Publication - Statistics

Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2012 Scottish Household Survey

Published: 28 Aug 2013
Part of:
Statistics
ISBN:
9781782568582

A National Statistics publication for Scotland, providing reliable and up-to-date information on the composition, characteristics, behaviour and attitudes of Scottish households and adults across a number of topic areas including local government, neighbourhoods and transport.

203 page PDF

5.6 MB

203 page PDF

5.6 MB

Supporting files

Contents
Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2012 Scottish Household Survey
4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

203 page PDF

5.6 MB

Supporting files

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)

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

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)

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

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.


Contact

Email: Nic Krzyzanowski