United Kingdom
Dissatisfaction with local area
Key points
- Low income households are more likely than richer households to feel dissatisfied with the area they live in, but the proportion is still small (around 12%).
- The group most likely to be dissatisfied with their local area are social renters (15% of whom are dissatisfied).
- 25% of people think that their local area has been getting worse over time compared with only 10% who think it has been getting better.
- On most issues, the perception that they are serious problems is more prevalent in deprived areas than in non-deprived areas, with the notable exception of traffic.
- See the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland indicators for equivalent analyses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Graph 1: Over time
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Graph 2: By group
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Graph 3: Perceptions
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Graph 4: By item
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Why this indicator was originally chosen
Crime is the most commonly reported problem in people's neighbourhoods, with three quarters viewing it as a problem, and a quarter viewing it as a serious problem. Hills J, Income and wealth: the latest evidence, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998. Crime is higher in deprived areas A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal. National strategy action plan. Social Exclusion Unit 2001., and residents of council estates regard crime as a more serious local problem than any other group, although affluent urban areas, often near council estates, also regard it as the key issue affecting local quality of life Hills J, Income and wealth: the latest evidence, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998.. This indicator measures the proportion of individuals expressing dissatisfaction with their neighbourhood. It also shows how the fear of crime varies across different population groups.
Analysis of areas with high levels of resident dissatisfaction show that, whilst economically disadvantaged areas have the highest levels of dissatisfaction, an exception to this is local areas with transient populations where income levels may be above average but neighbourhood satisfaction is below average. Burrows R and Rhodes D, 1998, 'Hitting the target?' In Housing and social exclusion, ed Anderson I and Sim D. Areas with transient populations tend to have higher crime rates than areas with stable populations. Hirschfield A and Bowers K, The effect of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas, Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No 8, 1997.
Definitions and data sources
The first graph shows the proportion of households who say they are dissatisfied with their local area, with the data shown separately depending on whether the gross weekly household income is above or below £200. 'Household income' is the income of the head of household and their partner (if any).
Note that, from 2001/02, the concept of head of household was replaced by that of household reference person (which is the person with the highest income in the household).
The second graph shows the proportion of households who say that they are dissatisfied with their local area for particular groups of households, namely households whose income is less than £200 per week, young households, households living in London, social renters and lone parents. To improve its statistical reliability, the data is the average for the latest three years.
The third graph shows, for each year shown, the proportion of households who have lived in their local area for at least two years who said that they think that their local area had got better/worse over the previous two years. Note that the question was not asked in 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99, 2005/06 or 2006/07.
The fourth graph shows the proportion of households who agreed that the stated factor was a serious problem in their local area. The data is shown separately for households living in 'deprived' and 'non-deprived' areas, where 'deprived' areas are those in Acorn groups 8, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, as this is the Survey of English Housing's definition of 'deprived' areas. Collectively, these Acorn groups contain around a quarter of the English population. Note that the factors shown in the graph are the full list of possible factors from which the respondents could choose with three exceptions, namely 'teenagers' and 'racial harassment' and 'other harassment'. 'Teenagers' is considered to be an inappropriate question which should not be bracketed with problems such as crime and litter. Harassment has not been included because its prevalence will depend in part on the ethnic composition of the area rather than its deprivation per se. Note that 2004/05 is latest year in which the deprivation of the local area was recorded.
The data source for all the graphs is the Survey of English Housing (SEH). The data relates to England.
Overall adequacy of the indicator: high. SEH is a well-established government survey, designed to be nationally representative.
External links
- See ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research report entitled The determinants of neighbourhood dissatisfaction.
- See Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on patterns of neighbourhood dissatisfaction.
Relevant 2007 Public Service Agreements
Overall aim: Build more cohesive, empowered and active communities
Lead department
Department for Communities and Local Government.
Official national targets
None.
Other indicators of progress
Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area.
Percentage of people who have meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds.
Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality.
Percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood.
Thriving third sector.
Percentage of people who participate in culture or in sport.
Previous 2004 targets
Increase voluntary and community engagement, especially amongst those at risk of social exclusion.
Reduce race inequalities and build community cohesion.
Tackle social exclusion and deliver neighbourhood renewal, working with department to help them meet their PSA floor Official national targets, in particular narrowing the gap in health, education, crime, worklessness, housing and liveability outcomes between the most deprived areas and the rest of England, with measurable improvement by 2010.
The numbers
Graph 1
| Year | Households receiving less than £200 a week | Head of household receiving £200 a week or more |
|---|---|---|
| 1995/96 | 11% | 8% |
| 1996/97 | 13% | 9% |
| 1997/98 | 13% | 10% |
| 1998/99 | 12% | 7% |
| 1999/00 | 12% | 7% |
| 2000/01 | 13% | 7% |
| 2001/02 | 12% | 8% |
| 2002/03 | 13% | 7% |
| 2003/04 | 13% | 9% |
| 2004/05 | 13% | 8% |
| 2005/06 | 12% | 8% |
| 2006/07 | 12% | 7% |
Graph 2
| Group | Dissatisfied |
|---|---|
| Average | 9% |
| Household reference person is aged 16 to 24 | 11% |
| Household income less than £200 per week | 12% |
| Living in London | 13% |
| Lone parents | 14% |
| Social renters | 15% |
Graph 3
| Year | Better | Worse |
|---|---|---|
| 1995/96 | 11% | 31% |
| 1999/00 | 10% | 24% |
| 2000/01 | 13% | 27% |
| 2001/02 | 10% | 27% |
| 2002/03 | 10% | 27% |
| 2003/04 | 11% | 26% |
| 2004/05 | 11% | 25% |
Graph 4
| Group | Deprived areas | Non-deprived areas |
|---|---|---|
| Litter | 19% | 11% |
| Crime | 18% | 9% |
| Vandalism | 17% | 7% |
| Traffic | 16% | 20% |
| Drugs | 14% | 6% |
| Dogs | 9% | 6% |
| Graffiti | 8% | 4% |
| Neighbours | 8% | 3% |
| Noise | 7% | 6% |
| Drunks | 7% | 4% |
| Prostitution | 1% | 1% |