Beyond the (im)mobility and social‐environmental dichotomy: Young adults' motives to reside in rural northwest Europe

Hofstede, Henk; Salemink, Koen; Haartsen, Tialda

doi:10.1002/psp.2632

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the quantitative analyses, we use data collected as part of a large household survey conducted in each of the three case study areas during autumn and winter 2019/early 2020, in rural settlements (of up to 2000 inhabitants) and the surrounding countryside outside their built-up area (see also Ferguson & Catney, 2023;Hofstede et al, 2022aHofstede et al, , 2022bLengerer et al, 2022). Adopting systematic random sampling techniques specifically adapted to each context, 2000-2500 addresses were targeted from postal address files, with an assumed 40% response rate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We focus on people aged 31–64 years old because family‐related motives for renegotiating staying, leaving and returning are often associated with these ages. Young adults more often migrate for employment and educational reasons (Haartsen & Thissen, 2014; Hofstede et al, 2022b; Rérat, 2014; Stockdale et al, 2018; Thomas, 2019) and for retirees, the quality of the residential area is often an important motive (Stockdale, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of non‐resident family ties in rural staying

Ferguson,

Haartsen,

Steinführer

et al. 2023

Population Space and Place

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internal migration research is paying increasing attention to the role in migration behaviour of having non‐resident family—family living outside of the household—living close by, and also to non‐migration and staying in general. Combining these two themes, this paper investigates the role of non‐resident family ties in rural staying for adults aged 31–64. Using a mixed methods analysis of survey and interview data from the Netherlands, Germany and Northern Ireland (UK), we examine if the presence of non‐resident family nearby relates to future intentions to stay in the rural region, and we explore the meanings of different family relations and how they relate to past and ongoing staying behaviours. Our findings reveal that living near non‐resident children and in‐laws increases the likelihood of the intention to stay in the rural region for the rest of one's lifetime. While the quantitative analyses suggest that the presence of parents in the area does not contribute to future staying intentions, the interviews revealed that parents' residential proximity was integral in the original staying decision. Non‐resident family members provide emotional and instrumental support, offer location‐specific structural opportunities, and provide a sense of security. Partly, family obligations also play a role in staying, yet not in the sense that rural stayers are ‘stuck in place’ because of family ties, but rather in an implicit way, intertwined with senses of belonging and attachment.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of non‐resident family ties in rural staying

Ferguson,

Haartsen,

Steinführer

et al. 2023

Population Space and Place

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the growing literature on stayers in rural areas (Adams & Komu, 2022; Cook & Cuervo, 2020; Dufhues et al, 2021; Haartsen & Stockdale, 2018; Hofstede et al, 2022a, 2022b; Mærsk et al, 2021; Stockdale & Haartsen, 2018), there has been little research on stayers in urban areas. The “mobility turn” in urban studies (Sheller & Urry, 2006) may have directed attention away from processes of staying towards the flows of mobility in contemporary urban spaces, emphasising dynamic urban cosmopolitanism.…”

Section: Residential Satisfaction Family and Intentions To Staymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While much of the contemporary literature on stayers has focused on rural communities (Barcus & Brunn, 2009; Hofstede et al, 2022a, 2022b; Morse & Mudgett, 2018; Stockdale & Haartsen, 2018), the underlying processes can be expected to differ across the urban‐rural continuum (Albrecht & Scheiner, 2022). Family in the household and in the community may have a more positive effect on residential satisfaction in sparsely populated rural communities with thin labour markets and limited services than in metropolitan, exurban or micropolitan areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closest family in the household or in the community? The role of family in residential satisfaction among intended stayers in Iceland

Bjarnason,

Haartsen

2023

Population Space and Place

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The salience of family in residential satisfaction and staying in rural communities has been well established. However, the relative importance family in the households and wider networks of family ties remains unclear, as well as the extent to which such associations can be found across the urban–rural continuum. This study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the role of family in residential satisfaction and residential decision‐making processes by distinguishing between satisfied, ambivalent, and dissatisfied stayers in metropolitan and non‐metropolitan areas. Drawing on several large‐scale surveys conducted in Iceland, we use binomial and multinomial logistic regression models to show that both having family in the household and having the closest family in the community predict intentions to stay, net of residential satisfaction. The odds of being a stayer are significantly higher if living with a spouse, with or without children in the household. Interestingly, this effect is found in all non‐metropolitan types of communities but not in the metropolitan Reykjavík capital area. Familial factors relate differently to the odds of being a satisfied, ambivalent, or dissatisfied stayer and vary significantly between urban, exurban, micro‐urban, and farming communities. Living with a spouse and children in the household increases the odds of being a stayer, regardless of residential satisfaction. Living in a household as a couple without the presence of children is only associated with higher odds of being a dissatisfied stayer. Beyond the household, respondents are significantly more likely to be stayers if most or all closest family live in the community, regardless of being a satisfied, ambivalent, or dissatisfied stayer. This is true for all types of communities. These results contribute to the cross‐cultural evidence base and suggest several possible avenues for future research relevant to policy and practice in the field of regional development.

show abstract

“…From the scarce literature addressing motives for staying, it has become clear that proximity to family is more frequently reported as a motive for staying than for moving. In a survey among stayers in three rural areas in the Netherlands, Germany and Northern Ireland, respondents attached the greatest importance to 'being close to family members' of 10 motivations for living in the area (Hofstede et al, 2023). Wanting to live near family was also a frequently cited reason for staying (by 66%) among contented stayers in Vermont (Morse & Mudgett, 2018).…”

Section: Nonresident Family As a Motive For Moving Or Stayingmentioning

confidence: 99%