beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Statistics Publication

Scotland's People: Results from the 2015 Scottish Household Survey

Published: 27 Sep 2016
Part of:
Statistics
ISBN:
9781786524416

Report presenting reliable and up-to-date information on the composition, characteristics and behaviour of Scottish households.

287 page PDF

5.4MB

287 page PDF

5.4MB

Contents
Scotland's People: Results from the 2015 Scottish Household Survey
4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

287 page PDF

5.4MB

4 Neighbourhoods and Communities

4.1 Introduction and Context

Improving the quality of life in Scotland's neighbourhoods and communities is one of the Scottish Government's five Strategic Objectives [32] : Safer and Stronger - 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 [33] associated with this overarching objective. It is used specifically to monitor one of the National Indicators associated with the Safer and Stronger objective: 'Improve people's perceptions of their neighbourhood'. In addition, the outcome 'we live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger' can draw directly on the findings presented in this chapter.

This chapter starts with an overview of public perceptions of their neighbourhoods. It then explores the perceptions and experiences of various forms of anti-social behaviour, before looking at experiences of discrimination and harassment. Finally, the chapter investigates how engaged people were with their local community in 2015 and how prepared they were for emergency situations.

Main Findings

The majority of adults in Scotland (56.3 per cent) rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015. Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high since the SHS began in 1999. The proportion of adults who described their neighbourhood as very or fairly good in 2015 was higher than the levels seen in 1999 and 2007.

Most potential neighbourhood problems are not considered to be particularly common. In 2015, the most prevalent issue cited was animal nuisance ( e.g. noise or fouling) which was reported as being very or fairly common by 31 per cent of adults. There has been little change in perceived neighbourhood problems between 2014 and 2015.

Just under half (49 per cent) of all adults reported that they did not experience any neighbourhood problems in 2015, however this was true for 41 per cent of those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas compared to 51 per cent of those in the rest of Scotland.

Relatively few adults reported that they had experienced discrimination or harassment in the last three years (reported by 7 per cent and 6 per cent of respondents respectively). Such experiences were more common amongst those in younger age groups. Experiences also varied according to sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and whether an individual had a long-term physical or mental illness. Of respondents who reported that they had been discriminated against, the most common reason given for why they thought they were discriminated against was their ethnicity (32 per cent).

More than three-quarters (77 per cent) of all adults felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their neighbourhood in 2015, however this varied according to age, ethnic group and deprivation. The majority of adults in Scotland indicated that they would assist neighbours in an emergency (74 per cent) and could rely on those around them for advice and support (63 per cent).

4.2 Neighbourhoods

The section below explores how people view their neighbourhoods and their impression of how their local areas has changed (if at all) over the last few years.

4.2.1 Overall Ratings of Neighbourhoods

The majority of adults in Scotland (56.3 per cent) rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015, as shown in Table 4.1.

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

Column percentages, 1999-2015 data

Adults 1999 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Very/fairly good 90.7 92.1 92.0 92.4 92.5 93.6 93.5 93.9 93.7 94.1 94.4 94.6
Very good 49.4 50.7 51.1 51.7 53.1 55.0 55.4 55.9 55.2 55.2 55.8 56.3
Fairly good 41.3 41.4 40.9 40.7 39.4 38.6 38.1 38.0 38.5 38.9 38.5 38.3
Fairly poor 5.4 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.7
Very poor 3.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.4
No opinion 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 13,780 14,070 14,190 10,390 9,310 12,540 12,440 12,890 9,890 9,920 9,800 9,410

Overall ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high since the SHS began in 1999, with over nine in ten adults viewing their neighbourhood as a very or fairly good place to live in each year. This proportion has steadily increased over the last decade as shown in the above table, meaning the percentage of adults describing their neighbourhood as very or fairly good was higher in 2015 than in 1999 and 2007.

Whilst neighbourhoods were rated highly across the board, the strength of view varied by urban rural classification, with those in accessible or remote rural areas most likely to describe their neighbourhood as a very good place to live (71 per cent and 73 per cent respectively). In contrast, around half of those in large urban areas rated their neighbourhood as being very good, as shown in Table 4.2.

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

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults Large urban areas Other urban areas Accessible small towns Remote small towns Accessible rural Remote rural Scotland
Very/fairly good 93 94 96 96 98 96 95
Very good 50 54 58 61 71 73 56
Fairly good 43 40 38 35 26 23 38
Fairly poor 4 4 3 4 2 3 4
Very poor 2 1 1 1 1 0 1
No opinion 0 0 0 - 0 1 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 2,760 3,220 860 580 1,010 980 9,410

Neighbourhood ratings also vary by deprivation [34] , with the proportion of adults rating their neighbourhood as a very good place to live increasing as deprivation decreases, as in previous years (see Figure 4.1).

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

2015 data, Adults (minimum base: 820)

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

Only three in 10 adults (30 per cent) in the 10 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland rated their neighbourhood as a very good place to live in 2015, compared to 77 per cent of those living in the 10 per cent least deprived areas.

4.2.2 Neighbourhood Improvements

Respondents were also asked whether and to what extent they thought their neighbourhood had changed in the preceding three years. Like the SHS in 2014, the 2015 survey found that overall just under two-thirds of adults thought their neighbourhood had stayed the same over the last few years.

However, as shown in Table 4.3 below, perceptions varied by deprivation with those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland most likely to believe that their area had improved or worsened to some extent over the reference period.

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

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults 20% most deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
Got much better 5 2 3
Got a little better 18 11 12
Stayed the same 51 68 65
Got a little worse 13 11 11
Got much worse 6 2 3
No opinion 8 6 6
Base 1,740 7,670 9,410

4.2.3 Neighbourhood Ratings and Fear of Crime

As discussed in section 1.2, much of the analysis in relation to perceptions and fear of crime, and confidence in the police that is published in alternative sources has been excluded from this year's report. However, the SHS questions on fear of crime uniquely enable the link between neighbourhood ratings and feelings of safety to be explored.

Table 4.4 below shows a clear association between how adults rated their neighbourhoods and how safe they felt in their communities.

For example, the majority of all respondents (85 per cent) said they felt very or fairly safe walking alone in their neighbourhood. However, this was true for just over a third (35 per cent) of adults who rated their neighbourhood as a very poor place to live, compared to 87 per cent of those who rated their local area as very or fairly good.

Table 4.4: 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, 2015 data

Adults Very/fairly good Fairly poor Very poor No opinion All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe 87 53 35 * 85
Very / A bit unsafe 12 46 64 * 14
Don't Know 1 1 1 * 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 8,520 310 120 30 8,980
At home
Very / Fairly safe 98 91 72 * 98
Very / A bit unsafe 1 9 28 * 2
Don't Know 0 - - * 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 8,920 330 130 30 9,410

4.3 Neighbourhood Problems

As well as asking respondents about their general views on their neighbourhoods and how it has changed, the SHS also collects information on perceptions and experiences of specific neighbourhood problems, such as anti-social behaviour. As with previous years, the nine neighbourhood problems which respondents were asked about can be categorised in four key groups as shown below.

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 social problems overall are outlined in Table 4.5 which shows the percentage of adults describing each issue as very or fairly common in their neighbourhood over the last 10 years.

Continuing the trend seen over the last decade, the most prevalent issues cited in 2015 were:

  • Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling (which 31 per cent saw as very or fairly common); and
  • Rubbish or litter lying around (which 28 per cent said was very or fairly common).

There was little change in perceived prevalence of each of the issues between 2014 and 2015.

The perceived prevalence of neighbourhood problems varies by deprivation. Table 4.6 shows that those living in more deprived areas were more likely to perceive each issue to be a very or fairly common problem. For example, there is a difference between adults in the 10 per cent most and 10 per cent least deprived areas in perceptions of rubbish or litter lying around (45 per cent compared to 18 per cent), drug misuse or dealing (29 per cent compared to 2 per cent), and rowdy behaviour (23 per cent compared to 3 per cent).

Table 4.5: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood

Percentages, 2006-2015 data

Adults 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property 16 17 15 14 11 11 11 10 8 8
Groups or individual harassing others 11 12 11 10 8 8 8 7 6 6
Drug misuse or dealing 12 12 13 12 11 12 13 12 11 12
Rowdy behaviour 12 17 17 16 14 14 15 13 12 11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 8 9 10 10 10 10 12 11 11 10
Neighbour disputes 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 27 29 29 26 24 25 29 27 27 28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling - - - 24 23 26 30 31 31 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles - 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Base (minimum) 14,190 10,390 9,310 11,400 11,140 11,280 9,890 9,920 9,800 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.6: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2015 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 19 17 10 9 7 4 4 5 4 3 8
Groups or individual harassing others 12 12 11 6 6 4 4 2 3 1 6
Drug misuse or dealing 29 23 19 13 12 6 6 5 4 2 12
Rowdy behaviour 23 20 15 13 11 7 7 5 6 3 11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 20 16 13 10 11 8 6 5 3 5 10
Neighbour disputes 12 12 8 5 6 4 4 2 2 2 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 45 40 36 32 30 23 22 20 19 18 28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 42 41 36 36 33 31 26 24 24 22 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1
Base (minimum) 860 880 850 1,050 1,030 1,030 1,070 1,010 820 820 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.7 shows that perceptions of the prevalence of neighbourhood problems were higher amongst those who live in social rented housing compared to owner occupiers and private renters. For instance, drug misuse was most likely to be perceived to be a very or fairly common problem by those in social rented accommodation, with just under a quarter (23 per cent) citing it as a common issue. In part, these associations further emphasise the link between social rented housing and deprivation.

Perceptions of neighbourhood problems generally decrease with age, as shown in Table 4.8 below. For example, those aged 16-24 were more likely than those aged 75 and above to view rowdy behaviour as a very or fairly common issue (reported by 16 per cent and 2 per cent respectively).

However, it should be noted that the association between age and the perceived prevalence of neighbourhood problems is not entirely linear, despite the general declining trend in reported prevalence with increasing age. For example, just over one-quarter (26 per cent) of adults aged 16-24 reported animal nuisance (such as noise or fouling to be very or fairly common), compared to more than a third (37 per cent) of those aged 25-34.

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

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults Owner occupied Social rented Private rented Other All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property 6 14 9 8 8
Groups or individual harassing others 4 11 6 8 6
Drug misuse or dealing 8 23 11 10 12
Rowdy behaviour 7 17 16 7 11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 6 17 14 9 10
Neighbour disputes 4 11 6 5 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 25 37 31 35 28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 30 38 28 23 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 2 1 - 1
Base (minimum) 5,930 2,160 1,200 120 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.8: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by age of respondent

Percentages, 2015 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 11 12 9 7 6 3 8
Groups or individual harassing others 7 8 8 6 4 1 6
Drug misuse or dealing 11 14 13 13 10 5 12
Rowdy behaviour 16 15 13 10 7 2 11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 15 15 11 9 5 2 10
Neighbour disputes 7 9 7 5 4 2 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 33 36 31 25 25 19 28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 26 37 38 30 32 19 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 2 1 1 1 1 0 1
Base (minimum) 750 1,210 1,390 2,440 2,380 1,240 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.9 shows that adults living in urban areas were generally more likely to consider neighbourhood problems to be common, compared to those in rural areas.

In particular, those living in large urban areas were generally most likely to perceive each issue as being very or fairly common, whilst those in accessible and remote rural areas tended to have the lowest levels of perceived prevalence.

As with the findings in 2014, the issue most commonly reported by those in large urban areas was rubbish or litter lying around (37 per cent), a problem only rated as very or fairly common by 19 per cent of those in accessible rural areas, and 14 per cent of adults living in remote rural areas.

Table 4.9: Percentage of people saying a problem is very/fairly common in their neighbourhood by Urban Rural classification

Percentages, 2015 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 12 7 7 6 3 1 8
Groups or individual harassing others 8 6 6 4 4 1 6
Drug misuse or dealing 13 13 12 12 6 3 12
Rowdy behaviour 15 10 9 12 5 2 11
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 13 9 8 9 5 3 10
Neighbour disputes 7 5 6 4 5 2 6
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 37 26 24 21 19 14 28
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 34 31 36 33 25 20 31
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Base (minimum) 2,760 3,220 860 580 1,010 980 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

4.3.1 Personal Experience of Neighbourhood Problems

The previous section examined perceptions of neighbourhood problems by a range of socio-demographic and geographic characteristics; this section will now focus on personal experience of neighbourhood problems.

It is important to note that it is not always necessary to have direct personal experience of an issue to know about it or perceive it as 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 other vandalised property in their neighbourhood.

In addition, what respondents define as "experience" is related to their own perceptions, beliefs and definitions. For instance, one respondent may consider witnessing drug dealing as experiencing the issue, whilst another respondent may only report experience of this problem if they personally have been offered drugs.

Figure 4.2 compares the perception that a neighbourhood problem is fairly or very common with actual experiences of that problem in the previous year. It is notable that generally problems were perceived to be common by a higher percentage of the adult population than had actually experienced each particular issue (with the exception of animal nuisance). For example, 12 per cent of individuals believed drug misuse or dealing to be a very or fairly common problem in the neighbourhood, yet only 6 per cent of adults reported that they had personally experienced this problem.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

2015 data, Adults (base: 9,410)

Figure 4.2: Perceptions and experience of neighbourhood problems

Table 4.10, Table 4.11 and Table 4.12 present the proportions of people who said that they have experienced each of the neighbourhood problems broken down by area deprivation, housing tenure and urban rural classification. These show:

  • Just under half (49 per cent) of all adults in Scotland reported that they had experienced no neighbourhood problems in 2015;
  • Those living in the 20 per cent most deprived areas were more likely to report experiencing problems than those in the rest of Scotland;
  • Adults in social rented accommodation were generally more likely than those in owner occupied and private rented house to say they had experienced neighbourhood problems; and
  • People living in rural areas were the most likely to report having experienced no neighbourhood problems in the last year.

Table 4.10: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults 20% most deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property 9 4 5
Groups or individual harassing others 7 3 3
Drug misuse or dealing 13 4 6
Rowdy behaviour 14 8 9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 17 8 9
Neighbour disputes 8 4 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 34 23 25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 39 33 34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 1
None 41 51 49
Base (minimum) 1,740 7,670 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.11: Experience of neighbourhood problems by tenure of household

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults Owner occupied Social rented Private rented Other All
General anti-social behaviour
Vandalism / graffiti / damage to property 4 7 6 9 5
Groups or individual harassing others 2 6 4 6 3
Drug misuse or dealing 4 11 6 9 6
Rowdy behaviour 6 12 14 11 9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 6 15 14 11 9
Neighbour disputes 4 8 5 3 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 23 30 27 29 25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 34 37 31 24 34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 1 1 1
None 51 44 48 55 49
Base (minimum) 5,930 2,160 1,200 120 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

Table 4.12: Experience of neighbourhood problems by Urban Rural Classification

Percentages, 2015 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 5 4 3 2 2 5
Groups or individual harassing others 5 3 3 3 2 2 3
Drug misuse or dealing 8 6 5 6 3 2 6
Rowdy behaviour 12 8 10 11 3 3 9
Neighbour problems
Noisy neighbours / loud parties 12 9 7 10 7 3 9
Neighbour disputes 6 4 5 3 4 3 5
Rubbish and fouling
Rubbish or litter lying around 32 23 20 23 18 15 25
Animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling 36 34 39 40 30 25 34
Vehicles
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 1 1 0 2 1 1 1
None 43 51 47 43 56 62 49
Base (minimum) 2,760 3,220 860 580 1,010 980 9,410

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

4.4 Discrimination and Harassment

The SHS also explores whether respondents have experienced any kind of discrimination or harassment, in the last three years, whilst in Scotland.

In 2015, just over one in 20 adults reported that they had experienced either discrimination (7 per cent) or harassment (6 per cent) in Scotland at some point over the last three years. However, Table 4.13 shows that whilst experiences varied slightly by gender, the association between age and experience was more notable with those in younger categories most likely to have experienced either discrimination or harassment.

Table 4.13: Experiences of discrimination and harassment by gender, age and level of deprivation

Row percentages, 2015 data

Adults Discrimination Harassment Base
Yes No Yes No
Gender
Male 8 92 6 94 4,240
Female 7 93 6 94 5,160
Age
16 to 24 10 90 10 90 750
25 to 34 10 90 7 93 1,210
35 to 44 10 90 9 91 1,390
45 to 59 8 92 7 93 2,440
60 to 74 4 96 3 97 2,380
75+ 1 99 1 99 1,240
Deprivation
20% Most Deprived 9 91 8 92 1,740
Rest of Scotland 7 93 6 94 7,670
All 7 93 6 94 9,410

Table 4.14 displays the proportion of adults experiencing discrimination or harassment by a further range of demographic breakdowns: sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and whether the individual has a long term physical or mental health condition which has (or is expected to) last at least 12 months.

The table below highlights that some groups are more likely than others to have experienced discrimination or harassment in the last three years in Scotland. For instance, more than a quarter of those who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual reported that they had experienced discrimination in the reference period, compared to only 7 per cent of heterosexual people (although attention should be paid to base sizes here). In addition, experiences of discrimination and harassment were reported by a greater percentage of those from an 'other minority ethnic' background compared to those who described themselves as 'white' ( e.g. 17 per cent compared to 7 per cent experiencing discrimination respectively).

It is important to note that Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 do not show the reasons behind experiences of discrimination and harassment, which are not necessarily related to the equality characteristics presented.

Table 4.14: Experiences of discrimination and harassment by sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion and long term physical/mental health condition

Row percentages, 2015 data [35]

Adults Discrimination Harassment Base
Yes No Yes No
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual/Straight 7 93 6 94 9,230
Gay/Lesbian/ Bisexual 27 73 14 86 80
Ethnicity
White 7 93 6 94 9,170
Other minority ethnic group 17 83 13 87 240
Religion
None 7 93 7 93 4,390
Church of Scotland 5 95 4 96 2,730
Roman Catholic 9 91 7 93 1,250
Other Christian 9 91 8 92 780
Another religion 18 82 11 89 250
Long term physical/mental health condition
Yes 11 89 8 92 3,200
No 6 94 6 94 6,170
All 7 93 6 94 9,410

During the SHS interview, adults who reported that they had experienced harassment or discrimination were asked why they thought they had experienced it. Respondents were asked to provide spontaneous responses to these questions and where possible, the interviewer coded these answers into one of the main categories shown in Table 4.15 ( e.g. age, disability, gender, etc.). As there were a wide range of options which adults could have provided (and the fact multiple reasons could be given), it was not possible to code every potential type of response in advance, which has resulted in high levels of 'other' reasons being recorded.

Table 4.15 shows that around a third (32 per cent) of respondents who reported that they had been discriminated against said that they believed the reason behind this was their ethnic origin. Age, disability and gender were all cited as reasons for discrimination experienced by around one in ten adults.

Of those who had experienced harassment, a fifth cited their ethnic group as the perceived reason, with 'other reasons' being the most common response (42 per cent).

Table 4.15: Reasons for discrimination and harassment

Percentages, 2015 data

Adults Discrimination Harassment
Age 10 5
Disability 11 6
Gender 11 11
Ethnic group 32 20
Religion 7 5
Sexual orientation 3 4
Sectarian reasons 7 5
Other 20 42
Don't know 3 7
Refused 0 0
Base 640 550

Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.

As in previous years, those who had experienced harassment or discrimination were more likely to say that they feel very or a bit unsafe walking in the local neighbourhood or at home late at night as shown in Table 4.16 [36] .

Table 4.16: Perceptions of safety when walking alone in the neighbourhood and in their home alone at night by experience of discrimination and harassment

Column percentages, 2015 data

Adults Have experienced harassment Have not experienced harassment Have experienced discrimination Have not experienced discrimination All
Walking alone
Very / Fairly safe 68 86 77 86 85
Very / A bit unsafe 32 13 23 14 14
Don't Know 0 1 0 1 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 540 8,440 620 8,360 8,980
At home
Very / Fairly safe 93 98 95 98 98
Very / A bit unsafe 7 2 5 2 2
Don't Know - 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 550 8,860 640 8,770 9,410

4.5 Community Engagement and Resilience

4.5.1 Community Engagement

The SHS also seeks to explore how strongly adults feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood. Table 4.17 shows that in 2015 77 per cent of adults felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their neighbourhood, a similar finding to that in 2014.

However, whilst the majority of those in all categories shown said that they felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging, it is important to note the variation in feelings by gender, age, ethnic background and deprivation. For example, almost nine in ten adults (89 per cent) aged 75 and above said they felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their community, compared to just two thirds (66 per cent) of those aged between 16 and 24.

In addition, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas were twice as likely as those in the rest of Scotland to say that they did not at all feel a strong sense of belonging to their local neighbourhood (10 per cent compared to 5 per cent).

Table 4.17: Strength of feeling of belonging to community by gender, age, ethnicity and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Row percentages, 2015 data

Adults Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know Total Base
Gender
Male 31 44 17 7 1 100 4,240
Female 36 43 15 5 1 100 5,160
Age
16-24 22 44 23 10 1 100 750
25-34 22 45 22 10 1 100 1,210
35-44 27 47 19 7 1 100 1,390
45-59 34 45 16 5 0 100 2,440
60-74 45 41 10 3 1 100 2,380
75+ 54 34 9 2 0 100 1,240
Ethnicity
White 34 43 16 6 1 100 9,170
Minority Ethnic Groups 19 44 25 11 2 100 240
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
20% Most Deprived Areas 28 42 19 10 1 100 1,740
Rest of Scotland 35 44 16 5 1 100 7,670
All 34 43 16 6 1 100 9,410

Table 4.18: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhoodhighlights that the vast majority of adults in Scotland reported that they would help their neighbours in an emergency and are also positive about the ability to call on others around them for support if need be, offering a slightly different perspective of community engagement.

Table 4.18: Involvement with other people in the neighbourhood

Row percentages, 2015 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
67 23 4 4 1 9,410
Could rely on friends/relatives in
neighbourhood to look after home
69 21 4 4 2 9,410
Could turn to friends/relatives in
neighbourhood for advice or support
63 22 6 6 2 9,410
Would offer help to neighbours in
an emergency
74 20 4 2 1 9,410

4.5.2 Resilience

Ready Scotland [37] is a suite of guidance which sets out a recommended approach to preparing for and dealing with emergencies. Since January 2012, the SHS has incorporated three separate questions to support the work of Ready Scotland.

It is recognised that emergencies can happen at any time and that there are a few small steps that households can take to prepare for the unexpected things that can cause disruption to daily lives.

Table 4.19 and Table 4.20 outline the availability of a range of emergency response items and shows the variation in availability by tenure and SIMD, and according to net household income respectively. For example, whilst a third (33 per cent) of households in Scotland do not have a first-aid kit, the proportion without this item is higher amongst social tenants (49 per cent) and private renters (41 per cent) compared to owner occupiers (25 per cent).

Table 4.19: Availability of emergency response items in household by tenure of household and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

Column percentages, 2015 data

Households Owner occupied Social rented Private rented 20% Most Deprived Rest of Scotland Scotland
First aid kit
Yes 68 45 51 48 63 60
No, could not locate within five minutes 7 6 8 6 7 7
No, don't have 25 49 41 46 30 33
Don't know 0 0 0 - 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Torch
Yes 91 73 76 74 87 84
No, could not locate within five minutes 4 6 6 6 5 5
No, don't have 4 20 18 20 8 11
Don't know 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Important documents
Yes 88 81 85 82 87 86
No, could not locate within five minutes 10 13 11 14 10 11
No, don't have 2 5 4 4 3 3
Don't know 0 1 0 1 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes 33 20 29 23 31 29
No, could not locate within five minutes 6 6 3 5 6 5
No, don't have 61 73 67 71 63 65
Don't know 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Base 2,060 790 430 610 2,700 3,320

Table 4.20: Availability of emergency response items in household by net annual household income

Column percentages, 2015 data

Households Up to £10,000 £10,001-£20,000 £20,001-£30,000 Over £30,000 All
First aid kit
Yes 46 50 63 74 60
No, could not locate within five minutes 9 7 6 5 7
No, don't have 44 43 31 20 33
Don't know 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Torch
Yes 75 80 89 90 85
No, could not locate within five minutes 6 5 4 5 5
No, don't have 18 14 7 5 10
Don't know 1 0 - 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Important documents
Yes 83 83 88 90 86
No, could not locate within five minutes 11 13 10 9 11
No, don't have 5 4 2 1 3
Don't know 1 0 - 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Battery-powered/Wind-up radio
Yes 29 27 27 34 29
No, could not locate within five minutes 8 6 5 5 5
No, don't have 63 68 68 61 65
Don't know 1 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Base 380 1,060 710 1,070 3,220

Contact