Glasgow Case Study August 2010

Woods In and Around Towns (WIAT): a longitudinal study comparing perceptions and use of woodlands pre and post‐intervention (2006‐2009)

A Glasgow Case Study August 2010

Prepared for the Forestry Commission

Catharine Ward Thompson, Jenny Roe and Peter Aspinall

OPENspace: the research centre for inclusive access to outdoor environments

Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University Lauriston Place Edinburgh EH3 9DF Tel: 0131 221 6177 Fax: 0131 221 6157 [email protected] Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Project Aims and Research Questions ...... 2 1.2 Selection of the case study locations...... 2 2.0 Methodology...... 4 2.1 Household survey...... 4 2.2 Environmental audits...... 4 3.0 Results: Questionnaire Data: 2006 baseline and repeat survey 2009...... 5 3.1 Sampling Profile ...... 5 3.2 Method of statistical analysis ...... 5 3.3 Demographics ...... 6 3.4 Health...... 8 3.5 Environmental attitudinal data...... 12 3.6 Patterns of use of woodlands over time (Section E of questionnaire) ...... 20 3.7 Section F: Factors determining the use of woodland...... 25 3.8 Summary of data analysis ...... 0 4.0 Environmental Audits, November 2009...... 2 4.1 Aims...... 2 4.2 Methodology...... 2 4.3 Results...... 2 4.4 Summary ...... 5 4.5 Relating findings to the questionnaire...... 5 5.0 Conclusions ...... 6 Acknowledgements...... 8 References ...... 8 Appendices...... 9 Appendix 1: Household Questionnaire 2009...... 9 Appendix 2: Summary of statistical tests and sequence of analysis used on Household Questionnaire data ...... 9 Appendix 3: Audit scores per case study site...... 9 Appendix 4: Postcodes for the Glasgow survey communities...... 9

1 1.0 Introduction

This case study presents the outcomes of Woods In and Around Towns (WIAT) interventions in Glasgow, 2006‐2009, drawing upon the full evaluation carried out across Aberdeen and Glasgow (Ward Thompson et al 2010). It reports on change pre and post WIAT intervention in Drumchapel (Glasgow west) and compares results to Milton ‐ a control site in north Glasgow) where there were no WIAT interventions. The study documents changes over time (2006 and 2009) found in participants’ perceptions and behavior patterns, comparing outcomes across these two Glasgow locations. It summarizes in brief the background and methodology to the research; for the full background to the study and methodology please refer to the 2006 baseline survey (Ward Thompson et al 2007); the supplementary study (Ward Thompson et al 2008), and full longitudinal evaluation (Ward Thompson et al 2010). Where appropriate, this report also makes reference to the results of a contextual study exploring other social and environmental factors in Glasgow that may have contributed to change over time (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010).

1.1 Project Aims and Research Questions The purpose of the longitudinal survey was to measure the impact of WIAT programme investment on deprived communities in Scotland, in terms of changes to the quality of their local environments and the benefits derived within the local population. We were interested in the following research questions and how response has changed over time:

. What are local people’s attitudes, perceptions and values associated with their local open space/woodlands? . How are local people using their local open space/woodlands? . How often do local people use their local open space/woodland? . What needs to change to increase use and quality of their experience of local open space/woodlands?

In addition, between 2006 and 2009, the interest in the relationships between use of woodlands and health has grown. In the 2006 baseline survey we explored relationships with physical activity only; in the 2009 repeat survey the scope was widened to include aspects of general health, mental and social wellbeing.

1.2 Selection of the case study locations

Criteria for selection of the case study sites was based, firstly, on levels of high social deprivation (communities in the top 15% of multiple deprivation indices) and, secondly (for the intervention sites), being within 500m of woods earmarked for WIAT activity. On this basis a WIAT intervention site in Drumchapel in Glasgow

2 (hereafter referred to as Drumchapel) was selected, with Milton in Glasgow selected as a control site where no WIAT activity was planned (hereafter referred to as Milton). The purpose of the control was to detect any changes in attitudes, perceptions and values over time that might reflect broader societal influences or other interventions within the general urban area under one local authority jurisdiction (i.e. Glasgow City Council), independent of any change that might be attributed to local investment in woodlands.

3 2.0 Methodology

The 2009 survey replicated the 2006 baseline survey using the same research instruments (Ward Thompson et al 2007). In brief:

2.1 Household survey: this replicated the 2006 questionnaire with the addition of several additional questions on health and well‐being (primarily mental health and social well‐being) to explore relationships between woodlands and well‐being and also to provide further baseline data for future comparison with WIAT funded projects1. The survey was administered by Progressive Partnership (as in 2006) in exactly the same communities and using the same survey methods (interview in home) as the baseline.

Sampling strategy: The sampling strategy aimed to replicate that of 2006: it was therefore drawn from the same Glasgow postcodes and aimed to replicate the 2006 profile in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and socio‐economic group for each community. The aim was also to repeat the survey in 2009 with individuals who had participated in 2006 but only one individual in Glasgow was willing to repeat the survey. Feedback from the survey company suggests that 2006 respondents were either unavailable throughout the fieldwork period, had moved on from their previous address or did not agree to participate again. Progressive interviewers were instructed to operate a triple call‐back system in order to maximise the likelihood of reaching these long‐term study respondents. In ‐house interviews were carried out in November 2009 to match the time of year of the 2006 baseline.

2.2 Environmental audits The on‐site environmental audit and spatial analysis tools developed by OPENspace for the baseline survey were used again in November 2009 in the two Glasgow case study locations. The purpose of re‐visiting sites was to map changes in environmental quality and to allow for comparison with changes in questionnaire data on perceptions and usage. This analysis was carried out by two landscape architects from OPENspace, one of whom oversaw the 2006 environmental survey, thereby providing consistency in analysis over time. All data collection was carried out in November 2009, at exactly the same time of year as the baseline environmental survey.

1 The additional questions are flagged in red type in Appendix 1, the 2009 version of the questionnaire. Questionnaire items are referenced in parenthesis within the study.

4 3.0 Results: Questionnaire Data: 2006 baseline and repeat survey 2009 3.1 Sampling Profile. Table 3.1 below shows the sampling profile for each survey period (2006 and 2009). The sampling quotas for location, age, gender, socio‐ economic background and ethnicity in 2009 closely replicates that of 2006.

Table 3.1: Participant numbers and demographics 2006 and 2009 2006 2009 Age % Absolute % Absolute Numbers Numbers 16‐24 years 20% 43 20% 43 25‐34 years 16% 34 15% 32 35‐44 years 19% 40 17% 37 45‐54 years 16% 34 17% 37 55‐64 years 13% 29 14% 30 65+ 17% 36 17% 37 Gender Male 49% 105 49% 105 Female 51% 110 51% 111 SEG AB 1% 3 1% 2 C1 13% 28 14% 31 C2 12% 26 8% 18 D 13% 27 13% 29 E 61% 131 63% 136 Location Glasgow Milton 49% 105 49% 106 Glasgow Drumchapel 51% 110 51% 110 Ethnicity Scottish 97% 208 92% 198 Other British 1 2 3% 3 Irish 1 2 1% 1 Other white background ‐ ‐ 8% 8 Indian ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Pakistani ‐ 2%‐ 2 Chinese ‐ 2%‐ 2 African 0.5% 1 ‐ ‐ Refused 1 2 2% 2 Base 100% 215 100% 216

3.2 Method of statistical analysis Our main focus in this study is in providing evidence of change: we looked for statistical differences between participants according to demographic variables (e.g. gender, age, etc), health variables and woodland attitudinal data, both by location and over time (2006 and 2009). The main tests usede her were non‐parametric (i.e. distribution free statistics2) tests such as Mann Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis that

2 i.e. they are not dependent on a normal distribution in the data.

5 look for statistically significant differences between two or more independent groups (reported in Sections 3.3 to 3.5).

In presenting the data we have used charts prepared by Progressives, incorporating some additional graphic material where necessary. The phrase ‘over time’ in the text refers to Time 1 (2006) as compared with Time 2 (2009). Where we refer to ‘change over time’ we mean a significant difference in a variable between Time 1 (2006) and Time 2 (2009). Where we refer to differences in the ‘rate of change’ we are comparing the difference in percentage change on a variable between two locations (i.e. Drumchapel v. Milton). Statistical significance is reported for a p‐value <0.05.

For further statistical analyses, which were carried out across Glasgow and Aberdeen sites for the original data analysis, please refer to the full longitudinal study (Ward Thompson et al 2010).

3.3 Demographics A longitudinal study of this type, comparing data pre‐ and post‐intervention, requires consistency within the sampling profile so, firstly, we explored differences within the two samples at baseline and then, for consistency, within samples over time (2006‐ 2009).

Stage 1 Testing for differences at baseline: the two ssite were different at baseline on the following demographic variables:

Age – Milton older Working status – Milton higher Disabled status ‐ Milton higher Number children under 16 – Drumchapel higher Owning a dog – Drumchapel higher Access to a car – Drumchapel lower How long in neighbourhood – Drumchapel higher

Stage 2 Testing for significant change over time: the focus was on change between 2006 and 2009 in each site across demographic variables. Key results are flagged below with additional results reported in Appendix 2.

Milton: the only demographic variable showing significant (p<0.05) change was the length of time in the neighbourhood (G8). However, this result appears to be the simple consequence of the questionnaire being administered 3 years later in a relatively stable group that has, by 2009, been resident in the areas three years longer.

6 Drumchapel: the only variables showing significant (p<0.05) change between 2006 and 2009 were that in 2009 more people were registered disabled (G4) and fewer people owned a dog (G6). The pattern of change is illustrated in Figures 3.1a and 3.1b below.

In summary, the sampling profile in each case study location was consistent over time on key demographic variables, such as age, gender and socio‐economic status.

Fig 3.1a: Drumchapel: numbers of subjects with a registered disability, statistically significant difference in sample over time (2006‐2009).

7 Fig 3.1b: Drumchapel: numbers of subjects with a dog, statistically significant difference in sample over time (2006‐2009).

3.4 Health We report results, firstly, on differences over time for physical activity and, secondly, on the additional health variables included in the 2009 survey.

3.4.1 Physical activity over a week (B1): This is the only health variable for which we have longitudinal data; it shows a number of statistically significant differences in each location over time.

(1) Drumchapel: the difference in physical activity (PA) levels over time is significant (p=0.004, Mann‐Whitney test); physical activity levels have increased in the higher categories (6‐10 and 11‐20 hours/per week) as shown in Fig 3.2. (2) Milton Control: significant differences in PA levels over time (p=0.002) but with the opposite pattern of activity; PA levels in 2009 (in the higher use categories) have reduced (see Fig 3.3) with more participants reporting doing ‘none’ and fewer reporting activity over 6 hours+/week. (3) Differences in PA levels between Drumchapel and Milton: the difference in PA levels between the two locations in 2009 is highly significant (p=0.000); the difference was also significant in 2006, but less so (p=0.010) but the pattern is different over time; participants in Milton have become less active over time.

Fig 3.2: Drumchapel: changes in physical activity levels over time

Fig 3.3: Milton: changes in physical activity levels over time

3.4.2 Physical Activity over 4 weeks (B2). In 2009 we added an additional, single‐ item physical activity question recording activity over 4 weeks (using the British Heart Foundation National Centre (BHFNC) scale (2008)). Results for 2009 are shown in Fig 43. below. Physical activity levels are significantly worse in Milton than for Drumchapel (p=0.000). So, having access to a nearby woodland may be contributing positively to physical activity levels in the Drumchapel WIAT intervention site.

When exploring possible reasons why PA levels may have increased in Drumchapel, we looked at dog ownership and the number of subjects with a registered disability (note, earlier results reported significant differences over time on these variables, see section 3.3). However, change in the sample over time on these two variables cannot explain the PA outcome; more participants reported being registered disabled in 2009 and fewer participants reported having a dog in 2009 as compared to 2006.

Fig 3.4 Physical activity patterns by case study location in 2009

3.4.3 Quality of life in the neighbourhood (A1): this provides a useful indicator of well‐being over time.

(1) Drumchapel: a very significant change over time (Mann Whitney, p<0.001); satisfaction with quality of life (QoL) is higher in 2009 (+27%), see Fig 3.5. (2) Milton: a very significant change over time (p<0.001) with higher levels of satisfaction with QoL as above; see Fig 3.5, but the rate of change is less (+19%). (3) Differences in QoL in the neighbourhood between locations: the difference in QoL between Drumchapel and Milton was significant neither in 2009 nor in 2006, but the rate of positive change over time is greater in Drumchapel.

10 A1 - Satisfaction with quality of life in neighbourhood

Drumchapel 09 25% 63% 5% 7% 0

Drumchapel 06 13% 48% 19% 14% 6%

Milton 09 28% 61% 7% 4% 0

Milton 06 11% 59% 17% 11% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (1) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (0) Dissatisfied (-1) Very dissatisfied (-2)

Fig 3.5: Quality of Life in the neighbourhood over time A1

3.4.4 General health and well‐being: we found no significant differences between Milton and Drumchapel on the new health variables included in the survey for 2009 (i.e. self‐reported general health (B3); mental health (B4), satisfaction with life in general (B5), place belonging (B6)). However, we did find a statistical difference between case study locations on sense of trust in people in the neighbourhood (B7) on the median scores (Mann‐Whitney test, p<0.05), with higher overall perceptions of trust in Milton (see Fig 3.6). Comparing with contextual health data for Glasgow north (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010), sense of trust is higher in Milton than the average for this part of Glasgow.

11 B7 - Trust for people in neighbourhood

Drumchapel 09 20% 52% 23% 5%

Milton 09 11% 76% 8% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most people can be trusted Some people can be trusted CanÕt be too careful in dealing with people Unsure Fig 3.6 Sense of trust in people in the neighbourhood B6

3.5 Environmental attitudinal data. Firstly, to gauge general patterns, we ran data analysis on some key attitudinal data to indicate significant differences over time using collapsed categories for variables (where scores were collapsed from 5 to 3 levels). Results are summarised in Table 3.2 below, which shows significant change over time on several variables by location, and indicates whether the change is in a positive or negative direction. The pattern of change can also be seen in the accompanying charts for key variables, Fig 3.7 to 3.13. The full list of individual questions asked in this section (section D) is shown in the Questionnaire in Appendix 1. Shortened labels for each of these are used in the discussion below.

3.5.1 Drumchapel: significant change on 7 out of 13 variables: Quality of Physical Environment, Importance of woods to QoL, Litter, Access, Safety, Healthy activities, Social use; the trend is positive change on all variables. It is also worth noting there was marginal change (p<0.10) on 5 variables (Paths, Peace, Wildlife, Natural Appearance, Facilities) and, with the exception of Paths, the direction of change was again positive. The only variable to show no change over time is ‘Quality of Woods’. 3.5.2 Milton Control: significant change on 5 out of 13 variables: Quality of Woods, Access, Paths, Social use, Natural appearance; the pattern of change is mixed, negative on some variables, positive on others.

12 Table 3.2 Change over time on environmental attitudinal data by location Key: significant change over time ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05 +ve = positive change over time (06‐09); ‐ve = negative change over time (06‐ 09) Marginal relates to a significance value (p) of <0.1 Drumchapel Milton Quality of Physical Environment + ve*** Marginal +ve (A1) Q of Woods (C1) ‐ve(**) Importance of Woods to QoL + ve** (C2v) Litter (D1) +ve* Access (D2) +ve *** ‐ve** Safety (D3) +ve** Paths (D4) Marginal ‐ve ‐ve*** Peace (D5) Marginal +ve Healthy Activities (D6) +ve** Social (D7) +ve** ‐ve** Wildlife (D8) Marginal +ve Natural appearance (D9) Marginal +ve ‐ve* Facilities (D10) Marginal +ve

Some of these variables are now explored in more detail below: A1, C1, C2v, D2, D6 and D4 (the last because this is a result that is difficult to explain and contrary to the general pattern).

13 Quality of physical environment (A1)

(1) Drumchapel: there is a very significant positive shift (Mann Whitney, p<0.001) here; satisfaction has improved over time and the pattern is dramatic (+37% in very satisfied/satisfied category), (see Fig 3.7). (2) Milton: the change is positive and significant (p=0.010) but the rate of change is not as dramatic (nor as significant) as in Drumchapel (+13% in very satisfied/satisfied category). (3) Differences between locations: There is no significant difference between Drumchapel and Milton on this variable in 2009, but there was in 2006 (p=0.020). They are less different therefore on this variable in 2009. However, percentage outcomes on a combined ‘satisfied’ category (i.e.’ very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’) show that Drumchapel experienced positive change almost three times that of Milton.

A3 - Satisfaction with physical envrionment in neighbourhood

Drumchapel 09 12% 58% 17% 13% 0

Drumchapel 06 2% 31% 40% 21% 6% 0

Milton 09 9% 45% 41% 5% 0

Milton 06 2% 39% 49% 8% 3% 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (1) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (0) Dissatisfied (-1) Very dissatisfied (-2) No reply

Fig 3.7: how satisfied are you with the quality of your physical neighbourhood in this environment?

3.5.3 Quality of local woods (C1)

(1) Drumchapel: a marginal shift over time (p=0.097), see Fig 3.8, which shows a positive shift in perceptions of quality over time. The difference in the chart looks substantial (an increase of 48% perceiving woodland quality as ‘very good/good’) but it was of no statistical significance. (2) Milton: no significant change over time, although the pattern is in the negative direction and, again, the difference is substantial (‐23% perceiving woodland quality is ‘very good/good’). (3) The difference between Drumchapel and Milton on this variable is significant in 09 (p<0.001) as it was in 06 (p= 0.016) but to a lesser degree. This small shift in significance value on this variable between Drumchapel and Milton is of interest.

C1 - Thoughts on local woodlands

Drumchapel 09 15% 33% 16% 10% 4% 23%

Drumchapel 06 0 6% 85% 2%2% 5%

Milton 09 2% 8% 46% 11% 1% 32%

Milton 06 3% 30% 14% 5% 5% 43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very good (2) Good (1) Neutral (0) Poor (-1) Very poor (-2) Don't know what my local woodlands are like Fig 3.8: What do you think about the quality of your local woodlands?

3.5.4 Importance of Quality of Woods in contributing to Quality of Life (C2)

(1) Drumchapel: there is a highly significant positive shift in the importance of woods in contributing to quality of life (QoL) (p=0.002) (but on collapsed variable categories only). Fig 3.9 below shows an increase of 12% in those reporting woodlands are ‘very important’ to QoL. (2) Milton: the change is not significant, although the shift in ‘irrelevant’ and ‘unimportant’ categories has grown: woodlands are of less importance to QoL.

C2 - Importance of woodlands in making a difference to quality of life

Drumchapel 09 3% 23% 33% 29% 13%

Drumchapel 06 01% 79% 19% 1%

Milton 09 23% 15% 27% 25% 10%

Milton 06 12% 9% 42% 32% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Irrelevant (-2) Unimportant (-1) Neutral (0) Somewhat important (1) Very important (2) Fig 3.9: How important are woodlands around here in making a difference to your quality of life?

3.5.5 Access (D2)

(1) Drumchapel: perceptions of access have significantly changed over time (p<0.001) and in a positive direction: 36% more participants in 2009 ‘disagree’ with the statement that access is difficult as compared to 2006. See Fig 3.10 below. (2) Milton: the shift is marginal (at 5 categories) (p=0.075) but was significant at 3 categories (p=0.002); the shift is generally in a positive direction but more participants felt ‘neutral’ on this variable in 2009. (3) Differences in perceptions of access are significant between Milton and Drumchapel in 2009 (p=0.001) as they were in 2006 (p<0.001).

D2 - Its difficult to get to the woodlands

Drumchapel 09 0 17% 33% 39% 11% 0

Drumchapel 06 0 12% 85% 3% 1%0

Milton 09 01% 40% 27% 32% 0

Milton 06 3% 10% 30% 37% 20% 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree (2) Agree (1) Neutral (0) Disagree (-1) Strongly disagree (-2) Don't know

Chart 3.10: it is difficult to get into the woodlands

3.5.6 Healthy Activities (D6)

(1) Drumchapel: results show a very significant shift over time on being able to use the woodlands for healthy activities (p=0.001), see Fig 3.11 below (a positive shift of 27% across the ‘agree’ category). (2) Milton: no significant change over time but the shift is in a negative direction.

D6 - I can pursue healthy activities in the woodlands

Drumchapel 09 2% 27% 49% 21% 1%0

Drumchapel 06 01% 88% 11% 0

Milton 09 3% 11% 63% 23% 0

Milton 06 1% 19% 55% 18% 7% 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree (2) Agree (1) Neutral (0) Disagree (-1) Strongly disagree (-2) Don't know Fig 3.11: I can pursue healthy activities in the woodlands

3.5.7 Paths (D4)

Perceptions of path access in Drumchapel is at odds with the general pattern of results in this case study location: the shift is marginally significant (p=0.087) but the direction is negative; this is a surprising results since tthe environment repea audit shows substantial improvements to paths surfacing in Garscadden Woods (see Section 4). The change over time is highly significant in Milton only (p<0.001), where perceptions of the quality of paths has improved but, to our knowledge, there have been no physical improvements to paving in this area (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010); this is a surprising result for which – to date ‐ we have been unable to find any explanation other than that greater use of woods (in Drumchapel at least) may have increased use of paths and heightened perceptions of any inadequacies .

18 D4 -Poorly maintained paths make it difficult to visit the woodlands

Drumchapel 09 6% 39% 37% 15% 2%

Drumchapel 06 6% 6% 86% 01%

Milton 09 5% 31% 56% 4% 5%

Milton 06 8% 11% 57% 20% 4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree (2) Agree (1) Neutral (0) Disagree (-1) Strongly disagree (-2) Fig 3.12: Poorly maintained paths make it difficult to visit the woodlands

3.5.8 Social use (D7)

Results for Drumchapel show a positive and significant pattern of change (p=0.014), with an increase over time of 33% ‘strongly agreeing’ or ‘agreeing’ that woodlands are a positive place to visit with family and friends. By contrast, the pattern of change in Milton on this variable is negative See Fig 3.13 below.

D7 - The woodlands provide a place to visit with family and friends

Drumchapel 09 2% 32% 43% 23% 1%

Drumchapel 06 01% 90% 5% 4%

Milton 09 1% 10% 58% 29% 1%

Milton 06 1% 30% 49% 11% 9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree (2) Agree (1) Neutral (0) Disagree (-1) Strongly disagree (-2)

Fig 3.13: The woodlands provide a place to visit with family and friends

19 3.6 Patterns of use of woodlands over time (Section E of questionnaire)

3.6.1 Changing patterns of use over 12 months

Over time, the change in patterns of use over 12 months is in Drumchapel is highly significant (p<0.001) but is not significant in Milton. Fig 3.14 below shows use of woodlands has substantially increased over 12 months in Drumchapel (an increase of 26% over time, whereas Milton use of woodlands has stayed static).

The difference between Drumchapel and Milton on this variable was significant in 2006 (p=0.018), but over time the difference between the two sites has become ns. So patterns of use in Drumchapel have increased significantly over time to reduce the differences between the two sites to insignificance.

E1 Visited local woodlands in the lat 12 months

Drumchapel 09 31% 69%

Drumchapel 06 5% 95%

Milton 09 15% 85%

Milton 06 15% 85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No Fig 3.14 Have you visited Scottish woodlands in the last 12 months?

Exploring patterns of use in more detail (town woods v. countryside woods), there is a substantial reported increase in the use of woodlands in and around towns in Drumchapel (an increase of 59% over time, see Fig 3.15 below, marginally significant at p=0.09). Use of woods in towns has also shifted in Milton and whilst the rate of change is less (an increase of 43% over time) it is still a substantial increase. This is an unusual result since woodland is absent in Milton and we have been unable to find a local explanation (e.g. walking groups travelling further afield) to explain this shift (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010). The difference in type of woodland visit between Milton and Drumchapel is not significant in 2009.

20 E2a - Were those visits mainly...

Drumchapel 09 12% 76% 12%

Drumchapel 06 17% 17% 67%

Milton 09 25% 56% 19%

Milton 06 63% 13% 25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To woodlands in the countryside To woodlands in and around town To both Fig 3.15 Were those visits mainly to (town v country)?

3.6.2 Frequency of use (winter and summer)

(1) Drumchapel: the shift in use patterns is not significant over time in winter, but there is a highly significant increase in reported visits in summer (p=0.010) particularly in the ‘everyday’ and ‘several times a week’ category, see Fig 3.16 below. (2) Milton: there is a significant increase in winter usage (p=0.016), a marginal increase in summer (p=0.067); the pattern is of more frequent use but the rate of change over time is much higher in Drumchapel. (3) The difference between Drumchapel and Milton on summer use in 2009 has become more significant (p<0.001) as compared to 2006 (p=0.04).

So use has increased in Drumchapel to a greater extent than in Milton in summer. This is an interesting result but some caution is required in reading this result since participant response numbers are small for this question (based on % respondents saying they have visited woodlands in the last 12 months).

21 E5 - Frequency of visiting the woodlands between Apr-Sept

Drumchapel 09 24% 44% 12% 15% 0 6% 0

Drumchapel 06 0 33% 67% 0

Milton 09 0 25% 13% 38% 6% 19% 0

Milton 06 0 13% 0 25% 25% 38% 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Every day Several times a week Once a week Several times a month About once a month Less often Not at all Unsure Fig 3.16 Summer access patterns over time

3.6.3 How do you get to your local woodland? (E7)

There is a positive pattern of change in both Drumchapel and Milton, with reduced car use (a fall of 11% in Drumchapel and of 38% in Milton), with more participants reporting they walk to woodlands. It is not statistically possible to compare these differences over time owing to the low participant numbers reporting use in 2006 (e.g. only 6 respondents in Drumchapel 2006 as compared to 34 in 2009).

3.6.4 Ease of getting to the local woodland (E9a)

There is a dramatic increase in the number of people in Drumchapel reporting it is ‘easy’ to get to their local woodland, and the difference over time is highly significant (p<0.001, Mann‐Whitney). 58% more participants now report it is ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’ to get to their local woodland. However, the pattern and rate of change is also high in Milton (e.g. a 33% increase in Milton and 30% increase in Drumchapel in participants reporting it is ‘very easy’ to access their local woodland). See Fig 3.17 below. The result in Milton is difficult to explain as there are no nearby woods and, secondly, contextual research indicates no evidence of improved bus services or facilitation to access local woods and open space (local walking groups are reported to be poorly attended (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010)).

22 E9a Ease of getting to the local woodland

Drumchapel 09 34% 57% 8% 1%0

Drumchapel 06 4% 29% 58% 5% 04%

Milton 09 60% 27% 8% 04%

Milton 06 27% 41% 21% 2% 8% 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very easy (2) Easy (1) Not sure (0) Difficult (-1) Very Difficult (-2) Unsure Fig 3.17 Ease of getting to local woodland

3.6.5 Use of woodlands as a child: There is significant change in Milton and Drumchapel over time on this variable (p<0.05). The rate of change is greater in Drumchapel, where 10% more of the sample reported visiting woodlands as a child ‘once a’ day in 2009 (see Fig 3.18 below). Since we know patterns of childhood woodland use are correlated with adult use, this result might partially explain the increase in physical activity levels in Drumchapel over time but overall childhood use patterns in the top 3 response categories are similar across Milton and Drumchapel in 2009.

23 E11. Whether visited local woodlands as a child

Drumchapel 09 12% 25% 9% 18% 4% 9% 0 23%

Drumchapel 06 2% 14% 12% 14% 11% 12% 8% 8% 20%

Milton 09 4% 29% 12% 20% 4% 25% 02% 5%

Milton 06 5% 11% 8% 24% 6% 16% 1%1% 29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Almost every day More than once a week Once a week Several time a month Once a month Several times a year Once a year Less than once a year or never Never

Fig 3.18: whether visited local woodlands as a child

24 3.7 Section F: Factors determining the use of woodland.

The format of this series of questions was changed between 2006 and 2009. In 2006 we asked, “How important is (x) in determining your use of the woodlands?” with 5 levels of response (very important to not at all important). Responses in 2006 did not display much discrimination between variables – most answers to most questions were very similar. In 2009 we therefore changed the format of this section of the questionnaire slightly by asking participants “If your local woodlands could be improved, what would encourage you to use them more?” and splitting the list of attributes from 2006 into two sections: the physical features associated with woods (paths, car parking, signposts etc) and the activities undertaken (getting peace and quiet, fresh air, relaxation, physical exercise etc) ‐ asking subjects to choose 3 attributes from each section. Thus, the two questions are not statistically directly comparable: 2006 respondents were asked to rate level of importance of factors. In 2009, respondent were asked to code 3 factors that were important. The data in 2006 provide a relative reading of importance of the various factors whereas, in 2009, respondents are being asked to specify the most important factors encouraging use. However, to achieve an approximate measure of change in importance over time, we recoded the variables using 2006 respondents who answered ‘very important’ and ‘fairly important’ on each of the attributes. (See Table 3.3 for changes over time in the importance of physical attributes and Table 3.4 for changes in the importance of activities).

Firstly, concentrating on patterns in Drumchapel and the physical attributes of woodlands, availability of staff has become more important to woodland use over time, as has the importance of feeling safe (see Fig 3.19, 2009 data) (however, these variables were not significantly correlated).

Secondly, when we look at the range of activities participants seek to do in woodlands, the most substantial change over time in Drumchapel is in the importance of getting peace and quiet (a restorative quality), with physical activity being slightly less important as an activity over time. See Fig 3.20.

However, exploring some of the differences between Drumchapel and Milton (see Fig 3.21), on question F2 (activities undertaken if woodlands were improved) the importance of physical activity to participants in Drumchapel is more important than in Milton (+19%), reflecting data elsewhere. By contrast, getting fresh air is more important to participants from Milton (+29%). This pattern has stayed consistent in Milton over time (see Table 3.4)

Safety and vandalism are the two most likely factors to determine use of woodlands in Milton, reflecting data collected elsewhere in this location (see Roe and Ward

25 Thompson 2010). Concerns for safety over time have increased in Drumchapel (+19%) as compared to Milton (+2% over time) but concerns for safety remain consistently higher in Milton than in Drumchapel (+27%, 2009) (see Fig 3.22 and Table 3.3 below).

Table 3.3: Importance of physical attributes of woodlands, a comparison over time Milton Drumchapel Factors 2006 2009 2006 2009

Feeling safe from undesirable other people 79% 81% 35% 54% No signs of vandalism 78% 58% 42% 35% Well‐structured paths 46% 53% 42% 34% Availability of staff 28% 25% 32% 44%

Clear sign‐posting on paths 41% 14% 39% 30% Well‐maintained trees and paths 76% 18% 38% 7% Leaflets and maps 28% 6% 37% 22% Feeling safe from having an accident 78% 18% 39% 15% Information on site 37% 8% 36% 11% Off‐road parking 17% 1% 33% 4% Nothing N/A 1% N/A 10%

Table 3.4: activities encouraging use of woodlands, a comparison by location over time Milton Drumchapel Factors 2006 2009 2006 2009

Getting peace and quiet 73% 53% 42% 53% Getting fresh air 77% 75% 41% 46% Being able to enjoy scenery and views 72% 51% 41% 45% Being able to relax and unwind for a while 75% 57% 39% 22% Being able to spend time with family and friends 58% 25% 41% 25% Being able to enjoy the wildlife 62% 12% 39% 28% Getting physical exercise 57% 20% 41% 39% Nothing N/A ‐ N/A 10%

Fig 3.19 Physical attributes compared over time, Drumchapel

F2: Activities undertaken if woodlands improved

53% Getting peace and quiet 42%

46% Getting fresh air 41%

Being able to enjoy 45% scenery and views 41%

Being able to relax and 22% 2009 unwind for a while 39% 2006

Being able to spend time 25% with family and friends 41%

Being able to enjoy the 28% wildlife 39%

39% Getting physical exercise 41%

10% Nothing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Fig 3.20 Activities undertaken in woodlands compared over time in Drumchape

F2 - Activities undertaken if woodlands improved

53% 46% 45% 39% Drumchapel 09 28% 25% 22% 10%

52% 75% 51% 20% Milton 09 12% 25% 57% 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Nothing Being able to relax and unwind for a while Being able to spend time with family and friends Being able to enjoy the wildlife Getting physical exercise Being able to enjoy scenery and views Getting fresh air Getting peace and quiet

Fig 3.21 a comparison of activities by location, 2009 F1 - Factors likely to determine use of woodland

54% 44% 35% 34% Drumchapel 30% 22% 09 15% 11% 7% 4% 10%

81% 25% 58% 53% 14% Milton 09 6% 18% 8% 18% 1% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Feeling safe from undesirable other people Availability of staff at the site (for example rangers) No signs of vandalism Well-structured paths for your activity Clear signposting on paths Leaflets and maps to help you find your way around Feeling safe from having an accident Information on-site. e.g. about history or conservation Well maintained trees and plants Off-road car parking Nothing

Fig 3.22 a comparison of factors likely to determine use of woodlands by location, 2009

3.8 Summary of data analysis

Data on Drumchapel shows consistent positive change in perceptions and behavior patterns on many variables, including improved perceptions of access over time, increased physical activity (and its importance in relation to woodland use), improved well‐being (in terms of quality of life) and improved perception of the quality of the local environment and woodland. There is evidence of statistically significant differences between Drumchapel and Milton over time (on, for example, physical activity and the social value of woodlands). The pattern in Milton is mixed with significant change over time on some variables (quality of life, use of town woodlands) but negative patterns elsewhere (for example, reduced physical activity over time). It would appear, therefore, that WIAT initiatives may account for some changed patterns in Drumchapel, particularly on physical activity, where the sampling profile suggests we might have expected PA to be lower (i.e. more registered disabled participants, fewer dog owners).

Of special interest are the following results:

3.8.1 We found consistent positive change in perceptions of woodlands and behaviour patterns on many variables in Drumchapel compared with evidence of mixed change in Milton. 3.8.2 On one longitudinal health indicator, physical activity, higher levels of activity in Drumchapel were found in 2009 (in the higher use categories) with less physical activity reported in Milton in 2009 (across the higher use categories). Neither a change in dog ownership nor in numbers of subjects with a registered disability can explain this change in Drumchapel, suggesting that WIAT interventions may account for some change here. 3.8.3 Satisfaction with quality of physical environment has increased three‐fold in Drumchapel as compared to Milton over time (the difference between the sites on this variable is 14% in 2006 and 39% in 2009). 3.8.4 On the social use of woodlands (D7) we found positive change in Drumchapel (an increase of 33% agreeing ‘woodlands provide a place to visit with family and friends’) and negative change in Milton (20% fewer participants agreed with this statement in 2009). 3.8.5 Perception of the quality of woods has not changed significantly in Drumchapel (although there is an increase of 42% in 2009 reporting the quality is ‘good’), compared to Milton, where there is significant negative change (a fall of 23% reporting ‘good’ quality woodlands). 3.8.6 A significant increase in frequency in use of woods (summer) in Drumchapel (24% now visiting ‘everyday’ compared to 0% in 2006) as compared to no change in Milton (0% visiting ‘everyday’ in 2006 and 2009). 3.8.7 A greater importance attached to staffing in the woods in Drumchapel in 2009 (an increase of 12% reporting this would encourage use). 3.8.8 We found no statistical differences between locations on the additional health data incorporated in the 2009 survey, with the exception of reported ‘trust in the neighbourhood’, which is higher in Milton.

1 4.0 Environmental Audits, November 2009.

4.1 Aims The aim of repeating the environmental audit was to evaluate what, if any, changes could be perceived in the environmental quality of the two case study location over time (2006‐2009), with the aim of comparing environmental change perceived ‘in the field’ with perceived environmental change evident in the repeat survey.

4.2 Methodology Four sites were re‐visited exactly three years from the date of the 2006 baseline assessment i.e. November 2009:

 Miilton Control: Milton Park and Possil Loch and Canal  Drumchapel: Garscadden Wood and West Extension

The sites were visited over one day by two landscape architects, one of whom took part in the baseline assessment. Weather conditions in Glasgow were better on the day of the repeat visits (dry (2009) v. rainy (2006).

We repeated the audit methodology carried out in 2006. Firstly, the environmental audit checklist was used, rating 7 criteria of woodland quality against a 5 point scale (where 5= best and 1= worst). Secondly, we evaluated the wood spatially to observe any changes in the typical path experience, focusing on the experience of views and sense of enclosure.

The sites were audited based on what was seen ‘in the field’ on the day. In order that our impressions were not biased by prior knowledge of improvements beforehand, we consulted local rangers after the audits had taken place. Improvements not detectable at the time (e.g. tree thinning) are referred to in the report but were not taken into account in the audit scoring processes.

4.3 Results 4.3.1 Control Site: Milton (Milton Park and Possil Loch and Canal)

The two sites were visited on 16th November 2009 in dry weather conditions. We did not detect any improvements in environmental quality to either site. We experienced a slight deterioration in perceptions of personal safety, owing to the presence at Possil Loch of a group of male social drinkers, and deterioration in neighbourhood quality in the vicinity of Milton Park. It was not appropriate in either context to take photographs.

2 4.3.2 Drumchapel: Garscadden Wood Main and West (Extension site).

The two sites were visited on 16th November in dry weather conditions.

(1) Gascadden Wood, Main Section

We detected significant improvements in environmental quality, most evident in the bluebell wood section, in the form of improved access and evidence of increased activity and use.

Fig 4.1: Improvements to Drumchapel Garscadden Wood (Bluebell section): clockwise from top left: signage referring to maintenance, new tarmac path, new steps leading to Antonine Wall, and Roman bench sculpture, 2009.

Firstly, on access, new surfacing (tarmac) was evident, significantly improving access to the woods (previously some stretches of path on the hillside were difficult to negotiate). A new path link has been established from Peel Glen Road linking to a newly formed seating area with Roman bench sculpture, created with participation from local school children. Further development of this area is evident, with a further path extension being developed linking the sculpture area to the Roman Antonine Wall further up the hill. We also saw evidence of forest school activity comprising an informal seating area (tree trunk), some site furniture and path gateway up into the woods. Compared to our 2006 visit, there was no evidence of litter, and new esignag indicated the regular maintenance of the woods by the ‘clean Glasgow volunteer’ team.

3 Spatially, the site had improved in terms of new links and seating areas. The approximate location of these is shown in the spatial analysis diagram below. Visually, the experience was much the same, and the woods continued to feel significantly safer than on our summer audit of 2007. Changes across time (2006 to 2008) are shown in Fig 4.2 below.

70 60 50

score 40

overall 20 2006 10 2009 0

Enironmental audit criterion Fig 4.2: Garscadden Wood, changes in quality criteria over time, 2006 and 2009

(2) Garscadden Wood West Extension

The immediate neighbourhood included some new housing with well maintained front gardens. Access to the woods from Peel Glen Road had improved with the creation of a new tarmac path up a sloped section where previously access had been very difficult. Otherwise, we detected very little change to this site, although we did explore a previously unexplored path, suggesting legibility and perceived safety in the site had improved. Spatially the experience of this site had not changed, with the exception of a new visual link to the main wood, via the prominent siting of the new Roman sculpture (see Fig 4.3 below). With 3 years’ growth more species diversity was evident (particularly birds). Litter, however, continued to be a problem at the west entrance.

Fig 4.3: new visual link across the woods, 2009

4.4 Summary

We found evidence of significant improvements between 2006 and 2009 to Drumchapel Woods and evidence of a slight deterioration in the quality of open space in Milton. The most dramatic improvements to Drumchapel woods were in access and maintenance scores, with smaller increases in safety, facilities and woodland quality scores over time. There was no evidence of observed increase in usage on the day in Drumchapel Woods but this may be owing to the time of day and season. There was substantial evidence of local community engagement (for example, in the evidence of forest school activity), although none taking place in the woods that day. There was evidence, however, of on‐going site improvements and staff present on the day.

4.5 Relating findings to the questionnaire

The evidence from the questionnaire indicating improved perceptions of Drumchapel Woods, particularly on improved access, is reflected in the many improvements to the site witnessed on the day of our audit. Positive changes reported by questionnaire participants in Milton (access to woods, quality of the physical environment) are less easy to explain, since we saw no improvements to local green space and felt some aspects of the environment had declined (litter and safety). In our review of the local context in Milton over time we found nothing to suggest that other environmental interventions could account for these positive shifts in perception (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010).

5 5.0 Conclusions

The conclusion summarises responses to the key research questions stated in Section 1:

Firstly, there is very substantial evidence of change in people’s attitudes, perceptions and values associated with local woodlands, particularly in Drumchapel, with positive and statistically significant change on a large number of variables. In Milton, the control site, the pattern is more mixed, with evidence of positive change on quality of life variables but negative change on variables measuring the physical attributes of the environment. This suggests wider contextual factors have contributed to raising well‐being in our two Glasgow sites. In our review of eth social and physical environmental context for both sites (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010), we found little evidence of change in Milton over time, whereas Drumchapel has undergone substantial regeneration, with a number of health and community drivers raising the profile and use of the local woods. It is possible that wider community interventions beyond any focused on woodlands account for many of the positive changes in perceptions and attitudes noted in Drumchapel.

In relation to our second research question, the data indicates motivation for use of woodlands varies considerably by location; for example, physical activity is more important to participants in Drumchapel in 2009, whereas in Milton fears for personal safety and vandalism remain consistent barriers to use over time. Also, the data indicates patterns have changed over time; getting peace and quiet is more important to residents in Drumchapel in 2009 than it was in 2006. This suggests each case study location needs to be considered individually and for on‐going longitudinal monitoring.

Thirdly, the data indicates dramatic change in the pattern of woodland use in Drumchapel, particularly in frequency of use in summer, and in the type of visit (more visits to WIAT as compared to the countryside).

Finally, whilst we cannot conclusively attribute change to WIAT interventions, the data does suggest that the programme has had a positive impact in Drumchapel. This is confirmed by our review of local contexts (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010),

6 indicating Milton has stayed reasonably stable over time whereas Drumchapel has benefited from a range of health and community initiatives promoting use of the woodlands (e.g. ‘Leg it around Drumchapel’). It is not possible to separate out the influence of these individual initiatives in raising the profile and use of the lloca woods but it would seem WIAT – combined with other local initiatives ‐ has played an important contributory factor to greater improvement in Drumchapel compared with Milton. Whilst a real strength of the study has been in the pairing of a control site with an intervention site in Glasgow, we cannot make generalisations about WIAT beyond the two sites being examined here, i.e. we cannot assume this effect will always occur.

Another strength of the study is the supporting documentation provided by the professional environmental audits carried out over 2006 and 2009. This provides independent evidence that WIAT interventions have substantially improved the physical and spatial quality of Drumchapel woods. The supplementary evaluation of local woodlands carried out with local residents in Drumchapel (see Ward Thompson et al 2008) provides further evidence of more positive attitudes attributed with the summer season use.

We would recommend in future that the local community is consulted on security and safety issues and, ideally, carries out an environment audit of the physical environment (see audit and protocol guidance, Ward Thompson et al 2010)

This study has raised many questions that the current data simply cannot answer. Our investigation of local contextual factors and national data sets (Roe and Ward Thompson 2010) has helped illuminate some results but not all. Findings from this study are referenced below:

1. Why did physical activity go down in Milton and up in Drumchapel? Are there other contextual factors that might explain this? There would appear to be fewer healthyg initiatives livin in Milton as compared with Drumchapel over time, and local walking groups, for example, are reported to be poorly used by Milton residents. 2. What caused well‐being and quality of life to improve over 3 years in Glasgow across our two locations? It would appear, from our analysis of other data sources, that this pattern is reflected in similar areas of high deprivation across Glasgow (top 15%) but with much smaller percentage rises (circa. +3%). 3. Why has opinion on paths changed negatively in Drumchapel? And what happened in Milton to cause an improvement in perceptions of paths (e.g. any pavement improvements?). We found no evidence of path improvements in either case study location. 4. Why has use of cars to access woodlands and countryside visits decreased in Glasgow? Are there public transport factors that might help explain patterns?

With respect to developing the protocol for future evaluation of WIAT interventions this study has shown, firstly, the benefit of having a paired case study location (control and intervention site), and secondly, the value of gathering longitudinal data.

Acknowledgements

The 2009 repeat survey was led by Catharine Ward Thompson and Jenny Roe, with statistical support from Peter Aspinall. The field audits were carried out by Jenny Roe, Eva Silveirinha de Oliveira and Kathy Southwell. Progressive Partnership (Liz Murphy, Carole Oag) administered the questionnaire survey, data input and excel charts. The project was supervised by Bob Frost, Forestry Commission Scotland. We are grateful to Matt Buckland of Glasgow City Council.

References

Ward Thompson, C., Roe J. and Alves, S., Woods in and around towns (WIAT) Evaluation: Baseline Survey, Final Report, March 2007, Prepared for the Forestry Commission Scotland.

Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J. and Alves S., Woods in and around towns (WIAT) Evaluation: Baseline Survey Phase 1B, September 2008, Prepared for the Forestry Commission Scotland.

Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J. and Aspinall, P., Woods in and around towns (WIAT) a longitudinal study comparing perceptions and use of woodlands pre and post‐ intervention (2006‐2009), Final Report, April 2010. Prepared for the Forestry Commission Scotland.

Roe, J. and Ward Thompson, C., Contextual background to Woods In and Around Towns (WIAT) Longitudinal Survey 2006‐2009, August 2010. Prepared for the Forestry Commission Scotland.

8 Appendices

Appendix 1: Household Questionnaire 2009 (changes in questions indicated in red type)

Appendix 2: Summary of statistical tests and sequence of analysis used on Household Questionnaire data

Appendix 3: Audit scores per case study site, with changes in scores over time (2009) indicated in red type:

Glasgow Control Milton Possil Park

Glasgow WIAT sites Drumchapel Garscadden Wood Drumchapel Gascadden Wood West Extension

Appendix 4: Postcodes for the Glasgow survey communities

9 Appendix 1: Household Questionnaire 2009 (changes in questions indicated in red type)

Classification Age Gender Location 16‐24 1 Male 1 Aberdeen ‐ Seaton 1 25‐34 2 Female 2 Aberdeen ‐ Woodside 2 Aberdeen ‐ Auchmill 3 35‐44 3 45‐54 4 Glasgow – Milton 4

55‐64 5 Glasgow ‐ Drumchapel 5

65+ 6

Occupation of Chief

Ethnicity Wage Earner A. White ______Scottish 1 ______

Other British 2

Irish 3

Any other White background (specify) 4 Social Class ______B. Mixed AB 1

Any mixed background (specify) 5 C1 2 ______C2 3 C. Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British D 4 Indian 6 E 5

Pakistani 7

Bangladeshi 8

Chinese 9 Interview phase

Any other Asian background (specify) 10 2006 1 ______2009 2 D. Black, Black Scottish, or Black British Caribbean 11

African 12

Any other black background (specify) 13 ______E. Other ethnic background Any other background 14 (specify)______

Interviewer’s Declaration I declare that I have carried out this interview in full, in accordance with the instructions and briefing material from Progressive. Interviewer’s Signature______Date: ______

Print Name:______

Respondent’s Address: ______Name:______Phone:______FULL Postcode: ______

11 Introduction : Good morning/afternoon I am...... from Progressive Partnership an independent research company, who are carrying‐out a survey to find out what you think about your local environment and wonder if you would mind answering some questions. The interview should take no more than 15 minutes.

INTERVIEW START TIME______

Firstly, to make sure I am interviewing in the correct area, can you please tell me if you live in the area shown on this map? ALL RESPONDENTS MUST LIVE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ON YOUR MAP. Showcard A

Yes 1 – A1

No 2 ‐ CLOSE

A1. How satisfied are you with your quality of life in this neighbourhood? Showcard B

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

A2. Would you advise a friend to live in this neighbourhood? Showcard C

Completely Would consider Neither / nor Unlikely to Not at all consider

1 2 3 4 5

A3. How satisfied are you with the quality of the physical environment in this neighbourhood? Showcard B

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

B1. How much time per week, on average do you spend taking physical exercise outdoors, including walking?

______hrs/week

12 B2. In the past 4 weeks, on how many days have you done physical activities such as brisk walking, cycling, sport, or energetic exercise, sufficient to cause an increase in your breathing rate (do not include physical activity that may be part of your job)?

______days total in last 4 weeks

B3. In general, would you say that, for a person of your age, your health is: Showcard D

Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

1 2 3 4 5

B4 People sometimes feel the need to escape from everyday problems and stresses to take their mind off things or clear their head. Would you say you ever feel like this? Showcard E

Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never

1 2 3 4 5

B5 All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays? Showcard B

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

B6 How strongly do you feel you belong in the neighbourhood? Showcard F

Strongly Agree Neither disagree Disagree Strongly agree or agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

B7 Generally speaking, would you say most people in your neighbourhood can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? Showcard G

Most people Some people Can’t be too Unsure Refusal can be can be trusted careful in dealing trusted with people

1 2 3 4 5

If necessary interviewer can now reveal; This survey is on behalf of partnerships working on a scheme called woodlands in and around towns

C1. What do you think about the quality of your local woodlands? Showcard

Very good Good Neutral Poor Very poor Don’t know what my local woodlands are like

1 2 3 4 5 6

C2. How important are the woodlands around here in making a difference to your quality of life? Showcard I

Irrelevant Unimportant Neutral Somewhat Very important important

1 2 3 4 5

D1. The following statements relate to different aspects of your local woodlands. Please, score each statement according to your level of agreement. Showcard J

Tick start, rotate, read out Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree

D1 The woodlands are free from 1 2 3 4 5 litter

D2 It is difficult to get into the 1 2 3 4 5 woodlands

D3 I feel safe in the woodlands 1 2 3 4 5

D4 Poorly maintained paths make 1 2 3 4 5 it difficult to visit the woodlands

D5 I feel at peace in the woodlands 1 2 3 4 5

D6 I can pursue healthy activities in 1 2 3 4 5 the woodlands

D7 The woodlands provide a place 1 2 3 4 5 to visit with family and friends

D8 I can see and enjoy wildlife in 1 2 3 4 5 the woodlands

D9 I like the natural appearance of 1 2 3 4 5 the woodlands

D1 There is a lack of good facilities 1 2 3 4 5 0 in the woodlands

E1. Have you visited Scottish woodlands in the last 12 months?

Code Route

Yes 1 Go to E2a

No 2 Go to E9

E2a. Were those visits mainly;

Read out, Single Code Code

To woodlands in the countryside 1

To woodlands in and around town 2

To both 3

E2b. Do you ever pass through woodlands on local journeys to or from other places

Code

Yes 1

No 2

E2c. What are the names of any local woods you have visited in the last 12 months

15 E3. What kinds of activities do you pursue when visiting your local woodlands? SPONTANEOUS – MULTICODE

Code

Go for a walk 1

Walk the dog 2

Go out with my family 3

Exercise or sport 4

Relax 5

Look at plants or wildlife 6

Participate in an event 7

Other (specify)______8

E4. How frequently did you visit woodlands last winter i.e. between October and March? Showcard K

Code

Every day 1

Several times a week 2

Once a week 3

Several times a month 4

About once a month 5

Less often 6

Not at all 7

Unsure 8

16 E5. How frequently did you visit woodlands this Summer i.e. between April and September? Showcard K

Code

Every day 1

Several times a week 2

Once a week 3

Several times a month 4

About once a month 5

Less often 6

Not at all 7

Unsure 8

E6. On average during the last 12 months how long did you normally spent at your local woodlands? Showcard L

Code

Up to 15 minutes 1

Over 15 minutes – 30 minutes 2

Over 30 minutes – 1 hour 3

Over 1 hour – 2 hours 4

Over 2 hours – 5 hours 5

More than 5 hours 6

Unsure 7

E7. How do you get to your local woodlands? Multi‐code

Code

By foot 1

By car 2

By public transportation 3

By bicycle 4

17 Other (Please specify) 5

______

18 E8. Do you usually go to the woodlands?

Read out, single code Code

Alone 1

With others, including family and friends 2

ASK ALL

E9a. How easy is it to get to your local woodland from where you live? Showcard M

Very easy Easy Not sure Difficult Very Difficult Unsure

1 2 3 4 5 6

E9b. Can you name any woods in or near your neighbourhood?

E10. Do you know how long it takes to get to your local woodlands?

Code Route

Yes 1 Go to E10.1

No 2 Go to E11

E10.1 How long does it take to get to your local woodlands from where you live? SPONTANEOUS Showcard N

Code

Up to 5 minutes 1

5 to 10 minutes 2

11 – 15 minutes 3

16 to 20 minutes 4

Over 20 minutes 5

E11. Did you visit local woodlands as a child? Showcard O

Code

Almost every day 1

More than once a week 2

Once a week 3

Several times a month 4

Once a month 5

Several times a year 6

Once a year 7

Less than once a year or never 8

Never 9

E12. Have you been consulted about your views on local woodlands in the last 12 months?

Code

Yes 1

No 2

F. IMPORTANCE OF THE WOODLANDS

F1 If your local woodlands could be improved, what would encourage you to use them more?

Please code no more than 3 statements. Showcard P

Only code 3 statements

F1 Off‐road car parking 1 F2 Clear signposting on paths 2 F3 Leaflets and maps to help you find your way around 3 F4 Well‐surfaced paths for your activity 4 F5 Availability of staff at the site (for example rangers) 5 F6 Information on‐site. e.g. about history or conservation 6 F7 No signs of vandalism 7 F15 Feeling safe from undesirable other people 8 F16 Feeing safe from having an accident 9 F17 Well maintained trees and plants 10

F2 If your local woodland were improved, what would you most like to do there?

Only code 3 statements

F8 Being able to spend time with family and friends 1 F9 Being able to enjoy scenery and views 2 F10 Being able to enjoy the wildlife 3 F11 Getting peace and quiet 4 F12 Getting physical exercise 5 F13 Getting fresh air 6 F14 Being able to relax and unwind for a while 7 Please code no more than 3 statements Showcard Q

21 G SOCIO‐DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

Code

G3. Working status of respondent?

Working full‐time (30+ hrs per week) 1

Working part‐time (less than 30 hrs per week) 2

Self‐employed 3

Unemployed 4

Full time student 5

Retired 6

Student 7

Looking after home/ family 8

Permanently sick/disabled 9

Other (Please specify) 10

G4. Are you a registered disabled person?

Yes 1

No 2

G5. Do you have young children under 16 years old living in your household?

Yes 1

No 2

G6. Do you own a dog?

Yes 1

No 2

G7. Do you have regular access to a car or other motor vehicle?

Yes 1

No 2

G8. How long have you been living in your current neighbourhood?

Less than 1 year 1

1‐3 years 2

4‐10 years 3

More than 10 years 4

H. Recontact

H1. Would it be possible for us to pass your contact details onto the partnership agencies involved in WIAT (woodlands in and around towns), so you can be recontacted in connection with any future research? Data would be held in full accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Code

Yes 1

No 2

END TIME: ______

23 Appendix 2: Summary of statistical tests and sequence of analysis used on Household Questionnaire data (read in conjunction with Section 3.3 and 3.5)

Stage 1 Tests of difference at baseline: The two sites were different at baseline on the demographic variables (reported Section 3.3) and on attitudinal variables (see below):

Attitudinal variables

In addition there were many questionnaire items showing baseline perceived differences between the two sites: 1. Neighbourhood Quality (A1) 2. Physical Activity (B1v) 3. Quality of Woods (C1) 4. Perceptional data (access (D2), paths (D4), social (D7), wildlife (D8), appearance (D9), facilities (D10) 5. Behavior patterns (visiting patterns (E1), frequency of visiting woods in summer (E5), length of time in woods (E6), easiness of access (E9a), time taken to get to woods (E10, E10.1), consultation (E12) 6. Importance of physical features: off‐road parking (F1a), signposting (F2a), information (F3), staff available (F5), vandalism (F7), trees and plants (F17). 7. Importance of activities: social (F8), scenery (F9), enjoying wildlife (F10), peace and quiet (F11), physical exercise (F12), fresh air (F13), relaxation (F14), feeling safe (F15 and F16).

Stage 2 Testing for significant change In this stage the focus was on change between 2006 and 2009 in each site across both demographic and attitudinal variables. Significant change over time in each location is summarized in Table 3.5.

1. Milton

Demographic variables: In this control site the only demographic variable showing change was the one on length of time in the neighbourhood. However, this result is the simple consequence of the questionnaire being administered 3 years later in a relatively stable group. This means therefore that the demographic profile in 2009 was essentially the same as that for 2006

Attitudinal variables: On perceptual and behavioural data, there were many significant differences between those of 2006 and 2009, summarized in Table 3.6 below.

24 2. Drumchapel

Demographic variables: variables showing change between 2006 and 2009 were that in 2009: G4 (more people were registered disabled) and G6 (fewer people owned a dog). Refer back to Figures 3.1a and 3.1b. But in all other aspects the demographic profile was the same (with the exception of Drumchapel were there was a small change in ethnicity over time).

Attitudinal variables: the change is more substantive than in Milton Control, see Table 3.5 below

Table 3.5: Summary of significant change over time in Glasgow sites Variable Variable Drumchapel Milton Control Demographics G8 Length of time in n/hood 

G4 registered disabled   G6 dog ownership   Attitudinal and Behaviour A1 Satisfaction QoL in n/hood  Data A2 Advise friend to live here   A3 Satisfaction with quality of   physical environment in n/hood B Time (actual) PA hours per   week B1v Time PA (summary   variable) D2 Difficult getting to  woodlands D4 Poor paths   D6 I can pursue healthy  activities D7 Woodlands for family visits   D8 Woodlands to enjoy wildlife 

D10 lack of facilities 

E1 Visited last 12 months 

E2 On type of visit (town v  rural E4 Frequency of visit winter 

E5 Frequency of visit summer 

E9a Ease of access  

25 E10 Know time to get to woods  E10.1 How long from where   you live E11 Did you visit as a child   E12 Have you been consulted 

Appendix 3: Audit scores per case study site, with changes in scores over time (2009) indicated in red type:

APPENDIX 3: WIAT Audit Tool Score 1 to 5 (1= Poor, 5 = Excellent) Milton Park: Control Site Re‐visited: 16 November 2009 1 Neighbourhood Score Comments 1.1 Building type and range 2 Housing only (4 storey flats, 2 storey), no (housing, shops, community centre, shops, one school, several tower blocks sports, police) 1.2 Quality of fabric (shop 1 (from 2) Average, some unkempt gardens/communal frontages/housing/gardens) spaces. Deterioration in maintenance of adjacent gardens. 1.3 Presence of graffiti, litter, 1 Dog fouling high, litter high vandalism, dog fouling 1.4 Condition of street/roads 3 Asphalt and lighting ok but not new. Total 1 7 ‐1 some deterioration. 2 Access/signage 2.1 Ease of access (no of entrances, 1 Only one entrance off side road, very poorly well located, within walking located, local resident unaware it was a ‘park’. distance/presence of road with zebras/signals) 2.2 Path network 2 There is no path network, just one main spine (surface quality, range, (asphalt, quality ok). No steep gradients radial/perimeter, dual use) 2.3 Disability access 4 Wide, asphalt path 2.4 Parking/Bus routes 3 Bus routes nearby/roadside parking 2.4 Signage 0 Authoritarian, uninviting (lead in/lead through, welcoming/informative) Total 2 10 No Change 3 Woodland Quality 3.1 Path experience 1 No variety, enclosed by housing all around, (views/enclosure/variety of views very limited, flat. scale/orientation) 3.2Age/species mix/diversity 2 Beech, rowan, poplar, maple, hedge planting/dogwood 3.3 Boundaries 0 Dilapidated fence to roadside. 3.4 Sensory appeal: 1 Bowling green separated with high security richness/presence of fence – no longer used, very poor diversity of water/topographic interest species – mostly grass. Mixed shrub planning on housing boundaries. Total 3 4 No change 4 Facilities 4.1 Presence of toilets, picnic, café, 2 Picnic tables, football, playground, potential cycle tracks, health/fitness, play, for bowling educational, ranger Total 4 2 No change

27 5 Use 5.1 Observed use 1 One sole dog walker 5.2 Evidence of use: motor 0 Might be used for football/play bikes/off‐road cars etc. Total 5 1 +1, previously we saw no‐one in the park 6 Maintenance/Management 6.1 Litter, dog fouling, vandalism 3 Clean, tidy, no litter 6.2 Fabric of furniture/signage 1 Very poor fencing/old play equipment 6.3 Evidence of species/path edge 0 management 6.4 Evidence of development 0 Total 6 4 No change 7 Security/Safety 7.1 Evidence of anti‐social 0 behaviour 7.2 Self‐surveillance possible via 3 (from 4) Overlooked by housing, road nearby – good visibility in/out views in and out. The park felt less inviting, partly due to deterioration in immediate neighbourhood and front gardens. 7.3 Sense of personal security 2 Alone Total 7 5 ‐1 Less safe. Overall score 33 (from 34)

WIAT Audit Tool Score 1 to 5 (1= Poor, 5 = Excellent) Milton: Possil Park and Forth and Clyde Canal, Control Site Site re‐visited: 16 November 2009 1 Neighbourhood Score Comments 1.1 Building type and range 2 Industrial edges canal, some housing (housing, shops, community centre, sports, police) 1.2 Quality of fabric (shop 2 frontages/housing/gardens) 1.3 Presence of graffiti, litter, 2 Graffiti/litter evident at entrance to canal, vandalism, dog fouling (evidence of bottles) 1.4 Condition of street/roads 3 Total 1 9 No Change 2 Access/signage 2.1 Ease of access (no of entrances, 2 Access from road, but not very evident there’s well located, within walking something there. Very busy road but signals in distance/presence of road with place zebras/signals) 2.5 Path network 3 Along canal = 4 (surface quality, range, In Marsh = 3 radial/perimeter, dual use) 2.6 Disability access 3 Gradients at start but asphalt path ok 2.7 Parking/Bus routes 3 No parking other than in nearby residential, bus routes good 2.4 Signage 1 Very poor – no lead in or information (lead in/lead through, welcoming/informative) Total 2 12 No Change 3 Woodland Quality 3.1 Path experience 3 Views along canal limited to housing/industrial. (views/enclosure/variety of Views open up at Marsh to surrounding scale/orientation) countryside. Probably better at another time of year. 3.2Age/species mix/diversity 2 Hawthorn, poplar, blackthron, alder 3.3 Boundaries 1 Very poor – busy road runs along side marsh, canal not evident from road. 3.4 Sensory appeal: 3 Traffic noise intrusive. Potentially richer in richness/presence of spring/summer/autumn owing to wildlife. water/topographic interest Total 3 9 No change 4 Facilities 4.1 Presence of toilets, picnic, café, 0 cycle tracks, health/fitness, play, educational, ranger Total 4 0 5 Use 5.1 Observed use 1 Group of 5 men drinking; one cyclist, no pedestrians

29 5.2 Evidence of use: motor 1 Some bike tracks but access difficult at Marsh bikes/off‐road cars etc. entrance Total 5 2 No change 6 Maintenance/Management 6.1 Litter, dog fouling, vandalism 1 Very high at entrance (low means high evidence of) 6.2 Fabric of furniture/signage 0 6.3 Evidence of species/path edge 0 management 6.4 Evidence of development 0 Total 6 1 No change 7 Security/Safety 7.1 Evidence of anti‐social 0 (from 1) Bag of bottles hung on tree, more evident, five behaviour men drinking on tow path. Reverse score3 7.2 Self‐surveillance possible via 0 Alone = 0 especially along canal since low visibility in/out down (better in Marsh) road more prominent 7.3 Sense of personal security 0 Total 7 0 ‐1 personal security reduced Total score 33 (from 34)

3 Higher scores means less evidence of anti‐social behaviour

WIAT Audit Tool Score 1 to 5 (1= Poor, 5 = Excellent) Site name: Drumchapel: Garscadden Wood Re‐visited: 16 November 2009 1 Neighbourhood Score Comments 1.1 Building type and range 3.5 Undergoing regeneration: mostly low rise (housing, shops, community centre, (from 3) council housing, flats under demolition, new sports, police) sports centre (but access poor), shops, schools, police, HA’s in evidence. New school; more pedestrians observed. 1.2 Quality of fabric (shop 3 New housing, tidy gardens, demolition in frontages/housing/gardens) evidence – public open spaces less cared for. Private gardens very well maintained. 1.3 Presence of graffiti, litter, 3 Public green spaces suffer from broken fences, vandalism, dog fouling some litter. Still evident. 1.4 Condition of street/roads 4 Total 1 13.5 +0.5 2 Access/signage 2.1 Ease of access (no of entrances, 3 Woodland walks accessible from roads. Lack well located, within walking of buses. No zebra’s. Access on east periphery distance/presence of road with less desirable. zebras/signals) 2.8 Path network 4 (from 2) Eroded, uneven surface, narrow, steep (surface quality, range, gradients. Path surfacing improved, partial tar radial/perimeter, dual use) macadam. New path from eastern boundary up to new seating area, and new path link to roman remains in hand. 2.9 Disability access 2 (from 0) Steep gradients/uneven surfaces but open on roadside (blind man walking with Paths to Health group). Access would be impossible unaided. Access much improved although gradients still steep. 2.10 Parking/Bus routes 1 No official parking but roadside available. No immediate bus access. 2.4 Signage 1.5 New stone walls/bronze relief. Green and (lead in/lead through, (from 1) yellow routes indicated but not keyed into welcoming/informative) overall plan/sign. New signage on maintenance. Total 2 11.5 +4.5 Significant change 3 Woodland Quality 3.1 Path experience 5 Lots of interest, topographic changes, winding (views/enclosure/variety of route, up and down, variety of spatial scale/orientation) experiences 3.2Age/species mix/diversity 5 Ancient wood: oak, hazel coppice, some berries (rose, hawthorn, blackthorn), birch 3.3 Boundaries 4 (from 3) Quality varies – not very appealing on eastern edge (litter), very discrete. Fenced off. But woodland has strong visual presence owing to gradients. Much less litter on entrances,

31 vegetation has been cleared, more inviting etc. 3.4 Sensory appeal: 5 Very rich – streams also present. richness/presence of water/topographic interest Total 3 19 +1 4 Facilities 4.1 Presence of toilets, picnic, café, 3 (from 1) Evidence of forest school activities, woodland cycle tracks, health/fitness, play, ‘furniture’, new landmark bench and seating educational, ranger area. Total 4 3 +2 5 Use 5.1 Observed use 1 Dog walkers and health group. No‐one present on day of re‐visit. 5.2 Evidence of anti‐social use: 3 (from 2) Motor bike tracks, horses, beer motor bikes/off‐road cars etc. cans/bottles/firepits. No evidence of anti‐ Reverse score item4 social use. Total 5 4 +1 6 Maintenance/Management 6.1 Litter, dog fouling, vandalism 4 (from 2) Litter, dog fouling, vandalism much less (reverse score 5) evident. 6.2 Fabric of furniture/signage 2 (from 1) Seating added. 6.3 Evidence of species/path edge 1 Some coppice management management 6.4 Evidence of development 3 (from 1) Ranger on‐site constructing new steps and link to roman site. Total 6 10 +5 significant improvement 7 Security/Safety 7.1 Evidence of anti‐social 0 (from 2) Some evidence of drinking activity. Non behaviour evident. 7.2 Self‐surveillance possible via 2 (from 1) Very poor since high up and well away from visibility in/out roads, housing. Improved. 7.3 Sense of personal security 1 (from 0) Alone = 0 With dog or other person: 4 Path safety is significant problem owing to erosion. Path safety much improved. Total 7 4 (from 3) +1 Total 65 (from +15 Significant change Score 50)

4High score means less evidence of anti‐social behaviour

5 Low score means higher evidence of vandalism.

WIAT Audit Tool 1 to 5 (1= Poor, 5 = Excellent) Drumchapel, Garscadden Wood Extension Re‐visited: 16 November 2009 1 Neighbourhood Score Comments 1.1 Building type and range 4 (from 3) Mostly new housing. Very tidy front gardens. (housing, shops, community centre, sports, police) 1.2 Quality of fabric (shop 4 Well looked after. frontages/housing/gardens) 1.3 Presence of graffiti, litter, 4 (from 3) Graffiti on public utility boxes. No graffiti vandalism, dog fouling evident, litter much improved. Reverse score6 1.4 Condition of street/roads 5 Total 1 17 +2 2 Access/signage 2.1 Ease of access (no of entrances, 3 Access easier than Area 1 – since off major well located, within walking roads but no ped. crossings. distance/presence of road with zebras/signals) 2.11 Path network 2 (from 0) Very poor, narrow for 2 people, hardcore (surface quality, range, eroded, particularly bad on steep gradients, radial/perimeter, dual use) pot holes. New tarmac path (partial) from entrance. 2.12 Disability access 1 (from 0) Improved, owing to new path, but gradient still very steep at entrance. 2.13 Parking/Bus routes 1 No obvious bus stop, roadside parking only 2.4 Signage 0 (from) New wall 2006 with environmental bronze (lead in/lead through, sign. No information. Vandalised. welcoming/informative) Total 2 7 +2 3 Woodland Quality 3.1 Path experience 4 (from 3) Less topographic interest. Straight paths, less (views/enclosure/variety of variety of spatial experience, wide grass verges scale/orientation) – woodland further removed. We were tempted to explore a bit further, and took a path providing good views to countryside beyond. 3.2Age/species mix/diversity 3 20 year old plantation, very mixed, larch, pine, ash, rowan, birch, hazel, hawthorn 3.3 Boundaries 3 Housing boundary on one side, open countryside on other. 3.4 Sensory appeal: 3 Less rich than area 1. richness/presence of water/topographic interest Total 3 13 +1 4 Facilities

6 Higher score means less evidence of graffiti, litter etc

33 4.1 Presence of toilets, picnic, café, 0 Only route markers but no information as to cycle tracks, health/fitness, play, where routes go. educational, ranger Total 4 0 5 Use 5.1 Observed use 0 5.2 Evidence of use: motor 3 (from 2) bear cans, motorbikes – not evident bikes/off‐road cars etc. Reverse score7 Total 5 3 +1 6 Maintenance/Management 6.1 Litter, dog fouling, vandalism 3 (from 4) Better than Area 1 (east); some litter at east entrance. 6.2 Fabric of furniture/signage 1 Waymarking posts only 6.3 Evidence of species/path edge 0 management 6.4 Evidence of development 2 (from 1) New entrance walls 2006. New path at east entrance. Informed by ranger on‐site of new commemorative path but did not locate. Total 6 6 No overall change. 7 Security/Safety 7.1 Evidence of anti‐social 4 (from 2) No evidence behaviour Reverse score8 7.2 Self‐surveillance possible via 1 Views in or out very limited. visibility in/out 7.3 Sense of personal security 0 Alone = 0 With another = 4 Total 7 4 +1 Total Score 50 (from +7 43)

7 High score means less evidence of anti‐social use.

8 High score means less evidence of anti‐social behaviour

APPENDIX 4: GLASGOW POSTCODES FOR THE SURVEY COMMUNITIES COVERED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Glasgow - Drumchapel

G15 7TX G15 8BS G15 8RS

G15 7TY G15 8BW G15 7XT

G15 7TZ G15 8DF G15 8RT

G15 7UD G15 8QS G15 8RU

G15 7BE G15 8HL G15 7BD

G15 7BH G15 8HN G15 7XR

G15 7JR G15 8HP G15 7XZ

G15 7JS G15 8HS G15 7YD

G15 7JW G15 8HR G15 7YP

G15 7XY G15 8HT G15 7LP

G15 7YE G15 8JD G15 7LW

G15 7YF G15 8JE G15 7XU

G15 7YG G15 8JF G15 7XX

G15 7YH G15 8JH G15 7LH

G15 7HB G15 8JL G15 7LJ

G15 7HD G15 8JT G15 8BA

G15 7HU G15 8JX G15 8BE

G15 7JH G15 8LD G15 8BN

G15 7JP G15 8QY G15 8BP

G15 7XL G15 8QZ G15 8HG

G15 7XN G15 8RA G15 8HH

G15 7XW G15 8RX G15 8HQ

G15 8QR G15 8RR G15 8ER

35 G15 8EU G15 8QN G15 8DT

G15 8HF G15 8QP G15 8DB

G15 8HJ G15 8QW G15 8DE

G15 8JU G15 8DX G15 8DU

G15 8LB G15 8DZ G15 8DJ

G15 8AJ G15 8DS G15 8AR

G15 8AN G15 8BL G15 8DW

G15 8AP G15 8DH G15 8EQ

G15 8AQ G15 8DL

36 Glasgow - Milton

G22 7QT G22 7PN

G22 7NS G227PT

G22 7NT G22 7PP

G22 7PH G22 7PS

G22 7PQ G22 7PW

G22 7QU G22 7NX

G22 7QX G22 7NY

G22 7QY G22 7R

G22 7NU

G22 7PE

G22 7PG

G22 7RA

G22 7QZ

G22 7RB

G22 7RD

G22 7EA

G22 7JW

G22 7RE

G22 7RF

G22 7RG

G22 7PJ

G22 7PR

G22 7JT

G22 7PF

G22 7PU

G22 7PL