Abstract
This paper analyses to what extent spatial mobilities requiring longdistance
commuting, frequent travel and regular absence from (the main) home for
job reasons are perceived as a way of life by mobile people. More precisely, it aims at examining under which socio‐economic and mobility conditions people gradually incorporate their intensive mobility into their private life and shape a positive, lasting vision of their mobility practice. Based on a large European survey, findings show diverse ways people perceive and experience intensive mobilities on the long run. People making frequent overnight business trips, men, self‐employees, those with a high work status and high mobility resources are more likely to see their mobility as positive. Long‐distance commuters living with partner and children and those firmly settled in their place of residence tend to see their mobility in a more neutral way, as a necessity. Finally, women, single parents, people with a low work status, low mobility resources and poor access to transport facilities are more likely to perceive their long‐term mobility negatively, which can be seen as a forced mobile way of life. High positions at work were found to be a better predictor of a mobile way of life than high education. Overall, our analysis suggests that recurring forms of high mobility may reinforce gender and social inequalities. Besides migration, these behaviours should receive more attention in current debates and research on work‐family issues.
commuting, frequent travel and regular absence from (the main) home for
job reasons are perceived as a way of life by mobile people. More precisely, it aims at examining under which socio‐economic and mobility conditions people gradually incorporate their intensive mobility into their private life and shape a positive, lasting vision of their mobility practice. Based on a large European survey, findings show diverse ways people perceive and experience intensive mobilities on the long run. People making frequent overnight business trips, men, self‐employees, those with a high work status and high mobility resources are more likely to see their mobility as positive. Long‐distance commuters living with partner and children and those firmly settled in their place of residence tend to see their mobility in a more neutral way, as a necessity. Finally, women, single parents, people with a low work status, low mobility resources and poor access to transport facilities are more likely to perceive their long‐term mobility negatively, which can be seen as a forced mobile way of life. High positions at work were found to be a better predictor of a mobile way of life than high education. Overall, our analysis suggests that recurring forms of high mobility may reinforce gender and social inequalities. Besides migration, these behaviours should receive more attention in current debates and research on work‐family issues.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Spatial Mobility, Migration, and Living Arrangements |
Editors | C. Aybek, J. Huinink, R. Muttarak |
Place of Publication | Dordrecht |
Publisher | Springer |
Pages | 91-114 |
Number of pages | 24 |
ISBN (Print) | 978-3-319-10020-3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Keywords
- spatial mobility
- long distance commuting
- way of life
- self-perception
- motility
- mobility skills
- social inequalities
- life course
- internal survey