FUNTS Eco-social Impacts of Second Home Tourism in Rural Finland The XXIII ESRS Congress Vaasa, Finland 17-21 August 2009 Mervi J. Hiltunen & Mia Vepsäläinen Centre for Tourism Studies University of Joensuu University of Eastern Finland UEF Finnish University Network for Tourism Studies FUNTS
FUNTS Research team: Professor Mia Vepsäläinen, UEF PhD students Kati Pitkänen and Mervi J. Hiltunen, UEF researcher Antti Rehunen, SYKE Academy of Finland Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry / Rural Policy Committee YTR
Second home tourism in Finland 482 000 second homes (population 5,2 million) Every 4th household owns a Mökki (cottage) Every 2nd family has access to one Nature-based outdoor activities: fishing, boating, swimming, berry picking, gardening, Finnish sauna culture Second home owners: Baby boomers (average age 60 years) Urban dwellers with roots in the countryside Time spent at second home 75 days a year 21 short trips a year Sources: Statistics Finland 2009; The Free-time Residence Barometer 2009
Dispersed in the rural countryside Solitude natural surroundings Distance from home 118 km (mean) 60 km (median) Distance (mean) to nearest Town 32 km Neighbour 200 m - 400 m Bus stop 3,5 km Village/population centre 17 km 85 % at shoreline 95 % travel by private cars Sources: Statistics Finland; The Free-time Residence Barometer 2009; Pitkänen & Kokki 2005
Major trend: Dual dwelling Simple summer cottages dual residences Amenities of home life Summer use round-the-year use Background reasons: Relative wealth, human mobility, technology, distance work, retiring baby boomers, ageing, younger generations habits & hobbies Traditional locations at shorelines Pitkänen, K. & Vepsäläinen, M. (2008) Foreseeing the Future of Second Home Tourism. Case Finnish Media and Policy Discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(1), 1-26.
27 % of second homes heated during the absence of owners Changes in second home use and standards environmental and social impacts
Eco-social impacts of second home tourism Ecological impacts on environment (biotic & abiotic nature) environmental impacts Economic, social and cultural impacts on local community community impacts Relation and interaction between impacts (eco-social system) Identifying underlying factors and processes Dyke 1988, 1994, 1997; Haila & Levins 2002; Haila & Dyke 2006; Hiltunen, Mervi J. (2007). Environmental Impacts of Rural Second Home Tourism. Case Lake District in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7(3), 243-265.
Eco-social impacts of dual dwelling DUAL DWELLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMUNITY IMPACTS High standard of second homes Year-round use of second homes Dispersed spatial structure + Renovation of old building stock + Eco-efficiency of new second homes and infrastructure Growing energy consumption Increase in use of natural resources + Travelling between first and second home may decrease + Use of eco-technology Daily mobility in second home region increases Year-round use of environment Disturbance of vulnerable shore nature Road building and maintenance (frost resistant) + Increase in property values real estate taxes + Employment opportunities in building sector Changes in traditional rural milieu and built heritage Mitigation of climate and environmental change + Advance of local economy + Green consumption + Reinforces social capital + Diversifies and revitalises social structure + Potential rural migration Costs of social service provision Ageing of second home population Different values and lifestyles Changes in local power relations Costs of scattered settlement (infrastructure & public services) Low interaction with local community
All second homes Second homes in villages and small population centres Source: Vepsäläinen & Rehunen 2009 Antti Rehunen
Second homes in spatial structure Antti Rehunen
Second homes in villages Village size (population) 500 m zone Small villages (20 40) 25 000 Villages (> 40) 69 500 Small population centres (200 < 1000) 12 900 Population centres ( 1000) 23 900 Total 131 300 (27 %) Source: Vepsäläinen & Rehunen 2009
Eco-social impacts of second homes in villages SECOND HOMES IN VILLAGES Second home building ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMUNITY IMPACTS + Re-use of old building stock + Conservation of local built heritage + Re-use of uninhabited buildings + Raise in building value Energy and resource consumption of two homes Underutilisation caused by seasonality Year-round use of second home Dense spatial structure + Emergence of eco-communities + Travelling between first and second home may decrease Travelling may increase dispersed urban spatial structure + Supports public transport + Short distance to services + pedestrian and bicycle traffic + No scattered building + Supporting local economy + Increase in real estate taxes + Integration to community increase in social capital + Revitalises communal life and social structure Costs of providing public services Differences in lifestyles and attitudes may cause local conflicts Displacement of permanent housing Seasonal holiday reserves + Cost advantages of centralised services
Conclusions Growing popularity of second home tourism and dual dwelling leads to increase of scattered settlement induced negative eco-social impacts in rural Finland Integration of second homes into villages supports sustainable development? Second homes in villages pose negative eco-social impacts : seasonality, public costs, displacement, mobility, commuting In rural policy: Recognising second home tourism as a manifold phenomenon Recognising foreseeable impacts in sparsely populated and dense rural areas
Thank You! Mervi J. Hiltunen & Mia Vepsäläinen Centre for Tourism Studies University of Joensuu P.O. Box 78, FIN-57101 Savonlinna mervi.hiltunen@joensuu.fi mia.vepsalainen@joensuu.fi