Inequalities in England's Rural Uplands 160710 · densities, few services and low household incomes compared with other rural areas, giving rise to the potential for injustice. We

19/10/2010 1

Social and environmental inequalities and injustice in the rural uplands of England ANNEMARIEKE DE BRUIN* Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York YO10 5DD PIRAN C.L. WHITE Environment Department, University of York, York, YO10 5DD STEVE CINDERBY Stockholm Environment Institute at York, University of York, York YO10 5DD MEG HUBY Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York YO10 5DD *Author for correspondence; current address: Stockholm Environment Institute at York, University of York, York YO10 5DD

19/10/2010 2

Social and environmental inequalities and injustice in the rural uplands of England Abstract Inequalities may lead to injustice, and are recognised increasingly as contributing to a wide range of social problems. The English uplands are characterised by low population densities, few services and low household incomes compared with other rural areas, giving rise to the potential for injustice. We use a dataset combining social, economic and environmental variables to develop a new integrative characterisation of rural areas in England. We show that, despite lower income and fewer services, upland areas have some advantages compared with other rural areas, such as greater social and environmental 'richness', less pollution and less reported crime. For the more financially- and physically-mobile people living in upland areas, these benefits may outweigh the costs. However, for other sectors of society, such as the young, the old and the disabled, there may be a sense of injustice stemming from the lack of affordable housing, transport and other public services. Key words: accessibility, disadvantage, environment, interdisciplinary, pollution, remoteness Word count: 6,264

19/10/2010 3

Introduction There is growing recognition that environmental deterioration and restricted access to environmental services can have negative impacts on social welfare (Huby, 1998; Fitzpatrick & Cahill, 2002; Blowers & Hinchcliffe, 2003; Walker et al., 2003; Lucas et al., 2004; Sustainable Development Commission, 2007). More recent work has emphasised the significance of inequalities rather than absolute levels of provision of goods and services, in contributing to social problems (Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003; Pickett & Wilkinson, 2007; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009; Elgar & Aitken, 2010). Although the adverse impacts of social and environmental inequality are experienced disproportionately by certain sectors of society such as the poor, there is increasing evidence that the ramifications of social inequality extend across the whole of society (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). To develop more sustainable social policy, it is therefore important to understand the causes and consequences of social and environmental inequalities, the interactions between them, and the situations in which they may give rise to injustice. The emphasis of studies on social and environmental inequalities to date has been in urban areas, where social deprivation has been associated with environmental degradation (Lucas et al. 2004). Thus, people living in poorer-quality environments tend to be those people with higher levels of socio-economic deprivation (Walker et al., 2003). This is a major constraint on progress towards sustainable development, since more deprived communities also frequently lack the means and capacity to take action to reduce the impact of such inequalities. Inequalities in rural areas have received much less attention than those in urban areas. Although average incomes are higher in rural areas than urban ones, incomes are lowest overall in sparse rural areas. Furthermore, due to higher living costs, people in rural areas in general have lower disposable incomes than people in urban areas (Commission for Rural Communities, 2008). Inequalities may be particularly pervasive in areas where traditional activities have declined and there has been a concomitant shift in the socio-demographics of the human population. Changes in farming in many parts of the world have led to large-scale out-migration of young people from the affected areas, with a consequent decline in the traditional economy and services, alongside increases in relative poverty and isolation (Adger et al., 2002; Schucksmith, 2003; Defra, 2004; Collantes, 2009; Hubacek et al., 2009; Commission for Rural Communities, 2010). In some countries, such as Britain, these out-migrations have been countered in recent years by an influx of more affluent, older people, either retired or willing to commute increasing distances to work (Winter & Rushbrook, 2003). As a result, there is a growing degree of socio-economic inequality affecting these areas. This situation has considerable potential for social injustice and could also affect the capacity of rural populations to adapt to environmental change in the long term (Bradshaw et al., 2005). In this paper, we use a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research to analyse social and environmental inequalities and injustice in upland areas of rural England. First, we use a new spatial dataset to create four measures that integrate

19/10/2010 4

socio-economic and environmental conditions and can be used to characterise rural areas on an interdisciplinary basis. We then apply these measures to quantify conditions and inequalities in the English uplands and compare these with other parts of rural England. Finally, we use qualitative data from focus group interviews with rural residents to determine whether the social and environmental inequalities that exist in upland areas are likely to give rise to injustice, and consider the implications for the development of more sustainable policy in the uplands. Source data and units of analysis From the SEIRA database (www.sei.se/relu) for rural England we selected 32 variables, six of which are indicative of economic activity, five of income and wealth, 10 of health and well-being and 11 of ecological and environmental status. The data are collated as the level of Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs). There are 6027 rural LSOAs in England, each comprising an average of 632 households with a human population of around 1500. The Inquiry into the future for England’s upland communities (Commission for Rural Communities, 2009) defines the uplands as the Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) designated by Defra1. The SDAs in England cover just over 17,464 km2 in total. However, the borders of these areas are not contiguous with the borders of LSOAs, so we included every rural LSOA that has more than half of its area within one or more SDAs. This gives us a rural upland area comprising 273 LSOAs and covering 17,146 km2. Upland LSOAs are found in 18 English counties and six of the nine Government Office Regions. Characteristics of rural upland areas in England The characteristics of upland areas compared with other rural areas are quantified in Annex 1 Tables A1-A5. Compared with the remaining rural area of England, upland LSOAs experienced a smaller increase in population between 2001 and 2005 but have a similar average household size of 2.4 people (Table A1). Compared with other rural areas, the uplands have significantly higher rates of employment (Table A2). There are more local businesses per head of population and fewer employed people commute more than 10km to work. Fewer working age residents lack educational qualifications and the dependency ratio is lower. However, inward migration to upland areas in 2001 was lower than for other rural areas. Although the mean income of households in the uplands is lower than for other rural LSOAs, a lower proportion of people live in households in receipt of means-tested benefits (Table A3). This may be related to take-up rates. Although take-up of means-tested benefits has not been studied in full for all types of benefit, a report for the Commission for Rural Communities (2007a) found that pensioners in hamlets and isolated rural dwellings were less likely than people in other types of rural area to claim Pension Credit. House prices in the uplands are lower on average (Table A3) but difficulties in obtaining suitable accommodation are more marked and a higher percentage of households spend more than ten per cent of their income on 1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/uplands/land-classification.htm

19/10/2010 5

domestic heating. Problems related to mental health are less prevalent in the uplands than in other rural areas and fewer children and young people suffer from respiratory problems (Table A4). A higher percentage of households without cars live within what they consider an acceptable distance from a GP surgery, although it may be that perceptions of what is ‘an acceptable distance’ differ between people from areas with contrasting remoteness. Certainly people in upland areas live further from libraries and schools on average. But the uplands have less crime and, although there are fewer types of ‘built’ leisure facility accessible for young people, the natural surroundings in which they live may provide play space that offsets this to some extent. The natural surroundings in the uplands have many desirable qualities. There are significantly more species of wild birds, a higher probability of badgers and more diversity of vegetation than in other rural locations (Table A5). More land is close to good quality rivers and air pollution levels are lower. A high percentage of land is designated for nature conservation and on average only a third is used for agriculture or improved grazing compared with over two-thirds in other rural areas. Significantly higher proportions of upland LSOAs are covered by agri-environment schemes. Integrative descriptors of conditions in rural AREAS We used the 6027 rural LSOAs in England as cases in a factor analysis with the aim of reducing 32 variables from the SEIRA database to a small number of underlying factors that integrate socio-economic and environmental conditions. Huby et al (2009) describes in full detail the factor analysis including variable preparation and transformations. The resulting dimensions (or factors) are not in themselves measurable but are derived from variables that were actually measured. We calculated factor scores for each rural LSOA and used these scores as the basis for further calculations enabling us to take a multivariate view of inequalities in social and environmental conditions. The results of the factor analysis allowed us to identify four main factors ('disadvantage', 'remoteness', 'richness' and 'pollution'; Table 1) that encapsulate the key features of rural areas. Based on factor scores, the uplands fare significantly worse compared with other rural areas in terms of 'disadvantage' and 'remoteness' (Table 2). 'Richness', however, is significantly higher, and 'pollution' lower, than in the rest of rural England. Inequalities in social and environmental conditions in upland rural areas We quantified the degree of inequality in the four main factors using the Gini coefficient. Although the Gini coefficient is widely used as an index of economic inequality, its application to ecological and environmental conditions is relatively novel. The distribution of resources between LSOAs produces a Gini coefficient that can take values between zero (for a perfectly equal distribution) and a maximum value of one (where one LSOA has all the resource).

19/10/2010 6

Inequalities in 'disadvantage' and 'richness' are lower across the uplands than across the rest of the rural LSOAs (Table 3). The uplands are, however, more unequal in terms of 'remoteness' and 'pollution'. A typology of rural uplands in England For the purposes of social policy development, it may be useful to group the rural upland LSOAs according to their similarities in the factors described above. We therefore used cluster analysis to determine groups of LSOAs that are most similar to each within groups or clusters and most different from other groups (Norusis, 2005). Using cluster analysis with the four factor scores for the 273 rural upland LSOAs, a maximum likelihood measure of distance identifies two main groups of similar areas (Table 4). Cluster 1 shows significantly higher scores for 'disadvantage', 'remoteness' and 'richness' but a much lower score for 'pollution' than Cluster 2. These two types of upland area are also geographically divided, with the first cluster tending to occur in the north of northern England and the second cluster tending to occur in the south of northern England (Figure 1). Quantitative analysis of environmental injustice The existence of inequalities in environmental conditions is not necessarily a cause for concern, unless there is an indication that the distribution is unjust. We can gain some insight into this by analysing the distributions of environmental goods in relation to socio-economic conditions, assessing the extent to which the most disadvantaged areas suffer disproportionately from the worst ecological and environmental states. We used concentration curves to show the shares of 'remoteness', 'richness' and 'pollution' accounted for by cumulative proportions of LSOAs ranked from least to most disadvantaged. When the curve lies above or below the diagonal, less disadvantaged LSOAs have disproportionately higher or lower shares of a particular social or environmental characteristic, and there is potential for injustice. When cumulative percentiles of 'remoteness', 'richness' and 'pollution' are plotted against cumulative percentiles of 'disadvantage' (Figure 2), the 20% least-disadvantaged areas account for about 10% of 'remoteness', 18% of 'richness' and 25% of 'pollution'. Thus, the least disadvantaged rural upland areas are relatively less remote, but also less 'rich' and more polluted. In contrast, the most disadvantaged rural upland areas are 'richer' and less polluted, but are more remote. Perceptions of injustice Because the concept of injustice is to a large extent subjective, we complemented the statistical approach described above with focus group work in four counties of rural England with the highest levels of inequality in different regions of the country. A total of 54 people participated in focus groups conducted in Northumberland, South Yorkshire, Buckinghamshire and Devon. The aim was to highlight the thought processes of rural

19/10/2010 7

residents relating to injustice in rural areas in general. Here we apply the results to gain insights into inequality and injustice in the rural uplands. During each focus group, we used vignettes to provide a ‘story’ or ‘scenario’ to generate dialogue and discussion. These centred on aspects of rural life that had emerged as important both in our statistical analysis and in consultations with an expert panel of academics and representatives of policy-based organisations involved as project partners (the Commission for Rural Communities and the Environment Agency). An example vignette is provided in Annex 2. The vignette approach avoids confrontation associated with personal experience and is effective for cutting across social and cultural divides. With the consent of participants, discussions were recorded and later transcribed for analysis. Transcriptions of the discussions were analysed using a grounded theory approach. From this analysis, a number of themes emerged. The major themes were: (1) the nature of inequalities; (2) the impacts of these inequalities on people’s lives, which was subdivided into (a) the type of impacts and (b) the groups of people who were affected; (3) perceptions of unfairness; and (4) motivations for these perceptions. We then analysed the data on the perceptions of unfairness in more detail to investigate the extent to which residents in rural areas feel that socio-economic disadvantages associated with their areas may be offset by environmental and community-based advantages. Participants in the focus groups distinguished two groups of people when discussing unfairness. The first group consisted of people who had made the choice to live in rural areas and therefore had to accept the consequences of lower accessibility, fewer facilities and higher house prices. Participants did not consider that there was any unfairness for this group of people as a consequence of social or environmental inequalities, since these people had made a conscious decision based on their perception of the trade-off between living in a beautiful rural area and city life with more facilities. The second group consisted of people without a choice or with less choice than others. One participant described it as:

"…an unfair situation is somebody living in an area that they really, really don’t want to live in, but for the particular circumstances that they’re in, they haven’t got a choice.”

For people who are young or old, or have a low income or bad health, the circumstances of living in rural areas can be considered unjust because of their relative lack of physical or financial mobility. Inaccessibility of key services such as schools, doctors, shops and libraries was seen as an injustice for people who are less mobile because of old age, disability or because they are unable to drive. One participant explained that a 16-mile round trip to the doctors took a full day without a car because of the timing of local buses. Participants viewed the car as an essential means of mobility in rural areas due to the sparseness of public transport:

"... we have to rely on the car out here, there isn’t an alternative."

19/10/2010 8

The decline in rural services was also seen as a problem when it led to fewer opportunities for people to live their lives in the way they wished. This relates especially to those who have lived in the area for a long time and where other forces, such as decreased demand due to people with cars driving to larger shops further away, meant that services were declining in number and becoming more expensive:

"… she’s lived here all her life, and there used to be three pubs in the village. There used to be five shops and they were all here when she … moved in and they’ve slowly disappeared … she didn’t move in here knowing … she was going to finish up … with no shop and just the pub."

This decline of services has resulted in a poorer provision for the elderly as well as people with a disability.

"... disabled, you know, there is just nothing for them in these areas. When you’re really out in the rural areas ... I think the facilities for the elderly in these areas … it’s dire really."

As a consequence, elderly people and those with disabilities are heavily dependent on others to help them and when that support is no longer available, there is nothing left for them but to move out of rural areas into larger towns. For young people and those on a low income the lack of affordable housing was deemed to be unfair. This was also the case for elderly people, who often had no other option than to move to larger towns where house prices are lower and transport connections better.

"I think it’s extremely tough that people who were brought up in the countryside and presumably want to go on living there can’t actually afford to buy a house in the village in which they were brought up"

That people have to move a larger town is not necessarily a negative situation in its own right. It is the perception that there is no alternative for them other than to move away from the rural areas that is deemed to be unfair. In one case, feelings of unfairness about housing affordability had prompted the community to take action. The inhabitants of one village have set up a Land Trust to help build more affordable housing. This indicates a high level of social capacity in some rural communities. Indeed, in some circumstances, the fact that there were few formal support services was viewed as a catalyst for the formation of informal, neighbourhood-based support networks. One example was that of homecare which, according to the participants, was easier to build up in a rural community than it would be in the middle of town. People also valued the safety of rural areas, and a perception that this was very different from urban areas:

"... as a young family, it’s probably ... more attractive ... out in the countryside rather than in the towns ... You might feel as though your children are safer, they can play on the streets and things like that ..."

In some areas the support of the community helps to alleviate some of the limiting circumstances that otherwise would make it unfair for certain groups of people. The perceived reason for anyone to stay in rural areas or for others to move there was the higher quality of rural environments (the 'richness').

"there’s infinitely better quality of life in that you’re breathing fresh air"

19/10/2010 9

"… you almost become part of the landscape. You are that land. You are that river. You are part of that. You become very close to the land …"

The proximity of rural open spaces was also highlighted as another beneficial aspect of the rural lifestyle:

" ... out of South Molton up onto the Moors, which are within easy reach, where there’s nothing but a stream, which is lovely because you can just run wild."

The cultural value of these rural experiences was considered as very important, although there was a feeling that this was changing in the light of wider changes in society, especially regarding expectations for young people:

"You made your own entertainment ... there was a stream, there was a burn ran through the place, I used to fish, there was plenty of rabbits on the place, I used to hunt rabbits and occasionally poach pheasants and things like that, there was always something to do and I think nowadays, for anybody living in that same environment, they have different expectations." "It’s a pretty place to live, but it hasn’t got the facilities of other places for young children ..."

The discussions revealed a feeling that the advantages of upland rural life, especially in terms of the environment, safety and community spirit, outweighed the costs. However, this trade-off was highly context-dependent. For some sectors of society, such as the young, the old and the disabled, there was a sense of injustice stemming from the lack of affordable housing, transport and other public services. In contrast, where people had the necessary financial and physical mobility, they were able to overcome the downsides and escape injustice. Discussion Upland areas differ from other parts of rural England in a wide range of social, economic and environmental characteristics. People living in upland areas experience higher levels of 'disadvantage' and 'remoteness' relative to other rural areas, but they also experience greater social and environmental 'richness', lower levels of pollution and less reported crime. Although the level of 'disadvantage' is higher in upland areas, inequality in 'disadvantage' is lower. Inequality in income has been shown to be positively correlated with crime both between and within countries (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), so the lower reported crime rate in upland rural areas may reflect this lower inequality in 'disadvantage'. The uplands are undergoing a period of socio-economic and environmental change. On average, upland areas experienced a smaller increase in population between 2001 and 2005 than did other rural areas. However, this net increase reflects a combination of out-migration of young adults and in-migration of skilled, wealthier and older people in some areas (Winter & Rushbrook, 2003). Agricultural pressures have changed the uplands in the past, and the rate of social and environmental change in these landscapes is likely to increase in the future, as they face increasing pressure from tourism, demand for 'clean' energy such as wind farms and potentially as providers of key ecosystem services such as water regulation and carbon storage (Bonn et al., 2008; Reed et al., 2010).

19/10/2010 10

Between 1985 and 2005, the population of rural areas of England grew at a rate of 0.7 per cent each year and the rural population is projected to continue increasing (Commission for Rural Communities, 2007b). In the uplands, however, the net population increase between 2001 and 2005 was lower than for other rural areas. This raises concerns about the sustainability of upland communities and their production and consumption of services. The dependency ratio is lower in the uplands but this may be due to a reduction in younger families rather than to increases in the economically active population. While upland employment rates are higher on average than in other rural areas, mean household incomes are lower. Although house prices are also lower, there is more fuel poverty, possibly related to colder conditions but also perhaps to limitations on the types of heating that can be used. Cheaper fuels such as mains gas are unavailable in many rural areas especially in the more remote parts of the country. Upland residents generally have further to travel to access services but geographical proximity to schools and public services may be of less importance where free transport or mobile services are on offer. The greater distance to public libraries faced by upland residents is of particular importance where a library is the only place at which high speed broadband is available, and lack of high speed broadband is known to be problematic in many more remote areas such as the uplands (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2009). Upland rural areas are also characterised by perceptions of a high level of safety and community trust, which may reflect the relatively lower levels of inequality. Thus, despite some clear economic disadvantages in absolute terms, there are also tangible social and environmental benefits for people living in upland areas, including a high level of social capacity. It is important to emphasise that the presence of inequality does not necessarily imply injustice or unfairness. Some of the problems of inaccessibility of services may be offset by the benefits stemming from living in the cleaner and more diverse natural environment of the rural uplands. Rural residents perceived the main benefits in terms of the environment, safety and community spirit. For children especially, there is growing evidence of the impact of the environment on both physical and mental well-being (Huby and Bradshaw, 2007). The benefits may outweigh the costs for people who have the necessary financial and physical mobility. They are able to overcome the downsides and escape injustice. However, for some specific sectors of society, such as the young, the old and the disabled, who lack financial and physical mobility, there is a sense of injustice. These people are most affected by the lack of affordable housing, transport and other public services and have limited alternatives to live their lives in the way they would like. Statistically, there is some evidence for injustice in relation to accessibility to goods and services. However, our analysis of the distribution of 'richness', 'pollution' and 'remoteness' in relation to 'disadvantage' indicated that there is no statistical evidence for injustice in relation to the environment in the uplands. Upland areas have seen rapid change and the rate of change is likely to increase in the future. One of the key factors contributing to successful adaptation to social and environmental change is social capacity (Adger, 2003). Thus, despite some injustice in

19/10/2010 11

socio-economic terms, given appropriate support and empowerment (Commission for Rural Communities, 2010), the high levels of social capacity in some upland communities should help them to continue to adapt to these new challenges. Nevertheless, problems of injustice are likely to persist for certain upland communities where social capacity may be lacking, as well as for the more vulnerable sectors of society such as the old, the young and the disabled. Enhancing social capacity and accessibility to important goods and services should be a key social policy goal if strong upland communities are to be sustained. References Adger, W. N. (2003) 'Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate

Change', Economic Geography 79: 387-404. Adger, W. N., Kelly, M., Winkels, A., Huy, L.Q. and Locke, C. (2002) 'Migration,

Remittances, Livelihood Trajectories, and Social Resilience', AMBIO 31: 358-366. Blowers, A. and Hinchcliffe, S. (2003) Environmental Responses. Chichester: Wiley. Bonn, A., Allott, T., Hubacek, K. and Stewart, J. (2008) Drivers of Environmental

Change in Uplands. Abingdon: Routledge. Bradshaw, R., Cuff, J., Rogers, J. and Watkins, L. (2005) Tackling Rural Disadvantage.

Cheltenham: Commission for Rural Communities. Collantes, F. (2009) 'Rural Europe Reshaped: the Economic Transformation of Upland

Regions, 1850–2001', The Economic History Review 62: 306-323. Commission for Rural Communities (2007a) Pension Credit Take-up in Rural Areas.

State of the Countryside Update 4. Cheltenham: Commission for Rural Communities.

Commission for Rural Communities (2007b) Population and Migration. State of the Countryside Update 1. Cheltenham: Commission for Rural Communities.

Commission for Rural Communities (2008) State of the Countryside 2008. Cheltenham: Commission for Rural Communities.

Commission for Rural Communities (2010) High Ground High Potential: a Future for England's Upland Communities. Cheltenham: Commission for Rural Communities.

Defra (2004) Social and Economic Change and Diversity in Rural England. Birkbeck CVollege, University of London: Rural Evidence Research Centre.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2009) Digital Britain: the Final Report. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

Elgar, F. J. and Aitken, N. (2010) 'Income Inequality, Trust and Homicide in 33 Countries', The European Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq068

Fitzpatrick, T. (2002) 'Making Welfare for Future Generations', in M. Cahill and T. Fitzpatrick (eds) Environmental Issues and Social Welfare . Oxford: Blackwell.

Hubacek, K., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Qasim, M. and Termansen, M. (2008) 'Description of the Upland Economy: Areas of Outstanding Beauty and Marginal Economic Performance', in Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands Eds A Bonn, K Hubacek, T E Allott, J Stuart (Routledge, Abingdon)

Huby, M. (1998) Social Policy and the Environment. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Huby, M. and Bradshaw, J. (2007) A Review of the Environmental Dimension of Children

19/10/2010 12

and Young People's Well-Being. [http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=526], accessed 9 July 2010.

Huby, M., Cinderby, S., White, P. and de Bruin, A. (2009) Working paper 4: Social Disadvantage and Environmental Inequality in Rural England: Patterns and Policy Implications. [http://www.sei.se/relu/seira/Working%20paper%204_Inequality.pdf], accessed 15 July 2010.

Lucas, K., Walker, G., Eames, M., Fay, H. and Poustie, M. (2004) Environment and Social Justice: Rapid Research and Evidence Review. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Norusis, M. J. (2005) SPSS 14 Statistical Procedures Companion . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Pickett, K. and Wilkinson, R. (2007) 'Child Wellbeing and Income Inequality in Rich Societies: Ecological Cross Sectional Study', British Medical Journal, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39377.580162.55

Reed, M. S., Bonn, A., Slee, W., Beharry-Borg, N., Birch, J., Brown, I., Burt, T. P., Chapman, D., Chapman, P. J., Clay, G. D., Cornell, S. J., Fraser, E. D. G., Glass, J. H., Holden, J., Hodgson, J. A., Hubacek, K., Irvine, B., Jin, N., Kirkby, M. J., Kunin, W. E., Moore, O., Moseley, D., Prell, C., Price, M. F., Quinn, C. H., Redpath, S., Reid, C., Stagl, S., Stringer, L. C., Termansen, M., Thorp, S., Towers, W. and Worrall, F. (2010) 'The Future of the Uplands', Land Use Policy 26: S204-S216.

Shucksmith, M. (2003) Social Exclusion in Rural Areas: A Review of Recent Research. [http://alpsknowhow.cipra.org/main_topics/governance_capacity/pdfs/shuksmith.pdf], accessed 9 July 2010.

Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Every Child's Future Matters. London: Sustainable Development Commission.

Walker, G., Fairburn, J., Smith, G. and Mitchell, G. (2003) Environmental Quality and Social Deprivation (R&D Technical Report E2-067/1/TR). Bristol: Environment Agency.

Wilkinson, R. and Marmot, M. (2003) Social Determinants of Health: the Solid Facts, 2nd edition. Copenhagen: WHO Europe.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Penguin.

Winter, M. and Rushbrook, L. (2003) Literature Review of the Rural Economy: Final Report to Defra. [http://www.rural-center.org/docs/road07/files/litterature_review.pdf], accessed 9 July 2010.

19/10/2010 13

Table 1. The four main integrative factors describing the characteristics of rural areas Disadvantage Remoteness Richness Pollution

Educational disadvantage

Further from primary school

High probability of badgers

High PM10 pollution

Income deprivation Environmentally sensitive agriculture

High house prices High NO2 pollution

Low mean incomes Lot of farmland High bat species richness

High crime rates

Poor mental well-being

Further from secondary school

High business activity

Low employment Few sports and leisure activities

High land cover diversity

Fuel poverty Good quality rivers Barriers to housing Little local work

19/10/2010 14

Table 2. Differences in mean factor scores between upland and other rural areas. Numbers of LSOAs are given in brackets. Differences were assessed statistically using the Mann-Whitney test. Mean Uplands

(273) Other rural

LSOAs (5754) Significance of

difference Disadvantage 0.270 -0.012 <0.001 Remoteness 0.298 -0.014 <0.001 Richness 0.558 -0.026 <0.001 Pollution -1.088 0.051 <0.001

19/10/2010 15

Table 3. Difference in inequalities in 'disadvantage', 'remoteness', 'richness' and 'pollution' between upland and other rural areas of England. Numbers of LSOAs are given in brackets. Differences were assessed statistically using the Mann-Whitney test. Factor Gini coefficient Uplands

(273) Other rural

LSOAs (5754) Significance of

difference Disadvantage 0.127 0.184 p<0.05 Remoteness 0.299 0.222 p<0.05 Richness 0.147 0.204 p<0.05 Pollution 0.250 0.174 p<0.05

19/10/2010 16

Table 4. Mean scores of the different factors ('disadvantage', 'remoteness', 'richness' and 'pollution') by cluster membership. Number of LSOAs in different cluster shown brackets. Disadvantage Remoteness Richness Pollution

Mean Std. Dev. Mean

Std. Dev. Mean

Std. Dev. Mean

Std. Dev.

Cluster 1 (109) 0.597 0.532 1.603 0.925 1.216 0.524 -1.580 0.459

Cluster 2 (164) 0.053 0.752 -0.569 0.718 0.120 0.544 -0.762 0.719

Combined 0.270 0.723 0.298 1.336 0.558 0.758 -1.088 0.745

19/10/2010 17

Figure 1. The distribution of disadvantaged but rich uplands (green) and accessible but polluted uplands (purple) in the north of England.

Disadvantaged but rich Accessible but polluted

19/10/2010 18

Figure 2. Concentration curves for rural upland factors

19/10/2010 19

ANNEX 1

Table A1: Populations of upland and other rural LSOAs Mean number

of households (2001)

Mean number of residents

(2001)

Mean number of residents

(2005)

% increase in population 2001-2005

Rural upland LSOAs (273)

656 1582 1621 2.5

Other rural LSOAs (5754)

631 1541 1595 3.5

Table A2: Comparison of variables related to economic activity between upland LSOAs and other rural LSOAs in England. Statistical comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney test. Mean Uplands

(n=273) Other rural

LSOAs (n=5754) Significance of difference (P)

% of 16-74 aged people employed in either full-time, part time jobs or self employed (2001)

64.97 63.83 0.001

Number of businessess/1000 economically active population in 2005

79.54 62.61 <0.001

Percentage of workers travelling < 10km to work (2001)

41.64 43.35 0.024

% of 2001 residents who moved into the area during the year before the census

14.51 15.95 <0.001

Ratio of children and pensioners to working age people in 2005

0.66 0.69 <0.001

Percentage of residents aged 16-74 with no academic qualifications (2001)

25.55 26.63 0.004

19/10/2010 20

Table A3: Comparison of variables related to income and wealth between upland LSOAs and other rural LSOAs in England. Statistical comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney test. Mean Uplands

(n=273) Other rural

LSOAs (n=5754) Significance of difference (P)

CACI mean income 2007 (£) 32,013 34,460 <0.001 Proportion of people living in households in receipt of means tested benefits (2005)

0.077 0.086 <0.001

Mean dwelling price (£) for changes of ownership of detached, semi-detached, flat and terraced properties (2005)

221,870 242,417 <0.001

Barriers to housing (incorporating overcrowding, homelessness & difficulties in access to owner occupation: ID 2007 )

-0.42 -0.47 0.038

Percentage of households in fuel poverty (2001/3)

6.12 5.20 <0.001

Table A4: Comparison of variables related to human health and well-being between upland LSOAs and other rural LSOAs in England. Statistical comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney test. Mean Uplands

(n=273) Other rural

LSOAs (n=5754)

Significance of difference (P)

Measure of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders (ID 2004)

-0.07 -0.31 <0.001

Children and young people (0-16) admitted to an NHS hospital for diseases of the respiratory system 2005-6 as a percentage of all under 16 in 2005

1.41 1.54 0.021

% of car-less households within what they consider acceptable travel distance of a GP surgery (2005)

77.37 75.78 0.046

Average number of severity-weighted road traffic accidents for 2004-2006 injuring pedestrians or cyclists younger than 16 years as proportion of the total resident population younger than 16 years

0.99 0.90 0.302

19/10/2010 21

Road distance (km) to the nearest public library from population weighted centroid of LSOA

8.87 7.73 0.011

Average road distance (km) to the nearest state primary school for children aged 4 to 10 years (2005)

2.17 1.50 <0.001

Average road distance (km) to secondary school for children aged 11 to 16 years (2005)

7.40 5.00 <0.001

Average number of different types of sports and leisure facility within walking distance for children and young people aged 11 to 16 (2005)

1.19 1.33 0.019

Crime Domain of the ID2007. -0.88 -0.73 <0.001 % of car-less households within what they consider acceptable travel distance of a supermarket or convenience store (2005)

66.49 68.21 0.089

Table A5: Comparison of variables related to ecological and environmental status between upland LSOAs and other rural LSOAs in England. Statistical comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney test. Mean Uplands

(n=273) Other rural

LSOAs (n=5754) Significance of difference (P)

Count of the number of wild bird species present (1993)

87.36 85.40 0.003

Maximum probability of a badger main sett being present within the LSOA (2007)

0.30 0.24 <0.001

Number of different bat species (2007)

6.72 6.93 0.210

% of area designated as nature conservation site (2005)

17.11 3.98 <0.001

Shannon Index of land cover diversity based on 7 vegetation types (2001)

1.26 0.99 <0.001

% of land covered by arable and horticulture or improved grassland (2001)

32.37 60.63 <0.001

% of land under ESS, CSS or ESA subsidies (2006)

41.85 33.72 <0.001

Area (km2) within a 1 km buffer of a good quality river (2005)

54.79 33.59 <0.001

The ambient annual mean concentration of nitrogen

8.76 11.99 <0.001

19/10/2010 22

dioxide NO2 (µgm-3) (2004) The ambient mean concentration of PM10 (µgm-3) (2004)

14.98 18.49 <0.001

% of LSOA area with an annual probability of flooding of 1.0% (1 in 100) or greater from rivers and 0.5% (1 in 200) or greater from the sea (2005)

4.09 11.49 <0.001

19/10/2010 23

ANNEX 2 Example of a vignette used in the focus group work Mr Adam Regis (32 years old) and his wife Mrs Janet Regis (30) are moving to the local area so that Adam can take up a new job as an IT software developer in [nearby town]. He will be paid approximately £32K for this new role. They don’t want to live in the town itself – but have always wanted to live in the country. They have two children, George (6) and Chloe (2). Janet cannot drive so ideally they would like a house somewhere with facilities or public transport links. The family are moving from Manchester and would like somewhere safer and healthier to bring up their children. Questions to initiate discussion: Where do you think the Regis family should look to move to? Are there any problems associated with these areas? Where do you think the Regis family should avoid and why?