Appendices
Tab. 1: Commuting flows by spatial categories
|
Place of residence ... |
Total | ||||||
|
Agglomeration |
Urban Fringe |
Low Density |
Peripheral |
Commuting |
Average | ||
|
Centers |
Regions |
Regions |
rate |
distance | |||
|
Agglomerations - Agglomeration Centers |
40,65% |
51,68% |
6,27% |
1,40% |
23,47% |
64,65 km | |
|
Place of |
- Urban Fringe |
54,67% |
38,04% |
5,98% |
1,30% |
47,68%% |
38,40 km |
|
work ... |
Non Agglomeration Areas |
12,12% |
11,80% |
74,01% |
2,08% |
38,75% |
43,38 km |
|
- Peripheral Regions |
9,38% |
6,94% |
7,76% |
75,93% |
40,17% |
45,93 km | |
|
West Germany |
38,33% |
44,69 km | |||||
Source: Employment statistic 2003, own calculations.
14
More intriguing information
1. Corporate Taxation and Multinational Activity2. The effect of classroom diversity on tolerance and participation in England, Sweden and Germany
3. Willingness-to-Pay for Energy Conservation and Free-Ridership on Subsidization – Evidence from Germany
4. The name is absent
5. ANTI-COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL CONTRACTING: THE DESIGN OF FINANCIAL CLAIMS.
6. Public Debt Management in Brazil
7. Delivering job search services in rural labour markets: the role of ICT
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI