BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON · PDF fileAs unanticipated environmental problems emerge,...

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.


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.


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.



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.


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



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


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



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


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


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.



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.


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.



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.


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


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.

•

•


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


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


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


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.

•

•

•

•

•

•


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.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



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.


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.



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.


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

•

•

•

•

•



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.

•

•

•


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


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.


C: Letter of authorisation


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


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


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

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON · PDF fileAs unanticipated environmental problems emerge,...

Documents

Transcript of BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND INFLUENCES ON · PDF fileAs unanticipated environmental problems emerge,...