behaviour change and influences on behaviour€¦ · more likely to be male, ... placing them with...
TRANSCRIPT
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 77
The 2005 evaluation of the Who Cares? research series
identified a need to provide more detailed analysis of the
quantitative results to help inform policy and programs.
Additional analysis of the quantitative survey data from
1994-2006 using multivariate analysis techniques has
identified clusters of pro-environmental behaviours
(groups of behaviours likely to be done by the same
person). These clusters formed three behaviour types
or dimensions as follows:
Household – behaviours in the private household domain
eg reducing water or energy use, recycling, avoiding
stormwater pollution, not putting oil etc down the sink.
Green purchasing – behaviours in the commercial
domain, relating to shopping eg choosing better
household products, avoiding packaging, avoiding
plastic bags for shopping, re-using things.
Environmental citizenship – behaviours in the public
domain eg participating in development issues, Landcare
or other restoration projects, encouraging someone else
to change an environmentally harmful activity.
Using the quantitative data, these behaviour
dimensions were used to identify segments in the
population for the 2006 survey. These segments based
on behaviour were then found to differ on a number
of other measures in the survey. The segments and
their characteristics are shown below, along with the
equivalent segment from the qualitative research(a).
Committeds report the most frequent and diverse
range of pro-environmental behaviours and Reluctants
the least. Concern about environmental problems and
environmental knowledge increases with the level
of commitment to pro-environmental behaviour but
differences in concern are much greater than differences
in knowledge, suggesting that behaviours are more
strongly related to environmental concern than to
knowledge. There are also substantial differences between
the segments’ endorsement of pro-environmental views
in a series of attitude statements and their expectations
of action by various community sectors. Endorsement
of pro-environmental views, and expectations that all
sectors need to do more to protect the environment,
increase with the extent of pro-environmental behaviour,
from Reluctants to Committeds.
Segment %*SEGMENT PROFILE Qualitative
SegmentBehaviours Other measures Demographics**
Committeds 17 High on all three types
of behaviour
High concern, moderate
knowledge, dominantly
pro-environmental views,
highest expectation for
all community sectors to
do more
More likely to be male,
to live in rural areas or
small country towns,
have a degree, be from
middle age groups
(35-64) & have children
Strongs
Middles 18 Intermediate between
Committed and Reluctants
on all three types of
behaviours
Moderate (with some variations)
on concern, knowledge, level
of pro-environmental views
and expectation that various
community sectors should do
more to protect the environment
More likely to be female,
have a degree or other
post-school qualification,
have children Moderates
Privates 33 High on green purchasing
& household behaviours
but low on citizenship
More likely to be female,
older (55+), have children
Reluctants 27 Low on green purchasing
and citizenship but do some
in-household behaviours
Low concern, low-moderate
knowledge, borderline
pro-environmental/mixed
views, lowest expectation that
all sectors should do more
More likely to be male,
younger (15-34), NESB,
not have children
Limiteds
* % of the survey sample** All demographic characteristics are represented in all segments – these were significantly more often found in the segments shown.
Snapshot
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOUR4.1 Secondary analysis of the survey
(a) See end notes p85
78 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Introduction
Most of the environmental problems faced today have,
at their roots, the actions taken by individuals in their
everyday lives. While business, institutions and governments
play an important role in environmental impacts and
management, individual decisions at home or at work
within these organisations about what to buy, what
to throw away, how to travel and how to live, when
aggregated across cities and nations, significantly impact
environmental quality experienced now and in the future.
Individual behaviours that contribute to improving
environmental quality, the so-called pro-environmental behaviours, are generally well recognised among the
public and governments alike. The maintenance and
improvement of environmental quality depends upon a
substantial proportion of the population adopting these
behaviours. As unanticipated environmental problems
emerge, new pro environmental behaviours need to be
devised, publicised and adopted across business,
government and households.
However, not everyone is necessarily able to follow all
the pro-environmental behaviours that are needed. For a
range of reasons, some behaviours will be easier or more
appealing for some people and more difficult for others.
The patterns over time in who is doing what with respect
to pro-environmental behaviours are important – both to
future environmental quality, and to understand how to
encourage wider adoption of these behaviours.
The Who Cares about the Environment 2006 survey
provides an opportunity to:
examine the patterns of pro-environmental behaviours
among the New South Wales population
consider how these resemble or differ from those found
in other studies
identify segments (groups of like people based
on specific characteristics) based on differences in
adoption of the behaviour patterns
find what might explain the patterns and segments and
consider the implications for environmental policy,
programs and education.
While the bulk of this report essentially describes the
survey results, the analyses reported in this section involve
more interpretation of the data, speculation about what
might be causing the patterns that are identified, and brief
indications of relevance to policy, programs and education.
•
•
•
•
•
Behaviour dimensions
Behaviour patterns in recent
published research
A 2000 review of developments in research into
pro-environmental behaviour(b) noted that there had
been a tendency to treat pro-environmental behaviour
as a single one-dimensional class of behaviour. It argued
that extensive empirical research has clearly shown
there are a number of different types of pro-environmental
behaviour, each with its own causal factors.(c) Other
research has pointed toward similar conclusions.(d)
The first step towards defining and understanding these
causal relationships is to identify ways of classifying the
behaviours into different types, and then to consider how
different groups of people might be distinguished by the
extent to which they practice each type of behaviour.
Based on the results of the research already cited, the
wide range of possible pro-environmental behaviours
can be conveniently classified according to the type
of environmental issue they address, and where the
behaviour might fit into people’s lives. This classification
is shown in Table 9.
The table is a synthesis of a number of the classifications
proposed in the material reviewed but uses examples
covered by the behaviour questions in the Who Cares?
survey. It identifies examples of pro-environmental
behaviours classified by the environmental issue that
particular behaviour addresses, and the social setting where
the behaviour tends to be adopted – by the general
public outside their homes, by people acting inside the
privacy of their homes, or by people acting in commercial
roles in businesses or where they are employed.
The sub-classification across the top of the table under
the settings reflects groups of behaviours that tend to
be correlated. For example, if a person engages in one of
the citizenship behaviours, for example providing input
to a council meeting, then they are more likely to also be
engaging in other citizenship behaviours than a person
who has never provided input to a council meeting. Such
correlation of behaviours suggests there may be a common
factor that leads to a person engaging in a number of
behaviours within a particular behaviour type. For example,
a belief that existing processes do not lead to effective
environmental policies may lie behind participation in
a range of activist pro-environmental behaviours.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 79
4.1 Secondary analysis of the survey
TABLE 9. A CLASSIFICATION OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOURS
Public Private Commercial
Activism Citizenship Policy support Household Purchasing
Re
sou
rce
co
nse
rva
tio
n
Energy Buy green electricity Reduce energy
consumption
Buy energy efficient
appliances
Materials Reuse something
instead of throwing
away
Avoid packaging
Water Encourage
neighbour to
reduce water use
Comply with
water restrictions
Reduce water
consumption
Buy efficient shower
heads
Biodiversity Participate in
forest blockade
Participate in public
tree planting activity
Refuse plastic
shopping bags
Em
issi
on
s re
du
cti
on
CO2 Participate in
greenhouse rally
Find out about
climate change
and its causes
Use public transport Reduce
electricity use
Buy energy efficient
light globes
Air pollution Use public transport Reduce
vehicle use
Buy smaller/more
fuel efficient car
or hybrid vehicle
Noise
pollution
Provide input to local
council meeting
Avoid noisy activities
Water
pollution
Participate in
local catchment
committee
Avoid polluting
stormwater
Buy biodegradable
detergent
Solid waste
– non-organic
Separate solid
waste for kerb
side collection
Re-use instead
of throwing away
Avoid products with
excess packaging
Solid waste
– organic
Lobby local council
to establish regional
composting facility
Obtain information
on composting
Home composting
Hazardous
materials
Stage street theatre
at gates of a nuclear
reactor
Write a letter of
complaint about
asbestos in roofing
of local school
In Table 9 the examples of behaviours for citizenship, policy
support, household and purchasing are covered either
specifically or at a general level by the behaviour items in
the 2006 Who Cares? survey. However, as the survey does
not include behaviours that would be classified ‘activist’,
other examples are included for illustrative purposes.
While there are many possible pro-environmental
behaviours, those being promoted at a particular time
and place may represent a relatively restricted selection
from all possible behaviours. The nature of the selection
might reflect geography, resource scarcity or recent
policy initiatives. For example, countries with abundant
hydroelectric power may have less emphasis on energy
conservation than countries dependent on imported coal
for power generation. The pro-environmental behaviours
relevant to New South Wales reflect its temperate climate,
relatively low rainfall by global standards, and the water
conservation, land degradation, waste, air pollution and
transport issues that have been the subject of policy
debate in recent decades.
80 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Behaviour patterns in Who Cares? survey data
Fifteen environmentally friendly behaviours are assessed
in the 2006 Who Cares survey, either by asking people
to rate how often they have engaged in the behaviour
in the past 12 months (10 items – see Figure 30), or by
simply asking whether it has been done in the past 12
months (five items, see Figure 33). While the difference
in question formats limits direct comparisons of how
widely the actions are performed, it is possible to
analyse differences between people in their answers
to the behavioural items to test how the items group
together. Applying several such statistical techniques
produces correlations (statistical relationships) between
behaviours that form identifiable clusters which suggests
at least two of the types of behaviour identified in the
table above – purchasing and citizenship – are present
in the NSW population in 2006. The position of the
household behaviours is less clear, with some techniques
suggesting that the way people have answered makes
these behaviours a separate group, and other techniques
placing them with the purchasing type.
The behaviour items strongly associated with
purchasing are:
Avoided products with lots of packaging when doing
the shopping
Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home
Decided for environmental reasons to re-use something
rather than throwing it away
Chosen household products that you think are better
for the environment
Made an effort for environmental reasons to reduce
water consumption.
The items strongly associated with citizenship are:
Participated in local development or environmental
issues with the aim of protecting or improving the
environment, for example by writing a letter, attending
a meeting, making a report or complaint or being on
a committee
Tried to get information on some topic that you
thought was relevant to protecting the environment
Took part in a Landcare, Bushcare, treeplanting or
other restoration project
Tried to encourage someone else to change an
activity or practice that you thought was harmful to
the environment.
Some of the 15 behavioural items in the 2006
Who Cares? survey are only weakly associated with the
two behaviour types above, or form a third group of
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
behaviours that could not be readily interpreted as a
behaviour type. This is to be expected when the set
of behaviour items being analysed does not cover all
possible behaviours.
The pro-environmental behaviours grouped within a
behaviour type are relatively strongly correlated with each
other, but only weakly or not correlated with behaviours in
another behaviour type. For example, within the citizenship
behaviour type, ‘Participated in local development...’ is
strongly correlated with ‘Tried to get information...’. Those
who said they participated in local development and
environmental issues were two and a quarter times more
likely to also say that they had tried to get information on an
environmental topic, compared to those who said they had
not participated in development or environmental issues.
However, the relationship between ‘participated in
local development...’ and ‘avoided plastic bags to carry
shopping home’ is much weaker. Those who said they
participated in local development and environmental
issues were only one and a quarter times more likely to
also say that they had avoided plastic shopping bags,
compared to those who said they had not participated
in development or environmental issues.
The question then arises whether such groupings of
behaviours emerge with any consistency over the
different Who Cares? surveys conducted triennially since
1994. Based on the behavioural items that showed strong
correlations, the groupings in Table 10 could be discerned,
survey by survey.
Citizenship and purchasing behaviours have been
identifiable in all surveys as separate behaviour types,
provided the individual behaviours that make up
these types were included in the survey. For example,
in 1994 there was only one purchasing item (Chosen environmental products that your think are better for the environment), so the strongest correlation among
behavioural items in 1994 was between that purchasing
item and ‘Decided for environmental reasons to re-use
or recycle something instead of throwing it away’.
In the 1997 and 2000 surveys, the pattern of responses
to the behavioural items point to the possibility of a third
behaviour type – household behaviour with respect to
disposing of inappropriate materials in wastewater or
stormwater. This household behaviour was not strongly
correlated with either citizenship or purchasing behaviour,
which suggests that uptake of the wastewater and
stormwater behaviours is unrelated to existing pro-
environmental behaviours. Also, water and energy
conservation appeared as a possible behaviour type in 2003.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 81
4.1 Secondary analysis of the survey
TABLE 10. TYPES OF BEHAVIOUR EVIDENT IN
SUCCESSIVE WHO CARES? SURVEYS
Survey Year
Types of behaviour suggestedby correlations between items
2006 Purchasing, Citizenship
2003 Purchasing, Citizenship, Household – water, energy
2000 Purchasing, Citizenship,Household – wastewater, stormwater
1997 Purchasing, Citizenship, Household –wastewater, stormwater
1994 Purchasing, Citizenship
Some care is required in interpreting these findings,
because the apparent behaviour types that appeared
in 1997, 2000 and 2003 are based on the correlations
between a small number of behaviour items and
respondents’ perception of the social acceptability
of giving particular responses(e).
Community segments
Having established there is some consistency in how
the behaviours group together (forming behaviour types),
the next thing to consider is whether there are distinct
groupings of people that can be identified by the extent
to which they engage in each of the behaviour types.
Any segmentation will depend on the data items included
and the particular sample that provided the data. Random
variation between samples can also change the results of
a segmentation analysis, even when the same items are
used and similar sampling procedures are followed.
The simplest result would be that people could be
arranged along a single dimension, from those who do
the fewest pro-environmental behaviours, to those who
do the most. However, the emergence of different
behaviour types in a segmentation suggests that the
population includes some individuals who do not just
engage in different levels of the behaviours, but show
specialised patterns in the behaviours they adopt or
reject. For example, some people may rarely engage in
citizenship behaviours, but frequently engage in purchasing
behaviours. Others may do just the opposite. The number
of patterns of behaviour and how distinct they are from
each other determines whether the totality of behaviours
in population is naturally clustered with respect to a small
number of patterns of behaviour, or spread fairly uniformly
across all possible patterns of behaviour.
For this analysis three behaviour types were chosen to
distinguish segments: citizenship behaviours, purchasing
behaviours and within household behaviours(f ). These
types are selected on the basis of the patterns emerging
from all the Who Cares? surveys and the relevant literature
although, possibly due to some of the measurement issues
already discussed, they did not emerge as fully distinct
factors in analysis of the Who Cares? 2006 survey data.
Analysis of these item combinations identified four somewhat
distinct segments within the population. The behaviour
profile for each segment is shown in Figure 39. This shows
the extent to which those in each segment have said they
undertake the behaviours of each behaviour type:
Committeds (17% of the population) – this group tends
to have a high score on all three types of behaviour
Middles (18% of the population) – this group tends to
be intermediate between Committeds and Reluctants
on all three types of behaviour
Privates (33% of the population) – this group is quite
high in environmentally friendly purchasing and
household behaviour, but low on citizenship behaviours
Reluctants (27% of the population) – this group tends
to have a low score on all three types of behaviour, but
does engage in some within-household behaviours.
•
•
•
•
Household Purchasing Citizenship
Reluctants Privates Middles Committeds0
Mea
n St
anda
rdsi
sed
Scor
es
0.66
0.22
0.820.76
0.82
0.5
0.820.88
0.850.8
0.13
0.34
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
FIGURE 39: DEFINING THE BEHAVIOUR SEGMENTS
Note: Behaviours in the survey were asked either using a frequency measure or a yes/no measure. Those with a frequency measure are scored 1-5, the others are scored 1 (for Yes) or 0 (for No). To enable comparison, the values shown have been standardised to scores between 0 and 1.
82 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
There is also a very small segment (5%) that tends to be
non-committal when asked about the environmentally
friendly behaviours – they are likely to say they don’t
know or are not sure whether or how often they do
the behaviours.
The segments identified from the survey are distinctly
different – not only on the environmentally friendly
behaviours they adopt, and how much they engage
in them, but also in a number of other ways that are
shown in the tables.
The proportion of respondents who are concerned a great
deal, and of respondents who know more, increases with
the level of commitment to environmentally friendly
behaviour (Table 11). However, the difference in level of
concern is much greater than the difference in knowledge,
suggesting that differences in behaviour are more related
to attitudes than to knowledge (although this analysis is
based on a limited number of knowledge questions
available in the survey). This may be partly because those
who behave in distinctly different ways develop attitudes
that are consistent with their behaviour, rather than the
attitudes causing them to behave in different ways.
However, the data in this table suggest that strategies that
seek to encourage pro- environmental behaviour need
to consider the range of factors influencing pro-
environmental behaviour in addition to knowledge.
Of those who believe particular sectors should do a lot
more to protect the environment, there is a consistent
pattern for the proportion that think all sectors should
be doing a lot more to be lowest for the Reluctants
and highest for the Committeds (Table 12). Privates and
Middles lie between for all sectors but in a less regular
pattern. By contrast, the belief that farmers need to do
a lot more is relatively low in all segments.
The qualitative research found all segments thought that
governments and industry were not doing enough, and
were not showing real commitment to achieving
substantial outcomes. While these views are prevalent in
all the behavioural segments, there is a clear gradation that
aligns with the level and breadth of engagement with
pro-environmental behaviour. However, as also emerged
in the qualitative research, it is the most committed segment
that is more likely than others to believe individuals and
households are also not doing enough. Indeed, the
Committeds are more likely to think that even environmental
groups and organisations need to do a lot more.
TABLE 11. SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND KNOWLEDGE
General concern about the environmentReluctants
n=406%
Privatesn=597
%
Middlesn=309
%
Committedsn=327
%
A great deal 18 27 39 67
Not concerned 20 15 9 4
Knowledge of environmental issues
High (4-5 correct) 8 10 12 18
Moderate (2-3 correct) 61 60 59 61
Low (0-1 correct) 31 31 29 21
TABLE 12. SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP BY SAYING GROUPS NEED TO DO A LOT MORE
Saying groups need to do “a lot more”Reluctants
n=406%
Privatesn=597
%
Middlesn=309
%
Committed n=327
%
Commonwealth government 45 55 54 81
State government 42 52 48 62
Local councils 33 41 35 48
Manufacturing industry 36 43 48 53
Retailers 22 29 28 40
Individuals and households 45 46 47 56
Farmers 15 17 22 26
Community environmental organisations and groups 12 15 10 18
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 83
4.1 Secondary analysis of the survey
TABLE 13. SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP BY ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION (NEP SCORE)
NEP scaleReluctants
n=406%
Privatesn=597
%
Middlesn=309
%
Committed n=327
%
Strongly pro-environmental (40-45) 10 15 23 31
Mostly pro-environmental (35-39) 29 34 31 33
Borderline pro-environmental (30-34) 36 37 34 27
Unsure or mixed views (25-29) 18 11 9 9
Anti-environmental (<25) 7 4 3 <0.5
There is a substantial relationship between behavioural
segment and endorsement of pro-environmental views
(Table 13). Two-thirds of the Committeds hold mostly
or strongly pro-environmental views while almost two-
thirds of the Reluctants hold borderline, mixed/unsure/or
anti-environmental views. However, the dominance
of pro-environmental views is evident. Even among
the Reluctant segment, relatively few outright reject
pro-environmental views (7%). At the same time, about
one-third of the Committeds have mixed (9%) or borderline
(27%) views. While beliefs and attitudes are related to
behaviour, the relationship is not perfect. These NEP
results confirm and extend the qualitative findings.
There is a clear relationship between behavioural segment
and the proportion of respondents who think that if we
continue to live as we currently do now the future health
of the environment will decline, stay the same or improve
(Table 14, question from extension survey). Those who
think it will decline seriously increases with the level of
engagement in pro-environmental behaviours and those
who think it will stay the same or improve decreases with
the level of engagement in pro-environmental behaviours.
Similar findings emerged from the qualitative research, with
‘environmentally strong’ participants predicting immediate
and ongoing serious consequences for human society and
‘environmentally limited’ participants predicting less specific
and severe consequences, affecting future rather than
current generations.
In summary, as would be expected, the segments
differ sharply in how concerned they are about the
environment and how they see the future environment
for NSW. Many in each segment believe State and
Commonwealth Governments and business should
do more, but this increases sharply as commitment
to environmentally friendly behaviour increases.
Committeds are the only segment in which a majority
believe individuals and households should do a lot
more. Thus the most committed put more emphasis
on individual responsibility than the other groups.
TABLE 14. SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP BY VIEWS ON THE FUTURE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN NSW
If we continue to live as we currently do now,the health of the environment in NSW will:
Reluctants n=406
%
Privates n=597
%
Middles n=309
%
Committeds n=327
%
Improve 9 8 5 2
Stay the same 19 14 13 5
Decline moderately 48 51 50 52
Decline seriously 21 27 32 40
84 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Several features of the results, when compared to other
studies identifying population segments according to
environmental orientation, are suggestive. These include:
The patterns of relationship between individual
behaviours shift and change over time and with the
choice of behaviours included in a particular study.
At least in the Who Cares? 2006 data, specific behaviours
vary in ways that show some relationship to other
specific behaviours, but the patterns of behaviour are
not very strong, nor are the identified segments able
to account for a large proportion of the variability in
specific behaviours.
Segments identified in different studies vary in the
adoption of environmentally friendly behaviour, with
one or more segments showing relatively low levels.
of adoption, and others showing relatively high levels
However, a variety of intermediate segments emerge,
but these show different patterns of behaviour in
different studies.
These observations might be consistent with a simple
explanatory model that views adoption of a behaviour
as a trade-off between its degree of difficulty, and the
individual’s level of concern about or commitment to the
environment as a cause. Those with minimal concern and
commitment adopt only the easiest behaviours, or those
that are in some way compulsory. Those who are intensely
concerned and committed engage in a wide range of
pro-environmental behaviours with a high frequency.
The specificity of particular behaviours is then produced
•
•
•
•
by differences in personal circumstances that affect
the difficulty of the behaviour. One obvious example
that emerged in the qualitative research is that sorting
household waste for recycling is very much easier for
people in localities where households are supplied with
different rubbish bins for collection and recycling, and
much more difficult for those who have to set up their
own means of separating recyclable waste, and take
it to collection points. Another example might be the
variation by location and dwelling type in whether
people compost.
Difficulty of adoption is also likely to be a matter of
individual judgement. What one person might see as
onerous, another might consider relatively easy. This
might explain why differences in adopting pro-
environmental shopping behaviour, or controlling
what waste enters drains and stormwater, is not more
consistently related to other in-household pro-
environmental behaviour.
Such differences in circumstances and perceptions
of difficulty can explain why the adoption of pro-
environmental behaviour does not follow a simple, ladder-
like, progression from the most widely adopted (and
thus easiest) to the least widely adopted (and hardest).
Personal circumstances and assessments alter cases.
This in turn has a number of implications for
implementating policies and strategies intended to
encourage wider adoption of pro-environmental
behaviours, which is further discussed in Section 4.3.
Explaining the patterns
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 85
4.1 Secondary analysis of the survey
Gender
More men than women fall into the Reluctants
segment (33% compared to 22%).
More women than men fall into the Privates
segment (40% compared to 27%).
Age
Younger people (15-34) are more likely to be
Reluctant (33-43% compared to 18-21% aged 35-55).
Young people (15-24) are less likely to be Privates
(22% compared to 32-40%), while older people (55+)
are more likely to fall into this segment (39-40%) than
those aged 45-54 (32%).
Younger people (under 35) and older people (65+)
are less likely to be Committeds than those in the
middle age groups (35-64) (9-12% compared to 19-26%).
Education
People with a post-school qualification are more
likely to be Middles (18-21% compared to 13-16%).
People with a degree are more likely to be
Committeds (22% compared to 13-15%).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location
Those living in rural locations are less likely to be
Reluctants (16% compared to 25-30%).
Those living in rural areas or small towns are more
likely than others to be Committeds (24-30%
compared to 11-17%).
Those living in the Hunter/Illawarra and large towns
are the least likely to be Committeds (11-12%
compared to 17-30%).
Language
Those of NESB are more likely than other to be
Reluctants (45% compared to 26%), and less likely to
be Privates (23% compared to 34%) or Committeds
(8% compared to 17%). They are also more likely to be
noncommittal and hence not classified (12% compared
to 4%).
Children
People with children are less likely to be Reluctants
(21% compared to 37%), and are more likely to be
found in each of the other segments, including the
Committeds (19% compared to 13% of those
without children)
•
•
•
•
•
ENDNOTES(a) While the questions used to recruit people for the qualiative focus
groups were broader and included interest in and acknowledge about the environment, as well as behaviours, there is still a high degree of overlap between the segments as shown.
(b) Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407.
(c) Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., and Elworth, J. T. 1985. Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 3-21. Bratt, C. 1999. Consumers’ environmental behaviour: Generalized, sector-based, or compensatory? Environment and Behaviour 31:28-44. Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., and Guagnano, G. A. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behaviour 30: 450-471. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., and Kalof, L. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review 6:81-97.
(d) Barr, S. Gilg, A.W. and Ford, N.J. 2001. Differences between household waste reduction, reuse and recycling behaviours: a study of reported behaviours, intentions and explanatory variables. Environmental and Waste Management 4(2): 68-82. Barr, S. and Shaw, G. 2006. Understanding and promoting behaviour change using lifestyle groups. Paper presented at Can We Change a Rubbish Habit. International Conference on the Social Context of Household Waste Management. Winchester, Hampshire. 29 June 2006. Project Integra, The Open University and Resource Recovery Forum. Kuribayashi, A. and Aoyagi-Usui, M. 1998. Pro environmental attitudes and behaviour. A comparison of Thailand and Japan. NLI Research 122: 34-46. Levy-Leboyer, C., Bonnes, M., Chase, J.,
Ferreira-Marques, J. and Pawlik, K. 1996. Determinants of pro environmental behaviours: A five-countries comparison. European Psychologist, 1(2): 123-129.
(e) To the extent that community education programs on appropriate wastewater and stormwater behaviours in the mid- and late 1990s appealed more to social responsibility than to environmental responsibility, the emergence of the correlation between appropriate wastewater and stormwater behaviours may reflect awareness of social expectations about these behaviours. However, as both items concern water that is directed away from where people live, either to the sewerage system or surface drainage, there might be some tendency for the answers to be similar simply because the questions are somewhat alike. These household behaviours were not strongly correlated with either citizenship or purchasing behaviour, which suggests that uptake of the wastewater and stormwater behaviours may not be related to existing pro-environmental behaviours. In addition, correlations between particular behaviour items in a single survey is possibly an ephemeral measurement artefact. This may be the case for the household water and energy conservation correlation in 2003.
(f) It is possible that the analysis of types of behaviour in 2006 is affected by the mixture of behavioural items across two response categories (‘Yes’, ‘No’) and four response categories (‘Often done that’ through to ‘Never done that’). To reduce the possible impact of this difference on the outcomes of the analysis, types of behaviour were represented by the combined scores on groupsof behavioural items that resembled the behaviour types reported in the literature, rather than by using more formalised statistical methods to identify item groupings.
Demographic highlightsSegment profiles
86 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
General
Normalised behaviours (ie behaviours considered
‘normal’ within a peer/social group) are more likely
to be adopted and become habitual irrespective
of environmental benefit. As behaviour becomes
normalised for a group, social pressure to adopt
it increases. Normalised behaviours varied
considerably for each segment, as outlined below.
The likelihood of adopting a pro-environmental
behaviour is influenced by the magnitude of change
required and the extent to which existing behaviours
are entrenched.
Strongs
Values: Inherently altruistic toward the environment;
aspirational; a sense of personal responsibility.
Motivations: An understanding of environmental
problems, a sense of personal responsibility and a
belief that individuals can create change if all people
contribute (despite regarding industry as the main
cause of problems).
Barriers: Limited barriers – environmental benefit
almost always outweighs concern about personal
inconvenience (eg cost, unpleasantness and
inconvenience) of pro-environmental behaviour.
Environmental knowledge: Actively seek information on
the cause and consequences of environmental damage.
Awareness of pro-environmental behaviours: Aware
of a wide range of behaviours and their effectiveness
in protecting the environment.
Normalised behaviours: as for other groups plus more
pro-active behaviours eg rainwater tanks, green
purchasing, composting, reducing fuel consumption
and environmental activism.
Moderates
Values: Not inherently altruistic toward the environment;
increasing social pressure to be environmentally aware
creates a sense of obligation to engage in some form of
pro-environmental behaviour.
Motivations: More strongly motivated by personal
benefit, such as cost and health, than environmental
concern or perceived environmental benefits.
•
•
Barriers: Financial cost and/or practical inconvenience
of behaviours. Limited personal responsibility due to
scepticism about the effectiveness of individual actions
and a belief that industry is the principal contributor
to environmental problems.
Environmental knowledge: Many have an appreciation
of the significance of global environmental problems.
Awareness of pro-environmental behaviours: Moderate
awareness of the range of behaviours and limited
understanding of and confusion about their effectiveness
in protecting the environment. For many, awareness of
behaviour is gained through promotional campaigns.
Normalised behaviours: eg recycling, avoiding plastic
bags, washing cars on the lawn, and conserving
electricity. Adoption influenced by peer pressure –
more likely to be practised when in the sight of others.
Limiteds
Values: Environment is not considered in their day-to-
day lives – other personal priorities predominated
(eg financial issues, family and work concerns).
Motivations: Personal benefit (eg financial cost or
health) of pro-environmental activities and/or legal
requirements (eg water restrictions).
Barriers: Sceptical about effectiveness of individual action.
Often deterred by ‘green’ associations of some activities
(perceived as ‘extreme’), but engage in normalised
pro-environmental activities that have lost their ‘green’
associations (eg litter clean-up). Doubt about the
effectiveness of one behaviour leads to doubt about others.
Environmental knowledge: Limited awareness of
environmental issues, understanding of environmental
terminology and more complex environmental concepts
– all act as barriers to pro-environmental behaviour.
Awareness of pro-environmental behaviours: Limited
awareness of range of behaviours and understanding
of their effectiveness in protecting the environment.
Normalised behaviours: Tend to be associated with more
directly observable environmental issues or those relating
to personal experience, such as those with immediate
aesthetic, health, financial, or legal implications eg littering,
water restrictions and recycling. Adoption influenced by
peer pressure – more likely to be practised when in the
sight of others.
Snapshot
4.2 Findings from the qualitative research
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOUR
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 87
An important objective of the qualitative research (see
Appendix A for methodology) was to explore, more deeply
than is possible in the quantitative survey, the influences
on and drivers and barriers for pro-environmental behaviour.
The study was conducted in focus groups segmented
on the basis of participants’ expressed interest in the
environment and their level of pro-environmental
behaviours and revealed a number of influences on those
behaviours, including underlying values and aspirations,
as well as a range of knowledge, attitudinal and practical
drivers and barriers.
The segments represented by the focus groups were:
the ‘environmentally Limited’, with low levels of interest
in the environment and limited range of behaviours, the
‘environmentally Strong’ with high levels of interest in the
environment and strong reported knowledge and level
of pro-environmental behaviours, and the ‘environmentally
Moderate’ comprising those who fell between the Strongs
and the Limiteds. This segmentation reflects the fact
that most of the community exhibits some environmental
knowledge and positive attitudes and behaviour, although
the extent of this varies widely and there is a small group
who exhibit anti-environmental attitudes and behaviour.
As noted in Chapter 2, the segmentation used in this
study is a simplified classification used to explore and
illustrate behavioural characteristics. This segmentation
was introduced for the first time in 2006 for the qualitative
component of the Who Cares? research.
The influence of values on behaviour
Strongs
The Strongs tend to be altruistic and aspirational toward
the environment. They appear to be motivated to both
understand the environmental problems facing the
world and play a part in overcoming them. Consequently,
the Strongs make it their business to understand and
be involved in addressing environmental issues. They
actively seek information on the causes and potential
consequences of environmental damage and they feel
a personal responsibility for contributing to addressing
these problems.
For the Strongs, environmental benefit almost always
outweighs any concern about personal inconvenience
of pro-environmental behaviour. Consequently, they
are prepared to engage in behaviours that are costly,
inconvenient, and even unpleasant: behaviours that
neither the Limiteds nor Moderates would consider.
This includes behaviours such as activism, designing and
building environmentally friendly houses and extreme
means of conserving water.
Moderates
The Moderates appear to not be as inherently altruistic
toward the environment. While they appreciate the
significance of global environmental concerns, they tend
to defer personal responsibility for helping to deal with
these issues, by attributing blame to industry first and
foremost, and by expressing scepticism about the ability of
individual behaviour to make any significant impact on the
environment. The Moderates thus tend to be more strongly
motivated by the personal benefits of pro-environmental
behaviour than environmental concern, and hence most
likely to engage in behaviours that have obvious personal
benefits, such as water and energy conservation.
Yet many Moderates are conscious of the growing
salience of environmental issues, and feel increasing
social pressure to be at least environmentally aware.
Consequently, many feel a sense of obligation to engage
in some forms of pro-environmental behaviour that do
not have obvious personal benefits, such as recycling,
planting natives, not pouring oil down the drain, and
avoiding plastic bags. Unlike the Strongs, however,
this sense of obligation is both finite and conditional,
extending only as far as pro-environmental behaviours
that do not involve “significant” personal cost.
Limiteds
Concern about the environment very rarely motivates
pro-environmental behaviour for Limiteds. They
emphasise other more pertinent “grassroots” priorities
(eg financial issues, family and work concerns). The
environment is simply not a consideration in their day-
to-day lives. The Limiteds are not particularly concerned
about environmental issues, and are to some extent
disapproving about being overly concerned with ‘green’
ideas or engaging in ‘green’ behaviour. As a result, they
tend only to engage in behaviours that either have
personal benefits or are enforced, such as energy and
water conservation.
4.2 Findings from the qualitative research
88 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Drivers and barriers to adopting
specific behaviours
In addition to their underlying values and attitudes,
whether people are inclined to adopt specific pro-
environmental behaviours is influenced by a number
of drivers and barriers that assume varying significance
for participants in the three segments.
Awareness and understanding
The likelihood of adopting specific behaviours is inevitably
influenced by awareness of those behaviours. The Strongs
tend to be aware of a broad range of pro-environmental
behaviours, and are better informed about how they work,
and the ways in which they benefit the environment.
By contrast, the Moderates and Limiteds are both less
aware of the range of environmental behaviours, and
less certain of their effectiveness. There are several forms
of pro-environmental behaviour that the Limiteds in
particular have either not previously considered or regard
their claimed environmental benefit as a marketing ploy,
such as buying environmentally friendly products or
avoiding products with heavy packaging.
There is evidence to suggest that Moderates become
aware of some behaviours through publicity encouraged
uptake. For example, several claim promotional campaigns
have motivated them to take part in events such as
tree-plantings and Clean Up Australia Day, and to use
environmentally friendly products like ‘green’ shopping
bags or carry bags.
It should also be noted that Limiteds’ narrow awareness of
environmental issues, and their difficulty in understanding
terminologies and the more complex environmental
concepts (eg global warming) also act as a barrier to any
consideration of behavioural change.
Rational considerations
Perceived environmental benefits: will it make a difference?Concern about the environment does not necessarily
translate into motivation to act on that concern by engaging
pro-environmental behaviours. Action is equally dependent
on a conviction that the behaviour of individuals could have
a positive impact on the environment.
Many Moderates and Limiteds are sceptical about the
effectiveness of individual pro-environmental behaviour
in general and confused about the value of specific pro-
environmental behaviours, for example recycling, could
have. This means they often find it difficult to appreciate
the value of engaging in pro-environmental behaviour
on an individual basis, preferring to focus on the need
to make changes in industry. In addition, doubt about
one form of ‘green’ behaviour leads to doubt about other
forms of pro-environmental behaviour.
Strongs tend to be more positive about the potential
impact of behavioural change at the individual level.
While they acknowledge that industry is a major cause of
environmental damage, they feel that if all people made
changes to their behaviour, benefits to the environment
would result. The Strongs depth of knowledge about
the range of pro-environmental behaviours, and their
environmental benefit means they tend to be more
assured about the environmental benefits of their actions.
Personal benefits: what’s in it for me?The personal benefits of pro-environmental behaviours
are, for Moderates and Limiteds, largely more influential
motivators than perceived environmental benefits. These
are often cost-related. The price of water and energy, for
instance drives many to conserve these resources, and use
technology that helps them do so, such as rainwater tanks,
water-saving shower heads, fuel-efficient cars, energy-
efficient appliances, and energy-saving globes. Soil salinity
in rural areas, which directly affects the livelihood of rural
participants, motivates participation in tree plantings. For
most Limiteds and Moderates, cost benefits are the only
motivation for these behaviours.
In some cases, self-interest extends to the perceived health
benefits of pro-environmental behaviours. Participants’
concern about the adverse health effects of pollution, for
instance, sometimes motivates them to take action such
as driving environmentally friendly cars.
Pro-environmental behaviours that can be adopted
with minimum disruption, cost or inconvenience are
generally most likely to be adopted. Conversely, some
pro-environmental behaviours involve personal costs
that act as significant barriers to adopting them.
For the Limiteds and Moderates, the financial cost and/or
practical inconvenience of engaging in particular behaviours
are barriers. Both of these groups avoid behaviours that
are either expensive – like taking rubbish to the tip – or
inconvenient such as participating in environmental activism.
Participants also doubt the quality of environmental
products – particularly ‘green’ household products that are
assumed to be less effective than other brands because
the environment seems to be placed ahead of their
primary purpose.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 89
Entrenched behaviours The likelihood of adopting pro-environmental behaviours
also reflects the magnitude of the behavioural change
required. Some behaviours are so entrenched that
behavioural change is unlikely, even in the face of significant
economic and environmental benefits. For example,
participants appreciate the value of behaviours like car-
pooling and conserving electricity, but find it difficult to
change their behaviour. Similarly, brand loyalty tends to
discourage some participants from trying environmentally
friendly products.
External influences
Legislation appears to be a powerful driver for adopting
pro-environmental behaviours. Water restrictions tend to
be adhered to by most participants in the study. Strongs
participants appreciate this type of legislation, asserting
that it was the only way to effectively bring about
changes in behaviour. While Moderates and Limiteds are
less enthusiastic about these types of regulations, most
follow them, even if some do so grudgingly.
The normalisation of pro-environmental behaviours
(ie those considered to be ‘normal’ within a peer/social
group) also appears to exert a significant influence on
participants’ inclination to adopt them. The behaviours
considered ‘normal’ for participants in the three segments
vary considerably, with consequent impact on the
likelihood of doing them. For the Limiteds, normalised
behaviours tend to be associated with directly observable
environmental issues or those with immediate and
personal aesthetic, financial, or legal implications
(eg picking up litter, following the mandatory water
restrictions and recycling). For Moderates, behaviours
such as recycling, washing cars on the lawn to conserve
water, not pouring water polluters down the drain,
avoiding plastic bags, and conserving electricity are
also normalised. For the Strongs, normal behaviour
extends to buying environmentally friendly products,
avoiding products with heavy packaging, reducing fuel
consumption, using rainwater tanks, composting and
engaging in environmental activism.
Normalised behaviours are far more likely to be adopted.
As behaviours become normalised, social pressure to
adopt them increases. Significantly, for the Limiteds,
the normalisation of particular behaviours means they
sometimes lose their ‘green’ associations, which can act
as a barrier to uptake of behaviours. As a result, normalised
behaviours are often undertaken and become habitual
irrespective of their environmental benefits, for example,
picking up litter and taking pride in having clean streets
and a tidy neighbourhood.
Conversely, however, negative social pressure also
appears to influence non-normalised behaviour, particularly
amongst the Limiteds. Many of the behaviours that are
normal for the Strongs, and even the Moderates, were
extreme for the Limiteds.
There is a sense that normalised behaviour was sufficient.
To do anything more is considered radical.
Situational motivators
Workplaces often lead many to change their behaviour
to be either more or less environmentally aware or active.
According to the study, participants indicate that some
companies have strict environmental policies that force
employees to adopt certain pro-environmental behaviours.
Others encourage employees to be environmentally aware
by providing the means to engage in pro-environmental
behaviours with minimum inconvenience. As a result,
many Moderates and Limiteds practise a variety of pro-
environmental behaviours at work that they do not
necessarily consider doing at home.
Importantly, however, without the motivation of self-
interest, several participants admit to not practising at
work some of the pro-environmental behaviours that they
do at home, such as conserving water and electricity, so
tend to leave office lights and air conditioning on and
taps running.
Some also maintain that management does not adhere to
workplace environmental practices, and that if they suggest
changes to workplace practices to benefit the environment
their job would be jeopardised. Management, they claim,
mostly looks at cost-saving practices and these are not
always environmentally friendly.
Public places can also serve to motivate pro-environmental
behaviours. The Moderates and Limiteds tend to be more
likely to practise normalised pro-environmental behaviours
that do not have obvious personal benefits if they are aware
of being seen by others. Conversely, most overtly anti-
environmental behaviours tend to be conducted in private.
Finally, participants’ place of residence also has a bearing
on their inclination to engage in pro-environmental
behaviours. Those living in remote areas tend to consider
it more difficult to adopt behaviours such as recycling
without council assistance. In addition, council areas are
perceived to have different rules and regulations about
water conservation, with consequential effects on behaviour.
4.2 Findings from the qualitative research
90 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Conclusions
Each segment is, to large extent, behaving in ways that
are consistent with their primary values. The Strongs give
expression to the value they place on preserving and
restoring the environment as they understand it – a
vulnerable and intricate web of relationships on which
human survival depends – and they justify making
considerable and expensive efforts by emphasising
urgency. The Moderates face and try to resolve conflict
between their concerns for the welfare of their own
children and of future generations, and postpone action
by not recognising the possible urgency of the issues.
The Limiteds express their values from their own life
situations, with an emphasis on maintaining a degree
of material comfort for themselves and their households
in circumstances where they feel they must concentrate
on limiting the cost of any action they take.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 91
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOUR
Through successive Who Cares? surveys, respondents
continue to give the environment a high priority in their
lives and to express strong environmental concern. People
are now increasingly focusing their concern on a range
of specific environmental issues. Along with this concern,
specific knowledge about the environment is increasing
but is still low in a range of areas. The qualitative research
also demonstrates that many people are confused about
appropriate pro-environmental behaviour at an individual
level, as well as the efficacy of specific actions in
addressing environmental problems.
The 2006 Who Cares? survey includes several new questions
(eg 12b and 12c), as well as secondary and qualitative
analyses, that examine the reasons why people engage
in specific pro-environmental behaviours. The analysis of
these data reveals the reasons vary greatly according to
the specific behaviour and vary across different groups of
participants. While environmental behaviours are extremely
complex, the analyses reveal some consistent patterns that
permit conclusions to be drawn that have implications for
program and policy design.
Many of these conclusions are not new and are similar
to other social research on social change in relation to
the environment and other issues. This section of the
report brings together some conclusions about appropriate
approaches to social change aimed at improved
environmental outcomes. These are drawn from the
qualitative and quantitative components of the 2006 Who Cares? research, the secondary analysis of behaviour types
and community segments and some relevant literature.
Awareness, attitudes and
behaviour change
Both the survey and the qualitative research provide
evidence that the priority for environmental issues is high;
awareness of environmental issues and the importance
of the environment appear to be increasing; and there is
general support in the community for all sectors to do more
to protect the environment. At the same time, many in the
community remain relatively unaware of the nature and
significance of environmental issues and what can be done
to address them. These findings indicate that there is a
generally receptive climate for social change measures
provided they are salient, practical and aimed at the specific
needs of distinct community segments.
One of the most significant messages from past education
and information campaigns is that people resist change.
They do so by constructing a system of beliefs and
attitudes, which provides a stable world view. Our experience
leads us to build up a belief system that approves of our
behaviour(g). While asking for small changes in behaviour
is likely to be more effective than asking for large changes,
major behaviour change is likely to require an
integrated range of measures applied over time. Small
changes in behaviour are most likely to occur because it is
easier for people to comply in this way. It is well established
in the social change literature that:
“Changes in awareness and knowledge about a problem are likely to be more rapid than changes in attitudes or behaviour. While appropriate short-term objectives seek changes in awareness and knowledge, changes in behaviour or attitude are more appropriate as mediumto long-term objectives”. (p.20)(h)
Some(i) consider that behaviour tends to be influenced by
such things as external environmental pressures including
physical comfort, money, geography and social pressure,
as well as internal changes in knowledge and attitudes.
A sustained focus on both internal and external factors is,
therefore, effective as a means of achieving changes
in behaviour.
Various measures in the quantitative and qualitative
research indicate support for and/or the effectiveness of
a range of tools in effecting change. The use of economic
incentives, education, infrastructure provision, regulation
and enforcement are either directly supported by findings
of specific questions or appear as part of key motivators/
barriers in specific behaviours. The way these tools are
integrated and used in specific combinations to target
particular environmental issues is critical to their success.
The analysis of survey responses regarding prompts for
engaging in pro-environmental behaviours (and difficulties
in adopting those behaviours) demonstrates that different
tools and strategies are effective in different contexts
or for different behaviours:
Economic or cost factors are cited as major factors
in reducing energy consumption and reducing
fuel consumption.
Regulation is a factor in reducing water consumption
although the general context of drought and water
shortages are a more important motivator.
Physical infrastructure availability is an issue for avoiding
plastic bags (availability of green bags), composting
(equipment or space) and reducing fuel consumption
(public transport).
(g) See end notes p.93
4.3 Implications for change programs
92 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Education, particularly via the media, is a strong factor
in prompting people to avoid plastic bags and to choose
household products that are better for the environment,
and environmental awareness is a strong factor in
avoiding packaging. Both education and awareness are,
however, moderate to minor factors across most of the
behaviours referred to above, which indicates that
education plays a supporting role to other factors as well.
Key strategies
Separately these strategies are not ‘stand-alone’ answers
to any given issue. All issues need to draw on as many
different tools and means as are appropriate to the problem
and the particular audience segment(s). This research
provides evidence to support the value of an integrated
approach and of targeting programs to issues and
audiences. It also assists in understanding the nature
of differences amongst target groups in the community
so that programs and policy can take account of those
differences and make the most of opportunities for
effective programs that bring about change.
Use an integrated approach that combines the most
effective tools for an identified environmental problem.
This may involve one or more of economic incentives/
disincentives, regulation and infrastructure, supported
by strong education programs that provide a context for
the other measures and explain the problem and why
the various measures are necessary. Although some
people will continue to be reluctant about adopting
any behaviour that requires additional cost or effort, it is
possible to gain a relatively high level of compliance if,
for example, regulation is combined with steps to make
the behaviour easier, or if it is convincingly shown to
be important or to save money without a high level
of initial outlay. A wide range of education tools and
strategies are available and it is likewise important to
tailor the most appropriate program for the problem
and the audience.
While environmental knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour exist in the community along a continuum,
people at different points of that continuum have quite
different views, behaviours and motivations/barriers
for their behaviours. Hence carefully targeting
environmental change programs to those groups
or segments is essential. This may involve two separate
but related considerations:
– Appropriate targeting of message, for example,
promoting a new behaviour around a new issue
might initially be aimed at the Strongs or Committeds
as they are the segment most likely to adopt a new
•
•
pro-environmental behaviour, while broadening the
uptake of an existing behaviour might be aimed at
the Limiteds or Moderates
– Using salient and relevant approaches for different
segments considered appropriate to a particular
message, problem or strategy.
Many people are already engaged in pro-environmental
behaviours either voluntarily or through legislation
requirements, for example, in complying with water
restrictions. Reinforcing positive behaviours is important
to maintain existing behaviours and to influence the
uptake of other pro-environmental behaviours. Amongst
the Moderates and Strongs in particular, engaging in
one form of pro-environmental behaviours sometimes
leads to engaging in others.
The normalisation of pro-environmental behaviours
also appears to exert a significant influence on participants’
inclination to adopt them. Behaviours that offer cost
benefits or were normalised (accepted as common sense)
amongst the peer group tend to be the ones most
likely to be adopted by the Moderates and Limiteds
in the qualitative research. This finding points to the
effectiveness of legislating and/or providing incentives
for pro-environmental behaviours. Normalisation can
also be effected through publicity campaigns.
The behaviours considered ‘normal’ for participants in
the three qualitative segments varied considerably, with
consequences for the likelihood of their engaging in
them. For example:
– for the Limiteds, the only genuinely normalised
behaviour is picking up litter, following mandatory
water restrictions and recycling
– for the Moderates, behaviours such as recycling,
washing cars on the lawn to conserve water, not
pouring pollutants down the drain, avoiding plastic
bags, and conserving electricity are also normalised
– for the Strongs, normalised behaviour extends to
behaviours such as buying environmentally friendly
products, avoiding over-packaged products, reducing
fuel consumption, using rain water tanks, composting
and engaging in environmental advocacy and
citizenship.
Not all people in any one segment adopt all the
behaviours regarded as ‘normal’ in that segment. However,
as behaviours become normalised, social pressure to
adopt them increases and for the Limiteds this may means
they lose their ‘green’ associations, which could be acting
as a barrier to adoption. As a result, normalised behaviours
may be taken up and become habitual without necessarily
any consideration of their environmental benefits.
•
•
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 93
Saving money and convenience are important
drivers in regard to pro-environmental behaviours for
those segments that are not highly environmentally
motivated. Where behaviours are considered convenient
and non-costly people tend to engage in them if they
can appreciate the point of doing so. To increase rates
of adoption, key strategies involve removing situational
barriers and facilitating the desired behaviours. For
example, introducing household sorting of waste and
kerbside collection as widely as possible; making worm
farms and other forms of composting that can be
managed in flats and town houses readily available;
reducing costs or providing subsidies and financial
incentives for desired behaviours and increasing costs
associated with undesirable behaviours.
Unless an environmental issue is directly affecting
them, people have difficulty in seeing the relevance
of their actions, for example, the effect of reducing
electricity use on climate change. There are several
behaviours about which Limiteds and some Moderates
were sceptical, do not appreciate the relevance of the
behaviour, or doubt its effectiveness for protecting the
environment, for example buying ‘environmentally-
friendly’ products. While awareness and conviction
about the severity of environmental issues is growing,
people tend to distance themselves from these issues,
attributing most blame to industry and government.
Many are therefore sceptical about any positive
influence that their behaviour can have.
This finding points to the importance of clearly
demonstrating the direct relevance of environmental
issues to people’s lives and personal issues. Concern
about the environment needs to be closely linked to
the pertinence of environmental issues on a personal
level. Demonstrating both the ease and environmental
benefit of specific behaviours may also encourage
people to consider them.
The qualitative research shows the Strongs are generally
comfortable with the full range of environmental
terminology presented to them and prepared to discuss
the concepts with some depth of meaning. However,
there is a considerable amount of confusion and
uncertainty about much of the environment-related
terminology amongst the Moderates and Limiteds,
particularly words such as ‘biodiversity’ and ‘sustainability’.
Many dismiss this type of language as jargon and
potentially deceptive and this terminology appears to
act as a barrier to communication for these segments.
Communication tailored to these segments that uses
simpler terms is likely to mean more and be more
•
•
•
effective. Using everyday examples to illustrate concepts
is also likely to aid their understanding. However, as the
Strongs’ end of the spectrum have a comprehensive
understanding of these important environmental terms,
it is appropriate and likely to be more effective to use
such terms when communicating with them.
Conclusions
Human behaviour towards the environment is complex.
This research assists in understanding the nature of
differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour by understanding differences across the
community through broadly defined segments in the
population. It demonstrates the potential effectiveness
of responding to people’s needs by addressing different
motivators and barriers for different issues and appropriate
strategies for those different community segments.
To develop a program that will encourage people to adopt
a specific behaviour, the varied circumstances in which
that behaviour occurs, and the different ways that individuals
and households might think about the behaviour, must
first be thoroughly understood.
Once the circumstances that impinge on adopting
a behaviour are understood, programs can be designed
to make the behaviour easier, less costly and more
rewarding for the more common circumstances in which
it is to be practised. In this respect, always consider
integrated use of the range of tools available to engage
participants and effect change. These tools include
education, regulation infrastructure provision and
economic incentives/disincentives.
The task of assimilating these findings into policy
and programs and practice will require further analysis
in planning and reflecting on how these conclusions
relate to their specific environmental problems and
specific communities.
(g) Elliott & Shanahan Research (1989) “Effective Road Safety Campaigns: A Practical Handbook”, Federal Office of Road Safety, CR80, Canberra.
(h) Shanahan. P, Elliott. B & Dahlgren. N (2000). “Review of Public information Campaigns: Addressing Youth Risk Taking.” National Youth Affairs Research Scheme. Australia Clearing House for Youth Studies, Tasmania.
(i) Mackay. H. & Jones. C. (1983) “Better Communication” Program Workbook. The Centre for Communication Studies. Bathurst.
4.3 Implications for change programs
94 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
The Who Cares? research involved eight phases:
1) reviewing the previous survey questionnaires
2) identifying questions deemed relevant for the new
survey. These included:
– core questions from previous surveys
– questions asked in only some of the previous surveys
– new questions about emerging issues.
3) pilot testing the new questionnaire
4) conducting a quantitative telephone survey with
a representative selection of the New South
Wales community
5) qualitative research involving six focus groups
addressing environmental issues to provide in-depth
qualitative information on topics or questions more
suited to qualitative methods.
6) conducting an extension survey on areas of specific
interest to sections of the DEC with respondents from
the main quantitative survey who had agreed to a
follow-up interview
7) analysis, including secondary analysis of the data
8) reporting.
Quantitative study
Main survey
Research methodsTelephone interviews were conducted with 1,724 people
across New South Wales, aged 15 and over. Previous
surveys (except for 1994) also used this data collection
method, but only interviewed people aged 15 to 70. The
1994 survey used face-to-face doorstep interviews and for
some questions used showcards from which respondents
made choices from prompted options (eg Questions 1
and 2).
Questions using showcards, which were included in later
surveys, were modified for the telephone interviews.
For questions with a limited number of options, the
respondent is prompted by the interviewer reading out
the possible answers. Other questions are open-ended
and asked without prompting and the answers are either
entered by the interviewer from a pre-coded list or
recorded verbatim for subsequent coding.
The change in method, from face-to-face interviews to
telephone interviews, replacing questions using showcards
with unprompted questions has some implications for
comparing later survey results with the 1994 results. The
1994 results from such questions are no longer included
in reporting results.
Questions are a mix of unprompted, open questions
and closed questions with predetermined options for
response. While the wording of some questions has been
modified since 1994, the wording and structure of the
questionnaire from the 1994 study has been retained as
far as possible in subsequent surveys. This is to ensure
the results are comparable, so that trend changes can
be identified between the surveys.
For example, for Question 2, in 1994 the first part was asked
as an unprompted free-response question. For the second
part of the question, respondents were given a list of 18
issues and were asked to nominate two. Since 1997, both
parts have been unprompted, open-ended questions.
The final 2006 questionnaire was piloted in 20 interviews
to test flow and comprehension. Formal fieldwork
commenced on 6 May 2006 and was completed by
18 June 2006. All fieldwork was conducted by Taverner
Research from its Surry Hills call-centre. The final interview
length averaged 28 minutes. Although this is longer than
is usually advisable in community survey research, few
people stopped the interview part way through, and
feedback from interviewers showed that respondents
maintained a high level of interest in the subject.
The core questions (Table 15) have been asked in the
survey since 1994, although the exact wording may
have changed. In other questions the specific items have
changed. For example, the survey has always included
knowledge questions put as true/false statements.
However, the specific statements have varied and only
the question about the greenhouse effect has been
asked in all five surveys.
Other questions are selected for each survey that may
have been used in some past surveys and are considered
relevant to ask in the current survey, for example the
NEP attitude statements asked in 1994, 1997 and 2006.
In addition, each survey generally explores some new
issues of contemporary interest or concern. New
questions were added in 2006 to explore motives for
environmental behaviour and agreement with specific
environmental initiatives.
A: Research methodologyAPPENDICES
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 95
TABLE 15. 2006 QUESTION TOPICS, QUESTION TYPE AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Question type*
1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
Core Questions
Perceived priorities for the New South Wales
Government, now and in the future
UP
Perceived priority environmental issues UP
Knowledge of specific environmental issues C
Level of concern for the environment (wording
change in 2006) and major reason for concern
C
Perceived priority initiatives for government to
address environmental problems
UP
Perceived improvements or deterioration in
environmental conditions
C
Whether selected environmentally friendly
behaviours were done in last 12 months (yes/no)
C
Reported frequency of selected environmentally
friendly behaviours in last 12 months
C
Enforcement of regulations C
Questions asked in some previous surveys
Importance of the environment as a personal priority
compared to other aspects of life
C
Views on community sectors’ performance in
environmental protection
C
Beliefs about relationships between humanity and
the environment
C
New questions for 2006
Reasons for not being concerned about
environmental problems
UP
Importance of overall personal motives for taking
environmentally friendly actions
C
Reasons for doing or not doing specific
environmentally friendly things
UP
Agreement with possible environmental initiatives
(different initiatives in 2003 & 2006)
C
* For question type, UP = unprompted question, C = closed question with prompted options.
Shading indicates survey years in which the question topic has been included.
A: Research methodology
96 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Sampling and weightsThe sample size was 1,724. This compares to 1,112
in 1994, 1129 in 1997, 1102 in 2000 and 1421 in 2003.
A representative sample of dwellings across New South
Wales was produced from a randomly selected list
of phone numbers from the electronic version of the
White Pages directories across the State. The sample
was stratified to ensure that sufficient interviews were
obtained in the capital (Sydney), other urban NSW
and rural areas for independent, separate analysis.
Respondents were selected systematically from among
all household members aged 15 and over. No substitution
between household members was permitted once the
respondent had been selected.
To ensure the overall findings would be properly
representative of the New South Wales population, the
2006 data was weighted by location, sex and age to bring
it in line with known population distributions. Weights
were estimated from population distributions based on
the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census estimates.
The demographic highlights presented with the main survey
results, are grouped under various demographic categories:
Age and gender – people were classified by age and
as male or female
Education – people were asked the highest level of
education they had completed and results are grouped
to compare those who said they had completed: less
than secondary (no formal schooling, primary school,
less than some secondary school), secondary school,
trade or technical qualifications, or a degree (university
or CAE diploma, degree or higher degree)
Employment status – people were asked which of the
following described their situation: paid employment
(full time, part time and self-employed), student, retired,
or other (home duties, unemployed and looking for
work and other pensioner)
Dwelling type – people were asked which of the
following describe the dwelling they live in: detached
house, semi (semi-detached house, townhouse, row
house, terrace, villa, etc.), unit (flat or home unit), or other
Children – whether the person has children of any age
Grandchildren – number recorded
Location – people were categorised as living in:
– Sydney (including Campbelltown, Windsor, Penrith
and Gosford)
– Hunter/Illawarra – urban areas of Hunter or Illawarra
– regional areas of NSW further split into
large country towns (population over 15,000)
small country towns (population 3,000 to 15,000)
rural areas.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»»»
Language – people were asked the main language
spoken at home and classified as being from an English
speaking household (if they mainly speak English at
home) or non-English speaking household (if they
mainly speak a language other than English).
A selection of demographic highlights accompanies
most questions in the main report. Only those groups
between which differences are statistically significant are
reported. For demographic categories with multiple sub-
groups, such as age, education and location, not all sub-
groups show statistically significant differences to other
sub-groups and the results for such groups are
somewhere between the values for the comparisons
shown. Full demographic tables are available online at
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whocares/.
More detailed demographic analysis by demographic
characteristic can also be found at
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whocares/.
Extension survey
In the consultation process for scoping the 2006 research,
a range of desirable questions emerged that could not, for
reasons of survey length, be included in the main survey.
To include these questions, an extension survey was
conducted with respondents from the main survey who
agreed to participate in another shorter survey at a later
time. Eighty-six per cent (86%) of respondents for the main
survey (1,484) gave permission and contact details to be
called again and 1,011 completed the extension survey.
Fieldwork for the extension survey took place in late June.
Respondents were contacted within three weeks of the
initial interview. The average interview was just over 10
minutes. There is very little difference in the demographic
characteristics between the extension survey and the
main survey samples and no differences are significant.
The relative representation of the behavioural segments
(from the secondary analysis, chapter 4.1) is also very
similar to that of the main survey. The extension survey
data is weighted by age and gender within each location.
The topics covered in the extension survey were:
National park visitation and management
Botanical garden visitation and experiences
Views on general health of the environment in NSW
Views on environmental regulation in NSW
Views on chemical and pesticide use.
Most of the results of the extension survey have been
included at relevant points in the main report and are
clearly marked as questions from the extension survey.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 97
Analysis
Coding verbatim responsesResponses to open-ended questions are coded in a
detailed code framework based on the diversity of issues
people mention. Codes are the basic unit for describing/
analysing verbatim responses – answers that are the same
or similar in meaning are assigned a code number with
descriptor. The code lists have grown over the years as
new issues have been identified and coded.
All verbatim replies to the quantitative surveys were
thoroughly reviewed against the coding frames that had
been applied in previous surveys. As in past surveys, some
additional codes were defined to capture emerging issues
that in previous years had not produced sufficient replies
to justify separate coding.
Coded replies to previous surveys for the verbatim
questions were also re-examined. It was usually possible
to align codes previously used with the corresponding
revised codes, or to at least place previous codes
under the appropriate new heading. In a few instances,
previously used codes were split into two different
codes that belonged under different headings. In these
instances, a decision was made about where to allocate
cases with the older code.
Changes to code groupingsIt is not possible to separately report the diversity of
codes. Instead, they are grouped under major headings
for charting and reporting. Generally a code or category
has to reach a threshold of 2% to be reported (included
in the chart), although the tables accompanying some
questions provide more detailed data.
A major review was conducted of the groupings of
codes that had been developed in previous surveys, and
of the appropriateness of the code titles. This resulted in
some changes and refinements in code descriptions and
code groupings used in reporting data for the open
ended questions:
the two most important issues for action by the NSW
government now, and in ten years time (Q1a & b)
the most important and second most important
environmental issues for NSW Government action (Q2)
the single most important environmental initiative to
be taken by the NSW Government. (Q21).
There have been a number of changes in the grouping of
coded responses to these open-ended questions for the
2006 report to reflect the community’s changing priorities
and issues more accurately. All data for historical years has
been regrouped in the same way to maintain comparability.
•
•
•
Hence the figures given in this year’s report for some
items may vary from the charts in previous reports.
For Question 1a (most important issue now) and Q1b
(most important issue in ten years) changes to groupings are:
A series of specific environmental issues mentioned
by small numbers of people over the years have
been grouped with ‘the environment’. These include
pollution, salinity, sewerage and waste management.
This is consistent with the treatment of other major
categories where any roads issue is grouped under
roads and traffic, any health/hospitals/Medicare issue
under health etc.
Water (supply, conservation and management and
drought) was first reported separately in 2003 and is
maintained separately in 2006.
In 2006 a group of social issues were brought together,
including childcare, youth and child welfare, poverty,
alcohol and other drugs, family, disability care and
disability pension, homelessness, community issues and
housing/public housing issues.
Other personal financial issues (as distinct from tax issues)
including fuel prices, pensions/pensioner costs, interest
rates, inflation and price increases, and bank fees, are
grouped together.
For previous years, replies coded housing/public housing
or housing prices were reported under the heading of
housing/housing prices. For 2006 housing/public housing
is reported under other social issues and housing prices
is reported under other personal financial issues.In this report planning and development includes the
same suite of issues reported in 2003 under population increase/urban development. These include a range of
concerns about population increase, development
pressure and infrastructure provision.
Some of these issues eg Other social issues and Other personal financial issues include a diversity of topics, each
at relatively small unreportable numbers, both historically
and in 2006. Grouped they can be reported both for 2006
and for past surveys.
For Questions 2a and 2b (the most and second most
important environmental problem) changes are:
Water conservation/drought is reported separately from
other water issues.
Climate change/greenhouse is reported separately from
other air issues.
Additional codes/issues are included in forests/biodiversity
that were previously considered separately for example,
logging/woodchipping and weeds/feral animals.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A: Research methodology
98 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Changes in coding of other pollution to include
responses with more than one type of pollution (air,
noise, water etc) where previously these responses were
generally coded under the type of pollution mentioned
first. Sewerage problems are included in water quality
(rather than in waste, as in the 2003 report).
A small number of 2000 survey don’t know replies have
also been recoded based on a close review of source data.
This means that some values may not match previously
reported data.
In Question 21 (the single most important environmental
initiative) changes are:
Water conservation is reported separately from water
quality issues.
Energy/climate change are reported separately from air
quality issues.
Vegetation has been expanded to include biodiversity
so that it includes some additional issues.
Data tabulationThe data are weighted to more closely match the
NSW population on age, gender, and location, and the
weighted data tabulated for the total sample and a
number of demographic sub-groups. Tables were then
prepared directly comparing the results of the 2006
survey to those from previous surveys where the
question and codes used allowed direct comparison.
Cohort analysisCohort analysis (Glenn, 19774) was completed for a
selection of knowledge, attitude and behavioural items
available in the 1997 and 2006 survey data (see below).
A cohort is a segment of the population who were born
in a selected period, and would thus all fall into one age
range in 1997, and in an age range that would be nine
years older in 2006.
Cohort analysis is useful because changes in results from
two surveys conducted some years apart can arise from
two different processes:
change within cohorts
change due to cohort replacement.
In this report, changes are measured over the nine years
between the 1997 and 2006 Who Cares? surveys with nine
years between the surveys. The 2006 survey includes young
people who would have been too young to take part in
the 1997 survey. The 1997 survey includes people (mostly
in the oldest age groups) who would not be available for
survey in 2006.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thus a difference in results could occur because the young
people who became available to be surveyed in 2006
differed from the older people who were no longer available
for survey in 2006. This is the cohort replacement effect.
It occurs when there is a strong relationship between age
and the question being analysed, and especially when
that relationship is changing.
Change could also simply be due to individuals changing
their beliefs, attitudes or behaviour over time. This should
show up as a difference over time in the responses of an
age cohort – say between those aged 15 in 1997 and
those aged 24 (15 + 9) in 2006.
Cohort analysis provides a means of separating the
measured changes in responses between two surveys
(cross-sectional change) into a component due to people
changing their opinion over time (within-cohort change)
and a component due to the replacement of people in
the survey sample over time, as younger people reach an
age at which they become part of the surveyed population,
and older people leave the surveyed population (change
due to cohort replacement).
In order to sufficiently discriminate between cohorts of the
same age, narrow three-year age bands are used for analysis.
Because the 1997 survey had obtained age data in a series
of unequal bands unrelated to the three-year interval
used in cohort analysis, the age distribution for three-year
bands was estimated using linear interpolation between
the original band midpoints. The 2006 survey obtained
actual ages, which could then be grouped into three-year
bands. Cohort analysis matrices were prepared to show
the patterns in cross-sectional change and within-cohort
change across age groups. See the analysis of changes in
environmental knowledge below for an example.
The analysis was applied to a selection of items asked in
both the 1997 and 2006 surveys: changes in environmental
beliefs in Section 3.1, knowledge of environmental issues
in Section 3.2 and personal behaviours in Section 3.3. The
cohort analysis results and conclusions can be found in
these sections under the heading ‘the nature of the changes’.
Note that the cross-sectional change used in the analysis
will not be the same as the difference between the results
for the two total samples as reported. The reason for this
is that the results of two surveys separated by some years
(as are the 1997 and 2006 Who Cares? surveys) are each
weighted to match the demographics of the population
in those years. However, to conduct the cohort analysis,
the age distributions have to be adjusted so that they are
the same. This in turn results in a change in the size of the
cross-sectional difference in results of the two surveys. 4 Glenn, N. D. 1977. Cohort Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 99
The purpose of the analysis is to arrive at a conclusion
about the relative contributions of within-cohort change
and cohort-replacement. It does not provide an estimate
of the exact changes, which might also reflect shifts in
age composition and membership of the populations
from which the samples are drawn.
Cohort analysis questions 1. Environmental beliefs
To examine whether changes in pro-environmental
outlook between surveys were due to individuals changing
their views, or to changes in the composition of the
population surveyed, cohort analysis was conducted
for those with an NEP score over 39 in 1997 and 2006.
This cohort analysis showed that the average age-
standardised increase of 5.2% (larger than that shown
in Figure 9 because the 1997 data has been standardised
to the 2006 weighted age distribution) in people scoring
over 39 in 2006 compared to 1997 was mostly due to
within-cohort change (3.9%) rather than cohort replacement
(1.3%), ie people changed their attitudes in a more
pro-environmental direction.
2. Knowledge of the Greenhouse effect
Cohort analysis can be conducted for the one knowledge
item that was in both the 1997 and 2004 surveys.
Unfortunately, although this question was also used in the
1994 survey, data from the 1994 survey could not be used
due to unresolved issues in recovering the weightings
used with the 1994 data.
The table below shows that the change between 1997
and 2006 in the proportion giving the correct answer
(cross-sectional change of 12.6%) is largely due to people
improving their knowledge on this question (within-cohort
change of 9.4%). Within the overall cross-sectional change
of 12.6%, 3.2% is due to the so-called cohort-replacement
effect (due in this case to younger people who are more
likely to give the correct answer joining the surveyed
population over time and older people who are less likely
to give the correct answer leaving the surveyed
population over time).
Table 16 shows that the change between 1997 and
2006 in the proportion giving the correct answer to the
greenhouse question is largely due to people improving
their knowledge on this question (within-cohort change
of 9.4% of a total cross-sectional change of 12.6%). The
cohort-replacement effect accounts for 3.2% of the change.
3. Behaviours
For several behaviour items it is possible to apply cohort
analysis to comparisons of the 1997 and 2006 data.
The results of these analyses are summarised in Table 17.
It appears there has been a decline in those taking pro-
environmental action such as writing a letter or making
a complaint, which is not explained by entry to the sample
of younger people who are less prone to take such action.
More detailed analysis shows, however, that this fall has
occurred most strongly among the younger cohorts.
Making an effort to reduce water consumption at
least occasionally appears to have increased both because
people who were 15+ in 1997 are now more likely to
do this (up by about 6%), and because the younger
people who have joined the 15+ population in the past
nine years are much more likely than those aged 15-23 in
1997 to report this behaviour. However, given the change
in response format for this item, some of the increase
observed on a cross-sectional basis in every age group
may be due to the use of the rating scale in 2006 and a
Yes/No format in 1997. This means that in every age group
and age cohort, some who would say ‘no’ to the question
in 1997 replied ‘just occasionally’ in 2006. This may explain
why this is the only item where cohort replacement has
made a substantial contribution to the changes.
Finally, there has been almost no change in trying to
get information, with very small but opposite shifts
due to behaviour change over time (down 2%) and due
to cohort change (up 3%) producing no nett change.
As these changes are marginally significant or within
the range that could be expected to occur by chance,
we can conclude there has been no change in seeking
environmental information 1997 to 2006.
A: Research methodology
100 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
TABLE 16. CHANGES IN CORRECT ANSWERS ON THE GREENHOUSE QUESTION BY AGE, 1997 AND 2006
Age when surveyed
Proportion correct in 1997
(%)
Proportion correct in 2006
(%)
Within-cohort change*
Cross-sectional change+
15-17 29.1 45.9 16.8
18-20 30.8 36.7 5.9
21-23 32.5 27.0 -5.5
24-26 27.5 41.9 12.8 14.4
27-29 34.9 45.4 14.6 10.5
30-32 41.8 35.3 2.8 -6.5
33-35 29.3 47.6 20.1 18.3
36-38 27.7 38.5 3.6 10.8
39-41 27.4 54.1 12.3 26.7
42-44 28.8 46.2 16.9 17.4
45-47 30.2 49.4 21.7 19.2
48-50 31.7 46.9 19.5 15.2
51-53 31.3 44.9 16.1 13.7
54-56 28.8 51.5 21.3 22.7
57-59 26.3 34.3 2.6 8.0
60-62 29.9 42.9 11.7 13.0
63-65 26.6 43.8 15.0 17.2
66-68 23.3 40.7 14.4 17.4
Mean change 9.4 12.6
Cohort-replacement 3.2
* The within-cohort change is obtained by subtracting the figure for each age group in 1997 from the figure for the age group in 2006 that is nine years older, eg subtracting the figure for the group who were 15-17 in 1997 from the figure for the group who were 24-26 in 2006. Shading highlights these equivalent groups.
+ The cross-sectional change is obtained by subtracting the figure for each age group in 1997 from the figure for the group of the same age range in 2006.
Note: To conduct this analysis, the 1997 and 2006 data have been re-weighted to a common age distribution. Thus the mean change shown is not the same as the difference between the 1997 and 2006 results shown in Figure 13 (11%).
TABLE 17. ORIGINS OF CHANGE IN SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS 1997 TO 2006
BehaviourCross-
sectionalchange
Within cohort change
Cohortreplace-
ment change
Written a letter, signed a petition, attended a meeting, or made a report or
complaint with the aim of improving the environment (Yes – have done)-8.3 -8.5 +0.2
Made an effort for environmental reasons to reduce water consumption
(Have done often, sometimes or just occasionally compared to Yes/No in 1997)13.5 6.1 7.4
Tried to get information on some topic that you thought was relevant to
protecting the environment (Yes – have done)0.7 -1.9 2.6
Note: Cross-sectional change is the absolute change between years. The cross-sectional changes reported above vary from the differences shown in Figures 30 and 33 as the age distribution for the 1997 and 2006 have been standardised. Within cohort change is change measuredby comparing an age group in 1997 with age group that is nine years older in 2006.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 101
Multivariate analysis
Surveys such as the Who Cares? series involve a large
number of questions, each of which conveys some
useful information. However, there are often patterns
in the replies which can suggest underlying processes
at work that are being expressed in a number of
different ways. For example, it might be that adoption
of environmentally friendly behaviour is the expression
of a single, underlying level of concern about the
environment, and more or less willingness to make the
effort to behave in an environmentally friendly way.
Alternatively, it might be that there are somewhat
different processes at work, which emerge in groupings
of the behaviour items, where responses to the items
in the same group are more consistent with each other
than they are with items in other groups. Such groupings
of related items can be revealed using a range of
analysis techniques that fall under the general heading
of factor analysis.
Similarly, people can often be classified into different
subgroups or segments based on differences in the
patterns of their replies across a set of items. Such
groupings can be revealed using one of more methods
from a family of techniques known as cluster analysis.
Appropriate factor analysis and cluster analysis methods
were applied to the available data on pro-environmental
behaviours. Summaries of the findings of most relevance
for understanding patterns in the environmentally friendly
behaviours are in Section 4.1 of this report.
The Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England
completed the cohort analysis and multivariate analysis
for this report.
Reporting
The charts in this report generally show all groups
of codes that are applicable to more than 2.5% of
respondents, unless otherwise stated. For two questions
(12b and 12c), which were only asked of smaller groups,
this threshold was raised to responses given by more than
3.5% of respondents. Percentages are given to the nearest
whole number. In some charts and tables this can result
in totals that are not exactly 100% due to rounding.
Qualitative study
Objectives
In broad terms, the research objectives of the qualitative
stage of the study were to explore community
understanding and perceptions of the environment, and
to examine the drivers for, and barriers to, behavioural
change in this area.
More specifically, the qualitative research objectives were to:
Understand the breadth and depth of current
conceptions held by the community of ‘environment’,
‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable living’.
Complement the information from the quantitative
survey and explore more deeply influences on
environmental attitudes and behaviour in the light
of the theoretical models of these influences.
Explore whether the factors and influences (which might
make a difference to individuals’ choices and actions in
the future) differ for segments that differ in knowledge
of environmental issues – in particular, the role of values,
locus of control, social context and situational motivators
and barriers.
Consider and explore relational issues – between
propensity to engage in different types of behaviour,
between behaviours at home, work or in other contexts,
between behaviour in different social contexts and
between engaging in one behaviour as a pre-cursor
to moving onto something else.
Place the environmental knowledge, attitudes and
behaviours elicited by discussion of the above in the
context of the participants’ basic values and aspirations.
Research process
The research used qualitative group discussions. The aim
of this stage of the study was to identify and understand
rather than enumerate. Group discussions, especially if
they are relatively non-directive, allow participants to
explore issues raised by any individual. This process also
reveals the intensity of feelings about various issues.
The approach was participant directed, so that while
a number of aspects to do with the research aims were
probed (where relevant) if they were not raised
spontaneously, every attempt was made to encourage
the group participants to express the issues about the
topic that they felt were important.
There was a series of six group discussions, with
participants representing three different segments,
based on measures of interest in the environment and
•
•
•
•
•
A: Research methodology
102 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
environmental issues and their reported pro-environmental
behaviours. There were two group discussions with each
of the following:
the ‘environmentally limited’: those with low levels
of interest in the environment and limited range
of behaviours
the ‘environmentally strong’: those with high levels
of interest in the environment and strong reported
knowledge and level of pro-environmental behaviours
the ‘environmentally moderate’: those who fell between
the environmentally strong and environmentally limited.
Each group contained 8-10 participants, representing
a cross-section of socio-economic strata and people
from a range of cultural backgrounds. In order to explore
regional differences, three of the group discussions
(representing each of the attitudinal segments) took place
in Sydney, with the remaining groups in Dubbo (Limiteds
and Moderates) and Hunter (Strongs).
Elliott & Shanahan Research conducted the qualitative
study. Taverner Research recruited the participants.
Fieldwork took place from 16-28 July 2006.
•
•
•
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 103
As the time span of the Who Cares? research finding grows,
it is useful to include with each report a summary of issues
that were attracting the attention of the community in
the periods preceding the relevant research phase so that,
in future years in particular, results of specific surveys and
qualitative research may be considered in the context
of the times – community experiences, debate, media
attention. While this influences the results in part and
forms a context particularly for consideration of the
findings from Questions 1 and 2 in the survey, it is also
important to consider the long-term trends in the data.
Topical issues in 2005-06 were:
Health System and Medicare: Hospital care, services
and waiting times and the cost and benefits of private
health insurance were prominent at the time. Federal
Government proposals for greater centralisation were
being discussed.
Education: The standard of education being provided
at both public and private schools has been debated,
along with the level and structure of Commonwealth
funding to private schools and the move of students
away from public schools to private schools with resulting
implications for public schools. The Federal Government
also proposed greater centralisation of the education
system and standard means of testing and assessment,
which also stimulated community debate.
Public transport: Train timetables were changed in
2006 to improve the reliability of services for Sydney. The
availability of public transport in many outer urban areas,
particularly north-western Sydney, and the general quality
of rail and bus services were also continuing issues in the
community along with the proposal for extending light
rail services in central Sydney. A proposal to close part of
the rail system in the Hunter was shelved in response to
public objections. Increasing fuel prices have also resulted
in discussion about the availability of public transport and
a steady increase in patronage, especially in bus travel.
Roads and transport: The opening of the Cross City
Tunnel in August 2005 and associated alterations to
surface city roads generated much debate regarding
public private partnerships as a means of funding major
infrastructure projects. There was significant discussion
around the importance of transport infrastructure for
a growing economy with initiatives in both rail (eg
‘untangling’ of the lines which will help with efficient
freight movement) and port (eg Port Botany
expansion) infrastructure.
The environment: A variety of media stories on dramatic
weather events, including the Asian tsunami and Hurricane
Katrina, contributed to growing concerns around climate
change and global warming. A voluntary phase-out
program for the use of plastic bags was introduced and
reusable ‘green’ bags have become widely available at
retail outlets and used over the past two years. Government
education campaigns on environmental concerns were
predominantly about water issues, which are further
covered below, along with other environmentally related
issues: energy consumption and conservation and
planning and development.
Water supply and water conservation: Drought
prevailed across NSW with Level 3 Mandatory Water
Restrictions commencing in June 2005 for Sydney,
Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. With Sydney dam levels
published weekly, initiatives to help people reduce water
consumption were widely publicised. Proposals for a
desalination plant to service Sydney generated debate.
Recycling and water conservation were on the agenda
and Sydney Water’s Waterfix program of installing water
efficient devices continued. Most of NSW, with the
exception of the far north coast, was affected by severe
drought conditions in mid-2006. The situation was more
severe than early 2006, when only one-third of the state
was drought affected, primarily the north-west. Water
restrictions were in place in many country areas.
Energy consumption and conservation and climate
change: Many councils and energy providers have
implemented light globe replacement programs and
promoted energy efficient appliances to assist households
reduce energy consumption. Attention on the broader
environmental implications of energy use, particularly
global warming, was prominent. Alternative fuels for
motor vehicles also received attention with recent large
rises in petrol prices. Global warming and climate change
was beginning to attract a greater level of media attention.
Population and urban development: There was a high
level of public attention to the impacts of population growth
on Sydney. Consequent urban consolidation policies
promoting medium/high density redevelopment in Sydney,
availability and affordability of housing and provision of
infrastructure (roads, public transport, utilities) for new
housing areas received political and media attention.
B: Background issues
104 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Housing prices and mortgage rates: Interest rates
increased by 0.25% in 2005 and early 2006, with predictions
of further increases. Sydney housing prices declined after
years of steady increases fostering concern about housing
affordability and home owners available equity to pay
off mortgages.
Economy and employment: Australian economic
growth continued strongly in 2005-2006, following a
decade of growth in real GDP per capita of 2.6% per year.
Unemployment was low compared to its high point in
1993, although in NSW the unemployment rate is higher
amongst those under 25 and those living outside Sydney.
Industrial relations/workplace relations: In March 2006,
the Federal Government introduced major changes to
industrial relations law, under the broad title of Work
Choices. The proposed changes were widely debated
through 2005. The legislation passed in November and
included a move from enterprise agreement to individual
workplace agreements. There was considerable
community debate regarding job security, conditions and
entitlements that might result from the new legislation.
Crime, law and order and terrorism/security: Overall
NSW crime statistics in most categories continued to
decline. The terrorism concerns of the beginning of the
decade continue with bombing of trains in Madrid (2004)
and London (2005). The prolonging of the war in Iraq was
a major media issue. Locally, the Cronulla riot and other
incidents involving different ethnic groups were widely
reported in late 2005.
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 105
C: Letter of authorisation
106 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Q1a What would you say are the two most important
issues for attention by the State Government
at present?
Q1b Now thinking ahead about ten years, what do you
think will be the two most important issues for
attention by the State Government at that time?
Q1c For each of the following, please tell me how
important it is in your life by using the scale, where
1 means ‘Very important’, 2 – ‘Rather important’,
3 – ‘Not very’ and 4 means ‘Not at all’
1. Family
2. Friends
3. Leisure time
4. Politics
5. Environment
6. Work
7. Religion
8. Service to others
Q2a What would you say is the single most important
environmental issue in NSW today?
Q2b And the second most important environmental issue?
Q3a In general, are you concerned about
environmental problems? Yes/No
Q3bi If yes, would you say you are concerned a great
deal, a fair amount, a little.
Q3bii If no, can you say why you are not concerned.
(need to develop some codes from the pilot)
Q3c Which of the following best describes what you
are concerned about?
1. Health effects of pollution
2. Quality of life
3. Concern for future generations
4. Long-term economic sustainability
5. Maintaining eco-systems – nature,
plants and animals
6 Availability of resources we consume
7. Other (specify)
Q10 I’ll now read out a list of different environmental
issues or situations. For each one can you tell me if
you think that, over the last 3 years, things in NSW
generally have become…read out
(much better, better, worse, much worse or there
has been little or no change
a) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
b) Protection and conservation of endangered
plants and animals
c) Cleanliness of beaches and the ocean
d) Reducing the amount of waste the
community produces
e) Quality of the air
f ) Water quality in rivers, lakes and creeks
g) Reducing water consumption
h) Transport, storage and use of dangerous
industrial chemicals
i) Protection of soil and soil quality
j) Reducing industrial emissions
k) Quietness, control of noise
l) Prosecuting environmental offenders
m) Using alternatives to motor vehicles such as
public transport, cycling or walking instead
of driving
n) Reducing risks associated with the use
of pesticides
o) Reducing electricity use
p) Ensuring there is enough water flowing in
rivers to maintain healthy rivers and streams
q) Coastal planning and conservation
r) Reducing clearing of native vegetation
s) Managing weeds and feral animals
t) Protecting and conserving Aboriginal
cultural heritage
Q11 Now I’ll read out a list of statements. Can you tell
me whether you think that each statement is true
or false
1. The greenhouse effect is caused by a hole in the
earth’s atmosphere (F)
2. More mammals have become extinct in
recorded history in Australia than in any other
country (T)
3. Laws affecting environmental offenders have
been relaxed (F)
4. Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture
than for domestic and manufacturing purposes
combined (T)
5. Recycling paper, cardboard and glass saves on
materials but doesn’t help with saving water,
energy and fuel (F)
Q12a Doing the right thing for the environment is not
always easy for people in today’s busy world.
Different people find they can do different things
and, perhaps for people in some situations, there
is not a lot they can really do. From this next list of
APPENDICESD: 2006 questionnaire
Who Cares about the Environment in 2006? | 107
things I’ll read out, can you please tell me for each
one whether or not in the past 12 months you
have 1 – often done that, 2 – sometimes done it,
3 – just occasionally done it or 4 – never done that?
a) Chosen household products that you think are
better for the environment
b) Decided for environmental reasons to re-use
something instead of throwing it away
c) Made an effort for environmental reasons to
reduce water consumption
d) Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption,
for example by, turning off lights, using energy
efficient light globes and using appliances or
home heating and cooling more efficiently
e) Taken active steps to prevent stormwater
pollution by not putting things like detergents,
paint or turps, grass clippings or leaves into the
gutters or stormwater drains
f ) Avoided products with lots of packaging when
doing the shopping
g) Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption
and vehicle air pollution, for example by driving
a smaller, fuel-efficient car, car-pooling, using
public transport, bicycling or walking
h) Composted food and/or garden refuse
i) Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home
j) Taken care to do noisy activities at a time which
would not disturb your neighbours
Q12b You mentioned that you often (2 items from Q12a).
Can you remember what prompted you to start
doing that?
Q12c You mentioned that you never or just occasionally
(2 items from Q12a). Is there any particular reason
you have found it difficult to do this?
Q12d From this next list of things I’ll read out, can you
please just tell me for each one whether or not
in the past 12 months you have done that thing.
Have you: (Yes/No)
a) Participated in local development or
environmental issues with the aim of protecting
or improving the environment, for example by
writing a letter, attending a meeting, making a
report or complaint or being on a committee
b) Tried to get information on some topic
that you thought was relevant to protecting
the environment
c) Purchased energy-efficient appliances
d) Taken part in a Landcare, Bushcare, treeplanting
or other restoration project
e) Tried to encourage someone else to change
an activity or practice that you thought was
harmful to the environment
Q15 People have different reasons for what they
voluntarily choose to do for the environment. From
the list I’ll read out, can you tell me whether the
reason is very important, somewhat important or
not important to you.
a) Because you feel you have a personal responsibility
to do the right thing for the environment
b) Because you benefit personally from what you do
c) Because you feel that if most other people are
doing it, you should be doing it too
Q16 I will now read out to you a number of statements.
In each case, can you please tell me whether you
agree strongly, agree, disagree or disagree strongly.
a) We are approaching the limit of the number of
people the earth can support
b) When humans interfere with nature it often
produces disastrous consequences
c) Humans are severely abusing the environment
d) Plants and animals have as much right as
humans to exist
e) The balance of nature is strong enough to cope
with the impacts of modern industrial nations
f ) The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind
has been greatly exaggerated
g) The earth is like a spaceship with very limited
room and resources
h) Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
i) If things continue on their present course, we will
soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
Q17 The NSW Government is responsible for enforcing
rules which are intended to protect or improve
the environment. I’ll now read out a number of
different groups in NSW and I’d like you to tell me
if you feel that the environmental regulations that
apply to these groups are 1 – much too strict, 2
– a bit too strict, 3 – about right or 4 – a bit too lax
or 5 – much too lax for each one.
a) Farming and agriculture
b) Manufacturing industry
c) Individuals and households
d) Mining industry
e) Forestry industry
f ) Retailing industry
g) Construction industry
D: 2006 questionnaire
108 | Who Cares about the Environment in 2006?
Q18b For each of the following groups or organisations,
could you tell me whether you think they are
doing too much, enough or not enough to protect
and care for the environment in NSW?
Commonwealth Government,
State Government
Local councils
Manufacturing industry
Retailers
Farmers
Individuals
Community environmental groups and
organisations
Q21 What would you say is the single most important
thing that the NSW Government could do to
protect and look after the environment over the
next few years?
Q22 I am now going to read you some statements
about what some people think should be done.
For each one, can you say whether you 1 – ‘strongly
agree’, 2 – ‘agree’, 3 – ‘disagree’, or 4 – ‘disagree
strongly’. (Record ‘not sure’ but don’t read out).
a) Households should pay for the amount (in
weight/volume) of waste they produce
b) Rivers and wetlands should get enough water
to stay healthy, even if this means some country
towns and farmers dependent on irrigation will
lose business
c) More money should be spent on education
campaigns about solutions to global warming
Q22-36 DEMOGRAPHICS
22 Age (asked as year born)
24 Main language spoken at home
25 Education
26 Employment status
31 Gender
32 Type of dwelling
34a Location
35 Postcode
36a Any children
36d Grandchildren