The development is explained of a technique to generate ‘modelled’ surfaces of census-type socioeconomic survey data that offer the potential to overcome many of the problems inherent in the analysis and presentation of such data in conventional area-based form. Potential benefits of the modelled surface include a level of resolution that arguably can provide a more finely focused spatial basis for the generation of a wide range of spatial indicators that can aid public policymaking. This type of application requires that the method is set within a flexibly managed information framework and includes suitable tests for the reliability of the generated surfaces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowmanA W, 1985, “A comparative study of some kernel-based nonparametric density estimators”Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation21313–327
2.
BrackenIMartinD, 1989a, “The generation of spatial population distributions from census centroid data”Environment and Planning A21537–543
3.
BrackenIMartinD, 1989b, “SURPLOT—a raster cell plotting suite”, Wales and South West Regional Research Laboratory, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff
4.
BrackenIWebsterC, 1989, “Towards a typology of GIS”International Journal of Geographical Information Systems3137–152
5.
BurroughP A, 1986Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
6.
CarlisleE, 1972, “The conceptual structure of social indicators”, in Social Indicators and Social Policy Eds SchonfieldAShawS (Heinemann Educational Books, London) pp 23–32
7.
DangermondJ, 1983, “A classification of software components commonly used in geographic information systems”, in Design and Implementation of Computer-based Geographic Information Systems Eds PeuquetD JO'CallaghanJ, IGU Commission on Geographical Data Sensing and Processing, Amherst, NY, pp 23–57
8.
EPPL-7, 1986, EPPL-7—Geographic Information System, Environmental Planning and Programming Language, version 7, Minnesota State Planning Agency, Minneapolis, MN
9.
GreenN P AFinchSWigginsJ, 1985, “The ‘state of the art’ in geographical information systems”Area17295–301
10.
MarbleD FAmundsonJ E, 1988, “Microcomputer-based GIS and their role in urban and regional policy”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design15305–324
11.
MartinD, 1989, “Mapping population data from zone centroid locations”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series1690–97
12.
MorrisonD G, 1974, “Discriminant analysis”, in Handbook of Marketing Research Ed. FerberR (McGraw-Hill, Reading, Berks) pp 2/442–2/457
13.
PCS, 1984, “National grid reference of the centres of population of local authority districts, counties and regions, England and Wales 1981; and movements of centres of population 1971–81”, Census 1981 User Guide 214, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Fareham, Hants
14.
OpenshawS, 1984The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem: Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography, Volume 38 (Geo Books, Norwich)
15.
OpenshawSTaylorP J, 1981, “The modifiable area unit problem”, in Quantitative Geography: A British View Eds WrigleyNBennettR J (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Andover, Hants) pp 60–69
16.
PeuckerT KChrismanN, 1975, “Cartographic data structures”American Cartographer255–69
17.
RhindD, 1983, “Mapping census data”, in A Census User's Handbook Ed. RhindD (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 171–198
18.
RosenfeldA, 1980, “Tree structures for region representation”, in Map Data Processing Eds FreemanHPieroniG G (Academic Press, New York) pp 137–150
19.
SametHRosenfeldASchafferC AWeberA E, 1984, “Use of hierarchical data structures in geographical information systems”, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spatial Data HandlingGeographisches Institute Abteilung Kartographie, EDV, Zurich, 20–24 August, pp 392–411
20.
SchonfieldAShawS (Eds), 1972Social Indicators and Social Policy (Heinemann Educational Books, London)
