Abstract
Census enumeration districts (EDs) are not ‘natural’ areal units, and a strong presumption exists against their use for cartographic or analytical purposes. There is, however, some reason to suppose that their boundaries may coincide with divisions in the underlying social geography of an area, and that they therefore contain information which should not be lost in processing. A study of Newcastle upon Tyne EDs shows that ED boundaries do not, in fact, mark the boundaries of distinct areas. The presumption against the use of ED boundaries for cartographic representation is reinforced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
