URN:NBN: i: s -oa55485
DOI: 10.11143/55485
Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s in
local decision making: he case o a u al illage in Finland
ASTA KIETÄVÄINEN, JANNE RINNE, RIIKKA PALONIEMI AND SEIJA TUULENTIE
Kie ä äinen, As a, Janne Rinne, Riikka Paloniemi & Seija Tuulen ie (2016). Pa -
icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s in local decision
making: he case o a u al illage in Finland. Fennia 194: 2, 152–167. ISSN
1798-5617.
In Finland, he e a e almos 500,000 second homes and in some a eas he num-
be o second home owne s exceeds ha o pe manen esiden s. Cu en ly, sec-
ond home owne s a e also spending mo e ime in hei second homes. I second
home owne s a e no pe manen esiden s, adminis a ion may exclude hem
om local ins i u ions, and ea second home owne s as only pa ial membe s o
he communi y. I has been s a ed ha municipal decision making and he ole o
he municipali y as an ac o in he local communi y should be b oadened in o -
de o s eng hen democ acy and he pa icipa ion o i s esiden s as a co e o
municipal sel -adminis a ion. Hence, pa icipa ing in communal decision mak-
ing is mainly possible only o pe manen esiden s. The issue is whe he i is
possible o change his si ua ion ia he municipali ies’ own e o ms and s a e
egula ions. New municipal adminis a ion expe imen s ha e ecen ly eme ged
in Finland. He e we s udy how he new local adminis a i e model, he Com-
munal Dis ic Commi ee, has a ec ed local pa icipa ion and local go e nance
in a u al a eas by explo ing second home owne s’ oppo uni ies o pa icipa e in
local decision making and de elopmen p ocesses. The da a consis s o docu-
men s, ocus g oup discussions and a ques ionnai e. We used quali a i e and
quan i a i e me hods in he da a analysis. We ound, on one hand, ha pe ma-
nen esiden s o illages ecognise second home owne s’ hesi a ion o pa ici-
pa e in local issues equi ing planning and decision making. On he o he hand,
local-le el communal decision making does no p omo e he pa icipa ion o
second home esiden s. On he basis o he indings o he s udy, we sugges ha
he municipal au ho i ies should ecognise he exis ence and impo ance o sec-
ond home owne s in he a ea, acknowledge hem be e in municipal plans and
s a egies, and o e hem mo e esou ces and means o pa icipa e.
Keywo ds: communal go e nance, de elopmen , Finland, pa icipa ion, u al
a ea, second home owne s
As a Kie ä äinen, A c ic Cen e, Uni e si y o Lapland, POB 122, FI-96101 Ro-
aniemi, Finland. E-mail: as [email p o ec ed]
Janne Rinne & Riikka Paloniemi, En i onmen al Policy Cen e , Finnish En i on-
men Ins i u e, (SYKE), POX 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: janne. inne@
ympa is o. i & [email p o ec ed]
Seija Tuulen ie, Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), E elä an a 55, 96300
Ro aniemi, Finland. E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
In oduc ion
Second home ou ism is an essen ial componen
o peoples’ housing and mobili y in mode n soci-
e y (Hall & Mülle 2004). Especially in he No dic
coun ies, second home owne s a e a ema kable
g oup spending ime in he coun yside (Hall e al.
2009; Fa s ad 2013). Fo example, in 2012 he e
we e abou 496,200 aca ion homes in Finland
(OSF 2012) alone. Second homes a e o en si u-
© 2016 by he au ho . This open access a -
icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Com-
mons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License.
FENNIA 194: 2 (2016) 153Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s
a ed in u al a eas which a e cu en ly acing ap-
id changes in u al popula ion s uc u e due o he
aging phenomenon as young people a e mo ing
o owns con ibu ing o u banisa ion. This pushes
many u al municipali ies, especially hose ha
a e small and medium-sized, in o a icious cycle
o nega i e e ec s. Fo example, depopula ion
and inc easing dependency a io may c ucially
weaken he abili y o municipali ies o o e hei
ci izens he basic se ices equi ed by law (Kaup-
pinen 2004).
Municipali ies ha ha e many second homes
conside second home owne s as a sou ce o e i-
alisa ion o he communal economy, and p o id-
e s o income o local en e p ises, which helps o
main ain public se ices in less popula ed a eas in
Finland (Rinne e al. 2015). The same phenome-
non has been obse ed in o he coun ies. Second
home owne s a e also alued o hei di e se
know-how and con ac s ha a e bene icial in de-
eloping u al a eas (Mülle 2006; Nylande &
Leppänen 2006; Ma ja aa a 2007; Mülle & Ma -
ja aa a 2012; No din & Ma ja aa a 2012; de Naz-
a é Oli ei a Roca e al. 2014; Rinne e al. 2014;
Robe sson & Ma ja aa a 2015). Ye he scope and
con en o economic impac s a y be ween coun-
ies and be ween egions wi hin each coun y
(Rye 2011; Ba ne 2014).
Conside ing he scale o he second home phe-
nomenon, a a ie y o issues need o be managed
and go e ned in municipali ies whe e he e a e
conside able numbe s o second homes. Fo ex-
ample, seasonal luc ua ions ha e impac s on he
en i onmen al, economic and social dynamics o
hese communi ies, leading in some case o con-
lic s o e na u al esou ce usage and o he de el-
opmen - ela ed issues (Hil unen 2007; Kal enbo n
e al. 2008; Kelly & Hosking 2008; O e åg & Be g
2011; Fa s ad & Rye 2013; Hil unen e al. 2013).
Second homes a e go e ned h ough a ious ad-
minis a i e sec o s, ju isdic ions, and policies.
When policy in eg a ion in Finland was s udied by
Rinne e al. (2014) i was ound ha ou ism and
i s homes we e isible in many documen s,
whe eas second homes we e in many cases absen
o men ioned only indi ec ly as a pa o ou ism o
housing in gene al.
In many cases, he adminis a ion and ela ed
p ac ices a e based on he pe manen esidence o
a pe son (Pa is 2008; Hall 2015). I second home
owne s a e no pe manen esiden s, he adminis-
a ion may exclude hem om local ins i u ions,
and ea second home owne s as only pa ial
membe s o he communi y (Hall & Mülle 2004;
Ma ja aa a 2008; an Laa e al. 2014). Fo in-
s ance, second home owne s a e no allowed o
o e in communal elec ions and hey canno be
elec ed as decision-make s o o mal ep esen a-
i es in municipal adminis a ions. Howe e , hey
may be s akeholde s in land use planning, gi e
s a emen s on plans and ha e he igh o appeal
decisions (Nylande & Leppänen 2006; Rinne e
al. 2015). Second home owne s pay eal es a e ax,
and hey a e en i led o ce ain public se ices
such as heal h ca e, planning pe missions, lib a -
ies and escue and i e se ices.
The idea o he communi y gaining g ound in
policymaking has been implemen ed in a eas o
se ices p o ision, educa ion, policing, anspo ,
egional de elopmen , p ima y indus y, and local
go e nmen (Adams & Hess 2001). The main ind-
ings o Salminen (2008) show ha he new go e n-
ance is less hie a chical, mo e lexible and he se -
ice p o ision is ede ined in e ms o he in e play
be ween s a e, municipali ies and p i a e- and
hi d-sec o ac o s. Pa icipa o y go e nance is
based on he in e ac ions o a socio-poli ical sys em
in ol ing he public, p i a e and ci il sec o s (Red-
del 2002; Reddel & Woolcock 2004). Ci izens a e
ega ded as ac i e pa icipan s in hei communi ies
and aim o in eg a e hei knowledge in o policy
p ocesses (Hess & Adams 2007). The mos impo -
an ela ionship is no be ween di e en le els o
go e nmen , bu be ween go e nmen and people
(Goss 2001). Howe e , Sulli an e al. (2004) ha e
a gued ha locali ies’ capaci ies o ac in hei own
in e es s a e suppo ed by he oppo uni ies p esen -
ed in a mul i-le el go e nance en i onmen .
I has been s a ed ha municipal decision mak-
ing and he ole o he municipali y as an ac o in
he local communi y should be b oadened
(Ryynänen & Uo i 2009). This enables s eng hen-
ing o democ acy and he pa icipa ion o i s esi-
den s as a co e o municipal sel -adminis a ion
(Bi ulco & Cen eme i 2008; Ha e i e al. 2011).
Pa icipa ion is one o he cu en end concep s
ha in o ms policy making and adminis a i e
p ac ices in Finland and in o he Wes e n democ a-
cies (Kallio & Bäcklund 2012). In hese new o ms
o go e nance he esiden s’ oppo uni ies o in lu-
ence policies and oppo uni ies o pa icipa e a e
hus imp o ed (Mö önen 2011). Di ec ci izen pa -
icipa ion is o en mo e easible a he local le el
han he egional o na ional le el, and as such is
mo e common in a communi y con ex (Jo dan e
al. 2013). The la managemen sys em associa ed
154 FENNIA 194: 2 (2016)As a Kie ä äinen, Janne Rinne, Riikka Paloniemi & Seija Tuulen ie
wi h small councils b ings decision make s in o di-
ec con ac wi h communi y membe s (Dolle y &
Johnson 2005). These di ec me hods o pa icipa-
ion can bo h complemen and e i alise a ep e-
sen a i e democ acy (Sjöblom 2002).
Municipali ies play a cen al ole in local go -
e nance in Finland. In he Cons i u ion o Finland
(Minis y o Jus ice 1999), he coun y is di ided
in o 317 municipali ies (Suomen Kun alii o 2016)
whose adminis a ion is based on he sel -go e n-
men o hei esiden s. Acco ding o he Local
Go e nmen Ac (Minis y o Finance 1995), he
aim o municipali ies is o p omo e he wel a e o
esiden s and he sus ainable de elopmen o he
municipali y (Asikainen 2011). Municipali ies
mus a ange public se ices o esiden s ei he
alone o in coope a ion wi h o he municipali ies
by p o iding he se ices hemsel es o by buying
hem om he p i a e o a hi d sec o . Halme and
Kuukasjä i (2010) ha e s udied means and o ms
o ex end decision making o a local le el in cases
whe e municipali ies a e me ged in o de o en-
su e he pa icipa ion o local people. They sugges
ha issues sui able o local decision making a e
local se ices, spo and ec ea ion acili ies and
subsidies o associa ions. In an a emp o b ing
decision making down o he “g ass oo s le el”,
ce ain municipali ies in Finland, such as Jy äsky-
lä, Ro aniemi and Sonkajä i, ha e se up Com-
munal Dis ic Commi ees (CDC) (Aluelau akun-
a) (Pihlaja & Sanbe g 2012). The idea o his ad-
minis a i e expe imen is o p omo e he de elop-
men o communal se ices in emo e u al a eas.
The o icial objec i e o he Commi ees is o en-
hance he p o ision o local se ices and he com-
mon de elopmen o he local dis ic . Commi ees
make decisions wi hin he budge gi en by he
municipal council. The commi ees should also
enhance local people’s pa icipa ion in planning
and decision-making.
In his pape , we analyse he ways in which he
CDC model acili a es local pa icipa ion and lo-
cal go e nance in a u al a ea by ocusing on he
pa icipa ion o bo h second home owne s and
pe manen esiden s in cu en local decision
making and de elopmen p ocesses. We ask, how
does his new adminis a i e model enhance pa -
icipa ion by he esiden s, pa - ime and pe ma-
nen , o u al a eas? We a e also in e es ed in who
a e he people in ol ed in decision-making as
well as how a e di e en u al esiden s and hei
in e es s in local se ices and ac i i ies ep esen -
ed in municipal decision-making?
Ma e ial and me hods
Case s udy a ea
Ro aniemi is one o he municipali ies pilo ing he
local CDC. Ro aniemi consis s o an u ban a ea
and a spa sely popula ed u al a ea. Recen ly, in
2006, he u al commune o Ro aniemi was
me ged in o Ro aniemi. In he newly o med Ro-
aniemi, only a ew ep esen a i es o he o me
u al commune o Ro aniemi a e ep esen ed in
he municipal council o Ro aniemi. The local
CDC ollows he idea o communi y go e nance
by enhancing local people’s pa icipa ion in local
decision making. This e ills possible pa icipa ion
gaps le by municipal elec ions.
Cu en ly, Ro aniemi has six o icial CDCs. Ou
case s udy a ea is he illage o Pe unkajä i,
which is ep esen ed in he CDC o Sodankylän ie
(Fig. 1). This Commi ee has o mal ep esen a i es
om nine illages such as Vikajä i, Misi, and Ala-
nampa. I is equi ed ha o mal ep esen a i es
mus ha e hei pe manen esidence in he illage
hey ep esen . Hence, second home owne s can-
no be elec ed as o mal ep esen a i es o he
CDC, bu hey can pa icipa e as ep esen a i es in
he pa en s o ganisa ion o illages, called Ro a-
Tokka in Ro aniemi. This is mainly an ad ising and
coo dina ing o ganisa ion, and applies o unding
o he de elopmen o local p ojec s.
Almos all illages o he dis ic ha e mo e sec-
ond homes han pe manen homes (Fig. 2). In Pe-
unkajä i, he second home owne s a e mainly
membe s o he municipali y, as hey usually li e
close o he ci y cen e o Ro aniemi. Less han
20% o co age owne s ha e hei pe manen ad-
d ess ou side Ro aniemi municipali y.
We selec ed Pe unkajä i as a case s udy a ea
because o he popula ion s uc u e. In pa icula ,
he e a e only a ew pe manen esiden s and mos
illage s a e elde ly people (Ro aniemi 2016).
The e a e i e imes mo e second homes han pe -
manen esidences. Only a ew se ices a e p o-
ided in Pe unkajä i, some o hem a e p i a e
such as ploughing he oads in he win e and sell-
ing i ewood. The p o ision o public se ices con-
sis s o , o example, in-home nu sing and a mo-
bile lib a y.
In se e al Finnish municipali ies, esiden s’ as-
socia ions and second home commi ees ha e
been es ablished in o de o engage second home
owne s in local issues such as local de elopmen
FENNIA 194: 2 (2016) 155Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s
and ou doo ac i i ies. The associa ions may p o-
ide a o mal means o ha ing an in luence (Rinne
e al. 2015). In ac , in Pe unkajä i, he e is no
second home commi ee, bu he e is a illage as-
socia ion ha aims o enhance local de elopmen
and esiden s’ well-being. The second home own-
e s can be membe s o he illage associa ion, as
well as membe s o o he ci ic o ganisa ions and
associa ions ha a e ac i e in he illage (Table 1).
The second home owne s wi h hei pe manen
add ess in he Ro aniemi municipali y a e mo e
in luen ial ins i u ionally compa ed o o he sec-
ond home owne s. In ac , hey can be nomina ed
o he ci y council o o he o icial municipal bod-
ies. The illage associa ion can nomina e one ep-
esen a i e o he CDC, bu he ep esen a i e
ough o be a pe manen esiden o he illage.
The CDCs a e in cha ge o making adminis a i e
decisions on acili ies in u al a eas, and a e hus
an o icial pa o he municipal decision making
s uc u e (Fig 3).
The ci y council adjudica es he budge s o dis-
ic commi ees and alloca es he asks ha com-
mi ees should manage and make decisions on.
The commi ees ha e mee ings se en o en imes
pe yea . In addi ion o o icial decisions, he com-
mi ees make s a emen s abou s a egies and plans
unde p epa a ion in he ci y council and p opose
o he ci y council ways o de elop illages. On
he one hand, he commi ee has o ake in o ac-
coun municipal s a egies and plans and, on he
o he hand, acqui es in o ma ion om he esi-
den s o he a ea abou local needs o se ices.
Ma e ials
We combine h ee ypes o ma e ials in ou s udy:
planning, s a egy and p oceedings documen s, a
ocus g oup in e iew in Pe unkajä i and a semi-
s uc u ed ques ionnai e. When analysing he in-
e ac ion o di e en le els o adminis a ion and
decision making, we a e using da a ha consis s o
he documen s om di e en adminis a i e le els
and quali a i e da a om a ocus g oup in e iew.
The ques ionnai e e eals illage s’ and second
home owne s’ pe cep ions o how o de elop he
illage and hei willingness o pa icipa e in pub-
lic ac i i ies and need o se ices.
The documen s analysed we e: I) The de elop-
men plan o u al a eas o Ro aniemi 2013–2020
(Ro aniemi 2014), II) The pa icipa ion and in lu-
encing plan o Ro aniemi ci izens 2013–2016
(Ro aniemi 2013), III) The de elopmen plan o he
Communal Dis ic Commi ee o Sodankylän ie
Fig. 1. The a ea o he Communal Dis ic Commi ee o Sodankylän ie in Ro aniemi.
156 FENNIA 194: 2 (2016)As a Kie ä äinen, Janne Rinne, Riikka Paloniemi & Seija Tuulen ie
2013–2016 (Sodankylän ie 2013), and IV) The
mee ing minu es o he local Communal Dis ic
Commi ee o Sodankylän ie (22.5.2013–4.6.2014
en p oceedings).
A ocus g oup in e iew was o ganised in Pe-
unkajä i in Sep embe 2013. O e all, six pe ma-
nen esiden s we e ep esen ed in he ocus g oup:
h ee we e p e ious second home owne s, one
second home owne , and one ci il se an . In o -
ganising he discussions, we employed he semi-
s uc u ed “quali a i e a i ude app oach” (c .
Vainio & Paloniemi 2012). The me hod can be
called “ u u e-o ien ed ocus g oups”. The main
hemes we e: 1) pa icipa ion in local planning
and decision-making in he cu en si ua ion, 2) lo-
cal social and ecological changes in he u u e,
and 3) local inno a i e means o pa icipa ion in
he u u e. In his ocus g oup, pa icipan s we e
encou aged o e lec on he cu en si ua ion o
second home owne pa icipa ion in Pe unkajä i,
as well as hei oppo uni y o de elop s uc u es
and p ac ices o pa icipa e and o de elop he il-
lage in he u u e (Rinne e al. 2014). When in i -
ing pa icipan s, we con ac ed municipal o icials
om Ro aniemi, and asked he municipali y o se
hei ep esen a i es. In Pe unkajä i, locals and
second home owne s we e in i ed by he chai o
he illage commi ee and, in addi ion, a public
in i a ion was pos ed on he illage no iceboa d.
We also sen a ques ionnai e o he second
home owne s and pe manen housing es a es in
Pe unkajä i in Oc obe 2013. The ques ionnai e
was sen o 24 pe manen eal es a e p ope ies
Fig. 2. Pe manen and second homes in he illages o
Sodankylän ie in 2012.
Fig. 3. O ganisa ion o pe sons elec ed o a posi ion o us in Ro aniemi municipali y.
FENNIA 194: 2 (2016) 157Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s
wi hin he illage and o 132 second home own-
e s. Acco ding o he o icial s a is ics, he e a e
al oge he 40 pe manen homes and 198 second
homes, bu he add esses p o ided by he munici-
pali y we e no comp ehensi e, no up- o-da e and
hey con ained e o s in owne s’ names and hei
pe manen add esses while some people we e de-
ceased. Some o elde ly pe manen esiden s we e
in nu sing homes o in hospi al and he ques ion-
nai e was no sen o hem. In he ques ionnai e,
we asked, among o he hings, how second home
owne s and pe manen esiden s ake pa in local
associa ions, wha issues (li elihoods, ac i i ies,
o ganisa ions, illage e en s, oads, e c.) in he
illage should be de eloped, wha se ices hey
hope o . Fu he mo e, we enqui ed abou he in-
luence o second homes o illage de elopmen .
Al oge he , 54 ques ionnai es we e e u ned. The
esponse a e was 34.6%.
Ou app oach can be cha ac e ised as a mixed-
me hods app oach. Quan i a i e ques ionnai es
ha e been ex ensi ely used in p e ious second-
home esea ch, and hey ha e o en ocused on
second home owne pe spec i es (Wallace e al.
2005). In he o he semi-s uc u ed in e iews pa -
icipan s included also second home and pe ma-
nen esiden s as well as one ci il se an o he
municipali y. Ou explo a ion o second home
owne s’ pa icipa ion has he pe spec i e o bo h
pe manen esiden s and second home owne s.
Analysis
Documen s we e analysed using con en analy-
sis. The i s s ep was coun ing men ions o sec-
ond homes, second home owne s, and summe
co ages. The second s ep was analysing he con-
ex in which second homes o owne s we e men-
ioned. The hi d s ep was analysing he meaning
o sec ions in which second home owne s we e
men ioned and inding concep s o ca ego ise
hese meanings. Also, he in e ac ion o docu-
men s was analysed, o ins ance, how he local
plans and minu es a e conside ed in municipal
plans and how hese plans acknowledged second
home owne s.
The ocus g oup discussions we e analysed
quali a i ely (Maxwell 2005). We coded he con-
en o he in e iews by asking ques ions such as
how in e iewe s alk abou pa icipa ion in sec-
ond home con ex s, and how hey discuss he
s eng hs and weaknesses o o mal and in o mal
pa icipa ion oppo uni ies (Rinne e al. 2014).
Table 1. Associa ions in Pe unkajä i illage.
a) Associa ions in Pe unkajä i illage Tasks
Village associa ion: Pe unkajä en kyläseu a F ee ime ac i i ies, public mee ings and de elopmen ini ia i es
Fa ming and domes ic associa ion: Pe unkajä en Maa- ja ko i alousseu a Fa me s local ad iso and ee ime ac i i ies, nowadays ee ime ac i i ies
Spo club: Pe ungan Poja F ee ime ac i i ies and compe i i e spo s
Two hun ing associa ions: Pilpasen Pyy ömiehe , Pe ungan E ämiehe F ee ime ac i i ies and hun ing
Commi ee o chu ch social wo k: Pe unkajä en Diakonia A anging chu ch mee ings, e en s and cha i y wo k
b) Pe unkajä i ep esen a i es in municipal associa ions o commi ees
Communal Dis ic Commi ee: Sodankylän ien suun a
Ro aTokka A pa en o ganisa ion o illage and dis ic associa ions in Ro aniemi
158 FENNIA 194: 2 (2016)As a Kie ä äinen, Janne Rinne, Riikka Paloniemi & Seija Tuulen ie
The quan i a i e a iables we e analysed by
conduc ing desc ip i e and bi a ia e s a is ics.
Th ee main ca ego ies we e educed om he
da a: he de elopmen o he illage, pa icipa ion
and means o pa icipa ion, and local se ices. Re-
sul s a e ep esen ed acco ding o hese h ee main
ca ego ies and discussed in he con ex o com-
muni y go e nance.
Resul s
De elopmen o illage
Municipal s a egies and de elopmen plans guide
he u u e ac ions o municipali ies. Thus, i , o
example, second homes o second home owne s
a e men ioned in he local plans, his indica es
ha he issue is conside ed o be no able in he
municipali y.
In The de elopmen plan o u al a eas o Ro-
aniemi (Ro aniemi 2014), he documen de ines
he guidelines o he de elopmen o u al a eas
in he u u e, second homes (2) and he second
home owne s (3) a e men ioned only i e imes
while he need o plan second home a eas was
men ioned wice in he con ex o land use plan-
ning (Table 2). The e a e many second homes in
he dis ic o Sodankylän ie and, wi h he only ex-
cep ion ep esen ed by Vikajä i, all he illages o
he dis ic ha e mo e second homes han pe ma-
nen homes. Howe e , second homes a e no
men ioned in he g aph illus a ing he mos im-
po an issues a ec ing he dis ic . In The de elop-
men plan o u al a eas o Ro aniemi (Ro aniemi
2014) and The de elopmen plan o he Commu-
nal Dis ic Commi ee o Sodankylän ie 2013–
2016 (Sodankylän ie 2013), i is assumed ha im-
p o ed elecommunica ions could enhance e-
mo e wo k om second homes in he u u e, and
inc easing he ime spen in second homes.
The de elopmen plan o he Communal Dis-
ic Commi ee o Sodankylän ie 2013–2016
(Sodankylän ie 2013) was based on The de elop-
men plan o u al a eas o Ro aniemi (Ro anie-
mi 2014). These plans we e mean o implemen
The pa icipa ion and in luencing plan o Ro-
aniemi (Ro aniemi 2013). In his la e docu-
men , howe e , i was ound ha second home
owne s we e no men ioned a all (Table 2). The
de elopmen plan o he dis ic commi ee and
he plan o he de elopmen o u al a eas had
bo h been p epa ed in open public wo kshops.
The agenda o he illage wo kshops (Vikajä i
2013) men ioned ha second home owne s
should become in ol ed because hey we e seen
as a pa o he pa icipa ing and inno a ing com-
muni y. The e a e nine illages in he a ea o
Sodankylän ie: Alanampa, Misi, Niesi, Olkkajä i,
Pe unkajä i, Tiainen, Vika, and Vikajä i. In he
de elopmen plan o he CDC, second home
Table 2. Men ions o second homes, esiden s o second homes and second home a eas in he communal
plans and he minu es o he Communal Dis ic Commi ee.
Second
homes
Second home
owne s
Second
home a ea To al
The de elopmen plan o u al a eas o Ro aniemi
2013–2020 (p. 47) 2 3 2 7
The de elopmen plan o he Communal Dis ic
Commi ee o Sodankylän ie 2013–2016 (p. 28) 6 2 0 8
The pa icipa ion and in luencin
g
plan o Ro aniemi
ci izens 2013–2016 (p.39) 0 0 0 0
The minu es o local Communal Dis ic Commi ee
o Sodankylän ie (10 minu es) 9 9 0 18
To al 8 5 2 33
FENNIA 194: 2 (2016) 159Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s
owne s o second homes we e men ioned al o-
ge he eigh imes (Table 2). I was ound ha sec-
ond homes we e men ioned six imes and second
home owne s we e men ioned once when he il-
lages we e desc ibed including hei po en ial o
ec ea ion and spending ee ime. Second home
owne s we e no men ioned as ac i e ac o s in he
illages, bu a he in a backg ound con ex . I
was p edic ed ha mo e second home owne s
would come o spend hei leisu e ime and s ay
longe in he Ro aniemi dis ic and also in Pe un-
kajä i in he u u e. Howe e , second home own-
e s ha e no been seen as co-ope a o s in local
public and business ac i i ies.
A simila endency was obse ed in he minu es
o he mee ings o he CDC, as second home own-
e s did no appea as ac i e ac o s. The commi ee
o Sodankylän ie had held en o icial mee ings
un il he summe o 2014, and second homes and
second home esiden s we e men ioned al oge he
18 imes (Table 2) in h ee o he mee ing minu es
( wo in he au umn o 2013 and one in he summe
o 2014). Second homes a e mos ly men ioned in
he d a o he CDC de elopmen plan.
In he ocus g oup discussion, he pe manen
esiden s especially we e op imis ic ha he CDC
could help o esol e some challenges acing he
illage, such as p omo ing unding o de elop-
men p ojec s, and imp o ing a ic and elecom-
munica ions. Du ing he discussion p edic ions
we e made ega ding he CDC and hei consid-
e a ion o he emo eness and he la ge p opo ion
o second homes in compa ison o all eal es a e
p ope ies.
“We ha e 198 second homes and 40 pe manen
homes and he loca ion o he illage is special.
These ac s should be aken in o accoun in he
de elopmen plan o he Communal Dis ic Com-
mi ee and especially he emo eness o he il-
lage.” (ID: 7, illage , emale)
The esponses o he ques ionnai e e ealed ha
he pe manen esiden s wished o de elopmen
o illage ac i i ies, o example illage e en s and
he ac ions o associa ions. The mos impo an de-
elopmen a ge s o second home owne s we e
ishing and na u e-based ac i i ies. Bo h pe ma-
nen esiden s and second home owne s s a ed
ha he de elopmen o elecommunica ions and
a ic connec ions a e impo an o he commu-
ni y, and all esponden s in he g oup o pe ma-
nen esiden s answe ed ha hese issues a e e y
impo an o hem.
In he ques ionnai e, 50% o he second home
esiden s and almos 90% o he pe manen esi-
den s ag eed ha he de elopmen o second
homes in he illage should be p omo ed o se -
e al easons. Fo ins ance, he second home own-
e s hink ha he illage oad would be be e
main ained i he e we e mo e second homes. In
addi ion, hey said ha mo e second homes
would suppo mo e se ices. Fu he mo e, an in-
c easing numbe o second home esiden s would
enli en he daily li e o he small illage. Those
people who we e agains p omo ing second
home housing in he illage a gued ha he e a e
al eady enough co ages and he illage could
become noisy. Pe manen esiden s and second
home owne s who wan ed o inc ease he num-
be o second homes hough ha i should be
easie o ge building pe mi s o second homes.
On he o he hand, in he ocus g oup, he ci il
se an om Ro aniemi men ioned ha he e will
be no new sho e plans in Pe unkajä i and only
case-speci ic excep ional pe mi s will be al-
lowed. The land use plan o Ro aniemi s a es ha
a eas o he de elopmen o new second homes
should be loca ed nea he la ges illages. Thus,
he de elopmen o a eas o second homes can
be di ec ed owa d suppo ing he de elopmen
o u al illages. Pe unkajä i is no close o any
la ge illage.
Pa icipa ion and means o pa icipa ion
Du ing he ocus g oup discussion, he illage s
hoped ha he CDC would help o a ange be e
public and p i a e se ices and e i alise en ep e-
neu ship. The only second home owne who ook
pa in he ocus g oup is an ac i e membe o he
illage associa ion. Since he second home own-
e s could no be o mal ep esen a i es o he
CDC, he illage associa ion was he only place in
which hey could in luence he dis ic commi ee.
Acco ding o he su ey, he second home
owne s we e no ac i e in any illage associa-
ions (Table 3). Pe manen esiden s seemed o be
e y ac i e. Howe e , i should be kep in mind
ha only a ew pe manen esiden s esponded.
Those who answe ed we e p obably he ac i e
pe sons, hus no ep esen ing he ac i i y o all
pe manen esiden s.
One pe manen esiden o he illage said ha ,
despi e he high numbe o second homes in he
illage, hei owne s we e a ely seen in local
mee ings. The opinion o he pe manen esiden s
160 FENNIA 194: 2 (2016)As a Kie ä äinen, Janne Rinne, Riikka Paloniemi & Seija Tuulen ie
was ha second home owne s usually come o en-
joy he peace o na u e and a e no eage o pa -
icipa e in communal ac ions o being membe s o
local associa ions.
“In heo y, second home owne s ha e he same
oppo uni ies o pa icipa e and in luence deci-
sion making as pe manen esiden s bu how is i
possible o ge hem in ol ed in p ac ice?” (ID: 4,
second home owne , male)
The ocus g oup pa icipan s men ioned ha ,
when local associa ions such as ishing and spo s
associa ions a ange compe i ions o e en s, hey
a e usually o membe s only. Thus he igh o pa -
icipa e is exclusi e. In o de o change he cu en
app oach, i was a gued ha e en s should ins ead
be open o e e yone. Openness would enhance
communali y, and i would be easie o new peo-
ple o become acquain ed wi h he illage s. This
kind o ac ion and wo king oge he would in-
c ease in e ac ion.
Second home esiden s had sligh ly mo e con-
ac s wi h o he second home esiden s han wi h
pe manen esiden s o he illage (Table 4, Fig.4),
bu he di e ence was s a is ically insigni ican
(pai ed samples es , sig. 0.291). The e was a sig-
ni ican co ela ion be ween second home own-
e s’ con ac s wi h pe manen esiden s on he one
hand and wi h o he second home owne s on he
o he hand; ac i e second home owne s we e in-
ol ed wi h bo h g oups. The illage s had con-
ac wi h o he illage s and second home esi-
den s li le mo e han “now and hen” (a e age
3.25). Residen s, pa - ime and pe manen home
owne s who ha e b oade social ela ions also ac-
i ely pa icipa e in local mee ings and decision
making.
The pa icipa ion and in luencing plan o ci i-
zens o Ro aniemi 2013–2016 (Ro aniemi 2013)
aims o ac i a e he esiden s and in ol e hem in
he communal decision making. The documen
has been o mally adop ed by he municipali y o
Ro aniemi. I s a es ha CDCs s and o ep esen -
a i e di ec democ acy and enhance he pa icipa-
ion and in luence o inhabi an s. I also no es ha
esiden s and illage associa ions ep esen di ec
democ acy ha is he adi ional base o he ac-
ion o esiden s. S ill, second home owne s a e
no men ioned in his documen . The CDC ha e
had he possibili y o make a s a emen abou he
d a o he pa icipa ion and in luencing plan, bu
hey had no sugges ed including second home
owne s in he plan.
Al hough CDCs a e a pa o he o icial com-
munal decision making sys em, ep esen a i es o
commi ees a e elec ed by public illage mee ings.
This p ocedu e is di e en om he elec ions o
o he boa ds o he municipali y. This elec ion sys-
em will mos likely be changed in he u u e i he
expe imen o CDCs con inues. I is possible ha
local dis ic commi ee membe s will be elec ed
wi hin municipal elec ions. Fo he ime being, he
Table 3. The pe cen age o pe manen esiden s
and second home owne s pa icipa ing in il-
lage associa ion ac i i ies (yes = pa icipa ing,
no = no pa icipa ing).
Pe manen
esiden s
O he second
home owne s
N 44 45
Mean 2.98 3.13
S d. de ia ion 1.067 1.014
Table 4. Means and de ia ion o
second home owne s’ con ac s
wi h pe manen esiden s and o h-
e second home owne s in Pe unk-
ajä i. The scale is om 1 (no a
all) o 5 ( e y o en).
Pe manen
esiden s
Second home
owne s
Yes 87 18
No 13 82
FENNIA 194: 2 (2016) 167Pa icipa ion o second home owne s and pe manen esiden s
Ryynänen A & Uo i A 2009. Kunnallinen i sehallin o
ja uusi hallin o apa. In Ka ppi I & Sine o L-M
(eds). Go e nance: uuden hallin a a an jäsen y-
minen, 212–236. Tampe een yliopis o. Kauppa- ja
hallin o ie eiden iedekun a, Tampe e. (in Finnish)
Salminen A 2008. E alua ing he new go e nance o
he wel a e s a e in Finland. In e na ional Jou nal
o Public Adminis a ion 31: 10–11, 1242–1258.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/01900690801973352.
Sho all S 2008. A e u al de elopmen p og amme
socially inclusi e? Social inclusion, ci ic engage-
men , pa icipa ion, and social capi al: explo ing
he di e ences. Jou nal o Ru al S udies 24: 4,
450–457.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.j u s ud.2008.01.001.
Sjöblom S 2002. Kun alainen aiku ajana. In Pekola-
Sjöblom M, Helande V & Sjöblom S (eds). Kun a-
laisen mone ooli , 77–95. Suomen Kun alii o,
Helsinki. (in Finnish)
Sodankylän ie 2013. Sodankylän ien aluelau akun-
nan kehi ämissuunni elma 2013–2016 [The de-
elopmen plan o he Communal Dis ic Com-
mi ee o Sodankylän ie 2013–2016]. 11.12.2014.
(in Finnish)
S andell A & Hall CM 2015. Impac o he esiden ial
en i onmen on second home use in Finland –
es ing he compensa ion hypo hesis. Landscape
and U ban Planning 133, 12–23.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.landu bplan.2014.09.011.
Sulli an H, Knops A, Ba nes M & Newman J 2004.
Cen al-local ela ions in an e a o mul i-le el
go e nance: he case public pa icipa ion policy
in England, 1997–2001. Local Go e nmen S ud-
ies 30: 2, 245–265.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/0300393042000267263.
Suomen kun alii o 2016. Kaupunkien ja kun ien lu-
kumää ä. <h p://www.kunna .ne / i/ ie opanki /
ilas o /aluejao /kun ien-lukumaa a/Si u /de aul .
aspx> 02.05.2016.
Vainio A & Paloniemi R 2012. Fo es owne s and
powe : a Foucauldian s udy on Finnish o es pol-
icy. Fo es Policy and Economics 21, 118–125.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j. o pol.2012.02.008.
Vepsäläinen M & Pi känen K 2010. Second home
coun yside. Rep esen a ions o he u al in Finn-
ish popula discou ses. Jou nal o Ru al S udies
26: 2, 194–204.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.j u s ud.2009.07.002.
Vikajä i 2013. Maaseudun kehi ämisohjelma Vika-
jä i. Maaseudun kehi ämisohjelman a oime ky-
läkokoukse . Sodankylän ien suun a Vikajä i
<h p://www. o aniemi. i/loade .
aspx?id=5d12dc96-d185-4e57-a55d-e997e-
ab25455> 20.3.2013. (in Finnish)
Wallace A, Be an M, C ouche K, Jacson K, O’Malley
L & O on V 2005. The impac o emp y, second
and holiday homes on he sus ainabili y o u al
communi ies – a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew. The
Cen e o Housing Policy, Uni e si y o Yo k, Yo k.
