Mapping the Third Sector in Rural Scotland: An Initial Review of the Literature

4 Scotland’s rural population: Volunteering

4.1 This chapter explores what existing research can tell us about patterns of volunteering in rural areas of Scotland, given the increased emphasis on the voluntary participation of individuals in light of public service reform. It first contextualises this within current socio-economic trends in rural Scotland. It then goes on to identify the difference in rates of volunteering between urban and rural Scotland before finally identifying its potentially distinct nature.

Scotland’s rural population: strengths and challenges

4.2 A number of key socio-economic trends are evident in rural Scotland (Scottish Government 2011c), summarised in figure 4.1:

• Nationally, between 2001 - 2008 Scotland’s population has increased with remote and accessible rural areas seeing the greatest percentage point increase.
• 18% of Scotland’s population live in remote rural or accessible rural areas, and these areas account for 94% of Scotland’s land mass.
• The age distribution of residents is different in rural areas compared with the rest of Scotland. Rural areas have a much lower percentage of the population in age bands 16 – 24 and 25 – 34 but a higher proportion in the older age bands, especially pension age and over.
• Rural areas have a higher proportion of residents from elsewhere in the UK, and of households in which one or both occupants are retired. They are less likely to contain households with a single adult or with three or more adults. On average rural areas are slightly more likely to host large family households.
• Those living in remote and accessible rural areas are more likely to rate their neighbourhood as a fairly or very good place to live and less likely to report personal experience of all neighbourhood problems except abandoned/burnt out cars in accessible rural areas.
• Those in remote rural areas are less likely to live within a 15 minute drive to key services (eg shopping facilities, petrol station). Those in both remote and accessible rural areas are less likely to live within 15 minutes travel by public transport to these services.
• A higher proportion of those in rural Scotland are economically active. In remote rural areas, ‘agriculture, forestry and fishing’ (17%) is the largest source of private sector jobs followed by ‘hotels and restaurants’ (13%). In accessible rural areas, ‘agriculture, forestry and fishing’, ‘private sector education, health, social work and other community, social and personal services’, and ‘financial intermediation, real estate, renting and business activities’ are the most significant sectors; each has a 12% share of employment in accessible rural areas. Median hourly rates of pay for all employees are highest in accessible rural areas at £12.30, potentially a function of the proportion commuting from here into urban centres. This compares to £10.77 in the rest of Scotland, with the lowest rates in remote rural Scotland at £10.70 an hour.

Figure 4.1: Key characteristics of the Scottish rural population. Summarised from Scottish Government (2011c¹²)

4.3 The OECD (2008: 12-13) confirm that rural areas of Scotland have been net receivers of population, whilst on average, rural areas in Scotland show higher levels of ‘liveability, neighbourhood security and home ownership’ and ‘higher levels of tertiary educational attainment’ as well as having higher levels of household income in 2005 compared to the rest of Scotland.

4.4 It is important to note however that ‘remote rural’ and ‘accessible rural’ areas exhibit particular characteristics and face unique challenges, meaning a significant divide between the two areas. It is found that whilst those in ‘accessible rural’ areas are often young couples, young families and/or of a professional occupation (with 52% of the accessible rural population commuting to urban areas), “the situation is very different in many remoter rural regions, which lag behind on some indicators and are qualitatively different because of their sparse population… many suffer from lower income, employment, skills and health, as well as inadequate infrastructure, higher costs of key inputs and lower access to services”.

4.5 The OECD (2008: 15 – 16) report summarises the strengths of rural Scotland as including:

“[an] abundant land area as well as rich natural and cultural resources; higher standards of living and a distinct social capital and cultural traditions; a stable and relatively diversified economy, with good employment and entrepreneurship indicators”

4.6 Whilst “weaknesses” included:

“…relatively lower and stagnant levels of GDP per capita, higher costs of living, transport and housing; car dependency and lower access and quality of services…”

4.7 EKOS (2008) in a report exploring ‘Rural communities and economic development’ find that small rural economies themselves represent an important constituent part of Scotland’s economy, with key growth areas of the rural economy being renewable energies, food and drink and tourism.

4.8 “Scotland’s population is ageing, and ageing fast” (Thomson 2010: 12). Thomson goes on to emphasis both that the history of in-migration to rural areas is necessary and that this needs to be supported. It is also suggested that nine out of the ten local authorities with the largest populations of aged people can be classified as rural (the authors also include Dumfries and Galloway, Angus, Perth and Kinross, Moray, East Ayrshire, Stirling, South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire in their definition of rural local authorities).

4.9 It should be noted however, that an older population may also act as a particularly strong asset in more rural communities (see for example O4O 2011; Atterton 2006; Le Mesurier 2006; Baines et al. 2004; Moreton et al. 2004), providing a time-rich and experienced resource.

4.10 Therefore, there appears a mixed picture regarding the socio-economic landscape of rural Scotland of both strengths and challenging circumstances, which vary between accessible and remote rural areas.

Higher rates of formal volunteering in rural Scotland

4.11 In undertaking PhD research funded by VDS and the ESRC Timbrell (2006b: 62-63) finds pronounced gaps in our knowledge surrounding geographical variations in volunteering in the UK. She finds that there is less known about variations at the sub-national and sub-regional level, particularly in Scotland which is “often treated as one generic study area” in national studies. She also identifies that although there is some research at the sub-national level, this is largely quantitative and “does not explicitly consider… rural or urban location”.

4.12 The Scottish Household Survey (SHS) is the largest scale national survey which includes questions about volunteering within its remit in Scotland. Hurley et al. (2008) summarise the fluctuations of formal volunteering¹³ across the six fold urban/rural classification from 1999 – 2006 on the basis of SHS data (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: % adults reporting having formally volunteered at least once in the preceding twelve months (Hurley et al 2008).

4.13 It appears that generally, as degree of rurality increases, so does the reported rate of formal volunteering. There are also apparently distinctions between remote and accessible rural areas, with remote rural areas exhibiting higher levels of formal volunteering relative to the more accessible rural areas¹⁴. This pattern also continues to hold in more recent years¹⁵.

4.14 Harper and Rutherford (2011) find on the basis of regression analyses of SHS data that rurality remained a significant explanatory variable, even controlling for a number of socio-economic characteristics including age, income and sex.

4.15 VDS have also collected data¹⁶ regarding spatial variations in formal volunteering. Although not directly analogous to ‘rurality’, over the course of the years 2004 – 2006 there appear geographical variations in patterns of participation. In the North levels appear higher than average, in the West levels follow the national average, and the East and South of Scotland exhibited markedly lower levels of formal voluntary activity¹⁷.

4.16 It is also possible to begin to outline patterns of participation by LA grouping. Whilst sample sizes in each LA grouping are not large (hence the LAs being grouped rather than separate), it can be seen (figure 4.3) that those with high levels of voluntary activity appear also to often be individual local authorities which have more than half of their population in ‘rural’ areas¹⁸.

Hurley et al. (2008) review the Scottish Household Survey 1999 – 2006. The small sample sizes available when disaggregating organisations volunteered for make it challenging to state with any certainty a unique character of activity in rural areas. This is similarly the case for specific volunteering activity (see appendix four). It is also found that there is no significant difference between rural and urban areas with regard to hours volunteered per month, and an inconsistent urban/rural pattern with regards to frequency of activity per year This would appear to suggest that rurality has the greatest influence on likelihood of being a formal volunteer. Qualitative research suggested that volunteers were more likely to cite transport problems as barriers to volunteering in rural areas than urban areas.

Figure 4.3: Whether provided unpaid help to organisations or individuals in the last 12 months by gender and local authority grouping: Scottish Household Survey 2007/8 (Scottish Government 2009c)¹⁹

4.17 Information regarding levels of volunteering in Scotland is also collected by bodies operating below national level. Highland Council found that 29% of respondents ‘indicated that they volunteer in some capacity’ compared to 27% in 2007 and 2008 (Sneddon Economics 2009)²⁰. There was a slight variation in geography, with those in Skye, Ross and Lochaber slightly more likely to volunteer (34%).

4.18 Furthermore, SQW (2002) found in the course of assessing the social economy of the Highlands and Islands that there were 8,142 social economy organisations²¹. Whilst less than half of the organisations (45%) reported employing one or more paid members of staff (full or part-time), 85% employ at least one volunteer full or part-time. It found that “many of the organisations are small and run entirely by volunteers”.

4.19 A further study (GEN/Insight 2007) focuses on “Volunteering in the Highlands and Islands”²². The authors separate ‘volunteering’ into ‘service delivery’ roles and those volunteers who serve on a committee. 72% of organisations surveyed provided opportunities for service delivery with 66% of this ‘service delivery’ activity falling into the ‘providing a service or offering support’ category. The diversity of this voluntary activity in the Highlands and Islands is demonstrated in figure 4.3:

Type of opportunity	Number of opportunities	Average per organisation
Total service delivery	3,723	45
Providing a service or offering support	1,814	40
Organising/helping run events	602	26
Helping with sports/recreational activities	335	56
Fundraising	262	11
Administration or office duties	53	5
Environment work	9	5
Campaigning or advocacy	8	8
Other	8	4

Figure 4.3: Service delivery opportunities in the Highlands and Islands (GEN/Insight 2007: 15).

4.20 In terms of informal volunteering, little comparative (between urban and rural) research appears to have been undertaken. However Farmer et al. (2011) do identify that levels of both formal and informal volunteering vary between four rural Scottish communities. They find that the community in question, health²³, access to transport²⁴ and educational achievement²⁵ all influence participation.

4.21 Therefore, where urban and rural comparisons are possible, it appears that rates of formal volunteering generally increase with degree of rurality. It also appears that this is the case even when controlling for other factors such as age, income and sex. The SHS appears the only study to confirm this directly in Scotland, whilst a great range of other smaller scale studies suggest that rates of formal volunteering are particularly high in rural areas without comparing them to more urban areas.

A distinct nature of volunteering in rural Scotland

4.22 This therefore moves us to think about how, beyond the quantitative extent of formal volunteering, its qualitative nature might also be distinct in rural Scotland.

4.23 Timbrell (2006a; 2006b) confirms through in-depth local level case study work that there appear a higher proportion of residents engaged in formal volunteering in more rural areas of Scotland. Further, whilst those in urban areas were shown to undertake a greater intensity of volunteering (more than four hours a week), those in rural areas were more likely to be active with a greater range of organisations. This leads Timbrell to characterise the differing cultures of volunteering as “broad” in the case of rural volunteering and “deep” for urban activity. Grieve et al. (2007: 5) also find, in the English rural context, that “those who do volunteer are frequently active in more than one group or project: overlapping membership and multiple involvement appear to be major features of rural community action”²⁶.

4.24 Having identified the significant influence of rurality on reporting having volunteered in the preceding twelve months, Harper and Rutherford (2011) suggest - also on the basis of regression analyses of SHS data - that the number of hours volunteered, and the frequency of volunteering does not appear to vary significantly between urban and rural areas. The data was not able, however, to identify whether the number of organisations volunteered for (the ‘breadth’ of activity) was distinct in more rural areas). It would therefore appear that rurality exerts a strong influence on likelihood of having volunteered, but not necessarily on the total amount of hours spent volunteering, or the frequency.

4.25 It is possible that the drivers for rural volunteering may be distinct, and this may have implications for the capacity of rural communities to respond further to challenging public service contexts. Timbrell (2007) highlights the sometimes problematic relationship between volunteering and the provision of services. Whilst many volunteers (in more urbanised areas in particular) might become involved for a range of personal and wider societal reasons as a result of a ‘cost-benefit’ decision process, she suggests those in areas less well served by public services might have a different perspective. “Sandy Isle” is one of the four case study areas, located in a deprived “remote rural” area. It is found that:

“On Sandy Isle volunteers provide services that would otherwise not exist and volunteers and Volunteer Coordinators recognise that their situation is different to “other areas”. This process is not, however, described as positive or empowering and instead the feeling is one of resentment. There is no reference to volunteers increasing the range of services available or having an opportunity to “buy” their way out of their volunteering roles. It is therefore difficult to see this as evidence of what Salamon et al describe as the “plus” (2000:25): the process through which voluntary involvement in service delivery can increase choice. Voluntary service delivery on Sandy Isle was quite clearly most commonly substitutional rather than additional (Pickering, 2003) to statutory provision” (Timbrell 2007: 3-4).

4.26 In support of the link between a challenging service delivery landscape and higher levels of volunteering the SCVO ‘Voices from rural Scotland’ report (SCVO 2008b: 66²⁷) finds that “Rural communities are critically reliant on the efforts of volunteers who provide transport for those who need it to local facilities, who deliver local services, who run community facilities such as village halls, and who generally compensate for inadequacies and gaps in service provision in rural areas… [Benefits]… include the delivery of services that would not otherwise exist. They also deliver services which fill the gap in the provision of statutory services” (SCVO 2008b: 66).

4.27 In addition, in England, Philimore et al. (2010: 4) undertook 29 key informant interviews with network organisations and individuals with expertise about small scale voluntary and community activity. One emerging finding was that “rural respondents commented that community groups were increasingly ‘filling the gaps left when statutory services withdraw from (rural) areas’”.

4.28 Volunteering data has also been collected at the sub-LA level, but is often dependant upon funding availability and/or the availability of volunteers to undertake such research. It is subsequently not always current, however as it is collected by those working on a daily basis in the voluntary sector it may uncover “below the radar”²⁸ activity which might otherwise go unrecognised. Whilst it is outwith the remit of this brief project to systematically review data collection regarding the third sector in Scotland at all levels²⁹ and it would be challenging, given differences in methodology, to draw comparisons between data gathered at this local level, three examples of this data are offered:

a. Voluntary Action Orkney (2002: 3) note that “The Voluntary Sector in Orkney has traditionally played an important role in the community. Until now, this has mainly been substantiated with either Highlands and Islands wide research or local anecdotal evidence”. With the support of Orkney Enterprise VAO distributed questionnaires to the 597 organisations in its community directory, receiving a 27% response rate. The 166 responding groups reported involving 2,018 volunteers in their activities. This represented 10% of the Orkney population at the time (therefore if a similar level of involvement was reported by all organisations contacted this could translate to approximately 36% of the population of Orkney volunteering, a figure similar to that provided for remote rural areas in the 2001/2 SHS data reviewed earlier).

b. Argyll CVS (2002) reviewed – with support from the Scottish Executive, Communities Scotland and Argyll and the Islands Enterprise – the voluntary sector in Argyll and Bute. Using a similar methodological approach with a 36% (424 organisations) response rate it was reported that 92% of the responding groups had a voluntary management committee whilst 69% of the organisations were run entirely by voluntary effort, with volunteers contributing approximately just under a million (993,000) hours a year equating to almost £5 million a year at the basic rate of £5/hour.

c. Finally, with the support of Highland Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Voluntary Action Lochaber (2009) assessed the ‘Value and impact of the voluntary sector in Lochaber’ and reviewed 196 local community and voluntary associations. It was found that within the 196 groups, 1,250 volunteers were involved as committee members, whilst just over 1,000 volunteers contributed in service delivery and/or support roles³⁰.

4.29 Therefore, in addition to higher rates of formal volunteering in rural areas, on the basis of the limited research available it would also seem that there may be a distinct nature to this formal volunteering. It may, for example, be undertaken across a greater number of groups but for less time within each group than in urban areas. It may also be particularly strongly characterised by substituting a gap in service provision.

Summary: Scotland’s rural population: volunteering in rural Scotland

4.30 Rates of formal volunteering consistently appear higher amongst rural populations than urban populations over time. It also appears to hold that even controlling for a number of socio-economic factors, rurality influences the rate of volunteering.

4.31 Those in remote rural areas appear generally more likely to report having undertaken formal volunteering than those in accessible rural areas.

4.32 Formal volunteering may be undertaken in rural areas as a result of the lack of public service provision.

4.33 Research suggests that the volunteering of those in rural areas may be particularly “broad” in nature, across a large number of organisations but for less time in each organisation compared to those in urban areas, whose profile of volunteering may be particularly “deep”: volunteering with fewer organisations but devoting a greater amount of time to each one. The degree to which the overall amount of time spent volunteering and the frequency of volunteering varies between urban and rural areas is contested.

4.34 Informal volunteering is not examined at a robust or consistent level which would allow rural/urban comparisons in Scotland. Given the above suggestion that formal volunteering, by virtue of being a necessity in the face of more challenging public service delivery, may be more necessary for rural communities it may be possible that levels of informal volunteering are also higher.

4.35 High levels of rural formal volunteering can be seen as being a positive social indicator, and potentially signifying a great deal of third sector activity (discussed in the following chapters). However initiatives which call on rural communities to volunteer their time may also need to be sensitive to existing multiple voluntary commitments that members of communities may already have, and motivations for these.