Scottish Government

11 Local Services

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Improving local services within communities in Scotland will ensure equitable access to services and amenities, help those who live there have a better quality of life and ensure a sustainable environment, thereby contributing to four of the Scottish Government's Strategic Objectives: ⁹⁵Enabling people to increase their wealth and more people to share fairly in that wealth; Help people to sustain and improve their health, especially in disadvantaged communities, ensuring better, local and faster access to health care; Help local communities to flourish, become stronger, safer places to live, offering improved opportunities and a better quality of life; Improve Scotland's natural and built environment and the sustainable use and enjoyment of it.

The Scottish Household Survey ( SHS), among other sources, provides evidence that is used to assess progress towards the national outcomes and indicators attached to these objectives and towards the more detailed strategies that underpin them. Specifically, 'improving people's perceptions of the quality of public services delivered', national indicator 5 in the Scottish Government's performance framework, is monitored using the results from the SHS.

This chapter concentrates on local services and amenities focusing on four distinct elements. It begins by exploring adults' attitudes to their local council and the services it provides, examining differences by their age, income and area deprivation. It continues by investigating how convenient they find access to a range of local services according to the degree of rurality where they live. The next section highlights levels of recycling of various types of household waste and how this has changed over time. The extent to which recycling differs by access to a car, accommodation, housing tenure, household type and area deprivation is considered. Finally in this chapter the availability and use of greenspaces is explored, identifying factors which are associated with increased frequency of use, focusing on variation by household type and groups within them, area deprivation and health status.

PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL SERVICES

The Scottish Government argues that achieving public services that are available and accessible to all, and that users find of acceptable standard, will help to attain a wealthier and fairer Scotland. National Indicator 5 on 'improving people's perceptions of the quality of public services delivered' is a composite measure comprising public perceptions of local health services, local schools and public transport, focusing on levels of satisfaction with those services.

Table 11.1 shows that 59.3% of adults said they were very or fairly satisfied with all three local services. It can also be determined by looking at 2007 and 2008 data separately, satisfaction with these local services rose from 57.1% to 61.8% - an increase of almost 5%. It is important to note however that this figure includes those who expressed 'No opinion' for up to two of the services. These are included because the proportion who expressed 'No opinion' varied according to the service asked about, for example those without children might have no opinion about local schools while being satisfied with all other aspects of local services. The base number quoted therefore also includes people with 'no opinion' for up to two service types.

Table 11.1: Percentage of people very or fairly satisfied with the quality of local health services, local schools and public transport combined ⁹⁶
2007/2008 data

From June 2007, the question from which this is derived was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all random adults.

Table 11.2 shows that individually, adults were most satisfied with local health services (82.9%), followed by local schools (80%). Adults were least satisfied with public transport; although more than seven-in-ten (71%) were very or fairly satisfied with that service.

The highest increase between 2007 and 2008 has been in satisfaction with public transport and local health services (an increase of 3.5% and 3.4% respectively). The rise in satisfaction with local schools was the smallest among the three services (an increase of 2.2% between 2007 and 2008). However, satisfaction with each of the three services individually has increased between 2007 and 2008.

Table 11.2: Percentage of people very or fairly satisfied with the quality of public services delivered - of those who gave an opinion
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

From June 2007, the question from which this is derived was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all random adults.
* People stating 'no opinion' excluded from results.

PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES AND PERFORMANCE

One of the outcomes sought by the Scottish Government, which is supported by public service providers under the Concordat between central and local government, ⁹⁷ includes an ambition that public services are, 'high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to local people's needs'. This section continues to examine perceptions of public services. In this case, the focus is on views of local authority performance as a whole and the desire of individuals to have a say in local decision-making.

Figure 11.1 presents the percentage of adults that agree (strongly or slightly) with a number of statements about their local authority's performance. Agreement with each of the statements, with the exception of the desire to participate in local decision-making, signifies that a local authority is perceived to perform well on that aspect of performance (though not necessarily that the individual attaches importance to good performance on that dimension).

Each of the statements found agreement from fewer than half of adults. The highest level of agreement relates to communication; 47% say the council is good at communicating services and 42% that it is good at communicating its performance. A little over four in ten agree their local authority is providing high quality services (41%), while around a third believe the council is doing its best with the available money (36%); is addressing key issues that affect the quality of life locally (34%) and is providing services designed to meet the needs of local people (33%). On other aspects of communication, just over one in five agree that their local authority is good at listening (21%).

Figure 11.1: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local authority services and performance
2007/2008 data, Adults (minimum base: 19,471)

The results for adults as a whole have been further analysed to identify differences in perceptions of local authority performance by age (Table 11.3). In general, perceptions of council performance improve with age. Those aged 60 and over, and particularly those aged 75 and over, are the most likely to agree with the majority of the performance statements while younger people in the 16 to 24 and 25 to 34 age groups (especially the former), are more likely to disagree. Exceptions include the council being good at listening to local people's views before taking decisions. Similar, that is relatively low, percentages of adults up to the age of 59 agree with this statement and the percentage agreeing does not rise above 21% for these age groups.

The picture is different when considering the ability to, and desire to, influence decisions. Firstly, the percentage of all adults agreeing that they would like to influence local authority decisions (38%) is higher than those who perceive they can have an influence (21%). Those aged 75 and over are the least likely to perceive they can influence decisions (15%) and they are also the least likely to express a wish to be more involved in making those decisions (14%). There is a sharp decline in respondents' perceptions that they can influence decisions between the age groups 60 to 74 (30% agree) and those aged 75 and over (14%).

The strongest desire to participate in local decision-making is shown by those aged 25 to 59; between 42% and 46% of them would like to be more involved. The desire to be more involved in decision-making also demonstrates a shift in the pattern of agreement between the youngest and the oldest respondents.

The gap between desire for involvement and the perception of an ability to influence decisions is largest for the younger adults within this group, those aged 25 to 34; 20% perceive they can influence decisions while 46% agree they would like to be more involved. Among the youngest adults of all, aged 16 to 24, similar levels to those aged 25 to 34 perceive they can influence decision-making (19%) while fewer (38%) want involvement in making those decisions.

Table 11.3: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local council services by age
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Table 11.4 examines differences in agreement by net annual household income. On the performance statements, there is less variation between income groups and consistent patterns in the data are less obvious. The main pattern is that adults in households with incomes between £6,001 and £15,000 are more likely to agree with all the statements than other income bands.

When it comes to a perception of being able to influence decision-making, those in the lowest income band are least likely and those in the highest income band are most likely to perceive they can influence decisions (16% compared with 24%). In terms of a desire to be involved in council decision-making, there is also a clear pattern and agreement with this statement increases with income. Just over a quarter of those with a household income of up to £10,000 would like to be involved in council decision-making, rising from less than a third (31%) of those with an income of £10,001-£15,000 to almost a half (47%) of those earning £40,001 or more.

Table 11.4: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local council services by net annual household income
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.
*Includes all adults for whom household income is known or has been imputed.
Household income in the SHS is that of the highest income householder and their partner only.

Figure 11.2 explores differences in agreement with the statements by deprivation levels. ⁹⁸ Not surprisingly, variation in agreement is similar to that seen among different household income groups, although the patterns of answers are, in some cases, more obvious. There is little variation between areas with different levels of deprivation for four aspects of local authority performance: being good at communicating performance, doing its best with the money, designing services around local people's needs and being good at listening before taking decisions. For the remainder, perceptions of performance tend to decline as deprivation levels increase (for example 44% in the most deprived areas and 52% in the least deprived areas agree with the statement 'my local council is good at letting people know about the kinds of services it provides'). Perceptions of being able to influence decisions and the desire to be involved in decision-making vary in a similar way; agreement with both increases as deprivation declines (for example 34% in the most deprived areas and 41% in the least deprived areas agree 'I would like to be more involved in the decisions my council makes that affect my local area').

Figure 11.2: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local council services by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
2007/2008 data, Adults (minimum base: 3,409)

From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

CONVENIENCE OF SERVICES

One aspect of a strong community is having access to high quality services and amenities. Conversely the strength and vibrancy of communities in areas where facilities and services are lacking is reduced. ⁹⁹ Adults were asked how convenient or inconvenient they would find it to make use of a selected range of relatively commonplace services during their normal opening hours, assuming they needed to. In this section, the percentage of adults saying they would find access very or fairly convenient is explored, firstly in Scotland as a whole and subsequently within communities in different types of location.

As can be seen in Figure 11.3, the majority of adults would find all of the services convenient if they needed to use them. Over nine-in-ten (93%) adults would find shopping for small amounts of food convenient, the highest percentage saying this for any of the services. The lowest percentage of adults would find hospital outpatient services convenient, should they need to use them (57%).

Figure 11.3: Percentage who would find various local services very or fairly convenient
2007/2008 data, Adults (minimum base: 19,541)

In the context of relatively high perceptions of convenience for all services, Table 11.5 shows that, for most of the services listed, adults who live in rural areas are less likely to say services would be convenient to access than those in small towns and urban areas. This is particularly the case for public transport (for example 51% of adults in remote rural areas find public transport convenient to access compared with 88% of those in large urban areas) and dentists (for example 53% of adults in accessible rural areas say dentists are convenient compared with 73% in other urban areas). Adults in remote small towns tend to be more likely to say that services would be convenient to access, if required, than adults in any other areas.

In general, hospital outpatient departments are least likely to be seen as convenient across all areas of Scotland. Conversely shopping for small amounts of food or grocery shopping is the most convenient for people regardless of the type of area in which they live.

Table 11.5: Percentage finding services very or fairly convenient by urban/rural classification
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

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

RECYCLING

The next section of this chapter concentrates on recycling a range of household waste items, firstly across Scotland as a whole and over time, then in more detail by different types of car access, accommodation, tenure, household type and area deprivation.

Table 11.6 shows the percentage of households that reported recycling waste items in the previous month in 2008 and how this has changed since 2003. Considering current recycling first, recycling services are used by the majority (87%) of households in Scotland. The items most households recycled in the last month are newspapers, magazines, paper and cardboard (83%) followed by glass bottles and jars (70%). Nearly two-thirds of all households recycled metal cans (65%) and plastic bottles (65%) in the last month.

The percentage of adults recycling at least some of the different types of waste has increased considerably since 2003, linked among other things to the increase in recycling services over that period. The percentage of households recycling metal cans and plastic bottles has increased the most; in 2008 five times as many households (65%) recycled plastic bottles and over four and a half times as many households recycled metal cans as did so in 2003.

Table 11.6: Percentage recycling items in the past month by year
Percentages, 2003-2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.
In previous years the questions asked whether or not the household recycled each of four items (yes or no). In 2007 this was changed to how much (all/most/some/none) was recycled. There was also a change to the items 'glass bottles' became 'glass bottles and jars' and 'plastic' became 'plastic bottles'.

The relationship between recycling and access to a car is explored in Table 11.7. Households with access to at least one car are considerably more likely to recycle one or more of the items compared to households without access to cars (91% and 73% respectively). While the same is true for the individual waste items, the biggest difference between households with and without access to cars relates to the recycling of glass bottles and jars (25 percentage points difference).

Table 11.7: Percentage recycling items in the past month by access to a car
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Recycling of the items is clearly related to the type of property in which households live, reflecting the differing availability of recycling services to residents in different types of property (Table 11.8). For example, 92% of households living in a house or bungalow recycle one or more of these items compared with 59% for those living in high rise flats.

The same relationship is true for the individual waste items between accommodation types; households living in houses or bungalows recycle the most followed by flats (other than high rise) and lastly by high rise flats. ¹⁰⁰ The relationship between household waste items within accommodation types remains broadly the same regardless of accommodation; for example newspapers and similar materials are the most recycled household waste items in houses or bungalows and flats of all types.

Table 11.8: Percentage recycling items in the past month by accommodation type
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

* 'All' includes households living in caravans or other accommodation.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Table 11.9 shows the percentage of households recycling at least some of each waste item and of at least one of them according to whether they own or rent their accommodation.

Given the relationship between accommodation type and recycling seen in Table 11.8 and the fact that there are links between type of accommodation and tenure, it would be expected that variations in recycling by tenure might reflect variations in type of accommodation. It can be seen from Table 11.9 that owner occupiers, the majority of whom live in houses or bungalows, are more likely to recycle (for example, over nine-in-ten owner occupiers recycle one or more items as opposed to only seven-in-ten of renters). Levels of recycling are similar between renters from the social and private rented sector, with the exception of glass bottles and jars, which are more often recycled by private renters.

Table 11.9: Percentage recycling items in the past month by tenure
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Recycling also varies according to household type. A lower percentage of single adult and single parent households recycles each of the waste items and at least one of them, than does any other household type. This is likely to be linked to the type of tenure and the associated accommodation type of these households ¹⁰¹ (Table 11.10).

Older smaller households report the highest levels of recycling overall and for three of the four waste items; for example, over nine-in-ten (94%) recycle at least one item and a similar proportion (92%) recycles newspapers and other pulp products. Once again this is likely to be linked to accommodation type and tenure of such households. Large and small families report the highest levels of recycling plastic bottles (69% and 68% respectively), which may be related to usage, although this is not covered in the SHS.

Table 11.10: Percentage recycling items in the past month by household type
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Table 11.11 looks at the percentage of household recycling at least one item of waste by both accommodation type and household type. For each household type, a higher percentage of those living in houses or bungalows recycle compared with those living in flats. Much of the difference between household types shown in Table 11.10 can be explained by the different types of accommodation type they live in. However, for those living in houses or bungalows and in non high-rise flats, older small families are most likely to recycle at least one item (97% and 82% respectively) and, except in single pensioners, households with only one adult are least likely to recycle.

Table 11.11: Percentage of households recycling one or more items in the past month by household type and accommodation type
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

* 'All' includes households living in caravans or other accommodation.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

Table 11.12 shows how recycling varies across accommodation type by area deprivation. The percentage of households recycling at least one waste item increases as the level of area deprivation decreases, from 71% of households living in the 20% most deprived datazones to 94% of households living in the 20% least deprived datazones. For each type of accommodation, the largest differences occurs between those living in the 20% most deprived datazones and those living in the second most deprived quintile of datazones.

Table 11.12 Percentage of households recycling one or more items in the past month by accommodation type and scottish index of multiple deprivation
Percentages, 2007/2008 data

* 'All' includes households living in caravans or other accommodation.
From June 2007, this question was asked of three quarters of the sample. Previously, it was asked of all households.

GREENSPACE

Previous research has found clear evidence of a positive relationship between greenspace and health, including through its effect on levels of physical activity and through its role in promoting wellbeing and recovery from stress, although the precise nature of the mechanisms which generate these positive effects are less well understood. ¹⁰² Research has further shown that individuals have a generally positive view about greenspaces and undertake a wide range of activity there, although some have concerns about personal safety and crime in greenspaces. Greenspaces have a social value both in terms of social inclusion, being on the whole free and available to all, and as community assets which can improve local neighbourhoods. ¹⁰³

This section starts by looking at the key factors and characteristics associated with greenspace use. Firstly, the major groups most and least likely to use local parks and greenspace are outlined. This is followed by consideration of how availability of local greenspace and people's satisfaction with council greenspace differs by area deprivation. In addition, the impact of having a disability or health problem and self-perceived health on greenspace use is assessed. Lastly, the availability of greenspace and satisfaction with council greenspace is analysed in terms of its contribution to people's ratings of neighbourhoods as a place to live.

Use of greenspace by household type

In order to establish how individual and household level characteristics combine together to affect the frequency of greenspace use, CHAID analysis was used. ¹⁰⁴ This method allows respondents to be segmented into groups that combine people with similar characteristics based on the variation in their use of greenspace. For the CHAID analysis, respondents were split into two categories: those who use greenspace at least once a week and those who use it less than once a week.

Overall, 42% of adults in Scotland say they use parks/greenspace at least once a week. The key factor identified in the CHAID analysis as affecting the use of greenspace is household type. Adults with children, including small families, large families and single parents are more than twice as likely to use greenspace at least once a week than are single pensioners (Table 11.13).

Table 11.13: Frequency of using local parks and greenspace by household type
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

The second most important factor after household type is degree of rurality. Those living in urban areas are on average less likely to use greenspace, though this is not the case for particular groups of adults within urban areas. Age, disability, experience of anti-social behaviour and self-perception of health are also associated with greenspace use.

In the following sections, these factors will be explored by the three types of households identified in Table 11.13. In particular, the combinations of factors that increase the likelihood of more frequent use are highlighted.

Use of greenspace by household type: small, large and single parent families

As Table 11.13 shows, adults living in small, large and single parent family types of households, where children are present, are the most likely to use their local parks and greenspace. In general, families with children in rural areas use greenspace more frequently than those in other areas. However, analysis of the combination of factors that were important in determining levels of greenspace use showed that those who fell into all of the following four categories were the most likely group of all to use local greenspaces:

• Live in urban areas/towns ¹⁰⁵
• Do not perceive drug problems to be very common in their neighbourhood
• Are very satisfied with council run greenspace
• Would feel very safe walking alone in the dark in their neighbourhood

In the above group, 77% of adults use local greenspace at least once a week compared with 62% on average in households including children. Most of the characteristics that are significant among households with children using greenspace relate in some way to people's perception of their neighbourhood. For example, where drug dealing is perceived to be very common in urban places, only 44% of adults use local greenspace frequently compared to 59% in areas where it is not perceived as very common. Similarly, where people are not satisfied with council run greenspace in urban neighbourhoods, just over a half of adults use local greenspace at least once a week as opposed to 72% in places where people are very satisfied with council run greenspace. Although there is a clear association between satisfaction and frequency of use, it is not possible to determine from the survey results whether being satisfied with greenspace is a cause of higher use of that space or instead whether use of greenspace leads to higher levels of satisfaction.

Within families in rural areas, ¹⁰⁶ 74% of adults reporting their health as good use greenspace at least once a week, compared with 63% of adults in the same type of households who report their health as not good. ¹⁰⁷

Use of greenspace by household type: small adult; older smaller; large adult; single adult households

Among adults living in a household with other adults or in a single household where the adult is of working age, those who live in remote rural places and are over 45 years old, use their local greenspace most frequently, with 58% using it at least once a week. Personal characteristics such as age and disability affect use in rural areas, while neighbourhood characteristics (such as perception and experience of anti-social behaviour in the area, satisfaction with council run greenspace, perception of neighbourhood safety) prevail in predominantly urban areas among these types of households.

Within urban places, the group most likely to use local greenspace (51% against the average of 37%) includes people who:

• Do not experience abandoned or burnt out vehicles in their neighbourhood
• Are very satisfied with council run greenspace
• Perceive drug problems to be uncommon in their neighbourhood
• Would feel very safe walking alone in the dark in their neighbourhood

In rural places, people with a disability or health problems (33%) are less likely to use greenspace as frequently as those without (45%) as are people aged 16 to 44 (49%) compared with those aged over 45 (58%).

Use of greenspace by household type: single pensioners

Single pensioners are the least likely to use parks and greenspace of all the household types. Among single pensioners, those who live in remote places ¹⁰⁸ aged 74 or less are considerably more likely to use local greenspace than an average single pensioner (55% compared to 29%). On the other hand, single pensioners who live in urban areas or accessible rural areas and towns and who have a disability or are dissatisfied with council parks use greenspace the least (20% and 18% respectively).

Deprivation levels and greenspace

It is clear from the analysis above that neighbourhood aspects are very important in determining the use of local greenspace in urban areas. As seen in chapter 4, these neighbourhood factors are often linked to area deprivation levels, so differences in availability of greenspace by deprivation levels are examined next.

Availability of local greenspace differs significantly by area deprivation levels both in urban and rural areas; the higher the deprivation levels, the less likely it is that there is greenspace nearby (Figure 11.4). Gamma analysis ¹⁰⁹ showed a very weak association of using greenspace with area deprivation both in urban and rural areas. This confirms the results of CHAID analysis above, where deprivation levels are not found to be important in determining greenspace use. So it appears that, in deprived areas, greenspace is less likely to be available, but where it is available it may be equally likely to be used in all types of areas.

Figure 11.4: Whether any safe and pleasant parks or greenspace available in the area by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
2007/2008 data, Adults (minimum base: 12,320)

It was mentioned in the earlier CHAID analysis that satisfaction with council run greenspace is an important factor in greenspace use. Table 11.14 examines differences in people's satisfaction with council run parks and greenspaces by area deprivation levels. Although the majority of people across all categories are satisfied with council greenspace, the percentage of those satisfied increases steadily from 58% in the most deprived quintile to 77% in the least deprived quintile.

Table 11.14: Satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

This question was asked of half the sample.
*Combines those who answered very and fairly satisfied.
** Combines those who answered very and fairly dissatisfied.

Health and greenspace

Table 11.15 looks at the differences in self-reported health status by whether there is greenspace available in the area. The analysis is limited to urban respondents ¹¹⁰ only as there is no significant association for rural respondents. ¹¹¹ The percentage of urban adults who rated their health as good increases from 48% to 58% if there is a safe and pleasant greenspace in their neighbourhood. It is not possible to say from this analysis that the availability of greenspace has been the 'cause' of reported good health as health is linked to a range of factors and, as mentioned previously, the precise nature of the mechanisms by which greenspace generates positive effects are not well understood. ¹¹²

Table 11.15: Self-perception of health by whether any safe and pleasant parks or greenspace available in the area
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

The better an adult reports their health to be the more likely they are to use greenspace in their neighbourhood (45% of those rating their health as good use it at least once a week as opposed to 36% of those rating it not good). It is not possible to determine from these results the extent to which having good health is an enabler of using greenspace or whether it arises at least in part for some people, as a consequence of greenspace use (Figure 11.5).

Figure 11.5: Frequency of using local parks or greenspace by self-perception of health
2007/2008 data, Adults (base: 9,024)

In general, having either a disability or long-term illness or both reduces the likelihood of using local greenspace ¹¹³ (Table 11.16). For example, 32% of those who have a disability use their local greenspace at least once per week compared with 44% for those with no disability or long-term illness.

Table 11.16: Frequency of using local parks or greenspace by whether a person has illness, health problem or disability
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

This question was asked of half the sample.

Neighbourhoods and greenspace

Finally, this section examines how the availability of local greenspace and satisfaction with council parks contribute to people's overall rating of their neighbourhoods as a place to live. Table 11.17 shows that the availability of greenspace is associated with good neighbourhood ratings: 95% of adults who have greenspace in their area rate their neighbourhood as 'good' compared with 84% of those who do not have greenspace nearby.

Table 11.17: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by whether any safe and pleasant parks or greenspace available in the area
Column percentages, 2007/2008 data

This question was asked of three quarters of the sample.

As well as the availability of greenspace, satisfaction with that greenspace is also important in adults rating their neighbourhood as a good place to live. While more than nine-in-ten respondents, on average, rate their neighbourhood as a good place to live, satisfaction with council parks and greenspaces is positively associated with neighbourhood ratings: the more satisfied people are with council parks, the more likely they are to rate their neighbourhood better (Figure 11.6). For example almost everyone (96%) who is very satisfied with council run parks and open spaces rates their neighbourhood as a good place to live. This compares with three-quarters (74%) of those who are very dissatisfied.

Figure 11.6: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by degree of satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces
2007/2008 data, Adults (base: 14,565)