Printexemplare bestellen

Warenkorb

Kontakt für Fragen zur Bestellung von Publikationen:

Angelika Meller
Tel.: 030/39001-253
Fax: 030/39001-275
E-Mail: vertrieb@difu.de

Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH
Vertrieb
Zimmerstraße 13-15
10969 Berlin

eBooks bestellen

Mobility among Ethnic Minorities in the Urban Netherlands

Lucas Harms

Mobility among Ethnic Minorities in the Urban Netherlands

1. Introduction
2. Source of data
3. Mobility in Focus
    3.1 Mobility and Activities outside the Home
    3.2 Use of Cars, Public Transport, and Bicycles
4. Mobility Explained
    4.1 Various Explanations for Differences in Mobility
    4.2 Activities outside the home
    4.3 Use of cars, public transport, and bicycles
5. Final Remarks

Notes
References

Abstract:
Little is known as yet about the mobility of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. How mobile are immigrants? How often do they leave the house? Where do they go and what means of transport do they favour? This article provides an overview of various aspects of mobility among the most important ethnic minorities in the Netherlands; Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans. The information is based on a large-scale survey conducted in 2004 and 2005. The article focuses on the number of journeys made by population groups, the distances covered, and the modes of transport employed. It investigates whether and how ethnic minorities differ from one another and from the ethnic Dutch with regard to various aspects of mobility behaviour. One finding is that immigrants are less mobile than the native Dutch; they use public transport frequently and bicycles rarely.

 

1. Introduction

“The bicycle is a highly dangerous means of transport and owning one is harmful to your status.” According to an article appearing in Trouw on 17 June 2004, this was one of the most widespread prejudices among immigrants of Turkish origin in the Hague district of Schilderswijk.

The newspaper article notes that Turkish city-dwellers own far fewer bicycles than their Dutch neighbours. A journey through the district of Schilderswijk seems to confirm this. Nowhere does one see bicycles in the street, in the entrances to buildings or garages, and cyclists can be counted on one hand. At the Hague market, too, a meeting place for foreign city-dwellers, there are strikingly few bicycles to be seen.

Is it true, then, that “non-Western foreigners”(1) so rarely ride bicycles? How often do immigrants travel,(2) what distances do they cover, and how frequently do they use cars, public transport, and bicycles?. How do they differ in their behaviour from the ethnic Dutch?

The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive description of mobility among foreigners. To begin with, certain characteristics and backgrounds to the information used in this article are presented (chapter 2). Chapter 3 describes the mobility behaviour of foreigners and ethnic Dutch. Among the aspects considered are how often people go out of the house and how many journeys they make. Also of key importance are journey length, distance covered, and the preferred mode of transport. Chapter 4 examines whether the differences in mobility behaviour reported between foreigners and ethnic Dutch persist if various characteristics of the two groups’ social and spatial backgrounds are taken into account. Chapter 5 sums up the findings and makes certain recommendations.

 

2. Source of data

In 2004 and 2005, a large-scale survey of the life situation of Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and ethnic Dutch was conducted on the initiative of a government agency, the Netherlands Institute for Social Research/SCP. For this so-called Leefsituatie Allochtone Stedelingen (LAS) (Life Situation of Foreign City-Dwellers), a questionnaire was developed on the subjects of leisure activities, division of labour in the household, social contacts of respondents, security and health, as well as mobility. The study was conducted by specially trained interviewers, who visited the target group at home and went through the questions with interviewees, where requested in Turkish or Arabic. The survey was not carried out in the entire country, being restricted to the 50 largest towns and cities in the Netherlands. By far the greatest proportion of foreigners live in the 50 largest municipalities (between 75 and 79 per cent), so that the findings of the LAS cover a very large section of the relevant population group. However, this does not apply with regard to the ethnic Dutch included in the study. Since only a minority of them live in the 50 largest municipalities (35 per cent), a strongly selected group is represented in the LAS. This needs to be kept in mind in interpreting the findings.

By the end of 2005, all the LAS questionnaires had been processed. A total of about 4000 people had been interviewed. Almost three-quarters also recorded additional information on their activities over time and their mobility behaviour in a small logbook. In the meantime, some articles have been published on the results of the study, addressing, among other things, the working and housing situation of foreigners, the position of women, and recreational activities (see, for instance, SCP et al. 2005 and Keuzenkamp/Merens 2006) Harms (2006) has reported comprehensively on foreigner mobility on the basis of LAS study.

 

3. Mobility in Focus

 

3.1 Mobility and Activities outside the Home

The LAS study showed that people of foreign origin travel more seldom than ethnic Dutch (Table 1). Turks and Moroccans, in particular, are less frequently out and about. Nonetheless, there is no statistically significant difference between the number of journeys undertaken by Surinamese and ethnic Dutch.

Journey time for ethnic Dutch was about 70 minutes per person and day.(3) Among foreign sections of the population, only the Turks travel for statistically significantly fewer minutes per day, namely 50. The biggest differences in mobility behaviour are, however, not in the number of journeys or journey time, but in distances covered: Turks and Moroccans travel an average distance of 18 kilometres, Surinamese and Antilleans 24 kilometres, and ethnic Dutch 34 kilometres.(4) Particularly striking is the difference between foreign population groups: there appears to be a clear distinction as regards the length and reach of mobility behaviour between Turks and Moroccans on the one hand and Surinamese und Antilleans on the other. Turks and Moroccans travel more rarely and shorter distances than Surinamese and Antilleans.

 

But many of the differences identified are due to the fact that some people do not travel at all, or at least did not on the survey effective date. About one fifth of ethnic Dutch respondents undertook no journeys on the effective date. The proportion of people of foreign origin who did not travel was much higher. Turks and Moroccans seldom travel: in respectively 42 per cent and 44 per cent of cases they made no journey. 28 per cent of Surinamese and 27 per cent of Antilleans stayed at home; they thus travelled much more frequently than Turks and Moroccans, still much less than ethnic Dutch.

If the people who did not travel at all are left out of account in the number of journeys, journey time, and distance covered, many of the differences identified no longer apply (Table 2). Only with respect to distance covered are foreigners much less mobile. In all, the distance they cover is about a quarter to a third shorter.

Differences between Turks and Moroccans on the on hand and Antilleans on the other are then no longer statistically significant. They can be almost entirely attributed to Turks and Moroccans leaving the home more rarely than Surinamese and Antilleans.

 
 

3.2 Use of Cars, Public Transport, and Bicycles

What mode of transport do foreigners use, and how do they differ in their modal choice from the ethnic Dutch? (Table 3). The most striking difference is that foreigners travel less by bicycle than the ethnic Dutch. While the latter cycle in about a quarter of cases, Turks and Moroccans choose to travel by bicycle in only a tenth of cases. Surinamese and Antilleans cycle more frequently but still much more rarely than the ethnic Dutch: between 13 per cent and 15 per cent of journeys made by the latter were by bicycle. Over all, ethnic Dutch respondents travelled by bicycle almost twice as often as foreigners. In contrast, public transport was used more often by foreigners; Surinamese and Antilleans made particularly frequent use of it – for respectively 21 per cent and 25 per cent of journeys. Turks (and to a lesser extent Moroccans) use public transport at a statistically significantly higher rate than the ethnic Dutch. The picture is a different one when it comes to car use. Turkish respondents use cars more frequently (64 per cent of journeys) than the ethnic Dutch (55 per cent), Moroccans (51 per cent), Surinamese (50 per cent), and especially Antilleans (43 per cent).

 
 

4. Mobility Explained

 

4.1 Various Explanations for Differences in Mobility

People of foreign origin travel more seldom and shorter distances; with the exception of Turks, they use cars and bicycles less frequently and public transport more often.

Since mobility behaviour has to do with “background characteristics” like gender, employment or unemployment, and level of education, it is possible that differences in mobility behaviour between foreigners and the ethnic Dutch are, in fact, much less pronounced. The following example demonstrates this: foreigners travel less frequently than the ethnic Dutch. Is this because they are foreigners or because they more rarely have a job? Thus the link between two facts – first, that people without a regular job and income travel less frequently and, second, that the proportion of people in employment is smaller among foreigners than among the ethnic Dutch – can invite the conclusion that, on average, foreigners leave the house less frequently. The differences are then not necessarily attributable to their being foreigners but to their lack of regular work. One can go still further: if the proportion of people in employment among foreigners were as high as among the ethnic Dutch, there would be perhaps no differences at all in mobility behaviour.

With the aid of variate statistical methods, it is possible to take such differences into account. They allow the “undistorted” effect of belonging to a certain population group on mobility behaviour to be observed with all other characteristics being kept constant. In other words: How big would the differences in mobility behaviour between foreigners and the ethnic Dutch be if there were no differences between them with respect to background characteristics (e.g., employment or unemployment)?

The social and spatial characteristics of the different population groups presumably play a particularly important role in the differences between foreigners and the ethnic Dutch with regard to mobility. Firstly, there are socio-demographic factors that influence mobility, e.g., gender, immigrant generation, age, and marital status. Secondly, there are socio-economic differences between foreigners and the ethnic population, e.g., employment or unemployment, income, and level of education. Thirdly, there are socio-cultural differences. They can be measured in terms of the type of social contacts maintained by foreigners, the extent to which they have adopted modern Western attitudes, and their mastery of the Dutch language. Fourthly, there are spatial differences between the life situations of foreigners and the ethnic Dutch, e.g., the location of the home in the urban area or the fact that someone does not live in one of the four largest cities.

These four social and spatial explanations of differences in mobility behaviour are taken into account in the following analyses. For the differences not eliminated by the analysis, which hence cannot be attributed to social and spatial characteristics, other explanations are then sought. For the technical aspects of the analyses and detailed explanations of the variables employed, the reader is referred to Harms (2006).

 

4.2 Activities outside the home

As we have seen, people of foreign origin leave the house more rarely than the ethnic Dutch. Particularly among Turks and Moroccans, there were many who did not go out of the house at all on the effective date of the survey. To what extent can these differences be attributed to background characteristics, and how strongly are the reported results influenced or distorted by them?

This was examined with the aid of a multivariate logit regression analysis (cf. figure 1). The principle of such an analysis is to consider the probability of something occurring against the probability of it not occurring. In this case, we are concerned with the probability of someone travelling against the possibility of no journey being undertaken. In order to ascertain how the probability of Turks leaving the house relates to the probability of foreigners in general leaving the house, the relations between the probabilities of the two groups is analysed. The result is the so-called odds ratio. The closer this ratio is to 1, the smaller are the differences between Turks and ethnic Dutch with respect to the probability of them going out of the house. If the ratio is 1, there is no difference. Depending on whether the ratio is closer to 0 or greater than 1, the probability of Turks going out of the home more rarely than ethnic Dutch is respectively greater or smaller.

All foreign groups go out of the house more rarely than the ethnic population (see the upper, lighter bar in figure 1). Turks and Moroccans are least frequently to be found outside the home. Surinamese and Antilleans also leave the house less often than the ethnic Dutch, but the differences are smaller, and as regards the Antilleans even statistically insignificant. If background characteristics are controlled for, all that can be ascertained is that Turks and Moroccans leave the house significantly less frequently than the ethnic Dutch (see the lower, dark bar in figure 1). Given otherwise constant conditions, the probability that they will leave the house is still clearly and statistically more robustly less than for ethnic Dutch respondents.

The fact that Turks and Moroccans more rarely venture out of the home than the ethnic Dutch can only partly be explained in terms of social and spatial characteristics. The most important explanations are gender differences (men go out of the house more often than women, especially among Turkish respondents), age (the older a person, the less frequently he or she goes out), societal position (whoever has a regular job, is studying or is undergoing vocational training is probably more often outside the home than the unemployed, housewives and househusbands), and the degree of socio-cultural integration (the less integrated the person, the more rarely he or she will go out of the house). And what explains why Turks and Moroccans – even after controlling for social and spatial characteristics – are more rarely outside the home than ethnic Dutch city-dwellers? It is perhaps cultural factors like the limited possibilities for Muslim women to go out of the house without the consent of or even without being accompanied by their husbands (cf., for example, Risvanoglu-Bilgin et al. 1986; Meander 2004). Such a gender-specific interpretation is underpinned by the findings of a separate analysis for women and men; it showed that (when controlled for background characteristics) Turkish men do not leave the house less frequently than ethnic Dutch men. In other words, if foreigners of Turkish origin travel more rarely than the ethnic Dutch, the lower mobility is to be attributed to Turkish women. Among Moroccans, however, not only women but also men are less mobile than ethnic Dutch city-dwellers.

 

a) Differences were controlled for between foreigners and ethnic Dutch from a socio-demographic point of view (gender, age, size of family), from a socio-economic perspective (societal position, e.g. employed or unemployed, level of education), and in terms of spatial characteristics (physical density of place of residence, residence outside Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht) (cf. also section 4.1; for a detailed description see also Harms 2006).
b) If this coefficient is 1, the given characteristic has no effect from a statistical point of view on activities outside the home. Depending on whether it is close to 0 or greater than 1 it has an increasingly negative or positive effect in comparison with the absence of the characteristic or a reference group (n.s., = not significant [0.05]).
Source: SCP (LAS 05).

 

4.3 Use of cars, public transport, and bicycles

To what extent can differences in the use of modes of transport be attributed to differences is social and spatial characteristics between foreigners and the ethnic Dutch?

Travelling by car
The probability that foreigners will use a car is significantly smaller than for the ethnic Dutch (cf. figure 2). Antilleans, in particular, are seldom inclined to travel by car. Turkish respondents are the exception: they use cars more often, even though statistically not significantly more. If the spatial “characteristics” of foreigners and ethnic Dutch are taken into account, part of the difference in car use is eliminated (cf. figure 2): Moroccans and Surinamese then appear to travel by car almost as frequently as the ethnic Dutch. Where all other conditions remain constant, Antilleans travel much more rarely by car; however, the difference is smaller than in the original, unadjusted results. The most important explanatory characteristics are the low proportion of employees among foreigners (people engaged in regular work use the care more often), the high proportion of foreign city-dwellers in heavily built-up areas, and the high proportion of foreign residents in one of the four big cities (both spatial characteristics relate to low car use and car-ownership). However, allowing for differences in social and spatial characteristics, Turks appear to use cars relatively more frequently. A further breakdown of findings in terms of gender and generation shows that the greater frequency of car use among Turkish respondents is chiefly attributable to Turkish women and second generation Turkish immigrants. Among Turkish male respondents and first-generation Turkish immigrants, car mobility is also higher than among ethnic Dutch respondents, although the differences are smaller than for women and first-generation Turkish immigrants.

Possible explanations for the very intensive car use among Turks is the status, as well as the independence and freedom that a car offers. The latter plays a particularly important role for young women of the second immigrant generation. The car is a medium of emancipation and integration: women themselves decide when and where they want to travel. Another explanation, which has partly to do with the higher status that a car offers, is the quite large number of self-employed entrepreneurs among residents of Turkish origin (cf. Dagevos/Gesthuizen 2006). For this population group, in particular, it is possibly very important to own and use a car.

 

a) Differences were controlled for between foreigners and ethnic Dutch from a socio-demographic point of view (gender, age, size of family), from a socio-economic perspective (societal position, e.g. employed or unemployed, level of education), and in terms of spatial characteristics (physical density of place of residence, residence outside Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht) (cf. also section 4.1; for a detailed description see also Harms 2006).
b) If this coefficient is 1, the given characteristic has no effect from a statistical point of view on activities outside the home. Depending on whether it is close to 0 or greater than 1 it has an increasingly negative or positive effect in comparison with the absence of the characteristic or a reference group (n.s., = not significant [0.05]).
Source: SCP (LAS 05).

Travelling by public transport
In comparison with the ethnic Dutch, Surinamese and Antilleans travel particularly often by public transport. The probability of them using public transport is much higher than that of the ethnic population doing so (figure 3). Moroccans, too, often opt for public transport. Once again, respondents of Turkish origin are the exception. They use public transport approximately as frequently as ethnic Dutch city-dwellers.

If the social and spatial characteristics of foreigners and ethnic Dutch are taken into account, it appears that the differences between Surinamese and Antilleans on the one hand and the ethnic Dutch on the other are smaller, but remain statistically significant. Controlling for the background characteristics did not provide any new insight with regard to Moroccan and Turkish respondents. When broken down by gender, it transpired that more frequent use of public transport was attributable to women. For men there was no difference in using public transport from the ethnic Dutch, whereas women are roughly five times more likely to do so than their Dutch neighbours. As far as immigrant generations are concerned, there are differences only with regard to Turks and Moroccans: in the two groups only second-generation immigrants are more likely to use public transport than the ethnic Dutch.

 

a) Differences were controlled for between foreigners and ethnic Dutch from a socio-demographic point of view (gender, age, size of family), from a socio-economic perspective (societal position, e.g. employed or unemployed, level of education), and in terms of spatial characteristics (physical density of place of residence, residence outside Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht) (cf. also section 4.1; for a detailed description see also Harms 2006).
b) If this coefficient is 1, the given characteristic has no effect from a statistical point of view on activities outside the home. Depending on whether it is close to 0 or greater than 1 it has an increasingly negative or positive effect in comparison with the absence of the characteristic or a reference group (n.s., = not significant [0.05]).
SCP (LAS 05).

Why do mainly Surinamese, Antillean, and Moroccan women use public transport more often – even after adjustment for social and spatial background characteristics? The obvious answer is they have no car of their own and no driving licence. In any case, far more women of foreign origin are without a car or driving licence than ethnic Dutch women, obliging them to take public transport. However, this explanation appears not to suffice: even if one controls for differences in car-ownership and driving licence possession, the key conclusion remains that foreigners travel by public transport with greater frequency than the ethnic population. Apparently the frequent use of public transport is no “counter-weight” to the limited use of cars among women of foreign origin; however, it could be an alternative to the little used bicycle. Having taken stock of the reasons for the use of public transport, however, it transpires that Surinamese travel more often by bus, tram, or train because they find it “simple” and “practical” (cf. Harms 2006).

Travelling by bicycle
Foreigners are far less likely to travel by bicycle that the ethnic Dutch. Turks, in particularly, seldom opt to cycle, and Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans also ride a bicycle far less frequently.

Allowing for the social and spatial background characteristics of foreigners and ethnic Dutch, the differences are less but nonetheless robust. A distinction by gender shows that women of foreign origin travel particularly rarely by bicycle. A close look reveals that Moroccan and Surinamese men even cycle not significantly less than ethnic Dutch men. Turkish and Antillean men, however, are seldom to be seen on a bicycle. This is especially true of second-generation Turkish immigrants. One can only speculate about why this is so. For example, there is some indication that the bicycle has a bad image and little status value among foreign youth. Earlier studies in Amsterdam confirm this impression: young people of foreign origin were found to cycle less frequently than ethnic Dutch youth and also less often than older foreign respondents. Foreign youth in Amsterdam also had a rather reserved attitude towards bicycles. A study by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research/SCP showed that the few Turks who used bicycles claimed that they did so because they “otherwise wouldn’t be able to travel” and that they “had no option” (Harms 2006).

 

a) Differences were controlled for between foreigners and ethnic Dutch from a socio-demographic point of view (gender, age, size of family), from a socio-economic perspective (societal position, e.g. employed or unemployed, level of education), and in terms of spatial characteristics (physical density of place of residence, residence outside Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht) (cf. also section 4.1; for a detailed description see also Harms 2006).
b) If this coefficient is 1, the given characteristic has no effect from a statistical point of view on activities outside the home. Depending on whether it is close to 0 or greater than 1 it has an increasingly negative or positive effect in comparison with the absence of the characteristic or a reference group (n.s., = not significant [0.05]).
SCP (LAS 05).

 

5. Final Remarks

On the basis of a large-scale study on the life situation of foreign city-dwellers, this article has provided a outline account of mobility among Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans. The aspects taken into account have been activities outside the home, the number of journeys, the distances covered, and the modes of transport employed. At issue was whether there are differences in mobility between population groups of foreign origin and between foreign and ethnic Dutch city-dwellers. It was also investigated whether the differences reported remained valid if the social and spatial background characteristics of foreigners and ethnic Dutch were taken into account.

More rarely outside the home, more rarely on a bike
Foreigners travel less than ethnic Dutch and in approximately the same time cover shorter distances. The explanation for their travelling less often is that Turkish and Moroccan women, in particular, often never go out of the house. Traditional attitudes about gender roles are possibly decisive. One example is that some Muslim women are not allowed to appear in public without the consent of their husbands or without being accompanied by them.

Foreigners use cars and bicycles more rarely than the ethnic Dutch – and for this reason make greater use of public transport. The differences in car use nevertheless seem to be largely explicable in terms of the social and spatial characteristics of the various population groups. However, this does not apply with respect to Turks. Given the same social and spatial characteristics, they use cars more frequently than the ethnic Dutch. Public transport is used relatively often by Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean women. The bicycle is not used often by any population group of foreign origin Even where conditions are constant, foreigners use bicycles less than the ethnic Dutch. Especially women of foreign origin, as well as second-generation Turks and Moroccans seldom opt for the bicycle. Possible explanations are the low status of the bicycle among foreigners, the risk of accidents that they associate with it, as well as culture-specific factors, e.g., not having learnt to ride, or rejecting the bicycle for religious reasons.

Implications
Is it a problem that the mobility of foreigners differs from that of the ethnic Dutch? In any case, it means that existing views on mobility have to be adjusted. For example, statements are made about the mobility behaviour of the Dutch on the basis of the Mobility Study of the Netherlands (MON) without taking account of the large and growing group of people of foreign origin. This can lead to an overestimation of mobility, especially in relation to cycling in big cities. In future, the various nuances will have be taken better into consideration. For mobility forecasts are based almost entirely on the behaviour of the ethnic Dutch. It is therefore quite possible that views of the future are markedly distorted, especially with regard to urban areas. Does the scepticism towards bicycles, or even their rejection by foreigners mean that bicycle lanes in the big cities will soon be empty, bicycle garages (5) no longer profitable, and bicycle stands superfluous? Of course, this will not suddenly materialise. And contrary trends are also in evidence. For example, bicycle instruction for foreign women has been successfully organised throughout the country for some years now (cf., e.g., www.steunpuntfiets.nl). However, it must be asked whether these initiatives really bring foreigners to appreciate cycling and induce them to take it up in large numbers. Even after comprehensive training and instruction, cycling is for many of them an “uncanny,” “dangerous,” and also “weird” activity predominantly reserved for the ethnic Dutch. It is symptomatic that not only the first generation but also the second generation of foreigners are not enthusiastic cyclists. Where the bicycle finds no favour, however, there are new opportunities for public transport. Especially in the big cities, foreigners are an important and steadily growing target group for the operators of public transport. Particularly women of foreign origin who cannot ride a bicycle (or who have none) are a far from negligible target group of potential tram, bus, and underground passengers.

All in all, it is advisable to take the mobility of foreigners into greater consideration in traffic and transport policy than in the past. This can, for example, help justify the maintenance or even optimisation of public transport in large and medium-sized cities. Cycling instruction for foreign women could also be supported and specifically stimulated. Moreover, greater interest in the mobility of foreigners in the Netherlands will perhaps offer new possibilities in integration policy. The analyses in this study indicate that in matters of activities outside the home and mobility behaviour, there are important parallels to the deprived societal position of foreigners: those who are least mobile are always those who suffer from the greatest societal deficits. This is especially true of Turkish and Moroccan women. This raises the question whether it makes sense to combat “mobility poverty.” Do greater possibilities for being mobile, bring greater spatial and temporal freedom of movement – and thus more freedom to engage in various societal activities, including employment and participation in recreational activities outside the home? Or does the causal link point in the opposing direction, namely that improving one’s position in society is a precondition for mobility? The relation between activities outside the home, mobility, and the degree of integration could be a subject for future studies and research. Another issue that needs to be settled is why the car enjoys a much higher status than the bicycle. Why is the car so valuable to Turkish respondents, in particular, and why is the bicycle such an unattractive means of transport for many young Turkish and Moroccan people? Another subject for future research is the reason for the relatively frequent use of public transport by Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean women. It is for lack of alternatives? Or do women opt for public transport because it is “practical” and “easy”?

 

Notes

(1) “Non-Western foreigners” include Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans. There is a relatively high number of Surinamese and Antilleans in the Netherlands because Surinam was a Dutch colony until 1975 and the Netherlands Antilles are still a part of the kingdom or – in the case of Aruba – were part of it for a long time. Other, smaller groups of non-Western foreigners like Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, and Somalis are not taken into account in this study. No information was collected about Western foreigners such as Germans and Belgians. For the sake of simplicity, the four main groups of non-Western foreigners selected are referred to as “foreigners.” In the original Dutch version of this article, the author refers to “allochtoon”. The population groups so described and referred to in translation as “foreigner” are people who have either been born abroad or have at least one parent who originally came from abroad. (back)

(2) Mobility refers to movement outside the home using a means of transport (bicycle, car, public transport). (back)

(3) The figures agree with the nationwide average reported in the Mobility Study of the Netherlands (MON). (back)

(4) If a choice in made in the MON – the 50 largest towns and cities, the age group 20-65, and the days of the week Sunday to Thursday inclusive, the average is a little higher at 40 kilometres per person and day. (back)

(5) In the Netherlands there are special “parking buildings for bicycles” which can sometimes accommodate thousands of bicycles. In addition, there are boxes for rental bicycles, especially at railway stations. (back)

 

References

 Bovag-RAI (2006): Kerncijfers 2006, tweewielers, Amsterdam: Bovag-RAI. (back)

 Dagevos, J./Gesthuizen, M. (2006): Niet-westerse allochtonen met een stabiele arbeidsmarktpositie: aantallen en ontwikkelingen, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (back)

 Harms, L. (2006): Allochtonen onderweg, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (back)

 Keuzenkamp, S./Merens, A. (2006): Sociale atlas van vrouwen uit etnische minderheden, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (back)

 Lucas, K./Grosvenor, T./Simpson, R. (2001) : Transport, the environment, and social exclusion, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (back)

 Meander (2004): Verslag van het onderzoek in het kader van het oudkomersbeleid in Leiden, Leiden: Stichting Meander. (back)

 MuConsult (1995): Bewoners van oude stadswijken; mobiliteit van allochtonen en autochtonen, Amersfoort: MuConsult. (back)

 Niepoth, H. J. (2004): De kloof blijft, maar is minder groot; een onderzoek naar het verplaatsingsgedrag van etnische minderheden. Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 2004, 1399–1418. (back)

 O+S (2004): Amsterdam op de fiets! Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam: O+S-Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek. (back)

 Risvanoglu-Bilgin, S./Brouwer, L./Priester, M. (1986): Verschillend als de vingers van één hand, Leiden: COMT. (back)

 SCP/WODC/CBS (2005): Jaarrapport Integratie 2005, Den Haag/Voorburg: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatiecentrum, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (back)

 V&W (2004): Nota Mobiliteit. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (back)

 Wilson, S./Douma, F. (2005): Transportation needs of foreign-born ethnic sub-populations in rural and urban communities: an environmental justice perspective, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. (back)

[previous article | index | next article]

Weitere Verweise auf diesen Beitrag: