Scotland's People Annual report: Results from 2009/2010 Scottish Household Survey
A National Statistics publication for Scotland, providing reliable and up-to-date information on the composition, characteristics, behaviour and attitudes of Scottish households and adults
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: [33]Help local communities to flourish, becoming stronger, safer places to live, offering improved opportunities and a better quality of life.
The Scottish Household Survey ( SHS) is one of the sources of evidence that can be used to assess the national outcomes and targets associated with this overarching objective. It is used specifically to monitor one of the national indicators associated with the objective: ' increasing the percentage of adults who rate their neighbourhood as a good place to live' and the outcome ' we live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger' 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 to help understand what makes a neighbourhood a good place to live. It then moves on to look at perceptions of the prevalence and experience of anti-social behaviour. Finally, it looks at the perceptions of personal safety within neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhoods
Overall ratings of neighbourhoods
Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high over the past ten years, with over nine in ten typically saying their neighbourhood is a fairly or very good place to live (Table 4.1). In 2010, over half (55.4%) of all adults chose the highest rating 'very good', the highest rating since the SHS first started collecting this information in 1999. Around 6% rated their neighbourhood as being fairly or very poor, again the lowest recorded.
Table 4.1: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by year
Column percentages, 1999-2010 data
Adults | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very/fairly good | 90.7 | 91.8 | 91.8 | 91.7 | 92.4 | 91.7 | 92.1 | 92.0 | 92.4 | 92.5 | 93.6 | 93.5 |
Very good | 49.4 | 51.5 | 49.9 | 49.8 | 52.8 | 50.3 | 50.7 | 51.1 | 51.7 | 53.1 | 55.0 | 55.4 |
Fairly good | 41.3 | 40.3 | 41.9 | 41.9 | 39.6 | 41.4 | 41.4 | 40.9 | 40.7 | 39.4 | 38.6 | 38.1 |
Fairly poor | 5.4 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 4.4 |
Very poor | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
No opinion | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
All | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 13,782 | 14,557 | 14,643 | 14,042 | 13,968 | 14,778 | 14,071 | 14,190 | 10,385 | 9,314 | 12,543 | 12,439 |
As Table 4.2 illustrates, there is a clear pattern in ratings of neighbourhoods between urban and rural areas. For example, people in remote rural areas are the most likely to rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (78%). In contrast, the percentage of people living in urban areas and towns rating their neighbourhood as a 'very good' place to live ranges between 49% and 61%.
Table 4.2: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very good | 49 | 52 | 56 | 61 | 70 | 78 | 55 |
Fairly good | 42 | 42 | 39 | 34 | 27 | 20 | 38 |
Fairly poor | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
Very poor | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
No opinion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 8,708 | 7,372 | 2,151 | 1,431 | 2,958 | 2,349 | 24,969 |
However, the variations by levels of deprivation [34] reveal further area-based differences. As Figure 4.1 shows, the proportion rating their neighbourhood as very good increases significantly as deprivation declines. Of those living in the 10% most deprived areas of Scotland, 25% rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live; though 77% still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live. This proportion rises as deprivation decreases, with 78% of those living in the 10% least deprived areas rating their neighbourhood as very good.
Figure 4.1: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
2009/2010 data, Adults (base: 24,966)
Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked and disliked
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 mention spontaneously any aspects of their neighbourhood which they particularly like or dislike, and their answers are then coded using a list comprised of 31 'likes' and 34 'dislikes' that has been developed over the years. The items mentioned as positive and negative aspects of neighbourhoods have been grouped further into the following themes (see Annex 2 for full details of the coding):
Positive aspects Pleasant environment Safe environment Good public transport Good amenitiesSense of community/friendly people |
Negative aspects Unpleasant environment Unsafe environment Poor public transport Poor amenitiesNo sense of community/Problem residents/Substance abuse |
Table 4.3 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 to 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 46% in the group who rate it as very poor.
Generally, as rating of neighbourhood declines (from very good down to very poor), those saying they like the different aspects of their neighbourhood also decreases. In particular, there is a clear pattern of how liking the sense of community or the friendly people in the neighbourhood is linked with neighbourhood rating. Views on whether or not public transport is good do not appear to be as strongly related to overall neighbourhood ratings as the other four aspects are.
Table 4.3: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Very good | Fairly good | Fairly poor | Very poor | No opinion | All respondents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pleasant environment | 64 | 55 | 41 | 26 | * | 59 |
Safe environment | 28 | 13 | 3 | 2 | * | 20 |
Good public transport | 19 | 23 | 22 | 13 | * | 21 |
Good amenities | 50 | 43 | 33 | 20 | * | 45 |
Sense of community/friendly people | 82 | 66 | 31 | 24 | * | 72 |
Other | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | * | 2 |
None | 1 | 5 | 25 | 46 | * | 5 |
Base | 10,616 | 6,850 | 814 | 351 | 51 | 18,682 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 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 (especially remote) 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 (3% in remote rural areas compared to 32% in large urban areas). In contrast, people in large urban areas are the most likely to mention good public transport (32%) and are the least likely to mention aspects relating to the sense of community or friendliness of local people (65%).
Table 4.4: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pleasant environment | 59 | 57 | 54 | 68 | 57 | 66 | 59 |
Safe environment | 18 | 18 | 21 | 29 | 24 | 35 | 20 |
Good public transport | 32 | 19 | 13 | 14 | 7 | 3 | 21 |
Good amenities | 47 | 43 | 48 | 54 | 43 | 44 | 45 |
Sense of community / friendly people | 65 | 72 | 78 | 79 | 83 | 85 | 72 |
Other | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
None | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
Base | 6,483 | 5,464 | 1,688 | 1,063 | 2,191 | 1,787 | 18,676 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
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, 12% of people in the most deprived areas say they like nothing about their neighbourhood compared with just 3% in the rest of Scotland.
Table 4.5: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 15% most deprived | Rest of Scotland | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Pleasant environment | 45 | 61 | 59 |
Safe environment | 9 | 22 | 20 |
Good public transport | 25 | 20 | 21 |
Good amenities | 41 | 46 | 45 |
Sense of community / friendly people | 58 | 75 | 72 |
Other | 2 | 2 | 2 |
None | 12 | 3 | 5 |
Base | 2,685 | 15,984 | 18,669 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked
As was the case with the positive aspects presented above, when examining overall neighbourhood perceptions and dislikes there is a strong correspondence between overall ratings and mentions of particular negative aspects (Table 4.6). In particular, 9% of those who rate their neighbourhood as very good say it lacks a sense of community or has problems with residents or substance abuse compared with 83% of those who say their neighbourhood is a very poor place to live. This pattern can be seen, to varying degrees across all neighbourhood aspects with the exception of perceptions of public transport, which is unrelated to overall perceptions.
Table 4.6: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Very good | Fairly good | Fairly poor | Very poor | No opinion | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unpleasant environment | 22 | 33 | 60 | 67 | * | 28 |
Unsafe environment | 1 | 4 | 20 | 36 | * | 4 |
Poor public transport | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | * | 5 |
Poor amenities | 10 | 13 | 25 | 36 | * | 12 |
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse |
9 | 28 | 70 | 83 | * | 20 |
Other | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | * | 2 |
None | 50 | 32 | 5 | 3 | * | 40 |
Base | 10,616 | 6,850 | 815 | 351 | 51 | 18,683 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.7 to an extent mirrors Table 4.6 above, with people in remote rural areas being the least likely to mention aspects of their neighbourhood as unpleasant or lacking a community or having problems with local residents or substance abuse. Sixteen per cent of those in remote rural areas dislike the unpleasant environment they live within, compared to 35% in large urban areas. There is 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. The main exception is again transport issues, with those in rural areas (13%) noting poor public transport as an issue, compared to less than 5% in other areas.
Table 4.7: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unpleasant environment | 35 | 27 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 16 | 28 |
Unsafe environment | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Poor public transport | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 5 |
Poor amenities | 12 | 10 | 13 | 10 | 16 | 16 | 12 |
No sense of community/ problem residents/substance abuse |
25 | 20 | 21 | 17 | 12 | 7 | 20 |
Other | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
None | 35 | 42 | 43 | 51 | 42 | 46 | 40 |
Base | 6,484 | 5,464 | 1,688 | 1,063 | 2,191 | 1,787 | 18,677 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.8 presents the neighbourhood aspects particularly disliked by people in the 15% most deprived of areas and by those in the rest of Scotland. As seen previously with analysis presented looking at 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 (41%) of those in the 15% most deprived of areas mention that their neighbourhood has no sense of community or problems with residents or substance abuse compared with 17% of those in the rest of Scotland.
Table 4.8: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 15% most deprived | Rest of Scotland | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Unpleasant environment | 35 | 27 | 28 |
Unsafe environment | 11 | 2 | 4 |
Poor public transport | 2 | 6 | 5 |
Poor amenities | 15 | 12 | 12 |
No sense of community/ problem residents/substance abuse |
41 | 17 | 20 |
Other | 1 | 2 | 2 |
None | 30 | 42 | 40 |
Base | 2,685 | 15,985 | 18,670 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Neighbourhood improvements
The final section under Neighbourhoods looks at public perceptions of the extent to which neighbourhoods improved in the preceding three years.
Table 4.9: Perceptions of neighbourhood improvements in past three years by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 15% most deprived | Rest of Scotland | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Got much better | 4 | 2 | 2 |
Got a little better | 16 | 9 | 10 |
Stayed the same | 48 | 69 | 66 |
Got a little worse | 14 | 12 | 12 |
Got a lot worse | 10 | 3 | 4 |
No opinion | 6 | 5 | 5 |
Base | 2,693 | 15,968 | 18,661 |
Looking first at Scotland as a whole the prevailing perception (66%) is that things have stayed the same, with those saying things have got worse (16%) slightly outweighing the proportion saying things 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 (24% versus 15%). Less than half (48%) of those in the most deprived 15% of areas say things have stayed the same compared with over two-thirds (69%) in the rest of Scotland.
Anti-social Behaviour
The neighbourhood aspects discussed previously 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. For 2009/2010, a new item on animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling was added to the list of neighbourhood problems.
Previous research on SHS data showed that the perceived prevalence of anti-social behaviour in the local area was a key factor influencing respondents' overall perception of their neighbourhood as being rated poor. [35] Groupings of the existing eight neighbourhood problems queried through the survey were derived, and these have been retained within this report and updated to include the animal nuisance category. The resultant nine behaviours fall into four distinct groups:
General anti-social behaviour |
Neighbour problems |
Rubbish and fouling |
Vehicles |
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property Groups or individuals harassing others Drug misuse or dealing Rowdy behaviour |
Noisy neighbours/loud parties Neighbour disputes |
Rubbish or litter lying around Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling |
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles |
Perceptions of neighbourhood problems
Table 4.10 presents perceptions of the nine neighbourhood problems, listed under the four anti-social behaviour groups identified above. The most prevalent problems are rubbish or litter lying around and animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling, with 24% and 23% respectively saying this is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood, After rubbish and fouling, the most common issues fall under the 'general anti-social behaviour' category with rowdy behaviour (14%) the most prevalent.
There is a trend of gradual improvements in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2010 representing the lowest measures of problems for all. In particular, perceptions of problems with vandalism have dropped from a high of 19.2% in 2002 to 11.3% in 2010.
Table 4.10: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood
Percentages, 1999-2010 data
Adults | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | ||||||||||||
Vandalism/graffiti/ damage to property |
17.7 | 17.1 | 18.6 | 19.2 | 18.1 | 18.7 | 16.5 | 16.3 | 16.6 | 15.4 | 14.0 | 11.3 |
Groups or individual harassing others |
* | * | * | * | * | * | 11.4 | 11.2 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 10.2 | 8.4 |
Drug misuse or dealing | * | * | * | * | * | * | 12.4 | 12.2 | 12.4 | 12.7 | 12.1 | 11.0 |
Rowdy behaviour | * | * | * | * | * | * | 16.9 | 16.3 | 17.3 | 16.7 | 16.1 | 13.8 |
Neighbour problems | ||||||||||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties |
8.2 | 7.8 | 7.3 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.7 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 9.4 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.6 |
Neighbour disputes | * | * | * | * | * | * | 5.2 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.5 |
Rubbish and fouling | ||||||||||||
Rubbish or litter lying around |
29.8 | 28.8 | 29.1 | 30.8 | 29.1 | 29.1 | 27.2 | 27.1 | 29.1 | 29.2 | 26.3 | 24.4 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling |
* | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 23.7 | 23.4 |
Vehicles | ||||||||||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles |
* | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
Base | 13,780 | 14,557 | 14,643 | 14,042 | 13,966 | 14,777 | 14,071 | 14,190 | 10,385 | 9,314 | 11,396 | 11,140 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Many of the response categories are not comparable across all years, with most of them either changed or added in 2005 and 2007.
Although the overall prevalence of these neighbourhood problems is relatively low, the extent to which different types of people and different types of community experiences them varies quite markedly.
Table 4.11: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 1 - 10% most deprived | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 - 10% least deprived | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||||||||
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property |
31 | 23 | 19 | 14 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 13 |
Groups or individual harassing others |
25 | 16 | 14 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 31 | 23 | 18 | 15 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
Rowdy behaviour | 35 | 26 | 22 | 18 | 14 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 15 |
Neighbour problems | |||||||||||
Noisy neighbours / loud parties |
21 | 17 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 10 |
Neighbour disputes | 14 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||||||||
Rubbish or litter lying around |
45 | 36 | 33 | 31 | 25 | 22 | 18 | 17 | 13 | 16 | 25 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling |
35 | 32 | 29 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 14 | 24 |
Vehicles | |||||||||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles |
5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Base | 2,165 | 2,137 | 2,200 | 2,385 | 2,479 | 2,357 | 2,590 | 2,211 | 2,082 | 1,914 | 22,520 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.11 shows across all anti-social behaviours that, as areas become more deprived, perceptions of prevalence increase. Aside from litter, the biggest contrast in perceptions of prevalence between the most and least deprived areas are seen in general anti-social behaviour, in particular drug misuse or dealing (31% in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 1% in the 10% least deprived areas) and rowdy behaviour (35% down to 6%).
It can also be seen that people living in social rented housing are most likely to perceive all neighbourhood problems as prevalent compared to other household tenure types (Table 4.12). In particular, those from the social rented sector are more likely to perceive drug misuse or dealing as being a problem in their neighbourhood (24%), or be concerned over issues such as rubbish (36%) or dog fouling (32%). This can, at least in part, be seen by the link between social rented housing and deprivation. Over half of households (54%) in the 15% most deprived areas are in the social rented sector, compared with 22% of households overall. Table 4.13 shows, perceptions of neighbourhood problems decline as age increases.
Table 4.12: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Owner occupied | Social rented | Private rented | Other | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 10 | 23 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 7 | 19 | 8 | 6 | 9 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 8 | 24 | 9 | 8 | 12 |
Rowdy behaviour | 11 | 27 | 19 | 12 | 15 |
Neighbour problems | |||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 6 | 19 | 14 | 8 | 10 |
Neighbour disputes | 4 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 6 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 22 | 36 | 26 | 19 | 25 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 22 | 32 | 16 | 19 | 24 |
Vehicle | |||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Base | 14,991 | 5,071 | 2,128 | 346 | 22,536 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.13: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by age of respondent
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 16 to 24 | 25 to 34 | 35 to 44 | 45 to 59 | 60 to 74 | 75 plus | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 15 | 17 | 14 | 13 | 9 | 7 | 13 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 13 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 9 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 12 |
Rowdy behaviour | 22 | 21 | 17 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 15 |
Neighbour problems | |||||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 16 | 15 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
Neighbour disputes | 8 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 30 | 30 | 26 | 24 | 23 | 16 | 25 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 22 | 26 | 27 | 24 | 23 | 17 | 24 |
Vehicle | |||||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Base | 1,867 | 3,023 | 3,816 | 5,501 | 5,356 | 2,973 | 22,536 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.14 shows that perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems are, in almost all cases, more likely to be perceived to be common by people living in urban areas as compared to those from rural areas. Those living in urban areas are more likely to be concerned by rubbish or litter lying around (30%) or animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (25%). Looking at general anti-social behaviour, it can be seen that there is a broad range in perceptions between urban and rural areas of prevalence of rowdy behaviour and of vandalism, graffiti or damage to property. Perceptions of rowdy behaviour range between 15% and 19% in the three most urban areas, compared with 5% in remote rural areas. A similar pattern is seen in perceptions of vandalism, graffiti or damage to property ranging from 17% in large urban areas to 4% in remote rural areas.
Table 4.14: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||||
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property | 17 | 12 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 13 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 12 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 9 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 13 | 13 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 12 |
Rowdy behaviour | 19 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 15 |
Neighbour problems | |||||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 12 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
Neighbour disputes | 7 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 30 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 17 | 13 | 25 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 25 | 24 | 26 | 24 | 19 | 15 | 24 |
Vehicle | |||||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Base | 7,814 | 6,636 | 1,978 | 1,305 | 2,643 | 2,147 | 22,523 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Personal experience of neighbourhood problems
The previous section focused on perceptions of neighbourhood problems. Figure 4.2 compares perception and actual experience of those problems, presenting 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. In other words, some adults who said they perceive a particular anti-social behaviour to be common have not experienced it themselves. Of course 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 in the case of vandalism, a person may not have experienced vandalism to their property, but could well have seen property that has been vandalised in their neighbourhood. Another example is drug misuse or drug dealing, which might involve a small number of people in an area directly, but the paraphernalia associated with drug misuse will be visible to people living in the area where it takes place and those dealing in drugs may be known to local residents.
It should also be borne in mind that experience is self-defined so that, for example, one respondent may say they have experienced drug dealing because they have seen it taking place, while another's experience may be of being offered drugs by a dealer.
One quarter (25%) of adults perceive rubbish or litter lying around to be a problem, though less than one fifth (19%) have actually experienced or seen any.
Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems
2009/2010 data, Adults (base: 22,536)
Table 4.15 to Table 4.17 present the proportions of people who say they have experienced each of these problems by area deprivation, housing tenure and urban rural classification. As found above in relation to perceptions of neighbourhood problems, experience of these problems is generally greatest among people in the most deprived 15% of neighbourhoods, in social rented housing and in urban areas.
Table 4.15: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 15% most deprived | Rest of Scotland | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 16 | 7 | 8 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 9 | 4 | 4 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 13 | 4 | 5 |
Rowdy behaviour | 21 | 11 | 12 |
Neighbour problems | |||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 16 | 7 | 9 |
Neighbour disputes | 9 | 4 | 5 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 27 | 18 | 19 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 78 | 82 | 82 |
Vehicle | |||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 3 | 1 | 1 |
None | 48 | 60 | 59 |
Base | 3,239 | 19,281 | 22,520 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.16: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Owner occupied | Social rented | Private rented | Other | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 7 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 3 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 3 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Rowdy behaviour | 10 | 18 | 14 | 10 | 12 |
Neighbour problems | |||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 6 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 9 |
Neighbour disputes | 4 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 18 | 24 | 19 | 13 | 19 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 82 | 78 | 88 | 82 | 82 |
Vehicle | |||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
None | 60 | 50 | 61 | 64 | 59 |
Base | 14,991 | 5,071 | 2,128 | 346 | 22,536 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Table 4.17: Experience of neighbourhood problems 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | |||||||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 12 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
Rowdy behaviour | 15 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 12 |
Neighbour problems | |||||||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 11 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 9 |
Neighbour disputes | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
Rubbish and fouling | |||||||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 23 | 18 | 19 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 19 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 19 | 17 | 21 | 21 | 16 | 15 | 18 |
Vehicle | |||||||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
None | 54 | 60 | 55 | 58 | 67 | 69 | 59 |
Base | 7,814 | 6,636 | 1,978 | 1,305 | 2,643 | 2,147 | 22,523 |
Columns add to more than 100% since multiple responses were allowed.
Reporting neighbourhood problems
Table 4.18 reports the proportion of people who say they have experienced a problem and have also reported it (for example to the council or police). Only those who had experienced a problem were asked whether they had reported the issue so it is not possible to explore the relationship between experience and reporting. Around one in six people who say that litter is a common problem or that animal nuisance is a problem have reported it (18% and 17% respectively) compared to two in five who have reported problems such as vandalism (40%) 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.
Table 4.18: Whether respondent has reported a neighbourhood problem to anyone in the last 12 months
Percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Has reported problem | Base |
---|---|---|
General anti-social behaviour | ||
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property | 40 | 1,737 |
Groups or individual harassing others | 41 | 879 |
Drug misuse or dealing | 26 | 1,128 |
Rowdy behaviour | 26 | 2,490 |
Neighbour problem | ||
Noisy neighbours/loud parties | 34 | 1,858 |
Neighbour disputes | 36 | 1028 |
Rubbish and fouling | ||
Rubbish or litter lying around | 18 | 4,048 |
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling | 17 | 3,980 |
Vehicle | ||
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles | 26 | 303 |
Table 4.19 shows the extent to which adults are either satisfied or dissatisfied with what local agencies are doing in tackling anti-social behaviour in their area. Those providing no opinion on each of the agencies varies considerably, and perhaps reflects the level of understanding people have on what each agency can do to tackle anti-social behaviour issues.
Over half (52%) of adults are either fairly or very satisfied with what the police are doing to tackle anti-social behaviour, with 41% saying similarly for the council.
Table 4.19: Satisfaction with extent to which agencies are tackling anti-social behaviour
Row percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Very satisfied | Fairly satisfied | Neither satisfied nor dis-satisfied | Fairly dis-satisfied | Very dis-satisfied | No opinion | All | Base |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The police | 14 | 38 | 14 | 8 | 5 | 21 | 100 | 22,536 |
The Council | 9 | 32 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 29 | 100 | 22,536 |
Housing associations | 4 | 12 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 66 | 100 | 22,536 |
Landlords or other property owners | 5 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 66 | 100 | 22,536 |
Other agencies or institutions | 3 | 8 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 74 | 100 | 22,536 |
Fear of Crime
This section 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".
Three quarters of adults (76%) say they feel very or fairly safe while walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark, whilst almost all (97%) say they feel safe when they are alone in their home at night (Table 4.20).
Table 4.20: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by gender and age
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Male | Female | 16-24 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45-59 | 60-74 | 75+ | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walking alone | |||||||||
Very/Fairly safe | 86 | 67 | 78 | 80 | 81 | 79 | 72 | 56 | 76 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 11 | 29 | 21 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 24 | 30 | 21 |
Don't Know | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 8,157 | 10,532 | 1,547 | 2,494 | 3,101 | 4,615 | 4,500 | 2,432 | 18,689 |
At home | |||||||||
Very/Fairly safe | 98 | 96 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 98 | 97 | 97 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Don't Know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 8,157 | 10,532 | 1,547 | 2,494 | 3,101 | 4,615 | 4,500 | 2,432 | 18,689 |
This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.
Whilst there is little variation by gender and age for those feeling safe in their home, the figures do vary quite markedly when walking alone at night. For example, women are more likely than men to say they would not feel safe, with two thirds (67%) of females saying they would feel fairly or very safe compared to 86% of males. Perceptions of safety at home do not appear to be very strongly associated with age, although when walking alone at night those in the oldest age group are less likely to say they would feel safe than all other age groups (30% of those aged 75 and over say they feel either very or a bit unsafe).
Table 4.21 compares perceptions of safety in the most deprived 15% of areas with perceptions in the rest of Scotland. A clear pattern is evident; 62% of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe when walking alone compared with over three quarters (78%) of those elsewhere. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe at all is almost twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (35% and 18% respectively). There is also evidence of those living in the most deprived areas of Scotland feeling less sure about being safe in their home alone at night (5% feel a bit or very unsafe, compared to 2% from the rest of Scotland).
Table 4.21: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | 15% most deprived | Rest of Scotland | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Walking alone | |||
Very / Fairly safe | 62 | 78 | 76 |
Very / A bit unsafe | 35 | 18 | 21 |
Don't Know | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 2,730 | 15,948 | 18,678 |
At home | |||
Very / Fairly safe | 94 | 97 | 97 |
Very / A bit unsafe | 5 | 2 | 3 |
Don't Know | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 2,730 | 15,948 | 18,678 |
This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.
Whether a person has some form of long-standing limiting illness, health problem or disability appears to have an association with feeling of safety. Eighty per cent of adults with no illness or disability feel safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, whilst around a third of those with some form of illness or disability say they feel either a bit unsafe or very unsafe. Similar variations can be seen in those feeling safe alone in their home at night, though to a lesser extent.
Table 4.22: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by disability
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Yes, disability | Yes, illness or health problem | Yes, both disability and illness or health problem | No, neither | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walking alone | |||||
Very/Fairly safe | 62 | 65 | 55 | 80 | 76 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 28 | 30 | 34 | 18 | 21 |
Don't Know | 11 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 1,307 | 2,637 | 1,395 | 13,342 | 18,687 |
At home | |||||
Very/Fairly safe | 94 | 95 | 94 | 98 | 97 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 |
Don't Know | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 1,307 | 2,637 | 1,395 | 13,342 | 18,687 |
This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.
When examining overall neighbourhood perceptions there is a strong correspondence between overall ratings of neighbourhood and the feeling of safety in the neighbourhood. In particular, of those who rated their neighbourhood as either fairly poor or very poor over half said they felt a bit or very unsafe when walking alone in the neighbourhood at night (52% and 64% respectively). Similar differences can also be seen in those feeling safe in their home at night.
Table 4.23: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Very good | Fairly good | Fairly poor | Very poor | No opinion | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walking alone | ||||||
Very/Fairly safe | 82 | 72 | 46 | 34 | * | 76 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 14 | 25 | 52 | 64 | * | 21 |
Don't Know | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | * | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | * | 100 |
Base | 10,706 | 6,793 | 789 | 353 | 48 | 18,689 |
At home | ||||||
Very/Fairly safe | 99 | 96 | 90 | 78 | * | 97 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 1 | 3 | 10 | 21 | * | 3 |
Don't Know | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | * | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | * | 100 |
Base | 10,706 | 6,793 | 789 | 353 | 48 | 18,689 |
This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.
There is evidence that those people who have experienced groups or individuals intimidating or harassing them of having feelings of being more unsafe. Half (50%) who have experienced harassment say they feel a bit of very unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, compared to 19% for those who have not experienced any harassment.
Table 4.24: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by experience of harassment
Column percentages, 2009/2010 data
Adults | Have experienced harassment | Have not experienced harassment | All |
---|---|---|---|
Walking alone | |||
Very/Fairly safe | 49 | 78 | 76 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 50 | 19 | 20 |
Don't Know | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 645 | 15,598 | 16,243 |
At home | |||
Very/Fairly safe | 86 | 98 | 97 |
Very/A bit unsafe | 14 | 2 | 3 |
Don't Know | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Base | 645 | 15,598 | 16,243 |
This question is only asked of three-quarters of the sample.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback