Return to where? The geography of elderly return migration in Sweden

Abstract

There are considerable regional differences when it comes to age composition, as rural areas are ageing more rapidly as a result of age-selective migration. Eras of urbanization and counter-urbanization are also making their mark on migration patterns from a long-term perspective. The current generation approaching retirement age in Sweden is a generation of urbanization, thereby constituting a potential for return migration, especially to some rural regions many people of this generation left decades ago. The aim of this paper is to compare rates of return migration in municipalities in Sweden in order to identify regions where return migration is particularly important, and also to identify which regions are the most attractive for return migration. The empirical study is based on Swedish register data, and the results indicate that the rate of return migration varies considerably between regions; some are more attractive for return migration, yet return migrants might be most significant in the regions that attract few other migrants. Another conclusion is that the regions that lost a greater share of this generation on account of previous migration often fail to attract return migrants.

Keywords

Counter-urbanization later-life migration life course return migration rural population development Sweden

Introduction

The challenges and opportunities presented by population ageing are currently being discussed within academia as well as in public debate. The demographic process of ageing in Sweden resembles the pattern in most Western societies, and in Sweden, as well as other countries, there are considerable regional differences as rural areas are ageing more rapidly as a result of age-selective migration (Amcoff and Westholm, 2007; Carson et al., 2011; Rye, 2011). The high proportion of elderly people is often considered a threat to welfare in rural areas, but there are also scholars who emphasize the contributions of the elderly (especially the pre-elderly) in rural communities (Atterton, 2008; Murakami et al., 2009).

In Sweden, the abundant generation currently reaching retirement is largely urban; many migrated at younger ages to urban areas from more rural ones. There might therefore be a potential for in-migration to some regions among these age groups. For rural regions especially, which are suffering from depopulation due to decades of out-migration, this group offers a potential for population gain. In Sweden, population number is an important figure from the local authorities’ point of view, since taxes are paid locally and national tax money is distributed according to population size. The potential of aged returnees’ immigration to rural areas has recently been acknowledged by several policy-makers and researchers (Heikkilä and Pikkarainen, 2010; Jauhiainen, 2009; Stockdale, 2011). Jauhiainen and Heikkilä both refer to the efforts of a Finnish municipality to attract elderly migrants and especially return migrants by marketing itself as a ‘senioropolis’, specializing in life quality for the elderly.

There is a growing interest for a life course perspective on mid-life and later migration (Lundholm, 2012; Stockdale et al., 2012; Wulff et al., 2010). In an ageing population, an increasing proportion of the population is made up of people who are typically in the life course phase of transition from the labor market into retirement and household changes as children leave the nest. The life course perspective also ties migration events in earlier and later life. Although migration rates are low among people of middle age and older – very few people undertake interregional migration after age 50 (Lundholm, 2007, 2012) – it is possible that return migration in this group may be more substantial in some regions than others. Regions that have experienced a long period of out-migration fail to attract other migrants but hold a strong attraction for return migrants. On the other hand, massive out-migration might also result in weaker ties; part of the attractiveness of return migration is that friends and family have stayed behind.

The aim of this study is to scrutinize the geographical variation between regions with high and low levels of return migration and with more or less power to attract return migrants in the age group 55–70. Thereby the paper contributes to a growing literature on return migration in mid- and later life by highlighting the importance of this group as in-migrants for certain regions. The empirical study illustrate that not all regions are equally attractive to elderly migrants in general, and return migrants in particular. Further, this study examines the relationship between return migration and historical migration patterns of these cohorts, both in relation to the individual life course migration history and on a macro level of migration between regions.

Return migration

Most of the literature on return migration among the elderly is on international migration and the event of labor migrants’ return to their country of origin upon retirement (see, for example, Bolzman et al., 2006; Klinthall, 2006). Less is written about internal return migration in this group, although there are examples, for instance the studies by Cribier (1980) on pensioners returning from Paris to rural areas in France. There is a considerable amount of literature on ‘the second migration phenomenon’, or return migration among the elderly in the US focusing on amenity migrants who return to their former state as their health deteriorates, after spending a number of years since retirement at an amenity-rich location (see, for instance, Longino et al., 2002; Stoller and Longino, 2001). There are some studies on internal return migration in general, not focusing particularly on the elderly, for instance Newbold (1997) and Newbold and Liaw (1990). One finding from these studies is that there is a congruency in attractiveness between regions, whereby return migrants are attracted to the same regions as other migrants are; in the North American context, for example, the Pacific coast serves as a strong attraction for both return migrants and others (Newbold, 1997; Newbold and Liaw, 1990). Economically depressed regions have a low propensity for return migration, but return migrants still constitute a great share of the inflow (Newbold and Liaw, 1990).

There are a few examples of studies on return migration in Sweden, one of which is by Niedomysl and Amcoff (2011). They examined movers returning to their previous place of living within 10 years of leaving. Their study included all age groups, and the most common return migrants in this context were young people returning to their origin after completing higher education. In contrast, the study in this paper focuses on return migration by those aged 55 to 70, focusing on elderly migrants moving back to their birthplace, similar to a previous study by Lundholm (2012). In Lundholm’s study, the prevalence of return migration to birth parish and the characteristics of elderly return migrants were examined and it was found that return migration is common among elderly migrants; one in every five migrants in the age group who undertook a long-distance migration moved to their own (or their partner’s) municipality of birth, and one in ten returned to their (or their partner’s) birth parish. In the same study, the conclusion was that elderly people born in rural areas were more likely to return to their place of origin than those born in urban areas. The finding that elderly migrants are more likely to choose rural destinations has also surfaced in other studies (Amcoff, 2003; Friedrich and Warnes, 2000; Plane and Jurjevich, 2009). This preference might be the result of a desire to return to one’s rural origin, but might also be driven by amenity reasons. The current study deepens Lundholm’s (2012) analysis of which destinations are the most attractive for return migration and how return migration streams are related to previous out-migration.

Retirement migration and the life course

Theoretical perspectives on return migration can derive from either a micro or a macro perspective. From a life course perspective it is suggested that migration decisions are highly affected by migration experiences previously in life on the individual level. Mid-life and later-life migration decisions are influenced by prior life stage experiences (Stockdale et al., 2012). Having migrated before substantially increases the likelihood that one will migrate again, and the longer one has stayed in a location the higher the cost of migrating is in terms of loss of location-specific capital (Fischer and Malmberg, 2001; Gordon and Molho, 1995). Return migration is, of course, the most direct way previous migration affects destination choice, and, since migration is typically directed at a destination the migrant has previous knowledge of, links to, or experience of, it is natural that a location of former residence is a potential destination in the mind of a potential migrant (Roseman, 1983; Stjernström, 1998). Return migration might be the result of a wish to return to the specific place where a person was born or grew up, but it could also entail a return to an environment similar to the one where a person grew up. Feijten et al. (2008) found that the experience of a certain residential environment earlier in life had a strong effect on migration destination choice: especially people born in rural areas were more likely to choose rural destinations in general, and not necessarily the specific place where they had previously lived.

Particularly childhood memories are often suggested to have strong influence on behaviour in subsequent parts of the life course. Stockdale et al. (2012) find a resemblance between mid-life migrants to rural Northern Ireland and international second-generation migrants who return to their parents’ origins where they have roots from childhood (Potteret al., 2009). Both Stockdale et al. and Potter et al. suggest that strong place attachment can be developed by childhood experiences of visits to a region, and that these roots can generate migration in adult life.

Although migration in later life is an exception to the rule rather than a common experience among persons in mid- and later life, it is a phenomenon that has attracted a great deal of interest from migration researchers, partly because migration among retirees or persons in a retirement transition stage differs from migration among people of working age (Stockdale et al., 2012; Wulff et al., 2010). Retired people do not have to make migration decisions under the restrictions of the labor market, and hence the motives and destinations of retired migrants (or those approaching retirement) differ from those of other groups. For these older migrants, social bonds and place attachment, along with leisure- and amenity-driven motives, are expected to play a more important role (Friedrich and Warnes, 2000; Wiseman and Roseman, 1979). It is therefore likely that a person born in an amenity-rich region is more likely to return than someone originating from a less attractive region. If so, regions that attract return migrants are also attractive to others, and the pattern of return migration resembles that of retirement migration in general. Beside the amenity motives, social networks could also be important for this group. In their survey studying migration motives among return migrants in Sweden, Niedomysl and Amcoff (2011) found that social motives involving moving closer to family and friends were key drivers for return migration. Longino et al. (2008) also emphasize the social bonds at both origin and destination as crucial to return migration.

The relationship between migration early and later in life can also be understood on a macro level. To some extent, return migration counteracts the effects of redistribution by primary migration (Newbold and Liaw, 1990). The age selection in migration flows builds up a potential for return migration in the future. The current cohort of elderly people includes a large group of both wealthy and healthy elderly people who can presumably make plans for many years of retirement until their health declines. Migration in this group is therefore expected to grow in the future. However, as Stockdale (2011) and Haas and Serow (2002) point out, it is not a given that the pattern of migration trends in current cohorts will continue in upcoming cohorts reaching retirement.

Migration flows in terms of urbanization and counter-urbanization are related; Warnes and Law (1984) described the geographical outcome of elderly migration in different phases of urbanization. According to their typology, return migration is a dominating feature of elderly counter-urban migration in the first stage. This return migration results in a dispersed migration pattern to various rural areas that are the places of origin of the former urbanization migrants. In the next step, when a greater proportion of the population is urbanized, the links to rural areas are not as strong and elderly migrants choose a few attractive retirement destinations for retirement migration. Warnes and Law predict that as retirement migration evolves there will be a dispersal of migration destinations and more locations will become attractive to retirement migrants. The Warnes and Law model was applied to the concentration and dispersion patterns of elderly migration in four countries by Rogers et al. (1990). Although the study did not explicitly define return migration, it found that general patterns of concentration and dispersion could be linked to the phases described in the model. In line with the arguments in Warnes and Laws study, this paper argues that the urbanization trend in Sweden in the 1960s and 1970s would imply a ‘window of opportunity’ in rural areas when a generation of migrants has the chance to return upon retirement.

The research questions addressed in this study are: What regions attract elderly retirement-age migrants in general? What regions attract elderly return migrants? In what regions is return migration in this age group a significant addition to the population? It is further hypothesized that the elderly are more inclined to migrate back to a region that is attractive for other reasons, or to regions to which they have been able or willing to preserve ties when living elsewhere.

Ageing population in Sweden

Sweden has for a long time been in the forefront of population ageing (Bengtsson and Scott, 2011). In 2010 Sweden had the fourth highest share of people aged 65 and over in proportion to the population in the EU27 (European Commission, 2010). The pace of ageing in Sweden is, however, currently lower than in other European countries and, although the proportion of people aged 65 and over is projected to grow to 26.6% in 2060, Sweden will fall well below the EU27 average (30.0%) (European Commission, 2010). There are considerable regional differences in demographic structure in Sweden (as in other European countries); the share of population aged 65 and over was 14.1% in the Stockholm NUTS2 region in 2010 and 21.1% in Norra mellan Sverige (Giannakouris, 2010). These regional variations are projected to increase further in the future (Amcoff and Westholm, 2007).

Data and method

The data in this study are derived from Sweden’s population registers and cover the total population of Sweden. The advantage of these data is, first of all, that they include birthplace for the older cohorts, which makes it possible to track return migration from a long-term perspective. Additionally, the coverage of the whole population makes it possible to study return migration on a low geographic scale, in this case municipalities. The current study includes all individuals aged 55–70 (born 1938 to 1948) and identifies migrants as people who changed municipality in Sweden between the years 2003 and 2008. Fifty-five-year-olds are included as later-life migrants, as their migration pattern has previously been shown to resemble that of older migrants more than that of younger ones (Bures, 1997). A similar result was also found in a UK context by Stockdale (2006). Sweden has no legal retirement age, but public pension can be drawn from age 61 to 67. The actual retirement age is normally about 64. The pension amount is generally considerably lower when retiring earlier rather than later. When studying migration in later life it is important to acknowledge the variations in age and health. Migration among younger and healthier elderly is primarily driven by amenity or lifestyle, while deteriorating health or widowhood might lead to assistance moves and, among the frailest elderly people, moving into nursing homes (Litwak and Longino, 1987). Migrants older than 70 were therefore excluded, because migration among the oldest population can be assumed to be more associated with the need for care, and even migration to nursing homes and the drivers for migration among the oldest might be substantially different from the motives among the younger old, focusing more on lifestyle-induced migration.

Return migrants are defined as migrants moving to their municipality of birth from another municipality. Until 1947, the record of parish of birth was the place of actual birth, but after 1947 the record of parish of birth was redefined as the parish where the mother was registered. This means that the birth parish information for the older group is less reliable, but since the records are aggregated to the municipal level the error is less significant.

Stayers are defined as persons in this age group who reside in the municipality of birth. This group consists of both persons who never left the municipality and returnees who moved away but returned before age 55.

The classification of municipalities used was established by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities. The municipalities are divided into 10 categories based on structural parameters such as population density, commuting patterns and economic structure.

Inspired by (Longino, 1979), two measures of return migration are used. The first is the share of return migrants among all in-migrants to a municipality (RM/TM). This measure assesses the importance of return migration for in-migration in a given municipality, i.e., the share of all in-migrants who are return migrants in this age group. The second measure is the return quota among all inter-municipality migrants who lived outside their municipality of birth (RMQ). This measures the degree to which a municipality is able to attract its ‘sons and daughters’ living outside the municipality, i.e., the share of migrants who choose their birth municipality over other destinations if migrating later in life. This quote is thus a measure of the attractiveness of the birth region on potential returnees. By using both measures we can distinguish between regions that have high return migration rate in relation to total migration because it is attractive to potential returnees and regions that have a high rate because in-migration in general is low and the attractiveness for newcomers is low. Vice versa, by combining the measures, regions that have low return rates because few potential returnees choose to return are distinguished from regions with low return migration rates because the region is also attractive to other migrants.

When these two measures are combined it is possible to distinguish four categories of municipalities (Figure 1). High and low are defined as above and below the median, respectively.

Figure 1.

Definition of return migration typology.

Results

As expected, people in this age group do not migrate very frequently. On average, in any one year 1.6% in this age group changed municipality. The magnitude of migration also has regional differences. Measured as in-migration in relation to total population (in the age group) in the municipality, the intensity of migration varied from an annual rate of 0.5% to 4% in-migration in relation to stayers in the same age group (Figure 2(a)). As in previous studies, there is a general tendency to a counter-urban process, with more intense migration to suburban and rural areas than to urban areas, and the highest migration intensity in this age group is found in the direction of amenity-rich locations (see Table 1).

Figure 2.

(a) Annual migration rate, in-migration/total population within age group. (b) Return migration/total migration (RM/TM). (c) Return migration as proportion of potential return migrants (RMQ).

Table 1.

Municipality types (%).

Municipality type	Migration/total pop	RMQ	RM/TM	Share of stayers
Metropolitan (Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö)	1.5	23	30	33
Larger cities (31)	1.2	18	19	38
Suburban, metropolitan (38)	2.0	13	2	26
Suburban, larger cities (21)	2.3	16	3	29
Commuter municipalities (51)	2.2	17	7	30
Tourism and amenity municipalities (20)	2.6	25	20	35
Manufacturing municipalities (54)	1.4	15	12	32
Municipalities in densely populated regions (35)	1.8	19	12	34
Municipalities in sparsely populated regions (16)	1.4	20	22	33
Sparsely populated municipalities (20)	1.8	20	30	25
Total	1.6	17	12	31

The rate of return migration is also highly unevenly distributed between regions (Figure 2(c)). In total, return migrants account for 14% of all inter-municipality migration in this age group. However, at the extreme – Pajala municipality, a sparsely populated municipality in the north-eastern part of Sweden on the border with Finland – 72% of in-migrants in this age group are return migrants. At the other end of the spectrum, return migration is a negligible phenomenon in municipalities such as Salem, Österåker and Haninge in the suburbs of Stockholm. Pajala and Haninge have the same rate of in-migration of 55- to 70-year-olds in general, but the flows are very different from a return migration perspective. In the former case, return migration constitutes more than 70% and in the latter only about 1%. The high share of return migrants in Pajala does not necessarily mean that people born in Pajala have the strongest bonds to their home region; other regions could also be attractive for return migration but at the same time attractive to others as well, which leads us to the results from the RMQ.

The ability to attract migrants born in the municipality displays a partly different geographical variation (Figure 2(c)) from the share of return migrants in relation to all migrants (Figure 2(b)). People born in some municipalities on the west coast of Sweden as well as the county of Dalarna are generally more likely to choose to return to their birthplace if undertaking a move after age 55. People born in municipalities on the outskirts of Stockholm such as Danderyd, Salem or Solna, or in Lomma outside Malmö, are the least likely to return to their municipality of birth at this age. An interesting result is the distinction between urban city centres and suburban areas. While return rates to suburban areas are very low, the return rates to central Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö are quite high. People born in urban areas are more likely to choose to return at an older age if they were born in the central parts than in suburban areas. One reason for this could be related to the life-cycle; people move out of their suburban homes into an apartment in the city at an older age, resulting in more return migration to city centres. Another reason could be that the suburban areas are places that have undergone significant processes of rebuilding in the post-war period and that the places where these people grew up are no longer recognizable and therefore less attractive as return destinations.

If these two measures of return migration are combined, four groups of municipalities can be identified (Figure 1). The geographical distribution is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Categories of return migration in municipalities.

Municipalities attracting few migrants (high RM/TM but low RMQ)

These regions attract neither return migrants nor other migrants; although it is not very likely that people born in the region who live elsewhere will chose to return, return migrants constitute a high share of all migrants because few other migrants move in. In this category we find towns in the north such as Kiruna and Strömsund, but also smaller traditional industrial regions in mid-Sweden such as Karlskoga and Bengtsfors.

Municipalities attracting mainly return migrants (high RM/TM and high RMQ)

These regions succeed in attracting return migrants but fail to attract other migrants. In this category we find peripheral towns such as Hudiksvall, Arvika and Älvdalen, but also the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea.

Municipalities attracting both return migrants and others (low RM/TM and high RMQ)

These regions are attractive not only to return migrants but also to other migrants. As a result, return migrants are outnumbered by others. In this category we find coastal amenity-rich locations in the south and west such as Orust, Sotenäs and Borgholm.

Municipalities attracting mainly other migrants (low RM/TM and low RMQ)

These regions attract many migrants but have a low return rate, as few who were born in the municipality return. Typical municipalities are on the outskirts of urban areas, such as Vellinge outside Malmö and Sigtuna outside Stockholm.

The historical experience of migration differs considerably between regions regarding this cohort and thereby the potential for return migration. Naturally, one can return only if one do not already live in one’s municipality of birth. In total, in this age group, 30% lived in their municipality of birth in 2003 (34% among Swedish-born). When we compare the rate of people who were born in a given municipality with the share who live there today, we find great differences (Figure 4). In some municipalities as few as 10% of the people born in that municipality still reside there, typically in suburban municipalities such as Upplands-Väsby and Sundbyberg, but also in some peripheral locations in the north such as Övertorneå and Åsele less than 20% of this cohort have stayed (or returned) in the municipality. In other municipalities, the majority of the cohort born there also lives in that municipality; the highest rates of stayers are found, for instance, in west-coast municipalities such as Öckerö and Kungälv as well as in some middle-sized towns such as Varberg, Halmstad and Skellefteå.

Figure 4.

Share of cohort remaining in municipality.

The effect of the degree of out-migration on the potential for return migration can be discussed. It can of course be argued that regions that have suffered from high out-migration have the largest potential for return, at least measured as the share of return migrants among all migrants. We then expect to find the highest RM/TM rates in municipalities which experienced high levels of out-migration in the past. Rural areas, for instance, which suffered from the effects of urbanization and lost a large proportion of their younger generation in the 1960s and 1970s, would thus have the most to gain from elderly return migration as this generation retires.

As illustrated in Figure 5, there is no linear relation between the scope of former out-migration and the share of return migrants among in-migrants (r² = 0.043). That is, it does not seem to be the case that return migration is more significant in municipalities that were more struck by out-migration in these cohorts. Although in some cases there is great potential in terms of many of the people born in the region having left, return migration is not necessarily an important factor in in-migration. The exception is some rural communities, where the share of this generation who has left is relatively high and where return migration is high in relation to other migration. The reason why return migration is high in relation to total migration could be more an effect of a lack of other migrants rather than high RMQs. There are also examples of municipalities (towns such as Örnsköldsvik and Skellefteå) where return migration constitutes a significant share of immigrants although the previous loss of members of this generation has been quite small.

Figure 5.

Correlation between share of stayers and return migration/total migration.

According to Figure 6, there is a correlation between the share of stayers and the RMQ (r² = 0.488**), which means that people born in regions with a history of lower out-migration rates in this cohort are more likely to return. This leads to the hypothesis that the incentive to move back is stronger if there is a remaining social network in terms of people that a person knows in the municipality. We can also conclude that tourism and amenity municipalities are characterized by high scores on RMQs and high share of the cohort already residing in the municipality, while commuting and suburban municipalities generally have rather low scores on both return migration measures and share of stayers. This could also imply the interpretation that certain regions are attractive in general, both to stay in and to return to.

Figure 6.

Correlation between share of stayers and RMQ.

Summary and conclusions

The results of this study demonstrate that there are considerable regional variation return rates in older age among previous migrants. It is much more likely that a person will return to his or her region of birth if that person was born in certain areas than others. This study examines only the return rates of the group aged 55–70 years, which constitutes a small fraction of population redistribution in Sweden as most migrants are younger. What the results illustrate, however, is that, even if numbers are small, return migrants can be an important source of potential in-migrants for some regions. This is especially true for more remote areas, where the potential in terms of former residents living in other parts of the country is high and the prospects of attracting newcomers are low. For these regions, return migrants are significant as the ability to attract other migrants is limited.

The scope of return migration is inevitably underestimated in this study. One reason is that municipality of birth is a crude measure, as there is a group, probably quite significant in number, who consider their ‘home’ to be somewhere other than their registered municipality of birth. Families with small children often migrate and children do not necessarily grow up where they were born. Other studies imply that roots can be developed even in places where a person never lived permanently at all (Potter et al., 2009; Stockdale et al., 2012). Second, return migration is underestimated because this study is limited to permanent migration. Besides permanent migration, temporary (or circular) migration – both internally and internationally – is a possible mobility strategy (Bolzman et al., 2006; Stockdale, 2011). In Sweden, second-home ownership is frequent,¹ especially among older age groups, and it is likely that many Swedes spend more time at their second home after retirement without changing their permanent address. On the other hand, access to a second home could also trigger migration; some of the moves included in this study are presumably migrants who register themselves at their second-home address. Among those who move permanently to their second home, people in their fifties are overrepresented (Müller and Marjavaara, 2012). Regarding the results presented in this study, the attractiveness of the tourism and amenity municipalities could partly be explained by the inclusion of second homes in the definition of these municipalities. A third reason why return migration is underestimated because of the design of this study is that it focuses on individuals rather than households. Return migration would generate more migrants if we were to include the partners that the returnees potentially bring to a destination. The results from Lundholm (2012) suggests that adding return migration to partner’s municipality of birth increased the share of returnees from 16% to 21% among Swedish-born migrants aged 55–70 in 2003–2005.

The life course perspective suggests that migration in later life is tied to migration events in earlier life. The preference for rural migration destinations in this age group is partly explained by return migration, but could also be a result of many people in this generation having experience of rural areas in their childhood and thereby a preference for rurality in general, not necessarily the rural location where they grew up (as suggested by Feijten et al., 2008). If this is the case, the preference for rural areas among elderly migrants is expected to be especially strong in the current urbanized elderly generation,and is expected to weaken in coming generations dominated by people born in cities. This study does not include a comparison over time, which could test the hypothesis of Warnes and Law on dispersion and concentration in different phases of the elderly migration transition. What can be concluded is that, for this cohort, return migration is an important driver of migration streams in this age group, especially towards the rural areas. At the same time, there is also a tendency for migration towards amenity-rich regions, presumably more driven by lifestyle choices. A conclusion from the current study is that a perspective whereby current migration streams are related to previous processes of urbanization and counter-urbanization is useful in the study of elderly migration.

As expected, and previously discussed by Newbold and Liaw (1990) and Newbold (1997), some destinations, especially amenity-rich ones, that are attractive to all migrants are also particularly attractive to return migrants. In this Swedish case, some amenity-rich municipalities, often within rural settings, especially along the coast, attract both return migrants and other migrants in this age group. However, rurality and amenities are not the only factors behind return migration in this age group. What this study shows is that regions with a history of more modest out-migration often hold a stronger appeal for elderly return migrants. It could also be the result of some regions being more attractive in general, both for staying in and for returning to. However, the reason could also be persistent social bonds with siblings and friends in the same generation so that linkages have been maintained over the years. Further research could advance our knowledge beyond the explanations indicated by the empirical results of this study, exploring other possible reasons for regional variations, for example related to stronger or weaker local cultural bonds in different regions. Further research, for instance on Swedish register data, could also advance the knowledge on the role of temporary mobility for place attachment and migration in later life.

Footnotes

Funding

The research is included in the Ageing and Living Conditions Programme at Umeå University and was financed by the Swedish Research Council’s ‘Linnestöd’, no. 2006-21576-36119-66.

Notes

References

Amcoff

(2003) Regional omfördelning bland unga och gamla. Arbetsrapport 2003:13, Institutet för framtidsstudier, Sweden.

Amcoff

Westholm

(2007) Understanding rural change: demography as a key to the future. Futures 39: 363–379.

Atterton

(2008) Demographics of the ageing rural population. Working with Older People 12: 19–22.

Bengtsson

Scott

(2011) Population aging and the future of the welfare state: the example of Sweden. Population and Development Review 37: 158–170.

Bolzman

Fibbi

Vial

(2006) What to do after retirement? Elderly migrants and the question of return. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32: 1359–1375.

Bures

(1997) Migration and the life course: is there a retirement transition? International Journal of Population Geography 3: 109–119.

Carson

Lundholm

Martel

. (2011) Bubbles and craters: analysing ageing patterns of remote area populations. In: Carson

Rasmussen

Ensign

. (eds) Demography at the Edge: Remote Human Populations in Developed Nations. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 107–123.

Cribier

(1980) A European assessment of aged migration. Research on Aging 2: 255–270.

European Commission (2010) Demography Report. Older, more numerous and diverse Europeans. Commission staff working document, 20 May. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

10.

Feijten

Hooimeijer

Mulder

(2008) Residential experience and residential environment choice over the life-course. Urban Studies 45: 141–162.

11.

Fischer

Malmberg

(2001) Settled people don’t move: on life course and (im-)mobility in Sweden. International Journal of Population Geography 7: 357–371.

12.

Friedrich

Warnes

(2000) Understanding contrasts in later life migration patterns: Germany, Britain and the United States. Erdkunde 54: 108–120.

13.

Giannakouris

(2010) Regional population projections EUROPOP2008. Eurostat 2010:1. Population and social conditions, 13 January. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

14.

Gordon

Molho

(1995) Duration dependence in migration behaviour: cumulative inertia versus stochastic change. Environment and Planning A 27: 1961–1975.

15.

Haas

Serow

(2002) The baby boom, amenity retirement migration, and retirement communities: will the golden age of retirement continue? Research on Aging 24: 150–164.

16.

Heikkilä

Pikkarainen

(2010) Differential population development in the regions of Finland. Population Space and Place 16: 323–334.

17.

Jauhiainen

(2009) Will the retiring baby boomers return to rural periphery? Journal of Rural Studies 25: 25–34.

18.

Klinthall

(2006) Retirement return migration from Sweden. International Migration 44: 153–180.

19.

Litwak

Longino

Jr (1987) Migration patterns among the elderly: a developmental perspective. Gerontologist 27: 266–272.

20.

Longino

Jr (1979) Going home: aged return migration in the United States 1965–1970. Journal of Gerontology 34: 736–745.

21.

Longino

Jr Bradley

Stoller

. (2008) Predictors of non-local moves among older adults: a prospective study. Journal of Gerontology 63: S7–S14.

22.

Longino

Perzynski

Stoller

(2002) Pandora’s briefcase: unpacking the retirement migration decision. Research on Aging 24: 29–49.

23.

Lundholm

(2007) Are movers still the same? Characteristics of interregional migrants in Sweden 1970–2001. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 98: 336–348.

24.

Lundholm

(2012) Returning home? Migration to birthplace among migrants after age 55. Population Space and Place 18: 74–84.

25.

Müller

Marjavaara

(2012) From second home to primary residence: migration towards recreational properties in Sweden 1991–2005. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103: 53–68.

26.

Murakami

Gilroy

Atterton

(2009) The benefits of an ageing population: case studies from rural Hokkaido, Japan. Local Economy 24: 555–567.

27.

Newbold

(1997) Primary, return and onward migration in the U.S. and Canada: is there a difference? Papers in Regional Science 76: 175–198.

28.

Newbold

Liaw

K-L

(1990) Characterization of primary, return, and onward interprovincial migration in Canada: overall and agespecifie patterns. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 13: 17–34.

29.

Niedomysl

Amcoff

(2011) Why return migrants return: survey evidence on motives for internal return migration in Sweden. Population Space and Place 17: 656–673.

30.

Plane

Jurjevich

(2009) Ties that no longer bind? The patterns and repercussions of age-articulated migration. Professional Geographer 61: 4–20.

31.

Potter

Conway

Bernard

(2009) Transnationalism personified: young returning Trinidadians ‘in their own words’. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 100: 101–113.

32.

Rogers

Watkins

Woodward

(1990) Interregional elderly migration and population redistribution in four industrialized countries. Research on Aging 12: 251–293.

33.

Roseman

(1983) A framework for the study of migration destination selection. Population and Environment 6: 151–165.

34.

Rye

(2011) Youth migration, rurality and class. European Urban and Regional Studies 18: 170–183.

35.

Stjernström

(1998) Flytta Nära, Långt Bort. De sociala nätverkens betydelse för val av bostadsort. Gerum Kulturgeografi 1998:1. Umeå : Umeå University.

36.

Stockdale

(2006) The role of a ‘retirement transition’ in the repopulation of rural areas. Population Space and Place 12: 1–13.

37.

Stockdale

(2011) A review of demographic ageing in the UK: opportunities for rural research. Population Space and Place 17: 204–221.

38.

Stockdale

MacLeod

Philip

(2012) Connected life courses: influences on and experiences of ‘Midlife’ in-migration to rural areas. Population Space and Place. Doi:10.1002/psp.1709.

39.

Stoller

Longino

Jr (2001) ‘Going home’ or ‘leaving home’? The impact of person and place ties on anticipated counterstream migration. Gerontologist 41: 96–102.

40.

Warnes

Law

(1984) The elderly population of Great Britain: locational trends and policy implications. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 9: 37–59.

41.

Wiseman

Roseman

(1979) A typology of elderly migration based on the decision making process. Economic Geography 55: 324–337.

42.

Wulff

Champion

Lobo

(2010) Household diversity and migration in mid-life: understanding residential mobility among 45–64 year olds in Melbourne, Australia. Population Space and Place 16: 307–321.