Scottish Government

CHAPTER TWO: THE INCIDENCE OF INCIVILITIES

Asking about incivilities

2.1 In this chapter we introduce the incivilities covered by this study and examine which are most likely to be considered to be a problem by people in Scotland as a whole. We also examine the degree to which people who report one particular incivility are also likely to report another. This analysis provides us with our first clues about the relative incidence and importance of different incivilities and helps inform some of our subsequent more detailed analysis.

2.2 Four primary approaches were used to identify the incivilities that were explored by the study. These were: a review of relevant academic and 'grey' literature; the experience of the research team gained in previous work on the links between incivilities and community well-being; the views of local authority officials elicited prior to establishing the Environmental Health Surveillance System for Scotland ( EHS3); and the views of Scottish Executive officials concerned with policy development on environmental justice. Eventually respondents to the survey were asked about their perceptions of 24 incivilities, including two instances that were examples of the absence of a 'good'.

2.3 The first piece of information we needed to acquire for each incivility was how much of a problem people thought it was in their area. Two slightly different approaches were used to gather this information depending on the character of the incivility in question. Where a potential incivility could be considered relatively commonplace, respondents were simply asked how much of a problem they felt it was in their area. Examples include cat & dog mess, overhead power lines and the absence of pleasant places to walk. But where a potential incivility depended on the presence or otherwise of a piece of infrastructure that is not particularly commonplace, respondents were asked, first, whether that piece of infrastructure existed in their area and only if they answered this in the affirmative were they asked how much of problem they felt its presence was. Examples include a waste incinerator, landfill site and wind farm.

2.4 In addition to people's reports of the incivilities that they actually suffered, however, we also wanted to know what potential incivilities they thought would be a problem if they were to exist or occur in their area. It was hoped that this would give us a measure of the relative undesirability of particular incivilities that was independent of the degree to which people actually experienced them. This would enable us to establish how far there was agreement across different sections of Scottish society as to which incivilities are best avoided and thus on which incivilities it might be thought most important to focus an environmental justice policy. However, because of limitations of space on the questionnaire, we only ascertained this information in respect of a subset of 15 of our overall total of 24 incivilities.

Incidence of commonplace incivilities

2.5 Our first question then is which incivilities are currently most widely regarded by people across Scotland as a whole as a problem in their particular area? We ascertained respondents' feelings about how much of a problem a particular incivility was by presenting them with a set of seven faces that ranged at one end from a face that was discernibly smiling to, at the other end, one that was evidently unhappy. The happiest face was described as indicating that something was 'no problem at all' while the unhappiest face was labelled 'a really big problem' (for further details see Annex 2). Respondents were invited to indicate the face that best described how much of a problem each incivility was in their area.

2.6 Table 2.1 reports the degree to which each of 16 more commonplace incivilities were regarded as a problem in their area by all respondents to the survey. It does so by showing three statistics. First it shows the average score given to each incivility where a score of one means the incivility was not regarded as a problem and a score of seven means it was considered to be a really big problem. Second, it shows the proportion of respondents who said that a particular incivility was a 'problem' in their area, that is pointed to one of the three most unhappy faces. Finally it shows for each incivility the proportion who said it was a 'really big problem' by pointing to the unhappiest face of all.

Table 2.1 Perceptions of more commonplace incivilities

Note to table

Respondents who said they did not know how much of a problem an incivility was in their area are excluded from the calculation of the average score for that item. The maximum number of such respondents who gave that response on any item was 25.

2.7 None of the incivilities is regarded as a 'problem' locally by as many as half of adults in Scotland, while none is regarded as a 'really big problem' by as many as one in five. This suggests many people in Scotland enjoy an environment that they find reasonably congenial. But in so far as people do not find their local environment acceptable, the kinds of incivilities that respondents are most likely to report as being problems in their area are 'street level' incivilities such as a cat & dog mess, litter & rubbish, and uneven pavements. In contrast the consequences of industrial infrastructure, such as smell from sewage, the presence of overhead power lines or the noise and smell from factories, are less likely to be reported as a problem locally. However, lack of one of the two 'goods' about whose availability we asked, that of safe places for children to play, is also widely regarded as a problem.

Co-occurrence

2.8 But as we suggested earlier, incivilities do not necessarily occur singly. Perhaps those who feel that litter is a problem in their area are also more likely to feel that cat & dog mess is a problem where they live too. This may, of course, be because some people are more predisposed than are others to regard any incivility as a problem. But it may also be an indication that incivilities of a similar kind tend to co-occur and that where environmental problems exist they do so not in isolation but rather in combination. In particular, we might anticipate from Table 2.1 that where one street level incivility is considered to be a problem, so also are other street level incivilities. On the other hand, perhaps it is not the case that where street level incivilities are widely regarded as a problem, so also are other more infrastructural incivilities.

2.9 We can assess whether or not this is the case by undertaking a factor analysis of the degree to which each of the 16 incivilities in Table 2.1 are considered to be a problem. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that identifies instances where high scores on one variable tend to be associated with high scores on another variable. Where this is true of a number of the responses to questions on a survey it identifies a common factor or dimension that appears to underlie how respondents answered these questions (for further details see Annex 1). The degree to which a variable forms part of a dimension is indicated by its 'loading' on that factor.

2.10 Table 2.2 indicates that such an analysis identifies three reasonably distinct dimensions. The first is a factor largely consisting of street level incivilities. Litter & rubbish, vandalism & graffiti, and broken glass lying around are the items that are most typical of this factor. In other words, those people who say that litter & rubbish are a problem in their area are also quite likely to indicate that both vandalism & graffiti together with broken glass lying around are problems locally too. The second dimension comprises incivilities that are largely the product of industrial infrastructural activity; overhead power lines and factory noise and smell are archetypal examples of this kind of incivility. Finally, the two goods whose perceived absence we tapped, that is the availability of play spaces and of somewhere pleasant to walk, form a third dimension.

2.11 For the most part, incivilities that form part of one dimension do not load on another and thus the three kinds of incivility appear to be indicative of different kinds of environmental problem. There are though a few incivilities, such as the incidence of dumped cars and 'fridges, of which this is not true. In these cases respondents are somewhat more likely to report as problems if they report either other street level incivilities or infrastructural incivilities as a problem too. But these items are the exception rather than the rule. So in subsequent analysis we make considerable use of our apparent ability to combine our incivilities into three distinct groups that are indicative of three different kinds of environmental problem. For now we should bear in mind that our analysis indicates that those who are exposed to environmental incivilities that they consider to be a problem are often experiencing not just one such incivility, but several.

Table 2.2 Which incivilities occur together?

Note to table

Rotated Varimax factor analysis. Only factor loadings greater than 0.3 shown. Total R ²=50%.

Less commonplace incivilities

2.12 We now turn to those incivilities that are less commonplace and turn in part on the presence or otherwise of some piece of potentially environmentally degrading piece of infrastructure. In Table 2.3 we show on the far right hand side the proportion of people who said that the piece of infrastructure in question existed in their area. Then for those respondents who said that it did exist in their area we show the same three statistics as in Table 2.1, that is, the average score on our seven point scale, the proportion who said it was a problem and the proportion who said it was a really big problem. As these latter three statistics are only based on those who said that the piece of infrastructure in question existed in their area, they are not directly comparable with those in Table 2.1 where the equivalent figures are based on all respondents irrespective of whether a potential incivility exists or not.

2.13 Of the eight items in Table 2.3, the one whose existence is by far the most commonly reported is a mobile phone mast. Nearly three in ten say there is one in their area. Of this group just one in eight said that it was a really big problem and it secured an average score somewhat below the mid-point of four on our seven point scale. In contrast very few reported living near a waste incinerator, an open cast mine, or a wind farm. This of course means that our measures of how far these are thought to be a problem are based on a small number of respondents who will not necessarily be representative of all those living near such items. Nevertheless, it appears that those living near a waste incinerator are relatively inclined to consider it a problem while those living near a wind farm are relatively disinclined to do so.

Table 2.3 Perceptions of less commonplace incivilities

Note to table

First three columns based only on those respondents who say that the item exists in their area. This means the Ns on which these are bases are as follows: Waste Incinerator, 41; Sewage Works, 241; Mobile Phone Mast, 460; Landfill Site, 177; Power Station, 108; Open cast mine/ 43; Active/disused quarry 175; Wind Farm, 29. The final column is based on all respondents (N=1637).

Potential incivilities

2.14 As we noted earlier, the answers to the questions tabulated in Tables 2.1 and 2.3 are a reflection of two things, the actual incidence of incivilities and people's reactions to them. If we wish to ascertain which incivilities are most likely to be regarded as a problem irrespective of their actual incidence - and thus the incivilities that it might be considered most important to reduce or eliminate - we need a measure that is independent of incidence. One possible way of achieving this is to ask people how much of a problem they think it would be if a particular incivility were to exist or occur in their area. We therefore presented our respondents with a subset of 15 of our full set of 24 incivilities and asked them, first, to pick out the five that would worry them most if they did occur in their area, second, to pick out the single incivility that would worry them most and, finally, to identify any that would not worry them at all. ² The results are shown in Table 2.4 where the percentage who said each incivility would be their biggest worry, one of their top five worries, or not a worry at all is reported.

Table 2.4 Potential incivilities

2.15 For the most part street level incivilities predominate in this list just as they did in Table 2.1, with persistent heavy traffic, vandalism & graffiti, dumped cars & fridges, cat & dog mess and litter & rubbish accounting for five of the six items most widely regarded as a potential worry. However, some of our infrastructural incivilities are also a potential worry. Smell from sewage is widely regarded with some concern, while living next to a landfill site was the item fourth most commonly identified as the top source of worry of all. Other pieces of infrastructure that we included in our list are, however, not a widespread source of worry. Most notably, nearly half say that having a wind farm nearby would not be a source of worry at all.

2.16 However, there is a potential danger with this approach to ascertaining the relative importance of different incivilities - people's perceptions of what hypothetically would worry them may be conditioned by the incivilities they have actually experienced. Perhaps those who say they are actually worried about something are more likely to say they consider it a potential worry too. There is some evidence of this. For example, amongst those who say that litter is a 'problem' in their area, 48% say they would worry about it if there were lots of it in their area, rather higher than the equivalent figure of 37% amongst those who do not currently regard litter to be a problem in their area. Similar patterns exist for all of those items that appear in both Table 2.1 and Table 2.4. There does not, however, appear to be any similar such relationship between having one of the pieces of infrastructure included in Table 2.2 in one's area and regarding it as a potential source of worry. Indeed in the case of a landfill site, those who live close to one are actually less likely to regard it as a potential source of worry than are those who do not. It appears that in the case of a landfill site at least either the prospect is worse than the reality or those who cannot abide living close to one are able to avoid doing so.

Incidence of incivilities and happiness with area

2.17 Given that our measure of potential incivilities may not be wholly independent of experience it is worth checking our findings in Table 2.4 with those of an alternative approach to ascertaining which incivilities matter most. This alternative is to look at the relationship between the degree to which various incivilities are reported to be a problem and a general measure of well-being or satisfaction with neighbourhood. In our survey we asked people how happy they were in general about living 'around here', again by inviting them to point to one of seven faces. If people's subjective perception that a particular incivility was a problem really does matter to them, we should find that those who report that incivility is a problem are less likely to be happy about living where they do.

2.18 We can establish this by undertaking a regression analysis in which we identify those incivilities that are statistically significantly associated with people's happiness with their local area and generate an estimate (a coefficient) of how much difference they make (for further details about regression analysis see Annex 1). In Table 2.5 we show the results of two regression models where the general measure of happiness with one's area is the dependent variable and the degree to which each of our 24 incivilities is regarded as a problem provides a set of independent variables. In the first model individual incivilities are all treated as separate independent variables. In the second those problems that tend to co-occur as indicated by our factor analysis in Table 2.2 have been combined to form four additive scales. ³ In both cases only those independent variables that prove to be statistically significant at the 5% level have been retained. A negative coefficient means that the more an incivility is thought to be a problem, the more unhappy someone tends to be.

2.19 Encouragingly, the results largely confirm what we have reported so far. The subjective incidence of the core street level incivilities, in particular vandalism & graffiti and broken glass, makes a considerable difference to how happy people are with where they live. Equally so also do perceptions of those items, such as untidy gardens/waste land and vacant & derelict buildings, that loaded to some degree on both the first and the second dimensions of our factor analysis. (In our second model we have combined these into a separate scale labelled 'poor environment.') Meanwhile, the absence of goods such as lack of somewhere safe for children to play also induces unhappiness. On the other hand the presence of a perceived infrastructural nuisance apparently makes little or no difference to how happy people are with an area. None of our more commonplace infrastructural nuisances are included in our models, while amongst the less commonplace ones, only living next to an open cast mine or quarry has a negative impact on people's happiness with their area. Indeed those living next to a power station are apparently particularly happy about where they live.

Table 2.5 Regression of happiness with area against incivilities

a) all incivilities entered separately

b) incivilities grouped into scales

Note to table

Models are ordinal regression models. In part (b), the scales consist of the additive scores of the following items

Street level = Litter + Vandalism + Broken Glass + Cat/Dog Mess

Goods = Somewhere to walk + Somewhere to play

Poor Environment = Dumped Cars etc. + Derelict Buildings + Untidy Gardens + Discarded Needles

Those who said that a power station or open cast mine/quarry did not exist in their area have been coded as having 'no problem at all'.

Conclusion

2.20 None of the incivilities covered by this project is regarded as a problem by a majority of people in Scotland. Many people, it seems, live in environments that they find congenial. But those who do say there is a problem in their area often feel that there is not just one problem but several. For example, those for whom a street level incivility such as litter & rubbish is a problem are also inclined to feel that other street level incivilities such as vandalism & graffiti or cat & dog mess are a problem too. Any attempt to improve people's environment is likely to need to address a number of incivilities in tandem.

2.21 Meanwhile amongst the set of incivilities covered by this research, it appears that smaller everyday features of the environment matter most. It is such street level incivilities that are most likely to be regarded as a problem at present in Scotland. At the same time these incivilities both have a substantial association with how happy people are with where they live and are most widely regarded as potential problems if they were to exist. In other words, street level incivilities comprise the most widely cited set of current problems and are regarded as the most significant potential problems.

2.22 However, street level incivilities are not all that matter. The absence of goods, and especially somewhere safe for children play is both relatively widely reported as a problem and apparently has a deleterious impact on people's happiness about where they live. On the other hand, incivilities associated with infrastructure are less often regarded as a problem and even if they do exist are generally less likely to make people feel unhappy about where they live.