Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2012 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:^[39] 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: 'Improve people's perceptions of their neighbourhood' 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. It then moves on to look at perceptions of the prevalence and experience of anti-social behaviour and perceptions of personal safety within neighbourhoods. It also investigates people's confidence in the police to tackle and prevent crime. Finally, this chapter looks at issues around how engaged people are with their community and how prepared they are for emergency situations.

Main Findings

• More than half (55.2 per cent) of adults rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live. This continues the trend of consistently high ratings, though is a decrease from the figure of 55.9 per cent in 2011.
• Adults living in rural areas of Scotland are more likely to say their neighbourhood is 'very good' (75% of those living in remote rural areas) whilst more strikingly the proportion rating their neighbourhood as very good increases as levels of deprivation decline.
• Overall prevalence of different types of anti-social behaviour is relatively low, though the most commonly perceived problems are animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (30 per cent saying this is very or fairly common in their area) and rubbish or litter lying around (29 per cent).
• Around half of adults say they have not experienced any kind of neighbourhood problems (53 per cent), though this decreases to 43 per cent for those living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland.
• Over four in five (82 per cent) adults say they feel very or fairly safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, with males (90 per cent) more likely to feel safe than females (75 per cent).
• Two thirds (68%) of people feel that the crime rate in their local area is about the same as it was two years ago. Of those who noted a change in crime rate, more people feel that there is now more crime in their local area as opposed to less crime (18% versus 9%).
• Around seven in ten adults are confident in the ability of their local police. Over three quarters (77%) are confident in the ability of police to investigate incidents after they occur, while confidence in the ability of police to prevent crime and to catch criminals is slightly lower (64% and 69% respectively).
• Over three quarters (77%) of adults feel very or fairly strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. People from a white ethnic background are almost twice as likely to feel very strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood compared to those from a non-white ethnic background (35% versus 17%).

Neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high over the past decade, with over nine in ten typically saying their neighbourhood is a fairly or very good place to live (Table 4.1). In 2012, over half (55.2%) of all adults chose the highest rating 'very good', continues the trend of consistently high ratings, though is a decrease from the figure of 55.9 per cent in 2011. Around 6% rated their neighbourhood as being fairly or very poor.

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

Column percentages, 1999-2012 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
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	93.9	93.7
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	55.9	55.2
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	38.0	38.5
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	4.2	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	1.8	1.7	1.7
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	0.3	0.3
All	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	13,780	14,560	14,640	14,040	13,970	14,780	14,070	14,190	10,390	9,310	12,540	12,440	12,890	9,890

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 (75%). In contrast, the percentage of people living in urban areas and accessible towns rating their neighbourhood as a 'very good' place to live ranges between 50% and 60%.

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

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Very good	50	52	60	58	67	75	55
Fairly good	42	42	35	38	30	21	38
Fairly poor	6	5	3	2	1	2	4
Very poor	2	2	2	3	1	2	2
No opinion	0	0	0	-	1	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	3,270	2,990	890	590	1,050	1,100	9,890

However, the variations by levels of deprivation^[40] 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, 26% rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live; though 79% still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live. This proportion rises as deprivation decreases, with 79% 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

2012 data, Adults (base: 9,890; minimum: 810)

Neighbourhood improvements

The final section under Neighbourhoods looks at public perceptions of the extent to which neighbourhoods improved in the preceding three years.

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

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Got much better	5	2	2
Got a little better	17	10	11
Stayed the same	48	68	65
Got a little worse	14	12	12
Got much worse	11	3	4
No opinion	5	4	4
Base	1,400	8,490	9,890

Looking first at Scotland as a whole the prevailing perception (65%) is that things have stayed the same, with those saying things have got worse (16%) slightly outweighing the proportion saying things have improved (13%). However, looking at perceptions of neighbourhood improvements by area deprivation reveals some notable differences. The views of people in the most deprived areas are a bit more polarised than those in the rest of Scotland; they are more likely to say that their neighbourhood has got better (22% versus 12%) and they are more likely to say that it has got worse (25% versus 15%). Just under half (48%) of those in the 15% most deprived areas say things have stayed the same compared with around two-thirds (68%) 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.

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.^[41] Groupings of the nine neighbourhood problems queried through the survey were derived 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 4.4 presents perceptions of the nine neighbourhood problems, listed under the four anti-social behaviour groups identified above. The most prevalent problems are animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling and rubbish or litter lying around, with 30% and 29% 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 (15%) the next most prevalent.

Up to 2010 there had been a trend of gradual improvements in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2010 representing the lowest measures of problems for all categories. The past year in particular has has seen a slight increase for many of the categories, in particular animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling has increased by over four percentage points to 30% in 2012.

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

Percentages, 1999-2012 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
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	11.0	11.5
Groups or individual harassing others	*	*	*	*	*	*	11.4	11.2	11.8	11.5	10.2	8.4	8.3	8.3
Drug misuse or dealing	*	*	*	*	*	*	12.4	12.2	12.4	12.7	12.1	11.0	11.7	12.9
Rowdy behaviour	*	*	*	*	*	*	16.9	16.3	17.3	16.7	16.1	13.8	13.9	14.5
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	10.4	11.6
Neighbour disputes	*	*	*	*	*	*	5.2	5.2	4.9	5.5	5.6	5.5	5.6	6.5
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	24.9	29.2
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	23.7	23.4	25.6	29.7
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	2.1	1.7	1.5	1.2	1.1	1.0
Base	13,780	14,560	14,640	14,040	13,970	14,780	14,070	14,190	10,390	9,310	11,400	11,140	11,280	9,890

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.

Table 4.5 shows across all anti-social behaviour categories that, as areas become more deprived, perceptions of prevalence generally increase. 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 (37% in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 2% in the 10% least deprived areas) and rowdy behaviour (32% down to 7%). Similarly, the rubbish and fouling category shows a high relative difference with rubbish and litter lying around ranging from 47% in the 10% most deprived areas down to 17% in the 10% least deprived areas and similarly for animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (45% down 20%).

Table 4.5: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2012 data

	< 10% most deprived							10% least deprived >
Adults	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Scot- land
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	29	19	17	12	11	7	5	5	6	4	11
Groups or individual harassing others	21	16	14	8	8	4	3	3	3	3	8
Drug misuse or dealing	37	26	21	13	11	7	5	5	2	2	13
Rowdy behaviour	32	26	21	14	14	9	9	9	6	7	15
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	25	20	17	11	12	7	8	5	6	5	12
Neighbour disputes	15	12	9	6	5	5	4	4	2	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	47	40	37	33	31	25	22	23	17	16	29
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	45	40	38	33	29	22	25	23	23	20	30
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	4	2	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1
Base	960	920	970	1,110	1,070	1,080	1,090	1,030	860	810	9,890

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

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 4.6). In particular, those from the social rented sector are more likely to perceive drug misuse or dealing as being a problem in their neighbourhood (27%), or be concerned over issues such as rubbish or dog fouling (39%). This can, at least in part, be seen by the link between social rented housing and deprivation. Over half of households (55%) in the 15% most deprived areas are in the social rented sector, compared with 23% of households overall^[42]. Table 4.7 shows, perceptions of neighbourhood problems decline as age increases.

Table 4.6: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	9	21	11	14	11
Groups or individual harassing others	6	17	8	11	8
Drug misuse or dealing	9	27	8	13	13
Rowdy behaviour	11	25	18	15	15
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	7	22	17	14	12
Neighbour disputes	5	13	5	5	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	26	39	31	32	29
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	28	39	23	25	30
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	3	1	0	1
Base	6,320	2,270	1,160	140	9,890

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

Table 4.7: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by age of respondent

Percentages, 2012 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	13	17	13	11	8	5	11
Groups or individual harassing others	11	12	10	8	5	2	8
Drug misuse or dealing	12	17	14	13	11	7	13
Rowdy behaviour	21	22	16	13	9	4	15
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	20	18	12	10	6	4	12
Neighbour disputes	8	10	7	6	4	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	35	36	29	28	26	18	29
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	29	33	34	29	29	19	30
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	0	2	2	1	1	0	1
Base	780	1,380	1,550	2,460	2,440	1,290	9,890

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

Table 4.8 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 (at least 28%) or animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (at least 30%). 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 19% in large 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 16% in large urban areas to 3% in remote rural areas.

Table 4.8: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2012 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	16	10	11	8	5	3	11
Groups or individual harassing others	10	9	10	6	5	3	8
Drug misuse or dealing	15	14	13	13	7	6	13
Rowdy behaviour	19	14	15	14	7	5	15
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	15	11	11	15	6	3	12
Neighbour disputes	7	7	7	6	5	3	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	35	28	27	26	20	18	29
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	33	30	30	31	22	17	30
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	0	1	1	1
Base	3,270	2,990	890	590	1,050	1,100	9,890

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.

Almost three in ten (29%) adults perceive rubbish or litter lying around to be a problem, though just over two in ten (21%) have actually experienced or seen any.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

2012 data, Adults (base: 9,890)

Table 4.9 to Table 4.11 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 4.9: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	13	5	7
Groups or individual harassing others	8	3	3
Drug misuse or dealing	13	4	6
Rowdy behaviour	18	10	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	18	9	10
Neighbour disputes	9	4	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	28	20	21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	34	27	28
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1
None	43	55	53
Base	1,400	8,490	9,890

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

Table 4.10: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	6	9	6	9	7
Groups or individual harassing others	2	7	4	9	3
Drug misuse or dealing	4	11	5	8	6
Rowdy behaviour	9	16	12	14	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	8	16	12	8	10
Neighbour disputes	4	9	4	6	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	20	23	22	26	21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	28	34	21	24	28
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	-	1
None	56	44	55	51	53
Base	6,320	2,270	1,160	140	9,890

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

Table 4.11: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2012 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	8	7	7	6	3	3	7
Groups or individual harassing others	4	3	5	5	3	2	3
Drug misuse or dealing	7	6	6	6	2	2	6
Rowdy behaviour	14	11	12	14	7	3	11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	12	10	10	12	6	4	10
Neighbour disputes	5	5	5	5	4	4	5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	23	20	20	26	16	17	21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	28	29	33	36	25	22	28
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	2	2	1	1
None	51	54	52	46	58	62	53
Base	3,270	2,990	890	590	1,050	1,100	9,890

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

Crime

Fear of crime

This section looks firstly 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". The final part of this section investigates reasons for discrimination and harassment.

Over four in five adults (82%) say they feel very or fairly safe while walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark, whilst almost all (98%) say they feel safe when they are alone in their home at night (Table 4.12).

There is relatively little variation by gender and age for those feeling safe in their home though comparative 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 three quarters (75%) of females saying they would feel fairly or very safe compared to 90% 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 (28% of those aged 75 and over say they feel either very or a bit unsafe).

Table 4.12: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by gender and age

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	90	75	83	85	86	84	79	68	82
Very / A bit unsafe	9	24	16	15	14	15	19	28	17
Don't Know	1	2	1	1	0	0	2	5	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,290	5,190	770	1,370	1,540	2,410	2,320	1,060	9,480
At home
Very / Fairly safe	99	97	97	97	98	98	98	97	98
Very / A bit unsafe	1	3	3	2	2	2	2	2	2
Don't Know	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,410	5,490	780	1,380	1,550	2,460	2,440	1,290	9,890

Walking alone estimates are not directly comparable with 2011. 'Not applicable' was added to the response options and it appears as though a number of the don't knows are now in that category. Responses of n/a are therefore excluded from the analysis.

Table 4.13 compares perceptions of safety in the most deprived 15% of areas with perceptions in the rest of Scotland. A clear pattern is evident; 66% of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe when walking alone compared with over four in five (85%) of those elsewhere in Scotland. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe is more than twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (33% and 14% 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 4.13: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	66	85	82
Very / A bit unsafe	33	14	17
Don't Know	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,320	8,160	9,480
At home
Very / Fairly safe	95	98	98
Very / A bit unsafe	5	2	2
Don't Know	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,400	8,490	9,890

Walking alone estimates are not directly comparable with 2011.

Whether a person has some form of long-standing limiting illness, health problem or disability appears to have an association with feeling of safety. Over four in five adults (86%) with no illness or disability feel safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, whilst around a quarter 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 4.14: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by disability

Column percentages, 2012 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	72	76	66	86	83
Very / A bit unsafe	25	23	31	14	16
Don't Know	3	2	3	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	360	950	460	4,620	6,390
At home
Very / Fairly safe	94	97	95	98	98
Very / A bit unsafe	6	3	5	2	2
Don't Know	1	-	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	420	1,020	560	4,690	6,680

Walking alone estimates are not directly comparable with 2011.

When examining overall neighbourhood perceptions there is a strong correspondence between overall ratings of neighbourhood and the feeling of safety in the neighbourhood. Of those who rated their neighbourhood as either fairly poor or very poor, one in five said they felt very or a bit unsafe in their home at night.

Table 4.15: 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, 2012 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	89	78	52	43	*	82
Very / A bit unsafe	10	21	48	56	*	17
Don't Know	1	1	0	1	*	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	5,400	3,490	400	170	20	9,480
At home
Very / Fairly safe	99	98	91	79	*	98
Very / A bit unsafe	1	2	9	21	*	2
Don't Know	0	0	-	-	*	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	5,650	3,620	420	180	20	9,890

Walking alone estimates are not directly comparable with 2011.

There is evidence that those people who have experienced groups or individuals intimidating or harassing them of having feelings of being more unsafe. Just under half (45%) who have experienced harassment say they feel a bit or very unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, compared to 16% for those who have not.

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

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Have experienced harassment	Have not experienced harassment	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	54	83	82
Very / A bit unsafe	45	16	17
Don't Know	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100
Base	320	9,150	9,480
At home
Very / Fairly safe	89	98	98
Very / A bit unsafe	11	2	2
Don't Know	-	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	330	9,570	9,890

Walking alone estimates are not directly comparable with 2011.

Almost one in ten (9%) adults in Scotland reported having been harassed or discriminated against. Table 4.17 shows that almost three in ten (28%) of those who have been harassed or discriminated against reported that they were discriminated against because of their ethnic group and this was the most common response given. After ethnic group, age was the next most common reason and was given by just over one in ten (11%).

Table 4.17: Reasons for discrimination or harassment

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults who have been harassed or discriminated against
Ethnic group	28
Age	11
Disability	7
Gender	7
Religion	6
Sexual orientation	2
Different accent/not Scottish/not local	2
Appearance	1
Random violence/hooliganism	0
Other	39
Don't know	5
Refused	0
Base	810

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

Perception of crime

This section looks at adults perceptions of how the crime rate in their local area has changed compared to two years ago and also investigates levels of confidence in the ability of the police.

Table 4.18 shows that two thirds (68%) of people feel that the crime rate has remained about the same as it was two years ago. Of those who noted a change in crime rate, more people feel that there is now more crime in their local area as opposed to less crime (18% versus 9%). The views of people in the 15% most deprived areas are a bit more polarised than those in the rest of Scotland; they are more likely to say that there is more crime in their area (25% versus 18%) but are also more likely to say that there is less crime (14% versus 7%). Just over half (54%) of those in the most deprived areas say things have stayed the same compared with over two-thirds (70%) in the rest of Scotland.

Table 4.18: Change in crime rate compared to two years ago by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	All
A lot more	10	4	4
A little more	15	14	14
About the same	54	70	68
A little less	10	6	7
A lot less	4	1	2
Don't know	7	5	5
All	100	100	100
Base	1,150	7,100	8,240

Table 4.19 displays the percentage of people who are either very or fairly confident in the ability of local police in tackling crime. Around seven in ten adults are confident in the ability of their local police. Over three quarters (77%) are confident in the ability of police to investigate incidents after they occur, while confidence in the ability of police to prevent crime and to catch criminals is slightly lower (64% and 69% respectively). It can be seen that confidence generally decreases with age, with the exception being the 75+ group for which levels of confidence are high.

Table 4.19: Percentage of people saying they are very/fairly confident in the police by gender and age

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Prevent crime	63	64	73	63	60	60	61	73	64
Respond quickly to appropriate calls and information from public	72	75	80	76	74	69	69	80	74
Deal with incidents as they occur	74	77	80	77	76	72	72	82	75
Investigate incidents after they occur	76	78	81	76	78	75	75	82	77
Solve crimes	69	73	78	72	71	67	69	77	71
Catch criminals	68	69	76	70	67	65	67	74	69
Base	3,760	4,500	660	1,170	1,360	2,110	2,010	940	8,280

Confidence in the police is lower in the 15% most deprived areas compared to the rest of Scotland (Table 4.20). In particular, only 56% of people in the most deprived areas are confident in the ability of the police to catch criminals, compared with almost two thirds (65%) of people in the rest of Scotland.

Table 4.20: Percentage of people saying they are very/fairly confident in the police by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	All
Prevent crime	56	65	64
Respond quickly to appropriate calls and information from public	67	75	74
Deal with incidents as they occur	70	76	75
Investigate incidents after they occur	71	78	77
Solve crimes	66	72	71
Catch criminals	64	70	69
Base	1,180	7,100	8,280

Community Engagement and Resilience

It is of interest to investigate how strongly individuals feel they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. It can be seen in Table 4.21 that over three quarters (77%) of adults feel very or fairly strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. People from a white ethnic background are almost twice as likely to feel very strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood compared to those from a non-white ethnic background (35% versus 17%). Similarly, those from a non-white ethnic background are twice as likely to feel not all strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood (13% versus 6%).

Table 4.21: Strength of feeling of belonging to community by ethnicity

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	White	Non-white	All
Very strongly	35	17	34
Fairly strongly	43	45	43
Not very strongly	15	22	16
Not at all strongly	6	13	6
Don't know	1	2	1
Total	100	100	100
Base	9,630	260	9,890

It can be seen in Table 4.22 that the strength of feeling of belonging increases with age, with over half (53%) of those aged 75+ saying that they feel very strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood compared to less than a quarter of those aged 16-24 (22%).

Table 4.22: Strength of feeling of belonging to community by gender and age

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Very strongly	32	36	22	21	29	35	47	53	34
Fairly strongly	44	43	48	47	47	42	39	36	43
Not very strongly	17	15	21	20	16	16	10	9	16
Not at all strongly	6	6	8	10	7	5	4	2	6
Don't know	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,410	5,490	780	1,380	1,550	2,460	2,440	1,290	9,890

Differences can also be seen when looking at deprivation. Table 4.23 shows that those living in the 15% most deprived areas are twice as likely to say that they feel not at all strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood compared to those in the rest of Scotland (11% versus 5%).

Table 4.23: Strength of feeling of belonging to community by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2012 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	All
Very strongly	29	35	34
Fairly strongly	41	44	43
Not very strongly	17	15	16
Not at all strongly	11	5	6
Don't know	1	1	1
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,400	8,490	9,890

Resilience

Table 4.24 shows that around nine in ten people agree that they could rely on friend/relatives in the neighbourhood for help, to look after their home or for advice or support. Nearly all respondents (95%) said that they would offer to help their neighbourhoods in an emergency, while only two per cent disagreed with this statement.

Table 4.24: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhood

Percentages, 2012 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	70	20	4	4	1	9,890
Could rely on friends/relatives in neighbourhood to look after home	74	17	3	4	2	9,890
Could turn to friends/relatives in neighbourhood for advice or support	68	20	5	6	2	9,890
Would offer help to neighbours in an emergency	78	17	3	1	1	9,890

Ready Scotland is a suite of guidance which sets out a recommended approach to preparing for and dealing with emergencies.^[43] From January 2012, the SHS incorporated three separate questions to help support the work of Ready Scotland. As noted in Table 4.24, 78% of adults said they strongly agree they would offer help to neighbours in an emergency. This provides strong evidence of a willingness and ability to help in an emergency, reinforcing the concept of helping neighbours and feeling of belonging to the community.

Householders were also asked about how prepared they think the household is for periods of major disruption, such as a period of severe weather. Table 4.25 shows that 2% of households think their household would not have enough food in their household to eat without going to the shops that same day. Over half (57%) of households feel they could last six days or more.

Table 4.25: Number of days could last on food supplies in emergency by tenure of household

Column percentages, 2012 data

Households	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	All
0	1	3	3	2
1-2	8	15	19	11
3-5	27	36	35	30
6-9	38	29	32	35
10-15	17	12	7	15
16-25	4	2	2	3
26 or more	4	2	1	4
Total	100	100	100	100
Mean	8.1	6.4	5.7	7.4
Base	1,750	590	270	2,640

There are apparent differences when looking at different tenure types, with those in the private rented sector, and to a lesser extent those in the social rented sector, more likely to say they can only last a short period of time (average of 5.7 days) compared to those in owner occupied housing (average 8.1 days). Four per cent of households feel they could last for 26 days or more, mostly with those in owner occupied housing.

Differences are also evident when looking at household income (Table 4.26), as those with lower incomes feel they cannot last as long (6.7 days for those with an income of up to £10,000) compared to higher incomes.

Table 4.26: Number of days could last on food supplies in emergency by net annual household income

Column percentages, 2012 data

Households	Up to £10,000	£10,001 - £20,000	£20,001 - £30,000	Over £30,000	All
0	6	1	1	1	2
1-2	14	12	10	9	11
3-5	31	30	29	30	30
6-9	29	35	38	38	36
10-15	15	15	13	15	15
16-25	2	3	5	3	3
26 or more	3	3	4	4	4
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Mean	6.7	7.4	7.9	7.7	7.4
Base	350	870	550	770	2,640

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

It is recognised that emergencies can happen at any time, and that there are a few small steps that householders can take to prepare their family and home for the unexpected things that can cause disruption to daily lives. Table 4.27 shows that almost a third (31%) of households do not have a first aid kit, a particular problem in social rented housing where over a half (51%) do not have one.

Table 4.27: Availability of emergency response items in household by tenure of household

Column percentages, 2012 data

Households	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	All
First aid kit
Yes	70	43	49	61
No, could not locate within five minutes	7	5	8	7
No, don't have	23	51	41	31
Don't know	0	1	1	1
All	100	100	100	100
Torch
Yes	89	65	68	81
No, could not locate within five minutes	5	7	4	6
No, don't have	5	28	27	13
Don't know	1	1	1	1
All	100	100	100	100
Important documents
Yes	88	79	81	85
No, could not locate within five minutes	10	13	10	11
No, don't have	1	6	8	3
Don't know	0	1	1	1
All	100	100	100	100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes	36	22	30	32
No, could not locate within five minutes	9	5	8	8
No, don't have	55	72	61	59
Don't know	0	1	1	1
All	100	100	100	100
Base	1,750	590	270	2,640

Almost all households say they could easily access important documents, such as birth certificates and insurance policies, within five minutes (86%) though around one-in-ten (11%) say they have the documents but could not locate them easily. Eight per cent of households in the private rented sector say they do not have such important documents at all.

Table 4.28: Availability of emergency response items in household by net annual household income

Column percentages, 2012 data

Households	Up to £10,000	£10,001 - £20,000	£20,001 - £30,000	Over £30,000	All
First aid kit
Yes	44	53	67	74	62
No, could not locate within five minutes	6	8	7	6	7
No, don't have	49	37	26	20	31
Don't know	1	1	-	-	1
All	100	100	100	100	100
Torch
Yes	74	77	83	88	81
No, could not locate within five minutes	4	6	5	5	5
No, don't have	21	16	11	6	13
Don't know	0	1	0	0	1
All	100	100	100	100	100
Important documents
Yes	80	84	87	89	86
No, could not locate within five minutes	12	11	10	10	11
No, don't have	5	4	2	1	3
Don't know	2	1	0	-	1
All	100	100	100	100	100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes	25	29	33	37	32
No, could not locate within five minutes	6	8	8	8	8
No, don't have	68	61	59	55	60
Don't know	1	1	0	1	1
All	100	100	100	100	100
Base	350	870	550	770	2,640

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

There are also notable differences when looking at income, with those from lower income households less likely to either have or be able to locate easily emergency response items. IN particular, around half (49%) of those households with a net annual household income of less than £10,000 saying they do not have a first aid kit.