Intraurban Mobility and Metropolitan Spatial Structure

Authors

  • Tae-Kyung Kim Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements
  • Mark W. Horner Florida State University
  • Hazel A. Morrow-Jones Ohio State University

Keywords:

intraurban migration, residential mobility, urban growth, GIS, Franklin County, Ohio

Abstract

In developed nations, a dominant trend has been the decentralization of residential

Author Biographies

  • Tae-Kyung Kim, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements

    Urban and Regional Planning Research Division

    Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements

    1591-6 Kwanyang-Dong, Dongan-Gu,

  • Mark W. Horner, Florida State University

    Department of Geography

    Florida State University

    Tallahassee, FL 32306

  • Hazel A. Morrow-Jones, Ohio State University

    Center for Urban and Regional Analysis (CURA)

    and

    Department of City and Regional Planning

    The

References

Adair, A., S. McGreal, A. Smyth, J. Cooper, and T. Ryley. 2000. House Prices and Accessibility: The Testing of Relationships within the Belfast Urban Area. Housing Studies 15 (5): 699

Adams, J. 1984. The Meaning of Housing in America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74 (4): 515

Allen, W., D. Liu, and S. Singer. 1993. Accessibility Measures of United States Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 27 (6): 439

Alonso, W. 1964. Location and Land Use. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Austin, D. 1999. Politics vs. Economics: Evidence from Municipal Annexation. Journal of Urban Economics 45: 501

Benguigui, L., D. Czamanski, and M. Marinov. 2001. The Dynamics of Urban Morphography: The Case of Petah Tukvah. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (3): 447

Berger, M. 1996. Trajectories in Living Space, Employment and Housing Stock: The Example of the Parisian Metropolis in the 1980s and 1990s. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 20 (2): 240

Bier, T. and S. Howe. 1998. Dynamics of Suburbanization in Ohio Metropolitan Areas. Urban Geography 19 (8): 695

Brasington, D. 2001. Capitalization and Community Size. Journal of Urban Economics 50: 385

Brueckner, J. and R. Martin. 1997. Spatial Mismatch: An Equilibrium Analysis. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27 (6): 693

Burnley, I. and P. Murphy. 1995. Residential Location Choice in Sydney Perimetropolitan Region. Urban Geography 16 (2): 123

Cervero, R. 2001. Efficient Urbanization: Economic Performance and the Shape of the Metropolis. Urban Studies 38 (10): 1651

Cervero, R., T. Rood, and B. Appleyard. 1999. Tracking Accessibility: Employment and Housing Opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A 31 (7): 1259

Chan, S. 1996. Residential Mobility and Mortgages. Regional Science and Urban Economics 26 (3

Cho, C. 2001. Amenities and Urban Residential Structure: An Amenity-embedded Model of Residential Choice. Papers in Regional Science 80 (4): 483

Ding, C. and R. Bingham. 2000. Beyond Edge Cities

Dwyer, C. and C. Sutton. 1994. Brown Plus 40

Eaglstein, A. and J. Weisberg. 1990. Categorical, Multivariate Analysis of Intraurban Migration. Urban Studies 27 (4): 509

Fernandez, R. 1994. Race, Space, and Job Accessibility

Fong, E. and K. Shibuya. 2000. The Spatial Separation of the Poor in Canadian Cities. Demography 37 (4): 449

Grubb, N. 1982. The Flight to the Suburbs of Population and Employment: 1960

Harris, C. 1954. The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Production. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44 (4): 315

Hassan, R., X. Zang, and B. McDonnell. 1996. Why Families Move: A Study of Residential Mobility in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 32 (1): 72

Haurin, D. and D. Brasington. 1996. School Quality and Real House Prices: Inter- and Intra-metropolitan Effects. Journal of Housing Economics 5 (4): 351

Hite, D. 2000. A Random Utility Model of Environmental Equity. Growth and Change 31 (1): 40

Horner, M. and T. Grubesic. 2001. A GIS-based Planning Approach to Locating Urban Rail Terminals. Transportation 28: 55

Immergluck, D. 2001. The Financial Services Sector and Cities: Restructuring, Decentralization, and Declining Urban Employment. Economic Development Quarterly 15 (3): 274

Jim, C. 1998. Impacts of Intensive Urbanization on Trees in Hong Kong. Environmental Conservation 25 (2): 146

Johnson, M. 2001. Environmental Impacts of Urban Sprawl: A Survey of the Literature and Proposed Research Agenda. Environment and Planning A 33 (4): 717

Khan, R., P. Orazem, and D. Otto. 2001. Deriving Empirical Definitions of Spatial Labor Markets: The Roles of Competing versus Complementary Growth. Journal of Regional Science 41 (4): 735

Kim, D. and H. Chung. 2001. Spatial Location-allocation Model for Multiple Center Villages. Journal of Urban Planning and Development

Krugman, P. 1999. The Role of Geography in Development. International Regional Science Review 22 (2): 142

Lee, S., D. Myers, and H. Park. 2000. An Econometric Model of Homeownership: Single-family and Multifamily Housing Option. Environment and Planning A 32 (11): 1959

Lee, W. and C. Roseman. 1997. Independent and Linked Migrants: Determinants of African American Interstate Migration. Growth and Change 28 (3): 309

Leichenko, R. 2001. Growth and Change in U.S. Cities and Suburbs. Growth and Change 32 (3): 326

Levinson, D. 1998. Accessibility and the Journey to Work. Journal of Transportation Geography 6 (1): 11

Levy, J. 1994. Contemporary Urban Planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Magdol, L. 2000. The People You Know: The Impact of Residential Mobility on Mothers' Social Network Ties. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17 (2): 183

Main, M., F. Roka, and R. Noss. 1999. Evaluating Costs of Conservation. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1262

Manson, G. and R. Groop. 2000. U.S. Intercounty Migration in the 1990s: People and Income Move Down the Urban Hierarchy. Professional Geographer 52 (3): 493

Margulis, H. 2001. Household Mobility, Housing Traits, Public Goods, and School Quality in Cleveland's Metropolitan Statistical Area. Urban Affairs Review 36 (5): 646

Martin, R. 2001. Spatial Mismatch and Costly Suburban Commutes: Can Commuting Subsidies Help? Urban Studies 38 (8): 1305

M'Bala, J. 2001. Forestalling Urban Sprawl: The Greber Plan for Montreal, 1950. Urban History Review

Morrow-Jones, H. A. 1998. Repeat Homebuyers and American Urban Structure. Urban Geography 19 (8): 679

Nelson, A. 1999. Comparing States with and without Growth Management

Nylund, K. 2001. Cultural Analyses in Urban Theory of the 1990s. Acta Sociologica 44 (3): 219

Palivos, T. and P. Wang. 1996. Spatial Agglomeration and Endogenous Growth. Regional Science and Urban Economics 26 (6): 645

Ramsey, F. and D. Shafer. 1996. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Duxbury Press.

Roseman, C. and S. Lee. 1998. Linked and Independent African American Migration from Los Angeles. Professional Geographer 50 (2): 204

Sanchez, T. and C. Dawkins. 2001. Distinguishing City and Suburban Movers. Housing Policy Debate 12 (3): 607

Shen, Q. 2001. A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a U.S. Metropolitan Area. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 53

Smith, V., C. Poulos, and H. Kim. 2002. Treating Open Space as an Urban Amenity. Resource and Energy Economics 24: 107

So, K., P. Orazem, and D. Otto. 2001. The Effects of Housing Prices, Wages, and Commuting Time on Joint Residential and Job Location Choices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (4): 1036

Stern, M. and W. Marsh. 1997. The Decentered City: Edge Cities and the Expanding Metropolis. Landscape and Urban Planning 36 (4): 243

Stoll, M., H. Holzer, and K. Ihlanfeldt. 2000. Within Cities and Suburbs: Racial Residential Concentration and the Spatial Distribution of Employment Opportunities across Sub-metropolitan Areas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19 (2): 207

Strand, J. and M. Vagnes. 2001. The Relationship between Property Values and Railroad Proximity: A Study Based on Hedonic Prices and Real Estate Brokers' Appraisals. Transportation 28 (2): 137

Sundari, S. and M. Rukmani. 1998. Costs and Benefits of Female Labour Migration. Indian Journal of Social Work 59 (3): 766

Tiebout, C. 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure. Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416

Timar, J. and M. Varadi. 2001. The Uneven Development of Suburbanization during Transition in Hungary. European Urban and Regional Studies 8 (4): 349

Tyrvainen, L. and H. Vaananen. 1998. The Economic Value of Urban Forest Amenities: An Application of the Contingent Valuation Method. Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1

Waddell, P., B. Berry, and I. Hoch. 1993. Housing Price Gradients

Wang, F. 2001. Explaining Intraurban Variations of Commuting by Job Proximity and Workers' Characteristics. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (2): 169

Weimer, D. and M. Wolkoff. 2001. School Performance and Housing Values: Using Non-contiguous District and Incorporation Boundaries to Identify School Effects. National Tax Journal 54 (2): 231

Wong, C., C. Tong, and S. Wong. 1999. The Development and Calibration of a Lowry Model with Multiple Market Segments. Environment and Planning A 31 (11): 1905

Downloads

Published

2005-01-01

Issue

Vol. 8 (2004)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).