CSIS Discussion Paper No. 107

Spatial Mismatch of Childcare in Tokyo*

Mizuki Kawabata†January, 2011

Abstract
By extending Kain’s traditional spatial mismatch theory, this paper examines childcare
centers’ spatial mismatch problem—a geographic mismatch that impedes a balance
between work and childrearing. The study area is Tokyo, which has a large and growing
number of children on childcare waiting lists. Survey results indicate the importance of
spatial proximity and access to childcare centers in achieving the desired balance
between work and childrearing. Visualized accessibility shows a considerable geographic
mismatch between the supply and demand of childcare centers, especially for smaller
children aged 0–2 years. Resolving the spatial mismatch problem can be a key policy.

*

This work was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20330045, 22510140] from theJapan Society for the Promotion of Science. The author is grateful to the Bureau of Social Welfare andPublic Health of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, local municipalities, and individual childcare
centers for the valuable childcare data they provided for this study.
†
Center for Spatial Information Science, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha Kashiwa-shi
Chiba 277-8568 Japan. Email: mizuki@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1. Introduction
As a growing number of women participate in the labor market, improving thebalance between work and family has become an important policy objective in many
countries. The lack of childcare services is often reported as a problem affecting thisbalance (OECD, 2007). This problem is especially serious in Japan, which has a large
number of children on waiting lists for licensed daycare centers. Childcare queues arise
owing to not only the lack of supply but also the geographic mismatch between supply
and demand. Even when a childcare slot is available, it would remain inaccessible unlessthe center is located within a reasonable distance. Little attention, however, has been paid
to the accessibility of childcare centers within a reasonable distance. There may be aconsiderable geographic mismatch with accessible childcare centers, and the lack ofaccessible childcare may be a significant hindrance to attaining a desired balance between
work and childrearing.
In this discussion, I extend Kain’s (1968) well-known spatial mismatch theory that ageographic mismatch between jobs and workers, which has arisen from job
suburbanization and housing segregation, has reduced job opportunities and increased
unemployment among African-Americans in the inner cities. The spatial mismatch has
drawn considerable attention, and numerous studies have examined it; for comprehensive
reviews on the spatial mismatch literature, see Holzer (1991), Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist(1998), and Kain (1992), among others. In a narrow sense, Kain’s spatial mismatch
focuses on inner-city minorities, since it was first perceived as one of the possible reasonsfor growing urban poverty. In a broader sense, however, the concept of spatial mismatch
is applicable to other situations involving access to opportunities and employment. In fact,a large number of studies use the spatial mismatch framework to examine the importance1

of access to jobs in employment among various disadvantaged groups such as welfare
recipients (Blumenberg, 2004; Bania et al., 2008), autoless workers (Taylor and Ong,○

1995; Kawabata, 2003), and refugees (Aslund et al., 2010).
Given the spatial constraint of workers with small children, the concept of spatial
mismatch is particularly relevant to childcare. However, the spatial mismatch problem
affecting those who need childcare has never been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, thisresearch attempts to examine the spatial mismatch of childcare, defining it as thegeographic mismatch between the supply and demand of childcare centers that impedes abalance between work and childrearing. Specifically, the following two questions are
addressed. First, is access to childcare centers important in achieving the desired balance
between work and childrearing? Second, does a geographic mismatch exist between the
supply and demand of childcare centers, and does it differ by age?
The study area comprises Tokyo’s 23 special wards, which have a large number ofchildren on childcare waiting lists. To answer the first question, a questionnaire survey
was conducted among mothers with preschool children (children aged 0–5 years). As
regards the second question, the accessibility of childcare centers, which indicates thegeographic mismatch of their supply and demand was calculated and visualized for eachage group. Accessibility is calculated at the block level—a micro area—with the help of
detailed spatial data and a geographic information system (GIS). Age-wise differences
are examined since childcare queues are known to differ considerably by age (MHLW,
2009). A simultaneous consideration of accessibility, taking into account not only the
supply but also the demand competing for the supply, the fine-grained spatial unit, andage differentiation is a unique methodological feature in examining the geographic
mismatch. In this study, I differentiate between geographic and spatial mismatch to avoid2confusion. The former indicates a purely locational mismatch, but the latter implies thatthe geographic mismatch hinders a desired balance between work and childrearing. In thesubsequent sections, the article reviews related literature, describes the methods, reports
the results, and discusses the findings.

2. Related literatureStudies suggest that access to childcare involves severe space and time constraints(Miyazawa 1998; Kwan 1999). Nonetheless, the geographic mismatch of childcare
centers has not been well examined in recent studies. Nor has the importance of access tochildcare in achieving the desired balance between work and childrearing been
researched, although some studies suggest that greater availability of childcare
augments female labor force participation (Stolzenberg and Waite, 1984; Webster andWhite, 1997; Nakamura and Ueda, 1999; Gordon and Chase-Lansdale, 2001; Chevalierand Viitanen, 2002; Van Ham and Büchel, 2006).
The limited research may be attributed in part to the limitations of relevant data forthe measurement of childcare accessibility. As in the case of access to jobs in Kain’s
traditional spatial mismatch, access to childcare is a central issue in the spatial mismatchof childcare. However, only a few studies have examined childcare accessibility using
detailed data. Researchers often point out that the use of an appropriately small
geographic unit is critical in examining job accessibility (Hanson et al., 1997; Shen,
2001). This approach is even more critical in examining childcare accessibility, since
journeying to childcare involves greater spatial restraints. It is also important to take into
account both the supply and demand, since incorporating either supply or demand only
can distort childcare accessibility significantly. Further, age differentiation of children is3

desirable, since the level of childcare services differs substantially by age.
Spatial details, supply and demand, and age have rarely been taken into accountconcurrently due to data limitations. For instance, most studies that measure childcare
accessibility, often termed as childcare availability, use large geographic units such ascounties or county groups (Stolzenberg and Waite, 1984; Davis and Connelly, 2005),
prefectures (Nakamura and Ueda, 1999), and regions (Kreyenfeld and Hank, 2000; 1 Van
Ham and Büchel, 2006). Studies that use smaller geographic units such as zip-code
areas (Gordon and Chase-Lansdale, 2001) and circle areas with a radius 800 meters(Webster and White, 1997) do not differentiate age. Besides, the supply and demand ofchildcare and their geographic mismatch have not been adequately addressed. For
example, Gordon and Chase-Lansdale (2001) measure childcare accessibility as the logof the inverse of the number of children aged 0–6 divided by the number of childcare
workers by place of work. Webster and White (1997) measure childcare accessibility by
the number of child-minders divided by the number of mothers with one or morechildren aged 0–4 years. Such measures can be improved by incorporating childcare
capacity as the supply and the number of children who need childcare as the demand,
which this study will demonstrate.
The spatial mismatch problem for those who need childcare is highly relevant toKain’s spatial mismatch concept, but very few pay attention to this connection. Van
Ham and Büchel (2006) refer to Kain’s spatial mismatch and examine the effects ofspatial structures including job accessibility and childcare availability (at the regional
level) on female labor force participation. Their discussion on spatial mismatch,however, centers on access to jobs rather than on access to childcare. Indeed, the notion
1

They use Kreis in western Germany.

4

of spatial mismatch is missing in childcare research and policy. By extending Kain’s
well-regarded spatial mismatch theory, this study aims to shed light on the spatial
mismatch problem for those who wish to balance between work and childrearing.

3. Methods
Tokyo’s 23 special wards, generally regarded as the central area of Tokyo(Figure 1), cover 622 square kilometers and accommodated 8.5 million people in 2009. In
the rest of the paper, this area will be referred to as the “Tokyo ward area,” and “Tokyo”
will indicate the whole metropolis. The methods employed comprise the following: (1)investigating the increase in demand for childcare centers, (2) understanding spatial
distributions of preschool children and childcare centers, (3) analyzing the importance ofaccess to childcare centers, and (4) examining the geographic mismatch between the
supply and demand of childcare centers. Each of these steps will be described below.

Tama area

Ward area

Tokyo

N

0

5

Basic unit block (115,501)
Ward (23)10 kmTokyo ward area

Figure 1. Study area.
5

First, the increase in the demand for childcare centers is investigated on the basisof the number of applicants and children, by age, on waiting lists for licensed daycare
centers from 2004 to 2009. These data were obtained from the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government (TMG) Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health. Note that the numbers
are available only for licensed daycare centers, in which contracts are made through local
municipalities. The corresponding data for other types of childcare centers, in which
direct contracts are made between childcare centers and users, are not available.
Second, the spatial distributions of preschool children and childcare centers in2009 are investigated. I estimated the number of preschool children by age for each basic
unit block (kihontaniku), the smallest geographic unit for which census data are available.
This estimation was necessary because the smallest geographic unit for which preschool
population data by age are available for 2009 is a subdivision (chocho-aza) of a city,larger in area than the basic unit block. According to the geographical information in the2005 census, there are 3,139 subdivisions and 115,501 basic unit blocks within the Tokyo
ward area. The median areas of the subdivisions and basic unit blocks in the Tokyo ward
area are 172,125 and 3,456 square meters, respectively. I collected data—the number ofpreschool children in the subdivisions, categorized by age—for the year 2009 from eachof the 23 ward offices and disaggregated the data by basic unit block. For this purpose, Iapplied a proration factor based on the 2005 census population data provided by theStatistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), Japan.
This study was based on three types of childcare centers: licensed daycare centers(Ninka-hoikujo), TMG-certified daycare centers (Tokyo’s ninsyo-hoikujo), and authorizedchildcare centers (Nintei-kodomoen). These centers were selected for the study because
they are obligated to meet the national or TMG standards; and hence their quality is
6ensured at a certain level. In addition, their costs are regulated so that their maximum
monthly fees are set at about $800. 2 Each type of the three centers is briefly described
below.

-

Licensed daycare centers are established under the Child Welfare Law. The centers
are the major and most popular childcare service providers. The centers comply withnational minimum standards in terms of building size, playground size, number ofnurses, childcare content, childcare hours, and so forth. A part of their operating
expenses are paid out of public funds from national, metropolitan, and city
governments as well as other sources. Childcare fees are determined by the local
municipality according to each family’s income and the age of the child, from no feesat all to about $800 per month. Applications for enrollment are submitted to each local
municipality (ward in Tokyo).

-

TMG-certified daycare centers are designed to meet the diverse needs of urban areasthat would be difficult for licensed daycare centers to provide. TMG-certified daycare
centers are obligated to accept children under the age of 1 year and operate for 13 ormore hours per day. Some standards are comparable with those of licensed daycare
centers (e.g., the number of nurses per child), but others are relaxed (e.g., aplayground is not required). The TMG and local municipalities subsidize portions of
the operating expenses. Childcare fees are determined by the individual centers, but

2

Quality and cost are often major concerns in countries, such as the US, where childcare services areprovided in the private sector (Blau and Robins, 1988; Blau, 2001), but availability seems to be more of
an issue in countries where most childcare services are publicly subsidized—such as Germany, Japan, andSweden (Kreyenfeld and Hank 2000; Del Boca and Vuri, 2007).

7

an upper limit applies—approximately $800 per month. Guardians contract thecenters directly.

-

Authorized childcare centers are established under the Law Concerning Promotion of
the General Provision of Education and Childcare to Preschool Children, enacted in
October 2007. The centers combine childcare with kindergarten functions. Individual
childcare centers determine their fees independently but must report the amount to the
local municipality. If the fee is inappropriately high, the local municipality can orderthe center to lower it.

The TMG Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health (2009) provides more detailed
information on available childcare centers. Spatial points of the locations of the three
types of childcare centers were created using the detailed address matching service
provided by the Center for Spatial Information Science at the University of Tokyo. The
estimated numbers of preschool children at the level of the basic unit block as well as thespatial points of childcare centers were then visualized using a GIS to investigate their
spatial distributions.
Third, the importance of access to childcare is analyzed. To do so, I commissioned
Nikkei Research Inc. for an Internet-based questionnaire survey. The survey was carriedout in 2009, between November 20 to 25, among 650 mothers with preschool children
living in the Tokyo ward area; 311 mothers responded to the questionnaire. The survey
sample is widely distributed across the 23 wards. The participants were not selected at
random, but their basic demographic statistics are not very different from the 2005 census
data (see Table A1 in the appendix). Mothers are selected because they are most likely the8primary carers in households and probably face more space-time constraints than men(Kwan, 1999). Further details about the survey are documented in Kawabata (2010).
Fourth, I develop a measure of the accessibility of childcare centers to examine thegeographic mismatch between their supply and demand. Accessibility is calculated foreach age and basic unit block. The accessibility for a resident block i (A i ) is calculatedwith the following equation:

A =
a
i

∑

j:d ij < d 0

S aj

∑r P
a

k :d kj < d 0

a
k

,

(1)

where a is the age of children; S j the supply of a childcare center j; d ij and d kj therespective distances by road between resident blocks i and k, on the one hand, and achildcare center j, on the other; d 0 the threshold distance for commuting to childcare
centers; r the ratio of those requiring childcare centers to the whole population; and P k the
population in a resident block k.
The accessibility value obtained from equation (1) represents the supply-demandratio of childcare centers that incorporates spatial competition. For details on thetreatment of spatial competition in accessibility measurements, see Harris (2001). The
point here is that the accessibility takes into account not only the spatially accessible
supply but also the demand spatially accessible (spatially competing) to the supply. An
accessibility value of 1 represents a supply-demand balance, whereas a value greater orless than 1 indicates excess supply or demand. Note that the population-weighted value ofaccessibility calculated for each basic unit block equals the supply-demand ratio ofchildcare centers for the whole area (the Tokyo ward area). An advantage of the measureis that it can be readily interpreted and allows comparison among different areas.
However, it does not take into account the supply and demand outside the study area,
9which may distort the supply-demand ratio, especially around the border of the study area.
This is unlikely to be a major problem in this study because licensed and TMG-certified
daycare centers (which together account for 99% of the total capacity of the three types ofchildcare centers) prioritize applicants living in the same ward and in Tokyo, respectively.
Spatial data on basic unit blocks based on the 2005 census were obtained from theStatistical Bureau of MIC, Japan. As for the supply of childcare centers (S j ), I used thethree types of childcare centers’ capacity as of April 2009. The distance by road between
a basic unit block and a childcare center (d ij and d kj ) is calculated using the 2009 road
network data and ArcGIS9.3 of ESRI Japan, Inc. Here, the location of a basic unit block isthe centroid of that block, and the location of a childcare center is the spatial point createdas described earlier. The ratio of the population requiring the three types of childcare
centers (r) is set at 20% for 0-year-olds and 35% for children aged 1 year and older. 3 The
population (P k ) used is the population estimated by basic unit block as explained earlier.
As regards the threshold distance to childcare centers (d 0 ), I used 500, 750, and 1,000
meters; Pinch (1984) and Webster and White (1997) use half a mile, or about 800 meters,
3

With the available data, I estimated the ratio of those requiring the three types of childcare centers to

the population (r) in the Tokyo ward area in 2009, using the following equation:r a = ( Sla + Staa + Qla − Etaa ) / P a,(2)

where a denotes age, Sl the number of children enrolled in licensed daycare centers, Sta the capacity of
TMG-certified and authorized childcare centers, Ql the number of children on licensed-daycare waiting
lists (based on the old definition that calculates the number as the number of applicants for licensed
daycare centers minus the number of applicants admitted), Eta the number of children in Ql but enrolled in
TMG-certified or authorized childcare centers, P the population. The estimated ratios are 17% (for age 0),34% (1 year), 37% (2 and 3 years), and 35% (4 and 5 years). Note that the numbers of children enrolled in
TMG-certified and authorized childcare centers by age were not available. Since many TMG-certified
daycare centers accept more children than their capacity would allow for, equation (2) is unlikely tooverestimate the ratios.

10as the threshold. Assuming a walking speed of about 50 meters per minute, with smallchildren in tow, as in Segawa and Sadahiro (1996), the three thresholds are approximately
10, 15, and 20 minutes on foot, respectively. According to Miyazawa (1998), the actualand preferable travel time to and from childcare centers is about 10 minutes or less. In
this study, walking is assumed. In the Tokyo ward area, although the most common
means of commuting to childcare centers tends to be bicycles on a regular day, users tend
to walk on a bad-weather day (Kawabata, 2010). Many childcare centers in the Tokyo
ward area discourage the use of cars.

4. Results

4.1 Increase in demand for childcare centers
The numbers of applicants for licensed childcare centers between 2004 and 2009
clearly depict the rising demand for childcare (Figure 2). During this 5-year period, thetotal number of applicants increased by 76% (from 40,492 to 71,443), with a noticeablerise between 2008 and 2009. Further investigation indicates that during the same period
the preschool population increased, as did the ratio of the number of licensed-childcare
applicants to the preschool population. The preschool population in the Tokyo ward areagrew by 2.7% (from 377,110 to 387,169), and the ratio of applicants in Tokyo increased
from 28.2% to 30.9%, the greatest upswing occurring between 2008 and 2009–from
29.7% to 30.9% (TMG, 2009).

11

Number of applicants by age

25,000

Age 1

Age 2

Age 3

Age 4 and older

Total
80,000(As of April each year)

20,00060,00015,00040,00010,00020,0005,000
0Total number of applicants

Age 0

0
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 2. Number of applicants for licensed daycare centers in Tokyo ward area,
2004–2009.

The number of children on licensed-daycare waiting lists from 2004 to 2009indicates a growing mismatch between supply and demand (Figure 3). During this 5-year
period, the total number of children on waiting lists rose by 79% (from 2,583 to 4,613),
the 2008–2009 period showing a remarkable increase. Supply of childcare increased
during the same period, but demand grew faster. In fact, the growth in demand related tosmaller children aged 0–2 years. Between 2004 and 2009, waiting lists for children ages 0,
1, and 2 grew by 225%, 163%, and 48%, respectively, whereas the number on the lists
decreased by 44% for age 3 and 62% for ages 4 and above. Thus, the proportion of 0- to
2-year-olds on waiting lists rose from 73% to 92%. In 2009, the 1-year-olds werepredominant, accounting for about half the total number on waiting lists. The higher
demand for childcare for smaller children may reflect the increases in the numbers of12childcare leaves 4 and mothers who wish to continue working for financial or otherreasons.

Number of children by age

2500

Age 1

Age 2

Age 3

Age 4 and older

Total
5000

(As of April each year)

2000

4000

1500

3000

1000

2000

500

1000

0

Total number of children

Age 0

0
2004

2005

2006

2007

Note: The number s are based on the new definition.

2008

2009
Year

Figure 3. Number of children on waiting lists for licensed daycare centersin Tokyo ward area, 2004–2009.

It should be noted that the actual demand for childcare centers would be much greaterthan the publicly announced numbers in Figure 3 because of the following reasons. First,
waiting-list data are announced only for licensed daycare centers. As explained in Section
2, the relevant figures for other center types are not included. Second, the publicly
announced numbers do not include licensed-daycare applicants enrolled in non-licensed
centers supported by public entities and those who indicated a single licensed daycare
center (i.e., single as opposed to multiple selection) in their application forms as thedesired facility. These adjustments were carried out since the definition of number of
4

In Japan, by law childcare leave is allowed until a child is 1 year old but can be extended for half a year

more if the child is awaiting enrollment in a childcare center.

13

children on licensed-daycare waiting lists was revised in 2002. The old definition did not
require such subtractions (i.e., the number of children on the waiting list was simply the
number of applicants for licensed daycare centers minus the number of those admitted).
Since many users of non-licensed daycare centers apply for licensed daycare centers, thepublicly announced number on waiting lists underestimate demand from the perspectiveof users. Third, the number of children on licensed-daycare waiting lists announced isusually as of April, when it tends to be the lowest. Since most licensed-daycare
enrollments take place at the start of the fiscal year, the waiting lists tend to grow towards
the end of the fiscal year, especially for children aged 0–2. From April to October 2004,
for example, the number of children on Tokyo’s waiting lists for 0-, 1-, and 2-year-olds
increased 5.0, 1.4, and 1.5 times, respectively (TMG Bureau of Social Welfare andPublic Health, 2005). Finally, many people do not apply because of the difficulty inenrolling in licensed daycare centers. Licensed daycare centers set rigorous selection
standards, prioritizing full-time over part-time workers and job seekers, for instance. As
Zhou and Oishi (2005) suggest, the potential demand that does not figure in the publicly
announced data might be enormous, especially for smaller children. Indeed, a report by
the Price Policy Division, Social Policy Bureau, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan(2003, figure 13-2 and table 13-2) estimated the potential demand for childcare in Tokyo
at approximately 72,000.

4.2 Spatial distributions of preschool children and childcare centers
Figure 4 illustrates the spatial distribution of preschool children in 2009.
Preschool children are widely distributed in the Tokyo ward area, except for
nonresidential areas such as rivers and parks.
14

1 dot = 5 children
Ward(Population as of January 1, 2009)

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of preschool children in Tokyo ward area, 2009.

Licensed daycare center
TMG‐certified daycare center
Authorized childcare center
0

5

10 km

(Childcare centers as of April 2009)

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of childcare centers in Tokyo ward area, 2009

Figure 5 depicts the spatial distribution of childcare centers in 2009.5 Childcare
centers are also widely distributed in the Tokyo ward area. Note that the dots in the figure
indicate the locations of 1,477 childcare centers. Table 1 shows the numbers andcapacities of childcare centers categorized by age. Both numbers and capacities are
considerably smaller for the 0-year-old group than for others. The capacity of licensed

5

A TMG-certified daycare center at the southern part of Ota Ward is located in Haneda airport.

15

centers for younger children aged 0–2 years is lower than that for 3- to 5-year-olds, and isparticularly low for 0-year-olds. The capacity of TMG-certified centers, on the other hand,is relatively larger for younger children aged 0–2 years. Given that licensed centers are
predominantly popular (Kawabata, 2010), this result suggests that TMG-certified centersplay a key role in reducing the numbers of children on licensed-daycare waiting lists.
Indeed, statistics provided by the TMG Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Healthindicate that, as of April 2009, 24% of children on licensed-daycare waiting lists wereaccommodated by TMG-certified daycare centers in the Tokyo ward area. Authorizedchildcare centers, especially for younger children aged 0–2 years, are relatively small inboth number and capacity.
Table 1. Number and capacity of childcare centers in Tokyo ward area, 2009
Age of children
0

1

2

3

4–5

Total

Licensed daycare center

792

1,118

1,117

1,083

1,072

1,129

TMG-certified daycare center

324

324

315

220

190

324

Authorized childcare center

9

11

12

20

20

24

1,125

1,453

1,444

1,323

1,282

1,477

Licensed daycare center

8,062

15,906

19,22021,47544,298 108,961

TMG-certified daycare center

2,006

2,563

2,485

1,157

966

9,177

Authorized childcare center

90

123

171

322

621

1,327

Number of centers

Total
Capacity

Total
10,158 18,592 21,876 22,954 45,885 119,465
Note: The number of centers is based on locations as of April 2009. If a center has two different
locations (e.g., central facility and branch facility on different locations), the number of centers iscounted as two. The data for authorized childcare centers related to those who lack home care.

4.3 Importance of access to childcare centers
The first research question raised in this study is whether access to childcare centers16

is important in achieving a balance between work and childrearing. The following survey
results indicate that access to childcare centers is indeed important, and that a lack ofaccess can impede this balance.
First, I show results depicting the importance of spatial proximity to childcare centersfrom home (Figures 6 and 7). Of the respondents who wish to use childcare centers,
almost all (96%) answer that proximity from home is “very important” (79%, thepredominant group) or “important” (17%). As for proximity from the workplace, on theother hand, approximately half (52%) considered it “very important” (23%) or“important” (30%), but 28% considered it “not very important” (19%) or “not importantat all” (8%). (Note that the percentages have been rounded off.) This result suggests thatproximity from home, rather than workplace, tends to be a prime consideration in
selecting childcare centers. In fact, Hashimoto et al. (2010) find that users select childcare
centers at workplaces primarily because they cannot be accommodated by centers nearhome. Respondents’ one-way commute times to childcare centers confirm the importanceof spatial proximity from home (Figure 7). Most users (77%) select centers that can beaccessed within approximately 10 minutes, and almost all (98%) are serviced by centers
accessible in about 20 minutes. These results suggest that long access times to childcare
centers are not feasible.

Very important
Not very important

Rather important
Not important at all

Proximity from home

NeutralNot sure

79%

17%

2%

（n = 156）

Proximity from workplace

23%

30%

17%

19%

8% 3%
（n = 155）

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 6. Importance of spatial proximity to childcare centers from home and workplace.
17

Within about 5 minutes
About 20 minutes

About 10 minutes
About 25 minutes or more

32%
0%

20%

44%
40%

About 15 minutes

14%
60%

80%

8%

2%
100%

（n = 111）

Figure 7. One-way commute time to childcare centers.

Next, I present results that illustrate the importance of access to childcare centers inbalancing work and childrearing. The current as well as desired employment statuses
show remarkable discrepancies (Figure 8). The majority (57%) of respondents arehousewives, but most (87%) wish to work. The stated preference might exaggerate thedesire to work, but the considerable gap is noteworthy. As for the desired employment
status, the “non-regular employee” (42%) tends to be preferred to the “regular employee”(36%), and the “part-time employee” (55%) to the “full-time employee” (23%). Table 2
shows why respondents whose current and desired employment statuses were different
could not realize the desired statuses. Among the reasons indicated, “domestic duties andchildcare” constitute the largest share (78%), and “impossibility or difficulty to use
childcare centers” accounts for a notable proportion (26%). Further, “impossibility toreceive sufficient childcare services” and “impossibility or difficulty to use childcare forsick children” are also notable reasons, accounting for 18% and 14%, respectively. The
experiences with balancing work and childrearing during the waiting period forenrollment in desired childcare centers are shown in Figure 9 and Table 3. About 71%
answer that balancing work and childrearing became “very difficult/unstable” (41%) or“difficult/unstable” (30%) during the waiting period. In fact, 27% were forced to quit
their jobs, and 1% were fired. Since these two choices do not overlap, 28% were18

constrained to leave their jobs although they wished to continue working.
Current employment status (n = 308)

Desired employment status (n = 311)

10%

Regular employee (full time)

18%

3%

Regular employee (short day)

18%

4%
5%

Non-regular employee (full time)15%

Non-regular employee (part time)5%

Self-employed or liberal profession
Job seeker

37%

7%

2%
0%

Housewife

57%

14%

Other

1%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 8. Current and desired employment status.
Table 2. Reasons for not being able to attain desired employment status
ReasonPercentage

Domestic duties and childcare

78

Lack of jobs with desired work and time schedules

30

Impossibility or difficulty to use childcare centers

26

Impossible or difficult to work during office hours

25

Lack of physical endurance

20

Lack of or difficulty to obtain cooperation from spouse or partner

19

Impossibility to receive sufficient childcare services

17

Lack of institutional support and understanding in the society

14

Impossibility or difficulty to use childcare for sick children

14Children’s disease13

Lack of institutional support and understanding at workplace10

Spouse or partner does not want

6

Care

1

Other reasons(Multiple choice allowed; n = 269)

4

19

Very difficult/unstable

Rather difficult/unstable

Not changed very much

Not changed at all

41%
0%

20%

（n = 86）

30%
40%

Neutral60%

17%

10% 1%

80%

100%

Figure 9. Experiences with balancing work and child-rearing during the waiting list
period for desired childcare centers.

Table 3. Work-life experiences during the waiting list period for desired childcare centers
Condition

Percentage

Quit job despite desire to continue working

27

Used non-licensed daycare center other than the desired center

22

Worked while grandparents cared for a child or children

20

Adjusted duration of childcare leave in order to enter desired childcare centers

16

Used childcare service of other-than-desired childcare centers (e.g., baby-sitters)

15

Used licensed daycare center other than the desired center

14

Quit job willingly

8

Worked while spouse or partner cared for a child or children

4

Fired

1

Moved in order to enter desired childcare center

1

Worked while acquaintance/friend cared for a child or children

1

Other reasons(Multiple choice allowed; n = 85)

7

4.4 Geographic mismatch between supply and demand of childcare centers
The second research question addressed in this study is whether there is a geographic
mismatch between the supply and demand of childcare centers and whether the mismatch
differs by age. The maps in Figure 10 provide a visualization of the accessibility ofchildcare centers by basic unit block for the commuting threshold of 750 meters. Since
accessibility basically represents the supply-demand balance, an accessibility value of 1
or greater indicates excess supply, whereas a value of less than 1 indicates excess demand,20

or a supply shortage. The maps uncover considerable geographic mismatch in the supply
and demand of childcare centers. It is striking that many blocks have low values below 1,
particularly for smaller children aged 0–2 years. In general, blocks with low accessibility
show the following three patterns. First, no childcare centers exist nearby (within thecommuting threshold). Second, centers nearby do not provide care for a particular age
group. Third, demand exceeds supply for a particular age group, although centers nearby
do provide care for that age group.
The considerable geographic mismatch of childcare centers might be a factor
contributing to the large number of children awaiting enrollment in childcare centers. The
number and extent of blocks with low accessibility were greater for smaller children aged
0–2 years than those aged 3–5 years. This is consistent with the greater number of smaller
children on waiting lists. Although a geographic mismatch was indicated in a number ofblocks for children 3 to 5 years old, the number on the waiting lists was relatively small(see Figure 3). This result may be due to the fact that children 3 years and older can beaccommodated in kindergartens.
The sensitivity to alternative commuting thresholds was examined. Two alternative
commuting thresholds of 500 and 1,000 meters were used to calculate the accessibility ofchildcare centers, and the results were compared to the data in Figure 10. When the
500-meter threshold was used, the number of blocks with considerably low accessibility
values below 0.25 increased substantially, especially for the 0-year-olds, for whomchildcare help is limited. This result occurred because many blocks do not have childcare
centers within the 500-meter threshold. When the 1,000-meter threshold was used, on theother hand, the number of blocks with considerably low accessibility decreased, because21Accessibility value
0.00
0.01‐0.24
0.25‐0.49
0.50‐0.74
0.75‐0.99>=1.000

5(a) 0 to 5‐year‐old children(d) 2‐year‐old children(b) 0‐year‐old children(e) 3‐year‐old children

10 km(c) 1‐year‐old children(f) 4 to 5‐year old children

Figure 10. Accessibility of childcare centers in Tokyo ward area(commuting threshold of 750 m), 2009.
22

Accessibility value
0.00
0.01‐0.24
0.25‐0.49
0.50‐0.74
0.75‐0.99>=1.0005(a) 1‐year‐old children, 500m(b) 1‐year‐old children, 1,000m

10 km

Figure 11. Accessibility of childcare centers in Tokyo ward area, 2009.

many blocks have childcare centers within 1,000 meters. The alternative thresholds led todifferent spatial variations in accessibility, but the finding that accessibility is below 1 inmany blocks was consistent. (Figure 11 shows the accessibility for 1-year-old children
based on the 500- and 1,000-meter thresholds.)

5. Conclusion
Extending the traditional concept of spatial mismatch, this study examined the spatial
mismatch of childcare—the geographic mismatch that impedes the balancing of work andchildrearing. The study was conducted for the Tokyo ward area, which has witnessed aremarkable growth in the number of children on childcare waiting lists. The survey
results indicated the importance of spatial proximity and access to childcare centers inachieving the desired balance between work and childrearing. Visualized accessibility
revealed a considerable geographic mismatch in the supply and demand of childcare
centers, especially for smaller children aged 0–2 years. Taken together, the findings23demonstrated a spatial mismatch of childcare.
Three policy implications are drawn from the findings. First, redressing the
spatial mismatch by improving the accessibility of childcare centers helps to balance
work and childrearing, which in turn leads to female participation in the labor force. In anumber of countries, most women work, but many leave their jobs when they havechildren. Such a trend is particularly visible in Japan, where the labor-force participation
rate of mothers with preschool children is among the lowest in OECD countries. A
striking finding was the considerable gap between the current and desired employment
statuses among mothers of preschool children. A large proportion of mothers ofpreschool children were housewives but wished to work. One of the major reasons forthis gap was the lack of adequate childcare services. This result suggests that if sufficientchildcare services are provided, many mothers will be able to participate in the labormarket more actively.
Second, improving the accessibility of childcare centers for smaller children will
not only help reduce the number of children on waiting lists but also allow parents tocontinue working. Smaller children aged 0–2 years made up the largest number onchildcare waiting lists; in fact, this number continues to increase, which reflects thegrowing desire among mothers to continue working while raising children. It is
important for women to continue working in order to achieve secure employment, since
discontinuity of employment often becomes a disadvantage for women who wish toreenter the labor market. The survey results suggest that, while their children are on
childcare waiting lists, many mothers find it difficult to balance work and childrearing,
and a sizable number of them leave their jobs much against their desire. To make mattersworse, getting childcare help becomes even more difficult after losing one’s job, since24many centers prioritize full-time over part-time workers and job seekers. Withoutchildcare services, mothers of small children would find it hard to search for jobs.
Therefore, a lack of access to childcare can induce a negative spiral of being unable to use
childcare centers and to get a job and keep it.
Third, resolving the geographic mismatch is a key approach to the developmentof childcare centers. Adequate childcare services help families achieve a balance
between work and childrearing. However, where to locate childcare centers within a cityand to what extent they should be developed are questions on which no clear policy exists.
I propose accessibility as a useful indicator for the development of childcare centers. For
example, developing childcare centers in low-accessibility areas (severe geographic
mismatch) with high demand (large preschool population) would be an effective strategy
to reduce waiting lists. Besides, this study’s accessibility measure is useful in thefollowing three ways. First, it can be applied to other areas and different periods with
relevant commuting thresholds and supply and demand of childcare centers. Second, as
accessibility basically represents a supply-demand balance, a comparison of accessibility
between different areas and times is straightforward and readily understood. Third,
accessibility visualized by a small geographic area is useful not only for childcare
providers but also for childcare seekers in that it helps alleviate the problem of imperfect
information on local childcare accessibility. In general, childcare center waiting lists (anindication of the availability of childcare) are open to the public only at the level of wards
or larger administrative districts. As we have seen, however, accessibility of childcare
centers varies considerably within a ward; supply exceeds demand in some areas,
whereas demand exceeds supply in others.
The present study is, to the best of my knowledge, the first effort to explicitly extend
25Kain’s spatial mismatch theory to examine the spatial mismatch of childcare. This study
is, however, limited to descriptive analysis. A statistical examination of the extent towhich better access to childcare in spatially micro areas improves the balance between
work and childrearing is a topic for further research.

References○

Aslund, O., Ӧsth, J, Znou, Y. (2010) How important is access to jobs? Oldquestion-improved answer. Journal of Economic Geography, 10: 389-422.
Bania, N., Leete, L., Coulton, C. (2008) Job access, employment and earnings:
outcomes for welfare leavers in a US urban labour market. Urban Studies, 45:
2179-2202.
Blau, D. M. (2001) The Child Care Problem: An Economic Analysis. New York: The
Russell Sage Foundation.
Blau, D. M., Robins, P. K. (1988) Child-care costs and family labor supply. The Review
of Economics and Statistics, 70: 374-381.
Blumenberg, E. (2004) En-gendering effective planning: spatial mismatch, low-income
women, and transportation policy. Journal of the American Planning Association,
70: 269-281.
Chevalier, A., Viitanen, T. K. (2002) The causality between female labour force
participation and the availability of childcare. Applied Economic Letters, 9:915-918.
Davis, E. E., Connelly, R. (2005) The influence of local price and availability on
parents’ choice of child care. Population Research and Policy Review, 24: 301-334.
Del Boca, D., Vuri, D. (2007) The mismatch between employment and child care in26

Italy: the impact of rationing. Journal of Population Economics, 20: 805-832.
Gordon, R. A., Chase-Lansdale, L. (2001) Availability of child care in the UnitedStates: a description and analysis of data sources. Demography, 38: 299-316.
Hanson, S., Kominiak, T., Carlin, S. (1997) Assessing the impact of location on
women’s labor market outcomes: a methodological exploration. GeographicalAnalysis, 29: 281-297.
Harris B. (2001) Accessibility: concepts and applications. Journal of Transportationand Statistics, 4(2/3): 15-30.
Hashimoto, M., Ohmori, N., Takami, K., Harata, N. (2010) Commuting and day-care
centers at workplaces. Proceedings of Infrastructure Planning, 41, CD-ROM. (inJapanese)
Holzer, H. J. (1991) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: what has the evidence shown?
Urban Studies, 28: 105-122.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R., Sjoquist, D. L. (1998) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review ofrecent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate, 9:849-892.
Kain, J. F. (1968) Housing segregation, Negro employment, and metropolitan
decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82: 175-197.
Kain, J. F. (1992) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: three decades later. Housing Policy
Debate, 3: 371-460.
Kawabata, M. (2003) Job access and employment among low-skilled autoless workers
in US metropolitan areas. Environment and Planning A, 35: 1651-1668.
Kawabata, M. (2010) Survey report on balancing work and child rearing andaccessibility to child-care centers. Discussion Paper 102, Center for Spatial
27

Information Science, The University of Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Kreyenfeld, M., Hank, K. (2000) Does the availability of child care influence theemployment of mothers? Findings from western Germany. Population Researchand Policy Review, 19: 317-337.
Kwan, M.-P. (1999) Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: a study using
space-time measures. Professional Geographer, 51: 210-227.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (MHLW), 2009. About
Childcare-Center and Other Conditions (as of April 1st, 2009). Available online at:
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2009/09/h0907-2.html. (in Japanese)
Miyazawa, H. (1998) Investigating time-space constraints on accessibility to day
nursery facilities in Nakano Ward, Tokyo. Geographical Review of Japan, 71A-12:
859-886. (in Japanese)
Nakamura, J., Ueda, A. (1999) On the determinants of career interruption by childbirthamong married women in Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International
Economies, 13: 73-89.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) Babies andBosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life: A Synthesis of Findings for OECDCountries. Paris: OECD.
Pinch, S. (1984) Inequality in pre-school provision: a geographical perspective. In
Kirby, A. Pinch, S. (eds) Public Service Provision and Urban Development, pp.
231-282. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Price Policy Division, Social Policy Bureau, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan(2003) Report by the Study Group on Childcare Service Costs. Available online at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/menu.html. (in Japanese)28

Segawa, S. and Sadahiro, Y. (1996) A decision-making support system for child carefacilities using GIS. Theory and Applications of GIS, 4: 11-18. (in Japanese)
Shen, Q. (2001) A spatial analysis of job openings and access in a U.S. metropolitan
area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67: 53-68.
Stolzenberg, R. M., Waite, L. J. (1984) Local labor markets, children and labor force
participation of wives. Demography, 21: 157-170.
Taylor, B. D., Ong, P. M. (1995) Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch?
Examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban
Studies, 32: 1453-1473.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG). (2009) About Childcare Center and Other
Affairs. Available online at:
http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/CHOUSA/2009/07/60j7f100.htm. (in Japanese)
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health.
(2005) Childcare Plan in Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health,(2009) Childcare Services. Available online at:
http://www.fukushihoken.metro.tokyo.jp/kodomo/hoiku/index.html. (in Japanese)
Van Ham, M., Büchel, F. (2006) Unwilling or unable? Spatial and socio-economic
restrictions on females’ labour market access. Regional Studies, 40: 345-357.
Webster, C. J., White, S. (1997) Childcare services and the urban labour market. Part 2:
modelling the relationships between childcare service accessibility andlabour-market participation. Environment and Planning A, 29: 1675-1695.
Zhou, Y., Oishi, A. (2005) Underlying demand for licensed childcare services in urban
Japan. Asian Economic Journal, 19: 103-119.
29

Appendix
Table 1A. Basic demographic statistics of the survey and 2005 census.
Survey respondents

Number

Percent

2005 census population of womenwith preschool children in Tokyo
ward area
Number
Percent

Age
under 25
3
25–29
28
30–34
115
35–39
116
40–44
42
45 and older
7
Number of children living together
1
145
2
142
3 and more24
Age of youngest child
0
57
1
66
2
58
3
59
4
34
5
37
Working
Housewives

114
175

Full sample size

311

1
9
37
37
14
2

8,380
40,080105,200
94,12032,720
3,700

3
14
37
33
12
1

47
46
8

138,170
113,740
32,290

49
40
11

18
21
19
19
11
12

58,56057,82049,33044,70038,25035,540

21
20
17
16
13
13

37 a)
57 a)

96,260
181,020

34 b)
64 b)

284,200a) The proportions of those whose answers are valid (308). b) The proportions of those whose labor
force statuses are determined (281,250).
Note: The census statistics were calculated using the order-made summary statistics provided by the
National Statistics Center of Japan; the census statistics are different from the data created and madeavailable by the administrative agencies.

30