People don’t use energy, they see lighting, heating and the services ‘it’ provides.
Going to spend some time reflecting on risk – as a way of then understanding how and why people perceive different things about climate change. Great quote from an interesting article by Niemeyer et al.
From the same article; Unpacks some points about how we perceive risk – Who is providing us with the information – Scientists, politicians, religious leaders, our friends, neighbours, family – bse/bird flue/salmonella, we don’t trust government – or business?, Lecturers with PhDs? Role of media – can blow a story out of all proportion – I interviewed a guy on the day the avarian bird flu story was breaking, he was an expert in this area and was just horrified at the press coverage the story was receiving. Now climategate – public trust in scientist.
Some commentators have suggested that ‘risk’ is one of the marks of modern society – quote from jaeger and renn. Beck – beck is a bit of a doom monger – is society any more risky than 200 years ago? Health, longevity, birth rates etc. Yet Beck argues there’s something different about the types of risk we face.
Others argue that risk is not an objective phenomena – rather it is socially constructed. Perception and trust being critical. Are we in fact safer than ever?
Reflect on h
And also later in the module when we look at the siting of renewable energy and waste facilities. But now – to illustrate what we’ve been talking about I’d like to look at some pictures, and have a bit of a discussion around how we perceive risk, one issue that’s picked up on is voluntary vs imposed risk. Let’s look at some pictures and see how get on . . .
Public engagement Dryzek (1990; 2000) believes deliberation, defined as a unique communication process in which people are open to changing their views through a process that involves “persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation or deception” (Dryzek 2000:1), should be at the heart of democratic process, over and above voting, constitutional rights or self-government. Deliberative, or discursive processes, have the potential to ‘deepen’ democracy, by strengthening the involvement of citizens, and this needs to be at the centre of the public sphere. There are strong echoes here with Shelley Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) developed in the planning context. She also advanced the normative and ethical argument that citizen involvement is an improved and more just way of governing society. However, her ultimate goal went further in that she conceived of participation as potentially about empowerment, providing for a redistribution of power to those traditionally excluded from the political and economic processes whilst creating a route for citizens to participate in social reform (Arnstein 1969). Arnstein’s top ladder of participation arguably represents a direct challenge to representative democracy, not just a deepening of it. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation in essence defined steps to empowerment which in a deliberative democracy is never reached. At the bottom was information provision (akin to Fischhoff’s early stages), a predominantly one-way form of communication, but arguably essential to informing the higher steps (viewed by Petts and Leach (2001) as traditional – see Table 3.2). Moving up the steps, consultation is usually conceived as a relatively passive process asking for people’s opinions but not necessarily engaging them in debate. Surveys, for example, are a standard method of consultation. Participation is normally used to refer to processes, which allow people to participate in a decision by putting forward their views verbally whereas engagement goes further, suggesting an innovative and interactive, two-way process of discussion and dialogue (i.e. deliberation) to ensure that people’s views inform a decision, alongside those of the expert and/or decision-maker. This is still one-step removed, however, from Arnstein’s top step of her ladder that defines empowerment as people taking control of decisions and their implementation.
Engagement methods seek to optimise opportunities for dialogue between experts and public. They include community panels and advisory committees, citizen’s juries, focus groups and consensus panels. Increasingly we have seen experimentation with such methods in the siting of controversial facilities such as hazardous waste facilities (Lidskog 1997), transport planning (Bickerstaff and Walker 2005), air quality management (Petts and Brooks 2006), and, in our case, the siting of municipal waste facilities (Petts 1995, 2001b). Recently, an innovative method - deliberative mapping  - has been employed to examine policy ‘upstream’, for example, the decision whether to allow GM crop trials, organ transplant schemes and the identification of options to manage radioactive waste (Burgess and Chilvers 2006; Burgess et al. 2007). 1] Deliberative mapping is an innovative participatory ‘multi-criteria’ approach to decision analysis. Bringing together experts and citizens in a single appraisal-facilitated exercise, the purpose is to provide a robust decision-making process.
Fiorino (1990) proposes two arguments for deliberative processes: (i) the substantive, based on the premise that lay judgements about risk are at least as sound as those of experts, and, (ii) the instrumental, founded on the principle that a better decision is reached through efffective lay participation in risk decisions. Macnaghten and Jacobs (1997) also posit an instrumental argument, suggesting that public involvement in decision-making increases public support for the outcome, although this is widely understood as only being realised in practice when it is evident that public feedback has influenced the decision (Petts 2001b). The basic premise of public participation, the real goal of all decision processes (Wiedemann and Femers 1993), is that by involving all those involved in the specific issue, the decision-making process is enhanced (Apostolakis and Pickett 1998); “better decisions are reached” (Munton 2003, 111), and the decisions are more “legitimate, leading to better results” (Fiorino 1990, 228). Clearly, defining a ‘better decision’ is fraught with difficulty, better for whom, or even what in terms of the environment itself? For the people opposed to the siting of a new waste facility or the developer seeking planning permission? Webler (1999) notes that within the siting literature a ‘good decision’ equates to a successful siting. But the reality is that not everyone can get the result they want - a win-win situation is most unlikely (Wiedemann and Femers 1993).
While Habermasian principles are based on an ‘ideal scenario’, implementation of an effective process has to deal with the complexities of real-life decisions (Webler 1995). Petts (2001b) notes that effective analytical-deliberative processes are generally dependent upon a clear structure, an agreed agenda, representative and inclusive participation, competent technical information, debate and evidence of impact on the decision. These criteria have been applied to analysis of deliberative processes in the waste management context in Hampshire, Essex and Lancashire (Petts 2001b). Growing consensus suggests that however the process is designed, the methods must be appropriate to the particular decision context or ‘fit for purpose’ (Petts 2001b; Bickerstaff and Walker 2005; Burgess and Chilvers 2006; Petts 2007). Should the same principle not therefore apply when assessing the validity of deliberative processes? Instead of applying ‘off the shelf’ or textbook ideals of fairness and competence, specific criteria should be tailored to the aims of each deliberative process. In this way, if the participants and the relevant wider community perceive the process to be fair, then it is (Apostolakis and Pickett 1998).
There are critics and sceptics of this increasing trend towards greater public engagement in decision-making. Questioning the emerging trends within planning towards greater participation and communicative rationality, Tewdyr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) fear idealism and utopianism. Their concerns range from the theoretical – “seeking consensus will silence rather than give voice” (1998: 1979) to the practical - for example, if all voices are equal what is the role of the ‘expert’ planner and indeed the planning profession (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998)? Whilst being supportive of deliberative models, Pellizzoni (2001) questions the assumption that the best argument will surface in a participative process. He suggests the pursuit of consensus is not always appropriate in controversial situations such as questions over gene technology. However, consensus is not necessarily the same as total agreement. Others have observed that engagement processes have the potential to lead to new conflicts, increase the length of the process and obfuscate issues. Finally, there are often inequalities in the way that different individuals, and indeed, experts and ‘lay’ people can and do relate to one another in these deliberative settings leading suggest that ‘power’ has the potential to undermine the process
Central to the notion of publicly displaying a building’s energy performance though is the idea that the provision of information will change the behaviour of those managing and using the building. Hence the proviso that the building is rated and displayed in a poster format that can be displayed in a public part of the building so it is visible, for example the entrance hall. Yet within the public engagement literature it is widely accepted that mere information-provision is inadequate for behaviour change (Blake 1999), and yet ‘top-down’ communication campaigns both predominate (for example the UK government’s ‘Act on CO 2 ' campaign) and are advised by those involved in ‘social marketing (Collins, Thomas et al. 2003).’ However, this rarely manifests itself through measurable behaviour change (Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole et al. 2007). As a result, academics have identified the need for a different approach recognising the complexity of user perceptions and understandings (Niemeyer, Petts et al. 2005); the importance of combining a bottom-up and top-down approach in order to minimise mixed messages (Owens 2000); and the value of public engagement (Burgess and Clark 2009; Ockwell, Whitmarsh et al. 2009). It is these three perspectives – recognizing complexity of user-perceptions; a bottom up/top down approach (often manifested through partnership working) and public engagement, that to which we shall return when we consider the role of the municipalities. Of course whilst the EPBD may just require a DEC in an entrance hall, DISPLAY Campaign is different – issue of audience again.
INTRODUCE CASE – HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AROUND WASTE STRATEGY 1 ST AND THEN SITING OF EFWS, NOTABLY A partnership approach was taken as I shall expand on. Project Integra See next slide re. continued relevance.
‘ Local authorities’ refers to a complex web of relationships established with the purpose of mediating state power and policy through agencies, procedures, and departments. In England, local authorities can be two-tier authorities where the County has a set of defined responsibilities, for example, as a Waste Planning Authority (WPA) and Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), and the district authorities (such as Lewes District Council) have the responsibility for collecting household waste (Waste Collection Authority – WCA). Alternatively there are Unitary Authorities, for example, Brighton and Hove, or Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils that combine all of the waste collection, disposal and planning functions. There are also local Parish Councils, which, although having relatively ‘minor’ responsibilities (in comparison to District, City and County Councils) such as maintaining local facilities, do have local significance and power in that they are closest to a community. Local authorities also mediate Central Government policy which, with regards to waste policy at least, with its emphasis on sustainable waste management and community involvement, has changed dramatically. ‘ Business’ refers to private sector organisations like Veolia that operate differently to local authorities and are subject to different pressures. For example, there are greater profit and economic motives and constant pressure (from shareholders for example) to remain competitive. However, a common theme running through all organisations is that they are all “social structures created by individuals to support the pursuit of collective goals” (Scott 1992: 10). Just as public sector institutions are not ‘monolithic’, neither are businesses. Buildings and offices may exist – in the case of Veolia, these are multi-site - but these do not convey what Senge refers to as the ‘heart of the organisation’ (Fulmer and Keys 1998). Here, ‘ citizens’ are the individuals who participate in a Contact Group or CAFs and are able to share their views, to interact and engage and (hopefully) learn. As individual participants, they each bring a unique and different perspective underpinned by their personal knowledge (both tacit and explicit) to the process. They will also be members of households who participate in the waste recycling schemes and send their waste for disposal, the ‘social’ role of waste management. In the case of the Contact Group processes they are also the people who live near the facilities once built. Bringing together such a diverse group of individuals and giving them a ‘voice’ is central to the learning process, and the wider democratic role, with the potential to call to account those who make decisions on ‘their behalf’, be they local authorities, or increasingly, business.
Mezirow focuses on the conditions within the learning environment essential to understanding how to design and manage engagement processes to best enhance learning. Mezirow (2003) speaks of actively managing the process to maximise learning and other empirical evidence has identified the components of management required (e.g Petts 2006). For Mezirow (2003) learning is a reflexive process that leads to personal transformation that can be equated with environmental citizenship (Bull, Petts et al. 2008). Reflexivity is also fundamental to Kolb’s reflexive loop (1971). Reflection on an experience comprises the two critical first steps that lead to action, for example, the failure of the Babcock proposal. Reflexivity in ‘real time decision-making’ is a significant challenge however. Whilst reflection on the success of Hampshire was evidenced by key members within Veolia, significant pressures on OSD placed by on them by the timing of the contract resulted in them running the Contact Group process without the benefit of prior engagement or a broader underpinning of information provision. Finally, Nonaka’s (1994) theory of knowledge creation has been useful in highlighting the role of tacit knowledge, and relationships, both externally and internally, in learning. Notably, there are challenges for multi-national/multi-site organisations like Veolia to create the opportunities for employees to build ‘internal’ relationships to facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge. This is particularly necessary for Veolia and HCC where key individuals or champions possess great knowledge and experience. Unless the latter are proactively or formally captured and shared, ongoing learning will be partial and limited.
Whilst a partnership is a formal contractual relationship between all the different parties, it is individuals who make it happen. A partnership must constitute specific terms of reference – for example, as Project Integra develops its materials resource strategy further there are ‘hard’ issues to be dealt with such as the sharing of the financial risk necessary to create new facilities and infrastructure. However, this research has confirmed that it is the ‘soft’ people issues that are key to the success of a partnership (and learning) – as the head of waste management services in Hampshire County Council reflected on some of the difficulties and arguments within Project Integra: “It’s what a good partnership can do, have a row and work it out.” The executive officer of Project Integra agreed that it is about ‘hearts and minds’.
In the framework for learning, engagement underpins partnership. While partnership provides the vital relational connection between those responsible for managing waste, without the participation of citizens success is not assured. Engagement is seen here as being distinct from other ways that organisations can ‘consult’ or ‘communicate’ with citizens. Engagement implies a responsive relationship between the parties involved, one in which different interests, concerns and values are openly acknowledged, discussed and examined. It is far more that one party simply asking for the views of another. The methods of engagement may in principle be the same as those of communication or consultation, such as the focus group. But it is the objectives and then the selection of appropriate method and mode of operation that is key to moving a process to one of engagement. Critically though, the essence of the CAF engagement process in Hampshire was the quality of deliberation, that is, the dissent, debate and discussion around different viewpoints that took place ‘round the table’. It is through this type of deliberative process that the power of the ‘ordinary’ citizen is utilised within the wider processes of governance and democracy (Barber 1984). Processes such as the CAFs allow the individual to understand, debate and offer an opinion on the issues that affect them. Ultimately it allows individuals the opportunity to challenge and hold to account those in power and who make decisions. Such processes, whilst imperfect, encapsulate the values of deliberative democracy as defined, for example, by Dryzek (2000: 1) – that is, a process in which people are open to changing their views through “persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation or deception.” Critically, the quality of the deliberation is directly linked to the quality of the learning.
Visualising energy is exactly what these certificates attempt to – both on white goods and buildings But is there a difference in audience?
Education/Training programmes - with building managers and administrators; Communication Activities - for at least three general events per year; Internal Communication – use of newsletters, intranet, CYBER Display ambassadors for the buildings, etc.; Local Energy CYBER Display Days - Organising a specific Local Energy CYBER Display Day per year – different activities, high media exposure; Schools Programme - detailed programme for education of teachers and learners; Local Press Articles and Media Relations; Local Communication Materials - Conception/production of local communication materials e.g. flyers, leaflets, banners, posters, stickers, etc.; Staff Training Workshops - Conception/production of local communication materials e.g. flyers, leaflets, banners, posters, stickers, etc. LINK BACK TO THEORY – engagement – participation - complexity
Central to our analysis is whether or not buildings have improved their performance as a result of their involvement in the DISPLAY campaign. The hope of the campaign has always been that as a result of displaying the Display certificate, and through undertaking communication with building users, that building performance improves and energy consumption decreases. Figure 4 shows the results of our analysis of European municipal buildings over the last eight years using a simple formula. Ratings on the certificate have been given a numerical value so it is possible to subtract the earliest and latest certificate rating available to gain a meaningful picture of a buildings performance over time. If the earliest certificate is of higher rating e.g. “A” (numeric value 7) in year 2001 and latest rating is in year 2008 and is “E” (numeric value 3). The movement in rating calculated will be -4 (latest-earliest) and if the case is vice versa it will be +4.
Detailed building surveys 751 buildings are selected from 5586 buildings 383 responses Final ‘cleaned’ data: 286 Pre & post communication surveys:
Mention bens work
Public engagement & behaviour change
The role of the individual & the role of behaviour change in meeting climate change targets/sustainable development Dr. Richard Bull 27 th Feb 2012
<ul><li>DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY </li></ul><ul><li>World-class university situated in Leicester, with more than 18,000 students and 3,000 staff, five faculties offering around 400 courses and an annual turnover in the region: £132.5 million </li></ul><ul><li>INSTITUTE OF ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT </li></ul><ul><li>Leading research institute conducting innovative and groundbreaking research into renewable energy, sustainable development and public engagement. Also run 3 MSc courses. </li></ul>
Outline <ul><li>Perceiving the problem: energy & climate change </li></ul><ul><li>The role of public engagement </li></ul><ul><li>2 examples: macro & micro </li></ul><ul><li>The way forward: whose behaviour are we trying to change? </li></ul>
<ul><li>By its nature, ‘energy’ is an abstract and invisible force that is conceptualised or commonly defined in a number of different ways, for example as a commodity, as a social necessity, as an ecological resource, or as a strategic material.* </li></ul><ul><li>*Burgess & Nye (2008), Re-materialising energy use through transparent monitoring systems, Energy Policy </li></ul>
Perceiving climate change (1) <ul><li>Pawlik (1991) identified five factors that impede ability to perceive climate change. If it can’t be easily perceived, then it may also be difficult to understand. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>stimulus that is hard to identify with our sensory organs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lengthy delay between cause and effect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>uncertainty over probability of climate change occurring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>distance between actors and victims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>perceived cost-effectiveness (or otherwise) of relevant behaviours </li></ul></ul>Lesson 2.3
Perceiving climate change - Hulme (2) <ul><li>We must hear the discordant voices – climate change means different things to different people: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A battleground between different philosophies & practices of science </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A justification for commodification of the atmosphere </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An inspiration for a global network of activism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A threat to ethnic, national or global security </li></ul></ul>
<ul><li>Rather than asking ‘how do we solve climate change?’ . . . </li></ul><ul><li> . . . how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals? </li></ul>
Climate Change Perception <ul><li>‘ The problem’ here isn’t climate change itself, but public understanding and acceptance of climate change: </li></ul><ul><li>Kempton (1993) suggests four characteristics of climate change that influence how (and if) people understand it: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Climate change is long-term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The science is complex </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Causes and effects of climate change are largely imperceptible on a day-to-day basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effects are distant from causes in time and space </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Combined effect makes it hard for non-experts to easily understand climate change. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Facts do not determine behaviour so much as perceptions about facts </li></ul><ul><li>Niemeyer et al 2005 </li></ul>
<ul><li>Facts are mediated by a range of actors </li></ul><ul><li>Influenced by public understanding of science & institutional settings </li></ul><ul><li>Role of media (social amplification of risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Provision of information and </li></ul><ul><li>Trust – who do we trust? </li></ul>
Risk Society? <ul><li>Jaeger et al ( 2001: 13) observed that our “contemporary world is clearly stretching the social fabric of modernity,” </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Society , Beck (1992): the mark of our society is no longer social class or wealth but the global distribution of risk. Risk is the consequence of modernization (scientific and industrial development) with distinct characteristics: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risks are not limited by time (future generations are affected) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risks do not recognise national boundaries. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No one can be held accountable for risks. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is almost impossible to compensate for lives touched by hazards or risk. </li></ul></ul>
Social Construction of Risk <ul><li>For many, risk is socially constructed, a fluid and relative concept rather than an objective, measurable one (Wynne 1992, 1996; Irwin 1995; Klinke and Renn 2002). </li></ul><ul><li>Perception and trust are seen as critical to understanding risk. Whilst society may be characterised as a ‘risk culture’, it has little to do with the actual existence of danger (Giddens 1991). </li></ul>
<ul><li>One of the reasons we disagree about climate change is because we evaluate risks differently. </li></ul><ul><li>M. Hulme 2009 </li></ul>
<ul><li>“ Climate change means different things to different people because we are all exposed to a variety of messages about climate change and we each interpret them according to our own unique background, our knowledge, experience, values and circumstances” </li></ul><ul><li>What’s yours? </li></ul>
Risk Communication <ul><li>All we have to do is to get the numbers right </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is tell them the numbers </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is show them they’ve accepted similar risks in the past </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is show them that it’s a good deal for them </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is treat them nice </li></ul><ul><li>All we have to do is make them partners </li></ul><ul><li>All of the above </li></ul>Technocratic Analytic-Deliberative
<ul><li>Sherry Arnstein, </li></ul><ul><li>"A Ladder of Citizen Participation," </li></ul><ul><li>JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. </li></ul>
Talking: One way forward <ul><li>A deliberative approach to climate change to communication changes the balance of power between scientist and citizen . . . the citizen is able to bring into the open the role of individually held beliefs and values. (M Hulme 2009) </li></ul>
<ul><li>But can talking bring about change? </li></ul>
<ul><li>But can talking bring about change? </li></ul>
The role of public participation <ul><li>Promotes democracy </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional legitimacy </li></ul><ul><li>Procedural fairness </li></ul><ul><li>Integration of social values into technical decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Public trust and confidence in decisions and decision makers </li></ul><ul><li>Social learning </li></ul>
Arguments for ‘deliberative’ processes <ul><li>Decision-making process is enhanced </li></ul><ul><li>Better decisions are made </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions are more legitimate </li></ul><ul><li>Lay judgements about risk are as sound as those experts </li></ul><ul><li>A better decision is reached through effective lay participation in risk decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Public involvement increase public support for developments </li></ul>
Practically speaking . . . <ul><li>Clear structure </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed agenda </li></ul><ul><li>Representative and inclusive participation </li></ul><ul><li>Competent technical information </li></ul><ul><li>Debate </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of impact of the process on the decision (Petts 2001) </li></ul>
Critics of public participation <ul><li>A better decision for whom? </li></ul><ul><li>Seeking consensus may silence voices </li></ul><ul><li>What is the role of the expert? </li></ul>
Beyond information provision <ul><li>There is a need for a different approach recognising the complexity of user perceptions and understandings (Niemeyer, Petts et al. 2005); </li></ul><ul><li>Combining a bottom-up and top-down approach in order to minimise mixed messages (Owens 2000); </li></ul><ul><li>The value of public engagement (Burgess and Clark 2009; Ockwell, Whitmarsh et al. 2009). </li></ul><ul><li>The importance of context. </li></ul>
Two examples of engagement & behaviour change <ul><li>(1) Household Waste </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Energy in buildings </li></ul>
Household waste - What did Hampshire do? <ul><li>Ran out of landfill </li></ul><ul><li>Experienced a failure </li></ul><ul><li>Decided to ‘seriously’ engage the community </li></ul><ul><li>on their new waste strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Formed a partnership </li></ul><ul><li>Insisted on </li></ul><ul><li>further public engagement </li></ul>
Learning – Behaviour change <ul><li>Transformative learning (Mezirow) </li></ul><ul><li>Reflexivity (Kolb et al) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Transfer (Nonaka) </li></ul>A reflexive process dependent on the participation of all the relevant actors to facilitate social interaction and ensure the sharing of knowledge and experience with the potential to lead to a change in behaviour.
Partnership <ul><li>Emotional commitment </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed shared vision </li></ul><ul><li>Common objectives. </li></ul>Partnership denotes a shared emotional commitment to work together, steered and managed by people with vision.
Engagement <ul><li>“ If learning is to refer to some enhanced competence for action and self-understanding . . . then the simple existence of any interaction will not constitute learning”. (Forester 1985) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation or deception” (Dryzek 2000) </li></ul>
Reflections from Newhaven and Marchwood <ul><li>Dealt with fears and concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Affected traffic routes and design </li></ul><ul><li>Raised awareness of the waste problem </li></ul><ul><li>Surrounding context is very important </li></ul>
<ul><li>“ I have learnt a tremendous amount, which I would expect to apply in the future…I have learnt how little I know” </li></ul><ul><li>“ (I) see the merits of minimisation even more. But I have also learnt that there are limits to recycling and recovery. I am now prepared to sign-up to small scale incineration” </li></ul><ul><li>“ My local context understanding has increased significantly” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I was totally environmentally un-alert and have learnt so much” </li></ul>
<ul><li>We’ve [also] put restrictions on lorry movements, not before 6 or after 8 at night I think. Get involved and influence it. The community can influence things – had we been foolish enough to refuse to take part and merely try and oppose it, then the new incinerator would be over there. </li></ul>
The effects of new modes of governance on learning <ul><li>Partnership working is capable of achievements that would not be feasible if individual partners worked in isolation. (Frederickson 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Technical benefits to management of waste </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer of knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>De-politicised waste </li></ul><ul><li>Healthy context/environment for engagement and behaviour change (at both individual and organisational level ) </li></ul>
Cyber Display <ul><li>Energy Cities represents more than 1000 local authorities from 30 countries, mainly municipalities </li></ul><ul><li>The Display Campaign is a voluntary scheme municipalities can adopt to demonstrate a commitment to reducing energy consumption of public buildings. </li></ul><ul><li>A key part of the rationale for developing the energy display label was to motivate decision makers towards a common approach for European certification for energy performance of non-residential buildings, and engage municipal energy managers and the general public around the subject of energy and buildings. </li></ul><ul><li>As a project partner, DMU was responsible for evaluating the success of the campaign </li></ul>
Display communication activities <ul><li>Education/Training programmes </li></ul><ul><li>Communication Activities </li></ul><ul><li>Internal Communication </li></ul><ul><li>Local Energy CYBER Display Days </li></ul><ul><li>Schools Programme </li></ul><ul><li>Local Press Articles and Media Relations; </li></ul><ul><li>Local Communication Materials </li></ul><ul><li>Staff Training Workshops </li></ul>
IMPROVING BUILDING PERFORMANCE The overall trend is of this set of buildings moving ‘Towards Class A.’ By this we mean there is, overall, a increase in higher rating certificates (A C) and a decrease in ratings G-D.
Findings from Display ® <ul><li>Display® lead to demonstrable increases in building performance and energy awareness. But . . . </li></ul><ul><li>There is no one single measure or ‘quick-fix’ for moving buildings ‘Towards Class A’. </li></ul><ul><li>The importance and success of Display® is in recognizing that the poster is merely a beginning of the journey ‘Towards Class A’. </li></ul><ul><li>Buildings in Display® that improve . . . </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in multiple refurbishments especially lighting controls and boiler replacement and avoid using air conditioning; </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in new types of building controls especially heating controls; </li></ul><ul><li>Have a full time energy manager and voluntary environmental champion; </li></ul><ul><li>Organized local media campaigns and used creative promotional materials; </li></ul><ul><li>Attended local and national networking events such as 'national users club event ' </li></ul>
<ul><li>A technical improvement is the result of someone’s behaviour being changed, be it the facilities manager, finance director, energy manager or mayor. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Engagement– as defined here – demonstrates real potential and contribution to the sustainability debate </li></ul><ul><li>Learning – leading to behaviour change – is a realistic outcome of engagement </li></ul>Conclusion: Whose behaviour are we trying to change?
Questions? Dr Richard Bull [email_address] greenview.dmu.ac.uk Twitter: richbull Shukla, A & Bull, R.J, (2012) Performance study of DISPLAY database: Trends in municipality buildings, Energy and Buildings 47, p 285-291. Bull, R. J & J. Petts et al (2010) – The importance of context for effective public engagement: Learning from the governance of waste. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (8): 991-1009 Bull, R., J. Petts, et al. (2008). "Social Learning from Public Engagement: Dreaming the impossible?" Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 51(5): 703-718