Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format




НазваниеRich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format
страница3/16
Дата02.10.2012
Размер1.22 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

Population and Migration

» The most recent estimate of London’s population, for mid-2007, showed there were 7.56 million residents accounting for 14 per cent of the England and Wales total.

» The 162 thousand international migrants who came to London in 2007 were equivalent to about 2.14 per cent of London’s population, or the population of the borough of Barking and Dagenham.

» In 2006-07 London had a loss, due to migration, of 30 thousand people.

» The absolute growth in London in 2006-07 was a reduction on the growth in 2005-06 and was just above the average for the nineteen years since the population returned to growth after 1988.

» In 2007 London had a natural growth, births less deaths, of over 70 thousand, which is equivalent to over 41 per cent of the natural growth in England and Wales.

» In 2006-07 births accounted for 18.2 per cent of the England and Wales total, compared with the annual number of deaths, which accounted for a share of only 10.1 per cent.

» Since 2001, London has only once, in 2004-05, had a net migration inflow.

» London’s share of the outflow has been fairly stable, but the capital’s share of the inflow has declined, having been over 37 per cent in 2001 but just over 28 per cent in 2007.

» The reduction in outflow of population, mostly in moves to the neighbouring East and South East regions, has led to London’s net loss reducing to just 71 thousand in the year ending June 2008, and appears to be the first recorded impact of the credit crunch on mobility.

» Movements of people between boroughs amount to an average of over 300 thousand a year, equivalent to 42 per thousand London residents.

» When the within-borough movers are included, over 18 per cent of the population moved in a year.

» At mid-2006, CLG estimated there to be 3.18 million households with the number having grown by 141 thousand since mid-2001.

» GLA projections show the total population rising by 1.09 million to 8.54 million between 2006 and 2026.

Introduction

London is one of the largest cities in the developed world in terms of its built-up area, and is one of the most populous cities in the European Union, with nearly 7.6 million residents. It is also one of the EU’s most densely settled regions at over 4,800 persons per square kilometre. In its basic demographic characteristics London is positioned between other British and other European cities. While London’s crude birth rate, at over 16 live births per thousand residents, is high compared with most European cities it is more similar to other British cities. On the other hand London’s crude death rate, at less than seven deaths per thousand residents, is broadly consistent with some European cities but lower than many others, including other cities in Britain. In 2007 London had a natural growth (births less deaths) of over 70 thousand, which is equivalent to over 41 per cent of the natural growth in England and Wales.

London is Britain’s only global city and, arguably, the most important global city in Europe. London is a major hub of international air travel and, helped by the universal nature of the English language, is naturally a destination of many international migrants. The 162 thousand international migrants who came to London in 2007 were equivalent to about 2.14 per cent of London’s population, or the population of the borough of Barking and Dagenham. Migration from the rest of the UK accounted for an additional 164 thousand new residents. About 338 thousand people left London in 2007, with the net impact of the large migration flows into and out of London being only a net loss of 12 thousand but a continuing rejuvenation of the population (Table 1.5). It is London’s young age structure, the ongoing footprint of migration, which accounts for its low death rate, high birth rate, disproportionate contribution to the UK’s natural population growth and uniqueness amongst European cities.

This chapter starts by describing the trends in the population of London, then looks at the components that underlie the changes – the levels of fertility and mortality and the impact of migration and other changes. It continues by analysing the population in terms of its gender and age structure, and household structure of London’s residents. A final section deals with GLA demographic projections.

Trends in total population

At 7.56 million residents London is the second largest British region in terms of its total population; only exceeded by the South East at 8.31 million. London accounts for 12.4 per cent of the UK population and 14.0 per cent of England and Wales (Table 1.13). The population of London fell for 49 years following the peak of 8.6 million residents at the time of the National Registration in 1939. The decline was particularly rapid during the 1960s and 1970s. The population reached a low point in 1988 of just 6.73 million, a size previously achieved when London’s population was rising rapidly in the Edwardian era, 80 years earlier. The most recent estimate of London’s population, for mid-2007, showed there to be 7.56 million residents, an increase from 7.32 million in 2001 at an annual average increase of about 39 thousand. Table 1.14 shows the mid-year resident population estimates for London and all boroughs for 2007 by age and gender.

Population density

In 2007 the overall population density of London was 4,807 persons per square kilometre, but there were considerable differences between the boroughs. Table 1.1 shows that the most densely populated boroughs were Kensington and Chelsea with 14,700 people per square kilometre, and Islington with 12,600. Except for the City of London, which had the fourth lowest borough density (2,800), all other inner boroughs had population densities in excess of 6,800 persons, while the most densely populated outer boroughs were Brent and Waltham Forest at 6,200 and 5,700 respectively. Eight Inner London boroughs – Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, and Westminster – have densities in excess of twice the London average.

The Outer London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Merton and Waltham Forest, all have densities greater than the London average. The lowest densities in Outer London – less than half the London average – are found in Bromley, Havering and Hillingdon. These boroughs are characterised by their more recent patterns of population growth and the retention of the largest proportions of Green Belt areas among all boroughs.


Components of population change

Local population change is the sum of natural change (births minus deaths in the resident population), net migration, and any special circumstances such as changes in the numbers of resident armed forces. A high level of natural change underpins population growth in London. This can be seen in Table 1.2, which shows the main components of change for London and England and Wales for years from mid year 2001 to mid year 2007. The equivalent components of population change at borough level for 2006-07 are shown in Table 1.15. After no significant change for over a decade, births in London, as elsewhere in the UK, have risen quite sharply since 2001 and in 2006-07 accounted for 18.2 per cent of the England and Wales total. The annual numbers of deaths have fallen faster in London than in the rest of the UK, with London accounting for only 10.1 per cent of the England and Wales total in 2006-07. The result has been a rapid rise in natural change in London. Other changes, mainly net migration, show an underlying increase of net international flows into England and Wales while annual data for London are more variable with overall net migration losses in five of the last six years.

In 2006-07 London mothers had over 123 thousand live births and there were 50 thousand deaths of London residents, a natural increase of 73 thousand people. London contributed 41.3 per cent of natural increase in England and Wales. London has a high crude birth rate at 16.4 births per thousand residents compared with 12.6 for England and Wales. It also had a low crude death rate (6.7 deaths per thousand residents compared with 9.3). The rate of natural change in London – an increase of 9.7 persons for every thousand residents – is therefore high compared with that for England and Wales as a whole (3.3 persons per thousand). London has both the highest birth rate and the lowest death rate of all of the regions, with Northern Ireland being the next on both measures. The South West has the lowest fertility rate while Scotland had the highest death rates. However, these crude measures are not sensitive to the age structure of the population, which is discussed below.

The other main factor in population change is migration. Table 1.2 shows that in 2006-07 London had a loss, due to migration, of 30 thousand, equivalent to a rate of 4.0 per thousand population. London was one of only three regions to lose population through migration, the others were the North East and the West Midlands. The highest levels of growth due to net migration were found in the South West (9.8 per thousand) and the East (6.8 per thousand). However, in terms of total population change in the year, London, at 45 thousand, was the region with the fourth highest absolute growth, behind South East, East and South West, and was the sixth fastest growing region, at 5.9 per thousand, behind South West, Northern Ireland, East, South East and Yorkshire & the Humber regions. The absolute growth in London in 2006-07 was a reduction on the growth in 2005-06 and was just above the average for the nineteen years since the population returned to growth after 1988.

Population structure

Before going on to examine fertility and mortality in detail it is important to look at the age and gender structure, which is critical to making meaningful demographic comparisons between London and other parts of the UK.

As with most parts of the UK, London is estimated to have a higher proportion of females than males among its resident population, at 50.5 per cent. The equivalent percentage for the whole of the UK was 50.9 per cent in 2007. In 2007 there were 81 thousand more female residents of London than males. However this figure is down from a female ‘surplus’ of 128 thousand in 2001. A similar, though less rapid, reduction has been estimated for the UK, down from 1.45 million more females in 2001 to 1.14 million more in 2007. However, while both in the UK as a whole and in London, males outnumber females at birth and maintain this advantage for a number of years, there is a significant difference between the two areas. In the UK the male surplus runs to age 31 and then is passed to females for all higher ages. In London there is a double crossover, with there being more women at ages 21 to 28, more men between 29 and 43, and finally more women at all higher ages. Table 1.14 presents this data in broad age groups.

London also differs from the UK with regard to its age structure, the population tending to be younger than in the country as a whole. Figure 1.3 shows that in 2007 London had proportionally more children aged zero to siz and adults aged between 22 and 43 than the UK, but considerably fewer people aged between 7 and 21, or 44 and over. Forty-four per cent of London’s residents were in the age band 20 to 44 compared with only 35 per cent of the UK population. This age group is particularly important for the city’s future: as well as high economic activity rates in this age band, females aged between 20 and 44 also account for nearly all births. The high numbers of young adults, in particular women in their twenties, helps to explain London’s high crude birth rate compared with the UK average. London’s relative dearth of residents aged 65 or over (12 per cent compared with 16 per cent nationally) puts into context London’s low crude death rate.

The main reasons for these age differences from the national norms are to be found in the analysis of London’s migration patterns.

Fertility

The main reason for London’s comparatively high crude birth rate is the higher proportion of women of childbearing age in the population compared with England and Wales as a whole. Women in London in their twenties and thirties form a higher percentage of the total population than do women in England and Wales. The difference is most marked at ages 25 to 34; ages with the highest age-specific fertility rates. Women in the main fertile ages (15-44) form 24.3 per cent of London’s population compared with 20.6 per cent of the England and Wales population. One measure of overall fertility, which takes account of the age structure of the female population, is the total fertility rate (TFR). In 2007, this rate in London was 1.91 children per woman, almost identical to the level of 1.92 in England and Wales. Since 1981 the TFR in London has increased by 0.20 children per woman, while there has been an increase of just 0.13 in England and Wales.

The age-specific fertility rates reveal differences in the timing of childbearing. Since 1981, age-specific fertility rates for teenagers and women in their twenties have generally been lower in London than in the country as a whole. These rates have also declined. Women in their thirties and early forties living in the capital have had significantly higher fertility rates than those in the rest of the UK. The shift to a higher proportion of total fertility at ages over 30 has been consistent in both London and England and Wales. By 2007 over 54 per cent of London’s total fertility occurred at ages over 30, compared with only 47 per cent in England and Wales. London has lower fertility rates at ages up to 25-29 but the higher rates at ages over 35 (Table 1.4).


A further feature that distinguishes births in London is the proportion that are to mothers who themselves were born outside the UK. The increase in births in London since 2001 has been entirely due to mothers born outside the UK as births to UK-born women fell slightly. Overseas–born women now account for 54 per cent of London’s births, the next highest region is the West Midlands at 21 per cent, which itself is below the England & Wales average of 23 per cent.

Mortality

The young age structure of the population also contributes to London’s low crude death rate. Taking the age structure into account, the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) in London in 2007 was 93, ie the actual number of deaths in London was seven per cent lower than it hypothetically would have been if the age-specific mortality rates of England and Wales had also applied in London.

However there are slight gender and age differences in comparison with the UK. Age-specific mortality rates in London are lower than the national rates at ages 75 and over for males and at ages 45 and over for females. These lower rates are at ages that encompass the majority of deaths, hence it is clear why London has relatively few deaths and therefore a lower crude death rate.

ONS annually publishes figures for expectation of life at birth. The latest data are for 2005-2007 and are available for local and health authorities in the UK. The data show nationally, and at London and borough levels, that life expectancy has increased over the last decade. Life expectancy for males in London is 77.9 years compared to 82.4 years for females. In the UK the figures are 77.3 years for males and 81.5 for females. At a local authority level, expectation of life is highest in the UK, for both males and females, in Kensington & Chelsea, at 83.7 years for men and 87.8 years for women. Both male and female life expectancies are lowest in Glasgow.

Migration

Research by ONS has found that the International Passenger Survey (IPS), the main source for international migration estimates, does not provide good estimates of where migrants arriving in the UK go to live. In particular, it has been shown that IPS estimates of migrants going to live in London tend to be over-estimated and those intending to live in other parts of the UK are underestimated. This is because London is a gateway city, and, for some, only a short-term destination before moving again to other parts of the UK. As a consequence, a number of those stating an intention to live in London will actually very soon be more permanently living elsewhere. ONS research into alternative data sources has established that the Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides the best available estimates of the regional distribution of migrants into the UK. LFS data are now incorporated into the international migration methodology. This has lowered the previously estimated levels of net international migration into London for all years from 2001-02 to 2004-05. Data presented here are all on the new basis for calculation.

One of the main components of London’s high population growth in recent years is the estimated level of net migration. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s London was losing as many as 100 thousand residents annually through the balance of migration; losses were still around 50 thousand a year at the beginning of the 1980s. Since mid-1988 London’s population began to grow again due to the net migration losses (and the net effect of any other changes) being consistently less than the natural growth. Subsequently the balance of migration for London was positive since mid-1994 in all years up to 2001, with the exception of 1996-97. Since 2001, and allowing for the retrospective revisions to the distribution of international migration made by ONS, London has only once, in 2004-05 had a net migration inflow.

Table 1.5 shows the regional patterns of in and outflows for inter-regional migration (within the UK) and international migration at selected years since 1991. The most striking aspect of the table is the growth in the international flows to and from the UK with the net balance rising from 44 thousand in 1991 to 237 thousand in 2007, having been 244 thousand in 2004. London fully reflects this change and gained 32 thousand net international migrants in 1991 and 70 thousand in 2007. In the last five calendar years (2003 to 2007) London has had the greatest regional share of both the inflows (averaging 31 per cent) and outflows (averaging 28 per cent). However, while London’s share of the outflow has been fairly stable, its share of the inflow has declined, having been over 37 per cent in 2001 but just over 28 per cent in 2007.

In regard to inter-regional migration London has consistently been the region with the greatest outflow, and the second region, after the South East, in terms of inflows. It has therefore had a consistent net outflow of migrants to the rest of the UK. This outflow is a counterweight to the high natural growth of London and the high net international inflow. The net outflow has been relatively volatile, ranging from 45 thousand in 1996 to 116 thousand in 2003-04, but this largely reflects more modest changes in the large annual inflows (Table 1.2). Between 2001 and 2008 calender years, the inflows have ranged from 148 to 173 thousand and outflows from 229 to 268 thousand (Figure 1.6).

Migration into and out of London is at the centre of demographic changes affecting, to a greater or lesser extent, all regions of the UK. London is a magnet for young people from all parts of the UK and the rest of the world for education and jobs, but is generally less attractive to families and the elderly. The growing international attractiveness of London starting in the late 1990s appears to have been reflected in the growing numbers dispersing from London to the rest of the UK. In 1991 the net impact of migration to London was a loss of 21 thousand with 265 thousand arrivals and 286 thousand departures. By 2007 the net impact was a loss of 12 thousand but both the inflow and outflow had risen substantially to 326 thousand and 338 thousand respectively. Virtually all the rise in inflow was due to international immigration and virtually all the rise in outflow was due to inter-regional flows.

Table 1.7 shows a full matrix of inter-regional moves in 2007-08. Between 2005 and 2007 both the inflow to London and the outflow from London had tended to rise. During this period the net loss from London had been around 80 thousand persons a year. From late 2007 the inflow continued to rise but the outflow has fallen quite substantially from over 250 thousand in the year ending September 2007 to less than 239 thousand in the year ending June 2008. Most of this reduction is seen in moves to the neighbouring East and South East regions, Londoners’ main destinations. This appears to be the first recorded impact of the credit crunch on mobility and probably reflects the downturn in house sales. The inflow to London, which is mainly to the rented sector, appears to be unaffected. The reduction in outflow has led to London’s net loss reducing to just 56 thousand in the year ending September 2008. This level was last seen in the mid-1990s, and is less than half the mid-2004 figure.

Of the 168 thousand persons who moved to London, the South East (55 thousand) and the East (30 thousand) account for 50 per cent. It is a similar picture for London’s outflow: 239 thousand persons left London with the South East (92 thousand) and the East (62 thousand) receiving 64 per cent. In terms of the net flow between London and its two neighbouring regions the picture is even more dramatic, with a net flow of 69 thousand persons from London to the two regions out of London’s total net loss of 71 thousand: that is 97 per cent. London has a net loss to most regions, the exceptions are the small net gains from the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands and Wales, but the only other region to have a significant net gain from London is the South West at just five thousand.

Figure 1.8 shows migration between London and the rest of the UK by age groups in 2007-08. While London is a significant overall net loser of population through migration within the UK it has a net inflow at ages 16-24 and the gross inflow at these ages accounts for about 35 per cent of the total inflow. It is nearly twice as likely that a person aged 16-24 resident in the rest of the UK will move to London as will a person aged 25-44 and ten times more likely than a person aged 45-64. On the other hand the 16-24s and the 25-44s are also the age groups most likely to leave London.

Population turnover

Population turnover rates relate the combination of an area’s inflows and outflows to the resident population of the area. ONS publishes annual rates, based solely on moves within the UK, at the Middle layer Super Output Area (MSOA) level by broad age groups. The rates give an indication of the potential disruption to local services caused by migration. This is particularly important for education and social services. In extreme cases the turnover of persons in their late teens and twenties can exceed 1,000 per thousand residents, but this relates mainly to areas with student accommodation.

The data presented here are not specified by age groups, but give an indication of the differentials between the boroughs of all inflows and outflows, ie considering both UK and overseas flows drawn from the mid-year estimate change analyses.

Data for London need to be treated differently to that for each of the boroughs. The internal churn of persons moving within London, either between boroughs or within boroughs, needs to be considered. For London as a whole there is an inflow, from both the UK and overseas, equivalent to 45 per thousand residents and an outflow of 48 per thousand residents. Movements between boroughs amount to an average of over 300 thousand a year, equivalent to 42 per thousand London residents. These three factors add up to a turnover of 135 per thousand per year.

The 2001 Census identified 349 thousand Londoners who had moved within each of the 32 boroughs or the City of London in the previous year, this is equivalent to 49 per thousand of the 2001 Census resident population of London. At the individual borough level, nearly all had between 45 and 55 per thousand moves internal to the borough. The outliers being Havering (37 per thousand) and Wandsworth (63 per thousand).

When the within-borough movers are brought into the turnover calculation for London the average total turnover reaches 184 per thousand, ie over 18 per cent of the population moved in a year. It is quite possible for people to record more than one move in a year, particularly students and other single young adults as well as new arrivals from overseas, but the majority is content to move just once, if at all.

Map 1.9 shows the average 2001-07 standard turnover rates, ie not considering within borough moves. Table 1.16 shows the standard turnover together with the in-borough moves and total turnover. For both inflows and outflows inner boroughs have much higher turnover rates. The City of London is one of the highest, but this is to some extent artificial. Most changes of address are quite short distance. In a physically large borough, such as Bromley, a move of several kilometres can start and finish within the borough. In the City of London a move of just a few hundred metres is almost certain to cross a boundary with the surrounding boroughs.

The City apart, all nine boroughs with standard turnover rates in excess of 200 per thousand are inner boroughs, with the highest values in more west central boroughs: Westminster, Camden, Hammersmith & Fulham and Wandsworth. Throughout Inner London the availability of the private rented sector and the large numbers of students tend to push up the turnover rates. When internal borough moves are considered the highest total turnover levels rise to over 300 per thousand, ie 30 per cent of the population. The lowest standard turnover rates, of around 100 per thousand, are found in outer boroughs, particularly Havering, Bexley and Bromley to the east and Sutton in the south. When internal borough moves are considered total turnover in Havering is still the lowest at just 125 per thousand.

Households

London is the second largest region in terms of the number of households. At mid-2006 CLG estimated there were 3.18 million with the number having grown by 141 thousand (ie 28 thousand a year) since mid-2001 (Table 1.10). Only the South East region saw absolute growth of more than London at 151 thousand, though London is just below average in terms of percentage growth since 2001 at 4.7 per cent, with the East Midlands and the East regions growing the fastest – at over six per cent.

CLG household estimates for 2006 are the base for projections to 2031. These in turn are based in part on the ONS population estimates and projections and linked to an analysis of trends in marital status and household representative rates. Hence changes in ONS population estimates are key to the estimates of households presented here.

The household structure of London is quite extreme compared to other regions. Although London only has 14.8 per cent of households in England it has the highest proportions of Other Multi-person households (ie those formed of two or more unrelated adults) at 23.8 per cent and of Lone Parents (18.6 per cent). On the other hand London has the lowest proportion of Married Couples (11.1 per cent).

Most of these differences are explicable in terms of London’s young age structure and the particularly high proportions of the population that are single.

GLA Demographic Projections

Each year the GLA produces population, household and labour force projections at borough level based on the population at 2001 and taking account of the most recent demographic and development trends in each of the boroughs as well as national trends in fertility, mortality, marital status, household formation and economic activity. Recently two projections have been prepared, one taking direct account of actual recent housing development and expected future development in each of the boroughs.

The second has assumed that London’s average share of the international migration flows to and from the UK in the past five years continues into the future, using the ONS national assumption of UK international flows as the constraint. London’s share of international inflows has actually declined in the past few years, so the average for 2002-07 is rather higher than the most recent years (see Table 1.2). However, this still means that the migration-led projection is higher than the development-led projection.

As the projections commence in 2001 they do not necessarily coincide with the ONS mid-year estimates for 2007 or the CLG household figures for 2006. This account concentrates on the changes expected over the period of the London Plan that was published in 2008, from 2006 to 2026. It is also limited to the projection that uses expected development, referred to as the 2008 Round Low. The borough-supplied development inputs amount to an average of over 32 thousand new homes per year from 2006 to 2026 with a peak of over 40 thousand a year between 2011 and 2016. The growth in homes in each borough is directly reflected in the population and household projections.

Table 1.11 shows the total population rising by 1.09 million to 8.54 million between 2006 and 2026 with the number of households increasing by 647 thousand to reach 3.80 million by 2026. Significant changes are projected for household structure, with a reduction of 195 thousand married couples being offset by a rise of 214 thousand cohabiting couples. Most of the household increase (455 thousand) will be one-person households with 89 thousand more lone parents and 77 thousand more other (ie multi-adult non-family) households.

The increase in one-person households is concentrated in the ‘middle ages’ (35-69 particularly 45-54) where 398 thousand of the increase occurs. 228 thousand of this growth is male one-person households. Reductions in one-person households are projected at younger ages and for females in their seventies and eighties. These changes are consistent with reduced likelihood of marriage, more divorce and better male survival at older ages leading to reduced numbers of widows and shorter periods of widowhood. Most of the older single male one-person households will be former cohabitees. These men may well have children living with former partners and their housing requirements will be more akin to divorcees of a similar age.

The resident labour force is projected to grow by 578 thousand from 3.85 million in 2006 to 4.43 million in 2026.

Table 1.12 shows the key results of the 2008 Round Low projection for boroughs at 2006 and 2026.

The projection implies a significantly lower population at mid-2006 than does the ONS mid-2006 estimate. The comparison is 7.45 million with 7.51 million, a difference of ten thousand a year since the base of mid-2001.

The 2008 Round High projection, based on migration trends since 2001 and maintaining London’s recent share of international migration to and from the UK, shows that London’s population could rise to 8.86 million in 2026 with a potential of 3.93 million households.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

Похожие:

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconRich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconThis rich text version does not include all images. For a full version please view the pdf

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconThis rich text version does not include all images. For a full version please view the pdf

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconThis rich text version does not include all images. For a full version please view the pdf

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format icon[Version 1 (Jul 07 02). If you find and correct errors in the text, please update the version number by 1 and redistribute.]

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconEbook version 0—please increment version number if you make corrections to this text. Thanks! The Toad exploring the world of lucid dreaming

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconThis ebook is an updated version of the book Francis: Life and Lessons which was first published in print format by Authorhouse in 2010

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconChris, Geoff and others: make sure the final printed version has apostrophes (they’re lost in my version) and that Rick’s equations print ok

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconBrian Current program notes and info in Rich Text Format

Rich Text Version (rtf) – this version of the report has been produced in rtf format and all maps, tables and charts have been removed. A full version is available on this website in pdf format iconLa demande de financement doit parvenir par courrier électronique. L’envoyer en format rtf, pdf ou ps, en document attaché, à : martine revillon@cnrs-dir fr
«surveys» couvrant plusieurs années. Plusieurs de ces thèmes de recherche devraient déboucher à terme sur des applications plus pratiques...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница