Participation of second home owners and permanent residents in local decision making: the case of a rural village in Finland

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.