Published by the Modelling, GIS and Planning Products Unit

Published by the Modelling, GIS and Planning Products Unit

Victorian Government Department of Health, MelbourneVictoria. July 2013

© Copyright State of Victoria, 2013

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Authorised by the State Government of Victoria, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.

Department of Health

Contents

Introductioniii

Section 1: Key determinants of health1

1a – Geography1

Figure 1Map of region and administrative boundaries, 20121

Table 1Area and breakdown of land use, 20122

1b – Demographics

Table 2Current and projected resident population, 2011 and 20212

Table 3Percentage population by age group, 20112

Table 4Percentage population by age group, 20213

Table 5Population dependency ratio, 2011 and 20213

Table 6Number of births and total fertility rate, 2011 and 20213

1c – Diversity4

Table 7Number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, 20114

Table 8Indicators for cultural diversity (Census data), 20114

Table 9Indicators of cultural diversity (immigration and ethnicity), 2011-125

Table 10 Top 3 countries of birth and percentage of LGA population, 20115

Table 11Top 3 languages other than English and percentage of population, 20115

1d – Social engagement and crime6

Figure 2Map of IRSD index at SA1 level, 20116

Table 12Rates of crime per 1,000 population, 2011-127

Table 13Social wellbeing and connectedness indicators7

1e – Socio-economic factors9

Table 14Economic and housing characteristics9

Table 15 Transport and accessibility10

Table 16Education and employment characteristics10

1f – Health behaviours11

Table 17Smoking status, 200811

Table 18Daily fruit consumption, 200811

Table 19Daily vegetable consumption, 200811

Table 20Did not meet guidelines for fruit or vegetable consumption, males and females, 200812

Table 21Alcohol and soft drink consumption12

Table 22Did not meet guidelines for physical activity, males and females, 200812

Table 23Child and adolescent characteristics and behaviours13

Table 24Health screening participation13

Section 2: Health Status14

2a – Human function14

Table 25Aged and disability characteristics14

Table 26Obesity, males and females, 200814

2b – Health conditions15

Table 27Asthma and diabetes incidence and admissions15

Table 28Total malignant cancers diagnosed per 1,000 population, males and females, 201115

Table 29 Diagnosis rates of leading cancers per 1,000 population, by region, 201115

Table 30Notifications and rates per 1,000 population of infectious diseases, 201116

Table 31Top 7 ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), separations & rates, 2011-1217

Table 32Top 7 specialty groups for persons admitted to hospital, separations & rates, 2011-1218

2c – Life expectancy and wellbeing19

Table 33Life expectancy at birth (years), 200719

Table 34Mental and physical development and wellbeing19

2d – Deaths20

Table 35Number of deaths and death rates, 201120

Table 36Number of infant deaths and death rate, 2003-200720

Table 37Avoidable mortality by cause, 0 to 74 years, 2003-200720

2e – Injuries21

Table 38Rates of intentional and unintentional injuries21

Figure 3Causes of injuries22

Figure 4Location of occurrence of injuries22

Section 3: Health system performance23

3a – Services and access23

Figure 5Service locations, 201223

Table 39General practitioner workforce and attendances24

Table 40Health professional workforce, by region24

Table 41Service accessibility25

3b – Hospital utilisation26

Table 42Current and projected hospital inpatient utilisation, 2011-1226

Table 43Emergency department presentations, 2011-1227

3c – Preventable hospital admissions28

Table 44ACSC admissions, rates and average bed days, by region, 2011-1228

3d – Other health utilisation29

Table 45Utilisation of selected health services per 1,000 population, 2011-1229

Data definitions30

Introduction

This is the third version of the Regional Health Status Profiles, which are updated annually. The profiles present a broad range of data that can be used to inform system planning by staff within Department of Health, or in partner agencies across Victoria.

Production of the Regional Health Status Profiles is the responsibility of the Modelling, GIS and Planning Products Section, which is part of the Health Strategy Branch of the Department of Health. The profiles are highly relevant to a broad range of planning and policy development activities. They are available on the Department of Health internet.

There is a separate Regional Health Status Profile volume for each of the eight Department of Health Regions. Most of the data items also include a breakdown by Local Government Areas within the region. There is a comprehensive definitions section at the end of each document, which describes each item, and details the source and currency.

The data in the profiles comes from a variety of sources, internal and external to the Department. We greatly value the contribution of the data providers in ensuring the quality and comprehensive nature of the profile. We also appreciate the feedback provided by users, and encourage you to let us know of any suggested improvements.

Jon Evans

Director, Health Strategy

July 2013.

1

Section 1: Key determinants of health

1a – Geography

Figure 1: Map of Gippsland region and administrative areas

1

Table 1: Area[1] and breakdown of land use[2] (percentage), 2012, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Area (sq. km.) / Business / Industrial / Residential / Rural / Other
BassCoast (S) / 865 / 0.1% / 0.1% / 4.4% / 85.1% / 10.3%
Baw Baw (S) / 4,031 / 0.0% / 0.1% / 1.0% / 40.3% / 58.5%
East Gippsland (S) / 20,937 / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.3% / 20.2% / 79.4%
Latrobe (C) / 1,426 / 0.1% / 1.2% / 3.5% / 72.4% / 22.8%
South Gippsland (S) / 3,299 / 0.0% / 0.2% / 0.7% / 79.0% / 20.1%
Wellington (S) / 10,817 / 0.0% / 0.1% / 0.3% / 41.7% / 57.9%
Gippsland / 41,375 / 0.0% / 0.1% / 0.6% / 35.6% / 63.6%
Victoria / 227,504 / 0.1% / 0.2% / 1.2% / 63.8% / 34.8%

1b – Demographics

Table 2: Current[3] and projected[4]resident population, 2011 and 2021, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / 2011 / 2021 / % change
BassCoast (S) / 30,024 / 40,037 / 33.3%
Baw Baw (S) / 43,416 / 54,439 / 25.4%
East Gippsland (S) / 42,793 / 51,150 / 19.5%
Latrobe (C) / 73,564 / 83,531 / 13.5%
South Gippsland (S) / 27,506 / 30,187 / 9.7%
Wellington (S) / 41,945 / 46,013 / 9.7%
Gippsland / 259,271 / 305,356 / 17.8%
Victoria / 5,534,526 / 6,500,653 / 17.5%

Table 3: Percentage population by age group3, 2011, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / 0-14 / 15-24 / 25-44 / 45-64 / 65-84 / 85+
BassCoast (S) / 16.8% / 9.6% / 22.1% / 28.3% / 20.4% / 2.8%
Baw Baw (S) / 19.9% / 13.0% / 23.3% / 27.5% / 14.5% / 1.9%
East Gippsland (S) / 17.3% / 10.3% / 19.7% / 29.9% / 20.2% / 2.6%
Latrobe (C) / 19.3% / 14.4% / 24.7% / 26.5% / 13.3% / 1.8%
South Gippsland (S) / 18.5% / 10.9% / 21.5% / 29.7% / 16.9% / 2.4%
Wellington (S) / 18.8% / 12.4% / 23.6% / 28.7% / 14.5% / 2.0%
Gippsland / 18.6% / 12.2% / 22.8% / 28.2% / 16.0% / 2.2%
Victoria / 18.2% / 13.9% / 29.1% / 24.8% / 12.1% / 1.9%

Table 4: Projected percentage population by age group[5], 2021, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / 0-14 / 15-24 / 25-44 / 45-64 / 65-84 / 85+
BassCoast (S) / 15.6% / 8.9% / 20.3% / 28.3% / 23.9% / 3.0%
Baw Baw (S) / 19.4% / 11.4% / 23.6% / 25.6% / 17.8% / 2.3%
East Gippsland (S) / 16.5% / 8.3% / 19.5% / 27.5% / 25.0% / 3.1%
Latrobe (C) / 18.9% / 11.3% / 25.0% / 24.7% / 17.8% / 2.3%
South Gippsland (S) / 17.0% / 9.1% / 19.2% / 27.8% / 23.7% / 3.2%
Wellington (S) / 17.1% / 10.4% / 21.9% / 26.6% / 21.3% / 2.7%
Gippsland / 17.7% / 10.2% / 22.2% / 26.4% / 20.9% / 2.7%
Victoria / 18.0% / 12.4% / 29.0% / 23.9% / 14.5% / 2.2%

Projected population growth in Gippsland between 2011 and 2021 is slightly above the Victorian average, and is mainly concentrated in the LGAs of Bass Coast and Baw Baw. Population growth in East Gippsland is also projected to be slightly above average, but below average in other LGAs.

The current population profile of Gippsland region is older than the Victorian population overall with 18.2% of the population aged 65 plus compared with 14% for Victoria. Projections for 2021 indicate a shift towards an ageing population with 23.6% of the region’s population expected to 65 and over compared with 16.7% for Victoria.

Table 5: Population dependency ratio[6], 2011 and 2021, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Dependency ratio 2011 / Dependency ratio 2021
BassCoast (S) / 0.67 / 0.74
Baw Baw (S) / 0.57 / 0.65
East Gippsland (S) / 0.67 / 0.81
Latrobe (C) / 0.53 / 0.64
South Gippsland (S) / 0.61 / 0.78
Wellington (S) / 0.55 / 0.70
Gippsland / 0.58 / 0.70
Victoria / 0.48 / 0.53

The dependency ratios in Table 5 indicate the proportion of people under 15 and over 65, compared with the proportion of working age population (15-64). Higher dependency ratios mean fewer people of working age. The Gippsland ratios are higher than the overall Victorian ratios for all LGAs, both for 2011 and 2021.

Table 6: Number of births and total fertility rate[7],2011, GippslandLGAs

LGA / Total number of births, 2011 / Total fertility rate, 2011
BassCoast (S) / 365 / 2.18
Baw Baw (S) / 516 / 2.19
East Gippsland (S) / 480 / 2.35
Latrobe (C) / 954 / 2.03
South Gippsland (S) / 289 / 2.19
Wellington (S) / 463 / 2.10
Gippsland / 3,067 / NA
Victoria / 71,444 / 1.79

All Gippsland LGAs have fertility rates higher than the Victorian average of 1.79. The highest is East Gippsland with 2.35.

1

1c – Diversity

Table 7: Number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders[8], 2011, GippslandLGAs

LGA / Aboriginal persons / % of population
BassCoast (S) / 208 / 0.74%
Baw Baw (S) / 408 / 0.99%
East Gippsland (S) / 1,351 / 3.33%
Latrobe (C) / 1,054 / 1.53%
South Gippsland (S) / 205 / 0.78%
Wellington (S) / 588 / 1.49%
Gippsland / 3,814 / 1.56%
Victoria / 37,699 / 0.74%

The percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is considerably higher for Gippsland (1.56%) than the Victorian percentage (0.74%). The highest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is in East Gippsland with 3.33%.

Table 8: Indicators of cultural diversity (Census data)8, 2011, for GippslandLGAs

LGA / % Born overseas / % Born in non- English speaking country / % Speak language other than English / % Low English proficiency
BassCoast (S) / 15.8% / 6.6% / 5.0% / 0.4%
Baw Baw (S) / 10.9% / 4.6% / 3.4% / 0.2%
East Gippsland (S) / 11.4% / 4.7% / 3.3% / 0.2%
Latrobe (C) / 14.6% / 8.5% / 7.2% / 0.7%
South Gippsland (S) / 11.7% / 5.0% / 3.6% / 0.3%
Wellington (S) / 11.0% / 5.4% / 3.4% / 0.3%
Gippsland / 12.7% / 6.1% / 4.7% / 0.4%
Victoria / 27.7% / 20.9% / 24.2% / 3.1%

The Gippsland population displays a low level of cultural diversity, with the percentage born overseas less than half the Victorian average of 27.7%, and the percentage who speak a language other than English at home about one fifth of the Victorian average 0f 24.2%. The percentage with low English proficiency is 0.4%, compared with the Victorian average of 3.1%.
Table 9: Indicators of cultural diversity (immigration and ethnicity)2011-12 for GippslandLGAs

LGA / New settler arrivals per 100,000[9] / Humanitarian arrivals - % of total arrivals9 / Community acceptance of diverse cultures[10]
BassCoast (S) / 163.2 / 0.0% / 45.5%
Baw Baw (S) / 142.8 / 0.0% / 45.3%
East Gippsland (S) / 84.1 / 0.0% / 43.6%
Latrobe (C) / 148.2 / 3.7% / 41.4%
South Gippsland (S) / 109.1 / 30.0% / 41.6%
Wellington (S) / 112.1 / 0.0% / 37.6%
Gippsland / 128.4 / 3.9% / NA
Victoria / 656.3 / 12.3% / 50.6%

Gippsland has a much lower than average rate of new settler arrivals and percentage of humanitarian arrivals. BassCoast receives the highest rate of new settlers of the Gippsland LGAs at 163.2 compared with the Victorian average of 455.3. While South Gippsland receives only 109.1 new settler arrivals, 30% are humanitarian arrivals.

Table 10: Top 3 countries of birth and % of LGA population (2011)[11]

LGA / Country 1 / Country 2 / Country 3
BassCoast (S) / United Kingdom (7.0%) / New Zealand (1.6%) / Netherlands (0.9%)
Baw Baw (S) / United Kingdom (4.5%) / New Zealand (1.1%) / Netherlands (0.8%)
East Gippsland (S) / United Kingdom (5.1%) / New Zealand (0.9%) / Netherlands (0.8%)
Latrobe (C) / United Kingdom (4.6%) / Netherlands (1.2%) / Italy (1.1%)
South Gippsland (S) / United Kingdom (5.0%) / New Zealand (1.2%) / Netherlands (1.1%)
Wellington (S) / United Kingdom (3.9%) / New Zealand (1.2%) / Netherlands (0.8%)
Gippsland / United Kingdom (4.9%) / New Zealand (1.1%) / Netherlands (1.0%)
Victoria / United Kingdom (4.2%) / India (2.2%) / China (1.8%)

Table 11: Top 3 languages other than English and % of total population (2011)11

LGA / Language 1 / Language 2 / Language 3
BassCoast (S) / Italian (1.1%) / German (0.4%) / Dutch (0.3%)
Baw Baw (S) / Italian (0.7%) / Dutch (0.3%) / German (0.3%)
East Gippsland (S) / Italian (0.7%) / German (0.5%) / Dutch (0.2%)
Latrobe (C) / Italian (1.5%) / Greek (0.6%) / Dutch (0.4%)
South Gippsland (S) / Italian (1.1%) / German (0.4%) / Dutch (0.4%)
Wellington (S) / Italian (0.3%) / Dutch (0.3%) / German (0.3%)
Gippsland / Italian (0.9%) / German (0.4%) / Dutch (0.3%)
Victoria / Italian (2.4%) / Greek (2.3%) / Mandarin (2.0%)

The most common overseas countries of birth for Gippsland residents are the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the Netherlands. The most commonly spoken languages are Italian, German and Dutch, but less than one percent of the population speaks each of these languages. The only LGAs where a language other than English is spoken by more than one percent of the population are Latrobe (Italian 1.5%) and South Gippsland (1.1%).

1

1d – Social Engagement and Crime

Figure 2: Map of Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage(IRSD)[12], 2011, at SA1 level,Gippslandregion

Areas with a relatively low IRSD score in Gippsland Region include sparsely populated areas such as around CannRiver, inland areas of East Gippsland and Wellington, the LakeTyers area and sections of towns such as Bairnsdale, Lakes Entrance, Traralgon and Morwell.

Table 12: Rates of crime[13] per 1,000 population, 2011-12, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Family violence incidents per 1,000 population / Drug usage/ possession offences per 1,000 population / Violent crime offences per 1,000 population / Total offences per 1,000 population / % of population who feel safe on the streets during the day[14] / % of population who feel safe on the streets at night
BassCoast (S) / 11.2 / 3.4 / 13.1 / 65.5 / 98.4% / 77.9%
Baw Baw (S) / 11.1 / 3.0 / 11.3 / 56.6 / 98.4% / 80.0%
East Gippsland (S) / 15.1 / 1.8 / 12.4 / 64.9 / 97.4% / 73.6%
Latrobe (C) / 23.9 / 5.1 / 23.5 / 118.3 / 95.1% / 62.1%
South Gippsland (S) / 7.6 / 1.7 / 7.9 / 38.4 / 99.4% / 88.4%
Wellington (S) / 13.2 / 3.6 / 16.4 / 77.9 / 98.9% / 72.6%
Gippsland / 15.4 / 3.4 / 15.6 / 78.0 / NA / NA
Victoria / 9.1 / 3.4 / 9.8 / 70.6 / 97.0% / 70.3%

Family violence incidents rates in Gippsland (15.4) are much higher than the Victorian average (9.1). Rates are higher than the Victorian average for all LGAs other than South Gippsland, with the highest rate of 23.9 in Latrobe. Regional drug usage and possession offence rates are the same as Victorian rates (3.4) but are much higher than average in Latrobe (5.1). The rates of violent crimes and total offences are also much higher in LaTrobe than the other Gippsland LGAs, and the Victorian average. Not surprisingly, the percentage of Latrobe residents who feel safe on the streets at night is the lowest in the region.

Table 13: Social wellbeing and connectednessindicators, GippslandLGAs

LGA / Gaming machine losses per head of population
[15] / % of households with broadband internet
[16] / % of population which volunteers
16 / % who participate in citizen engagement
[17] / % who use social networking to organise time with family or friends17 / % who believe area has good facilities and services
[18] / % who attend community events
18 / % who feel valued by society
18
BassCoast (S) / $724 / 61.8% / 24.7% / 68.0% / 27.3% / 67.1% / 69.4% / 55.8%
Baw Baw (S) / $384 / 67.7% / 25.8% / 62.0% / 27.7% / 80.8% / 55.9% / 54.2%
East Gippsland (S) / $680 / 62.5% / 27.6% / 62.2% / 27.5% / 75.7% / 63.1% / 54.7%
Latrobe (C) / $801 / 65.6% / 19.5% / 61.4% / 39.9% / 79.7% / 58.5% / 44.8%
South Gippsland (S) / $514 / 64.6% / 31.5% / 71.4% / 25.0% / 70.5% / 70.2% / 56.3%
Wellington (S) / $691 / 65.1% / 26.4% / 56.3% / 29.4% / 76.1% / 63.9% / 47.5%
Gippsland / $662 / 64.8% / 24.9% / NA / 31.0% / 75.6% / 62.0% / 50.8%
Victoria / $602 / 72.6% / 19.3% / 50.5% / 35.1% / 85.2% / 52.9% / 52.4%

Gaming machine losses per head of population are well above average in Latrobe, Bass Coast, East Gippsland and Wellington. The percentage of households with broadband internet is below average in all LGAs, and the percentage who use social networking to organise time with family and friends is also below average in all LGAs other than Latrobe. The percentage of population who volunteers is above average in all LGAs other than Latrobe, where it is around average. Participation in citizen engagement is above average in all LGAs. Below average percentages believe their area has good facilities and services; while above average percentages attend community events.

1

1e– Socio-economic factors

Table 14: Economic and housing characteristics, GippslandLGAs

LGA / % of persons with individual income <$400[19] / Median household income
19 / % experiencing food insecurity[20] / % with mortgage stress
[21] / % with rental stress
21 / % of rental housing that is affordable[22] / Median house price[23] / Median rent for 3 bedroom house22 / New dwellings per 1,000 population[24] / Social housing as % of total dwellings[25]
BassCoast (S) / 43.8% / $855 / 6.1% / 15.4% / 26.2% / 46.9% / $345,000 / $280 / 13.3 / 1.7%
Baw Baw (S) / 41.5% / $1,025 / 5.6% / 11.5% / 28.0% / 67.1% / $279,000 / $265 / 11.5 / 2.6%
East Gippsland (S) / 47.0% / $798 / 5.3% / 13.1% / 29.6% / 68.7% / $240,000 / $265 / 8.9 / 4.1%
Latrobe (C) / 45.2% / $942 / 6.0% / 9.5% / 28.9% / 84.5% / $200,000 / $221 / 3.5 / 6.9%
South Gippsland (S) / 43.5% / $920 / 6.8% / 13.3% / 23.4% / 76.6% / $265,000 / $240 / 9.7 / 1.5%
Wellington (S) / 44.0% / $905 / 6.1% / 11.2% / 26.4% / 80.5% / $226,500 / $240 / 6.7 / 3.2%
Gippsland / 44.3% / NA / 5.8% / 11.7% / 27.7% / NA / NA / $250 / 8.0 / 3.7%
Victoria / 39.9% / $1,216 / 5.6% / 11.4% / 25.1% / 20.7% / $380,000 / $320 / 8.9 / 3.8%

The percentage of individuals with low household income is above average in all LGAs, and median household incomes are well below average. The percentage with mortgage stress is above average in Bass Coast, East Gippsland and South Gippsland. The percentage with rental stress is above average in all LGAs except South Gippsland, although median rents are below average. The rate of new dwelling construction is above average in Bass Coast and Baw Baw. There is a higher than average percentage of social housing in Latrobe.

1

Table 15: Transport and accessibility, GippslandLGAs

LGA / Persons with greater than 2 hour commute[26] / Passenger vehicles per 1,000 population[27] / % households with no motor vehicle[28] / % of population near public transport[29]
BassCoast (S) / 6.8% / 359.8 / 6.5% / 37.2%
Baw Baw (S) / 10.8% / 343.0 / 4.9% / 22.1%
East Gippsland (S) / 7.5% / 365.7 / 6.2% / 19.7%
Latrobe (C) / NA / 332.3 / 9.1% / 64.7%
South Gippsland (S) / 3.9% / 363.6 / 3.8% / 8.5%
Wellington (S) / 3.2% / 325.0 / 6.2% / 26.8%
Gippsland / 5.2% / 344.9 / 6.6% / 34.9%
Victoria / 11.6% / 289.5 / 8.7% / 74.3%

Relatively low percentages of Gippsland population are near public transport. This ranges from 8.5% in South Gippsland to 64.7% in LaTrobe. There is a higher than average rate of passenger vehicles per 1000 population and a lower than average percentage of households with no motor vehicle. Relatively few persons commute more than two hours per day, with only Baw Baw (10.8%) near the Victorian average (11.6%).

Table 16: Education and employment characteristics, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Unemployment rate[30] / FTE
students[31] / % of population who did not complete year 1228 / % of population with higher education qualification28
BassCoast (S) / 4.9% / 4,121 / 60.7% / 28.1%
Baw Baw (S) / 4.1% / 9,273 / 60.2% / 28.8%
East Gippsland (S) / 5.4% / 6,144 / 64.1% / 26.0%
Latrobe (C) / 6.5% / 11,090 / 62.4% / 24.8%
South Gippsland (S) / 3.2% / 4,746 / 62.8% / 28.0%
Wellington (S) / 4.2% / 7,162 / 63.9% / 25.5%
Gippsland / 5.0% / 42,536 / 62.4% / 26.6%
Victoria / 5.4% / 869,698 / 43.7% / 45.7%

While the regional unemployment rate (5%) is below the Victorian rate (5.4%), it is above average in LaTrobe (6.5%). The regional percentage of population who did not complete year 12 (62.4%) is well above the Victorian average of 43.7%, and the percentage of population with a higher education qualification (26.6%) is well below the Victorian figure (45.7%).

1f– Health behaviours

Table 17: Smoking status,2008, GippslandLGAs

LGA / % Current smoker[32] / % Ex smoker32 / % Non smoker32 / % of 15-17 year olds who smoked in last 30 days[33]
BassCoast (S) / 19.4% / 33.0% / 47.2% / NA
Baw Baw (S) / 17.6% / 27.8% / 54.5% / NA
East Gippsland (S) / 22.1% / 28.4% / 49.4% / NA
Latrobe (C) / 29.6% / 22.1% / 47.9% / NA
South Gippsland (S) / 19.5% / 23.7% / 56.6% / NA
Wellington (S) / 20.6% / 24.7% / 54.6% / NA
Gippsland / 23.2% / 25.4% / 51.1% / 9.1%
Victoria / 19.1% / 23.8% / 56.8% / 17.7%

Blue = significantly below Victorian average; red = significantly above Victorian average.

Note that sum of percentages for current, ex- and non-smokers may not add to 100 per cent due to a proportion of 'don't know' or 'refused' responses.

Table 18: Daily fruit consumption32 (percentage), 2008, GippslandLGAs

LGA / No serves of fruit / One serve of fruit / 2 or more serves of fruit / Did not meet fruit guidelines
BassCoast (S) / 17.4% / 32.9% / 49.3% / 51.5%
Baw Baw (S) / 14.4% / 37.1% / 48.2% / 51.4%
East Gippsland (S) / 12.9% / 36.1% / 50.1% / 49.8%
Latrobe (C) / 20.1% / 36.1% / 43.4% / 56.0%
South Gippsland (S) / 16.1% / 33.6% / 50.3% / 49.8%
Wellington (S) / 14.0% / 36.8% / 49.2% / 52.2%
Gippsland / 16.2% / 36.2% / 47.2% / 52.8%
Victoria / 14.3% / 36.1% / 48.6% / 50.5%

Red = significantly above Victorian average.

Table 19: Daily vegetable consumption32(percentage), 2008, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / No serves of vegetables / 1-2 serves of vegetables / 3-4 serves of vegetables / 5 or more serves of vegetables / Did not meet vegetable guidelines
BassCoast (S) / *5.3% / 55.7% / 24.2% / 13.9% / 84.9%
Baw Baw (S) / *3.0% / 53.0% / 34.2% / 9.2% / 89.8%
East Gippsland (S) / *1.2% / 57.0% / 27.8% / 12.9% / 85.4%
Latrobe (C) / *4.8% / 56.1% / 26.7% / 11.5% / 87.0%
South Gippsland (S) / ** / 55.6% / 30.2% / 11.9% / 86.7%
Wellington (S) / *5.6% / 49.4% / 32.2% / 11.7% / 86.6%
Gippsland / 4.0% / 54.0% / 29.5% / 11.6% / 86.9%
Victoria / 5.8% / 56.9% / 28.2% / 7.7% / 90.0%

Blue = significantly below Victorian average; red = significantly above Victorian average.

* Estimate has a relative standard error between 25 and 50 per cent and should be interpreted with caution.

** Estimate has a relative standard error of greater than 50 per cent and is not reported as it is unreliable for general use.

Table 20: Did not meet guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption[34](percentage), males and females, 2008, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Did not meet fruit or vegetable guidelines (males) / Did not meet fruit or vegetable guidelines
(females) / Did not meet fruit or vegetable guidelines(persons)
BassCoast (S) / 51.5% / 36.4% / 47.9%
Baw Baw (S) / 57.0% / 42.4% / 49.0%
East Gippsland (S) / 44.2% / 51.4% / 47.4%
Latrobe (C) / 59.9% / 45.2% / 52.2%
South Gippsland (S) / 52.0% / 41.8% / 46.1%
Wellington (S) / 54.5% / 40.0% / 47.7%
Gippsland / 55.1% / 43.8% / 49.3%
Victoria / 54.8% / 41.9% / 48.2%

Red = significantly above Victorian average.

Table 21: Alcohol and soft drink consumption, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / % with short term risk from alcohol consumption34 / % who purchased alcohol in past 7 days[35] / %15-17 year olds who drank alcohol in past 7 days[36] / % who drank soft drink every day 35
BassCoast (S) / 17.2% / 33.6% / NA / 15.4%
Baw Baw (S) / 11.0% / 34.3% / NA / 9.7%
East Gippsland (S) / 14.9% / 38.6% / NA / 11.2%
Latrobe (C) / 9.7% / 37.2% / NA / 18.6%
South Gippsland (S) / 8.1% / 41.7% / NA / 11.7%
Wellington (S) / 9.5% / 37.8% / NA / 9.2%
Gippsland / 11.7% / 37.1% / 56.1% / 13.3%
Victoria / 10.2% / 36.3% / NA / 12.4%

Red = significantly above Victorian average

Table 22: Did not meet guidelines for physical activity34, males females, 2008, Gippsland LGAs

LGA / Did not meet physical activity guidelines (males) / Did not meet physical activity guidelines
(females) / Did not meet physical activity guidelines (persons)
BassCoast (S) / 18.4% / 19.0% / 20.3%
Baw Baw (S) / 35.1% / 24.4% / 29.7%
East Gippsland (S) / 21.8% / 38.6% / 29.4%
Latrobe (C) / 29.0% / 24.7% / 26.9%
South Gippsland (S) / 16.8% / 20.3% / 18.5%
Wellington (S) / 21.1% / 26.2% / 24.0%
Gippsland / 25.4% / 25.9% / 25.9%
Victoria / 27.5% / 27.2% / 27.4%

Blue = significantly below Victorian average; red = significantly above Victorian average

A higher percentage of adults resident in Gippsland Region are current smokers than the Victorian average. The figure is particularly high for Latrobe at 29.6% compared with the Victorian average of 19.1%. A lower than average percentage of Gippsland population meet fruit consumption guidelines, while a higher than average percentage meet vegetable consumption and physical activity guidelines. A higher than average percentage of Gippsland residents are at short term risk from alcohol consumption, and drink soft drink every day. Alcohol consumption is highest in BassCoast and East Gippsland, and soft drink consumption is highest in BassCoast and Latrobe. There is considerable variation between LGAs with respect to healthy behaviours, with South Gippsland consistently demonstrating healthy behaviours.