Change Scheme
7.2.1 Types of Reward
The researchers considered a number of criteria for the rewards that would test respondent’s interest in participating in a future scheme. It was concluded that the rewards would ideally be:
• Attractive to prospective participants
• Easily valued by obtaining retailers’ prices on the open market through tender requests or inquiry
• Offered without the need for any additional payment by the participant
• Provided at considerably less than market cost, or funded through other schemes
• Have intrinsic value that encourages sustainable living regardless of the behaviour they help to change
• Support the local economy
The Salford survey and the telephone questionnaire in England and Wales conducted for this study offered respondents a list of rewards based on precedents found elsewhere in the world, and ideas born out of conversations with local businesses and organisations. These included:
• Vouchers for free fruit and vegetables, • Entertainment tickets,
• Free meals at restaurants, • Vouchers for health centres, • Free bus travel.
The public transport and fruit and vegetables were inspired by the Curitiba experiment (see Chapter 4). The other ideas were offered as examples where voids or gaps in public or private provision might be offered at low or no cost in order to promote business opportunities to potential customers who may not have considered patronising the business without the inducement.
As stated in Chapter 5, the most popular reward on the list was the free fruit and vegetables. Restaurant meals were the next most popular on the list. However, since
the list was compiled, three other ideas came to light. Train travel was suggested by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) during an early discussion about free bus travel. Free landscaping to gardens and drives was an idea that arose after Groundwork Trust became involved in another part of the Resilient Homes programme. Finally, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce suggested free places at the local further education college.
When the implication of supplying all of the rewards were considered by the research team, two clear types of reward emerged. There were:
• Void or provision gap rewards, • Policy-supported provision.
7.2.2 Void or Gap Rewards
These rewards included places where an entry fee or the take-up of a seat (and the enjoyment of the meal/entertainment/journey/course) is sold. The providers of these rewards would say that the provision of spare capacity does have a small cost in terms of the duty of care they would need to show scheme participants who would and should be treated the same as someone who directly purchased entry to the service. However, these providers would also be interested in attracting more people to their venues and services providing numbers do not overwhelm logistics. Indeed, many businesses employ promotions that include free entry, often as a buy-one-get-one-free arrangement.
There are variations to conditions associated with this type of reward. Capacity for some providers can be time dependant. Public transport companies would find it difficult to accommodate large numbers of additional passengers during rush hour. Some businesses in a sector are more popular than others. Entry to some Premier League Football Clubs may not be viable, whereas other sports may not be as popular, save for a key derby or cup match. This does also have a bearing on the desirability of the reward.
In the case of places at Colleges, there would have to be a minimum financially viable number of paying attendees to cover overheads before additional rewarded participants could take up their places.
On this last point, it may be that in order to overcome some financial shortfalls, the State will have to recognises the value of the reward scheme both in minimising the impact of climate change, and encouraging the take-up of further and continuing education. If this is the case then a subsidy may be offered to cover the overhead. Providing the college is making a surplus elsewhere in its business plan, this may be an acceptable solution.
7.2.3 Policy-Supported Rewards
Where a gap or void exists as a potential sale, the true cost of provision as a reward can be reduced to a low value. However, where the rewards are goods, or contain goods that the reward donor has purchased, then selling at a heavy discount will be unattractive and an alternative scenario will need to be applied. It may be acceptable to offer goods for free for the short duration of a promotion, but this is not a viable option for a reward programme that seeks to attract large numbers of people over a medium time frame.
An alternative is to identify a policy programme that requires the State to invest in a desired outcome. This may be anything from the generation of jobs and skills, training, healthy outcomes and habitat protection. The key to the success of this type of reward is to extract two outcomes, literally for the price of one. In this way, behaviour is changed through the acceptance of a reward that the State would have paid for anyway. There are two policy-supported examples that have been explored in this project. One offers labour for gardening through a social enterprise that rehabilitates ex-offenders. The other offers a vehicle for subsidised fruit and vegetables via a major supermarket.
7.2.4 The Cost of Rewards
The cost of the reward scheme is fundamental to its success. There would be understandable scepticism about mounting a reward scheme that incurred a higher cost (including the administrative resources) compared to cost the State could pay to do the work in a more direct manner. The participant that expects a reward for his or her outlay will need to believe that the value of the reward is worth at least as much as the money that they spend. This is fairly easy to achieve where void or gap rewards are offered as the market value to the participant is obvious, while the true cost is negligible.
For policy-supported rewards this is more difficult to justify simply on grounds of cost without including the social and environmental return on investment. There is still a double benefit to the State for helping ex-offenders or increasing the consumption of produce while lowering greenhouse gas emissions and protecting property from flooding. However, there are a number of other indirect benefits that could be generated by a reward scheme. Taken together the combined benefits can be summarised as:
• The direct societal savings from avoiding dealing with the consequences of dangerous climate change;
• The indirect benefits that are provided by the reward (more public transport take-up leading to lower private car emissions and congestion for example);
• The personal and community well-being associated with enjoying the reward and the pride (albeit induced) from taking personal responsibility and contributing to the solution of a common problem.
The following section of this report describes the extent of negotiations with potential reward donors at the time this report was submitted. While some rewards are available to be offered virtually immediately, others will need more time to ensure donors are comfortable with their role in the scheme. Some rewards are likely to remain as potential ideas until either funding or more effective methods to attract donors into the scheme are devised.