The contrasting demographics of rural and urban spaces in France

How to read this map

This map shows the relative attractiveness to families of functional urban areas of at least 200,000 residents, as of 2021. Attractiveness is described using four levels and is measured by comparing, for each area, the total fertility rate (mean number of children per woman) of women born elsewhere in France who have moved into the area in question (“arrivals”) with that of women born in the area who have moved elsewhere in France (“departures”).

The gap in fertility between these two sub-groups is used to classify the areas as follows: 
➜ Where “arrivals” have (significantly) higher fertility than “departures”, the area is considered to be “attractive” to families (if the difference is at least 0.2 children);
➜ Where “departures” have higher fertility than “arrivals”, the area is considered “unattractive” (again, if the difference is at least 0.2 children);
➜ If there is only a slight difference in fertility between the two groups, the area is considered “fairly attractive” (if the difference is between 0 and +0.2 children in favour of arrivals) or “fairly unattractive” (between -0.2 and 0).

Attractive and fairly attractive areas are shown in blue and light blue, and unattractive and fairly unattractive areas are shown in red and light red. According to this classification, therefore, the Paris area is fairly unattractive, while the Orleans area is fairly attractive.

The map also shows the totally fertility rate (TFR) for all women in the area (displayed as a thumbnail when the cursor is hovered over the area).

Urban fertility: marked contrasts by location

Fertility in urban environments is higher than in rural areas. And while fertility varies from one rural district to the next, the same is also true of urban fertility.

Levels of fertility are far from consistent across metropolitan France, with no geographical North–South or East–West divide. Major disparities exist, with the TFR ranging from 1.40 to 1.96 children per woman. Variations are not correlated with the proportion of immigrants within areas.

The five least fertile areas are Bayonne (1.40 children per woman), followed by Metz, Dijon, and Nancy (1.42), and Poitiers (1.43). The five most fertile areas are Le Mans (1.96), followed by Dunkirk (1.86), Le Havre (1.82), and Nîmes and Lens-Lièvin (1.81). Urban areas are not equally attractive to families

As well as differing in terms of their fertility rate, urban areas also vary in their level of attractiveness to families.

The most typical areas in terms of attractiveness or unattractiveness are situated across different regions of France and vary in size. There is no regional or size-related pattern.

In the areas considered “attractive” (1.74 children per woman on average), the fertility of arrivals is 1.82 children and that of departures 1.54 (a difference of 0.28). Two areas are situated close to Luxembourg and Switzerland. Excess fertility among arrivals could be due to couples formed of cross-border workers. This group of attractive areas also includes Le Mans and Dunkirk with high TFRs (1.96 and 1.86 respectively).

In the areas considered “unattractive” (1.60 children/woman on average), arrivals have a lower fertility rate (1.43) than departures (1.69), a difference of -0.26. These areas are slightly larger than those in the attractive group. The unattractive group includes Besançon, Poitiers and Nancy (with a TFR of around 1.4), as well as Le Havre, despite a relatively high fertility rate (1.82).

The distinction between the “fairly attractive” and “fairly unattractive” groups should be nuanced because the mean fertility gap between “arrivals” and “departures” is close to zero (+0.06 children per woman in the former group and -0.09 in the latter). Among the areas categorized as “fairly attractive”, the most fertile are Annemasse and Saint-Nazaire (1.73) and Mulhouse (1.70). The following areas of more than a million residents are classified as “fairly unattractive”: Aix-Marseille (1.67), Bordeaux (1.45), Lille (1.72), Lyon (1.69), Paris (1.68), Toulouse (1.50) (though there is very little difference in fertility between arrivals and departures in Aix-Marseille and Paris).

Fertility differences by type of space (urban and rural) highlight the fact that the social gradient between couples (education, standard of living, occupation, etc.) is not the only factor behind differing behaviours. The populations living in towns and the countryside are also different.

Reference

Thierry X., 2025, Fécondité et infécondité en France : tendances, fluctuations et disparités territoriales, Population, vol. 80, n° 4, 63-83.

Guide to this chart

This chart shows residential moves between municipalities, or communes, within metropolitan France in the year preceding the 2022 census, by territory type: urban or rural. It only includes internal migration flows within metropolitan France and Corsica: it excludes inflows from overseas France or from other countries and outflows to these destinations. The data referred to as the 2022 census data include the annual census surveys from 2020 to 2024: they represent population changes between the year preceding each survey and the year of the survey, i.e. the earliest changes are 2019–2020 and the latest 2023–2024.

Urban municipalities correspond to those classified as densely populated or intermediate density municipalities, according to INSEE’s three-level municipal density grid. Rural municipalities, on the other hand, are sub-divided into four broad categories, defined using the structural typology of rural spaces produced in 2022 by Magali Talandier and Acadie: residential rural municipalities (communes rurales résidentielles), housing 13% of the total French population as of 2021 and lying within the first or second suburban rings of medium or large agglomerations; small hubs (petites polarités) (11%), which form a network of rural villages and towns across the countryside hosting jobs, amenities, and services; production-based rural municipalities (communes rurales productives), largely industrial or agricultural and generally more geographically remote (6%); and, lastly, tourism-based municipalities (communes rurales touristiques), situated in the mountains or on the coast, where only 3.5% of the French population are permanently resident but nearly half the housing stock consists of second homes (Talandier and Acadie, 2023).

The chart represents the population that moved between municipalities in the year preceding the census. The left-hand column represents the distribution of this population one year prior to the census across the five types of municipality (shown in millions of people) and the right-hand one the distribution as of the census date. The centre of the chart represents flows between each pair of municipality types, proportionate to the numbers of individuals in question. For example, around 2 million people migrated from one urban municipality to another urban municipality.

Popular moves: between urban areas and into certain types of rural area

In the year prior to the 2022 census, 4.1 million people moved between municipalities within metropolitan France. The majority of these moves (52%) were within urban areas. Moves from urban to rural areas were less common: 17% of moves were from an urban space to a rural space and 13% were in the opposite direction. Lastly, 11% of moves were from one type of rural municipality to a different one (and 7% within the same type of rural municipality).

Analysing these flows provides an insight into the specific dynamics of each type of rural area. Residential and, to a lesser extent, tourism-based rural municipalities have seen significant arrivals from urban areas. Almost 300,000 people left an urban municipality for a residential rural municipality in the year prior to the 2022 census, representing 56% of moves into this type of area. These flows follow known patterns of peri-urbanization, stretching to municipalities increasingly remote from agglomerations. Conversely, 360,000 people left residential rural municipalities: while the majority of them (229,000) moved to an urban area, this number is still lower than for moves in the opposite direction (300,000). The urban exodus is also observed among moves to tourism-based rural municipalities: ex-urban inhabitants represent 50% of arrivals to these spaces, which are generally more remote from towns and cities. Production-based rural municipalities receive comparatively few ex-urban arrivals. They are more closely linked with small hubs, both in terms of arrivals and departures, highlighting the key role of these small hubs in the overall functioning of rural spaces.

References

Cayouette Remblière J., Fromentin J., Le Roux G., 2025,  La répartition spatiale de la population française, Population, 80(4)

Talandier M., ACADIE (coopérative), 2023, « Etude sur la diversité des ruralités. “Typologies et trajectoires des territoires” », Rapport pour l’Agence nationale de la cohésion des territoires (ANCT), 86 p.

Guide to this graphic

This chart shows the proportion of people in France living with a partner as of 2022, by age group, sex, and residential environment.

The horizontal axis contains all 5-year age groups, from 15–19 years to 60–64 years. For each age group, the proportion of people with a partner is obtained from individuals’ responses to the population census question “Are you living with a partner?” . People who reported living with a partner could be married, in a civil partnership, or in a free union (union libre) with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex.

The distinction between urban and rural was made based on whether the respondent’s municipality of residence formed part of an urban unit or not.

The proportion of people with a partner was highest around the age of 35.

Among all individuals over 15 years of age, 62% of men and 63% of women reporting living with a partner in 2022. Living with a partner becomes the predominant status from age 25–29 onwards among women and age 30–34 among men. The proportion increases with age, peaking at around 40, with 71% of men aged 35–39 and 73% of women living with a partner. After this point, living with a partner becomes less common among women, with only 61% of them still cohabiting at age 60–64; among men, however, the situation remains unchanged, with 71% of men in this highest age group still living with a partner.

The proportion of individuals living with a partner increases with age as young adults gradually form long-term relationships; it then varies, firstly, as relationship breakdowns (separations and divorces) start to occur and new relationships are formed (more frequently among men), and, secondly, due to lower male life expectancy, meaning that women are more likely to lose their partner as they get older. Lastly, women are more likely to be living with a partner at a younger age since they form long-term relationships earlier (among heterosexual couples, men are, on average, 2 to 3 years older than their partner).

Rural residents are more likely to live with a partner

Individuals living in rural areas are much more likely to be living with a partner than residents of urban units: 70% of women and 64% of men aged 15 to 64 living in a rural municipality cohabit with a partner, compared with only 54% of men and women living in urban units. This difference is observed at all ages, in both men and women, but the contrast is particularly marked among women, especially in the 25–29 year age group (the proportion of women from rural municipalities living with a partner is 19% higher than among women from urban municipalities).

In rural municipalities, prior to age 65, women of all ages are more likely than men to be living with a partner. Among residents of urban units, this is only the case up to age 40, after which the trend is reversed: between the ages of 40 and 65, men living in urban areas are more likely than women to be living with a partner. These differences are likely explained by the earlier formation of long-term relationships among young men and women in rural environments. Other factors, such as young people moving to urban areas for their studies or their first job, may also mean that it is more difficult to maintain a relationship at young ages. The fact that living with a partner is more common among the most educated individuals, who are more likely to live in an urban environment, also helps explain these differences, as do the higher rates of separations in urban areas.

Reference

Belliot N., La nuptialité se maintient en France, toujours plus tardive, Population, 80(4).

Guide to this graphic

This chart shows life expectancy at birth from 1968 to 2021 across the departments (départements) of metropolitan France, grouped into three categories: urban departments, rural departments, and intermediate departments. These three categories have been defined by EUROSTAT based on population densities in each department. Overseas departments of France have been excluded from this analysis due to the lack of reliable data over this extended time period. Life expectancy at birth for a particular year represents the mean lifespan, in years, of a group of individuals assuming that they will, at every age, experience the current age-specific mortality levels for their department type: between their birth and their first birthday, their risk of dying will equal the mortality risk for infants under 1 year old for that particular year and living in departments of the same type; between the ages of 1 and 2, their risk of dying will be that of children aged 1–2 that same year, etc. Life expectancy is not influenced by the age structure of the population (the relative proportions of younger and older people) and, as such, is the ideal indicator for comparing mortality between populations or that of a single population over time, unlike crude death rate, for example.

The comparative advantage of urban departments

In 2021 (the most recent year for which department-level figures are available), urban departments recorded the highest life expectancy overall: 80.0 years for men and 85.8 years for women. Intermediate departments were just behind (79.4 and 85.3) and rural departments in last place (78.7 years and 85.2 years).

Urban departments’ advantage over other department types in terms of life expectancy at birth is nothing new. For men, mean lifespan has been higher in urban departments than in other types since at least 1968 but, until the late 1980s, it was the intermediate departments that offered the shortest average lifespan, with rural departments situated between the two other types. The current ranking emerged in the mid-1990s, and the gaps between the three types of metropolitan department continued to widen until the COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacted urban departments.

Among women, the pattern of disparities was somewhat different, with life expectancy remaining very similar across all three types of department until the mid-2000s. At this point, urban departments gradually pulled ahead of intermediate departments in terms of life expectancy and, to an even greater extent, rural departments. In 2021, rural departments lagged behind urban ones by 1.2 years for men and 0.6 years for women, despite behind ahead by 0.1 and 0.4 thirty years previously (in 1991); life expectancy in intermediate departments was respectively 0.6 and 0.5 years lower than in urban areas, compared with 0.1 and 0.5 years in 1991. This situation could be due both to differences in living environment (natural surroundings, for example) and lifestyle (risk behaviours in particular), and to the increasing difficulties associated with accessing care in rural areas.

Reference

Barbieri M., 2025, La répartition spatiale de la population française, Population, 80(4).