On coming, leaving and staying (KoBaLd): Migration processes and residential location decisions from the perspective of rural areas

Background and Objective

Our research focused on internal migration in Germany between 2000 and 2022 (macro level) and, restricted to the period 2015 to 2020, on the decisions behind these migration patterns at the micro level of households.

Subsumed under the concept of residential location decisions, we analysed past migration (i.e., relocations in which the administrative boundary of a municipality is crossed), return migration and residential multilocality as well as long-term staying in rural areas. Intended future residential mobility was also taken into account.

We define residential location decisions as recurrent household-related processes of deliberating and negotiating subjectively appropriate residential locations. Typical triggers are changes within a household (such as the birth of a child or a divorce) and or externally, such as a new job or changes in the residential environment. Chance and housing opportunities also play a role in residential location decisions.

Approach

• Work package 1: Analyses of internal migration across municipal borders in Germany, based on German register data, for the period 2000–2020, later widened to 2021 and 2022 to also cover the COVID 19-pandemics (responsible: ILS)
• Work package 2: 30 semi-structured interviews (15 in large cities, 15 in rural areas) on past and intended residential location decisions, analysed through the lens of residential histories (responsible: Thünen Institute)
• Work package 3: Germany-wide questionnaire survey (n=3,600) in 2020 (responsible: Thünen Institute and ILS)
• Work package 4: synthesis of research, formulation of recommendations for practitioners, policy and research (responsible: Thünen Institute)

Data and Methods

The KoBaLd project team applied a novel multi-method design:

• In the first step, we analysed data from register-based national migration statistics for the period 2000 to 2022. We were able to identify both long-term spatial patterns of internal migration and first consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Secondly, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with narrative elements in villages and cities to trace and understand housing biographies, their drivers and conditions.
• Thirdly, a Germany-wide population survey based on computer-assisted telephone interviews (n = 3,600) was the third and main part of our empirical research. The sample is made up of five sub-samples: Four groups comprise people who have recently migrated within Germany – either between rural and urban areas or within them (abbreviated as “rural to urban”, “urban to rural”, “rural to rural” and “urban to urban”), while the fifth subsample consists of people who have stayed in rural areas for at least ten years (“rural stayers”).
  The sampling design allows for comparisons between the five types of residential location decisions and the four types of migration decisions, respectively. The explicit inclusion of different areas of origin and destination for internal migration along with the distinction between rural and urban places methodologically broke new ground. Not least, the survey also contained open-ended questions that allow for multiple options of analysis.

Our Research Questions

• What trends in migration and, where appropriate, trend reversals can be identified with regard to rural areas in Germany in the period 2001-2020?
• Which factors are particularly relevant for decisions to leave a certain location or to stay there in distinct phases of life? How are such decisions (re)negotiated within households?
• How can we differentiate the different types of residential location decisions with regard to the motives, conditioning factors and the social structure of the households?
• What are the implications of the different residential location decisions in favour of or against rural areas?

Results

1. Internal migration in Germany has been characterised by a double trend reversal since the beginning of the 21^st In the first half of the 2000s, there was a noticeable shift in favour of urban areas (reurbanisation). Then, 2011 saw the beginning of a renewed change in the dominant forces in favour of suburban and rural (including very rural) areas (decentralisation). The decentralisation trend continued and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was not caused by the pandemic.

2. Migration decisions in favour of rural or urban areas are taken in a complex interplay of subjective needs for change, household resources, residential location preferences as well as the opportunities and restrictions of the respective housing and property markets. Distinguishing and subsequently comparing the four types of internal migrants and the group of long-term rural stayers reveals interrelations between life stages and residential location preferences. In part, it also points to socially selective residential location decisions in favour of rural and urban areas, respectively.

3. In spite of the overarching social change, our findings demonstrate the persistently high explanatory power of the life course perspective for housing and migration research. Interestingly, the majority of internal migration is accompanied by internal household changes (mostly increases in household sizes).

4. Employment-related and personal reasons are of great importance for decisions to move and decisions where to move across all types of internal migrants. Education-related reasons play a role above all in migration from rural to urban areas, while housing-related reasons are highly relevant when relocating to rural areas. The purchase price and the amount of rent, respectively, is by far the most important criterion when choosing a place to live, the second most important being the perceived atmosphere (Lebensgefühl) of the current residential location.

5. Rental housing is a relevant issue in rural areas, as it represents the dominant tenure of households moving to rural areas. If they stay in rural areas for a longer period of time, they strive for and often succeed in changing to home ownership (“housing career”).

6. Our detailed analyses of return migration and residential multilocality allow us to quantify these phenomena, which are “invisible” in official statistics, such as population registers. Among all migrations, we found that one third were return migrations to a previous municipality or region of residence. Depending on the sub-sample, up to one quarter of migrants live in multiple locations. Among rural stayers, it is one eighth.

7. Decisions to stay are made repeatedly over the life course and include recurring negotiations about leaving. Place attachment, particularly to the region, is a key factor with a positive impact on staying. Nonetheless, those who stay are not a homogeneous group. In addition to socio-structural characteristics, their length of residence is an explanatory factor for different reasons to stay. In order to better understand staying, comparative analyses between rural and urban stayers are desirable.

Links and Downloads

• Findings from Module 1 on the patterns of internal migration in Germany between 2000 and 2019 and their impacts on spatial development are to be found here (in German):
  ils-forschung.de/files_publikationen/pdfs/TRENDS-3.21_Binnenwanderungen_ONLINE_high%20resolution.pdf
• Fact-checking internal migration between urban and rural area (in German):
  https://www.thuenen.de/de/newsroom/mediathek/faktencheck/stadtfrust-landlust
• Thünen-Podcast “Left-behind or still attractive?” (in German):
  https://www.thuenen.de/de/newsroom/mediathek/podcast/folge-13-abgehaengt-oder-doch-attraktiv
• Final project report (in German): Steinführer A, Osterhage F (Hg.) (2024): Vom Kommen, Gehen und Bleiben. Wohnstandortentscheidungen aus der Perspektive ländlicher Räume. Thünen Report 118:
  https://www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/thuenen-report/Thuenen_Report_118.pdf