Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

The campsite: an eviction site like no other

Are you one of those people who’ve had a holiday at a campsite? It’s an experience that allows millions of people to escape their daily lives and spend some time outdoors. But today, in France, it’s also a residence, a roof, for thousands of people. But does living on a campsite give you the same rights, including the right to mobilise?


Whether out of choice or obligation, deciding to live on a residential campsite highlights inadequate housing situations and unequal access to housing stock. Housing insecurity is intensified for people who live on campsites, who find themselves unprotected by common rental law and therefore more exposed to eviction than tenants in the traditional rental market.
What happens to these residents if the campsite closes? How do they cope with this brutal eviction process which depends solely on decisions made by the owner? To what extent is their housing vulnerability manipulated by the campsite owner?


  • Lion G., 2021,  « La précarité résidentielle comme entrave aux mobilisations collectives », Espaces et sociétés, n°2, vol. 183, 2021, pp. 17-33. 

    Aurélie Mandin-Charrier is a member of the Labex SMS master’s network, University of Toulouse – Jean Jaurès : aurelie.mandin@etu.univ-tlse2.fr


Residences with unequal legal status

A sociological survey was carried out between 2012 and 2016 in a low-end campsite in the Paris region, open since the 1960s and purchased in the 2000s by the municipality. The campsite offered residential pitches, which could be rented all year round. They were different from tourist pitches, intended for tourists who wished to stay for one or a few just
nights.
However, these pitches were not rented under the same rights and obligations as the rental of a flat or private house. In this latter case, the lease which binds tenant and owner regulates the rental act in terms of the rental fee, the terms of payment and notice, the duration, any works to be carried out, etc. It also explains any obligations and protects the different parties in the event of disputes. For example, owners must provide adequate housing, which poses no physical or health risks, and also ensure undisturbed use of said housing. What’s more, there is a winter ban on tenant evictions. For their part, tenants undertake to pay rent and charges, to maintain the premises and not to sublet their  accommodation. Subsequently, in the case of unpaid debts, owners can send in a bailiff and file a complaint. Eventually, a payment order or even an eviction order is sent to the tenants. From then on, there are several institutions that tenants can turn to including, for example, the prefecture, to find out about any existing support systems and housing solutions.


On a campsite, however, rentals are not governed by common rental law, but by internal regulations which manage prices, reservation fees, disturbances, the smoking ban, the opening period, access to equipment, etc. Decisions regarding the campsite are made unilaterally, meaning that they come only from the owners. This means that outside visits may be limited to those wearing a wristband, prices may vary with each contract renewal and charges can increase, eviction can be announced with no notice, access to water, electricity and Wi-Fi can be cut off, etc. Specifically, accommodation and pitches are regulated by the Tourism Code and that of urban planning. The latter stipulates, for example, that mobile homes are intended for seasonal occupation for tourist use. Subsequently, these different legislations fail to guarantee a legal framework and status for residents who live there all year round. As the
sociologists who conducted the study point out, this type of housing can put its residents at risk. It leaves them vulnerable to abuse in the form of price increases or material restrictions. They also face insecurity due to the uncertainty surrounding their possible eviction.

Precarious residents

This vulnerability, linked to housing, adds to other economic and social inequalities. Residents have sometimes had arduous and complex life journeys. Of the two hundred pitches at the campsite studied, around thirty were rented to “permanent” residents. Some of these people had experienced economic and social hardship caused by loss of employment, income, divorce, bereavement, or other life events. Most lived on an income that fell short of the
poverty threshold, that is, less than 1,041 euros per month. Around one hundred other pitches were occupied by “leisure” residents, who came on weekends or out of season (between April and September) and who, for the most part, also came from working classes and had a low income.

When it comes to abuse and conflicts, social status can be decisive in making demands and building a protest movement. Fatalism and resignation are states of mind that are more prevalent among the working classes. This prevalence can be partly explained by the fact that these people have internalised the idea that they don’t possess the skills necessary for political engagement. They also face inequalities in terms of accessing the resources they need in order to engage in a protest, such as information relating to their rights, their possibilities for appeal, alternatives, etc.

Mobilisation against eviction

Researchers monitored the eviction procedure to which these campsite residents with a precarious residential and social status were subjected: unemployed men and women, widows and widowers, social benefit recipients, retirees, workers, etc. Nevertheless, even in the face of these adversities, the article describes mobilised, persevering and supportive residents. How did this collective mobilisation come about?

The process began when the living conditions of the campsite residents gradually started to deteriorate. This degradation was partly due to the age of the park, but also the fact that the owner (the municipality) had stopped maintaining the green spaces and the caretaker’s contract failed to be renewed. The residents, who paid a certain amount every year for the maintenance of the site, decided to contact the mayor, initially by post, then by means of a petition.

The author of the article highlights that there are particular circumstances for campsites when it comes to social protests. On the one hand, the proximity, common spaces, as well as prior relationships between residents, ultimately facilitate the emergence of collective actions and solidarity. In fact, a near majority of residents got together and signed the petition, demanding the maintenance of the campsite. It’s also a space that facilitates the circulation of
information, an essential resource for any protest. On the other hand, rumours are easily spread in this context. Said rumours generally arise from a lack of information and in emotionally charged contexts. They spread even more quickly when they have adverse consequences for a group.

When the letter and petition went unanswered, doubt set in and fears started to spread about the municipality’s intentions concerning the potential closure of the site and subsequent eviction of its residents. Receiving nothing but indifference from the owner, the residents got together in the form of a general assembly. In the meeting, various demands were identified concerning the lighting system, the installation of rubbish bins and fire extinguishers, access
to telephones and Wi-Fi, etc. Residents also tried to gain visibility, leaving the campsite to put up posters and organising a protest with the support of an elected official from the opposition. Not keen on having a protest on their hands and noting the increase in demands, the owner used the residents’ precarity to put an end to the matter. How?

Power relations

The residents were taking risks. Given their precarious residential status, their involvement in these collective actions could be costly both on a material level with, for example, unexpected water and electricity cuts, but also on a symbolic level due to a feeling of humiliation and inferiority. As the months went by, and events unfolded, some considered the costs greater than the benefits and backed down. The protest movement was therefore relatively unstable. This instability was further exasperated by the offensive logic developed by the owner. Taking advantage of the vulnerability of residents linked to their status, the municipality adopted various strategies to dissuade them and nip any disputes in the bud. These strategies also allowed them to reassert their advantage in the balance of power.

Initially, the municipality was careful to stifle and hide the struggles and demands of the campsite residents: by refusing to authorise the protest and taking down the posters. Then, they sowed discord among the residents by means of threats of destruction or even eviction. Finally, they used various means of pressure in the form of warnings, lying about unpaid debts, and written summons. The risk of being evicted increased and uncertainty – and fear – spread among residents, leading some of them to break away, give up, or even commit betrayal. The movement was then discredited using lies concerning a resident who was falsely accused of stealing water. The people who led the movement were isolated and stigmatised, even criminalised. Bullying practices were used, such as demagnetising entry badges, cutting running water and electricity, until the residents were desperate.

Dispossession, rezignation and denial

The fate of the campsite residents was in the hands of the municipality. It had deprived them of all the means of action they needed to raise awareness and make demands and left them strongly divided. On one side, we had the “permanent”, and on the other the “leisure”; on the one hand, the “mobilised”, and on the other, the “demobilised”. The publication of two municipal decrees accelerated the outcome of the conflict. The former called for certain homes to be relocated on the basis of an expert report which, although it mentioned the increased risk of falling trees, nevertheless only recommended improved site maintenance. The other informed that the campsite would remain closed from November to April, which automatically made it impossible to live there permanently.

After these publications, residents continued to notice a deterioration in their living space. They started to detect material pressures such as water and electricity cuts, decaying infrastructure and the unavoidable symbolic consequences, such as bitterness, resentment, a feeling of inferiority and uncertainty… After a year, the official closure of the campsite was announced by the mayor during a neighbourhood meeting. Even after hearing this announcement, the residents refused to believe the reality unfolding before their very eyes. Their denial was fuelled by storytelling and playing down the threat. Some thought that they would be protected by the winter ban on tenant evictions, others believed that the municipality wouldn’t dare risk its image and reputation.

Coping with unpredictability

The outcome of this unequal conflict materialised over two months after the seasonal closure of the campsite was made official. Residents tried to get explanations during municipal council meetings. But they were shown the door on their first attempt. In a second attempt, they silently accepted vague explanations, put forward with no justification by the municipality which claimed to have rehoused the majority of “permanent” residents.

It took only fifteen minutes for the Municipal Council to vote on the closure of the campsite and the eviction of residents, particularly “permanent” ones. Fates and months of struggles were therefore sealed in a matter of minutes, without consulting the main people involved. It was the final blow. Gilles (whose first name has been changed), 51 years old, a permanent resident, on a disability pension, absolutely dumbfounded, checked with the sociologist that
he had indeed just witnessed his own eviction, unable to believe it…

Eviction, a social process

In this survey, the sociologist pinpoints a phenomenon that is rarely studied and currently poorly documented: the eviction of residents from a campsite. They also reflect on access to housing and initiate debates concerning eviction policies. Eviction, a more or less long process, can be abrupt and have serious consequences for some people. Social status seems to have an influence on the process, as well as residential status. Residents in cities, slums and squats in France; ghettos in the United States; and slums in India, do not necessarily have the material and financial resources they need to leave the place or the information resources to protect themselves. The eviction process can therefore contribute to the reactivation of logics of domination and stigmatisation among populations that are often already economically and socially fragile.


  • Aguilera T., Bouillon F., Lamotte M., 2018, « Politiques de l’expulsion : acteurs, enjeux, effets », L’Année sociologique, Vol. 68.

 
Illustration by Adèle Huguet for Mondes Sociaux : licence CC BY-NC-ND
To see more of her drawings, https://adelehuguet.wordpress.com/
 
 
Image credits in CC : Freepik, noomtah, eucalyp et khoirul huda  pour Flaticon, Desbenoit de Noun Project

Discover more articles from the SMS master’s network: RISOM


OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Aurélie Mandin-Charrier (24 mars 2025). The campsite: an eviction site like no other. Mondes Sociaux. Consulté le 19 avril 2025 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/13jz7


Aurélie Mandin-Charrier

Aurélie Mandin-Charrier, Réseau des masters du Labex SMS, université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (aurelie.mandin@etu.univ-tlse2.fr)

Vous aimerez aussi...

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.