ABSTRACT
Displacement of local permanent residents as a result of second home ownership has been a key feature of second home tourism research since the 1970s. However, the work of Nick Gallent in the late 1990s and early 2000s, in particular, questioned the social and economic value of second homes in the United Kingdom (UK). However, the displacement debate seems to have focused on the spatially specific concerns of the UK, and an argument can be made that except for anecdotal evidence and opinions voiced in the popular media, little empirical evidence has been provided to prove that second homes are directly responsible for displacement of local communities. In the late 2000s, a challenge against the “displacement theory” came from Marjavaara within the context of Sweden where little evidence of displacement was found. The debate concerning displacement has also been important in the developing world, especially in South Africa, where Hoogendoorn and Visser have argued against the displacement debates emerging from the UK. Despite the contentious nature of the debate, we would argue that no researchers would want anybody to be subjected to forced migration. However, the hard empirical evidence needs to be provided to prove that people are directly displaced because of second homes first. Otherwise, the value of debating displacement as a result of second home ownership is questionable. Nevertheless, Paris argues that second homes and displacement should be seen as an empirical question or hypothesis that needs to be proved or disproved. Therefore, this study aims at testing the displacement hypothesis in Sweden as a follow-up study on research done previously.
