For NSW, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) came up with slightly different results2. They found 89% were concerned a fair amount or a great deal, compared with 68% in their 1996 survey. Which only goes to show that you cannot blindly accept survey results without checking the methodology. (Unfortunately, the results for the 2000 ABS and EPA surveys were not collated when I wrote this article.)

Nonetheless, whichever result you look at, it is obvious that the great majority of Australians think about environmental issues and are concerned about how we treat the environment. They may rank the environment below other social issues as being of prime importance, but this assessment varies over time. Each survey seems to come up with a different result and therefore it probably depends on whole economy circumstances. There also appear to be clear place differences. For instance, in 1998 (ABS) crime was rated as the major issue by West Australians (for 35% of them), while health was ranked highest in Victoria (34%).

In NSW, the EPA survey differentiated between six groups: Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong; large and small country towns; and rural areas. People from these different kinds of places have different priorities. Unemployment is the main worry for people in Newcastle and large country towns, while crime rated highest for people in Sydney and large country towns. However, there was no significant difference in the level of concern for the environment across those groups.

In terms of age, the EPA surveys indicated no significant difference in the level of concern about the environment between age groups. The ABS came up with different results in all of their surveys (1992, 1996 and 1998). In 1998, those most likely to rate environmental problems as a major issue were aged 25–34; strangely, in 1996 this was 35 to 44. Nonetheless, the proportion of people concerned about environmental problems between 18 and 54 was very similar for each age grouping; 55–64 was considerably lower and those 65+ lower still. The ABS also pointed out that "younger people had more concern for longer term environmental problems [such as the greenhouse effect] than those in the older age groups." (ABS 1998, p 11)

This is a wobbly result in terms of interpretation, because it does not necessarily indicate a sweeping generational change in the way we view the environment. It may just mean we care less, not surprisingly, about long-term and external issues as we get older.

All the surveys point to a higher level of concern among women; the EPA showed similar levels (see also the article on p 15).

As an aside, to any snobs out there who think a university degree is the pinnacle of education (and in the EPA surveys university graduates ranked highest for thinking they know the most about environmental issues), people with trade and technical qualifications appear to be the most knowledgeable about issues, while being modest about their level of knowledge. The level of concern was very close for the two groups. So, if you are thinking about recruitment for a group, you would do better advertising at a TAFE students are probably just as interested but more knowledgeable.

And the winner is … pollution, overwhelmingly, in all the surveys I had results for. The type of pollution may vary, but this is the area people are most concerned about. This may be disappointing for NPA members, given the reasons you probably joined this organisation.

It applies to all places of residence, men and women, level of education and across the age groups. Differences do appear with how the different forms of pollution rate as a concern, but overall air pollution comes first, then freshwater, ocean and finally other forms (take a look at the box if you like lists of figures). A couple of small differences are apparent:

• women aged 45–54 and people from non-English speaking backgrounds are more concerned about waste disposal and management than other groups

• a larger proportion of rural dwellers chose land degradation issues as a major environmental concern.

Reassuringly, the next issue after pollution in the ABS survey was "destruction of trees/ecosystems". Of interest to some may be the very low ranking of overpopulation as an issue (it came last).

There is a glaringly obvious theme here: we care about those things that are most likely to directly affect us. The problems that rated most highly were all those that could be seen to have a direct impact on our own quality of life, rather than the rest of the species we live with. It may also relate to what we feel we personally can influence, such as car use or putting oil down the sink.

It seems that those who are environmentally concerned are out there engaging in action. I do not mean protests and the like (in fact, these seem to have dropped off in number); I mean hands-in-the-dirt action. We have got involved with activity networks, such as Landcare, Streamwatch, Clean Up Australia Day, bush regeneration schemes, planting native gardens (which seem to be back in fashion again), tree planting schemes and the like. We are signing up for green energy systems, even though we have to pay more.

I know what we are not doing, and that is joining environment groups and starting new ones. There was a boom in membership in the late 1980s, but that has been tapering off since the early nineties. The Nature Conservation Council of NSW is an umbrella organisation for conservation groups and its membership over the last three years has remained pretty much the same.

We are however educating ourselves and our children on environmental issues. Universities and colleges are running more and more environmental courses. The bush regeneration course at Ryde TAFE started in the late 1980s and has consistently had around 130 enrolments a year since the mid-nineties (Robin Buchanan, pers. comm.). Discussion of environmental themes is common across primary and high school curricula.

We are also taking responsibility for our actions, both modifying our behaviour and being aware of what we are doing. The EPA questioned people about "environmentally friendly behaviour" and found that in 1997 most people had done eight of the twelve activities offered. Recycling (91%) and avoiding putting harmful things into the sewerage or stormwater system (92% & 85% respectively) were the most common. A majority had chosen household products they perceived as better for the environment (78%) and tried to avoid products with lots of packaging (63%) – consumer power in action (see article on pp 18 on that subject). Conversely, the use of motor vehicles was the most common type of environmentally damaging activity that people owned up to; the other common ones people mentioned related to generation and disposal of waste.

Although the environment may change its rating as a social issue of concern relative to other problems, we still care about it. We may be obsessed with pollution, but at least we are engaging in actions to reduce our impact. If some of the figures I have cited are bothering you, remember that 10% (say) of 19 million is an awful lot of people.

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998) Environmental Issues, People’s Views and Practices. ABS, Canberra; also 1996 edition

2 Environment Protection Authority (1997) Who Cares About the Environment in 1997? EPA, Sydney; also 1994 edition

* Glyn Mather 
has an Arts degree in Psychology and Sociology from the University of NSW
and is the National Parks Journal Editor.