Amenity migration

20 Pages·2009·0.21 MB·English

GeoJournal
DOI10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4
Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers,
socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges
Hannah Gosnell Æ Jesse Abrams
!SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
Abstract Rural communities throughout the post- Keywords Amenity migration
!
industrial world are in the midst of a significant Counterurbanization Rural restructuring
! !
transition, sometimes referred to as rural restructur- Post-productivist transition
ing, as traditional land uses, economic activities, and
social arrangements transition to those associated
with ‘‘post-productivist’’ or ‘‘multifunctional’’ land-
scapes. Amenity migration, the movement of people Introduction
based on the draw of natural and/or cultural ameni-
ties, canbethoughtofasbothdriverandimplication Ruralcommunitiesthroughoutthepostindustrialworld
of this transition, resulting in significant changes in areinthemidstofasignificanttransition,sometimes
theownership,use,andgovernanceofrurallands,as referred to as ‘‘rural restructuring’’ (Nelson 2001,
well as in the composition and socioeconomic Woods 2003), as traditional land uses, economic
dynamicsofruralcommunities.Inconcertwithother activities, and social arrangements transition to those
social, economic and political processes, amenity associated with ‘‘post-productivist’’ or ‘‘multifunc-
migration is contributing to the fundamental trans- tional’’ landscapes (Holmes 2002, 2006; McCarthy
formationofruralcommunitiesthroughouttheworld. 2005; Wilson 2001, 2006). Amenity migration, the
This paper presents a review of the social science movementofpeoplebasedonthedrawofnaturaland/
literaturerelatedtotheconceptofamenitymigration, orculturalamenities,canbethoughtofasbothdriver
focusing on the ways in which it has been concep- andoutcomeofthistransition,resultinginsignificant
tualized, theorized, and documented by different changesintheownership,use,andgovernanceofrural
communities of scholars. We then profile and sum- lands,aswellasinthecompositionandsocioeconomic
marize diverse perspectives on drivers and socioeco- dynamicsofruralcommunities.Amenitymigrationis
nomicimpacts,highlightingemergingchallengesand a phenomenon of increasing interest to rural geogra-
opportunities related to this type of migration occur- phers and other social scientists due to the ways in
ring at multiple scales and in multiple sites. The which, in concert with other social, economic and
paper also identifies and discusses particular areas politicalprocesses,itiscontributingtothefundamen-
where further research is needed. tal transformation of rural communities in more
developedregionsthroughouttheworld.
This paper presents a review of the social science
H.Gosnell(&) J.Abrams
! literature related tothe conceptofamenitymigration
OregonStateUniversity,Corvallis,OR,USA
e-mail:[email protected] and complements Taylor’s review of a range of
123
GeoJournal
approaches to studying exurbia in this issue (Taylor asignificantportionofrural in-migrantstotheNorth
2010).Withafocusontheroleofnaturalratherthan Central US in the 1970s, and Williams (1979) made
cultural or other types of amenities, we first consider an early attempt to understand the motivations of
ways in which this migration phenomenon has been these migrants. Research efforts examining amenity
conceptualized, theorized, and documented by dif- migration, and closely related phenomena such as
ferent communities of scholars, and the diverse exurbanizationandruralgentrification,havegrownin
terminology employed by researchers in different number and scope since the 1970s.
places and in different disciplines. We then profile One of the challenges related to a review of
and summarize diverse perspectives on drivers of scholarship on amenity migration has to do with the
amenity migration occurring at multiple scales, diffuse nature of the literature. Articles with insights
including globalization and rural structural change, into the phenomenon appear in publications ranging
gentrification, and the motivations of amenity from Society and Natural Resources and Journal of
migrants. Next we review literature dealing with the Rural Studies to Coastal Resource Management,
economicandsocialimpactsofamenitymigrationon Research on Aging, Mountain Research and Devel-
rural communities. Finally, the paper identifies and opment, Journal of Travel Research, and Rangeland
discusses particular areas where further research is Ecology and Management, among others. Further,
needed. We consider the ecological dimensions of manyimportantfindingsareinthegrayliterature,e.g.
amenity migration to some extent, but review liter- reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
ature dealing more specifically with implications for (McGranahan 1999; McCool and Kruger 2003;
ecosystemsandenvironmentalgovernanceelsewhere Garber-Yonts 2004; Stein et al. 2005). Several
(Abrams and Gosnell, in review). Throughout the comprehensive literature reviews have already been
paper we highlight emerging challenges and oppor- conducted (e.g., Marcoullier et al. 2002; Stewart
tunities related to natural amenity-driven migration 2002; Garber-Yonts 2004; McCarthy 2008; Kruger
occurring at multiple scales and in multiple sites. et al. 2009); and several books deal with the issue
explicitlyorinlargepart(BoyleandHalfacree1998;
Jobes 2000; Jackson and Kuhlken 2005; Moss 2006;
Conceptualizing and describing amenity Travis 2007; Jacob 1997). None of these, however,
migration have attempted to synthesize the global literature on
this complex and multifaceted phenomenon.
Naturalamenitieshavelongplayedanimportantrole
in changing the geographic distribution of social and Terminology
economic activity. As Power (1996) notes, British
observers noted economic growth in ‘‘fashionable Limiting a review of this phenomenon to studies
watering holes’’ like Bath and Brighton as early as explicitlyreferring to‘‘amenitymigration’’wouldbe
1811.ThislonghistoryintheU.K.couldexplainthe incomplete, as the term is not universally used. In
relative sophistication and theoretical richness of Australia, amenity migrants are often referred to as
rural studies literature emanating from that region ‘‘lifestylers’’ (Curry et al. 2001), many of whom are
dealing with urban-to-rural migration. American responsiblefora‘‘seachange’’inthatcountry,theterm
scholars did not start writing about the phenomenon used to describe migration to high amenity coastal
in a concerted and analytical way until the 1970s, areas (Curry et al. 2001; Gurran and Blakely 2007).
though Moss (2006) traces documentation of the Other studies refer to ‘‘back-to-the-landers’’ (Halfa-
phenomenon in the US back to Edward Ullman cree 2006, 2007), and Smith (2007) even notes a
(1954) who noted a ‘‘migration reversal’’ in the ‘‘back-to-the water’’ phenomenon among housebo-
1950s. David Bell (1973) was another early observer aters in southeast England. Amenity migration, or
of the ways in which quality of life—a function in ‘‘aspirational migration’’ (Woods 2003), is often
large part of the presence of natural amenities— linked with processes of ‘‘counterurbanization’’
determined economic well-being in postindustrial (Boyle and Halfacree 1998; Dahms and McComb
societies moreso than quantity of goods. Sofranko 1999;OtterstromandShumway2003;Mitchell2004;
and Williams (1980) identified ‘‘amenity movers’’ as Loffler and Steinecke 2006, 2007; Halfacree 1994),
123
GeoJournal
a ‘‘rural rebound’’ (Johnson et al. 2005; Johnson and migration patterns in diverse cultural contexts; how-
Cromartie 2006), and/or a ‘‘population turnaround’’ ever, we do exclude rural suburbanization patterns
(Lewis 2000). Other related nomenclature includes that are the focus of Taylor’s review of exurbaniza-
‘‘the new countryside’’ (Beesley et al. 2003), ‘‘the tion in this issue.
global countryside’’ (Woods 2007), and the ‘‘urbani-
zation of the rural’’ (Cloke 2006). Studies related to A regional literature?
amenitymigrationintherangemanagementliterature
includeconsiderationsof‘‘trophyranchers’’(Gentner Demographers, geographers, and sociologists focus-
andTanaka2002)and‘‘amenitybuyers’’(Gosnelland ing on the American West arguably account for the
Travis 2005) and the ways in which urbanization, bulk of the literature on the topic from the 1970s to
exurbanization,subdivision,and‘‘changingfaces’’are the present, and the American West is perhaps the
impacting ranch landscapes and communities and most often-cited example of a region experiencing
approachestoresourcemanagement(Huntsingeretal. high rates of population growth related to amenity
1997; Liffmann et al. 2000; Sayre 2002; Wulfhorst migration (see, e.g. Rudzitis and Johansen 1989;
etal.2006). Rudzitis 1993, 1999; Shumway and Davis 1996;
In reviewing and synthesizing the international Nelson 1997; Cromartie and Wardwell 1999; Judson
literature on ‘‘amenity migration,’’ it is important to et al. 1999; Beyers and Nelson 2000; Shumway and
acknowledge that the term refers to a variety of Otterstrom 2001; Smutny 2002; Otterstrom and
migration processes taking place in diverse spatial, Shumway 2003; Vias and Carruthers 2005). Since
political, social, and economic contexts. In addition much of the amenity migration and related exurban
to discrepancies in terminology related to different and suburban development around the world is
culturalcontexts,asdiscussedabove,thereisalsono arguably ‘‘American-style’’ (Leichenko and Solecki
academic consensus on precisely what phenomena 2005, see also McCarthy 2008 for a lengthy consid-
this term includes, and therefore, a review of the eration of this phenomenon, resulting in what he
concept raises questions of how to delineate its refers to as the ‘‘global rural’’), lessons from the US
boundaries. As stated above, a general working may be relevant in other geographic contexts. As
definition of the phenomena is ‘‘the movement of Robbins et al. (2009)argue,it is critical torecognize
people based on the draw of natural and/or cultural the global nature of the changes taking place in the
amenities;’’ but does that include the ‘‘back-to-the- AmericanWestandelsewhere,andnotlimitanalyses
land’’ movement of the 1960s and 1970s as docu- of rural demographic and economic change to fixed
mented by scholars such as Jacob (1997)? Similarly, boundaries, such asthe legendary ‘‘hundredth merid-
doesthetermincludesimilarurbantoruralmigration ian’’oftenusedtoboundtheAmericanWest(Stegner
patternsdocumentedintheUS,theUK,andAustralia 1954; Wilkinson 1992). This is why we argue that a
as well as those in countries such as Estonia and cross-regional review of literature related to amenity
Nepal? Does it include issues of second-home migration can catalyze new insights regarding link-
ownership and absenteeism as investigated by Sted- agesandcontinuities,aswellasregionalspecificities.
man et al. (2006), Schnaiberg et al. (2002), Godbey The western US, like many other places rich in
and Bevins (1987), Stewart and Stynes (1993), and natural amenities, is in the midst of a major
Green et al. (1996)? How is amenity migration transformation. Traditionally envisioned as Amer-
related to exurbanization? Taylor, in her exurbia ica’s ‘‘outback,’’ a rural, remote frontier character-
literature review in this issue, includes amenity izedbyopenspaces,lowpopulationdensities,andthe
migration as an approach to studying exurbia which dominance of primary sector activities such as
looks at the complexity of causes and impacts of ranching, logging, and mining, the American West
exurban growth along with urban fringe studies, today stands as the fastest growing region in the
counterurbanization, and research on residential nation, as well as the most heavily urbanized
preference. Rather than attempting to dogmatically (Otterstrom and Shumway 2003; Travis 2007).
provideconcreteanswerstothesequestions,wehave Extractive and manufacturing activities that have
chosentobeinclusive,forthepurposesofthispaper, traditionally anchored western economies are now
drawing on research on various urban to rural dwarfed in importance by service-sector and high-
123
GeoJournal
tech industries (Power and Barrett 2001; Vias and generally (Ferras 2007). Nepal (2007) even employs
Carruthers 2005), and the region’s scenic landscapes the counterurbanization literature to explain emerg-
are increasingly valued more for the aesthetic and ing rural settlement patterns related to tourism in the
recreational amenities they provide than for their Annapurna region of Nepal.
stocks of precious metals, timber, or forage. While
the population boom in the West has been concen-
trated in urban and suburban zones, rural areas have Theorizing rural change: from global influences
also seen significant change. Economists focused on to local dynamics
theso-calledNewWest,e.g.ThomasPowerandRay
Rasker, have published many articles documenting A sizeable body of literature has begun to address
the ways in which amenity migration is contributing questions of the proximal and distal causes of
to the transition and revitalization of western rural amenity-led rural change. A variety of factors
economies formerly dependent on extractive indus- operating at multiple scales contribute to making
tries like timber, mining, and grazing (Power 1996; themovementofaffluenturbanpopulationstoscenic
RaskerandHackman1996;RaskerandHansen2000; rural areas possible, desirable, and socially accept-
Power and Barrett 2001; Winkler et al. 2007). able.Theseincludeglobalflowsofcapitalandgoods
TheUnitedKingdomhaslikewisebeenthesource that help explain the susceptibility of rural spaces to
ofawell-developedliteratureonruralchange,treating post-productivist migration patterns, national and
counterurbanization as one component of a larger regional cultural and demographic trends that drive
social andeconomicrestructuringofrural places and the development of these patterns within specific
people as they transition away from ‘‘productivist’’ contexts, and the unique attributes of local rural
agricultural activities (Ilbery and Bowler 1998; Wil- places which influence the outcomes of migration
son 2001; Halfacree and Boyle 1998). The emerging phenomena. Examining the motivations of amenity
post-productivist or multifunctional countryside is migrants through, for example, explorations of the
defined in part by non-agricultural representations of rural idyll, analysis of ‘‘pull factors,’’ or by way of
rurality, the rise of the consumption of rural land- ethnographic research, provides insight into the
scapes, and the movement of urban ideals and movement of ideas and expectations that accompa-
expectations to rural places (Wilson 2001). The niesamenitymigration(Bjellandetal.2006;Kearney
macro-scale structural changes associated with the 2006; Knox 1992), but it often fails to shed light on
decline of state-supported agricultural regimes are the movement of capital within particular rural
seentocreatesociopoliticalvacuumsatthelocallevel contexts. Importantly, Scott et al. (2010), Young
that are filled, at least partially, through the redefini- (2010), and Hurley and Halfacre (2010) (all this
tion of rural lands from productive to consumptive issue)offernewinsightintothewaysthatthedesires
goods (Lowe et al. 1993). Indeed, Halfacree and ofamenitymigrantsabouttherurallandscapeandits
Boyle (1998, p. 9) posit that ‘‘migration of people to development intersect with local needs and expecta-
the more rural areas of the developed world… forms tions. This section summarizes literature that exam-
perhaps the central dynamic in the creation of any ines amenity migration in terms of global and
post-productivist countryside.’’ regional drivers contributing to processes of rural
More recently, case studies from elsewhere in gentrification, as well as the role of individual
North America and around the world documenting preferences, decisions, and behavior.
thephenomenonhavebeenpublished,includingones
from Spain (Paniagua 2002; Elizburu 2007), France Globalization and rural structural change
(Buller and Hoggart 1994), Scotland (Short and
Stockdale 1999; Stockdale et al. 2000), Ireland Understanding the global phenomenon of amenity
(Mahon 2007; N´ı Laoire 2007), The Netherlands migration requires attention to global patterns of
(vanDametal2002),Estonia(Tammaruetal.2004), capital investment and disinvestment and the uneven
Canada (Dahms and McComb 1999), Australia contributions of various nations (and the rural places
(Curry et al. 2001, Gurran and Blakely 2007), New within them) to patterns of production and consump-
Zealand (Woods 2010), and Latin America more tion. While the relation between national or
123
GeoJournal
international restructuring and local-level rural and forest operations nationwide, but also empha-
change has received a great deal of attention in the sizes the importance of demographic factors and
European literature, a more limited amount of North changing employment patterns. He identifies retire-
American scholarship has attempted to explicitly ment and housing trends, as well as ‘‘the decreased
analyze amenity migration to rural areas in terms of real cost of transportation, the growth of the digital
‘‘how the global intersects with the local in the and service economies, and the rise of telecommut-
experiencesofindividualagents’’(Fitzgerald2006,p. ing’’ (p. 308) as key contributing factors. The
1). Woods (2003) and McCarthy (2008, p. 129) in advancement of telecommunications networks
particular explore some of the ways in which ‘‘rural nationally and globally, combined with a decreased
areas are being produced through increasingly glob- importance of physical presence in white-collar
alized forms and relationships.’’ A major driver of work has played a role; as has the ease of physical
this change is global trade liberalization, which has transportation with the aid of well-maintained high-
allowed developed countries to outsource the pro- ways and interstates as well as rural runways (Ory
duction of food and fiber to less developed countries and Mokhtarian 2006; Jackson and Kuhlken 2005;
rather than relying on domestic production. As Travis 2007).
Stauber (2001) points out, such changes have led Hoey (2005, 2006) examines the influence of
urban America to break its long-standing ‘‘contract’’ social and structural transitions during the past three
with rural America. The commodification of domes- decades on middle-class working families in the
ticrurallandscapesaslifestyleamenitiesisoneresult United States, specifically the postindustrial eco-
of this contractual vacuum. nomic restructuring and corporate downsizing that
Nelson (2002, p. 905) looks at recent changes in defines the contemporary workplace. He describes
the American West through the lens of rural restruc- how some workers and their families, by leaving the
turing, observing that ‘‘neoliberal trade policies, city for rural areas, are challenging assumptions of
capital-labor substitution, industrial restructuring, the American Dream that promise future reward for
and diminishing resource quality have resulted in loyalty toan employer, hard work, and self-sacrifice.
declining employment and income levels in the The author interprets this life-style migration as a
region’s traditionally basic sectors,’’ contributing to negotiation of tension ‘‘between experience of mate-
outmigrationoflongtimeresidentsandthecultivation rial demands in pursuit of a livelihood within the
of new economies by in-migrants. Stauber (2001) flexible New Economy and prevailing cultural con-
also links rural amenity migration to the decline of ventions for the good life that shape the moral
the rural middle class due to limited family-wage narratives that define individual character’’ (Hoey
economic opportunities in rural areas and the emer- 2005, p. 586). Others note the transformation of
gence of suburban America as the location of consumerism in modern capitalist societies from a
domestic political power. He posits that the increas- focus on the consumption of objects of utility to the
ingsophistication ofglobal trade arrangementsanda consumption of lifestyles, identities, culture and
national policy promoting ‘‘lowest-cost services to leisure (Marsden et al. 1993; Smith and Phillips
the urban majority’’ has undermined rural American 2001).
prosperity and led to current economic and social While economic conditions are clearly variable
transformations (Stauber 2001, p. 14). Buttel (2003) both within and between the numerous countries
likewise points to the role of an increasingly glob- experiencing amenity migration, the existing litera-
alized marketplace in putting marginal American turesuggestssomecommonpatterns ofruralrestruc-
lands at a disadvantage in terms of the production of turing. These changes, related largely to the
mass commodities (see also Carlin and Saupe 1993). devalorization of domestic productivist activities in
Similarly, declining labor needs in other extractive the face of global trade liberalization, are not by
sectors due to mechanization and downsizing, for themselves sufficient to explain amenity migration,
example in timber and mining, have contributed to butareratherpositedasanecessaryfirststepleading
rural change (Power 1996). to the subsequent revalorization of rural space for
Jackson-Smith (2003) links rural community consumptive activities, and related processes of rural
change to the declining role of commercial farm gentrification.
123
GeoJournal
Rural gentrification patterns of investment and disinvestment in rural
places.
Both British and American scholars have used a Understanding migration patterns also requires a
‘‘rural gentrification’’ framework, drawing on gentri- closer look at the agents of change themselves and
fication theory from the urban studies literature, to thewaystheyactivelyconstructandreconstructrural
interpret the dynamics of counterurbanization in places through the movement of bodies, capital, and
specific places (Phillips 1993, 2002, 2004; Phillips ideas.
et al. 2008; Smith (2002a, b); Darling 2005).
According to this perspective, community change The motivations of amenity migrants
results from the displacement of local households
through increases in the cost of living and home Much of the amenity migration literature references
prices. Darling (2005), like Phillips (1993) before the ‘‘pull factors’’ of rural areas (Marcoullier et al.
her,makesuseofthe‘‘rentgap’’theory,investigating 2002; Hansen et al. 2002). In these studies, specific
the importance of the revalorization of devalued expectations regarding the natural and cultural envi-
rural properties within the sweep of changes from ronment of rural areas act as major drivers of the
productivist to post-productivist rural landscapes. migration phenomenon (Deller et al 2001; McGra-
Revalorized rural spaces are seen to take on the nahan 1999; Rudzitis 1993, 1999; Riebsame et al.
characteristics of ‘‘positional goods,’’ signifiers of 1996; Theobald et al. 1996). In a study of small-
wealth and status available only to the elite few acreage forest owners in Virginia, for example,
(Cloke and Thrift 1990; Phillips 1993). Kendra and Hull (2005) found that economic moti-
Travis (2007) describes the gentrification of vations were highly important for only a small
ranching landscapes throughout the American West, minority of landowners, and that values associated
driven largely by the transformation of rangelands with quality of life, proximity to nature, recreation,
from low-value productive lands to high-value posi- and escapism were more common. This character-
tionalgoods,aswellasthedrawofthecowboymyth. ization of family forest owners placing economic
In a study of ranching activities in southern Arizona, returns from their land as secondary or tertiary
Sayre (2002) points to the interplay of suburban priorities is consistent with much of the literature on
development,commodificationofanidealizedranch- non-industrial private forest owners (Finley et al.
ing lifestyle, and specific tax policies in the transfor- 2005). Likewise, in a study of new ranch owners in
mation of rural landscapes. Smith’s (1998) treatment the Greater Yellowstone Ecoregion, Gosnell et al.
of rural gentrification introduced the concept of (2007) found the ‘‘River Runs Through It’’ phenom-
‘‘greentrification,’’ highlighting the importance of enon to play a significant role in newcomers’
ideals of nature to rural in-migrants and drawing decisions to purchase agricultural land in this high
attentiontothewaythatnaturalorsemi-naturalrural amenity area, much of it featuring miles of private
spaces become valorized as high-end consumptive stream frontage for exclusive and uninterrupted fly
commodities. The terrain of rural gentrification fishing.
includes a variety of actors—including, for example, Theseexampleshighlighttheimportanceofsocial
‘‘marginal gentrifiers’’ (Phillips 1993), those whose constructionsofruralityandurbanity,andtheireffects
contributions to the valorization of rural residential onindividualdecisionstorelocate.Amenitymigration
areas comes primarily through sweat equity rather can be interpreted as a reaction to the ills of urban
thanfinancialcapital,andrural‘‘gatekeepers’’(Smith space, or, like urban gentrification processes, as a
2002a, b), real estate agents and other intermediaries reaction to the perceived stifling effects of suburbia
thatactivelyregulatethemovementofvarioussocial (Phillips2004).AsMcCarthy(2008,p.131)observes,
strata into and out of gentrifying rural places— ‘‘understanding amenity migration demands investi-
transforming diverse rural spaces in response to gationofthewidelycirculatingimaginaries,meanings,
multiple push and pull factors. The rural gentrifica- and performances coded as ‘rural’ that generate
tion framework contributes to an understanding of demandfor,andsomewhatorchestratetheproduction
amenitymigrationbyintegratingsociallyconstructed and use of, particular commodifications of rural
natureandruralidyllswithnationalandinternational landscapes.’’
123
GeoJournal
Perhapsthemostimportantsocialdynamicrelated examines ‘‘relocation stories’’ of people who leave
toamenitymigrationinruralareasistheconstruction corporate culture behind in search of the rural idyll,
and importation of rural ideals (or ‘‘idylls,’’ see Bell and, indeed, of themselves. ‘‘Decisions to start over
2007) by the primarily urban in-migrants (Halfacree take place within the context of moral questions
1994; Cadieux 2010). Smith and Phillips (2001, p. about what makes a life worth living and what does
458) argue that ‘‘the consumption of reinvented not through a process in which geography has a
images of rurality can provide a source of identity, bearing. For these migrants, a choice about where to
shared living experiences, membership of social live is also one about how to live’’ (Hoey 2006, p.
space and group, and can be perceived as a medium 347). Similarly, Jacob (1997) and Hines (2007)
for obtaining a ‘sense of place’ in the world. Studies characterize the experiences of a certain type of
of new middle-class consumption practices have migrant as personal experiments in self-reliance,
highlighted the power of affluent in-migrants to sustainability,andruralliving.Hines(2007)drawson
inscribetheiridealizedvisionofrurallivinguponthe ethnographicresearchtodocumentthewaysthatself-
landscape.’’ Significantly, these ideals of rurality actualization oftenmotivatesmigrationtoplaceslike
often conflict with understandings of land and Montana’s Paradise Valley. Notions of ‘‘geographic
community among long-standing rural residents salvation’’ or ‘‘aspirational ruralism’’ can be major
(Yung et al. 2003; Wulfhorst et al. 2006). driversofurbanflightandpursuitofthe‘‘ruralidyll’’
Thedesire among urban populations topossessan (Woods, this issue). Along similar lines, Halfacree
idealizedrurallifestyleisseenbymanyscholarsasa (2006,p.309)tracesthemore-than-40-yearhistoryof
powerfultransformativefactor,particularlyinlightof ‘‘counter-cultural back-to-the-land experimentation’’
technological and workplace changes that allow in England, critically interrogating ‘‘the extent of
many white-collar workers to work remotely from consubstantial relationships between land and every-
almost anywhere. Rasker (2006) and Power (1996) day life.’’
use a ‘‘quality of life’’ model of economic develop- The nature of the progression from tourism and
ment to explain recent shifts in rural economies in recreation to ownership (Godbey and Bevins 1987;
placessuchastheAmericanWest.Accordingtotheir Stewart and Stynes 1993), and the influx of retirees
model, new development is driven by a high quality and other aging ‘‘baby boomers’’ to high amenity
physical and social environment that attracts foot- ruralareashavebeen topicsofstudyforanumberof
loose, self-employed or telecommuting individuals, scholars (Benett 1996; Judson et al. 1999; Haas and
many of whom bring with them other forms of Serow 2002; Serow 2003; Nelson et al. 2004;
capital, e.g. home equity and investment income. Stockdale 2006). Stewart (2002) emphasizes that
Several scholars have examined the role that the amenity migrants’ change in location often develops
land tenure system in the American West, which over time, beginning with tourism to that area,
includes public or limited-public access to scenic leading tocottage rentalorseasonalhomeownership,
federally-owned landscapes, has played in attracting and eventually permanent relocation (see also God-
migrants (Frentz et al 2004). Wilderness areas, in bey and Bevins 1987).
particular, have proven to be major magnets for Given this diverse set of drivers occurring at a
amenity migrants (Rudzitis and Johansen 1989; Duf- variety of scales, how does amenity migration play
fy-Deno 1998; Rudzitis and Johnson 2000; Rasker out ‘‘on-the-ground’’? The following sections review
2005).Environmentalqualityhasalsobeenshownto literature dealing with the social and economic
be important to older, affluent Americans, many of effects of the processes related to amenity migration
whomarenearingorhavereachedretirementage.As described so far, followed by a consideration of
thenation’sbabyboomerscontinuetoretire,migration emerging research challenges and needs.
tohighamenityareasbythisdemographicisexpected
tocontinue(HaasandSerow2002;Nelsonetal.2004).
A lesser-known but promising subset of the Social implications
literature on the American context features ethno-
graphic research by anthropologists on the motiva- Landscapes and communities undergoing processes
tions of ‘‘lifestyle migrants.’’ Hoey (2005, 2006) relatedtoamenitymigrationaresubjecttoadiversity
123
GeoJournal
of in- and out-migrants, community contexts and (Gosnell et al. 2006; Haggerty and Travis 2006;
consequent social dynamics. For example, whereas Yung and Belsky 2007), when in-migration is
back-to-the-landers generally strive toward indepen- associated with rapid development and population
dence from the comforts and material provisions of growth (Nelson 2002; Salamon 2003a; Ghose 2004),
urban areas (Jacob 1997), other amenity migrants, or when in-migrants change the local balance of
sometimesreferredtoas‘‘modemcowboys’’or‘‘lone political power (Walker and Fortmann 2003; Walker
eagles,’’ seek to remain connected to urban centers and Hurley 2004). Amenity migrants are often
through seasonal residential patterns, commuting portrayed as lacking in understanding of local
(physically or telecommuting) to work in urban traditions and culture, local institutions and local
areas, or by encouraging the extension of urban sources of information (Moss 2006). Yet these same
comforts to rural places (Riebsame 1997; Ghose newcomersoftenplaypivotalrolesinregulatinglocal
2004; Hines 2007). space, for example through participation on local
Despite evidence that rural areas are shaped by land-use boards or preservation organizations (Cloke
complexpatternsofin-andout-migration(e.g.Cloke et al. 1998; Walker and Hurley 2004).
and Thrift 1990; Hoggart 2007; Nelson 1997; N´ı Private property access is perhaps the most
Laoire 2007; Robbins et al. 2009) leading to a commonly cited flashpoint dividing newcomers and
landscape of diverse rural spaces (Marsden et al. longtime owners (Brown 1995; Yung and Belsky
1993;Murdochetal.2003;Woods2003;Kendraand 2007; Jagnow et al. 2006; Hurley et al. 2008).
Hull 2005; Halfacree 2007), studies of the social Increasing rural heterogeneity can complicate long-
implications of amenity migration tend to frame established traditions and implicit understandings
research questions around the differences between having to do with management across private prop-
two broad categories of people: local residents with ertyboundaries.Butincontrasttostereotypeslinking
long-term,oftengenerational,rootsinthecommunity the Old West with conservative ideologies regarding
on the one hand, and newcomers who generally lack property rights, Yung and Belsky (2007) found that
social or familial ties to the community on the other. newcomersonranchlandsalongtheRockyMountain
Salamon’s (2003a, b) research on rural communities, Front in Montana demonstrated stricter interpreta-
forexample,revealsthat‘‘oldtimers’’tendtobemore tions of property rights than longtime owners, often
invested in the community, while ‘‘newcomers’’ are posting their land (with No Trespassing signs) and
more likely to have a transitory orientation, are less eschewingovertures from neighbors regarding cross-
integrated into the community, and have a weaker boundary management and public access. They note
sense of community. This ‘‘old vs. new’’ character- that‘‘[e]ffortsatcross-boundaryconservationneedto
izationdoesnotreflectthefullcomplexityofmodern recognize the challenges of changing landownership
rural places (Robbins et al. 2009), but it does allow and the ways that existing customs might provide
for the analysis of a particular social group of important foundations of cooperation. At the same
interest—the amenity migrants themselves—as they time, an increasingly diverse set of private landown-
influence the dynamic rural communities into which ers must negotiate mutually beneficial boundary
they move. In particular, amenity migrants’ patterns practices that meet both existing and emerging
of social interaction, civic and political engagement, community and conservation needs’’ (Yung and
spending, investment, and land ownership and use Belsky 2007, p. 689).
havethepotentialtoaffectsocialdynamicsinunique Inlightofthedivergentconstructionsofplaceand
ways that can be negative, positive, or some communityfoundinruralareas,anumberofscholars
combination. have investigated the existence of a ‘‘culture clash’’
The sudden arrival of outsiders who import their as new values and expectations are imported into
own expectations and values, as well as their own ruralcommunities(SmithandKrannich2000).There
constructions of rurality, can significantly alter the is evidence that in-migrants are often offended by
social context in receiving communities. This is someofthelessidyllicaspectsofruralliving,suchas
especially the case where newcomers control large the smells, sounds, and noises associated with
parcels of land and view the purpose of that land agriculture (Jackson-Smith 2003; Jackson and Kuhl-
differently from ‘‘traditional’’ local expectations ken 2005) and forestry (Egan and Luloff 2005), and
123
GeoJournal
may work to reconstruct local rural space to better farms—serve to alter the socially constructed mean-
match an urban middle-class ideal (Halfacree and ingsofthosespaces,rewritingtherulesofwhatkinds
Boyle 1998; Nesbitt and Weiner 2001). Some of people, activities, and social relationships
research also points to the existence of a ‘‘last settler ‘‘belong.’’ This is reflected in Marsden et al.’s
syndrome’’ or ‘‘gang-plank’’ phenomenon, where (1993) and Murdoch et al.’s (2003) characterization
recentin-migrantsacttoprotecttheirnewfoundrural of ‘‘contested countrysides’’ and analogous concepts
ideal by restricting further inmigration, a stance that applied to other gentrifying rural places (e.g. Sayre
can conflict with community development and 2002;Sheridan2007;WalkerandFortmann2003).In
growth initiatives on the part of locals (Ploch his investigation of changes underway in the Amer-
(1978), but see Smith and Krannich (2000) for ican West, Sheridan (2007, pp. 122–123) drives the
evidence against the gang-plank hypothesis). Ame- point home by saying that ‘‘urban America is
nity migration based on the draw of natural features attempting to produce Western rural spaces—recre-
may lead to a pro-environmental shift in rural values ational, aesthetic, environmental, iconic—that mar-
(Jonesetal.2003),ormayelicitlatentenvironmental ginalizeordestroytheextractiveWest.’’Hurleyetal.
tendencies in longtime owners (Fortmann and Kusel (2008) explore similar issues regarding sweetgrass
1990; Smith and Krannich 2000). basket-making in South Carolina. Their social-eco-
Community political alliances and policy prefer- logical examination demonstrates the ways in which
ences are often re-negotiated during the amenity place-based suburban landscape management strate-
migration-driven transformation of rural places. gies, together with new property regimes, may
Brunson et al. (1997) found that policy preferences interactinnewandunexpectedways,simultaneously
relatedtonaturalresourcemanagementareafunction rendering new opportunities for livelihood practices
of both occupational affiliation and geographic loca- possible and closing off long-standing practices (see
tion, suggesting political shifts in response to chang- also Hurley and Halfacre, this issue). Still, this
ing rural demographics and economies. Walker and research provides strong evidence that amenity
Fortmann (2003) describe a case in California’s migrants are in the driver’s seat when it comes to
Sierra Nevada where politically conservative new- terms of access to resource spaces.
comers had sufficiently different rural constructions Looking beyond issues of urban or rural classifi-
from the politically conservative locals that they cations, it is clear that socioeconomic class differ-
allied (at least temporarily) with a pro-environment ences play a major role in the restructuring of rural
segment of the population that had traditionally been places that accompanies amenity migration. In the
shut out of local politics. While this alliance even- American West, for example, Nelson (2001) found
tually fell apart, the study highlights the complex that rural restructuring can increase awareness of
political landscapes that can emerge as rural com- class differences, particularly when in-migrants are
munities undergo amenity-driven change. Drawing (orareperceivedtobe)wealthierthanlocalresidents.
on the same case study, Hurley and Walker (2004) Whether or not defined in terms of ‘‘gentrification,’’
demonstrate the ways in which seemingly ‘‘scien- amenity-driven rural change is typically framed as
tific’’ land use planning based on widely-accepted the displacement of lower-income groups by those
conservation biology principles can be perceived as with the financial freedom to afford rural living
conspiratorial, shininglight ontheideological differ- without relying on productivist activities (Cloke and
ences between longtime residents and newcomers. Thrift 1990; Fielding 1998; Phillips 1993; Travis
A number of studies (e.g. Theobald et al. 1996; 2007), and the American West in particular is full of
Ghose2004;Salamon2003a,b;Sheridan2007;Yung storiesofruralareas‘‘ruined’’byaninfluxofwealthy
et al. 2003; Brogden and Greenberg 2003) describe outsiders(e.g.Rothman1998).Phillips(1993,p.124)
how the social identities of rural places become cautions, however, that ‘‘[r]ather than seeing rural
susceptibletoredefinitionasnewsocialgroupsbegin social change in terms of a middle class replacing a
tooccupyspaceonceoccupiedbyothers.Changesin workingclass…inmanyinstancesitisprobablymore
patterns of land development, use, and habitation— valid to talk in terms of one middle-class fraction
for example, from agricultural land to exurban replacing another.’’ Hoggart (2007) likewise found
developments, or from working ranches to hobby that popular conceptions of a stable rural working
123
GeoJournal
class being pushed out by geographically mobile landscapes(whichwereadmittedlyalreadyintegrated
middle-class urban migrants was inaccurate in into the service of capital accumulation but were not
England and Wales. Rather, ‘‘working class’’ house- previously viewed as commodities outside of their
holds were found to be dynamic, in terms of class productive value) (Sayre 2002); specifically by
composition, strategies to adapt to rural change, and commodifyingaruralidealwhichcanthenbebought
patterns of migration. and sold as a lifestyle amenity (Smith and Phillips
In contrast to negative characterizations of the 2001;McCarthy2008),orthroughtheexploitationof
socialimplicationsofamenitymigration,anumberof the ‘‘rent gap’’ by middle-class outsiders, in a
studies show that receiving communities can benefit phenomenon similar to urban gentrification (Phillips
fromchangesassociated with the arrival ofnewcom- 1993; Darling 2005). As McCarthy notes in a 2008
ers(KrannichandPetrzelka2003;Clendenningetal. review of the ways in which the rural has been
2005).Forexample,Krannichetal. (2006)surveyof globalized, ‘‘the particular countryside on offer here
four rural communities in the American West found is clearly a postproductivist one, with consumption-
that overall, community satisfaction was higher orientated uses for elites being the major commod-
among residents of the areas most affected by ities it produces’’ (McCarthy 2008, p. 129).
amenity migration. They found no evidence of Assessing the net economic costs and benefits of
differing levels of social integration and civic amenity migration for rural places is a complex
engagement in the four communities. endeavorandacentralpreoccupationofruralresource
To the extent that in-migrants represent a highly planners, but outcomes are likely to vary depending
educated and politically active class of people (see, onthecharacteristicsofindividualcommunities.Ona
e.g.,Hines2007;Jacob1997;Jonesetal.2003),they basic level, theimportation ofwealth intorural areas
have the potential to improve their adopted locales can be seen as a welcome opportunity to struggling
throughthemobilizationofuniqueskillsandabilities economies,particularlywhenamenitymigrantsinvest
and new forms of capital. In many places amenity in local improvements such as the building or
migration is responsible for reversing decades-long renovation of structures. These same migrants can
population declines (Johnson and Beale 1994, 1999; alsoincreaselocaleconomicactivitythroughdemand
Johnson et al. 2005), creating renewed—if trans- for services such as land management, food service,
formed—possibilities for the continuation of rural and other more ‘‘urban’’ demands. A significant
communities. Finally, local governance capacity, number of scholarly articles have focused on the
based on the active engagement of diverse local ways in which natural amenities, especially public
stakeholders, can also benefit from the increased lands and other protected areas, stimulate economic
humancapitalanddiversityofvaluesassociatedwith growth by attracting individuals, small businesses,
amenity migration. andretireeswithnonearningsincome,contributingto
a variety of multiplier effects (Johnson and Rasker
1995; Power 1996; Nelson 1999, 2005; Vias 1999;
Economic implications Booth 1999; Shumway and Otterstrom 2001; Lorah
andSouthwick2003;Serow2003;Hunteretal.2005;
Economic effects of amenity migration in rural areas McKean et al. 2005;Rasker 2006).
arise due to amenity migrants’ generally greater But this does not hold true everywhere. In the
wealth than that of those they displace, their American West there is a growing recognition of the
economic independence from traditional rural activ- significant ‘‘cost of community services’’ (e.g. fires,
ities (such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, or manu- roads, police, school) that come with new residential
facturing), and their generally more ‘‘urban’’ development—especially in places far flung from
consumer habits, which create demands for new town centers—and the fact that those costs often
goods and services (or modifications in existing overshadowanynewincomefrompropertytaxes,for
goods and services). A number of scholars have example (Travis 2007). In rural Scotland, Stockdale
interpreted amenity migration as a phenomenon that (2006) notes that in-migrants, while often possess-
is driven primarily by the accumulation of capital, ing the necessary human capital to bring about an
through the commodification of agricultural economicregeneration, areassociatedwith relatively
123