News release
RURAL ALBERTA FOCUS OF REPORT
HANNA, ALBERTA - August 16, 2005 - One-quarter of Albertans reside in rural areas. How do their economic, educational, social and health care situations differ? A new report examines the trends in both rural and urban areas across the province. The Rural Alberta Profile is one of 14 profiles being developed—one for every province and territory in Canada, and one for the country as a whole. The report was done with the assistance and expertise of the Government of Alberta and was released following a joint federal-provincial roundtable on rural development held in Hanna, Alberta.
“The Government of Canada recognizes that in order for the country to reach its full potential both urban and rural areas need to be strong,” said the Honourable Wayne Easter, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with special emphasis on Rural Development. “When we studied the Statistics Canada Census data we could see that urban areas clearly influence rural areas. Governments need to understand these kinds of relationships in order to develop programs, services and activities that will be truly helpful for rural areas.”
Doug Horner, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development said that this study underscores how vital it is to tailor government’s actions for rural communities. “We’re committed to a stronger future for rural Alberta,” he said.
A Statistics Canada research method divides rural Alberta into four categories of rural, depending on how strongly they are economically and socially influenced by urban areas. The four categories are called Strong Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ), Moderate MIZ, Weak MIZ and No MIZ, corresponding to strongly, moderately, weakly and not influenced by urban centres. Strong MIZ zones typically stood out as being most similar to the more advantaged urban centres.
The authors of this report looked at Statistics Canada Census data from 1991, 1996 and 2001 to examine 20 indicators that reflect conditions in different areas. They found there was often greater variation between the four types of rural than between rural and urban. Some noteworthy facts:
- While Canada’s rural population contracted between 1996 and 2001 by 0.4%, Alberta’s rural population grew by 5.5%.
- Alberta’s median personal incomes are higher in urban centres and most strongly urban influenced zones (Strong MIZ) and lower in the non urban influenced zones (No MIZ).
- Average dwelling values are more than two times as high in the province’s most strongly Strong MIZ than in No MIZ.
- Alberta’s statistics are quite similar to the rest of the country, but there is some variation from indicator to indicator and amongst the four MIZ zones.
This study was carried out by the Canadian Rural Partnership’s Rural Secretariat with help from The Government of Alberta and Statistics Canada. The Rural Secretariat is a part of the Government of Canada that focuses on rural issues. You can find more information on the Canadian Rural Partnership and the Rural Secretariat at http://www.rural.gc.ca.
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Judy Roussel
Rural Communications
Rural Secretariat
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Phone: (613) 759-7968
Email: rousselj@agr.gc.ca
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Government of Canada's Rural Secretariat initiated this report to advance its goal of improving government and citizen understanding of rural conditions in the province of Alberta. This report benchmarks major socio-economic structures and trends regarding rural areas. The overall objective is to help improve policy with respect to the economic and social conditions found in rural Alberta.
Research Methods
Two major classification systems form the core analysis in this report. First, the MIZ (metropolitan influenced zones) system, developed by McNiven et al. (2000), is used to make distinctions within rural and small town Alberta. The four MIZ categories are Strong, Moderate, Weak, and No MIZ, with each reflecting progressively greater rurality. Second, a basic comparison between urban centres and rural/small town zones is also presented to capture overall differences between the two sectors of the province. In total, 20 indicators from Statistics Canada's 2001, 1996 and 1991 Censuses of population have been calculated and analyzed for each of four degrees of rurality, for rural and small town Alberta as a whole, and for urban centres.
MAJOR FINDINGS
Population Indicators
One-quarter of Albertans reside in rural zones of the province. Between 1996 and 2001, population growth was slightly lower in rural than in urban Alberta (5.5% compared to 12.0%). Within rural and small town Alberta, population growth varied considerably with the least populated zone, No MIZ, experiencing the greatest increase (17.9%), followed by Strong MIZ (12.7%), and Moderate MIZ (5.9%) zones. Weak MIZ, which contains the largest rural population, experienced the least growth of the rural zones (1.8%). While much of the growth in No MIZ zones is likely due to an increase in the number of Aboriginal people in the area, population increases in Strong MIZ zones reflect a net in-migration increase, possibly due to the draw of the strong economy and labour market in these zones of Alberta.
Alberta's rural population comprises a slightly larger share of the total province's population than is the case Canada wide (24.6% compared to 20.6%). While Canada's rural population contracted between 1996 and 2001 (by 0.4%), Alberta's rural population grew by 5.5%. Compared to urban Albertans, rural and small town population have a more polarized age structure with slightly higher proportions falling within the lowest (children) and highest (seniors) age categories. Between 1991 and 2001, all but one Alberta geographic zone aged, with Moderate MIZ populations aging, as a group, the most rapidly. The No MIZ population actually became more 'youthful,' perhaps, as a function of the higher birth rates among the predominantly Aboriginal population residing in these zones.
The share of the population that is Aboriginal increased as the level of urban integration decreased. Aboriginal representation increased in virtually all geographic zones of the province between 1996 and 2001, but most dramatically in No MIZ zones; half of the total population, 36,432, of No MIZ zones are individuals of Aboriginal identity.
Economic, Education, Social and Health Care Indicators
Most of the results illustrate a great deal of variation in the economic, education, social, and health care situations within rural and small town Alberta. While differences between the urban and rural populations are apparent, there was often greater variation among the four MIZ categories. Strong MIZ zones typically stand out as being most similar to the more advantaged urban centres, and for some indicators, actually exceeded urban regions. The Aboriginal-intensive No MIZ zones consistently ranked last within rural Alberta. Hence, among rural Albertans, Strong MIZ zones tended to be the most advantaged, No MIZ zones the most disadvantaged, and Moderate and Weak MIZs often fell somewhere in between the two extremes.
The use of three consecutive census years permits a review of changes over the decade of the 1990s in rural Alberta. Most apparent in what the indicators show over time is the relative economic prosperity within the province in 2001 compared to the 1996 census year. The 1996 to 2001 growth cycle, however, is not equally apparent across all geographic zones of the province. For some indicators, the perennially disadvantaged No MIZ zones experienced a decline in economic well-being between 1996 and 2001. These results indicate a growing disparity between the improving socioeconomic position of Strong MIZ population and the deteriorating position of those residing in No MIZ zones.
Examples of this pattern include the following:
Economic Indicators
- High labour force participation and low unemployment rates are consistently found across time in Strong MIZ zones, while low labour force participation and high unemployment rates are consistently found in No MIZ zones.
- Median personal incomes were the highest in urban centres and Strong MIZ zones and the lowest in No MIZ zones. No MIZ was also the only geographic zone in the province to exhibit a decline in income between 1996 and 2001.
- Compared to other MIZ Zones, No MIZ zones derived by far the greatest proportion of their income as social transfer income and were the only geographic zones to demonstrate an increasing reliance between 1996 and 2001 (from 19.3% to 22.0% of total income).
Education Indicators
- The lowest level of educational attainment is observed in No MIZ zones where 46% of the population of at least 20 years of age had not completed high school as recently as 2001. Strong MIZ population were the most likely of all rural and small town Albertans to have a university degree (10.1%), although they were still much less likely than urban Albertans to have this level of education (19.1%).
Social Indicators
- No MIZ has the highest rate and experienced the greatest over time growth in the incidence of lone-parent families (from 11.8% in 1991 to 21.8% in 2001), while the lowest rates are observed in Strong MIZ zones (9.2%).
- Average dwelling values were more than two times as high in Strong MIZ zones than in No MIZ zones of the province, but the latter geographic zones were only marginally less likely to have households that spend 30% or more on shelter costs.
Health Care Indicators
- In rural and small town Alberta resided lower numbers of health care providers per capita than in urban regions. Within non-metropolitan Alberta, in No MIZ zones resided by far the fewest and Strong MIZ zones the greatest relative number of health care providers (13.9 compared to 24.6 per 1,000).
Rural and small town Albertans are clearly not equivalent to their urban counterparts with respect to economic prosperity, social well-being, educational attainment and access to health care. Two important exceptions to this trend are the lower rates of low income and the more affordable housing in rural zones of the province. These data suggest that though incomes are lower in rural regions of the province, the higher cost of living in urban centres offsets the advantage of living there.
The differences that exist within rural and small town Alberta are even more apparent than the total urban / rural differences. Despite moderate improvements in the least advantaged zones of the province, population of No MIZ zones continue, as recently as 2001, to experience conditions of disadvantage relative to the rest of rural Albertans. The MIZ classification system consistently demonstrates that resources and support are increasingly needed as social and economic integration with urban regions decreases. No MIZ zones are in a relative position of greater need of supporting policy and programs than are their more integrated Strong MIZ counterparts.
 |
 |
|
News releases index : and .