Scottish Government

CHAPTER SEVEN RESIDENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN REGENERATION AREAS

7.1 In this chapter we take advantage of the fact that the SHARP sample was fairly evenly divided between people who lived in regeneration areas and others to look at how residential circumstances change relatively within such places. Since regeneration is an area-based intervention, we have focused on aspects of area management and neighbourhood change, i.e., things that regeneration might be expected to influence.

Area management and maintenance

7.2 A larger proportion of respondents who lived in non- SIP areas reported that their area was well maintained at Wave 3 than did so at Wave 1 (p = 0.010), although the proportion who considered their area to be poorly maintained changed negligibly - see Table 7.1. At Wave 1, approximately two-and-a-half times the proportion of respondents living in SIP areas as those not in SIP areas, regarded their area as being poorly maintained. However, being in a SIP area was associated with significant improvements from Wave 1 to Wave 3 (p = 0.005), arising from a more than 10% drop (a 34% relative decrease) in those who considered their area to be poorly maintained.

Table 7.1 Perceived quality of area maintenance by SIP status (percentages)

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample. Change percentages do not sum to zero due to rounding error.

7.3 A similar pattern of improvement cited by respondents in SIP areas was noted with respect to the management of the local area. A substantial majority of non- SIP-area respondents considered their area to be well or adequately managed, although there was a slight but non-significant drop between Waves (p = 0.250). By contrast, only slightly more than half of the SIP-area residents initially considered their area to be well managed. However, being in a SIP area was associated with a more than 10% rise in the proportion of satisfied respondents from Wave 1 to Wave 3 (p = 0.006).

Table 7.2 Perceived quality of area management for by SIP status (percentages)

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample.

Area problems

7.4 As before, area problems may be broadly classified into those addressing aspects of local infrastructure and the environment, and those concerning matters of crime and anti-social behaviour. We have analysed these, as before, by the SIP status of all respondents.

Problems of infrastructure and environment

7.5 Table 7.3 illustrates the average problem load index that measures the number and severity of the 12 aspects of the neighbourhood infrastructure and environment that might have been considered a problem by respondents (see paragraph 3.2). The index ranges from 0 (no items were a problem) to 100 (all items were serious problems). At both Waves, respondents living in SIP areas scored higher on average than did those living in non- SIP areas. However, although the mean index for the non- SIP dwellers did not change markedly between Waves, that of the respondents in SIP areas decreased by nearly 9% (a substantial relative change of 21%). If we consider only the respondents whose SIP status was the same at both Waves and for whom full information was available (n = 515), the changes in the mean index were -1.82 (non- SIP dwellers) and -9.1 ( SIP-dwellers) (p < 0.001), thus demonstrating the association between living in a SIP area and the improvement in problems of infrastructure and environment in the neighbourhood.

Table 7.3 Change in neighbourhood infrastructure and environmental problems by SIP status

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample.

7.6 The changes in the mean scores for each aspect of neighbourhood infrastructure and environment in the 2 SIP status groups, measured in the longitudinal sample, also repay inspection (Table 7.4). As before, scores ranged from +2, for a problem that was getting much worse, to -2, for one that was greatly improving. Respondents perceived all problems to have improved slightly on average between Wave 1 and Wave 3, with the exception of noise, which had worsened. Furthermore, respondents in SIP areas almost always experienced greater improvements (or less deterioration, in the case of noise) than those who did not live in a SIP area. These differences were significant in the case of security of houses, general appearance of the area, air quality and pollution, adequacy of street lighting, traffic, and pavements. The single exception was for facilities for teenagers and young people, where the improvement was relatively large but not significantly different between the SIP status groups.

Table 7.4 Mean change scores for neighbourhood infrastructure and environmental problems by SIP status group

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample. Change score is based on response codes of 0 (not a problem), 1 (minor problem) and 2 (serious problem) so moving from serious problem to not a problem equates to a change score of -2.

Problems of crime and anti-social behaviour

7.7 Table 7.5 illustrates the average problem load index that is a combined measure of the number and severity of the 11 aspects of the neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour that might have been considered a problem by respondents (see paragraph 3.6). The overall pattern is similar to that for the problems of infrastructure and environment. Respondents living in SIP areas scored higher on average at both Waves than did those living in non- SIP areas. However, although the mean index for the non- SIP dwellers did not change markedly between Waves, that of the respondents in SIP areas decreased by around 10% (a substantial relative change of 24%). If we consider only the respondents whose SIP status was the same at both Waves for whom full information was available (n = 513), the changes in the mean index were -2.55 (non- SIP dwellers) and -10.18 ( SIP-dwellers) (p=0.001), demonstrating the association between living in a SIP area and the improvement in aspects of crime and anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood.

Table 7.5 Change in neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems by SIP status (change in mean)

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample.

7.8 Table 7.6 shows the changes in the mean scores for each aspect of neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour in the 2 SIP status groups, measured in the longitudinal sample. Overall, respondents perceived all problems to have improved slightly on average between Wave 1 and Wave 3. Furthermore, respondents in SIP areas consistently experienced greater improvements than those who did not live in a SIP area. These differences were significant in the case of disturbance by children, vandalism and graffiti, litter and rubbish, burglaries, and people hanging around. In addition, the greater improvement in SIP areas in the problem of people drinking alcohol in public places was very close to significance.

Table 7.6 Mean change scores for neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems by SIP status

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample. Change score is based on response codes of 0 (not a problem), 1 (minor problem) and 2 (serious problem) so moving from serious problem to not a problem equates to a change score of -2.

Neighbourhood improvements

7.9 The responses to the questions about whether 17 aspects of local amenities, infrastructure and attitudes towards neighbourhood-related matters had improved recently were also examined with respect to the SIP status of respondents (Table 7.7).

7.10 Improvements were more often cited by those who lived in a SIP area than those who did not for the majority of items (12 at Wave 1 and 15 at Wave 3), which suggests that SIP initiative was proving successful across a broad range of aspects in its aim to improve neighbourhoods. People living in SIP areas more frequently reported improvements at Wave 3 than at Wave 1 for 10 of the aspects investigated, while those not in a SIP area only reported more improvements at Wave 3 for 3 items (businesses starting up, local shops and local environmental quality). Access to and training in computers and the image of the area were most widely considered to have improved among those living in a SIP at Wave 3 (at least 65% of respondents), while only the 2 computer-related items were considered by a majority of respondents in the non- SIP areas to have improved at Wave 3.

Table 7.7 Recent improvements in neighbourhood amenities, infrastructure and attitudes (percentages) by SIP status

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample of respondents whose SIP status did not change between Wave 1 & Wave 3.

7.11 Respondents in SIP areas cited improvements in significantly more aspects of the neighbourhood than did those not living in SIPs (p < 0.001), and more improvements were claimed at Wave 3 than at Wave 1 (p < 0.001) (Table 7.8). Furthermore, being in a SIP was associated with an enhanced increase in the number of problems cited at Wave 3 (p < 0.001) compared with respondents not living in a SIP area: 3 additional items on average for SIP-area respondents, compared with 2 extra items non- SIP residents.

Table 7.8 Average number of recent improvements in neighbourhood amenities, infrastructure and attitudes by SIP status

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample of respondents whose SIP status did not change between Waves 1 and 3.

Neighbourhood satisfaction

7.12 Overall satisfaction with the area as a place to live was examined in relation to the SIP status of respondents (Table 7.9). Satisfaction was significantly lower in the SIP than the non- SIP areas (p < 0.001), reflecting the reason for choosing these areas for special intervention in the first place: around 20% of SIP-area residents described their area as fairly or very bad at Wave 1, compared with only 7% in the non- SIP areas. Although improved satisfaction was reported at Wave 3, this was significant for those in the SIP areas (p = 0.008), but not significant for those in non- SIP areas (p = 0.070), thus highlighting a further association between living in a SIP area and experiencing neighbourhood benefits.

Table 7.9 Neighbourhood satisfaction (percentage) by SIP status

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample of respondents whose SIP status did not change between Waves 1 and 3.

Summary

In this chapter we have looked at the effects of living in a regeneration area ( SIP area) over time, comparing change in perceptions of areas between people within regeneration areas and others. Our key findings were:

• Residential conditions as perceived by residents were far worse in SIP areas than other areas at Wave 1: area management and maintenance were of lower quality and neighbourhood problems relating to the environment and to crime were higher.
• Over time, conditions significantly improved, more so in SIP areas than other areas, so that the gap with other areas was narrowed on most measures, though conditions in SIP areas still lagged behind other areas at Wave 3.
• The biggest differential in change was in relation to neighbourhood environment, infrastructure and services, where the relative improvement in SIP areas was 4 times that in other areas. Improvements in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour were two-and-a-half times greater in SIP areas than other areas. Individually, the biggest improvements in conditions (reductions in problems) reported in SIP areas pertained to the security level of houses, the general appearance of the area, and vandalism/graffiti.
• At both time periods, residents in SIP areas reported more recent neighbourhood improvements than people living elsewhere, but this was slightly more so at Wave 3 than at Wave 1, so that over time SIP performance in this regard rose.
• Nevertheless, at Wave 3, high neighbourhood satisfaction was a third less common among SIP residents than non- SIP residents, so there is still a gap in residential provision to be closed.