Distinguishing city and Suburban Movers: Evidence from the American housing survey

Abstract

A significant amount of research has concentrated on the process of urban decentralization. Resulting patterns of urban development have far-reaching effects on land use, transportation, regional fiscal structure, public services and facilities, economic development, and social equity. Because planning policies are being developed to attempt to revitalize the urban core, it is important to know which households may be deciding to relocate to the central cities and why.A discriminant analysis is used to explore the similarities and differences among movers to central cities and suburban locations drawn from metropolitan samples of the 1989 through 1991 American Housing Survey. The analysis compares the reasons for relocation, demographic differences, and metropolitan characteristics between central-city-tosuburb movers and suburb-to-central-city movers. The results indicate that these two groups are very similar in some respects and that some metropolitan-area characteristics may play a role in urban residential decentralization patterns.

Community life as a motive for migration from the urban center to the rural periphery in Israel

“…Personal features (such as age, education, and family status), socioeconomic factors, lifestyle considerations, environmental, and professional factors and community attitudes also weigh heavily when choosing a new residence (Sanchez & Dawkins, 2001). Today's postmodern theories of the ''cultural turn'' trend also incorporate into the migration motives socially constructed cultural and symbolic meanings and moral values regarding the expected life in the destination place, and consider them against or with the material and economic motives (Cloke, 2006;Panelli, 2006).…”

¿Seleccionan las ciudades a su población? Tendencias de selectividad residencial en las cabeceras metropolitanas andaluzas

“…A este respecto cabe destacar tres trabajos (Ford y Champion, 2000;Sánchez y Dawkins, 2001;López-Gay y Recaño, 2008).…”

“…En el segundo trabajo (Sánchez y Dawkins, 2001), a través de un análisis discriminante, diferencian los suburbanitas de los centralizadores en el contexto de Estados Unidos, llegando a conclusiones similares a las de Ford y Champion en lo que respecta a las características demográficas. No obstante, no encuentran evidencias de que los centralizadores sean de un perfil socio-econó-mico superior que los suburbanitas.…”

What Foreclosed Homes Should a Municipality Purchase to Stabilize Vulnerable Neighborhoods?

“…Similar to other populations, lower-income residents desire the absence of negative factors such as high crime (Bartik et al 1992) and pollution (Altschuler et al 2004) as well as the presence of positive factors such as high-quality schools (Bartik et al 1992). Proximity to employment (Sanchez and Dawkins 2001), economically vital downtowns (Herbert and Belsky 2008), and supermarkets with fresh foods (Altschuler et al 2004) are also attractive amenities for low-income dwellers. We find that rich social networks and neighborhoods that encourage social integration are particularly valued by lower-income residents.…”

“…We find that rich social networks and neighborhoods that encourage social integration are particularly valued by lower-income residents. These aspects may take a variety of forms: proximity to higher income populations (Hulse and Burke 2000), convenience to friends (Sanchez and Dawkins 2001), links to city hall (Altschuler et al 2004), and proximity to similar cultural, racial or linguistic communities (Ioannides and Zabel 2008). However, certain attributes such as proximity to municipal services (Sanchez and Dawkins 2001) and open space (Altschuler et al 2004) are, surprisingly, not particularly important to lower-income families.…”