Deprivation in the HoL area 2010 data

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hugh on March 31, 2011 at 14:06

Interesting thanks. Also useful to look at the borough wide view. I've sketched the rough outline on here. Two things stand out - the differecne between the two halves of ther borouigh, but also that much of Harringay is pretty similar to neighbouring Stroud Green. The units into which the map is split (super output areas) include residential road and commercial roads

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark B on March 31, 2011 at 14:21

I was looking at Haringey comparing it with the surrounding boroughs. You know you could add Crouch End as well as Stroud Green to your comment.

It is striking how much what you have drawn looks like the election results last time.

(and the expression "the wrong side of the tracks" for our borough)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SarahC on March 31, 2011 at 20:45

I wonder how much the emphasis differs from 1898, though Booth doesn't seem to have made it any further north than Finsbury Park.

http://tinyurl.com/charlesboothmap

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on March 31, 2011 at 21:33

Thanks Mark, really interesting. The maps of London are amazing - beautiful and informative.

More locally, what do you think is the explanation of some Harringay streets appearing to be more deprived than others - like Warham and Allison? Will that be picking up on things like numbers of HMOs? Or is it more likely to be some kind of statistical quirk?

Am I right in thinking that some of the information this is based upon is underpinned by the Census?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark B on March 31, 2011 at 22:10

I think it has to be with population density Alison. For example I reckon the region just over the bridge would be much higher if it wasnt for the estate (is it mount view?). It has lots of people and social housing as well.

 

In answer to your question I reckon it is not so much the HMOS - but the people who live in them. This is from the attached document and shows how they do the "sum".

Table 5: Domain weights for the IMD 2010       Domain Weight
Income Deprivation Domain                                  22.5%
Employment Deprivation Domain                           22.5%
Health Deprivation and Disability Domain               13.5%
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain  13.5%
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain                9.3%
Crime Domain                                                      9.3%
Living Environment Deprivation Domain                  9.3%

 

HMO would be in the barriers to housing and this is broken down into 7 things with overcrowding being one - another is distance to a GP. The doc attached is worth a look.

 

Also I think its much more comprehensive than the Census - but more ephemeral. Like the crime mapping I find it easy to imagine regions boundaries and values changing a lot quickly.

Attachments:

• Indicies of deprivation.pdf, 335 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark B on April 1, 2011 at 8:57

Michelle, All your comments sound wildly sensible. I think with all data you have to be super careful about where it came from. That was why I said I was interested in how the council use the information.I mean there must be *some* value in them putting t together.

Have you any pointers on what I should look at if I were interested in regional social characterisation?

Thx,

Mark

• ▶ Reply