Is Out of Sight out of Mind? Place Attachment among Rural Youth Out‐Migrants

Abstract

The article adds to the literature on youth migration within a rapidly changing rural society. Insights are presented on how multiple place attachment is reflected in the context of rural‐to‐urban migration in the lives of 14 Danish rural youth out‐migrants. Findings demonstrate that out‐migrants’ attachment to their rural childhood place must be considered ambivalent, in particular regarding how the young people identify with the places, as these are experienced as both nurturing and isolating and safe and restricted. This reveals the multidimensionality of the young people's relationship with place, as these contain both positive and negative elements, which are equally meaningful and contribute to place attachment. Further, the article contributes to the place attachment literature by offering insights into the significance of continuity in the context of migration, as old relationships and rural identities provide significant stability within the young people's lives and constitute important elements in their identities and multiple place attachment.

Return to the countryside: The return intentions of highly educated young people in the Akmola province of northern Kazakhstan

“…The possibility of taking on more responsibility at an early point in one's career may also help to change the widespread image of young people in rural areas being losers or underachievers (which may also inhibit young graduates from returning) to an image of people seizing an opportunity or taking on a challenge. Attaching a positive image to those young adults who decide to stay or to return to the rural countryside is another noneconomic determinant for locational choice (Pedersen, ; Pedersen & Gram, ).…”

“…Attaching a positive image to those young adults who decide to stay or to return to the rural countryside is another noneconomic determinant for locational choice (Pedersen, 2018;Pedersen & Gram, 2018).…”

“…After graduation, students from rural areas have to decide whether they will remain in the place where they studied, move on, or return to the rural countryside. Even if graduates do not return to their rural place of origin, they seem to have a strong tendency to work in regions that show similar traits to those where they grew up (Buenstorf et al, ; Pedersen, ; Venhorst, ). Furthermore, Pedersen () points out that graduates from rural areas often perceive the countryside as a favourable place to raise children but are still reluctant to return to the exact place of their origin.…”

“…Even if graduates do not return to their rural place of origin, they seem to have a strong tendency to work in regions that show similar traits to those where they grew up (Buenstorf et al, ; Pedersen, ; Venhorst, ). Furthermore, Pedersen () points out that graduates from rural areas often perceive the countryside as a favourable place to raise children but are still reluctant to return to the exact place of their origin. Therefore, from a policy point of view, focusing only on those who return to their exact place of origin would neglect important rural return groups of young adults.…”

“…After graduation, students from rural areas have to decide whether they will remain in the place where they studied, move on, or return to the rural countryside. Even if graduates do not return to their rural place of origin, they seem to have a strong tendency to work in regions that show similar traits to those where they grew up (Buenstorf et al, 2016;Pedersen, 2018;Venhorst, 2013). Furthermore, Pedersen…”