Attitudes to greenspace in Scotland. a review of key trends between 2004 and 2013

Transcription

1 Attitudes to greenspace in Scotland a review of key trends between 2004 and 2013 August 2014

2 This report has been prepared by John O Neil in SNH s Greenspace Team with input from a range of colleagues across the organisation. For further information on this report please contact: John O Neil/Chris Nevin Greenspace Team Scottish Natural Heritage Caspian House 2 Mariner Court, 8 South Avenue Clydebank Business Park CLYDEBANK G81 2NR Tel: john.oneil@snh.gov.uk; chris.nevin@snh.gov.uk 1

3 Summary Attitudes to greenspace in Scotland a review of key trends between 2004 and 2013 August 2014 Background This report highlights the key findings of surveys between 2004 and 2013 that relate to attitudes to greenspace of people living in urban areas. The report focuses on the 2013 findings of Scotland s People and Nature Survey, supported and contextualised by results from other surveys. It is intended that the findings presented in this report will help to develop policy and support targeted action to improve the quality of Scotland s urban greenspace resource, and thereby contribute more to people s quality of life. Main findings Those who regularly visit their local greenspace are more likely to rate their health as good. However, less than half of people visit their local greenspace or the wider outdoors at least once a week. A third of people do not do any physical activity in an outdoor environment. Across Scotland there is a widening gap between the expectations of what greenspaces can be and people s perceptions of what is actually provided in local communities. A third of people think that the quality of their local greenspace has declined over the last five years. People who live in the most deprived areas of Scotland are the most dissatisfied with their local greenspace. The findings are supportive of the wide body of research that associates good quality greenspace that is accessible and close to where people live with healthier, more active lifestyles. The findings underline the need for comprehensive and up to date data on greenspace in each council area to integrate and prioritise the improvement of urban greenspaces so that they fulfil their potential as valued, multi-functional community assets. Policy, actions and funding decisions regarding urban greenspace should: prioritise redressing areas of deficiency in access to greenspace, particularly in the most deprived areas improve the quality of poorly used greenspaces, focusing on the most deprived areas promote and encourage more use, particularly in the CSGN and the most deprived areas improve the facilities and management of greenspaces to meet the needs and expectations of local communities maximise the potential of greenspaces as a resource for local communities to take more physical activity. 2

4 3

5 Contents Page 1. Introduction Purpose and scope Context Definition of urban greenspace Presentation of results Data sources Accuracy of results Access Access to local greenspace Key points for access Quality Perception of quality of local greenspace Perception of quality of local landscape/neighbourhood What people like/dislike about their local landscape Key points for quality Use Visits to local greenspace Visits to the outdoors Reasons for visiting and not visiting the outdoors Key points for use Satisfaction Satisfaction with local greenspace Meeting expectations of greenspace Key points for satisfaction Health Benefits of visiting the outdoors Physical activity in an outdoor environment Key points for health Key findings, issues and policy pointers Key findings Issues for the planning and management of urban greenspaces Policy pointers 47 Annex 1: Confidence intervals 48 4

6 5

7 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose and scope This report highlights the key findings of Scottish Natural Heritage s (SNH) Scotland s People and Nature Survey (SPANS), the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) and from other surveys between 2004 and 2013 that relate to attitudes to greenspace of people living in urban areas. The main focus of the report is on the recent results from SPANS and the SHS, with other surveys providing historical data or providing comparisons that provide a context for the Scottish results. It is intended that the findings and messages presented in this report will help inform the development of policy and support targeted action to improve the quality of Scotland s urban greenspace resource. SPANS started to collect data in The survey absorbs questions from a number of previous national surveys, some of which started collecting data on people s attitudes to greenspace in Scotland in This report draws on these earlier surveys to provide context and illustrate changing trends over the last decade. However, the data from earlier sources is not directly comparable with SPANS data due to differences between each survey, such as changes to the question wording and the survey methodology, and the trends and comparisons indicated in this report should be read with this in mind. The full results of the SPANS 2013 survey will be reported separately and made available via SNH s website. This report interprets the survey results to strengthen the case for the provision of good quality urban greenspaces when policy and funding decisions are being made. The results of the surveys are grouped together into five themes that are set out in sections 2 to 6 of this report: access, quality, use, satisfaction and health. These sections illustrate the main results from the surveys that are particularly relevant to local greenspace, the outdoors and the local landscape in urban areas. Section 7 then brings together the key findings from each theme, highlights key issues relating to the planning and management of urban greenspaces and sets out recommendations to support the development of better policy and decision making. 1.2 Context Greenspaces are an important component of the urban landscape, providing a number of economic, social and environmental functions that provide benefits for people and nature. Greenspaces are an important component of green infrastructure that can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, protection against flooding and erosion as well as biodiversity conservation. Good quality greenspace within an urban area can also positively contribute to people s quality of life and in creating sustainable communities. However, Scotland s natural capital, or the stock of benefits from ecosystem services, showed a significant decline from the 1950s to the 1990s, after which a slow partial recovery reflects a move towards sustainability 1. More recently, the natural capital of urban greenspaces showed an improvement between 2000 and 2008, then declined between 2008 and The potential benefits to the health and well-being of urban residents that can derive from good quality greenspace are well documented. The amount and quality of greenspace in an area are associated with better health. In addition, access to greenspace and the quality of the outdoor environment are important factors in encouraging physical activity and reducing stress. The Scottish Health Survey (2012) found that: 1 Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Scotland s Natural Capital Asset (NCA) Index. 6

8 - 1 in 10 adults described their general health as bad or very bad, rising to 2 in 10 amongst those living in the 20% most deprived areas; - since 2008 the annual results have consistently shown that only 4 in 10 adults meet the recommended guidelines for the amount of physical activity each week; - 17% of the adult population in Scotland was obese in 1995, rising to a quarter in Ensuring that people have access to good quality greenspaces close to where they live will help to tackle these health issues. 1.3 Definition of urban greenspace For the purposes of this report greenspace is defined as in the SPANS questionnaire as: public green or open spaces and water in urban areas, for example, parks, playing fields, play areas, allotments and community gardens, woodland and more natural areas, canal paths and riversides. 1.4 Presentation of results Where possible the findings from surveys are broken down into results from respondents in three groups, namely: urban areas across Scotland; the urban areas encompassed by the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) initiative; and the most deprived areas of urban settlements. Urban areas are highlighted as this is where the majority of people in Scotland live and the availability of good quality greenspaces in our towns and cities contributes to the quality of life of people and the quality of the urban environment. The CSGN group is used as this is a national priority with the specific aim of improving people s quality of life and environment through improving the accessibility and quality of the greenspace resource in Central Scotland. Another national policy aim is to prioritise action in areas suffering from multiple deprivation and this data group highlights such areas of Scotland that are also typically urban areas. Table 1.1 provides details of each group, including the colour coding used throughout the report to aid the reader in identifying the results being shown in the charts. Table 1.1: Respondent groupings Group Description Colour code Urban Settlements over 3000 people as defined by the Scottish areas Government s urban/ rural classification. CSGN urban area Most deprived urban areas Defined by the Scottish Government including 19 councils: Clackmannanshire, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Fife (part), Glasgow, Inverclyde, Midlothian, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Stirling (part), West Dunbartonshire (part), West Lothian The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)(Scottish Government) ranks small areas from the most deprived to the least deprived. The surveys referred to in the report relate to the 10-15% most deprived areas. Charts and graphs are used to illustrate the findings with the source survey question identified at the bottom of each figure. A number of the figures in the report show longitudinal data as a linear trendline. The linear trendline shows the data as a straight line, rather than the actual annual data results, illustrating whether the overall trend is increasing, decreasing or remaining stable. 7

9 1.5 Data sources There are number of data sources used in this report as summarised in Table 1.2. The main source is Scotland s People and Nature Survey (SPANS) commissioned by SNH and partners, supplemented by data from a number of other surveys. The other surveys provide the SPANS results with an historical and comparative context. SPANS is a national survey that collects data on how people in Scotland use, value and enjoy the natural environment and collects information on people s perceptions of the role of greenspace and the extent to which their local greenspace meets their expectations. Starting in 2013, SPANS will provide data once every three years. A sample of 1000 adults is interviewed each month, providing an annual sample of 12,000 respondents. SPANS replaces the Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), run by SNH from , which measured participation in outdoor recreation. SPANS has also absorbed questions from a number of other previous surveys, including the Public Attitudes Survey (PAS) conducted by greenspace scotland on behalf of SNH in the years 2004, 2007, 2009 and The ScRS and PAS surveys provide historical data for some of the SPANS questions which are used to illustrate trends over time in this report. Another national survey that provides data on people s attitudes to greenspace is the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) undertaken by the Scottish Government. In terms of the data provided by this survey and SPANS, they have slightly different but complimentary roles and data from both surveys is used in the report. Since 2012 the SHS provides annual data on proximity to, use of and rating of local greenspace to support the measurement of national and local indicators. SPANS also collects data on the use of and proximity to local greenspace, but only to provide context to questions on people s perceptions of greenspace. The SHS has included some greenspace questions since 2004, providing some historical data that is used in this report to illustrate trends. The wording of the SHS greenspace questions prior to 2012 make it difficult to separate out issues of quality and accessibility. In 2012 the question wording was amended to bring the SHS questions into line with those previously used in greenspace scotland s Public Attitudes Survey (PAS) and now used in SPANS. The SHS also provides a breakdown of the data for each of the 32 Scottish councils. An analysis of the council level data reveals some correlations between the access to, use of and satisfaction with greenspaces, which are highlighted in this report. The Scottish Health Survey (SHeS) is run by the Scottish Government to collect data on health issues. It was first conducted in 1995 and then again in 1998 and A continuous SHeS began in January 2008 and will run until It includes questions on self-reported health and the amount of physical activity that people do. However, the questions on physical activity include all types of activity (work, home-based, walking, sport and exercise) and are not linked or limited to greenspace. The SPANS and SHS, on the other hand, both include questions on use of greenspace and on perceived general health. Therefore, the SHeS does not add to the information related to greenspace that is provided by SPANS and SHS and is not used in this report. The report also refers to data from other national and international studies as summarised in Table 1.2: the Office of National Statistics Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OLS); the European Commission s Quality of Life in Cities Perception Survey (QLCPS); Husqvarna s Global Green Space Report (GGSR) and Natural England s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE). These data sources provide contextual data for the findings of the Scottish surveys. 8

10 It should be noted that while the surveys listed in Table 1.2 include similar questions, providing a degree of continuity, the survey methodologies are different, the question wording has been refined over time and the sample sizes differ. These factors all impact on people s responses. As a result, comparisons between the results of SPANS and the other surveys should take these differences into account, and the ability to provide long-term trend data for some questions will be limited. As a consequence, the trend data that is presented in this report is only illustrative. The trend periods are also different across the questions and the three groups due to the availability of data. For example, the trend data for the CSGN area is only available from 2009, whereas in the other groups it can be available from as early as Table 1.2: Summary of data sources Survey Scotland s People and Nature Survey (SPANS) Date of data used Section(s)of report data referred to Access 3. Quality 4. Use 5. Satisfaction 6. Health Details Scotland Frequency: every 3 years Sample: 12,000 Weblink SNH Public Attitudes Survey (PAS) Access 3. Quality 4. Use 5. Satisfaction Scotland Frequency: every 2 years Sample: 1000 greenspace scotland Scottish Household Survey (SHS) Access 3. Quality 4. Use 5. Satisfaction Scotland Frequency: annual Sample: 11,000 Scottish Government Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS) Use Scotland Frequency: annual Sample: 12,000 SNH Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OLS) Quality of Life in Cities Perception Survey (QLCPS) Global Green Space Report (GGSR) Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) Satisfaction Great Britain Frequency: omnibus Sample: Satisfaction European cities Frequency: every 3 years Sample: 41, Health 9 countries Frequency: annual Sample: 500 per country Health England Frequency: annual Sample: 45,000 Office for National Statistics European Commission Husqvarna Natural England 9

11 1.6 Accuracy of results SPANS and the other surveys in this report are based on a survey of a sample population, rather than the whole population in any area. As such, the survey results are estimates of the corresponding results for the whole population. Such surveys are an established way of considering trends in public attitudes and behaviours and have particular value in considering changes over time. The level of accuracy of a survey is primarily dependent on the sample size, with smaller samples or sub-samples having a higher margin of error. The convention is to measure the standard error associated with an estimate at the 95% confidence interval. At the 95% confidence level a statistical value is generated which, when added or subtracted from the estimate, gives the range within which the true value is likely to lie. For example, SPANS estimates 55% of people in urban Scotland perceive that they have greenspace close to where they live. At the 95% interval it can be stated that the data will be generally accurate to around +/-5%, meaning that the true value is likely to lie between 50% and 60%. The overall sample size for SPANS is 12,000 respondents. However, breaking down the results for urban areas, the CSGN and the most deprived areas means that the sub-sample sizes are smaller. In addition, the questions are not always asked every month which also reduces the sample size. This means that any apparent differences between results may be due to statistical error rather than real variations in reality. For example, the sample base for the most deprived areas in SPANS is much smaller than for the urban and CSGN groups and subject to a wider margin of error. Where significant is used in the text it means that the difference highlighted is statistically significant, while other references to differences are only indicative of people s attitudes to greenspace. Annex 1 provides a quick rule of thumb for determining the confidence interval, where known, for the data used in this report. More detail about the sample sizes and confidence intervals can be found in the annual reports of each of surveys via the weblinks in Table

12 11

13 2. Access to local greenspace This section sets out findings on whether people perceive that they have accessible greenspace within a short walk of where they live. SPANS provides data for 2013, with council level data from the 2012 SHS used to contextualise the SPANS results and PAS providing historical data from surveys in 2009 and Access to local greenspace Figure 2.1 shows that more than half of the people in the urban and CSGN groups (55% in each case) perceive that they are within a five minute walk of their nearest greenspace. However, for those living in the most deprived areas this drops to just below half (44%). Figure 2.1: Proximity to home of nearest greenspace 2013 % within 5 minutes % 6-10 minutes % more than 10 minutes Source: SPANS Q.GREEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. 27 urban CSGN most deprived* The SHS 2012 council level data reveals that 80% of councils in the top two quartiles for access to greenspace close to homes are also in the top two quartiles for using greenspace on a weekly basis. This suggests that people who perceive that they have access to greenspace within a short walk of where they live are more likely to use them regularly. This is borne out by the SPANS findings, where the majority of those that visit at least once a week (67%) live within a five minute walk of their local greenspace. Proximity to accessible greenspace also appears to have a positive association with general health. Of those people who described their health as good, the majority of those living in urban settlements (59%) perceive that they live close to an accessible greenspace, significantly more than those who described their health as bad (49%). Comparing the SPANS results with the earlier historical data from PAS, Figure 2.2 suggests that the proportion of people who perceive they have access to greenspace within a five minute walk from home may have increased in urban areas from , with more than half of the population in this category. For the CSGN area, Figure 2.2 shows an increase from 46% to 55% in the number of people who perceive they are within a five minute walk of greenspace. The upward trend recorded in the most deprived areas for access within 5 minutes by PAS between 2009 and 2011 appears to be less steep when the SPANS results are included, although both the 2011 and 2013 results are higher than in However, the differences between the two surveys are likely to limit the comparability of the findings and any indication of trends. 12

14 Figure 2.2: Proximity to home of nearest greenspace urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % close to home % close to home % close to home Source: PAS Q.3, SPANS Q.GREEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. 2.2 Key points for access ACCESS Around half of people perceive that they have greenspace within a short walk of where they live. People who live close to greenspace are more likely to use it and rate their health as good. People that live in the most deprived areas of Scotland are the least likely to consider they have greenspaces close to where they live. 13

15 3. Quality Information on people s perceptions of the quality of their local greenspace, landscape and neighbourhood are covered in this section. SPANS provides data from 2013 on people s perception of the quality of local greenspace and landscape. PAS provides historical data on the quality of local greenspace between 2004 and 2011, with the SHS providing historical data for local neighbourhood quality across nine surveys between 2004 and SPANS 2013 data is then used to illustrate what people like and dislike about their local landscape. 3.1 Perception of quality of local greenspace When asked if they thought that the quality of their local greenspace had declined in the last five years around a third of people in all three groups agreed, as shown in Figure 3.1. In both the urban and CSGN groups more people disagreed that quality had reduced than agreed, with the reverse suggested in the most deprived areas. These results may indicate that the quality of local greenspaces in the most deprived areas have declined more and/or faster than in other areas during the last five years. Figure 3.1: Perception that the quality of local greenspace has reduced in the last five years urban CSGN most deprived* 29 % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. Around a third of all age groups think that the quality of local greenspace has reduced in the last five years. Of all respondents, 4 in 10 (42%) of those over 35 years of age do not think quality has reduced over time, significantly higher compared to those aged under 35, where 3 in 10 (31%) think that the quality of greenspaces have not got worse. The historical data on whether people think that the quality of local greenspace has reduced in the last five years is shown in Figure 3.2. The data indicates a fall in the number of people in urban areas that think the quality of their local greenspace had declined between 2004 and 2007 before levelling out between 2007 and The more limited time series for the CSGN area suggests that the amount of people who consider that the quality of their local greenspace has reduced is also stable. A fall in the number of people agreeing is also apparent in the most deprived areas between 2004 and However, the most recent SPANS data from 2013 suggests that this improvement may have been halted with more people agreeing that quality had got worse than in

16 Figure 3.2: People agreeing that quality of local greenspace reduced in the last five years urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % agree % agree % agree Source: PAS Q.5, SPANS Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. 3.2 Perception of quality of local landscape/neighbourhood People in urban areas and the CSGN are the most likely to rate the quality of their local landscape as good (59% and 57% respectively), significantly higher when compared to those rating it good in the most deprived areas (37%), as shown in Figure 3.3. In addition, twice as many people in the most deprived areas (32%) rate their local landscape as being poor compared to those in urban areas (15%), a significant gap. Figure 3.3: Rating of local landscape 2013 urban CSGN most deprived* % poor l % good Source: SPANS Q.LAND1, *SIMD lowest 15%. Asking people to rate their local landscape is a new question and there is no direct historical survey data. However, the SHS has asked about people s perception of the quality of their local neighbourhood from The trendline in Figure 3.4 illustrates that in urban areas and the CSGN over 90% of people consistently rate their local neighbourhood as good in the years The trend in the most deprived areas demonstrates that fewer than 80% of people rate their local neighbourhood highly and that around a fifth (21%) in 2012 rated it as being poor. The SHS data in Figure 3.4 appears to suggest that people rate their local neighbourhood higher than their local landscape when compared to the SPANS 2013 data in Figure 3.3. The different results might suggest that people are less satisfied with the quality of their landscape, when the context for questions is the outdoors and greenspace, than with their neighbourhood, potentially encompassing a broader range of services, facilities and infrastructure. However, the different terms used in each survey are likely to generate different responses, so the results are not directly comparable with SPANS. Both surveys find that fewer people living in the most deprived areas rate their local landscape or 15

17 neighbourhood as good than those in the two other groups and that they are more likely to rate them as poor quality. Figure 3.4: Trend in rating of local neighbourhood urban CSGN most deprived* % good % poor Source: SHS Q.RB1, *SIMD lowest 10% When asked whether they thought that the quality of their local landscape had changed over the last three years, similar results of 22-23% in each group thought it had improved, as shown in Figure 3.5. Similarly, around 2 in 10 people in each group felt that there had been a change for the worse. The largest proportion of people in each group felt that the quality of their local landscape had not changed. Figure 3.5: Perceived change to local landscape over last three years urban CSGN most deprived* % worse l % better Source: SPANS Q.LAND4, *SIMD lowest 15%. Again the SHS provides historical data on perceived changes to the local neighbourhood over the last three years, but only for the years The trendline in Figure 3.6 illustrate that there is no significant change in people s attitudes in any of the three groups during the period. Figure 3.6: Trend in perceived change to local neighbourhood in last three years urban CSGN most deprived* % worse % better Source: SHS Q.AREA1, *SIMD lowest 10%

18 3.3 What people like/dislike about their local landscape People were asked what they liked about their local landscape. The most popular responses in all three groups identified attributes that can be directly related to greenspace. Figure 3.7 illustrates that greenery is the top category for all three groups, with trees and variety of outdoor activities/ places also featuring strongly. The results for the urban and CSGN areas are broadly similar. However, the most deprived areas generally return lower rates, with the exception that twice as many respondents (9%) state that they do not like anything in their local landscape. Notably, those living in the most deprived areas are significantly less likely to select the trees category when compared to the results for the urban and CSGN groups (19% compared to 33% and 37% respectively). This may suggest that trees are less prominent or numerous in the local landscape of the most deprived areas. Figure 3.7: What people like about their local landscape 2013 greenery peace and quiet trees variety of outdoor activities/places attractive area well maintained nature nearby sense of history sense of place/ community quality of buildings nothing 4 9 % urban % CSGN % most deprived* Source: SPANS Q.LAND2, *SIMD lowest 15%. Only categories scoring more than 5% in at least one group are included. 17

19 In terms of what people disliked about their local landscape, Figure 3.8 demonstrates that around a third of people dislike that their local landscape is not well looked after, the highest category in the most deprived areas. Around a third of people in urban (34%) and CSGN (32%) areas did not have any dislikes, but only a quarter (26%) of those in deprived areas had no dislikes. Figure 3.8: What people dislike about their local landscape 2013 not well maintained bustle/noise unattractive area new developments quality of buildings lack of outdoor activities/places lack of nature nearby no sense of place other none % urban % CSGN % most deprived* Source: SPANS Q.LAND3, *SIMD lowest 15%. Only categories scoring more than 5% in at least one group are included. 18

20 3.4 Key points for quality QUALITY Around two thirds of people think that the quality of their local greenspace has not declined during the last 5 years. People in the most deprived areas are more likely to think that the quality of their local greenspaces has declined during the last 5 years. People over the age of 35 are more likely to think that the quality of their local greenspace has not declined. A fifth of people across urban Scotland think the quality of their local landscape has declined over the years. People in the most deprived urban areas are twice as likely to rate the quality of their local landscape as poor than elsewhere. 19

21 4. Use How frequently urban residents visit their local greenspace and the wider outdoors is set out and the reasons for visiting or not visiting the outdoors are illustrated. SPANS provides the most recent data from Historical data about people s use of greenspace is provided by PAS surveys between 2004 and 2011, with data about the use of the outdoors from ScRS annual surveys between 2006 and Visits to local greenspace When asked how often they visit their local greenspace, Figure 4.1 illustrates that less than half of the populations in the urban, CSGN and most deprived groups visit at least once a week. Figure 4.1: Frequency of visits to local greenspace 2013 % at least once a week % less frequently % never Source: SPANS Q.GREEN1. *SIMD lowest 15%. urban CSGN most deprived* The analysis of the SHS 2012 council level data found that 77% of councils in the top two quartiles for using their local greenspace at least once a week are also in the top two quartiles for satisfaction with local greenspace. This suggests that people who use local greenspace regularly are more likely to be satisfied. The frequency of visits to local greenspace also appears to have a positive correlation with self-reported general health. The majority of all respondents that visit once a week (79%) described their general health as good, a significant gap when compared to only 65% of those who never visit greenspace. The PAS collected data regarding the number of visits people make to their local greenspace in 2004, 2007, 2009 and Figure 4.2 shows the trendline for this historical data with results for the urban, and most deprived areas from and those for the CSGN from It should be noted that the differences in the survey methods and questions mean that the findings are not directly comparable across the surveys. The trend-lines for urban areas and the most deprived areas in Figure 4.2 share a similar pattern, with an overall upward trend in the proportion of people visiting greenspace on a weekly basis. However, the lower SPANS results reflect a decline in the number of people recorded by PAS from 2009 to 2011, which may indicate that the longer underlying trend is more static in both groups. While the PAS results suggests a downward trend with fewer people never visiting local greenspace in the urban and most deprived areas, the higher 20

22 percentages recorded by SPANS in 2013 in Figure 4.1 might indicate that this is also changing. For the CSGN area, Figure 4.2 suggests a downward trend in the number of people visiting their local greenspace at least once a week between 2009 and 2011, with 61% recorded by PAS in 2009 and 57% in The SPANS result may indicate that this downward trend is continuing as 46% of people are recorded as visiting at least once a week in Figure 4.2: Trend in frequency of visits to local greenspace urban CSGN most deprived* % weekly % less frequently % never Source: PAS Q.1, *SIMD lowest 15%. 4.2 Visits to the outdoors When asked how often they visit the outdoors for leisure and recreation, Figure 4.3 shows that around 4 in 10 people who live in urban Scotland visit the outdoors at least once a week. However, around 2 in 10 people across urban Scotland never visit the outdoors, with those living in the most deprived areas indicated as the most likely to never visit. Figure 4.3: Frequency of visits to the outdoors % at least once a week % at least once a month % at least once a year % never urban CSGN most deprived* Source: SPANS Q.REC1, *SIMD SPANS lowest 15%. SPANS found that the main destination for visits to the outdoors by urban residents was to local parks or open space, which was also noticed in previous ScRS results. Significantly more people living in urban areas cited local parks or open space as the destination for visits than those living in rural areas (54% compared to 27%). The historical data collected by ScRS shows an increase in the proportion of visits to local parks or open space, which 21

23 Percentage accounted for 32% of all visits to the outdoors in 2004, rising to 41% in The SPANS and ScRS results suggest that the importance of local parks and open space as the main destination for outdoor visits is increasing, particularly amongst urban residents. The SHS 2012 council level data highlights that 92% of councils in the top two quartiles for the proportion of people visiting the outdoors at least once a week are also in the top two quartiles for the level of satisfaction with local greenspace. This suggests that people who regularly visit the outdoors are more likely to be satisfied with local greenspace. For urban areas, the ScRS provides data on visits to the outdoors since The question wording, methodology and timing for the frequency of visiting the outdoors data are exactly the same in both the ScRS and SPANS, providing continuous longitudinal data. Figure 4.4 shows the trend-line in the ScRS and SPANS data from The data suggests that the trend in the frequency of visits has remained stable with no significant changes between 2006 and 2013 (only a 1% to 2% increase or decrease is recorded in each category). Figure 4.4: Trend in frequency of visits to the outdoors: urban areas weekly monthly yearly never Source: ScRS Q.1, SPANS Q.REC1, Reasons for visiting and not visiting the outdoors The reasons people gave for visiting the outdoors are shown in Figure 4.5. The most popular reason for visiting the outdoors given by respondents in the urban and CSGN areas was for health and exercise, whereas in the most deprived areas the top reason was to exercise a dog. 22

24 Figure 4.5: Reasons for visiting the outdoors 2013 health & exercise exercise a dog relax & unwind fresh air/ enjoy weather spend time with others entertain a child enjoy scenery/ wildlife peace & quiet participate in sport/hobby be somewhere I like % urban % CSGN % most deprived* Source: SPANS Q.BEN1, *SIMD lowest 15%. Only categories scoring more than 5% in at least one group are included. Those people who never visited or only infrequently visited the outdoors for leisure and recreation were asked why they did not make more visits. Figure 4.6 shows that the most popular reason in the urban and CSGN groups for not visiting the outdoors more frequently was that people felt too busy. People in the most deprived urban areas cited poor health most often and were also more likely to state they had no interest as reasons for not visiting the outdoors more often. 23

25 Figure 4.6: Reasons for not making more visits to the outdoors 2013 too busy poor health bad/poor weather no particular reason old age not interested at all can't afford to 4 6 % urban % CSGN % most deprived* Source: SPANS Q.REC2, *SIMD lowest 15%. Only categories scoring more than 5% in at least one group are included. 24

26 4.4 Key points for use USE Less than half of Scotland s population visit their local greenspace or the wider outdoors at least once a week. Those living in the most deprived areas are the most likely to never visit their local greenspace or the wider outdoors. The number of people living in urban Scotland that regularly visit the outdoors has remained relatively stable since Regular use of local greenspace correlates with higher satisfaction with spaces and rating health as good. 25

27 5. Satisfaction Satisfaction with local greenspaces and council run parks is covered in this section of the report. What people expect of local greenspaces and what they actually experience are explored in more detail. SPANS does not collect information on how satisfied people are with greenspaces in their local area in general. Therefore, in 5.1 the SHS provides the most recent data from 2012 and also historical annual data from The OLS and QLCPS surveys provide contextual data from the UK and Europe. SPANS does measure satisfaction with different aspects of local greenspace via agreement attitude statements, which is covered in 5.2. PAS provides historical data between 2004 and 2011 for the attitudinal statements. 5.1 Satisfaction with local greenspace When asked whether they were satisfied with their local greenspaces, Figure 5.1 shows that the SHS found 7 in 10 people living in urban areas and the CSGN were satisfied (71% in each case). Satisfaction levels fall significantly in the most deprived areas to 6 in 10 people (58%). Almost twice as many people living in the most deprived areas were dissatisfied (19%), a significant gap when compared to those in the urban or CSGN groups (10% in each case). Figure 5.1: Satisfaction with local greenspace 2012 urban CSGN most deprived* 19 % dissatisfied l % satisfied 58 Source: SHS Q.GREENSAT, *SIMD lowest 10%. The SHS 2012 council level data reveals that two thirds (66%) of the councils in the top two quartiles for satisfaction with local greenspace are also in the top two quartiles for rating their neighbourhood as good. This suggests that people who are satisfied with their local greenspace are more likely to be satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live. The SHS also provides data on the satisfaction of people with council parks and open space services from annual surveys between 2009 and Figure 5.2 illustrates similar trends for satisfaction levels across all three groups, all of which record a significant increase in the number of people satisfied over the period. In the urban and CSGN areas 7 in 10 people in 2012 stated they were satisfied (71% and 72% respectively), with 6 in 10 people (64%) in the most deprived areas. The trendline in the proportion of people that are dissatisfied across all three groups is more stable, remaining under 10% in each group throughout the period. 26

28 Figure 5.2: Trend in satisfaction with council parks and open spaces services urban CSGN most deprived* % satisfied % dissatisfied Source: SHS Q.SERV3E, SHS Q.RF10D, *SIMD lowest 10% The OLS asked people whether they were satisfied with their local greenspace and collated findings at a national level. Figure 5.3 illustrates that the satisfaction levels in all of Scotland were found to be lower than the SHS recorded in urban areas in Figure 5.1. The OLS results show a larger proportion of people dissatisfied, at almost 4 in 10 people (38%). The different survey methods in the collection of the data may be responsible for any apparent differences between the SHS and OLS data. Figure 5.3 also suggests that people in Scotland are the most dissatisfied amongst the home nations that were included in the survey. Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with local greenspace in Great Britain 2012 Scotland England Wales Great Britain Source: OLS, % dissatisfied % satisfied The QLCPS provides data on satisfaction with greenspaces from 77 cities across 31 European countries, including 6 in Great Britain. The results of this survey can provide a context for the SHS results. However, as before any apparent differences may be down to the survey methodologies as opposed to being real differences in attitudes. Figure 5.4 appears to indicate that the proportion of the urban population that are satisfied in Scotland (71%) is below both the British (85%) and the European (75%) averages. 27

29 Figure 5.4: Percentage satisfied with local greenspace in Scotland, the UK and Europe Scotland average UK cities average European cities % % % Source: SHS, Q.GREENSAT, QLCPS Q.1_G, 6 cities, QLCPS Q.1_G, 77 cities, Figure 5.5 indicates that Scotland would come in at 23 rd place when compared to the satisfaction levels of the other 31 European countries. The Scottish survey results suggest that the proportion of people dissatisfied with their local greenspace at 10% is much lower than the average of 24% and would see Scotland placed in 6 th position. However, the apparent differences are possibly due to the differences in the survey methodologies as opposed to real differences in the population. 28

30 Figure 5.5: Satisfaction with local greenspace across Europe Norway Finland Sweden Denmark Luxembourg Germany Slovenia Netherlands United Kingdom Austria Poland Ireland Latvia Estonia France Iceland Belgium Lithuania Average European Cities Croatia Czeck Republic Rumania Turkey Spain Bulgaria Hungary Italy Portugal Cyprus Slovakia Malta Greece Scotland 10%* Scotland 71%** % dissatisfied % satisfied Source: QLCPS Q.1_G, 77 cities, 2013.*SHS Q.GREENSAT, 2012, % dissatisfied. **SHS Q.GREENSAT, 2012, % satisfied 29

31 5.2 Meeting expectations of greenspace People were asked whether they agreed with four statements about the role of greenspace in general. Respondents were then asked whether they thought that their local greenspace met these expectations. The statements asked whether greenspaces should be/are: - places where you can relax and unwind; - safe places to encourage physical activity; - attractive places; - good places for children to play. Figures 5.6 to 5.8 show the proportion of respondents who strongly agree with each statement in the urban, CSGN and most deprived groups respectively. In each figure the bar chart results for people s perceptions overlay the bar chart results for expectations, thereby illustrating the gap between reality and the ideal. The figures indicate that in all cases the perception of greenspace in the local area does not rate as highly as expectations of what greenspaces should be. The pattern of expectations and perceptions in the urban and CSGN groups are shown to be similar in Figures 5.6 and 5.7. Generally around 8 in 10 people strongly agree that greenspaces should offer opportunities to relax, be safe, be attractive and provide for children s play. In terms of reality, less than half of the people in these areas strongly agree that their local greenspace meet these expectations. Figure 5.6: Expectations and perceptions of greenspace in urban areas 2013 places to relax & unwind safe places for physical activity attractive places places for children's play % expectation % perception Source: SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, Figure 5.7: Expectations and perceptions of greenspace in CSGN area 2013 places to relax & unwind safe places for physical activity attractive places places for children's play % expectation % perception Source: SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4,

32 In the most deprived areas, Figure 5.8 suggests that people generally have lower expectations of what greenspaces should be than in the urban and CSGN groups, with around 7 in 10 strongly agreeing in three out of four statements. The exception is that 8 in 10 of respondents considered that greenspaces should be places for children s play, matching the expectations in the urban and CSGN groups. However, the perceptions of local greenspace are significantly lower across all statements when compared to the urban and CSGN groups. Even though respondents in the most deprived areas had lower expectations, only around a quarter strongly agreed that their local greenspace met these expectations. Figure 5.8: Expectations and perceptions of greenspace in most deprived* areas 2013 places to relax & unwind safe places for physical activity attractive places places for children's play % expectation % perception Source: SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. The PAS provides historical survey data for the same questions from 2004, 2007, 2009 and 2011 for urban areas and the most deprived areas, as set out in Figures 5.9 to The historical data is only available for 2011 for the CSGN area. It should be borne in mind that although the questions are the same, the different methods and context mean that the data from PAS and SPANS are not directly comparable. However, the historical data does provide the opportunity to consider whether any trends over time are indicated. Generally, the data illustrates that perceptions rose between 2004 and 2009, but the SPANS 2013 results continue the decline recorded by PAS in While the data indicates that people s perceptions of greenspace are falling, their expectations have generally remained more stable, suggesting a widening gap between the ideal and reality. Over the 2004 to 2013 period, the expectations of greenspace as a place to relax and unwind appear to have remained relatively constant across all three groups. However, Figure 5.9 suggests that during this time perceptions of those in the urban and CSGN groups has moved from 5 in 10 people (53% and 52% respectively) to 4 in 10 (43% and 40% respectively), indicating significant downward trends. In the most deprived areas, perceptions also appear to be significantly falling over the period, but in this case more steeply from 46% to 24%. 31

33 Figure 5.9: Greenspaces as places where you can relax and unwind urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % expectation % perception % expectation % perception % expectation %perception Source: PAS Q.4 & Q.5, SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. The results over the 2004 to 2013 period for those who strongly agree that greenspaces should be safe places to encourage physical activity are shown in Figure The pattern for all three groups is similar to that in Figure 5.9. One difference is that the perceptions in urban areas appear to be more stable across the time period, while the CSGN and most deprived areas still indicate downturns. Figure 5.10: Greenspaces as safe places to encourage physical activity urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % expectation % perception % expectation % perception % expectation %perception Source: PAS Q.4 & Q.5, SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. Figure 5.11 shows the changes over time of the expectations and perceptions of respondents of greenspaces as attractive places. The findings for all three groups show a similar pattern to that found in Figure 5.9, suggesting that perceptions are gradually falling in each case, with a significant drop in the most deprived areas from 43% to 26%. 32

34 Figure 5.11: Greenspaces as attractive places urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % expectation % perception % expectation % perception % expectation %perception Source: PAS Q.4 & Q.5, SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. The expectation and perception of greenspaces as good places for children s play are shown in Figure 5.12 and follow a similar pattern as Figure 5.10, with falls indicated in the expectations of those living in the CSGN and most deprived areas. Figure 5.12: Greenspaces as good places for children s play urban CSGN most deprived* PAS SPANS PAS SPANS PAS SPANS % expectation % perception % expectation % perception % expectation %perception Source: PAS Q.4 & Q.5, SPANS, Q.GREEN3 & Q.GREEN4, *SIMD lowest 15%. 33

35 5.3 Key points for satisfaction SATISFACTION People living in the most deprived areas are the least satisfied with their local greenspace. Across Scotland there is a widening gap between the expectations of what local greenspaces can be and what is actually delivered. The difference between expectations of what local greenspaces could be and the reality is most pronounced amongst those living in the most deprived areas. The satisfaction with greenspace in Scotland appears to be lower than in other parts of the UK. 34

36 35

37 6. Health This section considers whether people think that visiting the outdoors has an impact on their health and well-being and how much active recreation they spend in an outdoor environment. SPANS provides data for 2013, with international results from the GGSR survey and English results from the MENE survey setting the Scottish results into a wider context. 6.1 Benefits of visiting the outdoors Those who had visited the outdoors were asked whether they felt it had any effect on their health and well-being. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the five following statements regarding any benefits that they had derived from their most recent visit: - it helped me de-stress, relax and unwind - it improved my physical health (through exercise and physical activity) - it made me feel energised and revitalised - it was a good social experience (through spending time with other people) - I felt closer to nature. Figure 6.1 indicates that almost all respondents, at least 9 in 10 people in each of the three groups, agree that visiting the outdoors helped them to relax and was beneficial in remedying stress. Only a small proportion disagreed or did not express an opinion. Figure 6.1: Attitudes to visiting the outdoors to de-stress, relax and unwind 2013 urban 2 94 CSGN 2 94 most deprived* 1 98 % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. At least 8 in 10 people in each group considered that visiting the outdoors improved their physical health, as shown in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Attitudes to visiting the outdoors to improve physical health 2013 urban 4 90 CSGN 5 88 most deprived* 10 % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%

38 Figure 6.3 indicates that at least 8 in 10 people across all three groups agree that they felt energised and revitalised after visiting the outdoors. Figure 6.3: Attitudes to visiting the outdoors to energise and revitalise 2013 urban 6 89 CSGN 6 88 most deprived* 7 % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. 83 Across all three groups, around three quarters of people felt that visiting the outdoors provided a good social experience through spending time with other people, as shown in Figure 6.4. The level of disagreement found in all three groups is the highest negative attitude expressed across all five of the health related statements. Figure 6.4: Attitudes to visiting the outdoors as a good social experience 2013 urban CSGN most deprived* % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. Figure 6.5 suggests that around three quarters of people in each group agree that visiting the outdoors made them feel closer to nature. Around 1 in 10 people disagreed with the statement in each group. Figure 6.5: Attitudes to visiting the outdoors to feel closer to nature 2013 urban 9 76 CSGN 9 74 most deprived* % disagree l % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, *SIMD lowest 15%. Other national surveys have assessed whether people consider that visiting the outdoors or greenspaces can help to remedy stress and anxiety and so contribute to improving quality of life. Figure 6.6 shows the SPANS results for urban Scotland in the context of the results from nine other countries from around the world. Generally, it appears that almost all people in the countries surveyed think the outdoors or greenspaces are effective in de-stressing and reducing anxiety. The percentage of people in urban Scotland (94%) that recognises the 37

39 beneficial effects on reducing stress and anxiety appears to be close to the average (96%) in Figure 6.6. Figure 6.6: International attitudes to effectiveness of the outdoors/ greenspace to remedy stress Russia 1 98 China 1 98 Australia 2 97 Poland 2 96 Canada 3 96 Sweden 3 96 Average 3 96 Germany 4 95 United States 5 94 Scotland 94%* France 5 94 % not effective % effective Source: GGSR, *SPANS Q.BEN2, Figure 6.7 illustrates the SPANS results for urban Scotland in the context of data from England regarding the ability of visiting the outdoors to make people feel: relaxed and distressed; energised and revitalised; and closer to nature. The results from the two surveys are broadly similar, but it would appear that more people in Scotland considered that visiting the outdoors helped them to relax and unwind than did in England. A similar proportion of people in Scotland and England consider that visiting the outdoors can make them feel refreshed or felt closer to nature. However, it should be remembered that any apparent differences illustrated in Figure 6.6 and 6.7 are possibly due to the different methodologies and question wording rather than real differences in the population. There are no similar data to compare the to improve physical health and good social experience statements. Figure 6.7: Attitudes to benefits of visiting outdoors in Scotland and England 2013 Scotland England relax & unwind energised & revitalised felt closer to nature relax & unwind energised & revitalised felt closer to nature % disagree % agree % disagree % agree Source: SPANS Q.BEN2, MENE Q.E1,

40 6.2 Physical activity in an outdoor environment Urban greenspaces and the wider outdoors provide opportunities for physical activity, such as walking, cycling and organised sports. Figure 6.8 indicates that around 3 in 10 people in all three groups undertake 2.5 hours (or 150 minutes) of physical activity in an outdoor environment in a week, thereby meeting the national guideline for the total amount of physical activity. The findings suggest that around a third of people did not do any physical activity in the outdoors. Figure 6.8: Amount of physical exercise in an outdoor environment 2013 less than 1 hour less than 2.5 hours hours or more none Source: SPANS Q.BEN3, *SIMD lowest 15%. % urban % CSGN % most deprived* The data suggests a positive link between the amount of physical activity in an outdoor environment and self-reported general health. Of those who described their general health as good, three quarters (76%) also stated that they did some outdoor physical activity, significantly more when compared to only 42% of those people who reported their health as bad. In addition, the people who described their general health as good (34%) are more than twice as likely to meet the guideline for the total amount of physical activity within an outdoor environment as those stating their health as bad (13%), a significant difference. 39

41 6.3 Key points for health HEALTH A high proportion of people across Scotland recognise the range of potential benefits to their health and well-being. People are more likely to rate their general health as good if they live close to greenspace and use it regularly. Those rating their health as good are more likely to be physically active in an outdoor environment, thereby meeting the national guideline for the total amount of physical activity. However, less than a third of people meet the national guideline for physical activity each week in an outdoor environment, with 1 in 3 people not doing any physical activity in an outdoor environment. 40

42 41

43 7. Key findings, issues and policy pointers This section highlights the key findings relating to people s attitudes to urban greenspaces, the outdoors and their local landscape, bringing together the points at the end of sections 2 to 6. Key issues for the planning and management of urban greenspaces that are illuminated by the findings are then discussed. Lastly, recommendations are made on how actions and policies could respond to the findings to improve the urban greenspace resource. 7.1 Key findings ACCESS Around half of people perceive that they have greenspace within a short walk of where they live. People who live close to greenspace are more likely to use it and rate their health as good. People that live in the most deprived areas of Scotland are the least likely to consider they have greenspaces close to where they live. QUALITY Around two thirds of people think that the quality of their local greenspace has not declined over the last 5 years. People in the most deprived areas are more likely to think that the quality of their local greenspaces has declined during the last 5 years. People over the age of 35 are more likely to think that the quality of their local greenspace has not declined. A fifth of people across urban Scotland think the quality of their local landscape has declined over the years. People in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to rate the quality of their local landscape as poor than elsewhere. 42

44 USE Less than half of Scotland s population visit their local greenspace or the wider outdoors at least once a week. Those living in the most deprived areas are the most likely to never visit their local greenspace or the wider outdoors. The number of people living in urban Scotland that regularly visit the outdoors has remained relatively stable since Regular use of local greenspace correlates with higher satisfaction with spaces and rating health as good. SATISFACTION People living in the most deprived areas are the least satisfied with their local greenspace. Across Scotland there is a widening gap between the expectations of what local greenspaces can be and what is actually delivered. The difference between expectations of what local greenspaces could be and the reality is most pronounced amongst those living in the most deprived areas. 43

45 HEALTH A high proportion of people across Scotland recognise the range of potential benefits to their health and well-being. People are more likely to rate their general health as good if they live close to greenspace and use it regularly. Those rating their health as good are more likely to be physically active in an outdoor environment, thereby meeting the national guideline for the total amount of physical activity. However, less than a third of people meet the national guideline for physical activity each week in an outdoor environment, with 1 in 3 people not doing any physical activity in an outdoor environment. In terms of setting the Scottish results in context with results from other countries, only the OLS provides consistent national data that allows a real comparison. The main finding from the survey is that the satisfaction with local greenspace in Scotland is indicated as being lower than in other parts of the UK. The other comparisons use results from different surveys and as such any apparent variances may be as a result of differences between the survey methodologies rather than differences in the population. 7.2 Issues for the planning and management of urban greenspaces The findings set out in this report generally reflect results from other research studies, providing contextual evidence for a number of issues surrounding the planning and management of urban greenspaces. A CABESpace report 2 investigated the links between urban greenspaces, inequality and health, suggesting that people are more likely to value and use greenspaces where they are perceived to be of good quality, what it called a virtuous circle. The findings set out in sections 2 to 6 reflect the CABESpace research and both documents support the aim of having a network of good quality greenspaces distributed throughout urban areas close to where people live, in order to contribute to improving people s health and well-being. Figure 7.1 illustrates a virtuous cycle based on the findings in sections 2 to 6, where having local greenspace close to people s home leads to more frequent use, higher satisfaction levels and better health. At the centre of the cycle is good quality greenspace, which is one 2 CABESpace (2010). Community Green: using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health. 44