Preliminary Analysis of the Degree and Patterns of Seasonal Mobility within Australia

Seasonal variation or seasonality is a critical, yet under-researched, dimension of temporary mobility. Koenig and Bischcoff's (2003) recent paper 'Seasonality of tourism in Wales; a comparative analysis' outlined a methodology for examining and comparing patterns of seasonality in tourism data. The methodology outlined in that paper has been replicated here using Australian data

Measuring internal migration around the globe: a comparative analysis

Compared with other demographic processes, remarkably little attention has been given to the way internal migration varies between countries around the world. We set out the rationale for such comparisons and identify the impediments which have constrained prior work, including a global review of the types of migration data collected. We then draw upon an extensive repository of data assembled through the IMAGE (Internal Migration Around the Globe) project to compare countries with respect to the overall intensity of migration over one- and five year intervals, the age profile of migration, and the spatial patterns of population movement. We identify marked variations both between and within world regions on each of these dimensions, and document a general decline in mobility over the period 1990-2000. Analysis reveals close links between migration and some aspects of national development but also underlines the significance of history, culture, and social context in shaping mobility behavior. We stress the need for greater harmonization of national practice in collection of internal migration data in order to enhance cross-national comparisons

Population Dynamics in Rural and Remote Queensland

Population growth in Queensland, especially in the south-east corner and regional coastal centres has been well documented (Bell 1992, 1995). What is less well documented is the extent and nature of population change in Queensland's inland. While it is widely recognised that rural areas and many small towns are experiencing population decline, the dynamics and causes of these changes are still not well understood

International Migration and Development: The Changing Impact of Migration on Redistributing Global Population

This research note explores the impact of international migration on global population distribution since the 1990s. The impact of migration on population distribution is a function of both the intensity as well as the effectiveness of migration, that is the imbalance between flows and counter-flows. The presence of reciprocal flows is a well-recognized feature of international migration systems; however, this dimension has been difficult to capture at the global level due to a lack of origin-destination flow data. In this research note, we apply metrics developed for the analysis of internal migration to global migration flows to explore the impact of international migration on global population distribution over time, and across levels of human development. In the five years to 2020, international migration redistributed 0.39 percent of the world's population (28 million people) despite 1.38 percent (101 million) changing country of residence. This has declined from 0.56 percent of the global population in 1990–1995. This decline in impact is underpinned by a reduction in migration effectiveness, that is, the migration system is becoming more balanced over time. The impact of migration was greatest for flows between countries at Very High levels of human development, reflecting high migration intensity and exchanges between countries at Low and Very High levels of human development, reflecting significant asymmetry of flows. Our results suggest systematic shifts in both the level and pattern of flows across the development ladder, with flows becoming more intense and balanced with higher levels of human development. </jats:p

Impact of internal migration on population redistribution in Europe: Urbanisation, counterurbanisation or spatial equilibrium?

The classical foundations of migration research date from the 1880s with Ravenstein’s “Laws of migration”, which represent the first comparative analyses of internal migration. While his observations remain largely valid, the ensuing century has seen considerable progress in data collection practices and methods of analysis, which in turn has permitted theoretical advances in understanding the role of migration in population redistribution. Coupling the extensive range of migration data now available with these recent theoretical and methodological advances, we endeavour to advance beyond Ravenstein’s understanding by examining the direction of population redistribution and comparing the impact of internal migration on patterns of human settlement in 27 European countries. Results show that the overall redistributive impact of internal migration is low in most European countries but the mechanisms differ across the continent. In Southern and Eastern Europe migration effectiveness is above average but is offset by low migration intensities, whereas in Northern and Western Europe high intensities are absorbed in reciprocal flows resulting in low migration effectiveness. About half the European countries are experiencing a process of concentration toward urbanised regions, particularly in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, whereas countries in the West and South are undergoing a process of population deconcentration. These results suggest that population deconcentration is now more common than it was in the 1990s when counterurbanisation was limited to Western Europe. The results show that 130 years on, Ravenstein’s law of migration streams and counter-streams remains a central facet of migration dynamics, while underlining the importance of simple yet robust indices for the spatial analysis of migration

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)