Establishing the routes to rural in‐migrant proprietorship in a Canadian tourism region: A mobilities perspective

Abstract

This article contributes to the ongoing conversation about in-migration and rural economic change in the mobility era. It addresses the question: do rural in-migrants' routes to proprietorship differ in developing tourism destinations? To answer this query, we analyse the migration movement, and postmovement performances, of rural Newfoundland and Labrador's in-migrant tourism operators. We identify the dominant incoming groups (resident and seasonal counterurbanites and lateral migrants) and major destination choice motivations (family, amenity, and economics). We describe the business activities of in-migrants' postmovement lives (early-and late-stage) and the reasons for business operation (economic and noneconomic). By combining this movement and performance information, we uncover 12 business trajectories and new firm types. We find that counterurbanite and lateral migrant paths, and business types, differ, supporting the inclusion of both cohorts in future research. Our findings confirm and extend extant literature on rural in-migration and tourism and reify the fluid relationship between movement and place in the mobility era.

Are in‐migrant proprietors driving or enhancing cultural heritage tourism in transitioning resource‐dependent communities? The case of Trinity, Newfoundland and Labrador

“…Evidence suggests that counterurbanites are frequently involved in business activity (Herslund ) and, sometimes, touristic ventures (Bosworth and Farrell ; Mitchell and Madden ). Fewer report business engagement among countryside movers (van der Vaart ), although Stockdale () provides evidence of lateral migrant accommodation and restaurant ownership in the United Kingdom (UK), as do Mitchell and Shannon () in Canada.…”

“…For example, newcomers are involved in restaurants in rural Sweden (Lundmark et al ), accommodation venues in Norway (Iversen and Jacobsen ), specialty food shops in the UK (Rogers ), wine‐making enterprises in New Zealand (Perkins et al ), and hospitality businesses in Canada (Siemens ). Returnees, including those who move back to a childhood residence (Mitchell and Shannon ) or to an ancestral home (King and Christou ), are also active, with returnee tourist entrepreneurs in Sweden (Hedfeldt and Lundmark ), the UK (Bosworth and Farrell ), and Canada (Rockett and Ramsey ) operating businesses in the hospitality sector.…”

“…Attraction of externally accumulated capital is one strategy to surmount internal obstacles (Isaksen and Jakobsen ), particularly in places offering heritage amenity or familial incentive (Mitchell and Shannon ). These assets may entice newcomers and returnees seeking lifestyle change or livelihood security (Mitchell and Shannon ).…”

“…Attraction of externally accumulated capital is one strategy to surmount internal obstacles (Isaksen and Jakobsen ), particularly in places offering heritage amenity or familial incentive (Mitchell and Shannon ). These assets may entice newcomers and returnees seeking lifestyle change or livelihood security (Mitchell and Shannon ). Their presence may provide the human capital necessary to identify development opportunities and the financial investment required to ensure their manifestation (Bosworth and Farrell ).…”

“…It is the third in a series of papers whose overarching goal is to understand the role that rural in‐migrant tourism entrepreneurs are playing in Newfoundland's diversification efforts. In the first paper, we used a mobilities perspective to identify the routes taken to proprietorship by in‐migrant tourism operators (Mitchell and Shannon ); in the second, we used an evolutionary economic geography lens to unravel the mechanisms used to promote trajectory development (Mitchell and Shannon ). In this paper, we combine both perspectives in a study of one community to reveal the specific role played by different in‐migrant proprietor cohorts in the tourism sector.…”