Mapping the Big Green Challenge - The Skills & Learning ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

140 Chapter 7.12 - Conclusions: A Comparison of the Proposal Types7.12 Conclusions: A Comparison of the Proposal TypesThe proposal types are based on a shared approach to engaging with a community in relation tocarbon reduction goals. Within this they contain considerable diversity in terms of other factorsconsidered in this report. Nevertheless some comparative points can provide some broad sense ofhow the types related to each other. The detailed analysis that underpins this account is presentedas an Appendix.7.12.1 Types of 3 rd Sector Organisation InvolvedIn terms of the type of challenger group making the proposal their level of formality (which at leastfor groups with a bottom-up / independent origin we would expect to provide a rough indication ofage, scale of operation in terms of area, numbers of people engaged, likelihood of seeking externalfunds) links to some of the proposal types in expected way. So informal groups (constituted and unconstituted)tend to focus their activities within clear geographical areas - the Zones and LocalProjects proposals. In line with this explanation, where Local Projects were proposed by groupsexternal to that community the Challenger making the proposal was more likely to be a formal group(charity or not-for-profit company). Where the proposal involved engaging with young people(youth schemes) or offering advice (including financial), as would be expected by the issues raised bythese type of activities, the Challengers making the proposals were more likely to have a formal legalstructure. The Public Buildings proposals were most likely to be proposed by (non-environmental)Charities – in this case because they were normally the owners of the building. Not all the Enterpriseproposals were from social enterprises however – early stage ones were often from informal groups.Challengers who came from a clear community of interest (Connections proposals or in a differentsense the Public Buildings) were least likely to have an existing environmental focus. Local Projectproposals with their tighter focus were most likely to be made by groups with an environmentalfocus. In some cases there was a link with formality: for example Zone proposals were made bothby informal environmentally focussed groups and by more formal groups (e.g. Development Trustsand Parish Councils) with existing interests in community services or economic regeneration.7.12.2 Carbon Reduction and Innovation GoalsApart from the obvious connections between non-residential energy use and the Public Buildingsand (the often school-based) Youth Scheme proposals, and a focus on residential energy in the localZones proposals, the spread of carbon reduction measures is fairly evenly distributed across theproposal types. Neither was the number of different measures a good differentiating factor, partlybecause some categories (particularly ‘awareness raising’ and some lifestyle ones) are very broadand because the inclusion of a measure does not give an indication of the relative emphasis itreceived in the proposal. All proposal types other than inventions have a strong focus on practicegoals which require behaviour change (strongest for Zones, Services and Youth Schemes) even whenthis would not be obvious from their name e.g. Public Buildings.Systemic proposals were most common in the Services and Zone proposal types but they variedsignificantly in the number of measures targeted with the services concentrating on broadawareness raising whereas the Zone proposals intended to address many more specific measures.The more ‘business-focussed’ proposal types Inventions and Enterprises were, by contrast, highlysingular with a focus on a product or core business activity.Appleby Ltd July 2009
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 141Overall the BGC proposals divided equally between exclusively regime proposals and those with atleast a niche element, however this was not the case within all proposal types. The finding thatServices focused mainly on regime changes is not surprising since they involved giving people adviceabout what they can do now (but it may indicate an aspect of the problem identified in the literatureabout niche innovation relating to the difficulty of such developments entering the mainstream).The relative lack of niche innovation goals in the Youth Schemes is perhaps more surprising but mayrelate to the short-term nature of engaging with children at a particular educational point. Zonesproposals are more evenly divided between regime and niche, but rarely feature exclusively nichemeasures. This suggests an interesting contrast with Service proposals in terms of how people mightbe introduced to niche ideas. Exclusively niche measures feature in Enterprises (focussed aroundrenewable and transport fuel technologies) and, less predictably, in Public Buildings (largelyrenewable energy). At the far end of the scale, Inventions are looking to the future and devisingnew tools and products, mostly outside the current carbon regime.7.12.3 Innovation ProcessesOpenness is a measure of the extent to which other actors were involved in the innovation and themost open of the proposals were those in which the Challengers were specifically looking forassistance to fill a skills gap – Local Projects requiring technical assistance, and Inventions requiringmarketing and development support. Otherwise Zones and Services were rather more open thanclosed. In the case of the Zones this may result from engagement in multiple activities involvingmany different people and agencies. Some professionally led Local Projects were rather closed andthis seemed to result from a Challenger having a clear idea of what to do, and the skills andexperience to carry it out, and so not seeing the need to involve other actors. This may be tounderestimate the value of local adaptation and ownership of changes that could come throughmore extensive engagement.Overall the proposals had ‘rich’ approaches to trying to change behaviour in that many worked inmultiple ways. Proposals from the Zones, Connections and Youth Schemes types have high numbersof proposals combining approaches which targeted understanding, action and values in theirapproach. However, since these assessments were based on an overview of each proposal in theround these approaches may not have been used in relation to the same carbon reduction goal(significant because the Zones proposals were doing a wide number and variety of things and theConnections proposals were often involved with different kinds of actors). However in relation tothe Youth Schemes proposals, it did seem to result more from Challengers’ culture and experienceworking in and with the education sector, and taking a more informed learning approach.The least common, but still significant, approach to changing behaviour was via values. TheConnections proposal type gave the approach the greatest emphasis – where it involved building ona strong community identity found in this category. Youth Schemes, and, to a slightly lesser extent,Zones were also significant here again focusing on a shared identity of people at a particular lifestage and people who lived in a particular place. This is a distinctive approach to building newnorms on the basis of existing community membership. It is perhaps surprising that Public Buildingshave a relatively low number of proposals taken this approach given the stress placed in theseproposals on providing an exemplar for how energy saving measures can be implemented inAppleby Ltd July 2009
Page 1:
Mappingthe BigGreenChallengeAn anal
Page 5:
9.5 Issues for the 3 rd Sector ....
Page 8 and 9:
iiExecutive Summaryto bring experie
Page 10 and 11:
ivExecutive SummaryConnections had
Page 15 and 16:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 11
Page 17 and 18:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 3em
Page 19 and 20:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 5th
Page 21 and 22:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 7ra
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 11e
Page 27 and 28:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 13S
Page 29 and 30:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 15T
Page 31 and 32:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 17c
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 21a
Page 37 and 38:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 23C
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 27M
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 37s
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 43H
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 47B
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 55i
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 59S
Page 75 and 76:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 61i
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 67M
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 75L
Page 91 and 92:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 77s
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Mapping the Big Green Challenge 83A
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 89C
Page 105 and 106: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 917
Page 107 and 108: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 93M
Page 109 and 110: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 95p
Page 111 and 112: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 97s
Page 113 and 114: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 99T
Page 153: Mapping the Big Green Challenge 139
show all

Mapping the Big Green Challenge - The Skills & Learning ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?