Regional Studies, Regional Science

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://rsa.tandfonline.com/loi/rsrs20

Mapping the spatial patterns of internal migration

in Europe

Francisco Rowe & Nikos Patias

To cite this article: Francisco Rowe & Nikos Patias (2020) Mapping the spatial patterns
of internal migration in Europe, Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7:1, 390-393, DOI:
10.1080/21681376.2020.1811139

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1811139

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 22 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 374

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://rsa.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsrs20
REGIONAL STUDIES, REGIONAL SCIENCE
2020, VOL. 7, NO. 1, 390–393
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1811139

REGIONAL GRAPHIC

Mapping the spatial patterns of internal migration

in Europe
a b
Francisco Rowe and Nikos Patias

ABSTRACT
Internal migration has replaced fertility and mortality as the primary demographic process shaping the
spatial distribution of populations within countries. While a rich comparative literature has examined the
intensity, composition and spatial impacts of population movement in Europe, the spatial structure of
internal migration flows is less well understood. We present a flow map of internal migration flows
within 38 European countries using the most recent data available. The graphic reveals the major role of
national capital cities in the internal migration system, and an array of distinctive patterns of internal
migration fostering population concentration in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, and population
deconcentration in Western and Southern Europe.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 17 July 2020; Accepted 7 August 2020
KEYWORDS
internal migration flows; Europe; mapping; Mapbox
JEL CLASSIFICATIONS
J11; J16; J22; R12; R23

With the decline of spatial variations in fertility and mortality, migration has become the primary
demographic process shaping national human settlement patterns. While growing attention has
been given to international migration, migration between regions within countries remains less
well understood. Globally, internal migration outnumbers international migration by a factor of
four to one (Bell et al., 2015). In Europe, a rich comparative literature has been developed to
explore the intensity, composition and spatial impacts of population movement (e.g., Rees &
Kupiszewski, 1999; Rowe, 2018a, 2018b). Yet, understanding the spatial patterning has been
hampered by data constraints: coarse spatial aggregations into urban and rural classifications,
and varying migration definitions (Rowe et al., 2019a).
Building on a recent study by Rowe et al. (2019a), we mapped the origin–destination flows of
internal migration for 38 European countries. We drew on origin–destination migration matrix
data from the IMAGE repository (Bell et al., 2015) and national statistical offices.1 We used data
from population registers and censuses over a single-year interval, except for France and

CONTACT
(Corresponding author) F.Rowe-Gonzalez@liverpool.ac.uk; fcorowe@liverpool.ac.uk
a Geographic Data Science Lab, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
b Geographic Data Science Lab, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. N.Patias@liverpool.ac.uk

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Mapping the spatial patterns of internal migration in Europe 391

Switzerland, where five-year interval migration were available, and Albania where only 10-year
interval data were available. To balance the goals of comparability and currency of data, we
used data for the latest period available. Thus, the timing of observation varies across a full decade
from 2000 (Switzerland) to 2014 (Georgia), providing a broad depiction of the patterns of
internal migration at the start of the 21st century. We used the most detailed zonal systems across
which migration is measured, with zonal systems ranging from three regions in Bosnia-Herze-
govina to 589 in Belgium. Differences in the number of regions into which a country is divided,
and in their shape and size, fundamentally affect the number and patterns of migrations captured,
and influence cross-national comparability. We thus focused on the largest internal migration
flows in each country by mapping flows > 1000, or the top 5% flows in countries where the largest
flow is < 1000 – and sought to draw comparisons based on the local spatial structure of internal
migration patterns. We used the R package ’mapdeck’ based on Mapbox (2020).
Figure 1 reveals that an array of distinctive migration patterns underpins the population con-
centration and deconcentration identified by Rowe et al. (2019a). Rowe and colleagues showed
that internal migration has promoted population concentration in most countries in Europe, par-
ticularly in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, while it has contributed to population decon-
centration in Western and Southern Europe.
Figure 1 reveals that population concentration in Belarus, Denmark, Finland, Montenegro,
Portugal, the Netherlands, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine was driven by large migration
inflows to a handful of large urban centres from areas across the country. National capital cities
stand out as the primary centre of these inflows, notably Minsk in Belarus, Podgorica in Mon-
tenegro, Lisbon in Portugal, Moscow in Russia and Kiev in Ukraine. In Turkey and Switzerland,
large migration inflows into multiple dense large and middle-sized urban areas from multiple
small areas spread across the national territory shaped overall patterns of population concen-
tration. These patterns are noticeable in Turkey with the cities of Ankara, Ordu and Bursa
being the main migration destinations, in addition to Istanbul. In Germany, large migration
inflows concentrated in dense urban areas, such as Berlin, Munich and Dresden, across the
urban hierarchy sourced from multiple near remote locations. In Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary
and Sweden, population concentration resulted from large migration flows from a small set of

Figure 1. Internal migration flows for 38 European countries.

Note: For visualization purposes, flows have been normalized to the largest country-specific flow, so
the width of the flow represents the largest flows within each country, and an equal width between
countries does not necessarily represent equal flow size.

REGIONAL STUDIES, REGIONAL SCIENCE

392 Francisco Rowe and Nikos Patias

urban areas into large cities, and their satellites, in the areas of Vienna, Sofia, Budapest and
Gothenburg, respectively.
In Poland, the Czech Republic, Greece, Romania and Belgium, population deconcentration
was driven by migration outflows from large metropolitan areas, primarily the national capi-
tals. In each case the respective national capitals, Warsaw, Bucharest, Prague, Athens and
Brussels, display large migration outflows. In Poland, the Czech Republic and Greece,
these migration outflows were coupled with large migration inflows in large and middle-
sized urban areas across the country. In Belgium and Romania, large migration outflows
from the capital cities were absorbed by small neighbouring areas, reflecting suburbanization
patterns. In Albania, Armenia, France and Georgia, population concentration reflected large
out-migration flows mainly from the national capital to urban areas across the country. The
expansive repulsion effect of the respective capitals – Tirana, Yerevan, Paris and Tbilisi – is
apparent. In Ireland population concentration was characterized by a process of counter-
urbanization reflecting largely migration outflows from Dublin to neighbouring sparsely popu-
lated areas.
Rowe et al. (2019a) also showed that moderate internal migration gains and losses shaped a
pattern of spatial equilibrium in a small number of countries. Figure 1 reveals that local patterns of
urban sprawl shaped this overall pattern of spatial equilibrium, with moderate population losses
in the main urban centres in Spain (Madrid and Barcelona), Estonia (Tallinn, Pärnu and Tartu),
Italy (Milan, Rome and Naples) and the UK (London, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh).
In Norway and Lithuania, high migration gains and losses in relatively low-density and remote
areas generated an overall balanced pattern of internal migration flows. In Latvia and Iceland, a
spatial equilibrium state was driven by large migration flows into and out of the national capitals
(Riga and Reykjavik).
The analysis revealed commonalities and differences in the spatial patterns of internal
migration across European countries. The analysis showed that, since Ravenstein’s (1885)
observation of predominant urban magnets, the direction of migration flows had evolved,
with population concentration in urban areas being replaced by deconcentration and spatial
equilibrium in many countries. Singularities differentiating countries are also striking. Wide
variations in the spatial patterns of internal migration across the settlement system are
found with highly localized and geographically dispersed migration networks, calling for
nuanced investigations at a country-specific level. New methods (Rodríguez-Vignoli &
Rowe, 2018a, 2018b) and analytical software (Rowe et al., 2019bb) have been developed to
extend the analysis and measure the impacts of internal migration on local population struc-
tures. Additionally, comparative analysis of migration patterns at a local scale would help unra-
vel the social and economic demographic factors that underpin the highly diverse population
dynamics across European countries.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

FUNDING

The work reported in this paper forms part of the ‘Understanding the Declining Trend in
Internal Migration in Europe’, funded by the Regional Studies Association under the Early
Career Research grant.

REGIONAL STUDIES, REGIONAL SCIENCE

 Mapping the spatial patterns of internal migration in Europe 393

NOTE
1
For details, see http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3910381.

ORCID

Francisco Rowe http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4137-0246

Nikos Patias http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-2330

REFERENCES

Bell, M., Charles-Edwards, E., Ueffing, P., Stillwell, J., Kupiszewski, M., & Kupiszewska, D. (2015). Internal
migration and development: Comparing migration intensities around the world. Population and
Development Review, 41(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00025.x
Cooley, D. (2020). Interactive Maps Using’Mapbox GL JS’and’Deck. gl’. R package, (version 0.3.3). https://
CRAN. R-project.org/package= mapdeck.
Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 48(2), 167–235. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2979181.
Rees, P., & Kupiszewski, M. (1999). Internal migration and regional population dynamics in Europe: A synthesis.
Population studies No.32. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Rodríguez-Vignoli, J., & Rowe, F. (2018a). How is internal migration reshaping metropolitan populations in
Latin America? A new method and new evidence. Population Studies, 72(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00324728.2017.1416155
Rodríguez-Vignoli, J., & Rowe, F. (2018b). Efectos cambiantes de la migración sobre el crecimiento, la estructura
demográfica y la segregación residencial en ciudades grandes. Población y Desarrollo, 125(1), 1–90. http://hdl.
handle.net/11362/44367.
Rowe, F. (2018a). Establishing the extent and pace of the contemporary trend of migration decline in Europe.
Regions Magazine, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13673882.2018.00001008
Rowe, F. (2018b). Is internal migration declining in Europe? Regional studies association conference. A world of flows.
Labour mobility, capital and knowledge in an age of global reversal and regional revival, Lugano, Switzerland,
June 3–6, 2018.
Rowe, F., Bell, M., Bernard, A., Charles-Edwards, E., & Ueffing, P. (2019a). Impact of internal migration on
population redistribution in Europe: Urbanisation, counterurbanisation or spatial equilibrium? Comparative
Population Studies, 44, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2019-18en
Rowe, F., Patias, N., & Rodríguez-Vignoli, J. (2019b). CIM: Compositional impact of migration. R Package
Version 1.0.0.: 1-13. Repository CRAN. Retrieved October 31, 2019 from https://cran.rproject.org/
package=CIM

REGIONAL STUDIES, REGIONAL SCIENCE