Deconcentration, Counter-Urbanization, or Trend Reversal? The Population Distribution of Switzerland, Revisited~!2009-09-21~!2010-04-08~!2010-08-31~!

Abstract

This study analyzes trends in the population distribution of Switzerland, with focus on the period 1980-2000. It updates and extends an earlier study [1]. The extensions include analyses of population distribution trends by region and citizenship. Results show that Switzerland experienced deconcentration in the 1970s at the cantonal level, and in the 1980s and 1990s at the district level. The results also show a trend of moving away from large densely populated districts to small, sparsely populated and medium sized districts. There was a strong suburbanization trend starting in the 1950s and counter-urbanization during 1980-2000. The core urban areas experienced the slowest growth at the end of the century. Although the foreign permanent resident population increased from 11.6% at the beginning of the century to 20.7% in 2005, its role in shaping the distribution pattern is low.

Economic segregation in transition China: evidence from the 20 largest cities

“…Many residents in the central areas of Beijing, Shanghai, and Dalian live in homes passed down throughout the generations, even though they have incomes that would not support market price housing in these areas. Additionally, crowded living conditions and poor air quality lead many high-income households to move to the suburbs (Li, 2010), not unlike the "counter urbanization" observed in developed cities (Berry, 1980;Dahms & McComb, 1999;Kahsia & Schaeffer, 2010). As wealthy residents move to suburbs inhabited by low-income households, the observed levels of segregation decrease (Wu & Phelps, 2008).…”

The Effects of Commuter Rail on Population Deconcentration and Commuting: A Salt Lake City Case Study

“…In Chapter 3, we study the effect of commuter rail implementation on migration and commuting. Population migration has been evaluated through various theoretical perspectives which anticipate different redistribution tendencies (Berry, 1976;Carlino, 2000;Coffey & Shearmur, 2002;Dean et al, 1984;Frey, 1987;Israel & Cohen-Blankshtain, 2010;Kahsai & Schaeffer, 2010;Pfister et al, 2000;Renkow & Hoover, 2000;Stanback, 1991). We follow in the theoretical footsteps of Renkow and Hoover (2000), Ganning and McCall (2012), and Rupasingha, Liu and Partridge (2015), among others, by applying a modified population deconcentration model to observe if the provision of commuter rail significantly increases out-commuting, which signals success in attracting migrants requiring commuting infrastructure.…”

“…Population migration has been evaluated through various theoretical perspectives which anticipate different redistribution tendencies (Berry, 1976;Carlino, 2000;Coffey & Shearmur, 2002;Dean et al, 1984;Frey, 1987;Israel & Cohen-Blankshtain, 2010;Kahsai & Schaeffer, 2010;Pfister et al, 2000;Renkow & Hoover, 2000;Stanback, 1991). One theory, the deconcentration theory, predicts that outward land consumption in a metropolitan area occurs first through the dispersal of households from central cities to the peripheries of these cities, which are then followed by employers.…”

“…There have been several terms used to describe the trend in population migration and distribution away from urban cores: "deconcentration," "regional restructuring," "economic restructuring," "spatial restructuring," "counter-urbanization," "dispersed city form," "decentralization," "nonmetropolitan turnaround," "suburbanization," "depopulation" and even as "edge cities," among countless other terms (Berry, 1976;Carlino, 2000;Coffey & Shearmur, 2002;Dean et al, 1984;Israel & Cohen-Blankshtain, 2010;Kahsai & Schaeffer, 2010;Pfister et al, 2000;Renkow & Hoover, 2000;Stanback, 1991). Some researchers have attempted to distinguish these concepts of population distribution patterns; yet, these concepts have been used synonymously or inconsistently and therefore confusion remains (Kahsai & Schaeffer, 2010;Mitchell, 2004). This manuscript explicitly focuses on and extends the population deconcentration theory.…”

Amenity Migration in the Southern Andes and the Southern European Alps – A Key Factor for Sustainable Regional Development?

“…Used for similar processes, though not synonymous, is the term "counter-urbanization" (BERRY 1980) referring to urban-rural migration into attractive residential areas (cf. LÖFFLER & STEINICKE 2006;KAHSAI & SCHAEFFER 2010).…”