The Internal Structure of Greater London

The Internal Structure of Greater London

Talk given at AAG, Chicago 2015

9609e8b5ecb752618cbb0db56b5c0a46?s=128

alexsingleton

April 29, 2015
Tweet

Transcript

  1. www.cdrc.ac.uk www.alex-singleton.com geographicdatascience.com @alexsingleton Consumer Data Research Centre An ESRC

    Data Investment Alex Singleton Professor of Geographic Information Science University of Liverpool Paul Longley Professor of Geographic Information Science University College London The Internal Structure of Greater London: A Comparison of National and Regional Geodemographic Models
  2. None
  3. None
  4. “What is needed is a solution which will pick out

    pattern from the detail, without loosing too much of the original information, and which will admit more detailed examination of parts of the pattern which become relevant to a particular issue or local area as and when required” Webber (1978, 275).
  5. None
  6. None
  7. • 6 categories • 18 groups • 62 types

  8. None
  9. None
  10. None
  11. http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/ 52: POORER FAMILIES, MANY CHILDREN, TERRACED HOUSING 51: YOUNG

    PEOPLE IN SMALL, LOW COST TERRACES 59: DEPRIVED AREAS AND HIGH- RISE FLATS 11: SETTLED SUBURBIA, OLDER PEOPLE Urban Adversity Affluent Achievers
  12. 1 − Rural Residents 2 − Cosmopolitans 3 − Ethnicity

    Central 4 − Multicultural Metropolitans 5 − Urbanites 6 − Suburbanites 7 − Constrained City Dwellers 8 − Hard−Pressed Living 2011 Output Area Classification
  13. 2011 Output Area Classification

  14. Region Higher Managerial* Level 4 qualification and above White Industry

    Finance or Insurance Industry East 10.9 25.7 90.8 5.0 East Midlands 9.1 23.6 89.3 2.5 North East 7.5 22.2 95.3 2.8 North West 8.9 24.4 90.2 3.5 South East 12.6 29.9 90.7 4.5 South West 10.2 27.4 95.4 3.7 Wales 7.8 24.5 95.6 3.1 West Midlands 8.7 23.3 82.7 3.1 Yorkshire and The Humber 8.5 23.3 88.8 3.7 London 13.2 37.7 59.8 7.7 *- All variables apart from “Higher Managerial” are 2011 OAC inputs.
  15. Methodological Overview • Variable Selection • Varied the most between

    OAs • Limit where possible attributes with strong correlation • Good spread of variables
  16. Domain Sub Domain Variables Demographic Age Structure Age bands Family

    Structure Marriage; children; dependant children; Ethnicity Ethnic Groups; Spoken English; EU V New EU Housing Composition Density; communal establishment; student household; occupancy rating Type Detached, semi, terrace, flats Tenure Socially rented; private rented; owned or shared ownership Socio-Economic Health Day-to-day activities limited a lot or a little; standardised illness ratio Employment Unemployment; full time; part time Occupation Occupation groups Education Level 1; Level 2; Level 3; Level 4+ Mobility Car ownership; private transport; public transport; active transport 60 Variables Methodological Overview
  17. Methodological Overview • Standardisation • Inverse hyperbolic sine • Range

    standardisation - 0-1 • K-means clustering • top down
  18. Output

  19. Grand Index

  20. 8 Super Groups 19 Groups A: Intermediate Lifestyles A1: Struggling

    suburbs A2: Suburban localities B: High Density and High Rise Flats B1: Disadvantaged diaspora B2: Bangladeshi enclaves B3: Students and minority mix C: Settled Asians C1: Asian owner occupiers C2: Transport service workers C3: East End Asians C4: Elderly Asians D: Urban Elites D1: Educational advantage D2: City central E: City Vibe E1: City and student fringe E2: Graduation occupation F: London Life-Cycle F1: City enclaves F2: Affluent suburbs G: Multi-Ethnic Suburbs G1: Affordable transitions G2: Public sector and service employees H: Ageing City Fringe H1: Detached retirement H2: Not quite Home Counties
  21. A:Intermediate Lifestyles C:Settled Asians E:City Vibe G:Multi−Ethnic Suburbs A: Intermediate

    Lifestyles B: High Density and High Rise Flats C: Settled Asians D: Urban Elites E: City Vibe F: London Life-Cycle G: Multi-Ethnic Suburbs H: Ageing City Fringe Super Groups
  22. A1: Struggling suburbs A2: Suburban localities B1: Disadvantaged diaspora B3:

    Students and minority mix C1: Asian owner occupiers C2: Transport service workers C4: Elderly Asians D1: Educational advantage D2: City central E2: Graduation occupation F1: City enclaves F2: Affluent suburbs G2: Public sector and service employees H1: Detached retirement H2: Not quite Home−Counties Groups A1: Struggling suburbs A2: Suburban localities B1: Disadvantaged diaspora B2: Bangladeshi enclaves B3: Students and minority mix C1: Asian owner occupiers C2: Transport service workers C3: East End Asians C4: Elderly Asians D1: Educational advantage D2: City central E1: City and student fringe E2: Graduation occupation F1: City enclaves F2: Affluent suburbs G1: Affordable transitions G2: Public sector and service employees H1: Detached retirement H2: Not quite Home Counties
  23. A: Intermediate Lifestyles E00007298; Perry Mead, Enfield Groups A1: Struggling

    suburbs A2: Suburban localities • Later stages in life-cycle • White and born in the UK • Few dependent children • Most live in single family terraced or semi detached properties. • Higher social rented. • Average employment in full and part time intermediate occupations. • Lower levels of highest qualifications
  24. B: High Density and High Rise Flats E00009768; Lancaster Court,

    Fulham Groups B1 Disadvantaged diaspora B2 Bangladeshi enclaves • Densely populated areas of flats. • Families have children of school age • Many residents Bangladeshi origins • High Black residents or Mixed or Other ethnic groups. • Higher spoken language is not English. • Qualifications are below the London average • Some residents are full-time students living in shared accommodation. • Levels of unemployment and part- time working high • Employment more typically in administration, or in accommodation and food services industries.
  25. C: Settled Asians E00013190; Catherine Gardens, Hounslow Groups C1 Asian

    owner occupiers C2 Transport service workers C3 East End Asians C4 Elderly Asians • Traditional single-family houses • Above average numbers of which are owner-occupied. • Full age range • Main language spoken in many households is not English. • Occupations drawn from a wide range of non- professional sectors. Many of Asian origins, although many are second or subsequent generation British residents.
  26. D: Urban Elites E00009327; Stoner Road, West Kensington Groups D1

    Educational advantage D2 City central • Young professionals • Working in the science, technology, finance and insurance sectors. Large numbers of students • Many privately owned flats • Residents are disproportionately drawn from pre 2001 EU countries, • High of Chinese, Arab and other minority backgrounds.
  27. E: City Vibe E00009228; Netherwood Road, Shepherds Bush Groups E1

    City and student fringe E2 Graduation occupation • Many young, single professionals • Mostly living in Zone 2 • Few individuals originate from the Indian sub-continent • Mixed ethnic groups are well represented, as are migrants from pre 2001 EU countries. • Large number student households • Individuals rent within the private sector • Well qualified • Employed in a range of professional, scientific and technical occupations.
  28. F: London Life-Cycle E00017504; Trinity Road, Wimbledon Groups F1 City

    enclaves F2 Affluent suburbs • Predominantly White in ethnic composition (including individuals from other pre 2001 EU countries) • Households cover the full family life-cycle • Residents are highly qualified • Employment rates are high • Employment is concentrated in the technical, scientific, finance, insurance and real estate industries.
  29. G: Multi-Ethnic Suburbs E00022299; Crescent Road, Leyton Groups G1 Affordable

    transitions G2 Public sector and service employees • Wide range of non-White ethnic groups • EU post 2001 are well represented. • Young children or children of school age, • Low over 65s • Family housing in overcrowded terraces, • social housing sector. • unemployment are high. • Employment blue collar occupations.
  30. H: Ageing City Fringe E00005585; Peacock Gardens, South Croydon Groups

    H1 Detached retirement H2 Not quite Home Counties • Many residents 45+ • Many above state pensionable age. • High levels of marriage • Mainly white • Much of the dwelling stock semi- detached and detached houses • Levels of qualifications are low • Private vehicle ownership is high • Levels of unemployment are very low and drawn from a range of sectors
  31. A: Intermediate Lifestyles 0.0 0.0 10.1 70.7 6.4 0.0 7.9

    4.9 B: High Density and High Rise Flats 0.0 0.1 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 C: Settled Asians 0.0 0.2 0.7 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D: Urban Elites 0.0 83.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E: City Vibe 0.0 11.7 85.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 F: London Life- Cycle 0.0 36.8 4.9 31.0 26.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 G: Multi-Ethnic Suburbs 0.0 0.1 59.4 40.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H: Ageing City Fringe 0.5 0.0 0.0 15.9 41.3 39.0 0.1 3.1 1 - Rural Residents 2 - Cosmopolitans 3 - Ethnicity Central 4 - Multicultural Metropolitans 5 - Urbanites 6 - Suburbanites 7 - Constrained City Dwellers 8 - Hard-Pressed Living Ethnicity becomes less of a defining feature Highlighting specific ethnic group at
 Super Group level Differences in the ethnic composition of London evidenced in central core areas Appear in core areas in UK classification; suburban in LOAC Most distinctive to London
  32. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 TWSS LOAC Super Group

    A:Intermediate Lifestyles B:High Density and High Rise C:Assimilated Asians D:Urban Elites E:City Vibe F:London Life−Cycle G:Multi−Ethnic Suburbs H:Aging City Fringe 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 TWSS OAC Super Group 1 − Rural Residents 2 − Cosmopolitans 3 − Ethnicity Central 4 − Multicultural Metropolitans 5 − Urbanites 6 − Suburbanites 7 − Constrained City Dwellers 8 − Hard−Pressed Living Possibly issue with Scale Very small numbers In general LOAC has lower and more uniform scores
  33. None
  34. Conclusions • Benefit of a regional classification for London •

    London has a very different geography to the UK • Caveats • May not be helpful in all contexts; loose comparability / augmentation potential • Some issue with the scale at which affluent neighbourhoods emerge - sub OA? • More work is needed on the delineation of regions - avoid suburban performance hit
  35. opengeodemographics.com