As recorded by the census, each urban/rural profile area type has a net gain or loss from moves within New Zealand compared with five years ago. The number of moves into and out of respective area types has, for almost all area types, increased during 2001–2006 compared with 1986–1991. However, the net gains or losses to these areas might not have changed much when comparing the different time periods.
During the 2001–2006 period, there was a significantly reduced net internal migration loss to independent urban areas (6,900) compared with the 1986–1991 period (16,400). In contrast, rural areas with low urban influence had a larger population loss (down by 5,000) in 2001–2006 (14,900) compared with 1986–1991 (9,900).
Table 4
Moves to and from Area Types by Usual Residence Five Years Ago
Urban/rural areas
2006 Census |
| Urban/rural area |
Moved to area type |
Moved from area type |
Net population flow |
| Main urban |
133,227 |
134,595 |
-1,368 |
| Satellite urban |
31,026 |
28,881 |
2,145 |
| Independent urban |
75,624 |
82,575 |
-6,951 |
| Rural with high urban influence |
37,917 |
32,646 |
5,271 |
| Rural with moderate urban influence |
46,851 |
35,052 |
11,799 |
| Rural with low urban influence |
49,647 |
64,593 |
-14,946 |
| Highly rural/remote area |
16,689 |
11,682 |
5,007 |
| Total(1) |
391,302 |
391,302 |
0 |
(1) Includes moves to and from area outside defined urban/rural area types.
Note: Figures for the 1991, 1996 and 2001 Censuses can be derived from table 2 of the downloadable tables (see tables section at the end of this article).
The overall net population gain or loss to each area was partly a result of significant differences in age-related motivations to move between the areas. This was illustrated in the graphs of distributions of inflows and outflows by age (in the section ‘Moving in and out of areas’) for selected area types, but was also apparent when analysing the net population flow by broad personal income groups across the area types.
Consequently, at the 2006 Census, main urban areas had gained a significant number of people who had specified a personal income less than $10,001, whereas these areas would lose population in the higher income ranges. For example, main urban areas gained 2,800 people who had a personal income range of $50,001–$70,000 between 2001 and 2006. Independent urban areas had a net loss of young people in their tertiary education ages, and this was reflected in a net loss of population (3,800) who had specified a personal income bracket less than $10,001 during the same period.
Figure 5
There were significant net population gains for most rural area types from internal migration between 2001 and 2006. Rural areas with moderate urban influence gained a similar level of population across all income ranges, whereas rural areas with high urban influence only had net population gains from people with incomes of $30,001 or more. The large net loss of 14,900 people to rural areas with low urban influence mainly consisted of a net loss of people in the ages of 15–24 years, or from people who had specified personal incomes less than $30,000.
Figure 6
Net internal population flows also resulted in a different distribution across the urban/rural area types for each of the ethnic groups. There were net losses of people of European ethnicities to main urban areas and to independent urban areas, but a gain of people of European ethnicities to satellite urban areas during the 2001–2006 period. By contrast, main urban areas gained people of Māori ethnicity, while independent urban areas had a significant loss. The younger age structure of the Māori ethnic group partly explains the large net flow to main urban areas and an almost equivalent net loss to independent urban areas for this ethnic group.
Information sources
1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 Censuses of Population and Dwellings.
Glossary
Please refer to Glossary.
Further information
This page is part of a web-based analytical report by Statistics New Zealand.
The report includes more than 10 topics. To see the other topics, go to the Internal Migration report introduction page.
For further information on the urban/rural profile area classification, including maps of the areas by region, go to the New Zealand: An Urban/Rural Profile Update webpage at the Statistics NZ website.