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

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: ³³Help 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 neighbourhood 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). There was a slight change between 2008 and 2009, with the figure increasing by 1.1 percentage points from 92.5% in 2008 to 93.6% in 2009. Over half (55%) of all adults gave the highest rating 'very good', the highest rating since the SHS first started collecting this information in 1999. Around 6% rated their neighbourhood has being fairly or very poor, again the lowest recorded.

Table 4.1: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by year

Column percentages, 1999-2009 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
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
Very good	49.4	51.5	49.9	49.8	52.8	50.3	50.7	51.1	51.7	53.1	55.0
Fairly good	41.3	40.3	41.9	41.9	39.6	41.4	41.4	40.9	40.7	39.4	38.6
Fairly poor	5.4	5.1	4.9	5.2	4.7	5.4	5.1	5.2	4.8	4.9	4.3
Very poor	3.4	2.8	2.9	2.8	2.5	2.5	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	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
All	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

As Table 4.2 illustrates, there is a clear pattern between 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 (79%). 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 58%.

Table 4.2: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by Urban Rural Classification

Column percentages, 2009 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Very good	49	51	58	57	69	79	55
Fairly good	43	42	37	39	29	19	39
Fairly poor	5	5	4	2	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	4,363	3,737	1,032	701	1,418	1,280	12,531

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 , 23% rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live; though 76% still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live. This proportion rises as deprivation decreases, with 77% 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 data, Adults (base: 12,531)

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 spontaneously to mention any aspects of neighbourhoods 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 amenities Sense of community / friendly people

Negative aspects Unpleasant environment Unsafe environment Poor public transport Poor amenities No 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 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Pleasant environment	63	54	38	27	*	57
Safe environment	27	13	4	3	*	20
Good public transport	19	23	20	12	*	21
Good amenities	49	42	31	17	*	45
Sense of community / friendly people	81	64	28	25	*	71
Other	2	2	3	1	*	2
None	1	4	28	46	*	4
Base	5,402	3,580	428	190	25	9,625

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 (2% in remote rural areas compared to 31% in large urban areas). In contrast, people in large urban areas are the most likely to mention good public transport (31%) 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 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Pleasant environment	56	56	54	67	58	67	57
Safe environment	18	18	23	24	22	33	20
Good public transport	31	18	14	14	6	2	21
Good amenities	46	42	51	50	41	44	45
Sense of community / friendly people	65	70	80	71	82	86	71
Other	2	1	2	1	2	2	2
None	5	6	3	3	3	1	4
Base	3,508	2,739	867	506	1,029	971	9,620

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, 13% 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 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Pleasant environment	45	60	57
Safe environment	9	22	20
Good public transport	24	20	21
Good amenities	41	46	45
Sense of community / friendly people	56	74	71
Other	2	2	2
None	13	3	4
Base	1,455	8,161	9,616

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 82% 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 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Unpleasant environment	23	35	62	67	*	30
Unsafe environment	1	4	21	33	*	4
Poor public transport	5	5	4	8	*	5
Poor amenities	10	13	25	39	*	12
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse	9	28	69	82	*	20
Other	2	2	1	3	*	2
None	39	25	4	3	*	31
Base	5,402	3,580	429	190	25	9,626

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. Seventeen per cent of those in remote rural areas dislike the unpleasant environment they live within, compared to 38% 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 (around 17%) 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 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Unpleasant environment	38	28	27	20	22	17	30
Unsafe environment	6	3	2	1	1	0	4
Poor public transport	3	3	5	1	15	13	5
Poor amenities	12	10	12	7	16	17	12
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse	25	21	23	17	10	7	20
Other	2	1	2	1	2	6	2
None	28	32	32	48	30	39	31
Base	3,509	2,739	867	506	1,029	971	9,621

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 (42%) of those in the 15% most deprived of areas mention that their neighbourhood has no sense of community or problems with residents and substance abuse compared with 16% of those in the rest of Scotland.

Table 4.8: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Unpleasant environment	37	29	30
Unsafe environment	11	2	4
Poor public transport	2	6	5
Poor amenities	16	12	12
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse	42	16	20
Other	1	2	2
None	25	32	31
Base	1,455	8,162	9,617

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 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	15	12	12
Got a lot worse	10	3	4
No opinion	7	5	5
Base	1,440	8,170	9,610

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 (25% 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, 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 eight neighbourhood problems, listed under the four anti-social behaviour groups identified above. The most prevalent problem is rubbish or litter lying around, with 26% saying this is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood, a decrease of almost three percentage points on the previous year. After rubbish the most common issues fall under the 'general anti-social behaviour' category: rowdy behaviour (16%) or vandalism and other types of deliberate damage to property (14%).

There is a trend of gradual improvements in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2009 representing the lowest measures of problems for all except noisy neighbours or loud parties and neighbour disputes. In particular, perceptions of problems with vandalism have dropped from a high of 19.2% in 2002 to 14.0% in 2009.

Table 4.10: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by year

Percentages, 1999-2009 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
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
Groups or individual harassing others	*	*	*	*	*	*	11.4	11.2	11.8	11.5	10.2
Drug misuse or dealing	*	*	*	*	*	*	12.4	12.2	12.4	12.7	12.1
Rowdy behaviour	*	*	*	*	*	*	16.9	16.3	17.3	16.7	16.1
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
Neighbour disputes	*	*	*	*	*	*	5.2	5.2	4.9	5.5	5.6
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
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	23.7
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	2.1	1.7	1.5
Base	13,780	14,557	14,643	14,042	13,966	14,777	14,071	14,190	10,385	9,314	11,396

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 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	35	25	20	16	12	9	7	5	5	8	14
Groups or individual harassing others	28	17	15	10	8	7	6	6	3	3	10
Drug misuse or dealing	32	25	18	16	12	7	6	3	2	2	12
Rowdy behaviour	37	28	22	19	16	11	9	8	4	6	16
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	20	19	14	10	7	8	6	5	3	5	10
Neighbour disputes	14	10	6	6	4	6	3	3	2	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	48	35	34	32	26	23	18	18	13	19	26
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	37	33	29	25	23	21	20	17	18	14	24
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	5	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	0	1
Base	1,091	1,098	1,179	1,168	1,268	1,204	1,345	1,082	1,008	941	11,384

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 (32% in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 2% in the 10% least deprived areas) and vandalism (35% down to 8%).

It can also be sent 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 (25%), or be concerned over issues such as rubbish (38%) or dog fouling (34%). 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 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	11	25	11	12	14
Groups or individual harassing others	7	20	9	9	10
Drug misuse or dealing	9	25	9	10	12
Rowdy behaviour	12	29	20	17	16
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	6	19	13	10	10
Neighbour disputes	4	12	4	5	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	23	38	27	22	26
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	22	34	15	21	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	3	1	3	1
Base	7,613	2,572	1,044	167	11,396

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 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	18	19	15	15	9	7	14
Groups or individual harassing others	16	14	12	10	5	3	10
Drug misuse or dealing	14	15	13	12	10	6	12
Rowdy behaviour	24	24	18	15	8	6	16
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	16	15	8	9	5	3	10
Neighbour disputes	8	8	6	6	2	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	33	31	27	25	22	17	26
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	24	27	28	23	21	18	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	2	2	2	1	0	1
Base	945	1,533	1,988	2,839	2,624	1,467	11,396

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 (31%) or animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (26%). Looking at general anti-social behaviour, it can be seen that there is large range in perceptions between urban and rural areas for prevalence of rowdy behaviour and for vandalism, graffiti or damage to property. Perceptions of rowdy behaviour range between 16% and 20% 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 18% 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 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	18	14	13	8	7	4	14
Groups or individual harassing others	13	11	10	6	5	3	10
Drug misuse or dealing	14	14	13	11	6	6	12
Rowdy behaviour	20	17	16	12	7	5	16
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	12	11	8	7	4	2	10
Neighbour disputes	7	6	5	4	4	3	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	31	27	25	25	15	13	26
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	26	23	28	24	18	15	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1	1	1	2	1
Base	4,011	3,357	962	632	1,261	1,161	11,384

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.

Over one quarter (26%) 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 data, Adults (base: 11,396)

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 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	18	8	9
Groups or individual harassing others	9	4	5
Drug misuse or dealing	14	4	5
Rowdy behaviour	22	11	13
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	17	7	9
Neighbour disputes	10	4	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	27	18	19
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	22	16	17
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	3	1	2
None	47	60	58
Base	1,636	9,748	11,384

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

Table 4.16: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	8	15	7	10	9
Groups or individual harassing others	4	10	2	4	5
Drug misuse or dealing	3	13	4	7	5
Rowdy behaviour	11	20	13	11	13
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	6	16	11	8	9
Neighbour disputes	4	10	3	4	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	18	23	19	18	19
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	16	22	11	19	17
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	2	2	3	2
None	60	49	63	60	58
Base	7,613	2,572	1,044	167	11,396

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

Table 4.17: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2009 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	13	9	8	8	5	2	9
Groups or individual harassing others	6	4	5	4	3	3	5
Drug misuse or dealing	7	5	5	7	3	2	5
Rowdy behaviour	16	13	12	11	7	6	13
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	11	9	8	9	5	3	9
Neighbour disputes	6	5	6	4	4	3	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	23	19	21	16	13	12	19
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	18	16	20	21	14	14	17
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1	1	2	2	2
None	53	60	53	56	67	72	58
Base	4,011	3,357	962	632	1,261	1,161	11,384

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 close to two in five who have reported problems such as vandalism (37%) or individuals/groups harassing people (37%). 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 data

Adults	Has reported problem	Base
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	37	992
Groups or individual harassing others	37	478
Drug misuse or dealing	25	592
Rowdy behaviour	26	1,325
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	36	948
Neighbour disputes	35	556
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	18	2,055
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	17	1,875
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	28	174

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 42% saying similarly for the council.

Table 4.19: Satisfaction with extent to which agencies are tackling anti-social behaviour

Row percentages, 2009 data

Adults	Very satisfied	Fairly satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dis-satisfied	Fairly dis-satisfied	Very dis-satisfied	No opinion	All	Base
The police	15	37	14	9	5	20	100	11,396
The Council	9	32	16	10	6	27	100	11,396
Housing associations	4	12	13	3	2	65	100	11,396
Landlords or other property owners	5	13	13	2	2	65	100	11,396
Other agencies or institutions	3	8	13	1	1	74	100	11,396

Fear of Crime

This sections looks at two questions in the survey about fear of crime; one refers to "walking alone in the local neighbourhood after dark" and the second asks about safety "at home alone at night".

Three quarters of adults (75%) 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 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	85	66	77	79	80	79	72	52	75
Very / A bit unsafe	12	30	22	20	18	19	24	35	22
Don't Know	2	4	1	2	2	2	4	13	3
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	3,920	5,189	741	1,185	1,566	2,312	2,120	1,185	9,109
At home
Very / Fairly safe	98	96	96	96	97	98	98	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	1	4	4	4	2	2	2	2	3
Don't Know	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	3,920	5,189	741	1,185	1,566	2,312	2,120	1,185	9,109

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 than likely as men to say they would not feel safe, with two thirds (66%) of females saying they would feel fairly or very safe compared to 85% of males. Perceptions of safety at home do not appear to be very strongly associated with age, although those in the oldest age group are less likely to say they would feel very safe than all other age groups (35% of those aged 75 and over say they feel either a bit unsafe or very safe).

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; 60% of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe when walking alone compared with over three quarters (77%) of those elsewhere. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe at all is more than twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (37% and 19% 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 (6% 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 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	60	77	75
Very / A bit unsafe	37	19	22
Don't Know	4	3	3
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,231	7,871	9,102
At home
Very / Fairly safe	94	98	97
Very / A bit unsafe	6	2	3
Don't Know	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,231	7,871	9,102

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 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	58	63	54	80	75
Very / A bit unsafe	31	32	36	18	22
Don't Know	10	5	10	2	3
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	650	1,282	636	6,535	9,109
At home
Very / Fairly safe	95	95	93	98	97
Very / A bit unsafe	4	4	5	2	3
Don't Know	2	0	2	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	650	1,282	636	6,535	9,109

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 (53% and 63% 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 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	82	71	45	36	*	75
Very / A bit unsafe	15	26	53	63	*	22
Don't Know	3	3	2	2	*	3
Total	100	100	100	100	*	100
Base	5,221	3,321	374	174	19	9,109
At home
Very / Fairly safe	99	96	90	83	*	97
Very / A bit unsafe	1	3	10	17	*	3
Don't Know	0	1	0	0	*	0
Total	100	100	100	100	*	100
Base	5,221	3,321	374	174	19	9,109

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. Over half (51%) who have experienced harassment say they feel a bit of very unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, compared to 20% 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 data

Adults	Have experienced harassment	Have not experienced harassment	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	48	76	75
Very / A bit unsafe	51	20	22
Don't Know	1	3	3
Total	100	100	100
Base	332	7,630	7,962
At home
Very / Fairly safe	88	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	12	2	2
Don't Know	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	332	7,630	7,962

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