Counter-Urbanisation, Its Theories, and Effects on Australian Population Distribution - Term Paper Example

Running head: Counter-urbanisation, its Theories and Effects on Australian Population Distribution Student’s Name Course Professor Date Counter-urbanisation, its Theories and Effects on Australian Population Distribution Introduction Counter-urbanisation has been occurring since 1950s in more developed countries. There has been a trend where people move away from the urban areas into nearby suburbs or into rural areas. Counter-urbanisation has become a dominant trend in major cities in Australia, United Kingdom and United States. In contrast to the more developed world, developing countries are experiencing the reverse of counter-urbanisation; where people are moving to the cities to look for jobs and services. In the developed countries, there exist better transport system and an increased affluence is allowing people to leave the city centres into smaller towns and to the nearby suburbs. This essay will critically analyse counter-urbanisation, its causes, effects and theories explaining this phenomenon. In addition, it will also discuss how counter-urbanisation has affected the Australian population distribution. History of Counter-urbanisation Counter-urbanisation first began in the 1960s in Britain and United States. In the 1990s, the upper class city residents opted to relocate and live in the countryside where they built high-end housing. This is what is referred to as exurbanisation. Counter-urbanisation is practised by the middle and upper class individuals who are more affluent and mobile (Nagle, 2000). Furthermore, families with children are moving into the rural areas keen to avoid the often unpleasant urban life. The rural areas provide comfortable, serene and ample conditions and free from pollution, traffic congestion and high crime rates of the cities. Counter-urbanisation The decentralisation of services, people and employment from the city centres towards the surrounding part of the city and nearby rural areas is what is known as suburbanisation (Njei, 2010). This is as a result of increases in income of the individuals and public transport which have improved. This trend has extended beyond the surroundings of the city into the rural areas. This has lead into the urbanisation reversal process, that is, urban rural migration experienced in the more economically developed countries. This is what is known as counter-urbanisation. Counter-urbanisation refers to the movement of people into the rural areas from the cities and towns (Njei, 2010). This movement is always triggered by a number of reasons. Counter-urbanisation occurs in two distinct perspectives. First, people move to rural areas who then commute into the urban areas; and secondly, the movement of employment from the city into rural areas (Hugo, 2013). Counter-urbanisation Push and Pull Factors In any phenomenon involving human beings, underlying reasons are often presented to try and explain the occurrence. Counter-urbanisation can be explain through the push and pull factors influencing the peoples decisions. Pull factors are those that attract people to the rural areas while push factors are those that drive them away residents from the cities. Traffic congestion, pollution, crime, high value of land, high taxation rates are some of the push factors. The pull factors are clean quite rural surroundings, available land and high amenity (Njei, 2010). Counter-urbanisation is a social and demographic process and it results from suburbs rapid expansion which extends to rural areas. Most cities of the world experience social and environmental problems. Crime rates are increasing each day, traffic congestions are becoming unpleasant to many people as well pollution of environment by the cities industries and population. People are thus lured to move into the rural areas where they are offered a peaceful and quite life. The transportation networks in the developed world are very good and it has extended into the rural areas. Counter-urbanisation can be the explained from this point of view. The rural infrastructural structures have improved and more people own cars. The city residents are thus presented with multiple choices of where they choose to live. Because of the quite life in the rural areas, more people are choosing to live in the rural areas and suburbs over the city centres (Boyle & Halfacree, 1998). Information communication technology sector has improved and emergence of E-mail, Fax, internet and Video-conferencing has presented further freedom as more and more people work from their homes. This has encouraged rural living as people do not need to travel to urban areas. Counter-urbanisation is also as a result of retirement, where people tend to move back to their rural areas when they retire (Champion, 2001). Rural areas offer a peaceful environment for the retirees where they can reconnect with their family and friends again after many years of working in the urban areas. Counter-urbanisation has caused both positive and negative effects. Effects of Counter-urbanisation Counter-urbanisation has led to the emergence and growth of suburbanised towns and villages (Mitchell, 2004). Small towns and villages are often affected both negatively and positively when people move away from the city into these places. Increases in the house prices, population increase and closure of traditional rural services are some of the negative effects. Housing prices will increase because the city migrants are wealthier compared to the rural residents which may force young people from the village to leave as they cannot afford the new house prices. The new population will rely mainly on the urban services for example supermarkets which lead to village stores closures. Traffic congestion in the rural areas are increased which makes the situation worse as rural roads are narrow and public transport decline in these areas (Ross, Morgan, & Heelas, 2000). This is as a result of the increased population who own their own cars and commute to urban areas using them. Counter-urbanisation also brings positive impacts to the small towns and villages. Increased population in the rural areas as a result of counter-urbanisation may force some people to move back to the urban areas. Young couples who have no children and older people separated, divorced or just prefer urban areas services may decide to move back to the urban areas (Hugo, 2013). Myriad of reasons including convenience of urban areas, the commuting distance is short for those working in the city and nearer shops are some of the reasons that explains this reverse movement of counter-urbanisation. In addition, the urban areas are endowed with various forms of entertainment such as night clubs, movie theatres which may attract these groups of people to move back. Theories of Counter-urbanisation There exist theories that try and explain counter-urbanisation. The factors that contributed to the movement of people from urban to rural areas are captured by these theories. These theories attempts to explain why a person decides to move from an area endowed with opportunities and moves into a place with limited services and opportunities like a small town or villages. Geographers have identified theories such as suburbanisation theory, neo-classical theory, state intervention and new spatial division of labour theories (Nagle, 2000). These theories provide an insight on what might trigger people to move from the cities into rural areas. Suburbanisation theory argues that counter-urbanisation is not a new thing but continuation of suburbanisation process. As noted earlier, suburbanisation is the movement of people outside the city centres into the nearby outskirts. This theory describes counter-urbanisation as extension of suburbanisation but in a more dispersed and diffused form (Mitchell, 2004). This theory does not see counter-urbanisation as a new phenomenon but it is just part of the urban spread. Neo-classical theory suggests that urban to rural migration occurs because of economic rationality. This theory has some weight in two circumstances: first, there can be rationale in moving to rural areas where certain sectors offer more economic benefits than the urban areas; and secondly, rural areas are unexploited and hence attracting labour force to these regions (Nagle, 2000). State intervention theory explains counter-urbanisation as a response by people to move to rural regions because of government regional policies. This theory has some weaknesses as some countries have been having regional policies but counter-urbanisation was never identified until later times (Ross et al., 2000). The state regional policies have only been contributory factor in that other reasons trigger the movement of people to rural areas. There are also structural explanations advanced to explain counter-urbanisation. They explain the movement of people from the cities into rural areas as profit-orientated or employment actions (Hogo, 2000). This theory is of the opinion that people move for certain reasons and people’s needs or wishes are not important. In this category four approaches are used to explain counter-urbanisation. They are communication technology and transportation system, role of state, bottom-up activities together with economic and employment. Through modern transportation and communication systems, a person is able to relocate to the rural areas and at the same time maintain their city job (Hugo, 2000). They achieve this by working at home or others commute to the city centre through efficient transport system. Urbanization speeds up when the level of the economy increases. The industries are relocating outside the city centres and people are moving out of the city in search of these jobs. In addition, through mechanisations in city industries, people are losing their jobs and they are forced to relocate into rural areas in search of jobs in these areas. The advantages conveyed by smaller settlements such as community hospitality, environment conditions and municipality policy can lure people to move away from the congested city and settles in these areas (Bowen & Pallister, 2000). Behavioural explanations have also been advanced to explain counter-urbanisation. Individuals in early urbanisation periods were having less choice and had to move to seek for jobs. People are moving back to the rural areas to enjoy the peaceful nature of the villages and they are becoming places to relax (Cambers & Currie, 2002). Counter-urbanisation is also a collective reaction of different social groups reacting to a particular incidence. A higher income group could move away if lower income group move into their territory pushing them to move out. Counter-urbanisation Effect on Australian Population Distribution Counter-urbanisation has affected the distribution patterns of population in Australia and has play part in the current population distribution. In 1980s, people were moving out of the Sydney city to live in the Sydney exurban periphery (Dahms & McComb, 1999). They were seeking more places to live in and the outskirts of the city provided a sense of rural life. In the 1990s, the patterns changed and became complex and differentiated. Counter-urbanisation has led to more Australian retirees moving to the coastal areas of the country causing changes in the population densities in these parts of the country (Hugo, 2013). This is because coastal parts offer a pleasant lifestyle and recreational environment and specifically to areas having high employment and relatively low income rates. In New South Wales, counter-urbanisation has had its effects on this part of the country. Elderly people in the inland areas are moving to get close to their children and those moving to the coastal areas generally do so for more improved lifestyle. Australia’s post-war population shifted away to the western and northern parts from the south-eastern regions of the country. In 1947, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales states accounted 78.4 percent of the total population, but it had only 68.9 percent of the total national population by 2000 (Hugo, 2013). In addition, Western Australia population increased to 9.8 from 6.6 percent and Queensland population increase to 18.6 from 14.6 percent of the total population. From these data, it is evident that counter-urbanisation has changed the distribution patterns of the population in Australia. Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to discuss counter-urbanisation and the theories that have been advanced to explain it. In addition, its purpose also included how counter-urbanisation has affected the Australian population distribution. Counter-urbanisation has been happening for a very long time especially in the more developed countries. People are finding cities to be congested having high crime rates, pollution effects and traffic congestion and prefer relocating to the countryside where it is calm and has serene environment. Structural explanations have been advanced to explain counter-urbanisation. Different aspects of structural explanations such as employment and economic considerations have been given by geographers to explain this phenomenon. Neo-classical, suburbanisation theories are also some of the theories explaining counter-urbanisation. Moreover, counter-urbanisation has also affected the population distribution of Australia. References Bowen, A., & Pallister, J. (2000). AS level geography: For AQA specification A. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. Boyle, P., & Halfacree, K. (1998). Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cambers, G., & Currie, S. (2002). Heinemann geography for Avery Hill: Compendium. Student book. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. Champion, T. (2001). Urbanization, suburbanization, counterurbanization and reurbanization. Handbook of urban studies, 160. Dahms, F., & McComb, J. (1999). ‘Counterurbanization’, interaction and functional change in a rural amenity area—a Canadian example. Journal of rural studies, 15(2), 129-146. Hugo, G. (2002). Changing patterns of population distribution in Australia.Journal of Population Research, (Special ed. 2002), 1. Hugo, G. (2013). What is happening in rural and regional populations? Retrieved from http://www.regional.org.au/au/countrytowns/keynote/hugo.htm Kijas, J. (2002). A place at the coast: Internal migration and the shift to the coastal countryside. Transformations, 2, 1Á12. Mitchell, C. J. (2004). Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of rural studies, 20(1), 15-34. Nagle, G. (2000). Advanced geography. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press Njei, J. (2010). Counter-Urbanization. Retrieved from http://www.lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=74 Ross, S., Morgan, J., & Heelas, R. (2000). Essential AS geography. Cheltenham: S. Thornes. S-cool (2014). Urban Rural Interdependence. Retrieved from http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/geography/urban-profiles/revise-it/urban-rural-interdependence Sexto, C. F. (2009). Is the counterurbanization process a chaotic concept in academic literature? Geographica Pannonica, 13(2), 53-65. Smailes, P. J. (1996). Demographic response to rural restructuring and counterurbanisation in South Australia, 1981–1991. International Journal of Population Geography, 2(3), 261-287. Read More