making laboratories greener: barriers to...
TRANSCRIPT
MAKING LABORATORIES GREENER: BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS Emma Sturtevant 200657541
MSc Sustainability (Climate Change)
SOEE5020 Research Project
Supervisor: James Van Alstine
Word count: 10,406
A research project presented for the degree of Master of Science
University of Leeds, 2012
2
School of Earth and Environment
Declaration of Academic Integrity
I have read the University regulations on cheating and plagiarism, and I state that this piece of work is
my own, and it does not contain any unacknowledged work from any other sources.
Name: Emma Sturtevant
Signed:
Date: 23rd August 2012
Course: MSc Sustainability (Climate Change)
3
Contents
List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... 5
List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 7
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.0 Energy efficient laboratories at the University of Leeds ................................................................. 9
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Sustainability at the University of Leeds ............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Laboratories at the University of Leeds ............................................................................................ 10
1.4 Research objectives ........................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 10
1.4.2 Aim ............................................................................................................................................. 10
1.4.3 Research questions .................................................................................................................... 11
2.0 Energy efficiency in university laboratories ................................................................................. 12
2.1 Climate change and energy consumption ......................................................................................... 12
2.2 Energy consumption in laboratories ................................................................................................. 13
2.3 The research field .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Pro-environmental behaviour ........................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1 The gap between attitudes and behaviour ................................................................................ 15
2.4.2 The context of pro-environmental behaviour ............................................................................ 16
2.4.3 Factors affecting pro-environmental behaviour ........................................................................ 16
2.5 Sustainability in universities .............................................................................................................. 18
2.5.1 Organisational complexity.......................................................................................................... 18
2.5.2 Successful organisational change ............................................................................................... 19
2.6 The research gap ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Initial research ................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Data collection and analysis .............................................................................................................. 21
3.2.1. Online questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews ........................................................................................................ 23
3.3 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.0 Analysing laboratory users’ responses ........................................................................................ 25
4.1 Do laboratory users report a difference between their energy efficiency attitudes and practices?25
4.2 Which individual, organisational and other contextual factors can laboratory users identify that
inhibit energy efficiency? ........................................................................................................................ 28
4
4.2.1 Context-specific factors ............................................................................................................. 28
4.2.2 Individual factors ....................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.3 Organisational factors ............................................................................................................... 32
4.3 What motivates laboratory users to be energy efficient? ............................................................... 33
5.0 Implications of this study............................................................................................................ 36
5.1 Energy efficiency attitudes and practices ......................................................................................... 36
5.2 Factors affecting energy efficiency practices ................................................................................... 36
5.3 Motivating energy efficiency in laboratories .................................................................................... 37
5.4 Modelling energy efficiency in laboratories ..................................................................................... 38
5.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 39
5.6 Further work ..................................................................................................................................... 39
6.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 40
References ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Details of initial research meetings ............................................................................... 48
Appendix B: Notes from initial research meetings ............................................................................. 50
Appendix C: Survey questions .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix D: Interview administration .............................................................................................. 61
Appendix E: Interview guidelines and questions ............................................................................... 63
5
List of figures
Figure 4.1 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “How important is protecting the
environment to you personally?”. 99% of participants answered “very important” or “fairly important”.
..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.2 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “In general, how well informed do you
consider you are about environmental issues?”. ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.3 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “How much do you agree with the
following statement: ‘As an individual, you can play a role in protecting the environment’?”. ................ 26
Figure 4.4 Graph showing response rate to the survey questions a) “Do you think high levels of energy
consumption at home and work are having a negative impact on our environment?” and b) “Do you
think that university laboratories are large consumers of energy?”. ......................................................... 27
Figure 4.5 Graph showing response rate to the survey question asking how often particular energy
efficient laboratory practices are performed.............................................................................................. 27
Figure 4.6 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “If you aware of ways to reduce energy
consumption but do not practice them, why is this?”. Respondents were able to select more than one
answer. ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 4.7 Graph showing the average score (1-10) given by laboratory users to particular factors that
may inhibit energy efficiency in laboratories. ............................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.8 Graph showing the average score (1-10) given by lab users to various groups within the
university regarding responsibility for energy efficiency in laboratories. .................................................. 33
Figure 5.1 Conceptual framework of individual (green), organisational (blue) and contextual (aqua)
factors affecting the choice of laboratory users to perform energy efficient practices by laboratory users,
based on the results of this study. .............................................................................................................. 38
6
List of tables
Table 2.1 Comparison of GHG emission reduction targets against the set baseline levels (DECC 2011;
UOL 2011; HEFCE 2010) .............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 2.2 Details and context of this study in relation to the HEFCE sustainable development action plan
(2009). ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2.3 Common behavioural factors identified from the literature (Mirosa et al. 2011; Middlemiss
2010; DEFRA 2008; Scherbaum et al. 2008; Tudor et al. 2008; Oakland & Tanner 2007; Soltani et al.
2007; Kollmus & Agyeman 2002; Stern 2000; Ajzen 1991). ....................................................................... 17
Table 4.1 Interviewee perspectives indicating the general attitude of laboratory users towards energy
efficiency. Transcript references can be seen in Appendix D. .................................................................... 28
Table 4.2 Interviewee perspectives indicating how inhibiting the nature of laboratory work is to
practicing energy efficiency. ....................................................................................................................... 30
Table 4.3 Interviewee perspectives that show how lack of knowledge and subsequent risks can inhibit
energy efficient practices in university laboratories. ................................................................................. 30
Table 4.4 Interviewee perspectives that show how time constraints can inhibit energy efficient practices
in university laboratories. ........................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.5 Interviewee perspectives that show how issues of responsibility can inhibit energy efficient
practices in university laboratories. ........................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.6 Interviewee perspectives that show how sustainability isn’t particularly seen as a priority of
the university, and so inhibits energy efficient practices in laboratories. ................................................. 32
Table 4.7 Interviewee perspectives that show how the lack of managerial support inhibits energy
efficient practices in university laboratories. ............................................................................................. 32
Table 4.8 Interviewee perspectives indicating the importance of personal experience and values as a
motivator for energy efficient practices in laboratories. ........................................................................... 34
Table 4.9 Interviewee perspectives suggesting that improving awareness of laboratories energy
consumption might encourage people to implement more energy efficient practices. ........................... 34
Table 4.10 Interviewee perspectives indicating that the development of and implementation of
university policies must be relevant to the laboratory environment and directly supported. .................. 35
7
Abbreviations
CMP Carbon Management Plan
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EC Environmental Co-ordinator
EMS Environmental Management System
ENG Faculty of Engineering
ESRC Economic and Social Research Council
FBS Faculty of Biological Sciences
FMH Faculty of Medicine and Health
GI Green Impact
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
S-Lab Safe, Successful and Sustainable Laboratories
SEE School of Earth and Environment
SOC School of Chemistry
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UOL University of Leeds
8
Abstract
This research project set out to understand the various factors affecting the choice of laboratory users
to use energy efficient practices at the University of Leeds. This will enable the university’s Sustainability
Team to design the most appropriate policy for encouraging laboratory users to reduce their energy
consumption, where practically possible.
The design of this study was driven by findings from previous research on pro-environmental behaviour
and organisational change within various contexts. Understanding the nature and practice of energy
efficiency in laboratories required speaking directly to laboratory users. This entailed an integrated
methods approach that combined results from online surveys and semi-structured interviews.
The data collected for this study enabled me to answer all three research questions. Results show that
there is a good correspondence between attitudes towards energy efficiency and the performance of
energy efficient practices, although this may be influenced somewhat by the subjective nature of self-
reporting. Where energy efficiency is not practiced, key barriers were identified. The main individual
barriers were a lack of knowledge of these practices, time constraints, and lack of individual
responsibility. The main organisational barriers were the absence of a clear message on sustainability
from the university, and a lack of managerial support. However the main barrier to energy efficiency in
laboratories is the energy-intensive nature of the work, which highlights the importance of context in
determining behaviour.
A conceptual framework of these barriers to energy efficiency was created to act as a visual aid for
sustainability policy makers. Recognising them in the design of environmental laboratory policies will
ensure that they are appropriate and effective.
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank Jamie Van Alstine, James Dixon-Gough, all those who participated in my survey, those
who consented to be interviewed, as well as a variety of university staff who shared their wealth of
laboratory knowledge with me. I’d also like to thank my family for supporting my studies, in more ways
than one. And finally, thank you to my very dear friends, especially those in the cluster, who offered
invaluable support and guidance throughout the entire process.
9
1.0 Energy efficient laboratories at the University of Leeds
1.1 Introduction
Laboratories are one of the greatest consumers of energy within a university (Hopkinson et al. 2008),
typically using three to eight times more energy than office space on a square metre basis (S-Lab 2011a).
The University of Leeds (UOL), a research-intensive university (Russell Group 2012), has identified
laboratories as environments with the potential to reduce their levels of energy consumption through a
range of different measures. These include physical improvements to laboratory space, upgrading
equipment to a greater standard of energy efficiency, and promoting sustainability and energy efficiency
through behavioural campaigns, as outlined in the university’s Carbon Management Plan (CMP; UOL
2011). To aid the successful implementation of these measures, this report aims to understand the
nature of the various barriers that exist to improving the energy efficiency of laboratories on a
behavioural level.
1.2 Sustainability at the University of Leeds
Energy consumption in university research can be somewhat of a contentious issue. Universities are
places of innovation and discovery, and, in order to facilitate these qualities, they dedicate a lot of time,
money and energy to get ahead in a range of subjects. At the same time, the fact that they are home to
specialists in a variety of disciplines is suggestive of a high level of intelligence and awareness of
important topical issues, particularly an awareness of the impact that their work has on the world
around them, in terms of both research development and research outcomes. As such, universities hold
a unique place in society whereby they both shape and influence our advancement, as well as acting as
a reference for responsible practices.
This study is concerned with the impact that laboratory research in universities has on the natural world,
particularly its direct impact on climate and the subsequent changes to the Earth system. It is because of
this impact that the high level of energy consumption in laboratories is an aspect of university life that
needs to be addressed.
In light of this environmental responsibility, the UOL has followed a number of global and national
strategies that attempt to address present issues of energy usage, related greenhouse gas emissions,
and their cumulative influence on Earth’s climate. In their own words:
“*a+s a socially responsible organisation and a research-intensive University, Leeds
intends to lead the way in reducing its impact upon the environment and wider society”
(UOL 2011, p.7).
10
1.3 Laboratories at the University of Leeds
Laboratories in the UOL are numerous, varied, located in a number of different buildings, built and
refurbished on different timescales, and operational in six out of the nine faculties (Greaves 2011b).
Encompassing a variety of disciplines, laboratories at the UOL are diverse, and include some unique and
highly specialised equipment. Laboratories are thus a major part of the research and learning culture at
the UOL, and as such are targeted in the CMP.
The major laboratory-based focus is on energy efficiency improvements to fume cupboards, typical of
most laboratories, of which the UOL has in excess of 700 (UOL 2011a). Like many of the planned projects
in the CMP, implementation has been pushed back a year, and work has had to be timetabled so it
doesn’t interfere with teaching or research (UOL 2012b). Other projects include improvements to the
building fabric, for example insulation and replacing single-glazed with double-glazed windows (ibid.).
However, this is complicated by the fact that many laboratories exist in Grade II listed buildings, which
results in a lengthy application process in order to make changes to their appearance. The continued
introduction of sensory lighting systems is also part of the CMP (UOL 2011), however many staff are
concerned about their appropriateness for a laboratory environment (e.g. Futers 2012). An energy
metering project is also being undertaken to measure electricity, heat and water use in all buildings on
campus (Dixon-Gough 2012; Douglass 2012a; UOL 2011a).
1.4 Research objectives
1.4.1 Background
The need for this research arose primarily from the need of the Sustainability Team at the UOL to
understand how they can best engage with laboratory staff so as to encourage the uptake of energy
efficient practices.
The theoretical and empirical background to this study involves pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviour, popular models of behaviour, and the issues involved with implementing pro-environmental
behaviour in organisations. Much of this literature is based around domestic environments and very few
are from universities. Fewer still have looked at university laboratories, particularly on a behavioural
level. Addressing this research gap will enable existing theories to be tested for their relevance to this
context, and to make a contribution towards reducing the environmental impact of research-intensive
universities.
1.4.2 Aim
The aim of this research is to develop a conceptual framework of the existing barriers to energy
efficiency within laboratories at the UOL. Understanding these barriers should reveal where and how
the sustainability goals of the university can be merged with the research goals of laboratory users.
11
1.4.3 Research questions
In order to fulfil the aim of this study, the following research questions will be investigated in:
1. Do laboratory users report a difference between their energy efficiency attitudes and practices?
2. Which individual, organisational and other contextual factors can laboratory users identify that
inhibit energy efficiency?
3. What motivates laboratory users to be energy efficient?
Universities are very complex organisations and, as such, the potential for organisational learning and
change is that much harder than in others. Identifying the key barriers that limit or inhibit energy
efficient practices within laboratories in this context is the first step towards overcoming them, ideally
from the viewpoint of the regular laboratory user. Using existing behavioural models as a starting point,
this study will see if the main factors identified in the literature are applicable to a university laboratory
environment by actively engaging with laboratory users, and sets out suggested approaches to
encourage energy efficiency.
12
2.0 Energy efficiency in university laboratories
2.1 Climate change and energy consumption
There is a great host of scientific data that supports the existence of a negative anthropogenic influence
on the Earth’s climate, as collated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This data
reports that current climate changes are attributable primarily to the increased levels of carbon dioxide
we have released into the atmosphere (Hegerl et al. 2007). In response to this, there has been a push by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for nations and organisations
to take responsibility for their own contribution to climate change (UN 1998).
The UOL first looked at reducing its emissions in 2005/2006 following work by the Carbon Trust in the
higher education sector (UOL 2011; Carbon Trust 2007), by way of an informal environmental
management system (EMS; UOL 2006). More recently, the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) has developed an emissions reduction strategy for higher education institutions, in line with UK
emissions targets (HEFCE 2010). The UOL subsequently updated its CMP to include emissions targets
(UOL 2011), as outlined in Table 2.1. Currently, the university is in the early stages of working towards
achieving ISO 140011 accreditation, which they hope to complete by the academic year 2014/2015
(Greaves 2011a).
Table 2.1 Comparison of GHG emission reduction targets against the set baseline levels (DECC 2011; UOL
2011; HEFCE 2010)
Target set by Baseline level 2020 2050
UK Government 1990 >34% >80%
HEFCE 2005/06 34% 80%
UOL CMP 2005/06 35% -
Various sustainability initiatives have been set up alongside the CMP to raise awareness of and address
the environmental impact of the university (Greaves 2011a). They include:
Resuse@Leeds redistributes unwanted office furniture and other equipment throughout the
university with the goal of saving both money and carbon (UOL 2009);
A network of Environmental Co-ordinators (ECs) that act as a flow of sustainability information
across campus (UOL 2010a);
1 For details of this standard see http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Assessment-and-certification-
services/management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-14001/
13
Green Impact (GI) teams that work towards actively reducing the environmental impact of their
own departments based on an accreditation workbook (UOL 2010b);
The It All Adds Up campaign which highlights progress and challenges of the sustainable mission
of the university (UOL 2012a).
As part of the CMP and the initiatives outlined above, the Sustainability Team wants to understand how
to best improve energy efficiency in laboratories on a behavioural level (Dixon-Gough 2012). Gaining the
perspective of laboratory users on this issue, which is what this study will do, should help them to design
an effective set of policies (Marans & Edelstein 2009).
2.2 Energy consumption in laboratories
A baseline assessment found that the most significant environmental aspects of life at the UOL include
the following (Greaves 2011b), all of which contribute to the environmental impact of laboratories:
energy use (electricity, heat and water);
acquisition, handling and disposal of high risk substances;
building design and maintenance;
storage of fuel, oil and solvents;
waste management.
Electricity is the primary source of carbon emissions at the university, making up approximately 50% of
the 70,454 tonnes released in 2009/2010 (UOL 2011). Although there is currently no confirmed data
from the university, it is likely that up to 60% of this figure can be attributed to energy consumption in
laboratories (S-Lab 2011b). Ventilation-related energy is the greatest contributor to emissions from
laboratory use: this is a necessary aspect of most laboratory environments for health and safety
reasons, however there are small changes that can be made to improve the efficiency of these systems
(S-Lab 2011a, p.20-23). For more details on specific practices please see Appendix C, Q7.
Both energy and cost savings can be dramatic when everyday laboratory practice can be adjusted
through behavioural campaigns. For example, Duke University found that with 35% of laboratory users
complying with correct fume cupboard usage, they saved approximately $30,000 (approximately
£17,000; Brewer et al. 2003). A similar campaign at Harvard Medical School saved approximately
$100,000 in one year (approximately £60,000; Harvard College 2011). It is clear from these examples
that behavioural campaigns are able to change laboratory practices, and make significant contributions
to both the university and the environment.
2.3 The research field
Energy efficiency in laboratories can be implemented or improved in two main formats: technical and
non-technical interventions (Altan 2010). A recent study showed that sub-metering is the most popular
14
form of technical intervention in university laboratories (ibid.), and one that is currently being
conducted at the UOL (Douglass 2012a, 2012b). This report is specifically interested in the non-technical
side of energy efficiency, focusing on the behavioural aspects involved in reducing energy consumption.
In this context, energy efficient laboratory practices are synonymous with pro-environmental behaviour:
“behaviour that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and
built world” (Kollmus & Agyeman 2002, p.240). As universities exist as organisations with very complex
structures (Velazquez et al. 2005; Sharp 2002), the potential for learning as an organisation is equally
complex and challenging (Albrecht et al. 2007; Levin & Greenwood 2001). Attempting to influence
university laboratory users’ behaviour towards energy consumption is thus hindered by the many
complexities that exist within a typical university environment. This study recognises that it will be
impossible to fully define the complex structure of factors affecting laboratory users’ behaviour, and so
will attempt to isolate as many aspects as possible from the perspective of laboratory users. This is in
keeping with the engagement and supportive criteria laid out in the HEFCE’s action plan (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Details and context of this study in relation to the HEFCE sustainable development action plan
(2009).
Sustainability in universities (HEFCE
2009)
Energy efficiency in laboratories at UOL
Engage with stakeholders to bring
about sustainability policy
This study aims to discover where and how the Sustainability
Team can best engage with laboratory users to bring about
energy efficiency
Build capacity of stakeholders to
manage sustainability
The university would continue to raise awareness of
environmental issues and the importance of energy efficiency
practices, giving laboratory users the skills in which to
implement them.
Support the development of and
share good practice
Enabling laboratory users to share their experiences of energy
efficient practices between research groups, departments and
faculties should encourage and support the uptake of these
practices throughout the university. Also physical and
technical support from Estates Services.
Reward sustainable behaviour There is the potential to develop an awards scheme for the
most energy efficient laboratory, although this would require
standardisation of laboratory energy use between various
types of laboratory at the university following completion of
the sub-metering project. An example is the financial incentive
scheme employed at Cambridge University (S-Lab 2010).
15
There is a notable absence in the wider literature specifically regarding the behavioural aspects of
energy efficiency in university laboratories, although a handful of studies do exist (e.g. Marans &
Edelstein 2009; Wright et al. 2008). This review will focus on the following as a basis for the study:
1. What shapes pro-environmental behaviour;
2. Universities as organisations;
3. Strategies for successful behaviour change.
Based on key arguments in the literature, a number of propositions, pertinent to the development of
this study’s results and implications, will be identified.
2.4 Pro-environmental behaviour
2.4.1 The gap between attitudes and behaviour
A great proportion of the literature on pro-environmental behaviour concentrates on developing
conceptual models that attempt to empirically and/or theoretically define reasons behind the pro-
environmental behaviour of individuals. The main focus is on the idea that the particular attitude of the
individual will define the behaviour of the individual. This concept is what the vast majority of climate
change policy is currently based on (DEFRA 2008; Jackson 2005), as well as the behavioural change
campaign that forms part of the CMP (UOL 2011). The main idea here is that by changing an individual’s
attitude towards the environment, you will increase the chance of them favouring pro-environmental
behaviour over non pro-environmental behaviour. This, however, is a greatly simplified version of
events (see discussion below) and, as such, can have a limiting effect on the success of related climate
change policy (Shove 2010).
It has long been recognised in the social psychology literature that attitude is only one aspect of how an
individual’s behaviour is defined, and it can often be that attitude has no direct impact on behaviour at
all. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) reasoned that, to test the relationship between attitude and behaviour,
the target and action element of the attitude should correspond with the target and action element of
the behaviour. For example, the attitude of a laboratory user towards turning off (the action) energy-
intensive equipment (the target) should be measured against their observed behaviour of the respective
elements. Studies which attempt to measure the correspondence between attitude and behaviour
without clearly defining these aspects will not produce a reliable result (ibid.; Newhouse 1991).
Where there is an observable difference between attitude and behaviour, it is often referred to as the
value-action gap (e.g. Kollmus & Agyeman 2002). When this gap occurs, it suggests that there is an
awareness of environmental issues and intent to act on them, but pro-environmental behaviour is not
observed. Identifying the factors which lead from attitude to behaviour can contribute to an
understanding of why this gap might exist, as discussed below.
16
Proposition 1: Clear definitions of the pro-environmental “attitude” and “behaviour” being studied will
enable a true correlation between the two to be identified.
2.4.2 The context of pro-environmental behaviour
Explanations for the difference between environmental attitude and behaviour are often discussed as
barriers. Many authors have noted the importance of first identifying the context that the absence or
presence of the pro-environmental behaviour occurs in, before being able to describe particular barriers
to that behaviour (Middlemiss 2010; Blake 2007; Bamberg 2003; Olli et al. 2001; Stern 2000; Ajzen 1991;
Ajzen & Fishbein 1977). This implies that barriers, or indeed motivators, to pro-environmental behaviour
will differ depending on the specific situation. With that in mind, attempting to understand the
complexity of a university laboratory environment will be equally as important as identifying the barriers
that may exist to pro-environmental behaviour in this context. This will enable the most appropriate
policies to be developed, as they too must be “sensitive to the everyday contexts in which individual
intentions and actions are constrained” (Blake 2007, p.274).
Proposition 2: Understanding the contextual complexity of a university laboratory environment will
enable relevant barriers to be identified.
2.4.3 Factors affecting pro-environmental behaviour
A recent study of university sustainability schemes in Europe found that 80% of participants selected
“social and environmental awareness/responsibility” as the most important driver for implementing
pro-environmental change (Disterheft et al. 2012, p.83). Note that attitude is not included anywhere in
this sentence. This is because attitude is only one of many variables directing behaviour; these can be
categorised into internal and external factors (see Table 2.3). Over the years these have been
represented in a number of different behavioural models. Some of the most influential include
Schwartz’s Norm Activation Theory (1977), Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980),
Attitude-Behaviour-Context Theory (Stern & Oskamp 1987), Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1991),
and Value-Belief-Norm Theory (Stern 2000; Stern et al. 1999).
“As any student of behaviour will know, a comprehensive discussion of even a representative sample of
these models is a daunting task” (Jackson 2005, p.24). Highlighting their commonalities will reveal the
key factors that are likely to influence energy efficient behaviour in university laboratories.
Internal factors are those relating specifically to the individual (e.g. Kollmus & Agyeman 2002). An
individual’s attitude towards a particular issue or situation is often driven by some or all of these various
factors, which can then inform the choice of behaviour (Jackson 2005). Different models and studies
have examined different types of internal factors, many of which overlap and, as such, can often appear
rather ambiguous and overly complex.
17
These internal factors also interact with external factors. External factors are those that influence the
individual’s choice of behaviour. Internal and external factors can be synonymised with individual and
organisational factors, respectively. They are also all intra- and inter-related, and can change with time
and context (Jackson 2005). There is a good agreement in the literature on the different organisational
factors that need to be considered when attempting to understand or change behaviour. Because of the
holistic nature of the different factors, it is important that they all be considered together when
attempting to understand and change behaviour (e.g. Tudor et al. 2008; Stern 2000).
Although investigating both individual and organisational factors of these in depth is beyond the realms
of this study, it cannot ignore one or the other in the attempt to understand the social context of
barriers to energy efficiency in university laboratories. Both individual and organisational factors will
therefore be investigated, albeit on a relatively superficial level.
Proposition 3: Energy efficiency policies should focus on all individual and organisational factors affecting
behaviour.
Table 2.3 Common behavioural factors identified from the literature (Mirosa et al. 2011; Middlemiss 2010;
DEFRA 2008; Scherbaum et al. 2008; Tudor et al. 2008; Oakland & Tanner 2007; Soltani et al. 2007; Kollmus &
Agyeman 2002; Stern 2000; Ajzen 1991).
Behavioural factors Key aspects (with examples)
Internal (individual) Beliefs (religious, moral, environmental, responsibility)
Motivation (individual benefits, ease of involvement)
Values (altruism, other personal norms)
Environmental awareness
Capabilities (time demands, knowledge)
External (organisational) Access to resources (finances, infrastructure)
Managerial support
Performance indicators
Accountability
Formal priorities of the university (long-term versus short-term goals, including where sustainability fits in)
Informal aspects of the university (group dynamics, social structures, social norms, hierarchy, effective use of communication across the university)
18
2.5 Sustainability in universities
2.5.1 Organisational complexity
Although it has been shown that universities contend with many of the same challenges for change as
other types of organisation (Soltani et al. 2007), they also have their own specific set. Universities are a
rather unique type of organisation, one that is argued to be extremely complex (Albrecht et al. 2007;
Velazquez et al. 2005; Sharp 2002), often conservative (ibid.) and even political (Brunsson 1989). Gough
and Scott (2007) discuss, quite aptly, the Paradox and possibility present in different aspects of
university culture and structure that make it challenging for sustainability to be implemented
successfully into this system. They argue that, whilst there are many barriers to sustainability within this
context, universities play an influential role in the future of society by teaching and guiding students that
may go onto have leading societal roles. As such, universities have a responsibility to address
sustainability in all aspects of their operations, of which research is a significant aspect.
EMSs or sustainability initiatives are employed in order to make pro-environmental and ethical changes
across the entire university system. This runs into issues that relate to the difficulty of organisational
learning and change within structurally and socially complex systems. Levin and Greenwood (2001,
p.103), following years of university teaching, confirm the complex and often difficult nature of
universities:
“The institutions *i.e. universities] that claim the position of the premier and most advanced
knowledge producers in society frustrate learning and social change in most of their
internal processes”.
Although there is often a lack of clarity regarding the barriers involved in these complex environments,
this study will attempt to define some of them in order to contextualise energy efficiency in university
laboratories.
This study considers university laboratory research, an aspect of campus life that is spread across
multiple departments, where the specifics of each work environment can vary greatly and new
equipment and procedures are often being accommodated (Woolliams et al. 2005). This adds a further
complexity to the already intricate organisational structure, and introduces factors such as the hierarchy
structure in management of laboratories and differing responsibilities (Dixon-Gough 2012), various
social and spatial dynamics (Wineman et al. 2008), cost of equipment, and the cost of everyday running
(S-Lab 2011b), among others. While these structural and physical elements make the social setting
appear overwhelming and hard to quantify, the importance of context highlighted in the previous
section means that it cannot be ignored if energy efficiency in laboratories is to be encouraged
effectively.
19
Proposition 4: Incorporating an understanding the spatial and social dynamics of laboratories and their
place within the university into an energy efficiency behavioural campaign should increase its chances of
success.
2.5.2 Successful organisational change
Despite these structural challenges, a recent review found that as long as EMSs include a mix of
participatory (involvement of staff and students) and top-down approaches (clear guidance from central
management), it can be an effective tool to both improve awareness of and reduce the environmental
impact of the university (Disterheft et al. 2012). The participatory aspect is particularly important to
ensure the success of these schemes (ibid.), however Blake (2007) urges that too much emphasis can be
placed on this approach, leading to the unfair conclusion it is the only correct solution; indeed, some of
the best change initiatives employ a range of projects and methods (Schelly et al. 2010; Keller & Aiken
2009; Tudor et al. 2008; Oakland & Tanner 2007).
In the experience of one very successful university sustainability co-ordinator, successful campaigns like
these “*require+ a high competency in listening, communication, relationship building, vision
development, responsiveness and continuous strategic adaptation” (Sharp 2002, p.132). This suggests
that continuous participation of various stakeholders within the university will be critical to
implementing a successful scheme.
Proposition 5: Laboratory users must be included in the development of laboratory energy efficiency
policy if it is to be successful.
The way that change initiatives or projects are managed from the top has a substantial influence on the
success of the initiative (Keller & Aiken 2009; Tudor et al. 2008; Soltani et al. 2007; Oakland & Tanner
2007). These studies found that where there is an absence of support, guidance and clear goals from key
management staff, employee willingness to participate in and support the change is likely to be lacking.
The importance of context is again highlighted by Keller & Aiken (2009), who found that what motivates
leaders doesn’t necessarily motivate their employees. Hence, understanding the context and various
social dynamics is key to implementing successful changes.
Failure to incorporate these factors into change initiatives has produced only a 30% success rate of
organisational change initiatives, something which hasn’t improved in 25 years of the change
management approach (Isern & Pung 2006; Kotter 1995).
Proposition 6: The message from central management regarding energy efficiency in laboratories must
be very clear, and be aligned with the initiatives aimed at the level of laboratory staff.
One method of ensuring successful change is the provision of feedback to those involved in the
sustainability initiative. More specifically, comparative feedback, whereby progress of different groups
20
or departments is compared against others, has proved to be particularly useful (e.g. Siero et al. 1996).
An incentive-based comparative scheme at Cambridge University has been running for the last few years
(S-Lab 2010), and although there were initially some kinks in its design and implementation, the
competitive aspect of it has really encouraged staff to cut back on their energy use where possible.
Other studies have found feedback to be a key motivational driver in universities and other
organisations (e.g. Altan 2010; Wesolowski et al. 2010; Schelly et al. 2010; Darby 2006).
Proposition 7: Providing feedback on group progress can be a powerful motivator.
2.6 The research gap
There are multiple examples in the literature of how to successfully implement pro-environmental
behaviour in various organisations. Whilst they will indeed be useful to the development of policies
aimed at reducing the energy consumption of laboratories at the UOL, they cannot reveal the specific
context within which laboratory users do or do not practice energy efficiency. It is vital to understand
this context in order to design truly appropriate policies, and so this study will be the beginning of an
attempt to do just that. As an outcome of this, key factors involved in influencing this pro-environmental
behaviour will be revealed in support or opposition of previous behavioural and organisational studies.
21
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Initial research
With the aim of attempting to understand the social context of energy efficiency within university
laboratories, I decided to actively engage with laboratory users and technical staff, to ask them what it
was like. The idea was to gather information from as many different types of laboratory environment as
possible, which included those in the following areas:
Faculty of Biological Sciences (FBS);
Faculty of Engineering (ENG);
Faculty of Medicine and Health (FMH);
School of Chemistry (SOC);
School of Earth and Environment (SEE).
Initial meetings were arranged with technical staff (see Appendix A) in each department to discuss
aspects of the buildings, types of laboratories, and the main issues relating to energy efficiency. These
informal discussions gave me a physical understanding of laboratory energy efficiency, and helped
shape my survey and interview questions. Staff were chosen based on their position within the
department, as well as their inclusion in existing sustainability initiatives. This increased the chance that
they would be willing to engage with my research and made the selection process relatively simple.
Although there may have been some bias due to their involvement in these schemes, this was
overshadowed by the fact that they would be most aware of the practicalities of energy efficiency I was
interested in.
I was aware that the choice of methods would influence the quality and type of knowledge gained
(Mason & Dale 2011), hence I chose to use an integrated methods approach to ensure complementary
data sets (Caracelli & Greene 1993), as discussed below.
3.2 Data collection and analysis
3.2.1. Online questionnaire
The use of surveys is often criticised as they can “appear superficial in their coverage of complex topics”
(Babbie, 2008, p.303). However, because this study aimed to cover a large range of topics with
standardisation across different working environments, as well as having substantial time constraints,
the use of surveys seemed particularly appropriate because they are versatile, efficient and easily
generalised (Schutt 2009). Olli et al. (2001) support the use of surveys in order to understand the social
context of environmental attitudes and behaviours.
22
Following a brief reading of the key literature identified on pro-environmental behaviour and energy
efficiency in laboratories, as well as my initial discussions with managerial and technical staff on the
main issues relating to energy efficiency in the university, I focused on four aspects I felt were central to
this study:
1. Attitudes of laboratory staff towards the environment;
2. Use of energy efficient practices in laboratories;
3. Barriers to energy efficiency in laboratories;
4. Awareness and opinion of sustainability throughout the university.
Questions were developed based on these categories (see Appendix C) and distributed to laboratory
users through the staff I had developed relationships with following our initial meetings. Laboratory
users include anyone working regularly in research laboratories, excluding undergraduate students.
Questions were carefully structured and arranged based on advice from Schutt (2009, p.260-9) using a
mix of scaled, multiple-choice and open ended questions. Some were taken from previously tested
surveys (European Communities 2011) or based on energy efficient laboratory practices (S-Lab 2011a).
They were then tested on peers to correct for design issues (Oppenheim, 1992).
The surveys were set up using an online provider2 and accessible via an emailed link. Based on personal
experience in universities, I assumed that the majority of laboratory users regularly used computers and
so no other collection method was considered necessary. There was no monetary incentive offered to
complete the surveys, just the assurance that their participation would be useful and greatly
appreciated. I can thus assume that those who participated did so for reasons other than personal gain,
as well as answering the questions with less error than those who might have done so only for a reward
(O’Neil & Penrod 2001). Although dropout rates have been found to increase when personal details are
requested (Joinson 1999), I only asked respondents to include their email address if they were happy to
participate further in my research, and so I can assume this had little effect on the response rate.
I received 80 usable responses, although it is impossible to calculate a response rate as I am unaware of
the total number of staff that received the survey. Response rates for online surveys have been reported
to range from 0% to 70% (Sills & Song 2002), and as such it would be impossible to estimate the
response rate for this study. Although this limits the reliability of the sampled results, it still gives an
initial impression of the views and practices of laboratory users. Laboratory users do generally not work
in isolated environments and so it is expected that their awareness of certain issues within the
university, particularly of regular laboratory practices, will be reliably representative of the rest of the
study population. Responses were entered into an Excel spreadsheet to determine the frequency of
responses, so as to define the general consensus of laboratory users.
2 Survey Monkey – www.surveymonkey.com
23
Limitations of this method relate primarily to the issue of subjectivity inferred by self-reporting of
laboratory users on their daily laboratory practices, which has been found to increase the link between
attitude and behaviour (e.g. Kraus 1995). It would have been ideal to incorporate observation methods,
as advised by Hargreaves (2011; Nye & Hargreaves 2009) to fully explore the social dynamics in this
setting, however time constraints did not allow for this.
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews
Surveys are often insufficient for fully understanding the social context of pro-environmental behaviours
(Olli et al. 2001), thus a more in-depth review of the literature enabled me to refine topics to discuss
with laboratory users in subsequent interviews. Questions (see Appendix E) were developed from a
variety of behavioural frameworks (Table 2.3). They were open-ended to allow interviewees freedom of
thought (Oppenheim, 1992), and were carefully worded to reduce interviewer influence (Schutt 2009,
p.260-9; Babbie 2008, p.317). Interviewees’ initial survey responses were referred to in order to explore
the reasons behind their answers. Although the structure was at the strict end of semi-structured, I
sometimes followed up on points made by the interviewee I considered particularly relevant.
Interviewees were selected from survey participants who had consented to further involvement. Sixteen
respondents were randomly selected and emailed for consent to be interviewed, nine of which
confirmed (see Appendix D). The majority of these were conducted in person and voice recorded,
although this wasn’t appropriate for two who instead consented to an email interview. Because
responses were collected in two different formats, I made sure that the questions were designed and
structured identically for all participants. As I had already developed an idea of the theory, interview
data was used primarily to supplement results from the survey data, and codes, based on behavioural
factors in Table 2.3, were used to manually extract patterns of text.
A comparison of email and face-to-face interviews reveals a similar number of advantages and
disadvantages. One particular study revealed that in a comparison of interview formats, email
interviews were often more complete, candid and included greater self-reflection, and are also less
susceptible to interviewer influence (McCoyd & Kerson 2006; McAuliffe 2003). In my own comparison of
responses in the two formats, emailed answers were generally much shorter and more concise than
those received in person. I often found myself probing participants I interviewed in person to elaborate
their answers, so the shorter answers in the email interviews may just have been down to the nature of
the questions and a potential design fault. A number of other reasons could have affected responses
however, and in the confines of this study I don’t think it will significantly affect the information gained
from interviews. Although, on a side note, both email interviewees were female, and it has been found
that gender differences exist whereby women generally prefer email communication to men (Jackson et
al. 2001).
24
3.3 Ethical considerations
The main ethical considerations relate to the anonymity of participants (ESRC 2010). It was made clear
at the start of both the survey and interview that the participant’s identity would remain undisclosed to
everyone but the researcher (Appendix D). This was particularly important for interviews, as they were
much more exploratory than the survey questions and the participants needed to be able to speak
freely without fear of identification. At all stages, participants were made aware of the aim and context
of my research, in accordance with the UOLs research ethics framework (UOL n.d.), and were at no point
under pressure to participate in this study. Most of my initial contacts were happy to be identified as
they were not discussing personal experiences.
25
4.0 Analysing laboratory users’ responses
4.1 Do laboratory users report a difference between their energy efficiency
attitudes and practices?
Survey results reveal a high awareness of environmental issues amongst laboratory users, as shown in
Figure 4.1. While very few admitted to being “very well informed”, the majority described themselves as
“fairly well informed” (Figure 4.2). It can be deduced from this that, in general, laboratory users value
the environment and are aware of the main issues affecting it. There is also an agreement that
individuals can contribute to reducing the environmental impact of society (Figure 4.3). Laboratory users
understand that high levels of energy consumption are one aspect of life and work that are negatively
impacting the environment, and recognise that laboratories are high consumers of energy (Figure 4.4).
In light of this, it seems fair to assume that the practice of energy efficiency in laboratories will be very
common. However, this is contradicted somewhat by both survey and interview results. Figure 4.5
shows that 67% of laboratory users “always” or “sometimes” performed particular energy efficient
practices, in comparison to 99% of respondents claiming that the environment was either “very
important” or “fairly important” to them. While this confirms that energy efficient behaviour currently
exists in laboratories at the UOL, it doesn’t correspond well with the expected behaviour determined by
the attitudes held towards the environment.
Figure 4.1 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “How important is protecting the environment
to you personally?”. 99% of participants answered “very important” or “fairly important”.
26
Figure 4.2 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “In general, how well informed do you
consider you are about environmental issues?”.
Figure 4.3 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “How much do you agree with the following
statement: ‘As an individual, you can play a role in protecting the environment’?”.
27
Figure 4.4 Graph showing response rate to the survey questions a) “Do you think high levels of energy
consumption at home and work are having a negative impact on our environment?” and b) “Do you think that
university laboratories are large consumers of energy?”.
Figure 4.5 Graph showing response rate to the survey question asking how often particular energy efficient
laboratory practices are performed.
a) b)
28
Although survey results suggest that laboratory users highly value the environment, they did not always
place the same importance on energy efficiency. This corresponds much more closely with the target
behaviour, as self-reported by laboratory users (Figure 4.5), and supported in interviews (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Interviewee perspectives indicating the general attitude of laboratory users towards energy
efficiency. Transcript references can be seen in Appendix D.
Attitudes towards energy efficiency
“I don’t think people really think about it that much. It’s not a priority I guess, people just haven’t made it a priority of theirs – and I don’t know whether that can be changed or not” (Transcript H)
“All are aware of environmental issues. Many, but not all, don’t consider *energy efficiency+ in routine work” (Transcript F)
“There were times when I remind them to turn off lights after use, and I get some strange smiles or even had a deaf ear to it” (Transcript G)
“I don’t want to say that we do energy efficiency by accident, but it’s mainly a consequence of the safety” (Transcript C)
“I think they’re aware of the issues but it’s not a priority, they just tend to get on with day to day life and it’s not a main concern” (Transcript D)
The next section will illustrate the various factors which inhibit the energy efficient practices in
laboratories, as specified by laboratory users at the UOL.
4.2 Which individual, organisational and other contextual factors can
laboratory users identify that inhibit energy efficiency?
4.2.1 Context-specific factors
Figure 4.6 clearly highlights that when energy efficiency isn’t practiced, it is mostly due to the nature of
the laboratory. This suggests that the specific context of laboratories is in itself a hindrance to energy
efficiency. Further to this, when asked to score various inhibiting factors, on average, the age and design
of the building or laboratory came first (Figure 4.7). This is supported further by evidence given in
interviews (Table 4.2).
29
Figure 4.6 Graph showing response rate to the survey question “If you aware of ways to reduce energy
consumption but do not practice them, why is this?”. Respondents were able to select more than one answer.
Figure 4.7 Graph showing the average score (1-10) given by laboratory users to particular factors that may
inhibit energy efficiency in laboratories.
30
Table 4.2 Interviewee perspectives indicating how inhibiting the nature of laboratory work is to practicing
energy efficiency.
The nature of laboratory research
“It’s very energy intensive, everything I do really.” (Transcript E)
“Some of the equipment has to be left on because they start to break down – it’s quite a common problem I think with scientific instruments, they do consume quite a lot of power, and I don’t think a lot of them have energy saving modes” (Transcript A)
“With offices it’s generally straight forward – everyone’s got a computer, a desk, a phone, and that’s a relatively controlled environment. But I think you’d struggle to find labs that are the same. So I don’t think there’s any sort of blanket policy that Estates could really introduce that would make much of a difference.” (Transcript C)
“One of the things that’s a bit irksome about the work you do in labs, is that a lot of the materials that you use are thrown away, when some of them could be recycled” (Transcript A)
“It’s the large pieces of equipment that are in use most of the time, so incubators, fridges and freezers, are on all the time. So there’s nothing really we can do about those” (Transcript D)
“I mean we go through enormous amounts of plastic wear and disposable equipment, which must be harmful to the environment but there’s no way around it.” (Transcript D)
“We don’t turn them off. If they are it’s for a day or something if the power’s shut off – it takes about a week for them to be back in operation after that, that’s why we don’t turn them off” (Transcript H)
“Our lack of energy efficiency is rarely down to personal attitudes, but equipment or restrictions of the experiments” (Transcript I)
“Energy efficiency is good, but at the end of the day if you need to use that amount of power, that’s what you need. I mean there’s no real getting away from the fact that people use equipment that takes a lot of power.” (Transcript C)
Table 4.3 Interviewee perspectives that show how lack of knowledge and subsequent risks can inhibit energy
efficient practices in university laboratories.
Lack of knowledge and the risks involved
“I think in theory it’s something people want to do but it’s something they’ll start doing tomorrow, when they don’t have this key deadline.” (Transcript E)
“There’s often a lack of confidence to change the protocol they’ve been given. It might say you have to do this extra step which uses energy in the method, and in some cases it might not be necessary, but they’re not sure about it and don’t want to take the risk, so they’ll just do it anyway.” (Transcript E)
“Regarding the instrumentation, people just aren’t sure what can be turned off and what can’t – they don’t want to do something wrong and turn something off that they shouldn’t – and so part of it is fear I think of doing something wrong.” (Transcript A)
“There is a computer in the lab which gets left on, and it doesn’t need to be. There have sometimes been issues of loss of data, and that kind of thing, so generally you just leave it as it is, take the safe approach” (Transcript B)
31
4.2.2 Individual factors
Interviews with laboratory users identified particular individual factors that inhibit their use of energy
efficient practices. The key individual factors discussed are:
1. Not having knowledge of what can be done and the subsequent risks involved (Table 3);
2. Constraints placed by time (Table 4.4);
3. Lack of individual responsibility (Table 4.5).
Other individual factors brought up by interviewees that affect laboratory energy practices include lack
of personal benefits, and the strength of old habits and routine.
Table 4.4 Interviewee perspectives that show how time constraints can inhibit energy efficient practices in
university laboratories.
Time constraints
“Most people in the labs don’t have enough time to do background reading on their research area let alone sit down and think about how to be more energy efficient in the lab” (Transcript F)
“Not much motivates me to be energy efficient at work because I'm often quite stressed and thinking about other things which I feel are more important” (Transcript E)
“It’s remembering to do it a lot of the time – when you’re in a rush to leave at night you don’t think to go and turn something off. Especially if you’re working in different parts of the building” (Transcript A)
“Many items need to be left on of convenience to reduce waiting times which is especially important for researchers who are nearly always on tight deadlines” (Transcript F)
Table 4.5 Interviewee perspectives that show how issues of responsibility can inhibit energy efficient practices
in university laboratories.
Responsibility
“Many lab members have a 'don’t care, doesn’t concern me, personally' attitude” (Transcript G)
“Some people either feel it is not their responsibility or just don’t care” (Transcript F)
“I think everybody has a responsibility, but probably the more senior people have a greater responsibility, because it sets the tone” (Transcript B)
“If the lab manager cared, it’s up to them, because they’re the ones who see the bills, they’re the ones who have to drive us” (Transcript H)
“Some people don't see the importance of their individual actions, it is often difficult to convince some people, and the initiative is soon forgotten when it has been in place for a while” (Transcript I)
“The equipment is bought by upper management, so really it’s up to management to buy equipment that can be powered down, or that uses less power in the first place” (Transcript A)
32
4.2.3 Organisational factors
Interviews with laboratory users also highlighted specific organisational factors identified that inhibit
their use of energy efficient practices. The key organisational factors are:
1. Mixed messages regarding the university’s priorities regarding sustainability (Table 4.6);
2. Lack of managerial support (Table 4.7).
Other organisational factors include the lack of support in group dynamics, lack of control over
equipment and other energy-intensive outputs, financial constraints, and relevance of policies.
Table 4.6 Interviewee perspectives that show how sustainability isn’t particularly seen as a priority of the
university, and so inhibits energy efficient practices in laboratories.
Is sustainability a priority of the university?
“The university has also been making a lot of cut-backs, so I think sometimes it can seem like the university is very worried about its image, and not genuinely that worried about the environment, it just wants to appear like it’s doing something” (Transcript E)
“You’re asking people to save energy by turning off one or two small items, but then you’ve got the heating on all the time. So I think you need estates and the top people to take it seriously and then it might filter through further down” (Transcript D)
“I don’t think *sustainability+ is a priority. If they [can] step up on health and safety issues, they could do this for more important ones as well. If the effort doesn’t come from the top levels, the faculty and department levels would suffer.” (Transcript G)
“Because of the way the heating’s managed in the building [i.e. badly], it seems a bit pointless to worry about turning off a light” (Transcript B)
Table 4.7 Interviewee perspectives that show how the lack of managerial support inhibits energy efficient
practices in university laboratories.
Lack of managerial support
“If someone told me to be more energy efficient, for example, my supervisor said that it was important to him, then energy efficiency would be a much higher priority for me” (Transcript E)
“On a department level I don’t think it is something that is discussed that much” (Transcript A)
“There’s not a great deal of support. It’s different within the faculty, e.g. the Green Team in one department, but that’s down to the individuals that want to get involved” (Transcript D)
“The boss needs to make sure that every lower member takes equal responsibility” (Transcript G)
“I’ve not heard anything, well my supervisor’s never told me to do anything, and I’ve never heard anything from anyone above that” (Transcript H)
“I think a lot of it highlights the disconnect between the admin side of the departments that do these sorts of policies, and the people who are actually doing research and science within the university” (Transcript C)
33
4.3 What motivates laboratory users to be energy efficient?
Attempting to understand who laboratory users think should be most responsible for reducing energy
consumption in laboratories indicates it should be a shared effort by all involved in their operation
(Figure 4.8). Although there is no clear leader in this category, laboratory managers and individual
laboratory users do score slightly higher than the rest. For example, one laboratory user said “I think
maybe it’s down to some sort of central department to try and drive it, but ultimately I think it’s down to
each individual because they’re the ones with the power to do it” (Transcript K). Another supported this
view: “I think everybody has a responsibility, but probably the more senior people have a greater
responsibility, because it sets the tone” (Transcript B). Thus, individuals have the primary power to
practice energy efficiency, but it helps for them to be driven from the top.
Figure 4.8 Graph showing the average score (1-10) given by lab users to various groups within the university
regarding responsibility for energy efficiency in laboratories.
34
Analysis of interview data also revealed the following key factors that are related to motivating energy
efficiency practices of laboratory users:
1. Personal experience and environmental values (Table 4.8);
2. A greater awareness of energy consumption and efficiency (Table 4.9);
3. The design and implementation of appropriate policies (Table 4.10).
Table 4.8 Interviewee perspectives indicating the importance of personal experience and values as a
motivator for energy efficient practices in laboratories.
Personal experience and values
“I have noticed that when I'm with someone I want to make a good impression to, I'm much more likely
to save energy” (Transcript E)
“For me, the incentive is being a bit of a hippy and not wanting to destroy the environment, but I don’t
know how you could encourage other people if the initial desire isn’t there” (Transcript H)
“I do think about global warming and, in particular, the sea level rising and causing problems in low lying
impoverished areas around the world” (Transcript F)
“In my experience people who are bothered about energy efficiency already do what they can”
(Transcript C)
“I think it was the way I was brought up – to try not to be wasteful, to try to treat the environment with
respect.” (Transcript B)
Table 4.9 Interviewee perspectives suggesting that improving awareness of laboratories energy consumption
might encourage people to implement more energy efficient practices.
Greater awareness of energy consumption and efficiency
“Maybe if we had information about which equipment can be turned off and if that was posted round”
(Transcript D)
“I think people might need active reminders in the lab, during their daily routine” (Transcript C)
“Perhaps coming up with some system of labelling what can be turned off and what can’t” (Transcript A)
“Maybe if we got some information on how much energy we actually use. If you could see that you were
having an effect, that the changes you were bringing in were doing something - that might spur people
on.” (Transcript D)
“What might make people more aware of what their labs were consuming - you know those little digital
meters you can get - if they were to go up on the walls, that might give people a little nudge” (Transcript
I)
35
Table 4.10 Interviewee perspectives indicating that the development of and implementation of university
policies must be relevant to the laboratory environment and directly supported.
Development of appropriate policies
“I suppose changing policy, as long as it was followed through, it wasn’t just written down and nothing
happens, I suppose that would have the biggest impact” (Transcript D)
“Policies only go so far, and if they’re seen as being particularly annoying I think there’s a danger that
people could just ignore them” (Transcript C)
“I think [changing attitudes towards energy efficiency] would require a sustained effort, and really
hammer it into the new starters as well” (Transcript A)
“I think that more direct suggestions, such as from IT saying shut your computer down at the end of the
day. You know, the sign next to the fume cupboard, please close it up when you’re not using it – that
sort of thing has probably made more of an impact” (Transcript E)
““I suppose you could try to have an attitude in your lab or group that encourages it to be more green,
and that would probably help” (Transcript H)
36
5.0 Implications of this study
5.1 Energy efficiency attitudes and practices
Proposition 1: Clear definitions of the pro-environmental “attitude” and “behaviour” being studied will
enable a true correlation between the two to be identified.
Ajzen & Fishbein (1977) clearly show that the target attitude and behaviour under scrutiny must have
corresponding elements in order to be accurately assessed. This study found that laboratory users had a
more positive attitude towards the environment than they did towards energy efficiency. Attitudes
towards energy efficiency corresponded well with and predicted the performance of energy efficiency
practices much better than attitudes towards the environment. This is reflected in similar studies (e.g.
Scherbaum et al. 2008; Tudor et al. 2008), and correlates with Proposition 1.
Due to the good correspondence between the two, attempting to change peoples’ attitudes towards
energy efficient practices may boost their performance of these practices. This can be influenced by a
variety of measures, as discussed in section 5.3.
5.2 Factors affecting energy efficiency practices
Proposition 2: Understanding the contextual context of a university laboratory environment will enable
relevant barriers to be identified.
Although understanding the full complexity of factors affecting a university laboratory environment was
far beyond the reach of this study, it has recognised that the specific context of this study group is very
important.
The nature of laboratory research was described as a major limiting factor to energy efficiency.
Laboratory users revealed that the nature of the equipment and the research they are involved in does
not always allow them to reduce their energy consumption, and as such it was identified as the primary
barrier to energy efficiency. Thus, the importance of behavioural context is supported in line with
Proposition 2.
Without recognising the importance of context-specific factors, it is not possible to get a true picture of
the barriers present to energy efficiency, as shown by multiple studies (Middlemiss 2010; Blake 2007;
Bamberg 2003; Olli et al. 2001; Stern 2000; Ajzen 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein 1977). Designing energy
efficiency policies for laboratory users, without considering the nature of their work as an inhibiting
factor, will be neither realistic nor popular. Therefore, policy should be aligned to fit with this finding to
work around what cannot be changed in a laboratory environment.
37
Proposition 3: Energy efficiency policies should focus on both individual and organisational factors
affecting behaviour.
Lack of knowledge, time constraints, and personal responsibility are the key individual factors identified
by laboratory users affecting their performance of energy efficient practices. This corresponds with
findings from similar studies (Wright et al. 2008; Woolliams et al. 2005), and suggests that improving
laboratory users’ knowledge of energy efficient practices will be vital to increasing their usage.
Lack of clear priorities and managerial support for energy efficiency are the key organisational factors
identified by laboratory users affecting their performance of energy efficient practices. Both of these
appear numerous times in the organisational change literature (e.g. Keller & Aiken 2009; Tudor et al.
2008; Oakland & Tanner 2007; Soltani et al. 2007), which confirms that universities share behavioural
change factors with other types of organisation, and can thus learn from their experiences.
The importance of each organisational factor was clearer than that of the individual factors. This tallies
well with previous discussions of individual factors, in particular, their ambiguous nature evidenced by
the multiple terminology and definitions that exist (e.g. Middlemiss 2010; DEFRA 2008; Jackson 2005).
Because individual and organisational factors were recognised as barriers to energy efficiency, they
should both be considered, in accordance with Proposition 3.
5.3 Motivating energy efficiency in laboratories
Proposition 5: Laboratory users must be included in the development of laboratory energy efficiency
policy if it is to be successful.
Laboratory users said that they felt responsibility for energy efficiency in laboratories should be a shared
effort by all those involved, and policies should be appropriate to the laboratory environment. This
suggests that laboratory users should be consulted, as this study does, and included in the development
of any policies developed by the university to encourage energy efficiency in laboratories. This agrees
with recommendations from other sustainability initiatives that encourage the participatory approach
(e.g. Disterheft et al. 2012; Sharp 2002), and thus indicates Proposition 5 will be relevant to this context.
Proposition 6: The message from central management regarding energy efficiency in laboratories must
be very clear, and be aligned with the initiatives aimed at the level of laboratory staff.
Laboratory users also said that clear priorities and good leadership would make them more inclined to
improve their performance of energy efficient practices. Results show that laboratory users are often
not aware that sustainability is a priority of the university because of the way it comes across to them,
or that it is absent from their university experience. They felt that if they had more encouragement from
38
the top, they would be likely to want to make an effort to be energy efficient in the laboratory. This
suggests that the guidelines in Proposition 6 will also be relevant to this context.
Proposition 7: Providing feedback on group progress can be a powerful motivator.
Increasing awareness of energy consumption levels and how to practically reduce them was also
suggested by laboratory users as a way to encourage more energy efficient practices. Whilst this doesn’t
prove that they will be influential on laboratory users’ behaviour, it definitely offers encouragement to
include this as part of future energy policies, and so partly supports Proposition 7.
5.4 Modelling energy efficiency in laboratories
Based on the results of this study, the framework below (Figure 5.1) was developed to provide a simple
conceptual guide to the various factors that contribute to the performance of energy efficient practices
in laboratories at the UOL, and their likely relationships. It can act as a visual aid to inform policy makers
at the university that all these factors should be considered when creating policy for energy efficiency in
laboratories.
Figure 5.1 Conceptual framework of individual (green), organisational (blue) and contextual (aqua) factors
affecting the choice of laboratory users to perform energy efficient practices by laboratory users, based on the
results of this study.
39
5.5 Limitations
The main limitation of this study is due to the highly complex structure of the university system. As such,
these results offer a relatively superficial glimpse into the social context of university laboratories.
Ideally it would have been more informative to record observations of energy efficient behaviour in
laboratories (e.g. Hargreaves 2011), but time constraints meant that this study relies on relatively
subjective self-reported data.
This self-reported data may also have consequences for the implied correspondence between energy
efficient attitudes and practices (see Kraus 1995). However, because this study is only an initial indicator
of the behavioural factors that predict energy efficient practices, this superficiality is not considered a
significant limitation.
Discussing university laboratories under one heading also limits the understanding of the true context of
this study group. As indicated in chapter 1.0, laboratories at the UOL are diverse and can often be highly
specialised environments. As such, there is no single type of laboratory and therefore no single type of
laboratory user. This study generalises laboratory users and the context of their working environment in
order to gain a general understanding of their attitudes towards energy efficiency and how the
university can make implementing these practices easier. Attempting to be more specific was not
possible in the time available.
5.6 Further work
The aim of this report has been to identify the key barriers to energy efficiency in laboratories by
speaking to regular laboratory users. Albeit in a slightly superficial way, this has been achieved. The
Sustainability Team can subsequently use the knowledge of these to tailor energy efficiency policies so
that they can address barriers and increase the performance of energy efficient practices where
possible.
In terms of further research, it would be interesting to use observational techniques and social practice
theory, as prescribed by Hargreaves (2011), to see if these future policies affect energy-related
behaviour in laboratories. Measuring laboratory users’ attitudes towards energy efficiency before and
after the implementation of any policies will also indicate whether it is possible to change attitudes. If
behaviour changes, yet attitude does not, it will suggest that it is possible to implement pro-
environmental behaviour without having to change attitudes first (see Siero et al. 1996). A comparison
of attitudes and practices between departments and faculties will also give a deeper understanding of
the contextual nature of laboratory energy efficiency, and enable policies to be tailored to each type or
set of laboratories.
40
6.0 Conclusion
This research project set out to understand the various factors affecting the choice of laboratory users
at the UOL to perform energy efficient practices. This will enable the Sustainability Team to design the
most appropriate policy for encouraging laboratory users to reduce their energy consumption, where
practically possible.
A review of the relevant literature indicated that the context in which these energy efficient practices
existed would be vital to understand, before identifying barriers to their usage. A range of potential
individual and organisational factors were recognised, which were then incorporated into the research
design and methodology. Online surveys were distributed to laboratory users, and from their responses,
certain themes were identified to discuss in semi-structured interviews with selected participants.
Speaking directly to laboratory users gave me a greater idea of why energy efficiency practices were or
were not used in laboratories, and the motivation and barriers that determined this choice of behaviour.
Analysing their responses revealed the following answers to my research questions, which correspond
relatively well with key propositions identified from the literature.
1. There is a good correspondence between attitudes towards energy efficiency and the
performance of energy efficiency practices.
2. The main barrier to practicing energy efficiency was context-specific and related to the energy-
intensive nature of the work. The main individual barriers were a lack of knowledge of these
practices, time constraints, and lack of individual responsibility. The main organisational barriers
were the absence of a clear message on sustainability from the university, and a lack of
managerial support.
3. The main motivators suggested for practicing energy efficiency in laboratories were personal
experiences and values, a greater awareness of which practices to use, and the design and
implementation of appropriate energy efficiency policies.
These answers enabled the development of a simple conceptual framework describing the factors
leading up to energy efficient behaviour in university laboratories. This framework can be used by
university policy makers to design and implement appropriate policies for laboratory energy efficiency
that incorporates the key contextual, individual and organisational factors affecting this behaviour.
41
References
AJZEN, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
50, pp.179-211.
AJZEN, I. and M. FISHBEIN. 1977. Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of
Empirical Research. Psychological Bulletin. 84(5), pp.888-918.
AJZEN, I. and FISHBEIN, M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. London:
Pearson.
ALBRECHT, P., S. BURANDT and S. SCHALTEGGER. 2007. Do sustainability projects stimulate
organizational learning in universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
8(4), pp.403-415.
ALTAN, H. 2010. Energy efficiency interventions in UK higher education institutions. Energy Policy. 38,
pp.7722-7731.
BABBIE, E. 2008. The Basics of Social Research. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Thomson Wadsworth, pp.245-
447.
BAMBERG, S. 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related
behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23, pp.21-32.
BLAKE, J. 1999. Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national
policy and local experience. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability. 4(3), pp.257-278.
BRUNSSON. N. 1989. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations, Vol.
VII. Chichester: Wiley.
CARACELLI, V.J. and J.C. GREENE. 1993. Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 15(2), pp.195-207.
CARBON TRUST. 2007. Further & higher education sector overview (CTV020) [online]. [Accessed 5th July
2012]. Available from:
http://www.carbontrust.com/media/39208/ctv020_further_and_higher_education.pdf
DARBY, S. 2006. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption: A review for DEFRA of the
literature on metering, billing and direct displays [online]. [Accessed 12th July 2012]. Available
from: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf
42
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE (DECC). 2011. The Carbon Plan: Delivering our Low
Carbon Future [online]. [Accessed 27th February 2012]. Available from:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-
carbonplan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf
DISTERHEFT, A., S.S.F.D.S. CAEIRO, M.R. RAMOS and U.M.D.M. AZEITEIRO. 2012. Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher
education institutions: Top-down versus participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production.
31, pp.80-90.
DIXON-GOUGH, J. 2011/2012. Personal communication with Sustainable Development Officer, UOL:
various occasions, commencing 13th December 2011.
DOUGLASS, R. 2012a. Conversation with Energy Officer, UOL, 11th May.
DOUGLASS, R. 2012b. Email from Energy Officer, UOL, 11th July.
ESRC (ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL). 2010. ESRC Framework for Research Ethics [online].
[Accessed 16th May 2012]. Available from:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. 2011. Eurobarometer 75.2, April-May 2011, Basic Bilingual Questionnaire,
Tns Opinion & Social [online]. [Accessed 30th May 2012]. Available from:
http://www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=7009#doc
FUTERS, S. 2012. Conversation with Health and Safety Officer, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and
Therapeutics, University of Leeds, 6th June.
GOUGH, S. and W. SCOTT. 2007. Higher Education and Sustainable Development: Paradox and
possibility. London: Routledge.
GREAVES, C. 2011a. University of Leeds Environmental Management System; Phase 1: Executive
Summary [online]. [Accessed 22nd July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sustainabledevelopment/downloads/EMS%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
GREAVES, C. 2011b. University of Leeds Environmental Management System; Phase 1, Stage 2: Baseline
Assessment [online]. [Accessed 22nd July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sustainabledevelopment/downloads/Baseline%20Assessment.pdf
GREEN IMPACT. 2011. About Green Impact [online]. [Accessed 22nd July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.green-impact.org.uk/
43
HARGREAVES, T. 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-
environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture. 11(1), pp.79-99.
HARVARD COLLEGE. 2011. Sustainability at Harvard: HMS “Shut the Sash” Campaign [online]. [Accessed
15th August 2012]. Available from: http://green.harvard.edu/hms/shut-the-sash
HEGERL, G.C. et al. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: S. SOLOMON et al., eds.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.663-745.
HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND. 2009. Sustainable development in higher
education: 2008 update to strategic statement and action plan [online]. [Accessed 13th August
2012]. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2009/200903/
HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND. 2010. Carbon reduction target and strategy for
higher education in England [online]. [Accessed 23rd July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce1/pubs/hefce/2010/1001/10_01a.pdf
ISERN, J. and C. PUNG. 2006. Organizing for successful change management: A McKinsey global survey.
The McKinsey Quarterley [online]. [Accessed 29th June 2012]. Available from:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organizing_for_successful_change_management_A_McKins
ey_Global_Survey_1809
JACKSON, L.A. et al. 2001. Gender and Internet: Women Communicating and Men Searching. Sex Roles.
44(5-6), pp.363-379.
JACKSON, T. 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour
and behavioural change [online]. [Accessed 19th June 2012]. Available from:
http://www.c2p2online.com/documents/MotivatingSC.pdf
JOINSON, A. 1999. Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 31, pp.433-438.
KELLER, S. and C. AIKEN. 2009. The Inconvenient Truth About Change Management: Why it isn’t working
and what to do about it [online]. [Accessed 29th June 2012]. Available from:
http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/Financial_Services/The_Inconvenient_Truth_Abo
ut_Change_Management.pdf
KOLLMUS, A. and J. AGYEMAN. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research. 8(3), pp.239-260.
44
KOTTER, J. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review. 73(2),
pp.59-67.
KRAUS, S.J. 1995. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21(1), pp.58-75.
LEVIN, M. and D.J. GREENWOOD. 2001. Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform
universities into learning communities. In: P. REASON and H. BRADBURY, eds. Handbook of Action
Research. London: Sage Publications, pp.103-114.
MARANS, R.W. and J.Y. EDELSTEIN. 2009. The human dimension of energy conservation and
sustainability: A case study of the University of Michigan’s energy conservation program.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 11(1), pp.6-18.
MASON, J. and A. DALE. 2011. Creative Tensions in Social Research: Questions of Method. In: J. MASON
and A. DALE, eds. Understanding Social Research: Thinking Creatively about Method. London:
Sage Publications Ltd., pp.1-26.
MCCOYD, J.L. and T.S. KERSON. 2006. Conducting Intensive Interviews Using Email: A Serendipitous
Comparative Opportunity. Qualitative Social Work. 5(3), pp.389-406.
MIDDLEMISS, L. 2010. Reframing Individual Responsibility for Sustainable Consumption: Lessons from
Environmental Justice and Ecological Citizenship. Environmental Values. 19, pp.147-167.
MIROSA, M., R. LAWSON and D. GNOTH. 2011. Linking Personal Values to Energy-Efficient Behaviors in
the Home. Environment and Behavior [online]. [Accessed 26th June 2012]. Available from:
http://eab.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/26/0013916511432332
NEWHOUSE, N. 1991. Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conservation.
The Journal of Environmental Education. 22(1), pp.26-32.
NYE, M. and T. HARGREAVES. 2009. Exploring the Social Dynamics of Pro-environmental Behavior
Change. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 14(1), pp.137-149.
O’NEIL, K.M. and S.D. PENROD. 2001. Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect
results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers. 33(2), pp.226-233.
OAKLAND, J.S. and S. TANNER. 2007. Successful Change Management. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence. 18(1-2), pp.1-19.
OLLI, E., G. GRENDSTAD and D. WOLLEBAEK. 2001. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors: Bringing Back
Social Context. Environment and Behavior. 33(2), pp.181-208.
45
RUSSELL GROUP 2012. Research at Russell Group Universities [online]. [Accessed 23rd July 2012].
Available from: http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/research/
S-LAB. 2010. Financial Incentives for Energy Efficiency at the University of Cambridge [online]. [Accessed
9th July 2012]. Available from: http://www.goodcampus.org/uploads/DOCS/111-
RECSO_Case_3_Cambridge_Shared_Savings_9_2_12_Final_v4_(2).pdf
S-LAB. 2011a. S-Lab Environmental Good Practice Guide for Laboratories – A Reference Document for the
S-Lab Laboratory Environmental Assessment Framework [online]. [Accessed 8th May 2012].
Available from: http://www.goodcampus.org/files/files/73-S-
Lab_Good_Practice_Guide_Final_31_10_11_2.pdf
S-LAB. 2011b. S-Lab Briefing 2: Understanding Laboratory Energy Consumption [online]. [Accessed 24th
July 2012]. Available from: http://www.goodcampus.org/uploads/DOCS/147-Briefing_Paper_2_-
_lab_energy_audits_final.pdf
S-LAB. 2011c. Energy Consumption of University Laboratories: Detailed Results from S-Lab Audits
[online]. [Accessed 29th January 2012]. Available from:
http://www.goodcampus.org/files/files/60-S-
Lab_Energy_Audits_of_HE_Labs_final_v15_4_7_11.pdf
SCHELLY, C. et al. 2011. Reducing Energy Consumption and Creating a Conservation Culture in
Organizations: A Case Study of One Public School District. Environment and Behavior. 43(3),
pp.316-343.
SCHERBAUM, C.A., P.M. POPOVICH and S. FINLINSON. 2008. Exploring Individual-Level Factors Related
to Employee Energy-Conservation Behaviors at Work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 38(3),
pp.818-835.
SCHUTT, R.K. 2009. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. 6th edition.
London: Sage Publication Ltd.
SCHWARTZ, S. 1977. Normative Influences on Altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 10,
pp.221-279.
SHARP, L. 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 3(2), pp.128-145.
SHOVE, E. 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and
Planning A. 42, pp.1273-1285.
SIERO, F.W. et al. 1996. Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative
feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 16, pp.235-246.
46
SILLS, S.J. and C. SONG. 2002. Innovations in Survey Research: An Application of Web-Based Surveys.
Social Science Computer Review. 20(1), pp.22-30.
SOLTANI, E., P.C. LAI and V. MAHMOUDI. 2007. Managing Change Initiatives: Fantasy or Reality? The
Case of Public Sector Organisations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 18(1-2),
pp.153-179.
SPAARGAREN, G. and S. MARTENS. 2005. Globalisation and the role of citizen-consumers in
environmental politics. In: F. WIJEN, K. ZOETEMAN and J. PIETERS, eds. A Handbook of
Globalisation and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.211-247.
STERN, P.C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social
Issues. 56(3), pp.407-424.
STERN, P.C. et al. 1999. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of
Environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology. 6(2), pp.81-97.
STERN, P.C. and S. OSKAMP. 1987. Managing Scarce Environmental Resources. In: D. STOKOLS and I.
ALTMAN, eds. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. London: Wiley, pp.1043-1088.
TUDOR, T.L., S.W. BARR and A.W. GILG. 2008. A Novel Conceptual Framework for Examining
Environmental Behavior in Large Organizations : A Case Study of the Cornwall National Health
Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Environment and Behavior. 40(3), pp.426-450.
UNITED NATIONS. 1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change [online]. [Accessed 24th July 2012]. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. no date. University Ethics Policies [online]. [Accessed 16th May 2012]. Available
from: http://researchsupport.leeds.ac.uk/index.php/academic_staff/good_practice/
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2006. Environmental Policy [online]. [Accessed 24th July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/estate_services/environment/documents/EnvironmentalPolicy.pdf
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2009. Estates and Campus Support Services: Reuse@Leeds [online]. [Accessed
24th July 2012]. Available from: http://reuse.leeds.ac.uk/about-us.aspx
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2010a. The University of Leeds Sustainable Development: Environmental Co-
ordinator (Job Description) [online]. [Accessed 24th July 2012]. Available from:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sustainabledevelopment/downloads/EC%20Job%20Description%20Sept_
2010.pdf
47
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2010b. Green Impact: What is Green Impact? [online]. [Accessed 24th July 2012].
Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/greenimpact/intro.html
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2011. Carbon Management Plan [online]. [Accessed 29th January 2012]. Available
from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/estate_services/downloads/CMP%20Full%20Document-
June2011.pdf
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2012a. It All Adds Up: What are we doing? [online]. [Accessed 24th July 2012].
Available from: http://italladdsup.leeds.ac.uk/what-are-we-doing/
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS. 2012b. Energy Team: University of Leeds Carbon Management Plan: Progress
Update June 2012 [online]. [Accessed 7th August 2012]. Available from Adele White, Electrical
Services and Energy Manager, University of Leeds Energy Team ([email protected]).
VELAZQUEZ, L., N. MUNGUIA and M. SANCHEZ. 2005. Deterring sustainability in higher education
institutions: An appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education
institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 6(4), pp.383-391.
WESOLOWSKI, D. et al. 2010. The use of feedback in lab energy conservation: fume hoods at MIT.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 11(3), pp.217-235.
WINEMAN, J.D., F.W. KABO and G.F. DAVIS. 2008. Spatial and Social Networks in Organizational
Innovation. Environment and Behavior. 41(3), pp.427-442.
WOOLLIAMS, J., M. LLOYD and J.D. SPENGLER. 2005. The case for sustainable laboratories: first steps at
Harvard University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 6(4), pp.363-382.
WRIGHT, H.A., J.E. IRONSIDE and D. GWYNN-JONES. The current state of sustainability in bioscience
laboratories: A statistical examination of a UK tertiary institute. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education. 9(3), pp.282-294.
48
Appendix A: Details of initial research meetings
Initial meetings were arranged with the following members of staff to understand the physical aspects
of the department and/or faculty, focussing on the laboratories and levels of energy consumption. Staff
were chosen from a list of key contacts provided by the Sustainable Development Officer, which
consisted of senior technical managers, ECs and members of GI teams.
Table A.1 Details of meetings with initial departmental/faculty contacts
Name Department/Faculty Role Date
John Wheeldon FBS Faculty Building Facilities Manager 10/05/12
Fred Smith FMH Research Technician 14/05/12
Jerry Lee SEE Technical Services, Resources & Facilities
Manager
16/05/12
Steve Richardson SOC Technician & Safety Advisor (also an EC) 17/05/12
Barry Gilbert ENG Technical Services Manager 18/05/12
Lizzie Reather FMH Faculty Project Research Officer (GI team) 18/05/12
Jenny Baker FBS Technical Services Manager 18/05/12
Simon Futers LIGHT Health and Safety Officer (GI team & EC) 06/06/12
The following email was sent to staff to arrange the initial meetings:
“Dear -----,
I'm planning my masters dissertation this summer around attitudes and behaviour regarding energy
efficiency in labs throughout the university, on behalf of the Sustainability team. I was wondering if we
could set up a short meeting sometime this week or next so I can find out a bit more about the working
environment in labs in the department, the equipment involved, and the best way to go about collecting
data, as well as any concerns you might have about the logistics of this research.
Let me know when would be most convenient for you - it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes.
I look forward to hearing from you.
49
Kind regards,
Emma Sturtevant
MSc Sustainability (Climate Change)”
The following points were used as a guideline for these meetings, which lasted approximately 30-60
minutes each. Details of the meetings and the information provided were recorded in note form. These
were formulated from my own knowledge of laboratories as well as the information gathered by S-Lab,
particularly their energy audit (2011c).
Can you give me a brief history of the building and the labs? Equipment age? Refurbishments?
Metering? Other buildings used in the department and/or faculty apart from this one?
Type of labs? Special/bespoke equipment? How many labs and regular lab users?
No of research and teaching labs? Good energy practice training/monitoring?
Any 24/7 labs/equipment?
Increasing energy consumption over time?
Ventilation, temperature controls – high energy usage?
Fume cupboards – presence, usage, efficiency.
Computers in labs, server rooms.
What’s your general impression of the opinion of lab users in the department in terms of
becoming more energy efficient? Are there any worries about safety, effect on research,
efficiency? Has there been any practical information of how to be more energy efficient, e.g.
procurement, practice?
These meetings helped develop my line of research, form important links with each department/faculty,
and gain support for the distribution of my subsequent survey.
The following email was sent to gain consent for the information provided to be referenced:
“Dear ---- ,
Thanks for your help so far with my project about energy efficiency in labs. I just wanted to double
check that you're alright for me to reference you and the info you gave me in my write up? Please let me
know if you’d prefer I referenced you under a pseudonym.
Kind regards
Emma Sturtevant”
50
Appendix B: Notes from initial research meetings
I have written up my notes from these meetings in the following pages.
FBS:
Buildings:
Faculty buildings original in 1960s, built from concrete. Approximately 20,000 m2 faculty space, split
roughly into 75% laboratories and 25% office space. Two levels in one building recently refurbished, and
80% of laboratory space refurbished in the last 5 years. Buildings are Grade II listed therefore a slightly
lengthier process to make external changes (e.g. to double glazing), but this doesn’t put them off making
these changes. Internal walls can be knocked down due to concrete structure which makes them really
good for refurbishments.
Laboratories:
-70 and -80 freezers commonplace in FBS, using roughly 2kW each and generate lots of heat which
requires constant air conditioning / ventilation systems. Lots of equipment is left on standby mode.
Issues with very old equipment not being used, but taking up space that is still required to be cooled –
this is a problem at faculty level where they feel like they’re throwing money away.
Refurbished space has new system where if a room is unoccupied the ventilation will power down and if
a window is opened the heating will turn off. This is not always possible in labs though as often
equipment is constantly running (e.g. freezers, centrifuges) which requires constant temperature
control so as not to overheat the room from equipment and potentially ruin experiments, which are
often expensive to repeat.
Engineering changes over the last 10-20 years has meant that lots more equipment exists than before,
cooling systems are in place rather than just opening windows, and as such energy consumption has
risen. Ventilation is the key culprit, but it is a necessity in labs.
Some labs run all night, and lab staff work late into the night or come in early to complete experiments.
A big issue in labs relates to the safe disposal of chemicals. Some labs require a negative pressure which
means there’s less air volume in there than outside so all the chemicals are sucked out, which is
particularly important when you’re working with viruses. Air is constantly being extracted.
Fume cupboards are another issue. When left open this is generally through laziness, and some are used
as storage space. No signs exist reminding users to pull the sashes down. They have to be on 24/7 to
extract chemicals from the lab, and also are usually connected to a single fan so turning this off would
turn them all off. Hence, they are all left on. New motion detectors can sense if they are not being used
51
and will thus reduce their extraction, but they are never completely turned off. There are issues with
Estates asking them to be turned off, but it is impossible. It’s much more complicated than they think.
Energy efficiency:
Most people probably already aware of it, more so than 5-10 years ago maybe. For example, there are
light sensors in office areas which means they have to be occupied for the lights to come on and they
automatically turn off after a certain time when people leave the room. There are issues with
temperature controls in open plan offices though, as different people are used to different
temperatures.
FMH:
Buildings:
Currently refurbishing some of two of the floors. Last refurbishment was roughly 12 years ago. Sensor
systems do not currently exist.
Laboratories:
Lots of -70 freezers that you can’t turn off. They should go for more energy efficient freezers but they
are limited by finances, as price is often the main criteria. This is how it’s always been, however most
freezers today are much more efficient than they used to be, so there’s not too much in it. They often
wait until they break down before they get a new one, and can often fix them quite cheaply.
Fume cupboards there as well. Can’t turn any of them off as they’re generally always in use. He likes to
encourage others to shut them though
Energy efficiency:
There was a Green Impacts team set up a few years ago but it fizzled out. The faculty introduced a lot of
recycling initiatives long before the rest of the university (he’s been there nearly 40 years).
Big issue with the stairwells – for some reason the heating is constantly on high and you have to
manually turn it off/down from the roof. Therefore there are a lot of problems with the building design
and the ventilation, e.g. heat being directed to the wrong places. Sometimes adjusting the controls for
one lab can affect those in another!
Lots of energy efficient behaviours originated from environmental concerns, and now have just become
habit. He thinks most people are pretty good at turning things off when they’re not in use.
In general, lab users there have nothing against being more energy efficient, it’s just being aware of
what’s practical and getting things to become habit.
52
SEE:
Buildings:
Originally from 1960s but massively refurbished in 2009. All new space is 98% airtight. They have their
own energy metering system in place, and he can centrally control the air flow and room temperatures.
Laboratories:
Some equipment is on permanently and requires a special procedure to be shut down, e.g. over the
holidays. Only one or two freezers in the school, so inventory control and their energy consumption is
not as big an issue as elsewhere.
Some good practice training. There are stickers around to remind people to turn things off where
possible and they’re generally effective.
All labs are closed spaces, so temperature controlled, no opening windows.
Fume cupboards can be run at low velocity overnight and when not in use. When open, they extract
more air, and so more air is pumped into the room to compensate. Some have signs on them reminding
people to close the sash.
Energy efficiency:
Geochem lab staff are very good at people aware of their energy consumption, but others are not
maybe so interested.
SOC:
Building:
Initially built in c.1942. Air conditioning and ventilation system refurbished five years ago. Estates are
still working on installations to reduce energy consumption. Wanting to improve the heating. Grade II
listed building. Still single-glazed and inefficient insulation. Costly to change.
Laboratories:
Fume cupboards run on a timer, where they switch to a low energy setting overnight and at the
weekends. It’s hit and miss with lab staff behaviour – some close the sashes, some don’t.
Computers are left on all the time in labs to install updates overnight.
Some special lab equipment has to remain on so that it can stabilise.
Main issues to do with disposal of chemicals. It wastes a lot of water, e.g. in condensers. Waste disposal
costs a lot of money – charge per bottle and type of content. People don’t always fill bottles before
53
throwing away so costs more than necessary. Teaching labs always produce more chemicals than they
need and then just dispose of them, which is a waste. Inventory control is a big issue – things that are
left aren’t always labelled clearly and so they often have to be thrown away. There’s a greater charge for
this as it could be a toxic material so have to charge the most.
Can’t turn fridges and ovens off.
ENG:
Buildings:
Whole faculty built in 1950s-60s. Built with labs and fume cupboards incorporated. Refurbishments take
place as often as possible, generally on a rolling basis. A lot of this is driven by health and safety rather
than anything else.
Laboratories:
Many different types – laser, wet chemistry, radiation, knee and hip simulators (medical engineering),
bio-electronics, class 2 (use blood) negative pressure labs. Most labs are open, i.e. they can use the
windows and not all are ventilated.
Each lab has its own code of practice that head technicians write, the dos and don’ts. Users must go
through training/induction before they can use the labs.
A lot of quite sophisticated work goes in mechanical and electronic and electrical engineering
departments. Furnace rings - can’t be cooled down or will break. -70 freezers have lots of stored
chemicals. There’s a quite strict regime in biological labs where samples need to be regularly cleared
out.
Loads of computers in the faculty – on most floors, most running all day, some left on constantly to
control equipment.
Energy efficiency:
As engineers, most people try to be energy efficient, and there are steps to go through to make sure
things are turned off – everybody seems happy with this policy.
The technicians are quite good. Information from Estates on energy usage is used as a vehicle to
encourage and maintain better practice.
Main issues relate to nature of equipment – e.g. lasers with motor engines. They used to make a lot of
equipment in-house, but now it works out cheaper to buy it in. But energy consumption has always
been considered in the procurement stage.
54
FMH
Energy efficiency:
Attitudes are very mixed. Most people are pro-sustainability and pro- saving money. But it’s not
necessarily at the front of people’s minds like it is at home.
There’s a blockage in labs of energy efficiency relating to a lot of plastic that needs to be disposed of,
and is not able to be recycled due to possible contamination – it goes off to incineration.
LIGHT
Building:
Complete in 2004 – just before the sustainability team existed so it wasn’t necessarily designed with
energy efficiency in mind. Mix of staff from FBS and FMH, in separate building. Also part of Leeds Dental
Institute downstairs.
Laboratories:
FBS policy is to leave computers on overnight.
Can’t turn equipment off in a temperature controlled room. Sometimes better to be safe than sorry
when using viruses/diseases that could get out, e.g. cleaning with bleach and turning the autoclaves up
higher than may be necessary.
Signs by light switches and on fume cupboards to remind people to turn off / power down and shut
sash.
Lots of freezers and fridges in the building. One big issue with a room full of freezers that overheats. Still
sorting this out with Estates. Currently going through them to see what can be thrown out.
Some labs designed as class 3 labs (negative pressure) but the builders took short-cuts and so they can
only be used as class 2 labs.
Ventilation automatically turns off at 6pm in labs and this can’t be over-ridden. Fume cupboards can’t
be turned off, but they drop to low energy use when not in use, which can be over-ridden.
Sensor lighting in labs was run as a trial in this building – at first lab users weren’t keen on it as worried it
would turn off if they stood still during an experiment, so made it super sensitive, which meant it turned
on when someone outside walked past the lab! So it’s not been a problem, but they can’t currently
afford to install it in all the labs.
Energy efficiency:
55
They have a very active Green Impacts team (of which he is a part of). They send out emails to remind
people to reduce their energy consumption. Received a Bronze Award in 2010/2011 and hoping for a
Silver this year.
Attitudes towards energy efficiency are difficult to gauge. Some people take it up, but then others will
leave lights on even when signs are there to remind them to turn them off. Lots of things have been
taken on board though, such as recycling and reducing the amount of printing.
56
Appendix C: Survey questions
Section A: Attitudes
1. How important is protecting the environment to you personally? [QB1 in European Communities
(2011)]
- Very important
- Fairly important
- Not very important
- Not at all important
- Don’t know
2. In general, how well informed do you consider you are about environmental issues? [QB4 in European
Communities (2011)]
- Very well informed
- Fairly well informed
- Fairly badly informed
- Very badly informed
- Don’t know
3. How much do you agree with the following statement: “As an individual, you can play a role in
protecting the environment”? [QB14 in European Communities (2011)]
- Totally agree
- Tend to agree
- Tend to disagree
- Totally disagree
- Don’t know
4. Do you think that high levels of energy consumption at home and work are having a negative impact
on our environment?
- Yes
- No
- Don’t know
5. Do you think that university laboratories are large consumers of energy?
- Yes
- No
57
- Don’t know
6. Please consider the following groups of people. How much responsibility do you think each should
take for reducing energy consumption in university laboratories? [where 1 = least responsibility, and 10
= most responsibility. Different options can have the same ranking]
- Individual lab users
- Lab managers / Senior technicians
- Technical services managers / General managers
- Faculty Dean
- University management
- University Estates Management
Section B: Laboratory Practices
7. This question lists ways of reducing energy consumption in laboratories. Please indicate how often
you practice them [choice of answers are: All the time / Sometimes / Rarely / Never]. [Developed from
the list of good laboratory practices in the S-Lab Environmental Good Practice Guide for Laboratories
(2011a)].
Chemicals and materials:
- Careful inventory management of chemicals and materials
- Correctly and clearly labelled chemical containers
- Using only the required amount of chemicals and materials during demonstrations
Cold storage:
- Storing only correctly and clearly labelled materials
- Only store materials with active users, particularly for cold storage
- Store samples at highest feasible temperature
- Use appropriately sized storage containers for cold storage
- Ensure regular cleaning, defrosting and maintenance of cold storage devices
Fume cupboards:
- Close fume cupboard sashes when not in use
- Switch off fume cupboards overnight, at weekends, and during holidays
- Ensure fume cupboards are working properly
- Remove obstacles to internal air flow
- Do not use as storage cupboards for prolonged periods
Heating, ventilation & air-conditioning:
58
- Inform Estates Services as soon as there is a ventilation issue
Lighting:
- Switch off lights that are not needed (where sensors are not installed)
- Maximise the use of natural light
- Keep illumination appropriate to tasks
Scientific Equipment:
- Share equipment, where appropriate, to avoid duplication
- Equipment that can be is generally turned off or powered down when not in use
Waste & Recycling:
- Recycle items whenever possible
- Do not mix contaminated and uncontaminated materials
Water:
- Use purified water appropriately and sparingly
- Use closed loop rather than continuous flow cooling
Section C: Barriers
8. If you are aware of ways to reduce energy consumption but do not practice them regularly, why is
this? You can select more than one answer:
- Can’t be bothered
- Don’t care
- I forget
- It’s not encouraged
- Nobody else does it, why should I?
- It’s not possible in my lab
- Don’t know
- Not applicable
- Other (please specify)
9. In general, how much do you think the following options inhibit energy efficiency in university
laboratories? [where 1 = no barrier at all, does not impact energy efficiency in labs; 10 = large barrier,
makes it very difficult to practice energy efficiency in labs]
- Efficiency of lab equipment
- Age and design of building and/or lab
- Personal attitudes
59
- Organisational structure of the university (e.g. management of labs, allocation of finances, etc.)
Section D: Awareness of sustainability initiatives
10. Which of the following sustainability initiatives and campaigns at the university are you aware of?
Please tick all that apply.
- It All Adds Up
- Green Impact
- Environmental Co-ordinators
- Reuse@Leeds
- Education for Sustainable Development
11. Is there someone in your laboratory or research group, or are you yourself, involved in one of these
sustainability initiatives?
- I know someone
- I am personally involved
- I know someone and am personally involved
- Neither
- Don’t know
12. Do other laboratory users ever encourage you to act more energy efficiently?
- All the time
- Sometimes
- Rarely
- Never
- Don’t know
13. If you are encouraged to act more energy efficiently by other laboratory users, do you welcome their
encouragement?
- Yes
- No
- Don’t know
- Not applicable
14. Please can you elaborate on our answer to the previous question? If you selected "yes", could you
explain how they encourage you? If you selected "no", could you explain why? [open answer]
15. Do you personally encourage other laboratory users to act more energy efficiently?
- All the time
60
- Sometimes
- Rarely
- Never
- Don’t know
16. Do you think a university-wide network of lab users that motivates energy efficiency would be
useful?
- Yes
- No
- Maybe
- Don’t know
17. If you selected “no” or “maybe” for the previous question, can you explain why? [open answer]
18. Would you be interested in acting as an ambassador for laboratory energy efficiency in your
department or research group?
- Yes
- No
- Maybe
- Don’t know
61
Appendix D: Interview administration
Following on from the survey results, as well as a more in-depth review of the literature, I decided that
greater discussion of certain points would be required in order to complete my research.
The following email was sent to select survey respondents, inviting them to take part in an interview:
“Dear ----,
Thank you for recently completing my online survey regarding energy efficiency within university labs. I
was wondering if you would be available for a 15-20 minute interview sometime before 27th July? I’d like
to discuss your thoughts on the main barriers to energy efficiency within labs.
If you are happy to take part, please do let me know when will be most convenient for you, and if you are
fine with me voice recording the interview. If you would prefer to conduct the interview via email that
will also be possible, although a face-to-face interview may be quicker? Either way it will remain
anonymous.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Emma Sturtevant
MSc Sustainability (Climate Change)”
The following table lists details of each interviewee, although participants’ details will remain
anonymous. The interviews lasted between 20-60 minutes each and were audio recorded for my
records. The length varied dependent entirely upon the interviewee. Two participants were not able to
be interviewed in person and so I emailed them all the questions in one go and they sent me back
replies at a later date of their choosing.
Table D.1 Details of interviewees
Transcript
reference
Department (Faculty) Job type Interview format Date
A SOC (FMPS) Technical specialist In person 12/07/12
B SOC (FMPS) Research fellow In person 23/07/12
C SEEE (ENG) Research fellow In person 26/07/12
62
D IMCB (FBS) Senior scientist In person 13/07/12
E Structural Biology
(FBS)
Research postgraduate In person 12/07/12
F IMCB (FBS) Research postgraduate Email Returned
19/07/12
G LIGHT (FMH) Research fellow Email Returned
20/07/12
H Astbury (FMH) Research postgraduate In person 19/07/12
I SEE (FOE) Lecturer / Laboratory
manager
In person 19/07/12
Key to acronyms not included in main dissertation:
FMPS = Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
SEEE = School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
IMCB = Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology
LIGHT = Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics
FOE = Faculty of Environment
The following guidelines and questions were used for each interview. For email interviews, the
guidelines were sent in the email with the questions in a separate document. Certain questions were
tailored for individual responses to the online survey. Where this was the case they have been
highlighted in grey, and the questions refer to the survey question number. For email interviews,
questions were adapted specifically for each individual. Questions and format were strictly adhered to
for the sake of constancy.
63
Appendix E: Interview guidelines and questions
Here are a few guidelines for answering the questions:
- Your responses will remain anonymous, and I will refer to them in my dissertation under a
pseudonym.
- The interview is pretty structured, but I might follow up some of your points with further
questions. I’ll also be referring to some of your responses to my survey.
- Your answers can be as long or short as you like, and feel free to include any information you
feel is relevant.
- Don’t worry if you don’t know the answer to a question. Alternatively if you’re not sure what I’m
asking, please let me know and I’ll elaborate.
- Please be as honest as possible, I won’t be judging your answers!
- I’ll ask you to confirm your name and where you work once we start recording, but that’s just
for my records.
Introductory questions
1. Tell me a briefly about your work at the university, how long you’ve been here and a bit about your
background.
2. Tell me briefly about a typical day in the lab: how often are you in there, what kind of equipment do
you use, how energy intensive is it?
Individual level aspects
3. In the survey you said you “tend to agree/totally agree” with the statement “as an individual, you can
play a role in protecting the environment” – what made you choose this option? Is there a particular
experience from your past or maybe your knowledge and background that influenced this attitude?
4. How practical is it for you to reduce the energy consumption in your lab, for example in terms of
equipment type or experimental reliability? [refer to q.6-9]
5. What, if anything, personally motivates you to be energy efficient at work?
6. Do you see sustainability and environmental issues as relevant to your work?
7. Have you noticed if sustainability initiatives (such as It All Adds Up or your Green Impacts team) have
made a difference to energy use in your department, specifically in labs? [see q.10]
8. What is your general impression of lab users’ awareness of environmental issues in your department?
9. What is your general impression of lab users’ attitude towards energy efficiency in your department?
[see q.11-15]
64
10. Do you think people have the knowledge and time to know what energy efficient measures to take?
11. Do you think it is it a certain type of person who is more likely to try to reduce their energy
consumption at work?
12. Is a difference between your behaviour towards energy efficiency at home and at work, and why?
Do you think this applies to others?
University aspects
13. What is your impression of sustainability overall in the university? Does it come across as if Leeds is
trying to be a ‘greener’ organisation? Do you think sustainability and energy efficiency are priorities?
14. Do you feel there’s enough support from the top to encourage energy efficient practices? Is there a
difference between this support at university level and faculty level, even between departments in the
same faculty?
15. Do you think the various group dynamics within your department affects lab users’ behaviour
towards energy efficiency? For example, social ties, peer influences, etc.
Incentives/barriers
16. Hypothetically, if departments were charged on their energy use rather than their floor space, do
you think this would make people more aware of how much energy they use?
17. Other universities have implemented incentive-based schemes. For example at Cambridge they set
an energy consumption target for research units based on their floor space and previous energy
consumption. Groups that use less than their target receive a monetary reward, and those that use
more have to pay a fine, which is split between covering the extra cost and towards successful groups.
Quarterly reports are given to help groups monitor their performance. Results were published internally
in a league table, which had an additional motivational effect.
i. What are your thoughts on this scheme?
ii. Do you think it would be successful here?
iii. How do you think people would react to it?
18. Do you think it would be easier to change attitudes or change university policy? Which do you think
would have a greater impact on energy reduction in labs?
19. What would be most useful in helping you to save energy in the lab? For example posters, training,
identifying common problem areas, etc.
20. Overall then, what would you say is the number one barrier to energy efficiency practices in your
lab?
21. Any questions or further comments you’d like to add?