The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY - ATTITUDES TO SERVICES

5.1 Introduction

In this and the following chapter we present and discuss the results of the quantitative surveys undertaken in each of the three case study areas. Although administered as a single survey the questionnaire consisted of an initial exploration of respondents' attitudes towards and use of services in rural areas, followed by a choice experiment which sought to explore respondent's preferences and values for different elements of service provision. This chapter will present the results of the attitudinal section of the questionnaire.

5.2 Methods

The survey was undertaken by a market research company, using face-to-face interviews in the respondents' homes. The samples were stratified to ensure that as far as possible they were representative in terms of age, gender and socio-economic group. Summary sample characteristics can be found in Appendix 8. The samples were primarily centred on Eastriggs in Dumfries and Galloway; Applecross in the western highlands and Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis, to tie in with the co-location case study areas. At the request of the project steering group, sampling was also undertaken in the surrounding areas. This was also necessary in the case of Applecross due to the low population of that village and other villages on the Applecross Peninsula. The main survey instrument, the results of which are presented in this chapter, was administered to 170 respondents in Eastriggs and Lewis and to 176 respondents in the Applecross sample. Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of survey respondents in the three sample areas, together with the relative position of the sample areas in Scotland. For brevity the following analysis and discussion of survey results will refer to the areas as Eastriggs, Applecross and Lewis.

The attitudinal questions were intended to probe the importance of different aspects of local service provision across the three samples to determine the degree to which similarities or differences existed between them. These probed attitudes to how local services are provided. Issues considered included whether there should be a full range of services provided; distance to services; need for privacy; access to service for the elderly and disabled; levels of service provision such as face-to-face provision and opening hours; and the social aspects of local services.

Following these general questions on local services respondents were asked about their attitudes to specific services drawn from a list developed at the Perth workshop. These questions covered frequency of use; perceptions of service quality; distance travelled to access services; and perceived suitability for co-location with other services. Respondents were then asked which services they would like to see co-located in their local village in order to ensure provision.

Figure 7: Locations of sample areas and respondents, larger markers indicate multiple respondents with the same postcode. (Map and postcode data © Crown Copyright, Post Office and Ordinance Survey)

5.3 Attitudes towards rural service provision

General attitudes to services

Figure 8 to Figure 10 present summaries of responses to questions in which respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements concerning service provision. There were high levels of agreement across the three samples that a full range of services should be provided locally. Similarly there were high levels of agreement that co-located services were preferable to services at a distance and that face-to-face provision is better than telephone or internet provision.

Between 40% and 50% of each sample agreed that privacy issues might mean that some services might not be suitable for co-location, with higher percentages agreeing in Applecross and Lewis. However, 34% in Applecross and 26% in Lewis disagreed with this compared to only 9% in Eastriggs. Furthermore, 38% and 55% of respondents in Applecross and Lewis respectively were willing to travel further to access services for reasons such as privacy, whereas 36% and 26% were not willing. In Eastriggs 9% were willing to travel further to ensure privacy with 18% not willing and 68% responding "neither".

Respondents were asked if providing access to services for people with mobility problems was more important than ensuring the local provision of services. Seventy six percent of Eastriggs and 61% of Lewis respondents agreed with this statement compared to 45% of the Applecross sample. Nineteen percent of Lewis respondents and 36% of those in the Applecross area disagreed with this statement.

When respondents were asked if co-location would not be an option for some services such as some health services almost equal numbers agreed and disagreed in Applecross, whilst in Lewis 56% agreed and 26% disagreed. Meanwhile there was agreement by 43% and a "neither" response from 45% in Eastriggs, whilst 8% disagreed.

Similar results arose when respondents were asked if a problem of locally provided services was that opening hours were often inconvenient. Therefore there appears to be greater disparity in views concerning co-location, convenience and willingness to travel to access services amongst Applecross and Lewis respondents. Whereas in Eastriggs, people showed a greater degree of indifference to these issues.

Respondents in Eastriggs were far less willing to travel to access services with 59% disagreeing that they "don't mind having a long journey to access certain services" with 32% agreeing. Conversely, these percentages were almost reversed in Applecross and Lewis with 34% and 36% disagreeing and 57% and 53% agreeing respectively.

Despite this greater willingness to travel, the community aspects of local service provision were emphasised in Applecross and Lewis. Although respondents in each sample largely agreed that having local services was as an opportunity to meet friends, the role of local services in maintaining communities and providing a community focal point was also recognised, particularly in Applecross and Lewis.

Figure 8: Summary of attitudinal responses amongst Eastriggs respondents.

Figure 9: Summary of attitudinal responses amongst Applecross respondents.

Figure 10: Summary of attitudinal responses amongst Lewis respondents.

Use of rural services

The survey respondents were presented with a list of local services that may be suitable for co-location and asked about their usage of those services (using a list identified by stakeholders at the workshop held in Perth as being most important for rural areas). Figure 11 presents the frequencies of use for each service in each area. The services used most frequently by the majority of respondents in each sample were grocery shops. A majority of respondents also used post offices on a weekly basis. Council services, which were not defined, were also used weekly by a majority of respondents in the Applecross and Lewis samples.

Health care services were used over a range of frequencies within each sample as might be expected for a range of respondents who vary in age and other factors that determine health care needs. Police services were used at least once a year by nearly 80% of respondents in Eastriggs. The nature of this use was not recorded. Approximately 70% of respondents in both Applecross and Lewis did not use police services. No respondents in Eastriggs used day care services for the elderly, with small numbers of respondents in Applecross and Lewis making regular use of these services. There were also very low levels of frequent use of parent and toddler and nursery school services across the three samples. Primary schools were used frequently by around 20% of respondents in each sample.

Figure 11: Usage frequencies for different services.

Perceptions of service quality

Figure 12 presents the perceptions of service quality amongst users of each service. The levels of quality were generally considered to be either good or very good for each service across most of the services. However, there were high levels of indifference towards grocery shops, day care for the elderly and the police in the Eastriggs sample. A key issue that emerged at the evening workshop in Eastriggs was the lack of police presence in Eastriggs itself. This may explain the indifference towards police services. Council services and health care were also rated indifferently by around a quarter of users in that area. Again, findings from the workshops revealed concerns about the lack of a GP in Eastriggs, hence the indifference revealed here.

There was a greater occurrence of services being rated as poor or very poor amongst the Applecross and Lewis respondents. Most notably 20% of Applecross users of the police service felt it was poor or very poor. Applecross residents at the workshop expressed a great deal of concern about the problems of accessing emergency services such as police and ambulance and the time taken to reach the village in an emergency. It is not surprising therefore that the survey also revealed concerns about the police service. Ten percent of users of both grocery shops and council services in Applecross also felt that these services were either poor or very poor. Police services and health care were considered to be poor or very poor by 10% of users on Lewis, whilst council services were rated as such by 17% of users.

Figure 12: Service users' perceptions of quality.

Distance travelled

The distances travelled to service outlets are presented in Figure 13. With the exception of 30% of respondents travelling more than 6 miles to grocery shops (with a fifth travelling between 16 and 20 miles), the majority of services used by the Eastriggs respondents were within five miles of home. At the workshop in Eastriggs there was recognition that the town was fortunate to have two small grocery stores. However, as the survey reveals, these are unlikely to be used for peoples' main grocery shopping, hence they have to travel greater distances to access a larger supermarket.

For the majority of the Lewis respondents, services were also within five miles, largely due to the number of Stornoway residents within the sample. However, substantial minorities had to travel more than 5 miles to access services, including 22% for primary schools, 18% for post offices, 27% for grocery shops, 34% for council services and 29% for health care. Smaller numbers had to travel in excess of 10 miles including 9% for primary schools, 6% for post offices, 13% for grocery shops, 18% for council services and 15% for health care.

Respondents in the Applecross area typically have to travel longer distances to reach the same range of services. This is unsurprising given its location. Primary schools were over 5 miles away for 50% of users and over 10 miles away for 20%. Post offices were over 5 miles away for 47% and over 10 miles away for 16%. Forty percent had to travel over 5 miles for grocery shops, with 19% having to travel more than 10 miles. Council services were over 5 miles away for 60% of users and over 10 miles away for 40%. Fifty one percent had to travel more than 5 miles for health care, whilst 19% travelled more than 10 miles.

Figure 13: Service users' distances from service.

.5.4 Attitudes towards co-location

Respondents were asked to consider how suitable the different public services were for co-location. A summary of the responses is presented in Figure 14. In Eastriggs there was a majority who felt that most of the services considered were suitable, although not "very suitable", for co-location. A notable exception is police services where 57% felt these were not suitable for co-location. This is an interesting finding as there is an example of co-location of police services in Dumfries and Galloway at Gatehouse of Fleet. There was also a large minority, 29%, who felt that health care services were not suitable for co-location.

Opinion in the Applecross and Lewis samples was more diverse over the suitability of services for co-location. There were larger numbers who felt that each service was unsuitable for co-location than in Eastriggs. However, there were also larger numbers who felt that each service would be "very suitable" for co-location, particularly in Applecross and to lesser extent in Lewis.

Figure 14: Suitability of services for co-location.

In addition to seeking information on the suitability of services for co-location, respondents were also asked to suggest which three services, from the list of local services they had been considering, they would like to see co-located in their local village to ensure continuing provision. From this question it was possible to derive an implied ranking of services that they would like to see co-located based on the frequency that each service was mentioned, as presented in Table 5. In Eastriggs the services which respondents mentioned most often for possible co-location were "Primary school", "Parent and toddler group" and "Nursery school/playgroup". This probably arises from the child and/or education based nature of these services.

In both Applecross and Lewis "Post Office" and "Grocery shop" were the most commonly mentioned, with "Primary school" third most frequently mentioned. Respondents in Lewis also mentioned "Health care/doctors surgery" and "Parent and toddler group" with the same frequency as "Primary school". In each area "Police" was the least frequently mentioned service (with no mentions in Eastriggs). This may reflect an opinion that although police services should be available a fixed location for accessing these services is a lower priority than for other services. It is likely that is also reflects the fact that people are no longer accustomed to having a local police station.

Table 5: Suggested services for co-location.

« Previous | Contents | Next »