Space, Territory, and Migrations

In current studies on urban migration, space is understood in terms of its contingent and historical nature, and is constructed based on the social interactions and cultural meanings that inhabitants mobilize, and that at the same time determine spatial limits (^{Bonhomme, 2021}; ^{Imilán et al., 2014}; ^{Magliano & Perissinotti, 2020}; ^{Sheehan, 2020}; ^{Simsek-Çaglar & Glick Schiller, 2018}). After ^{Lefebvre (2013}), the production of space constitutes a relevant category for analyzing the forms of historical creation of social space, as it assumes space to be socially constructed according to the particular dialectical relationship-proper to each society-between spatial practices, representations of space, and spaces of representation.

Based on this conception, ^{Haesbaert (2011}) defines territory as the spatial dimension of power relations; that is to say, as relations of (material) domination and (symbolic) appropriation of space; this implies the coexistence and juxtaposition of multiple territories, giving rise to diverse experiences of space and, consequently, to different processes of reterritorialization. The simultaneous and/or successive experience of these territories is what Haesbaert (2011) terms multiterritoriality, in the current era involving more complex and rhizomatic forms of reterritorialization, due to the existence of discontinuous and fragmented spaces (network-territories) that can be accessed virtually.

Although access to multi-territorial resource is restricted for a large part of the subaltern sectors, the breadth and flexibility of the network-territories experienced by migrant populations gives them greater possibility of constructing multiterritoriality, especially so symbolically, as this sphere includes processes of remembrance and commemoration that, by being contained in memory, generate new (multi)territorial identities (^{Haesbaert, 2011}). The above within the framework of a set of (material and immaterial) human flows taking place in a multipolarized relational space; that is, a complex dynamic of spatial configurations that involves the interdependence of distant places (of origin and destination), termed by ^{Cortés (2010}) as migrant circulations.

One way or another, there is a type of space in which subjects would not generate territoriality. Marc ^{Augé (2017}) introduced the idea of non-place to refer to places where individuals transit and whose devices favor an accelerated circulation of people. In contrast to the anthropological place-of an identifying, relational, and historical nature-nonplaces affirm the provisional, the ephemeral, and the uprooted, assuming a rupture between the subject and the space occupied or transited by, which prevents the former from recognizing and reencountering the sites he or she travels through, reinforcing his or her anonymity. Even if places and non-places “are palimpsests where the intricate play of identity and relation is endlessly reinscribed” (Augé, 2017, p. 84)-that is, they interpenetrate and intertwine and, therefore, never exist in pure form-, their coexistence makes visible the limitations faced by subjects who activate processes of reterritorialization.

Use, Appropriation of, and Participation in Public Space

Beyond the abstract notion of space, the concrete relationship of subjects with the territory is understood on the basis of the concept of public space. Conceived in opposition to private space, public space stands for the set of places openly accessible to people, especially in urban environments, wherein the right to free transit exists and constitutes a platform for the creation of a collective identity (^{Alguacil, 2008}). Likewise, public space comprises a set of interrelated dimensions that include, in addition to the physical-territorial and legal-political one, also the economic, social-related to collective use-, symbolic-cultural-linked to meanings and identity-, virtual, and mobility dimensions, all directly related to the dynamics of appropriation developed by the individual (^{Garriz & Schroeder, 2014}).

Understanding the appropriation of public space as the use of said space extended over time, ^{Vidal Moranta & Pol Urrutia (2005}) have identified two ways in which this takes place: the action of transformation, related to the practice of territoriality and personal space; and symbolic identification, linked to affective, cognitive, and interactive processes. In this sense, appropriation constitutes a dialectical process of interrelation between people and spaces-from the individual to the social level-which implies the construction of a symbolic place that may allow for the shaping of identity, the development of (affective) attachment, and the bonding with the inhabited site. Analogous to ^{Haesbaert’s (2011}) notion of territorialization, under the modality of space appropriation, the approach of Vidal Moranta & Pol Urrutia (2005) assumes that this comprises a symbolic and a material dimension, both related to the meaning assigned to public space and its use, respectively.

From the point of view of the agency of individuals, the idea of public space appropriation can be associated with that of participation: if the use of such space implies an occasional or episodic participation in activities that take place in the city, appropriation would imply a rather regular and systematic one. Hence the idea that this process is consubstantial to the public sphere, to the strengthening of the social fabric, and to the construction of citizenship (^{Vidal Moranta & Pol Urrutia, 2005}). Indeed, it has been argued that participatory urban practices-as opposed to individualistic or collective hindering logics-constitute mechanisms for the appropriation of public space, that in turn contribute to the reconstruction of urban democracy, based on participation as a right and necessity, which would allow for the recovery of public space as a political space for collective construction (^{Alguacil, 2008}).

Habitability, Residential Segregation, and Migrant Housing

In terms of well-being and quality of life, the link between individuals and urban space has been addressed through the idea of habitability, which refers to both the environment and the housing unit. Alicia ^{Ziccardi (2015}) distinguishes internal habitability, referring to the quality of housing-which includes materiality, size, and access to services-, from external habitability, referring to the neighborhood. Both are closely related to the subjective dimension, which accounts for the satisfaction of needs and people’s liking or taste, both in relation to housing and to rootedness, as well as to the services and networks provided by the environment.

In Latin America, barriers to basic habitability have made of slums a plausible solution for accessing land and housing, resulting in precarious forms of habitability that are generally to be found in the peripheries of cities (^{Salas, 2007}). Linked to this reality is the notion of slumization, which refers to the serious deterioration in housing conditions, especially that of houses in the central and pericentral areas of cities, making them an alternative for access to the land market (^{Contreras et al., 2015}). Indeed, one of the main problems produced by urban land rent is precisely housing segregation, that is, the unequal distribution of social groups along urban space, which arises from certain power relations, determined in this case by restrictions imposed on the part of those who control the land market (^{Rodríguez, 2014}).

In this context, the combination of restrictions on access to urban land and ethnic discrimination makes it possible to understand the particularities of migrant housing. According to ^{Martínez (1999}), the real estate market’s use of such discrimination strengthens access barriers for the foreign population, and forces them to live under miserable living conditions, overcrowding, high prices, invisibility, and spatial segregation, reinforcing their social stigmatization. In the central or pericentral areas of cities, migrants tend to be located in transitional areas or housing, old rooms with precarious habitability conditions that constitute a real risk factor for their socio-spatial integration (Martínez, 1999), even though it has been observed that, in some Spanish cities, the migrant population has ample access to basic services (^{Guizardi, 2013}). For their part, there are also some who opt for urban informality, and tend to concentrate in emerging precarious habitats or peripheral slums that, in turn, reinforce stigmatizing imaginaries (^{Marcos & Mera, 2018}).

All these problems have motivated the study of the specificity of migrant residential segregation, for which spatial statistical indicators have been used so as to recognize the different residential distributions according to national groups (^{Martori et al., 2006}). In any case, these forms of segregation have also been understood as a subaltern urbanism that emphasizes the agency capacity of migrants in the social production of habitat (^{Magliano & Perissinotti, 2020}).

State of the Art: the Case of Chile

The spatial dimension of migration in the context of intermediate cities in central and southern Chile has been addressed from two studies: one conducted in Talca, an intermediate agrarian city perceived by the migrant population as quiet and with a population that is somewhat cautious of non-locals (^{Micheletti, 2016}); and another in Punta Arenas, which describes a migrant residential spatialization distributed in different scattered neighborhoods not depending on the consolidation of migration projects (^{Margarit et al., 2019}).

More detailed studies on the subject have been carried out in the capital and in the north of the country. These show that, unlike the low residential segregation of this group at the beginning of the millennium caused by the scarce foreign presence (^{Schiappacasse, 2008}), the migrant population now tends to concentrate in central and pericentral urban areas, where there is a residential park of slum housing, which lacks basic conditions of habitability and wherein foreigners generally live in overcrowded conditions (^{Bonhomme, 2021}; ^{Contreras et al, 2015}; ^{Contreras & Palma, 2015}; ^{Margarit & Bijit, 2014}; ^{Razmilic, 2019}; ^{Sheehan, 2020}). This slumization is a product of landlords’ negligence, given the absence of regulations, which, jointly with their prejudices, favors the formation of a segregationist, informal, illegal, and racist market for access to housing (Bonhomme, 2021; ^{Contreras et al., 2015}; ^{Contreras & Palma, 2015}). It is in this framework that migrant populations have developed strategies associated with subletting and informality, generally relying on networks of fellow countrymen, which allows them to create their own forms of popular habitational spaces (^{Contreras et al., 2015}; ^{Contreras & Palma, 2015}).

Much more developed works have addressed the relationship of the migrant with urban space. Focused on symbolic construction, these studies associate socio-spatial interactions with the shaping of identities, the meanings of places, and the practices of space appropriation (^{Garcés, 2015}; ^{Márquez, 2013}; ^{Stefoni, 2015}). Here, the case of the Peruvian community in downtown Santiago has been paradigmatic (^{Ducci & Rojas, 2010}; Garcés, 2015; Lube & Garcés, 2014; Stefoni, 2013, 2015). In this context, Márquez (2013) has made use of the concept of translocal inhabiting to designate the simultaneous capacity of individuals to territorialize memory landscapes and deterritorialize roots, and the idea of mobile and translocal sovereignties-highlighting the role of the experience of inhabiting places of origin-to refer to the tactics and strategies of territorial appropriation (reterritorialization). Likewise, it has been argued that migrant processes of rootedness/uprooting are crossed by the links with places of origin and the persistence of migration projects (^{Gissi, 2017}).

Research on how migrants develop ties to space has also evidenced the competition and conflict between local and foreign populations, an issue that triggers strategies of resistance and self- affirmation in the latter, expressed through practices of public space appropriation that enrich and destabilize urban spaces (^{Bonhomme, 2021}; ^{Garcés, 2015}; ^{Margarit & Bijit, 2014}; ^{Márquez, 2013}; ^{Stefoni, 2013}, 2015). However, adaptation to local customs and practices (assimilation) also emerges as a strategy, including migrants distancing themselves from the migrant collectivity or, on the contrary, taking refuge in their own communities of reference indoors, and disengaging from public space, which implies the construction of a sense of belonging from the private sphere (^{Burón & Díaz, 2019}; ^{Rihm & Sharim, 2019}), understood as minimal or intimate communities (^{Gissi, 2017}).

Research Approach

With the aim of coming to a general description and seeking reproducible analyses, the methodological preference of our study followed the quantitative approach and a non-experimental design of an exploratory-descriptive nature. The research was executed in the city of Temuco, and the collection of information for the survey was carried out through the application of a questionnaire during the period from October 2019 to March 2020.

Within the framework of a non-probabilistic convenience sampling, 200 people from countries such as Argentina (6%), Bolivia (3%), Brazil (2%), Colombia (17%), Cuba (3%), Dominican Republic

(3%), Ecuador (6%), Haiti (7%), Peru (11%), and Venezuela (40%), among others (2%),⁵ participated in the study.

The questionnaire was designed by social science professionals, and consisted of 83 dichotomous, polytomous, Likert scale, and short open-ended preference questions. The preliminary instrument was tested on a sample of twenty individuals from the study population, and subsequently the questionnaire was applied in both Spanish and Kreyòl languages.

As for the application of the instrument and the analysis of information, a three-step strategy was implemented. First, a group of local interviewers was trained, emphasizing the intercultural link with the subjects of the study implied by the application of the questionnaire. Secondly, key informants associated with two migrant assistance foundations were contacted, these foundations becoming fundamental spaces for collecting information, combined with the application of the questionnaire in central public spaces in the city with a high flow of people. Finally, a descriptive and comparative analysis was carried out using SPSS version 24.

Study Participants

The criteria for choosing the research sample were the following:

In sociodemographic terms, the sample (n=200) was made up of 114 men (57%) and 86 women (43%); the age range was between 18 and 58, with an average of 34 years; of the total number of interviewees, only 5% stated that they belonged to an indigenous people. In relation to marital status, most of the sample stated that they were “single” (69%), followed by the alternatives “married” (27%), “widowed” (2%), and “divorced” (2%).

As for the monthly net salary (in Chilean pesos),⁷ the option “150 000 or less” corresponded to 10% of the sample; “150 001 to 250 000” corresponded 19%; “250 001 to 500 000” reached 61% of the

total; “500 001 to 750 000” had 7%; and “750 001 or more”, 3% of the responses. Regarding the highest educational level attained, 2% stated having “incomplete grade school”; 5% mentioned “grade school”; 14% corresponded to “incomplete high-school”; 42% stated “high-school”; 12% responded “incomplete college”; and 25% said they had a “college degree.”

Data Collection and Production

The research instrument was built around two dimensions of analysis with the objective of delving deeper into aspects that have been scarcely studied in the region before. The data obtained made it possible to characterize features related to the modes and conditions of habitability and living of migrants, relating them to sociodemographic attributes of the study sample. Thus, the operational definition of the two dimensions of analysis is as follows:

Ethical Aspects

One of the main premises of this research was to safeguard the integrity and anonymity of the participants, for which several instances were generated to explain the objectives of the project. First, the key informants and migrant participants were informed in writing about the purpose of the study, the modalities of data collection, and the instructions for answering the questionnaire were explained in detail. Secondly, it was made clear that the confidentiality of the data collected would be safeguarded by the research team. Thirdly, it was put forward that the data would not be used to harm the integrity of the participants or for purposes unrelated to the research. All participants agreed to participate after signing an informed consent form.

Habitability Conditions

When it comes to the first dimension of the study, structural aspects of the housing in which the participants live were accounted for in relation to economic and socio-spatial variables, emphasizing the mode of access to housing, the perception of its state of conservation, the size of the housing unit, and the basic services available.

As for the mode of access, out of the total number of respondents, 60% rent under a contract, 31% do so without a contract, 4% are owners, and the remaining 5% live in a housing unit rented by a third party. Considering that 9 out of 10 participants rent the housing they live in, one third of the sample does so informally.

Source: Own elaboration

Graph 3 Perception of the State of Conservation of Housing by Macro-Sector of Residence 

Graph 3 allows us to analyze the generic level of perception of the state of conservation of the housing unit, according to the macro-sector of residence. In general terms, there is a positive opinion about the conservation of the residence, which is demonstrated by the option “good”, an alternative considered by most of the participants living in the Pedro de Valdivia (58%), Centro (42%), and Amanecer (42%) macro-sectors, while most participants opted for “fair” in Pueblo Nuevo (47%) and Costanera (40%). Only in the Poniente macro-sector is the alternative “good” (29 %) lower than “fair” (50 %), although it should be noted that the latter option exceeds 25% in all macro-sectors.

Looking at the extremes of options, it is noteworthy that more than 20% of the sample in the Centro, Amanecer, and Poniente macro-sectors selected the “very good” option, while the “bad” and “very bad” options do not exceed two digits in any of them. If we consider, however, the cumulative frequencies of the “very bad”, “bad” and “fair” values, together they exceed the grouping of “good” and “very good” in Costanera (56%) and Pueblo Nuevo (54%), precisely the macro-sectors where the “very bad” option is most significant.

There are multiple factors that would influence the positive evaluation of the state of conservation of the housing unit, among them, the size of the place, the nationality of the participants, the length of their stay, the number of people sharing the housing unit, or the neighborhood where it is located. However, it is presumed that the most significant factor would be the previous housing conditions, either in the country of origin or elsewhere in their migration path, since it is estimated that the subjects carried out a comparative work when evaluating the state of conservation of their current houses, which can be understood in the framework of translocal inhabiting (^{Márquez, 2013}).

On the other hand, regarding the availability of basic services, the vast majority of the sample reported having electricity (100%), drinking water (97%), sewerage (96%), and hot water (85%). These data may be associated with the fact that all participants reside in urban areas, where there is ample coverage of these services (^{Guizardi, 2013}). However, the availability of Internet is not as prevalent, as 42% of the total reported not having it in their housing units, while the lack of heating systems in their homes-essential for Temuco’s winter conditions-reaches 26% of the participants.

Source: Own elaboration.

Graph 4 Number of Persons in Relation to Housing Surface (m2) 

In terms of the number of people living in the housing unit in relation to its surface area, Graph 4 shows a greater demand for places between 36 and 50 m2, where single-person households concentrate the greatest number of preferences, 57% of the total. For two-person households, 51% live in a housing unit of this size; for households with five or six persons, 50% live in this type of housing; for groups of three to four persons, 28%; and for households with seven or more persons, 22%. Likewise, as the size of the housing unit increases, the number of migrant individuals who opt for them decreases.

For the largest households, it was observed that those housing seven or more persons are distributed very similarly among all ranges of total housing area, the fact that 58% of them inhabit housing units of less than 70 m2 being very telling. It is likewise quite telling that 60% of places housing five or six persons are no larger than 50 m2. While it is true that the percentage of housing units with more than five persons reaches 25.9% of the sample, it could be inferred from the data that overcrowding represents a real problem for a large number of migrants.

Use of Public Space

To address this dimension of the study, the relationship of the migrant population with public space was accounted for based on three variables: perception of neighborhood habitability conditions, frequency of use of public spaces, and participation in community activities.

In relation to the perception of space (Table 1), the data show a rather positive view of the neighborhoods, since less than a quarter of the participants visualize usual or permanent territorial problems, having recorded low rates of perception of insecurity and even lower rates of pollution. In seven of the ten indicators, more than two thirds of the sample stated having “never” or “almost never” witnessed situations that affect the habitability of the neighborhood. It stands out that 90% of the respondents have never perceived water pollution.

However, the other three indicators show a certain negative perception of the neighborhood environment: “air pollution”, “garbage accumulation” and “alcohol and drug consumption on public streets.” Although none of them exceed 45% of the at least occasional observations, they still make it possible for us to identify the neighborhood problems noticed by the study participants.

When it comes to the places in the immediate environment that the participants frequent, Table 2 shows the main spaces of social use in the sectors studied. Based on a five-category Likert scale, the use of different public places in the neighborhood was evaluated.

The results show rather negative indicators regarding activities involving the use of squares, sports facilities, social centers, educational establishments, and health centers. Regarding these squares and neighborhood parks, it becomes evident that about one third (30%) “strongly disagree” in using them. When it comes to sports courts and facilities, the number of those who do not use them reaches almost half of the total sample (48%). As for activities carried out in the social center of the neighborhood of residence, 67% “strongly disagree” with having actively partaken of them. A final critical area of use is the attendance of family members at educational centers in the neighborhood of residence, where 75% of the total said they “strongly disagree” with the formulation.

In relation to positive indicators, only one axis is identified, the one pertaining the regular use of neighborhood shopping centers and supermarkets, a statement with which 42% “strongly agree.” Finally, for the statement referring to health centers, there is a similar level among the five options, although the figure increases for the “strongly disagree” one, 32% having chosen it.

The data in this table allows us to establish, among other things, a relationship with the quality of the services available in the surrounding areas, particularly in terms of health and education, since in many cases migrants choose to move to other areas of the city to meet these needs, as what they currently can access does not meet their individual and/or family requirements, or due to an over- demand that implies delays in the provision of care.

Concerning the activities carried out in public spaces (Table 3), it is evident that the vast majority of those surveyed stated that they do not take part in any of them. Even among those that involve greater participation, practically two thirds of the subjects of the study stated never doing so. We found of particular significance those indicators that relate to trade union and political activities, in which 90% of the sample stated to have never participated, similar as those referring to activities for the elderly (88%), and for children and teenagers (77%). In these last two cases, however, the alternative “never” is linked to the low presence of older adults and children in the family nuclei of the subjects.

On the other hand, when observing the responses of those who stated to indeed participate in public activities, 28% of the sample stated that they do so at least occasionally in sports activities (with 10% frequent participation), and 27% in religious activities (11% frequent participation), which are the ones that most attract the migrants in our study. In the case of activities organized by migrant associations, 21% participate at least occasionally, which contrasts with 66% of individuals who report never doing so.

Perception, Use of Public Space, and Community Participation

In relation to the dimension of public space, the study showed that the participants have a generalized positive perception of the neighborhoods in which they live, which could have some common ground with the tranquility that migrants perceive of the city of Talca (^{Micheletti, 2016}), although also, in this case, their positive perception can be associated with translocal representations of the territory (^{Márquez, 2013}). In any case, a part of the participants identified some specific manifestations of environmental degradation (alcohol and drug consumption, and garbage accumulation), which would account for certain deficiencies in community habitability, particularly so in the macro-sectors with greater deficits in housing conditions, showing that habitability implies the relationship between housing unit and urban environment (^{Ziccardi, 2015}).

With respect to the use of public space, although the subjects acknowledge a generally fairly low use of it, the indicators for the use of health centers are slightly higher, which could constitute a first clue as to their territorial relevance for the social and institutional interaction of the migrant population. However, much more significant is the use of shopping centers and supermarkets, which are frequently visited by four out of five respondents. Evidently so, their use is utilitarian, but it is still symptomatic that it is precisely in this prototype of the non-place (^{Augé, 2017}) where individuals sustain a more permanent and systematic spatial link with the city. It is also indicative that this type of appropriation has more of an individual rather than collective character, a question that hints at a certain detachment towards public forms of sociability.

These linking practices of the migrant population with public space could partly explain their general positive perception of the environment, since the disengagement from urban spaces would imply a low knowledge of them and/or little interest in the events that take place therein. These socio- spatial dynamics contrast with the forms attributed to the appropriation of public space (^{Vidal Moranta & Pol Urrutia, 2005}), including both the practices and the meanings associated with places, which would show the processes of reterritorialization that, in one way or another, dispense with the territories that ^{Haesbaert (2011}) considers more traditional and that would eventually be activated in network- territories.

This panorama is not very different when it comes to migrant participation in public activities, whose indicators are even lower. Only religious and sports activities show higher participation rates, which can be understood as the most accessible forms of social integration to the territory, linked to the most immediate sociability needs. However, both are among the activities that are furthest from the ideal of participation in public space as a place of political construction (^{Alguacil, 2008}). On the other hand, migrant activities, which theoretically imply a valuing of one’s own, show somewhat lower indicators. In this case, there is probably a certain tendency for individuals to dissociate themselves from migrant collectivities (^{Rihm & Sharim, 2019}), although the level of linkage of these associations with the neighborhoods should be explored in order to make more accurate considerations. Similarly, and in a more global sense, the analyses presented here cannot ignore the diversity of migrant individuals and the limited time spent in the territory they inhabit, factors that eventually hinder the formation of collective referents able to mobilize migrant individuals to seek instances of sociability in public spaces.

In general terms, the low level of use and appropriation of public space evidenced by this study should be understood as the manifestation of the specific forms of territorial integration developed by migrant strategies, which, jointly with the strategies of insertion in the land market, show the particularity of subaltern urbanism (^{Magliano & Perissinotti, 2020}) developed by foreign residents in Temuco. Likewise, these forms of appropriation of urban space must be weighed from two central elements: translocal inhabiting (^{Márquez, 2013}), that is, the sustaining of differentiated but articulated links between two (or more) different social spaces, and the temporalities of migrant circulations (^{Cortés, 2010}). This last idea acquires particular significance if it is taken into account that 62% of the research subjects have been living in the city for less than a year, and 84% for less than two years. Indeed, this variable would make it possible to understand, on the one hand, the incipient link with the urban public space and, on the other, the rather weak link with migrant collectivities-beyond sociability networks themselves-, individual relationships with the environment prevailing instead. In this sense, it does not seem appropriate to assume that this disengagement from public space necessarily implies assimilation, since, in addition to the persistence of transnational ties, the preponderance of private space would account for the relevance of minimal communities (^{Gissi, 2017}) for the formation of identity and sociability places that allow dispensing with collective links to public space (^{Rihm & Sharim, 2019}).