FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DET SAMFUNDSVIDENSKABELIGE FAKULTET
Counterurbanization
A literature study
Szilvia Hosszú
Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development • IFUL
Working Paper
No. 06/2009
Counterurbanization
A literature study
Szilvia Hosszú
April 2009
Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development
Working Paper
No. 6/2009
All rights reserved. No part of this WORKING PAPER may be
used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the written permission of IFUL except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.
© University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg and the authors,
2009
Editor: Gunnar Lind Haase Svendsen
Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development (IFUL)
IFUL WORKING PAPER 6/2009
ISBN 978-87-91304-39-2
Szilvia Hosszú
Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development (IFUL)
University of Southern Denmark
Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10
DK-6700 Esbjerg
Tel.: +45 6550 4221
Fax:
+45 6550 1091
E-mail: [email protected]
Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................... 3 2. Phases of urbanization ...................................................... 7 3. What is counterurbanization? ......................................... 15 4. Motivations .................................................................... 28 5. Discussion ...................................................................... 48 6. Conclusion...................................................................... 50 1
Abstract
In order to achieve and foster spatial cohesion – as it is the aim
of the European Union (ESDP 1999) – the knowledge about
the demographic and occupational development of the EU
member states is indispensable. Therefore, it may surprise that
the information and knowledge about regional structural
changes is rather limited. This also includes major demographic changes in European regions.
Hence, the contribution of the present paper becomes to sum
up some of the things we know about this important issue.
More specifically, key definitions of counterurbanization are
presented and discussed.
There are at least two reasons for focussing on counterurbanization. Firstly, the recent population development in Europe is
highly complex. Whereas in some countries there are clear tendencies of demographic concentration (e.g. Finland, Denmark
and Sweden), others (e.g. Ireland, Greece and Spain) are characterized by suburbanization tendencies. Furthermore, in most
of the central European states both population and employment
are undergoing some forms of deconcentration. Secondly, conceptual confusion reigns. Thus, the term ’counterurbanization’
is usually used as a synonym of desurbanization. However,
crucial differences can be observed. The overall aim of this paper, then, becomes to explore the nature of counterurbanization
and to analyze the aspects of this modern geographical phenomenon. It seeks to explain what exactly counterurbanization
is and what its main driving-forces are. Empirical results within
this research area indicate that counterurbanization is more
than simple relocation of residences. Rather, it seems to consist
of a complex serial of changes.
Keywords: counterurbanization, desurbanization, rural migration, motivation
1. Introduction
During the 1970s, a new phenomenon appeared in the United
States. The population of the metropolitan areas started to decrease, while the remote and small areas started to gain population through net migration. At almost the same time, this tendency was observed in the western part of Europe as well. The
deconcentration of people and economic activities slowed
down in the 1980s. Since then reurbanization has prevailed.
However, some counterurbanization can still be observed.
Thus, e.g. NIVALAINEN (2003 p.3) reports, that even in Finland,
which has never experienced real counterurbanization, “there
is a constant inflow of migrants also to peripheral and more
distant regions”. Therefore, it is important not to forget such
counter flows, only because the main stream is going to the urban areas.
3
While population turnaround is a well-known phenomenon in
the developed part of the world, the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe have just started to experience this process at
present. In the time of the economic transition in the early
1990s, the forced industrialization stopped, hundreds of factories closed down, and thousands of people became unemployed. After the crisis, new types of industries were established, not just in the central areas, but beyond urban agglomerations as well. People were free to move, there were no restrictions anymore. Nevertheless, the rural areas were still losing population. During the Communist period, CEEC governments considered small places unprofitable and redundant.
Hence, they promoted rural-urban migration and by attempting
to reduce the number of small, rural places. Therefore, rural
areas in the CEEC got a bad reputation (RÁTZ – PUCKÓ 1998).
However, in the late 1990s people began to rediscover rural
values, and the importance of rural tourism increased. In recent
years, some desurbanization has taken place, although the rebuilding of the central cities and gentrification has blenched the
importance of it.
This said, repopulation of rural areas has exerted a significant
influence on demographic processes. Therefore, it is unfortunate that a high degree of conceptual confusion reigns – not
least in what regards counterurbanization. Although the litera4
ture provides us with substantial research within this field, not
only the concept, but also the denomination appears unclear. A
myriad of concepts and names for these demographic processes
exist. Some researchers summarize them as desurbanization
(e.g.
VAN DEN
BERG 1982, ENYEDI 1988, TIMÁR 1999), or
disurbanisation (VARTIAINEN 1989). Others prefer the term
counterurbanization (e.g. BERRY 1976, DAHMS – MCCOMB
1999, LÖFFLER – STEINICKE 2006). Some prefer the spelling
counterurbanisation (e.g. HALLIDAY – COOMBES 1995,
SPENCER 1997, AINSAAR 2004), others counter-urbanisation
(e.g. ILLERIS 1990, LEESON 2002, JENSEN – SVENDSEN 2007),
while some researchers are simply trying to avoid the whole
term and refer to the process as urban-rural migration (e.g. NIVALAINEN
2003), population turnaround (FUGUITT 1985,
BRUNLEY – MURPHY 2002), rural repopulation (STOCKDALE ET
AL.
2000) and so on. In this paper, the term ‘counterurbaniza-
tion’ is used, in line with one of the first explorers of the phenomena, BERRY (1976). On this background, the purpose of the
paper becomes to examine the different approaches of counterurbanization. The attempt is to categorize and discuss these
approaches while emphasising main similarities and dissimilarities.
Not only in the past, but also nowadays many rural areas are
losing population through out-migration. We are at the turning
point, when almost more people are living in urban than in ru5
ral areas (UN 2007). Therefore, for a rural community it can be
important to know what kind of amenities people may wish to
have in their residence place. How can these small places attract urban dwellers? To answer this question would be a much
easier task if this paper was discussing the early stage of urbanisation. At that phase, the motivations and the changes in
economy were so strongly bound together, that there was no
doubt, why and where people wanted or had to move. In the
case of counterurbanization, so many factors are playing part in
the process, that the task – to identify one prime motivator –
looks impossible. On this base, this paper seeks to accumulate
the main driving forces, because counterurbanization cannot
fully be understood without knowing the motivations behind it.
The paper begins by briefly introducing the phases of urbanization. This due to a belief that counterurbanization cannot be
analyzed without knowing the whole system. Chapter 3 introduces theories of counterurbanization and tries to categorize
them. The motivations of migrants also need to be included in
the definition. Therefore, Chapter 4 addresses the question of
important driving-forces. Chapter 5 offers a typology of population turnaround, and conclusions are drawn in the final chapter.
6
2. Phases of urbanization
Contemporary urbanisation is global and can be divided into
phases. The word ’urbanization’ has a double meaning. From
one perspective, it denounces the continuous increase of urban
populations. In another perspective, it means the spread of the
urban lifestyle and infrastructure in the whole settlement system (ENYEDI, GY. 1988). The phases of urbanisation are well
known after the work of
VAN DEN
BERG, L. ET AL. (1982), who
suggested a 4-phases-model of town development (see Table
1.). By studying the migration tendencies and the development
of the urban core, fringe and the hinterland, we can distinguish
four main stages of the process: urbanisation, suburbanisation,
desurbanization and reurbanisation. In order to get a better understanding of the theory of counterurbanization, I will shortly
go through these phases in the following. This in an attempt to
provide an overall picture of urbanization processes, before I
turn to the definitions and applications of ‘counterurbanization’
in Section 3.
7
Table 1. The stages of development in a FUR * (Source: VAN
DEN BERG, L. ET AL. 1982)
Stage of
development
Classification type
Population change
characteristics
Core
Ring
FUR
I Urbanization
1 Absolute centralization
2 Relative centralization
++
++
+
+
+++
II Suburbanization
3 Relative decentralization
4 Absolute decentralization
+
-
++
++
+++
+
III Desurbanization 5 Absolute decentralization
6 Relative decentralization
---
+
-
---
VI Reurbanization
+
---
---
7 Relative centralization
8 Absolute centralization
Urbanization is the stage of fast expansion of cities. This
stage takes place when a primarily agricultural country gradually becomes industrial. The labour demand of the agricultural
sector, which owns the biggest share of the employment market, is radically decreasing. Because of the traditionally higher
fertility rate of rural areas and the new acquisitions of modern
technology, the unemployment rate of those areas is growing.
The redundant labour force has to leave and search for new occupations. The smaller communities are experiencing a huge
*
Functional Urban Region: Urban centres with population around 200,000 people and surrounding areas dependent on those centres (having a commuting rate of over 15 per cent) (VAN
DEN BERG ET AL. 1982).
8
out-migration. Historically, in some places it was experienced
like an outright ‘exodus’, while the towns and especially the
biggest metropolitan areas started to grow rapidly. It means
that centralization of jobs is followed by centralization of people. The rapidly developing manufacturing sector, which usually has a centralized localization, tends to absorb rural migrants. Therefore, people are migrating not only between economic sectors, but between settlement types as well. They are
moving to those promising urban territories that are favourable
to industrialization. Therefore, development is concentrated in
towns, while the wider hinterland is stagnating or may even
retrograde. Other ‘weak’ factors like family connections, urban
lifestyle or environment are playing a very little part in this
process, and individual preferences are being limited.
This urbanization phase has appeared in different countries at
different times. After the Industrial Revolution in England, it
took place in the developed western part of Europe, and after
the 1860s, it was a characteristic process in the USA as well. In
these countries, this phase was a long-term process, and by the
end of the 1950s, the rate of the urban population was about
70-80% (ENYEDI 1988). In the capitalist countries, the main
driving force behind the process was the market, and the state
had little influence on it.
9
In Central and Eastern Europe, urbanization began in the 19th
century and peaked between 1950-1975. These countries are
usually characterized as homogeneous units; however, significant differences can be noticed as well. In some areas (e.g.
Thuringia, Saxony, Moravian-Silesian) urbanization already
started in the early 19th century and resulted in a fast urban
growth, while in other parts (e.g. Mecklenburg, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Transylvania) the process took place much later
and was only a copy of the urbanization experienced in western
countries (KOVÁCS 2002). Despite these differences, the political environment had a great impact on the development of the
settlement system in CEEC countries after the Second World
War. The forced industrialization and the communist ideas did
not let the market forces manipulate the spatial pattern, therefore researchers started to talk about the existence of ‘socialist
urbanization’ (SZELÉNYI, 1983, ENYEDI 1989).
The developing part of the world is experiencing such phenomena nowadays. The process started in the late 1950s, and
the percentage of the urban population has since then increased
rapidly (1950: 17%, 2007: 27%, 2050:67% - UNITED NATIONS,
2007, Table I.1). Hence, in essence, we here find the same
process as the one that took place in the developed countries,
although the driving-forces differ slightly. In some countries
(e.g. Latin American countries), industrialization is pulling the
population into towns, while in other areas (e.g. African coun10
tries) it is mainly an agricultural crisis that stampedes people
toward the urban territories (ENYEDI 1988).
Suburbanization is the second stage of urbanization, which
can be seen as a ’qualitative improvement’ of urbanization
(VAN DEN BERG ET AL. 1982). This stage involves that individual preferences are getting more and more important. When
choosing a home place, people tend to be more willing to pick
a greener and smaller town close to a big city, although they
are working in the urban centre. The migration pattern remains
centralized, but within the Functional Urban Region (FUR), the
decentralization tendency of the population begins to dominate.
The city as a whole is still gaining population from rural territories, but the ring of the city shows a faster growth both in
number of people and economic activities compared with the
centre itself (TIMÁR 1999).
In the capitalist countries, suburbanization became an important trend between 1930 and 1960 (ENYEDI 1988). People, and
especially the more educated with high incomes, started to migrate out from the core areas to the suburbia. All over the western world, new towns started to grow close to the city centres,
creating agglomerations, conurbations and edge cities. In the
communist countries the phase was again delayed, starting not
until the 1970s, and it can be experienced nowadays as well.
Before the economic transition, suburbanization was both con11
sistent with, and discrepant from, the western type. It was the
same process in term of population deconcentration. However,
at the same time it was also different if we look at the origins
of migrants. In the developed part of the world, it was mainly
the more wealthy people who were able to move out of the city
in search of a ‘suburban dream’. In the Eastern European countries, the dominating trend has been that people move to the
suburbia because of lack of houses in the centre, or because of
cheaper house prices. Thus the question becomes whether we
want to emphasise the similarities or differences (KOVÁCS
2002).
It is possible to mention several explanations of why suburbanisation appeared, e.g. economic restructuring, the increasing
importance of the service sector, development of transport and
service systems, new cultural trends, etc. According to TIMÁR
(1994, 1999), different phases can be distinguished in the life
of the suburbia: incipient, mass, and decadent periods. The first
one only involves effects on small groups in society. The second one is the extensive development of suburbia, which can
be described as a strong decentralization process within the urban territories; a great number of people migrating to the ‘garden towns’ and building suburban zones. The third period is
characterized by decline of the suburbia. There are two main
processes, which may cause the decline of the suburbia: gentrification and desurbanization.
12
The subsequent phase is desurbanization or counterurbanization (usually used as synonyms), which is in the focus of this
paper. Desurbanization appears when accessibility of the city
centre becomes ‘non-acceptable’ for those living in the suburbia (VAN DEN BERG ET AL. 1982). Hence, we are talking about a
shift of growth centres from the metropolitan regions to outside
of the urban agglomerations (ENYEDI 1988). Due to this, the
redistribution of people and businesses leads toward a more
balanced settlement pattern. By now, we see a decentralization
process from the point of the rural population as well; the
growing settlements are dispersed around the whole country.
On one hand, this may cause the decline of suburbia (TIMÁR
1994, 1999); on the other hand, it may lead to revitalization of
some rural areas. Of course, not all settlement is affected by
counterurbanization: those peripheral areas where there is not
adequate accessibility to infrastructure, or where local values
remain undiscovered may suffer from isolation in the future as
well (ANTROP 2004).
For the first time in the history of urbanization, the counterurbanization phase took place in the New World, and not in
Europe. By the end of the 1960s, the growth of the big American cities slowed down and some even started to lose population, while some small remote, but accessible places experienced rapid growth again, for the first time in the post-war pe13
riod (BERRY 1976, DAHMS – MCCOMB 1998). In the United
Kingdom counterurbanization also started in the 1960s. The
realization hereof came, however, according to GILG (1985)
due to the confusing denomination. In the Nordic countries
(except Finland), counterurbanization became an obvious phenomenon in the 1970s, while in the eastern and central part of
the EU it is just emerging (AINSAAR 2004).
As to what regards causality, it can be observed that economic
and employment driven migration is less strong than before,
and new factors like immaterial values have become more and
more important in the decision-making.
The fourth stage of urbanization is the so-called reurbanization, which today can be found in the most developed part of
the world. For example, it can be observed in the Nordic countries (PANEBIANCO – KIEHL 2003). The phenomenon implies a
movement from the rural places back to the urban areas.
Hence, what we see is a reiterated concentration process (ENYEDI 1988).
The main reason is the restructuring of the city and
the new interpretation of the downtown. The so-called ’gentrification’ and ’social downtown rehabilitation’ are important
features in modern urban planning policies.
14
3. What is counterurbanization?
Counterurbanization was observed for the first time in the
USA. The population redistribution started in the 1960s, but
became an important feature only in the 1970s. The process
was working in Europe as well, but the investigation and
documentation of it was here delayed. Following GILG (1985),
it was not taken into account as a possibility, because of misinterpretation. More than 30 years have passed since then. However, the concept of counterurbanization is still not completely
clear and current. As MITCHELL (2004) concluded, counterurbanization is a ’chaotic concept’ (p. 21).
In comparison to counterurbanization, urbanization was ’quite
a simple pattern to describe…’ (HALLIDAY – COOMBES 1995,
p. 435). In the case of counterurbanization, the connected area
is so large and dispersed that it is hard to identify and localize
the counterurban settlements. Most of the studies in this research field rely on the concept of BERRY (1976 p. 17.):
„…counterurbanization is a process of
population deconcentration; it implies a
movement from a state of more concentration to a state of less concentration.”
15
Looking at this definition, we can see that counterurbanization
presupposes migration from large settlements to small places,
prompting that during the process the settlement system is
transformed into a more balanced pattern, both in terms of
population density and state of development. However, even if
this definition sounds simple, it can be interpreted in different
ways: it can be seen as a radical lifestyle-change, continuing
urbanization, a deconcentration process or a stage in the life of
the town. In the following part, these interpretations will be
shortly introduced.
Because of the selective nature of migration, the process of
counterurbanization can cause many changes in some places,
while others may remain untouched. After the definition of
BERRY (1976), those remote and small rural settlements can be
termed ‘counterurban’, that is, places which are gaining the
majority of the population through migration, and the origins of
the immigrants are big cities. However, what is remote and
what is rural? How far should we move from a city if we want
to become a counterurban person? Is it a concrete distance or
do we only have to step through an administrative border?
16
Table 2. The main characteristics of the approaches
Simple
living
Migration of
households
Destination
of move
Outside the
metropolitan
influence
Inside the
metropolitan
influence
Lifestyle
From metropolitan * to
simple
From metropolitan to
suburban
Process
Deconcentration
Concentration
Deconcentration
Concentration
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
The main
motivating
factors
Deconcentration
process
Outside the
metropolitan
influence
From metropolitan to
rural/urban †∗
ral/urban †∗∗
Development stage
From suburban to metropolitan
What is rural?
Researchers dealing with this topic often define counterurbanization as a migration from urban to rural. Many studies examine the phenomenon in an individual case area which has administrative borders, and which is called ‘rural’. However,
what does this exactly mean? What is rural?
*
Metropolitan lifestyle includes lifestyle in big city centres, and lifestyle in the suburbia of
those centres.
∗∗
Urban means the typical lifestyle in small and middle-sized towns
17
Many studies attempt to define ’rural’ and ‘rurality’ as the opposite of ‘urban’ and ‘urbanity’. It should not be forgotten that
rural areas are not only statistically defined areas or specific
architectural compositions of buildings, but also a social formation. However, according to the OECD, an area is defined as
rural if more than 50% of the population lives in rural communities * , and the biggest urban centre is below 200 000 inhabitants. If 15-50% of the population lives in rural communities,
and the biggest urban centre is below 500 000, it is called intermediate region (OECD p. 178). Pursuant to this, many countries (e.g. Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Hungary and Greece) have only one urban region. In this
case, every out-migration from the capital can be seen as counterurbanization, while all the other migration flows can be
characterized as urbanization or rural migration. In this way it
seems easy to count migration flows, however, main features
may remain undiscovered. There is a big chance to confuse directions and motivations and we might make a mistake counting rural-urban or rural-rural flows as counterurbanization, or
we might only be able to find ‘spill over’ examples, not real
counterurban settlements (HALLIDAY – COOMBES 1995).
Therefore, the case area has to be chosen very carefully. If
counterurbanization means a population shift down the settle*
Rural community is associated with territories, where the population density is below 150
inhabitants per square kilometre
18
ment hierarchy, the sending place will be just as important as
the receiving.
The infrastructural, economical and sociological differences
between urban and rural places are fading. Maybe urbanization
leads to the blurring of urban-rural divide (CHAMPION 2007),
however, it has to be recognised that the two ends of the scale
of settlement system is drawing more and more away from
each other. Maybe in the future, it makes more sense to make a
distinction between central and peripheral areas, than between
urban and rural areas.
What is remote and small?
Many studies do not state explicitly what they mean by ‘remote’ or ‘small’. There are only two important features: it
should be further from the agglomeration areas, and it should
be smaller than the sending place. Hence, most of the studies
name those growing settlement as counterurban, which are beyond the metropolitan administration area. In this interpretation, counterurbanization can be a continuing suburbanisation,
just outside of the ring areas.
The other group of studies declare that counterurbanization
should take place further from the metropolitan borders. One
indicator of the changes can be the reduction of the numbers of
commuters, or the reduction of the average commuting dis19
tance, because now the countryside is able to provide jobs
again. We can distinguish between not only local, regional or
national, but also between international counterurbanization
(BULLER – HOGGART 1994, LAOIRE 2007).
As it was mentioned before, counterurbanization can be accepted as a downward migration in the settlement hierarchy
(e.g. BERRY 1976, CHAMPION – VANDERMOTTEN 1997,
WALMSLEY
ET AL.
1998), mainly in intraregional scale. In the
literature, this process is often called ‘the counterurbanization
cascade’ (CHAMPION 2005). In this case, distance is not important. The emphasis is on the hierarchical positions of the sending and receiving settlements. If we take this idea as a base,
then a new question will emerge: how many stairs should we
step down to experience counterurbanization?
3.1 Simple living
The word ‘counterurbanization’ prompts that this should be
something which is the opposite of urbanization. If urbanization is a process of spreading urban civilisation around the
whole country, then counterurbanization will mean the spread
of the rural lifestyle (or the modern equivalent of it), while importance of urban technologies, way of life and values are fading. There are two main forms of this process: anti-urbanisation
and voluntary simplicity.
20
The first means a radical change in life, when people reject
modernisation and try to live a plain life. As BUURSINK (1986)
arguing the term should equal with de-modernisation, with the
return to pre-industrial lifestyle, and should be used in those
situations when big parts of cities become empty. Therefore,
when people move to rural places, but continue living in a
’modern’ way, are:
“the very symptoms of the continuing process of urbanization, but encompassing the
whole
country” and “terms
such
as
´desurbanisation´ and ´counterurbanization´
are meaningless in societies where the ‘urban’ is everywhere”. (BUURSINK 1986 p.
207)
Voluntary simplicity essentially means that people assume a
lifestyle which is “outwardly simple and inwardly rich” … “a
desire to return to living and working environments which are
of a more human scale…” (ELGIN – MITCHELL 1977 p. 2).
Voluntary simplicity does not equal with the above-mentioned
‘back-to-nature’ movement, but it might include those who
move to rural areas to live in a self-sufficient way (CRAIG-LEES
– HILL 2002).
21
…“Although some individuals or groups
may break with this process of modernization and may retreat into some very remote
place or specific subculture in order to take
up an anti-urban life-style and to protect
anti-urban values, society as a whole does
not
show
any
signs
of
´counterurbanization´” (BUURSINK p. 208).
As I see it, we have to distinguish between ´urbanization´, as
an
overall
phrase
of
settlement
development,
and
´urbanization´ as a stage of town development. The former refers to the evolution of the settlement system, while the latter
only refers to the growth of the metropolitan areas. Thus, counterurbanization is of course part of the overall urbanization, but
differs from the beginning of it.
3.2 Counterurbanization as a migration of households
Counterurbanization can be interpreted as a migratory movement of households from bigger (or central) to smaller (or remote) places (e.g. ROBERT – RANDOLPH 1983, CHAMPION
1990, DAHMS – MCCOMB 1999, MITCHELL 2004, STOCKDALE
ET AL. 2000, STOCKDALE 2006).
Therefore, the concept concen-
trates on the relocation of urban residences and the motivations
of the move and not to the changes experienced in the settlement pattern. Because we are only talking about the transfers
22
of homes, counterurbanization is limited in space. Thus, counterurbanization can be seen as a continuing suburbanization,
just outside the ring areas. People who move to those areas retain a strong connection with the city centre; they work there,
they study there and they go shopping there. Because of the
well-developed transportation system, employees can commute
from further distances than before. This way of living can be
very similar to the original suburban lifestyle (living in a garden house, but having a job in a city and spending free time
there as well).
Robert and Randolph (1983 p. 78) argues that:
“Movement out from a central city to other
parts of the city region, or “daily urban system”, is defined as “decentralization”.
Movement down the urban hierarchy, but
between city regions or into rural areas, is
termed “deconcentration”. … “Both are
prerequisites for counter-urbanization.”
However, they did not make explicit, how it is possible to
make the distinction between continuing suburbanization and
counterurbanization. Where is the border between ‘ex-urban’
or ‘perimetropolitan growth’, or as FIELDING (1986) referred,
‘periurbanization’ and dezurbanization?
23
3.3 Counterurbanization as a deconcentration process
COOMBES
ET AL.
(1989) and HALLIDAY and COOMBES (1995)
argue with the above-mentioned approach, however. In their
interpretation counterurbanization should be something which
is a ’clean break’ from past movements and not only a ’spill
over’. In this case, a ’true counterurban person’ does not just
move out of the city, but chooses a more rural place to live and
work, and has changes in his/her life. The movement is now a
deconcentration process from a countryside perspective as
well.
Many studies concentrate on the changes which can be observed in the settlement system. Therefore, the focus shifts
from migration to the outcome of it, to the new settlement pattern (FUGUITT 1985), which can be called ‘counterurban’
(MITCHELL 2004). It should be more balanced, both in terms of
population and in terms of employment; therefore, counterurbanization means not only the relocation of households, but
also implies a job transfer for employed people. As WALFORD
(2004 p. 312) writes:
“…the significance of a shift in the balance
of population between urban and rural areas goes beyond residential relocation and
may be indicative of structural shifts in economic and political power relations.”
24
AINSAAR (2004 p. 21) concludes that:
“…the distance of migration from larger
towns is an essential differentiator between
suburbanisation and counterurbanization”
This interpretation is questioning the importance of distance,
however. The modern transporting systems and communication
technologies provide sufficient accessibility for some remote
places as well; therefore, their citizens are able to commute
long distances every day. For instance, in the case of Denmark,
the commuting zone of Copenhagen covers almost the whole
island of Zealand (ANDERSEN – ENGELSTOFT 2004). The main
feature of counterurbanization should be connected to employment. Not just people, but jobs are migrating down the settlement hierarchy as well, and people break up almost completely with the original city.
In this understanding, counterurbanization is a complex deconcentration process, which involves relative change in the lifestyle of the migrants. Changes that are wanted by the migrants,
and he/she is not forced to do that. Therefore, in the decisionmaking process ‘weak factors’ (e.g. environment, safety,
neighbourhood) are just as important, or may even have greater
importance, than ‘hard factors’ (e.g. employment, income, liv25
ing costs) (FUGUITT 1985). However, what can be understood
by new lifestyle?
On the one hand, those who are migrating to villages or farms
may search for a ‘more rural lifestyle’, although, it is hard to
define what the expression means exactly. It can differ from
person to person; it is an expressive and meaningful term. In a
broad sense, it means to live in ’rural idyll’ (see p. 28), “resembling a natural setting and holding the potential for participating in real communities” (CHAMPION 2007 p. 30).
Therefore, ideologically, counterurbanization can also be identified with the spread of this new lifestyle, which is mainly the
“combination of city-life and ‘rural-like’ dwelling” (VARTIAINEN
1989 p. 222).
On the other hand, those who migrate to small or middle-sized
towns may be the ones who prefer to live an urban life. Therefore, they
“…may well be returning from a suburban
to an urban life-style, albeit in a smallersized urban centre.” (VAN DEN BERG ET AL.
1982 p. 37)
As GOTTLIEB (2006) argues in his work, if people and businesses are moving down the settlement hierarchy, they will
26
cause changes in it by increasing the population density, the
number of jobs, services and functions. If this change happens,
importance of the settlement as an economic and population
centre may rise, causing a migration up in the settlement hierarchy. Therefore, the population is becoming less concentrated
in space, but the settlement system will not be less metropolitan at all. In this approach, the population redistribution can be
interpreted as a ‘self-defeating’ process: people run away from
urban territories, but with that follow migration, and they may
change the chosen rural settlement into urban. The concept of
‘urban transition’ claims that through urbanization not only
people, but ’urban’ amenities are migrating down the settlement hierarchy, transforming the settlement system from ‘rural’ to ‘urban’. Therefore the concept supposes, that ‘rural’
...”will indeed disappear completely” (CHAMPION 2007, p.23).
Following this line of thinking, it can be assumed that ‘rural
lifestyle’ will vanish as well.
3.4 Counterurbanization as a process of settlement development
The last approach differs a little from the others. The first three
approaches, however, were different from each other, all of
them prerequisites of some kind of population distribution. In
this point of view, counterurbanization is a stage in the life of a
settlement, which can be reached if the commuting directions
are changed. In other words, if a settlement can provide satisfy27
ing quality and quantity of employment and services not only
for the locals but also others as well, and there are thus more
in-commuters than out-commuters, we can call the settlement
counterurban (STUDIO METROPOLITANA 2001, BAKOS 2003).
Counterurbanization therefore does not mean the redistribution
of people, but rather the redistribution or suburbanization of
employment.
Compared with other approaches, this theory, however, drawing up an interesting perspective of urban evolution, does not
give a good base for counterurbanization researches. The idea
they refer to so far is from the conception of BERRY (1976),
and does not answer the question of growing remote settlements. In the future, it will be left out of consideration and here
it is only mentioned as an interesting and differing interpretation of the word.
4. Motivations
Today, many rural areas are suffering from deep economical
and demographical problems. They are unable to attract or
even maintain their population (SPENCER 1997), and the gap
between metropolitan and peripheral areas becomes deeper and
deeper. The young adults prefer to move to metropolitan areas
in order to get access to education, employment and career, but
they may prefer to return later on (NIVALAINEN 2003). Urban
28
population sees rural areas as a bucolic and better environment
to live in, but only few decide to move there. How can we encourage them to move to those rural places? What can a small
community offer to attract urban dwellers?
Migration is a selective process, not everybody and not all settlements are involved in. Some age cohorts are more mobile
than others, and some destinations are more attractive than others. Preferences, motivations and destinations may differ by
age groups, level of education and income. Therefore, the attractiveness of a place can depend on many things. We could
name many factors: accessibility, level of modernisation, services, employment possibilities, nature, way-of-life, family
ties, recreational facilities and so on. Not all small hamlets and
towns are able to provide satisfying services and to be an attractive place for people coming from busy and modernized
towns. Therefore, the population turnaround can cause a kind
of rural revival by activating the local community, dynamiting
the economy and emphasising the importance of the environment. As Peter Mayle said about the counterurbanization of the
French countryside:
“I have a terrible feeling that the French
would love it all. It’s the refugees who hope
that Provance will stay the way they found
29
it.” (Quoted in BULLER – HOGGART 1994,
p.131)
In the process of counterurbanization, the rural areas are playing an important role as well, and not just passive receivers of
migrants (ENYEDI 1988). Therefore, the main driving-forces
can be distinguished not only by their effects, but also geographically. Those motives that appear in the sending areas,
and actuate the out-migration flows and ‘leading to disurbanisation’ can be characterized as ‘push’ or ‘anti-metropolitan’,
’anti-urban’ factors, while those working in the host area and
’leading to reruralisation’ (VARTIAINEN 1989 p. 219) can be
called ’pull’ or ’pre-rural’ factors (HALLIDAY – COOMBES
1995, STOCKDALE ET AL. 2000). At the same time, we can also
differentiate ‘strong’ (e.g. housing price, living costs differences) and ‘weak’ elements (e.g. environment or safety). In the
following sections, the main motivators are going to be introduced through three main perspectives: the structural, the behavioural and the age-specific approaches.
30
Table 3. Possible explanations of counterurbanization
Structural explanations
Behavioural explanations
Transportation and communi-
Rural idyll
cation system
Economy and employment
Family and friends
Role of the State
Collective reaction
Bottom-up initiatives
Individualism
Age-specific explanations
Young-middle ages
Pre-retirement
Retirement
4.1 Structural explanations
This group of theories approaches the question from a structural perspective. It means that they explain the new migration
tendencies as an employment and profit-orientated actions of
people. Therefore, the needs or wishes of people are not important. It denies that people move voluntary. They move because
they are forced to do that.
“…our freedom to choose a suitable dwelling place is still highly conditioned by our
31
economic resources” (VARTIAINEN 1989
p.220.)
“How ‘free’ any decision-maker is when
they have no control over the wider structural circumstances in which their decision
are taken” (LUNDHOLM ET AL. 2004 p. 66).
This paper is categorizing the structural theories into four main
approaches: transportation system and communication technology, economic and employment, the role of the state and
bottom-up initiatives. The subsequent chapter introduces them
shortly.
Transportation system and communication technology
In the past it was obvious that the development of the transportation system could significantly affect population disperse.
The cities could admit a large number of immigrants from rural
areas and the borders radically stretched out; however, they
were able to conserve the importance of the city centre. Without good and fast motorways, commuting would have been impossible, and suburbanisation could not take place (ERDŐSI
1990, ANTROP 2004). Due to high level of technologies, nowadays not just jobs and households elongated in space, but also
family and other relationships (STOCKDALE 2006). Because of
these reasons, it might be important to consider the level of
32
transportation system and communication technology as possible motivations of urban outmigration.
As it was mentioned before, migration is a selective process;
not all hamlets and small towns are involved in it. Accessibility
can be a very important criterion. In the century of high technology, it is possible to get from one capital to another within a
few hours; however, the accessibility of smaller places in some
areas is not always satisfying. Those towns and villages are
usually more attractive for counterurban migrants, who are
close to main roads and/or have good and reliable communication technology. These factors can be much more fundamental
when we look at the deconcentration of jobs.
People who have moved to remote places, but still maintaining
a job in a city centre, may not want to commute every day.
They would prefer to stay at home and work there as well.
Nevertheless, if they want to work at home they have to have a
satisfying hardware and software system. The prime costs of
those systems can be very high, and cannot be granted by every
household. The idea that jobs and household are joining in
space again sounds good for the first time, however, can cause
changes in private life as well. Work problems and family life
cannot be distinguished that easily, and may generate some
problems and frustration. However, the local authority may be
able to provide a good solution for them. It can inspire citizens
33
to work locally by establishing ‘telehouses’. It means that the
authority provides place and technology for working. Thus,
people go to work every day, but they do not have to commute.
The first ’telehouses’ were set in Sweden and it seems like a
good compromise between official and private life.
There is no doubt that the level of transportation and communication system is important in the development of regions, but it
cannot be established that it is able to cause any kind of rural
in-migration.
Economy and employment
One way of explaining population turnaround can be the connection of the waves of economy and the redistribution of employment. Positive relationship can be examined between the
level of economy and net migration from rural areas: when
economy is increasing, urbanization is speeding up; when
economy is decreasing, urbanization is slowing down as well,
or may even reverse. According to the post-Fordism approach,
counterurbanization occurs when the traditional urban localized
manufacturing sector is losing importance, and the labour demand of it becomes less strong. Because of de-industrialisation,
hundreds of employees have to leave their jobs because of cutbacks or breaks. Less job opportunities are available in towns,
and the new centres of production prefer rural areas. Rapid increase of jobs can be observed in the public services, which
34
(mainly) have decentralized location. The old businesses are
also leaving the cities, not just because of higher maintenance
costs and lack of free ground in urban territories, but because
of the less unionised labour organisations and the more flexible
employees in the countryside. Therefore, the metropolitan areas are suffering from high unemployment rates, while in rural
areas the demand for labour is increasing. On the one hand, it
can cause counterurbanization, on the other it can be the reason
for the reversed commuting directions.
The other characteristic of the economy in the post-industrial
period is that the relationship between companies is changing:
Formerly, the companies mostly used to cooperate within the
company, now they are cooperating between the companies. It
is possible to consider the spatial separation of functions and
production. It means that the small and middle-sized businesses
in the more remote areas now have a chance to leave. In addition, the stakeholders’ impressions of a region can affect the
decision-making procedure. If a key person has some private
relationship with a specific rural region and come to the decision to move there, his or her company might decide to relocate
their business as well and continue the work in the chosen area
(COOMBES
ET AL.
1989). It is interesting that having a small
business in a small place is something ‘really rural’: having a
retail business and knowing the whole town, building relationships with the citizens and living in a relaxed way. STOCK35
DALE ET AL.
(2000) in their work conclude that in those territo-
ries, where the number of urban migrants rapidly increased, the
number of small and medium-sized enterprises suddenly extended. Thus, we can see many in-migrants in rural areas are
willing to open their own small businesses, providing jobs
mainly for themselves and maybe for other members of the
household.
In the view of the neo-Marxism, capital has a great impact on
the density of people and businesses. The appearance of a
business in a new area can inspire other businesses, the well
and spectacularly invested capital can attract other capital
holders (TIMÁR 1999). Therefore, the individual person does
not have a main role, because he/she can only choose among
the possibilities offered by the government, private companies
or other profit-orientated associations (LUNDHOLM
ET AL.
2004).
SHUMWAY and OTTERSTROM (2001) had an interesting observation when they recognized that nowadays not just people follow jobs, but also it is working the other way around: employment follows the labour-force. The highly qualified and specialized labour-force is willing to choose better environment to
live and bring up children in than the city or the suburban
towns. It became a point of honour where and in what kind of
environment the workplace is located. The companies have to
36
take in account the expectations of employees, and not just the
profit; therefore, the ’prestige environment’ becomes an important element in choosing a location.
The neo-classical approach states that people and business always act in a rational way and their behaviour is always a mirror of economical changes. Therefore, migration is an employment and profit leaded process.
“Individuals use migration as a means to
increase their standard of living or utility
function. According to theory (and some
empirical evidence), people migrate (net) to
areas with a higher wage level. This is the
basic ‘law’ of migration in regional economics.” (ÔBERG 1997 p. 23)
The aim of the new pattern is to meet employment demands
with employment forces (COOMBES ET AL. 1989) and thus ’migration is considered a mechanism that counteracts regional
imbalances and disparities’ (LUNDHOLM
ET AL.
2004, p. 60).
Big differences can be seen between urban and rural places,
both in living costs and property prices. For a family with low
income, a bigger or better house can be very attractive even if
it is in a rural area. The increasing proportion of ‘owneroccupied household’ can also provide an explanation (VARTIA37
INEN
1989, ILLERIS 1990). Moreover, the migrating household
does not only get a new home but also a healthier environment,
a safer community and maybe a friendlier neighbourhood. In
this case, people are more willing to move to the countryside,
even when only one of the household members has a job. Although, the theory states that unemployed people should become more mobile if there is a possibility to get a job in other
regions, empirically it has not been proved; rather a negative
relationship can be explored between the change of employment and mobility (KEMPLER 1997).
Other alternative explanations for migration are the concept of
‘human capital’. According to this theory, people invest physical and social capital in their living and working environment
in a favour of greater return in the future (Walford 2004).
Therefore migration is considered a “long-term investment in
human capital” (LUNDHOLM
ET AL.
2004, p. 61) and as we
know, “human capital is much more valuable asset in our society than physical capital” (ÔBERG 1997 p. 33).
However, if we are talking about counterurbanization we have
to consider those people who have to move, because they do
not have other choices. BROWN and SCHAFFT (2002) draw up
the attention for a different migration pattern in Hungary. The
migration pattern, however, has some counter characteristics; it
is not the same flow as we saw in the western countries. It
38
looks like middle and upper income classes have excluded the
poorer people from the towns and cities. For example, because
of the gentrification processes the low-income families cannot
afford to live in the city anymore. They have to move, and the
cheapest places they can find are in the poorest, mainly peripheral regions. While they are moving out from urban areas, the
urbanization of the higher income classes is continuing.
The role of the state
Politics can be a significant issue in two cases. The first case is
when the development policy of the national government affects intraregional migration. A good example is the case of
Denmark in the 1970s, when the national development plan
was able to turn around the migration directions (MØNNESLAND
1997). In 1999, the members of the European Union
accepted the European Spatial Development Perspective,
which addresses the acute problem of spatial differences. They
introduced a guide to achieve spatial cohesion; therefore, the
national government has to ensure balanced development, and
adequate access to infrastructure for all territories (ESDP,
1999). This policy can encourage nations to influence urbanrural relations and to make a difference for the advantages of
peripheral areas (COOMBES ET AL. 1989, PANEBIANCO – KIEHL
2003).
39
The second case is when recent political background may
cause interregional or even international migrations. The promising political environment, the lower tax rates or favourable
immigration laws are just a few components which can make a
place attractive. They can act like a pull factor, especially for
the younger generations. In the sending areas a certain level of
instability or not supported reforms can act as strong push factors (especially in the migration of businesses). It is a good example what BULLER and HOGGART (1994) mentioned in their
study, when one of the couples who moved from urban England to rural France named Thatcher as a reason for migration.
Bottom-up initiatives
When people and businesses have decided to move, then the
importance of local factors is increasing and the competition
for in-migrants is becoming closer. The conditions of the environment, policy of the municipality and hospitality of the
community could be the advantages of a smaller settlement. A
good idea or a good plan in a local level can change the fate of
the settlement from hopeless to prosperous (DAHMS 1995).
4.2 Behavioural explanations
The other group of explanations approaches the topic from the
point of the individuals. In the early days of urbanization, people had less choice; they had to move, otherwise they could not
own a job. Since then time has changed, and as LUNDHOL
40
ET
AL.
(2004) showed us in their study that people now more “are
‘free’ movers rather than migrants ‘forced’ to move for economic reasons” (p.71). Therefore, to introduce this type of motivations is just as important as to introduce the production related approaches.
The rural idyll
DAHMS and MCCOMB (1999) showed in their study that areas
with the best scenery are the ones, where counterurbanization
speeded up the most. A rising number of studies are trying to
examine the myth of the rural areas. It seems when people
come to the decision to leave the city for the new place they are
looking for some kind of rural idyll. Nevertheless, what is that
actually?
Rural idyll ’has no single meaning’, it is ’a concept or set of
concepts’ (LITTLE – AUSTIN 1996), which is living mainly in
the heads of the urban population; a picture that can be anything, connected to the rural. It is a myth,
“…a positive image surrounding many aspects of rural lifestyle, community and landscape.”…“presents happy, healthy and
problem-free images of rural life safely nestling with both a close social community and
41
a contiguous natural environment” (VAN
DAM ET AL. 2002 p. 462)
It can be a nice memory from a holiday, telling of friends or
even pictures from media. Most of the people who move to rural areas have been attached somehow to the place before;
maybe they lived, spent their holiday, ran a business or inherited a property there. These relationships can have a great influence on the decision-making, especially when they are
choosing the destination (LAOIRE 2007).
However, it is not true for everybody, as we could see in the
study of BULLER and HOGGART (1994). Sometimes people do
not really know where they have bought their future home, and
they only rely on estate agencies or on media. In the western
societies, in many peoples’ heads rural is associated with
peace, quiet, calmness, safety and nature. This feeling has
mainly two reasons. One is that modern urban population is
more than two generations away from the countryside. They do
not have that much bond to that, no bad memories and no pejorative meanings. The other reason can be the changed position
of rural; not only as an agricultural, but also a recreational
field, the ideal place to live and to bring up children
(STOCKDALE 2006).
42
Households often state that they moved because of family reasons: they moved, because it is best for the family, and especially for the kids (JENSEN – SVENDSEN 2007, LAOIRE 2007).
Rural represents an innocent place where people are able to
bring up children in a healthy way and can have a happy family
life and lifelong friendships. In the modern world, some people
may see urban territories as a place where personal relations
are vanishing, while in rural areas community networks and
friendships are vital elements of everyday life. Therefore, the
need for the strengthening personal relationships can also lead
to migration (COLEMAN 1988).
Family and friends
The literature treats cases where people return to rural areas
they used to live in differently. Return migrants should be
treated differently, because they are ’natives’ and ’strangers’ at
the same time; therefore the reasons, the motivations and the
effects are different. The reason is usually ‘to live closer to the
rest of the family and old friends’. It is an interesting change
LAORE (2007) discovered that most of the time returned people
found those things attractive what had pushed them away a
long time ago. Their cases are a proof to the age-specific hypothesis: preferences are changing with ages; as we become
older, we become more sensitive to rural values (STOCKDALE
ET AL. 2000, JENSEN – SVENDSEN
2007, LAOIRE 2007).
43
Collective reaction
Counterurbanization, however, can be accepted as a collective
reaction of different socials group or ‘classes’ (BERRY 1976,
TIMÁR 1999). This step can be
“…a reaction against the urbanisation
process, such as the rising property prices
and increased congestion, e.g. traffic, in
central areas.” (JENSEN – SVENDSEN 2007 p.
5)
In some cases, it could also be seen as a separation process. For
example, it could be a strong push factor for a higher income
group if a lower income group or a minority group starts to migrate into their territory.
“Recent trends have tended to produce
greater social divisions between places.”
(CHAMPION 1990 p. 61)
Thus, counterurbanization can lead to the establishments of
’gated communities’ in the rural areas, and deepen the regional
differences between places and between groups. Local places
become more homogenised while the different groups and settlements start to diverge from each other more and more. In
extreme cases, it could lead to a settlement pattern where peo44
ple with different incomes and with different education can be
separated in the settlement system.
Individualism
This approach explains the phenomena from the point of the
person. As society is only the set of individuals, counterurbanization is therefore the result of the decision of individuals.
Nowadays people might be able to act upon their preferences:
move if they want, and anywhere they want to. Therefore, people prefer to live idyllically. As DAHMS (1995 p. 28) wrote
“post-industrial society where the distance has become decreasingly important” and “where a person can live anywhere
and work anywhere” (p.30). The monotony of the housing in
the city centre and the suburbia does not seem to be attractive
anymore, and other factors like the environment, the
neighbourhood or the safety became more important.
4.3 Age-specific explanations
In this section, three age cohorts are distinguished, as BURES
1997, MARR – MILLERD 2003 and STOCKDALE 2006 did. The
reason for this is the complexity of motivations. As it was mentioned before, in the early stage of urbanization migration can
only be explained by economic and employment changes. In
the time of counterurbanization, this is not possible, however.
Not only will the above-discussed factors have to be taken into
45
account to explain the migration patterns, but also the ages of
the migrants. There is an existing positive relationship between
ages and urban-rural migration. Motivations and preferences
are changing with the ages, and life cycles have significant impact on decision-making.
Young-middles (24-54)
The first ’counterurban cohort’ is the young middles (of course,
youngsters under 18 were not taken into account, because they
are usually moving with their family). These ages are the most
mobile ones from the investigated groups. Their reasons and
expectations can be much different from the other cohorts.
Their motivations most of the time are the housing facilities,
the rural idyll or better job opportunities, all together the better
‘quality of life’ reasons. Mostly they move because they want
the best for their children, however, having a baby can also be
an obstacle. Mainly they move before they have a kid or before
the children need to go to school. They want to live in a place
where they can have a calm family life, a lot of green space and
safety. They might change jobs and educational institutes as
well, but they usually prefer to stay close to the original place;
therefore, when they are choosing a place, the accessibility of
the settlement and its distance from the nearest bigger city are
the most central issues.
46
Pre-retirement ages (55-59)
In the investigation of motivations and destinations it seems
important to distinguish between pre-retirement groups. Most
of rural in-migrants move just before they have reached the retirement age. This group prefers to move further away from the
original town, and they are looking for a place where they can
work in the beginning and have a nice retirement afterwards.
Therefore, they are not just changing a living place, but working place as well. They are actually looking for a ’bridge job’.
They often found solution in running a small business or accepting a job in a small company, without stress, long work
hours and ‘rat race’. Their migration direction often follows the
weather: moving from the cold north to the warm south. It is
also essential to mention that their motivations are often influenced by changes in their family: for example, when children
leave home, parents will be more eager to move (‘empty nest’
syndrome – BURES, 1997, STOCKDALE 2006).
Retirement ages (65 and over)
The migration of the retirement cohort is mainly driven by
amenity reasons. They do not have to worry about their jobs
anymore; the most vital thing is their comfort. Therefore, they
are looking for a place where they can have special services,
like professional healthcare or satisfying entertainment possibilities. Their migration pattern is usually strongly influenced
by their life-cycle experiences (BURES 1997); it could be the
47
mirror of their life. After they reached the retirement age and
their children left the family nest, they are free to move. They
have time to discover the far away, and there are less obligations and restrictions. They could move almost anywhere;
however, they prefer to move to places where the rate of the
retirement people is usually higher than average (BURES 1997,
MARR – MILLERD 2003).
5. Discussion
MITCHELL (2004) in her remarkable study ’Making sense of
counterurbanization’ categorized the different concepts. She
distinguished three sub-forms of counterurbanization: exurbanization, displaced-urbanization and anti-urbanization. In
the view of recent reviewer, however, ‘ex-urbanization’ * and
‘displaced-urbanization’ * are not the sub forms of counterurbanization, but the different forms of desurbanization (VAN
DEN
BERG 1982) (see Figure 1.) The reason for that can be
found in the complexity of motivations. Population turnaround
might not be well explained if only one side of the coin is considered. Counterurbanization cannot be conceptualized without
knowing all the possible motivations, which may play a part in
the process. Therefore, those urban-rural migrations should not
*
The term ’ex-urbanization’ is mainly accepted in the American literature, and refers to people
who moved to rural areas, mainly because of housing reasons, but they maintain their linkages
with the city centre. Therefore, it is mainly equals with the ’spill over’ (COOMBES 1989) or
with the above-described ’peri-urbanization’ phrase (FIELDING 1986).
48
be considered counterurbanization processes which are driven
by only housing or employment reasons.
Desurbanization
Peri-urbanization
Displacedurbanization
Counterurbanization
Simple living
Penturbanization
Retirement migration
Figure 1. The system of desurbanization
Counterurbanization, however, could be associated with
Mitchell’s ‘anti-urbanization’ term, and could be subdivided
into three groups: simple-living movement, penturbanization†
and retirement migration. Thus, the term ‘counterurbanization’
refers better to the main features of the process: the reversed
*
Displaced urbanization refers to migrations which are primarily driven by economic reasons.
People move because of rational reasons: for example higher income possibilities or lower
living costs. Thus, people are ‘forced movers’ and therefore the destination can be anywhere.
†
Penturbanization means not only the relocation of residences to the countryside, but the relocation of jobs as well. However, it could happen in any age cohort, it is the prime characteristic
of pre-retirement rural migration.
49
migration directions, to the cascade of people and employment
in the hierarchy, and to the complexity of motivations.
6. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the different approaches and driving forces of urban-rural migration. In the
case of urbanization, it is quite simple to localize the affected
areas. Therefore, it is easier to explain the process and to reach
a clear-cut concept. However, counterurbanization appears to
be a much more difficult and complex concept. The affected
areas are so diffused, the different motivations so strongly intertwined and the impacts so multiplied that it is hard to include such phenomena in one all-embracing concept. Since the
first signs of population turnaround, many theories have appeared in the literature. As was mentioned, there are researchers who believe that counterurbanization is a ’back to the land
movement’ while others analyze it as a continuing urbanization. Further, it can be seen as ‘a migration movement, a process or a pattern’ (MITCHELL 2004). The reasons for moving are
strongly bound together and we cannot name one simple driving force anymore. As HALLIDAY and COOMBES (1995) concluded:
“There were no simple push or pull mechanisms, rather it was the perceived differ50
ences between places that were important”
(p.445).
Hence, counterurbanization is made up by many components,
and there are consequently many ways to interpret the concept.
“In the real world, decisions are made as a
response to several, only partly understood,
complex and heterogeneous processes.”
(ÔBER 1997 p. 43)
As has been explained in this paper, counterurbanization is part
of population redistribution (desurbanization), but it is not synonymous with that. Counterurbanization namely contains a
double meaning. In one perspective, it can be understood as a
process that is a clean break from the past. The centres of
population growth have been shifted from urban to the rural
areas. It means not only relocation of residences, but also the
relocation of jobs. It implies a migration movement which is
driven by economic forces and individual preferences as well.
It affects the settlement system, causes a decentralized settlement pattern – even if it is not that significant, and does not last
long. In another perspective, counterurbanization can be defined as the spread of a new life-style, which is mainly the
combination of rural values and urban technology.
51
The aim of this paper was not to solve the three-decade debate
around counterurbanization, but to help to understand the chaotic notion of the concept and to provide a guide, which might
be used in future research. As it was clearly shown, the concept
of counterurbanization is ambiguous and the process not unequivocal and straightforward at all but rather a “consequence
of important economical, technological and social transformations” (STOCKDALE ET AL. 2000 p.245).
Bibliography
Books and publications
ANTROP, M. (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization
process in Europe. – Landscape and Urban Planning 67. pp. 926.
BAJMÓCY, P.
(1999) A szuburbanizáció sajátosságai Pécs
környékén. Földrajzi Értesítő 48. 1-2. füzet, pp. 127-138.
BAJMÓCY, P. (2007) A népességszám változás települési és
megyei szintű egyenlőtlenségeinek néhány mérési lehetősége
Magyarországon. – Tér és Társadalom 21. 1. pp. 85-102.
52
BAKOS, F. (2003) Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára. –
Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest. p. 723.
BELUSZKY, P. – SZIRMAI, V. (2000) A települések társadalma. –
In: ENYEDI, GY. (ed.) Magyarország településkörnyezete. –
Magyarország az ezredfordulón. Stratégiai kutatások a Magyar
Tudományos Akadémián, Budapest: MTA. pp. 88-98.
BERRY, B.J.L. (1976/a) The counterurbanization process: urban
America since 1970. – In: BERRY, B.J.L. (ed..) Urbanization
and counterurbanization – Urban Affairs Annual Reviews 11,
pp. 17-30.
BERRY, B.J.L. (1976/b) Urbanization and counterurbanization –
Urban Affairs Annual Reviews 11, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, London, p. 334.
BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. – FIELDING, A.J. (1997) People, jobs and
mobility in the nem Europe. – John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, p. 312.
BROWN, D.L. – SCHAFFT, K.A. (2002) Population deconcentration in Hungary during the post socialist transformation. –
Journal of Rural Studies 18. pp. 233-244.
53
BULLER, H. – HOGGART, K. (1994) International counterurbanization. British migrants in rural France. – Athenaeum Press
Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, p. 144.
BURES, R.M. (1997) Migration and the life course: is there a
retirement transition? – International Journal of Population Geography 3. pp. 109-119.
BURNLEY, I.H. – MURPHY, P.A. (2002) Change, country or cycles: The population turnaround in New South Wales. – Journal
of Population Research 19. 2. pp. 137-154.
BUURSINK, J. (1986) Economic urbanization and desurbanisation within the dutch settlement continuum. – In: Borchert, J.G.
– Bourne, L.S. – Sinclair, R. (ed.) Urban systems in transition.
– Nederlandse Geografische Studies 16. – Department of Geography, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, pp. 206-221.
CHAMPION, A.G. (1990) Contemporary Britain: a geographical
perspective. – Edward Arnold Ltd., London, United Kingdom,
p. 310.
CHAMPION, A.G. (2007) Defining ‘urban’: the disappearing urban-rural divide. – In: GEYER, H.S. (ed.) International handbook of urban policy, volume 1. – Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, pp. 22-37.
54
CHAMPION, T. – VANDERMOTTEN, C. (1997) Migration, counterurbanization and regional restructuring in Europe. – In:
BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. – FIELDING, A.J. (ed.) People, jobs and mobility in the new Europe. – John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp. 69-90.
CHAMPION, T. (2005) The counterurbanization cascade in England and Wales since 1991: the evidence of a new migration
dataset. – Belgeo 1-2. pp. 85-101.
COLEMAN, J.S. (1988) The creation and destruction of Social
Capital: Implications for the law. – Notre Dame Journal of
Law, Ethics & Public Policy 3. 3 pp. 375-404.
COOKE, T.J. (2008) Migration in a family way. – Population,
Space and Place 14. pp. 255-265.
COOMBES, M. – LONGA, R.D. – RAYBOULD, S. (1989) Counterurbanisation in Britain and Italy: a comparative critique of
the concept, causation and evidence. – Progress in Planning 32.
p. 70.
CRAIG-LEES, M. – HILL, C. (2002) Understanding voluntary
simplifiers. – Psychology and Marketing 19. 2. pp. 187-210.
55
CSÉFALVAY, Z. (1995) A modern társadalomföldrajz kézikönyve. – IKVA könyvkiadó Kft., Budapest, p. 366.
DAHMS, F.A. (1995) ’Dying villages’, ’counterurbanization’
and the urban field – A Canadien perspective – Journal of Rural Studies 11. 1. pp. 21-33.
DAHMS, F.A. – MCCOMB, J. (1999) ’Counterurbanization’, interaction and functional change in a rural amenity area – a Canadian example. – Journal of Rural Studies 15. 2. pp. 129-146.
ENYEDI, GY. (1980) Falvaink sorsa. – Gyorsuló idő sorozat,
Magvető Kiadó, Budapest, p. 183.
ENYEDI, GY. (1988) A városnövekedés szakaszai. – Akadémia
Kiadó, Budapest, p. 115.
ENYEDI, Gy. (1989) Van-e szocialista urbanizáció? – Tér és
Társadalom 2. pp. 92-103.
ENYEDI, GY. – MÉSZÁROS, J. (1980) Development of settlement systems. – Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest, p. 264.
ENYEDI, GY. – VELDMAN, J. (1986) Rural development issues
in industrialized countries. – Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest, p.
168.
56
ERDŐSI, F. (1990) A közlekedési – telekommunikációs viszonyok hatása a városok szerkezetének alakulására. – Tér és Társadalom 4. 2. pp. 31-48.
FERGUSON, M. – ALI, K. – OLFERT, M.R. – PARTRIDGE, M.
(2007) Voting with their feet: Jobs versus amenities. – Growth
and Change 38. 1. pp. 77-110
FIELDING, A.J. (1982) Counterurbanisation in Western Europe.
Progress in Planning. – 17. 1. pp. 3-52.
FIELDING, A.J. (1986) Counterurbanisation. – In: Pacione, M.
(ed.) Population geography: progress & prospect. – Croom
Helm, London, pp. 224-256.
FIELDING, A.J. (1997) The effects of economic restructuring on
the populations of Wetsren Europe’s cities and regions. - – In:
BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. – FIELDING, A.J. (ed.) People, jobs and mobility in the new Europe. – John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp 297-304.
FIELDING, A.J. (2007) Migration and social mobility in urban
systems: national and international trends. – In: GEYER, H.S.
(ed.) International handbook of urban policy, volume 1. – Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, United Kingdom,
pp. 107-137.
57
FUGUITT, G.V. (1985) The nonmetropolitan population turnaround. – Annual Reviews of Sociology 11. pp. 259-280
GILG, A.W. (1985) An introduction to rural geography. – Edward Arnold Ltd., London, p. 210.
GOTTLIEB, P.D. (2006) „Running down the up escalator1”. A
revisionist perspective on decentralization and deconcentration
in the United States, 1970-2000. – International Regional Science Review 29. 2. pp. 135-158
HALLIDAY, J. – COMMBES, M. (1995) In search of counterurbanisation: some evidence from Devon on the relationship between patterns of migration and motivation. – Journal of Rural
Studies, 11. 4. pp. 433-446.
ILLERIS, S. (1990) Counter-urbanization revisited: the new map
of population distribution in central and north-western Europe.
– Norsk Geografisk Tidsskr. 44, pp. 39-52.
IZSÁK, É. (2003) A városfejlődés természeti és társadalmi
tényezői. Budapest és környéke. – Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest,
p. 177.
58
JENSEN, M.V. – SVENDSEN, G.L.H. (2007) Rural migration and
health care. A review of the literature. – Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development. Working Paper 2. p. 35.
KEMPER, F. (1997) Internal migration and the business cycle:
the example of West Germany. – In: BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. –
FIELDING, A.J. (ed.) People, jobs and mobility in the new
Europe. – John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp 227-245.
KIRK, W. (1980) The rural-urban continuum: Perception and
reality. - In: ENYEDI, GY. – MÉSZÁROS, J. (ed.) Development of
settlement systems. – Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest,
KOVÁCS, Z. (2002) Az urbanizáció jellemzői Kelet-KözépEurópában a posztszocialista átmenet idején. – Földrajzi
Közlemények 124. 1-4. szám, pp. 57-78.
KUENTZEL, W.F. – RAMASWAMY, V.M. (2005) Tourism and
amenity migration. A longitudinal analysis. – Annals of Tourism Research 32. No.2. pp. 419-438.
LAOIRE, C.N. (2007) The ’green green grass of home’? Return
migration to rural Ireland – Journal of Rural Studies 23. pp.
332-344.
LITTLE, J. – AUSTIN, P. (1996) Women and the rural idyll. –
Journal of Rural Studies 12. 2. pp. 101-111.
59
LÖFFLER, R. – STEINICKE, E. (2006) Counterurbanization and
its socioeconomic effects in High Mountain Areas of the Sierra
Nevada (California/Nevada). – Mountain Research and Development 26. 1. pp. 64-71.
LUNDHOLM, E. – GARVILL, J. – MALMBERG, G. – WESTIN, K.
(2004) Forced or free movers? The motives, voluntariness and
selectivity of interregional migration in the Nordic countries. –
Population, Space and Place 10. pp. 59-72.
MARR, W. – MILLERD, F. (2004) Migration of elderly households in Canada, 1991-1996: determinants and differences. –
Population, Space and Place 10. pp. 435-454.
MITCHELL, C.J.A. (2004) Making sense of counterurbanization.
– Journal of Rural Studies 20. pp. 15-34.
MØNNESLAND, J. (1997) population redistribution in the
Sparsely Populated Periphery: The Nordic case. – In:
BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. – FIELDING, A.J. (ed.) People, jobs and mobility in the new Europe. – John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp. 153-167.
ÔBERG, S. (1997) Theories on inter-regional migration: An
overview. – In: BLOTEVOGEL, H.H. – FIELDING, A.J. (ed.) Peo60
ple, jobs and mobility in the new Europe. – John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester, pp. 23-48.
ROBERT, S. – RANDOLPH, W.G. (1983) Beyond decentralization: the evolution of population distribution in England and
Wales, 1961-1981. – Geoforum 14. 1. pp. 75-102.
SANT, M. –
SIMONS, P.
(1993) Counterurbanization and
Coastal Development in New South Wales. – Geoforum 24. 3.
pp.291-306.
SHUMWAY, J. M. – OTTERSTROM, S. M. (2001) Spatial patterns
of migration and income change in the Mountain West: The
dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. – The Professional Geographer 53:4, pp. 492-502.
SHUMWAY, J. M. – OTTERSTROM, S. M. (2003) Deserts and oases: the continuing concentration of population in the American
Mountain West. – Journal of Rural Studies 19. pp. 445-462.
SMIDT, M.D. (1986) Changes of urban and rural areas in the
Netherlands. – In: ENYEDI, GY. – VELDMAN, J. (ed..) Rural development issues in industrialized countries. – Centre for Regional Studies, Pécs
61
SPENCER, D. (1997) Counterurbanisation and rural depopulation revisited: landowners, planners and the rural development
process. – Journal of Rural Studies 13. 1. pp. 75-92
STOCKDALE, A. (2006) The role of a ’retirement transition’ in
the repopulation of rural areas. – Population, Space and Place
12. pp. 1-13.
STOCKDALE, A. – FINDLAY, A. – SHORT, D. (2000) The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat. – Journal of
Rural Studies 16. pp. 243-257.
SUTTON, P.D – DAY, F.A. (2004) Types of rapidly growing
counties of the U.S., 1970-1990. – The Social Science Journal
41, pp. 251-265.
SZELÉNYI, I. (1983) Urban inequalities under state socialism. –
Oxford University Press, Oxford
TIMÁR, J. (1994) A szuburbanizáció néhány elméleti kérdése és
alföldi vonásai. – Kandidátusi értekezés. Békéscsaba
TIMÁR, J. (1999) Elméleti kérdések a szuburbanizációról. –
Földrajzi Értesítő 48. 1-2. füzet, pp. 7-31.
TIMÁR, J. – VÁRADI, M. (2000) A szuburbanizáció egyenlőtlen
területi fejlődése az 1990-es évek Magyarországán. – In:
62
Horváth, Gy. – Rechnitzer, J. (ed.) Magyarország területi
szerkezete és folyamatai az ezredfordulón. Pécs: MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, pp. 153-175.
VAN
DAM, F. – HEINS, S. – ELBERSEN, B.S. (2002) Lay dis-
courses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the
Netherlands. – Journal of Rural Studies 18. pp. 461-476.
VAN DEN BERG, L. DREWETT, R. – KLAASSEN, L.H. – ROSSI, A.
– VIJVERBERG, C.H.T. (1982) URBAN EUROPE: A study of
growth and decline. – A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter p. 162.
VARTIAINEN, P. (1989) Counterurbanisation: a challenge for
socio-theoretical geography. – Journal of Rural Studies 5. 3.
pp. 217-225.
VIAS, A.C. (2004) Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores:
paths of retail restructuring in rural America. – Journal of Rural
Studies 20. pp. 303-318.
WALFORD, N. (2004) Searching for a residential resting place:
population in-migration and circulation in Mid-Wales. – Population, Space and Place 10. pp. 311-329.
63
WALMSLEY, D.J. – EPPS, W.R. – DUNCANT, C.J. (1998) Migration to the New South Wels north coast 1986-1991: Lifestyle
motivated counterurbanisation. – Geoforum 29. 1. pp. 105-118.
Internet references
AINSAAR, M (2004) Reasons for move: A study on trends and reasons of internal migration. With particular interest in Estonia 19892000. – Dissertation, Department of Social Policy, University of
Turku. - 2008-10-23 –
http://www.psych.ut.ee/esta/TARGET.EST/UURIMUS/publikatsioo
n/Reasons_for_Move.pdf
ANDERSEN, A.K. (2001) Demography in LINE – Migration patterns.
– Paper to be presented at the 41st Congress of the ERSA. - 2008-0918 – http://www.raumplanung.unidortmund.de/rwp/20060929/DokuRwp00/2003_MKSP_ERSA.pdf
ANDERSEN, H.S. (2008) Explanations for counter-urban migration in
Denmark. – ENHR conference, Dublin, p.19 - 2008-12-04 –
http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/14952547/Paper_til_ENHR_Dublin2.
HSA.pdf
ANDERSEN, H.T. – ENGELSTOFT, S. (2004) The end of urbanisation?
Transformation of the urban concept. pp. 53-67. – 2008- 09-23 – Department of Geography, University of Ljubljana: http://www.ff.unilj.si/oddelki/geo/Publikacije/Dela/files/Dela_21/008%20andersen.pdf
64
ELGIN, D. – MITCHELL, A. (1977) Voluntary Simplicity. – The CoEvolution Quarterly. - 2008-11-11 – Evolve –
http://www.evolve.org/images/evolve/pdf/sc_Elgin-VSimplicity.pdf
GERLÓCZY, F. (1998) A teleház kísérlet. A háló falun. – HVG. 19.
pp. 107-108. – 2008-08-14 – Uniworld – A virtual University:
http://www.phil-inst.hu/uniworld/VU-Vilag/alsomocso.htm
ILLERIS, S. (2004) How did the population in the Copenhagen region
change, 1960-2002? pp. 405-421. - 2008-09-30 – Department of Geography, University of Ljubljana: http://www.ff.unilj.si/oddelki/geo/publikacije/dela/files/Dela_21/039%20illieris.pdf
KUPISZEWSKI, M. – HEIKKILÄ, E.. – NIEMINEN, M. – DURHAM, H. –
REES, P. – KUPISZEWSKA, D. (2001) Internal migration and regional
population dynamics in Europe: Finland case study. Working Paper
00/07 p.63 – 2008-09-05 – School of Geography, University of
Leeds: http://www.geoid.leeds.ac.uk/wpapers/00-7.pdf
KUPISZEWSKI, M. – ILLERIS, S. – DURHAM, H. – REES, P. (2001) Internal migration and regional population dynamics in Europe: Denmark case study. Working Paper 01/02 p.60. – 2008-09-05 – School
of Geogrphy, University of Leeds:
http://www.geoid.leeds.ac.uk/wpapers/01-2.pdf
65
KUPISZEWSKI, M. – REES, P. (1999) Lessons for the projection of
internal migration from studies in ten european countries. – Working
Paper 40. Statistical Commission and Economic Commission for
Europe. Conference of European Statisticians - 2008-10-23 http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/1999/05/projections/40.e.pdf
LEESON, G.W (2002) The changing face of the population of Europe
– Geographical distribution, urbanization, depopulation and international migration. – Nordregio Working Paper 2. p.68. - 2008-11-13 http://www.nordregio.se/Files/wp0202.pdf
NIVALAINEN, S. (2003) Who move to rural areas? Micro evidence
from Finland. - Paper presented at the ERSA 2003 conference, Jyväskylä, Finland - 2008-09-30 – ERSA:
http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/214.pdf
OECD (2005) OECD regions at a glance. – OECD Publishing 2008-11-17 http://books.google.dk/books?id=JVIlOk0050wC&dq=%22Boselli%
22+%22OECD+Regions+*+*+Glance%22&printsec=frontcover&so
urce=bl&ots=MTfvfMd0T1&sig=VUBnv2Kq4nPWzp40L4pqqyiMP
vM&hl=da&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA2,M1
PANEBIANCO, S. – KIEHL, M. (2003) Suburbanisation, counterurbanisation, reurbanisation? An empirical analysis of recent employment
and population trends in Western Europe. – Paper presented at the
66
ERSA 2003 conference, Jyväskylä, Finland - 2008-09-18 – ERSA:
http://www.raumplanung.unidortmund.de/rwp/20060929/DokuRwp00/2003_MKSP_ERSA.pdf
RÁTZ, T. – PUCKÓ, L. (1998) Sustainability in Hungarian Rural Tourism. – http://www.ratztamara.com/rural2.html - 2008.02.07.
REES, P. – ØSTBY, L. – DURHAM, H.– KUPISZEWSKI, M. (2001) Internal migration and regional population dynamics in Europe: Norway
case study. Working Paper 98/04 p.60. – 2008-09-05 – School of
Geography, University of Leeds:
http://www.geoid.leeds.ac.uk/wpapers/98-4.pdf
STUDIO METROPOLITANA URBANISZTIKAI KUTATÓ KÖZPONT KHT.
(2001) A Budapesti Agglomeráció központrendszerének átalakulása
– 2008.04.12. –
http://www.studiometropolitana.hu/doc/sm_bpagglo_aggkozpont.pdf
UNITED NATIONS (2007) World urbanization prospects. The 2007 revision. – 2008-11-06 –
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007WUP_
Highlights_web.pdf.
67