Low-income residents insist that local environment problems matter most

People living with some of the worst environmental problems in Britain often express more concern about dirty, unswept streets than the issues noticed by outsiders, like pollution from industry or traffic. New research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds they also resent descriptions of their neighbourhood they see as stigmatising, such as ‘poor’ or ‘polluted’.

The study of attitudes to the environment among groups in disadvantaged communities was carried out in: an inner city district of Glasgow; an estate close to busy roads in London’s East End; and a former mining village overlooked by a chemical plant in North Wales. As a contrast, groups of low-income residents living in the Peak District National Park were also asked for their views.

The researchers, from the University of Surrey, found that:

• Local issues received the most attention from residents. The term ‘local environment’ was foreign to most participants, but a range of concerns were identified about their surroundings, including litter and unswept streets.
• Environmental problems that seemed obvious to an outsider appeared less worrying to residents. Those living close to busy roads regarded them as a local fact of life. Health-related concerns about the chemical factory were tempered by loyalty towards a plant that had once been a significant local employer.
• Some residents made a connection between local pollution and wider environmental issues, but many felt uninformed and put off by the jargon of environmentalism. They were generally ambivalent about ‘green’ organisations: seeing them as worthwhile, but viewing some activists as ‘extreme’ or ‘childish’.
• Practical or money constraints stopped some residents from putting ‘green’ measures into practice. Although there was widespread support for recycling household waste, some people cited difficulties with storage or reaching the nearest facilities.
• Energy conservation was mainly practised to save money. Some residents regarded measures as irrelevant because they were unable to afford the heating needed to rid their homes of damp and draughts.

Dr Kate Burningham, co-author of the report, said: "People were concerned about their own surroundings, but they felt distanced from wider environmental issues and the way they are debated. Our study suggests that cleaning up buildings, derelict sites and streets would considerably improve the quality of life in these areas. However, the focus groups also highlighted underlying issues, like lack of jobs and leisure facilities for bored young people, that people want tackled as well.

"Cleaning up dirty streets alone will not deliver lasting change. Long-term solutions to problems in the local environment require policy makers to take a joined-up approach to environmental, social and economic policies that recognises the way they all affect each other."

Low-income residents and the rural environment
The focus groups in the Peak District found that low-income residents often valued their beautiful surroundings, but were concerned by associated issues, including pollution caused by tourist traffic. Other problems raised included:

• house prices boosted to unaffordable levels by the market for commuter and holiday homes;
• village shops catering for tourists, with an emphasis on high price, luxury goods;
• inadequate public transport and the rising costs of fuel for unavoidable car use.

Kate Burningham said: "The need for environmental issues to be integrated with other areas of policy making applies especially strongly in rural areas. Residents with low incomes see a direct conflict between the desire to preserve and market the countryside for tourists and their needs for affordable housing and other amenities, including transport."