Kindel, G. and Raagmaa, G. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (3) 233–245. 233 DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.64.3.6 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 2015 (3) 233–245. Recreational home owners in the leadership and governance of peripheral recreational communities Grete KINDEL1 and Garri RAAGMAA2 Abstract This paper addresses recreational home owners’ role in local leadership and governance, focusing on whether they counteract or reinforce the peripheralisation of remotely located communities. If recreational house own- ers (RHO) grow in number, they become stronger stakeholders with an increased ability to impact the social and economic life of communities. Possessing high interpretive and network power, they should have fairly good opportunities to contribute to local development. The greatest challenge is to fi nd a balance and create positive synergies between permanent and temporary residents’ interests. Here, leadership quality has a great importance in orchestrating relations and communication between interest groups. Empirically, the paper is based on a comparative case study of Noarootsi and Vormsi, two tiny municipalities located on the Estonian West coast, which is outside the daily commuting area of urban centres. Both case study areas have similar cultural and historical development paths and economic bases. Since they practiced very diff erent leadership models during the last 25 years, we can compare whether and how this impacted governance and overall development. We used media analysis, statistical data and the results of students’ fi eldwork as a background; moreover, we conducted 20 in-depth interviews with key informants. The results show the highly important role of RHOs in local governance depending on their personal background and motives. At the same time, the results also indicate the need for skilful local leadership to encourage the participation and equal involvement of all permanent and temporary resident interest groups in decision making. Keywords: leadership, governance, recreational home owner, recreational periphery, Estonia We defi ne recreational peripheries as ter- ritories outside the daily commuting areas of Introduction urban centres where a signifi cant part of the population lives temporarily, mainly during This paper analyses the role of the group of the summer and weekends, and mostly uses recreational home owners (RHO) in the lead- land for recreational purposes such as vari- ership and governance of peripheral com- ous sports, minor hobby cultivation, mush- munities. Recreational, also labelled second, room and berry picking. RHOs oft en remain leisure, vacation, weekend, holiday, beach, invisible in statistics: they are included nei- country or seasonal homes include luxuri- ther in the population registers nor in tour- ous mansion-type buildings, small houses, ism accounts. Nevertheless, whereas a RHO shanties, cabins, cott ages, ski chalets, trailer is ’likely to be less concerned with the fate of homes, and static caravans (Marcouiller, the community where resides and more with W.D. and Chraca, A. 2011). Müller uses the activities that may be scatt ered throughout term “second home”, which is not entirely the [urban] fi eld but are closest to interests, correct since some families own three or even leading to a stronger identifi cation on his part more such properties (Müller, K.D. 2002). with the realm’ (Friedmann, J. and Miller, J. 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Tartu. Narva mnt 4, Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Geography, University of Tartu. Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected] 234 Kindel, G. and Raagmaa, G. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (3) 233–245. 1965, p. 317), then an active and motivated Literature review member of a local community may well cont- ribute to its development. Otherwise, RHOs The choice of location with recreational may also create problems for permanent resi- homes is influenced by natural conditions dents (Farstad, M. 2011) and reinforce periph- (Marcouiller, W.D. and Chraca, A. 2011; eralisation processes when blocking develop- Lipkina, O. 2013). City people are willing to ment initiatives in the local council because of consume qualitatively diff erent amenities that their desire for peace and quiet. they cannot access or aff ord in urban areas and, The RHO phenomenon and their impact thus, they are looking for more distant places to has been well described by several authors charge their batt eries. Recreational homes are (Gallent, N. et al. 2003; Gallent, N. 2007; located mainly in areas of valuable natural en- Paris, C. 2009; Farstad, M. 2011; Rye, F. and vironment: coastland, islands or mountains and Berg, G.N. 2011; Marcouiller, W.D. and places of social and cultural meaning (Gallent, Chraca, A. 2011; Nordin, U. and Marjavaara, N. et al. 2003; Dij st, M. et al. 2005; Pitkänen, K. R. 2012; Nordbo, I. 2014) but so far, the litera- 2008; Norris, M. and Winston, N. 2010). ture on the participation of RHOs in local lead- It is typical for places of tourism to be in the ership and governance is fairly limited, thus, it periphery. In this way, remote regions eco- deserves a more thorough investigation. nomically benefi t from factors which cannot The restructuring of local power can coun- be utilised otherwise: high mountain chains, teract or reinforce peripherality. On the one barren, rocky landscapes, heather, unpro- hand, new people usually see new hori- ductive dunes’ (Christaller, W. 1963, p. 96). zons, initiate new developments, apply new Friedmann and Miller described the spread- ways of governance, and, especially when ing urban fi eld and ‘the increasing att ractive- speaking about RHOs, extend networking ness of the periphery to metropolitan popula- (bridging social capital). On the other hand, tions. (Friedmann, J. and Miller, J. 1965, p. a power shift usually causes confl icts and a 315). It has space, it has scenery, and it contains negative image of a place, leading to further communities that remain from earlier periods peripheralisation due to the marginalisation of sett lement and preserve a measure of histor- of some groups who may not be involved in ical integrity and interest’. Thus, recreational the governance any more. land use in geographical peripheries has been Following this reasoning, we chose the described over 50 years ago already. following questions to clarify RHOs’ role in The mobility of people has increased due to local leadership: rising welfare and ever widening car owner- – How do RHOs’ motives and behaviour im- ship (Pettersson, R. 1999; Dij st, M. et al. 2005; pact socialisation with local community? Moss, L.A.G. 2006). Less densely populated – How do diff erent representation/leadership wealthy countries and regions in Northern models impact local relations and the involve- America and Europe have witnessed increas- ment of RHOs in local decision making? ing recreational commuting (Müller, K.D. – What are the main lessons for leadership 2002; Dij st, M. et al. 2005; Pitkänen, K. 2008; when involving RHOs in local governance? Paris, C. 2009; Norris, M. and Winston, N. We carried out a comparative case study 2010; Marcouiller, W.D. and Chraca, A. 2011; in two municipalities on the Estonian West Lipkina, O. 2013). A growing number of peo- coast. The paper consists of the following ple live and consume in two or more places. sections: (i) the theoretical overview of the The most of geographically remote areas suf- recreational home phenomenon and leader- fered from a steady demographic downward ship connection based on a literature review, trajectory over decades nevertheless, several (ii) a presentation of the case study areas and touristic and seasonal living areas have been the RHOs’ activities in diff erent leadership subject to positive, so called post-productivist regimes, and (iii) fi nally, our conclusion. development (Halfacree, K. 2006), as tourists Kindel, G. and Raagmaa, G. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (3) 233–245. 235 and recreational house dwellers contributed to whose credit ratings are good and those the increase of population (at least seasonally), who have possibilities to invest their savings as well as to retail and service consumption (Norris, M. and Winston, N. 2010). signifi cantly. Increasing fl ows might justify in- (4) The availability of free land is also an im- vestments into local infrastructure from the na- portant factor (Rye, F. and Berg, G.N. 2011), tional budget and also by private developers. explaining why recreational housing is much On the other hand, permanent residents more represented on the sparsely populated and RHOs may compete for local resources edges of Europe (Nordic countries, Eastern (Farstad, M. 2011); extensive recreational Europe and the Mediterranean) and periph- house ownership may increase the tax bur- eral regions further away from cities. den of local residents and even cause the dis- (5) Increasing mobility and ever widening placement of the ’native’ population (Hall, car ownership allows people to commute be- C.M. 2010). Local people’s att itude towards tween second and permanent homes (Rye, F. RHOs depends foremost on their interest and and Berg, G.N. 2011). readiness to contribute to the communities’ (6) Last but not least, rural idyll also att racts social and cultural life (Farstad, M. 2011). RHOs (Müller, K.D. 2002; Pitkänen, K. 2008; Recreational house owners’ socialization Rye, F. and Berg, G.N. 2011). with the local community depends on their The above reasons normally combine. personal willingness to communicate, the Usually, RHOs are well educated and wealthier existing institutional set up, the sett lement people (Dij st, M. et al. 2005), own a car for com- structure, and also on the att itude and activi- muting (Stewart, S.I. 2002; Moss, L.A.G. 2006) ties of local governments. RHOs may enrich and are seeking a place where they can spend local close-knit communities with bridging their leisure time and raise children (Lundholm, and linking social capital and create addition- E.