Scotland's People Annual report: Results from 2009/2010 Scottish Household Survey

11 Local Services

Introduction and context

The Scottish Government, local authorities and their partners are committed to improving the health, quality of life and opportunities for people in Scotland, through the delivery of high quality, efficient and responsive services to local communities. Providing better local amenities also helps to ensure that people live in more pleasant and sustainable places. The Scottish Household Survey ( SHS) asks a range of questions about local services and amenities, which provide evidence to assess progress towards the Scottish Government's strategic objectives and National Outcomes ^[67].

This chapter begins by exploring adults' attitudes to their local council and the services it provides, examining differences by age, income and area deprivation. It then investigates how convenient people would find it to access a range of local services, looking at differences between more rural and urban areas.

This chapter also looks in more detail at two particular types of services or amenities that are provided at local level: recycling and local greenspace. It investigates levels of recycling of a range of household waste items and how this has changed over time, and the extent to which recycling differs by different household characteristics. The chapter concludes by exploring the availability and use of council run parks and open spaces, and identifying factors that are associated with increased frequency of use.

Perceptions of local services

One of the National Indicators underpinning the Scottish Government's National Performance Framework is 'to improve people's perceptions of the quality of public services delivered'. Progress on this indicator is monitored using results from the SHS about satisfaction with three public services which are known to be important to the public: health services, schools and public transport.

In 2010, 64.0% of adults were very or fairly satisfied with all three local services combined (Table 11.1), which is a similar proportion to 2009. The position on this indicator has improved overall since it was first asked in 2007, when 57.1% of adults were very or fairly satisfied with all three local services. It is important to note that these figures include people who expressed 'no opinion' for up to two of the services, and that the proportion who expressed 'no opinion' varies according to the service asked about. For example, those without children might have no opinion about schools, while being satisfied with all other aspects of local services.

Table 11.1: Percentage of people very or fairly satisfied with the quality of public services delivered (local health services, local schools and public transport) by year
Percentages, 2007-2010 data

Adults	2007	2008	2009	2010
Local health services	81.3	84.7	86.3	86.4
Local Schools	79.0	81.1	82.9	83.3
Public Transport	69.3	72.8	75.0	74.3
% satisfied with all three services*	57.1	61.8	64.9	64.0
Base	10,083	9,156	9,627	8,950

* Percentages reported for all three services combined are of those for which an opinion was given.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Looking at the services individually, adults were most satisfied with local health services, followed by local schools. Adults were least satisfied with public transport, although three-quarters of adults were very or fairly satisfied with that service.

Perceptions of local authority services and performance

One of the Scottish Government's National Outcomes, which is supported by public service providers in local councils, is that 'public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to local people's needs'. This section examines findings from the SHS that relate to this outcome: people's perceptions of local authority performance and individuals' desire to have a say in local decision-making.

The columns to the left of the dashed line in Figure 11.1 show the percentage of adults who agreed (strongly or slightly) with a number of statements about different aspects of their local authority's performance. Fewer than half of adults agreed with each of the statements. The highest level of agreement was almost half (49%) who said the council is good at letting people know about the kinds of services it provides. In contrast, just under a quarter (23%) of adults agreed that their council is good at listening to local people's views before it takes decisions.

The columns to the right of the dashed line show that typically an even lower proportion of adults agreed that they were able to or wanted to influence decisions affecting their local area. However, the percentage who agreed that they would like to be more involved in the decisions their council makes (36%) was higher than those who perceive they can have an influence on decisions affecting their local area (22%).

Figure 11.1: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local authority services and performance
2009/2010 data, Adults (minimum base: 18,760)

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.2 shows there are some differences by age group in agreement with statements about local authority services and performance. Generally older adults are more likely to say they are satisfied with the performance statements about local government services than younger adults. However, those aged 75 and over are the least likely to perceive they can influence decisions (15%) and the least likely to express a wish to be more involved in making those decisions (12%). The strongest desire to participate in local decision-making is shown by those aged 25 to 44, with around 45% of this group saying they would like to have greater involvement with decisions affecting their local area.

Table 11.2: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local council services by age
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	16 to 24	25 to 34	35 to 44	45 to 59	60 to 74	75 plus	All
My local council is good at letting people know about the kinds of services it provides	38	42	45	51	57	58	49
My local council provides high quality services	39	39	40	41	47	55	43
My council is good at letting local people know how well it is performing	27	32	37	45	51	53	41
My local council designs its services around the needs of the people who use them	40	35	35	37	42	49	39
My local council does the best it can with the money available	29	31	34	38	46	54	38
My local council is addressing the key issues affecting the quality of life in my local neighbourhood	31	29	31	34	38	43	34
My council is good at listening to local people's views before it takes decisions	22	20	20	22	26	32	23
I can influence decisions affecting my local area	23	21	21	23	22	15	22
I would like to be more involved in the decisions my council makes that affect my local area	36	45	44	39	29	12	36
Base	1,513	2,526	3,129	4,598	4,482	2,481	18,729

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.3 examines differences in agreement with statements about local authority performance by net annual household income. There are few notable patterns in the performance statements, with the exception that adults in households with incomes between £6,001 and £15,000 are more likely to agree with the majority of these statements than other income bands.

When looking at the statements around decision making, those in the lowest income band are least likely to agree that they can influence decisions affecting their local area, and those in the highest income band are most likely to perceive that they can influence decisions. In terms of a desire to be involved in council decision-making, 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 to 44% of those earning £40,001 or more.

Table 11.3: Percentage agreeing with various statements about local council services by net annual household income
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	£0 - £6,000	£6,001 - £10,000	£10,001 -£15,000	£15,001 - £20,000	£20,001 - £25,000	£25,001 - £30,000	£30,001 - £40,000	£40,001+	All
My local council is good at letting people know about the kinds of services it provides	49	50	50	49	49	47	46	51	49
My local council provides high quality services	45	44	45	41	41	42	40	44	43
My council is good at letting local people know how well it is performing	39	45	46	44	40	37	36	38	41
My local council designs its services around the needs of the people who use them	39	42	41	40	38	37	38	36	39
My local council does the best it can with the money available	41	43	42	39	36	37	35	34	38
My local council is addressing the key issues affecting the quality of life in my local neighbourhood	34	36	37	34	33	32	33	32	34
My council is good at listening to local people's views before it takes decisions	26	27	26	25	22	20	20	20	23
I can influence decisions affecting my local area	19	19	19	21	21	22	22	26	22
I would like to be more involved in the decisions my council makes that affect my local area	28	27	30	34	38	40	41	44	36
Base	880	2,511	3,652	2,740	2,062	1,598	2,313	2,314	18,070

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Household income in the SHS is that of the highest income householder and their partner only. Includes all adults for whom household income is known or has been imputed. Excludes refusals/don't know responses.

There was little variation in perceptions of most aspects of local authority performance when looking at differences by the level of deprivation of the area ^[68]. One notable exception was that the level of agreement for 'my local council provides high quality services' declined as the level of deprivation of the area increased. In the 20% most deprived areas, 38% of adults agreed that services were high quality, compared with 46% in the 20% least deprived areas. Perceptions of being able to influence decisions and the desire to be involved in decision-making did not show a consistent pattern of differences by level of deprivation.

Convenience of Services

Within the SHS, adults were asked how convenient or inconvenient they would find it to make use of a selected range of services during their normal opening hours, assuming they needed to. This section explores the percentage of adults saying they would find access very or fairly convenient for Scotland as a whole and in different types of location.

As can be seen in Figure 11.2, at least two-thirds of adults surveyed said they would find the majority of the services convenient if they needed to use them. Over nine-in-ten (92%) adults said they would find shopping for small amounts of food convenient, which was the highest percentage for any of the services. The lowest percentage of adults (63%) said they would find hospital outpatient services convenient, should they need to use them.

Figure 11.2: Percentage who would find various local services very or fairly convenient
2009/2010 data, Adults (minimum base: 18,760)

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.4 shows that, for most of the services listed, adults who live in rural areas ^[69] were 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, with 57% of adults in remote rural areas saying they would find public transport convenient to access compared with 90% of those in large urban areas. Similarly, a lower proportion (53%) of adults in remote rural areas said dentists were convenient compared with at least 73% in urban areas. In general, shopping for small amounts of food is seen as the most convenient of the services listed regardless of the type of area where people live, while hospital outpatient departments are the least likely to be seen as convenient across all areas of Scotland.

Table 11.4: Percentage finding services very or fairly convenient by Urban Rural Classification
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Small amount of grocery or food shopping	95	93	95	92	85	86	92
Chemist/pharmacist	90	88	93	91	71	64	86
Cash machine or ATM	86	84	90	91	69	69	83
Post office	81	80	90	91	80	82	82
Doctors surgery	82	82	90	87	75	79	82
Public transport	90	87	81	80	61	57	82
Petrol station	71	77	69	85	61	68	72
Banking services	75	77	79	85	61	63	74
Dentist	73	75	77	76	55	53	71
Hospital outpatient department	65	66	60	74	51	49	63
Base	6,544	5,523	1,610	1,091	2,236	1,745	18,749

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Recycling

The next section of this chapter discusses the recycling of 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.

Figure 11.3 shows the percentage of households that reported recycling waste items in the previous month in 2009/2010. Recycling services are used by the majority (88%) of households in Scotland. Households are typically more likely to recycle newspapers, magazines, paper and cardboard (84%), though there are still high recycling rates for the other items.

Figure 11.3: Percentage recycling each item in the past year
2009/2010 data, Households (Base: 21,352)

Table 11.5 shows the percentage of households recycling at least some of the different types of waste has increased considerably since 2003, and continues to increase year-on-year. These increases may in part be linked, among other things, to the increase in recycling services over that period as well as changing behaviours and attitudes of individuals. All items have seen considerable increases in recycling rates since 2003, with recycling of plastic bottles increasing from 12% in 2003 to 74% in 2010.

Table 11.5: Percentage recycling items in the past month by year
Percentages, 2003-2010 data

Households	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Newspaper/magazine/paper/cardboard	45	53	69	76	81	83	84	84
Glass bottles and jars	35	39	50	57	67	70	73	76
Metal cans	14	20	37	48	59	65	69	73
Plastic bottles	12	19	36	46	58	65	71	74
One or more of the above	55	61	75	80	84	87	88	88
Base	11,185	15,941	15,393	15,616	11,331	10,369	11,039	10,313

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

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 11.6. 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 (93% and 77% 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 (23 percentage points difference).

Table 11.6: Percentage recycling items in the past month by access to a car
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Households	Access to a car	No access to a car	All
Newspaper/magazine/paper/cardboard	89	73	84
Glass bottles and jars	82	59	75
Metal cans	76	59	71
Plastic bottles	77	62	73
One or more of the above	93	77	88
Base	15,103	6,249	21,352

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

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 11.7). For example, 94% of households living in a house or bungalow recycle one or more of these items compared with up to 79% for those living in flats. Within flats, fewer of those living on the higher floors recycle items.

The same relationship is true for the individual waste items between accommodation types; households living in houses or bungalows recycle the most followed by those in flats on the ground floor and lastly by those in flats on higher floors. The relationship between household waste items within accommodation types remains broadly the same regardless of accommodation type; for example newspapers and similar materials are the most recycled household waste items in houses or bungalows and flats irrespective of floor level.

Table 11.7: Percentage recycling items in the past month by accommodation type
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

				Flat
Households	House or bungalow	Ground floor/4-in-a-block	1st floor or basement	2nd floor	3rd/4th floor	5th floor or higher	Other	All*
Newspaper/magazine/ paper/cardboard	91	74	72	64	60	48	71	84
Glass bottles and jars	82	61	62	56	55	41	64	75
Metal cans	79	59	57	51	48	42	57	71
Plastic bottles	78	64	61	58	52	44	62	73
One or more of the above	94	79	77	71	66	53	77	88
Base	14,837	2,947	2,001	755	502	166	144	21,352

The 'All' category includes households living in caravans or other accommodation

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.8 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 previously 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 11.8 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 three-quarters of renters). Levels of recycling are similar between renters from the social and private rented sectors.

Table 11.8: Percentage recycling items in the past month by tenure of household
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Households	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
Newspaper/magazine/paper/cardboard	90	73	68	78	84
Glass bottles and jars	82	59	64	66	75
Metal cans	78	60	56	66	71
Plastic bottles	79	62	59	65	73
One or more of the above	93	78	76	84	88
Base	14,237	4,715	2,057	343	21,352

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Recycling also varies according to household type (Table 11.9). A lower percentage of single adult (78%) and single parent households (80%) recycle 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.

Table 11.9: Percentage recycling items in the past month by household type
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Households	Single adult	Small adult	Single parent	Small family	Large family	Large adult	Older smaller	Single pensioner	All
Newspaper/magazine/paper/cardboard	71	84	75	87	89	90	93	86	84
Glass bottles and jars	64	77	63	79	81	80	83	71	75
Metal cans	59	71	60	78	78	78	80	69	71
Plastic bottles	61	73	67	80	81	79	78	69	73
One or more of the above	78	88	80	91	93	93	95	88	88
Base	3,727	3,852	1,188	2,737	1,378	1,969	3,300	3,201	21,352

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Older smaller households report the highest levels of recycling overall and for three of the four waste items (other than plastic bottles); for example, over nine-in-ten (95%) recycle at least one item and a similar proportion (93%) 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 (around 80%), which may be related to usage, although this is not covered in the SHS.

Table 11.10 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 11.9 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 smaller families are most likely to recycle at least one item (96% and 87% respectively) and, except in single pensioners, households with only one adult are least likely to recycle.

Table 11.10: Percentage of households recycling one or more items in the past month by household type and accommodation type
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Households	House or bungalow	Flat (new or traditional tenement / four-in-a-block or conversion	Flat (in a high-rise block with five or more levels)	All	Base
Single adult	88	73	57	78	3,727
Small adult	95	78	*	88	3,852
Single parent	90	71	*	80	1,188
Small family	95	77	*	91	2,737
Large family	96	80	*	93	1,378
Large adult	95	85	*	93	1,969
Older smaller	96	87	*	95	3,300
Single pensioner	93	82	69	88	3,201
All	94	78	60	88
Base	14,837	5,783	588		21,352

The 'All' category includes households living in caravans or other accommodation

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed for items being recycled.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.11 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 77% of households living in the 20% most deprived datazones to 95% of households living in the 20% least deprived datazones. For each type of accommodation, the largest differences occur between those living in the 20% most deprived datazones and those living in the second most deprived quintile of datazones.

Table 11.11: Percentage of households recycling one or more items in the past month by accommodation type and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Percentages, 2009/2010 data

Households	1 - 20% most deprived	2	3	4	5 - 20% least deprived	Scotland	Base
House or bungalow	89	94	93	95	97	94	14,829
Flat (new or traditional tenement/four-in-a-block conversion)	70	76	81	84	88	78	5,781
Flat (in a high-rise block with five or more levels)	54	66	*	*	*	60	587
All	77	86	89	92	95	88
Base	4,091	4,390	4,492	4,496	3,871		21,340

The 'All' category includes households living in caravans or other accommodation

Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses allowed for items being recycled.

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Greenspace

Access to good quality greenspace is associated with higher levels of physical activity and improved quality of life, including better health and wellbeing. Other research has also shown that being very satisfied with the quality of your local greenspace is associated with higher life satisfaction, greater social trust and a higher sense of community cohesion. The impacts of greenspace and the wider neighbourhood physical environment on health are recognized in 'Equally Well', ^[70] the Scottish Government's strategic framework on health inequalities, and in 'Good Places, Better Health' ^[71] which seeks to improve evidence based policy-making in relation to physical environments and health.

This section starts by looking at the key factors and characteristics associated with greenspace use. Firstly, consideration of how availability of local greenspace and people's satisfaction with council greenspace differs by area deprivation as well as issues such as health of individuals. This section then looks at the perceptions of council run parks and open spaces, for both frequency of use and peoples satisfaction with them.

Please note that caution should be used with regard to comparing 2009/2010 results on availability of safe and pleasant greenspace with data from previous years. How respondents interpret each component of the question - namely the availability, safety and pleasantness of greenspace - individually and collectively may have been affected by a change in question order from the start of 2009.

Availability of open spaces

Over half of adults in Scotland have access to a park, greenspace or other area of grass in their neighbourhood that they and their family can use that is safe and pleasant (Figure 11.4). Availability of local greenspace differs significantly by area deprivation levels; just over half (52%) of those living in the 20% most deprived areas of Scotland have access to open spaces, compared to over three-quarters (76%) of those in the least deprived.

Figure 11.4: Whether any safe and pleasant parks or greenspace available in the area by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation and rating of neighbourhood as a place to live
2009/2010 data, Adults (minimum base: 350)

This question is only asked of half of the sample.

It can also be seen that there is an association between access to open spaces and how people rate their neighbourhood as a place to live. Seventy two percent of adults who rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live say they have access to an open space in their neighbourhood, compared to just under two-fifths (39%) from those rating their neighbourhood as poor.

Table 11.12 shows that those adults who say their health in general has been very good, good or fair are much more likely to say they have access to open space in their neighbourhood (69% and 63%) respectively. Just over half (53%) of adults who say their health in general has been bad or very bad say they have access to open space in their neighbourhood. It is not clear whether those with poor health simply do not have access to open spaces in their neighbourhood, or whether they are just not aware of having such spaces in the first place.

Table 11.12: Whether any safe and pleasant parks or greenspace available in the area by self perception of health

Column percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	Very good / Good	Fair	Very bad / Bad	Scotland
Local open space available	69	63	53	67
Local open space not available	31	37	47	33
Base	13,199	3,957	1,468	18,624

This question is only asked of half of the sample.

Perceptions of council run parks and open spaces

Table 11.13 shows that the frequency of use of council run parks and open spaces over the past 12 months varies considerably. Typically, adults are either more likely to have used such open spaces at least once a week or about once a month (both 22%) in the past 12 months, or never used at all (19%). One-in-ten of all adults use such open spaces most days.

There are a number of variations in use of council run parks and open spaces by age, especially for the older age groups where a third (34%) of those aged 75 and over have never used council run park or open spaces. Those from the younger age groups, 16 to 44, are the most frequent users of greenspace. In relation to gender, however, there are no variations in the use of and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces.

Table 11.13: Frequency of using and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by gender and age

Column percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Frequency of use
Most days	10	10	9	12	12	11	9	4	10
At least once a week	22	21	25	29	28	19	16	9	22
About once a month	22	23	25	27	28	22	18	10	22
Once or twice a year	12	13	12	12	11	14	14	11	13
Not used in the past year	13	14	12	8	9	13	18	31	14
Never used	19	19	16	12	12	21	24	33	19
Don't Know	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	8,114	10,615	1,513	2,526	3,129	4,598	4,482	2,481	18,729
Satisfaction
Satisfied	66	66	65	72	71	67	65	49	66
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	7	7	9	6	6	7	6	7	7
Dissatisfied	6	7	7	8	9	6	5	3	6
No opinion	20	21	18	13	14	20	25	42	20
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	8,114	10,614	1,513	2,526	3,128	4,598	4,482	2,481	18,728

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Two-thirds of adults are satisfied with council run parks and open spaces, with only 6% being dissatisfied. There are a number of differences in satisfaction with open spaces also, though these are more likely associated with the frequency of use. Seventy two percent of those aged 25 to 34 are satisfied, whilst the highest levels of dissatisfaction are from within the 35 to 44 age group (9%).

There is little variation in use of and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces when looking at deprivation (Table 11.14). Just under one-in-five (18%) adults living in the 20% most deprived areas of Scotland use such open spaces at least once a week, increasing to 25% of those from the least deprived areas. Conversely, the proportion of adults who have never used such open spaces decreases as level of deprivation decreases (from 24% in the most deprived to 12% in the least deprived).

There is quite a marked difference in level of satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by deprivation. Three quarters of those in the 20% least deprived areas are satisfied with such services, decreasing to 58% in the most deprived areas.

Table 11.14: Frequency of using and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	20% most deprived	2	3	4	20% least deprived	Scotland
Frequency of use
Most days	9	10	10	11	11	10
At least once a week	18	21	22	22	25	22
About once a month	20	21	22	23	26	22
Once or twice a year	12	13	12	12	13	13
Not used in the past year	17	15	13	13	11	14
Never used	24	20	20	19	12	19
Don't Know	1	0	0	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	3,593	3,877	3,970	3,976	3,304	18,720
Satisfaction
Satisfied	58	64	65	68	75	66
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	7	8	7	7	6	7
Dissatisfied	9	8	6	5	4	6
No opinion	26	21	22	19	14	20
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	3,593	3,877	3,970	3,976	3,303	18,719

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

Table 11.15: Frequency of using and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by Urban Rural Classification
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Frequency of use
Most days	9	11	10	13	9	10	10
At least once a week	23	22	21	23	19	15	22
About once a month	24	22	23	18	21	15	22
Once or twice a year	13	12	14	10	13	12	13
Not used in the past year	14	13	13	11	15	18	14
Never used	17	18	18	24	22	29	19
Don't Know	1	0	0	0	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	6,538	5,564	1,600	1,056	2,208	1,755	18,721
Satisfaction
Satisfied	68	66	68	64	63	58	66
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	6	8	6	9	7	7	7
Dissatisfied	6	7	8	7	6	4	6
No opinion	19	19	18	20	24	30	20
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	6,538	5,564	1,599	1,056	2,208	1,755	18,720

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.

As with deprivation, there are also a number of apparent differences when considering differences by level of rurality (Table 11.15). Those living in remote rural areas are more likely to have either not used council run parks and open spaces in the past year (18%) or never used them at all (29%) than other areas.

There are more obvious differences when looking at satisfaction with services. Within urban areas and other towns, typically around two-thirds are satisfied with council run parks and open spaces. This decreases to just over three-fifths of those living in rural areas.

Table 11.16 examines differences in people's use of and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by how they rate their neighbourhood as a place to live. Although the majority of people across all neighbourhood rating levels are satisfied with such open spaces, the percentage of those satisfied decreases steadily from seven in ten (70%) for those rating their neighbourhood as a very good place to live to under half (46%) for those saying it is very poor. There are also variations in people's frequency of using council run parks and open spaces by neighbourhood rating. For example, those who never use such spaces varies from under one in five (19%) for those rating their neighbourhood as a very good place to live to almost a third (31%) for those rating their neighbourhood as very poor.

Table 11.16: Frequency of using and satisfaction with council run parks and open spaces by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	All
Frequency of use
Most days	11	9	9	7	10
At least once a week	22	21	20	18	22
About once a month	22	23	21	14	22
Once or twice a year	12	13	12	14	13
Not used in the past year	14	14	15	15	14
Never used	19	19	23	31	19
Don't Know	1	0	0	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	10,842	6,727	761	345	18,729
Satisfaction
Satisfied	70	63	53	46	66
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	6	8	8	9	7
Dissatisfied	5	8	14	17	6
No opinion	20	21	25	28	20
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	10,841	6,727	761	345	18,728

This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.