Theoretical Framework

Proposed Model

It chose an inductive approach, and therefore it has not based the research on an already set theory. Instead, it proposes the following model based on data and the literature review:

Figure 1 Proposed theoretical framework 

As portrayed in the literature review, we found that there are gaps in the research on rural gentrification in Latin America, the importance of generalized trust as a coping mechanism for rural gentrification, and the link between lifestyle migration and rural gentrification. Therefore, we propose a model with two hypothesized links:

The imaginary of the Place of Encounter leads to more lifestyle migration, which is one of the drivers of rural gentrification in Samaipata.

Samaipata, being a Place of Encounter - as well as its level of ethnic diversity - leads to a higher level of generalized trust, which helps to cope with the effects of rural gentrification.

The following section will define our central concepts presented in Figure 1.

Conceptualization

Our analysis begins with the concept of the Place of Encounter, describing Samaipata as historically shaped by migration, ethnic diversity, and the imaginary of integrating cultures and rural idyll. A part of Samaipata's imaginary is the rural idyll, an idealized view of rural areas as happier and tranquil (^{Solana-Solana, 2010}).

Secondly, this imaginary drive is what we will call lifestyle migration. Migration is driven more by the desire for a fulfilling life in a peaceful rural town than by economic aspirations (^{Salazar, 2014}).

Thirdly, it utilizes ^{Solana-Solana's (2010}) definition of rural gentrification, which, besides the displacement of social classes and persons, also includes changes in consumption patterns, leisure and retail activities, and especially housing prices.

Lastly, generalized trust increases the willingness to trust and cooperate with strangers (^{Stolle, 2002}). This more extensive trust is linked to the shared moral values of a community and creates expectations of honest behavior from strangers (Fukuyama, 1995).

Mixed Methods

For this report, we have used mixed methods and thereby combined quantitative and qualitative data to address our interdisciplinary research area. In our research, the quantitative part (survey and experiment) and qualitative part (interviews and observation) complement each other, creating a dialogue between the different types of data (^{Mertens, 2023}). This plays into our inductive approach, where, based on a cyclical dialogue between our different observations, we propose a pattern that can create a functioning theory (^{Flick, 2018}).

Ethnographic Fieldwork

As part of our qualitative methods, we have conducted ethnographic fieldwork to gain an understanding of the field site and the ongoing cultural and social processes in Samaipata. We engaged in this practice throughout the fieldwork, especially whenever we noticed a phenomenon related to gentrification, in the form of field notes and pictures. We also went on a trip to Mairana to observe the difference between the two towns.

Semi-Structured Interview

We conducted nine semi-structured interviews (^{Brinkmann, 2020}) using a flexible guide with around 20 questions focused on experience, aspiration, and gentrification. The guide was adjusted before each interview. To capture diverse perspectives, we interviewed people of different nationalities, jobs, and experiences (Figure 2). Interviews lasted between 45 to 90 minutes, with at least two researchers present.

Figure 2 An overview of informants 

As the figure above shows, we have interviewed five migrants, both international and internal migrants, as well as two returnees, who were born in Samaipata. For this project, we have defined a migrant as someone who has been living in Samaipata for a minimum of three years.

For our sampling, we used the snowballing method, as one of our informants helped us reach other interview opportunities, who then gave us more contacts (^{Flick, 2018}). Most of our interviews were conducted in Spanish and recorded. Later, they were transcribed and translated into English.

Survey

We investigated the gentrification process in Samaipata, focusing on housing prices (^{Nelson et. al, 2010}). Lacking secondary data on price developments, we developed a survey where the respondents estimated the house prices 10 years ago, three years ago, today, and in 10 years. Additionally, we included a Likert-scale question about food prices as an indicator of general rising prices.

We conducted the survey one afternoon, gaining a total of 50 participants. Pairs of researchers collecting responses in both the center and periphery of Samaipata. Most questionnaires were filled out by researchers, though we had a QR code.

We used R to analyze housing prices. Considering the standard error, we reported the mean values using a bar plot, as presented in the analysis. We also had an interview with a real estate agent from REMAX Bolivia (Informant D2).

Experiment

To measure the level of generalized trust in Samaipata, we have conducted a conjoint survey experiment, which generates reliable measures of preferences and estimates causal effects of attributes on hypothetical choices (^{Bansak et al., 2021})¹. We measured the level of trust using three scenarios that distinguish between attributes (their proximity of strangers to the community) of strangers who sell cars. Trying to combine the commonly used survey question: Can a person be trusted in general? (^{Chaudhuri & Gangadharan, 2007}), With a regional representative cooperation decision, we came up with these questions:

Would you buy a used car from a stranger?

Would you buy a used car from a stranger who lives in Samaipata?

Would you buy a used car from a stranger who recently moved to Samaipata?

We asked 50 people that we randomly approached in Samaipata (experimental group) and Mairana (control group) two out of three questions in a random order and pair of scenarios to minimize possible biases (^{Cox, 2009}). We used the citizens of Mairana as a control group, a neighboring town. As with the survey, it was a criterion that the participants had lived in Samaipata or Mairana for a minimum of three years. To measure the differences between the two groups, we ran a two-sample t-test in R.

Analysis

This section will analyze the development of imaginaries and lifestyle migration in Samaipata, explore the formation of its culture of generalized trust, provide an overview of economic and cultural gentrification in the area, and examine how it is interconnected with residents' strategies for coping with the economic and cultural impacts of gentrification.

Samaipata as a Place of Encounter

In Samaipata, the most prevalent imaginaries have been centered around "Integrating cultures for 400 years" and their diversity. According to C1, Samaipata has a large foreign population. Currently, Samaipata has more than 39 different nationalities (D1). The 2012 National Bolivian Census showed both towns had similar Quechua and Aymara populations, but Samaipata had a larger multilingual 170 residents speaking at least one foreign language, in stark contrast to just four individuals in Mairana (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2012).

Our interviewees placed the rural idyll around the ideas of "tranquility", "nature", and "climate" (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3). In addition to being a historical Place of Encounter, Samaipata has experienced an increase in both international and internal lifestyle migrants coming from different areas of Bolivia, mainly Santa Cruz (B1, B2, C2). This is shown in Figure 3, in which we map the different groups mentioned by our interviewees:

Figure 3 A mapping ofdifferent ethnic communities in Samaipata 

The migrants we encountered in Samaipata often possessed other characteristic traits of lifestyle migration, often possessed a higher level of economic and cultural capital, including knowledge of permaculture or education (A1, B2, C1, C3). For them, employment was not the main migration aspiration (A1, C1, C3).

Thus, cultural diversity has become a distinct characteristic of Samaipata, as opposed to other Bolivian towns of similar size. Most of our interviewees view migration as something positive (A2, B1, B2, C1). The contact with people with different cultural backgrounds has been normalized. B2 points out that these different cultures are "the opposites [that] complement each other. [...] Like the yin andyang." In Samaipata, significant cultural integration and diversity are both a driver and a product of the imaginary, where local traditions can peacefully coexist with global influences (B2, C1). Some Interviewees expressed a lack of integration and different nationalities keeping to themselves (A1, C3). C3 states that to the local Samaipateño, she will always be an outsider and never completely accepted. Even so, the cultural diversity and integration become an important part of the Samaipateño imaginary, as seen below in the word cloud (Figure 4) (A1, B2, C1, C2, C3).

Figure 4 A word cloud describing a Samaipateño 

The migrants we encountered in Samaipata often possessed other characteristic traits of lifestyle migration, often possessed a higher level of economic and cultural capital, including knowledge of permaculture or education (A1, B2, C1, C3). For them, employment was not the main migration aspiration (A1, C1, C3).

Thus, cultural diversity has become a distinct characteristic of Samaipata, as opposed to other Bolivian towns of similar size. Most of our interviewees view migration as something positive (A2, B1, B2, C1). The contact with people with different cultural backgrounds has been normalized. B2 points out that these different cultures are "the opposites [that] complement each other. [...] Like the yin andyang." In Samaipata, significant cultural integration and diversity are both a driver and a product of the imaginary, where local traditions can peacefully coexist with global influences (B2, C1). Some Interviewees expressed a lack of integration and different nationalities keeping to themselves (A1, C3). C3 states that to the local Samaipateño, she will always be an outsider and never completely accepted. Even so, the cultural diversity and integration become an important part of the Samaipateño imaginary, as seen below in the word cloud (Figure 4) (A1, B2, C1, C2, C3).

Generalized trust in Samaipata

Table 1 Differences in the levels of generalized trust between residents of Samaipata and Mairana 

According to the interviews, to become a Samaipateño, one must take active participation in the community, care for fellow residents, and do their part in strengthening the town's social support networks, but most importantly, love Samaipata (A1, B1). Many people visit Samaipata for tourism, but then they fall in love with the town and the energy and decide to stay. Our interviewees called this phenomenon "Samaitrampa" (C2, C3, D1, D2).

Our experiment found that Samaipata's citizens exhibited higher generalized trust compared to those in Mairana. Table 1 shows that Samaipateños were more likely to trust strangers, such as buying a car, than people in Mairana. The trust towards Samaipatan strangers approached statistical significance with a p-value of 0.067, indicating that Samaipateños are 46% more likely to trust a Samaipatan stranger than a person in Mairana.

Individuals from Samaipata show more trust in strangers, including migrants to their town, compared to those from Mairana or the national average, where only 8.5% of Bolivians trust strangers (^{Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2016}). Samaipata's higher ethnic diversity supports the contact hypothesis (^{Allport, 1954}). One interview says: "Samaipateños [...] have more trust for foreigners instead ofbeing unwelcoming" (B2). They are used to meeting strangers with different backgrounds, as they "have grown up with foreigners around" (C1).

Samaipateños' positive attitude towards migrants can also be linked to ^{Putnam's (2007}) distinction between short- and long-term effects of ethnic diversity on generalized trust. The Samaipatan community was able to translate the latest and significant influx of people into higher levels of generalized trust because of their long-existing migration history, and "up to now, [Samaipateños] have been able to coexist with everyone" (A2). Over time, Samaipateños have established social mechanisms and forms of solidarity that catalyze the positive effects of ethnic diversity on generalized trust.

The way Samaipateños developed generalized trust towards outgroup individuals - which ^{Putnam (2000}) refers to as "bridging" between groups - could be traced back to the overall benevolent and hospitable: the Place of Encounter. Samaipata is seen as a meeting place, where people embrace diversity while respecting and taking care of each other, even if they are strangers. C3 stated that strangers would be able to rely on the people from the town and expect kindness from them too, as "everyone is going to open some doors for you", and that a person in distress would be helped out. "You meet strangers who share and support each other like a family" (B1).

As stated, generalized trust arises when societies commonly agree upon a set of moral values. This can also be applied to Samaipata since most of the interviewees described a similar set of values that characterize the community and "what makes a Samaipateño". Samaipateños have community-based punishment mechanisms in place, which help regulate behavior and cooperation. As the Mayor put it: "Everyone is welcome to Samaipata. As long as there is that respect. And when there is no respect, we also make them respect us" (D1). He further comments that if someone arrives in Samaipata and causes harm, they will probably not become a part of the community. This shows how local social control operates: by sanctioning or excluding free riders, Samaipateños can trust that harmful behavior will not go unpunished. Such mechanisms reduce uncertainty in interactions and facilitate cooperation among residents and newcomers. A concrete example mentioned in the interviews refers to the so-called "Hippies," who were perceived as taking advantage of the town. As a result, they are not trusted and are excluded from economic activities, such as work opportunities (C3).

Rising prices and rural gentrification

Over the past years, there has been a noticeable transformation in housing prices and land use in Samaipata. This led to land repurposing, such as the opening of businesses (A1, B1, C1, C2). As a result, rural gentrification -for example, as reflected in increasing housing priceshas been largely driven by lifestyle migration. Locals are capitalizing on rising property values by selling land to newcomers.

As presented in Table 2, over the last 10 years, the average housing prices in Samaipata have doubled: from USD 44,040 to USD 98,228 for an average house near the town center. The average annual increase has been 20% indicating gentrification. This could indicate that during and after the pandemic, more people have been drawn to the rural idyll. We have not observed this displacement process in Samaipata among landowners. At the same time, many of our interviewees mentioned that gentrification has had a negative effect on both rent and food prices, which, coupled with the rising USD/Boliviano ratio, has had negative effects on the purchasing power of the local Samaipatan population (C1, C3, A1, A2).

Figure 5 Average ofestimated housing prices in Samaipata 

In Samaipata, "most ofthe benefactors are local Samaipatans selling their properties" (C1). The local real estate office reinforced the idea that locals have been strategically selling their properties at higher prices, stating that "it's the people from here who have taken advantage ofthesituation" (D2). The lifestyle migration influenced housing prices within the old town, as well as the price per square meter of land in the entire Samaipata area (C3, D2). The mayor offered a pragmatic view on property dynamics. He remarked that Samaipateños are more likely to sell property to foreigners as they do not question the prices they are offered (D1). A German migrant also stated that wealthy North Americans drive up property prices because they accept any price. Although this perspective reframes the locals' relocation as a matter of practicality rather than solely a negative consequence, Samaipateños described the rising prices as a recent phenomenon (A1, A2). "I think it is one ofthe most expensive towns in Bolivia. It is too expensive, [which] was not the case before" (A2).

In Samaipata, while gentrification is becoming the new normal, the influx of foreign currency and investments has caused housing prices, food, and rent to rise. 94% of survey respondents reported food price increases over the last decade, not only on national products, but there's been an influx of international products as well. Some sectors have seen economic benefits. Despite the economic development, many have struggled to keep up with rising living costs (C3). However, economic inequality has not worsened as expected, likely due to coping mechanisms like sharing food during periods of food scarcity or seeking free accommodation when unable to affordrent(B2, C3).

Shift in cultural landscape

Samaipata is undergoing a cultural shift. One example is the gastronomy and restaurant industry, which is adapting rapidly, such as increased demand for international and diverse food options (A2, C1). Samaipata's main square has become a hub for international leisure, offering "trendy" restaurants, bars, and jewelry stores. However, residents are rarely seen in such establi-shments, as they are specifically "made for gringos [foreigners]" (C3).

Mairana's town square serves as a community center, with local food stands and markets, while Samaipata has locals selling housing to migrants for tourism-related activities. The appeal of Samaipata became intrinsically tied to "thefact that [one] can get all the international comforts in a small town" (C1).

However, this transformation has affected local perceptions, as many feel Samaipara is losing its historical identity. Interviewees were concerned about Samaipata a) losing its "magic" and local culture (A1, A2, B2), b) historic architecture (A1, A2, B2, C1), and c) "sleepy" small town atmosphere as locas flee the chaos of development (C1, D2). One interviewee noted that Samaipateños feel displaced by the influx of migrants (A1). They said: "Samaipata has really grown by leaps and bounds, and personally, that scares me. Not because people come, but because there are no regulations" (A1). International migrants who feel the lack of regulation leads to the destruction of historic architecture because "[you] build a house the way you want to build it" (C1). While global cultural elements have been introduced, they have also eroded Samaipata's traditional charm, creating a tension between progress and preservation.

Trust and cooperation in Samaipata

Regarding the economic effects of gentrification, such as rising rent and land pricing, we have observed the mitigation mechanisms in the form of "agreements of reciprocity" between landowners and residents. For instance: "A community has different ways of making things work, like helping each other or caringfor other people, like, 'you cannot pay rent, but I have a space, so you can take my house and live there'" (B2).

Based on trust that enables these agreements of reciprocity, people can acquire goods without paying for them with conventional currency. The local coin "Samai" is used by Samaipateños as an informal way to exchange goods and services (B2).

Another example of reciprocal cooperation is the sharing of food, both through gifts and having communal cells in the markets (B2). Simply said: "Everybody's working together, and we have individual work, but we also have the communal basket" (B2). Trust, therefore, becomes an essential aspect of Samaipata's economy (B2). In a community where financial resources may become scarce due to price increases, the residents need to rely on their social networks for support. This system of exchange illustrates the community's reliance on trust and cooperation, with its benefits extending to migrants as well.

The agreements of reciprocity -which are solely enabled by trusting a stranger- are just one example of potential beneficial outcomes of trust that we have witnessed in Samaipata. Other instances of coping with hardships through cooperation and general solidarity can be found on digital platforms such as Facebook. Several people described a WhatsApp group chat with approximately 100 women who support each other, migrant or not. It is described as a space of solidarity and support, where women are welcomed and encouraged to ask for help with whatever they are struggling with, and community sharing events ("Gratiferias") (B2, C2, D2). Thus, if you need help, you can rely on the community (B2, C2). Samaipateños also come together to help victims of flooding (B2) or to organize "mingas", where volunteers repair houses, institutions, or schools (B1). Supposedly, there is less misery and inequality in Samaipata; one will not see anyone asking for money in the street, for instance, because people take care of each other (B2). As a result, agreements of reciprocity, food exchange, and community solidarity groups enable Samaipateños to cope with the adverse impacts of rural gentrification, such as poverty and displacement, that are common in other global regions affected by tourists.

Reflections and Limitations

This study faced limitations in terms of informants. As shown in Figure 2, most of our informants came from similar socio-economic backgrounds: people with 'available' time. When we tried to interview people in the periphery of Samaipata while conducting our quantitative data, most were busy working, limiting our understanding of the full impact of gentrification. Furthermore, by focusing on lifestyle migrants and not including those who migrate for work, we may have missed relevant groups such as indigenous people. As stated in the analysis, based on our data, we don't see any displacement. Even though we have been conscious of having a varied sampling of respondents for the survey, we might have missed some nuances, for example, those Samaipateños who rely heavily on agricultural production.

Related to the generalizability of our findings, we are aware that Samaipata marks a very odd place where a lot of dynamics -culturally, economically, and socially- seem to work differently than elsewhere. That is why we should be cautious about generalizing these findings, as we haven't been able to test our hypothesis of generalized trust as a coping mechanism for gentrification elsewhere.