urbanization and counter-urbanization by ethnic origin in estonia
DESCRIPTION
The Fourth International Conference on Population Geographies Hongkong, 10–13 July 2007. URBANIZATION AND COUNTER-URBANIZATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN ESTONIA. Tiit Tammaru Department of Geography University of Tartu, Estonia. Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundation - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
URBANIZATION AND COUNTER-URBANIZATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN ESTONIA
Tiit Tammaru
Department of GeographyUniversity of Tartu, Estonia
The Fourth International Conference on Population GeographiesHongkong, 10–13 July 2007
Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundationgrant no 6506
Content of the presentation:
• Conceptual background
• Data and methods
• Results: ethnic differences in urbanization and counter-urbanization
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Dominant conceptual approach (Massey, 1985):
• Ethnic enclave
• Spatial assimilation
Alternatives (Ellis and Goodwin-White, 2006), e.g:
• Segmented assimilation
• Heterolocalism
• Diversified immigrant destinations
Features of minority population in Estonia:
• High share in total population
• Spatially concentrated
• Longer residence compared to Western European immigrant populations
• Relatively homogenous (Russian- speaking)
• Weak linkages between Estonians and minorities
Ethnic origin could be a special population characteristic shaping migration in transition context (Kulu and Billari, 2004):
• New opportunities in transition economies
• Economic hardships in transition economies
DATA AND METHODS
Research data:
• Census 2000 anonymous individual records
• Place of residence in 1989 and 2000
Research population (n = 125,668)
• Urbanizer — a person who lived on a lower level of the settlement system in 1989, but on a higher level in 2000 (n = 71,699)
• Counter-urbanizer — a person who lived on a higher level of the settlement system in 1989, but on a lower level in 2000 (n = 53,969)
Figure 3. Five level Estonian settlement system.
Capital cityRegional townCounty seatSuburban areaNon-metropolitan areas (small towns and rural areas)
UM MCI = X 100
UM + DM
MCI — migration concentration index
UM — net up-ward moves
DM — net down-ward moves
Migration concentration index(Kontuly and Tammaru 2006)
Two-level random intercept logistic regression model:
p(Yij = 1) K L M
log = + k · k Xij + l · lZj + m · mZij + εj
p(Yij = 0) k=1 l=1 m=1
Hypothesis 1
Ethnic minorities have a lower probability to be an internal migrant compared to Estonians
Hypothesis 2
Estonians urbanize more likely compared to ethnic minorities
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Table 1. Internal migration by ethnic origin.
Estonians Ethnic
minorities
Share in population (%) 68 32
Share among internal migrants (%) 86 14
Share among migrants in the settlement system 88 12
Figure 4. NMR by ethnic origin in the settlement system, 1989–2000.
MCI Estonians = 100MCI minorities = 40
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Rural areas Small towns County seatMAs
Regionalcenter MAs
Capital city MA
Cru
de r
ate,
‰
ö
Estonians Ethnic minorities
Table 2. The probability to be an urbanizer (0) or counter- urbanizer (1) in the settlement system (parameter estimates).
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Ethnic origin (Base: Estonian)
Ethnic minority 0,476 *** 0,786 *** 1,301 ***
Share of Estonians (Base: <80%) 80–89% 90% and more
Cross-level interactions
Ethnic minority by
Share of Estonians 80–89% –0,556 ***
Share of Estonians 90% and more –0,729 ***
σε 0,779 *** 0,470 *** 0,499 ***
0,681 ***
1,544 ***
0,728 ***
1,606 ***
CONCLUSIONS
• Migration of ethnic minorities is modest in the settlement system modest compared to Estonians
• The counter-urbanization moves are clearly evident among ethnic minorities
• Ethnic minorities migrate more likely to municipalities with higher share of minorities
THANK YOU!
Tiit Tammaru
Department of GeographyUniversity of Tartu, Estonia
The Fourth International Conference on Population GeographiesHongkong, 10–13 July 2007
Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundationgrant no 6506