The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: WHO EXPERIENCES INCIVILITY?

3.1 In this chapter we turn to our second question, how much does the extent to which people regard various incivilities as a problem vary according to their own characteristics and those of the area in which they live? We investigate whether particular incivilities are more likely to be reported as a problem by, for example, men rather than by women, by older people than younger ones, or by those in working class occupations rather than middle class ones. At the same time we also examine whether those living in urban areas are more likely to report problems than those living in rural ones, or whether individuals living in areas of high deprivation are more likely to do so than those living in less deprived areas. If we find such patterns consistently then it might be thought to comprise evidence of a lack of what we termed in Chapter One 'environmental equity', which is one of the key components of environmental justice.

3.2 As noted in Chapter One, a number of previous research studies have found that those living in poorer areas are more likely to be exposed to environmental health risks. This broad finding was replicated recently for Scotland by Fairburn et al (2005), who found that all of industrial pollution, derelict land, poor river water quality and poor air quality were more common in deprived areas, as was a lack of woodland. However, this was less evidently the case in respect of a number of infrastructural features such as landfill sites, quarries and opencast mines. What we are uniquely able to do in this study is to examine whether similar relationships are found when we consider people's perceptions of their local environment.

3.3 As well as examining variation in the incidence of reported problems we also consider whether people in different social groups and those living in different kinds of area have similar or dissimilar perceptions as to which potential incivilities would be a problem if they were to exist or occur in their area. Here we are interested in establishing whether or not there is a consensus as to which potential incivilities are problems or whether different kinds of people worry about different kinds of incivility. If there is such a consensus then it is more difficult to argue that differences in reported levels of incivility are simply the result of differences in expectations, while at the same time it might be thought easier for policy makers to secure agreement as to which incivilities should be targeted by public policy.

Social variation in commonplace incivilities

3.4 We find that there are some notable differences between different kinds of individuals and different kinds of area in the degree to which our more commonplace incivilities are reported to be a problem. Three sets of differences particularly stand out: age, urban-rural location and degree of social deprivation. We illustrate each of these in turn by showing the proportion of people in each category who regard each incivility as a 'really big problem' in their area.

Table 3.1 Reported incivilities by age group

Note to table

Cells marked * are those where over 10% say that item is a really big problem.

3.5 By far the most striking difference between older and younger people is in respect of litter & rubbish. As Table 3.1 shows, the older someone is, the more likely they are to say that litter is a really big problem in their area. Apart from this, those aged 18-24 are markedly less likely to say that either cat & dog mess or uneven pavements are a really big problem than are those in older age groups, perhaps because they are less likely to find such features impede their ability to walk safely. It is those aged 25 to 44 who are most likely to be concerned about the lack of safe places to play or pleasant places to walk. This may be because those in this age group are most likely to be parents of younger children. However, so far as the remaining incivilities are concerned, perceptions do not appear to vary systematically by age.

Table 3.2 Perceived incivilities by urban/rural location

Note to table

Cells marked * are those where over 10% say that item is a really big problem.

3.6 More consistent are the differences in the reported incidence of incivilities between those in urban and those in rural areas. In order to demonstrate this we have assigned our survey respondents to one of six urban/rural categories, using the classification of postcode sectors that has been developed for the Scottish Household Survey (Hope et al, 2000). People living in one of Scotland's four largest cities were most likely to say there was a really big problem in respect of no less than 11 of the 16 incivilities in the table. Meanwhile those living in a remote rural area were least likely to say there was a really big problem on no less than nine incivilities. Just one incivility appears to trouble this latter group more than any other: smell from sewage. This appears to be due to the presence of a sewage works in one of the remote rural locations in which interviewing for the survey took place.

Table 3.3 Perceived incivilities by deprivation category

Note to table

Cells marked * are those here over 10% say that item is a really big problem.

3.7 The largest and most consistent differences of all are those between those living in a deprived area and those living in a less deprived neighbourhood. To show this we have assigned respondents to one of seven 'deprivation categories', a composite measure of the social character of each postcode sector derived from a number of pieces of information obtained by the 2001 Census (for further details see Annex 1). As can be seen in Table 3.3, those living in a more deprived area are much more likely to say that a particular incivility is a really big problem, the only exceptions being overhead power lines and noise from factories. Many of the gaps are very substantial indeed. For example, those living in the most deprived areas are eleven times more likely than are those in the least deprived to say the availability of play spaces was a really big problem in their area

Interplay of possible influences

3.8 The above tabulations do not take any account, however, of the possible interplay between the various possible influences on the incidence of incivilities. If deprived areas are mostly in urban Scotland then perhaps this accounts for the relationship between urban/rural location and the degree to which an incivility is regarded as a problem. Given that those in routine and semi-routine occupations are more likely to live in a deprived area, perhaps too, once we take into account our respondents' social class, the relationship between deprivation category and the perceived incidence of incivilities disappears. To check for these possibilities we need to undertake some form of multivariate analysis. In this case we use logistic regression to model the probability that someone says that a particular incivility is a 'problem' in their area (that is, picked out any one of the three unhappiest faces). Because we are wishing to distinguish between individual level influences such as social class and area level ones such as deprivation category we use a form of regression, a hierarchical mixed model, that takes into account the possibility that the apparent association between individual level characteristics and the dependent variable arises simply because individuals with similar characteristics tend to live in the same area (for further details see Annex 1).

3.9 In Table 3.4 we show the resulting models for three of our 16 more commonplace incivilities. These three examples simply illustrate the key findings across all 16 models. The table shows the estimated impact of being in a particular category, as compared with the base category for that variable, on the probability that someone says that a particular incivility is a problem. Thus for example, with an odds ratio of 2.53, it indicates that those aged 35-44 are estimated to be two and a half times more likely than those aged 18-24 to say that cat & dog mess is a problem in their area.

3.10 In fact, our results largely confirm the results of our simpler analyses. Even though our models take into account someone's social class, deprivation category is the feature most strongly associated with reporting an incivility as a problem. Thus, for example, after controlling for all the other factors in the model, those living in the most deprived areas are nearly 19 times more likely than those living in one of the two least deprived categories to regard the availability of somewhere pleasant to walk as a problem in their area. ⁴ Deprivation category is the only variable that is significantly associated with all three of our examples, and indeed of our total of 16 incivilities, only in three cases (the spraying of crops, uneven pavements and overhead power lines) does it prove not to be significant at all.

3.11 At the same time there are still a number of significant differences between those living in urban and those living in rural locations even after taking into account the differences between deprivation categories. We can see from Table 3.4 that those living in remote rural areas are only 15% as likely as are those living in one of the four largest cities to consider the availability of somewhere pleasant to walk as a problem. Altogether, those living in the most urban areas are significantly more likely than those in the most rural areas to say that there is a problem in their area in respect of seven of our incivilities. ⁵ On the other hand our more elaborate analysis confirms that smell from sewage was significantly more likely to be reported as a problem in remote rural areas.

3.12 No other characteristic produces as consistent a pattern as deprivation category or urban-rural location. While, as Table 3.4 illustrates (see the cat & dog mess model), there are some differences by age group, the direction of the differences varies. Whereas older people are more likely than younger people to report both litter & rubbish and uneven pavements as a problem, younger people are more likely than older people to say that broken glass is a problem. In other cases, such as cat & dog mess and the availability of either play spaces or somewhere pleasant to walk, it is those in one or more middle age groups that are most likely to say there is a problem.

3.13 Meanwhile our multivariate analysis indicates that both social class and gender are relatively unimportant. Only in five instances are there are any significant class differences, and while in three cases those in routine manual occupations are significantly more likely than large employers and higher professional and managerial workers, to say that there is a problem in their area, in two other instances the position is reversed. ⁶ The only significant difference between men and women is that the latter are more likely to say that the availability of pleasant places to walk is a problem in their area.

Table 3.4 Models of social variation in perceived incivilities

Note to table

Shaded odds ratios are those significantly different from 1 at the 5% level. Categories in brackets are the reference category. For further details of the social class classification see Annex 1.

Social variation in aggregated incivilities

3.14 It appears then that a relatively high reported incidence of incivilities accompanies social deprivation. In general, those living in a deprived area are considerably more likely to say that incivilities are a problem in their area than are those who live elsewhere. Not only is it the case that people in certain kinds of area are systematically more likely to suffer from perceived environmental nuisance, but the group in question consists of those whose social circumstances may be considered disadvantageous in other respects too. According to the definition adopted in this study, this would appear to constitute powerful evidence on environmental injustice in Scotland.

3.15 At the same time we have found that on half or so of our incivilities at least, whether someone lives in an urban or rural area also makes a difference to the reported level of incivilities, even after we have taken into account deprivation category. ⁷ For the most part those in urban areas are more likely to say that there was a problem in their area. However, we might also note that all of the instances where urban/rural location makes a significant difference are incivilities that primarily loaded on either the street level incivilities or the absence of goods dimension in the factor analysis we introduced in chapter two (see Table 2.2). This suggests that we might be able to present a simplified picture of the importance of urban/rural location and perhaps indeed deprivation category if we analyse our incivilities according to their character.

3.16 To do this for each respondent, we added up their total score across all of the incivilities that comprise each of our three dimensions. For example, in the case of the street level incivilities dimension we added together respondents' scores across the nine incivilities that loaded primarily on that dimension. This created a scale that ran from 9 (indicating a respondent who said that all of the incivilities were not a problem at all) to 63 (a respondent who said that all of the incivilities were a really big problem). The equivalent range for the infrastructural incivilities scale is 5 to 35, and that for the absence of goods, 2 to 14. The differences between these ranges need to be borne in mind when comparing our results across the three scales.

3.17 In Table 3.5 we show the results of a linear regression of these three scales, again using a hierarchical mixed model, against the individual and area characteristics we have been examining. As we suspected, our models are far less able to account for the variation in the degree to which infrastructural incivilities are reported as a problem. They account for just 10% of the variance in infrastructural incivilities compared with 55% of street level incivilities and as much as 63% of absence of goods. In particular, there is no significant association between infrastructural incivilities and urban/rural location while there is only a weak relationship with deprivation category.

3.18 In contrast there is a clear and strong relationship between both street level incivilities and absence of goods and both deprivation category and urban/rural location, albeit with deprivation category the more important. For example, the average score on the street level incivilities scale of those living in a least deprived area is nine and a half points lower than it is amongst those living in a most deprived area. Note, however, that although the largest absolute coefficients appear in the infrastructural incivilities model, this reflects the wider range of the scores on this scale. Once this is taken into account it is actually in the absence of goods model that both deprivation category and urban/rural location are most important. Meanwhile the absence of goods scale is also the one scale that exhibits some significant social class differences too. Evidently of all our incivilities it is the absence of goods that is most socially differentiated across Scotland.

Table 3.5 Regression analysis of aggregate incivility scores

Note to table

Coeff. = Coefficient; SE = Standard Error of Coefficient. A coefficient is statistically significant at the 5% level if the coefficient is at twice the size of its standard error. Such coefficients are marked *. Each coefficient shows the effect of being in that category as opposed to the reference category. The reference category in each case is shown in brackets.

Social variation in the incidence of less commonplace incivilities

3.19 The relative lack of social variation in the incidence of our more commonplace infrastructural incivilities raises the question whether this is also true of the less commonplace pieces of infrastructure that we first introduced in Table 2.3. Is it the case that the existence of a waste incinerator or open cast mine is no more likely to be reported by those living in one kind of area than another?

3.20 For the most part this does appear to be the case. In Table 3.6 we show the reported incidence of various pieces of infrastructure by deprivation category. There is clearly no evidence that the existence of such infrastructure is more likely to be reported by those living in heavily deprived areas. If anything, so far as a mobile phone mast or a quarry is concerned, it was those living in the least deprived areas who were more likely to report their existence. More generally, however, on none of our items is it the case that the reported incidence of an incivility consistently increases or decreases as we move from the left-hand side of Table 3.6 (showing those living in the least deprived parts of Scotland) to the right-hand side (those living in the most deprived).

Table 3.6 Reported incidence of infrastructure by deprivation category

3.21 For the most part there is a similar lack of systematic and consistent relationship between urban/rural location and the reported incidence of infrastructure. There are, however, a couple of exceptions. Those living in more rural areas were more likely to report the existence of a quarry or a sewage works in their area. Neither finding is surprising. Certainly it is difficult to argue that the reported pattern of infrastructure contributes to the apparent pattern of environmental injustice uncovered by the earlier analysis in this chapter.

Social variation in worry about potential incivilities

3.22 We now turn from the extent to which different kinds of people and those living in different kinds of area vary in the degree to which they regard various incivilities as actual problems in their area, to considering whether there are equivalent differences in the degree to which people say that various potential incivilities would be a problem if they were to exist or occur in their area. Do people in different situations have different perceptions of what constitutes an environmental nuisance, or is there largely a social consensus on what constitutes an incivility?

3.23 On the basis of extensive logistic regression analysis, we find that for the most part there are few differences between people in different social groups or in different kinds of area as to the degree they would be worried about an incivility if it existed in their area. Indeed, in the case of attitudes towards heavy traffic, landfill sites, sewage, an open cast mine, mobile phone masts, and vandalism & graffiti there were no significant differences at all.

3.24 There are a few differences by age. Older people say they would worry rather more about the noise and smell from factories, untidy or overgrown gardens, cat & dog mess, and litter, though in the last of these they are joined by 18-24 year olds in their level of concern. In contrast, older individuals would worry less if a power station were nearby

3.25 But perhaps most importantly, differences between those living in urban areas and those in rural areas, or between those living in different deprivation categories, are few and far between. By way of example, the data for the latter are shown in Table 3.7. Those living in urban areas are more likely to regard vacant or derelict buildings as a potential worry. Meanwhile those living in the most deprived areas are less concerned about both wind farms and overhead power lines than are those in the least deprived. However, those in urban and the most deprived parts of Scotland largely agree with those in rural and less deprived parts of the country as to what constitutes an environmental nuisance.

Table 3.7 Worry about potential incivilities by deprivation category

3.26 So, for the most part views are very similar across Scotland. This has important implications. It means that the evidence we have uncovered in this chapter that people in certain kinds of area are more likely to say that various incivilities in their area constitute a problem cannot be accounted for by differences in expectations or standards. Those living in more deprived areas of Scotland do not report a higher incidence of actual incivilities simply because they are more inclined to worry about such incivilities in the first place. Meanwhile the existence of this apparent social consensus also suggests that a single index of the incidence of environmental incivilities could legitimately be used across Scotland as a mechanism for measuring the perceived quality of the environment.

Conclusion

3.27 We have uncovered some substantial differences in the incidence of reported incivilities. In particular, those living in the most deprived parts of Scotland are more likely to report a wide range of environmental incivilities as a problem in their area. This is largely true of those living in urban Scotland too, irrespective of the deprivation category of the area in which they live. Yet the perceptions of those living in deprived areas or in urban Scotland as to what constitutes an environmental nuisance appear to be much the same as those of their fellow citizens. Those living in deprived or urban Scotland want much the same kind of environment as everyone else; their reported failure to experience it would appear to constitute significant evidence of environmental inequity in Scotland.

3.28 Not all incivilities are as strongly concentrated in certain places as others however. For the most part infrastructural incivilities are not strongly concentrated in areas of relative deprivation or in urban areas, while much the same is true of pieces of major infrastructure such as a landfill site or mobile phone mast. In this, our research echoes the findings of Fairburn et al (2005). Rather, environmental inequality is primarily a feature of street level incivilities and the absence of goods. However, as we saw in chapter two, these are both the more commonly perceived incivilities and the ones that appear to have most bearing on people's happiness with where they live.

Appendix to Chapter Three

Table 3A.1 95% confidence intervals around estimates of odds ratios in Table 3.4

« Previous | Contents | Next »