The name is absent



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 absent
2. Orientation discrimination in WS 2
3. The name is absent
4. Fertility in Developing Countries
5. The ultimate determinants of central bank independence
6. The name is absent
7. Does Market Concentration Promote or Reduce New Product Introductions? Evidence from US Food Industry
8. The name is absent
9. Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance
10. PROTECTING CONTRACT GROWERS OF BROILER CHICKEN INDUSTRY