308c6c3e8bf6f23bb7b0b4077e641cb4

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK?

The functional zonation of London into boroughs provides a straightforward definition of my local area as Hammersmith and Fulham, which is >ŽŶĚŽŶ͛Ɛ ĨŽƵƌƚŚ smallest borough, situated north of the physical boundary of the River Thames, stretching to the far edge of Wormwood Scrubs Park. It has a high population density of 11,000 people per km2, with 182,400 people packed into an area of 16km2, twice the London average. Although the area has the 4th highest average house price of any local authority in England and Wales, over 1/5 of its residents live in areas which rank as the 20% most deprived wards in the whole of the UK and Figure 1 Inset Map showing location of Hammersmith and 33% of houses are social rented compared to the West Fulham London average of 21.5%. These statistics suggest that Hammersmith and Fulham is socioeconomically divided and considerably more so than the rest of the UK. This hypothesis is reviewed below.

Hypothesis: Hammersmith and Fulham is more socially divided than the rest of the UK In order to assess whether the borough is more socially divided than the rest of the UK, several data sets are to be compared to allow for a balanced and comprehensive level of analysis. The data was collected via a mixture of primary and secondary data collection and comprises both quantitative and qualitative research: 1. Range in house prices and unemployment levels compared to average differences within other UK local authorities 2. Varying levels of income inequality 3. Percentage of wards in top and bottom 10% in terms of affluence found within each borough 4. Differences in political allegiance across the borough 5. Environmental Quality Survey (EQS) results from across the borough showing changes in environmental quality 6. Survey of Hammersmith and Fulham residents discussing their views on the hypothesis Ward of Wormholt and White City:

x Labour

x Highest unemployment x Lowest house prices

Relative house prices within an area are an indicator of the comparative wealth of a region on the assumption that, in general, those who live in higher value properties are likely to be more affluent than those living in lower value properties. In addition, those who are unemployed are likely to be in a worse position socially, with more limited prospects, than those who are in employment. The range in average house prices and unemployment within different regions of a borough could therefore be used to help determine the level of socioeconomic divisions within the area.

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

Fulham Palace Riverside: x Conservative x Lowest unemployment x Highest house prices

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK? Secondary data has shown that 2012/13 median house prices varied from £295,589 in White City to the North of the Borough, to £1,457,589 in Hurlingham to the South, representing an almost 400% median price difference across the borough. This is much higher than the regional average disparity in house prices of the rest of the UK of 102% despite the regions outside London being of much larger size. The fact that the average house price varies so dramatically across the borough not only suggests a social division within the borough already exists, but also that it will be reinforced since those on low incomes or on benefits will be unable to afford the high prices of the more costly areas and those who are wealthier may wish to live in higher value properties.

This allows the division to be maintained. The areas of highest and lowest house prices also correlate with the highest and lowest levels of unemployment, as well areas of Labour or Conservative dominance, as shown by the diagram on the Figure 3 Map of H & F right, with a 300% difference across the borough in 2009 between 1.9% showing political polarity unemployment in Palace Riverside and over 6.3% in Wormholt & White City.

In addition, when the percentage of wards within each borough in the top and bottom 10% in London in terms of wealth are compared, the borough is amongst the most divided since it has the 4th largest split of wards across both categories. Furthermore, the borough has the 10th highest level of income inequality out of 32 London boroughs and therefore the whole of the UK, since London has the highest level of income inequality according to secondary data sources. This is particularly significant since the borough is one of the smallest in London, so such marked differences would be less likely.

Figure 4 % of wards which are in the top and bottom 10% in London in terms of wealth

Methodology Outline for Primary Data Collection-­‐ Environmental Quality Survey ;͚ Y^͛Ϳ 1. Select areas to be surveyed, start and end points and length of transects during pilot study. Plot route on road map 2. Decide how many surveys will be undertaken and distance between each (here every 100m) 3. Note external factors which might influence surveyor 4. Begin. Use a pedometer to measure distance walked 5. Grade each site from -­‐3 to 3 in each category and record in data table 6. Repeat process across several transects. Repeat whole survey twice; take a mean value for each site; plot a graph showing results.

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK?

Figure 5 Graph showing EQS 1 transect results

& photographs of key sites

EQS Transect-­‐ Shepherds Bush

25

EQS Value in arbitary units

20

15 10 5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

-­‐5 -­‐10

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

Number of EQS assessment (taken every 100m from E to W)

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK?

1

2

Primary EQS data collected from the area showed marked differences in environmental quality within the borough, demonstrated by the series of sharp delineations on figure 5 (overleaf). This is particularly significant given the relatively small distances across which changes take place, most markedly between the tenth and eleventh results, 1000m and 1100m respectively from the start point on Shepherds Bush Green. The huge variation seen within a small area suggests not only a division within it, but also that these differences occur across a very restricted area, meaning the different socioeconomic groups

present are living within close proximity to one another. The second EQS covering an even wider area (demonstrated by figure 6), showed similar results, with even more frequent delineations indicating an even more rapidly changing EQS value and therefore even starker social division. It should be taken into account that as a borough resident, the author was likely to have a bias toward particular areas, which may have skewed results. However, the effects of external factors such as the weather, the time of day, day of the week etc., are also mitigated, as they are likely to have visited the areas many times, so will not be as easily influenced.

Figure 6 Inset Map of Hammersmith and Fulham (Blue lines indicate areas where EQS was conducted)

The primary survey data corroborate with the quantitative evidence, since 68% of the 107 people surveyed agreed that the borough was socially divided and 59% of those believed the borough was probably more divided than the UK on average. However, it would be impractical to expect the same survey to be conducted in every single area of the UK, so although it is clear that local opinion is that the borough is divided, it is difficult to assess how the results compare with the opinion of residents elsewhere-­‐ it may be that all other areas believe their neighbourhood to be divided.

Figure 7 Pie Chart showing Survey Results

If the focus is widened, it appears that London as a whole is extremely socially divided since the richest 10% of households in London account for over 40% of all income, but the bottom 50% account for less than half. 17% of people live in the poorest tenth of households in the country and 18% live in the richest tenth of households in the country, meaning 1 in 3 Londoners are in the bottom or top tenth of households in the UK. However there is a balance between the number of very poor and the number of very Figure 8 Graph showing % of people per region in the top and bottom 10% of households

rich, since the two percentages are very similar. Figure 8 illustrates the fact that the difference is the smallest of any region in the UK.

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK?

What are the Causes of Social Inequality in the Borough?

A combination of factors has led to the socioeconomic divisions within the area. Industrialisation in the late 19th century led to the development of a thriving industrial centre, housing many types of industry in the secondary sector such as glass manufacturing and alcohol brewing. This pull factor of employment led to a high working class population of 290,000 in the 1920s. The post-­‐war labour shortage acted to similar effect, with inward migration from the commonwealth rising rapidly, resulting in the borough becoming incredibly multicultural. More recently, the further expansion of the underground and major roads passing through the borough Figure 9 Photograph showing local housing estate (e.g. Westway and Great West Rd) have provided excellent transport links (the borough ranks 9th highest out of 408 regions in Britain on the Connectivity index), acting as a pull factor to those wishing to commute to The City. The Virgin Group, Coca-­‐Cola, Disney, >͛Kreal and others also have UK HQs in the area, again attracting highly qualified migrants often working in the tertiary and quaternary sectors. Extensive regeneration projects (e.g. gentrification of warehouses on quayside and Westfield Shopping Centre) has caused huge increases in house prices and rapid inward chain migration by the middle classes as well as migrants from the EU especially, with the population increasing by over 40% in 7 years. However, owing to the intervening obstacle of surrounding higher prices, in a number of instances Figure 10 Series of newly developed Multimillion has restricted the ability of less affluent residents to leave, pound houses in the borough leading to a split population.

Conclusion From the analysis conducted, it can be concluded that Hammersmith and Fulham is considerably more divided than the rest of the UK in general, but is not distinctly more divided than London as a whole on average. This would be expected however, since both the population and size of London are lot greater than the borough in question, meaning wider scope for variation and disparities. The borough is well above average, although not significantly more divided than anywhere else in London.

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK? APPENDIX A: EQS Bipolar Analysis Survey Score Sheet and primary data from surveys 1 & 2

Category Being Assessed + Guidelines for worst score Building Density Very high building density Buildings Buildings rundown; boring; poorly maintained Cleanliness Surroundings dirty; litter everywhere Vandalism Signs of graffiti and vandalism. Dirty Noise Loud and disturbing Wildlife No plants or animals

-­‐3

-­‐2

Bipolar -­‐1

Analysis 0

Score 1

2

3

Guidelines for best score

Open space

Innovative and interesting buildings; well maintained Surroundings clean; no litter

Communication Little signage or information Street Furniture Insufficient and poorly maintained

COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL

No evidence of graffiti; vandalism/ crime Quite, relaxing Plenty of evidence of plants.

Abundance of animals/ other wildlife Excellent/ plentiful signage and information boards Benches; call boxes; bins etc. well maintained

How Does the Human Geography of Your Local Area Compare With That of the Rest of the UK?

Bibliography www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk www.lbhf.gov.uk Martin,Andrew, Underground Overground- $ SDVVHQJHU¶V +LVWRU\ RI WKH 7XEH London.Profile Books Ltd.2012 Local Futures. State of the Borough- An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Hammersmith and Fulham.London.The Local Futures Group.2007 https://maps.google.com/ http://www.rightmove.co.uk/ http://www.primelocation.com/house-prices/ http://www.primelocation.com/ http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Plans_performance_and_statistics/Statistics_an d_census_information/Census_information/10905_Census_Information.asp http://www.arcgis.com/ http://fhhs.wordpress.com/fulham-and-hammersmith-background-information/ http://d-maps.com/

1,503 words (excluding titles, captions, appendix and bibliography) COCO HUGGINS, GODOLPHIN AND LATYMER SCHOOL