Client study · Urban research
Urban neighbourhoods, everyday life and wellbeing
A resident survey supporting inclusive urban-regeneration planning. I helped build the questionnaire and plan the fieldwork, then managed the data, ran the analysis and produced the visualisations for the report.
Client and neighbourhood names are withheld.
The study
How residents experience their neighbourhoods.
The study explored how residents experienced where they live, and how the urban environment related to daily activity, social life and wellbeing.
My role
I contributed to questionnaire development and planned the data collection. My main responsibilities were data management, cleaning and organising the responses, analysing the results and producing the visualisations. That turned a multidimensional dataset into clear comparisons and findings for the report.
Aims
- Explore residents’ experience of living in the neighbourhoods
- Identify the main difficulties and opportunities
- Create conditions to improve the neighbourhood environment
Instrument and fieldwork
A pilot checked language suitability and survey functionality. The questionnaire combined neighbourhood satisfaction items, a modified short-form physical-activity questionnaire, social-activity questions, wellbeing measures and personal background. A dedicated interviewer team collected responses at residents’ doors and through local institutions, using a digital survey platform.
Trust and participation were real challenges in recruitment. Close cooperation with the commissioning bodies, local associations and informal community figures made it possible to reach the whole sample.
Dimensions
What the questionnaire covered
Sample
458 responses across four neighbourhoods, a comparison area and peripheral locations
Neighbourhood
Good neighbour relations alongside concern for public space.
Separating social experience from physical conditions made the findings more useful for planning.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction with the neighbourhood and its environment
Discomfort
Environmental inconvenience
Social life was strong
81% were satisfied or very satisfied with relations between neighbours, and safety and the distance between buildings were also rated well. Social-housing residents were more satisfied with how buildings looked.
The physical environment was the concern
49% were dissatisfied with green areas and parks, 44% with walking on sidewalks and 42% with street upkeep. A favourable social experience did not mean satisfaction with the physical environment, so the analysis kept the two apart.
Activity and wellbeing
Walking was the main form of activity.
The activity analysis separated participation, frequency and location, instead of treating all activity as one measure.
Previous seven days
Share of all 458 respondents
Among those who walked
Days of walking in the week
Wellbeing
Share answering “almost every day” to each wellbeing item, past month
Emotional wellbeing
Psychological wellbeing
Social wellbeing
The comparison group generally reported more positive neighbourhood and wellbeing experiences. These are descriptive differences, and housing and area comparisons may also reflect differences in who responded. They do not show an intervention effect.
Priorities
From findings to planning priorities.
The survey suggested five directions. They are proposals, not claimed as implemented or shown to improve wellbeing.
Streets, sidewalks and household waste, especially in the areas of other housing.
Looking after parks and the common public spaces across the whole area.
Civic principles, community-living skills and living well together.
Promoting regular physical activity to build new habits and routines, with safe, accessible walking routes.
Local public bodies working together, for a more coherent approach with a broader impact.
Limits
What the evidence does not show.
Stated up front, so the findings are read as a map of concerns, not as proof of effects.
- A cross-sectional, self-report study. No causal relationship and no clinical assessment is claimed.
- Group differences and item associations are descriptive. Social-housing respondents were a very young and very old group, so differences may reflect who responded.
- Self-reported activity durations included extreme values, so this page shows participation and frequency, not average duration.
- Conditional results, such as those for walkers, use only the relevant respondents. Whole-sample and conditional percentages are not mixed.
Where it sits in the method: Stage 05 · Deliver · Stage 03 · Collect the data · Stage 04 · Analyse