International Conference Green Urbanism, GU 2016

Author name / Procedia Environmental Sciences 00 (2017) 000–0001

[S1]International Conference – Green Urbanism, GU 2016

How to preserve landscape quality – second home paradox

Sara Ursića0F, Roko Mišetićb, Anka Mišetićc

aInstitute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Marulićev trg 19/1, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia bCatholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia cFaculty of Architecture, School of Design, Frankopanska 12, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract

In an age that has witnessed the spectacular growth of an abundance of events and places, landscape becomes one of the key categories through which we can research changes in space and its ongoing relationship between the natural and the built environment. Bearing in mind the connection between landscape and lifestyle, as well as the relationship between the natural and the built landscape, this paper focuses on changes in the landscape that are the result of the recent event that has become known as the second home phenomena that has occurred on the Croatian island, Ciovo. By analysing ecological, social and economic elements we explore overall interest in landscape preservation, sustainability awareness and the level of immersion of temporary residents into the local community. We find that the latter is an important factor for creating local public awareness that could handle and help implement landscape quality objectives.

Click here and insert your abstract text.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GU 2016.

Keywords: second homes; landscape quality; ecocentrism; island settlement; sustainable development

1. How Country House utopia meets modern landscape demands

The recent literature undoubtedly shows that landscape analysis includes human impact as well as cultural values. In the other words, considering the interrelationship between nature and culture is required for successful landscape design to be achieved. Mitchell (2008) defines landscape through shape, meaning and representation. Therefore, the influence of social relationships is emphasized since landscape is the result of, as well as a medium of the social relationship and the consequence of the specific relationship between production and reproduction. According to Pitkänen, three main approaches are immanent in studying second home landscapes: physical, experiential and cultural approaches. “Second-home landscape as a cultural category means interpretation of landscape as a socially constructed space” (Pitkänen, 2008:173).

Such an approach suggests the great importance of cultural ideas and values to achieve satisfactory final results in landscape shaping. It also stresses the influence of specific ways of life as well as uses of environmental factors that influence landscape features. Hence, it is valuable to be reminded of fundamental ideas that for centuries have been the driving force behind so-called Western civilization. Among these ideas, it is important to mention the idea of the country house which is the basis of the current second home phenomenon in the community this paper addresses.

The Country House became the utopia of the Modern Age, Mumford (2008) argued, with a great influence upon real life. In his analysis, Mumford defined the country house phenomenon as a “collective utopia” or “social myth.” This type of myth represents “the ideal content of the existing order,” and at the same time, it “tends to perpetuate and perfect the order.” Furthermore, country house culture, whose development could be traced from the Renaissance period to nowadays, mostly relies on one's free will as well as pleasure, possession and passive enjoyment. The specific character of the country house, according to Mumford, is responsible for the direction that the industrial revolution has taken as well as for standards of consumer/consumption societies. However, the utopian vision of the country house could be realized as an “utopia of escape” that is completed only if it includes the elements of landscape such as rivers, lakes, sea, gardens, trees, parks – each of these ingredients contributing towards contemplation and pleasure. Such a concept of the Country House could not be realized without or out of a particular landscape. Only through the unity of the house and the landscape, an alternative way of life can be achieved. Consequently, pursuing beautiful, authentic, virgin landscape is an important part of the second home phenomenon.

According to Brida et al. (2011) the quality of the landscape, particularly the beauty of the landscape, is a crucial factor to second home buyers. This same fact is confirmed by real estate agents in a survey conducted in 2009. In the same study, second home owners are interviewed and they stated, “The three most appreciated aspects of second homes are to enjoy nature, the peacefulness of the area and the cleanliness and health of the area” (Brida at al. 2011:155).

Today, this initial impulse that remains a permanent motive for second home ownership is deeply rooted in the contemporary second home paradox. The main reason for such a scenario is the ability to mass produce housing, which has resulted in a proliferation of second homes. Ironically, this scenario has caused landscape devastation, which is the very basis on which the culture of the country house was founded. It has been shown that the indicators attributing to the decline of the quality of second home landscape are “wildlife disruption due to the clearance of vegetation; pollution due to sewage disposal, especially near lakes, rivers and the sea” as well as “shoreline building and physical mobility” (Hiltunen, 2007: 243). Briefly, according to Hiltunen, it could be concluded that travelling, building and consuming are identified as processes connected to second home development that have had a negative influence on nature and the landscape. A case study from Ireland, conducted by Norris and Winston (2009:1317), shows the negative environmental consequences “due to the predominance of newly built dwellings in the stock of second homes with huge infrastructural problems such as water supply and sewage treatment as well as regarding the extra traffic volumes.” All of these effects could be connected to the “transformation of the countryside into a 'post productive state or consumption landscape' consumed for housing, amenities and imagined rural lifestyle” (Norris & Winston, 2007: 18).

Landscape that is understood as being a good for consumption, according to David Harvey, is connected to the capitalistic production pattern in which the natural environment is transformed into a huge “resource system, comprising use values embedded in the physical landscape, which can be utilized for production, exchange and consumption” (Harvey, 1982: 233). Furthermore, a second home could be seen as a status symbol or as a form of (rural) gentrification (Halfacree, 2011). Similarly, it could be analysed from many different perspectives such as housing, leisure, tourism or mobility (Paris, 2014). Nonetheless, landscape is confirmed as the medium as well as the result of the social relationship and the question of its continued sustainable development leads to the analysis of the social actors who influence it and their values. In general, second home owners as well as locals are the most responsible actors in these processes. Each of them has particular aspirations, but they also share some of the same interests. Therefore, second home owners' values and attitudes are important issues connected to landscape quality.

Recent research of second home owners’ attitudes shows that the attractiveness of the landscape is a key factor for choosing locations. According to this, the second home owners’ willingness for the protection and preservation of the landscape is confirmed. The respondents “consider it important to keep the surrounding environment in good condition” (Huhtala & Lankia, 2012:734).

There is also a recognized connection between ecological awareness and motivation for engagement and participation in community activities linked to the maintenance and protection of the environment. “Second home owners do care about the environment and sometimes take an active part in the preservation of the area” (Brida, Osti, & Santifaller, 2009:145).

The utopian dimension of second homes, mentioned by Mumford, today is realized in the so-called rural idyll and the most important condition for its actualization is immersion in the beautiful, even sublime landscape. Undoubtedly, in order to ensure their own place for rest and pleasure, second home owners tend to maintain a high level of landscape quality. “Second home owners tend to support the use of regulations to restrict broader access, prevent future development, and protect their image of the rural idyll” (Kondo, Rivera, & Rullman, 2012:175). These aspirations for maintenance of landscape quality in the initial state are known as the “last settler syndrome.” “This phenomenon could also be viewed as a form of NIMBYism, where land use policies and decisions have become an area of activism for environmental concerns...” (Kondo et al., 2012: 181).

Regarding this question, some surveys have shown that the rural hosting population is more open for new development scenarios, while second home owners tend to preserve the rural idyll, mythical rural aesthetic as well as traditional rural lifestyles and values (Farstad & Rye, 2013; Kondo et al., 2012; Vepsäläinen & Pitkänen, 2010). In any case, willingness to keep the landscape in good condition indicates an important source of social capital and the basis of sustainable development to attract second home owners.

1. Research results – case study on island Čiovo

In this chapter we present the study results that are part of the national project, Second Homes and Social Sustainability of Local Communities in Croatia. The survey was conducted during the spring of 2016 on the island of Čiovo. The survey included 404 respondents, of which 203 are permanent residents and 201 temporary residents (second home owners or their family members). (Table 1)

This case study took place in a small settlement called Okrug Gornji that has 2767 permanent residents; however, during summer that number is much higher due to the fact that half of the homes in Okrug Gornji are second homes and vacation homes (NSR, 2001). The popularity of Okrug as a second homes settlement is the result of Okrug’s favourable conditions such as its proximity to Split (second largest town in Croatia) and Trogir (UNESCO heritage town) as well as its bridge connection to the mainland and the airport.

Development of the second homes tourism industry in Čiovo began during 60s in the 20th century, with the real estate boom continuing over the course of the next few decades. Most of the houses were built with the intention of making them rental properties. The avalanche of housing in such small settlement notably left its trace on the quality of the natural landscape and altered the ecological conditions throughout island (Graph 1). The specific housing trend depicted on the graph is representative of the growing phenomena that is categorized as being a fictitious population, which is a very common occurrence on bridged islands such as Čiovo. “As the law, popularly called “the law on vacation homes”, has been applied since 1993, a large number of second homes owners opted for this location as the predominant place of residence, although they do not reside there for the most part of the year, thus creating a significant contingent of “fictitious population” (Lajić and Mišetić, 2013:199).

Graph 1: Housing development in Okrug Gornji 1971-2011

In this survey we compare the attitudes of temporary and permanent residents in Okrug Gornji with regard to their interconnection between landscape and development in the context of a second home settlement. Here we discuss a natural as well as a built landscape to explain the complexity of landscape preservation that takes place in fast growing island settlements. By analyzing those elements we explore the overall interest in landscape preservation and ecological awareness.

In this case study of Okrug it was important to stress the ecocentrism paradigm bearing in mind that ecocentrism as value orientation could be seen as the key for understanding ambivalence between landscape preservation and economic development as well as a predictor of attitudes about future development.

Table 1: Demographics

Starting from the fact that second home development usually emerges in areas of attractive landscapes, as the earlier mentioned researches confirmed, and it is the landscape that is considered to be one of the essential motives for buying properties, we explored and compared residents’ perceptions on landscape quality and ecological attitudes.

1.1. Second homes impact on landscape

In this paper we analyze two types of local actors, permanent residents and temporary residents (second home owners or their families). Ecological condition and landscape quality together with real estate costs and space-time accessibility are known to be key factors for second home buyers and the following results affirm that those exact factors are also the most important considerations for our respondents (Muller, 2013). For 62% of temporary residents, having a clean sea was a decisive factor in buying land or property in Okrug. This factor was followed by natural landscape beauty for 53.5% of respondents and climate for 52% of respondents.

Graph 2:

Second home development is an essential factor in the overall transformation of Okrug, as it affects three different levels of settlement growth: social, economic and environmental (Muller, 2006; Holleran, 2015). In this analysis, focus is on the latter factor, thus it was important to explore the impact of such development on the natural landscape as well as on the built environment. According to both groups of respondents, impact on the natural landscape is slightly more positive than negative but above all most respondents seem to lack a distinct opinion as nearly half of the respondents, 47.3% of permanents residents and 45.3% of temporary residents, rated the impact of development as neither positive nor negative. (Graph 2)

However, in the case of the built landscape, the situation is rather different. The obvious difference that is visible on the graph is confirmed with the statistically significant difference (p<0,01) between the two groups of respondents. Permanent residents, as expected, find that second homes development has more of a negative impact. Hence, when it comes to the natural landscape one can expect consensus among the groups, but attitudes diverge regarding the built environment as permanent residents are more critical of the construction of new second homes.

Graph 3:

Further construction of second homes and rental vacation homes is an important factor in preserving landscape quality as well as preserving favourable ecological conditions. Results indicate a lack of prevailing attitude regarding this factor. (Graph 3) It could be said that this issue produces ambivalent attitudes towards second homes. Yet, respondents are more restrictive regarding vacation home rentals then they are to second homes developed for personal usage. The latter could be explained as a consequence of the fear of further expansion, which might produce mass tourism. Although a significant percentage of respondents are against new construction projects, that isn’t the prevailing attitude on the topic; so obviously, there is still space for the further proliferation of building. These findings point out the importance of the need for a clear and comprehensive strategy as well as the need for better legal regulation of construction in order to preserve the quality of the landscape.

1.2. Ecology vs. economy – residents perspective on environment and development

As mentioned earlier, Harvey defines landscape as yet another element of the mainstream culture of consumption. Also, landscape is seen as a playground of power in the vicious circle between market and place, according to Zukin (1991). On the other hand, Mumford considers landscape to be the last anchor for the centuries’ old quest that people possess for escape. It is a thin line between landscape as part of the “utopia of escape” and landscape as “good for production, exchange and consumption” which is why in this chapter we address the link between the environment and development. By exploring interconnections between ecology and economy we seek to deepen the understanding of landscape in the second home settlement.

Results show that most respondents (63.8%) think that “there are some ecological difficulties that could be resolved with minimum effort,” while only 2.2% of respondents think that ecological conditions in Okrug are “in such bad condition that there is little or nothing to be done.” On the other hand, 24.1% of permanent residents think that ecological conditions are “good” which leads to the conclusion that permanent residents are less critical when it comes to ecological conditions in Okrug. Such opinion is probably linked to the differences between expectations and lifestyles in the settlement.

However, there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between permanent and temporary residents when it comes to ecological conditions in Okrug. One could say that temporary residents are a bit more optimistic about resolving ecological issues and they are more eager to personally engage in activities to achieve ecological sustainability in the settlement. (Graph 4)

Graph 4: Comparison of attitudes on ecological conditions in Okrug

Nonetheless, when respondents were asked to identify the biggest public infrastructural problems in the settlements most answers were directly connected to unfavourable ecological conditions like inadequate waste disposal, malfunctioning sewerage systems, as well as problems with the water supply. Finally, there were also complaints about the poorly maintained beaches. The reported answers describe problems that are very common for fast growing second home settlements. It is obvious that all of the problems cited are caused by the great pressure derived from new housing. In comparison to a large number of respondents who support further construction, these answers could be unexpected. Still, this kind of discrepancy indicates that respondents take ecological conditions more seriously on a practical, rather than on a nominal level, i.e. when it is reflecting their everyday life.