Summary of results of the mirke neighbourhood survey

As an introduction to the questionnaire, the participants were invited to write down the first three images, things or words that come to mind about the Mirke district. These free associations could be assigned to a total of 13 overarching categories (ordered by frequency of mention):

- Places, buildings & actors (35% of the mentions), e.g.: Utopiastadt / Mirker Bahnhof, Nordbahntrasse, Café ADA

- Cityscape (14.4%), e.g. beautiful Wilhelminian architecture, steep streets, dense population, view of the valley

- Population (11%), e.g. diversity, colourful neighbourhood, families, students, many different people

- General positive impressions / descriptions (8%), e.g. nice residential area, relaxed atmosphere, lively, alternative, liveable

- Problems around transport infrastructure & mobility (5.8%), e.g. lack of parking spaces, too few cycle paths, lots of traffic

- Traffic connections and location in the city (4.4%), e.g. central location, good connections, direct access to railway lines

- Problems, negative changes & concerns (4%), e.g. gentrification, poverty, vacancy, too many visitors, too little space

- Emotional / personal connection to the neighbourhood (4%), e.g. my home, home, childhood, 'my' district

- Leisure facilities and offers (3.9%), e.g. diverse cultural offers, art, music, cosy cafés, bars and restaurants

- Living together and commitment (3.5%), e.g. good neighbourhood, community, great people, commitment of residents, cohesion.

- Lack of cleanliness (2.3%), e.g. dirty house fronts, rubbish, dog excrement

- Positive development of the neighbourhood (2.2%), e.g. neighbourhood on the move, many new, good projects, lots of potential

- Noise pollution (1.4%), e.g. noise from the A46 motorway

In order to capture the coexistence in the neighbourhood, the participants were asked about their assessment of intercultural coexistence, social cohesion, social differences and their neighbourhood relations. The majority of respondents rated both intercultural coexistence in the neighbourhood (rather good/very good: 74.2%) and social cohesion positively (rather good/very good: 50.6%). However, the social differences are perceived as rather large (31.2%) or very large (5.9%).

In terms of neighbourly relations, the participants describe the contact with their neighbours and fellow residents in the neighbourhood predominantly as rather close ("I know some of the neighbours more closely and people help each other out sometimes". - 43%) or even very close ("I maintain friendships with some neighbours" - 23%). Few people rated their neighbourly relations as not close ("I don't know anyone in the neighbourhood personally and I don't say hello to them either" - 1.3%). 

The questionnaire also asked how satisfied the participants were with various aspects of their living environment. In particular, they rated the public transport connections, the local recreational opportunities and the range of cafés, restaurants and bars as positive. On the other hand, the parking facilities for cars, the cleanliness of the neighbourhood and the provision of care and old people's facilities were rated as particularly negative.

Participants were invited to select up to seven factors affecting their living environment from a list and rank them according to their personal importance. The following aspects received the highest overall score (i.e. they were most frequently selected as one of the seven most important factors and received a higher rating within the seven factors): Accessibility to public transport, local supply and shopping facilities, and neighbourhood and social environment.

In terms of transport use, car use in the Mirk neighbourhood is relatively balanced: While 48% of respondents said they used their car daily or several times a week, the same proportion said they rarely or never relied on their car. Car sharing was again not used by the majority (73%).

Public transport was used frequently (daily or several times a week) by 38% of the participants at the time of the survey. However, a large proportion of respondents also stated that they rarely (35.4%) or never (21.3%) used public transport. Walking, on the other hand, was much more common: Around 81% stated in the survey that they covered distances exclusively on foot every day or several times a week.

The majority of respondents are (very) satisfied with their housing situation (76.5%) or have a neutral attitude in this respect (18.4%). Only a very small proportion stated that they were (very) dissatisfied with their housing situation (4%). The majority of the participants felt that the size of the flat was just right (55.7%) or tended to feel that it was rather/much too small (30.8%). A minority of the participants felt that their living space was somewhat/much too large (11.4%).

Around half of the respondents (42.3%) had no plans to move at the time of the survey. A further 27.9% said they had no specific plans to move and 8.1% had specific plans. With regard to their housing preferences, a clear majority also wanted to stay in their current flat (43.4%), in the Mirke (15%) or in Wuppertal (8.7%). Only a few participants said they wanted to move to a city of the same size (0.3%), a larger (2.2%) or smaller city (2.4%) or to the countryside (5.4%).

Next, the respondents were asked to imagine they would move now: What factors would be most important to them in choosing their living space? The participants were invited to choose up to seven factors that affect their living space from a list and to rank them according to their personal importance. This showed that a suitable flat size, a balcony/terrace and a good house community were most important to the participants when choosing their living space. A guest room and accessibility, on the other hand, were particularly important to the fewest participants.

Due to the new working situations that have arisen in many places as a result of the Corona pandemic, home office was also considered in the first round of the survey. This showed that 30.6% of the participants could in principle do all or part of their work at home, but for a further 22.9% this was not an option (46.6% abstentions). Of the participants who were already working in a home office at the time of the survey, 17.5% stated that they currently spend 75-100% of their working time in a home office. A 50% rule would be ideal for most in this respect.

As part of the survey, the financial situation and self-assessment of the household's economic situation was also looked at more closely. The monthly net household income of the majority of respondents is between 2000€ and 4000€ (38.6%) or between 1000€ and 2000€ (22.4%). 68.9% of the participants also assess the current economic situation of their household as (very) good (compared to 5.9% as '(very) bad' and 18.4% as 'partly good, partly bad'). However, when looking ahead to the economic situation of the household in one year's time, this percentage is reduced (good/very good: 30.5%; partly good, partly bad: 53.4%; bad/very bad: 6.8%).

Most respondents have lived in Wuppertal for more than twenty years (52.4%). Only a few (11.4%) have lived in the city for two years or less. The picture is different for the Mirke neighbourhood: 21.4% of the participants have lived in the neighbourhood for more than 20 years; at the same time, a larger proportion has lived here for less than two years (26%). A similar distribution as in Mirke emerges for the length of residence in the current accommodation.