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 by 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