One of the ways to solve the problems associated with rapid growth of urban population and the development of industry in Western Europe in the 19th century was the creation of collective gardens and vegetable plots, which could be used to grow food for personal consumption. The peak of their popularity was during the First and Second World Wars. In the second half of the 20th century, as food shortages decrease, the number of garden plots in Western Europe sharply decreased. The revival of interest in gardening at the end of the 20 century is connected with the development of nature protection movement and ecological culture. In Eastern Europe, most of the collective gardens and vegetable plots appeared after the Second World War in a planned economy, they were most popular during the periods of economic recession. In some countries – Russia, Poland – gardeners have now become one of the largest land users. The article deals with the history and main factors that influenced the development of collective gardening and vegetable gardening in Europe and analyzes the laws presently regulating the activity of gardeners. The change of functions of garden plots in European countries in the 19–21 centuries is shown. The article presents comparative statistics on the number of second homes in Northern and Southern Europe. On the example of these two regions, the peculiarities of distribution of second homes are revealed and the main areas of their location are shown.

Measures taken by most countries to limit the coronavirus infection spread include self-isolation. An option of voluntary restriction of personal contacts for citizens is to move to the country (second or third) houses, which have a particular name in Russia – “dacha”. The demand for country estates as places of self-isolation can be assessed as the emergence of a new sanitary-epidemic function in second homes. Institutional management of such movements in connection with the coronavirus pandemic varies by country, ranging from prohibition (Norway) to encouragement (Belarus), and quantitative indicators (mass character or singleness) fluctuate according to lifestyle, national traditions, characteristics of settlement, urban housing policy, public health opportunities and many other factors. For Russians, the migration of residents of megalopolises from the city to country houses was a reaction to the pandemic, a characteristic social-group strategy of health-preserving behaviour. Several million Muscovites, Petersburgers, as well as residents of other megacities of Russia moved outside the cities immediately after the outbreak of the pandemic. “Half-townspeople” – internal migrant workers and “seasonal workers” (workers living in villages or small towns but working in metropolises in watch mode) also moved to rural areas. The mass nature of centrifugal spatial-migratory deurbanization model of behaviour of Russians during the pandemic is determined by the specifics of the spatial distribution of the population in Russia, historical features of urbanization and deurbanization processes, in particular, the widespread distribution of second (and third) country houses (dachas) among the citizens. Russia leads both in relative and absolute number of dacha dwellers among the European countries. The number of country houses in Russia is estimated by specialists at 17–20 million, and the number of dacha dwellers at 50–60 million; at least half of the citizens have second (and often third) country houses. Massive movements of citizens into out-of-town spaces had both positive and negative consequences. A significant share of citizens reduced risks of infection and were able to avoid “imprisonment” within the apartment with accompanying socio-psychological overload and physical inactivity. However, mass movements also contributed to the rapid spread of coronavirus beyond the original foci. The article considers the approaches of European countries to countryside self-isolation, describes chronicles of restriction on movement of citizens in Russian regions and waves of summer migration during the pandemic, suggests an assessment of dacha migration from the capital, and discusses its short-term socio-economic consequences.

The article studies the features of second home land development in Russia. Basing on the data of the All-Russian agricultural censuses, the author shows that organized second home development is represented by two quantitatively and qualitatively different processes, namely: development of residential dachas, observed in horticultural non-profit partnerships (HNP) with dominant residential, recreational and agricultural functions, and development of agricultural dachas (vegetable gardens), observed in gardening non-profit partnerships (GNP), performing only an agricultural function. Despite regional differentiation, the general developmental trend might be described as gradual strengthening of the recreational and residential functions of the HNPs, which is facilitated by institutional regulation. The absolute and relative scales of the GNPs extension are gradually decreasing, but due to the unique localization and long-term traditions of subsidiary gardening, they remain relevant, especially during periods of crisis. Therefore, in some regions, their share in the total land of garden and dacha formations substantially exceeds the national average. The desire of the owners to supplement the functions of the GNPs with a permit for the construction of houses leads to the transfer of gardening lands to other categories, but in the absence of such an opportunity, Russian GNPs remain an analogue of foreign «allotment gardens», where one cannot spend the night, but can do gardening.

Most of seasonal second homes of Russians are located in gardeners’ associations being a component of modern urbanized settlement. Now in Russia there are about 14 million garden plots, which are used at least by 40 million people. The greatest number of gardeners’ associations (over 11.5 thousand) is registered in Moscow region. Their seasonal population can make up to 4 million people, and some of them live in summer homes most of the year, thus turning them actually into places of permanent residence. This trend is supported by new laws regulating registration of gardeners’ associations. An indirect indicator of this is the number of voters who took part in the Moscow Mayor elections in suburban areas in September 2018. The importance of summer residents increases with the distance from the capital, and more than half of the «suburban» polling stations were located in the middle and far suburbs, or even in neighboring regions. The very fact of the organization of suburban polling stations indicates a change in the role of gardeners’ associations, which become an impetus of socio-economic development in Moscow region. This is especially important for areas that have lost major industries. It is clearly seen on the example of the «gardeners’ conglomerates» that have emerged on the former peat mine lands in Moscow region, where seasonal population now exceeds the number of permanent residents of the surrounding settlements. «Gardeners’ conglomerates» can provide local population with jobs that is particularly important for marginal areas of the region.