Scottish Government

APPENDIX B: CARBON IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Summary

B1. This appendix describes the emissions saving impacts of a sample of eight CCF projects, selected to cover the range of project types (energy efficiency, energy generation, transport, food and multi-strand). An estimate was made of the emission reductions achieved, in tonnes of CO ₂e, by each project during its lifetime.

B2. The method was to calculate the difference in emissions between the baseline (or business-as-usual) scenario and the project scenario, over the full lifetime of the project's interventions, and including any emissions arising as a result of the project.

B3. "Higher" and "lower" estimates of each project's savings were calculated to show the range of possible results that could be derived from the data available. (E.g. different data might be available on intervention lifetimes, expected energy savings and baseline behaviours).

B4. The gap between the higher and lower estimates varies across the projects. The size of the gap indicates the degree of uncertainty associated with estimating the savings achieved - the larger the gap, the wider the range of possible results.

B5. For the eight projects assessed, the emissions savings achieved by interventions aimed at changing behaviour are more uncertain than those from hard measures such as insulation. In some cases, uncertainty could be reduced by improved data collection.

Methodology

B6. The methodology used for the quantitative assessment is the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute GHG Protocol for Project Accounting ¹. This is recognised as international best practice for quantifying the carbon savings from climate change mitigation projects, and is consistent with Clean Development Mechanism ( CDM) methodologies, and ISO 14064-2 (the ISO specification for project level quantification ²). It is also consistent with the Low Carbon Route Maps which provide guidance to CCF projects on quantifying emission reductions.

B7. The basic structure of the methodology is to: a. identify a baseline or business-as-usual scenario (what would have happened in the absence of the CCF project); b. identify the project scenario (what happened or will happen given the CCF project's activities); and c. to calculate the difference in emissions between the two scenarios. The difference between the two is the carbon saving created by the project, and this is illustrated in Figure B1 below.

Figure B1. Methodology for quantifying emission savings

B8. To give an example, the baseline scenario for a project may be for 20,000 kWh of gas consumption per year. In the project scenario, consumption is 15,000 kWh of gas per year (because of the energy savings measures introduced by the project). Baseline emissions are 4 tonnes of CO ₂e/yr (20,000 kWh * 0.20322 kgCO ₂e/kWh = 4,064 kgCO ₂e/yr), and the "with project" emissions are 3 tonnes of CO ₂e/yr (15,000 kWh * 0.20322 kgCO ₂e/kWh = 3,048 kgCO ₂e/yr). The saving created by the project is 1 tonne CO ₂e/yr (4 tCO ₂e - 3 tCO ₂e = 1 tCO ₂e).

B9. Emission savings were calculated for the expected lifetime of the projects' interventions which have been implemented or pledged to date. For example, the savings from a biomass boiler are calculated over 15 to 20 years as this is how long biomass boilers are expected to last for. It is important to calculate savings for the full lifetime of an intervention, as some measures may create relatively small annual savings but continue for a long time, whilst others may create larger annual savings but last for a shorter time. In order to understand the total impact of a project the full lifetime of its interventions need to be taken into account.

B10. An attempt was made to quantify all emissions which were changed by the projects. This included emissions from the project's own operations or activities, such as the energy consumption and travel by the project's office/staff, and the embodied emissions of the materials used by the projects, e.g. insulation material, energy monitors or solar thermal panels etc. In some cases these emission sources were excluded from the analysis if they were expected to be de minimis ( i.e. less than 1% of total emissions).

B11. Another important feature of the carbon assessment was to derive "higher" and "lower" estimates for the carbon savings from each project. In many cases alternative values and assumptions could be applied in the calculations - for example, alternative assumptions regarding baseline energy consumption, or alternative values for the likely savings achieved by a particular intervention. Developing "higher" and "lower" estimates based on these alternative values and assumptions enables us to show the range of possible results that could reasonably be derived from the data available.

B12. There are a number of advantages to calculating and presenting results in a range between higher and lower estimates:

• Providing a single point estimate for the savings achieved by a project may give a false impression of precision and accuracy, whereas significantly different results may have been possible if different data and assumptions had been used. Providing more than one estimate is a transparent way of showing that different results are possible given different input values and assumptions.
• The range (magnitude of the difference) between the higher and lower estimates can be useful for indicating the relative uncertainties associated with different projects' savings. E.g. if the effects of an intervention are well understood and accurate data are available the difference between the higher and the lower estimates may be relatively small. For projects where the effects of the intervention are variable or unknown, or data are limited, the gap between the higher and lower estimates is likely to be bigger.

B13. It is important to note that the higher and lower estimates are based on the data and reasonable assumptions available, but are not necessarily the upper and lower bounds, i.e. it is possible (though unlikely) that the true savings achieved by the projects are larger or smaller than the higher and lower estimates.

B14. Whole-of-life emission factors were used for the assessments, i.e. the factors include all the upstream and downstream emissions associated with an activity. For example, for grid electricity consumption the emission factor includes the direct emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel at the power plant and also the emissions associated with extracting, processing and transporting the fossil fuel, as well as the emissions associated with electricity which is lost during transmission and distribution via the national grid. Whole-of-life factors are used as they show the total change in emissions per unit of activity, and therefore the total reduction achieved by the CCF projects. In addition, the emission factors used for assessing food projects are necessarily whole-of-life factors, and using whole-of-life factors for energy and transport projects maintains a consistent approach.

B15. As noted above, it is important to account for the full lifetime of different measures in order to properly estimate the total impact that they have. However, there is a lack of information from existing studies on the lifetime of different behaviour change measures, e.g. how long changes in transport, food, or energy consumption behaviours may last for, and the CCF projects themselves tended not to have data on the lifetime or "stickiness" of behaviour change measures (partly because an insufficient length of time has passed since the projects began). Due to this lack of data a range of lifetimes for different behaviour change measures has been assumed based on the views of project managers and the feedback from interviews and focus groups with project participants carried out by Brook Lyndhurst. The assumed range of lifetimes for different behaviour change measures is shown in below.

Table B1. Assumed range of lifetimes for different behaviour change measures

B16. Anecdotally, changes in transport behaviour seem to be less likely to "stick". This may be because people revert to car or other vehicle use during the colder months of the year and tend not to return to sustainable behaviours once the routine is broken.

B17. The lifetimes for "hard" measures such as renewable technologies, insulation, and other energy efficiency measures are relatively well understood, though there are still some reasonably large ranges in the expected lifetimes of these measures, and in these cases higher and lower estimates are derived. Technology specific lifetimes have been used for each type of hard measure, e.g. for insulation a lower estimate of 30 years is used (Carbon Trust 2010) and an higher estimate of 40 years ( CERT 2011), while for solar thermal panels the lower estimate is 20 years (Carbon Trust 2010) and an higher estimate of 30 years (Croxform and Scott 2006).

B18. Rebound effects were included in the lower estimates for projects that were focused on energy efficiency, e.g. Barrhill Climate Champions' Network, ENLEN, and Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow. Rebound effects occur when the money saved from reduced energy bills is spent on other goods and services (including more energy), and the production and consumption of these goods and services creates emissions which would not have occurred in the baseline scenario. There is relatively little existing research into the magnitude of rebound effects, and a generic figure of 15% (Scottish Government 2010) has been used in the calculations.

B19. Degradation factors were applied in the lower estimates for projects which involved the large-scale roll-out of hard measures, such as insulation. Degradation factors account for the way in which the effectiveness of technologies decrease over time due to natural decay or wear and tear.

Results, Data and Assumptions

B20. This section provides an estimate of the carbon savings achieved by each project. Further details on the data and key assumptions used for each project's assessment are also provided. The calculations for the higher and lower estimates have used a number of assumptions and estimates - in particular, it is worth reiterating that a large range of possible "lifetimes" for new behaviours have been assumed. Much of the uncertainty associated with these kinds of assumptions is represented in the range between the higher and lower estimates, but the results should still be interpreted with some caution.

Climate Champions' Network: Results

B21. The Climate Champions' Network covered seven villages, Barrhill, Glentrool, New Luce, Ballantrae, Colmonelle, Lendalfoot and Bargrennan, under two local authorities - Dumfries and Galloway and South Ayrshire. The project sought to recruit a champion from each of the communities, who would then engage others in the community with behaviour change. The key focus of the project has been on encouraging home insulation (with capital measures funded through the local community benefit fund), with the additional aims of changing home energy behaviours, investigating the feasibility of improving community buildings, and changing attitudes towards climate change.

B22. Figure shows the higher and lower estimates for the lifetime emissions savings from the Climate Champions' Network's activities. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 4,500 and 7,396 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 688 and 1,131 households ³. The majority of the savings are due to the installation of loft and cavity wall insulation that the project initiated, with estimated lifetime savings between 3,968 and 6,845 tonnes of CO ₂e. A total of 244 households received insulation, which is estimated to create lifetime savings of between 17.7 and 30 tonnes of CO ₂e per household.

Figure B2. Climate Champions' Network

B23. The project also arranged the installation of a biomass boiler in a community hall, and insulation was installed in a surgery. These two interventions are estimated to create lifetime savings of between 517 and 532 tonnes of CO ₂e and of 19 tonnes CO ₂e ⁴, respectively.

B24. The difference between the higher and lower estimates is largely due to different figures available for the lifetime of insulation ⁵, and the assumption of a rebound effect and degradation of the insulation material in the lower estimate. The difference between the higher and lower estimates is relatively small compared to the differences for other projects (see below), as the impacts of hard measures such as insulation are relatively well understood.

Climate Champions' Network: Data and Assumptions

B25. Data were provided by the Energy Agency which worked with the Climate Champions' Network to implement the project's insulation programme. The Energy Agency used the RDSAP model to estimate the theoretical energy consumption for each household, and data were also available on households' reported expenditure on energy.

B26. We found that the RDSAP model produced estimates of baseline energy consumption which were significantly higher than the level which would be consistent with the reported expenditure data (approximately double). The RDSAP figures were also significantly higher than the average domestic gas consumption figures for South Ayrshire ( DECC 2011), which provide an indication of typical energy consumption for space and water heating in the area. We therefore calculated baseline energy consumption based on the RDSAP figures and a discount factor derived from the difference between the RDSAP theoretical energy spend and households' reported energy spend.

B27. There were 46 households which received insulation but did not participate in the project's energy survey or provide actual energy spend data. The baseline emissions calculated from the data in the 178 completed energy questionnaires were extrapolated to cover the 46 households that did not provide data. It is assumed that the mean carbon savings per household for the 178 households are representative of the mean carbon savings for the remaining 46 households.

B28. The embodied emissions of the insulation materials and the biomass boiler were included in the assessment, but the project's office-based activities and the transportation of community champions and installers were not included as, based on outline calculations, they are likely to be de minimis (less than 1% of the total change in emissions caused by the project).

East Neuk and Landward Energy Network: Results

B29. The East Neuk and Landward Energy Network's target audience covered 8,000 households. The project aimed to reduce household energy demand by 10% in total over 2 years, mainly through hard measures such as insulation and other efficiency improvements, and the installation of renewables, but the project did also promote behaviour changes around home energy use.

B30. Figure B2 shows the higher and lower estimates of the lifetime savings from the activities of the East Neuk and Landward Energy Network. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 5,106 and 8,079 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 781 and 1,235 households. The majority of the savings are from the installation of loft and cavity wall insulation which was initiated by the project, which is estimated to create lifetime savings of between 3,259 and 5,307 tonnes of CO ₂e. This is because insulation creates relatively large energy savings and lasts for a long time, and a large number of households (282 in total) had insulation installed. The estimated savings from insulation per household were between 12 and 19 tonnes of CO ₂e.

Figure B2. East Neuk and Landward Energy Network

B31. Heating upgrades are estimated to contribute the second highest proportion of total emissions savings achieved by the project, with lifetime savings between 1,058 and 1,307 tonnes of CO ₂e. The lifetime savings per household are estimated to be higher than for insulation (between 25 and 30 tonnes CO ₂e), but a smaller number of households received heating upgrades, with 43 in total.

B32. The project also involved a number of give-aways such as electricity monitors, TV and computer powerdowns, radiator foil, shower savers, low energy light bulbs, hot water tank jackets, kettles with graduations, electric blankets, microwaves, and vacuum cleaners with variable power. The give-aways were estimated to create relatively small lifetime emissions savings (between 0.3 and 0.5 tonnes of CO ₂e), but were distributed to a much larger number of people, with 2,942 give-aways in total.

B33. The "other actions" undertaken by the project included a wind turbine, solar PV panels, double-glazing and draughtproofing, as well as advice and guidance on energy efficiency. These measures are estimated to achieve a wide range of different amounts of emissions savings over different lengths of time. For example, behaviour change from energy efficiency advice is estimated to last for between 2 and 7 years, while the wind turbine is estimate to last for 17 years ⁶.

B34. As with the Climate Champions' Network, there is a relatively small difference between the higher and lower estimates (compared to some of the other projects - see below), as the majority of the project's activities involved hard measures such as insulation, for which the impacts are relatively well understood.

East Neuk and Landward Energy Network: Data and Assumptions

B35. The baseline energy consumption of households receiving heating upgrades or insulation was estimated from the floor area of the participating households (derived from the typical floor area of different property types as defined by CERT (2011) and a figure for energy consumption per square metre, derived from published data ( CERT 2011 and DECC 2011)).

B36. No information was available on the property type of 52%, 61% and 34% of the households receiving virgin, top-up and cavity wall insulation respectively, from which to calculate baseline energy consumption. The average floor area of the other participating households, for which data were available, was used to estimate the baseline energy consumption of these households. Published data were used to estimate the potential household energy savings associated with virgin, top-up and cavity wall insulation ( www.thinkinsulation.co.uk ).

B37. There were seven households which received a heating upgrade but for which there is no information on the type of upgrade received. The carbon savings calculated from the 36 households for which data were available were extrapolated to cover these seven additional households. It is assumed that the mean carbon savings per household for the 36 households are representative of the mean carbon savings for the remaining seven households.

B38. Baseline energy consumption for other actions (including giveaways and energy saving advice) was assumed to be equivalent to the average gas and electricity usage of domestic properties in the East Neuk and Landward locality, according to intermediate geography zone data ( DECC 2011).

B39. In the absence of project specific data, published sources were used to estimate the size and power ratings of the solar thermal, PV, and wind turbine installations.

B40. No information was provided on the proportion of individuals who received energy saving advice, such as understanding heating controls better or monitoring electricity use, who then went on to implement that advice. Therefore, for the higher estimate, 30% of those receiving advice were assumed to have implemented the advice, and for the lower estimate, the estimate was 15%.

Switched On to Switching Off: Results

B41. Switched On to Switching Off sought to change the energy behaviours of residents in tenement buildings on two streets: the largely affluent and predominantly owner-occupied Woodburn Terrace, and the more student occupied Hope Park Terrace. The project encouraged both hard measures and behavioural changes.

B42. Figure B3 shows the higher and lower estimates for the lifetime emissions savings from Switched On to Switching Off's activities. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 348 and 464 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 53 and 71 households. The majority of the savings are from insulation, glazing, and draught-proofing measures, with estimated lifetime savings of between 348 and 464 tonnes of CO ₂e. Together, these measures were estimated to achieve lifetime savings of between 5.3 and 6.2 tonnes of CO ₂e per household, with between 65 and 75 participating households.

Figure B3. Switched On to Switching Off

B43. The heating efficiency measures targeted by the project, such as installing curtains or turning down thermostats, are estimated to achieve average household savings of between 1.4 and 2.5 tonnes CO ₂e (with between 73 and 79 participating households), and the electricity-related behaviour changes, such as turning electrical goods off standby and upgrading washing machines and fridges, are estimated to achieve between 0.3 and 0.7 tonnes CO ₂e (with between 50 and 56 participating households).

B44. The relatively high savings per participating household for insulation, glazing, and draught-proofing measures are due to the generally longer lifetimes for these interventions, and the higher amount of total energy consumption saved compared to smaller measures such as switching equipment off standby or upgrading fridges or washing machines.

B45. Certain emissions saving actions had been successfully implemented by the project at the time of this review, whilst other actions are pledged. For pledged actions, a pledge fulfilment rate of 80% was assumed for the lower estimate.

B46. As with the Climate Champions' Network and the East Neuk and Landward Energy Network, the difference between the higher and lower estimates is relatively small as the majority of savings from Switched On to Switching Off are from hard measures, the impacts of which are relatively well understood.

Switched On to Switching Off: Data and Assumptions

B47. Baseline gas and electricity consumption in the Woodburn Terrace properties involved in stage 1 of the Switched On to Switching Off ( SOSO) project were assumed to be equivalent to the average gas and electricity usage of domestic properties in Morningside, according to intermediate geography zone data ( DECC 2011). All properties were assumed to use gas for space and water heating.

B48. Certain emissions saving actions had been successfully implemented by the project at the time of this review, whilst other actions are pledged. For pledged actions, a pledge fulfilment rate of 80% was assumed for the lower estimate.

B49. When several interventions designed to reduce energy demand for heating (such as installing loft insulation or thermostatic radiator valves) are undertaken together, the resulting reduction in energy consumption may not equal the sum of each measure's potential to achieve reductions alone. For example, it might be possible to achieve savings of 600 kWh per annum from internal draught-proofing in a property that is poorly insulated and has an inefficient heating system. But in a properly insulated property with an efficient heating system, such additional savings from this measure are unlikely to be achievable. From the data available, it was not possible to establish which households had undertaken which measures; some households might have adopted many measures simultaneously. Were this the case, summing the effects of each intervention, as has been done in this assessment, would overestimate the emissions savings achieved by these households. However, without accurate data ( e.g. from meter readings) regarding the actual reduction in energy use achieved as a result of project interventions at each property, it is not possible to determine the extent of any overestimation of emission savings. We have assumed that any overestimation will be minor, given the number of properties and the small number of interventions involved.

B50. The project is also working with a second street (stage 2), but the level of involvement has been less than with Woodburn Terrace and data were not available on the measures that have been, or are likely to be, implemented. In order to estimate the possible additional savings it was assumed that they are 30% of the average savings per household achieved on Woodburn Terrace for the higher estimate, and 5% in the lower estimate.

A Better Way to Work: Results

B51. A Better Way to Work was run by The Bike Station - an Edinburgh based social enterprise, charity and company limited by guarantee, which recycles unwanted bicycles and promotes cycling. The project had a strong behavioural focus, seeking to change transport behaviours among commuters in the Edinburgh area. Its target was to help 12,500 staff working in 250 small and medium sized companies in Edinburgh to walk, cycle and use the bus more and drive less.

B52. shows the estimated lifetime emissions savings from A Better Way to Work's different activities. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 205 and 5,408 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 31 and 827 households. The majority of the savings in the higher estimate are from journey planning advice, however, as can be seen from the difference between the higher and lower estimates there is considerable uncertainty associated with this estimate. Given a different set of assumptions and data the estimated emissions savings are considerably lower, as shown in the lower estimate.

B53. There are a number of reasons for the high level of uncertainty associated with the emissions savings achieved by A Better Way to Work. The project's own evaluation included a follow-up survey, which aimed to gather information on the level of behaviour change resulting from the project, had a small sample size and was potentially biased. In addition, the length of time that transport behaviour change lasts for - in other words, its 'stickiness' - is unknown and so a range of possible "lifetimes" was assumed in the calculations , with 1 year used in the lower estimate and 5 years used in the higher estimate. A number of other issues also came into play, such as the need to estimate the distance of journeys which were switched from one mode of transport to another, and uncertainty about the number of people who received journey planning advice.

B54. It is worth noting that some of the uncertainties associated with the savings achieved by the project can be addressed by the project itself, for example through improved surveying and data collection. However, there are likely to be some uncertainties, such as those associated with the 'stickiness' of behaviour change, which would require longitudinal research, and would be beyond what the project could reasonably undertake itself.

Figure B4. A Better Way to Work

B55. A Better Way to Work involved a large number of different interventions, each of which reached different numbers of participants. The measures which involved a higher level of personal engagement, such as cycle training or cycle loans are estimated to have created the largest reductions per participant (between 0.1 and 1.04 tonnes of CO ₂e for cycle training and between 0.13 and 1.35 tonnes CO ₂e for cycle loans per participant). However, these interventions tend to be more resource intensive to deliver, and have a lower total number of participants (201 participants for both cycle training and cycle loans). In contrast, more passive interventions, such as the provision of free travel maps, are estimated to result in low emissions savings (between 0.003 and 0.03 tonnes CO ₂e per map given out) but this type of intervention can reach a much larger number of people (approximately 12,855 maps were given out by the project).

B56. One interesting finding is that the distribution of free bus tickets is estimated to have caused a slight increase in emissions, as some respondents in the project's follow-up survey indicated that they had switched from walking or cycling to bus travel, and therefore increased emissions. However, it should be noted that the sample size for the survey was very small and the result is not statistically significant. Nevertheless, this finding highlights the need to target measures such as free bus tickets towards people who drive rather than people who already have sustainable travel behaviours.

A Better Way to Work: Data and Assumptions

B57. The change in behaviour caused by different interventions, e.g. journey planning advice, cycle loans, Dr Bike sessions, trial bus tickets, City Car Club membership, travel maps, are estimated based on the findings of the "after" survey conducted by A Better Way to Work and Napier University. The sample size for the survey was very small and the results may be biased as the respondents were partly recruited from the subscription list for the project's newsletter, and these individuals may be more likely to have changed their behaviour than project participants generally. Where alternative data were available from existing studies on the likely change from specific measures, e.g. journey planning advice, these were used to provide a lower estimate.

B58. For journey planning advice, frequency data were available for the modes of transport that respondents had switched to, but not the modes of transport they had switched from. The baseline modes of transport used were estimated based on the results from the "before" survey conducted by A Better Way to Work and Napier University. However, the results from the "before" survey may not be representative of the modes of transport used by the individuals who changed their behaviour following journey planning advice. In addition, there was not a clear definition of what constituted "journey planning advice" and accurate data were not available for the number of people who received journey planning advice. The higher estimate is based on a number derived from the number of people who received travel maps, and may therefore constitute a highly optimistic carbon saving result.

B59. Data were not available for deriving the mean or median distance travelled by each mode of transport, but data were available for deriving the total mean and median distance to work (14 km). It was assumed that the typical distance travelled to work by car, bus or train is equivalent to the median distance to work. However, it was considered unlikely that this would be the typical distance travelled by individuals who switched to cycling or walking, as people who travel a shorter distance are more likely to feel able to switch to these modes of transport. We therefore assumed that the higher estimate distance travelled by individuals switching to cycling is 8km (single journey), and 4km in the lower estimate. For individuals switching to walking we assumed an higher estimate distance of 3km and a lower estimate of 2km.

B60. Some individuals participated in a number of the measures offered by A Better Way to Work, e.g. an individual participant may have received journey planning advice, a cycle loan and a travel map. This means that calculating the total impact of the project based on the number of people who received each intervention may over-estimate the emission savings as some individuals will have received more than one intervention but not have made additional changes for each intervention received. In order to include some consideration of this effect the number of people who received journey planning advice, travel maps, or participated in the Cycle Challenges, or the Travel Challenge (all of which involved a large number of people) were discounted by the number of people who received cycle loans, Dr Bike, cycle training, and driver training, in the lower estimate.

Active Leith: Results

B61. Active Leith aimed to change transport and shopping behaviours by encouraging Leith residents to make active travel choices, to reduce the number of car journeys within Leith, increase use of eco-driving techniques, to give up individual car ownership in favour of City Car Club membership, and to use local shops more. Alongside promoting transport behaviour change among its target audience, the project was also consulting locally and lobbying the council for infrastructural changes.

B62. One of the main components of the project was to ask people to make pledges around the following activities:

• to use a branded Active Leith shopping bag and to use local shops more (pledge 1);
• to have more shopping delivered (pledge 2);
• to work from home more (pledge 3);
• to increase walking, cycling or taking the bus (pledge 4);
• to increase the amount of walking or cycling to school (pledge 5);
• to join the City Car Club (pledge 6); and
• to use eco-driving techniques (pledge 7).

B63. Figure B5 shows the lifetime emissions savings from Active Leith's different pledges and activities. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 66 and 2,743 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 10 and 419 households. The majority of the higher estimate savings are from the estimated additional impacts from a mail out to all Leith residents (32,536 households in total). However, the savings from the mail out are uncertain because of the small follow-up survey sample size in the project's evaluation, and this is reflected in the large difference between the higher and lower estimates.

B64. The difference between the higher and lower estimates is considerably greater than the differences for the Climate Champions' Network, the East Neuk and Landward Energy Network and Switched On to Switching Off. This reflects the difficulty and uncertainty associated with monitoring and quantifying the impacts of behaviour change interventions, particularly across a large target population.

B65. The emissions savings from Pledge 1 (using the Active Leith bag in local shops) have not been quantified as data were not available for estimating the difference in emissions from using local shops rather than other shops or supermarkets.

Figure B5. Active Leith

B66. As with A Better Way to Work, Active Leith involved a large number of different interventions resulting in different behaviour changes, each of which is estimated to achieve different emissions savings per participant, and each has had a different level of up-take. The action estimated to create the largest savings per participant is joining the City Car Club (Pledge 6 - with lifetime savings between 0.44 and 2.73 tonnes of CO ₂e) and the action estimated to create the smallest lifetime savings per participant is downloading the cycle map from the project web site (estimated savings between 0.003 and 0.03 tonnes of CO ₂e).

B67. In addition to the project activities considered in the carbon assessment, Active Leith produced a large number of other outputs such as weekly emails, Tweets, podcasts, blogs, monthly guided bike rides, events, coverage in the council's Outlook paper, commuter breakfasts, and guided walks. The project also produced a resource pack which is available for other projects to use and is lobbying for infrastructural changes. Data were not available to allow an estimation of the emissions savings from these activities. However, for most of these activities the additional savings are expected to be small relative to the savings from the measures which were assessed.

Active Leith: Data and Assumptions

B68. One of the activities of the Active Leith project was to ask participants to sign up to pledges related to sustainable travel behaviour. A follow-up survey was carried out by SIStech with participants who had made pledges and who had provided an email address. The findings showed that respondents could not always remember the pledges they had made, but respondents did report that they had made changes in their behaviour. In order to estimate the possible emission savings caused by the project we have assumed that the behaviour change reported by the sample of participants is representative of the behaviour change made by all the participants who made pledges.

B69. The fact that many respondents could not recall which pledges they had made may suggest that participants were not fully committed to their pledges. It is also possible that respondents claimed they had made some changes as they were reluctant to say that they had not undertaken any action. If this is the case then the calculated emissions savings may over-estimate the savings from people who made pledges.

B70. We did not quantify the emission savings from Pledge 1, which was to use local shops more (and to get discounts using an Active Leith bag), as it is not clear what the net change in emissions would be. The embodied emissions of the bags themselves are considered to be zero as the company which produces the bags purchases offsets to cover these emissions.

B71. Data were not available for the distances travelled, or modes of travel used in the baseline. Nor were data available for the frequency with which walking, cycling or bus use replaced car use in the "with project" scenario. In order to estimate the emission reductions associated with each pledge a number of assumptions were made, such as the average distance travelled for shopping trips, commuting or the school-run, and the frequency with which car journeys are replaced by other modes of travel.

B72. It is possible that the information/pledge packs which were sent to every household in Leith will have created additional changes in behaviour, other than those reflected in the pledge analysis. In order to provide an estimate of what the magnitude of the effect might be, we assumed that between 4% (higher estimate) and 2% (lower estimate) of households made some change due to receiving the information packs, and that the change made was equivalent to the average change achieved by people who made pledges (for the higher estimate) and equivalent to the estimated change from Pledge 4 (for the lower estimate), as this was the most common action adopted by the survey respondents.

B73. We also included an estimate of the savings for the downloads of the eco-driving video on the project's web site and eco-driving training given at events, and an estimate of the savings from views/downloads of the cycle map.

B74. The project also involved a number of activities such as monthly guided bike rides, resource packs, weekly emails, podcasts, workshops and events. Data were not available which would have allowed a quantified assessment of these activities, however it is not anticipated that these activities would significantly increase the higher estimate of emission savings.

Fife Diet: Results

B75. The Fife Diet is a membership organisation bringing together a community of interest in Fife and aiming to change food purchasing behaviours. On signing up to the Fife Diet project, members pledged to source a certain proportion of their food from Fife, and may also undertake other activities such as growing food, wasting less, composting more, eating less meat, and eating organic food. The Fife Diet produced resources for its members to assist them in sourcing more local sustainable food. At the time of this review the Fife Diet had a total of 1,567 members.

B76. shows the estimated lifetime emissions savings from the various behaviours promoted by the Fife Diet. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 285 and 3,791 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 44 and 580 households. The majority of the savings in the higher estimate result from reduced meat consumption, as this change in behaviour has high emissions savings associated with it. However, this finding should be treated with some caution as the sample size for estimating the number of Fife Diet members who are eating less meat was small, and may not be representative of the membership as a whole.

Figure B6. Fife Diet

B77. There is a large difference between the higher and lower estimates, and this reflects some of the uncertainty associated with emissions savings from changes in food behaviour. The emissions savings from switching from conventionally produced food to organic food can be highly dependent on the types of food and the systems it is sourced from. In some circumstances, food from conventional sources may have lower life-cycle emissions than organic food - illustrated in the lower estimate in figure 7 as a negative bar ( i.e. a net increase in emissions). There are also uncertainties about the 'stickiness' of food behaviour changes - in other words how long these changes last.

B78. In addition to the changes in the behaviour of Fife Diet members, the project also reaches a wider audience through its website, the media and by speaking at various events. This is likely to have created impacts beyond the project's membership, however these impacts have not been quantified as they are extremely difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy and are likely to be very small compared to those quantified.

Fife Diet: Data and Assumptions

B79. Data from March 2010 on the behaviour profiles of 72 new or relatively new Fife Diet members were used to derive a set of baseline behaviours against which project-inspired behaviour changes were assessed. For meat consumption alone, "before" data from a survey of 20 members conducted in February 2011 were used in the lower estimate while the higher estimate used average UK meat consumption data, discounted to the mid-point between this UK average and the lower estimate. Data pertaining to the changes in behaviour resulting from project interventions were taken from a survey of 41 volunteer members conducted in February 2011 and, for meat consumption, from the February 2011 survey of 20 members. These relatively small numbers of Fife Diet members were assumed to be representative of the overall Fife Diet membership and the data were extrapolated to cover the full membership as at February 2011 (1,567 members). However, there may be a bias in the survey data: those voluntarily taking part in the survey may be doing so because they feel particularly engaged in the project. The survey of 41 members also provided data regarding the extent to which changed behaviours could be attributed to the Fife Diet project's influence. For the lower estimate of emissions savings, an attribution factor of 49% was derived from the survey data and applied to the assessed emissions savings.

B80. Data on composting more and growing your own vegetables and fruit were taken from a survey of pledges made in January 2011. As pledged actions, these data were discounted in the lower estimate, assuming a pledge fulfilment rate of 85%.

B81. The possible spill-over effects of the Fife Diet's public profile, website and other outreach activities have not been estimated. However, there are likely to be some additional emission savings from such outreach activities through spreading knowledge about emissions reducing behaviours to people outside the project.

B82. For certain food behaviour changes, the emission savings that may be achieved are very sensitive to the particular foodstuff and the specific farming and distribution systems in question. Switching to consuming more organic food may in certain circumstances increase emissions. A number of studies of the life-cycle emissions of organic versus conventional foodstuffs have found that the whole-of-life emissions of organic foods are often higher than conventional equivalents. Similarly, for local versus non-local food, there are cases where overseas-produced foods have lower whole-of-life emissions than UK equivalents ( e.g. New Zealand lamb has lower emissions than UK extensive upland lamb ( ADAS 2009)). The picture is complex, and the actual whole-of-life emissions of a particular food depend on many variables, including where the farm sits on the intensive-extensive range. The range of available data on the emissions of organic versus conventional foods is reflected in the higher and lower estimates.

Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow: Results

B83. Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow was a holistic project with five work strands covering both hard measures and behavioural change: energy efficiency, energy generation, food (under the banner of Linlithgrow), transport (LinlithGO) and waste. The project's target audience was the town of Linlithgow (including the adjoining Linlithgow Bridge), consisting of 15,000 people.

B84. Figure B7 shows the lifetime emissions savings from the various activities undertaken by Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 2,197 and 7,413 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 336 and 1,134 households. The majority of the savings are estimated to be from the installation of solar thermal panels and insulation. At the time of the review a total of 107 households had installed or were about to install solar thermal panels, and 122 households were installing loft or cavity wall insulation. The emissions savings per household are relatively high for these measures, with estimated lifetime savings of between 5 and 30 tonnes of CO ₂e for solar thermal panels, and between 7 and 14 tonnes of CO ₂e for insulation.

Figure B7. Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow

B85. The headings " CCF 2 - various" and " CCF 1 - various" in figure 8 above include a wide variety of different activities such as home energy checks, underfloor insulation, putting up curtains, heating adjustments, low energy lighting, switching off equipment, lending out energy monitors, tree planting and fruit production, freecycling, a kitchen canny activity aimed at reducing food waste, draught-proofing, pledging to install new boilers, cider making, solar PV, and a campaign to reduce junk mail. It should be noted that higher and lower estimates were not calculated for these various measures as the number of individual activities were too numerous.

B86. In contrast to the solar thermal and insulation elements of the project, which involved a relatively small number of participants but achieved high emissions reductions per participant, the LinlithGO and Linlithgrow elements involved a large number of people (3,662 and 4,391 respectively), but achieved smaller savings per person. The estimated savings per person for LinlithGO were between 0.017 and 0.084 tonnes of CO ₂e per person, and for Linlithgrow the savings were between 0.002 and 0.22 tonnes of CO ₂e per person.

B87. The reason for the large difference between the higher and lower estimated savings for solar thermal panels is that alternative figures were available for the expected energy yield from the panels. The Carbon Trust (2008) provides a figure of 1,559 kWh/yr per m ², which is used in the higher estimate, while the lower estimate uses a figure of 561 kWh/yr per m ², derived from a number of real-world case studies.

B88. The large difference between the higher and lower estimates for the lifetime emissions savings from Linlithgrow, the food component of the project, reflects the uncertainties associated with food projects, as discussed above with respect to the Fife Diet.

B89. There are a number of additional actions which were not included in the assessment of the project's emissions savings as they are less quantifiable and likely to only contribute a very small proportion of the project's total emissions savings. These include an initial pilot survey of homes, attending events, loaning energy monitors from the library, writing energy reports for Low Port primary school, Torph Kirk Hall, and a rugby club, gardening newsletters, visits to the project's web site, talks at primary schools, garden tours, seed giveaways, fruit picking, a bike week event, film nights, town-wide surveys, flyers, door-knocking, cookery demonstrations, cider making, installing bike racks, distributing travel maps, and a drop-in advice centre.

Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow: Data and Assumptions

B90. There is a large difference between the higher and lower estimates for the savings from the solar panels installed by the project. This is predominantly caused by the large difference between the expected energy yield figure (1,559 kWh/yr per m ²) from the Carbon Trust (2010) which is used in the higher estimate, and the lower estimate energy yield figure (561 kWh/yr per m ²) which is derived from case studies where the solar panels are being used in real-world conditions.

B91. The numbers of households installing virgin loft insulation, top-up loft insulation, and cavity wall insulation were derived from figures provided by Sustainable Solutions for Linlithgow and an assumed discount factor of 60% to account for the proportion of households which may not go ahead with the installation.

B92. The results from a survey conducted in February 2011 have been used for estimating the impacts of Linlithgo and Linlithgrow, the transport and food elements of the project respectively. The survey asked respondents whether they have walked, cycled or taken the bus more rather than driving as a result of Linlithgo, and whether they had made choices about food miles, bought more food from local shops, and grown more of their own food as a result of Linlithgrow. The results were used to generalise about the level of impact across the whole population of Linlithgow, and it is therefore assumed that the sample was representative of Linlithgow's population as a whole. The results were extrapolated to 12,000 people rather than the total population of the town, as a proportion will be children and will be less likely to make food purchasing or transport choices.

B93. Data were not available for the length of car journeys which are replaced by walking, cycling or bus, and we therefore assumed that the average return journey which would be replaced by these modes of transport is 3 km, and that the number of car journeys replaced is one every two weeks.

B94. Data were not available for the quantity or types of food that participants grow themselves, and it was therefore assumed that the average quantity grown is 20 kg per person per year. An average emission factor for fruit and vegetables was derived in order to estimate baseline emissions, and an emission factor of 0.7 kgCO ₂e/kg of food (Carter 2010) was used to calculate the "with project" emissions from allotment produce.

B95. A variety of emissions factors are available for nationally and globally sourced foods, and the relative benefits of each are highly dependent on the specific foods in question and the systems they are produced in ( i.e. for some foods the whole-of-life emissions may be higher for local production compared to globally sourced food which is transported to the UK). Different higher and lower emission factors were used in order to reflect the range of possible outcomes from sourcing more food locally.

B96. The emission savings from using local shops rather than supermarkets have not been quantified as there is no clear evidence for a reduction in emissions. In order to assess the impact of this activity life cycle assessments would be needed for a representative range of products from both local shops and supermarkets.

B97. In addition to the project activities for which a quantified carbon assessment was undertaken there were also a large number of other project activities such as hosting and attending events, energy reports for a primary school, rugby club and village hall, freecycling seeds, newsletters, and providing information through the project's web site.

Going Carbon Neutral Stirling: Results

B98. Going Carbon Neutral Stirling aimed to reduce emissions from energy use, food consumption, waste and transportation through behaviour change in the Stirling area. The project's approach involved working through existing community groups and encouraging group members to adopt low carbon behaviours.

B99. shows the estimated emissions savings from the project's various activities. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be between 2,752 and 11,400 tonnes of CO ₂e - equivalent to the emissions from the annual energy use of between 421 and 1,743 households. The Carbon Detox actions were pledges on a number of food behaviour actions. The Big Street Challenge pledges were on a wide range of changes in behaviour, including energy efficiency, food, transport and waste. The Carbon Cutter Plans set out actions which reduce emissions at home and in the workplace and were adopted by community groups, schools and businesses.

Figure B8. Going Carbon Neutral Stirling

B100. The majority of the estimated emissions savings were from the Carbon Cutter Plans, as these are being used by a large number of people. At the time of the assessment, 2,781 people had adopted a Carbon Cutter Plan and had been revisited by a Going Carbon Neutral Stirling development officer. A further 4,611 people had Carbon Cutter Plans but had not yet been revisited. The estimated lifetime savings per person from the Carbon Cutter Plans were between 0.3 and 1.4 tonnes CO ₂e per person.

B101. The Big Street Challenge involved fewer people than the Carbon Cutter Plans (82 people) but is estimated to achieve higher savings per participant, with lifetime savings between 6.3 and 11 tonnes per person. The reason the savings per person are relatively high is that the majority of people have made multiple pledges, and some of the pledges are for hard measures such as insulation which last for a long time and are estimated to achieve large emissions savings. The Carbon Detox pledges were made by 78 people and are estimated to achieve relatively low savings per person, with 0.12 tonnes of CO ₂e per person.

B102. In addition to the measures listed above, the project also ran a number of other activities, such as events, campaigns, the Stirling Low Carbon Alliance for businesses, herb gardens and the web site. The emissions savings from these activities have not been quantified as either data were not available or the savings are likely to be small as a proportion of total savings from the project.

Going Carbon Neutral Stirling: Data and Assumptions

B103. The baseline gas and electricity consumption of households involved in Going Carbon Neutral Stirling ( GCNS) were assumed to be equivalent to the average gas and electricity usage of domestic properties in Stirling, according to intermediate geography zone data ( DECC 2011). All properties were assumed to use gas for space and water heating.

B104. It was assumed that only one 'carbon cutter' provided data per household, and therefore that those emissions saving actions that apply at household rather than an individual level are not double-counted.

B105. As the actions being undertaken under the carbon cutter plans were so numerous, for any action where the project's own calculated total annual emissions saving was below 10 tonnes of CO2, we used those project calculations and the emission savings factors derived for GCNS by Caledonian University. For actions where the project estimated savings of more than 10 tonnes of CO2 per year, we re-calculated the savings using alternative assumptions and input values wherever this was considered to increase the accuracy of the assessment. For the lower estimate, the project's own estimations, based on the Caledonian University saving factors, were discounted by 10%, as these saving factors were generally based on optimistic assumptions.

B106. For the lower estimate, a pledge fulfilment rate of 60% was applied to the pledges made in the Big Street Challenge. For the higher estimate the pledge fulfilment rate was assumed to be 90%.

B107. When several interventions designed to reduce energy demand for heating (such as putting up heavy curtains or using shutters) are undertaken together, the resulting reduction in energy consumption may not equal the sum of each measure's potential to achieve reductions alone. From the data available, it was not possible to establish which households had undertaken which measures; some households might have adopted several measures simultaneously. Where this is the case, summing the effects of each intervention would overestimate the emissions savings achieved by these households. In order to take account of this issue, and considering the large number of households involved in the project and the number of interventions that may "overlap" in terms of effectiveness, we assumed that a proportion of certain heating-related actions were implemented together. Based upon project data, 21 households were assumed to have taken action simultaneously to: not heat unused rooms, close curtains at nightfall, check radiators and move furniture away from radiators. The savings from these measures were discounted for these 21 households in the lower estimate.

B108. Data on the activities of people with carbon cutter plans were available for 2,781 individuals. A greater proportion of these was made up of schoolchildren than is the case for the 4,611 people with carbon cutter plans from whom data has yet to be collected. As the range of emissions saving actions applicable to schoolchildren is more limited than that applicable to adults, the total number of actions and therefore total emissions savings are likely to be higher on average for the 4,611 group than for the assessed group of 2,781. However, because of the uncertainties associated with estimating the extent of any increase in average savings, this has not been quantified.

B109. Emission savings are likely to arise from other, non-assessed activities of Going Carbon Neutral Stirling such as the website or the provision of information at events. However, the savings from such outreach activities have not been estimated, as the uncertainties involved in quantifying them are judged to be too large to provide meaningful results.

Emission factors

B110. Grid electricity factors are available from Defra (2010) for average whole-of-life emissions up to 2008, and the Inter-departmental Analysts Group (2010) provides estimates of average and marginal point-of-combustion grid emissions up to 2100. These two sources were used to derive average whole-of-life grid emissions up to 2050. The IAG grid average figures for 2009 is significantly lower than the Defra grid average figure and in order to smooth the integration of the Defra and IAG figures a stepped decrease in emissions was calculated starting with Defra's 2008 emission factor and merging with the IAG projection for 2020. A whole-of-life uplift factor was also applied to the IAG figures.