Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England October 2003 Contents Introduction 1 Contact Details 3 Executive Summary 4 Local Communities 6 Defining Communities 6 Identifying Communities 6 Identity with the Local Community in the Copeland Borough Council Area 7 Overall Identity 7 Effective Communities 9 Involvement 13 Affective Communities 15 Bringing Effective and Affective Communities Together 16 Local Authority Communities 18 Belonging to Copeland Borough Council Area 18 Belonging to Cumbria County Council Area 21 Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance 24 Knowledge of Local Governance 24 Involvement with Local Governance 25 Administrative Boundary Issues 25 Appendices 1. Methodology – Quantitative 2. Methodology - Qualitative 3. Sub-Group Definitions 4. Place Name Gazetteer 5. Qualitative Topic Guide 6. Marked-up Questionnaire Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Introduction Research Aims This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England (referred to in this report as "The Committee") in the Copeland Borough Council area. The aim of this research is to establish the patterns of community identity in the area. Survey Coverage MORI has undertaken research in all 44 two-tier district or borough council areas in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. The research covers two-tier local authority areas only; the results may however identify issues which overlap with adjacent areas. Reports and data for other two-tier areas are provided separately. Copeland Borough Council (Cumbria CC) Allerdale BC (Cumbria CC) Copeland BC (Cumbria CC) Data is available from two-tier authorities in these County Council areas: Cheshire South Lakeland DC Durham Cumbria (Cumbria CC) Lancashire Northumberland North Yorkshire Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council Barrow-in-Furness BC CC = County Council (Cumbria CC) Source: MORI Methodology Both quantitative and qualitative research has been carried out in the Copeland Borough Council area, as in each two-tier district, borough or city council area in the North West region. Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents think, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions in the context of an interview, rather than holding an in-depth discussion on the issues involved. It provides statistically robust data. 1 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Within each two-tier district or borough council area, some 300 quantitative face- to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 19th June and 31st August 2003. A total of 1,893 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the Cumbria County Council area, with 302 interviews being conducted in the Copeland Borough Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district or borough council area by age and gender, and for aggregate county, regional and overall findings by the population size of each individual district or borough council area. Full computer tabulations have been provided separately . Qualitative research helps probe the thinking processes and feelings of residents, and attempts to answer the question as to ‘why?’ residents feel the way they do. In the Copeland Borough Council area, a qualitative discussion group was held to establish how residents feel about their local community. The findings from this group were analysed within the context of the findings from discussion groups in the other 43 district or borough council areas under consideration by this study. Discussion groups do not seek to offer statistical validity from a representative sample, but seek to explore attitudes and opinions in greater depth than the quantitative research allows. It should also be borne in mind that, in order to get an overview of the in-depth feelings in each area as well as explore linkages across the region, only one discussion group was held in each district or borough council area. The findings from each group should therefore be viewed in the context of the other discussion groups which have taken place, as well as the quantitative findings. This is because the findings from participants from just one discussion group may be unrepresentative of general opinion, and misleading if viewed out of context. Report Structure This report provides an overview of the findings from the research for the Copeland Borough Council area. Individual summary reports for the findings within each of the two-tier authorities in the North West region have been issued under separate cover. Publication of the Data As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings. 2 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Contact Details The research was carried out by MORI for COI Communications, acting on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England. Simon Atkinson, Research Director, MORI Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive, MORI Jaime Rose, Senior Research Executive, MORI Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive, MORI 79-81 Borough Road London SE1 1FY Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com 3 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Executive Summary • Residents in the Copeland Borough Council area identify most strongly with their local neighbourhood/village, and their town/nearest town. They show less identity with the administrative areas of the local two- tier councils. This is not an unusual finding, as people will generally identify with the immediate area where they have made their home, rather than a large geographical area. • The Copeland Borough Council area is largely rural, with activity concentrated on the town of Whitehaven. Two-thirds of residents most associate themselves with the town, while just under one in ten residents most associate with the smaller towns of Egremont and Cleator Moor. • "Effective Communities" are the sense of place created by visiting practical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, work place, or where parents take their children to school. Whitehaven is a key destination for most activities, particularly with residents in lower social grades. The town of Workington is also a focus point for clothes and household goods shopping, especially among residents living in rural areas. • As has been found in other district and borough council areas nearby, Carlisle (in the Carlisle City Council area) is a prominent destination - especially for clothes and household goods shopping. However, few residents actually feel that the city is the area or community they most belong to. This suggests that it may be a good place to visit, but does not form lasting community ties. • "Affective Communities" are the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community. Identity with the local neighbourhood is naturally stronger for those who take part in community activities. • Overall, almost nine in ten Copeland Borough Council residents feel they belong to a local area or community within this council area. This is high in comparison with other district or borough council areas in the Cumbria County Council area, and appears in large part to be due to the draw of Whitehaven in the Copeland Borough Council area. 4 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Interpreting the Findings • Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research should be taken in isolation of the other, and nor should the findings of one district, borough, county or region be taken in isolation of the overall perspective provided by research in other areas. Just as residents themselves are at the centre of a number of different communities, so this research is at the centre of a wider body of research that provides context and a sense of place to the individual findings for each area. ©MORI/18710 Simon Atkinson Emma Holloway Jaime Rose Neil Wholey 5 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Local Communities Defining Communities Communities, in the context of this research, are a sense of place. The strength of this sense of place is related to the involvement residents have in their communities, whether with people in their own immediate neighbourhood, or with places further afield through, for example, shopping trips or work. For residents there are a number of different and overlapping communities: • Administrative Communities: the sense of place created by local council administrative boundaries. • Effective Communities: the sense of place created by visiting practical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, or are a place of work, or where parents take their children to school. • Affective Communities: the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community. This is defined as where residents feel they most belong, the town or area they most identify with, and if they