How well does the ‘counter‐urbanisation story’ travel to other countries? the case of Norway

Abstract

The predominant theories in rural population research are largely rooted in counter‐urbanisation contexts, and it seems that the academic and political thinking about rurality is influenced by these ideas in countries beyond those actually experiencing counter‐urbanisation. One outcome of this research is the construction of rural in‐migration as mainly related to a desire for a rural lifestyle. This paper illustrates in two ways that such representations are not suitable for understanding migration into rural Norway. Firstly, longitudinal data confirm that urban–rural migrations do not increase but encompass a minimal and steady share of the rural population. Secondly, survey data suggest that rural in‐migrants are more likely to be motivated by family relations and economic concerns than that by anti‐urban preferences for rural living. Migrants moving into the metropolitan fringes, however, are better fit for the motivation structure indicated by the prevailing models of counter‐urbanisation. Thus, the paper adds further context to the largely British counter‐urbanisation narrative and cautions researchers of population change in remote rural areas about using conceptualisations originating in the core regions of Europe and America.

Rural housing market hot spots and footloose in-migrants

“…Norway (Grimsrud, 2011). It is even argued that the concept counter-urbanization should be used with caution in these countries or not used at all (Grimsrud, 2011). In this paper the focus is neither to develop concepts nor to discuss the actual counter-urbanization.…”

“…This domination in the research field is somewhat explained by the non-existence of the same phenomenon outside the European core countries such as Sweden (Hjort, 2009) and i.e. Norway (Grimsrud, 2011). It is even argued that the concept counter-urbanization should be used with caution in these countries or not used at all (Grimsrud, 2011).…”

The effects of road infrastructure improvement on work travel in Northern Iceland

“…This is in part driven by urban population growth, rising housing prices and improvements in transportation infrastructure (Garmendia et al, 2011;Grimsrud, 2010;Haas and Osland, 2014;Mitchell, 2004;Renkow and Hoover, 2000). Recent in-migrants from urban to rural areas are in particular more likely to commute long distances for work in urban areas (Champion et al, 2009).…”

“…From a rural perspective, however, diverse urban labour markets and the local job opportunities created by urban pursuits of the rural idyll may be considered a local resource, analogous to closeness to rich fishing grounds or other natural resources. While the literature emphasizes the flow of work traffic from rural or exurban residential areas to urban work places, rural areas can also be an important source of employment for urban workers (Green and Meyer, 1997;Grimsrud, 2010;Haas and Osland, 2014). In addition to traditional rural jobs, various specialized and professional services must be rendered in rural communities, albeit sometimes on a part-time or occasional basis.…”

“…In the United States, micropolitan areas of urban centres with 10-50 thousand inhabitants account for a quarter of all counties and 10% of the national population (Vias, 2012). In Norway, areas within 60 min travel from a settlement of 15-50 thousand inhabitants account for 17% of the total population and 52% of the population beyond the outer metropolitan fringe of larger cities (Grimsrud, 2010). In Northern Iceland, the 24 thousand inhabitants of the regional centre of Akureyri and surrounding micropolitan area account for about 10% of the national population and 37% of the population beyond the outer fringe of the Reykjavík capital area (Bjarnason, 2011).…”