The Environment and Ethnic Communities A survey of the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in 2004 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 Foreword

Our multicultural society is a community of communities. We come from different linguistic, religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, but we share a common responsibility for protecting the NSW environment. The NSW Government recognises that we can improve the way in which we care for and protect our environment by better understanding our diversity, and building relationships within and among our ethnic communities.

The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 provides an overview of the environmental knowledge, attitudes and actions of eight ethnic communities in NSW. This study follows on from the ground-breaking research undertaken in 1996 on the relationships between ethnicity and the environment for six ethnic communities. Korean and Macedonian speakers have been added to the Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Spanish and Vietnamese speakers included in the 1996 study. Of course, this research shows considerable diversity among the responses of the various communities to the environment. However, this new study shows that all of them care very much about the environment, with issues such as water conservation taking a very high priority. I urge everyone working in and with ethnic communities to consider this research, and use it to help these diverse groups make their own contributions to a sustainable future in NSW.

Bob Debus

Minister for the Environment

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  Table of contents

Foreword I Executive summary IV 1. Introduction 1 2. Using this research 5 3. Main findings 7

3.1 Priorities and Values 7

3.2 Knowledge of Environmental Issues 29

3.3 Personal Behaviour 35

3.4 Information Sources 50

3.5 Media 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

II Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Index of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Reason for environmental concern, by language: NESB 2004 17 Table 2: Personal priorities, by language: NESB 2004 20 Table 3: Features of a good place to live, by language: NESB 2004 27 Table 4: Knowledge of environmental issues 29 Table 5: Reasons for engaging in environmentally friendly practices: NESB 2004 41 Table 6: Reasons for non-engagement: NESB 2004 43 Table 7: Environmentally damaging behaviour, by language: NESB 2004 46 Table 8: Outdoor spaces around the home, by language: NESB 2004 48 Table 9: Main sources of information, by language: NESB 2004 52 Table 10: Reliability of environmental information sources, by language: NESB 2004 56 Table 11: Television, by language: NESB 2004 61 Table 12: Radio, by language: NESB 2004 63 Table 13: Newspapers, by language: NESB 2004 65 Table 14: Demographic profile of the sample 101 Table 15: Outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004 102 Table 16: Comparison – language group samples and NSW population 104

Figure 1: Two most important issues for state government attention now: NESB 1996-2004 8 Figure 2: The two most important issues: Who Cares? 1997-2003 8 Figure 3: Two most important issues for state government attention in ten years: NESB 1996-2004 11 Figure 4: The two most important issues in ten years: Who Cares? 1997-2003 11 Figure 5: Level of concern about environmental problems: NESB 1996-2004 13 Figure 6: Level of concern: Who Cares? 1997-2003 13 Figure 7: Concern about environmental problems, differences by language: NESB 2004 14 Figure 8: Major aspect of concern about environmental problems: NESB 2004 16 Figure 9: Major aspect of concern about environmental problems: Who Cares? 2003 16 Figure 10: Personal priorities: NESB 2004 19 Figure 11: Personal priorities: Who Cares? 2003 19 Figure 12: Single and second most important environmental issues in NSW today: NESB 2004 21 Figure 13: Most important environmental issues in NSW today: NESB 1996-2004 22 Figure 14: Most important environmental issues in NSW today: Who Cares? 1997-2003 22 Figure 15: Most important local environmental issues: NESB 2004 25 Figure 16: Features of a good place to live: NESB 2004 26 Figure 17: Correct answers to knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004 30 Figure 18: Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: NESB 2004 36 Figure 19: Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: Who Cares? 2003 36 Figure 20: Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 37 Figure 21: Environmentally damaging behaviour: NESB 2004 45 Figure 22: Environmentally damaging behaviour: Who Cares? 2003 45 Figure 23: Use of outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004 47 Figure 24: Main and preferred sources of information about the environment: NESB 2004 51 Figure 25: Main sources of information about the environment: NESB 1996-2004 51 Figure 26: Language of main and preferred environmental information sources: NESB 2004 57 Figure 27: Reliability of environmental information sources: NESB 2004 55 Figure 28: Reliability of environmental information sources: Who Cares? 2003 55 Figure 29: Television (English and LOTE) 60 Figure 30: Radio (English and LOTE) 62 Figure 31: Newspapers (English and LOTE) 64

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) III Executive Summary

The study This study investigates the environmental needs of ethnic communities in NSW. It provides information about, and insights into, the ways knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in relation to the environment vary among eight different ethnic communities in NSW. It also provides information on the media preferences of these communities. The results of this study will assist in the planning, implementation and evaluation of environmental education programs for those communities. Changes and trends are identified through comparison to a previous 1996 study of the environment and ethnic communities and to the results from a broad community survey, Who Cares about the Environment? last conducted in 2003.

Headlines There are several key findings from this 2004 study:

■ People from the ethnic communities surveyed value the environment as an important part of their lives. Only family was rated as very or rather important by more participants. Significantly more people from Non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) rated environment as very important than in the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)’s 2003 community-wide survey, Who Cares about the Environment? ■ Issues related to water supply and conservation have increased in importance since 1996 as an environmental issue of concern for people, with the drought and water restrictions likely to be a key factor in this increase. ■ When combined with issues of water conservation and urban growth/population issues, the environment is seen as a significantly more important issue in NSW today than it was in 1996. ■ On many questions there is substantial diversity between communities in their responses. ■ There are also substantial variations for any given community on indicators within a given question area, for example on knowledge questions and in adopting specific environmentally friendly behaviours. ■ People can discuss environmental issues in more detail than in 1996. The number of people who are unsure or don’t know about environmental issues has decreased markedly. Key findings from each area of the report are summarised below.

Priorities and values: what do people of non-English speaking background think is important? Health and education are considered the two most important issues for State Government attention now, and have grown dramatically in importance since 1996 compared to any other issue. The issues of unemployment, crime, law and violence and immigration have declined in importance since 1996. These trends are also reflected in the Who Cares about the Environment? research series in the broader community.

As in the wider NSW population, the environment in a general sense is ranked sixth overall as a priority issue for State Government attention today. However, the strong emergence of water conservation as the fourth ranked issue and environmental concerns that may be associated with other issues such as roads and traffic or public transport, indicate a greater priority for environmental issues. Taken together, water conservation and environment rank third after health and education.

In 2004 people from select ethnic communities in NSW were also able to articulate more issues for State Government attention than they were in 1996, with a substantial decline in the don’t know response, a trend that was also seen in the Who Cares about the Environment? series. Water conservation ranks third and environment ranks sixth as a priority issue for government in ten years time. These issues are mentioned more frequently as future priorities than as present priorities and together they form the highest future priority.

Level of concern for the environment has shifted slightly since 1996, with fewer people in 2004 expressing little or no concern about environmental problems. Level of concern varies substantially amongst the communities: from two thirds of the Spanish group very concerned to one fifth of the Vietnamese group. Respondents predominantly nominate as their reasons for concern, concern for future generations, quality of life and the health effects of pollution,

IV Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 HeadingExecutive Summary

rather than maintenance of nature and ecosystems. Thus personal and immediate issues are given more importance than longer term and environmental sustainability issues.

Ninety five percent of people from the selected ethnic communities in NSW rated environment as a rather or very important in their lives, the second highest after family. More than seven in ten people rated environment as very important, and almost a quarter rate it as rather important. Environment is placed above work, friends and leisure as a priority in people’s lives. While family as the issue of most importance to ethnic communities is the same as the broader community in the Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? survey, ethnic communities placed more value on work and service to others where the broader community placed greater value on friends and leisure time.

Water and air issues continue to be the ethnic communities’ main environmental concern for NSW, although water issues are now the dominant concern, whereas air issues were dominant in 1996. This is most likely to be a direct result of water restrictions and media attention on issues related to the drought and water storage levels. In their local area, however, more than a quarter of participants could not identify any environmental issues.

Knowledge A series of true-false questions on environmental issues, including the greenhouse effect, water usage, recycled products, source of NSW electricity and wildlife in cities and backyards, revealed significant gaps in knowledge across all questions. The highest levels of knowledge (approximately 60% correct answers) related to wildlife in backyards.

Knowledge questions were not asked in the 1996 ethnic communities survey so that these questions establish baseline information for evaluating programs into the future. Two questions also used in the 2003 Who Cares about the Environment? survey showed that ethnic communities have levels of knowledge about the greenhouse effect comparable to the general community and they are more likely to understand the relative use of water in NSW by agriculture compared to other users.

There are differences across the various language groups in relation to knowledge levels, but no language group stands out as more or less informed than another.

Personal behaviour Respondents in the research were generally able to mention at least a few things they do to help protect the environment. The behaviours cited most often were reducing water consumption, reducing energy consumption and preventing stormwater pollution. Additionally, more than half the people from the selected ethnic communities recycle paper or other materials at work or have decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away. More than four in ten have bought energy efficient appliances or light globes, or other products that are better for the environment.

People in this survey were less likely to participate in local environmental issues, try to get information about the environment or compost their kitchen/garden waste.

The primary reasons people gave for adopting behaviour that is perceived as environmentally friendly were to save money, out of a concern for the environment or a sense of civic responsibility, or as a direct result of environmental regulation such as water restrictions.

Environmentally friendly behaviour that is perceived as time consuming or difficult is less likely to be adopted, for example, avoiding plastic bags, composting or avoiding products with excess packaging.

Lack of knowledge about how to participate in environmentally friendly behaviour or lack of awareness of the environmental impacts of a given activity is also a significant barrier to behavioural uptake. This is particularly relevant for composting, choosing products that are better for the environment and avoiding products with excess packaging.

Participants in the qualitative focus group research also suggested that activities seen as costly or requiring additional capital outlay, for example purchasing renewable energy, energy efficient appliances and grey water systems were less likely to be adopted.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  Executive Summary

Information sources Ethnic communities’ main sources of environmental information are newspapers and television. Four in ten respondents access this information either in their own language or in both English and their own language. For radio this figure is seven in ten. The extent to which radio or newspapers are preferred media by the various language groups is probably related to the available media sources for the various language communities.

There is a strong preference amongst NESB respondents for information to be provided in their own language, a preference that is particularly marked for radio. For all information media there is a strong desire for information to be provided in both English and their own language.

Lack of English language is not the sole reason for preferring languages other than English (LOTE) information. Bilingual people also prefer LOTE information alongside English information.

More than eight in ten respondents from the selected ethnic communities rate environmental groups, scientists or technical experts, other members of the community and schools as reliable sources of information about environmental issues. These responses suggest that both informal word-of-mouth sources and expertise are valued.

Business and industry, religious leaders and media personalities were considered the least reliable of all information sources but they were considered reliable by a much greater proportion of people from these ethnic communities than those in the 2003 Who Cares about the Environment? survey.

VI Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 1. Introduction

Background to the research The whole community has an interest in protecting the environment. However significant groups within the population, because of language and cultural barriers, may not be exposed to mainstream communications about environmental issues. In NSW, one in five residents (1,196,204 people) speak a language other than English at home.

Of those speaking a language other than English, 15% speak little or no English. These figures indicate there is considerable need for environmental education programs that are culturally and linguistically appropriate to engage these communities.

A range of government agencies with environmental responsibilities in NSW require appropriate and relevant information about the views and understandings of ethnic communities relating to the environment. This information includes the motivations and barriers which influence the way people from ethnic communities behave on environmental issues, their access to reliable information about the environment, and how these vary with cultural differences.

In mid-2003 five agencies, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), Resource NSW, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) and Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) commenced jointly funded research to investigate these issues and build on previous social research on ethnic communities and the environment, completed in 1996. In September 2003 several of these agencies (EPA, NPWS and Resource NSW) were brought together, along with the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, to establish the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).

Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia was commissioned to conduct the research with eight of the largest non-English speaking background communities in NSW. These communities were: n Arabic n Korean n Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin) n Macedonian n Greek n Spanish n Italian n Vietnamese

The study provides a snapshot of the environmental concerns in 2004 of people from these eight ethnic communities in NSW. It aims to broaden and deepen understanding of the relationship between ethnicity and environmental knowledge, values and practices in specific areas.

Importantly, it also provides comparisons with other research in this area. There are three main sets of research data (described further in the next section) that are used for comparisons through this report:

1. Similar research conducted with ethnic communities in 1996 (referred to as NESB 1996).

2. Broader community views and responses, as demonstrated in the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)’s social research series, Who Cares about the Environment? (referred to as the Who Cares? research or Who Cares? 2003).

3. Responses specifically from NESB participants in Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? Survey (referred to as Who Cares? 2003 NESB).

. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001 Census.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  1. Introduction

About the study The objectives of the 2004 study were to: n provide insights into the ways knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in relation to the environment differ among selected ethnic communities; n provide information about the preferred communications channels of each of the ethnic communities; n provide an evidence basis for planning, implementation and evaluation of the partner agencies’ programs; n promote discussion and wider awareness of the social dimensions of environment protection.

Nine focus groups (one in each language group, with separate groups for Cantonese and Mandarin) were held in December 2003 to discuss environmental issues and provide in-depth qualitative information to inform the survey design. All focus groups were facilitated by bilingual researchers in the community language of the participants.

Following survey design and testing, 805 people were surveyed in May-June 2004, with a minimum of 100 from each community. This report provides the results of the 2004 survey but includes reference to focus group discussions where relevant and individual statements from focus group participants where these highlight specific issues.

The report also provides comparisons to three other sets of data and research:

1. The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities (EPA 1996), commissioned by the EPA and Sydney Water in 1996 to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in relation to environmental issues and water use of Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Spanish and Vietnamese speakers in NSW. Many questions from this study were repeated in the current study and where available comparisons are made between the 1996 research (NESB 1996) and the current research (NESB 2004) through this report.

2. The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)’s social research series, Who Cares about the Environment? (Who Cares? research) includes surveys conducted in 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003. This series is a large-scale community study of NSW residents measuring changes over time in people’s attitudes, knowledge, skills and behaviours in a series of core questions, which are replicated across the surveys. Where appropriate, the changes evident in the Who Cares? research from 1997 to 2003 are included to provide a comparison over a similar time period to the trends and changes between the two NESB samples (1996 and 2004).

3. Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? included respondents from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) and these responses were compared with people from English-speaking backgrounds. The results from the Who Cares? NESB sample in 2003 (Who Cares? 2003 NESB) are compared with the responses from the NESB 2004 study. In considering this comparison it should be noted that all NESB respondents from the Who Cares? 2003 sample spoke English well enough to answer the survey in English and represented a broader range of language groups than the eight groups included in this NESB 2004 research.

Differences in the samples for each of these studies are discussed in Appendix A.

Results are reported for the whole sample with comparisons to the NESB 1996 survey, and to Who Cares? results where relevant. Statistically significant differences based on demographic characteristics: age, gender, education level, length of residence in Australia and English proficiency, and statistically significant differences on the basis of language/ethnic community are found in the boxes following the total sample results. For a discussion on the levels of statistically significant difference in this study, see Appendix A.

. NSW Environment Protection Authority (1997). The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities. EPA 97/73. NSW Environment Protection Authority, Chatswood. . Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2004). Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? DEC2004/10. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Sydney.

 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading1. Introduction

Question topics The topics covered in the questionnaire were: n perceived priorities for the NSW Government, now and in the future, n perceived priority environmental issues, n perceived priority local environmental issues, n knowledge of specific environmental issues, n level of concern for the environment and the major reason for concern, n core values and perceived importance of environment as a personal priority, n reported environmentally friendly behaviours, n reasons for engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours, n reasons for not engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours, n reported environmentally damaging behaviours, n features of a good place to live, n use of and access to outdoor spaces around the home, n environmental information sources and reliability of environmental information, n media consumption patterns.

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

Background issues Responses to the surveys, particularly in the area of issues for State Government attention, in part reflect people’s recent experience and exposure to issues in the media. This summary of background issues has been included to put the findings of the 2004 survey in the context of the issues mentioned by people in the focus groups and in media reporting in the period leading up to the survey. It also provides a historical context for the data for future reference.

Health system and Medicare: There was continuing debate about the health system and potential Commonwealth Government reforms to Medicare. Issues included decline in general practitioners accepting bulk billing, increasing costs of private health insurance and, at the time of this study, a number of issues involving access to hospital emergency wards and patient care issues in hospitals in south western Sydney.

Education: Equity of funding and the consequent relative standards of facilities in private and public schools were continuing issues, along with a perceived drift of students from public to private schools.

At tertiary level there were concerns about students’ ability to repay large HECS debts, the balance of local and overseas students in universities and possible increases in TAFE fees.

Crime, law and order and terrorism/security: There were significant terrorism and security concerns in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in New York on 11 September 2001, the Bali Bombings in 2002, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the ongoing war there, and the bombing of the Madrid underground in March 2004. Police numbers and presence on the street, as well as the operation of the judicial system and sentencing for convicted criminals, were also issues people considered important.

Law and order issues were highlighted by riots by Aboriginal people in Redfern early in 2004 following the death of a teenage boy. Particularly pertinent to NESB groups were a range of high profile crimes identified within specific communities. These received significant attention in both the English language and non-English media.

Public transport: The general quality of rail and bus services, and the availability of services during peak hours and rail safety were continuing issues, particularly for public transport users.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  1. Introduction

Roads and transport: Congestion and delays in urban traffic were continuing issues. People were also concerned about air pollution in motorway tunnels.

The environment: The major emphasis was on drought, water supplies, water conservation and restrictions and climate change, with drought conditions in most areas of NSW through 2001-2004. Mandatory water restrictions were introduced in Metropolitan Sydney in October 2003 and decline in water supplies and dam levels were consistently reported in the media.

Unemployment: While unemployment declined from a national level of over 10% in the early 1990s to 5.2% in NSW in the last quarter of 2004, employment and income remained an important issue for newer migrants and those with low English skills.

Taxes, stamp duties and GST and housing prices: A national 10% GST was introduced in July 2000 and compliance with reporting and payment of GST for small business posed difficulties for many with low English skills. Property values increased significantly across much of NSW in 2002-2003, particularly in Sydney (ABS House Price Index for Sydney increased 21.2% June 2002 to June 2003), incurring higher land taxes. Higher house prices also incur higher levels of stamp duty. Affordability of new homes and the impact of stamp duty, particularly for young families, became a concern.

Immigration and Federal government policies towards illegal immigrants, particularly ‘boat people’, along with conditions in detention centres and length of time spent in detention centres by some illegal immigrants, received considerable media attention and debate, highlighted by a number of high profile cases.

Population and urban development: There was an ongoing high level of public attention to the problems facing Sydney as a result of population growth fuelled by the attractiveness of Sydney for new migrants. The consequent urban consolidation policies promoting medium/high density redevelopment in Sydney received publicity, as did provision of infrastructure (roads, public transport, utilities) for new housing areas.

. NSW Quarterly Labour Market Report, Australian Government Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, December 2004.

 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 2. Using this Research5

Who should know about this research? This research provides important information that can be used to guide policy and project officers in the design and delivery of strategies and programs to involve ethnic communities in environmental initiatives.

Use this research if you work or are involved in: n ethnic community organisations, e.g. migrant resource centres, ethno-specific groups, multicultural associations, n non-English communications and media, n government organisations working with the community, including ethnic communities, to manage and protect the environment, n local councils, n community environmental groups wishing to reach and involve ethnic groups in their communities, n catchment management authorities and committees, n educational institutions, n industry areas such as agriculture, manufacturing and hospitality which involve large numbers of employees from non-English speaking backgrounds.

How could you use the information? Individuals and organisations are encouraged to use this research to: n promote improved environmental awareness and practices among ethnic communities and the broader NSW community, n stimulate participation by people from ethnic communities in environmental programs by linking the programs more closely to their interests and concerns, n acknowledge and build on the current support for and concern about the environment within many ethnic communities, n design educational initiatives to increase understanding of the specific environmental issues identified as having lower priority among ethnic communities, e.g. land degradation, protection of flora & fauna and environmental sustainability, n incorporate environmental education for ethnic communities into organisational planning processes.

Implications for community education targeting people of non-English speaking background communities The research provides useful information to help develop, implement and evaluate ethnic community education in relation to environmental issues. The research suggests that there are many opportunities to capitalise on the existing base of environmental concern about, and interest in, specific issues among ethnic communities in the context of their wider interests and concerns. The challenge is to direct educational initiatives to build on the current environmental support and understanding, as well as fill the gaps that exist in environmental knowledge.

. Much of the information in this section can also be found in The Environment and Ethnic Communities, EPA Social Research Series, Environment Protection Authority, 1997.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  2. Using this Research

The research points to a series of key strategies important to community education, communication and marketing for ethnic communities:

Recognise the differences among ethnic communities n There are many differences in knowledge and understanding, beliefs and attitudes, and behaviours among ethnic community groups in relation to the environment. These different concerns and views must be recognised and understood, and cultural differences should be respected in order to enable effective design of ethnic community education initiatives. n Culturally relevant environmental programs and resources need to be developed in partnership with ethnic communities in response to this recognition. n There are many different media being accessed by people of non-English speaking background that require consideration and appropriate use in any communication approach.

Make links with ethnic groups n Making links with key ethnic community networks and involving ethnic community representatives in the design, implementation and evaluation of environmental education strategies is essential for effective ethnic community education. The Ethnic Communities Reference Book identifies ethno-specific communities in NSW, a useful starting point for information about ethnic communities in your area.

Develop practical, relevant programs n For ethnic communities, educational initiatives in the household sector should emphasise personal relevance and recommend practical, alternative actions. n Educational material should also include messages about how appropriate behaviour can benefit personal and family health, and lead to cost savings. Cost-saving alternatives are particularly attractive for many people endeavouring to establish in a new country. n Checklists and helpful hints can be an effective way to provide ‘what you can do’ information. n People from ethnic communities often lack knowledge of laws and regulations relating to their activities and both appreciate and act on this information. It is thus important, when communicating environmental issues and environmentally appropriate individual and corporate actions, to highlight any relevant laws and regulations. n Strategies that focus on the causes of environmental problems and on individual and community-wide actions to address these problems are also useful. n Educational initiatives should direct people in these communities to people and places that can provide more detailed information and assistance. To accompany this report, the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) is publishing a guide to working with ethnic communities, Learning with Ethnic Communities: A Guide for Environmental Educators.

Use appropriate communications channels The preferred information sources of ethnic communities should be considered when developing and implementing both mainstream English and ethno-specific environment communications. The use of non-English media can help increase the reach and impact of environmental messages and the preferred media for each community in this study are detailed in the Community Profiles.

. Published by the Ethnic Communities Council of NSW: new edition is being prepared for 2005. See http://www.eccnsw.org.au.

 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 3. Main Findings

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)

The health system and education were the two issues considered by people of non-English speaking background in this sample as the most important for attention by the State Government now, with over a quarter (27%) mentioning the health system or Medicare bulk billing and 25% mentioning education. This compares to 8% for each in 1996, ranking fifth in priority. The priority of these issues in 2004 more closely reflects broader community priorities (Who Cares?), where they were the second and third issues in 1996 and the top issues in 2003, with health increasing in importance from 24% in 1997 to 49% in 2003 and education from 20% to 40%.

Environment was ranked eighth overall, a decline from fourth ranking in 1996. Environmental concerns that may be associated with other issues, however, such as roads and traffic or public transport, and the strong emergence of water conservation as the fourth ranked issue, indicate a greater priority for environmental issues. Taken together water conservation and environment rank third after health and education.

The issue of water conservation (13%) has emerged as a priority for State Government for the first time. A similar trend was seen in the Who Cares? study with water supply/conservation appearing for the first time in 2003 (5%). The NESB respondents in the Who Cares? study cited water issues at about the same level as the English-speaking respondents so that the greater prevalence of water issues in this study is likely to be related to the publicity surrounding water restrictions between the two surveys in mid-2003 and mid-2004.

Aged care/pensions appeared for the first time (8%), at a higher level than in the Who Cares? sample (1%), a difference which may be related to the fact that the age profile of a number of the language groups included in this study is skewed significantly toward older age categories. This concern replaces a more general concern recorded as welfare issues in 1996.

Three other issues have emerged since 1996: n Taxation (6%) n National security (5%) n Cost of housing (4%).

These new issues of aged care/pensions, taxation and cost of housing together place an emphasis (18%) on specific expenditure-related financial issues, whereas in 1996, the emphasis was on unemployment and income (22%). Unemployment is still a concern but has declined in priority as an issue, from 22% in 1996 to 10% in 2004. A similar decline in concern about unemployment was seen in the Who Cares? results.

Immigration and crime-related issues have also declined in priority from 1996 to 2004, immigration and racism from 17% to 8% and crime/law and order/violence issues from 22% to 14%.

Those who could not nominate any issues have declined from 33% in 1996 to 11%, a much greater drop than for the Who Cares? results. Both studies suggested that people are more knowledgeable about state issues than in the mid- 1990s. The don’t know proportion in the ethnic communities is thus now more closely aligned to that in the general community.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  3.1 Priorities and Values

FIGURE 1

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

27 Health/health system 8 25 Education 8 14 Crime/law/violence 22 Water supply/water conservation 13 10 Unemployment/income 22 8 Immigration/racism 17 NESB 2004 n = 805 Aged care/pensions 8 NESB 1996 n = 601 Welfare 7 6 Environment 11 Taxation 6 5 Public transport 3 Roads and traffic 5 5 Economy/economic growth 4 National security/war in Iraq 5 Cost of housing 4 3 Alcohol and other drugs 4 Population issues 1 11 Don't know 33 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percentage of respondents

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

49 Health/health system 24 40 Education 20 16 Public transport 9 13 Crime/law/violence 15 11 Roads and traffic 6 7 Environment 14 6 Unemployment/income 34 Water supply/water conservation 5 5 Taxation 4 3 National security/defence Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 2 Economy/economic growth 4 Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129 2 Cost of housing 1 Population issues 2 6 Don't know 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

Two most important issues for attention now

Language findings Two significant differences by language were noted in respondents’ rating of environmental issues as a priority for NSW Government attention:

n Vietnamese respondents were more likely than the total sample to identify environment (17%, compared to 6%). n Spanish respondents were significantly more likely than the total sample to identify water conservation/supply (36%, compared to 13%).

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)  3.1 Priorities and Values

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?

With some variation in positioning, the issues identified as most important in ten years’ time (Figure 3) largely mirror those seen as most important now (Figure 1). The health system and education are the most frequently mentioned issues and have increased in importance since 1996: n Health system 18%, up from 5% in 1996 n Education 16%, up from 5% in 1996

This shift is consistent with the trends seen in the Who Cares? series (Figure 4), where health and education increased in importance as a future issue from 1997 to 2003.

Water supply and water conservation rank as the third priority issue for State Government attention in ten years’ time. This issue was not mentioned at all in the NESB 1996 research. Again, the increase in priority of this issue is consistent with the trend in the Who Cares? series results between 1997 and 2003.

The environment ranks as sixth in priority for State Government in the future. When combined with water supply and conservation, however, it is the top ranking issue overall (26%). Some respondents may have had in mind the environmental implications of two other issues, roads and traffic (4%) and population (4%), possibly making environmental concerns even more important.

Issues mentioned for the first time in 2004 are: n Aged care/pensions 8% n National security/defence 5% n Roads and traffic 4% n Population issues 4% n Taxation 3% n Farming and agriculture 1%

The fall in those who could not nominate any issue is again dramatic – from 51% in 1996 to 16% in 2004. This downward trend is also seen in the Who Cares? series results, from 15% in 1997 to 7% in 2003.

All other differences between the NESB 1996 and NESB 2004 results are not statistically significant.

10 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

FIGURE 3

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

18 Health/health system 5 16 Education 5 15 Water supply/water conservation 0 12 Crime/law/violence 15 12 Unemployment/income 14 11 Environment 13 8 Aged care/pensions 0 7 Economy/economic growth 6 6 NESB 2004 n = 805 Cost of housing 0 6 NESB 1996 n = 601 Immigration 7 5 National security/defence/war in Iraq 0 4 Roads and traffic 0 4 Population issues 0 4 Alcohol and other drugs 3 3 Taxation 0 3 Public transport 2 2 Racism 0 1 Farming and agriculture 0 16 Don't know 51 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

FIGURE 4

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

42 Health 20 33 Education 18 13 Crime/law and order 11 11 The environment 22 11 Public transport/railways 8 9 Unemployment 33 8 Population increase/urban development 3 7 Roads and traffic 2 6 Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 Water supply/water conservation 0 5 Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129 Care for aged 3 3 Housing/house prices 3 3 Taxation/stamp duty/GST 1 3 Terrorism/security 0 2 Energy supply/electricity 0 2 Promoting economic growth 6 2 Alcohol and drugs 1 7 Don't know 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 11 3.1 Priorities and Values

Two most important issues in ten years time

Language findings A number of significant differences by language were noted in rating of priority issues for State Government attention. In comparison to the total sample:

% of Language Total Group Sample % n Macedonian respondents were more likely to nominate unemployment 30 11 n Greek respondents were more likely to nominate economy/economic growth 25 7 n Spanish respondents were more likely to nominate water supply/conservation 43 15 n Italian respondents were more likely to nominate health/health system 33 18 n Korean respondents were less likely to nominate health/health system 2 18 n Chinese respondents were more likely not to be able to nominate any issues 55 16 n Spanish respondents were less likely not to be able to nominate any issues 2 16

Demographic findings

Length of residence

n Respondents who were born overseas were less likely to nominate health or the health system than those born in Australia (16%, compared to 38%).

English language proficiency

n Respondents with some difficulty in English were less likely to nominate health or the health system than those who were fluent in English (12%, compared to 25%).

12 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

Level of concern about environmental problems

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

Concern about environmental problems amongst ethnic communities appears to be stronger in 2004 than in 1996. The 2004 survey shows that more than eight out of ten respondents (82%) are concerned about environmental problems (up 5% from 1996), either very (42%) or fairly (40%) concerned.

More than one in ten respondents (12%) claim that they are not very concerned, and the remaining 5% are not concerned at all about environmental problems. Since 1996 those who are not very or not at all concerned has decreased (from 23% to 17%), with increases in those fairly and very concerned.

By contrast, in the broader community (Who Cares? series), although overall concern has remained relatively steady the level of concern has changed, with a decline of 6% (from 38% to 31%) in those very concerned.

FIGURE 5

Level of concern about environmental problems: NESB 1996-2004

NESB 2004 n = 805 42 40 17

NESB 1996 n = 601 41 36 23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very concerned Percentage of respondents Fairly concerned Not very/not at all concerned

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

Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 31 56 13

Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129 38 50 11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very concerned Percentage of respondents Fairly concerned Not very/not at all concerned

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 13 3.1 Priorities and Values

Level of concern about environmental problems

Language findings Differences by language group compared to the total sample:

n The language groups least likely to be very concerned about environmental problems were: ◆ Vietnamese 21%, compared to 42% ◆ Italian 28%, compared to 42% n The language groups most likely to be very concerned about environmental problems were: ◆ Spanish 66%, compared to 42% ◆ Arabic 58%, compared to 42% n Spanish respondents were also significantly less likely to show little or no concern about environmental problems (1%, compared to 17%). n Vietnamese respondents were significantly more likely to show little or no concern about environmental problems (31%, compared to 17%).

FIGURE 7 Concern about environmental problems, differences by language: NESB 2004

TOTAL SAMPLE 42 40 12 5 2

Spanish 66 33 1

Arabic 58 36 6

Macedonian 47 37 12 4

Greek 46 34 8 7 5

Chinese 37 52 9 1 1

Korean 31 40 24 5

Italian 28 41 19 8 4

Vietnamese 21 45 21 10 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Very concerned Percentage of respondents Fairly concerned Not very concerned Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Not at all concerned Don't know

Demographic findings

Age and gender

n There was some variation by age in those who were very concerned about environmental problems: ◆ 18-34 30% ◆ 35-54 45% ◆ 55+ 46% n There was no significant difference by age or gender in those not very or not at all concerned.

14 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

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.

Concern for future generations was the most common reason for concern about environmental problems (Figure 8), chosen by more than three in ten (31%) people in 2004. Almost a quarter of respondents mentioned quality of life (23%) or the health effects of pollution (22%). This question was not asked in the NESB 1996 study.

Compared to the Who Cares? 2003 sample, respondents in the NESB 2004 study were more concerned about:

NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003 n Quality of life 23% 16% n Health effects of pollution 22% 12%

When compared to the Who Cares? 2003 sample, respondents in the NESB 2004 sample were less concerned about:

NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003 n Future generations 31% 42% n Maintaining eco-systems, nature 8% 17% n Long-term economic sustainability 5% 12%

These results suggest that for the respondents in the NESB 2004 study, concerns about environmental problems relate more to personal and immediate issues and less to longer-term and environmental sustainability issues than for the broader population surveyed in the Who Cares? 2003 research.

People in the focus groups were also concerned for future generations, often commenting they wanted their children and grandchildren to experience a quality of life that included a healthy environment. They linked concern for future generations to other areas of concern including mental/physical health and the economy.

[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]

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 15 3.1 Priorities and Values

FIGURE 8

Major aspect of concern about environmental problems: NESB 2004

Concern for future generations 31 Quality of life 23 Health effects of pollution 22 Maintaining eco-systems, nature 8 NESB 2004 n = 755 Long-term economic sustainability 5 All of the above 10

Don't know 2

Other 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

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

Concern for future generations 42

Maintaining eco-systems, nature 17

Quality of life 16 Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,405 Health effects of pollution 12

Long-term economic sustainability 12

Other 1

All of the above 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

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

16 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

Reason for concern

Language findings The range of responses to this question varied significantly across language groups and responses by language group are shown in Table 1, where significant differences are highlighted. Some of these are:

n Spanish-speakers were more likely to nominate health effects of pollution as a reason for concern than Italian-speakers. n Chinese and Spanish-speakers were more likely than Greek-speakers to nominate quality of life as a reason for their concern for the environment. n Italian and Vietnamese-speakers were more likely than Chinese, Korean and Spanish-speakers to nominate all of the above. n Concern for future generations was a more common reason for Korean and Macedonian-speakers, than for Chinese-speakers.

TABLE 1 Reason for environmental concern, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%) Concern for future generations 36 18 27 36 39 46 21 22 31 Quality of life 19 37 7 21 25 12 40 17 23 Health effects of pollution 22 22 26 11 13 26 31 19 22 Maintaining eco-systems – nature, plants, animals 5 12 14 5 12 6 6 5 8 Long-term economic sustainability 2 5 8 3 8 4 1 6 5 Something else 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 All of the above 14 1 17 21 2 5 0 24 10 Don’t know 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.

Demographic findings

Education

n Respondents who did not complete high school were less likely to be concerned about quality of life: ◆ Did not complete high school 12% ◆ Completed high school 27% ◆ Tertiary educated 26%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 17 3.1 Priorities and Values

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.

All respondents rated family as important, with 97% rating this factor as very important. Environment was rated as very important by more than seven in ten respondents, and is the third most (very) important priority in people’s lives behind work (73%) and family (97%).

Environment was rated important (very or rather) by 95%, second only to family. Around nine in ten respondents also rated service to others (93%), friends (92%), work (90%) and leisure time (89%) as very or rather important. However the degree of importance differed significantly between the categories, with work and environment rated very important by more than 70% compared to friends (57%) and leisure time (54%).

All of the personal priorities were more likely to be nominated in the NESB 2004 study as very important than in the Who Cares? 2003 study, with the exception of friends where 57% in the NESB 2004 sample rated friends as very important, compared to 70% in the Who Cares? 2003 sample.

There were two significant differences between the NESB 2004 study and Who Cares? 2003 in terms of priorities considered either very or rather important: n Work 90%, compared to 81% in Who Cares? 2003 n Religion 73%, compared to 44% in Who Cares? 2003

Politics was the priority least mentioned as important in both surveys.

18 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

FIGURE 10

Personal priorities: NESB 2004

Family 97 2

Work 73 17 7 3

Environment 71 24 4 2

Service to others 63 30 6 2

Friends 57 35 8

Leisure time 54 35 9 2

Religion 50 23 17 10

Politics 22 28 31 19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very important Percentage of respondents NESB 2004 n = 805 Rather important Not very important Not at all important

FIGURE 11

Personal priorities: Who Cares? 2003

Family 93 5 2 1

Friends 70 26 3

Environment 54 38 8 1

Leisure time 51 39 8 2

Service to others 43 46 10 1

Work 43 38 11 7

Religion 23 21 28 28

Politics 14 31 37 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very important Percentage of respondents Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 Rather important Not very important Not at all important

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 19 3.1 Priorities and Values

Personal priorities

Language findings The range of responses to this question varied significantly across language groups. Significant differences are highlighted in Table 2 below, which shows: n Korean-speakers were significantly more likely to consider leisure time important than Italian-speakers. n Greek and Korean-speakers were significantly more likely than Chinese and Italian-speakers to consider politics to be important in their life. n Spanish-speakers were significantly more likely to consider environment important than Italian-speakers. n Chinese-speakers were significantly less likely than all other groups to consider religion to be important.

Table 2 Personal priorities, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percentage for important and very important combined (%) Family 100 98 100 97 100 100 100 100 99 Environment 94 97 96 79 98 95 99 95 94 Service to others 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 Leisure time 79 85 90 76 97 95 95 88 88 Religion 83 39 83 80 88 76 76 62 73 Politics 53 36 72 32 68 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.

Demographic findings

Education

n Importance of work increased as education increased: ◆ Did not complete high school 81% ◆ Completed high school 93% ◆ Tertiary educated 93%

20 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

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 NESB 1996 study.

As in 1996, respondents consider water and air to be the most important environmental issues but their relative priorities have changed. In 2004, 64% of respondents considered water issues to be the most important (up significantly from 40% in 1996) and 32% believed air issues are the most important (down from 56%). This reversal is a strong indication of the extent to which the drought and water conservation issues have gained attention. This trend differs also somewhat from the trends seen in the Who Cares? series, where water issues have consistently been the most mentioned issues and mentions of air issues have remained relatively stable over time.

Pollution (general) was mentioned by 23% but did not appear as a response to this question in 1996. In the Who Cares? series, pollution was an issue in 1997 (14%), but was only mentioned by 2% in 2003; respondents instead nominated more specific environmental issues, including specific types of pollution.

In the NESB 2004 survey there was a marked decline in the number of respondents who could not nominate any environmental issue, from 26% in 1996 to 13% (a further 11% could nominate one issue but not a second issue). Together with the increase in mentions for pollution, this may indicate a significant shift towards greater knowledge of broad environmental issues. In the Who Cares? series, there was also a decline in don’t know in this question, although smaller, from 20% to 16%.

As in the broader community, urban management is more important to respondents in 2004 than in 1996. Chemicals/ pesticides issues are less important than in the NESB 1996 study but are not mentioned as an issue in the Who Cares? series. Flora, fauna/wildlife and land degradation issues are also mentioned but at considerably lower levels than in Who Cares? 2003.

FIGURE 12

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

Water 42 20

Air 14 16

Pollution (general) 14 10

Waste 5 9

Flora and fauna protection 3 5

Urban management 2 5 NESB 2004: 1st response Chemicals and pesticides 2 2 NESB 2004: 2nd response

Noise 1 3

Land degradation/salinity 1 1

Energy conservation 1

Other 3 4

Not sure 13 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 21 3.1 Priorities and Values

FIGURE 13

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

62 Water 40 30 Air 56 23 Pollution (general) 0 14 Waste 15 8 Flora and fauna protection 6 NESB 2004 n = 805 Urban management 7 1 NESB 1996 n = 601 4 Chemicals and pesticides 9 3 Noise 5 2 Land degradation/salinity 1 1 Energy conservation 0 7 Other 0 13 Not sure 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

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

57 Water 55 37 Air 40 21 Flora and fauna protection 15 19 Waste 23 Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 12 Urban management 6 10 Who Cares? 1997 n = 1,129 Land degradation 4 4 Logging/chipping 3 2 Pollution (general) 14 1 Noise 7 16 Not sure 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

22 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

Issues mentioned as either most important or second most important under the general categories are:

First response Second response TOTAL Water 42 20 62 Water conservation or management 35 11 47 Pollution of creeks and rivers 1 1 2 Pollution of beaches and the ocean 1 2 3 General water pollution or quality 6 5 11 Pollution (general) 14 10 23 Air 14 16 30 Motor vehicles and emissions 5 4 10 General air pollution or quality 5 8 13 Smoking/smokers 0.1 0.2 0.3 Greenhouse effect, global warming or climate change 2 1 3 Industrial emissions or waste 2 2 4 Ozone layer or UV radiation 0 0 1 Waste 5 9 14 Litter and dumping of rubbish 5 7 12 Recycling household rubbish or garbage 0 1 1 Wasteful packaging on products 0.1 0 0.1 Sewage treatment or problems 0 1 1 Flora and fauna protection issues 3 5 8 Protection of or loss of bushland, trees or forest 1 2 3 Bushfires 1 4 5 Urban management 2 5 7 Traffic congestion 1 4 5 Urban development or loss of natural environment 0 1 1 Urban sprawl or inadequate urban planning 1 1 1 Land degradation, soil erosion and salinity 1 1 2 Energy conservation 0 1 1 Chemicals and pesticides 2 2 4 Household and garden pesticides 0.1 0.2 0.4 Agricultural pesticides and fertilisers 0 1 1 Transport and storage of dangerous chemicals 1 1 3 Noise 1 3 3 Other 3 4 7 Don’t know/there are no issues (first response) 13 13 Don’t know/there are no issues (second response) 11 11

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.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 23 3.1 Priorities and Values

Most important environmental issues in NSW today

Language findings n Significant differences by language in nominating water conservation, compared to the total sample: ◆ Spanish respondents were more likely than the total sample to nominate water conservation (64%, compared to 48%). ◆ Korean respondents were less likely to nominate water conservation (15%, compared to 48%). n Arabic-speaking respondents were significantly more likely to nominate water pollution than the other language groups (24%, compared to 6%). n There was a large variation in responses across language groups relating to the rating of pollution (general, unspecified) as the first or second most important environmental issue in NSW today: ◆ Arabic (42%), Greek (44%) and Macedonian-speakers (34%) were the most likely to nominate pollution. ◆ Chinese (11%), Korean (11%), Spanish (11%) and Vietnamese-speakers (12%) were the least likely to nominate pollution. ◆ The responses for Italian-speakers lay in the middle (23%).

Demographic findings

English language proficiency

n Respondents with English language difficulties were less likely to nominate water conservation as the single most important environmental issue facing NSW today (29%, compared to 40%).

Length of residence

n Residents who were born in Australia (50%) were more likely to identify water conservation as the most important environmental issue facing NSW today than those born overseas (32%).

24 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

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.

As with the most important environmental issues in NSW, the important issues identified by respondents as affecting the local area were issues relating to water (20%) and air (13%). In relation to water, water conservation was identified the most frequently (14%), with a further 3% identifying water pollution, 2% pollution of creeks and rivers, and 1% pollution of oceans or beaches (Figure 15).

Significantly, almost one in three respondents (28%) believed there were no environmental issues affecting their local area, and an additional one in ten (12%) did not know. The order of issues in relation to the single most important local environmental issue was the same as for the total issues mentioned.

FIGURE 15

Most important local environmental issues: NESB 2004

Water conservation 14

Air pollution 13

Traffic congestion 8

Litter and dumping rubbish 7

Noise 7

Industry emissions 4 NESB 2004 n = 805 High density and urban sprawl 3

Water pollution 3

Pollution of creeks and rivers 2

Pollution of oceans and beaches 1

Other 13

Don't know 12

There are no issues 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

Most important local environmental issues

Language findings n The Spanish-speakers were significantly more likely than the total sample to cite water conservation as an important local issue (54%, compared to 13%). n The Vietnamese-speakers were significantly less likely to be able to cite local environmental issues, with 66% unable to cite any issues, compared to 39% for the total sample. n Spanish-speaking respondents were the most likely to nominate local environmental issues, with only one in ten (10%) unable to cite any issues, compared to 39% for the total sample.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 25 3.1 Priorities and Values

Features of a good place to live

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

Respondents were asked an unprompted, open-ended question about the features of their local area that made it a good place to live. Safety and security was the most frequently mentioned single characteristic (33%) but environmental characteristics (clean air, green streets, nearby bushland or parks, beaches or the ocean) were mentioned by almost half the respondents (44%). About one third mentioned social features (friendly people, sense of community) (34%) and convenient facilities (shops, schools and public transport) (35%).

FIGURE 16

Features of a good place to live: NESB 2004

Secure/low crime/safety 33

Friendly people 24

Close to shops and schools 21

Close to transport 14

Clean air 14

Sense of community 10 NESB 2004 n = 805 Leafy, geen, tree-lined streets 9

Close to beach or ocean 8

Parks for kids to play 7

Lots of natural bushland close by 6

Quiet 5

Not too close to busy streets 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percentage of respondents Features of a good place to live

Language findings The range of responses to this question varied significantly across language groups. Significant differences are highlighted in Table 3. This shows:

n Korean-speaking participants are significantly more likely than all other groups to consider quietness an important feature of a good place to live. n Spanish-speaking participants are significantly more likely than most other groups to value parks for children to play in, as an important characteristic of a good place to live. n Leafy, green or tree-lined streets were nominated significantly more often by Macedonian-speakers than Italian, Spanish or Vietnamese-speakers. n Korean-speakers were significantly more likely to mention clean air than Spanish or Vietnamese-speakers. n Friendly people was nominated significantly more often by Arabic and Greek than Korean, Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese-speakers. n Chinese and Vietnamese-speakers were significantly more likely than all other groups to consider security, safety or low crime, as a positive characteristic of their local area.

26 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.1 Priorities and Values

TABLE 3 Features of a good place to live, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%)

Secure/low crime/safety 35 69 16 15 25 21 17 57 32 Friendly people 40 12 39 30 10 23 18 14 23 Close to shops and schools 15 13 18 10 12 36 34 23 20 Close to transport 8 21 7 8 18 17 18 15 14 Clean air 12 17 11 12 25 21 5 5 13 Sense of community 16 3 15 12 6 14 9 7 10 Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 6 10 16 4 10 25 1 1 9 Close to beach or ocean 5 0 12 10 14 5 8 8 8 Parks for kids to play 6 0 0 10 0 12 26 0 7 Lots of natural bushland close by 5 2 11 5 8 3 2 9 6 Quiet 4 3 3 2 20 0 4 1 5 Not too close to busy streets 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 findings Age and gender Education

n Those older (55+) and younger (18-34) were more n Those respondents who did not complete high likely to believe friendly people make an area a nice school were more likely to believe that friendly place to live than those 35-54 years: people make an area a nice place to live: ◆ 18-34 28% ◆ Did not complete high school 32% ◆ 35-54 15% ◆ Completed high school 21% ◆ 55+ 29% ◆ Tertiary educated 19%

n Younger respondents were more likely to believe n Those respondents who did not complete high that security/low/crime/safety make an area a nice school were less likely to believe that security/low/ place to live: crime/safety make an area a nice place to live: ◆ 18-34 37% ◆ Did not complete high school 21% ◆ 35-54 35% ◆ Completed high school 36% ◆ 55+ 23% ◆ Tertiary educated 35%

Length of residence

n Respondents born in Australia were more likely to believe friendly people make a nice place to live (41% compared to 21% for overseas born).

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 27 3.1 Priorities and Values

Summary: Priorities and values Health and education are considered the two most important issues for State Government attention now, and have grown dramatically in importance since 1996 compared to any other issue. The issues of unemployment, crime, law and violence and immigration have declined in importance since 1996. These trends are also reflected in the Who Cares about the Environment? research series in the broader community.

As in the wider NSW population, the environment in a general sense is ranked sixth overall as a priority issue for State Government attention today. However, the strong emergence of water conservation as the fourth ranked issue and environmental concerns that may be associated with other issues such as roads and traffic or public transport, indicate a greater priority for environmental issues. Taken together water conservation and environment rank third after health and education.

In 2004 people from select ethnic communities in NSW were also able to articulate more issues for State Government attention than they were in 1996, with a substantial decline in the don’t know response, a trend that was also seen in the Who Cares about the Environment? series. Water conservation ranks third and environment ranks sixth as a priority issue for government in ten years time. These issues are mentioned more frequently as future priorities than as present priorities and together they form the highest future priority.

Level of concern for the environment has shifted slightly since 1996, with fewer people in 2004 expressing little or no concern about environmental problems. Level of concern varies substantially amongst the communities: from two thirds of the Spanish group very concerned to one fifth of the Vietnamese group. Respondents predominantly nominate as their reasons for concern, concern for future generations, quality of life and the health effects of pollution, rather than maintenance of nature and ecosystems. Thus personal and immediate issues are given more importance than longer term and environmental sustainability issues.

Ninety five percent of people from the selected ethnic communities in NSW rated environment as a rather or very important in their lives, the second highest after family. More than seven in ten people rated environment as very important, and almost a quarter rate it as rather important. Environment is placed above work, friends and leisure as a priority in people’s lives. While family as the issue of most importance to ethnic communities is the same as the broader community in the Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? survey, ethnic communities placed more value on work and service to others where the broader community placed greater value on friends and leisure time.

Water and air issues continue to be the ethnic communities main environmental concern for NSW, although water issues are now the dominant concern, whereas air issues were dominant in 1996. This is most likely to be a direct result of water restrictions and media attention on issues related to the drought and water storage levels. In their local area, however, more than a quarter of participants could not identify any environmental issues.

28 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.2 Knowledge

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.

Table 4 shows the percentage of people giving correct or incorrect answers to each statement in 2004.

TABLE 4 Knowledge of environmental issues

Statements Answer given is: Correct % Incorrect % The Greenhouse Effect is caused by a hole in the Earth's atmosphere. (False) * 39 61

Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing 40 60 combined. (True) **

Over 90% of NSW's electricity comes from burning coal. (True) 47 53

Products made out of recycled materials are usually of lower quality. (False) 51 49

Leaves and grass clippings do not pollute stormwater because they are natural. (False) 57 43

Most backyard spiders are dangerous to people. (False) 58 42

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

Overall there were significant gaps in knowledge across the sample with less than half of the respondents answering the statement correctly for three out of seven statements. That native birds and animals can survive in cities and towns without being fed by humans was the most widely known, but still by only 61% of the sample.

There is a general misunderstanding about the relationship between the presence of a hole in the earth’s atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, with at least six in ten incorrectly believing such a relationship exists. The results were similar in the Who Cares about the Environment? results (60% giving incorrect answers or not sure), however the Who Cares? results also suggest that knowledge of this issue has been increasing since 1994.

More people in this study (40%) knew that much more water is used by agriculture than by domestic and manufacturing uses combined than in the Who Cares? 2003 study (36%). This may be due to a higher proportion in this sample being from rural backgrounds or to continued media attention on water issues.

The focus groups also made some comments on these issues:

“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]

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 29 3.2 Knowledge

Knowledge of environmental issues

Language findings There were large variations by language in ability to correctly answer these knowledge questions.

Given the large variations both within and across knowledge areas, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about overall environmental knowledge by language groups. For example Spanish-speakers were significantly more likely to correctly believe that materials made out of recycled products are not of inferior quality but significantly less likely to be aware much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined.

Any difference of more than 20 percentage points between two languages indicates that the difference is significant and differences of more than 13 points between one group and the total sample are significant. For example, in the figure below the Vietnamese-speaking respondents are significantly more likely than the Spanish and Greek– speaking respondents to give a correct answer regarding the Greenhouse Effect.

FIGURE 17

Correct answers to knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004

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

AVERAGE 39%

Greek 25% Italian 35%Arabic 43% Chinese 56%

0 100

Spanish 21% Korean 34% Macedonian Vietnamese43% 52% AVERAGE 39%

Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined. (TRUE) AVERAGE 40%

ChineseMacedonian 33% 36%ArabicGreek 48% 51%

0 100 Italian 52% Spanish 15% Vietnamese 34% Korean 45% 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.

30 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.2 Knowledge

Figure 17 Correctly answering on knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

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

AVERAGE 57%

ArabicGreek 48% 51% Italian 65% Macedonian 73%

0 100

Spanish 44%KoreanChinese 51% 54% Vietnamese 69% AVERAGE 57%

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

AVERAGE 51%

Greek 27% MacedonianVietnamese 41% Arabic 48% 54%

0 100

Korean 44% Italian 66% Spanish 78% Chinese 52% AVERAGE 51%

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

AVERAGE 47%

Greek 65% Chinese 36% KoreanMacedonian 49% 54%

0 100

Italian 53% Spanish 43% Arabic 55% Vietnamese 23% AVERAGE 47%

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.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 31 3.2 Knowledge

Figure 17 Correctly answering on knowledge questions, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Most backyard spiders are dangerous to people. (FALSE)

AVERAGE 58%

Arabic 45%Vietnamese 51%Chinese 60% Spanish 85%

0 100

Greek 50%Italian 56% Korean 75% Macedonian 43% AVERAGE 58%

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

AVERAGE 61%

Macedonian 47%VietnameseKorean 58% 62% Chinese 76%

0 100

Greek 45%Arabic 51% Italian 61% Spanish 84% AVERAGE 61%

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.

32 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.2 Knowledge

Knowledge of environmental issues

Demographic findings Age and gender English language proficiency

n Respondents over 55 were more likely than n Respondents with English language difficulties 18-34 year olds to incorrectly believe that were more likely to incorrectly believe that products made out of recycled materials were products made out of recycled materials were of of inferior quality (59%, compared to 43%). inferior quality (58%), compared to respondents who were fluent in English (38%). n Males were more likely than females to be aware that over 90% of NSW electricity comes from n Awareness that it is untrue that most backyard burning coal (56%, compared to 41%). spiders are dangerous to people increased with English language proficiency (ELP): Education ◆ Poor ELP 49% ◆ Difficulty reading/writing 53% n Respondents who did not complete high school ◆ Fluent in English 67% were more likely to correctly identify that much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined Length of residence (50%, compared to 36% of those with tertiary education). There were greater proportions of n Those born in Australia were more likely to Greek and Italian respondents in this educational correctly answer that it is untrue that leaves group, many of whom lived in rural situations in and grass clippings do not pollute stormwater their home country. because they are natural (70%, compared to 55% for respondents born overseas). n Those who did not complete high school were more likely to incorrectly believe that products n Those born in Australia were also less likely to made out of recycled materials were of inferior incorrectly believe that products made out of quality (62%, compared to 41% of recycled materials were of inferior quality tertiary educated). (48%, compared to 72%).

n Awareness that it is untrue that most backyard n Respondents born overseas were less likely than spiders are dangerous to people increased as respondents born in Australia to be aware that education increased: over 90% of NSW electricity comes from burning coal (45%, compared to 62%). ◆ Did not complete high school 43%

◆ Completed high school 54% n Respondents born overseas were more likely ◆ Tertiary 71% than respondents born in Australia to incorrectly believe that most backyard spiders are dangerous n The tendency to incorrectly believe native fauna to people (44%, compared to 29%). need to be fed to survive in cities and towns decreased as education level increased: ◆ Did not complete high school 53% ◆ Completed high school 37% ◆ Tertiary 33%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 33 3.2 Knowledge

Summary: Knowledge A series of true-false questions on environmental issues, including the greenhouse effect, water usage, recycled products, source of NSW electricity and wildlife in cities and backyards, revealed significant gaps in knowledge across all questions. The highest levels of knowledge (approximately 60% correct answers) related to wildlife in backyards.

Knowledge questions were not asked in the 1996 ethnic communities survey so that these questions establish baseline information for evaluating programs into the future. Two questions also used in the Who Cares? 2003 survey showed that ethnic communities have levels of knowledge about the greenhouse effect comparable to that of the general community and they are more likely to understand the relative use of water in NSW by agriculture compared to other users.

There are several differences across the various language groups in relation to knowledge levels, although no language group stands out as more or less informed than another.

34 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

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.

The activity that most respondents (77%) have often done in the last twelve months is reduced water consumption. Two thirds have reduced energy consumption (67%) or prevented stormwater pollution, for example by not washing their car in the street or not putting leaves or litter down the drain (64%).

The other activities that more than four out of ten have often done in the last twelve months are: n Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 59% n Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 54% n Bought energy efficient appliances or light globes 47% n Bought products that are better for the environment 41%

Reducing water consumption was mentioned more often by those in the NESB 2004 survey than those in the Who Cares? 2003 survey. As there was no significant difference in the Who Cares? 2003 survey between the responses to this question of those who spoke English and those who spoke a language other than English at home, this suggests that the recent water restrictions and media attention to water consumption issues has had a significant impact on behaviour in the past twelve months.

The most common activities people in the NESB 2004 sample have never done in the last twelve months are: n Participated in local environmental issues 67% n Composted 46% n Tried to get information to protect the environment 40% n Avoided plastic bags when shopping 30%

Compared to the respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 survey, the respondents in the NESB 2004 survey were significantly less likely to frequently engage in: NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003 n Composting 26% 47% n Bought products that are better for the environment 41% 52% n Re-use something instead of throwing it away 54% 62%

The respondents in the NESB 2004 survey were also more likely to respond that they never participate in local environmental issues (67%, compared to 58% in Who Cares? 2003).

The proportion of respondents in the NESB 2004 survey who indicated an activity was not applicable to them was significantly higher for most behaviours than in the Who Cares? 2003 survey. This response option was not read to respondents in either sample. This may suggest a lower level of understanding amongst the non-English speaking background respondents about the nature of the activity. However, the large not applicable for the question on cats simply reflects average cat ownership of 22%.

. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002). Urban Wildlife Renewal: growing conservation in urban communities. Unpublished Research Report, Detailed Tabular Findings pp145-146. March.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 35 3.3 Personal Behaviour

FIGURE 18

Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: NESB 2004

Reduced water consumption 77 16 4 3

Reduced energy consumption 67 22 5 6 1

Prevented stormwater pollution 64 13 4 14 5

Recycled paper and/or other materials 59 15 4 12 10

Reused something instead of throwing away 54 24 8 11 2

Bought energy-efficient appliances/globes 47 24 8 20 2

Bought products better for environment 41 23 11 20 5

Reduced use of the car 37 23 11 22 7

Avoided products with lots of packaging 34 19 12 27 8

Avoided plastic bags when shopping 33 24 12 30 1

Composted 26 12 5 46 10

Sourced environmental information 19 18 18 40 5

Kept your cat inside at night 6 2 1 18 73

Participated in local environmental issues 6 11 10 67 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable

FIGURE 19

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

Avoided putting oil, fat, turps, paint down sink 76 7 4 13

Reduced energy consumption 70 19 8 3

Prevented stormwater pollution 70 11 5 12 2

Reduced water consumption 65 21 7 6

Reused something instead of throwing away 62 24 8 6

Bought products better for environment 52 27 10 10 1

Composted 48 28 9 14 1

Bought energy-efficient appliances/globes 47 15 7 29 2

Avoided products with lots of packaging 40 25 13 21 1

Reduced use of the car 38 25 12 24 1

Avoided plastic bags when shopping 31 22 12 35

Sourced environmental information 18 28 18 36

Participated in local environmental issues 10 17 15 58 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable

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

36 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

FIGURE 18 Frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in the last twelve Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: NESB 2004 months: NESB 2004

Reduced water consumption 77 16 4 3 Language findings Reduced energy consumption 67 22 5 6 1 There were large variations by language in terms of environmental behaviour. Given the large variations both within and across behavioural areas, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about overall environmental behaviour Prevented stormwater pollution 64 13 4 14 5 by language group. The differences by language group for each of the listed behaviours are presented below. Recycled paper and/or other materials 59 15 4 12 10 Differences between language groups of more than 20 percentage points are significant.

Reused something instead of throwing away 54 24 8 11 2 FIGURE 20 Bought energy-efficient appliances/globes 47 24 8 20 2

Bought products better for environment 41 23 11 20 5 Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 Reduced use of the car 37 23 11 22 7

Avoided products with lots of packaging 34 19 12 27 8 Reused something instead of Prevented stormwater pollution

Avoided plastic bags when shopping 33 24 12 30 1 throwing away

Composted 26 12 5 46 10 Italian 61 24 6 8 1 Macedonian 85 7 31 4 Chinese 59 20 14 7 1 Spanish 79 7 4 9 1 Sourced environmental information 19 18 18 40 5 Greek 58 28 4 10 Arabic 72 11 2 15 Kept your cat inside at night 6 2 1 18 73 Macedonian 56 24 8 11 1 Greek 70 17 3 9 1

Participated in local environmental issues 6 11 10 67 6 Korean 56 20 11 13 Vietnamese 65 18 4 6 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Spanish 51 16 9 13 11 Korean 58 13 4 22 3

Percentage of respondents Arabic 50 28 8 14 1 Italian 48 18 6 18 10

Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable Vietnamese 45 34 7 11 3 Chinese 37 13 3 32 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 FIGURE 19 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents Environmentally friendly practices in the last twelve months: Who Cares? 2003 Avoided plastic bags Reduced energy consumption

Spanish 44 24 15 17 Vietnamese 78 20 21 Korean 44 15 14 25 2 Macedonian 75 12 7 6 Italian 43 33 14 10 Chinese 75 19 3 22

Greek 34 19 8 39 Korean 74 12 3 11

Macedonian 31 18 8 42 1 Greek 61 22 6 11

Arabic 26 29 8 37 1 Arabic 61 26 4 8 1

Chinese 24 25 16 35 1 Spanish 55 38 6 1

Vietnamese 17 28 13 37 5 Italian 55 31 8 5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents

Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 37 3.3 Personal Behaviour

FIGURE 20 Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Composted food or garden refuse Purchased energy efficient appliances

Korean 49 11 5 33 2 Vietnamese 67 17 4 8 5 Italian 43 16 6 30 5 Chinese 60 19 9 13 Macedonian 29 6 8 55 2 Korean 59 10 7 22 2

Vietnamese 27 11 1 37 25 Arabic 44 23 9 21 4

Greek 26 10 5 58 1 Greek 41 19 12 28

Spanish 14 20 8 47 11 Italian 39 30 12 17 2

Arabic 13 20 6 53 9 Spanish 33 54 7 6

Chinese 11 5 2 58 25 Macedonian 29 19 7 44 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents

Avoided products with excess packaging Reduced fuel consumption

Greek 50 20 5 25 Greek 48 20 4 28 Spanish 48 15 14 17 6 Spanish 46 27 14 9 4 Italian 37 26 22 12 3 Macedonian 43 19 9 25 4

Macedonian 35 17 11 35 2 Vietnamese 41 28 10 10 12

Korean 32 16 7 22 23 Korean 34 15 14 35 2

Arabic 31 32 12 21 5 Arabic 34 28 8 24 7

Vietnamese 27 16 8 28 22 Chinese 25 20 10 33 13

Chinese 17 13 15 54 2 Italian 22 30 21 14 13 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents Often Sometimes Bought products better for SourcedOccasionally information about environment the environment Never Not applicable Spanish 63 23 8 6 Arabic 26 19 11 45 Macedonian 52 25 6 13 4 Korean 24 13 17 46 Greek 43 25 9 23 Vietnamese 23 17 14 20 28

Korean 40 18 9 28 5 Spanish 22 26 30 21 1

Italian 40 26 22 11 1 Greek 21 20 13 46

Arabic 39 30 12 18 2 Macedonian 16 10 20 53 1

Vietnamese 32 16 8 16 28 Italian 12 24 28 35 1

Chinese 17 22 12 48 2 Chinese 9 15 14 58 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents

Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable

38 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

FIGURE 20 Frequency of specific environmentally friendly behaviours in the last twelve months, by language: NESB 2004 (cont.)

Reduced water consumption Participated in local environment activities

Spanish 84 14 2 Arabic 12 11 7 70 Macedonian 83 11 3 3 Korean 9 8 8 75 Vietnamese 81 16 2 1 Italian 8 12 12 67 1

Greek 81 14 1 4 Greek 8 11 7 74

Korean 76 12 6 6 Macedonian 5 7 8 80

Italian 75 19 4 11 Vietnamese 3 8 8 42 39

Arabic 73 14 6 6 1 Spanish 3 26 26 43 2

Chinese 65 28 5 2 Chinese 1 3 8 81 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents Often Often RecycledSometimes materials at work KeptSometimes my cat indoors at night* Occasionally Occasionally Never Never Spanish Not applicable77 8 6 4 5 Vietnamese 5 3 Not 12 applicable 80 Korean 68 14 7 11 Spanish 2 2 96 Arabic 65 16 1 16 2 Macedonian 9 1 14 76

Macedonian 59 3 2 11 25 Korean 8 2 2 6 82

Vietnamese 55 24 5 5 12 Italian 9 3 3 15 70

Chinese 55 13 8 15 10 Greek** 8 1 1 74 16

Greek 54 13 32 1 Chinese 1 1 6 92

Italian 40 30 4 1 25 Arabic 9 5 1 17 68 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents Often Sometimes *High not applicable in this question generally indicates those who Occasionally do not own cats. Never **Anomalous Greek results are likely to be a result of coding those Not applicable who did not have cats as never keeping cats indoors at night.

Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Not applicable

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 39 3.3 Personal Behaviour

Frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in last twelve months

Demographic findings Age and gender

n As the age of respondents increased so did n Older respondents were less likely than other age the likelihood of saying that they often reuse groups to say that they often recycle paper and/ something instead of throwing it away: or other materials at work: ◆ 18-34 46% ◆ 18-34 60% ◆ 35-54 56% ◆ 35-54 70% ◆ 55+ 59% ◆ 55+ 44%

n As the age of respondents increased so did the likelihood of saying that they often avoid plastic English language proficiency bags to carry shopping home: n Respondents with English language difficulties ◆ 18-34 25% were less likely to often recycle paper/or ◆ 35-54 34% other materials at work (49%), compared to respondents who were fluent in English (71%). ◆ 55+ 37%

n Respondents fluent in English were less likely n Respondents over 55 years were more likely to say that they often avoid products with lots of to purchase energy efficient appliances or packaging when doing the shopping than other light globes than those with English language age groups: difficulties (41%, compared to 51%). ◆ 18-34 25% Length of residence ◆ 35-54 34% ◆ 55+ 42% n Those born in Australia were less likely to often reduce energy consumption by turning off lights n Younger respondents were less likely to say that and using heating and cooling more efficiently they often choose household products that are than respondents born overseas better for the environment than other age groups: (51%, compared to 69%). ◆ 18-34 31% ◆ 35-54 47% Education ◆ 55+ 41% n The tendency to often recycle paper and/or other materials at work increased as the level of n The likelihood of making an effort to often reduce education increased: water consumption increased with age: ◆ Did not complete high school 37% ◆ 18-34 65% ◆ Completed high school 65% ◆ 35-54 80% ◆ Tertiary educated 70% ◆ 55+ 84%

40 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

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.

The following four reasons were cited most often as the main motivating factors in relation to decisions to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours: n Save money n Concern for the environment n Community responsibility n Water restrictions and/or drought.

Table 5 shows the reasons that respondents indicated for adopting specific behaviours. Any reason cited by more than four in ten respondents (of those who said they adopted the behaviour often) has been highlighted. No consistent motivation dominates, although community responsibility is raised less overall.

Saving money is a considerable motivator for engaging in environmentally responsible activities, being the most cited reason in relation to reusing something instead of throwing it away, reducing energy consumption and using energy efficient appliances.

TABLE 5 Reasons for engaging in environmentally friendly practices: NESB 2004

Top four reasons cited for adopting environmentally friendly behaviour

Water Concern for Community restrictions Save money environment responsibility and/or drought Reuse something instead of throwing it away n = 438 43% 31% 12% Reduce water consumption n = 622 21% 18% 54% Prevent stormwater pollution n = 517 7% 50% 25% 10% Reduce energy consumption n = 537 71% 21% 12% Use of energy efficient appliances n = 374 72% 18% 5% Reduce fuel consumption or use of car n = 294 37% 42% 20%

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 41 3.3 Personal Behaviour

Focus group participants agreed that fines and restrictions were an incentive to engaging in environmentally friendly practices:

“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]

Focus group participants also agreed that they were much more likely to engage in environmentally friendly practices which are seen to be easy and convenient:

“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.

A range of reasons were cited, which varied depending on the nature of the activity (Table 6). Any reason that was cited by more than two in ten respondents (among those who said they never adopted the behaviour) has been highlighted.

As Table 6 shows, an activity that is believed to be inconvenient or time-consuming is less likely to be adopted, for example: n Avoiding plastic bags n Composting n Avoiding products with excess packaging.

There was also a lack of knowledge and awareness displayed around the following activities: n Composting n Choosing products that are better for the environment n Avoiding products with excess packaging.

42 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

TABLE 6 Reasons for non-engagement: NESB 2004

Unaware Don’t Don’t it was Time buy many Inconvenient know how important consuming products Avoid plastic bags n = 340 49% 8% 9% 9% Compost n = 414 19% 23% 9% 9% Avoid products with excess packaging n = 310 25% 9% 26% 9% 9% Chose products that are better for environment n = 250 14% 17% 22% 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.

Focus group participants also said they were less likely to engage in environmentally friendly practices that were perceived to be time consuming or inconvenient:

“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, focus group participants mentioned lack of knowledge or awareness was also a barrier to engaging in environmentally friendly practices:

“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]

Other issues were raised in the focus groups, included: n the cost associated with renewable energy, buying energy efficient appliances, grey water systems, 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] n concerns about the quality of recycled products “I don’t think that recycled water is clean enough.” [Vietnamese] n cultural impediments to engaging in certain environmental behaviours “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]

It should be noted that these last issues, while raised in the Chinese and Macedonian focus groups did not appear with any significance in the quantitative findings.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 43 3.3 Personal Behaviour

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.

Use of toxic chemicals and detergents and littering or being careless with rubbish were mentioned most frequently as environmentally damaging behaviours (Figure 21), both mentioned by 14% of respondents.

Around one in ten respondents mentioned the following behaviours: n Using plastic bags when shopping 11% n Putting oil, fat or turps down the sink 10% n Not using public transport 8% n Not recycling enough or at all 9%

There were a number of significant differences between the NESB 2004 results and the Who Cares? 2003 results. The respondents in the NESB 2004 study were more likely to identify: n Using toxic chemicals or detergents 14%, compared to 5% in Who Cares? 2003 n Littering or being careless with rubbish 14%, compared to 4% in Who Cares? 2003 n Putting fat, oil or turps down the sink 10%, compared to 4% in Who Cares? 2003

The respondents in the NESB 2004 study were less likely to identify: n Not using public transport 9%, compared to 16% in Who Cares? 2003 n Wasting energy 2%, compared to 11% in Who Cares? 2003

The respondents in the NESB 2004 survey were also more likely not to be able to identify any damaging behaviour that they do (26%, compared to 18% in Who Cares? 2003).

44 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

FIGURE 21

Environmentally damaging behaviour: NESB 2004

Toxic chemicals, detergents 14 Littering, careless with rubbish 14

Plastic bags when shopping 11

Fat, oil down sink 10

Not using public transport 9

Failure to recycle 8

Generate a lot of waste 6

Use leaded petrol 4 NESB 2004 n = 805

Wasting water 4

Failure to compost (enough) 3

Smoking 3

Buy products with lots of packaging 2

Wasting energy 2

Wasting paper 1

Other 8

Don't know 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

FIGURE 22

Environmentally damaging behaviour: Who Cares? 2003

Using the car 23

Not using public transport 16

Wasting energy 11

Wasting water 10

Failure to recycle 7

Smoking 6

Toxic chemicals, detergents 5 Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421

Wasting paper 5

Littering, careless with rubbish 4

Fat, oil down sink 4

Generate a lot of waste 3

Failure to compost (enough) 0

Other 11

Don't know 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 45 3.3 Personal Behaviour

Environmentally damaging behaviour

Language findings The range of responses to this question varied significantly across language groups in relation to a few behaviours. Significant differences are highlighted in Table 7 below, which shows:

n The Greek and Vietnamese-speaking respondents were more likely to say they were careless with their rubbish than the Italian-speaking respondents. n The Greek and Spanish-speaking respondents were more likely to identify using chemicals and herbicides than the Arabic, Chinese and Macedonian-speaking respondents. n The Chinese-speaking respondents were more likely to nominate using too many plastic bags when shopping than Macedonian and Vietnamese-speaking respondents. n The Chinese, Macedonian and Vietnamese-speakers were more likely not to be able to nominate any damaging behaviours from an environmental viewpoint than the Greek or Spanish-speaking respondents.

TABLE 7 Environmentally damaging behaviour, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%) Littering, careless with rubbish 10 20 26 4 12 7 9 27 14 Use of toxic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides 3 0 40 14 14 3 27 11 14 Use a lot of plastic bags when shopping 9 25 17 7 8 2 19 1 11 Let fat, oil and other things down the sink, toilet 11 10 9 12 11 6 16 6 10 Not using public transport 10 9 5 7 3 7 17 13 9 Failure to recycle (enough or at all) 13 3 3 17 16 5 6 2 8 Generate a lot of waste (home or business) 5 7 11 6 4 2 8 2 6 Use leaded petrol 8 1 3 3 1 7 2 3 4 Do not recycle water/use more than I should 6 6 0 4 3 5 9 2 4 Failure to compost (enough or at all) 5 1 2 3 8 1 0 1 3 Smoking 7 2 2 1 2 6 2 4 3 Buy products with a lot of packaging 2 0 0 6 0 2 2 2 2 Use a lot of energy (e.g. waste electricity, don’t 0 2 1 2 0 5 2 2 2 turn off lights, use a lot of appliances, no insulation) Wasting paper 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 Don’t know 24 32 6 23 23 59 4 36 26

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

46 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

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.

Entertaining in the backyard was the most commonly cited activity, with 57% of respondents entertaining in their backyard more than four times each year.

Around half the respondents grew vegetables, fruit or herbs (49%) or Australian native plants (47%). Around one in three respondents had play equipment in their backyard for children.

Less than a quarter of all participants composted kitchen scraps or other garden refuse.

FIGURE 23

Use of outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004

Entertain in yard more 57 than four times per year

Grow vegetables, 49 fruit or herbs NESB 2004 Grow Australian native plants 47

Have play equipment for children 32

Have compost and/or worm farm 23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

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.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 47 3.3 Personal Behaviour

Outdoor spaces around the home

Language findings There were a number of differences by language regarding use of outdoor spaces around the home:

n The Chinese-speakers were significantly less likely than all other language groups to entertain in their backyard. In the focus groups the Chinese speakers were more likely to speak of large, spacious, clean and modern homes as a key aspect of the enjoyment they gain from their home, rather than their backyard. n The Italian and Vietnamese-speaking respondents were the most likely to grow vegetables, fruit or herbs, while the Spanish and Korean-speakers were the least likely. n The Greek-speakers were the most likely to grow Australian native plants. The importance of plants was reflected in the focus group with Greek participants. “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]

n The Arabic-speaking respondents were the most likely to have play equipment in their backyards, while the Spanish-speakers were the least likely. n The Italian-speaking respondents were significantly more likely than Chinese-speakers to have a compost heap or worm farm.

TABLE 8 Outdoor spaces around the home, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%)

I entertain in my backyard more than four times a year 69 23 50 68 52 67 71 44 57 I grow vegetables, fruit or herbs 50 40 50 70 32 56 23 64 49 I grow Australian native plants 34 47 66 48 32 57 36 47 47 I have play equipment for children 54 27 37 33 34 25 17 27 32 I have a compost heap or worm farm 17 8 19 50 17 28 19 25 23

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

48 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.3 Personal Behaviour

Summary: Personal behaviour Prompted with a list, respondents in the research generally agreed there were at least some things they do regularly to help protect the environment. The behaviours cited most often are reducing water consumption, reducing energy consumption and preventing stormwater pollution. In addition, more than half of the people from selected ethnic communities recycle paper or other materials at work or have decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away. More than four in ten have frequently bought energy efficient appliances or light globes, or other products that are better for the environment.

People are less likely to participate in local environmental issues, try to get information about the environment or compost their kitchen/garden waste.

The primary reasons people gave for adopting behaviour that is perceived as environmentally friendly were to save money, concern for the environment, a sense of civic responsibility or as a direct result of environmental regulation such as water restrictions.

Environmentally friendly behaviour that is perceived as time consuming or difficult is less likely to be adopted, which was the case for avoiding plastic bags, composting or avoiding products with excess packaging.

Lack of knowledge about how to participate in environmentally friendly behaviour or lack of awareness of the environmental impacts of a given activity is also a significant barrier to behavioural uptake. This is particularly relevant for composting, choosing products that are better for the environment and avoiding products with excess packaging.

Qualitative findings also suggest that activities that are seen as requiring capital outlay, for example investigating renewable energy options, energy efficient appliances and grey water systems were also less likely to be adopted.

In an unprompted question, using toxic chemicals or detergents was one of two environmentally damaging personal behaviours most frequently identified in this survey of NESB communities. By contrast, this issue is barely mentioned in the Who Cares? 2003 survey, either in this same question or as an environmental issue or as one of the two most important environmental issues in NSW today.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 49 3.4 Information Sources

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

Mass media were overwhelmingly considered the main source of information about environmental issues. Television rated most highly overall, followed by newspapers, then radio (Figure 24).

Almost one in ten respondents considered brochures distributed by government to be significant sources of information. All remaining sources of information were identified by less than 10% of all respondents.

Respondents were also asked to nominate their preferred source of information. While the pattern for main source of information was similar to preferred sources, there were some differences. Respondents’ main sources of information were television, radio and newspapers, but they were less likely to nominate these media as their preferred source of information. However, the way respondents answered the questions means that the gap is not as great as the graph suggests – see the note with the graph.

Adult family members, while an actual source of information for 6% or respondents, were only a preferred source for 2% of respondents.

Conversely, respondents were more likely to identify the following as a preferred source of information than an actual source of information: n Environmental groups main source for 2%, preferred source for 7% n Brochures from environmental groups main source for 4%, preferred source for 6% n Brochures from government main source for 9%, preferred source for 12%

These results indicate that respondents prefer to receive information about the environment from sources that they see as having expertise in the area, rather than more informal media such as family members (including children), community organisations, workplaces, etc.

Figure 25 compares the results for the main sources of information about environmental issues between 1996 and 2004. In 2004 the respondents were significantly more likely to nominate the following information channels as main sources of information: n Television 60%, up from 49% in 1996 n Brochures total of 13%, not mentioned in 1996 n Magazines 8%, up from 1% in 1996

Information sources mentioned for the first time in 2004 were internet, schools, work, environmental organisations, community organisations and children.

Respondents were much more likely to be able to nominate a source of information about the environment in 2004. Only 3% indicated they did not get informed about the environment, down from 14% in 1996.

50 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.4 Information Sources

FIGURE 24

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

60 Television 48 44 Newspapers 30 24 Radio 20 9 Brochures - Government 12 8 Magazines 5 6 Internet 4 Adult family member 6 2 NESB 2004 n = 850 4 Brochures - environmental groups 6 Main source 3 Schools 3 Preferred source 2 Work `0 2 Environmental organisations 7 2 Community organisations 3 1 Children `0 3 Do not get informed 1 3 Other 5 2 Don't know 3 0 No response 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

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

60 Television 49 44 Newspapers 48 24 Radio 18 13 Brochures 0 8 Magazines 1 6 Internet 0 NESB 2004 n = 805 6 Friends and family 2 NESB 1996 n = 601 3 Schools 0 2 Work 0 2 Environmental organisations 0 2 Community organisations 0 1 Children 0 0 Councils 1 3 Do not get informed 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 51 3.4 Information Sources

Sources of information about environmental issues

Language findings The range of responses to this question varied significantly across language groups in relation to a few information sources. Table 9 shows these differences for the most mentioned information sources. Section 4 of this report provides a media profile outlining media use patterns for each of the language groups. These patterns explain some of the differences between language groups in the media-based sources of information evident from this question.

Differences of more than 20% between two language groups are significant. These have not been systematically highlighted due to the large diversity in responses provided to this question. Instead, some groups’ responses strongly different to the trend are highlighted. Some of the significant differences are:

n Vietnamese-speakers are less likely to use television than all other groups. n Chinese and Vietnamese-speakers are more likely to use newspapers than Macedonian and Spanish-speakers. n Vietnamese-speakers are more likely to use radio than most other groups (except Greek-speakers). n Korean-speakers are more likely to use magazines than most other groups (except Chinese-speakers), and less likely to use radio than most other groups.

TABLE 9 Main sources of information, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%)

Television 74 55 60 57 60 71 77 29 60 Newspapers 38 64 45 42 39 37 27 57 44 Radio 20 20 36 13 4 31 14 50 24 Brochures – Government 8 14 3 4 10 16 14 6 9 Magazines 6 13 5 2 29 3 5 2 8

52 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.4 Information Sources

Main language for information Where a respondent identified a source of information (either main source or preferred source) they were then asked whether this was in English, or language other than English (LOTE), or both.

Although television is the main source information about the environment (Figure 24) there is the lowest access to LOTE from this source of all the main media forms for respondents in this survey. For those who nominated any of the three main media sources as a preferred source, a strong preference for media information to be delivered in their own language (on its own or with English) emerged (Figure 26). This result is not solely based on need (i.e. not being able to use English) but also indicates a preference by bilingual respondents for information in LOTE. This preference indicates demand for LOTE is at higher levels than is currently being delivered:

% access LOTE from current main % prefer LOTE from preferred information source of environmental information source Radio 70 81 Newspapers 62 72 Television 39 64 Brochures – Government 39 60 Environmental group brochures 24 63

39% of respondents had received government information in their language, although almost two thirds (60%) of those who preferred this information source also preferred to receive government information in languages other than English. Similarly, while only a quarter of respondents (24%) had received brochures from environmental groups in another language, 63% would prefer to receive this brochure information in their own language.

figure 26

Language of main and preferred environmental information sources: NESB 2004

Main - Radio (n=188) 30 41 29

Preferred - Radio (n=162) 19 51 30

Main - Newspapers (n=350) 38 31 31

Preferred - Newspapers (n=238) 28 37 35

Main - Television (n=485) 62 8 31

Preferred - Television (n=382) 37 20 44

Main - Brochures - Government (n=75) 62 9 30

Preferred - Brochures - Government (n=96) 40 27 33

Main - Brochures - Environment Groups (n=33) 76 6 18

Preferred - Brochures - Environment Groups (n=45) 38 27 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents English LOTE Both English and LOTE

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.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 53 3.4 Information Sources

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?

Respondents were then given a list of fourteen possible sources of environmental information (Figure 27). The order in which sources were read out was different for each respondent.

The information sources that approximately eight out of ten people consider reliable (very or fairly reliable) are shown below. Environmental groups, scientists and schools are considered very reliable by approximately half of all respondents: n Environmental groups 86% n Scientists 83% n Schools 81% n Other members of the community 81% n Local councils 79%

These sources represent a combination of both informal ‘word-of-mouth’ sources and clear experts in the field. Neither schools nor other members of the community were spontaneously mentioned, unprompted, as either preferred or main sources of information (in the previous question), however they were considered some of the most reliable of the sources in this prompted question.

“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]

Sources of information that are considered unreliable by the most respondents were business & industry (46%), media personalities (34%) and religious leaders (25%).

More than one in ten respondents were unable to say whether bilingual educators were reliable sources of information, indicating a lack of awareness of such services. Table 10 suggests that this is particularly the case for Italian and Macedonian-speaking respondents, who were significantly more likely than the other language groups not to be able to comment on the reliability of bilingual educators.

There were significant differences in the perceived reliability of sources between the NESB 2004 study and the Who Cares? 2003 study. While the results are not directly comparable with Who Cares? 2003 as that survey did not include a not applicable category and other categories were slightly different, those information sources that were considered more reliable in the NESB 2004 study than the Who Cares? 2003 study were:

NESB 2004 Who Cares? 2003 n Other community members 83% 68% n Local councils 79% 71% n Government departments 74% 64% n Religious leaders 63% 47% n Media personalities 62% 37% n Business and industry 46% 37%

Those information sources that were considered less reliable in the NESB 2004 study than the Who Cares? 2003 study were scientists (83% concidered this sourced reliable compared to 90% in Who Cares? 2003) and community service groups (74% compared to 84%).

54 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.4 Information Sources

FIGURE 27

Reliability of environmental information sources: NESB 2004

Environment groups 86 5 8 1

Scientists 83 6 10 2

Schools 81 6 7 6

Other members of community 81 3 13 3

Local councils 79 4 16 1

Community service groups 74 9 14 3

Government departments 74 3 22 1

Children 71 3 7 19

Bilingual educators 68 11 16 6

Religious leaders 63 6 25 6

Media personalities 62 4 34 1

Business/industry 46 6 46 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of respondents NESB 2004 n = 805 Reliable Hard to say Not reliable Not applicable

FIGURE 28

Reliability of environmental information sources: Who Cares? 2003

Scientists/technical experts 90 3 7

National environment organisations 89 3 9

Local environment organisations 87 2 11

Schools 85 3 12

Community service groups 84 3 13

Local councils 71 1 28

The United Nations 71 6 23

Friends and family 68 3 29

Government departments 64 3 34

Religious leaders, churches 47 5 48

Media personalities 37 3 60

Business/industry 37 3 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of respondents Who Cares? 2003 n = 1,421 Reliable Hard to say Not reliable

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 55 3.4 Information Sources

Reliability of environmental information from various sources

Language findings The range of responses regarding the reliability of information sources varied considerably across language groups (Table 10). Differences of more than 20% between two language groups are significant. These have not been systematically highlighted due to the large diversity in responses in this question. Instead some groups’ responses which are strongly different to the trend for the specific source are highlighted below.

TABLE 10 Reliability of environmental information sources, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%) Environmental groups Reliable 89 92 90 61 97 75 95 85 86 Hard to say 4 3 6 11 0 14 0 4 5 Unreliable 6 4 3 25 3 11 5 9 8 Scientists and technical experts Reliable 84 91 91 54 89 82 94 77 83 Hard to say 6 6 3 14 1 6 0 8 6 Unreliable 10 2 6 29 9 11 4 12 10 Schools Reliable 85 84 88 47 89 86 89 82 81 Hard to say 6 11 4 9 3 6 5 3 6 Unreliable 7 2 6 14 7 3 4 10 7 Family, friends and neighbours Reliable 78 73 84 78 88 71 93 80 81 Hard to say 1 7 2 3 2 10 0 2 3 Unreliable 20 15 12 15 9 17 6 13 13 Local councils Reliable 82 92 75 57 91 69 84 82 79 Hard to say 3 4 2 10 2 6 2 4 4 Unreliable 15 2 22 33 7 24 14 11 16 Government departments Reliable 86 95 64 46 88 45 83 83 74 Hard to say 1 1 4 7 1 6 3 2 3 Unreliable 13 3 31 44 11 49 14 11 22 Ethnic community groups Reliable 70 78 78 59 85 63 87 71 74 Hard to say 11 7 10 13 3 21 2 6 9 Unreliable 17 14 11 23 11 14 8 17 14

56 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.4 Information Sources

TABLE 10 Reliability of environmental information sources, by language: NESB 2004 (cont) Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%)

Children Reliable 68 48 82 69 76 65 83 77 71 Hard to say 2 10 3 3 0 4 0 1 3 Unreliable 8 14 7 9 7 4 4 6 7 Bilingual educators Reliable 74 60 82 33 83 49 88 72 68 Hard to say 9 16 3 22 4 30 2 5 11 Unreliable 17 18 14 30 10 7 9 21 16 Religious leaders Reliable 74 48 67 64 79 47 65 58 63 Hard to say 3 14 3 4 2 7 6 8 6 Unreliable 21 25 27 27 15 42 23 24 25 Media personalities Reliable 69 51 60 41 64 51 85 71 62 Hard to say 3 5 2 4 1 5 1 7 4 Unreliable 27 38 38 55 34 44 14 21 34 Business and industry Reliable 55 41 45 41 52 34 79 23 46 Hard to say 5 10 9 11 3 6 1 6 6 Unreliable 41 46 45 44 44 60 19 66 46

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 57 3.4 Information Sources

Demographic findings

Age and gender n Belief in environmental and conservation groups as very reliable sources of environmental information n Females were more likely than males to believe increased with education: their children are reliable sources of environmental ◆ Did not complete high school 43% information (75%, compared to 65%). ◆ Completed high school 59% n Males were less likely than females to nominate ◆ Tertiary 63% religious leaders as reliable sources on issues relating to the environment (56%, compared to 68%). Length of residence n Respondents born overseas were more likely to n Respondents over 55 years were more likely than nominate local councils as a very reliable source of other age groups to consider their children as environmental information than those born in Australia reliable sources of environmental information: (39%, compared to 22%). ◆ 18-34 41% ◆ 35-54 80% n Those born in Australia were less likely to nominate schools as very reliable sources of environmental ◆ 55+ 83% information (33%), compared to respondents who were born overseas (52%). Education n Respondents born in Australia were less likely than n Although not significant, those with higher respondents born overseas to believe their children education were more likely to identify local are reliable sources of environmental information councils as very reliable sources of (38%, compared to 75%). environmental information: ◆ Did not complete high school 27% n Respondents born overseas were less likely than ◆ Completed high school 38% respondents born in Australia to nominate religious leaders as unreliable sources on issues relating to ◆ Tertiary educated 43% environment (24%, compared to 40%).

n The belief that one’s children are reliable sources n Those born in Australia were less likely to of environmental information decreased as level nominate media personalities as reliable sources of of education increased: environmental information (47%, compared to 64%). ◆ Did not complete high school 83% ◆ Completed high school 68% English language proficiency ◆ Tertiary 64% n Respondents with English language difficulties (80%) n The belief that scientists and technical specialists were more likely than respondents who were fluent are very reliable sources on issues relating to in English (60%) to nominate their children as reliable environment increased with level of education: sources of environmental information. ◆ Did not complete high school 38% n Respondents who were fluent in English were more ◆ Completed high school 55% likely to believe religious leaders are unreliable ◆ Tertiary 59% sources on issues relating to environment than those who experienced some difficulty with English n Those who did not complete high school were (31%, compared to 21%). less likely to believe that government departments or agencies are very reliable sources of n Respondents with English language difficulties environmental information: were less likely to nominate media personalities ◆ Did not complete high school 26% as unreliable than respondents who were fluent in ◆ Completed high school 35% English (29%, compared to 39%). ◆ Tertiary 41%

58 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.4 Information Sources

Summary: Information sources Most people use newspapers and television as their main source of environmental information. For six in ten respondents this information is provided either in their own language or in both English and their own language in newspapers but only four in ten on television. For radio this figure is seven in ten. The preference for radio or newspaper as a preferred medium across the various language groups is generally related to the available media in the various language communities.

For both newspapers and radio there is a strong preference for information to be provided in people’s own language, and this preference is particularly marked in radio. For all information mediums there is a strong desire for information to be provided in both English and their own language.

Lack of English language is not the sole reason for preferring LOTE information. Bilingual people also prefer LOTE information alongside English information.

More than eight in ten respondents from these ethnic communities consider children, schools, environmental groups, scientists or technical experts or other members of the community as reliable sources of information about environmental issues. These sources represent a combination of both informal word-of-mouth sources and clear experts in the area.

Business and industry, religious leaders and media personalities were considered the least reliable of all information sources.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 59 3.5 Media

3.5 MEDIA

Television (English and LOTE)

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

A majority of respondents watched a commercial English language television station more than any other station (56%). This was irrespective of their English language proficiency, as 51% of all respondents with poor English language proficiency watch a commercial channel more than any other. One in ten respondents watched the ABC more than any other channel.

One in five respondents viewed television in their own language more often than English language television. SBS was viewed most often by 16% of respondents, and a further 5% watch another language other than English station most often.

Very few respondents did not watch television at all (4%).

FIGURE 29

Television (English and LOTE): NESB 2004

ABC 9 Commercial stations 56 SBS 16 NESB 2004 n = 805 Other LOTE television 5 Pay television 6 Do not watch television 4 Other 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of respondents

60 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.5 Media

Television

Language findings n Spanish-speaking respondents were more likely than the Korean or Vietnamese respondents to watch a LOTE station more than an English language station. n The Vietnamese-speakers were the most likely to view a commercial station more than any other station.

TABLE 11 Television, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%) ABC 7 9 8 9 16 7 11 4 9 Commercial stations 48 59 44 54 60 61 44 76 56 SBS 9 16 22 18 9 20 30 7 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 9 22 37 7 21 Pay television 18 0 11 7 3 6 6 0 6 Other 0 8 8 7 6 1 1 1 4 Do not watch television 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 n People who were over 55 years were less likely to watch commercial stations than other age groups: ◆ 18-34 66% ◆ 35-54 58% ◆ 55+ 45%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 61 3.5 Media

Radio (English and LOTE)

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

One third of respondents listen to radio stations broadcasting in their own language more than any other station. Almost the same proportion (31%) listen to English language radio most regularly, with 23% tuning into a commercial station and 8% listening to ABC radio.

Almost one in five respondents (19%) do not listen to radio.

There were several differences by language group and demographic profile in relation to radio consumption habits, and these are highlighted in Table 12.

The higher use of LOTE radio than LOTE television is most likely a reflection of the more limited television broadcasting in other languages compared to radio.

FIGURE 30

Radio (English and LOTE): NESB 2004

ABC radio 8 English commercial radio 23 LOTE radio 33 Other 11 NESB 2004 n = 805 Don't know 7

Do not listen to radio 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

62 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.5 Media

Radio

Language findings n Greek, Macedonian and Vietnamese-speakers were more likely than Chinese and Korean-speakers to listen to a LOTE station more than an English language radio station. n More than four in ten Korean-speakers did not listen to radio.

TABLE 12 Radio, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%) ABC radio 5 6 6 8 13 3 17 4 8 English commercial radio 27 34 25 23 19 27 15 17 23 LOTE radio 36 16 40 32 10 42 28 61 33 Other 12 10 13 12 9 13 14 2 11 Don't know 12 8 8 13 8 3 0 2 7 Do not listen to radio 9 27 8 12 41 12 26 15 19

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

Demographic findings Age and gender English language proficiency

n Respondents over 55 years were less likely to n Respondents fluent in English were more likely to listen listen to English commercial radio: to English commercial radio than respondents with ◆ 18-34 36% English language difficulties (36%, compared to 13%). ◆ 35-54 28% n Respondents with English language difficulties (45%) were more likely to listen to LOTE radio than ◆ 55+ 9% respondents fluent in English (18%). n Younger respondents were less likely to listen to LOTE radio: Education ◆ 18-34 18% n Those who did not complete high school were less ◆ 35-54 28% likely to listen to English commercial radio: ◆ 55+ 52% ◆ Did not complete high school 13% Length of residence ◆ Completed high school 22% ◆ Tertiary 32% n Respondents born in Australia (56%) were more n Those who did not complete high school were more likely to listen to English commercial radio than likely to listen to LOTE radio: respondents born overseas (19%). ◆ Did not complete high school 51% n Those born overseas were more likely to listen to LOTE radio than respondents born in ◆ Completed high school 39% Australia (37%, compared to 4%). ◆ Tertiary 17%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 63 3.5 Media

Newspapers (English and LOTE)

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

Similarly to LOTE radio, just over one third of respondents read a LOTE newspaper more than any other title (34%).

Almost half read English language newspapers most regularly (48%), with one in ten reading their local English language newspaper more than any other title. Almost one in ten respondents (9%) do not read newspapers at all.

There were several differences by language group and demographic profile in relation to newspaper readership, and these are highlighted in Table 13.

FIGURE 31

Newspapers (English and LOTE): NESB 2004

Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 20 Daily/Sunday Telegraph 16 The Australian/Financial Review 1 Local English newspaper 10 NESB 2004 n = 805 LOTE newspaper 34 Other 7 Don't know 3 Do not read newspapers 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of respondents

Newspapers

Language findings n Chinese and Vietnamese-speakers were less likely to read English-language newspapers, and more likely to read LOTE newspapers than most other language groups in the sample. This is most likely a reflection of the large number of own language newspaper titles available in both of these communities. n Spanish-speakers were more likely to read English language newspapers than other groups.

64 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading3.5 Media

TABLE 13 Newspapers, by language: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total Percent (%)

English newspaper 41 26 34 40 46 34 55 26 38 Local English newspaper 15 2 1 13 13 11 16 9 10 LOTE newspaper 15 60 45 27 24 27 18 52 34 Other 1 6 7 6 8 17 7 2 7 Don't know 11 3 4 4 1 1 0 0 3 Do not read newspapers 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 .

Demographic findings Age and gender Education

n Younger respondents were more likely to read n Respondents with tertiary education were most likely English language newspapers than other to read English language newspapers: age groups: ◆ Did not complete high school 20% ◆ 18-34 54% ◆ Completed high school 33% ◆ 35-54 38% ◆ Tertiary 54% ◆ 55+ 32% n Those who did not complete high school were most n Older respondents were most likely to read likely to read LOTE newspapers: LOTE newspapers: ◆ Did not complete high school 46% ◆ 18-34 19% ◆ Completed high school 41% ◆ 35-54 32% ◆ Tertiary 20% ◆ 55+ 46% n Those who did not complete high school were most likely not to read newspapers: English language proficiency ◆ Did not complete high school 16% n Respondents fluent in English were more likely ◆ Completed high school 9% than those born overseas to read English ◆ Tertiary 5% language newspapers (56%, compared to 22%).

n Respondents with English language difficulties Length of residence were more likely to read LOTE newspapers than n Those born in Australia were more likely to read respondents who were fluent in English English language newspapers (69%) than those (50%, compared to 14%). born overseas (34%).

n Only respondents born overseas read LOTE newspapers (38%).

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 65 The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Errata

Text underlined has been revised, November 2005.

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)

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 4. Community Profiles

This section presents a profile for each of the language groups included in the study, under the following headings:

■ Demographic profile: taken from Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 census data. ■ Environmental profile: key findings from the research regarding environmental attitudes, values, knowledge and behaviour. ■ Media profile: key findings from the research regarding media consumption patterns.

Any significant differences between the results for the individual language group and the total sample have been highlighted. Differences of 13 between a language group and the total sample (of all communities combined) are statistically significant.

In interpreting these profiles it should be noted that TARBS, a multilingual television broadcaster, ceased operations between fieldwork completion and the writing of this report.

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.

66 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Arabic

Arabic

Arabic-speakers make up the second largest language group in NSW behind Chinese-speakers. There is a sizeable second and subsequent generation with just under half of all Arabic-speakers born in Australia. Bankstown local government area has the largest population of Arabic-speakers with 18% of those in NSW.

There are some differences between the profile of Arabic speakers in this sample compared to the general Arabic population in NSW. In this sample there were more females (57% compared to 48%) and, because children under 18 were not interviewed, a smaller proportion was born in Australia (20% compared to 44% in NSW). However, the proportion born in Australia was high compared to some other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%).

Arabic-speakers were similar to the total sample in their rating of the environment compared with other issues for government and in how important the environment is to their lives. However, nearly six in ten Arabic speakers are concerned a great deal about environmental problems (compared to just over four in ten for the total sample). Their overall level of concern was also higher than the whole group and higher than their concern in the previous survey (94% concerned in 2004 compared to 88% in 1996). For over one third of Arabic-speakers this concern is for future generations.

As in 1996, the single most important environmental issue for Arabic-speakers was pollution, mentioned more frequently than the total sample. Water conservation was the second most mentioned issue but Arabic-speakers were less likely than the total sample to mention this issue. In 1996 their most important environmental issues were air pollution, pollution of beaches and oceans, and transport and/or storage of chemicals.

In environmental knowledge questions, Arabic-speakers were slightly more likely than the average to know that more water is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing uses combined and much less likely to know that most backyard spiders are not dangerous.

More Arabic-speakers often took active steps to prevent stormwater pollution, recycled materials at work or participated in local environmental issues than the total sample but Arabic-speakers were significantly less likely to compost than other groups included in the sample.

Friendly people was the most important feature of a good place to live, cited by 40% of Arabic-speakers, a much higher level than the total sample. Like the other groups in the sample, security, low crime and safety were also important to Arabic-speakers.

More Arabic-speakers considered most sources of information about the environment very reliable than the total sample but they were significantly more likely to classify local councils, environment and conservation groups and religious leaders this way. They were less likely, however, to perceive their children as reliable conduits for this type of information.

Arabic-speakers preferred electronic media (radio and television) to newspapers, and only 15% of the sample indicated an Arabic-language newspaper as the main newspaper read. El Telegraph had the largest readership.

Almost one in five Arabic-speakers watch Pay TV most often. It is likely that a sizeable proportion of these viewers tuned in TARBS and an Optus Vision channel called ART, both with a sizeable Arabic-language program offering. The audience of SBS was small in comparison.

Over a third of all Arabic-speakers in the sample nominated an Arabic-language radio station as the main station listened to, with 2ME having the highest audience.

Arabic-speakers were also more likely to nominate television as the preferred source of information about environmental issues.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 67 4. Community Profiles – Arabic

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 145,620 representing 13% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Australia 44% Lebanon 33% Egypt 6% Iraq 4% Syria 2% Sudan 2%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 98% Outside Sydney SD 2%

Gender profile Male 52% Female 48%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Bankstown 26,719 16% (more than 5,000 persons) Canterbury 18,819 15% Parramatta 14,420 10% Liverpool 9,785 6% Holroyd 9,145 11% Fairfield 8,794 5% Blacktown 7,339 3% Rockdale 7,319 8%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 23,034 16%

Migration history The migration of Arabic speakers to Australia dates from the 1880s when small numbers of Lebanese began arriving. The second wave followed World War II, with sustained intake from Lebanon increasing rapidly in the mid 1960s and mid 1970s. The Lebanese civil war caused a further wave of migration in the mid 1980s and early 1990s. The Gulf War then caused a wave of migration from Iraq while Lebanese migration declined. Middle Eastern and North African migration since this time have resulted in continuing arrival of Arabic-speakers to Australia and, in particular, NSW.

Arabic Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 3 (13%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 70% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 58% 42% A fair amount 36% 40% Not very much/not at all 6% 17% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 36% 31% Health effects of pollution 22% 22% Quality of life 19% 23%

68 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Arabic

Arabic Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Single most important environmental issue

Pollution (general) 25% 14% Water conservation 21% 35% Water pollution 13% 6% There are no environmental issues 7% 3% Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 73% 77% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 72% 64% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 65% 59% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 61% 67% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 50% 54% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 44% 47% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 39% 41% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 34% 37% Avoided products with lots of packaging 31% 34% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 26% 33% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 26% 19% Composted food and/or garden refuse 13% 26% Participated in local development or environmental issues 12% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Environment and conservation groups 69% 56% Local councils 52% 37% Government departments or agencies 46% 35% Religious leaders 42% 26% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 39% 30% Bilingual educators 34% 32% Your children 33% 45% Business/industry 21% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 64% 59% Flat with balcony 13% 15% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 12% 18% Flat with no balcony 5% 5% Rural block of land 3% 3% Features of a good place to live

Friendly people 40% 24% Secure/low crime/safety 35% 33% Close to shops and schools 15% 21% Clean air 12% 14% Close to transport 8% 14% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 6% 9% Parks for kids to play 6% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 69 4. Community Profiles – Arabic

Arabic Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 48% 56% Pay television 18% 6% Other LOTE television 13% 5% SBS 9% 16% ABC 7% 9% Do not watch television 4% 4% Other/don’t know 0% 4% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 36% 33% English commercial radio 27% 23% Other/don’t know 24% 18% Do not listen to radio 9% 19% ABC Radio 5% 8%

Main Arabic station nominated: 2ME Other stations nominated were: Muslim FM, Radio Lebanon, SBS Radio & Voice of Islam Newspaper read most often

Daily/Sunday Telegraph 22% 16% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 18% 20% Do not read newspapers 18% 9% Local English newspaper 15% 10% LOTE newspapers 15% 34% Other/don’t know 12% 10% The Australian/Financial Review 1% 1%

Main Arabic title nominated: El Telegraph Other titles nominated were: An Nahar, Future & Middle East Herald

70 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Chinese

Chinese

Chinese-speakers make up the largest language group in NSW. The majority of Chinese-speakers are first generation immigrants with only a small proportion (16%) born in Australia. However, there are some differences between the profile of Chinese speakers in this study compared to the general NSW Chinese population and compared to the total study sample (see Appendix A). In this sample there were more females (66% compared to 52% in NSW). As children under 18 were not interviewed, a smaller proportion of the sample was born in Australia (4% compared to 16%) and this was low compared to a number of other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%). The Chinese speakers were also significantly more likely to be university educated than most other groups (51% compared to average of 30%).

Chinese-speakers were similar to the total sample in terms of the importance of the environment to their lives but they were more concerned overall about environmental problems, and this concern has increased since 1996 (89%, compared with 81%). The most frequently mentioned reason for their concern was quality of life, significantly higher than the total sample, while they nominated concern for future generations much less often than the total sample. However, fewer Chinese-speakers than the total sample rated the environment as important compared to other issues for government attention. Chinese-speakers were also significantly less likely than other groups to consider religion to be important in their lives.

Although water conservation was the most frequently mentioned environmental issue, this was at a significantly lower level than for the whole group. The most important issue for Chinese-speakers in 1996, air pollution, is now second in importance. Chinese-speakers were more likely to respond that they did not know of an important environmental issue, but this has dropped from 34% in 1996 to 21% in 2004.

In environmental knowledge questions, more Chinese-speakers than any other group knew that the greenhouse effect is not caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere. They were also much more likely than the average to know that native birds and animals can survive in cities and towns without feeding by people. However, they were less likely to know that over 90% of NSW’s electricity comes from burning coal.

Chinese-speakers were slightly more likely to say they have often reduced energy consumption and reused something and were significantly more likely to purchase energy efficient appliances or light globes. Chinese-speakers were less likely to compost, avoid stormwater pollution, avoid products with lots of packaging, and to choose household products that are better for the environment.

Chinese-speakers were more likely not to be able to nominate any personally damaging behaviours they engaged in, with 32% responding that they did not know of any such environmentally damaging behaviours.

For Chinese-speakers security, low crime and safety featured strongly as the most important characteristic of a good place to live, with more than two-thirds nominating this, compared to one third of the total sample. Chinese-speakers were less likely to nominate friendly people or close to shops and transport than the total sample.

Chinese-speakers were more likely to nominate local councils and government departments or agencies as the most reliable sources of information about the environment, but were less likely to cite their children, religious leaders or bilingual educators.

Chinese-speakers were more likely to access television and newspapers than radio as their main media source. The most popular newspaper was the Australian Chinese Daily. Chinese-speakers were also more likely to nominate newspapers as their preferred information source about environmental issues.

For both television and radio, commercial stations were accessed more often than LOTE services. Chinese-speakers showed no significant difference in television station preference when compared to the rest of the sample, however they were less likely to listen to LOTE radio than the rest of the sample with only 16% of participants accessing this media.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 71 4. Community Profiles – Chinese

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 201,667 representing 17% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth China 37% Hong Kong 17% Australia 16% Vietnam 7% Malaysia 5% Cambodia 1%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 96% Outside Sydney SD 4%

Gender profile Male 48% Female 52%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Fairfield 18,408 10% (more than 5,000 persons) Canterbury 14,334 11% Parramatta 11,675 8% Hornsby 10,179 7% Hurstville 10,001 14% Auburn 9,598 17% Ryde 9,369 10% Randwick 8,694 7%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 108,318 27%

Migration history Chinese migration to Australia was significant in the 19th Century and almost totally curtailed during the period of the “White Australia” policy, in the mid 20th Century. More recent Chinese immigration included settlers from countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as from Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. A total of 42,299 Chinese-speakers arrived during the 1996-2001 period, representing 21% of all Chinese-speakers in NSW.

Chinese Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 4 (8%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 73% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 37% 42% A fair amount 52% 40% Not very much/not at all 10% 17% Don’t know 1% 2% Reasons for concern

Quality of life 37% 23% Health effects of pollution 22% 22% Concern for future generations 18% 31%

72 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Chinese

Chinese Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Single most important environmental issue

Don’t know 21% 10% Water conservation 20% 35% Air pollution (motor vehicle emissions) 13% 5% Litter and dumping of rubbish 7% 5%

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 75% 67% Made an effort to reduce water consumption 65% 77% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 60% 47% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 59% 54% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 55% 59% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 37% 64% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 25% 37% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 24% 33% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 17% 41% Avoided products with lots of packaging 17% 34% Composted food and/or garden refuse 11% 26% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 9% 19% Participated in local development or environmental issues 1% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Environment and conservation groups 65% 56% Government departments or agencies 63% 35% Local councils 51% 37% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 30% 30% Your children 22% 45% Bilingual educators 17% 32% Religious leaders 14% 26% Business/industry 10% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 43% 59% Flat with balcony 33% 15% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 17% 18% Flat with no balcony 5% 5% Rural block of land 1% 3% Features of a good place to live

Secure/low crime/safety 69% 33% Close to transport 21% 14% Clean air 17% 14% Close to shops and schools 13% 21% Friendly people 12% 24% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 10% 9% Parks for kids to play 0% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 73 4. Community Profiles – Chinese

Chinese Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 59% 56% SBS 16% 16% ABC 9% 9% Other/don’t know 8% 4% Other LOTE television 5% 5% Do not watch television 2% 4% Pay television 0% 6% Radio station listened to most often

English commercial radio 34% 23% Do not listen to radio 27% 19% Other/don’t know 18% 18% LOTE radio 16% 33% ABC Radio 6% 8%

Main LOTE station nominated: SBS Radio Other stations nominated were: 2CR, 2AC Newspapers read most often

LOTE newspapers 60% 34% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 18% 20% Other/don’t know 9% 10% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 8% 16% Do not read newspapers 3% 9% Local English newspaper 2% 10% The Australian/Financial Review 1% 1%

Main Chinese title nominated: Australian Chinese Daily Other titles nominated were: Sing Tao, Chinese Post, Chinese Herald, Epoch Times, and Australian Chinese News Weekly

74 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Greek

Greek

Greek-speakers make up the fourth largest language group behind Chinese, Arabic and Italian-speakers. There is a sizeable second and subsequent generation with 40% born in Australia. Recent arrivals are few and the community is over-represented in older age groups. Canterbury local government area has the largest population of Greek-speakers with 16% of those in NSW.

There are some differences between the profile of Greek speakers in this study compared to the general Greek population in NSW and compared to the total study sample (see Appendix A). As children under 18 were not interviewed, a smaller proportion of this sample were born in Australia (19% compared to 40% in NSW), but the proportion born in Australia was high compared to some other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%). The Greek-speakers were significantly older than most other groups (67% in the 55+ bracket compared to average of 33%), reflecting the major wave of Greek migration in the 1950s while, 67% did not complete high school compared to an average of 30% across all groups.

Greek-speakers were similar to the total sample in their rating of environmental issues compared with other issues, and in their overall level of concern. There were two almost equally mentioned reasons for their concern about environmental problems. For just over a quarter their concern is for future generations and for another quarter it is the health effects of pollution. However, more Greek participants rated the environment as very important to their lives than the total sample (80% compared to 71%). Greek-speakers were also more likely to consider politics to be important in their life than the total sample.

Water conservation was the top environmental issue in 2004 for Greek-speakers, followed by pollution, and they were more likely to cite these issues than the total sample. Their top issue in 1996, air pollution, is now the fourth ranked issue, well below water conservation (7% compared to 44%).

In environmental knowledge, more Greek-speakers than any other group knew that much more water in NSW is used in agriculture than by domestic and manufacturing uses combined and that over 90% of NSW’s electricity comes from burning coal. However, they were much less likely than the average to know that the greenhouse effect is not caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere and the least likely of all the language groups to know that products made out of recycled materials are not usually of lower quality and that native birds and animals can survive in cities without people feeding them.

More Greek-speakers often engaged in many of the environmentally friendly behaviours considered in the survey than the total sample but they said they avoided products with lots of packaging at significantly higher levels. In nominating personal environmentally damaging behaviour, significantly more Greek-speakers said they were careless with their rubbish and identified using chemicals and herbicides than the total sample.

For Greek-speakers friendly people is the most important feature of a good place to live, nominated by 39%. Greek- speakers were less likely to nominate security, low crime and safety as a positive feature of their local area compared to the total sample.

Greek-speakers were more likely to nominate their children as very reliable sources of information about environmental issues than the total sample. The second nominated source was environmental/conservation groups (their most reliable source in 1996). They were less likely to nominate local councils and, in particular, government departments or agencies nominated by only 17%, compared to 35% of the total sample.

Use of newspapers and radio was higher among Greek-speakers than of television. In particular, Greek-speakers were less likely to watch commercial television than the total sample. There was a slightly higher proportion of Greek- speakers who watched SBS than the total sample.

Greek-speakers were more likely to listen to LOTE radio and read LOTE newspapers than English language radio or newspapers. They were also more likely to access LOTE radio and LOTE newspapers than the total sample. The most popular radio station mentioned was SBS Radio and Ellinikos Kirikas and Nea Patrida were the most popular newspapers.

Greek-speakers were more likely to nominate television as the preferred source of information about the environment.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 75 4. Community Profiles – Greek

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 90,180 representing 8% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Australia 40% Greece 29% Cyprus 4% Egypt 2%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 72% Outside Sydney SD 28%

Gender profile Male 50% Female 50%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Canterbury 14,399 11% (more than 5,000 persons) Rockdale 8,533 15% Bankstown 6,772 4% Randwick 5,654 5% Marrickville 5,252 7%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 14,980 17%

Migration history Greek migration was mostly post WWII and, as a trend, has virtually ceased. Recent arrivals are small and the community is aging rapidly.

Greek Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 4 (13%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 80% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 46% 42% A fair amount 34% 40% Not very much/not at all 15% 17% Don’t know 5% 2% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 27% 31% Health effects of pollution 26% 22% Maintaining eco-systems – nature, plants, animals 14% 8% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 44% 35% Pollution (general) 23% 14% Water pollution 8% 6% Air pollution (general) 7% 5%

76 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Greek

Greek Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally responsible behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 81% 77% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 70% 64% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 61% 67% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 58% 54% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 54% 59% Avoided products with lots of packaging 50% 34% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 48% 37% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 43% 41% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 41% 47% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 34% 33% Composted food and/or garden refuse 26% 26% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 21% 19% Participated in local development or environmental issues 8% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Your children 56% 45% Environment and conservation groups 50% 56% Bilingual educators 43% 32% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 36% 30% Local councils 27% 37% Religious leaders 23% 26% Government departments or agencies 17% 35% Business/industry 13% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 43% 59% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 37% 18% Flat with balcony 13% 15% Rural block of land 4% 3% Flat with no balcony 3% 5% Features of a good place to live

Friendly people 39% 24% Close to shops and schools 18% 21% Secure/low crime/safety 16% 33% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 16% 9% Clean air 11% 14% Close to transport 7% 14% Parks for kids to play 0% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 77 4. Community Profiles – Greek

Greek Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 44% 56% SBS 22% 16% Pay television 11% 6% ABC 8% 9% Other/don’t know 8% 4% Other LOTE television 3% 5% Do not watch television 3% 4% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 40% 33% English commercial radio 25% 23% Other/don’t know 21% 18% Do not listen to radio 8% 19% ABC Radio 6% 8%

Main LOTE station nominated: SBS Radio Other stations nominated were: 2MM, Hellenic Radio and Galaxis Newspapers read most often

LOTE newspapers 45% 34% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 20% 16% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 13% 20% Other/don’t know 11% 10% Do not read newspapers 9% 9% The Australian/Financial Review 1% 1% Local English newspaper 1% 10%

Main Greek title nominated: Ellinikos Kirikas/Nea Patrida Other titles nominated were: O Kosmos, Greek National Vema, Ellinis and Greek Herald

78 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Italian

Italian

Italian-speakers make up the third largest language group in NSW, and a sizeable number of these are second and subsequent generations, with 40% born in Australia. However, there are some differences between the profile of Italian speakers in this study compared to the general Italian population in NSW and compared to the total study sample (see Appendix A). As children under 18 were not interviewed a smaller proportion were born in Australia (22% compared to 40% in NSW), but the proportion born in Australia was high compared to some other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%). The Italian-speakers were significantly older than most other groups (67% in the 55+ bracket compared to average of 33%), reflecting the major wave of Italian migration in the 1950s, while 69% did not complete high school compared to an average of 30% across all groups.

While Italian-speakers were similar to the total sample in their ranking of the environment compared to other issues for government attention, their overall level of concern about environmental problems was lower. In particular, significantly fewer Italian-speakers were concerned a great deal about environmental issues. Their reasons for concern reflected the total sample with over a third nominating concern for future generations and a fifth quality of life. Health effects of pollution was a less common reason than for the total sample.

Italian-speakers were also significantly less likely to rate the environment as very important to their lives (44%, compared to 71% of the total sample).

Water conservation was the most important environmental issue for Italian-speakers nominated slightly more often than by the total sample, followed at a much lower level by pollution. In 1996 their most important issue was air pollution. They were also more likely to not to be able to nominate any issues, but this has fallen substantially (from 34% in 1996 to 15% in 2004).

In environmental knowledge, Italian speakers were more likely to know that products made out of recycled materials are not usually of lower quality and that much more water in NSW is used in agriculture than by domestic and manufacturing uses combined. They were a little more likely to know that leaves and grass clippings pollute stormwater and were close to the average across the language groups on other questions.

Across the range of environmental behaviours considered, Italian-speakers have adopted some at much higher rates than other groups and others at much lower rates. They were more likely than the total sample to say they had often reused items, avoided using plastic bags and composted but they were less likely to have adopted energy efficient behaviour, such as reducing energy consumption or reducing fuel consumption and vehicle emissions, to have avoided stormwater pollution and recycled materials at work.

When discussing environmentally damaging behaviours, Italian-speakers mentioned failure to recycle, using chemicals and pesticides and letting oil, fat and other things down the sink most often.

Italian-speakers, like the Greek sample, were more likely to nominate friendly people as the most important feature of a good place to live, and were much less likely than the total group to focus on low crime, security and safety as important.

Italian-speakers nominated a narrower range of reliable sources of environmental information than other groups. In particular, Italian-speaking participants less often cited environmental groups, local councils, government, migrant resource centres and bilingual educators as reliable. More Italian-speakers considered family, friends and neighbours, their children and religious leaders as reliable than all other sources. Italian-speakers were also less likely to nominate most sources as very reliable when compared to the total sample.

Media use by Italian-speakers did not vary significantly from the total sample. Overall, responses indicated a preference for television and radio media over newspapers, except in the readership of the Daily Telegraph, which was slightly higher than the total sample. Readership of LOTE newspapers was lower than by the total sample.

Rete Italia was the most popular LOTE radio station for Italian-speakers and La Fiamma the most popular LOTE newspaper. They nominated television as the most preferred source of information about environmental issues.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 79 4. Community Profiles – Italian

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 96,791 representing 8% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Italy 51% Australia 40% Egypt 2%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 82% Outside Sydney SD 18%

Gender profile Male 50% Female 50%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Fairfield 8,784 5% (Top five LGA’s) Liverpool 5,834 4% Canterbury 4,721 4% Drummoyne 4,297 13% Bankstown 3,637 2%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 14,514 15%

Migration history Italian migration was mainly in the decades immediately after post WWII and, as a trend, has virtually ceased. The number of recent arrivals is very small and the Italian-born community is aging rapidly.

Italian Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 3 (18%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 44% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 28% 42% A fair amount 41% 40% Not very much/not at all 27% 17% Don’t know 4% 2% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 36% 31% Quality of life 21% 23% Health effects of pollution 11% 22% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 39% 35% Don’t know 15% 10% Pollution (general) 13% 14% Water pollution 4% 6% Industry emissions 4% 2%

80 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Italian

Italian Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 75% 77% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 61% 54% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 55% 67% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 48% 64% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 43% 33% Composted food and/or garden refuse 43% 26% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 40% 41% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 40% 59% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 39% 47% Avoided products with lots of packaging 37% 34% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 22% 37% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 12% 19% Participated in local development or environmental issues 8% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Your children 45% 45% Environment and conservation groups 23% 56% Religious leaders 20% 26% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 16% 30% Local councils 12% 37% Business/industry 11% 11% Government departments or agencies 10% 35% Bilingual educators 9% 32% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 66% 59% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 18% 18% Rural block of land 11% 3% Flat with balcony 5% 15% Flat with no balcony 0% 5% Features of a good place to live

Friendly people 30% 24% Secure/low crime/safety 15% 33% Clean air 12% 14% Close to shops and schools 10% 21% Parks for kids to play 10% 7% Close to transport 8% 14% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 4% 9%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 81 4. Community Profiles – Italian

Italian Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 54% 56% SBS 18% 16% ABC 9% 9% Pay television 7% 6% Other/don’t know 7% 4% Do not watch television 4% 4% Other LOTE television 2% 5% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 32% 33% Other/don’t know 25% 18% English commercial radio 23% 23% Do not listen to radio 12% 19% ABC Radio 8% 8%

Main Italian station nominated: Rete Italia Other stations nominated were: Movimento FM – Radio 2000, SBS Radio Newspapers read most often

LOTE newspapers 27% 34% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 22% 16% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 17% 20% Local English newspaper 13% 10% Other/don’t know 10% 10% Do not read newspapers 10% 9% The Australian/Financial Review 1% 1%

Main Italian title nominated: La Fiamma Other title nominated: Il Globo

82 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Korean

Korean

Korean-speakers make up the ninth largest language group in NSW. A high proportion the Korean-language community in NSW are first generation immigrants, with only about one in ten Korean-speakers born in Australia. However, there are some differences between the profile of the Korean speakers in this sample compared to the general Korean population in NSW and compared to the total study sample (see Appendix A). In this sample there were more females (68% compared to 52% in NSW). A smaller proportion of the sample was born in Australia (1% compared to 11%) because children under 18 were not interviewed, and this was low compared to a number of other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%). The Korean speakers were significantly more likely to be university educated than all language groups in the study (68% compared to average of 30% across all groups).

Korean-speakers were much more likely to rate the environment as very important to their lives than the total sample but their concern about environmental problems was lower. Fewer Korean-speakers than the total sample were concerned a great deal about the environment and more were little or not concerned. For almost four in ten their concern was for future generations and for a quarter of Korean-speakers, it was quality of life.

In ranking environmental issues compared to other issues for government attention, Korean-speakers’ responses were similar to the total sample. However Korean-speakers were much less likely cite water conservation as the single most important issue and slightly more likely to be unable to nominate any environmental issues.

In knowledge questions, Korean-speakers were much more likely than the average to know that most backyard spiders are not dangerous to people but were close to the average in their rate of correct responses on most other questions.

Korean-speakers say they often engage in a range of environmentally friendly behaviours at a higher rate than the general sample, particularly composting, but they also were also more likely to avoid using plastic bags, reduce energy consumption, purchase energy efficient appliances or light globes and recycle materials at work.

For Korean-speakers aspects relating to security, low crime and safety and clean air were equally important as features of a good place to live, each nominated by a quarter of Korean-speakers. They considered friendly people much less important than other groups.

Korean-speakers were significantly more likely than the total sample to classify all information sources as very reliable, with the exception of business/industry (where there was no difference to the rest of the sample). Korean-speakers nominated environment and conservation groups the most often (80% compared to 56% of the total sample).

Overall, Korean-speakers were more likely to access commercial or English media than LOTE media. In particular, Korean-speakers were more likely to watch commercial television and the ABC. Korean-speakers were less likely to watch SBS, other LOTE television or Pay television. Korean-speakers were similar to the total sample in nominating television as the preferred source of information about the environment.

The most popular Korean radio station nominated was Korean Radio, however only 10% of Korean-speakers reported LOTE radio as a station they listened to most frequently.

The most popular Korean newspaper was Hoju Dong A, however less than a quarter of all Korean-speakers in the sample nominated a LOTE newspaper title. More than a third of Korean-speakers nominated the Sydney Morning/Sun Herald as the newspaper that they read the most often. This is significantly different from the total sample.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 83 4. Community Profiles – Korean

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 30,099 representing 3% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Korea 85% Australia 11%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 98% Outside Sydney SD 2%

Gender profile Male 48% Female 52%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Canterbury 3,626 3% (Top five LGA’s) Parramatta 2,766 2% Ryde 2,291 2% Hornsby 2,261 2% Strathfield 1,940 7%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 10,999 37%

Migration history Korean migration began in the early 1970s under the skilled migration program and numbers of Korean immigrants increased substantially over the 1980s and 1990s.

Korean Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 3 (13%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 86% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 31% 42% A fair amount 40% 40% Not very much/not at all 29% 17% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 39% 31% Quality of life 25% 23% Health effects of pollution 13% 22% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 15% 35% Don’t know 15% 10% Air pollution (motor vehicle emissions) 10% 5% Litter and dumping of rubbish 9% 5%

84 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Korean

Korean Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 76% 77% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 74% 67% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 68% 59% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 59% 47% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 58% 64% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 56% 54% Composted food and/or garden refuse 49% 26% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 44% 33% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 40% 41% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 34% 37% Avoided products with lots of packaging 32% 34% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 24% 19% Participated in local development or environmental issues 9% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Environment and conservation groups 80% 56% Local councils 67% 37% Your children 66% 45% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 61% 30% Religious leaders 58% 26% Bilingual educators 57% 32% Government departments or agencies 55% 35% Business/industry 25% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 57% 59% Flat with balcony 29% 15% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 7% 18% Flat with no balcony 6% 5% Rural block of land 1% 3% Features of a good place to live

Secure/low crime/safety 25% 33% Clean air 25% 14% Close to transport 18% 14% Close to shops and schools 12% 21% Friendly people 10% 24% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 10% 9% Parks for kids to play 0% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 85 4. Community Profiles – Korean

Korean Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Televsion stations viewed most often

Commercial 60% 56% ABC 16% 9% SBS 9% 16% Do not watch television 6% 4% Other/don’t know 6% 4% Pay television 3% 6% Other LOTE television 0% 5% Radio station listened to most often

Do not listen to radio 41% 19% English commercial radio 19% 23% Other/don’t know 17% 18% ABC Radio 13% 8% LOTE radio 10% 33%

Main Korean station nominated: Korean radio Other stations nominated were: SBS Radio Newspaper read most often

Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 36% 20% LOTE newspapers 24% 34% Local English newspaper 13% 10% Other/don’t know 9% 10% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 8% 16% Do not read newspapers 8% 9% The Australian/Financial Review 2% 2%

Main Korean title nominated: Hoju Dong A Other title nominated was: Weekly Korean Life Review

86 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Macedonian

Macedonian

Macedonian-speakers make up the eighth largest language group in the NSW area with almost 40% born in Australia. Macedonian-speakers in NSW live predominantly in Rockdale and Bankstown local government areas.

In the sample of Macedonian-speakers for this study a smaller proportion were born in Australia than the general Macedonian population in NSW (22% compared to 37%) because children under 18 were not interviewed, but the proportion born in Australia was high compared to some other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%). Macedonian-speakers had the highest numbers in paid work (70% compared to average of 48% across all groups).

Macedonian-speakers were similar to the total sample in their rating of the environment compared to other issues for government attention and also in their overall level of concern about environmental issues. Their concern focused strongly on future generations, with almost half nominating this reason. They were less likely to be concerned about the health effects of pollution than the general sample. However, Macedonian-speakers were less likely to consider the environment as very important to their lives (59%) when compared to the total sample (71%).

Macedonian-speakers nominated similar environmental issues to the total sample, with water conservation, pollution (general) and air pollution seen as the most important environmental issues.

On questions of environmental knowledge, more Macedonian-speakers knew that leaves and grass clippings pollute stormwater than any other language group. However, they were less likely to know that native birds and animals can survive in the city without people feeding them and that products made out of recycled materials are not usually of lower quality. Less Macedonian-speakers knew that most backyard spiders are not dangerous to people than any other group.

Macedonian-speakers were significantly more likely than the total sample to say they have taken active steps to reduce stormwater pollution (85% compared to 64% of the total sample). Macedonian-speakers were also more likely to be unable to nominate any personal environmentally damaging behaviour.

For Macedonian-speakers aspects relating to proximity to shops and schools and leafy, green, tree-lined streets were the most mentioned features of a good place to live, both significantly higher than the total sample. They mentioned security, low crime and safety issues less often than other groups.

Macedonian-speakers were less likely to classify any sources of information about the environment as very reliable with the exception of their own children. In particular, Macedonian-speakers were significantly less likely than the rest of the sample to classify local councils, government departments, environment groups, migrant resource centres and bilingual educators as very reliable sources of information.

Macedonian-speakers had fairly high levels of media use across television, radio and newspaper forms. More than 60% watch commercial television and there was a slightly higher number of Macedonian-speakers that regularly viewed SBS when compared to the total sample.

More than four in ten Macedonian-speakers listened to LOTE radio, compared to 33% of the total sample. Macedonian Radio was the most popular station. More than a quarter of Macedonian-speakers also listen to commercial radio regularly and this is slightly higher than the total sample.

The Australian Macedonian Weekly was the most popular newspaper identified. Just over a quarter of Macedonian- speakers accessed LOTE newspapers regularly. This was slightly lower than the total sample for LOTE newspaper readership. Macedonian-speakers also had a fairly high readership level of English language newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 87 4. Community Profiles – Macedonian

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 30,641 representing 3% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) 57% Australia 37%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 65% Outside Sydney SD 35%

Gender profile Male 51% Female 49%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Areas # persons % of LGA with largest population Rockdale 5,498 6% (Top 5 LGA’s) Bankstown 3,138 2% Fairfield 1,885 1% Hurstville 1,830 3% Liverpool 1,650 1%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 5,915 19%

Migration history In response to rising unemployment in the 1960s, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) permitted its citizens to seek employment abroad. This resulted in the migration of almost 100,000 Yugoslavs to Australia between 1961 and 1976. Many of the Yugoslavs were Macedonian-speakers from the Bitola and Ohrid regions.

Macedonian Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 4 (16%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 59% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 47% 42% A fair amount 37% 40% Not very much/not at all 16% 17% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 46% 31% Health effects of pollution 26% 22% Quality of life 12% 23% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 35% 35% Pollution (general) 18% 14% Air pollution 7% 5% Don’t know 7% 10%

88 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Macedonian

Macedonian Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 85% 64% Made an effort to reduce water consumption 83% 77% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 75% 67% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 59% 59% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 56% 54% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 43% 37% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 52% 41% Avoided products with lots of packaging 35% 34% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 31% 33% Composted food and/or garden refuse 29% 26% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 29% 47% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 16% 19% Participated in local development or environmental issues 9% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Your children 42% 45% Environment and conservation groups 31% 56% Local councils 21% 37% Government departments or agencies 12% 35% Religious leaders 10% 26% Bilingual educators 9% 32% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 7% 30% Business/industry 4% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 70% 59% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 20% 18% Flat with balcony 9% 15% Rural block of land 1% 3% Flat with no balcony 0% 3% Features of a good place to live

Close to shops and schools 36% 21% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 25% 9% Friendly people 23% 24% Secure/low crime/safety 21% 33% Clean air 21% 14% Close to transport 17% 14% Parks for kids to play 12% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 89 4. Community Profiles – Macedonian

Macedonian Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 61% 56% SBS 20% 16% ABC 7% 9% Pay television 6% 6% Other LOTE television 2% 5% Do not watch television 2% 4% Other/don’t know 1% 4% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 42% 33% English commercial radio 27% 23% Other/don’t know 16% 18% Do not listen to radio 12% 19% ABC Radio 3% 8%

Main Macedonian station nominated: Macedonian Radio Other stations nominated were: SBS Radio, 2 VOX, Radio Sydney Macedonia Newspapers read most often

LOTE newspapers 27% 34% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 20% 16% Other/don’t know 18% 10% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 14% 20% Local English newspaper 11% 10% Do not read newspapers 10% 9% The Australian/Financial Review 0% 1%

Main Macedonian title nominated: Australian Macedonian Weekly Other title nominated was: Tody Denes

90 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Spanish

Spanish

Spanish-speakers make up the sixth largest language group in NSW. Spanish-speakers come from a variety of Southern and Central American countries including Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, as well as Spain. However, there are some differences between the profile of the Spanish-speakers in this sample compared to the general Spanish population in NSW and compared to the total study sample (see Appendix A). In this sample a smaller proportion of the sample was born in Australia than the general Spanish population (1% compared to 22% in NSW) because children under 18 were not interviewed, and this was low compared to a number of other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%).

Spanish-speakers had the highest level of concern about the environment with two-thirds very concerned about environmental problems compared to 42% of the total sample. The strongest reason for concern was quality of life, mentioned by 40%, almost double the rate for the total sample. They also mentioned health effects of pollution more frequently but cited concern for future generations less frequently.

In addition, 81% of Spanish-speakers rated the environment as very important to their lives and were the only language group to rate the environment more highly than other issues with 37% nominating the environment (including water conservation) as one of the two most important issues for government, compared with 19% of the total sample.

Spanish-speakers were also the most likely group to be concerned about water conservation with 64% nominating it as the single biggest environmental issue, compared to 34% of the total sample. By contrast their top issue in 1996, by a significant margin, was air pollution. Spanish-speakers were also the only language group where all respondents could nominate at least one environmental issue of concern. Spanish-speakers were slightly less likely to nominate pollution (general) than the total sample.

On environmental knowledge questions, more Spanish-speakers than any other group knew that native birds and animals can survive in the city without people feeding them, that most backyard spiders are not dangerous to people than and that products made out of recycled materials are not usually of lower quality. On the other hand, less Spanish-speakers than any other group knew that the greenhouse effect is not caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere and that more water is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing uses combined.

Spanish-speakers reported often avoiding stormwater pollution, recycling materials at work choosing more environmentally friendly products and avoiding packaging at significantly higher rates than other groups, and also engaged more in reducing water and fuel consumption, and avoiding plastic bags. In discussing personal environmentally damaging behaviours, Spanish-speakers were more likely to mention using chemicals and herbicides and not using public transport than the total sample.

For Spanish-speakers, proximity to shops and schools and parks for their children to play in are the most important characteristics of a good place to live, mentioned significantly more often than by the total sample. Spanish-speakers are much less concerned about security, low crime and safety as factors in determining a good place to live.

Spanish-speakers were significantly more likely to mention environmental groups, their children and bilingual eductors as very reliable sources of information on the environment. They nominated government departments much less often than other groups and were also less likely to classify, local councils, religious leaders, business/industry and migrant resource centres as reliable.

Spanish-speakers access a variety of media forms regularly, including both LOTE and English forms. There are a significantly higher number who watch SBS compared to the total sample. Commercial television is watched slightly less frequently than the total sample.

While Spanish-speakers listen to less commercial radio overall when compared to the total sample, there is a higher number of Spanish-speakers who listen to ABC radio than the total sample. SBS radio was nominated as the most popular LOTE radio station with 28% listening to LOTE radio on a regular basis. The most popular LOTE newspaper was the Spanish Herald, however only 18% read LOTE newspapers, significantly lower than the rest of the sample. Spanish-speakers have a fairly high level of readership of English newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph.

Over three quarters of Spanish-speakers nominated television as their preferred source of information about environmental issues.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 91 4. Community Profiles – Spanish

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 49,315 representing 4% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Australia 22% Chile 22% Uruguay 12% Argentina 9% Spain 8% Peru 7% Colombia 4%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 90% Outside Sydney SD 10%

Gender profile Male 48% Female 52%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Fairfield 8,866 5% Liverpool 4,950 3% Blacktown 3,046 1% Campbelltown 2,587 2% Rockdale 1,719 2%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 7,775 16%

Migration history Spanish-born tended to make up the first-wave of Spanish-speakers migrating to Australia, and account for 8% of all Spanish-speakers in NSW. Those from Latin America tend to be more recent arrivals than those born in Spain, and make up more than 60% of all Spanish speakers in NSW: Chile (22%), Uruguay (12%), Argentina (9%), Peru (7%), Colombia, (4%), El Salvador (4%), Ecuador (2%).

Spanish Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other issues Rank 1 (37%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment includes water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 81% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 66% 42% A fair amount 33% 40% Not very much/not at all 1% 17% Reasons for concern

Quality of life 40% 23% Health effects of pollution 31% 22% Concern for future generations 21% 31% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 64% 35% Litter and dumping of rubbish 7% 5% Pollution (general) 6% 14% Water pollution 5% 6%

92 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Spanish

Spanish Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 84% 77% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 79% 64% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 77% 59% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 63% 41% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 55% 67% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 51% 54% Avoided products with lots of packaging 48% 34% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 46% 37% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 44% 33% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 33% 47% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 22% 19% Composted food and/or garden refuse 14% 26% Participated in local development or environmental issues 3% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Your children 75% 45% Environment and conservation groups 71% 56% Bilingual educators 68% 32% Local councils 25% 37% Government departments or agencies 22% 35% Religious leaders 20% 26% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 19% 30% Business/industry 1% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 68% 59% Flat with no balcony 17% 5% Flat with balcony 7% 15% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 6% 18% Rural block of land 1% 3% Features of a good place to live

Close to shops and schools 34% 21% Parks for kids to play 26% 7% Friendly people 18% 24% Close to transport 18% 14% Secure/low crime/safety 17% 33% Clean air 5% 14% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 1% 9%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 93 4. Community Profiles – Spanish

Spanish Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 44% 56% SBS 30% 16% ABC 11% 9% Other LOTE television 7% 5% Pay television 6% 6% Do not watch television 1% 4% Other/don’t know 1% 4% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 28% 33% Do not listen to radio 26% 19% ABC Radio 17% 8% English commercial radio 15% 23% Other/don’t know 14% 18%

Main LOTE station nominated: SBS Radio Other stations nominated were: Radio Austral and Radio Rio Newspapers read most often

Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 31% 20% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 20% 16% LOTE newspapers 18% 34% Local English newspaper 16% 10% Other/don’t know 7% 10% The Australian/Financial Review 4% 2% Do not read newspapers 4% 9%

Main Spanish title nominated: Spanish Herald Other title nominated was: El Espanol

94 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Vietnamese

Vietnamese

Vietnamese-speakers make up the fifth largest language group in NSW and around a quarter of Vietnamese-speakers were born in Australia. Fairfield local government area has the largest population of Vietnamese-speakers with 41% of those in NSW.

In the sample of Vietnamese-speakers for this study there were more females than in the general Vietnamese population in NSW (65% compared to 51%). A smaller proportion of the sample was born in Australia than the general Vietnamese population (4% compared to 25% in NSW) because children under 18 were not interviewed, and this was low compared to a number of other language groups in the study (four groups were about 20% Australian born and four had less than 5%).

Vietnamese-speakers are similar to the total sample in their rating of the environment as very important to their lives and the environment was the second most mentioned issue for government attention compared to other state-wide issues, including social issues. However, 31% of Vietnamese speakers were not very or not at all concerned about environmental issues, which is significantly higher than the total sample, 21% were concerned a great deal, half the level of the total sample. In 1996, 93% of Vietnamese-speakers rated the environment in Australia better than their home country, an indication of the standard against which environmental problems in Australia may be measured by Vietnamese-speakers.

Vietnamese-speakers gave similar responses to the total sample when discussing important environmental issues, nominating water conservation and pollution as the most important. In 1996 air pollution, followed by transport and storage of dangerous chemicals were the top issues. The number of Vietnamese-speakers who could not nominate an environmental issue has dropped from 39% in 1996 to 10% in 2004.

On questions of environmental knowledge, Vietnamese-speakers were more likely than the sample average to know that the greenhouse effect is not caused by a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere and that leaves and grass clippings pollute stormwater. Less Vietnamese-speakers than any other group knew that over 90% of NSW electricity comes from burning coal.

Over one third of Vietnamese-speakers (35%) could not nominate any personal environmentally damaging behaviours, compared to 26% of the total sample. Of those who could, Vietnamese-speakers were more likely to say that they littered than the total population.

When defining the features of a good place to live, the most popular response for Vietnamese-speakers was to live in a secure, safe area with low crime, nominated by 57% compared with 32% of the total sample. Vietnamese-speakers were less likely to nominate friendly people or clean air compared to the total sample.

Vietnamese-speakers nominated government departments or agencies very reliable sources of environmental information significantly more than the total sample. Environmental groups were also seen as a very reliable source. Vietnamese-speakers were less likely to classify their own children and bilingual educators as reliable sources of information than other respondents.

Vietnamese-speakers were more likely to watch commercial television than the total sample but there was also a higher incidence of Vietnamese-speakers who did not watch television at all. Vietnamese-speakers were less likely to watch SBS than the total sample.

Six in ten Vietnamese-speakers listened to LOTE radio regularly. This is significantly higher than the total sample (33%). The most popular LOTE radio station nominated by Vietnamese-speakers was 2VNR. There was a slightly lower incidence of commercial radio listeners among the Vietnamese sample when compared to the total sample.

The most popular LOTE newspaper was Chieu Duong with 52% responding that they read LOTE newspapers regularly. Newspapers were the most popular source of information about the environment nominated by 57%.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 95 4. Community Profiles – Vietnamese

Demographic Profile Size of language group in NSW 67,881 representing 6% of all non-English speakers in NSW.

Main countries of birth Vietnam 69% Australia 25%

Distribution in NSW Sydney Statistical District (SD) 97% Outside Sydney SD 3%

Gender profile Male 49% Female 51%

Local Government Areas in NSW Local Government Area # persons % of LGA with largest population Fairfield 28,050 16% (Top five LGA’s) Bankstown 11,811 7% Liverpool 5,574 4% Canterbury 5,068 4% Marrickville 3,714 5%

Spoken English competence in NSW Those who speak not well or not at all 26,456 39%

Migration history Vietnamese migration has grown substantially since 1975 following the end of the Vietnam War in April 1975. Current arrivals are still high, although mostly in the family-reunion category. English language competence is a serious issue in this community.

Vietnamese Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Ranking of environmental issues compared to other social issues Rank 2 (29%) Rank 3 (18%)

Note: Environment included water conservation Percentage who rated environment as very important to their life 72% 71% Level of concern about the environment

A great deal 21% 42% A fair amount 45% 40% Not very much/not at all 31% 17% Reasons for concern

Concern for future generations 22% 31% Health effects of pollution 19% 22% Quality of life 17% 23% Single most important environmental issue

Water conservation 36% 35% Pollution (general) 10% 14% Don’t know 10% 10% Air pollution (motor vehicle emissions) 8% 5%

96 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Heading4. Community Profiles – Vietnamese

Vietnamese Total NESB Environmental Profile Sample Sample

Environmentally friendly behaviours cited as engaged in often

Made an effort to reduce water consumption 81% 77% Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption 78% 67% Purchased energy efficient appliances or light globes 67% 47% Taken active steps to prevent stormwater pollution 65% 64% Recycled paper and/or other materials at work 55% 59% Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away 45% 54% Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle emissions 41% 37% Chosen household products that are better for the environment 32% 41% Composted food and/or garden refuse 27% 26% Avoided products with lots of packaging 27% 34% Tried to get information about protecting the environment 23% 19% Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home 17% 33% Participated in local development or environmental issues 3% 6% Sources of information on environment classified as very reliable

Environment and conservation groups 60% 56% Government departments or agencies 54% 35% Local councils 39% 37% Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 30% 30% Religious leaders 24% 26% Your children 22% 45% Bilingual educators 21% 32% Business/industry 2% 11% Outdoor spaces around the home

House with lawn and/or gardens 58% 59% Courtyard style garden/mainly paved exterior areas 28% 18% Flat with balcony 8% 15% Rural block of land 3% 3% Flat with no balcony 1% 5% Features of a good place to live

Secure/low crime/safety 57% 33% Close to shops and schools 23% 21% Close to transport 15% 14% Friendly people 14% 24% Clean air 5% 14% Leafy, green, tree-lined streets 1% 9% Parks for kids to play 0% 7%

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 97 4. Community Profiles – Vietnamese

Vietnamese Total NESB Media Profile Sample Sample

Television stations viewed most often

Commercial 76% 56% Do not watch television 12% 4% SBS 7% 16% ABC 4% 9% Other/don’t know 1% 4% Other LOTE television 0% 5% Pay television 0% 6% Radio station listened to most often

LOTE radio 61% 33% English commercial radio 17% 23% Do not listen to radio 15% 19% ABC Radio 4% 8% Other/don’t know 4% 18%

Main Vietnamese station nominated: 2VNR Other stations nominated were: Vietnam Sydney Radio (2SER 107.3) Newspapers read most often

LOTE newspapers 52% 34% Sydney Morning/Sun Herald 17% 20% Do not read newspapers 12% 9% Daily/Sunday Telegraph 9% 16% Local English newspaper 9% 10% Other/don’t know 2% 10% The Australian/Financial Review 0% 1%

Main Vietnamese title nominated: Chieu Duong Other titles nominated were: Viet Luan, Dan Viet Weekly, Saigon Times

98 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Appendix A: Research Methods

To obtain a comprehensive range of information as well as a high level of confidence in the individual result areas, the study involved five phases:

1. Nine focus groups (one in each language group, with separate groups for Cantonese and Mandarin) to discuss environmental issues and provide in-depth qualitative information to inform the survey design. All focus groups were facilitated by bilingual researchers in the language of choice of participants.

2. Reviewing previous related research (The Environment and NSW Ethnic Communities (1997) and the Who Cares about the Environment? Series).

3. Identifying questions deemed relevant for the new survey. These included:

◆ core questions from previous surveys ◆ new questions from the 2003 Who Cares about the Environment? ◆ new questions about emerging issues.

4. Pilot testing the new questionnaire.

5. Conducting a quantitative telephone survey of approximately 100 NSW people from each of the selected communities who spoke the target language at home.

The survey instrument was translated into eight community languages. Interviews were conducted in the language of choice of the respondent, with bilingual interviewers conducting all of the interviews. The interviews were mainly conducted in the community language of the respondent but 19% of interviews are conducted in English. The percentage in each language group conducted in the community language were: Arabic 56%, Chinese 94%, Greek 93%, Italian 59%, Korean, 99%, Macedonian 69%, Spanish 80% and Vietnamese 94%. Telephone interviews were conducted with 805 people over the age of 18 from across NSW. The NESB 1996 study also used telephone interviews but with adults over 18 years from metropolitan Sydney.

While the wording of some questions has been modified in some cases for more consistent translation, the wording and structure of the questionnaires from previous surveys has been retained as far as possible for core questions. This is to ensure comparability in the results, so that trend changes and differences can be identified between the studies.

The core questions which have been asked aim to provide the following:

■ measures of change over time since the NESB 1996 study ■ variations between the various non-English speaking background groups included in the study ■ comparisons with the Who Cares about the Environment? research (1997 and 2003) ■ a cohesive data set covering knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. The final questionnaire was piloted in 21 interviews to test the flow and comprehension of the questionnaire. Formal fieldwork commenced in June 2004 and all surveys were competed by July 2004.

The final interview length averaged 27 minutes. Although this is longer than is usually advisable in community survey research, few people stopped the interview part way through and feedback from interviewers showed that respondents maintained a high level of interest in the subject.

Sampling The sample was produced by generating a random list of telephone numbers from the electronic version of the White Pages, based on ethno-specific name stems in each of the language groups.

In order to qualify for an interview, respondents had to speak one of the nine nominated languages at home (including both Cantonese and Mandarin for Chinese-speakers). Respondents were selected from all household members aged 18-70. Only one person per dwelling was interviewed and no substitution between household members was permitted once the interview had commenced.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 99 Appendix A: Research Methods

Significant differences

Given the size of the total sample (805) and the size of the language sub-groups (approximately 100), the level of difference required in the results for that difference to be classed as significant, differs substantially between the total sample and these sub-groups.

For the overall sample of 805 respondents, the maximum margin of error at the 95% confidence level is the range of 3.5%. This implies that for a response figure of 50%, the true figure will be between 46.5% and 53.5% in 19 cases out of 20, assuming the sample is drawn in a representative fashion.

Quotas of 100 respondents were set for each of the language groups to ensure that separate analysis could be conducted for each of the language groups. A further quota was set for the Chinese language group to ensure that equal numbers of Cantonese and Mandarin-speaking respondents were included in the sample. The maximum margin of error for individual language groups at the 95% confidence level is the range of 9.8%. This means that there needs to be 19.6 percentage points difference between language groups in the NESB 2004 study for one language group to be significantly different from another in a given category.

Differences of more than 13.5 percentage points between one language group and the results for the total sample NESB 2004 study results are significant.

Differences of more than 7.5 percentage points between the NESB 1996 study and NESB 2004 study results are significant.

Differences of more than 6.1 percentage points between the Who Cares? 2003 study and NESB 2004 study results are significant.

Demographic groupings The demographic findings boxes in Section 3 (Main Findings) consider significant differences in four demographic categories:

■ Age and gender – people are classified as aged under 35, 35-54 or 55 and over, and as male or female.

■ Education – people were asked the highest level of schooling they had completed: ◆ no formal schooling, primary school, some secondary school ◆ secondary school ◆ trade or technical qualifications ◆ university or CAE diploma, degree or higher degree (tertiary). People were then classified as having not completed secondary school, completed secondary school or tertiary qualified.

■ English language proficiency – people were asked to rate their English language competence: ◆ cannot speak, read or write ◆ can speak well, but not read or write well ◆ can speak a bit, but cannot read or write ◆ can speak, read and write English well. People were then classified as fluent (can speak, read and write English well) or not fluent in English.

■ Recency of arrival – people were asked when they migrated to Australia: ◆ born in Australia ◆ arrived before 1980 ◆ arrived 1981-1990 ◆ arrived 1991-2004.

100 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Appendix A: Research Methods

TABLE 14 Demographic profile of the sample

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TOTAL n = 805 TOTAL n = 601 TOTAL 2004 Arabic n = 101 2004 Chinese n = 102 n = 100 2004 Greek 2004 Italian n = 100 n = 100 2004 Korean 2004 Macedonian n = 100 2004 Spanish n = 100 2004 Vietnamese n = 102 NESB 2004 NESB 1996 Who Cares? 2003 NESB n = 96 Total Who Cares? 2003 n = 1421 Total Percent (%) Male 43 34 45 42 32 54 49 35 42 49 56 50 Gender Female 57 66 55 58 68 46 51 65 58 51 44 50 18-34 47 29 11 10 32 30 16 26 25 27 61 39 Age 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 Country of Australia 20 4 19 22 1 22 1 4 12 9 birth In paid work 46 49 36 37 36 70 59 55 48 * 52 65 Student 10 18 1 2 16 2 1 6 7 * 32 10 Retired/age pensioner 7 11 45 44 6 17 26 7 20 * 8 11 Work status Other pensioner 2 0 7 4 0 3 1 2 2 * 2 2 Home duties 20 13 3 10 37 1 10 28 15 * 6 8 Unemployed/looking for work 14 7 2 1 1 5 2 3 4 * 0 3 Did not complete high school 24 6 67 69 1 29 9 30 30 45 5 21 Completed high school 28 29 10 13 22 37 34 39 27 23 33 25 Education 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 Area of Sydney Statistical District (SD) 93 96 83 70 99 60 77 97 85 * * * residence Outside Sydney (SD) 7 4 17 30 1 40 23 3 15 * * * Cannot speak, read or write 5 8 3 7 6 5 6 12 6 * * * Can speak a bit, but not read 11 30 40 31 33 12 15 45 27 * * * or write English Can speak well, but not read language 13 17 21 9 37 32 16 22 21 * * * or write well proficiency ** Can speak, read and write 71 47 36 51 24 51 63 22 46 * * * Fluent in spoken English 84 64 57 60 61 83 79 44 67 66 100 100 Fluent in written English 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.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 101 Appendix A: Research Methods

The sample was not weighted against Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census estimates. To do this would require the weighting of the individual language groups according to the age, gender, location, and English language proficiency profile of the individual communities. Given the sample size of n = 100 per language group, there were concerns about the data quality resulting from weighting such small samples.

The demographic profile of the sample appears in Table 14. It profiles each of language groups as well as the total sample. In addition the total sample for the 2004 study is compared to the total sample of the 1996 study of NSW NESB residents and the 2003 Who Cares about the Environment? study. As much as possible, differences in responses between these samples were considered against these sample variations.

Table 15 outlines the various dwelling types of the respondents in the sample, by language group.

TABLE 15 Outdoor spaces around the home: NESB 2004 Arabic Chinese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Spanish Vietnamese Total

Percent (%)

Flat with no balcony 5 5 3 0 6 0 17 1 4

Flat with balcony 13 33 13 5 29 9 7 8 15

Courtyard style garden (mainly paved) 12 17 37 18 7 20 6 28 18

House with lawns and gardens 64 43 43 66 57 70 68 58 59

House on rural block of land 3 1 4 11 1 1 1 3 3

Key differences across the sample There are a number of differences across the samples, both between language groups and between the samples of the different studies.

Differences between languages

■ The samples of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese respondents were skewed more toward females (around two thirds) than the other language groups. ■ The Greek and Italian samples were significantly older than the other samples. This reflects the migration patterns of these communities, where the major wave of migration was in the 1950s. As a result a number of residents of Italian and Greek background are part of English-speaking households. ■ Around one in five Arabic, Greek, Italian and Macedonian-speakers in the sample were born in Australia, compared to less than 5% of Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese respondents. Again this reflects the migration patterns of the communities. ■ More than two-thirds of Greek and Italian-speaking respondents did not complete high school. ■ The Korean (68%) and Chinese-speaking (51%) respondents were significantly more likely to be university educated than the other language groups included in the sample. ■ Overall the Vietnamese and Korean-speaking respondents had the poorest English language proficiency of the sample, with more than three quarters indicating some difficulty with aspects of written or spoken English. However, more the Korean-respondents (61%) reported spoken English competence than the Vietnamese-speakers (44%). ■ The Arabic, Spanish and Macedonian-speakers reported the highest English language competence. ■ The Korean and Chinese-speaking respondents were more likely to live in a flat with a balcony than other language groups.

102 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 HeadingAppendix A: Research Methods

■ The Spanish-speaking respondents were the most likely to live in a flat with no balcony (17%). ■ The Greek-speakers in the sample were the most likely to have a courtyard style garden with mainly paved or concrete exterior areas.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the NESB 1996 study

■ There are more females represented in the 2004 study (58%) compared to the 1996 study (51%). ■ There are more university-educated respondents in the 2004 study (30% compared to 19% in 1996). This is due to the fact that Korean respondents were included in the sample for the first time in 2004. The Korean respondents were significantly more likely to be university educated (68%) than the other language groups represented in the sample. ■ The 2004 sample were less likely to report good written English skills (46% compared to 55% in 1996). ■ There were no significant variations between the 2004 and 1996 samples in relation to spoken English; born in Australia; or age. ■ Comparisons were not possible between the individual language groups samples for the two studies, as the 1996 data was unavailable.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the sample of NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 study There were a number of major differences between the demographic profile of the NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample (i.e. respondents from non-English speaking backgrounds who were able to complete the telephone survey in English). These differences are outlined below, and suggest that the NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample were much more likely to be second or third generation Australians (given their age and English language proficiency profile) than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study, where the majority were first generation migrants to Australia.

■ The NESB component of the Who Cares? 2003 sample is skewed towards males (56%), whereas the sample of the NESB 2004 study is skewed toward females (58%). ■ The NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample are significantly younger than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study. More than six in ten (61%) were between 18-34 compared with 25% in the NESB 2004 study. ■ The NESB respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample were also significantly more likely to be students (32%, compared to 7%) and tertiary educated (50%, compared to 30%) than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study.

Differences between the NESB 2004 study and the total sample of the Who Cares? 2003 study There are a few notable differences between the NESB 2004 study and the total sample of the Who Cares? 2003 study.

■ There are more females represented in the NESB 2004 sample (58%) when compared to the total Who Cares? 2003 sample (50%). ■ The respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample were slightly younger than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study (39% between 18-34 years, compared to 25%). ■ The respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample were also more likely to be in paid work (65%) than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study (48%). ■ The respondents in the Who Cares? 2003 sample were also more likely to be tertiary educated (39%) than the respondents in the NESB 2004 study (30%).

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 103 Appendix A: Research Methods

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

Section 4 of this report presents a demographic profile of each of the language groups included in the research based on Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 census data. Table 16 compares the demographic profile of each community sample to the NSW population by gender and distribution in NSW.

It is not possible to compare English language competence of the sample to that of the NSW population (see notes to Table 14).

TABLE 16 Comparison – language group samples and nsw population

Sample (%) Census (%) Sample (%) Census (%) Male 43 52 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 93 98 Arabic Female 57 48 Outside Sydney SD 7 2 Male 34 48 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 96 96 Chinese Female 66 52 Outside Sydney SD 4 4 Male 45 50 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 83 72 Greek Female 55 50 Outside Sydney SD 17 28 Male 42 50 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 70 82 Italian Female 58 50 Outside Sydney SD 30 8 Male 32 48 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 99 98 Korean Female 68 52 Outside Sydney SD 1 2 Male 54 51 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 60 65 Macedonian Female 46 49 Outside Sydney SD 40 35 Male 49 48 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 77 90 Spanish Female 51 52 Outside Sydney SD 23 10 Male 35 49 Sydney Statistical District (SD) 97 97 Vietnamese Female 65 51 Outside Sydney SD 3 3

Table 16 shows:

■ The following samples are skewed toward females (by more than five percentage points when compared to Australian Bureau of Statistics NSW population data): ◆ Arabic ◆ Chinese ◆ Italian ◆ Korean ◆ Vietnamese ■ The Greek sample is skewed toward those who live in the Sydney Statistical District (by more than five percentage points when compared to Australian Bureau of Statistics NSW population data). ■ The Spanish and Italian samples are skewed toward those who live outside the Sydney Statistical District (by more than five percentage points when compared to ABS NSW population data).

Focus groups Nine focus groups lasting from two to two-and-a-half hours were held in December 2003 to provide an in-depth context to the telephone survey findings and to inform the development of the telephone survey instrument. All focus groups were conducted in Sydney.

One focus group was conducted for each of the language groups with people who spoke that language at home, and consisted of people of different ages and genders. Bilingual researchers facilitated all of the focus groups, in the community language of the participants.

The discussion guide for the focus groups is included in Appendix C. Excerpts from the discussions are provided throughout the report.

104 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 Appendix B: Questionnaire

Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is [first name only]. I'm calling from I-view. We are conducting social research about lifestyle in Australia. I was wondering if there was anybody at home over 18 years old who speaks a language other than English at home. If yes, ask which language.

Q1 Record Language Spoken at Home Arabic Cantonese Greek Italian Korean Macedonian Mandarin Spanish Vietnamese CLOSE IF DOESN’T SPEAK ANY OF THESE LANGUAGES

The survey will take 20 minutes and is completely confidential. Can you help me out?

Great, all my questions today require only short answers. If you don't wish to answer a question, that's fine. Just tell me and we can move on to the other questions.

We may at any time during this interview be listened to by my supervisor for quality control procedures.

(Note that question without options in this questionnaire were unprompted questions.)

Q2 What would you say are the TWO MOST IMPORTANT issues for attention by the NSW Government at present?

Q3 Now thinking ahead about ten years, what do you think will be the two most important issues for attention by the State Government at that time?

Q4 For each of the following, please tell me how important it is in your life by using the scale, where 1 means very important, 2 rather important, 3 not very and 4 means not at all 1. Family 2. Friends 3. Leisure time 4. Politics 5. Environment 6. Work 7. Religion 8. Service to others

Q5 For you, what are the two most important characteristics that make an area a nice place to live?

Q6 What do you think is the single most important environmental issue facing NSW today?

Q7 What do you think is the second most important environmental issue?

Q8 What are the environmental issues that affect your local area? ….Anything else?

Q8a (If more than one issue mentioned in Q8) Of the issues that you just mentioned, what is the most important to you?

Q9 In general, how concerned are you about environmental problems? Would you say you are: 1. Very concerned 2. Fairly concerned 3. Not very concerned 4 Not concerned at all

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 105 Appendix B: Questionnaire

Q10 Which of the following best describes why you are concerned? 1. Health effects of pollution 2. Quality of life 3. Concern for future generations 4. Maintaining eco-systems – nature, plants, animals 5. Or something else (specify)

Q11 I am now going to read you out a list of statements. For each one I would like you tell me if you think it is True or False. a. The Greenhouse Effect is caused by a hole in the Earths atmosphere. b. Much more water in NSW is used for agriculture than for domestic and manufacturing combined. c. Leaves and grass clippings do not pollute stormwater because they are natural. d. Products made out of recycled materials are usually of lower quality. e. Over 90% of NSW's electricity comes from burning coal. f. Most backyard spiders are dangerous to people. g. Native birds and animals cannot survive in cities and towns unless we feed them.

Q12 Most of us, in one way or another, probably do things that may be bad for the environment. This might be at home, in our work, leisure activities, etc. 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? ……Anything else?

Q13 Doing the right thing for the environment is not always easy for people in today’s busy world. Different people find they can do different things and, perhaps for people in some situations, there is not a lot they can really do. From the list of things I’ll read out, can you please tell me for each one whether or not in the past 12 months you have 1-often done that; 2-sometimes done it; 3-just occasionally done it; or 4-never done that? a. Decided to reuse something instead of throwing it away. b. Avoided plastic bags to carry shopping home. c. Composted food and/or garden refuse. d. When doing the shopping, tried to avoid products with lots of packaging. e. Chosen household products that you think are better for the environment. f. Made an effort to reduce water consumption. g. Recycled paper and/or other materials at work. h. 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. i. Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption, for example by turning off lights, and using appliances or home heating and cooling more efficiently. j. Purchasing energy-efficient appliances or light globes. k. Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle air pollution, for example by car-pooling, using public transport, bicycling or walking. l. Tried to get information on some topic about protecting the environment. m. Participated in local development or environmental issues with the aim of protecting or improving the environment, i.e. by writing a letter, attending a meeting, etc. n. Kept your cat inside at night.

Q14 You mentioned that you often do A, F, H, I, J, K (Q13). Can you remember what prompted you to start doing that? ….. Anything else?

Q15 You mentioned you never/just occasionally do B, C, D, E, F (Q13). What are the main reasons why you don’t, or don’t often, do this? …. Anything else?

Q16 How do you mainly get informed about environmental issues? (Television, radio, newspapers, brochures, and internet probed for English, language or both).

Q17 I will read you a list of people or organisations in 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 from … would be very reliable, fairly reliable, fairly unreliable or very unreliable? 1. Local councils 2. Schools 3. Business/industry 4. Scientists and technical specialists 5. Government departments or agencies 6. Environmental and conservation groups

106 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 HeadingAppendix B: Questionnaire

7. Community service groups such as Migrant Resource Centres 8. Your children 9. Other members of your family, neighbours or friends 10. Religious leaders, churches, etc 11. Media personalities 12. Bilingual educators

Q18 Where would you most like to receive information about the environment? (television, radio, newspapers, brochures, and internet probed for English, language or both).

Q19 If you watch television, what television station do you watch the most?

Q20 If you listen to radio, what station do you listen to the most?

Q21 If you read newspapers, what paper do you read the most?

Q22 Which of the following statements best describes the outdoor areas around your home? 1. I live in a flat with no balcony. 2. I live in a flat with a balcony. 3. I have a courtyard style garden, or a house with mainly paved or concrete exterior areas. 4. I have a house with lawn and/or gardens. 5. I have a house on a rural block of land. 6. Other.

Q23 I am going to read out a list of items, and I would like you to tell me which ones apply to you. 1. I have a compost heap/bin or worm farm. 2. I grow vegetables, fruit or herbs. 3. I grow Australian native plants. 4. I entertain in my backyard more than 4 times per year. 5. I have play equipment in my backyard for children. Q24 In what country were you born?

Q25 What year did you begin living in Australia?

Q26 What is your current work status?

Q27 What is the highest level of education you have achieved?

Q28 Into which of the following age groups do you fit? Less than 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Over 65

Q29 How competent are you in English? 1. Cannot speak, read or write 2. Can speak a bit, but can’t read or write 3. Can speak well, but not read or write well 4. Can speak, read and write well

Q30 Finally, in what postcode do you live?

Q31 RECORD gender of participant.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 107 Appendix C: Qualitative Discussion Guide

Concern for the environment 1. What do you think are the major issues of concern for your community?

2. When I say the word environment, what are some of the things that you think of?

3. Do you think environmental issues are an issue of concern for the community? What sort of things are of concern?

4. What are some of the environmental concerns that affect your local area?

5. Why do you think people are concerned about the environment?

Use of the environment 6. What are some of the things that you enjoy/don’t enjoy about where you live?

Prompt for both: Street

Suburb

7. Thinking about your own home (remember that some people may not have a backyard and be living in a unit so they would not be able to answer this question):

◆ What do you like/enjoy about it? ◆ Is there anything you would like to be doing in your home or backyard that you are not currently doing? ◆ What are some of things you don’t like? ◆ How does the way you use your home/backyard here compare with your home country? ◆ What kind of animals/insects are desirable in your backyard/local area. Which ones are undesirable?

8. Thinking about the parks around your home and the outdoors generally:

◆ Where do you visit? ◆ What outdoor activities to you engage in? [Prompts: camping; walking; swimming; picnics; playing sport; cycling; children’s play areas] ◆ How does this compare with your home country? ◆ Is there anything that stops you using the outdoor environment? ◆ What are some of things you don’t like?

Behaviour 9. Do you do anything to help/look after the environment? If so what actions do you do (could be at home or work)? (Record responses on butchers paper). Record unprompted first, and then prompt:

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. What made you decide to engage in this behaviour, or is this something that you have always done? EXPLORE FULLY, i.e.

◆ Can you remember when you changed your behaviour? What happened? Ask for specific examples. ◆ If something always done – why do you do it? Do you see it as an environmentally responsible action? ◆ Who in the family takes responsibility for the action? (i.e. who takes out the garbage, who pays the energy bill, who buys the appliances, who does the composting?)

108 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Environment and Ethnic Communities in 2004 HeadingAppendix C: Qualitative Discussion Guide

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

◆ Household recycling system ◆ Waste avoidance (how?) take own shopping bags, ◆ Compost kitchen scraps, garden cuttings and lawn and avoiding products with excess packaging; clippings Recycled something rather than throw it out ◆ Buy energy efficient products ◆ Reducing water consumption (how?) ◆ Reduce electricity consumption by turning of lights ◆ Reducing use of car (how?) for example ◆ Accessed information about protecting the ◆ Asked for energy (saving) advice environment (how?) ◆ Investigated Renewable Energy for your home ◆ Written a letter, signed a petition ◆ Planting my garden to attract native birds and other ◆ Joined or supported an environmental group animals ◆ Kept cats inside to keep them away from native ◆ Reduced my use of chemicals in the garden birds and animals ◆ I grow my own food. ◆ Kept dog on a lead when out in parks and streets.

Then read out:

Some of the people in the group engage in some of these actions and others don’t. That is OK. What we want to find out is why some people do certain things and not others.

11. Is there anything that you would like to do but are not doing/cannot do? Why not? (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. Which of these do you think it costs more to do? Which ones would save you money?

13. Which of these do you think are easy to do? Which ones are hard?

14. What type of person engages in these behaviours? Does this differ for different actions e.g. person who composts their organic waste, compared with a person who joins an environmental group?

15. What do you think the consequences are of not doing any of the things we have just discussed? [Probe for local area versus global]

Understanding and Attitudes 16. When it comes to looking after the environment, whose responsibility is it? Prompt for individual, state/federal government, environmental organisations. Refer to description of environment generated from Question 2.

17. Who or what causes environmental problems (who is doing their share, who isn’t?).

18. Do you think that there are things that you do personally that could be seen as harmful to the environment?

19. PLEASE READ: “Gases in the earth's atmosphere capture the suns energy, which keeps the Earth's temperature at a level necessary to support life. Human activity – particularly burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and land clearing – is generating excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, trapping more heat, raising the Earth's surface temperature, and causing weather patterns and climates to change.”

a. Have you heard of this phenomenon?

b. What do you know it as (greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change, other.....)?

c. Are you concerned about it?

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 109 Appendix C: Qualitative Discussion Guide

20. I am going to read out a number of words, and I want you to discuss together what each of them mean.

◆ Salinity ◆ Water conservation ◆ Sustainable lifestyles

Information 21. Where have you heard information about the environment before? Probe fully:

◆ What media? What messages? ◆ Which people? What messages? ◆ What organisations? What messages? ◆ On their energy bills? Other utilities? What messages?

22. Who are the most reliable sources of information about the environment?

23. Are you aware of initiatives that protect the environment that are happening in your community? Have these ever interested you? Why/why not?

24. Have you ever volunteered for anything in your community (environment or other activity)? Why/why not? What, if anything, would make you want to volunteer in your community?

25. Have you ever sought out information about the environment? Where did you go?

26. If not, who/where would you go to find out more about a particular issue regarding the environment?

27. Is there anything in particular that you would like to know about minimising your impact on the environment?

110 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)