A Review of Urban and Rural Area Definitions

Project Report

i

A Review of Urban and Rural Area Definitions

Contents

Page No.

Executive Summary 1

PART 1

Section 1:Introduction 4

1.1 Aims and Objectives 41.2 Study Method 51.3 The Report 6

PART 2

Section 2:The Evolution of Urban and Rural Definitions for Policy Purposes 7

2.1 Introduction 72.2 Definitions of ‘Urban’ 7i The English Conurbations 8ii Developed Land 8iii ‘De Facto’ Urban Areas 8iv 1981 Urban Areas 9v 1991 Urban Areas 11vi Scottish Settlements 11vii The ONS Area Classifications 1991 13

2.3 Definitions of ‘Rural’ 15i Rural as ‘Not Urban’ 15ii The Rural Development Commission Definitions 16iii Countryside Agency Definitions 17iv Population Sparsity and Local Government Finance 19v The Rural Services Partnership Definition 19vi Rural Scotland 20vii Rural Wales 22viii Rural Development in the EU 22

2.4 Conclusions 23

ii

Page No.

Section 3:The Consultations 24

3.1 Introduction 243.2 The Process of Consultation 243.3 The Users of Urban/Rural Definitions 253.4 The Policy Imperative 253.5 Policy Applications of Urban and Rural Definitions 263.6 Definitions for Policy Purposes 273.7 Requirements of Urban and Rural Definitions 293.8 Issues of Timing 333.9 Dissemination and Documentation 343.10 Summary 34

Section 4:‘Core’ and ‘Supplementary’ Definitions and Associated Issues 36

4.1 Introduction 364.2 The ‘Core’ Definitions 37

a) The Urban Definition 37i Urban Areas and Urban Land 37ii Urban Area Aggregates 39iii Application of the Contiguity Rule 39iv Changes in Urban Areas 42v Urban Areas and Administrative Areas 42

b) The ‘Core’ Rural Definitions 47i The Countryside Agency (Local Authority District) Definition 47ii The Countryside Agency (Ward Level) Definition 48

4.3 The ‘Supplementary' Rural Definitions 52i The ONS Area Classifications 52ii Local Government Finance ‘Sparsity’ Measures 58iii A Parish Level Definition 61

4.4 Land and Population: a comparison of definitions 61

iii

Page No.PART 3

Section 5:Urban and Rural Definitions and Policy 64

5.1 Introduction 645.2 Urban and Rural: a Series of Senses 645.3 The Origins of the Urban/Rural Distinc tion 655.4 Land Parcel Criteria 675.5 Population Cluster Criteria 685.6 Economic Criteria 695.7 Criteria in Combination 695.8 The Urban/Rural Distinction in Policy Documents 715.9 Between Urban and Rural: Suburban Land and Urban Fringe 725.10 The Settlement Hierarchy 755.11 Defining Settlements 765.12 Villages 785.13 Market Towns 785.14 Conclusion 80

Section 6:Urban and Rural Definitions: Considerations of Best Practice 81

6.1 Introduction 816.2 The Urban and the Rural 826.3 The Challenge of Definitions 836.4 Primary Criteria 846.5 Combining Criteria 866.6 Building Blocks 876.7 Specifying Indicators 886.8 Summary 89

PART 4

Section 7:The Way Forward: Recommendations 91

7.1 Introduction 917.2 Recommendation 1: The Core Definitions 927.3 Recommendation 2: Updating and Improving the Urban Areas

Definition and Documentation 937.4 Recommendation 3: Tackling the Problem of Small Settlements

and the Classification of Local Authorities Based Upon Land Use 957.5 Recommendation 4: Introducing Functionality to Updated

(i.e. 2001) Urban Areas 1007.6 Summary and Recommendations 101

iv

Page No.

Bibliography 102

Annexes 107

Annex 1 The Consultees 107Annex 2 Consultation Brief 108Annex 3 Policy and Definition Interests of Consultees 110Annex 4 An Overview of ONS Requirements 113Annex 5 Defining Urban and Rural in Scotland 125Annex 6 Scottish Executive Policy Related Definitions of Rural 132

Tables

Table 2.1 ONS Area Classification:Structure of Families and Groups 14

Table 3.1 Urban and Rural Definitions:Policy Areas, Objects and Criteria 27

Table 3.2 Identification of Core Definitions for Policy Purposes 30Table 4.1 Comparative Areas and Population for the Core

and Supplementary Rural Definitions 63Table 5.1 Elements for Operationalizing the Terms ‘Urban’ and ‘Rural’ 66Table 6.1 Conventional Criteria for Defining Urban and Rural Areas 90

Figures

Figure 4.1 All Urban Areas in England and Wales 1991 38Figure 4.2 Urban Areas over 100,000 Population 1991 40Figure 4.3 West Yorkshire Urban Area 1991 41Figure 4.4 Urban Areas: Increments to the ‘Separation’ Rule 43Figure 4.5 Large Urban Areas and Local Authority Boundaries 44Figure 4.6 A Medium Sized 1991 Urban Area and 1998 Ward Boundaries 45Figure 4.7 A Smaller Sized 1991 Urban Area and 1998 Ward Boundaries 46Figure 4.8 Countryside Agency: Rural Areas at the Local Authority Level 49Figure 4.9 Countryside Agency: Rural Areas at the Ward Level 50Figure 4.10 Rural Wards, Non Rural Wards, Urban Areas and Urban Land

in the Cambridge Area 51Figure 4.11 The ONS Classification of ‘Urban’/’Rural’ Local Authorities 54Figure 4.12 The ONS Classification of Local Authorities 55Figure 4.13 The ONS Classification of Wards 57Figure 4.14 A Measure of Population Sparsity (Broad) 59Figure 4.15 A Measure of Population Sparsity (Narrow) 60Figure 4.16 Countryside Agency: Rural Parishes 62Figure 5.1 The Size Distributions of Settlements, Wards

and Local Authority Districts 70

v

Page No.Figure 7.1 Settlement Size and Distribution Below the

Urban Area Minimum 97Figure 7.2 The Representation of Urban Areas and Other

Settlements as Residential Density Grids 99

1

Executive Summary

E1. Introduction

E1.1 The study to review definitions of urban and rural areas withinGovernment had four main objectives:

• to identify those policies that require definitions of urban and rural areas,

• to identify a limited or ‘core’ set of definitions that meets a wide range ofpolicy needs,

• to identify the need for documentation and guidance for use with the coreset, and

• to assess how the needs for these definitions have been met and identifyany new techniques that better meet established and anticipated needs.

E1.2 The report on this work is in three sections:

• a description of the evolution and characteristics of current definitions, astudy of user needs across Government in this area and an analysis of thestrengths and weakness of the current main definitions,

• reviews of current views on and approaches to urban and rural definitionsfocusing on policy and methodological issues, and

• recommendations on ways forward for meeting immediate, medium term andlonger term needs for urban and rural definitions.

E2. User Needs and ‘Core’ Definitions

E2.1 There have been a number of different approaches to defining urbanand rural areas within government in the United Kingdom. These reduce to threemain kinds, i.e. definitions based on:

• administrative areas, which were in general use prior to the 1974 localgovernment reforms but which continue today in the treatment of the formermetropolitan authorities and now Unitary Authorities as major ‘urban’ areas,

• urban land use and population size as represented by the DTLR/ONS/OSUrban Areas for England and Wales which give rise to one definition of ‘rural’areas as the urban land ‘residual’, and

2

• the social and economic characteristics of places as in the classification oflocal authority districts and wards used by the Countryside Agency and thevarious ONS classifications of administrative areas.

E2.2 A different approach has recently been followed in Scotland, where theGeneral Register Office (GROS), has defined settlements on the basis ofdensities of residential and non-residential addresses. Using this method,population estimates can be made outside census years and un-populated partsof urban areas can be identified.

E2.3 The consultations with 25 groups of users of urban and rural definitionsrevealed the value for most policy and presentational purposes of a definition of‘urban’, based upon contiguous urban land uses. There was a strong desireamong rural policy-makers to extend the principle of this definition to settlementsbelow the present 1000 population threshold for Urban Areas.

E2.4 The consultations also revealed that the Urban Areas definitions withinEngland and Wales and the Countryside Agency classifications of rural localauthorities and wards were the most frequently used specific definitions. Thesecould be treated as the ‘core definitions’ for many purposes. A number of‘supplementary definitions’, representing different approaches to definitions ofrural areas, were also identified.

E2.5 The user group consultations and evaluation of the documentaryevidence revealed a number of issues and problems associated with both ‘core’and ‘supplementary’ definitions. These included:

• the need for application of the Urban Areas definition proportioned toadministrative areas (e.g. counties/districts) and possibly wards,

• the need for the extension of the Urban Areas approach to settlements belowthe current 1000 population limit,

• the need to explore the possibility of creating an urban/rural classification oflocal authorities/wards based upon social and economic characteristics andto extend this, if possible, to the internal structure of Urban Areas,

• the need for specific policy uses (e.g. sustainable urban areas and markettowns) to be able to identify the key services within urban areas and thestructure of the local catchment area,

• the need for direct measurement of the concepts underlying certaindefinitions such as the measurement of accessibility within rural areas,

• the need for improved documentation of existing definitions includingexplanations of their strengths and weaknesses, more detailed mapping ofthe definitions and comparisons of the impact of different definitions in termsof population and land area, and

3

• clearer arrangements for the ownership of recommended definitions andclearly identified sources of advice and technical support on the applicationof definitions.

E3. Reviews and Recommendations

E3.1 The literature reviews focused on two areas of understanding necessaryto the design and creation of new urban and rural definitions: recent policy usesof the terms ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ and the methodological background to theconstruction of urban and rural definitions.

E3.2 The ‘policy’ review concludes that as the distinctions between the urbanand rural economies have become less clear, the main components ofdefinitions, i.e. land use, population size and socio-economic sub regions, havebecome dislocated from each other and this can be shown to be reflected inrecent policy uses of the two terms. The ‘technical’ review suggests that wecould eventually move towards ‘rules based’ definitions that are derived directlyfrom policy needs.

E3.3 We recommend a staged approach to the improvement of currentdefinitions and the development of a new approach that takes into accountfamiliarity with current approaches and data availability.

E3.4 The ‘core’ definitions of urban and rural should be based, respectively,upon the Urban Areas boundaries and associated data and the CountrysideAgency definition at district and ward level. Problems associated with the lattershould be rectified in the short term within the limits of the approach adopted bythis definition. For both ‘core’ definitions and related ‘supplementary’ definitionsthere should be significantly improved documentation (possibly via a website)aimed at a wide range of users.

E3.5 In the medium term, two requirements should be addressed, both ofwhich involve prior research. The first, and more urgent, is the consolidation andextension of the land use approach to settlements below about 2000 populationin England and Wales. This may be via postcode/grids as building blocks or bythe use of Ordnance Survey’s new ‘Mastermap’ product, or some combination ofthe two. The second is the design of a ‘cluster analysis’ method specificallyaimed at identifying the internal structure of Urban Areas and rural areas basedupon social and economic data.

E3.6 Finally, we recommend that experimental work begins as soon aspossible on a rules-based classification of grids or OS DNF ‘toids’, covering thewhole of England and Wales and incorporating a wide range of attributesincluding addresses, land use, demographic and social/economiccharacteristics.

4

Section 1

Introduction

1.1 Aims and Objectives

1.1.1 In March 2001 the then Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions (DETR) asked a consortium of organisations to undertake a reviewof urban and rural definitions used for policy purposes. The consortiumconsisted of the South East Regional Research Laboratory (SERRL) at BirkbeckCollege, the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS) atthe University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Department of Town andRegional Planning, Sheffield University.

1.1.2 The project arose from a commitment by DETR (the Directorate thatleads this review is now in the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister), to lead aco-ordinated initiative to establish and promote a set of urban and ruraldefinitions that would be acceptable to a wide user community. The aims of theproject were:

• to identify the public policies that require definitions or classifications ofurban and rural geographies,

• to assess how these needs have been met and identify any newtechniques that better meet established and anticipated needs,

• to identify a limited core set of definitions that could meet a wide rangeof user needs, and

• to identify the need for documentation and guidance for use with thiscore set.

1.1.3 The project was originally focused on a small number of what werethought to be the key users of urban and rural definitions. As it evolved,however, interest in the aims and objectives of the project became such that thenumber of groups and individuals to be consulted expanded considerably. Theaims of the project were therefore amended to focus more on the assessment ofwider needs and the means of meeting these needs from the alternative types ofdefinitions available. Recommendations on the nature of a possible new solutionwere still required but the detail was to be left to subsequent study.

1.1.4 Given this adjustment to the aims of the project, the main objectives ofthe study were as follows:

• to set out a thorough understanding of the requirements for urban andrural area definitions in relation to the formation, delivery and monitoringof public policy,

5

• to identify any new techniques that might improve the way in whichcurrent or anticipated requirements are met,

• to recognise increasing interest in specific categories of area (e.g. cities,inner cities, suburbs, market towns, villages, remote rural areas), as wellas the continuing need to classify standard administrative areas,

• to consider less rigid approaches to urban/rural definitions as might berequired, for example, in the sequential search for housing opportunitiesinvolving the identification of previously developed land conducive tosustainable development,

• to enable statistical monitoring of policies relating to the identifieddefinitions, taking account of the limitations inherent in the dataavailable,

• to consider how the use of urban and rural definitions in England andWales compares with that in other parts of the UK, Europe andelsewhere (e.g. OECD), and to assess the implications for the currentresearch, and

• to be aware of existing and proposed geo-referencing systems inrelation to producing urban and rural geographies and statistics basedon them.

1.2 Study Method

1.2.1 The approaches adopted for the study consisted of four main modules ofwork:

• the assembly of information on mainstream examples of definitions ofurban and rural areas for official purposes and of imminentimprovements to relevant datasets and methodologies,

• an assessment of user needs by means of over 20 in-depthconsultations with existing and potential users of urban and ruraldefinitions, involving over 100 individuals,

• a review of relevant literature undertaken in two parts:

- the policy-oriented literature focusing especially on the recent Urbanand Rural White Papers, Select Committee reports and other inputs tothose documents, and

- the academic literature, considering the various methodologies fordefining and delineating urban and rural areas, including theinternational literature,

6

• a reconciliation process in which the evidence from previous andexisting approaches to definition, the consultations and the evidencefrom the reviews was assessed and collated to create a set of optionsand recommendations for a way forward.

1.3 The Report

1.3.1 The report, which broadly follows the study method, is divided into fourparts, and parts are divided into sections. Part 1 comprises this introduction.

1.3.2 Part 2 consists, first, of a summary of the main official approaches tourban and rural definitions that have been used over the last fifty years,concentrating on the methodology lying behind each definition and its purpose.It then moves to an account of the consultations undertaken with users, drawingout the key issues emerging from the consultations, particularly the emergenceof the ‘core’ urban and rural definitions. The final section presents and analysesthe candidates for the ‘core’ definitions and related 'supplementary' definitions ofurban and rural areas.

1.3.3 Part 3 consists of the two reviews commissioned for this study. The firstis on the ways in which the terms ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ are used in policy and howthese meanings impinge upon definitions. The second is on the datarequirements and methodologies that lie behind the development of thedefinitions of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’.

1.3.4 Part 4, comprising the recommendations of the study, draws on theevidence of the consultations and written sources, the current use of definitions,their strengths and their weaknesses and the findings of the literature reviews. Itpresents what we see as a practical way forward, both to improve currentdefinitions and for a new approach to urban and rural definitions in themedium/longer term.

1.3.5 The report also contains a number of annexes including a recentapproach to urban and rural definitions in Scotland issued by the GeneralRegister office for Scotland (GROS), which has significance for our proposedway forward to a different form of definition. There is also a note of userrequirements for urban and rural definitions from units within the Office forNational Statistics (ONS) prepared for this study, a synopsis of definitionscurrently used by consultees in tabular form and lists and affiliations of allconsultees.

7

Section 2

The Evolution of Urban and Rural Definitions for Policy Purposes

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The use of definitions of urban and rural areas for official purposesstretches back at least to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Then thestructure of local government itself was based in a clear distinction between'urban' (i.e. county boroughs, municipal boroughs and urban districts) and 'rural'(i.e. rural districts and most counties). Subsequently, these two types of areaformed the basis for the reporting of a wide range of official statistics, especiallyfrom the Census of Population.

2.1.2 From the mid 1950s onwards, there evolved a range of approaches todefining the two types of area. In 1956 the General Register Office, defined thelargest urban places according to a number of criteria, including populationdensity, land use, catchment areas for shopping etc., although the link toadministrative areas for statistical purposes remained central. It was not until thelocal government reforms of the early 1970s (which arose partly as a result ofthe increasing ‘dissonance’ between local government boundaries and therealities of geographical development leading to the spread of urban land acrossadministrative boundaries), that different approaches to defining urban and ruralareas became necessary.

2.1.3 This section outlines, separately, the evolution of definitions of urbanand rural areas in essentially official documents. The focus is on Britishdefinitions. International definitions are noted in the literature reviews reported inPart Three. The purpose is to establish the nature of the definitions in currentuse and to place these in the recent historical evolution of such definitions. Animportant feature of this evolution is the significance given in Britain to land useas an ingredient of urban definition.

2.1.4 In association with certain ‘landmark’ definitions, a summary checklist oftheir key characteristics is given, which includes the nature of the definition (e.g.single/multiple criterion), the data used (e.g. land cover/use, population etc.), thesmallest territorial unit used in delineation and, where known, the originator/mainuser of the definition. The section concludes with a summary of main findings.

2.2 Definitions of ‘Urban’

Background

2.2.1 The general idea of a town or city is of a free-standing, densely occupied,developed area with a variety of shops and services. Out of these flow threemain approaches to definition beyond the ‘administrative areas’ approach noted

8

above: tracing the extent of the built up area, classifying levels of populationand, sometimes, other densities and plotting the functional area of the townwhich includes not only the built up area but settlements in the countrysidebeyond

2.2.2 In practice, however, none of these methods is without its difficulties,whether in the conceptualization of what we choose to regard as ‘urban’ or inthe availability of data of the right type and in the right form to implement thedefinition. The actual settlement geography of a country also creates difficultiesin applying and interpreting definitions. In England and Wales, for example,towns that were once distinct places have merged together into large andmedium sized agglomerations and the functional ‘outreach’ of town centres inmany areas overlap and interact in complex ways, thus making the precisedelineation of catchment areas difficult.

(i) The English Conurbations

2.2.3 In 1950 the United Nations Population Commission recommended thatsummary census tables should be made available by member states for ‘...agglomerations or clusters of population living in built-up contiguous areaswhich, according to the definition adopted in each country, are considered assingle localities or population centres’ (GRO, 1956, p. xiv). Six conurbationswere defined for England: Greater London, the West Midlands, Manchester,Merseyside, the West Riding of Yorkshire and Tyneside.

2.2.4 A feature of the definition was the attempt to combine what geographerscall ‘uniform’ criteria, such as land use and population density, with ‘functional’criteria such as journey to work and travel to shop. However, despite the factthat land use and functional criteria do not fit neatly with administrativeboundaries, it was required that each conurbation should consist of whole localauthority areas in order to ‘... meet the requirement for demographic and otherstatistics based on local administrative areas.’ The functional element, involvingsuch measures as the extent of the contiguously built-up area, attachment to acentre based on shopping and other trips and population density, inevitablybecame secondary in the definition.

(ii) Developed Land

2.2.5 An early nationally comprehensive definition of urban areas that ignoredlocal authority boundaries was the map of ‘developed land’ produced by theMinistry of Housing and Local Government in 1958 and updated in 1974.However, so far as can be ascertained, no measurements of the extent of urbanland were made and no associated census or other data were reported on thisbasis.

(iii) ‘De Facto’ Urban Areas

9

2.2.6 This definition resulted from a study by the Regional Plans Directorate ofthe Department of the Environment in 1974 to ‘… identify and define true [sic]urban areas in order to estimate their populations and to provide a basis for theanalysis of associated characteristics; to analyse their population size, structureand spatial distribution and to determine the true occurrence of urban and ruralpopulations’ (DOE, 1974, para 4).

2.2.7 The primary criterion for defining ‘urban’ was the ‘fairly low’ populationdensity of 0.6 persons per acre (0.3 persons per hectare) derived from the 1966Census, although ‘… regard was also paid to urban attributes such as industrialand mining development and other physical factors’. The lower population limitfor qualification as an urban area was normally set at 3000 ‘… and virtuallynever less than 2000’. This approach resulted in the identification of 1333physically separate urban areas in England and Wales with a 1966 population of41.6 million representing 88.3 percent of the total. In some areas (e.g. the urbanfringe), ward and parish based population densities were found to be inadequaterepresentations of urban boundaries and these areas were replaced byenumeration districts.

Key Characteristics

De Facto UrbanAreas 1974 CommentOriginator DOE Covered England

and WalesType Single main criterion Some additional land

usesData Population (density) 1966 CensusDelineation Unit Ward/parish ED where detail

required

(iv) 1981 Urban Areas

2.2.8 The reform of local government in 1974 merged many former urbanauthorities into surrounding rural districts and underlined the need for a newapproach to defining urban areas for census and other purposes. It was decidedto base the definition in land use criteria because a definition based in'functional' criteria involved arbitrary 'cut-off' points for levels of commuting etc.and because the complexity and close-knit nature of the British urban settlementpattern produces overlapping urban 'regions' in many places.

2.2.9 Two alternative methods of definition were therefore considered: oneinvolving a combination of population density and land use, the other involvingthe extent of urban development indicated on Ordnance Survey maps. The latterwas chosen as this ‘... met the needs of both OPCS and DOE and enabledinternationally comparable statistics to be produced ‘ (OPCS 1984, p. 8).

10

2.2.10 The starting point for the new definition was the identification of land thatwas ‘irreversibly urban in character’ based on the National Land UseClassification. This included permanent structures, transportation corridors,transportation features, mineral workings and quarries and any area completelysurrounded by built up sites. Areas such as playing fields and golf courses wereexcluded unless they were completely surrounded by built up sites. To qualifyfor inclusion in the definition an urban area had to extend for 20 hectares ormore and dis-contiguous areas of land had to be less than 50 metres apart.

2.2.11 A feature that emerges from this definition is the distinction betweenurban areas and urban land. The distinguishing feature being the assignment ofa population level to urban areas. The identification of urban areas was theresult of the application of defined procedures and rules:

• digital versions of the extent of urban land were produced from OS1:10,000 maps,

• to qualify as an urban area, OS maps were overlain on ED boundariesto determine which areas of urban land contained four or more EDs(strictly, where more than 50 per cent of the area of the ED wasdetermined as lying within the urban land boundary),

• areas of urban land of 20 hectares or more and less than 50 metresapart which also had an aggregate of four or more EDs were linkedtogether to form continuous urban areas,

• urban land boundaries capturing four or more EDs were deemed todelineate urban areas where the population of the EDs summed to atleast 1000,

• all other areas of 20 hectares or more and more than 200 meters apartfrom the nearest ‘built-up’ area were classified as ‘non-urban’ and thepopulation in them was counted as the rural population, and

• agglomerations or ‘multi-centre’ areas were divided into two or moresub-divisions based on the pre-1974 local authority boundaries or NewTown boundaries.

Key Characteristics:

Urban Areas 1981 CommentOriginator DOE/OPCS Covered England and

WalesType Single criterion Requires clear rulesData Land Use Built-up areaDelineation Unit Land area At 1:10,000 scaleOutputs Range of census

dataIdentifies urban sizeranges

11

(v) 1991 Urban Areas

2.2.12 The identification of urban areas for the 1991 Census was similar inconcept to that for 1981, indeed, the new definitions were created essentially asupdates of the 1981 definition. Briefly, the up-dating stages were:

• 1:10000 scale transparent overlays of the extent of urban land wereprepared by Ordnance Survey, defined by the criteria described in para2.2.11,

• digital boundaries of areas of urban land were prepared, including thesub-divisions used in 1981,

• urban area delineations consisting of four or more EDs were identifiedby ‘capturing’ the population weighted ‘centroids’ of the 1991 censusEDs. An ED was defined as ‘urban’ if its centroid was either whollywithin the area of urban land or within a 150 meter ‘buffer’ of theboundary, and

• delineations of urban land containing more than 1000 population (i.e. thesum of the population of constituent EDs), were categorized as ‘urbanareas’.

Key Characteristics:

Urban Areas 1991 CommentOriginators DOE/OS/ONS/WO Covered England and

WalesType Single criterion Requires clear rulesData Land Use Built-up areaDelineation Unit Land area At 1:10,000 scaleOutputs Range of census

data

(vi) Scottish Settlements

(a) The 1981 Census

2.2.13 As in England, prior to 1981 there was little perceived need for a specificdefinition of urban areas in Scotland since the structure of local government (asrepresented by large and small burghs), was deemed to identify urbansettlements. The abolition of such areas in the reforms of 1975 led to adefinition, by GRO(S), of a number of ‘localities’ based upon ‘... continuouslybuilt-up areas that had approximately 500 or more population at the time of the1971 census’. Some 540 settlements were defined.

(b) The 1991 Census

12

2.2.14 A major innovation associated with the 1991 Census in Scotland wasthe digitization of Unit Postcode boundaries in order to create Output Areas(OAs) for census data. Their use in the creation of (urban) localities was basedupon whether a postcode had previously been assigned to a locality or it had 5or more persons per hectare. Geographically contiguous groups of postcodeswere identified and, if the population of the group was 500 or more, it wasdesignated a locality. To identify non-residential areas that had come intoexistence since 1981, local authorities were asked to scrutinize the delineationof localities and suggest amendments.

(c) Settlements 2000

2.2.15 GRO(S) has recently brought the locality definitions up to date byproducing a definition of ‘settlements’ based on the density of addresses foreach of the 138,000 postcodes in Scotland. A postcode is defined as ‘urban’ if atleast one of the following applies:

• it has more than 2.1 residential addresses per hectare, or

• it has more than 0.1 non-residential addresses per hectare.

2.2.16 Once identified, settlements are defined by ‘clumping’ together urbanpostcodes on the basis of the grouping eventually containing at least 210residential addresses. A ‘clump’ is defined to include any residential ‘voids’within the locality, i.e. non-urban postcodes entirely surrounded by urbanpostcodes. Each settlement is named.

2.2.17 GRO(S) feels that this approach has three significant advantagescompared with the 1991 procedure:

• it uses addresses to create population estimates, which ensures theexercise can be repeated outside Census years,

• it uses two densities rather than one. Adding a density for non-residential development helps to ensure that un-populated urban areasare identified and classified appropriately, and

• it provides continuity with the 1991 exercise by, for some council areas,adjusting standard density thresholds rather than automatically includingurban postcodes from the previous exercise.

2.2.18 The application of these procedures to Scotland resulted in theidentification of just over 500 settlements, 18 more than in 1991. Theiraggregate population in mid 1999 was 4.65 million or 90.8 per cent of theScottish population as a whole.

(d) The Scottish 2001 Census

13

2.2.19 In Scotland, Census Output Areas have been defined in terms of unitpostcodes since 1981. Urban settlements, themselves based upon postcodescan therefore be ‘invested’ with a wide range of census and other official data.To achieve this, the postcode index and boundaries for the 2001 Census are‘frozen’ as of 24 January 2001. OAs will be created from the frozen set ofpostcode boundaries and an index will link OAs to ‘higher areas’ including year2000 settlements. Census products will be generated from indexes andpostcode boundaries. There will be provision for the creation of data forconstituents of settlements, i.e. 1991 localities.

Key Characteristics:

ScottishSettlements

Comment

Originators GROS Covers ScotlandType Basically, single criterion Residential address

densityData Royal Mail Updated quarterlyDelineation Unit Unit Postcode Links to Census OAsOutputs Automatic settlement

definitionRange of Census statistics

vii. The ONS Area Classifications 1991

2.2.20 A markedly different approach to urban area identification is to base theprocess of definition in the social and economic characteristics of places,recognising that such places are a complex mix of a range of characteristics.Such an approach permits, in theory at least, a distinction between urban andnon-urban places and a differentiation of places within the urban domain. Thisapproach requires a wide range of data gathered on a consistent geographicalbasis, as well as sophisticated statistical techniques.

2.2.21 The ONS Area Classification of Local and Health Authorities of GreatBritain: revised for authorities in 1999 aims at providing a ‘... simple indicator ofthe characteristics of areas and of the similarity between areas, for comparativeor targeting purposes, and as a variable for analysis with other data.’ (ONS,1999 para 1.4). The ONS area classifications were not, therefore, proposed asdefinitions of urban (or rural), areas, but they have been employed as such incertain instances by some users, either to identify differences between largerurban settlements or as a criterion for identifying rural areas/rurality.

2.2.22 Although not designed to differentiate the urban and the rural, the ONSArea Classifications do contain some measures - for example, the proportion ofpersons employed in specific industries - which may have a relationship to theurban/rural character of an area. The notion of ‘urban-ness’ (or ‘rural-ness’)emerges in this exercise, partly from such measures, but also from the processof ‘naming’ the clusters of areas from their relationship to the physicalenvironment and the outcome of mapping the statistically derived groups. The

14

names of the groups - which are descriptive rather than definitive - reflect thesocial and economic characteristics of a ‘typical’ member of that group as wellas, in certain instances, the ‘geographic attributes of member authorities’ (ONS,1999 para 3.8).

2.2.23 The first and second largest of the groupings are called ‘Families’ and‘Groups’ and identify the following types of areas:

Table 2.1: ONS Area Classification: Structure of Families and Groups

Family Group

Rural Areas Rural AmenityRemoter Rural

Urban Fringe Established ManufacturingFringeNew and Developing AreasMixed Urban

Coast and Service Coast and Country ResortsEstablished Service Centres

Prosperous England Growth AreasMost Prosperous

Mining, Manufacturing andIndustry

Coalfields

Manufacturing CentresPorts and Industry

Education Centres and OuterLondon

Education Centres and OuterLondon

Inner London West Inner LondonEast Inner London

2.2.24 The ONS area classifications provide a differentiation of local authoritiesand other administrative areas on the basis of characteristics that might beregarded as ‘urban’ and a broad definition of ‘rural’. An important element of thisinterpretation is location. This means the interpretation should be treated withcare for both types of area. Within the 'urban' group, for example, there isevidence of a strong regional dimension to the differentiation with authoritieslabelled as ‘Prosperous’ (‘Growth Areas’ and ‘Most Prosperous’) being aphenomenon of the South East and ‘Urban Fringe’ appearing mainly elsewhere.

Key Characteristics:

ONS AreaClassifications

Comment

Originators OPCS/ONS Covered Great Britain

15

Type Multi-criterion Not designed to signify‘urban’ or ‘rural

Data Census Built-up areaDelineation Unit Administrative Areas Wards, Districts, Health

AuthoritiesOutputs Named clusters of

areasCensus statistics

2.2.25 The Area Classifications of local and health authorities, as noted above,were created using 1991 Census data. A ward based version, using equivalentinput data was created subsequent to these classifications (Wallace andDenham, 1996). The local authorities and health authorities classifications wereup dated in 1999 for changes to local government boundaries and anotherrevision was undertaken in 2001 to reflect further changes to health authorities.The underlying data remained the same in all revisions. However, because ofthe effect of boundary changes, the 1999 revision produced a differenthierarchical structure of areas. There is therefore little direct comparability withthe results of the original classification (Bailey et al 1999, para 1.5).

2.3 Definitions of ‘Rural’

Background

2.3.1 The problems of defining rural areas are more intractable than those ofdefining urban areas, leading one observer to suggest that what constitutesrurality is largely a matter of convenience (Newby, 1986). The problem lies incapturing both the multiplicity of types of rural areas that exist (ranging, forexample, from small settlements on the fringe of large towns and cities toremote villages and hamlets, and from ‘green belt’ agriculture to areas ofextensive arable farming), and the economic and social changes that havetaken place in rural places linking them more closely to an urban style of life andwork.

2.3.2 However, despite the conceptual problems of capturing what ‘rurality’ is,rural areas are generally observed to have particular attributes which give thema distinctive character. These attributes include tracts of open countryside, lowpopulation densities, a scattering of small to medium sized settlements, lessdeveloped transport infrastructure and lack of access to services and amenities,especially of the type provided in larger urban centres. Each of thesecharacteristics has, at one time or another, been built into attempts to define‘rurality’ for practical purposes.

(i) Rural as ‘Not Urban’

2.3.2 In the context of definitions of ‘urban’ based upon ‘urban land use’ (i.e.the Urban Areas approach in England and Wales and the Scottish 1981 and1991 localities), the ‘rural’ domain can be conceived as the ‘remainder’ or all the

16

land which is not defined as ‘urban’.1 This is the conception of ‘rural’ as landwhich is not built on to any large extent and which is mostly ‘open’ or‘countryside’.

2.3.3 Such a conceptualization, though convenient and easily applied, hasserious limitations for many policy purposes. It fails to recognise the existence ofsettlements with populations smaller than the arbitrary minimum set for ‘urban’areas, it fails to recognise the functional relationship between urban areas andsmaller settlements within the surrounding countryside and it ignores thosesocial/economic characteristics that may be deemed to pertain to the term‘rural’.

2.3.4 Given these problems associated with the 'urban land residual'approach, there have been three main types of approach to defining rural areasin a more realistic manner: to assign some urban areas to be ‘rural’ in nature, toclassify local authority areas and/or wards on the basis of characteristics whichare deemed to identify the ‘rural’, and to identify smaller settlements on thebasis of land use characteristics other than those used in the urban areasdefinition.

(ii) The Rural Development Commission Definitions

2.3.5 Prior to the formation of the Countryside Agency the then RuralDevelopment Commission (RDC) in England defined wards that were outsideUrban Areas with less than 10,000 population as ‘rural’. In similar fashion,parishes with less than 10,000 population were arbitrarily defined as ‘rural’parishes, of which there are about 9,600 in England. In addition, for the purposeof targeting funding, the RDC also defined large ‘Rural Development Areas’(RDAs) based upon ‘... wards which lie mainly outside the boundaries ofsettlements of 10,000 [or more] population’.

2.3.6 The definition of RDAs underwent a major review subsequent to the1991 Census. Wards with high scores on a minimum of six out of ten indicatorsof ‘need’ were included (together with any extra wards needed to ensure that theboundary of each area was relatively ‘rounded’ (sic). RDAs were then definedon the basis of six contiguous wards meeting the stated criteria.

2.3.7 An early statement of the continuing process of creating lists of localauthority districts defined as ’rural’ is the ‘Tarling Report’ on the rural economypublished in 1993 (RDC, 1993). The criteria for definition in this source are notclearly stated but the outcome is a classification of ‘rural’ areas into accessiblerural (108 districts), remote rural (63) and former coalfield areas (10), theremainder being urban and metropolitan. Although based on administrativeboundaries prior to re-organisation in the 1990s, a related technique continuedto inform the classification of districts after the creation of unitary authorities.

1 See, for example, ‘Key Statistics for Urban Areas of Great Britain’, HMSO 1997, Table 14. Note howeverthat in this table ‘urban’ means Urban Areas i.e. urbanised land with assigned populations. The ‘rural’ areathus includes parcels of Urban Land which may or may not have an assigned population.

17

(iii) Countryside Agency Definitions

(a) District Level

2.3.8 The current Countryside Agency definition (list) of rural districts is thatwhich is found in that organization's State of the Countryside reports andsometimes referred to as the 'SOCCODE' definition. This is, in a sense, aheuristic amalgam of a number of definitions of rural at this geographical levelincluding the OPCS/ONS area classification, a National Council of VoluntaryOrganisations list (based largely on population density) and a list suggested byDETR for the 1995 Rural White Paper. The SOCCODE definition of ruralcomprises 145 district/unitary authorities.

Key Characteristics:

Rural Districts CommentOriginators DETR/RDC/CA No clear

‘ownership’Type Economic health/remoteness SubjectiveData Not known AgedDelineation Unit Districts/Unitaries Updated

heuristicallyOutputs State of the Countryside

ReportsMaps

Range ofstatistics

(b) Ward Level

2.3.9 The Countryside Agency commissioned work to produce a definition ofrural England that is more detailed than that based on districts, but which stillreflects the SOCCODE definition. For this ward level definition, a statisticalprocess was used to 'translate' the measures implied by the district/unitary leveldefinition into a more sensitive classification than one that merely assumes allwards in the rural districts are rural.

2.3.10 The statistical method (logistic regression) was used with two aims inmind: to identify which variables were most associated with the SOCCODEdefinition and to use these variables to predict which wards are 'rural' in theseterms. The variables, which were all taken from the 1991 census were:population density, the ratio of the economically active to the economicallyinactive population, the percentage of people who use public transport, thepercentage of people working in agriculture, forestry and fishing, the percentageof people in primary production (mining, energy, water), and the percentage ofpeople who are ethnically non-white.

Key Characteristics

18

Rural Wards CommentOriginators Countryside Agency To refine district

definitionType Statistical ModelData 1991 CensusDelineation Unit WardsOutputs Targeting, Rural Deprivation

(c) The Rural Settlements Gazetteer

2.3.11 The Rural Settlements Gazetteer (RSG) seeks to identify settlementsgenerally below the 1000 population threshold employed in identifying UrbanAreas and was created for the RDC and the Housing Corporation (HC) in orderto identify settlements below 3000 population to which the ‘right to buy’provisions of the Housing Act 1985 did not apply.

2.3.12 The RSG consists of a list of some 16,700 settlements referred to as‘localities’ in Royal Mail’s Address Manager database. They are built from the‘residential delivery points’ associated with the 100m grid squares identified bythe 6-figure National Grid References (NGRs) attached to Unit Postcodes. TheGazetteer contains information on the county, district and parish location of eachsettlement, the NGR of the centroid of the settlement and an estimate ofsettlement population2.

2.3.13 The approach to identification of settlements was complex, involving theapplication of GIS techniques. The approach in outline, described as a series oftasks and operations was as follows:

• the 1991 Urban Areas data were used to define the boundaries of urbanagglomerations and larger (over 3000 population) rural settlements,

• the Royal Mail’s Address Manager database is used to definesettlements as clusters of unit postcodes joined by the locality names inaddresses,

• the geographic centroids of the identified clusters of postcodes arecompared with the boundaries of the urban agglomerations and thelarger rural settlements; where the clusters impinge upon the latter, theyare discarded, and

• the population estimates for the remaining locality based clusters areobtained based upon the number of dwellings (addresses) in the UnitPostcodes defining the cluster, up-rated by household size estimates forthe area in question derived from the 1991 Census.

2.3.14 This technique was taken further in the construction of the Countryside

2 Population estimates developed for the RSG range from c 1500 to 10.

19

Agency’s landscape character map (Countryside Character Map), wherestatistics on the morphology (shape and compactness), of rural settlementswere created and analysed alongside measures of landscape type (CountrysideAgency, 1999).

Key Characteristics

Rural Settlements CommentOriginators RDC/HC To identify small

settlementsType Rules basedData Addresses/Postcodes Frequent updateDelineation Unit 100m Grids Potentially to 10m

gridOutputs Settlements Populations estimated

(iv) Population Sparsity and Local Government Finance

2.3.15 Specific notions of ‘rurality’ are incorporated into the formulae for thedistribution of Central Government grant to local authorities, though they areused to determine only a very small part of the total allocation. Here, definitionsare focused not on some general notion of ‘rurality’, but on an operationaldefinition of population ‘sparsity’ or 'super sparsity'. The definition is based onone of two indicators used in the calculation of local authority standard spendingassessments (SSAs): population density or population sparsity.

2.3.16 Measures of density are defined so as to weight for the share of a localauthority’s population within each ED and to attempt to take account of growthbetween 1991 and 1999; population sparsity is defined in terms of ‘cut-offs’,between 0.5 and 4.0 residents per hectare is ‘sparse’ and below 0.5 persons perhectare is ‘super sparse. For the purposes of describing patterns of SSAchanges, ‘rural’ has been taken to be the 25 per cent of local authorities in anyparticular class (e.g. shire districts) with the highest sparsity scores.

(v) The Rural Services Partnership Definition

2.3.17 A population density of less than one person per hectare has been usedas a criterion for membership of the ‘Rural Services Partnership’ of localauthorities. It covers just over fifty local authorities in England. A larger groupingof rural local authorities is the Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team(SPLAT), which included 140 district councils, including some 36 shire countiesin July 1996.

20

2.3.17 More complicated measures of rurality involving density-type measures(e.g. measures of the extent to which a local authority’s population is clusteredwithin its area), have also been discussed by representatives of central andlocal government at meetings of the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Workinggroup.

(vi) Rural Scotland

(a) The Randall Definition

2.3.19 The ‘Randall’ definition of rural Scotland was produced for a 1985Scottish Economic Bulletin (SEB) as a means of profiling economic trends andindicating need for support in rural Scotland. The definition identified localauthority districts with a population density of less than 1 person per hectare. Itwas used in connection with the 1995 Rural White paper and the 1996 ScottishRural Life Update and the approach has been applied to the post-1996 unitaryauthorities.

2.3.20 This definition is regarded as having the advantage of being clearlyunderstood and being one for which a substantial amount of data is available.However, the use of local authority areas to identify rural Scotland means thaturban pockets - e.g. Inverness - within wider rural areas are counted as rural.The approach is now considered to be too broad for targeting rural policies, butstill it provides a basis for the analysis of the state of Scotland’s rural economy.

Key Characteristics:

ScottishDistricts

Comment

Originators SEBType Basically, single criterion Population DensityData Census population/areaDelineation Unit Districts Links to Census OAsOutputs Map of rural districts Wide range of official

statistics

(b) The Area Classification of Scotland

2.3.21 The ‘Randall’ classification of districts represents a ‘top down’ approachto definition. Recently the Scottish Executive, following extensive discussionswith key interest groups, has agreed a more refined urban-rural classification ofScotland based on postcodes. This is seen as having identified rural settlementsin a more detailed and appropriate manner in that it includes accessibility as acriterion.

21

2.3.22 The need for an increased focus in the targeting of rural policies inScotland and for gathering information on the rural population has led to a moresophisticated ‘building block’ approach to defining rural settlements.3 Theapproach is developed from the ‘postcode’ definition of settlements described inparas 2.2.14 – 2.2.16, but also builds in a recognition of the physical diversity ofrural Scotland 4.

2.3.23 Postcode units were chosen as the basis of the definition because:

• they are one of the smallest geographic areas and therefore haveadequate spatial resolution to define urban boundaries,

• they link with the work on defining settlements undertaken by GRO(S).

2.3.24 A first stage in the recognition of rural settlements is their grouping bypopulation size thresholds chosen so as to have consistency with existingdefinitions and to distinguish between the level of services and facilities thatsettlements are likely to have:

• the four cities: settlements over 125,000 population (also seen as havinga wide range of services and facilities),

• urban settlements: places over 10,000 population (with a good range offacilities),

• intermediate towns: settlements with populations between 3000 and10,000, having a basic range of services, and

• rural settlements: places with less than 3000 population (includingisolated houses), unlikely to have amenities or services.

2.3.25 In connection with the analysis of the Scottish Household Survey, afurther dimension of rurality is added using GIS-based ‘drive-time’ analysis todifferentiate between accessible and more remote areas. After some pilotingwork a two-fold definition of the ‘remoteness’ of places has been adopted which,combined with the size thresholds of settlements given above, leads to a five-fold definition of settlements, four of which can be considered ‘rural’ :

Area Type Postcode Units in:‘The Four Cities’ Settlements over 125,000 population‘Other Urban’ Other settlements over 10,000 population‘Small, accessible towns’ Settlements 3-10,000 population and within

30 minutes drive time of a settlement of10,000 or more

‘Small, remote towns’ Settlements 3-10,000 population and more 3 A list of policy related definitions of the ‘rural’ for Scotland is given in Annex 6.4 Three broad types of ‘rural’ are recognised on the basis of an analysis of work and other travel times:‘commuter’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘remote’.

22

than 30 minutes drive time of a settlement of10,000 or more

‘Accessible rural’ Settlements less than 3,000 population andwithin 30 minutes drive time of a settlementof 10,000 or more

‘Remote rural’ Settlements less than 3,000 population andmore than 30 minutes drive time of asettlement of 10,000 or more

Key Characteristics:

Scottish RuralSettlements

Comment

Originators GROS/SHS Integrated developmentType Dual criteria Residential Address

(density)Density/Drive times

Data RoyalMail/MapInfo

Automated analysis

Delineation Unit Settlements Links to Census OAsOutputs SHS and a range of census

statistics byaccessibility

(vii) Rural Wales

2.3.26 In August 1997, the Welsh Office (WO), issued a consultation paper onthe definition of rural areas 5 It was proposed that communities with a populationof less than 3,000 which contained no overspill from large settlements (or werenot a part of such settlements) would be defined as ‘wholly rural’, with othercommunities being either ‘wholly non-rural’ or ‘partly rural’. In allocating areas tothese categories, Ordnance Survey maps were to be used to identify breaksbetween settlements.

2.3.27 In a further consultation paper of September 1999, the WO recognisedthat, under the previously definition, local knowledge had given rise to someanomalies that could not be considered under the method then proposed (e.g.settlements at the edge of strip developments). It therefore proposed a differentapproach, based on the assumption that the whole of Wales was rural, exceptfor a small list of communities in towns and cities that were deemed to beentirely non-rural.

(viii) Rural Development in the EU

5 This was issued in order to arrive at a usable definition of ‘rural areas’ for the scheme for rate relief forbusinesses in rural areas which was provided for by the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.

23

2.3.28 The LEADER+ Programme is an EU initiative to promote ruraldevelopment. EU guidelines for selection of areas suggest that, as a generalrule, the population of participating areas should not number more than 100,000in the most densely populated areas and in general not number less than10,000. A figure of 120 inhabitants per km2 overall (i.e. it does not have to applyto every area comprising a candidate area) is suggested to define the mostdensely populated areas. An area is also required to be ‘socially andeconomically cohesive’ though there are no specific criteria laid down tomeasure these characteristics.

2.3.29 Support is also available for rural areas under Objective II of theStructural Funds. These currently require that areas eligible for assistanceshould be defined at the level of NUTS 3 and have a population density of lessthan 100 persons per km2 or a proportion of agricultural employment which ismore than twice the Community average.

2.4 Conclusions

2.4.1 Although the approaches to urban and rural definition covered here areof an extremely varied nature, it is possible to draw a number of broadconclusions from the recent evolution of urban/rural definitions. Among the moresignificant we would select the following:

• at any one time there are generally a number of different urban/ruraldefinitions in use, meeting different needs and this may be an inevitableconsequence of the range of polices involved,

• amongst the urban definitions there has been a tendency towards singlecriterion definitions, although these have sometimes been modified bythe application of secondary criteria, especially the addition ofpopulation thresholds,

• the favoured single criterion definition of ‘urban’ has been based on landuse, whether measured directly as land parcels or by proxy as(residential and commercial) address densities,

• because of the definitional rules imposed in identifying urban areas vialand use (particularly ‘minimum area’ and ‘joining’ criteria), the logic of aland use/settlement definition has not extended to smaller ruralsettlements,

• multiple criteria clustering exercises have not led to a cleardiscrimination between urban and rural areas, partly because of theunits of analysis used and partly because of the statistical method used,

• the application of GIS technology has not only led to more sophisticateddefinition/delineation methodologies (e.g. the Scottish ‘settlements’approach), but has also given users with access to appropriate skills theability to ‘tailor’ existing definitions to their own needs.

24

Section 3

The Consultations

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 A major objective of the study is to obtain a ‘... thorough understandingof the requirements for urban and rural area definitions in relation to theformation, delivery and monitoring of public policy’. In pursuit of this aim a seriesof in-depth consultations was carried out with a number of organisations andindividuals identified as having a significant interest in urban and ruraldefinitions.

3.1.2 This summary of the matters discussed during the consultations isorganised around a series of headings reflecting the aims of the study. Inpractice, however, the discussions ranged more widely than the headings wouldsuggest. The headings comprise current policy areas involving urban and ruraldefinitions, the nature of the definitions used and any problems associated withthem, the requirement for any new definition(s), practical issues associated withthe timing of the need for new definitions and products necessary to theproduction of definitions and documentation and/or training needed with respectto the understanding and best use of definitions.

3.1.3 The key implications, which we draw from these findings for theidentification of a ‘core’, set of definitions and any revised or new definitions arereported in the conclusions. The source of a point of view or element of advice isindicated by an abbreviation (e.g. D/PLUS). A key to consultees appears asAnnex 1.

3.2 The Process of Consultation

3.2.1 Initially, a dozen groups or individuals were identified for the purposes ofconsultation. As the consultations proceeded, however, the number oforganisations or individuals with whom it became essential to talk more thandoubled, either as a result of new contacts being given during an interview, or asthe fact that that the review was being undertaken became more widely knownand more people wished to contribute.

3.2.2 A total of 21 in-depth, ‘face to face’ consultations were held, most ofthem with groups of people, but on a few occasions with individuals. In addition,e-mail and telephone communications were received from a further 12 people.Around 130 individuals in total have contributed their advice and views to thisstudy. A number of written personal views and other documents were alsoreceived. A substantial document was received from the Office for NationalStatistics (Geography Branch), containing the requirements of that organisationwhich goes wider than the three groups interviewed. Because of its evidentimportance to this study, this has been included as Annex 4.

25

3.2.3 Consultations generally lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours. Initially, it wasthought that the discussions would enable the gathering of quite specificinformation on the exact nature, number of occasions and in what contextsurban/rural definitions were used in setting and monitoring policy. This provednot to be the case and consultations generally took on the form of opendiscussion structured around a set of guidelines. The initial guidelines fordiscussion appear as Annex 2.

3.3 The Users of Urban/Rural Definitions

3.3.1 The range of interests represented by the consultees was very wide. Itincluded those commissioning information and/or research upon whichurban/rural definitions are based, primary suppliers of the data upon whichdefinitions are constructed and analysts of the primary data used to createurban/rural definitions. There were expert, less expert and prospective users ofurban/rural definitions and, in one instance, a non-governmental special interestorganisation with an interest in rural policy. A table giving further details of thepolicy and definitional interests of all consultees is given as Annex 3.

3.3.2 Two initial findings emerged from the range of consultees with whomdiscussions were held. First, there are clearly far more users of some form ofurban/rural definition than we had time to contact. The English Sports Council,the English Tourist Board and the National Lottery Charities Board were justthree of those indicated by consultees as having an interest in this area.

3.3.3 Secondly, there are some organisations which can see the need forurban/rural definitions in their work, though at the time of the consultation did notuse them. The Lord Chancellor’s Department (whose work includes matters ofaccess to magistrate’s courts), was one such organisation. In these cases thereis an evident need for better contact and consultation between actual andpotential users of urban/rural definitions.

3.4 The Policy Imperative

3.4.1 Although a prime catalyst for the present study (at least in terms of thewidening range of users), was the need to collect and present information fromvarious sources for the Urban and Rural White Papers, there were importantprior considerations for initiating the study (D/UPD). Among these were:

• the need to update the Urban Areas/Land boundaries in readiness for the2001 Census and, potentially, to increase the frequency of theiravailability (D/PLUS, OS),

• the workshop held on 12 May 2000 under the auspices of theCountryside Agency to discuss definitions of rurality and rural settlement(CA), and

26

• ONS plans for creating new products from the 2001 Census information(ONS2)6.

3.4.2 The preparations undertaken for the Urban and Rural White Papers bothsharpened and widened the debate about the need for more consistent andmore widely known and used definitions of the urban and rural domains.7 It wasnoted by several consultees that the range of different definitions used as thebasis for the information reported in the White Papers could appear confusing(D/UPD, D/REA). This was particularly so in the 'urban' case, where definitionscould be on the basis of land use, population size, area classifications,administrative areas or planning areas.

3.4.3 However, the profusion of definitions did not, in itself, imply the need fora single definition. It could suggest that specific definitions needed to beapproached from the point of view of particular types of policy or programmes(D/REA, HC) or be more clearly identified with policy (D/RD, D/UD).

3.4.4 Research undertaken for the Rural White Paper, in particular, was felt tohave highlighted the conceptual and operational problems associated with ruraldefinitions (CA, D/RD, D/REA, ONS2). There were two broad sets of issueshere. The first was the need for a more consistent application of either existingor new definitions across the administrative hierarchy (i.e. districts, counties andregions), so that any given type of definition could be applied throughout thathierarchy (CA). The second was the need for a settlement based element in anyaugmented or new definition of the ‘rural’ (CA, ONS2, NAW). Included with thelatter is the need for a functional (i.e. 'sphere of influence'), element to thedefinition of market towns (D/RD, MAFF).

3.5 Policy Applications of Urban and Rural Definitions

3.5.1 The first point to note about policy application of urban and ruraldefinitions is the wide range of needs for such definitions. A summary of thepolicy applications of urban and rural definitions is given in Table 3.1. The tablehighlights not only the policy areas requiring some form of urban/rural definitionbut also the focal ‘objects’ or ideas within a definition that are relevant to aparticular policy area.

3.5.2 The requirement for some form of urban/rural definition was foundacross all policy areas reviewed and, where such a definition was not currentlyin use, a prospective need based upon current or impending policies could beidentified (DCMS, LCD).

3.5.3 There is, however, an identifiable ‘core’ of more sophisticated andfrequent users of urban/rural definitions among whom were D/PLUS, D/REA,

6 Including, for example, relating Output Areas to new urban area boundaries and the planned up-dating ofthe Area Classifications.7 For a more broadly based discussion of the ways in which the two White Papers contribute to the debateon urban and rural definitions see Part 3, Section 5.

27

D/TRANS, CA, ONS1, ONS2, ONS3 and NAW. Significant other users wereD/HS and HO. On past experience, their needs are likely to play an importantpart in determining the form of any new or improved definition.

3.5.4 There was, too, a group of users of present urban/rural definitions who,given wider consultation or co-ordination of effort, could (and, for reasons ofincreased consistency of applications, should), be brought more closely to the‘core’ of mainstream users. This may be for operational reasons as in theidentification of rural schools by DFEE (at present done on the basis of distanceto other schools, sometimes ratified by reference to the ONS AreaClassification).

3.5.6 Or it may be for technological reasons as in the increased use ofGeographic Information Systems by D/LGF, for the linkage of urban land usedefinitions to speed limits and the definition of a hierarchy of rural roads(D/TRANS) or the potential for linking housebuilding statistics to urban/ruraldefinitions via postcoding (D/HS).

3.6 Definitions for Policy Purposes

3.6.1 From the evidence of the consultations it is possible to group policyapplications of urban/rural definitions into a number of classes based on policypurpose. As pointed out by consultees, the policy purposes which urban/ruraldefinitions serve, should, wherever possible, be the main considerations inconstructing new or improved definitions (D/REA, D/PLUS/, D/RD, NA, CA). Atthe same time, however, it was recognised that a profusion of definitions wouldbe likely to create more confusion than already existed.

Table 3.1: Urban and Rural Definitions: Policy Areas, Objects and Criteria

PolicyTopic

Policy Area Policy Objects Criterion

Planning UrbanRegeneration

Urban Structure LandUse/Economic

Urban Growth Settlements Land UseTown Centres Urban Structure Services/Land useInner Cities Urban Structure Employment/BlightSuburbs Urban Structure Transport/Cohesion

Rural Areas Service Provision Settlements/Access HouseholdsDevelopment Economy/Inclusion Administrative

AreasMarket Towns Economic health Catchment

Areas/ServicesHousing Right To Buy Small Settlements Population Size

Sustainability Built Land Land UseServices Accessibility

28

Condition Neighbourhood Social/EconomicTransport Rural Buses Settlements/Households Distance

Transport Surveys Settlement Size LandUse/Population

Speed Limits Settlement Limits BuildingsHealth Health Outcomes Epidemiology Social/Physical

ConditionsService provision SettlementsAccessibility Distance

Education Urban Schools Neighbourhoods Social/EconomicRural Schools Access Distance

Crime andJustice

Crime Reduction Neighbourhoods Density

Magistrates Courts Settlements AccessLG Finance Revenue

DistributionAllowing for additionalcosts of Sparsity/Density

Sparsity, 'SuperSparsity', Density

3.6.2 Five broad groups of policy applications of urban/rural definitions couldbe identified from the consultations:

• the use of urban/rural definitions for the statutory allocation of resources.One example of this is the ‘Right To Buy’ provisions of the legislation inrelation to rural housing 8; such definitions need, for legal reasons, to bewell specified and will change only as the legislation changes (D/HS,HC).

• the use of urban/rural area definitions in the construction of various‘headline indicators’. Headline indicator H14 of Quality of Life Counts’ isconcerned with ‘new development in urban areas’ and requires a cleardefinition for measurement (D/PLUS). Similarly, the ‘headline ruralindicators’ in the Rural White Paper are likely to require appropriatedefinitions of ‘rural’, some of which are quite detailed.

• the use of urban/rural definitions for the broad targeting of resources.Here the process of targeting is in two stages. A broad allocation ismade centrally to qualifying rural districts, then local authorities selectappropriate areas within their jurisdiction. Rural Bus Grant and RuralBusiness Rate Relief are examples of this process; this might implyconsistency of approaches to definition at the national and the locallevels, though at present this is not possible (D/TRANS, D/LGF, NA),

• the use of definitions for the purposes of constructing urban/ruralstatistical descriptions. This is a frequently conducted and importantapplication and requires consistency between the geographical unitsused to create both urban and rural definitions and a range ofadministrative areas (including wards and parishes). It was strongly

8 For further examples of statutory definitions in relation to rural Scotland see Annex 6.

29

urged by ONS that at least one ‘core’ definition of urban/rural should be‘cross-classifiable’ with Census and other official data (ONS1, ONS2)and is implicit in the requirement for other types of definition to be‘translatable’ to at least to local authority districts and counties (CA), and

• the use of urban/rural definitions for analytical purposes. Althoughattempts to relate survey and other data to ONS Area Classificationshave rarely proved successful because of their highly generalized nature(D/REA, ONS3), there is an important need for urban/rural definitions foranalytical purposes including the locating of survey points within urbanareas and the population banding of urban areas for sample survey anddata reporting purposes (D/TRANS). A need in the analytical use ofdefinitions is for the smallest possible number of ‘confounding’ factors,implying a simple basis for definition (ONS3).

3.6.3 The relationship between polices and specific definitions (or elements ofdefinitions), insofar as these could be identified, is shown in Table 3.2. Amongthe consultees, extensive use was made of urban areas data either in aggregateor at/between different levels in the population hierarchy. In a number ofinstances, ward based data were aligned to urban areas, though the ‘fit’between them was generally considered to be unsatisfactory. For wider analysisand reporting purposes, the Countryside Agency list of rural districts(SOCCODE) and the ONS classifications were most frequently used, eventhough the latter was not designed to identify urban or rural areas.

3.6.4 Given these needs, all consultees were aware that they were also oftenusing existing definitions as a proxy for some more specific factor which is the‘real’ objective or motivating criterion for a policy – for example that it was oftennot ‘rural areas’ that were the main object of attention but the notion ofaccessibility within rural areas (NAW).

3.7 Requirements of Urban and Rural Definitions

3.7.1 User requirements for improvements on current urban/rural definitions ornew approaches to such definitions, stem from the perceived inadequacies ofexisting definitions and from the imperatives of new or evolving areas of policy.Responses to such requirements can then either be seen as improvements to ormodifications of existing definitions or as the need for radically new approaches,not only to defining the ‘urban’ and the ‘rural’ but also in terms of better ways ofmaking definitions available to users.

(a) Urban Areas/Urban Land

3.7.2 The Urban Areas 1991 approach to definition was seen as a wellunderstood and widely accepted starting point by expert users (e.g. ONS2,ONS3, D/PLUS), particularly given the focus of many policies in ‘settlements’ ofvarious sizes. It was, however, difficult to relate to local authority and otheradministrative boundaries and was heavily reliant upon (now outdated) Censusdata for population estimates.

30

3.7.3 A land use approach to definition was recognised as having a degree offlexibility in that, as a definition based on land parcels, it could be focused onpolicies relating only to land use (such as the proportion of new housing built onpreviously developed land, D/PLUS) and, since it could be related to censusdata areas, it was a key source of information on settlements and the settlementhierarchy within local authorities (D/PLUS, D/TRANS).

Table 3.2: Identification of Core Definitions for Policy Purposes

Policy Area Definition 1 Definition 2 Definition 3 Issues

(a) Statutory

Local GovernmentFinance

Density/Sparsity

Resale of SocialHousing

Urban Areas <2000

Pop Density> 2pp ha(parish)

Incidence ofSecondHomes

Measures atdifferentlevels/times

Village Shop RateRelief Scheme

All England ruralexcept UrbanAreas>10,000

Move to mapbased scheme

Rural Priority Areas All England ruralexceptUrbanAreas>10,000

Ward based

Welsh Rural TransportGrant

Urban Areas>10,000

Proxy foraccessibility;misses urbanfringe

Local TransportServices GrantLocal Authorities< 4ppha(Wales)EU Air QualityDirective

UrbanAreas>100,000

Options for EUproposals on

UrbanAreas>100,000

Environmental NoiseEU Objective 2 At Local

Authority LevelDensity

(b) BroadlyDiscretionary

Urban PolicyEvaluation Strategy

UrbanAreas>20,000

Sub-divisionsincluded

Rural DevelopmentProgramme(farm buildingsconversion grants)

‘SOCCODE’modelledat ward level(1991)

Census 1991 data

Market Towns Urban Areas2,000-20,000

Added wards(catchment

Poor fit ofwards

31

areas)LEADER Local

Authorities,120p p km sqMax pop 10-100,000

Applies toadmin areaas a whole

(c)Analytical/ReportingUrban White Paper VariousRural White Paper VariousTransport (NTEM)Zoning

1991 'urbansprawl' polygons(Urban Areas)

Wards fitted for1192 contiguouszones

Rural = notUrbanAreas>10000

Not clear how sub-divisions treated

State of theCountryside Reports

‘SOCCODE’Rural Districts

The State of EnglishCities

ONSClassification

Along an‘urban/ruralcontinuum’

Living in UrbanEngland

ONSClassification

EHCS typologyofneighbourhoods

Sharing the Nation'sProsperity

‘SOCCODE’Rural Districts

3.7.4 A widely held criticism of the Urban Areas definition was the paucity ofdocumentation associated with the source (i.e. boundary) data (D/UPD, CA,HC). This extended to the confusion inherent in the ‘urban land’ category whichincluded very small settlements with no assigned EDs and hence population,and areas such as airports with no resident population (CA, D/PLUS). The lackof sources explaining the implications of using the Urban Area boundaries inassociation with other data such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation, basedupon wards and other small areas, was also commented upon (D/REA)

3.7.5 In the view of some consultees, the logic of the land parcel/populationunit approach to settlement needed to be taken below the present 1000population or four ED limit to include smaller settlements (CA, ONS2). It was notclear yet how well the Census 2001 Output Areas would ‘fit’ smaller settlementsand, at least in the interim, it may be necessary to pursue an approach todefining smaller settlements based upon grids or postcodes (CA). A furtheradvantage to a 'high spatial resolution' approach is that it would enableaccepted measures of settlement density and/or scatter, to be appliedconsistently throughout the hierarchy of administrative areas (CA, ONS2).

3.7.6 A number of consultees noted that whilst the land use element indefinitions of the ‘urban/settlement' was a key criterion, it was not sufficient inspecific current or emerging policy applications. In the case of market towns, forexample the rules for allocating population units to urban areas not onlyexcluded some smaller places (i.e. because of the configuration of ED centroidsin relation to urban area boundaries), but the use of only two criteria (i.e. landuse and population) was not sufficient.

32

3.7.7 The importance of market towns in rural policy lies in their potential forintegrating town and countryside. Hence a wider definition incorporating theeconomic function of such towns and, possibly, a representation of town pluslocal catchment areas was required (CA, D/RD, D/REA, ONS2).

3.7.8 In similar vein, there was a need, in the case of national policies forsustainable housing development, for the augmentation of urban areas data,possibly by means of information on the level of service provision, possibly usingpostcoded ‘Yellow Pages’ type of data (D/PLUS, CA).

(b) Definitions Involving Social and Economic Characteristics

3.7.9 A number of consultees pointed out that urban policy frequently requiredsocio-economic approaches to definition (D/UPD, D/REA, ONS3), and that asingle ‘binary’ approach to the distinction between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ was neitherconceptually defensible nor adequate to meet all policy needs (ONS1, ONS3,D/REA). Recent policy interest in suburbs was particularly notable in this regard(D/UPD, D/REA).

3.7.10 However, there was little unanimity on precisely what social or economicvariables were able to discriminate successfully between urban and rural areasand, to a lesser extent, within urban areas. Further, it was doubted whether asingle approach, inclusive of both ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas could capture the‘real’ nature of either environment (ONS2, ONS3). For example, it wasrecognised that measures of employment or demographic structure no longeradequately discriminated between urban and rural areas (especially on theurban fringe) or within rural areas (ONS2).

3.7.11 There also exists an inevitable tension between the need for simplicity ofvariable inputs to such definitions, to meet the need for the reduction of‘confounding factors’ in analyses, and the (hypothesised) requirement for avariety of measures to capture the ‘flexibility’ of the modern economy andsociety (ONS3).

3.7.12 Despite the lack of agreement on what constituted the ‘rural’ in socialand economic terms, the main definition of rural areas at local authority level(and currently in the process of being extended, via statistical manipulation, toward level) was the SOCCODE definition used in recent State of theCountryside reports (CA). Given its established nature and broad acceptance,this was likely to remain as a key definition of the rural area at this level, at leastuntil a more thorough-going analysis of this issue had been made (CA, HC).

(c) Urban Structure

3.7.13 Regarding territorial definitions of the internal structure of urban areas,there was also a recognition of need but even less unanimity on a way forward.Of the candidate products currently in existence, the ONS Area Classification atLocal Authority/Health Area level was at too large a scale for this use, even in

33

relation to the major conurbations and the ward based product was too generalin terms of its ‘mix’ of measures for specific policy purposes (D/UPD, D/REA,D/HS).

3.7.14 The town centre definitions and associated retail/floorspace statisticsrecently developed by D/PLUS were seen as a key ingredient of ‘intra-urbandefinitions and, perhaps, an indicator of a way forward (D/PLUS, CA). It was notclear, however, how other parts of urban areas should be defined, not leastsince population density was no longer an appropriate discriminator between,say, inner and outer suburbs and outer suburbs and ‘peri-urban’ areas (D/UPD,D/REA, D/PLUS). In any case, since the main focus in developing definitions ofurban structure were social and economic rather than physical (i.e. land use), itwas probably sensible to wait until a properly conceptualized approach could beimplemented using Output Area data from the 2001 census aligned to urbanarea boundaries (ONS2).

3.8 Issues of Timing

3.8.1 An important consideration in choosing between options for new orimproved definitions of urban/rural areas is that of the timing of delivery, whetherof the definitions themselves or of the data upon which they are or will be based.Initial 2001 urban land/area boundaries have been prepared and furtherprocessing of these continues, (D/PLUS, OS). These will be supplied to ONS inSeptember 2002. Using 2001 Census Output Area population counts, these willbe used to create boundaries and statistics for the 2001 Urban Settlements,forming the basis of an approach to the definition of urban areas and of relatedproducts that is similar to those for the 1981 and 1991 Censuses (ONS2).

3.8.2 The ONS estimate for the delivery of population counts based on OutputAreas (which will form the building blocks for population counts for urban areas),is mid 2002 and for other data the estimate is the end of the first quarter of2003. If the first of these estimates is correct, this implies at least a six-month‘gap’ between the provision of the urban boundary data and the availability ofmore up to date population estimates for urban areas. Moreover, any new areaclassifications to be undertaken by ONS may not appear for some time after mid2003 (ONS2).

3.8.3 The implications of these timing ‘gaps’ for various definitions andproducts needs to be examined closely alongside the work/output schedules foractivities such as the production of the State of the Countryside Report 2002,and the carrying out of the National Travel Survey, the English Housing Survey,the English House Condition Survey, etc. We did not have the opportunity to dothis in detail.

3.8.4 Finally, for any substantial or major re-casting of approaches towardsurban/rural definitions (the latter, in our experience could take 12-18 months topilot, implement and test), there will need to be consultations on, and carefulplanning of, arrangements for the transition from one set of definitions to another(D/TRANS/D/HS, D/REA). In the meantime, in the period between receiving the

34

2001 urban land/area boundaries and the use of census population data tocreate urban areas, it would be possible to develop household/populationestimates based on residential addresses ‘factored’ for (1991) household size(ONS2).

3.8.5 For the ‘longer’ medium term, a watching brief should be kept on thepossible role that the land parcel/land use ‘objects’ derived from OS DigitalNational Format products might play in the processes of defining the ‘urban’ and‘rural’ (D/PLUS).

3.9 Dissemination and Documentation

3.9.1 As noted earlier, several consultees emphasised the need for muchbetter documentation of, and easier access to, information on urban and ruraldefinitions (among them D/UPD, D/REA, D/TRANS, D/RD, CA and DFEE). Insome cases this was seen as an urgent need.

3.9.2 A number of different aspects of the need for better documentation wereindicated, including:

• the need for a single ‘stand alone’ source for of all types of urban andrural definitions, possibly international as well as national,

• the need for a more ‘generalist’ description of the definition of UrbanAreas/Land than appears in the ONS and (especially) the OSdocuments,

• the need for documentation that gives examples of the use ofurban/rural definitions in a number of typical policy situations,

• the need for more accessible definitions, possibly using theDepartmental intranet, and

• the need for better dissemination of the existence and nature ofurban/rural definitions to actual and potential users of such definitions.

3.9.3 It was also pointed out by some consultees that one pre-condition ofproviding better documentation on urban/rural definitions was the need forimproved clarity on who was ultimately responsible for the ‘ownership’ of aparticular definition or even the range of definitions (D/PLUS, ONS2. At present,for example, ‘ownership’ of and responsibility for different aspects of the UrbanAreas definition appeared to be divided between D/PLUS, ONS and OS.

3.10 Summary

3.10.1 Whilst accepting the fundamental diversity among users in terms of thelevels of complexity (e.g. simple urban/rural dichotomy to multiple area types),criteria (e.g. land use, population, social/economic characteristics), geographic

35

scale and applications of urban and rural definitions, a number of key issuescan be identified as emerging from the consultations as follows:

• a recognition of the need to accept a compromise regarding the type ofdefinition if that definition is to have recognisability and acceptanceacross a broad swathe of users.

• the most widely recognised and used current definition of urban is UrbanAreas 1991 and this could be treated and recommended as a coredefinition.

• in relation to a definition of rural