EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20

Delivering on sustainability aspirations when Building Schools for the Future: sharing findings from eco-footprint programmes
C. J. Cleaver & Prof. P. M. Guthrie
Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ Email: cjc82@cam.ac.uk

Abstract
The UK governments 45bn Building Schools for the Future programme offers unique opportunities for transformational change in the sustainability performance of schools over the next decade. Delivering on these aspirations will in part be contingent on sufficient capacity at a school level to take action over sustainability issues. Findings from an eco-footprint project undertaken from within the Cambridge University Centre for Sustainable Development have highlighted both the complexity of capacity building initiatives and showcase an analytical approach to help building occupiers understand resource flows and prioritise areas for improvement, such as transport to and from school, and energy use in heating school buildings. In addition the footprinting process identified key barriers to making such improvements, including those resulting from leasing buildings under the Private Finance Initiative.

Introduction
The UK governments 45bn Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is one of the largest school capital projects worldwide. Announced in 2003, it has aimed for transformational educational change across the UK secondary schools. As this paper discusses, there has been a unique opportunity for sustainability issues to take centre-stage. Through the Sustainable Schools framework, government has made a coherent attempt to bring together such issues under one framework; setting out a vision of what, by 2020, a sustainable school would look like. In spite of these efforts, and even specific aspirations such as making each new school zero carbon by 2015, some, including a 2007 House of Commons Select Committee have found the BSF programme wanting, in terms of explicit commitments to sustainability. This paper, aimed at engineers, architects and decision-makers, picks up this argument, and makes the case that any such commitments to sustainability should emphasise building local capacity to own the sustainability process. Furthermore, we draw on evidence from a case study to highlight some of sustainability issues that such a process might bring to light: an indication of how people use and occupy buildings and how future design might take account of behaviours and barriers that have been identified.

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20

Literature Review
Our literature review explores in more depth the two main government policy themes this paper comments on: the Building Schools for the Future programme, and the National Framework for Sustainable Schools.

Building Schools for the Future

Capital Investment Context Levels of capital investment in UK schools have changed significantly in the last ten years; in the year 1997-8, investment stood just below 1bn per annum; by 2007-8 that had increased to 6.1bn1. Prior to 2003, this investment was mostly used for building repairs and replacing temporary classrooms, and the capital delivered in two ways: either straight to schools or through local authorities. In 2003, a third major strand of capital investment was announced, the 45bn, 15 year strategic programme Building Schools for the Future (BSF). By 2007-8 BSF accounted for 43% of school investment, the remainder devolved funding to schools (also 43%), and targeted funding through local authorities (13%)1. It is the size of the programme that motivates this paper: It is worth emphasising the scale and scope of BSF; there is no project like it anywhere in the world. Not since the huge Victorian and post-war building waves has there been investment in our school capital stock on this scale1 Objectives When Building Schools for the Future was announced through a 2003 public consultation, the government stated that it was making money available for locally generated plans for educational transformation. The allocation of funding would be subject to four main criteria: 1. contribution to raising educational standards; 2. the extent of local deprivation and the level of educational need implied; 3. the urgency of need for repair, renewal or complete rebuild; 4. how well organised an individual area is to invest capital funding 2

Delivery Waves Despite the emphasis on funding for locally generated plans, the government also used language that suggested this was every bit a top-down programme too: a programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st-Century standard 2. Money was made available in 15 spending waves, each wave restricted to a set of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) determined by central government and the non-departmental body Partnerships for Schools (PfS) was set up to oversee the delivery of the BSF process. Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Progress A total close to 6bn has now been allocated over first three waves (2005/6 2007/8), and as of September 2008, schools had opened in 8 of the 17 Local Authorities in Wave 1, and just 1 of the 10 in Wave 23. However, this was well behind the level of progress expected at the start of the project; with the (then) DfES targeting 100 schools to be opened by the end of 2007, and 200 by end of 20084. In a 2006 interview with the Times Educational Supplement, Chief Executive of PfS, Tim Byles, was quoted: Everyone across government accepts that the early targets were not based on any experience and were not realistic. We will reset the baseline this year so we have realistic objectives []. The authorities that were chosen first were those with the greatest needs and some of those have found it difficult to deliver []. But we are significantly reducing the problems and I am confident that we can deliver1 Critique The Building Schools for the Future programme has been subject to close scrutiny, not least through press coverage of issues like delays in delivery. More fundamentally, the motivation for BSF can be challenged; does it really serve educational transformation? Perceptions that BSF primarily serves the governments economic interests, by stimulating economic activity in the construction industry, are worthy of consideration, particularly where schools call into question the need to re-build / refurbish buildings they feel are currently more than adequate! Either way, a 2005 Design Council review on the impact of school buildings found little evidence, beyond the need for adequate levels of standard for parameters like noise, temperature, light, ventilation, to support the idea that capital investment alone could inspire educational change5. Participation The review did highlight evidence of sustained educational improvements when key stakeholders (teachers and pupils) are fully involved in making decisions about their own learning environment. One mechanism for achieving this in BSF has been the Sorrell Foundation, a design charity that focuses on young people, bridging the gap between the design community and schools6. The foundation runs an engagement process with pupils from schools involved in BSF, enabling them to articulate their design ambitions and priorities on behalf of the pupil body. Anecdotal testimony from this, received at a Cambridgeshire Environmental Education Service 7 arranged conference, was positive; students clearly gaining confidence in influencing the design process. True participation in transformation from school management down, will remain a crucial challenge for BSFs success in educational terms. Sustainability The focus of this paper is the opportunity Building Schools for the Future presents for a step-change in national sustainability. As a House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee report into BSF contended, the programme made very few explicit commitments to sustainability issues, Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 despite the growing support for this from policy makers, activists, and, critically, head teachers themselves1,8. The most visible of these sustainability issues has been carbon dioxide emissions to which the government is committed to at least a 60% cut by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. The schools estate is reported to account for 2% of the UKs Carbon Dioxide emissions, some 15% of all public sector emissions1. This, and the contention the role of schools in influencing practice in the wider community; would suggest making low carbon a central and visible design parameter. To be approved, BSF designs must reach Very Good or Excellent on the 2006 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for schools. However, the efficacy of BREEAM schools can be criticised, Martin Mayfield, associate director of consulting engineering firm ARUP contending: It is a reasonable tool to guide teams in improving the sustainability credentials of a building. However, it has two characteristics which render it currently inappropriate as a methodology to achieve the degree of carbon emissions required to achieve the 60% reduction target Only around of the assessment relates to carbon emissions. BREEAM excellent can be achieved with a relatively minor improvement in carbon reduction 1 Investment in Sustainability The up front costs of sustainable building technologies to meet carbon targets are non-trivial; the Sustainable Development Commission estimated the cost of features to meet a 60% reduction in carbon emissions below 1990 baseline: Somewhere in the region of 15%, 20% is what it would cost, but [] if a programme as large as BSF went consistently for that style of construction and level of requirement, then you would have the traditional learning curve in business that reduces costs, so I think there should be a good opportunity, as the BSF programme went on, for that cost difference to come down 1 Additional capital funding for low carbon schools has since been announced by schools secretary Ed Balls, amounting to 110m over 3 years for 200 low carbon schools. However, more would be needed to have an impact across every new BSF school. This could take the form of more up-front investment, or, more realistically, plans for the number of schools could be scaled back and, the programme extended through re-allocated capital from reduced operating budgets.

Sustainable Schools
If Building Schools for the Future puts transformation at its heart, weve seen the call for thi s to include a transition towards sustainability. Let us review what this could mean, by looking at the governments framework for sustainable schools. Scope The government has channelled its sustainability aspirations for schools into a National Framework that lays out expectations for sustainability by 2020. The framework, Sustainable Schools, was published in 2006, following the 2003 Sustainable Development Action Plan9,10. It attempts to Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 achieve full coverage of issues encapsulated by sustainable development through the eight basic themes (or doorways), and three cross-cutting areas of impact listed in Table 1. Table 1: National Framework for Sustainable Schools, Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) 10 3 cross-cutting Areas Curriculum (teaching provision and learning) Campus (values and way of working) Community partnerships) (wider influence 8 Doorways for Sustainability (DCSF) Food & drink Energy & water and Travel & traffic Purchasing & waste Buildings & grounds Inclusion & participation Local well-being Global dimension

Furthermore, behind each doorway there are specific recommendations for action by 2020. For example on Travel and Traffic: We would like all schools to be models of sustainable travel, where vehicles are used only when absolutely necessary and where there are exemplary facilities for healthier, less polluting or less dangerous modes of transport.10 Delivery Delivery on the National Framework has been largely left to individual schools, backed up by networking events, OFSTED evaluation, and limited amounts of funding to Regional Government Offices11. The Department for Children Schools and Families has published a number of documents on its online portal Teacher Net to guide schools through the process of whole school change. Of these, the S3 Evaluation Toolkit for school management is perhaps the most significant12. There are signs that progress has been made on a local level. The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) has been a significant player in fostering this, commissioning a wide-scale piece of research into leadership qualities needed to move the sustainability agenda forward. Managed by environmental NGO, WWF UK, the research highlighted that a significant number of leaders were developing sustainability within their school with passion and conviction, underpinned by personal values8.

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Critique By its own admission, DCSF has significant influence, but surprisingly few levers in achieving the sustainable schools vision11. There is certainly some way to go before the vision is universally achieved, bought-into or even known. For example, insiders have found the Teacher Development Agency, unlike the NCSL, slow to take up the vision and lead change in new teacher training. The Sustainable Schools framework has also been challenged on how far it covers the main sustainability issues. Protection of bio-diversity, a national strategic priority (e.g UK Biodiversity Action Plan13), is given scant coverage. Its latest plans show DSCF is attempting to address this critique, but it remains to be seen whether the framework is by itself challenging enough can each doorway be achieved, and yet the school not be truly sustainable?

Capacity Building
Capacity building for sustainable design and operation of schools, appears to have been an overlooked element of the Building Schools for the Future programme. The Design Council review highlighted a robust body of evidence showing the need for deep stake-holder engagement to achieve transformational educational change. Meanwhile, the national Sustainable Schools framework, has been shown as just this type of change process, relying on leadership of school management, and input of teachers and pupils. If, as seems desirable, sustainability is to be incorporated into Building Schools for the Future, then effort must be put not only into more ambitious targets, and funding for building fabric improvements, but also into increasing local capacity to engage in a wider change process. Therefore, we argue that long-term sustainability will be best served by sufficient local capacity to engage with whatever sustainability issues present themselves over the next 10-15 years, and not through changes in the building fabric alone. Evaluating local capacity Let us put more detail to help recognise and evaluate what sufficient local capacity to engage could look like. Many of the ideas in this field originate in the Environmental Education movement, for which the 1977 Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education was milestone event. The call for enabling capacity building processes has been made explicit by numerous practitioners from David Orr (1991 principles of eco-literacy)14 to Vare & Scott (2007 conception of ESD 1.0 & 2.0)15. Early models of capacity building (and indeed many current health campaigns) assumed a linear causal relationship between firstly increased understanding, then negative or positive attitudes and finally skills / behavioural change. However, research has found that in reality there is a rather more complex set of factors affecting behaviour16. Table 2 shows the environmental citizenship behaviour model, developed by Hungerford and Volk in 199017. A striking feature is how much is involved in progressing to becoming a genuinely active citizen; suggestive of a slow and deep process, catalysed but not completed by one-off engagements. The authors claim the model is a better predictor of actual behaviour than the simple linear relationship from understanding to attitudes and action. Useful, perhaps, to BSF schools in evaluating their own capacity for sustainability and a tool we use in the analysis that follows. Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Table 2: Environmental Citizenship Behaviour: from Hungerford and Volk, 199017 Entry Level Selected variables: Environmental sensitivity Knowledge of ecology Ownership Level Selected variables: Empowerment Selected variables:

In-depth knowledge about Knowledge of and skill in issues using environmental action strategies Personal investment in issues Locus of control Intention to act

Case Study Findings

The discussion has thus far centred on Building Schools for the Future, and the National Framework for Sustainable Schools. At this point we share some of the spin-off findings from a school project that aimed to build local capacity for achieving more sustainable consumption. Although we are not advocating eco-footprinting programmes as a one-size-fits-all methodology; the findings do offer insight into the way school buildings are used, and the need for and process of building local capacity building to achieve sustained change.

Topic: Eco-Footprinting
The research was conducted from the Centre for Sustainable Development, at the Department of Engineering in Cambridge. The concept was to assist schools in calculating and interpreting the eco-footprint of their schools resource consumption. Footprinting as a methodology for learning and empowerment with schools is by no means unique, and similar approaches have been taken by other groups; most significantly WWF Scotland18. History Ecological Footprint Analysis originates in a desire to understand the role productive land plays in sustaining economic systems. It focuses on supply and appropriation of productive land, and uses global hectares (gHa) as its unit, defined as the world average productivity of one hectare of land in converting solar radiation to biomass energy. Natural supply of productive land is labelled biocapacity, whilst human-kinds appropriation is labelled ecological footprint. Global Results Much of the work to build a research base and establish standards has been taken forward by the group Global Footprint Network (GFN)19. Not without its critics20, 21, the resultant eco-footprint indicator has gained some limelight; the latest 2008 GFN study finding UKs average ecological footprint (5.3 gHa/person) to be well over double world average bio-capacity (2.1 gHa/person)22. The message portrayed is that humans are effectively living beyond the regenerative capacity of the earth; unsustainable if in the long-term. Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Studies found that in the UK, like most northern countries, ecological footprint is dominated (57%) by demand for fossil fuels, accounted for in the footprinting method as the land area that would be needed to sequester carbon dioxide released in combustion. Other significant contributors included the crop, forestry and pasture land required to supply resources to our industrial economy and households22.

Case Description
The eco-footprint project built on prior work carried out with eleven secondary schools abroad; in September 2007, a UK comprehensive school were invited to work on a similar programme. Setting The school, of 1130 pupils (2007-8), and upwards of 70 teachers and staff was a rural comprehensive in the midlands. Found in a large village of over 6000 population, it is fed by 8 primary schools from local villages. Its GCSE exam results typically put it within the upper tier of schools in its Local Education Authority. The school was recently rebuilt under a Private Finance Initiative contract (early 2000s). Team The work was taken forward by the schools Gifted and Talented programme coordinator, as an extra-curricular initiative. She was supported by a set of resources, and two detailed briefings from the Cambridge team. She brought together a team of twelve Year 9 students to work on the project with ongoing support from Cambridge. Over a period of 8 weeks, the students went through a process of tackling their problem mandate, identifying and estimating important resource flows, processing and interpreting their data and finally, preparing and delivering a presentation to an external expert audience. Methods The Cambridge team collected data throughout under the terms of an agreement that protected the anonymity of those involved. Video recordings of classroom processes, and semi-structured interviews were the main methods of data collection: Document Review (Archived) School Research Team School Documents Project Timeline EF Calculator PowerPoint Presentation Student Workbooks Pre-Project Post-Project Once, during project Survey (Archived) Interview (AudioRecording) During Project Project Introduction Project Meetings Final Presentation ParticipantObservation (Video Recording)

Individuals

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20

Local Capacity for Sustainability

We earlier stressed the importance of building local capacity to take ownership of sustainability issues in new school design. The observations from the following the students eco-footprint project will help with examining the process of taking ownership of sustainability: A) Entry Indicators for the most basic level of environmental citizenship behaviour include environmental sensitivity, and knowledge of ecology. In our case, there were reasons to suggest that some of both were pre-existing. Not only are these topics covered in students basic curriculum, but also there was clearly some support from school for special engagements: Deputy Head: We think its important for our students to get involved with as many national issues/global issues as we can a teacher did a project where we did a whole school footprint thing two years ago, based on the Al Gore movie, when it first came out B) Ownership Personal investment in issues is a key indicator for developing environmental citizenship behaviour. Although there were differing levels of ownership displayed, the sense of personal investment was sometimes palpable: Beth: It's like we are all getting taught that the world is heating up and stuff like that, but you don't get any figures that is saying like how we're doing it. If you find out yourself, you get shocked by how much we are actually using Deep knowledge of issues is a crucial second element to the ownership dimension. A shortcoming of the footprinting project was that students did not gain a deep understanding of Ecological Footprint Analysis, perhaps lacking easy access to suitable background material. They did, however, build an understanding of the ins and outs of school consumption practices: Grace: No, but technicians are going to use more electric[and] they might wear more clothes. Mary: That's like saying the PE teachers have to change. Grace: They do And they had gained an appreciation of the most significant contributors of school consumption: Lucy: transport contributed a lot to the footprint. Shelter was the biggest contributor Beth: we found some major contributors such as paper, shelter, travel Dawn: Shelter was the highest contributor

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 C) Empowerment The final dimension identified by Hungerford and Volk is empowerment; covering knowledge of and skill in using environmental action strategies, locus of control, and intention to act. Criticism has been directed towards the gap between self-reported environmental attitudes and actual behaviour; effective capacity building programmes should attempt to address this. In our case, we identified a mixed level of empowerment behaviours. The beginnings of all three components can be found in one students declaration at the end of their presentation: Harry: We are going to be continuing our project, and we're going to deliver our results to the school governors. We're going to get them to improve our school ecological footprint. And we must educate staff and students, and parents, on all these issues, and they can reduce our ecological footprint Whilst some group members where clearly engaged by the project, changing some of their personal habits, others, for quite legitimate reasons, did not: Panel Member: I want you just to think of how this project has changed your consumption personally, have you actually done anything differently? Harry: I'm constantly turning off lights Teacher: And I'm changing my car! I've actually started looking my car does 25 miles to the gallon, which is rubbish Mary: I've done absolutely nothing Remarks The above gives a sense of the complexity of changing behaviour, and the stages towards taking informed action on sustainability issues. The footprinting methodology itself seems to have value in promoting a pseudo-analytical approach to sustainability, allowing pupils to invest time in collecting information, and focus discussions about how to make improvements. It is these benefits we seek to explore in the final section of the paper.

How a School is Used

Here we look at the eco-footprint groups headline findings; what were the local sustainability issues this study brought up, how far do they map with pressing design concerns? It may be worth establishing the legitimacy of these questions in the face of a potential lack of rigour in the groups footprinting process. The answers do reflect the level of thinking and experiences of real school occupants given basic (and repeatable) stimuli for thought. To aid interpretation we make comments to indicate of the accuracy of data collection. The headings: transport, shelter, goods etc. are consistent with footprint standards and were used in breaking down data collection / presentation.

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Mobility The students data collection covered pupil and teachers transport to and from school, and drew on a transport survey recently undertaken by the Local Education Authority. They found the ecofootprint of transport; fossil fuel use to power vehicles, to be one of the largest contributors. This is consistent with Digest of UK Energy Statistics that, at 36.5 %, puts transport as the greatest single end usage of energy23. Students were set the task of considering solutions to reducing schools eco-footprint in all areas. Here, most of the students energy went into highlighting offenders: Harry: There's around six four-by-fours in our staff car park. [Harry looks at T who starts laughing, everyone laughs] and one of them lives just across the road, and drives a four by four to school However, coherent high impact solutions such as upgrade of the bus fleet, incentives to walk, cycle or travel by bus were not conceived, the problem possibly too complex to invest time in action strategies. Shelter The usage of gas, electricity and water in creating a sheltered environment, were all included in the students survey. Data from on-site energy bills can be assumed to have had a good degree of accuracy. There was, however, some difficulty in obtaining the necessary information, as it was owned by the site Manager, an employee of the PFI contractor. Roughly equal to mobility, the ecofootprint of shelter came out to be the largest of contributor overall. Again, this is consistent with overall trends in energy usage. A discussion about reducing shelter usage initially focused on wasteful practices such as interactive whiteboards and lights being left on. Prompted by an expert panel member the conversation honed in on the schools heating system. The students complained: Beth: We have problems, because half of the school is boiling, and half of the school is absolutely freezing. It just depends, and then down the corridor its absolutely boiling. Grace: We've told them so many times, on questionnaires they hand out. Because they hand out questionnaires to see what we think of the school. And we've said that quite a few times and nothing's happened. Beth: Sometimes if we're in English, we'll have all the windows open, and its still really hot. So we'll have someone come down from Science, and they'll take the temperature. And there's like a restriction on how high it's meant to be or something. Could something be done to reduce this seemingly wasteful consumption? The students identified one mechanism of change, inspired by a question about the potential benefits of wider uptake of eco-footprinting: Beth: it would push the [PFI] companies and the schools to change, if the whole, like, country were doing it.

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 Grace: Because of the comparison, if you compare that to a school that's not run by... Beth: And the companies would want to make their school [better] Expert: [PFI Contractors] probably want to turn down the heating in the school, because they spend less money. But if they did that without this exercise, you'd be all up in arms because they would be accused of freezing children to death. Whereas if you did it under this scheme, it facilitates them to save money, and that might be used as a lever to do things that actually cost them money as well. Food & Goods Food consumption, typically one of the largest contributors to a communitys ecological footprint, was estimated by a survey sent to a sample group of pupils. Meanwhile the yearly usage of goods like paper, furniture and electrical equipment was estimated from surveys sent to departmental heads. Students had some difficulty in this area with processing results into a form suitable for entry into the generic footprint calculator. The idea of improving sustainability by sourcing local food was raised (although, interestingly, there was no provision for testing this in the eco-footprint calculator). Again the issue of lack of control was central, as both the teacher and pupils comment: Harry: What could school do about [its food footprint]? as T said, the school isn't run by its own council, it's run by [a PFI contractor], therefore we don't have any say in the food which they use, so they obviously use what is cheaper, so we don't have any say in all of that. T: We've had massive problems with the vending machines, because of Alfred McAlpine refusing to take them away. Because they were full of confectionary, and we want to encourage healthy eating. We had an absolute nightmare, they've done it now, but it took absolutely ages. Because they want to make money, you see. Remarks The footprinting project brought to light some relatively simple things a school could do to reduce its environmental impact. It is clear that when buildings are designed without sustainability in mind and their occupants are concerned by a multitude of other interests; peer relations, success or failure in classes etc, the resulting resource flows can operate some way from sustainable levels. When prompted to quantify and reflect on this, it was striking that the students put so much emphasis on the need for behaviour change as opposed to technological change. Despite the engagement, much could still be done to teach and enable a commitment to practical, affordable and strategies for change. The barriers to such change hinted at by tenure under a PFI contract can only increase the significance of these findings to Building Schools for the Future programme.

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20

Conclusions
The significance of our fieldwork, within the context of national programmes for change, may be summarised: Commitments to sustainability in Building Schools for the Future could be made more explicit to better reflect other policies put forward by government such as the Framework for Sustainable Schools; We contend that both long-term sustainability, and educational change, will be best served if there is sufficient local capacity to take ownership of local issues However, the process of building capacity for change is both complex and requires a long-term approach that takes heed of lessons learnt elsewhere There is a danger that the PFI process used in Building Schools for the Future will create barriers that prevent building teachers and students from taking ownership of and continually responding to changing sustainability issues

References
1. HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE. Sustainable Schools: Are we building schools for the future? The Stationery Office Limited, London, 2007 2. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Building schools for the future: consultation on a new approach to capital investment. DfES Publications, Nottingham. 2003 (DFES/0134/2003 ) 3. See http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/programme/progress.jsp 4. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Building schools for the future: a new approach to capital investment. DfES Publications, Nottingham. 2004 (DFES/0218/2004 ) 5. HIGGINS S., HALL E., WALL K., WOOLNER P. AND MCCAUGHEY C. The Impact of School Environments: A literature review. Design Council 2005 See: www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/DesignCouncil/3/Publications/The-Impact-of-School-Learning-Environments for further details. Acessesed 07/12/2008 6. BENTLEY T., FAIRLEY C. AND WRIGHT S. Design For Learning. DEMOS/Sorrell Foundation 2001. See: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/designforlearning for further details. Accessed 07/12/2008 7. See: http://www.cees.org.uk/ . Accessed 08/12/2008 8. JACKSON, L. Leading Sustainable Schools: What the research tells us. National College for School Leadership. See: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/sustainableschools-research . Accessed 08/12/2008 9. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills. DfES Publications, 2003. See: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SDactionplan.pdf. Accessed 08/12/2008 Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009 Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20 10. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Sustainable Schools for Pupils, Communities and the Environment. DfES publications 2006. Also see: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/ for further details. Accessed 07/12/2008 11. Department for Children, Schools and Families. DCSF Delivery Plan for Sustainable Schools. DCSF, 2008 See: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SchoolsDeliveryplanNov08.doc. for further details. Accessed 07/12/2008 12. DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES. S3 Sustainable School Self-Evaluation. DSCF, v2 May 2008. See: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/s3_self_evaluation_tool.pdf for further details. Accessed 07/12/2008 13. See: http://www.ukbap.org.uk for further details. Accessed 08/12/2008 14. ORR, D. Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. 1992 Albany, NY: SUNY Press 15. VARE P. AND SCOTT W. Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship between Education and Sustainable Development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 2007; 1; 191 16. HEIMLICH, J. E. AND ARDOIN, N. M. Understanding behaviour to understand behaviour change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 2008 14; 3; 215 - 237 17. HUNGERFORD H. R. AND VOLK T. L. Changing learner behaviour through Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1990 21 (3): 8-21 18. See: http://www.scotlandsfootprint.org/ for further details. Accessed 8/12/2008 19. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK STANDARDS COMMITTEES. Ecological Footprint Standards 2006. GFN 2006. See: http://www.footprintstandards.org/ for further details. Accessed 8/12/2008 20. VAN DEN BERGH, J. C. J. M., VERBRUGGEN, H. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29, 6172. 21. FIOLA N. Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics, 2008, 67 519-525 22. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK 2008 National Footprint Accounts GFN, 2008. See: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/ for further details. Accessed 08/12/2008. 23. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM. Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2008. The Stationery Office, London, 2008

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie Institution: University of Cambridge Previously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability