<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.onsgeography.net">
<channel>
 <title>ONS Geography Blog</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The consultation has now closed .........</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/02/20/the_consultation_has_now_closed</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;.......... and we&amp;#39;ve a lot of interesting and thought provoking responses to consider over the coming weeks / months.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Full responses, analysis and conclusions will be published on the National Statistics website in due course.&amp;nbsp; If you responded to the consultation and provided your current e-mail address with your response, we will let you know when this material is available.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned in my last post, there is a geography seminar being arranged at the Royal Statistical Society on the 3rd May.&amp;nbsp; I hope to see some of you at this seminar, although I will actually no longer be working&amp;nbsp;for ONS.&amp;nbsp; The ONS view is likely to be presented by Alistair Calder and Pete Benton.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Consultation period ends this Friday (16th Feb)</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/02/12/consultation_period_ends_this_friday_16th_feb</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you to everyone who has taken part in this blog and sent back their responses to the consultation.&amp;nbsp; If you haven&amp;#39;t replied yet, this is the final week to let us know your thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please do carry on adding to the debate on this site this week.&amp;nbsp; There are several discussion threads that I have not commented on myself.&amp;nbsp; You might want to add to these, or to comment on something new, such as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;whether SOAs should be named;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;whether Business (or Workplace) OAs would be a useful development in city centres;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the relative importance of social homogeneity, population size range, or area shape in the design of OAs;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;whether there are any clear and unambiguous benefits to be gained from redrawing OAs and SOAs;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;what you use OAs and SOAs for, and why that might mean it&amp;#39;s important that they remain as stable as possible.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We are now starting to analyse your responses and will continue to do so over the next two&amp;nbsp;to three months.&amp;nbsp; Analysis will be presented on the main National Statistics website.&amp;nbsp; Keith Dugmore and David Martin are also putting together a geography seminar for the 3rd May at the RSS.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Do you use Output Areas?</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/01/26/do_you_use_output_areas</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A hybrid solution to the question of stability or redrawing has been offered by one or two people.&amp;nbsp; This hybrid is arrived at from a viewpoint that sees the merits of keeping Super Output Areas stable, but that is less sure about Output Areas.&amp;nbsp; I&amp;#39;d like to investigate this a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;ll try and summarise the thinking behind the solution offered.&amp;nbsp; Apologies if I don&amp;#39;t do it justice.&amp;nbsp; Corrections welcomed!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the 2001 Census, few data sources have been made available to ONS for publication&amp;nbsp;at&amp;nbsp;the OA level.&amp;nbsp; Outputs and data definitions for the next Census have yet to be defined.&amp;nbsp; It is possible that Census indicators of change at a level as small as OAs could be rendered invalid as a result of any changes to data definitions.&amp;nbsp; Given these points, OAs could be entirely redrawn within stable Lower Layer SOA (LSOA) boundaries and be based on Census 2011 data.&amp;nbsp; SOA time series data would therefore be safeguarded.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Don&#039;t forget the surveys</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/01/26/dont_forget_the_surveys</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Please do take the time to complete the surveys that are on this site.&amp;nbsp; The &lt;a href=&quot;survey&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;consultation has a survey&lt;/a&gt; designed to understand your views on all the issues raised.&amp;nbsp; It is important that you complete as much of it as is relevant to you, as well as taking part in the debates around the blog.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Hansard Society, who have put this site together for us, are also committed to evaluating online forms of deliberation.&amp;nbsp; As such, this blog is part of a larger study.&amp;nbsp; They have two surveys available for you to complete.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Their &lt;a href=&quot;Survey_1&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first survey&lt;/a&gt; is designed to find out what you think of online consultation and political blogs.&amp;nbsp; Their &lt;a href=&quot;Survey_2&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;second survey&lt;/a&gt; is designed to understand how online consultations are working and how they could be better organised in the future.&amp;nbsp; Any thoughts or comments would be very much appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>How important are postcodes?</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/01/19/how_important_are_postcodes</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;OAs were specifically designed to have a strong relationship with postcode geography.&amp;nbsp; Census 2001 enumerated postcodes were the building blocks used in the construction of OAs.&amp;nbsp; Only where postcodes straddled ward, parish (England), and community (Wales) boundaries, were they split into more than one OA polygon.&amp;nbsp; This affected approximately 2.5% of all enumerated unit postcodes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The boundary set that resulted was irregular, but the postcode foundations of the geography were considered important for data linkage purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As with&amp;nbsp;administrative geographies, postal geography moves around over time.&amp;nbsp; It is a convenient, rather than ideal, geography for statistical&amp;nbsp;purposes.&amp;nbsp; Ideally data records would be geo-referenced to addresses or grid references, and lookups from these would be easy to produce and distribute.&amp;nbsp; But further progress in this direction is still needed.&amp;nbsp; The desire has not yet proved strong enough to facilitate necessary data developments.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Should boundaries be tied to the real world?</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2007/01/12/should_boundaries_be_tied_to_the_real_world</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The consultation asks whether OA boundaries should be neatened to real world features.&amp;nbsp; This could be achieved by snapping them to, for example, OS MasterMap.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;OA boundaries are largely abstract.&amp;nbsp; They were built up from artificial Thiessen polygons drawn around 2001 Census addresses.&amp;nbsp; As a result they cut across all other real world features, as do SOA boundaries further up the hierarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Justin Martin picked up on this earlier in the blog and posted a comment.&amp;nbsp; He&amp;#39;s keen to see a more coherent hierarchy of geographies down to individual features (or TOIDS).&amp;nbsp; There&amp;#39;s clearly a potential data licensing issue here, but is this something worth investigating further?&amp;nbsp; What might the benefits be?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Festive messages</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2006/12/20/festive_messages</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you to everyone who has posted a comment so far on this blog.&amp;nbsp; I&amp;#39;ve been really pleased to see the thoughts of people I&amp;#39;ve not previously talked to, as well as those of some familiar faces.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The response to the consultation survey has also been very encouraging.&amp;nbsp; Please make sure you take the time to complete it so that your views are included on all topics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You may feel the need to escape the fun for a few minutes over Christmas and the New Year?!&amp;nbsp; If so, please do&amp;nbsp;carry on posting your thoughts to me. &amp;nbsp;Although I&amp;#39;m not in the office, I will still be checking the site and will continue to publish&amp;nbsp;your&amp;nbsp;comments.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Health data?  Ethnicity data?  Do we need bigger areas?</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2006/12/06/health_data_ethnicity_data_do_we_need_bigger_areas</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I want to concentrate this post on one of the&amp;nbsp;topics in the survey:&amp;nbsp;whether there should be an Upper Layer of SOAs, or a layer in&amp;nbsp;any future&amp;nbsp;geography that contains&amp;nbsp;25,000 - 40,000 people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;ve picked up on&amp;nbsp;a potential area of confusion here from&amp;nbsp;early survey responses.&amp;nbsp; Some of you have pointed out that you can create your own customised areas from the layers below.&amp;nbsp; This is true.&amp;nbsp; But you can only aggregate the data that&amp;#39;s already available to you.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The&amp;nbsp;benefit of having an &amp;#39;Upper Layer&amp;#39; is that it may enable the release of data that&amp;nbsp;you can&amp;#39;t currently get for areas&amp;nbsp;smaller than local authority districts.&amp;nbsp; I&amp;#39;m thinking about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neighbourhood Statistics&lt;/a&gt; now, not&amp;nbsp;the Census.&amp;nbsp; Data that is too low incidence, or potentially too disclosive to release for Lower or Middle Layer SOAs, or wards, or any other small area geography.&amp;nbsp; Datasets related to topics like illness and mortality, or ethnicity etc.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>OAs and SOAs - Stick or Twist?</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2006/11/24/oas_and_soas_stick_or_twist</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The key issue to be decided is whether we should&amp;nbsp;aim for&amp;nbsp;stability with OAs and SOAs through the next Census and beyond.&amp;nbsp; The consultation paper describes the issues surrounding this decision.&amp;nbsp; I know that there are many different views held.&amp;nbsp; Here are a selection of the comments made to me in the last couple of weeks, as I&amp;#39;ve been trailing the consultation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;redraw the geography completely using the same algorithm but based on 2011 Census data and 2011 postcodes;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;keep SOAs, but redraw OAs within fixed SOA boundaries using 2011 Census data;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the fundamental building blocks need to be real not abstract: redraw the whole lot and build&amp;nbsp;it up from street blocks;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;we have to have ward, community, and parish level data too;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;now it&amp;#39;s established you&amp;nbsp;must keep it fixed, that&amp;#39;s what it&amp;#39;s for;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;as long as you&amp;#39;ve got grid referenced data you can give us any geography we want.&amp;nbsp; The disclosure risk from overlapping geographies is not so great.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To me, the message that has always come through most consistently,&amp;nbsp;from members of&amp;nbsp;all sectors of our user community, has been the stability one.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Welcome to the Geography Consultation Blog</title>
 <link>http://www.onsgeography.net/2006/11/21/welcome_to_the_geography_consultation_blog</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This consultation is a first for ONS as we&amp;nbsp;play our part in developing the concept of &amp;#39;e-democracy&amp;#39;.&amp;nbsp; I am delighted that our consultation has been selected for inclusion and thank you for your interest in investigating this far.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The topic of local statistical geographies, for the Census, for Neighbourhood Statistics&amp;nbsp;and for data analysis in general, is one that has generated significant interest and comment in the four years that I have been part of it.&amp;nbsp; Many times I have wished that I could get all&amp;nbsp;of you with dramatically conflicting views&amp;nbsp;together in the same room.&amp;nbsp; This blog gives us an opportunity to start to make that happen.&amp;nbsp; I hope that the following 12 weeks will allow us to see some real benefits in opening up the debate in this way to everyone&amp;#39;s desktop.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
