Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Promoting pro-environmental behaviour in a

community in Singapore – from raising awareness
to behavioural change

Andy Wi & Chew-Hung Chang

To cite this article: Andy Wi & Chew-Hung Chang (2019) Promoting pro-environmental
behaviour in a community in Singapore – from raising awareness to behavioural change,
Environmental Education Research, 25:7, 1019-1037, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1528496

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1528496

Published online: 28 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2769

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
2019, VOL. 25, NO. 7, 1019–1037
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1528496

Promoting pro-environmental behaviour in a community in

Singapore – from raising awareness to behavioural change
Andy Wi and Chew-Hung Chang
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Despite heightened awareness about climate change, individuals remain Received 21 February 2018
rather indifferent to the issue. The reasons being that many public edu- Accepted 20 September 2018
cation programmes rely essentially on information dissemination and do
KEYWORDS
not help individuals understand the given information. The authors
Climate change education;
believe that there is potential of environmental education for under- environmental education;
standing and promoting pro-environmental behaviour. The proposed pro-environmental behav-
transformative education for climate change (TrEC) programme focuses iour change; Singapore;
on three elements (knowledge, skills and values) to help individuals Transformative Education
understand environmental issues and to empower them to take pro- for Climate change (TrEC)
environmental action. This mixed method study was conducted in col-
laboration with various government agencies and 173 residents in a
housing estate in Singapore. The findings suggest that with better
understanding (knowledge) about the climate change issue, individuals
can make informed decisions (attitude) and be encouraged to adopt
pro-environmental behaviour (action).

Introduction
Most governmental agencies have assumed that enhanced environmental awareness leads to
positive environmental attitudes which in turn create pro-environmental behaviour (MEWR 2012).
While many studies on environmental awareness appear promising from many perspectives and
have shown to correlate with attitude and behaviour (De Young et al. 1993; Hornik et al. 1995;
Oskamp 1995; Pelletier et al. 1998), the correlation does not explain how a large number of indi-
viduals remain indifferent to environmental action (Chang 2008; De Young 1988; Forester 1988).
Individuals cease to engage in pro-environmental behaviours as soon as the external reinforce-
ment period is over or when the behaviour becomes inconvenient, and financially unattractive
(Steg et al. 2014; Geller 2002). Does this mean that individuals will behave pro-environmentally if
they know that pro-environmental actions can be easy to perform, convenient and cost saving?
The issue with most public environmental education is focusing too much on providing infor-
mation but not helping individuals understand the given information. For instance, just telling
someone to set the thermostat of the air-conditioner to 25
C does not address the “why” issue.
Would it be as effective to set the temperature at 24
C? This is not useful when the intention is
to change behaviour. The lack of effective public outreach has led to a lack of public knowledge
and in turn caused a lack of public engagement in climate change mitigation (Baber and Bartlett
2005; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Steg 2008). This raises the question, “How can we get

CONTACT Andy Wi andy.wi@nie.edu.sg Office of Graduate Studies and Professional Learning (GPL), National Institute
of Education (Nanyang Technological University), 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616.
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1020 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

individuals to take action for climate change?” Steg et al. (2014) suggest that it is plausible to
promote pro-environmental behaviour by targeting multiple goals/values. Therefore, this study
examines whether environmental education can promote pro-environmental behaviour by pro-
viding individuals with knowledge, skills and values about climate change.

Residents’ committee in Singapore

Studies have shown that situational factors can influence environmental behaviour (Geller 1995;
€
Olander and Thgersen 1995; Steg and Vlek 2009). For example, individuals could be motivated
to adopt pro-environmental behaviour just because their neighbours are also doing it. Since the
community is made up of the residents themselves, they are better able to address the needs of
the residents (Ghai and Vivian 2014) and build a more compassionate, cohesive and self-reliant
society. Community participation occurs when residents join in the activities to achieve commu-
nity goals (Wiesenfeld and Sanchez 2002). Residents’ participation is voluntary (Vivian 1995) and
the bond is built upon the nature of the project, the location and the residents living in it
(Christens 2010; Mauzy and Milne 2002). When residents’ participate in an event organised by
the community, it builds a sense of community (Peterson and Reid 2003, Pilisuk et al. 1996),
belonging and bond within the community and the environment (Christens 2010; Mauzy and
Milne 2002). A sense of community is often defined as a feeling of belonging to a community or
group (McMillan and Chavis 1986) and has been associated with improved well-being and
increased sense of safety and security (Francis et al. 2012).
Singapore is a small island-nation of less than 720 square kilometres with 75% of the popula-
tion living in public housing (De Koninck, Drolet, and Girard 2008), the residential areas are sub-
divided into constituencies, zones and precincts; with precincts being the smallest group in a
public housing estate. Each precinct (no more than 2000 households) is looked after by a
Residents’ Committee (RC). Residents’ Committees (RCs) were first established in 1978 with the
aim of promoting neighbourly interaction, good communal relations and overall cohesion (Paul
and Tan 2003). They also serve as communication channels between residents and the
Government (Wi 2018). There are over 600 RCs with more than 25,000 volunteers in a tiny city
state that has about a total population of 5.5 million (PA 2017). This works out to a ratio of
approximately 1 RC volunteer to 150 residents. The RCs’ responsibilities include raising awareness
and encouraging community participation, explaining government policies and gathering feed-
back (Christens 2010; Mauzy and Milne 2002; Paul and Tan 2003; PA 2011).
Conducting the study in a real-life community setting enables results to be more realistic and
applicable (Osbaldiston and Sheldon 2003). Consequently, a research question that needs to be
answered is, “How can environmental education increase individuals’ cognitive structure and
motivate individuals to adopt pro-environmental behaviour?”. This paper focuses on whether
environmental education through the RCs can result in a change of behaviour.

Programme description
Research has shown that individual understanding and abilities are linked to pro-environmental
behaviour (Chawla and Cushing 2007; Kenis and Mathijs 2012; Poortinga et al. 2003), and how
they can apply what they have learned to improve their local community (Kollmuss and
Agyeman 2002; McNamara 2013; Schunk et al. 2012). To this effect, education and information
campaigns are most often employed by governments to raise public awareness for climate
change (Lucas et al. 2008; United Nations Environment Programme 2006) and is considered an
enabler to communities and individuals in making informed decisions about the climate change
issue (Chang and Pascua 2017; Wi 2018).
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1021

According to the Belgrade Charter on Environmental Education, the goal of environmental

education is to develop a world population that not only is aware of, and concerned about, the
environment problems, but also have the knowledge, skills and attitudes to work towards solv-
ing current problems (UNESCO 1976). Thus, creating awareness in the individual by learning
about climate change and action, giving them an opportunity to exercise and practice the new
knowledge, and supporting them to perform the action are important ingredients to influence
behaviour positively.

Introducing the transformative education for climate change (TrEC)

The idea of transformation of learning is situated within the domains of the cognitive aspects of
learning and does not extend into the affective domains. The key idea is to help the learners
transform the information into knowledge and consequently create an action based on the new
knowledge. For the information to become meaningful, individuals need to associate new ideas
with their existing knowledge (Dillon 2003; Reagans and McEvily 2003; Wibeck 2014). The new
information needs to be incorporated by the learner into an already well-developed ‘frame of
reference’, an active process involving thought, feelings and disposition (Taylor 2008; Mezirow
1997). To facilitate transformative learning, the learner has to be helped to transform information
into knowledge (by participating effectively in discourse) to fully understand the experience.
Throughout an individual’s life, he/she would have acquired a wealth of information through
different forms of experiences and learning (Mezirow 1997). These experiences enable the indi-
vidual to shape expectations, perceptions and cognition. Learning is enhanced by helping indi-
viduals see potential implications or benefits of what they are learning (Anderson, Reder, and
Simon 1996; Kenis and Mathijs 2012), but learning just to perform a particular task does not pro-
mote flexible knowledge transfer (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999).
In the context of this paper, “information” is defined as raw data given some meaning by way
of relations (data that has not been processed), whereas knowledge is the collection of
“information” that makes it useful (data that is understood). So how does the TrEC take individu-
als from knowledge to attitude and to action?

Conceptual framework
Adopting Chang’s (2014) conceptual framework of climate change education (see Figure 1), the
individuals’ understanding results from the transformation of knowledge, the doing describes the
given performance task (e.g. conservation tips) and leads to measurable result (e.g. utility bills).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework (Source: Chang, 2014).

1022 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

An individual’s perception towards climate change may be categorised as learning outcomes in

one of three ways – in terms of knowledge, skills and values – or a combination of two or all
three of these elements. Knowledge, skills and values are represented as overlapping circles to
illustrate the convergence between these concepts.

Knowledge
A cognitive structure is defined as mental processes or inter-conceptual relations that individuals
use to make sense of information (Shavelson 1974) and knowledge as a construct is determined
by an individual’s level of cognition and understanding about climate change. This implies that
even if individuals are taught using the same materials and learning conditions, they develop dif-
ferent cognitive structures and have different ways of organising the knowledge (Howard 1988).
However, the lack of cognizance of the gaps in an individual’s geographical knowledge (Boon
2010; Lane and Catling 2016) can result in faulty pedagogical approaches. Consequently, an indi-
vidual’s behaviour is influenced by their cognitive structure which will determine whether they
act pro-environmentally. Therefore, it is important for individuals to have the correct understand-
ing of climate change. Also, individuals are also more motivated to learn new knowledge when
they know that they can apply what they have learned to improve their local community
(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; McNamara 2013; Schunk et al. 2012).

Skills
Skills refer to an individual’s ability or “know-how” to take action on climate change. For
example, “switching off the mains power supply (e.g. Set-top boxes, modems, DVD/CD players)
when appliances are not in use” or “using a Thermo-flask instead of an electric air-pot”. For more
conservation tips, please see Appendix B.

Values
Values refer to an individual’s attitude towards climate change and taking action on climate
change. Steg et al., (2014) highlighted two types of self-enhancement values (i.e. hedonic and
egoistic values) and two types of self-transcendence values (i.e. altruistic and biospheric values)
that are relevant for the understanding of issues, values and actions for climate change. For this
study, the authors will be looking at these four values (as suggested in the Value-Belief-Norm
theory of environmentalism (Steg et al. 2014).

 Hedonic value (concern with one’s feeling and effort)

 Egotistic value (concern with increasing one’s benefits)
 Altruistic value (concern with the welfare of others)
 Biospheric value (concern with the environment).

The goal of climate change education is centered on the notion of “being”, where an individ-
ual is climate conscious, has the knowledge and acts on what he/she believes in. While research
suggests that individual understanding and abilities are linked to pro-environmental behaviour
(Chawla and Cushing 2007; Kenis and Mathijs 2012; Poortinga et al. 2003), it is suggested that
behaviour becomes habitual (when performed repeatedly) and is guided by automated cognitive
processes (Aarts, Verplanken, and Van Knippenberg 1998), rather than on attitudes and reason-
ing. Thus, “behaviour is triggered by a cognitive structure that is learned, stored in, and retrieved
from memory when an individual is placed in a particular situation” (Steg and Vlek 2009). So
how do we inculcate the knowledge, skills and values, and at the same time provide an oppor-
tunity for individuals to practice what they have learnt?
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1023

The TrEC lesson

For environmental education programme to be successful, it requires the involvement of both the
government and the individuals (Wi 2018). Thus, the proposed Transformative Education for
Climate change (TrEC) programme (see Appendix A) which lasts 3 months is conceptualised in col-
laboration with National Environmental Agency (NEA) and National Climate Change Secretariat
(NCCS) aimed to improve the individual’s knowledge, skills and values; to cope and to manage their
own energy consumption. The TrEC was adapted from Merizow’s (1997) transformative learning
theory, which involves two domains of learning; ‘instrumental’ learning which focuses on task-ori-
entated problem solving and ‘communication’ learning which is the creation of meaningful infor-
mation and understanding. The TrEC is the nexus of the “information and knowledge”
transformation and creates an understanding of “what to do?”, “how to do it?” and “who to do
what?” for the participants with regard to the issues, values and action for climate change.
It consists of three important phases; first, an introduction video reinforces the basic back-
ground knowledge about climate change and impact. Second, a discussion is conducted in a cas-
ual setting in which participants can learn about conservation tips that they can perform to
reduce their energy consumption. This process enables the participants to consume the informa-
tion and through the discussions and explanations by the facilitator, to understand environmen-
tal knowledge. The third phase is a Question & Answer (Q&A) session in which participants can
ask questions to clarify any doubts they might have. The feedback and clarification do not end
after the Q&A session, but participants can contact the authors if they meet with any difficulty in
performing the action or if they require further information.
Therefore, TrEC is more than just an amalgamation of information on subject matter. It is an
intervention programme intended to provide ongoing engagement with the problem of deter-
mining what knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile in the case of empowering indi-
viduals to adopt pro-environmental behaviour. What sets the TrEC apart from other
environmental programmes is a change from focusing on the “consumption of information” to
emphasizing the “transformation of information” into knowledge. The role of the TrEC is to move
individuals from knowledge to attitude and to action. These are framed within the environmental
education discourses, which dates back to the Belgrade charter in the 1970s (UNESCO 1976).
Therefore, the TrEC items were designed to draw these features out.

Method
This mixed method study aims to test whether environmental education will empower individu-
als to perform pro-environmental behaviour and lead to a decrease in utility bill. The TrEC is a
3 months programme (see Appendix D) with 2 check-in sessions to encourage/remind partici-
pants to practice the conservation tips during this period. There is no monetary compensation as
the benefit from participation is an increase in knowledge and the opportunity to learn strat-
egies to reduce their energy consumption (which will result in a reduction in their utility bill). At
the end of the programme, participants were required to provide their consumption (electricity
and water) details during this experimental period.
The findings were measured in terms of the four factors as described above – Knowledge,
Attitude, Action and Savings.

1. Was there an increase in knowledge?

2. Did the participants’ attitude change?
3. What was the action taken?
4. Was there a reduction (savings) in the utility bill?
1024 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

Participants
Each RC is in charge of a certain precinct in the community, therefore, the TrEC is open to all
residents living and within the same precinct. The authors visited every household in the pre-
cinct to share information about climate change and to encourage the residents to participate in
the study.
All the residents who completed the pre-survey were considered participants and were invited
to attend one 35 min TrEC session. The participants were divided into two groups (experimental
group and control group). Those who attended the TrEC session were in the experimental group
while the participants who did not attend the TrEC session were in the control group. The
experimental group goes through TrEC and has the opportunity to go through the discourse of
climate change (causes, impacts and management of climate change), a clear articulation of the
conservation tips and the potential savings in their utility bill in addition to a support and feed-
back platform motivate them to adopt pro-environmental behaviour. The control group does not
attend the TrEC session.
There was a total of 173 participants with 95 participants in the control group and 78 participants
in the experimental group. The selection process was by purposive sampling, a technique widely
used in qualitative research (Creswell 2013) for the most effective use of limited resources (Patton
1990). This ensures that all the participants are residents living in the same experimental area.

Instruments
Similar to the TrEC, the conservation tips (see Appendix B) and surveys (see Appendix C) were
created in collaborations with NEA and NCCS. The instruments reflected a 0.802 on the
Cronbach’s alpha test. All the participants were given the conservation tips and were required to
complete pre- and post-surveys. Surveys are useful for systematically collecting data from a large
population to gather targeted results and to draw conclusions (Alreck and Settle 1995). The pre
and post-surveys were used to capture the differences in knowledge, attitude and behaviour
before and after the study.

Data analysis
Parametric tests refer to statistical analysis test that examines interval or ratio data based on a
large sample and of a normal distribution (Gravetter and Wallnau 2016). Although utility bills
need not be normally distributed, the researcher conducted a Shapiro–Wilk normality test on the
participants’ savings (Gravetter and Wallnau 2016) and found that the samples were of normal
distribution (Sig = 0.095).
As different households have different consumption patterns, the paired sample t-test for an
unequal variance was used to determine whether there was movement in the household’s con-
sumption before and after the experimental period. Thus, the value remaining is either an
increase, decrease or no change in the household’s utility bill.
The comments provided by the participants were coded by keywords and patterns, and clus-
tered into different themes (Saldan ~ a 2016). It was based on these themes that the comments
were analysed and grouped into the four values as suggested in the conceptual framework.
Sample comments were used as examples for the findings and discussion sections.

Findings
This section discusses whether environmental education can empower individuals to perform
pro-environmental behaviour. Although there was no monetary compensation for the
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1025

participation, the participants were given a conservation tips (see Appendix B) and encouraged
to practice the conservation tips for 2 months.
The findings have been arranged in the order as suggested in the development of the TrEC
programme, that information has to be transformed into knowledge, and through this under-
standing can individuals change their attitude and take action for climate change. The evidence
for the change in knowledge, attitude and action is shown in the participants’ utility bill.

Knowledge
Table 1 shows the percentage of participants and their knowledge about pro-environmental
behaviour. The most common knowledge that both groups understood was the use of fans,
energy efficient light-bulbs and the number of ticks on the appliances. The ‘number of ticks’
refers to the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) which was introduced in 2008 by the
Singapore government to better inform consumers and encourage industries to develop more
energy efficient appliances (The Straits Times 2014). It is a five-band tick rating system (i.e. no
ticks to five ticks) that reflects the annual estimated energy cost of using the product and helps
consumers quickly identify the more energy efficient appliances. This implies that the more ticks
an appliance has, the more energy efficient it is.
There are two categories that are faired lower than the rest; use of a thermos flask and the
computer power management. The energy consumption between the thermos flask and the
electric air-pot was a new initiative by the government ministries (NEA 2013). The aim was to
see how many participants knew about the new information. However, many participants
expressed no intentions to change their current lifestyles. One particular participant mentioned
that electric air-pot was more convenient as they just had a newborn and hot water had to be
readily available.
As for the computer power management, it is a built-in feature for most computers to reduce
power consumption and promote energy efficiency, and most users do not change the initial
setting (Microsoft 2018; EnergyStar 2013).
While the percentage between the two groups (control and experiment) does not seem to be
very large, the result shows that some of the item (items 2, 3, 9 and 10) between the two groups
are significantly different.

Attitude
At the end of the study, there was an increase of about 20% in the number of participants (in
both groups) who believed that an individual can make a difference (see Table 2). In the other
three effects, the experimental group participants’ attitude improved after the TrEC session while
the control group participants did not have much changes in their attitude towards pro-environ-
mental behaviour. This difference between the two groups is significant.
More than half of the participants from both groups mentioned that it is important to have
their modem switched on because of the need to say connected to the Internet/Wi-Fi. Many par-
ticipants felt that it was costly and not environmental friendly behaviour to replace their old
appliances to more energy efficient appliances. A participant said, “My old air-condition and
refrigerator are still working, it is a waste (of money and resource) to buy a new one just
because it is energy efficient.” In addition, participants also mentioned that LED light bulbs were
very expensive and not economical action.
Table 3 shows that most of the conversation tips were quite popular. The recommended
actions for the computers, lights and air-conditioners were quite readily adopted and per-
formed by a large number of participants in both groups. However, many participants were
hesitant in adopting actions that require them to switch of their modems and switch to a
1026 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

Table 1. Participants’ knowledge about pro-environmental behaviour.

Control (n ¼ 95) Experimental (n ¼ 78)
Agree S. Agree Agree S. Agree Sig.
1. Using a fan instead 36.8% 44.2% 34.6% 53.8% 0.134
of an air-conditioner to
keep cool help save the
environment
and money.
2. Every degree lower 34.7% 31.6% 42.3% 39.7% 0.018
(colder) on the air-con-
ditioner cost
more money.
3. The recommended 36.8% 28.4% 20.5% 55.1% 0.011
air-conditioner setting
is 25
C.
4. Leaving the tv on 41.1% 28.4% 24.4% 47.4% 0.188
standby mode (with red
dot) still con-
sumes energy.
5. I can save electricity 32.6% 32.6% 24.4% 50.0% 0.069
and money when I
switch off the set-top
boxes and modems
when no one is watch-
ing or using. (e.g.
Going to work)
6. I can save energy by 41.1% 34.7% 30.8% 47.4% 0.071
switching the main
switch/socket off.
7. Thermos flask uses 30.5% 15.8% 28.2% 26.9% 0.118
less energy than electric
air-pot.
8. Choosing energy effi- 42.1% 41.1% 33.3% 52.6% 0.098
cient light-bulbs will
help save the
environment.
9. Turning on the 31.6% 21.1% 30.8% 42.3% 0.009
power management
feature on the com-
puter can help me save
electricity and money.
10. (MELS) The more 40.0% 36.8% 23.1% 61.5% 0.013
ticks indicated on the
appliance means it is
more efficient and I can
save more money.

thermos flask, and more than half the participants (in both groups) gave the reason that they
require access to Wi-Fi and their telephone line is connected to the modem. Almost all partici-
pants cited the reason that by switching off the modem, they will lose their Wi-Fi connectivity
and the phone lines.
To put it in context, most of the media services (e.g. Internet, telephone, Wi-Fi and television)
in Singapore comes as an integrated package provided by the various service providers.
Therefore, both the modem and set-top boxes are required to be switched “on” for the system
(e.g. telephone, internet, Wi-Fi, television, printer) to be working.

Utility bills
The results from the utility bills collected showed that the participants who attended the TrEC
session had an average $5.60 decrease in the utility bill (M= 5.6729, SD ¼ 12.1539) and
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1027

Table 2. Participants’ attitude towards pro-environmental behaviour.

Experimental
Control (n ¼ 95) (n ¼ 78)
Effects of Pro-environmental Behaviour Pre Post Diff Pre Post Diff Sig
1. The actions of a single household can make a difference in climate change. 47.4% 71.6% 24.2% 56.4% 78.2% 21.8% 0.328
2. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour will not reduce my quality of life. 54.7% 49.5% 5.3% 55.1% 79.5% 24.4% 0.006
3. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour is convenient and easy to do. 47.4% 53.7% 6.3% 66.7% 80.8% 14.1% 0.001
4. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour is not costly 54.7% 53.7% 1.1% 55.1% 85.9% 30.8% 0.001

Table 3. Number of participants performing the 5-conservation tips.

The 5-Conservation-Tips Control (n ¼ 95) Experimental (n ¼ 78) Sig
Computer
Hibernation Sleep mode 84.2% (80) 89.7% (70) 0.140
Turn off when not in used (> 30 min) 80.0% (76) 82.1% (64) 0.367

Lights
Turn off lights when not in use 87.4% (83) 93.6% (73) 0.081

Air-conditioner
Sleep with electric fan instead of air-conditioner 81.8% (72) 81.9% (59) 0.473
Set timer to turn off 30 min before waking up 64.8% (57) 61.1% (44) 0.494
Sleep with air-conditioner at least 25
C 70.5% (62) 72.2% (52) 0.213

Set-top box
Turn off mains (wall switch) 72.6% (69) 76.9% (60) 0.259
Turn off set-top box 75.8% (72) 65.4% (51) 0.069
Turn off modem 50.5% (48) 37.2% (29) 0.039

Thermos flask vs. electric air-pot

Use Thermos Flask 54.7% (52) 56.4% (44) 0.413
Use Electric Air-pot 40.0% (38) 34.6% (27) 0.243

participants who did not attend the TrEC session had an average $1.80 increase in the utility bill
(M ¼ 1.8333, SD ¼ 17.0469). This difference was statistically significant, t(171) ¼ 3.2665, P < 0.01.
This is evidence shows that the TrEC is successful in educating the participants about the issues,
values and action for climate change.

Discussion
Environmental education is a strong motivator to build climate literacy and encourage pro-envir-
onmental behaviour (UNESCO 1976). The empirical findings show that TrEC is successful as there
was an improvement in the participants’ knowledge and the behaviour is shown in terms of per-
forming pro-environmental action. This implies that with better understanding (knowledge)
about the climate change issue, individuals can make informed decisions (attitude) and be
encouraged to adopt pro-environmental behaviour (action). While awareness-raising message is
crucial to educate individuals on climate change (Wibeck 2014), it is insufficient to engage them
to take action (Chang 2014; Collins et al. 2003; Aarts, Paulussen, and Schaalma 1997). The sup-
port from the community was more of a location for the participants to attend the TrEC and a
continual support (for information) whenever the residents needed more clarification or informa-
tion. What is important is for the individual to make meaning of the new information and under-
stand the benefits and implications of climate change. Only then will individuals be convinced to
take certain action. This implies that awareness is not a necessary factor, it is a pre-condition.
Although there was an average of $5 savings per household in the experimental group, there
was no drastic difference in the percentage of households in adopting the various conservation
1028 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

tips between both groups (see Table 3). From the authors’ analysis, the plausibility of the savings
would come from the extent/duration and the number of members of each household who
practiced the conservation tips. For example, the longer the duration/extent (e.g. every day com-
pared to once a week or occasionally), the more electricity saved which translates to money
saved. While behaviour like this has small monetary savings, individuals probably undertake
energy saving actions that were based on more popular notions of pro-environmental behaviour,
because they could be highly symbolic (Poortinga et al. 2003). This is true in Singapore because
the action (e.g. switching off the lights when not in use) has been encouraged in primary, sec-
ondary and high school students (Chang 2013).
Taking into consideration the significant difference between the attitude of the both groups
of participants and that literature has supported that pamphlets and booklets were not useful
platforms in creating awareness and encouraging behavioural change (Adger et al. 2009; Green-
Demers, Pelletier, and Menard 1997; McKenzie-Mohr 2000; Steg 2008), the authors began asking
participants from both the groups what made them change their perception. Comments will be
denoted with (S) for a single participant and (M) for multiple participants.
I see these posters and receive pamphlets, but I ignore it. (M)
I never do it because nobody explains to me why or how. They just tell me to do this and that because it is
climate friendly. (M)

Many participants were aware of the conservation tips (see Table 1), however, they did not
perform the action because they did not understand why or how to do it. This is probably due
to the fact that many campaigns (e.g. 10% energy challenge and energy saving) in Singapore
have aimed at awareness rather than behavioural change and are thus not sustainable and con-
sequently become relegated as ad-hoc programmes (NEA 2012, 2013).
The lesson is a strong motivation because I get a better understanding about climate change and what I
can do and the potential money I can save. (M)
It is encouraging to see my neighbours also attending the lesson. (M)

The comments affirmed the authors’ view that the TrEC lesson allowed them to understand
more about climate change and what they can do to combat climate change. The participants
mentioned that TrEC was the main factor that enabled them to understand the motive behind
climate change action and together with the support from friends and neighbour was what
motivated them to take action. Thus, the authors argue that to get individuals to take action for
climate change, there is a need for a TrEC to be designed to educate participants to adopt pro-
environmental behaviour. This TrEC together with RC support allow participants to come forward
to clarify or inquire about climate change information. This creates an environment where the
participants do not feel threatened and are more inclined to adopt pro-environmen-
tal behaviour.
What sets the TrEC apart from other environmental programmes is the process of
“transformation of information into knowledge” and through understanding and practice take
action for climate change. The programme provided the participants with an avenue and oppor-
tunity to learn about climate change and action by performing the action, giving them an
opportunity to mimic and practice the new knowledge and verification in terms of savings in
the utility bills. Moreover, the conservation tips and discussion during the TrEC programme
empowered the participants to adopt the tips that they felt most comfortable with (e.g. switch
off the lights before when you leave the room). This is in line with studies that show that when
participants are allowed to practice something that they felt or deemed possible or comfortable
within their own capacity (Boyce and Geller 2001; Deci et al. 1994; Ouellette and Wood 1998;
Osbaldiston and Sheldon 2003), they are more motivated to try harder and longer to achieve
them (Sheldon and Elliot 1998; Sheldon and Houser-Marko 2001). Therefore, by participating in
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1029

the TrEC, it has increased the participants’’ knowledge and understanding of climate change and
its actions.
All 100% of the experimental group participants rated the TrEC as “effective” and have indi-
cated that they would continue to practice pro-environmental behaviour. It was suggested that
the TrEC could be done occasionally instead of just once off, which implies that this programme
should be repeated (as a reminder to the current participants and as an encouragement to the
new participating households). Taken as a whole, however, the authors are quite certain that
apart from the fact that information has been transformed into knowledge, participants now
have a different attitude and will take action for climate change. The key is that the participants
have better knowledge and in knowing are able to take action which results in savings.

Learning outcomes vs values

Besides knowledge and skills domains of educational outcomes, values are also important factors in
helping individuals understand and adopt pro-environmental behaviour. The literature suggests
that costs (Diekmann and Preisendo €rfer 2003) and values (Steg et al. 2014) play a large part in
whether individuals perform pro-environmental behaviour. However, it is difficult to determine
whether it is truly hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric or a combination of all three.
The comments captured during the survey showed evidence of hedonic and egoistic values
when encouraged to adopt pro-environmental behaviour.
If others are not doing it, then why should we? (M)
Are they (my neighbours) also doing it? (M)
I cannot save the world alone. (S)
Pro-environmental behaviour is too costly and time consuming. (S)

Can you confidently say that if residents try these methods, they can save at least 10–12% off their utility
bills? (S)

Aarts et al. (1997) found that individuals who experienced uncertainty about performing the
new behaviour, feel inconvenienced and diminished the quality of life, resulting in low participa-
tion rates. The comments support the notion that behavioural change is hindered when the new
behaviours are too effortful, costly or uncomfortable (Abrahamse and Steg 2011; Diekmann and
Preisendo€rfer 2003; Steg and Vlek 2009), in addition to the perception of inability (Steg, 2008)
and/or the lack of empowerment to undertake pro-environmental actions. This implies that the
decision to adopt pro-environmental activities are driven by the motivation/values of an individ-
ual. However, most of the comments were inter-value related, which demonstrates that the indi-
vidual’s decision is based on one, two or more combinations of values. Therefore, this led the
authors to conclude that decisions are not based on a single value but on multiple values work-
ing together. These inter-value relationships support Steg et al.’s (2014) suggestions that target-
ing multiple values simultaneously is a promising way to promote pro-environmental action.
Listed are some comments that show the how the various emerging themes corroborated with
the identified themes.
My house phone is connected to the modem, if I switch it “off”; nobody is able to contact me. (M)
I need 24 h internet access. (M)

The comments suggest that time and inconvenience are factors in leaving the modem turned
on. While the participants might be egoistically motivated to turn off the modem for the extrin-
sic benefit (e.g. savings), the perceived hedonic costs in terms of inconvenience and time are
obstacles to performing pro-environmental behaviour.
The electric air-pot allows me to have hot water 24 h a day. (M)
1030 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

Troublesome to keep refilling the thermos flask. (M)

The use of a thermos flask was a new initiative that came up during the discussion the
researcher had with NEA research staff during the early stages of this study. Although the NEA’s
new findings stated that it was possible to save $300 per year if household changed from an
electric air-pot to a thermos flask (NEA 2013), many participants expressed no intentions to
change their current lifestyles (hedonic value). In addition, there is a participant who said that
they have a new born and it is essential to have readily available hot water. This supports the
notion that convenience (hedonic value) do play an important role in the participants’ deci-
sion making.
We learn that the air-conditioner consumes the most energy, so we decided to cut back on the usage. (M)
We turn off all TV, modem and appliances before going to work. (M)

Too hot, no air-conditioner cannot sleep. (M)

The initial assumption was that the participants adopted the air-conditioning action because
air-conditioners consume the most energy. However, these comments suggest that convenience
is a consideration for the participants to adopt the behaviour, because they do it at two junc-
tures, before going to bed and before going to work. Possibly the most convenient and effortless
timeframes. In addition, the most common reason given was because the weather in Singapore
is very hot. So are these just inconveniences or situational instances?
€
As discussed above, situational factors (Geller 1995; Olander and Thgersen 1995; Steg and
Vlek 2009) and values (Steg et al. 2014; Schwartz 1977) influence behaviour. While the four val-
ues that this paper examines are hedonic, egotistic, altruistic and biospheric, the comments
below suggest that the participants are motivated by two or more of the values as discussed in
the conceptual framework.
These tips are easy to perform. It’s a bonus if I can save some money too. (M)
Most of the tips are not new to me. Before this discussion, there is no good reason for doing them. (M)

As seen above, many of the comments captured show that hedonic (easy to perform) and
egoistic (save money) values affect this participant’s behaviour. The comments suggest that one
value is insufficient to motivate participants to change their behaviour and that hedonic value
seems to be mentioned in almost all comments.
It’s good to learn how out actions can affect the environment. (M)

I should support such initiatives if it is good for me and the environment. (S)

While there were comments that support learning about the environment, this was the only
comment that suggests the action is taken for the good of the environment (biospheric value).
The government should tax those who use more and reward those who use less. (M)
Government should give more incentives, rebates or rewards. (M)
Unfair to raise utility pricing, when others are using more. (S)

Most of the participants wanted more incentives and rewards for doing their part to conserve
energy. There is evidence of egoistic (personal gain) and hedonic (recognition of effort) values.
One of the main reasons why participants are always looking towards the government for
rebates and rewards, stems from the fact that the Singapore government provides household
rebates for utilities expenses to help offset the carbon tax (The Business Times 2018). The other
reason is that there is only one water provider and one electricity provider in Singapore, and
they are regulated by the government.
I can see my friends and neighbours participating. (M)
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1031

Table 4. Mapping learning outcomes to values.

Values
Learning outcomes Hedonic Egotistic Altruistic Biospheric
Knowledge 156 96 1 15
Skills 62 44 0 0
Action 14 13 2 1

I will do it if my friends and neighbours are doing it too. (M)

I am willing to help my neighbours and friends. (S)

I will support the community initiatives. (S)

These comments support studies that situational factors can influence participation (Geller
€
1995; Olander and Thgersen 1995; Steg and Vlek 2009). While friends and neighbours are seen
as a form of hedonic value due to the perception of wanting to be part of a social group/com-
munity, the community and neighbourly interaction could also be seen as cues to promote pro-
environmental actions (Steg et al. 2014). However, the authors cannot rule out the possibility
that it could also be peer pressure that spurred them to participate in the study.
The comments corroborate with studies that behavioural change is affected by inconvenience,
cost and inability (Abrahamse and Steg 2011; Steg and Vlek 2009; Diekmann and Preisendo €rfer
2003; Aarts et al. 1997). Table 4 shows a summary of the discussion above on the interactions
between an individual’s learning outcomes (e.g. knowledge, skills & actions) and values. Each
interaction is indicated by the number of comments (keywords and patterns) captured in the
survey and during the TrEC Lesson.
All the comments captured during the study were able to be classified into the identified val-
ues (e.g. hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric). It seems like decisions are not based on a
single value but on multiple values working together to encourage pro-environmental behaviour.
However, when the values are examined altogether, it is plausible that some values supersede
others. For example, the hedonic value takes precedence over the egoistic value which takes pre-
cedence over biospheric value. Alternatively, the egoistic value might overrule the biospheric
and hedonic values. More studies are required to measure this aspect of inter-value
relationships.
There is a stand-alone theme that could not fit into the four identified theme, which the
authors call it “governance”. There are about 18 comments that mentioned that it is the gov-
ernment’s responsibility to inform the residents.
You represent NEA, so you must be telling the truth. So I will believe that we can make a difference. (M)
If it is important the government will put in newspaper and television. (M)
It will be easier if the government just tell us (residents) what to do. (M)

Apparently, collaborating with government agencies (e.g. NCCS and NEA) created a sense of
reliability among the participants. From the comments, the authors can assume that the partici-
pants were more trusting because they felt that the information came from a reliable source. It
would not be accurate to assume this was true for all participants as some might feel that col-
laboration with government agencies was a form of political propaganda. However, this trust
does not account for the other factors (e.g. cost, quality of life). While the experimental group
felt that pro-environmental behaviour was not costly and does not reduce their quality of life,
the control group have an opposite reaction towards it. The difference could be the fact that the
experimental group attended the TrEC and have a better understanding about issues, values and
actions relating to climate change.
In order to encourage pro-environmental action, there needs to be an intervention that aims
to educate the individuals about the issues, values and action for climate change. As discussed,
1032 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

the willingness to act pro-environmentally are usually triggered by the individuals’ understanding
and abilities (Chawla and Cushing 2007; Kenis and Mathijs 2012; Poortinga et al. 2003). However,
there is also a need to examine how values, community and friends play a part in encouraging
pro-environmental action. Therefore, more research is needed to be done in these areas.
Furthermore, TrEC has been successful in promoting pro-environmental action by providing indi-
viduals with knowledge, skills and values about climate change, a follow up should be con-
ducted to examine whether these actions translates to behavioural change.

Conclusion
While the study shows empirical evidence that there are two general groups of participants
(those who are pro-environment and those who are not), there are items that are clearly benefi-
cial (e.g. conservation tips). These items are well-distributed distributed between knowledge, val-
ues and action and provide definitive empirical evidence to help develop better pro-
environmental programmes. The statistically significant sample size and the detailed analysis of
the comments also affirm that individual actions are influenced by their knowledge and values.
This is the first empirical study in Singapore that will go towards helping policy makers in
deciding what sort of environmental programme to be developed for public education. It is
important to caveat that the aim of this study is to provide another avenue in which to
empower the individuals to adopt climate conscious behaviour. It is by no means to compare
which environmental programme is better, as there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to climate
change as different countries have different environments and contexts which require different
approaches to climate change management.
TrEC is a contemporary approach to climate change mitigation which has multi-phases that
create opportunities for an individual to discover and construct an understanding of the experi-
ences he has gained through the activities by targeting the different values. Therefore, to
encourage pro-environmental behaviour, it is important to help individuals make meaning of
what they learn by understanding the potential implications or benefits of pro-environmental
actions. The key is the process of moving from ‘information’ into ‘knowledge’ and with better
knowledge, skills and values empower individuals to adopt pro-environmental behaviour. These
studies revealed that the more strongly individuals subscribe to values beyond their immediate
own interests, the more likely they are to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, the
study has affirmed that it is important to provide knowledge, skills and values which will in turn
translate into behaviour/action (being).
The savings from the utility bill corroborated with the three factors (an increase in knowledge,
an improvement in attitude and action was taken), however, it is not clear if this one-off action
will result in future changes. While critics may argue that this is purely a practice effect that par-
ticipants who know that they are being measured are being very conscious and therefore they
save electricity, the findings show that the control group did not show any improvement in
terms of both knowledge acquired and savings from the utility bills. Having certain factors (e.g.
performance of the tips and level of responsibility) being equal will mean the authors need to
run this experiment again and increase the sample size. Nevertheless, this study shows observ-
able success of the TrEC programme, and it affirms the authors’ assertion that deep understand-
ing is a necessary condition to extend environmental education beyond awareness raising and
behavioural change.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1033

Notes on contributors
Andy Wi is a research associate at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore. He has a PhD on public education, environmental education and policy.
His current research focuses in public and environmental education, geography curriculum and
education for sustainability.
Chew-Hung Chang is a geography educator serving as the Co-Chair of the International
Geographical Union, Commission on Geographical Education, Co-Editor of the journal
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, as well as the President of
the Southeast Asian Geography Association. In addition to being a teacher educator, he has pub-
lished extensively across areas in geography, climate change education, environmental and sus-
tainability education.

ORCID
Andy Wi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6707-7203

References
Aarts, H., T. Paulussen, and H. Schaalma. 1997. “Physical Exercise Habit: On the Conceptualization and Formation of
Habitual Health Behaviours.” Health Education Research 12 (3):363–74.
Aarts, H., B. Verplanken, and A. Knippenberg. 1998. “Predicting Behaviour from Actions in the past: repeated
Decision Making or a Matter of Habit?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (15):1355–74.
Abrahamse, W., and L. Steg. 2011. “Factors Related to Household Energy Use and Intention to Reduce It: The Role
of Psychological and Socio-Demographic Variables.” Human Ecology Review 18 (1):30–40.
Adger, W. N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D. R. Nelson, L. O. Naess, J. Wolf, and A. Wreford. 2009.
“Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?” Climatic Change 93 (3–4):335–54.
Alreck, P. L., and R. B. Settle. 1995. The Survey Research Handbook: Guidelines and Strategies for Conducting a Survey.
2nd ed. Chicago: Irwin Publishing.
Anderson, J. R., L. M. Reder, and H. A. Simon. 1996. “Situated Learning and Education.” Educational Researcher 25
(4):5–11.
Baber, W. F., and R. V. Bartlett. 2005. Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boon, H. J. 2010. “Climate Change? Who Knows? A Comparison of Secondary Students and Pre-Service Teachers.”
Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35:104–20.
Boyce, T. E., and E. S. Geller. 2001. “Encouraging College Students to Support Pro-Environment Behaviour: Effects of
Direct versus Indirect Rewards.” Environment and Behaviour 33 (1):107–25.
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chang, C. H. 2008. Climate and Climate Change: A Singapore Perspective. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Chang, C. H. 2013. Advancing a Framework for Climate Change Education in Singapore through Teacher
Professional Development. HSSE Online, 5 (1):28–35. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/
10497/14305/1/HSSE%20Online-2-1-28.pdf
Chang, C. H. 2014. Climate Change Education: Knowing, Doing and Being. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Chang, C. H., and L. Pascua. 2017. “The Curriculum of Climate Change Education: A Case for Singapore.” The
Journal of Environmental Education 48 (3):172–81.
Chawla, L., and D. F. Cushing. 2007. “Education for Strategic Environmental Behavior.” Environmental Education
Research 13 (4):437–52.
Collins, J., G. Thomas, R. Willis, and J. Wilsdon. 2003. “Carrot, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for
environmental goals.” A Demo/Green Alliance Report for Defra. Retrieved 5 January 2014, from www.demos.co.
uk/files/CarrotsSticksSermons.pdf
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London, YK: Sage
publications.
Christens, B. D. 2010. “Public Relationship Building in Grassroots Community Organizing: Relational Intervention for
Individual and Systems Change.” Journal of Community Psychology 38 (7):886–900.
1034 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

De Young, R. 1988. “Exploring the Difference between Recyclers and Nonrecyclers: The Role of Information.”
Journal of Environmental Systems 18 (4):341–51.
De Young, R., A. Duncan, J. Frank, N. Gill, S. Rothman, J. Shenot, A. Shotkin, and M. Zweizig. 1993. “Promoting
Source Reduction Behaviour: The Role of Motivational Information.” Environment and Behaviour 25 (1):70–85.
De Koninck, R., J. Drolet, and M. Girard. 2008. Singapore: An Atlas of Perpetual Territorial Transformation. Singapore:
NUS Press.
Deci, E. L., H. Eghrari, B. C. Patrick, and D. R. Leone. 1994. “Facilitating Internalisation: The Self-Determination
Theory Perspective.” Journal of Personality 62 (1):119–42.
Diekmann, A., and P. Preisendo €rfer. 2003. “Green and Greenback: The Behavioural Effects of Environmental
Attitudes in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations.” Rationality and Society 15 (4):441–72.
Dillon, J. 2003. “On Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: Missing Theories, Ignored Communities.”
Environmental Education Research 9 (2):215–26.
EnergyStar 2013. Enabling ENERGY STAR Power Management Features. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/documents/enabled_0.pdf
Forester, W. S. 1988. “Solid Waste: There’s a Lot More Coming.” Environmental Protection Agency Journal 14:11–2.
Francis, J., B. Giles-Corti, L. Wood, and M. Knuiman. 2012. “Creating Sense of Community: The Role of Public Space.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (4):401–9.
Geller, E. S. 1995. “Actively Caring for the Environment: An Integration of Behaviorism and Humanism” Environment
and Behavior 27 (2):184–95.
Geller, E. S. 2002. “The Challenge of Increasing Pro-environmental Behaviour.” In R. B. Bechtel and A. Churchman
(Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ghai, D., and J. M. Vivian. 2014. Grassroots Environmental Action: People’s Participation in Sustainable Development.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Gravetter, F. J., and L. B. Wallnau. 2016. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Green-Demers, I., L. G. Pelletier, and S. Menard. 1997. “The Impact of Behaviour Difficulty on the Saliency of the
Association between Self-Determined Motivation and Environmental Behaviour.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Sciences 29 (3):157–66.
Hornik, J., J. Cherian, M. Madansky, and C. Narayana. 1995. “Determinants of Recycling Behaviour: A Synthesis of
Research Results.” Journal of Social Economics 24 (1):105–27.
Howard, R. 1988. “Schemata: Implications for Teaching Science.” Australian Science Teachers Journal 34:29–34.
Kenis, A., and E. Mathijs. 2012. “Beyond Individual Behaviour Change: The Role of Power, Knowledge and Strategy
in Tackling Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 18 (1):45–65.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers
to Pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8 (3):239–60.
Lane, R., and S. Catling. 2016. “Preservice Primary Teachers’ Depth and Accuracy of Knowledge of Tropical
Cyclones.” Journal of Geography 115 (5):198–211.
Lucas, K., M. Brooks, A. Darnton, and J. E. Jones. 2008. “Promoting Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Existing Evidence
and Policy Implications.” Environmental Science & Policy 11 (5):456–66.
Mauzy, D. K., and R. S. Milne. 2002. Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party. London: Routledge.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. “Fostering Sustainable Behavior through Community-Based Social Marketing.” American
Psychologist 55 (5):531.
McMillan, D. W., and D. M. Chavis. 1986. “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.” Journal of Community
Psychology 14 (1):6–23.
McNamara, K. E. 2013. “Raising Awareness about Climate Change in Pacific Communities.” Environmental Education
Research 19 (6):864–71.
Mezirow, J. 1997. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education
1997 (74):5–12.
Microsoft. 2018. Windows Power Management System. Retrieved from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/
desktop/power/windows-power-management
Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, Singapore (MEWR). 2012. The Singapore Green Plan. Singapore:
Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource. Retrieved 20 January 2012, from http://app.mewr.gov.sg/data/
ImgCont/1342/sgp2012_2006edition.pdf
National Environmental Agency, Singapore (NEA). 2012. “10% Energy Challenge.” Retrieved 20 May 2013, from
http://app.e2singapore.gov.sg/Programmes/10_Energy_Challenge.aspx
National Environmental Agency, Singapore (NEA). 2013. “Energy Saving Tips.” Retrieved 1 June 2013, from http://
app.e2singapore.gov.sg/Households/At_Home_10_Energy_Challenge/EnergySaving_Tips.aspx
€
Olander, F., and J. Thøgersen. 1995. “Understanding of Consumer Behaviour as a Prerequisite for Environmental
Protection.” Journal of Consumer Policy 18 (4):345–85.
Osbaldiston, R., and K. M. Sheldon. 2003. “Promoting Internalized Motivation for Environmentally Responsible
Behavior: A Prospective Study of Environmental Goals.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (4):257–349.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1035

Oskamp, S. 1995. “Resource Conservation and Recycling: Behaviour and Policy.” Journal of Social Issues 51 (4):
157–77.
Ouellette, J. A., and W. Wood. 1998. “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes by Which past
Behavior Predicts Future Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (1):54.
Pelletier, L. G., K. M. Tuson, I. Green-Demers, K. Noels, and A. M. Beaton. 1998. “Why Are You Doing Things for the
Environment? the Motivation towards the Environment Scale (MTES).” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (5):
437–68.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. USA: SAGE Publications.
People’s Association, Singapore (PA). 2011. “About Grassroots Organisations.” Retrieved 2 October 2012, from
http://www.pa.gov.sg/about-grassroots-organisations.html
People’s Association, Singapore (PA). 2017. “Locate RC.” Retrieved from https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/grass-
roots-organisations/residents-committees/locate-rc
Peterson, N. A., and R. J. Reid. 2003. “Paths to Psychological Empowerment in an Urban Community: Sense of
Community and Citizen Participation in Substance Abuse Prevention Activities.” Journal of Community
Psychology 31 (1):25–38.
Pilisuk, M., J. McAllister, and J. Rothman. 1996. “Coming Together for Action: The Challenge of Contemporary
Grassroots Community Organizing.” Journal of Social Issues 52 (1):15–37.
Poortinga, W., L. Steg, C. Vlek, and G. Wiersma. 2003. “Household Preferences for Energy-Saving Measures: A
Conjoint Analysis.” Journal of Economic Psychology 24 (1):49–64.
Reagans, R., and B. McEvily. 2003. “Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2):240–67.
Saldan~a, J. 2016. Ethno Theatre: Research from Page to Stage. New York: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., J. R. Meece, and P. R. Pintrich. 2012. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications.
Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.
Schwartz, S. H. 1977. “Normative Influences on Altruism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10:221–79.
Shavelson, R. J. 1974. “Methods for Examining Representations of a Subject Matter Structure in a Student’s
Memory.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11 (3):231–49.
Sheldon, K. M., and A. J. Elliot. 1998. “Not All Personal Goals Are Personal: Comparing Autonomous and Controlled
Reasons as Predictors of Effort and Attainment.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (5):546–57.
Sheldon, K. M., and L. Houser-Marko. 2001. “Self-Concordance, Goal Attainment, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Can
There Be an Upward Spiral?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (1):152–65.
Steg, L. 2008. “Promoting Household Energy Conservation.” Energy Policy 36 (12):4449–53.
Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research
Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3):309–17.
Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer, and G. Perlaviciute. 2014. “An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-
Environmental Behaviour: The Role of Values, Situational Factors and Goals.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
38:104–15.
Paul, K., and A. S.-S. Tan. 2003. “Democracy and the Grassroots Sector in Singapore.” Space and Policy 7 (1):3–20.
Taylor, E. W. 2008. “Transformative Learning Theory.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2008 (119):
5–15.
The Business Times. 2018. Singapore Budget 2018: U-Save rebates adjusted to help offset carbon tax impact.
Retrieved from https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-budget-2018/singapore-
budget-2018-u-save-rebates-adjusted-to-help
The Straits Times. 2014. “Singapore Budget 2014: Revised energy labelling scheme for home appliances.” Retrieved
1 Jul, 2015, from http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapore-budget-2014-revised-energy-labelling-
scheme-home-appliances
UNESCO. 1976. “The Belgrade Charter.” UNESCO-UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter 1 (1):1–2.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2006. Raising awareness of climate change. Switzerland: United Nations
Environment Programme's Division of Environmental Law and Conventions.
Vivian, J. M. 1995. “Foundations for sustainable development: Participation, empowerment and local.” In Ghai, D.
and Vivian, J.M., Grassroots environmental action. People’s participation in sustainable development. London,
England, Routledge.
Wi, A. 2018. “Citizen Participation as a Key Enabler for Successful Public Education Policies in Climate Change
Mitigation in Singapore.” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education :1. doi:10.1080/
10382046.2018.1430789
Wibeck, V. 2014. “Enhancing Learning, Communication and Public Engagement about Climate Change–Some
Lessons from Recent Literature.” Environmental Education Research 20 (3):387–411.
Wiesenfeld, E., and E. Sanchez. 2002. “Sustained Participation: A Community Based Approach to Addressing
Environmental Problems.” In Bechtel, R. B. and Churchman, A., Handbook To Environmental Psychology. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
1036 A. WI AND C.-H. CHANG

Appendix
Appendix A: TrEC intervention programme

Time Lesson/activities Objectives

The introduction to the study and what it requires par-
ticipants to do.
5 min Watch a video on climate change To allow participants to understand
(e.g. drought, loss of habitats and sea level rise), accu- 1. Accumulated effects of energy consumption
mulated energy consumption and what actions individu- 2. Individuals can make a difference
als can take to reduce consumption.

20 min Review the CLAST (5 simple tips on energy saving) By giving examples, participants will not feel that it is
 Explain and give examples a hassle and will be more willing to commit.
 Encourage participants to choose which is most
convenient to them and commit.
Example:
1. It is not about buying energy efficient appliances
but to change your own consumption lifestyle.
2. “Standby” mode by appliances still consume
energy

10 min Question and answer To check for understanding and clarifying facts.

Appendix B: Conservation tips

1. Switch off the Computer completely when not in use for a long period. (Use the energy saving features in a computer)
2. Turn off the Lights when not in use
3. Reduce usage of the Air-conditioner
a. Increase the temperature
b. Set the timer
c. Use the electric fan instead of air-conditioner
3. Switch off the mains (e.g. Set-top boxes, modems, DVD/CD players) when appliances are not in use. Do not leave appli-
ances in standby mode.
4. Switch to a Thermo-flask instead of an electric air-pot

Appendix C: Sample questions from pre/post test surveys

Knowledge

0 4
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the Strongly Strongly
following statements. Disagree 1 2 3 Agree
a. Using a fan instead of an air-conditioner to keep cool help save
the environment and money.
b. Every degree lower (colder) on the air-conditioner cost
more money.
c. The recommended air-conditioner setting is 25
C.
d. Leaving the TV on standby mode (with red dot) still con-
sumes energy.
e. I can save electricity and money when I switch off the set-top
boxes and modems when no one is watching or using. (eg.
Going to work)
f. I can save energy by switching the main switch/socket off.
g. Thermos flask uses less energy than electric air-pot.
h. Choosing energy efficient light-bulbs will help save the
environment.
i. Turning on the power management feature on the computer
can help me save electricity and money.
j. The more ticks indicated on the appliance means it is more effi-
cient and I can save more money.
A thermos flask is a container for transporting hot liquids.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 1037

Attitude

0 4
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree Strongly Strongly
with the following statements. Disagree 1 2 3 Agree
a. The actions of a single household can make a difference in
climate change.
b. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour will not reduce my quality of life.
c. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour is convenient and easy to do.
d. Practicing pro-environmental behaviour is not costly

Action

Air-conditioner strategy (Using shorter periods / use of fans) YES NO

a. Were you able to sleep using a fan instead of using the air-conditioner?
b. Did you try turning off the air-conditioner 30 minutes before waking up?
c. Did you try setting the air-conditioner at a higher degree (recommended 25
C)?
d. What are some limitations or inconvenience that you faced? Any recommendations?

Switching off the mains/socket (TV set-top box / modems) YES NO

a. Did you try turning off the mains (wall switch) off?
b. Did you try switching off the TV set-top box when no one is home (e.g. at school/ work)?
c. Did you try switching off the modem when no one is home (e.g. at school/ work)?
d. What were some limitations or inconvenience that you faced? Any recommendations?

Appendix D: Timeline for the intervention programme

Month Activity
1st month Pre-survey (Both groups)

Intervention Programme (TrEC) for experimental group

2nd month Practice Conservation Tips (Appendix B)

Check-in 1

3rd month Practice Conservation Tips (Appendix B)

Check-in 2

4th month Post-survey (Both groups)

Submit utility bills