Integrative Review on Tourism Gentrification and Lifestyle Migration: Pathways Towards Regenerative Tourism

Abstract

Tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are reshaping both urban and rural destinations, yet no studies have examined how these trends might support regenerative tourism. This paper addresses a clear gap in the literature by being the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to explore their combined potential to contribute to regenerative outcomes. The research questions were structured using the PICOTS framework, and the review process followed the PRISMA 2020 protocol for transparency. A two-stage review design was used. First, a bibliometric analysis was conducted using Web of Science and Scopus data, applying co-occurrence mapping to identify thematic clusters. Second, an integrative literature review was performed to synthesise these findings and interpret them across spatial levels. Findings show that, while both gentrification and lifestyle migration can produce displacement and inequality, they also offer opportunities for regeneration when guided by inclusive governance, local participation, and value-based migration. The proposed multi-level framework explains how mobility-related transformations unfold at the individual, community, and policy levels. This study contributes to the field by introducing a multi-level framework that links fragmented debates, clarifies the conditions for regenerative transformation, and provides a structured approach for analysing tourism-driven socio-spatial change.

1. Introduction

Tourism destinations around the world are transforming, shaped by the converging forces of lifestyle migration, tourism gentrification, and the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism. As individuals seek amenity-rich environments and improved quality of life, lifestyle migration contributes to population shifts and economic restructuring in both urban and rural contexts. Simultaneously, tourism gentrification, characterised by rising property values, displacement, and real estate speculation, changes the socio-spatial dynamics of popular destinations. These dual processes often challenge social equity and environmental resilience, but when managed intentionally, they may also create opportunities for renewal. In reaction, regenerative tourism is emerging as a way forward, concentrating on revitalising communities and ecosystems, not just sustaining them. Unlike sustainability, which aims to minimise harm, regenerative tourism seeks to restore ecological and social systems by fostering community-led transformation. This paradigm shift involves a reduction in negative impacts to create net-positive outcomes, based on local engagement and ecological renewal.

To date, no comprehensive review has systematically mapped this intersection using quantitative and qualitative synthesis to clarify how these patterns might be redirected towards regenerative outcomes. This study fills that gap by combining bibliometric mapping with a thematic review to identify common themes, conceptual gaps, and multi-level pathways for regenerative transformation.

In the first phase, it identifies key trends and thematic structures in research on tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration. The second phase builds on these insights to outline potential pathways towards regenerative tourism. To structure the review question and align methodological procedures with emerging best practices in integrative research, this study employed the PICOTS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time, Setting) as outlined by Lubbe et al. [1].

Table 1. The PICOTS framework of research.

PICOTS
POPULATION OF INTEREST (P)	Peer-reviewed academic literature focused on lifestyle migration, gentrification, and tourism, retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus.
INTERVENTION (I)	A two-stage methodology combining bibliometric analysis (to map trends and clusters) and an integrative literature review (to synthesise conceptual and methodological insights).
COMPARATIVE INTERVENTION (C)	Cross-analysis of thematic clusters derived from bibliometric mapping, compared across temporal trends, spatial levels (micro, meso, macro), and disciplinary approaches.
OUTCOMES (O)	Identification of research gaps, synthesis of literature across clusters, and development of an integrative multi-level framework for regenerative tourism.
TIMEFRAME (T)	No lower time limit; publications up to 30 September 2024.
SETTING (S)	Academic and research contexts that discuss lifestyle migration, tourism, and gentrification.

below summarises the elements guiding the design of both the bibliometric and integrative review phases.

We used the PICOTS framework to formulate five research questions:

• Research question 1 (RQ 1): What is the scope and evolution of the academic literature on tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration, as reflected in publication trends, geographic and institutional contributions, and key sources? This question is addressed through a bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix to identify publication trends and map output over time.
• Research question 2 (RQ 2): What are the dominant conceptual clusters and thematic structures in the literature on tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration, and how are they connected across spatial and governance levels? Co-occurrence mapping techniques are used to identify dominant themes, which are then categorised and analysed based on their spatial orientation and conceptual scope.
• Research question 3 (RQ 3): Under which conditions can tourism gentrification transition from a disruptive force to a regenerative driver? This question is explored through an integrative review of studies focusing on tourism gentrification, with attention to contextual and governance-related factors that influence its potential transformation.
• Research question 4 (RQ 4): What pathways allow lifestyle migration to support community regeneration and resilience? The relevant literature on lifestyle migration is examined to identify conceptual linkages and documented mechanisms that enable community-level regeneration.
• Research question 5 (RQ 5): What are the key challenges and opportunities in integrating tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration into regenerative tourism frameworks? A cross-cluster synthesis is conducted to examine how these two processes intersect and to inform the development of an integrative framework for regenerative transitions.

This study makes three key contributions to the literature. First, it offers one of the first systematic attempts to integrate tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration within a unified analytical framework, addressing a conceptual fragmentation that has limited cross-disciplinary dialogue. Second, it introduces an approach in which bibliometric mapping is used not merely for trend analysis but as a structural guide for thematic synthesis, allowing for a conceptually grounded and spatially layered integrative review. Third, it proposes an original multi-level framework for regenerative transformation, offering a novel lens through which policymakers and researchers can evaluate the socio-spatial dynamics of tourism-induced change.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the conceptual foundations and intersections. The next section outlines the data collection procedures and presents the two-stage methodology, including bibliometric mapping and an integrative review. Section 4 provides the research results and discussion, starting with bibliometric trends and thematic clusters, followed by a detailed synthesis across the micro, meso, and macro levels using the integrative framework. Section 5 concludes the paper by revisiting the five research questions, reflecting on theoretical contributions, outlining methodological limitations, and proposing directions for future research and policy.

2. Conceptual Foundations and Intersections

2.1. Key Concepts and Theoretical Grounding: Gentrification, Lifestyle Migration, and Regeneration in Tourism Contexts

Recent shifts in global mobility and tourism draw increased attention to three interconnected phenomena: lifestyle migration, tourism gentrification, and regenerative tourism. Although each concept originates from a distinct theoretical tradition and produces unique impacts, they increasingly intersect to shape communities, transform landscapes, and inform governance practices. This section defines each phenomenon and outlines its core theoretical foundations.

2.1.1. Lifestyle Migration

Lifestyle migration describes the voluntary relocation of individuals in pursuit of an improved quality of life or a more fulfilling lifestyle, rather than for strictly economic or safety reasons. Benson and O’Reilly [2] define lifestyle migrants as relatively affluent individuals who move part-time or full-time to places that migrants associate with a better quality of life. In these relocations, aesthetic and quality-of-life factors take precedence over economic factors such as job opportunities [3]. In other words, lifestyle migrants pursue aspirations of self-realisation and enhanced well-being in daily life, in contrast to traditional labour migrants who relocate for employment or refugees who seek safety from unsatisfactory environments [4,5]. Figure 1 synthesises the key dimensions of lifestyle migration by illustrating how motivations, mobility types, and socio-spatial impacts interrelate within this evolving phenomenon.

Mobility often encompasses amenity seekers, individuals drawn by climate or landscape, retirees relocating to more affordable or pleasant countries, and those pursuing a slower pace of life in rural areas. Recent studies extend lifestyle migration theory to digital nomads, who relocate frequently in search of flexibility, cultural experiences, and personal development, often prioritising lifestyle over traditional career advancement [6,7,8]. Economic and social privilege often enable lifestyle migration, since it entails moving to destinations that provide higher living standards or lower expenses—a choice available mainly to those with sufficient financial or symbolic capital [2]. The concept of lifestyle migration often describes individuals from the Global North relocating to the Global South or from urban centres to rural and peripheral areas, with the terms “Global North” and “Global South” functioning as heuristic categories that reflect structural inequalities in wealth, mobility, institutional capacity, and development outcomes rather than strictly geographical distinctions. These relocations frequently reflect aspirations to exploit global economic disparities—a practice Hayes [9] calls “geographic arbitrage”. Savas et al. [10] examine British retirees migrating to Mediterranean countries, emphasising climate and lifestyle appeal. King et al. [11] identify Mexico and Ecuador as popular destinations for North American retirees attracted by the climate, the scenery, and a more relaxed pace of life. Kordel and Pohle [12] discuss the privileged status of lifestyle migrants and their transformative impacts on host communities. Observers often view these migrants ambivalently: as cosmopolitan agents stimulating local economies and public spaces or as elite outsiders maintaining social distance and parallel lives. Cardinal [13] shows that in La Manzanilla, a Mexican coastal town with an established community of lifestyle migrants, these migrants’ ideology and capital motivated local youth to initiate sustainable initiatives, including ecotourism ventures and environmental education programs.

Notable regional examples of lifestyle migration include British retirees settling in Spain’s Costa del Sol, where they form sizable expatriate communities drawn by favourable climates, affordable housing, and relaxed lifestyles. These migrants have reshaped local housing markets, service economies, and integration policies [10,14,15]. Similarly, North American retirees increasingly choose cities such as Cuenca, Ecuador, and various parts of Mexico, seeking an enhanced quality of life through geographic arbitrage, a dynamic that has led local governments to design policy frameworks tailored to this migrant demographic [10,16]. In Asia, Malaysia’s “My Second Home” programme has attracted substantial numbers of Japanese retirees, reflecting Western retirement migration patterns while contributing to local economic diversification and the formation of socio-cultural enclaves [14].

Building on these rural-oriented trends, counterurbanisation provides a formal lens for understanding urban-to-rural shifts. Counterurbanisation, defined as “a process of population deconcentration; it implies a movement from a state of more concentration to a state of less concentration” (Berry, 1976, cited in [17], p. 1), reverses traditional urbanisation patterns by redirecting population flows from dense urban centres to smaller towns and rural areas. In North America, retirees and amenity-seekers have moved to Sunbelt states like Arizona and Florida [18]. Similarly, older adults abroad often relocate for climate, affordability, and leisure [10]. Two key processes shape this shift: digital migration, where remote workers settle in smaller towns with a better quality of life [19], and amenity-driven retirement, where older adults seek lifestyle benefits [10]. These migrations often reshape rural areas, raising housing prices, altering demographics, and diversifying local economies through tourism-related entrepreneurship [20,21].

Lifestyle migrants often import consumption patterns from affluent societies, which can increase their new destinations’ environmental footprints [9]. Their arrival can also escalate housing costs and create social enclaves, as demonstrated in Seville’s historic district [22]. Consequently, the literature positions lifestyle migration outcomes along a continuum ranging from integration and stewardship to displacement and inequality.

2.1.2. Gentrification

Gentrification describes the process through which neighbourhoods or communities undergo socio-economic transformation as wealthier residents and new investment enter and reshape the area. Glass [23] coined the term to describe how working-class quarters of London were overtaken by the middle classes, “the gentry”, resulting in the displacement of earlier, typically poorer, inhabitants. Davidson and Lees [24] (p. 1170) argue that “the defining characteristics of contemporary gentrification should include in the widest sense: (1) reinvestment of capital; (2) social upgrading of locale by incoming high-income groups; (3) landscape change; and (4) direct or indirect displacement of low-income groups”. Figure 2 presents a conceptual framework that illustrates how gentrification operates across spatial and institutional levels. It synthesises drivers, processes, and impacts, emphasising both revitalisation potential and exclusionary risks.

Over the decades, gentrification has shifted from a localised urban phenomenon into a global trend. Researchers have documented it in inner-city districts and even in rural villages [25]. State-led urban redevelopment comprises targeted interventions aimed at urban renewal and social mixing, as exemplified by Toronto’s Regent Park, where mixed-income housing replaced subsidised units to address poverty concentration and social isolation [25]. Similarly, South Korea’s Joint Redevelopment Programme leveraged private investment to transform Seoul’s neighbourhoods into commercial housing, but this primarily market-driven approach caused significant displacement. The disparity between capitalised and potential ground rent, known as the rent gap, remains a critical factor attracting real estate investment and driving large-scale redevelopment in inner-city areas [26,27]. These policies demonstrate both the potential benefits and risks inherent in state-led redevelopment efforts. Earlier waves of gentrification were driven by artists, city developers, and investors. Recent phases are led by major developers and bolstered by state intervention [28]. In these initial waves, the arrival of artists and creative subcultures redefined neighbourhoods as culturally vibrant and desirable, paving the way for cultural commodification and drawing higher-income groups to a “cool” urban lifestyle [29]. Gentrification typically produces demographic change, cultural upgrading, and the displacement or exclusion of lower-income residents [29]. These transformations involve the influx of middle- and upper-class populations, along with new businesses, cafés, and amenities catering to affluent tastes. Thus, gentrification closely intersects with housing affordability, social equity, and urban policy concerns.

Gentrification has become a globally observed process, increasingly linked to tourism and transnational migration. In Barcelona, tourism-driven gentrification has transformed neighbourhoods like Barceloneta, where the expansion of short-term rentals and international tourism has displaced residents and triggered major policy interventions [30]. In Bali, rapid upscale development targeting high-end international travellers has caused widespread local displacement and social marginalisation, illustrating how tourism gentrification unfolds in Global South contexts under the influence of foreign capital [31,32]. Likewise, in Mexico City, sharp increases in housing prices and an influx of expatriate professionals have intensified affordability pressures and spatial exclusion, revealing the role of transnational investment in deepening urban inequality [33].

Gentrification remains a deeply contested phenomenon, with both critics and advocates noting divergent outcomes. Advocates argue that it can revitalise declining neighbourhoods by attracting investment, reducing vacancy rates and boosting local tax revenues [28]. Public authorities often portray these transformations as opportunities to improve infrastructure, enhance public safety, and promote urban renewal. In some cases, long-term residents may gain access to upgraded services, enhanced amenities, or new employment opportunities, particularly in mixed-income redevelopment schemes [25]. However, as both sources acknowledge, these benefits are unevenly distributed and often accompany processes of displacement and exclusion. While some frame gentrification as urban revitalisation, critics highlight its more disruptive and exclusionary effects. Slater [29] contends that gentrification often leads to the displacement of long-standing, lower-income residents, eroding community heritage and social cohesion in the process. From a broader political-economic perspective, Harvey [34] characterises these dynamics as forms of “accumulation by dispossession”, in which entire communities are stripped of shared spaces, cultural practices, and collective agency to make way for market-driven redevelopment. This critical perspective underscores how gentrification is embedded within broader processes of urban inequality and spatial injustice.

2.1.3. Regenerative Tourism

Regenerative tourism emerges as an approach to tourism development that transcends sustainability by actively improving and restoring the environments and communities involved. It frames tourism not merely as a low-impact activity but as a transformative force that enriches social and ecological systems. As Dredge [35] (p. 271) notes, regenerative tourism “seeks to ensure travel and tourism reinvest in people, places and nature and that it supports the long-term renewal and flourishing of our social-ecological systems”. This approach centres on delivering a “net positive” impact, with tourism activities giving back more than they extract.

Regenerative tourism departs from sustainability’s “do no harm” principle by proactively enhancing destinations, ensuring they are in a better condition than when they were discovered. Dredge [35] further argues that this shift requires a fundamental mindset change, viewing tourism as an activity embedded in ecological systems and recognising humans’ interconnectedness with nature. Suárez-Rojas et al. [36] underscore this systems view, highlighting co-creation, local empowerment, and community–nature relationships as central to regenerative practice. Similarly, Luong et al. [37] portray regenerative tourism as a proactive, restorative model that combines sustainability with ecosystem restoration, energy efficiency, and community well-being. Figure 3 below illustrates the guiding principles and implementation challenges of regenerative tourism.

Grounded, community-based initiatives exemplify this framework by prioritising ecological restoration and local engagement. Importantly, regenerative tourism underscores the importance of local stewardship. As Omma [38] demonstrates in her study of Arctic Norway, local tour guides, particularly those drawing on Indigenous knowledge systems, play a vital role in fostering place-based care, ecological responsibility, and cultural continuity. Luong et al. [37] also stress that regenerative tourism must adapt to each context, align with locally shared goals, and sustain continuous stakeholder engagement. In essence, regenerative tourism functions as a flexible framework grounded in ecological thinking and collaborative action, extending the scope of tourism beyond sustainability towards long-term renewal.

Since 2018, several pilot projects have begun applying regenerative tourism principles around the world, often guided by UNESCO and UNWTO sustainability frameworks. In Atlantic Canada, the UNESCO Tourism Corridor offers a community-led model focused on ecological preservation and socio-economic inclusion through carefully managed visitor flows [39]. In Norway, the Vega Archipelago serves as a European exemplar, where residents actively engage in balancing environmental conservation with cultural heritage and livelihood needs [40]. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, global institutions have increasingly called for tourism models that move beyond recovery. At a 2020 UNESCO–UNWTO joint panel, international experts advocated for “tourism that regenerates destinations and provides economic, social, and environmental benefits” as a blueprint for a more equitable and resilient tourism future [41].

2.2. Conceptual Intersections

Building on earlier individual discussions, this section demonstrates how these concepts co-create social and spatial change in tourism destinations, occasionally generating tensions yet offering opportunities for integrated planning.

Lifestyle migration and gentrification overlap significantly, especially in destinations with strong cultural or environmental appeal. Lifestyle migrants, typically middle- or upper-class individuals seeking a better quality of life, often relocate to areas already under tourism or real estate pressure [2]. Their arrival triggers gentrification dynamics such as rising property prices, shifts in commercial offerings, and marginalisation of lower-income residents [42]. In Seville, Jover and Díaz-Parra [43] show how tourism and lifestyle migration jointly reshaped the historic centre, displacing long-time residents and altering community identity. Rural England displays similar patterns. Phillips [44] reports that middle-class newcomers, including retirees and professionals, drove up housing costs and excluded lower-income locals. Yet, the relationship can yield positive outcomes. In La Manzanilla, Mexico, Cardinal [13] reports that long-term North American migrants backed sustainability initiatives, mentoring local youth who launched ecotourism ventures focused on conservation and education. These cases demonstrate that lifestyle migration can reinforce gentrification but also foster regeneration when inclusively managed. Lees et al. [42] stress the importance of inclusionary zoning, participatory planning, and equitable housing policies to mitigate gentrification’s social impacts and ensure that urban development benefits both newcomers and existing communities.

Although gentrification and regenerative tourism may seem unrelated, they converge in rapidly transforming destination communities. Tourism-led investment often drives gentrification by raising property values and commercialising local spaces, displacing long-term residents [45]. Conversely, regenerative tourism provides an alternative development model grounded in inclusivity, community empowerment, and sustained socio-ecological well-being. Bellato and Cheer [46] illustrate how community-led regenerative tourism in Fitzroy, a neighbourhood shaped by gentrification and marginalisation, fosters local empowerment, self-representation, and inclusive capacity building. Their findings suggest that tourism co-designed with disadvantaged groups can act as a restorative force for community resilience rather than exclusion. Dredge [35] reinforces this perspective by arguing that tourism should move beyond minimising harm to become a restorative force, actively improving places through collaborative stewardship. Luong et al. [37] similarly note that regenerative models perform best when tourism revenue supports community priorities such as housing, infrastructure, and ecological regeneration. Although discussions of regenerative tourism rarely reference gentrification, regenerative tourism offers a pathway to mitigate gentrification’s exclusionary effects through more equitable tourism planning.

Lifestyle migration and regenerative tourism both highlight destinations’ ecological and cultural assets, yet they differ in purpose. Lifestyle migrants typically pursue personal well-being in amenity-rich settings [2], while regenerative tourism intentionally restores social-ecological systems through mindful, place-based interventions [35]. These processes converge when newcomers, temporary or permanent, influence local environments, economies, and governance. Sometimes, migrants emerge as informal stewards of regeneration. In the Ecuadorian Andes, for example, migrants practised organic farming and led community-building efforts that embodied sustainable living aspirations, often informed by imported rural ideals [12]. In coastal Mexico, these dynamics underpin youth-led environmental initiatives and local ecotourism [13]. However, such outcomes are not assured. Hayes [9] warns that lifestyle migration can intensify environmental pressures when high-consumption norms persist. Integrating regenerative principles into lifestyle migration requires more than individual goodwill. It demands intentional frameworks that promote mutual learning and shared responsibility. Luong et al. [37] argue that regenerative tourism relies on harmonised community relations, systems thinking, and participatory governance—foundations essential for aligning migrant presence with regenerative futures.

2.3. Regulatory and Governance Frameworks

In addressing the regulatory landscape relevant to lifestyle migration, gentrification, and regenerative tourism, it is essential to outline the key international organisations and normative frameworks that operate across the macro, meso, and micro levels. At the global scale, core UN instruments collectively promote a rights-based, equity-focused approach to urban transformation, mobility, and tourism development. The New Urban Agenda urges cities to pursue inclusive regeneration that avoids displacement and gentrification [47]. The Sustainable Development Goals—especially SDG 11 on “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, SDG 8 on decent work, and SDG 12 on responsible consumption—connect heritage protection, responsible tourism, and community well-being to inclusive economic growth [48]. The International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers guarantees equality, dignity, and safety in both formal and informal migration contexts [49]. The IOM Migration Governance Framework applies these principles by recognising non-economic, lifestyle-related mobility and advocates integrated policy responses [50]. In tourism, the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics sets out ethical principles related to cultural stewardship, equitable benefits, and sustainability [51]. Although no binding international instrument currently defines “regenerative tourism”, soft-law frameworks are evolving. UNWTO’s One Planet Vision for Tourism and declarations such as the Glasgow Declaration advance regenerative ideals, including ecological renewal and community inclusion.

At the regional and national levels, tourism and migration policies are shaped by planning frameworks, land-use regulations, and visa schemes. The European Union’s Urban Agenda and 2030 Tourism Strategy address issues of overtourism and socio-spatial exclusion, while instruments such as the ASEAN Tourism Strategic Plan aim to maximise local benefits and minimise displacement [52]. Innovative national initiatives, such as digital nomad visas implemented in countries like Croatia and Estonia, demonstrate how lifestyle migration is becoming formally integrated into regional development strategies.

Locally, community-led governance mechanisms and regulatory tools play a vital role in shaping tourism dynamics. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape advises municipalities on how to balance tourism, heritage, and community rights [53]. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) Criteria provide measurable, SDG-aligned standards for tourism businesses and destinations committed to sustainability and inclusion [54]. Cities such as Barcelona and Vancouver have introduced local ordinances to regulate short-term rentals, one of the primary tools used to curb tourism-related gentrification and protect housing affordability.

In summary, although regenerative tourism is not yet a formally recognised governance category, these multi-level frameworks help establish an enabling environment that aligns tourism and migration with social equity, environmental regeneration, and community resilience.

2.4. Economic Drivers and Impacts of Lifestyle Migration, Gentrification, and Regenerative Tourism

While lifestyle migration, gentrification, and regenerative tourism are often framed through social and environmental perspectives, each process is also shaped by distinct economic logic and impacts. At its core, lifestyle migration is driven by economic asymmetries, where relatively affluent individuals relocate to regions offering lower living costs or favourable exchange rates. As Hayes [9] shows, North American retirees moving to Latin America often leverage stable pensions and affordable housing to stretch their incomes, injecting capital into local real estate markets and reshaping regional economies. Similarly, Bozzi [55] describes how digital nomads relocate to smaller cities or rural areas, bringing urban-level salaries into local service economies, which increases demand for housing, leisure amenities, and infrastructure. These inflows can catalyse business development, such as guesthouses, cafés, and co-working spaces, but also risk inflating property values and displacing lower-income residents.

Gentrification is fundamentally investment-led, driven by the “rent gap”—the disparity between current land value and its potential value following reinvestment. Lloyd [56] discusses how cultural capital and the creative economy attract developers and middle-class residents to previously disinvested areas. Lees et al. [42] show that this process often raises rents and property taxes, reinforcing socio-spatial inequalities. In Seville’s historic centre, Jover and Díaz-Parra [43] illustrate how tourism-led gentrification, shaped by the interaction of lifestyle migration and heritage branding, increases real estate, rental, and service prices. A tourism dimension intensifies this pattern. Seraphin et al. [57] highlight that short-term rentals generate significantly higher returns than long-term leases, encouraging property owners to convert housing stock into tourist accommodations. Bridge et al. [25] further explain how state and corporate entities commodify cultural districts, directing public and private investments into tourist areas to realise high-yield returns.

Regenerative tourism seeks to reverse this extractive dynamic. As Dredge [35] argues, it requires a shift away from mass-market tourism towards community-led, place-sensitive models that actively restore ecological and social systems. This involves not only reducing harm but also embedding economic models that share value and reinvest profits locally. Miedes-Ugarte and Flores-Ruiz [58] emphasise that regenerative tourism depends on diverse economic strategies and multi-stakeholder governance, which promote local entrepreneurship and ensure a more equitable distribution of gains. For example, Suárez-Rojas et al. [36] describe how community-based whale-watching enterprises reinvest tourism revenues into local education, conservation initiatives, and small-scale development, demonstrating how regenerative practices can align economic value with social and ecological stewardship. However, for regenerative tourism to succeed economically, enabling policies are essential, such as grants, tax relief, or low-interest loans, to support small-scale operators. These must be coupled with metrics that capture “regenerative value” rather than merely measuring tourist volume.

In summary, economic dynamics reveal clear contrasts across mobility-driven change. While capital inflows often enable lifestyle migration and gentrification, with uneven community impacts, regenerative tourism aims to redirect those flows towards long-term, inclusive prosperity.

3. Data and Methodology

This study employed a two-stage methodological approach that combined bibliometric mapping with an integrative literature review. The first stage quantitatively mapped the research landscape on tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration using the Bibliometrix R package, developed by Aria and Cuccurullo [59], and VOSviewer 1.6.20 software [60] to identify key publication trends, influential authors, and thematic clusters based on keyword co-occurrence. These clusters guided the second stage: a conceptually structured integrative review that synthesised insights across spatial levels to examine how lifestyle migration and tourism gentrification intersect with emerging regenerative tourism practices.

Data for the bibliometric analysis came from the two leading and most common [61] multidisciplinary databases, the WoS and Scopus, which are widely recognised for their comprehensive coverage and credibility in bibliometric research. Their robust indexing of peer-reviewed, high-impact publications ensured reliable and comprehensive retrieval of relevant studies. A carefully constructed search query (

Table 2. Search strings used in bibliometric analysis.

WoS search string	TS = ((“lifestyle migrat*” OR “amenity” OR “resident* touris*” OR “retirement migrat*” OR “second home” OR “expatriate communit*”) AND (“gentrification” OR “displacem*” OR “real estate speculation” OR “spatial inequality”) AND (“touris*” OR “travel”))
Scopus search string	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“lifestyle migrat*” OR “amenity” OR “resident* touris*” OR “retirement migrat*” OR “second home” OR “expatriate communit*”) AND (“gentrification” OR “displacem*” OR “real estate speculation” OR “spatial inequality”) AND (“touris*” OR “travel”))

Source: authors.

) was used to capture the literature related to lifestyle migration and tourism gentrification, allowing for cross-validation across both databases.

The selection of papers followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 protocol [62], an accepted methodology for literature reviews (Figure 4).

No specific lower time limitation was set for this research, and therefore, the dataset includes all relevant studies published up to 30 September 2024. The initial searches resulted in 55 publications retrieved from the WoS and 70 from Scopus, resulting in a combined total of 125 documents before duplicate removal and subsequent screening. After removing duplicates (20 papers), we screened other papers for relevance based on title, abstract, and keywords and did a full-text evaluation. This resulted in 19 excluded papers, which narrowed down the final dataset to 61 articles.

In the second stage, this study conducted an integrative review to complement the bibliometric analysis, selecting this method over systematic or scoping alternatives due to the conceptual fragmentation across the tourism and migration literatures. This approach supports a holistic synthesis of diverse theories and methods, providing deeper insight into interdisciplinary developments [31]. It enables critical evaluation of conceptual frameworks and methodological patterns, highlighting key gaps and guiding future research [32]. Building on the thematic clusters identified in the bibliometric phase, the integrative review interprets their interconnections and situates them within a broader theoretical context.

Our integrative review examines how tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration intersect to reshape destinations across urban and rural contexts. We synthesise findings from 61 peer-reviewed articles, spanning Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, and map them onto a micro–meso–macro framework, revealing the conditions under which these mobility-driven transformations can be redirected towards truly regenerative tourism.

This study acknowledges several methodological limitations. First, although the keyword strategy was carefully designed and enhanced using the WoS’s AI-supported “quick add keywords” feature, there remains a risk of omitting relevant literature. Second, the exclusive use of the Web of Science and Scopus may have limited the scope of coverage, even though their multidisciplinary breadth and credibility ensured reliable and internationally representative results. Third, subjective judgments during the screening process may have led to the exclusion of some valuable studies; however, the authors mitigated this by adhering to the PRISMA 2020 protocol to ensure transparency and consistency. Lastly, bibliometric analysis relies heavily on citation metrics, which may overlook important but less-cited work. To address this, the second-stage integrative review provided deeper thematic interpretation beyond quantitative indicators.

4. Research Results and Discussion

4.1. Dataset

The main information about the dataset included various types of documents and may be found in

Table 3. Essential information on the dataset.

Timespan	2007:2024
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.)	45
Documents	61
Annual Growth Rate %	6.68
Document Average Age	5.13
Average citations per doc	17.82
References	2899

and Figure 5.

Table 3 provides key details about the dataset, which includes 61 documents published between 2007 and 2024. These documents come from 45 different sources, such as journals and books. The dataset shows an annual growth rate of 6.68%. On average, the documents are 5.13 years old and have received 17.82 citations each, with a total of 2899 references. Figure 2 shows the variety of document types, including 51 articles, 2 books, 2 book chapters, 2 book reviews, 1 editorial, 1 letter, and 2 reviews.

4.2. Stage 1: Differentiating Bibliometric Results and Conceptual Structuring

To distinguish more clearly between our review’s descriptive and analytical contributions, we structured this stage in two parts. First, we present quantitative bibliometric results. Next, we offer a deeper conceptual interpretation of these patterns.

4.2.1. Bibliometric Results

The distribution of 61 publications indexed in the WoS and Scopus from 2007 to September 2024 reflects trends in scientific production and citation frequency, as illustrated in Figure 6. Scientific output has steadily increased since 2017, with over 82% of the selected documents published during this period. The year 2020 marked the highest level of productivity, with 11 publications indicating a notable surge in research activity. In 2021, output slightly declined to 10 publications, followed by a further drop to 6 publications in 2022. Research activity remained relatively stable in 2023 and 2024, with 5 and 3 publications, respectively.

Data on the average number of citations received by each publication annually are shown in Figure 6. The year 2010 saw the highest average number of citations per publication, totalling 7.6. The year 2020 comes in second place, with 5.91 citations per article on average. Based on the number of citations, the works published during the period 2011–2019 have received less attention or recognition.

Figure 7 presents some of the most relevant authors in this research field, highlighting insightful data about those who have made significant contributions to the knowledge base. All authors listed in this section have produced extensive, impactful publications that help shape discourse, identify trends, and highlight critical issues related to the connection between gentrification and lifestyle migration.

A visual diagram (Figure 8) identifies the ten most active authors during the study period. The size of each dot indicates the number of articles published, while the intensity of the colour reflects the total number of citations per year. Among them, Marjavaara, R. stands out as the most prolific author based on the number of publications.

The analysis of publication sources (Figure 9) reveals that Urban Studies, the Journal of Rural Studies, and Population, Space and Place are the three most prominent journals in this research area, based on the number of articles published.

An overview of the ten most influential articles in this field is provided in

Table 4. Top 10 most impactful documents.

Document	DOI	Year	Local Citations	Global Citations	LC/GC Ratio (%)
SOLANA-SOLANA M, 2010, GEOFORUM	[63]	2010	5	114	4.39
VAN NOORLOOS F, 2016, HABITAT INT	[67]	2016	4	33	12.12
COCOLA-GANT A, 2020, URBAN STUD	[64]	2020	4	115	3.48
LORENZEN M, 2021, J RURAL STUD	[66]	2021	4	22	18.18
MARJAVAARA R, 2009, TOUR PLAN DEV	[68]	2009	3	17	17.65
HAYES M, 2015, J LAT AM GEOGR	[69]	2015	3	25	12.00
NAVARRETE ESCOBEDO D, 2020, URBAN STUD	[70]	2020	3	24	12.50
BANTMAN-MASUM E, 2020, URBAN STUD	[65]	2020	3	16	18.75
DONALDSON R, 2009, GEOGRAPHY	[71]	2009	2	35	5.71
HAYES M, 2020, URBAN STUD	[72]	2020	2	45	4.44

. The table includes each article’s DOI, publication year, local citations (LCs), global citations (GCs), and the LC/GC ratio. Solana-Solana [63] received the highest number of local citations (5), while Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay [64] recorded the highest global citation counts (115), indicating a strong cross-disciplinary impact. The highest LC/GC ratios appear in the articles by Bantman-Masun [65] at 18.75% and Lorenzen [66] at 18.18%, reflecting notable local influence relative to global reach.

The geographical distribution of papers (Figure 10), based on all authors’ affiliations, shows a concentration in several key regions: North America (USA, Canada, and Mexico), Europe (Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Germany, and Portugal), Africa (South Africa), and Asia (China). Among these, Spain leads with 15 publications, followed by the USA with 14 and Mexico with 10, making them the most productive countries in this research field.

An overview of the ten countries (Figure 11) contributing most significantly to this research area reveals that Spain ranks highest with 140 citations, followed by Portugal with 115 and the USA with 98. A second group, including Canada, Mexico, South Africa, and Sweden, each received around 50 citations, reflecting moderate but meaningful academic engagement.

4.2.2. Conceptual Structuring

Although the quantitative bibliometric results offer a clear overview of the scholarly landscape, they also uncover a deeper conceptual structure within the field. To investigate this structure, we conducted a co-keyword network analysis to identify dominant themes. The resulting clusters, visualised in Figure 12, shift our work from descriptive mapping of publication activity to analytical synthesis of how research themes are conceptually organised. The following section interprets each cluster through its associated literature, illuminating the spatial, political, and socio-cultural dimensions that support tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration.

In the red cluster, tourism, gentrification, and lifestyle migration converge, reflecting how urbanisation processes are reshaping historic districts and heritage sites. These transformations are driven by globalisation processes, as affluent migrants, often retirees or privileged expatriates, interact with local communities. The consequence of this interaction may result in both tangible and symbolic transformations, including, but not limited to, altered landscapes and evolving cultural identities. By commodifying local heritage, platforms such as Airbnb intensify overtourism and displacement, thereby raising urgent questions about privilege, equity, and the sustainable development of urban environments. The green cluster centres on second-home ownership, mobility, and housing issues in both urban and rural settings. Case studies from this cluster illustrate how the rise in part-time residents affects local politics and population change. The influx of part-time and seasonal residents introduces new demands that alter the structure of demographic profiles and real estate markets, straining local governance and community cohesion and raising broader questions about how policy and planning must respond to evolving residential patterns. In the blue cluster, themes of counterurbanisation and rural migration dominate. Migration from cities to rural areas highlights the consistent pattern of wealthier individuals transforming small communities. While motivations and economic conditions vary, common outcomes include changing consumption habits, pressures on local governance, and tensions surrounding local resource use. As tourism develops around commodified cultural amenities, opportunities for rural revitalisation arise alongside heightened community tensions. The yellow cluster combines the concepts of rural gentrification, amenity migration, and displacement, focusing on the attractiveness of natural settings and rural lifestyles within the broader scope of globalisation. As higher-income groups pursue rural living, land-use conflicts intensify, particularly concerning housing affordability for native rural residents. The demographic shifts observed reveal the deepening integration of rural spaces within global real estate markets, highlighting that rural areas are no longer isolated peripheries but are increasingly shaped by global socio-economic forces. Finally, the purple cluster synthesises themes of migration, place, and amenity. It introduces the concepts of “creative destruction”, where local traditions are displaced by profit-oriented tourism, and “creative enhancement”, where tourism stimulates revival through innovation and community engagement. Emphasising culture, place-making, and entrepreneurship, this cluster reveals how diverse stakeholders can collaborate to balance identity preservation with economic development. This offers a dual vision of tourism’s impact: one of risk and loss and another of opportunity and renewal, capturing the potential of regenerative tourism.

Taken together, these clusters provide a comprehensive framework for understanding how tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration intersect across urban and rural settings. They emphasise processes of displacement, evolving cultural identities, and structural inequalities in destinations around the world. When analysed comparatively, it becomes evident that, although context matters, whether in Latin American historic centres, European second-home communities, or Chinese villages, the core challenges remain similar: balancing growth and visitor demand with the complexities of economic opportunity, environmental sustainability, and social equity.

The subsequent analysis builds on the clusters identified through the bibliometric assessment (

Table 5. Clusters and keywords.

Clusters Colours	Top Trending Terms	Indicative Publications	Clusters Name
Red	Tourism, gentrification, lifestyle migration, urbanization, migrants, political ecology, geographies, transnationalism, Latin America, power, privilege, landscape, Cuenca, residential tourism, retirement migration, south Heritage, overtourism, historic district, Airbnb.	Aguilar et al. [73] Bantman-Masum [65] Cardinal [13] Chen [74] Sigler and Wachsmuth [75] Urquiaga et al. [76] van Noorloos and Steel [67] Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay [64] Domínguez-Mujica et al. [77] Hayes [69] Hayes and Zaban [72] Jover and Díaz-Parra [43] López-Gay et al. [78] Navarrete Escobedo [79] Navarrete Escobedo [70] Oscilowicz et al. [80] Sánchez et al. [81] Zaar and da Fonseca [82] Pontes et al. [83]	Age of Lifestyle Migration, Overtourism and Gentrification: Tourism in Transition Through Regeneration
Green	Second home, mobility, housing, life, Barcelona, city neighbourhood, population, owners, Spain, policy, rural area, areas, Catalonia, Europe, Sweden, immigration, perspectives, urban geography.	Back et al. [84] Sulyok et al. [85] Wu et al. [86] Hoogendoorn and Marjavaara [87] Litvin et al. [88] Marjavaara [89] Marjavaara [68] Rye [90]	Life Between Urban and Rural Areas: Evolving Housing and Policy in Diverse Geographies
Blue	Counterurbanisation, community, China, 2nd home owners, home, politics, residents, west, consumption, income, village, creation, touristification, rural in-migration.	Åberg and Tondelli [91] Stiman [92] Yan et al. [20] Elmes and Mitchell [93] Öncü et al. [94] Yuan et al. [95]	Counterurbanisation and Community Regeneration: Creating Value through Sustainable Migration
Yellow	Rural gentrification, amenity migration, displacement, globalization, London, countryside, COVID-19, land-use, natural amenity.	Anguelovski et al. [96] Carrosio et al. [97] Sherman [98] Solana-Solana [63] Tan and Zhou [99] Cortes-Vazquez [100] Donaldson [71] Donaldson [101] Du [102] Finewood [103] Kocabiyik and Loopmans [104] Lorenzen [66] Mansilla [105] Perlik [106] Raia-Hawrylak [107] Roig-Munar [108] Otterstrom and Shumway [109] Rainer [110]	Rural Gentrification and Amenity Migration: Land-Use and Community Transformation
Purple	Migration, place, amenity, rural tourism, entrepreneurship, culture, creative destruction, creative enhancement.	Chen et al. [111] Emard and Nelson [112] Kors et al. [113] Maldonado-Alcudia [114] Müller [115] Pech et al. [116]	Beyond Displacement: Creative Place-Making and the Cultural Transformation of Rural Areas

Source: authors’ research.

). Within each cluster, the most influential studies to date were highlighted, and the potential of the observed variables to contribute to regenerative tourism was critically examined.

The red cluster, titled “Age of Lifestyle Migration, Overtourism and Gentrification: Tourism in Transition Through Regeneration”, addresses the intersection of tourism-driven urban transformation, lifestyle migration, and socio-economic restructuring. Studies within this cluster [64,75] illustrate how overtourism and lifestyle migration significantly contribute to gentrification and urbanisation processes, transforming the socio-cultural environments of host destinations. The influx of retirees and residential tourists has accelerated socio-economic change, raising urgent questions regarding privilege, inequality, and community impact [67,69,72]. Overtourism increases pressure on historic districts, contributing to rising property speculation, the growth of short-term rentals such as Airbnb, and the displacement of local residents [77,78,81]. The commodification of heritage and the marginalisation of native communities emerge as critical concerns. Research highlighting environmental justice concerns [13,74,76] demonstrates the interaction between tourism development, environmental pressures, and social inequality, suggesting a need for more context-sensitive governance frameworks. The tensions between economic opportunity and community well-being highlight the limitations of current tourism models. In response, scholars in this cluster advocate, in essence, for new tourism models that aim not just to sustain but to revitalise communities and ecosystems [43,70,79,80,83]. These approaches emphasise the importance of social equity, cultural preservation, and environmental restoration in reimagining the future of tourism. In sum, the red cluster presents a compelling case for rethinking tourism’s urban footprint. It advances the argument that transitioning towards regenerative tourism requires innovative governance, sustainable practices, and inclusive planning to mitigate displacement and ensure that tourism contributes to holistic community regeneration.

The green cluster, titled “Life Between Urban and Rural Areas: Evolving Housing and Policy in Diverse Geographies”, explores the interconnected dynamics of second-home ownership, residential mobility, and housing policy across both urban and rural regions. Research in this cluster highlights the significant impacts of second-home tourism on local housing markets, demographic shifts, and community structures [68,87,89]. Second-home ownership is not merely a leisure-driven activity but a potential driver of spatial transformation, reshaping both urban and rural communities [87,89]. The results also indicate the consequences of increased mobility, including population fluctuations, housing affordability pressures, and emerging social fragmentation [84,85,86]. Policy frameworks are central to this cluster’s analysis, with a wide range of strategies examined, including restrictive land-use controls, targeted taxation, proactive community engagement, and sustainable housing initiatives [68,88,90]. Rather than viewing mobility purely as a threat, studies in this cluster emphasise its potential to contribute to sustainable regional development, provided that inclusive policies are in place. The green cluster highlights the dual role of second-home ownership and mobility as both sources of socio-spatial tension and drivers of rural and urban regeneration, emphasising the need for adaptive policy strategies to address uneven housing outcomes and support balanced development.

The blue cluster, titled “Counterurbanisation and Community Renewal: Creating Value Through Sustainable Migration”, examines the growing phenomenon of counter-urbanisation and its influence on rural communities. It focuses particularly on the socio-economic transformations initiated by in-migration from wealthier urban populations, including second-home owners and lifestyle migrants. This trend illustrates how urban residents relocating to rural areas influence local governance, economies, and social relations [20,91,95]. Our analysis of the 61 selected papers illustrates global dynamics through five concise case studies. In Paris, Ontario, Elmes and Mitchell [93] show how “counterurbanites” revitalised the main street by introducing everyday services and creative enterprises, reviving the commercial core without displacing existing businesses. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mitchell and Shannon [93] demonstrate how seasonal and permanent immigrants used tourism to launch diverse ventures, reshaping the regional economy. Yan et al. [20] document how an influx of educated foreigners into Kutchan, Hokkaido, Japan drove housing-price inflation and attracted major institutional investment. In peri-urban China, Liu et al. [117] reveal how newcomers near Shanghai often remain excluded from village governance, exposing tensions with established institutions. In Norway, Rye [90] shows that second-home owners increasingly convert rural retreats into permanent homes, motivated by work–family needs rather than amenities. Migrants often bring increased purchasing power, different consumption patterns, and new investment interests [92,95]. However, the literature also highlights the dual impact of this migration. On the one hand, it can stimulate economic activity and cultural revitalisation; on the other, it may lead to touristification, rising living costs, and social tensions between native residents and new arrivals with differing lifestyles and income levels [20,93,94]. This duality underscores the importance of governance and planning in managing counterurbanisation. Studies within this cluster call for responsive, place-based policies that support inclusive community engagement, ensure equitable access to housing and services, and promote balanced, resilient development [91,92,95]. Ultimately, the blue cluster emphasises that, while counterurbanisation holds significant regenerative potential, its success depends on sustainable management strategies that prioritise community cohesion and long-term vitality.

The yellow cluster, titled “Rural Gentrification and Amenity Migration: Land-Use and Community Transformation”, investigates how amenity migration and growing interest in rural lifestyles are driving profound changes in land use, demographics, and community dynamics in rural areas. Research within this cluster highlights that increased mobility to rural regions, often motivated by the pursuit of natural amenities, healthier living environments, and slower lifestyles, has significantly accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic [66,98,99,102,106,109]. The arrival of high-income urban migrants into rural areas has led to notable changes in community composition, local economies, and landscapes [96,104,108]. Among the critical concerns are the conversion of agricultural and natural lands into residential housing, tourism infrastructure, and recreational developments. These changes often result in the displacement of local populations, the erosion of traditional rural livelihoods, and rising tensions over environmental and cultural sustainability [97,103,110]. Researchers call for inclusive policy frameworks that prioritise the needs of native residents while also accommodating newcomers [71,100,101]. Finally, the yellow cluster underlines that, while amenity migration presents opportunities for rural revitalisation, it also introduces significant challenges. Addressing these requires a careful balance between environmental sustainability, cultural preservation, and the equitable distribution of resources in increasingly diverse rural settings.

The purple cluster, titled “Beyond Displacement: Creative Place-Making and the Cultural Transformation of Rural Areas”, investigates how tourism-led migration and leisure-oriented investment are reshaping rural areas through processes of changing place identities, real estate development, and socio-cultural transformation. It highlights the tensions that arise between rural transformation and socio-spatial inequality in destinations increasingly influenced by lifestyle mobility and economic restructuring. Research in this cluster shows how natural and cultural amenities are leveraged to attract both tourists and long-term migrants, often resulting in the commodification of rural identity. In Bacalar, Mexico, amenity migration and tourism marketing under the Magic Towns program have turned the lagoon’s cultural landscape into a consumable experience, driving speculative development and altering local dynamics [116]. Similar dynamics are seen in Xixinan Village, China, where rural tourism has redefined spatial practices and aesthetic narratives, balancing aspects of “creative destruction” with “creative enhancement” through diversification and intentional design [111]. In Europe, residential real estate investment and short-term rental expansion have intensified housing inequality and planning conflicts, as illustrated in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany [113], and the Nordic context [115]. Alongside these spatial changes, the cultural and political consequences of lifestyle migration, particularly from the Global North to South, are critically examined, highlighting issues of identity and exclusion [112]. In conclusion, this cluster emphasises that amenity migration and tourism are not neutral processes.

Figure 13 presents a co-keyword overlay visualisation that offers a comprehensive overview of the interdisciplinary landscape surrounding research on tourism gentrification, lifestyle migration, and tourism. The visualisation illustrates how key concepts are interconnected and how they have evolved.

The colours of the nodes represent the average publication year associated with each keyword, creating a chronological layer from blue (earlier studies, from 2017) to yellow (more recent attention, till 2022). Earlier research (pre-2020), represented by blue and green nodes, predominantly focused on foundational themes such as “tourism”, “gentrification”, “migration”, and “urbanisation”. These studies laid the conceptual groundwork by documenting mobility patterns, the emergence of residential tourism, and urban socio-spatial transformation driven by global flows. During this period, attention was often directed towards urban centres and the structural effects of migration on city landscapes. More recent contributions (2020–2022), marked in yellow and lime, highlight a shift towards critical engagement with topics such as “second-home tourism”, “amenity”, “rural gentrification”, and “creative enhancement”. The map reveals an expanding interest in rural contexts and the symbolic re-making of places. Keywords like “political ecology”, “displacement”, and “privilege” indicate increasing concern with power dynamics and socio-environmental justice.

4.3. Conceptual Weakness in the Treatment of Regenerative Tourism

Regenerative tourism follows principles of systems thinking, community resilience, ecological restoration, and participatory governance [118,119]. Scholars such as Mang and Reed [120] have proposed frameworks embedding ecological processes into regenerative planning, reinforcing a systems-based view of place-making. Sustainable tourism focuses on mitigating harm, whereas regenerative tourism aims to restore ecosystems and enrich communities. For example, whereas a sustainable project limits visitor numbers to safeguard sensitive areas, a regenerative initiative actively involves travellers in environmental education and collaborative projects with local communities.

Despite its promise, regenerative tourism remains underdeveloped conceptually and in practice. Bellato and Pollock [121] observe inconsistent definitions, superficial interpretations, and weak alignment with the field’s ecological paradigm. Although some scholars have proposed values-based frameworks (e.g., [122]), consensus and practical guidance remain scarce. Researchers also disagree on appropriate success metrics. Unlike sustainable tourism, typically measured by reductions in negative impacts, regenerative practices aim for net-positive outcomes, yet most policy and planning tools lack metrics to capture this transformative potential [123].

The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed this movement, prompting global reflection on tourism’s role and inspiring calls to “build back better” by rejecting exploitative models [121]. Nonetheless, regenerative tourism still encounters significant limitations. Few destinations systematically adopt their principles, leaving the concept more aspirational than operational. This gap highlights the need for clearer frameworks and practical examples.

Many tourism destinations lack multi-level governance structures for systemic transformation. Miedes-Ugarte and Flores-Ruíz [58] argue that regenerative tourism demands coordination at local, regional, and national levels—a requirement rarely met in existing models. Without sustained collaboration among governance actors, regenerative tourism initiatives remain fragmented and fail to deliver long-term, scalable outcomes [124]. Although interest is growing, regenerative tourism remains largely aspirational in most regions, as few communities or organisations possess the capacity to unlock its systemic potential [121].

Instead of considering regenerative tourism a rigid model, stakeholders should view it as a guiding framework that fosters collaboration among diverse actors [37]. A gap persists between regenerative language in tourism strategies and the actual implementation of regenerative principles. Pung et al. [125] find that destination planners often express conceptual uncertainty, and Pearson et al. [126] show that branding efforts frequently outpace genuine integration of ecological and community-led practices.

Addressing these conceptual weaknesses is essential to aligning tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration, two complex socio-spatial dynamics explored in this review, with regenerative tourism’s transformative potential. As the review turns to its multi-level framework, it does so by recognising that tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration do not inherently obstruct regeneration. Rather, under effective governance, shared values, and participatory models, they can serve as platforms for restoring ecosystems, empowering communities, and advancing regenerative tourism’s goals.

4.4. Stage 2: “Reframing Tourism Futures: An Integrative Review of Gentrification, Lifestyle Migration, and Regenerative Pathways”

The analysis conducted thus far highlights that tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are increasingly influential forces reshaping communities across the globe. While these processes often produce adverse effects, such as displacement, rising inequality, and cultural commodification, they can also contribute to community revitalisation when guided by regenerative tourism principles. The potential for such transformation is illustrated in Figure 14.

The figure visualises how different thematic domains influence tourism development and how, when effectively managed, they can contribute to regenerative outcomes. These domains converge within an “Interaction Zone”, where the dynamics of gentrification and lifestyle migration overlap and reinforce each other. This zone captures the complexity of tourism-led transformation and mobility-driven change, while the adjacent “Transformation Zone” highlights how these forces can be redirected through thoughtful policy, community engagement, and planning, leading to outcomes that enhance both social well-being and ecological resilience. In this context, this study proposes a theoretical framework for understanding how tourism-induced changes at the micro (individual), meso (organisational), and macro (institutional) levels might lead to regenerative trajectories. However, current scholarship remains fragmented, often descriptive, and lacks integration between tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration in the context of regenerative tourism. Research is especially sparse at the meso and macro levels, where organisational structures, governance models, and institutional policies have the capacity to significantly shape outcomes. Despite overlapping topics such as tourism-induced neighbourhood change, housing pressures, and identity shifts, existing studies rarely build on one another to form a cumulative body of knowledge. This is particularly surprising given the growing evidence that these processes are highly interrelated, especially as destinations attempt to leverage emerging mobility patterns and new demographic inflows for community benefit.

To address these gaps, this review proposes treating tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration as interconnected components of a regenerative tourism paradigm. By emphasising themes of community resilience, cultural preservation, and sustainable development, we identified ways in which tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration can be reframed as constructive drivers of transformation. These phenomena are closely interconnected, shaping social, economic, and environmental systems across different spatial scales. Building on the methodology of Klarin and Suseno [127] and Klarin [128], this integrative review organizes these relationships across the micro (individual/community), meso (regional/city), and macro (national/global) levels, drawing insights from the identified thematic areas (see

Table 6. Theoretical integrative framework of tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration: pathways towards regenerative tourism.

Level/Stage	Precursor/Context	Process	Outcome/Impact
Micro (Individual)	Purple Cluster	Blue Cluster	Purple Cluster
	Key Themes: Personal motives such as quality-of-life aspirations, amenity-driven choices, and entrepreneurial spirit.	Key Themes: Lifestyle relocation behaviour, adaptation, micro-entrepreneurship, and individual learning/integration.	Key Themes: Individual well-being, fulfilment, and enhanced environmental awareness following relocation.
	Future Research: Examine how individual pro-environmental values and post-pandemic lifestyle shifts (e.g., remote work) influence relocation decisions and long-term engagement.	Future Research: Investigate the interaction and identity shifts between lifestyle migrants and locals at the individual level.	Future Research: Track how regenerative values and practices spread through informal networks and how they influence broader community behaviours over time.
Meso (Community/Destination)	Green Cluster	Red Cluster	Green Cluster
	Key Themes: Local attractiveness; existing amenities, housing market conditions, and policy environment shaping destination appeal.	Key Themes: On-site gentrification dynamics including real estate investment pressures, displacement risks, and socio-spatial restructuring in tourist hotspots.	Key Themes: Community outcomes such as demographic shifts, neighbourhood revitalisation versus displacement, and local entrepreneurial innovations.
	Future Research: Assess community readiness and planning frameworks to effectively leverage lifestyle migration for sustainable development.	Future Research: Explore how community negotiation and stakeholder collaboration can mediate conflicts and drive inclusive local development.	Future Research: Develop tools and comparative case studies to assess community resilience and regenerative capacity across diverse geographic contexts.
Macro (Regional/National/Global)	Red Cluster	Yellow Cluster	Purple Cluster
	Key Themes: Global tourism trends, international capital flows, structural forces, and policy regimes that shape migration and tourism dynamics.	Key Themes: Cross-scale flows, feedback mechanisms, and transnational networks connecting regional migration and tourism; the role of mass mobility and structural inequalities.	Key Themes: Systemic regenerative outcomes including balanced economic development, sustainable practices, and restorative environmental policies.
	Future Research: Evaluate how macro-level policies and global market forces facilitate or hinder transitions towards regenerative outcomes.	Future Research: Analyse multi-level governance impacts and assess how international policies can mitigate adverse migration-induced pressures.	Future Research: Compare destinations that have successfully integrated regenerative tourism models to identify critical success factors for scalable policy interventions.

Note: this framework is developed according to the methodology of Klarin and Suseno [127] and Klarin [128]. Source: authors’ research.

). Five key areas (in bold) are positioned within the matrix cells where they most appropriately belong, alongside thematic priorities and directions for future inquiry.

At the micro level, individual decisions surrounding tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are shaped by personal motivations and values. These drivers, such as the pursuit of well-being, natural amenities, and alternative lifestyles, play a critical role in influencing mobility patterns and initiating localised transformation. Studies within the blue cluster highlight how individuals are motivated by quality-of-life aspirations, environmental preferences, and the search for cultural enrichment. For instance, retirees pursuing serene environments or second-home owners seeking connection with nature represent key drivers of such lifestyle-oriented migration [95,115]. Åberg and Tondelli [91] and Yuan et al. [95] further reinforce this trend, showing that perceptions of environmental quality and life satisfaction heavily influence destination choice. Similarly, Pech et al. [116] and Chen et al. [111] demonstrate how preferences for natural surroundings and local culture are pivotal in selecting destinations. These preferences are not only linked to counterurban migration patterns [20,92] but also shape the broader spatial restructuring observed across amenity-rich regions. In the process phase, lifestyle migrants often contribute to local economies and culture through creative and entrepreneurial activity. Examples include establishing guesthouses, opening farm-to-table food shops, or running artist studios, which emerge from the purple cluster and reflect “creative upgrading” [115,116]. These activities are frequently informed by an ethic of place attachment and rural valorisation, demonstrating how newcomers can generate new symbolic and economic value in rural settings [111,116]. However, this process is not without tensions. As shown by Kors et al. [113] and Chen et al. [111], the influx of lifestyle migrants can also lead to “creative destruction” when new development patterns disrupt traditional social systems or commodify local heritage. Outcomes at the micro level often manifest in increased well-being, lifestyle satisfaction, and behavioural change among migrants. Evidence shows that some adopt environmentally conscious habits and become engaged in local communities [113,116]. When these new lifestyle migrants embrace regenerative principles in their daily lives, they have the potential to act as agents of change by promoting sustainable living practices and advocating for environmental stewardship within their host communities [115,116]. Additionally, blue cluster research demonstrates that individual aspirations can scale upwards, triggering broader regenerative change [91,92]. Overall, the micro level demonstrates that tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are not merely structural trends but deeply personal processes that, under the right conditions, can yield regenerative impacts. These individual-level contributions, often overlooked in macro-level policy discourse, represent foundational pathways through which regenerative transformation can begin.

At the meso level, the dynamics of tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are shaped by local conditions, community dynamics, and the responsiveness of institutions. This level represents the critical interface where individual behaviours and macro-level drivers converge, making it central to either increasing inequalities or fostering regeneration. The green cluster highlights how destination characteristics such as natural amenities, cultural heritage, and supportive tourism infrastructure lay the groundwork for increased visitor interest and investment [68,87]. In the case of Sweden, weak planning frameworks and second-home ownership trends have led to structural vulnerabilities in tourist communities, with planning systems incapable of managing residential transformation [89]. This is reflected in Wu et al. [86], who explore the spatial restructuring effects of tourism-oriented gentrification in rural Chinese settings, demonstrating parallels in housing pressure and affordability decline. These conditions set the stage for tourism-induced gentrification. As short-term rentals and second-home purchases increase, property prices rise, and native residents face spatial displacement or economic marginalisation [64,78]. Socio-cultural tensions may also intensify, particularly in destinations marked by lifestyle-driven in-migration and unequal access to local amenities [67,72]. During the process phase, destination governance becomes highly influential. Municipal actors, developers, and other stakeholders actively shape land use, zoning, and public space—often in ways that accelerate gentrification and heighten social inequality. Domínguez-Mujica et al. [77] contextualise this within global urbanisation, showing how tourism-related residential mobility reshapes socio-spatial structures and intensifies affordability issues in tourism destinations. Yet, in some contexts, these pressures have prompted adaptation and innovation. Communities have responded with housing cooperatives, cultural heritage initiatives, and community-based tourism strategies to retain control over place identity and affordability [43,70,80]. These responses illustrate the meso level’s dual capacity for both exclusion and transformation, highlighting that meso-level dynamics are not neutral but are structured by policy choices, economic interests, and the presence or absence of community engagement. In sum, the meso level is an essential level where regenerative tourism outcomes are either constrained or enabled. The same forces that contribute to tourism gentrification can also be redirected through community-led innovation and inclusive planning to promote social equity, cultural sustainability, and local resilience.

At the macro level, tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are shaped by broader structural forces, including global mobility trends, economic restructuring, and transnational policy regimes. The red cluster reflects macro-level drivers such as global tourism flows, digital connectivity, low-cost transport, and speculative real estate markets [67,75]. These conditions have contributed to a new global residential trend and intensified lifestyle-led urban transformations in both the Global North and South. In particular, speculative investment, digital platform expansion, and increased transnational mobility, accelerated by post-pandemic remote work trends, have driven housing market shifts across diverse urban and rural contexts [13,74]. In many regions, prevailing policy narratives frame tourism growth as a development imperative, often neglecting equity concerns or long-term environmental impacts [76]. The process phase at the macro level is characterised by interconnected systems linking destinations, capital, media, and migration. This includes the consolidation of transnational residential networks and destination branding that promote selective mobility and gentrification across continents [106,109]. The yellow cluster emphasises how these patterns manifest in rural gentrification, amenity migration, and displacement, as affluent urbanites move into previously isolated communities [96,104]. The changes often result in land-use transformations, such as converting agricultural land into vacation properties or tourism infrastructure, putting additional pressure on fragile ecosystems [97,103,110]. While some demographically declining or ageing rural regions benefit from the revitalising effects of lifestyle migration, others experience marginalisation of local populations, rising inequality, and environmental degradation [98,104]. The direction of these outcomes depends largely on national policy responses, governance structures, and regulatory frameworks. Macro-level institutions, including regional and global governing bodies, play a crucial role in steering these transitions, while lifestyle migrants can complement these influences by serving as transnational carriers of regenerative values. In sum, macro-level dynamics are essential to understanding how tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration are situated within global flows of capital, governance, and culture. Whether these forces produce displacement or regeneration depends on how states, institutions, and transnational actors mediate access to land, shape mobility pathways, and regulate development.

The proposed integrative framework highlights that tourism gentrification, often seen as a threat, can, under the right conditions, serve as a catalyst for regeneration. When individual lifestyle choices, local planning efforts, and national policy frameworks align, they can transform patterns of displacement into opportunities for socio-ecological renewal. Coordinated action at every level is essential, from migrants’ daily practices to community governance and supportive policy environments. Evidence shows that, when values of sustainability and inclusion are integrated into these processes, lifestyle migration can support place-based regeneration through entrepreneurship, cultural revitalisation, and environmental stewardship.

5. Conclusions

This study explored how tourism gentrification and lifestyle migration interact within destination contexts and how these processes can contribute to or undermine regenerative tourism. Using a two-stage review design, we addressed five guiding research questions that structured both the analysis and synthesis. The bibliometric analysis showed a marked growth in publications on these themes, especially post-2017, reflecting increased academic interest. Keyword co-occurrence mapping revealed five thematic clusters: (1) lifestyle migration, overtourism, and gentrification, (2) live between urban and rural areas, (3) counterurbanisation and community regeneration, (4) rural gentrification and amenity migration, and (5) beyond displacement. These clusters formed the analytical foundation for interpreting the literature across the micro, meso, and macro spatial levels. The analysis shaped the development of a multi-level integrative framework, which demonstrates how gentrification and migration, typically seen as destabilising factors, may, under certain conditions, be redirected towards regenerative outcomes. Our findings indicate that tourism gentrification can support regenerative transformation when guided by inclusive planning and that lifestyle migrants, when motivated by sustainability values, can act as local agents of socio-ecological renewal.

We must acknowledge several methodological constraints. While carefully constructed search terms ensured thematic relevance, there is a chance that some relevant literature was excluded. The use of the WoS’s AI keyword expansion helped minimise this risk. The reliance on Scopus and the WoS, while selected for their credibility, may still limit the inclusion of valuable research found elsewhere. Screening decisions, despite following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, require interpretive judgment and carry inherent subjectivity. Lastly, bibliometric techniques prioritise citation frequency, which can overlook under-cited but meaningful contributions, a gap partially addressed through the integrative review stage.

Based on the integrative framework and thematic synthesis, several avenues for future research emerge. At the micro level, more work is needed on the post-relocation behaviours of lifestyle migrants, particularly on how environmental values and sustainability practices evolve. Longitudinal studies could offer insight into how regenerative behaviours diffuse through local systems. At the meso level, further investigation is warranted into how planning frameworks, institutional design, and community participation affect the social impacts of migration and tourism-induced gentrification. Cross-case comparisons can highlight models of resilience and inclusive governance. At the macro level, future research should explore how international policy frameworks, global financial systems, and multi-level governance arrangements shape the course of tourism and migration-driven transformations. This includes examining how macro-level forces enable or constrain regenerative outcomes, how transnational policies can mitigate negative impacts such as displacement, and what critical success factors support effective regenerative tourism models at scale.

Our review implies key considerations for policy. For destination managers and policymakers, the findings highlight the need to move beyond one-dimensional narratives that frame tourism gentrification or lifestyle migration as inherently negative. Instead, both phenomena should be understood as complex, context-dependent processes that hold untapped potential for community regeneration, especially when managed through participatory governance and inclusive planning. For researchers, the multi-level framework proposed here offers a replicable tool for understanding the socio-spatial transformations driven by mobility and gentrification and for evaluating their potential to contribute to regenerative tourism transitions.