Scottish Household Survey 2025 findings: Neighbourhoods and Communities

Communities

In 2025, people were more positive about the people-based features of their neighbourhood (such as kindness and trust) and less positive about the physical aspects of their neighbourhoods (such as the availability of places to socialise and meet new people).

Since 2024 there has been a fall in agreement that there are welcoming places and opportunities to meet new people. However, all of the people based features of neighbourhoods, such as kindness and trust, have remained stable. None of the measures saw improvement from 2024.

People based aspects of neighbourhoods

In 2025, 83% agreed with the statement that “this is a neighbourhood where people are kind to each other”, and 79% agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where most people can be trusted” (Table 11). Seventy-eight percent of adults felt a ‘very strong’ or ‘fairly strong’ sense of belonging to their community (Table 21).

Since 2024 all of these measures have remained stable. In 2025, 76% of adults agreed with the statement “I feel I could turn to someone in this neighbourhood for advice or support”, stable from 75% in 2024. Eighty-nine percent agreed that “In an emergency, such as a flood, I would offer to help people in my neighbourhood who might not be able to cope well”, stable from 89% in 2024 (Table 28).

Sixty-nine percent agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where people from different backgrounds get on well together” (stable from 70% in 2024), and 60% agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where local people take action to help improve the neighbourhood”, stable from 59% in 2024 (Table 11).

Physical aspects of neighbourhoods

Fifty-three percent agreed that “there are welcoming places and opportunities to meet new people”, a decline from 56% in 2024. Fifty-nine percent agreed that “there are places where people can meet up and socialise” (stable from 60% in 2024) (Table 11).

Differences between places and sub-groups

There are differences in people’s experiences depending on where people live, and for different subgroups of the population. This includes differences in more and less deprived areas, by Local Authority, between urban and rural settings, by housing tenure and by characteristics such as age, disability, and ethnicity (Tables 12 to 30).

This section of the report will explore how these perceptions of people-based features of the neighbourhood (such as kindness and trust) and physical aspects of their neighbourhoods (such as the availability of places to socialise and meet new people) differ across these characteristics.

There is wide variation between Local Authorities in agreement that most people can be trusted in their neighbourhood (Figure 2). The Local Authorities with the highest agreement (shaded in dark blue on the map) [1] included Na h-Eileanan Siar (96%) and Orkney Islands (95%), and those with the lowest agreement (shaded in lighter blue on the map) include Glasgow City (67%) and West Dunbartonshire (68%).

Figure 2 There is large variation between Local Authorities in agreement that neighbours can be trusted

Percentage of adults who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that most people in their neighbourhood can be trusted, by Local Authority, 2025, Scotland. [2]

In the 20% most deprived areas, just under two thirds (59%) agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where most people can be trusted” (Table 16, Figure 3). This compares to 92% of adults in the 20% least deprived areas.

Figure 3 Those living in the most deprived areas are less likely to agree neighbours can be trusted

Percentage of adults who agree that this is a neighbourhood where most people can be trusted, by SIMD, 2025, Scotland. [3]

Owner occupiers felt more positively about their neighbours than people who socially or privately rent (Table 17). In 2025, 86% of owner occupiers agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where most people can be trusted”, compared to 62% of people who rent socially, 68% of private renters and 76% of people in any ‘other’ tenure. [4] Sixty-seven percent of owner occupiers agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where local people take action to improve the neighbourhood”, compared to 43% of people who socially rent, 52% of private renters, and 47% of people in ‘other’ tenure.

Perceptions of kindness and trust are highest in the oldest age groups. Seventy-six percent of 16 to 24 year olds agreed that others are kind to each other in their neighbourhoods, compared to 87% of those aged 75 and over (Tables 12 and 13).

Older age groups are more likely than younger age groups to agree they can rely on neighbours (Table 28). Sixty-seven percent of 16 to 24 year olds, and 67% of 25 to 34 year olds, agreed with the statement “I feel I could turn to someone in this neighbourhood for advice or support”. This rises to 86% of adults aged 75 and over. Seventy-four percent of 16 to 24 year olds, and 72% of 25 to 34 year olds, agreed that “If my home was empty, I could count on someone in this neighbourhood to keep an eye on my home”. This rises to 92% of those aged 75 and over.

In 2025, people living in rural areas [5] tended to respond more positively than those in more urban settings on people based features such as neighbourhood trust and kindness (Table 15). Eighty-eight percent of people in rural Scotland agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where most people can be trusted”, compared to 77% of the rest of Scotland. Seventy-five percent of people in rural Scotland agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where local people take action to improve the neighbourhood”, compared to 56% of the rest of Scotland.

There are differences by ethnicity and disability. In 2025, 80% of ‘White’ people agreed that “this is a neighbourhood where most can be trusted”, compared to 67% of ‘Other Ethnic Groups’ (Table 20). Disabled people were less likely to agree “there are places where people can meet up and socialise” (55%, compared to 61% for non-disabled people) (Table 19).

Sense of belonging varied by age, sex, ethnicity, disability, deprivation, urban and rural settings, and tenure (Tables 21 to 27).

Footnotes