Mirke Neighbourhood Survey ● Summary of results

Mirke Neighbourhood Survey • Summary of results

Here you can find a summary of the results of the Mirke Neighbourhood Survey. The survey looks at the housing, working and living realities of the residents as well as their ideas and wishes for a liveable neighbourhood. It thus provides important insights for the municipal planning of the City of Wuppertal, the work of local initiatives and associations as well as the university teams participating in the SDE21/22. We would like to thank all participants to date and hope you enjoy reading the results.

© xxx

First survey round, summer 2021

In April and July 2021, all households in the Mirke Neighbourhood received a postal invitation to the Neighbourhood Survey from the City of Wuppertal. A total of 1023 people responded and registered for the Mirke Neighbourhood Survey. Almost half of these (505 people; response rate: 49.4%) then took part in the first survey round in September/October 2021.

To check the representativeness of the group of participants for the Mirke Neighbourhood, the data was compared with official statistics and then weighted based on gender, age and migration background. This means that the responses of certain population groups are given more weight to ensure overall representativeness. The results shown on this page display the weighted data.

First survey round, summer 2021

● Gender © SDE 21/22

● © Age groups SDE 21/22

● Citizenship © SDE 21/22

● Gender © SDE 21/22

● Age groups © SDE 21/22

● Citizenship © SDE 21/22

If you want to dive deeper into the individual results, you can download a detailed overview here. The demographic data of the participants can be found here.

We are trying to make the Mirke Neighbourhood Survey as representative as possible – a task that you can help us with! Do you know people in the Mirke Neighbourhood who belong to a group that has been less represented in the survey so far? Then tell them about our survey! The second round starts at the end of February/Marchclick here to register.

If you have already participated in a survey round, you do not need to register again – we will inform you automatically when the next survey starts.

Life in the Mirke Neighbourhood

● Associations with the Mirke Neighbourhood most often include familiar places, buildings and actors, the cityscape of the neighbourhood, the mixed and diverse population as well as positive descriptions of the neighbourhood as friendly, affordable, and alternative – but also problems related to the transport infrastructure

As an introduction to the questionnaire, the participants were invited to write down the first three images, things or words that come to mind when thinking about the Mirke Neighbourhood. These free associations were assigned to a total of 13 overarching categories (ordered here by frequency of mention):

– Places, buildings & actors (35% of associations mentioned), e.g. Utopiastadt/Mirker Bahnhof, Nordbahntrasse, Café ADA

– Cityscape (14.4%), e.g. beautiful Wilhelminian architecture, steep streets, densely populated, view of the valley

– Population (11%), e.g. diversity, colourful neighbourhood, families, students, many different people

– General positive impressions/descriptions (8%), e.g. nice residential area, relaxed atmosphere, lively, alternative, liveable

– Issues around transport infrastructure & mobility (5.8%), e.g. lack of parking spaces, too few cycle paths, lots of traffic

– Traffic connections and location within the city (4.4%), e.g., central location, good connections, direct access to the Nordbahntrasse

– Current problems, negative changes & concerns (4%), e.g., gentrification, poverty, vacancies, too many visitors, lack of space

– Emotional/personal connection to the neighbourhood (4%), e.g., (my) home, childhood, ‘my’ district

– Leisure facilities and offers (3.9%), e.g., diverse cultural offers, art, music, cosy cafés, bars, and restaurants

– Living together and engagement (3.5%), e.g., good neighbourhood, community, great people, the commitment of residents, cohesion

– Lack of cleanliness (2.3%), e.g., dirty house fronts, rubbish, dog excrements

– Positive development of the neighbourhood (2.2%), e.g., neighbourhood in transition, many new, good projects, lots of potential

– Noise pollution (1.4%), e.g., noise from the A46 motorway

The Nordbahntrasse and Utopiastadt in the summer

● Mirker Bahnhof © Wolf Sondermann

● Very high general satisfaction and high attachment to the Mirke Neighbourhood

Overall, the participants feel rather connected to the Mirke Neighbourhood (36.6%). The proportion of respondents who feel little or no connection with the neighbourhood is significantly lower (7.8%). When asked whether they like living in the Mirke Neighbourhood, most participants expressed (very) strong agreement (91.1%).

● Mirke District © Wolf Sondermann

● Positive perception of intercultural life and social cohesion in the neighbourhood as well as rather close neighbourhood relations – however, also large perceived social differences

To assess life in the neighbourhood, the participants were asked about their assessment of intercultural life, social cohesion, social differences, and neighbourhood relations. Most respondents rated both intercultural life in the neighbourhood (rather good/very good: 74.2%) and social cohesion (rather good/very good: 50.6%) positively. However, the social differences were perceived as rather large (31.2%) or very large (5.9%). With regards to neighbourhood relations, participants describe the contact with their neighbours and fellow residents in the neighbourhood predominantly as rather close (“I know some of the neighbours a little bit better and we help each other out sometimes “. – 43%) or even very close (“I maintain friendships with some neighbours” – 23%). Few people rated their neighbourhood relations as not close (“I don’t know anyone in the neighbourhood personally and I don’t greet anyone.” – 1.3%).

● © SDE 21/22

● High satisfaction with public transport connections, high dissatisfaction with parking facilities for cars

The questionnaire also asked how satisfied the participants were with various aspects of their living environment. The public transport connections, the local recreational opportunities and the range of cafés, restaurants and bars were rated as particularly positive. On the other hand, parking facilities for cars, the cleanliness of the neighbourhood and the provision of care and old people’s facilities were rated as especially negative.

● © SDE 21/22

survey results

● The most important factors when choosing a living environment are public transport connections, local shopping facilities and the neighbourhood and social environment

Participants were invited to select up to seven aspects from a list of factors pertaining to their living environment and rank them based on personal importance. The following aspects received the highest overall score (i.e. they were most frequently selected as one of the seven most important factors and also received a higher rating within the seven factors): access to public transport, local supply and shopping facilities, and neighbourhood and social environment.

● © WSW

Mobility

● Most respondents have a driving licence themselves and at least one car in the household

The majority of participants state that they hold a driving licence (77%). In addition, 46.8% say they always have access to a car (sometimes: 11.9%; never: 13.8%) and xx% have at least one car in their household. In contrast, only a small proportion of respondents (14%) are members of a car sharing provider.

● © Orkun Azap | Unsplash

● More pedestrians and less public transport use than before the coronavirus pandemic

In terms of transport use, car use in the Mirke Neighbourhood is relatively balanced: While 48% of respondents said they used their car daily or several times a week, the same proportion said they rarely or never used a car. Car sharing was not used by the majority (73%). Public transport was used frequently (daily or several times a week) by 38% of the participants at the time of the survey. However, a large proportion of respondents also stated that they rarely (35.4%) or never (21.3%) use public transport. Walking, on the other hand, was much more common: Around 81% stated in the survey that they covered distances exclusively on foot every day or several times a week.

A comparison with the time before the coronavirus pandemic (i.e., before March 2020) shows that at the time of the survey significantly more trips were made on foot and by car and slightly more trips were made by bicycle. In contrast, there was a sharp decrease in the use of public transport.

● © Vlad B | Unsplash

Living in the Mirke neighbourhood

● The average flat size per capita in the Mirke corresponds to 47.1 m², with most people living alone or in pairs

A distinct majority of respondents stated that they currently live in a rented flat (80.9%) and less frequently in an owner-occupied flat (16.5%). The average number of rooms is 2.8 rooms and the average living space per person is 47.1 m².

Most of the participants live alone (40.2%) or with another household member (37.8%). Significantly fewer live with (more than) two other people (18.7%). In most cases, the other household member is the respective partner (34.8%) and/or children (11.7%). A further 8.9% live in a traditional flat share and another 2.25% with other relatives.

● © SDE 21/22

● High satisfaction with the housing situation in flats that tend to be “just right” or “a little too small” size-wise

Most respondents are (very) satisfied with their housing situation (76.5%) or have a neutral attitude in this regard (18.4%). Only a very small proportion said they were (very) dissatisfied with their housing situation (4%). The majority of participants felt that the size of the flat was “just right” (55.7%) or, as another proportion of participants felt, “rather/much too small” (30.8%). A minority of the participants felt that the size of their apartment was a little or much too large (11.4%).

● © SDE 21/22

● Despite the pandemic, predominantly no plans to move, but rather the wish to stay in the current living situation or in the Mirke

About half of the respondents (42.3%) had no plans to move at the time of the survey. Another 27.9% had no concrete plans to move and 8.1% had concrete plans. Regarding their housing preferences, a clear majority wanted to stay in their current flat (43.4%), in the Mirke (15%), or in Wuppertal (8.7%). Only a few participants said they would like to move to a city of the same size (0.3%), a larger (2.2%) or smaller city (2.4%) or to the countryside (5.4%).

● © Mariska Bloem | Pixabay

● When choosing a place to live, the size of the flat, a balcony, and a good community in the building play a particularly important role

Next, the respondents were asked to imagine that they were to move house now: What factors would be most important for them when choosing their living space? The participants were invited to choose up to seven factors from a list and to rank them based on their personal importance. This showed that a suitable flat size, a balcony/terrace and a good community in the building were most important to the participants when choosing their living space. A guest room and accessibility, on the other hand, were of particular importance only to very few participants.

● © SDE 21/22

Experiences with the coronavirus pandemic

● Overall, no strong changes in the living situation due to Corona; in the areas of neighbourhood, housing and work, changes were rather positive

The coronavirus pandemic did not lead to any significant changes in the areas of neighbourhood, housing, and mobility for a large proportion of the participants (40%, 47.8% and 50.1% respectively). In the areas of neighbourhood, housing, and work, changes were perceived as rather/very positive by about a quarter of the respondents (26.8%, 22.5% and 28.4%). In the areas of mobility, leisure & recreation, and shopping & consumer behaviour, on the other hand, results were mixed (mobility: rather/strongly negative: 15.9%, rather/strongly positive: 15.6%; leisure & recreation: rather/strongly negative: 31.9%, rather/strongly positive: 26.7%; shopping & consumer behaviour: rather/strongly negative: 16.2%, rather/strongly positive: 22%).

Man with COVID-19 mask

● © Wolf Sondermann

● Home office only (partly) possible for 30.6% of the participants; preference for a 50% arrangement among those currently working from home

Due to the new working situations that have arisen in many places as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, home office was also examined in the first round of the survey. This showed that 30.6% of the participants could in principle also carry out their work fully or partially from home, but for a further 22.9% this is not an option (46.6% missing data). Of the participants who were already working from home at the time of the survey, 17.5% stated that they currently spend 75-100% of their working time at home. A 50% rule would, however, be ideal for most in this respect.

● © Mikey Harris | Unsplash

Attitudes & behaviour

● Overall high environmental awareness and a pronounced desire to refurbish

Environmental awareness is generally (very) high among respondents in the Mirke Neighbourhood (80.4%). About half (55.6%) would also welcome a refurbishment of their living space. Most of the respondents (66.1%) also (strongly) agreed with the statement that a climate-neutral building stock is important to achieve the national climate goals. In contrast, a reduction in the size of one’s own living space is perceived by most as less important for climate protection: 28.5% agreed rather/fully that living space sufficiency makes an important contribution to climate protection. At the same time, 32.3% (strongly) disagreed with this statement.

● © Louis Hansel | Unsplash

demographic data

Marital status, education, and employment status

The survey participants were asked about their current marital status. A large majority stated that they were currently single (66.1%) or in a marriage or registered civil partnership (21.2%). Only a small proportion of participants are currently divorced (5.7%) or widowed (2.1%).

Most participants have either a university education (tertiary level; 43.5%) or an (upper) secondary education (43.5%). Only a few of the respondents stated that they had a primary or lower secondary degree (7.4%).

Most respondents are also employed (58.6%); a smaller proportion reported being in education or training (15.9%), retired (12.7%) or not employed (7%) at the time of the survey.

● Marital status, education, and employment status

The survey participants were asked about their current marital status. A large majority stated that they were currently single (66.1%) or in a marriage or registered civil partnership (21.2%). Only a small proportion of participants are currently divorced (5.7%) or widowed (2.1%).

Most participants have either a university education (tertiary level; 43.5%) or an (upper) secondary education (43.5%). Only a few of the respondents stated that they had a primary or lower secondary degree (7.4%).

Most respondents are also employed (58.6%); a smaller proportion reported being in education or training (15.9%), retired (12.7%) or not employed (7%) at the time of the survey.

Household income and economic situation

As part of the survey, the financial situation and self-assessment of the household’s economic situation was also considered in more detail. The monthly net household income of most respondents is between 2000€ and 4000€ (38.6%) or between 1000€ and 2000€ (22.4%) – as shown in the graph below. 68.9% of the participants also assess the current economic situation of their household as (very) good (compared to 5.9% as ‘(very) bad’ and 18.4% as ‘partly good, partly bad’). When looking ahead to the economic situation of the household in a year’s time, however, this proportion is reduced (good/very good: 30.5%; partly good, partly bad: 53.4%; bad/very bad: 6.8%).

● Household income and economic situation

As part of the survey, the financial situation and self-assessment of the household’s economic situation was also considered in more detail. The monthly net household income of most respondents is between 2000€ and 4000€ (38.6%) or between 1000€ and 2000€ (22.4%) – as shown in the graph below. 68.9% of the participants also assess the current economic situation of their household as (very) good (compared to 5.9% as ‘(very) bad’ and 18.4% as ‘partly good, partly bad’). When looking ahead to the economic situation of the household in a year’s time, however, this proportion is reduced (good/very good: 30.5%; partly good, partly bad: 53.4%; bad/very bad: 6.8%).

Length of residence

Most respondents have lived in Wuppertal for more than twenty years (52.4%). Only a few (11.4%) have lived in the city for two years or less. For the Mirke Neighbourhood, the picture differs: 21.4% of participants have lived in the neighbourhood for more than 20 years; at the same time, a larger proportion has lived here for less than two years (26%). A similar distribution as in the Mirke emerges for the length of residence in the current flat/house.

● Length of residence

Most respondents have lived in Wuppertal for more than twenty years (52.4%). Only a few (11.4%) have lived in the city for two years or less. For the Mirke Neighbourhood, the picture differs: 21.4% of participants have lived in the neighbourhood for more than 20 years; at the same time, a larger proportion has lived here for less than two years (26%). A similar distribution as in the Mirke emerges for the length of residence in the current flat/house.

Still curious? You can find the extended results in a detailed overview here.