Zaiga Krisjane University of Latvia Post-socialist urbanisation and suburnanisation processes: commuting in the Rīga metropolitan area Zaiga Krisjane University of Latvia

Outline of presentation Outline of presentation Main aspects of previous research; Suburbanisation, changes in employment, and commuting in Riga agglomeration; Recent trends of migration; Research questions; Data and Methods; Results; Conclusion

The Aim of the Study The aim of the study is to examine the demographic and socio-economic differences between commuters and stayers in the suburbs of the Rīga Metropolitan Area (RMA) The focus is on commuter profiles since the studies of commuting during the Socialist period also often overlooked the individual characteristics (see Fuchs and Demko 1977, 1978; Kisileva, 1976). While only a few studies on commuter profiles from the post-socialist period do exist (see Paci et al. 2010; Tammaru 2005).

Suburbanisation, commuting and changes in employment Nowadays residential suburbanisation by far exceeds workplace suburbanisation, resulting in a visible increase in commuting across the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (see Novák and Sýkora 2007; Lukić 2009, Leetmaa et al., 2009; Tammaru and Kontuly, 2011). Under socialism, commuting emerged mainly since because new jobs were generated in the core cities while housing construction there lagged behind need. Economic restructuring has affected commuting patterns in CEE which are strongly related to changes in the sectoral composition of employment (Andrusz 1996), specifically, there have been job losses in industry.

Suburbanisation, commuting and changes in employment Rīga has been emerging as a major urban centre for employment and economic activity in Latvia since the 1970s. Initially, urbanisation during the socialist period in the Baltic States, particularly in Estonia and Latvia, was based on the processes of industrialisation and immigration (Bauls and Krišjāne 2000; Tammaru, 2001). Residential suburbanisation by far exceeds workplace suburbanization, resulting in a dramatic increase in commuting across CEE countries (Tammaru, 2005; Novák and Sýkora, 2007; Lukić, 2009; Ahas et al., 2010)

Population changes, 1991-2012 Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Population changes in Municipalities 1990-2011

Population changes in LV 2000-2011 Source: VRAA

Number of commuters to Riga 1968-2013

Urbanization and economic growth This great change in the structure of the national economy can be explained by the fact that there is no longer a need for as intensive a concentration of labour as was the case during the over-industrialized Soviet period.

Commuting flows of the capital city - Rīga Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Commuting flows of the capital city - Rīga Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Commuting field of the capital city - Rīga Source: Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia (2007)

Avots: Cilvēka ģeogrāfijas katedra Commuters to Riga in 2011 Working in Riga –persons in working age (according to personal income tax). Avots: Cilvēka ģeogrāfijas katedra

Distance of territories from Riga by paved motor roads

Riga agglomeration (2012) Source: Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia (2012)

Mode of transportation for commuters

Commuting time to work in 2007

Commuters in Latvia Age structure 2010 Total to Riga

Darba svārstmigrantu raksturojums Commuters in Latvia : Level of education 2010 Total to Riga

Changes in sectoral and occupational compositions of in-commuters to Rīga As regards the composition of commuters to Rīga, the industrial workforce accounted for more than 40% during the socialist period Economic restructuring in Latvia during the 1990s led to the growing importance of service-based employment and an increasing share of commuters to Rīga working in this sector Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Filimonenko 1992

Research Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 The increase in suburbanisation and the growing number of commuters travelling to Rīga in the 2000s on the one hand, and the job concentration into capital city on the other hand lead to expect that former city residents have a higher probability of in-commuting to Rīga than stayers in the suburban ring. Hypothesis 2 Previous research in CEE has indicated that the majority of suburbanisers comprise younger, wealthier, and more highly qualified people with a higher level of education – those who have left the large Soviet-era housing estates in the city and moved into the suburban ring in search of a higher quality of life. Thus we propose that these people are more likely to commute because they have kept their jobs in Rīga

Research Data Sub-sample of commuters derived from the Geographic Mobility of the Labour Force study conducted by the University of Latvia in 2006 (Krišjāne et al., 2007). The original survey had 8,005 respondents who were Latvian residents aged from 15 to 65. The survey sub-sample in the suburban part of the RMA (N=1,061) consisted of 317 respondents who were suburban out-commuters to Rīga and 744 who were suburban non-commuters (stayers) who worked within the municipality of their place of residence. The response rate was 66.5%. The total sample consisted of 1,001 valid interviews conducted in Rīga and 7,004 in other regions of Latvia.

Research Methods In order to determine the individual characteristics that influence the probability of commuting to work, we estimate binary regression models. To test our two hypotheses we compare suburban non- commuters (stayers) with out-commuters. The models are built stepwise: Model 1 clarifies the influence of suburbanisation on commuting; Model 2 and 3 seek to ascertain whether demographic and socio-economic characteristics affect commuting

Results According to the Model 1, suburbanisers who have moved from Rīga to the suburbs over the past 10 years have a much higher probability of commuting than people who have moved within the metropolitan area or in-migrated from non- metropolitan regions over the same timeframe, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. gender is a significant predictor of commuting behaviour; we found that men are more likely to commute than women. Age differences are also evident: commuters to Rīga are younger than are non-commuters living in the suburbs. Differences by occupation are only statistically significant for managers, who are more likely to commute than skilled workers.

Results Suburban inhabitants who hold university degrees are more likely to be commuters than people who have a secondary level of education. From our analysis, we found that the differences between commuters who have migration experience and those who have not changed their place of residence for more than 10 years are related only to demographic variables Commuters who have migration experience are more likely to be younger and have children of preschool age than commuters without migration experience.

Results Ethnic minorities among commuters that have migration experience comprise only 27 per cent and, therefore, they are less likely to be commuters than Latvians. Therefore ethnic minorities are less likely to commute than Latvians, which agrees with the findings for Estonia (Kulu and Billari, 2004; Tammaru, 2005) that indicate that ethnic minorities are less geographically mobile. A high representation of ethnic minorities (almost 41%) was found for commuters non-migrants. This could be attributed to the concentration of Russian-speaking population in the industrial suburbs during the socialist period.

Conclusion the impact of recent suburbanisation pattern is evident and confirms the previous results that residential suburbanisation, rather than labour-market change, contributed to the increase of commuting in the RMA. a strong correlation between suburbanisation in the RMA and commuting to Rīga. the higher probability of commuting is for younger and more affluent suburban residents. Commuting to Rīga in the 2000s increased considerably as the capital city became the focal point of employment with better opportunities and higher wages (Krišjāne and Bērziņš 2009). At the same time, the suburban hinterland started to provide much better housing choices and amenities (Bērziņš and Krišjāne 2008).

Conclusion Commuting has significantly increased in the post-socialist metropolis Suburbanisation is the major source of growing commuting People with higher social status are more likely to commute than people with lower social status Commuting time is not related to social status