population growth and change: implications for australia's cities and regions

Population Growth and Change: Implications forAustralia’s Cities and Regionsgeor_695 317..335

PAULINE McGUIRK1* and NEIL ARGENT2

1Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University ofNewcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.2School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW,2351, Australia.*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Received 8 December 2010; Revised 21 March 2011; Accepted 28 March 2011

AbstractAustralia’s distinctive pattern of settlement has long presented a suite of social,economic, infrastructural, and environmental challenges for the nation’s citiesand regions. These challenges will be intensified by the population growth anddynamics anticipated in the 2010 Intergenerational Report. Future growth willinevitably have differential impacts for metropolitan, regional, and rural settle-ments, and for inland and coastal regions. This paper analyses current trends andlikely directions in population change and distribution and the major implicationsfor the nation’s metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. For Australia’s cities,core issues include: access to affordable housing, suitable employment, infra-structure, and services; managing growth within environmental constraints; andthe political management of popular anxieties around urban diversity and con-solidation. For rural regions, processes of depopulation, demographic decline,ageing, and threats to community socio-economic viability are intermingled withdifferential patterns of repopulation and consolidation, and issues of growthmanagement. While the paper works through the distinctive character of theissues facing urban and regional contexts, it also highlights the interconnectednature of demographic change in Australia’s settlement system and the questionsthat these pose for urban and regional governance.

KEY WORDS population projections; urban and regional settlement; metro-politan growth management; non-metropolitan growth; decline and change

IntroductionThe release of the 2010 Intergenerational Report(IGR) re-ignited the long-simmering nationaldebate over Australia’s optimal population size.With some alarm, headlines from the majorbroadsheet newspapers told of the IGR’s long-range forecast of 36 million Australians by 2050,together with a world-leading 65% growth rate(Irvine and Saulwick, 2009). The IGR’s releasecoincided with official statistics highlighting thatrecent very high immigration intakes are drivingthe nation’s rapid growth, with total permanent

and long-term arrivals reaching over 660 000in 2008–2009 (Department of Immigration andCitizenship, 2009). Almost simultaneously, Aus-tralian Bureau of Statistics’ projections also fore-shadowed rapid future growth, overwhelminglyconcentrated in the capital cities.

As is somewhat typical of documents such asthe IGR – conceived, researched, and writtenfrom the perspective of the political centre – thetrue picture of population growth (and decline) atthe regional scale, was glossed over. Yet centralto a detailed and policy-relevant understanding

317Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):317–335doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00695.x

of many of the IGR’s headline concerns is thequestion of population distribution, particularlythe very substantial differences in demographiccomposition and change at subnational levelsacross the settlement system. In this paper, weanalyse the current trends and likely directions inpopulation change and distribution of Australia’scities and non-metropolitan regions. We are par-ticularly concerned to draw out the major impli-cations of these highly differentiated trends andprocesses for the delivery of key infrastructureand services as well as for socio-spatial equityand the environment.

The paper is structured in three main sections.First we review recent settlement trends and pro-jected patterns of demographic growth andchange. Section two surveys the growth manage-ment challenges facing the major cities aroundemployment, housing, accessibility, affordabil-ity, and environmental constraint. It highlightsthe critical importance of spatially sensitiveinfrastructure investment to managing these chal-lenges and to allaying popular anxieties aroundurban growth. Section three addresses the com-plexities of non-metropolitan settlement trajecto-ries and considers the possible effects on theseof regional and other policies. As we highlightthroughout the paper, while some settlementzones within the nation face quite starkly con-trasting demographic trajectories, we choose toemphasise the essentially inter-related and inte-grated nature of population processes betweenthe ‘command posts’ of the national economy –the capital cities – and the non-metropolitancities, regions and towns. We conclude byreflecting on the constructed dichotomy of a ‘bigAustralia’ and ‘a sustainable Australia’ and pointto the importance of governance in mediatingfuture settlement directions.

Settlement patterns and projecteddemographic growth and changeThe dominant characteristics of the Australianpopulation and its settlement pattern are wellknown: its relatively small size compared withother countries of similar levels of development;its high degree of geographical concentrationespecially in its largest cities and, concomitantly,the very low population densities prevailing oversubstantial portions of the continent (Holmes,1987, 24). Critically for the focus of this paper,the capital cities’ position atop the settlementhierarchy was consolidated by the particularpattern of industrial and economic developmentinherent to imperial trade. Transport infrastruc-

ture, as the skeleton for the settlement system,was laid out so as to best facilitate the efficientdrainage of gold, wheat, wool, and meat – thefour key staples of 19th century economic expan-sion – from the regions to the capital cities andchief entrepôts.

Recent population projections reflect andunderscore the prevailing features of the Austra-lian settlement system, together with the domi-nant drivers of change. The first point that mustbe understood is that net overseas migration willbe the dominant driver of future populationgrowth notwithstanding the recent increase in thefertility rate. In recent decades, 60% of nationalpopulation growth has been driven by immigra-tion and this trend is expected to persist (Com-monwealth of Australia, 2010). This is a criticalpoint, not least because accounting for medium-to long-term migration flows is a problematicaspect of projection methodology (see Bell andWilson, 2011). The second major point is thatwhile the precise trajectory of projected popula-tion growth varies according to source and set ofassumptions, all assessments concur that the bulkof population expansion will be captured by themajor cities, particularly the capital cities. Immi-gration flows to Australia over the past decadeand a half have increasingly focussed on themajor cities, with 89% of post-1996 immigrantsmaking their home there (Hugo, 2008b). Whilethe proportion settling in provincial cities hasremained stable, the proportion in the majorcities has grown such that, by 2006, 79% of theoverseas born lived there while just 7% lived inrural areas (Hugo, 2008a). Notwithstanding thediversion of some migrants from the large citiesvia Department of Immigration and Citizenship(DIAC)’s State Specific and Regional MigrationProgram, this trend is likely to continue.

Figure 1 shows the share of the Australianpopulation living in urban centres of varyingsizes and the rural remainder for the 1966, 1996,2001, and 2006 Censuses while Table 1 displaysthe growth of each of the major settlement cat-egories in raw numbers. Overall, the broadpattern of population distribution has alteredrelatively little between 1966 and 2006, espe-cially when it is considered that the total popu-lation grew by nearly two-thirds over the sameperiod. Despite the still popular ‘bush’ imagery,Australia is an urban and littoral nation and islikely to remain so for the foreseeable future(McDonald, 2008). By 2006, 88% of the popu-lation lived in urban settlements and 85.3% livedwithin 50 km of the coast (Hugo, 2008a). Of the

318 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):317–335

© 2011 The AuthorsGeographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers

total population, 75% (16.7 million) now live inthe major cities (population >100 000) and fullytwo-thirds live in the capital cities (see Figure 2).Between 2001 and 2006, 82.6% of populationgrowth was concentrated in the major cities and66.2% in the capitals (Major Cities Unit, 2010).

Long established metropolitan primacy islikely to become even more entrenched as themajor cities maintain their role as the key popu-lation absorbers (Newton, 2008a). All of Austra-lia’s largest cities are predicted to undergo

substantial growth in the coming decades. Of thepredicted national growth by 2056, 72% isexpected to be captured by the capital cities: anadditional 10 million people (Major Cities Unit,2010).

This would place Sydney and Melbourne atroughly 7 million, with 56% and 71% increases,respectively, on 2010 estimates (AustralianBureau of Statistics, 2008). Perth is predicted toreach just over 3.3 million, growing by 104%,while Brisbane will reach almost 4 million

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1966 (%) 1996 (%) 2001 (%) 2006 (%)

500 000 and over 56 53.1 54 55.46

100 000–499 999 5.4 10.8 10.65

20 000–99 999 6.8 9.8

9.2

8.8 9.57

2 000–19 999 12.4 11.3 10.4 10.37

1 000–1 999 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.11

Total urban 82.9 86 86.3 88.15

Total rural 16.9 14 13.7 11.85

%

Figure 1 Distribution of population by settlement size, Australia, 1966, 1996, 2001, and 2006 (%) (Source: adapted from Hugo,2005, 59. Additional data from Australian Bureau of Statistics online, http://www.abs.gov.au/census, last updated 29 January2009).

Table 1 Distribution of the Australian population by settlement category, 1996–2006.

1996 (nos. – ’000s) 2001 (nos. – ’000s) 2006 (nos. – ’000s)

500 000 and over 9512 10 349 10 986100 000–499 999 1658 1 996 2 11020 000–99 999 1637 1 772 1 8962 000–19 999 1837 2 000 2 0541 000–1 999 409 410 417

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, various years.

P. McGuirk and N. Argent: Population growth – implications for cities and regions 319


growing by 103%. Darwin will grow by 94% toreach 240 000 and the Australian Capital Terri-tory by 46% to reach 506 000. Adelaide andHobart are predicted to grow more slowly withAdelaide growing by 39% to reach 1.6 millionand Hobart growing by 32% to reach 278 000(see Figure 3).

Yet this ostensibly inexorable trend towardsintensifying urbanisation obscures a dynamicsettlement system likely to undergo new transi-tions as it encounters a changing interplay ofsocio-demographic and economic factors withintensifying environmental constraints. Recentsettlement dynamics include the emergence ofperi-urban zones of mixed urban and rural landuses, reaching 100 km from the major cities’centres and made possible by improved transportand communication infrastructure and growingpreference for semi-rural situations (Bell, 1996;Newton, 2008b). Settlements just beyond thecommuting zones of the major metropolitan

centres have also expanded. But a more prominentphenomenon has been the emergence of growthcentres along the high-amenity eastern, south-eastern and south-western coastal zones as sub-stantial flows of both retirees and young familiesreshaped these areas as sea-change settlements(Essex and Brown, 1997; Burnley and Murphy,2004). The official population projections of thevarious State Governments – generally coveringthe period 2006 to 2031 – reveal that peri-metropolitan and highly accessible coastalregions will likely experience the fastest rates ofgrowth outside of the capitals. In some cases,annual average rates of growth are projected toexceed those of the metropoles, although thisgrowth is from a small base (e.g. Mackay andWide Bay-Burnett Statistical Divisions (SD) vis-a-vis Brisbane in Queensland). These combinedpatterns are already consolidating the emergenceof extensive metropolitan regions, formed bythe large cities’ outward growth, peri-urban

Figure 2 Estimated resident population, major cities, 2009 (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010a; Australian Demo-graphic Statistics, March 2010, Cat. no. 3101.0, Canberra).



developments and enhanced links with theirsurrounding second tier cities. Four such mega-metro regions are in formation and have beenadding population at well above the nationalaverage (Newton, 2008b): Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong, Geelong-Melbourne-MorningtonPeninsula, Wanneroo-Perth-Mandurah, and Sun-shine Coast-Brisbane-Gold Coast.

On the other hand, less buoyant trajectories areprojected for the majority of non-metropolitanregions, substantially because of their relativeinability to attract a more sizeable share of thenational immigration intake.1 Similarly, inlandregions with reasonable accessibility and somecapacity for attracting tourist and amenitymigrant flows are expected to see at least gentlegrowth over the medium term. For the remoter,drier inland regions, though, long-term stabilityor slow decline is the best the projections canoffer (Department of Planning, 2008; Queens-land Government, 2008; South AustralianDepartment of Planning and Local Government,2010). Naturally, though, aggregate trends atsuch a broad scale of analysis disguise a con-siderable degree of local variation around themean.

Of course, the composition of demographicchange will potentially impact on Australia’ssettlements as profoundly as the actual dimen-sions of growth and/or decline itself. Most notablehere is the ongoing ‘greying’ of the population.The IGR predicts that 8.1 million of the popula-tion (23%) will be 65 and over by 2050, up from2.6 million (13%) in 2006 (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2010). The next two decades will bringthe exit of the ‘baby boom’ cohort from the work-force, with significant settlement implications.This relatively large and wealthy cohort is pre-dicted to be highly mobile, suggesting they willcontribute to the sea change, empty-nest and ‘greynomad’ phenomena (Bell and Ward, 2000). Andthe strong tendency for the population of thelarger cities to be younger, capturing flows ofyouthful international and internal migration,points to challenging times for inland towns andnon-metropolitan areas. Hence, the seeminglyubiquitous experience of population ageingwill have its own quite diverse geography (seeFigure 4). Notwithstanding the insights containedwithin these various projections, it is important toapprehend the complex ways in which migrationand natural increase/decrease interact with each

Figure 3 Projected population growth, capital cities, 2010–2056 (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008; PopulationProjections, Australia, 2006 to 2101, Cat. no. 3222.0, Series B).



Figure 4 Projected age structure of metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria,2010 and 2050 (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008; Series B projections).



other to drive demographic change at regional andlocal scales – the very levels at which decisionsconcerning key infrastructure and service provi-sion need to be made. We return to this theme inthe following sections.

The major cities: managing growthAs a nation of cities, the functioning of the majorcities is critical to Australia’s potential to achieveongoing productivity, liveability, and sustainabil-ity. Substantial urban growth, and more particu-larly the assured substantial growth of the largestmetropolitan regions, has profound implications.While projected growth rates are no greater thanin the 1960s and 1970s, the context has pro-foundly shifted to one of global economic uncer-tainty, climate change, and intense resourcesconstraints. Urban population-led developmentpresents a formidable set of interlocking socio-political, economic, and environmental chal-lenges – some key dimensions of which we workthrough below. Yet increasing city size and inten-sified urbanisation are not inherently problem-atic. Indeed, cities are increasingly seen as themost likely source of innovations and solutionsto the global crisis of sustainability (Newton andBai, 2008; Davis, 2010). Nonetheless, sustain-ably managing cities’ growing size and complex-ity – the face of Australia’s metropolitanisedfuture – suggests the need for fundamental trans-formations including in urban spatial structureand, crucially, in urban infrastructure as one ofthe key means of supporting and directinggrowth. Achieving this presents an overarchingchallenge to the current governance model. Wereturn to this in the paper’s conclusion.

Employment, housing,accessibility, affordabilityProjected population growth and change willheighten the challenges of maintaining urbaneconomic productivity; enhancing accessibilityacross cities’ increasingly spatially complexlabour markets; and securing equitable access tohousing, social infrastructure, and services.Apart from being the major population absorbersthe major cities, specifically the capitals and theirsurrounding urban regions, are undeniably thedrivers of the national economy and productivity.They currently generate 80% of gross domesticproduct, employ 75% of the workforce and con-tributed 81% of national net job creation 2001–2006 (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport andRegional Economics, 2009). But substantiveadditional job generation will be needed to

support population growth. Current capital citymetropolitan strategies suggest the need for anadditional 760 000 jobs in Sydney, 353 000 inPerth, and 282 000 in Adelaide over the next 30years or so.2 The regional cities, in their turn, willface similar pressures. Yet the productivity ofAustralia’s major cities has been declining due inlarge part to infrastructural back-logs. Deficits ineconomic infrastructure especially are leading torising congestion costs. Infrastructure Australia –the Commonwealth body tasked with producinga strategic blueprint for national infrastructureneeds – priced this backlog at $300bn or $13 287for every Australian (O’Sullivan and Wen, 2011).Without infrastructural investment, populationgrowth will see this increase to $750bn (Tanner,2010). Bureau of Transport and Regional Eco-nomics’ (2007) calculations pinpoint how thesebacklogs particularly effect the larger cities.Table 2 summarises Bureau of Transport andRegional Economics’ estimates of the risingsocial costs of urban congestion for the capitalcities.

Population ageing and a shrinking workforcerepresents a further threat to urban productivity(see Figure 4). As the IGR argues, populationgrowth and increased labour force participationmay be vital to sustaining productivity in the faceof this inevitable population greying. Yet, in theabsence of substantial infrastructural and serviceinvestments, urban growth will unavoidably com-pound the pressures on cities’ already congestedinfrastructural and service capacities, their abilityto generate new employment growth and produc-tivity and, crucially, their ability to generate equi-table employment opportunity across the urbanfabric. Infrastructure and services will be simi-larly instrumental to addressing the geographicaland social complexities of Australia’s urban

Table 2 Social costs of urban congestion, capital cities,2005–2025.

Capital city 2005 2025

Sydney ($bn) 3.5 7.8Melbourne ($bn) 3.0 6.1Brisbane ($bn) 1.2 3.0Perth ($bn) 0.9 2.1Adelaide ($bn) 0.6 1.1Canberra ($bn) 0.11 0.2Hobart ($m) 50 70Darwin ($m) 18 35

Source: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics(2007).



employment and labour markets; currently char-acterised by intense dispersal, differentiation, andsegmentation. These complexities are likely toincrease with population growth and further met-ropolitanisation. The dislocation of housing andevolving labour submarkets and the car-onlyaccessibility of many suburban areas haveresulted in the marginalisation of some localitiesfrom job opportunities and produced risingstresses and inefficiencies and spatial structuralimbalances (Baum et al., 2005; Gleeson et al.,2010).3 Currently, over 3.3 million people (25%of Australia’s metropolitan population) live in 24fast growing Local Government Areas (LGA) onthe fringes of the major cities. This is tipped togrow to 4.5 million by 2021 (Australian Govern-ment, 2010). With rapid urban population growth,including on the urban fringe, the question of jobaccessibility across geographically and sociallycomplex urban labour markets will be fundamen-tal. For the regional cities, these issues take on anadditional dimension. Their economies can becharacterised as predominantly consumer serviceeconomies. Future growth in an increasinglyhigher-order service and hi-tech orientedeconomy is likely to be ‘smart growth’ dependenton human capital which is currently heavily con-centrated in the top five cities.4 An additionalchallenge for regional cities will be to capturehigher quality economic growth, generate agreater job mix and develop the education andskills base of the workforce. For those citieswithin the orbits of emerging metropolitanregions (Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, GoldCoast, Sunshine Coast), building the connectivityand functional interdependency with the largercities must be prioritised.

But, problematically, current infrastructuraldeficits inhibit access to employment opportuni-ties for many residents because of poor localavailability of transport and, crucially, socialinfrastructure: that is, the education and training,childcare, health, and community services that

also determine people’s ability to access employ-ment opportunities (Fagan and Dowling, 2005).Historic shifts away from debt-financed publicprovision of such infrastructure and services ona universal basis, and the uneven spatial pattern-ing of private sector provision, has intensifiedsocio-spatial disparities across urban communi-ties across all Australia’s metropolitan centres(O’Neill, 2010). Securing equitable access to adiversity of job opportunities, transport, socialinfrastructure, and services will be one of thefundamental growth management issues for a‘big urban Australia’, crucial to urban economicand social well-being, to urban economies’ability to deal with exogenous pressures, and tothe broader issues of urban socio-spatial equityand environmental sustainability.

Beyond questions of employment distributionand diversity, accommodating major urban popu-lation growth will induce substantive increasesin housing demand, exacerbated by the shrink-ing household size associated with socio-demographic trends: notably ageing and therelated rise of lone-person households. Nation-ally, the number of households is expected toincrease from 7.8 million to 11.8 million, 2006–2031, adding 4 million additional households in25 years. Population ageing will bring substan-tial transformation to household compositiontoo. Couples without children will become thedominant family type by 2014. And, showingthe most rapid growth of all household types,the number of lone person households willincrease from 1.9 million (24%) to 3.6 million(30%) by 2031 (Australian Bureau of Statistics,2010b). The impact of these changes on housingdemand will intensify the need for effective com-binations of targeted fiscal incentives, planningmechanisms, and infrastructural investments toaddress housing access, diversifying demand,and urban affordability. Australia’s current urbanhousing context is already pressured. Table 3indicates the scope of housing demand projected

Table 3 Current state capital city metropolitan strategies population growth and additional dwelling estimates.

Metropolitan Strategy (date) Population Growth Additional Dwelling Demand

Metropolitan: Sydney 2036 (2010) 1 700 000 770 000Melbourne 2030 (2005) 950 000 620 000South-East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031 (2009) 1 400 000 754 000Perth Directions 2031 (2010) 500 000 328 000The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (2010) 560 000 258 000

Source: Capital city metropolitan strategies.



in current metropolitan strategies. The NationalHousing Supply Council (2010) identifies acurrent shortfall of 178 000 dwellings and, undermedium growth projections, anticipates anational cumulative gap of 640 600 dwellings by2029. This gap is at its most concentrated incities where demand is highest and where highland and construction costs have acted as disin-centives to the private development of affordablehousing. Surging demand coupled with housingsupply shortages has also led to escalatedhousing costs: since the 1980s, the averagecapital city house price increased from theequivalent of 3 years’ to 7 years’ average earn-ings (Senate Select Committee on HousingAffordability in Australia, 2008).5 Housing inaccessible locations has been pushed wellbeyond the affordable reach (i.e. within 30% ofincome) of low to moderate income people whohave sought housing in less well-served outersuburbs, facing long commutes to access workopportunities, services, and amenities and beinghighly vulnerable to fuel and transport cost hikes(Dodson and Sipe, 2008).

Recognising this, all the long-term capital citymetropolitan plans aim to address housingsupply and affordability through improved landrelease programmes, affordable housing require-ments or planning agreements, and measuresto encourage housing diversity to match thehousehold diversity associated with socio-demographic change. However, there is sometension between these housing aspirations andthe environment-oriented urban containmentstrategies also embedded in every metropolitanplan which limit new land release and focus on‘compact city’ infill and densification. Contain-ment combined with population growth can pushup prices locally through scarcity especiallywhen not adequately matched by increaseddwelling density in affordable locations and, par-ticularly, when the institutional means to supportthe supply of affordable housing are still lackingin terms of governance structures,6 local devel-opment incentives and macro-level fiscal andhousing investment strategies (see Forster, 2006;Gurran, 2008). Again, infrastructure and serviceplanning and investment will be critical toresolving this tension. Enhancing the amenityand locational advantages of both new releaseand in-fill areas through infrastructural provisioncan achieve multiple outcomes. It can increasethe market supply of housing across the spectrumby making residential investment attractive todevelopers. It can support increased development

densities and leverage affordable housing provi-sion from the higher development values gener-ated by increased densities (see Gurran, 2008).Of course it may also address the locational dis-advantages experienced by lower to moderateincome households who have sought affordablehousing on the urban fringes. As Australia’surban population grows, managing the housingquestion will be one of the most complex chal-lenges to be tackled, yet it is central to ensuringthat the structural and intergenerational inequi-ties induced by uneven access to housing, home-ownership, and related wealth accumulation donot become more entrenched.7

In addressing the interlocking challenges ofemployment, housing, accessibility and afford-ability in a ‘big urban Australia’, the infrastruc-ture challenge will be a defining one. Althoughcurrent political discussion focuses strongly oneconomic infrastructure, strategic investment ineconomic and social infrastructure and serviceswill be one of the most effective levers in direct-ing urban growth and development within themetropolitan areas and across the regional cities.In this regard, Federal and State Governments’recent turn to prioritising integrated infrastruc-ture planning, investment and financing is longoverdue. As the cities grow, how successfully theeffective, equitable, and spatially sensitive provi-sion of urban infrastructure and services ishandled will, to no small extent, define Austra-lia’s future economic prosperity, socio-spatialequity and wellbeing, and broader resilience andsustainability.

Resources and environmentEnvironmental and resource constraint is inter-woven into all other aspects of urban populationgrowth. The spatial structure of Australia’s citieswas shaped in an era of cheap fuel and energy,relatively plentiful water, and cheap land. Highconsumption and high emissions lifestyles areembedded in their functionally separated landuses, housing mix, and transit systems. They areconsuming environmental resources at a mani-festly unsustainable level and consumption ratescontinue to grow faster than population growth(Newton and Bai, 2008). They are world leadersin terms of per capita water use, energy use,waste generation, carbon emissions, dwellingsize,8 mobility by car and, unsurprisingly, envi-ronmental footprint (Newton, 2008b). Sharpen-ing resources constraints, particularly aroundenergy, water, and land, will shape their futuresas oil reserves and rainfall decline and further



outward expansion threatens local food produc-tion capacity on the peri-urban fringe (Houston,2005).9 Yet many agree ‘the challenge of achiev-ing sustainable development in the 21st centurywill be won or lost in urban Australia’ (Newton,2008a, 131), through the development of sustain-able urbanism within the limits of resource con-straints. Achieving sustainable urbanism whileaccommodating future growth will demand sub-stantive change and require a combination oftransformative technologies (e.g. integratedurban water management systems, decentraliseddecarbonised energy systems, fast-rail systems,etc.) which might enable new development tra-jectories; change in urban development form andspatial structure (land use arrangements, density,design, etc.) which might rework social, eco-nomic, and spatial relations and dramaticallyreduce energy needs and emissions; and changein values and behaviours which might reduceabsolute consumption intensities (see Newton,2008b). In the limited space available here, wechose to focus on the implications of urban popu-lation growth for urban water, highlighting boththe challenges of growing urban resourcedemands and the potential for meeting themthrough technological, structural, and behav-ioural change.

Urban population growth pushes hard upagainst water resource constraints not leastbecause all Australia’s major cities are located inareas of climate change-induced rainfall declines,with further reductions of uncertain magnitudepredicted in coming decades (Kaspura, 2006).Current centralised and ageing systems for urbanwater delivery demand substantial redesign,reconceptualisation, and reinvestment evenwithout projected population growth (Troy,2001). Water restrictions and voluntary conserva-tion measures adopted during recent droughtconditions have, substantially, already yieldedtheir reductions in consumption rates (Kaspura,2006). Cities’ growth, then, will inevitably bring

increased demand which, without significanttechnological, morphological, and behaviouraladaptation, will not be sustainable.

New and infill urban development can incorpo-rate higher densities which can reduce water con-sumption, optimistically by 30–50% (Moriarity,2002), water efficient appliances and water sensi-tive design can simultaneously reduce demandand enable rainwater catchment such that, asTable 4 indicates, per capita consumption in thecapital cities is expected to remain stable ormarginally decline. Nonetheless, using mediumpopulation projections, major urban centres’demand for water is projected to increase by 42%by 2026, or 631 gigalitres annually, and by 76% or1147 gigalitres annually by 2056 (Water ServicesAssociation of Australia, 2010).10 And, account-ing for climate change-induced rainfall reduction,Berger (2010) suggests that to manage increasedurban population, significant reductions in percapita usage will be needed: for example, Mel-bourne’s consumption per capita per day wouldneed to be reduced to circa 80 litres. Whether atstable or significantly reduced consumption rates,coping with aggregate new population-growth-induced demand will bring substantially greaterenvironmental pressures on urban water supply.

Securing resilient urban water supply at higherpopulation levels, regardless of likely additionalclimate change impacts, will inevitably require adramatic shift away from the historical paradigmof a highly centralised one-pass system11 towardsdecentralised systems and a wider range of watersupply sources. Storm water use and domesticharvesting which convert ‘wastewater’ to waterresource have met less resistance than energy-intensive, costly desalination: yet currently allthe capital cities have desalination plants inoperation or nearing completion. Water recyclinghas commenced for non-potable uses, increasingin the capital cities by 52% between 2005/2006and 2008/2009 (Water Services Association ofAustralia, 2010).12 Public perception is likely to

Table 4 Residential water consumption kL per capita annually, capital cities, 2009–2056.

Actual 2009 Projected 2026 Projected 2056

Sydney 74 70 63Melbourne 57 63 59South-east Queensland (including Brisbane) 53 84 84Adelaide 83 85 76Perth 106 87 78

Source: Water Services Association of Australia (2010).



be a significant impediment to wider adoption ofrecycling for potable uses; as evident in Too-woomba’s overwhelming rejection in 2006 of aplan to augment city’s water with treated efflu-ent. The potential to establish water markets toenable rural to urban trading (Water ServicesAssociation of Australia, 2010) is likely to besimilarly contentious. Securing water forenlarged major cities’ populations, such thatresource and environmental sustainability iswithin reach, will involve the political negotia-tion of contested environmental values, percep-tions and behaviours, along with substantialinfrastructural transformations, planning, andinvestment.

Popular angst and urban population growthThe political negotiation of environmental valuesbrings us to the wider question of the politicaltensions surrounding urban population expan-sion. Population growth has generally proven tobe a divisive and politically sensitive issue: therecent Australian Survey of Social Attitudes indi-cated that 72% disagree with the statement ‘Aus-tralia needs more people’ (Betts, 2010). AndFederal Government’s response to this sensitivityincludes shifting its stance on demographicgrowth from a ‘big Australia’ to the more benign‘sustainable Australia’. At the urban scale, theprospect of growth induces popular angst thatfinds at least two forms of expression: tensionsaround further migration and urban multicultur-alism, and rejection of policies aimed at urbanconsolidation. Arguably, both can be connectedto the critical question of infrastructure andservice provision as fundamental to popularacceptance of the implications of populationexpansion.

Current and future capital city growth isclosely interlinked with international migration.Sydney and Melbourne’s recent growth hasdepended on international migration over naturalincrease or interstate migration and it has been amajor constituent of growth in Perth, althoughless so for Brisbane and Adelaide (McDonald,2008). The major cities therefore dominateas ‘EthniCities’ (Forrest and Dunn, 2007).13

Notably, 93% of migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds live there (Common-wealth of Australia, 2010). Given strong labourdemand and the trajectory of population ageing,current levels of immigration are likely to bemaintained: and likewise the geographical con-centration of settlement. The fact of language,religious, and cultural diversity will therefore

continue to shape the major cities’ landscapesand their social and cultural geographies. Yet,within a wider context of generally harmoniousliving, the prospect of further population growthand related diversity has triggered some popularanxiety around geographical concentrations ofmigrants – particularly of visible minorities –linked to complex concerns about social cohe-sion, diversity, and cultural identity (Wise, 2010).The major cities have been the flashpoints fromtime to time for troubling, sometimes violentexpressions of these anxieties.14 Critically,though, there is some evidence that the basis ofthese concerns are shifting from a complex offears around cultural difference and its impacts,to disquiet about further pressures on alreadystraining social and economic infrastructure(Narushima, 2010).

These concerns are echoed in the resistancethat has met planning prescriptions, embedded inall capital cities’ metropolitan strategies, for con-solidation and increased densification to accom-modate growth while constraining resource useand emissions. Transforming existing urbanstructure and morphology will inevitably meetimpediments, given the unavoidable disruptionsinvolved and the challenges posed to deeplyrooted cultural preferences for suburban densi-ties (see Davidson, 2006; Newton, 2008b). Den-sification has been challenged on the basis ofimpacts on liveability, affordability and equity,and the loss of biodiversity, water catchment andfood production capabilities (Newton, 2008b).Yet, popular anxieties have solidified more soaround the anticipation of stressed services,congested infrastructure, loss of urban character,loss of open space, environmental amenity andliveability (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010;Gleeson et al., 2010; Kelly, 2010). Highlypolarised debate has heightened the defensivelocalism that has seen governments – federalthrough to local – backing off the challenge ofconsolidating most established suburbs, to focus‘compact city’ planning on selected growthnodes and increased densities in greenfield devel-opments (see Buxton and Scheurer, 2007;Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, 2010).

Legitimate public anxieties are only likely tobe assuaged by substantial and up-front invest-ment in the physical and social infrastructure andservices necessary to support densification,provide public collective amenity as a trade-offfor the private amenity characteristic of lowdensity suburban form, and absorb increasedusage and growing demand. But the lack of



integration of higher density developmentwith public transport and social infrastructuralimprovements and new investments thus far hascontributed to poor public confidence (Gleesonet al., 2010). This has also fed public discomfortand doubt about cities’ capacity to absorb sub-stantial additional growth without exacerbatingservice shortfalls, locational disadvantages, andthe potential for intensified socio-ethnic frag-mentation. However we as a political constitu-ency, are prepared to fund it, it is clear thatsubstantive and carefully planned investment ininfrastructure and service delivery, integratedwith spatial planning will shape the success (orotherwise) of urban population growth manage-ment on multiple fronts including: 1. providingthe basic foundation to support social cohesionacross a culturally diverse population; 2. galva-nising transitions to more compact urban formsto absorb growth with lower environmental costs,and 3. allaying complex public anxieties aboutthe impacts of a ‘big urban Australia’.

Non-metropolitan regions: managing growth,decline, and changeWhile the challenges facing the major citiesconcern managing growth, those facing the non-

metropolitan regions are more complex. Somestereotypes of non-metropolitan areas conform tothe notion of an urban–rural continuum wherecommunity socio-cultural, demographic, andeconomic diversity and dynamism is negativelyrelated to remoteness. For Hugo (2005, 78):

. . . there is a widening polarisation occurringin non-metropolitan Australia. The rangelandsare generally experiencing depopulation,dominated by school leavers; however, thereare substantial areas in the better-watered andmore accessible parts of non-metropolitanAustralia that are continuing to experiencesignificant and sustained net-migration andpopulation growth.

At finer scales of resolution, though, a morecomplex picture emerges. Consistent with thenotion of the ‘multifunctional countryside’ (seeArgent, 2002; Holmes, 2006), Smailes et al.(2005) have explored the differing demographiccharacter of the major regional types foundwithin the Australian ecumene (illustrated forsouth-eastern Australia in Figure 5), togetherwith the various trends and processes drivingchange within them over the past two and a halfdecades (see Table 5).

Figure 5 Environmental/locational zones of rural south-eastern Australia (Source: Smailes et al., 2005).



Table 5 shows the relative status and change inthree defining qualities of rural settlement inAustralia: community central town population,the proportion of the community populationliving in urban centres, and the density of thecommunity population living outside of towns.Taken together, these indicators capture the rela-tive attractiveness of a community (i.e. a centraltown and its hinterlands) to established and pro-spective new residents in terms of the level ofpublic and private services likely to be available,possible employment opportunities, togetherwith the likely intensity of sporting and socialinteraction. Individually, of course, they refermore specifically to important features of rurallife (Smailes et al., 2005). Using median valuesfor the central town of the community, the tableshows robust growth (c. 2% per annum) for themain towns of the coastal and mixed farm belts,and more subdued but still healthy growth in thehigh access zones that fall between them. In themost sparsely settled inland and remote zoneswhere town sizes are also, on average, the small-est, the aggregate trend of stability over the 20year period masks some very substantial popula-tion loss. As already observed in Figure 1, theurbanisation of the rural population has alsoincreased since 1981, with the coastal zoneseeing the fastest increases, together with thehighest overall proportion of the communitypopulation living in towns. In striking contrast tothe discourse of decline that has enveloped muchof the discussion of Australian rural towns overthe past decade, the fastest rates of growth bysettlement category have been recorded for thesmallest centres, particularly in the most acces-sible and densely settled zones (‘high access’,‘mixed farm’, and ‘coastal’). Finally, rural popu-

lation densities (excluding the townships) arehighest, and have seen the most rapid increases,in the coastal and high accessibility zones, whilenet densities have declined in the more agricul-turally dependent inland and remote zones (seeFigures 5 and 6). Therefore, as a qualification tothe trend towards increased urbanisation, ruralpopulations have continued to grow in theso-called ‘tree change’ and ‘sea change’ zones.However, growth has been the exception ratherthan the rule in agricultural heartland regions.

Clearly, migration processes will continue toplay a dominant role in shaping these trends. Arecent analysis of migration trends and processesfor inland Australia from 1976 to 2001 revealedthat, while rates of outmigration and net migra-tion loss fluctuated throughout the period, formost inland, agriculturally dependent regionsthis was a time of unremitting substantial out-flows (Walmsley et al. forthcoming). Crucially,the youth and working aged comprised the major– and a growing – share of these outflows (Tonts,2005). Australia has a high level of youth migra-tion: 52% of all people aged 15–24 yearschanged residence in the 5 years to 2001 (Aus-tralian Bureau of Statistics, 2003) and age-specific migration rates for rural 15–24 year oldsare among the highest of any age group nation-ally (Walmsley et al., forthcoming). Moreover,migration rates for this age group have increasedover time. Spatially, youth outmigration encom-passes virtually all non-metropolitan regionaltypes, even the popular rural coastal strip thathas been the major beneficiary of counter-urbanisation inflows has experienced substantialoutward movement by local youth. Further, andcontrary to the popular conception that youngrural people overwhelmingly flock to the ‘bright

Table 5 Change in total community population, town size, urban concentration, and rural density, by major zone, south-easternAustralia, 1981–2001.

Zone Population of Community Main Town Proportion Living in Towns Rural Population Density1

Median % Change Median % Point Change Median % Change

1981 2001 1981–2001 1981 2001 1981–2001 1981 2001 1981–2001

Tablelands/ranges 1614 1661 2.9 58.3 59.8 1.5 25 31 24.0High access 2667 3454 29.5 64.2 68.4 4.2 97 169 74.2Mixed farm 2044 2842 39.0 65.7 67.6 1.9 58 78 34.5Coastal 2172 3040 40.0 66.6 74.8 8.2 161 231 43.5Inland/remote 951 953 0.2 54.3 58.3 4.0 14 13 -7.1

1 Number of occupied dwellings per 100 km2.Source: Smailes et al. (2005, 89).



lights’ of the cities, Argent and Walmsley (2008)revealed that many young people leaving theWestern Australian central wheatbelt and thenorthern New South Wales during the 1990s relo-cated elsewhere within their respective ‘home’region.

Nonetheless, the heaviest youth net migrationlosses have been associated with the more iso-lated, agriculturally dependent communities.Cumulatively, these outflows of the so-called‘nubile cohorts’ undermine the capacity of thecommunity to replace itself, leading to long-termsocial, demographic, and economic decline (seeTonts and Atherley, 2005).

For every migration current there is a counter-current, and many declining small, inland regionsexhibit comparatively high in-migration rates(Tonts, 2005; Argent et al., 2011). Thus, it isimportant to pay careful attention to net migra-tion and migration effectiveness to appreciate thecomplexities of population growth and decline inrural Australia, and its potential future trajecto-ries. Over the past three decades, counter-urbanisation flows have delivered substantialnumbers of ex-urban migrants to rural regions,although the size of these flows has graduallydwindled and become much more spatially selec-tive in terms of destination regions and localities

0 1000 2000

Kilometres

SA NSW

Rural popn. density

1.96–12.49

12.5–24.99

25–49.99

50–99.99

100 and over

0 100 200 400 kilometres

M

Vic.

S

C

Metro. areas: A = Adelaide; C = Canberra; M = Melbourne; S = Sydney

A

Figure 6 Rural population density (occupied dwellings per 100 km2), 2001 (Source: Smailes et al., 2005).



(Hugo, 2005). It is important to realise, in thecontext of this discussion of the ongoing andlikely future rapid growth of the capitals, thatSydney loses many more people to the rest ofNew South Wales, and to the rest of the nation,than it receives in return (Bell and Hugo, 2000).These ex-urban migrants have primarily bol-stered the populations of mostly nearby regions(i.e. the Hunter Valley and Illawarra) but alsocontributed significantly to migration flows to thecoastal belt and high amenity inland regions(Argent et al., 2007; Argent et al., 2011). Thepopulations of major regional centres have alsobeen augmented by ex-urban migrants, within-migrants from the hinterlands generally com-prising smaller shares, in spite of their popularcharacterisation as ‘sponge cities’ (Alexanderand Mercer, 2007; Argent et al., 2008). The inter-connectivity of settlement and demographicshifts is further reinforced by the increasing com-plexity of well-established patterns wherebypeople live in one type of settlement and work inanother. Improved mobility has seen an increasein a wide range of temporary migration streams,including ‘fly-in, fly-out’ arrangements, multiplehome ownership, winter movements from northto south, seasonal ‘harvest trails’ and the like, allof which underline the growing volatility ofsettlement patterns (Bell and Ward, 2000; Hugo,2008a).

For some regions, particularly those in thecoastal and other high amenity zones, the growthof the capitals offers up the potential opportunityto attract in more ex-urban migrants and con-solidate or expand their economies. Australiahas a long if not very distinguished history ofgovernment-led attempts at population andindustry decentralisation (Beer, 2000), includingthe Whitlam Government’s ‘New Cities’ pro-gramme. This programme was strongly influ-enced by notions of ideal city size, based onsocial, economic, and public health criteria(Neutze, 1978; Self, 1995). Despite the putativefailure of this and related initiatives, demands fora strategically coordinated approach to popu-lation and business decentralisation have notdisappeared.

However, with neoliberalism’s strengthenedideological grip on regional policy from the1980s (Beer, 2000; Tonts and Haslam-McKenzie, 2005), governments have been reluc-tant to play more than a facilitative role in suchinitiatives, preferring to let community groupsand the private sector take the lead. Numerousrural communities now mount festivals celebrat-

ing a bewildering range of cultural and naturalattractions in order to attract elusive tourist andmigrant flows (e.g. Brennan-Horley et al., 2007),with or without government funding. In addition,initiatives such as CountryWeek (now known asthe Country and Regional Living Expo) havedirectly marketed the positive attributes of ruralcommunities to Sydney and Brisbane residentsthrough a regular annual showcase held in eachcity. This is now being complemented by thejoint Federal/New South Wales State Govern-ment-funded ‘EVOcities’ programme which isaimed at attracting Sydney residents disen-chanted with the many diseconomies of metro-politan life to relocate to the seven major regionalcentres of inland New South Wales: Albury,Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Orange, Dubbo, Tam-worth, and Armidale. A key to the success, orotherwise, of such programmes, is the ability ofthese regional centres – and the nearby smallertowns that will also likely benefit from any localspread effects – to provide key services and infra-structure to meet demands. The roll-out of fastand reliable broadband is likely to be crucialhere, offering a potentially wide range of busi-ness, educational, and health service opportuni-ties to rural communities, large and small.

Over recent decades, the massively destructiveeffect of public efforts to foster inland settlementvia ‘closer settlement’ policy has been realised.For many inland regions, one area of uncertaintythat casts a shadow over their potential popula-tion growth (and decline) is the increasing promi-nence of agri-environmental regulation in theface of tightening environmental constraints.One issue looms above all others for the easternand southern states: the imposition of ‘sustain-able diversion limits’ on outtakes from within theMurray-Darling Basin rivers (Murray–DarlingBasin Authority, 2010). At this early stage, thefull implications of the Basin Plan for settle-ments are unclear – not least because the pro-tracted consultation and implementation processhas only just begun. It seems certain, though, thatAustralia’s food bowls will be forced to dependmuch less on irrigation. Given the massive dis-ruptions that the many towns and regions of theBasin have already experienced at the hands oftwo decades of agricultural restructuring and thedownstream processing of food and fibre com-modities – all of which have fuelled outmigrationflows – just what impact the likely introductionof permanent cuts to river diversions will have oninland population trends is unclear. Given thefocus of this special edition, it is perhaps more



appropriate to consider the adaptive capacities ofAustralian food producers to adjust to a drier andaltogether more uncertain future and to continueto provide sustenance to a rapidly growing popu-lation, whatever its distribution (see Foran andPoldy, 2003).

Conclusion

‘If you’re not in Sydney, you’re camping out’Paul Keating (cited in Farrelly, 2007).‘A bigger Australia doesn’t mean deeper soils,it doesn’t mean larger river flows, it doesn’tmean more rainfall. We’re only bigger in onesense – the increase in the total number ofhumans crammed into the narrow coastalstrip’ Bob Carr (2010).

Since 1788, the contested relationshipsbetween population and environment have beencentral to the discussion of what sort of societyAustralia should be (see Hugo, 2011). The twoquotes above underscore how the debate overAustralia’s optimum population can subtly yetsubstantially polarise traditionally staunch allies.Former Prime Minister Keating and former NewSouth Wales State Labor Premier Carr, bothintellectual leaders of the Labor Right, holdstrongly contrasting views on the implicationsof the likely rapid future growth of the nationalpopulation and, particularly, for the nation’scapital cities. In many respects, they encapsulatethe major concerns about future populationgrowth and its distribution. On the one hand,there is the cold, hard demographic reality, dis-played in a range of official projections, of sub-stantial population growth over the next fewdecades, with the majority of this within thenation’s metropoles and their burgeoning conur-bations. For some, including Keating, thisoutcome is merely a reflection of the capitals’largely unrivalled position as the centres ofeconomic and political might and the incubatorsof innovation. As we have attempted to stress inthis paper, the projected levels of growth –although by no means unprecedented – will notbe easily accommodated within the existinginfrastructure, nor within the same energy-intensive paradigm of production, consumption,and distribution, and certainly not within thesame disjointed approach to urban planning,policy, and governance.

Governance systems will be fundamental toachieving the transitions necessary to address newgrowth pressures. Managing growth demands areconceptualisation of urban governance and its

ambition, posing a paradigmatic challenge toinstitutions and practices of the current model.15

Multilevel governance, fragmentation and com-plexity is compounded by inconsistent integrationacross development, infrastructure, and humanservices planning, and between strategic planningand implementation, and by the absence of effec-tive metropolitan-level implementation capacity(Spiller, 2010). Accommodating growth andmobilising the long-term restructuring of prob-lematic land use and transport patterns and func-tional interactions that characterise Australiancities will require that this governance deficit isaddressed (Gleeson et al., 2010). Several positivemoves are currently underway: The Council ofAustralian Governments’ establishment of theCities Planning Taskforce to drive integratedplanning and multilevel coordination and to linkfederal urban and infrastructure funding tonational criteria for effective capital city planningare positive moves,16 as is the production of aNational Urban Policy by the Federal Govern-ment’s Major Cities Unit. Although debate runshot (e.g. Council of Capital City Lord Mayors,2010; Australian Davos Connection, 2010,Gleeson et al., 2010), for the time-being, theestablishment of metropolitan-level authoritieswith powers to plan, finance and implementmetro-scaled strategic planning and infrastruc-tural investment remains politically sensitive andhas not materialised. The prospect of rapid urbanpopulation growth has as least galvanised historicefforts to address Australia’s urban governancedeficits.

Bob Carr’s comments portray a greater senseof caution and a growing concern about absolutegrowth and its potential to exceed an ecologicallysustainable carrying capacity. The capacity tofeed a growing nation, and a sizeable share of theglobal population, is also coming under question.There is increasing unease that the nation’s foodbowls, hard hit by a complex of, inter alia, cli-matic uncertainty, labour shortages, the long-runcost-price squeeze, and reduced access to irriga-tion water, may be unable to meet these grow-ing demands. How the country’s food and fibreproducers and processors respond to thesechallenges, and tightening agri-environmentalregulation, will therefore be crucial.

Addressing the cascading challenges of popu-lation growth demands a detailed understandingof: 1. the interrelationships and interactionsbetween the various components of the settle-ment system, and 2. the drivers of change withinthis system. This paper, for example, has high-



lighted that beyond the apparent inevitability ofthe ongoing urbanisation of the Australian popu-lation a number of important and, in some zonesquite divergent, trends and processes are in play.The deepening flows of people, goods and infor-mation between the capitals and the second tiercities and the major inland and coastal regionalcentres highlight that the conventional rural–urban dichotomy will be less able to capture thecomplexity and dynamism of Australia’s settle-ment system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks are due to the anonymous referees for constructivecomments and suggestions, to the Editors for their support,and to the Department of Geography, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, who kindly hosted McGuirk during thetime this paper was written.

NOTES1. However, it is also a well-accepted point that projecting

internal migration trends can be an exercise fraughtwith uncertainty. Central to the cohort-componentmethod of projection is the application of survival, fer-tility, and migration rates to each cohort of a targetpopulation. Therefore, the resulting projections reflectboth the structure of the population and past rates ofchange. At a regional scale, migration is frequently thegreatest determinant of population change but is alsothe demographic process that is most responsive to localeconomic and environmental change. This makes it themost difficult vital rate to model accurately (Georgeet al., 2004).

2. Not all metropolitan strategies include employmentprojections. However, these projections generally trackclosely with the anticipated need for new dwellings,suggesting that Melbourne will need in the order of620 000 additional jobs and the south-east Queenslandregion an additional 754 000.

3. Particularly older industrial middle and outer suburbs(e.g. Sydney’s central and western subregions, Mel-bourne’s central-west and northern suburbs, Adelaide’snorthern regions), and traditionally industrial regionalcities (e.g. Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong) (O’Neill,2010).

4. Among the major cities, for example, Sydney (53.3%)and Melbourne (56.2%) have the highest proportion of15–24 year olds in any form of education, comparedwith the Sunshine Coast (43.5%), Gold Coast-Tweed(42.5%), and Darwin (35%), which have the lowestproportion. Similarly for 25–34 year olds who havecompleted year 12, Sydney (75.9%) and Melbourne(76.6%) compared with Wollongong (59.9%) and New-castle (55.7%) at the other end of the spectrum(McDonald, 2008).

5. Rental affordability has equally declined, especially inthe capital cities. For instance, central Sydney rentalson a two-bed unit, at $600 per week, would demand75% of the average income of a childcare worker; 74%for a hospitality worker; or 41% for a police/firefighter(Tovey, 2010).

6. As Gurran (2008) points out, even where State Govern-ment plans include affordable housing commitments,

local governments are still the locus of implementationand here both capacity and political commitment varies.

7. One indication of the effect of homeownership onwealth accumulation potential is the fact that 92% ofhouseholds in the lowest net worth quintile are renters(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).

8. New houses in Australia are now the world’s largest,averaging 83 m2 per person, a 245% increase on 1985–1986 (James, 2009). The average house size in Mel-bourne has increased from 176 m2 in 1991 to 253 m2 in2003, while average household size has fallen to 2.61people in 2001 (DSE, 2006 cited in Buxton and Scheu-rer, 2007).

9. For example, Sydney’s north-western and south-western sectors to be released for development contain52% of the region’s vegetable farming properties, 60%of greenhouse industries and 46% of hydroponic veg-etable industries (Major Cities Unit, 2010).

10. Major shifts in housing and urban design, socio-demographic shifts such as more, smaller households,uptake of water efficiency applications, water pricingand water use regulation might alter these predictions.

11. A system whereby surface water is captured outside thecity, filtered, used once, treated and discharged, suchthat the rain that falls on cities is not captured butpositioned as problematic stormwater to be disposed ofquickly (Kaspura, 2006).

12. The greater potential for recycled water use lies in theinland cities and towns. The major cities’ predomi-nantly coastal location militates against recycling whichnormally locates at the lowest point in the catchment.Pumping uphill for later use is prohibitively expensive.

13. Roughly one in three residents in Sydney, Melbourneand Perth were born overseas, one in five for Brisbaneand Adelaide along with a group of second tier citiessuch as Geelong, Gold Coast, Wollongong, Darwin, andaround one in ten in Hobart and Newcastle (McDonald,2008).

14. Notably in the 2005 Cronulla riots in Sydney, and astring of violent attacks against Indian residents in Mel-bourne in 2009.

15. The 18 major cities are currently governed by 157 localgovernments, eight states or territories and FederalGovernment (Major Cities Unit, 2010).

16. This includes criteria around population, economicgrowth, climate change, housing affordability, andcongestion.

REFERENCESAlexander, S. and Mercer, D., 2007: Internal migration in

Victoria, Australia – testing the ‘Sponge City’ model.Urban Policy and Research 25, 229–256.

Argent, N., 2002: From pillar to post? In search of the post-productivist countryside in Australia. Australian Geogra-pher 33, 97–114.

Argent, N. and Walmsley, D., 2008: Rural youth migrationtrends in Australia: an overview of recent trends and twoinland case studies. Geographical Research 46, 139–152.

Argent, N., Smailes, P. and Griffin, T., 2007: The amenitycomplex: towards a framework for analysing and predict-ing the emergence of a multifunctional countryside in Aus-tralia. Geographical Research 45, 217–232.

Argent, N., Rolley, F. and Walmsley, D., 2008: The spongecity hypothesis: does it hold water? Australian Geogra-pher 39, 109–129.

Argent, N., Tonts, M., Jones, R. and Holmes, J., 2011:Amenity-led migration in rural Australia: A new driver of



local demographic and environmental change? In Luck,G., Black, R. and Race, D. (eds) Demographic Change inRural Landscapes: What Does It Mean for Society and theEnvironment? Springer, Dordrecht, 23–44.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003: Population distribu-tion: youth migration within Australia. Cat. No. 4102.0,ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007: Households, wealthand wealth distribution, Australia 2005–06. Cat. No.6554.0, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008: Population projec-tions, Australia, 2006 to 2101. Cat. No. 3222.0, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010a: Australian demo-graphic statistics, March 2010. Cat. No. 3101.0,Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010b: Household andfamily projections, Australia 2006–2031. Cat. No. 3236.0,Canberra.

Australian Davos Connection, 2010: Cities report: enhancinglivability. ADC. Retrieved: 26 November 2010 from<http://www.adcforum.org/>.

Australian Government, 2010: A Sustainable Populationfor Australia. Department of Sustainability, Environment,Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Baum, S., Haynes, M., Van Gellecum, Y. and Han, H., 2005:Typologies of advantage and disadvantage: socio-economic outcomes in Australian cities. GeographicalResearch 42, 361–378.

Beer, A., 2000: Regional policy and development in Austra-lia: running out of solutions? In Pritchard, W. andMcManus, P. (eds) Land of Discontent: The Dynamics ofChange in Rural and Regional Australia. UNSW Press,Sydney, 169–194.

Bell, M., 1996: Understanding Internal Migration. Bureauof Immigration, Multicultural and Population ResearchMonograph, AGPS, Canberra.

Bell, M. and Hugo, G., 2000: Internal Migration in Australia1991–1996, Overview and the Overseas-Born. AGPS,Canberra.

Bell, M. and Ward, G., 2000: Comparing temporary mobilitywith permanent migration, Tourism. Studies 2, 87–107.

Berger, C., 2010: Population: the big issue – the nationalinterest. ABC Radio, Broadcast 21 May 2010.

Bell, M., Wilson, T. and Charles-Edwards, E., 2011:Australia’s Population Future: Probabilistic ForecastsIncorporating Expert Judgement, Geographical Research49, 261–275.

Betts, K., 2010: A bigger Australia: opinions for and against.People and Place. Retrieved: 25 November 2010 from<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4932/is_2_18/ai_n55040856/?tag=content;col1>.

Brennan-Horley, C., Connell, J. and Gibson, C., 2007: TheParkes Elvis Revival Festival: economic development andcontested place identities in rural Australia. GeographicalResearch 45, 71–84.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics,2009: Change in Australia’s industry structure: main cities2001–2006. Information Sheet 32, Canberra.

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, 2007: Estimat-ing urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australiancities, Working Paper 71, Canberra.

Burnley, I. and Murphy, P. (eds), 2004: Sea Change: Move-ment from Metropolitan to Arcadian Australia. Universityof New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Buxton, M. and Scheurer, J., 2007: Density and outer urbandevelopment in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research25, 91–111.

Carr, B., 2010: 7.30 Report, ABC, 28th June 2010. Transcriptretrieved: 2 December 2010 from <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2939288.htm>.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2010: Intergenerational ReportAustralia to 2050: Futures Challenges. Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra.

Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, 2010: Towards aCity Strategy: National Urban Policy Submissions. Retri-eved: 29 November 2010 from <http://www.lordmayors.org>.

Davidson, A., 2006: Stuck in a cul-de-sac? Suburban historyand urban sustainability in Australia. Urban Policy andResearch 24, 201–216.

Davis, M., 2010: Who will build the ark. New Left Review 61,29–46.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2009: Immigra-tion Update, 2008–2009. Canberra.

Department of Planning, 2008: New South Wales State andRegional Population Projections, 2006–2036: 2008Release. Department of Planning, Sydney.

Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2006: Mel-bourne Atlas, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Dodson, J. and Sipe, N., 2008: Shocking the suburbs: urbanlocation, home ownership and oil vulnerability in the Aus-tralian city. Housing Studies 23, 377–401.

Essex, S. and Brown, G., 1997: The emergence of post-suburban landscapes on the North Coast of New SouthWales: a case study of contested space. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 21, 259–285.

Farrelly, E., 2007, Camping out in glitz city. Sydney MorningHerald (online), 21 July, 2007.

Fagan, B. and Dowling, R., 2005: Neoliberalism and subur-ban employment: Western Sydney in the 1990s. Geo-graphical Research 43, 71–81.

Foran, B. and Poldy, F., 2003: Between a rock and a hardplace: Australia’s population options to 2050 and beyond.People and Place 11, 1–15.

Forrest, J. and Dunn, K., 2007: Constructing racism inSydney: Australia’s largest ethnicity. Urban Studies 44,699–721.

Forster, C., 2006: The challenge of change: Australian citiesand urban planning in the new millennium. GeographicalResearch 44, 173–182.

George, M., Smith, S., Swanson, D. and Tyman, J., 2004:Population projections. In Siegel, J. and Swanson, D. (eds)The Methods and Materials of Demography, 2th edn.Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, 561–601.

Gleeson, B., Dodson, J. and Spiller, M., 2010: Metropolitangovernance for the Australian city: the case for reform.Issues Paper 12, Urban Research Program, GriffithUniversity.

Gurran, N., 2008: Affordable housing: a dilemma formetropolitan planning. Urban Policy and Research 26,101–110.

Holmes, J.H., 1987: Population. In Jeans, D. (ed.) Space andSociety. Sydney University Press, Sydney, 24–48.

Holmes, J., 2006: Impulses towards a multifunctional transi-tion in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. Journalof Rural Studies 22, 142–160.

Houston, P., 2005: Re-valuing the fringes: some findingson the value of agricultural production in Australia’speri-urban regions. Geographical Research 43, 209–223.

Hugo, G., 2005: The state of rural populations. In Cocklin, C.and Dibden, J. (eds) Sustainability and Change in RuralAustralia. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney,56–79.



Hugo, G., 2008a: Future urban population and settlementtransitions. In Newton, P. (ed.) Transitions: Pathwaystoward Sustainable Urban Development in Australia.CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, 149–170.

Hugo, G., 2008b: Immigrant settlement outside of Australia’scapital cities. Population, Space and Place 14, 553–571.

Hugo, G., 2011: Geography and Population in Australia: AHistorical Perspective, Geographical Research 49, 242–260.

Irvine, J. and Saulwick, J., 2009: Population growth head andshoulders above India. Sydney Morning Herald (23 Sep-tember), 1.

James, C., 2009: Australian homes are the biggest in theworld. ComSec Economic Insights November 30, Com-monwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney.

Kaspura, A., 2006: Water and Australian Cities: Review ofUrban Water Reform. Institution of Engineers, Australia.Retrieved: 25 November 2010 from <http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au>.

Kelly, J.F., 2010: The cities we need. Grattan Institute ReportNo. 2010-4. Retrieved: 15 November 2010 from <http://www.grattan.edu.au/programs/energy.php>.

Major Cities Unit, 2010: State of Australian Cities 2010.Infrastructure Australia. Australian Government,Canberra.

McDonald, P., 2008: Demographic transitions. In Newton, P.(ed.) Transitions: Pathways toward Sustainable UrbanDevelopment in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra,133–147.

Moriarity, P., 2002: Environmental sustainability of largeAustralian cities. Urban Policy and Research 20, 233–244.

Murray–Darling Basin Authority, 2010: Guide to the Pro-posed Basin Plan: Overview, Murray–Darling BasinAuthority, Canberra.

Narushima, Y., 2010: Population big enough, majority ofpeople say. Sydney Morning Herald (online), Oct 10, 2010.

National Housing Supply Council, 2010: 2010 State ofSupply Report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Neutze, M., 1978: Australian Urban Policy. George Allenand Unwin, London.

Newton, P. (ed.), 2008a: Transitions: Pathways towardSustainable Urban Development in Australia. CSIROPublishing, Canberra.

Newton, P., 2008b: Metropolitan evolution. In Newton, P.(ed.) Transitions: Pathways toward Sustainable UrbanDevelopment in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra,171–187.

Newton, P. and Bai, X., 2008: Transitioning to sustainableurban development. In Newton, P. (ed.) Transitions: Path-ways toward Sustainable Urban Development in Australia.CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, 3–19.

O’Neill, P.M., 2010: Infrastructure financing and operation inthe contemporary city. Geographical Research 48, 3–12.

O’Sullivan, M. and Wen, P., 2011: Australia stuck on a road tonowhere. Sydney Morning Herald (online), March 5, 2011.

Queensland Government, 2008: Queensland GovernmentPopulation Projections to 2056, 3rd edn. Queensland andstatistical divisions, Brisbane.

Self, P., 1995: Alternative urban policies: the case for regionaldevelopment. In Troy, P. (ed.) Australian Cities – Issues,Strategies and Policies for Urban Australia in the 1990s.Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 246–257.

Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Aus-tralia, 2008: A Good House is Hard to Find: HousingAffordability in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra.

Smailes, P., Griffin, T. and Argent, N., 2005: The changingsocial framework. In Cocklin, C. and Dibden, J. (eds) Sus-tainability and Change in Rural Australia. UNSW Press,Sydney, 80–102.

South Australian Department of Planning and LocalGovernment, 2010: Population Projections for SouthAustralia and Statistical Divisions, 2006–2036, mediumseries Retrieved: 21 April 2011 from ⟨http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=B2E288B3-96B8-CC2B-645AB731FF590176⟩.

Spiller, M., 2010: Population: the big issue – the nationalinterest. ABC Radio, Broadcast 21 May 2010.

Tanner, L., 2010: The building decade: the infrastructurechallenge facing Australia, address to the Australian Finan-cial Review national infrastructure conference, 28 April.Retrieved:6March2011from<http://www.financeminister.gov.au/archive/speeches/2010/sp_20100428.html>.

Tonts, M., 2005: Internal migration and Australia’s agricul-tural regions. Dialogue 24, 53–65.

Tonts, M. and Atherley, K., 2005: Rural restructuring andthe changing geography of competitive sport. AustralianGeographer 36, 125–144.

Tonts, M. and Haslam-McKenzie, F., 2005: Neoliberalismand changing regional policy in Australia. InternationalPlanning Studies 10, 183–200.

Tovey, J., 2010: Essential city workers who cannot afford tolive in it. Sydney Morning Herald (online), October 16,2010.

Troy, P., 2001: The management of water in Australian cities.Submission to senate commission inquiry. Retrieved: 29November 2010 from <http://www.enviro-friendly.com/senate-submission-troy.pdf>.

Walmsley, D., Argent, N., Rolley, F. and Tonts, M., forth-coming: ‘Inland migration’ in Australians on the Move:Australian Mobility in the New Millennium, Hugo, G. andBell, M. (eds) Ashgate, Aldershot.

Water Services Association of Australia, 2010: Implicationsof population growth in Australia on urban waterresources. WSSA Occasional Paper No. 25. Retrieved: 24November 2010 from <http://www.wsaa.asn.au/About/News/Pages/OccasionalPaper25.aspx>.

Wise, A., 2010: Sensuous multiculturalism: emotional land-scapes of inter-ethnic living in suburban Australia. Journalof Ethic and Migration Studies 36, 917–937.



population growth and change: implications for australia's cities and regions

Documents