In this paper we are concerned with the measurement of aspects of population distribution, or settlement patterns, and the use of these measures in public-policy contexts in particular. More specifically, we query the adequacy of the population-density indicator, which is widely used in statistical formulae such as those by which the British government allocates funding to English local authorities. Our approach is to work through a series of topics, starting with an introductory discussion of the ideas raised by analyses of population distribution, and followed by a section on issues involved in the measurement of settlement patterns. In the third section, we outline the types of public-policy concern which call for statistical indicators of settlement patterns, and then present a set of guidelines for measurements which will be of value in the specific context of British local-government finance-allocation systems. In the next three sections, these guidelines are used to assess the appropriateness of settlement-pattern indicators which are already in use in such systems, in each case moving on to outline an alternative form of measurement designed in the light of weaknesses of current indicators. In the penultimate section, we provide an empirical assessment of the new measures developed here, then in the final section we briefly review the appropriateness of the approach that has been adopted.
References
1.
Audit Commission, 1993Passing the Bucks: The Impact of Standard Spending Assessments on Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness (HMSO, London).
2.
BartholomewD J, 1996The Statistical Approach to Social Measurement (Academic Press, San Diego, CA).
3.
BattyMXieY, 1994, “Urban analysis in a GIS environment: Population density modelling using ARC/INFO”, in Spatial Analysis and GIS Eds FotheringhamSRogersonP, (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 189–219.
4.
BlacksellMEconomidesKWatkinsC, 1991Justice Outside the City: Access to Legal Services in Rural Areas (Longman, Harlow, Essex).
5.
BrackenI, 1994, “A surface model approach to the representation of population-related social indicators”, in Spatial Analysis and GIS Eds FotheringhamSRogersonP, (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 247–259.
6.
BrackenIMartinD, 1989, “The generation of spatial population distributions from census centroid data”Environment and Planning A21537 – 543.
7.
BramleyG, 1990Equalization Grants and Local Expenditure Needs: The Price of Equality (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants).
8.
Cabinet Office, 2000, “Adding it up: Improving analysis and modelling in central government”, Performance and Innovation Unit report (The Stationery Office, London).
9.
CEPFAR, 1990The Inventory of the Rural Areas: The National Realities Faced with the Communitarian Approach European Training and Development Centre for Farming and Rural Life (CEPFAR, Brussels).
10.
ChippingH, 1993, “Data for allocation of resources”, in Proceedings of the “Regional and Local Statistics” Conference of the Statistics Users' CouncilIMAC Research, Lancaster House, More Lane, Esher KT10 8AP, pp 29–39.
11.
ClokePEdwardsG, 1986, “Rurality in England and Wales 1981: A replication of the 1971 index”Regional Studies20289 – 306.
12.
CoombesM GCharltonM E, 1994, “Population distribution as a factor in the costs of fire services”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1253 – 70.
13.
CoombesM GWongCRaybouldS, 1993, “Indicators of disadvantage and the selection of areas for regeneration”, RR 26, Scottish Homes, Thistle House, 91 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5HE.
14.
CoombesM GRaybouldSWongCOpenshawS, 1995, “Towards an index of deprivation: A review of alternative approaches”, in 1991 Deprivation Index: A Review of Approaches and a Matrix of Results Department of the Environment (HMSO, London) pp 1–67.
15.
CraigJ, 1985, “Better measures of population density”Population Trends3916 – 21.
16.
CraigJ, 1988Population Density and Concentration in England and Wales 1971 and 1981 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Studies on Medical and Population Subjects 52 (HMSO, London).
17.
CSL Group, 1993Settlement Pattern/Sparsity Indicators for GAE Assessments Report to Distribution Committee Working Party on Local Government Finance (Scottish Office, Edinburgh).
18.
DaleAWilliamsMDodgemB, 1996Housing Deprivation and Social Change Longitudinal Study paper 8 (The Stationery Office, London).
19.
DavisRLopataR, 2000Revenue Grant Distribution System: Research on Local Government PerspectivesOpinion Research Corporation, Angel Corner House, 1 Islington High Street, London N1 9AH.
20.
DETR, 1998Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People Cm4014, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London) http://www.local-regions.detr.gov.uk/lgwp/index.htm.
DoE, 1993Population Distribution: Derivation of Settlement Pattern Indicators Settlement Working Group paper SSASG (93) 95 (Department of the Environment, London).
23.
DoE, 1995Indicators of Settlement Patterns Settlement Working Group paper SSASG (95) 49 (Department of the Environment, London).
24.
DorlingDAtkinsD, 1995Population Density, Change and Concentration in Great Britain 1971, 1981 and 1991 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Studies on Medical and Population Subjects 58 (HMSO, London).
25.
Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd in association with Transportation Planning Associates, 1993Reducing Transport Emissions Through Planning (HMSO, London).
26.
FlowerdewRFrancisBLucasS, 1994, “The standard spending assessment as a measure of spending needs in nonmetropolitan districts”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy121 – 13.
27.
FokkemaTGrierveldJNijkampP, 1996, “Big cities, big problems: Reasons for the elderly to move?”Urban Studies33353 – 377.
28.
FouquetAMarpsatM, (Eds), 1987Donnees Sociales1987 (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques, Paris).
29.
François É, 1990, “The German urban network between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries: Cultural and demographic indicators”, in Urbanization in History: A Process of Dynamic Interactions Eds van der WoudeA DHayamiAde VriesJ, (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 84–100.
30.
GoodchildM FJanelleD, 1984, “The city around the clock: Space – time patterns of urban ecological structure”Environment and Planning A101273 – 1285.
31.
HiggsGWhiteS D, 1997, “Changes in service provision in rural areas: Part 1: Disadvantage in rural areas and accessibility to services”Journal of Rural Studies13441 – 450.
32.
KPMG, 1996Sparsity Research report 20545 to Association of Metropolitan Authorities, London [tabled to Department of the Environment, London, as Settlement Working Group paper SSASG (96) 50].
33.
McDonaldJ F, 1989, “Econometric studies of urban population density: A survey”Journal of Urban Economics26361 – 385.
34.
McLennanB, 1995, “You can count on us—with confidence”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A158467 – 489.
35.
Management Perspectives, 1996Density and Local Authority Costs report to Department of the Environment, London [Settlement Working Group paper SSASG (96) 53].
36.
MasseyD SStephanG E, 1977, “The size-density hypothesis in Great Britain: Analysis of a deviant case”Demography14351 – 361.
37.
MoseleyM J, 1979Accessibility: The Rural Challenge (Methuen, London).
OPCS, GRO, 1984Census 1981: Key Statistics for Urban Areas: Great Britain Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys, General Register Office for Scotland (HMSO, London).
40.
PahlR E, 1965, “Urbs in rure: The metropolitan fringe in Hertfordshire”, Geographical Papers 2, Department of Geography, London School of Economics and Policial Science, London.
41.
ParkerK TVickerstaffS, 1996, “TECs, LECs and small firms: Differences in provision and performance”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy14251 – 267.
42.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 1999, “Grant distribution systems used overseas: Preliminary findings of the 20 countries selected for study”, report to the Local Government Revenue Grant Distribution Review Group, http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/rgd/countries.pdf.
43.
PumainRSaint-JulienTCattanNRozenblatC, 1991, “The statistical concept of the town in Europe”, report 0673002 by the Network for Urban Research in the European Community (Eurostat, Luxembourg).
44.
RankM RHirschlT A, 1993, “The link between population-density and welfare provision”Demography30607 – 622.
45.
RDC, 19951994 Survey of Rural ServicesRural Development Commission, Dacre House, 19 Dacre Street, London SW1H ODH.
46.
ReesP H, 1970, “The axioms of intra-urban structure and growth”, in Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems Eds BerryB J LHortonF E, (Prentice-Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ) pp 276–288.
47.
RhindD WStannessKEvansI S, 1977, “Population distribution in and around selected British cities”, WP 11, Census Research Unit, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham.
48.
Royal Commission on Local Government in England, 1969Volume I Report Cmnd 4040 (HMSO, London).
49.
SeniorD, 1965, “The city region as an administrative unit”Political Quarterly3682 – 91.
50.
SeniorM L, 1994, “The English standard spending assessment system—an assessment of the methodology”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1223 – 51.
51.
ThomasR WWarrenE S, 1997, “Evaluating the role of regression methods in the determination of standard spending assessments”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1553 – 72.
52.
TownsendPPhillimorePBeattieA, 1988Health and Deprivation: Inequality and the North (Croom Helm, London).
53.
TwomeyJTomkinsJHowardGTophamN, 1996, “Sparsity and local authority costs (Stage II)”, report MZ787 by Salford University Business Services to Department of the Environment, London [Settlement Working Group paper SSASG (96) 52].
54.
WardM PJonesM C, 1995Kernel Smoothing (Chapman and Hall, London).
