Subgroup summary

This section continues the consolidated subgroup analysis presented in the 2008 Green Light Report by considering three broad groupings based on:

Differences between subgroups, and changes that have occurred since the 2008 survey are explored.

Regional Victoria versus metropolitan Melbourne

As in 2008, for general reporting purposes Victoria was divided into two main geographic areas: metropolitan Melbourne (equivalent to the ABS’s major statistical region of Melbourne) and regional Victoria (equivalent to the ABS’s major statistical region Balance of Victoria). A number of differences are again evident between these two areas.

  

Differences in household sustainability

Regional Victorian households are more likely to have the following practices and equipment than households in metropolitan Melbourne:

  • Rainwater tanks (54% versus 26% of Melbourne homes). This difference remains despite the number of metropolitan homes with rainwater tanks being 4% higher than in 2008 while the incidence in regional Victoria has remained unchanged
  • Greywater recycling systems (13% versus 6% of Melbourne homes)
  • Insulation (83% versus 78% of Melbourne homes)
  • Solar hot water systems (6% versus 2% of Melbourne homes) and electric hot water systems (46% versus 19% of Melbourne homes)
  • Electric space heating (29% versus 21% of Melbourne homes) or wood-fuelled space heating (24% versus 4% of Melbourne homes). The greater use of wood heating in regional Victoria remains despite a 5% decrease in its use since 2008
  • Multiple refrigerators and stand-alone freezers (64% of regional homes have two or more of these appliances compared with 41% of Melbourne homes). The number of regional households with more than one refrigerator or freezer has increased by 6% since 2008 while in Melbourne households, the situation is largely unchanged
  • Multiple television sets (68% of regional homes have two or more television sets versus 62% of Melbourne homes). This difference has emerged since the 2008 survey – there has been a 10% increase in the number of regional Victorian households with two or more television sets compared with a more modest 4% rise in Melbourne households
  • Compact fluorescent globes (72% of regional homes make some use of CFLs versus 64% of Melbourne homes). This difference has also emerged since the 2008 survey, with a 9% increase in the number of regional households using CFLs.

Metropolitan Melbourne households are more likely to have the following practices and equipment than households in regional Victoria:

  • Front-loading washing machines (30% of Melbourne homes have a front-loading washing machine versus 22% in regional Victoria)
  • Gas-fuelled space heating (76% of Melbourne homes versus 55% in regional Victoria). While the number of Melbourne households with gas heating has not changed since 2008, there has been a 7% increase in household gas heating in regional Victoria
  • Metropolitan households are more likely to have bins for general recycling (96% versus 88% in regional Victoria) and for the recycling of green or garden waste (71% versus 46% in regional Victoria). The higher incidence of recycling bins may be a factor in the lower number of Melbourne households composting food or garden waste (41% have done this ‘often’ in the last 12 months versus 52% in regional Victoria).

Differences in personal environmental attitudes and sustainable behaviours

Compared to Melbourne residents, regional Victorians are more likely:

  • to have grown their own fruit and vegetables (58% have in the last 12 months versus 47% of Melbourne residents)
  • to have purchased locally grown fruit and vegetables in the last 12 months (79% of regional Victorians versus 71% of Melbourne residents)
  • to use a motor vehicle for making short trips of 2 km or less (63% of regional Victorians usually make short trips this way versus 49% of Melbourne residents).

Melbourne residents are more likely:

  • to have travelled by plane in the last 12 months (58% had travelled by air compared with 41% of regional Victorians). However, those Melbourne residents who have travelled by plane are no more likely to have offset their CO2 emissions than their regional Victorian counterparts (14% and 12% respectively)
  • to ‘agree’ they are feeling growing pressure to make lifestyle changes to reduce the impact of climate change (77% ‘agree’ versus 71% of regional Victorians)
  • to have taken a shower of four minutes or less (92% have done this in the last 12 months versus 88% of regional Victorians)
  • to have talked to a friend about how to be more environmentally friendly (60% have done this in the last 12 months versus 49% of regional Victorians).

Age and gender

This section looks at key differences in survey respondents’ personal attitudes and behaviours towards environmental sustainability based on their age and gender.

Environmental attitudes

Compared to the average Victorian, people aged 55 or over are less likelt to be enthusiastic about taking action to enhance sustainability. In particular, this applies to males aged 55 or over who are more likely to agree:

  • there is nothing they can do about climate change at the individual level (20% versus 12% of the total sample)
  • it’s not worth doing anything to help the environment if others don’t do the same (27% versus 19% of the total sample)
  • the effects of climate change are too far in the future to worry about (26% versus 19% of the total sample).

These older males are also more likely to disagree:

  • that there’s a real link between personal energy use and climate change (31% versus 25% of the total sample)
  • that government laws and regulations are the most effective way to get people to use less energy and water (40% versus 33% of the total sample). They also showed the highest levels of disagreement with the possibility of requiring households to replace hot water systems with solar hot water systems when necessary (38% versus 32% of the total sample) and with the idea of requiring homes to have energy and water efficiency ratings before they can be sold or rented (36% versus 28% of the total sample).

As a group, females tend to have more supportive attitudes toward sustainable activity than males. For example, females are more likely to disagree:

  • that the effects of climate change are too far in the future to worry about (82% versus 74% of males)
  • that it’s hard to change habits to be more environmentally friendly (72% versus 65% of males)
  • that it’s not worth doing anything to help the environment if others don’t do the same (83% versus 75% of males).

Females are also more concerned about the current state of the environment (47% ‘very concerned’ versus 36% of males). The level of concern is highest among females aged 45 plus (58% ‘very concerned’, up from 46% in 2008) and as in 2008, lowest among males aged 15 to 24 (16% ‘very concerned’, 29% ‘not concerned’).

Sustainable behaviour

Regarding sustainable behaviour:

  • Females are more likely than males to say they ‘often’ turn off the television at the power point (32% in the last 12 months versus 28% of males). This behaviour is particularly evident among females aged 55 or over (36% had ‘often’ done this).

    • Of all survey respondents, females aged 35 or over are those most likely to have:

    • avoided using plastic bags to carry shopping home (71% did this ‘often’ versus 64% of the total sample), a 4% increase since 2008
    • avoided buying products with lots of packaging (48% did this ‘often’ versus 35% of the total sample)
    • purchased locally grown fruit and vegetables because they thought it was good for the environment (81% ‘had done this’ versus 73% for the total sample), a 9% increase since 2008
    • reduced their consumption of red meat because they thought it was good for the environment (49% versus 38% of the total sample), a 12% increase since 2008
  • Females are also more likely to have talked to friends about how to be more environmentally friendly (24% had done this ‘often’ in the last 12 months versus 19% of males)
  • Regarding transport, those aged 55 or over were more likely to use a motor vehicle for short trips of about 2 km (61% versus 53% of the total sample). In particular, this was true of females in this age group (65%). By contrast, only 39% of 15–24-year-olds usually made these trips by car – at various times these younger people walked (48%), used public transport (22%) or rode a bike (15%).

Household income

This section reports on differences in sustainability between relatively low-income households (those earning less than $40,000 per year) and households earning relatively high incomes of $80,000 plus per year. It is important to consider these differences in the context of other non-income variations that exist between low and high-income households. Specifically, as noted in the 2008 Green Light Report, low-income households are comparatively:

  • small, with an average of 1.9 persons per household (compared with 3.3 persons per high-income household) while high-income households are much more likely to be families with children (61% versus 24% of low-income households)
  • more likely to be renting their home (27% versus 14% of high-income households) and more likely to be living in a flat or unit (22% versus 8% of high-income households).

The decision-makers in low-income households are generally older (63% aged 55 or over versus 19% in high-income households) and are more likely to be retirees (48% versus 5% in high-income households).

With that in mind, and compared to those households with annual incomes of $80,000 plus, low-income households appear less likely to have the following aids to sustainability:

  • rainwater tanks (32% versus 39% of high-income households)
  • dual-flush toilet cisterns (83% versus 90%)
  • front-loading washing machines (19% versus 38%), despite a 4% increase since 2008 in the number of low-income households using washing machines of this type
  • insulation in ceilings (69% versus 84%), walls (32% versus 46%) or additional insulation measures such as double glazing (5% versus 12%), tinted glass/solar guarding (7% versus 12%) or boxed pelmets over curtains or blinds (29% versus 37%)
  • gas hot water systems (64% versus 77%) although, since 2008, there has been an 8% increase in the number of low-income households using gas hot water. Coinciding with the increased use of gas is a 5% fall in the number of low-income households with electric hot water systems although these are still much more likely to be present than in high-income households (34% versus 19%). Low-income households also remain significantly less likely to replace their existing system with a solar hot water system when the time comes (38% would not replace their current system with a solar system versus 23% of high-income households)
  • Interestingly, and following a 6% increase since 2008 in the number of low-income households with low-flow showerheads (from 63% to 69%), the number of low and high-income households (74%) using low-flow showerheads is now the same.

In terms of sustainable behaviour, in the last 12 months members of low-income households are less likely to have:

  • chosen environmentally friendly products (74% versus 84% of high-income households)
  • participated in local environmental issues (18% versus 26%)
  • made a donation to one or more organisations involved in environmental protection (23% versus 34%).

Against these results, greater sustainability of low-income households was evident in their lower incidence of:

  • ducted space heating (31% versus 61% of high-income households) and therefore less likelihood of heating the whole home than just the rooms being used
  • thermostatically controlled cooling (45% versus 60%)
  • electric clothes dryers (46% versus 65%) especially since those who have these dryers generally use them less often than high-income households (48% use the dryer once a fortnight versus 64%)
  • halogen downlights (23% versus 57%), although low-income households are slightly more likely to be using incandescent globes (57% versus 49%); at the same time, they are no less likely than high-income households to be enhancing their energy conservation status by using compact fluorescent globes for lighting (64% versus 66%)
  • more than one motor vehicle (28% versus 78%).

There are two areas where the greater sustainability of low-income households appears to have declined since 2008. These are in the proportions of low-income households with:

  • More than one refrigerator or freezer. In 2008, 37% of low-income households were in this situation compared with 49% of high-income households. Following a 9% increase, the number of low-income households with two or more refrigerators or freezers (46% in 2009) is now no different from the 48% of high-income households with two or more of these appliances
  • More than one television set. The number of low-income households with two or more televisions sets has increased by 11%, from 50% in 2008 to 61% in 2009, while the number of high-income households in this situation is unchanged (67% in 2009). Low-income households are still significantly less likely than high-income households to have a television with a plasma screen (13% versus 26%) or LCD screen (23% versus 35%).