Moving the amenity migration literature forward: Understanding community-level factors associated with positive outcomes after amenity-driven change

Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Moving the amenity migration literature forward: Understanding community-level factors associated with positive outcomes after amenity-driven change David Matarrita-Cascante, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, 600 John Kimbrough Blvd, 452 AGLS, 2261 TAMU, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 12 February 2016 Received in revised form 24 April 2017 Accepted 1 May 2017 Available online 6 May 2017

The amenity migration literature has been growing for close to four decades, paying specific emphasis to the causes and consequences of this phenomenon, characterizing and understanding the amenity migrants, and contrasting them to their counterparts. While these major topics have provided key contributions to the understanding of amenity migration, the literature lacks deeper knowledge of the factors that can lead to positive outcomes after such phenomenon. Particularly lacking are studies examining community-level processes that can help find ways to address the impacts associated with amenity migration. This study intends to move the literature on amenity migration forward by examining community-level factors associated with positive responses to the challenges posed by this phenomenon. By comparing two Costa Rican communities experiencing amenity migration, we respond to the question: What community factors lead to positive outcomes after experiencing amenity migration? The study found that the way the community feels about change and migrants, migrants’ perceived roles in the local economy, the relation between locals and migrants, and the existence/establishment of community development efforts are critical factors for positive outcomes. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Amenity migration Impacts of migration Community development Costa Rica

1. Introduction The concept of amenity migration refers to population movement towards natural amenity-rich rural communities, a phenomenon that has been prominent in many parts of the world in the last four decades (Moss, 2006; Moss and Glorioso, 2014). Academics researching this phenomenon have studied its causes and consequences, characterized amenity migrants, and contrasted them to the local population. Such body of literature has provided a wealth of knowledge that has contributed to the understanding of different aspects of this phenomenon. However, the literature is in a place where it needs to move forward by producing knowledge that can inform how the diverse implications of this phenomenon (see Moss, 2006; Guimond and Simard, 2010; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Glorioso, 2014; Hayes, 2015; Winkler, 2013) can be addressed. We believe one way of doing this is by focusing on community-level studies that holistically examine the community, its actors, and their relationships in

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.004 0743-0167/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the context of the changes brought by amenity migration. Thus, beyond characterizations and identification of the causes and consequences of amenity migration, this study intends to move the literature forward by uncovering community-level factors that are associated with positive responses to the changes generated by such phenomenon. The purpose of this study then is to better understand, from a sociological perspective, some of the factors that contribute to overall positive outcomes in communities undergoing amenity migration. The study responds to the question: What community factors lead to positive outcomes after experiencing amenity migration? To answer to this question, the two Costa Rican rural communities of Nuevo Arenal and Bahia Ballena were studied and compared. These communities were chosen based on their selfreported contrasting experiences with amenity migration. Nuevo Arenal residents reported overall positive community outcomes after the arrival of amenity migrants while Bahia Ballena residents reported a less optimistic view. The manuscript is structured as follows. First, a literature review on amenity migration is offered. Then, the methods section describes site selection, data collection, and data analysis techniques

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

used. The findings section shares the results discussed in the context of the larger literature. Finally, a conclusion section provides the overarching inferences stemming from the study. 2. Amenity migration Many rural areas around the world, particularly those rich in natural amenities (McGranahan, 1999), have been experiencing dramatic changes resulting from the influx of urbanites. Initial studies of this phenomenon focused on understanding its causes, finding that changing societal conditions occurring at multiple levels have facilitated the movement of people to those communities (Beale, 1975; Tucker, 1976; Wardwell and Brown, 1980). From the “demand” side, changes in workforce conditions and values; improvements in telecommunication and transportation; transgenerational transfer of wealth; and increased adoption of lifestyle choices, including those associated with leisure, tourism and quality of life standards, have affected people's life choices that break “traditional” patterns (Beyers and Nelson, 2000; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Krannich et al., 2011). From the “supply” side, improvements in postal services and rural electrification, the surfacing of roads, spreading of motor vehicle ownership among farm and small-town residents, and the introduction of radio, television, and more recently broad band internet, have been preparing rural areas for a broader development (Hawley and Mills, 1981). Additionally, the continual loss in dependency of the rural economy on traditional extractive industries and agriculture has resulted in alternative post-productivist uses of the rural land, including its commodification as lifestyle amenities (Guimond and Simard, 2010; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Mitchell, 2004). Altogether, these conditions have allowed individuals to make choices about their lives, which in general terms reflect a conscious desire to migrate to other localities following particular life goals and aspirations. Distinct from economic necessity or forced relocations (e.g., human conflict or natural disasters), this type of migration is driven by choices that people want to make, motivated by a desire and ability to relocate in a search for specific life conditions, which are, in this case, found in rural areas (Matarritaceres-Feria, 2016). Cascante et al., 2015; Ruiz-Ballesteros and Ca The literature has also focused on characterizing the amenity migrant, departing from the motivations that he/she had for migrating. Two of the most popular concepts used for explaining this phenomenon are lifestyle and amenity migration. Benson (2009) argues that lifestyle migration provides a larger net that encompasses this migratory phenomenon. Generally speaking, lifestyle migration describes “the relocation of people from the developed world searching for a better way of life” (Benson, 2009, p. 608). Matarrita-Cascante et al. (2015) noted that migrants move: … with the objective of merging their motivations (e.g., escape from personal and/or social burdens of their current life, the search for a slower pace of life, lower cost of living, better climate, desire to live closer to nature) with the characteristics and conditions offered by their new location of residence (e.g., rurality, natural amenities, coastal retreat, leisure amenities, outdoor living, exotic food and cultural elements, alternative lifestyles) (p.2). The amenity migration literature, strongly rooted in studies conducted predominantly in North America (Moss, 2006; Abrams et al., 2012), has focused on migrants who are moving from urban to rural areas primarily seeking natural amenities (McGranahan, 1999; Moss, 2006; Moss and Glorioso, 2014). That is, the amenity migrant is less concerned with “urban amenities” and lifestyle choices, but is particularly motivated by the natural environment

27

and associated experiences (e.g. outdoor recreation, leisure) found in natural amenity-rich rural areas (Beyers and Nelson, 2000; Buller and Hoggart, 1994; McGranahan, 1999; Moss, 2006). This literature has also paid attention to the migrant by characterizing him/her, finding that they do not belong to a homogenous group. There is significant variability with regards to their origins, length of stay, and their type of stay. In terms of their origin, amenity migrants can be domestic or international. The former group consists of individuals who seek rural natural amenity-rich areas as a new life destination within their own country. The latter, also known as transnational amenity migrants (the focus of this study), is represented by individuals, oftentimes from developed countries, who move to other countries (on many occasions underdeveloped ones) seeking proximity to natural amenities (Abrams et al., 2012; Moss, 2006). In terms of their length of stay, some migrants move to rural natural amenity-rich areas seasonally, as in the case of second homeowners (also known as seasonal, cottage, and occasional use residents; Marcouiller et al., 2013). This type of migrant maintains ownership of multiple dwellings and is highly mobile between residences (McIntyre et al., 2006; Marcouiller et al., 2013). Others migrate permanently, surrendering residence elsewhere. In contrast to seasonal residents, permanent migrants are less mobile and establish a new life in their new community. Finally, characterizations of migrants by type of stay clarify that some amenity migrants do not engage in any type of formal employment, as they have established ways of securing their income elsewhere (e.g., retirement funds, existing businesses). Other migrants, on the other hand, require a way to secure an income, resulting in remote employment using technology to work from afar, establishing businesses, or seeking jobs in their s et al., 2014; Van new rural natural amenity-rich community (Corte Noorloos, 2013). Along this line, the literature tends to focus on the entrepreneurial migrant, applauding the contribution that they bring to the economic and human “stock” of amenity-rich communities (Zebryte and Ruiz, 2014; Zunino et al., 2016; Zunino et al., 2014). Other studies have focused on contrasting migrants with the rural local population. Initial studies along this line compared the sociodemographic characteristics of these two groups, finding that migrants oftentimes display higher levels of income and education than their counterparts (Clendenning et al., 2005; Krannich et al., 2011; Moss and Glorioso, 2014; Schewe et al., 2012). Studies have also contrasted their cultural characteristics, reflected in different attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. These include religious and political beliefs; levels of attachment and involvement in local affairs; environmental attitudes and behaviors; and opinions regarding local development routes/strategies (Clendenning et al., 2005; Green et al., 1996; Jobes, 2000; Jones et al., 2003; Lynch, 2006; Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2006; Kondo et al., 2012; Jennings and Krannich, 2013; Matarrita-Cascante and Stocks, 2013; Van Noorloos, 2013). Studies contrasting migrants and rural residents have also examined the ways in which these two groups relate. Findings along this line of research are mixed, noting how members of both groups on instances clash, interact in mundane ways, or integrate (Graber, 1974; Smith and Krannich, 2000; Van Noorloos, 2013; Matarrita-Cascante and Stocks, 2013). Another broad research line studies how their amenity migrant presence in rural amenity-rich communities generates a large number of modifications to the rural social, economic, and physical landscape (Guimond and Simard, 2010; Abrams et al., 2012; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Moss and Glorioso, 2014; Schewe et al., 2012; s et al. (2014, p. 508) summarized some of Winkler, 2013). Corte the impacts of amenity migration, stating that this phenomenon has an effect on:

28

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

… employment activities (e.g., from extractive-based to serviceoriented); increased property values, taxes, and overall cost of living; higher demands for infrastructure, commercial activities, and public services; emerging gentrification; shifting levels of social capital, social interaction, community identity, and overall local governance; shifts in land ownership and conversion of uses; increased pollution and environmental degradation; increased rural land subdivision, cross-boundary ecological effects, and increased vulnerability to natural disasters resulting from building in risk-prone areas. Other studies note residential segregation, gentrification and displacement of local populations, symbolic appropriation, and conflict between foreigners and locals as impacts on communities (see Abrams et al., 2012; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011 for a more exhaustive reviews of these impacts). While a long list of impacts of this phenomenon exists, not all communities experience all of these and there are stark differences in the way communities are affected. Further, the literature falls short in examining ways in which communities can respond to the challenges posed by amenity migration. Thinking of communities as localities composed of multiple dimensions, some are overall less disturbed by amenity migration than others. The literature has not been clear in terms of what factors are key to defining more positive outcomes in these rural natural amenity-rich communities. This leads to the question, what community factors influence positive outcomes from the impacts of amenity migration? To respond to this question, this study compared two communities in Costa Rica that have experienced amenity migration. In one of the communities, Nuevo Arenal, residents self-report better conditions in their lives after the arrival of amenity migrants, while in Bahia Ballena reports indicate a more pessimistic scenario. These assessments were coherent with the researchers’ observations. Following the framework used to ground this study, the subsequent section provides a brief portrait of each of these communities in addition to an explanation of the methods used in this study.

3. Framework for analysis The limited resources and institutions that characterize rural communities, coupled with the significant problems faced by them (Beaulieu et al., 2003; Brown and Swanson, 2003; Jensen, 2006; Jensen et al., 2003; Donnermeyer, 2015), makes these localities particularly vulnerable to the impacts of amenity migration. Further, Matarrita-Cascante (2011) writing in the context of communities experiencing amenity migration noted that “altogether, changing circumstances resulting from accelerated social change alters the capacity of rural communities to organize and pursue collective efforts that seek to enhance local community development” (p. 54). Thus, this study is centered on the premise that rural communities require significant involvement of its population in order to solve the problems associated with amenity migration. This calls for a community development approach towards local action. Grounded on Matarrita-Cascante and Brennan (2012, p. 297) the definition of community development used here follows: Community development is a process that entails organization, facilitation, and action, which allows people to establish ways to create the community they want to live in. It is a process that provides vision, planning, direction, and coordinated action towards desired goals associated with the promotion of efforts aimed at improving the conditions in which local resources operate. As a result, community developers harness local

economic, human, and physical resources to secure daily requirements and respond to changing needs and conditions. The processes described above are instrumental for the design and establishment of strategies that could deal with the multiple problems known to accompany amenity migration. From a sociological perspective, this means that the members of a community would act upon a shared a vision of development. But such task can present significant challenges, as perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors regarding local development are known to be, oftentimes, different between locals and migrants (Fortmann and Kusel, 1990; Jones et al., 2003; Kondo et al., 2012; Van Noorloos, 2013). Critical for the reduction of these differences are the interactional processes that exist between residents (Wilkinson, 1991). Wilkinson's (1991) field theory emphasizes social interaction as a pervasive feature of community through which emotional and material needs are fulfilled. Social interaction includes actions that range from open communication, tolerance, and communion, to active and widespread participation (Wilkinson, 1991). According to Wilkinson (1991), the presence of these elements leads to improved community well-being through purposive action seeking the overall benefit of the community.

4. Methodology 4.1. Site selection The sites were chosen because these communities have been experiencing amenity migration for over two decades, but this phenomenon has resulted in contrasting outcomes. Nuevo Arenal, located in the Northwest of Costa Rica, was established in 1977 when the construction of the Arenal Hydroelectric Project relocated approximately 1500 individuals to its current location. After the relocation, the community struggled to find economic ventures to support their local economy. Following a government's aggressive promotion of tourism and international investment in the country during the early 1990s (Coffey, 1993; Colburn, 2006), the first migrants started arriving to Nuevo Arenal. These were retirees who helped spur a long awaited economic boost, as they purchased real estate, demanded goods and services, and hired locals for multiple types of jobs. The boom in the local economy continued parallel to the influx of foreigners. Between 2005 and 2010, the total population of Nuevo Arenal grew from 2025 to 2,183, reflecting an almost 8% increase, while the number of homes grew from 557 to 631 (CCSS , 2010). Bahia Ballena,1 a traditional fishing town, is located in the Southeast part of the country and is a gateway community to the Bahia Ballena National Park. This park, officially created in 1992, was established through an effort initiated by a group of organized residents who received institutional support from the government to manage it (DFOE, 2005). Due to legislative restrictions, by the late 1990s the government removed the management rights from the community and limited the engagement of fishing activities in the park, leading to tension and discontent among community members (DFOE, 2005). Given the fishing restrictions inside the park boundaries and the growth of tourism activities in the region, residents were “forced” to start relying on marine tourism for income generation. As this happened, the relatively recent pavement of the Interamerican Highway in the region increased the volume of

1 In this study, Bahia Ballena also includes the next-door community of Uvita. While these are two different communities, they are tied to each other geographically, economically, and socially. Thus, they will be treated as one in this study.

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

traffic, commerce, and overall accessibility to the community. As a result, the population and the number of houses in the Bahia Ballena and Uvita grew between 2000 and 2011 from 1990 to 3306 (66%) and from 718 to 1093 (52%), respectively (INEC, 2013). A portion of this population growth (11%, according to Meneses and Navarro, 2010) has been attributed to the presence of seasonal and permanent foreign migrants. Unlike in the case of Nuevo Arenal, many of these migrants are not retirees and remain active in the labor force. 4.2. Data collection Data used in this study were obtained in July 2010 from key informant (KI) interviews conducted with Costa Ricans (also known as Ticos) and migrants; participant observation; and secondary data. Tico residents asked to participate in the study were limited to those who have resided in the area for at least 10 years. Amenity migrants were defined for this study as any international migrant who had moved to Costa Rica permanently. Domestic migrants or international second homeowners were not included in the study. KIs were selected for their knowledge of and active involvement in the community, regardless of their place of employment or socioeconomic status. Following a snowball procedure (Bernard, 2006), a total of 30 interviews were conducted in Nuevo Arenal (15 migrants and 15 Ticos) and 36 in Bahia Ballena (24 Ticos and 12 amenity migrants). Interviews were stopped when the point of saturation, as defined Guest et al. (2006), was reached. The interview guide contained open-ended questions about respondents' perceptions of current local economic, social, and environmental conditions of the community; optimism about the future of the local economic, social, and environmental conditions of the community; roles played by both Costa Ricans and migrants in shaping local economic, social, and environmental conditions; perceptions about the ‘‘other’’ social group; interactions with the “other”; motives for migration (only for amenity migrants); satisfaction with and attachment to the community; and participation in local development community efforts. Participant observation included informal conversations with local residents; reviewing local bulletin boards, newsletters, and web-based social media; attending a local meeting (in Nuevo Arenal); and observing daily activities in town. In the case of Bahia Ballena, because of the low number of migrant participants in relation to the Ticos, a second visit to the community took place in December 2010 to engage in focus group discussions e one for each group of residents. A total of 10 Ticos and 8 amenity migrants participated in the focus groups, in which the PI provided a summary of the findings from the KI interviews conducted earlier in the year. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the findings and were encouraged to further any finding that they felt was incorrect or missing (i.e. source triangulation). 4.3. Data analysis Data were analyzed and interpreted following a qualitative content analysis methodology (Babbie, 2007; Rubin and Babbie, 1989). The data were analyzed following a three-stage process. First, data were described in a matrix (questions e columns, respondents e rows). In each cell, short themes describing each response by each study participant were included. Once all the interviews were included in the matrix, the data were reviewed for information that responded to the overall research question. When a cell provided information that could serve as a response to the research question, the respondent and question that formed the cell were noted and the recording on that question for that

29

respondent was re-listened. Trustworthiness and credibility were achieved through reflexivity and triangulation (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Reflexivity was achieved by incorporating more than one researcher in the study and by keeping a reflexive journal. Analyst triangulation was conducted by reporting and discussing findings between the main author and the other researchers familiar with the study communities once the KI interviews were described, analyzed, and interpreted (Flick, 2005; Wolcott, 1994). Additionally, source triangulation was achieved through the focus group process in the case of Bahia Ballena. Detailed discussion of the study methods can be found at (references removed to protect anonymity of the author). 5. Findings Data analysis suggested the following themes that help explain the contrasting outcomes in Nuevo Arenal and Bahia Ballena (see Table 1). 5.1. Attitudes toward change and migrants The first theme that emerged from the interviews and observations in relation to positive amenity migration outcomes revolved around the attitudes a community has in regards to change and its sources. These attitudes were found to be highly linked to the historical background of each community. In the case of Nuevo Arenal, this historical event was the relocation due to the construction of the Arenal dam. Respondents remember that, previous to the relocation, the community was economically prosperous. After the relocation, the community consistently failed to develop agriculture, since the land where the community was relocated proved to be useless for this purpose. Similarly, commercial activities did not lead to robust forms of income generation for its population. As a result, residents of Nuevo Arenal grew desperate to find ways to boost their economy. Respondents explained that in Nuevo Arenal, residents were “starving” for change, particularly one that would bring economic growth. Twenty years after the relocation, the first migrants started to arrive to the community, and by the 30-year mark, migrant presence was evident. With the migrants, new and diverse forms consumption began, including land, goods, and labor (e.g., hiring locals as construction workers, maids, and guards). Thus, in part as a result from the economic despair lived in Nuevo Arenal for many years, the economic boom brought by migrants was highly welcomed. The overarching sentiment of the community was that of openness to change and to its source: the migrants. In the case of Bahia Ballena, the loss of the management rights and access to fishing within the park generated a situation of economic despair as in Nuevo Arenal. However, given the specifics of this historical event, this situation generated a lot of tension among residents and left the community in a state of distrust. A government-led study noted that residents of Bahia Ballena felt “cheated … as the community had understood they would play an integral part in the management of the park” (DFOE, 2005, p. 5). As this happened, locals had to find ways to secure an income and “reinvent” themselves, which caused instability and fear. Thus, the overarching sentiment of the community was that of distrust and closeness to change. As migrants became an important source of change in the community, residents were relunctant to accept them. While this was not openly stated by the majority of the respondents from both groups, observations and informal conversations within town provided evidence this, reflected in the relationship that migrants and locals had developed (see relation section below).

30

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

Table 1 Summary of findings. Theme

Nuevo Arenal

Bahia Ballena

Overall Community Attitudes Towards Change and Migrants

- Relocation and failure of traditional economic activities - Need for economic boom - Open to change - Open to migrants - Retired - “Injector” e injecting dollars into the economy

- Loss of park control and access to traditional economic activities - Need for economic boom - Closed to change - Reluctant about migrants - Economically active - “Competitor”- Competing with locals over clients and commerce - Mundane and utilitarian - Cases of conflict and animosity - Locals highly involved - A small portion of migrants involved

Perceived migrants' Role in the Local Economy

Relation Between Locals and Migrants Involvement of Locals and Migrants in Local Development

-

Mundane and utilitarian Respectful relation between groups Locals highly involved A small portion of migrants involved

5.2. Perceived migrants’ role in the local economy The second theme that emerged related to positive outcomes following amenity migration was associated with the perceived role that migrants played in the community's local economy. In Nuevo Arenal, the migrant population consisted of mainly retired individuals who had generated their wealth abroad. Because of that, very few of them were establishing businesses that could potentially be seen as competing with the ones owned by locals. Actually, what most of the migrants in Nuevo Arenal were doing was injecting money into the local economy, through the purchase of land, hiring locals, and/or creating a demand of businesses in town. A retired expatriate talked about the way he spends money in the local economy: “I shop in town. We pay bills in town. We deal with our bank in town on a regular basis. We have a young guy that we hire to do our gardening”. Another migrant who started an animal clinic mentioned that she hired a local to be her gardener for five years. Thus, the migrants were seen as “injectors” of funds in the local economy of Nuevo Arenal, something that added to the positive attitudes that locals had of the migrants. In Bahia Ballena, locals were forced to establish new ways of securing a form of subsistence/income as a result of the parkrelated changes established by the government. Locals' response to this issue was to adapt their livelihoods to the engagement of marine tourism activities. However, the migrants who arrived in Bahia Ballena, many of whom were not retired and required a form of income, also engaged in developing tourism-related businesses. Ultimately, locals and migrants started competing over local resources that would produce income. As a result, feelings of competition were created. A Canadian migrant noted: “It's been really difficult to deal with these people. I tried to find ways to work with them to improve the tourism sector, but have only ran into frustration. They simply do not want to work with me”. Thus, as migrants were seen by locals as “competitors”, they were not perceived as desirable, which added to the reluctance to accept them in town. 5.3. Relation between locals and migrants A third and related theme to the previous ones revolved around the types of relationships that evolved between locals and the migrants. In both communities, respondents from both groups shed clear evidence that the relationship between those two groups was based on mundane and utilitarian reasons. Locals and migrants interacted in everyday activities that allowed commercial transactions to take place. In both communities, however, there was very little evidence of social integration between groups, except for a few exceptions where members of one group would develop stronger bonds and relationships with the other. A post officer

employee in Nuevo Arenal noted: Foreigners and locals don't mix. They go to different churches and bars. There is no animosity; everyone is courteous. They say hi in the streets and make small talk, but certainly the groups don't mix. A Costa Rican farmer in Bahia Ballena commented on this issue stating: The interaction with the migrants is poor; they greet us; however, they stay quite apart from us. There is no animosity, but certainly no friendship. Our observations supported these statements, but in Nuevo Arenal there was no evidence of animosity or conflict between groups. Both locals and migrants seemed to tolerate each other on consistent basis. As noted by a policeman of Nuevo Arenal: “We like them; most of them are good people.” In Bahia Ballena, on the other hand, while most respondents did not admit out front that they did not like each other, the nature of the responses and the interactions in town provided sufficient evidence to support the existence of sentiments of animosity between groups. Some of this animosity was expressed itself in subtle ways. For instance, an American migrant woman interviewed noted: “We don't mix with them because we don't have anything in common with them, we are just different in many levels, right?” On other instances, the evidence was more palpable, as in the case of several conflicts happening between members of each group. We learned of the case of several altercations between a Canadian female migrant who owned a diving company and the locals in Bahia Ballena. A Tico resident later commented “we kicked her out of here” referring to the situation in which the migrant had left (or was forced to leave) the community. While a more desirable scenario of social integration was not observed in either of the communities studied, the social dynamics in Nuevo Arenal proved to be less damaging than in the case of Bahia Ballena and led to no palpable conflict. The civilized and respectful relationship seen in Nuevo Arenal seemed adequate for the development of desirable living conditions. 5.4. Involvement of locals and migrants in local development Finally, a theme noted in the interviews and observations showed a positive experience stemming from amenity migration, namely the involvement in local development. In both communities, responses showed the existence of local development efforts. In both communities as well, locals were more involved in community development efforts when compared with migrants. The data showed that a large proportion of locals in Nuevo Arenal

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

were working diligently towards the solution of their problems. These included the Nuevo Arenal Community Development Association, the Rural Water Committee, school boards and committees, church committees, conservation oriented projects, and the local government. To a lesser extent, a small number of migrants also participated in local development efforts, including an animal clinic, teaching English to children, and school-improvement and conservation-oriented projects. As in the case of Nuevo Arenal, there were development efforts in Bahia Ballena from members of both groups, but were predominantly done by locals. Their efforts included the Association of Tour Operators, the Tourism Board of Costa Ballena, Tourism Board of Osa, the Bahia Ballena Development Association, the Cooperative of Agricultural Producers and Multiple Services of Uvita and the Association of Artisan Women. Migrant-led efforts included a turtle protection program and a reforestation program; an animal-related program named “Tripod Foundation,” which seeks to protect and rescue stray animals; and church and school-related projects. While independent efforts were being done in both communities to improve local conditions, it is important to note that there was overlap between the goals of many local migrant-led organizations. However, there was no evidence of organizations or efforts that clearly integrated members of both groups, except for very few exceptions. The Tico president of the Nuevo Arenal Community Development Association noted this problem: Our membership is open to everyone. We do not discriminate and our meetings are open to everyone. But as you can see, there is not a single foreigner in our group.

6. Discussion The study findings help us better understand factors occurring in the context of amenity migration that are associated with positive outcomes in rural communities experiencing this phenomenon. Differently from the majority of the literature, which tends to emphasize causes and consequences of the phenomenon, characterize the migrants (in multiple ways), or compare migrants to locals, this study focuses on the community and how it feels and acts in relation to the processes of change being experienced. These factors include the way residents feel about change and migrants, migrants’ perceived roles in the local economy, the relation between locals and migrants, and the existence of community development efforts e all of which, as showed by this study, are highly interrelated. While these factors take place in “the present time”, much of them are highly related to important historical situations that took place in the past. The context of “economic stagnation” found in both communities (one resulting from relocation and one resulting from the loss of traditional forms of subsistence), led to a search for ways to boost their economies. This quest for an economic booster played a part in terms of shaping the attitudes that locals have about change and migrants. However, and perhaps more importantly, the conditions that led to the economic boost in both communities were critical. In Nuevo Arenal, residents did not make claims that the relocation they experienced generated strong conflicts with the government or resulted in sentiments of distrust within the community. On the other hand, in Bahia Ballena the circumstances revolving around the management and access to the National Park were characterized by conflict and animosity. Ford et al. (2008), writing about resistance to change, note how situations of broken agreements and violations of trust happen “when there are changes in the distribution and allocation of resources, the processes and procedures by which reallocations are made, or

31

the ways in which people of greater authority interact with those of lesser authority” (p. 365) e as was the case in Bahia Ballena. The authors note that in situations where individuals experience betrayal and injustice, “they report resentment, a sense of being done to, and a desire for retribution” (p. 365) which leads to negative behaviors (Ford et al., 2008). As noted by Ford et al. (2008), these negative behaviors are not necessarily blatant, as individuals understand that interaction and cooperation are still needed for their own benefits. Thus, the importance of the historical events and the ways they shape the collective conscience of a community is critical for attitudes and behaviors regarding changing living conditions. Rainer (2016), studying amenity migration in Argentina, notes that in amenity-rich communities, historical events that are highly linked to the consumption/management of natural resources oftentimes lead to what he calls “historically inherited socio-ecological inequalities” between migrants and locals. Such inheritance has socio-psychological repercussions that leave locals feeling inept or unprepared to deal with change and threatened by migrants in the light of it. A recent study conducted in Chile by the author of this study, supports this same finding. In such community, residents' past associated with pseudo-slavery working conditions in the timber extraction industry, have led to highly negative stands against migrants and the change they bring. For the most, the amenity migration literature has not paid much attention to the historical past and its implication in regards to the attitudes communities experiencing amenity-driven change can develop. We believe this is an important consideration, as historical events and their effects on the collective mind of locals are important precursors of how well a community might deal with amenity migration and migrants. The positive outcomes in Nuevo Arenal were also fueled by the perception that migrants were not seen as “takers” of resources, but the opposite. As the majority of the migrants in Nuevo Arenal were retired and did not need to generate income within the community, they did not establish businesses in town that could be seen as competing with those of locals. In fact, these migrants “injected” money into the local economy. Conversely in Bahia Ballena, were the majority of migrants established businesses, they were perceived to compete with the ones of locals. Particularly problematic were those businesses that competed directly with those that were the major source of income for the case of the locals (e.g., marine tourism activities). This is another area in which the amenity migration literature has fallen short. While the literature tends to welcome the entrepreneurial mentality of migrants and their contribution to the human and economic capitals of their rural amenity-rich communities (Zebryte and Ruiz, 2014; Zunino et al., 2016; Zunino et al., 2014), not much has been studied about how locals feel about such contributions. In spite of the economic contributions of the businesses established by migrants, some communities might not perceive these as desirable. This is particularly the case if migrants' businesses are seen as a form of competition, as found in our study. Social exchange theory (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976), which has been used extensively in similar situations (e.g., residents’ attitudes towards tourism-driven change and tourists), is useful to help us understand this acceptance. As noted by the theory, humans engage in subjective cost-benefit analysis when evaluating their alternatives to forming relationships in the context of change. Upon realizing the benefits that a human relationship might have, individuals chose (or not) to engage in modes of exchange. As emphasized by Blau (1964) and in the case of Nuevo Arenal, Ticos accepted change and migrants given the economic and utilitarian benefits that stemmed from their presence in town. This parallels findings reported in the tourism literature, where studies have oftentimes noted how positive perceptions of tourism and tourists are related to the economic

32

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

dependency and benefits that an individual or community has or gains from the activity (Martin et al., 1998; Harrill, 2004). The relationship between locals and migrants e something we believe is highly interrelated with the attitudes towards change and migrants and their perceived roles in the economy, played a big role in the positive outcomes of amenity migration. This is an important connection that has not been explored directly in the amenity migration literature. While the social interaction and integration between migrants and locals has been examined (see Graber, 1974a,b; Smith and Krannich, 2000; Matarrita-Cascante and Stocks, 2013; Van Noorloos, 2013; Winkler et al., 2013), their relationship to the attitudes and behaviors regarding change have not been noted. The understanding of what causes migrants and locals to interact and integrate is a critical aspect to understand a community's development. Studies of changing rural communities (e.g., boomtowns, tourism-dependent, and amenity-rich communities) have emphasized the importance of the relationship between longterm residents and newcomers/visitors for positive development outcomes (Freudenburg and Frickel, 1994; Matarrita-Cascante, 2010; Ruiz-Ballesteros and Caceres-Feria, 2016). The knowledge, skills, resources, and connections of migrants can become important assets for the community (Matarrita-Cascante, 2011). As noted by van Noorloos (2013, p. 581), “… [some] migrants are used to having an influence and being heard and have the ability to do so”, suggesting the political power that migrants can bring to the table. This has been reported in transnational amenity migration studies, where oftentimes being a foreigner is associated with status and power (Benson, 2009; Fechter and Walsh, 2010). The final factor found in this study, the engagement of residents working for their own development, is a critical one in producing positive outcomes in the context of amenity migration. The economic growth, environmental sustainabilitity, and social/human development of small, remote, and economically and politically isolated rural towns (Wilkinson, 1991; Beaulieu et al., 2003; Brown and Swanson, 2003; Jensen, 2006; Bridger and Luloff, 2003) depends on bottom-up strategies in order to solve existing local problems (Chambers, 1983; Wilkinson, 1991). Particularly in the context of amenity migration, locally-led development is critical in order to address emerging issues associated with the social disparity and inequality that follows this phenomenon (Guimond and Simard, 2010; Glorioso, 2014; Hayes, 2015; Winkler, 2013; Lekies et al., 2015). The different studies conducted in this area have reported similar findings to ours: there is a sub-population within migrants and locals that actively participates in local development efforts, yet not commonly in integrated/collaborative ways. That is, migrants and locals do not work together in local development s et al., 2014; projects (Matarrita-Cascante and Stocks, 2013; Corte Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2015; and Winkler, 2013). These studies go further by suggesting that the lack of integrated community development efforts are primarily the result of socioeconomic and cultural differences between members of both groups which materialize in the form of different languages, worldviews, bes et al., 2014; Hayes, 2015; Matarritahaviors, and homophily (Corte Cascante and Stocks, 2013; Van Noorloos, 2013). This study adds to this understanding by noting the role that historical events play in defining the ways locals view change and migrants in addition to the role of migrants’ perceived roles in the local economy. These elements can lead to the creation of barriers that get in the way of social interaction and integration between groups and subsequently diminishes the formation of integrated community development initiatives. Altogether, the conditions noted in Nuevo Arenal were found to be critical for overall positive outcomes after the arrival of amenity migrants. The “positive disposition” towards change and migrants, an overall acceptance of their role in the economy, the overall

respectful relationship between migrants and locals, and the engagement in community development activities, altogether foster a positive field in which the community can work on. As noted by Wilkinson (1991), social interaction and integration are critical foundations for positive community development. This has been noted in several literatures on rural change (e.g., boomtowns, tourism). On the other hand, in the case of considerable differences between community members, social disruption, culture clashes, limited integration, and limited opportunities for joint participation, collaboration, and local development have been evidenced (Graber, 1974a,b; Freudenburg, 1986; Beyers and Nelson, 2000). Academics, development practitioners, and community leaders can use the study findings to promote a better understanding of a community's disposition towards amenity migration and subsequent change. Beyond the presence of migrants and how they affect the community, the understanding of how ready the locals are for them is important. Locals can be helped to acknowledge that processes of migration can hardly be stopped. However, they can be helped to understand that migrants can hold key assets that can foster economic and social developmental processes (Paniagua, 2002; Stone and Stubbs, 2007; Matarrita-Cascante, 2011). Migrants, on the other hand, can be helped to understand that locals' attitudes towards change are tied to historical events that have shaped the community's collective conscience. Further, it is important to help migrants realize that locals hold key indigenous knowledge and attachment to the community that can be critical when implementing joint community development efforts to help the community move forward (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974). Thus, working in collaborative ways, rather than retreating to individualistic or defensive positions, is the key to move the local community forward. The creation of shared identities and visions can subsequently lead to the establishment of joint development efforts. 7. Conclusions Positive local development in the context of accelerated social change, as in the case of amenity migration, requires an active engagement of local actors. This is particularly relevant in the context of rural areas with limited capacities and resources. This study sought to uncover, from a sociological perspective, factors critical for positive development of rural communities experiencing amenity migration. The study findings suggest that the way locals feel about development and migrants, how they interact with migrants, how migrants become a source or not of competition with locals, and the level of participation in local affairs are all critical for the establishment of more positive outcomes in these changing communities. While much of what define these positive outcomes is predisposed by past historical events in the community, many of these factors are malleable. Strategies can be designed to promote better understanding and relationships among members of each group. Leaders of each group can meet and define common grounds that can serve as bridges between groups. The reduction of barriers and the promotion of interaction and collaboration between groups can result in better and more efficient programs and efforts aimed at bettering the living conditions of communities facing challenges due to amenity migration. References Abrams, J., Gosnell, H., Gill, N., Klepeis, P., 2012. Re-creating the rural, reconstructing nature: an international literature review of the environmental implications of amenity migration. Conserv. Soc. 10 (3), 270e284. Babbie, E.R., 2007. The Practice of Social Research, eleventh ed. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34 Beale, C., 1975. The Revival of Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan America. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. Beaulieu, L.J., Israel, G.D., Wimberley, R., 2003. Promoting educational achievement: a partnership of families, schools, and communities. In: Brown, D.L., Swanson, L.E. (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 273e289. Benson, M., 2009. Migration and the search for a better way of life: a critical exploration of lifestyle migration. Sociol. Rev. 57 (4), 608e625. Bernard, H.R., 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 4th ed. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Beyers, W., Nelson, P., 2000. Contemporary development forces in the nonmetropolitan west: new insights from rapidly growing communities. J. Rural Stud. 16 (4), 459e474. Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York. Bridger, J.C., Luloff, A.E., 2003. Community change and community theory. In: Browen, D., Swanson, L. (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the 21st Century. Penn State Press, University Park, pp. 228e241. Brown, D.L., Swanson, L., 2003. Introduction: rural America enters the new millennium. In: Brown, D.L., Swanson, L.E. (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 1e18. Buller, H., Hoggart, K., 1994. The social integration of british homeowners into French rural communities. J. Rural Stud. 10 (2), 197e210. CCSS (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social), 2010. Socio-demographic Data for Years 2005 and 2010. Data provided to Main Author. July 2010. Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, London. Clendenning, G., Field, D.R., Kapp, K.J., 2005. A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes towards wildlife management on public lands. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 10 (1), 3e17. Coffey, B., 1993. Investment incentives as a means of encouraging tourism development. Case Costa Rica. Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 12 (1), 83e90. Colburn, F., 2006. Defending the market in Latin America: appreciating Costa Rica's success. J. Bus. Res. 59, 349e355. s, G., Matarrita-Cascante, D., Rodríguez, M., 2014. International amenity Corte migration: implications for integrated community development opportunities. Community Dev. 45 (5), 507e524.   n de Fiscalizacio n Operativa Evaluativa, Area DFOE (Divisio de Servicios Agropecuarios y de Medio Ambiente. (2005). Informe sobre los Resultados del Especial Efectuado en el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía sobre el ‘Co-manejo’ del Parque Nacional Marino Ballena. Informe No. DFOE-AM 38/2005. Retrieved March 8, 2013.http://www.environmentalauditing.org/Portals/0/AuditFiles/ COSTARICA_f_spanish_Co-Management%20of%20National%20Marine%20Park% 20Ballena.pdf. Donnermeyer, J., 2015. The social organisation of the rural and crime in the United States: conceptual considerations. J. Rural Stud. 39, 160e170. Emerson, R., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2, 335e362. Fechter, A.M., Walsh, K., 2010. Examining ‘expatriate’ continuities: postcolonial approaches to mobile professionals. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 36 (8), 1197e1210. Flick, U., 2005. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Glorioso, R., 2014. Planning for sustainable living in high amenity communities: Charting the course in an era of unprecedented climate change and uncertainty. In: Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy and Landscape. The New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC and Port Townsend, WA, pp. 407e425. Ford, J., Ford, L., D'Amelio, A., 2008. Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33 (2), 362e377. Fortmann, L., Kusel, J., 1990. New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism among new and long-standing residents. Rural. Sociol. 55 (2), 214e232. Freudenburg, W., 1986. The density of acquaintanceship: an overlooked variable in community research? Am. J. Sociol. 92 (1), 27e63. Freudenburg, W., Frickel, S., 1994. Digging deeper: mining-dependent regions in historical perspective. Rural. Sociol. 59 (2), 266e288. Gosnell, H., Abrams, J., 2011. Amenity migration: diverse conceptualization of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal 76 (4), 303e322. Graber, E., 1974. Newcomers and old-timers: growth and change in a mountain town. Rural. Sociol. 39 (4), 504e513. Green, G.P., Marcouiller, D.W., Deller, S.C., Erkkila, D., Sumathi, N.R., 1996. Local dependency, land use attitudes, and economic development: comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural. Sociol. 61 (3), 427e445. Guba, E., Lincoln, Y., 1989. Fourth Generation Valuation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Guest, G., Brunce, A., Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are Enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1), 59e82. Guimond, L., Simard, M., 2010. Gentrification and neo-rural populations in the bec countryside: representations of various actors. J. Rural Stud. 26 (4), que 449e464. Harrill, R., 2004. Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: a literature review with implications for tourism planning. J. Plan. Literature 18 (1), 1e16. Hawley, Amos, Mills, Sara, 1981. Nonmetropolitan America in Transition. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Hayes, M., 2015. ‘It is Hard Being the Different One all the Time’: Gringos and Racialized Identity in Lifestyle Migration to Ecuador. Ethn. Racial Stud. 38 (6), 943e958. Homans, G., 1958. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 63 (6), 597e606.

33

INEC (National Institute of Statistics and Census), 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Hogares. Retrieved October 14, from. http://www.inec.go.cr/Web/Home/ GeneradorPagina.aspx. Jennings, B., Krannich, R., 2013. A multidimensional exploration of the foundations of community attachment among seasonal and year-round residents. Rural. Sociol. 78 (4), 498e527. Jensen, L., 2006. New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects and Policies. Reports on Rural America. Carsey Institute, Durham, NH. Jensen, L., McLaughlin, D.K., Slack, T., 2003. Rural poverty: the persisting challenge. In: Brown, D.L., Swanson, L.E. (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 118e134. Jobes, P., 2000. Moving Nearer To Heaven: The Illusions And Disillusions Of Migrants To Scenic Rural Places. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. Jones, R.E., Fly, J.M., Talley, J., Cordell, H.K., 2003. Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism? Soc. Nat. Resour. 16 (3), 221e238. Kasarda, J.D., Janowitz, M., 1974. Community attachment in mass society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39 (3), 328e339. Kondo, M., Rivera, R., Rullman, S., 2012. Protecting the idyll but not the environment: second homes, amenity migration, and rural exclusion in Washington state. Landsc. Urban Plan. 106, 174e182. Krannich, R., Luloff, A.E., Field, D., 2011. In: People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas. Springer, New York, NY. Lekies, K., Matarrita-Cascante, D., Schewe, R., Winkler, R., 2015. Amenity Migration in the New Global Economy: Current Issues and Research Priorities. Soc. Nat. Resources 28 (10), 1144e1151. Lynch, M., 2006. Too much love?: the environmental and community impacts of amenity migrants on jackson hole, Wyoming. Cabi, Wallingford, UK. In: Moss, L. (Ed.), The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and Their Cultures, pp. 94e107. Marcouiller, D., Gartner, W., Chraca, A., 2013. Recreational Homes and Planning in Gateway Communities: A Literature Review. Working paper available at:http:// ncrcrd.msu.edu/uploads/files/Marcouiller%20Publication%20Document.pdf. Martin, B., McGuire, F., Allen, L., 1998. Retiree's attitudes toward tourism: implications for sustainable development. Tour. Anal. 3 (1), 43e51. Matarrita-Cascante, D., 2010. Beyond growth: reaching tourism-led development. Ann. Tour. Res. 37 (4), 1141e1163. Matarrita-Cascante, D., 2011. Accelerated social change: impacts on community development. In: Rothe, P., Carroll, L. (Eds.), Deliberations on Community Development: Balancing on the Edge. Nova Science, New York, pp. 49e60. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M., 2012. Conceptualizing community development in the 21st century. Community Dev. 43 (3), 293e305. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Luloff, A.E., Krannich, R., Field, D.R., 2006. Community participation in rapidly growing communities. Community Dev. 37 (4), 71e87. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Stocks, G., 2013. Amenity migration to the Global South: Implications for community development. Geoforum 49 (October), 91e102. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Sene-Harper, A., Stocks, G., 2015. Environmental views, behaviors, and influences of international amenity migration: the case of Nuevo arenal, Costa Rica. J. Rural Stud. 38, 1e11. McGranahan, D., 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. Agricultural Economic Report (781). USDA, Washington, DC. McIntyre, N., Williams, D., McHugh, K., 2006. Multiple Dwelling and Tourism, Negotiating Place, Home and Identity. Cabi, Oxfordshire, UK. Meneses, D., Navarro, C., 2010. Estudio Analítico de la Oferta y Demandas de Productos y Servicios Turísticos de Bahía Ballena [Analytical study of supply and : Informe demand of touristic products and services in Bahia Ballena] (San Jose Final de Consultoría AESCO). Mitchell, C., 2004. Making sense of counterurbanisation. J. Rural Stud. 20 (1), 15e34. Moss, L., 2006. The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures. Cabi. Oxfordshire. Moss, L., Glorioso, R., 2014. Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy, And Landscape. British Columbia. The New Ecology Press, Canada. Paniagua, A., 2002. Counterurbanisation and new social class in rural Spain: the environmental and rural dimension revisited. Scott. Geogr. J. 118 (1), 1e18. Rainer, G., 2016. Constructing globalized spaces of tourism and leisure: political ecologies of the salta wine route (nw e Argentina). J. Rural Stud. 43, 104e117. Rubin, A., Babbie, E., 1989. Research Methods for Social Workers. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Ruiz-Ballesteros, E., Caceres-Feria, R., 2016. Community-building and amenity migration in community-based tourism development. An approach from southwest Spain. Tour. Manag. 54, 513e523. Schewe, R., Field, D., Frosch, D., Clendenning, G., Jensen, D., 2012. Condos in the Woods: The Growth of Seasonal and Retirement Homes in Northern Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Smith, M., Krannich, R., 2000. Culture clash revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents' attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the rocky mountain west. Rural. Sociol. 65 (3), 396e421. Stone, I., Stubbs, C., 2007. Enterprising expatriates: lifestyle migration and entrepreneurship in rural southern europe. Entrepreneursh. Reg. Dev. 19 (5), 433e450. Tucker, J., 1976. Changing patterns of migration between metropvolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in the United States: recent evidence. Demography 13 (4), 435e443.

34

D. Matarrita-Cascante / Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 26e34

Van Noorloos, F., 2013. Residential tourism and multiple mobilities: local citizenship and community fragmentation in Costa Rica. Sustainability 5, 570e589. Wardwell, J., Brown, D., 1980. Population redistribution in the United States during the 1970's. In: Brown, D., Wardwell, J. (Eds.), New Directions in Urban-rural Migration. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 5e32. Wilkinson, K., 1991. The Community in Rural America. Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI. Winkler, R., 2013. Living on lakes segregated communities and inequality in a natural amenity destination. Sociol. Q. 54 (1), 105e129. Winkler, R., Schewe, R., Matarrita-Cascante, D., 2013. Lakes and community: the importance of natural landscapes in social science research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26 (2), 158e175. Wolcott, H., 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data, Description, Analysis, and Interpretation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

n Cultural y los Empresarios Turísticos en los Zebryte, I. & Ruiz, C. (2014). Innovacio  n y Puerto Varas, Norpatagonia ChiEspacios Binacionales: Los Casos de Puco n Turística Construyendo lena. VI Congreso Latinoamericano de Investigacio conocimiento en turismo: Diversas miradas sobre un campo complejo, Neun, 26 de Setiembre 2014. Electronic proceedings: http://www.fatuuncoma. que com.ar/congreso/clait2014/ini.html.  n, Zunino, H.M., Hidalgo, R., Zebryte, I., 2014. Utopian lifestyle migrants in puco Chile: innovating social life and challenging capitalism. In: Janoschka, M., Haas, H. (Eds.), Contested Spatialities, Lifestyle Migration and Residential Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. 96e107. Zunino, H., Espinoza, L., Vallejos-Romero, A., 2016. Los Migrantes por Estilo de Vida n en la Norpatagonia Chilena. Rev. Estud. como Agentes de Transformacio Sociales 55, 163e176.