back to article PHWOAR, those noughty inks: '0.1%' named Stat of The Year

The Royal Statistical Society has bestowed the coveted title of UK statistic of the year on 0.1 per cent – the percentage of land that's densely built on in the nation. The statistic, carefully selected by an all-star stats panel, comes from research by boffins from the University of Sheffield. The team, led by Alasdair Rae, …

  1. TRT Silver badge

    The UK has much more in the way of peat bogs (9.4 per cent).

    They said 'e were daft to build t'castle in t'swamp...

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Re: The UK has much more in the way of peat bogs (9.4 per cent).

      Wow! I never knew that. As my user name implies I'm familiar with peat bogs, and live on the edge of one, but 9.4% sounds like a helluva lot. Is it just the raised ones that are scarce?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: The UK has much more in the way of peat bogs (9.4 per cent).

        "Is it just the raised ones that are scarce?"

        Blanket peat probably accounts for most of it from Dartmoor, through Wales & the Pennines into NW Scotland and not forgetting the Antrim Plateau and Sperrins.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: The UK has much more in the way of peat bogs (9.4 per cent).

          Indeed! "Remember the Antrim!" has always been my rallying cry when considering blanket peat.

          I'll confess that I have, at times, neglected Sperrins.

  2. John Robson Silver badge

    80% artificial...

    Is very dense, and massively depends on the area you look at (it's worse than measuring the coastline)

    If you look at the street where I live you could either say that 0 of it is more than 80% covered, or that 50% of it is more than 80% covered...

    1. Rich 11

      Re: 80% artificial...

      The resolution is 25 metres, apparently, so the basic unit is 625m^2 rather than streets.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: 80% artificial...

      Presumably if a town has mostly houses with gardens it's outside the 0.1%.

      1. Chris Miller

        Re: 80% artificial...

        Population statistics based on the UK as a unit are heavily skewed by the fact that there are substantial areas of northern Scotland (and chunks of England too, for that matter) where very few people live. But no-one is proposing heavy new development in Caithness and Sutherland and very few new migrants seem to want to take up crofting as a career,

        The fact is that London and the home counties (or, if that's too London-centric for your tastes, an area bounded by Liverpool, York, Bristol and Dover) is easily the most populous and built-up area of its size in Europe and is rivalled on the world lists only by a few fly-speck states and places like Bangladesh. Anyone trying to produce statistics to contradict this is almost certainly a property developer (or being paid by one).

        1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: 80% artificial...

          I wonder what the proportion is for Brittanny? Last time I was there, there was nobody about!

          1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

            Re: 80% artificial...

            Just cos theres no houses on it dosent mean we're not using it. You'd have thought every X amount of houses needs Y amount of farmland somewhere , preferably nearby , to make sure theres a sufficient supply of milk , weetabix & burgers . and bread.

        2. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

          Re: 80% artificial...

          First, population density and land use are two different measures. The UK can achieve high density in population centres and low land cover through extensive use of high-rise buildings. Consider the typical "tower block" units set in a large parkland setting - high population density, but low ground cover.

          ..is easily the most populous and built-up area of its size in Europe

          No. Southeast England is one of the most densely populated regions of Europe, but it is not the most densely populated. That distinction belongs to Paris and the Ile-de-France.

          "Greater London" (i.e., the area formerly controlled by the GLC) itself is the 13th most densely populated city in Europe, in between Den Haag (NL) and Madrid (ES). Paris again is first, with either Barcelona or Athens second, depending on whether you consider L'Hospitalet to be "in" Barcelona or not for the purposes of ranking.

          On a more localised scale, some small Italian and Spanish cities achieve population densities that match the most populous parts of Asia, and Monaco is the most densely-populated country on Earth, simply because it's so small.

          It's inadequate mass-transport investment, not density of population, that makes England seem crowded.

          1. Chris Miller

            Re: 80% artificial...

            You appear to have missed the phrase "of its size" - and Paris is more populous than London? ROFLMAO mon vieux ami! But perhaps basing your figures on the old GLC boundaries, which no longer have any relevance, is what's confusing you. 'City' figures are almost always misleading, because where you draw the boundary is either historic or arbitrary.

            But here's the answer to your conundrum. Select one of your 'city' areas, but make sure it's large enough to match London's commuter area - say 8,000 square km (because that 'inadequate' mass transport system carries twice as many passengers as RATP/RER). There will be 1.5x or 2x as many people living in that area around London.

            Of course there are more densely populated small areas in the world - if you take 50 sq km of Manhattan and fill it with skyscrapers you can house a lot of people. But that's precisely the point - the UK accommodates most of its population in individual housing, not massive apartment blocks. Of its size, central and southern England is more densely populated than 99% of the world - the only exceptions being a dozen or so sprawling megacities (which doesn't include Paris, let alone Madrid) and countries such as Bangladesh, which no-one is keen to emulate.

  3. Primus Secundus Tertius

    99 percent

    99 percent of all statistics are concocted to sell something or to insult somebody.

    1. #define INFINITY -1

      Re: 99 percent

      "... to sell OR to insult ..."

      What's the breakdown?

    2. Teiwaz
      Pint

      Re: 99 percent of...

      99 percent of all statistics are concocted to sell something or to insult somebody.

      [insert ludicrous figure here]% of all statistics on adverts TV politics insult my intelligence...

      Now I'm depresserd and need a drink....

      Just a beer (icon)? El Reg needs a better drinks cabinet...

      What about a cocktail icon? I think the world has gone mad enough the last couple of years that we need something stronger...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    98.2 percent of all statistics

    are made up on the spot

    1. nagyeger

      Re: 98.2 percent of all statistics

      I thought it was 97.4850006487

      1. Chemical Bob

        Re: 98.2 percent of all statistics

        Actually it's just twelve percent...

  5. IDoNotThinkSo

    The criteria appear to have been selected to support an agenda (whatever that is). The best sort of statistics, obviously.

    This isn't exactly new data, the Corine data set has been available for years and the urban part isn't exactly hard to examine.

    I imagine most parts of suburbia under their criteria are 'not densely built on' because they have, shock horror, gardens.

    You could go to the other extreme and look for areas with no modern human structures visible (shrinking very rapidly due to wind turbines) - and there isn't really that much.

    "Urban" land cover by most definitions is between 5-10%

    1. Paul Kinsler

      From the linked site:

      Continuous urban fabric: 0.13%

      Discontinuous urban fabric: 5.33%

      - which is broadly in agreement with your "by most definitions" statement.

      It's worth looking at the examples, e.g. the Leeds one (or peruse table A1.1). Also, note that England is 7.85% discontinuous urban fabric (3rd most common use), over twice that of Wales & NI (both 6th), and 4 times that of Scotland (9th).

      1. Bronek Kozicki

        Re: From the linked site:

        Airports: 0.2%

        Road and rail networks: 0.05%

        For me, this is a surprise.

        1. Semtex451

          Re: From the linked site:

          Exactly they established that just 0.1 per cent of the UK is designated "continuous urban fabric" and that 0.2% is airports, and there's nothing artificial about those surfaces, or sport and leisure facilities 1.15%? Hummmm.

          Pnar phar, flibble.

  6. Aaiieeee
    Paris Hilton

    7.7 billion: the number of active phone connections in the world

    Google tells me that 1bn people do not have access to electricity globally. Its probably fair to assume these people also do not have mobile phones. So at least 1bn connections are made that are not between people? The point of a phone connection is to communicate?

    I know that I am not currently on the phone so that rules me out, so who are making these calls?

    Wait, are we talking dial-up internet in this figure?

    1. Peter Ford

      Re: 7.7 billion: the number of active phone connections in the world

      Presumably it includes every business phone connection, including mobiles provided by companies, and every one who has more than one mobile, or even more than one SIM...

      Does it include every smart-meter that connects to a mobile network to phone home?

      In which case the number is starting to look small - I'm surprised it's only just surpassed the world population

      1. Tim 11

        Re: 7.7 billion: the number of active phone connections in the world

        it's not very clear but I would assume it's the number of land-lines + active sim cards (i.e. either on a contract or with credit balance). if you include business, most people in the UK probably have between 2-3

        @Aaiieeee I believe a lot of people who don't have access to mains electricity live can charge mobile phones through solar panels or wind-up

    2. Pen-y-gors

      Re: 7.7 billion: the number of active phone connections in the world

      Google tells me that 1bn people do not have access to electricity globally. Its probably fair to assume these people also do not have mobile phones.

      Probably not fair at all. The term 'access to electricity' is a bit vague these days. Does someone in an Indian village with a 100w solar panel 'have access to electricity'? They can certainly charge a phone. Or maybe they have a mini solar panel that's just enough for a phone. Or they take their phone to the village shopkeeper who has a 250W PV setup and charges locals 5p for a charge? I wouldn't be surprised if there are some booming entrepreneurs at little African markets with a bundle of batteries selling fast charges to shoppers.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But what had ben the impact of Trump's migrant ban on the number of people killed by lawn mower?

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Coat

      He'd need to ban Mexicans to change that one. Or build a wall...

    2. Teiwaz

      90's want their statistics back...

      But what had ben the impact of Trump's migrant ban on the number of people killed by lawn mower?

      Was this guy 'Ben' mowing people over in his lawnmower then? As a result of Trumps election?

      So what is the statistic on deaths by Lawnmower Man?

      Yes, I'll accept those who ended their lives after seeing the second movie....

      ...more questions than answers, as usual...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I knew it!

    You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

    1. Allan George Dyer

      You've got an awful bus schedule. Around here, I could get hit by a bus every 20 seconds.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Around here, I could get hit by a bus every 20 seconds.

        But surely it's the quality of the impact that matters?

        1. Allan George Dyer

          I get that too, there's a really good quality impact from a double-decker on a Volvo chassis.

  9. Nick Kew

    0.1% or 100%?

    I see commentards already questioning the dodgy definitions.

    Other datasets say otherwise. I worked with some such in the 1990s, from sources such as UN scientific programmes and the USGS global land use. These were at 1km spatial resolution, and showed 100% of England was not nature. The best was "mixed", with a mixture of natural and artificial landscapes. Even in Scotland, the area showing as genuine nature was similar to the urban area of (greater) Edinburgh.

    From unreliable memory, figures cited as built up usually fall in the 10-15% ballpark. Though the larger areas of intensive agricultural land (notably anywhere using chemicals - including to a lesser extent commercial "organic" farms) are more of an ecological desert, which is why the oasis of hedgerows has become so important.

    (the link is one I googled, not one I worked on)

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Re: 0.1% or 100%?

      100% not natural?

      I think not. Possibly very close, but there are enough areas of remote moorland (Dartmoor, Exmoor, Yorkshiire etc) where there are multiple 1km squares without a single human construction or road - well, if you don't count the remains of a bronze-age barrow or round house. Or is heather moorland not natural, as it should be forested?

      1. Nick Kew

        Re: 0.1% or 100%?

        The areas you mention are where there are substantially mixed 1km squares. But they're far from natural, and managed for grazing.

        .. Not to mention more industrial uses. Here (Dartmoor) there are a number of old railways serving mines and quarry works, and the most recent mine to open was as recent as 2014. While further north is the playground for the toy soldiers.

  10. Eclectic Man Silver badge

    Roads and astroturf

    Does the definition include road surfaces and astro turf? (They established that just 0.1 per cent of the UK is designated "continuous urban fabric" – a category assigned to an area if more than 80 per cent of the ground is covered by artificial surfaces.) I assume that artificial surfaces include the fashion for astroturfing over the garden (like some work colleagues have done).

  11. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
    Pint

    miss KK said something interesting! thats gotta be a first - lets celebrate!

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Pint

      miss KK said something interesting! thats gotta be a first - lets celebrate!

      I'd rather celebrate when she says something that's not interesting. More beer that way...

  12. Spanners Silver badge
    Holmes

    I have been saying it for decades

    I hear the uninformed stating that we are "full up" but having seen this island from end to end know that we are hugely empty.

    It has proved impossible to tell some people that we are not overcrowded. Some tiny bits are certainly. I would not consider living in or anywhere near those bits myself. I would not think it is right to force any refugees to go there either (Human Rights/decency etc). If some people want to go on living there, that is up to then. The rest should be allowed and helped to get somewhere nicer.

    Caithness and Dartmoor seem like huge improvements over inner London, Birmingham and Manchester for example but I hear that the village of Imber may be returned to civilian use one day.

    1. Nick Kew

      Re: I have been saying it for decades

      Dartmoor is my local stomping ground. Though not as bad as much of the country (for example, unlike many more-intensively-used areas it has capacity to absorb rain and not routinely flood), it's still massively overcrowded, as you'll find if you try to escape from human activity and pollution up here.

      I was briefly back in Sweden last year. That's overcrowded too[1] (this was the south, not the near-arctic north), but it was immensely refreshing to walk in the woods and swim in the lake with a much lower level of the pressures of human activity that are ever-present in themenational park areas like Dartmoor.

      [1] Recommended reading on the subject: Vilhelm Moberg's Utvandrarna (The Emigrants).

  13. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    More Or Less had a look at those figures, and it ignores things like gardens and road verges and other non-built-on space associated with built-on space. It's more like 6%-10% for the whole country.

  14. Clunking Fist

    Only 9 killed?

    I guess these are averaged and exclude 2001 then. Only 3 died in the Boston Marathon bombing, but hundreds were injured. 16 lost limbs. I guess that, unless you've personally witnessed or been affected by the acts, it's easy to be flippant. I guess rape, mass sexual assault and no-go areas aren't murder, but must surely count for something.

    How many have died in each of the recent years in France, Spain, UK, Germany, Australia? I guess Americans look to what's happened in Europe and think "no thanks".

    1. Allan George Dyer

      Re: Only 9 killed?

      Read the graphic: 10 year average, and they are counting deaths.

      Many people in the rest of the world look to the deaths caused by American armed toddlers (not to mention the other Americans shooting Americans) and think "no thanks".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like