Advertisement

Synthesising the Geography of Opportunity in Rural Irish Primary Schools

  • Gillian GoldenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Demand is growing for data-driven tools which can provide greater understanding of societal challenges. Synthetic populations generated from publicly-held microdata offer potential for policymakers to gain insight into pressing policy issues while respecting the right to privacy of the citizen. This paper offers an example of an application of synthetic populations to generate a social profile of primary school children in rural Ireland. A spatially explicit school population is developed using a novel approach; employing combinatorial optimisation techniques on full coverage census microdata, and information on school location and enrolment. The resulting population provides a realistic portrait of rural educational risk across Ireland and can be used for spatial risk profiling, as the basis for an agent-based model, and to simulate the possible impact of a variety of policy initiatives aimed at improving equity in the education system.

Keywords

Rural disadvantage Synthetic population Spatial analysis Microdata for public policy Policy simulation 

References

  1. Abowd, J. M., & Lane, J. (2004). New approaches to confidentiality protection: Synthetic data, remote access and research data centers. In International workshop on privacy in statistical databases (pp. 282–289). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ballas, D., Clarke, G., Dorling, D., Eyre, H., Thomas, B., & Rossiter, D. (2005a). SimBritain: A spatial microsimulation approach to population dynamics. Population, Space and Place, 11(1), 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballas, D., Rossiter, D., Thomas, B., Clarke, G. P., & Dorling, D. (2005b). Geography matters: Simulating the local impacts of national social policies. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Boldt, S., Devine, B., McDevitt, D., & Morgan, M. (1998). Educational disadvantage and early school leaving (demonstration programme on educational disadvantage). Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.Google Scholar
  6. CSO. (2013). Census of population of Ireland 2011 Place of Work, School or College Census of Anonymised Records (POWSCAR) user guide. Central Statistics Office. http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011placeofworkschoolorcollege-censusofanonymisedrecordspowscar/
  7. Czyzak, P., & Jaskiewicz, A. (1998). Pareto simulated annealing—A metaheuristic tech- nique for multiple-objective combinatorial optimization. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 7, 34–47 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Education and Skills. (2017). DEIS plan 2017. Department of Education and Skills. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/DEIS-Plan-2017.pdf
  9. Duh, J. D., & Brown, D. G. (2007). Knowledge-informed Pareto simulated annealing for multi-objective spatial allocation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 31(3), 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrgott, M., & Gandibleux, X. (2004). Approximative solution methods for multiobjective combinatorial optimization. TOP, 12(1), 1–63.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, T. L. (2015). Places of inequality, places of possibility: Mapping “opportunity in geography” across urban school-communities. The Urban Review, 47(4), 717–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haase, T. (1994). The identification of schools and pupils as disadvantaged: A preliminary assessment. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.Google Scholar
  15. Haase, T., McKeown, K., & Rourke, S. (1995). Local development strategies for disadvantaged areas: Evaluationof the global grant, 1992–1995. Dublin: Area Development Management Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Harding, A. (2007, August). Challenges and opportunities of dynamic microsimulation modelling. Plenary paper presented to the 1st General Conference of the International Microsimulation Association, Vienna (Vol. 21).Google Scholar
  17. Harland, K., Heppenstall, A., Smith, D., & Birkin, M. (2012). Creating realistic synthetic populations at varying spatial scales: A comparative critique of population synthesis techniques. Journal of Artifical Societies and Social Simulation, 15(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauke, J., Lorscheid, I., & Meyer, M. (2017). Recent development of social simulation as reflected in JASSS between 2008 and 2014: A citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(1), 5. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/1/5.html. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3238.
  19. Heckman, J. J. (2008). Schools, skills, and synapses. Economic Inquiry, 46(3), 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helbing, D., & Balietti, S. (2011). From social data mining to forecasting socio-economic crises. The European Physical Journal-Special Topics, 195(1), 3–68.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huynh, N. N., Barthelemy, J., & Perez, P. (2016). A heuristic combinatorial optimisation approach to synthesising a population for agent-based modelling purposes. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(4), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hynes, S., Morrissey, K., O’Donoghue, C., & Clarke, G. (2009). A spatial micro-simulation analysis of methane emissions from Irish agriculture. Ecological Complexity, 6(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellaghan, T. (1995). Educational disadvantage in Ireland. (No. 20). Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.Google Scholar
  25. Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4(3), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, M., Lorscheid, I., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2009). The development of social simulation as reflected in the first ten years of JASSS: A citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 12.Google Scholar
  27. Nakaya, T., Fotheringham, A. S., Hanaoka, K., Clarke, G., Ballas, D., & Yano, K. (2007). Combining microsimulation and spatial interaction models for retail location analysis. Journal of Geographical Systems, 9(4), 345–369.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2016). New approaches to economic challenges (NAEC), insights into complexity and policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Parsons, E., Chalkley, B., & Jones, A. (2000). School catchments and pupil movements: A case study in parental choice. Educational Studies, 26(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearce, J. (2000). Techniques for defining school catchment areas for comparison with census data. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(4), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reiter, J. P., & Mitra, R. (2009). Estimating risks of identification disclosure in partially synthetic data. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 1(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rich, J., & Mulalic, I. (2012). Generating synthetic baseline populations from register data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(3), 467–479.Google Scholar
  33. Ruggles, S. (2014). Big microdata for population research. Demography, 51(1), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tate, I. V., & William, F. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voas, D., & Williamson, P. (2000). An evaluation of the combinatorial optimisation approach to the creation of synthetic microdata. Population, Space and Place, 6(5), 349–366.Google Scholar
  36. Voas, D., & Williamson, P. (2001). Evaluating goodness-of-fit measures for synthetic microdata. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 5(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weir, S., Archer, P., & Millar, D. (2009). Educational disadvantage in primary schools in rural areas. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.Google Scholar
  38. Wheaton, W. D., Cajka, J. C., Chasteen, B. M., Wagener, D. K., Cooley, P. C., Ganapathi, L., et al. (2009). Synthesized population databases: A US geospatial database for agent-based models. Methods Report (RTI Press), 2009(10), 905.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dynamics LabUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations