The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 · ethnic communities in NSW. It also provides...

The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 A survey of the environmental

knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of eight ethnic communities in NSW

DEC SoCiAl RESEARCh SERiES

Project jointly funded by the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, and the Sydney Catchment Authority.

The State of NSW and the Department of Environment and Conservation are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged.

Front cover photographs: Woman with green waste bin – courtesy of Canterbury Council Tai chi in Parramatta Regional Park – Department of Environment and Conservation / J Winter

Department of Environment and Conservation 59-61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232 Phone: 131 555 (NSW only – publication and information requests) Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

DEC 2005/213

ISBN 1 74137 365 4

July 2005

Paper manufactured from sustainable sources

DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) I

Ourmulticulturalsocietyisacommunityofcommunities.

Wecomefromdifferentlinguistic,religious,culturalandethnicbackgrounds,butweshareacommonresponsibilityforprotectingtheNSWenvironment.

TheNSWGovernmentrecognisesthatwecanimprovethewayinwhichwecareforandprotectourenvironmentbybetterunderstandingourdiversity,andbuildingrelationshipswithinandamongourethniccommunities.

The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004providesanoverviewoftheenvironmentalknowledge,attitudesandactionsofeightethniccommunitiesinNSW.Thisstudyfollowsonfromtheground-breakingresearchundertakenin1996ontherelationshipsbetweenethnicityandtheenvironmentforsixethniccommunities.KoreanandMacedonianspeakershavebeenaddedtotheArabic,Chinese,Greek,Italian,SpanishandVietnamesespeakersincludedinthe1996study.

Ofcourse,thisresearchshowsconsiderablediversityamongtheresponsesofthevariouscommunitiestotheenvironment.However,thisnewstudyshowsthatallofthemcareverymuchabouttheenvironment,withissuessuchaswaterconservationtakingaveryhighpriority.

Iurgeeveryoneworkinginandwithethniccommunitiestoconsiderthisresearch,anduseittohelpthesediversegroupsmaketheirowncontributionstoasustainablefutureinNSW.

Bob Debus

MinisterfortheEnvironment

Foreword

II DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)

TableofContents

Foreword i

Executive Summary iV

1. introduction 1

2. Using this Research 5

3. Main Findings 7

3.1PrioritiesandValues 7

3.2KnowledgeofEnvironmentalIssues 29

3.3PersonalBehaviour 35

3.4InformationSources 50

3.5Media 60

4. Community profiles 66

Arabic 67

Chinese 71

Greek 75

Italian 79

Korean 83

Macedonian 87

Spanish 91

Vietnamese 95

Appendix A: Research Methods 99

Appendix B: Questionnaire 105

Appendix C: Qualitative Discussion guide 108

The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004

DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) III

IndexofTablesandFigures

Table1: Reasonforenvironmentalconcern,bylanguage:NESB 2004 17Table2: Personalpriorities,bylanguage:NESB 2004 20Table3: Featuresofagoodplacetolive,bylanguage:NESB 2004 27Table4: Knowledgeofenvironmentalissues 29Table5: Reasonsforengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlypractices:NESB 2004 41Table6: Reasonsfornon-engagement:NESB 2004 43Table7: Environmentallydamagingbehaviour,bylanguage:NESB 2004 46Table8: Outdoorspacesaroundthehome,bylanguage:NESB 2004 48Table9: Mainsourcesofinformation,bylanguage:NESB 2004 52Table10: Reliabilityofenvironmentalinformationsources,bylanguage:NESB 2004 56Table11: Television,bylanguage:NESB 2004 61Table12: Radio,bylanguage:NESB 2004 63Table13: Newspapers,bylanguage:NESB 2004 65Table14: Demographicprofileofthesample 101Table15: Outdoorspacesaroundthehome:NESB 2004 102Table16: Comparison–languagegroupsamplesandNSWpopulation 104

Figure1: Twomostimportantissuesforstategovernmentattentionnow:NESB1996-2004 8Figure2: Thetwomostimportantissues:Who Cares?1997-2003 8Figure3: Twomostimportantissuesforstategovernmentattentionintenyears:NESB1996-2004 11Figure4: Thetwomostimportantissuesintenyears:Who Cares?1997-2003 11Figure5: Levelofconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems:NESB1996-2004 13Figure6: Levelofconcern:Who Cares?1997-2003 13Figure7: Concernaboutenvironmentalproblems,differencesbylanguage:NESB 2004 14Figure8: Majoraspectofconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems:NESB 2004 16Figure9: Majoraspectofconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems:Who Cares?2003 16Figure10: Personalpriorities:NESB 2004 19Figure11: Personalpriorities:Who Cares?2003 19Figure12: SingleandsecondmostimportantenvironmentalissuesinNSWtoday:NESB 2004 21Figure13: MostimportantenvironmentalissuesinNSWtoday:NESB1996-2004 22Figure14: MostimportantenvironmentalissuesinNSWtoday:Who Cares?1997-2003 22Figure15: Mostimportantlocalenvironmentalissues:NESB 2004 25Figure16: Featuresofagoodplacetolive:NESB 2004 26Figure17: Correctanswerstoknowledgequestions,bylanguage:NESB 2004 30Figure18: Environmentallyfriendlypracticesinthelasttwelvemonths:NESB 2004 36Figure19: Environmentallyfriendlypracticesinthelasttwelvemonths:Who Cares?2003 36Figure20: Frequencyofspecificenvironmentallyfriendlybehavioursinthelasttwelvemonths,bylanguage:NESB 2004 37Figure21: Environmentallydamagingbehaviour:NESB 2004 45Figure22: Environmentallydamagingbehaviour:Who Cares?2003 45Figure23: Useofoutdoorspacesaroundthehome:NESB 2004 47Figure24: Mainandpreferredsourcesofinformationabouttheenvironment:NESB 2004 51Figure25: Mainsourcesofinformationabouttheenvironment:NESB1996-2004 51Figure26: Languageofmainandpreferredenvironmentalinformationsources:NESB 2004 57Figure27: Reliabilityofenvironmentalinformationsources:NESB 2004 55Figure28: Reliabilityofenvironmentalinformationsources:Who Cares?2003 55Figure29: Television(EnglishandLOTE) 60Figure30: Radio(EnglishandLOTE) 62Figure31: Newspapers(EnglishandLOTE) 64

IV DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)

The studyThisstudyinvestigatestheenvironmentalneedsofethniccommunitiesinNSW.Itprovidesinformationabout,andinsightsinto,thewaysknowledge,attitudesandbehavioursinrelationtotheenvironmentvaryamongeightdifferentethniccommunitiesinNSW.Italsoprovidesinformationonthemediapreferencesofthesecommunities.Theresultsofthisstudywillassistintheplanning,implementationandevaluationofenvironmentaleducationprogramsforthosecommunities.Changesandtrendsareidentifiedthroughcomparisontoaprevious1996studyoftheenvironmentandethniccommunitiesandtotheresultsfromabroadcommunitysurvey,Who Cares about the Environment?lastconductedin2003.

headlinesThereareseveralkeyfindingsfromthis2004study:

Peoplefromtheethniccommunitiessurveyedvaluetheenvironmentasanimportantpartoftheirlives.Onlyfamilywasratedasveryorratherimportantbymoreparticipants.SignificantlymorepeoplefromNon-Englishspeakingbackgrounds(NESB)ratedenvironmentasveryimportantthanintheDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)’s2003community-widesurvey,Who Cares about the Environment?

Issuesrelatedtowatersupplyandconservationhaveincreasedinimportancesince1996asanenvironmentalissueofconcernforpeople,withthedroughtandwaterrestrictionslikelytobeakeyfactorinthisincrease.

Whencombinedwithissuesofwaterconservationandurbangrowth/populationissues,theenvironmentisseenasasignificantlymoreimportantissueinNSWtodaythanitwasin1996.

Onmanyquestionsthereissubstantialdiversitybetweencommunitiesintheirresponses.

Therearealsosubstantialvariationsforanygivencommunityonindicatorswithinagivenquestionarea,forexampleonknowledgequestionsandinadoptingspecificenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviours.

Peoplecandiscussenvironmentalissuesinmoredetailthanin1996.Thenumberofpeoplewhoareunsureordon’tknowaboutenvironmentalissueshasdecreasedmarkedly.

Keyfindingsfromeachareaofthereportaresummarisedbelow.

priorities and values: what do people of non-English speaking background think is important?HealthandeducationareconsideredthetwomostimportantissuesforStateGovernmentattentionnow,andhavegrowndramaticallyinimportancesince1996comparedtoanyotherissue.Theissuesofunemployment,crime,lawandviolenceandimmigrationhavedeclinedinimportancesince1996.ThesetrendsarealsoreflectedintheWho Cares about the Environment?researchseriesinthebroadercommunity.

AsinthewiderNSWpopulation,theenvironmentinageneralsenseisrankedsixthoverallasapriorityissueforStateGovernmentattentiontoday.However,thestrongemergenceofwaterconservationasthefourthrankedissueandenvironmentalconcernsthatmaybeassociatedwithotherissuessuchasroadsandtrafficorpublictransport,indicateagreaterpriorityforenvironmentalissues.Takentogether,waterconservationandenvironmentrankthirdafterhealthandeducation.

In2004peoplefromselectethniccommunitiesinNSWwerealsoabletoarticulatemoreissuesforStateGovernmentattentionthantheywerein1996,withasubstantialdeclineinthedon’tknowresponse,atrendthatwasalsoseenintheWho Cares about the Environment?series.Waterconservationranksthirdandenvironmentrankssixthasapriorityissueforgovernmentintenyearstime.Theseissuesarementionedmorefrequentlyasfutureprioritiesthanaspresentprioritiesandtogethertheyformthehighestfuturepriority.

Levelofconcernfortheenvironmenthasshiftedslightlysince1996,withfewerpeoplein2004expressinglittleornoconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems.Levelofconcernvariessubstantiallyamongstthecommunities:fromtwothirdsoftheSpanishgroupveryconcernedtoonefifthoftheVietnamesegroup.Respondentspredominantlynominateastheirreasonsforconcern,concernforfuturegenerations,qualityoflifeandthehealtheffectsofpollution,

■

■

■

■

■

■

ExecutiveSummary


Heading

DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) V


ratherthanmaintenanceofnatureandecosystems.Thuspersonalandimmediateissuesaregivenmoreimportancethanlongertermandenvironmentalsustainabilityissues.

NinetyfivepercentofpeoplefromtheselectedethniccommunitiesinNSWratedenvironmentasaratherorveryimportantintheirlives,thesecondhighestafterfamily.Morethansevenintenpeopleratedenvironmentasveryimportant,andalmostaquarterrateitasratherimportant.Environmentisplacedabovework,friendsandleisureasapriorityinpeople’slives.WhilefamilyastheissueofmostimportancetoethniccommunitiesisthesameasthebroadercommunityintheWho Cares about the Environment in 2003?survey,ethniccommunitiesplacedmorevalueonworkandservicetootherswherethebroadercommunityplacedgreatervalueonfriendsandleisuretime.

Waterandairissuescontinuetobetheethniccommunities’mainenvironmentalconcernforNSW,althoughwaterissuesarenowthedominantconcern,whereasairissuesweredominantin1996.Thisismostlikelytobeadirectresultofwaterrestrictionsandmediaattentiononissuesrelatedtothedroughtandwaterstoragelevels.Intheirlocalarea,however,morethanaquarterofparticipantscouldnotidentifyanyenvironmentalissues.

Knowledge Aseriesoftrue-falsequestionsonenvironmentalissues,includingthegreenhouseeffect,waterusage,recycledproducts,sourceofNSWelectricityandwildlifeincitiesandbackyards,revealedsignificantgapsinknowledgeacrossallquestions.Thehighestlevelsofknowledge(approximately60%correctanswers)relatedtowildlifeinbackyards.

Knowledgequestionswerenotaskedinthe1996ethniccommunitiessurveysothatthesequestionsestablishbaselineinformationforevaluatingprogramsintothefuture.Twoquestionsalsousedinthe2003Who Cares about the Environment?surveyshowedthatethniccommunitieshavelevelsofknowledgeaboutthegreenhouseeffectcomparabletothegeneralcommunityandtheyaremorelikelytounderstandtherelativeuseofwaterinNSWbyagriculturecomparedtootherusers.

Therearedifferencesacrossthevariouslanguagegroupsinrelationtoknowledgelevels,butnolanguagegroupstandsoutasmoreorlessinformedthananother.

personal behaviourRespondentsintheresearchweregenerallyabletomentionatleastafewthingstheydotohelpprotecttheenvironment.Thebehaviourscitedmostoftenwerereducingwaterconsumption,reducingenergyconsumptionandpreventingstormwaterpollution.Additionally,morethanhalfthepeoplefromtheselectedethniccommunitiesrecyclepaperorothermaterialsatworkorhavedecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway.Morethanfourintenhaveboughtenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobes,orotherproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment.

Peopleinthissurveywerelesslikelytoparticipateinlocalenvironmentalissues,trytogetinformationabouttheenvironmentorcomposttheirkitchen/gardenwaste.

Theprimaryreasonspeoplegaveforadoptingbehaviourthatisperceivedasenvironmentallyfriendlyweretosavemoney,outofaconcernfortheenvironmentorasenseofcivicresponsibility,orasadirectresultofenvironmentalregulationsuchaswaterrestrictions.

Environmentallyfriendlybehaviourthatisperceivedastimeconsumingordifficultislesslikelytobeadopted,forexample,avoidingplasticbags,compostingoravoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

Lackofknowledgeabouthowtoparticipateinenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviourorlackofawarenessoftheenvironmentalimpactsofagivenactivityisalsoasignificantbarriertobehaviouraluptake.Thisisparticularlyrelevantforcomposting,choosingproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentandavoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

Participantsinthequalitativefocusgroupresearchalsosuggestedthatactivitiesseenascostlyorrequiringadditionalcapitaloutlay,forexamplepurchasingrenewableenergy,energyefficientappliancesandgreywatersystemswerelesslikelytobeadopted.

ExecutiveSummary

VI DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)

information sourcesEthniccommunities’mainsourcesofenvironmentalinformationarenewspapersandtelevision.FourintenrespondentsaccessthisinformationeitherintheirownlanguageorinbothEnglishandtheirownlanguage.Forradiothisfigureisseveninten.Theextenttowhichradioornewspapersarepreferredmediabythevariouslanguagegroupsisprobablyrelatedtotheavailablemediasourcesforthevariouslanguagecommunities.

ThereisastrongpreferenceamongstNESBrespondentsforinformationtobeprovidedintheirownlanguage,apreferencethatisparticularlymarkedforradio.ForallinformationmediathereisastrongdesireforinformationtobeprovidedinbothEnglishandtheirownlanguage.

LackofEnglishlanguageisnotthesolereasonforpreferringlanguagesotherthanEnglish(LOTE)information.BilingualpeoplealsopreferLOTEinformationalongsideEnglishinformation.

Morethaneightintenrespondentsfromtheselectedethniccommunitiesrateenvironmentalgroups,scientistsortechnicalexperts,othermembersofthecommunityandschoolsasreliablesourcesofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.Theseresponsessuggestthatbothinformalword-of-mouthsourcesandexpertisearevalued.

Businessandindustry,religiousleadersandmediapersonalitieswereconsideredtheleastreliableofallinformationsourcesbuttheywereconsideredreliablebyamuchgreaterproportionofpeoplefromtheseethniccommunitiesthanthoseinthe2003Who Cares about the Environment?survey.

ExecutiveSummary


DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) �

Background to the researchThewholecommunityhasaninterestinprotectingtheenvironment.Howeversignificantgroupswithinthepopulation,becauseoflanguageandculturalbarriers,maynotbeexposedtomainstreamcommunicationsaboutenvironmentalissues.InNSW,oneinfiveresidents(1,196,204people)speakalanguageotherthanEnglishathome1.

OfthosespeakingalanguageotherthanEnglish,15%speaklittleornoEnglish.Thesefiguresindicatethereisconsiderableneedforenvironmentaleducationprogramsthatareculturallyandlinguisticallyappropriatetoengagethesecommunities.

ArangeofgovernmentagencieswithenvironmentalresponsibilitiesinNSWrequireappropriateandrelevantinformationabouttheviewsandunderstandingsofethniccommunitiesrelatingtotheenvironment.Thisinformationincludesthemotivationsandbarrierswhichinfluencethewaypeoplefromethniccommunitiesbehaveonenvironmentalissues,theiraccesstoreliableinformationabouttheenvironment,andhowthesevarywithculturaldifferences.

Inmid-2003fiveagencies,theEnvironmentProtectionAuthority(EPA),NationalParksandWildlifeService(NPWS),ResourceNSW,theSustainableEnergyDevelopmentAuthority(SEDA)andSydneyCatchmentAuthority(SCA)commencedjointlyfundedresearchtoinvestigatetheseissuesandbuildonprevioussocialresearchonethniccommunitiesandtheenvironment,completedin1996.InSeptember2003severaloftheseagencies(EPA,NPWSandResourceNSW)werebroughttogether,alongwiththeRoyalBotanicGardensandDomainTrust,toestablishtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW).

CulturalandIndigenousResearchCentreAustraliawascommissionedtoconducttheresearchwitheightofthelargestnon-EnglishspeakingbackgroundcommunitiesinNSW.Thesecommunitieswere:

Arabic n Korean

Chinese(CantoneseandMandarin) n Macedonian

Greek n Spanish

Italian n Vietnamese

Thestudyprovidesasnapshotoftheenvironmentalconcernsin2004ofpeoplefromtheseeightethniccommunitiesinNSW.Itaimstobroadenanddeepenunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenethnicityandenvironmentalknowledge,valuesandpracticesinspecificareas.

Importantly,italsoprovidescomparisonswithotherresearchinthisarea.Therearethreemainsetsofresearchdata(describedfurtherinthenextsection)thatareusedforcomparisonsthroughthisreport:

Similarresearchconductedwithethniccommunitiesin1996(referredtoasNESB 1996).

Broadercommunityviewsandresponses,asdemonstratedintheDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)’ssocialresearchseries,Who Cares about the Environment? (referredtoasthe Who Cares? researchorWho Cares?2003).

ResponsesspecificallyfromNESBparticipantsinWho Cares about the Environment in 2003? Survey(referredtoasWho Cares?2003 NESB).

1.AustralianBureauofStatistics,2001Census.

n

n

n

n

1.

2.

3.

1.Introduction

� DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)

1.Introduction

About the studyTheobjectivesofthe2004studywereto:

provideinsightsintothewaysknowledge,attitudesandbehavioursinrelationtotheenvironmentdifferamongselectedethniccommunities;

provideinformationaboutthepreferredcommunicationschannelsofeachoftheethniccommunities;

provideanevidencebasisforplanning,implementationandevaluationofthepartneragencies’programs;

promotediscussionandwiderawarenessofthesocialdimensionsofenvironmentprotection.

Ninefocusgroups(oneineachlanguagegroup,withseparategroupsforCantoneseandMandarin)wereheldinDecember2003todiscussenvironmentalissuesandprovidein-depthqualitativeinformationtoinformthesurveydesign.Allfocusgroupswerefacilitatedbybilingualresearchersinthecommunitylanguageoftheparticipants.

Followingsurveydesignandtesting,805peopleweresurveyedinMay-June2004,withaminimumof100fromeachcommunity.Thisreportprovidestheresultsofthe2004surveybutincludesreferencetofocusgroupdiscussionswhererelevantandindividualstatementsfromfocusgroupparticipantswherethesehighlightspecificissues.

Thereportalsoprovidescomparisonstothreeothersetsofdataandresearch:

The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities2 (EPA1996),commissionedbytheEPAandSydneyWaterin1996toinvestigatetheknowledge,attitudesandbehavioursinrelationtoenvironmentalissuesandwateruseofArabic,Chinese,Greek,Italian,SpanishandVietnamesespeakersinNSW.Manyquestionsfromthisstudywererepeatedinthecurrentstudyandwhereavailablecomparisonsaremadebetweenthe1996research(NESB 1996) andthecurrentresearch(NESB 2004)throughthisreport.

TheDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)’ssocialresearchseries,Who Cares about the Environment? (Who Cares?research)includessurveysconductedin1994,1997,2000and2003.Thisseriesisalarge-scalecommunitystudyofNSWresidentsmeasuringchangesovertimeinpeople’sattitudes,knowledge,skillsandbehavioursinaseriesofcorequestions,whicharereplicatedacrossthesurveys.Whereappropriate,thechangesevidentintheWho Cares?researchfrom1997to2003areincludedtoprovideacomparisonoverasimilartimeperiodtothetrendsandchangesbetweenthetwoNESBsamples(1996and2004).

Who Cares about the Environment in 2003?3includedrespondentsfromnon-Englishspeakingbackgrounds(NESB)andtheseresponseswerecomparedwithpeoplefromEnglish-speakingbackgrounds.TheresultsfromtheWho Cares? NESBsamplein2003(Who Cares? 2003 NESB)arecomparedwiththeresponsesfromtheNESB 2004study.InconsideringthiscomparisonitshouldbenotedthatallNESBrespondentsfromtheWho Cares? 2003 samplespokeEnglishwellenoughtoanswerthesurveyinEnglishandrepresentedabroaderrangeoflanguagegroupsthantheeightgroupsincludedinthisNESB2004 research.

DifferencesinthesamplesforeachofthesestudiesarediscussedinAppendixA.

ResultsarereportedforthewholesamplewithcomparisonstotheNESB 1996survey,andtoWho Cares?resultswhererelevant.Statisticallysignificantdifferencesbasedondemographiccharacteristics:age,gender,educationlevel,lengthofresidenceinAustraliaandEnglishproficiency,andstatisticallysignificantdifferencesonthebasisoflanguage/ethniccommunityarefoundintheboxesfollowingthetotalsampleresults.Foradiscussiononthelevelsofstatisticallysignificantdifferenceinthisstudy,seeAppendixA.

2.NSWEnvironmentProtectionAuthority(1997).The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities.EPA97/73.NSWEnvironmentProtectionAuthority,Chatswood.

3.DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)(2004).Who Cares about the Environment in 2003?DEC2004/10.DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW),Sydney.

n

n

n

n

1.

2.

3.


Heading



1.Introduction

Question topicsThetopicscoveredinthequestionnairewere:

perceivedprioritiesfortheNSWGovernment,nowandinthefuture,

perceivedpriorityenvironmentalissues,

perceivedprioritylocalenvironmentalissues,

knowledgeofspecificenvironmentalissues,

levelofconcernfortheenvironmentandthemajorreasonforconcern,

corevaluesandperceivedimportanceofenvironmentasapersonalpriority,

reportedenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviours,

reasonsforengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviours,

reasonsfornotengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviours,

reportedenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours,

featuresofagoodplacetolive,

useofandaccesstooutdoorspacesaroundthehome,

environmentalinformationsourcesandreliabilityofenvironmentalinformation,

mediaconsumptionpatterns.

Research methods are detailed in Appendix A and the full questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

Background issuesResponsestothesurveys,particularlyintheareaofissuesforStateGovernmentattention,inpartreflectpeople’srecentexperienceandexposuretoissuesinthemedia.Thissummaryofbackgroundissueshasbeenincludedtoputthefindingsofthe2004surveyinthecontextoftheissuesmentionedbypeopleinthefocusgroupsandinmediareportingintheperiodleadinguptothesurvey.Italsoprovidesahistoricalcontextforthedataforfuturereference.

Health system and Medicare:TherewascontinuingdebateaboutthehealthsystemandpotentialCommonwealthGovernmentreformstoMedicare.Issuesincludeddeclineingeneralpractitionersacceptingbulkbilling,increasingcostsofprivatehealthinsuranceand,atthetimeofthisstudy,anumberofissuesinvolvingaccesstohospitalemergencywardsandpatientcareissuesinhospitalsinsouthwesternSydney.

Education: Equityoffundingandtheconsequentrelativestandardsoffacilitiesinprivateandpublicschoolswerecontinuingissues,alongwithaperceiveddriftofstudentsfrompublictoprivateschools.

Attertiaryleveltherewereconcernsaboutstudents’abilitytorepaylargeHECSdebts,thebalanceoflocalandoverseasstudentsinuniversitiesandpossibleincreasesinTAFEfees.

Crime, law and order and terrorism/security:ThereweresignificantterrorismandsecurityconcernsinthewakeofthedestructionoftheWorldTradeCentretowersinNewYorkon11September2001,theBaliBombingsin2002,theinvasionofIraqin2003andtheongoingwarthere,andthebombingoftheMadridundergroundinMarch2004.Policenumbersandpresenceonthestreet,aswellastheoperationofthejudicialsystemandsentencingforconvictedcriminals,werealsoissuespeopleconsideredimportant.

LawandorderissueswerehighlightedbyriotsbyAboriginalpeopleinRedfernearlyin2004followingthedeathofateenageboy.ParticularlypertinenttoNESBgroupswerearangeofhighprofilecrimesidentifiedwithinspecificcommunities.ThesereceivedsignificantattentioninboththeEnglishlanguageandnon-Englishmedia.

Public transport:Thegeneralqualityofrailandbusservices,andtheavailabilityofservicesduringpeakhoursandrailsafetywerecontinuingissues,particularlyforpublictransportusers.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


1.Introduction

Roads and transport: Congestionanddelaysinurbantrafficwerecontinuingissues.Peoplewerealsoconcernedaboutairpollutioninmotorwaytunnels.

The environment: Themajoremphasiswasondrought,watersupplies,waterconservationandrestrictionsandclimatechange,withdroughtconditionsinmostareasofNSWthrough2001-2004.MandatorywaterrestrictionswereintroducedinMetropolitanSydneyinOctober2003anddeclineinwatersuppliesanddamlevelswereconsistentlyreportedinthemedia.

Unemployment:Whileunemploymentdeclinedfromanationallevelofover10%intheearly1990sto5.2%inNSWinthelastquarterof20044,employmentandincomeremainedanimportantissuefornewermigrantsandthosewithlowEnglishskills.

Taxes, stamp duties and GST and housing prices:Anational10%GSTwasintroducedinJuly2000andcompliancewithreportingandpaymentofGSTforsmallbusinessposeddifficultiesformanywithlowEnglishskills.PropertyvaluesincreasedsignificantlyacrossmuchofNSWin2002-2003,particularlyinSydney(ABSHousePriceIndexforSydneyincreased21.2%June2002toJune2003),incurringhigherlandtaxes.Higherhousepricesalsoincurhigherlevelsofstampduty.Affordabilityofnewhomesandtheimpactofstampduty,particularlyforyoungfamilies,becameaconcern.

ImmigrationandFederalgovernmentpoliciestowardsillegalimmigrants,particularly‘boatpeople’,alongwithconditionsindetentioncentresandlengthoftimespentindetentioncentresbysomeillegalimmigrants,receivedconsiderablemediaattentionanddebate,highlightedbyanumberofhighprofilecases.

Population and urban development:TherewasanongoinghighlevelofpublicattentiontotheproblemsfacingSydneyasaresultofpopulationgrowthfuelledbytheattractivenessofSydneyfornewmigrants.Theconsequenturbanconsolidationpoliciespromotingmedium/highdensityredevelopmentinSydneyreceivedpublicity,asdidprovisionofinfrastructure(roads,publictransport,utilities)fornewhousingareas.

4.NSW Quarterly Labour Market Report, AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEmploymentandWorkplaceRelations,December2004.



Who should know about this research?�

Thisresearchprovidesimportantinformationthatcanbeusedtoguidepolicyandprojectofficersinthedesignanddeliveryofstrategiesandprogramstoinvolveethniccommunitiesinenvironmentalinitiatives.

Usethisresearchifyouworkorareinvolvedin:

ethniccommunityorganisations,e.g.migrantresourcecentres,ethno-specificgroups,multiculturalassociations,

non-Englishcommunicationsandmedia,

governmentorganisationsworkingwiththecommunity,includingethniccommunities,tomanageandprotecttheenvironment,

localcouncils,

communityenvironmentalgroupswishingtoreachandinvolveethnicgroupsintheircommunities,

catchmentmanagementauthoritiesandcommittees,

educationalinstitutions,

industryareassuchasagriculture,manufacturingandhospitalitywhichinvolvelargenumbersofemployeesfromnon-Englishspeakingbackgrounds.

How could you use the information?Individualsandorganisationsareencouragedtousethisresearchto:

promoteimprovedenvironmentalawarenessandpracticesamongethniccommunitiesandthebroaderNSWcommunity,

stimulateparticipationbypeoplefromethniccommunitiesinenvironmentalprogramsbylinkingtheprogramsmorecloselytotheirinterestsandconcerns,

acknowledgeandbuildonthecurrentsupportforandconcernabouttheenvironmentwithinmanyethniccommunities,

designeducationalinitiativestoincreaseunderstandingofthespecificenvironmentalissuesidentifiedashavinglowerpriorityamongethniccommunities,e.g.landdegradation,protectionofflora&faunaandenvironmentalsustainability,

incorporateenvironmentaleducationforethniccommunitiesintoorganisationalplanningprocesses.

Implications for community education targeting people of non-English speaking background communitiesTheresearchprovidesusefulinformationtohelpdevelop,implementandevaluateethniccommunityeducationinrelationtoenvironmentalissues.Theresearchsuggeststhattherearemanyopportunitiestocapitaliseontheexistingbaseofenvironmentalconcernabout,andinterestin,specificissuesamongethniccommunitiesinthecontextoftheirwiderinterestsandconcerns.Thechallengeistodirecteducationalinitiativestobuildonthecurrentenvironmentalsupportandunderstanding,aswellasfillthegapsthatexistinenvironmentalknowledge.

5.MuchoftheinformationinthissectioncanalsobefoundinThe Environment and Ethnic Communities,EPASocialResearchSeries,EnvironmentProtectionAuthority,1997.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

2.UsingthisResearch5


2.UsingthisResearch

Theresearchpointstoaseriesofkeystrategiesimportanttocommunityeducation,communicationandmarketingforethniccommunities:

Recognise the differences among ethnic communitiesTherearemanydifferencesinknowledgeandunderstanding,beliefsandattitudes,andbehavioursamongethniccommunitygroupsinrelationtotheenvironment.Thesedifferentconcernsandviewsmustberecognisedandunderstood,andculturaldifferencesshouldberespectedinordertoenableeffectivedesignofethniccommunityeducationinitiatives.

Culturallyrelevantenvironmentalprogramsandresourcesneedtobedevelopedinpartnershipwithethniccommunitiesinresponsetothisrecognition.

Therearemanydifferentmediabeingaccessedbypeopleofnon-Englishspeakingbackgroundthatrequireconsiderationandappropriateuseinanycommunicationapproach.

Make links with ethnic groupsMakinglinkswithkeyethniccommunitynetworksandinvolvingethniccommunityrepresentativesinthedesign,implementationandevaluationofenvironmentaleducationstrategiesisessentialforeffectiveethniccommunityeducation.TheEthnic Communities Reference Book6identifiesethno-specificcommunitiesinNSW,ausefulstartingpointforinformationaboutethniccommunitiesinyourarea.

Develop practical, relevant programsForethniccommunities,educationalinitiativesinthehouseholdsectorshouldemphasisepersonalrelevanceandrecommendpractical,alternativeactions.

Educationalmaterialshouldalsoincludemessagesabouthowappropriatebehaviourcanbenefitpersonalandfamilyhealth,andleadtocostsavings.Cost-savingalternativesareparticularlyattractiveformanypeopleendeavouringtoestablishinanewcountry.

Checklistsandhelpfulhintscanbeaneffectivewaytoprovide‘whatyoucando’information.

Peoplefromethniccommunitiesoftenlackknowledgeoflawsandregulationsrelatingtotheiractivitiesandbothappreciateandactonthisinformation.Itisthusimportant,whencommunicatingenvironmentalissuesandenvironmentallyappropriateindividualandcorporateactions,tohighlightanyrelevantlawsandregulations.

Strategiesthatfocusonthecausesofenvironmentalproblemsandonindividualandcommunity-wideactionstoaddresstheseproblemsarealsouseful.

Educationalinitiativesshoulddirectpeopleinthesecommunitiestopeopleandplacesthatcanprovidemoredetailedinformationandassistance.Toaccompanythisreport,theDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)ispublishingaguidetoworkingwithethniccommunities,Learning with Ethnic Communities: A Guide for Environmental Educators.

Use appropriate communications channelsThepreferredinformationsourcesofethniccommunitiesshouldbeconsideredwhendevelopingandimplementingbothmainstreamEnglishandethno-specificenvironmentcommunications.Theuseofnon-EnglishmediacanhelpincreasethereachandimpactofenvironmentalmessagesandthepreferredmediaforeachcommunityinthisstudyaredetailedintheCommunityProfiles.

6.PublishedbytheEthnicCommunitiesCouncilofNSW:neweditionisbeingpreparedfor2005.Seehttp://www.eccnsw.org.au.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n



3.1 PRIORITIES AND VALUES

Two most important issues for attention now

Question: What would you say are the two most important issues for attention by the NSW Government at present? (Unprompted)

Thehealthsystemandeducationwerethetwoissuesconsideredbypeopleofnon-EnglishspeakingbackgroundinthissampleasthemostimportantforattentionbytheStateGovernmentnow,withoveraquarter(27%)mentioningthehealthsystemorMedicarebulkbillingand25%mentioningeducation.Thiscomparesto8%foreachin1996,rankingfifthinpriority.Thepriorityoftheseissuesin2004morecloselyreflectsbroadercommunitypriorities(Who Cares?),wheretheywerethesecondandthirdissuesin1996andthetopissuesin2003,withhealthincreasinginimportancefrom24%in1997to49%in2003andeducationfrom20%to40%.

Environmentwasrankedeighthoverall,adeclinefromfourthrankingin1996.Environmentalconcernsthatmaybeassociatedwithotherissues,however,suchasroadsandtrafficorpublictransport,andthestrongemergenceofwaterconservationasthefourthrankedissue,indicateagreaterpriorityforenvironmentalissues.Takentogetherwaterconservationandenvironmentrankthirdafterhealthandeducation.

Theissueofwaterconservation(13%)hasemergedasapriorityforStateGovernmentforthefirsttime.AsimilartrendwasseenintheWho Cares?studywithwatersupply/conservationappearingforthefirsttimein2003(5%).TheNESBrespondentsintheWho Cares?studycitedwaterissuesataboutthesamelevelastheEnglish-speakingrespondentssothatthegreaterprevalenceofwaterissuesinthisstudyislikelytoberelatedtothepublicitysurroundingwaterrestrictionsbetweenthetwosurveysinmid-2003andmid-2004.

Agedcare/pensionsappearedforthefirsttime(8%),atahigherlevelthanintheWho Cares?sample(1%),adifferencewhichmayberelatedtothefactthattheageprofileofanumberofthelanguagegroupsincludedinthisstudyisskewedsignificantlytowardolderagecategories.Thisconcernreplacesamoregeneralconcernrecordedaswelfareissuesin1996.

Threeotherissueshaveemergedsince1996:

Taxation(6%)

Nationalsecurity(5%)

Costofhousing(4%).

Thesenewissuesofagedcare/pensions,taxationandcostofhousingtogetherplaceanemphasis(18%)onspecificexpenditure-relatedfinancialissues,whereasin1996,theemphasiswasonunemploymentandincome(22%).Unemploymentisstillaconcernbuthasdeclinedinpriorityasanissue,from22%in1996to10%in2004.AsimilardeclineinconcernaboutunemploymentwasseenintheWho Cares?results.

Immigrationandcrime-relatedissueshavealsodeclinedinpriorityfrom1996to2004,immigrationandracismfrom17%to8%andcrime/lawandorder/violenceissuesfrom22%to14%.

Thosewhocouldnotnominateanyissueshavedeclinedfrom33%in1996to11%,amuchgreaterdropthanfortheWho Cares?results.Bothstudiessuggestedthatpeoplearemoreknowledgeableaboutstateissuesthaninthemid-1990s.Thedon’tknowproportionintheethniccommunitiesisthusnowmorecloselyalignedtothatinthegeneralcommunity.

n

n

n

3.MainFindings


3.1PrioritiesandValues

FIGURE 1

Two most important issues for state government attention now: NESB 1996-2004

0 5 1510 20 25 35 4530 40 50

Don't know

Population issues

Alcohol and other drugs

Cost of housing

National security/war in Iraq

Economy/economic growth

Roads and traffic

Public transport

Taxation

Environment

Welfare

Aged care/pensions

Immigration/racism

Unemployment/income

Water supply/water conservation

Crime/law/violence

Education

Health/health system

Percentage of respondents

27

25

14

13

10

8

8

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

3

1

11

8

8

22

22

17

7

11

3

4

4

33

NESB 1996 n = 601

NESB 2004 n = 805

Note: The issues of immigration and racism were coded together in 1996. In 2004, they were recorded separately: of the total 8% immigration comprised 6% and racism 2% in 2004.

FIGURE 2

The two most important issues: Who Cares? 1997-2003

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


49

40

16

13

11

7

6

5

5

3

2

2

2

6

24

20

9

15

6

14

34

4

4

1

10

Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421

Don't know

Population issues

Cost of housing


National security/defence

Taxation


Unemployment/income

Environment

Roads and traffic

Crime/law/violence

Public transport

Education



Heading




Two most important issues for attention now

Language findings Twosignificantdifferencesbylanguagewerenotedinrespondents’ratingofenvironmentalissuesasapriorityforNSWGovernmentattention:

Vietnameserespondentsweremorelikelythanthetotalsampletoidentifyenvironment(17%,comparedto6%).

Spanishrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelythanthetotalsampletoidentifywaterconservation/supply(36%,comparedto13%).

n

n

�0 DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)


Two most important issues in ten years time

Question: What do you think will be the two most important issues for attention by the State Government in ten years time?

Withsomevariationinpositioning,theissuesidentifiedasmostimportantintenyears’time(Figure3)largelymirrorthoseseenasmostimportantnow(Figure1).Thehealthsystemandeducationarethemostfrequentlymentionedissuesandhaveincreasedinimportancesince1996:

Healthsystem 18%,upfrom5%in1996

Education 16%,upfrom5%in1996

ThisshiftisconsistentwiththetrendsseenintheWho Cares?series(Figure4),wherehealthandeducationincreasedinimportanceasafutureissuefrom1997to2003.

WatersupplyandwaterconservationrankasthethirdpriorityissueforStateGovernmentattentionintenyears’time.ThisissuewasnotmentionedatallintheNESB 1996research.Again,theincreaseinpriorityofthisissueisconsistentwiththetrendintheWho Cares?seriesresultsbetween1997and2003.

TheenvironmentranksassixthinpriorityforStateGovernmentinthefuture.Whencombinedwithwatersupplyandconservation,however,itisthetoprankingissueoverall(26%).Somerespondentsmayhavehadinmindtheenvironmentalimplicationsoftwootherissues,roadsandtraffic(4%)andpopulation(4%),possiblymakingenvironmentalconcernsevenmoreimportant.

Issuesmentionedforthefirsttimein2004are:

Agedcare/pensions 8%

Nationalsecurity/defence 5%

Roadsandtraffic 4%

Populationissues 4%

Taxation 3%

Farmingandagriculture 1%

Thefallinthosewhocouldnotnominateanyissueisagaindramatic–from51%in1996to16%in2004.ThisdownwardtrendisalsoseenintheWho Cares?seriesresults,from15%in1997to7%in2003.

AllotherdifferencesbetweentheNESB 1996andNESB 2004resultsarenotstatisticallysignificant.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading

DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) ��



FIGURE 3

Two most important issues for state government attention in ten years: NESB 1996-2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Don't know

Farming and agriculture

Racism

Public transport

Taxation

Alcohol and other drugs

Population issues

Roads and traffic

National security/defence/war in Iraq

Immigration

Cost of housing


Aged care/pensions

Environment

Unemployment/income

Crime/law/violence


Education



18

16

15

12

12

11

8

7

6

6

5

4

4

4

3

3

2

1

16

5

5

0

15

14

13

0

6

0

7

0

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

51

NESB 1996 n = 601

NESB 2004 n = 805

FIGURE 4

The two most important issues in ten years: Who Cares? 1997-2003

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


42

33

13

11

11

9

8

7

6

5

3

3

3

2

2

2

7

20

18

11

22

8

33

3

2

0

3

3

1

0

0

6

1

15

Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421

Don't know

Alcohol and drugs

Promoting economic growth

Energy supply/electricity

Terrorism/security

Taxation/stamp duty/GST

Housing/house prices

Care for aged


Roads and traffic

Population increase/urban development

Unemployment

Public transport/railways

The environment

Crime/law and order

Education

Health

�� DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)


Two most important issues in ten years time

Language findingsAnumberofsignificantdifferencesbylanguagewerenotedinratingofpriorityissuesforStateGovernmentattention.Incomparisontothetotalsample:

% of Language Total Group Sample %

Macedonianrespondentsweremorelikelytonominateunemployment 30 11

Greekrespondentsweremorelikelytonominateeconomy/economicgrowth 25 7

Spanishrespondentsweremorelikelytonominatewatersupply/conservation 43 15

Italianrespondentsweremorelikelytonominatehealth/healthsystem 33 18

Koreanrespondentswerelesslikelytonominatehealth/healthsystem 2 18

Chineserespondentsweremorelikelynottobeabletonominateanyissues 55 16

Spanishrespondentswerelesslikelynottobeabletonominateanyissues 2 16

Demographic findings

Length of residence

RespondentswhowerebornoverseaswerelesslikelytonominatehealthorthehealthsystemthanthoseborninAustralia(16%,comparedto38%).

English language proficiency

RespondentswithsomedifficultyinEnglishwerelesslikelytonominatehealthorthehealthsystemthanthosewhowerefluentinEnglish(12%,comparedto25%).

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




Level of concern about environmental problems

Question: In general, how concerned are you about environmental problems?

Concernaboutenvironmentalproblemsamongstethniccommunitiesappearstobestrongerin2004thanin1996.The2004surveyshowsthatmorethaneightoutoftenrespondents(82%)areconcernedaboutenvironmentalproblems(up5%from1996),eithervery(42%)orfairly(40%)concerned.

Morethanoneintenrespondents(12%)claimthattheyarenotveryconcerned,andtheremaining5%arenotconcernedatallaboutenvironmentalproblems.Since1996thosewhoarenotveryornotatallconcernedhasdecreased(from23%to17%),withincreasesinthosefairlyandveryconcerned.

Bycontrast,inthebroadercommunity(Who Cares?series),althoughoverallconcernhasremainedrelativelysteadythelevelofconcernhaschanged,withadeclineof6%(from38%to31%)inthoseveryconcerned.

FIGURE 5

Level of concern about environmental problems: NESB 1996-2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not very/not at all concerned

Fairly concerned

Very concerned

NESB 1996 n = 601

NESB 2004 n = 805 42

41

40

36

17

23

Note: In 1996 the categories read out were: concerned a great deal; a fair amount; not very much and not at all. For more consistent translation, in 2004 these categories were: very concerned; fairly concerned; not very concerned and not concerned at all.

FIGURE 6

Level of concern: Who Cares? 1997-2003


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not very/not at all concerned

Fairly concerned

Very concerned

Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 31

38

56

50

13

11

Note: Totals in both graphs may not equal 100% due to rounding.



Level of concern about environmental problems

Language findingsDifferencesbylanguagegroupcomparedtothetotalsample:

Thelanguagegroupsleastlikelytobeveryconcernedaboutenvironmentalproblemswere:

Vietnamese 21%,comparedto42%

Italian 28%,comparedto42%

Thelanguagegroupsmostlikelytobeveryconcernedaboutenvironmentalproblemswere:

Spanish 66%,comparedto42%

Arabic 58%,comparedto42%

Spanishrespondentswerealsosignificantlylesslikelytoshowlittleornoconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems(1%,comparedto17%).

Vietnameserespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoshowlittleornoconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems(31%,comparedto17%).

FIGURE 7

Concern about environmental problems, differences by language: NESB 2004

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

Not at all concerned

Not very concerned

Fairly concerned

Very concerned

Vietnamese

Italian

Korean

Chinese

Greek

Macedonian

Arabic

Spanish

TOTAL SAMPLE


42

66

58

47

46

37

31

28

21

5

4

7

1

5

8

10

2

5

1

4

4

40

33

36

37

34

52

40

41

45

12

1

6

12

8

9

24

19

21

n

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

n

n


Age and gender

Therewassomevariationbyageinthosewhowereveryconcernedaboutenvironmentalproblems:

18-34 30%

35-54 45%

55+ 46%

Therewasnosignificantdifferencebyageorgenderinthosenotveryornotatallconcerned.

n

◆

◆

◆

n

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.


Heading




Major aspect of concern about environmental problems

People who were concerned about environmental problems were asked:

Question: Which of the following best describes why you are concerned?

People were given five issues to choose from (Figure 8). The order in which issues were presented changed for each respondent to eliminate order bias.

Concernforfuturegenerationswasthemostcommonreasonforconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems(Figure8),chosenbymorethanthreeinten(31%)peoplein2004.Almostaquarterofrespondentsmentionedqualityoflife(23%)orthehealtheffectsofpollution(22%).ThisquestionwasnotaskedintheNESB 1996study.

ComparedtotheWho Cares?2003sample,respondentsintheNESB2004 studyweremoreconcernedabout:

NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003

Qualityoflife 23% 16%

Healtheffectsofpollution 22% 12%

WhencomparedtotheWho Cares?2003sample,respondentsintheNESB2004 samplewerelessconcernedabout:


Futuregenerations 31% 42%

Maintainingeco-systems,nature 8% 17%

Long-termeconomicsustainability 5% 12%

TheseresultssuggestthatfortherespondentsintheNESB2004study,concernsaboutenvironmentalproblemsrelatemoretopersonalandimmediateissuesandlesstolonger-termandenvironmentalsustainabilityissuesthanforthebroaderpopulationsurveyedintheWho Cares?2003 research.

Peopleinthefocusgroupswerealsoconcernedforfuturegenerations,oftencommentingtheywantedtheirchildrenandgrandchildrentoexperienceaqualityoflifethatincludedahealthyenvironment.Theylinkedconcernforfuturegenerationstootherareasofconcernincludingmental/physicalhealthandtheeconomy.

[Car fumes] affect people’s respiratory systems and people are psychologically affected. [Korean]

Some people think they are great environmentalists simply because they recycle, but I think it is more about a fundamental change of lifestyle. [Spanish]

I do what I can for the environment like using less chemicals and driving less, because I want a future for our children that is clean and safe. [Greek]

n

n

n

n

n



FIGURE 8

Major aspect of concern about environmental problems: NESB 2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Other

Don't know

All of the above

Long-term economic sustainability

Maintaining eco-systems, nature

Health effects of pollution

Quality of life

Concern for future generations


31

23

22

8

5

10

2

1

NESB 2004 n = 755

Note: Only people who said they were concerned about the environment answered this question, i.e. 755 people.

FIGURE 9

Major aspect of concern about environmental problems: Who Cares? 2003

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

All of the above

Other

Long-term economic sustainability

Health effects of pollution

Quality of life

Maintaining eco-systems, nature

Concern for future generations


42

17

16

12

12

1

0

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,405

Note: Only people who said they were concerned about the environment answered this question, i.e. 1,405 people.


Heading




Reason for concern

Language findingsTherangeofresponsestothisquestionvariedsignificantlyacrosslanguagegroupsandresponsesbylanguagegroupareshowninTable1,wheresignificantdifferencesarehighlighted.Someoftheseare:

Spanish-speakersweremorelikelytonominatehealtheffectsofpollutionasareasonforconcernthanItalian-speakers.

ChineseandSpanish-speakersweremorelikelythanGreek-speakerstonominatequalityoflifeasareasonfortheirconcernfortheenvironment.

ItalianandVietnamese-speakersweremorelikelythanChinese,KoreanandSpanish-speakerstonominatealloftheabove.

ConcernforfuturegenerationswasamorecommonreasonforKoreanandMacedonian-speakers,thanforChinese-speakers.

TABLE 1

Reason for environmental concern, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Concernforfuturegenerations 36 �� 27 36 �� 21 22 31

Qualityoflife 19 �� 21 25 12 �0 17 23

Healtheffectsofpollution 22 22 26 �� 13 26 �� 19 22

Maintainingeco-systems–nature,plants,animals 5 12 14 5 12 6 6 5 8

Long-termeconomicsustainability 2 5 8 3 8 4 1 6 5

Somethingelse 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1

Alloftheabove 14 � 17 �� 5 0 �� 10

Don’tknow 2 4 1 2 1 1 0 6 2

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate item as a reason for environmental

concern than language group highlighted with .

Note: Any difference of more than 20 percentage points between two languages is significant.


Education

Respondentswhodidnotcompletehighschoolwerelesslikelytobeconcernedaboutqualityoflife:

Didnotcompletehighschool 12%

Completedhighschool 27%

Tertiaryeducated 26%

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

n

n



Personal priorities

Question: 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 not at all important.

Respondents were given a list of personal priorities and asked to rate the importance of each to their lives (Figure 10). This question was not asked in the NESB 1996 study, and was asked for the first time in the Who Cares? 2003 study.

Allrespondentsratedfamilyasimportant,with97%ratingthisfactorasveryimportant.Environmentwasratedasveryimportantbymorethansevenintenrespondents,andisthethirdmost(very)importantpriorityinpeople’slivesbehindwork(73%)andfamily(97%).

Environmentwasratedimportant(veryorrather)by95%,secondonlytofamily.Aroundnineintenrespondentsalsoratedservicetoothers(93%),friends(92%),work(90%)andleisuretime(89%)asveryorratherimportant.Howeverthedegreeofimportancedifferedsignificantlybetweenthecategories,withworkandenvironmentratedveryimportantbymorethan70%comparedtofriends(57%)andleisuretime(54%).

AllofthepersonalprioritiesweremorelikelytobenominatedintheNESB2004studyasveryimportantthanintheWho Cares? 2003study,withtheexceptionoffriendswhere57%intheNESB2004sampleratedfriendsasveryimportant,comparedto70%intheWho Cares? 2003sample.

ThereweretwosignificantdifferencesbetweentheNESB2004studyandWho Cares? 2003intermsofprioritiesconsideredeitherveryorratherimportant:

Work 90%,comparedto81%inWho Cares? 2003

Religion 73%,comparedto44%inWho Cares? 2003

Politicswasthepriorityleastmentionedasimportantinbothsurveys.

n

n


Heading




FIGURE 10

Personal priorities: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not at all important

Not very important

Rather importantVery important

Politics

Religion

Leisure time

Friends

Service to others

Environment

Work

Family

NESB 2004 n = 805

97

73

71

63

57

54

50

22

2

17

24

30

35

35

23

28

7

4

6

8

9

17

31

3

2

2

2

10

19

FIGURE 11

Personal priorities: Who Cares? 2003


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not at all important

Not very important

Rather important

Very important

Politics

Religion

Work

Service to others

Leisure time

Environment

Friends

Family

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421

93

70

54

51

43

43

23

14

5

26

38

39

46

38

21

31

2

3

8

8

10

11

28

37

1

1

2

1

7

28

18

Note: Totals in both graphs may not equal 100% due to rounding.



Personal priorities

Language findingsTherangeofresponsestothisquestionvariedsignificantlyacrosslanguagegroups.SignificantdifferencesarehighlightedinTable2below,whichshows:

Korean-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelytoconsiderleisuretimeimportantthanItalian-speakers.

GreekandKorean-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelythanChineseandItalian-speakerstoconsiderpoliticstobeimportantintheirlife.

Spanish-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelytoconsiderenvironmentimportantthanItalian-speakers.

Chinese-speakersweresignificantlylesslikelythanallothergroupstoconsiderreligiontobeimportant.

TABLE 2

Personal priorities, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percentage for important and very important combined (%)

Family 100 98 100 97 100 100 100 100 99

Environment 94 97 96 �� 98 95 �� 95 94

Servicetoothers 95 88 98 80 94 94 98 91 92

Friends 91 96 95 88 97 91 94 83 92

Work 91 80 94 79 96 85 97 95 90

Leisuretime 79 85 90 �� 95 95 88 88

Religion 83 �� 83 80 88 76 76 62 73

Politics 53 �� 42 44 51 50

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate core value as important than language group highlighted with .

Note: Any difference of more than 20 percentage points between two languages is significant.

n

n

n

n


Education

Importanceofworkincreasedaseducationincreased:




n

◆

◆

◆


Heading




Most important environmental issues in NSW today

Question a: What do you think is the single most important environmental issue facing NSW today?

Question b: What do you think is the second most important environmental issue?

These questions were asked as unprompted, open-ended questions. Responses are grouped into the categories shown in Figure 12. The combined percentages for most important and second most important categories are shown in Figures 13 and 14, as the segmented data is not available for the NESB1996 study.

Asin1996,respondentsconsiderwaterandairtobethemostimportantenvironmentalissuesbuttheirrelativeprioritieshavechanged.In2004,64%ofrespondentsconsideredwaterissuestobethemostimportant(upsignificantlyfrom40%in1996)and32%believedairissuesarethemostimportant(downfrom56%).Thisreversalisastrongindicationoftheextenttowhichthedroughtandwaterconservationissueshavegainedattention.ThistrenddiffersalsosomewhatfromthetrendsseenintheWho Cares?series,wherewaterissueshaveconsistentlybeenthemostmentionedissuesandmentionsofairissueshaveremainedrelativelystableovertime.

Pollution(general)wasmentionedby23%butdidnotappearasaresponsetothisquestionin1996.IntheWho Cares?series,pollutionwasanissuein1997(14%),butwasonlymentionedby2%in2003;respondentsinsteadnominatedmorespecificenvironmentalissues,includingspecifictypesofpollution.

IntheNESB 2004surveytherewasamarkeddeclineinthenumberofrespondentswhocouldnotnominateanyenvironmentalissue,from26%in1996to13%(afurther11%couldnominateoneissuebutnotasecondissue).Togetherwiththeincreaseinmentionsforpollution,thismayindicateasignificantshifttowardsgreaterknowledgeofbroadenvironmentalissues.IntheWho Cares?series,therewasalsoadeclineindon’tknowinthisquestion,althoughsmaller,from20%to16%.

Asinthebroadercommunity, urbanmanagementismoreimportanttorespondentsin2004thanin1996.Chemicals/pesticidesissuesarelessimportantthaninthe NESB1996studybutarenotmentionedasanissueintheWho Cares?series.Flora,fauna/wildlifeandlanddegradationissuesarealsomentionedbutatconsiderablylowerlevelsthaninWho Cares? 2003.

FIGURE 12

Single and second most important environmental issues in NSW today: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not sure

Other

Energy conservation

Land degradation/salinity

Noise

Chemicals and pesticides

Urban management

Flora and fauna protection

Waste

Pollution (general)

Air

Water 42

14

14

5

3

2

2

1

1

3

13

20

16

10

9

5

5

2

3

1

1

4

11

NESB 2004: 2nd response

NESB 2004: 1st response



FIGURE 13

Most important environmental issues in NSW today: NESB 1996-2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not sure

Other

Energy conservation

Land degradation/salinity

Noise

Chemicals and pesticides

Urban management


Waste

Pollution (general)

Air

Water 62

30

23

14

8

7

4

3

2

1

7

13

40

56

0

15

6

1

9

5

1

0

0

26

NESB 1996 n = 601

NESB 2004 n = 805

Note: The figures displayed for not sure in Figures 12 and 13 represent the combination of responses in the don’t know and there are no issues categories. While Figure 13 generally shows totals for first and second mentioned issues, the figure for not sure shows only those who could not mention any issue at all (i.e. does not include the 11% who mentioned one issue but not a second issue).

FIGURE 14

Most important environmental issues in NSW today: Who Cares? 1997-2003


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not sure

Noise

Pollution (general)

Logging/chipping

Land degradation

Urban management

Waste


Air

Water 57

37

21

19

12

10

4

2

1

16

55

40

15

23

6

4

3

14

7

20

Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421


Heading




Issuesmentionedaseithermostimportantorsecondmostimportantunderthegeneralcategoriesare:

First response Second response TOTAL

Water �� 0 ��

Waterconservationormanagement 35 11 47

Pollutionofcreeksandrivers 1 1 2

Pollutionofbeachesandtheocean 1 2 3

Generalwaterpollutionorquality 6 5 11

Pollution (general) �� 0 ��

Air �� 0

Motorvehiclesandemissions 5 4 10

Generalairpollutionorquality 5 8 13

Smoking/smokers 0.1 0.2 0.3

Greenhouseeffect,globalwarmingorclimatechange 2 1 3

Industrialemissionsorwaste 2 2 4

OzonelayerorUVradiation 0 0 1

Waste � � ��

Litteranddumpingofrubbish 5 7 12

Recyclinghouseholdrubbishorgarbage 0 1 1

Wastefulpackagingonproducts 0.1 0 0.1

Sewagetreatmentorproblems 0 1 1

Flora and fauna protection issues � � �

Protectionoforlossofbushland,treesorforest 1 2 3

Bushfires 1 4 5

Urban management � � �

Trafficcongestion 1 4 5

Urbandevelopmentorlossofnaturalenvironment 0 1 1

Urbansprawlorinadequateurbanplanning 1 1 1

Land degradation, soil erosion and salinity � � �

Energy conservation 0 � �

Chemicals and pesticides � � �

Householdandgardenpesticides 0.1 0.2 0.4

Agriculturalpesticidesandfertilisers 0 1 1

Transportandstorageofdangerouschemicals 1 1 3

Noise � � �

Other � � �

Don’t know/there are no issues (first response) ��

Don’t know/there are no issues (second response) ��

Note: Only values less than 0.5 have been shown with one decimal place. Other values have been rounded and totals may not equal the sum of their components due to rounding.



Most important environmental issues in NSW today

Language findingsSignificantdifferencesbylanguageinnominatingwaterconservation,comparedtothetotalsample:

Spanishrespondentsweremorelikelythanthetotalsampletonominatewaterconservation(64%,comparedto48%).

Koreanrespondentswerelesslikelytonominatewaterconservation(15%,comparedto48%).

Arabic-speakingrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytonominatewaterpollutionthantheotherlanguagegroups(24%,comparedto6%).

Therewasalargevariationinresponsesacrosslanguagegroupsrelatingtotheratingofpollution(general,unspecified)asthefirstorsecondmostimportantenvironmentalissueinNSWtoday:

Arabic(42%),Greek(44%)andMacedonian-speakers(34%)werethemostlikelytonominatepollution.

Chinese(11%),Korean(11%),Spanish(11%)andVietnamese-speakers(12%)weretheleastlikelytonominatepollution.

TheresponsesforItalian-speakerslayinthemiddle(23%).



RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficultieswerelesslikelytonominatewaterconservationasthesinglemostimportantenvironmentalissuefacingNSWtoday(29%,comparedto40%).

Length of residence

ResidentswhowereborninAustralia(50%)weremorelikelytoidentifywaterconservationasthemostimportantenvironmentalissuefacingNSWtodaythanthosebornoverseas(32%).

n

◆

◆

n

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n


Heading




Most important local environmental issues

Question a: What are the environmental issues that affect your local area?

Question b: Of the issues that you just mentioned, what is the most important to you?

For the first time in 2004, respondents were asked to nominate the local issues that affect their local area, in an unprompted, open-ended question. Respondents were prompted once with anything else? Those who nominated issues were then asked to nominate which was the single most important issue. The majority of respondents only nominated one environmental issue, so that the results for both questions were almost identical.

AswiththemostimportantenvironmentalissuesinNSW,theimportantissuesidentifiedbyrespondentsasaffectingthelocalareawereissuesrelatingtowater(20%)andair(13%).Inrelationtowater,waterconservationwasidentifiedthemostfrequently(14%),withafurther3%identifyingwaterpollution,2%pollutionofcreeksandrivers,and1%pollutionofoceansorbeaches(Figure15).

Significantly,almostoneinthreerespondents(28%)believedtherewerenoenvironmentalissuesaffectingtheirlocalarea,andanadditionaloneinten(12%)didnotknow.Theorderofissuesinrelationtothesinglemostimportantlocalenvironmentalissuewasthesameasforthetotalissuesmentioned.

FIGURE 15

Most important local environmental issues: NESB 2004


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

There are no issues

Don't know

Other

Pollution of oceans and beaches

Pollution of creeks and rivers

Water pollution

High density and urban sprawl

Industry emissions

Noise

Litter and dumping rubbish

Traffic congestion

Air pollution

Water conservation 14

13

8

7

7

4

3

3

2

1

13

12

28

NESB 2004 n = 805

Most important local environmental issues

Language findingsTheSpanish-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelythanthetotalsampletocitewaterconservationasanimportantlocalissue(54%,comparedto13%).

TheVietnamese-speakersweresignificantlylesslikelytobeabletocitelocalenvironmentalissues,with66%unabletociteanyissues,comparedto39%forthetotalsample.

Spanish-speakingrespondentswerethemostlikelytonominatelocalenvironmentalissues,withonlyoneinten(10%)unabletociteanyissues,comparedto39%forthetotalsample.

n

n

n



Features of a good place to live

Question: What are the two most important characteristics that make an area a nice place to live?

Respondentswereaskedanunprompted,open-endedquestionaboutthefeaturesoftheirlocalareathatmadeitagoodplacetolive.Safetyandsecuritywasthemostfrequentlymentionedsinglecharacteristic(33%)butenvironmentalcharacteristics(cleanair,greenstreets,nearbybushlandorparks,beachesortheocean)werementionedbyalmosthalftherespondents(44%).Aboutonethirdmentionedsocialfeatures(friendlypeople,senseofcommunity)(34%)andconvenientfacilities(shops,schoolsandpublictransport)(35%).

FIGURE 16

Features of a good place to live: NESB 2004


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Not too close to busy streets

Quiet

Lots of natural bushland close by

Parks for kids to play

Close to beach or ocean

Leafy, geen, tree-lined streets

Sense of community

Clean air

Close to transport

Close to shops and schools

Friendly people

Secure/low crime/safety 33

24

21

14

14

10

9

8

7

6

5

5

NESB 2004 n = 805


Language findingsTherangeofresponsestothisquestionvariedsignificantlyacrosslanguagegroups.SignificantdifferencesarehighlightedinTable3.Thisshows:

Korean-speakingparticipantsaresignificantlymorelikelythanallothergroupstoconsiderquietnessanimportantfeatureofagoodplacetolive.

Spanish-speakingparticipantsaresignificantlymorelikelythanmostothergroupstovalueparksforchildrentoplayin,asanimportantcharacteristicofagoodplacetolive.

Leafy,greenortree-linedstreetswerenominatedsignificantlymoreoftenbyMacedonian-speakersthanItalian,SpanishorVietnamese-speakers.

Korean-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelytomentioncleanairthanSpanishorVietnamese-speakers.

FriendlypeoplewasnominatedsignificantlymoreoftenbyArabicandGreekthanKorean,Chinese,SpanishandVietnamese-speakers.

ChineseandVietnamese-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelythanallothergroupstoconsidersecurity,safetyorlowcrime,asapositivecharacteristicoftheirlocalarea.

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




TABLE 3

Features of a good place to live, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Secure/lowcrime/safety �� 69 �� 57 ��

Friendlypeople 40 �� 39 30 �0 23 �� 23

Closetoshopsandschools 15 13 18 10 12 36 34 23 20

Closetotransport 8 21 7 8 18 17 18 15 14

Cleanair 12 17 11 12 25 21 � � 13

Senseofcommunity 16 3 15 12 6 14 9 7 10

Leafy,green,tree-linedstreets 6 10 16 � 10 25 � � 9

Closetobeachorocean 5 0 12 10 14 5 8 8 8

Parksforkidstoplay � 0 0 10 0 12 26 0 �

Lotsofnaturalbushlandcloseby 5 2 11 5 8 3 2 9 6

Quiet � � � � 20 0 � � �

Nottooclosetobusystreets 3 4 3 4 5 10 10 2 5

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate characteristic than language group highlighted with .

Demographic findingsAge and gender

Thoseolder(55+)andyounger(18-34)weremorelikelytobelievefriendlypeoplemakeanareaaniceplacetolivethanthose35-54years:

18-34 28%

35-54 15%

55+ 29%

Youngerrespondentsweremorelikelytobelievethatsecurity/low/crime/safetymakeanareaaniceplacetolive:

18-34 37%

35-54 35%

55+ 23%

Length of residence

RespondentsborninAustraliaweremorelikelytobelievefriendlypeoplemakeaniceplacetolive(41%comparedto21%foroverseasborn).

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

Education

Thoserespondentswhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremorelikelytobelievethatfriendlypeoplemakeanareaaniceplacetolive:




Thoserespondentswhodidnotcompletehighschoolwerelesslikelytobelievethatsecurity/low/crime/safetymakeanareaaniceplacetolive:




n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆



Summary: Priorities and valuesHealthandeducationareconsideredthetwomostimportantissuesforStateGovernmentattentionnow,andhavegrowndramaticallyinimportancesince1996comparedtoanyotherissue.Theissuesofunemployment,crime,lawandviolenceandimmigrationhavedeclinedinimportancesince1996.ThesetrendsarealsoreflectedintheWho Cares about the Environment?researchseriesinthebroadercommunity.

AsinthewiderNSWpopulation,theenvironmentinageneralsenseisrankedsixthoverallasapriorityissueforStateGovernmentattentiontoday.However,thestrongemergenceofwaterconservationasthefourthrankedissueandenvironmentalconcernsthatmaybeassociatedwithotherissuessuchasroadsandtrafficorpublictransport,indicateagreaterpriorityforenvironmentalissues.Takentogetherwaterconservationandenvironmentrankthirdafterhealthandeducation.

In2004peoplefromselectethniccommunitiesinNSWwerealsoabletoarticulatemoreissuesforStateGovernmentattentionthantheywerein1996,withasubstantialdeclineinthedon’tknowresponse,atrendthatwasalsoseenintheWho Cares about the Environment?series.Waterconservationranksthirdandenvironmentrankssixthasapriorityissueforgovernmentintenyearstime.Theseissuesarementionedmorefrequentlyasfutureprioritiesthanaspresentprioritiesandtogethertheyformthehighestfuturepriority.

Levelofconcernfortheenvironmenthasshiftedslightlysince1996,withfewerpeoplein2004expressinglittleornoconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems.Levelofconcernvariessubstantiallyamongstthecommunities:fromtwothirdsoftheSpanishgroupveryconcernedtoonefifthoftheVietnamesegroup.Respondentspredominantlynominateastheirreasonsforconcern,concernforfuturegenerations,qualityoflifeandthehealtheffectsofpollution,ratherthanmaintenanceofnatureandecosystems.Thuspersonalandimmediateissuesaregivenmoreimportancethanlongertermandenvironmentalsustainabilityissues.

NinetyfivepercentofpeoplefromtheselectedethniccommunitiesinNSWratedenvironmentasaratherorveryimportantintheirlives,thesecondhighestafterfamily.Morethansevenintenpeopleratedenvironmentasveryimportant,andalmostaquarterrateitasratherimportant.Environmentisplacedabovework,friendsandleisureasapriorityinpeople’slives.WhilefamilyastheissueofmostimportancetoethniccommunitiesisthesameasthebroadercommunityintheWho Cares about the Environment in 2003?survey,ethniccommunitiesplacedmorevalueonworkandservicetootherswherethebroadercommunityplacedgreatervalueonfriendsandleisuretime.

WaterandairissuescontinuetobetheethniccommunitiesmainenvironmentalconcernforNSW,althoughwaterissuesarenowthedominantconcern,whereasairissuesweredominantin1996.Thisismostlikelytobeadirectresultofwaterrestrictionsandmediaattentiononissuesrelatedtothedroughtandwaterstoragelevels.Intheirlocalarea,however,morethanaquarterofparticipantscouldnotidentifyanyenvironmentalissues.


Heading



3.2Knowledge

3.2 KNOWLEDGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Seven statements were read out and people were asked if they were true or false. Statements were rotated to avoid order bias. Two statements (‘The Greenhouse Effect is caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere’ and ‘Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined’) were taken from the 2003 Who Cares about the Environment? study. The remaining five statements were asked for the first time in this study. None of the statements were asked in the NESB 1996 study.

Table4showsthepercentageofpeoplegivingcorrectorincorrectanswerstoeachstatementin2004.

TABLE 4

Knowledge of environmental issues

StatementsAnswer given is:

Correct % Incorrect %

TheGreenhouseEffectiscausedbyaholeintheEarth'satmosphere.(False)* 39 61

MuchmorewaterinNSWisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingcombined.(True)**

40 60

Over90%ofNSW'selectricitycomesfromburningcoal.(True) 47 53

Productsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsareusuallyoflowerquality.(False) 51 49

Leavesandgrassclippingsdonotpollutestormwaterbecausetheyarenatural.(False) 57 43

Mostbackyardspidersaredangeroustopeople.(False) 58 42

Nativebirdsandanimalscannotsurviveincitiesandtownsunlesswefeedthem.(False) 61 39

Note: Unsure option was not provided in the NESB 2004 survey, but was provided in the Who Cares? 2003 survey. * Who Cares? 2003: Correct 40%, Wrong 55%, Unsure 5% ** Who Cares? 2003: Correct 36%, Wrong 51%, Unsure 13%

Overallthereweresignificantgapsinknowledgeacrossthesamplewithlessthanhalfoftherespondentsansweringthestatementcorrectlyforthreeoutofsevenstatements.Thatnativebirdsandanimalscansurviveincitiesandtownswithoutbeingfedbyhumanswasthemostwidelyknown,butstillbyonly61%ofthesample.

Thereisageneralmisunderstandingabouttherelationshipbetweenthepresenceofaholeintheearth’satmosphereandthegreenhouseeffect,withatleastsixintenincorrectlybelievingsucharelationshipexists.TheresultsweresimilarintheWho Cares about the Environment?results(60%givingincorrectanswersornotsure),howevertheWho Cares?resultsalsosuggestthatknowledgeofthisissuehasbeenincreasingsince1994.

Morepeopleinthisstudy(40%)knewthatmuchmorewaterisusedbyagriculturethanbydomesticandmanufacturingusescombinedthanintheWho Cares?2003study(36%).Thismaybeduetoahigherproportioninthissamplebeingfromruralbackgroundsortocontinuedmediaattentiononwaterissues.

Thefocusgroupsalsomadesomecommentsontheseissues:

“This [greenhouse effect] requires special studies that none of us has undertaken.” [Arabic]

“It’s incredible how a country with so much to offer in terms of its natural beauty, has so many dangerous species of animals. It certainly puts me off from going camping – something I did quite regularly when I was in Chile.” [Spanish]


3.2Knowledge


Language findingsTherewerelargevariationsbylanguageinabilitytocorrectlyanswertheseknowledgequestions.

Giventhelargevariationsbothwithinandacrossknowledgeareas,itisnotpossibletodrawanyconclusionsaboutoverallenvironmentalknowledgebylanguagegroups.ForexampleSpanish-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelytocorrectlybelievethatmaterialsmadeoutofrecycledproductsarenotofinferiorqualitybutsignificantlylesslikelytobeawaremuchmorewaterinNSWisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingcombined.

Anydifferenceofmorethan20percentagepointsbetweentwolanguagesindicatesthatthedifferenceissignificantanddifferencesofmorethan13pointsbetweenonegroupandthetotalsamplearesignificant.Forexample,inthefigurebelowtheVietnamese-speakingrespondentsaresignificantlymorelikelythantheSpanishandGreek–speakingrespondentstogiveacorrectanswerregardingtheGreenhouseEffect.

FIGURE 17

Correct answers to knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004

Greek 25%

Spanish 21%

Korean 34%

Macedonian 43%

Vietnamese 52%

Italian 35%

Arabic 43%

Chinese 56%

The Greenhouse Effect is caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere. (FALSE)

0 100

AVERAGE 39%

AVERAGE 39%

Chinese 33%

Spanish 15%

Vietnamese 34%

Korean 45%

Italian 52%

Macedonian 36%

Arabic 48%

Greek 51%

Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined. (TRUE)

0 100

AVERAGE 40%

AVERAGE 40%

Note: Percentages represent the proportion of respondents who correctly answered the question. Any difference of more than 20 percentage points between two languages is significant.


Heading



3.2Knowledge

FIGURE 17

Correctly answering on knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Italian 65%

Macedonian 73%

Spanish 44%

Vietnamese 69%

Korean 51%

Chinese 54%

Arabic 48%

Greek 51%

Leaves and grass clippings do not pollute stormwater because they are natural. (FALSE)

0 100

AVERAGE 57%

AVERAGE 57%

Spanish 78%

Italian 66%

Korean 44%

Chinese 52%

Arabic 54%

Vietnamese 48%

Macedonian 41%

Greek 27%

Products made out of recycled materials are usually of lower quality. (FALSE)

0 100

AVERAGE 51%

AVERAGE 51%

Spanish 43%

Italian 53%

Vietnamese 23%

Arabic 55%

Chinese 36%

Korean 49%

Macedonian 54%

Greek 65%

Over 90% of NSW’s electricity comes from burning coal. (TRUE)

0 100

AVERAGE 47%

AVERAGE 47%



3.2Knowledge

FIGURE 17

Correctly answering on knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Korean 75%

Italian 56%

Macedonian 43%

Greek 50%

Chinese 60%

Vietnamese 51%

Spanish 85%

Arabic 45%

Most backyard spiders are dangerous to people. (FALSE)

0 100

AVERAGE 58%

AVERAGE 58%

Arabic 51%

Spanish 84%

Italian 61%Greek 45%

Chinese 76%

Vietnamese 58%

Macedonian 47%

Korean 62%

AVERAGE 61%

AVERAGE 61%

Native birds and animals cannot survive in cities and towns unless we feed them. (FALSE)

0 100



Heading



3.2Knowledge



Age and gender

Respondentsover55weremorelikelythan18-34yearoldstoincorrectlybelievethatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialswereof inferiorquality(59%,comparedto43%).

Malesweremorelikelythanfemalestobeawarethatover90%of NSWelectricitycomesfromburningcoal(56%,comparedto41%).

Education

RespondentswhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremorelikelytocorrectlyidentifythatmuchmorewaterinNSWisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingcombined(50%,comparedto36%ofthosewithtertiaryeducation).ThereweregreaterproportionsofGreekandItalianrespondentsinthiseducationalgroup,manyofwhomlivedinruralsituationsintheirhomecountry.

Thosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremorelikelytoincorrectlybelievethatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialswereofinferiorquality(62%,comparedto41%oftertiaryeducated).

Awarenessthatitisuntruethatmostbackyardspidersaredangeroustopeopleincreasedaseducationincreased:



Tertiary 71%

Thetendencytoincorrectlybelievenativefaunaneedtobefedtosurviveincitiesandtownsdecreasedaseducationlevelincreased:



Tertiary 33%

n

n

n

n

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆


RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficultiesweremorelikelytoincorrectlybelievethatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialswereofinferiorquality(58%),comparedtorespondentswhowerefluentinEnglish(38%).

AwarenessthatitisuntruethatmostbackyardspidersaredangeroustopeopleincreasedwithEnglishlanguageproficiency(ELP):

PoorELP 49%

Difficultyreading/writing 53%

FluentinEnglish 67%

Length of residence

ThoseborninAustraliaweremorelikelytocorrectlyanswerthatitisuntruethatleavesandgrassclippingsdonotpollutestormwaterbecausetheyarenatural(70%,comparedto55%forrespondentsbornoverseas).

ThoseborninAustraliawerealsolesslikelytoincorrectlybelievethatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialswereof inferiorquality(48%,comparedto72%).

RespondentsbornoverseaswerelesslikelythanrespondentsborninAustraliatobeawarethatover90%ofNSWelectricitycomesfromburningcoal(45%,comparedto62%).

RespondentsbornoverseasweremorelikelythanrespondentsborninAustraliatoincorrectlybelievethatmostbackyardspidersaredangeroustopeople(44%,comparedto29%).

n

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

n

n


3.2Knowledge

Summary: Knowledge Aseriesoftrue-falsequestionsonenvironmentalissues,includingthegreenhouseeffect,waterusage,recycledproducts,sourceofNSWelectricityandwildlifeincitiesandbackyards,revealedsignificantgapsinknowledgeacrossallquestions.Thehighestlevelsofknowledge(approximately60%correctanswers)relatedtowildlifeinbackyards.

Knowledgequestionswerenotaskedinthe1996ethniccommunitiessurveysothatthesequestionsestablishbaselineinformationforevaluatingprogramsintothefuture.TwoquestionsalsousedintheWho Cares? 2003surveyshowedthatethniccommunitieshavelevelsofknowledgeaboutthegreenhouseeffectcomparabletothatofthegeneralcommunityandtheyaremorelikelytounderstandtherelativeuseofwaterinNSWbyagriculturecomparedtootherusers.

Thereareseveraldifferencesacrossthevariouslanguagegroupsinrelationtoknowledgelevels,althoughnolanguagegroupstandsoutasmoreorlessinformedthananother.


Heading



3.3PersonalBehaviour

3.3 PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR

Frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in the last twelve months

A list of 14 environmentally friendly behaviours was read out (Figure 18). People were then asked, for each behaviour:

Question: “… whether or not in the past twelve months have you often done that, sometimes done that, just occasionally done it or never done that?”

A similar question was asked in the Who Cares? 2003 survey. Avoiding putting oil, fat, turps, paint down the sink or toilet was asked in the Who Cares? survey, but not in the NESB 2004 survey. Instead ‘recycled paper and/or other materials at work’ was added. ‘Kept your cat inside at night’ was also included in this survey.

Theactivitythatmostrespondents(77%)haveoftendoneinthelasttwelvemonthsisreducedwaterconsumption.Twothirdshavereducedenergyconsumption(67%)orpreventedstormwaterpollution,forexamplebynotwashingtheircarinthestreetornotputtingleavesorlitterdownthedrain(64%).

Theotheractivitiesthatmorethanfouroutoftenhaveoftendoneinthelasttwelvemonthsare:Recycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatwork 59%Decidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway 54%Boughtenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobes 47%Boughtproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment 41%

ReducingwaterconsumptionwasmentionedmoreoftenbythoseintheNESB 2004surveythanthoseintheWho Cares? 2003survey.AstherewasnosignificantdifferenceintheWho Cares? 2003surveybetweentheresponsestothisquestionofthosewhospokeEnglishandthosewhospokealanguageotherthanEnglishathome,thissuggeststhattherecentwaterrestrictionsandmediaattentiontowaterconsumptionissueshashadasignificantimpactonbehaviourinthepasttwelvemonths.

ThemostcommonactivitiespeopleintheNESB 2004samplehaveneverdoneinthelasttwelvemonthsare:

Participatedinlocalenvironmentalissues 67%Composted 46%Triedtogetinformationtoprotecttheenvironment 40%

Avoidedplasticbagswhenshopping 30%

ComparedtotherespondentsintheWho Cares? 2003survey,therespondentsintheNESB2004 surveyweresignificantlylesslikelytofrequentlyengagein: NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003

Composting 26% 47%Boughtproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment 41% 52%

Re-usesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway 54% 62%

TherespondentsintheNESB2004 surveywerealsomorelikelytorespondthattheyneverparticipateinlocalenvironmentalissues(67%,comparedto58%inWho Cares? 2003).

TheproportionofrespondentsintheNESB2004 surveywhoindicatedanactivitywasnotapplicabletothemwassignificantlyhigherformostbehavioursthanintheWho Cares?2003 survey.Thisresponseoptionwasnotreadtorespondentsineithersample.Thismaysuggestalowerlevelofunderstandingamongstthenon-Englishspeakingbackgroundrespondentsaboutthenatureoftheactivity.However,thelargenotapplicableforthequestiononcatssimplyreflectsaveragecatownershipof22%7.

7.NSWNationalParksandWildlifeService(2002).Urban Wildlife Renewal: growing conservation in urban communities.UnpublishedResearchReport,DetailedTabularFindingspp145-146.March.

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n



FIGURE 18

Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Participated in local environmental issues

Kept your cat inside at night

Sourced environmental information

Composted

Avoided plastic bags when shopping

Avoided products with lots of packaging

Reduced use of the car

Bought products better for environment

Bought energy-efficient appliances/globes

Reused something instead of throwing away

Recycled paper and/or other materials

Prevented stormwater pollution

Reduced energy consumption

Reduced water consumption 77

67

64

59

54

47

41

37

34

33

26

19

6

6

16

22

13

15

24

24

23

23

19

24

12

18

2

11

4

5

4

4

8

8

11

11

12

12

5

18

1

10

3

6

14

12

11

20

20

22

27

30

46

40

18

67

1

5

10

2

2

5

7

8

1

10

5

73

6

Not applicableNeverOccasionallySometimesOften

FIGURE 19

Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: Who Cares? 2003

Note: Totals in graphs may not equal 100% due to rounding.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100







Composted




Reduced water consumption



Avoided putting oil, fat, turps, paint down sink 76

70

70

65

62

52

48

47

40

38

31

18

10

7

19

11

21

24

27

28

15

25

25

22

28

17

4

8

5

7

8

10

9

7

13

12

12

18

15

13

3

12

6

6

10

14

29

21

24

35

36

58

2

1

1

2

1

1


Heading




FIGURE 18

Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Kept your cat inside at night


Composted







Recycled paper and/or other materials



Reduced water consumption 77

67

64

59

54

47

41

37

34

33

26

19

6

6

16

22

13

15

24

24

23

23

19

24

12

18

2

11

4

5

4

4

8

8

11

11

12

12

5

18

1

10

3

6

14

12

11

20

20

22

27

30

46

40

18

67

1

5

10

2

2

5

7

8

1

10

5

73

6


FIGURE 19

Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: Who Cares? 2003

Note: Totals in graphs may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in the last twelve months: NESB 2004

Language findingsTherewerelargevariationsbylanguageintermsofenvironmentalbehaviour.Giventhelargevariationsbothwithinandacrossbehaviouralareas,itisnotpossibletodrawanyconclusionsaboutoverallenvironmentalbehaviourbylanguagegroup.Thedifferencesbylanguagegroupforeachofthelistedbehavioursarepresentedbelow.Differencesbetweenlanguagegroupsofmorethan20percentagepointsaresignificant.

FIGURE 20

Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004



0 20 40 60 80 100

Vietnamese

Arabic

Spanish

Korean

Macedonian

Greek

Chinese

Italian 61

59

58

56

56

51

50

45

24

20

28

24

20

16

28

34

6

14

4

8

11

9

8

7

8

7

10

11

13

13

14

11

1

1

1

11

1

3



0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Italian

Korean

Vietnamese

Greek

Arabic

Spanish

Macedonian 85

79

72

70

65

58

48

37

7

7

11

17

18

13

18

13

3

4

2

3

4

4

6

3

1

9

15

9

6

22

18

32

4

1

1

8

3

10

15


Avoided plastic bags

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vietnamese

Chinese

Arabic

Macedonian

Greek

Italian

Korean

Spanish 44

44

43

34

31

26

24

17

24

15

33

19

18

29

25

28

15

14

14

8

8

8

16

13

17

25

10

39

42

37

35

37

2

1

1

1

5


0 20 40 60 80 100

Italian

Spanish

Arabic

Greek

Korean

Chinese

Macedonian

Vietnamese 78

75

75

74

61

61

55

55

20

12

19

12

22

26

38

31

2

7

3

3

6

4

6

8

6

2

11

11

8

1

5

1

2

1

1





FIGURE 20

Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)


Composted food or garden refuse

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Arabic

Spanish

Greek

Vietnamese

Macedonian

Italian

Korean 49

43

29

27

26

14

13

11

11

16

6

11

10

20

20

5

5

6

8

1

5

8

6

2

33

30

55

37

58

47

53

58

2

5

2

25

1

11

9

25


Purchased energy efficient appliances

0 20 40 60 80 100

Macedonian

Spanish

Italian

Greek

Arabic

Korean

Chinese

Vietnamese 67

60

59

44

41

39

33

29

17

19

10

23

19

30

54

19

4

9

7

9

12

12

7

7

8

13

22

21

28

17

6

44

5

2

4

2

1

Avoided products with excess packaging

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Vietnamese

Arabic

Korean

Macedonian

Italian

Spanish

Greek 50

48

37

35

32

31

27

17

20

15

26

17

16

32

16

13

5

14

22

11

7

12

8

15

25

17

12

35

22

21

28

54

6

3

2

23

5

22

2


Reduced fuel consumption

0 20 40 60 80 100

Italian

Chinese

Arabic

Korean

Vietnamese

Macedonian

Spanish

Greek 48

46

43

41

34

34

25

22

20

27

19

28

15

28

20

30

4

14

9

10

14

8

10

21

28

9

25

10

35

24

33

14

4

4

12

2

7

13

13


Not applicable

NeverOccasionally

Sometimes

Often


Bought products better for the environment

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Vietnamese

Arabic

Italian

Korean

Greek

Macedonian

Spanish 63

52

43

40

40

39

32

17

23

25

25

18

26

30

16

22

8

6

9

9

22

12

8

12

6

13

23

28

11

18

16

48

4

5

1

2

28

2


Sourced information about environment

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Italian

Macedonian

Greek

Spanish

Vietnamese

Korean

Arabic 26

24

23

22

21

16

12

9

19

13

17

26

20

10

24

15

11

17

14

30

13

20

28

14

45

46

20

21

46

53

35

58

28

1

1

1

5



Heading




FIGURE 20

Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Reduced water consumption

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Arabic

Italian

Korean

Greek

Vietnamese

Macedonian

Spanish 84

83

81

81

76

75

73

65

14

11

16

14

12

19

14

28

2

3

2

1

6

4

6

5

3

1

4

6

1

6

2

1

1


Not applicable

NeverOccasionally

Sometimes

Often

Participated in local environment activities

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chinese

Spanish

Vietnamese

Macedonian

Greek

Italian

Korean

Arabic 12

9

8

8

5

3

3

1

11

8

12

11

7

8

26

3

7

8

12

7

8

8

26

8

70

75

67

74

80

42

43

81

1

39

2

7


Not applicable

NeverOccasionally

Sometimes

Often

Recycled materials at work

0 20 40 60 80 100

Italian

Greek

Chinese

Vietnamese

Macedonian

Arabic

Korean

Spanish 77

68

65

59

55

55

54

40

8

14

16

3

24

13

13

30

6

7

1

2

5

8

4

4

11

16

11

5

15

32

1

5

2

25

12

10

1

25


Not applicable

NeverOccasionally

Sometimes

Often

Kept my cat indoors at night*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Arabic

Chinese

Greek**

Italian

Korean

Macedonian

Spanish

Vietnamese 5

2

9

8

9

8

1

9

3

1

2

3

1

1

5

12

2

14

6

15

74

6

17

2

3

1

1

80

96

76

82

70

16

92

68


*High not applicable in this question generally indicates those who do not own cats.

**Anomalous Greek results are likely to be a result of coding those who did not have cats as never keeping cats indoors at night.




Frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in last twelve months


Age and gender

Astheageofrespondentsincreasedsodidthelikelihoodofsayingthattheyoftenreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway:

18-34 46%

35-54 56%

55+ 59%

Astheageofrespondentsincreasedsodidthelikelihoodofsayingthattheyoftenavoidplasticbagstocarryshoppinghome:

18-34 25%

35-54 34%

55+ 37%

Respondentsover55yearsweremorelikelytosaythattheyoftenavoidproductswithlotsofpackagingwhendoingtheshoppingthanotheragegroups:

18-34 25%

35-54 34%

55+ 42%

Youngerrespondentswerelesslikelytosaythattheyoftenchoosehouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentthanotheragegroups:

18-34 31%

35-54 47%

55+ 41%

Thelikelihoodofmakinganefforttooftenreducewaterconsumptionincreasedwithage:

18-34 65%

35-54 80%

55+ 84%

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

Olderrespondentswerelesslikelythanotheragegroupstosaythattheyoftenrecyclepaperand/orothermaterialsatwork:

18-34 60%

35-54 70%

55+ 44%


RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficultieswerelesslikelytooftenrecyclepaper/orothermaterialsatwork(49%),comparedtorespondentswhowerefluentinEnglish(71%).

RespondentsfluentinEnglishwerelesslikelytopurchaseenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesthanthosewithEnglishlanguagedifficulties(41%,comparedto51%).

Length of residence

ThoseborninAustraliawerelesslikelytooftenreduceenergyconsumptionbyturningofflightsandusingheatingandcoolingmoreefficientlythanrespondentsbornoverseas(51%,comparedto69%).

Education

Thetendencytooftenrecyclepaperand/orothermaterialsatworkincreasedasthelevelofeducationincreased:




n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

n

n

◆

◆

◆


Heading




Reasons for engaging in environmentally friendly practices

Those who mentioned that they often adopted the following activities [from the previous question] were asked:

Question: You mentioned you often do [activities below]. Can you remember what prompted you to start doing that?

Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away

Made an effort to reduce water consumption

Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution, for example by not washing your car in the street, or not putting leaves or litter down the drain

Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption, for example by turning off lights, and using appliances or home heating and cooling more efficiently

Purchased energy-efficient appliances or light globes

Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle air pollution, for example by car-pooling, using public transport, bicycling or walking.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

Thefollowingfourreasonswerecitedmostoftenasthemainmotivatingfactorsinrelationtodecisionstoadoptenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviours:

Savemoney

Concernfortheenvironment

Communityresponsibility

Waterrestrictionsand/ordrought.

Table5showsthereasonsthatrespondentsindicatedforadoptingspecificbehaviours.Anyreasoncitedbymorethanfourintenrespondents(ofthosewhosaidtheyadoptedthebehaviouroften)hasbeenhighlighted.Noconsistentmotivationdominates,althoughcommunityresponsibilityisraisedlessoverall.

Savingmoneyisaconsiderablemotivatorforengaginginenvironmentallyresponsibleactivities,beingthemostcitedreasoninrelationtoreusingsomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway,reducingenergyconsumptionandusingenergyefficientappliances.

TABLE 5

Reasons for engaging in environmentally friendly practices: NESB 2004

Top four reasons cited for adopting environmentally friendly behaviour

Save moneyConcern for environment

Community responsibility

Water restrictions

and/or drought

Reusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway n=438 ��% 31% 12%

Reducewaterconsumption n=622 21% 18% ��%

Preventstormwaterpollution n=517 7% �0% 25% 10%

Reduceenergyconsumption n=537 ��% 21% 12%

Useofenergyefficientappliances n=374 ��% 18% 5%

Reducefuelconsumptionoruseofcar n=294 37% ��% 20%

Note: The sample sizes relating to the various activities are too small for demographic or language group comparison.

n

n

n

n



Focusgroupparticipantsagreedthatfinesandrestrictionswereanincentivetoengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlypractices:

“An enormous change has taken place in respect to smoking in public places and I seriously do not think these changes could have happened so dramatically without fines being imposed.” [Spanish]

“I use grey water for my lawn but I only recently started doing it because of the water restrictions.” [Greek]

“In Korea, the garbage collection system is strict, so if is not followed correctly, your rubbish won’t be collected by the city council.” [Korean]

Focusgroupparticipantsalsoagreedthattheyweremuchmorelikelytoengageinenvironmentallyfriendlypracticeswhichareseentobeeasyandconvenient:

“I recycle because my Council has set up a system and it is easy for me … there is no excuse!” [Greek]

Reasons for non-engagement

Those who mentioned that they never or just occassionally adopted the following activities were asked:

Question: You mentioned you never/just occasionally do [activities below]. What are the main reasons why you don’t, or don’t often do this?

Avoided plastic bags to carry home shopping

Composted food and/or garden refuse

When doing the shopping, tried to avoid products with lots of packaging

Chosen household products that you think are better for the environment

Made an effort to reduce water consumption.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

Arangeofreasonswerecited,whichvarieddependingonthenatureoftheactivity(Table6).Anyreasonthatwascitedbymorethantwointenrespondents(amongthosewhosaidtheyneveradoptedthebehaviour)hasbeenhighlighted.

AsTable6shows,anactivitythatisbelievedtobeinconvenientortime-consumingislesslikelytobeadopted,forexample:

Avoidingplasticbags

Composting

Avoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

Therewasalsoalackofknowledgeandawarenessdisplayedaroundthefollowingactivities:

Composting

Choosingproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment

Avoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




TABLE 6

Reasons for non-engagement: NESB 2004

InconvenientDon’t

know how

Unaware it was

importantTime

consuming

Don’t buy many products

Avoidplasticbags n=340 ��% 8% 9% 9%

Compost n=414 19% ��% 9% 9%

Avoidproductswithexcesspackaging n=310 ��% 9% ��% 9% 9%

Choseproductsthatarebetterforenvironmentn=250 14% 17% ��% 9% 12%

Note: This question was also asked of respondents who said they never made an effort to reduce water consumption. However this only represented n = 52 respondents, which is considered too small for reliable analysis. The sample sizes relating to the various activities are too small for demographic or language group comparison.

Focusgroupparticipantsalsosaidtheywerelesslikelytoengageinenvironmentallyfriendlypracticesthatwereperceivedtobetimeconsumingorinconvenient:

“Re-using the water from the washing machine seems too difficult as I can’t carry buckets from the laundry.” [Arabic]

“I did it once [caught public transport to the beach from the Western suburbs] and never again! Waiting for the bus, then the train and then another bus … plus taking all the things you need to take. I thought I was going to die.” [Spanish]

“Native birds, possums and bats eat fruit, dirty the ground with droppings and disrupt gardens.” [Italian]

“[Composts] have an offensive smell that attracts insects.” [Korean]

Similarly,focusgroupparticipantsmentionedlackofknowledgeorawarenesswasalsoabarriertoengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlypractices:

“I’d love to compost, but can someone show me how to do it?” [Greek]

“I don’t know what renewable energy is.” [Chinese]

“Reducing the use of chemicals on the garden may be possible if we were made aware of what to use and what not to use and the effects of chemicals on the environment.” [Korean]

Otherissueswereraisedinthefocusgroups,included:

thecostassociatedwithrenewableenergy,buyingenergyefficientappliances,greywatersystems,etc.

“What’s the point in the government spending huge sums of money in raising peoples’ awareness, if people are not able to afford the alternative products. If governments are serious about these issues they should subsidise the production of environmentally friendly products and services.” [Spanish]

concernsaboutthequalityofrecycledproducts

“I don’t think that recycled water is clean enough.” [Vietnamese]

culturalimpedimentstoengagingincertainenvironmentalbehaviours

“It is un-Chinese to be an ‘activist’. Any protest movement is perceived as anti-government.” [Chinese]

“Taking your own shopping bags reminds me of being back in Macedonia.” [Macedonian]

Itshouldbenotedthattheselastissues,whileraisedintheChineseandMacedonianfocusgroupsdidnotappearwithanysignificanceinthequantitativefindings.

n

n

n



The most damaging behaviour from an environmental viewpoint

Question: What would you say are the most damaging things that you do, from an environmental point of view, in the way you live and work?

This question was unprompted and open-ended. It was not asked in 1996.

Useoftoxicchemicalsanddetergentsandlitteringorbeingcarelesswithrubbishwerementionedmostfrequentlyasenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours(Figure21),bothmentionedby14%ofrespondents.

Aroundoneintenrespondentsmentionedthefollowingbehaviours:

Usingplasticbagswhenshopping 11%

Puttingoil,fatorturpsdownthesink 10%

Notusingpublictransport 8%

Notrecyclingenoughoratall 9%

TherewereanumberofsignificantdifferencesbetweentheNESB2004 resultsandtheWho Cares?2003results.TherespondentsintheNESB2004 studyweremorelikelytoidentify:

Usingtoxicchemicalsordetergents 14%,comparedto5%inWho Cares? 2003

Litteringorbeingcarelesswithrubbish 14%,comparedto4%inWho Cares? 2003

Puttingfat,oilorturpsdownthesink 10%,comparedto4%inWho Cares? 2003

TherespondentsintheNESB2004 studywerelesslikelytoidentify:

Notusingpublictransport 9%,comparedto16%inWho Cares? 2003

Wastingenergy 2%,comparedto11%inWho Cares? 2003

TherespondentsintheNESB2004 surveywerealsomorelikelynottobeabletoidentifyanydamagingbehaviourthattheydo(26%,comparedto18%inWho Cares? 2003).

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




FIGURE 21

Environmentally damaging behaviour: NESB 2004


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Don't know

Other

Wasting paper

Wasting energy

Buy products with lots of packaging

Smoking

Failure to compost (enough)

Wasting water

Use leaded petrol

Generate a lot of waste

Failure to recycle

Not using public transport

Fat, oil down sink

Plastic bags when shopping

Littering, careless with rubbish

Toxic chemicals, detergents 14

14

11

10

9

8

6

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

8

26

NESB 2004 n = 805

FIGURE 22

Environmentally damaging behaviour: Who Cares? 2003


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Don't know

Other

Failure to compost (enough)

Generate a lot of waste

Fat, oil down sink

Littering, careless with rubbish

Wasting paper

Toxic chemicals, detergents

Smoking

Failure to recycle

Wasting water

Wasting energy

Not using public transport

Using the car 23

16

11

10

7

6

5

5

4

4

3

0

11

18

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421



Environmentally damaging behaviour

Language findingsTherangeofresponsestothisquestionvariedsignificantlyacrosslanguagegroupsinrelationtoafewbehaviours.SignificantdifferencesarehighlightedinTable7below,whichshows:

TheGreekandVietnamese-speakingrespondentsweremorelikelytosaytheywerecarelesswiththeirrubbishthantheItalian-speakingrespondents.

TheGreekandSpanish-speakingrespondentsweremorelikelytoidentifyusingchemicalsandherbicidesthantheArabic,ChineseandMacedonian-speakingrespondents.

TheChinese-speakingrespondentsweremorelikelytonominateusingtoomanyplasticbagswhenshoppingthanMacedonianandVietnamese-speakingrespondents.

TheChinese,MacedonianandVietnamese-speakersweremorelikelynottobeabletonominateanydamagingbehavioursfromanenvironmentalviewpointthantheGreekorSpanish-speakingrespondents.

n

n

n

n

TABLE 7

Environmentally damaging behaviour, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Littering,carelesswithrubbish 10 20 �� 12 7 9 �� 14

Useoftoxicchemicals,pesticides,herbicides � 0 �0 14 14 � �� 11 14

Usealotofplasticbagswhenshopping 9 �� 17 7 8 � 19 � 11

Letfat,oilandotherthingsdownthesink,toilet 11 10 9 12 11 6 16 6 10

Notusingpublictransport 10 9 5 7 3 7 17 13 9

Failuretorecycle(enoughoratall) 13 3 3 17 16 5 6 2 8

Generatealotofwaste(homeorbusiness) 5 7 11 6 4 2 8 2 6

Useleadedpetrol 8 1 3 3 1 7 2 3 4

Donotrecyclewater/usemorethanIshould 6 6 0 4 3 5 9 2 4

Failuretocompost(enoughoratall) 5 1 2 3 8 1 0 1 3

Smoking 7 2 2 1 2 6 2 4 3

Buyproductswithalotofpackaging 2 0 0 6 0 2 2 2 2

Usealotofenergy(e.g.wasteelectricity,don’tturnofflights,usealotofappliances,noinsulation)

0 2 1 2 0 5 2 2 2

Wastingpaper 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Don’tknow 24 �� 23 23 �� 26

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate a damaging behaviour than language group

highlighted with .


Heading




Outdoor spaces around the home

A list of items were read to respondents regarding possible uses of outdoor spaces around the home.

Question: I am going to read out a list of items, and I would like you to tell me which ones apply to you.

Entertaininginthebackyardwasthemostcommonlycitedactivity,with57%ofrespondentsentertainingintheirbackyardmorethanfourtimeseachyear.

Aroundhalftherespondentsgrewvegetables,fruitorherbs(49%)orAustraliannativeplants(47%).Aroundoneinthreerespondentshadplayequipmentintheirbackyardforchildren.

Lessthanaquarterofallparticipantscompostedkitchenscrapsorothergardenrefuse.

FIGURE 23

Use of outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Have compostand/or worm farm

Have play equipmentfor children

Grow Australiannative plants

Grow vegetables,fruit or herbs

Entertain in yard morethan four times per year

57

49

47

32

23

NESB 2004

Note: All people, except those who lived in a flat with no balcony, were asked about composting and growing vegetables, i.e. 763 people. All people, except those who lived in any type of flat, were asked about native plants, entertaining in the backyard and play equipment, i.e. 645 people.




Language findingsTherewereanumberofdifferencesbylanguageregardinguseofoutdoorspacesaroundthehome:

TheChinese-speakersweresignificantlylesslikelythanallotherlanguagegroupstoentertainintheirbackyard.InthefocusgroupstheChinesespeakersweremorelikelytospeakoflarge,spacious,cleanandmodernhomesasakeyaspectoftheenjoymenttheygainfromtheirhome,ratherthantheirbackyard.

TheItalianandVietnamese-speakingrespondentswerethemostlikelytogrowvegetables,fruitorherbs,whiletheSpanishandKorean-speakersweretheleastlikely.

TheGreek-speakerswerethemostlikelytogrowAustraliannativeplants.TheimportanceofplantswasreflectedinthefocusgroupwithGreekparticipants.

“I have a big backyard with lots of trees and flowers and it is a haven for me, to sit and relax and look at nature, the birds in the trees …” [Greek]

TheArabic-speakingrespondentswerethemostlikelytohaveplayequipmentintheirbackyards,whiletheSpanish-speakersweretheleastlikely.

TheItalian-speakingrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelythanChinese-speakerstohaveacompostheaporwormfarm.

n

n

n

n

n

TABLE 8

Outdoor spaces around the home, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Ientertaininmybackyardmorethanfourtimesayear 69 �� 50 68 52 67 71 44 57

Igrowvegetables,fruitorherbs 50 40 50 �0 �� 56 �� 49

IgrowAustraliannativeplants 34 47 �� 48 32 57 36 47 47

Ihaveplayequipmentforchildren �� 27 37 33 34 25 �� 27 32

Ihaveacompostheaporwormfarm 17 � 19 �0 17 28 19 25 23

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate than language group highlighted with .


Heading




Summary: Personal behaviourPromptedwithalist,respondentsintheresearchgenerallyagreedtherewereatleastsomethingstheydoregularlytohelpprotecttheenvironment.Thebehaviourscitedmostoftenarereducingwaterconsumption,reducingenergyconsumptionandpreventingstormwaterpollution.Inaddition,morethanhalfofthepeoplefromselectedethniccommunitiesrecyclepaperorothermaterialsatworkorhavedecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway.Morethanfourintenhavefrequentlyboughtenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobes,orotherproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment.

Peoplearelesslikelytoparticipateinlocalenvironmentalissues,trytogetinformationabouttheenvironmentorcomposttheirkitchen/gardenwaste.

Theprimaryreasonspeoplegaveforadoptingbehaviourthatisperceivedasenvironmentallyfriendlyweretosavemoney,concernfortheenvironment,asenseofcivicresponsibilityorasadirectresultofenvironmentalregulationsuchaswaterrestrictions.

Environmentallyfriendlybehaviourthatisperceivedastimeconsumingordifficultislesslikelytobeadopted,whichwasthecaseforavoidingplasticbags,compostingoravoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

Lackofknowledgeabouthowtoparticipateinenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviourorlackofawarenessoftheenvironmentalimpactsofagivenactivityisalsoasignificantbarriertobehaviouraluptake.Thisisparticularlyrelevantforcomposting,choosingproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentandavoidingproductswithexcesspackaging.

Qualitativefindingsalsosuggestthatactivitiesthatareseenasrequiringcapitaloutlay,forexampleinvestigatingrenewableenergyoptions,energyefficientappliancesandgreywatersystemswerealsolesslikelytobeadopted.

Inanunpromptedquestion,usingtoxicchemicalsordetergentswasoneoftwoenvironmentallydamagingpersonalbehavioursmostfrequentlyidentifiedinthissurveyofNESBcommunities.Bycontrast,thisissueisbarelymentionedintheWho Cares? 2003survey,eitherinthissamequestionorasanenvironmentalissueorasoneofthetwomostimportantenvironmentalissuesinNSWtoday.


3.4InformationSources

3.4 INFORMATION SOURCES

Sources of information about environmental issues

Question a: How do you mainly get informed about environmental issues? (‘Main source’)

Question b: Where would you most like to receive information about the environment? (‘Preferred source’)

These were unprompted questions

Massmediawereoverwhelminglyconsideredthemainsourceofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.Televisionratedmosthighlyoverall,followedbynewspapers,thenradio(Figure24).

Almostoneintenrespondentsconsideredbrochuresdistributedbygovernmenttobesignificantsourcesofinformation.Allremainingsourcesofinformationwereidentifiedbylessthan10%ofallrespondents.

Respondentswerealsoaskedtonominatetheirpreferredsourceofinformation.Whilethepatternformainsourceofinformationwassimilartopreferredsources,thereweresomedifferences.Respondents’mainsourcesofinformationweretelevision,radioandnewspapers,buttheywerelesslikelytonominatethesemediaastheirpreferredsourceofinformation.However,thewayrespondentsansweredthequestionsmeansthatthegapisnotasgreatasthegraphsuggests–seethenotewiththegraph.

Adultfamilymembers,whileanactualsourceofinformationfor6%orrespondents,wereonlyapreferredsourcefor2%ofrespondents.

Conversely,respondentsweremorelikelytoidentifythefollowingasapreferredsourceofinformationthananactualsourceofinformation:

Environmentalgroups mainsourcefor2%,preferredsourcefor7%

Brochuresfromenvironmentalgroups mainsourcefor4%,preferredsourcefor6%

Brochuresfromgovernment mainsourcefor9%,preferredsourcefor12%

Theseresultsindicatethatrespondentsprefertoreceiveinformationabouttheenvironmentfromsourcesthattheyseeashavingexpertiseinthearea,ratherthanmoreinformalmediasuchasfamilymembers(includingchildren),communityorganisations,workplaces,etc.

Figure25comparestheresultsforthemainsourcesofinformationaboutenvironmentalissuesbetween1996and2004.In2004therespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytonominatethefollowinginformationchannelsasmainsourcesofinformation:

Television 60%,upfrom49%in1996

Brochures totalof13%,notmentionedin1996

Magazines 8%,upfrom1%in1996

Informationsourcesmentionedforthefirsttimein2004wereinternet,schools,work,environmentalorganisations,communityorganisationsandchildren.

Respondentsweremuchmorelikelytobeabletonominateasourceofinformationabouttheenvironmentin2004.Only3%indicatedtheydidnotgetinformedabouttheenvironment,downfrom14%in1996.

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




FIGURE 24

Main and preferred sources of information about the environment: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No response

Don't know

Other

Do not get informed

Children

Community organisations

Environmental organisations

Work

Schools

Brochures - environmental groups

Adult family member

Internet

Magazines

Brochures - Government

Radio

Newspapers

Television 60

44

24

9

8

6

6

4

3

2

2

2

1

3

3

2

0

48

30

20

12

5

4

2

6

3

`0

7

3

`0

1

5

3

1

NESB 2004 n = 850

Preferred sourceMain source

Note: The data for each information source is based on the proportion of all respondents (n=805) who nominated the specific information source. Both questions (i.e. main and preferred information sources) were multiple response questions. However more respondents mentioned multiple sources of information in relation to main sources than for preferred sources, where most people tended to nominate only one source. If the above data is analysed by proportion of total responses rather than proportion of total respondents, the differences between preferred and main source of information becomes insignificant. For example: Television: main source 34%, preferred source 32%. Newspapers: main source 24%, preferred source 20%; Radio: main source 13%, preferred source 14%.

FIGURE 25

Main sources of information about the environment: NESB 1996-2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Do not get informed

Councils

Children

Community organisations

Environmental organisations

Work

Schools

Friends and family

Internet

Magazines

Brochures

Radio

Newspapers

Television 60

44

24

13

8

6

6

3

2

2

2

1

0

3

49

48

18

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

14

NESB 1996 n = 601NESB 2004 n = 805



Sources of information about environmental issues

Language findingsTherangeofresponsestothisquestionvariedsignificantlyacrosslanguagegroupsinrelationtoafewinformationsources.Table9showsthesedifferencesforthemostmentionedinformationsources.Section4ofthisreportprovidesamediaprofileoutliningmediausepatternsforeachofthelanguagegroups.Thesepatternsexplainsomeofthedifferencesbetweenlanguagegroupsinthemedia-basedsourcesofinformationevidentfromthisquestion.

Differencesofmorethan20%betweentwolanguagegroupsaresignificant.Thesehavenotbeensystematicallyhighlightedduetothelargediversityinresponsesprovidedtothisquestion.Instead,somegroups’responsesstronglydifferenttothetrendarehighlighted.Someofthesignificantdifferencesare:

Vietnamese-speakersarelesslikelytousetelevisionthanallothergroups.

ChineseandVietnamese-speakersaremorelikelytousenewspapersthanMacedonianandSpanish-speakers.

Vietnamese-speakersaremorelikelytouseradiothanmostothergroups(exceptGreek-speakers).

Korean-speakersaremorelikelytousemagazinesthanmostothergroups(exceptChinese-speakers),andlesslikelytouseradiothanmostothergroups.

n

n

n

n

TABLE 9

Main sources of information, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Television 74 55 60 57 60 71 77 �� 60

Newspapers 38 �� 45 42 39 37 27 �� 44

Radio 20 20 36 13 � 31 14 �0 24

Brochures–Government 8 14 3 4 10 16 14 6 9

Magazines 6 13 5 2 �� 3 5 2 8


Heading




Main language for informationWherearespondentidentifiedasourceofinformation(eithermainsourceorpreferredsource)theywerethenaskedwhetherthiswasinEnglish,orlanguageotherthanEnglish(LOTE),orboth.

Althoughtelevisionisthemainsourceinformationabouttheenvironment(Figure24)thereisthelowestaccesstoLOTEfromthissourceofallthemainmediaformsforrespondentsinthissurvey.Forthosewhonominatedanyofthethreemainmediasourcesasapreferredsource,astrongpreferenceformediainformationtobedeliveredintheirownlanguage(onitsownorwithEnglish)emerged(Figure26).Thisresultisnotsolelybasedonneed(i.e.notbeingabletouseEnglish)butalsoindicatesapreferencebybilingualrespondentsforinformationinLOTE.ThispreferenceindicatesdemandforLOTEisathigherlevelsthaniscurrentlybeingdelivered:

% access LOTE from current main source of environmental information

% prefer LOTE from preferred information source

Radio 70 81

Newspapers 62 72

Television 39 64

Brochures–Government 39 60

Environmentalgroupbrochures 24 63

39%ofrespondentshadreceivedgovernmentinformationintheirlanguage,althoughalmosttwothirds(60%)ofthosewhopreferredthisinformationsourcealsopreferredtoreceivegovernmentinformationinlanguagesotherthanEnglish.Similarly,whileonlyaquarterofrespondents(24%)hadreceivedbrochuresfromenvironmentalgroupsinanotherlanguage,63%wouldprefertoreceivethisbrochureinformationintheirownlanguage.

FIGURE 26

Language of main and preferred environmental information sources: NESB 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Both English and LOTELOTEEnglish

30

19

38

28

62

37

62

40

76

38

41

51

31

37

8

20

9

27

6

27

29

30

31

35

31

44

30

33

18

36Preferred - Brochures - Environment Groups (n=45)

Main - Brochures - Environment Groups (n=33)

Preferred - Brochures - Government (n=96)

Main - Brochures - Government (n=75)

Preferred - Television (n=382)

Main - Television (n=485)

Preferred - Newspapers (n=238)

Main - Newspapers (n=350)

Preferred - Radio (n=162)

Main - Radio (n=188)

Note: This question was asked only of respondents indicating the information source as either a main or a preferred source. Caution should be used in interpreting this data, given the large variation in sample sizes for each information format. The sample sizes relating to the various information channels are too small for demographic or language group comparison.Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.



Reliability of environmental information sources

Question: I will read you a list of people or organisations from the community who may provide us with information on issues relating to the environment. In general, how reliable do you think information from each of these sources would be?

Would you say information would be very reliable, fairly reliable, fairly unreliable or very unreliable?

Respondentswerethengivenalistoffourteenpossiblesourcesofenvironmentalinformation(Figure27).Theorderinwhichsourceswerereadoutwasdifferentforeachrespondent.

Theinformationsourcesthatapproximatelyeightoutoftenpeopleconsiderreliable(veryorfairlyreliable)areshownbelow.Environmentalgroups,scientistsandschoolsareconsideredveryreliablebyapproximatelyhalfofallrespondents:

Environmentalgroups 86%

Scientists 83%

Schools 81%

Othermembersofthecommunity 81%

Localcouncils 79%

Thesesourcesrepresentacombinationofbothinformal‘word-of-mouth’sourcesandclearexpertsinthefield.Neitherschoolsnorothermembersofthecommunitywerespontaneouslymentioned,unprompted,aseitherpreferredormainsourcesofinformation(inthepreviousquestion),howevertheywereconsideredsomeofthemostreliableofthesourcesinthispromptedquestion.

“I like green groups and environmental scientists where there is no conflict of interest.” [Greek]

“My granddaughter was very angry at me because she saw me tipping oil from a saucepan down the plughole.” [Spanish]

Sourcesofinformationthatareconsideredunreliablebythemostrespondentswerebusiness&industry(46%),mediapersonalities(34%)andreligiousleaders(25%).

Morethanoneintenrespondentswereunabletosaywhetherbilingualeducatorswerereliablesourcesofinformation,indicatingalackofawarenessofsuchservices.Table10suggeststhatthisisparticularlythecaseforItalianandMacedonian-speakingrespondents,whoweresignificantlymorelikelythantheotherlanguagegroupsnottobeabletocommentonthereliabilityofbilingualeducators.

ThereweresignificantdifferencesintheperceivedreliabilityofsourcesbetweentheNESB2004 studyandtheWho Cares? 2003study.WhiletheresultsarenotdirectlycomparablewithWho Cares? 2003asthatsurveydidnotincludeanotapplicablecategoryandothercategorieswereslightlydifferent,thoseinformationsourcesthatwereconsideredmorereliableintheNESB 2004studythantheWho Cares? 2003studywere:


Othercommunitymembers 83% 68%

Localcouncils 79% 71%

Governmentdepartments 74% 64%

Religiousleaders 63% 47%

Mediapersonalities 62% 37%

Businessandindustry 46% 37%

ThoseinformationsourcesthatwereconsideredlessreliableintheNESB 2004studythantheWho Cares? 2003studywerescientists(83%concideredthissourcedreliablecomparedto90%inWho Cares? 2003)andcommunityservicegroups(74%comparedto84%).

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


Heading




FIGURE 27

Reliability of environmental information sources: NESB 2004

Percentage of respondents NESB 2004 n = 805

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Business/industry

Media personalities

Religious leaders

Bilingual educators

Government departments

Community service groups

Local councils

Other members of community

Scientists

Environment groups

Schools

Children

86

83

81

81

79

74

74

71

68

63

62

46

Not applicableNot reliableHard to sayReliable

5 8 1

6 10 2

6 7 6

3 13 3

4 16 1

9 14 3

3 22 1

3 7 19

11 16 6

6 25 6

4 34 1

6 46 2

FIGURE 28

Reliability of environmental information sources: Who Cares? 2003

Percentage of respondents Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Business/industry

Media personalities

Religious leaders, churches

Government departments

Friends and family

The United Nations

Local councils

Community service groups

Schools

Local environment organisations

National environment organisations

Scientists/technical experts 90

89

87

85

84

71

71

68

64

47

37

37

3

3

2

3

3

1

6

3

3

5

3

3

7

9

11

12

13

28

23

29

34

48

60

60

Not reliableHard to sayReliable

Note: Totals for both graphs may not equal 100% due to rounding.



Reliability of environmental information from various sources

Language findingsTherangeofresponsesregardingthereliabilityofinformationsourcesvariedconsiderablyacrosslanguagegroups(Table10).Differencesofmorethan20%betweentwolanguagegroupsaresignificant.Thesehavenotbeensystematicallyhighlightedduetothelargediversityinresponsesinthisquestion.Insteadsomegroups’responseswhicharestronglydifferenttothetrendforthespecificsourcearehighlightedbelow.

TABLE 10

Reliability of environmental information sources, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Environmentalgroups Reliable 89 92 90 �� 97 75 95 85 86

Hardtosay 4 3 6 11 0 14 0 4 5

Unreliable 6 4 3 �� 3 11 5 9 8

Scientistsandtechnicalexperts Reliable 84 91 91 �� 89 82 94 77 83

Hardtosay 6 6 3 14 1 6 0 8 6

Unreliable 10 2 6 �� 9 11 4 12 10

Schools Reliable 85 84 88 �� 89 86 89 82 81

Hardtosay 6 11 4 9 3 6 5 3 6

Unreliable 7 2 6 14 7 3 4 10 7

Family,friendsandneighbours Reliable 78 73 84 78 88 71 93 80 81

Hardtosay 1 7 2 3 2 10 0 2 3

Unreliable 20 15 12 15 9 17 6 13 13

Localcouncils Reliable 82 92 75 �� 91 69 84 82 79

Hardtosay 3 4 2 10 2 6 2 4 4

Unreliable 15 2 22 �� 7 24 14 11 16

Governmentdepartments Reliable 86 95 64 �� 88 �� 83 83 74

Hardtosay 1 1 4 7 1 6 3 2 3

Unreliable 13 3 31 �� 11 �� 14 11 22

Ethniccommunitygroups Reliable 70 78 78 59 85 63 87 71 74

Hardtosay 11 7 10 13 3 21 2 6 9

Unreliable 17 14 11 23 11 14 8 17 14


Heading




TABLE 10

Reliability of environmental information sources, by language: NESB 2004 (cont)

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Children Reliable 68 �� 82 69 76 65 83 77 71

Hardtosay 2 10 3 3 0 4 0 1 3

Unreliable 8 14 7 9 7 4 4 6 7

Bilingualeducators Reliable 74 60 82 �� 83 �� 88 72 68

Hardtosay 9 16 3 22 4 30 2 5 11

Unreliable 17 18 14 �0 10 7 9 21 16

Religiousleaders Reliable 74 �� 67 64 79 �� 65 58 63

Hardtosay 3 14 3 4 2 7 6 8 6

Unreliable 21 25 27 27 15 42 23 24 25

Mediapersonalities Reliable 69 51 60 41 64 51 �� 71 62

Hardtosay 3 5 2 4 1 5 1 7 4

Unreliable 27 38 38 55 34 44 �� 21 34

Businessandindustry Reliable 55 41 45 41 52 34 �� 23 46

Hardtosay 5 10 9 11 3 6 1 6 6

Unreliable 41 46 45 44 44 60 �� 66 46




Age and gender

Femalesweremorelikelythanmalestobelievetheirchildrenarereliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation(75%,comparedto65%).

Maleswerelesslikelythanfemalestonominatereligiousleadersasreliablesourcesonissuesrelatingtotheenvironment(56%,comparedto68%).

Respondentsover55yearsweremorelikelythanotheragegroupstoconsidertheirchildrenasreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation:

18-34 41%

35-54 80%

55+ 83%

Education

Althoughnotsignificant,thosewithhighereducationweremorelikelytoidentifylocalcouncilsasveryreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation:




Thebeliefthatone’schildrenarereliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformationdecreasedaslevelofeducationincreased:



Tertiary 64%

Thebeliefthatscientistsandtechnicalspecialistsareveryreliablesourcesonissuesrelatingtoenvironmentincreasedwithlevelofeducation:



Tertiary 59%

Thosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolwerelesslikelytobelievethatgovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesareveryreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation:



Tertiary 41%

n

n

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

Beliefinenvironmentalandconservationgroupsasveryreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformationincreasedwitheducation:



Tertiary 63%

Length of residence

RespondentsbornoverseasweremorelikelytonominatelocalcouncilsasaveryreliablesourceofenvironmentalinformationthanthoseborninAustralia(39%,comparedto22%).

ThoseborninAustraliawerelesslikelytonominateschoolsasveryreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation(33%),comparedtorespondentswhowerebornoverseas(52%).

RespondentsborninAustraliawerelesslikelythanrespondentsbornoverseastobelievetheirchildrenarereliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation(38%,comparedto75%).

RespondentsbornoverseaswerelesslikelythanrespondentsborninAustraliatonominatereligiousleadersasunreliablesourcesonissuesrelatingtoenvironment(24%,comparedto40%).

ThoseborninAustraliawerelesslikelytonominatemediapersonalitiesasreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation(47%,comparedto64%).


RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficulties(80%)weremorelikelythanrespondentswhowerefluentinEnglish(60%)tonominatetheirchildrenasreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformation.

RespondentswhowerefluentinEnglishweremorelikelytobelievereligiousleadersareunreliablesourcesonissuesrelatingtoenvironmentthanthosewhoexperiencedsomedifficultywithEnglish(31%,comparedto21%).

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficultieswerelesslikelytonominatemediapersonalitiesasunreliablethanrespondentswhowerefluentinEnglish(29%,comparedto39%).

n


Heading




Summary: Information sourcesMostpeopleusenewspapersandtelevisionastheirmainsourceofenvironmentalinformation.ForsixintenrespondentsthisinformationisprovidedeitherintheirownlanguageorinbothEnglishandtheirownlanguageinnewspapersbutonlyfourintenontelevision.Forradiothisfigureisseveninten.Thepreferenceforradioornewspaperasapreferredmediumacrossthevariouslanguagegroupsisgenerallyrelatedtotheavailablemediainthevariouslanguagecommunities.

Forbothnewspapersandradiothereisastrongpreferenceforinformationtobeprovidedinpeople’sownlanguage,andthispreferenceisparticularlymarkedinradio.ForallinformationmediumsthereisastrongdesireforinformationtobeprovidedinbothEnglishandtheirownlanguage.

LackofEnglishlanguageisnotthesolereasonforpreferringLOTEinformation.BilingualpeoplealsopreferLOTEinformationalongsideEnglishinformation.

Morethaneightintenrespondentsfromtheseethniccommunitiesconsiderchildren,schools,environmentalgroups,scientistsortechnicalexpertsorothermembersofthecommunityasreliablesourcesofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.Thesesourcesrepresentacombinationofbothinformalword-of-mouthsourcesandclearexpertsinthearea.

Businessandindustry,religiousleadersandmediapersonalitieswereconsideredtheleastreliableofallinformationsources.


3.5Media

3.5 MEDIA

Television (English and LOTE)

Question: If you watch TV, what TV station do you watch the most often? (Single response)

AmajorityofrespondentswatchedacommercialEnglishlanguagetelevisionstationmorethananyotherstation(56%).ThiswasirrespectiveoftheirEnglishlanguageproficiency,as51%ofallrespondentswithpoorEnglishlanguageproficiencywatchacommercialchannelmorethananyother.OneintenrespondentswatchedtheABCmorethananyotherchannel.

OneinfiverespondentsviewedtelevisionintheirownlanguagemoreoftenthanEnglishlanguagetelevision.SBSwasviewedmostoftenby16%ofrespondents,andafurther5%watchanotherlanguageotherthanEnglishstationmostoften.

Veryfewrespondentsdidnotwatchtelevisionatall(4%).

FIGURE 29

Television (English and LOTE): NESB 2004

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Do not watch television

Pay television

Other LOTE television

SBS

Commercial stations

ABC


9

56

16

5

6

4

4

NESB 2004 n = 805


Heading



3.5Media

Television

Language findingsSpanish-speakingrespondentsweremorelikelythantheKoreanorVietnameserespondentstowatchaLOTEstationmorethananEnglishlanguagestation.

TheVietnamese-speakerswerethemostlikelytoviewacommercialstationmorethananyotherstation.

TABLE 11

Television, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

ABC 7 9 8 9 16 7 11 4 9

Commercialstations �� 59 �� 60 61 �� 56

SBS � 16 22 18 � 20 �0 � 16

TARBS* 13 0 3 2 0 2 7 0 4

TVB 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total LOTE television 22 21 25 20 � 22 �� 21

Paytelevision 18 0 11 7 3 6 6 0 6

Other 0 8 8 7 6 1 1 1 4

Donotwatchtelevision 4 2 3 4 6 2 1 12 4

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate television station than language group

highlighted with .* TARBS, a multilingual television broadcaster, ceased operations between fieldwork completion and the writing of this report.

Note: Figure for LOTE might be higher because the data does not show whether pay television viewed is in English or languages other than English.

Demographic findings Age and gender

Peoplewhowereover55yearswerelesslikelytowatchcommercialstationsthanotheragegroups:

18-34 66%

35-54 58%

55+ 45%

n

n

n

◆

◆

◆


3.5Media

Radio (English and LOTE)

Question: If you listen to radio, what station do you listen to the most often? (Single response)

Onethirdofrespondentslistentoradiostationsbroadcastingintheirownlanguagemorethananyotherstation.Almostthesameproportion(31%)listentoEnglishlanguageradiomostregularly,with23%tuningintoacommercialstationand8%listeningtoABCradio.

Almostoneinfiverespondents(19%)donotlistentoradio.

Therewereseveraldifferencesbylanguagegroupanddemographicprofileinrelationtoradioconsumptionhabits,andthesearehighlightedinTable12.

ThehigheruseofLOTEradiothanLOTEtelevisionismostlikelyareflectionofthemorelimitedtelevisionbroadcastinginotherlanguagescomparedtoradio.

FIGURE 30

Radio (English and LOTE): NESB 2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


8

23

33

11

7

19

NESB 2004 n = 805

Do not listen to radio

Don't know

Other

LOTE radio

English commercial radio

ABC radio


Heading



3.5Media

Radio

Language findingsGreek,MacedonianandVietnamese-speakersweremorelikelythanChineseandKorean-speakerstolistentoaLOTEstationmorethananEnglishlanguageradiostation.

MorethanfourintenKorean-speakersdidnotlistentoradio.

n

n

TABLE 12

Radio, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

ABCradio 5 6 6 8 13 3 17 4 8

Englishcommercialradio 27 34 25 23 19 27 15 17 23

LOTE radio �� 0 �� 0 ��

Other 12 10 13 12 9 13 14 2 11

Don'tknow 12 8 8 13 8 3 0 2 7

Donotlistentoradio � 27 � �� 26 �� 19

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate a radio station than language group

highlighted with .


Respondentsover55yearswerelesslikelytolistentoEnglishcommercialradio:

18-34 36%

35-54 28%

55+ 9%

YoungerrespondentswerelesslikelytolistentoLOTEradio:

18-34 18%

35-54 28%

55+ 52%

Length of residence

RespondentsborninAustralia(56%)weremorelikelytolistentoEnglishcommercialradiothanrespondentsbornoverseas(19%).

ThosebornoverseasweremorelikelytolistentoLOTEradiothanrespondentsborninAustralia(37%,comparedto4%).

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n


RespondentsfluentinEnglishweremorelikelytolistentoEnglishcommercialradiothanrespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficulties(36%,comparedto13%).

RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficulties(45%)weremorelikelytolistentoLOTEradiothanrespondentsfluentinEnglish(18%).

Education

ThosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolwerelesslikelytolistentoEnglishcommercialradio:



Tertiary 32%

ThosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremorelikelytolistentoLOTEradio:



Tertiary 17%

n

n

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆


3.5Media

Newspapers (English and LOTE)

Question: If you read newspapers, what paper do you read the most often? (Single response)

SimilarlytoLOTEradio,justoveronethirdofrespondentsreadaLOTEnewspapermorethananyothertitle(34%).

AlmosthalfreadEnglishlanguagenewspapersmostregularly(48%),withoneintenreadingtheirlocalEnglishlanguagenewspapermorethananyothertitle.Almostoneintenrespondents(9%)donotreadnewspapersatall.

Therewereseveraldifferencesbylanguagegroupanddemographicprofileinrelationtonewspaperreadership,andthesearehighlightedinTable13.

FIGURE 31

Newspapers (English and LOTE): NESB 2004


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Do not read newspapers

Don't know

Other

LOTE newspaper

Local English newspaper

The Australian/Financial Review

Daily/Sunday Telegraph

Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 20

16

1

10

34

7

3

9

NESB 2004 n = 805

Newspapers

Language findingsChineseandVietnamese-speakerswerelesslikelytoreadEnglish-languagenewspapers,andmorelikelytoreadLOTEnewspapersthanmostotherlanguagegroupsinthesample.Thisismostlikelyareflectionofthelargenumberofownlanguagenewspapertitlesavailableinbothofthesecommunities.

Spanish-speakersweremorelikelytoreadEnglishlanguagenewspapersthanothergroups.

n

n


Heading



3.5Media

TABLE 13

Newspapers, by language: NESB 2004

Ara

bic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Englishnewspaper 41 �� 40 46 �� 38

LocalEnglishnewspaper 15 2 1 13 13 11 16 9 10

LOTE newspaper �� 0 ��

Other 1 6 7 6 8 17 7 2 7

Don'tknow 11 3 4 4 1 1 0 0 3

Donotreadnewspapers 18 3 9 10 8 10 4 12 9

Key: Language group highlighted with is significantly more likely to nominate newspaper title than language group

highlighted with .


YoungerrespondentsweremorelikelytoreadEnglishlanguagenewspapersthanotheragegroups:

18-34 54%

35-54 38%

55+ 32%

OlderrespondentsweremostlikelytoreadLOTEnewspapers:

18-34 19%

35-54 32%

55+ 46%


RespondentsfluentinEnglishweremorelikelythanthosebornoverseastoreadEnglishlanguagenewspapers(56%,comparedto22%).

RespondentswithEnglishlanguagedifficultiesweremorelikelytoreadLOTEnewspapersthanrespondentswhowerefluentinEnglish(50%,comparedto14%).

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

Education

RespondentswithtertiaryeducationweremostlikelytoreadEnglishlanguagenewspapers:



Tertiary 54%

ThosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremostlikelytoreadLOTEnewspapers:



Tertiary 20%

Thosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolweremostlikelynottoreadnewspapers:



Tertiary 5%

Length of residence

ThoseborninAustraliaweremorelikelytoreadEnglishlanguagenewspapers(69%)thanthosebornoverseas(34%).

OnlyrespondentsbornoverseasreadLOTEnewspapers(38%).

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

◆

◆

◆

n

n

Page iv Priorities and values, paragraph 2: Environment should be noted as ranked eighth overall.

Page 21 Paragraph 2:

...62% of respondents considered water issues to be the most important (up significantly from 40% in 1996) and 30% believed air issues are the most important.

Page 24 Most important environmental issues, Language findings: Spanish respondents were more likely than the total sample to nominate water conservation

(83%, compared to 47%). Korean (28%), Chinese (25% and Arabic (25%) respondents were less likely to nominate water

conservation (compared to 47% in the total sample . Arabic-speaking respondants were significantly more likely to nominate water pollution than the

other language groups (24% compared to 11%).

Page 28 Paragraph 2: Environment should be noted as ranked eighth overall.

Page 80 Italian profile, Distribution in NSW: Outside Sydney SD 18%

Page 84 Korean profile, Single most important environmental issue: Water conservation 22%

Page 89 Macedonian profile, Environmentally friendly behaviours: Participated in a local development or environmental issue 5%

Page 98 Vietnamese profile, Radio station: Main LOTE station nominated: SBS Radio (55%, the highest figure for any radio station for

any community)

Other stations nominated were: 2VNR, Vietnam Sydney Radio (2SER 107.3)

Errata

Text underlined has been revised, November 2005.

Please note: The individual community profiles on the web at www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whocares/ethniccom.htmare accurate and reflect these revisions as of 11 November 2005.


Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)

66 DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW)

Thissectionpresentsaprofileforeachofthelanguagegroupsincludedinthestudy,underthefollowingheadings:

Demographic profile:takenfromAustralianBureauofStatistics2001censusdata.

Environmental profile:keyfindingsfromtheresearchregardingenvironmentalattitudes,values,knowledgeandbehaviour.

Media profile: keyfindingsfromtheresearchregardingmediaconsumptionpatterns.

Anysignificantdifferencesbetweentheresultsfortheindividuallanguagegroupandthetotalsamplehavebeenhighlighted.Differencesof 13betweenalanguagegroupandthetotalsample(ofallcommunitiescombined)arestatisticallysignificant.

IninterpretingtheseprofilesitshouldbenotedthatTARBS,amultilingualtelevisionbroadcaster,ceasedoperationsbetweenfieldworkcompletionandthewritingofthisreport.

The following eight community profiles can also be found as separate downloadable 5 page booklets in pdf format on the web at: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whocares/ethniccom.htm

Each booklet includes a general introduction to the research and the full profile details, with the environmental and media profile details presented as graphs.

■

■

■

4.CommunityProfiles


Heading

DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation(NSW) 67


4.CommunityProfiles–Arabic

ArabicArabic-speakersmakeupthesecondlargestlanguagegroupinNSWbehindChinese-speakers.ThereisasizeablesecondandsubsequentgenerationwithjustunderhalfofallArabic-speakersborninAustralia.BankstownlocalgovernmentareahasthelargestpopulationofArabic-speakerswith18%ofthoseinNSW.

TherearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileofArabicspeakersinthissamplecomparedtothegeneralArabicpopulationinNSW.Inthissamplethereweremorefemales(57%comparedto48%)and,becausechildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,asmallerproportionwasborninAustralia(20%comparedto44%inNSW).However,theproportionborninAustraliawashighcomparedtosomeotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).

Arabic-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleintheirratingoftheenvironmentcomparedwithotherissuesforgovernmentandinhowimportanttheenvironmentistotheirlives.However,nearlysixintenArabicspeakersareconcernedagreatdealaboutenvironmentalproblems(comparedtojustoverfourintenforthetotalsample).Theiroveralllevelofconcernwasalsohigherthanthewholegroupandhigherthantheirconcernintheprevioussurvey(94%concernedin2004comparedto88%in1996).ForoveronethirdofArabic-speakersthisconcernisforfuturegenerations.

Asin1996,thesinglemostimportantenvironmentalissueforArabic-speakerswaspollution,mentionedmorefrequentlythanthetotalsample.WaterconservationwasthesecondmostmentionedissuebutArabic-speakerswerelesslikelythanthetotalsampletomentionthisissue.In1996theirmostimportantenvironmentalissueswereairpollution,pollutionofbeachesandoceans,andtransportand/orstorageofchemicals.

Inenvironmentalknowledgequestions,Arabic-speakerswereslightlymorelikelythantheaveragetoknowthatmorewaterisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingusescombinedandmuchlesslikelytoknowthatmostbackyardspidersarenotdangerous.

MoreArabic-speakersoftentookactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollution,recycledmaterialsatworkorparticipatedinlocalenvironmentalissuesthanthetotalsamplebutArabic-speakersweresignificantlylesslikelytocompostthanothergroupsincludedinthesample.

Friendlypeoplewasthemostimportantfeatureofagoodplacetolive,citedby40%ofArabic-speakers,amuchhigherlevelthanthetotalsample.Liketheothergroupsinthesample,security,lowcrimeandsafetywerealsoimportanttoArabic-speakers.

MoreArabic-speakersconsideredmostsourcesofinformationabouttheenvironmentveryreliablethanthetotalsamplebuttheyweresignificantlymorelikelytoclassifylocalcouncils,environmentandconservationgroupsandreligiousleadersthisway.Theywerelesslikely,however,toperceivetheirchildrenasreliableconduitsforthistypeofinformation.

Arabic-speakerspreferredelectronicmedia(radioandtelevision)tonewspapers,andonly15%ofthesampleindicatedanArabic-languagenewspaperasthemainnewspaperread.El Telegraphhadthelargestreadership.

AlmostoneinfiveArabic-speakerswatchPayTVmostoften.ItislikelythatasizeableproportionoftheseviewerstunedinTARBSandanOptusVisionchannelcalledART,bothwithasizeableArabic-languageprogramoffering.TheaudienceofSBSwassmallincomparison.

OverathirdofallArabic-speakersinthesamplenominatedanArabic-languageradiostationasthemainstationlistenedto,with2MEhavingthehighestaudience.

Arabic-speakerswerealsomorelikelytonominatetelevisionasthepreferredsourceofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.



Demographic ProfileSizeoflanguagegroupinNSW 145,620representing13%ofallnon-EnglishspeakersinNSW.

Maincountriesofbirth AustraliaLebanonEgyptIraqSyriaSudan

44%33%6%4%2%2%

DistributioninNSW SydneyStatisticalDistrict(SD)OutsideSydneySD

98%2%

Genderprofile MaleFemale

52%48%

LocalGovernmentAreasinNSWwithlargestpopulation(morethan5,000persons)

Local Government Area

BankstownCanterburyParramattaLiverpoolHolroydFairfieldBlacktownRockdale

# persons

26,71918,81914,4209,7859,1458,7947,3397,319

% of LGA

16%15%10%6%

11%5%3%8%

SpokenEnglishcompetenceinNSW Thosewhospeaknotwellornotatall 23,034 16%

Migrationhistory ThemigrationofArabicspeakerstoAustraliadatesfromthe1880swhensmallnumbersofLebanesebeganarriving.ThesecondwavefollowedWorldWarII,withsustainedintakefromLebanonincreasingrapidlyinthemid1960sandmid1970s.TheLebanesecivilwarcausedafurtherwaveofmigrationinthemid1980sandearly1990s.TheGulfWarthencausedawaveofmigrationfromIraqwhileLebanesemigrationdeclined.

MiddleEasternandNorthAfricanmigrationsincethistimehaveresultedincontinuingarrivalofArabic-speakerstoAustraliaand,inparticular,NSW.

Environmental Profile Arabic Sample

Total NESB Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues

Note:Environmentincludeswaterconservation

Rank3(13%) Rank3(18%)

Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 70% 71%

Level of concern about the environment

AgreatdealAfairamountNotverymuch/notatall

58%36%6%

42%40%17%

Reasons for concern

ConcernforfuturegenerationsHealtheffectsofpollutionQualityoflife

36%22%19%

31%22%23%


Heading




Environmental Profile Arabic Sample

Total NESB Sample

Single most important environmental issue

Pollution(general)WaterconservationWaterpollutionTherearenoenvironmentalissues

25%21%13%7%

14%35%

6%3%

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

73%72%65%61%50%44%39%34%31%26%26%13%12%

77%64%59%67%54%47%41%37%34%33%19%26%

6%

Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

EnvironmentandconservationgroupsLocalcouncilsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesReligiousleadersCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresBilingualeducatorsYourchildrenBusiness/industry

69%52%46%42%39%34%33%21%

56%37%35%26%30%32%45%11%


Housewithlawnand/orgardensFlatwithbalconyCourtyardstylegarden/mainlypavedexteriorareasFlatwithnobalconyRuralblockofland

64%13%12%5%3%

59%15%18%

5%3%


FriendlypeopleSecure/lowcrime/safetyClosetoshopsandschoolsCleanairClosetotransportLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsParksforkidstoplay

40%35%15%12%8%6%6%

24%33%21%14%14%

9%7%



Media Profile Arabic Sample

Total NESB Sample

Television stations viewed most often

CommercialPaytelevisionOtherLOTEtelevisionSBSABCDonotwatchtelevisionOther/don’tknow

48%18%13%9%7%4%0%

56%6%5%

16%9%4%4%

Radio station listened to most often

LOTEradioEnglishcommercialradioOther/don’tknowDonotlistentoradioABCRadio

36%27%24%9%5%

33%23%18%19%8%

MainArabicstationnominated:2MEOtherstationsnominatedwere:MuslimFM,RadioLebanon,SBSRadio&VoiceofIslam

Newspaper read most often

Daily/SundayTelegraphSydneyMorning/SunHeraldDonotreadnewspapersLocalEnglishnewspaperLOTEnewspapersOther/don’tknowTheAustralian/FinancialReview

22%18%18%15%15%12%1%

16%20%9%

10%34%10%1%

MainArabictitlenominated:El TelegraphOthertitlesnominatedwere:AnNahar,Future&MiddleEastHerald


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Chinese

ChineseChinese-speakersmakeupthelargestlanguagegroupinNSW.ThemajorityofChinese-speakersarefirstgenerationimmigrantswithonlyasmallproportion(16%)borninAustralia.However,therearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileofChinesespeakersinthisstudycomparedtothegeneralNSWChinesepopulationandcomparedtothetotalstudysample(seeAppendixA).Inthissamplethereweremorefemales(66%comparedto52%inNSW).Aschildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,asmallerproportionofthesamplewasborninAustralia(4%comparedto16%)andthiswaslowcomparedtoanumberofotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).TheChinesespeakerswerealsosignificantlymorelikelytobeuniversityeducatedthanmostothergroups(51%comparedtoaverageof30%).

Chinese-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleintermsoftheimportanceoftheenvironmenttotheirlivesbuttheyweremoreconcernedoverallaboutenvironmentalproblems,andthisconcernhasincreasedsince1996(89%,comparedwith81%).Themostfrequentlymentionedreasonfortheirconcernwasqualityoflife,significantlyhigherthanthetotalsample,whiletheynominatedconcernforfuturegenerationsmuchlessoftenthanthetotalsample.However,fewerChinese-speakersthanthetotalsampleratedtheenvironmentasimportantcomparedtootherissuesforgovernmentattention.Chinese-speakerswerealsosignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupstoconsiderreligiontobeimportantintheirlives.

Althoughwaterconservationwasthemostfrequentlymentionedenvironmentalissue,thiswasatasignificantlylowerlevelthanforthewholegroup.ThemostimportantissueforChinese-speakersin1996,airpollution,isnowsecondinimportance.Chinese-speakersweremorelikelytorespondthattheydidnotknowofanimportantenvironmentalissue,butthishasdroppedfrom34%in1996to21%in2004.

Inenvironmentalknowledgequestions,moreChinese-speakersthananyothergroupknewthatthegreenhouseeffectisnotcausedbyaholeintheEarth’satmosphere.Theywerealsomuchmorelikelythantheaveragetoknowthatnativebirdsandanimalscansurviveincitiesandtownswithoutfeedingbypeople.However,theywerelesslikelytoknowthatover90%ofNSW’selectricitycomesfromburningcoal.

Chinese-speakerswereslightlymorelikelytosaytheyhaveoftenreducedenergyconsumptionandreusedsomethingandweresignificantlymorelikelytopurchaseenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobes.Chinese-speakerswerelesslikelytocompost,avoidstormwaterpollution,avoidproductswithlotsofpackaging,andtochoosehouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironment.

Chinese-speakersweremorelikelynottobeabletonominateanypersonallydamagingbehaviourstheyengagedin,with32%respondingthattheydidnotknowofanysuchenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours.

ForChinese-speakerssecurity,lowcrimeandsafetyfeaturedstronglyasthemostimportantcharacteristicofagoodplacetolive,withmorethantwo-thirdsnominatingthis,comparedtoonethirdofthetotalsample.Chinese-speakerswerelesslikelytonominatefriendlypeopleorclosetoshopsandtransportthanthetotalsample.

Chinese-speakersweremorelikelytonominatelocalcouncilsandgovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesasthemostreliablesourcesofinformationabouttheenvironment,butwerelesslikelytocitetheirchildren,religiousleadersorbilingualeducators.

Chinese-speakersweremorelikelytoaccesstelevisionandnewspapersthanradioastheirmainmediasource.ThemostpopularnewspaperwastheAustralian Chinese Daily.Chinese-speakerswerealsomorelikelytonominatenewspapersastheirpreferredinformationsourceaboutenvironmentalissues.

Forbothtelevisionandradio,commercialstationswereaccessedmoreoftenthanLOTEservices.Chinese-speakersshowednosignificantdifferenceintelevisionstationpreferencewhencomparedtotherestofthesample,howevertheywerelesslikelytolistentoLOTEradiothantherestofthesamplewithonly16%ofparticipantsaccessingthismedia.




Maincountriesofbirth ChinaHongKongAustraliaVietnamMalaysiaCambodia

37%17%16%7%5%1%


96%4%


48%52%



FairfieldCanterburyParramattaHornsbyHurstvilleAuburnRydeRandwick

# persons

18,40814,33411,67510,17910,0019,5989,3698,694

% of LGA

10%11%8%7%

14%17%10%7%


Migrationhistory ChinesemigrationtoAustraliawassignificantinthe19thCenturyandalmosttotallycurtailedduringtheperiodofthe“WhiteAustralia”policy,inthemid20thCentury.MorerecentChineseimmigrationincludedsettlersfromcountriessuchasMalaysiaandVietnam,aswellasfromSingapore,HongKongandTaiwan.Atotalof42,299Chinese-speakersarrivedduringthe1996-2001period,representing21%ofallChinese-speakersinNSW.

Environmental Profile Chinese Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank4(8%) Rank3(18%)



AgreatdealAfairamountNotverymuch/notatallDon’tknow

37%52%10%1%

42%40%17%2%

Reasons for concern

QualityoflifeHealtheffectsofpollutionConcernforfuturegenerations

37%22%18%

23%22%31%


Heading




Environmental Profile Chinese Sample

Total NESB Sample


Don’tknowWaterconservationAirpollution(motorvehicleemissions)Litteranddumpingofrubbish

21%20%13%

7%

10%35%5%5%


TakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionMadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

75%65%60%59%55%37%25%24%17%17%11%

9%1%

67%77%47%54%59%64%37%33%41%34%26%19%6%


EnvironmentandconservationgroupsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesLocalcouncilsCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresYourchildrenBilingualeducatorsReligiousleadersBusiness/industry

65%63%51%30%22%17%14%10%

56%35%37%30%45%32%26%11%



43%33%17%5%1%

59%15%18%5%3%


Secure/lowcrime/safetyClosetotransportCleanairClosetoshopsandschoolsFriendlypeopleLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsParksforkidstoplay

69%21%17%13%12%10%0%

33%14%14%21%24%9%7%



Media Profile Chinese Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialSBSABCOther/don’tknowOtherLOTEtelevisionDonotwatchtelevisionPaytelevision

59%16%9%8%5%2%0%

56%16%9%4%5%4%6%


EnglishcommercialradioDonotlistentoradioOther/don’tknowLOTEradioABCRadio

34%27%18%16%

6%

23%19%18%33%

8%

MainLOTEstationnominated: SBS RadioOtherstationsnominatedwere:2CR,2AC

Newspapers read most often

LOTEnewspapersSydneyMorning/SunHeraldOther/don’tknowDaily/SundayTelegraphDonotreadnewspapersLocalEnglishnewspaperTheAustralian/FinancialReview

60%18%9%8%3%2%1%

34%20%10%16%9%

10%1%

MainChinesetitlenominated:Australian Chinese DailyOthertitlesnominatedwere:SingTao,ChinesePost,ChineseHerald,EpochTimes,andAustralianChineseNewsWeekly


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Greek

GreekGreek-speakersmakeupthefourthlargestlanguagegroupbehindChinese,ArabicandItalian-speakers.Thereisasizeablesecondandsubsequentgenerationwith40%borninAustralia.Recentarrivalsarefewandthecommunityisover-representedinolderagegroups.CanterburylocalgovernmentareahasthelargestpopulationofGreek-speakerswith16%ofthoseinNSW.

TherearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileofGreekspeakersinthisstudycomparedtothegeneralGreekpopulationinNSWandcomparedtothetotalstudysample(seeAppendixA).Aschildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,asmallerproportionofthissamplewereborninAustralia(19%comparedto40%inNSW),buttheproportionborninAustraliawashighcomparedtosomeotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).TheGreek-speakersweresignificantlyolderthanmostothergroups(67%inthe55+bracketcomparedtoaverageof33%),reflectingthemajorwaveofGreekmigrationinthe1950swhile,67%didnotcompletehighschoolcomparedtoanaverageof30%acrossallgroups.

Greek-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleintheirratingofenvironmentalissuescomparedwithotherissues,andintheiroveralllevelofconcern.Thereweretwoalmostequallymentionedreasonsfortheirconcernaboutenvironmentalproblems.Forjustoveraquartertheirconcernisforfuturegenerationsandforanotherquarteritisthehealtheffectsofpollution.However,moreGreekparticipantsratedtheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlivesthanthetotalsample(80%comparedto71%).Greek-speakerswerealsomorelikelytoconsiderpoliticstobeimportantintheirlifethanthetotalsample.

Waterconservationwasthetopenvironmentalissuein2004forGreek-speakers,followedbypollution,andtheyweremorelikelytocitetheseissuesthanthetotalsample.Theirtopissuein1996,airpollution,isnowthefourthrankedissue,wellbelowwaterconservation(7%comparedto44%).

Inenvironmentalknowledge,moreGreek-speakersthananyothergroupknewthatmuchmorewaterinNSWisusedinagriculturethanbydomesticandmanufacturingusescombinedandthatover90%ofNSW’selectricitycomesfromburningcoal.However,theyweremuchlesslikelythantheaveragetoknowthatthegreenhouseeffectisnotcausedbyaholeintheEarth’satmosphereandtheleastlikelyofallthelanguagegroupstoknowthatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsarenotusuallyoflowerqualityandthatnativebirdsandanimalscansurviveincitieswithoutpeoplefeedingthem.

MoreGreek-speakersoftenengagedinmanyoftheenvironmentallyfriendlybehavioursconsideredinthesurveythanthetotalsamplebuttheysaidtheyavoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingatsignificantlyhigherlevels.Innominatingpersonalenvironmentallydamagingbehaviour,significantlymoreGreek-speakerssaidtheywerecarelesswiththeirrubbishandidentifiedusingchemicalsandherbicidesthanthetotalsample.

ForGreek-speakersfriendlypeopleisthemostimportantfeatureofagoodplacetolive,nominatedby39%.Greek-speakerswerelesslikelytonominatesecurity,lowcrimeandsafetyasapositivefeatureoftheirlocalareacomparedtothetotalsample.

Greek-speakersweremorelikelytonominatetheirchildrenasveryreliablesourcesofinformationaboutenvironmentalissuesthanthetotalsample.Thesecondnominatedsourcewasenvironmental/conservationgroups(theirmostreliablesourcein1996).Theywerelesslikelytonominatelocalcouncilsand,inparticular,governmentdepartmentsoragenciesnominatedbyonly17%,comparedto35%ofthetotalsample.

UseofnewspapersandradiowashigheramongGreek-speakersthanoftelevision.Inparticular,Greek-speakerswerelesslikelytowatchcommercialtelevisionthanthetotalsample.TherewasaslightlyhigherproportionofGreek-speakerswhowatchedSBSthanthetotalsample.

Greek-speakersweremorelikelytolistentoLOTEradioandreadLOTEnewspapersthanEnglishlanguageradioornewspapers.TheywerealsomorelikelytoaccessLOTEradioandLOTEnewspapersthanthetotalsample.ThemostpopularradiostationmentionedwasSBSRadioandEllinikos KirikasandNea Patridawerethemostpopularnewspapers.

Greek-speakersweremorelikelytonominatetelevisionasthepreferredsourceofinformationabouttheenvironment.




Maincountriesofbirth AustraliaGreeceCyprusEgypt

40%29%4%2%


72%28%


50%50%



CanterburyRockdaleBankstownRandwickMarrickville

# persons

14,3998,5336,772

5,6545,252

% of LGA

11% 15%

4%5%7%


Migrationhistory GreekmigrationwasmostlypostWWIIand,asatrend,hasvirtuallyceased.Recentarrivalsaresmallandthecommunityisagingrapidly.

Environmental Profile Greek Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank4(13%) Rank3(18%)




46%34%15%5%

42%40%17%2%

Reasons for concern

ConcernforfuturegenerationsHealtheffectsofpollutionMaintainingeco-systems–nature,plants,animals

27%26%14%

31%22%8%


WaterconservationPollution(general)WaterpollutionAirpollution(general)

44%23%8%7%

35%14%6%5%


Heading




Environmental Profile Greek Sample

Total NESB Sample

Environmentally responsible behaviours cited as engaged in often

MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

81%70%61%58%54%50%48%43%41%34%26%21%8%

77%64%67%54%59%34%37%41%47%33%26%19%6%


YourchildrenEnvironmentandconservationgroupsBilingualeducatorsCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresLocalcouncilsReligiousleadersGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesBusiness/industry

56%50%43%36%27%23%17%13%

45%56%32%30%37%26%35%11%


Housewithlawnand/orgardensCourtyardstylegarden/mainlypavedexteriorareasFlatwithbalconyRuralblockoflandFlatwithnobalcony

43%37%13%4%3%

59%18%15%3%5%


FriendlypeopleClosetoshopsandschoolsSecure/lowcrime/safetyLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsCleanairClosetotransportParksforkidstoplay

39%18%16%16%11%7%0%

24%21%33%

9%14%14%7%



Media Profile Greek Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialSBSPaytelevisionABCOther/don’tknowOtherLOTEtelevisionDonotwatchtelevision

44%22%11%8%8%3%3%

56%16%6%9%4%5%4%



40%25%21%8%6%

33%23%18%19%8%

MainLOTEstationnominated:SBS RadioOtherstationsnominatedwere:2MM,HellenicRadioandGalaxis


LOTEnewspapersDaily/SundayTelegraphSydneyMorning/SunHeraldOther/don’tknowDonotreadnewspapersTheAustralian/FinancialReviewLocalEnglishnewspaper

45%20%13%11%9%1%1%

34%16%20%10%9%1%

10%

MainGreektitlenominated:Ellinikos Kirikas/Nea PatridaOthertitlesnominatedwere:OKosmos,GreekNationalVema,EllinisandGreekHerald


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Italian

ItalianItalian-speakersmakeupthethirdlargestlanguagegroupinNSW,andasizeablenumberofthesearesecondandsubsequentgenerations,with40%borninAustralia.However,therearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileofItalianspeakersinthisstudycomparedtothegeneralItalianpopulationinNSWandcomparedtothetotalstudysample(seeAppendixA).Aschildrenunder18werenotinterviewedasmallerproportionwereborninAustralia(22%comparedto40%inNSW),buttheproportionborninAustraliawashighcomparedtosomeotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).TheItalian-speakersweresignificantlyolderthanmostothergroups(67%inthe55+bracketcomparedtoaverageof33%),reflectingthemajorwaveofItalianmigrationinthe1950s,while69%didnotcompletehighschoolcomparedtoanaverageof30%acrossallgroups.

WhileItalian-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleintheirrankingoftheenvironmentcomparedtootherissuesforgovernmentattention,theiroveralllevelofconcernaboutenvironmentalproblemswaslower.Inparticular,significantlyfewerItalian-speakerswereconcernedagreatdealaboutenvironmentalissues.Theirreasonsforconcernreflectedthetotalsamplewithoverathirdnominatingconcernforfuturegenerationsandafifthqualityoflife.Healtheffectsofpollutionwasalesscommonreasonthanforthetotalsample.

Italian-speakerswerealsosignificantlylesslikelytoratetheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlives(44%,comparedto71%ofthetotalsample).

WaterconservationwasthemostimportantenvironmentalissueforItalian-speakersnominatedslightlymoreoftenthanbythetotalsample,followedatamuchlowerlevelbypollution.In1996theirmostimportantissuewasairpollution.Theywerealsomorelikelytonottobeabletonominateanyissues,butthishasfallensubstantially(from34%in1996to15%in2004).

Inenvironmentalknowledge,ItalianspeakersweremorelikelytoknowthatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsarenotusuallyoflowerqualityandthatmuchmorewaterinNSWisusedinagriculturethanbydomesticandmanufacturingusescombined.Theywerealittlemorelikelytoknowthatleavesandgrassclippingspollutestormwaterandwereclosetotheaverageacrossthelanguagegroupsonotherquestions.

Acrosstherangeofenvironmentalbehavioursconsidered,Italian-speakershaveadoptedsomeatmuchhigherratesthanothergroupsandothersatmuchlowerrates.Theyweremorelikelythanthetotalsampletosaytheyhadoftenreuseditems,avoidedusingplasticbagsandcompostedbuttheywerelesslikelytohaveadoptedenergyefficientbehaviour,suchasreducingenergyconsumptionorreducingfuelconsumptionandvehicleemissions,tohaveavoidedstormwaterpollutionandrecycledmaterialsatwork.

Whendiscussingenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours,Italian-speakersmentionedfailuretorecycle,usingchemicalsandpesticidesandlettingoil,fatandotherthingsdownthesinkmostoften.

Italian-speakers,liketheGreeksample,weremorelikelytonominatefriendlypeopleasthemostimportantfeatureofagoodplacetolive,andweremuchlesslikelythanthetotalgrouptofocusonlowcrime,securityandsafetyasimportant.

Italian-speakersnominatedanarrowerrangeofreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformationthanothergroups.Inparticular,Italian-speakingparticipantslessoftencitedenvironmentalgroups,localcouncils,government,migrantresourcecentresandbilingualeducatorsasreliable.MoreItalian-speakersconsideredfamily,friendsandneighbours,theirchildrenandreligiousleadersasreliablethanallothersources.Italian-speakerswerealsolesslikelytonominatemostsourcesasveryreliablewhencomparedtothetotalsample.

MediausebyItalian-speakersdidnotvarysignificantlyfromthetotalsample.Overall,responsesindicatedapreferencefortelevisionandradiomediaovernewspapers,exceptinthereadershipofthe Daily Telegraph,whichwasslightlyhigherthanthetotalsample.ReadershipofLOTEnewspaperswaslowerthanbythetotalsample.

ReteItaliawasthemostpopularLOTEradiostationforItalian-speakersandLa FiammathemostpopularLOTEnewspaper.Theynominatedtelevisionasthemostpreferredsourceofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.




Maincountriesofbirth ItalyAustraliaEgypt

51%40%2%


82%18%


50%50%

LocalGovernmentAreasinNSWwithlargestpopulation(TopfiveLGA’s)


FairfieldLiverpoolCanterburyDrummoyneBankstown

# persons

8,7845,8344,7214,2973,637

% of LGA

5%4%4%

13%2%


Migrationhistory ItalianmigrationwasmainlyinthedecadesimmediatelyafterpostWWIIand,asatrend,hasvirtuallyceased.ThenumberofrecentarrivalsisverysmallandtheItalian-borncommunityisagingrapidly.

Environmental Profile Italian Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank3(18%) Rank3(18%)




28%41%27%4%

42%40%17%2%

Reasons for concern

ConcernforfuturegenerationsQualityoflifeHealtheffectsofpollution

36%21%11%

31%23%22%


WaterconservationDon’tknowPollution(general)WaterpollutionIndustryemissions

39%15%13%4%4%

35%10%14%6%2%


Heading




Environmental Profile Italian Sample

Total NESB Sample


MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

75%61%55%48%43%43%40%40%39%37%22%12%8%

77%54%67%64%33%26%41%59%47%34%37%19%6%


YourchildrenEnvironmentandconservationgroupsReligiousleadersCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresLocalcouncilsBusiness/industryGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesBilingualeducators

45%23%20%16%12%11%10%9%

45%56%26%30%37%11%35%32%


Housewithlawnand/orgardensCourtyardstylegarden/mainlypavedexteriorareasRuralblockoflandFlatwithbalconyFlatwithnobalcony

66%18%11%5%0%

59%18%

3%15%

5%


FriendlypeopleSecure/lowcrime/safetyCleanairClosetoshopsandschoolsParksforkidstoplayClosetotransportLeafy,green,tree-linedstreets

30%15%12%10%10%8%4%

24%33%14%21%

7%14%

9%



Media Profile Italian Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialSBSABCPaytelevisionOther/don’tknowDonotwatchtelevisionOtherLOTEtelevision

54%18%9%7%7%4%2%

56%16%9%6%4%4%5%


LOTEradioOther/don’tknowEnglishcommercialradioDonotlistentoradioABCRadio

32%25%23%12%8%

33%18%23%19%8%

MainItalianstationnominated:Rete ItaliaOtherstationsnominatedwere:MovimentoFM–Radio2000,SBSRadio


LOTEnewspapersDaily/SundayTelegraphSydneyMorning/SunHeraldLocalEnglishnewspaperOther/don’tknowDonotreadnewspapersTheAustralian/FinancialReview

27%22%17%13%10%10%1%

34%16%20%10%10%9%1%

MainItaliantitlenominated:La FiammaOthertitlenominated:IlGlobo


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Korean

KoreanKorean-speakersmakeuptheninthlargestlanguagegroupinNSW.AhighproportiontheKorean-languagecommunityinNSWarefirstgenerationimmigrants,withonlyaboutoneintenKorean-speakersborninAustralia.However,therearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileoftheKoreanspeakersinthissamplecomparedtothegeneralKoreanpopulationinNSWandcomparedtothetotalstudysample(seeAppendixA).Inthissamplethereweremorefemales(68%comparedto52%inNSW).AsmallerproportionofthesamplewasborninAustralia(1%comparedto11%)becausechildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,andthiswaslowcomparedtoanumberofotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).TheKoreanspeakersweresignificantlymorelikelytobeuniversityeducatedthanalllanguagegroupsinthestudy(68%comparedtoaverageof30%acrossallgroups).

Korean-speakersweremuchmorelikelytoratetheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlivesthanthetotalsamplebuttheirconcernaboutenvironmentalproblemswaslower.FewerKorean-speakersthanthetotalsamplewereconcernedagreatdealabouttheenvironmentandmorewerelittleornotconcerned.ForalmostfourintentheirconcernwasforfuturegenerationsandforaquarterofKorean-speakers,itwasqualityoflife.

Inrankingenvironmentalissuescomparedtootherissuesforgovernmentattention,Korean-speakers’responsesweresimilartothetotalsample.HoweverKorean-speakersweremuchlesslikelycitewaterconservationasthesinglemostimportantissueandslightlymorelikelytobeunabletonominateanyenvironmentalissues.

Inknowledgequestions,Korean-speakersweremuchmorelikelythantheaveragetoknowthatmostbackyardspidersarenotdangeroustopeoplebutwereclosetotheaverageintheirrateofcorrectresponsesonmostotherquestions.

Korean-speakerssaytheyoftenengageinarangeofenvironmentallyfriendlybehavioursatahigherratethanthegeneralsample,particularlycomposting,buttheyalsowerealsomorelikelytoavoidusingplasticbags,reduceenergyconsumption,purchaseenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesandrecyclematerialsatwork.

ForKorean-speakersaspectsrelatingtosecurity,lowcrimeandsafetyandcleanairwereequallyimportantasfeaturesofagoodplacetolive,eachnominatedbyaquarterofKorean-speakers.Theyconsideredfriendlypeoplemuchlessimportantthanothergroups.

Korean-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelythanthetotalsampletoclassifyallinformationsourcesasveryreliable,withtheexceptionofbusiness/industry(wheretherewasnodifferencetotherestofthesample).Korean-speakersnominatedenvironmentandconservationgroupsthemostoften(80%comparedto56%ofthetotalsample).

Overall,Korean-speakersweremorelikelytoaccesscommercialorEnglishmediathanLOTEmedia.Inparticular,Korean-speakersweremorelikelytowatchcommercialtelevisionandtheABC.Korean-speakerswerelesslikelytowatchSBS,otherLOTEtelevisionorPaytelevision.Korean-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleinnominatingtelevisionasthepreferredsourceofinformationabouttheenvironment.

ThemostpopularKoreanradiostationnominatedwasKoreanRadio,howeveronly10%ofKorean-speakersreportedLOTEradioasastationtheylistenedtomostfrequently.

ThemostpopularKoreannewspaperwasHoju Dong A,howeverlessthanaquarterofallKorean-speakersinthesamplenominatedaLOTEnewspapertitle.MorethanathirdofKorean-speakersnominatedtheSydney Morning/Sun Herald asthenewspaperthattheyreadthemostoften.Thisissignificantlydifferentfromthetotalsample.




Maincountriesofbirth KoreaAustralia

85%11%


98%2%


48%52%



CanterburyParramattaRydeHornsbyStrathfield

# persons

3,6262,766

2,2912,2611,940

% of LGA

3%2%2%2%7%


Migrationhistory Koreanmigrationbeganintheearly1970sundertheskilledmigrationprogramandnumbersofKoreanimmigrantsincreasedsubstantiallyoverthe1980sand1990s.

Environmental Profile Korean Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank3(13%) Rank3(18%)




31%40%29%

42%40%17%

Reasons for concern

ConcernforfuturegenerationsQualityoflifeHealtheffectsofpollution

39%25%13%

31%23%22%


WaterconservationDon’tknowAirpollution(motorvehicleemissions)Litteranddumpingofrubbish

15%15%10%9%

35%10%5%5%


Heading




Environmental Profile Korean Sample

Total NESB Sample


MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

76%74%68%59%58%56%49%44%40%34%32%24%9%

77%67%59%47%64%54%26%33%41%37%34%19%

6%


EnvironmentandconservationgroupsLocalcouncilsYourchildrenCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresReligiousleadersBilingualeducatorsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesBusiness/industry

80%67%66%61%58%57%55%25%

56%37%45%30%26%32%35%11%



57%29%

7%6%1%

59%15%18%

5%3%


Secure/lowcrime/safetyCleanairClosetotransportClosetoshopsandschoolsFriendlypeopleLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsParksforkidstoplay

25%25%18%12%10%10%0%

33%14%14%21%24%

9%7%



Media Profile Korean Sample

Total NESB Sample

Televsion stations viewed most often

CommercialABCSBSDonotwatchtelevisionOther/don’tknowPaytelevisionOtherLOTEtelevision

60%16%9%6%6%3%0%

56%9%

16%4%4%6%5%


DonotlistentoradioEnglishcommercialradioOther/don’tknowABCRadioLOTEradio

41%19%17%13%10%

19%23%18%8%

33%

MainKoreanstationnominated:Korean radioOtherstationsnominatedwere:SBSRadio

Newspaper read most often

SydneyMorning/SunHeraldLOTEnewspapersLocalEnglishnewspaperOther/don’tknowDaily/SundayTelegraphDonotreadnewspapersTheAustralian/FinancialReview

36%24%13%9%8%8%2%

20%34%10%10%16%9%2%

MainKoreantitlenominated:Hoju Dong AOthertitlenominatedwas:WeeklyKoreanLifeReview


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Macedonian

MacedonianMacedonian-speakersmakeuptheeighthlargestlanguagegroupintheNSWareawithalmost40%borninAustralia.Macedonian-speakersinNSWlivepredominantlyinRockdaleandBankstownlocalgovernmentareas.

InthesampleofMacedonian-speakersforthisstudyasmallerproportionwereborninAustraliathanthegeneralMacedonianpopulationinNSW(22%comparedto37%)becausechildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,buttheproportionborninAustraliawashighcomparedtosomeotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).Macedonian-speakershadthehighestnumbersinpaidwork(70%comparedtoaverageof48%acrossallgroups).

Macedonian-speakersweresimilartothetotalsampleintheirratingoftheenvironmentcomparedtootherissuesforgovernmentattentionandalsointheiroveralllevelofconcernaboutenvironmentalissues.Theirconcernfocusedstronglyonfuturegenerations,withalmosthalfnominatingthisreason.Theywerelesslikelytobeconcernedaboutthehealtheffectsofpollutionthanthegeneralsample.However,Macedonian-speakerswerelesslikelytoconsidertheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlives(59%)whencomparedtothetotalsample(71%).

Macedonian-speakersnominatedsimilarenvironmentalissuestothetotalsample,withwaterconservation,pollution(general)andairpollutionseenasthemostimportantenvironmentalissues.

Onquestionsofenvironmentalknowledge,moreMacedonian-speakersknewthatleavesandgrassclippingspollutestormwaterthananyotherlanguagegroup.However,theywerelesslikelytoknowthatnativebirdsandanimalscansurviveinthecitywithoutpeoplefeedingthemandthatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsarenotusuallyoflowerquality.LessMacedonian-speakersknewthatmostbackyardspidersarenotdangeroustopeoplethananyothergroup.

Macedonian-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelythanthetotalsampletosaytheyhavetakenactivestepstoreducestormwaterpollution(85%comparedto64%ofthetotalsample).Macedonian-speakerswerealsomorelikelytobeunabletonominateanypersonalenvironmentallydamagingbehaviour.

ForMacedonian-speakersaspectsrelatingtoproximitytoshopsandschoolsandleafy,green,tree-linedstreetswerethemostmentionedfeaturesofagoodplacetolive,bothsignificantlyhigherthanthetotalsample.Theymentionedsecurity,lowcrimeandsafetyissueslessoftenthanothergroups.

Macedonian-speakerswerelesslikelytoclassifyanysourcesofinformationabouttheenvironmentasveryreliablewiththeexceptionoftheirownchildren.Inparticular,Macedonian-speakersweresignificantlylesslikelythantherestofthesampletoclassifylocalcouncils,governmentdepartments,environmentgroups,migrantresourcecentresandbilingualeducatorsasveryreliablesourcesofinformation.

Macedonian-speakershadfairlyhighlevelsofmediauseacrosstelevision,radioandnewspaperforms.Morethan60%watchcommercialtelevisionandtherewasaslightlyhighernumberofMacedonian-speakersthatregularlyviewedSBSwhencomparedtothetotalsample.

MorethanfourintenMacedonian-speakerslistenedtoLOTEradio,comparedto33%ofthetotalsample.MacedonianRadiowasthemostpopularstation.MorethanaquarterofMacedonian-speakersalsolistentocommercialradioregularlyandthisisslightlyhigherthanthetotalsample.

TheAustralian Macedonian Weeklywasthemostpopularnewspaperidentified.JustoveraquarterofMacedonian-speakersaccessedLOTEnewspapersregularly.ThiswasslightlylowerthanthetotalsampleforLOTEnewspaperreadership.Macedonian-speakersalsohadafairlyhighreadershiplevelofEnglishlanguagenewspaperssuchastheDaily Telegraph.




Maincountriesofbirth FormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia(FYROM)Australia

57%37%


65%35%


51%49%

LocalGovernmentAreasinNSWwithlargestpopulation(Top5LGA’s)

LocalGovernmentAreasRockdaleBankstownFairfieldHurstvilleLiverpool

# persons

5,4983,1381,885

1,8301,650

% of LGA

6%2%1%3%1%


Migrationhistory Inresponsetorisingunemploymentinthe1960s,theSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslavia(SFRY)permitteditscitizenstoseekemploymentabroad.Thisresultedinthemigrationofalmost100,000YugoslavstoAustraliabetween1961and1976.ManyoftheYugoslavswereMacedonian-speakersfromtheBitolaandOhridregions.

Environmental Profile Macedonian Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank4(16%) Rank3(18%)




47%37%16%

42%40%17%

Reasons for concern


46%26%12%

31%22%23%


WaterconservationPollution(general)AirpollutionDon’tknow

35%18%7%7%

35%14%5%

10%


Heading




Environmental Profile Macedonian Sample

Total NESB Sample


TakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionMadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefusePurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

85%83%75%59%56%43%52%35%31%29%29%16%9%

64%77%67%59%54%37%41%34%33%26%47%19%

6%


YourchildrenEnvironmentandconservationgroupsLocalcouncilsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesReligiousleadersBilingualeducatorsCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresBusiness/industry

42%31%21%12%10%

9%7%4%

45%56%37%35%26%32%30%11%



70%20%9%1%0%

59%18%15%

3%3%


ClosetoshopsandschoolsLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsFriendlypeopleSecure/lowcrime/safetyCleanairClosetotransportParksforkidstoplay

36%25%23%21%21%17%12%

21%9%

24%33%14%14%

7%



Media Profile Macedonian Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialSBSABCPaytelevisionOtherLOTEtelevisionDonotwatchtelevisionOther/don’tknow

61%20%7%6%2%2%1%

56%16%9%6%5%4%4%



42%27%16%12%3%

33%23%18%19%8%

MainMacedonianstationnominated:Macedonian RadioOtherstationsnominatedwere:SBSRadio,2VOX,RadioSydneyMacedonia


LOTEnewspapersDaily/SundayTelegraphOther/don’tknowSydneyMorning/SunHeraldLocalEnglishnewspaperDonotreadnewspapersTheAustralian/FinancialReview

27%20%18%14%11%10%0%

34%16%10%20%10%9%1%

MainMacedoniantitlenominated:Australian Macedonian WeeklyOthertitlenominatedwas:TodyDenes


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Spanish

SpanishSpanish-speakersmakeupthesixthlargestlanguagegroupinNSW.Spanish-speakerscomefromavarietyofSouthernandCentralAmericancountriesincludingChile,Uruguay,Argentina,aswellasSpain.However,therearesomedifferencesbetweentheprofileoftheSpanish-speakersinthissamplecomparedtothegeneralSpanishpopulationinNSWandcomparedtothetotalstudysample(seeAppendixA).InthissampleasmallerproportionofthesamplewasborninAustraliathanthegeneralSpanishpopulation(1%comparedto22%inNSW)becausechildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,andthiswaslowcomparedtoanumberofotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).

Spanish-speakershadthehighestlevelofconcernabouttheenvironmentwithtwo-thirdsveryconcernedaboutenvironmentalproblemscomparedto42%ofthetotalsample.Thestrongestreasonforconcernwasqualityoflife,mentionedby40%,almostdoubletherateforthetotalsample.Theyalsomentionedhealtheffectsofpollutionmorefrequentlybutcitedconcernforfuturegenerationslessfrequently.

Inaddition,81%ofSpanish-speakersratedtheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlivesandweretheonlylanguagegrouptoratetheenvironmentmorehighlythanotherissueswith37%nominatingtheenvironment(includingwaterconservation)asoneofthetwomostimportantissuesforgovernment,comparedwith19%ofthetotalsample.

Spanish-speakerswerealsothemostlikelygrouptobeconcernedaboutwaterconservationwith64%nominatingitasthesinglebiggestenvironmentalissue,comparedto34%ofthetotalsample.Bycontrasttheirtopissuein1996,byasignificantmargin,wasairpollution.Spanish-speakerswerealsotheonlylanguagegroupwhereallrespondentscouldnominateatleastoneenvironmentalissueofconcern.Spanish-speakerswereslightlylesslikelytonominatepollution(general)thanthetotalsample.

Onenvironmentalknowledgequestions,moreSpanish-speakersthananyothergroupknewthatnativebirdsandanimalscansurviveinthecitywithoutpeoplefeedingthem,thatmostbackyardspidersarenotdangeroustopeoplethanandthatproductsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsarenotusuallyoflowerquality.Ontheotherhand,lessSpanish-speakersthananyothergroupknewthatthegreenhouseeffectisnotcausedbyaholeintheEarth’satmosphereandthatmorewaterisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingusescombined.

Spanish-speakersreportedoftenavoidingstormwaterpollution,recyclingmaterialsatworkchoosingmoreenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsandavoidingpackagingatsignificantlyhigherratesthanothergroups,andalsoengagedmoreinreducingwaterandfuelconsumption,andavoidingplasticbags.Indiscussingpersonalenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours,Spanish-speakersweremorelikelytomentionusingchemicalsandherbicidesandnotusingpublictransportthanthetotalsample.

ForSpanish-speakers,proximitytoshopsandschoolsandparksfortheirchildrentoplayinarethemostimportantcharacteristicsofagoodplacetolive,mentionedsignificantlymoreoftenthanbythetotalsample.Spanish-speakersaremuchlessconcernedaboutsecurity,lowcrimeandsafetyasfactorsindeterminingagoodplacetolive.

Spanish-speakersweresignificantlymorelikelytomentionenvironmentalgroups,theirchildrenandbilingualeductorsasveryreliablesourcesofinformationontheenvironment.Theynominatedgovernmentdepartmentsmuchlessoftenthanothergroupsandwerealsolesslikelytoclassify,localcouncils,religiousleaders,business/industryandmigrantresourcecentresasreliable.

Spanish-speakersaccessavarietyofmediaformsregularly,includingbothLOTEandEnglishforms.ThereareasignificantlyhighernumberwhowatchSBScomparedtothetotalsample.Commercialtelevisioniswatchedslightlylessfrequentlythanthetotalsample.

WhileSpanish-speakerslistentolesscommercialradiooverallwhencomparedtothetotalsample,thereisahighernumberofSpanish-speakerswholistentoABCradiothanthetotalsample.SBSradiowasnominatedasthemostpopularLOTEradiostationwith28%listeningtoLOTEradioonaregularbasis.ThemostpopularLOTEnewspaperwastheSpanish Herald,howeveronly18%readLOTEnewspapers,significantlylowerthantherestofthesample.Spanish-speakershaveafairlyhighlevelofreadershipofEnglishnewspaperssuchastheSydney Morning Herald andtheDaily Telegraph.

OverthreequartersofSpanish-speakersnominatedtelevisionastheirpreferredsourceofinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.




Maincountriesofbirth AustraliaChileUruguayArgentinaSpainPeruColombia

22%22%12%9%8%7%4%


90%10%


48%52%

LocalGovernmentAreasinNSWwithlargestpopulation


FairfieldLiverpoolBlacktownCampbelltownRockdale

# persons

8,8664,9503,046

2,5871,719

% of LGA

5%3%1%2%2%


Migrationhistory Spanish-borntendedtomakeupthefirst-waveofSpanish-speakersmigratingtoAustralia,andaccountfor8%ofallSpanish-speakersinNSW.ThosefromLatinAmericatendtobemorerecentarrivalsthanthoseborninSpain,andmakeupmorethan60%ofallSpanishspeakersinNSW:Chile(22%),Uruguay(12%),Argentina(9%),Peru(7%),Colombia,(4%),ElSalvador(4%),Ecuador(2%).

Environmental Profile Spanish Sample

Total NESB Sample



Rank1(37%) Rank3(18%)




66%33%1%

42%40%17%

Reasons for concern

QualityoflifeHealtheffectsofpollutionConcernforfuturegenerations

40%31%21%

23%22%31%


WaterconservationLitteranddumpingofrubbishPollution(general)Waterpollution

64%7%6%5%

35%5%

14%6%


Heading




Environmental Profile Spanish Sample

Total NESB Sample


MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomePurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

84%79%77%63%55%51%48%46%44%33%22%14%3%

77%64%59%41%67%54%34%37%33%47%19%26%

6%


YourchildrenEnvironmentandconservationgroupsBilingualeducatorsLocalcouncilsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesReligiousleadersCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresBusiness/industry

75%71%68%25%22%20%19%1%

45%56%32%37%35%26%30%11%


Housewithlawnand/orgardensFlatwithnobalconyFlatwithbalconyCourtyardstylegarden/mainlypavedexteriorareasRuralblockofland

68%17%7%6%1%

59%5%

15%18%3%


ClosetoshopsandschoolsParksforkidstoplayFriendlypeopleClosetotransportSecure/lowcrime/safetyCleanairLeafy,green,tree-linedstreets

34%26%18%18%17%

5%1%

21%7%

24%14%33%14%9%



Media Profile Spanish Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialSBSABCOtherLOTEtelevisionPaytelevisionDonotwatchtelevisionOther/don’tknow

44%30%11%7%6%1%1%

56%16%

9%5%6%4%4%


LOTEradioDonotlistentoradioABCRadioEnglishcommercialradioOther/don’tknow

28%26%17%15%14%

33%19%8%

23%18%

MainLOTEstationnominated:SBS RadioOtherstationsnominatedwere:RadioAustralandRadioRio


SydneyMorning/SunHeraldDaily/SundayTelegraphLOTEnewspapersLocalEnglishnewspaperOther/don’tknowTheAustralian/FinancialReviewDonotreadnewspapers

31%20%18%16%7%4%4%

20%16%34%10%10%2%9%

MainSpanishtitlenominated:Spanish HeraldOthertitlenominatedwas:ElEspanol


Heading



4.CommunityProfiles–Vietnamese

VietnameseVietnamese-speakersmakeupthefifthlargestlanguagegroupinNSWandaroundaquarterofVietnamese-speakerswereborninAustralia.FairfieldlocalgovernmentareahasthelargestpopulationofVietnamese-speakerswith41%ofthoseinNSW.

InthesampleofVietnamese-speakersforthisstudythereweremorefemalesthaninthegeneralVietnamesepopulationinNSW(65%comparedto51%).AsmallerproportionofthesamplewasborninAustraliathanthegeneralVietnamesepopulation(4%comparedto25%inNSW)becausechildrenunder18werenotinterviewed,andthiswaslowcomparedtoanumberofotherlanguagegroupsinthestudy(fourgroupswereabout20%Australianbornandfourhadlessthan5%).

Vietnamese-speakersaresimilartothetotalsampleintheirratingoftheenvironmentasveryimportanttotheirlivesandtheenvironmentwasthesecondmostmentionedissueforgovernmentattentioncomparedtootherstate-wideissues,includingsocialissues.However,31%ofVietnamesespeakerswerenotveryornotatallconcernedaboutenvironmentalissues,whichissignificantlyhigherthanthetotalsample,21%wereconcernedagreatdeal,halfthelevelofthetotalsample.In1996,93%ofVietnamese-speakersratedtheenvironmentinAustraliabetterthantheirhomecountry,anindicationofthestandardagainstwhichenvironmentalproblemsinAustraliamaybemeasuredbyVietnamese-speakers.

Vietnamese-speakersgavesimilarresponsestothetotalsamplewhendiscussingimportantenvironmentalissues,nominatingwaterconservationandpollutionasthemostimportant.In1996airpollution,followedbytransportandstorageofdangerouschemicalswerethetopissues.ThenumberofVietnamese-speakerswhocouldnotnominateanenvironmentalissuehasdroppedfrom39%in1996to10%in2004.

Onquestionsofenvironmentalknowledge,Vietnamese-speakersweremorelikelythanthesampleaveragetoknowthatthegreenhouseeffectisnotcausedbyaholeintheEarth’satmosphereandthatleavesandgrassclippingspollutestormwater.LessVietnamese-speakersthananyothergroupknewthatover90%ofNSWelectricitycomesfromburningcoal.

OveronethirdofVietnamese-speakers(35%)couldnotnominateanypersonalenvironmentallydamagingbehaviours,comparedto26%ofthetotalsample.Ofthosewhocould,Vietnamese-speakersweremorelikelytosaythattheylitteredthanthetotalpopulation.

Whendefiningthefeaturesofagoodplacetolive,themostpopularresponseforVietnamese-speakerswastoliveinasecure,safeareawithlowcrime,nominatedby57%comparedwith32%ofthetotalsample.Vietnamese-speakerswerelesslikelytonominatefriendlypeopleorcleanaircomparedtothetotalsample.

Vietnamese-speakersnominatedgovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesveryreliablesourcesofenvironmentalinformationsignificantlymorethanthetotalsample.Environmentalgroupswerealsoseenasaveryreliablesource.Vietnamese-speakerswerelesslikelytoclassifytheirownchildrenandbilingualeducatorsasreliablesourcesofinformationthanotherrespondents.

Vietnamese-speakersweremorelikelytowatchcommercialtelevisionthanthetotalsamplebuttherewasalsoahigherincidenceofVietnamese-speakerswhodidnotwatchtelevisionatall.Vietnamese-speakerswerelesslikelytowatchSBSthanthetotalsample.

SixintenVietnamese-speakerslistenedtoLOTEradioregularly.Thisissignificantlyhigherthanthetotalsample(33%).ThemostpopularLOTEradiostationnominatedbyVietnamese-speakerswas2VNR.TherewasaslightlylowerincidenceofcommercialradiolistenersamongtheVietnamesesamplewhencomparedtothetotalsample.

ThemostpopularLOTEnewspaperwasChieu Duongwith52%respondingthattheyreadLOTEnewspapersregularly.Newspaperswerethemostpopularsourceofinformationabouttheenvironmentnominatedby57%.




Maincountriesofbirth VietnamAustralia

69%25%


97%3%


49%51%



FairfieldBankstownLiverpoolCanterburyMarrickville

# persons

28,05011,8115,574

5,0683,714

% of LGA

16%7%4%4%5%


Migrationhistory Vietnamesemigrationhasgrownsubstantiallysince1975followingtheendoftheVietnamWarinApril1975.Currentarrivalsarestillhigh,althoughmostlyinthefamily-reunioncategory.Englishlanguagecompetenceisaseriousissueinthiscommunity.

Environmental Profile Vietnamese Sample

Total NESB Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other social issues

Note:Environmentincludedwaterconservation

Rank2(29%) Rank3(18%)




21%45%31%

42%40%17%

Reasons for concern


22%19%17%

31%22%23%


WaterconservationPollution(general)Don’tknowAirpollution(motorvehicleemissions)

36%10%10%8%

35%14%10%5%


Heading




Environmental Profile Vietnamese Sample

Total NESB Sample


MadeanefforttoreducewaterconsumptionTakenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumptionPurchasedenergyefficientappliancesorlightglobesTakenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollutionRecycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatworkDecidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitawayTakenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleemissionsChosenhouseholdproductsthatarebetterfortheenvironmentCompostedfoodand/orgardenrefuseAvoidedproductswithlotsofpackagingTriedtogetinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironmentAvoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghomeParticipatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissues

81%78%67%65%55%45%41%32%27%27%23%17%

3%

77%67%47%64%59%54%37%41%26%34%19%33%

6%


EnvironmentandconservationgroupsGovernmentdepartmentsoragenciesLocalcouncilsCommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentresReligiousleadersYourchildrenBilingualeducatorsBusiness/industry

60%54%39%30%24%22%21%

2%

56%35%37%30%26%45%32%11%



58%28%

8%3%1%

59%18%15%3%5%


Secure/lowcrime/safetyClosetoshopsandschoolsClosetotransportFriendlypeopleCleanairLeafy,green,tree-linedstreetsParksforkidstoplay

57%23%15%14%

5%1%0%

33%21%14%24%14%

9%7%



Media Profile Vietnamese Sample

Total NESB Sample


CommercialDonotwatchtelevisionSBSABCOther/don’tknowOtherLOTEtelevisionPaytelevision

76%12%7%4%1%0%0%

56%4%

16%9%4%5%6%


LOTEradioEnglishcommercialradioDonotlistentoradioABCRadioOther/don’tknow

61%17%15%4%4%

33%23%19%8%

18%

MainVietnamesestationnominated:2VNROtherstationsnominatedwere:VietnamSydneyRadio(2SER107.3)


LOTEnewspapersSydneyMorning/SunHeraldDonotreadnewspapersDaily/SundayTelegraphLocalEnglishnewspaperOther/don’tknowTheAustralian/FinancialReview

52%17%12%9%9%2%0%

34%20%9%

16%10%10%1%

MainVietnamesetitlenominated:Chieu DuongOthertitlesnominatedwere:VietLuan,DanVietWeekly,SaigonTimes



Toobtainacomprehensiverangeofinformationaswellasahighlevelofconfidenceintheindividualresultareas,thestudyinvolvedfivephases:

1. Ninefocusgroups(oneineachlanguagegroup,withseparategroupsforCantoneseandMandarin)todiscussenvironmentalissuesandprovidein-depthqualitativeinformationtoinformthesurveydesign.Allfocusgroupswerefacilitatedbybilingualresearchersinthelanguageofchoiceofparticipants.

2. Reviewingpreviousrelatedresearch(The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities (1997)andtheWho Cares about the Environment?Series).

3. Identifyingquestionsdeemedrelevantforthenewsurvey.Theseincluded:

corequestionsfromprevioussurveys

newquestionsfromthe2003 Who Cares about the Environment?

newquestionsaboutemergingissues.

4. Pilottestingthenewquestionnaire.

5. Conductingaquantitativetelephonesurveyofapproximately100NSWpeoplefromeachoftheselectedcommunitieswhospokethetargetlanguageathome.

Thesurveyinstrumentwastranslatedintoeightcommunitylanguages.Interviewswereconductedinthelanguageofchoiceoftherespondent,withbilingualinterviewersconductingalloftheinterviews.Theinterviewsweremainlyconductedinthecommunitylanguageoftherespondentbut19%ofinterviewsareconductedinEnglish.Thepercentageineachlanguagegroupconductedinthecommunitylanguagewere:Arabic56%,Chinese94%,Greek93%,Italian59%,Korean,99%,Macedonian69%,Spanish80%andVietnamese94%.Telephoneinterviewswereconductedwith805peopleovertheageof18fromacrossNSW.TheNESB 1996 studyalsousedtelephoneinterviewsbutwithadultsover18yearsfrommetropolitanSydney.

Whilethewordingofsomequestionshasbeenmodifiedinsomecasesformoreconsistenttranslation,thewordingandstructureofthequestionnairesfromprevioussurveyshasbeenretainedasfaraspossibleforcorequestions.Thisistoensurecomparabilityintheresults,sothattrendchangesanddifferencescanbeidentifiedbetweenthestudies.

Thecorequestionswhichhavebeenaskedaimtoprovidethefollowing:

measuresofchangeovertimesincetheNESB1996 study

variationsbetweenthevariousnon-Englishspeakingbackgroundgroupsincludedinthestudy

comparisonswiththeWho Cares about the Environment?research(1997and2003)

acohesivedatasetcoveringknowledge,attitudesandbehaviour.

Thefinalquestionnairewaspilotedin21interviewstotesttheflowandcomprehensionofthequestionnaire.FormalfieldworkcommencedinJune2004andallsurveyswerecompetedbyJuly2004.

Thefinalinterviewlengthaveraged27minutes.Althoughthisislongerthanisusuallyadvisableincommunitysurveyresearch,fewpeoplestoppedtheinterviewpartwaythroughandfeedbackfrominterviewersshowedthatrespondentsmaintainedahighlevelofinterestinthesubject.

SamplingThesamplewasproducedbygeneratingarandomlistoftelephonenumbersfromtheelectronicversionoftheWhitePages,basedonethno-specificnamestemsineachofthelanguagegroups.

Inordertoqualifyforaninterview,respondentshadtospeakoneoftheninenominatedlanguagesathome(includingbothCantoneseandMandarinforChinese-speakers).Respondentswereselectedfromallhouseholdmembersaged18-70.Onlyonepersonperdwellingwasinterviewedandnosubstitutionbetweenhouseholdmemberswaspermittedoncetheinterviewhadcommenced.

◆

◆

◆

■

■

■

■

AppendixA:ResearchMethods



Significant differences

Giventhesizeofthetotalsample(805)andthesizeofthelanguagesub-groups(approximately100),thelevelofdifferencerequiredintheresultsforthatdifferencetobeclassedassignificant,differssubstantiallybetweenthetotalsampleandthesesub-groups.

Fortheoverallsampleof805respondents,themaximummarginoferroratthe95%confidencelevelistherangeof3.5%.Thisimpliesthatforaresponsefigureof50%,thetruefigurewillbebetween46.5%and53.5%in19cases

outof20,assumingthesampleisdrawninarepresentativefashion.

Quotasof100respondentsweresetforeachofthelanguagegroupstoensurethatseparateanalysiscouldbeconductedforeachofthelanguagegroups.AfurtherquotawassetfortheChineselanguagegrouptoensurethatequalnumbersofCantoneseandMandarin-speakingrespondentswereincludedinthesample.Themaximummarginoferrorforindividuallanguagegroupsatthe95%confidencelevelistherangeof 9.8%.Thismeansthatthereneedstobe19.6percentagepointsdifferencebetweenlanguagegroupsintheNESB2004 studyforonelanguagegrouptobesignificantlydifferentfromanotherinagivencategory.

Differencesofmorethan13.5percentagepointsbetweenonelanguagegroupandtheresultsforthetotalsampleNESB2004studyresultsaresignificant.

Differencesofmorethan7.5percentagepointsbetweentheNESB 1996 studyandNESB2004studyresultsaresignificant.

Differencesofmorethan6.1percentagepointsbetweentheWho Cares? 2003studyandNESB2004studyresultsaresignificant.

Demographic groupingsThedemographicfindingsboxesinSection3(MainFindings)considersignificantdifferencesinfourdemographiccategories:

Ageandgender–peopleareclassifiedasagedunder35,35-54or55andover,andasmaleorfemale.

Education–peoplewereaskedthehighestlevelofschoolingtheyhadcompleted:

noformalschooling,primaryschool,somesecondaryschool

secondaryschool

tradeortechnicalqualifications

universityorCAEdiploma,degreeorhigherdegree(tertiary).

Peoplewerethenclassifiedashavingnotcompletedsecondaryschool,completedsecondaryschoolortertiaryqualified.

Englishlanguageproficiency–peoplewereaskedtoratetheirEnglishlanguagecompetence:

cannotspeak,readorwrite

canspeakwell,butnotreadorwritewell

canspeakabit,butcannotreadorwrite

canspeak,readandwriteEnglishwell.

Peoplewerethenclassifiedasfluent(canspeak,readandwriteEnglishwell)ornotfluentinEnglish.

Recencyofarrival–peoplewereaskedwhentheymigratedtoAustralia:

borninAustralia

arrivedbefore1980

arrived1981-1990

arrived1991-2004.

■

■

◆

◆

◆

◆

■

◆

◆

◆

◆

■

◆

◆

◆

◆





TABLE 14

Demographic profile of the sample

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

2004

Ara

bic

n =

101

2004

Chi

nese

n =

102

2004

Gre

ek n

= 1

00

2004

Ital

ian

n =

100

2004

Ko

rean

n =

100

2004

Mac

edo

nian

n =

100

2004

Sp

anis

h n

= 1

00

2004

Vie

tnam

ese

n =

102

NE

SB

200

4 T

OTA

L n

= 8

05

NE

SB

199

6 T

OTA

L n

= 6

01

Who

Car

es?

2003

NE

SB

To

tal n

= 9

6

Who

Car

es?

2003

To

tal n

= 1

421

Percent (%)

GenderMale 43 34 45 42 32 54 49 35 42 49 56 50

Female 57 66 55 58 68 46 51 65 58 51 44 50

Age

18-34 47 29 11 10 32 30 16 26 25 27 61 39

35-54 38 53 22 23 53 44 43 57 42 42 28 41

55+ 14 18 67 67 15 26 40 17 33 30 11 20

Countryofbirth

Australia 20 4 19 22 1 22 1 4 12 9

Workstatus

Inpaidwork 46 49 36 37 36 70 59 55 48 * 52 65

Student 10 18 1 2 16 2 1 6 7 * 32 10

Retired/agepensioner 7 11 45 44 6 17 26 7 20 * 8 11

Otherpensioner 2 0 7 4 0 3 1 2 2 * 2 2

Homeduties 20 13 3 10 37 1 10 28 15 * 6 8

Unemployed/lookingforwork 14 7 2 1 1 5 2 3 4 * 0 3

Education

Didnotcompletehighschool 24 6 67 69 1 29 9 30 30 45 5 21

Completedhighschool 28 29 10 13 22 37 34 39 27 23 33 25

Trade/technical 19 12 12 8 7 13 32 8 14 12 8 15

University 30 51 11 10 68 21 25 22 30 19 53 39

Areaofresidence

SydneyStatisticalDistrict(SD) 93 96 83 70 99 60 77 97 85 * * *

OutsideSydney(SD) 7 4 17 30 1 40 23 3 15 * * *

Englishlanguageproficiency**

Cannotspeak,readorwrite 5 8 3 7 6 5 6 12 6 * * *

Canspeakabit,butnotreadorwrite

11 30 40 31 33 12 15 45 27 * * *

Canspeakwell,butnotreadorwritewell

13 17 21 9 37 32 16 22 21 * * *

Canspeak,readandwrite 71 47 36 51 24 51 63 22 46 * * *

FluentinspokenEnglish 84 64 57 60 61 83 79 44 67 66 100 100

FluentinwrittenEnglish 71 47 36 51 24 51 63 22 46 55 * *

* Data not available

** English language proficiency question was asked differently in 1996 and 2004. In 1996 respondents were asked to rate their spoken English according to the criteria below. They were also asked to rate their written English under the same criteria:

1. very good, 2. good, 3. not very good, 4. not at all.

In 2004 it was decided to use less subjective categories and respondents were asked to rate their written and spoken English according to the categories detailed in the above table.

To compare the spoken English samples the first two categories for 1996 and the last two in 2004 above were combined to give a spoken English: well category.

To compare the written English samples the first two categories for the NESB 1996 study were combined and compared with the last category only for the NESB 2004 study.

In the Who Cares? 2003 sample all of the NESB respondents spoke English well. They were not asked to rate their written language skills.



ThesamplewasnotweightedagainstAustralianBureauofStatistics2001Censusestimates.Todothiswouldrequiretheweightingoftheindividuallanguagegroupsaccordingtotheage,gender,location,andEnglishlanguageproficiencyprofileoftheindividualcommunities.Giventhesamplesizeofn=100perlanguagegroup,therewereconcernsaboutthedataqualityresultingfromweightingsuchsmallsamples.

ThedemographicprofileofthesampleappearsinTable14.Itprofileseachoflanguagegroupsaswellasthetotalsample.Inadditionthetotalsampleforthe2004studyiscomparedtothetotalsampleofthe1996studyofNSWNESBresidentsandthe2003 Who Cares about the Environment?study.Asmuchaspossible,differencesinresponsesbetweenthesesampleswereconsideredagainstthesesamplevariations.

Table15outlinesthevariousdwellingtypesoftherespondentsinthesample,bylanguagegroup.

TABLE 15

Outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004A

rab

ic

Chi

nese

Gre

ek

Ital

ian

Ko

rean

Mac

edo

nian

Sp

anis

h

Vie

tnam

ese

Tota

l

Percent (%)

Flatwithnobalcony 5 5 3 0 6 0 17 1 4

Flatwithbalcony 13 33 13 5 29 9 7 8 15

Courtyardstylegarden(mainlypaved) 12 17 37 18 7 20 6 28 18

Housewithlawnsandgardens 64 43 43 66 57 70 68 58 59

Houseonruralblockofland 3 1 4 11 1 1 1 3 3

Key differences across the sampleThereareanumberofdifferencesacrossthesamples,bothbetweenlanguagegroupsandbetweenthesamplesofthedifferentstudies.

Differences between languages

ThesamplesofChinese,KoreanandVietnameserespondentswereskewedmoretowardfemales(aroundtwothirds)thantheotherlanguagegroups.

TheGreekandItaliansamplesweresignificantlyolderthantheothersamples.Thisreflectsthemigrationpatternsofthesecommunities,wherethemajorwaveofmigrationwasinthe1950s.AsaresultanumberofresidentsofItalianandGreekbackgroundarepartofEnglish-speakinghouseholds.

AroundoneinfiveArabic,Greek,ItalianandMacedonian-speakersinthesamplewereborninAustralia,comparedtolessthan5%ofChinese,Korean,SpanishandVietnameserespondents.Againthisreflectsthemigrationpatternsofthecommunities.

Morethantwo-thirdsofGreekandItalian-speakingrespondentsdidnotcompletehighschool.

TheKorean(68%)andChinese-speaking(51%)respondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytobeuniversityeducatedthantheotherlanguagegroupsincludedinthesample.

OveralltheVietnameseandKorean-speakingrespondentshadthepoorestEnglishlanguageproficiencyofthesample,withmorethanthreequartersindicatingsomedifficultywithaspectsofwrittenorspokenEnglish.However,moretheKorean-respondents(61%)reportedspokenEnglishcompetencethantheVietnamese-speakers(44%).

TheArabic,SpanishandMacedonian-speakersreportedthehighestEnglishlanguagecompetence.

TheKoreanandChinese-speakingrespondentsweremorelikelytoliveinaflatwithabalconythanotherlanguagegroups.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■


Heading




TheSpanish-speakingrespondentswerethemostlikelytoliveinaflatwithnobalcony(17%).

TheGreek-speakersinthesamplewerethemostlikelytohaveacourtyardstylegardenwithmainlypavedorconcreteexteriorareas.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the NESB 1996 study

Therearemorefemalesrepresentedinthe2004study(58%)comparedtothe1996study(51%).

Therearemoreuniversity-educatedrespondentsinthe2004study(30%comparedto19%in1996).ThisisduetothefactthatKoreanrespondentswereincludedinthesampleforthefirsttimein2004.TheKoreanrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytobeuniversityeducated(68%)thantheotherlanguagegroupsrepresentedinthesample.

The2004samplewerelesslikelytoreportgoodwrittenEnglishskills(46%comparedto55%in1996).

Therewerenosignificantvariationsbetweenthe2004and1996samplesinrelationtospokenEnglish;borninAustralia;orage.

Comparisonswerenotpossiblebetweentheindividuallanguagegroupssamplesforthetwostudies,asthe1996datawasunavailable.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the sample of NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 studyTherewereanumberofmajordifferencesbetweenthedemographicprofileoftheNESBrespondentsintheWho Cares?2003sample(i.e.respondentsfromnon-EnglishspeakingbackgroundswhowereabletocompletethetelephonesurveyinEnglish).Thesedifferencesareoutlinedbelow,andsuggestthattheNESBrespondentsintheWho Cares?2003sampleweremuchmorelikelytobesecondorthirdgenerationAustralians(giventheirageandEnglishlanguageproficiencyprofile)thantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study,wherethemajoritywerefirstgenerationmigrantstoAustralia.

TheNESBcomponentofthe Who Cares?2003sampleisskewedtowardsmales(56%),whereasthesampleoftheNESB 2004 studyisskewedtowardfemales(58%).

TheNESBrespondentsintheWho Cares?2003samplearesignificantlyyoungerthantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study.Morethansixinten(61%)werebetween18-34comparedwith25%intheNESB 2004 study.

TheNESBrespondentsintheWho Cares?2003samplewerealsosignificantlymorelikelytobestudents(32%,comparedto7%)andtertiaryeducated(50%,comparedto30%)thantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the total sample of the Who Cares? 2003 studyThereareafewnotabledifferencesbetweentheNESB 2004 studyandthetotalsampleoftheWho Cares?2003study.

TherearemorefemalesrepresentedintheNESB 2004 sample(58%)whencomparedtothetotalWho Cares? 2003sample(50%).

TherespondentsintheWho Cares?2003 samplewereslightlyyoungerthantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study(39%between18-34years,comparedto25%).

TherespondentsintheWho Cares?2003samplewerealsomorelikelytobeinpaidwork(65%)thantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study(48%).

TherespondentsintheWho Cares?2003samplewerealsomorelikelytobetertiaryeducated(39%)thantherespondentsintheNESB 2004 study(30%).

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■



Differences between the individual language samples and the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census 2001.

Section4ofthisreportpresentsademographicprofileofeachofthelanguagegroupsincludedintheresearchbasedonAustralianBureauofStatistics2001censusdata.Table16comparesthedemographicprofileofeachcommunitysampletotheNSWpopulationbygenderanddistributioninNSW.

ItisnotpossibletocompareEnglishlanguagecompetenceofthesampletothatoftheNSWpopulation(seenotestoTable14).

TABLE 16

Comparison – language group samples and nSw population

Sample (%) Census (%) Sample (%) Census (%)

ArabicMaleFemale

4357

5248

SydneyStatisticalDistrict(SD)OutsideSydneySD

937

982

ChineseMaleFemale

3466

4852


964

964

GreekMaleFemale

4555

5050


8317

7228

ItalianMaleFemale

4258

5050


7030

828

KoreanMaleFemale

3268

4852


991

982

MacedonianMaleFemale

5446

5149


6040

6535

SpanishMaleFemale

4951

4852


7723

9010

VietnameseMaleFemale

3565

4951


973

973

Table16shows:

Thefollowingsamplesareskewedtowardfemales(bymorethanfivepercentagepointswhencomparedtoAustralianBureauofStatisticsNSWpopulationdata):

Arabic

Chinese

Italian

Korean

Vietnamese

TheGreeksampleisskewedtowardthosewholiveintheSydneyStatisticalDistrict(bymorethanfivepercentagepointswhencomparedtoAustralianBureauofStatisticsNSWpopulationdata).

TheSpanishandItaliansamplesareskewedtowardthosewholiveoutsidetheSydneyStatisticalDistrict(bymorethanfivepercentagepointswhencomparedtoABSNSWpopulationdata).

Focus groupsNinefocusgroupslastingfromtwototwo-and-a-halfhourswereheldinDecember2003toprovideanin-depthcontexttothetelephonesurveyfindingsandtoinformthedevelopmentofthetelephonesurveyinstrument.AllfocusgroupswereconductedinSydney.

Onefocusgroupwasconductedforeachofthelanguagegroupswithpeoplewhospokethatlanguageathome,andconsistedofpeopleofdifferentagesandgenders.Bilingualresearchersfacilitatedallofthefocusgroups,inthecommunitylanguageoftheparticipants.

ThediscussionguideforthefocusgroupsisincludedinAppendixC.Excerptsfromthediscussionsareprovidedthroughoutthereport.

■

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

■

■



Goodmorning/afternoon/evening.Mynameis[firstnameonly].I'mcallingfromI-view.WeareconductingsocialresearchaboutlifestyleinAustralia.Iwaswonderingiftherewasanybodyathomeover18yearsoldwhospeaksalanguageotherthanEnglishathome.Ifyes,askwhichlanguage.

Q1 RecordLanguageSpokenatHome Arabic Cantonese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Mandarin Spanish Vietnamese CLOSEIFDOESN’TSPEAKANYOFTHESELANGUAGES

Thesurveywilltake20minutesandiscompletelyconfidential.Canyouhelpmeout?

Great,allmyquestionstodayrequireonlyshortanswers.Ifyoudon'twishtoansweraquestion,that'sfine.Justtellmeandwecanmoveontotheotherquestions.

Wemayatanytimeduringthisinterviewbelistenedtobymysupervisorforqualitycontrolprocedures.

(Notethatquestionwithoutoptionsinthisquestionnairewereunpromptedquestions.)

Q2 WhatwouldyousayaretheTWOMOSTIMPORTANTissuesforattentionbytheNSWGovernmentatpresent?

Q3 Nowthinkingaheadabouttenyears,whatdoyouthinkwillbethetwomostimportantissuesforattentionbytheStateGovernmentatthattime?

Q4 Foreachofthefollowing,pleasetellmehowimportantitisinyourlifebyusingthescale,where1meansveryimportant,2ratherimportant,3notveryand4meansnotatall

1. Family 2. Friends 3. Leisuretime 4. Politics 5. Environment 6. Work 7. Religion 8. Servicetoothers

Q5 Foryou,whatarethetwomostimportantcharacteristicsthatmakeanareaaniceplacetolive?

Q6 WhatdoyouthinkisthesinglemostimportantenvironmentalissuefacingNSWtoday?

Q7 Whatdoyouthinkisthesecondmostimportantenvironmentalissue?

Q8 Whataretheenvironmentalissuesthataffectyourlocalarea?….Anythingelse?

Q8a (IfmorethanoneissuementionedinQ8)Oftheissuesthatyoujustmentioned,whatisthemostimportanttoyou?

Q9 Ingeneral,howconcernedareyouaboutenvironmentalproblems?Wouldyousayyouare: 1. Veryconcerned 2. Fairlyconcerned 3. Notveryconcerned 4 Notconcernedatall

AppendixB:Questionnaire



Q10 Whichofthefollowingbestdescribeswhyyouareconcerned? 1. Healtheffectsofpollution 2. Qualityoflife 3. Concernforfuturegenerations 4. Maintainingeco-systems–nature,plants,animals 5. Orsomethingelse(specify)

Q11 Iamnowgoingtoreadyououtalistofstatements.ForeachoneIwouldlikeyoutellmeifyouthinkitisTrueorFalse.

a. TheGreenhouseEffectiscausedbyaholeintheEarthsatmosphere. b. MuchmorewaterinNSWisusedforagriculturethanfordomesticandmanufacturingcombined. c. Leavesandgrassclippingsdonotpollutestormwaterbecausetheyarenatural. d. Productsmadeoutofrecycledmaterialsareusuallyoflowerquality. e. Over90%ofNSW'selectricitycomesfromburningcoal. f. Mostbackyardspidersaredangeroustopeople. g. Nativebirdsandanimalscannotsurviveincitiesandtownsunlesswefeedthem.

Q12 Mostofus,inonewayoranother,probablydothingsthatmaybebadfortheenvironment.Thismightbeathome,inourwork,leisureactivities,etc.Whatwouldyousayarethemostdamagingthingsthatyoudo,fromanenvironmentalpointofview,inthewayyouliveandwork?……Anythingelse?

Q13 Doingtherightthingfortheenvironmentisnotalwayseasyforpeopleintoday’sbusyworld.Differentpeoplefindtheycandodifferentthingsand,perhapsforpeopleinsomesituations,thereisnotalottheycanreallydo.FromthelistofthingsI’llreadout,canyoupleasetellmeforeachonewhetherornotinthepast12monthsyouhave1-oftendonethat;2-sometimesdoneit;3-justoccasionallydoneit;or4-neverdonethat?

a. Decidedtoreusesomethinginsteadofthrowingitaway. b. Avoidedplasticbagstocarryshoppinghome. c. Compostedfoodand/orgardenrefuse. d. Whendoingtheshopping,triedtoavoidproductswithlotsofpackaging. e. Chosenhouseholdproductsthatyouthinkarebetterfortheenvironment. f. Madeanefforttoreducewaterconsumption. g. Recycledpaperand/orothermaterialsatwork. h. Takenactivestepstopreventstormwaterpollution,forexamplebynotwashingyourcarinthestreet,ornot

puttingleavesorlitterdownthedrain. i. Takenactivestepstoreduceenergyconsumption,forexamplebyturningofflights,andusingappliances

orhomeheatingandcoolingmoreefficiently. j. Purchasingenergy-efficientappliancesorlightglobes. k. Takenactivestepstoreducefuelconsumptionandvehicleairpollution,forexamplebycar-pooling,using

publictransport,bicyclingorwalking. l. Triedtogetinformationonsometopicaboutprotectingtheenvironment. m. Participatedinlocaldevelopmentorenvironmentalissueswiththeaimofprotectingorimprovingthe

environment,i.e.bywritingaletter,attendingameeting,etc. n. Keptyourcatinsideatnight.

Q14 YoumentionedthatyouoftendoA,F,H,I,J,K(Q13).Canyourememberwhatpromptedyoutostartdoingthat?…..Anythingelse?

Q15 Youmentionedyounever/justoccasionallydoB,C,D,E,F(Q13).Whatarethemainreasonswhyyoudon’t,ordon’toften,dothis?….Anythingelse?

Q16 Howdoyoumainlygetinformedaboutenvironmentalissues? (Television,radio,newspapers,brochures,andinternetprobedforEnglish,languageorboth).

Q17 Iwillreadyoualistofpeopleororganisationsinthecommunitywhomayprovideuswithinformationonissuesrelatingtotheenvironment.Ingeneral,howreliabledoyouthinkinformationfromeachofthesesourceswouldbe?Wouldyousayinformationfrom…wouldbeveryreliable,fairlyreliable,fairlyunreliableorveryunreliable?

1. Localcouncils 2. Schools 3. Business/industry 4. Scientistsandtechnicalspecialists 5. Governmentdepartmentsoragencies 6. Environmentalandconservationgroups


Heading




7. CommunityservicegroupssuchasMigrantResourceCentres 8. Yourchildren 9. Othermembersofyourfamily,neighboursorfriends 10.Religiousleaders,churches,etc 11.Mediapersonalities 12.Bilingualeducators

Q18 Wherewouldyoumostliketoreceiveinformationabouttheenvironment? (television,radio,newspapers,brochures,andinternetprobedforEnglish,languageorboth).

Q19 Ifyouwatchtelevision,whattelevisionstationdoyouwatchthemost?

Q20 Ifyoulistentoradio,whatstationdoyoulistentothemost?

Q21 Ifyoureadnewspapers,whatpaperdoyoureadthemost?

Q22 Whichofthefollowingstatementsbestdescribestheoutdoorareasaroundyourhome? 1. Iliveinaflatwithnobalcony. 2. Iliveinaflatwithabalcony. 3. Ihaveacourtyardstylegarden,orahousewithmainlypavedorconcreteexteriorareas. 4. Ihaveahousewithlawnand/orgardens. 5. Ihaveahouseonaruralblockofland. 6. Other.

Q23 Iamgoingtoreadoutalistofitems,andIwouldlikeyoutotellmewhichonesapplytoyou. 1. Ihaveacompostheap/binorwormfarm. 2. Igrowvegetables,fruitorherbs. 3. IgrowAustraliannativeplants. 4. Ientertaininmybackyardmorethan4timesperyear. 5. Ihaveplayequipmentinmybackyardforchildren.Q24 Inwhatcountrywereyouborn?

Q25 WhatyeardidyoubeginlivinginAustralia?

Q26 Whatisyourcurrentworkstatus?

Q27 Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationyouhaveachieved?

Q28 Intowhichofthefollowingagegroupsdoyoufit? Lessthan18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Over65

Q29 HowcompetentareyouinEnglish? 1. Cannotspeak,readorwrite 2. Canspeakabit,butcan’treadorwrite 3. Canspeakwell,butnotreadorwritewell 4. Canspeak,readandwritewell

Q30 Finally,inwhatpostcodedoyoulive?

Q31 RECORDgenderofparticipant.


Concern for the environment1. Whatdoyouthinkarethemajorissuesofconcernforyourcommunity?

2. WhenIsaythewordenvironment,whataresomeofthethingsthatyouthinkof?

3. Doyouthinkenvironmentalissuesareanissueofconcernforthecommunity?Whatsortofthingsareofconcern?

4. Whataresomeoftheenvironmentalconcernsthataffectyourlocalarea?

5. Whydoyouthinkpeopleareconcernedabouttheenvironment?

Use of the environment6. Whataresomeofthethingsthatyouenjoy/don’tenjoyaboutwhereyoulive?

Promptforboth: Street

Suburb

7. Thinkingaboutyourownhome(rememberthatsomepeoplemaynothaveabackyardandbelivinginaunitsotheywouldnotbeabletoanswerthisquestion):

Whatdoyoulike/enjoyaboutit?

Isthereanythingyouwouldliketobedoinginyourhomeorbackyardthatyouarenotcurrentlydoing?

Whataresomeofthingsyoudon’tlike?

Howdoesthewayyouuseyourhome/backyardherecomparewithyourhomecountry?

Whatkindofanimals/insectsaredesirableinyourbackyard/localarea.Whichonesareundesirable?

8. Thinkingabouttheparksaroundyourhomeandtheoutdoorsgenerally:

Wheredoyouvisit?

Whatoutdooractivitiestoyouengagein?

[Prompts: camping; walking; swimming; picnics; playing sport; cycling; children’s play areas]

Howdoesthiscomparewithyourhomecountry?

Isthereanythingthatstopsyouusingtheoutdoorenvironment?

Whataresomeofthingsyoudon’tlike?

Behaviour9. Doyoudoanythingtohelp/lookaftertheenvironment?Ifsowhatactionsdoyoudo(couldbeathomeorwork)?

(Recordresponsesonbutcherspaper).Recordunpromptedfirst,andthenprompt:

When prompting, if a behaviour is mentioned, probe to determine whether this was not mentioned because participants don’t see it as an environmentally responsible action – rather “something that they just do” (either to save money, out of habit or otherwise)

For each behaviour engaged in:

10. Whatmadeyoudecidetoengageinthisbehaviour,oristhissomethingthatyouhavealwaysdone?EXPLOREFULLY,i.e.

Canyourememberwhenyouchangedyourbehaviour?Whathappened?Askforspecificexamples.

Ifsomethingalwaysdone–whydoyoudoit?Doyouseeitasanenvironmentallyresponsibleaction?

Whointhefamilytakesresponsibilityfortheaction?(i.e.whotakesoutthegarbage,whopaystheenergybill,whobuystheappliances,whodoesthecomposting?)

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

AppendixC:QualitativeDiscussionGuide


Heading




Put up butchers paper with pre-prepared list as below.

Householdrecyclingsystem

Compostkitchenscraps,gardencuttingsandlawnclippings

Buyenergyefficientproducts

Reduceelectricityconsumptionbyturningoflightsforexample

Askedforenergy(saving)advice

InvestigatedRenewableEnergyforyourhome

Plantingmygardentoattractnativebirdsandotheranimals

Reducedmyuseofchemicalsinthegarden

Igrowmyownfood.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

Wasteavoidance(how?)takeownshoppingbags,andavoidingproductswithexcesspackaging;Recycledsomethingratherthanthrowitout

Reducingwaterconsumption(how?)

Reducinguseofcar(how?)

Accessedinformationaboutprotectingtheenvironment(how?)

Writtenaletter,signedapetition

Joinedorsupportedanenvironmentalgroup

Keptcatsinsidetokeepthemawayfromnativebirdsandanimals

Keptdogonaleadwhenoutinparksandstreets.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

Then read out:

Someofthepeopleinthegroupengageinsomeoftheseactionsandothersdon’t.ThatisOK.Whatwewanttofindoutiswhysomepeopledocertainthingsandnotothers.

11. Isthereanythingthatyouwouldliketodobutarenotdoing/cannotdo?Whynot?(Facilitator can prompt specific actions that were not identified. Probe: Too hard, too costly, not enough time, don’t want to, different problwem/solution from country of origin?)

12. Whichofthesedoyouthinkitcostsmoretodo?Whichoneswouldsaveyoumoney?

13. Whichofthesedoyouthinkareeasytodo?Whichonesarehard?

14. Whattypeofpersonengagesinthesebehaviours?Doesthisdifferfordifferentactionse.g.personwhocompoststheirorganicwaste,comparedwithapersonwhojoinsanenvironmentalgroup?

15. Whatdoyouthinktheconsequencesareofnotdoinganyofthethingswehavejustdiscussed?[Probe for local area versus global]

Understanding and Attitudes16. Whenitcomestolookingaftertheenvironment,whoseresponsibilityisit?Promptforindividual,state/federal

government,environmentalorganisations.RefertodescriptionofenvironmentgeneratedfromQuestion2.

17. Whoorwhatcausesenvironmentalproblems(whoisdoingtheirshare,whoisn’t?).

18. Doyouthinkthattherearethingsthatyoudopersonallythatcouldbeseenasharmfultotheenvironment?

19. PLEASEREAD:“Gasesintheearth'satmospherecapturethesunsenergy,whichkeepstheEarth'stemperatureatalevelnecessarytosupportlife.Humanactivity–particularlyburningfossilfuels(coal,oilandnaturalgas)andlandclearing–isgeneratingexcessiveamountsofgreenhousegases,trappingmoreheat,raisingtheEarth'ssurfacetemperature,andcausingweatherpatternsandclimatestochange.”

a. Haveyouheardofthisphenomenon?

b. Whatdoyouknowitas(greenhouseeffect,globalwarming,climatechange,other.....)?

c. Areyouconcernedaboutit?



20. Iamgoingtoreadoutanumberofwords,andIwantyoutodiscusstogetherwhateachofthemmean.

Salinity

Waterconservation

Sustainablelifestyles

Information21. Wherehaveyouheardinformationabouttheenvironmentbefore?Probefully:

Whatmedia?Whatmessages?

Whichpeople?Whatmessages?

Whatorganisations?Whatmessages?

Ontheirenergybills?Otherutilities?Whatmessages?

22. Whoarethemostreliablesourcesofinformationabouttheenvironment?

23. Areyouawareofinitiativesthatprotecttheenvironmentthatarehappeninginyourcommunity?Havetheseeverinterestedyou?Why/whynot?

24. Haveyouevervolunteeredforanythinginyourcommunity(environmentorotheractivity)?Why/whynot?What,ifanything,wouldmakeyouwanttovolunteerinyourcommunity?

25. Haveyoueversoughtoutinformationabouttheenvironment?Wheredidyougo?

26. Ifnot,who/wherewouldyougotofindoutmoreaboutaparticularissueregardingtheenvironment?

27. Isthereanythinginparticularthatyouwouldliketoknowaboutminimisingyourimpactontheenvironment?

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 · ethnic communities in NSW. It also provides...

Documents

Transcript of The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 · ethnic communities in NSW. It also provides...