Scottish household survey 2015: annual report

4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

4.1 Introduction and Context

Improving the quality of life in Scotland's neighbourhoods and communities is one of the Scottish Government's five Strategic Objectives ^[32] : Safer and Stronger - 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 ^[33] associated with this overarching objective. It is used specifically to monitor one of the National Indicators associated with the Safer and Stronger objective: 'Improve people's perceptions of their neighbourhood'. In addition, the outcome 'we live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger' can draw directly on the findings presented in this chapter.

This chapter starts with an overview of public perceptions of their neighbourhoods. It then explores the perceptions and experiences of various forms of anti-social behaviour, before looking at experiences of discrimination and harassment. Finally, the chapter investigates how engaged people were with their local community in 2015 and how prepared they were for emergency situations.

Main Findings

The majority of adults in Scotland (56.3 per cent) rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015. Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high since the SHS began in 1999. The proportion of adults who described their neighbourhood as very or fairly good in 2015 was higher than the levels seen in 1999 and 2007.

Most potential neighbourhood problems are not considered to be particularly common. In 2015, the most prevalent issue cited was animal nuisance ( e.g. noise or fouling) which was reported as being very or fairly common by 31 per cent of adults. There has been little change in perceived neighbourhood problems between 2014 and 2015.

Just under half (49 per cent) of all adults reported that they did not experience any neighbourhood problems in 2015, however this was true for 41 per cent of those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas compared to 51 per cent of those in the rest of Scotland.

Relatively few adults reported that they had experienced discrimination or harassment in the last three years (reported by 7 per cent and 6 per cent of respondents respectively). Such experiences were more common amongst those in younger age groups. Experiences also varied according to sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and whether an individual had a long-term physical or mental illness. Of respondents who reported that they had been discriminated against, the most common reason given for why they thought they were discriminated against was their ethnicity (32 per cent).

More than three-quarters (77 per cent) of all adults felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their neighbourhood in 2015, however this varied according to age, ethnic group and deprivation. The majority of adults in Scotland indicated that they would assist neighbours in an emergency (74 per cent) and could rely on those around them for advice and support (63 per cent).

4.2 Neighbourhoods

The section below explores how people view their neighbourhoods and their impression of how their local areas has changed (if at all) over the last few years.

4.2.1 Overall Ratings of Neighbourhoods

The majority of adults in Scotland (56.3 per cent) rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015, as shown in Table 4.1.

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

Column percentages, 1999-2015 data

Adults	1999	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Very/fairly good	90.7	92.1	92.0	92.4	92.5	93.6	93.5	93.9	93.7	94.1	94.4	94.6
Very good	49.4	50.7	51.1	51.7	53.1	55.0	55.4	55.9	55.2	55.2	55.8	56.3
Fairly good	41.3	41.4	40.9	40.7	39.4	38.6	38.1	38.0	38.5	38.9	38.5	38.3
Fairly poor	5.4	5.1	5.2	4.8	4.9	4.3	4.4	4.2	4.3	4.1	3.6	3.7
Very poor	3.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.5	1.7	1.4
No opinion	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.3
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	13,780	14,070	14,190	10,390	9,310	12,540	12,440	12,890	9,890	9,920	9,800	9,410

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high since the SHS began in 1999, with over nine in ten adults viewing their neighbourhood as a very or fairly good place to live in each year. This proportion has steadily increased over the last decade as shown in the above table, meaning the percentage of adults describing their neighbourhood as very or fairly good was higher in 2015 than in 1999 and 2007.

Whilst neighbourhoods were rated highly across the board, the strength of view varied by urban rural classification, with those in accessible or remote rural areas most likely to describe their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (71 per cent and 73 per cent respectively). In contrast, around half of those in large urban areas rated their neighbourhood as being very good, as shown in Table 4.2.

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

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Very/fairly good	93	94	96	96	98	96	95
Very good	50	54	58	61	71	73	56
Fairly good	43	40	38	35	26	23	38
Fairly poor	4	4	3	4	2	3	4
Very poor	2	1	1	1	1	0	1
No opinion	0	0	0	-	0	1	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	2,760	3,220	860	580	1,010	980	9,410

Neighbourhood ratings also vary by deprivation ^[34] , with the proportion of adults rating their neighbourhood as a very good place to live increasing as deprivation decreases, as in previous years (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

2015 data, Adults (minimum base: 820)

Only three in 10 adults (30 per cent) in the 10 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015, compared to 77 per cent of those living in the 10 per cent least deprived areas.

4.2.2 Neighbourhood Improvements

Respondents were also asked whether and to what extent they thought their neighbourhood had changed in the preceding three years. Like the SHS in 2014, the 2015 survey found that overall just under two-thirds of adults thought their neighbourhood had stayed the same over the last few years.

However, as shown in Table 4.3 below, perceptions varied by deprivation with those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland most likely to believe that their area had improved or worsened to some extent over the reference period.

Table 4.3: Perceptions of neighbourhood improvements in past three years by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults	20% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Got much better	5	2	3
Got a little better	18	11	12
Stayed the same	51	68	65
Got a little worse	13	11	11
Got much worse	6	2	3
No opinion	8	6	6
Base	1,740	7,670	9,410

4.2.3 Neighbourhood Ratings and Fear of Crime

As discussed in section 1.2, much of the analysis in relation to perceptions and fear of crime, and confidence in the police that is published in alternative sources has been excluded from this year's report. However, the SHS questions on fear of crime uniquely enable the link between neighbourhood ratings and feelings of safety to be explored.

Table 4.4 below shows a clear association between how adults rated their neighbourhoods and how safe they felt in their communities.

For example, the majority of all respondents (85 per cent) said they felt very or fairly safe walking alone in their neighbourhood. However, this was true for just over a third (35 per cent) of adults who rated their neighbourhood as a very poor place to live, compared to 87 per cent of those who rated their local area as very or fairly good.

Table 4.4: 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, 2015 data

Adults	Very/fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	87	53	35	*	85
Very / A bit unsafe	12	46	64	*	14
Don't Know	1	1	1	*	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	8,520	310	120	30	8,980
At home
Very / Fairly safe	98	91	72	*	98
Very / A bit unsafe	1	9	28	*	2
Don't Know	0	-	-	*	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	8,920	330	130	30	9,410

4.3 Neighbourhood Problems

As well as asking respondents about their general views on their neighbourhoods and how it has changed, the SHS also collects information on perceptions and experiences of specific neighbourhood problems, such as anti-social behaviour. As with previous years, the nine neighbourhood problems which respondents were asked about can be categorised in four key groups as shown below.

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 social problems overall are outlined in Table 4.5 which shows the percentage of adults describing each issue as very or fairly common in their neighbourhood over the last 10 years.

Continuing the trend seen over the last decade, the most prevalent issues cited in 2015 were:

• Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (which 31 per cent saw as very or fairly common); and
• Rubbish or litter lying around (which 28 per cent said was very or fairly common).

There was little change in perceived prevalence of each of the issues between 2014 and 2015.

The perceived prevalence of neighbourhood problems varies by deprivation. Table 4.6 shows that those living in more deprived areas were more likely to perceive each issue to be a very or fairly common problem. For example, there is a difference between adults in the 10 per cent most and 10 per cent least deprived areas in perceptions of rubbish or litter lying around (45 per cent compared to 18 per cent), drug misuse or dealing (29 per cent compared to 2 per cent), and rowdy behaviour (23 per cent compared to 3 per cent).

Table 4.5: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood

Percentages, 2006-2015 data

Adults	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	16	17	15	14	11	11	11	10	8	8
Groups or individual harassing others	11	12	11	10	8	8	8	7	6	6
Drug misuse or dealing	12	12	13	12	11	12	13	12	11	12
Rowdy behaviour	12	17	17	16	14	14	15	13	12	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	8	9	10	10	10	10	12	11	11	10
Neighbour disputes	5	5	5	6	5	6	6	6	6	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	27	29	29	26	24	25	29	27	27	28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	-	-	-	24	23	26	30	31	31	31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	-	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Base (minimum)	14,190	10,390	9,310	11,400	11,140	11,280	9,890	9,920	9,800	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.6: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults	10% most deprived									10% least deprived	Scotland
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	19	17	10	9	7	4	4	5	4	3	8
Groups or individual harassing others	12	12	11	6	6	4	4	2	3	1	6
Drug misuse or dealing	29	23	19	13	12	6	6	5	4	2	12
Rowdy behaviour	23	20	15	13	11	7	7	5	6	3	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	20	16	13	10	11	8	6	5	3	5	10
Neighbour disputes	12	12	8	5	6	4	4	2	2	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	45	40	36	32	30	23	22	20	19	18	28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	42	41	36	36	33	31	26	24	24	22	31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	2	1	1	2	1	0	1	1	1
Base (minimum)	860	880	850	1,050	1,030	1,030	1,070	1,010	820	820	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.7 shows that perceptions of the prevalence of neighbourhood problems were higher amongst those who live in social rented housing compared to owner occupiers and private renters. For instance, drug misuse was most likely to be perceived to be a very or fairly common problem by those in social rented accommodation, with just under a quarter (23 per cent) citing it as a common issue. In part, these associations further emphasise the link between social rented housing and deprivation.

Perceptions of neighbourhood problems generally decrease with age, as shown in Table 4.8 below. For example, those aged 16-24 were more likely than those aged 75 and above to view rowdy behaviour as a very or fairly common issue (reported by 16 per cent and 2 per cent respectively).

However, it should be noted that the association between age and the perceived prevalence of neighbourhood problems is not entirely linear, despite the general declining trend in reported prevalence with increasing age. For example, just over one-quarter (26 per cent) of adults aged 16-24 reported animal nuisance (such as noise or fouling to be very or fairly common), compared to more than a third (37 per cent) of those aged 25-34.

Table 4.7: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by tenure of household

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	6	14	9	8	8
Groups or individual harassing others	4	11	6	8	6
Drug misuse or dealing	8	23	11	10	12
Rowdy behaviour	7	17	16	7	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	6	17	14	9	10
Neighbour disputes	4	11	6	5	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	25	37	31	35	28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	30	38	28	23	31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	2	1	-	1
Base (minimum)	5,930	2,160	1,200	120	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.8: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by age of respondent

Percentages, 2015 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	11	12	9	7	6	3	8
Groups or individual harassing others	7	8	8	6	4	1	6
Drug misuse or dealing	11	14	13	13	10	5	12
Rowdy behaviour	16	15	13	10	7	2	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	15	15	11	9	5	2	10
Neighbour disputes	7	9	7	5	4	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	33	36	31	25	25	19	28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	26	37	38	30	32	19	31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1	1	1	0	1
Base (minimum)	750	1,210	1,390	2,440	2,380	1,240	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.9 shows that adults living in urban areas were generally more likely to consider neighbourhood problems to be common, compared to those in rural areas.

In particular, those living in large urban areas were generally most likely to perceive each issue as being very or fairly common, whilst those in accessible and remote rural areas tended to have the lowest levels of perceived prevalence.

As with the findings in 2014, the issue most commonly reported by those in large urban areas was rubbish or litter lying around (37 per cent), a problem only rated as very or fairly common by 19 per cent of those in accessible rural areas, and 14 per cent of adults living in remote rural areas.

Table 4.9: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Urban Rural classification

Percentages, 2015 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	6	3	1	8
Groups or individual harassing others	8	6	6	4	4	1	6
Drug misuse or dealing	13	13	12	12	6	3	12
Rowdy behaviour	15	10	9	12	5	2	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	13	9	8	9	5	3	10
Neighbour disputes	7	5	6	4	5	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	37	26	24	21	19	14	28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	34	31	36	33	25	20	31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
Base (minimum)	2,760	3,220	860	580	1,010	980	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

4.3.1 Personal Experience of Neighbourhood Problems

The previous section examined perceptions of neighbourhood problems by a range of socio-demographic and geographic characteristics; this section will now focus on personal experience of neighbourhood problems.

It is important to note that it is not always necessary to have direct personal experience of an issue to know about it or perceive it as a problem in an area. For example, in the case of vandalism, a person may not have experienced vandalism to their property, but may have seen other vandalised property in their neighbourhood.

In addition, what respondents define as "experience" is related to their own perceptions, beliefs and definitions. For instance, one respondent may consider witnessing drug dealing as experiencing the issue, whilst another respondent may only report experience of this problem if they personally have been offered drugs.

Figure 4.2 compares the perception that a neighbourhood problem is fairly or very common with actual experiences of that problem in the previous year. It is notable that generally problems were perceived to be common by a higher percentage of the adult population than had actually experienced each particular issue (with the exception of animal nuisance). For example, 12 per cent of individuals believed drug misuse or dealing to be a very or fairly common problem in the neighbourhood, yet only 6 per cent of adults reported that they had personally experienced this problem.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

2015 data, Adults (base: 9,410)

Table 4.10, Table 4.11 and Table 4.12 present the proportions of people who said that they have experienced each of the neighbourhood problems broken down by area deprivation, housing tenure and urban rural classification. These show:

• Just under half (49 per cent) of all adults in Scotland reported that they had experienced no neighbourhood problems in 2015;
• Those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas were more likely to report experiencing problems than those in the rest of Scotland;
• Adults in social rented accommodation were generally more likely than those in owner occupied and private rented house to say they had experienced neighbourhood problems; and
• People living in rural areas were the most likely to report having experienced no neighbourhood problems in the last year.

Table 4.10: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults	20% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	9	4	5
Groups or individual harassing others	7	3	3
Drug misuse or dealing	13	4	6
Rowdy behaviour	14	8	9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	17	8	9
Neighbour disputes	8	4	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	34	23	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	39	33	34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1
None	41	51	49
Base (minimum)	1,740	7,670	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.11: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	4	7	6	9	5
Groups or individual harassing others	2	6	4	6	3
Drug misuse or dealing	4	11	6	9	6
Rowdy behaviour	6	12	14	11	9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	6	15	14	11	9
Neighbour disputes	4	8	5	3	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	23	30	27	29	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	34	37	31	24	34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	1	1
None	51	44	48	55	49
Base (minimum)	5,930	2,160	1,200	120	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.12: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2015 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	7	5	4	3	2	2	5
Groups or individual harassing others	5	3	3	3	2	2	3
Drug misuse or dealing	8	6	5	6	3	2	6
Rowdy behaviour	12	8	10	11	3	3	9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	12	9	7	10	7	3	9
Neighbour disputes	6	4	5	3	4	3	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	32	23	20	23	18	15	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	36	34	39	40	30	25	34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	0	2	1	1	1
None	43	51	47	43	56	62	49
Base (minimum)	2,760	3,220	860	580	1,010	980	9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

4.4 Discrimination and Harassment

The SHS also explores whether respondents have experienced any kind of discrimination or harassment, in the last three years, whilst in Scotland.

In 2015, just over one in 20 adults reported that they had experienced either discrimination (7 per cent) or harassment (6 per cent) in Scotland at some point over the last three years. However, Table 4.13 shows that whilst experiences varied slightly by gender, the association between age and experience was more notable with those in younger categories most likely to have experienced either discrimination or harassment.

Table 4.13: Experiences of discrimination and harassment by gender, age and level of deprivation

Row percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Discrimination		Harassment		Base
	Yes	No	Yes	No
Gender
Male	8	92	6	94	4,240
Female	7	93	6	94	5,160
Age
16 to 24	10	90	10	90	750
25 to 34	10	90	7	93	1,210
35 to 44	10	90	9	91	1,390
45 to 59	8	92	7	93	2,440
60 to 74	4	96	3	97	2,380
75+	1	99	1	99	1,240
Deprivation
20% Most Deprived	9	91	8	92	1,740
Rest of Scotland	7	93	6	94	7,670
All	7	93	6	94	9,410

Table 4.14 displays the proportion of adults experiencing discrimination or harassment by a further range of demographic breakdowns: sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and whether the individual has a long term physical or mental health condition which has (or is expected to) last at least 12 months.

The table below highlights that some groups are more likely than others to have experienced discrimination or harassment in the last three years in Scotland. For instance, more than a quarter of those who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual reported that they had experienced discrimination in the reference period, compared to only 7 per cent of heterosexual people (although attention should be paid to base sizes here). In addition, experiences of discrimination and harassment were reported by a greater percentage of those from an 'other minority ethnic' background compared to those who described themselves as 'white' ( e.g. 17 per cent compared to 7 per cent experiencing discrimination respectively).

It is important to note that Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 do not show the reasons behind experiences of discrimination and harassment, which are not necessarily related to the equality characteristics presented.

Table 4.14: Experiences of discrimination and harassment by sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion and long term physical/mental health condition

Row percentages, 2015 data ^[35]

Adults	Discrimination		Harassment		Base
	Yes	No	Yes	No
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual/Straight	7	93	6	94	9,230
Gay/Lesbian/ Bisexual	27	73	14	86	80
Ethnicity
White	7	93	6	94	9,170
Other minority ethnic group	17	83	13	87	240
Religion
None	7	93	7	93	4,390
Church of Scotland	5	95	4	96	2,730
Roman Catholic	9	91	7	93	1,250
Other Christian	9	91	8	92	780
Another religion	18	82	11	89	250
Long term physical/mental health condition
Yes	11	89	8	92	3,200
No	6	94	6	94	6,170
All	7	93	6	94	9,410

During the SHS interview, adults who reported that they had experienced harassment or discrimination were asked why they thought they had experienced it. Respondents were asked to provide spontaneous responses to these questions and where possible, the interviewer coded these answers into one of the main categories shown in Table 4.15 ( e.g. age, disability, gender, etc.). As there were a wide range of options which adults could have provided (and the fact multiple reasons could be given), it was not possible to code every potential type of response in advance, which has resulted in high levels of 'other' reasons being recorded.

Table 4.15 shows that around a third (32 per cent) of respondents who reported that they had been discriminated against said that they believed the reason behind this was their ethnic origin. Age, disability and gender were all cited as reasons for discrimination experienced by around one in ten adults.

Of those who had experienced harassment, a fifth cited their ethnic group as the perceived reason, with 'other reasons' being the most common response (42 per cent).

Table 4.15: Reasons for discrimination and harassment

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Discrimination	Harassment
Age	10	5
Disability	11	6
Gender	11	11
Ethnic group	32	20
Religion	7	5
Sexual orientation	3	4
Sectarian reasons	7	5
Other	20	42
Don't know	3	7
Refused	0	0
Base	640	550

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

As in previous years, those who had experienced harassment or discrimination were more likely to say that they feel very or a bit unsafe walking in the local neighbourhood or at home late at night as shown in Table 4.16 ^[36] .

Table 4.16: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by experience of discrimination and harassment

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Have experienced harassment	Have not experienced harassment	Have experienced discrimination	Have not experienced discrimination	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	68	86	77	86	85
Very / A bit unsafe	32	13	23	14	14
Don't Know	0	1	0	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	540	8,440	620	8,360	8,980
At home
Very / Fairly safe	93	98	95	98	98
Very / A bit unsafe	7	2	5	2	2
Don't Know	-	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	550	8,860	640	8,770	9,410

4.5 Community Engagement and Resilience

4.5.1 Community Engagement

The SHS also seeks to explore how strongly adults feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. Table 4.17 shows that in 2015 77 per cent of adults felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their neighbourhood, a similar finding to that in 2014.

However, whilst the majority of those in all categories shown said that they felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging, it is important to note the variation in feelings by gender, age, ethnic background and deprivation. For example, almost nine in ten adults (89 per cent) aged 75 and above said they felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their community, compared to just two thirds (66 per cent) of those aged between 16 and 24.

In addition, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas were twice as likely as those in the rest of Scotland to say that they did not at all feel a strong sense of belonging to their local neighbourhood (10 per cent compared to 5 per cent).

Table 4.17: Strength of feeling of belonging to community by gender, age, ethnicity and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Row percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Very strongly	Fairly strongly	Not very strongly	Not at all strongly	Don't know	Total	Base
Gender
Male	31	44	17	7	1	100	4,240
Female	36	43	15	5	1	100	5,160
Age
16-24	22	44	23	10	1	100	750
25-34	22	45	22	10	1	100	1,210
35-44	27	47	19	7	1	100	1,390
45-59	34	45	16	5	0	100	2,440
60-74	45	41	10	3	1	100	2,380
75+	54	34	9	2	0	100	1,240
Ethnicity
White	34	43	16	6	1	100	9,170
Minority Ethnic Groups	19	44	25	11	2	100	240
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
20% Most Deprived Areas	28	42	19	10	1	100	1,740
Rest of Scotland	35	44	16	5	1	100	7,670
All	34	43	16	6	1	100	9,410

Table 4.18: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhoodhighlights that the vast majority of adults in Scotland reported that they would help their neighbours in an emergency and are also positive about the ability to call on others around them for support if need be, offering a slightly different perspective of community engagement.

Table 4.18: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhood

Row percentages, 2015 data

Adults	Strongly agree	Tend to agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Tend to disagree	Strongly disagree	Base
Could rely on friends/relatives in neighbourhood for help	67	23	4	4	1	9,410
Could rely on friends/relatives in neighbourhood to look after home	69	21	4	4	2	9,410
Could turn to friends/relatives in neighbourhood for advice or support	63	22	6	6	2	9,410
Would offer help to neighbours in an emergency	74	20	4	2	1	9,410

4.5.2 Resilience

Ready Scotland ^[37] is a suite of guidance which sets out a recommended approach to preparing for and dealing with emergencies. Since January 2012, the SHS has incorporated three separate questions to support the work of Ready Scotland.

It is recognised that emergencies can happen at any time and that there are a few small steps that households can take to prepare for the unexpected things that can cause disruption to daily lives.

Table 4.19 and Table 4.20 outline the availability of a range of emergency response items and shows the variation in availability by tenure and SIMD, and according to net household income respectively. For example, whilst a third (33 per cent) of households in Scotland do not have a first-aid kit, the proportion without this item is higher amongst social tenants (49 per cent) and private renters (41 per cent) compared to owner occupiers (25 per cent).

Table 4.19: Availability of emergency response items in household by tenure of household and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2015 data

Households	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	20% Most Deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
First aid kit
Yes	68	45	51	48	63	60
No, could not locate within five minutes	7	6	8	6	7	7
No, don't have	25	49	41	46	30	33
Don't know	0	0	0	-	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Torch
Yes	91	73	76	74	87	84
No, could not locate within five minutes	4	6	6	6	5	5
No, don't have	4	20	18	20	8	11
Don't know	0	1	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Important documents
Yes	88	81	85	82	87	86
No, could not locate within five minutes	10	13	11	14	10	11
No, don't have	2	5	4	4	3	3
Don't know	0	1	0	1	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes	33	20	29	23	31	29
No, could not locate within five minutes	6	6	3	5	6	5
No, don't have	61	73	67	71	63	65
Don't know	0	1	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	2,060	790	430	610	2,700	3,320

Table 4.20: Availability of emergency response items in household by net annual household income

Column percentages, 2015 data

Households	Up to £10,000	£10,001-£20,000	£20,001-£30,000	Over £30,000	All
First aid kit
Yes	46	50	63	74	60
No, could not locate within five minutes	9	7	6	5	7
No, don't have	44	43	31	20	33
Don't know	0	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Torch
Yes	75	80	89	90	85
No, could not locate within five minutes	6	5	4	5	5
No, don't have	18	14	7	5	10
Don't know	1	0	-	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Important documents
Yes	83	83	88	90	86
No, could not locate within five minutes	11	13	10	9	11
No, don't have	5	4	2	1	3
Don't know	1	0	-	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes	29	27	27	34	29
No, could not locate within five minutes	8	6	5	5	5
No, don't have	63	68	68	61	65
Don't know	1	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	380	1,060	710	1,070	3,220