English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The term ‘counterurbanisation’ is receiving renewed academic attention due to the Covid-19 pandemic. While not in vogue in popular discourse, the concepts invoked by the term counterurbanisation often appear uncritically in popular media as a Covid-19-induced rural renaissance. This article presents four arguments about using ‘counterurbanisation’ as a term and its applicability in the Australian context. I argue that ‘counterurbanisation’ emerged when categories of urban and rural were less theoretically problematic, and that being unidirectional it does not capture the diversity of migration dynamics. Third, in the Australian context, counterurbanisation is inaccurately often associated in the popular imagination with migration to rural productive landscapes. Fourth, the contemporary measurement and representation of counterurbanisation is flawed. While accepting that various forms of counterurbanisation are occurring, which is important in coastal and near-urban locations, the concept has little relevance for many Australian towns whose future will emerge outside the discourse of counterurbanisation.

Counterurbanisation, demographic change and discourses of rural revival in Australia during COVID-19