On the whole decentralisation and dispersion processes are not questioned. Also the opinion is
shared that these processes have an effect on employees commuting behaviour. In contrast the
degree of effectiveness as well as the proportions on commuting behaviour is evaluated
contradictorily. There is another point which is open to criticism. Up to now the effect of
decentralisation and dispersion processes on commuting behaviour was considered simply in
the spatial context. Individual influence has not been taken into account.
The already described processes are not generally valid. They differ between urban and
peripheral regions. Because of that, spatial structure seems to be an obvious reason for
differences in commuting behaviour.
The intention of this paper is to analyse the influence of spatial structure on commuting
behaviour of employees:
■ Firstly it has to be examined if there are spatial differences in the commuting behaviour in
Germany.
■ Secondly individual influences on the commuting behaviour based on certain personal
characteristics have to be analysed.
Spatial influence on commuting behaviour
As already indicated the settlement and economic development in Germany is characterised
by decentralisation and dispersion processes. These developments led to a functional loss of
urbanised areas regarding the functions of living and working. On the other hand they helped
to extend the meaning of rural regions. Within these processes spatial structure plays an
important role. Consequently it has a basic influence on the commuting behaviour.
The impact of spatial differences on commuting behaviour has rarely been investigated. For
this reason employment density known from migration research is taken into consideration in
this paper. It is intended to examine the effect of employment density on commuting
behaviour. The assumption implies that differences in distribution of employment affect the
supply of employment opportunities. This has direct influence on commuting behaviour
(Motzkus 1997: 219). A great supply of employment allows inhabitants to use job
opportunities provided in their region. This will have the effect of decreasing the amount of
commuting (BBR 2003: 98). In contrast a low employment supply decreases the chance to
find a job in a given radius. Large job markets have a strong attraction on employees from
other regions. In comparison to small job markets they also offer a great variety of vacancies.
Individual influence on commuting behaviour
However, apart from regional influences, individual characteristics may affect commuting
behaviour, too. Before outlining different individual characteristics and their influence on
commuting behaviour, the logic behind individual decision making processes is examined
(Kalter 1994: 465; Schneider et al. 2002: 30).
The starting point is the thesis that persons try to maximise their individual benefit and their
benefit function. This happens by the fact that goods or other resources are used in a way that
produces the biggest return (Hill 1995: 104).
The chosen residence and work location reflect two basic functions. These functions contain
the ratio between the consumed goods and the returned benefit (Hill 1995: 105): On the one
hand it is the benefit an individual can achieve by working in a region. On the other hand it is
the benefit an individual can achieve by living in a different region. This combination is also