Publication - Statistics

Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2013 Scottish Household Survey: Revised October 2015

Published: 13 Aug 2014
ISBN:
9781784127428

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, health and transport.

Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2013 Scottish Household Survey: Revised October 2015
4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

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[48]. 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 including experiences of discrimination and harassment. This chapter also investigates people’s confidence in the police to tackle and prevent crime, before finally looking at issues around how engaged people were with their community and how prepared they were for emergency situations.

Main Findings

  • More than half (55.2 per cent) of adults rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2013. This continues the trend of consistently high ratings since the survey began in 1999 with over 90 per cent of adults rating their neighbourhood as a very or fairly good place to live.
  • Adults living in rural areas of Scotland were more likely to say their neighbourhood is a very good place to live (73 per cent of those living in remote rural areas compared to 49 per cent of adults living in large urban areas). In addition, the proportion of adults 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 were animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (31 per cent saying this is very or fairly common in their area) and rubbish or litter lying around (27 per cent).
  • Around half of adults said they have not experienced any kind of neighbourhood problems (50 per cent), though this decreases to 42 per cent for those living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland.
  • Around four in five (84 per cent) adults said they feel very or fairly safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, with males (91 per cent) more likely to report feeling safe than females (76 per cent). Adults living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland were less likely to say they feel very/fairly safe walking alone (70 per cent) compared to 86 per cent in the rest of Scotland.
  • Less than one in ten (7 per cent) adults reported experiencing discrimination in Scotland in the last three years, a similar proportion of adults reported experiencing harassment (6 per cent). Older people were less likely to report having experienced both discrimination and harassment.
  • Apart from ‘other’ reasons, the most common reasons people reported why they thought they experienced discrimination was ethnic group (31 per cent) followed by age (13 per cent). The most common reason cited that people believed they had experienced harassment was ethnic group (18 per cent).
  • Over two-thirds (69 per cent) 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 (14 per cent versus 10 per cent).
  • Around seven in ten adults were confident in the ability of their local police. Over three quarters (78 per cent) were 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 (66 per cent and 71 per cent, respectively).
  • Over three quarters (78 per cent) of adults feel very or fairly strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. People from a white ethnic background were more likely to feel very strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood compared to those from a minority ethnic group (37 per cent versus 23 per cent).
  • Overall, adults in Scotland reported high levels of involvement with other people in the neighbourhood. Around three-quarters (77 per cent) of adults strongly agreed that they would offer help to neighbours in an emergency with similar levels of adults agreeing strongly that they could rely on friends/relatives to look after home (73 per cent) or rely on them for help (71 per cent).

NEIGHBOURHOODS

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high since the Scottish Household Survey began in 1999. Over nine in ten adults said their neighbourhood is a fairly or very good place to live (Table 4.1). Since 2004 at least half of adults chose the highest rating very good, most recently 55.2 per cent in 2013 (unchanged from 2012). Around 5.6 per cent rated their neighbourhood as being fairly or very poor.

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

Column percentages, 1999, 2004-2013 data

Adults 1999 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Very/fairly good 90.7 91.7 92.1 92.0 92.4 92.5 93.6 93.5 93.9 93.7 94.1
Very good 49.4 50.3 50.7 51.1 51.7 53.1 55.0 55.4 55.9 55.2 55.2
Fairly good 41.3 41.4 41.4 40.9 40.7 39.4 38.6 38.1 38.0 38.5 38.9
Fairly poor 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1
Very poor 3.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5
No opinion 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 13,780 14,780 14,070 14,190 10,390 9,310 12,540 12,440 12,890 9,890 9,920

Table 4.2 shows how neighbourhood ratings vary by urban rural classification. People in rural areas (either accessible or remote), were most likely to rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live, each around 70 per cent. In contrast, around half of people living in large urban and other urban areas rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (49 per cent and 51 per cent, respectively).

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

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults Large urban areas Other urban areas Accessible small towns Remote small towns Accessible rural Remote rural Scotland
Very good 49 51 62 60 69 73 55
Fairly good 43 42 33 37 29 25 39
Fairly poor 5 5 3 2 2 1 4
Very poor 2 1 1 0 0 1 2
No opinion 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 3,300 3,010 910 610 1,060 1,030 9,920

Variation in neighbourhood ratings can also be seen by deprivation[49]. Figure 4.1 shows how the proportion of adults rating their neighbourhood as very good varies significantly as deprivation declines. The proportion of adults that rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live increases as deprivation decreases - the overall Scotland figure (of 55 per cent) is significantly higher than the proportion in the bottom four deciles (which ranges from 27 per cent to 46 per cent). Only one in four adults (around 27 per cent) living in the 10 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (though 81 per cent still rate their neighbourhood as either a fairly good or very good place to live overall).

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

2013 data, Adults (base: 9,920; minimum: 850)

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 perceptions of the extent to which neighbourhoods have changed in the preceding three years.

Table 4.3 shows that overall, two-thirds (65 per cent) of adults perceive things as staying the same. Adults living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland were much less likely to say that things had stayed the same (49 per cent) compared to the rest of Scotland (67 per cent). The views of people in the most deprived areas were more polarised than those in the rest of Scotland; they were more likely to say that their neighbourhood has got better (24 per cent versus 13 per cent) and they were more likely to say that it has got worse (22 per cent versus 14 per cent).

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

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
Got much better 6 2 3
Got a little better 18 11 12
Stayed the same 49 67 65
Got a little worse 13 11 12
Got much worse 9 3 4
No opinion 5 5 5
Base 1,450 8,470 9,920

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

The neighbourhood aspects, discussed above, draw on spontaneous suggestions by respondents of things that they like and dislike about their local areas. The following 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[50]. Groupings of the nine neighbourhood problems that respondents were questioned about fall into four distinct groups:

General anti-social behaviour

Neighbour problems

Rubbish and fouling

Vehicles

Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property

Noisy neighbours/loud parties

Rubbish or litter lying around

Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

Groups or individuals harassing others

Neighbour disputes

Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling

Drug misuse or dealing

Rowdy behaviour

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 neighbourhood problems fall into the ‘rubbish and fouling’ category with:

  • 31 per cent identifying animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling as a very or fairly common problem;
  • 27 per cent identifying rubbish or litter lying around as a very or fairly common problem; and the most prevalent issues fall under the ‘general anti-social behaviour’

Until 2010, there had been a trend of gradual improvement in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2010 representing the lowest measure of problems for all categories. Figures from 2012, however, showed a slight increase for many of the categories. The percentage of adults who perceive drug misuse or dealing to be very or fairly common had remained relatively stable since 2005 at or around 12 per cent. With the exception of animal nuisance, which has continued to rise, all categories have shown a slight decrease in 2013. The prevalence of vandalism, groups of individuals harassing others and rowdy behaviour is at the lowest level since 2005. Although the overall prevalence of these neighbourhood problems is relatively low, the extent to which they were experienced varies by key demographic and neighbourhood characteristics.

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

Percentages, 2005-2013 data

Adults 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property 17 16 17 15 14 11 11 12 10
Groups or individual harassing others 11 11 12 12 10 8 8 8 7
Drug misuse or dealing 12 12 12 13 12 11 12 13 12
Rowdy behaviour 17 16 17 17 16 14 14 15 13
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 12 11
Neighbour disputes 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 27 27 29 29 26 24 25 29 27
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling * * * * 24 23 26 30 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles * * 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Base 14,070 14,190 10,390 9,310 11,400 11,140 11,280 9,890 9,920

Columns may add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed. Some of the response categories are not comparable across all years.

Table 4.5 shows that, in more deprived areas, perceptions of the prevalence of neighbourhood problems is generally higher. This is true across all categorises of anti-social behaviour. The biggest contrast in perceptions of prevalence between the 10 per cent most deprived and the 10 per cent least deprived areas were seen in the general anti-social behaviour category and the rubbish and fouling category, for example:

  • Drug misuse or dealing (33 per cent compared to 1 per cent)
  • Rubbish or litter lying around (46 per cent compared to 16 per cent)
  • Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (47 per cent compared to 18 per cent).

This is broadly consistent with 2012 figures.

Table 4.5: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Deciles

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults ←10% most deprived                 10% least deprived→ Scotland
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property 26 18 13 11 9 7 4 4 3 4 10
Groups or individual harassing others 17 11 10 7 6 5 3 4 2 1 7
Drug misuse or dealing 33 25 20 15 10 6 4 5 2 1 12
Rowdy behaviour 31 22 17 14 10 9 7 7 5 5 13
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 25 16 13 15 8 9 5 7 4 5 11
Neighbour disputes 13 11 10 7 6 5 3 4 3 3 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 46 38 32 30 30 24 18 20 17 16 27
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 47 40 37 35 32 29 25 27 23 18 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
Base 980 920 910 1,110 1,120 1,030 1,100 1,000 910 850 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Table 4.6 shows that people living in social rented housing were most likely to perceive each of the neighbourhood problems as very or fairly common, compared to owner occupiers and private renters. For example, one quarter (25 per cent) of those living in the social rented sector perceive drug misuse or dealing to be a common problem, compared to 10 per cent in the private rented sector and 8 per cent for owner occupiers. Likewise, social tenants were more likely to be concerned by animal fouling (38 per cent) and rubbish (37 per cent) than private renters and owner occupiers. In part, these associations further emphasise the link between social rented housing and deprivation. Over half (55 per cent) of households in the 15 per cent most deprived areas were in the social rented sector, compared with 23 per cent in Scotland overall[51].

Table 4.6: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by tenure of household

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults Owner occupied Social rented Private rented Other All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property 7 18 9 8 10
Groups or individual harassing others 5 12 7 6 7
Drug misuse or dealing 8 25 10 11 12
Rowdy behaviour 8 23 18 13 13
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 6 20 17 7 11
Neighbour disputes 4 13 7 5 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 24 37 28 20 27
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 31 38 23 23 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 2 1 1 1
Base 6,250 2,300 1,160 210 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Table 4.7 shows that perceptions of neighbourhood problems generally decline with age. For example, those aged 16 to 24 were five times as likely (20 per cent) to consider rowdy behaviour to be fairly or very common, compared to those over 75 (4 per cent).

Table 4.7: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by age of respondent

Percentages, 2013 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 12 14 10 9 7 5 10
Groups or individual harassing others 9 10 6 7 5 1 7
Drug misuse or dealing 13 16 12 13 10 5 12
Rowdy behaviour 20 19 13 11 8 4 13
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 16 16 12 9 6 4 11
Neighbour disputes 12 10 6 5 3 2 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 32 34 26 26 24 15 27
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 29 34 36 31 30 23 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 2 1 1 1 0 1
Base 830 1,350 1,450 2,590 2,400 1,300 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Table 4.8 shows that, in broad terms, urban residents were more likely to consider neighbourhood problems to be common, compared to those living in rural areas. Accessible rural and remote rural areas show the lowest levels of prevalence in each category of anti-social behaviour.

Individuals living in large urban areas were more concerned by general anti-social behaviour. For example, there is a broad range in perceptions of rowdy behaviour, which is highest in large urban areas (17 per cent) and lowest in remote rural areas (3 per cent). Likewise, perceptions of the prevalence of vandalism is highest in large urban areas (14 per cent) and lowest in accessible and remote rural areas (each 3 per cent). Around twice as many in remote small towns considered noisy neighbours to be a problem (13 per cent) than in accessible small towns (6 per cent).

Table 4.8: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Urban Rural classification

Percentages, 2013 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 14 10 8 5 3 3 10
Groups or individual harassing others 8 7 6 6 2 3 7
Drug misuse or dealing 15 13 11 13 5 3 12
Rowdy behaviour 17 13 10 12 4 3 13
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 14 11 6 13 4 3 11
Neighbour disputes 8 7 5 7 2 3 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 32 27 23 28 17 18 27
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 35 31 29 31 25 24 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
Base 3,300 3,010 910 610 1,060 1,030 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Personal Experience of Neighbourhood Problems

The previous section focused on perceptions of neighbourhood problems; this section will now consider personal experience of neighbourhood problems. Figure 4.2 compares the perception and actual experience of problems, highlighting the proportions of people who said that each problem is very or fairly common in their area, as well as the proportion that said they had experienced each problem in their neighbourhood in the previous year. The key thing to note is that, in most cases, perceptions of how common a problem is were higher than actual experience. For example, 12 per cent of respondents considered drug misuse or dealing to be a common problem, however, only 5 per cent had personally experienced this problem. Therefore, while some adults who said they perceive a particular anti-social behaviour to be common, they 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 problem in an area. For example, in the case of vandalism, a person may not have experienced vandalism to their property, but may have seen property that has been vandalised in their neighbourhood. Furthermore, drug misuse or drug dealing may only involve a small number of individuals directly in a neighbourhood. However, the paraphernalia associated with drug misuse will be visible to people living in the area where it takes place, or those dealing in or using drugs may be known to local residents.

It is important to note, however, that experience is self-defined. 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.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

2013 data, Adults (base: 9,920)

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

Table 4.9 to Table 4.11 present the proportions of people who said that they have experienced each of these problems by area deprivation, housing tenure and urban rural classification. Although there are exceptions, these figures are generally consistent with the patterns discussed in relation to perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with problems being experienced most by those living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas, in social housing and in urban areas.

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

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property 10 5 6
Groups or individual harassing others 7 3 3
Drug misuse or dealing 13 4 5
Rowdy behaviour 15 9 10
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 15 9 10
Neighbour disputes 7 5 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 24 21 21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 35 31 32
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 2 1 1
None 42 52 50
Base 1,450 8,470 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Table 4.10: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults Owner occupied Social rented Private rented Other All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism/graffiti/damage to property 5 8 6 5 6
Groups or individual harassing others 3 5 4 5 3
Drug misuse or dealing 3 11 6 5 5
Rowdy behaviour 8 13 16 11 10
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 7 16 17 8 10
Neighbour disputes 4 9 6 4 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 19 26 24 20 21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 33 33 24 27 32
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 1 - 1
None 53 45 48 53 50
Base 6,250 2,300 1,160 210 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

Table 4.11: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2013 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 7 6 5 4 3 2 6
Groups or individual harassing others 4 4 3 2 1 1 3
Drug misuse or dealing 7 5 4 5 2 2 5
Rowdy behaviour 12 11 8 11 4 4 10
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours/loud parties 13 11 6 15 3 4 10
Neighbour disputes 5 6 4 5 4 3 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 23 21 19 26 15 20 21
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 32 32 31 41 29 27 32
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 1 - 1 1 1
None 47 51 55 38 59 59 50
Base 3,300 3,010 910 610 1,060 1,030 9,920

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

CRIME

Fear of Crime

This section first 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". The final part of this section investigates the prevalence of, and some of the reasons for, discrimination and harassment.

Over four-fifths of adults (84 per cent) felt very or fairly safe while walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, and the vast majority (98 per cent) felt fairly or very safe when alone in their home at night (Table 4.12).

There is little variation by gender and age for people feeling safe in their home at night, although feeling safe when walking alone at night varies markedly by gender. Around three-quarters (76 per cent) of women said that they would feel fairly or very safe walking alone at night in their neighbourhood, compared to 91 per cent of men.

Perceptions of safety while walking alone at night increases from the 16 to 24 age category (82 per cent) to the 35 to 44 age category (89 per cent). Those aged 75 and over were less likely to say they felt very or fairly safe (72 per cent) compared to all adults.

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

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-74 75+ All
Walking alone
Very/Fairly safe 91 76 82 84 89 85 81 72 84
Very/A bit unsafe 8 22 17 15 11 14 16 23 15
Don't Know 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 4,330 5,160 820 1,340 1,430 2,540 2,280 1,080 9,490
At home
Very/Fairly safe 99 96 96 97 97 98 98 98 98
Very/A bit unsafe 1 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 2
Don't Know 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 4,450 5,470 830 1,350 1,450 2,590 2,400 1,300 9,920

Table 4.13 compares perceptions of safety in the 15 per cent most deprived areas with the rest of Scotland. People living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas were less likely to feel very or fairly safe walking alone at night (70 per cent) compared to people living in the rest of Scotland (86 per cent). The proportion of adults who said that they would feel unsafe is around twice as high in the 15 per cent deprived areas (28 per cent) than the rest of Scotland (13 per cent). There is less variation when looking at the proportion of adults that feel very fairly safe when at home, with nearly all adults reporting that they felt very or fairly safe.

Table 4.13: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in local neighbourhood and when home alone at night after dark by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
Walking alone
Very/Fairly safe 70 86 84
Very/A bit unsafe 28 13 15
Don't Know 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100
Base 1,380 8,110 9,490
At home
Very/Fairly safe 96 98 98
Very/A bit unsafe 4 2 2
Don't Know 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100
Base 1,450 8,470 9,920

Having a long-standing physical or mental health problem appears to have an influence on feelings of safety. Those who identified as having a long-standing condition were less likely to say that they felt safe walking alone at night (76 per cent) than those who did not (86 per cent).

The impact of the condition on an adult’s ability to carry out everyday activities also had some bearing on feelings of safety when home alone and walking alone at night as 84 per cent of those who said that their condition had no impact on their ability to carry out everyday activities feeling safe walking alone in their neighbourhood which is significantly higher than the 68 per cent of those who said that their condition impacted on their abilities a lot.

Table 4.14: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by disability

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults Long-standing physical or mental health condition Impact of condition on ability to carryout day-to-day activities
  Yes No All A lot A little Not at all All
Walking alone
Very/Fairly safe 76 86 84 68 80 84 76
Very/A bit unsafe 22 13 15 28 19 15 22
Don't Know 2 1 1 4 1 1 2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 2,890 6,550 9,490 1,210 1,080 600 2,890
At home
Very/Fairly safe 96 98 98 94 98 98 96
Very/A bit unsafe 4 2 2 5 2 1 4
Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 3,210 6,660 9,920 1,450 1,140 620 3,210

Respondents were asked to rate their neighbourhood as a place to live from very poor to very good. There is a clear link between how individuals rated their neighbourhoods and how safe they feel (Table 4.15). Two-thirds (63 per cent) of adults that rated their neighbourhood as a very poor place to live felt very or a bit unsafe when walking alone while only 13 per cent of adults that rated their neighbourhood very or fairly good felt very or a bit unsafe. Similarly, only 2 per cent of adults that rated their neighbourhood very or fairly good said they felt very or bit unsafe at home while around one in five (18 per cent) of adults that rated their neighbourhood as very poor felt very or a bit unsafe at home.

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, 2013 data

Adults Very/fairly good Fairly poor Very poor No opinion All
Walking alone
Very/Fairly safe 86 56 37 * 84
Very/A bit unsafe 13 43 63 * 15
Don't Know 1 1 0 * 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 8,950 360 150 30 9,490
At home
Very/Fairly safe 98 92 82 * 98
Very/A bit unsafe 2 8 18 * 2
Don't Know 0 0 - * 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 9,360 380 150 30 9,920

Discrimination and Harassment

The SHS has asked respondents if, in the last three years, whilst in Scotland, they have experienced any kind of discrimination or harassment. Discrimination is defined as “occasions when you have felt you were treated unfairly or with less respect than other people because of your age, gender, ethnic group, religion, disability, sexual orientation, for sectarian or other reasons’. Further to this, harassment is defined as “occasions when you have felt intimidated, threatened or disturbed because of your age, gender, ethnic group, religion, disability, sexual orientation, for sectarian or other reasons".

Table 4.16 shows experience of discrimination and harassment by age and gender. Less than a tenth (7 per cent) of all adults reported experiencing discrimination in Scotland in the last three years, with men and women reporting similar levels of both discrimination and harassment. There is little variation by age, though older people (aged over 60) were less likely to report experience of discrimination and harassment, compared to all adults.

Table 4.16: Experience of discrimination and harassment by gender and age

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-74 75+ All
Discrimination
Yes 7 6 8 9 9 7 4 2 7
No 93 94 92 91 91 93 96 98 93
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Harassment
Yes 6 6 8 8 6 6 3 1 6
No 94 94 92 92 94 94 97 99 94
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 4,450 5,470 830 1,350 1,450 2,590 2,400 1,300 9,920

Table 4.17 shows that those who have experienced harassment or discrimination in Scotland in the last three years were more likely to say that they feel very or a bit unsafe walking at night in their local neighbourhood or being home alone at night. Around a third (35 per cent) of those who had experienced harassment said that they felt very or a bit unsafe walking alone at night in their neighbourhood, compared to 14 per cent of those who had not experienced harassment. Likewise, a quarter (25 per cent) of those who have experienced discrimination felt very or a bit unsafe walking alone, compared to 15 per cent of those who had not.

Table 4.17: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in local neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by experience of harassment and discrimination

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults Have experienced harassment Have not experienced harassment Have experienced discrimination Have not experienced discrimination All
Walking alone
Very/Fairly safe 63 85 73 84 84
Very/A bit unsafe 35 14 25 15 15
Don't Know 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 540 8,950 650 8,840 9,490
At home
Very/Fairly safe 89 98 94 98 98
Very/A bit unsafe 11 2 5 2 2
Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 550 9,360 660 9,250 9,920

Table 4.18 shows how the proportion of adults’ experiences of discrimination and harassment by sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion and whether the adult has a long term physical or mental health condition which has (or is expected to) last at least 12 months. For example, the table highlights that adults who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual experienced higher levels of discrimination (28 per cent)[52], compared to all adults (7 per cent), however, as shown in Table 4.19 this is not necessarily due to their sexual orientation.

Table 4.18: Experiences of discrimination and harassment by sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and long term physical/mental health condition

Row percentages, 2013 data

Adults Discrimination Harassment Base
Yes No Yes No
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual/Straight 7 93 6 94 9,760
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual 28 72 17 83 70
Ethnicity
White 6 94 5 95 9,650
Other minority ethnic group 24 76 14 86 270
Religion
None 6 94 6 94 4,280
Church of Scotland 4 96 4 96 3,120
Roman Catholic 10 90 7 93 1,420
Other Christian 10 90 6 94 840
Another religion 21 79 14 86 250
Long term physical/mental health condition
Yes 9 91 7 93 3,210
No 6 94 5 95 6,660
All 7 93 6 94 9,920

The discrimination/harassment reported in Table 4.18 may be due to other reasons and are not necessarily related to the equality characteristics presented. Reasons for discrimination/harassment are provided in Table 4.19

Adults who had experienced harassment and discrimination were asked why they thought they had experienced it. During the SHS interview, respondents are asked to provide spontaneous responses to why they thought they were discriminated against or harassed and where possible, the interviewer will code the response into one of the main categories provided in Table 4.19 (i.e. age, disability, gender, etc.). Due to the wide variety of reasons that adults can provide (and the fact that multiple reasons can be given) it is not possible to code every single type of response in advance, which has resulted in high levels of ‘other’ reasons being recorded.

Table 4.19 provides a breakdown of some of the reasons people gave for why they believe they were discriminated against or harassed. Around a third (31 per cent) of those who reported that they had been discriminated against said that the reason was their ethnic group followed by age (13 per cent). Table 4.19 also shows high proportions of adults citing ‘other’ reasons for why they were discriminated against and harassed (30 per cent and 50 per cent of adults, respectively).

While near equal proportions of women and men experience discrimination and harassment, Table 4.19 shows some differences between reasons given by males and females. Females were more likely to report having experienced discrimination because of their gender (12 per cent compared to 4 per cent of males) and harassment (13 per cent compared to 1 per cent of males).

Table 4.19: Reasons for discrimination or harassment by gender

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults Discrimination Harassment
Male Female All Male Female All
Age 10 15 13 7 8 7
Disability 7 8 7 4 4 4
Gender 4 12 8 1 13 7
Ethnic group 33 30 31 20 15 18
Religion 9 7 8 6 5 5
Sexual orientation 4 4 4 3 4 4
Sectarian reasons 6 2 4 6 2 4
Other 31 30 30 51 49 50
Don't know 3 2 2 6 6 6
Refused 0 - 0 1 0 0
Base 320 340 660 240 310 550

Percentages add up to more than 100 per cent as multiple responses could be given.

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 4.20 shows that two thirds (69 per cent) of people feel that the crime rate in their local area had remained about the same as two years ago (and that 78% of adults perceived the crime rate in their local area to have stayed the same of reduced in the past two years). Of those who noticed a change in the crime rate, more people felt that there was now more crime (14 per cent) rather than less crime (9 per cent).

The views of those in the 15 per cent most deprived areas differ from those in the rest of Scotland:

  • over half (55 per cent) felt that crime had stayed the same, compared to 71 per cent in the rest of Scotland
  • around one fifth (19 per cent) thought that crime had risen, compared to 13 per cent in the rest of Scotland
  • around one fifth (19 per cent) thought that crime had fallen, compared to 7 per cent in the rest of Scotland

Table 4.20: Change in crime rate compared to two years ago by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland All
A lot more 8 2 3
A little more 11 11 11
About the same 55 71 69
A little less 14 6 7
A lot less 5 1 2
Don't know 8 8 8
Total 100 100 100
Base 1,310 7,690 9,000

Table 4.21 shows the percentage of people who were either very or fairly confident in the ability of local police in tackling crime and how this varies by age and gender. Over three quarters (78 per cent) of adults were confident in the ability of the police to investigate incidents after they occur while 66 per cent were confident in the ability of the police to prevent crime. Although there is a generally high level of confidence in the police, there were some differences between age groups, with the highest levels of confidence in the over 75 age category.

Table 4.21: People saying they are very/fairly confident in the police by gender and age

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-74 75+ All
Prevent crime 64 69 70 66 65 63 66 74 66
Respond quickly to appropriate calls and information from public 72 79 79 78 79 71 73 83 76
Deal with incidents as they occur 73 80 80 78 79 72 75 82 77
Investigate incidents after they occur 75 80 80 77 79 75 76 83 78
Solve crimes 70 75 76 71 75 70 71 80 73
Catch criminals 68 73 75 70 73 66 68 76 71
Base (minimum) 3,770 4,510 700 1,130 1,250 2,230 1,990 980 8,280

The underlying calculations for these results do not include responses of ‘Don’t know’ so are completed on a different basis to the equivalent results in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey.

Table 4.22 shows that confidence in the police is lower in the 15 per cent most deprived areas, compared to the rest of Scotland. In particular, 57 per cent of people in the most deprived areas were confident in the ability of the police to prevent crime, compared to 68 per cent in the rest of Scotland. Furthermore, those living in urban areas generally have less confidence in the police than those living in rural areas.

Table 4.22: Percentage of people saying they are very/fairly confident in the police by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation and Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland Large urban areas Other urban areas Accessible small towns Remote small towns Accessible rural Remote rural Scotland
Prevent crime 57 68 64 66 67 68 72 67 66
Respond quickly to appropriate calls and information from public 71 77 77 75 73 81 77 74 76
Deal with incidents as they occur 72 77 77 76 74 80 79 76 77
Investigate incidents after they occur 73 79 77 78 77 78 80 80 78
Solve crimes 66 74 71 72 74 73 78 74 73
Catch criminals 64 72 68 70 72 73 75 75 71
Base (minimum) 1,200 7,070 2,690 2,510 750 540 880 890 8,280

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND RESILIENCE

It is of interest to investigate how strongly individuals feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. Table 4.23 shows that 78 per cent of adults felt very or fairly strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. Those from a white ethnic background were more likely to feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood (78 per cent), compared to those from a minority ethnic group (64 per cent).

Table 4.23: Strength of feeling of belonging to immediate neighbourhood by ethnicity

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults White Other minority ethnic group All
Very strongly 37 23 37
Fairly strongly 41 41 41
Not very strongly 16 24 16
Not at all strongly 6 9 6
Don't know 1 3 1
Total 100 100 100
Base 9,650 270 9,920

Table 4.24 indicates that, generally, the strength of feeling of belonging increased with age, with over half (57 per cent) of those aged 75 and over saying that they felt very strongly that they belong to their immediate community, compared to around a quarter (24 per cent) of 25 to 34 year olds.

Table 4.24: Strength of feeling of belonging to immediate neighbourhood by gender and age

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-74 75+ All
Very strongly 34 39 28 24 30 37 49 57 37
Fairly strongly 42 39 42 42 45 41 38 31 41
Not very strongly 17 16 21 24 18 15 9 9 16
Not at all strongly 6 5 8 9 6 6 3 2 6
Don't know 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 4,450 5,470 830 1,350 1,450 2,590 2,400 1,300 9,920

Table 4.25 shows that those living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas were twice as likely to feel not at all strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood (10 per cent) compared to the rest of Scotland (5 per cent).

Table 4.25: Strength of feeling of belonging to immediate neighbourhood by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2013 data

Adults 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland All
Very strongly 34 37 37
Fairly strongly 36 41 41
Not very strongly 19 16 16
Not at all strongly 10 5 6
Don't know 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100
Base 1,450 8,470 9,920

Resilience

Ready Scotland is a suite of guidance which sets out a recommended approach to preparing for and dealing with emergencies[53]. From January 2012, the SHS incorporated three separate questions to help support the work of Ready Scotland.

Table 4.26 shows that the majority of adults agreed that they could rely on friends and relatives for help (91 per cent), to look after their home (91 per cent) or for advice and support (86 per cent). Almost all respondents (93 per cent) said that they would offer to help their neighbours in an emergency, with only 3 per cent disagreeing with this statement.

Table 4.26: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhood

Row percentages, 2013 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 71 20 4 4 2 9,920
Could rely on friends/relatives in neighbourhood to look after home 73 18 3 4 2 9,920
Could turn to friends/relatives in neighbourhood for advice or support 67 19 5 6 2 9,920
Would offer help to neighbours in an emergency 77 17 4 2 1 9,920

Table 4.26 shows that 77 per cent of adults agree strongly that 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 4.27 shows that 3 per cent of households would not have enough food in their home to eat without going to the shops that same day. Over half (55 per cent) suggested that the food supplies in their home would last for six days or more.

Table 4.27: Number of days could last on food supplies in emergency by tenure of household

Column percentages, 2013 data

Households Owner occupied Social rented Private rented All
0 2 4 3 3
1-2 7 17 20 11
3-5 29 35 32 31
6-9 38 29 29 34
10-15 16 11 13 15
16-25 4 2 2 3
26 or more 4 2 1 3
Total 100 100 100 100
Mean 8.1 6.0 6.1 7.3
Base 2,220 810 400 3,510

There are differences when looking at tenure type, those in the private and social rental sectors said that their food supplies would last less time on average (6.1 and 6.0 days, respectively) than owner occupiers (8.1 days). Four per cent of owner occupiers said that their food supplies could last more than 26 days, higher than the proportion of households in the private rented sector (1 per cent).

Differences are also apparent when considering household income (Table 4.28), with those with a net annual household income of up to £10,000 feeling that their food supplies would not last as long on average (6.8 days), than those on higher incomes (around 7.3 days).

Table 4.28: Number of days could last on food supplies in emergency by net annual household income

Column percentages and mean, 2013 data

Households Up to £10,000 £10,001 - £20,000 £20,001 - £30,000 Over £30,000 All
0 5 3 1 2 2
1-2 14 13 11 8 11
3-5 29 30 31 32 31
6-9 31 34 34 38 35
10-15 16 14 16 14 15
16-25 3 3 3 3 3
26 or more 2 4 4 3 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Mean 6.8 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.3
Base 450 1,170 750 1,020 3,390

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 4.29 shows that almost a third (32 per cent) of households don’t have a first aid kit – a higher proportion for social tenants (45 per cent) and private tenants (42 per cent) than owner occupiers (24 per cent).

Most households (86 per cent) said that they could easily access important documents (such as birth certificates and insurance policies), within five minutes. Although 11 per cent said that, while they had the documents, they would not be able to locate them within five minutes. Overall, 3 per cent of households said that they did not have such documents. This was three times higher, however, in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland (6 per cent) compared to the rest of Scotland (2 per cent).

The proportion of those who do not have a first aid kit, torch or important documents increases as incomes declines (Table 4.30). For example, around three quarters (74 per cent) of households with an income of over £30,000 had a first aid kit, compared to around half (49 per cent) of those with an income of under £10,000.

Table 4.29: Availability of emergency response items in household by tenure of household and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2013 data

Households Owner occupied Social rented Private rented 15% Most Deprived Rest of Scotland All
First aid kit
Yes 69 46 50 52 63 61
No, could not locate within five minutes 6 8 8 5 7 7
No, don't have 24 45 42 42 30 32
Don't know 0 1 1 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Torch
Yes 88 65 72 70 83 81
No, could not locate within five minutes 5 8 6 5 6 6
No, don't have 6 26 21 24 11 13
Don't know 0 1 1 1 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Important documents
Yes 88 80 87 80 87 86
No, could not locate within five minutes 10 13 9 13 10 11
No, don't have 2 5 4 6 2 3
Don't know 0 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes 37 23 24 25 33 32
No, could not locate within five minutes 7 6 8 3 8 7
No, don't have 55 70 67 71 58 60
Don't know 0 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 2,220 810 400 500 3,010 3,510

Table 4.30: Availability of emergency response items in household by net annual household income

Column percentages, 2013 data

Households Up to £10,000 £10,001-£20,000 £20,001-£30,000 Over £30,000 All
First aid kit
Yes 49 54 65 74 62
No, could not locate within five minutes 9 7 5 5 6
No, don't have 41 39 30 21 32
Don't know 2 0 - 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Torch
Yes 75 74 86 88 81
No, could not locate within five minutes 6 7 4 6 6
No, don't have 17 18 9 5 12
Don't know 1 1 0 0 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Important documents
Yes 80 84 87 90 86
No, could not locate within five minutes 13 11 10 9 11
No, don't have 6 4 2 1 3
Don't know 1 1 0 0 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes 32 29 34 36 32
No, could not locate within five minutes 6 6 7 8 7
No, don't have 61 65 59 56 60
Don't know 2 1 - 0 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 450 1,170 750 1,020 3,390

Contact

Email: Andrew Craik