Premium
THE JOURNEY‐TO‐WORK DISTANCE IN RELATION TO THE SOCIO‐ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKERS
Author(s) -
HECHT A.
Publication year - 1974
Publication title -
canadian geographer / le géographe canadien
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.35
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 1541-0064
pISSN - 0008-3658
DOI - 10.1111/j.1541-0064.1974.tb00210.x
Subject(s) - residence , demographic economics , wage , constraint (computer aided design) , marital status , work (physics) , budget constraint , variable (mathematics) , variables , regression analysis , economics , labour economics , statistics , demography , mathematics , sociology , microeconomics , engineering , mechanical engineering , mathematical analysis , population , geometry
SUMMARY The aim of this paper has been to explore the variation in the distance between the residence and work locations of industrial workers. This distance has been theoretically and empirically related to the income, number of dependents, marital status, sex, and age of workers whose job site was located in the centre of the city. A multiple regression model has shown the over‐all importance of the budget constraint as a factor in the residential location decision relative to the job site. Of the variables included in the analysis, the wage rate of the worker is the strongest determinant of the location decision. Although workers who have the same budget constraint show weak locational relationships with the job site relative to the number of dependents and marital status, as suggested by the model, the only strong difference in spatial location occurs when the budget constraint is allowed to vary. Once workers have the means to increase their over‐all utility level, they do trade off journey‐to‐work disutilities for residential facilities farther from the central city job site. But the social conditions of the worker tend to influence the residence‐to‐work distance only slightly when considered apart from the influence they may have on the wage rate. The over‐all dependence of the journey‐to‐work distance on these variables in this setting hence was small, reaching an R value of only 0.38.