Concentrations of Multiple Deprivation

advertisement
Changes in Concentrations of Multiple Deprivation
Updated March 2012
Summary
 The 5% most deprived datazones in Scotland have become less concentrated (more
spread out) across Scotland over the four versions of the SIMD.
 The pattern of ‘becoming more spread out’ is particularly noticeable at the 5% cut-off, but
can also be seen at higher cut-offs such as 10% and 15% most deprived.
 The reduction in the concentration of deprivation is less noticeable between SIMD 2009
and SIMD 2012 than in previous versions of the index
 These patterns can be seen in areas as large as local authorities as well as at smaller
areas such as intermediate zones.
 The datazones moving into the most deprived are not just in those geographical areas
that have experienced high concentrations of multiple deprivation in previous versions of
the index – new areas are appearing.
 Within the most deprived datazones, the combinations of aspects of deprivation have
also fallen slightly over the versions of the SIMD.
1.
2.
Background .................................................................................................................. 2
Concentrations of deprivation in local authorities .................................................... 2
2.1. The 5% most deprived ............................................................................................ 2
2.2. The 10% most deprived .......................................................................................... 4
2.3. The 15% most deprived .......................................................................................... 5
2.4. The 20% most deprived .......................................................................................... 7
3. Concentrations of deprivation in Intermediate Zones ............................................... 8
4. Analysis of concentrations of deprivation by SIMD domains ................................... 9
4.1. Domain deprivation in the 5% most deprived .......................................................... 9
4.2. Domain deprivation for the 15% most deprived ..................................................... 11
5. Combinations of aspects of deprivation within areas of deprivation..................... 12
6. Contact details ........................................................................................................... 14
Annex A: National Share of deprived datazones by local authority .............................. 15
Annex B: Local Share of deprived datazones by local authority ................................... 17
1. Background
This paper develops the analysis in the SIMD 2012 publication to explore what has
happened to small area concentrations of multiple deprivation over time.
The SIMD provides a rank for all the 6,505 datazones in Scotland, where a rank of 1 is the
most deprived and a rank of 6,505 is the least deprived. The ranks cannot be averaged to
obtain a deprivation score for larger geographical areas than an individual datazone. Instead
we use the concept of the National Share of the most deprived datazones.
To find an area’s National Share, we first identify the most deprived datazones in Scotland
by applying some cut-off, then we calculate what proportion of the datazones identified as
‘most deprived’ belong to that area. For example, for the 325 datazones in the cut-off of 5%
most deprived in Scotland, if 70 of these belong to Local Authority X, then Local Authority
X’s national share is 70/325 = 21.5%.
National Shares can be distinguished from Local Shares. To find an area’s local share, we
find the number of datazones in that area, then calculate what proportion of them belong to
the ‘most deprived’ according to some cut-off. For example, if Local Authority X is made up
of 250 datazones, and 70 of them are in the 5% most deprived in Scotland, then Local
Authority X’s local share is 70/250 = 28.0%.
The concepts of both national share and local share are defined in the SIMD 2012
publication and illustrated in the SIMD podcast. This paper primarily makes use of national
shares.
If deprivation was evenly distributed throughout Scotland, we would expect all of Scotland’s
local authorities to have the same National Share. However, this is not the case.
One commonly used cut-off for use in analysis of the SIMD is the 15% most deprived in
Scotland, although other cut-offs can also be used. This analysis looks at the national share
of the 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% most deprived datazones to see how the distribution has
changed over time. Tables showing the National and Local Shares of Scotland’s most
deprived datazones are included in Annexes A and B.
2. Concentrations of deprivation in local authorities
In this section we look at how concentrations of deprivation have changed over time, by
looking at four different definitions of the ‘most deprived’ areas in Scotland in turn – the 5%,
10%, 15%, and 20% most deprived.
For each cut-off, we first identify the local authorities with the largest national shares. We
then look at how the most deprived datazones are distributed throughout local authorities in
each of the SIMD updates.
2.1.
The 5% most deprived
First we consider the 5% most deprived datazones in Scotland, otherwise known as the
most deprived vigintile.
Table 1 shows the local authorities with the highest national shares of the 5% most deprived
on each version of the SIMD. It can be seen that Glasgow City has had the largest national
share of the datazones in Scotland’s most deprived vigintile in all four versions of the Index.
In SIMD 2004, 70% of the datazones in Scotland’s most deprived vigintile were found in
Glasgow. The concentration of the 5% most deprived datazones in the single local authority
of Glasgow City has however fallen in each subsequent version of SIMD, to 52% in SIMD
2006, 49% in SIMD 2009, and 46% in SIMD 2012.
It can also be seen from Table 1 that whereas in SIMD 2004, nearly 88% of the datazones in
the most deprived vigintile were distributed through six local authorities, the datazones in the
most deprived vigintile have come to be distributed throughout more local authorities in each
update of the SIMD. In SIMD 2012 the proportion of datazones in the most deprived vigintile
which are found in the six most deprived local authorities has decreased to 73%.
Table 1: Local authorities with the largest National Shares of the 5% most deprived
SIMD 2004
Local Authority
Glasgow
SIMD 2006
National
share
Local Authority
69.5% Glasgow
SIMD 2009
National
share
Local Authority
52.0% Glasgow
SIMD 2012
National
share
Local authority
48.6% Glasgow
National
share
45.5%
Edinburgh
7.7% Edinburgh
8.3% Edinburgh
6.8% Inverclyde
7.1%
North Lanarkshire
2.8% North Lanarkshire
5.2% North Lanarkshire
6.5% Dundee
5.8%
Dundee City
2.8% Dundee City
4.0% Dundee City
5.5% West Dunbartonshire
5.8%
South Lanarkshire
2.5% South Lanarkshire
4.0% Inverclyde
5.2% North Ayrshire
4.3%
Renfrewshire
2.5% Inverclyde
4.0% Renfrewshire
3.7% North Lanarkshire
4.3%
Sum of largest
national shares
87.8%
77.5%
76.3%
72.8%
Chart 1 shows how the datazones in the 5% most deprived are distributed across local
authorities on each version of the SIMD.
This chart allows us to look at the concentration of multiple deprivation from two angles.
 First, we can look at the National Share. For example, reading across at 80% on the
National Share axis, we can see that in 2004, 80% of the datazones in the most deprived
vigintile were concentrated in just 3 local authorities, but in SIMD 2012, 80% of the
datazones in the most deprived vigintile came to be distributed among 8 local authorities.
 Also, we can look at how many local authorities account for the most deprived
datazones. In SIMD 2004, the top 5 local authorities (LAs with the largest national
shares) accounted for nearly 88% of the most deprived datazones, while in SIMD 2012
the top 5 local authorities accounted for only 73% of the most deprived datazones.
Chart 1: Distribution of the 5% most deprived datazones across local authorities
2.2.
The 10% most deprived
We can now look at the ‘most deprived’ datazones using the slightly higher cut-off of 10%
(otherwise known as the most deprived decile).
Table 2 shows the local authorities with the highest national shares of the 10% most
deprived on each version of the SIMD. In SIMD 2004, about half of the datazones in the
most deprived decile were found in Glasgow City. This fell to 41% in SIMD 2006, 37% in
SIMD 2009, and 36% in SIMD 2012.
Table 2: Local authorities with the highest National Shares of the 10% most deprived
SIMD 2004
Local Authority
Glasgow
SIMD 2006
National
share
Local Authority
49.9% Glasgow
SIMD 2009
National
share
Local Authority
41.3% Glasgow
SIMD 2012
National
share
Local authority
37.2% Glasgow City
National
share
35.8%
Edinburgh
6.8% Edinburgh
7.1% North Lanarkshire
7.5% North Lanarkshire
8.9%
North Lanarkshire
6.8% North Lanarkshire
6.8% Edinburgh
6.5% Edinburgh City
6.0%
South Lanarkshire
6.1% Dundee City
6.0% Dundee City
6.1% South Lanarkshire
6.0%
Dundee City
5.2% South Lanarkshire
5.7% Inverclyde
5.2% Dundee City
5.5%
Inverclyde
3.7% Inverclyde
4.5% South Lanarkshire
4.9% Inverclyde
4.9%
Sum of largest
national shares
78.5%
71.4%
67.4%
67.1%
Chart 2 shows how the datazones in the 10% most deprived are distributed across local
authorities on each version of the SIMD.
Chart 2: Distribution of the 10% most deprived datazones across local authorities
It can be seen from Chart 2 that:
 six local authorities contained almost 80% of the datazones in the most deprived decile in
SIMD 2004. This fell to 71% in SIMD 2006 and has remained at just over two thirds
(67%) in SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
 In SIMD 2004, the three local authorities with the largest national shares accounted for
almost two thirds of the 10% most deprived datazones, while this has fallen and
remained at just over half in SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
 The distribution of datazones in SIMD 2012 is similar to SIMD 2009.
2.3.
The 15% most deprived
Now let us turn to a slightly higher cut-off, and look at the 15% most deprived datazones in
Scotland (also known as the most deprived three vigintiles).
Table 3 shows the local authorities with the largest national shares of the 15% most deprived
on each version of the SIMD.
Table 3: Local authorities with the highest National Shares of the 15% most deprived
SIMD 2004
Local Authority
SIMD 2006
National
share
Local Authority
Glasgow
38.3% Glasgow
North Lanarkshire
10.6% North Lanarkshire
SIMD 2009
National
share
Local Authority
33.8% Glasgow
SIMD 2012
National
share
Local authority
30.9% Glasgow
8.6% North Lanarkshire
9.1% North Lanarkshire
National
share
29.6%
10.2%
South Lanarkshire
6.8% Edinburgh
6.5% Edinburgh
6.1% Fife
5.9%
Edinburgh
6.3% South Lanarkshire
5.7% South Lanarkshire
5.9% Dundee
5.6%
Dundee
5.2% Dundee
5.4% Dundee
5.5% Edinburgh
5.5%
Renfrewshire
4.2% Fife
4.8% Fife
5.2% South Lanarkshire
5.4%
Sum of largest
national shares
71.4%
64.8%
62.7%
62.2%
In SIMD 2004, nearly 40% of the datazones in the most deprived three vigintiles were
located in Glasgow City. This concentration has fallen in each version of the SIMD, to 30% in
SIMD 2012.
Over 70% of the 15% most deprived datazones in Scotland were concentrated in six local
authorities in SIMD 2004. By SIMD 2012, the six local authorities with the highest numbers
of deprived datazones contained only 62% of the deprived datazones in Scotland.
Chart 3 shows how the datazones in the 15% most deprived are distributed across local
authorities on each version of the SIMD.
Chart 3: Distribution of the 15% most deprived datazones across local authorities
It can be seen from Chart 3 that:
 12 local authorities contained almost 90% of the datazones in the most deprived three
vigintiles in SIMD 2004. This has remained at 85% since SIMD 2006.


In SIMD 2004 the three local authorities with the largest national shares accounted for
over half (56%) of the most deprived datazones, while this has fallen to less than half
(46%) in SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
There is little difference between SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
2.4.
The 20% most deprived
Finally we can consider the cut-off of 20% (the most deprived quintile).
Table 4 shows the Local Authorities with the largest national shares of the 20% most
deprived on each version of the SIMD.
Table 4: Local authorities with the highest National Shares of the 20% most deprived
SIMD 2004
Local Authority
SIMD 2006
National
share
Local Authority
SIMD 2009
National
share
Local Authority
SIMD 2012
National
share
Local authority
National
share
Glasgow
31.1% Glasgow
28.5% Glasgow
26.8% Glasgow City
26.2%
North Lanarkshire
11.7% North Lanarkshire
10.2% North Lanarkshire
10.1% North Lanarkshire
10.5%
South Lanarkshire
6.8% South Lanarkshire
6.1% Fife
6.5% Fife
6.7%
Dundee City
5.8% Fife
6.1% South Lanarkshire
6.1% South Lanarkshire
5.8%
Edinburgh
5.4% Edinburgh
5.8% Edinburgh
5.6% Dundee City
5.3%
Renfrewshire
4.6% Dundee City
5.2% Dundee City
5.4% Edinburgh City
5.1%
Sum of largest
national shares
65.4%
61.9%
60.5%
59.6%
In SIMD 2004, nearly a third of the datazones in the most deprived quintile were located in
Glasgow City. This concentration has fallen in each version of the SIMD, to 26% in SIMD
2012.
Nearly two thirds (65%) of the datazones in the most deprived quintile were concentrated in
six local authorities in SIMD 2004. By SIMD 2012, the six local authorities with the highest
numbers of the deprived datazones contained just less than 60% of the most deprived
quintile.
Chart 4 shows how the datazones in the 20% most deprived are distributed across local
authorities on each version of the SIMD.
Chart 4: Distribution of the 20% most deprived datazones across local authorities
It can be seen from Chart 4 that:
 there is less change in the distribution of deprivation at this higher cut-off of 20% most
deprived. For instance, seven local authorities contained 74% of the datazones in the
most deprived quintile in SIMD 2004; this fell slightly to 70% in SIMD 2006, and fell
slightly again to 69% in both SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
 In SIMD 2004 the three local authorities with the largest national shares accounted
for half (50%) of the datazones in the most deprived datazones at this cut-off, while
this has fallen to 43% in SIMD 2009 and SIMD 2012.
3. Concentrations of deprivation in Intermediate Zones
The analysis in section 2 above was presented at local authority level. It is also worth
considering whether the same pattern of deprivation becoming more spread out can be
observed at smaller geographical areas.
In this section we briefly consider intermediate zones, which are smaller geographical areas
than local authorities. Intermediate zones are built up from several datazones (on average
there are 5-6 datazones in each intermediate zone). There are 1,235 intermediate zones in
Scotland and they contain on average 4,000 household residents.
Table 5 shows the number of intermediate zones that have no datazones in the category of
‘most deprived’, when the ‘most deprived’ is defined according to the same four cut-offs as
before (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%).
Table 5: Number of Intermediate Zones with no datazones in the ‘most deprived’ categories,
SIMD 2004 to SIMD 2012
SIMD 2004
SIMD 2006
SIMD 2009
SIMD 2012
5% most deprived
1,093
1,070
1,068
1,063
10% most deprived
964
953
939
942
15% most deprived
874
841
837
834
20% most deprived
780
757
746
741
It can be seen from Table 5 that the number of intermediate zones containing no datazones
from the ‘most deprived’ categories has generally fallen slightly for all the cut-offs analysed
here. This is a similar pattern to what we have seen for local authorities. It shows that the
most deprived datazones are increasingly appearing across more intermediate zones, which
means we can conclude that concentrations of multiple deprivation are becoming more
spread out even at small area level.
4. Analysis of concentrations of deprivation by SIMD domains
It is also possible to look at the concentrations of deprivation within individual domains in a
similar way to see how the pattern has changed over time.
In this section we will look at deprivation in individual domains for two cut-offs, the 5% and
15% most deprived.
4.1.
Domain deprivation in the 5% most deprived
Chart 5 shows that in SIMD 2004, almost three quarters of the datazones in the 5% most
deprived in the Health and Education domains were contained within one local authority.
Two thirds of datazones in the 5% most Employment and Income deprived domains were
contained within two local authorities. Two thirds of the 5% most Access deprived datazones
were contained within six local authorities. Chart 6 shows that by SIMD 2012, three quarters
of the 5% most Health and Education deprived datazones are now distributed across six
local authorities, while two thirds of the 5% most Income and Employment deprived
datazones are now distributed across five local authorities. Two thirds of the 5% most
Access deprived datazones are still contained within six local authorities.
Chart 5: Distribution of the 5% most deprived datazones in each domain, SIMD 2004
Chart 6: Distribution of the 5% most deprived datazones in each domain, SIMD 2012
Comparing Chart 5 and Chart 1Chart 6, the lines showing the concentrations of deprivation
in the four domains with the largest weights (Income, Employment, Health and Education)
have fallen and moved to the right between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2012. This means that the
datazones are now spread across a larger number of local authorities, or in other words, the
concentrations of deprivation have become more spread out between SIMD 2004 and SIMD
2012.
4.2.
Domain deprivation for the 15% most deprived
Chart 7 shows that in SIMD 2004, two thirds of the datazones in the 15% most deprived in
all the domains other than Access were contained within five local authorities. Two thirds of
the 15% most Access deprived datazones were contained within eleven local authorities.
Chart 8 shows that by SIMD 2012, two thirds of the 15% most Income, Employment, Health,
and Education deprived datazones are now distributed across seven local authorities. Two
thirds of the most Access deprived datazones are now found in ten local authorities.
Chart 7: Distribution of the 15% most deprived datazones in each domain, SIMD 2004
Chart 8: Distribution of the 15% most deprived datazones in each domain, SIMD 2012
5. Combinations of aspects of deprivation within areas of deprivation
The last measure we will use to look at levels of concentrations of deprivation is the number
of domains where a datazone falls in the most deprived, or in other words, how many
aspects of deprivation the population of a datazone is experiencing at a given cut-off. To do
this, we first identify all the datazones in the most deprived category on the overall SIMD on
a given cut-off, then for each datazone we count the number of domains where it appears in
the most deprived category on the same cut-off. Here we look at the 5% most deprived and
the 15% most deprived.
Chart 9 presents information about the datazones in the 5% most deprived in Scotland on
the overall SIMD, showing on how many of the individual domains they appear in the 5%
most deprived.
Chart 9: Number of domains in which datazones appear in the 5% most deprived for that
domain (for datazones in the 5% most deprived on the overall SIMD)
Chart 9 shows that all datazones in the 5% most deprived on the overall SIMD were in the
5% most deprived on at least one domain (except for 1 datazone in SIMD 2006). Around
80% of the datazones have been in the 5% most deprived on three or more domains in all
editions of the SIMD. It can also be seen from Chart 9 that the proportion of the most
deprived datazones in the 5% most deprived on 5 or more and 6 or more domains has fallen
slightly since SIMD 2006, suggesting that combinations of aspects of deprivation have
reduced slightly in the 5% most deprived areas.
Chart 10 presents the same information for the cut-off of 15% most deprived.
Chart 10: Number of domains in which datazones appear in the 15% most deprived for that
domain (for datazones in the 15% most deprived on the overall SIMD)
All datazones in the 15% most deprived on the overall SIMD were in the 15% most deprived
on at least one domain. Around 90% of the datazones have been in the 15% most deprived
on three or more domains on all editions of the SIMD. The proportion of the most deprived
datazones in the 15% most deprived on 4 or more, 5 or more and 6 or more domains has
fallen slightly since SIMD 2006, suggesting that combinations of aspects of deprivation have
reduced slightly in the 15% most deprived areas.
6. Conclusion
Multiple deprivation is not evenly distributed throughout Scotland, but is instead
concentrated more in some areas than in others. However, the analysis shown here
suggests that in general, concentrations of deprivation are becoming more spread out over
time.
7. Contact details
If you have any questions about carrying out the analysis in this paper, please get in touch.
Name:
E-mail:
Tel:
Catherine Dickie
Office of the Chief Statistician and Performance
catherine.dickie@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
0131 244 7714
Annex A: National Share of deprived datazones by local authority
5% Most deprived data zones
Local Authority
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll & Bute
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh City
Eilean Siar
Falkirk
Fife
Glasgow City
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Perth & Kinross
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Scotland
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
2
0.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.6
1
0.3
9
2.8
7
2.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.3
25
7.7
0
0.0
1
0.3
1
0.3
226
69.5
3
0.9
6
1.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
6
1.8
9
2.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
8
2.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.3
8
2.5
3
0.9
6
1.8
0
0.0
325
100.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
9
2.8
2
0.6
0
0.0
2
0.6
2
0.6
2
0.6
13
4.0
8
2.5
1
0.3
0
0.0
1
0.3
27
8.3
0
0.0
1
0.3
5
1.5
169
52.0
3
0.9
13
4.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
9
2.8
17
5.2
0
0.0
2
0.6
9
2.8
1
0.3
0
0.0
5
1.5
13
4.0
5
1.5
5
1.5
1
0.3
325
100.0
SIMD 2009
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
5
1.5
1
0.3
0
0.0
2
0.6
2
0.6
3
0.9
18
5.5
10
3.1
1
0.3
0
0.0
1
0.3
22
6.8
0
0.0
3
0.9
8
2.5
158
48.6
4
1.2
17
5.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
3.1
21
6.5
0
0.0
2
0.6
12
3.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
6
1.8
9
2.8
3
0.9
7
2.2
0
0.0
325
100.0
10% Most deprived data zones
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
3
0.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.9
2
0.6
2
0.6
19
5.8
12
3.7
2
0.6
0
0.0
1
0.3
19
5.8
0
0.0
4
1.2
6
1.8
148
45.5
4
1.2
14
4.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
12
3.7
23
7.1
0
0.0
2
0.6
14
4.3
1
0.3
0
0.0
7
2.2
11
3.4
4
1.2
12
3.7
0
0.0
325
100.0
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
8
1.2
1
0.2
0
0.0
6
0.9
4
0.6
3
0.5
34
5.2
13
2.0
2
0.3
0
0.0
2
0.3
44
6.8
0
0.0
7
1.1
12
1.8
325
49.9
7
1.1
24
3.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
16
2.5
44
6.8
0
0.0
2
0.3
22
3.4
1
0.2
0
0.0
7
1.1
40
6.1
5
0.8
20
3.1
2
0.3
651
100.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
18
2.8
2
0.3
1
0.2
4
0.6
9
1.4
6
0.9
39
6.0
17
2.6
2
0.3
0
0.0
1
0.2
46
7.1
0
0.0
11
1.7
22
3.4
269
41.3
8
1.2
29
4.5
1
0.2
0
0.0
23
3.5
44
6.8
0
0.0
5
0.8
22
3.4
2
0.3
0
0.0
8
1.2
37
5.7
5
0.8
17
2.6
3
0.5
651
100.0
SIMD 2009
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
14
2.2
2
0.3
2
0.3
7
1.1
7
1.1
9
1.4
40
6.1
20
3.1
2
0.3
0
0.0
1
0.2
42
6.5
0
0.0
11
1.7
28
4.3
242
37.2
9
1.4
34
5.2
1
0.2
0
0.0
26
4.0
49
7.5
0
0.0
4
0.6
29
4.5
2
0.3
0
0.0
9
1.4
32
4.9
5
0.8
18
2.8
6
0.9
651
100
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
9
1.4
2
0.3
2
0.3
5
0.8
8
1.2
8
1.2
36
5.5
20
3.1
2
0.3
0
0.0
3
0.5
39
6.0
0
0.0
10
1.5
24
3.7
233
35.8
9
1.4
32
4.9
2
0.3
0
0.0
31
4.8
58
8.9
0
0.0
2
0.3
32
4.9
4
0.6
0
0.0
11
1.7
39
6.0
5
0.8
21
3.2
4
0.6
651
100
15% Most deprived data zones
Local Authority
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll & Bute
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh City
Eilean Siar
Falkirk
Fife
Glasgow City
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Perth & Kinross
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Scotland
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
18
1.8
2
0.2
3
0.3
9
0.9
10
1.0
9
0.9
51
5.2
28
2.9
4
0.4
0
0.0
5
0.5
61
6.3
0
0.0
14
1.4
34
3.5
374
38.3
9
0.9
36
3.7
1
0.1
0
0.0
33
3.4
103
10.6
0
0.0
3
0.3
41
4.2
2
0.2
0
0.0
13
1.3
66
6.8
6
0.6
32
3.3
9
0.9
976
100.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
27
2.8
6
0.6
8
0.8
10
1.0
15
1.5
11
1.1
53
5.4
28
2.9
3
0.3
1
0.1
3
0.3
63
6.5
0
0.0
19
1.9
47
4.8
330
33.8
17
1.7
42
4.3
5
0.5
0
0.0
33
3.4
84
8.6
0
0.0
9
0.9
36
3.7
3
0.3
0
0.0
13
1.3
56
5.7
7
0.7
33
3.4
14
1.4
976
100.0
SIMD 2009
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
28
2.9
4
0.4
6
0.6
10
1.0
12
1.2
11
1.1
54
5.5
27
2.8
4
0.4
3
0.3
5
0.5
60
6.1
0
0.0
17
1.7
51
5.2
302
30.9
16
1.6
42
4.3
4
0.4
1
0.1
43
4.4
89
9.1
0
0.0
6
0.6
43
4.4
5
0.5
0
0.0
18
1.8
58
5.9
7
0.7
31
3.2
19
1.9
976
100.0
20% Most deprived data zones
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
22
2.3
5
0.5
3
0.3
10
1.0
14
1.4
13
1.3
55
5.6
32
3.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
7
0.7
54
5.5
0
0.0
18
1.8
58
5.9
289
29.6
17
1.7
44
4.5
3
0.3
0
0.0
46
4.7
100
10.2
0
0.0
6
0.6
48
4.9
5
0.5
0
0.0
17
1.7
53
5.4
7
0.7
31
3.2
13
1.3
976
100.0
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
27
2.1
4
0.3
6
0.5
10
0.8
16
1.2
15
1.2
75
5.8
40
3.1
5
0.4
3
0.2
8
0.6
70
5.4
0
0.0
30
2.3
60
4.6
404
31.1
17
1.3
46
3.5
6
0.5
0
0.0
50
3.8
152
11.7
0
0.0
5
0.4
60
4.6
4
0.3
0
0.0
20
1.5
88
6.8
8
0.6
44
3.4
28
2.2
1,301
100.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
36
2.8
8
0.6
9
0.7
11
0.8
17
1.3
16
1.2
68
5.2
40
3.1
6
0.5
3
0.2
8
0.6
76
5.8
0
0.0
29
2.2
80
6.1
371
28.5
24
1.8
49
3.8
10
0.8
2
0.2
48
3.7
133
10.2
0
0.0
10
0.8
60
4.6
6
0.5
0
0.0
21
1.6
80
6.1
10
0.8
40
3.1
30
2.3
1,301
100.0
SIMD 2009
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
34
2.6
5
0.4
7
0.5
11
0.8
16
1.2
19
1.5
70
5.4
46
3.5
6
0.5
5
0.4
8
0.6
73
5.6
0
0.0
25
1.9
85
6.5
349
26.8
27
2.1
51
3.9
8
0.6
3
0.2
60
4.6
131
10.1
0
0.0
10
0.8
57
4.4
6
0.5
0
0.0
23
1.8
79
6.1
8
0.6
40
3.1
39
3.0
1,301
100.0
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
national
zones share (%)
35
2.7
5
0.4
9
0.7
11
0.8
18
1.4
16
1.2
69
5.3
48
3.7
4
0.3
6
0.5
9
0.7
67
5.1
0
0.0
29
2.2
87
6.7
341
26.2
25
1.9
50
3.8
8
0.6
2
0.2
62
4.8
137
10.5
0
0.0
11
0.8
60
4.6
7
0.5
0
0.0
23
1.8
76
5.8
11
0.8
41
3.2
34
2.6
1,301
100.0
Annex B: Local Share of deprived datazones by local authority
5% Most deprived data zones
Local Authority
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll & Bute
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh, City of
Eilean Siar
Falkirk
Fife
Glasgow City
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Perth & Kinross
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Scotland
no. of
data
zones
267
301
142
122
64
193
179
154
127
120
120
549
36
197
453
694
292
110
112
116
179
418
27
175
214
130
30
147
398
110
118
211
6,505
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
2
0.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
3.1
1
0.5
9
5.0
7
4.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.8
25
4.6
0
0.0
1
0.5
1
0.2
226
32.6
3
1.0
6
5.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
6
3.4
9
2.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
8
3.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.7
8
2.0
3
2.7
6
5.1
0
0.0
325
5.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
9
3.4
2
0.7
0
0.0
2
1.6
2
3.1
2
1.0
13
7.3
8
5.2
1
0.8
0
0.0
1
0.8
27
4.9
0
0.0
1
0.5
5
1.1
169
24.4
3
1.0
13
11.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
9
5.0
17
4.1
0
0.0
2
1.1
9
4.2
1
0.8
0
0.0
5
3.4
13
3.3
5
4.5
5
4.2
1
0.5
325
5.0
SIMD 2009 V2
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
5
1.9
1
0.3
0
0.0
2
1.6
2
3.1
3
1.6
18
10.1
10
6.5
1
0.8
0
0.0
1
0.8
22
4.0
0
0.0
3
1.5
8
1.8
158
22.8
4
1.4
17
15.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
5.6
21
5.0
0
0.0
2
1.1
12
5.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
6
4.1
9
2.3
3
2.7
7
5.9
0
0.0
325
5.0
10% Most deprived data zones
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
3
1.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
2.5
2
3.1
2
1.0
19
10.6
12
7.8
2
1.6
0
0.0
1
0.8
19
3.5
0
0.0
4
2.0
6
1.3
148
21.3
4
1.4
14
12.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
12
6.7
23
5.5
0
0.0
2
1.1
14
6.5
1
0.8
0
0.0
7
4.8
11
2.8
4
3.6
12
10.2
0
0.0
325
5.0
SIMD 2004
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
8
3.0
1
0.3
0
0.0
6
4.9
4
6.3
3
1.6
34
19.0
13
8.4
2
1.6
0
0.0
2
1.7
44
8.0
0
0.0
7
3.6
12
2.6
325
46.8
7
2.4
24
21.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
16
8.9
44
10.5
0
0.0
2
1.1
22
10.3
1
0.8
0
0.0
7
4.8
40
10.1
5
4.5
20
16.9
2
0.9
651
10.0
SIMD 2006
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
18
6.7
2
0.7
1
0.7
4
3.3
9
14.1
6
3.1
39
21.8
17
11.0
2
1.6
0
0.0
1
0.8
46
8.4
0
0.0
11
5.6
22
4.9
269
38.8
8
2.7
29
26.4
1
0.9
0
0.0
23
12.8
44
10.5
0
0.0
5
2.9
22
10.3
2
1.5
0
0.0
8
5.4
37
9.3
5
4.5
17
14.4
3
1.4
651
10.0
SIMD 2009 V2
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
14
5.2
2
0.7
2
1.4
7
5.7
7
10.9
9
4.7
40
22.3
20
13.0
2
1.6
0
0.0
1
0.8
42
7.7
0
0.0
11
5.6
28
6.2
242
34.9
9
3.1
34
30.9
1
0.9
0
0.0
26
14.5
49
11.7
0
0.0
4
2.3
29
13.6
2
1.5
0
0.0
9
6.1
32
8.0
5
4.5
18
15.3
6
2.8
651
10.0
SIMD 2012
no. of
data
local
zones share (%)
9
3.4
2
0.7
2
1.4
5
4.1
8
12.5
8
4.1
36
20.1
20
13.0
2
1.6
0
0.0
3
2.5
39
7.1
0
0.0
10
5.1
24
5.3
233
33.6
9
3.1
32
29.1
2
1.8
0
0.0
31
17.3
58
13.9
0
0.0
2
1.1
32
15.0
4
3.1
0
0.0
11
7.5
39
9.8
5
4.5
21
17.8
4
1.9
651
10.0
zones
data2009
20% Most deprivedSIMD
V2
zones
data2009
15% Most deprivedSIMD
V2
Local Authority
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll & Bute
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh, City of
Eilean Siar
Falkirk
Fife
Glasgow City
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Perth & Kinross
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Scotland
no. of
data
zones
267
301
142
122
64
193
179
154
127
120
120
549
36
197
453
694
292
110
112
116
179
418
27
175
214
130
30
147
398
110
118
211
6,505
SIMD 2004
no. of
local
data
zones share (%)
6.7
18
0.7
2
2.1
3
7.4
9
15.6
10
4.7
9
28.5
51
18.2
28
3.1
4
0.0
0
4.2
5
11.1
61
0.0
0
7.1
14
7.5
34
53.9
374
3.1
9
32.7
36
0.9
1
0.0
0
18.4
33
24.6
103
0.0
0
1.7
3
19.2
41
1.5
2
0.0
0
8.8
13
16.6
66
5.5
6
27.1
32
4.3
9
15.0
976
(Revised 19/07/10)
SIMD 2006
no. of
no. of
local
data
local
data
zones share (%) zones share (%)
10.5
28
10.1
27
1.3
4
2.0
6
4.2
6
5.6
8
8.2
10
8.2
10
18.8
12
23.4
15
5.7
11
5.7
11
30.2
54
29.6
53
17.5
27
18.2
28
3.1
4
2.4
3
2.5
3
0.8
1
4.2
5
2.5
3
10.9
60
11.5
63
0.0
0
0.0
0
8.6
17
9.6
19
11.3
51
10.4
47
43.5
302
47.6
330
5.5
16
5.8
17
38.2
42
38.2
42
3.6
4
4.5
5
0.9
1
0.0
0
24.0
43
18.4
33
21.3
89
20.1
84
0.0
0
0.0
0
3.4
6
5.1
9
20.1
43
16.8
36
3.8
5
2.3
3
0.0
0
0.0
0
12.2
18
8.8
13
14.6
58
14.1
56
6.4
7
6.4
7
26.3
31
28.0
33
9.0
19
6.6
14
15.0
976
15.0
976
SIMD 2012
no. of
local
data
zones share (%)
8.2
22
1.7
5
2.1
3
8.2
10
21.9
14
6.7
13
30.7
55
20.8
32
2.4
3
2.5
3
5.8
7
9.8
54
0.0
0
9.1
18
12.8
58
41.6
289
5.8
17
40.0
44
2.7
3
0.0
0
25.7
46
23.9
100
0.0
0
3.4
6
22.4
48
3.8
5
0.0
0
11.6
17
13.3
53
6.4
7
26.3
31
6.2
13
15.0
976
SIMD 2004
no. of
local
data
zones share (%)
10.1
27
1.3
4
4.2
6
8.2
10
25.0
16
7.8
15
41.9
75
26.0
40
3.9
5
2.5
3
6.7
8
12.8
70
0.0
0
15.2
30
13.2
60
58.2
404
5.8
17
41.8
46
5.4
6
0.0
0
27.9
50
36.4
152
0.0
0
2.9
5
28.0
60
3.1
4
0.0
0
13.6
20
22.1
88
7.3
8
37.3
44
13.3
28
20.0
1,301
(Revised 19/07/10)
SIMD 2006
no. of
no. of
local
data
local
data
zones share (%) zones share (%)
12.7
34
13.5
36
1.7
5
2.7
8
4.9
7
6.3
9
9.0
11
9.0
11
25.0
16
26.6
17
9.8
19
8.3
16
39.1
70
38.0
68
29.9
46
26.0
40
4.7
6
4.7
6
4.2
5
2.5
3
6.7
8
6.7
8
13.3
73
13.8
76
0.0
0
0.0
0
12.7
25
14.7
29
18.8
85
17.7
80
50.3
349
53.5
371
9.2
27
8.2
24
46.4
51
44.5
49
7.1
8
8.9
10
2.6
3
1.7
2
33.5
60
26.8
48
31.3
131
31.8
133
0.0
0
0.0
0
5.7
10
5.7
10
26.6
57
28.0
60
4.6
6
4.6
6
0.0
0
0.0
0
15.6
23
14.3
21
19.8
79
20.1
80
7.3
8
9.1
10
33.9
40
33.9
40
18.5
39
14.2
30
20.0
1,301
20.0
1,301
SIMD 2012
no. of
local
data
zones share (%)
13.1
35
1.7
5
6.3
9
9.0
11
28.1
18
8.3
16
38.5
69
31.2
48
3.1
4
5.0
6
7.5
9
12.2
67
0.0
0
14.7
29
19.2
87
49.1
341
8.6
25
45.5
50
7.1
8
1.7
2
34.6
62
32.8
137
0.0
0
6.3
11
28.0
60
5.4
7
0.0
0
15.6
23
19.1
76
10.0
11
34.7
41
16.1
34
20.0
1,301
Related documents
Download