Rural Prince Edward Island Profile:

A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991-2001)

Read the Executive Summary


Download a PDF of the Entire Report


Media Release and Backgrounder


A Guide to Understanding the Terms and Acronyms Used in the Profiles


Frequently Asked Questions

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Government of Canada's Rural Secretariat initiated this report to advance its goal in improving government and citizen understanding of rural conditions in the province of Prince Edward Island. 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 Prince Edward Island.

Research Methods

Two major classification systems form the core analysis in this report. First, the Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ) system, developed by McNiven et al. (2000), is utilized to make distinctions within rural and small town Prince Edward Island. 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. 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 Prince Edward Island as a whole, and for its urban centres.

Major Findings

Population Indicators

In 2001, rural and small town residents comprised 44.9% of the total Prince Edward Island population. Moderate MIZ zones were the most heavily populated of the rural zones (comprising 21.7% of the total population), followed by Strong (14.0%), Weak (8.6%), and, finally, No MIZ (0.5%) zones.

Between 1991 and 1996, population growth is observed in both urban and rural Prince Edward Island. However, between 1996 and 2001, the rural population decreased slightly (by 1.0%), while the urban population continued to increase (by 1.8%). Population change varied considerably within rural and small town zones, ranging from the most consistent growth in Strong MIZ zones (of 5.9% and 0.1% in each inter-census period, respectively) to population contraction in No MIZ zones (of 10.2% between 1991 and 1996 and of 5.8% between 1996 and 2001).

Prince Edward Island's rural population comprised a much larger share of the total population than was the case Canada wide (44.9% compared to 20.6%). The rural populations of the province and of Canada as a whole grew between 1991 and 1996 (by 2.4% and 3.9% respectively). After 1996, both Canada's and Prince Edward Island's rural populations contracted, though at a marginally greater rate in Prince Edward Island (1.0%) than in Canada as a whole (0.4%).

Compared to urban Prince Edward Island, rural and small town zones had slightly higher proportions falling within the lowest (children) and highest (seniors) age categories. All but No MIZ zones exhibited the same age structure. No MIZ zones, while having the largest proportion of children in the province (22.8% compared to the provincial figure of 20.0%), had the smallest proportion of seniors (9.6% compared to 12.8% in the total province). Between 1991 and 2001, the age distribution of both the urban and rural populations became more concentrated in the adult age category, with Weak MIZ zones most visibly exemplifying this trend of all rural zones.

Aboriginal individuals comprised a marginally larger share of the urban than the rural and small town population in 2001 (1.2% compared to 0.8%). Within rural zones, Aboriginal representation ranged from a low of 0.3% in Moderate MIZ zones to a high of 2.5% in Weak MIZ zones. The number of Aboriginal individuals in urban centres nearly doubled between 1996 and 2001, increasing from 455 to 855 individuals, yet the share of the urban population comprised of Aboriginal people increased by just 0.6 percentage points. Within rural and small town Prince Edward Island, Aboriginal representation remained stable in all but No MIZ zones, where an increase of 1.5 percentage points is observed.

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 Prince Edward Island. While differences between the urban and rural populations are apparent, there was often greater variation among the four MIZ categories. Strong MIZ zones were most similar to urban centres, with many indicators revealing conditions of substantial advantage relative to the rest of rural Prince Edward Island. Weak and, on many indicators, No MIZ zones, in contrast, were among the least advantaged zones in the province, while Moderate MIZ zones usually fell somewhere between these extremes.

The use of three consecutive census years permits a review of changes over the decade of the 1990s in rural Prince Edward Island. Most apparent in this over‑time review of the indicators is the continuation of the relative disadvantage of rural zones, when compared to urban Prince Edward Island, and the continuing advantage of Strong MIZ zones. For some indicators, Weak and No MIZ zones exhibited declining economic well-being between 1996 and 2001 and for other indicators, modest improvements were not sufficient to close the gap between these zones and the more advantaged Strong MIZ zones and urban centres.

Examples of this pattern include the following:

Economic Indicators

• Low unemployment rates were consistently found across time in Strong MIZ zones, while high unemployment rates were consistently found in No MIZ zones.


• Residents of Strong MIZ zones were the most likely in rural Prince Edward Island to be employed in the service industries, and in production and government-provided services in particular, while Weak and No MIZ residents were the least represented in service industry employment in the province.


• Generally, median incomes declined as metropolitan influence weakened, with Weak MIZ incomes comprising just 80% of Strong MIZ incomes in 2001. Weak MIZ were also the only rural zones in the province to exhibit a lower median income in 2001 than in 1991.


• Weak and No MIZ zones had the highest proportions of low-income residents in the province (15.6% and 17.9%, respectively), and Strong MIZ zones had the lowest (7.5%). Weak and No MIZ were also the only zones in the province to have a higher proportion of low‑income residents in 2001 than in 1991 (though urban centres had the same proportion in 2001 as in 1991).


• Weak MIZ zones had the highest proportion of residents with incomes derived from social transfer payments in the province (26.5%), followed by No MIZ zones (25.1%).

Education Indicators

• The lowest level of educational attainment is observed in Weak and No MIZ zones where, respectively, 53.3% and 51.5% of the population of at least 20 years of age had not completed high school as recently as 2001. Weak MIZ residents were also the least likely in Prince Edward Island to have attained some post‑secondary education (8.2%) or a university degree (5.1%) in 2001, and No MIZ residents were the least likely to have attained a post-secondary certificate or diploma (17.2%) in this census year. Of the rural zones, Strong MIZ, in contrast, had the highest proportions of individuals attaining a post‑secondary certificate/diploma (32.4%) or a university degree (10.2%) in 2001.

• Weak MIZ zones had the smallest and Strong MIZ zones the largest number of per 1,000 population education providers in 2001 (11.7 compared to 13.3 per 1,000 population, respectively).

Social Indicators

• The prevalence of lone parent families increased as metropolitan influence declined. No MIZ zones had the highest incidence of, and experienced the greatest over time growth in lone‑parent families (from 9.8% in 1991 to 25.0% in 2001), while the lowest rates are observed in Strong MIZ zones (10.6% in 2001).


• Strong MIZ zones had the newest housing in the province, with 16.0% of dwellings constructed between 1991 and 2001 compared to 14.9% provincially. Weak MIZ zones were the least likely to have new houses constructed during this period (12.5%).


• Housing values declined as urban influence weakened. Despite declining between 1996 and 2001, Strong MIZ housing values continued to be the highest in rural Prince Edward Island in 2001, averaging $20,200 higher (12%) than No MIZ housing values.


• Despite having among the lowest housing values in the province, residents of Weak MIZ zones were the least able in the province to afford their shelter with 13.5% of household owners spending more than 30% of their income on shelter in 2001.

Health Care Indicators

• In No MIZ zones resided the lowest ratio of health care providers to population in the province (14.8 per 1,000 population) and as of 2001, resided no professional health care providers (e.g., physicians). Though substantially fewer health care professionals resided in Strong MIZ than in urban centres, the former zones had the highest relative number of professionals residing in rural Prince Edward Island in 2001 (2.4 per 1,000 population).

Residents of rural and small town Prince Edward Island are clearly not equivalent to their urban counterparts with respect to economic prosperity, social well‑being, educational attainment and access to health care. The differences that exist within rural and small town Prince Edward Island are, however, equally, if not more, apparent. Despite moderate improvements in the most disadvantaged Weak and No  MIZ zones, residents of these zones continue, as recently as 2001, to experience conditions of disadvantage relative to the rest of Prince Edward Island. The MIZ classification system consistently demonstrates that resources and support are increasingly needed as social and economic integration with urban regions decreases. Weak and No MIZ zones are in a relative position of greater need in terms of supporting policy and programs than are their more integrated Strong MIZ counterparts.

For a pdf of the entire document, please click here.

You can also receive a Word document or get additional information by contacting:

Manager of Research and Analysis
Rural Research and Analysis Unit
Rural Secretariat, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Tower 7, 6th Floor
1341 Baseline Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C5
Tel: 888 781-2222
E-mail: rs@agr.gc.ca

Catalogue No.: A114-13/9-2001E-HTML
ISBN: 0-662-40314-2
©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005

[ Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site ] [ Home | News Releases | Key Rural Initiatives | Site Map | Publications ]