Advertisement

Demographie und räumlicher Kontext

  • Sebastian Klüsener
Part of the Springer NachschlageWissen book series

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird ein theoriegeleiteter, praxisrelevanter Überblick über die Bedeutung des räumlichen Kontexts für bevölkerungswissenschaftliche Fragestellungen gegeben. Dabei werden zunächst maßgebliche Raumkonzepte vorgestellt. Im Hauptteil wird aufbauend auf der Theorie der Strukturation (Giddens 1984) zuerst aus einer Mikroperspektive heraus ausgeführt, inwieweit die raumzeitliche Verortung von Individuen menschliches Handeln und soziale Interaktion beeinflussen kann. Anschließend wird aus einer Makroperspektive heraus auf die Raumwirksamkeit gesellschaftlicher Strukturen und Prozesse und die Rückwirkungen auf das menschliche Handeln eingegangen. Danach werden anhand von Beispielen Potenziale aufgezeigt, wie in der bevölkerungswissenschaftlichen Forschung durch die Einbeziehung raumtheoretischer Überlegungen oder aufgrund neu verfügbarer räumlicher Daten neue Perspektiven eröffnet und Erkenntnisfortschritte erzielt werden können. Die Betrachtungen schließen mit einer kurzen Erörterung statistischer Probleme, die sich bei der Analyse von Daten mit räumlichem Bezug ergeben können. Diese werden in bevölkerungswissenschaftlichen Studien häufig ignoriert, was zu Fehlinterpretationen der statistischen Ergebnisse führen kann.

Schlüsselwörter

Raum Räumlicher Kontext Menschliches Handeln Soziale Interaktion Macht 

Notes

Danksagung

Der Autor dankt Kai Willführ für wichtige Anregungen und Anmerkungen zum Text.

Literatur

  1. Agnew, John. 2008. Borders on the mind: Re-framing border thinking. Ethics and Global Politics 1:175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bade, Klaus J. 2000. Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  4. Barbujani, Guido, und Robert R. Sokal. 1990. Zones of sharp genetic change in Europe are also linguistic boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87:1816–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basten, Stuart, Johannes Huinink, und Sebastian Klüsener. 2011. Spatial variation of sub-national fertility trends in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Comparative Population Studies 36:573–614.Google Scholar
  6. Bathelt, Harald, Anders Malmberg, und Peter Maskell. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography 28:31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, Gary. 1981. A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, Martin, und Elin Charles-Edwards. 2013. Cross-national comparisons of internal migration: An update on global patterns and trends. New York: United Nations. Population Division Technical Paper No. 2013/1.Google Scholar
  9. Bengtsson, Tommy, und Frans W. A. van Poppel. 2011. Socioeconomic inequalities in death from past to present: An introduction. Explorations in Economic History 48:343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bijak, Jakub, Jason Hilton, Eric Silverman, und Viet Dung Cao. 2013. Reforging the wedding ring: Exploring a semi-artificial model of population for the United Kingdom with Gaussian process emulators. Demographic Research 29:729–766.Google Scholar
  11. Billari, Francesco C., und Alexia Prskawetz. 2003. Agent–Based computational demography: using simulation to improve our understanding of demographic behaviour. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bivand, Roger S., Edzer Pebesma, und Virgilio Gómez-Rubio. 2013. Applied spatial data analysis with R, 2. Aufl. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Bongaarts, John, und Susan C. Watkins. 1996. Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review 22:639–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, Pierre, und Loïc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bronfenbrenner, Urie, und Pamela A. Morris. 2006. The bioecological model of human development. In Handbook of child psychology, Bd. 1, Hrsg. William Damon und Richard M. Lerner, 6. Aufl., 793–828. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Bryan, Mark L., und Stephen P. Jenkins. 2013. Regression analysis of country effects using multilevel data: A cautionary tale. Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  17. Bürk, Thomas. 2006. Raumtheoretische Positionen in angloamerikanischen und deutschsprachigen sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Publikationen seit 1997: Ein Literaturbericht (überarbeitete Fassung). raumsoz.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/forschung/fo05-literatur/lit-raumtheorie.pdf. Zugegriffen am 15.01.2014.Google Scholar
  18. Burger, Oskar, Annette Baudisch, und James W. Vaupel. 2012. Human mortality improvement in evolutionary context. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:18210–18214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cairncross, Frances. 2001. The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Courgeau, Daniel, und Brigitte Baccaïni. 1998. Multilevel analysis in the social sciences. Population: An English Selection 10:39–71.Google Scholar
  21. Decroly, Jean-Michel, und Claude Grasland. 1993. Boundaries, political systems and fertility in Europe. Population: An English Selection 5:101–119.Google Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, Paul, W. Eszter Hargittai, Russell Neuman, und John P. Robinson. 2001. Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology 27:307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doblhammer-Reiter, Gabriele, und James W. Vaupel. 2001. Lifespan depends on month of birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98:2934–2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doblhammer-Reiter, Gabriele, Gerard J. van den Berg, und Thomas Fritze. 2013. Economic conditions at the time of birth and cognitive abilities late in life: Evidence from ten European countries. PLOS ONE 8:e74915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunning, Thad. 2008. Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly 61:282–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fent, Thomas, Belinda Aparicio Diaz, und Alexia Prskawetz. 2013. Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure. Demographic Research 29:963–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flint, Colin. 2004. Spaces of hate: Geographies of discrimination and intolerance in the U.S.A. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, Gary P. 1986. Migration and the political economy of the welfare state. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 485:51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Froese, Paul, und Steven Pfaff. 2005. Explaining a religious anomaly: A historical analysis of secularization in eastern Germany. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44:397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldhaber, Michael D. 2007. A People’s history of the European Court of Human Rights. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gonzáles-Bailón, Sandra, und Tommy E. Murphy. 2013. The effects of social interactions on fertility decline in nineteenth-century France: An agent-based simulation experiment. Population Studies 67:135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham, Stephen. 1998. The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography 22:165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gutmann, Myron P., Glenn D. Deane, Emily R. Merchant, und Kenneth M. Sylvester, Hrsg. 2011. Navigating time and space in population studies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Haining, Robert. 2003. Spatial data analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hägerstrand, Torsten. 1976. Innovation as a spatial process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Harvey, David. 1990. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Henrich, Joe, und Robert Boyd. 1998. The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior 19:215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hölscher, Lucian, Hrsg. 2001. Datenatlas zur religiösen Geographie im protestantischen Deutschland: Von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, Martin. 2009. Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and beyond. Progress in Human Geography 33:487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaufmann, Eric, Anne Goujon, und Vegard Skirbekk. 2012. The end of secularization in Europe? A socio-demographic perspective. Sociology of Religion 73:69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirk, Dudley. 1946. Europe’s population in the interwar years. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Klüsener, Sebastian und Joshua R. Goldstein. 2014. A long-standing demographic east-west divide in Germany. Population, space and place (Early View).Google Scholar
  45. Klüsener, Sebastian, und Rembrandt Scholz. 2013. Regional hot spots of exceptional longevity in Germany. Vienna yearbook of population research 11:137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klüsener, Sebastian, und Joshua R. Goldstein. 2013. Der Einsatz räumlicher GIS-gestützter Modelle in der Historischen Demographie: Illustriert an einer Studie über den ersten demographischen Übergang in Preußen. In Geschichte - Kartographie - Demographie: Historisch-Geographische Informationssysteme im methodischen Vergleich, Hrsg. Michael Busch, Stefan Kroll und Rembrandt Scholz, 175–194. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Klüsener, Sebastian, Brienna Perelli-Harris, und Nora Sánchez Gassen. 2013a. Spatial aspects of the rise of nonmarital fertility across europe since 1960: The role of states and regions in shaping patterns of change. European Journal of Population 29:137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klüsener, Sebastian, Karel Neels, und Michaela Kreyenfeld. 2013b. Family policies and the western european fertility divide: Insights from a natural experiment in Belgium. Population and Development Review 39:587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krugman, Paul. 1998. What’s new about the new economic Geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14:7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lao, Oscar, Timothy T. Lu, Michael Nothnagel, Olaf Junge, Sandra Freitag-Wolf, Amke Caliebe, Miroslava Balascakova, Jaume Bertranpetit, Laurence A. Bindoff, David Comas, Gunilla Holmlund, Anastasia Kouvatsi, Milan Macek, Isabelle Mollet, Walther Parson, Jukka Palo, Rafal Ploski, Antti Sajantila, Adriano Tagliabracci, Ulrik Gether, Thomas Werge, Fernando Rivadeneira, Albert Hofman, André G. Uitterlinden, Christian Gieger, Heinz-Erich Wichmann, Andreas Rüther, Stefan Schreiber, Christian Becker, Peter Nürnberg, Matthew R. Nelson, Michael Krawczak, und Manfred Kayser. 2008. Correlation between genetic and geographic structure in Europe. Current Biology 18:1241–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The production of space. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  52. Lesthaeghe, Ron. 1980. On the social control of human reproduction. Population and Development Review 6:527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liefbroer, Aart C., und Francesco C. Billari. 2010. Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population, Space and Place 16:287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marston, Sallie A. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24:219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Massey, Doreen. 1992. Politics and space/time. New Left Review 196:65–84.Google Scholar
  56. Massey, Douglas S., und Rene M. Zenteno. 1999. The dynamics of mass migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96:5328–5335.Google Scholar
  57. Matthews, Stephen A., und Daniel M. Parker. 2013. Progress in spatial demography. Demographic Research 28:271–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McHale, Susan M., Ann C. Crouter, und Shawn D. Whiteman. 2003. The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development 12:125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mesoudi, Alex. 2011. Culture and the darwinian renaissance in the social sciences and humanities. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9:109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Miggelbrink, Judith. 2002. Der gezähmte Blick: Zum Wandel des Diskurses über „Raum“ und „Region“ in humangeographischen Forschungsansätzen des ausgehenden 20. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Institut für Länderkunde.Google Scholar
  61. Morris, Michael W., und Kaiping Peng. 1994. Culture and cause: American and chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:949–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. MPC [Minnesota Population Center]. 2013. Integrated public use microdata series, international: Version 6.2 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  63. MPIDR [Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research]. 2014. MPIDR population history GIS collection. Rostock: MPIDR. http://www.censusmosaic.org/cgi-bin/index_data_gis.plx Zugegriffen am 15.01.2014.
  64. Myrskylä, Mikko, Joshua R. Goldstein, und Yen-hsin Alice Cheng. 2013. New cohort fertility forecasts for the developed world: rises, falls and reversals. Population and Development Review 39:31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Neyer, Gerda, und Gunnar Andersson. 2008. Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review 34:699–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Openshaw, Stan. 1984. The modifiable areal unit problem. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
  67. Pellegrini, P. A., und A. S. Fotheringham. 2002. Modelling spatial choice: A review and synthesis in a migration context. Progress in Human Geography 26:487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perelli-Harris, Brienna, und Nora Sánchez Gassen. 2012. How similar are cohabitation and marriage? The spectrum of legal approaches to cohabitation across western Europe. Population and Development Review 38:435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raymer, James, Joop de Beer, und Rob van der Erf. 2011. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together: Age and sex-specific estimates of migration amongst countries in the EU/EFTA, 2002–2007. European Journal of Population 27:185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Robinson, William S. 1950. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 15:351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rosero-Bixby, Luis, und John B. Casterline. 1994. Interaction diffusion and fertility transition in Costa Rica. Social Forces 73:435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruggles, Steven. 2014. Big microdata for population research. Demography 51:287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sargent, Richard P., Robert M. Shepard, und Stanton A. Glantz. 2004. Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: Before and after study. British Medical Journal 328:977–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schlögel, Karl. 2003. Im Raume lesen wir die Zeit: Über Zivilisationsgeschichte in der Geopolitik. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. Schofield, Roger, David Reher, und Alain Bideau. 1991. The decline of mortality in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1851. Parerga und Paralipomena, Bd. 1 - Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit. Berlin: A.W. Hahn.Google Scholar
  78. van Gennep, Arnold. 2010. The rites of passage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Vikat, Andres, Zsolt Spéder, Gijs Beets, Francesco C. Billari, Christoph Bühler, Aline Désesquelles, Tineke Fokkema, Jan M. Hoem, Alphonse MacDonald, Gerda Neyer, Ariane Pailhé, Antonella Pinnelli, und Anne Solaz 2007. Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research 17:389–440.Google Scholar
  80. Voss, Paul R. 2007. Demography as a spatial social science. Population and Policy Review 26:457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wachter, Kenneth W. 2005. Spatial demography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:15299–15300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Watkins, Susan C. 1991. From provinces into Nations: Demographic integration in western Europe, 1870–1960. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Weiss, Sholom M., und Nitin Indurkhya. 1998. Predictive data mining: A practical guide. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  84. Werlen, Benno. 1997. Gesellschaft, Handlung und Raum. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  85. Wimmer, Andreas, und Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks 2:301–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Woods, Robert. 2003. Urban-rural mortality differentials: An unresolved debate. Population and Development Review 29:29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. World Economic Forum. 2013. The global gender gap report 2013. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  88. Zagheni, Emilio, und Ingmar Weber. 2012. You are where you E-mail: Using E-mail data to estimate international migration rates. In Proceedings of ACM Web Science 2012, Hrsg. Association for Computing Machinery, 497–506. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für demografische ForschungRostockDeutschland

Personalised recommendations