Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples

In this paper the authors describe the application of spatial choice models to microlevel intermetropolitan migration destination choice data from the US Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) for the period 1985–90. The metropolitan and the microlevel data facilitate an analysis incorporating well-defined geographic units and their respective attributes, as well as an analysis disaggregated by the personal factors of migrants. The PUMS files provide one of the richest sources of national-level migration micro data in terms of geographic resolution, the number of individual or household characteristics recorded, sample size, and availability. The focus of the modelling exercise is to examine the performance of competing-destinations migration models which are based on the assumption that migrants process spatial information hierarchically. To date the only empirical testing of such models has been undertaken with aggregate spatial flow data, so the PUMS data provide a unique opportunity to examine the behaviour of the competing destinations framework in more detail. The authors provide information on the determinants of intermetropolitan migration within the USA and on the validity of the theoretical foundations of the competing-destinations framework. Traditional spatial choice models are shown to be severely misspecified and the distance-decay parameter estimates from such models to be potentially biased in such a manner that they exhibit the well-known ‘spatial structure’ effect. This effect does not appear when the parameters are estimated from competing-destinations models.

[1]  P. Nijkamp,et al.  From static towards dynamic discrete choice modelling , 1987 .

[2]  Neil Wrigley,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis for Geographers and Environmental Scientists , 1985 .

[3]  Kao-Lee Liaw,et al.  Nested logit model and maximum quasi-likelihood method: a flexible methodology for analyzing interregional migration patterns. , 1987, Regional science and urban economics.

[4]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[5]  Mark Ferguson,et al.  DISCRETE SPATIAL CHOICE MODELS FOR AGGREGATE DESTINATIONS , 1996 .

[6]  A. Stewart Fotheringham,et al.  Encoding Spatial Information: The Evidence for Hierarchical Processing , 1992, Spatio-Temporal Reasoning.

[7]  R. Morrill.  Age-specific migration and regional diversity. , 1994, Environment & planning A.

[8]  Manfred M. Fischer,et al.  From static towards dynamic discrete choice modelling : a state of the art review , 1987 .

[9]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1987 .

[10]  Peter H. Rossi,et al.  Why Families Move , 1956 .

[11]  Y Y Papageorgiou,et al.  An Analysis of Migratory Systems: 1. Theory , 1986, Environment & planning A.

[12]  G. Myrdal.  Economic theory and underdeveloped regions , 1965 .

[13]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[14]  A. Karlqvist,et al.  Spatial interaction theory and planning models , 1978 .

[15]  McDonough,et al.  Places Rated Almanac: Your Guide to Finding the Best Places to Live in America , 1989 .

[16]  A. Fotheringham,et al.  Modelling Hierarchical Destination Choice , 1986 .

[17]  John Stillwell,et al.  Migration models: macro and micro approaches. , 1992 .

[18]  James A. Pooler,et al.  An extended family of spatial interaction models , 1994 .

[19]  G. Mulligan,et al.  Labor Migration Amongst Hierarchically Competing and Intervening Origins and Destinations , 1992, Environment & planning A.

[20]  K. Newbold,et al.  Return and onward migrations in Canada, 1976-1981: an explanation based on personal and ecological variables. , 1995, The Canadian geographer. Geographe canadien.

[21]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

[22]  Y Ishikawa.  An Empirical Study of the Competing Destinations Model Using Japanese Interaction Data , 1987 .

[23]  Morton E. O'Kelly,et al.  Spatial Interaction Models:Formulations and Applications , 1988 .

[24]  Jean-Claude Thill,et al.  Choice set formation for destination choice modelling , 1992 .

[25]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations † , 1983 .

[26]  Microdata for migration analysis: A comparison of sources in the US, Britain and Canada , 1996 .

[27]  L. Long,et al.  Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States , 1988 .

[28]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Choice model specification, substitution and spatial structure effects: A simulation experiment , 1987 .

[29]  D. Gf,et al.  Migration decision making: multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries. , 1983 .

[30]  Robert W. Gardner,et al.  1 – Introduction and Overview , 1981 .

[31]  R. Paul Shaw.  Intermetropolitan migration in Canada: Changing determinants over three decades , 1985 .

[32]  H. Kawabe,et al.  The dependence of marriage migrations in Japan on personal factors and ecological variables. , 1994, Mathematical population studies.

[33]  Gordon F. Mulligan,et al.  Spatial Flows and Competing Central Places: Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Interaction , 1990 .

[34]  A. Curtis,et al.  Large-scale information surfaces: an analysis of city-name recalls in the United States , 1995 .

[35]  Angelika Eymann.  Consumers' Spatial Choice Behavior , 1995 .

[36]  P. Kanaroglou,et al.  METROPOLITAN OUTMIGRATION PATTERN OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE ENTRANTS, 1971–76 , 1986 .

[37]  L. Sjaastad.  The Costs and Returns of Human Migration , 1962 .

[38]  S. Fotheringham,et al.  The Impact of Space on the Application Of Discrete Choice Models , 1990 .

[39]  A. Fotheringham.  SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND DISTANCE‐DECAY PARAMETERS , 1981, Annals of the Association of American Geographers.