Making sense of counterurbanization

Abstract

Non-metropolitan population growth has received extensive consideration since it was first observed in the United States nearly 30 years ago. The emergence, weakening and selective reappearance of this phenomenon across much of the developed world has spawned a large body of applied and academic literature. Many terms and phrases have been coined to describe this redistribution of population within the settlement system. The word “counterurbanization” is one that has received on-going attention in the literature. Although its verification, explanation and interpretation have occupied many research agendas, lack of consistency in definition hinders comparability. In this paper, I argue that the word counterurbanization is too broad to cover its depth of meaning. In its place, I propose adoption of three concepts to describe the changing spatial redistribution of population: counterurban, counterurbanizing, and counterurbanization. A framework integrating these concepts is offered, and templates for future study described. This exercise is timely given the recent release of census data.

Introduction

Nearly 30 years have now passed since practitioners and academics recognized that demographic changes were afoot across much of the United States (Beale (1974), Beale (1976), Beale (1977)). To the disbelief of the uninformed, smaller communities that had been dismissed as relics of a previous era were now growing, at a rate that took even the informed by surprise (Frisbie and Poston, 1975; Fuguitt et al., 1979). Between 1970 and 1974, for example, America's non-metropolitan and metropolitan areas grew by 5.6% and 3.4%, respectively, contrasting significantly with levels recorded only a decade earlier (of 4.1% and 17.1%) (Berry and Gillard, 1977). Before long, comparable trends were being presented for many countries of the developed world, prompting some to claim that a “demographic revolution” was underway (McLoughlin, 1991) (Table 1).

Many believed that these events heralded a new stage in non-metropolitan demography (Beale, 1974; Vining and Kontuly, 1978). However, trends that were documented in the late 1970s and early 1980s were soon to prove them wrong. In the United States, Engels (1986) reported that by 1980 non-metropolitan growth rates again had fallen behind those occurring in metropolitan counties. Comparable statistics were collected in Britain, where Champion (1987) demonstrated that rural population growth peaked in the early 1970s, only to fall again during the subsequent decade.

Although the trends of the 1970s have never been duplicated, the late 1980s began to show signs of non-metropolitan recovery. In the United States, for example, Long and Nucci (1997) demonstrated that an index of concentration for non-metropolitan counties fell during the 1990s, as it had done two decades earlier. Similar trends during that decade also were observed for select parts of Canada, Britain and Australia, giving rise to a renewed interest in the study of population redistribution (Table 1).

Over the years, many words and phrases have been coined to describe the demographic changes that are apparent in non-metropolitan regions. The concept, “counterurbanization”, is one that has received on-going attention in the literature (see, for example, Berry (1976a), Berry (1976b); Fielding, 1982; Robert and Randolph, 1983; Dean, 1984; Vartiainen, 1989a; Champion (1990a), Champion (1998)). Its usage, however, has been far from consistent. In fact, Champion (1992), Champion (1998) and others (Halfacree, 1994) have gone so far as to suggest that it is a chaotic conception, while Cloke (1985, p. 14) calls it a “stretched and diluted catch-all phrase”, and Sant and Simon (1993, p. 113) claim it to be an elusive hypothesis. In this paper, I hope to reduce some of the confusion surrounding this word, with the ultimate goal of promoting more consistent usage amongst academics and practitioners.

The study proceeds in four steps. In part one, I review the myriad definitions of counterurbanization that have appeared in the literature over the past three decades. Based on this assessment, I suggest that clarification can only be achieved if this term is replaced with three related concepts. In the next section, a conceptual framework illustrating the relationship between these concepts is explored. Part three presents templates to guide future studies. Conclusions are drawn in the final section and their implications articulated.