1 / 65

BY SHAH PARITA SURESHCHANDRA

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

hedva
Download Presentation

BY SHAH PARITA SURESHCHANDRA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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”

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT IN KENYAN CONTEXT • Annually – initial audit + follow ups • External auditor/self • Education – EMCA -Schedule 2, Section F • Overall follow up of audits – poor

  6. STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM • Is EA a tool of resource conservation? • Is EA done yearly? • Is Syllabi more environmental oriented?

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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, Theriveland Chadwick 2005) – Some audits-“best practice” models.

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. NEMA • Kenya’s educational institutions - 56,679 registered • Mwangi (2008) - Initial EA done by few –

  16. 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

  17. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK UTILIZATION OF KEY INPUTS IN SCHOOLS e.g. Paper Water Electricity (The way inputs are used can cause environmental problems.) Reduced costs for schools ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS High costs of electricity Generation of waste paper Generation of waste water Air pollution Excessive use of non-renewable resources like petrol 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

  18. DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT SITE Location Direction from city centre Size – physical Function Neighbourhood OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL

  19. MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE SCHOOL OSHWAL ACADEMY PR.

  20. School’s appearance The School’s old block The school’s new block

  21. 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

  22. The School Lay Out Special Education A classroom Library for years 1, 2 and 3 A computer lab

  23. The School Lay Out The Swimming Pool The School field - Athletics Play area for Reception class The full view of the School field

  24. Sanitary Facilities

  25. 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

  26. Data Collection • Students – Simple random – hat method • Staff - Simple random – hat method • Neighbours - systematic random – evry 5th house

  27. Primary Data • Student responses • Staff responses • Neighbourhood responses • Measurements and recordings • Camera • Observation – burning vegetation, protective clothing, traffic • Water quality testing Questionnaires

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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)

  31. 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

  32. Data Processing • Checking all questionnaires • Closed ended compiled in their list • Open ended compiled according to categories

  33. 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

  34. 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).

  35. Limitations • Limited to one area • Screening and control of collected data • Most measurements at nominal level- use of non-parametric tests.

  36. FINDINGS • This was done in areas of • Water • Electricity • Paper • Safety and security • Transport • Emergency preparedness

  37. 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

  38. Monday Tuesday Water wastage for all five days Wednesday Thursday Friday

  39. Gender and class cross tabulation – females more playful More Water Wastage Findings

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. Water Test Results

  43. Electricity • 60 computers + old version • Incoming natural light in class– 74.2% (23/31) • Generator + diesel • Energy conservation

  44. Energy Conservation • Records of lights off – break, lunch after school (questionnaire, observation) . Lights on when children not there

  45. 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

  46. Awareness Creation Conservation label in a class Thus students should be encouraged to join the environmental club.

  47. Future Action Solar Power

  48. Paper • Paper wastage high • Results since 2005 NB. Two scale graph used to get good comparison.

More Related