Population Movements and Metropolitan Expansion: London, 1960-61

Population Movements and Metropolitan Expansion: London, 1960-61Author(s): R. J. JohnstonSource: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 46 (Mar., 1969), pp. 69-91Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621409 .

Accessed: 19/12/2014 23:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:07:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/621409?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Population Movements and Metropolitan Expansion: London, 1960-61

R. J. JOHNSTON, M.A., PH.D.

(Lecturer in Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand)

MS. received 19 December 1967

CITY expansion is largely a function of new household formation, whether by in-migration from elsewhere or by persons already resident in the city either marrying or leaving the parental home to live alone. Much of the physical expansion takes place through the construc- tion of new dwelling units on the urban periphery, although the redevelopment of inner residential areas may produce a net gain in dwelling units. In both cases, however, the first inhabitants of the new units generally are not recently formed households. Most people who occupy new homes are already resident in the city; this is particularly the case in public housing whose occupants usually have to be resident in the local government area for 5 to Io years in order to qualify for such a dwelling. The new households generally occupy second-hand dwellings, therefore, while new residential units are taken up by pre-existing households within the city. The result is a continuous and complex pattern of intra-urban migration.

The Theory of Intra-Urban Migration The Ecological Approach

One of the first attempts to comprehend the process of urban expansion was E. W. Burgess's now classic statement on 'The growth of a city. . .' (Burgess, 1924). In this and subsequent papers, he suggested that expansion is mainly a product of in-migration to the city (Burgess, 1928) and that the majority of new households take up residence in the rental housing areas which are close to the city centre.1 With continued in-migration, the pressure on the available accommodation within these areas causes, first, an increase in their rentals and density of occupance, and then their expansion into adjoining streets. This initiates a process of invasion in which the lower-status recent in-migrants infiltrate into 'better' residential areas, whose inhabitants either act to protect the status of their neighbourhood (W. Firey, 1945) or sell their properties and move farther out. In turn, the latter persons invade an area of even more fashionable residences, thus continuing the wave-like process in which households are always moving outward and the highest-status residential areas are located on the urban periphery (an excellent exegesis of this whole theory is given in L. F. Schnore, I965a).

The Burgess statement has been often criticized and defended. For example, one recent author has claimed that the theory has no relevance in the present British situation (E. Gittus, 1964; but see P. H. Mann, 1965), while another has stated that '. .. the viability of Burgess's descriptions today is testimony to his perception and insight . .' (L. K. Loewenstein, 1965, p. I02). Schnore's continuing research programme has suggested that the theory is valid only for large cities which have experienced the Industrial Revolution (Schnore, 1963, I964, I965a), but H. Hoyt's revision of the zonal pattern to allow for sectoral developments suggested no alterations in the processes involved in urban expansion (Hoyt, 1939). Thus, at least some of

69



the zonal theory and the process of invasion and succession (the completion of the invasion process) appears valid as a generalization of the pattern of urban growth, although W. Alonso (I965) has suggested that the observed pattern may result without growth because of the spatial preferences of higher income groups.

A considerable amount of empirical evidence has been produced to support the concept of invasion and succession, especially in the United States. For example, the diffusion of Euro- pean migrant groups away from the centre of Chicago is presumably indicative of the process (P. F. Cressey, 1938; R. G. Ford, 1950), as is the more recent invasion of former 'white' residential areas by Negro in-migrants (R. L. Morrill, 1965, K. E. and A. F. Taeuber, 1965). Nevertheless, the concept does imply that most in-migrants to the city are of relatively low socio-economic status and can afford only cheap rental housing. All of the studies which con- firm the tenets of invasion and succession have been concerned with such groups, especially those which are 'apparent' within a society and, because of their birthplace, race or colour, are separately recorded in censuses. Little is known about the movements of persons 'forced' from their homes by the process of invasion, or of the residential patterns of higher status in-migrants to the city, except for a recent study which showed that more white in-migrants to the twelve largest American Standard Metropolitan Areas go to the suburbs than to the central city (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1964). Complete confirmation that invasion and succession is an important process determining the pattern of urban expansion has therefore yet to be provided.

The Filtering Process

Filtering is a concept of which invasion and succession is basically a special case, the main difference being that, in the former, properties are passed down the social scale because they no longer meet the requirements of their owners, and not because of any external pressures. Thus no invasion is involved. Abandonment of dwellings may result from technological, style, site or locational obsolescence or from deterioration but, whatever the reason, the out-movement of high-status persons to new dwellings adds their older units to the housing market. These are occupied by a lower-status group, whose former homes in turn are passed down the social scale (W. G. Grigsby, 1963; I. S. Lowry, 1960). Thus there is a continual movement of households towards the urban periphery, with the high status residents being the main occupants of new dwellings, and a zonal pattern of socio-economic status not dissimilar to that produced by invasion and succession. The only difference is in causation; invasion and succession is generally a result of locational obsolescence while filtering occurs through technological and stylistic out-dating of properties.2

An argument against the filtering process, and also against invasion and succession, is that many people remain at the same address for long periods and that consequently much of the total pattern of intra-urban movement is the result of repeated nligrations by a small proportion of the population (S. Goldstein, 1954, I964). Many persons are unwilling to leave their home neighbourhoods, even when they are invaded by low status groups, as in Philadel- phia (C. W. Rapkin and Grigsby, 1960), and Winnick has noted that one of the main problems in American housing is that high income people are too satisfied with their homes and are not prepared to move, so that little filtering is taking place (Winnick in N. N. Foote et al., I960). This would account for the relative stability of certain high-status residential areas over long periods of time (Firey, I945; Johnston, 1966 and 1968), which has caused a certain amount of 'leap-frogging' in the general outward passage of migration in some American cities (J. T. Davis, 1965). Similarly, certain low-status groups display strong ties to residential areas, such

R. J. JOHNSTON 70



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, 1960-61

as the Italians of Boston's West End (Firey, I945; M. Freid and P. Gleicher, 1961) and the matriarchal societies of Bethnal Green and Crown Street (M. Young and P. Willmott, 1957; C. Vereker andJ. B. Mays, 1961).

The Family Cycle and Residential Patterns

Perhaps the most unreal of Burgess's assumptions was that in-migration accounts for a large part of urban growth. Many thousands of new households are formed each year in most cities, with the rate of formation generally exceeding that of extinction. Thus there is a growing demand for housing, even in a city with little total population increase. A recent study has suggested a model relating residential location to stage in the family cycle for a household, with married couples first renting a central city apartment, later renting a single-family home in an inner suburb and then buying their own dwelling on the urban periphery (Abu-Lughood and Foley in Foote et al., 1960). This pattern of outward movement is similar to that of both the filtering and invasion and succession models in form, if not in causation, but is only an average from which one or more of the steps may be missed by many households. Its existence, however, and especially the possibility of moves from suburbs to city centre in its first and last stages, seriously complicates the simpler patterns of the other two concepts.

Migration and Distance A large body of scholars attributes much of human behaviour to the limiting effect of

distance (for reviews see G. Boalt and C-G. Janson, 1957; G. Olsson, 1964), including migration patterns. The simplest of their formulations is the gravity model in which the probability of movement from one point to any other is a function of the distance between them and some measure of their mass (usually population size), for 'the sheer geometry of the setting encour- ages us to concentrate our contacts and trips or moves at short distances' (R. L. Morrill and F. R. Pitts, 1967, p. 406; see also E. G. Ravenstein, 1885). The effects of distance are not the same for all persons, however, and T. Higerstrand has suggested that intellectual migrants are less sensitive to distance than are those from the working class (Higerstrand, 1957). The critical variable is the person's knowledge, but distance affects the amount available to a person living at a fixed point, so that it is possible to determine the mean information field within which most of his interactions take place (Morrill and Pitts, 1967; D. F. Marble andJ. D. Nystuen, 1964).

A sophistication of the gravity formulation suggests that intervening opportunities and competing migrants are important additional variables in determining migration patterns (S. A. Stouffer 1940, 1960). A person is less likely to move 30 km to a new home if several of similar quality are available at a shorter distance, than he is if there are not such intervening opportunities, although the possibility that he will be able to purchase one of the intervening opportunities depends on the number of other migrants competing for them.

A General Formulation This brief review of the several approaches to the study of intra-urban migration has

shown that each of the formulations has only limited applicability and that an amalgamation of some or all of the concepts is necessary fully to account for the total migration picture within a metropolitan area. For example, if low-status 'apparent' in-migrants are numerous, they will probably congregate in the rental areas of the city centre and initiate a process of invasion and succession. This will force others to move out and, because of the frictions of distance, they will probably only migrate over short distances. Others will move because of

7I



72 R. J. JOHNSTON the demands of the family cycle, because they are dissatisfied with some aspect of their present home, or because they have obtained a better one. The range of their mean information fields would indicate that, all other things being equal, they will probably only move a short distance (Fig. IA), although the distance range will vary for different groups within the urban society. In cities which also contain a process of invasion and succession, there will be more opportunities and fewer competing migrants if the moves are towards the urban periphery rather than the centre however, so that a pattern of general outward migration should emerge (Fig. IB).

The general formulation presented here thus agrees with Burgess that the main tendency will be of 'radial expansion from the centre' (Burgess, I927, p. 178). This process can result

from a number of causes, however, and it is probable A GRAVITY MODEL that no single factor dominates in determining intra-

gI~~~~ . ~urban migration patterns. Nevertheless, where cities contain a sizeable and growing minority of persons

> ~/ \ ~of alien culture, invasion and succession is a likely /~ \<~ ~process, accentuating the asymmetrical distribution of

~E /^ \. migration distances and direction (Fig. IB) which P><,~ ̂ y< V^ could otherwise emerge because 'a dwelling . . .lying

ORIGIN ... further from the center of the city... is likely to DISTANCE be more attractive, on the average, than a dwelling...

lying nearer the center of the city' (Stouffer, 1940, p. INTERVENING OPPORTUNITIES INVASION-SUCCESSION MODEL 865)

Migration in London Few British geographers have studied the processes

E~ / X. \of residential change, although three investigations have indicated interesting patterns in the changing distribution of high-status residential areas (H. B.

ORIGIN Rodgers, 1962; R. A. Butlin, 1965; G. Gordon, 1966). DISTANCE London offers an excellent laboratory for such studies,

FIGURE i-The probable distribution ofmigra- however. There has been heavy in-migration of persons

tion distances: (A) where distance is the only of alien cultures in recent years, particularly from important factor, and (B) where invasion and the former colonies of India, Pakistan and the West succession reduced the number of intervening succession reduced the number of intervening Indies, and the metropolitan area has also been a con- opportunities in one direction (in this case, towards the city centre) siderable magnet for persons from elsewhere in the

British Isles (R. H. Osborne, 1964). Central London concentrations of in-migrants from abroad have been discussed by several

authors, for example, Jackson on the Irish and Patterson on the Poles (in Centre for urban studies, 1964). The most detailed broad study is that by R. B. Davison, based on the 1961 Census (Davison, I963). His indices of concentration show that foreign-born persons are spatially highly segregated relative to British-born residents, although there is an apparent negative correlation between the size of a group and its degree of concentration. He gives a list of the main residential areas for each group, and in a later work has discussed several social and demographic differences between the various migrant groups and the host society (Davison, I966). In this he stresses, however, that there is no complete segregation of coloured persons in London, a point also made by A. Deakin (1964).




Evidence of outward migration tendencies, which may represent either the filtering or the invasion and succession processes, is given in several studies. A. E. Smailes (1964), for example, quotes the Jewish 'colonization' of north London and the movement of East End war evacuees to suburban Essex, and an investigation of London's Cypriot community indicated a north and north-westward migration from an initial focus near the West End in the I920s (V. George and G. Millerson, 1967). A study of West Indians in Brixton (S. Patterson, 1960) has shown a zonation of the coloured quarter which parallels that observed for Chicago (Schnore, I965b). New arrivals are housed in an area of older dwellings close to Lambeth Town Hall, and after a year or so-providing that they become settled and financially secure -they move out to slightly better areas where there is less ghetto-like concentration. Finally, some may leave the West Indian quarter altogether if they become very prosperous and they then move into predominantly white areas. Not all pass through this transition, however, and the poor, the unsuccessful, the restless, and the small minority of anti-social and criminal types remain in the first area, in which there is probably a very high rate of short-distance movement and little residential stability (Davison, 1966).

Studies of suburban areas which are isolated from the possible direct effects of invasion and succession include several recent essays on migration patterns which illustrate a general outward tendency. H. C. Prince, for example, indicates sectoral movements in north-west London during the early nineteenth century (inJ. T. Coppock and Prince, 1964) and a study of south London in the I930s shows that most purchasers of new homes were moving from older dwellings within the conurbation (J. H. Johnson in Coppock and Prince, 1964). Finally, Coppock's work on Radlett indicates that, for a third of the in-migrants who come from Lon- don, 'Radlett was often the third stage in ajourney from inner to outer London and then beyond the conurbation boundary' (in Coppock and Prince, I964, p. 288).

As well as providing a laboratory for the above studies, London now has data which allow an overall investigation into the role of population movements in metropolitan expansion. This appears in the Migration Tables of the 1961 Census (General Register Office, 1966), and can be supplemented by information from other census volumes. Unfortunately the migration data come from the io per cent sample investigation, which was later found to be biased. One-person and large households are considerably under-represented, and the omission of the former may distort assessment of movement patterns and proportions, for single persons, especially young persons who are employed and may therefore have been missed by the enumerators, have a high mobility potential relative to the rest of the population. The figures used in this paper are not definitive, therefore, but still provide many useful insights into the processes under review.

The aim of the following discussion is to present a complete picture of migration patterns in London during a single year (1960-61), in order to supplement the more detailed studies reviewed above. In doing this, it is hoped to make an assessment of the general validity of the model of intra-urban migration formulated earlier. Many hypotheses could be generated from that discussion, but only a few expected patterns are suggested. In-migrants to London, particularly those from abroad (including Scotland and Ireland), should first reside in the central part of the metropolitan area and then proceed out towards the urban periphery by a number of moves into adjacent suburbs. This should initiate a general pattern of outward movement in which migrations from individual boroughs should display the asymmetrical pattern suggested by Figure IB.

The area chosen for this study is larger than the Greater London conurbation (whose

73



limited extent has already been attacked; see T. W. Freeman, 1966), the outer boundaries being determined pragmatically by the availability of data in the Migration Tables (its extent is most clearly indicated in Figure 8). All of the distributions mapped for this area are divided into quartiles for ease in drawing comparisons,4 but the wide range of values in most of the upper quartiles has required further tabulations to indicate the extremes.

In-Migration to London; 1960-61 The proportion of in-migrants who came from abroad to each of the local government

areas is shown in Figure 2, and it clearly confirms the expected pattern with a strong concen-

I/

4

FIGURE 2-The distribution of in-migrants from abroad, 1960-6I

tration in central London. This is supported by Table I, which indicates that foreign in- migrants were most numerous in several of the boroughs which form London's West End, and also in the inner parts of Middlesex. Between them, the western boroughs of Chelsea, Hampstead, Kensington, Paddington, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras and Westminster accounted for 28 per cent of these in-migrants to the Greater London conurbation during 1960-61.

A notable feature of Figure 2 is the marked differentiation it shows between east and west. While the majority of the local government areas to the west of the City are in the two upper quartiles for foreign in-migrants, the converse applies to the eastern suburbs, even those close to the city centre. Thus the percentages of in-migrants from abroad for East End boroughs (corresponding to those for the West End shown in Table I) were as follows: Bermondsey 3.4,

R. J. JOHNSTON 74




Bethnal Green I9.0, Finsbury I2.0, Poplar II.7, Shoreditch 3.3, Southwark 6.7, Stepney 15.3 and West Ham I 1.9. Between them, these nine boroughs received only 3 per cent of the foreign in-migrants to the conurbation, indicating a clear preference for the West End among these persons. The reason for this is perhaps a function of the two townscapes. Many of the in-migrants have low incomes and must rent homes which can be occupied at high densities; the former dwellings of the middle classes are better suited for this change of use than are the working-class terraces of the East End (Smailes, 1964). In addition, because the East End is lower class, native in composition, it has a much more community-minded population than the West, and its residents have much stronger ties to the area (Young and Willmott, I957). It is, therefore, much less open to the pressures of invasion and succession.

TABLE I

The Top-Ranking Boroughs in Percentage of In-migrants

Percentages From Scotland From elsewhere in

Rank From abroad and Ireland Englandl Wales

I Kensington 30.5 St. Pancras 12.3 Farnham 57.7 2 Hendon 29.0 Willesden II.5 Aldershot 48.9 3 Paddington 28.4 Acton 11.2 Farnborough 47.7 4 Chelsea 24.9 Hammersmith Io.2 Fleet 47.3 5 Hampstead 24.3 Deptford IO.0 Frimley 41.o 6 Islington 22.9 Fulham 9.5 Berkhamsted 35.0 7 Finchley 2I.7 Islington 9.4 Sunbury 31.4 8 Westminster 21.4 Aldershot 8.9 Guildford 30.7 9 Willesden 20.4 Paddington 8.6 fCaterham 33.3

Io St. Pancras 20.1 Holborn 8.4 _Egham 33.3

Source: calculated by the author from Census tables

The distribution of in-migrants from Scotland and Ireland shows a similar pattern to that for persons from outside the British Isles, except that the east-west differences are not as marked (Fig. 3), and there are fewer extreme values (Table I). The highest percentages are recorded for areas slightly farther from the city centre than those preferred by the foreign in- migrants, with the high values for Hammersmith, Willesden and Acton confirming Jackson's observation that the Irish quarter has been moving westward (in Centre for urban studies, I964).5 Again, however, despite the less obvious differentiation than that shown in Figure 2, relatively few of these in-migrants settled in the East End, the percentage originating in Scot- land and Ireland being only 1.5 for Bethnal Green, for example, and 0.7 in Shoreditch. The high figure for Aldershot (Table I) is probably related to the military establishments there.

The final group of in-migrants from outside the defined London metropolitan area are those from the rest of England and Wales, and their distribution also illustrates the dichotomy between east and west London (Fig. 4). In this case, however, the highest percentages of in- migrants occur near to the urban periphery and not in the central area. Two reasons can be suggested for this. First, the outer suburban areas will have contacts with rural areas beyond the boundary of Greater London, and will be drawing migrants from these sources.6 Secondly, within a country, the higher-status persons are generally more mobile (R. Freedman, I950),

75



and the suburbs of south and west London, parts of which lie within its 'cocktail belt' (J. W. R. Whitehand, I967), will clearly be more attractive to these people than those of the north and east.

/

FIGURE 3-The distribution of in-migrants from Scotland and Ireland, I960-6I

Invasion and Succession? This concentration of in-migrants, particularly those from abroad, into central London

suggests that the first stage of the invasion and succession model is operating there. If the full process is working, however, the continued movement into the central boroughs should create a greater demand for housing than can be met, so that an outward movement of these migrant groups should be observed.

Deficiencies in the data allow study only of all foreign-born persons grouped together, and even then, although comparison of figures for the I95I and I96I censuses gives an indica- tion of the changing spatial distribution, complete information is not available for all local government areas in either set of publications. Nevertheless, comparison of the two patterns (Figs. 5 and 6) clearly suggests that the main areas of expansion have been to the north and west of the city centre. Although there have been changes in the ordering, however, only one major alteration has taken place among the top ten boroughs in their percentage of foreign- born persons-the replacement of Stepney by Willesden (Table II). The percentage in Willes-

76 R. J. JOHNSTON

S...... I

a



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, I960-6I 77

.A~~~~~~~~~7

AM.

F;- j j :5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0. 1

23 -1- -57.7

NO DATA

FIGURE 4--The distribution of in-migrants from the rest of England and Wales, i96o--6i

den increased from 6.5 in i95i to I3.3 in i96i, a rapid rate of increase which is typical of many of the boroughs that are peripheral to the West End (Table III).7

Wh ile the greatest increases of foreigners between i95i and I96i occurred in the peripheral crescent around the West End, the latter area, on i96o-6i evidence, received the bulk of the

TABLE II The Top-Ranking Boroughs in the Distribution of Foreign Born

Percentage foreign born Rank 1951 1961

I Hampstead 20.3 Kensington 22.8 2 Kensington 17.4 Hampstead 22.I 3 Stoke Newington I7.3 Paddington 20.5 4 St. Marylebone I5.5 St. Marylebone 17.7 5 Paddington 13.7 Stoke Newington I5.2 6 Westminster 13.2 Chelsea 14.9 7 Holborn I2.8 f Westminster 14.6 8 Chelsea 11.9 Holborn 14.6 9 Stepney 10.7 Willesden 13.3

IO St. Pancras 9-3 St. Pancras 13.0




78 R. J. JOHNSTON

PERCENT

E 00-25

2 6-3 7

3 8 - 5 6

57- 20 3

NO DATE

FIGURE 5-The distribution of persons of foreign birth, I951

new arrivals. The inference from this is that invasion and succession is occurring, with the persons of foreign birth moving away from the central reception area as new in-migrants arrive. This is illustrated for a selection of the boroughs in the inner (those listed in Table II,

TABLE III

Boroughs with High Increase in Percentage of Foreigners, 1951-61

Per cent Per cent 1951 1961 1951 1961

Acton 4.6 8.4 Hornsey 5.I I3.o Battersea 3.0 7.3 Islington 4.4 I2.7 Brentford 4.9 7.6 Lambeth 4.6 9.7 Camberwell 2.7 5.6 Southall 3.7 6. I Deptford 2.0 5.4 Tottenham 2.7 6.6 Finchley 6.2 9.9 Uxbridge 2.9 7.0 Finsbury 3.9 6.7 Wandsworth 5.4 7.5 Fulham 5.4 8.7 Wembley 4.2 6.7 Hackney 7.9 I2.4 Willesden 6.5 I3.3 Hammersmith 5.3 Io.o Wimbledon 5.4 8.


78

I;?-·\

Q~ -

Ig,

R. J. JOHNSTON

-



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, I960-6I

I- - - -

FIGURE 6-The distribution of persons of foreign birth, 1961

TABLE IV The Changing Distribution of Foreigners

Number offoreigners 1951 1961

Difference Foreign in-migrants 1960-61

A. Inner area Chelsea Hampstead Holborn Kensington St. Marylebone Stoke Newington Westminster

B. Outer area Acton Battersea Camberwell Hornsey Lambeth Tottenham Uxbridge Willesden

6,156 7,06I I9,349 21,880 3,173 3,209

29,353 39,074 12,849 16,213 8,583 7,966

13,083 I2,504

3,II3 5,502 3,509 7,745 4,828 9,918 4,985 12,722

10,517 21,747 3,408 7,458 1,655 4,471

11,74I 22,777


79

905 2,53I

36 9,721 3,364 -617 -579

2,389 4,336 5,090 7,737

11,230 4,050 2,816

11,036

i,660 3,570

450 8,860 2,050

500 2,400

370 800 960

1,460 2,510

9I0 560

2,900

ii i

c2 .:.- -.::::::::::::::::·:-·· ................. ....:.:.I



80 R. J. JOHNSTON column I) and outer areas (those in Table III). In most of the former, the number of foreign in-migrants in a single year was greater than the change in the number of resident foreign- born persons over a decade (Table IV) but, in the outer area, the number of in-migrants in 1960-61 was substantially less than the Io-year increase in foreign-born. Nevertheless, the number of in-migrants is usually more than one-tenth of the latter figure, suggesting more incomers than total gain during the full decade, but such a conclusion omits consideration of changes in the number of in-migrants over time (G. C. K. Peach, 1966), the number who return to their home countries after a short stay,8 and those who proceed into the suburbs of the London metropolitan area. Clearly, however, the inner boroughs are unable to absorb all of their foreign in-migrants and the figures for boroughs on the edge of the reception area (especially those in Middlesex and on the south bank of the Thames) are very suggestive of the invasion and succession process.

The Process of Outward Movement: 1960-61 Whether the operative process in any particular area is invasion and succession, filtering,

the family cycle model, or any combination of the three, the general pattern of intra-urban migration should be towards the periphery, although this tendency will enclose many other types of movement. Thus each of the local government areas in Greater London should obtain most of its in-migrants from the direction of the city centre and most of its out-migrants should move towards the urban periphery.

This proposition is tested in two ways. In the first, the number of migrants between adjacent areas in each direction was used in a regression analysis to inquire whether there is any constant relationship between the two. Data were available for seventy-three pairs of adjacent areas, and produce a correlation between the two flows of r = +o.6326. The regression equation indicates that the number of back-migrants was on average about two-thirds of the number of outward migrants (Fig. 7). This confirms the expected pattern of Figure IB, although the regression equation seriously under- or over-predicts the number of back- migrants in several cases.

Analysis of the most deviant flows shows some interesting spatial patterns. Most of the under-predictions are in the eastern suburbs, those which are apparently least affected by the process of invasion and succession (Table V). A migration process more akin to that shown in Figure IA may be more appropriate for such areas, therefore. However, the distribution of back-flows which were over-predicted by the regression shows that, with the exception of Chelsea-Fulham, Hornsey-Wood Green and perhaps Brentford-Heston, they are not located in areas where the first member of each pair is likely to be experiencing the invasion process. Indeed, several of the over-predictions also occur in the eastern suburbs.

The second method of testing the proposition of a general outward tendency in the migration patterns was to map the migration fields for individual local government areas. This has been done for a sample of sixteen, which was chosen on a stratified basis to provide representatives of different social areas and locations (Fig. 8; the social areas are based on a map by Westergaard in Centrefor urban studies, 1964). Unfortunately, the full migration fields cannot be specified as the Census does not give complete enumerations of the origins and destinations of all migrants. For example, of the 131 out-migrants from Sunbury-on-Thames the county of destination is given for only Ioo and the local government area for 73; II of the 45 who proceed to a destination in Surrey are not accounted for as they went to areas that received less than io migrants from that source.




80 100 120 140

NUMBER OF OUTWARD-MIGRANTS

FIGURE 7-The relationship between out- and back-migration, I96o-6I

Twelve of the maps showing the migration fields are reproduced in Figures 9 and Io, in which the origins and destinations are expressed as percentages of the total; all areas sending or receiving less than i per cent of the total are omitted. Of the maps, the three representatives of central London (Bermondsey, Hackney and Kensington) display complex patterns which

TABLE V

Major Deviationsfrom Regression

Number of back-migrants More than 50 per cent under-predicted More than 50 per cent over-predicted

Southwark-Camberwell Finsbury-Islington Edmonton-Enfield Benfleet-Southend Ilford-Dagenham West Ham-East Ham Bares-Richmond Barking-Dagenham Dagenham-Romford Wembley-Harrow

Woolwich-Bexley Chelsea-Fulham Stepney-Poplar Brentford-Heston Hayes-Uxbridge Hornsey-Wood Green Romford-Brentwood Dagenham-Hornchurch Hackney-Leyton

Source: Figure 7

8I

140-

120-

100-

80-

60 -



are indicative of their high mobility rates and of the importance of in-migrants from outside Greater London. Thus there is little evidence to suggest that most of Kensington's in-migrants come from closer to the centre, and only a certain amount which indicates outward dispersal (in particular, the contacts with Hammersmith, Hampstead and Willesden). Instead, there is a complex pattern of interaction with the other boroughs of the West End, more so than in the other two examples. Hackney, however, draws most of its in-migrants from closer to the centre, especially from Islington, and most of its out-migrants go to more distant suburbs in

FIGURE 8-The extent of the study area, showing the sixteen sample areas. Key to social areas: I. Central London; 2. East End, mainly low status; 3. Outer Suburbs, mainly low status; 4. Outer Suburbs, mainly high status; 5. West End-Hampstead; 6. Fringe Suburbs, Kent and Surrey; 7. Aldershot conurbation; 8. Slough and Windsor; 9. Fringe Suburbs, the Chilterns; Io. Fringe Suburbs, Essex; II. Gravesend conurbation

the north-eastern sector, although there is an equilibrium flow between Hackney and neighbouring Stoke Newington. Bermondsey obtains very few in-migrants from inner suburbs (only from Southwark), no doubt because of its already noted isolation from the invasion and succession process, and draws mainly on Camberwell and Deptford. However, the distribution of its out-migrants is more like the expected pattern.

There is a similar lack of clear-cut patterns in the three other maps of Figure 9, which represent fringe suburban areas. Movement to Bromley, for example, comes mainly from its inner-city neighbours of Beckenham and Lewisham, but the amount of out-migration to more distant Orpington is only equivalent to the in-migration from that source. Only a very small proportion of Banstead's connections are with Greater London. Just less than a quarter of its

82 R. . JOHNSTON



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, 1960-61 83

in-migrants are from neighbouring municipalities but few out-migrants have their destinations within the defined area, with less than ten (4 per cent) going to either Dorking or Reigate, for example. On the other hand, Chigwell, on the Essex periphery of London, draws most

7

1 r 0/~ BERMONDSEY Immigrants 2/ 5 Emigr

Kilometres BANSTEADs 5 Emigronts

HACKNEY Irm_^ lt 2/5 % ngnt BRME Emigrants O/ Emigrants

0/0

6/ 1

0 5

EmIgnt BRHMLELImmigrants25 Emigrants

KENSINGTON Emigrnt CHIGW BANSTEADLL mmigrnts2/ Emigrants

migrants is expressed as a percentage of the total

0/I 2/4

0/i 1/ /6 0/' 2/0` 3/0/

I o0h' Kilometres

of its in-migrants from suburbs which are closer to the city ce ntre but also sends a considerable backflow to these areas, especially to Leyton and Wanstead.

Many of the out-migrants from these fringe municipalities proceed to the semi-rural areas Many of the out-n-igrants from these fringe municipalities proceed to the semi-rural areas



84 R. J. JOHNSTON beyond the defined boundary of London. For example, a further 27 per cent from Chigwell have their destinations in other parts of Essex (4 per cent in adjacent Epping R.D.) and 22 per cent go from Banstead to other parts of Surrey (plus another I6 per cent to Sussex). Some of

EDMONTON Immigrants 2/5 Emigrnts FELTHAM

5 Emi grants Kilometres Kiometres

WEMBLEY Immigrants 2/s . \ Im,mnrnntc ?/ / ron / Kilometres

WOOD GREEN Nmmirant 2mgot . \--<V^ \ r^\ ! K5m

18/6

F0 5

omtres Kilometes OOLWICH mmgrns Emigr

FIGURE i1-The migration fields of six intermediate suburbs. The number of migrants is expressed as a percentage of the total

these may move to parts of Essex and Surrey which are within Greater London but are not separately listed, but the main inference is that the outward tendency is present, with the fringe suburbs being the last resting place before exurbia (as suggested in Coppock's study of Radlett).

./7

WEMBLEY mmi migran Immiarn"ts 2- Kilometres

WOOD GREEN Immigronts 5

Kilometres

/7

0

Kilometres woo ICH "/5 Emigrants

FIGURE io-The migration fields of six intermediate suburbs. The number of migrants is expressed as a percentage of the total

these may move to parts of Essex and Surrey which are within Greater London but are not separately listed, but the main inference is that the outward tendency is present, with the fringe suburbs being the last resting place before exurbia (as suggested in Coppock's study of Radlett).



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, 1960-61 85

The six maps in Figure io show suburbs which are intermediate in location between the city and the periphery and in which the pattern of outward movement might be more clearly demonstrated. This is not so, however, and in each case there are considerable deviations from the expected. Only the Maiden and Wood Green maps are obviously indicative of an outward tendency, though this is also apparent to a lesser degree for Wembley and Woolwich. For Edmonton, however, the interaction with Enfield is definitely against the hypothesis, while migration from Feltham is mainly towards the centre of London, to its two main sources of in-migrants-Heston and Twickenham.

TABLE VI

Migration Patterns

Per cent immigrantsfrom Per cent emigrants to Outside Inner Outer Inner Outer Outside London London London London London London

A. Central boroughs Bermondsey 34 9 43 5 50- II Hackney 32 31 i6 Io 43 9 Kensington 55 I5 13 20 30 19 St. Marylebone 41 i9 I5 21 30 19

B. Intermediate suburbs Edmonton 24 30 23 17 23 19 Feltham 31 35 5 32 10 31 Horchurch 21 55 8 23 21 25 Maiden 36 33 5 Ir 12 39 Wembley 25 37 17 14 19 30 Wood Green 23 42 II I6 14 26 Woolwich 25 38 I2 17 26 22

C. Fringe suburbs Banstead 32 24 o i8 o 47 Bromley 25 32 13 22 I 41 Chigwell 20 44 3 27 5 51 Rickmansworth 42 9 i8 o 29 38 Woking 39 17 3 9 12 65


Table VI is an attempt to synthesize the patterns of Figures 9 and Io, together with those for the four sample areas whose maps have not been displayed. All moves have been categorized as to or from either inner London (areas between the sample municipality and the City), or outer London (areas closer to the periphery). Such a classification clearly involves inconsistencies because of the size and shape of some areas (for example, how does one classify Hendon relative to Wembley?), while some pairs are at the same relative distance between centre and periphery. Nevertheless, the exercise produces a number of interesting points.

With two exceptions (Bermondsey and Rickmansworth), the large majority of an area's in-migrants originating within Greater London come from inner London, which is in accord with the expected pattern. In apparenfcontradiction to this, however, in several cases (excluding the fringe suburbs because of their peculiar locations) the majority of the out-migrants go to inner London rather than to more distant suburbs. Thus the full process of outward progression,



with most in-migrants coming from inner London and out-migrants going to outer London, is shown for only two of the sixteen areas, Hackney and Woolwich, though it is also strongly suggested in several others (Edmonton, Kensington, Malden, St. Marylebone, Wembley and Wood Green) and is probably also present in all of the fringe areas if out-migration to the rural-urban fringe is allowed for.9

Such conclusions are only partial, however, because of the incomplete nature of the data. Only 26 per cent of Wood Green's out-migrants leave Greater London, for example, but of the 74 per cent who remain, actual destinations are given for only 30 per cent. A further 9 per cent go to unspecified destinations within the County of London, 12 per cent to Essex and 8 per cent to Middlesex, but no greater detail is available. Similarly, of the 26 per cent who leave Greater London, over half go only to Hertfordshire, which fringes the continuously built-up area. It may be that a fuller coverage would give more support to the hypothesis concerning the direction of movement, for Table VI shows that, except in the cases of the fringe suburbs, there is generally a more complete coverage for in- than out-migrants. Thus the dominance of short- distance movement suggested by Figures 9 and Io may be exaggerated, and there is in fact a wider spread of out-migrants (not shown in the census because of the disclosure rules), in line with the pattern suggested in Figure IB. A notable lack, however, is of any substantial long- distance back-movement to central London, which might be expected from the first and last stages of the family cycle model. Perhaps, then, central London is an attractive area only for non-Londoners.

Correlates of Outward Movement It has been stressed throughout this paper that the hypothesized patterns of intra-urban

migration could result from the interaction of a number of causes. The observed patterns in London agree with the expectations, although it has only been possible to present certain inferences concerning their raison d'etre. This final section presents evidence which might assist in the formation of these inferences, though not with their verification, by a study of the housing characteristics of the migrants as compared with the total population.

In both the filtering and the invasion and succession processes, housing is passed down the social scale. For its new residents such housing is generally expensive, and often relatively large, so that it must be occupied at relatively high densities for economic viability. This often means that more than one household will share the same dwelling. In addition, many of the in-migrants to an area, particularly if it is close to the city centre, cannot afford to purchase a home but must rent a dwelling, or a number of rooms within a dwelling. Evidence on whether such processes are operating in London at present can be obtained by comparing the density and types of occupance of the migrant groups with those of the total population.

Table VII shows that, on average, fewer migrants own their own homes (or are purchasing them) than is true for the total population in each of the sample local government areas except Wembley. Conversely, more migrants are renting accommodation, particularly furnished accommodation. This can suggest two things; either the migrants are a highly mobile group (as Goldstein's studies suggest) with few personal possessions, or the in-migrants are low-status persons who cannot afford any other type of accommodation. Since the proportion renting furnished accommodation is greatest in the boroughs that have already been identified as those which are associated with in-migration from outside the British Isles and the consequent process of invasion and succession, the latter interpretation of Table VII is probably correct in these cases. The former explanation probably applies to the outer areas (such as Bromley and

86 R. J. JOHNSTON




Woking), however, where migrants renting furnished accommodation are more likely to be short-stay persons of any status group not necessarily associated with the outward process of metropolitan expansion. Finally, it should be noted that migrants do not generally occupy Local Authority housing, no doubt because of the residential qualifications required for such accommodation. The higher proportion in this category in the eastern suburbs probably results because the data do not distinguish between in-migrants and movers within a local government area, who would be eligible for Local Authority housing.

TABLE VII

Migrants and the Housing Markets

Per cent of households who Own Rent (or are Rent Rent local Share buying) unfurnished furnished authority

A. Central boroughs Bermondsey 1961 2 42 2 49 24 Migrants I96o-6I I 33 5 55 16 Hackney 1961 13 48 Io 26 48 Migrants I96o-6I 5 37 31 24 62

Kensington 196 I I 43 37 5 38 Migrants I960-6I 5 23 67 I 48 St. Marylebone 6 63 i6 8 Io Migrants 1960-61 6 44 35 7 16

B. Intermediate suburbs Edmonton 1961 54 24 3 I7 I2 Migrants I960-61 42 14 12 25 19 Hornchurch I96I 75 II I Io 26 Migrants I960-6I 71 7 4 Io 4

Wembley 1961 54 14 3 24 9 Migrants I960-6I 56 I6 17 6 I7 Wood Green 1961 31 41 17 8 35 Migrants I960-6I 26 22 38 I 56 Woolwich 1961 42 24 3 29 Io Migrants I960-6I 29 13 II 38 13

C. Fringe suburbs Bromley 1961 58 20 4 15 7 Migrants I960-6I 5I 17 I6 I2 12

Woking 1961 55 15 3 21 3 Migrants 1960-61 55 9 9 13 4

No data are available for Banstead, Chigwell, Feltham, Maiden and Rickmansworth


Migration is generally associated with greater densities of occupancy in the sample areas. In only two cases-Bermondsey and Hornchurch-is the percentage of households sharing a dwelling greater among the total population than among the migrants. These two exceptions are both in the eastern suburbs, where sharing is already a common type of occupance (Young and Willmott, I957). The percentages of households sharing are again highest in the boroughs

87



88 R.J. JOHNSTON which are most affected by the in-migration of foreigners, suggesting groups of low-income households who are forced to live at high densities in order to afford the rents.

In all cases, there is a lower proportion of migrants living at more than two rooms per person than is true for the total population (Table VIII). The converse, for densities greater than one and a half persons per room, is not always true (the exceptions are Bermondsey, Chigwell, Feltham, Hornchurch and Woolwich), but only in Banstead is there a lower proportion of migrant households living in the I-I persons per room category. Thus there is general confirmation for the suggestion that migrants live at higher densities, with the greatest densities again located in the central boroughs most closely associated with the hypothesized invasion and succession process.

TABLE VIII

Migrants and Housing Densities

Per cent of Households at Densities per room of 1 i-1 i-1 i> 4 1-I 1 i >

A. Central boroughs B. Intermediate suburbs Bermondsey I96I 6.5 42.7 38.8 II.8 Edmonton 1961 1.7 I9.7 50.4 28.3 Migrants I96o-6I 1.8 59.0 33.3 5-9 Migrants I960-6I 2.7 33.5 50.5 I3.3 Hackney I96I 7.I 36.2 43.I I3.5 Feltham 1961 1.9 26.0 54.8 I7.4 Migrants I96o-6I I2.9 48.5 34.6 4.0 Migrants I96o-6I 0.0 28.2 56.4 I5.4 Kensington I96I I2.6 43.9 30.0 I3.5 Hornchurch 1961 I.o I9.9 56.7 22.4 Migrants I960-6I I8.5 51.7 21.6 8.2 Migrants I96o-6I 20.9 2.I 59.5 I9.5 St. Marylebone I96I 4.I 36.8 41.5 I7.5 Maiden I96I 1.3 18.7 48.9 3I.I Migrants I960-6I 4.9 43.6 38.2 I3.3 Migrants I96o-6I 1.9 22.6 49.1 26.4

Wembley I96I 1.3 19.2 53.1 26.4 C. Fringe suburbs Migrants I960-6I 2.2 24.9 55.3 17.6 Banstead 1961 2.3 16.8 52.0 28.9 Wood Green 1961 2.7 23.8 49.3 24.2 Migrants I96o-6I 5.0 I5.0 62.0 I8.o Migrants I960-6I 5.2 32.9 50.3 II.6

Bromley I96I 1.3 18.7 5I.0 29.I Woolwich 1961 1.9 25.3 47-9 25.0 Migrants I960-6I I.o 26.8 56.6 I5.6 Migrants I96o-6I 1.7 37.0 47.3 I4.0 Chigwell 1961 2.1 29.2 49.1 19.6 Migrants I960-6I 0.7 33.6 50.0 I5.7 Woking 1961 2.0 21.3 51.9 24.9 Migrants I96o-6I 5.5 34.8 42.8 I6.9

No data are available for Rickmansworth Source: calculated by the author from Census tables

These correlations between migration and housing occupancy only provide further evidence to support the inferences already put forward and do not in themselves indicate which processes are operating within Greater London. It is certainly possible to associate the higher migrant densities and greater proportions renting furnished accommodation with an outward expansion of the general rental market into better properties, a process initiated by the pressure of continued in-migration to the central residential areas. The same patterns could be used to deduce a migration process which is analogous to the mover-stayer dichotomy suggested by Goldstein, however, in which the movers are characterized by footloose individuals and households with relatively few personal possessions.10 Without further information, it is not possible to make definite statements on this matter.



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, 1960-61 89 Conclusion

Patterns of population mobility and movements within Greater London approximate to those suggested by a review of several models of intra-urban migration. In-migration from abroad is concentrated on the central residential area, and continued movement into these areas appears to be initiating processes of invasion and succession in which the alien groups are slowly diffusing into the suburbs. The general direction of this movement is towards the north-west and south of the city centre, a tendency which is accentuated by the greater in- movement of persons from elsewhere in England and Wales to these areas, thus producing a clear social differentiation between east and west London. Throughout the metropolitan area, the tendency of movement is towards the urban periphery, however, although the data source is not sufficiently precise for this to be fully documented.

Several processes of intra-urban migration can be suggested, all of them producing the same general pattern. While the present paper has indicated that Greater London displays this pattern, it has not been possible to suggest which of the processes is (or are) producing the expected trend. Evidence of the in-migration of alien groups to central London and of the housing characteristics of migrants is strongly suggestive of the invasion and succession process, at least in the inner boroughs, but no clear evidence is available which suggests the cause of the observed process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Data for this paper were collected while the author was in England during December 1966 and January 1967. Acknowledgement is made to those who made this short visit possible, especially the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and to the staff members of the School of Geography at the University of Manchester who commented on some of the ideas presented here during a departmental seminar inJanuary 1967. Thanks are also due to Mr. T. Baumann who drew the maps. Acknowledgement is made to the Department of Geography, University of Canterbury for a grant towards the cost of the blocks.

NOTES

1 The concentration of rental housing in the centre of the city is the result of numerous factors in which the most important are probably the age of the housing and its relative undesirability for owner/occupier groups, and its relative cheapness for persons with capital to invest who desire a relatively rapid return.

2 Deterioration is unlikely to be an important factor in the filtering process as persons who are going to move because a property deteriorates will probably also move because of technological obsolescence, and the latter is likely to occur first. Deteriorated properties are usually occupied by the lower echelons of society in any case, and their opportunities for movement occur only with out-movement from better properties in other neighbourhoods or through the provision of Local Authority housing.

3 Invasion and succession can also be caused by the expansion of other uses into residential areas, especially on the fringe of the Central Business District, but in itself this process is unlikely to be sufficient to cause large-scale movement.

4 The quartiles were determined for grouped data rather than on the basis of a ranking of all I34 areas on each variable, so that the groups may not always be of exactly the same size.

5 Persons originating in Ireland formed 68 per cent of the Scottish and Irish in-migrants to the Greater London conurbation during I960-6I.

6 For example, Guildford draws about 30 per cent of its in-migrants from the parts of Surrey outside the defined metropolitan area.

7 The areas included in Table III are those whose percentage of foreign born either doubled during I95I-6I or increased by more than two percentage points, excluding areas listed in Table II.

8 For example, au pair girls and Commonwealth in-migrants on working holidays; the strict control of in- migrants had not commenced at the time of the 1961 Census.

9 It should be noted that a further I5 per cent of Rickmansworth's in-migrants came from unspecified origins in Middlesex.

10 Migrants involved in the invasion and succession process may also come under this heading so that the two groups may in part be combined.



REFERENCES

ALONSO, W. (1965) Location and land use (Cambridge, Mass.) BOALT, G. and C-G. JANSON (1957) 'Distance and social relations', Acta Sociol. 2, 73-97 BURGESS, E. W. (1924) 'The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project', Publ. Am. sociol. Soc. I8, 85-97 BURGESS, E. W. (1927) 'The determination of gradients in the growth of the city', Publ. Am. sociol. Soc. 21, 178-85 BURGESS, E. W. (1928) 'Residential segregation in American cities', Ann. Am. Acad. polit. soc. Sci. 140, Io5-I5 BUTLIN, R. A. (1965) 'The population of Dublin in the late seventeenth century', Ir. Geogr. 5, 51-66 Centre for urban studies (1964) London, aspects of change COPPOCK,J. T. and H. C. PRINCE (eds.) (I964) Greater London CRESSEY, P. F. (1938) 'Population succession in Chicago: I898-I930', Am.J. Sociol. 44, 59-69 DAVIS,J. T. (1965) 'Middle class housing in the central city', Econ. Geogr. 41, 238-51 DAVISON, R. B. (1963) 'The distribution of immigrant groups in London', Race 5, 56-69 DAVISON, R. B. (1966) Black British DEAKIN, A. (1964) 'Residential segregation in Britain: a comparative note', Race 6, I8-26 FIREY, W. (1945) 'Sentiment and symbolism as ecological variables', Am. sociol. Rev. Io, I40-8 FOOTE, N. N. et al. (1960) Housing choices and constraints (New York) FORD, R. G. (1950) 'Population succession in Chicago', Am.J. Sociol. 56, 151-60 FREEDMAN, R. (1950) Recent migration to Chicago (Chicago) FREEMAN, T. W. (1966) The conurbations of Great Britain (Manchester, 2nd Ed.) FREID, M. and P. GLEICHER (1961) 'Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum', J. Am. Inst. Plann. 27,

305-I5 General Register Office (1966) Census 1961, England and Wales, Migration Tables GEORGE, V. and G. MILLERSON (1967) 'The Cypriot community in London', Race 8, 277-92 GITTUS, E. (1964) 'The structure of urban areas', Tn Plann. Rev. 35, 5-20 GOLDSTEIN, S. (I954) 'Repeated migration as a factor in high mobility rates', Am. sociol. Rev. I9, 536-41 GOLDSTEIN, S. (1964) 'The extent of repeated migration: an analysis based on the Danish Population Register', J. Am.

statist. Ass. 59, 1121-32 GORDON, G. (1966)' The evolution of status areas in Edinburgh', in The social structure of cities (Liverpool) GRIGSBY, W. G. (1963) Housing markets and public policy (Philadelphia) HXGERSTRAND, T. (1957) 'Migration and area. Survey of a sample of Swedish migration fields and hypothetical con-

siderations on their genesis', Lund Stud. Geogr. Ser. B, 13, 27-I58 HOYT, H. (I939) The structure and growth of residential neighbourhoods in American cities (Washington) JOHNSTON, R. J. (1966) 'The location of high status residential areas', Geogr. Annlr, Ser. B, 48, 23-35 JOHNSTON, R. J. (1968) 'Residential mobility among an urban elite' (Paper presented at the ANZAAS 40th Congress,

Christchurch) LOEWENSTEIN, L. K. (1965) Residences and workplaces in urban areas (New York) LOWRY, I. S. (1960) 'Filtering and housing standards: a conceptual analysis', Land Econ. 36, 362-70 MANN, P. H. (1965) An approach to urban sociology MARBLE, D. F. and J. D. NYSTUEN (1963) 'An approach to the direct measurement of community mean information

fields', Pap. reg. Sci. Ass. 11, 99-Io9 MORRILL, R. L. (1965) 'The Negro ghetto: problems and alternatives', Geogr. Rev. 55, 339-6I MORRILL, R. L. and F. R. PITTS (1967) 'Marriage, migration, and the mean information field: a study in uniqueness and

generality', Ann. Ass. Am. Geogr. 57, 401-22 OLSSON, G. (1964) Distance and human interaction: a review and bibliography (Philadelphia) OSBORNE, R. H. (1964) 'Migration trends in England and Wales', Geogr. Pol. 3, 137-62 PATTERSON, S. (I960) 'A recent West Indian immigrant group in Britain', Race I, 27-39 PEACH, G. C. K. (1966) 'Factors affecting the distribution of West Indians in Great Britain', Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 38,

I5I-63 RAPKIN, C. W. and W. G. GRIGSBY (1960) The demandfor housing in racially mixed areas (Berkeley) RAVENSTEIN, E. G. (1885) 'The laws of migration', J. R. statist. Soc. 48, 167-235 RODGERS, H. B. (1962) 'Victorian Manchester', J. Manchr. geogr. Soc. 58, I-I2 SCHNORE, L. F. (1963) 'The socio-economic status of cities and suburbs', Am. sociol. Rev. 28, 76-85 SCHNORE, L. F. (1964) 'Urban structure and suburban selectivity', Demography I, 164-76 SCHNORE, L. F. (I965a) 'On the spatial structure of cities in the two Americas' in The study of urbanization (New York),

347-98 SCHNORE, L. F. (I965b) 'Social class segregation among non-whites in metropolitan centres', in The urban scene (New

York), 294-308 SMAILES, A. E. (1964) 'Greater London-the structure of a metropolis', Geogr. Z. 52, 163-89 STOUFFER, S. A. (1940) 'Intervening opportunities: a theory relating mobility and distance', Am. sociol. Rev. 5, 845-67 STOUFFER, S. A. (1960) 'Intervening opportunities and competing migrants',J. reg. Sci. 2, I-26

90 R. J. JOHNSTON



POPULATION MOVEMENTS: LONDON, 1960-61 9I

TAEUBER, K. E. and A. F. TAEUBER (1964) 'White migration and socio-economic differences between cities and suburbs', Am. sociol. Rev. 29, 718-29

TAEUBER, K. E. and A. F. TAEUBER (1965) Negroes in cities (Chicago) VEREKER, C. andJ. B. MAYS (1961) Urban redevelopment and social change (Liverpool) WHITEHAND, J. W. R. (1967) 'The settlement morphology of London's cocktail belt', Tijdschr. econ. soc. Geogr. 58, 20-7 YOUNG, M. and P. WILLMOTT (1957) Family and kinship in east London

FIG. I-La repartition probable des distances des migrations. A, ou la distance est le seul facteur important; B, ofu invasion et succession reduisaient le nombre des opportunites intermediaires en direction unique (vers centre-ville) FIG. 2-La repartition des emigres (entrants) d'outre-mer, 1960-61 FIG. 3-La repartition des emigres (entrants) de L'Ecosse et L' Irlande, I96o-6I FIG. 4-La repartition des emigres (entrants) du reste des iles Britanniques, I960-6I FIG. 5-La repartition des personnes nees etrangeres I95I FIG. 6-La repartition des personnes nees etrangeres I96I FIG. 7-La liaison entre la migration (sorti) et la migration (retour), I960-6I FIG. 8-La region et les districts d'echantillon: I Londres (centre), 2 Londres-est (surtout de condition sociale peu elevee), 3 Faubourgs du dehors (surtout de condition sociale peu elevee), 4 Faubourgs du dehors (surtout de condition sociale elevee), 5 Londres-ouest et Hampstead, 6 Faubourgs en marge, Kent et Surrey, 7 Le conurbation d' Aldershot, 8 Slough et Windsor, 9 Faubourgs en marge, les Chilterns, IO Faubourgs en marge, Essex, II Le conurbation de Gravesend FIG. 9-Les champs de migrations des trois bourgs centrals et trois faubourgs en marge (le nombre des emigres s'exprime comme pourcentage du total) FIG. Io-Les champs de migrations de six faubourgs intermediaires (le nombre des emigres s'exprime comme pourcentage du total)

ABB. i-Die wahrscheinliche Verteilung der Umzugsentfernungen, A. wo Entfernung der einzige Faktor von Bedeutung ist, und B. wo Invasion und Sukzession die Zahl der Zwischenm6glichkeiten in einer Richtung herabsetzten (in diesem Falle nach der Stadtmitte hin) ABB. 2-Die Verteilung der Einwanderer vom Ausland 1960-1961 ABB. 3-Die Verteilung der Einwanderer aus Schottland und Irland I960-1961 ABB. 4-Die Verteilung der Einwanderer vom iibrigen England und Wales 1960-1961 ABB. 5-Die Verteilung von im Ausland geborenen Personen 1951 ABB. 6-Die Verteilung von im Ausland geborenen Personen 1961 ABB. 7-Das Verhaltnis von Aus-und Riickwanderung 1960-1961 ABB. 8-Ausdehnung des Untersuchungsgebiets, mit den 16 Probegebieten. Sozialgebiete: i. Zentral London, 2. East End, hauptsachlich von niedrigen Sozialschichte, 3. Aussere Stadtgebiete, hauptsachlich von niedrigem Sozialschichte, 4. Aussere Stadtgebiete, hauptsachlich von hohem Sozialschichte, 5. West End-Hampstead, 6. Periphere Stadtgebiete, Kent und Surrey, 7. Stadtballung von Aldershot, 8. Slough und Windsor, 9. Periphere Stadtgebiete, Chilterns, IO. Peri- phere Stadtgebiete, Essex, II. Stadtballung von Gravesend ABB. 9-Die Umzugsfelder von drei innerstadtischen 'Boroughs sowie drei peripheren Stadtgebieten. Die Anzahl der Umziigler ist als Prozentsatz der Gesamtanzahl ausgedriickt. ABB. Io-Die Umzugsfelder von sechs zwischenstindigen Stadtgebieten. Die Anzahl der Umziigler ist als Prozentsatz der Gesamtanzahl ausgedriickt.



Documents

Population Movements and Metropolitan Expansion: London, 1960-61