A longitudinal analysis of moving desires, expectations and actual moving behaviour Rory Coulter, Maarten van Ham & Peteke Feijten 23 rd ENHR Conference Toulouse, 7th July 2011
Outline • Introduction and motivation • Context, aims and hypotheses • Data and methods • Results and analysis • Conclusions
Introduction • Mobility is a very important social process • UK- 10.3% individuals move per year (Bailey and Livingston, 2007) • Important for households and the economy-moves produce the urban mosaic (Clark and Ledwith, 2006) • Moving is both a temporal and a spatial process • To understand this process we can‟t just study movers (Kan, 1999) • Need to link „thoughts about moving‟ to subsequent actual behaviour • Desires, intentions, plans, expectations etc…
Motivation • Focus on linking moving desires and expectations to subsequent moving behaviour • Conceptually distinct, but sometimes used interchangeably • This will enable us to… 1. Develop our understanding of who desires or expects to move 2. Uncover groups neglected in the literature • „Frustrated stayers‟ and „undesired movers‟ • Policy relevance • potential negative effects of an inability to move when this is desired (eg. for satisfaction, wellbeing)
Context Dissatisfaction Desire to move Expect to move Actual move • Lots of research investigates… 1. The pre-move stages 2. Actual moving behaviour • Recent literature has begun to address this gap • Linking desires (Buck, 2000), intentions (de Groot et al, 2011), expectations (Kan, 1999) to actual moves
Context • However-so far studies have only linked one thought to subsequent behaviour • It may be important to consider whether these thoughts are held in distinct combinations No expectation Expectation No desire Fulfilled stayer Reluctant anticipator Desire Wishful thinker Wishful anticipator
Aims and hypotheses Research aims 1. To develop our understanding of moving desires and expectations, separately and in combinations 2. To investigate how different desire-expectation combinations are linked to subsequent moving behaviour Working hypotheses 1. Moving desires and expectations are distinct „pre - move thoughts‟ 2. Desires and expectations can be held in combinations 3. The likelihood of realising a moving desire is dependent upon whether an expectation is also expressed (& vice versa)
Data and methods • Use British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) • 1998-2006 waves • Useful data source for two key reasons 1. Records desires, expectations and moves each year 2. Low attrition rate (relatively few people drop out each year) • Selected 1 individual per household and tracked them over time • Left 63,083 observations provided by 14,506 respondents (ie. each respondent was contacted on average 4.3 times)
Data and methods • Moving defined as change of address t to t+1 • Large number of independent variables • Values are lagged for analysis of moves t to t+1 • Also constructed transition variables-measuring life events by comparing values over consecutive waves • Eg. childbirth, union formation and dissolution, becoming unemployed
Descriptive results Respondent‟s desire -expectation combination (wave t) No desire or Desire, no No desire, Desire and Total N expectation expectation expectation expectation Housing satisfaction (%) Satisfied 76.12 16.20 3.33 4.35 48,871 Dissatisfied 37.77 38.94 3.90 19.39 14,212 Liking the neighbourhood (%) Likes 72.04 18.27 3.68 6.00 58,673 Dislikes 6.83 61.86 0.43 30.88 4,410 Total N 42,569 13,450 2,181 4,883 63,083 Total % 67.48 21.32 3.46 7.74 100.00
Descriptive results Respondent‟s actual moving behaviour between t and t+1 Respondent‟s desire - Stayer Mover Total N expectation category at wave t (%) No desire or expectation 95.62 4.38 42,569 Desire but no expectation 92.00 8.00 13,450 No desire but expectation 51.90 48.10 2,181 Desire and expectation 45.14 54.86 4,883 Total % 89.43 10.57 100.00 Total N 56,414 6,669 63,083
Multivariate results Coefficient -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Note that Age Partner status t to t+1 (ref=remained couple) extra control Remained single variables are Formed partnership not shown Partnership dissolution/termination N. children t to t+1 (ref=remained without children) here Children-same number Increased number of children Decreased number of children Emp. status t to t+1 (ref=remained emp.) Remained unemployed Remained outside labour force Entered employment Entered unemployment Exited labour force Household income (£10,000) Housing tenure(ref=homeowner) Social renter Private renter Dissatisfied with dwelling Dislike neighbourhood
Multivariate results Coefficient -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Note that Desire-expectation (ref=no Des or Exp) Desire but no expectation extra control Expectation but no desire Desire and expectation variables Age are not Partner status t to t+1 Remained single shown here Formed partnership Partnership dissolution/termination N. children t to t+1 Children-same number Increased number of children Decreased number of children Emp. status t to t+1 Remained unemployed Remained outside labour force Entered employment Entered unemployment Exited labour force Household income (£10,000) Housing tenure Social renter Private renter Dissatisfied with dwelling Dislike neighbourhood
Conclusions 1. Desires and expectations are distinct thoughts about moving • Desires more closely linked to dissatisfaction, while life events have a stronger link to expectations 2. Desires and expectations seem to be held in combinations • Considerable heterogeneity amongst those who desire to move 3. Combinations are associated with moving propensity • Desires are only likely to be realised if accompanied by an expectation
Contributions 1.Conceptually valuable • Analysing combinations may help us to understand how moving is a response to both dissatisfaction and life events (such as childbirth, partnership changes etc) 2.Empirical relevance • Combinations reveal within group heterogeneity • May enable us to model moving more precisely 3.Importance for policy • Moving desires are often unfulfilled
References Bailey N, Livingston M, 2007 Population turnover and area deprivation (Policy Press, Bristol) Buck N, 2000, “Using panel surveys to study migration and residential mobility”, in Researching Social and Economic Change: The Uses of Household Panel Studies Ed. D Rose (Routledge, London) pp 250-272 Clark W A V, Ledwith V, 2006, “Mobility, housing stress, and neighborhood contexts: evidence from Los Angeles” Environment and Planning A 38 1077-1093 De Groot C, Mulder C H, Das M, Manting D, 2011, “Life events and the gap between intention to move and actual mobility” Environment and Planning A 43 48-66 Kan K, 1999, “Expected and unexpected residential mobility” Journal of Urban Economics 45 72-96
Recommend
More recommend
