Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

Urban-to-rural seems a trend in the pandemic. However, it is questionable that the rural will really benefit: the diagnosis seems premature and it does not consider the increasing asymmetry of the urban-rural relationship. Deeper societal transformations are needed to break with this asymmetry.

Paper long abstract:

For a long time, “depopulation” dominated mountain research. Meanwhile, urban-to-rural migration has become the dominant discourse. It is conducted under different labels (multilocality, amenity migration, lifestyle mobility) based on phenomena such as second homes, co-working spaces or the return in old age. With the pandemic, we see a certain euphoria to be a trend reversal of metropolisation. Indeed, we have examples of a more intensive use of mountain areas to avoid the risks of urban density (Alpine Arc, Taurus Range) with simultaneous population decline in large cities (diminishing school enrollment in Paris, Lyon, Marseille). However, the euphoria about a " revaluation " of rural areas seems to be premature. On the one hand, figures from New York already show that the exodus is likely to be temporary; in large cities real estate prices continue to rise sharply. On the other hand, the question arises whether the new interest is really a revaluation of the rural.

This paper confirms the thesis that current upgrading efforts of so-called rural areas are again drivers of commodification of social practices in peripheral regions (urbanization). A real countertrend in the interest of transformative social innovation would only be possible if the new interest in mountain areas is not be exhausted in the expansion of double residences, but if peripheral areas would regain parts of their lost productive capacity. This seems possible if new forms of cooperation, institutions and work models are developed.

Key words: commodification, multilocality, urban-to-rural migrations, transformative social innovation, productive mountains