The internal structure of Greater London: a comparison of national and regional geodemographic models
Alex David Singleton; Paul Longley (2015). Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(1), 69-87. DOI: 10.1002/geo2.7
Abstract
Geodemographic classifications are categorical measures representing salient multidimensional population and built environment attributes of small areas. The UK Output Area Classification (OAC) is one such classification, created on behalf of the Office for National Statistics, and was built with an open methodology and entirely from 2011 Census variables. However, one criticism of national classifications such as OAC is that they do not adequately accommodate local or regional structures that diverge from national patterns. In this paper we explore this issue with respect to Greater London. We develop a London classification based upon the OAC methodology, and explore the extent to which these patterns are divergent from the national classification.
Extended Summary
This paper investigates whether national geodemographic classifications adequately capture the unique socio-spatial characteristics of specific regions by developing a London-specific classification system. Geodemographic classifications are tools that categorise small geographical areas based on population and housing characteristics, helping understand neighbourhood types and social patterns. The UK’s national Output Area Classification (OAC) groups similar areas across the country, but critics argue such broad classifications may obscure important local variations, particularly in distinctive regions like London. The research addresses this concern by creating the London Output Area Classification (LOAC) using the same methodology and 2011 Census data as the national OAC, but constraining the analysis to Greater London’s boundaries. The study employed k-means clustering analysis on 60 census variables covering demographics, housing, ethnicity, employment, education, and mobility patterns. The resulting LOAC comprised eight super groups and 19 hierarchical groups, compared to the national OAC’s three-tier structure of eight super groups, 26 groups, and 76 sub-groups. The classification revealed significant differences between London’s internal structure and national patterns. Areas that appear ethnically diverse at the UK level become more average when considered within London’s context. Central London areas showed greater differentiation in the regional classification, with distinct clusters reflecting particular built environment characteristics rather than being dominated by ethnic composition. The LOAC identified unique London-specific groups including ‘Urban elites’, ‘City vibe’, and ‘London life-cycle’ that had no clear equivalent in the national system. Cross-tabulation analysis demonstrated that most LOAC clusters offered superior differentiation compared to national OAC assignments for London areas. Performance evaluation using total within sum of squares statistics confirmed that LOAC provided better statistical fit for the majority of inner London areas, though national OAC performed marginally better in suburban fringes that more closely resemble national patterns. The research highlights the trade-offs between national comparability and regional precision in geodemographic systems. Whilst regional classifications lose some advantages of national systems, such as compatibility with national survey data, they provide more nuanced understanding of local socio-spatial structures. This has important implications for policy makers, urban planners, and service providers who need detailed neighbourhood understanding for effective targeting and resource allocation. The study suggests that optimal geodemographic classifications might require balancing national consistency with regional specificity, potentially through hierarchical systems that can accommodate both scales of analysis.
Key Findings
- Regional geodemographic classifications provide superior statistical fit compared to national systems for distinctive urban areas like London
- London’s ethnic diversity patterns differ significantly from national averages, requiring region-specific classification approaches for accurate neighbourhood analysis
- Central London areas show greater socio-spatial differentiation when analysed regionally rather than as part of national classification systems
- National classifications perform better in suburban areas that closely resemble broader UK patterns, suggesting hybrid approaches may be optimal
- Regional geodemographic systems reveal unique neighbourhood types invisible in national classifications, improving local policy and planning applications
Citation
@article{singleton2015internal,
author = {Alex David Singleton; Paul Longley},
title = {The internal structure of Greater London: a comparison of national and regional geodemographic models},
journal = {Geo: Geography and Environment},
year = {2015},
volume = {2(1)},
pages = {69-87},
doi = {10.1002/geo2.7}
}