The Social Value of Second Homes in Rural Communities

Abstract

Analyses of the impacts of second home ownership in rural areas, around the world, regularly align with a "loss of community" thesis, linking second homes to a range of negative socio-economic consequences. This article looks again at the second home issue, developing a perspective that attributes a particular social value to temporary and seasonal rural residence. It proposes a framework for thinking about this phenomenon that brings together writings on the nature of place dwelling with ideas of social capital accumulation, and the potential interconnectors that temporary residents provide between the otherwise closed (or more limited) social networks of some rural communities and wider socio-economic and professional worlds. It argues that second homes may give communities a potential store of "bridging" social capital. Moreover, it proposes that second homes have a clear social value within rural community structures, and aims to open a research agenda and debate around the measurement and likely extent of this value.

Mapping an invisible population: the uneven geography of second-home tourism

“…Second-home tourism and the 'invisible population' of second home tourists can be linked to a diverse range of issues impacting destinations, such as the demand for and supply of local and public services, the conversion of second homes into primary residences or vice versa, retirees living in their second homes, networking and the transfer of ideas between second-home tourists and locals, involvement in local planning processes, etc. (see for example Barnett, 2014;Gallent, 2013;Hall & Mu€ller, 2004a;Marjavaara, 2007Marjavaara, , 2008Paris, 2011;Persson, 2011;Robertsson & Marjavaara, 2014). Here, we demonstrate that there are differences within the category of second homes and that these differences show geographical patterns.…”

“…Hence, second homes can and do differ. Depending on the circumstances, they will entail different possibilities and difficulties for local communities and authorities (Gallent, 2013;Halfacree, 2012;Hall & Mu€ller, 2004a). Still, they are often grouped together and handled under the unitary category of second homes.…”

“…Although this article focuses on Sweden, second homes are rather common in many countries, other Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, South Africa, Canada, the United States, and Australia (Adamiak et al, 2015;Blondy, Plumejeaud, Vacher, & Didier, 2014;Dijst, Lanzendorf, Barendregt, & Smit, 2005;Gallent, 2013;Haldrup, 2004;Hall & Mu€ller, 2004b;M€ uller & Hoogendoorn, 2013;Pitk€ anen, 2008;Rinne, Paloniemi, Tuulentie, & Kiet€ av€ ainen, 2014;Vagner, Mu€ller, & Fialov a, 2011;Visser, 2003). In the case of Sweden, with about 660,000 second homes, a full 54.2% of the population own or have access to a second home through relatives and friends, making it a widespread phenomenon (ASTRID, 2015;Statistics Sweden, 2014a, 2014b.…”

Socioprostorni obrasci suvremenoga sekundarnog stanovanja u Hrvatskoj

“…However, it should not be overlooked that a part of the phenomenon has been imported in the Mediterranean countries; a considerable proportion of second homes in Spain, Greece and Italy are owned by foreign citizens (Barke, 2007;Breuer, 2005;Gallent, 2015). Second home use has been recognised as a strong factor in socio-spatial transformation even in countries with a smaller proportion of house-holds with second homes, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, where it comprises below 10% (Gallent, 2014;Norris & Winston, 2010). Overall, the comparison between Croatia and other European countries reveals that in Croatia, second home ownership levels fall within the European average and are comparable to the mentioned Mediterranean countries.…”

Governmentalities of mobility: The role of housing in the governance of Australian rural mobilities

“…While this area of rural studies was described several years ago to be marginal at best and neglected at worst (Milbourne, 2006), the last few years have seen a number of important critical contributions to our understandings of rural housing. More recently, analyses have concentrated on issues such as accessibility and the changing role of social housing (Milbourne, 1998;Barcus, 2002;Gallent et al, 2003b;Hoggart and Henderson, 2005;Marcouiller et al, 2011); processes and challenges of planning rural housing, problems of social exclusion and new forms of consuming rural housing (Gallent et al, 2003a(Gallent et al, , 2005Satsangi and Dunmore, 2003;Hall and Müller, 2004;Gallent, 2007Gallent, , 2013Gkartzios and Scott, 2009;Satsangi et al, 2010;Sturzaker, 2010;Gallent and Robinson, 2011;Marcouiller et al, 2011;Rye, 2011;Gallent and Robinson, 2012); the role of rural housing and its relationship to poverty and homelessness (Cloke et al, 2000a, b;2001a, 2001b, 2003Milbourne, 2004;Robinson, 2004;Argent and Rolley, 2006); and the unique features of and cultural influences on rural housing markets (Cho et al, 2005;Scott and Murray, 2009;Vepsalainen and Pitkanen, 2010;Beer and Tually, 2012). However, despite the rapid expansion of a critical literature on rural housing, two areas remain underdeveloped: a) the governmental role of rural housing and b) how we understand the role of mobility in relation to rural housing governmentalities.…”