« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION
6.1 This project was inspired by three concerns. The first was that the impact of the environment on health and well-being is not confined to the potentially harmful effects of exposure to toxic substances. Rather it may be that the environment has a psychosocial impact too. Those who subjectively consider one or more aspects of their environment to be a problem, that is suffer from an incivility, may as a result be less healthy, less trusting and more in fear of crime. Our second concern was that if, indeed, subjective perceptions of the environment have a psychosocial impact, this might have implications for how the quality of Scotland's environment should be measured. Perhaps the incidence of street level incivilities, such as litter or vandalism, should be charted more carefully than they have been hitherto. Finally, we wanted to establish whether those environmental incivilities that do apparently affect health and well-being are evenly distributed or whether certain sections of Scottish society are more likely to be exposed to such incivilities than others. If the latter is the case then it might be argued that one of the two conditions required for environmental justice, environmental equity, is not currently being met in Scotland.
6.2 Our results suggest that all of these concerns are pertinent. Throughout this report we have found that street level incivilities, such as litter, vandalism and broken glass, together with the absence of goods such as somewhere pleasant to walk, matter, and do so to a greater extent than infrastructural incivilities, such as overhead power lines or the noise and smell from factories. The former are more commonly reported to be a problem, are more likely to regarded as a potential problem if they were to exist, and have a stronger relationship with general happiness with one's neighbourhood. Most importantly we have found that these phenomena, but not infrastructural incivilities, do appear to have a psychosocial impact. Both street level incivilities and the absence of goods are certainly associated with a range of indicators of health, social trust and fear of crime; those who suffer such incivilities appear to be less healthy, less trusting and more concerned about crime.
6.3 At the same time, it is these street level incivilities and absence of goods that are the more unevenly distributed across Scotland. In particular, those who by other criteria live in the most deprived parts of Scotland are far more likely to report that one or more (usually more) such incivilities are a problem in their area. In addition the incidence of street level incivilities and the absence of goods is also often rather higher in urban Scotland. Infrastructural incivilities in contrast are far less concentrated amongst certain sections of Scotland's population. Given the relative importance of street level incivilities and the absence of goods, and given the social consensus across our respondents as to their relative importance as potential problems, our findings would appear to have important implications for any assessment of the degree of environmental injustice in Scotland.
6.4 Those implications are significant ones. It does of course have to be borne in mind that this report has only considered one of two aspects of environmental justice, that is the distribution of environmental burdens, not the degree to which there is adequate information and involvement of all communities in environmental decision-making. To that degree it is but one contribution to any assessment of environmental injustice in Scotland. It should be remembered too that the Scottish Executive's approach to environmental justice (see Chapter One) emphasises the position of 'deprived communities' with respect to the distribution of those burdens rather than that of all communities. From this perspective at least, our finding that those living in urban areas are more likely to report incivilities may not be considered evidence that suggests environmental injustice. However, from this same perspective, our finding, that it is above all those living in the most deprived parts of Scotland who are those most likely to report environmental incivilities, clearly is.
6.5 Of course in assessing the implications of our evidence for any assessment of environmental injustice in Scotland a judgement still needs to be made as to whether our data constitute evidence that deprived communities suffer a burden that is 'disproportionate' (as stated in the Scottish Executive's definition of environmental justice) or do not receive treatment that is 'fair' (the term used in that of the US Environment Protection Agency quoted in Chapter One). In part this is a question of scale; how inequitable does the distribution of burdens need to be before it is regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'unfair'? To that there is clearly no absolute answer, but we would suggest that the scale of the inequity we have uncovered indicates that the burden of proof rests on those who would not wish to regard the current position as 'disproportionate' or 'unfair'. In part, it may also be thought to depend on how any inequity arises, and in particular whether or not it is the direct and maybe even the intended result of environmental policy and decision making. In our view, however, this is not relevant. Such a consideration neither forms part of the Scottish Executive's stated approach to environmental justice as quoted in Chapter One, nor does it arise in the US Environment Protection Agency's definition of 'fair treatment'. This reads:
'Fair treatment means that no racial, ethnic or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the operation of industrial, municipal, and commercial enterprises or from the execution of national politic, programs and policies.'
6.6 This clearly covers unintended or indirect consequences as well as direct or intended ones. So, while our evidence that those in deprived communities are more likely to report environmental burdens may well be an unintended and indirect consequence of decisions made by a variety of private and public bodies, this does not mean that it is not pertinent to any assessment of the scale of environmental injustice in Scotland.
An index of local environmental quality
6.7 In any event, our findings would certainly seem to have implications for efforts to record environmental exposures of apparent relevance to human health, such as the system operated by Health Protection Scotland. This system evidently should include measures of the incidence of street level incivilities and the absence of goods in each part of Scotland. In particular these measures need to include the incidence of graffiti, litter, animal mess and green spaces. While in this research we have used perceptual measures of these phenomena, something that it would be prohibitively expensive to do on a regular basis across Scotland as whole, they are all capable of objective measurement. Indeed they can probably be brought together to form an index of local environmental quality.
6.8 Here it should be remembered that our study illustrated that, irrespective of social circumstance, respondents would worry about the same things, were they present in their area. This implies that physical environments with similar characteristics may well have a similar psychosocial impact on those who live in them irrespective of people's social background. Accordingly it becomes legitimate to think in terms of a single simple index of local environmental quality that measures with equal relevance for neighbourhoods throughout Scotland those incivilities that appear to have most psychosocial impact. On the evidence of this project this index should be based on the following component items:
- vandalism and graffiti
- litter and rubbish
- broken glass
- cat and dog mess
- dumped cars/'fridges etc
- uneven pavements
- vacant and derelict buildings
- discarded needles
- absence of safe places to play
- absence of pleasant places to walk and sit.
6.9 Although it would be possible to construct this index so that items were differentially weighted according to how much respondents to our survey said they would worry about them if they did exist, we suspect that that this refinement would not be worthwhile and that the approach adopted in conducting the analysis in this report of giving each item equal weight would be appropriate. It is certainly important that the index should not be confined to those items for which objective data is currently readily available at a suitably low level of spatial resolution. In practice a review we have conducted of existing sources of evidence suggests that objective data are not currently easily available at 'neighbourhood level' for most of these potential items. This review suggests that the current position on the availability of data is as follows:
Vandalism and graffiti
Litter and rubbish
Cat and dog mess
Dumped cars/'fridges etc
Data on these are generated bi-monthly at local authority level for Scotland by the Keep Scotland Beautiful Organisation. This is done on the basis of a random selection of streets.
Uneven pavements
Such information might be derived from reviewing complaints received by local authorities. However, we suspect that these data would be a reflection of differential propensity to make complaints rather than simply objective differences in the incidence of this incivility.
Vacant and derelict buildings
Data based on the levying of community charges and business rates together with information on council house occupancy levels might be used to generate an indicator. It is unclear, however, whether this information would be sufficiently sensitive, specific or timely.
Discarded needles
Data relevant to quantifying this incivility may be held within local authorities but it may be difficult to disaggregate it from general public health data or data held by the local cleansing service.
Untidy gardens
We are unaware of any data held in relation to this although local authorities may hold data based on complaints and in relation to their own housing stock. The degree of subjectivity involved in quantifying this incivility may in fact justify its exclusion from any index.
Broken glass
Availability of safe places to play
Availability of pleasant places to walk and sit
We are unaware of the existence of any data on this that are currently collected regularly.
6.10 In summary existing data sources are not rich and could not in our view support the creation of a meaningful index of the burden of everyday environmental incivilities across Scotland. The creation of an index would require a new initiative to develop measures of the incivilities in question. Such an initiative would, however, appear to be feasible. We would suggest that data on all these incivilities could be gathered from walk round (sample) surveys during which the component incivilities in the index are scored at a sufficiently low level of spatial resolution. Surveys conducted by the Keep Scotland Beautiful organisation and, as yet unpublished, work in Wales (Palmer, 2005) suggest that problems of inter and intra-observer variation that rise when generating incivility scores at local level can be addressed and overcome. In any event, for an indicator primarily intended to map the impact of policy through sequential and spatial comparison (rather than to differentiate between what is acceptable or unacceptable in health terms) consistency is ultimately more important than precision.
6.11 The challenge raised by this project is therefore explicit. If the evidence we have gathered on the unequal incidence and apparent impact of street level incivilities and the absence of goods is regarded as persuasive, then a new index of environmental quality that measures their incidence would appear to be required. While existing data sources on their incidence would appear to be inadequate, an effective methodology to collect such data can be devised and piloted. We would suggest that a partnership between Keep Scotland Beautiful and the local authorities that are partners within the EHS3 consortium co-ordinated by Health Protection Scotland could generate this index, should sufficient funding be made available.
6.12 Surveillance is however of little use without action. So a further implication of this report is that any attempt to reduce inequalities in Scotland needs to include an attempt to reduce the incidence of street level incivilities and the absence of green space in Scotland's most deprived communities. The current pattern of environmental burdens in Scotland appears to be having a particularly deleterious effect on the health and cohesion of such communities in Scotland. But it is not just such communities that would welcome less vandalism, graffiti, litter and animal mess together with more green space; rather such developments would be universally welcomed across Scotland as a whole.
« Previous | Contents | Next »