TABLE 9
Percentage Change in the Odds-ratio of typologies of migration at household level
Variable: b z P>|z| % %StdX
Most educated in the hh
|
permanen-temporar |
1.03 |
7.94 |
0.00 |
179.40 |
118.90 |
|
permanen-internat |
-0.16 |
-0.60 |
0.55 |
-14.70 |
-11.40 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
0.35 |
4.67 |
0.00 |
42.10 |
30.80 |
|
internat-temporar |
1.19 |
3.17 |
0.00 |
227.30 |
147.00 |
|
internat-no_mig |
0.51 |
2.11 |
0.03 |
66.50 |
47.50 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
0.68 |
3.66 |
0.00 |
96.60 |
67.40 |
|
Land owned (pae) | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
1.31 |
2.08 |
0.04 |
269.20 |
42.50 |
|
permanen-internat |
-3.80 |
-4.28 |
0.00 |
-97.80 |
-64.30 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-1.70 |
-2.86 |
0.00 |
-81.70 |
-36.90 |
|
internat-temporar |
5.11 |
6.53 |
0.00 16481.00 |
299.40 | |
|
internat-no_mig |
2.11 |
1.96 |
0.05 |
720.80 |
76.90 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
3.01 |
6.80 |
0.00 |
1920.20 |
125.80 |
|
Cattle owned (pae) | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
-1.77 |
-6.31 |
0.00 |
-83.00 |
-46.60 |
|
permanen-internat |
1.19 |
1.20 |
0.23 |
230.30 |
52.60 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-2.36 |
-11.00 |
0.00 |
-90.60 |
-56.60 |
|
internat-temporar |
-2.97 |
-3.08 |
0.00 |
-94.90 |
-65.00 |
|
internat-no_mig |
-3.56 |
-4.16 |
0.00 |
-97.20 |
-71.60 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
0.59 |
2.23 |
0.03 |
80.80 |
23.30 |
|
Self_poor assess. | |||||
|
permanen-temporar |
-0.37 |
-6.46 |
0.00 |
-31.10 |
-17.00 |
|
permanen-internat |
0.99 |
3.97 |
0.00 |
168.60 |
63.90 |
|
permanen-no_mig |
-0.13 |
-1.34 |
0.18 |
-12.40 |
-6.40 |
|
internat-temporar |
-1.36 |
-4.82 |
0.00 |
-74.30 |
-49.30 |
|
internat-no_mig |
-1.12 |
-3.52 |
0.00 |
-67.40 |
-42.90 |
|
no_mig -temporary |
-0.24 |
-3.02 |
0.00 |
-21.30 |
-11.30 |
b = raw coefficient
z = z-score for test of b=0
P>|z| = p-value for z-test
% = percent change in odds for unit increase in X
%StdX = percent change in odds for SD increase in X
For example, the effect of a unit change in education of the highest educated household
member increases the odds of permanent moving relative to the non-migration and temporary
migration categories (by 42.1 and 179.4 percent respectively), but it decreases the odds ratio
with respect to international migration (by 16.5 percent), holding all the other variables
constant. Moreover, a unit more of land (per adult equivalent) has the effect of decreasing the
odds ratio between non-migration category and all the other categories, with the exception of
international migration (whose odd ratio is on turn always increased by a unit positive change
of land). Thus, household ‘structural’ variables (wealth and social status), as well as human
28
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about ability grouping
3. LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
4. The demand for urban transport: An application of discrete choice model for Cadiz
5. The Clustering of Financial Services in London*
6. The urban sprawl dynamics: does a neural network understand the spatial logic better than a cellular automata?
7. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AGENDA
8. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
9. The name is absent
10. Portuguese Women in Science and Technology (S&T): Some Gender Features Behind MSc. and PhD. Achievement