Neo-rural populations and their relations with local decision makers in rural Québec: collaboration or conflict?

GeoJournal June 2018, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp 613–629 | Cite as Authors Authors and affiliations Myriam SimardEmail authorLaurie GuimondJulie Vézina 1. 2. Article First Online: 24 June 2017 102 Downloads Abstract The socio-demographic recomposition of the countryside is affecting local interactions and power relations. Understanding these relationships remains a challenge, as the studies to date are often limited to conflicts between neo-rural populations (newcomers) and long-time country residents over partial issues, without including decision makers. To go beyond this conflictual and fragmentary perspective, the objective of this article is to present an overall picture of both cooperative and oppositional relations between four groups, namely, newcomers, long-time rural residents, leaders of local organizations and municipal officials, in regard to all the issues that concern them. The data are based on interviews with these various actors in two contrasting rural areas of Québec (Canada). After looking at the newcomers’ mixed assessment of their participation in community life, we concentrate on areas of collaboration and/or conflict between all the actors regarding demographic, economic, sociocultural, political, environmental and agricultural issues. Three main trends emerge, revealing unexpected ways of interacting, complex power relations and antagonistic conceptions of rural spaces and their future development. Keywords Neo-rural populations (newcomers) Long-time rural residents Local decision makers Collaboration Conflict Issues Power This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Notes Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture (FRQSC), the partnership Familles en mouvance et dynamiques intergénérationnelles, the Villes Régions Monde (VRM) network and the Centre de recherche sur les innovations sociales (CRISES) for their financial assistance. We extend a special thank you to Denise Lemieux for her contribution. Compliance with ethical standards Conflicts of interest The authors of this article confirm that there are no potential conflicts of interest. Ethical approval The research from which this article originates has been approved by the research ethics’ board of the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique. Human and Animal Rights This research was conducted accordingly to the regular ethical standards. All participants signed a consent form. Appendix See Table 3. Table 3 Selected characteristics of the population of Brome-Missisquoi and Arthabaska RCMs. Brome-Missisquoi RCM Arthabaska RCM Total population, 2016 58,314 72,014 Population change between 2011 and 2016 census (%) 4.8 4.0 Land area in square kilometers, 2016 1652.08 1890.18 Population density per square kilometer, 2016 35.3 38.1 Average age of the population (y.o), 2016 44.9 43.3 Distribution of the population by age groups (%), 2016 0–14 years 15.5 16.5 15–64 years 61.7 62.4 65 years and over 22.8 21.1 Highest level of schooling (%), 2011 No certificate, diploma or degree 17 20 Secondary education 24 20 Trade certificate 19 24 College 23 23 University 18 13 Employment rate (%), 2011 60.2 61.7 Unemployment rate (%), 2011 5.7 5.6 Active workers’ categories (%), 2011 Employee 82 86 Self-employed 18 12 Occupations (%), 2011 Sales and service occupations 21 22 Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations 15 17 Business, finance and administration occupations 13 13 Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities 10 11 Management occupations 13 11 Occupations unique to primary industry 4 4 Social science, education, government service and religion 11 10 Health occupations 7 6 Natural and applied sciences and related occupations 4 5 Art, culture, recreation and sport 3 2 Median total income of persons between 25 and 64 years of age ($CAN), 2015* 34,965 35,294 Median family income ($CAN), 2010 65 087 61,218 Foreign-born population (%), 2011 5 2 Average value of dwelling $CAN, 2016* 266,273 162,816 Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 and 2016 census * Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2015 and 2016 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. Conservation and Society, 10(3), 270–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bonerandi, E., & Hochedez, C. (2007). Des machines, des vaches et des hommes. Projets culturels, acteurs et territoires dans un espace rural en crise: l’exemple de la Thiérache. Norois, 204(3), 25–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bossuet, L., & Simard, M. (2013). Mutations des espaces ruraux sous l’effet des migrations: Regards croisés entre la France et le Québec.Special Issue. Géographie, Économie, Société, 15(1–2), 5–9. Google Scholar Bossuet, L., & Torre, A. (2009). Le devenir des ruralités, entre conflits et nouvelles alliances autour des patrimoines locaux. Économie rurale, 313–314, 147–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Boyle, P., & Halfacree, K. (1998). Migration into rural areas: Theories and issues. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar Brunori, G., & Rossi, A. (2007). Differentiating countryside: social representations and governance patterns in rural areas with high social density: The case of Chianti Italy. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(2), 183–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cadieux, K. (2011). Competing discourses of nature in exurbia. GeoJournal, 76(4), 341–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cadieux, K., & Hurley, P. (2011). Amenity migration, exurbia, and emerging rural landscapes. Special issue. GeoJournal, 76(4), 297–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Caron, A., & Torre, A. (2006). Vers une analyse des dimensions négatives de la proximité (p. 7). Dossier: Développement durable et territoires. Google Scholar Chipeniuk, R. (2004). Planning for amenity migration in Canada. Mountain Research and Development, 24(4), 327–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Clavairolle, F. (2008). De la contestation à la participation: les néo-ruraux et la politique (Cévennes). In H. Bertheleu & F. Bourdarias (Eds.), Les constructions locales du politique (pp. 97–114). Tours: PUFR. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cloke, P., & Thrift, N. (1987). Intra-class Conflict in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 3(4), 321–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cognard, F. (2011). Les nouveaux habitants dans les régions rurales de moyenne montagne en France: de la recomposition sociale au développement territorial? Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 177–188. Google Scholar Cousin, S. (2008). La politique touristique contre les habitants? Le cas de Loches en Touraine. In H. Bertheleu & F. Bourdarias (Eds.), Les constructions locales du politique (pp. 85–95). Tours: PUFR. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Domon, G., Ruiz, J., Paquette, S., & Roy, L. (2011). La recomposition sociodémographique des campagnes québécoises à la croisée des dynamiques agricoles et paysagères. Revue Canadienne des Sciences Régionales, 34(4), 115–133. Google Scholar Dupré, L. (2007). Les conflits d’environnement: Entre sites et réserves. Géographie, Économie, Société, 9(2), 121–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dziedzicki, J.-M. (2004). Au-delà du Nimby: le conflit d’aménagement, expression de multiples revendications. In P. Melé, C. Larrue, & M. Rosemberg (Eds.), Conflits et Territoires. PUFR: Tours. Google Scholar Gilbert, Y. (2010). Migrations urbaines en milieu rural: Diversification sociale et recomposition du politique. Espaces et Sociétés, 143(3), 135–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Google Scholar Gobster, P. H., Stewart, S. I., & Bengston, D. N. (2004). The social aspects of landscape change: Protecting open space under the pressure of development. Special issues. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2–3), 149–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: Some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 5–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guimond, L., Gilbert, A., & Simard, M. (2014). Faire sa place et être de la place: la rencontre timide des nouveaux ruraux et des populations plus anciennes au Québec. The Canadian Geographer, 58(1), 123–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guimond, L., & Simard, M. (2010). Gentrification and neo-rural populations in the Québec countryside: Representations of various actors. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 449–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guimond, L., & Simard, M. (2011). Les néo-ruraux et les ruraux de longue date sont-ils si différents au Québec? Analyse de leur mobilité, sens des lieux et engagement. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 151–163. Google Scholar Halseth, G. (1998). Cottage country in transition: A social geography of change and contention in the rural-recreational countryside. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Google Scholar Holmes, J. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2), 142–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ). (2014). Perspectives démographiques du Québec et des régions 2011–2061, édition 2014. Google Scholar Jamal, T., & Eyre, M. (2003). Legitimation struggles in national park spaces: The Banff Bow Valley round table. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(3), 417–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jeanneaux, P., & Perrier-Cornet, P. (2008). Les conflits d’usage du cadre de vie dans les espaces ruraux et la décision publique locale. Économie rurale, 306(4), 39–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jones, O., & Little, J. (2000). Rural challenge(s): Partnership and new rural gouvernance. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 171–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kayser, B. (2000). L’intégration de la ruralité: les campagnes françaises au XX1e siècle. Économie rurale, 255–256(1), 100–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kirat, T., & Torre, A. (2006). Conflits d’usages et dynamiques spatiales. Les antagonismes dans l’occupation des espaces périurbains et ruraux. Géographie, Économie, Société, 8,(3). Google Scholar Larsen, S. C., Sorenson, C., McDermott, D., Long, J., & Post, C. (2007). Place perception and social interaction on an exurban landscape in Central Colorado. The Professional Geographer, 59(4), 421–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mackay, M., Perkins, H. C., & Espiner, S. (2009). The study of rural change from a social scientific perspective: A literature review and annotated bibliography. Christchurch: Lincoln University, Department of Social Science, Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Sport. Google Scholar Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (1998). Rural governance and community participation, special issue. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 1–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Martin, N., Bourdeau, P., & Daller, J. F. (2012). Les migrations d’agrément: du tourisme à l’habiter. Paris: L’Harmattan. Google Scholar Mitchell, C. J.-A., & de Waal, S. B. (2009). Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St. Jacobs, Ontario, a decade later. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1), 156–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Moss, L. (2006). The amenity migrants: seeking and sustaining mountains and their culture. UK: CABI. CrossRefGoogle Scholar MRC d’Arthabaska. (2014). Plan de développement de la zone agricole (PDZA). Département de l’aménagement. Google Scholar Paye, O. (2005). La gouvernance: d’une notion polysémique à un concept politologique. Études internationales, 36(1), 13–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Perrier-Cornet, P. (2002). À qui appartient l’espace rural? Enjeux publics et politiques. Paris: Éditions de l’Aube et Datar. Google Scholar Phillips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonization. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 123–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Provençal, M.-H. (2013). Les dépenses culturelles des municipalités en 2011. Optique culture 25, Institut de la statistique du Québec, Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec. Google Scholar Roy, L., Paquette, S., & Domon, G. (2013). Anciens et néoruraux: Préjugés, tensions et affinités au sein d’une localité rurale québécoise. Géographie, Économie, Société, 15(1), 67–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ruiz, J., & Domon, G. (2013). Les «communautés de relations au paysage», l’expérience socio-spatiale avec le territoire comme nouveau cadre pour l’analyse des populations rurales. Géographie, Économie, Société, 15(1), 139–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sauvé, L., & Batellier, P. (2011). Gaz de schiste et mobilisation citoyenne au Québec: une exigence de démocratie. Nouveaux Cahiers du socialisme, 6, 224–236. Google Scholar Scott, A. J., Shorten, J., Owen, R., & Owen, I. (2011). What kind of countryside do the public want: Community visions from Wales UK? GeoJournal, 76(4), 417–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Simard, M. (2007). Nouvelles populations rurales et conflits au Québec: Regards croisés avec la France et le Royaume-Uni. Géographie, Économie, Société, 9(2), 187–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Simard, M. (2008). La contribution culturelle des néo-ruraux au Québec: l’exemple de Brome-Missisquoi. Organisations et Territoires, 17(1), 79–84. Google Scholar Simard, M. (2011a). Transformation des campagnes et nouvelles populations rurales au Québec et en France: une introduction. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 105–114. Google Scholar Simard, M. (2011b). Les nouveaux ruraux dans les campagnes au Québec et en France : Impacts et défis. Special issue. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 105–114. Google Scholar Simard, M., & Guimond, L. (2009). L’hétérogénéité des nouvelles populations rurales: Comparaison dans deux MRC contrastées au Québec. Recherches Sociographiques, 50(3), 475–505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Simard, M., & Guimond, L. (2013). Des «étrangers» parmi nous? Représentations et pratiques de divers acteurs ruraux quant à l’installation de nouvelles populations dans les campagnes au Québec. Géographie, Économie, Société, 15(1–2), 25–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (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 Sociology, 65(3), 396–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Smithers, J., Joseph, A. E., & Armstrong, M. (2005). Across the divide (?): Reconciling farm and town views of agriculture-community linkages. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(3), 281–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stockdale, A. (2010). The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), 31–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Subra, P. (2006). Ce que le débat public nous dit du territoire et de son aménagement. Géocarrefour, 81(4), 287–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Taylor, L. (2011). No boundaries: Exurbia and the study of contemporary urban dispersion. GeoJournal, 76(4), 323–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Torre, A., Aznar, O., Bonin, M., et al. (2006). Conflits et tensions autour des usages de l’espace dans les territoires ruraux et périurbains. Le cas de six zones géographiques françaises. Revue d’Économe Régionale et Urbaine, 3(3), 415–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Young, N. (2008). Radical neoliberalism in British Columbia: Remaking rural geographies. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Young, T. (2011). Democracy or expertise? Objectivity as an elusive ideal in the resolution of a Vermont land use dispute. GeoJournal, 76(4), 401–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Copyright information © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017 About this article CrossMark Cite this article as: Simard, M., Guimond, L. & Vézina, J. GeoJournal (2018) 83: 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9789-4 DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9789-4 Publisher Name Springer Netherlands Print ISSN 0343-2521 Online ISSN 1572-9893