Social Cohesion Radar: Use Cases for Cohesion in situ

Resource Type
Dataset : Survey and aggregate data
  • Grau, Andreas (Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh)
  • Gesemann, Frank (DESI - Institut für Demokratische Entwicklung und Soziale Integration, Berlin)
Publication Date
  • Ipsos Public Affairs, Berlin (Data Collector)
  • ZA:
    • Political Attitudes and Behavior
    • Society, Culture
    • Community, Living Environment
  • CESSDA Topic Classification:
    • Migration
    • Community, urban and rural life
    • Social behaviour and attitudes
    • Mass political behaviour, attitudes/opinion
    • Social exclusion
  • Abstract

    In view of the current challenges posed by globalisation, worldwide flight movements, social inequality and increasing ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, local social cohesion is of great importance. As part of the ´Social Cohesion Radar,´ which the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been conducting since 2011, this study examined local social cohesion in a total of four cities (one major city and three small or medium-sized towns in eastern and western Germany). The cities selected for this study were Dortmund, Rostock, Lippstadt and Dessau-Roßlau. Topics: Connectedness with Europe, Germany, the federal state, the region, the city, the district and the neighbourhood (geopolitical identity); intention to move; form of housing (residential status); social network: size of circle of friends and acquaintances; frequency of private meetings with friends, relatives and with work colleagues; mutual neighbourhood visits; contacts with people with a migration background in personal or professional life. Trust in fellow human beings: general trust in people; thinking of advantages vs. predominant willingness to help. Acceptance of diversity: threatened vs. enriched life in Germany by increasing diversity; opinion on a welcoming culture in Germany; opinion on the integration of immigrants in Germany; similarity or difference of people in the district; major differences with regard to origin, social situation or religion/culture; satisfaction with the composition of people in the district; opinion on foreigners: too many foreigners in Germany, send foreigners back home when jobs become scarce; opinion on Muslims: like a foreigner in one´s own country by the many Muslims in Germany; Muslims should be prohibited from immigrating to Germany. Confidence in institutions: Trust in various social and political institutions (parties/ politicians in general, local parties/ politicians, federal government, state government, city and local government, courts, police, local/ regional media, national media). Sense of justice: Fair share in the general standard of living; equipping the district with sufficient youth leisure facilities, family and neighbourhood centres, day care centres for senior citizens and public sports or leisure facilities; agreement with the statement ´City does not care enough about my district. Solidarity and willingness to help: Willingness to help a needy stranger; frequency of assistance to persons outside the household; frequency of offers of help to needy persons; frequency of activities in various associations or initiatives. Recognition of social rules: Perceived disturbance in the district due to damaged playgrounds/bus stops, graffiti, dirt or rubbish in streets and green areas, young people in groups, drunk people, beggars and homeless people; personal feeling of safety at home; change in personal feeling of safety at home; personal feeling of safety at home at night. Social participation: Political interest; interest in local politics; strength of personal commitment to the interests of the neighbourhood or people in the neighbourhood; type of political commitment in the last twelve months (e.g. holding political office, taking part in a demonstration, etc.); assessment of political issues (internal political efficiency). Reception and integration of refugees: Immigration of refugees is good vs. bad for the German resp. local economy; Germany or its own city becomes a better vs. worse place to live due to the refugees; assessment of the performance of Germany resp. one´s own city in overcoming the challenges of receiving and integrating refugees; evaluation of the city´s refugee and integration policy; agreement on the accommodation of refugees in the district; type of volunteer work for refugees in the last two years (e.g. donations of money or goods, sorting or distribution of clothing or food, etc.); experience with hostility due to personal commitment to refugees; rather positive or rather negative experiences in contact with refugees; participation in actions against the further influx of refugees (residents´ meetings, signature actions, demonstrations, others); evaluation of the relationship between residents in the district; effects of the reception and integration of refugees on the community in the district; important measures of the city to promote social cohesion in the community (e.g., the introduction of a refugee centre in the district, the introduction of a refugee centre in the district, the introduction of a refugee centre in the district, the introduction of a refugee centre in the district). e.g. promotion of educational opportunities (day-care centres, schools), promotion of labour market integration, promotion of social housing, etc.). Frequency of private Internet use; number of books in the household; self-assessment of religiousness; life satisfaction; self-assessment of health status. Demography: Sex; age; household size; number of children in the household; marital status; occupational situation (employment status); highest level of schooling; highest level of vocational education and training; receipt of social benefits in the last 12 months; net household income; assessment of own economic situation; born in Germany; German citizenship; indication of citizenship; birth of parents in Germany (migration background); language spoken at home; indication of other language if not German. Additionally coded: Interview number; city (Rostock, Dessau, Dortmund, Lippstadt); weight; respondent did not provide information on age, household size and number of children.
Temporal Coverage
  • 2017-03-27 / 2017-05-23
Geographic Coverage
  • Rostock (DE-MV-RSK)
  • Saxony-Anhalt (DE-ST)
  • Dortmund (DE-NW-DTM)
  • North Rhine-Westphalia (DE-NW)
Sampled Universe
German-speaking resident population aged 18 and over in private households with at least one fixed line in Dortmund, Rostock, Lippstadt and Dessau-Roßlau In Dortmund, the sample was supplemented by an additional sample; in the districts of Brakel, Aplerbeck and Hörde, the sample was increased by a net case number in each district of n=150 interviews.
Time Dimension
  • Cross-section
Collection Mode
  • Telephone interview: CATI
Data and File Information
  • Number of Variables: 154
Further studies in the series were archived under the following ZA study numbers: 7486: Social Cohesion Radar: Social Cohesion in Germany 2017 7485: Social Cohesion Radar: Social Cohesion in Bremen
C - Data and documents are only released for academic research and teaching after the data depositor’s written authorization. For this purpose the Data Archive obtains a written permission with specification of the user and the analysis intention.
All metadata from GESIS DBK are available free of restriction under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. However, GESIS requests that you actively acknowledge and give attribution to all metadata sources, such as the data providers and any data aggregators, including GESIS. For further information see
Alternative Identifiers
  • ZA7487 (Type: ZA-No.)
  • Gesemann, Frank; Roth, Roland; Seidel, Alexander; Schwarze, Kristin; Prötzsch, Janina: Fallstudien zum Zusammenhalt vor Ort. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh, 2018

Update Metadata: 2020-10-21 | Issue Number: 15 | Registration Date: 2020-03-27