post-socialist urbanisation and suburnanisation processes: commuting in the rīga metropolitan area...
TRANSCRIPT
Post-socialist urbanisation and Post-socialist urbanisation and suburnanisation processes: suburnanisation processes:
commuting in the Rīga metropolitan commuting in the Rīga metropolitan areaarea
Zaiga KrisjaneUniversity of Latvia
Main aspects of previous research; Suburbanisation, changes in
employment, and commuting in Riga agglomeration;
Recent trends of migration; Research questions; Data and Methods; Results; Conclusion
Outline of presentationOutline of presentation
The Aim of the Study
The aim of the study is to examine the demographic and socio-economic differences between commuters and stayers in the suburbs of the Rīga Metropolitan Area (RMA)
The focus is on commuter profiles since the studies of commuting during the Socialist period also often overlooked the individual characteristics (see Fuchs and Demko 1977, 1978; Kisileva, 1976).
While only a few studies on commuter profiles from the post-socialist period do exist (see Paci et al. 2010; Tammaru 2005).
Suburbanisation, commuting and changes in employment
Nowadays residential suburbanisation by far exceeds workplace suburbanisation, resulting in a visible increase in commuting across the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (see Novák and Sýkora 2007; Lukić 2009, Leetmaa et al., 2009; Tammaru and Kontuly, 2011).
Under socialism, commuting emerged mainly since because new jobs were generated in the core cities while housing construction there lagged behind need.
Economic restructuring has affected commuting patterns in CEE which are strongly related to changes in the sectoral composition of employment (Andrusz 1996), specifically, there have been job losses in industry.
Suburbanisation, commuting and changes in employment
Rīga has been emerging as a major urban centre for employment and economic activity in Latvia since the 1970s. Initially, urbanisation during the socialist period in the Baltic States, particularly in Estonia and Latvia, was based on the processes of industrialisation and immigration (Bauls and Krišjāne 2000; Tammaru, 2001).
Residential suburbanisation by far exceeds workplace suburbanization, resulting in a dramatic increase in commuting across CEE countries (Tammaru, 2005; Novák and Sýkora, 2007; Lukić, 2009; Ahas et al., 2010)
Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
-60 000
-50 000
-40 000
-30 000
-20 000
-10 000
01991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Natural increase Net migration
Population Population changes, 1991-2012changes, 1991-2012
Population changes in Population changes in Municipalities Municipalities 1990-1990-20112011
Population changes in LV 2000-2011
Source: VRAA
Number of commuters to Riga 1968-2013
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
1968 1970 1978 1981 1991 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
This great change in the structure of the national economy can be explained by the fact that there is no longer a need for as intensive a concentration of labour as was the case during the over-industrialized Soviet period.
Changes of employed persons in Riga 1985-1998
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1996 1997 1998
thsd
Urbanization and economic growth
Commuting flows of the capital city - Rīga
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0 140,0
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
out-commuting from Rīgain-commuting to Rīga
19
68
19
78
19
81
19
91
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Thds.
Suburbs of the Rīga Metropolitan Area Non-metropolitan regions
Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
Commuting flows of the capital city - Rīga
Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
no Rīgasuz Rīgu
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Tūkst.
Pierīga Citi reģioni
Commuting fieldof the capital city - Rīga
Source: Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia (2007)
Avots: Cilvēka ģeogrāfijas katedra
Commuters to Riga in 2011Commuters to Riga in 2011
Working in Riga –persons in working age (according to personal income tax).
Distance of territories from Riga by paved motor roads
Riga agglomeration (2012)
Source: Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia (2012)
Mode of transportation for commuters
105
48
114
2
20
74
151
88
135
9
1
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
pašvaldībām ārpus aglomerācijas
Rīgas aglomerāciju
Rīgu
tramvajs, trolejbuss, autobuss, mikroautobuss vilciens automašīna kājām, velosipēds
Commuting time to work in 2007
Commuters in Latvia
13%
34%
23%
19%
11%
121,9 tūkst.
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-74
Age structure2010
13%
36%
22%
19%
10%
90,3 tūkst.
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-74
Total to Riga
Darba svārstmigrantu raksturojums
Commuters in Latvia : Level of education2010
Total to Riga
38%
30%
25%
7%
121,9 tūkst.
Augstākā izglītība
Arodizglītība vai profesionālā vidējā izglītība
Vispārējā vidējā izglītība
Pamatizglītība vai zemāka
43%
28%
25%
4%
90,3 tūkst.
Changes in sectoral and occupational compositions of in-commuters to Rīga
Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Filimonenko 1992
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1981 1991 2008
Services
Construction
Transport and communications
Industry
Primary
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006 2008 2010
Managers
Professionals
Qualified workers
Unqualified workers
As regards the composition of commuters to Rīga, the industrial workforce accounted for more than 40% during the socialist period
Economic restructuring in Latvia during the 1990s led to the growing importance of service-based employment and an increasing share of commuters to Rīga working in this sector
Hypothesis 1
The increase in suburbanisation and the growing number of commuters travelling to Rīga in the 2000s on the one hand, and the job concentration into capital city on the other hand lead to expect that former city residents have a higher probability of in-commuting to Rīga than stayers in the suburban ring.
Hypothesis 2
Previous research in CEE has indicated that the majority of suburbanisers comprise younger, wealthier, and more highly qualified people with a higher level of education – those who have left the large Soviet-era housing estates in the city and moved into the suburban ring in search of a higher quality of life. Thus we propose that these people are more likely to commute because they have kept their jobs in Rīga
Research Hypotheses
Sub-sample of commuters derived from the Geographic Mobility of the Labour Force study conducted by the University of Latvia in 2006 (Krišjāne et al., 2007). The original survey had 8,005 respondents who were Latvian residents aged from 15 to 65.
The survey sub-sample in the suburban part of the RMA (N=1,061) consisted of 317 respondents who were suburban out-commuters to Rīga and 744 who were suburban non-commuters (stayers) who worked within the municipality of their place of residence.
The response rate was 66.5%. The total sample consisted of 1,001 valid interviews conducted in Rīga and 7,004 in other regions of Latvia.
Research Data
In order to determine the individual characteristics that influence the probability of commuting to work, we estimate binary regression models.
To test our two hypotheses we compare suburban non-commuters (stayers) with out-commuters.
The models are built stepwise:
Model 1 clarifies the influence of suburbanisation on commuting;
Model 2 and 3 seek to ascertain whether demographic and socio-economic characteristics affect commuting
Research Methods
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
coef se coef se coef se
Migrant from Rīga 1.310 *** (0.230) 1.226 *** (0.242) 1.021 *** (0.259)
Migrant from elsewhere -0.104 (0.156) -0.176 (0.164) -0.228 (0.177)
Male 0.368 ** (0.144) 0.419 ** (0.168)
Age (base: 15–29)
30–49 -0.183 (0.192) -0.217 (0.210)
50–65 -0.644 *** (0.227) -0.759 *** (0.248)
Family status (base: single)
cohabitants 0.197 (0.150) 0.080 (0.160)
Household (base: no children of preschool age)
children of preschool age -0.188 (0.208) -0.294 (0.224)
Ethnic group (base: Latvian)
Ethnic minorities -0.087 (0.147) 0.165 (0.162)
Income level (base: low)
average 0.621 *** (0.198)
high 0.976 *** (0.195)
no answer 0.489 (0.362)
Level of education (base: secondary)
primary -0.486 (0.347)
professional secondary -0.066 (0.204)
university 0.535 ** (0.220)
Occupation (base: skilled worker)
manager 0.703 *** (0.251)
professional 0.263 (0.206)
unskilled worker -0.152 (0.341)
According to the Model 1, suburbanisers who have moved from Rīga to the suburbs over the past 10 years have a much higher probability of commuting than people who have moved within the metropolitan area or in-migrated from non-metropolitan regions over the same timeframe, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
gender is a significant predictor of commuting behaviour; we found that men are more likely to commute than women.
Age differences are also evident: commuters to Rīga are younger than are non-commuters living in the suburbs.
Differences by occupation are only statistically significant for managers, who are more likely to commute than skilled workers.
Results
Suburban inhabitants who hold university degrees are more likely to be commuters than people who have a secondary level of education.
From our analysis, we found that the differences between commuters who have migration experience and those who have not changed their place of residence for more than 10 years are related only to demographic variables
Commuters who have migration experience are more likely to be younger and have children of preschool age than commuters without migration experience.
Results
Ethnic minorities among commuters that have migration experience comprise only 27 per cent and, therefore, they are less likely to be commuters than Latvians. Therefore ethnic minorities are less likely to commute than Latvians, which agrees with the findings for Estonia (Kulu and Billari, 2004; Tammaru, 2005) that indicate that ethnic minorities are less geographically mobile.
A high representation of ethnic minorities (almost 41%) was found for commuters non-migrants. This could be attributed to the concentration of Russian-speaking population in the industrial suburbs during the socialist period.
Results
Conclusion the impact of recent suburbanisation pattern is evident and
confirms the previous results that residential suburbanisation, rather than labour-market change, contributed to the increase of commuting in the RMA.
a strong correlation between suburbanisation in the RMA and commuting to Rīga.
the higher probability of commuting is for younger and more affluent suburban residents.
Commuting to Rīga in the 2000s increased considerably as the capital city became the focal point of employment with better opportunities and higher wages (Krišjāne and Bērziņš 2009). At the same time, the suburban hinterland started to provide much better housing choices and amenities (Bērziņš and Krišjāne 2008).
Conclusion Commuting has significantly increased in the post-socialist
metropolis
Suburbanisation is the major source of growing commuting
People with higher social status are more likely to commute than people with lower social status
Commuting time is not related to social status