Amenity/Lifestyle Migration in the Chilean Andes

19 Pages·2017·0.26 MB·English

sustainability
Article
Amenity/Lifestyle Migration in the Chilean Andes:
Understanding the Views of “The Other” and Its
Effects on Integrated Community Development
DavidMatarrita-Cascante1,*,HugoZunino2andJohannaSagner-Tapia2 ID
1 DepartmentofRecreation,Park,andTourismSciences,TexasA&MUniversity,
CollegeStation,TX77843,USA
2 DepartamentodeCienciasSociales,NúcleodeCienciasSocialesyHumanidades,
UniversidaddelaFrontera,Temuco,Chile;[email protected](H.Z.);
[email protected](J.S.-T.)
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditor:TanYigitcanlar
Received:11August2017;Accepted:8September2017;Published:12September2017
Abstract: Within the context of domestic amenity/lifestyle migration, we are interested in
understandingthewaylocalruralresidentsandmigrants: (1)vieweachother;and(2)howthose
viewsaffectanintegratedcommunitydevelopment.Usingalteritytheoryasaguidingframework,we
engagedinaqualitativestudytoexaminesuchviewsandtheireffectsalongthelinesofthreeaxes:an
epistemological(whatpeopleknowabouttheother),anaxiological(howpeoplevaluetheother),and
apraxeological(howpeopleinteractwiththeother)oneintheChileancommunityofMalalcahuello.
Findingssuggeststhat,overall,bothtypesofresidentsknowlittleoftheother,haveandconstantly
reproducenegativevaluejudgmentsoftheother,andrelateonlyinmundanenon-significantways.
Weprovideexplanationsofhowtheserelatetothereporteddiminishedcommunitydevelopment
effortsintown.
Keywords: amenitymigration;lifestylemigration;communitydevelopment;alterity
1. Introduction
Themigrationofurbanitestoruralareasseekingparticularnaturalandlifestyle-relatedamenities
isawell-knownphenomenonwithinacademiccirclesbynow[1,2]. Theliteratureshowsthatsuch
phenomenon considerably changes multiple dimensions of rural amenity communities, ranging
from their structure and function to their identity, much of which threatens their sustainable
development[1–5].
Inthisstudy,wefocusedonthesocialimpactsofthisphenomenon,aswepaidattentiontothe
affectedinteractionsbetweenmigrantsandruralresidentsinanamenitydestination. Morespecifically,
wefocusedonhow“difference”isconstructedwhenmigrantsandruralresidentsshareacommon
spaceandonhowsuchdifferencesaffectintegratedcommunitydevelopment.
Theliteratureisclearthatmigrantsandlocalscommonlypresentdifferentintrinsicsocioeconomic
andculturalcharacteristics,whichexternalizethemselvesindifferentformsofsituationsthatrange
fromavertconflicttoacceptanceandintegration[6–12]. However,toourknowledge,nostudyhas
deepenedintotheunderstandingofhownon-intrinsicdifferencesareconstructedbytheseactorsand,
further,howtheyaffectthecommunity’slocaldevelopment.
To better understand how differences are created, we chose the theory of alterity [13], used
to describe and understand the construction of identities and differences within the encounter of
groups. Adepartingpointtounderstandthedifferencesformedbygroups,accordingtothistheory,
Sustainability2017,9,1619;doi:10.3390/su9091619 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2017,9,1619 2of19
is to understand the views that each group forms of the other. Such views affect the identities of
migrants and locals, oftentimes translating into power struggles for acceptance and imposition of
worldviews. Altogether, such struggles set barriers for purposive interaction and social cohesion,
critical requirements for local community development [14]. Accordingly, this study examines:
(1)howruralresidentsandmigrantsviewsthe“other”;and(2)howsuchviewsinfluenceintegrated
communitydevelopment.
Webelievethegoalofthestudyistimelygiventheneedtomovetheamenitymigrationliterature
forward, a call recently made by [15]. The author notes that, beyond understanding the causes
and consequences of this phenomenon and categorizing and contrasting locals and migrants, the
literatureneedstoproduceappliedknowledgethathelpusdeterminewaysinwhichtheimpacts
associatedwiththisphenomenoncanbereduced,mitigated,oravoided. Thatiswhyourattention
is placed on understanding how the views that each group has of the other, affects community
development. The interest in community development stems from the critical role such process
playsintheeconomic,social,andenvironmentalsustainabilitityofsmall,remote,andeconomically
andpoliticallyisolatedruralcommunities[14,16]. Theoftentimes-stagnanteconomiesandlimited
institutionalpresenceandsupportcharacteristicofmanyruralcommunities[17],resultsinthenecessity
torelyonbottom-updevelopmentstrategiestosolvelocalproblems[14,18]. Particularly,inthecontext
ofruralcommunitiesexperiencingamenitymigration,locally-leddevelopmentiscriticaltoaddress
emergingissuesassociatedwiththesocialdisparity,inequality,andenvironmentaldegradationthat
areknowntofollowthisphenomenon[4,11,19–21].
Toachieveourgoal,westudiedthecommunityofMalalcahuello,locatedintheChileanSouthern
Andes. Thissmall,remoteruralcommunitywaschosengivenitsearlystageofamenitydevelopment,
itsaggressiveinfluxofamenitymigrants,andtheclearlyobserveddifferencesbetweenthemandthe
localruralresidentsasnotedbytheresearchteamandotherrecentstudies[22,23].
2. LiteratureReview
2.1. Amenity/LifestyleMigration: DifferencesbetweenGroups
Multiplestudiesincludingexurbanization,ruralrenaissance,neo-ruralism,residentialtourism,
leisuremigration,retirementmigration,and,moreprominentlyinrecenttimes,amenitymigration
and lifestyle migration (our guiding studies) (we chose the amenity and lifestyle migration
studies as our guiding ones given the diverse reasons that have brought migrants to the study
community—encompassed within these two major notions; here, we will use these two terms
interchangeably),inonewayoranotherrelateto/describethephenomenonthatwestudyhere: the
populationmovementof(domesticand/ortransnational)urbanitestoruralareas[1,2]. Settingaside
thedifferencesinacademictraditions,frameworks,andresearchfocithatthesestudiespresent,in
generalterms,ourguidingstudiesdescribeamovementofpeoplefromurbantoruralareasinsearchof
lifestylechanges. Differentfrompoliticallyandeconomically-drivenmigrations(e.g.,forcedrelocation
asinthecaseofdisasters,conflict,oreconomicnecessity),amenity/lifestylemigrationisnotforced
orimposed,butisaformofmobilitybasedonfreedomofchoicethatgivesmigrantstheabilityto
seekpersonaltransformationthroughprojectsthatareaimedatgeneratingdifferentlifeconditionsin
relationtothatlifeleftbehind[24,25]. Amenity/lifestylemigrantspursuechangesintheirlivesby
migratingtoalocalitywithcharacteristicsthatarebelievedtomakesuchchangespossible[26].
This ability to pursue change has been linked to the relative economic solvency of the
migrants[4,27], oftentimes associated with privilege [5,28,29]. Such condition reflects an intrinsic
difference between migrants and their rural counterparts: migrants have higher levels of income
thanruralresidents[2,10,30]. Studieshavealsoreportedthatmigrantsgrewupinlargertowns,have
higherlevelsofformaleducation,andownlargerpropertieswhencomparedwithlocals[6,10,30–32].
Transnational amenity migration studies oftentimes report ethnicity and nationality as other
demographic differences between migrants and locals [5,28,29,32–35]. Another way in which
Sustainability2017,9,1619 3of19
amenity/lifestylestudiesdifferentiatemigrantsandruralresidentshavefocusedonintrinsiccultural
characteristics, externalized in the forms of attitudes and behaviors commonly associated with
sociodemographiccharacteristics. Forinstance,Benson[28]andHayes[29]reportedhowraceand
nationality, more specifically the whiteness of North American migrants living in South America,
translates into racialized identities, automatically granting a status of wealth and (post-colonial)
privilege. Such privilege is highly associate with power, as migrants are seen by locals as having
a series of resources (e.g., wealth, knowledge, and skills) that grant migrants the ability to make
choices and engage in actions that only few privileged locals can [28,33]. This stigma, on the
other hand, set migrants apart due to constructed differences/identities and affects their ability
to socially integrate in the community [28,29]. Other cultural differences are found in studies
examining conservation attitudes and behaviors of migrants and rural residents. Studies report
thatamenitymigrantsareoftenpro-environmentalistsinseveralways(promotionofenvironmental
education,formingpro-conservationassociations,regulatinggrowththroughzoningandconservation
easements[4,36–39],whileruralresidentsarecommonly“consumers”oftheenvironmentthrough
extractiveactivities(e.g.,farmingandmining).Otherculturaldifferencesnotedintheliteratureinclude
levelsofconsumption,communityparticipationandattachment,religiousandpoliticalbeliefs,and
preferencestowardsdevelopment[32,40].
Overall, the existing literature is clear that these two groups of people are commonly very
different[4,7–11,30]. However,toourknowledge,nostudyhasdeepenedintotheunderstandingof
howsuchdifferencesareconstructed. Thatis,thereisalimitedunderstandingofhowthedifferent
demographicandculturaldifferencesshapethewayresidentsinamenitycommunitiesvieweach
otherand,byextension,actinrelationtotheother. Here,weareparticularlyinterestedinhowthose
viewsaffectthecommunity’slocaldevelopment.
2.2. Amenity/LifestyleMigration: CommunityDevelopment
Theabovementioneddifferenceshavebeenassociatedwithanumberofchangesobservedin
amenitycommunities[2,4],astheyreflectthedifferentworldviewsandchoicesthatmigrantsand
localshave/make[2,29,41,42]. Nonetheless,itisimportanttonotethattheliteraturehasalsoindicated
that such differences can be seen as a form of “capital diversification” that can positively benefit
thecommunity[42–44]. Indeed,migrantsarecapableoftransformingtheirdestinationcommunity
through local-level interventions that can alter conventional social, economic, and environmental
conditions. That is, migrants can bring an important economic, social, and cultural contribution
to their new communities in the form of knowledge, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors,
involvement, innovation, and entrepreneurship, all of which can stimulate improvements in the
community[25,44,45].
Thechallengefacedbymanyamenitycommunitiesisingettingmembersofbothgroupstowork
togetherforthecommongood. Alineofresearchwithintheamenity/lifestylemigrationhasfocused
onthisissuefromacommunitydevelopmentperspective,understoodhereasaprocessthatislocally
conceivedandimplementedinwhichresourcesaremobilizedseekingtheimprovementoflocalliving
conditions[46]. Thisliteraturehasacknowledgedtheexistenceofapopulationwithinmigrantsand
localsthatactivelyparticipatesinlocaldevelopmenteffortsofamenitycommunities[9,10,30,35,47].
Nonetheless,commonly,theprojects/programsmembersofeachgroupparticipateinreflectdiverging
goals[8,36–38,48,49]. Further,evenwhencommongoalsexist,migrantsandlocalsfrequentlyengage
indevelopmenteffortsseparately,thatis,onlywithmembersoftheirowngroup[32,35,47].
A limited number of studies including [11,32,35,47] have looked deeper at this lack of
integrationwithinthecontextofcommunitydevelopmentinamenity/lifestylemigrationcommunities.
These studies suggest that the lack of integration in development efforts results primarily from
socioeconomic and cultural differences which materialize in the forms of different languages,
worldviews,behaviors,andhomophily[32,35,47].Competitionoverlocalresourcesandthesubsequent
conflictthatemerges,hasalsobeennotedasareasonforfailedintegrationinlocaldevelopmentefforts:
Sustainability2017,9,1619 4of19
migrants’ businesses or activities that directly or indirectly compete with the livelihood of locals,
resultsintheerectionofbarriersbetweengroups,affectingintegrateddevelopment[15,47].
While these studies shed a light on the reasons for the lack of integrated local development,
no study has deepened into our understanding of the processes underlying the construction of
differences—which weexplorehere byexamining theviews thateach grouphas ofthe other. We
are particularly interested in how such views affect the community’s local development in rural
communities undergoing amenity/lifestyle migration processes. In such communities, both the
incomingandreceivingpopulationareplacedinasituationwherethey(re)definewhotheyare,how
toact,andhowtorelatetotheother. Thus,ourstudyexploreshowlocalsandmigrantsconstruct
differencesandtheeffectsthishasoncommunitydevelopment.
Whiletheamenity/lifestyleliteraturedifferentiatesapriorithemigrantsfromthelocals(asnoted
earlierbasedonsocioeconomicandculturaldifferences),inourstudy,weofferanaccountofhow
peopleconstructtheother,openingthewaytoconsidermorerigorouslythecreationofbarriersto
anintegratedlocaldevelopment. Throughouranalysis,werecognizedifferenceswithinmigrants
andlocalsandthecomplexitiesoftheprocessthroughwhichsocialintegrationisconstructedamong
differentgroups. Toachievethis,weguideouranalysisthroughalteritytheory.
3. FrameworkforAnalysis: AlterityTheory
Alterity theory has been used to describe and understand the encounter of groups as in the
caseoftheSpaniardsandindigenousgroupsofCentralAmerica[13]andwesterndemocraciesand
Islam[50]. Accordingtoalteritytheory,theencounterofanindividualoraspecificgroupwithanother
(i.e.,“theother”)leadstoanalterityrelation. Suchrelationreflectstwoimportantrealizations: the
otherisseparatedfrommeandthereforeisnotme;and,secondly,theotherisdifferentthanme[51].
These two realizations, however obvious they may be, entail a dichotomized understanding and
interpretationofthesocialrealityoftheother,affectingtheinteractionthatexistsbetweengroups.
Asaresultofthoserealizations,tensionswithinandbetweengroupsemergeaspeopleperceiveand
interprettheotherandhis/herdifferences[52]. Thus,theproblematicofthealterityrelationliesonthe
representationsandconstructionoftheother,oftentimesdepictedastheenemy[53],asanunknown
andunfamiliarother[50,54]asabarbaricother[50]orasanexoticsavage[13].
Toexplainhowthoserepresentationsareformed,Todorv’stheoryonalterityexploreshowthe
relation with the other is constructed from the moment they share a common space. The tension
between the individuality that defines each other’s differences will be stressed by their life in
common[55]. Thisscenarioiscommonlyseeninthecaseofmigration,wheredistinctsocialgroups
startsharingacommonspace. Migrationestablishesbyitselftheothernessinthesenseofaninsider
(local)andanoutsider(migrant),andtherelationbetweenthemcandevelopinnumerouswaysand
complexities. Whereas collaboration is to be a form of desired integration, oftentimes the alterity
relationofmigrantsandlocalsisbasedondomination,conquest,orassimilation[13,50,56].
Alteritytheoryisusefultoallowustobetterunderstandhowtheconstructionsoftheotheraffect
twocentralaspectsofcommunitylife: First,theconstructionoftheotherreshapesallactorsinvolved
andtheirviews. Alteritytheorystatesthateveryrelationbetweenan“us”andan“other”redefines
identities, and therefore identities are conceived as dynamic processes. That is, the locals change
by the sole interaction and common life with the migrants, as well as the migrants change by the
interactionwiththelocals. PutinTodorv’swords,“thepluralityoftheenvironmentisatthesame
timethecorrelateofpluralityofthepeopleofthisparticularenvironmentandthediversityofroles
thateveryonehas”[55:160]. Thismeansthatmigrantsandlocalsdonotdefinethemselvesseparate
fromtheother,theyarearesultofthiscommonspacetheyshare. Furthermore,Todorovarguesthat
“thismutualdefinitionandconstructionofone’sidentityandtheotherisalsopinnedtothesearchof
recognition,whichrespondsfromtheneedtosubmittheothertorecognition”[55:40]. Thisrecognition
isacentralelementofcommunitylifegiventhataslongasbothgroupsfailtoreceiverecognition
orlegitimationinrelationtotheother,thealterityrelationwillbeaconstant,oftentimesconflicting,
Sustainability2017,9,1619 5of19
negationoftheother. Second,theredefinitionofidentitieshasadirecteffectonhowsocialcohesionis
developedaccordingtothistheory. Thatis,theconstructionofoneandtheotherplaysaroleinhow
thosetwogroupsthinkandvaluetheother,affectingtheirinteractionandformationofsocialbonds.
Withinanalteritycontext,socialcohesioniskeybecauseitprovidestheabilityforlocalsandmigrants
toembracebelongingnesstothesamecommunityandspace,aswellastoresolvetheconflictsand
tensionsloomedupbythe“otherness”[57].
Thus, alterity theory as a theoretical framework sees migration as an encounter of locals and
migrantsinterpretingthecontext,theother,andthemselves. Thetheoryallowstheanalysisonhow
locals and migrants develop interactional processes and social cohesion, while defining the other
andthemselves. Howthesearchforrecognitionunveilsstrugglesforpowerisunderlinedbytheir
interactions,valuations,andknowledgeabouttheotherandthemselvesinacommoncontext.
Thatis,thecomplexitythatentailstheencounterwitheachotherinamigrationcontextdemands
a comprehension on how the self and the other are being understood. This is achieved through
anappliedunderstandingofalterityfromasocialstandpoint,identifyingatleastthreedimensions
asproposedby[13]. Accordingly,whenencounteringtheother,differencesbecomeswhatdefines
othernesstoeachsocialgroup,andsuchdifferenceswillbereflectedintheformsofknowledge,values,
andwaysofaction. Morespecifically,thesethreedimensionsincludeanepistemologicalone(whatI
knowoftheother),anaxiologicalone(howIvaluetheother),andapraxeologicalone(howIactin
relationtotheother).
4. Methods
4.1. SiteSelection
This study was conducted in the Araucanía region of southern Chile. An estimate of
983,449peoplelivesinthisregion,ofwhichalmostathird(31%)residesinruralareas,30%haveeither
formaleducationorunfinishedbasiceducation,and32%areindigenous[58]. Withamedianincome
percapitaaroundeighttimessmallerthanthewealthiestregioninthecountry[59]and23%ofits
populationlivinginpoverty[58],thisregionisChile’spoorest[59].
Despitethiscontext,theAraucaníaregionofChileisknownforitspristinenaturalenvironments
and beauty, attracting visitors from all over the world to small communities and National Parks.
Thisnaturalsettingalsoattractswhite,urban,middle-classamenity/lifestylemigrantsfromChileand
abroad[26,60]. Inparticular,thetownofMalalcahuello,locatedintheChileanAndes,isclosetothe
entrancetoMalacahuello-Nalcasnationalreserveandreceivesanimportantinfluxoflifestyle/amenity
migrants. Suchmigrationisreflectedindemographicandeconomicindicators. TheChileancensus
reported 172 households and 443 people living in Malacahuello in 1992 [61]. By 2002, there were
192householdsandactuallyadecreaseinpopulation,totaling368individuals. However,by2014,the
numberofhabitantsincreasedtoatotalof1000[22]. Malacahuello’sconstructionpermitsgrewfrom
8between1990and2000,to224between2001and2014[22]. ThenumberofvisitorstotheNational
Reserve,accordingCONAF(ChileanNationalParks),grewfrom1518to101,326between2000and2015.
By2015,thelocalchamberoftourismreportedatotalofnearly1200bedsand51boardingenterprises.
Malalcahuello has a history that is highly associated with its natural resources. The first
settlerstothiscommunityarrivedin1918aspartofaland-grantprocesspromotedbytheChilean
government. Thesesettlersdependedpredominantlyontimberextraction,particularlyfocusedon
thecutofoldgrowthAraucariatrees(Araucariaaraucana). Theextractiveactivityservedtoattract
other settlers that were hired by the first colonizers to work in the timber industry, many under
the form of “inquilinaje”—a system where landowners allowed workers to live in their land in
exchangeofwork. Thetimberextractiveactivityreacheditspeakbetween1938and1970[22]with
theestablishmentandoperationoftheMossotimberprocessingplantlocated28KmtotheWestin
the town of Curacautin. A series of events through the second half of the 20th Century including
themodernization/mechanizationofthefactory(startinginthemid-1950sandeventuallyleading
Sustainability2017,9,1619 6of19
to massive layoffs); the establishment of a national law prohibiting the harvest of the Araucaria;
and ultimately the closure of the factory (early 1990s), led to a repressed local economy by the
mid-1990s[22].
Duringthelate1990s,Malacahuelloenteredaneconomictransitionfueledbyanappreciationof
itsnaturalassets. Tourismactivitiesstartedslowlyemerginginitiallyintheformofsmallbusinesses
(e.g.,therentalofsmallcabins)ledbysmallnumbersofindividualswhomigratedfromotherplaces.
Duringtheearly2000s,twosignificanttourism-relatedenterprisesweredevelopedinthevicinityof
Malacahuello: theCorralcoskicenter(builtonthenearbyLonquimayvolcano)andahotwaterspring
complex(builtin2003). ThesetwoprojectsbecametheturningpointofMalalcahuello,asitmade
othersinthecountry(andtheworld)awareofitsexistence. This“discovery”wasfollowedbyan
in-migrationofindividuals[62],mostlyfromSantiago[22]. In2012,Corralcogreatlyexpandeditsski
centerinadditiontotheconstructionofa5-starhotelfollowedbyanaggressivemarketingcampaign.
ThesechangesmadeCorralcoaworld-knowndestination,attractingthelargestnumbersoftouriststo
Malalcahuelloinitshistoryparalleledbythein-migrationofurbanites.
Recently, studies have reported several effects of this transformation trend. One of the most
noticeableisthesubdivisionandsaleoflandparticularlyonthehillssurroundingMalalcahuello[22]
followedbydramaticincreasesinprice[23]. Arecentstudyreportedthatthepriceforahalfhectare
10yearsagowasaround$2000USD,whilein2014thesamehalfhectarecostaround$180,000[23].
The emergence of small tourism-related businesses (e.g., restaurants, cabins, ski rentals) has also
becomenoticeable. Whilethelocalpopulationhasstartedparticipatinginthedevelopmentofthese
businesses,theinitiativehasoftentimesbeenofthemigrants. Relevanttoourstudyisthecultureclash
thatexistsbetweenmanylocalresidentsandmigrantsasreportedby[22,23],andourownfieldwork.
Thereisaclearlackofintegrationbetweenthelocalsandthemigrants—calledbythelocalsafuerinos
(outsiders). Despitemultipleattemptsbythemigrantstointegratethemselvesinthecommunity,the
differencesbetweengroupsarepalpableandaffecttheirrelationship.
4.2. DataCollection
Dataforthisstudywerecollectedinseveralinstancesduringa1.5-yearprocess. InJune2015,the
PIvisitedthecommunitywiththesecondauthorandastudent(Vásquez,alocalwhoalsoconducted
her undergraduate research in the community—cited earlier). During this visit, the investigators
inquiredaboutthesocialandbiophysicaltransformationsinthecommunitythroughafocusgroup
withlocals(9participants)andinformalconversationswithlocalresidents(4participants). Boththe
focusgroupandtheconversationswereexploratory,open,andunstructured. Asecondexploratory
visitwasconductedinJanuary2016inwhichmoreobservationsandafocusgroupwithmigrants
(12participants)wereconductedtocontinueunderstandingtheissueshappeninginthecommunity.
Inbothvisits,detailednotesweretakenandtheresearchteamengagedinconversationseveryevening
inordertoshareinsights. InSeptember2016,twomorefocusgroupswereconducted(1formigrants
and1forlocalswith3participantseach)withamorespecificsetofquestionsthatemergedfromthe
informationlearnedfromthetwopreviousexploratoryvisits. Questionsincludedthemesrelatedto
communitychange,tourism,andthearrivalofmigrantstothecommunity. Theinformationgathered
fromallthevisitsuntilthispoint,wasusedtoconstructtheinterviewguideusedinNovember2016
bythePIandatrainedstudentassistant. Theguideconsistedof3open-endedquestions(eachwitha
seriesofprobingquestions)addressingthethreetopicsthatcommunityresidentshaveshowntobe
moreconcerned/passionateaboutinthepreviousvisits: communitychange(sourcesandsentiments
aboutit),the“other”(knowledge,valuation,andrelations),andfutureexpectations.
An initial list of potential focus groups and interviews participants was provided by the
abovementioned student who lives in the community (Vásquez) who is knowledgeable of both
localsandmigrants. Shefollowedapurposivesamplingapproachforthisdefinedbyresidentstatus
(e.g.,migrant/local). Initialrecruitmentforparticipationwasconductedbytheresearchteamusing
the initial listing and following IRB protocols. Following a snowball procedure, individuals who
Sustainability2017,9,1619 7of19
participatedinthestudywereaskedtoprovidecontactinformationofothersinthecommunitythat
wouldbewillingtosharetheirinsightsinrelationtothequestionsasked. Atotalof27individuals
participatedinthefocusgroupsand47individualsparticipatedintheinterviews(25migrantsand
22locals). Table1summarizesthedemographicinformationobtainedfrombothgroups.
Table1.Sociodemographicinformationofstudyparticipants.
Locals(n=22) Migrants(n=24)
AverageAge(years) 49 47.5
AgeRange(years) 20–85 30–90
GenderDistribution 14F–8M 18F–6M
AverageEducation(levels) 4.7 6.5
AverageIncome(Chileanpesos/month) 1.5 2.5
AverageTimeintheCommunity(years) 41.7 7.6
Note: Educationrangesbetween1=Completeprimaryschoolto8=Completecollegedegree. Incomeranges
between1=Lessthan$300,000;2=$300,001to$1,000,000;3=$1,000,001to$2,000,000;4=$2,000,001andabove
(ChileanPesos).
4.3. DataAnalysis
Data from the interviews were analyzed through a directed content analysis approach [63].
Suchapproachguidestheanalysisandinterpretationofdataasitframedbythechosentheoretical
framework(alteritytheory).Weanalyzedthedataguidedbyhowmigrantsandlocalsviewedtheother
(basedonthethreedimensionsproposedbyalteritytheory)andhowsuchviewsrelatedtocommunity
developmenteffortsinthecommunity. Eventhoughwehadaquestionparticularlyfocusedforeach
ofthedimensionslaidoutbytheframework(e.g.,whatdoyouknowabouttheother?,howdoyou
feelabouttheother? andhowdoyourelatetotheother?),weanalyzedtheentireinterviewtoseek
forresponsesmatchingeachofthethreedimensionsconsideredandtheirrelationshiptocommunity
development. Thus,weexaminedthefulltexttocapturethemeaningthattheinterviewedwastrying
toconveyforeachofthedimensionsandhowtheyrelatedtocommunitydevelopment.
Ourdataanalysisfollowedathree-stageprocessfollowing[64].First,dataweredescribedthrough
amatrix. Columnsinthematrixcorrespondedtoeachinterviewquestion,whilerowscorresponded
toeachrespondent;thus,eachcellreflectedtheanswertoeachquestionforeachrespondent. Then,
eachcellinthematrixwasscannedforinformationthatrespondedtoeachofthestudyquestions
guidedbytheframeworkchosen. Whenacellprovidedinformationthatqualifiedasaresponsetoa
researchquestion,itwascolorcoded(e.g.,green=epistemology,blue=axiology). Thethirdandfinal
stageoftheanalysisconsistedoftheinterpretationstage. Inthisstage,theinterviewswererevisited
accordingtothecellscodedinstagetwoforthepurposeofinterpretingtheresponsesthatspoketo
theissueofinterestandtoidentifypatternsamongrespondents. Forinstance,allresponsesthatshed
lightonepistemologicalresponseswererevisitedinordertounderstandwhateachgroupknewabout
theotherone. Particularattentionwaspaidduringthisstagetorecurringresponsestoreporttrends
insteadofisolatedresponses.
Trustworthiness and credibility were achieved through reflexivity and triangulation [65].
Reflexivitywasachievedbyincorporatingmorethanoneresearcherinthestudyandbykeepinga
reflexivejournalduringtheresearchprocess. Analysttriangulationwasconductedbyreportingand
discussingfindingsbetweenthedifferentauthorsduringtheexploratorystagesofthestudyandonce
theKIinterviewsweredescribed,analyzed,andinterpreted[64].
5. Findings
It is important to note that the construction of differences in Malacahuello departs from an
intrinsic/givencategorization(orlabeling)of“localsvs. migrants”or“usvs. them”whichguidesthe
majorityofthediscussionsinthecommunityandhaspractical/behavioralimplications(discussed
below). Thiscategorization,welearnedinourinterviews,ismorecomplexthansimplydefinedby
Sustainability2017,9,1619 8of19
theplaceofbirthorwheresomeonegrewup,assomehighly-regardedlocalswereindeed,migrants.
Despitethatsuch“neo-locals”werebornelsewhere,theywereclearlyseenbythelocalsasoneof
them. Wenoticedseveralelementsthatcanhelpexplainwhytheywereseenaslocalsbythelocal
population. First,these“neo-locals”werealsoruralresidentsborn/raisedinaruralcommunityofthe
region,andtoalargeextentsharedlifestylessimilartotheonesofthelocals. Second,these“neo-locals”
havesuccessfullyintegratedthemselves(e.g.,socially,culturally,andgeospatially)intothecommunity,
makingfriends,livingamonglocals,helpingothers,worshipingtogether,etc. Third,theseneo-locals
arrived to the community many years ago, before the phenomenon of amenity migration became
prominentinMalacahuello. Thus,wherethesemigrantscamefromandhowtheywereraised,how
muchtheyhaveintegratedthemselvestothecommunity,andinthestageoftheamenitydevelopment
processtheyarrived,seemedtobeimportantfactorsfordeterminingifsomeoneisconsidereda[neo]
localoramigrant. Particularlyrelatedtothelastfactor,Malacahuelloseemstobe,asexpressedby
almosteverylocalinterviewed,inapointofperceived“migrantsaturation”wherelocalsfeelthere
aretoomanymigrantsintown. Atthisstage,migrantsseemtobeseenbylocalsasagrouprather
thanindividuals,limitingtheirabilitytoreallyunderstandorgettoknowmigrantsindividually,their
historiesoraspirations. Numerouslocalrespondentsexpressedmorepositivecommentstowardsthe
firstmigrantswhoarrivedsporadicallyandwereabletodescribethem,theirhistories,wherethey
camefrom,wheretheylived,theiraspirations,andpersonalitiesaswellascommentinghavingsome
sortofrelationshipswiththem. Thesamecannotbesaidaboutthemorerecentlyarrivedandlarger
groups of migrants. We believe that, at this point, epistemological, axiological, and praxeological
elementsgainrelevancefortheconstructionofdifferences. Thesearediscussedbelow.
5.1. ViewsoftheOther
5.1.1. KnowledgeoftheOther(Epistemology)
Intermsofrespondingtothequestion“whatdoyouknowabouttheother?”,localsseemedto
knowverylittleaboutmigrants. Theircommonresponsesincludedthatthemigrantswerepeople
thatcamemostlyfromSantiagoandthattheywerewealthy. However, severalinterviewedlocals
commentedthatthemigrantswerenotahomogeneousgroup,categorizingthemintwobroadgroups
(e.g.,a“desired”groupandan“undesired”one,bothwhichwillbediscussedbelow). Becausewhat
muchofwhatdefinedthesegroupshadtodowithvaluejudgmentsratherthanwithknowledgebased
onfacts,thediscussionofthesewillbeprovidedinthefollowingsubsection(axiology).
Migrantsseemedtobemoreknowledgeableoftheother,butmostlyaboutthehistoricalpast
of the migrants. Several migrants noted that the locals had a history rooted in timber extraction,
wheretheancestorsofthelocalsarrivedtoMalalcahuellofollowingaland-grantprogrampromoted
by the government. Migrants knew that the initial colonizers exploited the forest and attracted
a working class of colonizers based on colonial forms of domination known as the “inquilinaje”
system. Severalmigrantsmentionedthattheindividualslivingundersuchsystemlivedinaformof
“pseudo-slavery”. Migrantsalsotalkedaboutthedifficultiesfacedbythelocalsoncetimberextraction
driedup,leadingtohighlevelsofunemployment,poverty,andhighdependenceonwelfare.
5.1.2. ValuationoftheOther(Axiology)
To the question of “how you feel about the other?”, local respondents provided an overall
dichotomousanswerreflectingtwotypesofmigrants. Thefirsttypeofmigrantwasdefinedasan
individualwhowasopentointeractingwiththelocals,showedgreatconcernforprotectingnature,
andwasinterestedinlivinganeasypaceoflife. Thesecondtypeofmigrantsconsistedofindividuals
whowereseenasthoseguidedonlybyfinancialreasonsevenattheexpenseofnature,andwhowere
notinterestedgettingtoknowthelocalsorbeingpartofthecommunity. Individualsfittingunder
thiscategorywereseenaspeoplelivingafast-pacedlifereflectingtheirmaingoalofcreatingasmuch
wealthaspossible.
Sustainability2017,9,1619 9of19
Locals stated their acceptance and approval of migrants fitting in the first group. Locals also
notedthatmostofthemigrantsfittinginthefirstgroupbelongedtoasmallnumberofmigrantsthat
arrivedindependentlyandsporadicallytothecommunityseveralyearsago,beforemigrationtothe
communitybecameamassphenomenon. Localsexpressedbeingthankfulofthepositivechangesthat
thesemigrantshavebroughttothecommunity,astheywereseenasmoreeducatedandwithmore
capacitiesandresourcesthathelpedthecommunitymoveforwardintothe21stcentury. Inthatsense,
themigrantsthatcameearlierwereseenaspositivecontributorsforthecommunityastheydisplayed
attitudinalandbehavioralcharacteristicsthatweredesirableandgoodforthecommunity.
Localsalsoexpressedtheircleardiscontentwiththesecondtypeofmigrant,referringtothemas
condescending,materialistic,onlyinterestedinthebottomline,andwhoexploitedbothnatureand
locals. Localsdidnotcareforthesemigrantsandbroughtupstoriesinwhichtheyweredepictedasthe
causeofthecurrentproblemsintown(e.g.,highcostsofland,populationgrowth,andenvironmental
deterioration). Alocalwomannoted:
With the people that care for nature, we get together with them, we have good
communicationwiththem. Withtheothers,wedon’t. Theydon’tfitourworld. Wewere
probablyraiseddifferently.
Differentlyfromthefirsttypeofmigrants,thissecondtypeofmigrantswereseenasthreatstothe
community. Theywereparticularlythreateningduetothepowerthelocalsperceivedthemtohold,
astheywereseenasindividualswiththecapacitytochangethecommunityinwaysthatlocalsdid
notdesire. Thatis,migrantswereseenbylocalsaspowerfulagentsofchangegiventheirperceived
higher education levels, their know-how, their networks in Santiago, and the economic resources
theyowned,whichwereautomaticallyascribedtotheirurbanupbringing. Oftenlocalstalked,ina
verybitterway,abouthowmigrantshadabilitiesandresourcestodowhatevertheywantedinthe
community. Severallocalrespondentscomplainedabouttheabilityofmigrantstoappropriateland
andbuild/developbusinesses,somethingthatlocalsfeltveryunabletodoforfinancialoreducational
reasons. A local woman speaking bitterly about the migrants doing whatever they wanted told
thisstory:
We have been waiting for years to get our hands in a little piece of land [through a
government-ledassistanceprogram]. Buttheseafuerinos(outsiders)comehereandinafew
days,theyownlargeamountsofland. Oneofthemboughtlandnexttotheriver,whereI
havebeengoingtoeverydaywithmyfamilyeversinceIlivedhere. Aftersheboughtthe
land,shethreatenedmeandmykidsmanytimestoleavethearea,butIneverlistenedto
herbecauseIknewtheriverispublic. Onedayshebroughtbigaggressivedogstorunus
outofthere. Ihadtogetthelawprintedandbringittohertoshowhershedidn’townthe
riverandthatIwasallowedtobethere. Oh,itgotuglymanytimeswithher.
Uponinquiringwhichgrouprepresentedthemajorityofthemigrants,mostlocalsstatedthat
theyconsistedmostlyofthesecondgroup: theundesiredones.
Inthecaseofthemigrants,theyreferredtothelocalsaskind,good,andwithnomaliciousness.
Wordssuchastimid,shy,andinnocentwereusedtodescribethem. Theownerofasuccessfultourism
businesssaidaboutthelocals:
They are quiet, shy, honest, very good people, noble, with no maliciousness. They are
warm,hard-working,theyaretownpeople. Theyareveryinnocent. Verylovelypeople.
However,migrantsalsodescribedlocalsinotherways,usingwordssuchaslazy,drunk,and
jealous. Afewofthemigrantsopenlystatedtheirdistrustanddiscontentwiththelocals,explaining
howitwasveryhardforthemtofindareliableworkeramongstthem. Further,themoreoutspoken
respondents felt that locals were always talking about them behind their backs and cared little
aboutthem.
Sustainability2017,9,1619 10of19
Highlylinkedtotheaxiologicaldimensionofourstudy, wefoundthat, despitetheexistence
ofpositivevaluationsoftheother,therewasaprominentreproductionofnegativestigmasintown.
Membersofbothgroupsseemedtoconstantlyfeedtheirnegativevaluationsoftheotherbyreminiscing
onnegativememoriesofwhatmembersoftheothergroupdidwronginthepast.Oftentimes,members
ofbothgroupssharedstorieswiththeresearchteamofeventsthathappenedmanyyearsagotosupport
theirnegativestigmasabouttheother. Theseincludedstoriesofhowmigrantstookadvantagesof
localswhenhiringthemorhowlocalsstoppedshowingupforworkinthemiddleofanimportant
project. Ontheotherhand,respondentsrefrainedfromtalkingaboutthegoodthingsthatmembersof
eachgrouphavedonefortheother,suchasthemultipleprogramsthatmigrantshavedevelopedin
towntohelpthelocalchildren.
Somerespondentsbelievedthatkeylocalactorsintownconstantlyreproducedthesenegative
stigmasinadditiontotellinglocalsnottotalk,work,orevenrelatewiththemigrants. Forinstance,
somemigrantsbelievedthatthelocal“elite”,thedescendantsofthelandowners,inanefforttoretain
thelocalpopulationintheirgrip,keptreproducingthesenegativestigmas. Anotherexampleincludes
thelocalmunicipalleader,whopubliclyencouragedlocalstorefrainfromlettingmigrants“takeover
town”. Otherrespondentssharedthatsomeofthereligiousleadersintownforbidlocalstomingle
withmigrantsbecausethey“werethedevil”.
5.1.3. RelationtotheOther(Praxeology)
Members of both groups mentioned that the relation with “the other” was limited and took
placemostlyintermsofcommercialtransactions. Theseincludedtimeswhenmigrantsforinstance
hadtoshopatthesmallgrocerystoresownedbythelocals. Asecondformofinteractionhappened
withinthemeetingsintownresultingfrommembershipinvoluntaryorganizations(e.g.,boardof
neighbors,chamberoftourism,andschoolboard). Mostmigrantsandlocalsdescribedrelationsthat
werenotdeep,bonding,orproducingstrongties. Mostrespondentsmentionedtheydidnotworship
orcelebratedtogetherwithmembersoftheothergroup. Forthemost,eachgroupkepttoitselfexcept
whentheycouldnotavoidit.
However,althoughinlimitedoccasions,thereweresituationswhereadeeperinteraction,one
thatseemedtobeleadingtohigherlevelsofcommunicationandintegration,werebroughtupduring
the interviews. These included the interactions between younger locals and the “desired” type of
migrant (e.g., town space), between the local and migrant parents of children attending the only
elementaryschoolintown(e.g.,schoolspace),andbetweenmigrantemployersandlocalemployees
(e.g.,workspace). Forinstance,inthecaseoftheyoungergenerations,thedivisiveanddichotomous
discourseof“usvs. them”wasnotasprominent,andmanyyoungerlocalswerestartingtomingle,
date, and even marry migrants. Another example includes the case of the latter situation, where
migrants and locals worked together, as some migrants purposively sought to hire locals in their
businesses. Localsinterviewedexpressedtheirinitialsurpriseatbeingabletoengageinnon-work
related conversations with their bosses, followed by an even higher level of surprise to learn that
migrants were not as “bad” as they had heard. Locals expressed how their view of the migrants
changedwithintheworkspace,startingwiththesimplepracticeofbreakingbreadwiththe“boss”—a
practice not acceptable in the context of the previous employee–employer relationship during the
timberextractionera. Theinitialaweofbeingtreatedasequalswassurpassedwhenlocalslearned
thatmigrantsalsohadlifeproblemsandafflictions. Alocalmanworkingforamigrantwhoownsa
restaurantsaid:
I suddenly realized that they also have problems like we do. That they struggle with
thingsaswell. Thattheyarefacedwithmanychallenges. Ididn’tthinkthatwasthecase,
Ithoughttheyhadeverythingfiguredoutorgiventothem.