The life course and residential mobility

For decades attention has been drawn to this relation between residential moves and life course events, as for example marriage, childbirth and divorce (Odland and Shumway 1993; as cited in Clark and Davies Withers 2007). Rossi (1955:35) describes residential mobility as the “needs that are generated by the shifts in family composition that accompany life-cycle changes”. Changes in the household over time are related to changes in other dimensions (Clark and Dieleman 1996; as cited in Clark and Huang 2003), as in “occupations, relationships, and additions and deletions to the family composition” (Clark and Davies Withers 2007:593). Changes that occur might take an individual or household out of its stable position; a move is than a way to deal with this (Clark and Dieleman 1996; as cited in Clark and Huang 2003). Changes in an individual’s life or in a household might require a re-evaluation of the usability and sufficiency of the housing and place of residence, which might in turn create the need to move house for the reason to obtain more space or to change neighbourhoods (Clark and Davies Withers 2007; Andersen 2011).

The search for different and larger housing is entwined with ‘triggers’ in the life course, especially with changes in marital status (both marriage/

cohabitation and divorce/widowhood) and the birth of a child. A relation exists between the household size and the space the household ‘consumes’; when the household size increases, residential mobility is the process with which the household adjusts to its size and the related needs. It appears that room stress (a mismatch between the actual housing space and the required housing space) is an incentive for moving; people are looking for more space (Clark and Dieleman 1996; as cited in Clark and Huang 2003; Chevan 1971). Inversely, an increase of the mobility rate is also related to the departure of a child from the household, in order to find new appropriate housing (Courgeau 1985).

It is further assumed that changes in the professional, private and residential trajectories can cause changes in any of the others. In some cases the residential moves are thus the result of a life course event in one of the other trajectories, but in some other cases a move might also be an anticipation

on a forthcoming life course event; to anticipate on needs for the future (Geist and McManus 2008). Households might for example move before the arrival of children to a larger house in order to avoid multiple moves in the future (Courgeau 1985). On the other hand certain life course changes might occur unexpected and consequent moves might be unintended. From their research Clark and Davies Withers (2007) learn that one fourth of all moves are unintended in the United States. But this is exactly what is incorporated in the life course approach; variability in the sequence and timing of the life course events, planned or unplanned, is accepted (Clark and Davies Withers 2007).

Despite the diversity in the different trajectories and the relations between them, the age pattern of residential mobility can be linked to events in the private and professional trajectories. Mobility shows a peak in the mid-20s, which coincides with young adults moving into independent housing and family formation. Residential changes as a result of education and marriage occur often between the ages of 10 and 30 years, changes related to work occur more often during the first years of life (i.e. children move with their parents) and the early years of the labour-force participation. Mobility drops when the individuals reach the ages 30 to 40 and remains on a low level thereafter (e.g. families settle down). A small increase might occur a little later in life as people might move for health reasons or to be closer to family (Glick 1993; and Hayward 2004; as cited in Geist and McManus 2008; Schachter 2004; Raymer and Rogers 2006; Eggerickx and Capron 2001). Additionally, residential mobility later in life (at pre(retirement) ages) is also due to changes in needs and preferences (urban and rural areas do not provide the same opportunities and needs for all age groups); either more rural areas with calm are preferred or areas with more amenities (Détang-Dessendre et al. 2002).

1.3.1 Marital status and mobility

Marriage has in general an influence on mobility, however the time at which changes occur and the order in which they occur has changed; the formation of households has changed over time. The number of one-person households has increased (as for example in the United States and Great Britain) as well as the amount of single households and one-parent households. In addition, the creation of households through cohabitation or marriage happens at older ages (Clark and Huang 2003; Clark and Davies Withers 2007). For example, in 1970 six per cent of the American individuals between the ages 30 to 34 were never married, whereas in 2002 this percentage is 34 per cent.

Despite the decline in the number of marriage this event remains connected with residential moves. The fact that females move more than males in Switzerland is often related to this; the females move to move in with their partner (Bassand et al. 1985). Most of the moves occur within a short period after the marriage and decline fast thereafter (Chevan 1971; Courgeau 1985;

Mulder and Wagner 1993; Courgeau and Lelièvre 2006; Fischer and Malmberg 2001), however it could also occur more than one year after the marriage. This is often the case when a desired type of housing is not attainable and saving up for a few years makes it attainable, or when the couple was already living together before the marriage (Speare and Goldscheider 1987; Courgeau and Lelièvre 2006).

The rate of migration after a separation or divorce is almost as high as the rate just after marriage. Whereas after marriage the rate declines quickly, after separation or divorce the decline of the rate is slower over time. This might be related to the fact that moves related to these events were not reported in the same year the event occurred, as the physical and legal separation might not occur in the same year (Speare and Goldscheider 1987; Courgeau and Lelièvre 2006).

Nevertheless, the American singles and the childless cohabitants register the highest levels of mobility. Married parents have the lowest level of mobility closely followed by married couples without children (Geist and McManus 2008). Of the American population over the age of 15, between 2005 and 2010, the separated and the singles were the most mobile, with 51.6 and 44.2 per cent respectively moving between these years. Widowed individuals moved the least with 18.1 per cent (Ihrke and Faber 2012).

A lower mobility of families might be related to the fact that they have

‘settled down’ (Sandefur and Scott 1981). The ‘less-settled’ individuals move maybe more frequently as they are not attached and are more mobile on the labour market. That widowed individuals move less is related to assumption that for widowhood a move is not required, the individual can often remain in the same house, whereas for marriage and divorce moving to another place is often required (Speare and Goldscheider 1987).

1.3.2 Children and mobility

Fischer and Malmberg (2001) argue that the birth of children in Sweden does not have an effect of the intentions to migrate. However other research does show the connection between the arrival of children and residential moves.

Especially for the 25 to 44 year age group the changes in family structure are more important for a residential move, more than occupational factors (Détang-Dessendre et al. 2002). The arrival of a child is often seen a substantial change which leads to changes in housing preferences, needs and lifestyle (Kulu and Milewski 2007; Andersen 2011).

After marriage the arrival of a child in the family increases the chance of a residential move, even though couples and families with children show low mobility rates. This increased mobility is related to the fact that the family would like to adapt to the new size of the family (Kulu 2008). Especially from the middle of the pregnancy of the first child until a few months after the birth of the child the migration rate is high in Austria, after that it returns to very low levels.

The migration rates are considerably lower with the second and third pregnancies (Kulu 2008).

Moreover, a first birth is often related with a move to rural areas and the migration intention to move from the cities to rural areas increases with parity in Austria. However, second and third births seem to diminish the probability of moving to the rural areas, but the intensity of moving to urban areas decreases considerably too. Especially married couples have a high risk of moving from the urban to rural areas. Urban areas are in general considered not the best environment to raise children (Kulu 2008).

In France similar patterns are observed, it appears that a move towards the cities is less and less likely after successive births. Moving to rural areas is

positively related to the family size (Courgeau 1989; Détang-Dessendre et al.

2002). Research by Lindgren (2003) on Swedish counter-urban migration shows an opposite result; families with children are less likely to make a counter-urban move. It is the singles without children that more often make counter-urban moves. The counter-urban movers in Denmark however are more often families with children (Andersen 2011). It is also argued here that couples might perceive the arrival of a child as a good time to exchange the city for the countryside with a more pleasant environment. Yet, this is of course not the case for all families.

Among families, moves with children occur often when the children are young, so the cost of moving, both economic and psychological, is the lowest as possible, as with the growth of the family the costs grows (hence migration rates decline with the increase of family size). Especially when the children are in school going ages the changing of the daily activity spaces and the cutting of ties at the place of origin and need for the construction of new ties at the new destination is ‘costly’. Long distance job moves are therefore also lower in larges families (Sandefur and Scott 1981; Kulu and Milewski 2007; Green and Canny 2003).

Despite the cost of moving with children, the life course event of having children is a very important cause for residential moves related to both a change in housing as well as a change in environment. Often these moves remain within the same labour-market area or are moves from more urban areas to suburban or rural regions. Especially the need for more space and a nicer environment to raise children in is a very important reason for families with children to move (Kulu and Milewski 2007).

In addition, the arrival of children in the household might also provoke another type of migration. Migration is also increasingly related to intergenerational care; children moving to the area where their helpful parents live or inversely where grandparents move to be closer to grandchildren (Clark and Davies Withers 2007).

1.3.3 Work and mobility

Another aspect that influences the residential mobility is employment, especially the entry and exit to the labour market which has become much more volatile over the last decades (Clark and Davies Withers 2007; Geist and McManus 2008; Linneman and Graves 1983). However, residential moves as a result of occupational changes are considered less frequent than the ones related to family structure changes in most age groups, yet in the 15 to 24 age group they occur jointly (Détang-Dessendre et al. 2002). It also appears that it are often the males that indicate that a move is motivated by changes in employment (Bassand et al. 1985).

In the case where an individual changes from work place there appear two options, commuting over the new, longer or shorter, distance or moving.

This is also why often after a change in work place no move follows directly, an individual might first experience the new commuting distance, after which a move is still possible (Mulder and Hooimaijer 1999). Additionally, the individual might need some time to find a right new place to live as the characteristics of

the residential site also play a role alongside the job change (Linneman and Graves 1983).

Job security also plays a role. Individuals that study or have permanent jobs show lower intensities of migration (Kulu 2008; Courgeau 1985; Clark and Huang 2003). Between 2005 and 2010 47.5 per cent of the American unemployed moved, whereas only 37.2 per cent of the employed moved.

Especially individuals between the ages 18 to 29 are included in these movers as they are making the transitions from higher education to first jobs (Ihrke and Faber 2012).

Individuals with a higher level of education and higher incomes show higher spatial mobility. They are often more attached to their careers and might thus be more willing to move, also their jobs might be more geographically scattered than other type of jobs (Kulu 2008; Courgeau 1985; Clark and Huang 2003; Mulder and Hooimaijer 1999).

From previous studies it appears furthermore that moves which are related to work and education are over a longer distance (Kulu 2008; Courgeau and Lelièvre 2006). Clark and Davies Withers (2007) find in their research that in a third of the long-distance moves (moves between labour market areas in the United States) employment plays a role. The other long-distance movers indicate housing and unintended reasons for their move. For short-distance moves (within same county) only about 10 per cent of the people indicate employment reasons for the move.

The link between employment and education and the rural areas is not strong, which coincides with the fact that the labour market in rural areas does not offer many jobs for the highly skilled and educated. They therefore move to the urban areas, where there are more opportunities (Détang-Dessendre et al.

2002). This accounts too for the counter-urban areas, where the availability of jobs is also restricted and hence counter-urban moves are thus also less related to changes in job location (Andersen 2011). However, some places are very well located and provide all an individual needs which makes moving almost redundant. The young that live in rural or peri-urban areas not too far from cities are less likely to move. The presence of a large labour market close by as well as higher education institutes decreases the probability of migration (Détang-Dessendre et al. 2002).

1.3.4 Additional stimuli and hindrances to migration

The residential mobility might also be related the socio-economic position of the household; the socio-economic level might create opportunities and constrains.

Poor households seem to move more involuntary; they cannot afford to stay, whereas more affluent households are more easily pulled towards other locations due to job offers or transfers (Geist and McManus 2008). Here the age of the household members also plays a role, in general younger British households, move more. However, the households which contain older members, are well-off and contain a married couple are more likely to move (Clark and Huang 2003). That the individuals in higher social-classes move more is also related to their income, as a higher income increases the migration rate (Bassand et al. 1985).

Residential mobility differs also between people that have already moved before and home owners and people who rent. French individuals who had already moved once before the observation period (1982-1990) were more likely to move during the observation period. They might have fewer ties with residence between 2005 and 2010 compared to ¹/4 of owners (Ihrke and Faber 2012). Often the act of buying a home is related to the creation of a family; to establish a stable household (Kulu and Milewski 2007). The households have settled down now and hence the intention to move is low.

Many changes of residence might also be related to changes in life style (Andersen 2011; Champion 2001b). The demand for a more rural environment or less urbanised environment is observed in many countries.

Households search for a different and better quality housing and the opportunity to buy a house (climbing the housing ladder in areas with affordable housing), a nicer countryside environment, more space, a better place to raise children (as the parents themselves have grown up outside of the cities), a place to change their living conditions (social promotion (e.g. climbing the housing ladder)), an easier commute, health reasons and to find a better school district (Kulu 2008;

Geist and McManus 2008; Le Jeannic 1997a; Debroux 2011; Eggerickx and Capron 2001). Especially the quality of housing has gained in importance in the last decades (Clark and Huang 2003; Clark et al. 2000), as well as the dream of a rural idyll (Boyle and Halfacree 1998; as cited in Kulu 2008).

De Jong and Fawcett (1981; as cited in Mulder and Hooimaijer 1999:164-165) summarise the goals of migrants in the seven following categories. If one of these aspects is to be gained from a potential move it might trigger an actual move. On their list we find: “wealth (for instance having a high or stable income), status (ex. having a prestigious job, having power and influence), comfort (ex. living in a pleasant community, having comfortable housing); stimulation (ex. having fun and excitement, being able to meet a variety of people), autonomy (ex. being free to say and do what you want, having privacy), affiliation (ex. living near family, friends, being with (prospective) spouse), morality (ex. exposing children to good influences, living in a community with a favourable moral climate)”. If none of these goals can be fulfilled a move might be postponed.

In addition, the site and situation of the residential location play a role, according to Mulder and Hooimaijer (1999). The first aspect (site) refers to the characteristics and physical character of the place itself (e.g. the social composition and climate) as well as the characteristics of the dwelling. The situation aspect relates to the position of the place compared to other surrounding places, often expressed in kilometres or travel time. When both aspects are not satisfactory a move might be delayed.

Lastly, there are other aspects slowing down the decision of migration.

One of them is deciding when to move. Residential moves often involve the entire household (Raymer and Rogers 2006); hence which moment in time is the best for everyone in the family. For individuals that are very involved in the

local community or have many contacts in their place of residence with friends and family, the move might be much more disruptive than for individuals who are less involved and might therefore reconsider. Relocating away from for example elderly parents might incite people to look for solutions before the actual move (Green and Canny 2003). A move including school going children is slowed down as parents want to reduce the changes to a minimum by finding something in the same region or are trying to find a good new school first (Mulder and Wagner 1993). If a desired property is not found in the desired area a move might also be postponed until new attractive housing is constructed in the preferred area (Mulder and Hooimaijer 1999). When both partners are both looking for a new job or have just found a new job in different regions, a move might also be delayed in order to decide where to live (Andersen 2011). A move does really need to outweigh the all the type of costs and the new place of residence really needs to have a lot of benefits before an actual move will take place.

It is thus clear that migration is not a very frequent event and that the migration rate changes considerably from country to country. Yet, the migration rates by age can be considered quite similar for all countries: the 20 to 40 year old age group has the highest migration rates. This is not entirely odd, as at these ages also many life course changes occur. An investigation of the life course events and the residential mobility shows indeed that changes in for example marital

It is thus clear that migration is not a very frequent event and that the migration rate changes considerably from country to country. Yet, the migration rates by age can be considered quite similar for all countries: the 20 to 40 year old age group has the highest migration rates. This is not entirely odd, as at these ages also many life course changes occur. An investigation of the life course events and the residential mobility shows indeed that changes in for example marital