July 2024
Prosperity in the Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross Estate, Tower Hamlets
Findings from the Prosperity in east London 2021–2031
Longitudinal Study
This bulletin reports on levels of prosperity in the Teviot and Coventry Cross Estates, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
It focuses on four Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) that make up the regeneration area of the Teviot Estate (Teviot Estate North, East, and West) and Coventry Cross Estate, which borders the regeneration area to the north.
Planning for regeneration of the Teviot Estate follows a ballot in 2019, with residents voting in favour of constructing 2,500 new homes, new community facilities, faith spaces, play and green spaces, and infrastructure improvements. The regeneration programme started in 2021 and will take place over 15 years.
This 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 LSOA and for the four sites as a whole.
The study will monitor and report on changes in household prosperity at key intervals throughout the Teviot Estate regeneration programme – starting with the benchmarking survey in 2021 which this bulletin reports on. The data will be used to report on the Teviot Estate’s social value strategy, and to inform regeneration planning, service provision, community interventions and investments.
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 as social scientists in their neighbourhoods.
Social relationships with family and friends are relatively strong across the four sites, but sense of community is lacking in comparison. Although more than 65% do feel like they belong to their neighbourhoods [in each LSOA], other indicators within this subdomain vary widely depending on each LSOA (trust in neighbours, exchanging favours with them, among others) and tend to drive down the overall Index score.
Health and indicators of neighbourhood safety, quality of housing, access and use of greenspace are in general good, but specific indicators vary according to the LSOA. Teviot West and Coventry Cross have higher mean values than the other two sites for questions about wellbeing, such as happiness and life satisfaction.
Perceived access to healthcare to treat a physical health condition is lower for Teviot East, as 30% disagree that they would be able to get a timely appointment. In Teviot Estate North, East, and Coventry Cross roughly 18% said their health is poor or fair. Teviot East had the highest proportion of residents stating their health was ‘excellent’ (21%), compared to the other 3 sites.. Over 70% surveyed residents in the four sites are satisfied with green open spaces.
Prosperity measures that report on what people say makes a meaningful difference to theirlives, rather than conventional metrics such as employment and income, reveal patterns that challenge mainstream policy assumptions about how to generate prosperity.
Citizen Prosperity Index data suggests livelihood insecurity is becoming entrenched in east London. Households in Coventry Cross and the Teviot Estate are experiencing multiple forms of livelihood insecurity, including challenges with low incomes, housing affordability, and financial stress.
Access to key basic services that support livelihood security (public transport, childcare, digital access) are of concern and financial stress is high across sites, but particularly in Teviot Estate West. Housing affordability is a challenge in the four areas and there are ethnic and genderbased income disparities, whereby in general, residents of black, Bangladeshi, and mixed ethnicities have lower income levels, particularly females.
Hyper-local Citizen Prosperity Index data identifies the particular pressure points that local communities are experiencing. Aggregate secondary data of the kind that currently informs regeneration strategies masks the hyperlocal nature of these experiences and the intersectional complexities that affect outcomes for individuals from different backgrounds.
Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 is a 10-year study tracking the prosperity of over 4,000 households in 15 areas of east London where large-scale and long-term urban regeneration is driving rapid physical, economic, and social changes in local communities.
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 London . 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.
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, 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 four LSOAs – Coventry Cross, Teviot Estate West, Teviot Estate East, and Teviot Estate North – in Tower Hamlets. Planning for regeneration of the Teviot Estate follows a ballot in 2019, with residents voting in favour of constructing 2,500 new homes (increasing four-fold the amount of housing on the Estate), new community facilities, faith spaces, play and green spaces, and infrastructure improvements. The regeneration programme started in 2021 and will take place over 15 years.
Regeneration of the Teviot Estate aims to deliver over £278 million in social value across its 15-year timeline. The four key themes that underpin the commitment to social value are: Community; Homes; Streets; and Parks. Each of these have a set of key ‘outcomes values’ mapped against them (e.g., full-time employment; access to internet; good overall health; etc). The methodology supporting each outcome value is based on insights from large-scale surveys and is compliant with the HM Treasury Green Book.
Each contractor is committing to deliver a specific set of these outcomes as part of the tendering process and is required to work with the Teviot Social Value Manager to provide a specific delivery plan. Consultants and supply chain partners are also required to state their commitment to support the social value outcomes from the outset. To optimise the value for the value for the community, local stakeholders will be asked to provide knowledge about local community and services. The Community Chest Fund will provide grant funding to local groups that will contribute to the twelve outcomes of the programme.
The Hill Group, which is delivering the Teviot Estate regeneration, is committing to deliver social value on the project. In 2021 they procured a new measurement tool to fully understand how this is delivered on each of their projects. Activities and impact are recorded and measured using ‘TOMs’ (Themes, Outcomes, and Values) metrics –a framework that enables direct action to be steered by local needs and by the strategic aims of the organisation aiming to deliver social value.
The Citizen Prosperity Index is way of linking social value priorities for regeneration investments on the Teviot Estate to the drivers of prosperity as identified by east London residents. The Index offers detailed evidence about who is, and who is not, benefiting from regeneration investments, and how to target interventions to deliver on social value commitments. Wave 1 data is a benchmark for measuring changes linked to regeneration of the Teviot Estate, and a comparative framework for examining how regeneration impacts take shape, for who, and how, across strategic regeneration schemes across east London.
1 The Citizen Prosperity Index is based on empirical work from citizen-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).
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.
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, which ran in five research sites in east London in 20176
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
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).
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 or 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 four survey sites included a total of 1,020 households. Respective survey counts for each LSOA are Teviot Estate West (317), Teviot Estate East (218), Teviot Estate North (226), and Coventry Cross (259). The ethnic composition of these sites is quite distinctive, as in the four LSOAs roughly a third of the population identify themselves as Bangladeshi. This area of Tower Hamlets has a very large Bangladeshi population, with a much smaller proportion of Indian, Pakistani, and East Asian residents. However, because the samples aimed to be representative using five ethnic categories adopted by the ONS, figures in the appendix are reported as Asian ethnicity.
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 four LSOAs. The colour gradients represent income levels, with purple indicating higher income brackets and orange indicating lower income9
In Coventry Cross, Black and Mixed ethnicity respondents tend to report lower income, especially females. Teviot Estate East residents have the lowest overall income levels in the Tower Hamlets LSOAs in the longitudinal study, and females of mixed ethnicity show lower levels of income. In Teviot Estate North, income is relatively higher and distributed more equally both across gender and ethnicity. Residents of white ethnicity show lower income levels in Teviot Estate West, with females perceiving less income than males across ethnicities. The pattern highlights how income variations are specific to each site. However, there is a clear tendency showing higher incomes for males, and lower incomes for females, with some ethnic disparities whereby residents of mixed ethnicity tend to be in the lower income spectrum.
The second heatmap depicts income distributions across age groups and gender within Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross. 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 refused to specify their income. There is no clear pattern when comparing income by gender and age across sites, but residents who are in the lower income brackets are females in their early 40s in Coventry Cross, females older than 55 years old in Teviot Estate West, and those in their early 20s across sites, both male and female. Teviot Estate West, East, and Coventry Cross, had some of the lowest income levels across the 15 sites in the study (together with Heath, in Barking and Dagenham).
Figures 5-7 describe the demographic composition of Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross 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, especially in these four areas.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
We use data from the Citizen Prosperity Index Household Survey and structural equation modelling to estimate values reflecting levels of prosperity in the Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross Estate as a whole and individually for each LSOA (Figures 9-14).
Figures 9-14 present the individual subdomain prosperity scores using radial ‘spider-charts’, enabling us to observe how the LSOAs perform across distinctive subdomains of the Citizen Prosperity Index. Figure 9 provides an overview of the subdomain scores for all four LSOAs on average, whilst Figure 10 shows the prosperity scores stacked for the four sites to allow for comparisons. Subsequent figures zoom in on each LSOA’s performance within specific subdomains, organised according to their respective domains.
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.
Looking at the scores within the bars helps to make more accurate comparisons between sites and subdomains. If, for example, for a given subdomain there is a difference of 1.2 between two LSOAs, this is equivalent to a 12% difference in prosperity in that specific sub-domain.
Figure 9 shows averages for the four Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross Estate survey sites. We can see these are stronger in the Health and Healthy Environments domain, as well as the Opportunities and Aspirations domain, whilst other domains vary depending on the specific subdomains. Sense of Community and Participation in Arts, Leisure and Sports tend to be low across sites.
Figure 10 shows there are notable challenges to livelihood security, as multiple subdomains within the Foundations of Prosperity domain score relatively low. Access to Key Basic Services is an area of concern, particularly in Teviot Estate West. Similarly, Financial Stress is high across sites, but especially acute in Teviot Estate West.
Housing affordability is also a problem, a finding we encounter in every site in the 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 London. 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 Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross. Incomes are low on average and unequally distributed across gender and ethnicity, with quality of locally available jobs generally lower than in Greater London. The prosperity ‘spider-charts’ for the individual survey sites reflect this reality.
However, satisfaction with education is high, and the Freedom, Choice and Control subdomain performs well. 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 individual agency and capacity to make life better.
There is marked variation in the Power, Voice and Influence domain. Teviot Estate East and North show lower scores on their perceived capacity to influence decisions in local area, compared to Teviot Estate West and Coventry Cross.
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 area. Teviot West and Coventry Cross have higher mean values than the other two sites for questions about wellbeing, such as happiness and life satisfaction. Perceived access to healthcare to treat a physical health condition is lower for Teviot East, as 30% disagree that they would be able to get a timely appointment. In Teviot Estate North, East, and Coventry Cross roughly 18% said their health is poor or fair. But in Teviot Estate East over 20% said their health was excellent (21.2%), a proportion two times higher than the rest in the Teviot Estate10. Over 70% surveyed residents in the four sites are satisfied with green open spaces.
In Coventry Cross, as demonstrated in Figure 11, the Foundations of Prosperity Domain is not as low as in other sites, but the Livelihood Security sub-domain is still lower than desirable. Compared to both Greater London and most other sites in the longitudinal study, Coventry Cross has low-income levels, and financial stress and housing affordability are challenges, a problem we see in several of the surveyed areas across the study.
Coventry Cross does relatively well in the Opportunities and Aspirations domain. This measures opportunities for self-improvement, personal development, access to skills training to work, satisfaction with the quality of education, and the degree to which people feel they can make their own decisions and be in control of their lives. This domain is underscored by indicators that show there are high levels of satisfaction with education and a high sense of Freedom, Choice, and Control.
Coventry Cross does well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. A large proportion of residents agree or strongly agree that they can access healthcare for physical health conditions, a big proportion are satisfied with health services, have good or very good selfperceived health, and report high happiness levels on a 1-10 scale (8.0 on average).
A notable concern for Coventry Cross is its performance in the domain of Power, Voice and Influence, with the specific subdomain of Political Inclusion scoring significantly lower than in other sites. The questions that inform this subdomain focus on voter turnout and trust in officials, such as the police, the legal system, parliament, and national Government.
Belonging, Connections, and Leisure also show relatively low scores, driven by the Sense of Community and Arts, Leisure and Sports subdomains. These reveal low levels of involvement in community life and low feelings of support and trust in neighbours, and scant participation in organised arts, sports and cultural activities.
Teviot Estate North
Figure 12 shows that similarly to Coventry Cross, Teviot Estate North has high levels of financial stress and housing unaffordability, which contribute to livelihood insecurity. Income levels are marginally higher and unemployment is low comparatively (2%, although with a large proportion of inactive residents – 31%). This ties into the social value outcomes briefly discussed in previous sections, which include full-time employment as one of the Community outcomes. See table in the Appendix for more details on employment across LSOAs.
Residents saying they feel they belong to the neighbourhood – another social value outcome – are lower in Teviot Estate North (69%) than in the other Teviot LSOAs and Coventry Cross. Only 52% in Teviot North say that people in the area can be trusted and 41% borrow and exchange things with neighbours. Roughly 35% are members of an organisation such as a trade union, political party, sports club, social club, or community organisation, more than in Teviot Estate East but lower than in Teviot Estate West. Over 80% say they can seek advice from neighbours, a relatively large proportion when compared to other LSOAs.
Although around 15% in Teviot Estate North said their health is poor or fair, other indicators in the subdomain give it a good score in the Health and Healthy Environments domain. These include satisfaction with healthcare in the local area and access to healthcare to treat a physical health condition, as roughly 80% agree or strongly agree they have good quality and accessible care.
Compared to the three other LSOAs, Political Inclusion is markedly higher in Teviot Estate North, which means there are higher levels of trust in authorities and voter turnout. But Voice and Influence is markedly lower in Teviot Estate North than in the other sites in this bulletin, 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, and people feel they have autonomy and can make decisions to improve their lives, as the Freedom Choice and Control subdomain reveals. Lifelong Learning – participation in professional training through work and in adult learning classes in general – is low in Teviot Estate North. Participation in Arts, Sports and Leisure is also relatively low, a relatively common tendency in sites across the study.
As illustrated in Figure 13, the most notable lowperforming subdomain in Teviot Estate West is Freedom from Financial Stress. This means that levels of financial stress are high, in fact the highest across the longitudinal study sites in Tower Hamlets. Unemployment is higher than the London average on this site (8%) and compared to the other Teviot sites and Coventry Cross, it has the largest inactive proportion of respondents (about 47% are economically inactive, out of which 16% are retired). Access to key basic services is lower than in other sites, meaning that there is lower satisfaction with, and access to public transport, internet and affordable childcare. Housing affordability is low across sites, and Teviot Estate West is no exception.
Teviot Estate West shows some noticeable similarities and differences to the previous two LSOAs. It does have high levels of satisfaction with education and performs well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain, but is also strong on the Power, Voice and Influence domain, depicting relatively high levels of trust in government officials, the legal system, and feel they can influence decisions in the local area.
Social relationships are strong – residents have frequent contact with friends, family, and low levels of loneliness. Sense of community is higher than in other Teviot sites and in Coventry Cross. Indicators that feed into this subdomain and tie into the social value outcomes outlined for the regeneration area, include feelings of belonging to neighbourhood, which are remarkably high in Teviot Estate West (92%), and seeking advice from neighbours, which 80% report they usually do. Levels of trust in people in local area are noticeably higher than the other 3 sites (84%) and 56% are members of a group such as trade unions, sports clubs, environmental organisations, and other similar membership-based organisations. This is higher than in the other Teviot Estate sites and Coventry Cross.
Figure 14 shows Index scores for Teviot Estate East. In relation to the Foundations of Prosperity domain, income tends to be lower in this LSOA and the unemployment rate higher (10%). But as in the other sites, feelings of security about the future are relatively high, despite shortcomings on multiple headline indicators on Livelihood Security, including financial stress, access to key basic services, and housing affordability.
The area scores well in the Health and Healthy Environments domain and the Good Quality Education subdomain, much like the previous sites. But it tends to score lower across the board for the other subdomains. Sense of community is relatively low, and it ties to some of the social value outcomes outlined in the Teviot regeneration programme. Although around 80% say they feel they belong to the neighbourhood and roughly 65% say they can get advice from neighbours, less than 50% borrow things or exchange favours with neighbours, and 6% feel that people in the area cannot be trusted, the largest proportion in Teviot Estate. Less than 15% are members of social clubs and membership-based organisations.
This Citizen Prosperity Index bulletin offers an initial analysis of prosperity as a lived experience for residents of four areas of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Coventry Cross, Teviot Estate West, Teviot Estate East, and Teviot Estate North.
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. Housing affordability is an issue across sites, and levels of financial stress, 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, place-specific patterns of experience.
While the current cost of living crisis might explain low levels of livelihood security, the consistent pattern in these four LSOAs, 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 London11, 12. 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 pressure13,14
This research also identifies how histories of deindustrialisation, economic development, migration, and welfare interventions such as post-war 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 2021-2031 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 Teviot Estate and Coventry Cross. These include the Healthy and Healthy Environments domain, as well as multiple subdomains, such as satisfaction with local education across sites and other subdomains depending on the specific LSOA.
The hyper-local focus of the Citizen Prosperity Index identifies the particular 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 regeneration planning, policy, and investment, can be more effectively targeted.
This preliminary analysis will be followed by publications about prosperity in the Royal Docks and Olympic Park. 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.
11 Moore and Woodcraft (2019).
12 Woodcraft and Anderson (2019).
13 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
14 Moore and Woodcraft (2023).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Secure livelihoods
FOUNDATIONS OF PROSPERITY
OPPORTUNITIES AND ASPIRATIONS
POWER, VOICE AND INFLUENCE
BELONGING, CONNECTIONS AND LEISURE
HEALTH AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS
Genuinely affordable and secure housing
Pre-tax income
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
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.
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
Subdomain
Political inclusion
Headline (Composite) Indicator Measures (survey question description)
Political inclusion
Voice and influence
Feelings of influence
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
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.
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)
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.
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
The following Table and Figures show the key summary statistics for the surveyed population across the three Teviot Estates LSOAs and Coventry Cross. These statistics include essential demographic characteristics, employment, housing and educational attainment information. The first column presents the data of these 4 LSOAs combined, under the ‘Tower Hamlets’ heading. Note that this does not include Fish Island and Sweetwater, a Tower Hamlets LSOA that was part of the study but is reported in a separate bulletin.
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
