University of Tartu Faculty of Science and Technology Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences Department of Geography Case study NOAROOTSI NORDPLUS 2015 INTENSIVE COURSE “Consumption of space and local governance in core-periphery relations” Helin Tamm Diego Cidrás Fernández Gettel Sink Emmi Alho Arna Dögg Tómasdóttir Tartu 2015 Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................4 1. Theory.................................................................................................................................5 1.1 Second-home owners .......................................................................................................5 1.2 Involvement of second-house owners ..............................................................................6 1.3 Social network and community...................................................................................7 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................10 2.1 Designing research questions .........................................................................................10 2.2 Interviews .......................................................................................................................11 2.2.1 Semi-structured interviews ......................................................................................11 2.2.2 Interview design.......................................................................................................11 2.2.3 Selecting participants...............................................................................................12 2.2.4 Data and its transcription .........................................................................................12 2.3 Observation ....................................................................................................................12 2.4 Mapping..........................................................................................................................13 3. Results..................................................................................................................................14 3.1 Description of case study area........................................................................................14 3.1.1 Noarootsi..................................................................................................................14 3.1.2 Riguldi/ Rickul.........................................................................................................17 3.1.3 Einbi/Enby ...............................................................................................................18 3.1.4. Höbringi/Höbring ...................................................................................................20 3.1.5 Elbiku/ Ölbäc ...........................................................................................................21 3.2 Involvement - network and governance .........................................................................22 3.2.1 Network between Estonians and Estonian-Swedes.....................................................22 3.2.2 Communication with governance ............................................................................24 3.3 Second house owners´ influence on local services.........................................................24 4. Analysis................................................................................................................................28 2 5. Execution of the study..........................................................................................................30 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................31 References................................................................................................................................32 Appendices...............................................................................................................................34 Appendix 1. Population change in case study villages ........................................................34 Appendix 2. Interview guides ..............................................................................................34 Appendix 3. Range of second-home architecture.................................................................37 3 Introduction Located at the coast in Lääne County, North-West Estonia, Noarootsi is a beautiful coastal area. It is known for being one of the places that Estonian Swedes have gathered. Estonian Swedes are one of the oldest minorities in Estonia, having first arrived in the 13th century and settling on the west and north coast. Most of them emigrated back to Sweden around 1939, when the Soviet Union’s army bases moved into Estonia. Today only a small number live permanently in Estonia. (Visitestonia.com, Noarootsi - Nuckö) Their legacy is apparent in many place names in Noarootsi with clear swedish influence. For example Nes, Einbi and many others. In recent decades small groups of Estonian Swedes are regrouping to study their heritage. They are learning the Swedish language and studying their culture (Visitestonia.com, Estonian Swedes). Many Estonian Swedes residing in Sweden have also come back to Estonia where their families came from. To keep in touch with their heritage in Estonia they have bought second houses on the North and West coast of Estonia. Due to interesting history and presumable variation of people living in this case study area it is an interesting location for a research. This research paper strives to find out how involved the second homeowners are in different ways - both to the municipality and to the community, and also what is their influence to the local services. Background information about case study area and people living or having second-homes in the region will be gathered through mapping to get overview about demography of the four selected villages. Research questions are following: ● How involved are second homeowners in the municipality - governing and community? ● What kind of influence do second home owners have on local services? 4 1. Theory 1.1 Second-home owners Many of the second-homes, though not all of them, are located in rural areas. At least in Nordic countries having a second-home has a linkage to the idea of rural idyll but also family roots, ties and history, regarding to the place of second-home, have impact on people’s want to have a recreational house. Second-houses are not only located in rural areas but also such places as beach resorts in warm climate destinations and apartments in metropolitan areas and urban regions (see Müller 2011). In this paper we are focusing on second-homes located in Noarootsi rural areas. Even though urbanisation has been a trend for several decades already the phenomena of counterurbanization has to be noted also (Müller 2011). Besides the term second-home that we are mostly using in this paper there are several other terms in use such as “Recreational home (Gartner 1987; Kaltenborn 1998), summer house (Willard Cross 1993),vacation home (Ragatz 1970) and cottage (Wolfe 1951; Halseth & Rosenberg 1995)” but also the terms alternate home (Kalterborn 1998), and semi-mobile homes (Newig 2000) as some people are using caravans and boats as their recreational housing (see Müller 2011). Pettersson (1999) argues that during the 1990’s geographers lacked interest in second-home phenomenon. Earlier research on second-homes focused on construction of new cottage sites, diffusion of second-homes meanings that people gave for this practise. Regarding to Pettersson, starting from the 90’s geographers research focused regarding second-homes was concentrated on second-home owners impact on rural development and the relationship between the surrounding environment and second-home inhabitants, though earlier research tradition was still present. According to Benson and O’Reilly (2009) lifestyle migration, such as having a second home, was earlier seen as being something that usually only wealthy people could afford. It has been characteristic of this phenomena that people who had second-homes travelled between their first and second homes mostly because they saw it as possible provider of more quality in life. In latest research there is evidence that such kind of mobility and lifestyle migration has 5 increased in various ways worldwide, also amongst groups that are not part of the upper class (see Janoschka and Haas 2013). Second-homes are getting more popular and people are giving new meanings to their second homes. Regarding to Janoschka and Haas (2013), there are several personal motivations why people have second homes, such as better climate at second home’s location or the possibility to “down-shift” in a peaceful environment. Rinne (2014) argues that the most popular reason for second-house owners to come to their second-houses is their desire to be in peace and relax in a place where they have no responsibilities like in their first homes. Müller (2011) adds that different societal changes such as aging of people, technological development and globalization have also revitalized the phenomena of second homes from the 1990’s. As second home owners have been seen as upper class lifestyle migrants, they have been targeted economically in many places worldwide