Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Table 10 The relationship between the places of birth and the places of residence in 1996 (men and women) The places of residence in 1996 of people from different regions

The places of residence in 1996	The places of birth
Nationwide	Hokkaido	Tohoku	Kita-Kanto	Tokyo	Chubu/Hokuriku	Nagoya	Kinki	Chugoku	Shikoku	Kyushu/Okinawa	Different countries
Nationwide	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Hokkaido	4.5	82.2	1.6	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.3	1.2	4.6
Tohoku	10.1	1.5	72.6	0.6	1.4	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	2.6
Kita-Kanto	5.8	0.3	1.6	79.3	1.4	0.8	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	2.9
Tokyo	28.8	12.0	20.0	17.6	92.0	16.4	5.3	5.3	8.7	6.0	9.1	41.5
Chubu/Hokuriku	6.4	0.4	0.8	0.6	1.2	74.4	1.1	0.5	0.4	0.7	0.6	4.3
Nagoya	8.8	1.7	1.7	0.6	0.8	3.6	87.7	1.7	2.6	2.0	3.9	9.7
Kinki	15.6	0.9	1.0	0.6	1.3	3.0	3.8	88.1	11.8	11.2	6.4	14.6
Chugoku	5.3	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.5	1.3	72.7	2.0	2.2	9.2
Shikoku	3.8	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.9	1.1	76.0	0.8	1.7
Kyushu/Okinawa	10.8	0.4	0.3	0.3	1.1	0.4	0.5	1.5	2.1	1.1	75.3	8.9

The places of birth of people who lived in different regions in 1996

The places of residence in 1996	The places of birth
Nationwide	Hokkaido	Tohoku	Kita-Kanto	Tokyo	Chubu/Hokuriku	Nagoya	Kinki	Chugoku	Shikoku	Kyushu/Okinawa	Different countries
Nationwide	100.0	4.8	13.2	6.4	21.4	7.5	7.9	14.1	6.0	4.4	13.2	0.9
Hokkaido	100.0	87.7	4.6	0.2	1.4	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.3	3.4	0.9
Tohoku	100.0	0.7	94.0	0.4	2.9	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.2
Kita-Kanto	100.0	0.2	3.6	87.7	5.1	1.0	0.2	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.6	0.4
Tokyo	100.0	2.0	9.2	3.9	68.4	4.3	1.5	2.6	1.8	0.9	4.2	1.3
Chubu/Hokuriku	100.0	0.3	1.8	0.6	4.0	88.1	1.4	1.2	0.4	0.5	1.2	0.6
Nagoya	100.0	0.9	2.5	0.4	2.0	3.1	78.7	2.8	1.8	1.0	5.9	1.0
Kinki	100.0	0.3	0.8	0.2	1.8	1.5	2.0	79.5	4.5	3.2	5.4	0.8
Chugoku	100.0	0.4	0.8	0.3	1.5	0.5	0.8	3.4	83.6	1.6	5.6	1.6
Shikoku	100.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	1.0	0.4	0.1	3.3	1.8	89.4	3.0	0.4
Kyushu/Okinawa	100.0	0.2	0.4	0.2	2.2	0.3	0.4	1.9	1.2	0.5	92.1	0.7

People who did not announce the place of their birth are not included.

Lastly, by focusing on the case of the Tokyo region, we summarized age-specific features of the relationships between birthplaces and present residences. As already mentioned, the percentage of those who were born in the Tokyo region is 68.4% of the present Tokyo-region residents. Among those in their 20s, however, this percentage reaches 73.9%. The percentages in other age groups are: 63.2% in 30-39 age group, 53.8% in 40-49 age group, 53.4% in 50-59 age group, and 58.3% in 60 and over age group. Those who are now in their 40s and 50s—cohorts with lower percentages of residents born in the Tokyo-region—include a large number of people who came from other areas to the Tokyo region for the purpose of educational advance or entry into the labor market in the 1960s and 1970s, a period when the population of the Tokyo region sharply increased. It could also be noted that respondents currently under the age of 30 correspond to the generation of those cohorts’ children (“Tokyo second generation”). This is considered to be one of the main reasons why the percentage of residents born in the Tokyo-region is high among this younger generation.
## I V Migration and metropolitan areas

In this section, we discuss migration regarding metropolitan areas. Boundaries and names of metropolitan areas are the same as those in the $ 3^{rd} $ survey, that is, the three metropolitan areas are the Tokyo region (Tokyo, Saitama, Chiba, Kanagawa), the Chukyo region (Aichi, Gifu, Mie), and the Osaka region (Osaka, Kyoto, Hyogo). The other 37 prefectures are defined as non-metropolitan area. Data used here are for migration from the previous residence to the present residence, i.e., the last move in each individual's migration career. Migration in the last five years (July 1991–June 1996) and in the last one year (July 1995–June 1996) is tabulated separately.

## 1 Period of the last move

Table 11 shows the number of migrations by region of the present residence (the Tokyo region, the Chukyo region, the Hanshin region, and the non-metropolitan area) and by period. In this table, “mover” means one who migrated to the present residence, and “non-mover (stayer)” means one who remained in the present residence from birth.

According to Table 11, the percentage of movers of the total (37,780 respondents with valid answers) is 77.9%. When compared by region, percentages in the metropolitan areas are higher than the national average, but that in the non-metropolitan area is much lower. In the latter area, those who never moved account for 26.6%. This result is in accord with the empirical law that mobility is higher among metropolitan residents than among non-metropolitan residents. Concerning the percentage of movers in the last five years, the percentage is 24.4% for all respondents. But the same trend, i.e., the metropolitan figure is higher than the non-metropolitan one, can be also observed. When we limit the period of move to the last year, the percentage of movers decreases to 6.4%.

Table 11 The period of immigration

The period of immigration	Total	Movers
The places of residence in 1996	Immigrated at some time before 1996	During 1991-1996	During 1995-1996	Settlers
All Japan	37,780	29,438	9,209	2,419	8,342 (people)
100.0	77.9	24.4	6.4	22.1 (%)
Tokyo region	11,060	9,148	3,098	873	1,912
100.0	82.7	28.0	7.9	17.3
Tokyo region	3,339	2,695	863	167	644
100.0	80.7	25.8	5.0	19.3
Hanshin region	4,717	3,889	1,193	312	828
100.0	82.4	25.3	6.6	17.6
Non-metropolitan areas	18,664	13,706	4,055	1,067	4,958
100.0	73.4	21.7	5.7	26.6

## 2 Patterns in inter-regional migration

Next, patterns of inter-regional migration for recent movers (those who moved to the present residence within the last five years) are analyzed. Table 12 shows the previous residence of migrants (including foreign countries) by region of the present residence. It is clear that the majority of migrations are intra-regional. In the metropolitan areas, the percentage of intra-regional migrants of all migrants is around 80%. This percentage reaches 87.3% in the non-metropolitan area. The number for inter-metropolitan migrations is not very large, but it is notable that in-migration and out-migration stand almost at the same level in either pattern for Tokyo-Chukyo, Tokyo-Hanshin, or Chukyo-Hanshin. This
fact implies that in inter-metropolitan migration, a counter-stream of the same level is compensatively produced for each migration flow. As for migration between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, net in-migration to the Chukyo region is outstanding. The Tokyo region also records net in-migration. But the Hanshin region experiences a net outflow. Percentages of in-migration from abroad are all less than 2%, and are extremely low compared to internal migration.

Table 12 Patterns in regional movements (1991-1996)

The previous residence	Total	Tokyo region	Chukyo region	Hanshin region	Non-metropolitan areas	Other countries
The place of residence in 1996
Total	8,982	2,909	766	1,150	4,071	86 (people)
100.0	32.4	8.5	12.8	45.3	1.0 (%)
Tokyo region	3,021	2,489	30	83	375	44
100.0	82.4	1.0	2.7	12.4	1.5
Chukyo region	841	25	668	14	118	16
100.0	3.0	79.4	1.7	14.0	1.9
Hanshin region	1,158	85	23	927	119	4
100.0	7.3	2.0	80.1	10.3	0.3
Non-metropolitan areas	3,962	310	45	126	3,459	22
100.0	7.8	1.1	3.2	87.3	0.6

## 3 Patterns in intra-regional migration

To discuss migration concerning metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions in more detail, patterns of intra-regional migration, in which the majority of migrations are categorized, need to be grasped. In the present analysis, intra-regional migrations are divided into several groups. Firstly, migrations are grouped into intra-prefecture migration (relatively short-distance) and inter-prefecture migration (relatively long-distance). Especially in the non-metropolitan region, distances and natures of migration are expected to differ considerably between intra- and inter-prefecture movements as the region is large. As for the metropolitan areas, inter-prefecture migrations are further divided into three groups according to their directions. To be specific, every metropolitan region is divided into the central area (Tokyo region: Tokyo, Chukyo region: Aichi, Hanshin region: Osaka), and the periphery (Tokyo region: Saitama, Chiba, Kanagawa, Chukyo region: Gifu, Mie, Hanshin region: Kyoto, Hyogo). Based on this demarcation, 1. moves from periphery to central area, 2. moves from central area to periphery, 3. moves from periphery to periphery are counted.

Table 13 shows the number of migrants in the last five years by migration pattern. It indicates that in every region, intra-prefecture migrations account for more than 80% of intra-regional migrations. This result suggests that, as is observed in a number of other migration data, the number of migrants sharply increases as migration distance shortens. As for intra-metropolitan migrations, center-periphery migrants outnumber those of periphery-center or periphery-periphery movements.
Table 13 Patterns in intra-regional migration (1991-1996)

Movement by typeThe place of residence in 1996	Total	Intra-prefecture	Inter-prefecture
Total	Peripheral to Central	Central to Peripheral	Peripheral to Peripheral
Total	7,543	6,407	1,136
Total	100.0	84.9	15.1
Metropolitan areas	Tokyo region	4,084	3,534	550	170	268	112 (people)
100.0	86.5	13.5	4.2	6.6	2.7 (%)
2,489	2,069	420	93	230	97
100.0	83.1	16.9	3.7	9.2	3.9
Chukyo region	668	637	31	18	7	6
100.0	95.4	4.6	2.7	1.0	0.9
Hanshin region	927	828	99	59	31	9
100.0	89.3	10.7	6.4	3.3	1.0
Non-metropolitan areas	3,459	2,873	586
100.0	83.1	16.9

## 4 Migration patterns and ages of migrants

Migration patterns selected here for analysis are the following nine patterns: Intra-metropolitan migrations are divided into 1. intra-prefecture migration, 2. center-bound migration, 3. periphery-bound migration, and 4. inter-periphery migration. Inter-regional migrations are grouped into 5. inter-metropolitan migration, 6. non-metro-to-metro migration, and 7. metro-to-non-metro migration. As for intra-non-metropolitan migration, 8. intra-prefecture migration and 9. inter-prefecture migration are the categories prepared.

Table 14 Distribution of movers by type of move and age (1991-1996)

Age of movers	Total	0 ~ 14	15 ~ 19	20 ~ 24	25 ~ 29	30 ~ 34	35 ~ 44	45 ~ 54	55 ~ 64	65+ (year)
Total	8,754	1,879	581	1,051	1,552	1,115	1,332	697	298	249 (people)
100	21.5	6.6	12.0	17.7	12.7	15.2	7.9	3.4	2.8 (\%)
Within a metropolitan area	3,470	728	192	418	622	431	549	297	133	100
Intra-prefecture	100.0	21.0	5.5	12.0	17.9	12.4	15.8	8.5	3.8	2.9
Within a metropolitan area	169	19	21	27	44	25	15	10	4	4
Toward the center	100.0	11.3	12.4	16.0	26.0	14.8	8.9	5.9	2.4	2.4
Within a metropolitan area	266	42	10	37	61	41	37	13	17	8
Toward the peripheral	100.0	15.8	3.8	13.9	22.9	15.4	13.9	4.9	6.4	3.0
Within a metropolitan area	112	26	8	17	26	14	12	2	2	5
Within the peripheral	100.0	23.2	7.1	15.2	23.2	12.5	10.7	1.8	1.8	4.5
Metropolitan area-to-metropolitan area	259	43	14	32	43	45	48	26	6	2
100.0	16.5	5.4	12.4	16.6	17.4	18.5	10.0	2.3	0.8
Non-metropolitan areas	607	111	116	63	91	101	73	35	6	11
to metropolitan areas	100.0	18.2	19.1	10.4	15.0	16.6	12.0	5.8	1.0	1.8
Metropolitan areas	472	123	19	58	73	66	68	41	9	15
to non-metropolitan areas	100.0	26.0	4.0	12.3	15.5	14.0	14.4	8.7	1.9	3.2
Within non-metropolitan areas	2,822	621	163	356	492	304	446	227	114	99
Intra-prefecture	100.0	21.9	5.8	12.6	17.4	10.8	15.8	8.1	4.1	3.5
Within non-metropolitan areas	577	166	38	43	100	88	84	46	7	5
Prefecture-to-prefecture	100.0	28.9	6.6	7.5	17.3	15.3	14.6	8.0	1.2	0.9

Table 14 shows the number of migrants in the last five years by age and by migration pattern. When we look at age distribution in total migration patterns, it is clear that most active migrants are those in their 20s and early 30s, especially those in the late 20s. In terms of migration pattern, “metropolitan to non-metropolitan” and “intra-non-metropolitan (inter-prefecture)” show high percentages of 0-14, indicating the existence of a relatively large number of ancillary migrants in these patterns. In “non-metropolitan to metropolitan” and “intra-metropolitan (periphery to center),” the percentage of
Table 16 The U-turn rate of the heads of the houses and their spouses (Men)

Age	Total population	The rate of settlers	The rate of movers	The I-turn rate (a)	The I-turn rate (b)	The U-turn rate
Total	10,575	44.7	55.3	40.3	72.8	27.2
30 years and under	1,210	32.8	67.2	58.3	86.8	13.2
30 to 34 years old	912	35.6	64.4	49.1	76.3	23.7
35 to 39 years old	930	42.0	58.0	39.5	68.1	31.9
40 to 44 years old	1,056	39.2	60.8	39.7	65.3	34.7
45 to 49 years old	1,364	42.8	57.2	37.3	65.3	34.7
50 to 54 years old	1,118	42.2	57.8	41.3	71.5	28.5
55 to 59 years old	1,076	49.8	50.2	39.3	78.3	21.7
60 to 64 years old	1,065	55.3	44.7	32.7	73.1	26.9
65 years old and over	1,844	55.1	44.9	31.4	69.9	30.1

Age	Total population	The rate of settlers	The rate of movers	The I-turn rate (a)	The I-turn rate (b)	The U-turn rate
Total	10,527	50.4	49.6	37.3	75.1	24.9
30 years and under	1,101	45.4	54.6	46.4	85.0	15.0
30 to 34 years old	960	46.9	53.1	40.1	75.5	24.5
35 to 39 years old	968	47.8	52.2	36.3	69.5	30.5
40 to 44 years old	1,080	45.7	54.3	37.2	68.6	31.4
45 to 49 years old	1,392	44.8	55.2	40.2	72.8	27.2
50 to 54 years old	1,139	52.0	48.0	35.7	74.4	25.6
55 to 59 years old	1,058	53.1	46.9	35.8	76.4	23.6
60 to 64 years old	1,000	56.5	43.5	35.0	80.5	19.5
65 years old and over	1,829	57.6	42.4	31.7	74.7	25.3

(1) The rate of settlers = the rate of those who had always lived in the prefecture of birth to all those who were born in the prefecture

(2) The rate of movers = the rate of those who had experienced living in a different prefecture other than the prefecture of birth to all those who were born in the prefecture

(3)The I-turn rate (a) = the rate of those who had emigrated from the prefecture of birth to all those who were born in the prefecture

(4) The I-turn rate (b) = the rate of those who had emigrated from the prefecture of birth to all those who had experienced living in a different prefecture other than the prefecture of birth

(5) The U-turn rate = the rate of those who had come back to their hometown after living in a different prefecture to all those who had experienced living in a different prefecture other than the prefecture of birth.
heads moved in from other places when leaving home or by marriage and formed new households (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Distribution of households by migration type, by the age of the heads of the houses

Figure 2 Households by composition type and migration type (for the period 1991-1996)

## 3 Family type of household and migration patterns of household

Data on household migration by family type show that “no move” during the last five years (1991-1996) accounts for the largest percentage for every family type. Even the smallest percentage of “no move” (in “one-person”) exceeds 50% (53.5%). This percentage is 69.9% for “parent(s) with child(ren),” 74.3% for “married couple only,” and the highest 76.9% for “other.” As for households with movers, the percentage of “all members moved” is highest for household with the fewest household members, that is,
“one-person” household (44.8%). The percentages for “parent(s) with child(ren),” “married couple only,” and “other” are 26.3%, 22.3%, and 8.6%, respectively. The percentage for “partly moved” is 13.6% in “other,” which contains the largest number of household members on average. The percentages for “parent(s) with child(ren)” and “married couple only” are 3.5% and 3.0%, respectively.

In sum, while the percentage for “no move” is high for every household migration type, the percentage for “all members moved” is also high in “one person” and other households with fewer members on average. On the other hand, the percentage for “partly moved” is high in relatively large “other” households. These facts suggest that smaller households tend to face more migrations (Figure 2).

Characters of households differ according to age of household head, even when their family types are the same. In general, it is considered that households with younger heads are in the phase of household formation while those with older heads have existed for a certain time. This tendency seems to influence the migration types of households. Therefore, the distribution of the age of household head is examined here for “all members moved” and “no move” households. The age of household head is divided into “under 35,” “35-64,” and “65 and over,” because the percentages of “all members moved” are over 50% under 35 years of age, and those of “no move” are stable at around 90% over 65 years of age. The distribution of the age of household head shows that for households with “all members moved,” the percentages for “under 35” are very high, i.e., 67.4% and 60.3% for “one person” and “married couple only,” respectively. For “parent(s) with child(ren)” and “other,” the percentage of the “35-64” age group exceeds 50%, but the “under 35” age group also accounts for about 40%. The percentages for the “65 and above” age group are low in the range between 1.2 and 6.5%. As for households with “no moves,” the percentages for the “35-64” age group are highest. But those of the “65 and above” age group are also high: 38.2% and 46.3% for “one person” and “married couple only,” respectively. The percentages for “under 35” are low (Figure 3, 4).

In sum, there are a large number of young-head households in the stage of household formation among households with “all members moved.” On the other hand, households with “no move” show a high percentage of old-head households.
Figure 3 Households all of whose members had moved during the period 1991-1996, by the household composition and the age of the heads of the house

Figure 4 Households any of whose members had not moved during the period 1991-1996, by the household composition and the age of the heads of the houses

4 Migration type of household and residence of household head five years earlier

This section, by looking at the residence of household head five years earlier, examines where households with “all members moved” came from. Distribution of residence five years earlier shows that the percentages for “different place in the same municipality as the present” and “different prefecture” are almost the same, i.e., 34.0% and 35.0%, respectively. “Different municipality in the same prefecture as the present” accounts for 29.5%. As for the distribution by age of household head, “different prefecture” shows the highest percentage (42.2%) in “under 35” age group. In the “35-64” age group and the “65 and above” age group, the percentages for “different place in the same municipality as the present” are the highest, 41.8% and 56.2%, respectively. Frequencies by family type (Table 18, 19) show that in a “one-person” household, the percentage for “different prefecture” is highest at 48.1%. On the other hand, “different place in the same municipality as the present” accounts for the largest percentage of “married couple only” (36.5%), “parent(s) with child(ren),” (42.6%), and “other” (44.2%). In sum, households with young heads and with simple family compositions are more likely to move across the boundaries of prefectures.

Table 18 The place of residence in 1991 by the age of the heads of the houses: Households all of whose members had moved during the period 1991-1996

Age of the heads of the houses	Total	Under the age 35	35 to 64 years old	65 years old and over	Unknown
Total households	3,654	1,921	1,525	130	78
In the same municipal district as in 1996	34.0	25.9	41.8	56.2	47.4
In a different municipal district in the same prefecture	29.5	30.8	28.4	22.3	32.1
In a different prefecture	35.0	42.2	27.9	21.5	19.2
Abroad	1.3	1.0	1.8	-	-
Unknown	0.2	0.2	0.1	-	1.3
Table 19 The place of residence in 1991 by household composition:

Households all of whose members had moved during the period 1991-1996

Household composition	Total	One person	Married couples without children	Married couples with children	Other composition types	Unknown
Total households	3,654	1,336	556	1,522	233	7
In the same municipal district as in 1996	34.0	21.6	36.5	42.6	44.2	14.3
In a different municipal district in the same prefecture	29.5	29.1	32.2	28.6	30.9	42.9
In a different prefecture	35.0	48.1	29.5	27.2	24.0	42.9
Abroad	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.4	0.4	-
Unknown	2.0	-	0.4	0.2	0.4	-

## 5 Migration type by reason for migration of household head

Lastly, the reasons for migration of household heads are examined for households with “all members moved.” Among the head’s reasons of migration during the last five years, “reasons related to housing conditions” account for the largest percentage at 25.1%. Other reasons with a large frequency are “job transfer” (17.7%), “marriage” (11.1%), “reasons related to living environment” (7.0%), “obtained job” (6.6%), “transportation to workplace/school” (5.6%), and “admission to school” (5.1%). Housing-related reasons such as “housing conditions,” “living environment,” and “transportation” account for very high percentages, while reasons related to life events at young ages, such as “admission to school” and “obtained job” are also popular (Figure 5).

Focusing on the seven reasons with a percentage of over 5.0 points, the distribution of the age of household head is examined. For reasons related to “housing conditions” and “living environment,” the “35-64” age group shows the highest frequency, but for other reasons, the “under 35” age group accounts for the largest percentage. These results for reasons for migration seem to reflect the tendency that households with “all members moved” are more conspicuous among young-head households (Table 20).
Table 20 Reasons for migration by the age of the heads of the houses: Households all of whose members had moved during the period 1991-1996

Age of the heads of the houses	Total households	Under the age 35	35 to 64 years old	65 years old and over	Unknown
Housing situation	918	28.3	65.1	5.0	1.5
Job transfers	646	50.3	48.6	0.2	0.9
Marriage	405	88.6	11.1	0.2	-
Living environment	254	46.1	47.6	5.9	0.4
With the first job	241	88.0	8.7	1.2	2.1
To shorten commuting hours	206	75.7	23.8	-	0.5
For higher education	185	94.6	4.3	-	1.1