 5%
Blank/ Not sure
10.9%
Q10E - MY ACTIONS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
43.1
22.5
13.77.8
12.7
51.1
27.1
10.52.3
9.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q10e - The visit to the sewage works made me
realise my actions can make a difference (%)
Boy Girl
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 35 of 60
When the results were analysed by gender the girls reported a stronger
tendency to feel that their actions can make a difference (78.2% compared to
the boys at 65.6%). However, this result is not statistically significant.
The chi-square statistic is 6.341. The p-value is .17509. The result is not
significant at p < .05.
Table 15b - Q10e Comparison of results between adult male and female
responses
The chi-square statistic is 22.511. The p-value is .032, Cramer’s V=0.354, n=35.
The result is significant at p < .05.
The data from the adult surveys were analysed and it gave a similar result to
the students, ie that the females reported more strongly that they believed
that their actions can make a difference. Adult females reported that they
‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that their actions can make a difference; 90%
compared to 42% of males. Therefore, adult females are more convinced than
the female students at 78% that their actions can make a difference.
21% 21%
7%
29%
7%
0%
14%
33%
57%
10%
0% 0% 0% 0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Notsure Blank
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q13e - The visit to the sewage works made me
realise that my actions can make a difference
Male Female
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 36 of 60
Table 16 – Q10e - Comparison of results between primary and secondary
students
The majority of primary students ‘strongly agree’ (56%) that their actions can
make a difference compared with the majority of secondary students who
mostly selected the ‘agree’ (41%) statement.
The chi-square statistic is 41.7625. The p-value is < 0.00001. The result is
significant at p < .05.
Table 17 – Q10e - Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ statements and all
‘disagree’ statements
The ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ responses were combined to see if the overall
responses between primary and secondary students were similar. The reason
that all the ‘agree’ and all the ‘disagree’ statements were combined was to
determine if there was in fact a similar response between primary and
55.9
20.2
9.62.1
12.215.7
41.2
21.615.7
5.9
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q10e - The visit to the sewage works made me
realise my actions can make a difference to the
environment (%)
Primary Secondary
76.1
9.6
2.1
12.2
56.9
21.615.7
5.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Agree Neither Disagree Not sure
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Q10e - Combining responses on the Likert Scale
(%)
Primary Secondary
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 37 of 60
secondary students be removing the ‘strength’ of the conviction, as the Likert
scale is not linear. However, there was still a significant difference between
their responses with 76% of primary students believing that their actions can
make a difference compared to 57% of secondary students.
The chi-square statistic is 22.9878. The p-value is .000041. The result is
significant at p < .05.
Table 18–Comparison of results between all ‘agree’ and all ‘disagree’
statements
When the results are separated to show the different age ranges and gender it
further suggests that males not only become less inclined to feel that their
actions can make a difference as they get older but become more inclined to
‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ (36%) that their action can make a difference.
On the other hand, adolescent girls are less likely than adolescent boys to feel
that their actions can make a difference but rather than disagreeing with the
statement they shift towards ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (29%), however,
adult females (90%) believe that their action can make a difference compared
to 43% of adult males.
68%59%
43%
82%
57%
90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Primary Boys Secondary
Boys
Adult Male Primary Girls Secondary
Girls
Adult Female
Q10e - The visit to the sewage works made me
realise that my actions can make a difference
Agree/Strongly Agree Neither Disagree/Strongly Disagree Blank/Not sure
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 38 of 60
4.4 Summary Discussion of the Results
Knowledge
Have you heard of Thames Water? This is a fundamental concept,
underpinning the whole research, that students are aware that a company
provides clean water and removes and treats waste water. The percentage of
students who reported being aware of Thames Water had increased from 56%
to 92%, this sets the foundations on which to build the attitudes and thereby
the pro-environmental behaviours which are being sought. The added
dimension is the understanding that these services are managed by the
company but influenced by its customers.
Why should FOG and waste food not be discharged into the sewerage
system?
The correct response to this question that is causes blockages was high at 58%
prior to the visit but following the visit it increased by 25% to 84%, this
demonstrates a clear understanding of the operational problems that FOG can
cause. During the classroom sessions at the education centres the children
often say that they have seen programmes about this issue on the television.
So it clear that these messages are filtering through to students but the visit
encourages them to understand that they could be contributing to the issue.
Attitude
Attitude to the importance and reasons to save water. There was not a
statistically significant change in attitude following the visit because 97% of
student agreed that it was ‘fairly important’ or ‘very important’ before the visit
to save water. However, following the visit there was a 5% shift from ‘fairly
important’ on the Likert scale to ‘very important’ to save water. In addition,
20% more students had thought about ways in which they could save water
following the visit. The free text available in Question 9 invited students to
leave a comment, following the visit it was filled in with positives comments
increasing from 8% before the visit to 64% providing a comment after the visit;
these generally related to the things they had learn during the visit in
particular the items not to flush down the toilet. This demonstrates a higher
level of engagement with the themes and key issues that the visit focused on.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 39 of 60
Behaviours
The results from the survey from Questions 5c, 5d and 5e all show an increase
in pro-environmental behaviour following the visit to the sewage treatments
works. Students were having quicker showers, using less water in the bath and
telling other people how they could save water (which rose from 22% to 47%
after the visit). The percentage that reported that they did not flush wet wipes
down the toilet had increased from 61% to 77%.
However, the attitudes and behaviours showed interesting results when the
age and gender of students were looked at independently.
Gender of students and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours
Girls generally reported more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours
than boys (see Table 10 – Telling others how to save water, Table 13 –
Respecting the environment and Table 15 – believing their actions can make a
difference). However, these results did not necessarily result in statistically
significant results, in fact adolescent females reported less pro-environmental
behaviour than male adolescents which challenges Zelezny et al (2000) and
Carrier (2009) findings. However, adult females (Table 15b) results were
statistically significant to males in believing that their actions can make a
difference (90% for females compared to 42% for males).
Adult females were generally more likely to behave in an environmentally
sustainable manner than males.
Age of students and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours
Primary school students reported statistically significant attitudes (Table 12 –
respecting the environment) and behaviours (Table 9 – half filling the bath)
when compared to secondary students.
Secondary school girls were less likely to report pro-environmental behaviours
than boys the same age or younger girls. However, adult females reported
pro-environmental behaviours than adult males.
ir
Teenagers are the ones who these messages need to reach, they are less likely
to come out of school for these ‘enhancement’ days due to pressures of
national curriculum and exams, we need to reach out to them and make the
visit more relevant to their exam syllabuses, because that age they are focused
on passing their exams. One teenager was overheard asking their teacher “will
this be in the exam” as a society we not only need to be educating students to
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 40 of 60
pass exams we need to ensure that we are helping to produce environmentally
engaged citizens.
Local verses global
Students did not make the connection between the need to save water and
the fact that they are living in a water scarce area in the UK. 6% of students
stated that the reason to save water was because poor people in other parts of
the world did not have water. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of
their local environmental conditions and how they can reduce water wastage.
This has been a fundamental finding from the research as it demonstrates that
this message is not getting across during the visit, it is being taught in school
and Thames Water is also failing to get this key message across to the public
through publicity campaigns and through the media.
Focus group discussion
The primary school students who took part in the focus groups were positive
and enthusiastic about their role in looking after the environment. Each group
had an even mix of boys and girls. When asked who was responsible for
looking after the sewers; group 1 replied “all of us, even children” and “you
(Thames Water)”, group 2 replied “the Government” and “everyone”. When
asked what might prevent them from behaving in an environmentally
appropriate manner, group 1 replied, “Special treat to have a long shower”,
“My Granddad and Grandma, difficult to change, they don’t have a (shower)
timer” and “My Mum keeps forgetting, she has a lot to remember”, group 2
“it’s a routine” and “it takes time to change a habit”. When asked if they have
spoken about the FOG and wet wipes group 1 replied “My Dad has stopped
doing it, he puts it in the bin”, and “My Mum said you’re allowed to because it
says they’re ‘washable’ but I said “No Mum” and group 2 said they had spoken
to their peers and given advice.
The children in the focus groups could empathise with the barriers that other
people might face when trying to act in a pro-environmental manner but they
still believed in their ability to do the right thing and continued to promote the
messages.
The importance of Learning Outside the Classroom
Students benefit from learning outside their usual classroom. They are more
alert and engaged. One of the written comments from Question 9 was “good
how we were shown the stuff in real life and not just pictures”. The benefits
are multi-layered, including the social and physical aspects and experiences.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 41 of 60
To get the most out of these experiences teachers must have follow-up the
messages back in the classroom to reinforce the learning and promote pro-
environmental behaviours so it is not considered a ‘one off’ activity and
separate to the things they usually learn in school.
This research has benefitted from keeping the message simple and
encouraging students to make small changes to their lifestyle which can have a
significant impact, it was not seeking huge changes, but gave alternative
suggestions; having a quick shower and using less water in the bath. Targeting
young children helps promote habit forming behaviour from a young age.
It does not necessarily follow that acting in a pro-environmental manner in one
aspect of life will spread to other areas, so we cannot conclude that the type of
positive behaviour recorded here will encourage other positive behaviour, but
if the student feels they behave in an environmental manner it is a good spring
board for continuing pro-environmental behaviour eg recycling and turning off
light switches, not dropping litter, likewise, these activities do not require
significant behaviour changes, they are not obvious to the casual observer so
they will not receive positive reaffirming messages, but they just become the
norm.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 42 of 60
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The results from this research and the focus groups show a significant increase
in environmental knowledge, attitude and behaviour. However, as these
results were self-reported some environmental psychologists such as Gamba &
Oskamp (1994) argue that there are limitations to their validity, but this
research clearly demonstrates the shift in a pro-environmental direction (even
if they were over-stated) when the pre and post visit surveys are compared.
This this end, the aim of this research, to determine if an educational visit to a
sewage treatment works can lead to reported changes pro-environmental
behaviour have been met. Following the visit students were very clear that fat
and grease block sewers (knowledge), the majority considered themselves to
care for the environment and felt empowered that their actions could make a
positive contribution to the environment. They were more engaged and
demonstrated this by their willingness to think about and discuss (attitude)
ways to save water with other people. The majority said they did not flush wet
wipes down the toilet and there were significant increases in students
reporting to take quicker showers and shallow baths (behaviour) in order to
engage in water saving activities.
As a result of this research further ways of engaging with adolescents during
these visits were reviewed and a slightly different approach used (include more
cross-curriculum linked topics) to help influence their attitudes and promote
altruistic and environmental attitudes, as well as linking the learning directly to
their school syllabus.
Further research could be conducted to cover a larger dataset and extend the
geographical area to include other parts of the UK (and abroad). There would
be real benefit in carrying out a longitudinal study which would follow students
as they enter the education system and especially as they go through
adolescence and into adulthood to see if their views and behaviours change
though these stages.
Word count = 10,225
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 43 of 60
References
(All websites accessed between Feb and Oct 2015)
http://www.postgrad.com/editorial/advice/exams/dissertations_and_theses/dissertation_proposal/ http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/gradschool/on_course/for_taught_masters/dissertations/guidelines Agenda 21, chapter 18 - http://www.un-documents.net/a21-18.htm Agyeman, J. & Kollmuss, A. 2002, "Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?", Environmental Education Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 239-260. Behrendt M & Franklin T, 2013, ‘A review of Research on school Field Trips and their role in Education’ International Journal of Environmental Science and Education (2014) 9,235-245 Bell, A. 2007, "Designing and testing questionnaires for children", Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 461-469. Bell, J. 2010, ‘Doing Your Research Project (5th Edition)’ IBSN 9780335235827 Carrier, S. 2009, "Environmental Education in the Schoolyard: Learning Styles and Gender", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 2-12 Chao, Y. & Lam, S. 2011, "Measuring Responsible Environmental Behavior: Self-Reported and Other-Reported Measures and Their Differences in Testing a Behavioral Model", Environment and Behavior, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 53-71. Corral-Verdugo, V. 1997, "DUAL ‘REALITIES’ OF CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR: SELF-REPORTS VS OBSERVATIONS OF RE-USE AND RECYCLING BEHAVIOR", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 135-145. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. 2011, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. Dijkstra, E, & Goedhart, M 2012, 'Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge', Environmental Education Research, 18, 6, pp. 733-749, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 February 2015. Defra 2008 - Future Water The Government’s water strategy for England (ID5746225 02/08) Defra 2008 - A FRAMEWORK FOR PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOURS https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69277/pb13574-behaviours-report-080110.pdf Defra 2011 – Water for Life - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228861/8230.pdf Defra 2013 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/how-can-you-love-your-river
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 44 of 60
Dierking, L. D. and Falk, J. H. (1997) School field trips:assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211–218. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I. 2012, "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way", Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 264-277. European Environment Agency - http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/featured-articles/water-scarcity Farmer, J., Knapp, D. & Benton, G. 2007, "An Elementary School Environmental Education Field Trip: Long-Term Effects on Ecological and Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Development", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 33-42. Field, A.P. 2005, Discovering statistics using SPSS: and sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, 2nd edn, SAGE, London. Gamba, R.J. & Oskamp, S. 1994, "Factors Influencing Community Residents' Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs", Environment and Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 587-612. Gov.UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/maintaining-secure-water-supplies-high-standards-of-drinking-water-and-effective-sewerage-services/supporting-pages/water-resource-management Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. The journal of environmental education, 21(3), 8-21. Hsu, S.-J. (2004). Environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students.The Journal of Environmental Education 35 , 37–48. King, H & Glackin M, 2014 http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/cppr/Research/currentpro/Enterprising-Science/ES06-King-and-Glackin-2014-Supporting-science-learning-in-out-of-school-contexts.pdf Last accessed 22 Sept 2015 Knapp, D. 2000, "The Thessaloniki Declaration: a wake-up call for environmental education?", The Journal of Environmental Education [H.W.Wilson - EDUC], vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 32. Lanphear, J.H, 2001, "Commentary: Pilot Studies", Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 33-35. Littledyke, M. 2008, "Science education for environmental awareness: approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains", Environmental Education Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-17. Mifsud, M. C. (2011). An Investigation on the Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior of Maltese Youth. Online Submission (assessed 22 Sept 2015) Mobley, C., Vagias, W.M. & DeWard, S.L. 2010, "Exploring Additional Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental Literature and Environmental Attitudes", Environment and Behavior, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 420-447.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 45 of 60
Özden, M. 2008, "Environmental Awareness and Attitudes of Student Teachers: An Empirical Research", International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40-55. Priest, S.J., Clark, M.J. and Colclough, S. (2008) Public awareness of flood risk: The Role of the Environment Agency Flood Map - Nominated report submitted to the ESRC, June 2008. Reiss, M. & Braund, M. 2006, "Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning", International Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1373-1388. Roth, C. E. (1968). On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon,pp. 38-41. Roth, C.E (1992) Environmental Literacy - Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in the 1990s Charles E. Roth Education Development CenterNewton, Massachusetts September 1992 Steg, L. & Vlek, C. 2009, "Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 309-317. Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374-385. Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan - http://www.thameswater.co.uk/tw/common/downloads/wrmp/WRMP14_Section_0.pdf Volk, T. & Hungerford, H. 2003, "Notes From Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk", The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 4-6. Water Resources South East - http://wrse.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/WRSE_Phase_2B_Final_report_24Apr2013.pdf Woods, K. 2010, Human rights and environmental sustainability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Zabkar, V. & Hosta, M. 2013, "Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap?", International journal of consumer studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 257-264. Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P. & Aldrich, C. 2000, "Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism", Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 443. Zimbardo, P.G., Ebbesen, E.B. & Maslach, C. 1977, Influencing attitudes and changing behavior: an introduction to method, theory, and applications of social control and personal power, Addison-Wesley, London; Reading, Mass.
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 46 of 60
Appendix A Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 1 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 47 of 60
Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 2 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 48 of 60
Children’s Questionnaire (Pg 3 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 49 of 60
Appendix B Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 1 of 4)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 50 of 60
Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 2 of 4)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 51 of 60
Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 3 of 4)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 52 of 60
Adult’s Questionnaire (Pg 4 of 4)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 53 of 60
Appendix C Consent Form (Pg 1of 2)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 54 of 60
Consent Form (Pg 2 of 2)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 55 of 60
Appendix D
Ethics Form (Pg 1 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 56 of 60
Ethics Form (Pg 2 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 57 of 60
Ethics Form (Pg 3 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 58 of 60
Appendix E
Transcripts from Focus Groups (Pg 1 of 3)
Focus Group 1
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 59 of 60
Transcripts from Focus Group (Pg 2 of 3)
PRS 4799 MSc Environmental Health
Geraldine McKinney M00386773 Page 60 of 60
Transcripts from Focus Group (Pg 3 of 3)
Focus Group 2 2 June 2015 Xxxxxxxxx School Year 5 and 6 students presented their ‘Global Scholars’ projects, followed by a very truncated discussion and focus group. Students were asked:
• Who is responsible for saving water? o The Government, Everyone
• What might stop you? o Routine, it takes time to change habits
• Have you told anyone? o Yes, we’ve spoken to our Peers and gave advice