Neighbourhood Cohesion

This wave, respondents were then asked a series of questions about their neighbourhood and neighbours. The survey specified that ‘neighbourhood’ refers to the area within a 20-minute return walk or cycle from one’s home.

Respondents were asked how they would rate their neighbourhood as a place to live. About two in five (39%) said their neighbourhood was 'very good', while about half (48%) said their neighbourhood was a 'fairly good' place to live. Together, just under nine in ten (87%) rated their neighbourhood positively

On the other hand, one in ten (10%) said their neighbourhood was a 'fairly poor' place to live and only one in fifty (2%) said their neighbourhood was a 'very poor' place to live.

Some notable demographic differences in neighbourhood ratings emerged. Older
respondents, aged 55+, were more likely than younger respondents, aged 16 to 54, to say their neighbourhood was a good place to live (92%; 83%), as were those in higher social grades (ABC1) compared to those in grades C2DE (90%; 82%). Neighbourhood ratings also varied significantly by geographic factors including neighbourhood deprivation, rurality and Scottish Parliamentary region.

Neighbourhood Cohesion: Belonging

Next, respondents were asked to what extent they felt they belonged to their neighbourhood. Three in ten (30%) said they felt they 'completely' belonged to their neighbourhood, while over two in five (45%) said they felt they 'somewhat' belonged. Around one in five (18%) said they felt they did 'not very much' belong and one in twenty (6%) felt do 'not at all' belong to their neighbourhood.

Key demographic characteristics were correlated with one’s sense of belonging to their neighbourhood. Female respondents were more likely than males to say they felt they at least 'somewhat' belonged (78%; 71%) as were older respondents relative to younger respondents, especially the oldest, aged 65+, compared to the youngest, aged 16 to 34 (84%; 67%). Additionally, those in higher social grades (ABC1) were more likely than respondents in lower social grades (C2DE) to feel that they belonged to their neighbourhood (80%; 68%).

Turning to geography, over four in five (83%) of respondents in the least deprived areas (SIMD 4 and 5) said they 'completely' or 'somewhat' belonged to their neighbourhood, compared to fewer than three in five (57%) of those in the most deprived areas (SIMD 1). Furthermore, over four in five (84%) of respondents in rural areas felt they belonged compared to three in four (73%) of those in urban areas.

Neighbourhood Cohesion: Perceptions

Respondents were then presented with a series of statements about the community in their neighbourhood and asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each. Between two in five and two in three respondents agreed with each statement.

The most respondents - over three in five (63%) - agreed 'this is a neighbourhood where people are kind to one another’', with only one in ten (10%) disagreed. This proportion is followed by the almost three in five (57%) respondents who agreed that 'people look out for one another' in their neighbourhood and half (51%) who agreed that 'people from different backgrounds get on well together'. Just under half (45%) agreed 'people pull together to improve the neighbourhood' and a similar proportion (44%) agreed 'people try to make others feel like they belong', while one in four (24%) and one in five (18%) disagreed, respectively.

Across all statements, respondents in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to agree. For example, almost two in three (65%) respondents in rural areas agreed 'people pull together to improve the neighbourhood' compared to only two in five (40%) of respondents who live in urban areas. In addition, respondents in the most deprived neighbourhoods (SIMD 1) were least likely to agree with each statement, compared to those from all other SIMD areas. For instance, just under half (45%) of respondents from SIMD 1 agreed people are kind to one another in their neighbourhood, compared to three in five (60%) of those from SIMD 2 and 3 and nearly three in four (72%) of those from SIMD 4 and 5.

Neighbourhood Cohesion: Places

The aforementioned question also included three statements on community places in one’s neighbourhood, including physical and digital spaces.

The most respondents - almost three in five (58%) - agreed 'there are digital spaces where people can interact', while just one in nine (11%) disagreed. Followed at a distance, under half (45%) of respondents agreed 'there are welcoming physical spaces where people can socialise', although a sizable one in three
(31%) disagreed. Finally, a little under two in five (37%) agreed 'there are places where people can meet new people', while nearly one in three (32%) disagreed.

'Don’t know' responses were low for two of the statements, fewer than one in ten. However, for the statement 'there are digital spaces where people can interact', a notable one in six (17%) said they didn’t know. Notably, 'don’t know' responses for this statement were much higher amongst respondents aged 65+ compared to those aged 16 to 34 (21%; 14%), as well as amongst males relative to females (21%; 14%).

Again, those in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to agree with all of three statements. For example, seven in ten (70%) rural residents agreed that 'there are digital spaces where people can interact with one another' compared to over half (56%) of urban residents.

Furthermore, residents in the most deprived areas (SIMD 1) were also less likely than residents from all other areas to agree with these statements. While only three in ten (30%) respondents from SIMD 1 agreed 'there are welcoming physical places where people can socialise', two in five (42%) of those from SIMD 2 and 3 and half (52%) of those from SIMD 4 and 5 said the same. Even considering digital spaces, only two in five (42%) of those from SIMD 1 areas agreed these exist in their neighbourhood, compared to three in five (59%) of those in SIMD 2 and 3 and two in three (64%) of respondents in SIMD 4 and 5.

Neighbourhood Cohesion: Neighbours

Next, respondents were shown a series of statements about their relationships with their neighbours and asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each. Over half of respondents agreed with each statement and fewer than one in four disagreed.

The most respondents - nearly nine in ten (87%) - agreed 'in an emergency, I would offer to help people in my neighbourhood who might not be able to cope as well', while the least respondents disagreed with this statement, at 4%. Meanwhile, the least respondents - although still over half (54%) - agreed with the statement 'I feel I could turn to someone in this neighbourhood for advice or support', while one in five (22%) disagreed with this statement.

Looking at demographic patterns, female respondents were more likely than male respondents to agree with some statements about being able to rely on your neighbours, such as turning to someone for advice or support (59%; 48%) and relying on someone for help if they were alone (67%; 59%). Additionally, the oldest
respondents, aged 65+, were more likely than younger respondents, aged 16 to 34, to agree with each statement, as were those in higher social grades (ABC1) compared to those in lower social grades (C2DE), excluding the statement about offering help in an emergency (88%; 87%). Considering geography, for every statement, those in the least deprived areas (SIMD 4 and 5) were more likely to agree than those in the most
deprived areas (SIMD 1).

Neighbourhood Cohesion: Issue Resolution

Lastly, respondents were presented a series of statements about issues in their neighbourhood and how these are, or how they would like them to be, resolved.

Half (50%) of respondents agreed that local people would share information and ideas to tackle antisocial behaviour if there was a problem and the same proportion (50%) agreed that they know how to speak to agencies to address local problems. Just under half (48%) agreed they would expect public agencies to resolve issues in their neighbourhood, rather than working with their neighbours to overcome them, and
fewer than three in ten (28%) agreed that the people in their neighbourhood try to resolve issues as a community, rather than through an outside agency or organisation.

Considering demographic differences, female respondents were more likely than male respondents to agree that they know how to speak to agencies to address local issues (56%; 44%), as were the oldest respondents, aged 65+, compared to the youngest, aged 16 to 34 (62%; 34%).

Looking at the neighbourhood deprivation, those in the least deprived areas (SIMD 5) were more likely than those in the most deprived areas (SIMD 1) to agree that people try to resolve issues as a community (32%; 21%) and that people are likely to share information and ideas to resolve antisocial behaviour (56%; 35%).