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. The Functions of Postpartum Depression
4. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
5. Rural-Urban Economic Disparities among China’s Elderly
6. Voting by Committees under Constraints
7. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
8. The name is absent
9. Governance Control Mechanisms in Portuguese Agricultural Credit Cooperatives
10. Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States