How often do australians move? alternative measures of population mobility

Abstract

Conventional census-based measures of population mobility are conceptually abstruse, ignore multiple moves and obscure the diversity of human migration experience. This paper explores three alternatives and outlines their strengths and limitations. Application of life table techniques to convert transition rates to migration expectancies generates measures that are more readily understood, automatically standardizes for age and enables the timing of mobility to be analysed methodically. Data on movement frequencies and residence duration provide new perspectives indicating substantial chronic mobility and significant differences between frequent movers and long term stayers. A number of simple summary statistics are proposed to supplement transition rates.The Australian census, like that in most countries, measures migration as a change in place of usual residence, or transition, between two points in time. For example, according to the 1986 Census, 16.7 per cent of Australians had changed address since 1985 and 41.2 per cent had moved since 1981 (Bell 1995). Transition rates of this type have a number of advantages: they offer a straightforward, unambiguous definition of migration; they permit comparison of mobility rates among different segments of the population; and they facilitate monitoring of the way mobility changes over time.Offsetting these benefits, however, are several limitations. One deficiency, widely recognized, is that repeat and return moves occurring within the observation interval are disregarded. The longer the observation period, the greater the number of moves that are missed and conventional five year mobility rates radically understate the true extent of mobility. Similarly, moves that took place before the start of the period are not recorded. These omissions are symptomatic of the fact that transition rates measured over a fixed interval reduce to a simple dichotomy (moved/did not move) a repetitive process in which most individuals participate at some time in their lives. The mobility continuum is partitioned into two discrete elements, movers and stayers, which are treated as homogeneous. This in turn obscures the considerable diversity of human population movement.A related deficiency is that the summary statistics commonly reported from fixed interval measures are conceptually abstruse. The proportion of people who change residence in a one or five year period has little meaning in terms of individual experience and this makes it difficult to explain clearly to non-specialists how often people move. The problems of interpretation are compounded when the observed rates for selected sub-populations or time periods are standardized to control for the effects of differing age structures. Yet without such standardization, apparent variations in mobility may be quite misleading.This paper explores three alternative approaches to measuring mobility that assist in overcoming these deficiencies. The first involves applying life table techniques to census data to calculate migration expectan...

Patterns of Temporary Mobility in Australia: Evidence from the 1991 Census

“…Usual residence, in turn, is defined as that address at which the person has lived (or intends to live) for six months or more (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1991). While this simple mover/stayer dichotomy has several advantages, it obscures a diverse array of other movements (Bell, 1996a). These range from local, diurnal activities such as shopping and commuting, to those involving longer distances and durations, such as holiday-making, business trips, seasonal work, and temporary absences from home for health care and education.…”

“…Research is needed not only to establish the broad structure of circular mobility, to isolate its various forms and describe its underlying dynamics, but to develop appropriate means of measuring and modelling the phenomenon. Progress in science relies on the interdependent development of theory, methods and data (Bell, 1996a). In the case of circular mobility, the formative work in each case remains to be done but, at the most fundamental level, it is the absence of suitable, reliable data that largely accounts for the embryonic state of the field.…”

Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration

“…At the 1996 Australian Census some 835 000 people, 4.7% of the resident population, were away from home. Australians display among the highest rates of permanent mobility in the world (Long 1991) and the intensity of temporary movement, measured in this way, is significantly lower than the 18% who change residence each year (Bell and Stratton 1998). However, while permanent mobility rates have remained remarkably stable over the past two decades, the Census points to a meteoric rise in temporary mobility.…”

“…DOI: 10.1080/146166800363466 the inner and middle suburbs to the metropolitan fringe (Bell 1995). The net result has been rapid population growth in near-city and attractive coastal destinations, especially on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and outmigration from inland regions, often leading to absolute population decline (Figure 3).…”

“…Migration losses from the interior reflect a long-standing deficit between job opportunities and population growth, exacerbated by successive rural crises, the decline of older industrial towns, and the withdrawal of public and private services under the guise of economic rationalism (Bell 1995). Temporary gains reflect a wider range of activities including tourism and seasonal work but one important component is the growth of long distance commuting as a substitute for the establishment of permanent mining settlements (Houghton 1993).…”