Scotland's People Annual report: Results from 2009 Scottish Household Survey

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.


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: 33Help 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: ' increasing the percentage of adults who rate their neighbourhood as a good place to live' 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.

Neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhood have been consistently high over the past ten years, with over nine in ten typically saying their neighbourhood is a fairly or very good place to live (Table 4.1). There was a slight change between 2008 and 2009, with the figure increasing by 1.1 percentage points from 92.5% in 2008 to 93.6% in 2009. Over half (55%) of all adults gave the highest rating 'very good', the highest rating since the SHS first started collecting this information in 1999. Around 6% rated their neighbourhood has being fairly or very poor, again the lowest recorded.

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

Column percentages, 1999-2009 data

Adults

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

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

Very good

49.4

51.5

49.9

49.8

52.8

50.3

50.7

51.1

51.7

53.1

55.0

Fairly good

41.3

40.3

41.9

41.9

39.6

41.4

41.4

40.9

40.7

39.4

38.6

Fairly poor

5.4

5.1

4.9

5.2

4.7

5.4

5.1

5.2

4.8

4.9

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

No opinion

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

All

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

As Table 4.2 illustrates, there is a clear pattern between 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 (79%). In contrast, the percentage of people living in urban areas and towns rating their neighbourhood as a 'very good' place to live ranges between 49% and 58%.

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

Column percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Large urban areas

Other urban areas

Accessible small towns

Remote small towns

Accessible rural

Remote rural

Scotland

Very good

49

51

58

57

69

79

55

Fairly good

43

42

37

39

29

19

39

Fairly poor

5

5

4

2

2

1

4

Very poor

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

No opinion

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Base

4,363

3,737

1,032

701

1,418

1,280

12,531

However, the variations by levels of deprivation 34 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 , 23% rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live; though 76% still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live. This proportion rises as deprivation decreases, with 77% 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

2009 data, Adults (base: 12,531)

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

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 spontaneously to mention any aspects of neighbourhoods 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 46% in the group who rate it as very poor.

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 aspects are.

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Very good

Fairly good

Fairly poor

Very poor

No opinion

All

Pleasant environment

63

54

38

27

*

57

Safe environment

27

13

4

3

*

20

Good public transport

19

23

20

12

*

21

Good amenities

49

42

31

17

*

45

Sense of community / friendly people

81

64

28

25

*

71

Other

2

2

3

1

*

2

None

1

4

28

46

*

4

Base

5,402

3,580

428

190

25

9,625

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 31% in large urban areas). In contrast, people in large urban areas are the most likely to mention good public transport (31%) and are the least likely to mention aspects relating to the sense of community or friendliness of local people (65%).

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Large urban areas

Other urban areas

Accessible small towns

Remote small towns

Accessible rural

Remote rural

Scotland

Pleasant environment

56

56

54

67

58

67

57

Safe environment

18

18

23

24

22

33

20

Good public transport

31

18

14

14

6

2

21

Good amenities

46

42

51

50

41

44

45

Sense of community / friendly people

65

70

80

71

82

86

71

Other

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

None

5

6

3

3

3

1

4

Base

3,508

2,739

867

506

1,029

971

9,620

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, 13% 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, 2009 data

Adults

15% most deprived

Rest of Scotland

Scotland

Pleasant environment

45

60

57

Safe environment

9

22

20

Good public transport

24

20

21

Good amenities

41

46

45

Sense of community / friendly people

56

74

71

Other

2

2

2

None

13

3

4

Base

1,455

8,161

9,616

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 82% 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 is unrelated to overall perceptions.

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Very good

Fairly good

Fairly poor

Very poor

No opinion

All

Unpleasant environment

23

35

62

67

*

30

Unsafe environment

1

4

21

33

*

4

Poor public transport

5

5

4

8

*

5

Poor amenities

10

13

25

39

*

12

No sense of community /
problem residents / substance
abuse

9

28

69

82

*

20

Other

2

2

1

3

*

2

None

39

25

4

3

*

31

Base

5,402

3,580

429

190

25

9,626

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. Seventeen per cent of those in remote rural areas dislike the unpleasant environment they live within, compared to 38% 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 rural areas (around 17%) noting poor public transport as an issue, compared to less than 5% in other areas.

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Large urban areas

Other urban areas

Accessible small towns

Remote small towns

Accessible rural

Remote rural

Scotland

Unpleasant environment

38

28

27

20

22

17

30

Unsafe environment

6

3

2

1

1

0

4

Poor public transport

3

3

5

1

15

13

5

Poor amenities

12

10

12

7

16

17

12

No sense of community /
problem residents / substance
abuse

25

21

23

17

10

7

20

Other

2

1

2

1

2

6

2

None

28

32

32

48

30

39

31

Base

3,509

2,739

867

506

1,029

971

9,621

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 (42%) of those in the 15% most deprived of areas mention that their neighbourhood has no sense of community or problems with residents and 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, 2009 data

Adults

15% most deprived

Rest of Scotland

Scotland

Unpleasant environment

37

29

30

Unsafe environment

11

2

4

Poor public transport

2

6

5

Poor amenities

16

12

12

No sense of community /
problem residents / substance
abuse

42

16

20

Other

1

2

2

None

25

32

31

Base

1,455

8,162

9,617

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, 2009 data

Adults

15% most deprived

Rest of Scotland

Scotland

Got much better

4

2

2

Got a little better

16

9

10

Stayed the same

48

69

66

Got a little worse

15

12

12

Got a lot worse

10

3

4

No opinion

7

5

5

Base

1,440

8,170

9,610

Looking first at Scotland as a whole the prevailing perception (66%) is that things have stayed the same, with those saying things have got worse (16%) 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 more polarised than those in the rest of Scotland; they are more likely to say that their neighbourhood has got better (20% versus 11%) and they are more likely to say that it has got worse (25% versus 15%). Less than half (48%) of those in the most deprived 15% of areas say things have stayed the same compared with over two-thirds (69%) 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. For 2009, a new item on animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling was added to the list of neighbourhood problems.

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. 35 Groupings of the existing eight neighbourhood problems queried through the survey were derived, and these have been retained within this report and updated to include the animal nuisance category. The resultant nine behaviours 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 eight neighbourhood problems, listed under the four anti-social behaviour groups identified above. The most prevalent problem is rubbish or litter lying around, with 26% saying this is very or fairly common in their neighbourhood, a decrease of almost three percentage points on the previous year. After rubbish the most common issues fall under the 'general anti-social behaviour' category: rowdy behaviour (16%) or vandalism and other types of deliberate damage to property (14%).

There is a trend of gradual improvements in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2009 representing the lowest measures of problems for all except noisy neighbours or loud parties and neighbour disputes. In particular, perceptions of problems with vandalism have dropped from a high of 19.2% in 2002 to 14.0% in 2009.

Table 4.10: Perception of prevalence of neighbourhood problems by year

Percentages, 1999-2009 data

Adults

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

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

Groups or individual
harassing others

*

*

*

*

*

*

11.4

11.2

11.8

11.5

10.2

Drug misuse or dealing

*

*

*

*

*

*

12.4

12.2

12.4

12.7

12.1

Rowdy behaviour

*

*

*

*

*

*

16.9

16.3

17.3

16.7

16.1

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

Neighbour disputes

*

*

*

*

*

*

5.2

5.2

4.9

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

Animal nuisance such
as noise or dog fouling

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

23.7

Vehicles

Abandoned or burnt out
vehicles

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

2.1

1.7

1.5

Base

13,780

14,557

14,643

14,042

13,966

14,777

14,071

14,190

10,385

9,314

11,396

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

1 - 10% most deprived

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 - 10% least deprived

Scotland

General anti-social behaviour

Vandalism / graffiti /
damage to property

35

25

20

16

12

9

7

5

5

8

14

Groups or individual
harassing others

28

17

15

10

8

7

6

6

3

3

10

Drug misuse or dealing

32

25

18

16

12

7

6

3

2

2

12

Rowdy behaviour

37

28

22

19

16

11

9

8

4

6

16

Neighbour problems

Noisy neighbours / loud
parties

20

19

14

10

7

8

6

5

3

5

10

Neighbour disputes

14

10

6

6

4

6

3

3

2

2

6

Rubbish and fouling

Rubbish or litter lying
around

48

35

34

32

26

23

18

18

13

19

26

Animal nuisance such
as noise or dog fouling

37

33

29

25

23

21

20

17

18

14

24

Vehicles

Abandoned or burnt out
vehicles

5

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

Base

1,091

1,098

1,179

1,168

1,268

1,204

1,345

1,082

1,008

941

11,384

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

Table 4.11 shows across all anti-social behaviours that, as areas become more deprived, perceptions of prevalence increase. Aside from litter, 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 (32% in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 2% in the 10% least deprived areas) and vandalism (35% down to 8%).

It can also be sent 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 (25%), or be concerned over issues such as rubbish (38%) or dog fouling (34%). 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, 2009 data

Adults

Owner occupied

Social rented

Private rented

Other

All

General anti-social behaviour

Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property

11

25

11

12

14

Groups or individual harassing others

7

20

9

9

10

Drug misuse or dealing

9

25

9

10

12

Rowdy behaviour

12

29

20

17

16

Neighbour problems

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

6

19

13

10

10

Neighbour disputes

4

12

4

5

6

Rubbish and fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

23

38

27

22

26

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

22

34

15

21

24

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

1

3

1

3

1

Base

7,613

2,572

1,044

167

11,396

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, 2009 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

18

19

15

15

9

7

14

Groups or individual harassing others

16

14

12

10

5

3

10

Drug misuse or dealing

14

15

13

12

10

6

12

Rowdy behaviour

24

24

18

15

8

6

16

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

16

15

8

9

5

3

10

Neighbour disputes

8

8

6

6

2

2

6

Rubbish and fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

33

31

27

25

22

17

26

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

24

27

28

23

21

18

24

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

2

2

2

2

1

0

1

Base

945

1,533

1,988

2,839

2,624

1,467

11,396

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 (31%) or animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (26%). Looking at general anti-social behaviour, it can be seen that there is large range in perceptions between urban and rural areas for prevalence of rowdy behaviour and for vandalism, graffiti or damage to property. Perceptions of rowdy behaviour range between 16% and 20% in the three most 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 18% in large urban areas to 4% in remote rural areas.

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

Percentages, 2009 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

18

14

13

8

7

4

14

Groups or individual harassing others

13

11

10

6

5

3

10

Drug misuse or dealing

14

14

13

11

6

6

12

Rowdy behaviour

20

17

16

12

7

5

16

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

12

11

8

7

4

2

10

Neighbour disputes

7

6

5

4

4

3

6

Rubbish and fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

31

27

25

25

15

13

26

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

26

23

28

24

18

15

24

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

Base

4,011

3,357

962

632

1,261

1,161

11,384

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.

Over one quarter (26%) 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

2009 data, Adults (base: 11,396)

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

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, 2009 data

Adults

15% most deprived

Rest of Scotland

Scotland

General anti-social behaviour

Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property

18

8

9

Groups or individual harassing others

9

4

5

Drug misuse or dealing

14

4

5

Rowdy behaviour

22

11

13

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

17

7

9

Neighbour disputes

10

4

5

Rubbish or fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

27

18

19

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

22

16

17

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

3

1

2

None

47

60

58

Base

1,636

9,748

11,384

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

Table 4.16: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Owner occupied

Social rented

Private rented

Other

All

General anti-social behaviour

Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property

8

15

7

10

9

Groups or individual harassing others

4

10

2

4

5

Drug misuse or dealing

3

13

4

7

5

Rowdy behaviour

11

20

13

11

13

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

6

16

11

8

9

Neighbour disputes

4

10

3

4

5

Rubbish or fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

18

23

19

18

19

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

16

22

11

19

17

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

1

2

2

3

2

None

60

49

63

60

58

Base

7,613

2,572

1,044

167

11,396

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

Table 4.17: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2009 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

13

9

8

8

5

2

9

Groups or individual harassing others

6

4

5

4

3

3

5

Drug misuse or dealing

7

5

5

7

3

2

5

Rowdy behaviour

16

13

12

11

7

6

13

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

11

9

8

9

5

3

9

Neighbour disputes

6

5

6

4

4

3

5

Rubbish or fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

23

19

21

16

13

12

19

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

18

16

20

21

14

14

17

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

None

53

60

53

56

67

72

58

Base

4,011

3,357

962

632

1,261

1,161

11,384

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

Reporting neighbourhood problems

Table 4.18 reports 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 so it is not possible to explore the relationship between experience and reporting. Around one in six people who say that litter is a common problem or that animal nuisance is a problem have reported it (18% and 17% respectively) compared to close to two in five who have reported problems such as vandalism (37%) or individuals/groups harassing people (37%). 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.

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

Percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Has reported problem

Base

General anti-social behaviour

Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property

37

992

Groups or individual harassing others

37

478

Drug misuse or dealing

25

592

Rowdy behaviour

26

1,325

Neighbour problem

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

36

948

Neighbour disputes

35

556

Rubbish or fouling

Rubbish or litter lying around

18

2,055

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

17

1,875

Vehicle

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

28

174

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 42% saying similarly for the council.

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

Row percentages, 2009 data

Adults

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dis-satisfied

Fairly dis-satisfied

Very dis-satisfied

No opinion

All

Base

The police

15

37

14

9

5

20

100

11,396

The Council

9

32

16

10

6

27

100

11,396

Housing associations

4

12

13

3

2

65

100

11,396

Landlords or other property owners

5

13

13

2

2

65

100

11,396

Other agencies or institutions

3

8

13

1

1

74

100

11,396

Fear of Crime

This sections 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".

Three quarters of adults (75%) 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).

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, 2009 data

Adults

Male

Female

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-59

60-74

75+

All

Walking alone

Very / Fairly safe

85

66

77

79

80

79

72

52

75

Very / A bit unsafe

12

30

22

20

18

19

24

35

22

Don't Know

2

4

1

2

2

2

4

13

3

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Base

3,920

5,189

741

1,185

1,566

2,312

2,120

1,185

9,109

At home

Very / Fairly safe

98

96

96

96

97

98

98

97

97

Very / A bit unsafe

1

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

3

Don't Know

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Base

3,920

5,189

741

1,185

1,566

2,312

2,120

1,185

9,109

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

Whilst there is little variation by gender and age for those feeling safe in their home, the figures do vary quite markedly when walking alone at night. For example, women are more than likely as men to say they would not feel safe, with two thirds (66%) of females saying they would feel fairly or very safe compared to 85% of males. Perceptions of safety at home do not appear to be very strongly associated with age, although those in the oldest age group are less likely to say they would feel very safe than all other age groups (35% of those aged 75 and over say they feel either a bit unsafe or very safe).

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; 60% of people in the most deprived areas say they would feel very or fairly safe when walking alone compared with over three quarters (77%) of those elsewhere. Similarly, the proportion who say they would not feel safe at all is more than twice as high in the most deprived areas compared with elsewhere (37% and 19% 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, 2009 data

Adults

15% most deprived

Rest of Scotland

Scotland

Walking alone

Very / Fairly safe

60

77

75

Very / A bit unsafe

37

19

22

Don't Know

4

3

3

Total

100

100

100

Base

1,231

7,871

9,102

At home

Very / Fairly safe

94

98

97

Very / A bit unsafe

6

2

3

Don't Know

0

0

0

Total

100

100

100

Base

1,231

7,871

9,102

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. Eighty per cent of adults with no illness or disability feel safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, whilst around a third 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 4.22: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by disability

Column percentages, 2009 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

58

63

54

80

75

Very / A bit unsafe

31

32

36

18

22

Don't Know

10

5

10

2

3

Total

100

100

100

100

100

Base

650

1,282

636

6,535

9,109

At home

Very / Fairly safe

95

95

93

98

97

Very / A bit unsafe

4

4

5

2

3

Don't Know

2

0

2

0

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

Base

650

1,282

636

6,535

9,109

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. In particular, of those who rated their neighbourhood as either fairly poor or very poor over half said they felt a bit or very unsafe when walking alone in the neighbourhood at night (53% and 63% respectively). Similar differences can also be seen in those feeling safe 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, 2009 data

Adults

Very good

Fairly good

Fairly poor

Very poor

No opinion

All

Walking alone

Very / Fairly safe

82

71

45

36

*

75

Very / A bit unsafe

15

26

53

63

*

22

Don't Know

3

3

2

2

*

3

Total

100

100

100

100

*

100

Base

5,221

3,321

374

174

19

9,109

At home

Very / Fairly safe

99

96

90

83

*

97

Very / A bit unsafe

1

3

10

17

*

3

Don't Know

0

1

0

0

*

0

Total

100

100

100

100

*

100

Base

5,221

3,321

374

174

19

9,109

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. Over half (51%) who have experienced harassment say they feel a bit of very unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, compared to 20% for those who have not experienced any harassment.

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, 2009 data

Adults

Have experienced harassment

Have not experienced harassment

All

Walking alone

Very / Fairly safe

48

76

75

Very / A bit unsafe

51

20

22

Don't Know

1

3

3

Total

100

100

100

Base

332

7,630

7,962

At home

Very / Fairly safe

88

97

97

Very / A bit unsafe

12

2

2

Don't Know

0

0

0

Total

100

100

100

Base

332

7,630

7,962

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

Back to top