USP College Earth Day Climate Survey – Results and Analysis
- Sebastian Rapley Mende
- May 28
- 17 min read
Updated: May 30
To mark Earth Day on Tuesday 22nd April 2025 and Europe Day in May, a climate survey was conducted by students in the EPAS (European Parliamentary Ambassador School) Programme at USP College and members of the USP College Student Union, which was led and organised by myself, to collect data on what students and staff felt about the environment, climate change and sustainability both inside the college and in the wider world.
This survey was conducted as a questionnaire using Microsoft Forms, consisting of 15 questions: 10 questions pulled directly from the EIB (European Investment Bank) Annual Climate Survey 2024 and 5 questions relating to the college itself. Students and staff answered anonymously across both the Seevic and Palmers campuses, where the Student Union and EPAS are active.
There were a total 346 responses, 218 from students at our Seevic Campus and 121 from our students at our Palmer's Campus. This was out of a total of 483 staff and roughly 4,000 students, resulting in a turnout of 7.7%. Of the total 346 responses, 339 were students and 7 responses were from a staff member. This means that this survey is mostly a reflection of the views of students at USP College.
Q1 – Q14 questions were mutually exclusive, with only one selection allowed from all the options given. Q15 was an open-ended question that allowed responders to specify what they were specifically concerned about in Q14, or they could use it for general feedback. This means that the vast majority of the survey consisted of quantitative data with a small amount of qualitative data. The reason for this was to create a simpler survey that could be completed and analysed in a significantly shorter time-period compared to a partially or entirely qualitative survey. In addition, a quantitative survey takes less time to complete, presumably leading to more people doing and completing the survey, compared to if this survey was predominantly qualitative (see Q15). The benefits of this have been a concise and quick survey, which allows the survey to produce a clearer picture of peoples’ priorities by giving them a limited number of options. The negatives of this is that the results cannot truly represent people’s views as they were limited by the options from the survey.
EIB Questions – Results and Comparison
This section of the survey was sourced DIRECTLY from the EIB (European Investment Bank) Annual Climate Survey 2024: http://www.eib.org/en/surveys/climate-survey/index.htm. The question number in brackets () references which question from the EIB Annual Climate Survey was used for that question (e.g. Q1 for this survey uses (Q2) from the EIB Annual Climate Survey).
The EIB Survey was used both to see the views of responders and to see how this compares to that of European and American respondents, for EPAS, allowing us to see the similarities and differences between the college and Europe, for certain topics within sustainability.
For more analysis of the EIB Annual Climate Survey 2024 results see: The EIB Climate Survey: Attitudes towards climate change adaptation.
In the photos below, PALMER'S results appear first, followed by SEEVIC'S results.
Q1.) 'What do you think is the best way for your country to address climate change?' (EIB Q2)
The results here show that generally, people at USP favour focusing on both mitigation and adaptation with no real preference. Only a small number of people thought neither were important – however, in Seevic, due to a technical issue, an extra option was accidentally created slightly skewing the results for Seevic.
Q2.) 'Among the actions that your country must take in the coming years, would you say that adapting to climate change is...:' (EIB Q3)
Both campuses saw climate action as a priority, with Palmers campus seeing it as less of an issue than Seevic campus. However, both campuses take the climate as a more serious issue than the responders from the official EIB survey below. The results in Palmers were very similar to the EU27 results, whilst Seevic were generally more concerned. In addition, the number of people who see climate change as ‘Not Important’ is lower than in the EU27 and, especially, the USA:
Q3.) 'Do you agree with the following [two] statements?: (EIB Q4)
A. Climate change adaptation requires costs now to avoid greater costs in the future
B. Investing in climate adaptation infrastructure can help create jobs and boost the local economy '
Similar to the previous question, Palmer's were less sure than Seevic were about the two statements listed above. This shows that Palmer's are perhaps less enthusiastic about climate action and feel that climate action is less likely to benefit them in other ways besides climate protection. This is in contrast to Seevic, who seem to have a more optimistic view on climate action, that while costly it can also help the economy, not just the environment.
Q4.) 'When you think of the potential impact of climate change on your life in the future, do you feel…' (EIB Q7)
These results show that in general, Seevic campus was more concerned about the impacts of climate change, whilst Palmer's had a more polarised view on the impacts of climate change, with more people being both very concerned and not concerned at all about climate change and its impact on their lives.
Interestingly, neither campus was as concerned generally as EU27, with 56% of Seevic responders and 49% of Palmer's responders being at least quite worried about the impacts of climate change, compared to 73% in EU27 and 56% in the USA. This result was quite surprising considering that it is generally assumed that young people are more concerned about the impacts of climate change than most other groups in society, which this survey suggests is not the case.
Q5.) 'When you think of the potential impact of climate change on your life in the future, do you think you will have to change and adapt the way you live...' (EIB Q8)
Both campuses had very similar results for this question, with 68% in Palmer's and 66% in Seevic answering that the potential impacts of climate change would mean that their lives would be affected at least to some extent. This falls in between EU27 and the USA, being lower than the 72% in the EU27 and higher than the 63% in the USA. There were very few people who thought that the climate change would have no effect at all on their lives, with a maximum of only 5% in Palmer's and even less in Seevic. This is less than in both EU27 (6%) and the USA (11%). The biggest difference is with the 'Not Much' category which in the college reached roughly 30%, compared with 22% in EU27 and 26% in the USA.
Q6.) 'How well informed do you feel about the actions you can take to adapt your home and lifestyle to the impact of climate change?' (EIB Q9)
In general, the college feel relatively well informed about the impacts of climate change on peoples' lifestyle, with 70% in Palmer's and 74% in Seevic feeling at least somewhat well informed. Both campuses had very similar results showing that there is little geographic discrepancy between the two campuses and areas. However, Palmer's responders feel slightly less well-informed, as evidenced by 30% feeling not very informed or worse, compared to 26% at Seevic campus.
However, these results and conclusions contrast starkly with a question from the internal survey, Q13, which shows only 50% of people across the college feel they have a somewhat decent knowledge about sustainability and the impacts of climate change. Although the questions were different, they share a general theme, that being level of knowledge, showing that either Q13 or this question is less accurate from the other. It is more likely this question is less reliable due to that fact that this was in EIB survey section, which likely was less relevant to most responders compared to the internal college survey, or because this question is more specific than Q13, addressing directly peoples' knowledge about how people will have to adapt to climate change – the fact that both campuses have roughly 70% say at least somewhat agree to this, more specific question, compared to 50% for the more-general Q13, shows this question is likely unreliable.
Q7.) 'At what level do you think adaptation to climate change would be best managed?' (EIB Q11)
The largest category in both campuses was clearly the 'Global' level (45% Palmer's, 42% Seevic), showing that responders see climate change as a global issue needing global action and solutions. In both campuses the second biggest category was ‘National’ (24% Palmer's, 25% Seevic). Besides that, Palmers' third choice was 'Local' (13%), with Seevic's third choice being 'Regional' (15%). The least popular category across the campuses was, however, the 'International' category, perhaps owing to Brexit and the issues associated with it making responders less sure that international action would be as successful compared to the other categories. It is also quite likely that, if examples weren't given in brackets, the results would have been different, especially for the 'International' category, which used Europe as an example.
Q8.) 'What do you think should be prioritised to adapt to climate change in your local area?' (EIB Q12)
The results from this category showed very clearly that responders thought that three categories should be prioritised – education of the public, cooling cities and infrastructure for adapting to climate change. In Palmer's, these three categories accounted for 70.1% of all responders and in Seevic 82.6% despite there being 9 options.
This mirrors the results in both the EU27 and USA, where those three categories, in both surveys, reached the top three, showing that responders at USP, in the EU27 and the USA all share similar concerns. Probably the largest difference was in the category of water management, which received 4.7% in Palmer's and only 2.3% in Seevic – significantly lower than the 27% in the EU27 and 23% in the USA.
In addition, only 2.4% in Palmer's and 1.8% in Seevic answered ‘None’, compared to 5% in the EU27 and 11% in the USA, showing that USP has a much lower number of people who feel nothing has to be done for combating climate change than that of the EU and the USA respectively.
Q9.) 'Who do you think should bear the cost of climate change adaptation?' (EIB Q18)
This question showed that most people at USP believed in just one of the options given, in this case the most polluting businesses/industries with 51% of Palmer's and 64% of Seevic responders agreeing. This contrasts quite strongly with the official survey, where although the most popular option was the same, the percentage of responders who picked that option was significantly lower, with the EU27 seeing 35% and the USA 32%, agreeing with the statement.
The next two categories in both Palmer's and Seevic were taxing wealthier individuals and equal taxation, with Palmer's preferring richer individuals and Seevic equal taxation. In Palmer's, these two options combined made up 36% of responses and in Seevic 27% of responses; both of these were smaller percentages than that of the EU27 and the USA, with 47% and 42% respectively choosing these two options, showing that USP responders are less divided on who should carry the largest (financial) burden for climate action, compared to EU and the USA. This could be because of the homogenous nature of the college, with it being dominated by young people and the views of young people, unlike a whole country or union of countries in the EU's case. Ideas about climate justice and making the most-damaging polluters pay for climate action are more prevalent among young people than other age demographics for example.
In addition, the consensus in the college from the data is that businesses are most able to carry the burden of climate action, whilst responders in both the EU27 and the USA are more torn. This reflects the reality of Britain today, where many households are facing a cost-of-living crisis and have little income or wealth left over to pay for climate action meaning that people at USP College are more likely to agree that the wealthiest in society, so businesses and wealthy individuals, should carry the (financial) burden for dealing with human-induced climate change.
Q10.) 'Do you think that your country should pay more to help the most vulnerable developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change?' (EIB Q19)
The results from this question show that a plurality of responders agree that the UK should send aid to less-developed countries in order to help them adapt to climate change. In total, 79% in Palmer's and 80% in Seevic agreed that the UK should send at least some aid to other countries. Only 5% in both campuses are directly opposed to the UK sending aid abroad, showing that the vast majority of people at USP view climate action as a global effort, rather than just a domestic one.
Internal College Survey – Results and Analysis
The second section of the survey was not sourced from any other survey but instead was created by students in EPAS and the Student Union. This section focussed on issues within the college itself and was designed to clearly highlight which areas of the college are most in need of improvement in terms of sustainability. Again, the first images of results are from Palmer's while the second images are from Seevic.
Q11.) How sustainable is the college?
The results for both campuses were similar: 57% of Seevic respondents said the college was 'Somewhat sustainable', with a larger 68% in Palmer's agreeing. Similarly, 18% in Seevic and 17% in Palmers agreed that the college was 'Very Sustainable'. However, the disagreement came with those critical of the college's sustainability – Seevic had 24% of respondents say that the college was 'Not Very Sustainable', double that of Palmers, with only 12% of respondents saying the same. The option 'Not Sustainable At All' was selected by very few respondents, with 0% in Seevic and 3% in Palmers selecting this option.
The variation in the results, particularly with the 'Not Very Sustainable' option may be explained by the fact that the two campuses' sites are very different, with the Seevic Campus having more-modern facilities compared to the more historic Palmer's Campus. One provision in the college which certainly has an impact on the results is the virtual teaching that happens every Friday – this means the college is almost entirely closed on Fridays, with a likely positive effect on the college's sustainability record.
The lack of a 'Not Sure' option may have also led to more responses for the 'Somewhat Sustainable' and 'Not Very Sustainable' categories.
Q12.) What aspect of the college in your opinion is the LEAST sustainable/environmentally-friendly?
Both campuses unanimously agreed that 'Transport' was the least sustainable aspect of college: in Palmer's this accounted for 29% of responses, in Seevic 33%. However, the similarities between the campuses ends there – Palmers' second option was 'Buildings' with 20% of responses followed in third by 'Not Sure' with 18%. For comparison, Seevic's second option was 'Lack of Green Space' with 21% followed by 'Learning Resources' with 15%. In Palmers, 'Lack of Green Space' was only selected by 9% of respondents compared to Seevic, whilst the second and third most-popular options in Palmers were only selected by 8% and 7% of Seevic respondents respectively. In both campuses 'Other' had a low number, with 2% in Palmers and 3% in Seevic, whilst 'Learning Resources' was in both campuses a somewhat popular option.
The primacy of 'Transport' is consistent with the high-usage of public transport in both campuses, with people being aware of the issues from traffic and pollution from congestion. The contrast on 'Buildings' may, similarly to the previous question, be related to the state of the campus buildings, with Palmer's less-modern facilities being a larger issue for sustainability compared to Seevic. On the other hand, Seevic's lack of large fields or sports grounds, unlike Palmer's with its private, green-space grounds and surrounding public green spaces, likely meant that for Seevic respondents, the lack of greenery and the lack of a major carbon sink / offset is a serious issue with the college's sustainability.
The largest difference, however, is with the 'Not Sure' category, with Palmer's respondents being twice as likely to select this option compared to their Seevic counterparts. This implies that Palmer's students are perhaps less aware of issues regarding climate and sustainability within the college or that they believe that the college is doing very well with sustainability and therefore they are unsure of what further action the college can realistically take to support sustainability efforts.
However, the validity of the results from this question may be poor because of a misunderstanding of the question. Both the categories of 'Transport' and 'Lack of Green Space' were very popular; however, in a previous survey conducted at the college about what aspects of the college need improving (which was not related to sustainability whatsoever), these two categories appeared as two of the largest issues. Although some people may have genuinely understood the issue and purposefully chosen this option, it is likely most people chose these options as they are concerned about these issues in general, rather than because of their (lack of) sustainability. This is supported by the results from Q13 (see below), which shows that only half the responders across the college feel they know something about climate change and its impacts. As a result, the most important issue in Palmers were 'Buildings' and 'Learning Resources', whilst in Seevic the most important issues were 'Learning Resources' and 'Rubbish / Bins'.
Q13.) Do you feel that you know enough / are taught about Climate Change and its impacts enough in the college?
The order of results for this question was identical between campuses. 'Yes, somewhat' was the most popular option, with 35% in both Seevic and Palmer's, followed by 'Not Sure' (25% Seevic, 24% Palmer's), 'No, not really' (22% Seevic, 19% Palmer's), 'Yes, absolutely' (14% Seevic, 15% Palmer's) and lastly 'No, not at all' (3% Seevic, 7% Palmer's).
For the most part, the results were also very similar, meaning that, from the data, there is no correlation between geographic location and level of awareness about sustainability and climate change. The largest difference between campuses was with the 'No, not at all' category, which was selected by 3% (7 total) people in Seevic and 7% (9 total) people in Palmer's. The difference mostly comes down to the much-smaller sample size of Palmer's campus compared to Seevic campus, rather than there being significantly more people in Palmer's not having any knowledge, especially since the category in both campuses did not even reach 10%.
When taking all results into account, there is essentially a 50/50 split between responders, with half having a good level of knowledge about climate change, with the other half being less aware. This means that only half of responders and by extension students and staff, feel they have sufficient knowledge about climate change. This is an area for concern, considering how there is an assumption that young people are the most knowledgeable age group in society about climate change and issues associated with it, showing that education is an area for improvement within the college.
However, the results may be partially unreliable from the wording of the question; the question is about the level of knowledge responders possessed about climate change but the question may have confused some people due to the two separate parts of the question (own-knowledge and teaching from the college), likely leading to more people selecting the 'Not Sure' category.
Q14.) Do you think that the college could do more to be more environmentally-friendly / sustainable?
This question provided a pretty equal result between campuses. In both Palmer's and Seevic, the majority of people were 'Not Sure' whether the college could be more sustainable, with 32% in Palmer's and 34% in Seevic saying 'Yes', there were improvements to be made, with 15% and 11% in Palmer's and Seevic respectively saying 'No'.
The main concern is that over half of responders at USP were unable to form a certain opinion over whether the college could do more to be sustainable. This implies that the level of awareness and knowledge about what can be done to improve sustainability is insufficient. From the previous question, responders have shown that they think specific improvements can be made but are unsure with this question whether the college can do anything about it. This is a particular concern considering that young people are supposed to be more aware than other age groups of what can be done about the climate and are supposed to be enthusiastic about changes to improve sustainability. This shows that the college should work on improving awareness and promoting discussion surrounding sustainability in general.
From the responders with a definite answer, the majority thought that the college could do more to improve sustainability. This means that there is demand for the college to actually adopt some improvements (see Q12) and that people believe these improvements are also achievable, meaning improvements are not just a wish that people at USP have but solutions to the problem of lacking sustainability.
Q15.) If you answered YES to Q14, please explain why. If you answered anything else, use this box for any other concerns you may have concerning climate / sustainability issues.
This question was the only non-multiple choice question, instead being an optional open textbox for responders to write in, meaning that answers for this question are a lot less comparable. However, the largest difference by far between Seevic and Palmer's was the number of people who wrote something at all. In Seevic there were 196 responses, meaning 90% of responders answered Q15. In Palmer's on the other hand, there were only 26 responses, meaning only 21% of people responded. The meaning for this is unclear, although the likeliest reason is that Palmers responders are satisfied enough with the current level of sustainability in the campus that they did not feel they had to answer. It could also be because people did not have enough time and a worded question cannot be completed as quickly as a multiple choice question.
In Seevic, out of the 196 responses, 80 responses (41%) included a genuine response to the question, with the rest being variations of 'N/A'. In Palmer's, out of the 26 responses, there were 23 genuine responses (89%). Of these the biggest category in Seevic was 'Green Spaces' whilst in Palmer's it was 'Heating'. In addition, the two largest unique categories in each campus were: 'Bins and Recycling' in Seevic and 'Painting the Walls' in Palmer's.
The top Seevic categories definitely matched the conclusions from previous questions, showing both the validity and consistency of the results. In Q12, which asked about what aspects of the college could be improved, 'Lack of Green Spaces' came second in Seevic, which is in line with the fact that 'Green Spaces' was the largest category for Q15. However, 'Rubbish / Bins' only received 13%, meaning that this category may have been slightly over-represented in Q15. Similarly, Palmer's largest categories also match results from Q12, where 'Buildings' was the second largest category, which includes more specific issues which were highlighted in Q15, primarily 'Heating' and 'Painting the Walls'. This is consistent with the results from Q12.
Overall Conclusion
Overall, the survey was successful at demonstrating what the students at USP want the college to do about sustainability. For the most part, results were consistent with each other and the data collected will be useful in pinpointing specifically what the college should do next to improve its sustainability even further.
The main priorities are:
The college should improve teaching about climate change and its impacts within the college (see Q13). For example, for Green Week (currently scheduled for June) the college could run tutorial sessions relating to this issue. Currently, roughly 50% of the college feel they do not know enough about the issues surrounding climate change, so educating all students on these issues is very important.
The other main issue for the college as a whole is reducing waste with learning resources, especially with the printers. This was a major category for Q13 and is a very achievable goal, since it primarily involves changing the habits of both students and staff to be less-wasteful of paper, ink e.t.c.
For Palmer's campus, there should be a priority on making some of the older buildings more sustainable and improving them in general (see Q12, Q15). Issues such as heating and even painting the walls came up a lot for Palmer's responders, showing how students feel that the college could improve the premises. Also, from the data, it has been shown that Palmers responders are more likely to not know about the impacts of climate change and in general be less sure than their Seevic counterparts (see Q13, Q14), meaning that Palmer's campus should also prioritise education.
For Seevic campus, there should be a priority in improving the rubbish collection and separation as well as the bins in classrooms, encouraging more-sustainable practices within the college – this was the most second-most popular option for Q15, and also somewhat popular in Q13, as well as being an achievable goal.
Thank you to the staff at USP, the Student Union and the EPAS team for helping with this project and thank you to all the people at USP College who participated in this survey! Next month, these issues will be brought forward to the college and, hopefully, we will hear what the college will do to improve sustainability.
Comentários