The name is absent



2.  Results

2.1. Regional level - spatial structure

In this section spatial differences of commuting behaviour are examined. The consideration of
the commuting rate by municipalities and spatial categories shows strong regional differences
(Fig. 1). In the middle part of Germany there are regions with low commuting rates. They are
situated especially along an imaginary line between the cities Koblenz - Siegen - Kassel -
Erfurt and Gera. Such regions with low commuting rates can also be located in the southeast
of Germany on the Czech Republic and Austrian borders. Nevertheless regions with
commuting rates of more than 50% can only be found irregularly. An above-average
accumulation of these regions appears in the north and in the southeast of Germany.

Taking the different spatial categories in Germany into consideration it becomes obvious that
regions situated in close proximity with respect to agglomeration centers appear to have
especially high commuting rates. The mentioned regions are for example situated around
Hamburg, Frankfurt, Berlin or Munich. They are classified as urban fringe regions. The
commuting rates in these regions are much higher than in the agglomeration centers and
especially higher than in the peripheral regions situated far away from the agglomeration
centers. Altogether the agglomeration centers show, with a commuting rate of 23.47%, the
lowest values. In contrast to the agglomeration centers the urban fringes have with 47.68% the
highest values. The values of the low density (38.75%) and peripheral regions (40.17%) are in
between. On average 38.33% of the employees in Germany are commuting (Tab. 1).

The calculation of the average commuting distances of commuters crossing boundaries shows
a big east west discrepancy (Fig. 2). The former East German states show average commuting
distances between the residential municipality and working municipality of 30 km. In contrast
the former West German states only show average commuting distances between 15 and 25
km. The agglomeration centers Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich need to be viewed
more closely. Immediately around them there are rings with relatively low average
commuting distances. The majority of these regions can be classified as urban fringe regions.
With rising distance to the agglomeration centers the average commuting distance rises too. In
summary: the average commuting distances in the agglomeration centers (64.65 km) are
significantly higher than in the low density (43.38 km) and peripheral (45.93 km) regions.
The shortest distances are covered by employees from the urban fringes (38.4 km) (Tab. 1).

Besides the already mentioned commuting rates and average commuting distances in the
regions, Tab. 1 shows the commuters’ flows. It separates them into a region of origin and a
destination region based on the spatial categories in Germany. Over half (51.68%) of all
commuters from the agglomeration centers commute into urban fringes and only about 40%
stay in the same spatial category. Only a small part is allotted to the low density (6.72%) and
peripheral regions (1.4%). Vice versa the flows from the urban fringes to the agglomeration
centers look similar. Every second commuter (54.67%) has his or her destination in
agglomeration centers and 38.04% remain in urban fringes. The commuting rates of
commuters with destinations in low density (5.98%) and peripheral regions (1.3%) are small.
Commuters from agglomeration centers are strictly oriented towards urban fringe regions.

Most commuters from low density regions (74.01%) stay in the same spatial category. In any
case 12.12% commute in agglomeration centers and 11.8% in urban fringes. However with
2.08% the flows into peripheral regions are very low. Commuters with a place of residence in
peripheral regions remain with 75.93% in their spatial category. Into the agglomeration center
commute 9.38%, whilst inside urban fringes 6.94%. 7.76% are allotted to low density regions.
Commuters from low density and peripheral regions are determined to regions of the same



More intriguing information

1. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California
2. The name is absent
3. THE WAEA -- WHICH NICHE IN THE PROFESSION?
4. THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: COMPUTER USE, BASIC SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT
5. How Offshoring Can Affect the Industries’ Skill Composition
6. The name is absent
7. Dendritic Inhibition Enhances Neural Coding Properties
8. Expectations, money, and the forecasting of inflation
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
12. Survey of Literature on Covered and Uncovered Interest Parities
13. The name is absent
14. Firm Creation, Firm Evolution and Clusters in Chile’s Dynamic Wine Sector: Evidence from the Colchagua and Casablanca Regions
15. The name is absent
16. Regulation of the Electricity Industry in Bolivia: Its Impact on Access to the Poor, Prices and Quality
17. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box
18. Language discrimination by human newborns and by cotton-top tamarin monkeys
19. Ronald Patterson, Violinist; Brooks Smith, Pianist
20. A simple enquiry on heterogeneous lending rates and lending behaviour