Does Global Action Plan work?

Little direct evaluative research has been completed on the effects of Global Action Plan. The exception is work carried out on the EcoTeams programme in the Netherlands. A team of researchers at Leiden University have undertaken a series o f investigations, using the tools of environmental psychology. An initial pilot study examined the experiences of EcoTeam members (see Harland, Langezaal et al. 1993), showing that many of participants were already involved in environmental issues and were influenced to take part through personal, informal networks of recruitment. Whilst participating in the programme, individuals found working in EcoTeam groups supportive and most made some behaviour changes as a result of their participation.

This offers some support for the central concepts of the Global Action Plan model and social diffusion process. More detailed studies from the same team followed, examining specific aspects of the programme, such as the effects of differing types of feedback (Weenig et al.

1994) and the effects of information on attitudes and intentions to participate in the EcoTeam programme (Staats and Herenius 1995). A final study offered an overall evaluation of the Dutch EcoTeam programme. Results showed that members of EcoTeams undertook a larger and more frequent range of environmentally friendly behaviours than the average Dutch

This social diffusion model is based upon empirical work concerning the adoption of technologies through time and space, which is called the ‘hardware’. Rogers (1995) is less clear as to whether these

population, a trend which continued 6 to 9 months after finishing the programme, and up to 2 years after participation ended’’ (Harland and Staats 1997).

Although the Dutch research is indeed very useful and well executed, it does little to elucidate what takes place during the programmes. The theoretical framework of their research is based on cognitive psychology models o f change, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (see chapter 2), which create significant statistical outputs, but do not allow exploration of whether such factors as ‘social diffusion’ and ‘personal empowerment’ are processes actually taking place. What is available, however, are useful international figures showing the instrumental aspects of the programme, such as the numbers of participants and the projected magnitude of resource savings made, which are detailed below.

• Numbers reached

By 1994 Global Action Plan programmes had been established in 14 countries’^, centrally administered through Global Action Plan International (Staats and Herenius 1995). Table 1.1 shows the most recent figures for the number of international organisations in operation, along with the number of individuals involved.’^

” These results are backed up by US research, which suggests that participants continue to change their behaviours for 6-9 months after the end of the programme (Global Action Plan for the Earth N.D.).

These numbers has waxed and waned over the years as new organisations have been set up and older ones have ceased to operate.

Global Action Plan International collated these figures between May to October 1998. No more recent figures are not available as Global Action Plan International has gone into receivership and the majority of the organisations listed do not provide information in English.

Table 1.1. G lobal Action Plan International Feedback

c o u n t r y'^ EcoTeams Households Individuals

NetherlandSa no data 11,000 no data

United Statesb no data 3,000 no data

United Kingdonic no data +24,000 no data

Switzerland 152 870 3036

Flanders 153 1377 4131

Denm ark 103 no data 357

Norway 15 no data 110

Ireland 45 no data 290

Russia’^ 12 60 173

Sweden (old system) 311 2229 5789

Sweden (new system) 219 1384 2885

A lthough it is not possible to offer direct com parisons between countries, as some organisations record number o f individuals whilst another records number o f households, it is likely that approximately 52,000 individuals had been involved with Global Action Plan up to mid-1998.'^

However these figures do not give an indication o f resource savings that resulted from individuals involvement. Although the accuracy o f saving estimates are contested, they are possible given the highly quantified nature o f the Workbooks. For example. Global Action Plan US have suggested that each participating household has, on average, reduced the amount o f rubbish they send to landfill by 42% and water use by 25% (Global Action Plan for the Earth N.D.). This results in each participant having, on average, reduced their carbon dioxide outputs by 16% (Global Action Plan for the Earth N.D.). The Dutch figures suggest that EcoTeam members have made reductions o f the magnitude o f 10-25% gas use, 15-30% electricity use, and have reduced the number o f kilometres driven per year by 15-20% (Global

Sources o f figures: G lobal A ction Plan International Secretariat 1999, personal com m unication (pers com m .), except a from Paul H arland 1998, pers com m ., b from G lobal A ction P lan U SA 1999, pers com m , and c from G lobal Action Plan UK 1999, pers com m.

This is St Petersburg only.

T his calculation has been m ade using the ‘in d iv id u al’ figures, and in the 3 cases w here these w ere not available, the ‘h ousehold’ figures. 1 consider this valid, as often only one m em ber o f a household is

a ctively involved in G lobal Action Plan. H ow ever, it is acknow ledged that this w ill underestim ate the actual num ber o f individuals taking part, as m ore than one m em ber per household m ay be involved. Plus, it provides no indication o f the num ber effected indirectly by G lobal A ction Plan, such as through fam ily and friends contacts.

Action Plan Nederland 1998). Based on these figures, it is estimated that Dutch participants have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 1500 tonnes per household per year, over a 4 year period (van Luttervelt 1998). These are quite significant savings. Similar statistics are not available from Global Action Plan UK, who have evolved different means o f creating change and recording outputs, making them distinctive amongst other Global Action Plans around the world. I will therefore proceed to discuss the evolution and practices o f Global Action Plan UK, who aim to capture the central tenets of the original GAP but have moved away from the above EcoTeam model.