3 - Discussion
The results set out above provide an exploration of the experiences of households and families migrating to rural areas. This was examined in terms of household composition, perceived advantages and disadvantages of living in rural towns, and a comparison of the affordability of essentials when living in these different places. Particular emphasis was placed on analysis for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, and Maori and non-Maori households. While of an initial nature, the results do suggest issues for small towns that are experiencing in-migration from large urban areas.
The profile of household types was little different in the small towns from households in the urban areas. However, there was a tendency for household composition to change from couples and couples with children before the move, to single people and sole parents after the move. There were a relatively high proportion of 'family' households moving and fewer single people.
While it is difficult to comment about the relative importance of these trends in the absence of information about other households in the towns (for instance, this may be typical of all households, not only migrants), this does suggest some change in the demographic composition of the towns that may need special consideration, even if only among the in-migrant population. For instance, sole parent households may require particular services (such as medical care, education, and child care), and are more likely to be consumers of essential goods and services. Alternatively, they may provide a greater casual/part time workforce for smaller rural businesses. Decision-makers need to be aware of the demographic implications of movement into their areas, in order to make the best decisions about the kinds of initiatives that are likely to stimulate local opportunities.
Responses to questions about income suggest that there was a general fall in incomes, even given the limitations in income, information that have been noted. The numbers of households in the lowest income category increased by 33%. Possible reasons for this income loss are varied, ranging from retirement movement, to loss of employment at the time of or after moving, to employment income earners no longer being part of the household.
Despite this, it seems clear that most of the people moving are not in a high-income group, and that those incomes are lower after moving, for whatever reason. Again, this has significant implications for towns looking to boost their economies, especially because much the current literature attributes such movement to higher income, lifestyle migrants (Wellington Regional Council 1993, Butt City Council 1993, Koziol and Bu 1993).
We have shown that the different groups (namely beneficiary and non-beneficiary, Maori and non-Maori) tended to agree on the advantages of living in rural areas compared to urban. These were largely 'physical', 'aesthetic' things, like the environment, the community, and the lifestyle. For towns on the periphery of urban areas who may wish to attract migrants, this suggests the sorts of attractions urban residents may find in rural life. Certainly, these results indicate that people felt the towns were qualitatively 'better' places to live.
The disadvantages noted by the different groups point to some issues that may need to be addressed in these towns. For non-beneficiaries and non-Maori in particular, the lack of facilities, and the distance and isolation of the towns seems to have been the major issue. While these were also the most common responses among Beneficiary and/or Maori households, these groups were more likely than Non-beneficiaries and non-Maori to name a lack of employment as a disadvantage. The combination of lack of facilities (from hospitals to shops) and lack of employment may not be surprising, but it. may indicate areas that need attention, especially as counter migration from urban areas seems to be a consistent, if not growing feature of population movement in New Zealand.
This was amplified in participants assessments of the affordability of essentials - namely food and medical care. While the majority of the respondents reported no change in the affordability of essential food, a notable proportion (19%) noted worsened situations, which was nearly double the number who noted improved situations. The finding that 32% of respondents reported problems of varying magnitude affording essential foods when interviewed further confirms the impression that the migrant population surveyed is a lower income one.
Such findings were echoed in perceptions of affordabilitv of medical care. We have seen that both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries felt medical care was less affordable in rural towns, hilt that this was more accentuated in the case of non-beneficiaries (this should be seen in the overall context of reforms in the health and welfare sectors, which may have made care more difficult to afford for those migrant households anyway). It is difficult to speculate as to why beneficiary households would feel the affordability of care has changed less after the move than non-beneficiaries. One possibility is that such low income groups were already having difficulty accessing medical care in urban areas, and therefore do not notice as much change when they move to a rural area with fewer facilities.
We have also seen that Maori households perceived medical care in the rural centres as more affordable, while non-Maori described it as less affordable. As noted above, this may be due to these Maori households having access to recent. iwi based, and other Maori, social and health services. If this is the case, then these services have clearly had a significant and positive impact on the health of many of those Maori households that have moved.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
