Peace and quiet beyond the border : the trans-border mobility of Russian second home owners in Finland

(1)

(2)

Peace and quiet beyond the border:

the trans-border mobility

of Russian second home owners

in Finland

(3)

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 118

(4)

olga hannonen

Peace and quiet beyond the border: the trans-border

mobility of Russian second home owners in Finland

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 118 Itä-Suomen yliopisto

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Joensuu

2016

(5)

Juvenes Print - Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy Tampere, 2016

Vastaava toimittaja: professori Kimmo Katajala Toimittaja: FM Eija Fabritius

Myynti: University of Eastern Finland Library ISBN: 978-952-61-2098-0 (NId.)´

ISBN: 978-952-61-2099-7 (PdF) ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISSN: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5757 (PdF)

(6)

Hannonen, Olga

Peace and quiet beyond the border: the trans-border mobility of Russian second home owners in Finland, 105 p.

University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2016 Publications of the University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 118 ISBN (nid.): 978-952-61-2098-0

ISSN (nid.): 1798-5749 ISSN-L: 1798-5749

ISBN (PdF): 978-952-61-2099-7 ISSN (PdF): 1798-5757

Dissertation

aBSTRaCT

Russian second home purchases in Finland have grown rapidly since 2000, and have been the source of a contested social debate. This study represents the first investigation of Russian second home ownership in Finland. The aim is to investigate how such trans-border second home mobility is produced (its elements and trajectories), challenged, and what are its socio-economic and spatial outcomes at the local and regional levels. The phenomenon is approached theoretically applying the concepts of constellations of mobility and mobility regime. While these theoretical approaches have been used to address leisure mobilities that originate in the West, Russian second home ownership in Finland represents a different mobility pattern, from East to West. The findings emphasise the increasing role of the border in the production and practice, as well as in the outcomes of such mobility. This study shows that the perceived outcome of Russian ownership presented through the social debate has been detached from the actual phenomenon. The empirical part of the dissertation – four research papers – uncovers the driving factors in Russian second home mobility, its challenges, and its socio-economic and spatial outcome, which collectively help address the social debate and inform policy makers. Simultaneously, the empirical study re-interprets Western mobility approaches in relation to Russian trans-border mobility and reveals peculiarities of the East-to-West mobility trajectory.

Key words: second homes, trans-border mobility, Russians, Finland

(7)

Hannonen, Olga

Rauhaa ja hiljaisuutta rajan takana: Venäläisten vapaa-ajan asukkaiden rajat ylittävä liikkuvuus, 105 p.

University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2016 Publications of the University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 118 ISBN (nid.): 978-952-61-2098-0

ISSN (nid.): 1798-5749 ISSN-L: 1798-5749

ISBN (PdF): 978-952-61-2099-7 ISSN (PdF): 1798-5757

Väitöskirja

aBSTRakTi

Venäläisten kiinteistökaupat Suomessa ovat lisääntyneet huomattavasti vuo- desta 2000 lähtien ja nousseet samalla yhteiskunnallisen keskustelun kohteeksi.

Tämä on ensimmäinen väitöskirjatutkimus venäläisten vapaa-ajan asumisesta Suomessa. Tutkimuksen tarkoitus on selvittää, mitkä tekijät vaikuttavat venä- läisten rajoja-ylittävän vapaa-ajan asumiseen, sekä mikä on ilmiön vaikutus pai- kallisella ja alueellisella tasolla. Ilmiötä lähestytään teoreettisesti kansainvälisen mobiliteettitutkimuksen käsitteiden kautta. Näitä käsitteitä on käytetty aiemmin länsimaisen matkailun ja vapaa-ajan liikkuvuuden selittämiseen. Venäläisten vapaa-ajan asuminen Suomessa on esimerkki toisenlaisesta liikkuvuusmallista – idästä länteen. Tutkimuksen tulokset korostavat rajan merkitystä tämän liikkuvuuden aikaansaajana sekä rajat ylittävän vapaa-ajan asumisen käytännöissä ja seurauksissa. Tutkimuksessa havaittiin, että yhteiskunnallisella keskustelulla on heikko yhteys ilmiön todellisiin piirteisiin. Tutkimuksen tulokset tuovat venä- läisten vapaa-ajan asumisesta monipuolisempaa tietoa yhteiskunnallisen keskustelun ja päätöksenteon tueksi. Väitöskirjan empiirinen osa – neljä tutkimusartik- kelia – tarkastelevat venäläisten vapaa-ajan asumisen taustatekijöitä, haasteita, sosiaalisia ja taloudellisia seurauksia sekä alueellisia muotoja. Kansainvälisesti tutkimus tuo uuden näkökulman mobiliteettitutkimukseen tulkitsemalla idästä länteen suuntautuvan vapaa-ajan liikkuvuuden erityispiirteitä.

Avainsanat: vapaa-ajan asuminen, rajoja-ylittävä liikkuvuus, venäläiset, Suomi

(8)

Foreword

Second homes have always been a part of my life – a part that I never would have thought would become the subject of my doctoral thesis. I spent many summer holidays during my childhood at my grandparents’ dacha in Russian Karelia. Nowadays, I visit my husband’s cottage in Finnish North Karelia. These experiences have familiarised me with second home cultures both in Russia and in Finland. My research topic stands somewhere between these two tradi- tions, focusing upon Russian second home ownership in Finland. As a Russian living in Finland, I have first-hand experience with the trans-border aspects and practices of mobility between the two countries, which has become part and parcel of the research process. Mobility is a central concept in the present work, both in terms of the content and the context of writing the dissertation.

The final corrections to the dissertation, as well as these very words, were written on the beautiful island of Kaua’i, where I had the chance to work remotely in the early spring.

My Phd-journey started back in the summer of 2010 when I began working as a research assistant tasked with finding Russian second home owners in Finland. There are many people who have made this journey possible and have filled it with memorable moments. I would like to thank the pre-examiners of my doctoral dissertation, Professor dieter Müller and Adjunct Professor Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola for their positive reviews and constructive comments on the manu- script which helped me to finalise the dissertation. Many thanks to my academic supervisors, Professor Antti Honkanen and Adjunct Professor Paul Fryer, for their guidance and valuable advice, for letting me do things my way, and for their numerous letters of recommendation to the different Finnish Foundations that provided financial support for my research. Words cannot express my gratitude to Paul for reading all of my research papers, commenting on them, and for all of his proofreading.

I want to thank doctor Kati Pitkänen for nudging me towards doctoral studies and for introducing me to the exciting academic side of second home life.

Fieldwork involving tracking down Russians in the woods and learning Russian and Finnish while on the move showed me that science can be fun. Thank you for guiding me all these years and for being a supervisor, critic, role model and friend. I am grateful to Professor C. Michael Hall for his supervision through the Finnish University Network for Tourism Studies, for offering book reviews, and for always pushing me to accomplish more. Many thanks to all of my respondents who shared their experiences with me. I am grateful to the National Land Survey of Finland and Juhani Väänänen in particular for providing the data on Russian property purchases.

(9)

Special thanks to my co-authors, C. Michael Hall, Maija Toivakka, Olli Lehtonen, Kati Pitkänen and Seija Tuulentie. This work could not have been accomplished without their contributions. I am grateful to Maija Toivakka for making the maps in the synopsis and for coping with my numerous inquir- ies. Many thanks to our small international second home ‘family’, C. Michael Hall, Greg Halseth, Mervi Hiltunen, Ulrika Åkerlund, Czesław Adamiak and Adam Czarnecki, for their everlasting support and co-operation. My gratitude to Matthew Sawatzky for being the best proofreader one can get.

Many thanks to all of my department friends, Maija, Eliisa, Eerika, Moritz, Olli, Jani L., Jani K., Mariana, and Karli, for keeping my spirits up. I am grateful to Joni, Minna P., Minna T., Saija, Jarmo, Ilkka, Markku, Pieter, Irmeli, Timo, and Maria for both the academic and non-academic conversations, their advice, and for their attention to my work. I want to thank Marta and Tanja for our endless conversations about women in science, as well as for all of our free time activities that have filled these years with a lot of joy.

Special thanks go to my parents, Lyudmila and Pavel, who have supported me in all of my decisions and career paths. Many thanks to my sister, Marina, for keeping me connected to the real world beyond academia. And last but not least, I thank my other half, Petteri, for his constant support, standing beside me through it all, and for his boundless confidence in me, without all of which I would not have been able to complete this work.

Kaua’i – Joensuu, March-April 2016 Olga Hannonen

(10)

1 Introduction

1.1 RuSSian SeCond home owneRShip in Finland

“A different atmosphere here. This is probably the most important thing, that we come here and live a different life, relax” [А здесь другая обстановка, вот это, наверно, самое важное, вот, что мы приезжаем сюда, мы живем другой жизнью, мы, значит, отдыхаем и вот, пожалуй, что так] (Russian couple, Kerimaa, 2010).

“We liked Finland a lot and the safety, and the kids were small then, and we wanted very much to live on a lakeshore” [Oчень нравилась Финляндия и безопасность, и то, что дети тогда были еще маленькие, и очень хотелось жить на берегу озера] (Enonkoski, Russian second home owner, 2010).

“Finland for Finns” [Suomi suomalaisille] (Finnish local resident, Savonlinna region, 2010).

“Everyone has the right to sell to whomever he wants” [Jokaisella oikeus myydä kenelle haluaa]

(Finnish local resident, Savonlinna region, 2010).

“The fatherland that our fathers have protected should not be sold to foreigners” [Isänmaata jotka isät ovat puolustaneet ei pidä myydä ulkomaalaisille] (Finnish local resident, Savonlinna region, 2010).

“It [Russian ownership – O.H.] does not bother normal people, second home buyers are smart people” [Eipä tuo nyt haitanne ketään normaalia ihmistä, mökkien ostajat ovat fiksua väkeä]

(Finnish second home owner, Savonlinna region, 2010).

The quotations above illustrate the attitudes towards Russian second home ownership by Russian and Finnish respondents. This is how my study on the topic started in the summer of 2010. Back then the topic was heatedly discussed in the media and in the Finnish Parliament. These quotations reflect the general (and mostly negative) attitudes towards Russian ownership that are presented in the press and supported by the local Finnish population (Honkanen, Pitkänen

& Hall 2015; see Figure 4, section 2.4.). due to the absence of information on Russian owners and their intentions, speculations on the topic went wild and were coloured with increasingly nationalistic rhetoric (Pitkänen, 2011a). In many accounts money laundering was also linked to the image of Russian second home tourists. Since 2011, the issue of reciprocity has also been a stumbling point in the discussions, as foreigners have been forbidden from purchasing land in Russia in the border area, which includes former Finnish territory and is one of the

(13)

most desirable areas for Finns (decree N26, 2011). The most recent public discussion on Russian ownership concerned property purchases next to strategic areas in Finland. Consequently, a Russian property purchase in close proximity to a military shooting range was cancelled in the summer of 2015 (Mälkiä, 2015;

Schönberg 2015) and property purchases next to strategic areas have recently been classified as an element of a hybrid war (Yle News, 2016).

debates about Russian property purchases have also been held in Parliament.

Over the last 15 years 30 written interrogatories by Members of Parliament con- cerning foreign property ownership, and three legislative initiatives to restrict land ownership by foreign citizens and organisations outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were submitted in the Finnish Parliament (in 2009, 2011 and 2013). The latest proposal on the restriction of property ownership to non-EU (European Union) and non-EFTA (European Free Trade Organization) citizens was made through a citizens’ initiative¹ in February 2015. The initiative proposed that property purchases by non-EU and non-EFTA citizens should be conditioned with permission from the Centre of Economic development, Transport and Environment. The proposal was, however, initiated by a Member of Parliament who made a legislative initiative in 2013. The citizens’ initiative did not collect enough votes to be further submitted to Parliament (Kansalaisaloite, 2015). While the peak years of Russian purchases are already in the past (see Table 1), the latest initiative and concerns about purchases next to strategic areas show that debates around the phenomenon are far from over.

The debates reflect the uneasy historical past between the two countries and are influenced by the relatively short recovery period after two wars – the Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War during World War II (1941-1944) – in which the Soviet Union and Finland were enemies. In 1944 the Soviet Union annexed 12.5% of the Finnish territory, which resulted in the evacuation and relocation of more than 420 000 Finns and created a national trauma (Eskelinen

& Jukarainen, 2000; Paasi, 1999). The border with the Soviet Union was strictly controlled and functioned as “the East-West dividing line in Europe, with its most extreme form developing during the Soviet era” (Eskelinen & Jukarainen, 2000:

255; see also Prokkola, 2013a, 2013b). Nowadays, the Finnish-Russian border is an external border of the EU and in many ways has remained a hard, separating border (Kolossov & Scott, 2013: 195).

The Finnish-Russian border has increasingly become a point of contact between the two neighbouring states after the Soviet Union’s collapse. With the opening of borders in 1991 Russian citizens literally discovered abroad. Even though Finnish ‘vodka’ tourism to Russia took place already in the 1970s and 1980s and Russians made singular journeys to Finland, after 1991 crossing the border became more accessible. As a result, the number of cross-border activities has vastly increased from eighteen thousand Russian car crossings in 1992 to 3.46 mil-

1 The citizens’ initiative is one of the forms of legislation’s enactments through a direct proposal from citizens who are eligible to vote. The initiative has to be signed by 50 000 citizens within six months in order to be submitted to Parliament (For more details see kansalaisaloite.fi).

(14)

lion visitors in 2015 (Eskelinen & Jukarainen, 2000; Federal State Statistics Service, 2016; see also Laube & Roos, 2010; Prokkola, 2013a, 2013b; Russia Outbound, 2008;

Suvilehto & Borg, 2001). The number of border-crossing points has also increased from six in 1997 to nine today.

Over the last 25 years of relatively open border crossing, interactions between Finns and Russians have developed through an increase in the issuing of long- term and multiple entry visas on both sides of the border, the development of both Russian and Finnish skills in both countries, and an increase in mixed marriages between Finns and Russians (Paasi 1999). Mutual visits to Russia and Finland have been a growing trend (Matkailutilasto, 2016; Prokkola, 2013a, 2013b; Statistics Finland, 2015d). The high amount of cross-border activity initiated discussions on the creation of a visa-free regime in 1999 (Burganova, 2011: 37) and reached the top negotiation level in 2012. According to the most optimistic estimations made by the Russian Ambassador to the EU, it would have been possible to introduce the visa-free regime by the end of 2013 (Hantula, 2013). Various estimations were made about the potential outcomes of the visa-free regime, including those on the Finnish tourism sector (Malankin, 2012; TAK Oy, 2013a). In 2014 the discussions were suspended, and borders and border control returned to the political agenda in light of the Ukrainian conflict and the introduction of sanctions.

Russians have been the biggest group of foreign tourists in Finland for over a decade (Matkailutilasto, 2016; Statistics Finland, 2015d). They play an important role in the Finnish economy and are the biggest and most important target market for the Finnish tourism industry. Russian expenditures in Finland are much higher than those of other foreign tourists. Even with the overall decline of Russian visitors during the last two years they still comprised 80% (about 180 million euros) of all tax-free purchases in Finland in 2014 and 58% (about 95.5 million euros) in 2015 (Matkailutilasto, 2016; Visit Finland, 2015). Russian visitors have also boosted infrastructure development in the border regions which serve their needs. Russians are attracted by cross-border shopping, clean and attractive nature, as well as tourist services (Haapasalo, 2012; Malankin, 2012).

In addition to tourist visits to Finland, second home ownership has become a popular trend among Russians since 2000 (see Table 1). Russians have rapidly outnumbered other foreigners on the Finnish property market. Currently, Russians comprise the biggest group of foreign second home owners in Finland. Russians purchased 4424 properties in Finland from 2000-2015 (see Figure 1), which is nearly twice the amount of all other foreign purchases for the same time period (Table 1). The National Land Survey of Finland registers property purchases when there is a change in ownership. Those purchases that have been resold by a Russian owner to another Russian appear as new purchases in the register, which has increased the number of Russian-owned properties by 10% according to my calculations. Russian property purchases account for 64.4% of all foreign property acquisitions in Finland from 2000-2015.

Russian purchases peaked in 2008 when 780 properties were purchased, since then the average number of purchases has decreased to approximately 400

(15)

properties per year and declined to 127 in 2015 (derived from the National Land Survey of Finland, for more information see section 4.3.) (see Table 1). Thus, for the first time since 2006 the amount of Russian purchases was lower than other foreign purchases.

Table 1. The number of foreign property purchases in Finland from 2000-2015.

Source: National Land Survey of Finland

Year of purchase Russians Others

2000 14 34

2001 5 37

2002 34 76

2003 68 133

2004 66 134

2005 121 146

2006 277 138

2007 619 186

2008 780 133

2009 403 201

2010 399 146

2011 468 146

2012 427 180

2013 362 205

2014 254 238

2015 127 308

Total 4424 2441

despite the general acceptance by and welcoming attitudes of Finns towards Russian tourists and the development of border areas to satisfy their needs, Russian second home owners are treated differently. They have become a contested subject in public and parliamentary debates (see section 2.4. and Figure 4).

Russian second home owners comprise a special category of tourists in Finland in terms of motivations, visits, community involvement and Finnish perceptions of them. Foreign owners, however, have not been studied in Finland before, and this study is the first extensive study on Russian second home ownership in Finland.

1.2 aimS

The focus of this dissertation is on trans-border second home mobility and, more precisely, on Russian second home ownership in Finland. Second home mobility and second home ownership are used here interchangeably as synonymous terms. The internationalisation of second home ownership and trans-border sec-

(16)

ond home mobility are a growing trend in different parts of the world. The majority of studies, however, come from the West with Westerners primarily acting as customers on the international second home market. The research case of Russian second home mobility to Finland along the East-to-West continuum deviates from the established (Western) viewpoints on leisure and mobility patterns (Cohen

& Cohen, 2015a, 2015b; Massey, 2005). Moreover, the increasing presence of foreign second home owners in rural areas brings a number of socio-economic and spatial changes to local communities. These changes have not been sufficiently addressed in rural studies yet. Thus, the aim of this work is to reveal the way that East-to-West trans-border second home mobility is produced (its elements and trajectories), challenged, and its socio-economic and spatial outcomes at the local level. Addressing these issues also reveals the basic features of East-to-West second home mobility. By the production of mobility I mean both subjective and objective factors. Subjective or personal factors predominantly concern motivations, perceptions and personal affective reasons for trans-border property ownership; while objective ones are those external factors that affect such mobility, like legislation, border and visa regimes, connectivity between places, etc.

Personal motivation is, without a doubt, a driving force in the production of second home mobility. However, in the trans-border context there are a number of structural constraints to mobility that greatly affect a final decision. Thus, studies on mobility are inextricably entwined with research on borders, and the ways that they shape and regulate movements (Richardson, 2013; Schiller & Salazar, 2013). While real barriers affect the way mobilities are produced, they also mani- fest those intangible differences which shape mobilities’ outcomes. Here I talk explicitly about the cultural and linguistic differences that create those invisible barriers on the ground and which affect involvement in the daily life of a community. These issues are studied primarily from the Russian second home owners’

perspectives, incorporating Finnish opinions only partially as other studies have investigated Finnish attitudes in more detail (see section 2.4.). While conducting research under and against the pressure of a significant social debate on Russian second home ownership in Finland, I felt that it was necessary to address the popular media discourses on Russian ownership. Thus, in addition to the information on motives for property ownership, which only partially addresses the debates, geostatistical modelling complemented and brought an illustrative picture of the factors that affect the distribution of Russian recreational properties.

Therefore, I ask:

1) What are the motives for Russian trans-border second home mobility?

2) What is the role of the border in Russian trans-border second home mobility?

3) How does trans-border second home mobility resonate at the local community level?

4) How are Russian second homes regionally distributed and which factors influence their distributional patterns?

(17)

1.3 ouTline oF The diSSeRTaTion

The dissertation consists of nine parts: an introductory section which outlines the aims and background of the research case. The second section defines the main concepts, including second homes, their Finnish (mökki) and Russian (dacha) forms, as well as trans-border second home ownership. This section also presents the development of Russian trans-border second home ownership in Finland in a historical perspective and its present form, as well as an overview of studies on Russian ownership abroad. The third section is a theoretical chapter which deals with the concept of mobility, mobility regime and constellations of mobility that are applied to Russian trans-border second home mobility. The fourth section dis- cusses the methodology which informs the case study area, data, methods of data collection and analyses, as well as the background information of the respondents. The subsequent sections present the article summaries and concluding discussion that outline the main theoretical and empirical contributions of this work.

The concluding discussion is followed by appendices and references. The final empirical section consists of four research papers outlining different aspects of production and outcomes of Russian trans-border second home ownership.

(18)

2 Trans-border second homes

2.1 SeCond homeS

The central empirical concept in this dissertation is that of the second home. A second home is defined as a property owned as the occasional residence of a household that usually lives elsewhere, and which is primarily used for recreation purposes (Coppock, 1977; Gallent, Mace & Tewdwr-Jones, 2005; Paris, 2006;

Shucksmith, 1983). definitions of second homes, however, vary due to different living patterns in different countries, as well as variations in registering them as a distinct type of property (Barnett, 2014; Marjavaara, 2008; Pitkänen, 2011b).

Nevertheless, most authors agree on the temporality of use, leisure purposes and non-permanent living as the main components of the second home concept.

Ownership is often mentioned as a criterion, but not always applied to actively used second homes (Coppock, 1977). Second homes can be converted or adapted from pre-existing structures or be purpose-built (Coppock, 1977; Pitkänen, 2011b).

The definition above reflects the approaches to second homes as summer cottages in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia, among other places.

There are a number of terms that are used interchangeably in international literature to define second homes, such as summer cottage, vacation home (Coppock, 1977), summer house (Cross, 1992), recreational home, weekend home (Hall & Müller, 2004), cabin, lodge, cottage, hut, villa (Marjavaara, 2008; see also Müller, 2011a), and free-time residence (Statistics Finland, 2015a). Second home is used here as an umbrella term to emphasise the phenomenon and a particular use, not a distinct type or physical characteristics of a dwelling. One of the most significant aspects of second home ownership is its relation to “broader travel and lifestyle behavior and overall personal, spatial and temporal mobility” (Hall

& Page, 2006: 240). Second homes might be part of a wider lifestyle strategy with plans to use it for retirement or lifestyle migration. Recent interest in second home research by geographers along with changing forms and spatial patterns of second home ownership suggest that “second home tourism needs to be increasingly seen within a broader framework of human mobility over the human lifecourse”

(Hall & Page, 2006: 240). Growing trans-border forms of second home ownership support this statement.

When talking about a second home, or mökki, in Finland one should know that traditionally it means a small wooden cottage “built in the heart of nature far away from towns and other population centers” (Pitkänen, 2008: 174). Statistics Finland, which collects information on second homes in Finland, defines second home as “a recreational building constructed permanently on the site of its location” or “a residential building that is used as a holiday dwelling”. Thus,

(19)

“holiday cottages serving business purposes, buildings in holiday villages and allotment garden cottages” are not counted as second homes (Statistics Finland, 2015a). When studying the cultural change of second homes in Finland, Pitkänen (2011b) updated the definition based on Statistics Finland’s official definition and international understandings of second homes. She defined mökki as a privately owned immobile detached building (Pitkänen, 2011b: 15).

Figure 1. Number of Russian property purchases in Finland from

2003-2015. Source: National Land Survey of Finland

(20)

These definitions reflect both a culturally embedded tradition (a privately owned wooden cottage in nature) as well as the peculiarity of registration (a detached building outside residential areas used for recreation) of second homes in Finland. They, however, exclude other forms of second home tourism, such as allotment gardens, empty dwellings² and other types of properties that are actively used as second homes, but are not officially registered as such in Finland due to taxation or other reasons (Pitkänen, 2011b; Sikiö, Pitkänen & Rehunen, 2014). These types, however, are included in statistics on Russian properties (see section 4.3.).

Second homes in Russia are known as dacha. The dacha is referred to as “the Russian equivalent of the summer second home” (Selwood, 2006: 118). A dacha is a house with a plot of land in a rural area that is used intermittently, the owner of which is a permanent urban resident who spends from a week to a year there (Lovell, 2003; Nefedova, 2012). dacha is an umbrella term that “encompasses various types of housing, including small houses on small agricultural lots (averaging 600 square meters) in special dacha cooperatives, and village houses with yards that have been purchased by city people” (Brumfield & Ruble, 1993: 289). Thus, dacha in Russia represents various types of dwellings on a plot of land for temporary stay and recreation (Chernykh, 1993; Nefedova, 2012; Nefedova & Pallot, 2013). The relationship with and the ownership of the dacha can vary. Second home ownership in Russia is still undergoing a transformation process where individuals who were given the rights to use the land during the Soviet era are being granted full ownership with the right of disposition (Struyk & Angelici, 1996). The process in Russia is known as dacha amnesty and allows de-facto owners to claim official ownership of the dwelling and the plot based on the provision of evidence of land or house occupancy (dachnuiu amnistiiu prodlili, 2015).

The variety of dwellings that are currently used as second homes shows the inconsistency of the definitions that are trying to classify a second home as a distinct type of dwelling. Such definitions are particularly inapplicable to trans- border and international second home ownership. While in Nordic countries a second home traditionally represents a cottage in rural areas, in warm climate destinations they are often urban apartments and condominiums (Åkerlund, Lipkina & Hall, 2015; Müller, 2011a). Thus, the growing variety of second home forms and different patterns of second home use require a re-examination of the definition of second homes. The dynamic nature of second homes makes it a rather “loose concept”: “Houses – as physical structures – are things, but ‘home’

is used in many ways, referring to different conceptions from diverse perspectives” (Paris, 2014: 8).

Paris accurately concludes that “[t]he term ‘second homes’ is used to refer to different relationships between people and physical dwellings, so we should con- ceptualize ‘second homes’ as a form of dwelling use, but not a class of dwellings”

2 An empty dwelling is a dwelling which is “not in residential use if according to the Population Information System of the Population Register Centre it is not occupied by either permanent or temporary residents” (Statistics Finland, 2015b). Similarly, a detached house is categorised as an empty dwelling when its permanent residential purpose of use is removed from the register, and the dwelling is officially registered as empty (Sikiö, Pitkänen & Rehunen, 2014).

(21)

(Paris 2014: 6). Thus, the term ‘second home’ refers to the patterns of use, and not to certain physical characteristics of a dwelling (Paris, 2011; Coppock 1977). Paris defines a second home as “a single additional dwelling used by the household, other family members and/or friends purely for leisure, typically at weekends and for holidays” (Paris, 2011: 45). This definition is used in here as it reflects the nature of Russian second homes in Finland. The ownership of more than one second home is defined by Paris as ‘multiple homes’; and properties that are “owned, but not occupied at all by the owners/purchasers” are referred to as “investment properties” (Paris 2011: 48; see also Gallent, Mace & Tewdwr-Jones, 2005).

The definition of Russian second home or property purchases in Finland requires additional scrutiny. Real estate or property is an independent land unit that is registered in the Real Estate Cadastre as an independent object of real estate.

Real estate includes land plots, shares in common areas and servitudes, such as the right to use a road. A land plot can be a forest or residential lot, or categorised for agricultural use. The object of real estate also includes buildings, trees and bushes, and other items that are related to the land plot. Thus, a single apartment or building are not categorised as real estate in Finland (Purchase, 2008). In addition to those properties which are categorised as second homes and registered as such, Russians purchase dwellings for permanent use, plots of land in the areas for forest management, old schools, mansions and other types of dwellings.³ The great majority of them are, however, located in rural areas. despite the variety of types, they are all defined as second homes as Russians can visit them only occasionally (due to the visa regime) and cannot register or move to their Finnish second homes permanently.

due to Finland’s specific national definition of second homes, as well as the national property register which keeps records on property transactions, other types of housing (e.g. urban apartments) that Russians purchase in Finland (and most probably use as second homes) are not included in this study. The exclusion of other types of housing was imposed by data access limitations. Thus, Russian properties or second homes include plots of land with or without a built dwelling on it, as this is the way it appears in the register.

2.2 ConCepTualiSing TRanS-BoRdeR SeCond home TouRiSm

Increases in tourism and leisure mobility driven by individual desires for a change in lifestyle, freedom of choice and self-fulfilment has become the subject of growing academic attention during the last couple of decades (Åkerlund, 2013, 2015; Hall & Page, 2006; Müller, 2011a; O’Reilly & Benson, 2009). Tourism and leisure represent “discretionary” mobilities meaning “travel undertaken

3 According to the National Land Survey of Finland, Russians have purchased the following types of properties from the region of South Savo from 2003-2012: properties for recreational use (72%), properties for permanent use (24.4%), for agricultural and forestry use (2%), other building sites (0.6%) and for other use (1%) (see also Paper 4).

(22)

voluntarily with the disposable income left after basic necessities of life have been covered” (Cohen & Cohen, 2015b: 157-158). Along with increasing interest in research on mobilities, the study of borders that regulate and construct international movements has also become inextricably entwined with research on mobilities (Richardson, 2013; Schiller & Salazar, 2013).

Second home tourism, in both its domestic and international forms, is one of the types of leisure mobilities that has witnessed an increase in publications since the late 1980s (Hall & Müller, 2004; Hall & Page, 2006; Müller, 2011a). Research on international second homes is rather modest in comparison to studies on other types of discretionary mobilities. It originates from studies of ‘snowbirds’

– people who migrate seasonally to sunnier and warmer locations (O’Sullivan

& Stevens, 1982). While being an impulse for studies on second homes on the international scale, seasonal migration currently represents a separate branch of lifestyle mobilities.

Lifestyle mobility researchers place second home tourism under the umbrella concept of lifestyle mobility.⁴ Thus, they unite and try to explain all types of lifestyle movements and migration through the prism of the pursuit of the ‘good life’ (O’Reilly & Benson, 2009). Such an approach, nevertheless, requires further conceptualisation as in the case of second homes there are on-going debates about whether second homes are a ‘curse’ or a ‘blessing’ (Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2015;

Lundmark & Marjavaara, 2013; Wolfe, 1977). Moreover, there are a number of factors that differentiate second home mobility from other lifestyle choices, such as age, level of affluence and relationships between homes. Second home ownership is also often interchangeably categorised as amenity migration. These two categories are difficult to differentiate as they are both connected to recreation opportunities and aesthetic experiences. Some authors categorise second home ownership as a subcategory of amenity migration, while others prefer to talk about second home ownership (McCarthy, 2008; Müller, 2011a; Woods, 2011). Second home ownership emphasises temporary types of visits, while amenity migration can be a temporal or permanent one. I deliberately distinguish trans-border second home ownership from other concepts to avoid terminological confusion.

The terminological choice of trans-border second home ownership over the more frequently used ‘cross-border’ term is explained by the nature of the phenomenon studied. According to the Oxford dictionary, trans-border refers to

“crossing or extending across a border between two countries”, while cross-border involves movement or activity across a border between two countries (Oxford dictionaries, 2015). Naturally both terms relate to certain developments between neighbouring states. Trans-border, however, relates to the extension of certain phenomena across a state border. This feature is a central one in Russian second home ownership in Finland as it concerns the expansion of Russian leisure places and practices over the border.

4 Lifestyle mobilities are defined as “those mobility practices undertaken by individuals based on their freedom of choice, of a temporal or more permanent duration, with or without any significant ‘home base(s)’, that are primary driven by aspirations to increase quality of life, and that are primarily related to the individuals’ lifestyle values” (Åkerlund, 2013: 24).

(23)

Examples of trans-border second home ownership come from different parts of the globe. Geographically they are dominated by cases from the West (Europe and the North America). They include, but are not limited to British, Germans, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Spanish, Swiss and Italians in France (Buller & Hoggart, 1994; Hoggart & Buller, 1995; Calzada & Le Blanc, 2006; Goujard, 2002; Chaplin, 1999a, 1999b; Paris 2011; Fareniaux & Verlhac, 2008), dutch in Belgium (Priemus, 2005), Germans in Sweden (Müller 1999, 2002a, 2002b), Hungary (Csordás, 1999), and the Netherlands (Priemus 2005); Norwegians in Sweden (Müller, 2011b) and Finland (Paper 2), Austrians and Italians in Slovenia (Lampič & Mrak, 2012), Austrians and Swiss in Italy (Volo, 2011), Americans in Mexico and Canada (Timothy, 2004; Woods, 2011), Hong Kong Chinese second homes on the Chinese mainland (Hui and Yu, 2009) and Singaporeans in Malaysia (Paris, 2011). These studies on second home purchases from a neighbouring state have focused on the motives of foreign buyers, mutual attitudes towards locals and each other, and community involvement (Buller & Hoggart, 1994; Chaplin, 1999a, 1999b; Müller, 2002a, 2002b, 2011b; Volo, 2011), as well as the distribution of foreign second homes (Calzada & Le Blanc, 2006; Hoggart & Buller, 1995; Müller, 1999). Foreign property purchases have also been studied in the wider perspectives of fluctuations on the property market and housing affordability (Calzada & Le Blanc, 2006; Hui and Yu, 2009), spatial planning and land use (Priemus 2005), as well as some general estimates on economic contributions to local communities (Goujard, 2002; Volo, 2011). Some studies point out the negative outcomes of foreign second home development, such as rising property prices, increasing social differentiation, social distance and language barriers, conflict over the development of an area, and even displacement (Buller & Hoggart, 1994; Müller, 1999, 2002a; Volo, 2011).

Similarly to domestic second home ownership, trans-border second home tourism brings changes to rural areas. Second homes transform the countryside from productive to leisure space (Haldrup, 2009; Müller, 1999, 2002a). Halfacree (2012: 218) states that counterurbanisation, as a movement from a city to smaller rural settlements, can “no longer maintain its position as encompassing exclusively ‘permanent rural home location,’” and second-home consumers contribute to the process of counterurbanisation as much as permanent migrants. Second home mobility is a leisure driven activity in contrast to other types of in-migration to rural areas (Müller, 1999; 2002b; Paper 3). Trans-border second home tourism represents yet another form of the rural-urban relationship on the international scale. The inflow of foreign second home owners into rural areas does not (necessarily) coincide with the process of counterurbanisation at the domestic scale, as international owners are driven by different motivations than domestic migrators to rural areas.

Trans-border or international migration to rural areas has been conceptual- ised as a “global countryside” (Woods, 2011) and “(international) counterurbani- zation” (Eimermann, Lundmark & Müller 2012; O’Reilly and Benson 2009). The latter term, however, deals with permanent in-migration to rural areas, which is not entirely applicable to second home ownership because they are not permanent

(24)

residents, but permanent visitors to the area (see also Müller, 1999; 2002b; Schier et al., 2015). The internationalisation of the countryside is presented, for example, in studies on foreign in-migration to rural areas (Aasland & Søholt, 2012; Aure, Førde & Magnussen, 2012; Broadway, 2012; Lundmark, Ednarsson & Karsson, 2014; Simon & Nørgaard, 2012; Stenbacka, 2012; Vatanen & Halonen, 2013) and seasonal labour migrants (Rantanen & Valkonen, 2013). While second homes are acknowledged as one of the contemporary developments of rural areas, they still lack recognition within rural studies (Müller, 2011a; Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2015).

Few authors discuss the reconstruction of rural localities through growing international property purchases in rural areas (McCarthy, 2008; Müller, 2011a; Woods, 2011). Hoogendoorn and Visser (2015: 182) state that understanding second home geographies provides “valuable additional perspective in explaining the changing spatialities of many rural areas.” The present work brings new aspects to studies on the internationalisation of rural space by examining the socio-spatial changes that Russian second home owners bring to the Finnish countryside (community participation, mutual attitudes and the challenges of integration of foreign owners at the community level are presented in Paper 3; the spatial distribution of Russian properties and factors affecting it are presented in Paper 4).

2.3 developmenT oF RuSSian SeCond home owneR- Ship in Finland

For the last two decades Finland has witnessed growth in foreign second home ownership, especially by Russians. Russian second home tourism in Finland is not, however, a new phenomenon. Already in the mid-19^th century residents of St Petersburg rented dachas in Helsingfors (Helsinki), Vyborg (Finland at that time) and their surrounding areas (Malinova, 2003): “For the summering Peterburger Helsingfors had the advantage of being clean, law-abiding and cheap” (Lovell, 2003: 37). As will become evident in the empirical part (Paper 1) the image of Finland has not change since then.

By the end of the 19^th century, with the railroad connection between Saint Petersburg (Russia), Vyborg and Helsinki (Finland), dacha settlements spread out along the railroad network (Glezerov, 2006; Hämäläinen, 1983; Lovell, 2003;

Malinova, 2003) (see Figure 1 for the location of these cities). At that time Finland was a Grand duchy, an autonomous part of the Russian Empire, but was separated by a guarded border. Russians were granted a special right of unrestrained property ownership in the Vyborg County (the bordering region with Russia that is located in the Karelian Isthmus). Otherwise property ownership by foreigners (as well as Russians) in Finland required a recommendation from the Finnish Senate and special permission from the emperor (Hämäläinen, 1983; Virtanen, 2010).

Russian second home owners were representatives of the upper class who could afford to spend the entire summer in a second home. They were predominantly representatives of intelligentsia – doctors, professors and artists. One of

(25)

the challenges for Russian tourists at that time was the border between Finland and Russia, which included thorough inspections and strict working times. Along with a number of restrictions on imported goods, the border marked differences in language, currency, time (20 minutes) as well as date (14 days) (Glezerov, 2006). The best second home places, as well as spa resorts and other scenic locations, were advertised in numerous guidebooks (see Grenkhagen, 1911; Gusev, 1913). Tourists enjoyed good roads and convenient means of transportation, a widespread telephone network, as well as stable prices, attractive hospitality and helpful locals (Glezerov, 2006; Lovell, 2003). In the Vyborg County 1438 summer houses (Fin. kesähuvila) were in foreign possession, and 300 farms were occupied by Russians in 1901. Foreigners outnumbered locals in the summer time.

By the 1920s the number of second homes reached 12 000 summer houses on the Karelian Isthmus with a Finnish occupancy rate of only 10% (Hämäläinen, 1983).

The October revolution and Finland’s subsequent independence in 1917 modified Russian summer visitations to their second homes in Finland. The special rights for property ownership to Russians were quickly abolished in 1918. The government, however, kept the right to issue special permission for land purchase to foreigners. Russian owners retained their property rights after Finland’s independence, and many of them immigrated to their second homes in Finland during and after the October Revolution. The abandoned Russian properties were later nationalised (Hämäläinen, 1983).

In 1920 a special law on the restriction of any foreign property ownership in the Vyborg County was adopted. The law was specially crafted in light of previ- ous Russian interest in second homes in this border area and a complicated situ- ation with Russian properties after Finland’s independence (Hämäläinen, 1993).

Restrictive orders on foreign ownership nationwide were enshrined in law in 1939, which proscribed property ownership and rent (exceeding five-year peri- ods) by foreigners, foreign companies, associations, foundations and other organisations without permission from the government (Finnish Law 219/1939). Only foreigners permanently residing in Finland could obtain permission to purchase real estate by submitting an application to the county’s government office. Those foreigners who owned a property before the law came into effect retained their property rights, as well as those who inherited property after 1939. In cases where those foreign owners resided outside of Finland they had to have a representa- tive in the same locality as the real estate. It was not until 1965 that the first foreign land purchase in Finland was made by Hapimag, a Swiss corporate group which started to develop a second home village (Mikkonen, 2014). According to statistical records, in the 1980s foreigners purchased approximately 150 properties annually for private use in Finland. Permission for property ownership was issued either to a foreigner residing in Finland or a former Finnish citizen. Those foreigners who did not have any connections to Finland did not get permission (Finnish Government Bill 120/1992).

A substantial change occurred in 1993 after Finland’s accession to the European Economic Area when foreigners residing outside Finland received the possibil-

(26)

ity to purchase land with special permission from the County Administrative Board under the condition that the property be used for recreation or second home use. The change also enabled property ownership in the border area⁵ with a similar procedure for permission (Finnish Law 1613/1992). This resulted in modest growth of foreign purchases, and from 1993-1998 foreigners purchased 1743 properties in Finland. Germans were the largest group of foreign buyers during that time followed by Swedes (Finnish Government Bill 171/1999). Another legislative change on foreign property ownership occurred after Finland’s accession to the EU in 1995. Finland signed the Treaty of Accession according to which it had to meet the norms of EU legislation, partially by modifying its own legislation. Foreign second home ownership, however, was specifically pointed out in Article 87 of the Treaty of Accession. It stated that Finland could follow national legislation in relation to second home properties for a period of five years from the date accession (Accession treaty 103/1994). The question on land ownership by foreigners was widely discussed in Parliament during three hearings before the final changes to the law on property ownership were made. Finland had the option to open the property market exclusively to citizens of the EU and EEA member states, which would meet the regulations of the Treaty on European Union (Finnish Government Bill 171/1999; Haapasalo, 2013). However, the preoc- cupying thought that there would be a foreign second home “invasion” in Finland after joining the EU proved to be untrue, and the restriction was thus considered irrelevant (PTK 122/1999). Consequently, in 2000, after the five-year derogation period from EU legislation, all foreigners were allowed to purchase properties in Finland without applying for special permission (Beloglazova 2010; Finnish Law 1299/1999; Pitkänen, 2011a).

Not all areas in Finland are open for land purchase by foreigners. due to their special status the Åland Islands retained legislative exemptions that are set in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland (1991/1144; see also Finnish Law 1613/1992). In order to own property on the islands one has to have the right of domicile, which is acquired by birth. Foreigners have to apply for permission from the Government of Åland under the condition that they have been residing in Åland for five years, have an adequate knowledge of Swedish and have acquired Finnish citizenship (Act on the Autonomy of Åland 1991/1144; Ahvenanmaan maanhankintalaki 3/1975; Beloglazova, 2010; Hedström, 2010; Right of domicile, 2015). Among other examples of deviations from the EU legislation are denmark and the Czech Republic which maintained restrictive legislation on land ownership by foreigners (Haldrup, 2009; Tress 2002; Müller 2011b).

Generally, there are currently no restrictions on property purchase in Finland, and foreigners have the same rights for property purchase as Finns.

Municipalities, however, retain the primary right to buy out/claim sold properties for the development of certain areas (Beloglazova, 2010; Purchase, 2008).

5 The border area is defined as a three kilometre zone from the terrestrial border or a four kilometre zone from the maritime border, unless otherwise defined by the Ministry of Interior (Finnish Government Bill 171/1999).

(27)

2.4 STudieS on RuSSian SeCond home owneRShip Studies on Russian property purchases abroad are few in number and dominated by studies on property purchases in Finland. The first study on Russian second home ownership in Finland (of which the present work has been a part of) was initiated and conducted at the University of Eastern Finland (Trabo, 2011). Its results as well as further research on the topic are presented through analyses of publicity on the issue (Pitkänen, 2011a), local perceptions of Russian ownership (Honkanen, Pitkänen & Hall, 2015), governance structures and mecha- nisms for foreign second homes in Finland (Åkerlund, Lipkina & Hall, 2015), and parliamentary debates about Russian ownership (Haapasalo, 2013). Moreover, the Ministry of Employment and the Economy has ordered an investigation of Russian second home ownership and its future, which has resulted in the study of current purchase trends, opinions of political decision-makers and municipal planners, and potential property buyers in Russia (TAK Oy, 2013b). It is important to point out that the latter revealed that 62% of local politicians in Eastern Finland and 56% of national politicians are in favour of restricting the possibility of property purchase by Russians (TAK Oy, 2013b).

Studies by Pitkänen (2011a) and Honkanen, Pitkänen and Hall (2015) deserve special attention and some explanation as they enhance the understanding of the context of the present doctoral dissertation. In her study on Finnish media publicity of foreign property purchases in Finland, Pitkänen (2011a) defines the main discourses on the phenomenon. She identifies three groups of concerns on foreign (and particularly Russian) ownership. First, foreign owners are accused of challenging the traditional way of life through gentrification and the displacement of locals. Second, foreign ownership is viewed as challenging Finnish land- ownership rights as foreign purchases threaten the national landscape. Third, foreign ownership challenges national identity and raises fears related to foreign influence that, in relation to Russian ownership, was referred to as a “Russian invasion” (Pitkänen, 2011a: 52).

Media publicity does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the local level towards Russian second home ownership. This led Honkanen, Pitkänen and Hall (2015) to study the contested media opinion at the local level. Their study revealed that local inhabitants and Finnish second home owners from the study area generally agree with the opinions presented in media, especially negative ones. Additionally, positive statements about Russian ownership were not supported by all the respondents. Based on the opinions towards Russian ownership, the study differentiated three groups of attitudes. The first group is com- posed of those who think that Russians are raising property prices and that Finns are selectively selling to Russians. The second group sees Russians as a source of opportunities for the area, while the third sees them as a source of problems (see also Figure 4). The studies by Pitkänen (2011a) and Honkanen, Pitkänen and Hall (2015) focus on the Finnish attitudes towards Russian ownership. This doctoral study complements these debates by focusing on the Russian

(28)

side of the host-guest relationship. For this reason Paper 3 focuses mainly on Russian opinions and involvement in the local community. Paper 4 confronts Finnish social debates in relation to Russian property location and, by studying the distribution of Russian properties and factors for location, responds to those arguments.

Russian property ownership in Finland has also become the subject of sev- eral Master’s and Bachelor’s theses. They focus on different aspects of Russian property purchases, such as general overviews of the property types in different regions: the Savonlinna area (Räty, 2013) and the regions of South Savo, Lapland, South and North Karelia (Jokelainen, 2009; Haapasalo, 2014; Ilola & Mursu, 2010), reasons for property purchase (Peus, 2013), service demands of Russian second home owners (Syrjäläinen & Taurén, 2012), publicity on Russian property purchases (Sjöholm, 2011; Väätämöinen, 2010), and mortgage terms for non-resident property buyers in Finland (Trofimov, 2013).

On the global scale Russians are considered as one of the biggest group of investors in foreign properties.⁶ despite this fact, studies on Russian property purchases are few in number. Among known studies on Russian property purchases abroad are two Master’s theses on Russian private real estate investments (Malyshkina, 2010) and residential tourism in Northern Cyprus (Boyarkina, 2014).

The study by Malyshkina (2010) provides a general overview of the decision- making process of foreign property purchases by three Russian investors in three different countries (Egypt, Austria and Bulgaria). depending on the country, the purposes for property purchase vary substantially and include the desire to own a holiday house, as a source of revenue or to obtain residence permits. Boyarkina (2014) studied the motives for second home ownership in more detail using the example of Russian residential tourism in Northern Cyprus. She states that escapism, retirement, healthy climate, recreation, lower property prices and living costs, as well as an investment and study base for children are among the main motives for property purchase. While some of these motives intersect with those for second home ownership in Finland, such as escapism, recreation, lower property prices and safety – though not as strongly as in the Finnish case (see Paper 1 for more details), others differ due to the specific geographical location of Cyprus and entry conditions (visa-free regime) which provide the possibility for a long- term stay for foreign property owners. Both studies conclude that unfavourable climate conditions in a home country are among the main factors for investing abroad. Malyshkina (2010), however, places more emphasis on the unreliability of Russian financial institutes and defines a property purchase abroad as a way of preserving funds in a volatile Russian economy.

6 There are, however, no trustworthy statistics on Russian property purchases abroad. Media reports on Russian activity in foreign real estate markets are often estimations by real estate agencies and based on their own annual activity (see Khodov, 2000; Malyshkina, 2010).

(29)

2.5. viSa Regime

Third-country nationals,⁷including Russians, face a visa regime in Finland. A visa is “an individual permission for entrance during a given period of time and for certain purposes” (Van Houtum, 2010: 962). Any Russian who wants to enter Finland, which simultaneously means crossing the EU’s external border, has to apply for an EU Schengen visa (Council Regulation (EC) 539/2001; Laube

& Roos, 2010). The basic regulations on visas for foreigners are prescribed in the Foreign Law (301/2004), which has been modified in accordance with the EU Visa Code (Regulation (EC) 810/2009). Neither the Visa Code nor the Finnish Foreign Law defines the visa type for third-country nationals based on property ownership. Property ownership, however, supports visa acquisition to the EU, evidence of which is required in the list of supporting documents:

“a document from the establishment providing accommodation or any other appropriate document indicating the accommodation envisaged” (Regulation (EC) 810/2009).

In practice, owners are entitled to a multiple entry two-year tourist visa with the right to spend 90 days per half year in Finland (Alekseeva, 2011; Vizovyi rezhim, 2011), which is the maximum time that a Russian citizen can spend in EU territory (EU-Russia Agreement, 2007). Citizens of EU member-states can reside in Finland for up to three months without registration and have the possibility to prolong their stay. Citizens of the Nordic states do not have any restrictions (Foreign Law 301/2004). Property ownership in Finland does not favour the acquisition of a residence permit for foreign owners (Alekseeva, 2011; Vizovyi rezhim, 2011). Consequently, Russian second home owners cannot reside permanently at their second homes due to the limitation on the total number of days as defined by the visa regime (180 days per year maximum without any right to social services).

Visa applications are submitted to a Finnish consulate or a Finnish visa centre, which are located in large population centres in Russia. The visa application is either submitted personally or sent through a tourism agency which provides such services and might be located closer to a visitor’s place of residence. It is important to note that border communities along the Finnish-Russian border do not receive any benefits from their proximity to the border in terms of easier access to the neighbouring state. Thus, the most of the population have never visited Finland and have a very vague picture about their closest neighbour.

The visa application process for property owners has undergone some changes. Previously, applicants had to submit a copy of their purchase agreement as an attachment to the visa application but, since 2011, the Finnish consulate requires the real estate tax demand-form as a compulsory attachment (Fin. selvitys kiinteistöverotuksesta). This change was driven by the need to verify actual prop- erty possession since the purchase agreement does not specify current ownership (Alekseeva, 2011; Rodionov, 2011).

7 Third-country nationals are listed in the Council Regulation (EC) 539/2001.

(30)

This introductory chapter has presented the aims, the conceptual ground- ing of the research subject, as well as the development of Russian trans-border mobility and second home ownership in Finland. A more detailed examination of mobility as a concept and an act of movement is presented in the next chapter.

The chapter also outlines the way mobility is produced by deconstructing the act of movement into elements, addresses the main second home flows in Europe and introduces the concept of mobility regime, which helps understand the production and control of trans-border mobility flows.

(31)

3 Theory

3.1 moBiliTy, SpaCe and plaCe

“Perhaps mobility is not something ‘very new’ […], but certainly something ‘new’ is hap- pening in the world” (Adey, 2010: 1).

The mobility approach has been chosen as a central theme in this dissertation because it “helps to deal with increasingly blurred boundaries between tourism and other categories of local, national and global corporeal movements”

(Cohen & Cohen, 2015a: 14). In relation to second home tourism the mobility concept provides “[t]he wider theoretical context for a consideration of inter- nationalization of second homes” (Paris, 2014: 7). Furthermore, second homes are linked to broader patterns of human mobility and they enable mobility due to the constant movement between first and second homes (Hall & Page, 2006;

Overvåg, 2011).

Mobility is an integral feature of contemporary societies and travel is increasingly becoming a necessity for social life (Adey, 2010; Larsen, Urry & Axhausen, 2006; O’Reilly, 2012; Sheller & Urry, 2006). Mobility as an omnipresent part of everyday life has provoked a keen interest in such disciplines as sociology, an- thropology, cultural studies as well as geography, all of which have begun to study the way mobility has been changing the world (Cresswell, 2006; Thrift, 2009). The works of Adey (2010), Cresswell (2006) and Urry (2007) are among the most central ones. The development of the field of mobility research has been referred to as a “celebration of mobility” (Schiller & Salazar, 2013), the “era of mobility” (Halfacree, 2012), and the “mobility turn” (Urry, 2007), which has been theoretically framed into a new mobilities paradigm (Cresswell, 2006; Sheller &

Urry, 2004, 2006; Urry, 2007). The new paradigm does not provide a ready de- scription of a contemporary mobile world, but suggests a number of questions, theories and methodologies on how to study increasingly mobile societies (Sheller

& Urry, 2006).

The mobility turn has become a critique of the ideas of independent human activities. Urry argues that material worlds, such as clothing, tools, objects, buildings, and paths (to which I add borders in relation to trans-border and international mobility in general), augment the “powers of humans” (Urry, 2007: 45).

These material worlds or systems precede and change human powers and activities. The mobilities paradigm especially emphasises the role of material objects which provide different affordances, enable or presuppose movement (Sheller &

Urry, 2006). Urry (2007) argues that the notion of mobility is not new; the new is, among other things,