Insights on Canadian Society
Beyond urban and rural: Rethinking the social geography of Canada
Text begins
Introduction
Rural living can conjure up images of close-knit communities, quiet surroundings with little noise pollution and limited traffic congestion, and perhaps most notably, lower cost of living with more affordable housing. In this context, there may be the assumption that life satisfaction and sense of well-being would be consistently higher among rural residents than urban residents. And indeed, previous research has shown that rural residents tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction.Note
However, the broad urban-rural split appears to be exactly that – too broad. New analysis reveals that disaggregation at lower levels of geography paints a more nuanced picture, where living in rural areas does have advantages to overall sense of well-being, but not uniformly. Notably, distance from large urban centres plays a critical role in feelings of subjective well-being, as residents of rural ‘commuter towns’ or ‘bedroom communities’ tend to feel more similar to urban residents than to residents in more remote or distant rural areas.
By developing a more meaningful geographic classification beyond the traditional ‘urban-rural’ split, greater insight can be gained on key Quality of Life indicators. To better understand this geographic variation, possible classifications were examined alongside well-being data, namely six indicatorsNote from the Canadian Social Survey (CSS).
The initial purpose was to determine the combination of geographic classifications that could best explain variations in well-being indicators. This investigation found that a combination of three geographic classifications were most useful for explaining geographic differences in wellbeing indicators: 1) Province, 2) Population Centre Type, and 3) Community Size/Metropolitan Influenced Zone. Since the latter two measured different concepts of urbanity and density, they were combined into a new derived geographic classification, “Population Centre – Metropolitan Influenced Zone”.
The resulting 21-point geographic scale accounts for both the size of the population centre and the influence of other population centres nearby, ranging from a score of 1 for the most urban regions of Canada, such as downtown Toronto, to a score of 21 for the most rural and remote part of the country, such as remote regions of Labrador (Map 1). The new geographic scale also enables the production of estimates for smaller geographies, which is often not possible due to sample size restrictions and high sampling variability. By grouping regions that have identical geographic classifications, such as a score of 5, it is possible to identify patterns in well-being across different geographic classifications within a province and variations in the same geographic classification across different provinces. The following analysis uses the newly developed 21-point scale to examine life satisfaction and sense of belonging.
Description for Map 1
This map displays the 21-point scale of "Population Centre – Metropolitan Influenced Zone", derived from the analysis in this paper, across Canada, using a gradation of reds. In the map, the most urban zone is coloured as the darkest shade of red, while the most rural and remote zone is a light shade of pink.
Source: Statistics Canada, Geographic Boundary Files, 2021.
Rural communities consistently report higher levels of life satisfaction than urban centres
Life satisfaction is a key Quality of Life indicator and is often used as a barometer of happiness or subjective well-being, among others.Note Based on quarterly data from the CSS, half (50.0%) of Canadians from 2021 to 2024 reported a high level of life satisfaction, scoring their satisfaction as 8 or higher on a 10-point satisfaction scale. As expected, there were variations across Canada, with life satisfaction being higher in eastern Canada. In particular, residents of Newfoundland and Labrador (56.3%) and Quebec (58.9%) were the happiest overall, while those in Ontario (46.3%) and in the west (e.g., 47.4% in Alberta and 46.7% in British Columbia) were less likely to report feeling satisfied with their lives.
Drilling down even further reveals geographic insights into happiness among Canadians. According to the new geographic classification, high levels of life satisfaction were most commonly reported in areas that were less urbanized and had little influence from large urban areas. Specifically, the happiest people lived in areas ranging from rural areas with weak or no influence of urban centres (rating of 21 in the geographic classification) to those who resided in centres with a population of less than 100,000 and not influenced by any larger centres (rating of 7).
Small population centres in Quebec reported some of the highest levels of life satisfaction in Canada (Table 1). Towns included in these categories include Contrecoeur, Marieville, Pont-Rouge, Magog, and Saguenay.
| Population Centre – Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ) | Canadians reporting high life satisfaction | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B.C. | Alta. | Sask. | Man. | Ont. | Que. | N.B. | N.S. | P.E.I. | N.L. | ||
| percent | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Large population centre (population of 100,000 or more) | |||||||||||
| 1 | Influenced by centre sized 1.5 million or more | 43.2 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 43.5 Table 1 Note * | 54.6 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 2 | Influenced by centre sized 500,000 to 1,499,999 | ... not applicable | 46.7 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | 48.1 Table 1 Note * | 44.9 Table 1 Note * | 61.8 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 3 | Influenced by centre sized 100,000 to 499,999 | 48.2 | ... not applicable | 47.5 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | 46.7 Table 1 Note * | 60.5 Table 1 Note * | 51.7 | 45.7 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | 50.3 |
| Medium population centre (population between 30,000 and 99,999) | |||||||||||
| 4 | Influenced by centre sized 1.5 million or more | 50.9 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 38.5 Table 1 Note * | 60.7 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 5 | Influenced by centre sized 500,000 to 1,499,999 | ... not applicable | 35.4 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 6 | Influenced by centre sized 100,000 to 499,999 | 45.2 Table 1 Note * | 49.1 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 45.1 Table 1 Note * | 59.7 | 42.7 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 7 | Influenced by centre sized 10,000 to 99,999 | 50.9 | 50.7 | 49.1 | 50.5 | 47.1 | 60.5 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 51.0 | ... not applicable |
| Small population centre (population between 1,000 and 29,999) | |||||||||||
| 8 | Influenced by centre sized 1.5 million or more | 51.1 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 47.6 | 62.6 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 9 | Influenced by centre sized 500,000 to 1,499,999 | ... not applicable | 47.9 | ... not applicable | 50.4 | 55.2 | 56.9 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 10 | Influenced by centre sized 100,000 to 499,999 | 39.5 | ... not applicable | 49.2 | ... not applicable | 47.1 | 68.8 Table 1 Note * | 52.2 | 47.3 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 11 | Influenced by centre sized 10,000 to 99,999 | 52.3 | 48.3 | 54.4 | 58.3 Table 1 Note * | 48.1 | 57.9 Table 1 Note * | 53.7 | 47.0 | 52.0 | 56.2 Table 1 Note * |
| 12 | Strong MIZ | 59.1 | 43.5 | ... not applicable | 47.8 | 49.1 | 69.0 Table 1 Note * | 58.6 | 52.8 | ... not applicable | 51.5 |
| 13 | Moderate MIZ | 49.3 | 49.6 | 52.0 | 53.8 | 48.1 | 55.4 | 49.8 | 43.8 | 54.2 | 64.1 Table 1 Note * |
| 14 | Weak or no MIZ | 50.0 | 43.2 | 61.9 Table 1 Note * | 66.3 Table 1 Note * | 57.6 | 67.2 Table 1 Note * | 52.0 | 48.2 | ... not applicable | 65.2 Table 1 Note * |
| Rural area | |||||||||||
| 15 | Influenced by centre sized 1.5 million or more | 54.2 | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | 56.0 | 61.5 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 16 | Influenced by centre sized 500,000 to 1,499,999 | ... not applicable | 48.7 | ... not applicable | 65.2 Table 1 Note * | 51.2 | 66.5 Table 1 Note * | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable | ... not applicable |
| 17 | Influenced by centre sized 100,000 to 499,999 | 51.7 | ... not applicable | 53.4 | ... not applicable | 56.1 Table 1 Note * | 65.8 Table 1 Note * | 55.6 Table 1 Note * | 50.8 | ... not applicable | 59.9 Table 1 Note * |
| 18 | Influenced by centre sized 10,000 to 99,999 | 53.3 | 49.3 | 51.9 | ... not applicable | 54.3 | 63.0 Table 1 Note * | 66.1 Table 1 Note * | 48.3 | 56.9 Table 1 Note * | 58.0 |
| 19 | Strong MIZ | 56.0 | 55.8 | 55.4 | 54.0 | 54.9 Table 1 Note * | 65.0 Table 1 Note * | 58.2 Table 1 Note * | 48.1 | 60.4 Table 1 Note * | 63.6 Table 1 Note * |
| 20 | Moderate MIZ | 55.8 | 55.7 | 56.8 | 58.7 Table 1 Note * | 56.0 Table 1 Note * | 66.0 Table 1 Note * | 58.7 Table 1 Note * | 58.4 Table 1 Note * | 58.7 Table 1 Note * | 60.4 Table 1 Note * |
| 21 | Weak or no MIZ | 61.6 Table 1 Note * | 54.3 | 52.1 | 56.3 | 57.3 | 62.7 Table 1 Note * | 57.3 Table 1 Note * | 58.4 Table 1 Note * | 67.2 Table 1 Note * | 64.9 Table 1 Note * |
On the other hand, levels of life satisfaction were lowest in Canada’s largest cities and more broadly, among communities with a geographic rating below 6—other than in Quebec, where life satisfaction remained high (Table 1). Downtown Toronto and Vancouver stood out as having significantly lower percentages of residents reporting high life satisfaction (43.5% and 43.2%, respectively). These findings are consistent with previous research on Canadian life satisfaction scores, which have found that life satisfaction is lower in urban areas compared to smaller, more rural areas.Note
The influence of larger urban cores (with populations of 500,000 or more) were even felt by medium population centres – those with populations between 30,000 to 99,999. In particular, residents of smaller communities in Alberta and Ontario were among the least likely to report high life satisfaction.
For example, residents of Banff-Airdrie (close to Calgary) and Sturgeon River-Parkland (close to Edmonton) were the least likely to report high life satisfaction, at an average of 35.4%. Similarly, across Ontario, towns like Halton Hills and Whitchurch-Stouffville (both part of the Greater Toronto Area [GTA]), and Orangeville, just north of the GTA, fewer people (38.5%) reported high life satisfaction (Map 2).
Description for Map 2
This map displays the percentage of Canadians who reported a high life satisfaction, within each of the 21 "Population Centres – Metropolitan Influenced Zones", calculated separately for each province in Canada. On the map, percentages are shown using a gradation of dark green (i.e., the areas with the largest percentage of Canadians reporting high life satisfaction, of 62% to 69%) to dark purple (i.e., the areas with the smallest percentage of Canadians reporting high life satisfaction, of 35% to 39%). Inset maps show more detail of the Census Metropolitan Areas of Vancouver and Toronto.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Survey, multiple cycles, 2021 to 2024.
Sense of belonging to a community was lowest in urban areas
An individual’s sense of belonging to their community can have an impact not only at the individual level in terms of well-being but can also have far-reaching implications on social engagement and participation within communities. In the case of community belonging, residents of ‘commuter communities’ just outside of Canada’s largest cities tended to experience some of the lowest levels.
While close to half of Canadians (46.8%) reported that they felt “somewhat strong” or “very strong” about their sense of belonging to their community, these proportions were some of the lowest among residents just outside of large urban cores. For example, in urban areas outside of the Census Metropolitan Area of Toronto (e.g., Hamilton), 42.6% of residents felt some type of attachment to their community (Map 3). For some, lower levels of community involvement may be related to shorter periods of time spent in their own community, due to the need to travel long distances to work. Previous research has suggested that long commute times reduce time for personal obligations and recreational pursuits within home communities.Note Sense of belonging was only marginally higher among residents of Canada‘s largest cities, at around 44% of residents in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.
Description for Map 3
This map displays the percentage of Canadians who reported a strong sense of belonging to their local community, within each of the 21 "Population Centres – Metropolitan Influenced Zones", calculated separately for Ontario and Quebec. The map is focused on an area encompassing southern Ontario and parts of southern Quebec, including Toronto and Montreal. On the map, percentages are shown using a gradation of dark green (i.e., the areas with the largest percentage of Canadians reporting strong sense of belonging, of 63% to 74%) to dark purple (i.e., the areas with the smallest percentage of Canadians reporting strong sense of belonging, of 36% to 42%).
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Survey, multiple cycles, 2021 to 2024.
In all provinces, residents in rural areas were far more likely to report a strong sense of belonging than in urban areas. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, there was a 27-percentage point difference in strong sense of belonging, from the most urban area, St. John’s (46.2%), to its most rural areas, which included Westport and Baine Harbour (74.1%). Similarly, 44.1% of residents in urban Quebec (e.g., Montreal) reported a strong sense of belonging, while 68.1% of those living in rural Quebec (e.g., Caplan and Témiscaming) reported the same.
The notion that a sense of belonging is stronger in small town and rural Canada than in urban Canada is supported by previous studies.Note Research using data from the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization and the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) further investigated the relationship between sense of belonging and neighbourhood characteristics, “rootedness” (i.e., the duration of residence), and social capital. One study found that neighbourhood characteristics – including population density – were an important correlate to community belonging, with more densely populated areas being associated with lower levels of belonging.
Conclusion
The development of a 21-level geographic classification allows for a better and more comprehensive understanding of social geographies. By applying this classification to two Quality of Life indicators (life satisfaction and sense of belonging), it is clear that the traditional urban-rural split may be too superficial – hiding key insights on those who are most vulnerable to lower levels of subjective well-being. In particular, this study was able to pinpoint the hotspots for low levels of subjective well-being, with ‘commuter communities’ being at greatest risk of lower levels of life satisfaction and sense of community belonging. Future research should expand this initial analysis, taking a deeper dive into possible correlates, as well as the association with other key Quality of Life indicators.
Data sources, methods, limitations and definitions
All social indicators used in this article are from the Canadian Social Survey (CSS), using pooled waves collected between April 2021 to March 2024. The CSS is a voluntary, cross-sectional, quarterly survey that collects information on well-being, health, time use, confidence in institutions, and other social issues. The target population for the CSS includes all non-institutionalized persons aged 15 or older, living off-reserve within the 10 provinces of Canada. Exclusions represent fewer than 2% of the Canadian population aged 15 and older.
Two of the six most regularly collected social indicators in the CSS (life satisfaction and sense of belonging to a community) were selected and pooled across waves for analysis. In all cases, responses to these indicators were dichotomized for analysis.
Geographic identifiers from the 2021 Geographic Attribute File (GAF) were attached to the pooled CSS data by common dissemination block (i.e., the side of a street along a city block). From the GAF, the following geographic characteristics were considered in models to explain variation in the social indicators: i) province, ii) region, iii) census metropolitan area (CMA) type, iv) population centre/rural area type, v) population centre/rural area classification, vi) population centre/rural area rural metropolitan influenced zone, vii) community size/metropolitan influenced zone, or viii) rural/urban. Once GAF data were attached, both forward and backward stepwise regression models were used to identify which of these geographic classifications accounted for the most variability across each of the six social indicators (i.e., were present in the majority of models across all indicators). For all social indicators, the two variables of: 1) community size/metropolitan influenced zone, and 2) population centre/rural area classification were significant in all regression models (forward and backward stepwise models), while 3) province was significant in all models except for loneliness.
For example, all respondents answering the CSS during the roughly 3-year study period were assigned geographic characteristics based on their neighbourhood (e.g., people living in the Annex neighbourhood of Toronto were matched with geographic characteristics such as living within the largest and most dense city types). Then, to determine the best combination of geographic characteristics to describe the social indicators measured on the CSS, stepwise logistic regression analyses were carried out between the indicator (e.g., whether someone reported high life satisfaction) and the list of possible geographic characteristics. In nearly all cases, a combination of two variables: “community size/metropolitan influenced zone” and “population centre/rural area classification”, explained most of the variation in the Quality of Life indicators. As a result, these geographic characteristics were combined into a new, 21-point classification scheme. For the respondents living in the Annex neighbourhood of Toronto, they were then assigned to the most urban designation (1) in the new 21-point system, along with residents of other similarly urban neighbourhoods (e.g., Gastown, in Vancouver).
Population-level estimates for each Quality of Life indicator, using the new 21-point system, were determined using survey and bootstrap weights, to reflect the underlying population of Canada.
References
Kitchen, Peter, Allison Williams and James Chowhan. 2012. “Sense of community belonging and health in Canada: A regional analysis.” Social Indicators research. Vol.107, pp. 103-126.
Lu, Chaohui, Grant Schellenberg, Feng Hou and John F. Helliwell. 2015. “How’s life in the city? Life satisfaction across Census Metropolitan Areas and Economic Regions in Canada.” Economic Insights. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-626-X, no. 046.
Ruggeri, Kai, Eduardo Garcia-Garzon, Áine Maguire, Sandra Matz and Felicia A. Huppert. 2020. “Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. Vol. 18, no. 192.
Schellenberg, Grant, Chaohui Lu, Christoph Schimmele and Feng Hou. 2018. “The correlates of self-assessed community belonging in Canada: Social capital, neighbourhood characteristics, and rootedness.” Social Indicators Research. Vol.140, pp. 597-618.
Statistics Canada. 2022 . “Local Environments Lift Life Satisfaction.” Infographics. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-627-M.
Statistics Canada. 2023. “Commuting time, 2011 to 2022.” Quality of Employment in Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 14-28-0001.
Statistics Canada. 2024. “Life satisfaction in Canada, 2023.” Infographics. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-627-M.
Tassinari, Filippo, Lukas Kleine-Rueschkamp and Paolo Veneri. 2023. “Life satisfaction along the urban-rural continuum. A global assessment.” OECD Regional Development Papers. No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris.
- Date modified: