In our quest to boost local pride in place -including as the focus of new U.K. Government funding- how much thought do we give to the receptiveness of people within a place? In this post, as part of the wider, accompanying research, we focus on the potential for pride in youthful and disadvantaged places, as examples of two of the most challenging sections of communities to impress.
National data developed as local benchmark
Our ambition in undertaking this research and development, is to make use of extensive and reliable national data to provide local understanding and benchmarks that might be applied in initiatives seeking to improve local pride in place. By creating benchmarks that focus on the engagement and perceptions of local residents, our aim is to help give greater weight to such considerations as part of local programmes. Our belief is that you can enhance the look of places, though you cannot be successful in boosting pride in place without focusing on engagement and local sentiments.
This summary and the wider work it is drawn from, is gleaned from detailed analysis undertaken by People & Places of some of the findings from 175,000 responses to the Government’s 2024-25 Community Life Survey, published in December 2025. Through this analysis we have developed an understanding and four key performance indicators for the underlying components for creating a greater sense of pride in place. We use them here to help understand pride in youthful and disadvantaged places -and the impacts on the potential to enhance the pride felt within three distinctive places as part of our preliminary work in Norfolk.
Indicators of community engagement & perceptions of place
In focusing on the pride in youthful and disadvantaged places, amongst other communities, we start from the premise that pride can be best enhanced by understanding and working with the people, more than the place alone. Obvious perhaps, and yet as place professionals how often is our focus on improving things within a place, perhaps guided by the priorities of the easiest voices to hear?
We have used data readily available through the extensive Community Life Survey, to create a suite of four key performance indicators (KPIs) of the potential for pride in place amongst local people. The idea is that this will help address the imbalance we have in focusing on people within place and provide insights that we can apply in enhancing pride in youthful and disadvantaged places, and other sections of communities.
This set of four indicators that we have created comprises:
i. Civic engagement
The level of combined civic engagement measured in the Community Life Survey as a combination of civic participation, consultation and community activism. The level of combined civic engagement by a section of the community or across a place, is presented as a key derterminent of people’s receptiveness for sentiments of enhanced pride in place. If people feel engaged in decisions about the place where they live or active, the more likely they are to be welcoming of or involved in, making positive changes. To feel proud, you have to first feel involved.
ii. Civic influence
The Community Life Survey includes various indicators of communities’ relationship with civic decision-making. After considering various combinations of these indicators, we settled on a key combination of the difference between people’s experience and expectations for influencing local decisions. By focusing on the gap between experience and expectations in influencing decisions, our key indicator can offer different interpretations including that high involvement and low expectations leads to the most positive values, as may often be the case in disadvanted communities. We see this as a predictor of frustration with or acceptance of, civic decision-making and welcome having at least one indicator that generates positive measures for pride in youthful and disadvantaged places.
iii. Place appeal
This key performance indicator brings together three sets of measures from the Community Life Survey about the appeal of an area to its residents. It combines local sentiments about perceived attractiveness of where they live; satisfaction with what it offers them; and whether they feel it got better over the last two years. As such it importantly considers places from the residents’ perspectives. Interventions that enhance the qualities of a place as defined by professionals, will not in themselves score well unless local residents feel their local area’s appeal has increased. This means winning the hearts and minds, and overcoming any online scepticsm, for example, by advocates of ‘negative nostalgia’.
iv. Place attachment
This indicator of receptiveness to boosting speople’s pride in place uses the answers to three questions measuring feelings of attachment towards local areas. This includes if people are proud to live in the local area; whether in five years’ time they would like to still be living in my local area; and would they recommend it to others as a good place to live. Again, this indicator is about perceptions and focuses on the sentiments of residents. Pride rarely comes from simply improving the visitor experiennce of a place though from changes that add to existing local attachment.
We use these measures to underpin analysis for pride in place development projects and strategy preparation. This understanding includes evidence relating to residents from different age groups, across socio-economic sectors and demographic groups, as well as all local authorit areas of England. Here, we focus on what it reveals about a younger view on pride in place, followed by the perspective from disdvantaged areas and then a comparison across different types of places.
1. A younger connection to place
a. Challenging levels of civic engagement
In designing community engagement plans, it is important to understand that younger audiences are more challenging to involve in traditional ways. Whilst on average 41% of residents are engaged in decision-making about their local area, this drops to 33% for 16 to 24 year-olds because of their modest levels of engagement in civic consultation and participation.
b. Modest expectations of influence
Younger audiences are less invested in places though also less likely to be disgruntled about not being engaged. This is seen in the narrow gap between 16 to 24 year-old’s more limited experience of exerting influence and modest expectations about its importance.
c. People’s aging attachment to places
When it comes to people’s attachment to their local area, the very strong indication is that it is a relationship that strengthens with age. Only around half of 16 to 24-year-olds are either proud of or would recommend where they live to others. Their transiency is emphasised by the fact that little more than a third would like to be living locally in 5 years’ time.
d. Youth’s limited pride prompts progress
Younger people’s more limited pride in place and its past, appears to make them more welcoming of progress. Just under half of 16 to 24-year-olds think that their local area is attractive and less than two-thirds are satisfied with it as a place to live. They are, however, the second most positive age group in their perception of recent changes to local areas -only bettered by 25 to 34-year olds.
2. The perspective from a point of disdvantage
a. Disadvantaged and disengaged
Broadly speaking, the more socially and economically disadvantaged you are, the more likely you are to be disengaged and perhaps feeling ‘unheard’. Adults living in the most deprived areas were the least likely to be involved in combined civic engagement, due to low levels of involvement in civic participation and consultation. Such differences were not only limited to where people live, though also distinguishable by type of employment and ‘geodemographic’ category.
b. Modest expectations more likely met
Struggling communities have less of a difference between their experiences and expectations of civic influence. It is similar for the least advantaged employment and ‘geodemographic’ categories. Whilst this can be interpreted in different ways, it means that the population of disadvantaged areas is closer to having its expectations for civic influence met and is likely to feel less frustrated as a result.
c. Strikingly lower local area appeal
Less prosperous communities have notably more negative perceptions of the appeal of their local areas, and because of this are marginally more welcoming of change. Amongst the indicators selected, there is a staggering 50% difference in perceptions about their local area’s attractiveness between residents of deprived areas, compared to those of the most advantaged areas. The gap narrows for satisfaction with local areas though still shows a 25% difference.
d. Weaker local attachment
The indication from the analysis is that attachments to place are much weaker in communities and amongst groups facing social and economic challenges. There is a 38% difference between the average of the indicators for attachment in disadvantaged areas. Differences between geodemographic categories are almost as marked. This is very different from some research elsewhere that suggests attachment is not necessarily determined by prosperity.
3. Differences between three distinctive communities
I use these here to structure a summary for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk Local Authorities:
a. Civic engagement increasing with age and prosperity
North Norfolk is the most positive of all Norfolk local authorities for civic engagement as might be expected of a prosperous area with a relatively old population. Likewise, Great Yarmouth is on-trend with expectations for areas with a younger population and pockets of deprivation. Higher than predicted levels of civic participation in Norwich appear to skew the findings.
b. Disadvantage limiting expectations of influence
Great Yarmouth and Norwich are both largely in-line with the predicted balance between residents’ experience and expectations of civic influence based on their younger than average age profiles and pockets of disadvantage. Both include Government Pride in Place Programme priority areas. North Norfolk residents have lower than predicted expectations of influence.
c. Less appealing areas embracing change
Norwich and Great Yarmouth are the only Norfolk areas perceived as less attractive than the national average. In-line with expectations they are also the areas where residents are most embracing of change. North Norfolk has a highly positive appeal for its residents that is only moderated by near average perceptions of recent positive change.
d. Unattached to Norwich -or not!
Maybe to the surprise of people casually acquainted with its city centre, Norwich shows below average scores for attachment across the board and is the only Norfolk local authority area with a markedly negative indicator for this quality overall. This is on-trend for areas with a younger population with areas of deprivation. In contrast, North Norfolk residents show positive attachment, because they are proud to live there, would recommend the area and would hope to live there is 5 years’ time. Great Yarmouth fares better than expected, except for low people’s aspirations for where they want to live in 5 years’ time.
This initial analysis suggests that the indicators we have developed are a good basis for local conversations about residents’ potential for increased pride in place.
By being aware of the different requirements for engaging groups such as young people and framing their likely responses, we begin to develop a more tailored approach to boosting pride in place and other aspects of shaping local areas. Too often, people talk about local communities as if they are an homegenous group that will engage and respond in a uniform way.
Improving local influence on decision-making
When presented with a list of potential ways in which they could influence decisions in their local area, the most-commonly selected options were ‘sign an online petition’, ‘contact the local council/council official’, ‘contact my local councillor’, and ‘contact my MP’.
When asked what would make it easier for them to influence decisions affecting their local area, the most popular responses were ‘if I knew what issues were being considered’, ‘if I could give my opinion online/by email’, ‘if the council got in touch with me and asked me’, and ‘if I had more time’.
The rudementary nature of these responses is partly explained by the prompts provided, though it does also indicate that people’s initial expectations about influence are not demanding to fulfill.
Reasons for feeling proud of a local area
When asked their reasons for feeling proud of their local area, the most common reasons given in 2024/25 Community Life Survey, was that the area felt safe, the presence of green and natural spaces and that people were respectful and friendly. Other factors mentioned by at least three in ten adults included good transport links, a good range of shops and facilities, and a strong sense of community.
When some respondents were asked why they did feel proud to live in the local area, the most common reasons given were disrespectful or troublesome people, that the area is run down, and safety concerns. Other factors mentioned included lack of community and limited activities or things to do.
These answers, although given in response to prompts, are a reminder of the breadth of isuues that affect how people feel about where they live, including the attitudes and behaviour of their neighbours.
