PPT - Department of Geography & Environmental Studies
Short Description
Download PPT - Department of Geography & Environmental Studies...
Description
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – THE CASE STUDY OF OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAIROBI KENYA BY SHAH PARITA SURESHCHANDRA SUPERVISED BY: DR. F. MWAURA
DR. J. MORONGE
Definition
In this study: EA is a documented, objective, systematic way
systematic examination of interactions between an operation and its surroundings – ICC
a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made by any segment of the environment by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise” (GoA 1988-89)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defined an environmental audit as “a systematic, documented, periodic and objective review by regulated entities of facility operations and practices related to meeting environmental requirements”
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT Relatively
a new concept in developing world Origination – USA - EPA Ideas found in Bruntland Commission+ Ehrlich Rio Agenda 21 – Principle 16 Kenya – EMCA Sections 68+69- NEMA - Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations – 31+41
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
Why do an EA? Benefits (Kenya – EMCA) - resource conservation - environmental health and safety - helps in planning - financial - compliance with laws - environmental awareness - operational efficiency
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT IN KENYAN CONTEXT Annually
– initial audit + follow ups
External
auditor/self
Education Overall
– EMCA -Schedule 2, Section F
follow up of audits – poor
YEAR
SECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS RECEIVED
2004
Education
2
2005
Education
31
2006
Education
18
2007
Education
14
STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM Is
EA a tool of resource conservation?
Is
EA done yearly?
Is
Syllabi more environmental oriented?
OBJECTIVES
To comply with Environmental laws of Kenya
To see if 2005 audits have been complied with
Minimize wastage and provide tools for waste minimization
Improving the environment further
HYPOTHESES
1. There is no relationship between paper wastage in school and number of children per year.
2. There is no difference between water wastage through normal taps and press on taps.
3. There is no relationship in energy conservation between different year groups in Oshwal Academy Primary School.
JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY MDGs
and universal education + syllabus incorporating environment Must do an EA annually Resource conservation - forests + paper - water + scarcity - water + taps - electricity + conservation Reusing, recycling, reducing and repairing
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tolba and El Kholy (1992) –An environmental audit measures the relative accuracy of the prediction of impacts and their management through mitigation and compensation”.
Gege (1997) – 5% reduction in costs
Lethmathe and Doost (2000) –correct accounting + costs of environmental related flows of materials and energy.
INTOSAI WGEA 2007 + Tolba and El Kholy (1992) – EA address issues that are physical in nature and specific to a particular site e.g. field observations and photographs.
Njuguna (2007) if environmental audits will not be done, results will be:“when the forest is gone, the great reservoir of moisture stored up in its vegetable mould is evaporated and the returns only in deluge of rain to wash away the parched dust into which the mould has been converted….”
(Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick 2005) – Some audits-“best practice” models.
Examples of Environmental Audits in Western Institutions
University of Pennsylvania – Environmental Auditors agree to Ben Franklin’s (1898) statement – “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
University of Sussex – EA has helped the university have an EMP + reduce costs Professor Gordon Conway – former Vice Chancellor (HEFCE 1998)
Income from recycling has brought savings + reduced financial costs. Helen Tompkins, Graham School (HEFCE 1998)
Examples of Environmental Audits in the Developing World
fairly new concept
Tolba 1984 – fear and skepticism
Ananda (2004) - Sri Lanka – Environmental audit training needs man power, training and monetary facilities.
Uganda – Environmental auditing systems in 1995, Kenya in 2003 but Kenya ahead.
The Case of Kenya
1992 Rio Summit
Wamukoya and Situma 2003 - Development of National Environmental Action Plans – National Environmental Action Plan for the Period 1994 – 1999 National Environmental Action Plan for the Period 1999 – 2003 EMCA 1999 Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003
1. 2. 3. 4.
NEMA Kenya’s educational institutions - 56,679 registered Mwangi (2008) - Initial EA done by few – YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL
FIGURES 18 77 37 32 164
Critical Review of Environmental Audits
INTOSAI (2000) – difficulties of EA - significant gaps in implementation and legislation.
Guterl and Sheridan (2008) - reliability of data and lack of detailed information.
Volokh (1997) – Case of Colorado based Coors Brewing Company in 1992.
NEMA + lack of officers
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK UTILIZATION OF KEY INPUTS IN SCHOOLS e.g. Paper Water Electricity (The way inputs are used can cause environmental problems.)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS High costs of electricity Generation of waste paper Generation of waste water Air pollution Excessive use of non-renewable resources like petrol
Reduced costs for schools
RESOURCE DEGRADATION Loss of forests Generation of waste water Air pollution Physical degradation Noise pollution
NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT BENEFITS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT Resource conservation Compliance with laws Efficiency in usage of materials Reduced waste Awareness creation
DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT SITE OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL Location Direction
from city centre Size – physical Function Neighbourhood
MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE SCHOOL
OSHWAL ACADEMY PR.
School’s appearance
The School’s old block
The school’s new block
School set up
Started in 1978
In 1978 students only 28, today 995 students
Exam body in till 1984 – CPE
1985 -1987 – KCPE
1987 - 2001 – CPE
2001 till date - BNC
The School Lay Out
Special Education
Library for years 1, 2 and 3
A classroom
A computer lab
The School Lay Out
The Swimming Pool
Play area for Reception class
The School field - Athletics
The full view of the School field
Sanitary Facilities FACILITY
BOYS
GIRLS
STAFF
TOTAL
Toilets
24
24
9
57
Wash-hand basins
24
24
9
57
Showers
12
8
4
24
METHODOLOGY
Responses obtained from staff, students, neighbours through questionnaires, interviews and general discussions
Primary sources – the school and neighbourood
Secondary sources – audit report of 2005,Environmental Legal Framework like EMCA, authored books, thesis, journals
Data collection for primary data – mixed probability sampling
Data Collection POPULATION
NO. OF UNITS PER
NO. OF UNITS IN THE
COMPONENT
SAMPLE
Office Staff
4
1
Teaching Staff
109
27
Support Staff
15
3
TOTAL
128
31
Year 4
148
15
Year 5
127
13
Year 6
128
13
TOTAL
403
41
COMPONENTS
Students – Simple random – hat method Staff - Simple random – hat method Neighbours systematic random – evry 5th house
STAFF
STUDENTS
Primary Data
Student responses Staff responses Neighbourhood responses
Measurements and recordings
Camera
Observation – burning vegetation, protective clothing, traffic
Water quality testing
Questionnaires
Water
Two types of taps –press-on and normal
Run off rate - press-on, 1 litre in 10 sec. Run off rate – normal, 470 ml in 10 sec.
Press-on tap at its maximum
Normal tap at its maximum
Regulatory Framework A. Environmental Management and Coordination Act
1999
B. Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulation 2003 C. Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality) Regulations of 2006 D. Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management) Regulations of 2006 E. Water Act of 2002 F. Building Code of 2000
Regulatory Framework G. The Occupational Safety and Health Act H. Public Health Act
I. Factory Act J. Employment Act K. Legal Notice No 296 of 1996 L. Work Injury Benefits Act (2007)
Regulatory Framework M. The Local Government Act N. The Penal Code O. Physical Planning Act 1996 P. Energy Policy and Energy Act Q. Vision 2030 R. CCN By-Laws
Data Processing
Checking all questionnaires
Closed ended compiled in their list
Open ended compiled according to categories
Data Analysis
Descriptive – dispersion, tools e.g. graphs, cross tabulation, percentages, frequencies, means
Inferential – chi-square – spearman’s rank correlation – student t-test
SPSS Statistical Package
Excel Program
General Rules If
calculated value is greater than the tabulated value, the null hypothesis was rejected.
In
all tests, degree of significance - 95% (α = 0.05).
Limitations Limited
to one area
Screening Most
and control of collected data
measurements at nominal level- use of non-parametric tests.
FINDINGS This
was done in areas of
Water Electricity Paper Safety and security Transport Emergency preparedness
Water Use
Carried on for one week
Intervals of one hour
Run off collected in both taps – all washrooms
Equipment
Data recordings hourly
Run-off collected in basin
Measuring equipment
SUM AND MEAN OF WATER WASTAGE FOR BOTH PRESS-ON AND NORMAL TAPS
1200
1000
800
WASTAGE (LITRES)
600
400
200
0
PRESS ON TAPS
NORMAL TAPS
SUM
1071.3
171.9
MEAN
27.47
4.41
Monday
Water wastage for all five days
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
More Water Wastage Findings and class cross tabulation – females more playful
Gender
Gender=female
Gender=male
Do you like playing with press-on taps in the wash rooms?
6
Do you like playing with press-on taps in the wash rooms?
6
no 5
no 5
yes
4
Count
Count
4
yes
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 4
5
Class
6
4
5
Class
6
Water Use Results
There is no difference between water wastage through normal taps and press on taps – Student t-test
Calculated t = 12.973 Critical t = 1.960 (df = 38)
Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted.
Water Sources
3 sources – Alpine NCC – kitchen Borehole – boarding, Zero B
Storage tank, then tap
Goes to the filter, then Zero B
Chemical tests done – signs of problems
Water Test Results Water Samples
Chemical Name
WHO Recommendation s
Alpine
Kitchen boarding
School kitchen
Borehole
Zero B
pH
6.5-8.5
8.2
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
Manganese, mg/l
0.4
0.4
0
0
0
0
Fluorides, mg/l
1.5
0.23
0.17
3.62
3.8
1.96
Iron
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
chlorides, mg/l
600
15
17
44
45
47
Electricity
60 computers + old version
Incoming
natural light in class– 74.2%
(23/31) Generator Energy
+ diesel
conservation
Energy Conservation
Records of lights off – break, lunch after school (questionnaire, observation) YEAR (STANDARD)
NO OF CHILDREN WHO SWITCHED LIGHTS OFF
% OF CHILDREN WHO SWITCHED LIGHTS OFF (%)
NO OF CHILDRE N WHO DID NOT SWITCH LIGHTS OFF
% OF CHILDREN WHO DID NOT SWITCH LIGHTS OFF (%)
TOTAL
6
12
92.31
1
7.69
13
5
5
38.5
8
61.5
13
4
14
93.33
1
6.67
15
TOTAL
31
74.7%
10
23.4%
41
.
Lights on when children not there
Energy conservation results
There is no relationship in energy conservation between different year groups in Oshwal Academy Primary School.– Chi-square Calculated value = 14.249 Critical value = 5.991 (df = 2)
Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted. Observed difference not by chance
Awareness Creation Types of environmental awareness creation by staff in school 30
25
Number of Staff
20
15
10
5
0
Environment club
Curriculum delivery
Assembly Talks
Yes
28
21
22
No
3
10
9
Type of Awareness
Conservation label in a class
Thus students should be encouraged to join the environmental club.
Future Action
Solar Power
Paper
Number of Children and Paper Wastage 160
Results since 2005
4500
140
4000 120 3500 100
3000
80
2500
2000
60
Paper (gms)
Paper wastage high No. Children
5000
1500 40 1000 20
500
0
0 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
Year Number of Children
Paper wastage(gms)
NB. Two scale graph used to get good comparison.
Paper wastage in relation to number of students from 2005 to 2008 YEAR 4500
2005 2006 2007
4000
2008
PAPERWASTAGE
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
NOOFCHILDREN
r² = 0.121 – not best fit relationship.
No of students not good measurement as relationship is not linear.
Relationship between class and paper wastage CLASS
NO OF CHILDREN
DAY 1 (WASTE IN GM)
DAY 2 (WASTE IN GM)
DAY 3 (WASTE IN GM)
MEAN
Year 4
150
3300
2800
3300
63
Year 5
127
1800
1600
2000
42.52
Year 6
128
1900
2100
1500
42.97
Paper wastage results
There is no relationship between paper wastage in school and number of children per year – Spearman's Rank Correlation.
After Spearman’s Rank Correlation, student ttest was used to test the observed. Calculated value = 6.314011 Tabulated value = 2.056 (df = 26)
Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted.
Recycling of paper and plastic waste YEAR
COST OF EXERCISE BOOKS (KSH)
SELL OF NEWSPAPERS (KSH)
SELL OF PLASTICS (KSH)
DIFFERENCE (KSH)
% SAVINGS
20052006
247418
-
-
-
-
20062007
238013
-
-
-
-
20072008
218400
14160
73953
88116
40.35%
Safety and health - Cleanliness
Maintenance of the garden by the support staff
Burning of vegetation in the school compound
Safety and health – Tree pruning
Tree which was leaning toward the school building cut
The height of the tree as it was being cut (the picture is put in order to justify that it was tall, thus becoming bent and being a risk hazard)
Safety and health – Protective Clothing
An Ideal Bin staff wearing gloves while cleaning a corridor wall
Afforestation and reafforestation
Tree planting in the school field on environment day
Tree planting done in the Kabagare forest of the Aberdares by children and staff of Oshwal Academy Primary School.
Transport
The 25 seater school bus
Traffic problems
Traffic jam in the neighbourhood after school
Emergency preparedness
Fire – 25 extinguishers
Fire drills + trained staff
Exits
Regular checking of equipment
First aid Fire extinguisher in the first floor of the new block
CONCLUSION
Initial audit report released late from NEMA
External auditor – didn’t meet expectations of 2005 audit
Management – need to get acquainted with environmental laws
Compliance status on laws
Recommendations Water
–
change of press-on taps Quality of water – filters (get sponsors)
Energy
–
energy saving bulbs Energy efficiency Conservation and awareness Solar array
Paper
Awareness Reusing both sides Recycling Frequent trips to recycling factories
Tree planting and care of trees
Waste management – • •
no burning Compost pit
Transport
Big, efficient school buses Transport system (discourage private transport + coordination with parents)
Emergency
preparedness
Disaster preparedness like security Inserting smoke alarms
Environmental
Management Plan
View more...
Comments