W02 – Migration, Residential Mobility and Housing Policy
Intentions to move and actual moving behaviour in the Netherlands
Carola de Groot
[email protected] Dorien Manting
[email protected] Clara H. Mulder
[email protected]
ENHR 2007 International Conference ‘Sustainable Urban Areas’
Intentions to move and actual moving behaviour in the Netherlands
Carola de Groot*, Dorien Manting* & Clara H. Mulder**
*Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research PO Box 30314, 2500 GH The Hague, The Netherlands E-mail:
[email protected],
[email protected]
**University of Amsterdam Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands E-mail:
[email protected]
Keywords: moving intentions; mobility; demography.
Abstract This study seeks to gain insight into the determinants that play a role in the link between the intention to move and actual moving behaviour. We describe the extent to which those people in the Netherlands who expressed an intention to move in 2002/2003 actually moved in two years time. Moreover, we examine how individual, household, housing and regional characteristics hamper or stimulate relocation behaviour of people who intend to move. Using a newly created longitudinal data set, in which survey data from the Housing Demand Survey
1
2002 are combined with register data from the so-called Spatial and Social Mobility Satellite 1999-2005 of the Social Statistical Database of Statistics Netherlands, we find that only one third of individuals expressing an intention to move actually moved within the two years thereafter. Current and expected household and housing characteristics influence the realization of intentions to move, as does the strength of the intention to move. Regional characteristics also play a significant role in the degree to which moving intentions are realized.
1 Introduction
Before a household moves, it has been involved in a more or less lengthy decision process, starting with the moment one decides to move. Individuals may want to move in response to changes in their household situation, their socio-economic situation and/or changes in their neighbourhood or local environment. Some will fulfil their wish, but others will postpone or even put off the move. It is possible that during the search process, an individual or household cannot find a suitable or affordable dwelling. In that case, an alternative for moving is to stay in the present dwelling (Dieleman, 2001). Putting off a plan to move might also be associated with making adjustments to the current home in order to meet one’s new requirements (Deane, 1990). All in all, at the end of the mobility decision process, a discrepancy may thus arise between the initial intention to move and the actual moving behaviour. The mobility decision process underlying potential moves is usually studied using information on either moving intentions (stated preference research) or actual moving behaviour (revealed preference research). Research in which both kinds of data are being analysed simultaneously is relatively scarce, probably because this type of data is difficult to collect. Yet, the value of research analysing combined stated and revealed preference data is
2
obvious, because it allows for a much better assessment of the relative roles of preferences on the one hand, and resources, restrictions and housing opportunities on the other. The few previous studies of this type indeed provided important new insights into mobility behaviour (Rossi, 1955; Duncan & Newman, 1976; Landale & Guest, 1985; Van Kempen et al., 1990; Goetgeluk, 1997; Kan, 1999; Lu, 1998; Fang, 2006). All these studies show a great discrepancy between intentions and behaviour. However, the size of the discrepancy differs considerably between these studies. The variation in the discrepancy is probably partly caused by the fact that these studies were carried out in different locations and are usually restricted to just a few specific towns or regions (for the Netherlands: Konter & Van den Booren, 1988; Van Kempen et al., 1990; Goetgeluk, 1997). As far as we know, there are just a few studies in which the influence of location is studied using large–scale samples covering the population of one or two countries (for example Moore, 1986, for the United States and Canada; Lu, 1998, for the United States). Both these North American studies but also earlier studies for the Netherlands (Konter & Van den Booren, 1988; Van Kempen et al., 1990) suggested that the degree to which people realize their moving intentions varies substantially by town or region. Several studies further showed that socio-demographic, socio-economic and housing characteristics like age and gender (Lu, 1999), ethnicity (Kan, 1999; Lu, 1998), income (Moore, 1986; Van Kempen et al., 1990; Lu, 1998), housing tenure (Moore, 1986; Van Kempen et al., 1990; Lu, 1998) and crowding (Duncan & Newman, 1976) influence the extent to which wishes to move come true. In this paper, we address the question: To what extent do the characteristics of the intention to move, resources, restrictions and the availability of moving opportunities play a role in the realization of an intention to move? To answer this question, we employ logistic regression models of the actual mobility of those with moving intentions, using a unique longitudinal data set in which moving intentions are
3
derived from the 2002 Housing Demand Survey (HDS) and information about actual moves of HDS respondents is derived from the Netherlands population register.
2 Theoretical background
The existence of a trigger or motive for moving is a necessary condition for a move to take place. According to the life course approach, triggers for moving arise from one of the various life course trajectories (Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999). Life events - like cohabiting and getting children - alter preferences and needs with respect to housing, thereby triggering residential moves. The majority of moves are related to the life course trajectories of housing, household, education and work. However, the existence of a trigger or motive for moving is not a sufficient condition for a move to take place (Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999). Resources and restrictions (the personal or micro context) and opportunities and constraints within the housing market (the social or macro context) influence the realization of intentions to move and specific housing preferences. Actual behaviour arises from the interaction between the motives for moving, housing preferences, resources and restrictions on the one hand and the opportunities and constraints within the housing market on the other hand (Hooimeijer & Oskamp, 1996). Kan (1999), studying the process from moving intentions to relocation behaviour longitudinally, showed that factors that make people wish to move do not automatically influence the move among those with an intention to move similarly. For instance, a job change made people more willing to move but made them less likely to actually relocate subsequently (Kan, 1999). He also showed that even though an increase in disposable income lowers the likelihood of expectations to move, it does not have a significant effect on the likelihood of moving for those who expects to move. Kan´s study makes clear that when one
4
seeks to understand the discrepancy between intention and actual move, one cannot automatically hypothesize that the same determinants that deter mobility in the general population also deter mobility among those with an intention to move. This is important to realise hereafter, because it implies that well known relationships, such as between homeownership and low geographical mobility, do not necessarily apply for the process studied here.
2.1 The influence of triggers for moving The trigger or motive for moving has a considerable influence on the intensity with which people search for a new home (Hooimeijer & Oskamp, 1996). It is quite likely that those with an urgent need to find another home will realize their intentions to a greater degree than those with a weak need to move. So, first of all, we expect those who express an urgent need to move will move more frequently than those who express a less urgent need. Furthermore, motives for moving related to the household, education and working career are considered to be more urgent than motives for moving related to the housing career (see for an overview Goetgeluk, 1997). So, it is likely that the extent to which people translate intentions to move into actual moves differs with the motives for moving. Goetgeluk (1997) indeed found that housing-related motives for moving lead to a smaller probability to move compared to motives related to such events as cohabiting and starting a new job. But, also using longitudinal data, Duncan and Newman (1976) found no differences in behaviour for those who wanted to move because of educational and work reasons and those who want to move because of housing reasons. One of the main triggers for moving is a change in household position. Family formation may form an urgent trigger for moving, and so will the wish to marry, cohabit or divorce. At the same time, the current household position may influence the realization of moving intentions
5
because of differences in resources. Generally, singles will have fewer resources than couples because they cannot pool their incomes. A previous study for the Netherlands indeed revealed that singles searching for a new home did not find one as fast as did families (Van Kempen et al., 1990). Alternatively, the household situation may influence the probability of moving of those who intend to move just as it does in the general population: the choice to relocate is easier for singles than for multi-person households because they do not have to take anyone else’s daily activity spaces and preferences into account (Mulder, 1993; Feijten, 2005). We expect an influence of expected changes in household composition in combination with the current household composition. We think that singles will have more difficulty in finding a new home, but we also expect singles intending to form a multi person household to move more frequently than singles who expect to remain single after the move, not only because their need to move is more urgent but also because of the opportunity to pool resources after the move. Just like household-related moves, also productive related reasons (job-related or educationrelated) moves are considered to influence the realization of moving intentions (see for example Duncan & Newman, 1976; Goetgeluk, 1997). We expect that those who want to move because of work or study related reasons move more frequently than those who have other reasons for moving. Another trigger for moving is linked to the housing career. An important aspect of the current housing situation is the amount of space relative to the number of household members. Too little space is an important reason to decide upon moving. Earlier studies showed that the amount of space available to a household is an important determinant of household mobility: people who live in crowded homes move more frequently than persons living in less crowded, or spacious homes (Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Clark et al., 2000). Duncan and Newman (1976) found that crowding seemed to be a significant push factor for families expecting to move
6
because of housing reasons; living in a spacious dwelling, however, had little effect. We expect that the less space available to a household, the more individuals with an intention to move will move. A preferred change in housing tenure is another indication of the urgency of a move. Those who want to move from rent to own are likely to move for housing reasons, whereas those who want to move from own to rent might be more likely to respond to a need for care or a drop in income. Otherwise, we expect the realization of moving intentions to be affected by the current and preferred housing tenure in the sense of resources and restrictions (see next section).
2.2 The influence of resources and restrictions
Resources and restrictions are hypothesised to influence the process between intentions to move and actual moving behaviour. The extent to which a household can realize its moving intentions likely depends on the availability of financial resources like income. But the relationship between income and the realization of an intention to move is not as straightforward as one might think. Kan´s study (1999) showed that an increase in disposable income does not have a significant effect on the likelihood of moving conditional on having expectations to move. But others found that those who are more affluent (and hence at an advantage in a competitive housing market) have a higher probability to translate moving intentions into action (Moore, 1986; Duncan & Newman, 1976). Findings from studies for the Netherlands are also inconsistent. Goetgeluk (1997) concluded that income is not important. Other findings revealed that the impact of income differed between two towns in the Netherlands (Van Kempen et al., 1990).
7
One explanation of a higher propensity to realize one´s intention among wealthy persons is that people with more resources - in contrast to people with less financial resources - are more likely to have reached a certain housing quality. This will lower the necessity to move and the chance that an intention to move is translated in actual moving behaviour. However, others stipulate that wealthy individuals have more means to realise their intentions. All in all, we are not sure whether wealthy individuals with an intention to move will move at a faster pace than those with a lower income. So, the relationship between income and moving propensity is not straightforward (see also Van Ham & Feijten, 2005). Besides income, the labour market position is expected to play a role in the realisation of the intention to move. Being unemployed leads to an interruption in the accumulation of human capital and financial capital that is difficult to be repaired (Feijten, 2005). The range of available housing options is smaller for those lacking work; it is, for instance, difficult to get a mortgage in order to be able to buy a home. We expect that employed individuals with an intention to move will move more frequently than unemployed. Education is a form of human capital and income potential that can help people make their intentions come true. Furthermore, highly educated people tend to be more mobile compared to less-educated people (Clark & Dieleman, 1996). So we expect highly educated intended movers to realize their intention more frequently than the less well-educated. Home ownership is known to form a restriction on moving behaviour: it is a well known fact that homeowners move less frequently than renters (Speare et al., 1975; Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999; Helderman, 2007). Many explanations have been given why homeowners move less frequently than renters. Some of these are mainly relevant to the formation of moving intentions: owner-occupied homes are usually larger, of better quality, and more frequently regarded by their inhabitants as ‘long-stay housing’ (Feijten & Mulder, 2002) than rented homes, making intentions to move less likely. Other explanations are
8
particularly relevant for the realization of intentions. It takes more effort selling a home, it involves more risks and higher transaction costs to move between owner-occupied than between rented homes. Finding a rented home, at least in the private rent segment of the housing market, usually takes less time than finding a suitable owner-occupied home (Helderman, 2007). But, specifically for the Netherlands, we think that other mechanisms are also relevant. First of all, homeowners have less rules to comply to than renters. They may buy whatever type of home they like in whatever town or municipality they like. But many renters - those searching for a rental home in the social sector, which comprises one third of the Netherlands housing-market - are subject to limitations to the type of homes and locations they are allowed to move into, depending on their household situation, income and economic or social ties to a region. Thus far, empirical results have shown that renters are more likely to translate moving intentions into action than homeowners (Duncan & Newman, 1976 and Lu, 1998 for the United States; Moore, 1986, for the United States and Canada; Van Kempen et al., 1990, for the Netherlands). In line with these studies, we expect to find that current homeowners are less likely to realize their intention to move, compared to current renters. In the previous research, the preferred future tenure was not taken into account. We expect that not only current tenure but also preferred tenure plays a role in the tempo at which one acquires a new home, but it is difficult to predict which category will encounter the greatest difficulty in finding a new home.
2.3 The influence of housing-market opportunities
Whether someone is able to realise an intention to move not only depends on their own resources, but also on the (local) housing market circumstances, such as the composition of the local housing stock and the prices of various types of housing (Clark & Dieleman, 1986).
9
Besides the stock of vacant dwellings, the availability is also represented by allocation and eligibility criteria. Local housing markets differ also as to the number of people searching for another home. The housing market circumstances do not only have influence on the extent to which someone is able to realize an intention to move, but can also lead to an adjustment of the initial preferences (Hooimeijer & Oskamp, 1996). An adjustment might lead to postponement of the move, to putting off a move, or to find another alternative which is also suitable. For instance, a homeowner might decide to rebuild his or her home in order to meet certain preferences. Housing opportunities will differ considerably between regions (Van Kempen et al., 1990; Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Dieleman, 2001). We seek to gain insight into the difference of the Randstad (the more urbanized region of the Netherlands which serves as the main economic motor of the Netherlands), the intermediate regions as well as the periphery of the Netherlands. Compared to the Randstad, the peripheral regions are characterised by relatively low housing prices, low pressure on the housing market, and less people searching for another home. In the urbanised western part of the Netherlands (the Randstad), there are problems with the availability and affordability of houses (Renes et al., 2006). The shortage of housing within the Randstad has persisted for decades, and this has dampened the mobility in the Randstad compared to elsewhere in the country (Clark & Dieleman, 1996). We expect that those intending to move will be less able to move when living in the Randstad compared to the peripheral regions and to a lesser extent, compared to the intermediate region. Another proxy for regional housing market differences that might stimulate or deter the actual move is the degree of urbanization. Compared to rural areas, the turnover rate of dwellings and the prices of owner-occupied dwellings are higher in urban areas, while the percentage of rental homes in the housing stock is larger (Helderman, 2007). On the one hand, high housing prices might be an obstacle to move but on the other hand, a large rental stock might stimulate
10
moves. The impact of urbanization on the moves of those with an inclination to move is thus not straightforward.
2.4 The influence of other individual characteristics
It is a well known and universal fact that people in their twenties and thirties migrate much more than people who are in their forties and over. This is partly due to the fact that age is a proxy for many other individual circumstances. Compared to older people, young people experience more changes in the educational, labour and household careers. Events in these careers trigger moves (Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999). And so, with increasing age, people move less frequently (Mulder, 1993; Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Helderman, 2007). But it is not really clear whether this age pattern should also be expected among those intending to move. On the one hand, young people may be more likely need to move urgently and less demanding in their housing preferences. On the other hand, they have had less time to accumulate savings helping them afford a move. A previous study for the United States showed that that young people are more likely to translate moving intentions into action compared to older people (Lu, 1998). We have no reason to believe that that should be otherwise in the Netherlands. Although great gender differences have not been found in the likelihood of geographical mobility (Michielin & Mulder 2007), we also account for gender. This is because the longitudinal study of Lu (1999) revealed that females were more likely to realize their moving intentions compared to males. Finally, we expect differences between different ethnic groups. But again, formulating hypotheses on differences in the degree of realizing intentions to move between ethnic groups is not straightforward (Van Ham & Feijten, 2005). Several studies show that non-western
11
immigrants face more difficulties in fulfilling their housing preferences compared to natives (Ministerie van VROM, 2005; Van der Laan-Bouma Doff, 2005; Bolt & Van Kempen, 2003). The differences in moving behaviour for natives and (especially) non-western immigrant groups are often ascribed to socio-economic differences, cultural differences and/or discrimination (see for example Özüekren & Van Kempen, 2002; Bolt & Van Kempen, 2003). Lack of insider knowledge of the Netherlands housing market might also play a role. Research has shown that, after controlling for socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics, not all differences between natives and non-western immigrant groups disappear (Ministerie van VROM, 2005; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2005). This might also be associated with the fact that non-western minority groups are often living in the least desirable segments of the housing market (Özüekren & Van Kempen, 2002; Bolt & Van Kempen, 2003) which may lead to more obstacles in finding a home. After controlling for socio-economic and housing variables, we still expect to find that non-western immigrant groups with an intention to move will move to a lesser degree than western immigrants or natives with an intention to move.
3 Data & Methods
3.1 Data In this paper, we use a unique source of data: the combined Netherlands Housing Demand Survey (HDS) 2002 and the longitudinal spatial satellite of the Social Statistical Data Base of Statistics Netherlands 1999-2005 (SSB). The HDS is a cross-sectional survey although it contains retrospective information on mobility. It is a large national survey – held each four years - about the housing situation of individuals and households in the Netherlands. The survey contains socio-demographic and socio-economic information about households and
12
information about the housing situation, mobility intentions and housing preferences. The research population is representative of the Netherlands population aged 18 year and over and not living in an institution. The longitudinal register data are part of the so-called spatial and social satellite 1999-2005 of the Social Statistical Database of Statistics Netherlands (SSD; Bakker, 2002). In matching these two data sets, information about a few hundred respondents was lost since their HDS data could not be linked to information in the SSD. For the analyses presented here, we made some selections. First of all, we excluded children living at their parents’ home and all other persons not being one of the heads of the household, such as subtenants. This was done because the current housing situation is not always relevant for household members other than heads (for example, the tenure of the home) or because relevant information was missing when someone else was interviewed than one of the heads of a household. Furthermore, those expecting a forced move and those who had already found a new home were also excluded from our analyses. After these selections, the research sample included 64284 respondents. Of these, 13769 expressed an intention to move and had nonmissing information on other important variables. The combination of the survey and the registers allows us to study mobility patterns of all persons in the survey - with or without moving intentions - in the years after the survey was held. This combined data source was created on request of the Netherlands Institute of Spatial Research in order to be able to do longitudinal studies to get more insight in the discrepancy between moving intentions and mobility. It proves to be an excellent source for studying this discrepancy, with the great opportunity to enable studies for the Netherlands as a whole as well as for regions in the Netherlands. In comparison with earlier studies, our sample is much larger which allows us more in-depth analyses with greater statistical power. One of the disadvantages, however, is that no complete information is available about other demographic
13
changes such as death or emigration, because at the time of performing the analyses such data in SSD had not been updated further than 2003.
3.2 Variables
Intentions to move can be conceived of as desires or wishes to move on the one hand and expectations or plans to move on the other hand (see for example Rossi, 1955; Lu, 1998). In our study, mobility intentions are determined by the question: "Would you like to move within the next two years?" Thus, our mobility intention variable represents a wish to move. If someone answered this question with "Possibly yes, maybe", "I would like to, but I cannot find anything" or "Most certainly yes" this person was considered to have an intention to move (Nintention to move=13769). If someone answered "Most certainly not" or "I do not know", this person was considered not to have a desire to move (Nno intention to move=50515). In the descriptive analyses, we pay some attention to the category with no intention to move. The multivariate analyses, however, concentrate on the people with an intention to move. The dependent variable is whether one actually made a move or not in the two years after the interview was held. Because the intention to move pertains to the period between the interview and two years from that moment, actual mobility is also measured as whether or not individuals move from the moment of the interview up to two years later. A move was measured as the first relocation after the interview. Further relocations were ignored. Interviews were held between January 2002 and March 2003. Information about moves between t (the moment of interview) and t + 2 (years) was extracted from the population registers. This implies that those interviewed in January 2002 were followed up to January 2004, whereas those interviewed in March 2003 were followed up to March 2005. Since no information was available on migration or deaths, the number at risk are somewhat over
14
estimated. Some people who are recorded as not having moved might have emigrated or might have died in the two years of observation. From an analysis with data from the 1998 HDS, which are similar and for which a combination with more complete register data was possible, it appeared that about 2 percent emigrated or died in the two years after the interview. With the exception of the dependent variable (move or no move in the two years after the moment of interview), all variables refer to the moment of interview. The highest achieved educational level was coded into five categories: up to lower secondary, higher secondary or medium vocational, higher vocational, university and unknown level (because education was followed abroad). The labour market position was coded into three categories: employed, unemployed and other not working. Household income was measured in quartiles. Current and expected household composition were combined into five categories: singles expecting to stay single, singles expecting to form a multi person household, those in multi person households who do not expect a change in household composition, those in multi person households who expect a change to another multi person household (for example an expected change from a single parent family to a couple with children) and those in multi person households who expect to become single. Current and preferred housing situation were combined into five categories: homeowners preferring to buy, homeowners preferring to rent, renters preferring to buy and renters preferring to rent. We added an 'unknown' category to the variable because for a small number of selected respondents, the preferred tenure is unknown. Crowding was calculated by dividing the number of rooms by the number of persons in the household. It is categorized in three levels: crowded (one room or less per person in the household), spacious (two or more rooms per person in the household) or neutral.
15
Urbanization of the current place of residence was measured in five categories: very strongly urbanized, strongly urbanized, moderately urbanized, hardly urbanized and not urbanized. The Netherlands was divided into three regions: the Randstad (core region), the surrounding intermediate zone and the periphery of the Netherlands (figure 1). The definition is based on the potential population in 2002 of all Dutch municipalities (496 in total) while using a gravity-model (see Van Oort, 2003). The current place of residence determines the current region.
Figure 1. Macro-zoning of the Netherlands into the Randstad, intermediate zone and national periphery, 2002
Source: Statistics Netherlands, calculation Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research
16
Ethnicity has three categories: native, western immigrant and non-western immigrant. In the descriptive analysis, age was measured in ten-year age groups whereas linear and a quadratic terms of age are used in the regression analysis. Productive moves are defined as moves because of work (n=1467) or educational reasons (n=416). The strength of the intention to move is categorized into two levels: strong and less strong. Those who answered "Most certainly yes" on the question "Would you like to move within the next two years?" are considered to have a strong intention to move; those who answered the question with: "Possibly yes, maybe" or "I would like to, but I can not find something", are considered to have a less strong intention to move.
3.3 Method
The analysis consists of two parts. The first descriptive part gives information about the share of people who expressed an intention to move. Furthermore, we describe the relationship between whether people intend to move and actual moving behaviour in a two-year period. In the second part we investigate the moving behaviour (move or no move within the two-year period after the HDS interview) of those who expressed an intention to move using a logistic regression model.
4 Moving intentions and mobility: results
4.1 Descriptive results
17
In 2002/2003, about twenty percent of all heads of households, aged 18 and above, expressed an intention to move within the next two years (table I).
Table I. Percentage intending to move according to major background characteristics (N=64284). Intention N to move (=100%) Age 18-24 year 25-34 year 35-44 year 45-54 year 55-64 year 65-74 year 75 year and older Migrant status native western immigrant non-western immigrant Income lowest quartile second quartile third quartile highest quartile Educational level up to lower secondary higher secondary or medium vocational higher vocational university unknown level Current tenure renter owner Household composition single couple without children couple with children single parent family other
50% 34% 22% 16% 13% 13% 10%
3245 13196 14231 12167 9466 6588 5391
20% 25% 37%
54535 5097 4652
25% 24% 20% 19%
12343 15917 17895 18129
18% 24% 24% 29% 32%
28328 19094 11893 4603 366
30% 15%
28605 35679
25% 20% 18% 28% 40%
17347 21005 20817 3431 1684
Source: SSD-satellite Spatial and Social Mobility 1999-2005 including HDS 2002.
With increasing age, the intention to move diminishes. Almost half of those who are younger than 25 wanted to move. This is much more compared to the thirteen percent of the middleaged category (55-64 years old). The intention to move also differs with ethnic background. More than a third of the non-western immigrants stated an intention to move compared to 20
18
percent of the native-born. This stronger intention to move probably partly reflects the fact that non-western minority groups are often living in the least desirable segments of the housing market. But it might also be the result of the fact that immigrants are younger than native born. The intention to move also differs with such socio-economic variables as income and education. Compared to less educated people, highly educated people more frequently express an intention to move. Conversely, compared to lower income groups, higher income groups less frequently express an intention to move. One possible explanation is that people with a higher income are more likely to have reached a certain housing quality, which will lower their likelihood of intending to move. Compared to couples (living with or without children), a larger part of the singles and single-parent families express an intention to move. Finally, the extent to which an intention to move is expressed, also differs with the current tenure. The intention to move is higher among renters than among owners. Of those who expressed an intention to move, almost one third of actually made a move within two years (see figure 2). Apparently, the majority of individuals are not able to realize their intentions within two years time or change their plans. We do not know whether some have put off their plans or have postponed their transition. Most of the moves occurred in the first year after the interview. The longer the period after the interview, the smaller the probability that those who intended to move but have not done so yet will eventually do so (see also Lu, 1998). In this figure we also included information on moves among those who did not have an intention to move. This was done because it gives another indication of discrepancy between the intention to move and mobility. The majority of the population (almost 80 percent) did not intend to relocate. Only a small proportion of them, about 6 percent, moved within two years. Although people with an intention to move relocate considerably more frequently than those without an intention to move, there is a substantial gap between intention and actual behaviour.
19
Figure 2. Percentage moved of those with and without intention to move, by length of period between initial interview and first relocation.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% 0 - ½ year
½ - 1 year
1 - 1½ year
intention to move
no intention to move
1½ - 2 year
Source: SSD-satellite Spatial and Social Mobility 1999-2005 including HDS 2002
As expected, the extent to which people translate intentions to move into actual moves is different for current and expected tenure (see figure 3). Renters move more frequently than homeowners. Renters with a preference to buy move the most whereas homeowners wanting to buy another home move the least. Renters who prefer to live in another rental dwelling after the intended move has taken place, move less often compared to owners with a desire to rent.
20
Figure 3. Percentage moved of those intending to move within the two-year period, by preferred tenure in combination with the current tenure and by current tenure.
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% renter-wish to renter-wish to owner-wish rent own to rent
owner-wish to own
renter
owner
Source: SSD-satellite Spatial and Social Mobility 1999-2005 including HDS 2002
The realization of the intention to move also differs with current and expected household composition (see figure 4). Those who expect a change of the household composition after the intended move has taken place, move more often within the two-year period compared to those who do not expect a change of the household composition (37 versus 31 percent). Singles expecting to stay single move the least whereas singles expecting to form a multi person household move the most. Perhaps pooling of income helps the first group of singles realise their intentions more easily whereas the latest group does not have that advantage.
21
Figure 4. Percentage moved of those who stated an intention to move within the two-year period, by expected change of the household composition after the intended move has taken place.
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% stable single stable multi- single-multi multi person- multi personperson person single multi person
stable
change
Source: SSD-satellite Spatial and Social Mobility 1999-2005 including HDS 2002.
There are only small regional differences in the realization of intentions to move (see for regional zoning figure 1). People who are living in the periphery of the Netherlands move slightly more than people living in the Randstad (34 versus 31 percent).
4.2 Regression results
The influence of triggers for moving First of all, after controlling for all other determinants, those with a strong intention to move are significantly more likely to translate their intention into action compared to those with a less strong intention to move (see positive parameter for Strong intention). On top of this effect, other characteristics of the intention to move influence the probability of a move. First
22
of all, after controlling for other differences between singles and multi person households such as income that are thought to influence the move of those with an intention to move, singles who expect to stay single move the least whereas singles who expect to form a multi person household move the most. This finding indicates that an expected change in household situation is an important motor behind the actual move. The effect of productive related motives for moving (a job or education related move) is negative but not significant. This is quite surprising because one would expect that people who have found a job elsewhere would be more eager to move fast than others. Although our descriptive results and other studies show that homeowners are less likely to translate moving intentions into moving action, our logistic regression analysis does not support this finding. An additional model (results not shown) revealed that the probability of moving was not significantly different for current owners compared to current renters. Even though this seems to be in contrast with the common knowledge that homeowners move less often than renters, this is not necessarily so, as Kan (1999) already showed. It indicates that when homeowners have made the decision to move within the owner-occupied sector of the housing market, they encounter fewer obstacles than renters. Current owners with a preference for a rental dwelling are almost 4 times more likely (exp(1.325)=3.76) to translate an intention to move into action compared to current renters with a preference for another rental dwelling. One possible explanation for this finding is that homeowners do not usually move out of owner-occupied dwellings unless there is an urgent need to do so. Moving out of homeownership is strongly connected to disrupting life events as union dissolution (Feijten, 2005) or with health problems. In some municipalities, events as union dissolution (in case there are under aged children involved) can shorten the required waiting time for a social rental dwelling. This can also have a positive influence on the probability of moving.
23
People living in spacious homes are less likely to realize their intentions than those in the neutral crowding category. Living in a crowded home does not significantly influence the mobility.
The influence of resources and restrictions Like in other longitudinal studies combining stated and revealed preferences, income does not really matter for realising the intention to move. The effect of income is only significant if level of education and employment status are not taken into account. Apparently, education and labour market position matter more than household income. Level of education has a positive and significant influence on the probability of moving. So, not only the extent to which people express an intention to move is greater for well educated people compared to less well educated people (table I), but also the probability of moving (table II). People with a university degree are more than three times as likely to translate intentions to move into action than low educated people. As expected, compared to employed people, people who are unemployed or who are not working have a lower probability of moving. However, this effect is only significant for those who are not working.
The influence of housing-market opportunities As expected, those who are currently living in the Randstad (or in the intermediate zone) have a smaller probability to translate moving intentions into action than those living in the national periphery. In contrast to the current region, the degree of urbanization does not have a significant influence on the probability of moving.
The influence of other individual characteristics
24
The probability that people actually moved decreases with an increasing age. The effect of age squared is slightly positive, which indicates that this decrease flattens at older ages. We found a positive effect of being female on the probability of moving (see also Lu, 1998); but in contrast to the other demographic control variables, this effect is not significant. Whereas the intention to move is especially prevalent among immigrants (see table I), western and non-western immigrants who intend to move actually do so significantly less frequently than the native-born. This finding suggest that they face more difficulties in realising their intentions.
Table II. Logistic regression of moving for those intending to move (ref=not moving)
Age Age squared Female (ref=male) Migrant status (ref=native-born) western immigrant non western immigrant Crowding (ref=neutral) crowded spacious Strong intention (ref=less strong intention) Current & expected household composition (ref stable single) stable multi person single - multi person multi person - single multi person - multi person Current & preferred tenure (ref=renter-wish to rent) renter-wish to buy owner-wish to rent owner-wish to buy unknown Productive reason to move (ref=no) Educational level (ref=up to lower secondary) higher secondary or medium vocational higher vocational university unknown level Employment status (ref=employed) unemployed other not working (or fewer than 12 hours) Income (ref=lowest quartile) second quartile third quartile
B -0,110 0,001 0,015
S.E. Exp(B) 0,01*** 0,896 0,00*** 1,001 0,04 1,015
-0,161 0,07** -0,331 0,07***
0,851 0,718
-0,002 0,06 -0,098 0,05* 1,273 0,04***
0,998 0,907 3,573
0,123 0,240 0,013 0,176
0,06** 0,09*** 0,13 0,09*
1,130 1,271 1,013 1,192
0,063 0,281 0,018 -0,456 -0,028
0,06 0,09*** 0,06 0,61 0,07
1,065 1,325 1,018 0,634 0,973
0,109 0,133 0,187 -0,132
0,05** 0,06** 0,08** 0,23
1,115 1,143 1,206 0,876
-0,202 0,18 -0,155 0,06***
0,817 0,856
-0,054 0,06 0,009 0,07
0,948 1,009
25
highest quartile Urbanization (ref=not urbanized) very strongly urbanized strongly urbanized moderately urbanized hardly urbanized Location (ref=national periphery) Randstad intermediate zone
0,083 0,08
1,086
0,079 0,023 0,044 0,051
1,082 1,023 1,045 1,052
0,09 0,08 0,08 0,08
-0,222 0,06*** -0,121 0,06**
0,801 0,886
Constant
1,124 0,20
Initial -2 Log Likelihood Model -2 log Likelihood Improvement Nagelkerke R Square N
17249 15639 1609, df=32, p=0,000 0,154 13769
* p
