{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015032679738562092, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.022935779816514, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding population growth in the peri-urban region.


 This article advocates a new approach to understanding periurban population growth. A conceptual model is developed that identifies four distinct growth processes: suburbanization, counterurbanization, population retention, and centripetal migration. Each of these growth processes acts differently on particular population subgroups. The differences are reflected in variations in the spatial manifestation of periurban growth within Australia. Suburbanization process is differentiated from counterurbanization by employing three indicators of suburbanization. The first indicator includes the broad situation of the periurban destination and is defined as in-migration from the metropolitan area to adjacent, accessible periurban locations. The second indicator lies in the assessment of the commuting and social linkages with the metropolitan maintained by migrants. The third indicator is the nature of the migrants' residential destination site. Counterurbanization is largely seen to be a shift in population down the urban hierarchy to smaller centers and localities beyond the existing metropolitan boundaries. Furthermore, the article discusses the four indicators that distinguish counterurbanization from suburbanization. Another important process contributing to periurban growth is population retention. Two key indicators that lie in the measurement of increased period of residence and reduced rates of out-migration overtime characterize this process.
