A lifecourse perspectiveon Urban - Rural migration:
The importance of the local context
Aileen Stockdale1and Gemma Catney2
1(Corresponding author) School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, BT9 5AG
2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZT
Abstract
The relationship between migration and age has long been established and most recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a lifecourse perspective to migration research. In this paper, we explore Northern Ireland's internal migration patterns and in particular we test for the importance of urban to rural migration at different stages of the lifecourse. Data from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) is used for the first time to analyse Urban-Rural migration patterns. The resulting modelling demonstrates unique aspects of urban to rural migration within Northern Ireland, which up until now have gone largely unreported.
Results from logistic regression modelling suggest that there is an age-selectivity to Urban-Rural mobility, but not necessarily at the lifecourse stages predicted from a review of the lifecourse migration literature. Individuals in younger age groups (at the household and family formation stages of the lifecourse) are most likely to make an urban to rural move in Northern Ireland. Indeed the likelihood of such a move declines with each subsequent age cohort, and specifically those aged 50-64 are 27per cent less likely to make such a move than those in their thirties. Possible explanations are offered linked to Northern Ireland's settlement hierarchy, rural planning policy and family farming traditions. The findings challenge researchers to pay due attention to how migration processes may play out differently in varying geographical, social and planning contexts and emphasise the importance of structural factors to explain migration patterns.
Key words: Lifecourse, Urban to rural migration, Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS)
Introduction
There is an established literature on lifecourse migration which acknowledges an increased likelihood of moving, and moving to an urban or rural destination, at particular stages of an individual's life (de Groot et al., 2011; Geist and McManus, 2008; Millington, 2000; Mulder, 2007). For example, the likelihood of moving to a rural destination is generally perceived to increase around mid-life and retirement (Bures, 1997; Hardill, 2006; Lundholm, 2010). In this paper we test the recognised relationships between age (as a proxy for lifecourse stage) and urban to rural migration flows in Northern Ireland and, in doing so, we highlight the (often under-acknowledged) importance of local structural factors as an explanatory migration variable. Researchers need to acknowledge that established migration trends and processes may not always ‘apply’ to all regions and localities. Assuming that ‘one size fits all’ may overlook the potential significance of the local context and with it the geography of migration.
Migration research has shown a growing interest in the effects of specific lifecourse factors, such as education, employment, family and housing careers, to explain migration flows and associated decision-making. Considerably less attention has been devoted to more structural influences such as the connections between population movements and spatial planning (Gkartzios and Scott, 2009) orthat suchinfluences may impact differently at varying stages of the lifecourse. The dominant narrative has reinforced established relationships and trends and failed to capture or seek to understand exceptions or deviations from a supposed normal relationship. ‘Geography’is too easily omitted from lifecourse migration studies. In this paper we seek to 'put the geography back' into such research with specific reference to the settlement pattern and nature of the spatial economy in Northern Ireland. We argue that these represent powerful influences on lifecourse migration patterns and demonstrate the existence of a unique ‘Northern Ireland effect’.
The paper is structured into five parts. First, we recap briefly on the migration literature to highlight the established relationship(s) between migration and age/ lifecourse. From this, we formulate a research question to test using data from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS). The inclusion of health card registration data in the NILS, and therefore information on changes of address means that the dataset is a potentially invaluable data source for migration research; in the second part of the paper we report on the NILS and explain our data analysis. Third, we present our findings, before offering possible (Northern Ireland-specific) explanations for urban to rural migration patterns across the lifecourse. Finally, we conclude by arguing that migration research should give due attention to varying geographical contexts.
The relationship between migration and age/ lifecourse stage
The extent to which a person (or household) is likely to move, and their likelihood of moving to an urban or rural environment, depends on the residential preferences of that individual (or household) within a choice set that is determined by financial resources, restrictions (such as the distance to work or family ties), the opportunities and constraints at the preferred destination (such as the availability of housing and employment) and prior experience of particular residential environments (Feijten et al., 2008). The likelihood of moving (and the choice of residential environment) also varies by age or stage in the lifecourse and the age-specific migration schedule is well-known(Rossi, 1955; Fischer and Malmberg, 2001; Michielin and Mulder, 2008). ‘[D]emographic changes underlie much of the logic of residential mobility’ (Clark and Huang, 2003: 335), with Kley and Mulder (2010: 90) demonstrating that 'migration decision-making is mainly driven by life-course events and by perceived opportunities in several life domains'.
Numerous demographic or lifecourse triggers for migration have been reported in the literature. The transitions from school to tertiary education and/ or employment, for example, are identified as important among young adults (Kley and Mulder, 2010), while residential moves associated with union formation (and dissolution), childbirth, and changes in employment are reported by de Groot et al. (2011). In later life, too, migration is often associated with specific life events such as retirement (Warnes, 1992a; King et al., 2000), widowhood, and increasing frailty (Chevan, 1995). Indeed,it is recognised that migration per se‘involves a complex interplay between age, family status and the timing of life events’ (Geist and McManus, 2008: 302), with the anticipation or expectation of particular lifecourse events (for example, family formation or retirement) also found to influence migration decisions and behaviours (Kulu, 2008; Michielin and Mulder, 2008; Stockdale, 2006).
However, it is not only the likelihood of moving that varies by age or lifecourse stage but, linked to this, so too do migrantmotivations and, accordingly, the direction of migration from and to urban and rural areas. In relation to migrant motivations, Millington (2000: 521) assertsthat ‘… the power of labour market stimuli is found to decline with migrant age whilst the relative importance of amenity and housing effects shows a corresponding increase’. This helps to explain the dominant direction of migration between urban and rural areas over the lifecourse and, accordingly, thedominant migration processes operating in urban and rural areas. Young adult out-migration commonly characterises rural areas (Stockdale, 2002) and corresponds to young adult in-migration to urban centres possessing tertiary education and/ or employment opportunities. Actual or anticipated changes during early adulthood in employment, marriage/cohabitation, and starting a family further enhance the likelihood of moving between urban areas, within a specific urban area (for example, from a city centre location to the suburbs) or from urban to rural areas (Clark and Huang, 2003; Kulu, 2008; van Ham et al., 2001). With age, and subsequent stages of the lifecourse, employment considerations (most likely to focus on an urban environment) become less influential as a factor in the choice of residential environment. This is likely to be most pronounced at or around retirement and, as such, older age cohorts may be most likely to move from urban centres towards more rural destinations. The counterurbanisation trend of the last forty years would seem to bear testimony to this, characterised as it has been by middle-aged or older age groups(Dean et al., 1984; Rees, 2003; Hardill, 2006).
At this age or stage of the lifecourse, labour market stimuli which dominate at earlier lifecourse stages (and younger ages) are likely to be less important and reduce the need to live close to the workplace and therefore near to or within urban employment centres. Similarly, this stage will also often correspond to an ‘empty nest’ stage, when any children will have reached adulthood and personal independence from their parents. According to Bures (2009: 846) there is an ‘increased risk of long-distance mobility as the age of the youngest child at home increases’ and Wulff et al. (2010) calculate that empty nest status confers a 13 per cent point mobility premium compared with couples that still have children living at home. This mid-life transition can often prompt a change of address and lead to the realisation of an aspiration for ‘a place in the country’ (Hardill, 2006). Moreover, traditional retirement migration has favoured amenity (coastal and rural) destinations (Warnes, 1992a) with Bures (1997) and Stockdale (2006) finding that the pre-retirement aged cohort (those in their fifties and early sixties), in the US and UK respectively, shared the residential preferences of the post-retirement age cohort for less populous and amenity-rich areas. This raises the prospect of a retirement transition(Hayward et al., 1994)lifecourse stage (commonly defined as aged 50-64 years) when the expectation of retirement acts as a catalyst for change, including a change in residential preferences. Informed by the counterurbanisation and retirement migration literature, one might expect retirement transitionmigrants to display a greater likelihood of moving to a rural destination compared to those at earlier stages (or younger ages) of the lifecourse. Research in Sweden,for example, has demonstrated that migration by the over 55s is orientated towards rural areas (Lundholm, 2010).
Inevitably, the relationships between migration and age/ lifecourse stage are much more complex than to be reducible to pattern norms. Human behaviour in response to recognised migration triggers is often less predictable and may display geographical variations influenced by local cultures and contexts, and the state of the national and local employment and housing markets. In other words, structural factors will influence migration patterns. First, and an example of the complex interactions between lifecourse events and traditional migration flows, while the general ‘pull’ towards urban centres may be thought to dominate among young adults, primarily for employment considerations, Kulu (2008) and Lindgren (2003), in their Austrian and Swedish studies respectively, demonstrate that first conception significantly increases the likelihood of moving to a rural or small town destination, and that the likelihood of leaving large cities for rural areas increases with the birth of a second and third child. It is not only at the empty-nest, retirement transition or post-retirement lifecourse stages that a rural destination is more likely: an increase in family size among young adults, for some, may trigger migrations that lead to a more pleasant residential environment in the countryside in which to bring up children.
Second, although the literature points to clear relationships between migration and lifecourse events, and in turn a relationship between lifecourse events and preferred residential environments, one important enabling factor should not be overlooked – that of housing. Changes in the household composition, often brought on by lifecourse events, may raise the need to adapt the housing situation to the new needs of the individual or household (Feijten and Mulder, 2002). Mulder and Lauster (2010: 434) recognise ‘[h]ousing serves as the context for family events and families serve as the context for housing events’. Indeed it is often difficult to disentangle family events from housing events and from related migration events. Lifecourse events such as leaving the parental home, marriage or cohabitation (and dissolution of a union), childbirth, empty nest, retirement, the onset of ill health and widowhood all are likely to possess important housing dimensions. Examples reported in the literature include: high local house prices may delay the likelihood of leaving the parental home (Mulder and Clark, 2000); starting a family is commonly associated with a move into an owner-occupied or single family home (Feijten and Mulder, 2002); and union dissolution may lead to a move out of home ownership by at least one of the partners (Feijten, 2005; Feijten and von Ham, 2010). Access to housing and the nature of the housing market at the location of origin and preferred destination are therefore likely to be important determinants inthe likelihood of moving and the choice of residential environment. Linked to this is the important role of parents in providing resources to help adult children achieve better housing (Smits and Michielin, 2010). Direct and indirect financial transfers by parents to their adult children are noted as important in helping young adults attain home ownership in the Netherlands by Helderman and Mulder (2007), with Mulder (2007)calling for more research into the importance of family to residential choice. Such financial gifts are likely to be most important during a period of rising property prices. The home-owning parents of young adults are likely to possess considerable housing equity at the same time as their housing costs have declined: they may already own their home outright or possess only a small mortgage.
Third, family and/or housing norms will be important. In Italy, for example, Barban and Dalla-Zuanna (2010) note that it is common for newly-weds to live less than 1 km from the parental home of the husband, wife or both. This characteristic, according to Finch (1989), distinguishes southern Europe from other countries. However, in the Netherlands too Helderman and Mulder (2007) report that people often live in close proximity to their parents and ‘if people live closer to homeowning parents, the probability that they are also homeowners is greater’ (p.234). Such intergenerational transmission of home-ownership may be affected by other parental characteristics(for example, socioeconomic status) or children aspiring to attain the same housing tenure as their parents.
Fourth, all these relationships and influences operate within a national, regional, local and individual economic context. Clark and Huang (2003) demonstrate lifecourse and mobility relationship differences between the London housing market and the rest of the United Kingdom: ‘Although the dynamics underlying preference to move are more or less the same across housing markets, local contextual effects are thus important in determining the observed mobility’ (p.335). Similarly, Feijten and Mulder (2002) acknowledge the important role of macro and micro economics. Economic growth (or decline) in a country will influence the nature of its housing market, its housing stock and the average price of owner-occupied homes. Such growth (or decline) will also contribute to spatial variations within the country. At the micro level, the individual's or household's economic resources will either restrict or facilitate the realisation of residential aspirations and, accordingly, affect lifecourse migration.
Fifth, the local geography, and in particular its settlement pattern and the nature of its spatial economy, is likely to also affect migration patterns. Few migration studies directly acknowledge this potential planning role. Recent exceptions include Shucksmith (2011) who reports on the role of planners and planning as agents in the process of spatial exclusion. For example, since the 1940s planning in England and Wales has given the greatest priority to urban containment: ‘… a planned scarcity of [rural] housing duly emerged’ (Newby, 1985: 220). This has directly shaped the housing market, especially the rural housing market, and accordingly has been a powerful influence on migration between urban and rural areas. These important connections have also been recently reported in Ireland. ‘[R]esidential mobility reflects not only a range of consumer motivations but also results in diverse processes of settlement change underpinned by local planning policies and housing markets’ (Gkartzios and Scott, 2010: 80). What is absent from these studiesis how planning, including the settlement pattern and spatial economy of an area, may impact differently on residential decision-making and associated migration patterns at varying stages of the lifecourse.
This brief overview of the migration literature suggests that residential decision-making and preferences are, at least in part, variable at different ages and accordingly at different stages of the lifecourse, and that the relationship between migration and lifecourse stages is influenced by the interaction of numerous factors. These factors, and their interactions, will notbe identical or of similar relative importance through time or over space. In other words, the recognised relationship between migration and lifecourse stages ignores the geography of migration. The key question addressed in this paper is: ‘does the likelihood of making an urban to rural move within Northern Ireland vary by stage in the lifecourse?’ In addition, and in contrast to other studies, we seek to explain the observed, and possibly unexpected, relationship between migration and lifecourse stages with reference to unique interactions (at least unique within a UK context) between the Northern Ireland housing market, urban settlement hierarchy, local rural planning context and, in relation to young adults specifically, the role of parental resources. Collectively, these factors introduce an increasedcomplexity to the recognised relationship between lifecourse stage, migration and choice of destinationand demonstrate the importance of geographies of migration.