Page 1

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\RIWKH7XEHLondon.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    

308c6c3e8bf6f23bb7b0b4077e641cb4  

http://www.godolphinandlatymer.com/_files/geogrpahy/308C6C3E8BF6F23BB7B0B4077E641CB4.pdf