The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat

Journal of Rural Studies 16 (2000) 243}257

The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat

Aileen Stockdale!,*, Allan Findlay", David Short"!Department of Land Economy, University of Aberdeen, Old Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UF, UK

"Department of Geography, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4TN, UK

Abstract

This paper examines the demographic and economic impacts associated with the repopulation of rural Scotland. It incorporatesdata obtained from a household survey and qualitative interviews. Possible threats include increased competition in all housingsectors and changes in the composition of rural communities. It is argued that these changes are not solely caused by in-migration, butthat in-migration is itself a product of national and global advancement. Any assessment of migration impacts needs to be viewedwithin the context of rural restructuring * a view which is taken in this analysis. Using this approach it is concluded that ruralin-migration is associated with many opportunities (employment creation and prospects for increased rural expenditure). However,these economic opportunities have yet to be fully realised for the bene"t of rural Scotland. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

1. Introduction

In most so-called &developed' countries, the historicalmigration trend of rural-to-urban movements and theconsequent depopulation of rural communities has large-ly been replaced by an urban-to-rural #ow and ruralrepopulation tendencies. First identi"ed in the UnitedStates by Beale (1976,1977) and Berry (1978), this&counterurbanisation' trend is now a common feature ofmany countries, including Britain (Champion, 1989). Themagnitude of this trend has declined during recent years(Champion, 1987,1988; Champion et al., 1996). Neverthe-less, all population statistics point to its continuation asthe most signi"cant factor accounting for the redistribu-tion of population between and within areas at a varietyof geographical scales.

Counterurbanisation and the repopulation of thecountryside have dominated rural and population re-search agendas for some time. Early studies sought todescribe and explain the associated in-migration trendsto rural or non-metropolitan areas. Later attention wasdevoted to assessing the impacts of these trends. In recentyears these descriptive accounts have largely been re-placed by more theoretical debates centred, in manyinstances, around recent migration trends. These debates

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 01224-272357; fax: 01224-273487.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Stockdale)

include: de"nitions and constructions of rurality (Halfac-ree, 1993; Hoggart, 1990); the transition to a post-pro-ductivist countryside (Lowe et al., 1993; Marsden, 1998;Dahms and McComb, 1999) and social representationsof rural (Murdoch and Marsden, 1994). What is clearfrom these writings is that the changes taking place inrural areas cannot be viewed in isolation. Instead:

rural areas are 2 linked into the dynamics of thenational and international political economy 2 thecauses of &rural' change are recognised as occurringoutside the &rural' area altogether .. (Cloke, 1996 p.435).

Within this context it is important to place rural migra-tion studies within the wider changes associated withrural restructuring. The escalating budgetary and envir-onmental concerns associated with the Common Agri-cultural Policy have led to the previous protectiona!orded to agriculture and related industries being re-duced. Such a blow to the traditional agricultural sectorhas resulted in the emergence of a more diversi"ed sector(Ilbery and Bowler, 1998) characterised by more environ-mentally sensitive forms of production and new sourcesof income for the rural economy related to the touristindustry in particular. Local, national and regionalplanning policies have also served to reduce the &frictionof distance' (Fugitt and Beale, 1996) and perceived disad-vantage of rural living. Policies directed at the provisionof housing, transport networks and communications

0743-0167/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 5 - 5

have done much to make former peripheral and remotelocations attractive to individuals and in some casesbusinesses. Accompanying these policy-related changeshas been an increasing ability by individuals to ful"l theirresidential preferences (Bolton and Chalkley, 1990). Pre-vious research examining the motivation for migrationhave noted a desire for a rural lifestyle with many mi-grants viewing the rural environment as safe and pleas-ant. An important distinction is made between &anti-urban' motivations emphasising, for example, regionaldi!erences in house prices (Owen and Green, 1992) and`pro-rurala motivations which focus on the immediateresidential environment of the migrant (Halliday andCoombes, 1995).

These wider changes have not only been noted withina UK context. To the contrary researchers throughoutthe western world have also devoted attention to thistheme. Focusing on the explanations for repopulation orcounterurbanisation trends, the role of residential prefer-ences has been identi"ed in Australia (Hugo andSmailies, 1985), France (Winchester, 1993; Buller andHoggart, 1994) and Germany (Kontuly and Vogelsang,1988); economic restructuring in ten European countries(Kontuly, 1998) including Denmark and the Netherlands;and government policies in Ireland (Cawley, 1991), De-nmark (Court, 1989) and Italy (Dematteis, 1986).

Notwithstanding the relative importance of each com-ponent of rural restructuring popular opinion focuses onthe role of in-migrants. For example, &Counterurbanisa-tion' has been associated with the movement of middle-class families from city/ town locations who are eitherretired or commute to urban centres for employment(Dean et al., 1984; Jones, 1985; Lewis et al., 1991) withPhillips (1998) referring to the colonisation of rural areasby professional and managerial &service classes'. Sim-ilarly, it has been reported that the impacts of this trendare largely detrimental to the host communities. Suchreports often focus on rising property prices and as a con-sequence local residents being outbid by incomers (Gilli-gan, 1987; Shucksmith, 1981); incomers taking jobs fromlocals (Simmons, 1997); commuters failing to use ruralservices leading to their decline in pro"tability and ulti-mate closure (Glyn-Jones, 1979); incomer objections torural development (Robinson, 1990), and incomers &tak-ing over' the running of many community activities(Murdoch and Day, 1998; Murdoch and Marsden, 1994;Savage et al., 1992). The combined e!ect in many areas isat worst hostility between incomers and locals, and atbest, a mutual recognition of each other* or so previousstudies would lead one to believe. Hostility between bothgroups has attracted considerable media attention inWales and Scotland. At its most extreme English-ownedhousing in Wales became a target for the nationalistMeibion Glyndwr group (Cloke et al., 1997). WithinScotland the English incomer has often been the focus ofall that is perceived to be wrong with rural communities

(Shucksmith et al., 1996) and has become a target for&Settler Watch' campaigns.

However, it is often too easy to concentrate on theextreme outcomes. The mistake made by many re-searchers is to attribute, particularly perceived negative,changes to the rural economy and society to in-migrationtendencies (Robinson, 1990). In-migration in some casesmay be a contributing factor, but it is not a factor whichhas occurred in isolation from other wider socio andeconomic changes. One only has to look at the evolutionof farming policies and practices (Marsden et al., 1990) torealise that rural communities are neither economicallynor socially static (Pahl, 1966). Indeed, Pooley and Tur-nbull (1996) argue that the origins of counterurbanisa-tion date back to the nineteenth century. Moreover it isthe combination of factors that gives rise to problemsrather than one isolated process. For example, Cloke etal. (1997) in their controversial study of rural Walesfound in relation to rural housing that the problem wasone of supply rather than demand:

2, with relatively few people pointing to the e!ects ofcompetition from more a%uent migrants on housingopportunities available to younger residents (p. 43}44).

As such recent population trends need to be viewed asa product of the economic and social changes takingplace in the wider society. Recognising this fact allowsone to highlight the bene"ts as well as the problemsassociated with in-migration, and furthermore permits aninvestigation of the impacts associated with di!erentmigrant groups (Fielding, 1990; Jedrej and Nuttall, 1996).In the words of Fielding's (1990):

Counterurbanisation must be seen as both a threatand a blessing, a double-edged sword that has brought* and will continue to bring - far reaching change 2.(p. 238).

This paper takes such a view and seeks to undertake anaudit of repopulation processes, seeing them as both anopportunity and a threat to Scottish rural communities.Speci"cally, the impacts are assessed in demographic,economic and housing terms. The consequences asso-ciated with two distinctive migrant groups (incomers andlocal-movers) are also reported.

2. Rural repopulation tendencies

For much of this century depopulation has becomesynonymous with rural communities throughout thewestern world. Rural Scotland was no exception andthroughout most of the 20th century experienced heavynet out-migration. The e!ects of this are well known: anageing population enjoying reduced local services, and

244 A. Stockdale et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 16 (2000) 243}257

residing in an increasingly abandoned rural environmentas the young and able move on to the better employmentprospects available in urban centres. Such depopulationwas accentuated by increased poverty relative to nationalaverages and the demise of the primary sector as a majoremployer. The 1970s, however, witnessed a reversal ofdepopulation (Vining and Kontuly, 1978; Fielding, 1982)and many remote rural localities became characterisedby positive population change and net migration gain(Champion, 1981,1985).

Studies which have examined counterurbanisationtendencies in a number of countries point towards a highdegree of similarity in terms of the nature of the process,its explanations and the composition of migration #ows.In all the countries reviewed in Champion (1989) thecounterurbanisation trends of the 1970s and 1980s areviewed as a consequence of important economical, tech-nological and social transformations which have a!ectedmost western countries. More speci"cally rural restruc-turing, government policy and residential preferenceswere identi"ed as signi"cant in#uences * their relativeimportance varying at national and regional levels. InGermany the trend has been related to the deconcentra-tion of employment opportunities and government pol-icy by Kontuly and Vogelsang (1989). Moreover, whilerural in-migration was initially associated with the over50 age group it was soon accompanied by those in the30}49 age category. This feature was also noted in rela-tion to the United States (Frey, 1989). Elements of returnmigration were also observed as in the case of France(Dean, 1987) and Japan (Tsuya and Kuroda, 1989). InItaly, Dematteis and Petsimeris (1989) observeda counterurbanisation relationship with employmentgrowth in manufacturing and the tertiary sector * sug-gesting once again the in#uence of economic restructur-ing. By contrast in France, the in#uence of restructuringhas been restricted to particular regions (Dean, 1988).Elsewhere rural in-migration has had a signi"cant retire-ment component and where economically active mi-grants have been involved they have continued tocommute to nearby urban centres. A further notabledi!erence between the process in France and elsewhere isthat in France the &new' rural population was comprisedof a large number of manual workers (Winchester andOgden, 1989). In other countries, such as Norway (Illeris,1984), workers in service, managerial and technical occu-pations dominated the #ow of individuals from town tocountry. Notable the pattern in Norway also involvedthe self-employed. For example, Court (1989) claims thatperipheral regions were characterised by a much higherdegree of &entrepreneurship' measured in terms of thepropensity of people to set up their own businesses.Research in Australia, most notably by Hugo (1989),concludes that employment change has made a signi"-cant contribution to the counterurbanisation trends* with the transport, utilities and tertiary sectors all

recording growth in rural areas. Accordingly, those intertiary service-type occupations dominated internal mi-gration #ows to rural areas and involved those in the25}39 age group with young families.

Unfortunately, many of the commentaries for othercountries devote little attention to the actual impacts ofcounterurbanisation on rural communities. This insteadhas been a facet of the counterurbanisation literatureresearched in the United Kingdom. The above brief ac-count of rural migration demonstrates a number of im-portant aspects. First, while similar processes are deemedto be responsible the relative importance of each is vari-able. Nevertheless, employment restructuring or redis-tribution has been signi"cant. This, however, has hada major impact in many areas. For example, Perry et al.(1986) concluded that

it was the more highly quali"ed functionaries and theirfamilies who were bene"tting most from these eco-nomic opportunities. For the less quali"ed among thenon-migrant population, expansion of job opportuni-ties 2 were less favourable (p. 158).

Second, counterurbanisation has incorporated a slow-ing down of migration #ows into the metropolitan area,an increase in #ows to adjacent rural areas and in somecases in-migration to peripheral or more remote ruralareas. Third, the composition of these #ows are largelymade up of those of working age with young families.Retirement migration tended to be associated with speci-"c locations. Since many of the rural areas participatingin counterurbanisation tendencies had previously beencharacterised by an ageing age structure the trends havesigni"cantly changed the demographic fortunes of manyareas. Finally, while counterurbanisation has generallybeen associated with higher social status groups who areoften commuters, in some cases (such as France) themanual occupations have also been represented. The roleof commuters could be expected to have a major impacton the local rural economy especially if they remaindependent on urban-based facilities and services.

Turning now to Scotland the nature of repopulationtrends have been investigated by a number of authors.Jones (1985) arguably was the "rst and his work didmuch to dispel many of the myths associated with re-population processes. For example, little evidence wasobtained in support of the stereo-typical &white settler'image with such long distance in-migration of thecounterurban or &green-wave' type concentrated in a lim-ited number of small, sparsely peopled areas with specialscenic and image appeal (Jones, 1992). Meanwhile, a re-population of the rural environment continued, initiallydominated by deconcentration from Greater Glasgowand later from Edinburgh. Soon counterurban migrationwas identi"ed in many of the northern and more remoteparts of Scotland (Forsythe, 1980; Jones et al., 1986;

A. Stockdale et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 16 (2000) 243}257 245

Lumb, 1980). While several authors debated the conse-quences of such movements it has only been fairly re-cently that a detailed study of the impacts for ruralScotland has been undertaken (Jedrej and Nuttall, 1996).These researchers examined the sociological and culturalprocesses at work and concluded:

that the overall impact of counterstream migration isas much one of contributing to a sense of loss as ofregeneration2 Counterstream migration is paradoxi-cal in that, while it seems to be accepted that repopula-tion is essential for the future of Scottish rural areas, itis the wrong kind of repopulation and, in its variousforms, ampli"es the experience of population loss (p.180).

While making an important contribution to the re-population debate Jedrej and Nuttall's (1996) researchprovides little insight into the demographic, housing andeconomic consequences. Other authors have reviewedthese in speci"c localities: within Scotland, Forsythe(1980) and Lumb (1980) concentrated on Orkney, andJones (1984) focused on the Highlands and Islands.Lumb's (1980) work, in particular, identi"es speci"c fac-tors for judging the e!ects of in-migration: the size of themigrant group(s); the recency of moves; the migrants'previous links with the host community; and the degreeof homogeneity within the migrant group and in relationto the host population. In addition, Dickson (1994)examines speci"cally the &English' migrant to Scotland,while Allan and Mooney (1998) question the discursivelanguage used to discuss social and cultural change in theScottish countryside. Other studies have been under-taken throughout the United Kingdom: many of whichare reported in Boyle and Halfacree (1998). As in Scot-land, however, such research has tended to be area-speci"c. For example, Shucksmith (1981) focused on theLake District; Bolton and Chalkley (1990) on NorthDevon; Dean et al. (1984) on West Cornwall; Lewis andSherwood (1991) on East Northamptonshire; Stockdale(1992) on Northern Ireland, and Cloke et al. (1997) onWales. All refer to the problems caused by a rural popu-lation revival: rising house prices, Nimby-ism, the declineof service provisions as commuters use those near to theirplace of work, the loss of a distinctive community identityand on occasions community con#ict (Wales), and a &tak-ing over' by incomers of local a!airs.

3. The data

The data presented in this paper comes from a ScottishO$ce sponsored project concerned with the generalimpacts of migration in rural Scotland. This researchwas carried out by the authors in 1997}1998 and in-cluded an analysis of 1991 Census data, a household

survey in six rural locations, and qualitative interviewswith a small number of individual respondents. Whilerecognising that &rural' has been a much contested term(Hoggart, 1988; Murdoch and Pratt, 1994; Philo, 1993)the de"nition adopted in this paper is that used in theScottish O$ce (1996) publication Scottish Rural LifeUpdate.

The nature of rural in-migration was initially exam-ined using 1991 Census data and the Sample of Anonym-ised Records in particular. This was then followed bya detailed questionnaire survey in selected areas. Sixpostcode sectors (Fig. 1) were selected as representativeof the di!erent types of &rurality' to be found in Scotland(see Scottish O$ce, 1996 for a de"nition of the Scottishrural typology). Each postcode was therefore representa-tive of a particular rural area type and included: Skye(remote rural); North East Fife and Crie! (less remoterural); Kyle and Carrick (mixed urban/rural); Black Isle(remote settlements dominate); and the Mearns (prosper-ous high growth). The speci"c postcodes selected for thequestionnaire survey within each area were ones identi-"ed from the 1991 Census as having a high level ofin-migration. These areas, covered not only di!erenttypes of rural environments the length and breadth ofScotland, but they also facilitated the "rst comprehensiveinvestigation of rural repopulation impacts in Scotlandto be undertaken in the 1990s and deemed by the re-searchers and the Scottish O$ce to be representative ofthe impacts of in-migration across all of rural Scotland(Findlay et al., 1999).

A random sample of households was selected for eacharea from the most up-to-date electoral register available.The sample contained 689 respondent households (a61% response rate). Each had completed a detailed ques-tionnaire covering a variety of topics: the household'smigration history, demographic and economic character-istics, housing tenure, use of local services and facilities,involvement in the local community, and perceived mi-gration impacts. This information allowed us to assessthe impact of migration in demographic, economic andhousing terms. The sample was sub-divided into long-term residents (those who had not moved since 1981),local-movers and incomers (those moving less and morethan 15 kms, respectively, since 1981).

Of the total sample, 497 had moved to their presentaddress since 1981; hereafter termed migrants. Of thisgroup just over half were &incomers', that is, they hadmoved from outwith the immediate study area. Amongstincomers 53% had either lived in the area previously, hadfriends/relatives in the area or visited on holiday prior tomoving. &Local-mover' migrants (moving within thestudy areas) were particularly frequent in Skye, NE Fifeand Kyle and Carrick. Local moves were generally moti-vated by housing considerations while incomers placeda greater emphasis on employment. Both groups alsocited the importance of quality of life factors in their


Fig. 1.

decision to move. However rarely did one factor in#u-ence their decision.

Our "nal decision about coming here was based onwanting a change of life I suppose. We decided to getmarried. It was wanting to be somewhere fresher

2 not so busy. The quality of life is quite good * itwould be a good place to have family- and its away

from the sort of negative in#uence of cities.. (Black Islerespondent).

We came on holiday for a number of years with theintention of one day retiring here. But other thingshappened to us. When you were getting towards "ftythey [work company] wanted you out2 It wasexplained to me that I wasn't going further in the


management chain. I would be a victim of redund-ancy2 When the next opportunity came, I took itand ran 2 We moved here and changed our lifestyle(Skye respondent).

For both these respondents quality of life had beengiven as their dominant reason for moving, however, thetiming of their moves had been dependent on otherthings* changing personal circumstances for the formerand changing employment opportunities for the latter.

In-depth interviews were conducted with a smallsample of respondents from each area who had indicatedtheir willingness on the returned questionnaire to partici-pate in follow-up interviews. Thirty-eight individualswere interviewed and included respondents who hadmoved to their current address since 1981 (migrants) andthose who had not (long-term residents). Their agesranged from 21 to 82, with the majority aged between35}49 years old. A variety of family structures were alsoincluded: never married, married (and re-married), di-vorced and widowed. About 40% had school-aged oryounger children. Extracts from this qualitative data isincorporated to further illuminate the "ndings from thesurvey.

4. The impacts of a repopulation of rural Scotland

Any attempt to assess the impacts of a repopulation ofrural Scotland is fraught with di$culty. First, withoutsimilar details regarding out-migrants from the area it isdi$cult to quantify the degree and nature of changea!ecting rural communities. For example, in-migranthouseholds identi"ed in our survey may be no di!erentthan households who have left the area. Second, it shouldnot be overlooked that because 1981 was taken as ourcut-o! year for distinguishing migrant and long-termresidents both groups will have changed in the interven-ing period. Moreover rural restructuring will have a!ec-ted both groups. For example, within Britain rural shopnumbers declined by 3.8% during the period 1966}71(Phillips and Williams, 1984), in Scotland the number ofrural parishes possessing health services declined by 8%(OECD, 1991) during the period 1960}1980 and primaryschools declined by 45% during the period 1960}1989(McKay Consultants, 1989). Any impacts must thereforebe viewed within the context of changing rural communi-ties.

4.1. Demographic impacts

In common with other repopulation studies migranthead of households were notably younger than those oflong-term resident households (Table 1). Some 60% wereunder the age of 50 (of which 16% were under 35)compared to 75% of long-term resident heads over the

Table 1Age of head of household by migrant type

Age group Long termresident (%)

Migrant sample Incomer (%)

Local mover (%)

16}24 1 0.4 225}34 3 18 1235}49 20 44.6 4350}64 36 24 2565# 39 13 18Total! 168 236 250

!Totals exclude those where no age was obtained.

age of 50. It should, however, be noted that within themigrant sample local-movers are characterised bya greater proportion under the age of 34 and a smallerproportion over the age of 65 than incomers. In total20% of migrant households were headed by a retiredperson. They were unevenly distributed between areas(ranging from 28% in the Black Isle to 13% in theMearns). Equally signi"cant in demographic terms, one-third of the migrant households contained school-agedchildren vis-a-vis 18% of long-term residents. This de-mographic revival was both welcomed by residents andblamed for the changing character of rural schools asdemonstrated by the following two quotes from respon-dents in Kyle and Carrick:

2 the in#ux have all got little families. Lots of littlechildren. The school is very good. It keeps going.

2 my children used to go along to the primaryschool. When they were there, it was all much the samechildren from farms that lived in the area all the time.And now, there's a lot of people, maybe some out ofDundee, from Glasgow, and there's problems comingout, children getting hit, beaten or things like that,abuse2 I suppose it went on in the countryside,always had, but it's so strange to have it involved ina small school. You associate that with towns and that.

It would appear that while a repopulation of ruralScotland is associated with demographic revival it is alsoassociated with unwanted side-e!ects. Nevertheless, it isimportant to ascertain if this is sustainable in the future?Some insight can be gleaned from an examination ofout-migration patterns among migrant households. Thedata relates to individuals who had left the survey house-holds since 1981. Given that migrant households contain,on average, two children of school-age who in the futurewill leave the parental home either for higher education,employment or setting up home for themselves, the desti-nations and motivations of recent out-migrants can beused as a guide to likely future events (all other thingsbeing equal). Of out-migrants originating from within the


Table 3Head of Households' employment status

Long term resident (%) Migrant sample

Local-mover (%) Incomer (%)

Employed full-time 29 52 48Employed part-time 7 6 8Self-employed (F-T) 21 13 13Self-employed (P-T) 1 2 2Retired 37 17 24Unemployed 3 6 2Student * * 0.5Housewife 3 3 2Other * 1 0.5Total! 170 233 252

!Totals exclude households where the employment status was not given.

Table 2Type of migrant (1991 SARs and Survey data compared)

Migrant type All rural SARs(%)

All surveyareas (%)

Local mover working locally 30 26Local mover commuting 5 11Local mover not working 22 13Incomer working locally 18 20Incomer commuting 8 16Incomer not working 17 15

survey households 62% had relocated outwith the homelocality. The repopulation of rural Scotland is, therefore,accompanied by continued out-migration. Nevertheless,there are important di!erences between the varioushousehold sub-groups which are indicative of the demog-raphic consequences for the future. Out-migrants origin-ating from within long-term resident and local-movermigrant households displayed a higher propensity toremain within the home area (46 and 31% respectively).By contrast, those originating from within incomerhouseholds were associated with a more distant reloca-tion (90%): of which one in two moved to elsewhere inScotland. Those relocating locally did so primarily forpersonal reasons, including marriage and setting uphome (71%), while more distant moves were motivatedby education (42%) and employment (32%) factors. Itcould be suggested that a high proportion of incomerhouseholds to rural Scotland will fuel out-migrationrates in the future.

4.2. Economic impacts

Before turning to the detailed results of the householdsurvey it is interesting to note aspects of the character ofin-migration to all of rural Scotland as revealed by the

1991 Census. Using data from the sample of anonymisedrecords (SAR) the distance moved has been cross-tabulated against information about the migrants' placeof work (Findlay et al., 1999). Three types of employmentstatus are recognised: those working within 20 km oftheir place of residence (working locally); those commut-ing to work outside their local area; and those not em-ployed. Table 2 shows that no less than 57% of migrantswere local movers (moving no more than 15 km).Amongst incomers the largest single-group worked lo-cally with only a minority commuting long distances.Table 2 also compares the proportion of migrants withinour survey sample in each activity category with theequivalent proportion reported in the 1991 SARs. It canbe seen that a roughly similar distribution exists, withsmall di!erences being explained by two factors. First,one would expect more commuters (both amongst localmovers and incomers) to be found in our sample sincea threshold of 15 km was used to separate local workersfrom commuters, while in the SARs the equivalent thre-shold was 20 km. Second, our survey was intentionallylocated in postcode sectors which had experienced highlevels of in-migration. This once again would lead one toexpect more migrant commuters than in the averagerural area in Scotland.

Tables 3 and 4 summarise the employment character-istics of the di!erent household groups included in oursurvey sample. The heads of long-term resident house-holds are the least economically active (57%), which is tobe expected given their older age pro"le. Among the twomigrant groups very few are headed by individualswho are unemployed and overall there is a high degreeof similarity with regard to their employment statusand place of work. One in four incomers were retiredcompared to approximately one in "ve among thelocal-mover sample. A roughly equal share of bothgroups were active either as employees or self-employed.The comparatively low number of incomers who are


Table 5Annual pre-tax income of heads of households!

Under C4000 C4001}C10000 C10001}C15000 C15001}C20000 C20001}C25000 over C25000 Total

Migrants: Local-movers 29 (15%) 29 (15%) 45 (23%) 30 (15%) 28 (14%) 34 (18%) 195Migrants: Incomers 15 (7%) 40 (18%) 39 (18%) 32 (15%) 27 (12%) 65 (30%) 218Long-term residents 21 (18%) 38 (32%) 16 (14%) 13 (11%) 8 (7%) 21 (18%) 117

!Chi-square "37.48 degrees of freedom "10. Statistically signi"cant at the 99% level.

Table 4Head of households place of work

Long termresident (%)

Migrant sample

Local mover (%) Incomer (%)

working locally 42 41 35commuting 6 26 30not employed! 52 28 29other * 5 6Total" 124 227 241

!Not employed includes: unemployed, retired, housewife and student."Totals exclude households were the place of work was not given.

self-employed is in contrast to Fielding's (1990) observa-tions of in-migration in East Anglia. Of those employedthe modal place of work was within the study area,although a slightly higher proportion of incomers travel-led beyond the immediate locality. Commuters weremost frequently observed in NE Fife, the Mearns andCrie!. It is important to note that commuting levels werealso high among local movers in these areas. All threelocations are conveniently situated within commutingdistance of Dundee/Edinburgh, Aberdeen/Dundee, andEdinburgh/Glasgow respectively. Service sector employ-ment characterised the migrant group with many beingin professional occupations (45%). Migrants into ruralareas therefore do not appear to occupy traditionalniches in the rural labour market. It was thus unsurpris-ing to discover from the survey that very few long-termresidents (21%) felt that incomers had taken jobs fromlocal people.

A more detailed assessment of the economic impact ofin-migration can be obtained by examining incomelevels, expenditure patterns and employment creationwithin migrant households.

4.3. Income levels

Table 5 con"rms the existence of the well-known in-come di!erential between migrant and long-term resi-dents (statistically signi"cant at the 99% level). Of thosewho divulged their pre-tax income 50% of long-termresident households earned under C10,000. Among

local-movers 30% earned under C10,000. Inversely theproportion of incomers on high salaries was much higherthan for either of the other groups (30% of incomers hadincomes of C25,000 or more compared with 18% of localmovers).

4.4. Expenditure patterns

The higher income levels associated with migranthouseholds brings an opportunity for higher expenditurepatterns in local shops as well as increased demand forlocal services. Within this context it is important torecognise that the retail sector in particular has under-gone signi"cant changes during the past few decades. Forexample, rural retail units have declined and rural andurban residents have equally become increasingly depen-dent on the provisions available in supermarkets.Whether the success of the often urban-situated super-market is wholly responsible for the demise of the ruralshop is debated by Stockdale (1993). This debate howeveris outwith the focus of this paper. Instead what is an issuewhen examining the impacts of a rural repopulation isthe retail potential for rural communities. Overall, some55% of those interviewed believed that incomers uselocal shops. Notwithstanding this perceived bene"t to thelocal community, further analysis revealed a highly sig-ni"cant set of relationships, "rst between incomes andplace of work, and second between place of work andexpenditure patterns. Table 6 demonstrates that com-muters earn distinctively higher incomes than those em-ployed locally. This held true whether or not thecommuters were of local origin or incomers.

This relationship was tested using log-linear analysisfor both incomers and local movers (Table 7). It showsthat local movers and incomers did not di!er signi"-cantly, but that the key in#uence on income was place ofwork with local employment in the rural areas surveyedbeing less well remunerated than employment outside thelocal area involving commuting.

This raises several questions concerning the role ofmigrant households within the local economy, and inparticular whether or not commuters reside in the coun-tryside but spend their considerably higher householdbudget outside the local area. Table 8 summarises con-sumer behaviour for purchases of selected goods. Not


Table 8Consumer behaviour (percentage by migrant status purchasing locally and beyond)

Goods Purchase Migrants: employed Long-term residents: employed

within local area commuters within local area commuters

Milk Locally 70% 62% 87% 77%Town/City 30 38 13 23

Newspaper Locally 88 81 95 83Town/City 12 19 5 17

Petrol Locally 58 40 64 57Town/City 42 60 36 43

Food shopping Locally 43 28 43 43Town/City 57 72 57 57

Table 6Income and Place of work (migrants and long-term residents)

Under C15,000(%)

C15,001}C25,000(%)

Over C25,000(%)

Local employees 54 28 17Commuters 22 37 41

Table 7Log-linear model of the relationship between migrant origin (variable1), place of work (variable 2) and income level (variable 3)!

Model Chi-square degrees offreedom

signi"cance0.05

A: main e!ects 47.83 7 n/sB: main e!ects # v1/v2 45.82 6 n/sC: main e!ects #v2/v3 10.86 5 Sign.D: main e!ects# v1/v2#v1/v3

35.72 4 n/s

!Variable 1: incomer/local mover,Variable 2: local work/ commuter,Variable 3: income less than C15000; C15001}25000; C25001#.

surprisingly perishable items (such as milk) and fre-quently purchased goods (such as newspapers) werebought locally by both migrants and long-term residenthouseholds. By contrast, the place of purchase for petroland weekly food shopping varied principally by place ofwork. Both migrants and long-term residents whoworked within the study area were much more likely topurchase these goods locally than those who commutedto work.

Log-linear analysis (Table 9) suggests that whether ornot people purchased their shopping locally or outsidethe local area was primarily dependent on whether or notthey worked locally rather than on whether or not theywere migrants. It is, therefore, because a higher propor-tion of migrants commute to work that the local arealoses trade, rather than because migrants in and of them-selves have any bias against using local services.

The loss of income from the local community re#ectsgeneral &problems' within rural Scotland rather than be-ing speci"cally a &problem' caused by repopulation: ap-proximately 29% of the sample claimed that the choice oflocal shopping facilities was unsatisfactory or extremelybad. The main complaint re#ected excessive local prices.It is further suggested that the local economy couldcapture a higher proportion of the household expendi-ture. For every service the highest proportion using thoseavailable locally were migrants arriving during the yearprior to the survey (Table 10). This seems to indicate aninitial willingness by migrants to buy locally. However,for whatever reason, possibly poor quality of service andhigh costs, migrants quickly seek further a"eld for theirprovisions and thus the leakage of income out of ruralcommunities increases over time.

The local expenditure patterns associated with migra-tion were perceived to give rise to very di!erent conse-quences. This is demonstrated by the following selectionof quotes attributed to respondents in Kyle and Carrick.

If you didn't have incomers, the village would die.The incomers provide [an] income which keeps localshops, sports clubs, societies.., the life and blood of thevillage.

I think there are newscomers coming in and they don'tuse local shops the way village people use shops.Everybody has cars. They go shopping into town andonly use local shops 2 to get their papers or some-thing they've run out of. Really I think village shopsare "nished now. At one time we had a butcher's shop,a joiner's shop, a blacksmith. Now there's a post o$ceand a shop.

There's now talk of building shops which [the locals]don't really want. There has been an attempt to geta fast food shop, "sh and chips or whatever or Chinesebut so far they have managed to stop it-they say it'llbring down the tone of the village or encourage young-sters to hang around.


Table 10Use of services by year of migration (% using local facilities).

Bank Dentist Newspaper Food shopping Milk Petrol

1981}85 52 30 82 37 70 501986}90 54 43 86 36 72 521991}95 48 36 84 36 66 471996}97 63 52 95 47 78 60

Table 9Log-linear model of weekly shopping behaviour!

Chi-square Degrees offreedom

Signi"cance0.05

A: main e!ects 15.47 4 n/sB: main e!ects # v1/v2 8.93 3 n/sC: main e!ects# v1/v2#v2/v3

2.20 2 Sign.

D: main e!ects# v1/v2#v1/v3

7.85 2 n/s

E: main e!ects# v1/v3#v2/v3

7.65 2 n/s

!Variable 1: migrant/ long-term resident,Variable 2: local work/commuter,Variable 3: local purchase/ purchase outwith area.

It would appear that in relation to expenditure pat-terns and shopping facilities there are two diametricallydi!erent positions. Those who complain over the closureof village shops and those resistant to further shoppingprovisions. What is common in these two viewpoints isa fundamental concern about change. Changes to thecharacter of rural settlements are seen as undesirable.Those concerned over the closures remember villageshops where not only economic transactions took placebut where people met and exchanged &gossips'. The dis-appearance of a local shop was associated not only witha change in the local economy but also a change in thecommunity life. Similarly, those who objected to moreshops were worried about the social changes new shopswould bring.

4.5. Employment creation

In contrast to other studies within the United King-dom and elsewhere there was no evidence of speci"cbusinesses or "rms relocating to the rural areas includedin our survey. Instead any employment creation waslinked to individuals within the sample who owned rela-tively small businesses. Of the total migrant householdswhere the head was in full-time active employment, 65(22%) de"ned themselves as self-employed (ranging from5% of the sample in Kyle and Carrick to 32% in theBlack Isle). Many in this group were highly quali"edprofessionals or owners or managers of small businesses.

The majority had based their business locally (85%) andapproximately one third had been motivated to move byquality of life considerations. Some 55% of the self-employed migrants had not created employment forothers (Table 11). However, of those that did create workfor others, on average 1.6 additional jobs were generated.Extending this to include all self-employed persons with-in the sample (and not just the head of household) it wasfound that 110 full-time and 21 part-time jobs had beencreated by the migrants in our survey. In addition, therewere 102 jobs "lled by the self-employed migrants them-selves.

Any reference to job creation should also obviouslyinclude the employees as well as the self-employed. Forexample, migrants who were not self-employed generatedconsiderable jobs in the service sector through demandfor child minders, cleaners and gardeners. On average0.52 jobs were created per economically active migranthousehold (121 jobs in total).

Clearly, positive employment bene"ts arise from a re-population of rural Scotland. However, the perceivedimpact of this was found to be variable. The impact wasless problematic in areas where jobs were abundant oraccessible, such as in the Mearns located close to Aberdeen.

I would say around here [incomers] are more accepted

2. Because they are not a threat to the local economy.They are people who live here and work in town, so itsnot a threat to the locals 2 (Mearns respondent).

By contrast, in areas where local employment oppor-tunities are perceived to be limited, such as in Skye,incomers were sometimes seen to have deprived localpeople of their job prospects.

There was job with X. The job application said localperson preferably with a working knowledge of Gaelic.I put my name down and go for the interview quitehappily. I'm someone with a good knowledge of theisland 2 There were at least "ve people that I knewfrom/ been born in Skye. They were #uent Gaelicspeakers. But the job went to a complete outsider,somebody who's got no knowledge of the Gaelic lan-guage and nothing to do with the island at all

2 There's a lot of incomers in jobs to me whichshould be "lled by locals.


Table 11Employment creation by self-employed heads of migrant households!

Number of employees Percentage Jobs created

No one other than migrant 55 01}4 employees 36 565 or more employees 8 54

!Source: Findlay et al. (1999, p.83).

This view however was not shared by others

I would say in general my experience 2 [is that] theincomers have brought a lot to Skye2. Most of themhave brought an economy with them. They've broughttheir money with them which they spend locally

2 I would say in certain circumstances they've cre-ated jobs. (Skye respondent).

Most of the jobs created by migrants in the samplewere based in the service sector and in particular inprofessional and managerial positions. In this sectora job multiplier of 1.9 (compared to 0.3 and 1.0 foragriculture and tradesmen respectively) per self-em-ployed migrant was calculated. As such many residentsborn and bred in rural Scotland may not possess thequali"cations or skills necessary to take advantage ofthese new employment opportunities. For example,among the long-term resident households no fewer than53% had at most an &O' grade or &O' level quali"cation.This fact was recognised by a locally born Skye respon-dent.

Usually when [the incomers] come here, they've gotprospects of getting a job. And they're very good. Ifthere's a job going they'll go for it whereas the locals sitback, hang on and wait till someone o!ers it to them.

It would appear that the job creation opportunitiesassociated with the repopulation of rural Scotland re-quire an adjustment in local training practices and pos-sibly a redirection of the employment aspirations of thelocal population.

4.6. Housing impacts

One of the most frequently cited e!ects of rural re-population is rising house prices, with incomers throughtheir higher income levels out-bidding local residents(Shucksmith, 1981). The income data presented abovecon"rms the higher purchasing power of migrants andsome 60% of long-term residents in our survey reportedthat &incomers had raised house prices'. The followingquotes illustrate the problem:

We found it very di$cult to get a house in the country.There were always hundreds of other people who wereinterested 2 we found every time we made a bid fora property, we were beaten by thousand of pounds.(Kyle and Carrick respondent)

A lot of people moved in from the South, you knowsold large properties in the South were able to buylovely properties up here, arti"cially raising the prices-it just happened all over the country.. (Black Isle re-spondent).

A lot of them buy houses in the village for literallyholiday homes. They kill the surrounding area becausethey are sitting dead a lot of the time 2 (N E Fiferespondent).

Further exploration of the housing situation revealsthat 80% of those interviewed were satis"ed with the costof private housing in their area. By contrast, 60% ex-pressed dissatisfaction regarding the availability ofrented homes.

There are very few rented council houses. A lot of themhave been bought 2 If you have a local family whowant to stay in the area, they can't because there isn'tany a!ordable housing for them. That is a problem.They have to move to Cupar or wherever there'sa house available or get something from the housingassociation2 (N E Fife respondent).

This seems to correspond with the "nding by Cloke etal. (1997) that the real housing problem is one of sectoralsupply.

The main housing characteristics for the sample arepresented in Table 12. It demonstrates great similaritiesbetween the various household types. The majority ofrespondents resided in owner-occupied and traditionaldetached properties with no more than three bedrooms.For each group the most frequent location was withina village. Not surprisingly, a higher proportion of local-mover migrants reside in public sector accommodationand more long-term residents and local-mover migrantsreside in semi-detached or terraced properties. An equalshare of local movers and incomers reside in new residen-tial developments. What emerges from this picture is thatincomers purchase property from all segments of thehousing market and therefore have increased the demandfor all housing. The higher income levels of incomersinevitably means that there is great potential for in-comers to outbid local residents in any particular sectorbut in reality incomers have not necessarily purchasedlarger or more expensive homes.

For example, 10% of incomers with an annual pre-taxincome of more than C20,000 reside in one or twobedroom accommodation, and of those earning under


Table 12Housing characteristics

Migrant: local movers Migrant: incomers Long-term residents

Tenure Owner-occupied 77% 83% 81%Public rented 16 4 9Private rented 6 9 6Tied 2 4 4

House type Detached 50% 69% 60%Semi-detached 26 13 27Terraced 17 13 11Flat 8 5 1

House form New 45% 45% 23%Traditional 50 49 76Conversion 5 6 1

House size One 4% 4% }

(no. bedrooms) Two 28 26 18Three 38 36 53Four 18 25 18Four# 12 9 11

C10,000 per annum 11% reside in 3}4 bedroomproperties compared with 35% of long-term residenthouseholds on the same income. On a more positive notemigrants represent a new source of capital for investingin the rural housing stock. The e!ect of this new source ofinvestment on upgrading the housing stock might beinferred from the signi"cant number of migrants residingin newly built properties or in conversions of older partsof the housing market (chi-square "39.6 degrees offreedom "4: statistically signi"cant at 99% level).

5. Discussion

This paper has sought to assess whether a repopula-tion of rural Scotland represents an opportunity ora threat to such communities. This was explored in termsof the demographic, economic and housing consequenceson the host environment. Economic, planning and socialchanges inherent in today's society have provided theopportunity for many individuals to ful"l their residen-tial preferences and realise their &countryside ideal'.Those participating in this migration process are largelycharacterised by a service sector class who are commonlyperceived to be responsible for changing rural communi-ties. We in contrast took as our starting point thata repopulation of the countryside was a product of widereconomic and social changes and was not in itself thecause of such changes.

Rural restructuring and the wider socio-economic cha-nges associated with modern society has provided anopportunity for in-migration to rural areas. But ratherthan initiating change within rural communities in-mi-gration has the potential to bring many opportunities.This assumption, we believe, has been borne out by ourresults. For example, it was found that more urban orien-

tated shopping patterns characterised both migrant andlong-term resident households and what in#uenced suchpatterns was the place of work not migrant status. Fur-thermore, we noted a high degree of similarity in terms ofthe characteristics of each sub-group. Where di!erencesare apparent it is contended that these represent signi"-cant opportunities for the economic sustainability ofScottish rural communities. In addition where problemshave been identi"ed, for example, with regard to ruralhousing it has been suggested that this may have more todo with the supply of housing than increasing demandcaused by incomers.

In demographic terms the overall impact is one ofrejuvenation. Migrant households are notably youngerand contain a higher number of school age children.However, while this is important in the short-term someevidence is available to question the sustainability of thisinto the future. The children of migrant households, andin particular incomer households, demonstrate a greatertendency to move outwith the study area for highereducation, employment or setting up home. Given theage pro"le of these households it is likely that this trendwill increase in the future. Net in-migration to an area isnot therefore a reason to suspend local policies aimed atpopulation retention. Appropriate population `reten-tiona strategies are necessary not just to support youngpeople from the long-term resident population but alsofor second generation incomers.

There is no doubt from this study that migrants pos-sess considerably more spending power than the localresidents. But whereas in other studies this has beenshown to be a possible threat to rural communities, thisstudy has identi"ed a number of potential economicopportunities. First, 22% of the full-time economicallyactive migrant households were headed by a self-employed person most of whom based their businesses


within the local area. Second, the job generating e!ects ofthis group have been shown to be very signi"cant result-ing in substantial job growth for others living in the ruralenvironment. Clearly at a time when employment cre-ation in rural Scotland is a priority the role of migrants isa signi"cant one which should not be ignored. Neverthe-less, the full potential o!ered here will only be realisedthrough appropriate training to match the new jobs' skillrequirements. Equally important in economic terms isthe research "nding that the highest incomes are asso-ciated with those who commute to work outside theimmediate area irrespective of whether or not they aremigrants or long-term residents. Such a relationship isperhaps not surprising but is nevertheless noteworthy. Itpoints to the important link which must be maintainedbetween rural and urban areas if the income bene"tsresulting from rural repopulation are to be realised. Fur-thermore, it highlights the need for rural areas to beattractive environments able to entice migrants to spendtheir incomes there rather than at their place of work.There is a willingness to use local services and facilitiesfollowing the initial move. This willingness needs to besustained rather than undermined by the quality of pro-vision available.

Migrants were found to purchase accommodationfrom all sectors of the rural property market and theirpresence has undoubtedly increased local competitionfor housing. Nevertheless, there is little evidence that theyare outbidding locals wishing to remain within the area.The majority of local-movers were motivated by personal(including setting up home) and housing reasons andresided in owner-occupied properties. Few moving out-with the home area divulged housing reasons as theirprincipal motive. Furthermore, local-movers obtainedpublic sector housing suggesting that this sector of themarket did not su!er from incomer competition. Finally,some evidence was obtained to suggest that incomers didnot always use their superior purchasing power to obtainlarge and expensive properties.

It is apparent from the research reported in this paperthat in-migration to rural Scotland has brought numer-ous opportunities: increased rural income levels andtherefore the potential for greater expenditure on goodsand services within the local area, rural job creation andnet investment in the rural housing stock. These oppor-tunities, however, have not been the focus of rural policyinitiatives and have failed to be used as a source for majorrural revitalisation. For example, expenditure patternsare in#uenced by the place of work and an initial willing-ness to use local services is being undermined by unsatis-factory provisions of rural services. As a result there isconsiderable leakage of expenditure and job creationfrom rural to urban Scotland. Rather than being viewedas a threat, the repopulation of Scotland's countrysideshould be viewed as a product of wider restructuring andone which brings major opportunities for rural areas.

A challenge to all involved in local rural planning is toensure that these opportunities are realised to the bene"tof both migrants and long-term residents.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding pro-vided by the Scottish O$ce (Edinburgh) for this projectand the valuable role played by Lorna Philip who wasemployed as a research assistant. We would also like tothank the referees for their constructive comments on anearlier draft of the paper.

References

Allan, J., Mooney, E., 1998. Migration into rural communities:questioning the language of counterurbanisation. In: Boyle, P.,Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration into Rural Areas. Wiley, Chichester,pp. 280}302.

Beale, C., 1976. A further look at non-metropolitan population growthsince 1970. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (5),953}958.

Beale, C., 1977. The recent shift of Unites States population to non-metropolitan areas. International Regional Science Review 2 (2),113}122.

Berry, B.J.L. 1978. The counterurbanisation process: how general? In:Hansen, N.M. (Ed.), Human Settlement Systems. Ballinger Publish-ing Company, Cambridge, pp. 25}49.

Bolton, N., Chalkley, B., 1990. The rural population turnaround:a case study of North Devon. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (1),29}43.

Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), 1998. Migration Into Rural Areas. Wiley,Chichester.

Buller, H., Hoggart, K., 1994. International Counterurbanization.Avebury, Aldershot.

Cawley, M., 1991. Town population change 1971}1986: patterns anddistributional e!ects. Irish Geography 24, 106}116.

Champion, A., 1981. Population trends in rural Britain. PopulationTrends 26, 20}23.

Champion, A., 1985. Urban-rural di!erences in population change inGreat Britain. Espace, Populations, Societies 1, 128}136.

Champion, A., 1987. Recent changes in the pace of population decon-centration in Britain. Geoforum 18 (4), 379}401.

Champion, A., 1988. The reversal of migration turnaround: resumptionof traditional trends? International Regional Science Review 11,253}260.

Champion, A., 1989. Counterurbanization. Edward Arnold, London.Champion, A., Wong, C., Rooke, A., Dorling, D., Coombes, M., Brun-

sdon, C., 1996. The Population of Britain in the 1990s: A Social andEconomic Atlas. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Cloke, P., 1996. Rural life-styles: material opportunity, cultural experi-ence, and how theory can undermine Policy. Economic Geography72 (4), 433}449.

Cloke, P., Goodwin, M., Milbourne, P., 1997. Rural Wales: Communityand Marginalization. University of Wales Press, Cardi!.

Court, Y., 1989. Denmark: towards a more deconcentrated settlementpattern. In: Champion, A. (Ed.), Counterurbanisation. Edward Ar-nold, London.

Dahms, F., McComb, J., 1999. Counterurbanization, interaction andfunctional change in a rural amenity area * a canadian example.Journal of Rural Studies 15 (2), 129}146.


Dean, K.G., 1987. The disaggregation of migration #ows: the case ofBrittany, 1975}82. Regional Studies 21, 313}325.

Dean, K.G., 1988. Inter-regional #ows of economically active personsin France, 1975}1982. Demography 25, 81}98.

Dean, K.G., Shaw, D.P., Brown, B.J.H., Perry, R.W., Thorneycroft,W.T., 1984. Counterurbanisation and the characteristics of personsmigrating to West Cornwall. Geoforum 15 (2), 177}190.

Dematteis, G., 1986. Urbanisation and counteruebanisation in Italy.Ekistics 316/317, 26}33.

Dematteis, G., Petsimeris, P., 1989. Italy: counterurbanization asa transitional phase in settlement reorganization. In: Champion, A.(Ed.), Counterurbanization. Edward Arnold, London.

Dickson, M.B., 1994. Should auld acquaintance be forgot? A compari-son of the Scots and English in Scotland. Scottish A!airs 7, 112}134.

Fielding, A., 1982. Counterurbanisation in Western Europe. Progressand Planning 17, 1}53.

Fielding, A. 1990. Counterurbanisation: threat or blessing? In: Pinter,D. (Ed.), Western Europe: Challenge and Change. Belhaven, Lon-don, pp. 226}239

Findlay, A., Short, D., Stockdale, A., 1999. Study of the Impact ofMigration in rural Sotland. Scottish O$ce, Edinburgh.

Forsythe, D., 1980. Urban incomers and rural change. The impact ofmigrants from the city on life in an Orkney Community. SociologiaRuralis 20, 287}307.

Frey, W., 1989. United States: counterurbanization and metropolisdepopulation. In: Champion, A. (Ed.), Counterurbanization. Ed-ward Arnold, London.

Fugitt, G., Beale, C., 1996. Recent trends in non-metropolitanmigration: toward a new turnaround?. Growth and Change 27,156}174.

Gilligan, J., 1987. Visitors tourists and outsiders in a Cornish town. In:Bouquet, M., Winter, M. (Eds.), Who from their Labours Rest?Con#ict and Practice in Rural Tourism. Avebury, Aldershot,pp. 65}82.

Glyn-Jones, A., 1979. Rural Recovery: has it begun? Devon CountyCouncil and the University of Essex.

Halfacree, K., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourseand alternative de"nitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 9,1}15.

Halliday, J., Coombes, M., 1995. In search of counterurbansisation:some evidence from Devon on the relationship between patternsof migration and motivation. Journal of Rural studies 11 (4),433}446.

Hoggart, K., 1988. Not a de"nition of rural. Area 20 (1), 35}40.Hoggart, K., 1990. Let's do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies 6,

245}257.Hugo, G., 1989. Australia:the spatial concentration of the turnaround.

In: Champion, A. (Ed.), Counterurbanization. Edward Arnold, Lon-don.

Hugo, G., Smailes, P., 1985. Urban-tural migration in Australia:a process view of the turnaround. Journal of Rural Studies 1,11}30.

Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., 1998. From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In: Ilbery, B. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change.Longman, Harlow.

Illeris, S., 1984. Danish regional development during economic crisis.Geogra"ske Tidsskrift 84, 53}62.

Jedrej, C., Nuttall, M., 1996. White Settlers: The Impact of ruralrepopulation in Scotland. Harwood Academic Publishers, Luxem-bourg.

Jones, H., 1984. Counterurbanisation in societal context: long-distancemigration to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. ProfessionalGeographer 36 (40), 437}444.

Jones, H., 1985. White settlers mark 2? Radical Scotland (Feb), 27}28.Jones, H., Caird, J., Berry, W., Dewhurst, J., 1986. Peripheral counterur-

banisation: Findings from an integration of census and survey datain Northern Scotland. Regional Studies 20 (1), 15}26.

Jones, H., 1992. Migration trends for Scotland: central losses andperipheral gains. In: Stillwell, J., Rees, P., Boden, P. (Eds.), Migra-tion Processes and Patterns 2 Population Redistribution in theUnited Kingdom. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 100}114.

Kontuly, T., 1998. Contrasting the Counterurbanisation Experience inEuropean Nations. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migrationinto Rural Areas: Theories and Issues. Wiley, Chichester.

Kontuly, T., Vogelsang, R., 1988. Explanations for the intensi"cation ofcounteruebanisation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Profes-sional Geographer 40, 42}54.

Kontuly, T., Vogelsang, R., 1989. Federal Republic of Germany: theintensi"cation of the migration turnaround. In: Champion, A. (Ed.),Counterurbanization. Edward Arnold, London.

Lewis, G., Sherwood, K., 1991. Unravelling the counterurbanisationprocess in lowland Britain: a case study of east Northamptonshire.Cambria 16, 58}77.

Lewis, G., McDermott, P., Sherwood, K., 1991. The Counterurbanisa-tion process: demographic restructuring and policy response inrural England. Sociologia Ruralis 31 (4), 309}320.

Lowe, P., Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993.Regulating the new rural sapces: the uneven development of land.Journal of Rural Studies 9, 205}223.

Lumb, R., 1980. Migration in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.Institute for the Study of Sparsely Populated Areas. University ofAberdeen.

Marsden, T., 1998. Rural restructuring: economic perspectives. In: Il-bery, B. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow.

Marsden, T., Lowe, P., Whatmore, S., 1990. Rural Restructuring: Glo-bal processes and their responses. David Fulton Publishers, Lon-don.

McKay Consultants, 1989. Changes in rural service provision in Scot-land. A Report for the Scottish Consumer Council, Highlands andIslands Development Board and Scottish Development Agency,Inverness.

Murdoch, J., Day, G., 1998. Middle class mobility, rural communitiesand the politics of exclusion. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.),Migration into Rural Areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 186}199.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., 1994. Recconstituting Rurality: Class, Com-munity and Power in the Development Process. UCL Press, Lon-don.

Murdoch, J., Pratt, A., 1994. Rural Studies of power and the power ofrural studies: a reply to Philo. Journal of Rural Studies 9 (4),411}427.

OECD, 1991. New Ways of Managing Services in Rural Areas. Paris.Owen, D.W., Green, A.E., 1992. Migration Patterns and Trends. In:

Champion, A., Fielding, A. (Eds.), Migration Processes and Pat-terns, (Vol. 1): Progress and Prospects. Belhaven, London.

Pahl, R.E., 1966. The rural-urban continuum. Sociologica Ruralis 6,299}329.

Perry, R., Dean, K., Brown, B., 1986. Counterurbanisation: Case Stud-ies of Urban to Rural Movement. Geobooks, London.

Philo, C., 1993. Post-Modern rural geography? A reply to Murdochand Pratt. Journal of Rural Studies 9 (4), 429}436.

Phillips, D., Williams, A., 1984. Rural Britain * A Social Geography.Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.

Phillips, M., 1998. Investigations of the British rural middle classes* Part 2: fragmentation, identity, morality and contestation. Jour-nal of Rural Studies 14 (4), 427}444.

Pooley, C., Turnbull, J., 1996. Counterurbanisation: the late nineteenthcentury origins to a late twentieth century phenomenon. Area 28 (4),514}524.

Robinson, G., 1990. Con#ict and Change in the Countryside. BelhavenPress, London.

Savage, M., Barlow, J., Dickens, P., Fielding, T., 1992. Property,Bureaucracy and Culture. Routledge, London.

Scottish O$ce, 1996. Scottish Rural Life Update. Edinburgh.Shucksmith, M., 1981. No Homes for Locals? Gower, Aldershot.


Shucksmith, M., Chapman, P., Clark, G., Black, S., Conway, E., 1996.Rural Scotland Today. The Best of Both Worlds? Avebury, Alder-shot.

Simmons, M., 1997. Landscape of Poverty; Aspects of Rural England inthe late 1990s. Lemos and Crane, London.

Stockdale, A., 1992. State intervention and the impact of rural mobility#ows in Northern Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (4), 411}421.

Stockdale, A., 1993. Rural service provisions and the impact of a popu-lation revival: a study of public opinion in Northern Ireland. Area25 (4), 365}378.

Tsuya, N., Kuroda, T., 1989. Japan: the slowing of urbanisation andmetropolitan concentration. In: Champion, A. (Ed.), Counterurban-ization. Edward Arnold, London.

Vining, D.R., Kontuly, T., 1978. Population Dispersal from majormetropolitan regions: an international comparison. InternationalRegional Science Review 3 (1), 49}73.

Winchester, H., 1993. Contemporary France. Longman, Harlow.Winchester, H., Ogden, P., 1989. France: decentralization and decon-

centration in the wake of late urbanization. In: Champion, A. (Ed.),Counterurbanization. Edward Arnold, London.


The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat

Documents

Transcript of The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat