Deprived people or deprived places? Exploring the ecological fallacy in studies of deprivation with the Samples of anonymised Records
Deprived people or deprived places? Exploring the ecological fallacy in studies of deprivation with the Samples of anonymised Records
复制标题
DOI：
10.1068/a280237
复制
发表时间：
1996-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Tye, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fieldhouse, EA;Tye, R
近年来，英国对贫困的分析有所增加。在大多数研究中，分析单位是地理单位，如地方政府的选区或地区。这部分反映了对小地区统计数据和人口普查的地方基础统计数据的依赖。虽然在确定具体的问题领域有用，这种类型的方法可能会受到生态谬误。换句话说，贫困程度高的地区可能居住着高比例的特定社会或人口群体，但不能自动假定这些群体本身也贫困。虽然有些研究是以专门设计的个人调查数据为基础的，但这些数据往往缺乏足够的样本规模，无法有效分析人口中的小分组或进行地域分类。《1991年人口普查匿名记录样本》的发布使个人层面的数据能够用于调查贫困的社会、人口和地理层面。在本文中，将确定一个贫困阈值，并将个人一级贫困（贫困人口）的分布与使用常规技术从标准普查产出中构建的等效地区一级指数进行比较。
In recent years have seen an increase in the analysis of deprivation in Britain. In most studies the unit of analysis has been geographical, such as local-government wards or districts. This reflects, in part, a reliance on small-area statistics and local-base statistics from the censuses of population. Although useful in identifying specific problem areas, this type of approach may be subject to ecological fallacy. In other words, areas of high levels of deprivation may be home to high proportions of particular social or demographic groups, but it cannot be automatically assumed that these groups are themselves deprived. Although some studies have been based on purpose-designed individual-level survey data, these often lack sufficient sample sizes to analyse effectively small subgroups of the population or to allow geographical disaggregation. The release of the Samples of Anonymised Records from the 1991 Census allows individual-level data to be used to investigate the social, demographic, and geographical dimensions of deprivation. In this paper, a threshold of deprivation will be determined and the distribution of individual-level deprivation (deprived people) will be compared with an equivalent area-level index constructed from standard census output by the use of conventional techniques.