Counterurbanization and the Growth of Canada's Rural and Small Town Municipalities: 1996-2001/la Contre-Urbanisation et la Croissance Des Municipalites Rurales et Des Petites Localites De 1996 a 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although population loss is the norm for many of Canada's rural and small town municipalities, approximately 41% did grow during the 1996 to 2001 period. This paper seeks to describe and interpret the contribution of counterurbanization to the growth of settlements that lie beyond Canada's urban areas. A custom tabulation of Statistics Canada data is analysed to describe spatial variations in the importance of this migration stream. Results reveal that although the movement of residents from Canada's largest (CMAs) and smaller (CAs) urban centres is occurring, it is not the sole migration path driving population growth in rural and small town municipalities. Moves between rural settlements are found to be the dominant form of migration taking place in some of Canada's provinces and territories. Spatial variations in the relative importance of these migration types are attributed to disparities in population, economic conditions and environmental amenity. Comparison with the 2001-2006 census data will reveal if trends documented here have continued into the present millennium. Quoiqu'une baisse de population soit la norme dans bon nombre de municipalites rurales et de petites localites, environ 41% d'entre elles ont en fait connu une croissance au cours de la periode de 1996 a 2001. Le present travail a pour objet de decrire et d'interpreter la contribution de la 'contre-urbanisation' a la croissance des agglomerations situees en dehors des regions urbaines du Canada. L'analyse d'une tabulation speciale des donnees de Statistique Canada permet de decrire des variations spatiales dans l'importance de ce courant migratoire. Les resultats revelent qu'en depit du mouvement de population qui se produit a partir des grands centres urbains (RMR) et de ceux de moindre taille (AR), ce n'est pas la la seule voie de migration a stimuler la croissance de population dans les municipalites rurales et les petites localites. On constate que les mouvements entre agglomerations rurales constituent la forme dominante de migration dans plusieurs des provinces et des territoires du Canada. Les variations spatiales dans l'importance relative de ces types de migrations sont attribuees a des differences au niveau de la population, de la conjoncture economique et de l'attrait de l'environnement. Une comparaison avec les donnees de recensement de 2001 a 2006 revelera si les tendances consignees aux presentes se sont poursuivies au cours du present millenaire. ********** Canada's rural and small town (RST) municipalities have undergone considerable change over the course of the past 40 years. Recent study (Mitchell 2005) has demonstrated that although the dominant pattern has been one of population decline, more than 40 per cent of Canada's smallest settlements grew during the 1996-2001 census period. Some of this growth may be attributed to higher levels of natural increase, particularly in municipalities with a large population of Aboriginal residents (Mitchell 2005, Vartiainen 1989). In other cases, however, immigration from larger Canadian municipalities is likely responsible. This paper focuses on migration to those Canadian RST municipalities that experienced growth between 1996 and 2001. The primary goal is to assess the contribution of counterurbanization to this demographic trend. Although evidence has verified that rural in-migration from larger urban centres has occurred sporadically in Canada since the 1970s, no national study has yet described nor explained its magnitude and spatial extent for the period 1996 to 2001. This paper will provide this information thus enhancing our understanding of the dynamics at work in rural and small town Canada. Counterurbanization Counterurbanization is a demographic movement that sees residents of larger population concentrations relocate to smaller municipalities either within, or beyond, a political border (Findlay 1991; Allan and Mooney 1998; Boyle and Halfacree 1998; Fielding 1998; Champion 2000; Mitchell 2004). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".