called “joint utility [...] of residence and employment” (Yapa; Polese; Wolpert 1971: 18). The
value of a place of residence in combination with a working place results from the commuting
and migration costs that are subtracted from this combined benefit (Kalter 1994: 465).3
Finally the chosen combination takes possible commuting and migration costs into account. It
also maximises individual benefit. In other words an individual decides on a certain
combination if the subjectively expected benefit exceeds the other alternatives.
The described approach explains commuting behaviour as a result of a rational decision
between commuting and migration costs as a function of income. A reason for criticism
makes the assumption that workplaces are ideally situated in urban areas (Richardson 1986;
Simpson 1992). Also it is supposed that all employees are identical. So basically their benefit
function does not differ.
That is the reason why it seems to be necessary to look at individual characteristics that could
influence commuting behaviour. The decision to commute is not only dependent on an
employees benefit function but also on individual characteristics like age or level of education
(Schneider et al. 2002: 43, Cervero; Wu 1997: 866). For an individual it can be worthwhile to
accept certain commuting distances because of his or her personal situation or because there
are no other alternatives available to him or her. The life approach known from the migration
theory combines different individual characteristics with each other. The approach provides
knowledge of the interaction between age, life and career as well as the residential biography.
Life phases can be determined, mostly at the beginning of the professional life, where the
willingness to move is quite high. Moreover it is supposed that especially young employees
often change their workplace because they are not certain in assessing their skills (Job-
Shopping). With increasing age, the probability rises for getting married and having a family
or for the acquisition of residential property. At the same time workplace change becomes
unlikely with an increasing period of employment (Christensen 1999: 5). Consequently
attachment to a residential region rises which finally favours acceptance of long commuting
distances. Also it is expected that with the quality of education, the acceptance of commuting
increases. Vice versa workplaces further away should be less attractive for part-time workers
because of the overvaluation of the travel time in relation to working hours (McQuaid; Greig
2001: 156).
3 Commuting costs originate from the shuttle between place of residence and a working place. They can be of a monetary as
well as a temporal nature. Non monetary costs are associated with psychological factors e.g. long driving times and stress.
Migration costs result only in cases where it is necessary to change the present place of residence. Over time these costs
can be neglected because they amortise very fast. Non monetary costs are for example the loss of social capital. It can result
in a loss of local friendship relationships.