Talk:Leicester urban area

message: This section is a bit of a mess.  Beaumont Leys was in the first list although it states later that it isn't included (it's an estate in Leicester, so that makes no sense).  And why is there a list of towns and villages, and then another list afterwards?  The main list now matches the ONS list.  Are the others based on refs, or just someone's opinion?--Michig 13:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any refs, I have removed the second list of areas/towns.--Michig 12:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Towns and Villages included

message: The short version
I have added suburb figures and the totals absolutely add up to the BUA subdivision amount for 2011. Expand the section below if you want to see how I obtained these numbers, as well as explaining the correcting of figures an IP user added using parish counts and my attempt to show why those aren't always the right geography to use. Main rule is that subdivision figures do not always match the numbers for political/administrative areas as these are not the same in many cases.
The figures for BUAs are actually taken from a extrapolation of Census Output Area (OA) figures which 'best-fit' the built up areas, and not just the total residents in a UA or parish (especially in those cases of urban areas on the outskirts of a city/town). There are single digit, tens, hundreds and thousands of these OAs which are added up to make a total for a parish, district, or city/UA area, and indeed, regions and higher still the whole country. OA areas can go way past the edge of the BUA as they don't align with anything other than political borders, but it's the lowest statistical geography used to collate the numbers. 
After consulting the ONS census tables I believe all the 2011 data to be correct and adds up to the totals as this edit so of course while I expect the article to be improved after that time, if the figures specifically are changed I would have grave concerns about how any adjusted numbers were obtained.
Lookup table for all BUA areas is here at this link.
This lists all OAs and what BUA, as well as district/region they belong to. I have extracted the detail of Leicester and the immediate conurbation to put together the details for the suburbs. There are 1300+ OA's for the city alone never mind for the rest of the BUA, so I won't be listing all those here to prove the figures unless demand warrants it.
I can demonstrate how a total is obtained - using the smallest suburb Scraptoft - the 6 OA codes below make up the total for the parish (1,804) and can be found doing a query on the ONS website:
:E00130973	(346 persons)
:E00130974	(316)
:E00165825	(389)
:E00170637	(240)
:E00170638	(288)
:E00170639	(225)
Even though the parish is mainly rural, the lookup table states all those OAs are within the BUA, so most of the parish population will be abutting the city. The pop counts for each OA must be greater than 100 and/or 40 households to ensure confidentiality of the stat data associated with it so no one person/household can be identified. There is also a minimum size for the OAs, therefore some will be larger than others to get these minimum numbers, and indeed the average is 200-300 residents.
Having said all that, the Leics contiguous suburb figures broadly match what is given for parishes, except for these cases in 2011 (after all, we are counting only directly continuous areas as part of the Leics subdivision area) 
* Glenfield - the parish count is 9,643, however the area regards the Leics urban area in the lookup table does not include the spaced apart 'The Brantings' Glen Park Avenue/Overdale Av estate to the west that abuts Groby parish, cornered by the A46 and A50 roads.
:This area has OA codes E00130033 (306 residents) and E00130035 (228) - together there are 534 persons.
:Minus the overall Glenfield parish count above gives 9,109.
* Not a parish of course, but the same for the Ashton Green/Thurcaston Park/Glebelands suburb which again is the only detached area still inside the city limits in 2011 - this has 2 OAs allocated to it:
:E00068743 (308 persons)
:E00068748 (248)
:Total 556 which is in the table and subtracted from the UA total. This means we aren't using the whole city population.
Oadby & Wigston in 2011 make up a district, no parishes - same principle though, all OAs in O&W are within the BUA as the lookup table.
Small anomaly - Stoughton parish has only 1 OA code E00130975 and this covers what I term the Polton Hill 'leg' as it's close to that land feature. This leg is shown as being part of the Leics subdivision on the map - while it is definitely continuous to the city (the 2001 BUA map shows this leg too), the lookup table shows the OA and therefore population (351) is not allocated to the BUA in any way, only to Harborough district.
Why you may ask?
Because according to the methodology guidance doc  for BUA areas, it isn't 'best fit' as there is population weighting applied according to how the population is distributed within the OA. In this case, most of the residents are in the main village to the east - which is too far away from the BUA and in turn skews the 'leg' population and therefore the whole OA and hence parish from being counted in the BUA figure. This weighting is what really determines whether if any OA, particularly ones on the fringes, is close enough to be added to any nearby built up area.
Credit should be given to the IP editor who introduced the concept in the article of Leics (ONS) and Leics (Unitary) as it helps to explain the difference between the urban subdivision area and the official city area, with reference to the tables.
Lastly I need to apologise for using collapsing nested tables within the overall table, while I think it really explains the ONS definition of the subdivision in relation to the city area and outer suburbs, wiki guideline advice is not to use nested unless unavoidable as screen readers can't make sense of them as per Help:Table & MOS:DTAB. I have tested this page using a freely available reader, and the table reads properly collapsed and expanded. I have tried doing two aligned lists but it was not as simple, but will look more deeply into a conversion from table to list if lots feel it is a concern.
I'll work on 2001 figures and update this when I tabulate those.
The Equalizer (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Full 2001 figures now added. --The Equalizer (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Data