synthesis report: review of evidence on the use of reward ...psi.org.uk › pdf › 2015 ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Synthesis Report: Review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours (EV0528)
A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Policy Studies Institute. May 2013
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Tel: 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012 This publication is value added. If you wish to re-use this material, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/value-added-licence-information/index.htm Alternatively applications can be sent to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ; Fax: +44 (0)1603 723000; email: [email protected] Information about this publication is available from: Centre of Expertise on Influencing Behaviours Defra Zone 5C, 5th Floor, Ergon House c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Email: [email protected] Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Synthesis Report: Review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours (EV0528)
A research report completed for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs by Policy Studies Institute
May 2013
Suggested citation for this report: Bell, S., McGeevor, K., Mocca, E. and Shaw, B., (2013) ‘Synthesis Report: Review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours (EV0528)’ Policy Studies Institute. Defra, London. This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation; they do not necessarily reflect Defra policy or opinions.
This project was conducted by researchers in the Environment
Group of Policy Studies Institute - an interdisciplinary research
group whose aim is to inform progress towards a more
sustainable future, through the provision of robust,
independent, policy-focused research.
Policy Studies Institute is part of the University of Westminster.
Policy Studies Institute
50 Hanson Street,
London, W1W 6UP.
www.psi.org.uk
1
WHICH REPORT?
The findings from this research project are presented in five reports. This page is intended to guide
you towards the report that will be of greatest use for you. There is a synthesis, or summary report,
looking across the whole project. This is supported by a detailed report on the findings from each of
the three phases of the research, each of which presents a brief method statement and an
explanation of the underlying theory.
In addition there is a technical annex which provides a detailed method. It includes materials
relevant to the context or delivery of the project which would be required to repeat the approaches
used, but which are too lengthy or detailed for inclusion in the main reports, for example, the
scoping review search strategies and focus group topic guide.
Synthesis Report
This report moves towards an understanding of what makes an effective model for reward and
recognition schemes intended to encourage household waste-related behaviour change by drawing
on all three phases of the research. It draws out key practical implications for those involved in
developing, delivery or implementation of waste-related reward and recognition schemes.
Phase 1 Report: Scoping review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in
enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours
This report would be of most use for those interested in the detail of the evidence available
specifically related to waste-related behaviours.
It presents the findings from the Phase 1 of the project - a scoping literature review - which
identified and synthesised existing evidence on the role of reward and recognition schemes in
changing household waste behaviours.
Phase 2 Report: Scoping review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in
enhancing non-waste behaviours
This report, on the evidence from a literature with widened scope, would be of most use to those
interested in the wider evidence about the effectiveness of reward and recognition schemes in
changing behaviour.
There is a brief summary of cross-cutting findings, drawing out lessons applicable to household
waste-related behaviour change. The main body of the report consists of a series of mini-reviews
summarising the evidence identified in each behavioural area, which were: health, education,
volunteering and sustainable use of: food, water, transport and energy, volunteering.
Phase 3 Report: Case studies and focus groups exploring waste-related reward and recognition
schemes
This report would be of most use for those looking for descriptions and participant experiences of
real-world reward and recognition schemes to understand strengths and weaknesses of potential
models. Five case studies were developed, complemented by focus groups involving participants of
some of the case study schemes.
2
KEY LEARNING POINTS FOR REWARD AND RECOGNITION SCHEMES
This project has identified the following key learning points for the delivery of reward and
recognition schemes which are successful at encouraging recycling. They draw on two literature
reviews, five case studies and six supplementary focus groups conducted during the project, details
of which are given in the full technical reports and annexes accompanying this Synthesis Report.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK
The evidence reviewed emphasises the importance of providing publicity, information and feedback
alongside the rewards in order to show residents exactly what recycling they are required to do, why
they should be doing it, and how to do it (Maunder et al., 2003). This may be in the form of leaflets,
fact sheets, feedback cards, recycling guides, newsletters, advice hotlines, public service
announcements, booths at community events, or websites.
Public engagement
The types of rewards or recognition must be tailored to local concerns and interests. Public
engagement prior to and during the roll-out of any reward or recognition scheme is essential to
identify the types of rewards that carry the greatest motivational appeal for the target group, to
understand how best to appeal to their broader lifestyle attributes, provide credible branding, and
inform and provide choice through targeted messaging (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007; Maunder et al.,
2003). The tone of communications needs to be carefully considered, ensuring the use of consumer-
friendly language, and bearing in mind local cultural identities (Brook Lyndhurst, 2009).
Participants in the focus groups called for a choice of rewards. Each focus group, be it with new or
existing recyclers, included a mix of participants who felt more motivated by community-based
rewards and those calling for better and more appealing rewards for individuals.
Tailored feedback
The literature highlighted that incremental and carefully tailored feedback delivered at the point of
service can have a valuable influence on recycling rates (Harder and Woodard, 2007; Nomura et al.,
2011; Schultz, 1999). The need for regular communication and feedback was also noted (Brook
Lyndhurst, 2009; London Assembly, 2011a; Timlett and Williams, 2008), in part to overcome the
natural tendency for participation to plateau over time following the implementation of any
intervention, and in part to overcome the challenge of population transience.
Woollam et al. (2003) note the importance of providing positive feedback that recognises
community and individual household achievements. This was also an important finding to emerge
from the Phase 3 focus groups, in which participants emphasised the importance of hearing about
the positive community benefits of their actions.
Positive publicity
Based on the 2006 evaluation of Defra’s Household Waste Incentive Pilots, AEA Technology (2006)
emphasise the need to inspire positive publicity, for example in the local media and amongst
relevant stakeholders, which will serve to advertise the reward being offered, motivate people to
participate through recognition of it being a joint effort, maximise campaign reach, and recognise
3
and reward people for ongoing success. This links to the findings of Mitchell and Maunder (2005)
that the success of local authority-run voluntary reward schemes relies upon significant commitment
from support partners, such as charity partners coordinating the delivery of community rewards.
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Any successful scheme, whether reward-based or not, needs to be underpinned by comprehensively
planned, well-developed, and interconnected waste infrastructure (Fogarty et al., 2008). Reward
schemes intended to motivate engagement and raise awareness but that do not provide the
necessary supporting infrastructure will lead to a frustrated target audience unable to carry out the
intended action. Similarly, a poorly-promoted scheme with an excellent delivery system in place will
likely result in a lack of understanding and commitment (AEA Technology, 2006; London Assembly,
2011b; Maunder et al., 2003).
INTEGRATION INTO A WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The ad hoc nature of many incentive schemes (AEA Technology, 2006; Mitchell and Maunder, 2005),
relying upon staff time, creativity and enthusiasm has meant that schemes were rarely properly
integrated into wider household waste prevention approaches, nor was there any systematic
monitoring or evaluation of the schemes. Local authorities contacted as part of that research
(Mitchell and Maunder, 2005) suggested that greater understanding of the longer-term impacts of
such schemes relied upon more secure, long-term funding for scheme implementation, integration,
monitoring and evaluation. This need for more robust evaluation of future reward and recognition
schemes was a clear conclusion to emerge from both the Scoping Reviews and the case studies.
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THEIR EFFORTS MATCHED BY GOVERNMENT AND
INDUSTRY
Though not a new finding, a clear message from the literature reviewed is that consumers need to
feel that responsibility does not rest with them alone, as reflected in calls for greater producer and
retailer responsibility and reduction of waste at source (Maunder et al., 2003; Granville and
Mulholland, 2006). Common frustrations mentioned in the Phase 3 focus groups concerned the
barriers to recycling, reuse and repair resulting from irresponsible industry practices.
Box 1: Action plan for local authorities considering a new reward or recognition scheme
1. Undertake research locally to understand lifestyle trends and their impacts on the waste stream, and to identify the key barriers to improved recycling performance;
2. Identify the target audience and define measurable targets and objectives for a new scheme that will best address these barriers and appeal to the target audience;
3. Develop key messages to sell the benefits of a new scheme;
4. Engage stakeholders and partners to initiate and inspire action;
5. Ensure the necessary infrastructural and administrative support is available to the scheme;
6. Implement the scheme;
7. Monitor, review and evaluate regularly to quantify and ensure ongoing effectiveness of the scheme;
8. Feedback success to maintain motivation.
Based on AEA Technology (2006) and Maunder et al., (2003)
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Which report? ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Key learning points for reward and recognition schemes ...................................................................... 2
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Project aims and research questions .............................................................................................. 9
2.1 Aims......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................. 9
3. The theory behind rewards and recognition ................................................................................ 10
3.1 How are rewards thought to influence behaviour? .............................................................. 10
3.2 How is feedback or recognition expected to work? ............................................................. 10
4. Research methods and limitations ............................................................................................... 12
4.1 Scoping reviews..................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Case studies .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Focus groups ......................................................................................................................... 14
5. Evidence synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.1 How effective are reward and recognition schemes in changing behaviour?...................... 15
5.2 How cost effective are reward and recognition schemes in changing behaviour? .............. 17
5.3 Which types of rewards are most effective for which behaviours? ..................................... 18
5.4 What context-specific issues help or hinder the success of the schemes? .......................... 20
5.5 What are the effects of rewards on people who may already be engaging in the desired
behaviour? ........................................................................................................................................ 21
5.6 To what extent is the impact of any reward scheme limited over time? ............................. 22
5.7 Is there any evidence of increasing consumption trends as a result of the greater
purchasing power provided by rewards? ......................................................................................... 23
5.8 Is there any evidence that rewards targeting one type of behaviour can lead to greater
participation in another? .................................................................................................................. 23
5.9 A typology of reward and recognition schemes ................................................................... 24
6. Opportunities for future research ................................................................................................ 27
7. References .................................................................................................................................... 32
8. Annex 1. reward and recognition scheme details ........................................................................ 38
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Synthesis Report presents an overview of the findings from the project ‘Review of evidence on
the use of reward and recognition schemes in enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours’
(EV0528). The project was commissioned by Defra to explore the effectiveness of reward and
recognition schemes in promoting waste-related pro-environmental behaviour and was conducted
by Policy Studies Institute (PSI). It follows a commitment in the Coalition Government’s Plan for
Government to ‘encourage councils to pay people to recycle’ (HM Government, 2010: 17), and the
launch of several high-profile schemes which seek to encourage recycling through individual and
community rewards.
The key objective of the project was to assess critically and summarise the existing evidence about
the role of reward and recognition schemes in influencing behaviour, in particular, recycling and
waste prevention behaviours. The project aimed to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on
reward and recycling schemes in changing waste-related and recycling behaviours and also transferable
lessons from schemes focused on non-waste behaviours.
The central research question for the project was: How effective, and cost-effective, are reward
and recognition schemes in changing behaviour? The project sought to explore the context in which
rewards and recognition schemes have been administered to understand what works for which
behaviours, with whom, when and in conjunction with which other policy tools. Where possible, the
cost-effectiveness of reward and recognition schemes was explored.
Research Method
A phased approach was adopted in the research, with the findings of the first phase determining the
nature of activities undertaken in the second. The four overarching research tasks included:
Phase 1 Scoping Review: To identify and synthesise evidence on the role of reward and
recognition schemes in influencing recycling and waste prevention behaviours. Of 440 sources
identified, 74 were shortlisted for inclusion, 37 of which were used to inform the review.
Phase 2 Scoping Review: To identify and synthesise existing evidence on the role of reward and
recognition schemes in influencing non-waste related behaviours, focusing explicitly on non-
waste pro-environmental behaviours (sustainable transport, energy, water and food
consumption) and volunteering and those relating to health and education. Of 364 sources
identified, 119 were used to inform the review.
a. Phase 3 Case Study Analysis: Five exploratory case studies were undertaken in order to: capture
learning from current or recent recycling reward schemes which is not yet available within the
published literature; to understand the extent to which these schemes are being evaluated and
opportunities for an improved approach to evaluation in future schemes. The case studies
included: (1) a community Recycling Reward Scheme in Ealing, London; (2) a food waste
recycling feedback trial in Oldham, Manchester; (3) the Marks and Spencer/Oxfam Clothes
Exchange, nationwide; (4) the Golden Ticket scheme, rewarding household recycling
participation with equipment for local schools in Wythenshaw, Manchester; and (5) a scheme
offering individual rewards, ‘Recyclebank’, run in the Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead, in Halton, and more recently in Lambeth in London.
b. Focus Groups: to complement the findings of the reviews and case studies, six focus groups
were held with participants of three of the schemes included in the case study analysis. These
6
aimed to explore participants’ perceptions of and responses to rewards, and how these vary
between low and medium-high recyclers.
The project was a scoping study, intended to gain an initial understanding of the state of the existing
evidence base, and to use this evidence to highlight emerging research needs and opportunities for
these to be addressed within ongoing and future reward and recognition schemes. As such, the
findings are limited by the quality of the existing evidence available.
Considerations for future reward and recognition schemes
The evidence base on the use of rewards and recognition to influence behaviour is currently patchy
and incomplete. In relation to waste, much of the research and policy effort has focused on recycling
rather than wider waste prevention activities such as repair, reuse and waste reduction.
Across the non-waste pro-environmental behaviours, there is: most evidence on the use of rewards
in the fields of health and, to a lesser extent, education; very limited evidence of the use of rewards
or feedback to influence sustainable water consumption or food-related behaviours; growing
evidence of the use of rewards to encourage sustainable transport (though this has not been widely
captured in the peer-reviewed academic literature); and significant evidence of the use of feedback
(but not rewards) to influence household energy conservation behaviour.
Based on the evidence reviewed within both Scoping Reviews and the Case Studies, and the issues
raised during the focus groups, we highlight conclusions for researchers, practitioners and policy-
makers engaged in current and future reward and recognition schemes or trials. Given the significant
evidence gaps identified we also highlight opportunities for future research and evidence gathering
on reward and recognition schemes.
Isolating the impact of rewards or recognition. There is a lack of robust evidence that successfully
isolates the specific impact of rewards or feedback on recycling and waste prevention behaviour
from the confounding impacts of accompanying activities such as communications, and
infrastructure improvements. Future reward or recognition schemes would benefit from more
rigorous evaluation approaches, ideally using randomised or matched control groups.
Understanding the differential effects of rewards on recycling compared to wider waste
prevention activities. There is some indication from the non-waste literature that rewards are most
effective in influencing simple, infrequent behaviours, or in encouraging initial engagement in more
complex habitual behaviours, with additional support needed to sustain engagement. Future trials
could usefully evaluate the influence of rewards and/or feedback on more infrequent repair and
reuse decisions in comparison to routine, habitual recycling activities.
Understanding which rewards are the most salient for different target groups. Greater public
engagement is needed prior to rolling out any future reward or recognition scheme to understand
which rewards will be most salient to the target populations and what additional support they may
need. Does the value of the reward matter? Are there thresholds in reward value at which different
groups respond? Or are certain groups more likely to respond to rewards? Does the framing of the
reward matter – how can they be presented to acknowledge achievements without creating an
expectation of additional rewards in response to sustained behavioural changes in the future?
Public awareness of waste disposal and recycling costs. Mentioned in the literature and focus group
participants was a feeling amongst the public that if they are recycling more, this should be reflected
7
in their council tax bills. At the same time, there were calls for a more comprehensive recycling
service, in which more materials are collected. This tension between a desire for reductions in
council tax alongside the provision of a more comprehensive (and therefore expensive) kerbside
recycling service could usefully be explored further.
Measuring performance. Focus group participants noted the importance of fairness when designing
schemes. Concerns were raised, for example, that weight-based schemes effectively penalise
individuals who are making waste reduction decisions at the point of purchase and smaller
households who will likely generate less recycling. At the same time, the literature reviewed notes a
lack of conclusive evidence concerning the impact and cost-effectiveness of reward or feedback
schemes that are based on contamination rates rather than weight. This suggests a need for future
schemes to trial the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of rewards for recycling the correct items
and/or for reducing waste, rather than relying solely on weight-based or self-report systems.
Are rewards needed or is recognition sufficient? Whilst both reviews identified studies that have
explored the behavioural impact of providing feedback to study participants, very few studies were
identified that evaluated the impact of tangible rewards in comparison to the impact of feedback. Do
all individuals need a tangible reward or is verbal/written recognition sufficient? What is the
potential for introducing award-based schemes where rewards deliver reputational – rather than
tangible monetary or gift-based – benefits?
How can reward and recognition schemes be designed to encourage spillover? Very little evidence
was identified that explored the potential for rewards or recognition to influence behaviours beyond
the primary target behaviour (‘spillover’). The Phase 2 Review suggested that competition-based
schemes tend to attract those who are more ‘ecologically conscious’ who are more likely to
demonstrate spillover behaviours. Further research could explore the potential to use competition-
based models to encourage spillover behaviours amongst medium or high recyclers.
Do reward schemes promote consumption? A concern that is commonly raised in response to
proposals to introduce reward schemes is that monetary rewards could promote increased
consumption and thereby enhance waste generation. Neither review found any studies that have
explored this systematically; a gap which could usefully be addressed within evaluations of future
reward schemes. If schemes are seen to be increasing consumption, further research could explore
how such schemes could be redesigned to avoid such increases.
Longevity of behaviour change. Our reviews found very little research exploring the longevity of
behaviour changes triggered by different types of reward or feedback schemes. There is a need to
include a resource allocation for longer-term monitoring in evaluation budgets, and to identify how
best to sustain longer-term changes in behaviour following the implementation of a reward. Is it
better to reincentivise or to communicate with and educate residents continually to maintain their
interest in preventing waste?
Targeting moments of change. Though not a focus of this work, one area for further research is the
potential to target rewards on individuals undergoing transitions and moments of change, for
example new residents in an area who have not yet established their routines and habitual
behaviours. The potential for taking advantage of such windows of opportunity could usefully be
explored in future reward/feedback schemes, particularly given the finding in the existing literature
that highly transient populations are often harder to engage in recycling initiatives.
8
1. INTRODUCTION
This Synthesis Report presents an overview of the findings of the Defra-funded project undertaken
by Policy Studies Institute (PSI); ‘Review of evidence on the use of reward and recognition schemes in
enhancing recycling and waste prevention behaviours’ (EV0528). The project was commissioned to
explore the effectiveness of reward and recognition schemes in promoting waste-related pro-
environmental behaviour. It follows a commitment in the Coalition Government’s Plan for
Government to ‘encourage councils to pay people to recycle’ (HM Government, 2010), and the
launch of several high-profile schemes which aim to encourage recycling through rewards.
While waste composition analysis suggests that over two-thirds of the UK’s household waste (68%)
can be recycled or composted (Parfitt, 2002) and the amount of UK waste sent to landfill has
gradually decreased in recent years, the actual proportion of household waste that is recycled,
composted or re-used remains at 40.1% (Defra, 2011a). A variety of approaches have been used to
encourage recycling and waste prevention, such as improved kerbside infrastructure, education to
reframe waste as a resource, communication and feedback, leading by example, and taxes and
charges (disincentives) (Pocock et al., 2008).
Far fewer examples are apparent of the use of positive incentives - rewards and recognition - in
encouraging recycling and waste prevention behaviours (Harder and Woodard, 2007; Shaw and
Maynard, 2008; Timlett and Williams, 2008). The schemes that have been implemented tend to be
small, short-term pilots (AEA Technology, 2006; Maunder et al., 2003), primarily focused on recycling
rather than wider waste prevention behaviour. This project was therefore intended to identify,
assess and summarise the available evidence on reward and recognition schemes.
In this Synthesis Report, we briefly describe the project’s aims and methods, summarise the theory
underpinning reward and recognition schemes, present the cross-cutting findings from the evidence
gathered, and conclude with a discussion of the potential for future schemes to address gaps in the
evidence base on the use of reward and recognition schemes to influence recycling and waste
prevention behaviour.
What do we mean by ‘positive incentives’?
Incentives may be classified as ‘antecedent’ or ‘consequence’ intervention strategies (Abrahamse et
al., 2005). Antecedent incentives are provided prior to the performance of the desired behaviour, and
are assumed to work by influencing determinants of that behaviour, for example, offering new
residents a free bus pass to give them means to ‘test’ the local public transport system. Consequence
incentives are provided after the performance of the desired behaviour in order to ‘reward’ that
behaviour and encourage its continued performance (Breukers et al., 2009). Consequence incentives
may be provided unexpectedly following the behaviour, or promised beforehand in an effort to
motivate the behavioural change. They may be provided purely for engaging in a desired behaviour, or
could be contingent on achieving specific outcomes. They may involve tangible gifts (cash or
equivalents) or may constitute a more symbolic verbal reward (otherwise known as ‘positive
feedback’). Each of these differences has important implications for how incentives are perceived by
recipients and for how they do or do not influence behaviour. This project focused primarily on the use
of consequence incentives, which reward or recognise participation in a desired behaviour, rather than
directly enable it. However, a number of the schemes are accompanied by changes in the collection
systems for waste and recycling or approaches to communication with target participants.
9
2. PROJECT AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
2.1 AIMS
The key objective of this project was to assess critically and summarise the existing evidence about
the role of reward and recognition schemes in influencing behaviour, focussing on schemes targeted
at recycling and waste prevention behaviours in particular. The project aimed to identify and
synthesise the existing evidence on reward and recycling schemes in changing waste-related and
recycling behaviours and also transferable lessons schemes focused on non-waste behaviours.
The project sought to explore the context in which rewards and recognition schemes have been
administered to date to understand what works for which behaviours, with whom, when and in
conjunction with which other policy tools. Where possible, the cost-effectiveness of reward and
recognition schemes was explored.
2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The overarching research question kept in mind throughout each phase of the project was:
How effective and cost-effective are reward and recognition schemes in changing behaviour?
Beneath this lay a number of more specific research questions:
1. Which types of rewards are likely to be most effective for which behaviours?
2. How does the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individual rewards compare with collective
rewards?
3. What context-specific issues help or hinder the success of reward and recognition schemes?
4. What package of approaches is more likely to lead to the success of the scheme, including most
effective mechanisms for communicating feedback?
5. What are the effects of rewards and/or feedback on people who may already be engaging in a
particular behaviour and what do the most successful schemes do to encourage those already
participating to continue to do so?
6. Is there any evidence of adverse outcomes of such schemes, such as increasing consumption
trends with greater purchasing power?
7. To what extent is the impact of any reward or feedback scheme limited over time? What does
the evidence suggest is likely to be effective in helping embed new behaviours over time?
10
3. THE THEORY BEHIND REWARDS AND RECOGNITION
In this section, as context to the following sections, we introduce the theories informing the way in
which rewards and recognition are expected to influence behaviour, drawing on the literature from
both scoping reviews. Full details are available in the accompanying technical reports.
3.1 HOW ARE REWARDS THOUGHT TO INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR?
Reward-based interventions are based on economic and psychological theories about what drives
human behaviour. From an economic perspective, tangible rewards are assumed to provide extrinsic
motivation through overcoming personal costs (money, time- or effort-related) of undertaking the
desired behaviour or through increasing the financial benefit of doing so. From a psychological
perspective, the promise of a financial reward contingent on performing a specific behaviour is
thought to provide the extrinsic motivation needed to encourage behavioural change amongst those
whose intrinsic motivation is low (Jochelson, 2007). In addition, the provision of a reward can have a
‘signalling’ effect, raising awareness about the importance of the specific behaviour; this
demonstrates the potential ‘attention effect’ of rewards (Breukers et al., 2009).
Much debate surrounds the impact of offering tangible rewards to those whose intrinsic motivation
is already high. Frey’s theory of motivational ‘crowding out’ (Frey and Jegen, 2001) suggests that
extrinsic rewards can serve to ‘crowd out’ or undermine intrinsic motivations, since their
implementation underestimates the influence of wider social context on behaviour and the degree
to which individuals are motivated to act for pro-social reasons (Dobson, 2010). Frey suggests
‘crowding out’ effects could occur when: (a) the external reward is seen as controlling and therefore
lowers an individual’s level of self determination (i.e. their sense of competence, autonomy and
personal commitment), such that intrinsic motivation is substituted by extrinsic control; or (b) an
individual’s intrinsic motivations for participating are not openly acknowledged or appreciated by
the external reward-based intervention (Frey and Jegen, 2001). In the reverse circumstances, that is
when external reward-based interventions are seen as supportive and non-controlling, Frey (2007)
suggests they may ‘crowd in’ intrinsic motivation, through encouraging self-determination and
fostering self-esteem.
Very little research has been carried out to date to explore the existence of crowding out (or
crowding in) in real-world situations. Drawing on the findings of two meta-analyses of laboratory-
based experiments and econometric studies on crowding out (Cameron and Pierce, 1994; Deci et al.,
1999), it is suggested that interventions based on verbal or written feedback to participants may be
more successful in encouraging longer-lasting shifts towards desirable human behaviours. Feedback
may be based on the outcomes of personal behavioural efforts (individual feedback) or on the basis
of collective efforts (group feedback). Feedback may include a comparison, for example with
personal efforts made in the past (historic feedback) or with the efforts made by a meaningful
comparison group, such as other households living along the same street.
3.2 HOW IS FEEDBACK OR RECOGNITION EXPECTED TO WORK?
Darby (2010a), considering the area of energy, notes a range of theories that can provide valuable
insights into the potential mechanisms of feedback-based behavioural interventions, drawing from
those developed in economics, sociology, psychology and education.
11
The explanation based on the theory of rational economic actors is that energy is a commodity and
consumers will adapt their usage in response to price signals. However, the evidence for this is
mixed; for example, if this mechanism were strong, far greater investment in energy efficiency
measures would be expected in the home following fuel price rises (Darby, 2010a; Hargreaves et al.,
2010). Increasingly, insights from behavioural economics are being applied to feedback-based
interventions, drawing on Thaler and Sunstein’s ‘nudge’ theory, defined as ‘any aspect of the choice
architecture1 that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or
significantly changing their economic incentives’ (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008: 8, cited in House of
Lords, 2011). The provision of norm-based feedback could be considered a ‘nudge’ as it exploits
individuals’ natural tendencies to measure the appropriateness of their behaviour through assessing
how far they are from a prevailing social norm and adjusting their behaviour accordingly.
A perhaps more holistic view may be gained from sociological theories, which recognise that many
of the challenges in encouraging household energy conservation stem from the fact that energy use
is largely invisible, occurs through the performance of habitual, routine practices that are hardly
reflected upon in everyday life, and is shaped and constrained by complex socio-technical systems
and prevailing expectations of comfort (Darby, 2010a; Marechal, 2010; Shove, 2003 cited in Ellegård
and Palm, 2011). ‘Practice theory’ suggests that providing frequent and relevant feedback on energy
use can ‘make consumption visible, bring it more within the perceived control of the energy user, and
demonstrate the success or otherwise of different actions, behaviour patterns and investments’
(Darby, 2010a). Such sociological theories highlight the limitations of single, standalone
interventions for achieving sustained change in the long-term; interventions need to address the
wider socio-technical system in which energy use decisions are made.
Drawing on psychological theories, feedback may be expected to work through enhancing
individuals’ self-efficacy with respect to conserving energy (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Bandura, 1986
cited in Grønhøj and Thøgersen, 2011). Appropriate feedback is thought to ‘empower’ consumers to
save energy, improving self-efficacy through: (a) increasing and improving individuals’ and
households’ knowledge about their electricity consumption and how it relates to their individual and
collective behaviour; (b) enhancing individuals’ sense of competence, creating ‘mastery experiences’
whereby individuals are able to see positive outcomes of their efforts; and (c) providing additional
social encouragement and support in their efforts (Bandura, 1986 cited in Grønhøj and Thøgersen,
2011). On the flip side, feedback which reveals poor performance could decrease motivation.
Finally, educational theorists highlight that energy users are not a uniform category of learners but a
‘mixed ability, mixed age class’, with differing levels of skill and understanding and varied learning
motivations, and will ascribe different meanings to information (Darby, 2010a). With this in mind,
feedback is thought to have a role in teaching energy and management skills (Darby, 2010a).
Grønhøj and Thøgersen (2011) suggest the success of a feedback system may in part be judged on its
ability to impart improved ‘energy literacy’ to electricity consumers, propagating a ‘virtuous cycle’ of
learning and energy-efficient action.
The rest of this report draws on the two scoping literature reviews, five case studies and six focus
groups conducted during this project to provide a brief summary of the existing evidence on the
effects of tangible rewards and feedback on human behaviour.
1 ‘Choice architecture’ refers to the physical and social environment in which an individual makes choices.
12
4. RESEARCH METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The main elements of the project were two scoping literature reviews, five exploratory case studies
and six focus groups. A phased approach to the research was adopted, with the findings of the first
phase determining activities undertaken in the second phase as shown in Figure 1.
Scoping Review II: Use of reward
and recognition to influence non-
waste behavioursPhase 2
Phase 3Produce final technical report
Scoping Review I: Use of reward
and recognition to influence waste
prevention and recycling
behaviours
Case study identification (x5)
and initial analysisPhase 1
Milestone 1: Interim report 1
(Phase I review + initial case study findings)
Milestone 2: Interim report 2
(Phase II review)
Produce final summary report
Case study final analysis
6 x focus groups with case study
participants
Milestone 2: Interim report 2
(Focus groups + revised case studies)
Figure 1 Structure of research
4.1 SCOPING REVIEWS
For both reviews, the key elements of Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) were followed, including a
systematic search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality assessment of sources2. The
literature was supplemented by ‘Calls for Information’ through relevant research networks and
personal contact with experts. Details of the methods used can be found in the technical reports and
annex.
PHASE 1 SCOPING REVIEW: WASTE BEHAVIOURS
The aims of the first review were to:
a. Identify and synthesise evidence on the role of reward and recognition schemes in
influencing recycling and waste prevention behaviours;
b. Determine the volume of high quality literature (see discussion below for a definition of
‘high’ quality) on the topic.
Following the screening of 440 titles and abstracts, 74 were shortlisted for full review, with 37 used
to inform the synthesis.
PHASE 2 SCOPING REVIEW – NON-WASTE BEHAVIOURS
In light of the evidence gaps identified in the Phase 1 Scoping Review, a second review (the ‘Phase 2
Scoping Review’), was undertaken in order to:
2 Rapid Evidence Assessment techniques are discussed in the Government Social Research ‘Rapid Evidence Assessment
Toolkit’ at http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-assessment.
13
a. Identify and synthesise existing evidence on the role of reward and recognition schemes in
influencing non-waste related behaviours, focusing explicitly on non-waste pro-
environmental behaviours (sustainable transport, energy, water and food consumption) and
volunteering3 and those relating to health and education4;
a. Highlight opportunities for testing insights gained from these wider behavioural areas in
future waste-related reward and recognition schemes.
Following the screening of sources on the basis of titles and abstracts/executive summaries, 364
articles were shortlisted, 119 of these were used to inform the synthesis. In addition, a number of
initiatives that have not yet been captured in the literature were identified through correspondence
with expert stakeholders5.
Review limitations: While the reviews drew on elements of REA they should be considered Scoping
Reviews. As detailed in the search strategies in the Technical Annex, tight limits were placed on the
search terms, databases and search time-frames, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied
to ensure manageable retrieval of data and minimise selection bias. Due to the limited number of
high quality peer-reviewed sources identified, some literature of medium quality was included in the
review, however any quality caveats are clearly indicated.
PHASE 3 CASE STUDIES
The Phase 1 Review was supplemented by five exploratory case studies, which sought to provide
insights into the functioning of existing schemes. The following schemes were selected:
Case Study 1: Recycling Reward Scheme, Ealing, London
Case study 2: Feedback on Food Waste Recycling Trial, Oldham
Case study 3: Marks and Spencer/Oxfam Clothes Exchange
Case study 4: Manchester Golden Ticket Recycling
Case study 5: Recyclebank (Windsor and Maidenhead, Berkshire and Halton, Cheshire).
Multiple data sources were used within each case study to enable methodological triangulation.
Case Studies 4 and 5 (Windsor and Maidenhead only) were also the subject of participant focus
groups to again first hand insights into perceptions and experiences. Descriptions of the five case
studies and other examples of schemes mentioned in this report are given in Annex 1 to this report
and the separate Technical Annex.
Case study limitations: Whilst these sources did provide valuable insights into the schemes, it should
be noted that no robust evaluation data was available for any of the five schemes6. Monitoring data
was provided but without the methodological details needed to assess the reliability of the data; and
also no qualitative research had been undertaken to understand the observed trends, so the
explanations given were based on personal observations from scheme representatives. These
factors significantly limit the potential to draw robust reliable conclusions and the case studies are
3 All of which are thought to show similarities with other non-waste related pro-environmental and civic behaviours.
4 Two areas in which incentives have been used more widely, though it is recognised the context may be very different.
5 Where these are referred to the extent to which they have been evaluated is noted and findings caveated accordingly.
6An issue which is being addressed in Defra’s recently commissioned Reward and Recognition pilots:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/consumer/reward-scheme/.
14
therefore only touched on briefly within this Synthesis Report. Their primary value is in reiterating
the need for rigorous monitoring and evaluation of future reward and recognition schemes.
PHASE 3 FOCUS GROUPS
Six focus groups were conducted to explore three schemes from the Phase 1 & 3 Case Study analysis.
These were: 1) the Golden Ticket community reward scheme in Manchester (Case Study 4), and the
Recyclebank reward schemes targeting individuals in 2) Windsor and Maidenhead (one of the
locations of Case Study 5) and, more recently, 3) Lambeth.
The focus groups conducted in each scheme area consisted of 7-10 participants, recruited to ensure
appropriate group composition, in terms of demographics and recycling habits. For each scheme: (i)
one group was held with new recyclers and (ii) another with existing recyclers who already recycled
conscientiously prior to the scheme, driven largely by intrinsic motivation. These groups were
chosen to allow consideration of how perceptions of, and reported responses to, the scheme vary
between low and medium-to-high recyclers, and potentially to explore the existence of any
‘motivational crowding out’ effects. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. The full topic guide for each
focus group is presented in Annex 5 of the Technical Annex (though the scheme-specific section of
the guide was tailored for each scheme in question). The themes covered may be broadly
summarised as:
Perceptions of the scheme;
Positive and negative aspects of the scheme;
Attitudes to individual versus community rewards;
Appeal of the specific rewards provided and whether or not they are used as a cash
replacement;
The degree to which the scheme has raised awareness/interest in wider waste prevention
behaviours, such as repair, reduce and reuse.
How participants would modify or redesign the scheme to encourage sustained behaviour
change.
Analysis: All focus groups were recorded and transcribed and the transcripts analysed using the
qualitative analysis software, Nvivo 9.
Focus group limitations: The focus groups were not intended to be representative and the findings
should not be generalised to all scheme participants or the general population; the sample size is
small and we recruited only those who are currently recycling and therefore cannot comment on the
perspectives of those who have not engaged in the schemes, or why they may not have done so.
Nonetheless, the findings do provide valuable insights into the scheme attributes that are reportedly
encouraging engagement amongst those who previously reported recycling very little, and highlight
a variety of scheme perceptions and self-reported participant responses to the concept of rewarding
people for recycling, which could usefully be tested in future schemes.
15
5. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
This section summarises the cross-cutting findings emerging from the two Scoping Reviews, the case
studies and focus groups in relation to the project’s research questions7. Whilst acknowledging that
scoping rather than systematic reviews were undertaken, limited high quality evidence8 was
identified on the use of reward and recognition to influence the behavioural areas under review. As
a result, this section includes findings drawn from both high and medium quality sources, but
highlights concerns about quality where appropriate.
Much of the research and policy effort in relation to waste has focused on recycling rather than
wider waste prevention activities. As such, the findings reported in this section primarily relate to
recycling unless otherwise stated.
Findings from the non-waste literature are also included where they highlight potentially useful
hypotheses that could be tested in future waste-related reward and recognition trials. Across the
non-waste pro-environmental behaviours considered, the review identified:
the most peer-reviewed evidence on the use of rewards and incentives in the fields of health
and, to a lesser extent, education;
very limited evidence of the use of rewards or feedback to influence sustainable water
consumption or food-related behaviours;
growing evidence of the use of rewards to encourage sustainable transport (though this has
not been widely captured in the peer-reviewed academic literature); and
significant evidence of the use of feedback (but not rewards) to influence household energy
conservation behaviour (much of which has been peer-reviewed).
Descriptions of the main reward and recognition schemes named in the text are given in Annex 1 at
the end of this report.
5.1 HOW EFFECTIVE ARE REWARD AND RECOGNITION SCHEMES IN CHANGING
BEHAVIOUR?
The evidence available on the use of rewards and recognition to influence recycling suggests their
effectiveness may vary with the type of reward (for example, definite versus probabilistic, individual
versus community rewards – as discussed below), the target group and the reward value.
The Phase 1 Review included seven UK references that reported on surveys exploring attitudes to,
motivations for, or barriers to, recycling. Whilst these surveys track attitudes rather than behaviours
(and are also subject to social desirability bias), improvements to infrastructure and service provision
or to education and communication were more frequently volunteered by respondents than
financial incentives in response to open questions about what would encourage them to recycle
more (Maunder et al., 2003; Pocock et al., 2008). However, positive incentives are consistently rated
more highly than any form of waste charge. Though not peer reviewed, these surveys generally
found that attitudes to recycling reward schemes varied between recyclers and non-recyclers, with
7 The in-depth findings are presented, behaviour-by-behaviour, in the accompanying technical reports.
8 Sources deemed to be of ‘high’ quality included all peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Also included in this
category were government-commissioned reports. However, as with all sources reviewed, care was taken during the data extraction process to note any sources of potential bias (e.g. relating to sampling approach, methods adopted, analysis etc.), together with any concerns about unexplained or unsubstantiated conclusions made within the sources.
16
some indication that low-medium recyclers tend to perceive rewards more favourably than existing
recyclers (Brook Lyndhurst, 2005 and unpublished).
Within the Phase 3 focus groups, participants conveyed positive perceptions of the use of rewards
for recycling. The low to medium recyclers reported greater recycling effort as a result of the reward
schemes9, even though many participants were yet to redeem the points they had collected10.
Amongst the high recyclers, the self-reported behavioural impact of rewards was limited, but no
adverse impacts were identified. High recyclers tended to see the rewards as ‘something for nothing’
and a positive recognition of their efforts. In particular, in the Maidenhead focus groups, participants
highlighted their appreciation of the Council’s decision to introduce a reward scheme for households
at a time when other councils in the country were introducing fines; ‘that made me feel sort of warm
towards the whole thing and that’s why I got actively involved in it’ [existing recycler, Maidenhead].
Whilst many of these participants were yet to redeem any rewards, it seems the reward scheme
changed the nature of the relationship between the focus group participants and the Council,
making them more predisposed to engage in the scheme.
Little evidence was identified in either Scoping Review that successfully isolates the specific impact
of rewards or recognition from the confounding impacts of additional or related activities - such as
communications campaigns and infrastructure improvements - that typically accompany the launch
of new schemes. Although there is evidence of specific schemes effectively promoting waste
prevention behaviours, there is no conclusive evidence that attributes effect size (that is, the size of
the impact) to the different scheme components (Schultz, 1999). So while the Recyclebank (Case
Study 5), for example, has led to increased recycling participation rates11, it is not clear how much of
this increase is due to the reward scheme itself and how much is a result of the accompanying
communications activity or the fact that participants find the single recycling container easier to use.
We found only one Randomised Control Trial (Nomura et al., 2011) that attributed observed
increases in food waste recycling participation directly to the specific intervention (in this instance, a
short-term feedback trial – Case Study 2).
A finding emerging from the Phase 2 Scoping Review on health behaviours is that rewards appear
most effective in encouraging simple one-off behaviours (Jochelson, 2007; Sutherland, 2008), rather
than more complex habitual behaviours that require sustained and repeated effort. However, it
should be noted that the barriers to changing the health behaviours under study are very different
to those limiting waste-related behaviours; for example, the personal psychological barriers to
engaging in smoking cessation, healthier eating or physical activity programmes are significantly
greater than those preventing participation in recycling or many other household pro-environmental
behaviours such as reducing energy use or purchasing energy-efficient products. The health
literature does suggest that the success of rewards for these more complex behaviours may be in
encouraging initial engagement and discussion, with additional measures supporting sustained
change in the longer-term (discussed below).
9 Though it should be kept in mind that focus groups can only discern self-reported behaviours which do not always reflect
actual behaviours. 10
Given the small sample size, we cannot comment on whether this is true for the wider population of non to low recyclers, particularly since we did not hold groups with those who are still not recycling despite registering for the Recyclebank scheme.
11 As indicated by the recycling rate data recently released: http://www.Recyclebank.com/corporateinfo/index/pressreleasearticle/id/164
17
Though not explored in depth, a small number of sources suggest the actual reward may not be
directly responsible for observed changes in behaviour, but this requires further exploration in
future research. Three studies identified in the health field (Kane et al., 2004; Sutherland et al.
2008), for example, measured significant changes in simple behaviours as a result of a reward-based
intervention, but observed that few participants actually claimed the rewards provided, including
taxi vouchers, free bus passes and clinic fee vouchers. Similarly, in the energy field, few of the
winners of the Dormitory Energy Competition (see Annex 1 for a summary of the trial) attended the
ice-cream party, organised as the prize for the dormitory that achieved the greatest energy use
reductions (Petersen et al., 2007). This aligns with the findings of one recycling reward-based
experimental trial (Harder and Woodard, 2007) highlighted in the Phase 1 Review, which notes low
leisure voucher redemption rates (between 8 and 11%), despite large increases in recycling
participation and no other changes in service provision.
Whilst acknowledging the small sample size, a similar finding was identified in the Phase 3 focus
groups with Recyclebank participants; whilst participants reported collecting their recycling points,
many were yet to redeem the points for actual rewards. In part this was due to the limited appeal of
the rewards currently available and the belief that additional rewards may be introduced to the
schemes in the future. In part, it was due to the logistics of redeeming rewards; for example, those
without access to a printer were discouraged by the delay between choosing the rewards online and
receiving vouchers through the post, and others reported simply forgetting to carry the appropriate
vouchers when shopping.
5.2 HOW COST EFFECTIVE ARE REWARD AND RECOGNITION SCHEMES IN
CHANGING BEHAVIOUR?
Very few sources in either review (or the case studies) discussed the cost-effectiveness of the reward
or feedback intervention under study. The very limited number of recycling-related studies identified
that compared the use of feedback and rewards suggest feedback may be a more cost-effective
mechanism to use, particularly where significant recycling effort is wasted through contaminated
loads (Harder and Woodard, 2007; Timlett and Williams, 2008). However, this result appeared to be
dependent on the mechanism by which rewards and feedback are awarded (e.g. on the basis of
individual versus communal recycling loads, weight-based versus composition-based) Shaw and
Maynard, 2008). Existing research proves inconclusive on whether monetary rewards impact
positively on contamination rates and future research could usefully explore this further.
In the Phase 2 Review, a small number of studies in the areas of health (Kavanagh et al., 2006) and
volunteering (Seyfang, 2003, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b and 2009b) did note the vulnerability of reward-
based schemes to funding cuts or changes in funding priorities. Also highlighted in the health field
was the risk that reward-based schemes tackling long-term complex behaviours can be resource-
intensive as they require constant monitoring and logging of behaviours. On the other hand, a
number of studies, such as the Food Dudes healthier eating intervention for schools (Horne et al.,
2004; Lowe et al., 2004) and the Personal Travel Planning programmes (DfT, 2005; Williamson,
forthcoming), illustrated that rewards need not be large or expensive as long as they are salient to
the recipients and combined with complementary interventions.
18
5.3 WHICH TYPES OF REWARDS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR WHICH
BEHAVIOURS?
Unsurprisingly, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to rewards; different people will respond to
different rewards in different ways depending on the nature of the reward, the behaviour in
question, and the existence or perceived existence of wider socio-technical constraints to change.
Nonetheless, more specific insights can be drawn from the non-waste literature which could be
explored further in future waste-related reward or recognition trials.
Firstly, cash-based rewards may be effective in encouraging simple changes amongst low-income
and/or vulnerable groups, particularly where they lower the financial barriers to entry. This was
apparent in the peer-reviewed health literature relating to the provision of cash rewards to
reimburse the costs (e.g. transport, childcare) of attending immunisation, screening, and pre- or
post-natal care appointments (Jochelson, 2007; Sutherland et al, 2008). It was also observed in the
(non peer-reviewed) Merseyside ‘Let’s Get Moving’ scheme which offered free bus passes and
bicycles to ensure transport affordability for those transitioning from welfare to work (Lucas,
forthcoming). On the other hand, a journal article that explored the impact of providing rebates for
solar panels (Higgins et al., 2011) suggests little uptake by low-income groups, since the panels were
still perceived as too costly even with the rebate. The differential impact of monetary rewards on
low and higher income households was hinted at within the Phase 1 Review (Bennett et al., 2008;
London Assembly, 2011b), but no trials had systematically tested this in relation to waste prevention
behaviours. One peer-reviewed study identified in the Phase 1 Review highlighted that, where
vouchers are used, they need to be redeemable locally and in appealing locations (Harder and
Woodard, 2007).
Based on the limited evidence available, probabilistic rewards (such as prize draw entries) tend to be
less appealing than guaranteed rewards (AEA Technology, 2006; Bennett et al., 2008, Ongondo and
Williams, 2011a), though this may vary depending on the value and nature of the prize (as also
mentioned by the Phase 3 focus group participants). No studies were identified that have
systematically looked into the threshold at which such a prize becomes an effective reward for
changing behaviour.
In relation to recycling, evidence from Europe has found deposit schemes to operate effectively
(Fogarty et al., 2008). Council tax incentives are often favoured by participants in survey-based
studies (a preference also apparent within the Phase 3 focus group discussions), though support
wanes when the likely details of such schemes (particularly the potential value of the rebate) are
explained (Brook Lyndhurst, 2009; Maunder et al., 2003). Whilst we did not identify any recycling-
related experimental trials in which council tax rebates or reductions have been introduced, British
Gas works in partnership with several UK local authorities to offer residents council tax rebates for
investing in home insulation12. This scheme may provide a useful opportunity to explore the
potential for such reductions to influence household behaviour.
Both the Phase 1 and 2 scoping reviews highlight the importance of undertaking public engagement
prior to rolling out any reward or recognition scheme, in order to understand which rewards (or
recognition) will be most salient to the target populations. Very few trials explained why they had
chosen the particular reward in question or how they expected it to motivate the target group, and
12
See: http://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy-efficiency/products/home-insulation/council-tax-rebate-scheme.html
19
few indicate trying to understand the interests or needs of their target population prior to
implementing the trial. The rewards used in the Food Dudes healthier eating intervention (Horne et
al., 2004; Lowe at al., 2004) (evaluated in a peer-reviewed study, summarised in Annex 1) were
designed on the basis of prior research exploring children’s preferences and the types of rewards
they would likely respond to, with the ‘Food Dude’-branded stickers and stationery proving popular.
Although not formally evaluated, discussions with Merseyside TravelWise noted the effectiveness of
offering stickers to primary school children; identifying them as a simple but alluring reward for that
age group. For older children, there is some indication in the grey literature that leisure-related
rewards may be effective; for example, the free cinema tickets provided in the Merseyside ‘Big
Walk’, the cinema tickets and retail vouchers offered by the Step2Get scheme (Bird, not dated), and
those provided in the volunteering-related schemes, Orange RockCorps13 and Spice (University of
Wales, 2008) (see Annex 1 for brief descriptions of these initiatives). Such initiatives would benefit
from more rigorous evaluation to provide a more reliable indication of the potential for such
rewards to influence behaviour.
The findings from the focus group participants indicated a preference for choice in the rewards
offered. Each focus group, be it with new or existing recyclers, included a mix of participants who
felt more motivated by community-based rewards and those calling for better and more appealing
rewards for individuals. Many participants appreciated community or charity rewards for providing
an additional societal benefit of their recycling efforts (with a particular preference for smaller
charities and local causes), but most felt there should be options for both individual and community
rewards. With respect to individual rewards, participants indicated a general lack of interest in
rewards tied to minimum spends or those trying to encourage them to go to places they would not
normally visit. Participants called for a wider variety of reward options to choose from, including:
reductions in council tax bills (perhaps the most frequently volunteered suggestion across the
groups); rewards linked to transport, such as reduced fares or free passes; rewards linked to leisure
time, be it free gym passes and swimming sessions or days out for the family; or rewards linked to
improvements in local recycling service provision, for example being given a free green bin and food
waste collection.
With regard to feedback-based interventions, a number of robust conclusions can be identified from
within the peer-reviewed energy literature and, to a lesser extent, the non-peer reviewed water
conservation literature. Feedback appears to be most successful when:
(a) provided as soon as possible after undertaking the behaviour in question (Grønhøj and
Thøgersen, 2011);
(b) presented in a simple way, using meaningful units, and providing the option for
particularly interested individuals to find out more detail about the breakdown of energy
use by appliance or activity (Anderson and White, 2009; Faruqui et al., 2010; Hargreaves et
al., 2010);
(c) it acknowledges the way in which energy and water use is negotiated by the whole
family, rather than one household member (Darby, 2010a);
(d) combined with goal setting, be it group or individual goals (Abrahamse et al., 2005, 2007;
McCalley et al., 2011; Wood and Newborough, 2007);
13
http://www.orangerockcorps.co.uk/
20
(e) it includes a meaningful comparison of some kind, be it personal use during the same
time period the previous year (historical feedback) or the average use of a relevant
comparison group (socially comparative feedback) (Iyer et al., 2007);
(f) it combines both descriptive and injunctive norms, an approach which shows some
potential (though based on small sample sizes and short-term feedback trials) for
overcoming ‘boomerang’ effects14 amongst low-consuming households (Ayers et al., 2009;
Schultz, 2007); and
(g) combined with support and advice concerning how to respond to the feedback gained
(Harder and Woodard, 2007; Staats et al., 2004).
In contrast to the discussion about individual level feedback, the participants in the focus group did
not call for feedback in terms of waste diverted from landfill or increased recycling tonnage; they
wanted to know the positive community benefits of their actions15 (how many Golden Tickets had
the schools collected? What equipment had they bought?) or to see where their recycling goes,
what is it used to produce and what quantity of resources was saved by recycling rather than
producing products from new?
5.4 WHAT CONTEXT-SPECIFIC ISSUES HELP OR HINDER THE SUCCESS OF THE
SCHEMES?
It is difficult to identify the context-specific issues that contribute to scheme success because the
relative impact of different contributory factors is rarely evaluated. Nonetheless, a clear message
emerging from both reviews is that, for many individuals, rewards and feedback will be most
effective when complemented with additional measures that will support and enable the desired
behaviour changes over the long-term (a finding that is common to many behavioural interventions).
It should be noted that the level of additional support required will likely vary depending on the
nature of the behaviour in question; greater social support or skills development may be needed, for
example, to change behaviours constrained by significant psychological influences (such as the
addictive behaviours discussed in the health literature) than more simple behaviours such as
recycling.
The literature identified in the Phase 1 Review stresses that reward-based interventions need to be
underpinned by comprehensive recycling infrastructure and service provision (AEA Technology,
2006; Maunder et al., 2003) and accompanied by targeted communications, public engagement and
feedback (Iyer and Kashyao, 2007). Participants in all six focus groups emphasised the importance of
improved education (from school onwards), communications and outreach, and supporting
infrastructure to make it easier for them to recycle. In particular, a key constraint highlighted by
both new and existing recyclers was the disparity between materials that can technically be recycled
and those which the Local Council will actually collect. For existing recyclers, this leads to frustration
as they feel they cannot recycle all that they would like to, whilst for new recyclers, it leads to
confusion and anxiety about what can and cannot be recycled. Further frustrations concerned the
barriers to recycling, reuse and repair resulting from irresponsible industry practices, which was
mentioned by participants in all focus groups.
14
The ‘boomerang effect’ is a concern raised when comparative feedback interventions are used with households who are already demonstrating relatively low levels of energy consumption, and which may react to the feedback by increasing their consumption so as to reduce their deviation from the norm.
15 This mirrors a finding identified in the Phase 1 Review, in which Woollam et al. (2003) emphasise the importance of providing positive feedback of local achievements.
21
Similarly, the literature reviewed in the Phase 2 Review in relation to energy-use behaviours, notes
that existing behaviours suffer from two sources of inertia; the habitual routines and practices at the
level of the individual and the wider socio-technical systems that drive and reinforce these practices
(Marechal et al., 2010). Interventions, such as rewards or feedback, that only target the individual
will come across barriers unless they occur in the context of broader socio-technical transitions that
can sustain personal changes in energy-use patterns, ensuring they become part of the prevailing
social structure or social practices (Breukers et al., 2009).
5.5 WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF REWARDS ON PEOPLE WHO MAY ALREADY BE
ENGAGING IN THE DESIRED BEHAVIOUR?
Critics of reward schemes may cite Frey’s theory of ‘motivational crowding out’ (Frey and Jegen,
2001; Frey 2007); the risk that external rewards ‘crowd out’ (i.e. undermine) the intrinsic
motivations of those already engaging in the target behaviour. Very few studies within the literature
reviewed have sought explicitly to test this theory in a real world situation. One study (Carpenter
and Myers, 2010) notes that the provision of a small stipend reduced the motivation amongst a
small subset of volunteer firefighters to continue volunteering, but these were primarily those for
whom a key initial motivation for volunteering related to the desire for improved self image.
As discussed earlier, two meta-analyses (Cameron and Pierce, 1994; Deci et al, 1999) (primarily
synthesising lab-based and econometric crowding out studies) found evidence of crowding out only
when tangible, as opposed to verbal, rewards were promised prior to task completion, which was
found to be particularly detrimental amongst school children. The Food Dudes school-based
healthier eating trial offers useful insights here, with the authors (Horne, 2004; Lowe 2004) noting
that the context and method of reward delivery were critical to the scheme’s success over the long
term. The context in which the rewards were given in these trials was designed to avoid coercive or
negative associations; they focused on the intrinsic virtues and enjoyment of eating fruit and
vegetables, extolled by the Food Dudes, and rewards were presented as positive indicators of
children’s positive achievements. Teachers were asked to use the rewards as marks of achievement,
accompanying them with positive encouragement and praise, rather than as a bribe prior to eating
the fruit and vegetables provided. This perhaps reflects Frey’s (Frey and Jegen, 2001; Frey 2007)
theory of ‘crowding in’ whereby rewards seen as supportive, rather than controlling (i.e. used to
praise or recognise efforts made rather than as a bribe), may actually serve to ‘crowd in’ more
intrinsic motivation, and encourage further participation in the target behaviour.
The limited primary research undertaken for this project identified no crowding effects amongst the
existing recyclers engaged in the Recyclebank or Golden Ticket reward schemes, but due to the
sample including only participants, no clear conclusions can be drawn about those who were not
engaged by the scheme. For participating high recyclers, the self-reported behavioural impact of
rewards was limited, but no adverse impacts were identified, nor any indication of motivational
crowding out. High recyclers tended to see the rewards as ‘something for nothing’ and positive
recognition of their efforts.
The case studies suggest that competition-based models seem particularly attractive to those who
are already performing a desired behaviour but who could be doing more, as demonstrated by the
enthusiasm of participants in the Energy Neighbourhood competition (Intelligent Energy, not dated)
(summarised in Annex 1) and the various workplace Cycle Challenge schemes (TravelWise
MerseySide, 2009). Whilst none of these schemes have been evaluated or discussed in a peer
22
reviewed source, scheme representatives suggest such individuals may be motivated more by the
challenge posed by the competition rather than the actual prize itself.
One negative outcome observed of providing comparative feedback to those already participating in
a desired behaviour is the ‘boomerang effect’, explored in two energy-related studies where norm-
based feedback was provided to influence household energy consumption (Schultz et al., 2007;
Ayers et al., 2009) and in a food waste recycling feedback intervention (Nomura at al., 2011). In the
context of energy conservation, the ‘boomerang effect’ refers to occasions where households who
are already demonstrating relatively lower than average levels of energy consumption react to the
provision of descriptive norm-based feedback by increasing their consumption. The two energy-
related studies sought to overcome this through combining the descriptive norm with an injunctive
norm (indicating approval of their current level of consumption with a positive emoticon). Whilst
Schultz et al. (2007) found this to reverse the effect (based on a small study sample and short-term
feedback trial), very minor boomerang effects persisted in the larger-scale study undertaken by
Ayres et al. (2009), suggesting this is an area where further research would be of value. No evidence
of this effect was found amongst participants discussing the impact of ‘smart communications’ on
household water use (Rathouse, forthcoming) but this was a small-scale study, which only explored
self-reported behaviours in a focus group context.
5.6 TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IMPACT OF ANY REWARD SCHEME LIMITED OVER
TIME?
Concerns have been raised in the grey literature that incentivising recycling using financial rewards
runs the risk of establishing the recycling of waste, rather than its reduction, as the social norm
(Mitchell and Maunder, 2005), and that adverse effects on behaviour could occur over the long-
term, particularly if the rewards are withdrawn at a future date.
We found no long-term research in the Phase 1 Review on the longevity of changes to waste
prevention behaviour triggered by different types of reward or feedback schemes. While both
Recyclebank schemes in the UK appear to have resulted in increased recycling participation rates16,
neither have been running long enough to evaluate the longevity of these changes or the impact on
longer-term behaviour of removing the reward component of the schemes.
Similarly, despite the significant body of evidence on the use of rewards to influence health and
education behaviour and on the use of feedback to influence household energy conservation, very
few studies were identified that have undertaken the systematic, long-term monitoring required to
be able to draw reliable conclusions concerning the long-term impacts of rewards on behaviour (for
example, see Cahill and Perera, 2008). In one large-scale, longer-term study exploring the impact of
rewards on smoking abstinence (Volpp, 2009), 9.4% of the reward group remained smoke-free at
15/18 months, compared to just 3.6% of the control group. However, the degree to which these
findings can be generalised is limited since participants were all employees of a large American
company, were predominantly white, and enjoyed relatively high levels of education and income.
Furthermore, the psychological barriers to smoking cessation are likely to be significantly greater
than those preventing engagement in recycling and wider waste prevention activities.
16
As highlighted by a recent Recyclebank press release: http://www.Recyclebank.com/corporateinfo/index/pressreleasearticle/id/164
23
Many of the initiatives discussed in the review have been in place for a while and reportedly
continue to attract new participants, such as the Bike Miles scheme17, Personal Travel Planning
programmes (DfT, 2005, 2008a, 2008b; Williamson, forthcoming), the EcoTeams initiative (Hargraves
et al., 2008; Staats et al., 2004) and community currencies (Seyfang, 2003, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b,
2009b). However, in all of these initiatives, the rewards and/or feedback constitute just one
component in a much wider package of measures, and whilst the rewards/feedback are considered
to be an important part of the intervention, the literature suggests they are rarely sufficient to drive
longer-lasting change (though not all of this literature was peer-reviewed).
One point to note from studies that have used electronic feedback to influence household energy
behaviours is the ‘draw of the gadget’ (Grønhøj and Thøgersen, 2011). Changes in behaviour that
stem primarily from curiosity of new technology, such as smart meters, appeared to wear off over
time. Households’ use of the electronic feedback appeared to change with prolonged exposure;
shifting from a detailed inspection of the consumption of individual devices in the beginning to
undertaking a periodic scan to check nothing ‘unusual’ was happening at later stages.
5.7 IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF INCREASING CONSUMPTION TRENDS AS A
RESULT OF THE GREATER PURCHASING POWER PROVIDED BY REWARDS?
None of the studies reviewed explicitly explored the impact of rewards on the consumption patterns
of participating individuals, though the concern was raised within two Phase 1 grey literature
sources (London Assembly, 2001a, b).
One initiative to note in relation to this is the NU Spaarpas initiative piloted in the city of Rotterdam
in the Netherlands (Seyfang, 2006a, b) (summarised in Annex 1). This scheme rewarded city
residents for specific pro-environmental behaviours (e.g. separating their waste for recycling, using
public transport, shopping locally or purchasing ‘ethical’ products) with ‘green points’. These points
could be redeemed locally, but only for public transport tickets or discounts on sustainable products,
or they could be donated to charity. Although it is not clear from the source whether this design was
explicitly adopted to minimise the risk of increasing consumption trends, there may be value in
learning more about the successes (or otherwise) of this initiative, particularly given the recent
launch of the London Green Points scheme in Bexley18. This scheme will be rewarding residents for
recycling, reuse and waste reduction with green points, which may be redeemed for a range of eco-
products, days out or donated to selected local charity projects.
5.8 IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT REWARDS TARGETING ONE TYPE OF
BEHAVIOUR CAN LEAD TO GREATER PARTICIPATION IN ANOTHER?
Very few studies identified in either review explicitly examined or reported the existence of spillover
effects (the idea that an intervention targeting one behaviour also leads to changes in another,
usually, linked behaviour) as a result of reward or feedback-based interventions. Hargreaves et al.
(2010) undertook a series of semi-structured interviews with participants who had been trialling
three different types of smart energy monitors in a ‘Visible Energy Trial’. A range of spillover
behaviours was observed amongst a small number of participants - including cutting consumption in
other lifestyle areas (often transport-related) or making efforts to encourage others to reduce
17
Introduced at: http://www.cycletoworkguarantee.org.uk/documents/78666-DFT-BIKE4LIFE-4PP.pdf (page 2) 18
http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/london-scheme-aims-to-rewards-community-recycling
24
consumption as a means for reducing their expenditure. However, it should be noted that these
participants had already expressed strong pro-environmental values prior to the trial.
A different type of ‘spillover’ was highlighted in an evaluation of the British Gas Green Streets
competition (IPPR, 2011), in which 14 groups from varied communities across England, Scotland and
Wales were selected to compete for a prize of £100,000 (see Annex 1 for a summary of the
competition). Each community was given a share of £2 million investment of capital, together with
technical advice and support from British Gas, to spend on a range of microgeneration and energy
efficiency measures in community buildings and surrounding households in the pursuit of three core
objectives: saving energy, generating energy and engaging the ‘wider community’. An unexpected
benefit of the competition was identified within the responses to a post-competition survey of
approximately 1300 non-participants in households within a distance of, on average, 1.25km of
community buildings that participated in the projects. The survey analysis highlighted the potential
for such a challenge to catalyse wider community engagement in energy issues: (a) 30% respondents
said that, though not directly involved, being aware of a Green Streets project had changed their
attitudes towards energy efficiency and renewable energy; (b) 46% respondents had been inspired
to take action on energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as installing insulation (50%),
installing a new boiler (23%), installing solar PV panels (11%) and undertaking smaller actions such as
installing energy efficiency light bulbs and switching off plugs; and, (c) 61% said they would be more
likely to take action in the future. Whilst the risk of social desirability bias should be acknowledged,
this does point to the potential ‘spillover’ of the desired behaviour from the target populations to
non-participating households nearby. This could usefully be explored further in future waste-related
community competitions.
5.9 A TYPOLOGY OF REWARD AND RECOGNITION SCHEMES
One specific aim of the Phase 1 Review and Case Study Analysis was to propose a typology for the
different types of reward and recognition schemes that are in operation, or have operated, within
the context of waste and recycling.
In doing so, an obvious starting point was the distinction that emerged from the literature between
schemes which monitor and reward individual behaviour and those which are collective in focus.
However, this distinction is muddied by the fact that reward and recognition schemes have two
components ‒ the monitoring of behaviour and the subsequent reward or recognition of that
behaviour ‒ and that each of these components may be individual or community-based. So, some
schemes may monitor the behaviour of a community but reward or feedback to individuals, while
others may monitor the behaviour of individuals but provide community-based rewards. This leaves
four possible ways in which a scheme might operate19:
One-to-one: a scheme that monitors individual behaviour and rewards individuals
One-to-many: a scheme that monitors individual behaviour but rewards a community
Many-to-one: a scheme that monitors community behaviour but rewards individuals
Many-to-many: a scheme that monitors community behaviour and rewards communities.
19
Note that ‘rewards’ here is used to mean rewards and recognition, which may include just feedback.
25
Note that the term ‘community’ does not necessarily imply a geographical community or
neighbourhood; in the case of Manchester’s Golden Ticket scheme (Case Study 4), the community
rewards are offered to a local primary school.
While this distinction is useful, it is not always possible to classify a scheme discretely because some
schemes are flexible or implemented differently in different areas. For example, the kerbside
Recyclebank schemes included in Case Study 5 have different models that monitor both individual
and collective behaviour. Similarly, while participants in the Recyclebank scheme can choose to
spend their vouchers in shops or other local leisure facilities, they can also donate their points to
local schools at certain times during the year. An overriding message from the focus group
participants is the need for schemes which present options for both individual and community
rewards.
As well as distinguishing between schemes according to the way in which participation is monitored
and rewarded, a second useful distinction is between monetary and non-monetary schemes. As
above, schemes do not necessarily fall into one of these two categories neatly. While cash rewards
or cash back schemes lie squarely at the monetary end of this spectrum, a number of other schemes
offer vouchers or non-monetary gifts as a reward. For example, reverse vending machines like those
found in the car parks of supermarket Tesco, reward people for recycling with Tesco Clubcard points.
At the other end of this spectrum, are schemes which offer gifts (such as the temporary Teignbridge
organic box scheme trialled in the Defra Household Waste Incentive Pilot Scheme) or provide purely
verbal or written feedback on performance.
Figure 2, below, illustrates how different schemes map according to both the way in which
monitoring and rewards are offered, and the types of reward.20 Note that Recyclebank (Case Study
5) crosses the boundary between both ‘one-to-one’ and ‘one-to-many’ because of the different ways
in which the scheme can be structured, and the different types of incentives which it offers to
participants.
20
More information about the different schemes featured can be found in Annex 1 to this report and the separate Technical Annex.
26
one-to-one
many-to-many
one-to-many
monetarynon-
monetary
many-to-one
Get your kit off! School
uniform recycling
Real Nappy schemes
Cash for Cans
Mirror GoGreen gadget
recycling
TOMRA recycling machines
RISES
Royal Mail’s Simply Drop
ELCRP community composting
Kent Community
Recycling
Monsoon Clothes for
Life
Yellow Woods
challenge
Trees for Cans
RecycleBank Lambeth
Oldham foodwaste feedback
trial
Recyclebank(RBWM &
Halton)
ManchesterGolden Ticket
Oxfam/M&S Clothing
Exchange
Ealing Community
Rewards
Figure 2: Mapping reward and recognition schemes according to scheme and incentive type (5 case studies
in darker shading)
In our initial proposal, we suggested devising a detailed typology based on incentive types, collection
design, scheme providers, and community context. However, we have not been able to gather
enough information about existing reward and recognition schemes to do this. In part, this is
because it is difficult to obtain reliable and detailed information about past schemes and trials that
are no longer in operation. Contacting local authorities to try and obtain information has proven a
time-consuming and largely fruitless task. In addition, there are still relatively few waste-related
reward and recognition schemes currently in operation. While we would not claim that the list in
Annex 3 in the Technical Annex is comprehensive, there do not appear to be enough schemes
currently in operation for the development of a more detailed typology.
27
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this section, we present a range of research opportunities for researchers, practitioners and
policy-makers engaged in current or future reward and recognition schemes or trials. These are
based on the evidence gaps identified within both Scoping Reviews and the case studies, and the
issues raised during the focus groups.
Isolating the impact of rewards or recognition
The Phase 1 Review and, more specifically the case studies, noted the lack of robust evidence that
successfully isolates the specific impact of rewards or feedback on recycling and waste prevention
behaviour from the confounding impacts of wider accompanying activities such as communications,
infrastructure improvements, or extended producer responsibility (Meneses and Palacio, 2004;
Dahlén and Lagerkvist, 2009; Timlett and Williams, 2008). Are other components of the scheme
more important that the rewards themselves? Schultz (1999) suggests value in trying to generate
effect sizes (i.e. identifying the size of the impact) for different types of interventions in different
contexts.
Similarly, the Phase 2 Review noted the need to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms by
which reward schemes work; why are rewards, such as vouchers or points, found to be an effective
mechanism for encouraging initial changes in behaviour if they are not then redeemed? One
possible reason for this, which could usefully be explored further in future schemes, is highlighted by
the focus group findings. In the Maidenhead focus groups, participants highlighted their
appreciation of the Council’s decision to introduce a reward scheme for households at a time when
other councils in the country were introducing fines; ‘that made me feel sort of warm towards the
whole thing and that’s why I got actively involved in it’ [existing recycler, Maidenhead]. Whilst many
of these participants were yet to redeem any rewards, it seems the reward scheme changed the
nature of relationship between the focus group participants and the Council, such that they were
more predisposed to engage in the scheme.
In light of these remaining evidence gaps and uncertainties, future reward and recognition schemes
and/or trials would benefit from rigorous evaluation approaches21, using randomised or matched
control groups, in an effort to estimate the counterfactual and determine the importance of the
rewards themselves and the influence of rewards in isolation from confounding factors.
Understanding the differential effects of rewards on recycling compared to wider
waste prevention activities
There is a clear lack of empirical testing of the impact of rewards or recognition on reuse, repair or
reduce behaviours. With the exception of a handful of schemes (such as those that promote the use
of real nappies and the reuse of plastic carrier bags), much of the focus of waste-related reward and
recognition schemes to-date has been on recycling initiatives.
The health and energy literature reviewed in Phase 2 suggested that rewards are most effective in
influencing simple, infrequent behaviours, or in encouraging initial engagement in more complex,
habitual behaviours, with additional support needed to sustain engagement. Whilst the
21
A need which is hopefully being addressed in Defra’s recently commissioned Reward and Recognition pilot schemes: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/consumer/reward-scheme/
28
psychological barriers to changing health behaviours may be significantly greater than those
inhibiting participation in recycling or wider waste prevention activities (particularly where an
addiction is involved), future reward and recognition trials or schemes could usefully explore the
differential effect of rewards and/or feedback on one-off versus more routine waste-related
behaviours. For example, efforts could be made to evaluate the influence of rewards and/or
feedback on more infrequent repair and reuse decisions in comparison to routine, habitual recycling
activities to see if the simple-complex behavioural distinction is also true for recycling and waste
prevention behaviours.
Understanding which rewards are the most salient for different target groups
Are particular types of rewards more or less appealing to different groups? For example, drawing on
the Phase 2 findings, do low income groups prefer cash-based rewards? Do teenagers prefer leisure-
related rewards? Do stickers always work for primary school children? What constitutes a
meaningful comparison group for households receiving socially comparative feedback? Does the
value of the reward matter? Is there a certain threshold in reward value at which different groups
are more likely to respond? Are certain groups more likely to respond to rewards than others? Both
the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reviews suggest the greatest changes may be observed when rewards
and/or feedback are targeted on ‘average’ (rather than low) performers who express an interest or
willingness to do more if given the support to do so. This hypothesis could usefully be tested in
future reward and recognition trials.
The London Assembly (2011a) ‘Carrots and Sticks’ inquiry report highlights the need for a better
grasp of the impact of rewards and feedback targeted at different groups, for example on low/non-
recyclers versus medium or high recyclers (Allen et al., 1993), those living in high rise flats versus
those in mid-rise flats; and rural versus urban areas. Brook Lyndhurst (2009) also emphasise the
need for more specialised research on minority ethnic groups that acknowledges and explores the
diversity of experience both within and between groups. This mirrors the call in Bennett et al. (2008)
for more research into the recycling habits of individuals within specific ethnic and socio-
demographic groups, particularly within socially deprived localities. Bennett et al. also suggest
further research is needed into the value of different types of reward scheme for encouraging waste
prevention amongst more transient populations.
All of these queries reiterate the need to undertake more extensive public engagement prior to
rolling out any future reward and recognition schemes, to understand which rewards will be most
salient to the target populations and what additional support they may need alongside the rewards.
Public awareness of waste disposal and recycling costs
The appeal of rewarding household recycling and waste prevention efforts with council tax rebates
was mentioned both within the literature (Brook Lyndhurst, 2009; Maunder et al., 2003) and
amongst the focus group participants. There was a clear sense amongst the focus group participants
that if they were doing more to help the Council by recycling more, this should be reflected in their
bills. At the same time, there were calls for a more comprehensive kerbside recycling service, in
which more materials are collected; if a product label indicates that the packaging is recyclable,
participants felt it should also be accepted by the kerbside recycling service (especially in relation to
plastics). Therefore, whilst individuals want to see their Council tax reduced, they also want an
29
increase in the scope of materials collected by (and therefore the costs of providing) the kerbside
recycling service.
Future research could usefully explore this tension further, together with the extent to which council
tax rebates continue to appeal when participants realise the (low) proportion of council tax
payments actually spent on waste disposal and recycling.
Framing of the reward
How can rewards be awarded or presented in a way that acknowledges achievements without
creating an expectation of additional rewards in response to sustained behavioural changes or
additional achievements in the future? Should they be contingent on attaining specific behavioural
outcomes or given solely for engaging in a particular programme of behavioural change? One meta-
analysis (Cameron and Pierce (1994) of largely laboratory-based and econometric crowding out
studies concluded that tangible rewards produced no effect when delivered unexpectedly, and were
not detrimental when expected and contingent on level of performance or completing or solving a
set task. However, no studies were identified in either review that have explored this in a real world
setting, and this could therefore be addressed in future reward or recognition trials.
Measuring performance
A number of focus group participants noted the importance of fairness when designing schemes.
There was a sense that weight-based measures are flawed since they effectively penalise individuals
who are making waste reduction decisions at the point of purchase (and therefore reducing both
their residual waste and recycling generation) and smaller households who will likely generate
recycling. Participants also felt that there is no way of checking that people are actually filling their
bins with materials that can be recycled, rather than non-recyclable but heavy items. Similarly,
participants in the Lambeth scheme were suspicious that people could cheat the self-report system
and called for rewards to be based on actual performance. At the same time, a finding of the Phase 1
review was a lack of conclusive evidence concerning the likely impact and cost-effectiveness of
reward or feedback schemes based on contamination rates rather than weight. This suggests a need
for future schemes to trial the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of rewarding participants for
recycling the correct items and/or for reducing waste, rather than relying solely on weight-based or
self-report systems.
Are rewards needed or is recognition and reassurance sufficient?
Whilst both reviews identified studies that have explored the behavioural impact of providing
feedback to study participants, very few studies were identified that evaluated the impact of
tangible rewards in comparison to the impact of feedback. Do all individuals need a tangible reward,
or is verbal/written recognition sufficient? What is the potential for introducing award-based
schemes where rewards deliver reputational – rather than tangible monetary or gift-based –
benefits?
Linked to this, many of the focus group participants called for greater feedback, not in terms of their
personal recycling performance (waste diverted from landfill, increased recycling tonnage), but
rather in terms of: (a) the tangible community benefits gained as a result of their recycling efforts
(e.g. in the case of the Golden Ticket scheme, how many Golden Tickets had the schools collected?
30
What equipment had they bought for the children?); and (b) reassurance that their recycling efforts
are worthwhile (e.g. where did their recycling go? What has it been used to produce and what
quantity of resources was saved by recycling rather than producing products from new?). Future
trials could usefully evaluate the behavioural impact of providing this type of reassurance and
recognition alongside rewards in comparison to the impact of providing reassurance and recognition
alone.
How can reward schemes be designed to encourage spillover?
Very little evidence was identified in either review that explored the potential for rewards or
recognition to influence behaviours beyond the primary target behaviour. The Phase 2 Review
suggested that competition-based schemes tend to attract those who are more ‘ecologically
conscious’ and it is these individuals who are more likely to demonstrate spillover behaviours.
Further research could explore the potential to use competition-based models to encourage
spillover behaviours amongst medium or high recyclers; for example how could future recycling
reward or recognition schemes be designed in a way that also encourages greater reuse or waste
reduction behaviours, or even wider pro-environmental behaviours? In the focus groups, a reward
considered to be appealing by some individuals was the idea of rewarding recycling with tickets for
free public transport, which may potentially also encourage a shift towards more sustainable
transport behaviours. The London Green Points scheme, recently launched in Bexley, may provide
valuable insights in this regard.
Do reward schemes promote consumption?
A concern that is commonly raised in response to proposals to introduce reward schemes is that
tangible monetary rewards could serve to increase consumption and thereby enhance waste
generation. This concern was mentioned within grey literature sources included in the Phase 1
Review but neither review found any empirical evidence to support it. Furthermore, whilst the
findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, a number of focus groups participants
reported ignoring rewards which require a minimum spend or buy-one-get-one free options, both of
which would otherwise increase consumption. Much more research is needed to explore whether
reward-based schemes promote increased consumption, and if so, how could such schemes be
designed to avoid such increases? This should be considered in any future scheme in which tangible
monetary-based rewards are provided.
Longevity of behaviour change
Our Phase 1 Review found no long-term research on the longevity of waste-related behaviour
change triggered by different types of reward or feedback scheme (Lyas et al., 2004), and very few
sources explored this in the Phase 2 Review (the issue was only considered in the health incentives
and energy feedback literature, but few studies had systematically explored such effects). As Hornik
et al. (1995) point out, there is a need to understand which interventions promote intrinsic as well as
extrinsic motivations to engage in waste prevention behaviours, and the implications of this for
inducing long-term waste prevention behaviours. Linked to this is the need to identify how best to
maintain increases in recycling participation over time following implementation of a reward. Is it
better to reincentivise or to communicate with and educate residents continually to maintain their
interest in preventing waste? (London Assembly, 2001a). The ongoing Recyclebank scheme could
provide a useful starting point for exploring this further.
31
The evaluation budget of future reward and recognition trials should include an allocation towards
longer-term monitoring, allowing the evaluator to conduct annual evaluations whilst the scheme is
still running and, should the rewards be withdrawn at any stage, to return to participants at least
one year after their removal to see if any changes in behaviour triggered by the rewards have been
sustained.
Targeting moments of change
Though not a focus of this work, one area for further research is the potential to target rewards on
individuals undergoing transitions and moments of change, for example new residents in an area
who have not yet established their routines and habitual behaviours? Bamberg (2006) observed a
significantly greater increase in public transport use amongst new residents who received a free bus
pass and public transport schedule information upon arrival in their new home than amongst new
residents without this intervention. The potential for taking advantage of such windows of
opportunity could usefully be explored in future reward and recognition trials, particularly given the
Phase 1 Review finding that areas with highly transient populations are often harder to engage in
recycling initiatives.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
This project has sought to bring together existing evidence on the potential for rewards and
recognition to influence behaviour, both in relation to recycling and waste prevention behaviours (in
the Phase 1 Review) and to seven non-waste behaviours (in the Phase 2 Review). The findings
identified in the two scoping reviews were built on and complemented by those of the focus groups.
It is clear that, whilst a number of reward and recognition trials and schemes have been introduced
to influence behaviour, a number of evidence gaps remain. Defra’s recently commissioned Reward
and Recognition pilots offer a valuable opportunity to begin to address these gaps in the context of
recycling and waste prevention behaviours. Perhaps the most pertinent gaps to consider include:
the need for more rigorous and long-term approaches to evaluation in order to
understand the specific mechanisms by which rewards and recognition work, and their
influence on different target groups;
the cost effectiveness of reward and recognition/feedback schemes;
the influence of rewards on consumption i.e. potential rebound effects; and
the long-term effects of rewards and recognition on behaviour (including the target
behaviour and other linked behaviours), and an understanding of the additional measures
needed to support and sustain behaviour change beyond the initial introduction of the
rewards or recognition.
32
7. REFERENCES
Please note that the reference list below only refers to the sources cited in this Synthesis Report. A full reference list for the project is given in the accompanying technical reports.
As is normal when a cited author or organisation has multiple publications in a single year these are distinguished by a letter after the date, e.g. Smith, 2012a, Smith 2012b. To maintain consistency across project outputs we have retained the distinguishing letter following the date used in the full reference list, even if not all the references are cited in this Synthesis Report.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. and Rothengatter, T. (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed
at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25: 273-291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. and Rothengatter, T. (2007) The effect of tailored information, goal
setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviours, and behavioural
antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27: 265-276.
AEA Technology (2006) Evaluation of the Household Waste Incentives Pilot Scheme. Final report to
Defra. Defra, London.
Allen, J., Davis, D. and Soskin, M. (1993) ‘Using coupon incentives in recycling aluminium: a market
approach to energy conservation policy’ The Journal of Consumer Affairs 27(2): 300-318
Anderson, W. and White, W. (2009) Exploring consumer preferences for home energy display
functionality. Report by the Centre for Sustainable Energy to the Energy Saving Trust.
Ayres, I., Raseman, S. and Shih, A. (2009) Evidence from two large field experiments that peer
comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. NBER Working Paper 15386.
Bamberg, S. (2006) Is residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behaviour?
Results from theory-driven intervention study. Environment and Behaviour, 38: 820-840.
Bennett, R., Savani, S. and Ali-Choudhury, R. (2008) ‘Effective strategies for enhancing waste
recycling rates in socially deprived areas’ Journal of Customer Behaviour 7(1): 71-97.
Bird, W. (not dated) Step2Get: Use of incentivisation to influence behaviour change among London
secondary school children for road safety, sustainability and health [online]. Available from:
http://www.intelligenthealth.co.uk/pdf/Intelligent%20Health%20Walk%2021.pdf [Accessed
23/08/2011].
Breukers, S. et al (2009) Interaction schemes for successful energy demand side management.
Building blocks for a practicable and conceptual framework. Project co-funded by the European
Commission within the 7th Framework Programme, Theme Energy.2007.9.1.2. Energy Behavioural
Changes.
Brook Lyndhurst (2005) Household Waste Behaviour in London 2005. Report for the Greater London
Authority. Brook Lyndhurst, London.
Brook Lyndhurst (2009) Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections. Final Project Report for
the Defra Waste and Resources Evidence Programme (WR0209). Brook Lyndhurst, London.
Brook Lyndhurst (unpublished)
33
Cahill, K. and Perera, R. (2008) Quit and win contests for smoking cessation. The Cochrane
Collaboration.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, WD. (1994) Reinforcement, reward and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 64: 363-423.
Carpenter, J. and Myers, C. (2010). Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and
incentives. Middlebury College Working Paper no. 1023.
Dahlén, L. and Lagerkvist, A. (2009) ‘Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste
collection systems’ Waste Management Research 28: 688-697
Darby, S. (2010a) Literature review for the Energy Demand Research Project. Oxford: Environmental
Change Institute.
Deci, EL., Ryan, RM. and Koestner, R. (1999) A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the
Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivations. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Defra (2011a) Statistical Release: Local Authority Collected Waste Management Statistics for England
– Provisional Quarter 1 of 2010/2011. Defra, London.
DfT (2005) Personalised travel planning: evaluation of 14 pilots part-funded by DfT [online. Available
at: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/travelsmart/dft_susttravel_pdf_040054.pdf [Accessed
10/08/2011].
DfT (2008a) Making Personal Travel Planning Work: Research Report. Report by the Department for
Transport [online]. Available at: http://www.ratransport.co.uk/images/MakingPTPworkResearch.pdf
[Accessed 10/08/2011]
DfT (2008b) Making Personal Travel Planning Work: Practitioners’ Guide. Report by the Department
for Transport [online]. Available at:
http://www.ratransport.co.uk/images/PTP%20practictionersguide.pdf [Accessed 10/08/2011].
Dobson, A. (2010) Environmental citizenship and pro-environmental behaviour. Rapid Research and
Evidence Review for the Sustainable Development Research Network [online]. Available at:
http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/sdrn_environmentalcitizenshipreview_formatted_final.pdf [Accessed 01/06/2011].
Ellegård, K. and Palm, J. (2011) Visualising energy consumption activities as a tool for makimg
everyday life more sustainable. Applied Energy, 88: 1920-1926.
Faruqui, A., Sergici, S. and Sharif, A. (2010) The impact of informational feedback on energy
consumption – a survey of the experimental evidence. Energy 35: 1598-1608.
Fogarty, H., Reid, L. and Sprott, H. (2008) International review of recycling policies. Scottish
Government Social Research, Edinburgh.
Frey, B. (2007) Motivational crowding theory – a new approach to behaviour. In Behavioural
Economics and Public Policy. Roundtable Proceedings, Melbourne, 8-9 August 2007. Australian
Government Productivity Commission, 2008: 37-54.
Frey, BS and Jegen, R. (2001) ‘Motivation crowding theory’ Journal of Economic Surveys 15(5): 589-
611.
Granville, S. and Mulholland, S. (2006) Preventing household waste in Scotland: Analysis of
consultation responses. Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh.
34
Grønhøj, A. and Thøgersen, J. (2011) Feedback on household electricity consumption: learning and
social influence processes. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35: 138-145.
Harder, MK. and Woodard, R. (2007) ‘Systematic studies of shop and leisure voucher incentives for
household recycling’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling 51: 732-753.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. and Burgess, J. (2008) Social experiments in sustainable consumption: an
evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-income communities. Local Environment,
13(8): 743-758.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. and Burgess, J. (2010) Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how
householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38: 6111-6119.
Higgins, A., Foliente, G. and McNamara, C. (2011) Modelling intervention options to reduce GHG
emissions in housing stock: A diffusion approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78:
621-634.
HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for government [online]. Available at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/coalition_programme_for_governme
nt.pdf [Accessed 05/06/2011], page 17.
Horne, PJ., Tapper, K., Lowe, CF., Hardman, CA., Jackson, MC. and Woolner, J. (2004) Increasing
children’s fruit and vegetable consumption: a peer-modelling and rewards-based intervention.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58: 1649-1660.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M. and Narayana, C. (1995) ‘Determinants of recycling behaviour: A
synthesis of research results’ The Journal of Socio-Economics 24(1): 105-127
House of Lords (2011) Behaviour Change Report. Science and Technology Select Committee, 2nd
Report of Session 2010-12. Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. London: The Stationary
Office Ltd.
Intelligent Energy (not dated) Energy Neighbourhood: ‘Bet to win!’ The climate competition between
municipalities and their citizens. Report obtained through personal correspondence.
IPPR (2011) Green Streets, Strong Communities: what communities can do for emissions reductions,
what emissions reductions can do for communities. Report by the Institute for Public Policy Research
in partnership with British Gas.
Iyer, EA. and Kashyap, RK. (2007) ‘Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social
class’ Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6: 32-47.
Iyer, M., Kempton, W. and Payne, C. (2006) Comparison groups on bills: Automated, personalised
energy information. Energy and Buildings, 38: 988-996.
Jackson, C. K. (2008). A little now for a lot later: A look at a Texas advanced placement incentive
program. Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor.
Jochelson, K. (2007) Paying the Patient: Improving health using financial incentives. London: The
King’s Fund.
Kane, RL., Johnson, PE., Town, RJ. and Butler, M. (2004) A structured review of the effect of
economic incentives on consumers’ preventive behaviour. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
27(4): 327-352.
35
Kavanagh, J., Trouton, A., Oakley, A. and Powell, C. (2006) A systematic review of the evidence for
incentive schemes to encourage positive health and other social behaviours in young people. A report
undertaken by the EPPI-Centre for the Department of Health, England.
London Assembly (2011a) Carrots and Sticks: A review of waste financial reward and compulsory
recycling schemes. A report by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly. Greater
London Authority, London.
London Assembly (2011b) To what extent can financial incentives boost recycling rates? Written
evidence received for the Environment Committee’s investigation. Greater London Authority,
London.
Lowe, CF., Horne, PJ., Tapper, K., Bowdery, M. and Egerton, C. (2004) Effects of a peer modelling and
rewards-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58: 510-522.
Lucas, K. (forthcoming) Merseytravel Neighbourhood Travel Teams Evaluation Report. Revised Draft,
shared in confidence.
Lyas, JK., Shaw, PJ. and Van-Vugt, M. (2004) ‘Provision of feedback to promote householders’ use of
a kerbside recycling scheme – a social dilemma perspective’ Journal of Solid Waste Technology and
Management 30(1): 7-18.
Marechal, K. (2010) Not irrational but habitual: The importance of ‘behavioural lock-in’ in energy
consumption. Ecological Economics, 69: 1104-1114.
Maunder, A., Sharp, V., Croy, M. and Pennie, G. (2003) Incentives for Householders to Change their
Waste Practices. Final report to the Scottish Executive. AEA Technology, Didcot.
McCalley, LT., de Vries, PW. and Midden, CJH. (2011) Consumer response to product-integrated
energy feedback: Behaviour, goal level shifts, and energy conservation. Environment and Behaviour,
43: 525-545.
Meneses, GD. and Palacio, AB. (2004) ‘Comparison of two techniques to promote recycling: block
leader versus reward’ Journal of Environmental Systems 30(2): 105-134.
Mitchell, A. and Maunder, A. (2005) Evaluation of Local Authority Experience of Operating Household
Waste Incentive Schemes. A report produced for Defra Waste Strategy Division. AEA Technology,
Didcot.
Nomura, H., John, P. and Cotterill, S. (2011) The use of feedback to enhance environmental
outcomes: a Randomised Controlled Trial of a food waste scheme. Institute for Political and
Economic Governance, Manchester.
Ongondo, FO. and Williams, ID. (2011a) ‘Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile phones
among university students’ Waste Management 31: 1617-1634.
Parfitt, J. (2002) Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases. WRAP,
Banbury.
Petersen, JE., Shunturov, V., Janda, K., Platt, G. and Weinberger (2007) Dormitory residents reduce
electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives. International
Journal of Sustainability, 8(1): 16-33.
36
Pocock, R., Stone, I., Clive, H., Smith, R., Jesson, J. (2008) Barriers to recycling at home: A summary of
findings from an in-depth structured investigation of the barriers people encounter in recycling at
home, and targeted ways these may be overcome. Report by Get it Sorted for WRAP.
Rathouse, K. (forthcoming) Personal correspondence.
Raymond, M. (2008). Paying for A's: An early exploration of pupil reward and incentive programs in
charter schools. Paper presented at CESifo/PEPG Conference on Financial Incentives: Do They Work
in Education? Insights and Findings from Behavioural Research. Munich, Germany
Schultz, PW. (1999) ‘Changing behaviour with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment
on curbside recycling’ Basic and Applied Psychology 21(1): 25-36
Schultz, PW., Nolan, JM., Cialdini, RB., Goldstein, NJ. and Girskevicius, V. (2007) ‘The constructive,
destructive and reconstructive power of social norms’ Psychological Science 18(5): 429-434.
Seyfang, G. (2003). Growing Cohesive Communities One Favour at a Time: Social Exclusion, Active
Citizenship and Time Banks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 699-706
Seyfang, G. (2004b) Working Outside The Box: Community currencies, time banks and social
inclusion, Journal of Social Policy, 33(1), 49-71
Seyfang, G. (2006a). Harnessing the Potential of the Social Economy? Time Banks and UK Public
Policy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26(9/10), 430-443
Seyfang, G. (2006b). Sustainable Consumption, the New Economics and Community Currencies:
Developing New Institutions for Environmental Governance. Regional Studies, 40(7), 781–791
Seyfang, G. (2009b). Low-carbon communities and the currencies of change. In: Peters, M., Fudge, S.,
and Jackson, T. (eds) Low Carbon Communities: Imaginative approaches to combating climate
change locally. Surrey: Edward Elgar.
Shaw, PJ. and Maynard, SJ. (2008) ‘The potential of financial incentives to enhance householders’
kerbside recycling behaviour’ Waste Management 28: 1732-1741.
Staats, H., Harland, P. and Wilke, HAM. (2004) Effecting durable change: A team approach to
improve environmental behaviour in the household. Environment and Behaviour, 36:341-367.
Sutherland, K., Christianson, JB. and Leatherman, S. (2008) Impact of targeted incentives on personal
health behaviour: a review of the literature. Medical Care Research and Review, 65: 36S-78S.
Timlett, RE. and Williams, ID. (2008) ‘Public participation and recycling performance in England: A
comparison of tools for behaviour change’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52: 622-634.
TravelWise MerseySide (2009) TravelWise Cycle Campaign 2009: Evaluation Report. Internal
evaluation report, obtained through personal correspondence.
Tucker, P. and Douglas, P. (2007) Understanding household waste prevention behaviour. Final Report
to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [online]. Available at:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR0112_6329_FRP.pdf [Accessed
01/04/2011].
University of Wales (2008), Looking Back. A Review of the Community Time Credit Systems that have
given birth to Spice. Received through personal correspondence.
37
Volpp, KG. (2009) Issue Brief: Paying people to lose weight and stop smoking. Leonard Davis Institute
of Health Economics, 14(3).
Williamson, C. (forthcoming) Evaluating Performance: Falkirk Personalised Travel Planning – Final
Report incorporating monitoring. Report shared in confidence.
Wood, G. and Newborough, M. (2007) Energy-use information transfer for intelligent homes:
Enabling energy conservation with central and local displays. Energy and Buildings, 39: 495-503.
Woollam, TC., Emery, A., Griffiths, AJ. and Williams, KP. (2003) ‘Key factors in household recycling
behaviour in an expanding kerbside recycling scheme’ in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Sustainable Planning and Development, Skiathos, Greece.
38
8. ANNEX 1. REWARD AND RECOGNITION SCHEME DETAILS
This annex provides a brief description of the Case Studies and other reward schemes referred to
within this Synthesis Report. Further details are provided in the accompanying technical project
reports and Technical Annex.
Case Study 1. Recycling Reward Scheme, Ealing:
A community competition, run between wards in Ealing from November 2010 to May 2011, in which prizes of £20,000 were awarded to the local wards with the highest, and those with the most improved, rates of recycling. Awards were based on participation monitoring rather than the weight of recycling collected. The prize money has been awarded to local ward forums which any resident can attend, which means local people can have a say in how the prize money is spent.
Case Study 2. Trial providing feedback on food waste recycling, Oldham:
A randomised control trial to explore the impact of street-based feedback on household participation in food waste recycling. The eight-week trial was conducted during the autumn of 2009, with 9082 households (5009 in the control group and 4073 in the treatment group). Though only a short-term trial, the feedback provided had a modest positive impact on household food waste recycling participation rates, with an effect size of 2.8%.
Case Study 3. Marks and Spencer/Oxfam Clothes Exchange:
An individual reward scheme, which awards individuals with Marks and Spencer vouchers for recycling unwanted clothes through Oxfam. Customers who include at least one item of Marks and Spencer clothing in their donations to Oxfam may request a Marks and Spencer voucher worth £5 to use against their next purchase of over £35 worth of clothing, homeware or beauty products at Marks and Spencer. The scheme sought to increase donor loyalty to Oxfam at a time of rising demand for ‘rag’ and corresponding increases in bogus textile collections.
Case Study 4. Golden Ticket recycling scheme, Wythenshaw:
A community-based reward scheme, run in the Sharston Ward, Wythenshaw, from January to May 2011, in order to encourage greater household participation in dry recycling. Each time householders put their recycling bin out for collection with the correct materials inside, a ‘Golden Ticket’ was attached to the bin’s handle. These tickets were collected by two participating local schools which could exchange the tickets for money to buy teaching equipment (such as books, new technology or sporting equipment) or to be spent directly within the school.
Case Study 5a. Recyclebank, RBWM:
An individual reward scheme introduced to the RBWM in June 2010. Points are awarded to participants on the basis of the weight of dry recyclables placed in new individual (or for flats, communal) blue wheelie bins, which are embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID). This chip enables individual bins to be linked to households (or groups of households for communal schemes) using encrypted coding. Waste collection vehicles are fitted with scanners and scales, allowing them to capture the weight of the materials collected. This data is then sent to a central database. Participants claim rewards at participating retail and entertainment outlets, based on the number of points they collect.
Case Study 5b. ‘I Recycled’, Recyclebank Lambeth:
A variant on the RBWM Recyclebank scheme, introduced specifically to estate residents in Lambeth in May 2011. The ‘I Recycled’ scheme relies on self-reporting by participants, be it online (logging in to click ‘I recycled’), by phone or using a smart phone app. For every week that participants report having recycled, they receive 10 points, and additional rewards are shared equally at the end of each month based on the total weight of all recycling collected across the Borough.
39
Let’s Get Moving, Merseyside; (Lucas, forthcoming)
This scheme, funded by the European Social Fund, has been running since 2008, with the aim of promoting social inclusion in Merseyside by overcoming transport barriers and ensuring transport affordability for those who are transitioning from welfare into work. The scheme includes a wide range of initiatives, including: the provision of free face-to-face travel information, tailored advice, and guidance in an accessible format for those with disabilities or learning difficulties, and in other languages where necessary; personal journey plans; regular travel surgeries; attendance at job fairs and job cafes; feedback to Merseyside authorities on issues such as transport gaps, service demands, information needs; and travel passes, enabling up to one month’s free travel to work using public transport in the first month of employment, which is designed to cover the cost of travelling to work in the period between coming off benefits and receiving the first month’s pay. In addition, where public transport is not available, the scheme offers a low-cost loan of a motor scooter, ‘Scooter Commuter’, and all its associated set-up costs (including training and insurance) or a free bicycle, ‘Wheels to Work’. In a recent qualitative evaluation of the scheme (Lucas, forthcoming), there was unanimous agreement amongst participants that their biggest barrier to job uptake was finding the money to pay for travelling to work in the first month of employment; most of the clients who were in receipt of the free travel pass retained their employment status for at least 3-6 months [figures were not available regarding the average employment retention prior to the scheme].
TravelWise’s Big Walk, Merseyside; (personal correspondence)
A school-based scheme, run by the Merseyside TravelWise team, which aims to increase the number of children walking to school through biannual ‘Walk to School’ weeks. Each day a child walks to school in those weeks, they receive a sticker as a reward. Building on the success of this, an initiative called ‘The Big Walk’ was run throughout the summer term last year in partnership with the Liverpool Picturehouse cinema. Again, each day a child walked to school they received a sticker, but it was also recorded as a point in a class log book. Every pupil within the class that logged the most walking points at the end of the six-week period was given a free Picturehouse cinema ticket. Whilst evaluation data is not yet available, the TravelWise team highlighted school children as being particularly receptive to rewards, often more so than any of the other groups that had been targeted by travel-based reward schemes in the Merseyside area.
Step2Get, piloted in Bexleyheath (with 290 male students) and Wimbledon (with 299 female students); Bird (no date)
A walk to school scheme, created by the Smarter Travel Unit at Transport for London and Intelligent Health Ltd, offering rewards to secondary school children who walk to school. Each participant is given a personal radio frequency identity (RFID) card which they swipe at touch points (a series of battery operated receivers containing NFC mobile technology) along a designated walking route. The data is sent via mobile phone technology to a central database. When a participant has completed a designated number of walks, they can redeem a reward, choosing either cinema tickets (Odeon) or shop vouchers (TopShop). Participants can log on to a website to monitor their progress; viewing the number of days they have walked the route and how many more walks are required before earning a reward.
Bird (no date) has published an evaluation of two pilot Step2Get schemes online; as a result of the scheme, the modal shift from bus use to walking is in the region of 18% of the target market (the student population of a school taking part in a Step2Get scheme). The Bexleyheath pilot recorded an 18% reduction in the number of students boarding buses. In the Wimbledon pilot, the number of bus pick-ups at peak time fell by 57% as a result of the scheme, and 45% participants said they would switch to walking from other means of transport. In addition, wider benefits of the scheme included: improved student cohesion; improved road safety; increased levels of healthy, active travel; reduced
40
stress for bus drivers; reduced traffic and bus congestion; and, a reduction in the number of students arriving late to school each day (in the Wimbledon pilot), which could be enhanced by programming the system to discount swipes outside of set times or by providing free breakfasts for those who arrive earlier. The evidence of sustained behaviour change post-scheme is mixed and it is noted that extending the duration of the scheme would require improvements in cost-effectiveness.
Bike Miles, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Brentwood; personal correspondence
Introduced to employees in 2003 when the GSK headquarters moved to a new-build site where parking availability was limited. The Bike Miles reward scheme offers £1 per day to employees who choose to cycle to work (regardless of the distance cycled). Each employee registered on the scheme is given a sticker book, to which a sticker is added by the onsite security guard each time they cycle in. As stickers are collected they can be exchanged for vouchers, which may be redeemed at local bike stores. After filling the first £260 book, equivalent to a year’s cycling, cyclists progress to a gold and then platinum book, which comes with a special card bringing added benefits. The arrival of an onsite Evans bike store in 2007 resulted in a significant increase in the level of participation in the scheme (according to personal correspondence, a 3% increase in the number of participating employees was observed within the first year of the store opening). The store began administering the Bike Miles, and also provides onsite cycling retail, advice, bike maintenance and general support.
Whilst an evaluation of the Bike Miles scheme was not available, the scheme coordinator noted the importance of: putting the necessary supporting infrastructure in place alongside any reward scheme to ensure supported and sustained change (e.g. showers, secure bike racks, lockers, maintenance support); recognising that different people will require different types and levels of support to achieve a modal shift (for example, employees with dependents are much less likely to engage in the scheme due to other commitments, such as dropping off children at school en route to work); ensuring there is at least one dedicated person responsible for considering, enabling and encouraging sustainable travel modes in the workplace; and partnering with organisations who champion the different sustainable modes (e.g. Evans and, in relation to GSK’s walking promotions, Living Streets). GSK estimates the scheme to cost approximately £400 per cyclist per year.
Energy Neighbourhoods, multiple locations across Europe; Intelligent Energy, no date
A six-month community-based competition that ran from November 2008, with the aim of raising awareness of how behavioural changes can be used to save energy around the home. Originally developed in Belgium, the initiative spread to eight other European countries, including Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK. An ‘Energy Neighbourhood’ consists of 8 to 10 households who form a team and compete with other ‘neighbourhoods’, all of which accept a ‘bet’ offered by the city council; that they could make energy savings of at least 8% over a six-month period, compared to the same period the previous year. Each team is coached by an ‘Energy Master’ who pulls the team together and provides ongoing support and advice. The municipality plays the role of referee and supporter, informing their citizens on how to save energy, organising get-togethers and ensuring the teams abide by the rules. Based on the results over the six-month period, an evaluation of the energy savings made was undertaken, and prizes given to the neighbourhoods that saved 8% of energy or more, awarded at one of a series of Regional Award Ceremonies. These national-level prizes consisted largely of energy saving packages, such as fleece blankets, light bulbs, solar games, and vouchers for organic stores. The special prize was a trip to the International Award Ceremony in Brussels, where each of the three households with the greatest national energy savings were awarded.
According to the project evaluation (Intelligent Energy, no date), around 60% of all participants managed to reach the target 8% energy saving and 80% of participating neighbourhoods saved energy in comparison to the previous year. All participants together achieved an energy saving of 11%, with the energy saved compared to the previous year amounting to 3320 tons of carbon
41
dioxide and 9,149,756kWh. However, it should be noted that the competition primarily attracted those who were already socially or environmentally engaged in their communities in some way.
Dormitory Energy Competition, US; Petersen et al., 2007
Petersen et al. (2007) report on a two-week campus-wide ‘Dormitory Energy Competition’ organised for students in March 2005. The aim of the competition was to encourage students to reduce both water and energy consumption within their dormitories. The study tested three types of feedback: (a) feedback received once per week on the aggregate electricity and water consumption of an entire dormitory (termed ‘low resolution’); (b) real time feedback on the aggregate use of an entire dormitory (‘high resolution’); and (c) real time feedback on the electricity use by students on individual floors within a dormitory (also ‘high resolution’). Feedback was socially comparative in the sense that each dormitory could see how other dormitories were doing during the competition through a competition website. The competition was intended to provide an incentive for conservation, and a context for advertising, educating and delivering the feedback on resource use within college dormitories. The feedback, education and the competition together resulted in a 32% reduction in electricity use, but only a 3% reduction in water use (perhaps due to the lower resolution22 of water feedback available and the limited emphasis placed on water use within the competition and accompanying materials).
British Gas Green Streets, multiple UK locations; ippr, 2009, 2011
14 groups from varied communities across England, Scotland and Wales were selected to compete for a prize of £100,000. Each community was given a share of a £2 million investment of capital, together with technical advice and support from British Gas, to spend on a range of microgeneration and energy efficiency measures in community buildings and surrounding households in the pursuit of three core objectives: saving energy, generating energy and engaging the ‘wider community’. The challenge ran from January 2010 until March 2011 and has since been evaluated by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr, 2011). This competition, Green Streets 2, built on the success of an earlier competition, Green Streets 1, which took place in 2009. Both Green Streets 1 and 2 have resulted in significant increases in energy savings, which are primarily attributed to the technology installations but also to the high levels of community engagement stimulated by the competition.
The EcoTeam Initiative, multiple locations across Europe; Hargreaves et al., 2008, Staats et al., 2004
Studies of this initiative, in which participating groups receive a combination of goal setting, information, support and group feedback, have identified significant changes in energy (and wider pro-environmental) behaviours (discussed by Staats et al., 2004; Hargreaves et al., 2008). An EcoTeam consists of 6-10 people who are recruited from the same neighbourhood and meets once a month (for approximately four to eight months). Each meeting is focused on a different household pro-environmental behaviour, for example waste prevention, gas, electricity, water, transport, and consumer behaviour. During the meetings the group, assisted by a facilitator, discusses the local and global issues relating to the behaviour in question, together with their personal experiences. Using information provided in the EcoTeam workbook and video, the group decides which practical changes they could make at home as well as the limits to what could be achieved. Between meetings, the EcoTeam members try out these changes at home, take regular measurements to monitor the impacts of these changes, ready to discuss their experiences and progress made at the next meeting. The results of the EcoTeam, in terms of reductions of waste and savings of gas, electricity and water are recorded in the EcoTeam log book, and results sent to a central database at the Global Action Plan office. The results of all active EcoTeams are compiled and used to give individual teams feedback about the amount of savings realised. During and after their active period,
22
Based on an aggregate weekly meter reading rather than real time feedback.
42
EcoTeam members also receive feedback about the cumulative results of all EcoTeams operating during the same period by means of the EcoTeam newsletter, distributed every three months.
Staats et al.’s (2004) three-year longitudinal study of the Dutch EcoTeam programme found that eco-team participants (N=150) changed half of 38 household behaviours examined (based on both self reported behaviour change and physical measures of solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity and water consumption). These improvements were sustained or increased two years after completion of the programme, resulting in savings of 6.7% on water consumption, 7.6% in electricity consumption, 16.9% in natural gas consumption, and 32.1% on solid waste deposition. Similarly, Hargreaves et al. (2008) present quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of the UK Eco-Team initiative in reducing waste and electricity consumption, drawing on the data collected by 58 Eco-Teams over a six-year period. This data suggests the programme has catalysed an average reduction in participating households’ electricity consumption of 6.86%, average increases in recycling of 7.71%, and average reductions in municipal solid waste of 19.66%. Early qualitative research suggests the EcoTeams programme encourages participants to minimise their waste by, for example, refusing packaging when shopping.
It should be noted, however, that many participants were already pro-environmental and undertaking activities at home prior to joining the scheme, particularly in the Dutch scheme, which raises questions concerning the potential of this group-based pro-active approach to encourage behavioural shifts amongst less environmentally-engaged households.
Food Dudes, trialled in multiple locations around the UK; Horne et al., 2004, Lowe et al., 2004
This scheme, a reward-based intervention for younger age groups (4-11), deploys a combination of taste exposure to fruit and vegetables at snack and lunch times during school hours, role modelling in the form of video adventures and letters from heroic peers, the ‘Food Dudes’, and rewards given to children according to the volume they eat of the fruit and vegetable portions given to them (Lowe et al, 2004; Horne et al, 2004). Following a baseline period where children are just given the free fruit and vegetable portions, the intervention was rolled out; over 16 days, children watched video adventures in which the ‘Food Dudes’ battle against the evil ‘Junk Punks’ who plan to take over the world by depriving people of their life-giving fruit and vegetables. To help them in their battle, the Food Dudes eat (and, importantly, are seen to enjoy), a variety of fruit and vegetables. Throughout the videos and through ‘letters’ read to the children by their class teacher, the Food Dudes urge the children to ‘keep the life force strong’ by doing the same. Throughout the 16-day period, children who eat their fruit and vegetable portions are given rewards, ranging from Food Dude stickers given for eating some of their fruit and vegetables to more potent rewards (e.g. Food Dude-branded pens, pencils, pencil cases) when they ate the whole serving. The intervention has been trialled and shown to be effective amongst schools in socially deprived and non-deprived schools, though it is noted that the context and method of reward delivery were critical to the scheme’s success over the longer term. The context in which the rewards were given in these trials was designed to avoid coercive or negative associations; they focused on the intrinsic virtues and enjoyment of eating fruit and vegetables, extolled by the Food Dudes, and rewards were presented as positive indicators of children’s positive achievements in, for example, keeping the ‘Life Force’ strong. Teachers were asked to use the rewards as marks of achievement, accompanying them with positive encouragement and praise, rather than as a bribe to encourage them to eat more of the fruit and vegetable portions.
NU Spaarpas Initiative, the Netherlands; Seyfang (2006)
This scheme was piloted in the city of Rotterdam from 2002 to 2003 with the aim of promoting pro-environmental consumer behaviour. Within the scheme, “green points” are earned when city residents separate their waste for recycling, use public transport, or shop locally. Extra points can be earned by buying “ethical” products. These points can be redeemed for public transport tickets or
43
discounts on sustainable products; alternatively, they can be donated to charity. The points circulate in a closed-loop system, and card scanners in participating shops feed data into a central set of accounts. In October 2003, 10,000 households owned the card, over 100 shops were participating, and 1.5 million points had been issued. It was a partnership between local government, local businesses, and non-governmental organisations. The pilot NU project cost €2 million to establish and run during the trial period. It is reported to have resulted in the following benefits: (a) supporting localisation; (b) reducing the local environmental footprint; (c) encouraging positive shifts in consumer behaviour; (d) channelling collective action through the public sector; and (e) creating new institutions of exchange (Seyfang, 2006).
Spice, multiple locations across England and Wales; University of Wales, 2008
Spice is a social enterprise active in England and Wales that develops agency-related time banking systems for communities and public services, covering various activities such as housing, schools and local communities. For example, in housing projects social housing tenants can earn credits by contributing to a series of residential activities. These include community programmes (e.g. organisation of social events), community support (e.g. childcare, health groups) and core tenant participation (e.g. interview panels, board meetings, sub-groups). Tenants can exchange Spice time credits for leisure, learning and recreation services organised and brokered by the landlord in partnership with local community centres. In part, the credits utilise “excess capacity” in local venues, such as spare seats at local rugby matches. In addition, tenants can exchange credits among themselves with services and activities.
Similarly, school projects are based around ‘Time School’ credits, which may be earned by students, parents and community members who offer support to their school community. The credits may be redeemed for tickets to school concerts, use of school IT facilities, local leisure and recreational services. The ‘Time School’ scheme has been introduced to four secondary schools (namely, Glyn Derw High School, Michaelston Community College, Pontypridd High School, and Tonypandy Community College) with the purpose of promoting an active culture and cohesion between the schools and their wider communities.
Orange Rockcorps, multiple locations in the US, UK, France; personal correspondence
The RockCorps movement was started in the US in 2005; the idea is that four hours of volunteering in the community is rewarded with music: tickets to a unique gig cannot be bought, but only earned through volunteering. Whilst the movement started in the US, it has now spread to France and the UK. In 2008 RockCorps was launched in the UK, working in partnership with Orange, Blackberry and Channel 4. The last concert was held at the Wembley Arena in July 2011, attracting over 11,000 volunteers, all of whom had dedicated at least four hours of time to an Orange RockCorps volunteering project. Orange RockCorps broadened the scheme with the launch of the “Orange RockCorps Collective” in 2009. Mindful that not everyone can get to London for a specific gig and may not live near an Orange RockCorps project, the Collective scheme rewards people who have volunteered four hours of their time to any genuine charity with a Ticketmaster voucher, which they can redeem for a gig of their choice (once the volunteering story has been validated).