• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Household Sustainability Survey 2008

Executive summary

1 Introduction and objectives

2 Survey methodology

3 Overview of results

4 Population segmentation

3 Overview of results

In this section of the report, an overview of the survey results is provided. Relevant key differences are discussed in relation to people’s general attitudes towards water usage and waste, home ownership status, region and size of community, and water supply.

3.4 Organic waste reduction

In relation to behaviours aimed at reducing the amount of organic waste produced by households, the majority of New Zealanders appear to be planning what they buy, cook and eat to avoid wasting food, and almost two-thirds (63 percent) are composting garden rubbish and kitchen scraps.

Figure 11: Personal behaviours – waste reduction (n=1000)

Q17. Which of these things would you say you currently do on a regular basis...?

Read text description for figure 11.

As detailed in Table 17 and Table 18, there were few differences in relation to these findings when viewed by home owner status, whether they had a garden or not, or by region/community size, with the following exceptions:

• Those respondents who had gardens were more likely to be composting garden rubbish and kitchen scraps (65 percent compared with 38 percent of those who did not have a garden).

• At 80 percent, respondents living in South Island communities with fewer than 30,000 people were also more likely to be composting garden rubbish and kitchen scraps than the total sample.

Table 17:

Q17. Thinking now about your household waste. Which of these things would you say you currently do on a regular basis?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

Table 18:

Q17. Thinking now about your household waste. Which of these things would you say you currently do on a regular basis?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Relationship between attitudes towards waste and reducing organic waste

Respondents’ level of agreement with the statement New Zealand’s households generate too much rubbish and waste does not appear to have a significant relationship with whether or not they are engaging in certain behaviours that would reduce the level of organic waste produced in their home. Notably, this is unlike the previous findings relating to attitudes towards water being a limited resource and engaging in more water-efficient behaviours.

Table 19:

Q17. Thinking now about your household waste. Which of these things would you say you currently do on a regular basis?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

Compared with those who disagreed with the statement, respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that people have a duty to recycle were significantly more likely to be planning what they buy, cook and eat to avoid wasting food.

Table 20:

Q17. Thinking now about your household waste. Which of these things would you say you currently do on a regular basis?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

3.4.1 Willingness to reduce organic waste

As detailed in Table 21, of the one-in-five New Zealanders who are not currently planning what they buy, cook and eat to avoid wasting food, the majority are willing to do so. Similarly, of the one-in-three who do not currently compost their garden rubbish and kitchen scraps, most are willing to do so.

The survey found, however, that less than half of the respondents who do not currently have a worm farm, would be willing to have one.

Table 21:

Q18. And which would you be willing to do?

^Sub-samples based on those respondents who reported not having waste management practices in place in their home.

Relationship between attitudes towards waste and willingness to reduce organic waste

When these findings were examined by the respondents’ attitudes towards whether New Zealand households generate too much waste, or whether people have an obligation to recycle. The only significant difference found was related to their willingness to compost garden rubbish and kitchen scraps (Table 22).

Table 22:

Q18. And which would you be willing to do? – Compost garden rubbish and kitchen scraps

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

**Sub-sample based on those respondents who reported that they don’t currently compost garden rubbish and kitchen scraps.

Notably only 9 percent of all respondents were not currently doing or willing to undertake any of these behaviours. Figure 12 summarises the combined percentages of those members of the general public who are currently undertaking certain behaviours to reduce the levels of organic waste generated by their homes, or who are willing to have these behaviours.

Figure 12: Personal behaviours – waste reduction (n=1000)

Q17. Which of these do you currently do on a regular basis or already have..?
Q18. And which would you be willing to do?

Read text description for figure 12.

3.5 Managing electrical waste

As detailed in Figure 13, four-in-five New Zealanders choose electronic or electrical products that are high quality and able to be repaired, and three-quarters are using rechargeable batteries.

They are, however, less likely to have recycled an unwanted mobile phone or computer printer, or to have chosen electronic products made with fewer toxic materials.

Figure 13: Personal behaviours – managing electrical waste (n=1000)

Q19. Which of these things would you say you currently do or have done...?

Read text description for figure 13.

As detailed in Table 23 and Table 24, when the results are viewed by income and region/community size the only significant difference that was found was that:

• Those respondents who reported earning between $70,000 and $100,000 were more likely to report that they have recycled an unwanted computer printer (49 percent compared with 38 percent of the total sample).

Table 23:

Q19. Which of these things would you say you currently do or have done? – Income

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

Table 24:

Q19. Which of these things would you say you currently do or have done? – Region and community size

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Relationship between attitudes towards waste and reducing electrical waste

Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement New Zealand’s households generate too much rubbish and waste, were significantly less likely to have recycled their unwanted computer printer compared with those who agreed with the statement.

Table 25:

Q19. Which of these things would you say you currently do or have done?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

On the other hand, respondents’ level of agreement with the statement people have a duty to recycle does not seem to have a significant relationship with whether or not they are engaging in behaviours that would help to reduce electrical waste in their household.

Table 26:

Q19. Which of these things would you say you currently do or have done?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

3.5.1 Willingness to reduce electrical waste

As noted in Table 27, a quite significant majority of those New Zealanders not already doing so are willing to use rechargeable batteries and choose electronic and electrical products that are high quality, able to be repaired and made with fewer toxic materials. An even larger number are also willing to recycle their unwanted mobile phones and computer printers.

Table 27:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do?

^Sub-samples based on those respondents who reported not doing specific practices to manage electrical waste in place in their home.

Relationship between attitudes towards waste and willingness to reduce electrical waste

As detailed in Table 28 and Table 29, those respondents who disagree that New Zealand’s households generate too much rubbish and waste are significantly less likely to be willing to alter their behaviours in order to help reduce electrical waste in the household, than are those who agree with this statement.

Table 28:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do? – Recycle unwanted computer printer

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Table 29:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do? – Recycle unwanted mobile phone

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Similarly, the results could be viewed by whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement people have a duty to recycle. We then find that respondents who agreed with this statement were significantly more likely to say they would be willing to alter their behaviours than those respondents who disagreed with this statement.

Table 30:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do? – Recycle unwanted computer printer

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Table 31:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do? – Recycle unwanted mobile phone

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

Figure 14 gives a summary view of the combined percentages of those members of the general public who are currently undertaking certain behaviours that are aimed at reducing electrical waste, or are willing to undertake them.

Notably, only four respondents (less than 1 percent of all those surveyed) were unwilling to engage in any of the behaviours discussed.

Figure 14: Personal behaviours – managing electrical waste (n=1000)

Q19. Which of these things would yous ay you currently do or have done...?
Q20. And which would you be willing to do?

Read text description for figure 14.

3.6 Energy efficiency

In relation to general energy efficiency practices in the home, New Zealanders most commonly reported having insulation in the ceilings of their homes and using thermal drapes or curtains.

While more than half also have some form of draught-proofing in place around doors and windows, they are less likely to have clean and efficient heating appliances (48 percent), heat-saving wraps around the electric hot water cylinder or have insulation under the floor (41 percent).

Figure 15: Personal behaviours – energy efficiency (n=1000)

Q13. Which of these things have you got in your home...?

Read text description for figure 15.

As detailed in Table 32, there were a number of differences when the results are examined by the level of home ownership. In particular, those respondents who said they were living in a renting or flatting situation were less likely to report that they had taken any of the following measures in their home:

• Heat-saving wrap around their electric hot water cylinder and pipes (reported by 30 percent of those who were renting/flatting compared with 42 percent of the total sample).

• Insulation in the ceiling (70 percent compared with 86 percent).

• Insulation under the floor (23 percent compared with 41 percent).

• Draught-proofing around doors and windows (41 percent compared with 55 percent).

Table 32:

Q13. Thinking now about your household’s general energy use. Which of these things have you got in your home?

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

3.6.1 Willingness to be more energy efficient

As detailed in Table 33, for the most part, the majority of those New Zealanders who do not have a specific energy efficient practice in place in their home, are willing to implement these practices.

Table 33:

Q14. And which would you be willing to do?

^Sub-samples based on those respondents who reported not having specific energy efficient materials in place in their home.

Less than 1 percent of respondents said that they would be unwilling to undertake any of these behaviours. Figure 16 gives a summary view of those respondents who are already undertaking energy efficient practices or who are willing to change their behaviours in order to become more energy efficient.

Figure 16: Personal behaviours – energy efficiency (n=1000)

Q13. Which of these things have you got in your home...?
Q14. And which would you be willing to do?

Read text description for figure 16.

3.7 Transportation

Ninety-three percent of the respondents to the survey reported that they owned or have use of a motor vehicle (n=952). When queried about their driving habits, a quite large majority said that they drive smoothly, or moderately to use less fuel. Similar numbers also maintain their motor vehicles so they do not use too much fuel, a smaller number report that they remove things like roof racks when not in use.

Figure 17: Personal behaviours – driving (n=952*)

Q17. And which, if any of these, do you make a point of doing while driving your motor vehicle...?

Read text description for figure 17.

*Sub-sample based on those respondents who owned or have access to a motor vehicle

No significant differences were found in reported behaviours by respondents’ income or by whether respondents lived in urban or rural areas. In terms of respondents’ employment status, only one significant difference was found. Students were more likely to report that they remove things like roof racks, bike racks and ski boxes when not in use, while retired people were less likely to report doing this.⁷

Table 34:

Q23. And which, or any of these, do you make a point of doing while driving your motor vehicle? – Employment status

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

** Sub-sample based on those respondents who have use of a car.

Of those respondents who own or have the use of motor vehicles and travel to work as well (n=672), almost two-thirds (64 percent) drive their motor vehicle to work without any other passengers (Figure 18). A smaller proportion are car pooling or sharing a ride (15 percent) or use public transport (9 percent).

Figure 18: Personal behaviours – travelling to work (n=672)*

Q25. If you currently work, do you mostly travel to work...?

Read text description for figure 18.

*Sub-sample based on those respondents who owned or have access to a motor vehicle and who work in paid employment.

When the results are viewed by the employment status of the respondent (Table 35), we find that respondents who described themselves as self-employed were more likely to say that they drive their vehicle to work with no passengers (77 percent of self-employed people reported this compared with 64 percent of the total sample).

As outlined in Table 36, respondents who reported being from rural South Island communities were more to likely to say that they cycle or walk to work (29 percent compared with 11 percent of the total sample).

Table 35:

Q25. If you currently work, do you mostly travel to work? – Employment status

Total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

**Sub-sample based on those who travelled to work.

Table 36:

Q25. If you currently work, do you mostly travel to work? – Region and community size

Total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

**Sub-sample based on those who travelled to work.

3.7.1 Willingness to change transport behaviours

As detailed in Table 37, of the members of the general public who own or have access to cars but do not necessarily engage in fuel saving behaviours, between two-thirds and three-quarters are willing to maintain their vehicle and/or drive more smoothly to use less fuel. Of the 40 percent who do not currently remove their roof racks, bike racks and ski boxes, half are willing to do so⁸.

Table 37:

Q24. And which would you be willing to do?

^Sub-samples based on those respondents who owned or have access to a motor vehicle and reported not having specific driving practices to avoid using too much fuel.

Figure 19 gives a summary view of the combined percentages of those members of the general public who are currently undertaking certain behaviours that are aimed at reducing fuel wastage, or are willing to undertake them.

Figure 19: Personal behaviours – driving (n=952*)

Q23. Which, or any of these do you make a point of doing while driving your motor vehicle...?
Q24. And which would you be willing to do?

Read text description for figure 19.

Notably, only 1 percent of those respondents who own or have regular access to a motor vehicle (12 individuals) were unwilling to engage in any of the behaviours discussed.

As detailed in Table 38, among those members of the general public who mainly drive to work in their own vehicle with no other passengers, 40 percent are willing to car pool, but less than one quarter are willing to use public transport.

In all, 36 percent of those who reported they drive to work without any other passengers said they would not be willing to change their behaviours in any of the ways mentioned.

Table 38:

Q20. And which would you be willing to do?

Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple response.

*Sub-sample based on those respondents who owned or have access to a motor vehicle and who mostly drive to work with no other passengers.

As detailed in Table 39, self-employed respondents who drive to work without any other passengers were significantly more likely to say that they were not willing to make any of the changes mentioned (60 percent of self-employed reported were unwilling to change any of their behaviours compared with 36 percent of the total sub-sample who drive to work without any passengers).

Table 39:

Q26. And which of these would you be willing to do instead of driving to work in your motor vehicle? – Employment status

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

**Sub-sample based on those drive to work without any passengers.

Table 40:

Q26. And which of these would you be willing to do instead of driving to work in your motor vehicle? – Income

Total may exceed 100% because of multiple response.

*Caution: low base number of respondents – results are indicative only.

**Sub-sample based on those drive to work without any passengers.

Figure 20 gives a summary view of the combined percentages of those members of the general public who are currently undertaking certain behaviours that are aimed at reducing the environmental impact of commuting to work, or willing to do so.

Figure 20: Personal behaviours – travelling to work (n=672)*

Q25. Do you mostly travel to work...?

Read text description for figure 20.

*Sub-sample based on those respondents who owned or have access to a motor vehicle and who travel to work.

Of note, 15 percent of respondents who own or have regular access to a motor vehicle and who commute to work were unwilling to engage in any of the behaviours discussed.

3.7.2 Attitudes to transportation

Almost half of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that people who fly should bear the cost of the environmental damage that air travel causes, while 41 percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.

Only 26 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that for the sake of the environment, car users should pay higher taxes.

Figure 21: Attitudes to transportation (n=1000)

Q27. Can you tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

Read text description for figure 21.

When the results are viewed by respondents’ income, employment status and geographical location, the only significant differences found were that:

• Full-time home makers were significantly less likely to strongly disagree that car users should pay higher taxes (18 percent of the sub-sample compared with 33 percent of the total sample).

• South Island rural dwellers were significantly more likely to strongly agree that people who fly should bear the cost of the environmental damage that air travel causes (22 percent of the sub-sample compared with 12 percent of the total sample).

3.8 Building and renovating sustainably

The survey found that roughly one in five of the respondents had built or renovated their home in the last two years. In all, 4 percent of respondents reported building a new house, while a further 15 percent reported they had renovated their home in the past two years.

Table 41:

Q28. Have you built a new home or completed a major renovation in the last 2 years?

Total may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

3.8.1 Taking sustainability into account for building products and home features

Respondents who said they had built or renovated a house were queried to what extent they took into account the sustainability of the products, services and home features involved when they did this. More than four-fifths (85 percent) reported that they took the sustainability of the products and features into account for some or all things that were involved in the building process.

Figure 22: Personal behaviours – building and renovating (n=197)*

Q29. To what extent did you take into account the sustainability of products, services and home features when building and renovating?

Read text description for figure 22.

Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

*Sub-sample based on those respondents who built or renovated in the last two years.

The results to specific behavioural questions were also examined according to whether or not respondents had recently built or renovated a house. There were very few differences found in this regard, however, except:

• Those who had recently built or renovated were more likely to report having bought a new toilet that was water efficient (83 percent compared to 67 percent of the total sample).

• Those who had recently built or renovated were also more likely to report having put insulation under the floor of their home (53 percent compared to 41 percent of the total sample).

3.9 Taking sustainability into account for purchasing decisions

All of the respondents were queried regarding how much they take into account whether the products and services they purchase have been made and can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.

As detailed in Figure 23, one-quarter reported that they do take such things into consideration, most of the time or every time, while a further one-third (37 percent) do so sometimes.

Figure 23: Personal behaviours – purchasing considerations (n=1000)

Q21. When you purchase any type of goods or services, how much would you take into account whether they have been made and can be disposed of in an enviromentally friendly way?

Read text description for figure 23.

There were no significant differences when respondents’ considerations regarding purchasing decisions and the environment were examined by their income, their geographical location, age, gender or educational qualifications.

3.10 The relationship between considerations made at the time of purchasing and environmentally sustainable behaviours

The survey found a positive relationship between how much New Zealanders take into account whether the products and services they purchase have been made and can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way, and their willingness to engage in certain environmentally friendly behaviours.

For example, those who regularly take into account the environmental impact of the goods and services they purchase, are also more likely to:

• Have replaced their shower head with one that is more water efficient (86 percent compared to 45 percent of the total sample).

• Bought a new toilet that is water efficient (84 percent, compared to 67 percent of the total sample).

• Reduced the volume of water in their existing toilet tank (41 percent compared to 31 percent of the total sample).

• Plan what they buy, cook and eat to avoid wasting food (94 percent compared to 79 percent of the total sample).

• Have a worm farm (29 percent, compared to 10 percent of the total sample).

• Compost garden rubbish and kitchen scraps at home (84 percent compared to 63 percent of the total sample).

In contrast, those who report they never give any thought to how their purchases have been made or how could be disposed of, are significantly less likely to have:

• Replaced their existing shower head with one that is more water efficient (29 percent compared to 45 percent of the total sample).

• Reduced the volume of water in their existing toilet tank (19 percent compared to 31 percent of the total sample).

• Plan what they buy, cook and eat to avoid wasting food (54 percent compared to 79 percent of the total sample).

• Have a worm farm (4 percent compared to 10 percent of the total sample).

• Compost garden rubbish and kitchen scraps at home (48 percent compared to 63 percent of the total sample).

[ Previous| Next