PROCOL UK Bulletin: Prosperity in and around London's Olympic Park by The Bartlett

July 2024

Prosperity in and around London’s Olympic Park

Longitudinal Study

Authored by: Saffron Woodcraft, Jose Izcue-Gana, Georgios Melios, Nikolaos Tzivanakis, Elisabetta Pietrostefani, Gillian Chan, Zaafir Hasan and Jorge Perez

About this bulletin

This bulletin reports on levels of prosperity in six Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in, and on the fringes of, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (QEOP) one of London’s largest regeneration areas. The six LSOAs are: Chobham Manor, East Village, International Quarter London (IQL); and Pudding Mill East in Newham; Hackney Wick and East Wick; and Gascoyne Estate in the London Borough of Hackney; Fish Island and Sweetwater in Tower Hamlets; Leyton in Waltham Forest.

They include new neighbourhoods constructed as part of the Olympic Legacy regeneration programme (Chobham Manor, East Village, International Quarter London (IQL); Pudding Mill East; East Wick; Sweetwater), and established neighbourhoods (Hackney Wick; Gascoyne Estate; Fish Island; and Leyton).

The bulletin uses data from the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 10-year study, including household survey data collected between December 2021 and June 2022, and structural equation modelling to report on prosperity in each of the six areas individually and as a whole.

Overview

What?

The study tracks prosperity using the Citizen Prosperity Index - new metrics co-designed with citizen social scientists based on in-depth research about lived experiences and local determinants of prosperity in east London. It also addresses the lack of research around the long-term impacts of regeneration on prosperity, life chances, and quality of life, while offering a hyper-local look at who benefits and how from regeneration investments.

Where?

15 areas in 5 east London boroughs.

When?

3 waves of data collection between 2021–2031

How?

Uses a mixed methods approach that combines household surveys with qualitative research undertaken by citizen social scientists - local residents employed and trained by the UCL Citizen Science Academy to work and social scientists.

Main findings

Citizen Prosperity Index data indicates livelihood insecurity is becoming entrenched in east London. Gender and ethnicity are significant factors - female residents of black and mixed ethnicities report lower incomes in all six LSOAs discussed in this bulletin.

Housing affordability is a challenge in new and established neighbourhoods in and around the Olympic Park (a finding common to all research sites in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 longitudinal study), as is access to key basic services that support livelihood security, such as public transport, digital inclusion, and affordable childcare.

Hyper-local Citizen Prosperity Index data identifies the particular pressure points that local communities are experiencing and their strengths. Aggregate secondary data of the kind that currently informs regeneration strategies masks the hyper-local nature of these experiences and the intersectional complexities that affect outcomes for individuals from different backgrounds.

Distinct spatial patterns of livelihood inequalities can be seen in the six LSOAs:

– Gascoyne Estate (Hackney) has more childhood poverty and worse adolescent transitions to work and study compared to other sites in the study.

– Financial stress is particularly acute in Leyton (Waltham Forest), where food and energy insecurity are higher than other areas in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 longitudinal study, as many residents report difficulty keeping their accommodation warm in winter. However, Leyton has a high score for feelings of security about the future, meaning that people say they have support networks to draw on in times of need, and that they perceive a low risk of displacement due to housing affordability.

– Residents in Chobham Manor report the lowest feelings of security about the future, as 37% anticipate having to move out of the local area in the next year some of them due to housing costs.

– Livelihoods are noticeably more secure in Fish Island and Sweetwater, although housing affordability remains a challenge for residents.

All six LSOAs do well on the Health and Healthy Environments domain, but there are specific challenges in particular sites:

– Leyton has by far the highest levels of loneliness compared to all other 14 sites in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study, and higher levels of selfreported anxiety. In response to the question ‘how anxious did you feel yesterday’, Leyton scores worse than any other site in the study by at least 2 points on a 1-10 scale.

– Life satisfaction is lower for residents in Gascoyne Estate than any other LSOA in the study.

Satisfaction with education is relatively high across sites, although access to and take up of lifelong learning opportunities varies. There is marked variation in the Power Voice and Influence domain. Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, Fish Island and Sweetwater, and Gascoyne Estate show markedly lower scores on their perceived capacity to influence decisions in local area, compared to the other 3 sites. Pudding Mill East and the Gascoyne Estate have low Index scores for a sense of community, which reports on relationships with neighbours, trust in others, and sense of belonging.

Overview

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 (PieL) is a 10year study examining the prosperity of over 4,000 households in 15 areas of east London where largescale and long-term urban regeneration is driving rapid physical, economic, and social changes in local communities.

It is the first longitudinal study in the UK to use the Citizen Prosperity Index: a new way of measuring prosperity that reports on what matters to local communities. The Citizen Prosperity Index was co-designed with a team of citizen scientists based on in-depth qualitative research about lived experiences and local determinants of prosperity in east London1 Unlike traditional approaches to measuring prosperity that focus on household income and employment, the Citizen Prosperity Index has five domains: Foundations of Prosperity; Opportunities and Aspirations; Power, Voice, and Influence; Health and Healthy Environments; and Belonging, Connections and Leisure.

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 is a mixed methods study. It combines data from the Citizen Prosperity Index Household Survey and Obstacles to Prosperity qualitative research, undertaken by citizen scientists –local residents employed and trained by the UCL Citizen Science Academy to work as social scientists in their neighbourhoods. Data will be collected in three waves between 2021 and 2031.

Research questions

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 explores how the ‘prosperity gains’ from regeneration investments are shared in and between local communities. It looks at how regeneration affects the prosperity of people from different backgrounds and neighbourhoods in the longterm, asking:

• Who benefits and how?

• What are the obstacles to prosperity for different groups?

By examining these core questions, Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 aims to address specific gaps in knowledge about the long-term, hyper-local, and unequal impacts of regeneration on prosperity, life chances, and quality of life. See About the Study for a discussion of the knowledge gaps this research aims to address.

Research sites

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 examines the experiences of households in 15 areas that are part of, or neighbour, large-scale and long-term strategic regeneration programmes. The 15 areas have been selected because they include ‘established’ communities – places where households often experience multiple forms of deprivation and inequality, as well as ‘new’ mixed-income communities – places where new housing development and job opportunities are changing the demographic make-up of local areas. The 15 areas in the study are sites of rapid socio-economic change, having experienced deindustrialisation and population loss, followed by regeneration, economic transformation, repopulation and demographic change within mere decades.

Each of the 15 research sites is a Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) – small geographic areas with an average of approximately 1,500 residents or 650 households. Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 has adopted a small-area research design to address a lack of evidence about the hyper-local impacts and outcomes of urban regeneration. Evidence from four decades of regeneration in London shows that gains are not equitably shared². Strategic regeneration programmes often target ‘underdeveloped’ areas, often former industrial sites, where investments in housing, commercial spaces, and transport infrastructure are intended to drive economic development and job growth and deliver improved social outcomes such as tackling worklessness and housing need. Strategic regeneration sites are often surrounded by low-income neighbourhoods, where long-term residents struggle to access high-quality jobs created by new employers and are disproportionately affected by rising living costs linked to the redevelopment of affordable housing and the loss of affordable community and commercial spaces3.

The 15 LSOAs in the study are in 5 London Boroughs –Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Waltham Forest, and Barking & Dagenham – and span 4 Opportunity Areas where long-term urban regeneration is taking place. These are:

– The Olympic Legacy Opportunity Area (OA).

– Royal Docks and Beckton Riverside OA.

– Poplar Riverside OA.

– London Riverside OA.

This report focuses on six LSOAs in four London Boroughs that are in, and on the fringes of, the Olympic Park. London’s 2012 Olympic Legacy regeneration strategy, centres on the development of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, which aims to close the ‘prosperity gap’ between deprived east London neighbourhoods and other areas of the city, within 20 years of the London 2012 Games. Five new communities, schools, green spaces, and a new inclusive innovation district to drive job growth are being created in the Olympic Park.

LSOA / research site name London Borough

Chobham Manor, East Village, Newham

International Quarter London (IQL)

Pudding Mill East Newham

Hackney Wick and East Wick Hackney

Gascoyne Estate Hackney

Fish Island and Sweetwater Tower Hamlets

Leyton Waltham Forest

1 The Citizen Prosperity Index is based on empirical work from community-led research in five east London neighbourhoods and reflects issues of specific concern to individuals and communities in east London (Moore and Woodcraft 2019; Woodcraft and Anderson 2019).

2 Two decades of urban regeneration in London and other UK cities shows an uneven and inequitable distribution of gains from regeneration investments (Tallon 2013; Atkinson and Bridge 2010; Butler and Rustin 1996).

3 Low-income households are disproportionately affected by rising land values following the development of ‘vacant’ post-industrial areas (Imrie, Lees, and Raco 2009). This has been linked to increasing social inequalities (Poynter and MacRury 2009), displacement (Bernstock 2014; Watt 2013; Cohen 2013), and the suburbanisation of poverty (Bailey and Minton 2018). New hyper-local geographies of inequality and exclusion have emerged with ‘established’ and ‘new’ communities facing starkly different life opportunities, quality of life and levels of prosperity in the wake of regeneration interments (Tallon 2013).

Overview

About the Citizen Prosperity Index Household Survey

The data presented in this report is the preliminary evidence from the first wave of the Citizen Prosperity Index Household Survey carried out between December 2021 and June 2022 in east London.

The survey sampled 4,093 households representing 7,741 residents. Considering recent Census population data, the survey covered about 20 per cent of the total population of all the surveyed sites in the study, providing a representative account of current socio-economic conditions in east London.

IGP researchers designed the survey questionnaire to cover questions about the five domains of prosperity identified in research about the determinants of prosperity for people living in east London4. The survey recorded an overview of household members. The survey includes questions from national surveys such as Understanding Society5, Eurobarometer, and locally developed questions. It builds on the Prosperity Index Pilot Study that ran in five research sites in east London in 20176

Figure 1 Contextual map of the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 research sites (coloured in purple) within the London Boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, and Barking & Dagenham

Figure 2 Close-up map of the six LSOAs in and on the fringes of the Olympic Park included in this Bulletin

4 Moore and Woodcraft (2023).

5 Understanding Society: Waves 1-12, 2009-2021 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. 17th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-18

6 Woodcraft and Anderson (2019).

Demographic profiles East London and the Olympic Park

Survey sampling overview

In 2020, east London had an estimated population of 2,869,200 (32% of the total population in London) – the largest among all five sub-regions of London7. Black and other ethnic minorities comprised 44% of residents in east London – higher than the London average of 40%8 East London also had the second-largest population density (6,214 residents per km2) and the second fastest population growth (13% increase from 2010 to 2020)8 These statistics are highly mirrored in our sample.

The sampling strategy aimed for a fully representative sample of the population in each LSOA surveyed8. The six LSOAs discussed in this bulletin included a total of 1833 households. Respective survey counts for each LSOA are Chobham Manor, East Village, and IQL (563); Pudding Mill East (250); Hackney Wick and East Wick (235); Gascoyne Estate (245); Fish Island and Sweetwater (264); Leyton (276).

Income, education and age distributions

The two heatmap visualisations (Figures 3-4) show income distribution across various demographic slices. In the first plot, income is broken down by gender and ethnicity across the six LSOAs. The colour gradients represent income levels, with purple indicating higher income brackets and orange indicating lower income9.

On average, there are higher incomes in the six research sites in and on the fringes of the Olympic Park than in the other nine LSOAs in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study. Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, together with Fish Island and Sweetwater, and Leyton, tend to have higher incomes than Gascoyne Estate, Hackney Wick and East Wick, and Pudding Mill East.

Income distribution is unequal with distinct spatial, gender, and ethnic patterns:

– Female residents of mixed ethnicities tend to be the most disadvantaged, particularly in Pudding Mill East, Hackney Wick and East Wick, and Fish Island and Sweetwater.

– Female residents of African, Afro-Caribbean, and mixed ethnicities also tend to have lower income. More specifically, Black residents tend to have lower incomes in Hackney Wick, Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, and Black females in Gascoyne Estate, Fish Island, and Leyton.

– Data shows higher incomes for males across ethnicities in Fish Island and Sweetwater, and Leyton.

– Chobham Manor, East Village, and IQL also show higher incomes that are more evenly distributed across genders, but lower for black residents.

– Hackney Wick and East Wick has mid-to-high income for males, relatively homogeneous across ethnicities, but females tend to have lower income, apart from white residents.

7 Trust for London. (2022). Key population statistics for London and its sub-regions.

8 ONS. (2020). Lower layer Super Output Area population estimates.

9 The income levels are shown by the different colours on the graph. The purple scale shows incomes from £17,500 to £100,000, with darker shades of purple showing higher incomes within this range. The orange scale shows incomes between £0 and £17,499, with the orange getting darker as incomes drop within this range. Questions about income were answered by roughly 50% of respondents, so sample sizes in these charts are smaller than total households in the study area. To get more responses, income was asked in ranges (e.g: £25,000 – £29,999).

Figure 3 Income by gender and ethnicity in and on the fringes of the Olympic Park. Sample size: 798 – Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL (327), Fish Island and Sweetwater (132), Gascoyne Estate (68), Hackney Wick and East Wick (84), Leyton (87), Pudding Mill East (100).

Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL Hackney Wick and East Wick

Island and Sweetwater Leyton

Gascoyne Estate

Pudding Mill East

Demographic profiles East London and the Olympic Park

Income, education and age distributions

The second heatmap depicts income distribution across age groups and gender. The heatmap allows for comparison of male and female income levels within the same age brackets, providing insights into the gender wage disparity across different life stages. Note that sample sizes (described at the bottom of the figure) are considerably smaller than the total number of surveyed households. This is because a large proportion of respondents chose not to specify their income. The pattern here is less pronounced, but there is a tendency for women in both lower and higher age brackets (early 20s and older than 60s) to have less income. Adults in their 30s-40s tend to have higher incomes, especially males.

Figures 5-7 describe the demographic composition of the Olympic Park LSOAs, each focusing on a different attribute: gender, education level, and age. By using a structured sampling strategy for the household survey, the gathered population data closely follows current Census findings.

Figure 6 shows that Gascoyne Estate has by far the lowest proportion of individuals with an undergraduate or post-graduate university degree, whilst Leyton, and Fish Island and Sweetwater have the highest proportions of people with higher education qualifications.

Over 60% of our respondents in the new neighbourhoods of Pudding Mill East, Chobham Manor, East Village, and IQL have lived in the area for five years or less. However, Leyton has the highest proportion of residents who have lived in the area for 5 years or less (69%). Housing tenure sheds some light on these numbers: Leyton has the highest proportion across the Prosperity in east London study’s 15 LSOAs renting from a private landlord (55%). By comparison, 32% of Gascoyne Estate residents have lived in the area for five years or less, and over 50% have been there for at least 11 years or more.

Average household sizes in the six LSOAs ranges from 1.43 in Gascoyne to 2.17 in Leyton. As Figure 7 shows, households in Gascoyne Estate, and Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL have the highest proportion of children (0-14 years old) - 44% and 40% respectively. Leyton had the lowest proportion of children and the highest proportion of adults on the 24-64 range (64%).

Figure 4 Income by gender and age in and on the fringes of the Olympic Park. Sample size: 716 – Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL (296), Fish Island and Sweetwater (128), Gascoyne Estate (68), Hackney Wick and East Wick (67), Leyton (54), Pudding Mill East (103).

Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL Hackney Wick and East Wick

Fish Island and Sweetwater Leyton

Gascoyne Estate

Pudding Mill East

Demographic profiles East London and the Olympic Park

Figure 6 Education in each LSOA.

Figure 7 Age distribution in the Olympic Park.

Figure 5 Population by gender in each LSOA.

Citizen Prosperity Index

Foundations of Prosperity

Secure livelihoods

An inclusive economy

A good start in life

Opportunities and Aspirations

Good quality basic education

Lifelong learning

Freedom, choice and control

Power, Voice and Inﬂuence

Political inclusion

Voice and inﬂuence

Belonging, Connections and Leisure

Social relationships

Sense of community

Arts, leisure and sports

Health

and Healthy Environments

Healthy bodies and healthy minds

Healthy, safe and secure neighbourhoods

Sustainable and resilient communities

The Citizen Prosperity Index measures current levels of prosperity in east London. Unlike most indicators and metrics that are decided by experts in government, universities, or business and assumed to be relevant to communities everywhere, the Citizen Prosperity Index reports on what matters to local communities.

The Index is based on in-depth qualitative research about lived experiences and local determinants of prosperity in east London, carried out by a team of citizen social scientists. This research identified five prosperity ‘domains’ visualised in the Citizen Prosperity Index model (figure 8).

Foundations of Prosperity Domain

This domain assesses efforts to foster a local economy that prioritises the building blocks of prosperity - livelihood security, fairness, equity, and sustainable local value creation for those facing the most significant challenges.

Opportunities and Aspirations Domain

The Opportunities and Aspirations domain encompasses three subdomains: Good Quality Education, Lifelong Learning, and Freedom, Choice and Control, incorporating 5 indicators. It aims to evaluate the educational standards, lifelong learning opportunities, and individuals’ sense of autonomy and control over their future, aligning with the domain’s primary objective of assessing prosperity through inclusivity and equitable opportunities for all.

Power, Voice, and Influence Domain

The third domain, Power, Voice, and Influence, consists of two subdomains: Political Inclusion, and Voice and Influence, with two composite indicators. This domain measures the level of political participation and trust in institutions, focusing on inclusivity and empowerment, while also considering individuals’ perceptions of the impact of their participation on social change.

Belonging, Connections, and Leisure Domain

The Belonging, Connections, and Leisure domain includes three subdomains: Social Relationships, Sense of Community, and Arts, Leisure and Sports, covering eight individual indicators. This domain takes account of the levels of social connectedness and community involvement through formal and informal participation in community activities, along with equitable access to arts, sports, and leisure activities.

Health and Healthy Environments Domain

Health and Healthy Environments incorporates three subdomains: Healthy Bodies and Healthy Minds; Healthy, Safe and Clean Neighbourhoods; and Sustainable and Resilient Communities, with 7 indicators. This domain measures individuals’ well-being and health, including mental and physical health, life satisfaction, and access to related services. It also assesses the quality of housing, safety, cleanliness, and access to green spaces in neighbourhoods. The Sustainable and Resilient Communities sub-domain is calculated using the Natural Environment indicator, which is based on survey data around the satisfaction of residents with the local natural environment.

Figure 8 Citizen Prosperity Index Model

Prosperity in and around the Olympic Park

We use data from the Citizen Prosperity Index Household Survey and a structural equation model to estimate levels of prosperity in the six LSOAs individually and as a whole (Figures 9-16).

Figures 9 and 10 provide an overview of the subdomain scores for all six LSOAs collectively. Figures 11-16 zoom in on each LSOA’s performance within specific subdomains, organised according to their respective domains, using radial ‘spider-charts’, enabling us to observe how the LSOAs perform across distinctive subdomains of the Citizen Prosperity Index.

Prosperity ‘scores’ in the model range from 0 to 10 (the lowest and highest values). The score determines how far each point radiates from the centre to the spider-chart’s periphery. The greater the value, the farther the point is from the centre.

Figure 10 shows there are notable challenges to livelihood security, as multiple subdomains within the Foundations of Prosperity domain have low scores. However, distinct spatial patterns are observable:

– Gascoyne Estate has a low score in the Good Start in Life subdomain, underscoring issues around access to childcare, transitions to sustained education destinations, and child poverty. Poor scores in lifelong learning and access to services also indicate reduced access to opportunities.

– Fish Island and Sweetwater score poorly in affordable housing, which is consistent across most locations. Additionally, low scores in Voice and Influence indicate that citizens feel they have no voice, and there are low scores for sense of community.

– Financial stress in Leyton is among the worst in the surveyed regions.

– Leyton has higher levels of food (and especially) energy insecurity than the six LSOAs in this bulletin, and the highest proportion of residents across all 15 LSOAs reporting trouble keeping their accommodations warm in winter.

– Affordable housing is a pervasive issue across the area, affecting all locations in the Prosperity in East London 2021-2031 longitudinal study.

These observations resonate with the findings of earlier studies that identify livelihood insecurity as the main obstacle to prosperity for people in east London10, 11. Low levels of livelihood security continue to pose challenges in the area. Recognising these complexities, the Citizen Prosperity Index places livelihood security at its core. The post-pandemic economy, marked by rising inflation, higher interest rates, and an energy crisis, has had a detrimental impact on communities in and around the Olympic Park. Secure Income and Good Quality Work is stronger in this area than in other regeneration areas in the study, such as the Royal Docks (Newham) and Teviot Estate (Tower Hamlets), but as the other Livelihood Security subdomains show, this does not guarantee energy security, access to affordable accommodation, or access to essential services such as public transport, childcare, and internet. All sites could to better on the Inclusive Economy subdomain, which is underpinned by indicators of income and ethnic inequalities.

Satisfaction with education is relatively high, as well as Freedom, Choice and Control sub-domain. The latter indicates that people feel relatively free of discrimination, residents of different backgrounds live in relative harmony, and there is a strong sense of agency and capacity to make life better.

Fish Island and Sweetwater and Gascoyne Estate do slightly worse than the other four sites on this subdomain, whilst Leyton has mildly lower satisfaction with education.

There is marked variation in the Power Voice and Influence domain. Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, Fish Island and Sweetwater, and Gascoyne Estate show markedly lower scores on their perceived capacity to influence decisions in local area, compared to the other three LSOAs. Health and indicators of neighbourhood safety, quality of housing, and access and use of greenspace are in general good but specific indicators vary according to the LSOA. Compared to the other 14 LSOAs in the study, Leyton has by far the highest levels of loneliness. Leyton and Fish Island score high on indicators about self-perceived health, satisfaction with healthcare and healthcare access (scores over 90% in all indicators).

In Gascoyne Estate roughly 28% consider their health to be poor or fair and life satisfaction is lower than in any other LSOA in the study. Chobham Manor, East Village, and IQL is quite consistent in these indicators, scoring relatively high in all of them.

The Belonging, Connections, and Leisure domain fluctuates depending on the site. The Sense of Community subdomain scores are low for Pudding Mill East and Gascoyne Estate. Indicators that underpin the latter have to do with sense of belonging, relationships with neighbours, and trust in local people. Sense of belonging is particularly high in Leyton, and in Hackney Wick and East Wick, both of which also show high levels of trust in neighbours and report meaningful relationships with people in their local area. These are analysed in more detail in the next section where separate figures for each LSOA are discussed.

Figure 10 Prosperity scores by subdomains in individual Olympic Legacy regeneration area sites.

Figure 9 Average scores by subdomains in Olympic Legacy regeneration area sites.

Fish Island & Sweetwater Gascoyne Estate

Leyton Hackney Wick & East Wick

Pudding Mill East Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL

Prosperity in and around the Olympic Park

Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, London Borough of Newham

Figure 11 shows that residents of Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL are experiencing challenges linked to Affordable Housing and Access to Key Basic Services. But out of the 15 sites in the study, this LSOA scores above the study average in Affordable Housing. The site does relatively well on other Livelihood Security indicators, such as Secure Income and Work and a Good Start in Life (lower childhood poverty and better adolescent transitions to work). But despite this, it is the LSOA in the Olympic Park and within all surveyed regions with the lowest feelings of security about the future, scoring about 15% less than the study’s average. Additionally, 37% of respondents anticipate having to move out of the local area in the next year, some due to housing costs. This finding resonates with qualitative research previously carried out by citizen scientists in the area (see this zine which explores housing affordability amongst other themes).

Sense of Community is relatively low. Only 29% agree that people in the neighbourhood can be trusted – the lowest proportion compared to the other five sites – and only 50% feel they belong to their neighbourhood –again, the lowest in the Olympic Park and fringes. Other indicators of community cohesion are better. Over 80% say they have meaningful relationships with neighbours and feel they can get advice from other residents when they need to. Social relationships are relatively good, as there are low levels of loneliness and people regularly have contact with family and friends. Participation in Arts, Sports and Leisure is relatively low, a common pattern in sites across the study.

Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL does well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. Roughly 85% consider their health to be good or very good and over 80% say they have timely access to healthcare for physical conditions. Moreover, over 80% are satisfied with the quality of healthcare in their local area. Almost 70% are satisfied with local open spaces and parks. Political Inclusion is very high in Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, which means there are high levels of trust in authorities, government officials, and high voter turnout. But Voice and Influence are very low, meaning that residents feel they cannot influence important decisions in their local area.

As with most sites in the study, there is a high level of satisfaction with the quality of local education. However, scores for Lifelong Learning – participation in professional training through work and in adult learning classes in general – are lower than the other LSOAs discussed in this bulletin, with the exception of the Gascoyne Estate. There is a moderate feeling of autonomy and capacity to decisions to improve their lives, as the Freedom Choice and Control subdomain reveals.

Pudding Mill East, London Borough of Newham

Figure 12 shows that Pudding Mill East has low scores for Affordable Housing and Inclusive Economy, indicating this area has starker income disparities and a higher relative poverty rate than other LSOAs in this bulletin. It does better than Chobham Manor on other Livelihood Security indicators, such as Secure Income and Work, Financial Stress, and Feeling Secure About the Future. Pudding Mill East (and Gascoyne Estate, Hackney) have the lowest scores for Sense of Community. Only 63% of people say they have meaningful relationships with people in the neighbourhood, and 58% say they can get advice from someone in the neighbourhood if they need to. Around 54% say they stop regularly to talk to people in the neighbourhood, the lowest percentage within the six Olympic Park research sites, whilst around 60% of people say that people in the area can be trusted.

Pudding Mill East does relatively well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. Around 82% consider their health to be good or very good, but 35% do not think they have timely access to healthcare for physical conditions, and 30% are dissatisfied with health services. Slightly over 80% are satisfied with open spaces and parks in their local area.

Both Political Inclusion and Voice and Influence are low on this site, meaning that residents feel they cannot influence important decisions in their local area, and have low levels of trust in the legal system, government institutions, and other authorities.

The Opportunities and Aspirations domain shows more or less similar scores across subdomains. There is a fairly high level of satisfaction with the quality of local education, and feelings of Freedom, Choice and Control, whilst Lifelong Learning opportunities are better than in Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL.

Figure 12 Citizen Prosperity Index in Pudding Mill East.

Figure 11 Citizen Prosperity Index in Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL.

Prosperity in and around the Olympic Park

Leyton, London Borough of Waltham Forest

As illustrated in Figure 13, Leyton does well in some Livelihood Security indicators, but acutely underperforms in others. A relative strength is Secure Income and Good Quality Work, which combines measures such as satisfaction with the quality of locally available jobs, commute time, unemployment rate, working overtime, and disposable income, among others (see appendix). Leyton has a high score for feelings of security about the future, meaning that people feel they would have someone to support them when in need, and that they perceive a low risk of displacement due to housing affordability. Yet, housing affordability is a challenge. Leyton is the worst performing area in our survey in the Affordable Housing Indicator. Financial stress is higher in Leyton than the other five LSOAs discussed in this bulletin. It has the highest proportion of people saying they have trouble keeping accommodation warm in winter, which drives the Food and Energy Security subdomain down. Access to Key Basic Services, such as public transport and childcare, is of concern, but less so than in some other LSOAs in and around the Olympic Park.

Sense of Community is better than all the other sites discussed in this bulletin. 95% of people feel they belong to the neighbourhood, 90% say they regularly exchange things and favours with neighbours, and 96% have meaningful relationships with people in their neighbourhood. These are some of the highest values across the 15 LSOAs in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study. 82% say that people in the area can be trusted, also the highest of any LSOA in the Olympic Park and surrounding areas. However, somehow paradoxically, Leyton has by far the largest proportion of residents reporting they feel lonely most of the time (67%) of the 15 LSOAs in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study. By comparison, Teviot Estate West in Tower Hamlets, is the LSOA with the second highest proportion of people feeling lonely frequently at 11%. Participation in Arts, Leisure, and Sports is higher than in the other five LSOAs in and around the Olympic Park.

Leyton performs well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. Roughly 93% of people consider their health to be very good or excellent. Moreover, 95% are satisfied with the quality of healthcare in their local area and 97% say they can access healthcare for a physical condition – both indicators are the highest of the 15 LSOAS in the longitudinal study.

Almost 93% are satisfied with open spaces and parks in their local area. However, Leyton has higher levels of self-reported anxiety. In response to the question ‘how anxious did you feel yesterday’, Leyton scores worse than any other site in the study by at least 2 points on a 1-10 scale.

Political Inclusion and Voice and Influence are relatively strong subdomains, making Leyton one of the most balanced LSOAs in the wider Power, Voice, and Influence domain.

Regarding the Opportunities and Aspirations domain, Satisfaction with quality of local education is slightly lower than other sites in and around the Olympic Park, but both Lifelong Learning and Freedom Choice and Control score reasonably well.

Hackney Wick and East Wick, London Borough of Hackney

Figure 14 shows that Hackney Wick and East Wick have low levels of Affordable Housing and Access to Key Basic Services. It also has high levels of Financial Stress, but other indicators within the Livelihood Security subdomain do better. Scores on Secure Income and Work and Feeling Secure About the Future are relatively high. Compared to Gascoyne Estate – the other study site in the Borough of Hackney – Food and Energy security is higher in Hackney Wick and East Wick, and a Good Start in Life (lower childhood poverty and better adolescent transitions to work) is markedly better.

Sense of Community is better than in all other Olympic Park LSOAs, except Leyton. Roughly 83% feel they belong to their neighbourhood, whilst 84% think that people in the area can be trusted. 75% have meaningful relationships with people in the neighbourhood and about the same proportion feel they can seek advice from neighbours if they need to. Around 60% say they exchange things and favours with neighbours. The Social Relationships subdomain is higher in this LSOA than others in and around the Olympic Park, as there are low levels of loneliness and residents have regular contact family and friends. Index scores for Participation in Arts, Sports and Leisure are relatively low.

Hackney Wick and East Wick does well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. Almost 80% are satisfied with the quality of available local health services and say they have good access to healthcare for physical conditions. 88% consider their health to be good or very good and 87% are satisfied with open spaces and parks in their local area. The Sustainable and Resilient Communities subdomain scores higher than the five other sites in the Olympic Park. This sub-domain uses borough-level data which is then weighted according to other indicators in the model. This is why it is lower in Gascoyne Estate, despite being in the same London Borough (Hackney).

Voice and Influence is better than in most other sites in the area. Political Inclusion is low, as voter turnout and trust in the legal system, national government, and authorities, is comparatively low.

The Opportunities and Aspirations domain shows relatively consistent scores across subdomains. Satisfaction with the quality of education in the area is good, but lower than the Gascoyne Estate. On the other hand, the Lifelong Learning subdomain, underpinned by professional training through work and adult learning classes, is markedly better in Hackney Wick and East Wick than in Gascoyne Estate. Freedom, Choice, and Control shows a high score, meaning people feel there is inclusion in the area and that they have the capacity to make their own choices with a fair degree of autonomy.

Figure 14 Citizen Prosperity Index in Hackney Wick and East Wick.

Figure 13 Citizen Prosperity Index in Leyton.

Prosperity in and around the Olympic Park

Gascoyne Estate, London Borough of Hackney

As illustrated in Figure 15, Gascoyne Estate does comparatively well in some Livelihood Security indicators but underperforms in others. It has the lowest score for the Secure Income and Good Quality Work, Access to Key Basic Services, and A Good Start in Life subdomains amongst the Olympic Park LSOAs discussed in this bulletin. Financial Stress and Food and Energy Security are also of concern, but less so than the former indicators. Gascoyne is one of the worst performing LSOAs in the Affordable Housing indicator performing significantly below the study’s average. Gascoyne Estate performs better than the other Olympic Park sites in the Inclusive Economy subdomain, meaning there is less income inequality than in other sites. Median gross income is reported to be around £45,000, but the site had relatively low response rates for income questions so there might be a bias towards mid-to-high income rates.

Sense of Community is low and equivalent to Pudding Mill East. But the specific indicators underscoring this subdomain differ between the two. In Gascoyne Estate only 58% feel they belong to the neighbourhood and only 58% plan to remain in the neighbourhood for a number of years, lower than other sites in the Olympic Park and fringes. Levels of trust are low, as only 32% believe that people in the local area can be trusted. 78% have meaningful relationships with people in the neighbourhood and 77% can seek advice from neighbours if needed. Social Relationships are not as strong as in other LSOAs in and around the Olympic Park, as levels of loneliness are slightly higher, and people see their families and friends on a less frequent basis. Participation in Arts, Leisure, and Sports is like the other Olympic Park sites in the study.

Gascoyne Estate performs worse than the other five sites in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. Roughly 28% consider their health to be poor or fair, and life satisfaction is lower than in any other LSOA in Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study (6.7 on a 10-point scale). Yet, 78% are satisfied with the quality of healthcare in their local area, and almost 80% say they can access healthcare for a physical condition. Satisfaction with greenspace, open areas and parks is quite low (40%).

Political Inclusion is relatively good, as levels of trust in authorities and the legal system tend to be moderate to high. However, Voice and Influence scores are quite low, suggesting people do not feel able to influence decisions in the local area.

Satisfaction with quality of local education is high, but Lifelong Learning scores by far the lowest amongst this cluster of six LSOAs, meaning there are low levels of participation in adult learning classes and professional training through work.

Fish Island and Sweetwater, London Borough of Tower Hamlets

In Fish Island and Sweetwater (Figure 16), livelihoods are noticeably more secure than in many other LSOAs in the study, but housing affordability remains a problem. Financial Stress and Access to Key Basic Services such as public transport, internet, and childcare are better than in the other five LSOAs in this bulletin. Secure Income and Good Quality work, together with Feelings of Security About the Future are relatively high. Fish Island and Sweetwater has very low levels of working-age people who are unemployed (3.6%) or inactive because they are taking care of children or studying (5.4%). The Good Start in Life subdomain is also strong. This is underpinned by lower levels of childhood poverty and better adolescent transitions to work or study, compared to other sites in the Olympic Park and its fringes.

In comparison to many other subdomains, Index scores for Sense of Community are relatively low. The indicators that underpin this subdomain show that only 3% borrow things and exchange favours with neighbours, but other indicators are more encouraging. 76% feel they belong to the neighbourhood, 87% have meaningful relationships with people in the local area, and the same proportion can get advice from neighbours if they need to. For Social Relationships, around 60% people say they see family members (with whom they do not live) less than once a month, and 32% see friends less than once a month. Nevertheless, the site has low levels of loneliness.

Political Inclusion is amongst the highest across the 15 sites in the Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 study, suggesting that voter turnout, political participation, and trust in government officials and institutions is high.

Lifelong Learning – opportunities for professional development and participation in adult classes in general – scores high, as well as satisfaction with the quality of education in the area. Freedom, Choice, and Control scores lower than in the other Olympic Park LSOAs, suggesting a slightly lower perception that people from different backgrounds can live in harmony, and a lower degree to which different cultures, beliefs and identities can flourish in the area.

Figure 16 Citizen Prosperity Index in Fish Island and Sweetwater.

Figure 15 Citizen Prosperity Index in Gascoyne Estate.

Conclusion

This Citizen Prosperity Index bulletin offers an initial analysis of prosperity as a lived experience for residents of six LSOAs in and around the Olympic Park, including new neighbourhoods that are part of London’s Olympic Legacy regenerationChobham Manor, East Village, International Quarter London (IQL); Pudding Mill East; East Wick; and Sweetwater – and established neighbourhoods on the Park’s fringes – Hackney Wick, Gascoyne Estate, and Leyton.

Using new indicators co-produced with citizen scientists and based on extensive qualitative research about the determinants of prosperity for residents of east London, the Index offers rich and nuanced insights about socioeconomic and spatial patterns of prosperity. Conventional prosperity measures focus on earnings, employment, disposable income, and household wealth, with attention being paid more recently to personal wellbeing as a supplementary measure. This bulletin shows that prosperity measures reporting on what people say makes a meaningful difference to their lives, reveal patterns that challenge mainstream policy assumptions about how to generate prosperity. Index data shows deeprooted challenges of livelihood insecurity that do not map straightforwardly onto employment status and income. Levels of financial stress, food and energy insecurity, and debt burdens vary significantly within communities that report similar levels of income security for example, and preliminary analysis of prosperity levels by gender and for different ethnic groups indicate intricate, placespecific patterns of experience.

While the current cost of living crisis might explain low levels of livelihood security, the consistent pattern in the Olympic Park, and throughout the 15 areas in the longitudinal study, is cause for concern. Earlier waves of research undertaken by the IGP and citizen scientists in 2015 and 2017 identified livelihood insecurity as the main obstacle to prosperity in east London12,13. New Citizen Prosperity Index data suggests livelihood insecurity is becoming entrenched in east London.

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 is a mixed methods study. Qualitative research undertaken by citizen scientists alongside the household survey identifies the complex strategies that people living with high levels of insecurity employ to mitigate its effects, from local food bank use to relying on family or neighbours for childcare to enable people to manage short-term or temporary work. Such activities often rely on voluntary support in communities already under great pressure14,15. This research also identifies how histories of deindustrialisation, economic development, migration, and welfare interventions such as postwar social housing, have place-specific legacies that continue to exert concrete effects on peoples’ daily lives. Housing tenure, for example, is closely linked to housing affordability, housing security, and housing quality, which intersect with heath, wellbeing, and household disposable income, among other factors shaping lived experiences of prosperity.

More research is needed to understand the long-term social, cultural, and psychological effects of living with insecurity for individuals and for networks in communities exposed to multiple forms of insecurity. Future waves of Prosperity in east London 20212031 qualitative research by citizen scientists and IGP researchers will explore these issues.

While livelihood insecurity is a major challenge, the Citizen Prosperity Index data indicates areas of strength in the Olympic Park. These depend on the specific subdomain and site, highlighting the hyper-local nature of the research. Most sites have a good performance on the Health and Healthy Environments domain, underscored by high satisfaction with the quality of healthcare and high accessibility in general. Gascoyne Estate is a site of concern as roughly 28% consider their health to be poor or fair, and life satisfaction is lower than in any other LSOA in the study. Gascoyne Estate has more childhood poverty and worse adolescent transitions to work and study. Access to Key Basic Services is an area of concern across sites, but less so for Fish Island and Sweetwater. Housing Affordability is a problem for the six areas, but tends to be better than in other clusters in the study. Financial stress is particularly acute for Leyton, an LSOA which is also very energy insecure, as many residents report having trouble keeping their accommodations warm in winter. Leyton also showed the highest (by far) levels of loneliness in the study. The Power Voice and Influence domain reveals that Chobham Manor, East Village and IQL, Fish Island and Sweetwater, and Gascoyne Estate show markedly lower scores on their perceived capacity to influence decisions in local area, compared to the other three sites.

The hyper-local focus of the Citizen Prosperity Index identifies the pressure points that local communities are experiencing today, and provides a framework for measuring social, economic and spatial changes over time. It has been designed to offer decision-makers a new, and nuanced, kind of evidence about the strengths, needs, and vulnerabilities in local communities, and to identify meaningful and sustainable pathways to prosperity that can offer new directions for regeneration planning. Aggregate secondary data of the kind that currently informs regeneration strategies masks the hyper-local nature of these experiences and the intersectional complexities that affect outcomes for individuals from different backgrounds.

In a context of sustained cuts to local government budgets, strategic investments in urban regeneration are being expected to work harder to deliver ‘social value’ in the form of better social, economic and health outcomes for local communities, as well as housing, commercial and retail space, and built environment improvements. The Citizen Prosperity Index provides a framework to understand how to regeneration planning, policy, and investment, can be more effectively targeted.

This preliminary analysis is published alongside bulletins about prosperity in the Royal Docks in Newham, and Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross Estate in Tower Hamlets. Future bulletins will investigate how health and wellbeing outcomes vary across research sites and intersect with gender, ethnicity, livelihood insecurity, and community connectedness. In 2024, IGP will launch an open-access Citizen Prosperity Index dashboard to share analysis and data. Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 is a rich resource that will yield detailed insights and evidence about who benefits, and how, from investments in urban regeneration in the years to come.

12 Moore and Woodcraft (2019).

13 Woodcraft and Anderson (2019).

14 Alexis, (2022). Repackaging poverty. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/publications/zines/ repackaging-property Terry and Twinkle, (2022). The abandoned side of North Woolwich. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www. ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/publications/zines/abandoned-side-north-woolwich Terry, (2022). A tale of two sides. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/publications/zines/tale-two-sides

15 Moore and Woodcraft (2023).

Partners and Funders

Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 is an innovative cross-sector research collaboration that brings together university, government, voluntary sector, business, citizen scientists, local residents, and community organisations. Managed by the Institute for Global Prosperity’s (IGP) Prosperity Co-Laboratory UK (PROCOL UK), the study was co-designed with members of the London Prosperity Board – a cross-sector partnership between the IGP, London government, local councils, public agencies, businesses, the third sector, and local communities in London, to change the way decision-makers think and act for prosperity by developing new forms of evidence and new ways of working. The study is jointly funded by London Prosperity Board members: Royal Docks, Lendlease, London Legacy Development Corporation, Hill Group, Poplar HARCA, and the London Boroughs of Hackney, Waltham Forest, and Barking and Dagenham.

About us References

The Institute for Global Prosperity

The Institute for Global Prosperity aims to rethink what prosperity means for people around the globe. Our vision is to help build a prosperous, sustainable, global future, underpinned by the principles of fairness and justice, and allied to a realistic, long-term vision of humanity’s place in the world. The IGP undertakes pioneering research that seeks to dramatically improve the quality of life for current and future generations. Its strength lies in the way it allies intellectual creativity to effective collaboration and policy development. Of particular importance to the IGP’s approach is the way in which it integrates non-academic expertise into its knowledge generation by engaging with decision-makers, business, civil society, and local communities.

PROCOL UK

Prosperity Co-Lab (PROCOL) UK is an innovative initiative to develop transformational thinking and action on shared prosperity for the UK. Our goal is to achieve a sustained shift in public debate, policymaking, investment and community action for shared prosperity. Led by the IGP at UCL, PROCOL UK brings together citizen-led research, cutting-edge academic research, and collaborative, multistakeholder partnerships with communities, government, business and researchers, to develop new forms of knowledge and new ways of working that bring about transformational change. PROCOL UK’s work addresses the question ‘What are the pathways to shared prosperity in the UK?’ in the context of pressing challenges facing British society: climate emergency, rising social and financial inequalities, Brexit, austerity and public services, and the changing nature of work in the era of AI and robotics. We work across major challenges to identify the new forms of knowledge, governance and ways of working for shared prosperity.

London Prosperity Board

The London Prosperity Board is an innovative crosssector partnership established by the Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP) to rethink what prosperity means for London. The goal of the London Prosperity Board is to change the way decisionmakers think and act for prosperity by developing new forms of evidence and new ways of working that make shared and inclusive prosperity a reality.

Alexis, (2022). “Repackaging poverty”. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/publications/zines/ repackaging-property

Atkinson, Rowland, and Gary Bridge, (2010). ‘Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism’. In The Gentrification Debates: A Reader, 51-. New York and Oxon: Routledge

Bailey, Nick, and Jon Minton, (2018). ‘The Suburbanisation of Poverty in British Cities, 2004-16: Extent, Processes and Nature’. Urban Geography 39 (6): 892–915. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1405689

Bernstock, Dr Penny, (2014). Olympic Housing: A Critical Review of London 2012’s Legacy. Surrey; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Butler, Tim, and Michael Rustin, eds. (1996). Rising in the East: Regeneration of East London. London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.

Cohen, Phil, (2013). On the Wrong Side of the Tracks? East London and the Post-Olympics. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Imrie, Rob, Loretta Lees, and Mike Raco, (2009). Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City. Taylor & Francis.

Poynter, Gavin, and Iain MacRury, (2009). Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. Routledge.

Moore, Henrietta, and Saffron Woodcraft, (2019). “Understanding Prosperity in East London: Local Meanings and ‘Sticky’ Measures of the Good Life.” City & Society 31 (June). https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12208

Moore, H. L., Davies, M., Mintchev, N., & Woodcraft, S, (2023). “Rethinking Livelihood Security” In ‘Prosperity in the Twenty-First Century: Concepts, Models and Metrics’, UCL Press, chapter 4, pp.105-121.

Office for National Statistics (UK), (2020). Lower layer Super Output Area population estimates. Avaliable at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/ populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/ lowersuperoutputareamidyearpopulationestimates

Tallon, Andrew, (2013). Urban Regeneration in the UK. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802847

Terry and Twinkle, (2022). The abandoned side of North Woolwich. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/publications/zines/ abandoned-side-north-woolwich

Terry, (2022). A tale of two sides. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/ publications/zines/tale-two-sides

Trust for London, (2022). Key population statistics for London and its sub-regions. Understanding Society: Waves 1-12, 2009-2021 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. 17th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-18.

Watt, Paul, (2013). ‘“It’s Not for Us”’. City 17 (1): 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.754190.

Woodcraft, S. and Anderson, B. (2019). ‘Rethinking Prosperity for London: When Citizens Lead Transformation’. London: Institute for Global Prosperity UCL.

Woodcraft, S; Collins, H; McArdle, I; (2021) Re-thinking livelihood security: Why addressing the democratic deficit in economic policy-making opens up new pathways to prosperity. UCL Institute for Global Prosperity: London, UK.

Appendix

We aggregate these measures under composite ‘headline indicators’, such as ‘Secure Income and Good Quality Work’, which is informed by 11 measures. And these headline indicators belong to specific subdomains, which are part of the five wider domains that make up the Prosperity model.

FOUNDATIONS OF PROSPERITY

OPPORTUNITIES AND ASPIRATIONS

POWER, VOICE AND INFLUENCE

BELONGING, CONNECTIONS AND

1. Foundations of Prosperity

Genuinely affordable and secure housing

Real household disposable income

Proportion of Permanent Contracts

Commute time

Satisfactory leisure time

Overall job satisfaction

Satisfaction with opportunities for promotion

Satisfaction with quality of available jobs

Affordable housing

Size of House

Mortgage (i.e., whether they have a mortgage or not)

House ownership

Ability to keep up-to-date with bills

Freedom from financial stress

Food and energy security

Access to key basic services: public transport, internet and childcare

Feeling secure about the future

An inclusive economy Fairness and equity

A good start in life Childhood poverty

Adolescent transitions to work or study

Debt burden

Ability to save

Eating less due to lack of money

Use of food banks

Ability to keep accomodation warm

Affordable public transport

Satisfaction with public transport

Mode of transportation for work/education

Internet access

Having social support when in need

Anticipation of moving out of the area

Childcare spending

Part time or full time Job

Ability to save

Income Inequality

Use of Childcare

Household Size

Children present in the household

Students leaving key stage 4 and transitioning to any sustained educational destination

Unemployment

School attendance

Appendix

The following tables show all the measures that make up the Citizen Prosperity Index. Each of these represents a survey question (e.g ‘thinking about your main job, how many hours excluding meal breaks but including overtime do you work in a normal week?’ = Satisfactory Hours (49h or less/week) indicator). We aggregate these measures under composite ‘headline indicators’, such as ‘Secure Income and Good Quality Work’, which is informed by 11 measures. And these headline indicators belong to specific subdomains, which are part of the five wider domains that make up the Prosperity model.

2. Opportunities and Aspirations

Subdomain

Good quality basic education

Lifelong learning

Freedom, choice and control

Headline (Composite) Indicator

Access to good quality education

Access to skills and training for work

Opportunities for self-improvement and personal development

Freedom from discrimination

Having choices and control over one’s future

Measures (survey question description)

Level of education attained

Satisfaction with education

Participation in professional training through work

Participation in adult learning classes

Degree to which people with different backgrounds can live in harmony

Degree to which different cultures, beliefs and identities can flourish in the area

Feeling free to make decisions about one’s life

Degree to which people feel they can take steps to improve their life

FOUNDATIONS OF PROSPERITY

OPPORTUNITIES AND ASPIRATIONS

POWER, VOICE AND INFLUENCE

BELONGING, CONNECTIONS AND LEISURE

HEALTH AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS

3. Power, Voice and Influence

Subdomain

Political inclusion

Headline (Composite) Indicator

Political inclusion

Voice and influence

Feelings of influence

Measures (survey question description)

Trust in the Local Authority / Council

Trust in political parties

Trust in the Parliament

Trust in the police

Trust in the British legal system

Trust in the Greater London Authority (GLA)

Trust in the National Government

Taking part in political party activities

Degree to which people feel they can influence decisions about their local area

Taking part in demonstrations

Boycott

Contacted a politician, local, non-local government official

Appendix

4. Belonging, Connections and Leisure

Subdomain

Social relationships

Headline (Composite) Indicator Measures (survey question description)

Regular contact with family, friends, and neighbours

Sense of community Community cohesion

FOUNDATIONS OF PROSPERITY

OPPORTUNITIES AND ASPIRATIONS

POWER, VOICE AND INFLUENCE

BELONGING, CONNECTIONS AND LEISURE

HEALTH AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS

Arts, leisure and sports

Getting involved in community life

Having contact with family at least 2-3 times per week

Having contact with friends at least 2-3 times per week

Having contact with neighbours at least 2-3 times per week

Feelings of loneliness

Feeling like they belong to the neighbourhood

Plans to remain in the neighbourhood for a number of years

Feeling like the friendships and associations in their neighbourhood mean a lot to them

Trusting people in their neighbourhood

Feeling like their neighbours will help them

Borrowing and exchanging favours with neighbours

Volunteer work

Membership in civic and voluntary organisations

Participation in local social activities

Participation in arts, sport, and leisure activities

Participation in organised arts or cultural activities

Membership in club (e.g., sports club)

Appendix

5. Health and Healthy Environments

Subdomain

Headline (Composite) Indicator

Healthy bodies and healthy minds Healthy bodies

Wellbeing

FOUNDATIONS OF PROSPERITY

OPPORTUNITIES AND ASPIRATIONS

POWER, VOICE AND INFLUENCE

BELONGING, CONNECTIONS AND LEISURE

HEALTH AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS

Access to health and care services

Healthy, safe and clean neighbourhoods Good quality housing

Safe and clean neighbourhoods

Access to green space

Sustainable and resilient communities Natural Environment

Measures (survey question description)

Subjective health

Health and disability status

Visited Nature Recently

Number of days where respondent walked more than 10 minutes in past 10 days

Happiness

Life satisfaction

Feeling life is worthwhile

Anxiety

Access to mental healthcare

Access to physician for physical health problems in your local area

Satisfaction with quality of health services

Satisfaction with local housing quality

Satisfaction with living conditions

Safety at night

Safety in the day

Satisfaction with green/open spaces

Satisfaction with local natural environment

Summary statistics

The following Table and Figures show the key summary statistics for the surveyed population across all Olympic Legacy OA sites, collectively and individually, by LSOA. These statistics include essential demographic characteristics, employment, housing and educational attainment information.

*Please note full Sample Size: 865 – Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL (560), Fish Island and Sweet (264), Gascoyne Estate (245), Hackney Wick and East Wick (228), Leyton (272), Pudding Mill East (242). Minimum Clean Sample Size: 798 – Chobham Manor, East Village & IQL (327), Fish Island and Sweet (132), Gascoyne Estate (68), Hackney Wick and East Wick (84), Leyton (87), Pudding Mill East (100)

Summary statistics

Figure 18 Types of Houses in each LSOA.

Figure 17 Housing size by LSOA.

Figure 19 Education Attaintment by LSOA.

Contact

Visit: www.prosperity-global.org www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/ Email: londonprosperity@ucl.ac.uk

Stay connected

@glo_pro

Institute for Global Prosperity @glo_pro