Page 61 - IJPS-11-6

International Journal of
Population Studies Migration to non-metropolitan Canada

place satisfaction as experienced by immigrants living in a smaller cities experiencing demographic change through
non-metropolitan community. immigrant (re)settlement. We imagine that qualitatively,
a non-metropolitan community would be an urbanized
1.2. Conceptualizing non-metropolitan community settlement that would resemble a colloquial conception of

Based on the literature in the aforementioned sections about a small city or town, which differs from sparsely populated
population centers and the implications of demographic settlements such as a hamlet or village. Based on the
change as a process occurring in a community, we literature, we identify three characteristics that are relevant
contribute to the literature on population and demographic to constructing a conceptualization of non-metropolitan
change by conceptualizing non-metropolitan communities communities in the following subsections: socially close-
as a concept that can be applied to understand population knit culture in the community, less cosmopolitan, and fewer
centers. Here, we conceptualize smaller cities as population urban amenities, spaces, and services in the community.
centers and non-metropolitan communities. We build on
the definition of a “new immigrant destination” (Winders, 1.2.1. Socially close-knit culture in the community
2014), which refers to the four characteristics identified Non-metropolitan communities may have a socially
as first, “speed, rather than size, of immigrant settlement” close-knit culture in the community (Bonifacio & Drolet,
(Winders, 2014, p.158), second, “[the] lack of institutional 2017; Kelly & Nguyen, 2023; Wilson-Forsberg, 2012).
infrastructures to meet the needs of immigrants” (Winders, Community, in a classic regard, has been viewed by
2014, p.158), third, “[the] lack [of] local histories of urban sociologists through the lens of gemeinschaft and
immigrant settlement” (Winders, 2014, p.159), and gesellschaft, which refer to rural, tradition-based societies
fourth, the characteristic of new immigrant destinations and urban, impersonal structures, respectively (Tönnies,
as having “often younger than both the native-born 1963). Here, gemeinschaft becomes relevant and has a
populations in their new communities and immigrants in direct association with the conception of “community.”
more established destinations” (Winders, 2014, p.161). We The implications of socially close-knit communities for
differentiate our population center definition of a “non- immigrants have been discussed in the literature, such as
metropolitan community” by focusing on the qualitative providing a social environment that is perceived as static
(i.e., physical and social) characteristics of a place and the and difficult to build social connections for outsiders, like
demographic composition of the community. immigrants (Bonafacio & Drolet, 2017; Miraftab, 2016;
We define a non-metropolitan community as a Garcia & Schmalzbauer, 2017; Wilson-Forsberg, 2012;
settlement located outside of metropolitan areas that is Wong et al., 2023). For example, in Wilson-Forsberg’s
spatially small (relative to cities in metropolitan areas) (2012) Getting Used to the Quiet book, which documented
and has a minority ethnocultural population demographic the experiences of young immigrants in two small cities
within the community. We purposely did not provide a in a rural area in New Brunswick, Canada, a common
quantitative measure of population or municipality size experience related to challenges of developing close social
in our definition, as we intend to provide the relevance relationships with residents was a real and perceived
of this term to describe a locality with an emphasis challenge. Studies of smaller cities suggest that there
on qualitative attributes. Our concept intersects with cannot be a generalization about whether local residents
existing literature about population centers by extending are welcoming or unwelcoming to ethnically diverse
the construct of “place” and “community.” We regard the populations (Kelly & Nguyen, 2023; Wong et al., 2023).
physical and social attributes of a locality as a “place.” A Some studies document how immigrants may perceive
place is not only the physical attributes (e.g., infrastructure local residents as “friendly” (Kelly & Nguyen, 2023; Wilson-
and spaces in the community), but it also entails the Forsberg, 2012), while other studies suggest how racial
socially constructed meanings attached to space, as real or prejudices and xenophobia can be implicitly or explicitly
perceived (Tuan, 1977). Hence, a place is real, imagined, embedded in the social fabric of smaller communities
and fluid (Sandercock, 1998; Tuan, 1977). We purposely (Garcia & Schmalzbauer, 2017; Wong et al., 2023). Hence,
did not provide a quantitative metric for measuring a the outcomes of a socially close-knit culture in a community
non-metropolitan community to provide a broad basis for on immigrant experiences have been related to the benefits
conceptualization. This conceptualization is not intended of social capital and an instilled sense of community. On the
to provide a generalization for all population centers fitting other hand, the latent implications of cultural assimilation
this criterion, as context should be regarded. Rather, the and potential perceptions of otherness in the community
conceptualization of non-metropolitan communities may be present and experienced by immigrants (Bonafacio
presented here is intended to provide a conceptual basis & Drolet, 2017; Miraftab, 2016; Garcia & Schmalzbauer,
for the assessment and analysis of population centers in 2017; Wilson-Forsberg, 2012; Wong et al., 2023).

Volume 11 Issue 6 (2025) 55 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.6309