5.6 Students’ practices and behaviour towards energy consumption
5.6.3 Energy regulation measures within the residences
112 | P a g e to the residence rules. The failure of the department to firmly enforce and monitor rules that regulate energy usage was also a contributing factor to energy consumption.
For example, heaters are not allowed but students do have them so yes! There are rules but students do not follow them all the time because sometimes they just get warnings if they are caught (RA5, October 29, 2015).
In spite of the notices pasted around their residential premises, students were reluctant to adhere to the rules due to the lack of direct implications.
114 | P a g e Besides that, we sometimes do the residence checks and we always find that students have numerous appliances in their residences that range from fridges, heaters and even microwaves. So we sometimes confiscate these appliances because they consume a lot of energy in our residences (Jojo, November 11, 2015).
The data gathered from the interviews showed that DSRA did not apply a standardized set of rules on energy usage. Some officials simply gave warnings, some issued fines and others confiscated the prohibited appliances from students. Moreover, the DSRA officials in the study did not constantly apply these measures to offenders but rather they were lenient towards students. As a result, students were not really worried about being caught with the prohibited appliances since they knew they could talk their way out of having it. This explains why in Figure 5.8 a significant number of the students in the study had some of the prohibited electrical appliances in their rooms.
If caught, students were comfortable with paying the energy fines for the high-power appliances imposed by the RAs as highlighted by one of the RA.
Obviously, you need to confiscate the appliances probably until the end of semester either way you need to give them back those items when they are leaving. Now when residence opens the students come back with the same appliance that are not allowed.
Even if you fine them some students do not really care, they will tell you that their bursary will pay for the fine so the money does not come from their pockets so they will not care (RA5, October 29, 2015).
The attitude expressed in the above quote was totally in contradiction with the notions of EC theory on conserving the natural environmental. The theory argued that environment justice should not be about one’s ability to compensate for his or her environmental degradation, but should be about individual’s responsibility and willingness to conserve the environment (Jager, 2009). The negative attitude expressed by some of the students in the study explains the high levels of energy consumption at UKZN. Due to the lack of environmental education, students seemed not to understand the crucial link between their behaviour and the university’s carbon footprint. They were much more concerned about settling the fines or replacing the confiscated electrical gadgets not realizing how their behaviour was negatively affecting the environment. This finding supports Mulder et al’s (2015) assertion that the general hindrance to sustainable campus projects is the fact
115 | P a g e that impacts of such initiatives can only be realized after a long period of time. Therefore, some of the students in the study were reluctant to modify their behaviour because the environmental catastrophes or benefits were not tangible within a short span of time.
In addition, students were not aware of how much the university was spending on the electricity bill nor were they given any energy usage feedback. According to Brewer et al (2011:2) “unlike a home environment, students do not financially benefit from any reduction in electricity use because of the flat residence fees. There are no monthly bill and students are completely unaware of their energy usage”. Brewer et al’s (2011) observation relates to the findings of this study because students argued that they were not aware of their electricity usage and even if they altered their behaviour, it will not lower their residential fees. In spite of being unaware of the annual electricity bill for UKZN, students were asked to estimate the costs as shown in Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.12 Students’ estimation of the UKZN annual electricity bill Source: Own calculations from SEBS data
The majority of the students, 40%, indicated that they had no clue in terms of the annual electricity bill hence they stated that they did not knew how much UKZN was paying in its electricity bill.
Figure 5.12 also shows that a significant number of the students estimated that the annual electricity bill for UKZN was high ranging between R13 and R24 million. Students in the study totally underestimated the electricity bill because Knox (2013) indicated that the University was
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
>R25 million From R13-24 million From R3-12 million
<R3 million Don't know
Percentage
Students' estimation of the UKZN annual electricity bill
116 | P a g e paying approximately R100 million per annum for the electricity bill. Nevertheless, Figure 5.12 illustrates Brewer et al’s (2011) argument that students may never know how much electricity they will be using due to lack of feedback and monthly bills. As a result, it was challenging to motivate individuals to reduce their energy consumption when they were not aware of how much they were currently using due to lack of feedbacks from the DSRA. According to Heiskanen et al (2010:
7588) “energy feedbacks are important for motivating and empowering individuals to save energy because they make people aware of the difference they will be making”. In support, a study by Abrahamse et al (2005) indicates that participants who knew their energy consumption rate save more energy compared to those who did not receive their energy feedbacks. Likewise, an energy competition between four residence dormitories highlighted the importance of feedbacks and energy meter-readings to students because these aspects greatly modified students’ behaviours even after the competition (Brewer et al, 2011). In contrast, this study showed that students were not subjected to environmental education, they were not given any energy usage feedback nor did they know their energy consumption patterns. As a result, most of the students in the study were not concerned about saving energy as illustrated by their attitudes and behaviour towards energy consumption.
On the other hand, DSRA officials were not firm in enforcing the energy regulations such that students took advantage of those glitches and engaged in practices that resulted in energy wastage.
The effect of firmly enforcing energy rules in reducing energy consumption within a campus setting was reflected in a study conducted by Lo (2015). According to Lo (2015) students were subjected to the ‘Electricity restriction policy’ that had six clauses attached to it. The clauses made students aware that “electricity usage that exceeded the prescribed limits would be charged a fee of 0.525RMB/kWh” (Lo, 2015:38). All dormitories had energy meters installed and each room had a maximum power of 2,500watts. If a student was to exceed that limit, his or her meter would automatically cut-off electricity in the room (Lo, 2015). Consequently, the energy consumption levels were very low and students were cautious about their behaviour towards energy consumption. Notably, the eight universities in Lo’s (2015) study also prohibited the use of the same electrical appliances such as kettles, heaters and stoves that were not allowed at UKZN.
Nevertheless, students at UKZN owned and used these appliances in their rooms because of the weak energy regulation approach by the DSRA officials.
117 | P a g e