Blog

This commentary deals with the 2015 Focus on Rural Ontario fact sheets concerning size of the non-metro population, components of population change and immigrant arrivals. It is provided by Paul Knafelc, President of Community Benchmarks Inc.

Population growth has long been a primary metric of economic vitality. Communities monitor population change and components of population change in an effort to plan for public infrastructure, social services, housing, etc. 

While useful at a high level, this metric has weaknesses that are often overlooked, but when addressed, can greatly enhance population change as a planning tool.

First, as captured in the Fact Sheets, population statistics typically refer to net population change. The net number, however, tells us little about the extent of the population churn or any notable characteristics with respect to population increases or decreases.  For example, did a community attract 1,000 new people through in-migration and lose 1,001 through out-migration? Or, did a community entice just 10 new residents and lose 11?  While the net population change is -1 in each instance, the underlying dynamics are markedly different; as such, the resulting economic development initiatives should be much different.

The number (or proportion) of people moving in and out tells us about a community’s ability to attract and retain people.  It also provides insight on labour market dynamics and skill mismatches.  There are many rural communities that have stagnant net population growth, but are quite successful at attracting people to live there (while at the same time losing residents to death and out-migration).

Second, the connotation that population growth points to a desirable place to live may be disingenuous to rural communities.  A community may be desirable for social, economic and/or physical reasons.  Most rural communities see population decline because of a lack of local jobs or an unreasonable commuting distance to jobs in other areas.  But this doesn’t mean that a community isn’t a desirable place to live. 

How do we know this to be true?  When population churn data is examined alongside associated employment income data, we learn that many rural communities are able to attract people who take a pay decrease to live there.  Desirability of this location, then, must be an influential factor in these decisions.

The same data also shows that for certain rural communities, people are less likely to leave for a pay increase, while conversely, some urban areas have a hard time retaining people, and are losing residents despite a pay decrease.

For example, even with rapid employment growth, Edmonton struggles to retain people, as a large percentage leave for a pay decrease. This fact (from data before the oil price collapse) illustrates that, for many people, the desirability of their new place of residence was higher than that of Edmonton’s.