Table 3.
Perceptions of formal and informal social control across districts over time
| Formal social control (%yes)a | Informal social control (0 = low;10 = high)b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Districtsc | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | 2011 | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | 2011 |
| Target district 1 | 22 | 36 | 57 | 52 | 5.4 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Target district 2 | 63 | 65 | 5.6 | 5.8 | ||||
| Target district 3a | 61 | 49 | 5.3 | 5.3 | ||||
| Target district 3b | 59 | 58 | 5.2 | 5.3 | ||||
| Target district 3c | 60 | 53 | 5.2 | 5.2 | ||||
| Target district 4 | 52 | 48 | 5.1 | 4.8 | ||||
| City average | 21 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 5.8 | 5.8 |
aPercentage agreeing with the item ‘municipality pays (a lot of) attention to liveability- and safety problems in my neighbourhood’. The question was rephrased from ‘a lot of attention’ in 2005/2007 to ‘attention’ in 2009/2011
bMean score on the items ‘the people in this neighbourhood interact well’, ‘I feel at home with the people living in my neighbourhood’, ‘I live in a nice neighbourhood where there is a lot of solidarity’ and ‘the people in this neighbourhood barely know each other’
cMCN was introduced in 2006 in target district 1, and in 2010 in target districts 2 to 4