Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2011 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:^[41] 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 to help understand what makes a neighbourhood a good place to live. It then moves on to look at perceptions of the prevalence and experience of anti-social behaviour. Finally, it looks at the perceptions of personal safety within neighbourhoods.

Main Findings

• More than half (55.9%) of adults rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live, continuing a rising trend seen over recent years.
• 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.
• Three quarters of adults (75%) of adults say they like the sense of community in their neighbourhood, whilst only 22% say they have good public transport in their neighbourhood. Over a quarter (27%) of adults particularly dislike the unpleasant environment they live in.
• 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 (26% saying this is very or fairly common in their area) and rubbish or litter lying around (25%). Perception of vandalism such as graffiti or damage to property (11 per cent) continues to decrease year on year.
• Around three fifths of adults say they have not experienced any kind of neighbourhood problems (58%), though this decreases to 45% for those living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland.
• More than three quarters of adults say they feel very or fairly safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, with males (90%) more likely to feel safe than females (67%).

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 2011, over half (55.9%) of all adults chose the highest rating 'very good', the highest rating since the SHS first started collecting this information in 1999. Just under 6% rated their neighbourhood as being fairly or very poor, again the lowest recorded.

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

Column percentages, 1999-2011 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
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
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
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
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
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
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
All	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	13,782	14,557	14,643	14,042	13,968	14,778	14,071	14,190	10,385	9,314	12,543	12,439	12,893

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 61%.

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

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Very good	50	52	61	66	69	75	56
Fairly good	43	41	34	31	28	22	38
Fairly poor	5	5	2	2	2	2	4
Very poor	2	2	2	1	1	1	2
No opinion	0	0	1	1	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,523	3,939	1,111	716	1,384	1,218	12,891

However, the variations by levels of deprivation^[42] 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, 24% rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live; though 80% still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live. This proportion rises as deprivation decreases, with 80% 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

2011 data, Adults (base: 12,881; minimum: 1,074)

Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked and disliked

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods are a useful snapshot of general perceptions but additional insights can be gained from asking people what aspects of their neighbourhood they particularly like and dislike.

Respondents to the SHS are asked to mention spontaneously any aspects of their neighbourhood which they particularly like or dislike, and their answers are then coded using a list comprised of 31 'likes' and 34 'dislikes' that has been developed over the years. The items mentioned as positive and negative aspects of neighbourhoods have been grouped further into the following themes (see Annex 2 for full details of the coding):

Positive aspects Pleasant environment Safe environment Good public transport Good amenities Sense of community / friendly people

Negative aspects Unpleasant environment Unsafe environment Poor public transport Poor amenities No sense of community / Problem residents / Substance abuse

Table 4.3 presents the groups of positive aspects people mentioned by their overall neighbourhood rating. On the whole the way in which people rate their neighbourhood overall conforms well to how they rate specific aspects of it. For example, the proportion who say there is nothing they particularly like about their neighbourhood increases sharply as neighbourhood ratings decline, from just 1% in the group who rate their neighbourhood as very good to 49% in the group who rate it as very poor. Interestingly, of those who rate their neighbourhood as very poor just 2% also say there neighbourhood is a safe environment.

Generally, as rating of neighbourhood declines (from very good down to very poor), those saying they like the different aspects of their neighbourhood also decreases. In particular, there is a clear pattern of how liking the sense of community or the friendly people in the neighbourhood is linked with neighbourhood rating. Views on whether or not public transport is good do not appear to be as strongly related to overall neighbourhood ratings as the other four main aspects are.

Table 4.3: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Pleasant environment	66	54	45	24	*	60
Safe environment	31	15	2	2	*	23
Good public transport	21	25	24	18	*	22
Good amenities	49	40	28	20	*	44
Sense of community / friendly people	85	67	36	22	*	75
Other	2	3	2	3	*	2
None	1	5	21	49	*	4
Base	5,623	3,447	395	161	31	9,657

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

Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 present these positive aspects according to the type of area in which people live, based on the urban rural classification, and its level of deprivation. The findings in relation to area type are as might be expected. People in rural areas (especially remote) have more positive views in terms of the extent to which their neighbourhoods are pleasant or safe, but are less likely than people in the other types of area to mention having good public transport (2% in remote rural areas compared to 32% in large urban areas). In contrast, people in large urban areas are the least likely to mention aspects relating to the sense of community or friendliness of local people (67%).

Table 4.4: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Pleasant environment	61	58	56	65	62	68	60
Safe environment	19	21	27	31	31	38	23
Good public transport	32	22	18	14	9	2	22
Good amenities	43	44	53	49	41	46	44
Sense of community / friendly people	67	75	81	79	85	91	75
Other	3	2	2	0	2	2	2
None	4	5	5	4	2	1	4
Base	3,402	2,917	839	539	1,059	899	9,655

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

People living in the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland are less likely than those living elsewhere to mention that their local neighbourhood is pleasant, safe, or has a sense of community and friendly people. Similarly, 9% of people in the most deprived areas say they like nothing about their neighbourhood compared with just 3% in the rest of Scotland.

Table 4.5: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly liked by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Pleasant environment	49	62	60
Safe environment	9	26	23
Good public transport	27	22	22
Good amenities	42	45	44
Sense of community / friendly people	66	76	75
Other	2	2	2
None	9	3	4
Base	1,388	8,262	9,650

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

Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked

As was the case with the positive aspects presented above, when examining overall neighbourhood perceptions and dislikes there is a strong correspondence between overall ratings and mentions of particular negative aspects (Table 4.6). In particular, 9% of those who rate their neighbourhood as very good say it lacks a sense of community or has problems with residents or substance abuse compared with 84% of those who say their neighbourhood is a very poor place to live. This pattern can be seen, to varying degrees across all neighbourhood aspects with the exception of perceptions of public transport, which appears to be unrelated to overall perceptions.

Table 4.6: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Unpleasant environment	21	32	50	60	*	27
Unsafe environment	1	3	22	39	*	3
Poor public transport	6	5	6	7	*	6
Poor amenities	10	14	22	27	*	13
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse	9	27	70	84	*	20
Other	3	3	6	4	*	3
None	52	34	8	2	*	43
Base	5,623	3,447	395	161	31	9,657

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

Table 4.7 to an extent mirrors Table 4.6 above, with people in remote rural areas being the least likely to mention aspects of their neighbourhood as unpleasant or lacking a community or having problems with local residents or substance abuse. Sixteen per cent of those in remote rural areas dislike the unpleasant environment they live within, compared to 32% in large urban areas. There is much less variation between people in the different areas when it comes to what they dislike compared with what they like. This in part reflects the fact that the proportions mentioning particular things they dislike about their neighbourhood are generally lower than the corresponding proportions mentioning positive aspects. The main exception is again transport issues, with those in remote rural areas (16%) noting poor public transport as an issue, compared to less than 5% in urban areas.

Table 4.7: Aspects of neighbourhood particularly disliked by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Large urban areas	Other urban areas	Accessible small towns	Remote small towns	Accessible rural	Remote rural	Scotland
Unpleasant environment	32	26	24	25	22	16	27
Unsafe environment	5	4	1	0	1	1	3
Poor public transport	4	3	7	4	15	16	6
Poor amenities	12	12	14	8	15	17	13
No sense of community / problem residents / substance abuse	23	22	18	14	10	9	20
Other	3	2	3	2	4	8	3
None	39	45	46	52	44	45	43
Base	3,402	2,917	839	539	1,059	899	9,655

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

Table 4.8 presents the neighbourhood aspects particularly disliked by people in the 15% most deprived of areas and by those in the rest of Scotland. As seen previously with analysis presented looking at positive aspects, there is relatively less variation between the areas when it comes to aspects such as public transport and amenities, and much more in relation to aspects such as the safety of the neighbourhood. Most strikingly, over four in ten (40%) of those in the 15% most deprived of areas mention that their neighbourhood has no sense of community or problems with residents or substance abuse compared with 16% of those in the rest of Scotland.

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

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Unpleasant environment	34	26	27
Unsafe environment	8	2	3
Poor public transport	4	6	6
Poor amenities	15	12	12
No sense of community / problem   residents / substance abuse	40	16	20
Other	3	3	3
None	32	44	43
Base	1,388	8,262	9,650

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

Neighbourhood improvements

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

Table 4.9: Perceptions of neighbourhood improvements in past three years by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Got much better	5	2	2
Got a little better	17	9	10
Stayed the same	52	70	68
Got a little worse	12	11	11
Got much worse	9	4	4
No opinion	5	5	5
Base	1,388	8,262	9,650

Looking first at Scotland as a whole the prevailing perception (68%) is that things have stayed the same, with those saying things have got worse (15%) slightly outweighing the proportion saying things have improved (12%). However, looking at perceptions of neighbourhood improvements by area deprivation reveals some notable differences. The views of people in the most deprived areas are 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 11%) and they are more likely to say that it has got worse (21% versus 15%). Just over half (52%) of those in the 15% most deprived areas say things have stayed the same compared with over two-thirds (70%) 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.^[43] 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 4.10 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 26% and 25% respectively saying this is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood, After rubbish and fouling, the most common issues fall under the 'general anti-social behaviour' category with rowdy behaviour (14%) the 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. However, in 2011 many of the categories have seen a slight increase, in particular with animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling increasing by over two percentage points to 27% in 2011.

Table 4.10: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood

Percentages, 1999-2011 data

Adults	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
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
Groups or individual harassing others	*	*	*	*	*	*	11.4	11.2	11.8	11.5	10.2	8.4	8.3
Drug misuse or dealing	*	*	*	*	*	*	12.4	12.2	12.4	12.7	12.1	11.0	11.7
Rowdy behaviour	*	*	*	*	*	*	16.9	16.3	17.3	16.7	16.1	13.8	13.9
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
Neighbour disputes	*	*	*	*	*	*	5.2	5.2	4.9	5.5	5.6	5.5	5.6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	29.8	28.8	29.1	30.8	29.1	29.1	27.2	27.1	29.1	29.2	26.3	24.4	24.9
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	23.7	23.4	25.6
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	2.1	1.7	1.5	1.2	1.1
Base	13,780	14,557	14,643	14,042	13,966	14,777	14,071	14,190	10,385	9,314	11,396	11,140	11,279

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

Many of the response categories are not comparable across all years, with most of them either changed or added in 2005 and 2007.

Although the overall prevalence of these neighbourhood problems is relatively low, the extent to which different types of people and different types of community experiences them varies quite markedly.

Table 4.11 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 (31% in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 3% in the 10% least deprived areas) and rowdy behaviour (33% down to 7%). Similarly, the rubbish and fouling category shows a high relative difference with rubbish and litter lying around ranging from 44% in the 10% most deprived areas down to 17% in the 10% least deprived areas and similar for animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (39% down 15%).

Table 4.11: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	← 10%  most deprived									10%  least deprived →
Adults	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Scotland
General anti-social  behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	26	21	13	12	11	6	5	5	6	5	11
Groups or individual harassing others	21	18	12	9	9	4	3	3	3	3	8
Drug misuse or dealing	31	25	19	14	10	6	4	3	3	3	12
Rowdy behaviour	33	25	19	16	14	8	6	6	6	7	14
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties	22	17	15	13	10	8	5	5	5	3	10
Neighbour disputes	13	10	9	5	5	3	3	3	2	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	44	38	31	29	26	20	17	14	16	17	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	39	39	32	29	27	23	18	16	18	15	26
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	4	2	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1
Base	1,052	1,061	1,134	1,300	1,238	1,233	1,068	1,219	1,027	936	11,268

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 4.12). In particular, those from the social rented sector are more likely to perceive drug misuse or dealing as being a problem in their neighbourhood (26%), or be concerned over issues such as rubbish or dog fouling (33%). This can, at least in part, be seen by the link between social rented housing and deprivation. Over half of households (56%) in the 15% most deprived areas are in the social rented sector, compared with 23% of households overall^[44]. Table 4.13 shows, perceptions of neighbourhood problems decline as age increases.

Table 4.12: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	9	19	9	8	11
Groups or individual harassing others	6	17	7	8	8
Drug misuse or dealing	8	26	10	14	12
Rowdy behaviour	10	24	20	12	14
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	7	20	16	9	10
Neighbour disputes	4	12	6	3	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	22	34	25	29	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	24	34	19	23	26
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	2	1	3	1
Base	7,312	2,647	1,134	186	11,279

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

Table 4.13: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by age of respondent

Percentages, 2011 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	14	13	13	11	8	5	11
Groups or individual harassing others	12	12	9	9	4	3	8
Drug misuse or dealing	15	14	13	12	8	6	12
Rowdy behaviour	23	20	15	12	8	5	14
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	17	16	11	9	5	3	10
Neighbour disputes	9	8	6	5	3	2	6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	30	31	27	23	22	15	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	23	29	30	26	24	18	26
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1	1	1	0	1
Base	913	1,532	1,795	2,812	2,705	1,522	11,279

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

Table 4.14 shows that perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems are, in almost all cases, more likely to be perceived to be common by people living in urban areas as compared to those from rural areas. Those living in urban areas are more likely to be concerned by rubbish or litter lying around (at least 25%) or animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (at least 26%). 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 17% in large urban areas, compared with 4% 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 4% in remote rural areas.

Table 4.14: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2011 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	8	5	5	4	11
Groups or individual harassing others	10	10	6	5	4	3	8
Drug misuse or dealing	13	13	13	9	6	5	12
Rowdy behaviour	17	16	12	10	5	4	14
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	14	10	8	9	3	4	10
Neighbour disputes	6	6	5	3	3	3	6
Rubbish  and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	31	25	22	19	14	12	25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	29	26	27	23	20	16	26
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Base	3,935	3,419	992	645	1,211	1,075	11,277

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

Personal experience of neighbourhood problems

The previous section focused on perceptions of neighbourhood problems. Figure 4.2 compares perception and actual experience of those problems, presenting the proportions of people who say that each problem is very or fairly common in their area as well as the proportion who say they experienced each problem in their neighbourhood in the previous year.

The key thing to note is that, in most cases, perceptions outstrip reported experiences of each problem. In other words, some adults who said they perceive a particular anti-social behaviour to be common have not experienced it themselves. Of course it is not always necessary to have direct personal experience of some issues to know or perceive that they are a particular problem in an area. For example in the case of vandalism, a person may not have experienced vandalism to their property, but could well have seen property that has been vandalised in their neighbourhood.

Another example is drug misuse or drug dealing, which might involve a small number of people in an area directly, but the paraphernalia associated with drug misuse will be visible to people living in the area where it takes place and those dealing in drugs may be known to local residents.

It should also be borne in mind that experience is self-defined so that, for example, one respondent may say they have experienced drug dealing because they have seen it taking place, while another's experience may be of being offered drugs by a dealer.

One quarter (25%) of adults perceive rubbish or litter lying around to be a problem, though less than one fifth (19%) have actually experienced or seen any.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

2011 data, Adults (base: 11,279)

Table 4.15 to Table 4.17 present the proportions of people who say they have experienced each of these problems by area deprivation, housing tenure and urban rural classification. As found above in relation to perceptions of neighbourhood problems, experience of these problems is generally greatest among people in the most deprived 15% of neighbourhoods, in social rented housing and in urban areas.

Table 4.15: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	13	6	7
Groups or individual harassing others	10	3	4
Drug misuse or dealing	13	4	5
Rowdy behaviour	21	9	11
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	17	8	9
Neighbour disputes	9	4	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	28	17	18
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	30	23	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	2	1	1
None	45	60	58
Base	1,617	9,651	11,268

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

Table 4.16: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Owner occupied	Social rented	Private rented	Other	All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	6	11	6	6	7
Groups or individual harassing others	3	8	4	6	4
Drug misuse or dealing	4	12	6	6	5
Rowdy behaviour	8	17	16	15	11
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	7	16	13	10	9
Neighbour disputes	3	9	6	3	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	17	22	19	25	18
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog   fouling	24	27	18	24	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	6	1
None	60	50	61	64	59
Base	7,312	2,647	1,134	186	11,279

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

Table 4.17: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2011 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	9	7	5	6	3	2	7
Groups or individual harassing others	5	5	3	4	2	1	4
Drug misuse or dealing	6	7	5	4	2	2	5
Rowdy behaviour	13	12	10	10	6	3	11
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	12	10	7	7	3	4	9
Neighbour disputes	5	5	4	5	3	3	5
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	23	17	13	16	14	10	18
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	26	23	27	25	19	18	24
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	1	1	1	0	1	1	1
None	52	58	58	58	68	73	58
Base	3,935	3,419	992	645	1,211	1,075	11,277

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

Reporting neighbourhood problems

Table 4.18 examines the proportion of people who say they have experienced a problem and have also reported it (for example to the council or police). Only those who had experienced a problem were asked whether they had reported the issue.

Around one in six people who say that animal nuisance is a problem or that litter is a common problem have reported it (15% and 18% respectively) compared to over two in five who have reported problems such as individuals/groups harassing people (44%) and vandalism (43%). It is not possible to conclude from this why such a difference might exist, but it could reflect differences in people's perceptions of the impact or significance of problems. For example there may be an acceptance that lesser issues such rubbish or lying around will routinely be remedied by regular street cleaning activities, rather than needing a specific intervention.

Table 4.18: Whether respondent has reported a neighbourhood problem to anyone in the last 12 months

Percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Has reported problem	Base
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property	43	714
Groups or individual harassing others	44	437
Drug misuse or dealing	23	569
Rowdy behaviour	25	1,158
Neighbour problem
Noisy neighbours/loud parties	34	963
Neighbour disputes	38	522
Rubbish or fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around	18	1,914
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling	15	2,614
Vehicle
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles	29	114

Table 4.19 shows the extent to which adults are either satisfied or dissatisfied with what local agencies are doing in tackling anti-social behaviour in their area. Those providing no opinion on each of the agencies varies considerably, and perhaps reflects the level of understanding people have on what each agency can do to tackle anti-social behaviour issues.

Over half (52%) of adults are either fairly or very satisfied with what the police are doing to tackle anti-social behaviour, with 38% saying similarly for the council. The other agencies show much higher levels of no opinion being offered.

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

Row percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Very satisfied	Fairly satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Fairly dis-satisfied	Very dissatisfied	No opinion	All	Base
The police	16	36	12	6	5	24	100	11,279
The Council	9	29	14	8	6	33	100	11,279
Housing associations	4	11	12	2	2	68	100	11,279
Landlords or other property owners	5	12	13	2	2	67	100	11,279
Other agencies or institutions	3	7	12	1	1	77	100	11,279

Fear of Crime

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

Over three quarters of adults (78%) say they feel very or fairly safe while walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark, whilst almost all (97%) say they feel safe when they are alone in their home at night (Table 4.20).

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 two thirds (67%) 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 (27% of those aged 75 and over say they feel either very or a bit unsafe).

Table 4.20: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by gender and age

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Male	Female	16-24	25-34	35-44	45-59	60-74	75+	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	90	67	81	82	82	82	74	60	78
Very / A bit unsafe	8	29	19	18	17	17	21	27	19
Don't Know	2	4	1	0	1	2	5	13	3
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,165	5,498	774	1,313	1,536	2,422	2,327	1,291	9,663
At home
Very / Fairly safe	99	95	95	96	98	97	97	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	1	5	5	4	2	2	2	2	3
Don't Know	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Base	4,165	5,498	774	1,313	1,536	2,422	2,327	1,291	9,663

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

Table 4.21 compares perceptions of safety in the most deprived 15% of areas with perceptions in the rest of Scotland. A clear pattern is evident; 65% of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe when walking alone compared with around four in five (81%) of those elsewhere in Scotland. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe at all is almost twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (32% and 17% respectively). There is also evidence of those living in the most deprived areas of Scotland feeling less sure about being safe in their home alone at night (6% feel a bit or very unsafe, compared to 2% from the rest of Scotland).

Table 4.21: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	15% most deprived	Rest of Scotland	Scotland
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	65	81	78
Very / A bit unsafe	32	17	19
Don't Know	3	3	3
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,387	8,264	9,651
At home
Very / Fairly safe	94	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	6	2	3
Don't Know	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	1,387	8,264	9,651

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

Whether a person has some form of long-standing limiting illness, health problem or disability appears to have an association with feeling of safety. Almost four in five adults (78%) with no illness or disability feel safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, whilst around three in ten 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 and focused more on those people who have more severe health problems.

Table 4.22: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by disability

Column percentages, 2011 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	64	68	61	83	78
Very / A bit unsafe	28	27	31	16	19
Don't Know	7	5	9	1	3
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	666	1,404	918	6,674	9,662
At home
Very / Fairly safe	96	96	93	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	4	4	6	2	3
Don't Know	0	0	1	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Base	666	1,404	918	6,674	9,662

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

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

Table 4.23: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by rating of neighbourhood as a place to live

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Very good	Fairly good	Fairly poor	Very poor	No opinion	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	84	75	55	30	*	78
Very / A bit unsafe	13	23	42	69	*	19
Don't Know	3	3	3	2	*	3
Total	100	100	100	100	*	100
Base	5,619	3,448	400	165	31	9,663
At home
Very / Fairly safe	98	96	91	77	*	97
Very / A bit unsafe	1	3	9	23	*	3
Don't Know	0	0	0	-	*	0
Total	100	100	100	100	*	100
Base	5,619	3,448	400	165	31	9,663

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

There is evidence that those people who have experienced groups or individuals intimidating or harassing them of having feelings of being more unsafe. Just under half (49%) who have experienced harassment say they feel a bit or very unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, compared to 17% for those who have not.

Table 4.24: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by experience of harassment

Column percentages, 2011 data

Adults	Have experienced harassment	Have not experienced harassment	All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe	50	80	78
Very / A bit unsafe	49	17	19
Don't Know	0	3	3
Total	100	100	100
Base	316	7,733	8,049
At home
Very / Fairly safe	84	97	97
Very / A bit unsafe	16	2	3
Don't Know	-	0	0
Total	100	100	100
Base	316	7,733	8,049

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