Introduction

Constant human movement has led to the emergence of a new mobilities paradigm in the social sciences, involving contributions from anthropology, cultural studies, geography, science and technology studies, tourism and transportation studies, as well as sociology (^{Sheller & Urry, 2006}). This paradigm implies a broad theoretical project aimed at going beyond images of spaces as static and fixed geographical containers where social processes take place. It calls into question scalar logics, such as the usefulness of the local-global binomial for the description of regional extensions, and attempts to account for those concomitant patterns of concentration that create zones of connectivity, centrality, and even empowerment in some cases, and of disconnection and exclusion in others (^{Graham & Marvin, 2001}). Although a distinction is often made between spaces and those who inhabit them, the new mobility paradigm opposes this separation, rather positing the reality of a complex relationship of places and people connected through mutually influencing actions (Sheller & Urry, 2006).

Migration can occur individually or collectively, voluntarily or forcibly. Forced migration is one of the most studied types in recent decades, and involves a set of legal and/or political categories, such as refuge, asylum, forced internal displacement, development displacement, environmental and disaster displacement, human trafficking and smuggling (^{Castles, 2003}).

In contrast to the above, other types such as amenity migration, which allows individuals to make choices about their lives, evidence a conscious desire to migrate to other locations to pursue personal objectives and aspirations, unrelated to economic needs or forced reasons (for example, due to human conflicts or natural disasters). This type of migration is motivated by the desire and ability to seek specific living conditions found, in this case, in rural areas of large, mid-size, or metropolitan area cities (^{Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2015}; ^{Ruiz-Ballesteros & Cáceres-Feria, 2016}).

Amenity migration (^{Moss, 2006}) is the movement of people to areas, especially rural areas, with a notable natural environmental and landscape presence, chosen as permanent residential settlements due being deemed ideal places to live in. The movement of people to the countryside takes place under different signs: migration for services, second homes, or migration for amenities. Despite the different terms, the concept includes access to or ownership of a second home by people whose primary residence is outside the site of interest, that is, people are not actually tourists. Although tourism is considered to play a causal role in amenity migration, some studies suggest that amenity migration may occur quite independently of tourism (^{Chipeniuk, 2004}).

Given the above, the categories of migration and tourism are interrelated and overlapping. Tourists, motivated by the consumption of services, local products, landscapes, and experiences, arrive and reside in the territory for a limited time. However, the psychological and emotional attraction of rural amenities may contribute to the tourist’s aspiration for seasonal or permanent residence in such space (^{Rode, 2008}).

Amenity migration is a phenomenon is associated with the movement of upper-middle-income populations to rural or peri-urban areas. These areas offer goods and services such as electricity, aqueducts and sewage systems, road and telecommunications infrastructure, proximity to businesses, but also provide access to areas with natural resources such as water springs, natural environment, forests, pleasant climate, etc. The decision to move is not made from need, but rather seeking access to areas where health and education services are satisfactorily covered, where there are paved roads, and where there is access to recreation and leisure. The amenity migrant, unlike the tourist, does not seek exclusively the consumption of the rural landscape, but rather to settle and fulfill a life project in this new space (^{Gosnell & Abrams, 2011}; ^{McCarthy, 2008}).

The main motivations for amenity migration pertain people’s desire to live away from large urban centers and in close proximity to natural beauty, diverse rural life and ecosystems; migrants leave the hustle and bustle of the city in search for the simple life and culture found in rural locations (^{Beyers & Nelson, 2000}; ^{McGranahan, 1999}; ^{Shumway & Otterstrom, 2001}). At once, migrants raise the demand for cultural and artistic, and in some cases, employment options.

The profile of the migrant can be national or international; it also varies in terms of the length of their stay. Some migrants move to these areas on a temporary basis, while others migrate permanently. Temporary migrants have been the subject of considerable research, as they are considered a middle ground between those who visit rural areas (tourists) and those who stay (former urbanites or retirees) (^{Matarrita-Cascante & Stocks, 2013}).

Available literature on the topic is predominantly produced in North America and the United Kingdom (^{Abrams et al., 2012}; ^{Bertuglia et al., 2013}; ^{Moss, 2006}), and focuses on migrants moving from cities to rural areas, primarily seeking natural amenities. The American West is perhaps the most cited example of a region experiencing high rates of population growth related to amenity migration (^{Gosnell & Abrams, 2011}).

In recent years, several academics have begun to notice the rapid growth of a mobility pattern of affluent migrants from the United States and Canada to South America, not only to rural areas but also to Latin American cities. In these latitudes the boundaries between tourism and amenity migration are becoming increasingly blurred as, through different rental or ownership options, real estate investment has become the main economic driver. Since migrants from the United States and Canada are in a better financial situation than the host society, many Latin American countries not only welcome these migrants, but have also developed strategies to attract them in order to take advantage of their potential and foster local and regional economic growth (^{Rainer, 2019}).

The migrant shifts residence seeking a lifestyle with access to amenities at a lower cost, such as beaches, large properties, domestic services, and slower paced life in countries such as Argentina (^{Morales Gaitán & Rainer, 2013}; ^{González, 2011}; ^{Medina, 2017}; ^{Rainer & Malizia, 2015}; ^{Sánchez & González, 2011}; ^{Trivi, 2018}; ^{Merlos & Otero, 2013}), Mexico (^{Lorenzen, 2021}; ^{Sunil et al., 2007}), Costa Rica (^{Emard & Nelson, 2020}; ^{Janoschka, 2009}; ^{Matarrita-Cascante, 2017}; ^{Van Noorloos & Steel, 2016}; ^{Winkler & Matarrita-Cascante, 2020}), Ecuador (^{Gascón, 2016}; ^{Hayes, 2015a}, ^2015b; Van Noorloos & Steel, 2016), Panama (^{McWatters, 2008}; ^{Spalding, 2015}, ²⁰¹⁷), and Chile (^{Hidalgo & Zunino, 2011}, ²⁰¹²; ^{Marchant Santiago & Rojas, 2015}; Marchant Santiago & Aros Navarro, 2018; Marchant Santiago, 2017; ^{Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2017}; Otero et al., 2017; Sánchez & González, 2011; ^{Vergara et al., 2019}).

The aim of this article is analyzing the research produced on rural amenity migration in Latin America between 2011 and 2021 in order to clearly identify the countries, the characteristics of these migrants, and the trends in these studies. For this case, the rural areas are understood from the theoretical re-elaborations of new rurality addressing the postulates of classical theory, where rural space is not exclusively agricultural or extractivist (^{Baigorri, 2007}; ^{Kayser, 1996}; ^{Lefebvre, 1971}), but also includes a series of land uses such as residential, industrial, recreational, and ecological. The inclusion of uses other than agricultural ones and the increase in amenities has led many authors to rework an analysis focused on economic, cultural, and technological flows found in these places (^{Agudelo Patiño, 2012}; ^{Arango-Escobar, 2008}; ^{Ávila Sánchez, 2015}; Baigorri, 2007; ^{Barros, 2006}; ^{Bonilla Rodríguez, 2008}; ^{Cadavid Arboleda, 2009}; ^{Entrena Durán, 1998}, ²⁰¹²; ^{Llambí Insua & Pérez Correa, 2007}; Pérez Correa, 2004; ^{Pérez Correa et al., 2008}; ^{Perrier- Cornet, 2002}; ^{Pradilla, 2002}).

Methodology

The guiding question for the literature review we conducted was: What are the trends in research on amenity migration in rural Latin America? A qualitative documentary review was conducted to analyze the evidence and answer this question in a structured, explicit, and orderly manner, without statistical analysis (^{Montero & León, 2007}).

The search, selection, and review of the original articles was carried out in six databases- Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Redalyc, Scielo, and Dialnet-, which were favored due to them grouping a greater number of studies related to the social sciences at the international level and in the Spanish speaking Americas. The search terms and Boolean operators were in Spanish and English, so as to include articles from different academic contexts and cultures: amenity migration and rural, lifestyle migration and rural, migración por amenidades and rural, migración por estilo de vida and rural.

Our search was limited to studies carried out in the last ten years. The inclusion criteria were:

Procedure

The metadata was downloaded in Mendeley, and from there was reviewed for compliance with the evaluation criteria, first from the title and abstract, then based on the full text, identifying and eliminating duplicates. The research selection was limited to that related to the social sciences (Figure 1).

The following analytical categories emerged from the textual analysis: the conceptual terminology of amenity migration, the location of the studies, the migrant profile, and the theoretical and methodological approach of the studies. These categories were analyzed and detailed using ATLAS.ti software, 8.0 version.

Source: Own elaboration

Figure 1 Review Flowchart 

The boxes in Figure 1 represent each of the stages of the bibliographic search. The first shows that 1378 articles were found (by means of keywords and the Boolean and), of which 868 were discarded for being duplicates. We proceeded to read the titles, keywords, and abstracts, leaving us with 170 articles, of which 132 were discarded because they were outside the geographical area prioritized in our review, namely Latin America. According to this methodology, the process went from the general to the particular, finding a universe of 1 378 articles. Thanks to the use of programmatic language, it was possible to select 38 articles specialized in the topic of amenity migration through the use of keywords in quotation marks to adapt the bibliographic review to this language.

Results

Location of the studies

Our findings show that in recent years Latin America has seen an increase in migrant flows from the United States and Canada. Although available data does not suffice to specify the changing volume or geographic configuration of migrants, there has been a growth of retirees abroad that provides some indication of the increase in lifestyle-motivated movements (^{Emard & Nelson, 2020}).

On the other hand, the rise of destination and project-specific marketing is global in both outline and scope, attracting national and international migrants who search and compare the best relocation options. In a short time, these publications have created an advertising platform that has become a driver of lifestyle migration, and has channeled movements to certain destinations that are heavily promoted in Latin America (^{Rainer, 2019}).

In the last three decades, Latin American rural spaces have been the scene of profound changes due to the effects of globalization; new forms of transit and exchange of goods, people and ideas have impacted the dynamics and socioeconomic processes of these spaces (Rosas-Baños, 2013). A first manifestation of these transformations are the intense modifications of traditional rural economies, which have aimed at de-agrarization, and have evolved towards other productive activities (Camarero & Oliva 2016: 100). According to Berdegué et al.(2000: 2), in the early 1980s, non-agricultural rural income was 25% to 30% of total rural income, while in the second half of the 1990s this figure rose past 40% (^{Marchant Santiago & Aros Navarro, 2018}, p. 10).

In the studies reviewed, transnational migrations that involve displacements from large cities to less dense localities in search of better professional and family opportunities, prevail to a greater extent (^{Otero et al., 2017}). At the time of writing this the countries with a greater trend in amenity migration are Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Panama (Table 1).

Effects of amenity migration in latin america

Both socially and economically, the impacts of amenity migration are diverse. Our findings show more negative than positive aspects to it.

The benefits of services or lifestyle migration in Latin American destinations are very unevenly distributed among different social groups. While large landowners, along with national and international real estate developers, investors, and migrants are active agents and reap benefits, in many destinations the local population increasingly struggles with rapidly rising land and living costs. In this sense, migration builds on historically inherited unequal socio-spatial structures and at the same time deepens them (^{Rainer, 2019}).

The social inequalities at the base of amenity migration engender multiple repercussions. For example, the transition in labor trends has displaced extraction-or agriculture-focused jobs with service-oriented ones. Other effects include: increases in taxes, and in property and living costs; increased demand for infrastructure, commercial activities, and public services; emerging gentrification; changes in levels of social capital, land ownership, and land use conversion; increased levels of pollution and environmental degradation; displacement of local populations; considerable landscape modifications; and residential segregation (^{Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2015}; ^{Matarrita-Cascante & Stocks, 2013}).

Yet another recurrent repercussion of amenity migration revealed by studies is rural gentrification, which is linked to patterns of counter-urbanization, a phenomenon driven by increasing residential mobility due to the rural lifestyle preferences of highly educated, qualified, and wealthy migrants. Thus, counter-urbanization-as a type of services migration with global connotations-widely spreads through coastal and mountainous areas, and essentially any idyllic landscape (^{Rainer, 2019}; ^{Vergara et al., 2019}; ^{Yuan et al., 2021}).

In contrast to previous findings, for ^{Lorenzen (2021}) direct residential displacement is not one of the main impacts of rural gentrification. First, migration in rural settings is often the result of broader rural restructuring that precedes gentrification and is driven by a change in the profiles of previous residents. Nascent economic and employment opportunities linked to gentrification can help to slow rural migration, and long-time residents may benefit if they sell part of their property.

Socio-spatial segregation constitutes another negative effect of migration to Latin American destinations. Most global lifestyle migrants choose to live in gated communities or in homes surrounded by high fences that spatially separate them from other community residents. Spatial segregation is compounded by differences in language, socialization habits, and the hyper-mobility of lifestyle migrants who travel frequently to and from their country of origin. Thus, social segregation by these types of migrants and other residents often results in unequal participation in community decision-making processes (^{Emard & Nelson, 2020}).

The demand for low-skilled labor, socio-economic and socio-ecological inequalities can be counted among the impacts of amenity migration, both at the national and international level. The intensification of amenity migration and its collateral effects (a boom increase in land prices), as well as the lack of urban growth planning, benefit a few actors while at the same time increases the privatization of resources and socio-territorial fragmentation. In this context of inequalities, the struggles of social movements and indigenous communities for access to land and water gain strength (^{Marchant Santiago & Aros Navarro, 2018}; ^{Rainer & Malizia, 2015}; ^{Spalding, 2017}).

Emotional solidarity has been counted by ^{Matarrita-Cascante and Suess (2020}) as one positive impact on lifestyle migration. This notion describes the perception of a sense of cohesion and integration that develops between social groups as a result of shared actions, common beliefs, and interaction. Similarly, migrants can make an important economic, social, and cultural contribution to their new communities in the form of knowledge, environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors, participation, innovation, and entrepreneurship, all of which can stimulate community improvements (^{Matarrita-Cascante, 2017}). For his part, ^{Sánchez (2019}) rescues that the local community shows, in general, a positive attitude towards recreational tourism and amenity migration, but also recognizes that these processes can promote socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and social impacts that may lead people to question their matter-of-fact benefits.

Theoretical and methodological approach of the studies

There is a number of different theoretical approaches to amenity migration so far. One of these is that of otherness as a framework for analyzing migration, understood as an encounter of locals and migrants who interpret the context, the other, and themselves. This theory made it possible to analyze how locals and migrants develop processes of interaction and social cohesion, defining both the other and themselves. How the search for recognition reveals power struggles is underlined by their interactions, valuations, and knowledge about the other and themselves in a shared context (^{Matarrita-Cascante, 2017}).

Another theoretical position relates to an anti-colonial approach to amenity migration research. This approach critically addresses current studies by making important contributions toward the recognition of race, inequality, and power relations in lifestyle destination sites, yet still not fully identifies the impacts of migration, and its racial, colonial, and neocolonial histories and implications (^{Benson, 2013}; ^{Emard & Nelson, 2020}; ^{MacAdoo Espinoza et al., 2019}).

It is also important to highlight some themes similar or related to amenity migration studies, such as political ecology (^{Rainer, 2016}), pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (^{Matarrita- Cascante, 2017}), community field perspective (^{Matarrita-Cascante & Stocks, 2013}), motivations for change of residence (^{Kordel & Pohle, 2018}; ^{Marchant Santiago & Aros Navarro, 2018}; ^{Rainer & Malizia, 2015}; ^{Sánchez & González, 2011}; ^{Winkler & Matarrita-Cascante, 2020}).

When it comes to methodology, qualitative studies predominate in the research mentioned above, particularly developed from the ethnographic method. As a strategy, literature review, documentary analysis, and in-depth interviews with key informants have been conducted, with participant observation and focus groups. Although uncommon, some studies consulted censuses of localities as methodological strategies to analyze migration flows.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to analyze the research produced on rural amenity migration in Latin America between the years 2011 and 2021. Until recently, relatively little attention had been paid to lifestyle and amenity migration within the Americas, a flow that moves primarily north to south. However, as suggested by recent studies, migration of people from Canada and the United States to destinations in Latin America will increase considerably in the coming years (^{Hayes, 2015a}; ^{Rojas et al., 2014}).

For ^{McCarthy (2008}), some elements that have contributed to amenity migration are the mobility of elites, the rapid growth in the relative and absolute incomes of certain classes of urban professionals, the easing of restrictions on foreign ownership in many countries, the shortening of distance thanks to the evolution of transportation and communications technologies, and the increase in publicity for the sale of real estate in rural environments. All of these factors have served the reshaping of an increasingly globalized marketplace. The change in the anthropogenic landscape is one of the effects of the expansion of prominent settlements on the periphery of metropolitan areas and in rural regions with recreational and aesthetic attractions (^{Hammer et al., 2004}).

In some studies, the concepts of amenity migration, lifestyle migration, and economic migration are often used as synonyms. All three concepts have in common the change of residence, particularly to small cities, mid-size cities, or rural areas surrounding them, by migrants attracted by nature, by a better quality of life, or by economic interests (^{Emard & Nelson, 2020}).

The studies on this subject are mostly conducted in Latin America, specifically in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Panama. The main pulling factors in these areas in terms of landscapes are the Andes mountains, and in Central America, in the case of Panama, and Costa Rica, the coastal areas.

Studies on amenity migration initially focused on understanding its causes, finding that changing social conditions facilitate the movement of people to these communities. On the side of demand, changes in the conditions and value of the labor force, improvements in communication and transportation, and the adoption of ways of living related to leisure, tourism and quality of life, have influenced the lifestyles of people who choose to break away from traditional patterns of urban dwelling (^{Beyers & Nelson, 2000}; ^{Krannich & Petrzelka, 2004}).

One of the gaps in the research reviewed is that few studies address how migrants and local rural residents influence each other. How social relationships develop between new residents and local inhabitants is still not known (^{Matarrita-Cascante, 2017}; ^{Matarrita-Cascante & Stocks, 2013}; ^{Matarrita-Cascante & Suess, 2020}). Studies focusing on rural residents are also scarce (^{Vergara et al., 2019}). There are knowledge gaps regarding the profiles and motivations of national migrants who decide to opt for a second residence motivated by rurality.

The world events surrounding the emergence of COVID-19 impacted the social dynamics of both cities and the countryside. Confinement, fear of contagion, and repercussions on health status contributed to increased mobility from large metropolises to less populated or rural sectors, as stated by ^{Jiménez Avilés (2020}). Although the results do not allow us to visualize migration flows resulting from the effects of disasters or epidemics, particularly COVID-19 is an issue to be addressed in the near future, whose impact on the territories will become evident in the short and mid-term.

A major challenge in researching this migration flow is the lack of data sufficient to accurately assess its changing volume or geographic configuration. In some countries there are often no instruments that identify the income, ownership, or registration of incoming people; hence it is difficult to assess what percentage move primarily for leisure rather than labor reasons, or how many are naturalized citizens or migrants not motivated by a recreational lifestyle. However, there are several indications, both quantitative and qualitative, that point to its growing importance, hence the challenge for researchers to delve deeper into this topic.

Closing remarks

Amenity migration is likely to continue to increase due to the retirement of the baby boomer generation, as well as to the cultural and technological changes brought about by globalization (^{Hayes, 2015a}), and to the effects of the pandemic. Therefore, amenity studies are timely and important in understanding contemporary geographic mobility patterns and can provide a theoretically inclusive understanding of both migrants and community members at the destinations.

Translation: Fernando Llamas.