Rural Korea losing people but gaining households, study finds

Rural Korea is losing residents, but the lights are not going out entirely. A five-year tracking study of farming, mountain and fishing villages found that while the average permanent population fell, the number of households actually rose. The spread of elderly single-person households, second homes and temporary stays is producing changes that can no longer be explained by the simple equation of population decline equaling village extinction.

According to the Korea Rural Economic Institute's rural village panel survey released Tuesday, the average permanent population across 90 comparable villages nationwide fell from 188.8 to 182.4 — a drop of 6.4 — between 2020 and 2025. Over the same period, the average number of permanent households rose from 89.2 to 95.0, an increase of 5.8.

In other words, fewer people are living in more households. The institute described the phenomenon as "household miniaturization" or "population dilution" — the number of households grows even as the overall population shrinks. It attributed the trend to a combination of expanding elderly single-person households, youth outmigration and declining births.

The pattern was most pronounced in villages that lost population. Among the 49 villages where population declined, the average number of permanent households fell only marginally — from 81.7 to 80.7, a drop of just one — while the average permanent population plunged from 171.9 to 140.1, a loss of 31.8. The average number of people per household shrank from 2.10 to 1.74.

The 41 villages that gained population told a different story: average households rose from 98.1 to 112.1, an increase of 14, while average population grew from 209 to 233, a gain of 24. However, even in those villages, the average household size edged down from 2.13 to 2.08 persons — a sign that rural household sizes are shrinking across the board.

Regional trends also showed households and populations moving in opposite directions. In Gangwon Province, average households rose from 72.0 to 93.3 — up 21.3 — and population also climbed, from 132.1 to 157.0. In North Gyeongsang Province, households increased from 70.8 to 74.2, but population fell from 131.0 to 113.3, a decline of 17.7. South Jeolla Province similarly saw households rise from 58.6 to 63.3 while population dropped from 123.1 to 115.5.

How people use rural areas is also changing. More people are keeping second homes in villages or staying for extended periods without becoming permanent residents, creating a pattern in which full-time locals and temporary visitors share the same community spaces. The institute said rural villages are expanding their function beyond simple permanent settlement to serve as spaces for social connection and temporary stays.

The housing choices of newcomers have also shifted. Among households that moved into rural villages over the past three years, the share moving into existing homes rose sharply — from 58.6 percent in 2022 to 78.4 percent last year. Over the same period, the share moving into newly built homes fell from 25.8 percent to 10.4 percent. The share moving into renovated vacant homes held steady at around 8 percent. The trend points to a growing preference for making use of existing and vacant rural housing rather than building new.

Changes in rural villages by population trend Source: Korea Rural Economic Institute

Category | No. of villages | Avg. households 2020 | Avg. households 2025 | Change | Avg. population 2020 | Avg. population 2025 | Change Population-gaining villages | 41 | 98.1 | 112.1 | +14.0 | 209.0 | 233.0 | +24.0 Population-losing villages | 49 | 81.7 | 80.7 | −1.0 | 171.9 | 140.1 | −31.8 Total | 90 | 89.2 | 95.0 | +5.8 | 188.8 | 182.4 | −6.4

A pattern of trial stays before full relocation has also emerged. Among households that moved into villages near major cities, 12.5 percent were living in temporary housing — well above the overall average of 3.2 percent. The institute interpreted this as demand concentrated near urban peripheries from people who want to spend time in a village before committing to a permanent move.

Rural economic activity is also becoming harder to describe in purely agricultural terms. Last year's survey found that 92.2 percent of panel villages had at least one non-farming or non-fishing household. Among villages with non-agricultural economic activity, 74.8 percent had self-employed residents, 68.0 percent had public-sector jobs, and 55.3 percent had service-sector or social-economy activity. Particularly notable was the expansion of villages with service-sector households, which rose from 41.2 percent in 2021 to 55.3 percent last year — a gain of 14.1 percentage points.

More than half of all villages — 52.4 percent — had households engaged in convergence industries combining agriculture, forestry or fisheries with rural guesthouses, food processing and retail, restaurants, or experiential tourism. Villages with accommodation businesses such as rural guesthouses were the most common at 37.9 percent, followed by those with production, processing and retail sales, and those with restaurants using local agricultural and marine products, each at 21.4 percent.

Residents' daily lives are no longer confined to their village or the nearest township. As the functions of local township centers weaken, residents are forming layered daily-life zones that draw on nearby urban centers, local commercial districts and online or remote services. Rural villages, the institute said, are evolving from places where people simply live into living spaces connected to the wider world.

None of this means the population problem has gone away. Last year, the average number of births recorded in panel villages was just 0.07, against 1.48 deaths. The institute said natural population decline — more deaths than births — is becoming entrenched. Villages with at least one elderly person aged 75 or older living alone accounted for 99.0 percent of the total.

Gaps in residents' quality of life remain as well. Satisfaction with the natural environment and community relations was high, but satisfaction with employment, healthcare and everyday convenience services was comparatively low. While more villages are home to both long-term residents and recent arrivals, the survey also confirmed that youth and newcomers participate less in community activities.

The institute characterized these changes as a process of "restructuring" in which rural areas maintain their core functions while adapting to new forms of housing, lifestyle and economic activity even as their populations shrink. Rather than focusing policy solely on increasing population numbers, it recommended building a settlement framework that accounts for second-home owners and temporary residents, while also pursuing better use of vacant and idle spaces and improved access to medical, care and daily-life services.

"There is no need to view population decline in rural villages as synonymous with their disappearance," said Han I-cheol, a research fellow at the institute. "This survey confirmed that rural areas are reorganizing in response to changed conditions — including the expansion of second homes, the layering of daily-life zones and the diversification of economic activity."