Contemporary and ‘Messy’ Rural In-migration Processes: Comparing Counterurban and Lateral Rural Migration

Aileen Stockdale

doi:10.1002/psp.1947

Abstract

This paper questions the ongoing dominant coverage given to counterurbanisation in the rural population literature. It is argued that this provides only a partial account of the true diversity of contemporary migration processes operating in rural areas and has the potential to fuse together different in-migration processes. Specifically, lateral rural migration has been under-researched to date. Using empirical data from a survey of 260 migrant households to 3 UK case study areas (in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the significance of lateral rural migration is revealed and compared with counterurban migration and migrants. The last change of address shows that 59% relocated from an urban area (participating in a counterurban flow) whilst 41% moved from another rural location (lateral rural flow). The boundary between migration processes can, however, be blurred: Some moves are an example of both counterurbanisation and lateral rural flows. Incorporating lifetime migration histories data demonstrates the contemporary complexity and messiness of rural in-migration processes. For example, 26% of these migrant households only ever undertook a lateral rural move during their lifetime. For others, the direction of migration has changed numerous times and intertwined with each move are aspects of life course, return, and inter-regional migration. Comparing the survey characteristics and motivations of counterurban and lateral rural migrants, alongside interview material, highlights important similarities and differences. The paper concludes by calling on rural population geographers to more fully engage with the complexity, totality, and indeed messiness of contemporary rural in-migration processes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Highlights

P apers on internal migration are a prominent feature of population geography journals
Have other rural migration flows been ignored as a consequence, such as lateral rural migration, including movement up and down the rural settlement hierarchy? In this paper, it is argued that the dominant research narrative on urban–rural migration offers only a partial account of both rural migration processes per se and in-migration processes
It is intended to fill a gap in our knowledge by examining this under-researched migration flow and by doing so argues, first, that there is more than counterurbanisation going on in rural areas and, second, that there are important similarities and differences between counterurban and lateral rural flows, processes, and migrants

Summary

INTRODUCTION

P apers on internal migration are a prominent feature of population geography journals. Previous research has observed different motivations and characteristics amongst lateral rural and counterurban migrants as well as motivational differences by type of rural area moved to These studies demonstrate the inappropriateness of assuming that rural in-migration and counterurbanisation are one and the same or that counterurbanisation is the dominant rural inmigration flow. It is intended to fill a gap in our knowledge by examining this under-researched migration flow and by doing so argues, first, that there is more than counterurbanisation going on in rural areas and, second, that there are important similarities and differences between counterurban and lateral rural flows, processes, and migrants. In contrast to the dominant qualitative approach that characterises much rural migration research, the present study adopts a mixed methods approach

METHODOLOGY

Motivation

Findings

CONCLUSION