The findings regarding the driving forces of gentrification indicated that it was not a uniform process, but was influenced by a variety of sociopolitical and economic factors, depending on the geographic setting. Although broader neoliberal development agendas impacted both urban and rural environments, there were significant differences in the mechanisms, actors and scales of transition. A systematic breakdown of these drivers, their spatial contexts, and the resulting displacement evidence is summarized in Table 1.

Urban gentrification was shown to be largely state-facilitated and market-driven, operating in formal planning frameworks, and realized through several schemes. State-facilitation is defined as interventions in which the state acts as an enabler through regulatory tools; for example, municipal governments actively reshape the urban space, leveraging the ability to intervene in building permits (Widianto & Keban, 2020); revitalization programs ((Khudi, 2023); (Kusumaningrum et al., 2010); (Prayoga et al., 2013)); and adjustments to spatial plans ((Amrozi et al., 2022); (Buchori et al., 2022); (Kidokoro et al., 2022)). Many of these cases were often justified as efforts to modernize or beautify cities. In this context, modernization or beautification often translates into the formalization of urban space. Governments seek to replace ‘disordered’ or ‘perceived’ informality with structured infrastructures, prioritizing a specific visual aesthetic that aligns with modern city standards.  This is evident in kampung upgrading projects in Jakarta ((Budiarto, 2005); (Kusumaningrum et al., 2010), (Kusumaningrum et al., 2020); (Leitner & Sheppard, 2018); (Prayitno et al., 1999)) and Yogyakarta ((Amrozi et al., 2022); (Suharyanto et al., 2023); (Vermeulen, 2020)). These initiatives have led to direct and indirect displacement of low-income communities. Moreover, by implementing redevelopment schemes and infrastructure projects, local authorities have effectively created opportunities for capital reinvestment in central and peri-central areas.

Apart from government intervention, private investments in real estate have contributed immensely to urban growth. Developers have exploited rent gaps in many strategic locations, which in Indonesia manifest as a stark discrepancy between capitalized ground rent—the current value of land under low-intensity use—and the potential ground rent achievable through high-value redevelopment schemes. For example, developers have converted traditional housing into commercial properties, apartments and exclusive boarding houses (Amrozi et al., 2022). Historic areas are also being transformed into boutique hotels, cafes and creative hubs. This has taken place in cities such as Jakarta, Bandung and Yogyakarta as a result of tourism-driven gentrification ((Nursanty, 2020); (Pratiwi, 2021); (Prayitno, 2017); (Vermeulen, 2024)). Similarly, studentification, one form of gentrification, has pushed land values upward and motivated the proliferation of high-end rental housing in Semarang, Depok and other university towns ((Dewi & Ristianti, 2019); (Hayah & Dewi, 2020); (Hutauruk & Susanti, 2024); (Sandra et al., 2023); (Sanvica & Susanti, 2023); (Situmorang et al., 2019)). Such developments aim to generate more capital from previous land uses that were considered less profitable.

Urban gentrification has also been accelerated by changes in culture and lifestyle, reflected by rising middle-class consumption patterns in the expansion of creative sectors, fashionable cafes, and residential clusters with religious branding ((Martin-Iverson, 2014), (Martin-Iverson, 2021); (Suharyanto et al., 2023)). Such patterns increase indirect displacement, in which long-term residents feel pressurized to leave due to increasing land prices, property taxes and speculative real estate practices. Considering such changes collectively, Indonesian urban gentrification is shown to be a formalized process mediated by market liberalization and state planning. It also results in mixed modes of displacement, neighborhood-scale changes, and social stratification ((Khudi, 2023); (Kidokoro et al., 2022); (Sjahrain, 2024); (Vermeulen, 2020); (Wiryomartono, 2020)).

In contrast, rural gentrification is generally shaped by large-scale investment projects, state–capital alliances, and the restructuring of agrarian economies. In this case, the mechanisms are frequently ‘coercive’ – characterized by direct state interventions such as compulsory land acquisitions and central government decrees – rather than the ‘state-facilitated’ regulatory approach seen in the urban context, which typically relies on building permits and zoning incentives. National strategic programs have increased land conversion through compulsory acquisition and central government decrees. Such projects include the Nusantara Capital City (IKN) development in East Kalimantan ((Aini, 2023); (Listiningrum et al., 2023); (Syaban & Appiah-Opoku, 2024)); industrial estates in Bintan ((Bunnell et al., 2006); (Munir & Yani, 2020)); an airport mega-project in Subang (Susman et al., 2021); a tourism-based special economic zone in North Minahasa Regency (Putro & Azkarifa, 2020); and pro-tourism development in Bali (Suyadnya, 2022). The development of those projects has often marginalized local communities by undermining customary land rights or bypassing participatory planning.

The influx of both domestic and foreign investment is also crucial to the transformation of rural areas. This can be illustrated by how the effect of tourism and remote workers in the towns of Ubud and Canggu in Bali, which has led to land commodification and alienation at an incredibly fast pace (Wibowo, 2024). The entry of manufacturing sector investments has led to job displacement in rural localities in industrial estates in towns/areas such as Bintan and Subang ((Bunnell et al., 2006); (Munir & Yani, 2020)). The role of political patronage and clientelism, whereby local power brokers facilitate land transactions with investors, is essential in effecting changes in localities. Additionally, such approaches also ensure that there is a one-sided relationship between local people and those in power. Consequently, local rural areas are converted into ‘sites of consumption’ thanks to worldwide demands, including those of ecotourism, cultural tourism, or migration to rural locations.

Gentrification trends found in transition regions tend to possess hybrid forms, combining urban and rural facets. This is influenced by local actor adjustments, creating areas with mixed characteristics. An example of a region with unclear boundaries has been evidenced in the case studies of Makassar ((Ramli et al., 2020); (Surya et al., 2020); (Surya et al., 2020)). The characteristics of this metropolitan setting combine elements of urban development with rural transformation. The process is also demonstrated in the findings of several studies on metropolitan-scale regions ((Hasan, 2009); (Hudalah et al., 2016); (Prayoga et al., 2013)).

The findings concerning the gentrification process show a variety of transformational pathways, although all follow a similar pattern that includes changes in land use, the participation of external actors, and the socio-economic dynamics of local communities. Many cases were initially driven by the attractiveness of space, whether in the form of natural amenities, strategic locations or historical value. Examples of such urban contexts include the redevelopment of creative industries in Bandung, or the revitalization of historic neighbourhoods in Kota Tua Jakarta ((Martin-Iverson, 2014), (Martin-Iverson, 2021); (Sulistyo, 2019); (Vermeulen, 2024)). The strong appeal of historical value inherent in these two cases has often served as a catalyst for transformation.

In contrast, being part of rural areas, agrarian and ecological landscapes have increasingly attracted tourism investment and triggered massive development. These processes were clearly demonstrated in Dago (Mauludi, 2020), Gunungsewu (Ristiawan et al., 2023), and Ciletuh (Ristiawan et al., 2023). Furthermore, government interventions through spatial planning policies, investment regulations and strategic projects also reinforce the direction of these transformations. Examples of such processes include the Indonesian capital city relocation project (IKN project) and the Mandalika Special Economic Zone ((Aini, 2023); (Hornok & Raeskyesa, 2024); (Listiningrum et al., 2023)).

The subsequent phase is marked by the systematic acquisition of land by corporations, investors or wealthy individuals. This process often unfolds through voluntary transactions ((Amrozi et al., 2022); (Dewi, 2017); (Rizal et al., 2021)); speculative practices ((Fazrin et al., 2024); (Shatkin, 2016); (Syaban & Appiah-Opoku, 2024)); or policy-driven pressures ((Khudi, 2023); (Putro & Azkarifa, 2020); (Syaban & Appiah-Opoku, 2024)). In this sense, capitalization and land ownership are facilitated by capital-intensive actors employing a range of formal and informal mechanisms to gain control over land.

The next step is land-use conversion, marked by traditional villages being turned into commercial areas, with rice fields and plantations converted into villas, hotels or residential complexes, or occasionally, coastal areas being reclaimed for upscale housing ((Nurdiani, 2011); (Wiryomartono, 2020)). Consolidation of land leads to the rapid development of contemporary infrastructure and auxiliary facilities. Older buildings are replaced by more profitable ones, such as upscale hotels, retail malls or luxury apartment complexes (Sulistyo, 2019). The construction of industrial zones or universities also increases demand for middle-class service-oriented enterprises and rental housing ((Buchori et al., 2023); (Situmorang et al., 2019)). At this point, space starts to be (re)produced using capitalist logic.

Beyond land conversion and large-scale development, gentrification also involves functional conversion and renewal. Existing buildings are frequently repurposed; for example, traditional houses are converted into cafes, art studios, student housing or homestays ((Aurunnisa & Rochani, 2024); (Dewi, 2017); (Nugroho & Zhang, 2022); (Pratiwi, 2021); (Sandra et al., 2023)). Consecutively, older commercial or residential facilities undergo renovation to cater for middle- and upper-class consumption. This process not only alters the physical appearance of space, but also redefines social and economic functions, reinforcing the commodification of place under the process of capitalist urbanization.

Land-use transformation or function conversion typically force local communities and lower socio-economic classes who previously lived in these areas to relocate. Pressures take the form of displacement or negotiation. Displacement occurs in multiple forms, including direct eviction ((Kusumaningrum & Rosyidy, 2024); (Yamaguchi et al., 2022)); the loss of a sense of place and ownership (Margono et al., 2023); and economic displacement through rising land values ((Raga et al., 2024); (Surya et al., 2020); (Weng, 2018)). It can also be observed as an adaptive displacement in which livelihoods shift, such as when farmers become boarding house or small shop owners (Aurunnisa & Rochani, 2024). In some cases, negotiated displacement emerges, whereby residents bargain with developers or the government, eventually losing full access to their space (Adhinata & Sawitri, 2022).

Beyond the economic and physical spheres, gentrification can also take on metaphorical forms. All space, culture, and even religion or belief are types of commodities. As indicated by the case of Yogyakarta, popular culinary traditions are materialized through social media, driving the proliferation of cafes and restaurants (Prima & Widhiasti, 2023). A similar process took place in Bali, where local space was transformed into walled cultures in response to the demands of exclusivity of expatriate communities (MacRae, 2016). A form of religious gentrification has also evolved, in which space has been reconfigured based on modern and exclusive Islamic identities ((Abaza, 2004); (Weng, 2018), (Weng, 2019)).

The final process is exemplified by the consolidation of new social classes, specifically professional workers, students, foreign visitors and urban middle-class groups. These changes have led to social disintegration, increased living costs and spatial segregation ((Mardhotillah & Gamal, 2018); (Permanasari et al., 2024)). Consecutively, super-gentrification has occurred in certain areas, where affluent neighborhoods have been transformed into even more exclusive and expensive enclaves, as observed in Solo Baru (Al Hibbi et al., 2023).

Despite distinct geographical contexts, the Indonesian gentrification trajectory can be perceived as a cyclical process consisting of spatial attractiveness, land acquisition and conversion, infrastructure development, displacement, commodification of culture and identity, and socio-economic polarization. An illustration of the gentrification process in both rural and urban Indonesia is presented in Figure 5.

The study shows that the dynamic interactions between a range of actors influences the paths of socio-spatial changes in Indonesia on various scales. These actors share interests, resources and capacities in the process of producing space as a reflection of power relations, economic aspirations and socio-cultural negotiations. The different players are not limited to certain geographic locations, but rather, appear interchangeably in urban, rural and peri-urban contexts, showing how gentrification is a fluid phenomenon that cuts across geographic borders.

In urban contexts, gentrification is predominantly driven by the interplay between the state, private developers, and middle- and upper-class newcomers. Municipal governments and urban planners often act as facilitators of capital accumulation through spatial planning policies ((Amrozi et al., 2022); (Buchori et al., 2022); (Kidokoro et al., 2022)); deregulation ((Kidokoro et al., 2022); (Widianto & Keban, 2020)); and infrastructure provision ((Peters, 2010); (Prayoga et al., 2013)). The cases of Jakarta, Bandung, Semarang and Yogyakarta show the strong influence of large-scale private developers and corporate actors, such as Agung Podomoro, Lippo, Ciputra, Summarecon Agung, Modernland Realty, Bakrieland and Pakuwon Jati, or state-connected development corporations ((Kusno, 2012); (Wiryomartono, 2020)). They are the key actors in the transformation of urban neighborhoods into sites of profit-oriented accumulation.

The influx of newcomers, often associated with middle- and upper-class groups, further accelerates socio-spatial transformation. They include students (for example, studentification in Depok, Semarang and West Jakarta) ((Dewi & Ristianti, 2019); (Rinaldhi et al., 2023); (Sanvica & Susanti, 2023)); young professionals ((Aritenang & Iskandar, 2023); (Wiryomartono, 2020)); and creative industry entrepreneurs ((Martin-Iverson, 2014), (Martin-Iverson, 2021)). These groups are active gentrifiers who shape housing demand and consumption patterns. Consecutively, urban poor, migrant workers, and long-term kampung residents are displaced, marginalized or forced to adapt by converting their houses into rental accommodations ((Dewi, 2017); (Martin-Iverson, 2021); (Widianto & Keban, 2020); (Wiryomartono, 2020)). Counter-movements, organized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Urban Poor Consortium, RUJAK, ARKOM, or grassroots initiatives such as Jogja Ora Didol, illustrate resistance against urban gentrification ((Khudi, 2023); (Leitner & Sheppard, 2018); (Widianto & Keban, 2020)). Overall, the urban setting demonstrates a strong orientation toward market-driven redevelopment, with local governments aligning themselves with private capital, rather than prioritizing community welfare.

Rural gentrification in Indonesia exhibits different, interrelated tendencies. It often revolves around tourism development ((Ristiawan et al., 2023); (Rizal et al., 2021)); higher education expansion (Fazrin et al., 2024); and lifestyle migration ((Al Hibbi et al., 2023); (Brata et al., 2019)). Investors and capital owners play a crucial role in acquiring agricultural or coastal land for tourism development, as evident in Sukaratu (Tasikmalaya) (Rizal et al., 2021); Ubud (Bali) ((Brata et al., 2019); (MacRae, 2016)); and Canggu (Badung, Bali) (Adhinata & Sawitri, 2022). In these cases, local, provincial and central governments actively facilitate transformation by promoting tourism as a strategy for rural development and for generating national revenue.

Furthermore, rural gentrification through tourism development is also evident in the increasing influence of foreigners, expatriates and students, who demand specific housing and services, thus pushing investment and capital flow for specific development purposes. As illustrated in the case of Bali, retirees, digital nomads and lifestyle migrants are reshaping the social and cultural landscapes ((MacRae, 2016); (Wibowo, 2024)). Similarly, university campuses such as UIN Jember and higher education clusters in Jatinangor, Sumedang, have triggered land use and housing dynamics in otherwise agrarian communities ((Fazrin et al., 2024); (Niki Suma & Shofwan, 2023)). Although some local elites and landlords have benefited from these processes through land sales or business ventures, indigenous residents, small-scale farmers and fishing communities are disproportionately vulnerable to displacement and loss of livelihood ((Adhinata & Sawitri, 2022); (Fazrin et al., 2024); (Susman et al., 2021)). Such cases define the structural imbalance in rural gentrification, with global and national capital intersecting with local vulnerable conditions.

Peri-urban areas, lying on the edge of urban expansion, display mixed characteristics of gentrification of urban and rural areas. In this case, large-scale developers, led by private interests, are clearly evident, as illustrated by the construction of new towns, such as BSD City (Tangerang) ((Andini et al., 2023); (Kidokoro et al., 2022); (Kusumaningrum & Rosyidy, 2024)) and Solo Baru (Sukoharjo) (Al Hibbi et al., 2023), or environmental revitalization in Punclut (Bandung) (Hudalah et al., 2016). Such activities are strongly supported by local governments, which encourage and support developments with permits, land use plans, and infrastructural developments, including toll roads, commuter trains and services.

The presence of middle-class migrants, including industrial workers, professionals and university students, is another factor that contributes to such growth. Particularly in Tembalang (Semarang) and Jatinangor (Sumedang), this can be seen by university relocations that lead to housing developments and business growth ((Aurunnisa & Rochani, 2024); (Dewi & Ristianti, 2019); (Fazrin et al., 2024); (Sanvica & Susanti, 2023)). Religious and cultural groups also make their presence felt, particularly in locations such as Depok and Tangerang, with Islamic-themed housing complexes, led by religious leaders, Islamic organizations and religiously-affiliated political parties such as PKS, influencing urban developments ((Hasan, 2009); (Weng, 2018), (Weng, 2019)). Kampung communities living in these urban localities are under pressure to move and commoditize their land, perhaps not necessarily with long-term security in mind.

The comparative analysis of actors in urban, rural and peri-urban settings in Indonesia has revealed that gentrification is characterized by its dynamic and contested nature. The experiences reveal that gentrification is framed by various combinations of groups of actors in dynamic settings that shift between urban, rural and peri-urban locations. Their role is not confined by territorial boundaries, thus creating interplay and conflict, thereby making gentrification a dynamic and mediated process. What is created is not one type of gentrification, characterized by one single pattern, but a broad spectrum, with state interests, and market and social response intersecting in irregular ways.

Gentrification in Indonesia occurs at various scales. Each reveals its own characteristic dimension of gentrification, which captures various local changes embedded in larger political-economic and cultural phenomena.

At the micro-level, gentrification takes place at either the kampung or neighborhood level. Examples of this are what has taken place in Semarang (Rukun Warga, in Kelurahan Tlogosari Kulon – a specific neigborhood term in Indonesia) (Aurunnisa & Rochani, 2024); Malang (Kampung Cempluk) (Budianta, 2019); Yogyakarta (Kampungs Jogoyudan, Sosrokusuman and Prawirotaman) ((Prayitno, 2017); (Suharyanto et al., 2023); (Widianto & Keban, 2020)); and Jakarta (Menteng Atas, Kampung Pulo, Bukit Duri and Akuarium) ((Khudi, 2023); (Leitner & Sheppard, 2018)), which show how land conversion, studentification and tourism pressures have displaced residents in tightly bounded urban communities. Micro-scale gentrification has predominantly occurred in urban contexts where specific projects were developed.

Meso-scale gentrification has extended to the sub-district or city level, shaping entire urban districts and the surrounding peri-urban zones. (Sandra et al., 2023), for example, shows how the six kelurahan around Universitas Indonesia (Kemiri Muka, Beji, Pondok Cina, etc.) represent neighborhood-level changes that have collectively changed the housing market in the larger city. Similarly, the conversion of Surabaya's historic kampungs (Dinoyo, Bubutan) and Bandung's iconic corridors (Dago, Braga) illustrate city-wide changes in which the social fabric and urban history have been reorganized to make room for capital investment ((Peters, 2010); (Pratiwi, 2021)). In rural settings, agricultural land, cultural landmarks and traditional spaces have all been incorporated into regional and international tourism networks, leading to the widespread commodification of rural areas such as Ubud (Bali) and Sukaratu ((Brata et al., 2019); (Rizal et al., 2021)). (Aurunnisa & Rochani, 2024) and (Prayoga et al., 2013) show that the meso-scale of gentrification has been articulated through educational expansion.

Gentrification at the macro level occurs at the metropolitan, regional and national levels, and in many cases, in the form of massive infra-structural and developmental projects. The Jakarta Mega Urban Area, or Jabodetabek, is one such case, with giant new towns such as BSD and Bintaro Jaya. It has involved land development over thousands of hectares, displacing rural villages and converting agricultural land into upscale suburbs and enclaves ((Aritenang, 2023); (Permanasari et al., 2024); (Shatkin, 2016)). Similar phenomena can also be found in Makassar's Mamminasata metropolitan region ((Ramli et al., 2020); (Saleh et al., 2023); (Surya et al., 2019); (Surya et al., 2020); (Surya et al., 2020)); the metropolitan area of Semarang, covering Pringapus and Bergas Lor (Buchori et al., 2022); and the integration of Batam and Bintan into the Growth Triangle of Singapore-Indonesia ((Bunnell et al., 2006); (Munir et al., 2023); (Munir & Yani, 2020)). In such instances, gentrification is not only a local phenomenon, but is also embedded within the overall transformation of Indonesian urban systems, interwoven with international capital, tourism and migrational currents. Overall, this type of gentrification is usually seen to originate from the urban core, subsequently driving the transformation of the surrounding areas, resulting in areas characterized by a mix of urban and suburban features.

Gentrification encourages multi-dimensional outcomes, not only upgrading and changing urban, rural and peri-urban geographical environments, but also influencing and distorting the social structure, and economic, cultural and political aspects. In urban centers, including Jakarta ((Kusno, 2012); (Leitner & Sheppard, 2018); (Martinez & Masron, 2020)); Bandung ((Aritenang & Iskandar, 2023); (Martin-Iverson, 2021)); Surabaya (Peters, 2010); Semarang ((Prayoga et al., 2013); (Setioko, 2009)); and Yogyakarta ((Minanto, 2024); (Sholihah & Heath, 2016); (Vermeulen, 2024)), gentrification is primarily driven by aggressive displacement and geographical re-arrangement. The growing presence of high-end apartments, business complexes and dormitories has systematically displaced poor communities, either through direct eviction or land market speculation. Such a process creates extreme class stratification and spatial segregation: more affluent residents occupy newly-gentrified regions or gated neighborhoods, while poor communities are relegated to marginalized peri-urban areas. The gentrification of urban areas is also characterized by cultural manifestations, with original kampungs and heritage sites transformed into tourist-direct areas, specifically by the sterilized authenticity and degraded values of ‘Guyub’/Togetherness ((Alam, 2018); (Nursanty, 2020); (Prayitno, 2017); (Sulistyo, 2019)). However, some benefits also should be considered, such as the emergence of infrastructure development ((Mauludi, 2020); (Vermeulen, 2020)); urban revitalization (Vermeulen, 2024); and the diversification of new economic activities ((Aritenang & Iskandar, 2023); (Sholihah & Heath, 2016)).

In contrast, in rural areas, such as Sukaratu in Tasikmalaya (Rizal et al., 2021); Ciledug in Cirebon (Hasyim et al., 2024); coastal fishing villages in Wakatobi and Bengkulu (Budiman, 2021); and cultural hubs such as Ubud and Canggu in Bali ((Adhinata & Sawitri, 2022); (Brata et al., 2019); (MacRae, 2016); (Suyadnya, 2022)), there have been consequences closely interconnected with land conversion and cultural commodification. Agricultural land and traditional living habits in these rural regions have been for the sake of tourism infrastructure, such as resorts and industrial estates, leading to both immediate economic benefits and long-term risks. Farmers and fishing communities have progressively lost their rights and usage of productive resources, and high land prices have made ownership by local populations impossible. The commodification of cultural practices, rituals and artwork has generally led to degradation and an authenticity crisis, with cultural practices becoming marketable products for tourists. Rural gentrification has further disrupted ecological systems; for example, the loss of rice fields ((Adhinata & Sawitri, 2022); (Suyadnya, 2022)); loss of water catchment areas (Brata et al., 2019) and of mangrove forests, increasing the risks of flooding, soil erosion and biodiversity decline ((Surya et al., 2020); (Susman et al., 2021)). The bifurcation of communities, between locals and expatriates or tourists, has created new social distances, reducing meaningful cultural exchange and leaving many residents as service providers rather than empowered participants in development ((MacRae, 2016); (Wibowo, 2024)).

Peri-urban areas, such as Tangerang Regency ((Andini et al., 2023); (Hornok & Raeskyesa, 2024); (Kusumaningrum & Rosyidy, 2024); (Weng, 2018)); Solo Baru in Sukoharjo (Al Hibbi et al., 2023); Punclut in Bandung (Hudalah et al., 2016); Mamminasata in Makassar ((Ramli et al., 2020); (Saleh et al., 2023), (Saleh et al., 2023); (Surya et al., 2020); (Surya et al., 2021)); and Tembalang in Semarang ((Dewi & Ristianti, 2019); (Hayah & Dewi, 2020); (Prayoga et al., 2013)), have demonstrated hybrid consequences combining elements of both urban and rural gentrification. These transitional zones have undergone rapid land-use changes, with rice fields and kampungs being transformed into upmarket residential neighborhoods, industrial sites and new towns ((Al Hibbi et al., 2023); (Kusumaningrum & Rosyidy, 2024); (Surya et al., 2021); (Weng, 2018)). The changes result in higher land prices and land speculation practices, which bring greater wealth to those with initial capital, but at the same time displacing and marginalizing those with minimal financial capacity (Kusumaningrum & Rosyidy, 2024). In particular, peri-urban gentrification has  established spatial forms of exclusion, with "the original kampungs remaining and at the same time encircled by high walls, limiting entry and offering middle- and upper-class infrastructure" (Al Hibbi et al., 2023). This spatial transformation is then followed by various forms of social transition, with agrarian-based society adjusting to urban-industrial living conditions including individualism, contract, and rising social and economic stratification (Prayoga et al., 2013).

The geographical aspects have revealed that although gentrification in Indonesia has always been characterized by displacement, inequality and cultural change, there have been variations in what was displaced, created and transformed. The urban settings define the displacement, segregation and commodification of public space, while the rural environments reveal the sensitivities of agrarian culture under pressure from tourism. Additionally, the peri-urban environments reveal the contradictions of transition, with urban modernity and rural tradition in conflict.