Social Cohesion Radar: Social Cohesion in Bremen

The Bertelsmann Stiftung has been conducting the ´Social Cohesion Radar´ project since 2012. The aim is to measure the quality of social cohesion in different communities. The study presented here extends the state of knowledge by taking a look at the municipal level. In the fall of 2015, 2,605 representatively selected Bremen citzizens were surveyed on the dimensions of social cohesion in 78 of the 88 districts of Bremen. The survey includes questions on the conditions of cohesion, questions on the effects of cohesion, Bremen-specific questions and questions on the current refugee situation in Bremen.

Topics: Duration of residence in the district (year of moving in); satisfaction in the district; solidarity with the city, the district, the district and the neighbourhood (geopolitical identity); desire to move or feeling of belonging to the district; subjective neighbourhood concept; housing: Housing status; social housing construction; apartment size in sqm; number of living spaces; assessment of rent; social network: size of circle of friends and acquaintances in the district; frequency of private meetings with friends, relatives and work colleagues; frequency of random meetings of friends on the street; private meetings with neighbours; trust in fellow human beings: general personal trust; general assessment of helpfulness; trust in strangers; trust in returning a purse lost in the neighbourhood; acceptance of diversity: district a good place for children, people with different daily rhythms, foreigners, migrants, homosexuals, people of different skin colours, refugees; immigrants enrich cultural life in Germany; satisfaction with the composition of the neighbourhood; satisfaction with the neighbourhood activities in the district; satisfaction with the efforts of local politicians towards the neighbourhood; institutional trust: Trust in local political parties or at federal, judicial and municipal level; sense of justice: fair share of the standard of living; infrastructure in the neighbourhood: equipping the neighbourhood with day-care facilities for senior citizens, public green spaces and sports or leisure facilities compared to other neighbourhoods; investment in street maintenance compared to other neighbourhoods; city does not care enough about the neighbourhood; solidarity and helpfulness: personal helpfulness towards strangers; frequency of personal helpfulness in general as well as in the neighbourhood; frequency of lending to neighbours; assessment of helpfulness in the district in general; agreement with the accommodation of refugees in the district; responsibility of the city of Bremen for refugees; respondent offers help for refugees himself; recognition of social rules: various problems in the district (e.g.e.g. dog excrement on the street, wrong parkers, etc.); feeling of security at night in the surroundings and in the residential area; crime in the district; social participation: Interest in politics; interest in local politics; personal commitment to the residential area; type of political commitment in the last twelve months (e.g. assumption of a political office, participation in a demonstration, etc.).); assessment of the refugee situation in Bremen; frequency of Internet use for private purposes; number of books in the household; self-assessment of religiousness; personal values (developing new ideas, wealth, security, amusement, doing good, success, risk-taking, doing right, environment, traditions); general feeling of happiness; general life satisfaction;; agreement to various statements (own life comes close to the ideal, living conditions are excellent, satisfied with life, getting the most important things desired by life so far, would change almost nothing if I could live my life again); self-assessment of general state of health; impairment when climbing stairs by the state of health; chronic diseases.

Demography: sex; age (year of birth, month of birth); age grouped; number of landline numbers in the household; household size; number of children in the household; marital status; employment status; group membership if not full-time or part-time; highest vocational qualification; receipt of social assistance; net household income; citizenship; birth of the respondent and his parents in Germany (migration background); language spoken at home.

Additionally coded: respondent ID; street name; district name; entry in telephone directory; weighting factor; total of problems in the district; total of political commitment; neighbourhood: only own house, immediate neighbourhood houses, houses in own street, houses in other streets; derived variables.

贝塔斯曼基金会（Bertelsmann Stiftung）自2012年起开展“社会凝聚力雷达”（Social Cohesion Radar）项目，旨在衡量不同社区的社会凝聚力质量。本文呈现的研究通过聚焦市级层面拓展了现有知识边界。2015年秋季，研究人员在不来梅88个区中的78个区，对2605名具有代表性的不来梅市民就社会凝聚力的多个维度展开调查。调查涵盖凝聚力条件相关问题、凝聚力影响相关问题、不来梅特定问题，以及不来梅当前难民状况相关问题。

主题：社区居住时长（迁入年份）；社区满意度；对城市、社区及邻里的归属感（地缘政治认同）；迁居意愿或社区归属感；主观邻里概念；住房：居住状态；社会住房建设；公寓面积（平方米）；居住空间数量；租金评价；社会网络：社区内朋友及熟人圈子规模；与朋友、亲属及同事私下会面的频率；在街上偶遇朋友的频率；与邻里的私下会面；对他人的信任：总体个人信任；对乐于助人程度的总体评价；对陌生人的信任；对邻里拾获钱包归还的信任；对多样性的接纳：社区是否适合儿童、作息习惯不同的人、外国人、移民、同性恋者、不同肤色人群、难民；移民是否丰富德国文化生活；对邻里构成的满意度；对社区内邻里活动的满意度；对地方政客在邻里事务上努力程度的满意度；机构信任：对地方政党或联邦、司法及市级层面机构的信任；正义感：生活水平的公平分配；邻里基础设施：与其他邻里相比，本社区老年日间照料设施、公共绿地及体育或休闲设施的配备情况；与其他邻里相比，街道维护的投入情况；城市对本社区关注不足；团结与乐于助人：对陌生人的个人帮助行为；总体及社区内个人助人行为的频率；向邻里出借物品的频率；对社区内总体乐于助人程度的评价；是否同意在社区内安置难民；不来梅市对难民的责任；受访者是否亲自为难民提供帮助；社会规则认知：社区内的各类问题（如街道上的狗粪、违规停车等）；夜间在周边及居住区的安全感；社区内的犯罪情况；社会参与：政治兴趣；地方政治兴趣；对居住区的个人投入；过去12个月的政治参与类型（如担任政治职务、参加示威等）；对不来梅难民状况的评价；私人用途互联网使用频率；家庭藏书数量；宗教信仰自评；个人价值观（开发新想法、财富、安全、娱乐、行善、成功、冒险、行正义之事、环境、传统）；总体幸福感；总体生活满意度；对各类陈述的认同度（自己的生活接近理想、生活条件极佳、对生活满意、已获得人生至今渴望的最重要事物、若能重来几乎不会改变生活）；总体健康状况自评；健康状况对爬楼梯的影响；慢性病。

人口统计学：性别；年龄（出生年份、出生月份）；分组年龄；家庭固定电话号码数量；家庭规模；家庭儿童数量；婚姻状况；就业状态；若非全职或兼职则所属群体；最高职业资格；是否领取社会救助；家庭净收入；公民身份；受访者及其父母是否在德国出生（移民背景）；家庭使用语言。

额外编码信息：受访者ID；街道名称；社区名称；电话簿中的条目；权重因子；社区问题总数；政治参与总数；邻里范围：仅限自家房屋、紧邻房屋、同街道房屋、其他街道房屋；衍生变量。