Part-time living — a distinct rural phenomenon on the rise
Authors: Rikke Brandt Broegaard and Anders Hedetoft.
A recently completed research project shows that part-time use of year-round housing is on the rise and that it is a phenomenon that is strongly linked to rural municipalities in Denmark. However, part-time use is very unevenly distributed between rural municipalities and is particularly concentrated in the most attractive villages, fishing leases and towns, and especially in rural municipalities that are already characterized by large-scale tourism activity.
The study also shows a very wide range in the municipalities' approaches to the area, from an active opt-out of regulation over some monitoring to an active enforcement of, for example, residency obligations. Some municipalities apply a geographically differentiated abolition of the residence obligation/administration of the flexible housing scheme, so that, for example, there is a difference between the possibility of obtaining a flexible housing permit in cities versus in the open country of a municipality.
The vast majority of rural municipalities find that liberalising housing regulation and the possibilities for part-time use of year-round homes is a good way to limit uninhabited and unsellable housing stock. When the homes can be used on a part-time basis, the owners maintain the building, and in some cases the owners also become part of local social life, albeit on a part-time basis.
The effects of increasing part-time living are seen primarily at the sub-municipal level, i.e. in (defined) local areas, villages, neighbourhoods or cultural environments where individual streets or groups of streets are affected. The study shows that it is currently only the smallest island municipalities where the municipality as a whole is affected by the increase in part-time settlement, in particular by the fact that a very large proportion of the total housing stock in these municipalities has been transferred to part-time use.
There has been a significant shift in the use of housing (especially in the country's rural municipalities) after the financial crisis and up to the present day. The 15 municipalities with the highest proportion of uninhabited dwellings in proportion to the total housing stock are all rural municipalities. This is a distinctly rural phenomenon. In the smaller island municipalities, the uninhabited dwellings constitute from 1/5 to 1/3 of the total housing stock. In many other rural municipalities, they make up over 10% of the housing stock.
Since the financial crisis, there has also been a growth in the number of second homes (often also called holiday homes) in rural municipalities. Together with the growth in uninhabited dwellings, this clarifies the growing role of rural municipalities as places of part-time living. Based on register data, it is estimated that approximately 55% of uninhabited dwellings are used for part-time purposes. In 2024, there were over 223,000 uninhabited second homes (second homes and holiday homes) and well over 200,000 “uninhabited year-round dwellings” in Denmark, and for both categories the majority of these were also to be found in rural municipalities.
There is a clear correlation between tourism attractiveness and part-time living. The municipalities that have experienced the greatest growth in the number of dwellings used on a part-time basis are, at the same time, municipalities that attract many tourists.
Remote owners of part-time housing in rural municipalities have a significantly higher income, wealth and educational level than the permanent homeowning population.
The total number of flexible housing permits nationwide amounts to about 7,000, 80% of which are granted in rural municipalities. Flexible housing is therefore also a distinct rural phenomenon. However, it should be noted that the number of flexible housing permits in rural municipalities corresponds to only about 11% of the uninhabited single-family houses in the same municipalities. The volume of flexible housing permits is therefore in itself a poor indicator of the extent of part-time living in rural municipalities.
The report identifies four types of places where competition occurs most often (between full-time and part-time residents) for houses in year-round areas. These are exclusive, coastal villages; small islands; towns and villages with attractive houses and urban environments, and active, engaged villages. According to the interview survey, municipal officials find that it is primarily in this type of place that regulation of the use of housing is needed.
None of the municipalities interviewed records how many of the year-round residences are in practice used for leisure purposes. And none of the rural municipalities interviewed enforces the residence obligation contained in the Housing Use Act (sections 5, paragraph 1 and section 7 (1)) outside the areas in the municipalities where the local plans require year-round use of housing. However, some municipalities, especially those that have issued a relatively high number of flexible housing permits, have an ongoing attention to the proportion of housing stock with a flexible housing permit, not only in the municipality as a whole, but also within individual local areas.
Several municipalities are asking for better guidance material on the possibility for municipalities to regulate the use of dwellings in different circumstances, including guidance on how the different legal complexes can play together. The Planning Act's ability to draw up community plans with year-round use requirements is apparently the most effective tool in limiting part-time residential use. The flexible housing scheme itself is a more limited tool for regulating the increase in part-time housing, and in municipalities, for example, there is uncertainty whether the rental of flexible housing should be handled as (year-round) housing or as a holiday home, which is of great importance for the permitted rental scope.
There is considerable uncertainty associated with determining the extent of part-time use of the dwellings. This uncertainty' is potentially a problem. For if we are to understand (1) whether there is a problem of increasing part-time living in rural areas or in parts of them; (2) how large the extent of part-time living is; (3) where part-time living is taking place; (4) and who are part-time residents, etc., a credible record of the extent is needed.
The increase in part-time settlement is one of the ways our more mobile and often also multi-local lifestyles are coming to fruition. This is a development that may not seem so new on the surface, but it fundamentally changes some of the key elements around which we have built our society in terms of rights (such as participation in political processes, access to health services, etc.) and duties (such as payment of income tax). The population is more than previously recorded as settled in the cities, but at the same time a large proportion is increasingly residing (without having a residence) in rural municipalities.
The prerequisites for attaching rights and obligations to an address of residence require (or create the illusion of) uniqueness of residence. This premise has greatly changed from when the system was created. The implications for, for example, population census, tax payment, connection of services, etc. can be large, especially in the smallest municipalities in terms of population. There is a need to look at dynamics around part-time and full-time settlement in a larger context, including the interaction between town and country, to understand the real 'multi-local' way more and more people live their lives.
