Speaker
Description
The rate of homeownership in Turkey has shown a decreasing trend from 71% in 2004 to 57.5% in 2021, despite policies encouraging home ownership. The decrease in the homeownership rate in Turkey has been discussed over housing sales, high vacancy rates and the lack of first-time homebuyers, yet multiple homeowners are also the ones who need consideration in Turkey. This study argues that multiple homeownership has various forms such as houses acquired in the same city, one for residence and the other for rental income, also possible to have in different locations one for winter and a summer house. These units can be found in coastal areas, plateaus, villages, and many other places that offer a more comfortable climate and life in different seasons. While the rate of secondary housing in 15 European Union member countries constituted 8% of the housing stock in 1996, this rate - as summer housing units - was at the level of 15% in Spain, Italy, and Greece. As in international examples; increasing income, households' demand to get away from the city, and the need for comfort are important in the emergence of summer housing units in Turkey. Legal regulations have been another factor shaping the formation of summer housing such as the Cooperatives Law No. 1163 dated 1969 and the Tourism Encouragement Law No. 2634 dated 1982. After these dates, the number of secondary housing units in the form of summer houses has increased uncontrollably. Although a variety of locations in multiple homeownership and secondary housing in Turkey have existed, studies delving into secondary housing units are limited and scarce.
Since the housing stock in Turkey is not recorded as primary or secondary, it is difficult to conduct a secondary housing study throughout the country. In addition, there is no information on the residence periods of households in different cities. Therefore, it is not possible to conduct a study on either the housing unit or the household. Therefore, the most probable method is applied by focusing on a smaller scale and limited area. One of the important examples of these studies is the 2017 study of Cengiz and Kalyoncu, who examined the land use change between 1957 and 2002 in Edremit Bay using remote sensing. In the aforementioned study, it was concluded that the secondary houses built directly destroyed wetlands and forest areas. Cengizoğlu and Özyılmaz (2016) narrowed the focus to the interior of the housing unit in Mersin/Mezitli, pointing out that some houses that were outside the city when they were built and used as summer houses became primary houses in the city with the growth of the city.
The areas where summer house units are located can be somehow detected, albeit on a small scale. However, due to the limitations mentioned above, it was not possible to identify the owners of secondary houses in the form of summer houses. To fulfill above mentioned gap, this study focuses on the the characteristics of summer house owners in Turkey employing the 2018 Household Budget Survey cross-sectional data produced by the Turkish Statistical Institute. In the study, primarily the share of secondary housing units in the entire housing stock, the income status of households, real estate income from multiple homeownerships, and household characteristics of secondary housing unit owners are revealed. The preliminary findings overview that approximately 535,000 households have summer houses in the whole country, The findings of the study also revealed that summer house owners are higher-income, older, and have fewer members, and their main residences are higher-value, therefore better-conditioned.
| Keywords | secondary housing; summer houses; household characteristics |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
