Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 223–241 | Cite as

Geodemographics and spatial interaction: an integrated model for higher education

Original Article

Abstract

Spatial interaction modelling and geodemographic analysis have each developed as quite separate research traditions. In this paper, we present an integrated model that harnesses the power of spatial interaction modelling to behavioural insights derived from a geodemographic classification. This approach is applied to the modelling of participation in higher education (HE). A novel feature of the paper is the integration of national schools, colleges and HE data; a national model is then calibrated and tested against actual recorded flows of students into HE. The model is implemented within a Java framework and is presented as a first step towards providing a quantitative tool that can be used by HE stakeholders to explore policies relating to such topics as widening access to under-represented groups.

Keywords

Spatial interaction Geodemographics Higher education GIS 

References

  1. Ashby DI, Longley PA (2005) Geocomputation, geodemographics and resource allocation for local policing. Trans GIS 9(1):53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aveyard P, Manaseki S, Chambers J (2002) The relationship between mean birth weight and poverty using the townsend deprivation score and the super profile classification system. Public Health 116(6):308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batey P, Brown PJB, Corver M (1999) Participation in higher education: a geodemographic perspective on the potential for further expansion in student numbers. J Geogr Syst 1(3):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkin M (1995) Customer targeting, geodemographic and lifestyles approaches. In: Longley PA, Clarke GP (eds) GIS for business and service planning. Geoinformation, Cambridge, pp 104–149Google Scholar
  5. Birkin M, Clarke G (1998) GIS, geodemographics, and spatial modeling in the UK financial service industry. J Hous Res 9(1):87–111Google Scholar
  6. Birkin M, Clarke G, Clarke M (2002) Retail geography and intelligent network planning. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkin M, Clarke G, Clarke M, Culf R (2003) Using spatial models to solve difficult retail location problems. In: Stillwell J, Clarke G (eds) Applied GIS and spatial analysis. Wiley, Chichester, pp 35–54Google Scholar
  8. Black JA, Salter RJ (1975) A statistical evaluation of the accuracy of a family of gravity models. Proc Inst Civ Eng 59:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowden R (2000) Fantasy higher education: university and college league tables. Qual High Educ 6(1):41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bureau of Public Roads (1965) Calibrating and testing a gravity model for any size urban area. US Dept of Commerce—Bureau of Public Roads, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Comptroller Auditor General (2008) Widening participation in higher education. National Audit Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Erlander S, Stewart NF (1990) The gravity model in transportation analysis: theory and extensions. VSP BV, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng Z, Flowerdew R (1998) Fuzzy geodemographics: a contribution from fuzzy clustering methods. In: Carver S (ed) Innovations in GIS 5. Taylor & Francis, Oxford, pp 119–127Google Scholar
  14. Fotheringham AS (1983) A new set of spatial interaction models: the theory of competing destinations. Environ Plan A 15(1):15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2000) Quantitative geography: perspectives on spatial data analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Han Q, Timmermans H (2006) Towards models of strategic spatial choice behaviour: theory and application issues. GeoJournal 67(3):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris R, Sleight P, Webber R (2005) Geodemographics, GIS and neighbourhood targeting. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris R, Johnston R, Burgess S (2007) Neighborhoods, ethnicity and school choice: developing a statistical framework for geodemographic analysis. Popul Res Policy Rev 26(5–6):553–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Longley PA (2005) Geographical information systems: a renaissance of geodemographics for public service delivery. Prog Hum Geogr 29(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singleton AD (2010) Educational opportunity: the geography of access to higher education. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Singleton AD, Longley PA (2009) Creating open source geodemographics—refining a national classification of census output areas for applications in higher education. Prog Hum Geogr 88(3):643–666Google Scholar
  22. Sleight P (1997) Targeting customers: how to use geodemographic and lifestyle data in your business. NTC Publications, Henley-on-ThamesGoogle Scholar
  23. Stillwell JCH (1978) Interzonal migration: some historical tests of spatial interaction models. Environ Plan A 10:1187–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tonks D, Farr M (2003) Widening access and participation in UK higher education. Int J Educ Manage 17(1):26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turner D (2005) Benchmarking in universities: league tables revisited. Oxford Rev Educ 31(3):353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Twigg L, Moon G, Jones K (2000) Predicting small-area health-related behaviour: a comparison of smoking and drinking indicators. Soc Sci Med 50(7–8):1109–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vickers D, Rees P (2007) Creating the UK national statistics 2001 output area classification. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 170(2):379–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Voas D, Williamson P (2001) The diversity of diversity: a critique of geodemographic classification. Area 33(1):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson AG (1998) Land-use/transport interaction models: past and future. J Transp Econ Policy 32(1):3–26Google Scholar
  32. Wilson AG (2000) The widening access debate: student flows to universities and associated performance indicators. Environ Plan A 32(11):2019–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civic DesignUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Advanced Spatial AnalysisUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations