Environmental behaviours, repair and re-use (National Survey for Wales): April 2022 to March 2023

In 2022-23, the National Survey asked people about environmentally friendly actions and repair and re-use behaviours.

Some results from previous years are included in this module to provide context. 

We found that:

• 88% of people undertake environmentally friendly behaviours
• 95% of people have repaired or re-used items in the last 12 months
• environmentally friendly behaviours and repair and re-use behaviours are linked with each other
• geographic factors are linked with repair and re-use behaviours, but not environmentally friendly behaviours
• ‘cost’ is more likely to be the main reason for undertaking environmentally friendly behaviours than it was in July 2021 to January 2022

People were asked about six types of environmental behaviour that can be undertaken as part of everyday life. These were whether they had:

• avoided or cut down travelling by car
• avoided or minimised travelling by plane
• avoided or ate less meat
• avoided or ate less dairy
• minimised energy use at home
• minimised the purchasing of brand new things

These behaviours could be done for any reason. People were then asked for the main reason they did the behaviour(s); reasons are explored later in this report.

The percentage of people saying they had done at least one environmentally friendly behaviour was higher in 2022-23 than in July 2021 to January 2022, when 82% of people had done so.

Figure 1: Environmental behaviours, by year, July 2021 to January 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023

Image

Description of Figure 1: Bar chart showing environmental behaviours performed by people in July 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to March 2023. Most behaviours showed no change between the two years, however more people were minimising energy use at home and minimising the purchasing of brand-new things in April 2022 to March 2023 compared with July 2021 to January 2022.

In-depth analysis was carried out to investigate the links between undertaking at least one environmentally friendly behaviour and a variety of demographic and geographic factors. As with all analysis of this type, we are unable to attribute cause and effect for these associations, or to take account of factors not measured in the survey. See quality information for more details.

While controlling for links with other factors, the following were independently associated with undertaking environmentally friendly behaviours:

Age was found to be a linked factor, with people aged 45 to 64 being more likely than the national average to perform an environmentally friendly behaviour, with 91% of the group doing so. By comparison, those aged 65+ were less likely to perform an environmentally friendly behaviour, with 84% doing so. People aged between 16 to 44 showed no change compared with the national average.

Different age groups were more likely to favour certain behaviours, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Participation in environmental behaviours, by age

Image

Description of Figure 2: Bar chart showing environmental behaviours performed broken down by 3 age groups. People aged 16 to 44 were more likely than the national average to minimise the purchase of brand-new things, but less likely to cut down of travelling by car or plane. People aged 45 to 64 were more likely than average to minimise energy use at home, as well as cut down on car travel. People aged 65+ were more likely than average to cut down on plane travel, but were less likely to minimise energy use at home, reduce their purchasing of brand-new things, or reduce dairy consumption.

Sexual orientation was also found to be independently linked, with 96% of non-heterosexual people performing at least one environmentally friendly behaviour, compared with 88% of heterosexual people. Non-heterosexual people were more likely than the national average to cut down on car travel (56%); reduce their meat consumption (40%); and reduce their dairy consumption (23%).

Marital status was established to have an independent link, where surviving partners from marriages and civil partnerships were less likely to undertake an environmentally friendly behaviour, with 79% of such people doing so. Every other measured marital group (single, married or partnered, currently separated, divorced) had no differences from each other or the national average.

People who were single (never married or entered a civil partnership) were less likely than average to be minimising their energy use, with 71% doing so. Surviving partners from marriages and civil partnerships also were less likely than average to be minimising energy use, with 67% doing so. By contrast, currently married people were more likely than average to be minimising energy use, with 79%. 

Surviving partners also had below-average likelihoods to be minimising the purchasing of brand-new things (42%), and reducing dairy intake (9%). People who were divorced were more likely than the national average to be reducing their meat consumption, with 33% of divorced people doing this. 

Living in material deprivation was found to be associated with environmentally friendly behaviours. 92% of materially deprived people performed at least one environmentally friendly behaviour, compared with 88% of people who were not materially deprived.

People living in material deprivation were more likely to be minimising their purchasing of brand-new things when compared with the national average, at 69%. This group was also more likely than average to be reducing their dairy intake, with 17% doing so.

Highest educational qualification was found to be a linked factor. People with National Qualification Level 4 or higher qualifications were the most likely to engage in at least one environmentally friendly behaviour, with 92% of such people doing so, compared with 81% of those without any qualifications. People with National Qualifications below level 4 did not show any differences from the national average for environmental behaviours.

People with National Qualifications of level 4 or higher had an above average likelihood of performing all six environmentally friendly behaviours, whereas people with no qualifications showed below average likelihoods of performing five environmentally friendly behaviours, with minimising plane travel being the exception.

Having repaired or re-used items in the last 12 months (which was asked about as a separate topic) was linked to increased likelihood of undertaking environmental behaviours. 90% of people who had repaired or re-used items in the last 12 months also performed at least one environmentally friendly behaviour, compared with 62% of people performing environmentally friendly behaviours who had not repaired or re-used things.

People who had not repaired or re-used things within the last 12 months were less likely than the national average to perform each of the six highlighted environmentally friendly behaviours.

Additionally, sex was found to be an independently linked factor with undertaking environmentally friendly behaviours, however there was no difference between males and females in the likelihood of undertaking at least one environmentally friendly behaviour. Women were more likely than men to reduce their consumption of meat (33% compared with 25%) and to reduce their purchasing of brand-new things (57% compared with 49%).

As mentioned above, geographic factors were also included in this in-depth analysis. However, associations were not found between performing an environmentally friendly behaviour:

• local authority
• urban-rural classification
• area deprivation (according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation)

Additionally, no independent links could be found between environmentally friendly behaviours and ethnicity, religious beliefs, or having a limiting long-term illness.

People who undertook these environmentally friendly behaviours were also asked for the main reason they were doing them. The potential reasons presented to respondents varied depending on the behaviour in question, but all behaviours included the reasons ‘cost’, ‘to limit the effects of climate change’, and ‘another reason’ (which could be added by the respondent). The exact list of reasons presented for each behaviour can be viewed in our April 2022 to March 2023 questionnaire.

For all 6 behaviours, ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ was not the most commonly given answer in 2022-23, the same as found in July 2021 to January 2022.

There was no change in the percentage of people who chose ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their primary reason for 4 of behaviours compared with the previous year:

• avoiding or minimising travel by plane (25%)
• avoiding or eating less meat (18%)
• avoiding or eating less dairy (10%)
• minimising the purchase of brand new things (12%)

The remaining 2 behaviours, however, showed decreases in the percentages of people citing climate change as their primary motivation. 

People minimising their energy use at home who reported climate change as their primary motivation decreased from 25% in July 2021 to January 2022 to 11% in 2022-23. For people who avoided or cut down travelling by car, the percentage who selected climate change as their main reason for doing so fell from 19% in July 2021 to January 2022 to 14% in 2022-23. 

‘Cost’ was given as the primary reason for April 2022 to March 2023 more often when compared with July 2021 to January 2022 for all environmental behaviours except for ‘avoiding or eating less dairy’, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3: People who stated 'Cost' as their primary motivation for environmental behaviours, July 2021 to January 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023

Image

Description of Figure 3: Bar chart showing the percentage of people who put 'Cost' as their main reason for performing each environmental behaviour in July 2021 to January 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023. Most behaviours showed an increase in ‘cost’ being selected for the latest year, however no change was found for people avoiding or eating less dairy. The sharpest increases were for minimising energy use at home and avoiding or cutting down on car travel, where there was an over 20 percentage point increase in selecting ‘cost’ in 2022-23 compared with July 2021 to January 2022.

People’s motivations for engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours were also broken down against the factors found to be linked with performing at least one environmentally friendly behaviour.

For all environmentally friendly behaviours except for ‘avoiding or cutting down travelling by car’, no differences were apparent in the motivations of people who had or had not performed any repair and re-use actions in the last 12 months.

For people avoiding or cutting down travelling by car, 43% cited ‘cost’ as their primary motivation. The following groups were more likely to state ‘cost’ than average:

• being currently separated in a marriage or civil partnership (58%)
• living in material deprivation (60%)

Meanwhile, the following groups were less likely than average to give ‘cost’ as their main reason for reducing car use:

• being aged 65+ (37%)
• being a surviving partner from a marriage or civil partnership (33%)

An additional 13% of people limiting their car use stated their main reason was ‘to limit the effects of climate change’. Having a National Qualification Level 4 or higher qualification was the only factor that showed an increased proportion of people reporting this as their main reason, with 18%. The following categories were less likely than average to select ‘to limit the effects of climate change’:

• being a surviving partner from a marriage or civil partnership (7%)
• having no qualifications (7%)
• living in material deprivation (8%) 

18% of people limiting their car use stated their main reason was that they ‘don’t need to travel by car as much’. This was more likely for people aged 65+ (28%); surviving partners from a marriage or civil partnership (30%); and people who hadn’t done any repair or re-use actions in the last 12 months (38%). Conversely, only those living in material deprivation were less likely than the national average to give this as their main reason, with 8%.

Women were more likely than men to report their main reason as ‘another reason’, i.e. one not listed in the questionnaire, with 7% of women doing so compared with 4% of men. Neither group showed a difference when compared with the national average.

The most commonly-selected reason for limiting air travel was that they ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’, with 35% of people doing so listing this as their main reason. A further 25% of people gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason, and 20% gave ‘cost’ as their main reason.

Similar to car travel, the reasons given by people aged 65+ differed noticeably from other age groups. 44% of people in this age group that had limited air travel gave ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’ as their main reason. Fewer people in this age group gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ or ‘cost’ as their main reason, with 11% of people aged 65+ selecting ‘cost’ and 18% selecting ‘to limit the effects of climate change’. People aged 45 to 64 were less likely than average to have ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’ be their main reason (27%). People aged 16 to 44 were more likely than average to give ‘cost’ as their main reason (28%). 

Surviving partners of marriages and civil partnerships also showed a similar trend, with 52% giving ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’ as their main reason for reducing air travel. Furthermore, fewer surviving partners gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ or ‘cost’ as their main reason, with 13% citing ‘to limit the effects of climate change’, and 11% citing ‘cost’ respectively.

People living in material deprivation were more likely to give ‘cost’ as their main reason, with 43% of people in material deprivation who were reducing air travel giving this as their reason. 25% gave ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’ as their main reason, and another 12% gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason.

Having a higher education increased the likelihood of giving ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as the main reason for reducing plane usage, with 35% of people with a National Qualification Level of 4 or higher doing so. In comparison, 9% of those with level 2 qualifications gave this reason and 7% of those without qualifications gave this response.

Men were more likely to have ‘don’t need to travel by plane as much’ as their main reason when compared with women, with 38% of men doing so compared with 31% of women.

‘Health or dietary reasons’ was the most common reason for people cutting down on their meat and dairy consumption: 41% of people reducing their meat intake and 62% of people reducing their dairy intake citied this as their main reason for doing so.

‘Ethical reasons’ was the second most common reason for both diet-based behaviours, with 22% of people reducing their meat consumption and 17% of people eating less dairy stating it as their main reason.

‘Cost’ and ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ were less-common reasons in both cases, but were both more likely to be given as the main reason for reducing meat eating than for dairy. ‘Cost’ was cited by 13% of those cutting down on meat and 6% of those cutting down on dairy. ‘To limit the effects of climate change’ was the given reason for 18% of people eating less meat and 10% of those eating less dairy.

The following factors were associated with people selecting ‘health or dietary reasons’ as their main reason for reducing meat consumption:

• being aged 65+ (55%)
• being currently married or in a civil partnership (49%)
• being a surviving partner from a marriage or civil partnership (50%)

Those aged 65+ were also less likely than average to have ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason to eat less meat: 7% of those over 65 gave this as their main reason.

Meanwhile, the following factors showed a decreased likelihood compared with the national average to cite ‘health or dietary reasons’ as their main reason for eating less meat, with 27% of each group having this reason as their main reason for doing so:

• being aged 16 to 44
• not being heterosexual
• being single
• living in material deprivation

The percentage of people having ‘cost’ as their main reason for cutting down on meat was significantly higher than the national average for those living in material deprivation, becoming the most commonly-given reason for the group with 37% of cases. Having no educational qualifications also showed an increase in people citing ‘cost’ as their main reason, with 29% of cases doing so.

The reasons for people reducing their dairy intake showed fewer differences from the national average. This may, however, be due to a lack of precision in our results because of the smaller proportion of people selecting this behaviour.

People aged 65+ cutting down on diary were more likely than average to cite ‘health or dietary reasons’ as their main reason, with 72% of people doing so. They were also less likely to cite ‘ethical reasons’ as their main reason than average, with only 10% of the group doing so.

‘Cost’ was more likely to be the cited reason for cutting down on dairy for people with no qualifications and those living in material deprivation, with 21% of people without qualifications, and 23% of people in material deprivation, who were reducing dairy intake having ‘cost’ as their main reason for doing so. 

Women were more likely than men to state ‘ethnical reasons’ to be their main reason for reducing their meat consumption, with 26% of women doing so compared with 18% of men.

84% of people reducing energy use selected ‘cost’ as their main reason. Another 11% chose ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason, and 5% had ‘don’t need to use so much energy’.

People reducing their energy use who were 65+ years old were more likely than average to say ‘don’t need to use so much energy’, occurring in 7% of cases. A similar increase was found in surviving partners from marriages and civil partnerships, with 9% of those saving energy within the group having this as their main reason.

Once again, people living in material deprivation were more likely than average to select ‘cost’ as their primary motivation, with 94% of materially deprived people who were saving energy had ‘cost’ as their main reason for doing so compared with 82% of people not in deprivation. To limit the effects of climate change’ showed a corresponding decrease compared with the average, being the selected reason by 5% of materially deprived people.

Those without qualifications showed similar patterns to those living in material deprivation: of those reducing energy use, 90% of people with no qualifications cited ‘cost’ as their main reason, and 5% of the same group reported ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason. Those with qualifications below National Qualification Level 2 also showed an increased likelihood than average in reporting cost as their primary motivation for saving energy, at 92%.

No differences were found for the reasons for reducing energy use when broken down by sex.

‘Cost’ was once again the most likely reason given for buying fewer brand-new things, being selected by 43% of people who had bought fewer new things. 31% said their main motivation was that they ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’, and a further 12% bought fewer new things ‘to limit the effects of climate change’. Additionally, 14% of people were purchasing fewer new things because they ‘prefer to mend or buy second-hand’.

The following groups were more likely than the national average to have ‘cost’ be their main reason for buying fewer brand-new things:

• people aged 16 to 44 (52%)
• single people (49%)
• people currently separated from marriages and civil partnerships (60%)
• people living in material deprivation (72%)
• people with a National Qualification Level of 2 (51%) or lower (60%)

The corresponding decreases in the other listed reasons for purchasing fewer new things varied between groups. People living in material deprivation was the only group of people to decrease all other previously mentioned reasons below their national averages. 12% of the group had ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ as their main reason, 6% of materially deprived people gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason, and 9% had the main reason ‘prefer to mend or buy second-hand’.

People aged 16 to 44 and single people had were less likely than average to select the reason ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ for buying fewer brand-new things, with 21% and 23% respectively.

People with a highest National Qualification Level of 2 that were buying fewer new things were less likely to give ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason than the national average, with 7%. People with no qualifications also gave this reason less often than average, with 3%.

Meanwhile, people buying fewer new things in the following groups were less likely than average to have ‘cost’ be their main motivation:

• people aged 65+ (26%)
• surviving partners from marriages or civil partnerships (29%)
• people not living in material deprivation (35%)
• people with a National Qualification Level of 4 or higher (35%)

Corresponding increases to other motivations showed differences from the national average for the reasons ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’, and ‘to limit the effects of climate change’. 

People aged 65+ buying fewer new things showed increase for people selecting ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ for their main reason (54%), and a decrease in people giving ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason (8%).

Surviving partners of marriages and civil partnerships showed similar differences from the national average, with 52% of people giving ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ for their main reason, and 7% of people giving ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason. People currently married also gave a higher-than-average likelihood of ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ being their main reason, at 36%.

People not living in material deprivation also gave an above-average rate of people citing ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ as their main reason, with 35%.

People who had not bought or received brand-new items in the last 12 months also gave ‘don’t need to buy so many new things’ as their main reason more often than average, at 42%. This groups were also less likely to cite ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason, at 8%.

People with National Qualifications of level 4 or higher gave ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason more often, with 17% of this group selecting this reason.

Women were more likely than men to cite ‘to limit the effects of climate change’ as their main reason for minimising their purchasing of brand-new things, with 14% of women doing so compared with 10% of men. Once again, neither group showed a difference compared with the national average.

People were also asked about four methods of repairing and re-using; and were further asked if they had performed these within the last 12 months. The methods of repair and reuse were:

• selling or donating items second-hand
• buying or receiving items second-hand
• repairing or altering clothing that would have instead been unused
• repairing or altering household items that would have instead been unused

The percentage of people doing at least one of these in the last 12 months was unchanged since July 2021 to January 2022, but higher than 2018-19, when 88% of people had done at least one of these actions. (Care should be taken when comparing pre-pandemic results with those from later years, because the survey mode changed from face-to-face to telephone in April 2020 and this may have had some effect on the results). 

Figure 4: Participation in repair and re-use actions within the last 12 months, April 2018 to March 2019, July 2021 to January 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023

Image

Description of Figure 4: Column chart showing four repair and re-use behaviours performed by people in April 2018 to March 2019, July 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to March 2023. No differences could be identified between July 2021 to January 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023, however both showed increases in all four behaviours compared with April 2018 to March 2019.

In-depth analysis was carried out to investigate the links between undertaking at least one repair or re-use behaviour within the last 12 months and a variety of demographic and geographic factors in April 2022 to March 2023. While controlling for links with other factors, the following were independently associated with undertaking repair and re-use actions:

Sex was found to be factor, with women performing at least 1 repair or re-use behaviour within the last 12 months in 96% of cases, compared with 94% of men.

Highest educational qualification was also found to be an independent factor, with 98% of people with a National Qualification Level of 4 or higher performing at least 1 method of repair and re-use, compared with 89% of people without any qualifications.

96% of people in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ general health had done some method of repair or re-use in the last 12 months, whilst 89% of people in ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ health had done the same. People reporting ‘fair’ health showed no difference compared with those in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ health.

Performing at least one environmentally friendly behaviour was also linked to an increased likelihood of repair or re-use behaviours: 97% of those who regularly undertook an environmentally friendly behaviour had also done some form of repairing or re-using within the last 12 months, whilst 85% of people who hadn’t regularly performed any environmentally friendly behaviours had done a form of repair or re-use.

Household type was linked to recent repair and re-use actions, with 98% of respondents from couples with dependent children having done so within the last 12 months, more likely than the national average. Inversely, single adults without children and single pensioners were less likely than average to have undertaken repair and re-use actions, with 93% and 89% of each respective group having done so within the last 12 months.

Finally, Local Authority was also found to be linked to repair and re-use. People living in the Vale of Glamorgan and Swansea were more likely than the national average to have done at least one such action within the last 12 months, at 99% and 97%, respectively. People living in Blaenau Gwent were less likely than average to have done any repair or re-use activities in the last 12 months.

People’s repair and re-use actions were broken down against the factors found to linked with performing at least one repair and re-use action.

Selling or donating items second-hand

Overall, 90% of people had either sold or donated items second-hand in the last 12 months. For each of the 6 linked factors discussed above, at least one difference from the national average was found.

Women were more likely to have sold or donated items, with 93% having done so within the last 12 months compared with 87% of men.

People with qualifications at or above National Qualification Level 4 were also more likely to have sold or donated than average, having done so in 93% of cases. Those without any qualification were less likely than average to have sold or donated items second-hand within the last 12 months, with 82%.

People reporting ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ general health were also less likely to sell or donate, where 81% of such people had done so. Those reporting ‘fair’ health or ‘good’ or ‘very good’ did not show any differences compared with the national average.

People regularly undertaking at least one environmentally friendly behaviour were more likely to have sold or donated items in the last 12 months, with 92% of people who had done such environmental behaviours having also sold or donated. Meanwhile, 76% of people who hadn’t performed an environmentally friendly behaviour had sold or donated any items second-hand.

Household type also showed some differences from the national average. 97% of non-pensioner couples with children had sold or donated within the last 12 months. Single occupant households were the less likely than average to sell or donate second-hand items, with 82% of single working-age adults and 81% of single pensioners doing so within the last 12 months.

People living in the Vale of Glamorgan were more likely to sell or donate items second-hand compared with the national average, with 98% of respondents doing so. In contrast, 81% of people living on the Isle of Anglesey were had sold or donated items in the last 12 months.

Buying or receiving items second-hand

Buying or receiving second-hand items was the second most likely repair and re-use behaviour, with 70% of people doing so overall.

Once again, women were more likely to perform this behaviour than men, with 72% doing so within the last 12 months compared with 68% of men. Neither of these showed differences compared with the national average, however.

Highest qualification showed a similar correlation with buying or receiving second-hand as was found for selling or donating. People with National Qualifications of level 4 or higher had bought or received second-hand items more than the national average, with 75%. Meanwhile 59% or those without any qualifications and 61% of those with qualifications below level 2 had bought or received second-hand items, both below the national average.

No differences could be found between people’s general health and their likelihood of buying or receiving second-hand items.

Environmentally-friendly behaviour practice was again found to have differences compared with the national average: 73% of people who had performed at least one environmentally friendly behaviour had also bought or received second-hand items in the last 12 months. By comparison, 46% of people who had not performed any environmentally friendly behaviour had bought or received second-hand items in the last 12 months.

Household type showed a greater number of differences from the national average for buying or receiving second-hand items than were found for selling or donating second-hand items. People living in the following households were more likely than average to have bought or received second-hand items in the last 12 months:

• Non-pensioner couples with dependent children (81%)
• Non-pensioner couples without dependent children (75%)
• Single adults with dependent children (78%)

Pensioner households, by contrast, were less likely than average to have bought or received second-hand items, with 50% of single pensioners and 56% of people from pensioner couples having done so.

Some local authorities also showed a difference compared with the national average. In both Powys, and the Vale of Glamorgan, people were more likely than average to have bought or received second-hand items in the last 12 months, with 75% and 77% of people doing so, respectively. People living in Blaenau Gwent, by contrast, were less likely than average to have bought or received second-hand items, with 61% of people in the local authority having done so.

Repair or alteration of clothing

45% of people had repaired or altered clothing within the past 12 months that otherwise would have been thrown away.

Of the 4 repair and re-use actions measured, repairing or altering clothing showed the largest disparity between the sexes, with 51% of women having repaired or altered clothing within the last 12 months, compared with 39% of men.

Highest qualification followed the same trends found for the previous behaviours. Once again, people with National Qualifications of level 4 or above were more likely than average to perform this repair and re-use activity, with 52% repairing or altering clothing within the last 12 months. Similarly, people with qualifications below National Qualification Level 2 or no qualifications were less likely than average to have repaired or altered clothing, with 36% of people doing so in both groups.

No differences could be found for the likelihood of repairing or altering clothing when broken down by general health.

Undertaking environmentally friendly behaviours was associated with a higher likelihood of repairing or altering clothing, with 48% of people performing at least one such environmental behaviour having repaired or altered clothing within the last 12 months. By comparison, 26% of people who hadn’t performed an environmentally friendly behaviour had repaired or altered clothing.

Household types showed only one group with a difference compared with the national average for repairing or altering clothing: 39% of single pensioners had done this action, below the average.

People living in Powys were more likely than the national average to have repaired or altered clothing in the last 12 months, with 53% of people doing so. Those living in Caerphilly or Blaenau Gwent were less likely than average to repair or re-use clothing, with the action being done by 37% and 35% of people, respectively.

Repair of household items

Carrying out or arranging the repair of household items (e.g. furniture, fridge, kettle) was the repair and re-use behaviour that was least likely to be selected, with 40% of people having done this within the last 12 months.

Unlike the other repair and re-use actions, men were more likely to have repaired or have had a household item repaired (44% of men) than women (37%). 

Once again, people with higher qualifications were more likely to repair household items than the national average, with 46% of people with National Qualifications of level 4 or higher doing so. 31% of people without any qualifications repaired household items, below the national average. Additionally, people with a level 2 qualification as their highest qualification were also less likely than average to have repaired a household item (35% of such people). 

No differences could be found for the likelihood of repairing or arranging the repair of household items when broken down by general health.

People who hadn’t undertaken any environmentally friendly behaviours were less likely than the national average to repair household items (24% of such people). People who did practice at least one environmentally friendly behaviour did not show a difference in the likelihood to repair household items when compared with the national average.

Again, household type showed minimal differences in the likelihood of repairing household items when compared with the national average. Single pensioners were the exception, once again being less likely than average to perform a repair and re-use action, with 23% of the group repairing or arranging the repair of a household item in the last 12 months.

Another Welsh Government survey assessing behaviours that impacted the environment took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, in June and November 2020. However, the National Survey differs in the questions asked of respondents as well as in survey methodology, and so the two are not directly comparable.

Statistical data relating to recycling is released on the local authority municipal waste management pages. This data is once again not directly comparable with the National Survey statistics but provides useful context. UK-wide data relating to household recycling is available at the UK Statistics on Waste (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) dataset.

The Programme for Government states that the expansion of repair and re-use is an essential part of action on the climate and nature emergency. This expansion is seen as a key part of delivering better environmental, economic and social outcomes arising from a move to a circular economy and transition to net zero. Welsh Government’s circular economy strategy, Beyond Recycling, makes a commitment to develop a culture of re-use, repair and remanufacture in Wales.

The National Survey for Wales is a continuous, large-scale, random sample telephone survey covering people across Wales.  Addresses are randomly selected, and invitations sent by post, requesting that a phone number be provided for the address. The phone number can be provided via an online portal, a telephone enquiry line, or direct to the mobile number of the interviewer for that case. If no phone number is provided, an interviewer may call at the address and ask for a phone number. 

The results discussed in this report were part of an online self-completion section. The first section of the survey took part by telephone; respondents who used the internet were then asked to complete a short set of questions online. For respondents who did not use the internet or were not comfortable or able to complete the online section themselves, the interviewer asked the questions by telephone instead.

Detailed charts and tables of results are available in our interactive results viewer. For information on data collection and methodology please see our Quality report, Technical report, and Regression report pages.

Where differences are identified in this report between groups or between years, we have found that there is a statistically significant difference, for example because the 95% confidence intervals around two estimates overlap. Where ‘no difference’ is reported, this means that there no statistically significant difference has been identified.

Cross-analysis suggests that various factors may be associated with the responses given to each question asked in the National Survey. However, these factors are often linked to each other (for example, people with a limiting long-term condition may also be older). To get a clearer understanding of the effect of each individual factor, we have used statistical methods to separate out the individual effect of each factor. These methods allow us to look at the effect of one factor while keeping other factors constant – sometimes called “controlling for other factors”. Each breakdown described in this report was identified as an individual factor.

National Statistics status

The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality, and public value.

All official statistics should comply with all aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. They are awarded National Statistics status following an assessment by the UK Statistics Authority’s regulatory arm. The Authority considers whether the statistics meet the highest standards of Code compliance, including the value they add to public decisions and debate. 

It is Welsh Government’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected of National Statistics. If we become concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Authority promptly. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained and reinstated when standards are restored.

The continued designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in June 2020 following a compliance check by the Office for Statistics Regulation (letter of confirmation). These statistics last underwent a full assessment (full report) against the Code of Practice in 2013. 

Since the latest review by the Office for Statistics Regulation, we have continued to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics, by for example: 

• providing more detailed breakdowns in the results viewer.
• updated the survey topics regularly to ensure we continue to meet changing policy need.

continued to carry out regression analysis as a standard part of our outputs, to help users understand the contribution of particular factors to outcomes of interest.

Well-being of Future Generations Act (WFG)

The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 is about improving the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of Wales. The Act puts in place seven wellbeing goals for Wales. These are for a more equal, prosperous, resilient, healthier, and globally responsible Wales, with cohesive communities and a vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language. Under section (10)(1) of the Act, the Welsh Ministers must (a) publish indicators (“national indicators”) that must be applied for the purpose of measuring progress towards the achievement of the Well-being goals, and (b) lay a copy of the national indicators before the National Assembly. The 50 national indicators were laid in March 2016. The National Survey collects information for 15 of the 50 indicators. This release presents the results for indicator 19 – the percentage of people living in households in material deprivation.

Further information on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The statistics included in this release could also provide supporting narrative to the national indicators and be used by public service boards in relation to their local wellbeing assessments and local wellbeing plans.

Surveys team
Email: surveys@gov.wales

Media: 0300 025 8099

SB 12/2024

Image