Umeå University Department of Geography Master thesis Spring 2020 Author: Markus Hägglund Supervisor: Roger Marjavaara

Are second-home owners a hidden recruitment resource for rural and peripheral areas?

Abstract

Skilled and educated workers are somewhat of a rarity for many rural and peripheral communities. The global migration trend where younger residents of these communities tend to leave for more populated areas leaves the communities with an older population that struggles to find new employees to replace those who retire. However, this does not mean that rural and peripheral communities are unattractive areas. Second-home owners verifies how these areas are attractive for certain individuals for various periods. More importantly, previous research show how second-home owners are often highly educated within their fields, they invest time in their host community, and they can potentially become permanent members of the society. Thus, this study aims to explore second-home owners potential of acting as a recruitment resource for the local labour market of the host community. This is done by using Vilhelmina municipality in Västerbotten county, Sweden, as an example. By using quantitative methods, the findings of this study suggest that the occupational background of second-home owners causes them to be a potential recruitment resource for the local labour market. However, the findings for the study suggest that the willingness to contribute to the local labour market is a mixed bag. Nevertheless, this study contributes to the current understandings of labour recruitment in rural and peripheral areas by confirming the possibility for extension of second-home owners as a resource. Keywords: Second-home owners and labour recruitment, second homes, business knowledge development, planning and development, migration, temporary and permanent mobility, rural and peripheral areas

i

Acknowledgements

Writing a master thesis can be a nerve-racking and challenging experience. However, this study has been nothing but a joyful and educative journey that reinforced my interest in research. Before going into this study, I would like to thank everyone that made writing it possible. First, I would like to thank everyone that provided for the empirical section of this study. Without their help, this study would never have been possible. I also want to thank my supervisor, associate professor Roger Marjavaara, for his insightful and constructive guidance throughout this study. Writing this study has been a long process. Therefore, I thank Roger for providing regular meetings throughout the study period that helped me with my writing. Finally, I want to thank Vilhelminas municipal department for their support throughout this study. They have provided both insightful and necessary information that made this study possible.

ii

Table of content

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Theoretical Background ...... 3 2.1 Understanding Tourism & Migration ...... 3 2.2 Second Homes – The In-between of Tourism & Migration ...... 5 2.3 The Second-Home Owners Impact on the Local Society ...... 6 2.4 Second Homes and Labour Recruitment ...... 10 3. Methodology ...... 13 3.1 Selecting the Study Area ...... 13 3.2 Data ...... 15 3.3 Analysing the Data ...... 18 3.4 Target Group ...... 19 3.5 Ethical Considerations ...... 19 3.6 Limitations and Challenges of the Study ...... 19 4. Setting the Scene ...... 21 5. Results ...... 23 5.1 The Characteristics of Locals and Second-Home Owners in Vilhelmina ...... 24 5.2 The Needs on the Local Labour Market ...... 27 5.3 The Willingness of Vilhelminas Second-Home Owners ...... 30 6. Discussion ...... 33 7. Conclusion ...... 39 References ...... 42 Appendix – Internet Survey ...... 46

iii

1. Introduction

A decreasing, and aging population is an ongoing challenge in rural and peripheral areas (Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015). The outmigration of young adults in sparsely populated societies is a global migration trend partly caused by the scarcity of jobs and services, and limited educational opportunities in the area (Eliasson et al, 2015; Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993). In Sweden, the population development since the 1930s has resulted in a clustering in larger urban areas where job opportunities, services and educational opportunities are plenty (Henderson & Akers, 2009; Marjavaara, 2008; Halfacree, 2001; 2011). This outmigration trend is a global phenomenon where vacant facilities and houses continuously become more common (Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Williams & Hall, 2000; Henderson & Akers, 2009; Marjavaara, 2008; Nordbø, 2014; Rye, 2015 Quinn, 2004). The outcome of this trend often results in an elderly dominated population in rural and peripheral areas (Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015). For example, Statistics Sweden estimate that the population of Sweden will reach 11 million in the year 2028, and the share of people aged 80 and older is expected to increase the most (SCB, 2020).

The ageing demographic bring significant consequences to rural and peripheral areas (Hendersen & Akers, 2009; Green et al, 2009). The retirement of baby boomers, combined with the departure of young adults, leaves these societies with a declining local workforce (Hendersen & Akers, 2009; Green et al, 2009). As younger generations leave for more populated areas, they often remain there for significant periods of time thus resulting in their home region losing potential workforce (SCB, 2020). Therefore, a struggle to find workers to maintain local industries occurs.

Regardless of this migration trend, a community with a labour market remains. However, this remaining community struggles to find appropriate employees for existing industries (NSD, 2019). In Northern Sweden, less populated societies struggle to find people willing to work in the local labour market. Regardless of company efforts, finding suitable laborers to rural and peripheral areas is difficult (SVT, 2020). The local prosecution office in Luleå, Northern Sweden, is one example where little success has been had in finding appropriate labourers (SVT, 2020). This is supposedly caused by high competition in the business and a low desire to move to less populated areas, as where job offers in urban areas are plenty and more appealing. Another example is Lycksele, Northern Sweden, where there exists a struggle to recruit schoolteachers to the area due to a lack of co-workers (Läraren, 2019). The reason for this struggle supposedly stems from a lack of interest in the place (Läraren, 2019). According to the head of

1 education in Lycksele municipality, one reason for the low response on teachers is due to the lack of educational opportunities in the area (Läraren, 2019). Regardless of the reason, this exemplifies the challenges of recruitment in rural and peripheral areas in Sweden.

However, this decreasing population does not mean that these places are not attractive amongst people. Instead, some rural and peripheral areas are appreciated by second-home owners during specific periods (Jansson & Müller, 2003; Müller et al, 2010; Marjavaara et al, 2019). As many second-home owners tend to have their primary homes in urban areas, the contrast of having a secondary home is appreciated since it let the home owners ’’escape’’ their stressful ordinary lives in the city (Marjavaara et al, 2019; Jansson & Müller, 2003). For many second-home owners, the second-home act as a way of keeping a connection to one’s upbringing as these homes are passed on through generations in the family (Jansson & Müller, 2003; Müller et al, 2010). Thus, many rural and peripheral areas are met by investing second-home owners who spend parts of the year in the area (Back & Marjavaara, 2017). It is noted how second-home owners are engaged in their host community and often show a desire to be a part of the community (Farstad, 2011; 2013; 2016; 2018; Fialová et al, 2018; Larsson & Müller, 2019; Waller & Sharpley, 2018). In some cases, second-home owners identify themselves as locals in their host community as they engage in local events, activities and sometimes have family ties to the area (Fialová et al, 2018; Farstad, 2018; Waller & Sharpley, 2018). Moreover, the investments and commitment made by the second-home owners in their host community can potentially lead to them becoming permanent residents (Fialová et al, 2018; Farstad, 2018; Hall & Williams, 2002; Waller & Sharpley, 2018). Therefore, second-home owners may act as an ’’antidote’’ towards declining rural and peripheral areas as they show signs for long lasting commitment.

With these challenges in mind, one may ask: are second-home owners a potential resource for recruitment in local labour markets that have problems in attracting skilled workers? For the time being, second-home owners may be a ’’hidden resource’’ for regional development. Although the potential benefits of second-home owners in the host communities are acknowledged, scholars argue that second homes have been largely ignored in rural policies and local planning (Farstad, 2016 & Larsson & Müller, 2019). For example, research show that only a third of Swedish municipalities mention second homes in their comprehensive plans (Frykholm, 2017). Further, Larsson & Müller (2019) state that it is not known how the potentials of second homes can be realized or how local stakeholders can embrace second-home owners potential use for the local community.

2

To a degree, the contribution of second-home owners to rural and peripheral areas have been identified in previous studies. For example, an increase of second-homes in an area can open for new services and increasing the residential value of the place (Jansson & Müller, 2003; Marjavaara et al, 2019; Müller & Hoogendoorn, 2013). The second-home owners’ effect on the local economy has been highlighted before in past studies, where investments made by the homeowners strengthens services and increases their demand (Jansson & Müller, 2003). However, if second-home owners can act as a recruitment resource to the local labour market in their host community is less known.

Therefore, this study aims at contributing to the current gaps in labour recruitment in rural and peripheral areas and to provide another perspective on how second-home owners can be included in local development and planning. Also, an important aspect for this study is to address the importance of viewing temporary residents as a resource for recruitment in rural and peripheral areas. To guide this study, the following research questions are put forward: • What are the professional backgrounds of the second-home owners and how do they complement the local inhabitants? • How does the skills/professional backgrounds of the second-home owners match the local labour market needs? • What is the willingness amongst second-home owners to take a job in the host community? With these questions in mind, this study seeks to explore the second-home owners’ potential as a resource for the local labour market in rural and peripheral areas by mapping their qualifications and compatibility to the labour needs in the municipality, but also to enquire their willingness to engage. This is done by studying the municipality of Vilhelmina in Sweden.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Understanding Tourism & Migration

To understand the mobility of second-home owners, one need to address the conceptualization of tourism and migration. According to Hall & Williams (2002), there are three main features of tourism. These features involve that tourism occurs outside of the normal residence, is of a temporary short term character with the intention of returning after a while, and the destinations are visited for other purposes than taking permanent residence or employment remunerated from within the places visited (Hall & Williams, 2002). Tourism is built on the assumption that it is in the tourist’s intention of eventually returning

3 home, hence not permanently moving into the destination (Hall & Williams, 2002). Aronsson (2004) describe tourists as constant foreigners who, on the one hand can go wherever they wish but on the other hand never belong to or take part in a community. Thus, tourism is defined as a temporary form of mobility (Aronsson, 2004; Hall & Williams, 2002).

Migration is conceptualised as a process in time that relates to people’s pasts and to their hoped-for futures (Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015; Quinn, 2004; Williams & Hall, 2000). With examples of cyclical migration, one can see how migration often stems from tourism (Quinn, 2004). For Example, Quinn’s (2004) study show how holidays and shorter visitations to a destination can progress towards extended residence, thus resulting in permanent residence upon retirement. Migration is also described as a movement across boundaries, resulting in some sort of permanent move (Hall & Williams, 2002). Therefore, these conceptualizations emphasise on tourism being a temporary form of mobility while migration is permanent (Aronsson, 2004; Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Hall & Williams, 2002 Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015; Quinn, 2004).

However, the definition of temporary and permanent mobility is rather complex and previous studies comprehend them differently (Bell & Ward, 2000; Hall, 2005; Müller, 2004; Quinn, 2004). According to Bell & Ward (2000), there is perhaps no such thing as permanent mobility as it is difficult to predict if one will stop changing residence throughout their life-course. Hall (2005) argues that migration is often not permanent as individuals may return to their home several years after they left. This occurs either on permanent basis such as retirement or on a temporary basis such as a second home (Hall, 2005). Also, Müller (2004) address the difficulty of determining whether mobility is permanent or temporary. With the examples of second homes in Lycksele, it was noted how some second homes made the transition into a more permanent residence while others became unoccupied throughout time (Müller, 2004). The modernization of mobility contributes to the complexity of temporary and permanent mobility (Müller, 2002; Quinn, 2004). For example, Quinn (2004) address how one can now belong to multiple places due to modern mobility thus making it more difficult to determine which place categorises as permanent- or temporary residence. Further, Müller (2002) discusses how a rapidly changing labour market that involves greater geographical mobility, turns the second- home into nothing more than a shelter during working life. Therefore, this contributes to displaying the complexity of temporary and permanent mobility.

Moreover, temporary mobility can potentially become permanent mobility (Hall & Williams, 2002). The emphasis on returning home, which Hall & Williams (2002) claim to be one of the conceptual ideas of tourism, may become less

4 important with time and instead become more resembling to permanent migration.

2.2 Second Homes – The In-between of Tourism & Migration

The conceptualizations of tourism and migration makes second-home owners interesting as they are a mixture of both. As Aronsson (2004) argues, second homes are an extensive form of mobility which is associated with visits to, and living in, the second home. Thus, second homes offer both short term stays associated to tourism, yet it can eventually transform into permanent residence where the owner relocate to the host community (Aronsson, 2004). In Bell & Wards (2000) study on temporary and permanent mobility in Australia, they state how old age often results in permanent migration while a younger age is more related to temporary migration. Further, Aronsson (2004) explains how during the life-stages of second-home owners, they slightly progress from occasionally visiting their second-homes to longer and more frequent stays. When the second-home owners get older it may potentially shift to a permanent migration because opportunities to live there are given (Aronsson, 2004; Bell & Ward, 2000). Quinn (2004) add that second-homes are often bought with the intention of escaping one’s ordinary life once the opportunity is given. Purchasing a vacation home is therefore a potential steppingstone to seasonal or permanent migration (Quinn, 2004). This helps explaining how second-homes are in between tourism and migration, as the visitations to these dwellings often start as tourism visitations thus transforming into longer or permanent stays when time is given.

Moreover, previous research address how the second home sometimes is the aspired permanent residence for the owners (Blondy et al, 2018; Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998; Müller et al, 2010). According to Kaltenborn & Clout (1998), the second-home is associated with performing lifestyle-oriented hobbies such as hiking, skiing, and other outdoor activities. Visits to the second-home may therefore circulate around a pursuit of the second-home owners, thus suggesting that their current primary home only act as a dwelling necessary to perform everyday tasks (Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998). Blondy et al (2018) describe second-homes as an ’’oasis’’ where one can escape the stress experienced in the environment of the permanent home. The second-home represents an escape from the constraints of everyday life thus possibly being one’s desired life (Blondy et al, 2018). In a survey made by Müller et al, (2010), it was noted how the contrast towards urban life was important in the second-home owners’ relation to Swedish rural and peripheral areas. Their study noted how spending time with family in scenic landscapes was appreciated and many respondents believed that they would use their second homes more frequently in the future (Müller et al, 2010). It could therefore be suggested that second-home owners

5 may eventually permanently migrate to the second-home as it represents one’s desired life.

However, not all second-home owners see the need of permanent migration (Aronsson, 2004; Müller et al, 2010). Instead, some second-home owners do not see themselves permanently moving to their second home even as they intend to use it more frequently (Müller et al, 2010). This could suggest that one desires the contrast of urban to rural environment mentioned by previous studies (Marjavaara et al, 2019; Jansson & Müller, 2003): that having a life in a more populated area is necessary to fully appreciate the second home. Due to place- rootedness, it can be challenging to let go of a dwelling. Modern mobility helps us to remain attached to these dwellings and areas thus allowing the owner the contrast of urban to rural (Quinn, 2004). Therefore, even if second-homes never become permanent residences, chances are that the attachment to them remains.

Nevertheless, both social and economic investments are made in the host community by second-home owners (Aronson, 2004; Blondy et al, 2018; Fialová et al, 2018; Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998). Aronson (2004) argue that vacation residents put significant effort into repairing and renovating their houses thus implying that these secondary homes are important life-projects. Accordingly, Fialová et al (2018) state that the respondents in their study value the recreational potential of the second-home area which encourages them to interact with others in the area. Their study highlight that not only is the area appropriate for recreational needs, but it is also valued for the closer relation it brings to other residents, thus highlighting a need to become integrated into the society (Fialová et al, 2018). However, if this is the relation to other second- home owners or the locals remains unclear. Blondy et al (2018) noted how second-home owners tend to be socially invested in the host community, by participating in events, activities, and club associations. Their study suggest that second-home owners are more socially committed to the host community than their home community (Blondy et al, 2018). From a tourism perspective, previous literature differentiates regular tourists to second-home tourists (Müller et al, 2004). For example, Müller et al (2004) explains how second-home tourists implies development of different sets of social and economic relationships as it involves purchasing property in the destination. Hence, these are mere examples on how the investment of second-home owners often points towards a long-term commitment to the area.

2.3 The Second-Home Owners Impact on the Local Society

Second-home owners are known to impact their host community in different ways and this is discussed in three forms in the literature: social, environmental

6 and economic (Hiltunen et al, 2016; Jansson & Müller, 2003; Kietäväinen et al, 2016).

The social impacts of second-home owners in the host community have been discussed several times in the literature (Jansson & Müller, 2003; Waller & Sharpley, 2018). The social impacts of second-home owners are sometimes acknowledged as resurrecting the society (Jansson & Müller, 2003). As locals move out, second-home owners help to keep the societies alive by for example participating at local events and shopping within the area (Waller & Sharpley, 2018). From a local perspective, the view on second-home owners is becoming increasingly positive (Waller & Sharpley, 2018).

Although contributing to the local community, tensions and conflicts remain to certain degrees. It is acknowledged how second-home owners causes tension between them and the locals in the host community (Farstad & Rye, 2013; Farstad, 2011; 2016). These tensions are explained to partly occur due to class differences between the locals and the second-home owners (Farstad, 2011). It is argued that since second-home owners tend to be more financially stable and belong to a higher societal class than the locals in the host community, tensions can arise between the two (Farstad, 2011). Further, Farstad & Rye (2013) explain that conflicts arise between second-home owners and the locals as they share the same spaces but use them for different purposes. In Farstads (2016) study regarding the comprehension of second-home owners in rural municipalities in Norway, the financial impact second-home owners brought to the area felt unpleasant. One of the respondents on the latter study argued that even if second-home owners contributed to local development, the locals should be in the forefront of development (Farstad, 2016). In Müller & Hoogendoorns (2013) study, it is discussed how regional planners tend to prioritise land usage for second-home owners and reserving space in their favour, thus creating a sense of injustice amongst the local inhabitants (Müller & Hoogendoorn, 2013).

Interestingly, the tensions mentioned between locals and second-home owners may not always apply. As mentioned by Fountain & Hall (2002), these tensions often occur due to newcomers migrating into the area. They argued that tensions occur as the newcomers who migrate differ in terms of interests and associations (Fountain & Hall, 2002). However, second-home owners are not necessarily newcomers to the community. Previous studies suggest that second-homes are kept in the family and passed down through generations (Jansson & Müller, 2003; Müller et al, 2010). For example, Müller et al (2010) argue that many of the second-home owners who migrate later in life to the host community are those who grew up in the community. Further, second-home owners who make a permanent move to the host community have often had their second-home in the area for a significant period before migrating (Müller, 1999; 2002; 2004, Müller

7 et al, 2010). Therefore, this suggests that second-home owners are not necessarily newcomers thus possibly making these tensions less relevant as the second-home owners already are acquainted with the locals and the area.

The environmental impact of second-home owners is perhaps the least covered of the three aspects in previous research. According to Müller & Hoogendoorn (2013), the reason for this stems from that those who study second home tourism are tourism geographers or planners and not environmental scientists. Another reason could be that second-home owners may not imply any new environmental impacts (Müller, 2004). In Hiltunen et al (2016) research, the local respondents defended second-home owners regarding their environmental contribution. Here, it was highlighted how second-home owners did not pose any harmful environmental impacts and instead emphasising the environmental soundness of second-home owners (Hiltunen et al, 2016). Hence, this may confirm that second-home owners cause no new environmental impacts which explains the lack of coverage in research.

The economic impacts of second-home owners can be connected to acquisitional effects and their investment in the area (Jansson & Müller, 2003). Their economic contribution is mostly related to opening new opportunities for different lines of work in the area (Jansson & Müller, 2003). Olofsson (2005) explains how the second-home owners’ impact on the local economy creates opportunities for businesses that would struggle if their contribution did not exist. In the same sense, Marjavaara (2008) explains how second-home tourism a reliable source of income for businesses in the host community is as they continuously come back to the area for certain seasons. Thus, their economic impact on the host community helps existing facilities to function throughout the year (Marjavaara, 2008; Olofsson, 2005). Hence, the economic impact of second-home owners is broad and may depend on their level of investment in the area.

However, the economic impact of second-home owners has its negative side as well. For example, Jansson & Müller (2003) explain how the investments made by second-home owners increases the overall quality standard of residence in the area, thus making it more expensive to live there. From a municipal perspective, the economic impact of second-home owners is perhaps the most interesting. In Kietäväinen et al (2016) study, the economic impact of second- home owners was argued to be the only considered impact by the municipality as they were not included in local decision making. Therefore, the economic impact of second-home owners could potentially bring negative consequences due to the increased cost of living in the area and exclusion in planning.

As the above state that second-home owners contribute to the host community in different ways, their willingness to contribute is perhaps less known. The above 8 examples are mere spill-over effects that occur when second-home owners live in the area, their own interest in contributing seem to be less understood. Nordbø (2014) claims that if second-home owners do not want to contribute to local development in their host community, the discussion of their potential becomes meaningless. It is acknowledged how sometimes the second-home owners do want to become a part of the local host community. In Kietäväinen et al (2016) study, it was argued that second-home owners wanted to become permanent residents to gain better rights in the second home community. As second-home owners are not allowed to vote in communal elections and they cannot be elected as decision- makers or formal representatives in municipal administrations, it spurred a need to become part of the local society (Kietäväinen et al, 2016). Occasionally, second-home owners are even more committed to contribute to the host- community than the locals. Janhunen et al (2014) study regarding second-home owner’s attitudes towards rural wind farms indicated how second-home owners were keen on taking part of information regarding wind farm development in the area. Their study show that second-home owners had higher attendance on meetings regarding wind-power plants than the locals (Janhunen et al, 2014). This points to second-home owners having a strong interest in the host community that sometimes exceeds that of the locals.

However, their willingness to contribute to the host community is considered limited. Nordbø (2014) state how second-home owners in Norway are interested in contributing to the development of the area near their cabin, but not to the municipality. Also, second-home owners who see themselves as visitors may have limited interests in the development of their host community (Farstad & Rye, 2013). Farstad & Rye (2013) explain how second-home owners sometimes do not feel obligated to contribute to the local development in their second-home community. They argue that some second-home owners only view themselves as tourists in the second-home community, thus implying that the contribution to the society should fall on the ’’real locals’’ (Farstad & Rye, 2013).

Therefore, it is possible that second-home owners are willing to contribute to certain parts of the local society, but the specific parts are unknown. The municipal sector of the host community works to a degree with strategies to tempt second-home owners into becoming permanent residents (Kindel & Raagmaa, 2015). Kindel & Raagmaas (2015) study shows how the Hungarian municipalities create benefits for second-home owners that move into their societies by offering benefits such as reduced ferry costs. Albeit explained that municipal sectors work with strategies to make second-home owner’s permanent residents, it is unclear what their expected contributions to the society are. One example made by Kindel & Raagmaas (2015) show how municipalities plan on providing land for RHO’s (Recreational Homeowners) to build their homes,

9 hoping they will move in permanently at a later stage in their life. Hence, the aim hints toward elderly or retired second-home owners being those who are expected to contribute in the long-term to the host-community. Considering the second-home owners are likely expected to be retired when they become permanent members of the society, they are not expected to contribute in any specific way. This relates to Larsson & Müller (2019), that it is not always evident to the municipal sector how second-home owners can contribute to the host community. Therefore, a wider understanding on what second-home owners can contribute to in rural and peripheral areas remain unclear.

2.4 Second Homes and Labour Recruitment

It is possible that second-home owners can act as a solution to recruitment needs in rural and peripheral host communities, but to what extent it has been covered remains uncertain. In labour migration studies, various topics have been covered regarding rural labour markets (Eliasson et al, 2015; Nelson et al, 2014; Nienaber & Frys, 2012). In Nelson et al (2014) study, the impacts of immigrant labour migrants and the possible long-term effects they may have on the rural labour market is explained. It is argued that labour migrants could become permanent residents of the local society, but it is questioned whether they will remain permanent residents due to the families they left behind in their home-region (Nelson et al, 2014). Nienaber & Frys (2012) discusses the challenges of integration of labour migrants in rural areas. Here, different challenges of integration between locals and labour migrants are acknowledged: one being that the potential of the migrant’s professional backgrounds are not positively used by rural and peripheral regions (Nienaber & Frys, 2012). Also, Eliasson et al (2015) addresses the importance of distance to rural areas for migrants. The commuting distance is considered important for labour migrants and rural areas with high geographical accessibility to employment opportunities are favoured over more remote ones (Eliasson et al, 2015). Hence, these studies are mere examples of how widespread labour migration in rural and peripheral areas is as a research field.

Although second-home owners’ contribution to local labour markets is mentioned in previous literature, deeper understandings and empirical investigations is somewhat missing. In general, the potential of second-home owners in local development is often associated with a somewhat lack of understanding (Müller et al, 2004). To a degree, it is addressed that the investments of second-home owners potentially benefits the labour market of the host community in the long-term (Hall & Williams, 2002). However, this is a rather brief suggestion made by Hall & Williams (2002) as they give no examples that proves this. The willingness of entrepreneurship in the host

10 community by second-home owners has also been somewhat discussed in previous studies (Müller et al, 2010). It was briefly noted in Müller et al (2010) study that the second-home owners’ interest in owning their own business in the host community was relatively low in Swedish rural areas. Although this does not necessarily provide answers regarding second-home owners willingness to contribute to the local labour market, it might hint towards their interest of working in the area. Flognfeldt (2002) discusses the potential contribution of second-home owners to business knowledge development in local societies. Here, Flognfeldt (2002) mention four ways that second-home owners contribute to business knowledge development. These are: 1) taking seats on the boards of local companies, 2) being a contact person for sales of local products at their permanent home area, 3) being a mentor for local youth undertaking education in urban areas, and 4) buying local handicrafts and equipment even for use in the areas where they are permanently living or for their own businesses (Flognfeldt, 2002). Interestingly, this acknowledges second-home owners as a knowledge resource for the host community’s labour market but not as an employee. If second-home owners are acknowledged to have the skills to mentor certain markets, they should also be qualified to work in the specific market. However, Flognfeldts (2002) theory does not stem from empiric findings and instead act as a suggested contribution second-home owner could bring to the host community. This theory was part of Flognfeldts (2002) study regarding how second home development could bring opportunities for rural municipalities. Here, it was noted how second home-owners contribution to business knowledge development has received increased recognition, but it was not a result from the specific study. Regardless, it is an interesting discussion that verifies how second-home owners’ contribution to labour recruitment exists to various degrees in previous literature.

It was argued by Velvin et al (2013) that second-home owners could potentially take part in the host community’s labour market once their stays in the area become more frequent. Here, second-home owners are acknowledged as suitable candidates for boards of directors or investors in local enterprises (Velvin et al, 2013). Albeit a sign that second-home owners’ contribution to local labour markets has been considered by previous research, the understanding may be limited. The examples given by Velvin et al (2013) are rather brief and lack empirical evidence. Also, it does not cover the second-home owners full potential of contributing to the local labour market. As being candidates for board of directors is a good example of their possible contribution, it may only be relevant for a certain group of second-home owners with greater experience in the specific field. Therefore, it is possible to see a gap in previous literature regarding the overall potential of second-home owners’ contribution to the local labour market.

11

A study made by Nordbø (2014) discusses how the willingness, significant working experience and high educational level of second-home owners could turn them into competence brokers for the host community’s labour market. With examples from the eastern parts of Norway, it is explained how second- home owners act as potential competence brokers for rural entrepreneurs and innovation in the host community (Nordbø, 2014). This is an interesting study that verifies to a degree that second-home owners can contribute to the local labour market in various ways (Nordbø, 2014). However, it does not answer the question if second-home owners are a potential recruitment resource for the local labour market. It is acknowledged that the second-home owners possess the experience to help develop the local labour market, but this is seen as mentoring. The study focuses on displaying second-home owners potential as a knowledge resource for the local labour market and not as a recruitment resource, thus reinforcing the gap in previous literature regarding this subject. Regardless, Nordbø’s (2014) study is perhaps one of the closest related to this study’s aim amongst previous research as it addresses to a degree second-home owners potential of contributing to rural and peripheral labour markets.

There are studies that might explain why second-home owners are not fully addressed as a potential resource for recruitment needs in the host community. Albeit a speculation, the expected time for permanent residence of second-home owners is one explanation. It is stated by previous studies that second-home owners could potentially become permanent residents in the host community, however often connected to retirement (Marjavaara & Lundholm, 2016; Müller & Marjavaara, 2012; Müller, 1999). Marjaavara & Lundholm (2016) state that in Sweden, people who own or has access to a second home is more likely to change permanent residence at a later stage in their life. Therefore, this may cause a general assumption in academia: that because retirement is acknowledged as the main driver for permanent migration in the second-home community, it is not considered relevant to see them as a contribution for the local labour market.

However, just because permanent migration to the second-home community may occur at retirement age does not mean that one cannot or does not want to work. Instead, it is seen how individuals now work for longer periods of time throughout their life-course. Marjavaara & Lundholm (2016) discusses that there is no stipulated retirement age in Sweden. Until recently, it was announced how public pension benefits are accessible in Sweden at the age of 62 (Pensionsmyndigheten, 2019). Although public pension benefits are accessible at the age of 62 in Sweden, it is noted how individuals normally work until approximately the age of 65 (Marjavaara & Lundholm, 2016). Therefore, second-home owners may still contribute to the local labour market as they can still work but they may just work less than younger employees.

12

Moreover, retirement is only one of several reasons that leads to permanent residence to the second-home (Back & Marjavaara, 2017; Flognfeldt, 2006; Müller & Marjavaara, 2012). In Back & Marjavaaras (2017) research, it was shown how 54,2 % of the Swedish population has access to a second home. Further, it was shown by Flognfeldt (2006) how approximately half of the families in Norway has access to a second home. Although it is not clearly stated, it may suggest a possibility of permanent residence occurring for other reasons than just retirement. According to Müller & Marjavaara (2012), permanent moves to second homes can also occur due to extension in the family. Thus, it is possible to assume that the reason for migration is not fixed and that one should not only associate permanent migration to the second-home community with retirement.

3. Methodology

To map the potential of second-home owners as a resource for the local labour market and to enquire their willingness to contribute, a quantitative approach was selected. Since this study’s interest is to find out the complementarity of the second-home owners occupational backgrounds, their compatibility to the local labour market and their willingness to work in the area it is assumed more important to cover a larger number of people than to deeply interview a selective few. This made a quantitative approach appropriate as it works well with methods where one need to count the answers from a large pool of data (Veal, 2011). It could be argued how a qualitative approach could be used for this study. However, a qualitative method is more suitable when one intends to understand people’s feelings and experiences (Veal, 2011). This is not considered necessary for this study, as the aim does not require a deeper understanding of the answers given. Instead, for this study it was deemed important to get a wider understanding on the overall interest of contributing to the local society. Therefore, a quantitative approach was considered more appropriate. Theoretically, it is doable to use a mixed approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods. However, due to the limited time that was given for this study it was not considered an option as it would consume too much time. Hence, a quantitative method was selected for answering the research questions.

A similar study to this one regarding the approach is The Seasonal Buzz: Knowledge Transfer in a Temporary Setting, by Louise Robertsson and Roger Marjavaara (2015). Here, a telephone survey was used to map the seasonal buzz by scrutinizing how second-home owners interact with other second-home owners, local firms, and permanent residents at the destination (Robertsson &

13

Marjavaara, 2015). This ongoing study uses a similar approach, although there are differences based on the needs of the research aim. For example, based on the compatibility aspect of this study it was not deemed enough to rely solely on a questionnaire approach. However, Robertsson & Marjavaara’s (2015) research approach acted as a suitable example on what could be a good methodological base for this study.

3.1 Selecting the Study Area

Vilhelmina municipality was selected as a study area for this study for multiple reasons. For example, it acts as a verification of the ongoing migration trend where one can see a rural society that has a steadily declining population. Considering the high average age of 45 years amongst the locals (see Table 5 in the result), it relates to the migration trends mentioned in the literature. For example, it was stated that this global migration trend leaves rural and peripheral areas with an older population due to younger residents moving out in search of employment- and educational opportunities (Eliasson et al, 2015; Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993). Therefore, it is possible to see how Vilhelmina municipality fits the criteria as an appropriate study area for this study.

Also, Vilhelmina is a good example where one can see that some rural areas are attractive for various periods of time despite outmigration trends. Considering the interest for second homes in the municipality, it fits well into the literatures explanation on how rural and peripheral areas are met by investing second-home owners (Back & Marjavaara, 2017; Jansson & Müller, 2003; Müller et al, 2010). However, one thing that is not clear is to what degree the second-home owners are willing to contribute to Vilhelminas regional development. Therefore, Vilhelmina is a suitable study area as it fits in with theoretical descriptions hence showing potential for further studying. See Figure 1 for Vilhelmina municipality’s location in Sweden.

14

Figure 1. Map displaying the location of Vilhelmina municipality in Sweden. Source: Google Maps (2020).

3.2 Data

The study is based on three different sources of data: 1) register data accessible in the database ASTRID, 2) data from Arbetsförmedlingen (the Swedish public employment service) and 3) an internet survey. Here, the internet survey can be seen as the study’s primary data and the data from ASTRID, and Arbetsförmedlingen as secondary data.

The official register data used in this study is accessed from the geo-referenced database ASTRID, compiled by Statistics Sweden. The database involved data on individual level on every individual in the municipality of Vilhelmina. The information is based on the time period of 2016. By getting access to ASTRID, it provided various information regarding both second-home owners and the local residents in Vilhelmina municipality. For both second-home owners and the locals, the database offered descriptive lists showing how many for each faction belonged to different professions and educational levels. The information accessible by ASTRID is known as micro-data, meaning that it contains information on every individual and property in the municipality. Not only does ASTRID provide information on the second-home owner, but on their respective family members in the household as well. Moreover, ASTRID contains data on

15 every second-home owner in Vilhelmina municipality. However, for this study only those who have their primary home outside of the municipality where selected. Accordingly, the age interval selected for the study was individuals between 18-70 years old.

The purpose of using ASTRID was to investigate the potential of the second- home owners as a resource for the municipality’s labour market. For example, by comparing the most common occupational background of the second-home owners with the locals one can receive a suitable contrast of how second-home owners may fit the local labour market. In ASTRID, the three main variables of interest where: Educational level (SUN), Occupational background (SNI), Employment (SSYK). The variables Occupational background (SNI) and Employment (SSYK) may seem similar and including both can therefore be questioned. However, there are differences in the two variables. For example, Employment’s (SSYK) focus is to group individuals’ professions or job assignments, while Occupational background (SNI) is used to classify businesses or place of work based on their activities. Due to these differences, they were both included for this study. The content for these variables are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Display of the content of the three main variables examined. Educational level (SUN) Occupational background (SNI) Employment (SSYK) Pre-secondary education shorter Work within agriculture, forestry, Management than nine years and fisheries Pre-secondary education nine Work within the mining industry Work requiring longer theoretical years or equivalent competence Highschool education Work in manufacturing and Work requiring shorter theoretical production competence Post-secondary education shorter Work within construction, repairs, Office- and customer service than two years and transportation Post-secondary education two Work within hotel- and restaurants Service- welfare and sales work years or more Doctoral degree Work within information and Work in agriculture, gardening, communication activities forestry, and fishery Work within finance, law and real- Craftmanship in manufacturing estate and construction Work within customer service Process- and machine operator, transportation work etc. Work within the educational Work requiring no specific sector (School teachers, educational background kindergarten teachers etc.) Work within health and social care Military work Work within culture, entertainment, leisure, and other service operations

16

Further, data from Arbetsförmedlingen was utilized. Arbetsförmedlingen is the official employment office in Sweden. They manage most recruitment-related issues in the country and holds information regarding job advertisement in every municipality. For this reason, they were deemed to be an important data source as it helps contrasting the second-home owners and the local’s qualifications to the needs on the labour market. After contacting the analysis department of Arbetsförmedlingen, numerous charts with information of the labour market in Vilhelmina municipality was provided. These charts contained advertised jobs in the region between the years 2016-2019. Similar to the data in ASTRID, these charts followed the categorisation given by Statistics Sweden (SCB). For each job category, the total number of advertised positions was given for each year. The reason for collecting this data stems from the idea of contrasting the professional backgrounds of second-home owners with the existing recruitment needs in Vilhelmina municipality. Also, providing a descriptive picture of the advertised jobs for a longer period could potentially show how the specific needs on the labour market are being met.

To answer the question regarding willingness to work in the host community, an internet survey was also made. The survey was constructed to be short, clear, and simple to increase the likelihood of people participating. It involved five questions in total, with the purpose of identifying their willingness of taking employment in the host community. For more information of the survey questions, see appendix.

The participants where only allowed to fill in one answer per question. Depending on the answer, an opportunity for a brief explanation was given on question 4 and 5. This was optional hence not everyone provided an explanation.

The survey was uploaded on social media groups on Facebook. It could be argued that using multiple social media platforms would be beneficial. However, based on the number of groups connected to Vilhelmina municipality and the number of members in each group it was decided to be enough for this survey. The Facebook groups where connected to the following areas in Vilhelmina municipality: Dikanäs, Kittelfjäll, Klimpfjäll, Marsliden, Matsdal and Nästansjö (see Figure 2.). Also, the survey was shared on Facebook groups that did not target a specific area in the municipality but the municipality in general. In total, the survey was published on 8 different Facebook groups. Out of these Facebook groups, the highest number of members where at 1827 members and the lowest at 346. In total, the Facebook groups involved 8189 members. Granted, not all these members where second-home owners as they included a mixed variety of locals, second-home owners, and tourists. Nevertheless, a brief background check by discussing the group’s content with contacts in Vilhelmina municipality and administrators of the groups was made to ensure that they

17 involved the relevant focus group. The survey was open for participants for a two-week period, hence published in the 3rd of April and closed in the 17th of April. In total, 253 second-home owners participated in the survey. Unfortunately, three participants did not meet the criteria for the study thus being excluded in the results. Therefore, the survey was left with 250 participants.

3.3 Analysing the Data

The data in ASTRID is presented in descriptive statistics and constructed into crosstabulation charts. The reasoning for crosstabulation stems from the possibility of analysing the relationships between variables, as crosstabulation marks the move from purely descriptive to explanatory analysis (Veal, 2011). Each crosstabulation chart involved two variables, one of the three main variables, as seen in Table 1, and the gender variable. The gender variable was only used as a comparison for the three variables and was not accounted for in the results.

The analysing process of the charts from Arbetsförmedlingen was somewhat similar to the analysing process of the ASTRID data. The advertised jobs where counted and summarised, and they were summarised for the whole period. To avoid confusion, the recoding for these charts where made in the same way as for the employment level- and occupational background data in ASTRID. There were no crosstabulation made for these charts. Nevertheless, the data was carefully counted, summarised, structured, and contrasted in a descriptive manner.

The analysing process of the survey was straightforward. It involved collecting the total number of participants and categorising how many that had answered what to a specific question. Most of the questions involved a yes- or no structure except the first question where one was asked to write where they live outside of the second-home (see appendix at the end of the paper for more information). Depending on what answer the participant selected, an occasional alternative to elaborate their answer was given. These answers were also included in the analysing process whereas they were counted and the most common answers where listed. The survey was structured by using the online application SurveyMonkey. By using SurveyMonkey, it involves tools that makes it easier to summarize and structure the results in the survey. Although the instructions clarified that the survey was only for second-home owners registered on an address outside of Vilhelmina municipality, some participants did not fulfil these criteria. Fortunately, SurveyMonkey included an option to see what each participant had specifically answered. This option was used to exclude the

18 answers made by those who did not match the participation criteria, thus not being included in the result.

3.4 Target Group

Second homes exist throughout different areas in the municipality and does not only exist in one set place. Therefore, the study did not focus on a specific region within Vilhelmina and instead attempted to involve second homes in the entire municipality. However, not all second homeowners where included for this study. Instead, only second-home owners who have their primary home in a different municipality than Vilhelmina where included. The reason for this was because the aim for the study is to identify whether second-home owners act as a potential additional resource for the local labour market. If the second-home owners are registered as residents in the municipality, they already act as a local resource. Therefore, any second-home owner that had their primary home within Vilhelmina municipality was excluded for this study’s data collection.

In later sections of this study, the term ’’non-registered second-home owners’’ is used. This specifically refers to second-home owners who have their primary home outside of Vilhelmina municipality.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

During this study, there were no major ethical considerations that came to mind. However, there were some smaller ethical aspects that where taken in mind during the data collection.

To a degree, the secondary data used in ASTRID for this study contained sensitive information. For example, using the database ASTRID involved various data that is rather personal to the second-home owner. Therefore, data aggregation was necessary to ensure that the individuals included in the database could not be tracked down.

As this study used an internet survey, some ethical considerations where acknowledged. No personal information was registered during this survey, and to ensure this to participants was important. Therefore, the survey started with a brief verification that no personal information was being registered to make the participant feel safe. Also, this was informed in the presentation of the survey in the Facebook pages where it was uploaded.

3.6 Limitations and Challenges of the Study

The original plan for this study was to perform a telephone survey where randomly selected second-home owners would answer questions regarding their

19 willingness to contribute to the host community. This would be based on a list of information of the second-home owners where contact information was included. However, due to time limitations this approach was cancelled as there were no time left to perform it. Instead, this was replaced with the internet survey. Albeit different, the internet survey acted as a substitute where one could determine the second-home owners’ willingness to contribute in a more time efficient manner.

The data collected for this study may be considered limited. For example, one argument could be that statistics from Arbetsförmedlingen does not cover all jobs advertised in the municipality as it does not cover internal recruitment nor jobs advertised through different recruitment websites. As seen in the introductory- and theoretical section for this study, peripheral communities such as Vilhelmina lack appropriate labour and must look for it elsewhere. If this is correct, it is unlikely that such a region would rely only on internal recruitment as they lack resources to do so. Therefore, it is more likely that job advertisements are sourced through recruitment websites that reaches potential applicants outside the region. Also, due to the high demand of appropriate labour it is likely that those advertising the jobs uses multiple sources to increase their chances of finding suitable applicants. Hence, one can argue that using only Arbetsförmedlingen is enough to get an understanding of the needs on the local labour market.

Another limitation with the data from Arbetsförmedlingen is that the job description for most advertised jobs were not specified. To a degree, it was possible to see how jobs where advertised for work such as teaching or within healthcare, but several jobs still lacked specific information on what the job was for. For example, one can see from the data that there are administrative jobs requested but what kind of administrative jobs remains uncertain. Therefore, this was considered a limitation for this study as a deeper examination of the data from Arbetsförmedlingen was not possible. However, it was still possible to determine the job position, the theoretical knowledge required and to a degree the specific industry it was advertised for. Therefore, the data was considered useable as it still provided an understanding of the needs on the local labour market.

Another noticeable limitation is that this study does not differentiate between the types of second-homes in the area. In literature, second-homes are divided into four types: 1) converted second-homes at weekend distance from their owner, 2) converted second-homes at vacation distance, 3) purpose-built second-homes at weekend distance and 4) purpose-built second-homes at vacation distance (Back & Marjavaara, 2017). For this study, these differentiations of types where not accounted for. It is a possibility that the answers for the research questions may

20 differ depending on the owner’s type of second-home. However, this study instead focuses on exploring the second-home owners potential as a recruitment resource and their willingness to engage regardless of type, as it was deemed to be an appropriate starting point for future studies.

Finally, the time limitation needs to be addressed for this study. The study was set in the timeframe of five months, beginning in January, and ending in May. It could be considered plenty of time, but one must consider what needs to be done during this period. In this time, data collecting, analysing, and structuring the results in one presentable paper must be done. Therefore, the timeframe for this study is one possible limitation that was taken into consideration.

4. Setting the Scene

The selected study area for this study is Vilhelmina municipality, in Västerbotten county. In the year 2019, the official number of inhabitants in the municipality was 6668 inhabitants (SCB, 2020). Vilhelmina belongs to Västerbotten county, which is one of the counties in Sweden with the lowest population density per square kilometre (SCB, 2020). The municipality includes three different alpine resorts; Saxnäs, Kittelfjäll and Klimpfjäll (see Figure 2.).

Figure 2. Map displaying Vilhelmina Municipality. The circles indicate the alpine regions Klimpfjäll, Kittelfjäll, Saxnäs and the city centre Vilhelmina. Source: Google Maps (2020).

21

In the years between 1968 and 2019, the population has decreased by approximately 27 %, going from 9090 to 6668 inhabitants in the municipality (SCB, 2020).

Table 2. Population change in Vilhelmina Municipality between 1968 – 2019. Source: SCB (2020). Year Population 1968 9 090 2019 6 668 Population change: 2 422 (-27 %)

Second homes are the most common option for overnight stays, with an estimated turnover in 2018 on approximately 6.6 million US dollar (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018). Between the years 2016 and 2018, the municipality saw an increase of approximately 113 houses in the area (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018). It is rather unusual for one municipality to involve several alpine resorts, hence possibly explaining the large number of second-homes in the municipality.

Table 3. Total amount of second homes divided within Västerbotten province’s municipalities in the year 2018. Source: SCB (2020). Municipality Number of second homes Nordmaling 1 660 (5.5 %) Bjurholm 504 (2 %) Vindeln 1 061 (3.5 %) Robertsfors 1 763 (6 %) Norsjö 910 (3 %) Malå 385 (1 %) Storuman 4 023 (13 %) Sorsele 1 057 (3.5 %) Dorotea 1 106 (4 %) Vännäs 557 (2 %) Vilhelmina 2 996 (10 %) Åsele 791 (3 %) Lycksele 1 476 (5 %) Skellefteå 7 364 (24.5 %) Umeå 4 376 (14.5 %) Total: 30 029 (100 %)

With the presented table (see Table 3), it is noticeable how despite Vilhelmina’s decreased population throughout the years, the place is still attractive for tourists and second-home owners. Although it is not as significant as for municipalities such as Skellefteå and Umeå, for a peripheral municipality the rate of second homes and its increase is noteworthy. This describes how in certain aspects, despite the ongoing migration trend, that Vilhelmina municipality is an attractive place through various periods.

22

Today, there are multiple labour markets that are rather prosperous in Vilhelmina. With tourism being an important industry, it has created the need for other industries in the area. The significant number of second homes in the area has developed a rather strong market for jobs such as real estate, bank clerks and handymen (Vilhelmina Kommun, 2018).

During the year of 2009, it was shown how the healthcare sector was the labour market with most employees (SCB Kommunfakta, 2020). The employee rate of healthcare jobs covered approximately 25% of the municipalities employment, compared to Sweden in general where it covered only around 15% of the employment (SCB Kommunfakta, 2020).

Although promising businesses exist in the region, Vilhelmina as many other rural and peripheral communities’ struggle with providing appropriate recruitment for their labour markets (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018). One of the greater challenges for the municipality is to find labourers for the specific market. The focus for the municipality is not to offer improved salaries but to make sure that the work is flexible with one’s lifestyle, offers a positive working environment and that it offers development potential (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018).

However, the most significant challenge for Vilhelminas labour market is to meet the upcoming generation shift (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018). As explained by the literature (Hendersen & Akers, 2009; Green et al, 2009), the outmigration of younger adults leaves rural and peripheral communities with an elderly population where it is difficult to find labour replacement for those who retire. Vilhelmina is no exception, as they struggle to meet the generation shift in larger labour markets (Vilhelmina kommun, 2018).

5. Results

In this section, the results from analysing the collected data is presented. The presentation of results will be divided into four sections. The first section presents the similarities and differences of age and educational level between the local residents and the second-home owners in the region. Next, the occupational background and employment level is presented for both second- home owners and the locals hence a presentation of their similarities and differences is made. This is followed by a presentation of the advertised jobs during the years 2016-2019 in the region and a presentation that highlights work fields in the municipality which are facing an upcoming generation shift. Lastly, the section ends by presenting the results from the internet survey.

23

5.1 The Characteristics of Locals and Second-Home Owners in Vilhelmina

According to the information from SCB, the average age in general in Sweden is 41 years. Compared to this, the average age in Vilhelmina municipality is relatively high: the residents being at 45 years and the second-home owners at 49 years. The average age is measured on individuals between 18-70 years old, this applies for all three groups displayed in Table 4. Also, the average age was only measured on second-home owners that have their primary home outside of Vilhelmina municipality. The information shows that both the locals of Vilhelmina municipality and their second-home owners have a high average age compared to the rest of the country.

Table 4. Comparison of average age between Second-home owners that have their primary home outside Vilhelmina municipality, and the locals in Vilhelmina. This is contrasted towards the overall average age in Sweden. All three categories include people between 18-70 years old. Source: ASTRID, (2016); SCB (2020). Local residents Second-home owners Sweden in general Number of individuals 4 222 1 590 6 733 284 Average age 45 49 41

For the locals in Vilhelmina municipality, Table 5 shows how the majority has a high school education with 2633 individuals having that degree. The second most common education for the locals is a post-secondary education longer than two years, where 743 residents have that degree. The third most common educational level is pre-secondary education 9 years or equivalent.

As seen by Table 5, the most common educational level for the second-home owners is a high school degree. The second most common education is post- secondary education on two years or longer, where 357 of the second-home owners have that degree. After this degree, there are many who have a pre- secondary education at 9 years or equivalent. The least common, albeit twice as many than for the locals, is a doctoral degree as 15 individuals have that degree.

Based on the results from Table 5, the second-home owners are highly educated where a significant amount has some form of higher education. In total, 22.6 % of the locals have a university degree. This is relatively low compared to the second-home owners, with 30% of the second-home owners having a university degree. Granted, there is a difference in the population number between the locals and second-home owners that should be considered. Nevertheless, it still suggests that Vilhelmina municipality host highly educated second-home owners that could compensate the gap of high educated individuals amongst the local population.

24

Table 5. Comparison of educational level of the locals and second-home owners in Vilhelmina municipality, contrasted towards Sweden’s entire population. Source: ASTRID (2016) & SCB (2016). Educational level Local residents Second-home owners Sweden’s entire population Pre-secondary education 203 (4.8 %) 46 (2.9 %) 340 891 (6 %) shorter than nine years Pre-secondary education 426 (10 %) 145 (9.1 %) 951 557 (17 %) 9 years or equivalent Highschool education 2 633 (62 %) 911 (57.7 %) 1 678 446 (30 %) Post-secondary 210 (4.9 %) 104 (6.5 %) 988 614 (17.7%) education shorter than two years Post-secondary 743 (17.6 %) 357 (22.6 %) 1 511 634 (27 %) education two years or more Doctoral degree 7 (0.1 %) 15 (0.9 %) 106 467 (1.9 %) Total: 4 222 (100 %) 1 578 (100 %) 5 577 609 (100 %)

According to the analysis for this study, there are certain professions that are dominant for the local labour market. As Table 6 indicates, there are three categories that stands out as the most common occupational backgrounds for the locals: Work within construction and transportation, work within health- and social care and work within the educational sector. For the second-home owners the most common occupations are slightly different. The three most common occupations are work within construction and transportation, work within health- and social care and work within agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.

The most common occupation amongst the locals is work within construction and transportation (see Table 6). According to Table 6, 27 % of the locals belong to this occupation. For the second-home owners, this is also the most common occupation as 24 % of the total owners are connected to it. The second most common occupation for the locals in Vilhelmina municipality is within health- and social care. According to Table 6, 731 of the local population belong to this category thus making it the second most common occupation in the region at 22%. For the second-home owners, this is also the second most common occupation whereas 19 % belong to this category.

Another significant occupation for the locals in Vilhelmina municipality is the educational sector. As Table 6 indicates, 464 locals belong to this category which makes it the third most common occupation in the municipality at 14%. The category involves various teaching jobs such as teaching in kindergarten, elementary school, and high school. Albeit not as common as the agriculture sector, the educational sector is still a significant occupation for the second- home owners. According to Table 6, 11 % of the second-home owners belong to this category which makes it a close fourth in the most common occupations after the agricultural category where 13 % of the second-home owners are involved.

25

Table 6. Table displaying the occupational background for both local residents and second-home owners. Source: ASTRID (2016). Occupational background Local residents Second-home owners Work within agriculture, forestry, 285 (8 %) 183 (13 %) and fisheries Work within the mining industry 33 (1 %) 8 (1 %) Work in manufacturing and 129 (4 %) 110 (8 %) production Work within construction, repairs 890 (27 %) 328 (24 %) and transportation Work within hotel-and restaurants 166 (5 %) 44 (3 %) Work within information and 37 (1 %) 16 (1 %) communication activities Work within finance, law and real- 157 (5 %) 101 (7 %) estate Work within customer service 235 (7 %) 114 (8 %) Work within the educational 464 (14 %) 152 (11 %) sector (e.g. schoolteachers, kindergarten teachers etc) Work within health and social care 731 (22 %) 264 (19 %) Work within culture, 187 (6 %) 59 (4 %) entertainment, leisure and other service operations Total 3 314 (100 %) 1 379 (100 %)

Next, Table 7 presents the form of employment for both locals and second-home owners. With this table, the focus lies on explaining what the qualifications and benchmarks are for the jobs taken by the locals and second-home owners in the area.

As seen in Table 7, work in service, welfare and sales is the most common employment form. In Vilhelmina municipality, 35 % of the locals belong to this category and 26 % of the second-home owners belong to it as well. For the locals, this is the most common employment as their second most common employment form (Process- and machine operator, transportation work etc.) only sits at 12 %.

For both factions, it is somewhat common to have an employment that requires longer theoretical competence as 15 % of the locals- and 17% of the second- home owners belong to this category. Employment requiring shorter theoretical competence is slightly less common, whereas only 8 % of the locals- and 10 % of the second-home owners belong to this category.

Interestingly, the results suggest that the locals and second-home owners are somewhat similar in terms of employment. As seen in Table 7, each form of employment for both factions are similar throughout the list. For example, 4 % of the locals- and 5 % of the second-home owners has employment in the form of office- and customer service sector. Hence, this shows how both the locals

26 and second-home owners are somewhat alike considering form of employment thus highlighting a potential compatibility.

Table 7. The specific form of employment for both local residents and second-home owners. The table focuses on explaining the qualifications of the employment. Source: ASTRID (2016). Employment Local residents Second-home owners Management 113 (3 %) 75 (6 %) Work requiring longer theoretical 471 (15 %) 204 (17 %) competence (e.g. biophysicist, nurse, senior high school teacher, etc.) Work requiring shorter theoretical 251 (8 %) 119 (10 %) competence (e.g. surveyor for various industries, treatment educator, data consultation, etc.) Office- and customer service (e.g. 150 (4 %) 58 (5 %) payroll administrator, library assistant, etc.) Service- and welfare and sales 1095 (35 %) 306 (26 %) work (e.g. medical assistants, assistants in elderly care, salesperson, etc.) Work in agriculture, gardening, 154 (4 %) 98 (8 %) forestry, and fishery Craftmanship in manufacturing 317 (10 %) 101 (8 %) and construction (e.g. ground constructor, mechanic, electrician, etc.) Process- and machine operator, 391 (12 %) 152 (13 %) transportation work etc. Work requiring no specific 141 (4 %) 41 (3 %) educational background (e.g. café worker, usher, berry picker, etc.) Military work 3 (0.1 %) 1 (0.1 %) Total 3 086 (100 %) 1 155 (100 %)

Therefore, both Table 6 and Table 7 indicate that the occupational background and form of employment of second-home owners is similar to the locals. The second-home owners are highly educated and are mostly experienced with work within the construction category, health- and social care, work within the agricultural category, and the educational sector. Albeit somewhat different for the locals of Vilhelmina municipality, this still points towards an appropriate compatibility to the local labour market as these occupations are the most common ones to be found there according to the data.

5.2 The Needs on the Local Labour Market

To identify the needs on the local labour market in Vilhelmina, this study analysed statistics provided by Arbetsförmedlingen that shows the advertised jobs within the municipality between the years of 2016 – 2019.

27

By looking at the advertised jobs in the area, one can see that there is some diversity for what is needed on the local labour market. According to Table 8, there is a significant demand for jobs that requires immersed theoretical knowledge. Throughout 2016-2019, a total of 878 jobs was advertised that requires some form of education from the applicant.

There are jobs advertised that requires lesser theoretical competence, however they are not the norm. As seen by Table 8, jobs requiring shorter education or introductory class only covers 6 % of all advertised jobs. Accordingly, jobs that requires institutional competence or equivalent covers 5 % of the advertised jobs in the region.

The most common type of job being advertised in Vilhelmina are within the service- welfare and sales sector. According to Table 8, 28 % of the jobs advertised in the region belonged to this category. This is a somewhat broad topic that covers jobs in teaching, healthcare, elderly care etc. To a degree, a demand for work within machine-based construction and transportation also exists in the region. Although, significantly lower than service- welfare and sales jobs, this category covers 5 % of the advertised jobs in the region.

The results for this study indicate that there is a significant demand for jobs that requires theoretical knowledge, and the actual jobs in demand are primarily within the service- welfare and sales sector. As seen in Table 8, this job category was dominant amongst those that were addressed. However, it is important to address that it is a wide category that covers jobs in various fields. By reviewing the specific codes that where involved in this category, it was seen how most of these jobs are for schoolteachers, kindergarten teachers and work within health- and elderly care.

28

Table 8. Advertised jobs in the municipality between the years 2016-2019. The occurrence of each category is contrasted with a percentage count. Source: Arbetsförmedlingen (2020). Types of jobs Number of advertised positions Executive jobs 65 (3 %) Jobs requiring immersed 878 (44 %) institutional competence Jobs requiring institutional 117 (5 %) competence or equivalent Jobs in administration or customer 76 (3 %) service Jobs in service, welfare, and sales 574 (28 %) Jobs in agriculture, gardening, 21 (1 %) forestry, and fisheries Jobs in construction and 36 (1 %) manufacturing Jobs in machine-based 106 (5 %) construction, transportation, etc. Jobs requiring shorter education or 122 (6 %) introductory class Total 1995 (100 %)

The results for this study do not only point out the current needs on the local labour market, but some of the future needs as well. By analysing the employment age of various job categories, Table 9 provides an image of different industries in Vilhelmina municipality that faces an upcoming need for a generation shift. The markets displayed are primarily those that are of high demand.

In the educational sector, there are certain markets where a generation shift could be needed soon. For example, 17 % of teachers for both primary education, elementary school and kindergarten are above the age of 60. The highest rate of employees above the age of 60 in this sector lies within education institutes and driving schools, where 27 % are above 60 years old.

Another occupation with a somewhat high number of employees above the age of 60 is within Process- and machine operator, transportation work. As seen in Table 9, over 20 % of drivers for freight traffic and construction vehicles are above the age of 60. Also, it is seen how 17 % of the process- and machine operators in the region are above 60 years old.

In health- and social care, one can also see an upcoming need in a generation shift. According to Table 9, 17 % of people in healthcare that requires specific education are above the age of 60. Accordingly, 16 % of those within elderly care are above 60 years old and 20 % of those specifically working with social support in elderly care are above 60 as well.

It could be argued that by looking at Table 9, future need of employees is not urgent. However, this study did not examine the employees in the 18-59 age

29 category. It is possible that for some of these jobs, a significant number of employees are above the age of 50 which could increase the need for a generation shift as they are also retiring soon. Also, Vilhelmina municipality is a region that lacks recruitment resources. Hence, if 20 % of the employees for a specific market retires it could have severe impacts as it can be challenging for the municipality to find replacements. Therefore, the results shown in Table 9 can still highlight a future need for recruitment in the local labour market. Interestingly, many of the listed jobs in Table 9 fits the qualifications of the second-home owners. For example, several of the listed jobs are within health- and social care, transportation, and teaching. According to Table 6, these are jobs that fits the professions of the second-home owners quite well, thus possibly making the second-home owners relevant for answering future needs in the municipality.

Table 9. Table displaying the employment age for specific types of employment for the locals in Vilhelmina. Displaying the percentage of employees aged over 60 years in certain employment fields. Source: ASTRID (2016). Type of employment Employees aged 60+ Elderly care 16 % Teaching for primary education 16 % and kindergarten Food retailing 12 % Freight traffic 21 % Teaching within profession- 17 % oriented high schools Process- and machine operator 17 % Artisan- and craftmanship 18 % Driver for construction vehicles 22 % Healthcare requiring specific 17 % education Teacher for elementary schools 17 % Executive work for education 27 % institutes and driving schools Social support in elderly care 20 %

5.3 The Willingness of Vilhelminas Second-Home Owners

Regardless of the possible compatibility of second-home owners to the local labour market, it becomes pointless if they are not willing to partake in it. Therefore, the internet survey was performed to answer this question. The survey was built to be short yet clear and easy for the participants to use. Thanks to settings on SurveyMonkey, it was shown how the survey approximately took two minutes to complete.

There were no questions or speculations regarding the survey amongst the participants, which could suggest that it was easy to comprehend. If the participant found it difficult to answer a question, they were given the option to

30 skip to the next one. This option was used two times: once on the question asking where the participant was registered and once on the question asking for how long they have owned their second home.

Most of the participants where registered in either the Västerbotten province (e.g. Umeå) or Västernorrland province (e.g. Sundsvall or Örnsköldsvik). As for the location of their second-home, 50 % are within the Kittelfjäll-area. Out of the 250 participants, 127 individuals verified of having their second home in Kittelfjäll. Next, the Klimpfjäll-area stood for 19 % of the respondents whereas 48 individuals confirmed to have their second-home in that area. It was confirmed that 59 of the respondents have their second-home in a different, unknown location in Vilhelmina municipality thus approximately 24 % belonged to that category. Lastly, only 16 participants have their second-home in the Saxnäs-area thus making it 6 % of the survey. Albeit uneven in the regions alpine areas, the results suggest a diversity of second-home owners in Vilhelmina that participated in the survey.

According to the results, most of the participating second-home owners in the survey have had their second-home for a substantial period. In total, 148 respondents confirmed that they have had their second-home for over 10 years thus making it nearly 60 % of the participants. There was a small number of second-home owners who were new to the area. A total of 12 second-home owners, thus making it only around 5 % of the respondents, had their second- home for less than a year. Further, 43 of the respondents had their second-home between 1 or 4 years (17 %) and 46 of the respondents had their second-home between 5 or 10 years (18 %). Therefore, the result show how most of the second-home owners that participated in the survey have had their second- homes for a substantial period.

To determine the second-home owners’ interest of the region, they were asked if they could consider a permanent move to Vilhelmina municipality (see Figure 3.). This question involved straightforward answers such as ’’yes’’, ’’no’’ or ’’do not know’’. The results showed that most of the second-home owners in this survey would not consider to permanently move into their second-home. There was a total of 123 second-home owners who replied ’’no’’ to this question, thus making it 49 % of the respondents.

Accordingly, 91 second-home owners would consider a permanent move, making it 36 % of the respondents. The remainder of participants was uncertain on the question thus answering ’’do not know’’, where 36 second-home owners (14 %) chose this answer. For those that were either not willing to permanently move into their second-home or did not know, an option to elaborate their answer was given. Here, one could briefly explain what would make them reconsider to permanently move into their second-home. In total, 118 31 respondents elaborated their answer. Although different answers where given, the most common responses involved the possibility of permanently moving if good job opportunities where given or when the children of the family had moved out. As most of the second-home owners in this survey could not consider a permanent move to the host community, there were still a significant number of people who would consider it. More importantly, the result shows how that those who said no or where uncertain could change their mind and move permanently to the host community if certain criteria are met.

Figure 3. The following figure displays how the participants answered the following question: Would you consider a permanent move to your second home? Source: Own survey (2020).

The last, and perhaps main-question in the survey was if the second-home owners could consider employment in Vilhelmina municipality’s labour market (see Figure 4.). The results show how the most common answer for the second- home owners was to not consider taking employment in Vilhelmina municipality’s labour market. In total, 112 respondents answered ’’no’’ to this question thus being 44 % of the answers. Further, 60 respondents answered ’’yes’’ (24.5 %) and 16 respondents answered ’’yes, but not fulltime-job’’ (6 %). Accordingly, 62 (24.5 %) respondents was uncertain if they could consider employment in the region hence answering either ’’do not know’’ or ’’maybe’’. As for the previous question, those who replied ’’no’’, ’’do not know’’ or ’’maybe’’ where given an option to write down what would change their mind. In total, 102 respondents gave an answer to this question. Although different answers where given, a common response was that due to upcoming retirement (or in some cases, where they already were retired) it simply was not an option to take employment. However, there were those who would reconsider. For example, the results indicated how another common answer was that second- home owners who either would not consider employment or were uncertain could reconsider if a job in their field was offered or if a good job opportunity

32 were given. Therefore, the results show that even if a significant number of participating second-home owners would not consider employment in Vilhelmina municipality’s labour market there are those who would. Also, the second-home owners who replied no or was uncertain where willing to reconsider if the right criteria were met. Hence, the results indicate a decent degree of willingness for work in the host community which could potentially be more significant if the right opportunities for the second-home owners where given.

Figure 4. The following figure displays how the participants answered the following question: Would you consider employment in the host community’s labour market? Source: Own survey (2020). 6. Discussion

This study has sought to explore the potential of second-home owners as a resource for the local labour market in rural and peripheral communities. In this section, the results are contrasted with the reviewed literature to determine how the study manages to answer set research questions.

Regarding how the second-home owners complement the local inhabitants, this study may have several answers. To begin with, Vilhelminas non-registered second-home owners are more educated than the locals. This is important as both statistics and media shows how educated labourers are hard to find for most rural and peripheral areas (NSD, 2019; SCB, 2020; SVT, 2020). Previous literature also verifies that educated labourers are a scarcity for most rural and peripheral areas, as educated labourers tend to prioritise work in more populated regions (Eliasson et al, 2015; Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993;

33

Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015; Quinn, 2004; Williams & Hall, 2000). Further, their professional background matches the locals to a degree. For example, several locals are skilled in professions such as healthcare, social care, and teaching. The results indicate how the second-home owners may act as a suitable complement for them as many are skilled within this category. Also, both the locals and second-home owners are mostly occupied within the construction, repairs, and transportation sector, thus pointing to an additional complementarity. Throughout Table 6 in the results, one can see how the second-home owners matches the occupations of the locals quite well. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the second-home owners may complement the locals to various degrees.

By looking at the needs on the local labour market, it is possible to say that the second-home owners are a suitable match. However, the average age of the second-home owners may suggest otherwise. As mentioned in the literature (Hall, 2005; Marjavaara & Lundholm, 2016; Müller & Marjavaara, 2012; Müller, 1999), the permanent move of second-home owners is likely to occur at the age of retirement. Since the average age of the second-home owners in the municipality is relatively high, most of them may be retired once a permanent move occurs. This may question if they are a suitable resource for the needs on the labour market. However, this is a speculation as one simply does not know when second-home owners become permanent residents of the host community. As stated by the literature (Back & Marjavaara, 2017; Müller & Marjavaara, 2012), the permanent migration of second-home owners to the host community is not exclusive to retirement. For example, reasons such as extension in the family can cause migration to the host community (Müller & Marjavaara, 2012). Further, as Bell & Ward (2000) stated it is perhaps not possible to predict when one might migrate as changes in individual’s life-courses can constantly impact their decisions. As mentioned by the literature, high age does not automatically mean one is not capable nor willing to work (Marjavaara & Lundholm, 2016). Accordingly, Marjavaara & Lundholm (2016) addressed how in Sweden it is common for individuals to work for longer periods in their lives. Taking this in mind, it is possible that the second-home owners for this study can still be a suitable workforce even if they are of older age.

It is possible that the results agree with the literature, as second-home owners may be a suitable informative resource for the local labour market (Flognfeldt, 2002;2006; Nordbø, 2014; Velvin et al, 2013). Looking at the results from Table 5, 6 & 7, it is likely that the second-home owners would be appropriate competence brokers as the literature suggests (Flognfeldt, 2002;2006; Nordbø, 2014; Velvin et al, 2013). However, it is questionable if this satisfies the need on the local labour market. As the result indicate, most of the occupations that the second-home owners are qualified for do have recruitment needs in the local

34 labour market. Here, it is important to address that the second-home owners have the potential to answer this need as they have the skills to do so. Moreover, rural and peripheral areas struggle to find highly educated labourers (Eliasson et al, 2015; Halfacree, 2001; 2011; Halfacree & Boyle, 1993; Henderson & Akers, 2009; Rye, 2015; Quinn, 2004; Williams & Hall, 2000). This makes it important to ask if second-home owners cannot do more than becoming competence brokers. Therefore, it is both possible and important to think that second-home owners can in fact act as a recruitment resource for the local labour market.

As this study points to the possibility of second-home owners contributing to the local labour market, one may need to consider what consequences such a resource could have on the host community. It was mentioned in the literature that tensions may arise between the locals and the second-home owners (Farstad & Rye, 2013; Farstad, 2011; 2016; 2018; Fountain & Hall, 2002; Müller & Hoogendoorn, 2013). Hence, it may scar the social structure of the community if they become involved in the local labour market. However, this does not have to be the case. For example, these tensions are said to occur between locals and newcomers in the host community (Fountain & Hall, 2002). For this study, the second-home owners are not necessarily newcomers as most of them have been in the region for a substantial time. Granted, the results indicated that some may categorise as newcomers as there were those who have had their second home for less than a year, albeit a minority. If being a newcomer to the host community is the cause for these tensions to occur, it is therefore unlikely to be an issue for Vilhelmina municipality as most of their second-home owners are not newcomers to the society. Implementing second-home owners as a resource for the host community may therefore not be as consequential as the literature suggests. As previous literature addressed (Hiltunen et al, 2016; Müller, 2004), second-home owners are not considered to imply any new environmental impacts on the host community. Based on the argument that second-home owners are not necessarily newcomers to the host community, this may apply for social impacts as well. For labour migration studies, it is often told that different challenges occur between locals and migrants (Nienaber & Frys, 2012). However, the above discussion suggest that second-home owners differentiate in terms of labour migration. Therefore, this flags some of the advantages second- home owners might have as a recruitment resource.

Instead of viewing the consequences of the second-home owners as a resource, one needs to address the potential advantages they have over other resource- groups. For example, the fact that second-home owners already have housing in the region probably makes it easier to accept a job offer. As mentioned by Eliasson et al (2015), commuting distance is often a challenge for labour migrants. However, this is not an issue for second-home owners as they can simply live in their dwellings. Also, commuting to work may be advantageous

35 for the second-home owners as they are familiar with the region and, hence the results showing how most of them having their primary residence relatively close by. However, depending where the job and the second-home is in the region it may not be possible to commute, as the different regions in Vilhelmina municipality are somewhat remote from each other. Nevertheless, it has been clarified how rural and peripheral areas tend to involve smaller societies that often have limited infrastructure, hence finding housing in these areas may be challenging. Therefore, second-home owners are interesting to consider as a recruitment resource because they already have housing in the area. As the results address that second-home owners have spent significant time in the area, it may suggest that they can potentially adapt faster to a job-relocation than other resource-groups as they are familiar with the community. However, this depends if there is a willingness to do so, as taking employment would turn the host community into their ordinary life thus breaking the contrast mentioned in the literature (Blondy et al, 2018; Müller et al, 2010). Regardless, this could stress the importance to set aside possible consequences and instead acknowledge the benefits they bring to the host community’s labour market.

Regardless of how the second-home owners complement the locals and matches the needs on the labour market, it becomes meaningless if the second-home owners are not willing to participate (Flognfeldt, 2002; Nordbø, 2014). For this study, the willingness may be a mixed bag. As most of the second-home owners who participated in this study responded mainly ’’no’’ for both moving into the host community and taking employment in its labour market, it may suggest that they are not a potential recruitment resource. The results may in fact contradict previous research regarding that second-home owners have a will to eventually move in permanently and become part of the community (Blondy et al, 2018; Janhunen et al, 2014; Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998; Kietäväinen et al, 2015; Quinn, 2004; Waller & Sharpley, 2018; Williams & Hall, 2000). Instead, the results may fit better with research suggesting the contrast of place: that second-home owners primarily want to travel to their second-home to escape ones ordinary life (Aronsson, 2004; Müller et al, 2010; Marjavaara et al, 2019; Jansson & Müller, 2003). This could help answering why most second-home owners responded ’’no’’ on both moving permanently to the host community and taking employment in the area, as this would turn their second home into their ordinary life thus losing the mentioned contrast. This showcases similarities to literature on labour migration as it was mentioned how it was questionable if labour migrants will remain in the host community as permanent residents (Nelson et al, 2014). This makes it possible to suggest that many second-home owners cannot consider a permanent move nor work in the local labour market as the contrast between one’s primary- and second-home is too important.

36

Moreover, the study tends to support the complexity of temporary and permanent mobility mentioned in the literature (Bell & Ward, 2000; Hall, 2005; Müller, 2004; Quinn, 2004). In this study, it was possible to see how most of the participating second-home owners have had their second home for a substantial period. This could support how the literature states that second-home owners invest in their dwellings for the long-term (Aronsson, 2004; Bell & Ward, 2000; Quinn, 2004). However, it may not mean that the second-home owners for this study will spend more time in their second-homes yet moving in permanently. In the literature it was told how the second home community may be the desired permanent residence for second-home owners (Blondy et al, 2018; Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998; Müller et al, 2010), and the results agree with this to a degree. Considering that the results show how many of the second-home owners have had their second-home for a significant time, it could support the literature that the second-homes are important life projects (Aronsson, 2004). Although, the fact remains that most second-home owners for this study did not consider a permanent move nor employment in the host community for the time being.

However, this does not mean that the second-home owners are not a potential recruitment resource. Regardless of the high number of negative responses, the second-home owners can still be a potential resource for multiple reasons. First, although there were many that did not show interest it does not exclude those who did. As of the time when the survey was published, one could see that there where a significant number of second-home owners who could consider both a permanent move and employment in the host community. Secondly, both second-home owners who said ’’no’’ or ’’did not know’’ still showed that they could change their mind. Since many participants responded that they could reconsider both permanent move and employment in the host community, it relates to what Bell & Ward (2000) and Müller (2004) mentioned regarding the difficulty of predicting how one might move due to the individuals life-course. Third, it is important to address that this study did not reach all second-home owners in the area nor was that ever considered a possibility. As pointed out in the results, most of the participants had their second home in Kittlefjäll thus showing a lack of other regions involved for the study. This could suggest that the result may have been different if the study involved more answers from other areas in the municipality, as one cannot assume that the respondents from Kittlefjäll represents every second-home owner in the municipality. Therefore, it is possible that the willingness to participate in the local labour market exceeds that of the findings as many second-home owners where absent for this study. Based on these arguments, one can still suggest that a potential exist amongst the second-home owners to certain degrees.

Despite various uncertainties, the study shows how the second-home owners of Vilhelmina municipality could be a resource for the local labour market for

37 different reasons. First, it was shown how the second-home owners has the knowledge and experience that matches both the locals and the needs on the local labour market. Secondly, the results indicate how the second-home owners are in the municipality for the long-term. Although many do not consider a permanent move, they remain in the region for longer time thus indicating a high degree of place attachment. Third, if certain criteria are met in the region it could potentially turn those who were originally against employment in the region to change their minds. This may agree with the literature regarding that the potential contribution of second-home owners is difficult to comprehend (Kindel & Ragmaa, 2015; Larsson & Müller, 2019). Also, it is important to address that regions such as Vilhelmina does not necessarily involve large labour markets. Even the slightest interest could become a valuable resource for rural and peripheral areas as they struggle to find suitable labour (Hendersen & Akers, 2009; Green et al, 2009), and based on the background of the second- home owners it could be found here. This could suggest that the second-home owners of Vilhelmina are in fact a potential recruitment resource for its local labour market. Moreover, non-registered second-home owners have already one foot in the door due to their investments in the area. This is an important difference between non-registered second-home owners and labour migrants in general. For example, a relocation to rural and peripheral areas is perhaps more likely for non-registered second-home owners since they already have a place attachment that other alternatives lack. Hence, the above exemplifies second- home owners potential as a resource for the local labour market.

Thus, this study contributes to the current understandings of labour recruitment in rural and peripheral areas by confirming the possibility for extension of second-home owners as a resource. It is important to address that the idea of second-home owners being a potential resource for the local labour market is not unique for this study, as previous research has touched upon it (Hall & Williams, 2002; Flognfeldt, 2002; 2006; Müller et al, 2010; Nordbø, 2014; Velvin et al, 2013). However, what this study may instead contribute to is extending the understandings of second-home owner’s capabilities as a resource for the local labour market. Until now, it could be argued that the research on this topic has been somewhat shallow in the sense that it only hints towards the second-home owners potential as a recruitment resource in certain aspects. Instead of examining second-home owners as a knowledge resource to the labour market (which may be considered the focus in previous research), this study highlights their possibility for actual employment. Accordingly, this may be one of few studies that provides an empirical understanding on the subject. Here, one can see by the collected data that second-home owners potential as a recruitment resource in rural and peripheral labour markets may be an actual possibility. As previous studies have revealed many contribution aspects of second-home owners for rural and peripheral areas (Hiltunen et al, 2016;

38

Jansson & Müller, 2003; Marjavaara, 2008; Müller et al, 2010; Müller & Hoogendoorn, 2013; Olofsson, 2005; Waller & Sharpley, 2018), this study may contribute to increasing the understanding on how second-home owners can contribute to these areas.

It is important to address that this research idea may not be limited to Vilhelmina municipality. Depending on the place, the willingness to partake in the host community by the second-home owner may differ. Since the investments and interests of the host community is not unique for Vilhelminas second-home owners, it makes it possible to suggest that this study is applicable to other areas as well. More importantly, this study could be applicable beyond Swedish context as the contribution aspect of second-home owners is acknowledged on a global level (Aronson, 2004; Blondy et al, 2018; Fialová et al, 2018; Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998). Taking this in mind, it is possible to suggest that this research idea is applicable for other areas outside of Vilhelmina.

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the second-home owners’ potential as a recruitment resource for the local labour market in rural and peripheral areas, and to enquire their willingness to engage. With the example of Vilhelmina municipality, this study concludes that second-home owners have the potential of being a suitable recruitment resource for these societies. Due to their occupational background and high educational level, the second-home owners of Vilhelmina matches the demand of the local labour market as there is a need for skilled labourers. Albeit a minority for the case of Vilhelmina, the study illustrates that there exists a willingness amongst second-home owners to take employment in the labour market of the host community.

There are multiple ideas of the contribution aspect of second-home owners highlighted in this study. First, the study show how second-home owners are not as consequential as previous research suggest. From a recruitment perspective, the study suggests that they are less consequential than other potential sources. Secondly, the second-home owners already have some sort of attachment to the area thus showing commitment. Whether it being emotional or financial, their investments in the place are something that other potential sources lack. Even if second-home owners never become permanent residents, they still show a connection to the area that is unlikely to break.

Regardless of whether the second-home owners become permanent residents of the host community, it does not change their willingness to contribute to the local labour market. Many of Vilhelminas second-home owners may never

39 become permanent residents, but those who remain temporary residents can still contribute to the labour market as they still have the necessary skills to do so. Albeit not ideal, second-home owners who cannot consider a permanent residence in the host community can still work part-time once they are present. This points to the importance of not only viewing contribution in terms of permanent mobility, but also in terms of temporary mobility as it can still contribute to rural and peripheral areas.

Based on the noticeable lack of research in this field, multiple suggestions for future research are highlighted. For example, as this study suggest that this research topic sits in a state of infancy, more empirical data is needed. Important as the findings may be, it does not change the fact that this study only shows one example from one area. Therefore, it is important to address that other regions could show different answers thus potentially strengthening the topic as a field of research further. Also, since this study has focused on mapping the potential and willingness of second-home owners becoming a recruitment resource for host communities, examining other perspectives on the matter could be important. For example, it is relatively unknown to what degree municipal planners in the host community work to include second-home owners in their labour market. In fact, as this potential is considered rather unknown to research, chances are that it is for municipal planning as well. Hence, getting an understanding on the municipalities perspective on the matter can be considered a potential suggestion for future research. Lastly, as it was mentioned in the literature (Müller, 2002; Quinn, 2004), modern mobility enhances the possibilities of accessible labour markets. Therefore, this could suggest that neighbouring municipalities could potentially share second-home owners as resources for their labour markets in the sense of a resource network, thus introducing an additional future research topic.

It is important to acknowledge how the resources of a place is not fixed. As this study signals the potential of non-registered second-home owners to contribute to the host community’s labour market, it shows how the resources of rural and peripheral areas goes beyond of what is listed in the region. This study points out how rural and peripheral areas have a ’’hidden’’ population. Although many of Vilhelminas second-home owners are not registered in the municipality, they still invest and care for the area. Accordingly, as this study points out: they both can and are willing to contribute. Therefore, this highlights the importance of examining the potential that temporary mobility can bring to rural and peripheral areas.

To conclude, it is safe to say that further research is called for within this field. The knowledge on second-home owners as a recruitment resource is still limited. Therefore, it is important to stress that this study only reveal a small

40 section of an otherwise large canvass meaning that more research is needed. Nevertheless, this study still provides a glimpse of potential for a research topic that until this point was only somewhat discussed. Hence, this study is a possible stepping-stone towards revealing the further potential of temporal mobility in the development of rural and peripheral areas.

Funding

This study is part of a research project at the Department of Geography at Umeå University called: Is the temporary population a resource? Therefore, the study was funded partly by the Research Support and Collaboration Office at Umeå University, and by Vilhelmina municipality.

41

References

Official documents, motions, propositions, web pages, and reports NSD (2019). Löfven om glesbygden: ’’Jag känner oro’’. https://nsd.se/nyheter/lofven-om- glesbygden-jag-kanner-oro-nm5078099.aspx Läraren (2019). Stora problem att rekrytera lärare till landsbygden. https://www.lararen.se/nyheter/senaste-nytt/stora-problem-att-rekrytera-larare-till- landsbygden Pensionsmyndigheten (2019). Pensionsåldern och grundskyddet höjs. https://www.pensionsmyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyheter/pensionsaldern-och- grundskyddet-hojs Vilhelmina kommun (2018). Ekonomiska och sysselsättningsmässiga effekter av turismen i Vilhelmina kommun. RESURS för Resor och Turism i Norden AB SVT Nyheter (2019). Nu ska vi inte jobba längre – Pensionsåldern höjs. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/forslag-om-hojd-pensionsalder-nasta-ar SVT Nyheter (2020). Spetsutbildad kompetens verkar vilja bo i större städer. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/norrbotten/spetsutbildad-kompetens-verkar-vilja-bo-i- storre-stader Statistics Sweden, SCB (2019). Fler barn bor i storstäder i framtiden. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2019/fler-barn-bor-i-storstader-i-framtiden/ Statistics Sweden, SCB (2019). Tätt i Sundbyberg och glest i Arjeplog. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2019/tatt-i-sundbyberg-och-glest-i-arjeplog/ Statistics Sweden, SCB (2020). Kommunfakta. https://www.scb.se/kommunfakta

Articles & books Aronsson, L. (2004). Place attachment of vacation residents: Between tourists and permanent residents. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground (pp. 75-86). Clevedon: Channel View. Back, A., & Marjavaara, R. (2017). Mapping an invisible population: the uneven geography of second-home tourism. Tourism Geographies. Vol, 19(4), 595-611. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2017.1331260 Bell, M., & Ward, G. (2000). Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration. Tourism Geographies. Vol, 2(1), 87-107. doi: 10.1080/146166800363466 Blondy, C., Plumejaud, C, Vacher, L, Vye, D, & Bontet, C. (2018). Do second home owners only play a secondary role in coastal territories? A case study in Charente- Maritime (France). In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Home Tourism and Mobilities (pp. 233-244). New York: Routledge. Eliasson, K., Westlund, H, & Johansson, M. (2015). Determinants of net migration to rural areas, and the impacts of migration on rural labour markets and self-employment in

42 rural Sweden. European planning studies. Vol 23(4), 693-709. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.945814 Farstad, M. (2011). Rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’ pursuit of own interests in the host community. Norwegian Journal of Geography. Vol, 65(3), 165-174. doi: 10.1080/00291951.2011.598551 Farstad, M. (2016). Worthy of recognition? How second home owners understand their own group’s moral worth in rural host communities. European society for rural sociology. Vol, 56(3). doi: 10.1111/soru.12083 Farstad, M. (2018). The moral dilemma of second home owners’ position in the host community. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Home Tourism and Mobilities (pp. 258-266). New York: Routledge. Farstad, M., Rye, J, F. (2013). Second home owners, locals and their perspectives on rural development. Journal of rural studies. Vol, 30, 41-51. Fialová, D., Vágner, J., & Kusová, T. (2018). Second homes, their users and relations to the rural space and the resident communities in Czechia. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Home Tourism and Mobilities (pp. 222-232). New York: Routledge. Flognfeldt, T. (2002). Second-Home Ownership: A sustainable semi-migration. In C. M. Hall & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Tourism & Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption (pp. 187-203). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Flognfeldt, T. (2006). Second Homes, Work Commuting and Amenity Migrants in Norway’s Mountain Areas. In L. A. G. Moss (Eds.), The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures (pp. 232-244). Cambridge: CABI Publications. Fountain, J., & Hall, C, M. (2002). The impact of lifestyle migration on rural communities: A case study of Akaroa, New Zealand. In C. M. Hall & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Tourism & Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption (pp. 187-203). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Frykholm, K. (2017). Strategier för fritidshusturism? En översikt av Sveriges kommuner [Strategies for second-home tourism? An overview of Swedens municipalities]. (BA), Umeå University, Umeå. Hall, C, M., & Williams, A, M. (2002). Tourism & Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption (pp. 187-203). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hall, C. M. (2005). Tourism; Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Pearson Education. Halfacree, K., & Boyle, P, J. (1993). The challenge facing migration research: The case for a biographical approach. Progress in Human Geography. Vol 17(3), 333-348. Halfacree, K. (2001). Constructing the object: Taxonomic practices, ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. International journal of population geography. Vol 7, 395-411. doi: 10.1002/ijpg.238

43

Halfacree, K. (2011). A solid partner in a fluid world and/or line of flight? Interpreting second homes in the era of mobility. Norwegian Journal of Geography. Vol, 65(3), 1502- 5292. doi: 10.1080/00291951.2011.598238 Henderson, J., & Akers, M. (2009). Coming home to rural America: Demographic shifts in the tenth district. Economic Review. Hiltunen, M, J., Pitkänen, K., & Halseth, G. (2016). Environmental perceptions of second home tourism impacts in Finland. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Vol, 21(10), 1198- 1214. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1079701 Green, A, E., Hoyos, M., Jones, P., & Owen, D. (2009). Rural development and labour supply challenges in the UK: The role of non-UK migrants. Regional studies. Vol 43(10), 1261-1273. doi: 10.1080/00343400801932318 Janhunen, S., Hujala, M., & Pätäri, S. (2014). Owners of second homes, locals and their attitudes towards future rural wind farm. Elsevier, Energy Policy. Vol, 73, 450-460. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.050 Jansson, B., & Müller, D, K. (2003). Fritidsboende i Kvarken. Vasa: Kvarkenrådet. Kaltenborn, B, P,. & Clout, H, D. (1998). The alternate home – motives of recreation home use. Norwegian Journal of Geography. Vol, 52(3), 121-134. doi: 10.1080/00291959808552393 Kietäväinen, A., Rinne, J., Paloniemi, R., & Tuulentie, S. (2016). Participation of second home owners and permanent residents in local decision making: The case of a rural village in Finland. Journal of Geography. Vol, 194(2), 152-167. doi: 10.11143/55485 Kindel, G., & Raagmaa, G. (2015). Recreational home owners in the leadership and governance of peripheral recreational communities. Hungarian geographical bulletin. Vol, 64(5), 233-245. doi: 10.15201/hungeobull.64.3.6 Larsson, L., & Müller, D, K. (2019). Coping with second home tourism: responses and strategies of private and public service providers in western Sweden. Current Issues in Tourism. Vol, 22(16), 1958-1974. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2017.1411339 Marjavaara, R. (2008). Second home tourism: The root to displacement in Sweden? (Doctoral dissertation). Umeå Universitet, Umeå. Marjavaara, R., Müller, D, K., & Back, A. (2019). Från sommarnöjen till Airbnb: En översikt av svensk fritidshusforskning. Marjavaara, R., Lundholm, E. (2016). Does Second-home Ownership Trigger Migration in Later Life? Population, Space and Place. Vol, 22(3), 228-240. doi: 10.1002/psp.1880 Müller, D, K. (2004). Second homes in Sweden: Patterns and issues. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground (pp. 75-86). Clevedon: Channel View. Müller, D, K., Hall, C, M., & Keen, D. (2004). Second home tourism impact, planning and management. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground (pp. 15-32). Clevedon: Channel View.

44

Müller, D, K., Nordin, U., & Marjavaara, R. (2010). Fritidsboendes relationer till den svenska landsbygden: Resultat av en enkät bland svenska fritidshusägare 2009. Kulturgeografiska instituionen, Umeå Universitet. Müller, D, K., & Marjavaara, R. (2012). From second home to primary residence: Migration towards recreational properties in Sweden 1991-2005. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. Vol, 103, 53-68. Müller, D, K., & Hoogendoorn, G. (2013). Second Homes: Curse or Blessing? A Review 36 Years Later. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. Vol, 13(4), 353-369. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.860306 Nelson, P, B., Nelson, L., & Trautman, L. (2014). Linked migration and labor market flexibility in the rural amenity destinations in the united states. Journal of rural studies. Vol, 36, 121-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.07.008 Nienaber, B., & Frys, W. (2012). International labour migration in European rural regions – The example of Saarland, Germany. European countryside. Vol, 1, 73-88. doi: 10.2478/v10091-012-0015-6 Nordbø, I. (2014). Beyond the transfer of capital? Second-home owners as competence brokers for rural entrepreneurship and innovation. European Planning Studies. Vol, 22(8), 1641-1658. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.784608 Olofsson, J. (2005). Fritidsboendets betydelse för den lokala utvecklingen i Ljungdalen- området i Bergs kommun. Umeå University, CERUM. Quinn, B. (2004). Dwelling through multiple places: A case study of second home ownership in Ireland. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground (pp. 75-86). Clevedon: Channel View. Robertsson L., & Marjavaara, R. (2015). The Seasonal Buzz: Knowledge Transfer in a Temporary Setting. Tourism Planning & Development. Vol, 12(3), 251-265. doi: 10.1080/21568316.2014.947437 Rye, J, F. (2015). Labour migrants and rural change: The ’’mobility transformation’’ of Hitra/Frøya, Norway, 2005–2015. Journal of rural studies. Vol, 64, 189-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.003 Veal, A., J. (2011). Research methods for leisure & tourism: A practical guide. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited. Velvin, J. (2013). The impact of second home tourism on local economic development in rural areas in Norway. Tourism Economics. Vol, 19(3), 689-705. doi: 10.5367/te.2013.0216 Waller, I, U., & Sharpley, R. (2018). Host community perceptions of international permanent tourists: The case of Didim, Turkey. In C. M. Hall & D. K. Müller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Home Tourism and Mobilities. New York: Routledge. Williams, A, M., & Hall, C, M. (2000). Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption. Tourism geographies. Vol, 2(1), 5-27. doi: 10.1080/146166800363420

45

Appendix – Internet Survey

Main questions

Q1. In what municipality are you registered in?

Comment (100 word-limit)

Q2. Where in Vilhelmina do you have your second-home?

• In Klimpfjäll • In Saxnäs • In Kittelfjäll • Other area • Do not know

Q3. How long have you had your second-home?

• Less than a year • 1 – 4 years • 5 – 10 years • Over 10 years • Do not know

Q4. Would you consider a permanent move to your second-home?

• Yes • No • Do not know

Q5. Would you consider taking employment in Vilhelminas labour market?

• Yes • Yes, but not fulltime-job • No • Maybe • Do not know

Follow-up questions

Q4. If ’’no’’ or ’’do not know’’: What would make you reconsider a permanent move to your second-home?

Comment (100-word limit)

Q5. If ’’no’’ or ’’do not know’’: What would make you reconsider employment in Vilhelmina?

Comment (100-word limit)

46

47