Profiling Neighbourhood Deprivation

Figure 1: A map of Birmingham outlining the 40 electoral wards created using ArcGIS.

URS 202 Understanding Neighbourhood Poverty1172934

Profiling Neighbourhood Poverty

Introduction to the City of Birmingham

Birmingham is the second largest city in England and has an estimated population, according

to the 2011 Census, of 1,073,000 people which is an increase of 9.8% on the 2001 census

(Birmingham City Council 2011). The city has an ever increasing young population with the

latest figures from the census recorded that there were 404,200 young people under the

age of 25 which is 37.7% of

the entire Birmingham

population (Birmingham

City Council 2011).

According to the Big City

Plan (2011), Birmingham is

the second most ethnically

diverse city in Europe as

45% of Birmingham's

population live in areas

classified as supergroup 7:

Multicultural areas

(Birmingham City Council

2007) and are evident

throughout the city with the

exception of Sutton

Coldfield, South Birmingham

e.g. Longbridge and the

Eastern Periphery.

Birmingham is constructed

of 10 districts: Sutton

Coldfield, Erdington, Perry Barr, Ladywood, Hodge Hill, Yardley, Hall Green, Selly Oak,

Edgbaston and Northfield all of which contain 4 electoral wards which can be seen in their

entirety in figure 1. The average ward population for England and Wales, according to

estimates from the 2011 census, is 6,543 (ONS 2012). In comparison the average ward

1


population in Birmingham was 25,700 with Bordesley Green and Aston the most populous

and the wards of Sutton New Hall and Sheldon the least populous (Birmingham City Council

2009). From the 2001 census the female population of Birmingham was 51.6% and the male

population was the remaining 48.4% and the ethnic grouping consists of 70.4% white, 19.5%

Asian, 6.1% black, 2.9% mixed background and the remaining 1.1% is from a Chinese/Other

ethnicity (Birmingham City Council 2006). From the 2001 census the age structure of

Birmingham is as follows 0-24 years bracket has 37.1% of the population, 25-59 years

bracket has 44.1% of the population and 60+ years has 18.8% of the population.

Indicators and Methodology

The main indicator that will be used at the ward level will be an index of multiple

deprivation consisting of unemployment, overcrowding, long term illness, no car, poor

children and mean earnings, all of which must be calculated as a percentage of population

or percentage of households. Once the indicators have been calculated, according to Noble

et al (2006) the scores need to be standardised in order to create an overall index of

multiple deprivation. The method of standardisation used in this case is to create a Z score,

using the SPSS computer package, for each variable and then to compute the overall index

of multiple deprivation. Noble et al (2006:180) highlight that the Z score due to its

"symmetrical nature" allows a balance e.g. a good score on one of the indicators will

counteract a bad score on another indicator.

To investigate neighbourhood deprivation in more detail multiple deprivation will be

mapped at output area level which means making some changes to the index. The index will

consist of unemployment, overcrowding, long term illness, no car, poor children and low

social class. Firstly, it is difficult to obtain data for income at the output level and as Noble et

al (2006) highlight low income is a central part of multiple deprivation in the UK. Therefore,

that has been replaced by a low social class indicator that would represent low income

which is constructed of long term unemployed and those who have never worked. The same

process of standardisation and computing a new variable will be used. The results of the

multiple deprivation index will then be mapped at ward level and output area level using

ArcGIS, which will then allow comparisons to be made between the different spatial scales.

2

Figure 2. Map of Birmingham measuring multiple deprivation at ward level.


Results

The results of the index of multiple deprivation at ward level in reference to figure 2 exhibit

a range of trends. Firstly, the general trend evident at the ward level analysis is that the

3

Table 1. The 7 'extremely deprived' wards in Birmingham ranked in order.


wards categorised as extremely deprived are inner city wards surrounding the city centre as

highlighted in figure 2. The pattern evident in the wards bordering the extremely deprived is

one that exhibits characteristics of very deprived, deprived and low deprivation with the

anomaly being the Perry Barr ward towards the north west of the city which is in the

borderline category. The three wards of Sutton Four Oaks, Sutton New Hall and Sutton

Vesey are all in the not deprived category with multiple deprivation scores of -8.97, -5.81

and -7.72 respectively. Using this index of multiple deprivation the most deprived wards in

Birmingham are, in order of decreasing deprivation, Sparkbrook, Aston, Small Heath,

Nechells, Handsworth, Soho and Washwood Heath all of which scored double figures when

sorted using the SPSS computer package as can be seen in table 1.

4

Zone name Dist name multidepz1 Sparkbrook Birmingham 17.122 Aston Birmingham 14.78

3 Small Heath Birmingham 12.18

4 Nechells Birmingham 12.005 Handsworth Birmingham 11.65

6 Soho Birmingham 10.45

7 Washwood Heath Birmingham 10.08


The results of the index of multiple deprivation at output level show a similar pattern to the

results at ward level. The extremely deprived output areas of Birmingham, similarly to ward

level, cluster around the city centre and are located in the inner wards (see figure 3). Figure

3 also shows that there are instances where output areas are categorised as extremely

deprived in the wards of Stockland Green, Moseley and Erdington.

5


The ward of Quinton in south west Birmingham is categorised as borderline on the index of

multiple deprivation. When the ward is mapped at output level there is a distinct pattern

6

Figure 3. Map of Birmingham measuring multiple deprivation at output area level.


evident, the output areas located in the northern part of the ward are categorised as

borderline or not deprived. However, the southern output areas of Quinton display a clear

pattern of deprivation bordering the ward of Bartley Green and Harborne.

Taking a closer look at multiple deprivation at output level a clear pattern is evident as from

figure 3 and table 2 the majority of the extremely deprived wards, as mentioned earlier, are

clustered around the city centre in the inner city wards. Table 2 highlights the 25 most

deprived output areas in the city, although there are a few exceptions to the general pattern

as the wards of Yardley, Bournville and Billesley each have one of the top 25. The ward of

7

Table 2. A table to show the 25 most deprived output areas in Birmingham and the ward within which they are located.

Ward Name Zone Code Multidepz1 Aston 00CNFB0023 15.372 Ladywood 00CNFS0069 13.233 Ladywood 00CNFS0036 12.854 Nechells 00CNFW0065 12.675 Ladywood 00CNFS0056 12.396 Nechells 00CNFW0022 12.327 Sparkbrook 00CNGH0036 11.998 Sparkbrook 00CNGH0028 11.959 Hodge Hill 00CNFN0022 11.93

10 Aston 00CNFB0033 11.6911 Ladywood 00CNFS0057 11.5512 Billesley 00CNFD0079 11.3613 Washwood Heath 00CNGP0023 11.2614 Ladywood 00CNFS0044 11.2115 Bournville 00CNFE0073 10.9116 Ladywood 00CNFS0083 10.8517 Erdington 00CNFH0066 10.7918 Sparkbrook 00CNGH0014 10.7619 Small Heath 00CNGF0057 10.7020 Handsworth 00CNFL0026 10.6821 Sparkbrook 00CNGH0008 10.6322 Yardley 00CNGR0023 10.6123 Hodge Hill 00CNFN0041 10.1924 Aston 00CNFB0069 10.0825 Ladywood 00CNFS0047 10.04


Ladywood has 7 of the most deprived output areas, Sparkbrook has 4 and Aston has 3 of

which one of those outputs is the highest in Birmingham with a score of 15.37.

The ward of Hodge Hill in east Birmingham, according to the index of multiple deprivation is

deprived (see figure 2) however, the results at output level show a clear pattern is that the

deprived output areas are located in the north of the ward bordering the deprived ward of

Kingsbury and a few exist in the east bordering the very deprived ward of Shard End which

has many output areas as deprived. Another area of interest is the ward of Moseley in South

Birmingham which shows low deprivation. The index mapped at output level highlights

many areas as borderline or not deprived, however there is a cluster of very deprived

output areas that border the most deprived ward of Sparkbrook. One more significant

observation from figure 3 is that one of the output areas is extremely deprived.

As mentioned earlier the ward of Sutton New Hall scored -5.81 in the multiple deprivation

index meaning that it is not deprived, however when the index is mapped at output level

there is a difference as in reference to figure 4, a cluster of output areas in the ward appear

to show deprivation on the border between Sutton New Hall and Sutton Four Oaks in an

area known as Falcon Lodge and the area of Maney Hill.

Discussion

A major point to discuss is the decision to measure at both ward and output level.

Measuring deprivation at ward level will give a general overview of a particular ward as can

8

Figure 4. A map to show the change in deprivation when mapped at both ward and output

OUTPUT


be seen in figure 1, thus the map shows which the most deprived wards of a city are. The

problem with measuring deprivation at ward level is that within a ward there may exist

pockets of deprivation or hidden deprivation which is not shown as the ward level analysis

provides an average of the ward. However, measuring multiple deprivation at the output

level and then mapping the results allows the hidden deprivation to be shown. Figure 4

highlights the district of Sutton Coldfield at ward level as not deprived and thus shows how

the ward of Sutton New Hall changes. At output level in figure 4 there exists two clusters of

deprivation in Sutton New Hall, as mentioned earlier they are Falcon Lodge and Maney Hill

which range from low deprivation to very deprived output areas. The results of the index of

multiple deprivation from Sutton New Hall illustrate the argument that the area based

approach, particularly at ward level, has flaws as areas considered less deprived or not

deprived do contain people that are deprived (Smith 1999). The pockets of deprivation

located in Sutton New Hall at output area level is affected by the particular indicator used in

the multiple deprivation variable indicator and partly by the demographics of the area. The

output area with the highest score of 6.10 in the Sutton Coldfield district experiences a high

unemployment score of 20.51%, a high percentage of households with no car 66.67% and

38.31% with a long term limiting illness. The variable of no car ownership can be affected by

other variables and the age structure, for example a high unemployment score may mean

that households cannot afford to run a car and thus contributes to the no car variable.

Another explanation for the high no car score could be the 44.23% of the population that

are aged 60+ as they may not need a car. Furthermore, the people with a long term limiting

illness may exclude them from employment opportunities thus making a car unaffordable

and subsequently the illness itself may prevent a person from driving.

The ward of Ladywood in figure 2 is categorised as very deprived when measuring multiple

deprivation at the ward level, however in figure 3 it can be seen as containing extremely

deprived output areas. Table 2 contains the 25 most deprived output areas in which 7 of

these are located in the Ladywood ward. A reason for this particular statistic may be that

the ward of Ladywood borders the extremely deprived wards of Soho, Aston, Nechells and

Sparkbrook which highlights the spillover effect (Pacione 2009) as deprivation is not

confined within boundaries whether they are ward or output boundaries. To illustrate,

extremely deprived output areas located in Ladywood, as can be seen in figure 4, border

9


extremely deprived areas in the wards of Sparkbrook, Aston, Soho and Nechells. With 7

output areas in the top 25 most deprived one would expect to see the ward as extremely

deprived, however there are output areas that experience less deprivation which are

located in the east of the ward and on the boundary with the Edgbaston ward.

Sparkbrook- is the most deprived ward in Birmingham (see table 1) and when deprivation is

mapped at output level in figure 3 the results are very similar as the vast majority of output

areas in the ward are extremely deprived or very deprived thus ruling out that particular

areas within the ward may skew the results. Looking at the ward of Sparkbrook in more

detail the ward is home to a very young population with 32.6% of the population aged 0-15.

The significance of this result is that there are a large number of young dependants

therefore parents may not be able to work which may explain partly why the ward has the

highest percentage of people unemployed (22.1%). As Pacione (2009) highlights the cause

of deprivation is economic and thus a concentration of low income leads to other forms of

deprivation. The ward of Sparkbrook has mean earnings of £260 which is the second lowest

in Birmingham, behind Aston, the significance of this low income creates a number of spatial

inequalities and highlights some possible amenities that people may be excluded from. For

example a low income may restrict people's ability to have access to a car which in the case

of Sparkbrook may explain the reason that 57.2% of people do not have a car. The

consequence of not having a car means there is limited access to jobs, income and a

restricted choice within the housing market. The problems highlighted in the Sparkbrook

ward show the multi-dimensional problem of deprivation and that individual deprivations

such as low income have a knock on effect on other deprivations and compound one

another to create a compound disadvantage (Pacione 2009).

The high unemployment and high percentage of people with a long term illness will affect

the housing tenure of a particular ward. With a high level of unemployment in Sparkbrook

those people will be restricted to a particular housing class as their lack of income may

prevent them owning their home. This may explain why 47.6% of the housing stock in

Sparkbrook is social housing which is higher than the average for Birmingham at 28.1%. Of

the housing stock in the inner city ward, 47.5% is terrace housing and 31.5% is flats both of

10


these types of housing are high density and low cost. Pacione (2009) argues that low cost

housing in the inner city wards of major UK cities was to facilitate immigrants in the

aftermath of the Second World War.

Conclusion, Limitations and Recommendations

In conclusion, the most deprived wards of Birmingham are the inner city wards of

Sparkbrook, Aston, Nechells, Soho, Small Heath, Handsworth and Washwood Heath. These

particular wards show high levels of unemployment, no car ownership and no education

which leads to the problem of compound disadvantage. For Birmingham, there is a clear

pattern of deprivation as the greatest deprivation occurs in inner city wards and the

surrounding wards experience lower levels of deprivation with the Sutton District

experiencing no deprivation at ward level. At output level, the pattern is very similar,

however there are some small concentrations of deprivation which are not seen at ward

level ,for example the deprivation in the Sutton New Hall ward. The output analysis also

highlights that some wards which are not deprived do contain high levels of deprivation.

One of the major issues experienced during the report relating particularly to output level

deprivation is that deprivation is not confined to particular boundaries such as output areas

or ward level, thus highlighting that deprivation is not a static process. A major problem

with measuring deprivation is the area based approach itself as measuring at ward level fails

to highlight hidden deprivation within wards. The consequence of this problem can be seen

in the report as an area classed as deprived can contain people who are not deprived and

visa versa therefore when dealing with deprivation resources and policy responses may not

target the right areas effectively. A particular problem for Birmingham is the large ward

populations which make the response to deprivation difficult for the reason mentioned

above.

Some of the limitations of the report stem from the use of particular indicators such as

unemployment and no car ownership. The indicator of unemployment doesn't measure

people who do not need to work as they may have accrued life savings. Furthermore, in a

household of two people, one of those may earn enough money to support both people

11


therefore the other person does not need to work. The car ownership indicator is

problematic as there may be people who do not require a car as public transport is sufficient

for them to get to work or leisure activities. For anyone profiling neighbourhood

deprivation, a few recommendations would be to ensure that deprivation is mapped at both

ward and output level to show the pattern across a city or county. The output will then

allow for greater focus within wards which allows better use of resources and a more

effective policy response. The use of certain indicators will need to be considered before

being used such as unemployment, a way to measure unemployment would be to measure

not individual unemployment but unemployment by household or to use the number of

claimants in an area. If multiple deprivation was to be mapped, it would make sense to use

varying standardisation methods to investigate whether this affects a particular area or

changes results.

Word Count: 2,772

References

Birmingham City Council (2006) 2001 Population Census in Birmingham: District Profiles 2006 Boundaries http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Planning-and-Regeneration%2FPageLayout&cid=1223096353827&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrapper

Birmingham City Council (2007) Demographic Briefing http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/ Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Planning-and-Regeneration%2FPageLayout&cid=1223096353827&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrapper

Birmingham City Council (2009) About Birmingham Wards http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Planning-and-Regeneration%2FPageLayout&cid=1223096353895&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrapper Accessed 15/02/2013

Birmingham City Council (2011) Census 2011: Key Findings for Birmingham http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/2011-census?packedargs=website%3D4& rendermode=live Accessed 12/02/2013

Casweb (2001) 2001 Census Data

Noble, M. Wright, G. Smith, G. Dibben, C. (2006) Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-are level, Environment and Planning A, 38, pp. 169-185.

12


ONS (2012) 2011 Census, Population and Household Estimates for Small Areas in England and Wales Accessed from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_288463.pdf

Pacione, M. (2009) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, 3rd Edition, Routledge, Oxon.

Smith, G. (1999) Area based initiatives: the rationale and options for area targeting. CASE paper 25, London School of Economics, London.

13

Profiling Neighbourhood Deprivation

Documents

Transcript of Profiling Neighbourhood Deprivation