It was a pre-requisite of choosing a classification that it allowed for the assessment of migration in the whole system, which is the focus of this section. Figure 6.3 shows the proportion of all migrants in the system who move between the four different parts of the city regions (City Core, City Rest, City Near, Coast and Country) whilst allowing for moves within each of the component parts where applicable (so between all 33 LADs that make up the London Core for example). All four graphs in Figure 6.3 are indexed to 2001/02 to show change over time. Given the dominance of London in the UK migration system (which is examined later in the chapter), all patterns were tested with the 33 LADs that comprise the London Core being excluded and found to be consistent.
Figure 6.3a shows moves out of the City Core areas to all other areas, as well as moves between the City Cores. The proportion of total migrations that occurred between City Core areas increased between 2001/02 and 2008/09, but slowed slightly in 2009/10 and 2010/11. In 2001/02, 13.18 per cent of all migrations occurred between LADs in City Core areas which rose to 15.07 per cent in 2010/11. When moves between LADs in the London Core are discounted (blue line in Figure 6.3a), the trend is similar, except the moves between LADs that form the City Cores which slowed in 2009/10 increases again in 2010/11. The proportion of moves from City Core areas to Coast and Country areas generally declines across the decade. This Core to Coast and Country flow accounted for 1.88 per cent of all migrations in 2001/02 which fell to 1.68 per cent in 2010/11. Flows out of the City Core areas to both City Rest and City Near areas fell slightly between 2001/02 and 2010/11: flows from City Core to City Near areas accounted for 6.72 per cent of migrations in 2001/02 and 6.65 per cent in 2010/11 while flows from City Core to City Rest accounted for 7.52 and 7.37 per cent at the beginning and end of the decade respectively. This decline is not consistent throughout the time series however, the proportion of moves from City Core to City Rest increases between 2001/02 and 2007/08 before it starts to decline, while the decline in proportion of moves from City Core to City Near only begins in 2005/06. This pattern will be examined in relation to international migration patterns in the discussion section later in the chapter.
Figure 6.3b shows the proportion of total flows that involve a move into the City Core areas. The general pattern from 2003/04 onwards is an increase in the proportion of the total flow from City Near and City Rest areas to City Core areas. Flows from City Near to City Core accounted for 5.65 per cent in 2001/02 and 6.46 per cent in 2010/11, while flows from City Rest to City Core rose from 4.90 per cent to 5.58 per cent over the same period. The pattern of flows from Coast and Country to City Core areas fluctuates more throughout the decade but is higher in 2010/11 (1.74 per cent of total migration) than in 2001/02 (1.62 per cent).
Figure 6.3c shows three flows that have declined over the decade. The most substantial relative fall is the flow from City Rest to Coast and Country which declines from 2.18 per cent to 1.64 per cent of total migration between 2001/02 and 2010/11.
The City Rest to City Near flow falls from 7.54 per cent at the beginning of the time series to 6.55 per cent at the end, while the City Near to Coast and Country flow falls from 4.25 per cent to 3.74 per cent in the same period. All of these declines are moves from more urban to less urban areas.
Figure 6.3: Proportions of total migration represented by each type of flow, 2001/02 to 2010/11, indexed to 2001/02
The final graph, Figure 6.4d, shows the remaining migration flows that, as a proportion of total migration in the system, are most stable across the time series (in relation to 2001/02). The flows occurring between (and within) parts of the city regions all fall slightly between 2001/02 and 2010/11: City Near to City Near moves decline from 20.88 per cent to 20.03 per cent of total, City Rest to City Rest moves fall from 8.89 per cent to 8.87 per cent while moves between Coast and Country areas drop from 4.54 per cent to 4.48 per cent of total migration. The other migration flows shown in Figure 6.4d also exhibit a small decline in 2010/11 relative to 2001/02: City Near to City Rest falls from 5.41 per cent to 5.39 per cent, Coast and Country to City Rest falls from 1.30 per cent to 1.28 per cent and Coast and Country to City Near drops from 3.53 to 3.46 per cent of total migration.
The patterns seen in Figure 6.3 can be simplified and summarised by defining areas as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan. The metropolitan category comprises all LADs that are in the City Core and City Rest groups, while non-metropolitan is made up of LADs in the City Near and Coast and Country groups. Figure 6.4 shows the proportion of total migration that can be attributed to each of these moves, and the two most clear trends from 2003/04 onwards are an increase in the proportion of migrants moving between metropolitan LADs (36.89 per cent in 2010/11 compared with 34.5 per cent of all migrations in 2001/02) and a decrease in the proportion of migrants moving from metropolitan to non-metropolitan LADs throughout the decade (18.32 per cent in 2001/02 and 16.52 per cent in 2010/11). The trend for moves from non-metropolitan to metropolitan LADs is a general increase from 2003/04 (a slowing of the trend occurred in 2006/07 and 2009/10). This non-metropolitan to metropolitan migration flow accounted for 13.98 per cent of total migration in 2001/02 and 14.87 per cent in 2010/11. The trend in the proportion of moves occurring between non-metropolitan LADs is one of decline: in 2001/02 these moves accounted for 33.21 per cent of total migration while in 2010/11 fell to 31.72 per cent.
In the interest of summarising the general trends seen in Figure 6.4, it can be said that a greater proportion of people are moving between metropolitan areas as the decade progresses, a smaller proportion are moving out of metropolitan areas to non-metropolitan areas, the proportion of moves from non-non-metropolitan to non-metropolitan LADs increases while moves between non-metropolitan LADs decreases. These
findings are consistent with the urban-rural migration patterns seen in the previous chapter where, over the decade, moves from high to low density areas are declining, while moves from low to high density areas are on the increase.
Figure 6.4: The proportion of total flow between metropolitan and non-metropolitan LADs (with the base year as 2001/02)
Table 6.2 provides a comparison of the more sophisticated city region typology used in this chapter and the simpler urban-rural classification used in the previous chapter (where half of LADs were assigned as urban and half as rural, based on their population density). All of the City Core and 69 per cent of City Rest LADs were classed as urban based on their population density, while 60 per cent of City Near and 82 per cent of Coast and Country LADs were classified as rural. As a result, 57 per cent of LADs defined as metro areas in Figure 6.4 were considered as urban in the previous chapter, while 85 per cent of those defined as non-metro were classified as rural. The results of the cross-tabulation show that even though differences between the two classifications means that some LADs were assigned differently, the overall patterns seen are consistent.
Table 6.2: Cross-tabulation of LADs assigned to city region and urban-rural
Returning to the city region classification, the period 2001/02 to 2003/04 represents one of relative stability, with substantial changes from 2004/05 onwards. Some potential reasons for this are explored in the final section of this chapter and the next section looks at these general migration trends in more detail, first addressing the patterns of migration occurring within each city region and then the patterns occurring between each of the city region component parts.