Fieldwork

This section reports primary research undertaken to explore the research questions. This work included three separate research activities:

• Interviews with academic experts.
• Two focus groups.
• A questionnaire survey.

Key findings from these are summarised in the following three sections.

Academic Interviews

Approach

This section summarises the findings of engagement with five academics carried out as part of the research, including four interviews and one written response. The academics worked within UK universities and have research records and interests that are relevant to the research questions. It summarises the findings against the research questions.

It should be noted that the views reported in this note represent informal responses and general views grouped by theme and should not be attributed to a single individual, who are not named or in any way identified. As these are summaries of conversations and assertions from the interviewees, “was said to”, “was noted that” etc should be taken as implicit if not directly written.

To what extent do Digital Connectivity and Physical Mobility (i.e. transport) impact on location decisions for people and businesses? 

The consensus is that location decisions of residents and businesses, and the sustainability of local communities and businesses, are not simple functions of the availability and quality of transport or digital connections. Instead, interviewees noted that choices are influenced by a range of considerations. A range of choice factors were discussed, including employment and higher education opportunities, and access to services, such as healthcare and schools. The availability of suitable housing stock, land ownership matters, and development constraints, and less tangible factors such as landscape attractiveness or community and social capital were also noted to influence location decisions.

For businesses, suitable buildings or land, business networks, and the degree to which they can network with distant sources of information, and local development advocacy, all have impact. Therefore, policy response needs to go beyond just improving transport networks.

One interviewee noted that connectivity improvements have led to a gradual shift in business locations over the past 50 years. Ignoring activities based upon local resources (farming, fishing, forestry etc) and service industries which serve the local population (garages, retail etc), the rest of the rural economy has become more footloose. This was first driven by improvements in physical mobility, and more recently and selectively, by digital connectivity.

A key recent trend for residential location choice relates to workplace flexibility enabled by remote working. This has expanded commuting patterns, so that there are only small parts of the Scottish mainland which remain functionally disconnected from urban economic centres. Anecdotal evidence noted that estate agents were receiving more enquiries from people looking to move to remoter rural areas while working remotely during the pandemic, and that there are significant numbers of professionals who live in rural parts of Aberdeenshire, for example, and commute weekly to London, and further afield.

The discussions explored modelling that investigated the determinants of rental and sales values using housing market data for England and Wales. This showed significant correlation between transport connectivity and house prices, which is confirmed by substantial evidence from academic sources. However, better physical accessibility was regarded less as a determinant of location choice as it increases the search area people are considering; there is a large distance-decay effect in the interdependency between transport connectivity and the size of the search area. Most people move within 10 km of their former residence, with the proportion reducing with distance. At 50-100km from the original location the number of moves is very small. As a caveat, these findings may be less applicable in remote rural areas because the housing market is very small. Accessibility was also noted to have a more noticeable impact on population retention than it has on location choice.

Limited work has been done to assess digital connectivity’s role in household location. However, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) Superfast Broadband Programme - State Aid Evaluation Report (2020) found that the UK Government’s £2.6bn investment in superfast broadband in ‘commercially unviable’ areas of the UK increased the value of homes sold in programme areas by about 1.2% between 2012 and 2019.

Interviewees’ views varied regarding to what extent the quality of digital connectivity constrains location choice in Scotland’s remote rural areas, noting a gap in evidence and that available data is qualitative or anecdotal. One interviewee noted that based on qualitative evidence collected, a study exploring how remote working influenced migration trends in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute and Dumfries and Galloway did not find evidence to confirm the initial expectation that broadband connectivity was a problem. The impression was that digital connectivity was generally fairly good.

Summary of Key Points

• Household location choices are influenced by a range of factors including employment and education opportunities, access to services, housing availability, land ownership and development constraints, landscape attractiveness, community, and social capital.
• Business location choices are affected by availability of suitable buildings or land, configurations of business networks, and the degree to which businesses have the ability to network with distant sources of information and local development advocacy. Therefore, policy response needs to go beyond just improving transport networks.
• Location decisions vary substantially for different businesses. For SMEs and the service sector, businesses and households are often collocated.
• Connectivity improvements (initially physical and more recently digital) have led to a shift in business locations, with more flexibility for many industries. However, service industries rely on proximity to population and industries such as farming, fishing and forestry need to be close to those resources.
• Remote working has meant that there are only small parts of the Scottish mainland which remain functionally disconnected from urban economic centres, with anecdotal evidence from the pandemic suggesting that more people are considering moving to remote rural areas and working remotely or commuting longer distances on a less frequent basis.
• Evidence suggests a significant correlation between transport connectivity and house prices, although better connectivity tends to increase the search area rather than determining location choice, and has more impact on retention than location choice. These findings may be less applicable in remote rural areas because the housing market is very small.
• There is limited evidence on the role of digital connectivity in household location, although there is evidence that investment in superfast broadband in ‘commercially unviable’ areas increases house prices.

To what extent are Digital Connectivity and Physical Mobility (i.e. transport) substitutable?

Information on the trade-off between digital and transport connectivity is often anecdotal. It was generally felt that digital connectivity and physical mobility are not directly substitutable, although there is some level of substitutability. Substitutability was noted to be impacted by equality of access, demographics, and other factors.

For businesses it was noted that there are various manufacturing industries in which there is no substitutability. However, some manufacturing has benefited from changes in logistics, which enabled light manufacturing to move into remoter areas and small towns. At the other extreme are online service industries, which theoretically can operate in any location with fast internet connection. Most economic activities were viewed combining physical mobility and digital connectivity in a variety of ways. Even businesses that carry out most activities through digital communication methods it was considered that there remains some need for face-to-face contact, both with other members of the team, and external business contacts. Availability of suitable employees was also noted to influence location choice.

Results from the 2021 Census for England and Wales show homeworking increased substantially from 10% in 2011 to 30% in March 2021. However, it was noted that these figures highlight that even towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic around 70% of jobs were not done from home, suggesting that in a significant number of jobs physical presence cannot be substituted. It was also noted that the Annual Population Survey (APS) showed a much smaller increase.

Interviewees noted that there is a general pressure among businesses to have at least some people on site, with employers requiring people to attend the office once or twice a week. While remote working has enabled business to cut space and cost, research in England suggests that the post-pandemic idea that people would live in the Lake District for example and work in London has not materialised. Even for those who can mostly work remotely, an occasional office visit can be challenging from a remote rural location. This tends to increase the relative attractiveness of areas for remote working which are accessible in terms of physical mobility (road, rail, and air).

In Scotland, interviewees noted that for employees with remote and hybrid work arrangements that only require physical presence occasionally, some remote and islands communities become possible locations. For example, research into remote working in Tiree included a Local Authority accountant who needed to attend the office only every couple of months. However, such exceptions were facilitated by reasonably priced air connections to Glasgow and/or London. Places that have such connections such as Tiree can be better connected than remote places dependent on poor road or rail connections. Interviewees noted that occupations that require hybrid working become impossible to hold in many remote communities for example in the Hebridean Islands.

Interviews highlighted a huge shift towards telephone, online, and other forms of digital consultation for health services during the pandemic. Research on remote service delivery effectiveness has been reported in medical journals. Interviewees noted an expectation that in the next few years many health services will be conducted digitally, although some consultations in person will still be necessary. There was a view that some medical and care services, especially for the elderly and frail people, cannot be provided remotely, and equality issues were raised relating to connectivity and ability to access remote care.

Substitutability of education services was also discussed and was considered possible to some extent. In some remote areas, digital delivery in secondary education was said to have improved subject choice, allowing pupils to participate in specific subjects remotely rather than having to relocate. Qualitative research undertaken in Tiree recorded islanders who participated in remote higher education courses for example at the University of the West of Scotland.

Regarding commercial services, it was noted that supermarkets and some big online retailers deliver to almost all locations. However, it was suggested that for remote rural locations this is likely to be at a loss, and so relies on the goodwill of suppliers. It was considered possible that drones could play a role in deliveries in the future. There are, however, commercial services which require in person presence, including in hospitality.

Even where digital can substitute for physical connectivity in principle, this does not always resolve limitations in very remote rural locations. Interviewees highlighted that internet connectivity in such areas is constrained by cost and emphasised that providing high speed digital infrastructure in remote areas is very expensive. In addition, similar legal and logistical constraints including access to land, mean that locational constraints for digital connectivity are likely to be comparable to those for physical connectivity.

The interviews highlighted that many assets in remote rural locations relate to natural capital, including highly valued scenic areas, which cannot be experienced remotely. Levels of awareness of areas of natural beauty was said to have increased markedly. Many residents in remote areas are using Airbnb, and this has supplemented incomes. Bookings in general are facilitated by digital tools, this includes food hospitality, tours of scenic areas, and sporting activities like shooting and fishing.

It was noted that much of the data and research on choice mechanisms and digital substitutability comes from market research surveys, such as IPSOS Mori polls. However, understanding choices requires data on people’s aspirations and how they relate to their behaviour. This was reported to currently represent a gap in research data availability.

Summary of Key Points

• Information on the trade-off between digital and transport connectivity is often anecdotal. It was generally felt that digital connectivity and physical mobility are not directly substitutable, although there is some level of substitutability. Substitutability was noted to be impacted by equality of access, demographics and other factors.
• Most economic activities require a combination physical mobility and digital connectivity. Even where remote working is usually sufficient, some degree of face-to-face contact is generally seen as necessary. Availability of suitable employees also influences location choice.
• Homeworking has increased substantially in recent years, but towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic around 70% of jobs were not done from home, suggesting that in many jobs physical presence cannot be substituted.
• There is pressure for many hybrid workers to come into the office at least some of the time. Even for those who can usually work remotely, an occasional visit to their office can be a challenge from a remote rural location. Qualitative research did report evidence of hybrid working in some remote communities; however, this was generally in locations with reasonably priced flight connections to Glasgow and/or London.
• There was a shift to remote healthcare provision during the pandemic and this is expected to continue, although consultations in person will still be required in some circumstances. Equality issues were raised relating to connectivity and ability to access remote care. Considerations in decisions to move to remote service delivery include practitioner efficiency, medical outcomes and cost savings.
• Education was seen as substitutable to some extent. In some remote areas, digital delivery in secondary education has improved subject choice without pupils having to relocate and there are examples of remote participation in higher education courses.
• Although supermarkets and some big online retailers deliver to almost all locations, in remote rural locations this is likely to be at a loss, relying on the goodwill of suppliers. It was considered possible that drones could play a role in deliveries in the future. Some commercial services such as hospitality require in person presence.
• High speed digital infrastructure has many of the same locational constraints as physical connectivity, including cost, legal, and logistical constraints.
• Many assets in remote rural locations relate to natural capital, including highly valued scenic areas, which cannot be experienced remotely. This presents an opportunity to supplement incomes, and digital tools can facilitate bookings.
• Much of the data and research on choice mechanisms and digital substitutability comes from market research surveys, however understanding choices requires data on people’s aspirations and in-depth data relating them to their behaviour, representing a gap in research data availability.

How does this differ by activity, demographics and geography?

There has been a population uplift in remote rural areas in 2021. However, interviewees noted a gap in hard evidence on composition and the potential contribution of different groups to the longer-term sustainability of remote communities.

Research gaps also extended to the availability and timeliness of detailed spatial information. Census data is a standard source, however, for Scotland, the latest census data has not yet been released. In England and Wales data was collected during the pandemic (2021), and it was noted that at the time many people had to work from home.

Existing population trends were said to be caused by a combination of factors whose relative importance varies by group. Household location decisions are linked to life-stage considerations, for example. Interviewees noted that trends for migration of school leavers who choose higher or further education to the Central Belt and other University towns/cities are well documented. There was a view that the establishment of the University of Highlands and Islands (UHI) offering distance learning, may have reduced this to some extent. Often a graduate’s first job and home are close to their place of higher education. A proportion of professionals who come from rural families choose to return home, and some interviewees noted that this share may be increasing and that returners do so earlier.

With respect to digitally enabled location decisions, interviewees highlighted that locating very remotely from the workplace is a personal preference, constrained by factors including family considerations, the need for all household earners to find suitable accessible employment, and access to services (schools, health, retail, etc). These constraints vary, depending on characteristics such as age, family size, life stage, and personal preferences. One interviewee noted that newcomers to remote rural areas often have children above school age, so they do not need a school nearby. This was countered by remote rural pensioners moving to small towns which offer easier access to health services and sheltered housing. There was a view that islands (apart from those with short ferries or bridges) are generally less affected by these trends.

The interviews also mentioned ‘digital nomads’, another digitally enabled trend in migration. This group uses digital technology to work remotely while moving from place to place. There was an impression that digital nomads were present in the Western Isles and elsewhere in the Highlands, however, there is no data to better understand the magnitude of this trend.

The interviews highlighted that the scope for digitally enabled remote working depends on employment type. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) produced a report on Teleworking in the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and prospects, which presents evidence on how remote working rates during COVID-19 varied with employment types. There is likely to be a continued drive for remote working in higher qualified and higher earning jobs, resulting in location choices that are less tied to employment location. Remote rural areas are attractive to higher earners, able to pay premium rates in the housing market, making the affordable housing shortage more acute for those with fewer qualifications who wished to stay in the area.

There was a view that the demographics for remote working tend to be well-qualified and to some extent established, and aged 30+. By contrast, there was an impression that most people who leave remote rural locations are young and looking for qualifications or work. Young leavers are also seeking an immersive experience in terms of developing networks and socialising after work, for example. This was viewed as positive in principle, and remote working was viewed as a means of encouraging people to return to rural areas in greater numbers, rather than stopping them leaving in the first place.

There is also a spatial disparity in the ability to work from home. While Census headline figures indicate 30% of jobs in England and Wales were done from home in March 2021 this was in the region of 60+% in London and the south-east but only around 10% in rural Wales.

The interviews discussed research into how remote and hybrid working impacts the geography of where people live and work. The research objective was to understand post-COVID-19 trends. Based on quantitative data from Census and APS, levels of remote working in England were higher around London and the south-east of England. Lower levels were recorded along the east coast of England, south of the Humber, where the labour market structure is not suited to remote working. The project team analysed census data to identify the key predictors of remote working levels and the proportion of workers engaged in remote working. The proportion of workers in professional and managerial roles and the qualification levels of the workforce were the two main statistical determinants. Remote working seems to be favoured by people in places that are already relatively wealthy.

One interviewee also noted that it is less likely that someone already living in a remote rural area will develop the skills required to start working remotely.

One interview explored work on demographic and spatial variability in internet use by the Consumer Data Research Centre (CDRC), who have developed a small area Internet User Classification highlighting demographic differences in internet use. For example, poor quality broadband in rural areas means that people use the internet for shopping or banking but not for telecommunication and conferencing. There are other areas that are very well connected, for example coastal resorts, where people typically go to retire. People in these areas have good connectivity but they do not tend to use the internet as much.

There was a view that different locations attract different demographics for relocation, with very scenic or picturesque places such as Tiree tending to attract an older wealthier demographic. These newcomers were also more likely to get involved with the communities, although there can at times be tension with existing populations in terms of priorities. By contrast there are some places in Dumfries and Galloway, such as Newton Stuart, which have lower than average house prices and tend to attract working people from a wider age and income range. Recent research has shown that many of these newcomers come from England and are attracted by affordable rural housing. The research also provided anecdotal evidence that perceptions of social care and free prescriptions in Scotland were factors in some relocation decisions.

It was noted that house prices are to some extent an indicator of geographic differences in the popularity of locations. Property prices have increased across the board including in more deprived locations such as towns in the three Ayrshires, potentially because those areas started at a lower baseline. It was noted that the demographic profile of people moving to these areas was unknown. Census data, when available, will provide insights on population trends by geography.

It was noted that accessing recent systematic and long-term research on rural communities in Scotland is a challenge. In recent years there has been a focus on international migrants, in particular EU accession migrants. It was suggested that not enough work is done on internal migration in particular on young people aged 16 to 35 and location choice, and on what decisions they would make if connectivity was better. Young people were said to present as a hard-to-reach group and investment of resources is required to ensure they are represented in surveys and studies in general.

Summary of Key Points

• Scotland’s rural population increased in 2021, however there is an evidence gap in how this increase is composed and how it may affect the long-term sustainability of remote communities.
• There are also gaps in the availability and timeliness of detailed spatial information, particularly noting the delay in Scotland’s Census.
• Many young people from remote locations leave for further or higher education, although this has been reduced to some extent by the distance learning offering from the UHI. For many graduates, their first job and home are close to their place of education, although some from rural families choose to return home, and this may be happening more often and earlier.
• Locating very remotely from the workplace is a personal preference, constrained by factors including family considerations, and access to employment and services. These constraints vary, depending on characteristics such as age, family size and life stage, and personal preferences.
• Some examples of typical incomers to rural areas are families with children above school age, ‘empty nesters’ whose children have left home, and ‘digital nomads’ who work remotely while moving from place to place. Typical leavers include pensioners moving to small towns for access to health and social care. These trends are less clear on the islands.
• Potential to work from home varies by employment type and tends to favour higher qualified and higher earning jobs. This makes remote rural areas attractive to higher earners, increasing house prices and exacerbating the affordable housing shortage for those with fewer qualifications who wish to stay in the area.
• Home working tends to be more possible for older people who have already done in person work, while leavers tend to be younger people who are new to the workplace or seeking opportunities such as education, developing networks, and socialising after work. Remote working has more potential to encourage people to return to rural areas than to stop them leaving.
• There is a spatial disparity in the ability to work from home, with data suggesting significantly lower levels of home working in rural areas.
• Analysis of key predictors of remote working levels found the two main statistical determinants were the proportion of workers in professional and managerial roles and the qualification levels of the workforce. Remote working is more common in places where people are well off.
• It can be difficult for people living in a remote rural area to develop the skills required to start working remotely. However, quality of life benefits may attract people who already have those skills to move to a remote area.
• There are demographic differences in internet use. Poor quality broadband in rural areas can mean that people use the internet for shopping or banking but not for telecommunication and conferencing. Some coastal resorts where people typically go to retire have good connectivity, but often the demographic groups in these locations do not tend to use the internet very much.
• Different locations attract different demographics for relocation. Scenic or picturesque places tend to attract an older wealthier demographic who are more likely to get involved with the communities, although there can at times be tension with existing populations in terms of priorities. Places with lower-than-average house prices tend to attract working people from a wider age and income range, many of whom come from England and are attracted by affordable housing in a rural place. Perceptions of better social care and free prescriptions in Scotland can also be factors affecting relocation from England.
• House prices are an indicator of geographical differences in location decisions and have gone up across the board. The demographic profile of people moving to rural areas is unknown, although Census data, when available, will provide more detailed insights on population trends by geography.
• There has been a focus on international migration and more work is required to understand internal migration, particularly on factors affecting household location decisions for young people, who can be a hard-to-reach group.

To what extent do the above variables impact on depopulation occurring within communities?

Connectivity improvements were viewed to have pushed depopulation to remoter areas, as documented in the EAG’s 2021 and 2022 reports. One contribution stressed the importance of differentiating between rural locations: population has grown in accessible rural areas, and growth has even “overheated” in some peri-urban areas.

One interviewee noted that in Scotland population and jobs are concentrated in the Central Belt and most other areas are geographically peripheral. Scottish research into remote and hybrid working and how they impact on where people live and work therefore focussed on population sustainability. Analysis of mid-year population estimates indicated that many datazones that had previously experienced decline experienced growth in 2021.

Post-COVID-19 trends were explored by qualitative research including consultation with leaders of community trust, development projects, and businesses, to explore how remote working influenced migration trends in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, and Dumfries and Galloway. The research also included workshops in places like Kirkudbright and Newton Stewart, and interviews in Tiree. Qualitative data from this suggested the population in these locations had increased slightly since COVID-19, though some caution should be applied to these findings due to the small numbers involved. For example, there is a datazone just east of Kirkudbright which was one of the top ten datazones by percentage population growth, however. population increased by only 27 people.

There was consensus that in some remote areas, community sustainability is a challenge. One interviewee noted CDRC research that assessed the vulnerability of small areas. The research looked at food retail locations and the availability of online slots for delivery for example. Together with the internet user classification work this fed into a picture of local vulnerability called the Priority Places Index. Local services are moving online, for example bank branches, particularly in areas where populations are low. There is increasing disparity where rural areas lose services but do not have sufficient internet speeds to access services remotely. Deliveries may also be less available or cost more money. This disadvantages rural communities.

Data since COVID-19 shows a small increase in second residences in more rural areas, but no evidence of wholesale moves to rural areas. It was noted that this will not address challenges around young people moving from those areas, and that just attracting people who are able to work from home will not build balanced communities.

Even where recent trends have reversed the population decline, population aging is a key challenge due to the younger population moving away. Interviewees highlighted a huge challenge around staffing social care and healthcare roles in rural Scotland and remote working cannot address this. Informal care that might have been provided by families is often not an option where people’s adult children live in more urban areas. Population aging results in lower birth rates, exacerbating the problem. As a result, dependency ratios are high.

The impact of changes in rural age structures was discussed in the context of the viability of rural farming. One interviewee noted that farming in remote rural areas tends to be small scale; often it is subsistence farming with people holding a second job to supplement incomes. The average age of a rural farmer in Scotland is 60, illustrating the challenges attracting young people. Farmers can be relatively affluent in central Scotland but in ultra-remote areas, the sector is struggling. Markets in general can be more efficient if they are online and in theory digital connectivity could improve access to relevant buyers. However, given the age structure of the current farming population digital competence is a limiting factor for the use of digital tools like market transaction apps.

Government support of agriculture is changing towards a more environmental focus. This will require increased measurement to establish if environmental objectives are being achieved, and online tools are likely to play a role. For example, World Heritage status is being sought on behalf of the Flow Country, restoring peatlands is probably more important to environmental outcomes than reforestation. Requirements to record data related to environmental change is problematic for people who are less digitally enabled.

There was a view that digital connectivity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the farming sector to thrive and attract young people to stay in rural areas. Lack of supply of local people could make it difficult for these industries to remain viable. It was noted that many young people would not consider living in an area where a certain level of digital connectivity is not available. However, it was also noted that a vast improvement in digital connectivity may work against the rural foundation industries, through in-migrations of skilled higher income occupations and their impact on the housing market. Access to affordable housing was widely recognised as a key constraint for young people who wish to stay in the area and work in those industries. It was considered that these housing related constraints would require a policy response.

Anecdotally there was some evidence that in-migration could help local industries find employees, for example where couples move together and spouses pick up lower paid jobs in the rural economy, while their partner works remotely or in a local better paid job. However, while digital infrastructure could help rural business viability in some ways, the interviews suggested it is difficult to see how digital connectivity improvements on their own could become a solution.

Rural services sustainability in general was highlighted as a key challenge. Anecdotal evidence noted a village in the north-west with a population of about 500, with only one child of primary school age. In such remote communities there is a shortage of working age families with children, and hence a lack of peers. Such communities are at risk of school closure, and this becomes a disincentive for families to move there. Teachers are shared between schools and school provision becomes a complex logistical problem. In remote areas there is a lack of flexibility with respect to substituting lost services or gaps in connectivity, for example through using different methods of transport.

When looking at population trends in rural Scotland, there was a wider view that it is difficult to disentangle the effect that poor or expensive connectivity has on attracting and retaining population from the impact of constraints on affordable housing provision. The combination of the pandemic, an increase in tourism, and second home ownership has created a housing crisis.

Connectivity enabled population movements were said to have impacted upon the age structure more widely in rural Scotland. The conversations highlighted that people often move to remoter rural areas to retire or buy second homes, attracted by facilities such as golf courses, and that the pandemic has often been a catalyst in such locational decisions. Anecdotal evidence from estate agents also suggests people were buying properties without looking at them, although no research has been done on this specifically, or on its interactions with location choice. The interviews also noted a shortage of rentals for people moving to the area because property owners can make more money on Airbnb.

Qualitative research in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, and Dumfries and Galloway suggested in-migration might be dominated by older age groups (50+). Often they came from cities in England and had considerable housing equity. They were often looking for somewhere rural in Scotland with a good sense of community. Many participants had previous familiarity with Scotland through frequent visits, and were flexible with respect to specific location, that is they searched the internet for available properties and their location choice was guided by availability. This trend pre-dates COVID-19 but was said to have increased since. This has exacerbated challenges around housing affordability in rural areas. Population trends in Arran for example have been inverted during COVID-19. The island is a short ferry journey from the mainland and has a moderate connection to Glasgow. People moving there tend to be wealthier but older, and able to afford properties at higher prices than many working-age people in local jobs.

Qualitative evidence from stakeholders who contributed to research suggested that some locations faced difficulty attracting and retaining healthcare workers. For example, on Tiree there is a care home which operates at half capacity due to staffing issues. In some locations there was evidence that local hotel or B&B capacity was taken up by care workers who cannot afford to live locally. In other places such as Arran, health and social care workers who cannot afford to live on the island were reported to commute, though this is only possible because the island is a relatively short ferry journey from the mainland. Qualitative evidence from places such as St Andrew’s and Pittenweem suggested employees in the care sector live in more affordable old mining villages nearby. However, this is less possible on islands, where house prices tend to be high throughout.

Evidence from consultations also highlighted severe staffing issues in hospitality, for example the Auchrannie resort in Arran reported only being able to open one of its restaurants due to labour supply issues. In-migration of people from eastern Europe has declined in more recent years and this was said to have exacerbated the situation. They were often younger, with no intention of staying and therefore more tolerant of a range of living conditions, whereas local workers more often have family considerations.

However, a lack of affordable housing is not the only barriers faced by young working age people looking to move to rural areas. In response to speakers highlighting the importance of more housing, for example, a young participant in a seminar highlighted that houses do not feed people. The evidence is anecdotal but there is a need to provide high quality employment opportunities. Interviewees noted that this does not necessarily mean high paid jobs but good quality employment that pays the right wages based on qualifications. A policy response across multiple Government departments, providing good quality employment, housing, nursery care, and schools was said to be required to address the depopulation issue.

Research undertaken around 15 years ago, at a time when Scotland’s population was set to fall below 5 million, showed that young people were moving to London or the south-east of England to progress their careers, often referred to as the escalator effect. Once upskilled, they often do not return. It was noted that to some extent this still exists.

The UHI may have been helpful in retaining and attracting young people in some areas, although no systematic research is available. Remote learning also has potential to reduce outmigration. However, keeping young people from leaving should not necessarily be the objective of initiatives to address depopulation challenges. Interviewees noted that in ultra-remote areas, young people who have school qualifications expect to leave. Some young people return having acquired skills at university or in another setting. Often this is motivated by a connection to the land, and local ways of living such as crofting and the Gaelic language.

There was an impression that COVID-19 and the lockdowns acted as a catalyst for people who were already thinking about coming back to return. However, it was noted that they would often not be able to without the support of their families and access to social connections. There was an impression that people do want to live in many places currently suffering depopulation but cannot because of issues around housing availability and affordability.

There is evidence that poor physical accessibility is making people more likely to leave. Better digital accessibility could mitigate this and help retain people. There are some examples of such successes in remote places. An example was given of a small town on the east coast of Scotland. 30 years ago it was dilapidated but in a very scenic location, then artists started moving in, the community became active and set up a community broadband scheme. Despite the absence of good public transport connections, the town has been regenerated over a 30-year period and it is now a very active community, with local businesses and a mobile cinema.

Community broadband provision was also noted on Tiree, where a community-run scheme provides a broadband service to approximately 250 subscribers. However, such successes depend on communities’ social capital and will not work everywhere. Interviewees also noted equality issues around IT capability/expertise, in rural areas digital uptake was said to be far lower. Demographic composition and the composition of the rural labour market were said to represent a barrier.

Some interviewees noted that connectivity is a huge challenge for ultra-remote areas in Scotland. In remote areas, digital infrastructure is present and digital connectivity is not necessarily a problem, although businesses seeking a dedicated line may face long delays. However, in ultra-remote areas in the north-west of Scotland, for example, lack of connectivity is a significant barrier to in-migration, and it was noted that given the expectation of households and businesses this acts as a disincentive to stay.

Evidence from the interviews also highlighted regional differences in transport provision in the north of Scotland. In the east of the region, it is possible to travel to hospital and back by public transport in a day. In the north and the west of the region this is not feasible, therefore requiring travel by private car which is a limitation for many people.

Interviewees noted that while some statistical data on migration patterns exists and some research into challenges in rural Scotland is available from HIE’s Highlands and Islands Enterprise (2022), there is insufficient qualitative data on the various trends in migration, within Scotland, UK wide and from overseas to provide an overall image. Further research is also required to improve understanding of young people’s location decisions. A time series study following young people leaving school and recording what happens to them could provide high quality data forming a more holistic picture of their location choices.

Summary of Key Points

• Connectivity improvements have redrawn the boundary of remoteness, pushing back depopulation to more peripheral areas.
• Population in accessible rural areas has grown in recent years, in some cases substantially so. Depopulation has been pushed back to remote and in some cases very remote areas.
• Scotland’s spatial characteristics see population and economic activity in Scotland concentrated in the Central Belt, with the rest of the country geographically more peripheral. This makes population sustainability a key consideration in the analysis of migration patterns.
• Distance to food retail locations, combined with limited availability or high costs of online deliveries were highlighted as a challenge to the sustainability of remote communities.
• Closure of local services has led to an increasing disparity between accessible and remote areas, as internet speeds in some remote areas are insufficient to fully access services online.
• COVID-19 has led to small population increases in many areas that previously experienced population decline, including some remote and Island communities. However, there is no evidence that remote working has led to large-scale moves to rural areas. It was considered unlikely that this alone could build balanced communities, or counter-act the exodus of young people.
• Natural population aging, the outflow of young people and lower birth rates result in unbalanced age structures in many remote areas. This creates greater care needs while reducing the scope for informal care provided by families. Difficulties staffing social care and healthcare roles in rural areas compound the problem.
• Challenges recruiting young people into rural foundation industries such as farming were reported. Less capacity of the workforce in these sectors for taking advantage of digital innovation, such as market transaction apps or to complete environmental measurement requirements associated with Government support, reduces their competitiveness.
• Good digital connectivity is necessary but not sufficient to attract young people to remote areas. However, where digital connectivity is improved to a standard which enables substantial remote working, this could adversely impact on staff availability for rural foundation industries and the care sector through reducing availability of affordable housing. Reduced in-migration of people from Eastern Europe has added to staffing challenges in these sectors.
• Sustainability of rural services such as education was highlighted as a key challenge, with sharing of staff resources across locations requiring complex logistics.
• Access to housing is a key barrier which has been exacerbated by an increase of in-migration of people with comparatively high housing equity prompted by the pandemic, an increase in tourism and second home ownership.
• There is anecdotal evidence that digital delivery in further education is enabling some young people stay in the area. An interest in local ways of living and culture may also have encouraged more people to return or do so earlier. Returners often depend on family support due to the cost of living.
• The depopulation issue will require a trans-sectoral policy response, considering access to jobs, housing schools and childcare as well as transport and digital connectivity.
• Examples of successful communities are linked to community capacity to drive change, and this varies between locations. This includes initiatives to set up community broadband.
• There is a distinction between remote and ultra-remote areas. In the latter, it is often impossible to travel to hospital and back by public transport in a day and lack of connectivity, both digital and transport are a dis-incentive to stay.

Can potential future access interventions consider the above variables in the context of proactively supporting attraction and retention within locations of Scotland which have experienced, or are experiencing, population decline?

Interviewees noted that there is no definitive answer. There was a view that the reversal of population trends across many rural areas in Scotland has coincided with gradual improvements to road, rail, air, and ferry infrastructure, increases in car ownership, and improvements in vehicle performance and reliability.

It was also noted that in the north of Scotland there is an infrastructure gap and hence the ability of localities to take advantage of economic development opportunities between the east and the west. Although there are other areas that are similarly remote, the west and the north are showing the most obvious symptoms of decline.

As one example in the north of Scotland, transport links in the County of Sutherland have been improved over time, particularly in the east due to the Kessock, Cromarty Firth, and Dornoch Firth Bridges, enhancing economic activity in those townships. Economic activity declined in areas that were bypassed after the new infrastructure was introduced.

Another example noted in the interviews is the NC500 travel route, a 500-mile scenic route between Inverness and John o’Groats and returning to Inverness along the north and west coasts. It was noted that interior towns missed out on economic benefits provided by the popularisation of the route and show signs of neglect. This highlights trade-offs in the context of physical infrastructure improvements.

Digital connectivity was also viewed as playing a role in location decisions. The DCMS evaluation cited above evidenced the link between superfast broadband and higher demand for housing, which may suggest that if superfast broadband was rolled out alongside good services, then this could impact positively on attracting populations.

There was also a view that both physical and digital improvements can help enable young people brought up in remote areas return. In this context, it was regarded as important to recognise that economically active young people often live in two geographical spaces, one rural and one urban, and travel between them.

However, interviewees noted that connectivity improvements can possibly mitigate but not reverse existing trends of population decline in remote areas. There is substantial academic consensus that these trends cannot be reversed. Connectivity influences various factors that contribute to population decline.

It was also widely acknowledged that the deep-seated drivers of depopulation are complex. Connectivity improvements alone were viewed as unlikely to overcome rural depopulation issues unless other drivers of depopulation such as fertility rates, lack of employment opportunities, and availability of housing are addressed. It was also acknowledged that Scotland’s rural areas are very diverse, geographically, socially, and culturally, and this presents challenges to creating policy that fits every location.

There was a view that regional policy makers and politicians have favoured transport infrastructure investments (especially trunk roads and railways) because they are easy to implement without involving the local community and sometimes local government, except in terms of consultation, because they are easy to cost, and produce very visible outcomes. There was a perception that such projects are easier to manage than those which involve local actors or beneficiaries (whether public, private or third sector).

As a further challenge to policies targeting improved remote area viability through connectivity improvements, it has long been recognised that improvements to transport infrastructure may have negative effects upon remote communities/economies, where better access to services in more accessible locations undermines the competitiveness of businesses in the periphery.

Access to basic services is widely acknowledged as a key determinant of local population trends and migration. The relationship was described as complex and recursive, since service providers such as local Councils and the NHS adapt the distribution of their provision in response to population trends, but their response may in turn affect subsequent household location decisions.

Remoteness is partly defined by physical infrastructure; the Scottish Government definition considers the ability to access certain services in 30 minutes, but in some ultra-remote areas journeys to key services such as supermarkets can take up to 2 hours by public transport, or an hour by private car.

Some interviewees noted that when it comes to access to services it is the local feeder roads which are important, not the trunk roads and railways which are the focus of transport policy. However, there was also a view that it can be difficult to separate the respective roles of the feeder road network and strategic connections in remote areas. It was noted that regeneration of these areas will not happen without significantly more people coming to take advantage of the natural capital of these areas either in their work or in enhancing their wellbeing and strategic transport links play a key role in this. If the journey to Edinburgh takes 6 hours, people may be inclined to seek a less remote location.

Public transport has been evidenced to present a challenge in remote rural areas. The Scottish Government provides free bus travel for 16-22 year olds and over 60s. However, there was a view that given the nature of the labour market in rural areas, which has a high proportion of lower paid and sometimes seasonal jobs, there is a need to provide affordable public transport for all working age people. Policy initiatives should consider how to provide a good public transport system that is affordable for all age groups.

Network coverage was also viewed as a challenge in rural areas. Community transport schemes providing on demand transport, for example through a minibus service, do exist. However, it was noted that this is a postcode lottery, with provision often skewed towards wealthier communities who have greater capacity to self-organise. There was a view that digital connectivity could be a mechanism that could help arrange alternatives to public transport.

Transport affordability may impact on working populations even in jobs where remote working is possible. Research evidence notes adverse impacts on mental health and people may not wish to work remotely all the time. However, the cost of transport makes hybrid working unaffordable for some people in remote areas. Policy could support alternatives for example through providing shared digital workspaces locally.

Interviewees highlighted that challenges around transport costs affect delivery of goods as well as personal transport. Some areas of the Highlands are not classed as UK mainland and incur extra delivery charges. The Islands are even more disadvantaged. HIE (2016) reports work investigating minimum incomes needed to lead a comfortable life in remote rural Scotland. This showed that the more remote your residential location the more minimum income you need. Transport costs including for deliveries and fuel were a factor. It was noted that there are also inequalities around quality, for example of fresh produce.

There was perception that in many rural places public transport connectivity has deteriorated. It was noted that the trend towards privatisation of public transport services and centralisation of services go back to the economic crisis in 2008. The crisis also affected funding for community transport services. In the north of Scotland local services such as local hospital facilities and maternity hubs have closed. However, public transport services have not improved to enable access to alternative facilities. As a result, residents in some areas were said to be reliant on emergency transport services when they need to get to the nearest hospital in Inverness. Policies from multiple Government departments is required to solve these problems. In some locations there is also a sense that planning public transport provision does not sufficiently account for the needs of the economically active.

With respect to digital connectivity, it was noted that despite published evidence that a high proportion of the country have digital connectivity, it must be remembered that there is a small proportion that is not covered. The evidence is often anecdotal. For example, there are locations just 35 miles north of Inverness that do not have good digital connectivity. While many areas have a fibre optic connection, there are pockets that do not. Some households depend on copper wire connections to make the link to the fibre optic network. Download speeds in such areas at times fall short of the legal minimum. Connectivity issues became evident in some households during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Connections often struggled with two or three people working in the same household to get adequate connectivity. Research gaps were noted in understanding how connectivity in rural areas holds up under several concurrent demands.

There are some locations which operate community broadband as an alternative to commercial providers. Satellite internet connections could also provide an alternative and are being made in some ultra-remote areas but the cost for households is high compared to a standard connection.

Summary of Key Points

• There is evidence that transport improvements such as the construction of the Kessock, Cromarty Firth, and Dornoch Firth Bridges have enabled the local area to take advantage of economic opportunities, while areas outside the reach of those improvements have declined.
• The drivers of population are complex and some such as fertility rates and shortages in housing availability cannot be addressed by connectivity improvements.
• Unintended consequences of investment in strategic connectivity can include ‘pump effects’, whereby improvements dis-proportionately benefit locations which were well connected to begin with.
• There were disparate views regarding where to best focus transport investment to support the viability of remote places with arguments for both investment in the strategic and the local feeder network. In some areas their functions overlap.
• Transport affordability is a challenge for those in lower paid employment, while most working age people are currently not covered by free bus travel. A fair approach considering affordable public transport for all group requires consideration.
• Network coverage is a challenge in rural areas and while community transport does exist, this tends to be skewed towards wealthier communities. Digital connectivity could help arrange alternatives to public transport.
• The cost of transport can make hybrid working unaffordable for some people in remote areas and can impact working populations even where remote working is possible, due to the mental health impacts of isolation. Shared digital workspaces in remote areas could mitigate this.
• Transport costs can also impact delivery of goods, with additional delivery charges for islands and some areas of the Highlands. Evidence suggests a higher minimum income is required to make life comfortable in remote areas.
• There is a perception that public transport connectivity has deteriorated in recent years, and funding for community transport has decreased. This, combined with closures of local healthcare facilities, has left some residents reliant on emergency transport services for access to hospitals. An integrated solution is required to address this.
• Public transport provision does not always account for the needs of the economically active.
• Anecdotal evidence suggests that a small proportion of the country still does not have digital connectivity, with download speeds falling short of the legal minimum at times. The return of some young people during the COVID-19 lockdowns highlighted that connectivity is not always able to support several concurrent demands. This was highlighted as a gap in the research.
• Community broadband can be an alternative to commercial providers, as can Starlink connections although these can be expensive.

Focus groups

This section details the findings from two focus groups that aimed to explore the research questions.

Two focus groups took place; one with those who have recently moved from an urban area to rural Scotland; and one with those that currently live in urban area and are looking to move to rural Scotland soon.

Methodology

Respondents were categorised into one of two groups.

• Group 1: 7 respondents recently moved from an Urban to Rural area. Glasgow was the most common origin with London, Norfolk and Staffordshire also cited. All rural destinations were classed as ‘remote rural areas’ with a population of less than 3,000, such as Stewarton, Kames, Ardallie, Dalcross, and Pitlochry.
• Group 2: 9 respondents currently live in an urban area but are looking to move to rural Scotland soon. Current residences were typically in large cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. Respondents were generally not set on particular villages to relocate to but cited Perthshire and rural Inverness as preferred regions.

Each group lasted approximately 90 minutes. Transcripts were made of each group and this formed the basis of the analysis. Quotes have been used to illustrate points where possible.

Focus Group Findings

Moving Home: Benefits

In Group 1, respondents emphasised a changing lifestyle and perspective as their primary motive for relocation. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of good air quality, ownership of land and proximity to the coast and countryside. Those in Group 2 echoed these priorities, particularly those with children as they look to raise their children in a safe and natural environment.

“I just love the simplicity of life where I am.” (Group 1)

Budget was also a significant determinant of location with several individuals identifying better value for money in rural areas. One respondent repeatedly emphasised that council tax was utilised more effectively in rural Scotland and contributed to better upkeep of green spaces.

“I could not believe what they get for their money compared to what I get or what I did get in Glasgow. It’s like … and I used to work for Glasgow Council too, so I feel rotten saying that and I know it’s different and more challenging in Glasgow, but it’s like what I get for my council tax here, it’s not just the bins emptied. Flowers getting planted and grass getting cut. In Glasgow they don’t cut grass” (Group 1)

“like I can get a house with a garden in Ormiston for the price of my flat in Edinburgh” (Group 2)

The community aspect of rural life was also highlighted. Respondents in both groups posited that living in an area with a low population means less traffic, fewer disruptions, and more peace and quiet. They also noted a better relationship with local neighbours and a greater sense of community.

“I think rural places have got a lot more of a sense of community.” (Group 1)

“There’s more a sense of community than living in an urban area.” (Group 2)

Several respondents in Group 2 had grown up in a rural area and cited a return home as one of their motives for relocating. Some respondents were concerned at how their current urban area had changed demographically and viewed rural life as an escape from increasing urbanisation.

Moving Home: Concerns

Across both focus groups, snow and adverse weather during the winter months was highlighted as a concern. Respondents from Group 2 expressed concern over attending regular hospital appointments and accessing emergency care. Those in Group 1 acknowledged that connectivity could be a barrier if it was poor.

Group 2 were worried about how existing residents would respond to an outsider attempting to join the community. While Group 1 downplayed this concern, they revealed that once in a community, they struggled with everyone knowing their business.

Transport and Connectivity

Respondents in Group 1 revealed that living rurally can cause reliance on cars as the primary mode of travel. Infrequent public transport, primarily on bus services, is the main cause of transport connectivity concern. However, respondents in Group 2 suggested that public transport could be available if needed, even if direct routes are uncommon.

“That’s what I forgot about. That you can’t just get a bus every 10 minutes.” (Group 1)

“I would probably be making more journeys by public transport.” (Group 2)

Access to supermarkets poses a problem even for Group 1 respondents that do have an available car. One respondent indicated that their closest supermarket was seven miles away, with another respondent positioned 40 miles from their nearest large supermarket. However, these distances do not deter those who live rurally from maintaining in-person shopping habits. Most respondents in Group 2 were not concerned about the challenges of shopping and suggested that a weekly big shop could be supplemented with quick visits to local shops and farm goods.

“Unless you’ve got a car you have to plan.” (Group 1)

“These little shops are really the lifeblood of the community.” (Group 2)

Whilst shopping is a challenge in practice, most respondents suggested that they are well-serviced by schools and healthcare facilities. Schools are within a driveable distance and are serviced by a dedicated school minibus. One respondent explained that although they do not have a dedicated GP, the local community has a plan in place in case of an emergency. While some respondents in Group 2 expressed minor concern over the logistics of attending in-person medical appointments, others suggested that rural waiting times for appointments could be lower.

“I think I would be better off if I had to go to a doctor and I was in a village.” (Group 2)

Some respondents in Group 2 identified that they would likely have to drive more to support their children’s activities. However, these respondents reached a consensus that they were not concerned about the distance from friends and family. One individual in Group 1 expressed that separation from loved ones can become a challenge when attempting to access local employment since there is no one you can fully trust to support childcare.

Digital Connectivity

There was a stark dichotomy between Group 1 and Group 2 over their perceptions of digital connectivity in rural areas.

Group 2 emphasised that a strong internet connection would be necessary for work and were optimistic that this would be achievable. Most respondents had gained confidence from stories of government grants being awarded to improve internet speed and providers such as Starlink elevating connectivity to a level higher than what can be achieved in some urban areas.

“When it’s a bit quieter, a bit more rural, there’s not so many people trying to fight for that internet connection.” (Group 2)

However, Group 1 were unanimous in putting across the challenges they face with phone service and internet connection. Most respondents have resorted to purchasing a booster for their internet connection or paying for Sky Glass. This is a particularly salient issue for respondents that rely on a strong internet connection for working from home. Moreover, these purchases represent costs that were not anticipated prior to moving to rural areas.

“It’s frustrating because people phone you and they think you’re ignoring them, but you actually can’t hear them.” (Group 1)

Respondents in Group 1 also highlighted the challenges of poor digital connectivity for older people. Since rural areas tend not to have physical banks or other professional services, transactions are predominantly handled online. Most respondents believe that this can present a challenge for older people without smartphones and can contribute to loneliness as digital connections are not a suitable replacement for in-person conversations.

“I think online is great but I still like to talk to somebody.” (Group 1)

“People are losing the art of conversation.” (Group 1)

Employment

Respondents in Group 1 varied in occupation, with some individuals retired, others in management positions in the business and energy sector, and a couple of individuals holding local jobs in teaching and dog boarding. The respondents in management positions admitted that career progression is likely more limited in rural areas due to travel into their central offices taking over three hours. A promotion would require more frequent travel which could undermine their work/life balance.

“Future progression is limited without any more moves.” (Group 1)

“There’s less promotion opportunities now because everything is really aimed at the central belt.” (Group 1)

Group 2 also varied in profession. Respondents included an author, chartered surveyor, project manager, carer, and workers in the agricultural, recycling, and banking compliance sectors. Most respondents were certain that they could maintain their current jobs after moving due to the opportunities of remote or hybrid work.

“I think I would travel less if I moved more rural because I would be more organised.” (Group 2)

In Group 1, a consensus emerged that everyone wants to support local businesses. However, some respondents identified that when it comes to renovating homes or undertaking maintenance, it can be challenging to find local workers who are willing and available to undertake a job.

Housing

Most respondents in Group 2 identified that moving into a rural area could be challenging due to the shortage of houses on the market and the unexpected higher prices associated with low supply. One respondent suggested that they would want to trial living in the area for a few months before committing completely to the move.

“I would maybe rent somewhere for three to six months, just to make sure that this is something I want to do.” (Group 2)

Respondents in Group 1 explained that this problem is exacerbated by the ‘closed shop’ nature of rural communities. Several of the respondents struggled to purchase their house, with one respondent revealing that the houses they placed bids on were repeatedly sold to local people instead.

“They were really keen to keep local people in local properties.” (Group 1)

Summary of Key Points

To what extent do Digital Connectivity and Physical Mobility (i.e. transport) impact on location decisions for people and businesses?

• Pull factors motivating moves to rural areas identified by the focus groups related to quality of life and community aspects of rural life. For returners the presence of family also played a role. Push factors from urban areas included demographic changes and an escape from increased urbanisation.
• Challenges noted by recent movers included concerns about disruption due to bad weather in winter months, as well as a lack of privacy. People looking to move were concerned about response from the existing community.
• People in rural areas acknowledged that poor connectivity could act as a barrier. Connectivity challenges were noted in connection with excessive car reliance and low public transport frequency, especially for bus.
• Access to supermarkets was limited, with residents in rural areas quoting distances to the nearest supermarket up to 40 miles. The importance of local and farm shops in supplying local residents was emphasised.
• Quality of schools and healthcare services was generally perceived as high, although some participants expressed concerns over their ability to travel to in person appointments. The role of the local community in developing contingency plans for medical emergencies was noted.
• Lack of childcare and absence of nearby family in this context were cited as a barrier to employment.
• Participants who had recently moved to rural areas unanimously noted challenges with standard internet and mobile phone connectivity. These resulted in additional costs to pay for satellite connections or boosters, as well as impacting on their ability to work effectively. Challenges accessing digital services and increased loneliness were noted as risks for old people.
• Career progression was perceived as more limited for those working remotely.
• Challenges over accessing housing were noted by recent movers and those looking to move. Prioritisation of locals in house sales was noted as a factor.

Survey Responses

Methodology

An online market research panel, Dynata Global UK Ltd, were commissioned to complete the online survey, they invited a representative profile of their panellists to complete a 10-minute questionnaire. The survey was live between the 7^th and 19^th June 2023.

Overall, 752 surveys were completed across Scotland. Table 3‑1 shows the proportions achieved for age, gender and urban / rural residency compared to census data. Survey outcomes were within 2% of the census data. Table 3‑1 shows the level of variation using 95% confidence limits for a view shared by 50% of the population.

Table 3‑1: Demographic Profile

Quota	Census	Survey	Confidence Interval (+/-)
Age: 18 to 34	27%	26%	7.0%
Age: 35 to 54	32%	34%	6.1%
Age: 55+	41%	39%	5.7%
Gender: Male	48%	45%	5.3%
Gender: Female	52%	54%	4.9%
Gender: In another way / prefer not to say	---	1%	---
Residency: Urban	82%	71%	4.2%
Residency: Rural	18%	28%	6.8%
Residency: Don’t know	---	1%	---
Totals	4,454,919	752	3.6%

Source: National Records of Scotland: Mid-2021 Population Estimates

56% of residents who completed the survey were working, 18% not working, and 26% retired. Appendix A shows the spread of responses for each of the 32 Council areas, compared to census data.

Data was analysed using IBM SPSS software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Statistical significance testing was completed at the 95% confidence level. Where results are reported as different between sub samples, this means the differences are significant at the 95% confidence level.

Frequency of Working from Home

Table 3‑2 shows that of the 420 residents who worked, 50% worked from home at least one day a week, with 26% working from home four or five days a week.

Table 3‑2: Frequency of working from home

Frequency	Age 18-34	Age 35-54	Age 55+	Total
Five days a week or more	11%	21%	20%	17%
Four days a week	12%	8%	9%	9%
Three days a week	6%	13%	4%	9%
Two days a week	15%	9%	5%	10%
One day a week	6%	4%	3%	4%
Occasionally, less than one day a week	10%	8%	8%	9%
Never, I do not work from home	40%	38%	53%	41%
Base (4 respondents did not provide their age)	144	192	80	420

Current Location

The questionnaire first sought to understand the distribution of respondents across the various types of areas to live in. This is shown below in Table 3‑3. As may be expected, the most common response was within an urban area, which accounted for 46% of overall respondents, compared to 26% for small towns, and 29% for rural areas.

Table 3‑3: Location of residence

Current location	Proportion
Large urban area (population of 125,000 and over)	22%
Other urban area (population between 10,000 and 124,999)	24%
Accessible small town (population between 3,000 to 9,999 and a drive time of LESS THAN 30 minutes to an urban area)	19%
Remote small town (population between 3,000 to 9,999 and a drive time of MORE THAN 30 minutes to an urban area)	7%
Accessible rural area (population below 3,000 and a drive time of LESS THAN 30 minutes to an urban area)	20%
Remote rural area (population below 3,000 and a drive time of MORE THAN 30 minutes to an urban area)	9%
Don't know	1%
Base	752

Three-fifths (61%) owned their home (with or without a mortgage), 31% were in rental accommodation, and 8% lived with parents or in a room in a shared house.

Table 3‑4: Breakdown of living situation of respondents

Residence status	Age 18-34	Age 35-54	Age 55+	Proportion
Own my home outright	7%	20%	73%	37%
Own my home with a mortgage	26%	41%	8%	24%
Part-own through shared ownership	1%	1%	0%	1%
Live with parents/family (paying rent or rent-free)	19%	2%	1%	7%
Rent from a local authority / housing association	14%	17%	11%	14%
Rent a house from a private landlord	21%	13%	6%	12%
Rent a flat/apartment from a private landlord	12%	3%	0%	4%
Rent a room in a shared house	2%	0%	0%	1%
Other (please specify)	0%	0%	1%	1%
Base 7 respondents did not provide their age	198	255	292	752

Highly rated features of where they currently live

Respondents were asked to rate the quality of various aspects of living where they currently live. Green or open spaces nearby (86%), Access to towns and cities (77%), Mobile phone connectivity (77%) and Broadband \ internet connectivity and reliability including on a smartphone (75%) all scored very highly overall. Full results are presented in Table 3‑5, sorted in descending order of total of “very good” and “good”.

Table 3‑5: Rating of features of where they currently live

Feature	Very Good	Good	Neither Good nor Poor	Poor	Very Poor	Don’t know
Green or open spaces nearby	49%	37%	8%	5%	1%	0%
Access to towns and cities	31%	46%	13%	7%	2%	0%
Mobile phone connectivity	28%	49%	13%	8%	3%	1%
Broadband/internet connectivity and reliability including on a smartphone	27%	48%	14%	6%	5%	1%
Access to my place of work	27%	47%	15%	6%	3%	2%
Broadband/internet speed including on a smartphone	25%	49%	15%	5%	5%	1%
Schools in the area	23%	50%	13%	4%	2%	9%
Access to shopping and amenities	23%	41%	17%	14%	4%	0%
Low levels of crime	20%	42%	21%	10%	5%	2%
Access to higher education	21%	40%	19%	8%	3%	8%
Access to hospitals for regular healthcare	19%	41%	23%	12%	4%	1%
Being close to friends and family	21%	39%	21%	10%	8%	1%
Access to emergency healthcare	20%	40%	22%	13%	4%	2%
Access to places for leisure	17%	40%	21%	15%	5%	1%
Low levels of anti-social behaviour	20%	37%	23%	12%	6%	2%
Having a frequent and reliable public transport service	18%	36%	16%	17%	12%	2%
Having an affordable public transport network	18%	34%	19%	17%	9%	3%
Availability of homes in the area	9%	33%	29%	19%	6%	5%
Affordability of homes in the area	9%	30%	25%	21%	10%	4%
Options for childcare/childcare providers	8%	29%	20%	6%	3%	34%

Base: all respondents (n=752)

However, there were some significant differences when comparing those that live in urban and rural areas: whereas access to towns and cities, mobile phone connectivity, broadband and internet connectivity, and broadband and internet speed all have over 80% of urban respondents classifying the quality as good, for rural respondents, none of these features have over 60% classifying them as good.

Table 3‑6a: Highest rated features in URBAN Areas (either good or very good)

Highest rated features	Urban	Rural
Access to towns and cities	84%	57%
Mobile phone connectivity	83%	60%
Green or open spaces nearby	82%	95%
Broadband/internet connectivity and reliability including on a smartphone	81%	60%
Broadband/internet speed including on a smartphone	80%	59%

Apart from the obvious green and open spaces the highest rated attributes in rural areas were low levels of crime and low levels of anti-social behaviour (all over 75%) compared to less than 60% of those living in urban areas.

Table 3‑7b: Highest rated features in RURAL Areas (either good or very good)

Highest rated features	Urban	Rural
Green or open spaces nearby	82%	95%
Low levels of crime	56%	77%
Low levels of anti-social behaviour	50%	75%

Low rated features of where they currently live

Following on from the previous section, this section considers respondents’ lowest rated aspects of living where they currently live. For simplicity, the “very poor” and “poor” categories have been combined into a single poor category in Table 3‑8.

One of the biggest issues identified by residents of rural areas was the poor-quality levels of frequent and reliable public transport services, with 52% classifying this as poor, compared to only 19% of respondents in urban areas. Affordable public transport, availability of homes, and access to shopping and amenities were also rated considerably worse in rural areas when compared to urban areas. However, anti-social behaviour was identified as more of an issue by residents of urban areas than those living in rural areas.

Table 3‑8: Poorly rated features split by location of residence (either poor or very poor)

Lowest rated features	Urban	Rural
Affordability of homes in the area	31%	34%
Having a frequent and reliable public transport service	19%	52%
Having an affordable public transport network	20%	42%
Availability of homes in the area	22%	33%
Access to places for leisure	18%	26%
Low levels of anti-social behaviour	22%	9%
Access to shopping and amenities	14%	29%

Will consider a move to rural areas

Further questions in the survey gauged attitudes towards moving home and identifying which respondents would consider moving to a rural area. Table 3‑9 shows the proportion of respondents who would consider moving to rural areas and those who would only move to an urban area. Overall, around half (48%) would consider moving, but only 10% would consider moving to a rural area.

Table 3‑9: Respondents potential moves

	Age 18-34	Age 35-54	Age 55+	Proportion
Would consider moving to a rural area	9%	13%	10%	10%
Would only move to an urban area	67%	39%	18%	38%
Don’t know	4%	4%	2%	3%
Definitely will not move	21%	45%	71%	49%
Base (7 respondents did not provide their age)	198	255	292	752

 

Table 3‑10: Respondents potential moves split by current area of residence

	Proportion
Currently live in an urban area and would consider moving to a rural area	4%
Currently live in a rural area and would stay in a rural area	6%
Currently live in an urban area and would stay in an urban area	33%
Currently live in a rural area and would consider moving to an urban area	5%
Don’t know	4%
Definitely will not move	48%
Base	752

Some of the key findings are as follows:

• 10% would consider having their next home in a rural area (20% of those who would ever move).
• 4% of respondents live in an urban area and would consider moving to a rural area (8% of those who would move).
• 6% live in a rural area and would stay in a rural area (12% of those who would move).
• 5% live in a rural area and would consider an urban area (10% of those who would move).
• Age made no substantial difference to those who would consider moving to a rural area.

67% of 18-34-year-olds would only consider moving to an urban area and 71% of respondents aged 55+ would not move home.

Criteria for moving home

Respondents were asked about their top five criteria for moving home, with the same aspects considered as in Table 3‑5. Below in Table 3‑11, a breakdown by current location of urban and rural and respondent age is provided for each criterion.

Table 3‑11: Top five criteria for choosing a new place to live

Criteria	Age 18-34	Age 35-54	Age 55+	Urban Residents	Rural Residents	Total
Green or open spaces nearby	31%	47%	55%	42%	57%	46%
Affordability of homes in the area	48%	42%	38%	42%	40%	42%
Low levels of crime	39%	40%	39%	41%	36%	39%
Being close to friends and family	34%	35%	38%	36%	36%	36%
Access to shopping and amenities	34%	31%	39%	34%	37%	35%
Low levels of anti-social behaviour	23%	37%	37%	34%	32%	33%
Access to hospitals for regular healthcare	22%	21%	47%	28%	40%	32%
Having a frequent and reliable public transport service	22%	23%	41%	29%	33%	30%
Access to towns and cities	32%	27%	22%	26%	27%	27%
Broadband/internet connectivity and reliability	23%	25%	26%	24%	27%	25%
Access to emergency healthcare	17%	16%	26%	20%	20%	20%
Access to places for socialising, leisure, and culture	27%	16%	19%	22%	15%	20%
Having an affordable public transport network	20%	23%	17%	21%	17%	20%
Availability of homes in the area	19%	20%	17%	18%	21%	19%
Broadband/internet speed	31%	26%	3%	18%	19%	18%
Access to my place of work, when not working from home	17%	22%	16%	21%	11%	18%
Schools in the area	26%	18%	4%	17%	10%	15%
Mobile phone connectivity	12%	12%	9%	11%	10%	11%
Returning to a place I grew up in	4%	8%	5%	6%	6%	6%
Access to higher education	10%	5%	1%	5%	4%	5%
Options for childcare/childcare providers	10%	4%	0%	5%	1%	4%
Base	198	255	292	531	212	752

Five of the top 6 most important criteria were the same for urban and rural residents: green or open spaces nearby; affordability of homes in the area; low levels of crime; being close to friends and family; and access to shopping and amenities. Similarly, green or open spaces nearby; affordability of homes in the area; low levels of crime were important criteria for respondents irrespective of their age.

Some of the key findings where views differed by group are as follows:

• Access to hospitals for regular healthcare and access to greenspaces were considered more essential by rural than by urban respondents.
• Access to their place of work, when not working from home was more important to urban than to rural residents.
• Respondents aged 55+ had a higher priority for access to hospitals for regular healthcare (47%) compared to other age groups (22% of 18-to-34-year olds and 21% of 35-to-54 year olds).
• Respondents in the 35-54 and 55+ age groups also valued access to greenspaces more highly than those aged 18-34.
• Similarly, respondents aged 55+ felt a frequent and reliable public transport service was a priority compared to younger age groups (41% of 55+ year olds compared with 22% of 18-to-34 year olds and 23% of 35-to-54 year olds).
• Younger age groups placed higher value on broadband /internet speeds with 31% of 18-34 year olds, 26% of 35-54 year olds and 3% of over 55 year olds identifying this as one of their top criteria. They also placed greater emphasis on the importance of affordability of homes (48%), availability of schools (22%) and childcare options (10%) than older demographics.
• 37% each of respondents aged 35-54 years old and 55+ gave a priority to low levels of anti-social behaviour, more than younger people aged 18-34 years old (23%).
• Access to towns and cities was a higher priority for 18-to-34 year olds (32%) compared with respondents aged 55+ (22%).

Men and women agreed on five of the top six criteria that respondents felt were most important when choosing a place to live. The only significant differences were:

• More women than men felt being close to family and friends was important (40% and 31% respectively).
• More men than women felt low levels of anti-social behaviour was important (38% and 29% respectively).

Expectations of living in remote rural areas

Table 3‑12 shows the proportion of respondents who agree with various statements about remote rural living split by current area of residence, with records for “strongly agree” and “agree” combined. Table 3‑13 shows similar information but for respondents who disagree with the statements. This highlights some aspects where those who currently reside in urban areas may perceive rural living differently to those who currently reside in rural areas.

Whilst both current urban and rural residents’ opinions generally align on most issues, urban residents perceive mobile phone and internet connectivity, access to towns and cities, continuing current employment, access to higher education, childcare provisions, and schools to be a bigger problem than rural residents. On the other hand, rural residents identified a greater problem with housing availability than urban residents.

Looking at the totals, only 33% of respondents thought it would be easy to travel via public transport, compared to 68% who thought it would be easy to travel by car, which highlights the perception with public transport in rural areas. Another concern of respondents was employment, with only 17% of respondents thinking it would be easy to find new employment opportunities and 16% thinking there are sufficient employment opportunities.

Table 3‑12: Respondents who agree with statement about remote rural areas (sorted by total agree)

	Urban Residents	Rural Residents	Total
It would be easy to travel to towns and villages by car	66%	72%	68%
Houses in remote rural areas are better value for money compared to urban areas	53%	52%	53%
I would have no concerns about schools in a remote rural area	42%	43%	42%
Mobile phone connectivity is sufficient to meet my needs in remote rural areas	38%	51%	42%
It would be easy to continue my current employment in a remote rural area (if in employment)	38%	51%	41%
Broadband / internet connectivity is sufficient to meet my needs in remote rural areas	37%	49%	40%
I would have no concerns about access to higher education	33%	39%	35%
It would be easy to travel to towns and villages by public transport	35%	28%	33%
There would be enough options for entertainment and socialising in a remote rural area	29%	33%	30%
There are enough houses to choose from in remote rural areas	33%	23%	30%
I would have no concerns about access to healthcare, including emergency healthcare	28%	32%	29%
I would have no concerns about childcare provision in a remote rural area	29%	29%	29%
It would be easy to find new employment in a remote rural area (if in employment)	19%	13%	17%
There are enough employment opportunities living in a remote rural area	16%	15%	16%
Base	531	212	752

 

Table 3‑13: Respondents who disagree with statement about remote rural areas (sorted by total disagree)

	Urban Residents	Rural Residents	Total
It would be easy to find new employment in a remote rural area (if in employment)	53%	57%	54%
There are enough employment opportunities living in a remote rural area	50%	53%	51%
I would have no concerns about access to healthcare, including emergency healthcare	47%	42%	45%
It would be easy to travel to towns and villages by public transport	41%	52%	44%
There are enough houses to choose from in remote rural areas	39%	49%	42%
There would be enough options for entertainment and socialising in a remote rural area	44%	35%	41%
It would be easy to continue my current employment in a remote rural area (if in employment)	42%	29%	39%
I would have no concerns about access to higher education	33%	20%	30%
Mobile phone connectivity is sufficient to meet my needs in remote rural areas	31%	22%	28%
I would have no concerns about childcare provision in a remote rural area	31%	20%	28%
Broadband/internet connectivity is sufficient to meet my needs in remote rural areas	29%	23%	28%
I would have no concerns about schools in a remote rural area	26%	17%	24%
Houses in remote rural areas are better value for money compared to urban areas	16%	15%	16%
It would be easy to travel to towns and villages by car	14%	13%	14%
Base	531	212	752

Acceptance of digital technology

As the previous question highlighted potential concerns about public transport connectivity from respondents, the subsequent question regarding use of digital technology is particularly pertinent. Table 3‑14 gives the proportion of respondents who found specific uses for digital technology acceptable or unacceptable. Whilst most respondents found it acceptable to use digital technology for shopping (minimum across shopping categories 67%) and watching sport/entertainment (74%), spending time with family and friends was deemed less acceptable, with only 43% of respondents classifying it as such.

Table 3‑14: Acceptability of online or telephone as a replacement for face to face contact

Column heading	Acceptable	Not Acceptable
Watching sport/entertainment	74%	8%
Shopping for household technology such as a TV, fridge/freeze	73%	12%
Shopping for clothes	69%	14%
Shopping for food	67%	20%
Work	54%	18%
Having medical appointments	49%	33%
Accessing education	46%	25%
Spending time with family and friends	44%	36%

Base: all respondents (n=752)

Table 3‑15 gives a breakdown of respondents who found specific uses for digital technology acceptable by age group. Spending time with family and friends was the only interaction where there was no significant difference in the proportions who felt it was acceptable to replace face to face with online or telephone, irrespective of age group.

Table 3‑15: Age groups accepting online or telephone as a replacement for face to face contact

	Age 18-34	Age 35-54	Age 55+	Total
Watching sport/entertainment	85%	76%	64%	74%
Shopping for household technology such as a TV, fridge/freeze	79%	76%	67%	73%
Shopping for clothes	84%	71%	58%	69%
Shopping for food	80%	67%	58%	67%
Work	68%	62%	37%	54%
Having medical appointments	55%	48%	45%	49%
Accessing education	61%	50%	32%	46%
Spending time with family and friends	45%	47%	38%	44%
Base	198	255	292	752

Base: all respondents (n=752) Excludes 7 respondents who did not provide their age

Some of the key findings where views differed by age group are as follows:

• More 18-to-34 year olds than those aged 55+ were likely to feel it was acceptable to interact online or on the telephone than face to face, irrespective of the purpose of the interaction, with the exception of spending time with family and friends.
• More 35-to-54 year olds than those aged 55+ were likely to feel it was acceptable to interact online or on the telephone than face to face for all interactions with the exception of medical appointments.
• More 18-to-34 year olds than 35-to-54 year olds were likely to feel it was acceptable to interact online or on the telephone than face to face when: watching sport or entertainment, shopping for clothes or food, and accessing education.

Summary of Key Points

To what extent do Digital Connectivity and Physical Mobility (i.e. transport) impact on location decisions for people and businesses?

• Local amenities rated as good or very good by residents in their areas, included green or open spaces nearby (86%), access to towns and cities (77%), mobile phone connectivity (77%), broadband/internet connectivity (75%), access to place of work (74%) and broadband/internet speed (74%).
• A larger proportion of rural residents rated low levels of anti-social behaviour (by 25 percentage points), low levels of crime (by 21 percentage points) and vicinity to greenspaces (by 13 percentage points) in rural areas to be either good or very good.
• A higher proportion of rural residents rated public transport frequency and reliability (by 33 percentage point), public transport affordability (by 22 percentage points), access to shopping and amenities (by 15 percentage points) and availability of homes (by 11 percentage points) in their area as poor or very poor.
• 10% of respondents said they would consider having their next home in a rural area.
• A higher proportion of those who would consider moving to a rural area already live in rural areas, with 12% of those who would move living in a rural area and intending to stay in such areas and 8% of those who would move living in urban areas and considering to move to a rural area.
• The top five criteria for choosing a new place to live were vicinity to greenspaces (46%), affordability of homes (42%), low levels of crime (39%), being close to friends and family (36%) and access to shopping and amenities (35%).
• There were differences in the location choice factors considered by urban and rural residents. Respondents were asked to state their top five criteria for choosing a new place to live. While there was substantial alignment on many factors, the following criteria were quoted by a substantially higher proportion of rural than of urban residents, vicinity to green or open spaces (by 15 percentage points) and access to hospitals (by 12 percentage points). Urban residents rated access to place of work more highly (by 10 percentage points).
• On many issues perceptions of living in remote rural areas aligned between urban and rural respondents. However, a higher proportion of urban respondents perceived mobile phone connectivity (+13 percentage points), continuing current employment (+13 percentage points), internet connectivity (+12 percentage points), access to higher education, childcare provisions, and schools to be a bigger problem than rural residents. A larger proportion of rural residents felt housing availability is likely to be a problem in remote rural areas (by 10 percentage points).
• A higher proportion of respondents aged 55+ rated access to frequent and reliable public transport as a priority, higher by 19 percentage points compared with those aged 18-34 and by 18 percentage points compared with those aged 35-54.
• Younger age groups placed greater importance on broadband and internet speed, with 31% of 18-34 year olds, 26% of 35-54 year olds and only 3% of those aged 55+ rating this as one of their top criteria. There was little difference in the value different age groups placed on the reliability of the connection.
• Access to towns and cities, availability of schools and childcare was also more important to those aged 18-34. By contrast older demographics tended to value access to hospitals, access to greenspaces and low levels of anti-social behaviour more highly.

To what extent are Digital Connectivity and Physical Mobility (i.e. transport) substitutable?

• Digital substitution was rated as acceptable or very acceptable high for watching sports and entertainment (74%) and shopping (67%+, depending on commodity).
• Acceptance was less than 50% for medical appointments (49%), accessing education (46%) and spending time with friends and family (44%).
• Respondents aged 18-to-34-year-olds felt it was more acceptable to substitute face to face contact with interactions online or by telephone than those aged 55+, irrespective of the purpose of the interaction, with the exception of spending time with family and friends.
• Remote or hybrid working was more common for those aged 18-54 than for older age groups, with 53% of respondents in work and aged 55+, 40% of those aged 18-34 and 38% of those aged 35-54 saying that they never worked from home. However, exclusive remote working was less common in the 18-34 age bracket. 11% of working respondents aged 18-34, 21% aged 35-54 and 20% of respondents aged 55+ said they worked from home 5 days a week or more.