Counterurbanization is the demographic shift of people moving from cities to smaller towns and rural areas, reversing the centuries-old pattern of rural-to-urban migration. The term was coined by geographer Brian Berry, who observed that between 1970 and 1974, growth in American nonmetropolitan counties outpaced metropolitan ones for the first time. What researchers initially called a “population turnaround” has since become a recurring and accelerating pattern across much of the developed world.
How It Differs From Suburbanization
Counterurbanization is not the same as moving to the suburbs. Suburbanization pushes people to the edges of a city, but they remain within its economic orbit, commuting to the urban core for work and services. Counterurbanization goes further. It describes growth in outlying areas beyond the suburban ring, often accompanied by population decline in both the city center and its suburbs. The settlement system itself shifts from a concentrated state to a more spread-out one.
In demographic models, counterurbanization represents a distinct stage of urban development. It shows up as a negative relationship between settlement size and net migration: the smaller the town, the higher its rate of population gain. This is the opposite of what drives urbanization, where the largest cities attract the most people.
What Pushes People Out of Cities
The motivations behind counterurbanization fall into a few broad categories. Economic pressures are among the most powerful. Rising property prices in major cities push households toward areas where their money stretches further. Researchers have consistently found that migrants use relocation as a way to maximize the purchasing power of their financial assets, either downsizing to pocket savings or upsizing into a larger home in a cheaper area.
Quality of life is another persistent driver. People cite cleaner air, lower crime, less congestion, and access to green space as reasons for leaving cities. There’s also an element of perception: newcomers to rural areas often hold an idealized view of country life, which motivates their move even when the practical realities are more complex.
Health and safety concerns can accelerate the trend during crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, insecurity about urban living and perceptions of how strictly and effectively cities managed virus prevention measures significantly influenced migration decisions. For rural populations who had previously moved to cities, land ownership in their hometowns acted as a “safety net,” pulling them back when urban life felt precarious. Economic downturns amplify these effects, making city living feel like a risk rather than an opportunity.
Remote Work as an Accelerant
The single biggest structural change enabling counterurbanization in recent years is the rise of remote work. Before the pandemic, only about 5% of workdays in the United States were performed from home. That figure shot to 60% in the summer of 2020, then gradually settled at roughly 30% through 2023 and 2024. That stabilization matters: it signals a permanent shift, not a temporary blip.
Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describes a “Donut Effect,” where remote work has dispersed economic activity away from city centers. Spending data shows clear declines in places like Manhattan, with corresponding increases in suburbs and smaller surrounding communities. In U.S. cities with high levels of remote work, this pattern is larger and more persistent. About three-fifths of households that left big-city centers moved to the suburbs of the same city, but the remaining two-fifths moved further out, feeding counterurbanization directly.
Who Makes the Move
The demographic profile of counterurban migrants challenges some assumptions. Research on Swedish migration data found that people aged 18 to 40 were the most likely to make a counterurban move. From age 41 onward, the likelihood dropped, and it fell most sharply for those over 51. This runs counter to the stereotype of counterurbanization as a retiree phenomenon.
Income patterns are also surprising. Counterurban movers in the Swedish study had lower average incomes than other types of migrants, and a higher share were unemployed (28% compared to 24%). Having a higher income actually decreased the probability of moving down the urban hierarchy. Among those who did move, the majority (65%) settled into rental housing rather than buying property, and renters skewed younger, more often childless, and less financially established. A smaller group of counterurban movers, those who purchased homes, had higher incomes and were more likely to be over 30.
This suggests counterurbanization is not a single movement but at least two overlapping ones: younger, less affluent people seeking affordable housing, and a smaller cohort of established households buying into a lifestyle change.
Recent U.S. Migration Numbers
The trend is not theoretical. Between the 2020 census and mid-2024, migration added an estimated 974,379 people to nonmetropolitan counties in the United States. About 69% of that gain came from domestic migration (people moving within the country) and the remainder from international migration. In the 2020-2021 period, domestic migration accounted for 92% of nonmetro gains. That share has since decreased as international migration to rural areas picked up. By 2023-2024, about half of net migration gains in nonmetro counties came from international migration.
Overall, 65% of nonmetropolitan counties experienced positive net migration between 2020 and mid-2024. That’s a striking figure given that for most of the 20th century, the dominant story in rural America was population loss.
Effects on Rural Communities
The arrival of urban migrants reshapes rural areas in ways that are both positive and disruptive. On the positive side, newcomers bring spending power, skills, and demand for services. As counterurbanization progresses, rural economies tend to reorient toward tourism, real estate, and service industries. New residents often push for better infrastructure, more cultural amenities, and improved public services.
The downside is rural gentrification. Housing prices rise as urban migrants with greater purchasing power compete for a limited housing stock. This can price out long-term residents, particularly younger locals and lower-income families. The pattern mirrors urban gentrification: not just housing costs increase, but shopping, restaurants, and cultural facilities shift to cater to wealthier newcomers. Researchers have noted that growth in the “service class” in rural areas creates demand for workers to serve that class, adding a new layer of economic stratification to previously more uniform communities.
What Happens to the Cities Left Behind
When enough people leave, cities face a fiscal squeeze. Population decline erodes the local tax base, particularly property taxes tied to buildings. Research on Japanese cities experiencing urban shrinkage found that population loss significantly deteriorated local fiscal revenues, with building tax declines being the primary driver. Land taxes were less affected, but the overall revenue loss constrained cities’ ability to maintain services, creating a cycle where declining services push even more residents to leave.
The Donut Effect compounds this. Even when people don’t leave a metropolitan area entirely, their spending shifts outward. City centers that depended on commuter foot traffic for retail, dining, and entertainment see persistent revenue drops while peripheral areas gain.
Environmental Consequences
Counterurbanization’s environmental footprint cuts in two directions. On one hand, newcomers to rural areas tend to hold strong conservation values. They’re frequently more motivated to protect or restore forests than long-term rural residents, and their arrival often leads to increases in protected green spaces and multipurpose plantations. As rural economies shift away from agriculture toward tourism and residential development, agricultural land gets abandoned, and forests can regenerate. This process provides measurable ecosystem benefits: carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, watershed protection, and expanded wildlife habitat.
On the other hand, dispersed settlement patterns increase car dependency, energy use for heating and cooling standalone homes, and pressure on previously undeveloped land. New construction in rural areas can fragment habitats even as other areas reforest. The net environmental impact depends heavily on local planning decisions, the density of new development, and whether newcomers cluster in existing villages or scatter across the landscape. As a widespread and expanding process globally, counterurbanization has growing potential to reshape biodiversity, ecosystem services, and land use patterns well beyond the individual communities where it occurs.