Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Paper presented at the BSPS Annual Conference, Leicester, 13-15 September 2004 Population change 1971-2001 for the City Regions and Localities of Great.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Paper presented at the BSPS Annual Conference, Leicester, 13-15 September 2004 Population change 1971-2001 for the City Regions and Localities of Great."— Presentation transcript:

1 Paper presented at the BSPS Annual Conference, Leicester, September 2004 Population change for the City Regions and Localities of Great Britain Tony Champion and Mike Coombes Centre for Urban & Regional Development Studies University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU Tel: +44 (0) ,

2 Population change for the City Regions and Localities of Great Britain Introduction: aims, outline, acknowledgments to Simon Raybould & Colin Wymer The City Regions & Localities framework Population change for City Regions: growth, decline, recovery, backsliding? City Region cores as leaders or laggards in City Region growth? Between-Locality variations in change rates: testing roles of North/South & Urban/Rural Summary and next steps in research

3 The City Regions & Localities framework Derived from research for ESRC by CURDS: see Coombes (2000) Defined on the basis of information on functional linkages and areal associations 307 Localities which typically comprise at least one urban centre and adjacent linked areas 43 City Regions centred on Localities with ‘regional city’ characteristics and containing others linked by commuting and migration Embraces polycentric urban forms

4 Rationale behind this framework Administrative areas are the ‘off the shelf’ option but they thwart meaningful city/town comparisons: ! Manchester is under- and Leeds over-bounded ! ? which part of London is comparable to Bristol ? ? what can be used as a set of City Regions ? Research shows coherent patterns emerge in analyses if meaningful functionally-defined areas are used * areas reflect how modern urban systems work * each area can be seen as a local housing market * the local ‘churn’ of house moves is internalised * hierarchy of Localities fitting into City Regions

5 Defining functional areas in practice Need to analyse data on patterns of flows / linkages: commuting migration goods information etc Definitions of ‘multi-function’ areas should ideally reflect the patterns in several varied flow datasets The ‘traditional’ model was of one ‘core’ with its catchment area but polynuclear areas are now more common, so analyses must look at flows to / from everywhere The 307 Localities are defined using a Synthetic Data method drawing on very many different strands of evidence on area linkages Example: in and around W Yorks ‘urban area’

6 West Yorkshire: complex case study

7 Localities: clustered linkages = ‘towns’?

8 City Regions: groups of Localities

9 City Regions in northern England

10 City Regions in southeastern England

11 38 City Regions of England and Wales

12 Population change for City Regions Data from Census, using (mainly) EDs/OAs to produce best-fit to the 1991 wards from which Localities and City Regions are built Population defined on the basis used at each Census, i.e. population present 1971, residents (present/absent basis) 1981, residents 1991, residents (students at term-time address) 2001 Population change rate adjusted to % point above/below GB rate (to measure change in relative performance between decades and partially allow for differences in bases)

13 How similar are City Region change rates from Census and MYE (latter for best-fit from LAs)?

14 How similar are City Region change rates from Census and MYE (latter for best-fit from LAs)?

15

16 Population change for City Regions, , standardised to GB rate = 0.0%: top and bottom five Rank % % % 1 Peterborough19.6Peterborough12.1Cambridge7.3 2 Northampton12.7Cambridge9.5Oxford6.5 3 Shrewsbury12.0Exeter7.8Worcester5.3 4 Norwich10.8Oxford7.7Shrewsbury5.0 5 Cambridge10.6Northampton7.7Exeter5.0 (GB)(0.0)(GB)(0.0)(GB)(0.0) 39 Manchester-3.2Sheffield-4.0Manchester Dundee-3.2Manchester-4.1Newcastle London-3.3Newcastle-4.6Middlesbrough Liverpool-5.0Glasgow-7.6Glasgow Glasgow-6.9Liverpool-8.0Liverpool-7.0

17 43 City Regions: and standardised change rates compared

18 % point shift in population change for City Regions, 1970s-to-1980s and 1980s-to-1990s, standardised to GB rate = 0.0%: top and bottom five Rank1970s to 1980s% pt1980s to 1990s% pt 1 London3.71Leeds Oxford2.81Coventry Brighton2.78London Exeter2.59Lincoln Southampton1.95Edinburgh Middlesbrough-4.38Norwich Norwich-4.75Plymouth Shrewsbury-4.78Aberdeen Northampton-4.97Peterborough Peterborough-7.49Inverness-8.33

19 Classification of 43 City Regions by level of change rate for 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Steady growth (rate above GB in all decades); Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Derby, Exeter, Gloucester, Ipswich, Leicester, Lincoln, Northampton, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Shrewsbury, Southampton, Worcester, York (20) Steady decline (rate below GB in all decades): Birmingham, Bradford, Cardiff, Coventry, Dundee, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield (11) Recovering (rate shifts from below to above GB): Edinburgh, London (2) Backsliding (rate shifts from above to below GB): Aberdeen, Carlisle, Chester, Hull, Inverness, Middles- borough, Nottingham, Preston, Stoke, Swansea (10) NB. No moves across GB=0.0 line and back again

20 Classification of 43 City Regions by trajectory of standardised change rate 70s-to-80s, 80s-to-90s Upward shift between both pairs of decades (//): Edinburgh, London (2) Upward shift into 1990s after downward in 1980s, i.e. troughing in 1980s (\/): Bradford, Coventry, Derby, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield (10) Downward shift in 1990s after upward in 1980s, i.e. peaking in 1980s (/\): Brighton, Dundee, Exeter, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton, Worcester, York (9) Downward shift between both pairs of decades (\\): All others (22)

21 City Region ‘cores’ as leaders or laggards in City Region growth? Concerning the current debates about investing in ‘core cities’ so as to revive the regions [Alternative academic debate: are City Regions (de)concentrating in absolute or relative terms?] To what extent are City Region cores growing more strongly than (the rest of) their Regions? How has the performance of the cores relative to their City Regions altered since the 70s? Definitions: ‘core’ = Regional City of each City Region; performance = population change (from Census, with checks against Mid Year Estimates, MYEs)

22 Population change differential between Regional City and its City Region, , and

23 City Regions classified by whether Regional City was lagging or leading Size of CR in 2001 (million people) Number of CRs Regional City laggingRegional City leading All CRs <

24

25

26 City Region ‘cores’ as leaders or laggards in City Region growth? Main results: For 43 City Regions, Regional Cities were predominantly laggards in 1970s and 1980s, but half were leaders by 1990s Among CRs with over 1m residents in 2001, the majority (12 out of 16) had leading RCs in 1990s Among smaller CRs, the majority (10 out of 27) had lagging RCs in 1990s Among GB’s 10 major cities, all had lagging RCs in 1970s and 1980s, but in 1990s 6 had leading RCs (Leeds, Liverpool, London, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield) BUT (allowing for 1991 undercount and ‘student’ effect) Using MYEs for LA-best-fits, only London CR had a leading CR in 1990s

27 Between-Locality variations in change rates: testing the roles of North/South & Urban/Rural Traditionally, the principal dimensions are North v South, Urban v Rural – how has the strength of these altered since 1970s? North/South split based on line roughly from Severn to Humber: South includes CRs of Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham and Lincoln Urban/Rural based on Coombes & Raybould’s Urbanization Index 1991 Coverage is 262 Localities of England and Wales Graphs, then regression results for N/S & U/R Analysis by previous-decade rates and N/S

28 % population change for 262 Localities of England and Wales, by log Urbanization Index 1991 and North (red) / South (green)

29 262 Localities of England & Wales: regression results for N/S & U/R DecadeBeta coefficientsAdjusted R2 N (1) / S (2)Log UrbIndex  Positive effect of South rises between decades  Negative effect of Urban much stronger in 80s than 70s, but drops back in 90s  Low R2, so plenty of variance to be accounted for by other factors

30 262 Localities of England & Wales: regression results for N/S & momentum of previous-decade population change rate DecadeBeta coefficientsAdjusted R2 N (1) / S (2)Rate for previous decade  Considerable momentum from previous decade, though slightly less from 80s to 90s (student effect?)  Simple correlation of change rates between decades: 80sV70s r=0.64, 90sV80s r=0.62  Positive effect of South rises a little between decades  Still a lot of variance in between-decade shift to be ‘explained’ using other factors, more in 90s than 80s

31 Summary of findings Applied a new portrayal of GB’s urban system that chimes with current policy initiatives on regional development and housing market areas, as well as academic research Confirms persistent underperformance of City Regions headed by large provincial cities, while strongest are CRs in much-greater-SE and Midlands Across 3 decades London and Edinburgh are in a class of their own: decline->growth, accelerating Regional Cities shifting to lead their CRs in 90s, according to Census data, but not such an encouraging picture for 10 major cities from MYEs At Locality level, clear N/S and U/R dimensions to growth in all 3 decades, with N/S increasing in importance but U/R peaking in 80s – and less inertia in patterns 80s-to-90s

32 Next steps in research Further tests on robustness of change rates, using latest ( ) MYEs … but challenges of adjusting for Census undercounts in both 1991 and 2001 as well as student definition change, and of allowing for LA v ED/OA effect Further work on trends across 3 decades in RC/CR lead/lag relationships and discriminating factors in relative performance of RCs Annual trends, using MYEs (after ) Analysis of the ‘unexplained’ variance in growth- rate variance at Locality level Examination of alternative performance measures such as job growth and GVA Comparison of insights with those from other geographies, e.g. ‘urban areas’ from SOCR 2005

33


Download ppt "Paper presented at the BSPS Annual Conference, Leicester, 13-15 September 2004 Population change 1971-2001 for the City Regions and Localities of Great."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google