Understanding the association between (im)mobility and life satisfaction in Australia

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY
Rosabella Borsellino, Elin Charles-Edwards, Aude Bernard, Jonathan Corcoran
{"title":"Understanding the association between (im)mobility and life satisfaction in Australia","authors":"Rosabella Borsellino,&nbsp;Elin Charles-Edwards,&nbsp;Aude Bernard,&nbsp;Jonathan Corcoran","doi":"10.1002/psp.2820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Stayers are an important component of the internal migration system, yet despite their numerical significance, they are often treated as ancillary to movers in the migration literature. As a result, there is a conflict between the mobility-centric view of immobility as undesirable and developing narratives which recognise staying as an active and consciously made decision. We therefore need to rethink immobility conceptually and empirically to shed light on a numerically dominant component of the population that has largely been neglected. Using Australia as a case study, this paper examines whether being a stayer has a positive or negative association with life satisfaction, and whether this relationship varies by (1) preference for staying or leaving, (2) between cities and regional areas, and (3) before and during the onset of the pandemic. By first reconceptualising staying as an active process and distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary stayers, life satisfaction outcomes are examined using four migration preference-behaviour types: <i>desired stayer</i>, <i>undesired stayer</i>, <i>desired mover</i> and <i>undesired mover</i>. Drawing on nationally representative survey data and regression modelling, results reveal important differences in life satisfaction outcomes between individuals expressing a preference for staying or leaving. Findings highlight that while satisfaction of stayers generally declined, being an <i>undesired stayer</i> was associated with a significantly greater loss of life satisfaction compared to being a <i>desired stayer</i>. The magnitude of this association was greater for <i>undesired stayers</i> in regional areas and those surveyed during the pandemic. These results illuminate the varied characteristics and outcomes of stayers within the Australian migration system, demonstrate the importance of acknowledging preference in theorisations of (im)mobility and emphasise the value of adopting an immobility-focused perspective on internal migration.</p>","PeriodicalId":48067,"journal":{"name":"Population Space and Place","volume":"30 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/psp.2820","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Space and Place","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.2820","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stayers are an important component of the internal migration system, yet despite their numerical significance, they are often treated as ancillary to movers in the migration literature. As a result, there is a conflict between the mobility-centric view of immobility as undesirable and developing narratives which recognise staying as an active and consciously made decision. We therefore need to rethink immobility conceptually and empirically to shed light on a numerically dominant component of the population that has largely been neglected. Using Australia as a case study, this paper examines whether being a stayer has a positive or negative association with life satisfaction, and whether this relationship varies by (1) preference for staying or leaving, (2) between cities and regional areas, and (3) before and during the onset of the pandemic. By first reconceptualising staying as an active process and distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary stayers, life satisfaction outcomes are examined using four migration preference-behaviour types: desired stayer, undesired stayer, desired mover and undesired mover. Drawing on nationally representative survey data and regression modelling, results reveal important differences in life satisfaction outcomes between individuals expressing a preference for staying or leaving. Findings highlight that while satisfaction of stayers generally declined, being an undesired stayer was associated with a significantly greater loss of life satisfaction compared to being a desired stayer. The magnitude of this association was greater for undesired stayers in regional areas and those surveyed during the pandemic. These results illuminate the varied characteristics and outcomes of stayers within the Australian migration system, demonstrate the importance of acknowledging preference in theorisations of (im)mobility and emphasise the value of adopting an immobility-focused perspective on internal migration.

Abstract Image

了解澳大利亚(不)流动性与生活满意度之间的关系
滞留者是国内移民体系的重要组成部分,然而,尽管他们在数量上很重要,但在移民文献中,他们往往被视为迁徙者的附属品。因此,以流动性为中心的观点认为不流动是不可取的,而发展中的叙事则认为滞留是一种积极的、有意识的决定,这两者之间存在冲突。因此,我们需要从概念上和经验上重新思考非流动性,以揭示人口中在数量上占主导地位但在很大程度上被忽视的部分。本文以澳大利亚为例,研究了 "滞留者 "与生活满意度之间是正相关还是负相关,以及这种关系是否因以下因素而异:(1) 滞留或离开的偏好;(2) 城市与地区之间;(3) 疫情爆发前和爆发期间。首先,我们将留下作为一个积极的过程,并区分自愿留下和非自愿留下的人群,然后使用四种移民偏好行为类型:希望留下者、不希望留下者、希望迁移者和不希望迁移者来研究生活满意度的结果。利用具有全国代表性的调查数据和回归模型,研究结果揭示了表示倾向于留下或离开的个人之间在生活满意度结果上的重要差异。研究结果表明,虽然留下者的满意度普遍下降,但与希望留下者相比,不希望留下者的生活满意度损失更大。在地区性地区和大流行病期间接受调查的人中,这种关联的程度更大。这些结果揭示了澳大利亚移民体系中滞留者的不同特征和结果,证明了在(非)流动性理论中承认偏好的重要性,并强调了从非流动性角度看待国内移民的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Population, Space and Place aims to be the leading English-language research journal in the field of geographical population studies. It intends to: - Inform population researchers of the best theoretical and empirical research on topics related to population, space and place - Promote and further enhance the international standing of population research through the exchange of views on what constitutes best research practice - Facilitate debate on issues of policy relevance and encourage the widest possible discussion and dissemination of the applications of research on populations - Review and evaluate the significance of recent research findings and provide an international platform where researchers can discuss the future course of population research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信