Sure, I’ve always been a huge fan of The Clash. Thus the title of this new paper, “Should I Stay or Should I Go, Now: The Effects of Community Satisfaction on the Decision to Stay or Move,” coauthored with my colleagues Charlotta Mellander and Kevin Stolarick. Most research has looked at why people choose to move. This paper turns that on its head and examines why people choose to stay. Interestingly enough, characteristics of the place itself appear to play the biggest role, trumping individual characteristics like income, education, age, and the like. And it’s not economic conditions – like the job market or economic opportunity – that matter most. Rather it’s the ability to forge meaningful and lasting social relationships and the quality of the place itself which have the biggest effect on the decision to stay. Here’s the abstract:
Why do some people stay in locations while others move? While most research has examined the factors which encourage people to move to new locations, we focus our research on the effects of satisfaction with individuals’ current location on the decision to stay or to move. To do so, we examine the relative effects of three kinds of factors: (1) satisfaction with community or place-based factors such as aesthetic appeal, outdoor space and recreational amenities, artistic and cultural amenities, the ability to meet people and make friends; (2) community economic conditions; and (3) individual-level demographic factors such as income, human capital, and age. Our findings indicate that place-based factors, in particular the beauty and physical appeal of the current location and the ability to meet people and make friends, explain more of the desire to stay than does community economic conditions or individual demographic characteristics.
There’s a straightforward message here for all those places that want to retain more of the talented people. In addition to doing all the useful and important things they are doing to bolster their business climate and create and protect jobs, it’s critically important they improve their overall quality of place and build a people climate where residents can forge and maintain meaningful social ties. This is not a case of either-or, but rather a case of and-both.
The full paper is here.
April 13th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Having moved a lot (usually for work), the one thing that keeps me in a place, or makes it hard to leave, is the quality of relationships I have made while there. Some expat locals have everything going for them, great weather, salary, tax incentives…but if it is a transient place people are less likely to make strong relationships, meaning they will probably move on.
April 13th, 2010 at 10:37 am
When I first moved to Portland seemed was an overgrown lumber town and I thought “I’ll be out of here in a year.” But decades later I’m still here. I’ve talked to dozens of others, including my wife, who tell the same story.
It often comes down to the collaborative nature of the city. People and groups work together more than most places, and access is easy to politics, business and arts. Portlanders have one or two degrees of separation, we’re likely to know someone in common with new acquaintances.
Sure, there’s the natural beauty, the bikes & light rail, the bookstores, etc. But many of the things that people like came about because of that collabortive nature that formed networks that worked for transit or urban growth boundaries or recycling.
I think I’m echoing Heath. In “Rise” Richard talks about tight and loose relationships. Portland has lots of opportunities for both, which attract and hold different kinds of people.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:16 am
We’re staying where we are despite the poor environment, poor schools and poor nightlife simply because we live near friends and family who can help us out with childcare, and help my stay-at-home partner remain sane whilst hanging out with toddlers all day.