About CES4Health

Product Details

Product at a Glance - Product ID#TCXPX6NH


Title: Qualitative Assessment of Green Impact Guelph’s Efficiency Home Visit and Retrofit Pilot Project


Abstract: The product is a 47 page research report that is a result of a community-engaged qualitative assessment of a collaborative pilot program within the City of Guelph. The pilot program is described as follows. "From October 2011 to March 2012, Guelph Environmental Leadership (GEL), in partnership with the City of Guelph, Guelph Hydro and Union Gas, implemented the Green Impact Guelph Efficient Home Visit and Retrofit (EHVR) Pilot Program. The pilot phase evaluated the feasibility of a home audit and retrofit program to assist residents living in single family detached homes and townhomes. As part of the pilot program residents booked and received a free 45 minute consultation where a trained advisor assessed the efficiency of key features of the home, assisted in making simple upgrades and provided recommendations for further actions to reduce water and energy use. Anticipated outcomes of the pilot were to tangibly increase conservation savings, heighten awareness of incentives available to homeowners and evaluate the potential to engage residents at the neighbourhood scale."(GEL 2012:i). This research report was one method used to help the partners assess the effectiveness of the pilot project in order to determine whether to scale up the pilot to the rest of the city and if so, to provide areas for improvement. This report would be appropriate for other communities focusing on fostering a community culture of conservation to ensure a healthy environment. It also provides community members insights into the range of motivations that help support conservation initiatives.


Type of Product: PDF document


Year Created: 2012


Date Published: 3/2/2015

Author Information

Corresponding Author
Jeji Varghese
University of Guelph
50 Stone Road
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Canada
p: 519-824-4120 x56333
varghese@uoguelph.ca

Authors (listed in order of authorship):
Jeji Varghese
University of Guelph

Karen Skardzius
University of Guelph

SOAN*3070 W’12 (2) Class
University of Guelph

Glynis Logue
former Executive Director of GEL

Jennifer Gilks
City of Guelph

Product Description and Application Narrative Submitted by Corresponding Author

What general topics does your product address?

Social & Behavioral Sciences


What specific topics does your product address?

Environmental health, Program evaluation


Does your product focus on a specific population(s)?

Urban


What methodological approaches were used in the development of your product, or are discussed in your product?

Community-academic partnership, Qualitative research, Service-learning , Interview


What resource type(s) best describe(s) your product?

Research Report


Application Narrative

1. Please provide a 1600 character abstract describing your product, its intended use and the audiences for which it would be appropriate.*

The product is a 47 page research report that is a result of a community-engaged qualitative assessment of a collaborative pilot program within the City of Guelph. The pilot program is described as follows. "From October 2011 to March 2012, Guelph Environmental Leadership (GEL), in partnership with the City of Guelph, Guelph Hydro and Union Gas, implemented the Green Impact Guelph Efficient Home Visit and Retrofit (EHVR) Pilot Program. The pilot phase evaluated the feasibility of a home audit and retrofit program to assist residents living in single family detached homes and townhomes. As part of the pilot program residents booked and received a free 45 minute consultation where a trained advisor assessed the efficiency of key features of the home, assisted in making simple upgrades and provided recommendations for further actions to reduce water and energy use. Anticipated outcomes of the pilot were to tangibly increase conservation savings, heighten awareness of incentives available to homeowners and evaluate the potential to engage residents at the neighbourhood scale."(GEL 2012:i). This research report was one method used to help the partners assess the effectiveness of the pilot project in order to determine whether to scale up the pilot to the rest of the city and if so, to provide areas for improvement. This report would be appropriate for other communities focusing on fostering a community culture of conservation to ensure a healthy environment. It also provides community members insights into the range of motivations that help support conservation initiatives.


2. What are the goals of the product?

The goal of this product is to report the results of a community-engaged qualitative assessment of the Green Impact Guelph Efficient Home Visit and Retrofit (EHVR) pilot with a focus on Guelph resident’s awareness and use of water and energy efficiency behaviours, motivation for future change, a community culture of conservation, recruitment strategies, as well as, the effectiveness of the pilot program. More specifically, researchers sought to uncover 1) resident’s energy and water efficiency awareness and behaviours before, during and after the pilot program, 2) barriers and incentives to EHVR-recommended changes, 3) an understanding of whether or not the EHVR had an impact on people’s ideas about making future changes, 4)what efficiency changes residents are willing to make in the future, 5) what the barriers are to making future efficiency related changes, 5) if there was evidence of a pre-existing community culture of conservation, 6) if the EHVR had an impact on the creation or continuation of a community culture of conservation, 7) how the EHVR can contribute to sustaining a community culture of conservation, 8) what encouraged participation in the EHVR, 8) what barriers to recruitment existed, 9) the value of the EHVR and 10) how the EHVR could be improved. This product gives organizations facilitating the EHVR and other programs like it the opportunity to understand more thoroughly behaviours and motivations related to water and energy efficiency behaviours and recruitment, allowing them to improve their programs with the goal of achieving improved results.


3. Who are the intended audiences or expected users of the product?

Intended audiences include the City of Guelph, GEL, the other community partners, and any other municipalities or organizations either currently implementing or running a program related to water and energy efficiency. It can also be useful to those wishing to better understand recruitment strategies for programs encouraging pro-environmental behaviours at a community level.


4. Please provide any special instructions for successful use of the product, if necessary. If your product has been previously published, please provide the appropriate citation below.

N/A


5. Please describe how your product or the project that resulted in the product builds on a relevant field, discipline or prior work. You may cite the literature and provide a bibliography in the next question if appropriate.

The product draws on literature that focuses on promoting efficiency behaviors and effective recruitment strategies. For example, from Armour [1] we identified three main strategies for promoting efficiency behaviours: 1) through government regulation 2) through awareness campaigns 3) through a combination of the two. We also noted four broad motivations for people to change their behaviours: 1) financial incentives 2) increased environmental awareness through education 3) individual attitudes towards the environment 4) environmental conservation and community influences [see 1, 2, 3, 4]. In addition family upbringing is a significant motivator for personal habits and thus increasing education, knowledge, and habit-forming behaviours within the family is an effective way of increasing efficiency overall [5]. A review of literature by Strohm [6] provided an overview of best practices for promotion and recruitment. With respect to recruitment, first, when recruiting, researching the target population and recruiting highly enthusiastic community members allows programs to have a greater impact [7]. Second, more personal methods of recruitment such as face-to-face visits rather than phone calls or ads prove to be more effective because impersonal methods are easier to avoid[8]. The research project helped determine the extent to which these findings applied to a local Guelph context.


6. Please provide a bibliography for work cited above or in other parts of this application. Provide full references, in the order sited in the text (i.e. according to number order). .

1. Armour K. Motivating Community Based Sustainable Behaviour: Identifying Barriers to Sustainable Behaviour and Encouraging Integrated Community Based Approaches. Royal Roads University, Canada. Dissertations and Theses: 2008. 128 pages

2. Agrawal A, Gibson CC Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development 1999; 27(4):629-649.

3. Lee JA, Holden SJS. Understanding the Determinants of Environmentally Conscious Behavior. Psychology and Marketing 1999; 16(5):373-392.

4. McMakin AH, Malone EL, Lundgren R. Motivating Residents to Conserve Energy Without Financial Incentives. Environment and Behavior 2002; 34(6):848-864.

5. Schultz PW. Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995; 15(2):105-121.

6. Strohm S. 2011. Community-Level Energy Efficiency Programs: A Literature Review of Best Practices for Promotion and Recruitment Retrieved 05/22, 2012. Available from http://www.theresearchshop.ca/resources

7. Goldsmith EB, Goldsmith RE. Social Influence and Sustainability in Households. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2005; 35:117-121.

8. Parnell R and Larsen OP. Informing the Development of Domestic Energy Efficiency Initiatives: An Everyday Householder-centered Framework. Environment and Behavior 2005; 37(6):787-807.


7. Please describe the project or body of work from which the submitted product developed. Describe the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise contributed to the project. Pay particular attention to demonstrating the quality or rigor of the work:

  • For research-related work, describe (if relevant) study aims, design, sample, measurement instruments, and analysis and interpretation. Discuss how you verified the accuracy of your data.
  • For education-related work, describe (if relevant) any needs assessment conducted, learning objectives, educational strategies incorporated, and evaluation of learning.
  • For other types of work, discuss how the project was developed and reasons for the methodological choices made.

RESEARCH RELATED WORK:
Study aims: To conduct a qualitative assessment of the pilot program with a focus on Guelph resident’s 1) awareness and use of water and energy efficiency behaviours, 2) motivation for future change, 3) a community culture of conservation, 4) recruitment strategies, as well as, 5) the effectiveness of the pilot program. This focus of the qualitative assessment of the EHVR pilot project was determined by the community partners (GEL and City of Guelph) and based on a logic model facilitated by Anne Bergin, from the Research Shop in the Fall of 2011.

Design: Academic expertise was drawn on to determine the overall design of the research. The main form of data collection was face to face semi-structured interviews. These were conducted by pairs of student researchers with both participants and non-participants of the EHVR pilot.
Sample: Comprised of adults (18 years and older) from two sample populations: participants from the pilot project (recruited during the pilot) and those who had not participated in the pilot but that lived within the target area (recruited door to door and via snowball sampling). The conmmunity partners provides names of the pilot participants. The research shop intern helped delineate the pilot area into discrete areas, to ensure that the student research teams recruitment efforts did not overlap.

Interview Guide: The semi-structured interview guide was compiled using community expertise (related to specific aspects they were interested in) and academic expertise (to determine appropriate phrasing for a face-to face interview).

Analysis: The student research teams focused on specific areas and one third of the dataset to compile and present their preliminary findings. Nvivo 9 (qualitative date management software) was used to assist with coding the interviews and analysis based on specific participant attributes (e.g., age, home ownership, participation in pilot etc.). Subsequent analysis by the summer undergraduate research assistant and the PI provided rigour to the analysis, but ensuring consistency in coding and undertaking analysis of the entire dataset. Analysis of the interviews formed the basis for recommending strategies to promote the pilot and to increase its effectiveness.

Interpretation: The community partners listened to the preliminary analysis by the student research teams and provided input into specific areas to focus on for the subsequent analysis documented in the research report. An effort was made to provide the full range of perspectives held by the participants. The community partners were provided a copy of a draft report and given an opportunity to comment on it prior to its final release.

EDUCATION-RELATED WORK
The community based research project was part of a Community Engaged Learning pedagogical approach employed to enable student to achieve the following:
Learning outcomes:
1. Gain a greater appreciation of the merits of qualitative research
2. Describe and compare different ways of collecting, organizing, and analyzing qualitative data
3. Conduct a qualitative research project with a Collaborative Learning Team of peers
4. Identify issues of ethics, power, and reflexivity within the research process
5. Develop and refine note-taking, qualitative research, time-management and group work skills

These learning outcomes were supported through the use of interactive lectures, structured workshops, readings and assignments.

The learning outcomes were evaluated through the community based research products that students produced in teams (research design overview and annotated bibliography, ethics application, interview guide, research poster presentation and research reports) and individually (coded NVivo file, reflexive memo and personal critical reflection).


8. Please describe the process of developing the product, including the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise were integrated in the development of this product.

This community based research project was developed collaboratively by Jeji Varghese (Assistant Professor, Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph and served as Principal Investigator for this project) and two community partners, Guelph Environmental Leadership (GEL) and the City of Guelph during the fall of 2011.

As part of J. Varghese’s third year qualitative and observational methods course, SOAN*3070 (02) W’12, students self-selected into one of 11 student research teams. These student research teams (ranging from 8 to 10 students each) were responsible for conducting research in a professional and ethical manner, recruiting and interviewing participants, transcribing, analyzing data and presenting their preliminary findings back to the community partners.

After the completion of the course, Karen Skardzius (a former SOAN*3070(02) W’12 student) continued to work under the Principal Investigator (PI) as a summer undergraduate research assistant (URA). As such, this report builds on the students' preliminary analysis but focuses on the subsequent analysis conducted by the URA and PI. The key research questions are 1) How effective is the Home Efficiency and Retrofit Pilot Project at meeting the Community Partner’s goals of increased self-awareness and use of water/energy efficiency behaviours, increased motivation for future change, and increased community culture of conservation? and 2) How have the outreach and recruitment strategies of the project increased community awareness and motivation to participate?

Community expertise was integrated through identification of the overall research priorities, vetting interview questions and providing input to the final semi-structured interview guide, as well as reviewing the preliminary findings and identifying areas of focus for the subsequent analysis dissemination in this report. Academic expertise was integrated into the design of the project and the guidance the instructor provided to students within the course and through the summer undergraduate research assistantship to ensure rigour.


9. Please discuss the significance and impact of your product. In your response, discuss ways your product has added to existing knowledge and benefited the community; ways others may have utilized your product; and any relevant evaluation data about impact, if available. If the impact of the product is not yet known, discuss its potential significance.

The research report was used to support an Ontario Trillium Foundation proposal, that was successfully obtained by GEL in 2013 to collaborate with a larger number of community partners with the goal of scaling up the impact of their collective efforts.

This project provided an opportunity for the City of Guelph to learn more about overcoming the barriers to carrying out conservation actions in single family homes. It also provided an opportunity to merge the data into the water intensity mapping tools to strategically target programming and to evaluate results and outcomes. Through this project the City of Guelph was able to further understand barriers to indoor water conservation. With this increased knowledge, outreach and marketing tactics were modified and educational materials and program management became more in sync with what was required on the ground. Awareness of barriers made it possible to design demand management programs that best facilitate participants undertaking the desired changes. For example, homeowners identifying lack of technical know-how as a barrier to undertaking home retrofits may benefit from having a professional complete the retrofit on their behalf.

This project provided resident feedback and input including their level of engagement and uptake on conservation and rebate incentive programs. With this information the City of Guelph determined ways to increase awareness of behaviours and motivation to participate, increasing knowledge of rebates and incentives, and modifying coverage on the radio and local newspapers to assist in gauging effectiveness of marketing strategies. This knowledge not only benefits the City of Guelph as a partner but the citizens of Guelph as well. Resident who participate in the program experience lower utility bills and increased knowledge of ways to conserve water and energy in their homes as they conserve resources and money to make their homes more comfortable.


10. Please describe why you chose the presentation format you did.

The report includes both the posters that the students presented as part of the course, as well as subsequent analysis undertaken by the URA and instructor with collaboration from the community partner. The research report provided an effective way of capturing the main themes that emerged from the interviews in a succinct accessible format. The findings were also summarised within an ICES/Research Shop document. We are currently in the process of exploring alternative forms of knowledge mobilisation that would translate the findings from this research study, as well.


11. Please reflect on the strengths and limitations of your product. In what ways did community and academic/institutional collaborators provide feedback and how was such feedback used? Include relevant evaluation data about strengths and limitations if available.

The strength of the product is that it addresses community identified research questions, engages students in the research process, and builds a research relationship that continued beyond this first collaborative project. As noted earlier, the community collaborators provided feedback to help direct the overall direction of the final product. Note, this does not mean, that the community collaborators indicated what to include or exclude from the findings, but rather that they provided feedback in terms of the sub-questions to consider in subsequent analysis, based on what would be most helpful for them to learn to help improve their pilot.

Limitations noted in the report itself, include that the data is collected by students-in-training within a limited time frame. Not all students felt competent within the limited time to gather rich qualitative data via effective probing, building sufficient rapport etc. By having students conduct interviews in pairs, the second set of interviews tends to be stronger, as students have learned from observing the first set. In addition, given the design of the research assignments, students tended to feel more confident to probe in the analytic themes for which they had completed their anotated bibliographies. Having multiple teams focus on the same analytic themes and the large total number of interviews attempts to mitigate these limitations to some degree. In order to increase rigour of the subsequent analysis, all interviews were recoded by the URA to ensure consistancy in coding for this final report.


12. Please describe ways that the project resulting in the product involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. If different, describe ways that the product itself involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. Have all collaborators on the product been notified of and approved submission of the product to CES4Health.info? If not, why not? Please indicate whether the project resulting in the product was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable, and provide the name(s) of the IRB/mechanism.

Mutual respect is evident for both the project and product in how community partners were actively encouraged and agreed to be involved through the entire process (from identifying research needs, to approving data collection tool, to providing insights into direction to focus subsequent analysis to reviewing final report, to evaluating the entire collaborative process).

As noted earlier, both the project and product are the result of shared work. For example, the key research questions for this research project were developed in collaboration with our two community partners, Guelph Environmental Leadership (GEL) and the City of Guelph during the fall of 2011. These questions were developed after a meeting facilitated by Anne Bergen (a Research Shop intern) between the PI and the collaborating partners.

Shared credit for the project: The project is a collaboration between the PI, GEL and the City of Guelph and was identified as such in all consent forms etc.

Shared credit for the product: Credit is shared between the PI, URA and students researchers who collected the interview data. And the acknowledgements notes the contributions of the community partners.

The project collaborators (Glynis Logue, GEL and Jennifer Gilks, City of Guelph) have been notified of submission to CES4Health.info. They have both reviewed and added their input to this application, and are also included as authors to the CES4Health Submission.

The research project was approved by the Ethics Board at the University of Guelph (REB#10JA009).

We would also like to acknowledge the insightful comments provided by the CES4Health Reviewers, which have been incorporated into this revised version of the report.