Recent Periurban Growth in The Ile-De-France

Population
Recent periurban growth in the Ile-de-France: Forms and causes

(Population,2,1997)
B. Baccani
Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Baccani B. Recent periurban growth in the Ile-de-France: Forms and causes (Population,2,1997). In: Population, an
English selection, 10 anne, n2, 1998. pp. 349-384.
http://www.persee.fr/doc/pop_0032-4663_1998_hos_10_2_6833
Document gnr le 17/10/2015
Abstract
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Recent periurban growth in the Ile de France: forms and causes During the
past several decades, settlement in the Ile de France has, in common with the majority of large
urban areas, experienced a rapid decongestion called suburbanization. After highlighting the
specific situation of suburban development in the Ile de France, which has served as a point of
transition between urban areas and the countryside, and the special features of the population
who lived there in 1990 (over-representation of families with children and underprivileged social
groups with housing primarily belonging to owneroccupiers) this paper deals with recent
migration of the suburban population in order to explain the causes and types of demographic
growth in this type of environment. Decongestion of the Paris urban area is responsible for nearly
three quarters of new suburban dwellers, and involves populations with very different sociodemographic characteristics from those who had migrated from the provinces and those who had
lived in the He de France for a longer period of time. The occupational distribution of recent inmigrants to the suburbs also varied significantly in different geographical areas and selection
effects have reinforced the existing specificity of various sectors.
Rsum
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Modalits et causes de la croissance rcente des communes priurbaines
d'Ile-de-France L'le-de-France connat depuis plusieurs dcennies, comme la plupart des grandes
rgions urbaines, un desserrement rapide de l'habitat connu sous le nom de priurbanisation .
Aprs avoir mis en vidence les spcificits du milieu priurbain francilien - transition entre
l'espace urbain et le monde rural - et de la population qui y vit en 1990 (surreprsentation des
familles avec enfants et des catgories sociales dfavorises, place prpondrante des logements
individuels occups par leur propritaire), cet article s'intresse aux migrations rcentes des
priurbains afin de saisir les causes et les modalits de la croissance dmographique de cet
espace. Responsable pour presque les trois quarts des arrives dans le milieu priurbain, le
desserrement de l'agglomration parisienne touche des populations dont les caractristiques
sociodmographiques diffrent sensiblement de celles des migrants venus de province ou de
celles de la population installe depuis longtemps dans cet espace. La structure
socioprofessionnelle des nouveaux arrivants du priurbain varie galement fortement d'un secteur
gographique l'autre, ces effets de slection ayant pour consquence de renforcer les
spcificits socioprofessionnelles existantes des divers secteurs. Un second article montrera les
relations qui existent entre ces trajectoires migratoires rcentes et la mobilit domicile-travail des
actifs du priurbain.
Resumen
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Modalidades y causas del crecimiento reciente de los municipios periurbanos
de le-de-France Desde hace varias dcadas en le-de-France se observa, como en la mayoria de
las grandes regiones urbanas, una expansion del habitat conocida bajp el nombre de
periurbanizacin. Des- pus de describir las especificidades del medio urbano de le-de-France transicin entre el espacio urbano y el mundo rural - y de su poblacin en 1990 - sobrerepresentacin de familias con hijos y de categorias sociales desfavorecidas, preponderancia de
viviendas individuales ocupadas por su propietario -, el prsente articulo estudia las migraciones
recientes de la poblacin periurbana. El objetivo de tal estudio es entender las causas y las
modalidades del crecimiento demogrfico de este espacio. La expansion de la aglomeracin
urbana de Paris explica casi las trs cuartas partes de las llegadas al medio periurbano. Las
caractersticas socio-demogrficas de estas poblaciones difieren sensiblemente de las
caractersticas de los migrantes llegados de provincias de las aplicables a poblaciones
instaladas desde hace tiempo en tal espacio. La estructura socio-profesional de los recin
llegados al medio periurbano varia tambin fuertemente de un sector geogrfico a otro. Estos
efectos de seleccin refuerzan las especificidades socio-profesionales existentes en los diversos
sectores. En un segundo articulo se mostrarn las relaciones existentes entre estas trayectorias
migratorias y la movilidad domicilio-trabajo de los activos del medio periurbano.
RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN

THE ILE-DE-FRANCE:
forms and causes*
The power of towns and cities to attract population is

a long-established phenomenon, but one whose form has changed
in the last twenty years. The population of France's 'old' urban
centres has stopped increasing and urban growth is now
concentrated in communes which until very recently were rural.
Moreover, urban centres exercise their attraction as it were
from a distance on the communes that are still rural, by means
of the employment opportunities available in the urbanized
areas. The communes in the metropolitan periphery or 'periurban'
of Paris have had an annual growth rate of 2.5% in
recent years, compared with 0.5% for the population of France
as a whole. In this article Brigitte Baccani* presents a
detailed analysis of the process of growth of the economically
active periurban population of the Ile-de-France. It is based
on recent census data, and divides the periurban into two
concentric zones and four geographical sectors. The examination
of the individual characteristics of the economically active
population, and the geographical origin of the newcomers, reveals
the existence of an important phenomenon: the increasing
social segregation of the urban and periurban populations.
The economically active population in the Ile-de-France is
characterized by relatively high levels of residential mobility. A large majority
(57.3%) changed residence between 1982 and 1990 (compared with 53.3%
for metropolitan France)(1). However, most of this mobility is intraregional:
less than 15% of the economically active population lived outside the
region in 1982 (10.5% in another region of metropolitan France, 3.5% in
another country, and 0.6% in France's overseas departments and territories).
These movements are responsible for a gradual redistribution of
population within the Ile-de-France, with the trend being towards a spatial de* This article is the first part of a study of geographical mobility among the
economically active population of the Ile-de-France. A second article, published in French in
Population, 2, 1997, deals with home-workplace mobility and the relations between residential
mobility and commuter journeys. The present article is thus concerned only with the
economically active population, which alone is involved in commuting.
Translated by Godfrey I. ROGERS.
* INED.
(1) It must be remembered that census data under-estimate mobility by not registering
the multiple migrations which may have occurred between two censuses.
Population: An English Selection, 10(2), 1998, 349-384
350
B.BACCAINI
concentration. In 1962, one-third of this region's population ('Franciliens')

lived in Paris itself, 40% in the 'petite couronne' or inner suburban ring,
and 25% in the 'grande couronne' or outer suburban ring. By 1990,
however, Paris accounted for only 20% and the inner suburban ring for 37%,
and it was the outer suburban ring which had the largest proportion (42%).
So while natural surplus is responsible for more than 50% of population
growth occurring in the Paris urban area comprising the communes of Paris
and the inner suburbs, it is migratory surplus which is responsible for over
50% (even over 80% in the communes furthest from the centre) of the
growth occurring in the communes situated outside the Paris urban area.
This strong growth of the Paris metropolitan periphery is in part linked
to the dynamism of the new towns, where population growth, although not
as high as that observed in the 1970s, exceeded 5% a year between 1982
and 1990 (Atlas des Franciliens, 1991, vol. 1).
Compared with its scale during the three previous decades, the
process of population dconcentration from Paris slowed down in the period
1982-90 - with a smaller migratory deficit in the central zone, and a smaller
migratory surplus in the periurban communes. But despite this "relative
- and selective - slowing down of the shift to the periphery" (Berger,
1996), the movement of 'periurbanization' or population decentralization has
nonetheless continued and involves zones that are ever more distant from the
capital.
The periurbanization process affects different groups in the population
to different degrees and in different ways. The residential choices of
individuals and households vary considerably depending on life-cycle stage,
family situation, social position and financial resources.
In addition, these selection effects tend to operate in different ways
in different geographical sectors of the region, leading to a reinforcement
or weakening of socio-spatial contrasts.
The socio-spatial organization of the Ile-de-France has been the object
of many descriptions, but these often present methodological shortcomings
(Berger, 1992). In addition, most of these studies deal only with the Paris
urban area, so the processes responsible for residential segregation of sociodemographic categories in the periurban zone are less well known. As Martine Berger (1992, p. 16) has observed, these processes are "the product of
social relations in which mentalities, lifestyle practices and identity
construction all have a role, alongside the selective logic of the housing
market, the mechanisms of housing finance and the system of social housing
allocation".
So while not denying the fundamental role of housing supply type
in explaining the spatial distribution of the different socio-demographic
groups, it is important to consider other, sometimes contradictory,
processes. Place of residence cannot be defined solely by reference to the
structure of the housing stock, but must include other characteristics that
influence the housing choices of individuals: number and quality of
RECENT PERIURB AN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE
35 1
amenities, quality of environment. Differences in the value of accessibility

and situation are in fact at the origin of the sharp socio-demographic
contrasts often observed between adjacent communes (Berger, 1992).
An in-depth understanding of the changing pattern of periurban
settlement necessarily requires an examination of the various migration and
residential behaviours according to age, household structures and socioeconomic category.
After a description of the main characteristics and socio-demographic
particularities of the economically active population of the Ile-de-France
periurban in 1990 (slightly fewer than 650,000 individuals), we analyze
the residential mobility of this population between 1982 and 1990. The
object is to identify the individual characteristics and housing preferences
which are determinant in the choice of a periurban location, while also
taking into account individuals' residence histories. In this way it is hoped
to construct a clearer picture of the population that is affected by the
phenomenon of population decentralization. The results from these analyses
are used in a subsequent article to identify the impact of these residential
choices on the home-workplace journeys of the economically active
inhabitants of the periurban.
A widely-used definition of periurban in France is any rural commune
situated in a Zone de Peuplement Industriel et Urbain (ZPIU). For the
purposes of this article, however, we have adopted a broader definition of
what is periurban, by including the whole of the Ile-de-France region
outside of the Paris urban area (Paris intra muros plus suburbs). Under this
definition the term periurban is also applied to the population of the
secondary urban centres of the Ile-de-France. These are towns which fall very
largely in the Paris zone of influence and present many of the
characteristics that are specific to the periurban milieu in the narrow definition
of the term (rural communes) (Boyer, 1992)(2). The periurban zone thus
defined comprises a total of 902 communes (rural communes, secondary
urban centres and some parts of the new towns).
It must be noted that confining the analysis to the Ile-de-France does
have the disadvantage of excluding some highly urbanized sectors, notably
on the northern limit of the region, which could be treated as belonging
to the zone under the direct influence of Paris.
Our source for this study is the 1990 census. These are the only data
to allow analysis at a very detailed geographical level, despite their
limitations for the study of spatial mobility (they supply no information about
the multiple migrations which may have occurred between 1982 and 1990,
(2) A new zoning system has recently been introduced by INSEE. Urban areas are
defined using a process of iteration, from around an urban pole (an urban unit on whose
territory at least 5,000 people are employed and which is not directly dependent on a larger
neighbouring pole), to the communes from which at least 40% of the active population work
at the urban pole. In each urban area, the communes or urban entitites which are not part
of the urban pole form the periurban ring. Under this zoning scheme the Ile-de-France contains
seven urban areas (Paris, Melun, Meaux, Fontainebleau, Nemours, Coulommiers and Provins).
352
B.BACCAINI
nor about the place of work in 1982, and supply individual characteristics
only for 1990)(3).
I. - The periurban environment and population
Characteristics of the periurban
milieu in Ile-de-France
For the purposes of our analysis the

Paris periurban has been divided into
two concentric zones: a first
or inner ring that extends 50.5 km from the centre of Paris, followed by
a second or outer ring extending to the edges of the region(4). Each of
these two zones has been divided into four geographical sectors (north-east,
north-west, south-east, and south-west), based on the geographical
coordinates of the communes (Figure 1). It has often been demonstrated that the
phenomena of socio-spatial segregation in the Ile-de-France, as in most
metropolitan areas, are subject to concentric and sectorial divisions simultaneously.
The first or inner ring contains 71% of the economically active
population of the periurban, compared with 29% in the second ring. Within
this outer ring, the south-east sector, which is much larger than the others,
is the only one to contain a large proportion of the active periurban
population (21%).
The second or outer ring is significantly more rural: the rate of
urbanization of the active population (which is 70.6% in the periurban region
as a whole) is 75.4% in the inner ring as against 58.9% in the outer ring.
It may also be noted that within the inner ring, the east is more urban
than the west (more than 80% of the active population of the eastern sector
of the inner ring live in an urban context).
During the period 1982-90, population growth was significantly higher
in the periurban zone than in Paris and the suburbs: 2.4% a year in the
first periurban ring and 1.6% in the secqnd ring, as against 0.8% in the
suburbs and -0.1% in Paris intra muros. The main source of this strong
growth in the periurban zone was migration (+1.7% in the first ring and
+ 1.3% in the second ring), whereas the natural increase was slightly lower
than in the suburbs (where the population is younger).
In addition, the attraction exercised by the periurban zone occurs mainly
to the advantage of the small communes: the smaller the population of a
commune in 1982, the higher its population growth between 1982 and 1990. But
although the rural areas of the Ile-de-France are particularly dynamic, their
importance in the region as a whole is slight (4% of all Ile-de-France inhabi(3^ We use the quarter sample file, at the individual level. The file contains 2,794,997
observations (of which 1,336,241 economically active individuals), for which the various
characteristics collected in the census are known. The file of economically active periurban
inhabitants contains 160,424 observations (representing therefore just under 650,000 individuals).
These files can of course be used to construct new files or tables at the level of communes,
dpartements, etc.
(4) 50.5 km is the average distance from the periurban communes to Paris.
RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE
W
periurban
2 '
- -
NW
/
periurban 1
NE
periurban 1
NE
f
suburbs L -,
NW
suburbs
353
\
NE
> periurban 2
Paris
Figure 1. - The division of the Ile-de-France

into 13 geographical sectors
tants and 30% of the periurban inhabitants in an area which nonetheless
represents 60% of the region's total surface (Atlas des Franciliens, vol. 1, 1991).
One of the main geographical characteristics of the periurban zone
is its low levels of population density. The average population density of
communes in the Ile-de-France is 1,270 habitants per km2, but this ranges
from over 22,000 in Paris to 3,800 in the suburbs and falls to 245 in the
first periurban ring and to 110 in the second'5'.
There is also a considerable variation in population density within a
zone from one sector to another (Figure 2 and Table 1). In the suburbs,
the north-eastern sector has a relatively high population density, whereas
the south-western sector is less densely populated. Overall, population
densities are higher in the eastern suburbs than in the western suburbs. The
same east-west contrast is found in the periurban zones: in both periurban
rings, the eastern sectors are more densely populated than the western sectors.
<5) These figures are not the average densities for the different zones (which for the
Ile-de-France as a whole was 887 habitants per km2 in 1990) but the averages of the communal
densities.
354
B.BACCAINI
INED
050 97
>
mj -
M ,{
>
ha<<kiiiJ
CII>ssthan45 s^^f-j^j^"
ifv-gbr^^Bf
^^P"
92-250
250-1,614
^^B more than 1,614
L.
JV
^^
*f
1%,^^/
-The
Paris
suburbs:
dark lines
south-west,
are to distinguish
south-east,the
north-west,
different sectors
north east
of the region:
- first
second
periurban
periurban
ringring
(< (>
50km
50km
from
from
Paris):
Paris):
south-west,
south-west,
south-east,
south-east,
north-west,
north-west,
north
Source:
north
easteast
Census 1990
Figure 2. - Population densities in the communes
of the Ile-de-France in 1990
The work by Clark (1951) established that the intra-urban distribution
of population in most cities follows the 'law of intra-urban density
gradient', which expresses a negative exponential relationship between
population density and distance from the city centre. In the case of the
Ile-de-France region, this relationship is better described by a negative
power function with the form D = da.b (where a is estimated equal to -2.54),
where D is the density of the communes (outside Paris) and d their distance
from the centre of Paris(6).
(6) The fall in density with distance from the centre is faster (than is predicted by
Clark's 'law') due to the fact that we are considering not a city but an entire region, in
which the densities at the periphery are sometimes very low (less than 50 inhabitants per
km2). It must also be noted that an opposite relation is observed inside Paris, with the outer
districts (arrondissements) having higher population densities than those of the centre.
355
Table 1 . - Averagecommunal densities in the Ile-de-France

Zones of residence
Paris
Suburbs
north-east
north-west
south-east
south-west
1st periurban ring
north-east
north-west
south-east
south-west
2nd periurban ring
north-east
north-west
south-east
south-west
Total periurban
Ile-de-France
Source: Census 1990.
Number of inhabitants per km2

Average
22 381.0
3 808.9
4 824.1
3 630.9
3 885.7
3 337.0
244.7
284.1
196.7
292.9
209.2
114.2
108.7
99.0
132.5
54.4
183.9
1 270.9
Standard deviation
4 175.9
4 291.9
4 275.0
4 250.1
3 899.0
463.6
484.7
294.6
607.1
413.7
276.3
145.6
90.3
343.7
46.3
393.9
2 885.9
If instead of the total population of communes we consider only the

active population at the place of residence, parameter a (estimated equal
to -2.66) is found to be slightly higher in absolute value: the density of
the active population falls faster with distance from Paris than does that
of the inactive population. In other words, the active population is more
strongly concentrated at the centre of the region than is the inactive population.
This fall in density with distance from Paris is even faster when we
consider the active population at the place of work (parameter a estimated
equal to -3.0), reflecting the fact that employment is more highly
concentrated at the centre of the region than are the places of residence.
The structure of the housing stock in the metropolitan periphery
differs from that of the Paris urban area: owner-occupied individual dwellings
account for over 60% of the stock in the periurban zone (as against 18%
in Paris intra muros and the suburbs). By contrast, apartment dwellings,
both in rental and owner-occupation (though excluding furnished
accommodation) are very under-represented in the periurban zone (less than 12%
of the stock, compared with 50% in the Paris urban area). The same is
true, to a lesser degree, of the stock of social housing (HLM) (less than
15% in the periurban zone as against 22% in the city and suburbs).
In all the major cities of the industrialized countries, strong
correlations are observed between the age of the housing stock and that of the
356
B.BACCAINI
inhabitants, as well as between household structures and the size (and even
occupancy status) of housing. The highly concentric structure of the
housing stock in the Ile-de-France and the strong over-representation in the
periurban zone of large housing units, particularly in the form of individual
dwellings, are thus determinant in explaining the demographic structure of
the periurban population.
A particular sociodemographic structure
The economically active population of the

periurban zone differs from that of the Ile-deFrance region as a whole by its
over-representation of the under-25s and of the 35-50 age group; by
contrast, members of the 25-35 age group and the over-55s are under-represented
(Figures 3a and 3b).
20
15
Percentage
10
15
20
Percentage
Figure . - Age structure of active population resident

in the Ile-de-France periurban zone in 1990
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
Percentage
Percentage
Figure 3b. - Age structure of active population resident
in the Ile-de-France region in 1990
357
More than half of the active population of the periurban zone are
members of couples, with a working partner and children (55.6% in the
first periurban ring and 50.4% in the second ring), whereas this type of
household accounts for barely more than a quarter in Paris intra muros.
Above all it is the greater presence of children which distinguishes the
periurban households: 72.7% and 69.7% of the economically active
population living in the first and second periurban rings respectively have
children, compared with 59.8% for the Ile-de-France as a whole. The choice
of a peripheral residential location is in fact closely linked to the life-cycle
stage of the family. The stock of individual dwellings of recent construction
available for home-buyers that is characteristic of the metropolitan
periphery is well-suited for young families with children, and who wish to
move to more spacious housing.
Manual workers are over-represented in the periurban zones,
particularly in the outermost ring (28% of the economically active here, compared
with 19.2% in the Ile-de-France as a whole and just 12.1% in Paris intra
muros) (Table 2). Middle-level professions and clerical or sales employees
are relatively more likely to be found in the first periurban ring than in
the second. The higher social categories (managers(7) and members of the
liberal professions) are under-represented throughout the periurban zone
(accounting for barely 11% of the economically active population in the
second periurban ring and 14.5% in the first periurban ring, compared with
over 30% in Paris intra muros and 16.8% in the suburbs).
Table 2. - Socio-occupational structure of the economically active population in
Ile-de-France, by zone of residence
Socio-occupational
Paris
category
Farmers
0.1
Craftsmen, tradesmen
5.3
'Cadres'
27.4
Liberal professions
3.0
Middle-level profess.
19.4
Clerical, sales
17.0
Service sector
6.1
Skilled manual
7.4
Unskilled manual
4.7
Unemployed
9.7
Source: Census 1990, quarter sample.
Suburbs
Periurban 1
Periurban 2
0.2
4.4
15.7
1.1
21.4
24.0
3.8
13.4
7.1
8.8
1.5
5.3
13.5
0.9
22.3
23.4
3.1
14.7
7.9
7.3
3.8
6.9
9.7
1.0
18.2
20.1
3.6
17.0
11.0
8.7
Total
Ile-de-France
0.4
4.7
17.8
1.5
21.0
22.4
4.2
12.4
6.8
8.9
It must be noted that this continued strong concentration of the most

affluent social categories in the centre of the region and the recent nature
of their migration to the periurban zones are both fairly specific to the
<7' Used for convenience to translate 'cadres', the French socio-occupational category
covering senior civil servants, senior managerial staff and the higher intellectual professions.
358
B.BACCAINI
Paris region. In many European urban regions (the London region and the
Dutch Randstad, for example), the proportion of the highest social categories
increases with distance from the centre to the periphery (Berger 1992).
The over-representation of the least privileged social categories in
the second ring of the Paris periurban was observed in the last census and
prompted J.-C. Boyer (1992) to consider the possibility of residential
segregation by distance, related to the concentric structure that characterizes
the map of land and house prices.
The spatial distribution of the social categories within the Ile-de-France
region also varies strongly by geographical sector. Irrespective of the zone
considered (suburbs, first or second periurban ring), the south-west sector
contains a significantly higher proportion of managers and members of the
professions than any of the other sectors, whereas the north-east sector
has a high proportion of manual workers (Aldeghi, Tabard, 1990). The
periurban region would thus seem to possess the same sectorial structure as
the Paris urban area, with the characteristics of the sectors of the
agglomeration tending to be continued into the adjacent peripheral zones. Nicole
Tabard (1993) has also shown that a geographical division exists within
the region between two sections of the higher socio-occupational categories.
This takes the form of a central location for the creative activities, specialist
services and administrative functions, and a more peripheral location for
the technical and research activities.
Socio-occupational categories
and access to housing
As noted earlier, the main characteristic of the housing stock in the

riurban zone compared with Paris and
the suburbs is the large proportion of individual dwellings in
owner-occupation (63% of the economically active population in the periurban zone
are owners of an individual dwelling). However, access to the different
segments of the housing stock is very unequal, depending on social
category. As is to be expected, owner-occupation of an individual dwelling is
much more common at the top of the social hierarchy (77% of the managers
and professionals in the periurban) than among the less privileged groups
(only 44% of unskilled manual workers). The housing survey conducted
in 1988 found that household income in the Ile-de-France, excluding Paris,
was 26% higher for households in individual dwellings than for those in
apartment dwellings (for France as a whole, this disparity is only 7%).
When household income is broken down by housing occupancy status, that
of home-buyers is 60% higher than that of tenants. Owner-occupiers who
already own their homes, who form a minority in the periurban zone, have
lower average incomes than those who are in the process of buying their
homes {Atlas des Franciliens, vol. 2, 1992).
A question to be examined concerns the degree to which the fact of
living in the periurban zone rather than in the Paris urban area influences
359
the probability for the different socio-occupational categories of living in

one type of housing rather than another.
To do this we have calculated for each socio-occupational category
a logistic distance (LD) between the probability of living in a particular
type of housing depending on whether living in the periurban zone or in
the Paris urban area. For example, if we denote pi the probability for a
manager of being the owner-occupier of an individual dwelling in the
periurban, and p2 the same probability in the Paris urban area, LD will be:
LD(p],p2) = \ogit(pl) -\ogit(p2) = log f
[lp
-^14 log
)
The variations in this distance can be examined on a linear scale and
compared according to the different socio-occupational categories and the
various types of housing (Table 3).
The disparity between residents of the periurban and the Paris urban
area (measured in terms of logistic distance) are greater for the higher
social categories than for the intermediate or lower socio-occupational
categories, and this is true for almost all types of housing. This means that
the housing structure is more sharply contrasted between the periurban and
the Paris urban area for managers and professionals than for lower
categories.
It is for the managers and professionals that the fact of living in the
periurban increases the most (in terms of logistic distance) the likelihood
of being the owner-occupier of an individual dwelling. It is also for these
higher social categories (as well as for craftsmen/tradesmen) that residence
in the periurban zone produces the largest fall in the likelihood of being
the owner or tenant of an apartment.
For the higher socio-occupational categories, residence in the
periurban zone is usually the result of choosing a particular quality of life (and
in particular an individual dwelling) which is unobtainable in the city and
suburbs. For the members of these categories, moving to live a long way
from Paris is only worthwhile if it makes possible a different life-style,
and because of their financial resources they are usually able to satisfy
their desire to purchase individual dwellings. The enthusiasm for individual
home ownership has several explanations: psychological (sign of social
status) and environmental (garden, space), but also financial, given that
loan repayments, though higher than rent, have the advantage of being
concentrated in the period of working life (a large majority of home-buyers
are aged 30-50), which means that they will enjoy free housing (apart from
taxes) in retirement.
The choice of a periurban location is less closely linked to homebuying for the lower socio-occupational categories. Although this place of
residence can indeed reflect a deliberate choice of a quality of life, it is
probably often imposed by financial considerations. In order to obtain
housing that is large enough and yet still affordable (even a rented apartment)
360
level
-
B.BACCAINI
s
^
<^
'1
* >
00

i
ON ON
"~>
On 17.

1
CN
(^
ON
(N
1
^ ON NO
CN
1

On
^ 1
00 ^ Tt
in in
m Tt u->

1
-(- CN
NO

1
00
NO
00

*
Tt T

1
ON >n
<
)
1 '
1
NO
in ' 1
^r
1 CN

1
ON 00
~~ 1
(^

NO
ON ON
1
NO

00

1
ro
1
NO
1
ON NO NO
_)
CN
1
ON in ~>
CN
m
.
1
in

1
in _

vd CM 1
1^ NO
00
t~- /
'CN' 1 ON
__
NO

1
^ ro

>/-)
1
T)- on m

1CN'
1
^
ON
J ON ^

<^>
Soci
.
m

_; -
I
m
uo CN
ro
nO
' 1
^ ON
CN
V)
tment

D.
[^
in
~~
ON
00
^ 1
>
.

, ,
(U
"

'>
-*
-. nent
00 ON
^)

1
00
in 51(^
~
. !
eriurba
a
eh
3
X
-a
}
- -
3
"

>
X ind

^'
1
00 in
ON CN
ON ON 00
_,
CN
1
00
4L) OO
oo ^ ,1
CM
r-
eriurba g lom
ON
00
NO ro in
vO CM
00
^-<1
00 OO ON
ON CN
ro
- 00
CN
eeriurba g lom
fci
Unskil
ebetw 3
dist
sus

.S2 Source:
log
LD:
in
irea
jrban
>
per3 'q.
een ter
eriurba g lom
eriurba
Q
_J
eriurba g lom
eriurba g lom
Q
<. 1-1
-I
eu
Skil ed
ual
_o
"
aoQ_
Clerica
Service
eriurba E
" _
>-|
eu
Mid le-
eu < Q
'
Liberal
cu <
'Cadres
eu ooQ
Crat2fts,
36 1
it is necessary to move away from the city centre and the near suburbs.
Residential decentralization thus tends to be unavoidable for the least welloff households seeking to improve their housing conditions.
It is also possible that home ownership for these less favoured social
categories tends to occur by stages, at the end of a residence itinerary
within the periurban region. If this hypothesis were true we would expect
to observe a narrowing of the differences as regards home-ownership
between privileged and less privileged social categories in the course of the
life-cycle of individuals. The census data do not allow us to work in a
longitudinal perspective, so we can only compare the proportions of
individual home-owners in the various social categories by age groups.
Consequently it is not possible to distinguish age effects from cohort effects.
However, we have calculated the disparity in terms of logistic
distance between the probability of individual home-ownership for manual
workers and the higher socio-occupational categories (managers and
professionals) for three age groups (30-39, 40-49 and over-49). This distance
between the social categories is found to increase with age, going from
0.28 between 30 and 39 years, to 0.49 between 40 and 49, and to 0.54
for the over-49s. The contrasts between managers and manual workers as
regards ownership of an individual dwelling are thus greater for the older
cohorts, aged over 40 in 1990, than for the younger ones, aged under 40
in 1990, which therefore tends to undermine our hypothesis about a 'staged'
access to owner-occupation of individual dwelling in the lower social categories.
By contrast, the opposite phenomenon is observed as regards
ownership of an apartment dwelling (a housing type which is relatively rare in
the periurban): the disparity between managers and manual workers is
reduced between 30 years and over-50, with a logistic distance equal to 0.19
for the over-49s. This is consistent with the observation of M. Berger (1990)
that the higher social categories are relatively uninterested by the stock of
privately-owned apartment dwellings, whereas it is with this section of the
housing stock, which is less prestigious and less sought-after than other
types of dwelling, that the middle and working classes are able to achieve
home-ownership.
II. - The residential mobility of the economically active
population of the periurban
General mobility characteristics
of the periurban population
Members of the economically active population living in the

urban in 1990 were less mobile in
the period 1982-90 than their counterparts in the Paris urban area: 55.7%
of the former had changed address during that period, compared with 58%
and 57.4% of those living in Paris and the suburbs, respectively. Among
the periurban population which had changed address between 1982 and
362
B.BACCAINI
1990, 45% had moved within the periurban zone, while 55% had come
from outside the periurban zone (as a result of dconcentration of the Paris
urban area or as arrivals from the provinces or abroad).
Of the new arrivals in the periurban zone (economically active
individuals who lived outside this zone in 1982), 72% came from the Paris
agglomeration (63% from a suburban commune and 9% from Paris intra
muros). Slightly more than a quarter of those moving into the periurban
zone had previously lived in another region of metropolitan France in 1982
(11% in a nearby region that was part of the Paris basin ZEAT(8); 15% in
a more distant region) while only 1% had come from outside metropolitan
France. In all, between 1982 and 1990 more than 136,000 economically
active individuals left the Paris urban area and moved to a periurban
commune in the Ile-de-France. These individuals represent 22% of the total
active population of the Paris periurban zone.
Slightly more than half (55%) of those moving to the periurban zone
from the Paris urban area were actually born in Paris or the suburbs. The
remaining 45% had had more complicated itineraries, having been born
outside the Ile-de-France (27% in the provinces and 18% abroad) but moved
to the Paris urban area prior to 1982, before moving out to a periurban
commune between 1982 and 1990. In all, more than 37,000 individuals
have experienced a migratory itinerary which took them from the provinces
to the Paris urban area (probably for reasons of higher education or first
employment) and then into the periurban region between 1982 and 1990.
More complicated itineraries, involving successive places of residence,
cannot be identified using census data. Such analysis is only possible with
material from event history surveys.
Much less common are residence histories in the form: 'birth in the
Paris urban area => move to the provinces before 1982 => arrival in the
periurban between 1982 and 1990'. Barely 20% of those moving to the
periurban from the provinces between 1982 and 1990 were born in the
Paris urban area, representing fewer than 10,000 economically active
individuals: most of the former provincials of 1982 had actually been born
in the provinces.
The strong over-representation of migration flows from the Paris urban
area among the new arrivals in the periurban zone is more pronounced in
the rural part of this zone than in its urban part: 79% of the new arrivals
in rural communes of the periurban (coming from a commune outside the
periurban) come from the Paris urban area, compared with 69% of those
moving to a secondary town of the region. These secondary urban centres
have consequently received a relatively large proportion of migrants who
originate in the provinces (29% as against 19% of incomers to rural
communes). The two migration flows into the Paris periurban zone (decentral(8) The Paris basin ZEAT (Zone d'tude et d'amnagement du territoire) comprises
the following six regions: Champagne-Ardennes, Picardie, Haute-Normandie, Basse-Normandie,
Centre and Bourgogne.
363
ization from the Paris urban area, and arrivals from the provinces) thus
differ significantly, with the rural part of the periurban zone exercising a
stronger attraction on migrants from Paris than on those from the provinces.
We shall see that this contrast is related to different choices as regards
housing types.
The economically active population of the periurban who already
lived in the periurban zone in 1982 have relatively low levels of mobility
(36% have changed address): once resident in the periurban, subsequent
moves are rare. However, this mobility within the periurban was slightly
higher for those living in 1990 in the second periurban ring (40.4% of the
active population of this zone had changed address at least once between
1982 and 1990) than among those living in the first periurban ring (33.4%).
This difference is attributable to a dconcentration of the population
actually within the periurban zone (9% of the active population who lived
in the second periurban ring had been residents of the first periurban ring
in 1982).
Among those living in the periurban for more than eight years, the
proportion who had been born in the provinces is exactly the same as
among those moving to the periurban since 1982 from the Paris urban area
(27%).
This does not mean that centripetal movements from the periurban
to the Paris urban area can be overlooked, however. Between 1982 and
1990, economically active individuals moving from a periurban commune
to the Paris urban area numbered slightly more than 60,000: of these, 25%
were born in the provinces and 12% were foreign-born. However, the
balance (approximately 80,000) is still clearly in favour of the periurban ring.
The active population which moved from the periurban to the Paris
urban area between 1982 and 1990 had a very specific age structure
compared with the population already living there in 1982 and with the
population which moved in the opposite direction, that is from the urban area
to the periurban. Migrants from the periurban to the Paris urban area
include an over-representation of young people: the under-30s account for
44.6% of these migrants, as against 21.4% of the non-migrants of the urban
area and 20% of those migrating from the urban area to the periurban.
The migration flow from the periurban to the urban area also contains
more women than the non-migrant population of the urban area or the flow
from the agglomeration to the periurban.
The average distance from the centre of Paris to the place of residence
of periurban inhabitants was 44 km in 1990. For those who already lived
in the Ile-de-France in 1982, the residential migration(s) they made between
these two dates took them further from the centre of Paris: their average
distance from the centre of Paris in 1982 had been 38km. Those who had
lived outside the region in 1982 lived on average 286 km from the capital.
Centrifugal intraregional moves, to communes further from the centre
of Paris, accounted for 62% of the migrations made between 1982 and
364
B.BACCAINI
1990 by members of the economically active population living in the periurban in 1990.
Socio-occupational structure
of the periurban active population
and type of migratory itinerary
It is worth recalling that the data

concerning individuals (occupation, family status, etc.) are those
relative to the place of residence
in 1990. They cannot be used to reconstruct the 'individual itineraries'
that include the situation in 1982, for the characteristics of the migrant
populations are established a posteriori. This can be problematic given
that migration is frequently associated with family and professional
changes. What we thus aim to identify here are not the 'determinants' of
migration but the specific current characteristics of the individuals who have
changed dwelling between 1982 and 1990 (and who are living at present
in the periurban zone) compared with those who have not changed dwelling.
The different socio-demographic characteristics of individuals (sex,
age, socio-occupational category, household type) are inter-related. By
using the method of logistic regression it is possible to identify the
contrasting patterns of mobility between the different socio-occupational
categories while allowing for the relations between these characteristics.
We begin by examining the probability for the active population of
the periurban of changing dwelling between 1982 and 1990 (Table 4),
considering men and women separately, whose spatial behaviour is very
different (lower mobility of women, in particular).
A clear and significant contrast exists between two main groups of
population (for the same age, household type and place of residence): the
higher social categories (and in particular the members of the professions)
have frequently moved to their present dwelling since 1982, whereas the
middle classes and, especially, manual workers have been more stable in
their housing. This pattern has to be qualified depending on sex: male
clerical or sales employees have a level of mobility comparable to managers,
that is, relatively high, whereas their female equivalents tend to be in the
categories of relatively low mobility (though less so than female manual
workers).
These results can be illustrated with some examples. Consider a male,
aged 35, member of the professions, married to a woman who works but
without children, and who in 1990 lived in the south-east of the first
periurban ring: his probability of having changed dwelling since 1982 is 0.90.
For a woman presenting identical characteristics the probability of having
changed dwelling will be lower (0.87). For a male manual worker, of the
same age, same household type and same place of residence, this
probability is 0.86 and in the case of a woman 0.81.
In these conditions it is interesting to examine whether the differences
in mobility levels observed between the different socio-occupational ca-
365
Table 4. - Results of logistic regressions on the question: "have changed dwelling

between 1982 and 1990" (active population living in periurban zone in 1990)
Men
Women
Parameter Marginal effect Parameter Marginal effect
(%)
(%)
Constant
1.5
81.7
1.0
73.8
***
***
SOC (overall effect)
**
-0.2
-2.5
0.1
1.8
***
0.0
0.2
0.2
'Cadres', company managers
3.0
**
**#
Liberal professions
0.2
2.2
0.3
5.2
**#
***
Middle-level professions
-0.2
-3.1
0.1
1.3
ref
Clerical, sales
0.0
0.0
ref
_
_
Service sector
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.2
**#
***
Skilled manual
-0.2
-3.2
-0.2
-3.1
***
***
Unskilled manual
-0.3
-4.6
-0.1
-2.4
***
***
Age group (overall effect)
***
less than 20
-1.3
-26.9
-0.6
-13.4 ***
***
***
20-24
-1.1
-21.7
-0.3
-7.3
**
_
0.0
0.0
25-29
0.8
12.2
0.0
ref
0.0
30-39
ref
*#*
***
40-49
-1.5
-32.3
-1.5
-35.3
*#*
***
50-59
-2.5
-55.3
-2.4
-52.8
***
**#
60 and over
-2.7
-59.2
-2.7
-57.8
#**
*##
Household type (overall effect)
***
Single person
0.6
7.2 ***
0.8
12.0
***
***
Lone parent
-1.4
-28.8
0.1
2.7
***
***
Couple (two-earner) no children
0.6
6.9
0.6
10.0
Couple (single-earner) no children
0.2
2.9 ***
0.1
1.9
Couple (two-earner) with children
0.0
ref
0.0
ref
***
Couple (single-earner) with children
-0.1
-1.6 *##
-1.4
-32.3
#**
***
Place of residence in 1990 (overall effect)
***
#**
1 st periurban ring N-W
-0.2
-3.2
-0.2
-3.3
**#
#**
1 st periurban ring N-E
-0.2
-2.5
-0.2
-3.5
*##
***
-0.1
-1.3
1st periurban ring S-W
-0.1
-2.4
1st periurban ring S-E
0.0
ref
0.0
ref
***
***
2nd periurban ring N-W
-0.2
-2.7
-0.2
-4.3
2nd periurban ring N-E
0.1
1.1
0.0
-0.8
**
***
2nd periurban ring S-W
-0.2
-4.0
-0.3
-5.2
**
***
2nd periurban ring S-E
-0.1
-0.9
-0.1
-2.8
The logit model of the probabilities of having changed dwelling between 1982 and 1990 is of the kind:
P = 1/1 + exp(-fs)
where fs = constant + (31 (SOC) + (32(age) + (33(household type) + p4(place of residence).
The table reads: all things being equal, a skilled manual worker is less likely to have changed dwelling
since 1982: this probability is 3.2 points below that of the reference individual.
*** : significant at 1% level ** : significant at 5% level
* : significant at 10% level - : not significant
Source: Census 1 990, quarter sample.
tegories in the periurban are the same in the other parts of the region,
and, which amounts to the same thing, if the mobility differences between
366
B.BACCAINI
the population of the periurban and of other parts of the region are the
same for all the socio-occupational categories. To answer this we have
calculated for each socio-occupational category a logistic distance (LD)
between pi (% of migrants in the periurban zone) and p2 (% of migrants in
another part of the region). For any given category, this distance measures
the 'ratio of the likelihoods' of having moved house between 1982 and
1990 depending on whether residence is in the periurban or in another
zone (Table 5).
Managers and individuals in middle-level professions who lived in a
periurban commune in 1990 had a lower mobility than individuals in the
same categories who lived in the Paris urban area (and in particular in
Paris intra muros). Clerical, sales and service sector workers living in the
periurban are also less mobile than their counterparts in suburban
communes but in contrast are more likely to have changed dwelling than those
who lived in Paris in 1990. Manual workers, professionals and, to a lesser
extent, craftsmen/tradesmen resident in the periurban zone in 1990 have a
higher level of mobility than individuals in the same categories living in
the Paris urban area (and in particular than those living in Paris intra muros).
These different levels of mobility correspond in fact to different types
of mobility depending on the socio-occupational categories. For the
individuals who had migrated since 1982 and who lived in the periurban zone
in 1990, we have tried to identify the relationship between their different
characteristics and the location of their place of residence in 1982 (and
hence on the nature of their itinerary between the two dates) (Table 6).
Unlike the procedure when longitudinal data are available, when it is possible
to identify the effects of different characteristics on the direction of a
migration which can occur from a given point in time /, here we try to show
how these characteristics can be used to distinguish, within the population
of the periurban zone, different types of 'itineraries' which have occurred.
All other things being equal as regards their other characteristics (age,
household type, place of residence in 1990), migrants belonging to the
higher socio-occupational categories (professionals, managers) and
craftsmen/tradesmen are far more likely than individuals lower down the social
hierarchy to have moved out from Paris. The former groups are also
characterized by their high probability of coming from another region
(indicative of the strong attraction the Paris region exercises on highly qualified
individuals). Individuals in the middle-level professions and clerical/sales
employees have often migrated from the suburbs, whereas the mobility of
the lower social categories (manual and service sector workers) occurs mainly
within the periurban. These are social categories who have been resident
in this zone for long periods, and whose mobility within it is probably
related to efforts to improve their housing conditions or, as will be seen
later, to obtain social housing.
The socio-occupational structure of the periurban population varies
greatly depending on geographical origin (Table 7). Those coming from
in
(N 2
1
1
(N
S
2

8

1
1

,
SUB,
13tu

ON C3N in
in
On in
in
On in
On in
in in
nual
irbs
xi
sions
profes;
E
aiil .
Unsk Total
11
3
1
Skil
<N r- ON ON
en (N
^^ in in in

On in
in
adesmt
Servieu
<0
S3
m
ON 1 ^>
>o
^00
in
m ON in in in
**
3
Tf t\
^>
3 00 !
1
in
<N
1
1 ON m

in S
s
1 1
1
X
in
!
S

i
X
3
u
rbs
disieu 3
X
an/Su
8 S s
'S X 1 1
3
'5b
Per
'
SOC
~,
>
eu
res a
Craft 'Cad Libei Cl"eri
SI
1
CU
"EL
Ece
3
er
ON
3
tu
?>
Soun
367
368
ti
u
ter
H
e-Fr.
le-
-
uts
II
'So
'
cd
CU
II
igi
X!
/3
II
5
1
_
1
_
1
manag
**
company profes ions

'Cadres',
Liberal
* ref i #* i
**
*
tN tN

profes ions
manual
Mid le-level sales sector
Clerical,
Service Skil ed
Unskil ed
manual
* *
* *
#* ** ** < 1 ** #*
_ fN

1
* * *
1 *** *
** ** **
00 in

1 1 1
* *
*
** ** 1
** **

1 1
1 * 1 <+JJ *** ** **
fN Os

1
1 1 1
*
'-< * ** *
** 1
* *
__ _^

1 1
1 1 1
* * *
#
** ## ** 1 1 **
fr tN 00
.

1 1
* *
* # *
#* #* 1
** **
<N
_
1 1
*
** **
*
*
#*
r# o
"
-H
* o
1
*
CO
**
1
**
fN
** 1
(overal
Craftsmen,
ef ect) tradesmen
*
*
fr
**
#*
_
** 1
1 _
1
fN
ris Wo _
Or
Os
<N
1
Constant
SOC
*
**
>
* *
** **
1
*
#
'- ** **
*" * *
tN 1)

*
*
**
** 1 1
- _^ fN

1
1 1 1
* - * ** *
**
*
fN fN

1
1 1 1
*
*#
** a * * 1
tN

1
1 1
* -14 * * ***
fN

1
1 1
*
**
* **# *** ref

<N

** 1 1 i
1 * ***

*
1 1
1 #* ** -|
^_
*

1 ***
_
**
1 **
Os
** 1 1
1 **
_^
** 1 1
* *
** 1 i * **

* 1 1
ef ecl
(overal
over
group 20
than
and
Age less 20-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
60
* *
** ** **
Os
** i 1 i
** * **
*
*
fN
** 1 1 1
#* #* 1
>
*
*
#*
*
*
1
1 *
1
*
**
B.BACCAINI
i ref 1
<N

1
* ***
__

1
1 -
_^

ren
ldid
hil
Id j= ',f )
ch no with wit
no (single- arner) (single- arner)
(two-earner) (two-earner)
CN

1 ) *
__

1
1
* 4-1 *
**
*
__

1
1
* - 1
4-

*# < 1
1 ** * * (1) #*
<fr tN fN

1
1
**
*
**
** 1
*
**
** 1
1
person parent
fN
*
1
*
* 1 *
fN

ffect
(overal
type
Household
Single Lone Couple Couple Couple Couple
e-Fr.
le-43
T3u
3
II
'
u
E
1
<o
Wom
E
-e3 1
(U
II
' <u
Ori
iburbs
E
1
d
i
*
#*
1
*
**
0.2
*# ** *#
_
jf CN d
d
**
i
*
*# * *
_
ft
d
**
l
*
*
** * **
** di
#
**
ft
** di
*
**
* 0.6
#*
i *
ref #* #
* *
On

* *
** **
oi d
- ** ** ** *
Vh * * *
00
(N d
0.9
i
*
**
00
d
i
*
** **
;|d d d
i
i
**
* * i
0.4 0.5
d
i
* *
** ** l
d d d
i
i
- ** ** 1 *
* *
d d d
-<
-U
0.0
1 < l *
CM
** d d di d d d
i ref ** * i i
l *
* ** ** *
'
** d d d
d
i
*
**
_
d
i
*
**
0.1
<U
JBUI
S
Parai
on3
II
'
ris
II
rigi
au
T3
fN
~~
ce ce
ifican iCJgnifi
!" cl
* 1 ce
~
u> ^
Cl) t;3*
N-E
S-E
i
%
te
Dt surbai
rbai rbai
rbai tecelific GceliflC 3
ni.
'(
<u (X
(N
D.
T3
u * * Lia
CN
(N *
_
*
** d d d d1 d d d
ffect)
CU
"3
CU
Hni N-W N-E

S-W S-E
M at
73resi ban ban>- ban1- bani 3 3 3 3
ti 'C ' ' '
D D.
Su
369
370
B.BACCAINI
the Paris urban area have a socio-occupational structure very similar to

that of the urban area as a whole, though with a slight over-representation
of the middle-level professions, clerical or sales employees and skilled
workers; managers, however, are slightly under-represented among
migrants to the periurban relative to their importance in the population of
the Paris urban area. As F. Beaucire (1992) has established for the earlier
periods, the successive waves of arrivals in the periurban zone tend to
"give the periurban ring the same social structure as the urban area"(9).
Table 7. - Socio-occupational structure of active population of the periurban
in 1990 according to place of residence in 1982
SOC in 1990
Farmers
'Cadres'
Liberal professions
Clerical, sales
Service sector
Skilled manual
Unskilled manual
'lace of residence in 1990

Periurban
Paris urban
Immigrants Immigrants
Not moving from Paris from Paris Immigrants Immigrants
area
other
region
external
(1)
urban area
basin
3.1
0.4
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.1
6.5
6.1
5.5
3.0
2.4
5.1
11.8
16.0
13.3
21.8
9.2
20.3
0.9
1.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.8
21.4
26.7
24.8
27.9
16.5
23.1
34.7
23.8
26.4
24.9
24.9
24.5
3.7
2.7
3.6
3.5
8.0
4.8
13.8
17.7
14.8
16.3
11.0
13.2
10.9
5.5
8.8
6.0
13.6
7.1
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
(1) Individuals already resident in the periurban in 1982.
Source: Census 1990, quarter sample
100.0
100.0
100.0
The socio-occupational structure of migrants to the Paris periurban

zone from elsewhere in France varies significantly depending on whether
they have come from a region close to the Ile-de-France (in the Paris basin
ZEAT) or from a more distant region. Manual workers and craftsmen/tradesmen
are disproportionately present in the flow of arrivals from the Paris basin,
while the flows from the other regions contain more managers and
individuals in middle-level professions. The attraction of the Ile-de-France
periurban zone for the economically active in the provinces is thus different
depending on distance, with short-distance migrations involving mainly
manual workers, while highly qualified individuals predominate in
long-distance migrations.
i9) The socio-professional structure of the 1968-75 wave of immigration by 'Parisians'
to the metropolitan periphery differed significantly from that of the urban area, with a strong
over-representation of manual workers but an under-representation of clerical and sales
employees, middle-level professions and managers (Beaucire, 1992).
37 1
Let us now examine in greater detail the flows between the periurban
zone and the Paris urban area (Table 8).
The balance of the flows is very strongly in favour of the periurban
zone for all socio-occupational categories. An examination of the sociooccupational structure of this surplus shows that in quantitative terms the
middle-level professions and clerical or sales employees have a major role
in the decentralization of population from the Paris urban area (these
categories are also proportionately more present in the surplus than in the
economically active population of the two zones).
The qualitative effects of these migration flows between the Paris
urban area and the periurban zone are relatively more complex. The flows
that run from the urban area to the periurban have a selective effect in
favour of four socio-occupational categories: managers, professionals, middlelevel professions and clerical/sales employees. For these groups the index
of differential immigration is positive, indicating that the arrivals of these
categories in the periurban was large relative to the periurban population
which did not move. In contrast, farmers, unskilled workers, service sector
workers and craftsmen/tradesmen are relatively under-represented among
arrivals in the periurban from the Paris urban area. Migrations in the
opposite direction, from the periurban to the Paris urban area operate mainly
in favour of managers, the middle-level professions and clerical/sales
employees. For these three socio-occupational categories, as well as for
service sector workers, the index of differential emigration is above or equal
to the index of differential immigration, which is also reflected in a low
'effectiveness' of the migration flows for these categories. In contrast, for
craftsmen/tradesmen and professionals, more than 50% of the total flow
(sum of the urban area-periurban flow and the periurban-urban area flow)
had a real 'effectiveness'.
The socio-occupational structure of the new arrivals in the periurban
(individuals living outside the periurban in 1982, either in the Paris urban
area or outside the Ile-de-France) varies clearly from one geographical
sector to another. So as to identify the socio-occupation selection effects of
the migrations towards the periurban, we have defined a communal-level
indicator of the social distribution of arrivals in the periurban as the ratio
of the number of arrivals in a 'low' social category (clerical, sales and
service sector workers) to those in a 'high' social category (managers,
members of the professions).
This indicator has an average value of 8.6 but is above three in half
the communes of the periurban zone, signifying that the new arrivals from
the low social categories are three times more numerous than those of the
higher social categories. A relatively strong selection operating in favour
of managers and members of the professions (an indicator less than unity)
is observed in two main sectors (Figure 4): first, a group of communes in
the west-south-west, second, a group of communes centred on
Fontainebleau, in the south of the region. These communes, which are already char-
372
-S
sa.
=1
'Hon
area Hon
as
^
^
ban
2 -S
il
.S
1
diffe
Ci
CN ^
CN 42
00
o CN
CN
\)-' CN
00
"
On 4- 42
ci
CN CN
42 o< C
CN
oo
42
g
^"
\}"
-m 42
On
~"
ON
ON in
100.
CN CN
CN
m
_-
CN
CN
CN
ON
00
_
00
00 CNin
CN 00
CN
00
On 42
00
tJ"
*")
ro 00~^
^
CN
*[
^- ON
^+ 00 OO CN 00 CN
CN CN
CN ON ON
CN
CN
CN
U0 !2 CN
CN !o
40 CN
00 CN
g
r- ro
CN
> On _ ""
in
^- CN r^ 00
ON
^
(
CN m
CN
CN>n
*n CN ^f CN ^o
U0
.2
s! ^ 00 CN --. -H CN ro
immi ( 1 1 1 1
On CN
"cLOf "3
fcpntial 'Sjy<Uition w
i?
1 d d
d d d d d
| 1
1 i
x
Ind
.M ^ ^^
8 ^^
w
w
otal ice
%oft balar
"
*2d E
Mg 3
"~
W
<
- xi
. 2
^4- 42
CN CNrj- 00
oo 25
00 ^}
On
>n oo
00 42
CN
00 ON CN 263
in
ofes .
CN
esmen anagers
-tr; '3pro5fe; CL sale: " "3

.
id le-level
secto manu ma
raftsmen,
Cadres' ,
nskil ed
lerical,
beral
;rvice cil ed
2 U oo on P
"g
00
00
irmers
00
*-*
III
< - ^-
Z
1990
on
u- y
(Sx/S)]
it,
^
0
on '
I
s
TJ
Jo
II
dfi
.22
index
II
this
'
x, )i u
on then on
0 on
II
i =
Ix
Mu
0
X
El
on
II
T3
?
fol
S
>am]
dfi
M
qumarti
index 0
=
1990,
this i de
II x, :hen
'a
o
o
(j ther Sx/: D Cen3si
1 on
.g
0 = >:
= Ex/E
IIX
on
Ex 00XII
4-1
B.BACCAINI
373
acterized by a strong presence of 'higher' social categories, are experiencing

a process of 'embourgeoisement' as a result of migration. By contrast, in
the communes of the north-eastern periurban, migrants in the lower social
categories far outnumber those of the higher social categories, thereby
reinforcing the existing social structure of this sector. However, the map
shows that within the different sectors there is a complex imbrication
between communes that tend to attract the higher social categories, and
communes which on the contrary tend to attract the lower social categories.
indicator i : number of in-migrants (manual + clerical/sales + service sector)

number of in-migrants (managers + professionals) Source- census 1990
Figure 4. - Index of social distribution of arrivals in the Paris
periurban between 1982 and 1990
Migration into the periurban communes in the period 1982-90 thus
had the effect of reinforcing the existing socio-spatial contrasts, with the
predominantly working-class and white-collar areas (north and east)
attracting mainly these categories, whereas the more 'bourgeois' areas (chiefly
in the south-west) attracted proportionately more managers and professionals.
This is consistent with the findings of I. Aldghi and N. Tabard (1990)
who showed that for the period 1975-82 increasing social segregation was,
374
B.BACCAINI
in statistical terms, the most significant social transformation affecting the

Ile-de-France. This finding has been confirmed for the period 1982-90 (Chenu,
Tabard, 1993).
Throughout the north-east of the periurban zone, half of all communes
received more than four times more migrants belonging to the lower social
categories than those from the higher social categories. This is especially
marked in the most peripheral part of the periurban ring (where the ratio
between the two groups of in-migrants exceeds sixteen in a quarter of the
communes). By contrast, in the south-western sector of the first periurban
ring the number of newcomers from the higher social categories exceeds
that from the lower social categories in more than a third of communes.
The relative importance of newcomers from the 'lower' social
categories compared with migrants from the 'higher' social categories also
tends to increase with distance from Paris (there is a positive correlation,
significant at the 1% level, between the distance of the commune from the
centre of Paris and the indicator of the social distribution of the migrants).
Behaviour by age
and household type
As is usually observed, levels of mobility

among the economically active population of
the periurban increase up to the age of 25-29
years, then decrease. The geographical origins of migrants to the
metropolitan periphery vary considerably according to their age (Table 9) The
20-29 age group is particularly important among migrants from outside
the Ile-de-France region (with the 20-24 age group being more likely to
come from a nearby region, within the Paris basin, whereas the 25-29 age
group tend to come from more distant regions). This age group thus makes
an important contribution to the migration flow from outside the Ile-deFrance: economically active members of the 20-29 age group account for
25% of migrants to the periurban zone but 41% of those coming from a
different region. Those involved in the dconcentration of the Paris urban
Table 9. - Place of previous residence (in 1982) of the economically
active population migrating to the periurban between 1982 and 1990, by age
Age in
1990
Paris
15-19
7.6
20-24
3.8
25-29
6.8
30-39
10.6
40-49
10.4
50-59
12.0
60-69
22.7
Total
9.5
Source: Census 1990, quarter
Suburbs
66.2
46.8
48.0
67.8
68.6
66.9
68.3
62.9
sample.
Place of residence
Paris basin
region
13.2
21.5
17.8
8.8
8.8
9.9
7.8
11.4
in 1982
Other
region
12.1
24.8
25.5
12.0
11.5
10.6
10.9
15.1
Outside
France
1.0
3.2
1.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
1.1
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
375
area are, by contrast, predominantly of the over-30s (and under-20s), being

drawn mainly from the suburbs between 30 and 59 years but from Paris
intra muros when older.
All things being equal regarding their characteristics in 1990,
migrants in the 30-39 age group still have a high probability of coming from
the Paris urban area (Table 6). By contrast, the characteristics of migrants
from the provinces or from abroad are significantly modified, in relation
to the crude results. For example, including the 1990 place of residence
has the effect of considerably reducing the probability for young people
of having come from a region outside the Ile-de-France. Newcomers to
the Ile-de-France whose place of residence is in the periurban have a high
probability of living in the second periurban ring, and, in addition,
relatively more members of the active population under-30 live in this second
ring than those aged 40-49. The effects of geographical origin, choice of
place of residence in the periurban, and of age, are thus extensively
imbricated. For example, when the residence sector in 1990 is not included
in the model, the probability of having come from the provinces is
significantly higher between the ages of 20 and 30 than at higher ages.
The age structure of the migrants to the periurban varies from one
geographical sector to another, although less clearly than the socio
occupational structure. As before, we have constructed a communal-level
indicator of the distribution by age of migrants to the periurban as the ratio
between the number of economically active migrants under-35 and the
number over-35: the higher the value of this indicator, the more that particular
commune has exercised a disproportionate attraction on the young.
The indicator has an average value of 1.8 but is below 0.9 in half
of the periurban communes. The east of the periurban (except for the
communes of the south-east closest to Paris) attracts a mainly young population,
whereas migrants aged over-35 outnumber the younger migrants in many
communes of the western periurban, with especially low values of the
indicator in a group of communes adjacent to the Paris urban area (Figure 5).
Within the periurban ring, the further from Paris, the stronger the
selection of migrations operates in favour of young people under 35 years
(positive correlation, significant at the 1% level, between distance from
Paris and the indicator of age distribution of the migrants). This
relationship is especially strong in the south of the region.
Analysis of the effects of family situation on spatial decisions is
problematic for several reasons, given that we know this situation only for 1990.
For example, an individual who was living in a couple in 1990 could have
been living alone when he or she migrated. Similarly a couple who had
children in 1990 might not have had any at the time of the migration.
Individuals living alone in 1990, men or women, have a high
probability of having changed dwelling since 1982, all other things being equal
regarding age (Table 4). High levels of mobility are also observed in the
double-income families with no children. This may indicate mobility by
376
B.BACCAINI
indicator i : number of in-migrants < 35 years

number of in-migrants > 35 years
Source, census 1990
Figure 5. - Index of age distribution of migrants to the Paris

periurban between 1982 and 1990
the couple which was already formed when the migration occurred, or
mobility of two single individuals, who formed a couple after or at the time
of the migration. By contrast, couples in which only one member is
economically active but who have children have a low probability of having
changed dwelling between 1982 and 1990.
All other things being equal, migrants from the suburbs are often
couples with children (and in particular two-earner couples). Lone parent
families are noteworthy for their high probability of having migrated within
the periurban zone (Table 6). The high proportion of individuals from the
provinces among the lone individuals (13.4% of these individuals, as
against 8.2% of the economically active population of the periurban) is
no longer apparent when the other characteristics are included, given the
important effects of age and geographical sector of residence.
377
Migration itineraries
and housing choice
The decision to live in the metropolitan

periphery is closely linked to housing strategies.
In particular, the demand for private
ownership of individual dwellings is easier to satisfy in the periphery than in
Paris and the suburbs. However, the housing choices of households also
vary according to their migration histories.
Economically active individuals occupying rented accommodation in
1990 have experienced higher residential mobility than home-owners. This
contrast is not specific to the metropolitan periphery, since the fact of
becoming a home-owner (which may be a reason for mobility) is in general
responsible for residential stability (Table 10). For comparable housing
occupancy status, levels of mobility are also higher for those living in
apartments compared with individual dwellings, except in the social housing
sector (HLM) where residents of apartment blocks (the large majority in
this part of the housing stock) had lower mobility than those living in
individual dwellings.
Table 10. - Types of housing of periurban residents in 1990, by their place
of residence in 1982
migrant
Owner-occ. individual
73.1
Owner-occ. apartment
3.3
Tenant individual
4.8
Tenant apartment
3.1
Social: individual
0.7
Social: apartment
10.6
Tenant furnished ace.
0.2
Housed at no charge
4.3
Total
100.0
Source: Census 1990, quarter sample
Migrant
intraperiurban
44.9
4.4
9.3
10.7
1.9
22.7
0.6
5.6
100.0
Migrant Migrant Migrant

Paris
Paris
distant
urban
basin
region
area
75.0
32.6
31.5
2.9
3.6
3.4
6.2
16.6
13.6
4.8
16.1
18.7
1.0
1.8
1.9
6.2
18.4
18.9
0.4
1.4
1.6
3.5
9.6
10.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
Migrant
from
abroad
Total
37.2
2.2
5.1
11.9
2.2
33.2
2.0
6.3
100.0
63.1
3.5
7.0
6.5
1.1
13.4
0.5
4.9
100.0
The economically active individuals who have changed residence within

the periurban zone since 1982 are relatively less likely to be
owner-occupiers in 1990. By contrast, they are over-represented in the social housing
(HLM) sector, probably because such housing is easier to obtain for
individuals who have lived for a long time in the same geographical sector.
It is also observed that the lower social categories are over-represented
among these long-term residents of the periurban, and it is these categories
which have priority for the allocation of this type of housing (manual,
clerical, sales and service sector workers account for 70% of the occupants
of apartment blocks in the social housing sector in the Paris periurban).
By contrast, a majority of those who have moved into the
metropolitan periphery from Paris and the suburbs live in privately-owned individual
dwellings (75% of them), therefore supporting the hypothesis that decisions
378
B.BACCAINI
to move out of the Paris urban area are related to a desire to purchase
this type of housing.
A large proportion of the migrants who come from outside the Ilede-France go into housing in the private rental sector. Migrants from the
neighbouring regions are more likely to go into rented individual dwellings
while those from regions further away tend to go into rented apartment
dwellings. Migrants from outside the Ile-de-France are also often housed
at no charge (by a member of their family or in housing provided by an
employer). These housing preferences account for the over-representation
of migrants from the provinces in the secondary urban centres of the periurban zone, whereas for opposite reasons the dominant preference of
migrants from the Paris urban area for individual dwellings explains their
frequent choice of residential location in a rural commune.
The different segments of the housing stock can thus be seen to
correspond to highly specific 'migration profiles'.
However, although a link exists between the type of housing occupied
in 1990 and the migration itinerary, housing type is also related to an
individual's socio-occupational category. It is worth examining the effects
on the migration itinerary of the interaction between socio-occupational
category and the choice of a particular type of housing.
We have proceeded by making a two-by-two comparison of four types
of migration itineraries: first, between non-migrants and migrants inside
the periurban zone (two groups already resident in the periurban in 1982);
second, between those who came from Paris and those who came from the
provinces (two groups of migrants to the periurban zone). For this we use a
logistic scale in order to compare proportions that vary over a wide range.
Begin with the case of economically active individuals who already
lived in the periurban zone in 1982 (Table lia). The probability that they
will have changed place of residence (within the periurban) between 1982
and 1990 is more influenced by the type of housing occupied in 1990 (and
thus on their housing preferences) than by their socio-occupational
category: the logistic contrasts produced by housing type are actually greater
than those associated with socio-occupational category. Whatever their
socio-occupational category, owners of individual dwellings are always the
least likely to have migrated. The fact of being an owner-occupier,
particularly of an individual dwelling, is responsible for greater residential
stability and thus a lower probability of being a migrant. The highest
probabilities of having changed dwelling within the periurban zone since 1982
are, depending on socio-occupational category, among the tenants of an
apartment (professionals, clerical/sales, service sector, skilled workers), the
tenants of furnished rented accommodation (unskilled workers, managers)
and the tenants of individual dwellings in the social housing sector
(craftsmen/tradesmen).
The greatest variation in the probability of having migrated by the
type of housing occupied in 1990 is for the higher and middle social ca-
379
Table 1 la. - Economically active individuals living in the periurban in 1982 and
1990. Comparison of non migrants and migrants by SOC and housing type in 1990
soc
Comparison of migrants and non-migrants on a logistic scale (1)

Owner-occ. Owner-occ. Tenant Tenant Social: Social: Tenant Housed LDmax
individual apartment individ. apartmt. individ. apartmt.
(2)
ace.
charge
0.05
0.20
0.46
0.41
0.46
0.12
0.24
0.08
0.24
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.03
0.16
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.16
0.17
-0.02
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.56
0.26
0.31
-0.04
0.10
0.21
-0.34
-0.19
0.26
0.37
0.32
0.41
LDmax(2)
(1) logit (p) = log (p/(l-p)) with p = % of migrants.
(2) LD max = logistic distance between the two extreme values.
Source: Census 1990, quarter sample.
0.26
0.18
0.60
0.28
'Cadres'
Liberal professions
Clerical, sales
Service sector
Skilled manual
Unskilled manual
-0.52
-0.61
-0.46
-0.42
-0.42
-0.48
-0.35
-0.42
-0.31
-0.24
-0.40
-0.05
-0.06
-0.03
-0.12
-0.20
-0.02
0.02
-0.03
0.21
0.14
-0.11
0.09
0.00
-0.08
-0.05
-0.21
-0.18
-0.15
0.76
1.16
0.91
0.83
0.88
0.60
0.59
0.63
Table lib.- Housing types and socio-occupational categories in the periurban

ZONE: COMPARISON OF MIGRANTS FROM THE PARIS URBAN AREA AND MIGRANTS FROM
THE PROVINCES
Logistic distance between former Parisians and former provincials ( 1 )
OwnerOwnerTenant Housed at
SOC
Tenant
Tenant
Social:
Social: furnished
occ.
occ.
no charge
individual apartment individual apartment individual apartment
ace.
0.5
-0.1
0.0
-0.4
-0.5
0.0
-0.2
-0.3
'Cadres'
-0.2
-0.7
-0.4
-0.7
-0.6
-0.4
0.7
-0.5
Liberal professions
0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
-1.0
-0.3
0.9
-0.1
-0.5
-0.8
-0.3
-0.6
-0.7
-0.5
0.9
0.0
-0.4
-0.6
-0.2
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
Clerical, sales
Service sector
0.8
-0.1
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
0.0
-0.7
-0.4
Skilled manual
0.8
-0.4
-0.7
-0.3
-0.6
Unskilled manual
0.8
0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
(1) let plx = % of owners of individual dwellings among the former Parisians of SOC x
p2x = % of owners of individual dwellings among the former provincials of SOCx
then LD = logit(plx) - Iogit(p2x) = log(plx/(100-plx)) - Iog(p2x/(100 - p2x)).
Source. Census 1990, quarter sample.
380
B.BACCAINI
tegories. For example, a manager who owns an individual dwelling is far

less likely to have migrated than an unskilled worker living in the same
type of housing in 1990. On the other hand, a manager who is the tenant
of an apartment has a higher probability of having migrated than an
unskilled worker living in the same type of housing.
Now let us consider those moving into the periurban zone, either
from the Paris urban area or from a region in the provinces. The
relationship between migration histories and type of housing occupied in 1990
must now be considered from the opposite point of view. Whereas earlier
it could be assumed that the choice of a particular type of housing
influenced the propensity to migrate within the periurban, now it has to be
assumed that the geographical origin of individuals (Paris urban area or
provinces) influences the choice of type of housing. Consequently, for each
socio-professional category and for each type of housing we have
calculated a logistic distance between the probability of having obtained this
type of housing depending on whether one has migrated from Paris or
from the provinces (Table lib).
Whatever their socio-occupational category, migrants from the Paris
urban area are more likely than migrants from the provinces to be owners
of an individual dwelling: buying a home, especially an individual
dwelling, is often a key aim of individuals when moving out of Paris or the
suburbs. In addition, the origin (place of birth) of these migrants to the
periurban from the Paris urban area between 1982 and 1990 is not
associated with any difference in the proportions who are owners of individual
dwellings: for all the socio-occupational categories combined, 75% own
or are in the process of buying an individual dwelling, regardless of
whether they were born in the provinces (and had thus already migrated
to the Paris urban area before moving to the periurban) or in the urban area.
The difference between former Parisians and former provincials
('former'
referring here to the situation in 1982, and not to their place of birth)
is greater for the lower and middle socio-occupational categories than for
managers, professionals and craftsmen/tradesmen. In other words, between
former Parisians and former provincials the probability of owning an
individual dwelling is more contrasted among manual workers, clerical or
sales employees and the middle-level professions, than among the higher
categories. Less than 30% of the members of the lower socio-occupational
categories can aspire to this section of the housing stock when they migrate
from the provinces, compared with more than 45% of managers and professionals.
Conclusion
The economically active population of the Paris periurban zone forms
a highly specific sub-population in the Ile-de-France, as is clear from its
socio-demographic structures and spatial behaviour.
381
A majority in this population is formed by young adults (30-50 years)

among which families with children are over-represented. The types of
housing available in the periurban zone match the needs of this category of
households. Overall, the periurban zone is socially less privileged than the
Paris urban area, though it contains marked geographical disparities which
tend to reproduce the sectorial pattern observed in Paris and the suburbs.
The structure of the housing stock in the periurban zone makes it
especially attractive for individuals wishing to purchase individual
dwellings. This is especially clear for the higher socio-occupational categories
(managers, professionals), for whom a periurban location seems to be the
most frequently directly linked to the choice of this type of housing. In
the lower categories, where financial resources are more limited, purchase
of individual dwellings is less frequent (even when it is an ambition), though
the periurban zone does make possible an improvement in housing
conditions (surface area, quality of surroundings) and sometimes own-home
purchase (perhaps in apartment blocks), which would be hard to achieve in
the centre of the urban area.
The rapid growth of the communes in the periurban zone results
mainly from the decentralization of population from the Paris region, and
owes much less to migration from the provinces or from abroad. Examining
the birth place of individuals does, however, reveal the existence of
itineraries that are often more complex, detailed analysis of which is only
possible using event history material. For example, almost half of the
migrations from the Paris urban area to the periurban between 1982 and 1990
were made by individuals who had been born in the provinces and who
had thus merely had a temporary stay in Paris or the suburbs before moving
to live in a periurban commune. Migrations in the other direction, from
the periurban to the Paris urban area between 1982 and 1990, involved
only half as many economically active individuals, with moreover a sociodemographic structure that was very different, closer to that of migrants
from the provinces into the Paris urban area (young people, living alone).
Detailed analysis of the migratory itineraries and the characteristics
of the different types of migrants (or non-migrants) living in the periurban
enables us to identify a number of principal types of residential strategies.
Purchase of an individual dwelling emerges as the main aim for individuals
in the higher social categories who move out of the Paris urban area.
Consequently, once resident in the periurban zone these individuals have low
mobility. Individuals in the lower social categories are less often involved
in home purchase and more likely to live in apartment dwellings (whether
or not in the social housing sector), and as a result tend to experience
longer and more complex itineraries within the periurban zone.
Migration from Paris to the periurban zone reinforces the existing
socio-spatial inequalities. As a result of these movements, the higher social
categories increase their presence in the sectors where they are already
382
B.BACCAINI
strongly represented, whereas the lower social categories tend to move to

the areas where they already predominate.
Locational decisions are always the result of trade-offs between the
advantages and disadvantages associated with residence in a particular place.
The advantages of the periurban zone are a greater chance of home-ownership
and of living in a larger apartment or in an individual dwelling, as well
as offering a better quality of life in terms of natural surroundings. On
the other hand, a peripheral location has the disadvantage of placing
economically active individuals further from the main areas of employment which,
although subject to some decentralization, remain strongly concentrated in
the Paris urban area.
Several studies (Baccani, 1996a; Berger, 1996) have established the
relatively low importance that individuals attach to the place of work when
making residential decisions, the balancing of home-work locations usually
being achieved after the residential migration. The main reasons for moving
within the periurban zone are the desire for more spacious and more
comfortable housing, and the possibility of owner occupation and an individual
dwelling, whereas the factor of proximity to work counts for little,
particularly for the households in which two earners is increasingly the norm(l0).
Brigitte Baccani
REFERENCES
Aldeghi I., Tabard N., (1990), Transformation socio-professionnelle des communes d'Ile-deFrance entre 1975 et 1982, CREDOC, Collection des rapports, n 80, 70 p.
Atlas des Franciliens, (1991-1992), tome 1 : Population et logements; tome 2: ges,
emplois, modes de vie , IAURIF-INSEE.
Baccani ., (1996), L'volution rcente des navettes en le-de-France, L'Espace
gographique, 1, pp. 37-52.
Baccani ., (1996b), Les trajets domicile-travail en le-de-France : les contrastes entre
catgories socioprofessionnelles, conomie et Statistique, n 294-295, pp. 109-126.
Baccani ., (1997), Commuting and residential strategies in the le-de-France. Individual
behaviour and spatial constraints, Environment and Planning A, vol. 29, pp. 18011829.
Beaucire F., (1992), Migrations rsidentielles et sgrgation sociale dans la couronne priurbaine d'le-de-France entre 1968 et 1982, Villes en parallle, n 19, pp. 47-73.
Benot Ph., Benot J.-M., Bellanger F., Marloff ., (1993), Paris 1995, le grand
desserrement, d. Romillat, 301 p.
Berger M., Guillon M.^Rhein C., (1989), volution socio-dmographique et parc de
logements, dans L'le-de-France en mouvement, collection Reclus modes d'emploi, n 16,
pp. 256-279.
Berger M., (1990), .Les priurbains d'le-de-France : stratgies de localisation, in :
Stratgies rsidentielles, Congrs et Colloques n 2, INED, pp. 369-383.
Berger M., (1991a), L'urbanit des priurbains d'le-de-France; de la diversit la
sgrgation Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, n 50.
Berger M., (1991b), Priurbains et ex-urbains d'le-de-France, Gographie ^Sociale, n 11.
Berger M., (1992a), Division sociale de l'espace et parc de logements en le-de-France,
in : L'Ile de France et la recherche urbaine, Datar-Strates, pp. 11-43.
(l0) The second part of this study examines the consequences of these residential choices
on the daily journeys of the economically active populations and explores the relations which
exist between residential itineraries and commuting.
383
Berger M., (1992b), .Le rle du logement dans les stratgies de localisation : l'exemple
des priurbains d'le-de-France, Villes en parallle, n 19, pp. 105-112.
Berger M., Saint-Grand T., (1996), Priurbanisation et mtropolisation en le-de-France
dans les annes 1980: les mnages et les amnageurs, Xe colloque national de
dmographie, Bordeaux.
Boyer J.-C., (1988), Pri-urbanisation et migrations de population active en le-de-France,
Espace, Populations, Socits, n 3, pp. 495-500.
Boyer J.-C, (1992), Des espaces priurbains en volution, Villes en parallle, n 19, pp. 11-27.
Brun j, Fagnani J., (1994), Lifestyles and locational choices. Trade-offs and compromises :
a case-study of middle-class couples living in the le-de-France region , Urban Studies,
vol 31, 6, pp. 921-934.
Camstra R , ( 1 994), Household relocation and commuting distance in a gender perspective,
Amsterdam : Department of Planning and Demography, University of Amsterdam, 20 p.
Camstra R., (1996), Commuting and gender in a lifestyle perspective, Urban Studies,
vol 33, 2, pp. 283-300.
Cervero R., (1989), Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility , Journal of the American
Planning Association, 55, pp. 136-150.
Chenu A., Tabard N., (1993), Les transformations socioprofessionnelles du territoire
franais, 1982-1990, Population, 6, pp. 1735-1770.
Clark W.A.V., Kuijpers-Linde M., (1994), Commuting in restructuring urban region,
Urban Studies, vol 31, 3, pp. 465-483.
DREIF, (1995), Les dplacements des Franciliens en 1991-1992. Enqute globale de transport,
70 p.
Fortin S., Le Jeannic T., (1993), Le parcours quotidien des couples biactifs , INSEE-/?egards sur l'le-de-France, n 22, pp. 9-12.
Fradin J.-R., (1989), Urbanisme et transports en le-de-France in: L'le-de-France en
mouvement, collection Reclus modes d'emploi, n 16, pp. 344-354.
Gordon P., Wong H.L., (1985), The cost of urban sprawl : some new evidences,
Environment and Planning A, 17, pp. 661-666.
Gordon P., Richardson H.W., Wong H.L., (1986), The distribution of population and
employment in a polycentric city : the case of Los Angeles , Environment and Planning
A, 18, pp. 161-173.
Gordon P., Kumar A., Richardson H.W., (1989), Gender differences in metropolitan travel
behaviour, Regional Studies, vol 23, 6, pp. 499-510.
Jacquot A., Rajaonarison D., (1993), D'un recensement l'autre : la redistribution
gographique des emplois entre 1975 et 1990, conomie et Statistique, n 270, pp. 23-35.
Lefranc Ch., Tabard N., (1996), Gographie des structures familiales, INSEE, Document
de travail n F9613, 168 p.
Neveu A., Zembri P., (1989), Migrations alternantes : des comportements sociaux
diffrencis dans un espace polaris, Donnes sociales Ile-de-France, pp. 146-150.
Poulain M., (1981), Contribution l'analyse d'une matrice de migrations internes,
Recherches Dmographiques, 3, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Ronsac J.-J., (1989), Gographie des dsquilibres entre habitat-emploi : des surprises,
Donnes sociales Ile-de-France, pp. 134-137.
TABARD N., (1989), Voisinage social en le-de-France, dans : Donnes Sociales le-deFrance, INSEE, pp. 73-82.
Tabard N., (1993), Des quartiers pauvres aux banlieues aises : une reprsentation sociale
du territoire , conomie et Statistique, n 270, pp. 5-22.
Zax J.S., (1991), The substitution between moves and quits, The Economic Journal, 101,
pp. 1510-1521.
384
B.BACCAINI
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Recent periurban growth in the Ile de France: forms and causes
During the past several decades, settlement in the Ile de France has, in common with
the majority of large urban areas, experienced a rapid decongestion called suburbanization.
After highlighting the specific situation of suburban development in the Ile de France,
which has served as a point of transition between urban areas and the countryside, and the
special features of the population who lived there in 1990 (over-representation of families
with children and underprivileged social groups with housing primarily belonging to owneroccupiers) this paper deals with recent migration of the suburban population in order to
explain the causes and types of demographic growth in this type of environment.
Decongestion of the Paris urban area is responsible for nearly three quarters of new
suburban dwellers, and involves populations with very different socio-demographic
characteristics from those who had migrated from the provinces and those who had lived in the He
de France for a longer period of time. The occupational distribution of recent in-migrants to
the suburbs also varied significantly in different geographical areas and selection effects
have reinforced the existing specificity of various sectors.
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Modalits et causes de la croissance rcente des communes priurbaines d'Ile-de-France
L'le-de-France connat depuis plusieurs dcennies, comme la plupart des grandes
rgions urbaines, un desserrement rapide de l'habitat connu sous le nom de priurbanisation .
Aprs avoir mis en vidence les spcificits du milieu priurbain francilien - transition entre
l'espace urbain et le monde rural - et de la population qui y vit en 1990 (surreprsentation des
familles avec enfants et des catgories sociales dfavorises, place prpondrante des
logements individuels occups par leur propritaire), cet article s'intresse aux migrations rcentes
des priurbains afin de saisir les causes et les modalits de la croissance dmographique de cet
espace.
Responsable pour presque les trois quarts des arrives dans le milieu priurbain, le
desserrement de l'agglomration parisienne touche des populations dont les caractristiques sociodmographiques diffrent sensiblement de celles des migrants venus de province ou de celles
de la population installe depuis longtemps dans cet espace. La structure socioprofessionnelle
des nouveaux arrivants du priurbain varie galement fortement d'un secteur gographique
l'autre, ces effets de slection ayant pour consquence de renforcer les spcificits
socioprofessionnelles existantes des divers secteurs.
Un second article montrera les relations qui existent entre ces trajectoires migratoires
rcentes et la mobilit domicile-travail des actifs du priurbain.
Baccaini (Brigitte). - Modalidades y causas del crecimiento reciente de los municipios
periurbanos de le-de-France
Desde hace varias dcadas en le-de-France se observa, como en la mayoria de las grandes
regiones urbanas, una expansion del habitat conocida bajp el nombre de periurbanizacin. Despus de describir las especificidades del medio urbano de le-de-France - transicin entre el espacio urbano y el mundo rural - y de su poblacin en 1990 - sobre-representacin de familias con
hijos y de categorias sociales desfavorecidas, preponderancia de viviendas individuales ocupadas
por su propietario -, el prsente articulo estudia las migraciones recientes de la poblacin periurbana. El objetivo de tal estudio es entender las causas y las modalidades del crecimiento demogrfico de este espacio.
La expansion de la aglomeracin urbana de Paris explica casi las trs cuartas partes de las
llegadas al medio periurbano. Las caractersticas socio-demogrficas de estas poblaciones difieren
sensiblemente de las caractersticas de los migrantes llegados de provincias de las aplicables a
poblaciones instaladas desde hace tiempo en tal espacio. La estructura socio-profesional de los recin llegados al medio periurbano varia tambin fuertemente de un sector geogrfico a otro. Estos
efectos de seleccin refuerzan las especificidades socio-profesionales existentes en los diversos
sectores.
En un segundo articulo se mostrarn las relaciones existentes entre estas trayectorias migratorias y la movilidad domicilio-trabajo de los activos del medio periurbano.
Brigitte Baccaini, Institut national d'tudes dmographiques, 133 boulevard Davout,
75980 Paris Cedex 20, France, tl. (33) 01 56 06 21 53, fax (33) 01 56 06 21 99, e-mail :
baccaini@ined.fr

Recent Periurban Growth in The Ile-De-France

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Recent Periurban Growth in The Ile-De-France

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Population

Recent periurban growth in the Ile-de-France: Forms and causes

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN

The power of towns and cities to attract population is

concentration. In 1962, one-third of this region's population ('Franciliens')

RECENT PERIURB AN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

amenities, quality of environment. Differences in the value of accessibility

For the purposes of our analysis the

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Figure 1. - The division of the Ile-de-France

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Table 1 . - Averagecommunal densities in the Ile-de-France

Number of inhabitants per km2

If instead of the total population of communes we consider only the

The economically active population of the

Figure . - Age structure of active population resident

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

It must be noted that this continued strong concentration of the most

As noted earlier, the main characteristic of the housing stock in the

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

the probability for the different socio-occupational categories of living in

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Members of the economically active population living in the

RECENT PERIURB AN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

It is worth recalling that the data

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Table 4. - Results of logistic regressions on the question: "have changed dwelling

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

company profes ions

* **# *** ref

Single Lone Couple Couple Couple Couple

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Hni N-W N-E

the Paris urban area have a socio-occupational structure very similar to

'lace of residence in 1990

The socio-occupational structure of migrants to the Paris periurban

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

-tr; '3pro5fe; CL sale: " "3

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

acterized by a strong presence of 'higher' social categories, are experiencing

indicator i : number of in-migrants (manual + clerical/sales + service sector)

in statistical terms, the most significant social transformation affecting the

As is usually observed, levels of mobility

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

area are, by contrast, predominantly of the over-30s (and under-20s), being

indicator i : number of in-migrants < 35 years

Source, census 1990

Figure 5. - Index of age distribution of migrants to the Paris

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

The decision to live in the metropolitan

Migrant Migrant Migrant

The economically active individuals who have changed residence within

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Comparison of migrants and non-migrants on a logistic scale (1)

Table lib.- Housing types and socio-occupational categories in the periurban

tegories. For example, a manager who owns an individual dwelling is far

RECENT PERIURB AN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

A majority in this population is formed by young adults (30-50 years)

strongly represented, whereas the lower social categories tend to move to

RECENT PERIURBAN GROWTH IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

* # * ref