I
A T L A N T AAGE GROUP
0. 1
0.
::L
e . . <-
, . - . . a -, ,- , ". .AGE GROUP
I . &
0.9.
0.8.
0.7..
Figure 1. Continued.
H O U S T O N
1960s
\ I - -
&='
a +.
'' (\,'
4
1470s
Both l a t e 1970s and l a t e 1960s r a t e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s manner
Central City
HOUSTON
Central City YEAR YEAR YEAR Figure 2. Alternative projections of city and suburb population sizes, 1970-2020 based on assumptions of late 1960s and late 1970s destination propensity rates: Detroit, Atlanta, and Houston SMSAs.they do constitute a means to assess the aggregate implications of intercensal movement patterns until a more satisfactory
data base becomes available with the next census. The "updated"
projections above, for example, serve to counter a popularly held view that a significant "return to the city" had occurred in large metropolitan areas since the 1 9 7 0 census was taken.
5. CONCLUSION
We have introduced in this paper a population projection framework that incorporates both interregional migration and intraregional residential mobility streams to project future population sizes both across and within regions in a manner that
is consistent with existing multiregional migration theory. We have also shown how the framework can be operationalized with fixed interval migration data that are commonly available with censuses and surveys. A significant advantage of this framework over the existing multiregional projection methodology is its parsimonious data requirements when both inter- and intraregional projections are desired. It also permits the user to "update"
baseline projections when recent, more limited regional survey data become available. These features of the framework were demonstrated through projections of intrametropolitan central city-suburban redistribution for three US SNSAs based on migra- tion data from the 1 9 7 0 US Census and metropolitan area-wide Annual Housing Surveys undertaken in each SMSA over the 1 9 7 5 - 7 7 period. While this inter/intraregional projection framework can be employed with any regionalization scheme the user desires, it is most consistent with underlying migration and residential
mobility processes when the "regions" correspond to self-contained labor market areas such as Standard Metropolitan Areas or Bureau of Economic Analysis Areas in the US, or Metropolitan Economic Labor Areas in the United Kingdom.
FOOTNOTES
The operational distinction between migration and resi-
dential mobility is not always made on the basis of movement across or within labor market areas. Government statistical agencies often make this distinction on the basis of admini- strative units. The US Census Bureau, for example, defines migration as movement across a county administrative unit, despite the fact that labor market areas generally consist of groups of counties (US Bureau of the Census 1970).
2. This discussion of the city-suburban redistribution process is consistent with the "analytic framework" we have previously advanced to examine the determinants and migration stream
components of city-suburban redistribution within a single migration interval (Frey 1978a, 1979b). The projection methodology presented in section 3 represents an extension of this framework to a more general projection model.
3. We have defined the destination propensity rate (Frey 1978a) as the proportion of migrants or movers of a specified origin that locate in a specified destination. It should be applied to an at-risk population of movers or migrants and should always indicate their location of destination (e.g., the j destination propensity rate of i origin movers).
4. These equations are similar to those employed in Frey's
8. The reader will note that these projections differ from those presented for the Pittsburgh and Houston SMSAs in Long and Frey (1982), section 4.2. The latter are not strictly estimated with the closed system inter- and intraregional methodology advanced here in that the in-migration component
[s :(x) ::K (x)
I
was generated by applying observed "in-migration- to-beginning-of-period resident" ratios to the SMSA1s agedisaggregated population at the beginning of each period.
Hence, the resulting SMSA projections are not consistent with projections for a system of regions which lies outside
the SMSA boundaries.
9. For each metropolitan area, a tabulation was prepared for members of households whose head moved during the year pre- ceding the survey. The tabulations cross-classified the city and suburb location at the date of the survey by city, suburb, or outside the SMSA locations of previous residence for household members in age classes 5-14, 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, and 55+ at the time of the survey. Hence, the destination propensity rates compiled from these data are based on mobility observations over a 1-year (not 5-year) period and pertain to the end-of-period household popula- tion (not total population) in each SMSA. In generating the projections, destination propensity rates for 5-year age class multiples (i.e., 5-14) are applied to each 5-year age group in the class (e.g., 5-9 and 10-14).
REFERENCES
F r e y , W.H. ( 1 9 7 8 a ) P o p u l a t i o n Movement and C i t y - S u b u r b R e d i s - t r i b u t i o n : An A n a l y t i c Framework. Demography 1 5 ( 4 ) : 5 7 1 - 588.
F r e y , W.H. ( 1 9 7 8 b ) B l a c k Movement t o t h e S u b u r b s : P o t e n t i a l s and P r o s p e c t s o f M e t r o p o l i t a n - W i d e I n t e g r a t i o n . I n , The Demography o f R a c i a l and E t h n i c G r o u p s , e d i t e d by F.D.
Bean and W.P. F r i s b i e .
F r e y , W . H . ( 1 9 7 9 a ) White F l i g h t and C e n t r a l C i t y L o s s : A p p l i c a - t i o n o f a n A n a l y t i c M i g r a t i o n Framework. E n v i r o n m e n t and P l a n n i n g A 11:129-147.
F r e y , W.H. ( 1 9 7 9 b ) C e n t r a l C i t y White F l i g h t : R a c i a l C a u s e s . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 4 4 ( 3 ) : 4 2 5 - 4 4 8 .
F r e y , W.H. ( 1 9 8 0 ) W h i t e R e t u r n t o t h e C i t y , B l a c k Movement t o t h e S u b u r b s and P r o j e c t e d Changes i n F u t u r e C i t y Popula- t i o n s . P r e s e n t e d a t 1980 Annual M e e t i n g o f t h e American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n .
Goodman, J . L . , J r . ( 1 978) Urban R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y : P l a c e s , P e o p l e and P o l i c y . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : The Urban I n s t i t u t e . Greenwood, M . J . ( 1 9 7 5 ) R e s e a r c h o n I n t e r n a l M i g r a t i o n i n t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s : A S u r v e y . J o u r n a l o f Economic L i t e r a t u r e 13:397-433.
Greenwood, M . J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) M i g r a t i o n and Economic G r o u t h i n t h e U . S . : N a t i o n a l R e g i o n a l and M e t r o p o l i t a n P e r s p e c t i v e s . N e w York:
Academic Press.
Hall, P., and D. Hay (1980) Growth C e n t r e s i n t h e European Urban
US Bureau of the Census (197713) C u r r e n t Housing R e p o r t s H-170- 75-21. Annual Housing Survey: 1975. Atlanta, Georgia SMSA. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
US Bureau of the Census (1978) C u r r e n t Housing R e p o r t s H-170- 76-49. Annual Housing Survey: 1976: Houston, Texas SMSA.
Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
US Bureau of the Census (1980) C u r r e n t Housing R e p o r t s H-170- 77-5. Annual Housing Survey: 1977. Detroit, Michigan SMSA. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of HEW (1975) U.S. D e c e n n i a l L i f e T a b l e s f o r 1 9 6 9 -
7 1 . vol. 1, no. 1,DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 75-1150.
Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
Willekens, F., and A. Rogers (1978) S p a t i a l P o p u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s :
Methods and Computer Programs. RR-78-18. Laxenburg,
Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
RELATED P U B L I C A T I O N S
A n d r e i R o g e r s , e d i t o r , P o p u l a t i o n , R e s o u r c e s , and Growth.
I I A S A R e p o r t s , V o l u m e 2 , N u m b e r 2 O c t o b e r - D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 0 . Warren C. S a n d e r s o n , Economic-Demographic S i m u l a t i o n M o d e l s : A R e v i e w o f T h e i r U s e f u l n e s s f o r P o l i c y A n a l y s i s . RR-80-14.
A l l e n C . K e l l e y and J e f f r e y G . W i l l i a m s o n , M o d e l i n g Urban- i z a t i o n and Economic Growth. R R - 8 0 - 2 2 .
N a t h a n K e y f i t z , Do C i t i e s Grow b y N a t u r a l I n c r e a s e o r by M i g r a t i o n ? R R - 8 0 - 2 4 .
N a t h a n K e y f i t z , M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y i n P o p u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s . R R - 8 0 - 3 3 .
K a z u s h i O h k a w a , D u a l i s t i c D e v e l o p m e n t and P h a s e s : P o s s i b l e R e l e v a n c e o f t h e J a p a n e s e E x p e r i e n c e t o C o n t e m p o r a r y L e s s D e v e l o p e d C o u n t r i e s . C P - 8 0 - 2 9 .
A n d r e i R o g e r s , e d i t o r , Advances i n M u l t i r e g i o n a l Demography.
I I A S A R e p o r t s , V o l u m e 4 , N u m b e r 1 J u l y - S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 1 .
K l a u s N e u s s e r , F e r t i l i t y and Female Labor-Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n : E s t i m a t e s and P r o j e c t i o n s f o r A u s t r i a n Women Aged 2 0 - 3 0 .
WP-81-40.
N a t h a n K e y f i t z and A n d r e i R o g e r s , S i m p l i f i e d M u l t i p l e C o n t i n - g e n c y C a l c u l a t i o n s . WP-81-54.
N a t h a n K e y f i t z , The Demographic S t a t e o f t h e W o r l d . WP-81-80.
1 1 . N a t h a n K e y f i t z , How S e c u r e ' i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y ? WP-81-101.
1 2 . P h i l i p L. M a r t i n , I m m i g r a t i o n 1 9 8 1 : The US D e b a t e . WP-81-129.
1 3 . W a r r e n C. S a n d e r s o n , An A n a l y t i c a l l y Based Two-Sex M a r r i a g e Model and Maximum L i k e l i h o o d E s t i m a t e s o f I t s P a r a m e t e r s : A u s t r i a , 1 9 7 9 . WP-81-130.
1 4 . A n d r e i R o g e r s , P r o j e c t i o n s o f P o p u l a t i o n Growth and U r b a n i - z a t i o n f o r F i v e S o u t h e a s t A s i a n P a c i f i c N a t i o n s . WP-81-137.
1 5 . N a t h a n K e y f i t z a n d D i m i t e r P h i l i p o v , M i g r a t i o n and N a t u r a l I n c r e a s e i n t h e Growth o f C i t i e s . RR-82-2.
1 6 . U r b a n ~ a r l s t r o m , T h e R o l e o f E m i g r a t i o n and M i g r a t i o n i n S w e d i s h I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n - S o m e P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s U s i n g a Computab Ze G e n e r a l E q u i l i b r i u m Model. WP-82-4.
1 7 . H i s a n o b u S h i s h i d o , Economic Growth and Labor M a r k e t D u a l i s m : A P r e l i m i n a r y S t u d y o f t h e J a p a n e s e C a s e . WP-82-7.
1 8 . N a t h a n K e y f i t z , P o p u l a t i o n and Employment i n C h i n a . WP-82-14.
1 9 . N a t h a n K e y f i t z , G l o b a l P r o s p e c t s f o r P o p u l a t i o n Growth and D i s t r i b u t i o n . WP-82-36.
2 0 . N a t h a n K e y f i t z , Can T h e o r y I m p r o v e P o p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t s ? WP-82-39.
2 1 . James V a u p e l a n d A n a t o l i Y a s h i n , The D e v i a n t Dynamics o f D e a t h i n H e t e r o g e n e o u s P o p u l a t i o n s . WP-82-47.
2 2 . M i c h a e l H a n n a n , M u l t i s t a t e Demography and E v e n t H i s t o r y A n a l y s i s . WP-82-50.
2 3 . Thomas E s p e n s h a d e , M a r r i a g e , D i v o r c e , and R e m a r r i a g e from R e t r o s p e c t i v e Data: A M u l t i r e g i o n a l A p p r o a c h . CP-82-34.
2 4 . A n d r e i R o g e r s a n d J e f f r e y G. W i l l i a m s o n , e d i t o r s , U r b a n i z a - t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d . RR-82-24.
2 5 . A n d r e i R o g e r s a n d P a m e l a W i l l i a m s , A Framework f o r M u l t i s t a t e Demoeconomic M o d e l i n g and P r o j e c t i o n w i t h a n I l l u s t r a t i v e A p p l i c a t i o n . WP-82-69.