Fig. 3: Commuting rate by employment density (spatial categories, NUTS 3)
Employment density (GINI-Coefficient)
Source: Employment statistic 2003.
Fig. 4: Average commuting distance by employment density (spatial categories,
NUTS 3)
50
Agglomeration Centers
Frankfurt (Oder)
Kiel
45
40
35
ɪ
φ
30
га
ω
□
25
20
15
10
Bremerhaven
Urban Fringe
Low Density Regions
Landshut, St.
Brandenburg, KS
Lübeck
X
Peripheral Regions
—Regensburg, St.------
X Magdeburg, St.
R2=0,0087
Linear (R2=0,0087)
Koblenz
Ulm
X
X AX X
+____^Dresden
Leipzig
Cottbus
X X
× Trier
Jena, St.
FuldaBKleve
××
Borken
К ХЖ XB > X
Herford
München
Oberallgau
Erlangen-Hochst.
Г >Cf × Ж
X XX
⅜ ichwabisch-H⅛n—Emsland
Frankfurt a.M.
0,1 0,2
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
×Passau, St.
Düsseldorf
Koln «
Hamburg
Stuttgart München, St
nover_______________________
Employment density (GINI-Coefficient)
Source: Employment statistic 2003.
17
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. On the estimation of hospital cost: the approach
8. The name is absent
9. A Location Game On Disjoint Circles
10. Strengthening civil society from the outside? Donor driven consultation and participation processes in Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP): the Bolivian case