Spatial Context 151208

1,749 views
1,661 views

Published on

This is a short presentation on my more recent work on area effects and spatial context, in relation to England and the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 - a small area deprivation measure.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,749
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
119
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Spatial Context 151208

  1. 1. Isolated Entities or Integrated Neighbourhoods? An Alternative Approach to the Measurement of Deprivation Dr. Alasdair Rae Department of Town and Regional Planning University of Sheffield
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying areas of need: deprivation indices </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The issues – conceptual underpinnings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Area effects, ‘neighbourhoods’, spatial context </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The approach – based on the English IMD 2004 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A methodological challenge – the first step </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A different view and focus on regional patterns </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conclusions (and next steps) </li></ul>
  3. 3. 1. Introduction Liverpool London <ul><li>Across the United Kingdom, area-based deprivation indices used </li></ul><ul><li>Used to target areas for intervention (NRF, WNF…) </li></ul><ul><li>English IMD a combination of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health and disability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Education, skills and training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Barriers to housing and services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Living environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crime </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In total, 37 indicators used </li></ul>
  4. 4. The geography of deprivation in England <ul><li>Regional imbalances (SE/NW) </li></ul><ul><li>North West England </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Liverpool in particular </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different spatial contexts </li></ul>North West South East
  5. 5. 2. The issues <ul><li>Spatial context is the nation, but… </li></ul><ul><li>What about ‘area’ or ‘neighbourhood’ effects? </li></ul><ul><li>How to identify neighbourhoods? </li></ul><ul><li>The IMD approach overlooks Tobler’s ‘First Law of Geography’ in a formal sense </li></ul>‘ Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things’, Tobler, 1970, 236
  6. 6. The issue of ‘area effects’ <ul><li>A lot has been written about it </li></ul><ul><li>Housing Studies Vol. 22, No. 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Variety of topics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tenure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Race </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Birth weight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inter-disciplinary </li></ul><ul><li>Within vs. between </li></ul>‘ neighbourhoods have a strong and independent effect upon the well-being and life chances of individuals’ Blasius et al ., 2007, 627 ‘ in studies of within neighbourhood effects, no interaction occurs among the neighbourhoods; that is, the neighbourhood possesses no spillover characteristics. Thus, neighbourhoods with identical characteristics but dissimilar neighbouring neighbourhoods are considered equivalent’ Dietz, 2002, 541
  7. 7. Spatial units of analysis <ul><li>Various approaches: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Datcher (1982) preferred the US five-digit zip code </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hogan and Kitigawa (1985) used Census tracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case and Katz (1991) used more bespoke street-level definitions, as did: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sampson et al. (1999) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MacAllister et al. (2001) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bolster et al., (2007) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>All of these attempt to define ‘neighbourhoods’ of some type – this paper no different </li></ul><ul><li>In short, always a compromise – to greater/lesser extent </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial unit used is the basis for the IMD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Av. 1,500 persons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Merging of smaller OAs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some internal logic (social mix) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent through time </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. 3. The approach <ul><li>Produce spatially sensitive IMD measure: 3 steps </li></ul><ul><li>Derive spatial weights </li></ul><ul><li>Create a NNIMD for different weights </li></ul><ul><li>Classify according to attribute and location (Moran’s I ) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Spatial weights derived for 403, 805 and 1609 metres Distance k-nearest Spatial weights derived for 4, 8 and 16 nearest
  10. 10. English IMD 2004 (Moran’s I : 0.6853) <ul><li>Globally, strong positive spatial autocorrelation (high Moran’s I, but hardly surprising </li></ul><ul><li>Locally? </li></ul><ul><li>Use contiguity bands to examine neighbourhood-level patterns… </li></ul>
  11. 11. 4. Findings <ul><li>Smoothing effect </li></ul><ul><li>as orders increase, validity decreases </li></ul><ul><li>but…higher orders identify deep-seated concentrations of deprivation </li></ul><ul><li>from this perspective, key locations emerge across the English regions </li></ul>
  12. 12. Note any pattern in LSOA column? But, no local component – refinement needed
  13. 13. Now each neighbourhood given a weight (based on first order contiguity)
  14. 14. LISA Approach – Spatial Context Typology Large regional variations in the spatial context of deprivation Manchester and Surrounding Districts IMD Score Relationship Spatial Context Classification Most Deprived 20% (6,496) High-High Enclosed deprivation 3,172 Low-Low Enclosed affluence 0 Low-High Isolated affluence 7 High-Low Isolated deprivation 54 Not Significant Variable 3,263
  15. 15. 5. Conclusions <ul><li>Approaches such as this are used more widely as more sophisticated thinking about space develops </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E.g. Kalogirou and Hatzichristos (2007), Patacchini and Rice (2007) and Orford, et al. (2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to integrate spatiality more firmly into the policy mainstream </li></ul><ul><li>Policies that target places rather than people need to understand places better </li></ul><ul><li>In an era of evidence-based policy, benchmarking spatial context is important, and possible </li></ul><ul><li>Further refinement and development needed… </li></ul>
  16. 16. Next Steps http://undertheraedar.blogspot.com <ul><li>Update work for IMD 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Explore domains separately </li></ul><ul><li>Examine area effects for different activities (i.e. spatial context vs. neighbourhood outcomes) </li></ul><ul><li>Critical examination of influence of building blocks on results </li></ul><ul><li>Raise awareness and feed back into the policy cycle </li></ul>

×