The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Improving the quality of life in Scotland's neighbourhoods and communities is one of the Government's five strategic objectives: ²⁶Help local communities to flourish, becoming stronger, safer places to live, offering improved opportunities and a better quality of life.

The Scottish Household Survey is one of the sources of evidence that can be used to assess the national outcomes and targets associated with this overarching objective. For example, the outcome "we live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger" and the target to "increase the percentage of adults who rate their neighbourhood as a good place to live" can draw directly on the survey findings presented in this chapter.

This chapter starts with an overview of public perceptions of the neighbourhoods in which they live. It then looks at the prevalence of anti-social behaviour and perceptions of personal safety within neighbourhoods. The extent to which perceptions and experiences differ by individual and area-based factors is explored, as is the relationship between neighbourhood ratings and the aspects of local environments that people say they like and dislike.

NEIGHBOURHOODS

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods are high, with over nine in ten (93%) in 2007 saying that their neighbourhood is a 'very' or 'fairly' good place to live and around half (53%) choosing the highest rating 'very good'. As Table 4.1 shows, there has been little variation in neighbourhood ratings since 1999.

TABLE 4.1: RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE BY YEAR
Column percentages, 1999-2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

As Table 4.2 illustrates, there is a clear pattern between ratings of neighbourhoods and the kinds of areas in which they are cited. People in remote rural areas are the most likely to rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (79%). In contrast, the percentage of people living in urban areas and accessible small towns rating their neighbourhood as a 'very good' place to live ranges between 46% and 53%.

TABLE 4.2: RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE BY URBAN/RURAL CLASSIFICATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

However, the variations by area deprivation ²⁷ are much more stark than for urban rural classification. As Figure 4.1 shows, the proportion rating their neighbourhood as very good increases significantly as deprivation declines. Table 4.3 presents the contrast between the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland and the rest of Scotland. This shows that the proportion in the 15% most deprived areas who say that their neighbourhood is a very good place to live is less than half that in the rest of Scotland (26% and 58% respectively).

FIGURE 4.1: RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
2007 Data, Adults (base: 10,385)

TABLE 4.3: RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Aspects of neighbourhoods particularly liked

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods are a useful snapshot of general perceptions but additional insights can be gained from asking people what aspects of their neighbourhood they particularly like and dislike. Respondents to the SHS are asked to spontaneously mention any aspects and their answers are coded using a list comprised of 31 'likes' and 34 'dislikes' that has been developed over the years. These are reported in full in the web tables. ²⁸ The items mentioned as positive and negative aspects of neighbourhoods have been grouped further into the following themes:

Table 4.4 presents the groups of positive aspects people mentioned by their overall neighbourhood rating. On the whole the way in which people rate their neighbourhood overall conforms well with how they rate specific aspects of it. For example, the proportion who say there is nothing they particularly like about their neighbourhood increases sharply as neighbourhood ratings decline, from just 1% in the group who rate their neighbourhood as very good to 43% in the group who rate it as very poor. Similarly, just 1% of those who rate their neighbourhood as a very poor place to live mention an aspect of its environment as 'safe'. However, one deviation from this general pattern is worth noting; views on whether or not public transport is good does not appear to be as strongly related to overall neighbourhood ratings as the other four aspects.

TABLE 4.4: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY LIKED BY RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 present these positive aspects according to the type of area in which people live, based on the urban rural classification and its level of deprivation. The findings in relation to area type are as might be expected. People in rural areas have more positive views in terms of the extent to which their neighbourhoods are pleasant or safe, but are less likely than people in the other types of area to mention having good public transport and amenities. In contrast, people in large urban areas are the most likely to mention good public transport and are the least likely to mention aspects relating to the sense of community or friendliness of local people.

TABLE 4.5: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY LIKED BY URBAN/RURAL CLASSIFICATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

People living in the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland are less likely than those living elsewhere to mention that their local neighbourhood is pleasant, safe, or has a sense of community and friendly people. Similarly, 11% of people in the most deprived areas say they like nothing about their neighbourhood compared with just 3% in the rest of Scotland. In contrast to the findings in relation to area type, there is much less of a pattern when it comes area deprivation and people mentioning good local amenities and public transport as positive aspects.

TABLE 4.6: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY LIKED BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Aspects of neighbourhoods particularly disliked

The following tables turn to look at the aspects people say they dislike about their neighbourhoods. It starts by examining overall neighbourhood perceptions and dislikes. As was the case with the positive aspects presented above, there is a strong correspondence between overall ratings and mentions of particular negative aspects. For example, Table 4.7 shows the proportion who mention aspects of their environment as unpleasant increases starkly as neighbourhood ratings become less positive (from 21% to 68%). Similarly, 10% of those who rate their neighbourhood as very good say it has a poor sense of community or problems with residents or substance abuse compared with 75% of those who say their neighbourhood is a very poor place to live. As before, only one aspect, perceptions of public transport, is unrelated to overall perceptions (Table 4.7).

TABLE 4.7: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY DISLIKED BY RATING OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 4.8 to an extent mirrors Table 4.5 above, with people in remote rural areas being the least likely to mention aspects of their neighbourhood as unpleasant, lacking a community or having problems with local residents or substance abuse. Though it is also worth noting that there is, on the whole, much less variation between people in the different areas when it comes to what they dislike compared with what they like. This in part reflects the fact that the proportions mentioning particular things they dislike about their neighbourhood are generally lower than the corresponding proportions mentioning positive aspects.

TABLE 4.8: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY DISLIKED BY URBAN/RURAL CLASSIFICATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 4.9 presents the neighbourhood aspects particularly disliked by people in the 15% most deprived areas and by those in the rest of Scotland. As seen in Table 4.6 which presented positive aspects, there is relatively less variation between the areas when it comes to aspects such as public transport and amenities, and much more in relation to aspects such as the safety of the neighbourhood. Most strikingly, over four in ten (43%) of those in the 15% most deprived areas mention that their neighbourhood has no sense of community or problems with residents and substance abuse compared with a fifth (20%) of those in the rest of Scotland.

TABLE 4.9: ASPECTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTICULARLY DISLIKED BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Neighbourhood improvements

The final table in this section (Table 4.10) looks at public perceptions of the extent to which neighbourhoods improved in the preceding 3 years. Looking first at Scotland as a whole, the prevailing perception (61%) is that things have stayed the same while the proportion who say things have got worse (20%) outweighs the proportion who say they have improved (12%). However, looking at perceptions of neighbourhood improvements by area deprivation reveals some notable differences. The views of people in the most deprived areas are more polarised than those in the rest of Scotland; they are more likely to say that their neighbourhood has got better (20% versus 11%) and they are more likely to say that it has got worse (28% versus 18%). Less than half (45%) of those in the 15% most deprived areas say things have stayed the same compared with almost two-thirds (64%) in the rest of Scotland.

TABLE 4.10: PERCEPTIONS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENTS IN PAST 3 YEARS BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Perceptions of neighbourhood problems

The neighbourhood aspects discussed above draw on respondents' spontaneous suggestions of things they like and dislike about their local areas. This section now looks at public perceptions of some specific neighbourhood problems such as anti-social behaviour and other incivilities. Table 4.11 presents perceptions of eight neighbourhood problems included in the survey. Three of these have been included in the survey every year since 1999, a further four have been asked since 2005 and one, abandoned or burnt out vehicles, was added in 2007. The most prevalent problem is rubbish or litter lying around, with 29% saying this is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood. The next most common problems after this are rowdy behaviour (16%) or vandalism and other types of deliberate damage to property (16%). There are no clear trends in any of the problems with the proportions reporting them being broadly similar each year.

TABLE 4.11: PERCEPTION OF PREVALENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY YEAR (% SAYING EACH IS VERY OR FAIRLY COMMON)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns may add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Note: the response categories to this question were changed in 2005 and 2007.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Although the overall prevalence of these neighbourhood problems is relatively low the extent to which different types of people and different types of community experience them varies quite markedly. As Table 4.12 shows, people living in social rented housing (local authority and housing association stock) are more likely to perceive all these types of problem as fairly or very common than those in any other type of housing tenure. For example, 40% of people in social rented housing say that rubbish or litter lying around is common where they live compared with 31% of people in private rented housing and 25% of owner occupiers.

TABLE 4.12: PERCEPTION OF PREVALENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY TENURE OF HOUSEHOLD (% SAYING EACH IS VERY OR FAIRLY COMMON)*
Column percentages, 2007 data

* Revised October 2008

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 4.13 also shows that these kinds of problems are, in almost all cases, most likely to be perceived by people living in more urban areas. Taking the litter example again, the percentage who say this is common ranges between 28% and 33% in the three most urban areas, compared with 21% in remote small towns, 20% in accessible rural areas and just 12% in remote rural areas.

TABLE 4.13: PERCEPTION OF PREVALENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY URBAN/RURAL CLASSIFICATION (% SAYING EACH IS VERY OR FAIRLY COMMON)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

As is the case with many of the findings in this chapter, the most clear pattern emerges in relation to area deprivation. In all cases the prevalence of neighbourhood problems is greater in the 15% most deprived areas than it is elsewhere. Table 4.14 shows that almost half (48%) of those in the most deprived areas say that rubbish and litter lying around is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood compared with 25% in the rest of Scotland. Furthermore, almost four in ten say that rowdy behaviour (37%) and vandalism (36%) is common, compared with 13% in the rest of Scotland.

TABLE 4.14: PERCEPTION OF PREVALENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION (% SAYING EACH IS VERY OR FAIRLY COMMON)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

The following table (4.15) shows that perceptions of neighbourhood problems decline as age increases. Part of this pattern is likely to be accounted for by the fact that some of the problems asked about are ones that older people might be less likely than younger people to encounter on a regular basis because they spend less time outside the home. However, it was also shown in Table 4.12 that some of these problems are less likely to be mentioned by owner occupiers who also tend to be older.

TABLE 4.15: PERCEPTION OF PREVALENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT (% SAYING EACH IS VERY OR FAIRLY COMMON)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Personal experience of neighbourhood problems

The previous section focused on perceptions of neighbourhood problems but it is also useful to measure direct experiences. Figure 4.2 presents the proportions of people who say that each problem is very or fairly common in their area as well as the proportion who say they experienced each problem in their neighbourhood in the previous year. The key thing to note is that, in most cases, perceptions outstrip reported experiences of each problem. This is, at least in part, likely to be due to the fact that people's definitions of what counts as a very or fairly common problem will vary from person to person and the same is probably also true of personal experience. Someone might say that vandalism or litter is common in their area but not say they have personally experienced it unless their own property has been affected. It is also true that it is not always necessary to have direct personal experience of some issues to know or perceive that they are a particular problem in an area. For example, drug misuse or drug dealing might involve a small number of people in an area directly but it can have wider consequences for a much larger number of people.

FIGURE 4.2: PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS
2007 Data, Adults (base:10,385)

Table 4.16 to Table 4.19 present the proportions of people who say they have experienced each of these problems by housing tenure, urban rural classification, area deprivation and age. As found above in relation to perceptions of neighbourhood problems, the incidence of these problems is generally greatest among people in social rented accommodation, urban areas, and the 15% most deprived areas while older people are the least likely to report experiencing such problems.

TABLE 4.16: EXPERIENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY TENURE OF HOUSEHOLD (% SAYING THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF PROBLEM)*
Column percentages, 2007 data

* Revised October 2008

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

TABLE 4.17: EXPERIENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY URBAN/RURAL CLASSIFICATION (% SAYING THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF PROBLEM)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

TABLE 4.18: EXPERIENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION (% SAYING THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF PROBLEM)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns may add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

TABLE 4.19: EXPERIENCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT (% SAYING THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF PROBLEM)
Column percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 4.20 reports the proportion of people who say they have experienced a problem and who have also reported it to anyone (for example, to the council or police). Around one in six people (17%) who say that litter is a common problem have reported it compared with two in five who have reported problems such as vandalism (41%) or individuals/groups harassing people (41%). It is not possible to conclude from this why such a difference might exist, but it could reflect differences in people's perceptions of the impact or significance of problems such as vandalism relative to litter, or it could reflect a difference in people's perceptions of how easy it would be to complain about each problem (or both).

TABLE 4.20: WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS REPORTED A NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEM TO ANYONE IN LAST 12 MONTHS
Row percentages, 2007 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007, it was asked of all random adults.

FEAR OF CRIME

This sections looks at two questions in the survey about fear of crime; one refers to "walking alone in the local neighbourhood after dark" and the second asks about safety "at home alone at night". Around seven in ten (72%) say they feel very or fairly safe while 15% say they feel a bit safe and just 8% say they would not feel safe at all (Table 4.21).

TABLE 4.21: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN WALKING ALONE IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD AFTER DARK BY YEAR
Column percentages, 2002-2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample.

These figures do, of course, vary quite markedly across different sub-groups. For example, women are more than twice as likely as men to say they would not feel safe in this scenario (32% and 13% respectively). Table 4.22 shows that for all age groups the proportion of people who say they would feel safe outweighs the proportion who feel unsafe, although confidence declines as age increases. Perceptions of safety are broadly similar for all groups between the ages of 16-24 and 45-59, for example, around one in three in each of these groups say they would feel very safe when out alone after dark. In contrast, those aged 60-74 and 75 and over are much less confident, for example only a fifth of those aged 75 and over say they would feel very safe walking alone after dark, though a similar proportion say they do not know how they would feel.

TABLE 4.22: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN WALKING ALONE IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD AFTER DARK BY GENDER AND AGE
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample.

Table 4.23 compares perceptions of safety in the most deprived 15% of areas with perceptions in the rest of Scotland. A clear pattern is evident; just over half (57%) of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe compared with three quarters (75%) of those elsewhere. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe at all is more than twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (17% and 7% respectively).

TABLE 4.23: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN WALKING ALONE IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD AFTER DARK BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample.

The following tables present perceptions of personal safety when home alone at night. Looking first at the trends since 2002 the first point to note is that, as would be expected, overall perceptions of safety in the home are considerably higher than the equivalent figures in relation to safety when out alone after dark. Secondly, the proportion who say they feel very safe (73.2% in 2007) has fluctuated by a few percentage points over the years but with no obvious pattern (Table 4.24).

TABLE 4.24: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN AT HOME ALONE AT NIGHT BY YEAR
Column percentages, 2002-2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample.

As with perceptions of safety when outside alone after dark, men are more likely than women to say they feel very safe (79% versus 68%), however this difference is largely due to women being more likely than men to say they would feel fairly safe rather than a large proportion saying they would not feel safe. Perceptions of safety at home do not appear to be very strongly associated with age, although those in the oldest age group are less likely to say they would feel very safe than all other age groups, as shown in Table 4.25.

TABLE 4.25: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN AT HOME ALONE AT NIGHT BY GENDER AND AGE
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample.

Table 4.26 shows that the proportion of people who say they would feel very safe at home alone at night is lower in the 15% most deprived areas than the rest of Scotland (68% versus 74%). However, when the proportion who say they feel fairly safe is added to this the difference between the two types of area largely disappears (to 94% and 96%).

TABLE 4.26: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY WHEN AT HOME ALONE AT NIGHT BY SCOTTISH INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
Column percentages, 2007 data

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. From January to May 2007 it was asked of all the sample

« Previous | Contents | Next »