1

Determinants of location evaluation and choice of residence An empirical analysis of the city of Moenchengladbach

Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Hamm Angelika Jäger, M.A. Katja Keggenhoff, Dipl. Geogr.

NIERS – Niederrhein Institute for Regional and Structural Research 2 MG Bewegt

 Target group specific analysis of migration processes and motives concerning the living and working location Moenchengladbach, 2014

 Location evaluation and migration analysis of private households

1) Employee survey in MG Online survey (n = 2.371)

District specific analysis: Migration structure Migration motives and determinants Evaluation of the city

2) Survey of emigrants 3) Survey of immigrants n = 597 n = 535 randomly drawn sample randomly drawn sample

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on Google Maps 4 Population trend in Moenchengladbach

 Since 2012: a stable, slightly increasing development

268.000 500 342 242 267.000

266.000 0 265.000 -264 -268

264.000 -527 -585 -500 263.000 -914 262.000 -967 -1.071 -1.000 261.000

260.000 -1.567 259.000 -1.500

258.000 267.190 266.605 266.341 266.073 265.106 263.539 262.468 261.941 261.027 261.369 261.611 257.000 -2.000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

In total Population change versus previous year

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on data of the city MG – faculty urban development and planning 5 Migration movements across city boundaries Comparison of Germans and non-Germans

InflowsInflow ofof the 9000 Germans 8302 8354 Germans - 8290 7912 7778 7945 Migration across 8000 7643 district boundary 7291 7231 of MG 6910 6793 7566 7000 7269 7085 OutflowsOutflow ofof the 6745 7036 6892 6990 6612 6712 6571 6821 GermansGermans - 6000 Migration across

4951 district boundary 5000 of MG

4081 Inflow of non- 4000 3587 Inflows of the 3251 foreignersGermans - 2869 2724 2624 Migration across 3000 2598 2577 2541 2351 2989 district boundary 2737 2648 of MG 2000 2594 2168 2050 1928 2056 2061 Outflow of non- 1759 1854 Outflows of the 1000 foreignersGermans - Migration across 0 district boundary 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 of MG

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on data of the city MG – faculty urban development and planning 6

Bettrath- Flughafen AGE Hoven 47,6 45,4 Neuwerk- STRUCTURE Mitte 46,3 Windberg Uedding 48,4 Eicken 41,9 43,8 Hardt-Mitte Am Wasserturm 46,0 Venn Lürrip 44,1 46,1 46,2 Waldhausen Gladbach Bungt 41,5 Hardterbroich, 51,7 Hardter Wald 42,9 Westend Pesch 42,5 47,9 42,0 Hehn Average age in Dahl 39,8 47,4 Bonnenbr.-Geneicken Holt Ohler Grenzlandstadion years 43,9 46,2 40,8 42,7 Schrievers Rheydt Giesenkirchen- Rheindahlen-Land Pongs 44,3 41,2 Nord Schmölderpark Mülfort 45,2 47,9 45,8 Heyden 41,1 44,5 Giesenkirchen- 42,4 Schelsen Hockstein Geistenbeck Mitte Rheindahlen- 47 42,6 46,1 44,6 Mitte Odenkirchen-West 45,7 43,3 Wickrath-Mitte Odenkirchen-Mitte 44,3 44,6

The 25% of districts with the oldest average age Sasserath The 25% of districts with the 2. oldest average age Wickrath-West 46,6 The 25% of districts with the 2. youngest average age 44,7 Wickrath- The 25% of districts with the youngest average age berg 45,7

Wanlo

44,4 Source: Own illustration based on data obtained by the city MG – faculty urban Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal development and planning 7

Bettrath- Flughafen SHARE OF Hoven 5,8 5,0 Neuwerk- Mitte NON-GERMANS 5,9 Windberg Uedding 4,5 Eicken 16,3 6,2 Hardt-Mitte Am Wasserturm Venn Lürrip 12,2 5,9 9,7 5,1 Bungt Waldhausen Gladbach 21,2 Hardterbroich, 9,7 Hardter Wald 12,7 Share of non-Germans Westend Pesch 18,0 5,5 18,0 Hehn Dahl 16,4 in relation to the entire 3,0 Holt Ohler Grenzlandstadion Bonnenbr.- population of the district 10,0 4,0 14,6 Geneicken Schrievers 14,4 Rheydt Giesenkirchen-Nord Rheindahlen-Land Pongs 11,1 21,5 Mülfort 3,5 4,2 4,7 Schmölderpark 15,9 Heyden 16,7 15,6 Giesenkirchen- Hockstein Schelsen Geistenbeck Mitte 6,1 Rheindahlen- 11,3 5,1 2,6 Mitte: 7,1 Odenkirchen-West 11,9 Wickrath- Odenkirchen- Mitte: 8,0 Mitte 25% of districts with highest share of non-Germans 9,5 25% of districts with 2. highest share of non-Germans Sasserath Wickrath- 25% of districts with 2. lowest share of non-Germans 3,6 West Wickrath- 25% of districts with lowest share of non-Germans 2,7 berg 2,9 Wanlo Source: Own illustration based on data 5,3 obtained by the city MG – faculty urban Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal development and planning 8

Bettrath- Flughafen EMIGRATION Hoven 4,4 3,8 Neuwerk- Mitte: 3,1

Windberg Uedding 2,6 Eicken 5,0 2,8 Hardt-Mitte Am Wasserturm Venn Lürrip 3,8 3,5 5,3 Bungt Emigration across 2,6 Waldhausen Gladbach 6,5 Hardterbroich, 3,9 Hardter Wald 4,2 city boundary in Westend Pesch 5,1 2,8 Hehn 5,0 relation to the Dahl 5,2 1,5 Bonnenbr.-Geneicken Holt Ohler Grenzlandstadion 2,2 4,3 population 3,6 6,7 Schrievers Rheydt Giesenkirchen- Rheindahlen-Land Pongs 2,9 5,6 Mülfort Nord 3,1 2,8 Schmölderpark 5,2 Heyden 4,3 2,1 Giesenkirchen- 4,7 Schelsen Hockstein Geistenbeck Mitte 3,0 Rheindahlen- 3,2 2,6 4,2 Mitte: 4,1 Odenkirchen- West: 3,2 Wickrath-Mitte Odenkirchen- 3,6 Mitte 25% of districts with the most relative emigration 3,9 Sasserath 25% of districts with the 2. most relative emigration Wickrath- 2,7 25% of districts with the 2. least relative emigration West Wickrathberg 25% of districts with the least relative emigration 2,6 3,6

Wanlo Source: Own illustration based on data 2,4 obtained by the city MG – faculty urban Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal development and planning 9 ZufriedenheitSatisfaction mit with der city Stadt IntraregionalIntraregionaler Average Wettbewerb Düsseldorf 1,31 competition Köln 1,31 Aachen 1,34 Niederkrüchten 1,44 Korschenbroich 1,51 Erkelenz 1,54 Nettetal 1,55 Neuss 1,60 Willich 1,61 Kaarst 1,64 1,73 Schwalmtal 1,74 1,75 1,77 Duisburg 1,97 SehrVery zufriedensatisfied (1) (1) Jüchen 2,00

Grevenbroich 2,10 EherRather zufrieden satisfied (2) (2)

EherRather unzufrieden dissatisfied(3) (3) Mönchengladbach 2,36

SehrVery unzufriedendissatisfied (4) (4) Krefeld 2,42 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey 10 Intraregionaler Satisfaction with apartment Intraregional Average Wettbewerb Wegberg 1,31 Niederkrüchten 1,32 competition Schwalmtal 1,35 Willich 1,36 Erkelenz 1,38 Korschenbroich 1,39 Nettetal 1,40 Heinsberg 1,43 Aachen 1,44 Viersen 1,45 Düsseldorf 1,46 Duisburg 1,48 Neuss 1,49 Jüchen 1,51

Mönchengladbach 1,55 SehrVery zufrieden satisfied (1) (1)

1,56 EherRather zufrieden satisfied (2) (2) Grevenbroich Krefeld 1,64 EherRather unzufrieden dissatisfied(3) (3) Köln 1,64

Kaarst 1,73 SehrVery unzufrieden dissatisfied (4) (4) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 11 SatisfactionZufriedenheit with mit living dem districtStadtteil IntraregionalIntraregionaler Average Wettbewerb Niederkrüchten 1,31 competition Nettetal 1,36 Korschenbroich 1,42 Willich 1,45 Düsseldorf 1,45 Erkelenz 1,51 Wegberg 1,52 Schwalmtal 1,54 Köln 1,55 Duisburg 1,55 Viersen 1,64 Jüchen 1,67 Neuss 1,67 Aachen 1,70 1,72 (1) Heinsberg SehrVery zufriedensatisfied (1) 1,74 Grevenbroich EherRather zufrieden satisfied (2) (2) Krefeld 1,80

EherRather unzufrieden dissatisfied(3) (3) Mönchengladbach 1,81 SehrVery unzufriedendissatisfied (4) (4) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 12 Emigrants: Satisfaction with new and old living situation

 After moving away from MG: city, district and apartment are evaluated more positively. 100% 1,4% 2,3% 2,3% 3,9% 5,1% 7,5% 7,9% 9,3% 10,4% 90% 13,7% Very 21,2% Sehr 80% 22,2% dissatisfied 31,6% 33,3% unzufrieden 70% 35,2% Rather 34,0% Eher 60% unzufriedendissatisfied 50% 42,7% EherRather zufrieden 40% 73,5% satisfied 47,3% Very 30% 58,2% 53,2% Sehr 20% 47,2% zufriendensatisfied 10% 27,6% 9,0% 0%

MG Neu New New MG MG Viertel Viertel MG New New District Neu City MG MG City District Apartment Apartment

New City New Stadt MG Stadt Wohnung Wohnung Stadt Neu Stadt

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey 13 Immigrants: Satisfaction with new and old living situation

 After moving to MG: city and district are evaluated less positively, apartment more positively.

100% 2,9% 3,6% 3,7% 6,6% 5,3% 5,9% 5,6% 90% 13,9% 15,0% 14,9% 15,9% Very 80% Sehr 29,4% 29,0% 70% unzufriedendissatisfied 28,7% 33,7% 33,1% Rather 60% 50,8% Eher 50% unzufriedendissatisfied 40% 50,8% EherRather 30% 61,0% satisfied 50,9% 47,7% 45,3% zufrieden 20% 31,7% sehrVery 10% 14,2% zufriendensatisfied 0%

Stadt alt Stadt MG Stadt Viertel Alt MG City Old City Viertel MG Viertel District MG Old District Wohnung Alt Apartment MG Old Apartment Wohnung MG

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey 14 Employees: Satisfaction with current living situation People living in Moenchengladbach People living outside of Moenchengladbach

Source: Own illustration based on the conducted survey

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 15 GAP-Analysis comparing the surveys Ø Importance – Ø Evaluation  Employees evaluate the reviewed determinants -1,2 most negatively, Sonstige Other aspects Aspekte -1,1 immigrants evaluate less -0,9 negatively  ONLY negative GAPs; FamilienfreundlichkeitFamily-friendliness and und -0,8 education -0,7 Importance always Bildung -0,5 higher than evaluation  Biggest problem of the Cityscape and public -1,4 Stadtbild und öffentliche city: Cityscape and Flächenplaces -1,3 public spaces -1,0  Culture and leisure facility are not the Leisure and cultural -0,3 Kultur und Freizeit -0,3 primary concern of the facilities -0,2 city - due to a relatively low importance -0,9 VerkehrTraffic und and Versorgung supply -0,6 infrastructure -0,5 Source: Own calculations based on conducted surveys ArbeitnehmerEmployees WeggezogeneEmigrants -1,50 -1,00 -0,50 0,00 Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | ZugezogeneImmigrants Location and living satisfaction Importance Ø Quality Ø 16 Traffic and care 1,63 2,42 Inner-city transport connection (public transport) 1,67 2,28 Location Interurban transport connection (bus&train) 1,67 2,36 Street- and transport infrastructure 1,46 2,65 factors Pedestrian friendliness 1,70 2,44 Bicycle friendliness 1,78 2,97 Medical care 1,39 1,79 Purchasing opportunities, shopping 1,72 2,47 quality and Cityscape and public space 1,57 2,86 Attractiveness of cityscape 1,61 2,98 importance Green space, parks 1,53 2,50 Quality at public places 1,74 3,05 Cleanness 1,40 2,91 Culture and free time 1,90 2,17 Cultural institutions and supplies 1,90 2,28 Cinemas 2,10 2,08 Sports infrastructure 1,84 2,13 1 – very important Gastronomy 1,75 2,19 4 – very unimportant Family-friendliness and education 1,65 2,38 Day-nursery (U3-care) 1,78 2,37 Kindergarden 1,62 2,21 1 – very positive Elementary school 1,57 2,12 4 – very negative Secondary school 1,51 2,13 University 1,71 1,95 Playgrounds 1,70 2,85 Free time activities for young people 1,56 2,94 Institutions and offers for seniors 1,77 2,47 Other aspects 1,54 2,65 Municipality 1,67 2,47 Charges and duties 1,75 2,87 Source: Own illustration based Social living environment 1,36 2,65 on conducted survey Image of the city 1,74 2,88 Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | Security 1,28 2,57 Calm and low air pollution 1,47 2,49 17 Importance and quality of location factors in MG - survey Skala: 1 - very important/positive / 2 - rather important/positive / 3 - rather unimportant/negative / 4 - very unimportant/negative 1 Evaluation positive, very Evaluation below average positiv importance positive, above average importance

Medical care

University Cinemas 2 Gastro- Elementary school Sportsinfrastructure nomy Secondary school Kindergarden

Inner-city transport connection (public transport) Cultural institutions and supplies Day-nursery (U3-care) very Interurban transport connection (bus&train) 2 Pedestrian friendliness important 1 Institutions and offers for seniors Calm and low air pollution Municipality very Purchasing opportunities, Green spaces, parks Security shopping unimportant Street- and transport infrastructure Social living environment Charges and duties Playground Importance Free time Cleanness Image of the CIty Bicycle friendliness activities for 3 young people Cityscape Quality at public places Attractiveness

Evaluation negative, Evaluation negative, below very negative above average average importance importance 4 Quality

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 18 Special measures required from the perspective of the citizens… Importance

Quality

Scales intersect at arithmetic mean of all factors  importance 1,65; quality 2,48;

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Source: Own illustration based on conducted survey 19 Result and Summary

 Fundamental conclusion: All location factors are important, most are inferior

 Sector "Leisure and Cultural Amenities" is not an important migration motive / location factor

 Four of the five most important location factors are soft location factors

 High importance of intraregional competition

 Immigrants and emigrants like: good location, reachability, cheap rents

 Immigrants and emigrants criticize: Cityscape, infrastructure, social (living) environment

 Policy recommendations: cleanness, attractiveness of cityscape, quality of public places, social living environment, street and transport infrastructure, silence and low air pollution

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Thank you for your attention!

Niederrhein Institute for Regional and Structural Research

Angelika Jäger, M.A.

Tel: +49 (0)2161 186-6403

Email: [email protected]; @HS-Niederrhein.de

Further Information on the project: http://www.hs-niederrhein.de/research/research-centers/niers/

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 21 Literature

• BIRKHÖLZER, KARL: Formen und Reichweite lokaler Ökonomien, in: HARALD IHMIG (Hrsg.), Wochenmarkt und Weltmarkt. Kommunale Alternativen zum globalen Kapital, , 2000 • Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS): BIWAQ-Projekte der 1. und 2. Förderrunde im Überblick (WWW-Dokument, http://www.biwaq.de/cln_032/nn_1094974/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Karte__BIWAQ1und2__Projektkommu- nen,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Karte_BIWAQ1und2_Projektkommunen.pdf), 2012, abgerufen am 17.04.2012) • Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS): BIWAQ: Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im Quartier. (WWW- Dokument, http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/SW/biwaq-bildung-wirtschaft-arbeit-im-quartier.html) 2012, abgerufen am 17.02.2012 • Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (Hrsg.): Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im Quartier (BIWAQ). Gemeinsam neue Perspektiven schaffen, Berlin, 2011 • FLOETING, HOLGER / REIMANN, BETTINA /SCHULERI-HARTJE, ULLA-KRISTINA: Ethnische Ökonomie. Integrationsfaktor und Integrationsmaßstab, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, Berlin, 2004 • HANESCH, WALTER / JUNG-KROH, IMKE / PARTSCH, JOCHEN: Gemeinwesenorientierte Beschäftigungsförderung in Stadtteilen mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – Schlussbericht, in: HEGISS Materialien Begleitforschung 6, Frankfurt am Main, 2004 • HANESCH, WALTER / KRÜGER-CONRAD, KIRSTEN: Lokale Beschäftigung und Ökonomie als Herausforderung für die „Soziale Stadt“, in: HANESCH, WALTER / KRÜGER-CONRAD, KIRSTEN (Hrsg.), Lokale Beschäftigung und Ökonomie. Herausforderung für die „Soziale Stadt“, Wiesbaden, 2004, S. 7-33 • HÄUßERMANN, HARTMUT: Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf - Die Soziale Stadt, in: Selle, Klaus (Hrsg.), Praxis der Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung. Analysen. Erfahrungen. Folgerungen. Planung neu denken, Band 2, Dortmund, 2006, S. 285-301 • HILLEN, SEBASTIAN: Der Begriff „Lokale Ökonomie“ – Bedeutung, Abgrenzung und Potential, in: Exemplarische Master-Arbeiten, Zentrum für ökonomische und soziologische Studien, Hamburg, 2006 • Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik GmbH (IfS): „Die Soziale Stadt. Ergebnisse der Zwischenevaluierung. Bewertung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt“ nach vier Jahren Programmlaufzeit. Hrsg.: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung im Auftrag des BMVBS, Berlin, 2004 • KLÖCK, TILO: Solidarität in der lokalen Ökonomie?, in: SAHLE, RITA, SCURRELL, BABETTE (Hrsg.), Lokale Ökonomie. Aufgaben und Chancen für die Soziale Arbeit, 2001, S. 25-42 • LÄPPLE, DIETER / WALTER, GERD: Lokale Ökonomie. Arbeiten und Produzieren im Stadtteil, in: Bauwelt, Nr. 157, 2003, S. 24-33 • NOHLEN, DIETER / SCHULTZE, RAINER OLAF: Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft, Band 2 N – Z, München, 2004, S. 936 • ROBERTSON, JAMES: Health, wealth and the New Economics. An agenda for a healthier world, London, 1985 • Technologie-Netzwerk Berlin e.V.: Lokale Soziale Ökonomie. Lern- und Studienmaterial. Ein Europäisches Curriculum für Praktiker, Unterstützer und Multiplikatoren in Sozialen Unternehmen. Berlin, 2009

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal 23 Commuter traffic: In total 47.880 in-commuters, 44.229 out-commuters, slightly positive commuter balance of 3.651

Commuter interweaving of Moenchengladbach with the surrounding areas (2012)

Source: Own illustration based on data of IT:NRW, 2012

Hamm / Jäger / Keggenhoff | 55th ERSA Congress – Lisbon, Portugal