The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to the Environment in Scotland

2.6 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS

Efficient waste, transport and energy generating facilities are important requisites of a healthy and functioning economy. At the same time, it is increasingly recognised that quality of life can be influenced as much by the quality of the local environment we live in, as by our economic well-being and, in response, the Scottish Executive is committed to creating cleaner, healthier neighbourhoods in Scotland ²⁷. Respondents were asked to say how happy they would be to live next to a range of waste, transport and energy generating facilities (Figure 2.3). They were then asked to select the three things on the list they would be least happy to live beside (Table 2.21).

Figure 2.3 shows that more than nine in ten people said they would be unhappy to live beside nuclear facilities, rubbish dumps and landfill sites or waste incinerators. Each type of nuclear-related facility was selected by nearly six in ten people to be among their three least attractive developments to live next to ²⁸.

Concern about living near the other types of facilities was less extreme: just under three in ten people selected rubbish dumps or landfill sites and two in ten people picked waste incinerators among the three types of facilities they would least like to live beside. Although over eight in ten people would be reluctant to live next to a motorway, oil terminal or coal-fired power station, fewer than one in ten people included any of these items among their worst three.

At the other end of the scale, people were less concerned with proximity to recycling centres or wind farms. The survey found that four in ten (40%) people would be happy to live beside a glass or paper recycling facility and six in ten (59%) would be happy to live next to a wind farm.

These findings are significant given both the Executive's commitment to generate 40% of Scotland's electricity from renewable resources by 2020. This will be achieved by promoting the development of a wide range of renewable technologies, including wave, tidal, biomass, wind, hydro and solar. The Scottish Executive has set a national target of 25% recycling and composting of municipal waste by 2006. In addition, the National Waste Plan sets an aspirational target to stop growth in the amount of municipal waste produced by 2010. Despite emphasis placed by waste awareness initiatives on reducing or reusing waste, landfill sites and expanded recycling and composting facilities will continue to play an important role in waste management strategies.

[Figure 2.3 & Table 2.21]

sample size = 4,119

Table 2.22 outlines concern over proximity to the various facilities by some key socio-demographic characteristics. Private renters were more tolerant than all other groups, perhaps as a result of shorter expected tenure periods. For example, 57% said they would be happy to live next to a recycling centre compared with 39% of both owner-occupiers and social renters. Similarly, two thirds of private renters (66%) were happy to live near wind farms, compared with only half of social renters (51%). As Table 2.22 shows though, there was agreement between tenure groups about the unattractiveness of nuclear power stations and storage sites for nuclear waste.

Women were more reluctant to live next to each of the listed facilities than men. This was especially true for motorways and recycling centres. Happiness about living next to motorways, recycling centres or wind farms declined with age, but the opposite relationship was found for living near a coal-fired power station. Those people who had attained Higher education certificates or higher qualifications were happier to live next to recycling facilities and wind farms than people who had attained lower educational qualifications.

Interestingly, remote and rural dwellers were happier about living near wind farms than their urban counterparts. Five in ten respondents with homes in large urban areas said that they would be happy about this (51%) and six in ten people from other urban areas thought the same (62%), but this increased to around seven in ten people in each of the remote and rural areas. Respondent location was also related to views on other types of developments. For example, respondents from remote small towns and remote rural areas were more amenable to living next to an oil terminal or recycling centre than other groups. Over five in ten people in these remote locations said they would be happy to live next to a recycling centre, compared to around four in ten people from accessible areas. The same pattern did not emerge over rubbish dumps or waste incinerators, beside which nine in ten people in every group said they would be unhappy to live.

2.7 VIEWS ON LITTER AND DOG FOULING

Environmental concern is often strongest over those issues that are experienced close to home. This has already been seen in the high levels of unhappiness at the idea of living beside certain facilities (Table 2.21) and with regard to the quality of water in our local areas (Table 2.20). The survey also included questions on two other locally relevant environmental issues, litter and dog fouling.

The survey found that nine in ten people (89%) thought that litter was quite a big or a very big problem in Scotland and only 2% thought that it was not a problem at all. Seven in ten people felt that litter had become more of a problem in Scotland over the last five years (69%). Similarly, eight in ten people (79%) thought that dog fouling was either quite or a very big problem in Scotland and just 4% thought that it was not a problem at all. In addition, half of all people asked felt that dog fouling had become more of a problem than five years ago, although 14% thought the problem had lessened.

Concern for both issues was strongly age related. Two thirds of people aged over 65 felt that litter was a problem and nearly eight in ten people in the same age group said they felt it had got noticeably worse over the last five years. Very similar proportions of people aged between 45 and 64 thought the same. In contrast, far fewer people aged between 16 and 24 years perceived litter to be a very serious problem. Those in this group were also less likely to say that they had noticed it getting worse over the last five years.

Although there was no significant difference in opinion over the size of the litter problem between owner occupiers and renters, those living in accessible small towns or one of the large urban areas were more likely to think litter was a very big problem, compared with those from remote rural areas or towns (over 6 in 10, and 4 in 10 people respectively).

As Figure 2.4 shows, people who lived in social rented accommodation were more concerned about dog fouling than owner occupiers. Just under five in ten owner occupiers (49%) felt that this problem had got worse over the last five years, but six in ten social renters (60%) thought the same. A third (34%) of people from remote rural areas said dog fouling was a very big problem compared with over half of those from the large urban areas (49%). People from remote rural areas were also less likely to think that dog fouling had become more of a problem during the last five years (40%) than those from the large urban areas (48%).

A final point to note is that only a third of dog owners felt that dog fouling was a very big problem in Scotland compared with over half of those people who did not own dogs. While 51% of non-dog owners thought dog fouling had got worse over the last five years only 45% of dog owners took this view.

[Tables 2.23 to 2.26]

The survey also considered ways in which problems of litter and dog fouling might be addressed. Littering is an offence which can attract on-the-spot fines. Currently local authority officers have the power to issue notices asking for payment of such fines. On commencement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 police officers will also enjoy this power. Local authorities have a duty to ensure their areas stay free of litter, through means such as Street Litter Control Notices, as well as a duty of litter clearance. The 2004 Act, when commenced, will give the Scottish ministers power to direct local authorities ( and others) in the performance of this duty. The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 came into effect on 22 ^nd October 2003 and allows local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices to those who fail to clean up after their dog has fouled in a public place.

Over seven in ten people said that enforcing fines for people that drop litter was a good way of reducing litter (72%). A similar proportion said that educating children in school more about litter could reduce the problem (71%). As Table 2.27 shows, there was no significant difference between those households with children and those without in support for this method. Over half (58%) were in favour of making fast food outlets responsible for their own litter and 50% thought that providing more litter bins would reduce the problem.

Fines were also seen as the best way of reducing the problem of dog fouling, considered likely to reduce the problem by 73% of those surveyed (Table 2.28). Half the respondents thought dog fouling would be reduced by more bins for dog fouling (53%), educating dog owners on the problems of dog fouling (51%) and providing special areas for dog walking (47%).

Dog owning households often held different views to non-dog owning houses. Fines were less popular with them (60% said this would be a good method compared to 77% of non-dog owners). Instead, they were more supportive of providing more bins (61%) and education for dog owners (57%).

* Respondents could select as many answers as they wished.

* Respondents could select as many answers as they wished.

2.8 SUMMARY

• 'Raw sewage put into the sea' and 'nuclear waste' were the two environmental issues of most concern to respondents.

• Issues of least concern were 'lack of access to parks' and 'fish farming'; over six in ten people said they were not very worried or not worried at all by these issues.

• The four issues of most concern remained the same in 2002 as in 1991. While levels of concern for issues with international significance have declined, concern for issues felt closer to home have risen.

• Levels of concern for many of the environmental issues increased with age, although often fell among those over 65.

• More than six in ten people thought the world's climate is changing and over five in ten people who believed this thought that Scotland would experience wetter weather in the future as a result.

• People were more worried about the state of seawater than freshwater. Less than a third of respondents thought that seawater off Scottish beaches was unpolluted or fairly good quality. Seven in ten people thought that most rivers and lochs in Scotland were very good or good quality.

• Nuclear-related facilities were viewed as the worst things to live beside, from a list of nine different waste, energy and transport related facilities. In contrast, more than half of respondents said they would be happy to live next to wind farms.

• Nine in ten people thought that litter presented a quite big or very big problem in Scotland. Eight in ten thought the same about dog fouling. In both cases, enforcing fines for polluters was the most favoured method for reducing the problem.

« Previous | Contents | Next »