Executive Summary

Goals

While transportation planners have several options for addressing work-trip travel, they have few tools for changing non-work related travel behavior. This project sought to give the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) information that could be used to design programs to reduce non-work related travel – in particular, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. The project’s goals were to:

• Research the effectiveness of Global Action Plan’s (GAP) Household EcoTeam Program for reducing non-work related travel;
• Identify complementary services that could enhance the neighborhood-based approach;
• Document reductions in non-work related VMT and SOV use by participating households; and
• Based on the findings, identify non-work related VMT/SOV reduction strategies that might have broader applicability for the general population.

Research Methodology

Staff from the Energy Office, Traffic Management, Water Bureau, Environmental Services, and Office of Neighborhood Involvement designed the survey in consultation with Global Action Plan. The objectives of the study were to:

• Administer the EcoTeam Program to approximately 100 households in Portland and Bend
• Design and distribute customized program materials to participants, emphasizing non-work VMT and SOV reduction
• Design and administer pre- and post-program survey tools to all participating households
• Compile and analyze the data and gather informal feedback from participants

Results

• Sixty-four percent of participating households reported reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. Fifty percent of participating households reported reductions in non-work related VMT and SOV.
• Among households that reported VMT/SOV savings, the average non-work related VMT reduction was 4%.
• Participating households reduced their non-work related VMT by a total of 38,494 miles per year¹ (or an average of 356 miles per household per year).
• Participating households reduced their non-work related SOV trips by a total of 3,888 trips per year² (or an average of 36 SOV trips reduced per household per year).³
• The carpool action was taken by 22% of all participants (35% of households that took action). The average non-work related VMT reduction from the carpool action was 94 miles per household per year. The average non-work related SOV reduction was 9.8 trips per household per year.
• The trip-chaining action was taken by 26% of all participants (41% of households that took action). The average non-work related VMT reduction from the trip-chaining action was 184 miles per household per year. The average non-work related SOV reduction from the trip-chaining action was 12.4 trips per household per year.

1) It is assumed that participants continue their behavior change after the program is over. Annual savings are calculated by multiplying reported weekly savings by 48 weeks per year.

2) See footnote 1.

3) Because a number of participating households – primarily in Portland – did not submit the transportation tracker forms from which the SOV trip reductions were calculated, the SOV trip reductions reported are substantially underestimated. See footnote 10 for an explanation of the method used for calculating SOV trip reductions.

Recommendations

• Pilot neighborhood-based carpool programs in Portland and Bend, organized around participants’ shared non-work related activities, such as sports leagues, shopping, entertainment, and health and fitness activities. Evaluate former EcoTeam participants’ ability to sustain their behavior changes in non-work related travel, using a post-program survey administered to former participants.
• Develop ideas for a possible trip-chaining pilot project.
• Based on the results, develop strategic plan for non-work related travel reduction throughout Oregon.

Overview:

Statement of Problems and Research Objectives

Between 60 and 70 percent of single occupant vehicle travel (SOV) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are for non work-related purposes. Although there are a number of proven tools for changing work-related travel, few such tools exist for changing non work-related travel behavior, whether at peak or off-peak periods. Little research has been done on how to change non work-related travel behavior or on programs and services that are effective in changing that behavior.

The objectives of this research project were to:

• Research the effectiveness of the neighborhood-based Household EcoTeam Program for reducing non work-related VMT/SOV
• Identify opportunities for complementary services that can enhance the neighborhood-based approach
• Through this approach, reduce non work-related VMT/SOV by participating households
• Based on the research findings of this project, develop a long-term implementation strategy to reduce non-work related travel.

Major Findings

1. With the aid of a neighborhood-based voluntary behavior change program, participating households reduced non-work related VMT by an average of at least 4% (among households that take VMT/SOV actions).
2. The project achieved carpool and trip-chaining participation rates of 20%-25%. With a customized program that focused exclusively on one action, this participation rate might be increased.
3. The data from this project seems to support the view that the neighborhood-based model is a transferable tool.

Study Design

An action research model was chosen to study non-work related VMT/SOV reduction. The research has been conducted in the context of on-going Sustainable Lifestyle Campaigns that GAP operates in Portland and Bend. This approach has several benefits:

• It permits evaluation of existing VMT/SOV-reduction programs in two Oregon cities.
• It gives researchers direct access to households that have shown an interest in taking actions that will reduce their environmental impact.
• It offers an interactive feedback process with program participants to study the factors that can enhance or inhibit change in household travel behavior.

Because the Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign is based on a behavior change methodology, this approach is particularly useful for identifying factors that enhance or inhibit household behavior change.

Definitions: SOV and VMT Reduction

Single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trip is a trip taken by only one person in an automotive vehicle. An SOV trip reduction occurs when a trip that would otherwise have been made as an SOV trip is made using an alternative mode of transportation (e.g. carpool, trip-chain, bicycle, etc.).

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are the number of miles traveled in an automotive vehicle. VMT reduction occurs when a household reduces the number of miles traveled in an automotive vehicle over a particular period of time.

The following VMT- and SOV-reduction actions were included in this program:

• Carpool – travel with two or more individuals sharing an automotive vehicle
• Public Transit – travel by means of bus, train, light rail, or other government-sponsored means of transit
• Walk, Bike, Jog, Skate – travel by means of walking, biking, jogging or skating, without an automotive vehicle
• Trip chaining ("combining trips") – travel that combines in one trip two or more activities that otherwise would have been taken as separate trips
• Telecommute – eliminating travel by performing an activity without leaving the home
• Alternative Work Schedule – a work schedule that either reduces the number of days on which an individual travels to work (e.g. 4 days, 10 hrs/day) or reduces the number of trips taken during peak travel periods (e.g. 11 a.m. – 7 p.m. workday)

Analysis of Research Results

Pre- and Post-Program Survey Instruments (Tasks 1 and 2)

A total of 108 households (58 in Portland and 50 in Bend) participated in the study. All participating households received all program materials, including the Lifestyle Assessments (pre-program survey), the Result Forms (post-program survey), the Transportation Tracker, and local SOV/VMT reduction handouts distributed by the transportation topic leader or team coach. Copies of the pre- and post-program surveys and the transportation trackers are attached as Appendix B.

Ninety-five percent (55 HH) of households in Portland and 96% (48 HH) of households in Bend provided sufficient data to be included in the study. This provided ample resource savings data for the analysis.

Based on the actual use of the forms by participants, the pre- and post-program survey instruments appear to be well designed for calculating the extent of participants’ work-related and non-work related transportation actions. Based on how the majority of participants used the Transportation Trackers, these forms appear to be useful primarily as a motivational and awareness tool. Although some participants successfully used the trackers to calculate their SOV/VMT reduction, most participants appeared to use them primarily as motivators to encourage the next level of SOV/VMT reduction.

Recruitment and Administration of EcoTeam Program
to 100 Households (Tasks 3 & 4)

GAP recruited and administered the EcoTeam program to 58 households in Portland and 50 households in Bend. A description of the major activities involved in administering GAP’s Sustainable Lifestyle Program is attached as Appendix A. For the VMT/SOV reduction project, GAP made the following refinements to the basic program format:

• Volunteers (coaches, team captains, topic leaders) receive specific training in methods to support participants in their VMT/SOV reduction activities, including tracking and calculating their resource savings.
• Field staff, in consultation with GAP’s transportation partners, developed a wide assortment of VMT/SOV reduction informational materials (information on local programs, leisure activities that can be accessed by public transportation, safety advice about alternative transportation, etc.).
• Greater emphasis was placed on distribution of VMT/SOV materials. Transportation topic leaders were encouraged to distribute these materials to all EcoTeam participants.

Analysis of VMT/SOV Results (Task 5)

* HH refers to households

7) Excluded from the analysis were participants who did not provide sufficient information to permit calculation of VMT/SOV reduction.

Awareness of City Sponsorship:

Respondents were asked if they could identify any of the local organizations that provided funding for the EcoTeam program. Approximately half (54%) correctly identified the City of Portland, and nearly one third (31%) named Tri-Met which provides free bus passes to participants. Also mentioned were Portland General Electric (19%) and Metro (13%), who do not provide funding.

Program Ratings:

Participants were asked to rate the EcoTeam program on a scale of one to five where five is excellent and one is poor. They were then asked to rate specific aspects of the program. The ratings revealed that most participants have positive feelings about the program, and they greatly value the experience with their neighbors.

Eighty-four percent of respondents gave the overall program a rating of four or five. When we add respondents who gave the program a median rating of three it brings the total up to 96.9%. When asked to suggest improvements, the answers were divided. Most people did not have a response (84.4%). The strongest response was the suggestion to reduce the amount of paperwork (6.2%). Each of the other four responses were given by a single person. These were to:

• reach out to a broader audience
• have more direction from staff
• have less direction from staff, and
• were concerned about "high cost of program; unsure the program works"

The program received average ratings of 4.0 or higher in each of the following areas: Usefulness of the EcoTeam Workbook, usefulness of the Topic Leader Guides (outlines for meetings) and, support from the EcoTeam coach. These are areas that are each unique to the program itself and reflect well on the design of EcoTeams.

Respondents gave an overwhelmingly high rating (an average of 4.7) to their "experience with other team members". The EcoTeam program provides a structure of support that seems to strongly support community-building at a neighborhood level. And, as is shown in later survey questions, can lead to increased participation in volunteer activities in the community once the program is complete.

When asked about the process of team recruitment, the average of the responses was 3.6, the lowest score in this section. The EcoTeam has made some notable improvements in this area (see section below).

Suggestions for improvement:

There were many excellent suggestions that were made by respondents for ways to improve the program. Many of these are already being incorporated in subsequent rounds of EcoTeams in Portland. To summarize some highlights:

"Reduce amount of paperwork": The EcoTeam home office is currently modifying its assessment tools to be both more user-friendly and compact. This will significantly reduce the need for paper. Participants are also encouraged to send their Topic Leader Guides (outlines for meetings) back to the office for re-use.

"Coach should play a bigger role": It is interesting to note that coaches have begun to express this same desire. As more and more coaches are actually coaching in their own neighborhoods, they they want to spend more time with their teams and deepen those relationships. The EcoTeam staff are encouraging coaches to drop in on their teams for a few minutes at every other meeting, so they are better able to support their teams and build strong connections with their neighbors.

"More support from the staff or their team in the replication process": This part of the program is getting some very focused attention. The Portland campaign is in the midst of developing a new level of volunteer leadership that will specifically be trained to support teams in their inviting process by actually going out on the walks with them. These volunteers will also be the focalizing point in their neighborhoods for all advanced EcoTeam activity that happens once a team finishes the basic program. They will also integrate efforts between EcoTeams in their neighborhood for efforts that require cooperation from larger groups.

It is interesting to note that in the section that has to do with connecting with your neighbors (which got the highest average rating of 4.7) not a single suggestion was offered for how to improve that part of the program!

Local information:

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) said they wanted more information on local environmental issues to help them take the actions in the EcoTeam workbook. Recycling was the most common type of local information requested, but many respondents could not identify other specific types of information that would also have been useful.

Since the time that the survey participants went through the program, the staff in Portland, with assistance from the Partners, have made some significant improvements to the system for providing local resources to EcoTeam members. They have compiled an impressive collection of over 100 brochures, booklets and kits, provided by the partners, to support EcoTeam participants in living more resource-efficient lifestyles. These materials are available for free, at the EcoTeam office and arranged, by topic, in a 96 slot mail-sorter. Participants are encouraged to come and select the materials they'd like to share with team members. This way people can customize their message to their neighborhood's concerns and it minimizes wastage of unwanted brochures and information. Also partners and other local agencies have more direct and pertinent ways to reach the public.

Missed meetings:

A majority of respondents missed no meetings (59.4%); and no one reported missing more than one meeting.

Interaction with neighbors:

Almost everyone interviewed (93.8%) said they now have more interaction with their neighbors . This includes general on-street interactions such as chatting (28.1%) but people also report deeper connections such as picnics/potlucks (9.4%), sharing items / materials (18.8%), sharing ideas (12.5%) and carpooling (6.3%). This speaks well for the community-building aspects of the program as most participants (62%) reported they knew none or only one of the team members well prior to joining the team.

Interest in Continued EcoTeam Involvement:

Since the conclusion of the program, nearly one-third of the teams have gotten together again for parties, dinners, or discussions. Participants were asked whether they would be interested in attending occasional team meetings on a number of specific topics. All participants expressed interest in at least one topic, and most had several interests. The most popular meeting topic was natural gardening.

Percentage who are interested in EcoTeam meeting on this topic:

During this portion of the interview, some participants expressed a concern that they might be pressured to set up additional meetings and wanted to know what format the new meetings would take. Many emphasized the importance of working with existing programs and nonprofit groups that deal with the specific topic areas, rather than creating something new. These considerations should be incorporated in any future program designs.

Perceived Impacts of the Program:

Respondents were asked whether the EcoTeam program has had an "ongoing impact on your daily actions and decisions that affect the environment"; the majority (84%) said it had. They most commonly identified energy and water conservation as the most important changes they had made. The table below lists responses mentioned by at least two people (6% of the respondents).

Percentage specifying area of most important change:

Approximately three quarters of respondents (78%) said they had shared what they learned in the program with friends, neighbors, or co-workers who were not on their EcoTeam. Approximately one quarter of respondents (28%) felt they had increased their volunteer activities as a result of their EcoTeam participation, primarily referring to their volunteer work as EcoTeam coaches.

Involvement Prior to EcoTeam Participation:

Many EcoTeam participants were involved in environmental and neighborhood affairs prior to participating in the program. One quarter were not involved with these networks.
Percentages

In a future survey it would be useful to distinguish the percentage of participants who were not involved as volunteers with environmental organizations prior to being on a team. When volunteers are included in the same category as people who contribute financially or as a member, it is impossible to track the specific rise in civic activity that being on an EcoTeam inspires.

Conclusion:

The objectives of this survey were clearly met. The questions asked in this survey provide a comprehensive look at the ways the EcoTeam program is perceived by its participants. The questions about volunteerism give a more detailed look into the population that is attracted to and participating. The questions about the impact of the program show that even six months after people have completed the program, they are still retaining, and in some cases furthering their actions to use resources more efficiently and are deepening relationships with their neighbors.

And as Linda Dobson, Assistant to the Director of Environmental Services said in her summary comments: "The report notes that the experience of working together as a neighborhood team was a very positive one. The respondents gave the program (content) itself, a similarly high approval rating, where 84% graded the program good to excellent. Although there is always room for improvement, the rating indicates a high level of satisfaction."

Study Done for Tri-Met, Portland, OR

Executive Summary

At the end of the EcoTeam program, we conducted a survey that indicated that 42% of those who received free transit passes increased their use of bus or light rail by an average of 152%. Six months later, without either the free passes or the social support of their team, the results had actually increased: 41% of the respondents reported that they had sustained their ridership of public transportation by 170%. What follows are the specific answers to the survey questions:

Survey Questions and Answers

1. How many trips did you make on a Tri-Met bus or MAX or another Tri-Met service. in an average month before and after your EcoTeam?

Of the 41% who said that they increased their use of public transportation, the average rate of increasewas 170%.

Of the 59% who reported that their use of public transit did not change:

• 33% did not use any form of public transportation before or after the program
• 38% sustained their use of bus and/or light rail five times per month or less
• 29% sustained their use of bus and/or light rail twenty times per month or more

2. What were the purposes of those trips?

3. How have your transportation / travel habits changed since participating on your EcoTeam?

42% said they increased their use of Tri-Met bus and/or MAX service

11% said they carpool more

18% combine trips more often

26% walk or bike more

3% reported that they made no significant change

52 surveys were mailed out and 32 were returned, for a response rate of 62%.

4. How manv days per month do you currently use the following forms of transportation to get to work? (i.e.. How do you travel to and from your work place?)

Carpool 13%

Drive alone 28%

Bus 34%

MAX 8%

Walk 7%

Bike 10%

5. Is there a bus or MAX service to your work location?

66% said ''yes"

12% said "no"

22% said they didn't know or that it was not applicable
(e.g., they work at home)

6. lf your car is not available for use. what is your best alternative transportation option for each of the following trip purposes?

7. Do you have any feedback you'd like to give directly to Tri-Met?

• "Tri-Met is doing a good job but for some people taking a bus is too time consuming.''
• "Try a fleet of mini buses on certain routes that can run more frequently."
• "Pole-mounted schedules."
• "Later-running schedule (say, until 11 or midnight)."
• "Can't overestimate the importance of frequent headways.''
• "Lloyd center service is confiusing - any shuttle possibilities?"
• "Keep up the good work."
• "Thanks for encouraging use! I regret the cutbacks in service on Barbur Blvd. So many people have to stand, I'm afraid this will end up discouraging use of Tri-Met.''
• "Buses - especially the #17 - are frequently late. Add more to the route. People don't take the bus because the wait is too long, the stink too intense. I always feel like I have to be on guard on the bus because the passengers are a little scary through old town and downtown Burnside. "
• "Try to minimize "no shows" on bus route. If I commit to riding the bus, I need to know that a scheduled bus will bs there on time (trafF~c allowing). It doesn't take too many "no shows" to start thinking of bus service as unreliable. MAX is great!''
• "Generally Tri-Met buses are very timely and comfortable. However, I wish there were more buses on the #14 during rush hours. I hardly ever get a seat and sometimes the bus is extremely full and cannot accommodate all the passengers. "
• "Unfortunately, due to the nature of my husband's work, he is unable to use Tri-Met because he travels to and from clients many times daily."
• "Need to keep expanding MAX lines. MAX/bus combination is best. Need to connect outlying areas with express routes. Example: Oregon City Transit Center to Tualatin. Mass transit has to be convenient for people to use it."
• ''I like the idea of small buses riding more frequently in the offhours or main routes. Also, need more "rim't bus lines instead of everything emanating from a central hub."
• "I would love to see a North/South MAX line - from Vancouver to Oregon City-West Linn. You're doing a great job! Some of your drivers could be a little more user friendly. Thanks! "
• "Continue to push for more and expanded light rail."
• "We need a bus line that essentially merges the #8 Jackson Park with the #39 Lewis & Clark bus, connecting PSU, OHSU and Lewis & Clark Colleges along Terwilliger.
• "More bus lines! Drivers generally very friendly and helpful."
• ''I encourage all senior citizens to use public transportation."
• "The Sunday morning bus schedule totally disregards church-goers to downtown churches by arriving too close to the hour or half hour to debark and arrive at church. "
• "I would love to see Tri-Met bus stop at airport located in prominent and convenient place when the current construction is completed. Otherwise, I love your service.
• "Keep buying new rolling stock and emphasize comfort and minimize noise. Convert to cleaner fuels (natural gas l electricity for buses) ASAP. Low-rider ~ses are great! "
• "I like the new buses on the #l5 line - and the drivers are always so pleasant."
• "It just snowed and there are thousands of employees trying to get up Marquim hill. Info lines are busy. (OHSU and other hospital employees can't stay home. It should be a priority.) Keep radio better inforrned on how #8 and the express lines are doing vs. having us stand out in the cold for greater than 1 hour. Add more buses on snow days if possible."

Addendum

Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Action for Round One Portland EcoTeams (59 Households reporting)

Acton #1: Ridesharing - 7 HH (12%) took this action for the first time or took it further. The average reduction in VMT per HH is 10.5%. For these 7 HH the average miles replaced is 2,770 (19,392 total). Averaged by all HH, the miles replaced is 328.

Action #2: Walking, Biking, etc. - I 9 HH (32%) took this action for the first time or took it further. The average reduction in VMT is 2.2%. For these 19 HH the average miles replaced is 303 (5,756 total). Averaged by all HH, the miles replaced is 97.5.

Action #3: Using Public Transportation - 24 HR (40%) took this action for the first time or took it further. The average reduction in VMT is 5.6%. For these 24 HH: the average miles replaced is 1,044 (25,056 total). Averaged by all HH, the miles replaced is 248.

Action #4: Combining Trips - 20 (33%) HH took this action for the first time or took it further. The average reduction in VMT is 5.5%. For these 20 HH, the average miles replaced is 626 (12,528 total). Averaged by all HH, the miles replaced is 212.

Action #8: Commuting Less - 3 HH (5%) took this action for the first time or took it further. The average reduction in VMT is 5.5°/0. For these 3 HH, the average miles replaced is 1,037 (3,112 total). Averaged by all UH, the miles replaced is 53.

The "actions" above may not correspond to the names or numbers of actions on the assessment or result forms. They are named and numbered according to how they print out from the database.

• Adding all the miles reduced by all the actions above = 55,404. This averages to 939 miles per HH, and a 6.3 % overall average reduction.
• The total miles driven per year is 888,107 - which averages to 15,001 miles per HH.
• The total ‘'alternative" miles before was 177,264. After the program, the total "alternative" miles is 229,628. This is a change of 52,364 (888 average per HH). In terms of percentage change, participants increased their use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles by 29.5%.

Using these figures, the % reduction is 6.0.

Brief Analysis:

55 HH (93%) took at least one action that would reduce their VMT.

21 HH (35%) took multiple actions.

20 HH (33%) took no actions further - they were already participating in some actions before.

4 HH (7%) were not doing anything before and did not do anything after.

21 HH (35%) reduced VMT up to 5%.

13 HH (20%) reduced VMT between 7% and 18%.

4 HH (7%) reduced VMT over 24%

The average VMT reduction (for all ~ and all actions) ranges between 5.7% and 6.3%.

It's safe to say "6.3% based on self-reported data" The average per action is also 6.3%.

When the data are averaged by team, a similar number is achieved.

Prepared by
Market Street Research, Inc.
Northampton, MA 01060
March 1996

Executive Summary

The purpose of this study was to assess the market potential and program and marketing effectiveness of Global Action Plan’s Household EcoTeam Program which has been developed as a means of encouraging households to form earth-friendly lifestyle practices. People are invited by neighbors to attend gatherings in neighbors’ homes known as "Introduction Events," in which they learn about the EcoTeam Program and are invited to form a team with other participants. The team meets over a period of several months and participants then go out and recruit other neighbors, who in turn attend Introduction Events and form new EcoTeams. GAP’s goal is to expand the EcoTeam Program to a point of sufficient concentration and visibility so that it achieves "critical mass" and will diffuse throughout the population as households continue to form new EcoTeams.

In recent years, a considerable number of national marketing research studies have demonstrated that the majority of adults in the United States hold positive attitudes toward the environment and are predisposed toward making positive changes in lifestyle practices that will help protect the environment. Not surprisingly given this research, GAP has had considerable success with the Household EcoTeam Program, with over 3,000 households participating during the program’s pilot stages. GAP now needs to determine the potential for widespread diffusion of the program beyond the neighborhoods currently served by the program. The objectives of this study, thus, were to:

1. 1. estimate the likely market potential for the EcoTeam program;
2. 2. evaluate the EcoTeam program and explore the program’s long-term effects on participants’ lifestyle practices;
3. 3. evaluate Introduction Events and GAP’s training and support mechanisms for the EcoTeam program.

For this study, Market Street Research, Inc. began by surveying a random sample of households in four urban regions of the U.S., including: (1) Chattanooga, Tennessee; (2) Portland, Oregon; (3) Seattle, Washington; and (4) Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. These large geographic regions were selected because GAP already has experience in forming EcoTeams in these areas and they are viewed as "early adopter" communities (i.e., residents tend to have positive attitudes toward new ideas). GAP plans to expand into other U.S. markets over time, but at this point in the program’s development, it made sense to begin with a targeted marketing strategy in geographic areas likely to adopt the program most readily. We also discovered during the survey that despite their early adopter status, these regions are fairly representative of the U.S. as a whole in terms of attitudes toward the environment and toward developing sustainable lifestyle practices.

The second and third phases of the study involved in-depth telephone interviews with 40 people who had participated in the EcoTeam program to varying degrees, ranging from potential Introduction Event recruits to program graduates.

Summary of Findings Relating to Market Potential

The results of this study clearly indicate that the Household EcoTeam Program has the potential for widespread acceptance among households within the geographic markets surveyed, and likely nationwide. When given a representative "script" describing the program, most people we interviewed expressed an interest in the program and very few thought they would be unlikely to come to an Introduction Event. In fact, 43% thought they would be "very likely" to come, another 42% thought they would be "somewhat likely" to do so, and only 13% thought they would not. Large proportions responded positively to various components of the script such as children’s involvement, opportunities to get to know neighbors, and opportunities to take environmentally responsible action and thus simplify one’s life.

These results suggest that GAP’s goal of reaching about 15% of households in order to promote diffusion of the EcoTeam program throughout the larger community is realistic. With most new programs, however, the proportion of people who say they will participate is smaller than the proportion who actually do so. We used a standard marketing rule-of-thumb and factored in the margin of error for the survey results to arrive at conservative scenarios for Introduction Events, which are as follows:

1. 1. WORST CASE ESTIMATE: approximately 4% to 24% of households can be expected to come to an Introduction Event when invited by a neighbor.
2. 2. LIKELY ESTIMATE: approximately 33% to 53% of households will come to an Introduction Event when invited by a neighbor.

The market potential for the EcoTeam program is probably closest to our "likely estimate" for several reasons. First, according to statistics compiled by GAP, EcoTeam participants currently recruit about 55% of the households they approach; that is, slightly more than half of the people who have been asked to participate in Introduction Events have actually done so. Second, our interviews were conducted by telephone, by strangers, rather than in-person, by neighbors, as with the EcoTeam program. GAP’s experiences in the field strongly suggest that people are less willing to consider coming to an Introduction Event when asked by telephone than in-person. Finally, only a small proportion (13%) of the survey respondents refused to consider the possibility of coming to an Introduction Event; most people, in fact, responded positively, although not all fell within the "very likely" category.

Summary of Findings Relating to EcoTeam Program

GAP’s records indicate that 75% of the people who attend Introduction Events end up joining EcoTeams. Most of the EcoTeam participants we interviewed are very satisfied with the program. Participants felt they gained the knowledge they needed to make real changes in their household practices, they felt affirmed for work they had already done toward developing sustainable lifestyles, and they enjoyed making new friends and getting to know their neighbors. Many liked being on a team and working together toward common goals. Those who completed the program six months ago or longer have maintained the gains they made during the program, and continue to show improvements in terms of waste reduction, consumption practices, and use of water, energy, and transportation.

Summary of Findings Regarding Introduction Events

Most people who agree to come to Introduction Events do so because they know the person who recruits them and/or the program sounds appealing to them. The main motivations for coming include:

1. 1. being approached by a friend or someone familiar who is from the immediate neighborhood (i.e., not by a "stranger");
2. 2. being approached by someone who is enthusiastic, highly focused, knows about the program from first-hand experience, and can give specific examples of how the program works; and
3. 3. being approached at the right time, when one has a desire to become more environmentally responsible but has not yet had the right opportunity to pursue this interest.

When people decide not to come to an Introduction Event, it is usually because they do not have enough time, they cannot meet at the designated time, or they have other life commitments that preclude participation in the program. A few people dislike meetings and/or dislike working in groups, and some think that they already do enough for the environment and do not need to participate in an EcoTeam to make positive changes. There were few concerns about the Introduction Event and/or the EcoTeam program that limit people’s willingness to participate; the two main issues that seem to cause hesitation are: (1) people’s perceptions that the program will take too much time, and (2) people’s perceptions that the fee for participation in the program is unaffordable. GAP has addressed both of these issues, by shortening the program somewhat and by offering a scholarship alternative, and at present, 85% of people who come to an Introduction Event end up joining an EcoTeam.

Effective recruiters feel confident in their ability to recruit neighbors, and they share a number of common characteristics:

1. 1. they approach as many neighbors as possible, knowing before they begin that some people, including close friends, may reject the idea of coming to the Introduction Event;
2. 2. they approach neighbors one-on-one and do not rely on less personal tactics such as mailings, leaving messages on answering machines, or trying to recruit people in groups (e.g., at church or civic-related meetings, at school, at work, etc.);
3. 3. they develop effective strategies for handling rejection and they do not allow rejection to cause inertia;
4. 4. they strongly believe that they will be successful at getting neighbors to come to Introduction Events and are not shy about expressing their enthusiasm in this respect;
5. 5. they enthusiastically support the EcoTeam program, believe in the program’s philosophy and structure, and effectively communicate their positive experiences in the program;
6. 6. they are able to draw on prior experiences in recruiting people; for example, many have recruited co-workers for work-related projects, recruited neighbors and friends for children’s events or school activities, recruited people for church or civic groups, or worked on political campaigns or environmental, peace/justice, or feminist causes. These experiences help give recruiters a sense of confidence in their ability to recruit successfully;
7. 7. they develop a sense of when to strongly encourage or "push" neighbors into coming to the Introduction Event and when not to do so. Trying too hard to make people believe environmental issues are important and/or trying too hard to get people to come to the Introduction Event are common problems experienced by less effective recruiters;
8. 8. they find ways to make social connections with neighbors explicit; for example, by emphasizing that they live on the same street, visit the same supermarket, laundromat, or church, have children that attend the same school, or are acquainted through friends;
9. 9. they work with a neighbor or friend as a "buddy" during the recruitment process. Having a buddy helps reduce the stress of approaching strangers and allows people to build on each other’s strengths; and
10. 10. they follow-up on meetings with neighbors; for example, by calling to remind people and confirm that they will be coming to the Introduction Event, and by making sure all the logistics are in order.

Having a script works well for people and is an effective tool for helping less confident recruiters to approach neighbors. Some of the fears people have about recruiting for the EcoTeam program stem from the fear that neighbors will refuse to come. The survey results suggest that this is unlikely--most neighbors are likely to respond positively to neighbors’ approaching them about Introduction Events. Not all will come immediately, but most will consider the possibility either now or at a more convenient time in the future.

In summary, the results of this study suggest that GAP’s methods of recruiting people to participate in the Household EcoTeam Program are conceptually sound and work well from a marketing perspective. As the program expands, GAP should continue to track the successes and challenges of the EcoTeam Program and to support recruiters so that they continue to feel confident in the program and have the skills and materials they need to hold successful Introduction Events.

Summary

Survey conducted by Portland Energy Office on behalf of all Partners in the Portland Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign July 1998

This report summarizes the findings of a phone survey of Fall 1997 Portland EcoTeam participants conducted by the City of Portland in July 1998.

Program Description

Since fall of 1996, the City of Portland has contracted with a nonprofit organization called Global Action Plan (GAP) to organize and support EcoTeams, small groups of neighbors who meet to discuss environmental issues and support each other in taking actions that conserve resources and protect the environment. Teams use a GAP workbook to guide them through a series of eight team meetings on specific environmental topics. At the end of the program, team members recruit new EcoTeams in their neighborhoods.

Research Objectives

Staff from the Energy Office, Traffic Management, Water Bureau, Environmental Services, and Office of Neighborhood Involvement designed the survey in consultation with Global Action Plan. The objectives of the study were to:

• Measure participants' awareness of City of Portland sponsorship
• Gauge overall impressions of the program and identify areas for improvement
• Determine whether participants want the program to provide more local information
• Assess how the program has affected interaction among neighbors
• Measure participants' interest in continued involvement with their EcoTeam
• Describe participants in terms of their involvement with neighborhood associations and environmental organizations
• Investigate how participants perceive the impact of the program on their daily actions
• Determine whether EcoTeam participation has led to increased volunteerism

Methodology

A phone survey was used to contact participants who completed the program in Fall 1997. Included in the study were teams that were 1) recruited by previous EcoTeams and 2) neighborhood based (as opposed to teams formed by members of a church or other organization). These criteria were selected to ensure that the study would provide the best information on how the neighbor-to-neighbor outreach program is functioning. Of the seventy-four households that participated in fall 1997, forty-seven met this screening criteria. At least three attempts were made to contact each of these forty-seven households.

The results are shown below:

Fall participants 74

Participants eligible for inclusion in the study 47

Completed interview 32

Wanted to be called back another time 8*

Unreachable 4

Declined interview 3

Moved 1

* These people expressed a willingness to be interviewed, but the interviewer was unable to schedule the interview in the days allotted for fielding.

For each team included in the study, at least two interviews were completed. Interviews were conducted during the first three weeks of July 1998, so at least six months had passed since participants had completed the program.

A summary of some of the key points follows and then a point by point analysis.

Summary/Highlights:

Ratings of aspects of the program: (scale 1-5; 1 being poor and 5 being excellent)

Program rating: 3.9

Experience with other members: 4.7

Support from coach: 4.2

Topic Guide usefulness: 4.0

Workbook usefulness: 4.0

Prep for recruiting new teams: 3.6

Average of all these ratings: 4.1

Those who:

correctly identified City of Portland as sponsor: 54%

correctly identified another specific funding agency:

Tri-Met 31.3%

Water Bureau 9.4%

Interact more with neighbors: 94%

Didn't know their neighbors well before they joined: 62%

Since program conclusion, % who have met
at least once with their group: 33%

Expressed interest in further meetings
on at least one topic: 100%

Those who reported already being fairly eco-wise: 84%

Those who said the program has had an
on-going impact: 84%

Those who have shared their experience: 78%

Those who have increased their volunteer activities since completing the program: 28%

Detailed analysis: (See full tabulation of responses included at the end of this report).

Awareness of City Sponsorship:

Respondents were asked if they could identify any of the local organizations that provided funding for the EcoTeam program. Approximately half (54%) correctly identified the City of Portland, and nearly one third (31%) named Tri-Met which provides free bus passes to participants. Also mentioned were Portland General Electric (19%) and Metro (13%), who do not provide funding.

Program Ratings:

Participants were asked to rate the EcoTeam program on a scale of one to five where five is excellent and one is poor. They were then asked to rate specific aspects of the program. The ratings revealed that most participants have positive feelings about the program, and they greatly value the experience with their neighbors.

Eighty-four percent of respondents gave the overall program a rating of four or five. When we add respondents who gave the program a median rating of three it brings the total up to 96.9%. When asked to suggest improvements, the answers were divided. Most people did not have a response (84.4%). The strongest response was the suggestion to reduce the amount of paperwork (6.2%). Each of the other four responses were given by a single person. These were to:

• reach out to a broader audience
• have more direction from staff
• have less direction from staff, and
• were concerned about "high cost of program; unsure the program works"

The program received average ratings of 4.0 or higher in each of the following areas: Usefulness of the EcoTeam Workbook, usefulness of the Topic Leader Guides (outlines for meetings) and, support from the EcoTeam coach. These are areas that are each unique to the program itself and reflect well on the design of EcoTeams.

Respondents gave an overwhelmingly high rating (an average of 4.7) to their "experience with other team members". The EcoTeam program provides a structure of support that seems to strongly support community-building at a neighborhood level. And, as is shown in later survey questions, can lead to increased participation in volunteer activities in the community once the program is complete.

When asked about the process of team recruitment, the average of the responses was 3.6, the lowest score in this section. The EcoTeam has made some notable improvements in this area (see section below).

Suggestions for improvement:

There were many excellent suggestions that were made by respondents for ways to improve the program. Many of these are already being incorporated in subsequent rounds of EcoTeams in Portland. To summarize some highlights:

"Reduce amount of paperwork": The EcoTeam home office is currently modifying its assessment tools to be both more user-friendly and compact. This will significantly reduce the need for paper. Participants are also encouraged to send their Topic Leader Guides (outlines for meetings) back to the office for re-use.

"Coach should play a bigger role": It is interesting to note that coaches have begun to express this same desire. As more and more coaches are actually coaching in their own neighborhoods, they they want to spend more time with their teams and deepen those relationships. The EcoTeam staff are encouraging coaches to drop in on their teams for a few minutes at every other meeting, so they are better able to support their teams and build strong connections with their neighbors.

"More support from the staff or their team in the replication process": This part of the program is getting some very focused attention. The Portland campaign is in the midst of developing a new level of volunteer leadership that will specifically be trained to support teams in their inviting process by actually going out on the walks with them. These volunteers will also be the focalizing point in their neighborhoods for all advanced EcoTeam activity that happens once a team finishes the basic program. They will also integrate efforts between EcoTeams in their neighborhood for efforts that require cooperation from larger groups.

It is interesting to note that in the section that has to do with connecting with your neighbors (which got the highest average rating of 4.7) not a single suggestion was offered for how to improve that part of the program!

Local information:

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) said they wanted more information on local environmental issues to help them take the actions in the EcoTeam workbook. Recycling was the most common type of local information requested, but many respondents could not identify other specific types of information that would also have been useful.

Since the time that the survey participants went through the program, the staff in Portland, with assistance from the Partners, have made some significant improvements to the system for providing local resources to EcoTeam members. They have compiled an impressive collection of over 100 brochures, booklets and kits, provided by the partners, to support EcoTeam participants in living more resource-efficient lifestyles. These materials are available for free, at the EcoTeam office and arranged, by topic, in a 96 slot mail-sorter. Participants are encouraged to come and select the materials they'd like to share with team members. This way people can customize their message to their neighborhood's concerns and it minimizes wastage of unwanted brochures and information. Also partners and other local agencies have more direct and pertinent ways to reach the public.

Missed meetings:

A majority of respondents missed no meetings (59.4%); and no one reported missing more than one meeting.

Interaction with neighbors:

Almost everyone interviewed (93.8%) said they now have more interaction with their neighbors . This includes general on-street interactions such as chatting (28.1%) but people also report deeper connections such as picnics/potlucks (9.4%), sharing items / materials (18.8%), sharing ideas (12.5%) and carpooling (6.3%). This speaks well for the community-building aspects of the program as most participants (62%) reported they knew none or only one of the team members well prior to joining the team.

Interest in Continued EcoTeam Involvement:

Since the conclusion of the program, nearly one-third of the teams have gotten together again for parties, dinners, or discussions. Participants were asked whether they would be interested in attending occasional team meetings on a number of specific topics. All participants expressed interest in at least one topic, and most had several interests. The most popular meeting topic was natural gardening.

Percentage who are interested in EcoTeam meeting on this topic:

Natural gardening 75%

Neighborhood traffic 72%

Bike lanes in your neighborhood 69%

Planning for sustainable neighborhoods 69%

Global warming 63%

Reducing crime 59%

Regional solutions for housing and transportation problems 59%

Endangered salmon and steelhead 44%

Sharing rides with people in your neighborhood 31%

Other 31%

During this portion of the interview, some participants expressed a concern that they might be pressured to set up additional meetings and wanted to know what format the new meetings would take. Many emphasized the importance of working with existing programs and nonprofit groups that deal with the specific topic areas, rather than creating something new. These considerations should be incorporated in any future program designs.

Perceived Impacts of the Program:

Respondents were asked whether the EcoTeam program has had an "ongoing impact on your daily actions and decisions that affect the environment"; the majority (84%) said it had. They most commonly identified energy and water conservation as the most important changes they had made. The table below lists responses mentioned by at least two people (6% of the respondents).

Percentage specifying area of most important change:

Conserving water 38%

Conserving electricity 38%

Recycling more 25%

Avoiding excess packaging 22%

Composting 19%

Using Tri-Met 13%

Weatherizing/insulating 13%

Reducing garbage 9%

Reducing junk mail 9%

More aware of transit issues 9%

Reducing car trips 6%

Down to single car household 6%

Other 13%

Approximately three quarters of respondents (78%) said they had shared what they learned in the program with friends, neighbors, or co-workers who were not on their EcoTeam. Approximately one quarter of respondents (28%) felt they had increased their volunteer activities as a result of their EcoTeam participation, primarily referring to their volunteer work as EcoTeam coaches.

Involvement Prior to EcoTeam Participation:

Many EcoTeam participants were involved in environmental and neighborhood affairs prior to participating in the program. One quarter were not involved with these networks.

Percentages

Not involved with any environmental organizations
as a contributor, member or volunteer 34%

Never attended a neighborhood association meeting 53%

Involved with neither environmental organizations
nor environmental groups 25%

In a future survey it would be useful to distinguish the percentage of participants who were not involved as volunteers with environmental organizations prior to being on a team. When volunteers are included in the same category as people who contribute financially or as a member, it is impossible to track the specific rise in civic activity that being on an EcoTeam inspires.

Conclusion:

The objectives of this survey were clearly met. The questions asked in this survey provide a comprehensive look at the ways the EcoTeam program is perceived by its participants. The questions about volunteerism give a more detailed look into the population that is attracted to and participating. The questions about the impact of the program show that even six months after people have completed the program, they are still retaining, and in some cases furthering their actions to use resources more efficiently and are deepening relationships with their neighbors.


And as Linda Dobson, Assistant to the Director of Environmental Services said in her summary comments: "The report notes that the experience of working together as a neighborhood team was a very positive one. The respondents gave the program (content) itself, a similarly high approval rating, where 84% graded the program good to excellent. Although there is always room for improvement, the rating indicates a high level of satisfaction."