d3.1: results of interim assessment of student switch...

1

Project Acronym: SAVES Project Title: Students Achieving Valuable Energy Savings Contract Number: IEE/13/719/SI2.675836 Project Duration: 01/04/2014 – 31/03/2017

Deliverable reference number and title:

D3.1: Results of interim assessment of Student Switch Off August 2015

Main authors:

Marina Laskari University of Athens (UoA)

Nikos Papadopoulos University of Athens (UoA)

Disclaimer:

The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect

the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for

any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

2

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Online questionnaire survey for key individuals ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Respondent characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Student Switch Off Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.2.2 Spill-over effect ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Focus group with key individuals .............................................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.1 The SSO campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.1.2 The energy dashboard......................................................................................................................................... 15

4. Student online questionnaire survey ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

4.1.1 Student Switch Off Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 17

5. Student focus groups ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Questionnaire results ................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.1 Participants profile ............................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.2 Energy dashboard ................................................................................................................................................. 22

5.2 Discussion results per country ................................................................................................................................. 23

6. Main findings of the interim evaluation .................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix A: Online evaluation form for key individuals ...................................................................................... 30

Appendix B: Key individual evaluation results per country................................................................................ 32

Appendix C – Student follow-up survey questions on Student Switch Off .................................................... 34

List of figures

Figure 1 Role of interim assessment in Student Switch Off......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Role of key individuals ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3: Effectiveness of Student Switch Off activities ................................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Increase of personal awareness ....................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Energy saving in everyday life .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 Awareness of activities taking place within halls (%, total sample) .................................................. 17

Figure 7 Awareness of the Student Switch Off campaign (%, total sample) ..................................................... 18

Figure 8 Influence of Student Switch Off on students (%, total) ............................................................................ 19

Figure 9 Profile of student focus groups participants ................................................................................................ 22

List of tables

Table 1 Survey response rate ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2 Role of respondents in the campaign per country .......................................................................................... 5

Table 3 Increase of personal awareness per country ................................................................................................. 11

3

Table 4 Mean value for increase in personal energy awareness ............................................................................ 11

Table 5 Follow-up survey response rate .......................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6 Awareness of activities taking place within halls (%, per country) ..................................................... 18

Table 7 Awareness of the Student Switch Off campaign (%, per country) ........................................................ 18

Table 8 Influence of Student Switch Off on students (%, per country) ............................................................... 19

Table 9 Participation in student focus groups ............................................................................................................... 21

Table 10 Helpfulness of energy dashboard features in energy saving (mean and standard deviation) 22

Table 11 Awareness of SSO activities ................................................................................................................................ 28

Table 12 Influence of Student Switch Off on students ................................................................................................ 29

4

1. Introduction At the end of academic year 2014-2015 an interim evaluation of the Student Switch Off campaign took place to collect feedback to help update the energy dashboard and the campaign ahead of year two

(Figure 1). More specifically the interim evaluation of the Student Switch Off campaign aimed to determine and evaluate:

what worked well with the campaign in Year 1 what could be done better in Year 2 additional requirements for the energy dashboard.

Figure 1 Role of interim assessment in Student Switch Off

Both students and key individuals directly involved in the campaign in each country participated in the evaluation. Means for evaluation were quantitative (questionnaire surveys) and qualitative (focus groups and open-

ended questions in the questionnaire surveys). The qualitative approach involved free discussion over specific questions to which the participants answered in their own words and added meaning to their answers. The quantitative approach involved a questionnaire with specific answer options.

Four independent evaluations were performed:

1. Online feedback form with key individuals

2. Online questionnaire survey with students 3. One focus group with key individuals 4. Two student focus groups in each country.

This report presents the findings for each of these evaluations. The final chapter presents a summary of main findings from all four evaluations.

Year 1 competition

Year 2 competition

Interim assessment

Updates to dashboard and

competition

5

2. Online questionnaire survey for

key individuals

An evaluation questionnaire for key individuals was circulated online in May 2015. The aim of the evaluation was to collect feedback, from those closest to the project, on what worked well and what could be done better in year 2 of the campaign based on their individual experience. The spill-over effect on the key individuals’ everyday life was also investigated as a measure of an additional success of the project. A copy of the evaluation form is enclosed in Appendix A.

2.1 Respondent characteristics Key individuals from 17 dormitory providers took the survey. Seven of these dormitory providers were in the UK, five in Lithuania, two in Sweden, two in Greece, one in Cyprus.

A total of 30 key individuals directly involved in the campaign completed the survey (Table 1). At least 50% of key individuals from each country answered the survey. Table 1 Survey response rate

Cyprus Greece Lithuania Sweden UK Total

Respondents 3 5 6 7 9 30

The respondents had different roles in the delivery of the campaign.. Almost half of the respondents (14 persons) were student ambassadors while seven respondents were dormitory coordinators. Four out of 30 key individuals categorized themselves as “other”. They were dormitory staff (three respondents) and a sustainability engagement coordinator (one respondent). The breakdown of respondents is summarised in Figure 2 and in Table 2.

Figure 2: Role of key individuals

Table 2 Role of respondents in the campaign per country


Dormitory Coordinator 1 1 2 2 1 7

Country Manager 0 1 1 1 0 3

6

Energy Manager 0 0 1 0 0 1

Facilities Manager 0 0 0 0 0 0

Student Ambassador 1 3 1 4 5 14

Accommodation manager/offices

1 0 0 0 0 1

Other 0 0 1 0 3 4

2.2 Results

2.2.1 Student Switch Off Evaluation 2.2.1.1 Effectiveness of Student Switch Off activities

The key individuals were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the following Student Switch Off

activities: Facebook page Face to face interaction Students Switch Off website Posters

Flyers Emails Student ambassadors

Items were evaluated on a 5-point Likert Scale (1= Extremely effective, 5 = Not at all effective) with higher values indicating a lower level of effectiveness of the activity. An additional “Don’t know/Not available” option was also provided.

Figure 3 gives the results of the evaluation for the total sample. Country statistics are given in Appendix B.

7

Figure 3: Effectiveness of Student Switch Off activities

The majority of respondents (18 respondents) thought that the Facebook page was very effective or extremely effective. Twelve respondents found the Facebook page slightly or moderately effective. At country level, all respondents from Cyprus found the Facebook page extremely effective. The key individuals from Greece also had a very good opinion of Facebook as two of them believed that it was extremely effective and two more that it was very effective. In Sweden, Lithuania and UK the

respondents also had a very good opinion of the effectiveness of Facebook, but there were some

respondents that believed that it was slightly effective (two persons in Sweden and two persons in UK). Seventeen out of 29 respondents found face-to-face interaction with students very effective or extremely effective while 12 of them thought that it was either slightly or moderately effective. These findings are confirmed in the per country analysis that is shown in table B2 where it can be seen that most of the

answers from all countries ranged from “extremely” to “slightly effective”. The most preferred category for all countries was “very effective” as 14 of key individuals selected this option.

8

The Student Switch Off website was thought to be slightly or moderately effective by the majority of respondents (20 respondents) while three respondents (two from Lithuania and one from Cyprus) found

it to be not at all effective. Four respondents (from Greece and UK) found it to be very effective.

The majority of respondents found the posters to be slightly or moderately effective (19 respondents). Eight respondents found them very or extremely effective. Two respondents from the UK and one from Sweden found the posters extremely effective. In the rest of the countries most of the answers ranged from “very” to “not at all” effective as can be seen in table B4. The majority of key individuals found flyers to be moderately or slightly effective (19 responses). Five

respondents found the flyers to be not at all effective. Four respondents found the flyers very or extremely effective. Responses from Lithuania ranged between slightly effective to don’t know. Cyprus key individuals were more positive as two believed that flyers were moderately effective and one that they were very effective. The respondents from Sweden were positive as well: four respondents believed that flyers were moderately effective and one that they were very effective. In the UK respondents gave answers that ranged from “extremely” to “not at all” effective as can be seen in table B5.

Ten respondents thought that emails were moderately effective, while six respondents (three from Lithuania and three from the UK) thought they were slightly effective. Twelve respondents found emails

either very or extremely effective. At country level answers spanned from “extremely” to “moderately” effective. Analysis per country is shown in table B6. The involvement of student ambassadors was found to be “very” or “extremely” effective by the majority

of key individuals (17 respondents). Nine respondents found them moderately or slightly effective. The analysis per country shows that the answers from Sweden have the greatest dispersion since the answers ranged from “extremely” to “don’t know”. In contrast all the key individuals from Cyprus answered that they were extremely effective as can be seen in table B7.

2.2.1.2 Barriers to student engagement

Key individuals were asked to list three things that in their opinion prevent/hinder students from engaging more with Student Switch Off. Based on given answers, barriers were grouped under the following categories:

Motivational Informational Attitudinal/Perceptual

Practical limitations In the motivational category the main thing mentioned was that the students would not benefit from decreased rent if they saved energy. The respondents also stated that there was a lack of motivation for engaging more with SSO because the rewards were small and the gifts were of low price.

In the informational category the answers were the following (from the most to the least popular): 1. There was a lack of face to face communication with the students in order to inform them about

the SSO campaign. 2. There was also a lack of knowledge and awaking of social awareness in environmental issues in

general. In some countries environmental issues aren’t a trend yet and for this reason students didn’t find the SSO activities interesting.

3. The dashboard did not working yet so students did not have actual data on energy consumption

of their hall and thus they couldn’t see the effect of energy savings owing to their behavior. 4. Students receive a lot of information via email. As a result the SSO emails usually got lost in

their inboxes.

In the attitudinal/perceptual category the key individuals gave the following answers: Sometimes students did not participate in SSO because they did not want to share their personal

info.

Students did not have the willingness to change their behavior. In the practical limitations category the following answers were given:

The students did not have a lot of time to engage with SSO because the semester’s schedules were tight.

9

Students believed that their habits would not make any difference in energy savings because the halls were in a bad condition with regards to energy efficiency.

2.2.1.3 Successes of the campaign The key individuals were asked to list three successes of Student Switch Off in their halls of residence. Based on answers given, successes were grouped under the following categories:

Environmental Social

Economic

With regards to environmental successes the key individuals said that:

The halls of residence saved more energy than before. The people involved in the SSO started to save energy in their everyday life.

There were a number of answers with regards to the social successes of the programme that showed

that it had an impact on the participants’ way of thinking. Specific answers are listed below:

The students’ awareness on the topic of energy savings increased. The number of students that were aware of environmental issues increased. Environmental issues have become a main topic of discussion between the students. The enthusiasm of students for energy saving grew. The persons involved in the campaign will continue to save energy in their everyday life.

The dormitory administrators became aware of the energy savings issues and they encouraged energy saving in the halls of residence.

The programme increased the creativity and improved the social life of the involved students. The students were involved in voluntary work. The number of students that were checking the official SSO Facebook pages grew. Students liked the photo competitions.

Regarding the economic successes the most popular answer was that the halls of residence decreased their costs thanks to energy savings.

2.2.1.4 Suggestions for improvement In individual halls of residence

The key individuals were asked to suggest improvements for the SSO campaign in their university/dorm provider. Their suggestions ranged from decreasing the rent fee according to energy savings to the more active promotion of the dashboard. All answers are listed below:

The fee for the hall should be decreased according to energy savings. The notion of energy saving should be communicated more actively. The dormitory administrators could help more in the dissemination of the campaign.

Promote online energy saving games (gamification). Students should receive regular feedback on how their hall is performing via the energy

dashboard. More campaigns and events should take place in small intervals. The dormitory manager should send notifications to the students via email. A presentation from another country’s SSO coordinator should take place. The students should receive bigger rewards.

The campaign should be promoted as a collective effort to save energy rather than a competition between buildings.

The coordinators of the campaign should try to involve the housing authorities more. The campaign should provide more guidance and training to the Student ambassadors. Increase student and student ambassador involvement. Introduce a competition for the best Save Energy flyer. The campaign should offer more incentives to students.

The promotion of the dashboard should be more active.

In general

10

They key individuals were also asked to suggest improvements for the SSO campaign in general. Several key individuals proposed improvements that enhanced the connectivity between halls of residence and

placed emphasis on the European aspect of the project. They also proposed that SSO should

communicate more success stories in terms of energy savings. The complete list of the answers was as follows:

Introduce an enhanced campaign with visits from/to other halls of residence. Introduce a more attractive campaign for the students. Education on energy saving should be increased. The campaign should communicate success stories from other energy saving campaign. The campaign should use the students’ enthusiasm more effectively and offer more incentives.

Improve or invent new ways to perform photo competitions. There should be financial incentives for attracting students. Expand the campaign to other disciplines such as recycling, water usage, and transport. A wider range of engagement events should be introduced. Promote the campaign not only in halls of residence but also in other building types. Communicate the European range of the project and the impact that the programme has in the

other participating countries.

Try to have less engagement activities with greater impact on energy saving instead of more activities with smaller impact each.

The dorm providers should promote more of their work on energy savings in order that the students feel that they are working for a cause.

The country SSO websites should be improved.

2.2.2 Spill-over effect 2.2.2.1 Impact on personal energy saving awareness Key individuals were asked to evaluate the level of impact that the SSO campaign has had on their personal energy awareness. Items were evaluated on a 5-point Likert Scale (1= Extremely, 5 = Not at all) with higher values indicating a lower level of impact. An additional “Don’t know” option was also

provided. Half of the respondents thought that their involvement in SSO was “very” influential on their personal awareness (15 respondents), while five more thought that it was “extremely” influential. Eight

respondents thought that the campaign had a slight or moderate impact on their energy awareness. One respondent didn’t feel an effect on his energy awareness, while 1 respondent did not provide an answer to the question.

The results of this question are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Increase of personal awareness

At country level the biggest impact of the project was made in Cyprus and Greece since the answers from these two countries ranged from “very” to “extremely” effective (Table 3). In Sweden the impact ranged from “very” to “slightly” effective. In the UK one respondent felt extremely impacted by the campaign while in Lithuania one respondent was not impacted at all.

11

Table 3 Increase of personal awareness per country


Extremely 1 3 0 0 1 5

Very 2 2 3 3 5 15

Moderate 0 0 2 2 1 5

Slightly 0 0 0 2 1 3

Not at all 0 0 1 0 0 1

Don't know or N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean values were calculated for the level of impact of the campaign on energy awareness of key individuals in each country. The results are presented in Table 4. The lower the mean value the bigger the increase of the energy awareness of key individuals in that country. Calculations revealed that the impact on personal awareness is not negligible in any country. The mean values for Cyprus and Greece

ranged between “extremely” and “very” effective (Cyprus had a mean value of 1.66 and Greece a mean value of 1.4) while the mean values for Lithuania, Sweden and the UK were between “very” and “moderately” effective (Lithuania had a mean value of 2.86, Sweden had a mean value of 2.83 and the UK had a mean value of 2.83). Table 4 Mean value for increase in personal energy awareness

Cyprus Greece Sweden Lithuania UK

mean value 1,66 1,4 2,83 2,86 2,25

2.2.2.2 Impact on personal energy use The key individuals were also asked if they saved more energy in their everyday life as a result of their involvement in the Student Switch Off campaign. The vast majority of answers were yes. Only two

respondents (one from Sweden and one from Lithuania) answered “no” (Figure 5). One respondent did not answer the question.

Figure 5: Energy saving in everyday life

12

3. Focus group with key individuals At the end of academic year 2014-2015 a focus group was performed with key individuals directly involved in Student Switch Off. The focus group was divided in two sections:

A. The Student Switch Off Campaign. Aimed to collect feedback on: The experience of project partners with the SSO campaign; Biggest learning and inspiration in relation to the campaign; Successes and challenges of the campaign in Year 1; Things that partners would add to, would not repeat, or would modify in Year 2; Ideas on how to link students up more across countries; Suggestions students gave for the improvement of SSO through an online questionnaire survey;

Ideas on how to overcome the challenge of decreased student interest in Year 2.

B. The Energy Dashboard. Aimed to collect feedback on: Barriers in the engagement of key individuals with the energy dashboard development Improvements in the development process of the energy dashboard.

In total, 9 key individuals participated in the focus group. At least one representative from each country

participated in the focus group.

3.1 Results The focus group was performed in the form of an open discussion on specific questions; nine questions

were on the Student Switch Off Campaign in general and two more questions related to the Energy Dashboard. The discussion with regards to each of the questions is described in Chapters 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

3.1.1 The SSO campaign

1. What has your experience of the SSO campaign been?

The majority of project partners hadn’t previously tried to deliver a campaign similar to Student Switch

Off in their halls of residence. The perception was that it would be difficult to deliver,(in particular the engagement with students), however once the campaign got launched partners realized that it was

relatively simple (and enjoyable). Partners could see the campaign working through the impact that it had on student behaviour and increased awareness of energy saving. A partner specifically stated that Student Switch Off is a very simple concept that gets really good

results, while in academia often very complicated and sophisticated behavior change models and tools are used without always achieving similar results. Another partner shared the view that it can be a bit challenging at times when a lot of effort is put into an engagement activity without that bringing the expected results, while sometimes the opposite can happen.

2. What has your biggest learning been in relation to the campaign?

Partners mentioned a number of different learnings as a result of the campaign. Marketing and campaigning was a big learning for most project partners. Having to engage students in energy saving and activities was also new for most of the partners, especially since the housing providers are non-private. In addition, partners had to learn how to use social media that younger generations use. Other

learning related to campaigning was the realisation that students were more receptive than dorm coordinators thought.

Partners also admitted to learning a lot about energy saving themselves. They felt that they were now more aware of energy saving actions such as “putting a lid on pans” and have adopted them in their daily lives. Cultural differences and their importance in EU wide projects was a further learning. It was established

that some features worked in all countries, but because perceptions and attitudes varied between

13

countries some features need to be adapted. Trial and error was needed to establish what worked/didn’t work in each country/dorm provider.

A final learning (more related to the SAVES project rather than the SSO campaign, nevertheless relevant) was that of EU funded project procedures and reporting. Most partners had not been involved in EU projects before. Those that had been involved in EU projects before were happy with the project management and collaboration with the consortium. The learning for them was that project management and consortium do play an important role in the timely delivery of robust outcomes.

3. What would you say has been the biggest success of the campaign (not just limited to

your university)?

A success identified by all country partners was the increase in energy awareness and change in

behaviours of students; this was evident through the energy savings achieved. Even where savings were not significant, it was observed that students did think about the project and energy saving and talked to each other about it. This fact alone was seen as a big success. Another success was the fact that students were using their initiative and creativity in photo

competitions,

A big success for Sweden was the winning of the Fastighetsmässan award, competing against big companies. The Fastighetsmässan award recognised initiatives which worked to make buildings more energy efficient. It especially rewarded schemes which seeked to shape values rather than pursued technical solutions.

From the consortium’s point of view the project was a success as it allowed for different cultures to meet and collaborate. Dorm coordinators got the chance to see how other universities managed their halls of residence. Also, the fact that the project consortium collaborated so well and delivered in a timely manner was an clear success. Importantly, the campaign was run and finished successfully in all universities.

4. What would you say has been the biggest challenge of the campaign (not just limited

to your university)?

Partners were faced with a number of different challenges related to the project. The concept of Student

Switch Off was rather challenging in the beginning for almost all partners. It was difficult to understand how exactly the different and numerous activities were realized and what the exact roles and activities of different key individuals would be. The limited time that partners had to prepare the campaign in their country was also a challenge. Today, running the campaign is considered very easy by all partners. Once the campaign was setup and running a new challenge emerged; that of maintaining the interest of the students. This is in fact an ongoing challenge that needs to be addressed for next year’s campaign.

Finding sponsors for the competitions was a challenging task in most countries, especially in Cyprus where the number of students staying in the halls of residence was rather small (slightly over 200 students). A challenge faced in all countries was time versus budget, remaining within budget limitations was a difficult task for most partners. In addition, most partners ran SSO on top of other job responsibilities,.

Some partners also noted that the results did not always depend on the effort put in. Sometimes a lot of time was put into an activity and the results were negligible. Nonetheless, this was considered as part of trial and error in each country in the first year of the campaign.

Lack of ambassador engagement in some universities was also mentioned as a challenge since their help was seen as valuable in getting things happen more effectively and more easily.

Finally, a lot of challenges were faced with the development of the energy dashboard. Those included: dealing with people in the communication chain that didn’t have power over the energy management; building the complexity of requirements into something meaningful; understand what the project required in a short amount of time.

14

5. What will you not repeat, change/modify or add to the campaign in the second year?

A lot of partners agreed that they would continue with all the engagement activities however would shift

effort to those that they saw to be more successful. In Cyprus, for example, more emphasis will be put on the international aspect of the competition and fewer posters will be printed in year 2. Students really liked the aspect of photo competitions therefore,

more will be planned for next year. In Sweden face to face meetings will not be performed in the form of meetings in kitchens in year 2 because of small outreach in Year 1. No travelling will be done between Gothenburg and Stockholm since a second dorm coordinator would be base din Stockholm in Year 2. It is hoped that this will allow for more flexible dates for face to face visits.

Most partners will not use pledge cards in Year 2. In Greece, halls visits could be combined with the posting of mini energy reports on announcement boards in each hall. In relation to project dissemination more time should be put in the preparation of international conference applications.

6. What has inspired you the most about the campaign (it could be something other

partners did)?

Partners mentioned different aspects of the campaign that inspired them. Listening to students talk about the campaign and how they were inspired by it (i.e. in the discussion in the focus group) was rewarding/inspiring to the consortium. Seeing students achieve savings in their first time away from their home was also a big inspiration;

students were not obliged to, but did save and were likely to keep this behavior in their life outside the halls of residence. Other inspirations included: videos and other creative materials that students prepared; the Fastighetsmäss an award won by Sweden the fact that the consortium was really engaged with the project as this is not always a given.

7. What could be done to link students up more across countries (if we want to do that)?

Many ideas in relation to what the consortium could do in Year 2 to engage more students were discussed. These included:

For the communication of blogs, the opposite procedure of what was followed in Year 1 should be followed in Year 2. Blogs should first be added on the website instead of university Facebook pages.

Dorm coordinators should share posts/articles from all other universities and countries on Facebook and not just ones from twin universities to further promote the EU character of the project.

Share all articles from the SAVES website on university Facebook pages. Find a common sponsor. Do common climate quizzes. Organise concurring parties.

Do student ambassador skype calls. Do video competitions in addition to photo competitions. Look into the potential use of Instagram.

Best ambassador from each country to come to the next project steering group. Think about awarding “ambassador of the term” (in each country).

8. What were the main suggestions made from students in your country through the

follow-up survey?

An open-ended question asking students to suggest ways for improving the Student Switch Off campaign was included (see Appendix C, question 13) in an online questionnaire survey circulated to students at the end of the academic year 2014/15. The main conclusions were summarized by country partners and discussed in the focus group. The most important conclusions per country were as follows:

15

Cyprus. Students suggested to make systems out of their control automatic. An example would be the installation of lighting censors in the halls. Also, students would like to have more

competitions, with more gifts and more incentives. Energy information was seen as really

necessary in their energy saving efforts. Students also shared ideas about new competitions. Examples were: a competition for the best poster; interactive games between competing buildings; more competitions at EU level.

Greece. Students would like to have more frequent updates on their building’s energy consumption. More promotion with open activities at both hall of residence and campus level was also recommended. More training seminars on energy saving was something that students would also like to have. Finally, arranging a meeting with the students’ unions to brief them

about the project is something mentioned by some students. Lithuania. A number of students said that Student Switch Off was a great campaign and did not

need to be improved. Some students would like to see more prizes. More advertising was also mentioned by many students.

Sweden. More advertisement and information about the project was suggested by students. A lot of information went out to students whose buildings were not part of Student Switch Off. There was a request to include them in SSO as well. Students also shared ideas on how to run

the campaign differently. These included: Interactive and creative events; more involvement of dorm provider; a lot of them wanted an individual competition/feedback. A number of students

would also like for terms like “kWh” to be explained more. UK. More visibility on the campus was suggested by students. There was a split of opinions on

prizes; some wanted bigger prizes, some were ok with current ones. Finally, students would also want to see bigger outreach to other universities that were not part of SSO yet.

9. One of the challenges described by most dorm coordinators was that of decreased

interest of students as the year progressed. What do you think could be done about

this?

The most effective way of getting the competition running was undoubtedly through the involvement of

student ambassadors. Suggestions ofays of involving them more in the campaign included such as frequent catch-us to get their feedback and ideas, and announcing ambassador of the month. Another way to maintain students’ interest in the campaign was to change things slightly. The discussion on possible changes focused mainly on changes to the photo competitions. These included:

Changing themes of the photo competitions compared to last year’s.

Making combined photo competitions –combining energy saving actions into one topic.

Getting students to think more creatively about topics like “how many lights can you switch off” or ‘’what is the most efficient way to cook a certain meal”.

Themed photo competitions (i.e. fancy dress, Halloween). Changing the way the winner is selected i.e. 100th photo in one hour. Photo competition winner depending on number of “Likes” and not on 1st five. Variation of photo competitions types (i.e. all of the above mentioned types)

Reducing the number of photo competitions and increasing the effort to organize them in order to make them more attractive.

It was also suggested that students might lose interest in the campaign simply because they forget. Therefore, more advertisement and face to face interaction should be planned for year 2.

3.1.2 The energy dashboard

1. What has been the biggest barrier for you in engaging with the dashboard?

The biggest identified barriers to engaging with the dashboard were of three different kinds: technical challenges, lack of technical knowledge from country managers and communication issues. Different technical challenges were faced in different countries. The main challenges involved metering challenges for the country managers and variety in data formats that the dashboard developer had to deal with.

Lack of technical knowledge of the country managers on metering issues was also a big barrier at the beginning of the dashboard development. This made it difficult for the country managers and the dashboard developer to work out where a problem lied.

16

With regards to communication, roles and responsibilities were not always clear, again as an effect of

lack of technical knowledge, and this sometimes meant that things were lost/missed in the process.

2. How would you like the dashboard development partners to help you in the future?

It was agreed that the production of training tutorials was the optimum way for tackling many of the identified issues. Two video tutorials will be produced:

1. Content and calculation methodology 2. The procedure of setting up a competition on the dashboard.

17

4. Student online questionnaire

survey

Students in participating halls of residence were encouraged to complete an incentivized online follow-up survey (post-intervention) closer to the end of the 2014-2015 academic year. Only students that responded to the baseline survey (pre-intervention) circulated in the beginning of the academic year could participate in the follow-up survey in order to be eligible for a pre- post- comparison evaluation (findings of this are reported in Deliverable 3.3). As part of the follow-up survey four questions were included aiming to collect feedback for the interim evaluation. Findings of these questions are reported in this report.

In total, 446 respondents of the follow-up survey were considered for the interim evaluation (Table 5).

Table 5 Follow-up survey response rate


14 17 38 222 155 446

4.1 Results

4.1.1 Student Switch Off Evaluation 4.1.1.1 Awareness of Student Switch Off activities Students were asked to select from a list of Student Switch Off activities the ones that came to their attention in their halls of residence during the past academic year. As illustrated in Figure 6, out of seven activities the one that stands out is “posters about energy saving”

as it has come to the attention of almost half of total respondents (46% of total).

Figure 6 Awareness of activities taking place within halls (%, total sample)

46%

11%

11%

21%

6%

15%

8%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Posters about energy saving

Climate change quiz

Other residents talking about energyconservation

Facebook photo competitions

Dormitory staff talking about energyconservation

Stalls on campus informing aboutenergy saving

Training workshops about energysaving within halls

Haven’t noticed any of the activities above

SSO Activities

18

The most known and least known activities are an indication of what worked well and what didn’t work well in year 1. The reasons why something worked better than others in individual countries can be

assumed to be depended on the promotion performed there but also on the cultural differences between

countries. In Cyprus, Greece and Lithuania the activities that students are most aware of are the Facebook photo competitions. In Sweden and the UK students are most aware of posters on energy saving. The activities that students are the least aware of are the climate change quiz in Cyprus, Greece and Sweden and dormitory or other staff talking to them about energy conservation in Lithuania and the UK.

Table 6 Awareness of activities taking place within halls (%, per country)

SSO Activities Cyprus Greece Lithuania Sweden UK

Posters about energy saving 79% 29% 8% 36% 66%

Climate change quiz 0% 0% 11% 3% 23%

Other residents talking about energy conservation

57% 12% 11% 7% 12%

Facebook photo competitions 100% 47% 34% 9% 24%

Dormitory staff talking about energy conservation

50% 12% 3% 5% 5%

Stalls on campus informing about energy saving

7% 6% 13% 15% 15%

Training workshops about energy saving within halls

71% 6% 5% 4% 8%

Haven’t noticed any of the activities above

0% 35% 45% 39% 14%

4.1.1.2 Awareness of Student Switch Off Students were asked whether they had heard of the Student Switch Off campaign. Out of a total of 417

students that answered the question 60% had heard of the campaign (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Awareness of the Student Switch Off campaign (%, total sample)

In Cyprus all respondents heard about Student Switch Off. In Greece and in the UK, around 80% of respondents heard about the campaign. In Lithuania the proportion of respondents that have heard of

the campaign was slightly over 50% while in Sweden the number of respondents that haven’t heard of Student Switch Off is higher than the number of students that have heard of it. The proportion of respondents in Lithuania and Sweden that had not heard of the campaign is not as high because the

sample of respondents for these two countries may include students whose buildings are not part of Student Switch Off.

Table 7 Awareness of the Student Switch Off campaign (%, per country)

Heard of SSO Cyprus Greece Lithuania Sweden UK

60%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

yes

no

Have you heard of the Student Switch Off campaign?

19

yes 100% 81% 53% 43% 80%

no 0% 19% 47% 57% 20%

4.1.1.3 Influence of Student Switch Off Students were asked to select from a list of possible influences the ones that apply to the influences that Student Switch Off has had on them during the past academic year. Only respondents that answered “yes” to the question “Have you heard of the Student Switch Off campaign?” were considered for this question.

Figure 8 Influence of Student Switch Off on students (%, total)

In individual countries Student Switch Off influenced students in different ways. In Cyprus and Sweden the biggest influence was in the fact that it has made students aware of their impact on their lifestyle and habits. In Greece it has influenced students the most by showing them practical examples of what

other people do to save energy. In Lithuania students were influenced the most by the fact that they were given information on where to go for energy advice and by becoming more confident that they can actually do things to reduce their environmental impact. Finally, in the UK students were influenced the most by the fact that Student Switch Off showed them that their university is taking action to reduce its environmental impact.

The fact that students were given the opportunity to become student ambassadors had the smallest influence in Lithuania, Sweden and the UK. In Cyprus the smallest influence from Student Switch Off was from the fact that students were given information on where to go for advice on action they can take, while in Greece the smallest influence was from the fact that it helped them meet other people who were trying to do the same.

The differences in influences confirm the cultural differences between countries. What influences and

what doesn’t influence students can provide insight for country managers on how to shape the campaign in Year 2 and achieve maximum impact for their country. Table 8 Influence of Student Switch Off on students (%, per country)

Influences of Student Switch Off

Cyprus Greece Lithuania Sweden UK

5%

27%

6%

16%

24%

27%

18%

17%

12%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

It helped me meet other people whowere also trying to do the same

It made me aware of the impact of mylifestyle and habits

It gave me the opportunity to becomea Student Switch Off ambassador

I was given information on where to gofor advice on action i can take

Ι saw practical examples of what other people do to save energy

It showed me that my university istaking action to reduce its…

It showed me that students at otheruniversities are taking action to…

It made me confident that i couldactually do things to reduce my…

It made it easier for me to reduce myenvironmental impact

Student Switch Off has not influencedme

Influence of SSO

20

It helped me meet other people who were also trying to do the same

29% 0% 10% 2% 4%

It made me aware of the impact of my lifestyle and habits

71% 23% 10% 21% 29%

It gave me the opportunity to become a Student Switch Off ambassador

57% 15% 5% 0% 3%

I was given information on where to go for advice on action i can take

14% 8% 25% 10% 19%

Ι saw practical examples of what other people do to save energy

64% 54% 20% 13% 24%

It showed me that my

university is taking action to reduce its environmental impact

57% 31% 10% 10% 38%

It showed me that students at other universities are taking action to reduce their environmental impact

50% 38% 15% 9% 18%

It made me confident that i could actually do things to reduce my environmental impact

36% 31% 25% 12% 16%

It made it easier for me to reduce my environmental impact

29% 38% 10% 8% 10%

Student Switch Off has not influenced me

7% 31% 30% 55% 38%

21

5. Student focus groups Two, one and a half hour focus groups of 8-10 students per country were organized, at the end of academic year 2014-2015, as a means for students to feedback their experiences from participating in

the energy-saving competition. The focus groups also supported any improvement of current features of the energy dashboard and development of additional features. A €20 incentive was offered to each of the participants to secure participation. Only students that had heard of or participated actively in Student Switch Off were eligible to take part. Students that did not know of the campaign were not eligible to participate.

The student focus groups addressed the experiences and additional requirements of students via two approaches: a qualitative, in the form of a discussion, and a quantitative approach in the form of a questionnaire survey.

5.1 Questionnaire results The results from a demographics survey are initially presented to give an idea of the sample characteristics and further on the results from the Energy Dashboard questionnaire are presented.

5.1.1 Participants profile

In total, 53 students participated in the focus groups (Table 9). Cyprus held one focus group due to smaller number of students in halls of residence while all other countries held two focus groups each.

Table 9 Participation in student focus groups

Country Number of Participants

Cyprus 8

Greece 13

Lithuania 10

Sweden 10

UK 12

TOTAL 53

As shown in Figure 9, a larger number of female students, compared to male students participated in the focus groups. In Greece and Sweden the number of male participants was larger than the female

participants. Only six participants were older than 30 years of age and were found mainly in Lithuania. The majority of participants were native students. Non-native EU citizens were equally found in Cyprus, Sweden and in the UK. Non-EU citizens were mostly found in Sweden. Most participants were undergraduates. Some PhD students were also found, mainly from Lithuania. Twenty out of 53 respondents studied a degree relevant to energy, buildings or the environment.

22

Figure 9 Profile of student focus groups participants

5.1.2 Energy dashboard

A set of slides was used detailing features of the energy dashboard developed in Year 1. Participants were asked to express how helpful the presented features were in helping them reduce energy consumption on a 5-point Likert Scale (1=”Fully Agree”, 5=”Fully Disagree”). The lower the mean value the more helpful the feature was considered to be in saving energy.

Results of the energy dashboard evaluation are presented in Table 10. Because the Energy Dashboard prototype is common for all countries, analysis was performed for project level rather than country level.

The most useful feature in saving energy was the “percentage of savings displayed” (1.52±.577). The “Top three leaderboard” and the “comparison with other buildings” are also found to be very helpful (1.81±.908 and 1.77±.962, respectively). The “shading of the bars” and “the overall colour and design”

are the least helpful compared to the three aforementioned features; nonetheless the mean value suggests that they are also very helpful in saving energy (mean value <3).

Table 10 Helpfulness of energy dashboard features in energy saving (mean and standard deviation)

Energy dashboard feature Mean Std. Deviation

The comparison with other buildings with rankings and overall leaderboard

1,77 ,962

The Top Three leaderboard 1,81 ,908

The % savings displayed 1,52 ,577

The shading of the bars 2,17 ,901

The overall colour and design 2,13 ,742

An open-ended question asking students if there were any other features they would like to see in the dashboard was also included in the questionnaire. The most popular suggestions were:

22

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

male female

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

an

ts

gender

11

21

15

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

18-20 21-24 25-29 30+

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

an

ts

age

35

9 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

native EU citizen non-EU citizen

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

an

ts

nationality

31

15

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

bachelor master PhD

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

an

ts

level of studies

23

Include smiley faces to make it more fun. Show how much money is saved in addition to energy.

Provide weather information i.e. through a link to weather page or through a weather feature

designed specifically for the dashboard. Give savings per flat or per end use. Give savings per kWh. Show more information about the baseline energy consumption.

Other suggestions included:

Promote the Student Switch Off campaign in the dashboard area by i.e. providing dates to upcoming events or showing photos from photo competitions.

Show percentage savings as figures rather than as bars to make the page less crowded. Comparison with other countries not just between buildings of the same university. Give targets for the top three buildings. Preferences for different colours and shading. Preferences for proportion that the various features appear in and for more advanced design.

The usefulness and feasibility of these suggestions will be evaluated by the energy dashboard development team and, if necessary, considered for the design of the dashboard.

5.2 Discussion results per country This section presents the main findings of the focus group discussions for each country.

Cyprus

One focus group was organized in the University of Cyprus. Students generally stated that the Student Switch Off campaign was successful in the sense that it fulfilled the task to increase students’ awareness. They felt joy and satisfaction to participate in the programme as they felt that the objectives of the campaign were aligned with their personal goals to

minimize the impact on the environment. The campaign was successful because valuable and practical information was passed to the students through the campaign. It helped the students forge their pro-environment consciousness. Even though most students felt that they were conscious before the campaign, it enabled them to increase their

consciousness.

Some of the students, showed high motivation and tried hard to influence their peers to save energy. Personal, face to face communication was a strong and efficient method to increase the awareness level of less engaged students. Students stated that Facebook, emails and photo competitions were also significant, because they provided them with practical information and tips on how to save energy. Students mentioned that they would like more photo competitions for the following year, and new

different competitions and parties, so that students could keep feeling excited and wanting to engage in the campaign. They also stated that they would like more incentives in order for the participation of students to be maintained as high as possible. In addition, all students talked about the necessity of the Energy Dashboard, so that they could be aware at any moment how much energy they consume. They believed that the use of the Dashboard would be a great motivation tool for the competition and would create a more competitive spirit between the students.

Greece

The focus groups in Greece were held in the Technical University of Greece (TUC) and in the University

of Athens (UoA). The campaign succeeded in increasing the energy awareness of students both directly through information they received via Student Switch Off activities and indirectly, via the influence of Student Ambassadors. The main impact was putting a lid on pans when cooking and on the being marter when

using electronic appliances. Because students stay in halls of residence in Greece for the entire duration of studies, a strong community spirit is built between them; as a result the residents were not very interested in a competition on energy consumption between themselves.

24

In UoA the most influential activities were a) the posters which made students more aware of the fact that there is an energy saving campaign going on but also more alert on how to behave energy-wise in

their everyday life and b) the Student Ambassadors by inspiring the less energy aware or engaged

students to act in a more energy conscious way and by giving them practical tips for saving energy. In TUC participants stated that they really liked the photo competitions and the climate quizzes. Many of them would like for the climate quizzes to be more and on a regular basis. All participants thought that they would maintain the energy saving actions they learned through Student Switch Off when they moved out of halls as this would have an additional benefit for them

(reduction of energy bills). A significant barrier faced in the UoA halls of residence was that of suspicion that the energy monitoring of the halls could form the springboard for the university to start looking into energy consumption and eventually charge students for their consumption. The removal of this barrier should be looked at for year 2. A barrier for energy saving common in both groups was the structural and system limitations i.e. no shutters for shading in rooms.

The most preferred way for communicating the SSO actions to the students in TUC was through the

hall’s Facebook page and the email forum. In UoA participants would like to receive energy consumption information about their building in the form of printed mini reports posted on the announcement boards found in the entrance of each building.

All participants agreed that the end-of-year prize should be in the form of an investment (i.e. new laundry machines) that can improve the quality of their stay for the rest of the years in the halls but also the life of future residents.

Lithuania

Two focus groups were organized in Lithuania, both with students from Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

Respondents from both focus groups were positive about the role of Student Switch off. All students heard of SSO and all believed that the campaign had a positive effect on their awareness and behaviours.

Students stated that Facebook, emails and photo competitions were the most effective was to communicate, because they provided them with practical information and tips on how to save energy.

Everyone agreed that it would be easier to engage students to save energy if they knew how much they were consuming. Students believed that the use of the dashboard would be a great motivation tool for the competition and would create a more competitive spirit between the students.

With regards to improvements for the next year, communication during Fresher’s week and more advertisement were suggested.

Sweden

Two focus groups were organized in Sweden with students from SGS, Gothenburg. Both the focus groups were very positive about the role of Student Switch Off.

All students had heard of SSO, although they didn’t say it had changed their awareness and behaviours much. However when summing up the discussion to the different questions Student Switch Off did seem to have mattered in students’ awareness and behaviours, even though they didn’t explicitly say it had. None of the students participating in the focus groups believed that there were many things that would stop them from saving energy. However they did all agree on that it would be easier for people to save

energy if they knew how much they were consuming.

25

Instead of seeing barriers to save energy they all thought saving energy was the right thing to do, whether one did it to save the environment or to save energy so there would be more for people to use

in countries were energy is a scarce resource.

Not everyone was aware of the incentives that Student Switch Off currently had and all students didn’t even think that an actual prize was needed. Many students emphasized the need of feedback on how much you were saving and using. However if there would be a prize most of them thought an individual prize would be best and preferably a rent reduction. To extend the reach of the campaign the students believed more advertisement was needed as well as

different approaches; posters, e-mails, Facebook, some kind of area meetings, together with ambassadors for the campaign. This was the main focus of what could improve the campaign for next year. Students were positive about having an energy dashboard. They would have liked to see amount of kWh related to the percentage savings.

UK

Two focus groups were organized in the UK; one in De Montfort University (DMU) and one in Queen Mary

University (QMUL). Both focus groups were very positive about the role of Student Switch off. All students heard of SSO and all believed it to have a positive effect on their own awareness and

behaviours. People were universal in praise for the overall aims of the programme and its impact on their own energy awareness and behaviour. All identified changes to their own behaviours, particularly around the benefit of simple behaviours such as switching of lights, computers and using saucepan lids!

Most agreed that the Ben & Jerry’s incentive was good, though many identified other good suggestions for prizes, in particular ones closely related to daily activities such as printing credits or food vouchers. In particular at QMUL food was seen as the best incentive. In DMU the benefits of peer-to-peer education were noted with the focus group noting the latent distrust sometimes of those in authority. In QMUL the amalgamation of engagement activities (face-to-face,

stalls, posters, emails, Facebook) were seen as the best approach to extend the reach of the campaign.

Familiar barriers were identified around students who are simply not interested in energy saving – this was in particular noted in QMUL, and the fundamental barrier of paying a fixed price for rent which includes electricity – there is simply no incentive for many to save energy when they have already paid for it (this was mostly mentioned in DMU). Improvements next year centered on improved communication around Open Days and Fresher’s week

and better marketing. Stalls in QMUL were seen as particularly successful. Students were positive about having an energy dashboard but, interestingly there was a split in DMU and QMUL opinion about its features – DMU students felt it was still too busy. All of the students openly confessed to very short attention spans (<10 seconds) and as such they want to see a simple smiley face league table. In QMUL students felt the bars, and proportions were generally confusing, and would

have liked to see monetary values related to the percentage savings and more details (e.g. how the league has been changing).

26

6. Main findings of the interim

evaluation

The interim evaluation of the Student Switch Off campaign took place at the end of academic year 2014-2015. The aim of the evaluation was to collect feedback that will help update the energy dashboard and the campaign ahead of year 2 of the campaign. Feedback was collected from key individuals involved in the delivery of the campaign and from students. It can easily be said that overall Student Switch Off was successful in its first year of implementation. Success can be found in many different aspects of the project. The most important successes, aligned

with the scope of the project are the following:

o Savings were made o Increase of energy awareness and behavior change was achieved o The campaign was run and finished successfully and timely in all universities

In a nutshell the main findings of the interim evaluation are the following:

1. What worked well with the campaign in Year 1 o Students see an energy efficiency campaign like Student Switch Off in a positive way o Student Switch Off has had a positive effect on their energy awareness and behaviours o Face-to-face, posters, emails, Facebook and student ambassadors were seen as the best

approach to engage students o Project partners worked well together both at country level and at project level leading

to achievements of set targets

2. What could be done better in Year 2

o have more and bigger prizes o promote more the EU context of the project o Provide more energy feedback o engage with more student ambassadors o advertise the campaign more

o change the themes and types of existing competitions to maintain interest of students

o include more interactive and creative activities in the campaign.

3. Additional requirements for the energy dashboard. o have more efficient communication between partners involved in the development of the

dashboard

o provide additional measures for savings such as: euros saved, kWh saved o provide complementary information like: weather information, information about

baseline energy. o add features that will make the interface more fun such as: smiley faces.

These findings are feedback that can be used for the adaptation of the Student Switch Off campaign at universal level. Country level findings can be found in the chapters for each evaluation type in detail.

The main findings for each of the two target groups of the interim evaluation –key individuals and students- are summarized below.

Evaluation by key individuals

The main conclusions resulting from the analysis of the questionnaire survey for individuals are the following:

The most effective Student Switch Off activities were found to be student ambassadors and the Facebook page. The least effective activity was the flyers.

The barrier for better student engagement in the campaign, mentioned by most key individuals, was that the students do not see a corresponding reduction in their rent fees from the reduction of their energy use. Other barriers listed by a large number of respondents included: lack of time from the students, lack of motivation from the students, small prizes.

27

The biggest successes of the campaign according to key individuals have been: the fact that the halls of residence save more energy than before; the increase in students’ energy awareness;

and the decrease of energy costs for the halls of residence.

The major suggestions for improvement of the campaign at hall and at European level were: o The programme should be more interactive: The students should receive regular

feedback on their hall’s performance and their fees should be decreased according to energy savings.

o The campaign should raise emphasis on the European aspect of the project by organizing events that bring in contact the participating halls from the different EU countries. The campaign should also emphasise more on dissemination of success stories from other

participating countries. o The managers of the halls of residence should have a more crucial role in the SSO

campaign and they should be involved more. o The campaign should be more attractive and the tasks should be more fun while

communicating the ideas of energy savings. Another idea for incentivizing students to be involved more actively is bigger rewards.

The energy awareness of key individuals has increased; most of them answered that the

campaign has been very influential and it has driven them to save more energy in their everyday life.

The key individuals focus group was divided in two sections: one on the Student Switch Off campaign in general and one on the energy dashboard.

The discussion about Student Switch Off campaign in general showed that:

Most partners responsible for the delivery of Student Switch Off did not have any experience in marketing and campaigning and had not been involved in an energy saving project before. This fact was intimidating for them in the beginning as it was not as easy to understand how exactly the campaign will be realized and what the response of students would be. As soon as the campaign was launched they realized that it was much simpler and easier and students were more responsive than they thought.

Despite the hard work to set up and deliver the campaign partners had a lot of fun eventually. In the end the impression that partners have about Student Switch Off is that it is an excellent

campaign. It works since students are changing their behavior and have higher awareness of their energy behavior. Savings confirm this impact on students. The impact that the project has made on students is considered as one of the biggest successes of the project.

The project had many successes other than the profound ones of energy saving and behavior

change of students. The Student Switch Off campaign has also had an impact on those delivering

it. Project partners are now more aware of energy saving actions and have adopted them and enforce them in their everyday life. Another success is the fact that students are using their initiative and creativity on photo competitions, doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do. A big success for Sweden was the winning of the energy efficiency Fastighetsmässan award, competing against big companies. Finally, the fact that project partners collaborated so well together and the campaign was run and finished successfully and timely in all universities is also

a significant achievement. The consortium was inspired by many different things in the process of the delivery of the

campaign. Just hearing students talking about the campaign and how they have been inspired by it (i.e in the discussion in the focus group) was seen as inspiring. Also, the fact that students achieved savings in their first time away from their home was also a big inspiration. Videos and other creative material that students prepared had been really inspiring as well. The fact that the consortium is really engaged with the project, is also an inspiration for many partners, as this is

not a given. One of the biggest challenges that the project face is to maintain the interest of students. The

most important ways for overcoming this barrier are to:

o Involve more student ambassadors. Ways of involving them more in the campaign could be via frequent catch-us to get their feedback and ideas, announce ambassador of the month, invitation of best ambassador from each country to the next project steering group meeting.

o Change things slightly.. The discussion on possible changes focused mainly on variations to the photo competitions themes and types.

o Advertise the campaign more and increase face to face interaction. Loss of interest might happen simply because students forget. Therefore, they need to be reminded more often about the campaign.

o Promote even more the EU character of the project:

28

Share experiences and activities on SSO Facebook pages from all participating countries and not just the university they are twinned with.

Material uploaded on the project website should be promoted more in university

Facebook pages. Organise more common competitions and activities such as international photo

competitions and climate quizzes. Organize concurrent end-of-year parties.

Other challenges faced in year 1 of the campaign were: o Finding sponsors for the competitions, especially were the number of students living in

halls was rather small (i.e. slightly over 200 in Cyprus)

o Time versus budget. Remaining in budget limitations was a difficult task for most partners.

o Finding what works better in different countries. The results do not always depend on the effort put in. Sometimes a lot of time was put in an activity and the results were not as expected. This was considered as part of the trial and error on what works and what doesn’t work in each country.

o Lack of ambassador engagement in some universities, since the help from student

ambassadors was valuable in getting things happen more effectively. A lot of partners agreed that they will continue with all the engagement activities however will

shift effort to those that they saw to be more successful. For the improvement of Student Switch Off the dominant requirement from students was that of

energy consumption feedback. Other suggestions for the improvement of SSO made by students in the majority of countries

were: o increase advertisement and information about the campaign; o increase physical visibility at hall and at campus level; o bigger or more prizes; o include more universities/halls in SSO; o include more interactive and creative activities in the campaign.

The discussion about the energy dashboard showed that:

The main barriers for engaging with the dashboard development were: o Technical challenges. The main challenges involved metering challenges for the country

managers and variety in data formats that the dashboard developer had to deal with. To a large extent these issues have been resolved now.

o Lack of technical knowledge from country managers. The made it difficult for the country managers and the dashboard developer to work out were a problem lied and resolve it.

o With regards to communication, roles and responsibilities were not always clear, again an effect of lack of technical knowledge, and this sometimes meant that things were lost/missed in the process.

In order to help remove the identified barriers 2 video tutorials will be produced by the dashboard developers on:

1. content and calculation methodology

2. the procedure of setting up a competition on the dashboard.

Evaluation by students

The online questionnaire survey for students was answered by 446 students from all participating countries. The main findings of the analysis were the following:

o The activities that students were more or less aware differed between countries (Table 11). The reasons why some activities worked better than others in individual countries can be assumed to

be depended on the promotion performed there but also on the cultural differences between

countries and it is something that country managers could use to adapt the campaign better to their context.

Table 11 Awareness of SSO activities

Most aware of Least aware of

Cyprus Facebook photo competitions

Climate change quiz

Greece Facebook photo competitions

Climate change quiz

29

Lithuania Facebook photo competitions


Sweden Posters about energy saving

Climate change quiz

UK Posters about energy saving


o In individual countries Student Switch Off influenced students in different ways. The differences in influences confirm the cultural differences between countries and the importance to consider them in the campaign. What influences/doesn’t influence students can provide insight to country managers on how to shape the campaign in Year 2 and achieve maximum impact for their country.

Table 12 Influence of Student Switch Off on students

biggest influence smallest influence

Cyprus It made me aware of the impact of my lifestyle and habits

I was given information on where to go for advice on action i can take

Greece Ι saw practical examples of what other people do to save energy

It helped me meet other people who were also trying to do the same

Lithuania

I was given information on where to go for advice on action i can take AND It made me confident that i could actually do things to reduce my environmental impact


Sweden It made me aware of the impact of my lifestyle and habits


UK It showed me that my university is taking action to reduce its environmental impact


The student focus groups provided a lot of insight on what can be done at country level by country managers to adapt the campaign and achieve more engagement from students. Some reactions and

ideas were common in all or in the majority of focus groups and can therefore be considered for the global adaptation of Student Switch Off. Those are:

o Students see an energy efficiency campaign like Student Switch Off in a positive way.

o Student Switch Off has had a positive effect on their energy awareness and behaviours. o Feedback on how much students are saving and using is needed. o More advertisement of the project is needed. o Face-to-face, posters, emails, Facebook and student ambassadors were seen as the best

approach to extend the reach of the campaign.

From the five energy dashboard features evaluated by the students, the most useful feature in saving energy is the “percentage of savings displayed”. The “Top three leaderboard” and the “comparison with

other buildings” were also found to be very helpful. The “shading of the bars” and “the overall colour and design” were the least helpful compared to the three aforementioned features; nonetheless the mean value suggests that they are also very helpful in saving energy. Other features that many students would like to see in the dashboard were:

Include smiley faces to make it more fun.

Show how much money is saved in addition to energy. Provide weather information i.e. through a link to weather page or through a weather feature

designed specifically for the dashboard. Give savings per flat or per end use. Give savings per kWh. Show more information about the baseline energy consumption.

The usefulness and feasibility of these suggestions will be evaluated by the energy dashboard

development team and, if necessary, considered for the design of the dashboard.

30

Appendix A: Online evaluation form for key

individuals Key individuals had to answer the following questionnaire:

32

Appendix B: Key individual evaluation results per

country Table B1: Facebook effectiveness per country



Very 0 2 1 5 3 11



Not at all 0 0 0 0 0 0


Table B2: Face-to-face effectiveness per country



Very 2 3 3 4 2 14



Not at all 0 0 0 0 0 0


Table B3: SSO web-site effectiveness per country



Very 0 2 0 0 2 4

Moderate 1 1 3 3 2 10

Slightly 1 2 2 1 4 10

Not at all 1 0 0 2 0 3


Table B4: Poster effectiveness per country



Very 1 1 3 0 0 5


Slightly 0 2 0 5 3 10

Not at all 0 1 0 1 1 3


Table B5: Flyers effectiveness per country

33



Very 1 0 1 0 1 3

Moderate 2 1 4 0 3 10


Not at all 0 1 0 3 1 5


Table B6: Emails effectiveness per country



Very 1 1 1 1 1 5

Moderate 0 3 1 3 3 10


Not at all 0 0 0 0 0 0


Table B7 Student ambassadors effectiveness per country



Very 0 1 4 1 2 8



Not at all 0 0 0 0 0 0


34

Appendix C – Student follow-up survey questions on

Student Switch Off

d3.1: results of interim assessment of student switch...

Documents