Encyclopedia of Migration

Living Edition
| Editors: Reed Ueda

Place Utility

  • David López-Carr
  • Daniel Phillips
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6179-7_42-1

Definition

The concept of place utility was introduced in a pair of articles published in the mid-1960s by Princeton geographer Julian Wolpert. In the first (1965), he coined the term “place utility” to describe “the net composite of utilities which are derived from the individual’s integration at some position in space.” Based on past experiences, both positive and negative, the individual measures the utility of the place in which he/she presently resides. According to Wolpert, place utility is operationalized by migrants or potential migrants who assess the outstanding attributes of their current place of residence relative to those same aggregate characteristics of a potential place of migration destination. Traditionally, most migrants have little or no personal experience in the potential destination. They make a judgment based on information they hear or read about, rather than from personal experience. In sum, Wolpert theorized that people will base their migration decisions...

Keywords

Migration Decision Current Place Locational Utility Potential Destination Livelihood Opportunity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams H, Neil Adger W (2013) The contribution of ecosystem services to place utility as a determinant of migration decision-making. Environ Res Lett 8(1):015006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RGV (1982) Place utility fields. Geogr Anal 14(1):10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilsborrow RE, Oberai AS et al (eds) (1984) Migration surveys in low-income countries: guidelines and questionnaire design. Croom-Helm, London, 552 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr DL (2008) Migration to the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: why place matters. Hum Organ 67(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Datta A (2003) Human migration: a social phenomenon. Mittal Publications, New Delhi, pp 25, 26Google Scholar
  6. De Jong GF, Gardner RW (eds) (1981) Migration decision making: multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Fotheringham AS, Champion T, Wymer C, Coombes M (2000) Measuring destination attractivity: a migration example. Int J Popul Geogr 6(6):391–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldscheider C (1971) Theoretical issues in migration research. Population, modernization, and social structure. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Janelle DG (1969) Spatial reorganization: a model and concept. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 59(2):348–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kok P (2006) Migration in south and southern Africa: dynamics and determinants. HSRC Press, Cape Town, pp 275, 276Google Scholar
  11. Wolpert J (1965) Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 15:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wolpert J (1966) Migration as an adjustment to environmental stress. J Soc Issues 22(4):92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Arthur JA (2008) The African Diaspora in the United States and Europe: the Ghanaian experience. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 27, 28Google Scholar
  2. Bible DS, Brown LA (1981) Place utility, attribute tradeoff, and choice behavior in an intra-urban migration context. Socioecon Plann Sci 15(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown L, Horton F et al (1970) On place utility and the normative allocation of intra-urban migrants. Demography 7:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Findley AM, Li F (1999) Methodological issues in researching migration. Prof Geogr 51(1):50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Golledge RG, Stimson RJ (1997) Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. Guilford Press, New York, pp 414–418Google Scholar
  6. Henry S, Bilsborrow R (2006) How migrants choose their destination in Burkina Faso? A place-utility approach. Papers of the European population conference 2006. Liverpool, June 21–24 Session 32 “Population, development and environment in developing countries” http://epc2006.princeton.edu/papers/60302
  7. Hugo G (1981) Village-community ties, the village norms, and ethnic and social networks: a review of evidence from the Third World. In: Jong GFD, Gardner RW (eds) Migration decision making: multidisciplinary approaches to micro-level studies in developed and developing countries. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee ES (1966) A theory of migration. Demography 3:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. López-Carr D (2012) Agro-ecological determinants of rural out-migration to the Maya biosphere reserve, Guatemala. Environ Res Lett 7(4):045603. pp 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Massey DS (1990) Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Popul Index 56(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ravenstein EG (1889) The laws of migration. J R Stat Soc 52:241–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wood C (1982) Equilibrium and historical-structural perspectives on migration. Int Migr Rev 16(2):298–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA