Rural Gentrification

Like its urban counterpart, rural gentrification refers to processes of social replacement and displacement that are the outcome of changing investment strategies, economic restructuring, and changing government policy. Together, these pressures both produce and foster continuing migrations of people to and from rural places. Many of the areas that experience rural gentrification have historically been characterized by extraction-based or subsistence-oriented economies and land uses, such as activities related to hunting, the gathering of foods and fiber, agriculture, cattle ranching, timber production, or different forms of mining. Researchers have described this process and its social and environmental impacts in several parts of North America (particularly the American West) and Europe (mainly Great Britain), but it is likely more widespread.

Although the processes that drive rural gentrification are debated, the global restructuring of key extractive industries, such as agriculture and forestry, seems to have contributed to a wave of new real estate investment in rural places that have generally met two basic criteria. First, these rural places are home to cultural and natural landscapes that offer attributes valued for their “quality of life” or “amenities”: spectacular scenery or vistas; relaxed or easy-going lifestyles; small-town or rural feel and perceived safety; and easy access to large open spaces, including wilderness areas and/or other recreational opportunities. Second, these areas are within relatively easy commuting distance. Importantly, commuting may be defined either by proximity to nearby metropolitan areas and adequate road, rail, or air infrastructure to facilitate physical commuting and/or characterized by adequate telecommunications infrastructure that facilitates telecommuting.

In such places, landowners engaged in extractive activities often cannot compete with the falling commodity prices on world markets (vertical competition) and the financial pressures created by the increased property values that come with real estate investment and often mounting property tax pressures (horizontal competition). As a result, some landowners sell land for development thereby reinforcing the cycle: An influx of new residents, predominantly affluent urbanites, further invest in real estate, shift centers of economic power, and influence local politics in ways that all too often lead to cultural and environmental conflicts.

Unlike urban gentrification, rural gentrification may or may not lead to an exodus of rural peoples who can no longer afford to live in the area. Indeed, many people in gentrifying areas appear to stay in their communities. By contrast, replacement and displacement often centers on the valorization of the landscapes for their aesthetic, ecosystem-related, and recreational qualities instead of their productive capacity. These shifting values often lead to the marginalization of local culture and traditions by many, but not all, of the newly arrived residents.

Often, this marginalization results in the real or perceived loss of valued ways of life or economic activities, including declines in jobs related to extraction and their replacement with service-related jobs; declines in access to, or the use of, local natural resources for social reproduction through activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, or gathering); and a general increase in the privatization of resources (e.g., posting of areas to prevent trespassing). For example, although urbanites often seek out rural places for their abundant natural amenities, their “small-town [Page 1539]feel,” “sense of place,” or “sense of community,” long-time locals complain that new residents fence off traditional swimming and fishing areas, other areas historically used for recreation or local travel, and sites historically available for resource collection by the community.

...