Self-isolation at the dacha: Can’t? Can? Have to?

Abstract

<jats:p>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.</jats:p> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> <jats:p>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.</jats:p>

Second homes during corona - safe or unsafe haven and for whom? Reflections from researchers around the world

“…In the US and Italy, the geographical spread of the COVID-19 has been linked to social ties, which include among others second home visits. In the US context, the spread of the pandemic followed the pattern of second home mobilites; a similar pattern has also been noted in Russia (Kuchler et al, 2020;Nikolaeva & Rusanov, 2020).…”

“…Thus, the use of domestic second homes has significantly increased. It has been estimated that all second home or dacha owners are using their rural properties this summer, and the rental enquiries have increased by several times in comparison to the previous year (Nikolaeva & Rusanov, 2020). The demand for second home mobility in Russia is high, and seems to extend across international borders.…”

“…Baum & Hai, 2020). The rush of an urban population to second homes in Russia, Turkey, the UK, and France has stressed the importance of second homes as places with lower risks of infection and locations for self-isolation (Gallent, 2020;Grigoryev, 2020;Nikolaeva & Rusanov, 2020;Seraphin & Dosquet, 2020;Zogal et al, 2020). A possibility to relocate to a second home during the pandemic has been regarded as a "privileged escape" (Zogal et al, 2020).…”

“…A possibility to relocate to a second home during the pandemic has been regarded as a "privileged escape" (Zogal et al, 2020). This second home migration, in turn, has met resentment from the locals (Gallent, 2020;Nikolaeva & Rusanov, 2020). While second homes have provided a safer space for urban residents during the pandemic, the exodus of city dwellers to their second homes has drastically increased the environmental burden on those rural locations in Russia (Bobylev, 2020).…”

The Current State of the Finnish Cottage Phenomenon: Perspectives of Experts

“…Therefore, second home use has been extended from leisure and tourism purposes to 'protection from pandemics' and 'a place for privileged remote work' [38]. The influx of the urban population to their second homes in Russia and Turkey, the UK, and France highlight the importance of second homes as lower risk locations away from places of infection and for self-isolation [39][40][41]. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many national borders were closed and/or regulated, the main emphasis focused on domestic travel and tourism.…”