Official Statistics

Community Life Survey 2023/24: Neighbourhood and community

Published 4 December 2024

Applies to England

This section covers attitudes towards the neighbourhood and local community including sense of belonging, interactions with neighbours, community cohesion and trust, perceived attractiveness of the local area, pride in the local area, satisfaction with the local area and with green and natural spaces, and views on whether their area is improving or getting worse.

1. Sense of belonging to the neighbourhood

1.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

61% of adults (approximately 26.8 million people in England) felt they belonged ‘very strongly’ or ‘fairly strongly’ to their immediate neighbourhood, in line with levels in 2021/22 (63%). 

As shown in Figure 1.1, this measure has remained broadly stable over time since 2015/16.

Figure 1.1: Percentage of adults (16+) that feel they belong strongly to their immediate neighbourhood, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

1.2 Who felt a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood?

Age

There was some variation in feelings of belonging between adults from different age groups, for example younger adults aged 16 to 24 (54%) and 25 to 34 (51%) were less likely to feel a sense of belonging to their immediate neighbourhood than adults from all other age groups (59% to 73%).

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood (58%) than non-disabled adults (63%).

Sex

Female adults (63%) were more likely than male adults (60%) to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood. 

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (61%) were more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood than gay or lesbian adults (49%), bisexual adults (45%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (46%).  

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth were less likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood (45%) than adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (61%).

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (61%), the proportion of adults that felt a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood was higher among adults from the Pakistani (71%), Bangladeshi (69%), Indian (63%) and White British^{[footnote 3]} (63%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Chinese (44%), ‘any other’ White background (48%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (51%), mixed White and Asian (53%), ‘any other’ ethnic group (53%), ‘any other’ Asian background (53%), Black Caribbean (55%), mixed White and Black African (56%) and Black African (57%) ethnic groups were less likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood than the England average. 

Religion

There was some variation in feelings of belonging between adults from different religious groups, for example Jewish adults (68%), Muslim adults (67%) and Christian adults (66%) were more likely than Buddhist adults (53%), adults from ‘any other’ religion (53%), and non-religious adults (56%) to feel a sense of belonging to their immediate neighbourhood.

Socio-economic classification

Adults from intermediate occupations (63%) were more likely to feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood than adults from all other socio-economic classifications (59% to 61%). Adults from the routine and manual operations classification (59%) were also less likely to feel that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood than adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (61%).

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 4]}

There was variation in feelings of belonging between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles. Generally, as deprivation increased, the proportion of adults feeling a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood decreased. Adults living in the highest (least deprived) decile (70%) were more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood than adults living in all other deciles (54% in the lowest (most deprived) decile to 68% in the 9th decile) .

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood (69%) than adults living in urban areas (59%).

1.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared with England overall (61%), the proportion of adults who felt a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood was higher in the North West and North East (both 63%) ITL1 regions and lower than the England average in the London (57%) ITL1 region. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Feelings of belonging to the immediate neighbourhood were in line with the England average in 210 (71%) local authorities, higher than the England average in 52 (18%) local authorities, and lower than the England average in 34 (11%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of belonging at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were a few exceptions:

Feelings of belonging were lower than the England average for adults in the London (57%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authority of Richmond upon Thames (74%).

Feelings of belonging were higher than the England average for adults in the North West (63%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the North West local authorities of Salford (52%), Blackpool (54%) and Manchester (54%).

Figure 1.2 displays a summary of the geographical findings for region and local authority.

Figure 1.2: Strength of belonging to neighbourhood, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

2. Neighbourly interactions

Adults were asked about the regularity with which they chat to neighbours (more than just to say hello). The findings in this section are based on all who chat to neighbours at least once a month. ^{[footnote 6]}

It should be noted that an analysis of the impact of seasonality in the pre-pandemic fieldwork years (2013/14 – 2019/20) identified a significant difference between the proportion of adults reporting that they regularly chat (at least once a month) with neighbours across the different quarters of the survey year. The proportion reporting that they regularly chatted with their neighbours was generally higher in the first (April to June) and second (July to September) quarters of the survey year than in the third (October to December) and fourth (January to March) quarters. As the 2023/24 CLS fieldwork was condensed into the third and fourth quarters of 2023/24 (October - March) it covers quarters where the frequency of neighbourly interactions has been historically lower. This should be borne in mind when comparing results across years.

2.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

69% of adults (approximately 31.3 million people in England) reported that they chatted to their neighbours at least once a month more than just to say hello, which represents a 3 percentage point decrease since 2021/22 (72%).

Levels in 2023/24 represent the lowest since push-to-web data collection began in 2013/14. However, as noted in the above seasonality analysis, the 2023/24 survey was conducted over quarters where levels of this measure have been historically lower. Further analysis shows that the significant decrease between levels in 2023/24 and 2021/22 still stands when comparing against the equivalent quarters in 2021/22.

Figure 2.1: Percentage of adults (16+) who chat to their neighbours at least once a month, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

2.2 Who regularly chats to their neighbours?

Age

There was some variation in the proportion of adults of different ages that reported regularly chatting to their neighbours. Generally, the proportion of adults reporting that they chatted with their neighbours at least once a month increased with age. Adults aged 16 to 24 (45%) were less likely to chat to their neighbours at least once a month than adults from all other age groups (56% to 85%).

Disability Status

There were no statistically significant differences between the proportion of disabled and non-disabled adults who chatted to their neighbours at least once a month.

Sex

There were no statistically significant differences between the proportion of male and female adults who chatted to their neighbours at least once a month.

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth were less likely to chat to neighbours at least monthly (47%) than of adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (70%).

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (69%) were more likely to chat to their neighbours at least once a month than gay or lesbian adults (57%), bisexual adults (47%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (48%).  

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (69%), the proportion of adults who chatted to their neighbours at least once a month was higher among adults from the White British ^{[footnote 3]} ethnic group (72%). Adults from the Chinese (50%), Black African (54%), ‘any other’ Asian background (55%), mixed White and Asian (56%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (56%), Gypsy or Irish Traveller (56%), Arab (56%), ‘any other’ ethnic group (57%), ‘any other’ White background (58%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (59%), mixed White and Black African (59%), Black Caribbean (61%), Bangladeshi (64%) and Indian (67%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that they chatted to their neighbours at least once a month than the England average. 

Religion

There was some variation in the proportion of adults from different religious groups that reported regularly chatting to their neighbours, for example Christian (76%) and Jewish (74%) adults were more likely to chat with neighbours at least once a month than adults from all other religious groups (60% to 67%). Buddhist adults (60%) and non-religious adults (64%) were less likely to chat to neighbours than adults from all other religious groups, with the exception of Sikh adults (65%) and adults from the ‘any other’ religious group classification (66%). 

Socio-economic classification

Adults from intermediate occupations (72%) were more likely to chat to neighbours at least once a month than adults from all other socio-economic classifications (66% to 70%). Adults from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (66%) were less likely to chat to neighbours at least once a month than adults from all other socio-economic classifications (68% to 72%).

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 3]}

There was some variation in the proportion of adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles that reported chatting to neighbours regularly. Adults in the four highest (least deprived) deciles (74% to 75%) were more likely to chat to neighbours at least once a month than adults living in all other deciles. Adults living in the three lowest (most deprived) deciles (64% to 65%) were less likely to chat to neighbours at least once a month than those living in the five highest deciles (70% to 75%).

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to chat to neighbours at least once a month (78%) than adults living in urban areas (68%).

2.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared with England overall (69%), the likelihood of chatting to neighbours at least once a month was higher among adults living in the South West (73%), Yorkshire and the Humber (71%), and the East of England (71%) ITL1 regions, and lower in the London (62%) ITL1 region. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Levels of neighbourly interactions were in line with the England average for adults in 186 (63%) local authorities, above the England average in 73 (25%) local authorities, and below the England average in 37 (13%) local authorities. In general, the patterns in the levels of neighbourly interactions at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

Levels of neighbourly interactions were higher than the England average for adults in the South West (73%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authority of the City of Bristol (61%).

Levels of neighbourly interactions were higher than the England average for adults in the Yorkshire and the Humber (71%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities of York (63%) and Leeds (64%). 

Levels of neighbourly interactions were higher than the England average for adults in the East of England (71%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Cambridge (55%), Ipswich (62%) and Norwich (62%).

Figure 2.2: Chatting to neighbours at least once a month, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

3. Neighbourhood collaboration

3.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

56% of adults definitely or tended to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood, a 7 percentage point decrease from 2021/22 (62%).

As shown in Figure 3.1, this represents a notable decrease from levels in 2020/21 (65%), when levels were the highest the Community Life Survey had recorded since push-to-web data collection commenced in 2013/14. ^{[footnote 7]}

Figure 3.1: Percentage of adults (16+) reporting that people in neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

3.2 Who felt a sense of collaboration in their local neighbourhood?

Age

 There was lots of variation in the proportion of adults of different ages that reported that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood, for example adults aged 16 to 24 (44%) and 25 to 34 (48%) were less likely to agree that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve their neighbourhood than adults from all other age groups. Adults aged 75 and over (66%) were more likely to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together than adults from all other age groups (44% to 63%).

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely than non-disabled adults to feel that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood (51% vs 59%).

Sex

Female adults (56%) were slightly more likely than male adults (55%) to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood.

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (40%) were less likely than those whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (56%) to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (56%) were more likely to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood than gay or lesbian adults (44%), bisexual adults (41%) and adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (42%).  

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (56%), the proportion of adults agreeing that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood was higher among adults from the Chinese (62%), Pakistani (60%) and Indian (59%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (37%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (46%), Black Caribbean (46%), mixed White and Black African (46%), mixed White and Asian (49%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (51%) and ‘any other’ White background (51%) ethnic groups were less likely to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood than the England average.

Religion

There was some variation in the proportion of adults that reported that people in their neighbourhood pull together between different religious groups, for example Jewish (65%), Hindu (60%), Muslim (59%), and Christian adults (60%) were more likely than adults from the ‘any other’ religious group and non-religious adults (both 51%) to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood. 

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (58%) were more likely than adults from all other socio-economic classifications (50% to 57%) to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood. Adults from the routine and manual operations classification (50%) were less likely than adults from all other classifications to agree that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood (54% to 57%).

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 4]}

There was lots of variation in the proportion of adults that reported that people in their neighbourhood pull together between different index of multiple deprivation deciles, for example adults living in the lowest (most deprived) decile (42%) were less likely to agree that people in their local neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood than adults from all other deprivation deciles (45% to 70%). Adults living in the highest (least deprived) decile (70%) were more likely to agree than adults from all lower deciles (42% to 66%).

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to agree that people in the neighbourhood pull together (72%) compared to adults living in urban areas (52%). 

3.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared to the England average, levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were higher among adults living in the South West, South East, and the East of England (all 58%) ITL1 regions, and lower in the London (52%), North East (53%) and West Midlands (54%)  ITL1 regions. See Figure 3.2.

Local authority differences^{[footnote 2]}

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were in line with the England average for adults in 149 (50%) local authorities, above the England average in 90 (30%) local authorities, and below the England average in 57 (19%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there are some exceptions:

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were lower than the England average for adults in the North East (53%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North East local authority of Northumberland (61%).

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were lower than the England average for adults in the West Midlands (54%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Bromsgrove (71%), Stratford-on-Avon (69%), North Warwickshire (67%), South Staffordshire (65%), Staffordshire Moorlands (64%), Shropshire (64%), Malvern Hills (62%) and Warwick (62%).

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were lower than the England average for adults in the London (52%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of Richmond upon Thames (70%), City of London (67%), Kingston upon Thames (65%) and Barnet (63%).

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were higher than the England average for adults in the East of England (58%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Ipswich (39%), Broxbourne (44%), Thurrock (46%), Stevenage (47%), Great Yarmouth (48%), Basildon (49%), Luton (49%) and Peterborough (50%).

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were higher than the England average for adults in the  South East (58%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Southampton (40%), Crawley (41%), Reading (43%), Hastings (43%), Portsmouth (44%), Slough (45%), Eastbourne (46%), Rushmoor (47%), Medway (47%), Havant (48%) and Gosport (50%).

Levels of agreement that people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood were higher than the England average for adults in the South West (58%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authorities of Torbay (46%), Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (47%), Swindon (49%), Gloucester (49%), Plymouth (49%) and the City of Bristol (51%).

Figure 3.2: People in neighbourhood pull together to improve neighbourhood, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

4. Neighbourhood trust

4.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

41% of adults reported that many of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted. This is in line with levels in 2021/22 (42%) and 2020/21 (41%) (see Figure 4.1).

^{[footnote 8]} 

Figure 4.1: Percentage of adults (16+) reporting that many of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

4.2 Who feels that many people in the neighbourhood can be trusted?

Age

There was lots of variation in levels of neighbourhood trust between adults of different ages, for example adults aged 16 to 24 (25%) and 25 to 34 (28%) were less likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted than adults from all other age groups (37% to 61%). Adults aged 75 and over (61%) were more likely to agree with this than adults from all other age groups (25% to 55%). 

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely than non-disabled adults to feel that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted (37% vs 44%).

Sex

Female adults were more likely than male adults to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted (42% vs 40%).

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (35%) were less likely than those whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (41%) to feel that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (41%) were more likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted than gay or lesbian adults (31%), bisexual adults (30%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (30%).  

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (41%), the proportion of adults that reported that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted was higher among adults from the Irish (45%) and White British ^{[footnote 3]} (44%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (10%), Black Caribbean (19%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (21%), Arab (21%), Bangladeshi (22%), ‘any other’ Asian background (26%), Black African (27%), Pakistani (27%), Chinese (29%), Indian (31%), mixed White and Asian (31%), mixed White and Black African (31%), ‘any other’ White background (32%) and ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (34%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted than the England average.

Religion

There was lots of variation in levels of neighbourhood trust between adults from different religious groups, for example Jewish and Christian adults (51% and 46% respectively) were more likely than adults from all other religious groups, and non-religious adults to feel that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted (24% to 38%). Levels of neighbourhood trust were lower among Muslim (25%) and Sikh adults (24%) than adults from all other ethnic groups (31% to 51%).

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (28%) were less likely to feel that many of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted compared to adults from the other socio-economic classifications (31% to 46%). Adults in the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (46%) were more likely to feel that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted than adults from all other classifications (28% to 43%).

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 4]}

There was lots of variation in levels of neighbourhood trust between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles Generally, levels of neighbourhood trust tended to increase as deprivation decreased. Adults living in the lowest (most deprived) decile (18%) were less likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted than adults from all other deprivation deciles (23% to 63%). 

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted (57%) compared to adults living in urban areas (37%).

4.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared to the England average, adults living in the South West, South East, and the East of England (43% to 49%) ITL1 regions were more likely to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted, with adults living in the London (32%), West Midlands (37%) and North East (38%) ITL1 regions less likely than the national average to report that many people in their neighbourhood can be trusted. See Figure 4.2.

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Levels of neighbourhood trust were in line with the England average for adults in 105 (35%) local authorities, above the England average in 113 (38%) local authorities, and below the England average in 78 (26%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.   

Levels of neighbourhood trust were lower than the England average for adults in the London (32%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of Richmond upon Thames (58%), City of London (54%) and Kingston upon Thames (49%).

Levels of neighbourhood trust were lower than the England average for adults in the North East (38%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North East local authority of Northumberland (51%).

Levels of neighbourhood trust were lower than the England average for adults in the West Midlands (37%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stafford (49%), Staffordshire Moorlands (50%), Lichfield (51%), Wychavon (51%), South Staffordshire (52%), Shropshire (53%), Stratford-on-Avon (54%), County of Herefordshire (55%), Bromsgrove (57%) and Malvern Hills (61%).

Levels of neighbourhood trust were higher than the England average for adults in the East of England (58%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Luton (19%), Thurrock (28%), Harlow (29%), Peterborough (32%), Stevenage (32%), Ipswich (32%), Watford (32%), Basildon (33%), Southend-on-Sea (34%) and Broxbourne (34%).

Levels of neighbourhood trust were higher than the England average for adults in the South East (58%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (16%), Southampton (26%), Portsmouth (27%), Crawley (29%), Medway (30%), Reading (32%) and Dartford (32%).

Figure 4.2: Levels of trust in people in neighbourhood, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

5. Local area cohesion

5.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

81% of adults definitely or tended to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together, a 3 percentage point decrease since 2021/22 (84%), but broadly in line with findings over the longer term, as shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Percentage of adults (16+) agreeing that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

5.2 Who felt that their local area was cohesive?

Age

There was some variation in feelings of local area cohesion between adults of different ages, for example adults aged 16 to 24 (78%) and 25 to 34 (79%) were less likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than adults from all other age groups (81% to 88%).

Disability Status

Disabled adults (77%) were less likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than non-disabled adults (84%).

Sex

Female adults (82%) were slightly more likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than male adults (81%).

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

When looking at levels of agreement that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together, there were no statistically significant differences between the views of adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth and adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (82%) were more likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than gay or lesbian adults (77%), bisexual adults (77%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (74%).  

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (81%), the proportion of adults that reported that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together was higher for adults from the Chinese (85%) ethnic group. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (65%), Bangladeshi (76%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (77%) and mixed White and Asian (78%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well than the England average.

Religion

There was some variation in reported levels of local area cohesion between adults from different religious groups, for example adults from the ‘any other’ religious group (76%) were less likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together compared with adults from all other religious groups, and non-religious adults (80% to 84%), with the exception of Sikh (76%) and Buddhist (78%) adults. Christian adults (84%) were more likely to agree  that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than adults from all other religious groups, with the exception of Jewish (84%) and Hindu (82%) adults.  

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations and intermediate occupations classifications (both 83%) were more likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together than adults from the routine and manual operations (79%) and the never worked and long-term unemployed (76%) classifications.

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 4]}

There was lots of variation in the proportion of adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles that agreed that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well. In general, levels of agreement that the local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together increased as deprivation decreased. Adults living in the lowest (most deprived) decile (69%) were less likely than adults living in all other deprivation deciles to agree (74% to 90%).

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together (86%) than adults living in urban areas (80%).

5.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared with England overall (81%), agreement that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together was higher among adults living in the South West, South East, and the East of England (83% to 84%) ITL1 regions and lower in the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, and West Midlands (77% to 80%) ITL1 regions. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 2]}

Levels of local area cohesion were in line with the England average for adults in 155 (52%) local authorities, above the England average in 80 (27%) local authorities, and below the England average in 61 (21%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

Levels of local area cohesion were lower than the England average for adults in the North West (80%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North West local authorities of Cheshire East (86%), Fylde (87%), Ribble Valley (89%), Westmorland and Furness (89%), and Trafford (91%).

Levels of local area cohesion were lower than the England average for adults in the West Midlands (79%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Malvern Hills (88%), Bromsgrove (88%), Stratford-on-Avon (88%) and Warwick (91%).

Levels of local area cohesion were lower than the England average for adults in the Yorkshire and the Humber (79%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire (85%), North Yorkshire (85%) and York (88%).

Levels of local area cohesion were higher than the England average for adults in the East of England (83%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Thurrock (71%), Great Yarmouth (72%), Ipswich (72%), Basildon (73%), Luton (75%), Fenland (76%), Tendring (76%) and Peterborough (76%).

Levels of local area cohesion were higher than the England average for adults in the South East (83%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (68%), Medway (73%), Southampton (74%), Swale (75%), Rushmoor (76%), Thanet (76%) and Gravesham (77%).

Figure 5.2: People from different backgrounds in neighbourhood get along well together, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

6. Perceived attractiveness of local area

A new question for 2023/24 asked respondents how attractive or unattractive they found their local area.

6.1 Headline findings

57% of adults considered their local area to be either very attractive (17%) or fairly attractive (40%), while 17% considered their local area to be somewhat or very unattractive.

6.2 Who considered their local area to be attractive?

Age

There was lots of variation in reported local area attractiveness between adults of different ages. In general, reported attractiveness of the local area increased with age. Adults aged 16 to 24 (48%) were less likely than adults from all other age groups to feel that their local area is attractive (54% to 64%). Adults aged 65 to 74 and 75 and over (62% and 64% respectively) were more likely to consider their local area to be attractive than adults from all other age groups (48% to 59%).

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely to feel that their local area was attractive (51%) than non-disabled adults (62%).

Sex

No statistically significant differences were reported between male adults and female adults in terms of the reported attractiveness of the local area.

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

No statistically significant differences were reported on local area attractiveness between adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth and adults who reported that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (58%) were more likely to feel that their local area is attractive than gay or lesbian adults (55%), bisexual adults (51%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (49%). Gay or Lesbian adults were more likely to feel that their local area is attractive than adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification.  

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (57%), the proportion of adults that felt that their area is attractive was higher for adults from the ‘any other’ White background (61%) and White British ^{[footnote 3]} (58%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (31%), Bangladeshi (43%), Black Caribbean (44%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (44%), Pakistani (47%) and mixed White and Black African (48%) ethnic groups) were less likely to feel that their area is attractive than the England average.

Religion

There was lots of variation in the proportion of adults that reported that their local area was attractive between different religious groups, for example Jewish (65%) and Christian (61%) adults were more likely than adults from all other religious groups (47% to 57%) to rate their local area as attractive, with the exception of Buddhist (60%) adults. Sikh (47%) and Muslim (48%) adults were less likely to feel this about their local area compared with adults from all other religious groups (56% to 65%) and non-religious adults (56%). 

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (65%) were more likely to rate their local area as attractive compared with adults from all other socio-economic classifications (45% to 59%). Adults from the intermediate occupations classification (59%) were also more likely to find their local area attractive than adults from the routine and manual operations (50%) and never worked and long-term unemployed (45%) classifications. The latter of these was lower than all other classifications.

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 3]}

There was some variation in the proportion of adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles who rated their local area as attractive. In general, reported attractiveness of the local area increased as deprivation decreased.  

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely to rate their local area as attractive (79%) compared with adults living in urban areas (53%).

6.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were different to the England average (57%) in every ITL1 region. All regions had higher or lower levels of adults rating their local areas as attractive compared to the national average (57%) (see Figure 6.1). Levels of local area attractiveness were higher than the national average for adults in the South West, South East, and East of England (61% to 66%) ITL1 regions, and lower for adults living in the London, North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, and West Midlands (49% to 56%) ITL1 regions.

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

There was a great deal of variability in perceptions of local area attractiveness by local authority. Levels were in line with the England average for adults in 73 (25%) local authorities, above the England average in 126 (43%) local authorities, and below the England average in 97 (33%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were a number of exceptions:

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were higher than the England average (57%) for adults in the South West (66%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authorities of Plymouth (48%) and Swindon (49%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were higher than the England average (57%) for adults in the South East (64%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (26%), Rushmoor (34%), Southampton (35%), Gravesham (38%), Crawley (41%), Reading (41%), Medway (41%), Havant (45%), Portsmouth (46%), Swale (47%), Gosport (48%), Hastings (48%) and Dartford (51%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were higher than the England average (57%) for adults in the East of England (61%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Luton (32%), Thurrock (34%), Stevenage (38%), Ipswich (42%), Harlow (44%), Broxbourne (44%), Basildon (45%), Castle Point (45%), Fenland (45%), Peterborough (48%) and Southend-on-Sea (51%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were lower than the England average (57%) in the London (54%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of Southwark (63%), Camden (66%), Hammersmith and Fulham (66%), Hackney (67%), Kingston upon Thames (70%), Wandsworth (73%), Westminster (79%), Kensington and Chelsea (80%), City of London (83%) and Richmond upon Thames (86%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were lower than the England average (57%) in the North West (53%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North West local authorities of Cheshire West and Chester (63%), Rossendale (64%), Trafford (65%), Chorley (67%), Cheshire East (71%), Wyre (72%), Fylde (77%), Westmorland and Furness (79%), and Ribble Valley (90%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were lower than the England average (57%) in the Yorkshire and the Humber (55%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities of North Yorkshire (73%), East Riding of Yorkshire (73%) and York (69%), East Riding of Yorkshire (73%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were lower than the England average (57%) in the East Midlands (56%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the East Midlands local authorities of Rutland (92%), Derbyshire Dales (91%), Rushcliffe (84%), High Peak (81%), Harborough (80%), North Kesteven (74%), Blaby (69%), Melton (65%), Newark and Sherwood (65%), South Kesteven (64%) and West Northamptonshire (64%).

Perceptions of local area attractiveness were lower than the England average (57%) in the West Midlands (52%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Malvern Hills (89%), Stratford-on-Avon (85%), Wychavon (78%), Warwick (77%), Shropshire (76%), Staffordshire Moorlands (73%), Lichfield (72%), County of Herefordshire (72%), Bromsgrove (71%) and South Staffordshire (69%).

Figure 6.1: Ratings of local area attractiveness, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults) 

7. Pride in local area

In 2023/24 a new series of questions was asked to measure pride in the local area. 

7.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

59% of adults agreed that they were proud to live in their local area (13% disagreed).

61% of adults agreed that they would still like to be living in their local area in five years’ time (21% disagreed).

66% of adults agreed that they would recommend their local area to others as a good place to live (13% disagreed).

7.2 Who felt proud of their local area? 

Age

There was lots of variation in levels of local area pride between adults of different ages, for example:

• 47% of adults aged 16 to 24 agreed that they were proud to live in their local area, lower than all other age groups (55% to 71%). Adults aged 75 and over (71%) were more likely to agree than adults from all age groups below age 75 (55% to 66%). 
• 52% of adults aged 16 to 24 agreed that they would recommend their local area as a good place to live, lower than adults from all other age groups (63% to 78%). Adults aged 75 and over (78%) were more likely to agree than adults from all age groups below age 75 (52% to 72%). 
• Adults aged 75 and over (84%) were more likely to agree that they would still like to be living in their local area in five years’ time than adults from all age groups below age 75 (34% to 65%). Adults aged 16 to 24 (34%) were less likely to agree than all older age groups (51% to 84%).

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely than non-disabled adults to agree that they feel proud to live in their local area (54% vs 63%) and that they would recommend their local area as a good place to live (61% vs 70%). There was a slight difference in responding that they would still like to live in their area in five years’ time (61% vs 62%).

Sex

Female adults were slightly more likely than male adults to agree that they feel proud to live in their local area (60% vs 59%) and that they would like to remain living in their area in five years’ time (62% vs 60%). There was no difference by sex in terms of recommending the local area as a place to live.

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth were less likely than adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth to feel proud to live in their local area (49% vs 60%); recommend their area as a good place to live (56% vs 67%); and, still be living in their area in five years’ time (45% vs 61%).

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (59%) were more likely to report that they were proud to live in their local area than gay or lesbian adults (54%), bisexual adults (47%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (44%). Gay or Lesbian adults were more likely to report that they were proud to live in the local area than bisexual adults and adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification.

Heterosexual or straight adults (66%) were more likely to report that they would recommend their area as a good place to live than gay or lesbian adults (63%), adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (57%) or bisexual adults (56%). Gay or Lesbian adults were more likely to recommend their area as a good place to live than bisexual adults and adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification.

Heterosexual or straight adults (60%) were more likely to report that they would like to remain living in the area in five years’ time than gay or lesbian adults (51%), bisexual adults (42%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (44%). Gay or Lesbian adults were more likely to report that they would like to remain living in the area in five years’ time than bisexual adults and adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification.

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (59%), the proportion of adults that reported they were proud to live in their local area was higher for adults from the Black African (66%), Indian (63%) and White British ^{[footnote 3]} (60%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (31%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (49%), Black Caribbean (50%), Bangladeshi (52%), mixed White and Asian (54%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (54%) and ‘any other’ White background (56%) ethnic group(s) were less likely to report that they were proud to live in their local area than the England average.

Compared with the England average (66%), the proportion of adults that reported that they would recommend their local area to others as a good place to live was higher for adults from the ‘any other’ ethnic background (74%) and White British ^{[footnote 3]} (67%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (37%), Bangladeshi (51%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (54%), Black Caribbean (56%), Pakistani (58%), mixed White and Asian (60%) and Arab (61%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that they would recommend their local area to others as a good place to live than the England average.

Compared with the England average (61%), the proportion of adults that reported that in five years they would still like to be living in their local area was higher for adults from the White British ^{[footnote 3]} (63%) ethnic group. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (32%), mixed White and Black African (41%), Black Caribbean (46%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (47%), mixed White and Asian (47%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (48%), Bangladeshi (51%), Black African (52%), Arab (53%), ‘any other’ White background (55%), Pakistani (57%) and Irish (57%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that in five years they would still like to be living in their local area than the England average.

Religion

There was lots of variation in levels of local area pride between adults from different religious groups. In general, Jewish and Christian adults were more likely to feel proud of their local area across two measures of pride in the local area, and recommendation of their local area as a good place to live.

• Jewish, Christian, and Hindu adults (65% to 67%) were more likely than adults from all other religious groups and non-religious adults to feel proud of their local area (51% to 58%). 
• Jewish (75%) and Christian (71%) adults were more likely than adults from all other religious groups and non-religious adults (55% to 69%) to recommend their local area as a place to live, with Sikh (55%) and Muslim (59%) adults less likely than other groups. 
• Christian adults (68%) were more likely than adults from many other religious groups and non-religious adults (52% to 61%) to want to remain in their local area in five years’ time, with the exception of Jewish adults (65%). Muslim adults (56%), Sikh adults (53%), adults from any ‘other’ religions (52%), and non-religious adults (55%) were less likely to want to remain than adults from all other religious groups with the exception of Buddhist adults (58%). 

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (64%) were more likely to report that they were proud to live in their local area compared with adults from all other socio-economic classifications (60% to 51%). Adults from the intermediate occupations classification (60%) were also more likely to report that they were proud to live in their local area than adults from the routine and manual operations (52%) and never worked and long-term unemployed (51%) classifications. 

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (72%) were more likely to recommend their area as a good place to live compared with adults from all other socio-economic classifications (67% to 55%). Adults from the intermediate occupations classification (67%) were also more likely to recommend their area as a good place to live than adults from the routine and manual operations (60%) and never worked and long-term unemployed (55%) classifications. Adults in the never worked and long-term unemployed classification were less likely to recommend their area as a good place to live than adults from all other classifications.

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (63%) and adults from the intermediate occupations classification (63%) were more likely to report that they would still like to be living in their area in five years’ time compared with adults from the routine and manual operations (58%) and never worked and long-term unemployed (56%) classifications. 

Index of multiple deprivation ^{[footnote 5]}

There was lots of variation in local area pride between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles. Across the three measures, as deprivation decreased, pride, likelihood to recommend, and commitment to staying in local area in five years’ time increased:

• Adults living in the highest (least deprived) decile (78%) were more likely to be proud of their local area than adults living in all other deciles (37% to 74%). Levels in each decile were significantly different to the last for this measure. 
• Adults living in the highest (least deprived) decile (86%) were more likely to recommend their local area as a good place to live than adults in all other deciles (39% to 82%). Levels in each decile were significantly different to the last for this measure.
• Adults living in the highest (least deprived) decile (74%) were more likely to want to still be living in their local area in five years’ time than adults in all other deciles (44% to 72%). Levels in each decile were significantly different to the last for this measure. 

Population density

Adults living in rural areas were more likely than adults living in urban areas to feel proud of their local area (76% vs 56%), to recommend it as a place to live (80% vs 63%) and to want to continue living there in five years’ time (73% vs 58%). 

7.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences: compared with England overall

• Pride in the local area was higher than the national average (59%) for adults living in the South West (65%) and South East (62%), and East of England (61%) ITL1 regions, and lower than the national average for adults living in the North East (55%), London (56%), and the West Midlands (57%) ITL1 regions. 
• The likelihood of recommending their local area as a good place to live was higher than the national average (66%) for adults living in the South West (72%), South East (70%) and East of England (69%) ITL1 regions, and lower than the national average for adults living in the North East (61%), West Midlands (62%), London (63%), North West (65%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (65%) ITL1 regions. 
• The desire to continue living in their local area in five years’ time was higher than the national average (61%) for adults living in the South West (66%), South East (63%), North East (63%) and East of England (62%) ITL1 regions, and lower than the national average for adults living in London (54%) and the West Midlands (59%) ITL1 regions. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 2]}

Levels of pride in the local area were in line with the England average in 101 (34%) local authorities, above the England average in 112 (38%) local authorities, and below the England average in 83 (28%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small. In general, the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

• Levels of pride in the local area were lower than the England average in the North East (55%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North East local authority of Northumberland (64%).
• Levels of pride in the local area were lower than the England average in the London (56%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of Hackney (70%), Kingston upon Thames (72%), Wandsworth (73%), Kensington and Chelsea (74%), Westminster (80%), City of London (85%) and Richmond upon Thames (85%).
• Levels of pride in the local area were lower than the England average in the West Midlands ITL1 region (57%), but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stratford-on-Avon (81%), Malvern Hills (81%), Warwick (76%), Shropshire (74%), South Staffordshire (74%), Bromsgrove (73%), Staffordshire Moorlands (71%), Lichfield (71%), Wychavon (70%), County of Herefordshire (69%), North Warwickshire (68%) and Stafford (66%).
• Levels of pride in the local area were higher than the England average in the South West (65%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authority of Plymouth (53%).
• Levels of pride in the local area were higher than the England average in the East of England (61%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the local authorities of Thurrock (41%), Broxbourne (44%), Stevenage (45%), Luton (46%), Peterborough (47%), Harlow (47%), Basildon (47%), Ipswich (49%), Fenland (50%), Castle Point (51%), Great Yarmouth (52%), Southend-on-Sea (54%).
• Levels of pride in the local area were higher than the England average in the South East (53%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (31%), Rushmoor (38%), Southampton (40%), Medway (42%), Gravesham (43%), Reading (45%), Crawley (45%), Hastings (50%), Portsmouth (50%), Havant (50%), Dartford (51%), Swale (51%), Gosport (53%) and Maidstone (53%).

See Figure 7.1.

Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were in line with the England average in 96 (32%) local authorities, above the England average in 121 (41%) local authorities, and below the England average in 79 (27%) local authorities.

As with the previous measure, generally the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were lower than the England average in the West Midlands (62%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stratford-on-Avon (86%), Malvern Hills (84%), Warwick (82%), Bromsgrove (82%), Shropshire (79%), Lichfield (78%), Staffordshire Moorlands (78%), South Staffordshire (77%), Wychavon (77%), Stafford (74%) and County of Herefordshire (74%).
• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were lower than the England average in the London (63%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of Richmond upon Thames (92%), City of London (83%), Westminster (82%), Kensington and Chelsea (81%), Wandsworth (81%), Kingston upon Thames (81%), Hammersmith and Fulham (75%), Bromley (73%) and Islington (72%).
• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were lower than the England average in the North West (65%) ITL1  region, but higher than the England average in the North West local authorities of Ribble Valley (87%), Trafford (81%), Fylde (81%), Westmorland and Furness (80%), Chorley (79%), Cheshire East (77%), Lancaster (76%), Warrington (75%), Wyre (75%), South Ribble (74%), Cheshire West and Chester (71%), Wirral (71%) and Cumberland (71%).
• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were lower than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber (65%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities of North Yorkshire (81%), York (81%) and East Riding of Yorkshire (81%).
• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were higher than the England average in the South East (70%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (32%), Rushmoor (46%), Gravesham (47%), Medway (49%), Southampton (50%), Reading (55%), Swale (55%), Dartford (55%), Crawley (56%), Portsmouth (58%), Hastings (58%), Havant (59%) and Gosport (59%).
• Levels of agreement that people would recommend their local area as a good place to live were higher than the England average in the East of England (69%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Luton (43%), Thurrock (44%), Basildon (54%), Harlow (54%), Peterborough (55%), Broxbourne (55%), Stevenage (55%) and Ipswich (56%).

Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were in line with the England average in 117 (40%) local authorities, above the England average in 113 (38%) local authorities, and below in 66 (22%) local authorities. As with the previous measure, generally the patterns of neighbourhood collaboration at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were lower than the England average in the London (54%0 ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of City of London (76%), Kensington and Chelsea (76%), Richmond upon Thames (75%), Westminster (68%) and Kingston upon Thames (67%).
• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were lower than the England average in the West Midlands (59%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stratford-on-Avon (77%), Lichfield (75%), Bromsgrove (74%), Staffordshire Moorlands (74%), South Staffordshire (74%) Malvern Hills (74%), Stafford (73%), Shropshire (72%), County of Herefordshire (72%), Warwick (71%) and North Warwickshire (68%).
• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were higher than the England average in the South West (66%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authority of the City of Bristol (54%).
• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were higher than the England average in the South East (63%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (34%), Southampton (44%), Reading (48%), Medway (48%), Rushmoor (49%), Dartford (49%), Gravesham (51%), Crawley (52%), Oxford (54%), Runnymede (55%), Spelthorne (55%) and Portsmouth (55%).
• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were higher than the England average in the North East (63%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the North East local authority of Middlesbrough (54%).
• Levels of agreement that people would still like to be living in their local area in five years time were higher than the England average in the East of England (62%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Thurrock (40%), Luton (44%), Broxbourne (48%), Stevenage (49%), Peterborough (50%), Basildon (51%), Harlow (53%), Watford (53%) and Ipswich (55%).

Figure 7.1: Levels of pride in the local area, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

8. Reasons adults were proud or not proud to live in their local area

8.1 Reasons for being proud to live in local area

Adults who agreed that they felt proud to live in their local area were asked their reasons for this (see Figure 8.1). The most common reasons for feeling pride in the local area was that the area felt safe (69%), the presence of green and natural spaces (63%) and that adults were respectful and friendly (58%). Other factors mentioned by at least three in ten adults included good transport links and a good range of shops and facilities (both 47%) and a strong sense of community (31%).

Figure 8.1: Reasons for being proud to live in local area, England: 2023/24 (Base: Adults proud to live in local area)

8.2 Reasons for not being proud to live in local area

The most common reasons for disagreement with feeling pride in the local area was disrespectful or troublesome people (65%), a feeling that the area is run down (61%) and safety concerns (58%). Other factors mentioned by at least one in three adults included lack of community (40%) and lack of activities or things to do (34%). See Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2: Reasons for not being proud to live in local area, England: 2023/24 (Base: Adults not proud to live in local area)

9. Overall satisfaction with local area

Respondents were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their local area.

9.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

74% of adults were either very or fairly satisfied with their local area as a place to live, a 2 percentage point decrease from 76% in 2021/22, and now at the lowest level recorded since the survey was first conducted using a push-to-web format in 2013/14 (as shown in Figure 9.1).

Up until 2023/24 this measure has fluctuated between 76% and 80%. Overall, 11% were dissatisfied with their local area as a place to live. 

Figure 9.1: Percentage of adults (16+) satisfied with their local area as a place to live, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

9.2 Who was satisfied with their local area? 

Age

There was lots of variation in local area satisfaction between adults of different ages. Satisfaction with the local area consistently increased with age, with adults from each older age group more likely to be satisfied than adults from the previous. This ranged from 65% of adults aged 16 to 24, to 84% of adults aged 75 and over. 

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely to feel satisfied with their local area than non-disabled adults (69% and 77% respectively). 

Sex

Female adults were more likely to feel satisfied with their local area (75%) than male adults (73%).  

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (66%) were less likely than adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (74%) to feel satisfied with their local area.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (74%) were more likely to feel satisfied with their local area than gay or lesbian adults (70%), bisexual adults (67%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (64%). Gay or Lesbian adults were more likely to feel satisfied with their local area than bisexual adults and adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification.

Religion

There was lots of variation in local area satisfaction between adults from different religious groups, for example Jewish adults (82%) were more likely to feel satisfied with their local area than adults from other religious groups and non-religious adults (62% to 75%). The exception was Christian adults (78%) who were also more likely than adults from the remaining religious groups except Buddhist adults (75%). Sikh adults (62%) and adults of any other religion (67%) were less likely to be satisfied with their local area than adults from other religious groups (with the exception of Muslim (69%) and Buddhist adults in comparison to adults from any other religious group). 

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (74%), the proportion of adults that reported that they were satisfied with their local area was higher for adults from the White British ^{[footnote 3]} (75%) ethnic group. Adults from the Gypsy and Irish Traveller (53%), White and Black Caribbean (61%), Caribbean (62%), Bangladeshi (64%), White and Black African (66%), Arab (67%), Pakistani (69%), and ‘any other’ White background (72%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that they were satisfied with their local area than the England average.

Socio-economic classification

78% of adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, higher than adults from all other socio-economic classifications (65% to 75%). Adults from the intermediate occupations classification (75%) were more likely to be satisfied than adults from routine and manual operations (68%) and never worked and long-term unemployed (65%) classifications.

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 4]}

There was lots of variation in local area satisfaction between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles. Consistently, adults from the higher (less deprived) deciles were more likely to be satisfied with their local area than adults in all the lower (more deprived) deciles. Adults in the lowest (most deprived) decile (54%) were less likely to be satisfied with their local area compared with adults in all other deciles deciles (60% to 89%), and adults in the highest (least deprived) decile (89%) were more likely to satisfied than adults in all lower deciles (54% to 85%).

Population density

Adults living in rural areas (85%) were more likely to feel satisfied with their local area than adults living in urban areas (71%). 

9.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared with England overall (74%), adults were more likely to report feeling satisfied with their local area in the South West (79%), South East (77%) and East of England (77%) ITL1 regions, and less likely in the North East (68%), West Midlands (70%), London (70%) and North West (72%) ITL1 regions. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Levels of local area satisfaction were in line with the England average in 99 (33%) local authorities, above the England average in 120 (41%) local authorities, and below the England average in 77 (26%) local authorities.

In general, the patterns of local area satisfaction at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

Levels of local area satisfaction were higher than the England average in the South West (79%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South West local authority of Swindon (68%).

Levels of local area satisfaction were higher than the England average in the South East (77%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Slough (26%), Medway (58%), Gravesham (58%), Rushmoor (61%), Reading (62%), Southampton (64%), Crawley (66%), Dartford (66%), Swale (66%), Thanet (68%), Spelthorne (68%) and Maidstone (68%).

Levels of local area satisfaction were higher than the England average in the East of England (77%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Thurrock (57%), Luton (57%), Basildon (62%), Peterborough (65%), Ipswich (65%), Fenland (66%), Harlow (67%), Broxbourne (67%) and Stevenage (68%).

Levels of local area satisfaction were lower than the England average in the West Midlands (70%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stratford-on-Avon (87%), Malvern Hills (85%), Warwick (85%), Bromsgrove (84%), Shropshire (84%), Lichfield (84%), County of Herefordshire (83%), South Staffordshire (82%), Stafford (80%) and North Warwickshire (80%).

Levels of local area satisfaction were lower than the England average in the London (70%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the London local authorities of City of London (92%), Richmond upon Thames (91%), Wandsworth (87%), Kingston upon Thames (84%), Kensington and Chelsea (84%), Westminster (81%), Hammersmith and Fulham (81%), Hackney (80%), Islington (79%) and Bromley (79%).

Levels of local area satisfaction were lower than the England average in the North West (72%) region, but higher than the England average in the North West local authorities of Ribble Valley (93%), Wyre (87%), Fylde (86%), Westmorland and Furness (85%), Chorley (85%), Trafford (83%), Cheshire East (81%), Warrington (80%), Cheshire West and Chester (79%), South Ribble (79%) and Cumberland (78%).

Figure 9.2: Levels of satisfaction with the local area, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

10. Change in local area over last two years

Respondents were asked whether they felt that their local area had got better, worse, or stayed the same over the last two years. ^{[footnote 9]}

10.1 Headline findings

In 2023/24:

11% of adults reported that over the last two years their area had got better to live in, a 4-percentage point decrease from 15% in 2021/22 (as shown in Figure 10.1). 

Conversely, 29% reported that it had got worse (an increase from 23% in 2021/22), and 60% reported that it had not changed much (decrease from 62% in 2021/22). The proportion of adults who felt the area had got worse is now at its highest level since push-to-web data collection began in 2013/14.

Figure 10.1: Change in local area as a place to live in last two years, England: 2013/14 to 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

10.2 Who felt their area had got better over the last two years? 

Age

There was some variation in feelings that the local area had got better over the last two years between adults of different ages, for example adults aged 16 to 24 and 25 to 34 (15% and 17% respectively) were more likely than adults from all other age groups (7% to 14%) to feel that their area had improved in the last two years. Among adults aged 35 and over, the proportion reporting that the area had got better consistently decreased with age.

Disability Status

Disabled adults were less likely than non-disabled adults to feel their area had improved over the last two years (8% vs 13%). 

Sex

Male adults were slightly more likely to feel their local area had improved in the last two years (12%) than female adults (11%).  

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (15%) were more likely than adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (11%) to report that their local area had got better to live in over the last two years.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (11%) were less likely to report that their area has got better to live in over the last two years than gay or lesbian adults (16%), bisexual adults (14%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (15%).  

Religion

There was some variation in feelings that the local area had got better in the last two years between adults from different religious groups, for example Hindu and Muslim adults (both 22%) were more likely than adults from other religious groups and non-religious adults (10% to 14%) to feel that their area had got better in the last two years, with the exception of Buddhist adults (17%). Christian adults (10%) were less likely to feel that their area had got better in the last two years than Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh adults, as well as non-religious adults (11% to 22%). 

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (11%), the proportion of adults that felt that their area had got better in the last two years was higher for adults from the Black African (27%), Arab (25%), ‘any other’ Asian background (22%), Bangladeshi (22%), mixed White and Black African (21%), Chinese (20%), Pakistani (20%), Indian (20%), mixed White and Asian (19%), ‘any other’ mixed or multiple ethnic background (18%), ‘any other’ White background (17%), ‘any other’ ethnic group (16%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (16%), Black Caribbean (16%) and Irish (15%) ethnic groups. Adults from the White British ^{[footnote 3]} (9%) ethnic background were less likely to report that their area had got better in the last two years than the England average.

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (13%) and the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (13%), were more likely to report that their local area has got better to live in over the last two years than adults from the intermediate occupations (9%) and routine and manual operations (9%) classifications.

Index of multiple deprivation ^{[footnote 3]}

There was some variation in feelings that the local area had improved over the last two years between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles and, whilst there was no clear pattern among the deciles, some differences were evident. Adults from the four lowest (most deprived) deciles (12% to 13%) were more likely than adults from the four highest (least deprived) deciles (10% to 11%) to feel that their local area had improved over the last two years. 

Population density:

Adults living in urban areas were more likely to feel their local area had improved over the last two years than adults living in rural areas (12% vs 10%).

10.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Figure 10.2 shows that, compared with England overall (11%), adults in London (18%) and the North West (13%) were more likely to report that their area had got better in the last two years, whilst those in the West Midlands (9%), South West (9%), East of England (10%), North East (10%), Yorkshire and the Humber (10%) and South East (10%) ITL1 regions were less likely than the national average to report that their area had got better in the last two years.

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were in line with the England average in 194 (66%) local authorities, above the England average in 36 (12%) local authorities, and below the England average in 66 (22%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of agreement at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were higher than the England average in the London (18%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the London local authority of Havering (6%).

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were higher than the England average in the North West (13%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the North West local authorities of Halton (6%), Wyre (7%), Hyndburn (7%), and Cumberland (8%).  

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were lower than the England average in the South West (9%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the South West local authority of the City of Bristol (15%).

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were lower than the England average in the East of England (10%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Cambridge (16%) and East Cambridgeshire (15%).

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were lower than the England average in the North East (10%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the North East local authority of Newcastle upon Tyne (16%).

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were lower than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber (10%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authority of Leeds (14%).

Levels of agreement that the local area had got better over the last two years were lower than the England average in the South East (10%) ITL1 region, but higher than the England average in the South East local authorities of Oxford (19%) and Folkestone and Hythe (17%).

See Figure 10.2.

Figure 10.2: Area has got better as a place to live in last two years, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

11. Satisfaction with green and natural spaces in local area

In 2023/24 a new question was added to the survey to measure ratings of satisfaction with green and natural spaces in the local area. 

11.1 Headline findings

76% of adults were either very satisfied (31%) or fairly satisfied (44%) with the green and natural spaces in their local area, while 9% were dissatisfied. The remaining 15% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area.

11.2 Who was satisfied with the green and natural spaces? 

Age

There was some variation in levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces between adults of different ages, for example adults aged 65 to 74 and 75 or over (81 to 82%) were more likely than adults under the age of 65 (65% to 79%) to be satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area. For adults under 65, satisfaction increased with age. 

Disability Status

Non-disabled adults (79%) were more likely than disabled adults to feel satisfied with their local green and natural spaces (71%). 

Sex

Male adults (76%) reported a slightly higher level of satisfaction with the green and natural spaces in their local area than female adults (75%).

Gender identity^{[footnote 1]}

Adults whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (65%) were less likely than adults whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (76%) to feel satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area.

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight adults (76%) and gay or lesbian adults (74%) were more likely to feel satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area than bisexual adults (69%) or adults in the ‘other’ sexual orientation classification (66%).  

Religion

There was lots of variation in levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces between adults from different religious groups, for example Christian adults (79%) were more likely to feel satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area than adults from all other religious groups and non-religious adults, except for Jewish adults (80%). Sikh (60%) and Muslim (65%) adults were less likely to feel satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area than adults from all other religious groups and non-religious adults.

Ethnicity^{[footnote 2]}

Compared with the England average (76%), the proportion of adults that reported that they were satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area was higher for adults from the Irish (79%), ‘any other’ White background (78%) and White British ^{[footnote 3]} (77%) ethnic groups. Adults from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller (44%), Bangladeshi (58%), Pakistani (62%), mixed White and Black Caribbean (66%), Black Caribbean (67%) and Indian (71%) ethnic groups were less likely to report that they were satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area than the England average.

Socio-economic classification

Adults from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (80%) were more likely to feel satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area than adults from the intermediate occupations (77%), routine and manual operations (72%) and the never worked and long-term unemployed (66%) classifications. Adults in the intermediate occupations classification were more likely to feel satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area than adults in the routine and manual occupations and the never worked and long-term unemployed classifications.  Those in the routine and manual occupations classification were more likely than adults in the never worked and long-term unemployed classification to feel satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area.

Index of multiple deprivation ^{[footnote 3]}

There was lots of variation in levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces between adults from different index of multiple deprivation deciles. From the second lowest (second-most deprived) decile (63%) to the highest (least deprived) decile (88%), adults in each decile are more likely to be satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area than adults from all deciles lower than them. 

Population density

Adults living in rural areas (87%) were more likely to feel satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area than adults living in urban areas (73%).

11.3 Geographical findings

Regional differences

Compared with England overall (76%), adults were more likely to be satisfied with green and natural spaces in their local area in the South East, East of England (both 79%) and South West (80%) ITL1 regions and less satisfied in the North East (70%), North West (71%), Yorkshire and the Humber, and West Midlands (both 72%) ITL1 regions. 

Local Authority differences^{[footnote 5]}

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were in line with the England average in 105 (35%) local authorities, above the England average in 112 (38%) local authorities, and below the England average in 79 (27%) local authorities, although some of these differences were small.

In general, the patterns of satisfaction at the regional level were also observed at the local authority (LA) level. However, there were some exceptions:

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were higher than the England average in the South East (79%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the South East local authorities of Gravesham (58%), Slough (59%), Reading (63%), Medway (64%), Portsmouth (65%), Thanet (67%), Rushmoor (68%), Swale (68%), Spelthorne (69%), Dartford (69%) and Southampton (69%).

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were higher than the England average in the East of England (79%) ITL1 region, but lower than the England average in the East of England local authorities of Thurrock (61%), Great Yarmouth (65%), Peterborough (67%), Castle Point (67%), Luton (67%), Fenland (68%) and Ipswich (70%).

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were lower than the England average in the North West (71%) region, but higher than the England average in the North West local authorities of Ribble Valley (90%), Westmorland and Furness (86%), Chorley (85%), Fylde (83%) and Cheshire East (79%).

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were lower than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber (72%) region, but higher than the England average in the Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities of North Yorkshire (85%) and East Riding of Yorkshire (81%).

Levels of satisfaction with green and natural spaces were lower than the England average in the West Midlands (72%) region, but higher than the England average in the West Midlands local authorities of Stratford-on-Avon (92%), Malvern Hills (91%), Staffordshire Moorlands (86%), Wychavon (85%), Lichfield (84%), Shropshire (83%), County of Herefordshire (83%), Warwick (82%) and Bromsgrove (82%).

Figure 11.1: Levels of satisfaction with the green and natural spaces in the local area, by region and local authority, England: 2023/24 (Base: All adults)

12. Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction with green and natural spaces in local area

12.1 Reasons for satisfaction with green and natural spaces in local area

Adults who were either very or fairly satisfied with the green and natural spaces in their local area were asked their reasons for this. The most common reasons for satisfaction were ease of walking to green spaces (89%) and spaces being good for mental health and wellbeing (66%). Other factors mentioned by at least one in three adults included being good for physical wellbeing (42%), safety (41%), opportunity for children to play (36%), and good maintenance of these spaces (34%).  

Figure 12.1: Reasons for being satisfied with green and natural spaces in local area, England: 2023/24 (Base: Adults satisfied with green and natural spaces in local area)

12.2 Reasons for dissatisfaction with green and natural spaces in local area

The most common reasons for dissatisfaction with the green and natural spaces in their local area were a perceived lack of these types of spaces in their local area (62%), rubbish and litter (54), poor maintenance (50%) and dog fouling (46%). Other factors mentioned by at least three in ten adults included drinking and drug-taking (41%), lack of facilities (35%), safety concerns (33%) and poor lighting (30%).

Figure 12.2: Reasons for being dissatisfied with green and natural spaces in local area, England: 2023/24 (Base: Adults dissatisfied with green and natural spaces in local area)

1. Patterns were identified in Census 2021 data that suggest that some respondents may not have interpreted the gender identity question as intended, notably those with lower levels of English language proficiency. Analysis of Scotland’s census, where the gender identity question was different, has added weight to this observation. More information can be found in the ONS sexual orientation and gender identity quality information report, and in the National Statistical blog about the strengths and limitations of gender identity statistics ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

2.   The Community Life Survey is a sample survey, so estimates are subject to an associated sampling error that decreases as the sample size increases. To avoid reporting on estimates that are not sufficiently robust a threshold has been applied whereby estimates are excluded from the written analysis if they have an unweighted base size of 100 or less.  ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³

3. ‘White British’ incorporates anyone who self-identifies their ethnicity as White English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, or British. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴

4. Analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation was conducted using deciles. These range from group 1, the most deprived decile, to group 10, the least deprived decile. In some instances, the analysis refers to a group by number e.g. ‘group 8’, in this case the third least deprived decile. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

5. The 2023/24 Community Life Survey collects over 170,000 responses, so confidence intervals are generally very narrow. Whilst this reflects a strength of the data, when highlighting differences, some local authorities may be shown to be above/below the England average, but are only a percentage point more/ less than the average. There will be other local authorities who are much more above or below the England average, but will both be shown in the same shading within the map. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

6. Respondents who answered “Don’t have any neighbours” are excluded from valid answers. ↩

7. Respondents who answered “Nothing needs improving” are excluded from valid answers. ↩

8. Respondents who answered “Just moved here” are excluded from valid answers. ↩

9. Respondents who answered “Have not lived here long enough to say” are excluded from valid answers. ↩