years of age or not usual residents of dwelling.

The figures were compiled for collectors districts and are available on computer tapes at this level. For the present analysis, the collectors district figures were aggregated to refer to the urban and rural

communities employed in the analyses of population changes and net migration.

Because of the number of categories of 1966 residence, cluster 38

analysis provided a convenient way of summarising the information. Communities were classified according to the relative importance of different places of residence five years earlier. Before clustering, the

National trends in net migration have been estimated by the following authors:

(1) Borrie, W.D. and Spencer, Geraldine, Australia's Population Structure and Growth, Committee for Economic Development of Australia,

Melbourne, 1965, pp.36-39.

(2) Steinke, John C., Regional Trends in Australian Population Distribution, 1947-1966, Department of Decentralisation and Development (N.S.W.), 1971.

They estimated that net outward movement from rural areas in Australia 1954-61 was in the range -213,000 to -240,000. Their estimates of net migration to non-metropolitan urban centres, however, differed very greatly. Borrie and Spencer's figure for net migration to 'other urban' centres 1954-61 was 190,000 (p.37) while Steinke's estimate was 13,768 (p.83). 38

For this and subsequent analyses programme HGR0UP was used in preference to CLUSTAN, as HGR0UP is a shorter, simpler programme with more manageable output.

statistics were converted to z scores to give equal weighting to each place of residence employed in the classification. The standard scores were also used to present the results of the analyses in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. The graphs attached to these two maps show the extent to which the relative importance of a place of previous residence deviated from the mean for all areas. A standard score of 0 for any place of residence indicates that an area had a percentage of its population from a given origin which was equal to the mean proportion from that origin in all areas combined. Standard scores of 1 or 2 indicate that a value in a particular area was 1 or 2 standard deviations above the mean. Thus in each map the mean is the basis for comparison and deviations from the mean are expressed in standard deviation units.

4.7.2 Levels of Mobility in Rural and Urban Communities

Before analysing the results of the cluster analysis some comments should be made about overall levels of mobility, and the variability of proportions from different origins. On average, the rural population of Victoria was less mobile than the non-metropolitan urban population; 69 percent of rural people lived in the same dwelling at both 1966 and 1971, compared with 61 percent of the urban population (Table 4.8). For urban Melbourne the corresponding figure was 62 percent. The means for the

total population in Table 4.8 also indicate other features including:

(1) The volume of urban-urban migration exceeds rural-urban migration. (2) For short distance moves to rural areas (moves within statistical

divisions), rural and urban origins are equally important, but for longer distance moves (between statistical divisions) to rural areas, urban origins predominate.

(3) Places in other states are relatively unimportant as places of origin for internal migrants to Victoria's country districts and non-metropolitan urban centres.

Compared with the population of 'other urban' centres, a high percentage (31 percent) of Melbourne's population moved within the same division

1966-71, reflecting the great amount of intraurban migration in the capital city (Table 4.9). Only about 7 percent of Melbourne's population in 1971 had arrived through internal migration 1966-71, while in 'other urban'

TABLE 4.8 Variability of Percentages In Places of Residence at Previous Census. 1966 Place of •k Urban Residence 1971 jlf«up Rural Residence 1971

Residence _{Coefficient Coefficient}

Mean Standard of Mean Standard of

Deviation Variation Deviation Variation

Same Dwelling 60.6 7.1 11.7 69.1 10.6 15.3 Same Division Urban 17.5 5.7 32.6 8.3 8.4 101.2 Rural 5.2 2.4 46.2 8.1 3.3 40.7 Same State Urban 10.9 4.9 45.0 8.3 5.8 69.9 Rural 2.7 1.6 59.2 3.4 2.1 61.8 Other State Urban 2.4 2.8 116.7 2.0 3.3 165.0 Rural 0.7 0.7 100.0 0.8 0.8 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 *

Excludes Melbourne (Includes 110 non-metropolitan urban centres). Excludes rural portions of urban L.G.A.s. (Includes 137 shires). Note: The population overseas in 1966 is excluded.

Source: 1971 census (magnetic tape).

TABLE 4.9 Places of Residence in 1966 of 1971 Population of Melbourne.

Residence in 1966 Number Percentage

Same Dwelling 1,151,619 62.1 Same Division Urban 563,233 30.4 Rural 12,240 0.6 Same State Urban 46,918 2.5 Rural 17,039 0.9 Other State Urban 58,192 3.1 Rural ***

Other and Not Stated

5,975 215,344

0.3

Total 2,070,560 100.0

*

Melbourne urban centre.

Excluding 'Other and not stated'.

Includes persons aged 0-4 in 1971 and 'not usual resident' of the dwelling, but excludes persons overseas in 1966.

171

centres and rural areas the average proportions were at least 22 and 23 39

percent respectively.

Some categories of place of residence in 1966 have very high standard deviations compared with the value of the mean (Table 4.8). Such standard deviations are mainly the result of extreme values near the upper and lower

limits of the range, rather than great variability among all the statistics in the set. The size of the standard deviation (s) in relation to the mean

(x) is shown by the coefficient of variation (V) where

V = -100

X

The coefficient of variation is lowest for proportions in the same dwelling in 1966 (12 percent for urban, 15 percent for rural), indicating that most areas had fairly similar proportions in their populations who did not move. The higher coefficients for other places of residence indicate that these categories differentiate areas more strongly. However, as already noted, much of the variation is due to the presence of a few extreme values, which can be demonstrated by comparing the range of a place of residence category with its 10-90 percentile range. For example, the proportion of people moving to rural areas from rural parts of other states ranged from 0.0 to

5.9, though the 10-90 percentile range was only 0.1 to 1.6. For this place of residence category, extreme values resulted in a coefficient of variation of 100 percent. Similarly, the percentage of people moving to

rural areas from urban centres in other states range from 0.0 to 24.7 (V = 165), while the 10-90 percentile range was 0.5 to 3.4.

4.7.3 Previous Residences of Rural Populations

Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of rural residence groups, derived by HGR0UP clustering of 137 rural areas. The divergence graphs in the diagram comprise a profile of one member from each group, each representative area being selected on the basis of its nearness to the mean values for the group

(Table 4.10). In analysing the variations in the importance of previous places of residence the discussion is intentionally very generalised. This

Persons who were overseas in 1966 were not included in these figures. The percentages for ’other urban' centres and rural areas understate the amount of internal migration because urban-urban and rural-rural movements within the same division have been excluded; it is not known what

proportion of such moves were internal migrations as opposed to local moves within communities.

1/2