Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||Housing, Theory and Society, 2009; 26(4):292-310||-|
|dc.description.abstract||This paper advocates a theorized approach to second home ownership, which previously has been largely ignored in housing studies or seen as a localized problem. The growth of housing wealth and extended spatial mobility in rich countries has generated explosive growth in the ownership of second (and more) homes with an increasingly transnational dimension. This raises concerns about the concept of the home as a special kind of place. The notion of “second” home is considered increasingly problematic owing partly to inherent definitional problems and partly to the growing ownership of multiple dwellings for leisure and leisure‐related investment purposes. The growth of second home ownership is conceptualized as a form of gentrification and international comparisons highlight distinctive differences between countries and over time. Household investment and consumption strategies, fuelled by greater mobility and hyper‐consumption capacities in rich countries, are seen to be at the core of this rapidly evolving phenomenon.||-|
|dc.publisher||Taylor & Francis||-|
|dc.rights||© 2009 Taylor & Francis||-|
|dc.title||Re-positioning second homes within housing studies: household investment, gentrification, multiple residence, mobility and hyper-consumption||-|
|Appears in Collections:||Aurora harvest 2|
Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning publications
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.