Australian Bureau of Statistics

Rate the ABS website
ABS Home > Statistics > By Release Date
ABS @ Facebook ABS @ Twitter ABS RSS ABS Email notification service
4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2000  
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 04/07/2000   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product  
Contents >> Population >> Population Characteristics: Socio-economic disadvantage across urban, rural and remote areas

Population Characteristics: Socio-economic disadvantage across urban, rural and remote areas

While most people in disadvantaged areas live in major urban centres, they tend to be over-represented in smaller towns and in geographically isolated communities.

Defining urban/rural and remote areas

A combination of two separate classifications of area have been used in this review.

The first, known as ‘section of state’ in the Australian Standard Geographic Classification, has four categories: Major urban areas (urban centres with 100,000 or more people), other urban areas (those with between 1,000 and 99,999 people), rural localities (places with 200-999 people), and rural balance areas (the rural remainder).

The second (also with four categories as shown in the map) is based on an index of accessibility developed by researchers at the University of Adelaide with the support of the Department of Health and Community Services. The index, known as Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) measures remoteness in terms of access along road networks to service centres (a hierarchy of urban centres with populations of 5,000 or more). Localities that are more remote have less access to these service centres whilst those that are less remote have greater access.1 Each census collection district has been allocated an ARIA score.


Information on social inequality and levels of disadvantage according to where people live, be it in urban, rural or remote parts of Australia, can allow for better targeting of assistance. Increasing concern about the hardships being faced by people in rural and regional Australia (exemplified by the $1.8 billion package for these areas in the Federal Government’s 2000 budget) highlights the demand for such information.
2

ACCESSIBLE AND REMOTE AREAS
ACCESSIBLE AND REMOTE AREAS - MAP OF AUSTRALIA



Measuring socio-economic disadvantage is not a straightforward exercise because disadvantage is a relative concept which involves value judgements and because there are many, often interrelated, dimensions to disadvantage. Social inequality and disadvantage is typically associated with low income and with those groups that have high levels of dependency on the social security system, such as the unemployed and one-parent families. Levels of educational attainment and the ability to speak English well also affect life opportunities to the extent that some people may experience substantial disadvantage in getting jobs, in making use of available services, or in protecting their rights. In terms of places where people live, other aspects of disadvantage relate to the number and viability of local industries (which provide employment opportunities) and the access people have to various goods and services. The latter is clearly more of an issue for people living in more remote communities than for those living in, or close to, major urban centres.


One measure (known as the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage) which incorporates a wide range of information from the 1996 census, can be used to identify areas with relatively high proportions of people which have characteristics associated with low socio-economic status (see box below). The index is useful as it allows small areas, namely, census collection districts (CDs) - typically clusters of 200-250 dwellings - to be ranked according to their index score from highest to lowest. Having identified the most disadvantaged CDs (taken as the 20% with the lowest index scores) this review then identifies their location by using two classifications of area which together usefully summarise the pattern of human settlement in Australia. The first classification divides the population according to an urban/rural dichotomy (largely based on sizes of urban centres), while the second takes into account levels of remoteness. The latter (see box above) distinguishes between areas that could be expected to have ready access to goods and services (such as those that may be available to people on farms or in small towns living close to major cities) from those living in remote and geographically isolated communities.

Identifying disadvantaged areas
The ABS has developed various indexes to describe the socio-economic status of populations living in different geographic areas.3 Using 1996 population census data, these have been derived by a multivariate technique known as principal components analysis. The technique summarises a large number of socio-economic variables into a single measure which can then be used to rank areas (from highest to lowest) on a broad socio-economic scale.

In this review, socio-economic status has been determined using the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage constructed for census collection districts (CDs). CDs are usually clusters of approximately 200-250 dwellings, each with their own unique mix of people. CDs with the greatest relative disadvantage typically have high proportions of low-income families, unemployed people, people without educational qualifications, households renting from public housing and people in unskilled or semiskilled occupations. Conversely, the least disadvantaged areas tend to have higher proportions of high-income earners, professional workers and more highly qualified people, as well as low unemployment rates.

The most disadvantaged CDs have been defined to include the 20% of CDs which recorded the lowest index scores. As CDs have small and similarly sized populations the proportion of Australia’s total population in the selected CDs is also close to 20% (actually 19%).


Distribution of people living in the most disadvantaged CDs
In 1996, of the 3.3 million people living in the most disadvantaged CDs, 1.9 million lived in major urban areas (urban areas with more than 100,000 people) and a further 650,000 lived in other areas defined as being highly accessible, generally regions surrounding the major cities (see map). The remaining 830,000 lived in areas with lower levels of accessibility with 140,000 living in the remote/very remote parts of the country.

When compared to the distribution of Australia's total population between urban, rural and remote areas, the distribution of people living in the most disadvantaged CDs showed some differences. People living in the most disadvantaged CDs were under-represented in major urban areas and over-represented in smaller towns and localities. They were also over-represented in remote areas.

In 1996, 56% of all people living in the most disadvantaged CDs were in major urban areas compared to 63% of the total population. In contrast, 39% of all people living in the most disadvantaged CDs were in other urban areas and rural localities (combined) compared to 26% of the total population. The over-representation of people living in the most disadvantaged CDs in smaller towns is evident among towns located in highly accessible areas as well as those in more geographically isolated areas.

For the areas in between towns and localities (described as rural balance areas), their share of all people living in the most disadvantaged CDs was on the low side: 5% compared to 12% of the total population living in rural balance areas. This under-representation was especially evident among those in highly accessible rural balance areas (1% compared to 6%).

In contrast, among the comparatively small numbers of people in the most remote parts of the country the pattern was reversed. That is, these areas’ share of people living in the most disadvantaged CDs was higher than their share of the total population (1.4% compared to 0.8%).

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION(a) PEOPLE LIVING IN MOST DISADVANTAGED CD'S(b), 1996

People living in most disadvantaged CDs(c)
Total population(c)


Highly accessible
Accessible
Moderately accessible
Remote/
very remote
Total
Highly accessible
Accessible
Moderately accessible
Remote/
very remote
Total
Section of State
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Major urban
55.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
55.7
62.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
62.7
Other urban
17.3
11.9
2.9
1.7
33.8
12.8
7.1
2.0
1.4
23.3
Rural locality
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.2
5.1
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
2.5
Rural balance
1.2
2.2
0.7
1.4
5.4
5.9
3.3
1.5
0.8
11.5
Total
74.7
16.5
4.6
4.2
100.0
81.8
11.8
4.0
2.4
100.0

(a) Described using two classifications of areas, see details in box on the preceding page.
(b) Refers to people in the 20% of CDs with the lowest scores on the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage.
(c) Excludes overseas visitors and persons in offshore, shipping and migratory CDs.

Source: Unpublished data, 1996 Census of Population and Housing.

Dimensions of disadvantage
Insights into differences in the nature of disadvantage in different places are obtained by looking at particular socio-economic characteristics of people living in those areas.

The table on this and the following page presents a range of socio-economic status indicators that highlight some of the differences between people living in the most disadvantaged CDs and Australia’s total population. The table also shows differences among those living in the most disadvantaged CDs according to where they live.

Although not necessarily calculated in the same way, most of the socio-economic status indicators shown in the table contributed to the construction of the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage. Some of the observed patterns are therefore predictable.

It can be seen, for example, that the average income (here measured at the per capita level because household sizes vary) among those associated with the most disadvantaged CDs was substantially below that of the total population ($223 and $310 per week respectively).

However, income levels differed considerably among people associated with the most disadvantaged CDs depending on where they lived. Those in remote/very remote rural localities and in remote/very remote rural balance areas had the lowest incomes (average household per capita incomes of $171 and $156 per week, respectively) which compared to $229 per week among those in major urban areas. Other indicators show that this difference is largely associated with the high representation of Indigenous people in remote areas.

Yet other indicators reveal the depth of disadvantage experienced in some communities. For example, school participation rates among children aged 16, which in 1996 stood at 80% among all children in Australia, varied from 72% for those living in the most disadvantaged major urban CDs, down to around 30% for those living in the most disadvantaged CDs located in small geographically remote communities (again, those remote rural localities and rural balance areas where the proportions of Indigenous people were high).

In the major urban areas where a high proportion of people associated with the most disadvantaged CDs live, other dimensions to disadvantage can be seen. Major urban areas contain a relatively high proportion of migrants from countries other than main English-speaking countries (19% of the total population of major urban areas in 1996). Largely associated with this group, a relatively high proportion of people who do not speak English well or at all (4%) live in major urban areas. Previous studies have shown that these groups, particularly recent migrants, have lower employment and income levels than other citizens (see Australian Social Trends 1998, Migrants in the labour force). Consistent with this, the most disadvantaged CDs in major urban areas had a higher proportion of migrants from countries other than main English-speaking countries (26%) than their share of the total population in major urban areas (19%); and a higher proportion of people with English language difficulties (9% compared to 4%). In contrast, these groups were not highly represented in the most disadvantaged CDs outside the major urban areas, probably because relatively few people from countries other than main English-speaking countries lived there.

Other dimensions of disadvantage can be seen from the given tables which, taken together, help to show that the needs for support will differ for people living in different areas. More detailed studies showing particular places experiencing disadvantage, of which a number have recently become available, can further help target the provision of services to those in greatest need.4,5,6,7

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS: PEOPLE LIVING IN MOST DISADVANTAGED CD'S(a) BY LOCATION, 1996

Total
persons(b)
People aged
0-14 years(c)
People aged
65 years and over(c)
Employed(c)
Aboriginal
and/or Torres
Strait Islander
people(d)
Migrants born in other than a main English-speaking country(e)
People who
do not speak English
or do not speak
it well(f)
'000
%
%
%
%
%
%

Most disadvantaged CDs in:
Major urban areas
1,856.1
21.1
14.5
32.0
2.3
26.3
8.5
Other urban areas
Highly accessible
576.2
23.1
16.5
30.8
3.5
4.3
0.5
Accessible
397.0
23.0
16.6
31.0
6.4
3.9
0.6
Moderately accessible
97.6
23.9
14.5
34.9
14.5
4.6
1.0
Remote/very remote
56.2
27.9
8.8
33.2
33.8
4.8
2.8
Rural localities
Highly accessible
34.9
22.7
16.6
29.8
2.2
3.8
0.4
Accessible
64.9
22.4
18.0
29.8
5.2
2.9
0.2
Moderately accessible
32.8
23.1
15.5
33.1
10.2
3.4
0.4
Remote/very remote
39.0
30.9
6.9
32.2
64.0
1.9
9.3
Rural balance areas
Highly accessible
39.2
22.8
11.4
33.0
3.3
8.2
1.3
Accessible
72.9
24.7
10.4
29.8
4.0
3.9
0.3
Moderately accessible
22.1
23.0
10.0
34.9
8.0
4.4
0.4
Remote/very remote
46.3
27.5
5.9
36.0
58.3
2.4
12.8
Total most disadvantaged CDs
3,335.3
22.3
14.7
31.8
5.6
16.5
5.3
Total Australia
17,752.8
21.6
12.1
43.0
2.0
13.8
2.9

(a) Refers to people (excluding overseas visitors) enumerated on Census night, 6 August 1996, in the 20% of Collection Districts (CDs) that recorded the lowest
scores on the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage.
(b) Persons (excluding overseas visitors) enumerated in the area on Census night, 6 August 1996.
(c) As a proportion of all people (excluding overseas visitors).
(d) As a proportion of all people (excluding overseas visitors and those who did not state whether or not they were Indigenous).
(e) Those born overseas, but not in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada or the USA, as a proportion of all people
(excluding overseas visitors and those who did not state their birthplace).
(f) As a proportion of all people (excluding overseas visitors and those who did not state their proficiency in English).

Source: Unpublished data, 1996 Census of Population and Housing.


SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS: PEOPLE LIVING IN MOST DISADVANTAGED CD'S(a) BY LOCATION, 1996

16 year olds
still at school(b)
People aged 25-64 years with degree
or higher(c)
Unemployment
rate
Employed
In low skill
occupations(d)
Weekly household income per capita(e)
One-parent families with dependent children(f)
Households renting
from a government
authority(g)
%
%
%
%
$
%
%

Most disadvantaged CDs in:
Major urban areas
72.0
6.3
18.2
25.3
229
16.6
21.8
Other urban areas
Highly accessible
64.4
4.2
17.9
26.4
219
16.9
13.9
Accessible
63.8
4.4
17.4
25.9
219
16.3
17.1
Moderately accessible
61.5
4.7
13.1
29.3
232
15.3
12.9
Remote/very remote
59.3
5.5
13.8
25.0
232
18.1
22.9
Rural Localities
Highly accessible
70.4
4.2
17.6
25.1
211
11.4
2.2
Accessible
63.2
3.5
16.7
26.2
207
10.1
2.7
Moderately accessible
65.4
4.2
13.6
25.0
223
10.4
3.9
Remote/very remote
28.0
4.5
9.3
40.6
171
20.2
8.1
Rural balance areas
Highly accessible
69.4
5.0
19.0
23.6
216
12.3
2.8
Accessible
67.6
4.0
22.2
23.1
190
9.1
0.3
Moderately accessible
58.3
4.2
16.2
28.5
202
9.8
0.7
Remote/very remote
30.4
4.5
9.9
41.1
156
18.7
2.5
Total most disadvantaged CDs
67.5
5.5
17.6
26.1
223
16.2
17.7
Total Australia
80.2
13.4
9.2
17.9
310
9.9
5.3

(a) Refers to people (excluding overseas visitors) enumerated on Census night, 6 August 1996, in the 20% of Collection Districts (CDs) that recorded the lowest
scores on the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage.
(b) As a proportion of all 16 year olds (excluding overseas visitors and those 16 year olds who did not state whether or not they were attending an educational
institution).
(c) As a proportion of all people aged 25-64 years (excluding overseas visitors).
(d) Persons employed as elementary clerical, sales and service workers and labourers and related workers, as defined in the Australian Standard Classification of
Occupations (Second Edition), as a proportion of employed people aged 15 years and over (excluding overseas visitors and employed people aged 15 years and
over who did not state their occupation).
(e) For households where all incomes were stated and no household members were temporarily absent.
(f) As a proportion of all families.
(g) As a proportion of all occupied private dwellings, excluding those in which tenure type and landlord type was not stated.

Source: Unpublished data, 1996 Census of Population and Housing.


Endnotes

1 Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care 1999, Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA), Occasional papers series no. 6, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra.

2 Regional Australia: Making a Difference, Statement by the Honourable John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Senator the Honourable Ian MacDonald, Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, 9 May 2000, Ausinfo, Canberra.

3 Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998, Information Paper, 1996 Census of Population and Housing: Socio-economic Indexes for Areas,
cat. no. 2039.0, ABS, Canberra.

4 Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998, Australia in Profile: A Regional Analysis, cat. no. 2032.0 ABS, Canberra.

5 Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute 1999, Community Opportunity and Vulnerability in Australian Cities and Towns: Characteristics, Patterns and Implications, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane.

6 Haberkorn, G., Hugo, G., Fisher, M. and Aylwar, R. 1999, Country Matters: Social Atlas of Rural and Regional Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

7 Bray, J. and Mudd, W. 1998, The Contribution of DSS Payments to Regional Income, Technical series no. 2, Department of Social Security, Canberra.



Previous PageNext Page

Bookmark and Share. Opens in a new window


Commonwealth of Australia 2014

Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia Licence together with any terms, conditions and exclusions as set out in the website Copyright notice. For permission to do anything beyond the scope of this licence and copyright terms contact us.