Key issues in constructing an urban deprivation index are discussed, with special reference to the need for flexibility. Governments use such an index for many purposes and for policies targeted at different spatial scales. The technical decisions and the criteria for the selection of indicators are discussed. A single index is rejected in favour of a matrix of results which captures the complex geography of deprivation. The matrix of districts includes measures of the degree of deprivation, its spatial extent, its intensity, and the spatial distribution of deprivation at the enumeration district scale. The profiles of various districts are discussed to illustrate the use of the matrix.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonRMoonG, 1994, “The City Challenge Initiative: An overview and preliminary assessment”Regional Studies2895–97
2.
AulettaK, 1982The Underclass (Random House, New York)
3.
BradfordM GRobsonB TTyeR, 1993, “A matrix of deprivation for English Authorities, 1991”, report to the Department of the Environment, London; forthcoming HMSO, 1994
4.
BradfordM GRobsonB TTyeR, 1994, “Technical issues involved in the construction of deprivation indices”, Spatial Policy Analysis WP27, Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester
5.
CarstairsVMorrisR, 1991, “Deprivation: Explaining differences in mortality between Scotland, England and Wales”British Medical Journal289886–889
6.
ColeK, 1993, “Coping with data modification, small populations and other features of the 1991 small area statistics”, in Census Indicators of Local Poverty and Deprivation: Methodological Issues Ed. SimpsonS, Local Authorities Research and Intelligence Association, Research Services, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Town Hall, London W6 9JU, London, pp 14–28
7.
DaviesHJoshiHClarkeL, 1995, “Is it cash the deprived are short of?”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (forthcoming)
8.
DerbyshireM, 1993, “Changes in local government finance”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A156333–335
9.
DoE, 1983, “Urban deprivation”, Information Note 2, Inner Cities Directorate, Department of the Environment, 2 Mar sham Street, London SW1P 3EB
10.
DoE, 1994, “Bidding guidance: A guide to funding under the single regeneration budget”, Government Offices for the Regions HQ, Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB
11.
HoltermanS, 1975, “Areas of urban deprivation in Great Britain: An analysis of census data”Social Trends633–47
12.
JonesKKirbyA, 1980, “The use of chi-square maps in the analysis of census data”Geoforum11409–417
13.
KatzM B (Ed.), 1993The Underclass Debate: Views from History (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
14.
MorphetC, 1992, “The interpretation of small area census data”Area24(1) 63–72
15.
RobsonB TBradfordM GDeasIHallEHarrisonEParkinsonMEvansRHardingAGarsidePRobinsonF, 1994Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy (HMSO, London)
16.
SeniorM, 1991, “Deprivation payments to GPs: Not what the doctor ordered”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy979–94
17.
TownsendP, 1987, “Disadvantage”Journal of Social Policy16125–146
18.
TownsendP, 1993The International Analysis of Poverty (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
