Flash Eurobarometer on water. Analytical report

Transcription

1 Flash Eurobarometer 261 The Gallup Organisation Analytical Report Flash EB N o 251 Public attitudes and perceptions in the euro area Flash Eurobarometer European Commission Flash Eurobarometer on water Analytical report Fieldwork: January 2009 Publication: March 2009 This survey was requested by the Directorate General Environment, and coordinated by Directorate General Communication. This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. page 1 The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

2 Flash EB Series #261 Flash Eurobarometer on water Conducted by The Gallup Organisation, Hungary upon the request of Directorate General Environment Survey co-ordinated by Directorate General Communication This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. THE GALLUP ORGANISATION

3 Analytical report Contents Introduction... 4 Main findings Level of information about water-related problems Seriousness of water-related problems Changes in the quality of water Impact of various factors on the status of water Main threats to the water environment Impact of climate change on the water environment Taking individual actions to reduce water-related problems Consultations on the River Basin Management plans I. Annex tables II. Survey details III. Questionnaire page 3

4 Analytical report Introduction The Flash Eurobarometer on water (N o 261) was conducted in order to examine EU citizens awareness about various water-related problems, their perceptions about the impact of a number of factors on their country s water environment, and their willingness to take individual actions to reduce these water-related problems. In addition, the survey looked at the levels of awareness of the consultations on River Basin Management plans. In detail, the survey examined the: level of knowledge about water-related problem seriousness of water-related problems perceived changes in the quality of water opinions about the impact of various sectors and activities on the status of water main threats to the water environment main perceived impact of climate change on water individual actions to reduce water-related problems willingness to participate in public consultations on the River Basin Management plans. The Flash Eurobarometer on water (Flash N o 261) fieldwork was conducted between 26 and 31 January Over 25,500 randomly-selected citizens aged 15 years and over were interviewed in the 27 EU Member States. Interviews were predominantly carried out via fixed-line telephone, reaching ca. 1,000 EU citizens in each country (in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta the targeted size was 500). Parts of the interviews in Austria, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain were conducted over mobile telephones. Due to the relatively low fixed-line telephone coverage in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, 300 individuals were sampled and interviewed on a face-to-face basis. To correct for sampling disparities, a post-stratification weighting of the results was implemented, based on key socio-demographic variables. More details on the survey methodology are included in the Annex of this report. Please note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always exactly add up to the totals mentioned in the text. page 4

5 Analytical report Main findings Level of information about water-related problems Slightly more than 4 out of 10 EU citizens felt well informed or very well informed about the problems facing rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country. The proportion of well-informed citizens ranged from 23% in Lithuania to 78% in Cyprus. The level of feeling informed about problems facing rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters increased with age, educational attainment and occupational status of the respondents. Seriousness of water-related problems Almost 7 out of 10 of EU citizens thought that water quality is a serious problem in their country and a slightly lower proportion (63%) said the same about the shortage or excess (such as floods) of water. Approximately 6 out of 10 Romanians and Cypriots thought that water quality is a very serious problem in their country; less than one-tenth of Dutch and Finnish citizens shared this concern. Virtually no Finnish respondents and less than one-tenth of respondents in Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands thought that the shortage or excess of water is a very serious problem. The level of concern was higher in the southern Member States of the EU these countries are confronted with more problems of water shortage than the northern European countries. The year-olds were the least concerned about problems related to the quantity and quality of water in their countries. Changes in the quality of water Almost 4 out of 10 EU citizens thought that the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years. Cypriot, Greek and Romanian citizens most frequently felt that the quality of water in their country has deteriorated (75%, 71% and 61%, respectively). The Dutch, Germans and Belgians, on the other hand, were the most likely to feel that the quality of water has improved (48%, 46% and 44%, respectively). Although the year-olds were the least concerned about water quality problems, they most frequently said that water quality has deteriorated in the past five years. Impact of various factors on the status of water Slightly more than 7 out of 10 EU citizens thought that industry has a large impact on the quality and quantity of water in their country; closely followed by agriculture for which twothirds said it has a large impact. The proportion of citizens saying that agriculture has a large impact on the status of water was lower than the corresponding proportion for industry in almost all Member States. In Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France and Slovenia, however, the opposite was seen. EU citizens also recognised individual households impact on their country s water environment (45% selected the large impact response). Nevertheless, in most Member States, citizens were less likely to think that households have a large impact on the status of page 5

6 Analytical report water in their country than that industry and agriculture have a large impact. Cyprus was the only country where households were seen as having the strongest impact. Among the respondents in countries with coastal waters, the Spanish and Portuguese were the most likely to answer that shipping (e.g. ports, canals and spills) has a large impact on the status of water in their country (73% and 69%, respectively, vs. 49% on average in countries with coastal waters). In the landlocked countries Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria and Slovakia at least 3 out of 10 interviewees thought that shipping has a large impact. Women, the year-olds and the most educated respondents tended to say more frequently than EU citizens on average that activities in several of these sectors have a large impact on the water environment of their country. Main threats to the water environment Chemical pollution was by far the most frequently mentioned threat to a country s water environment selected by three-quarters of EU citizens. The second most frequently mentioned threat was climate change selected by one in two respondents. These two hazards appeared among the three most important threats to a country s water environment in all Member States. The British were by far the most likely to select flooding as a threat (75% vs. e.g. 51% in Romania, and vs. 37% for the EU average), the Cypriots cited water shortage (73% vs. e.g. 44% in Portugal or France, and vs. 30% for the EU average) and the Finns were the most concerned about algae growth (78% vs. 27% on average in the Baltic Sea countries). The most educated respondents were less likely than the least-educated respondents to select water shortage or flooding as the main threat to their country s water environment, but they were more likely to mention changed water ecosystems, algae growth, climate change or chemical pollution. Impact of climate change on the water environment EU citizens were divided in their opinion about the impact of climate change on the water environment of their country: changed ecosystems, rising sea levels, more floods and increasing water scarcity were all selected by approximately one-fifth of respondents. Only 7% of EU citizens answered that climate change would not have a significant impact on their country s water ecosystem. Nevertheless, in some countries at least twice as many respondents expressed this opinion: Estonia, Luxembourg and Latvia. British, Irish and Dutch citizens were the most likely to think that climate change would lead to an excess of water i.e. rising sea levels and flooding in their countries. The Cypriots and the Greeks were the ones mainly identifying water scarcity as the major impact of climate change (74% and 48%, respectively, compared to e.g. one-third or less in Spain, France and Italy). Taking individual actions to reduce water-related problems page 6 A large majority of EU citizens said they had been actively trying to reduce water-related problems by using less water, by using eco-friendly household chemical and/or by avoiding the use of pesticides and fertilizers in their garden. A majority of citizens in all EU Member States said they had been actively trying to reduce water-related problems by using less water in the past two years ranging from 56% in Romania to 97% in Cyprus. Although the Finns were very unlikely to have used less water in the past two years, they were among the most likely in the EU together with respondents in other Nordic countries (Danes

7 Analytical report and Swedes) to have used eco-friendly household chemicals (71%, 74% and 67%, respectively). Women, older respondents, the more educated ones and those feeling well-informed about water-related problems were more likely than EU citizens on average to have been actively trying to reduce water-related problems over the past two years. River Basin Management plans Only 14% of EU citizens were aware of the public consultation process in the framework of the River Basin Management plans. Awareness was the highest in Poland (28%), the Czech Republic and the Netherlands (both 22%). One in two EU citizens were ready to take part in the public consultation process. In only four countries did a majority say they were not interested in expressing their views: Malta, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Finland. Younger respondents, the less educated ones, manual workers and non-working respondents were less interested than EU citizens on average in expressing their views during these consultations. page 7

8 Analytical report 1. Level of information about water-related problems Slightly more than 4 out of 10 EU citizens felt well informed or very well informed about the problems facing rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country. The proportion of well-informed citizens ranged from 23% in Lithuania to 78% in Cyprus. The level of feeling informed about problems facing rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters increased with age, educational attainment and occupational status of the respondents. Overall, slightly more than 4 out of 10 EU citizens felt informed about the problems facing rivers, lakes and where relevant coastal waters in their country: 38% of respondents felt well informed and 5% said they felt very well informed. A majority of respondents, however, answered that they did not feel informed about this topic: 40% said they were not well informed about such problems and almost one-sixth (16%) did not feel informed at all. Being informed about problems facing lakes, rivers and coastal waters Very well informed 38 Well informed Not well informed 40 Not informed at all DK/NA Q1. How informed do you feel about problems facing lakes, rivers and coastal waters in your country? Base: all respondents, % EU27 Country analysis The proportions of citizens feeling well informed or very well informed about the problems facing lakes, rivers and (if any) coastal waters in their countries were the highest in Cyprus (78%), Finland (62%) and Austria (61%). Respondents in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, on the other hand, were the ones that most frequently said they did not feel well informed, or did not feel informed at all, about this topic: 73% in Lithuania and Estonia, and 72% in Latvia. In almost all EU Member States, less than 1 in 10 respondents were very well informed about the problems facing lakes, rivers and (if any) coastal waters in their country. Furthermore, in almost all Member States, a smaller share of respondents felt very well informed than not informed at all about water-related problems. The interviewees in Lithuania and the Czech Republic were the ones most frequently feeling not informed at all: 28% and 30% of citizens, respectively, selected this possibility. Cyprus stood out from the pack: 42% of Cypriots said they felt very well informed about various water-related problems facing their country compared to an EU average of 5%. This high figure is likely to be related to Cyprus experiencing its worst water shortage for many years owing to prolonged dry seasons and lower than average rainfall. The government has imposed restrictions on water usage page 8

9 CY FI AT DE DK SI LU NL HU ES EL SE IE FR EU27 UK BE PT MT IT CZ BG SK PL RO LV EE LT Analytical report in order to conserve the reservoir levels: Cypriots are only supplied with water for eight hours per day/three days per week 1. Being informed about problems facing lakes, rivers and coastal waters Very well informed Well informed Not well informed Not informed at all DK/NA Q1. How informed do you feel about problems facing lakes, rivers and coastal waters in your country? Base: all respondents, % by country Socio-demographic considerations The socio-demographic analysis showed that men were slightly more likely to say that they felt very well, or well informed about water-related problems in their country (46% vs. 41% of women). Furthermore, the level of feeling informed about problems facing rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters increased with age, educational attainment and occupational status of the respondents: While 4 out of 10 (41%) of the least educated respondents felt very well, or well informed about water-related problems in their country, this proportion increased to 47% for those with the highest levels of education. Only one-third of respondents younger than 40 felt very well, or well informed about problems facing lakes, rivers and (if any) coastal waters in their country, compared to 45% of the year-olds and 52% of the over 54 year-olds. While 38% of manual workers said they felt very well, or well informed about their country s water-related problems, this proportion increased to 46% of self-employed respondents. The respondents place of residence had little impact on the level of feeling informed about waterrelated problems: 44% of respondents living in rural areas felt very well, or well informed about waterrelated problems in their country; the corresponding proportions for those living in metropolitan areas and urban areas were 43% and 44%, respectively. For more details, see annex table 1b. 1 For example, see the web pages of the Limassol or Larnaca Water Boards: page 9

10 Analytical report 2. Seriousness of water-related problems Almost 7 out of 10 of EU citizens thought that water quality is a serious problem in their country and a slightly lower proportion (63%) said the same about the shortage or excess (such as floods) of water. Approximately 6 out of 10 Romanians and Cypriots thought that water quality is a very serious problem in their country; less than one-tenth of Dutch and Finnish citizens shared this concern. Virtually no Finnish respondents and less than one-tenth of respondents in Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands thought that the shortage or excess of water is a very serious problem. The level of concern was higher in the southern Member States of the EU these countries are confronted with more problems of water shortage than the northern European countries. The year-olds were the least concerned about problems related to the quantity and quality of water in their countries. A majority of EU citizens thought that water quality is a serious problem in their country; 3 out of 10 interviewees thought that it is a very serious problem and 38% said it is a fairly serious problem. Less than 3 out of 10 EU citizens said water quality is not a serious problem (21%) or that it is not a problem at all in their country (7%). The distribution of answers relating to the perceived seriousness of problems with the quantity of water was similar to the question on water quality. A majority of EU citizens considered the issue of water quantity to be problematic in their country: slightly more than a quarter (27%) felt that the shortage or excess of water is a very serious problem and 36% of interviewees thought this is a fairly serious problem. Slightly more than one-third of EU citizens said that there are no problems (11%), or no serious problems (24%) with the quantity of water in their country. Perceived seriousness of water-related problems: a) water quality b) water quantity A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all DK/NA 36 Q2. How serious is the problem of water quality in your country? Q3. How serious is the problem of water quantity in your country? Base: all respondents, % EU27 Country analysis water quality The country analysis showed that respondents in Greece were the most likely in the EU to think that the quality of water is a very or fairly serious problem in their country (90%); they were followed by interviewees in Romania, France and Portugal (88%-87%). Furthermore, a majority of Romanians, page 10

11 EL RO FR PT SI CY BG IT PL HU BE LV LT EU27 MT ES SE IE EE SK DE FI DK LU CZ UK NL AT Analytical report Portuguese and Greeks (61%, 55% and 51%, respectively) thought that water quality is a very serious. There was only one other country in which a majority shared this opinion: 58% of Cypriots described water quality as a very serious problem in that country. In only three Member States did more than half of the interviewees say that water quality is not a serious problem or not a problem at all: Austria (61%), the Netherlands (55%) and the UK (54%). Additionally, while the proportion of respondents thinking that water quality is not a problem at all in their country was less than 1 in 10 in almost all Member States, more than one in seven respondents in the UK and the Netherlands (16% and 17%, respectively) and one-fifth (21%) of Austrians said no water quality problems existed. Seriousness of water-related problems water quality A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all DK/NA Q2. How serious is the problem of water quality in your country? Base: all respondents, % by country The following map of Europe shows that concern about water quality was higher in eastern and southern European countries (e.g. Greece, Portugal, Romania and Hungary) than in northern and western European countries (e.g. Denmark, the UK and Germany). Exceptions to this rule were the Czech Republic and Slovakia where respondents were less likely than their counterparts in other eastern European countries to think that the quality of water is a very or fairly serious problem in their country. No clear pattern emerged in the level of concern about water quality when comparing the pre enlargement Member States and those that joined the EU in 2004 or later. page 11

12 Analytical report Country analysis water quantity Less than a quarter (23%) of Finnish respondents and approximately 3 out of 10 respondents in Estonia, Latvia and Austria (28%, 30% and 31%, respectively) thought that the shortage or excess of water is a very or fairly serious problem in their country. Between 22 % and 29% of respondents in these countries denied that such problems existed in their respective countries. The level of concern was significantly higher in the southern Member States: respondents in Cyprus (97%), Greece (89%), Portugal (86%) and France (84%) were the most likely in the EU to report that the quantity of water is a serious problem in their respective countries. Given the abovementioned water-related problems in Cyprus, this country again stood out from the pack with 84% saying the quantity of water is a very serious problem in that country. page 12

13 CY EL PT FR RO SI IT ES PL MT BG EU27 HU BE UK NL SK LT CZ IE LU SE DE DK AT LV EE FI Analytical report Seriousness of water-related problems water quantity A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all DK/NA Q3. How serious is the problem of water quantity in your country? Base: all respondents, % by country As stated above, respondents in the southern European Member States were the most likely in the EU to report that the quantity of water is a serious problem in their respective countries; this can easily be seen on the following map. The level of concern was significantly lower in northern and western Europe, and in the Baltic States in most of these countries less than half of the respondents thought that the shortage or excess of water is a very or fairly serious problem in their country. page 13

14 Water quantity - % Very or fairly serious problem Analytical report Correlation between the perceived seriousness of problems related to the quality and quantity of water (at country level) Looking at both the perceived seriousness of problems related to the quality and quantity of water, similarities could be seen: each time, the same countries appeared at the higher and lower ends of the distributions. For example: Greece (90%), Romania, France and Portugal (all 88%) were the countries with the highest proportions of citizens who thought that quality of water is a very or fairly serious problem. In these countries, respondents were also among the most likely to report that the quantity of water is a very or fairly serious problem: 90% in Greece, 86% in Portugal, 84% in France and 79% in Romania. Respondents in Austria and the Netherlands, on the other hand, were the least prone to answer that water quality is a very or fairly serious problem in their country (36% and 42%, respectively). These countries also scored below the EU average in terms of the perceived seriousness of water quality problems (31% and 49%, respectively, vs. 63% for the EU average). The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who were concerned about a) water quality and b) water quantity in each country was.77 this number signifies a strong correlation between the two variables at country level. In most countries, more respondents were concerned about water quality than quantity; at EU level, this difference was five percentage points (68% for water quality vs. 63% for water quantity). At country level, the largest differences were seen in Latvia (72% vs. 30%), followed by Finland (54% vs. 23%) and Estonia (57% vs. 28%). There were exceptions: in Cyprus, water quantity was perceived as a more serious problem than water quality (97% for water quantity vs. 84% for water quality); this was also the case in the UK (57% vs. 44%), Spain (74% vs. 67%) and the Netherlands (49% vs. 42%). Relationship between perceived seriousness of water quality and water quantity problems Correlation coefficient: r xy =.77 UK ES MT BE HU CY PL BG IT PT SI FR EU27 EL RO 50 NL SK 40 CZ LU DK DE IE SE LT 30 AT EE LV FI Water quality - % Very or fairly serious problem page 14

15 Analytical report Relationship between the perceived seriousness of problems related to the quality and quantity of water (at individual level) The following table shows that respondents who felt very well informed about water-related problems in their country were also the most likely to perceive these problems as very serious: 41% of those respondents thought that water quality is a very serious problem in their country (vs. 32% of respondents who did not feel informed at all). A similar tendency was observed for the issue of water quantity: 39% of respondents feeling very well informed considered the quantity of water to be a very serious problem, compared with 27% of those who did not feel informed at all about this matter. The differences between respondents who felt very well informed and those who felt well informed or not well informed diminished when summing the very and fairly serious responses. Perceived seriousness of water-related problems EU27 Level of information about water-related problems Very well informed Well informed Not well informed Not informed at all Water quality A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all DK/NA Water quantity A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all DK/NA Socio-demographic considerations Q2. How serious is the problem of water quality in your country? Q3. How serious is the problem of water quantity in your country? Base: all respondents, % by level of informetion about water-related problems (Q1) Respondents with different levels of education, city dwellers and rural residents held similar views about the seriousness of problems affecting water quality and/or water quantity. Although men were slightly more likely than women to answer that they felt very well, or well informed about water-related problems in their country, they were less likely to perceive these problems as serious: 65% of men thought that water quality is a very or fairly serious problem in their country (vs. 72% of women) and 6 out of 10 men said the same about the quantity of water (vs. 66% of women). Similarly, although self-employed respondents were among the most likely to feel very well, or well informed about water-related problems in their country, they were less likely than respondents in other occupational categories to think that these problems were serious. For example, while 70% of manual workers and non-working respondents thought that water quality is a very or fairly serious problem in their country, only 64% of the self-employed thought the same. Finally, the year-olds were less likely than their older counterparts to answer that water quality is a very serious problem in their country (24% vs. 29%-33% in the other age groups) and that the shortage or excess of water is a very serious problem (20% vs. 27%-29%). For more details, see annex tables 2b and 3b. page 15

16 Analytical report 3. Changes in the quality of water Almost 4 out of 10 EU citizens thought that the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years. Cypriot, Greek and Romanian citizens were the most likely in the EU to think that the quality of water in their country has deteriorated (75%, 71% and 61%, respectively). The Dutch, Germans and Belgians, on the other hand, were the most likely to feel that the quality of water has improved (48%, 46% and 44%, respectively). Although the year-olds were the least concerned about water quality problems, they most frequently said that water quality has deteriorated in the past five years. A relative majority of EU citizens surveyed thought that the quality of rivers, lakes and where relevant coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years (37%). A lower proportion of interviewees (30%) said that the quality of water in their country has not changed compared to five years ago and 27% thought that there has been an improvement in quality. Changes in water quality in the past five years Deteriorated Stayed the same Improved DK/NA 30 Q4. Do you think that, over the last 5 years, the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters in your country has: Base: all respondents, % EU27 Country analysis Cypriot, Greek and Romanian citizens were not only among the most concerned about water-related problems, they were also the most likely to think that the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years: 75% in Cyprus, 71% in Greece and 61% in Romania. Other countries where at least half of the respondents thought there has been a deterioration of water quality were Bulgaria (53%), Italy (52%) and Lithuania (51%). In Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Luxembourg, however, less than a quarter of respondents answered that the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years (between 16% and 24%). In Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg, the dominant opinion was that water quality in their country is unchanged compared to five years ago: 48%, 42% and 41% of citizens, respectively, selected this possibility. In the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, on the other hand, respondents were most likely to think that water quality has improved (48%, 46% and 44%, respectively). page 16

17 CY EL RO BG IT LT FR ES FI IE HU SE LV PT SK EU27 EE SI PL CZ MT UK LU DK DE BE NL AT Analytical report Changes in water quality in the past five years Deteriorated Stayed the same Improved DK/NA Q4. Do you think that, over the last 5 years, the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters in your country has: Base: all respondents, % by country Correlation between the perceived seriousness of water quality and changes in that quality (at country level) As mentioned above, Cypriot, Greek and Romanian citizens were not only among the most concerned about water-related problems, they were also the most likely to think the quality of water has deteriorated in their country. In fact, for most of the countries where a large majority said that water quality is a serious problem, we also found that the proportion saying that this quality has deteriorated was above the EU average. In addition, most countries where respondents were very unlikely to think that water quality is a serious problem, were found at the bottom of the country ranking in terms of the share of respondents who said there has been a deterioration in the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country. For example, approximately 4 out of 10 Austrian and Dutch respondents said that water quality is a serious problem in their countries and less than half as many (16% in each country) thought that the quality has deteriorated in the past five years. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of a) respondents who thought that water quality is a serious problem and b) of those who saw a deterioration in water quality was equal to.69 this number signifies a strong correlation between the two variables at country level. page 17

18 Water quality - % Very or fairly serious problem Analytical report Relationship between perceptions about deterioration of water quality and seriousness of water quality problems Correlation coefficient: r xy =.69 FR RO EL BE PL EU27 SI LV PT IT HU LT BG CY NL DK DE MT LU UK CZ EE SE SK ES IE FI AT Changes in water quality - % Deteriorated Relationship between the perceived seriousness of water quality and changes in that quality (at individual level) A slim majority (52%) of interviewees who thought that water quality is a very serious problem in their country also said that the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters in their country has deteriorated in the past five years. The corresponding proportion for respondents who felt that water quality is a fairly serious problem was 39% and decreased to 21%-22% for interviewees who thought that there are no problems, or no serious problems with the quality of water in their country. Changes in water quality in the past five years The quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters has: EU27 Perceived seriousness of water quality problems A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a serious problem Not a problem at all Deteriorated Stayed the same Improved DK/NA Q4. Do you think that, over the last 5 years, the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters in your country has: Base: all respondents, % by pereived seriousness of water quality (Q2) Socio-demographic considerations Women, younger respondents, the least educated ones, those living in urban areas and manual workers were most prone to say that water quality has deteriorated in the past five years. For example, 4 out of 10 (41%) manual workers shared this pessimistic view compared to only 34% of the self-employed. page 18

19 Analytical report Conversely, men, older respondents, those with higher levels of education, rural residents and the selfemployed were most apt to answer that the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters in their country has improved in the past five years. For example, one-third (32%) of men selected this possibility compared to only 23% of women. Finally, not many differences were observed across socio-demographic groups in the proportions of respondents who answered that water quality has not changed compared to five years ago. Nevertheless, this possibility was more frequently selected by the youngest respondents than by respondents in other age groups: 35% of year-olds thought that the quality of rivers, lakes and (if any) coastal waters has not changed, compared to 30% of year-olds and 26% of respondents aged 55 and older. For more details, see annex table 4b. page 19

20 Analytical report 4. Impact of various factors on the status of water Slightly more than 7 out of 10 EU citizens thought that industry has a large impact on the quality and quantity of water in their country; closely followed by agriculture for which two-thirds said it has a large impact. The proportion of citizens saying that agriculture has a large impact on the status of water was lower than the corresponding proportion for industry in almost all Member States. In Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France and Slovenia, however, the opposite was seen. EU citizens also recognised individual households impact on their country s water environment (45% selected the large impact response). Nevertheless, in most Member States, citizens were less likely to think that households have a large impact on the status of water in their country than that industry and agriculture have a large impact. Cyprus was the only country where households were seen as having the strongest impact. Among the respondents in countries with coastal waters, the Spanish and Portuguese were the most likely to answer that shipping (e.g. ports, canals and spills) has a large impact on the status of water in their country (73% and 69%, respectively, vs. 49% on average in countries with coastal waters). In the landlocked countries Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria and Slovakia at least 3 out of 10 interviewees thought that shipping has a large impact. Women, the year-olds and the most educated respondents tended to say more frequently than EU citizens on average that activities in several of these sectors have a large impact on the water environment of their country. When EU citizens were asked about the impact of activities in various sectors such as industry, agriculture, households, energy production, shipping and tourism the majority view for each of these sectors was that there is at least a moderate impact on the quality and quantity of water in their country. Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water Large impact Moderate impact Little impact No impact at all DK/NA Use of water and pollution by industry Use of water, pesticides, fertilizers in agriculture Households water consumption and waste water Shipping - ports, canals, spills Energy production - hydropower, cooling water Tourism Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % EU27 page 20

21 EL PT FR ES BE HU SI IT PL EU27 RO BG DE LT CZ NL CY MT SK AT DK SE LU UK LV FI EE IE Analytical report EU citizens saw industry and agriculture as having the strongest impact on the status of water in their country: Slightly more than 7 of 10 (72%) EU citizens answered that pollution caused by industry and its use of water have a large impact on the status of water in their country and one-sixth thought that industry has a moderate impact. Only 7% believed that industry has little or no impact on the status of water. Two-thirds of interviewees thought that the use of water, pesticides and fertilizers by agriculture has a large impact on the status of water in their country and a quarter (23%) selected the moderate impact response. Only 8% thought that agriculture has little or no impact. EU citizens also recognised individual households impact on their country s water environment: 45% felt that households water consumption and waste water have a large impact and slightly more than a third (35%) thought households have a moderate impact. A large majority of EU citizens thought that shipping (e.g. ports, canals and spills) influenced the water environment of their country, and half of them (48%) saw this as having a large impact. Respondents were, however, less likely to think that energy production (e.g. hydropower, cooling water) or tourism have a large impact on the quality and quantity of water in their country (30% and 23%, respectively). Furthermore, at least a quarter of respondents thought that these activities have little or no impact on the water environment (25% and 39%, respectively). Country analysis industry More than three-quarters of citizens in all EU Member States saw industry as having at least a moderate impact on the status of water in their country (ranging from 78% in Luxembourg to 98% i9n Greece). Furthermore, in all countries except Ireland and Estonia more than half of the interviewees thought that industry s use of water and the pollution it caused have a large impact on the status of water in their country; with the highest proportions found in Greece and Portugal (90% and 88%, respectively), followed by France (85%), Spain (83%) and Belgium (81%). In Ireland and Estonia, half of the respondents shared this view (49% and 50%, respectively). In only six countries did more than a tenth of respondents think that the impact of industry on their country s water environment could be overlooked (i.e. little impact of no impact at all ): Luxembourg (18%), Latvia (17%), Ireland, Estonia, Austria and the UK (11%-13%) Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water industry (water used and pollution) Large impact Moderate impact Little or no impact DK/NA Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Note: The proportion of respondents who selected the no impact at all response was lower than 5.0% in all countries; little impact and no impact at all responses were summed. Base: all respondents, % by country page 21

22 Analytical report Country analysis agriculture Respondents across all EU Member States also recognised the impact of agriculture on their country s water environment: a majority in 21 Member States, and a relative majority in the remaining Member States, said that the use of water, pesticides and fertilizers by agriculture has a large impact on the status of water. The country results show similarities with those obtained for the sector industry, with the same countries appearing at the higher or lower ends of the distribution: French, Greek and Portuguese respondents once again most frequently said that agriculture has a large impact on the status of water in their country: more than 8 out of 10 selected this possibility (86%, 84% and 83%, respectively). Estonia, Latvia, the UK and Finland were again at the bottom of the distribution in these countries, less than half of the respondents thought that agriculture has a large impact on the status of water in their country (between 36% and 48%). page 22

23 FR EL PT SI BE HU ES IT DE EU27 DK AT CY LT PL RO SK CZ MT LU SE IE BG NL FI UK LV EE Analytical report Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water agriculture (use of water, pesticides, fertilizers) Large impact Moderate impact Little or no impact DK/NA Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Note: The proportion of respondents who selected the no impact at all response was lower than 5.0% in all countries; little impact and no impact at all responses were summed. Base: all respondents, % by country Country analysis households More than 7 out of 10 respondents in Portugal and Cyprus (both 72%), and at least 6 out of 10 interviewees in Greece (65%), France (64%) and Malta (60%) felt that households water consumption and waste water have a large impact on their country s water environment. In only five countries, did one-third, or less, of the respondents think that households have a large impact: Finland (15%), Sweden (18%), Estonia (26%), Slovakia (27%) and the Czech Republic (33%). Furthermore, more page 23

24 PT CY EL FR MT PL SI BE ES DK HU EU27 LV RO DE IT LU AT BG UK IE NL LT CZ SK EE SE FI Analytical report than a quarter of respondents in the latter group of countries thought that individual households have little impact or no impact at all on the water environment (between 27% and 37%). Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water households water consumption and waste water Large impact Moderate impact Little impact No impact at all DK/NA Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % by country page 24

25 ES PT IT LT FR MT SI BE EL Total LV DE EE NL PL DK SE CY BG RO FI UK IE CZ Total SK AT HU LU Analytical report Country analysis shipping The country analysis of the perceived impact of shipping (e.g. ports, canals and spills) on the water environment showed that respondents in countries with coastal waters were more likely than those in landlocked countries to think that shipping has a large impact on the status of water in their country (49% vs. 31%). At relatively large number of respondents in Romania (16%), Bulgaria (21%) and Cyprus (22%) did not know how to rate the impact of shipping on the status of water in their country. Countries with coastal waters Spanish and Portuguese respondents were the most likely to answer that shipping has a large impact on the status of water in their country (73% and 69%, respectively). Not more than 1 in 20 respondents in these countries thought that shipping has little or no impact on the water environment. In sharp contrast, only one-fifth (19%) of the Irish and a quarter of British citizens (24%) thought that shipping has a large impact on their country s water environment. However, while 4 out of 10 (39%) Irish citizens said that the impact of shipping on the water environment of their country could be overlooked, only a quarter (26%) of the British interviewees thought the same. Landlocked countries More than a third (35%) of the Czech respondents and approximately 3 in 10 interviewees in Hungary, Austria and Slovakia (29%-31%) thought that shipping has a large impact on the water environment in their country. In Luxembourg, only 24% of respondents shared this view and almost half (46%) said that shipping has little or no impact on their country s water environment. Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water shipping (ports, canals, spills) Large impact Moderate impact Little impact No impact at all DK/NA Countries with coastal waters Landlocked countries Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % by country page 25

26 Analytical report Country analysis energy production Less than half of the interviewees in all EU Member States thought that energy production (e.g. hydropower, cooling water) has a large impact on the status of water in their country ranging from less than a sixth in Finland (11%), Sweden (15%) and Ireland (16%) to more than 4 out of 10 respondents in France (41%), Portugal (44%) and Lithuania (46%). The Austrians were the most likely to answer that energy production has little or no impact on their country s water environment (45%). In a majority of the countries, however, not more than a third of interviewees shared the Austrians opinion; the relative majority thought that energy production has a moderate impact on the status of water in their country. Respondents in almost all Member States found it more difficult to rate the impact of energy production on the status of water than to rate the impact of activities in other sectors. In seven Member States, at least one-sixth of interviewees could not rate the impact of energy production on the status of water in their country: Malta, Cyprus (both 25%), Estonia (19%), Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Italy (all 18%). page 26

27 LT PT FR ES DK IT HU SI MT EL CY NL EU27 DE BE RO LU PL BG LV UK CZ AT EE SK IE SE FI Analytical report Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water energy production (hydro power, cooling water) Large impact Moderate impact Little impact No impact at all DK/NA Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % by country Country analysis tourism The proportion of respondents who thought that tourism has a large impact on their country s water environment ranged from virtually none of the respondents in Finland to two-thirds in Cyprus. The latter Member State was the only country where a majority of respondents thought there is a large impact of tourism on the status of its water. There were only two other countries in which the dominant opinion was that there is a large impact: Malta (45%) and France (36%). page 27

28 CY MT FR EL PT RO ES PL IT SI EU27 AT LU BE BG DE DK UK LV IE LT HU CZ NL SK EE SE FI Analytical report Sweden and Estonia, on the other hand, joined Finland at the lower end of the distribution with 6% of respondents who selected the large impact response. Furthermore, in these countries at least twothirds of interviewees said that there is little or no impact from tourism on their country s water environment: 65% in Estonia, 68% in Sweden and 74% in Finland. Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water tourism Large impact Moderate impact Little impact No impact at all DK/NA Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % by country The following map shows that it was not only the Cypriots, Maltese and French, but also many respondents in other Mediterranean countries and in Romania (at the Black Sea) who were more likely than EU citizens on average to think that tourism has a large impact on their country s water environment at least a quarter of interviewees in these countries selected the large impact response. page 28

29 Analytical report Individual country differences most important impacts on the status of water The table on the following page shows for each country the sectors and activities that respondents saw as having the strongest impact on the status of water in their country; the sectors listed in the survey were sorted based on the proportion of interviewees who selected the large impact response. A first glance shows that citizens in almost all EU Member States have rather similar views regarding the impact of industry, agriculture, households, shipping, energy production and tourism on the quantity and quality of water in their country. For example, respondents in most Member States were more likely to think that industry and agriculture have a large impact on the quality and quantity of water in their country than they were to say that households have a large impact. In 21 Member States, respondents were the most likely to think that industry s use of water and the pollution it caused have a large impact on the status of water in their country. For example, 88% of Portuguese respondents felt that industry has a large impact (in 1 st position), 83% thought there was a large impact from agriculture (2 nd position) and 72% said the same about households (3 rd position). In Ireland, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and Slovenia, the proportion saying that agriculture has a large impact on the quality and quantity of water was as high, or even higher, than the corresponding proportion for industry. For example, while 53% of Irish and 63% of Danish citizens thought that agriculture s use of water, pesticides and fertilizers have a large impact on their countries water environment, only 49% and 57%, respectively, thought industry s impact is large. Finally, in Cyprus, respondents were the most likely to think that households have a large impact on the status of water in their country: more than 7 out of 10 (72%) Cypriots felt that households water consumption and waste water have a large impact (in 1 st position), while only 6 out of 10 respondents thought there was a large impact from industry (63% 3 rd position). Furthermore, Cyprus was the only country where tourism appeared among the sectors and activities that respondents saw as having the strongest impact on the status of water in their country (66% in 2 nd position). page 29

30 Analytical report Perceived impact of various factors on the status of water (three most frequently mentioned sectors in terms of having a large impact ) BE % BG % CZ % Industry 81 Industry 70 Industry 67 Agriculture 74 Agriculture 49 Agriculture 57 Households/Shipping 49 Households 38 Shipping 35 DK % DE % EE % Agriculture 63 Industry 70 Industry 50 Industry 57 Agriculture 67 Shipping 47 Households 49 Shipping 48 Agriculture 36 EL % ES % FR % Industry 90 Industry 83 Agriculture 86 Agriculture 84 Shipping 73 Industry 85 Households 65 Agriculture 71 Households 64 IE % IT % CY % Agriculture 53 Industry 75 Households 72 Industry 49 Agriculture 69 Tourism 66 Households 37 Shipping 62 Industry 63 LV % LT % LU % Industry 52 Industry 69 Agriculture 54 Shipping 49 Agriculture 60 Industry 53 Households 44 Shipping 60 Households 41 HU % MT % NL % Industry 79 Industry 63 Industry 67 Agriculture 73 Households 60 Agriculture 49 Households 46 Shipping 58 Shipping 46 AT % PL % PT % Industry 61 Industry 75 Industry 88 Agriculture 61 Agriculture 59 Agriculture 83 Households 38 Households 52 Households 72 RO % SI % SK % Industry 72 Agriculture 80 Industry 63 Agriculture 59 Industry 78 Agriculture 59 Households 43 Households/Shipping 51 Shipping 31 FI % SE % UK % Industry 52 Industry 55 Industry 53 Agriculture 48 Agriculture 54 Agriculture 46 Shipping 26 Shipping 37 Households 38 Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % large impact by country page 30

31 Analytical report The relationship between the perceived seriousness of water-related problems and impact of various sectors and activities on the status of water Respondents who were more concerned about water-related problems in their country tended to say more frequently than those who were less concerned about such problems that each of the abovementioned sectors and activities has a large impact on the water environment of their country. For example, almost 8 in 10 (78%) respondents who said that water quality is a very serious problem in their country thought that agricultural activities have a large impact on the status of water in their country compared to approximately one in two interviewees who answered that there are no problems, or no serious problems with the quantity of water in their country (51% and 46%, respectively). The differences in opinions regarding the impact of various factors on the status of water between respondents who felt well informed about water-related problems and those who those who said they did not feel informed about the topic were considerably smaller. Perceived impact of various factors in the status of water Industry Agriculture Households Shipping Energy Tourism production EU27 Q1. Water-related problems: Very well informed Well informed Not well informed Not informed at all Q2. Water quality: A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a very serious problem Not a problem at all Q3. Water quantity: A very serious problem A fairly serious problem Not a very serious problem Not a problem at all Q5. Can you please tell me how much impact you think each of the following has on the status of water in your country? Does it have a large impact, moderate impact, a little impact or no impact at all? Base: all respondents, % EU27 Socio-demographic considerations Women tended to say more frequently than men that activities in various sectors such as industry, agriculture or tourism have a large impact on the water environment of their country: e.g. a slim majority (52%) of women thought the impact of shipping is large, compared to only 43% of men. Although the year-olds acknowledged the impact of agriculture and of households use of water and waste water, they were less likely than their older counterparts to think that these activities have a large impact on their country s status of water (e.g. agriculture: 59% vs. 66%-69% in the other age groups). The oldest respondents (aged over 54), on the other hand, less frequently said that industry s use of water and the pollution it caused have a large impact on the status of water in their country or that the impact of shipping is large (e.g. industry: 68% vs. 73%-77% in the other age groups). In addition, they were more likely not to know how to rate the impact of energy production or tourism on the status of water. page 31

32 Analytical report The most educated interviewees were more likely to say that industry, agriculture and individual households have a large impact on their country s water environment than respondents with lower levels of education. For example, while 62% of the least educated interviewees thought that the impact of agriculture is large, this proportion increased to 71% of the most educated respondents. The least educated respondents were more apt to say that they did not know how much impact energy production, shipping or tourism has on the status of water (e.g. one-fifth gave a don t know response of the question about energy production, compared to 9% of the most educated respondents). Employees were the most likely to think that agricultural activities and households use of water has a large impact on the status of water (e.g. agriculture: 70% vs. 63%-65% in other occupational groups). They were also the most likely together with manual workers to see a large impact from industry and energy production. Finally, manual workers most frequently said that shipping and tourism has a large impact on their country s water environment (e.g. shipping: 52% vs. 42%-48% in other occupational groups). Interestingly, respondents place of residence had only marginal effect on citizens perceptions about the impact of the various factors on the water environment of their countries. For more details, see annex table 5b through 10b. page 32

33 Analytical report 5. Main threats to the water environment Chemical pollution was by far the most frequently mentioned threat to a country s water environment selected by three-quarters of EU citizens. The second most frequently mentioned threat was climate change selected by one in two respondents. These two hazards appeared among the three most important threats to a country s water environment in all Member States. The British were by far the most likely to select flooding as a threat (75% vs. e.g. 51% in Romania, and vs. 37% for the EU average), the Cypriots cited water shortage (73% vs. e.g. 44% in Portugal or France, and vs. 30% for the EU average) and the Finns were the most concerned about algae growth (78% vs. 27% on average in the Baltic Sea countries). The most educated respondents were less likely than the least educated respondents to select water shortage or flooding as the main threat to their country s water environment, but they were more likely to mention changed water ecosystems, algae growth, climate change or chemical pollution. When EU citizens were asked about the main threats to the water environment of their country 2, chemical pollution was by far the most frequently selected danger: three-quarters of respondents selected this option. Half of respondents thought that climate change is one of the main threats to their country s water environment. The third most frequently mentioned threat was flooding (37% of respondents); this was followed by changed water ecosystems, water shortage and algae growth. The last-named threats to a country s water environment were given equal weighting in importance (30%-33%). Finally, one in five respondents (21%) selected dams, canals and other physical changes as one of the main threats to their country s water environment. Perceived main threats to the water environment Chemical pollution 75 Climate change 50 Floods Changed water ecosystems Water shortage Algae growth Dams, canals and other physical changes 21 Others Don t care about this issue DK/NA Q6. I am going to read out a list of threats. Can you please tell me which you believe are the main threats to the water environment in your country? Base: all respondents, % EU27 2 Presented with a list of possible threats, respondents were allowed to give multiple answers. page 33

34 Analytical report Country analysis At least 6 out of 10 citizens in all Member States except Cyprus identified chemical pollution as one of the main threats to their country s water environment. In Cyprus, slightly less than half (46%) of respondents selected this threat. French and Hungarian respondents were the most likely to select chemical pollution as a threat to their country s water environment (both 85%); they were followed by interviewees in the UK and Greece (both 80%). Malta, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Luxembourg, on the other hand, joined Cyprus at the lower end of the distribution, with between 61% and 63% of citizens who identified chemical pollution as a threat. The proportion of respondents selecting climate change as one of the main threats to the water environment of their country ranged from less than 3 out of 10 respondents in Estonia and Latvia (26% and 27%, respectively) to 7 out of 10 respondents in Ireland and the UK (70% and 72%, respectively). Other Member States at the lower end of the distribution were the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Belgium; in these countries between 30% and 34% felt that climate change was a danger. Hungary and Sweden joined the UK and Ireland at the higher end of the distribution with almost 6 out of 10 (both 58%) selecting climate change. The map on the next page shows that in most eastern and southern European countries less than half of the respondents mentioned climate change as one of the main threats to the water environment of their country. In northern European countries (e.g. the UK or Sweden), on the other hand, a majority of the respondents felt that climate change was a danger. page 34

35 Analytical report Only 1 in 10 citizens in Cyprus and Estonia (10% and 11%, respectively), and one in seven of those in Lithuania and Latvia (13% and 14%, respectively), selected flooding as one of the main threats to their country s water environment. Respondents in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were also among the least likely to identify water shortage as a threat (6%, 8% and 11%, respectively), but it was also not seen as a problem in the Netherlands (6%) and Finland (7%). In sharp contrast, three-quarters of British citizens and 6 out of 10 of the Irish mentioned flooding as a threat. Furthermore, the British respondents were not only worried about flooding but also about the shortage of water a threat mentioned by 50% of British citizens. The Cypriots were, however, the most likely to feel that water shortage is a problem in their country; three-quarters (73%) of them felt that this is the main threat to their country s water environment. page 35

36 Analytical report page 36

37 Analytical report In almost all Member States less than half of citizens surveyed thought that changed water ecosystems were mentioned as one of the main threats to their country s water environment. Only in Ireland and Hungary did a slim majority identify changes in water ecosystems as a threat (53% and 52%, respectively). In comparison, less than one-sixth of the respondents in Romania (14%) and Malta (16%) shared this concern. A large variation was also seen in the proportion of respondents who thought that algae growth is one of the main threats to the water environment of their country ranging from less than 1 in 10 respondents in Bulgaria (7%), Cyprus (8%) and Spain (9%) to a large majority in two of the Nordic countries Finland (78%) and Sweden (65%). In only two additional countries did more than half of the respondents select algae growth as a threat: France (54%) and Ireland (53%). Algae growth was especially seen as a threat in North Sea countries (selected by 37% on average), followed by the Mediterranean Sea and Baltic Sea countries (28% and 27%, respectively). In all the Baltic Sea countries except Poland the level of concern was above the EU average of 30%. In the Black Sea countries Bulgaria and Romania only one-tenth of respondents selected this threat. On average, a quarter of respondents in landlocked countries thought that algae growth was one of the main threats to the water environment of their country. page 37

38 Analytical report Dams, canals and other physical structures were seen to be a danger by not more than a third of interviewees in each of the EU Member States. Respondents in Hungary, the UK and Germany were the most likely to select this threat (all 33%) and the Maltese, Spanish and Belgians were the least likely to do so (6% in Malta and 9% in Spain and Belgium). page 38

39 Analytical report Individual country differences most important concerns The table on the following page shows for each country the main threats to a country s water environment that respondents mentioned most frequently. A first glance shows that citizens in all of the EU Member States were worried about the threat of chemical pollution chosen as the main threat in 25 Member States. As noted previously, French and Hungarian respondents were the most likely to mention this threat (both 85%). Respondents in Finland and Cyprus, on the other hand, were less concerned about chemical pollution (62% and 46%, respectively) than about algae growth (in Finland 78%) or water shortage (in Cyprus 73%). Climate change also appeared among the three most important threats to a country s water environment in all of the Member States. For example, almost three-quarters (73%) of the Spanish respondents mentioned chemical pollution (in the 1 st position), followed by 48% who selected climate change (2 nd position) and one-third who were concerned about water shortage (3 rd position). The threat of water shortage or, alternatively, flooding appeared among the main dangers in 16 Member States. Unsurprisingly, water shortage was more frequently identified as a threat to the water environment by respondents in southern European countries e.g. Portugal (44%, 2 nd position) and Malta (24%, 3 rd position). Flooding, on the other hand, appeared among the most mentioned threats among the northerly Member States: e.g. the UK (75%, 2 nd position) and Poland (28%, 3 rd position). page 39

40 Analytical report Perceived main threats to the water environment (three most frequently mentioned threats) BE % BG % CZ % Chemical pollution 76 Chemical pollution 66 Chemical pollution 68 Climate change 34 Climate change 45 Floods 45 Floods 27 Water shortage 33 Climate change 30 DK % DE % EE % Chemical pollution 63 Chemical pollution 74 Chemical pollution 72 Climate change 44 Climate change 54 Algae growth 45 Algae growth 40 Changed water ecosystems 46 Climate change 26 EL % ES % FR % Chemical pollution 80 Chemical pollution 73 Chemical pollution 85 Climate change 55 Climate change 48 Climate change 55 Water shortage 41 Water shortage 32 Algae growth 54 IE % IT % CY % Chemical pollution 78 Chemical pollution 69 Water shortage 73 Climate change 70 Climate change 41 Climate change 52 Floods 60 Water shortage 31 Chemical pollution 46 LV % LT % LU % Chemical pollution 78 Chemical pollution 77 Chemical pollution 63 Algae growth 37 Climate change 37 Climate change 48 Climate change 27 Algae growth 27 Changed water ecosystems 35 HU % MT % NL % Chemical pollution 85 Chemical pollution 61 Chemical pollution 62 Climate change 58 Climate change 43 Climate change 45 Changed water ecosystems 52 Water shortage 24 Floods 25 AT % PL % PT % Chemical pollution 66 Chemical pollution 78 Chemical pollution 73 Climate change 48 Climate change 37 Water shortage 44 Changed water ecosystems 38 Floods 28 Climate change 36 RO % SI % SK % Chemical pollution 73 Chemical pollution 74 Chemical pollution 76 Floods 51 Climate change 33 Floods 46 Climate change 45 Floods 27 Climate change 43 FI % SE % UK % Algae growth 78 Chemical pollution 75 Chemical pollution 80 Chemical pollution 62 Algae growth 65 Floods 75 Climate change 56 Climate change 58 Climate change 72 Q6. I am going to read out a list of threats. Can you please tell me which you believe are the main threats to the water environment in your country? Base: all respondents, % by country Socio-demographic considerations For each of the threats listed, the proportion of women mentioning the threat was higher than the proportion of men. Women were especially more likely to mention climate change (53% vs. 47% of men) or chemical pollution (77% vs. 73%) as being main threats to their country s water environment. The largest differences by age group related to algae growth: one-third of the respondents aged 40 and above selected this as one of the main threats compared to only one-fifth of the year-olds. The year-olds were also less likely to mention water shortage or flooding as main threats to the water environment. The oldest respondents (aged over 54), however, were the least apt to select page 40

41 Analytical report climate change (46% vs. 52%-53% in the other age groups) and changed water ecosystems (30% vs. for example, 37% of the year-olds). The most educated respondents were less likely than those with lower levels of education to select water shortage or flooding as the main threats to their country s water environment, but they were more likely to mention changed water ecosystems, algae growth, climate change or chemical pollution. For example, only 28% of respondents in the lowest educational category thought that changed water ecosystems were one of the main threats to the water environment; this proportion increased to 38% for the most educated respondents. Respondents living in metropolitan areas were slightly less concerned about floods as a threat to the water environment of their country than those living in rural areas (34% vs. 38% in rural zones), but they more frequently selected changed water ecosystems (37% vs. 33% in rural areas) or algae growth (32% vs. 27% in urban zones). For each of the threats listed, the proportion of employees mentioning it was higher than the proportion in the other occupational groups. For example, 39% of employees selected changed water ecosystems and 56% mentioned climate change as threats to their country s water environment compared to, respectively, 30% and 48% of non-working respondents. Finally, respondents who felt informed about water-related problems in their country were more likely than those who did not feel informed about this topic to select changed water ecosystems as one of the main threats to their country s water environment, but they were slightly less likely to mention flooding. For example, only 28% of respondents who felt not at all informed about the water-related problems in their country mentioned changed water ecosystems as a threat to their country s water environment, compared to 38% respondents who felt very well informed. For more details, see annex table 11b. page 41

42 Analytical report 6. Impact of climate change on the water environment EU citizens were divided in their opinion about the impact of climate change on the water environment of their country: changed ecosystems, rising sea levels, more floods and increasing water scarcity were all selected by approximately one-fifth of respondents. Only 7% of EU citizens answered that climate change would not have a significant impact on their country s water ecosystem. Nevertheless, in some countries at least twice as many respondents expressed this opinion: Estonia, Luxembourg and Latvia. British, Irish and Dutch citizens were the most likely to think that climate change would lead to an excess of water i.e. rising sea levels and flooding in their countries. The Cypriots and the Greeks were the ones mainly identifying water scarcity as the major impact of climate change (74% and 48%, respectively, compared to e.g. one-third or less in Spain, France and Italy). EU citizens were divided in their opinion about the impact of climate change on their country s water environment. Each of the potential consequences (as listed in the survey) changed ecosystems, rising sea levels, more flooding, increasing problems with water scarcity and droughts was selected by approximately one-fifth of respondents. Only 7% of interviewees answered that climate change would not have a significant impact on their country s water ecosystem. A similar proportion (7%) was undecided about the consequences of climate change. Most important impact of climate change on the status of water Changed ecosystems Rising sea levels More floods Increasing problems with water scarcity and droughts No significant impact on water of climate change Others DK/NA Q7. Please tell me, from the following list, what you think will be the most important impact of climate change on water in your country? Base: all respondents, % EU27 Country analysis Although in the EU overall, each of the potential consequences of climate change on the water environment of a country were given equal weighting in importance, this was not the case when looking at the individual country results. In the following chart, Member States were grouped based on the dominant answer regarding the most important impact of climate change on the quality and quantity of water in the country. In the first group of countries, the relative majority of citizens answered that climate change would have a major impact on the amount of flooding in their country. More than a third of the Czech (37%), Romanian and Slovak respondents (both 36%) thought that climate change would primarily page 42

43 Analytical report cause more floods in their country. In Slovenia and Luxembourg, respectively, 28% and 24% selected this response. The British and Irish respondents were not only the most likely to identify flooding as one of the main threats to their country s water environment (see chapter 5), they were also among the most likely to think that climate change would have a major impact on flooding (both 33%). An almost equal number of respondents, nevertheless, thought that climate change would have a greater impact on rising sea levels than on the amount of flooding (30% and 29%, respectively). The impact of rising sea levels was selected by a relative majority of respondents in the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Malta. However, only in the Netherlands the difference between the largest and second largest group of respondents was more than five percentage points: 44% of the Dutch thought that rising sea levels would be the most important impact of climate change on the water environment of the Netherlands (compared to, for example, 16% who selected more floods ). Unsurprisingly, respondents in landlocked countries were less likely than respondents in countries with coastal waters to think that rising sea levels would be the most important impact of climate change on the water environment in their country; nonetheless, between one-tenth and one-sixth of interviewees in landlocked countries selected this response. The third group brings together a number of countries where respondents were not only very likely to see water shortage as a threat to their country s water environment (see chapter 5), but also where the dominant opinion was that climate change would intensify problems with water scarcity and droughts the proportions selecting this response ranged from 26% in France to 74% in Cyprus. In Finland, Sweden, Italy, Austria and Estonia, respondents were the most apt to say that climate change would have a major impact on the ecosystems in their country. For example, more than 4 out of 10 (44%) Finns and more than one-third of Swedes (36%) and Italians (34%) said that the most important impact of climate change on the quality and quantity of water in their country would be changes in the ecosystems. Finally, in none of the EU Member States was the dominant opinion that climate change would not have a significant impact on their country s water ecosystem. Nevertheless, in some countries at least one in seven respondents expressed this opinion: Estonia (19%), Luxembourg and Latvia (both 14%). page 43

44 EU27 CZ RO SK UK IE SI LU NL PT LV LT DE BE DK MT CY EL BG HU ES PL FR FI SE IT AT EE Analytical report Most important impact of climate change on the status of water More floods Increasing problems with water scarcity and droughts No significant impact DK/NA Rising sea levels Changed ecosystems Other More floods Dominant opinion Rising sea level Increasing problems with water scarcity Changed ecosystems Q7. Please tell me, from the following list, what you think will be the most important impact of climate change on water in your country? Base: all respondents, % by country page 44