Introduction There is no common understanding of the essence of suburbanisation and counterurbanisation (Berry 1976, Frey 1987, 1988, Champion 1989, Johnston 2000, Tammaru 2001). Both terms refer to a situation of population outflow from more densely populated towns, but the borderline between suburbanisation and counterurbanisation remains ambiguous. In this paper we will define counterurbanisation as an outflow of population from bigger towns into smaller towns and rural areas (sometimes also called deurbanisation, desurbanisation, or disurbanisation), and suburbanisation as an outflow of population mainly into the nearest hinterland of bigger towns (also called spillover, or seen as continuous growth of towns over their borders). Consequently, the distance of migration from bigger towns is an essential differentiator between suburbanisation and counterurbanisation. Large amounts of literature have been dedicated to the essence and trends of urbanisation and counterurbanisation (Berry & Dahman 1977, Champion 1989, 1992). Although there are some reports about earlier signs of urban reversal of concentration in London and America (Korcelli 1984), the counterurbanisation process became well known and was most visible in the 1970s in USA. Many authors have stressed that the growth rate of rural areas was in favour of more peripheral regions, smaller settlements, or cities of intermediate scale (Champion 1992). After 1970, the process accelerated. According to Hall and Hay (1980; 87), virtually ceased to grow and with continuing losses from the non-metropolitan areas--the rings actually accounted for more than the entire net growth of the population. These generalisations included rather substantial variations among individual countries analysed in the study by Hall and Hay. It was found that counterurbanisation was related to the hierarchy of towns. As the correlation between hierarchy rank and the rate of population growth was negative, the main contributors to counterurbanisation were revealed to be the towns in higher hierarchical order. Korcelli (1984) found that, despite the fact that metropolitan areas were still growing, they were decentralising people from cores into rings, mainly because of stagnation of older metropolitan centres. Using the USA population census data from 1990-2000, Lopez and Hynes (2003) got the same results. The sprawls index showed shifts towards a more equal population distribution. Later, large amounts of migration research (Fielding 1987, Findlay & White 1986, Champion 1989) have shown that, despite the fact that the changes took place in different countries at different times, the majority of countries have passed deconscentration stages at some period of development. In 1989, Fielding concluded that most of the countries in Western Europe have records of counterurbanisation from the 1970s. In the 1980s, signs of reurbanisation of towns were found (Ogden & Hall 2000). Although in 1990 the changes towards concentration occurred in many countries, there was no clear understanding of a general future trend. The question remained--was deconcentration a major shift in population redistribution (see Zelinsky 1971, Frey 1995, Long & Nucci 1997, Wardwell 1977, Johnston & Beale 1994, Champion 1992), a mere temporary exception in a long process of concentration (Champion 1989, Fielding 1993, Frey 1987, Frey 1988, Johnston & Beale1994), or something else. Once again, metropolitan centres had started to grow, and the reasons were diverse and complex, sometimes the growth was related to commuter dormitories, sometimes to retirement settlements. The latest Europe-wide research project (Rees & Kupiszewski 1999) reported different concentration and deconcentration results for different countries. The picture has been unclear also in Estonia. Low reliability of data and different methods used to study migration, have given variable results. …
Read full abstract