Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States

Nelson, Peter B.; Oberg, Alexander; Nelson, Lise

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.003

Cited by 118 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, "rural idyll" or "proximity to the wildness" are cited as the most important motivators for migration to rural areas. The appeal of rural landscapes, clean air, more green areas, peaceful living or reasonable living costs are the primary reasons for gentrifiers who come to rural areas (Ghose, 2004;Nelson et al 2010;Smith & Phillips, 2001;Heley, 2010;Bijker et al, 2012). The North Aegean region generally attracts attention because of its climatic and natural characteristics, along with its vernacular landscape.…”

Section: Motivation and Socioeconomic Profile Of Newcomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although gentrifiers are described as the "middle class" in both rural and urban areas, family structure is distinctly different. While urban gentrifiers are defined as variously young, single, dual income no kids, single-parents (Chaney & Sherwood, 2000;Nelson et. al., 2010;Ghose, 2004), those who prefer rural areas are mostly retired, summerhouse vacationers, those who are looking for new job opportunities (Ghose, 2004;Phillips, 2009;Darling, 2005;Solana-Solana, 2010;Stockdale, 2010).…”

Section: Motivation and Socioeconomic Profile Of Newcomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rural gentrification literature has to a significant extent developed with research that addresses the United Kingdom (Phillips, 1993;Chaney & Sherwood, 2000;Smith D. P., 2002;Phillips, 2004;Phillips, 2007;Stockdale, 2010;Heley, 2010) and United States of America countryside (Ghose, 2004;Friedberger, 1996;Darling, 2005;Walker & Fortmann, 2003;Hines, 2010;Gosnell & Abrams, 2011;Nelson et al, 2010). Researches that discuss gentrification processes in rural areas of other developed countries (Bijker et al, 2012;Guimond & Simard, 2010) and Mediterranean countries (Solana-Solana, 2010) are informative, but are limited in number and point to a significant gap in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rural gentrification in the North Aegean Countryside (Turkey)

Uysal

Sakarya

2018

ICONARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines rural gentrification as experienced on the North Aegean coasts of Turkey. The study area chosen is the closest Aegean coast to İstanbul and it attracts attention because of its archeological and mythological values, as well as its natural beauty and vernacular landscape. The most important element determining the rural landscape of the region is olive production. The study is based principally on indepth interviews with village mukhtars, local people, newcomers, tourism entrepreneurs, and professionals.While the rural gentrification process in Turkey, a Mediterranean country, shows similarities with the gentrification process in rural areas of developed Western countries, differences can be observed as well. Depopulation in rural areas since 1950s and development of tourism in coastal areas after 1980 has brought about the investmentdisinvestment cycle, which is in the rural gentrification theory. It has been observed that in the rural area where tourism facilities have been improved, gentrification occurs in parallel. The migration of middle class to the villages has transformed the traditional land use and rural

show abstract

Section: Motivation and Socioeconomic Profile Of Newcomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivation and Socioeconomic Profile Of Newcomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rural gentrification in the North Aegean Countryside (Turkey)

Uysal

Sakarya

2018

ICONARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diferentes contextos familiares relacionados con la edad media de sus componentes o el estatus social mediatizan de modo activo la toma de decisión del traslado hacia distintos entornos preferentes (Boyle y Halfacree, 1998;Champion, 1998;Nelson et al, 2010), por lo que es oportuno abordar el análisis de estos aspectos.…”

Section: La Recomposición Generacional Y Social De Los Nuevos áMbitosunclassified

“…Las migraciones no se reducen a meros movimientos desencadenados en un vacío, puesto que son experiencias en las que confluye una complejidad de factores derivados de las características sociales y culturales del migrante (Boyle y Halfacree, 1998;Nelson et al, 2010), de modo que la preferencia por cierto tipo de entorno puede estar condicionada por la clase social de pertenencia. Una investigación sociológica de ese tipo excedería este trabajo, pero la información sobre niveles educativos y de renta recogida por los aparatos estadísticos permitirá una somera aproximación.…”

Section: Algunos Rasgos Socio-económicos De Los Nuevos Residentesunclassified

Pautas de localización residencial en el País Vasco 1991-2010. Algunas características socio-demográficas de las poblaciones suburbanas

Elizburu

2015

Estud. geogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The rural–urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe

Lichter

Brown

Parisi

2020

Population Space and Place

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanisation and the expansion of US metropolitan regions have blurred the spatial and social boundaries that are typically thought to separate urban from rural America. Our objective is to highlight both the conceptual limitations of the so‐called rural–urban divide, while also recognising the spatial interdependence of America's ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ people and places. Our analyses nest rural and urban population and places within metropolitan and non‐metropolitan counties, while acknowledging that rural places often grow into urban places (i.e., urbanisation) and that many non‐metropolitan counties are reclassified over time as metropolitan areas (i.e., metropolitanisation). Analyses show that most rural people—as officially defined—now live in metropolitan counties, often at the fringe. Reclassification to metropolitan areas was a major reason why. Small towns and thinly settled areas at the metropolitan fringe have grown rapidly since 1980 and have become increasingly integrated within metropolitan areas nationally. The heuristic value of our analytical approach at the national level is further demonstrated at the local‐area level, in Chicago and Atlanta, metro areas with very different demographic and economic histories. Our study highlights the dynamic and multidimensional nature of spatial boundaries (i.e., urban–rural and metro–nonmetro) that both separate and connect rural and urban areas in the United States. Metro–nonmetro and rural–urban boundaries are neither fixed nor impermeable.

show abstract

Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States

Cited by 118 publications

References 45 publications

Rural gentrification in the North Aegean Countryside (Turkey)

Rural gentrification in the North Aegean Countryside (Turkey)

Pautas de localización residencial en el País Vasco 1991-2010. Algunas características socio-demográficas de las poblaciones suburbanas

The rural–urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About