URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa164256 DOI: 10.11143/fennia.164256 From leisure retreat to working heaven: factors influencing remote work from second homes GERAN-MARKO MILETIĆ, MARICA MARINOVIĆ GOLUBIĆ & KREŠIMIR PERAČKOVIĆ Miletić, G.-M., Marinović Golubić, M. & Peračković, K. (2025) From leisure retreat to working heaven: factors influencing remote work from second homes. Fennia 203(2) 199–213 https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.164256 This paper explores the evolving function of second homes, which are no longer used solely for leisure but are increasingly becoming sites for remote work practices. Drawing on data from a national sample of second homes users in Croatia, we investigate what situational factors contribute to the practice of working remotely via information and communication technology (ICT) from second home. Our analysis confirmed that practice of working remotely from second home, similarly as from primary home, is becoming quite common. Furthermore, we found that besides being associated with some individual characteristics and characteristics of second homes, actual uptake of remote work from a second home still mostly depends on technical feasibility and task content of specific job and industry. Additionally, results from our study suggest that remote work is one of the key factors transforming the usage patterns of second homes, as it appears to be linked to more frequent use even of more distant second homes. These findings confirm a shift in the function of second homes, from spaces primarily used for leisure to hybrid environments that also accommodate paid work. Keywords: second homes, remote work, leisure, multilocality, Croatia Geran-Marko Miletić (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6673-657X), Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences, Croatia. E-Mail: geran-marko.miletic@pilar.hr Marica Marinović Golubić (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5650-3040), Faculty of Croatian Studies, University of Zagreb, Croatia. E-Mail: mmarinovi@fhs. unizg.hr Krešimir Peračković (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2915-7223), Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia. E-Mail: kreso.perackovic@pilar. hr © 2025 by the author. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.164256 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6673-657X mailto:geran-marko.miletic@pilar.hr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5650-3040 mailto:mmarinovi@fhs.unizg.hr mailto:mmarinovi@fhs.unizg.hr https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2915-7223 mailto:kreso.perackovic@pilar.hr mailto:kreso.perackovic@pilar.hr 200 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Introduction In the early 21st century the term second home was still almost exclusively associated with recreation and vacation, that is, for leisure activities outside one’s primary place of residence. During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside a simultaneous increase in transport mobility and a widespread use of advanced information and communication technologies, there has been a noticeable rise in the use of second homes for work purposes. Remote work, as Müller (2021) notes, is increasingly becoming a common form of work arrangement and opens up new opportunities for the use of second homes and may represent a step toward a truly multilocal and mobile society. Although in the past five years there has been a visible increase in the number of scientific papers and studies addressing various aspects of remote work, there are also bibliographies of earlier works indicating that this phenomenon is by no means new (Siha & Monroe 2006; Athanasiadou & Theriou 2021). In his seminal work The Rise of the Network Society, Castells (1996) referred the growing trend of remote work in the United States as the disaggregation of work through the formation of virtual business networks, emphasizing that for a significant number of professional occupations, the workplace was becoming diversified and increasingly mobile “toward the office-on-the-run, in the most literal sense” (Castells 1996, 426). Since then, a significant number of empirical studies have examined the factors and effects of information and communication technology (ICT) on the transformation of work within the post- industrial and post-Fordist paradigm, especially in the field of the sociology of work. A core characteristic of the post-Fordist era is the emergence of flexible forms of employment. These include a wide array of work arrangements: self-employment, part-time employment, temporary and fixed-term employment, contract work, seasonal work, shift work, flexible working hours, home-based work, remote work (teleworking), gig work, and job-sharing (Dex & McCulloch 1997). Some authors also point to the general fragmentation of all daily and annual activities, manifested in the intertwining of work and leisure time, which are no longer strictly separated (Alexander et al. 2010). Therefore, this change in the structure and distribution of time, both for individuals and groups, as well as for society as a whole, is referred to as the fragmentation of the relationship between work and leisure. In this new reality, the boundaries between these two spheres are no longer clearly divided either temporally or spatially. This fragmentation is increasingly observed even during stays in second homes (Bachimon et al. 2020). If we consider what might be the most important consequence of changes in the sphere of work in this new mobile and networked society, it is precisely, as Castells (1996) states, the liberation from space — that is, from place, borders, and locations. As Urry (2007, 163) vividly puts it, this is the shift “from desk to desktop”, a concept that inherently includes remote work. However, Urry (2007) emphasizes that ICT is not the sole key factor in this change. Rather, it occurs within a much broader shift — namely, the transformation of the entire paradigm of the previously more static society into what he calls the mobility paradigm (Urry 2007), which undoubtedly constitutes a stimulating context for the expansion of multilocality. Although remote work in the literature has most commonly implied working from home, some authors, due to the role of mobility, argue that the term work from anywhere may be more appropriate. Portable technologies such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones —provided there is wireless internet access — allow for a liberation from spatial constraints. Therefore, if work tasks can be completed and objectives achieved in a more favourable environment, then a second home, which traditionally served as a space for rest and an escape from the burdens of everyday life, can simultaneously become a space for both work and leisure. This is especially true when a household owns a second home located by the seaside or in a quieter rural setting, where its members are relieved of the usual daily domestic obligations of their primary residence and, at the same time, have reliable internet access. Thus, the concept of second homes acquires a new function: they also become spaces for remote work. It is precisely this phenomenon, working from a second home, that we consider a relevant research problem, particularly given the absence of empirical studies on this topic in Croatia and the limited empirical research conducted in the international context. FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 201Geran-Marko Miletić et al. Accordingly, the main objective of our analysis is to identify the factors that may be associated with the variations in the frequency of remote work via ICT during stays in second homes. Before presenting the results of our empirical research, the following chapter will provide an overview of some recent findings on experiences of working remotely from a second home, as well as on relevant concepts related to remote work in general. Remote work from second homes Considering the second home phenomenon in Croatia and the discussion of its possible transformation, it should be noted that this practice has a relatively long history. The beginnings of the expansion of second homes in Croatia started in the 1960s, when political and economic reforms of the then socialist governance system introduced a wider range of goods and services for citizens (Miletić et al. 2017). These changes also contributed to the emergence of new patterns of leisure and holiday practices, including a growing aspiration to own a second home. Over the following decades, the number of second homes increased steadily, reaching approximately 250,000 units in 2011, or about 11% of the national housing stock. However, the most recent census recorded, for the first time, a decline in the number of second homes in Croatia, with around 230,000 such dwellings registered in 2021 (Miletić et al. 2024). The analysis of spatial distribution of second homes in Croatia reveals their pronounced expansion in three larger zones (Miletić et al. 2017). The first concentration zone encompasses the area surrounding the capital city, which, as the largest urban centre, also serves as the main source of second home users. A second zone with higher densities of second homes is found in eastern Croatia, along the Danube and Drava rivers. The most significant expansion, however, is located along the Adriatic coast, traditionally the most attractive region, which contains nearly two-thirds of all second homes in Croatia. The higher accumulation of second homes in the region characterised by the sea and sun suggests that most were originally used for summer vacation, primarily for recreation and pleasure. Yet, over time, changes have been observed in how these properties are used, where many of second homes became an additional source of household income through their commercialisation (Rogić 2006). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic brought another significant changes in second home user habits and encouraged greater use of these spaces for remote work. As Oliveira (2021) notes, remote work and second homes potentially combine the best of both worlds: working without leaving home, and a home one does not wish to leave. If there was once a clear distinction between the first and second home, that distinction has become increasingly blurred with the concepts of multilocality and remote work. Multilocality refers to a lifestyle in which individuals regularly reside and engage in activities across multiple locations, rather than being tied to a single permanent residence. Positioned along the broad boundary between mobility and migration (Nadler 2009), multilocality is often associated with the ownership or use of a second home (Schier et al. 2015; Bachimon et al. 2020; Raun et al. 2023; Randall et al. 2024). Müller, Back, and Hoogendoorn (2024) emphasize that new spatial and temporal patterns of living are emerging within the context of contemporary life, reshaping the way second homes are used. Similarly, Hannonen, Åkerlund, and Pitkänen (2024) predict a growing number of studies on the intersection of work and leisure within the context of staying in a second home. Adamiak, Pitkänen, and Lehtonen (2017) point in the same direction, writing about changing patterns in the use of second homes and noting that they are no longer exclusively spaces for leisure, but increasingly serve as locations for remote work, particularly among highly educated professionals and retirees. Hiltunen and Rehunen (2014) argue that improved communication networks and interest in conducting remote work from a second home may extend the length of stays in such residences. Alonsopérez, Brida, and Rojas (2022) note that the pandemic altered the behaviour of second home users, as well as the frequency of teleworking, thereby increasing the attractiveness of less populated locations for work. As a result, second homes are no longer solely recreational sites, but have become essential environments for many workers seeking geographical flexibility. The use of second homes has expanded to serving as a form of pandemic retreat and a place for privileged teleworking (Zoğal et al. 2020). In Croatia, this escape to second homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was further 202 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper pushed by the strong earthquakes that struck the capital twice in 2020 (Čivljak et al. 2020). Depending on their level of equipment, some of these second homes served as long-term shelter during times of crisis. Yet, was this merely a passing trend, and has the valuation of second homes returned to its pre- COVID-19 state? Opačić and Koderman (2024) express considerable scepticism: although major changes and a widespread shift to remote work were anticipated at the onset of the pandemic, reality soon reverted to pre-pandemic patterns, particularly after schools and educational institutions resumed in-person instruction. Even so, once initiated, the process of transforming how time is used in second homes cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, there are few empirical studies specifically addressing remote work from second homes. One explanation for this gap may lie in the difficulty of operationalizing mobile workers and mobile work. Remote work is highly diverse, ranging from occasional remote work, for example, one day per week to full-time remote work. Remote workers may include self-employed individuals who have never had an office outside the home, as well as employees of large corporations or government agencies that maintain office buildings with hundreds of workspaces. Remote work may take the form of working from home, working from anywhere (as an example of complete flexibility in the workplace), or hybrid work (combining office-based and off-site work). Thomsin (2002) conceptualizes three types of remote work: full-time or part-time work from home; itinerant telework - work performed while in transit, most commonly on a train; and work in a third space, which could include co-working spaces or cafés (Ravalet & Rérat 2019). Given this typology, it is unclear where remote work from a second home might be classified, since the second home concept appears to merge all three elements, the home, travel, and an in-between location. In this context, the concept of workations (Marinos 2024) may be useful as it refers to the spatial and temporal merging of work and leisure. Marinos (2024) further distinguishes second home residents from digital nomads: digital nomads are geo-independent individuals who substantially integrate work and leisure, while second home residents exhibit a more moderate degree of hybridization between work and leisure, maintaining some degree of separation between the two. However, before making any conclusions about changing patterns in the use of second homes, particularly regarding whether and how they are being used for work, we must first examine who is working remotely. Who works remotely? Remote work can be viewed as a form of privilege that is not equally distributed on a global scale. According to Garrote Sanchez and colleagues (2021), approximately one in five jobs worldwide can be performed remotely. However, in lower-income countries, this ratio is significantly less favourable, amounting to one in every twenty-six jobs. As already mentioned, remote work is a diverse phenomenon, which is why most researchers working in this area group remote workers into certain categories. Ravalet and Rérat (2019) distinguish between intensive remote workers (those who work remotely for more than 30% of their working time), partial remote workers (those who work remotely for less than 30%), and those who never work remotely. A somewhat more elaborate categorization is provided by Messenger and colleagues (2017), who differentiate between employees who regularly work from home using ICT, highly mobile employees who regularly work remotely not only from home but from various locations, and a third category comprising employees who only occasionally work remotely. One of the main distinctions in remote work research is between ICT-mediated jobs and location- bound jobs (e.g., those requiring a workshop or factory setting). Managers, professionals, and so- called ‘white-collar’ workers perform tasks independent of location and time (Felstead & Henseke 2017). Knowledge-based work is characterized by a high degree of autonomy and freedom in choosing methods and places of work (Bürgin et al. 2021). Workers with higher education qualifications, across all regions and countries, are more likely to have the opportunity to work remotely (Thompson 2019; Garrote Sanchez et al. 2021; Randall et al. 2024). Younger workers (under 30 years of age) are significantly less likely to have the option of working from home compared to older age groups (Ravalet & Rérat 2019). Early studies showed that the average remote worker was a highly educated FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 203Geran-Marko Miletić et al. man, although substantial variation was found across studies in terms of occupations performed (Bailey & Kurland 2002). Although the majority of occasional and highly mobile remote workers are still men, the share of women among home-based remote workers has increased (López-Igual & Rodríguez-Modroño 2020). According to Ollo-López, Goñi-Legaz, and Erro-Garcés (2020), employees with family obligations, those who live further from their workplace than their colleagues, and those with the highest levels of education are more likely to work remotely from home. Nonetheless, the relationship between education, income, and remote work is not so straightforward since, in Europe, remote work is increasingly extending into more precarious, temporary, and lower-paid forms of employment (López- Igual & Rodríguez-Modroño 2020). Based on recent data from the Living and Working Conditions in the Europe survey (Eurofound 2025), among those in ‘teleworkable’ jobs, that is, jobs that can be performed remotely, the share of those who work from home either partially or entirely ranges from 25% to 83%. The country with the lowest share of remote workers is Cyprus, followed by Greece and Croatia, where 42% of men and 32% of women engage in partial (occasional) or full-time home-based remote work. In 2019, the share of employed persons usually working from home was below 2%, indicating that remote work in Croatia was relatively uncommon even before the COVID-19 pandemic (Eurostat 2020). Only the normalisation of this form of work during the pandemic led to a significant increase in its adoption. A recent survey on flexible work trends in Croatia conducted by the largest national job advertising portal shows that interest in this form of work is significantly higher than its actual implementation (MojPosao 2025). Specifically, 88% of women and 69% of men stated that they would like to work remotely every day or at least occasionally in the coming period. The Croatian government has recently made additional efforts to reduce this gap between preferences and reality by relaxing the legal framework governing remote work. The Regulation on Remote Work and Teleworking in the Civil Service (Narodne novine 2025) establishes clear rules for state employees, covering rights, obligations, equipment provision, and reporting requirements. This demonstrates that remote work is officially encouraged; however, it comes with formal constraints such as mandatory approvals, record-keeping, and IT security compliance, which can make implementation somewhat bureaucratic and shows organisational mistrust. The situation in the private sector was the main topic in study by Čavar, Bulian, and Dubreta (2023) on Croatian engineers’ experiences of working from home. One of the key findings of their study is that employees in the private sector are indeed willing to work longer hours in exchange for the flexibility offered by working from home. Contrary to common sense and the initial idea of teleworking as a means of reducing traffic congestion and pollution, remote work has not reduced travel. Commuting has been replaced by other forms of travel since remote workers travel less frequently, but over longer distances (Randall et al. 2024). Remote work maintains a paradoxical relationship with space: it is not bound to location, yet it redefines the hierarchy of existing spatial relations. If one can work from anywhere, it becomes more desirable to live and work in places that are more comfortable or more affordable. In this light, all those rural, peripheral, marginal, remote, and sparsely populated areas, provided they are digitally connected, acquire new potential. Peripherality and marginality are no longer viewed as negative or limiting, but rather as liberating. These characteristics of space are increasingly understood as an opportunity for ensuring undisturbed work (Bürgin et al. 2021) and as a means of escaping the constraints of urban life. Working remotely in the second home in Croatia Data and method: how the survey on remote work via ICT from second homes was conducted This study had two aims. First, we wanted to gain a basic insight into the extent of the presence of practice of working remotely via ICT from second homes in Croatia. Second, we sought to identify some of the factors contributing to the more frequent occurrence of this practice in second homes. 204 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Concerning the latter, we begin our analysis by testing the hypothesis that features of second home as well as a type of job occupancy have been significantly related with the occurrence of remote work via ICT from a second home. To test the hypothesis, in addition to descriptive and bivariate analyses, we conducted a binary logistic regression analysis. We analysed data collected through a survey conducted among adult users of second homes in Croatia. The survey was carried out by Ipsos, a market and public opinion research agency, during May and June 2024 using an online method (CAWI) on a national sample of members from their online panel. The sampling procedure involved stratification according to region, settlement size, gender, and age of respondents. The sampling frame was based on internal data from Ipsos about the structure of second-home users, collected in a previous omnibus survey on a nationally representative sample of Croatian citizens. Despite stratifying the sample and applying post-stratification weights, reliance on an online panel does not ensure full representativeness, as second home users who use the internet infrequently or not at all were excluded from the sample. A total of 1,068 responses were collected, but for the purposes of this study, the analysis was limited to employed respondents, of whom there were 709 in the sample. The dependent variable measures the frequency of remote work via ICT from a second home on a five-point scale (1 – never, 2 – rarely, 3 – occasionally, 4 – frequently, and 5 – always). For the purposes of regression analysis, this variable was dichotomized to distinguish between two groups of respondents: those who never or rarely worked remotely from a second home in the past year, and those who did so occasionally, frequently, or always. In addition to the dependent variable and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics used as control variables, six independent variables were included in the analysis, grouped into two main categories: characteristics of second homes and type of occupation. The control variables included gender, age, marital status, minor children in the household, and a self-assessment of the household’s living standard. The predictor block related to characteristics of second homes comprised variables referring to the travel distance from the primary residence, frequency of use, its spaciousness and housing quality, and the availability of adequate internet connection speed. Among these variables, only housing quality was expressed as a composite index calculated as the average of ratings for the construction condition of the property and the availability of water, electricity, heating, and cooling. The final variable included in the analysis pertained to the type of job the respondent performs. For this variable, we relied on Castells' (2000) adaptation of Singelmann’s typology, which distinguishes six basic occupational categories (extractive, transformative, distributive services, producer services, social services and personal services). Preliminary analysis revealed substantial differences in both the representation of these occupational categories within our sample and the incidence of remote work via ICT from second homes across them. Therefore, in the subsequent stages of analysis, we regrouped the initial six categories into four broader occupational categories: producer services (mostly managers, information technology (IT) professionals, lawyers, accountants, and people working in the creative industries), distributive services (mostly sales representatives, retail workers, and those employed in transport), social services (mostly professionals in medicine and education, along with other public-sector employees), and other (mostly workers who maintain electronic equipment, craftsmen providing construction-related services, and family farm workers). The results of empirical research: prevalence and factors associated with remote work via ICT from second homes We began our analysis by examining how often people actually perform part or all of their paid work while staying in a second home, regardless of the specific form this work takes. The results reveal that 57% of employed respondents reported having experience with some form of paid work in a second home. Of these, 39% bring their work to the second home occasionally, frequently, or always. These figures indicate that working in a second home is not a typical or routine form of usage even among employed individuals. However, on the other hand, a majority of employed respondents do report FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 205Geran-Marko Miletić et al. such experience, and a significant portion of them perform some form of paid work more frequently while staying in their second home. The focus of this study is a specific form of work, which requires a certain narrowing of the research scope. As previously stated, we are interested in the prevalence of remote work via ICT from a second home. The results presented in Figure 1 show that 52% of employed respondents had experienced this type of work during the past year. Specifically, 18% of employed respondents worked rarely from their second home, 23% worked sometimes, 10% worked often, and only 1% reported working this way always while staying in their second home. To gain additional context for understanding the prevalence of remote work via ICT from a second home, we also asked respondents about their general experience with remote work via ICT anywhere outside of the workplace. The responses to this question reveal that, within our sample of employed respondents, 65% had at some point in their lives worked remotely via ICT, regardless of the location from which the work was performed. The somewhat higher number of respondents who have general experience with remote ICT-based work compared to those who engage in it from a second home suggests that for many in this group, the second home may still be a less attractive option than the primary residence for remote work. A total of 46% of respondents stated that they work remotely via ICT sometimes, often, or always, while the overall share of respondents who worked this frequently from their second home in the past year was 34%. Fig. 1.  Frequency of Remote Work via ICT (weighted) In the next step, we sought to identify the factors associated with a greater or lesser tendency to engage in remote work via ICT during stays in a second home. The distribution presented in Figure 2 reveals the existence of certain differences in relation to selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. Slightly greater differences were observed with respect to gender, age, and household standard of living. For example, 38% of men and 27% of women were more likely to have worked remotely via ICT from a second home. In terms of age, the proportion of respondents aged 65 and over who engaged more frequently in this type of work from a second home was 50%, while in other age categories this share ranged between 31% and 33%. As for the household standard of living, among better-off respondents, 45% reported working remotely via ICT from a second home 206 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper more frequently while among those who described their household standard as average or below average, the share was 26%. With regard to marital status and the presence of minor children in the household, only minimal differences were observed in the frequency of remote work via ICT from a second home. Fig. 2.  Remote Work via ICT from a Second Home by the Selected Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics (weighted) An analysis based on the characteristics of second home use shows that spatial distance and frequency of use are associated with certain differences in the frequency of remote work via ICT from a second home. Specifically, 35% of respondents whose second home is located more than one hour away from their primary residence reported working remotely via ICT from that location sometimes, often, or always while among those whose second home is located within one hour of travel time from their primary residence, this proportion was 30%. The difference is even more pronounced with regard to the frequency of use. Among respondents who use their second home more frequently than once a month, 38% reported working remotely via ICT sometimes, often, or always while among those who use their second home once a month or less, this proportion was 30%. Some interesting differences were identified regarding the features of the second home. Among respondents whose second home was not very or only slightly spacious, 28% reported working remotely via ICT sometimes, often, or always. In contrast, among those whose second home was rated as quite or to large extent spacious, 35% reported the same frequency of remote work. The quality of the living space proved to be also related with some differences in frequency of remote work from second home. Among respondents who assessed the quality of their second home as low or moderate, 19% reported working remotely via ICT from that location sometimes, often, or always. FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 207Geran-Marko Miletić et al. However, among those who rated the quality of their second home highly, the proportion was 42%. A large difference was also observed regarding internet connection speed. In second homes deprived of an adequate internet connection speed, 22% of respondents reported working remotely via ICT sometimes, often, or always while in second homes where an adequate internet speed was available, this share was 42%. Fig. 3.  Remote Work via ICT from a Second Home by Selected Characteristics of Second Home and its Use (weighted) We were also interested in how the prevalence of remote work via ICT from a second home varies depending on occupation type. The results for four selected occupational categories, presented in the next figure, show that remote work via ICT occurred most frequently among respondents whose occupations fall under the category of producer services. In this group, as many as 47% of respondents reported working from their second home sometimes, often, or always. Among respondents working in distributive occupations, 33% engaged in remote work via ICT from a second home with that same frequency, while for those employed in social service occupations, the share was 25%. In the category of other occupations, which includes extractive and transformative jobs as well as personal services, the proportion of respondents who worked more or less regularly via ICT from a second home was only 18%. 208 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Fig. 4.  Remote Work via ICT from a Second Home by Occupation Type (weighted) In the next step, a binary logistic regression was conducted to analyse the extent to which selected indicators individually affect the likelihood of more frequent engagement in remote work via ICT from a second home (see Table 1). The odds of a respondent working in this way from a second home were analysed using a single block that included all variables used in the previous bivariate analysis. Unlike the bivariate analysis, the regression analysis was conducted on unweighted data. Summary indicators of model adequacy revealed that the constructed regression model enables statistically significant prediction of remote work via ICT from a second home (model χ² (13) = 119.941; p < 0.001), with the model explaining 22% of the variance in the occurrence of this type of work in a second home and correctly classifying 73% of respondents. Specifically, the analysis showed that among demographic and socioeconomic indicators, only the gender and the variable referring to the perceived household standard of living had a statistically significant effect. With all other variables in the model controlled, females were 37% less likely to remote work via ICT from second home, while respondents from more affluent households had a 66% higher likelihood of working remotely via ICT from a second home. Among the characteristics of second homes, all variables used in the regression model except the perceived spaciousness of the second home proved to be statistically significant. The probability of working remotely via ICT from a second home was 75% higher among respondents who travelled more than one hour to reach their second home, 87% higher among those who visited their second home twice a month or more frequently, 79% higher among those whose second home offered high housing quality, and 119% higher among those who reported that the required internet connection speed was quiet or to large extent available. Regarding occupation, the type of job also had a significant effect on the frequency of remote work via ICT from a second home. The probability of such work was highest among individuals whose occupations fall under the category of producer services. Compared to them, the probability of working remotely via ICT from a second home was 52% less likely for those in distributive occupations, 67% for those in social service occupations, and 75% for respondents whose occupations fall into the category of other (extractive and transformative jobs or personal services). FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 209Geran-Marko Miletić et al. TABLE 1 Results of Binary Logistic Regression Predicting Remote Work via ICT from a Second Home (unweighted) Model summary: –2 Log-Likelihood = 775.475 Model χ² = 119.941 (df = 13), p < 0.001 Nagelkerke R² = 0.219 S.E. Wald Exp(B) Sig. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics gender (ref. male) 0.187 5.953 0.633 0.015 age 0.104 1.166 1.119 0.280 married or cohabiting (ref. no) 0.230 1.221 1.289 0.269 minor children in household (ref. no) 0.189 0.160 1.078 0.689 above-average household standard (ref. no) 0.179 7.956 1.657 0.005 Characteristics of Second Homes distance from primary home (ref. up to 1 hour) 0.204 7.474 1.745 0.006 frequency of use (ref. once a month or less) 0.200 9.708 1.865 0.002 adequate spaciousness (ref. not at all or slightly) 0.220 0.806 0.821 0.369 housing quality index (ref. low or moderate) 0.211 7.510 1.785 0.006 availability of adequate internet connection speed (ref. not at all or moderately) 0.199 15.455 2.186 0.000 Occupation Type (ref. producer services) distributive services 0.286 6.636 0.479 0.010 social services 0.228 23.255 0.333 0.000 other (extractive, transformative and personal services) 0.280 24.490 0.250 0.000 Tab. 1. Results of Binary Logistic Regression Predicting Remote Work via ICT from a Second Home (unweighted) Discussion: work from home or work from second home? The analysis of the survey data showed several interesting findings. Regarding the presence of remote work via ICT from a second home, our research reveals that about half of employed respondents had, during the past year, experienced working in this way from their second home. For approximately one-third of them, this was a more or less regular activity while staying in their second home. These proportions suggest that this is a fairly widespread practice, although it is certainly not a standard activity for the majority of employed second home users. The finding that a somewhat larger share of respondents reported general experience with remote work via ICT, compared to those who said they perform such work specifically from their second home, supports the notion that second home remains a somewhat less desirable location than primary home, which is traditionally the most common place for remote work (Caros et al. 2023). The fact that many second home users remain resistant to the idea of work from their second homes is further indicated by the finding that only four 210 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper out of ten employed respondents (39%) reported occasionally or regularly performing part or all of their paid work while staying in their second home. This result is comparable to the one obtained from a case study conducted in Okrug, an island settlement with one of the highest concentrations of second homes in Croatia, in which 30% of respondents reported having experience with paid work in a second home (Miletić & Peračković 2020). In the second step of our analysis, the objective was to determine the factors associated with the increased presence of remote work via ICT from a second home. The bivariate analysis showed that the occurrence of this type of work from second homes varies considerably with certain demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents, as well as with features of second homes and the type of occupation. A more precise picture of these relationships was provided by the binary logistic regression results. Analysing the individual effect of selected predictors, we found that, when controlling for all other variables in the model, the only significant demographic or socioeconomic predictors were gender and the perceived household standard with males and respondents from more affluent households being more likely to engage in remote work via ICT from a second home. These appear to be in line with those studies that have reported that women are less likely than men to work remotely (López-Igual & Rodríguez-Modroño 2020), and those that found that households with remote workers have higher incomes (Stanton & Tiwari 2021). This consistency suggests that structural inequalities play an important role in providing opportunities for remote work from both the second and the primary home. Furthermore, with regard to second home characteristics, nearly all observed elements proved relevant. Respondents whose second home was located at a greater distance from their primary residence and those who used their second home more frequently were more likely to work remotely from there via ICT. This is a particularly interesting finding because it contrasts with the typical pattern in which second homes closer to the primary residence are used more often (Hall et al. 2004). These results support the notion that remote work is one of the key factors transforming the usage patterns of second homes, as it appears to be linked to more frequent use even of more distant second homes. Additionally, our findings indicate that the quality of the residential space has a significant impact on the likelihood of remote work from second home. This implies that residential comfort plays an important role, while the size of the space was not found to be a relevant factor for this type of work. As Doling and Arundel (2022, 10) state: “Home working needs influence the choice of and changes to housing form, but conversely, limitations of housing form can clearly constrain home working possibilities”. This inevitably brings the discussion into the domain of housing studies, while also intersecting with the economic sphere. Stanton and Tiwari (2021) draw interesting conclusions that households with remote workers tend to allocate a greater share of their income toward housing expenses. It is also worth noting that, as expected, the quality of internet connection had a statistically significant effect: respondents who had access to the required internet speed were more likely to work remotely via ICT from their second home. Finally, the results of the regression analysis confirmed the relevance of the relationship between occupation type and the likelihood of remote work from a second home. Although remote work via ICT was present, to varying degrees, across all observed occupational categories, it was most prevalent among those employed in the producer services category. Knowing that occupations placed in producer services category are the ones with highest potential for teleworking (Urien 2023), above mentioned finding confirms that actual uptake of remote work from a second home still mostly depends on technical feasibility and task content of specific job and industry. Conclusion In summary, we can assert that second homes, until recently predominantly exclusive spaces of occasional rest and leisure, have gradually began to accommodate the practice of performing remote work. The results of the analysis presented in this paper indicate that this practice is, however, largely limited to occupations that Castells (2000) have characterized as producer services occupations that rely primarily on ICT tools and where tasks can be fulfilled independently of physical presence, as long FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 211Geran-Marko Miletić et al. as deadlines are met. This finding contributes to attempt to better understand the ongoing transformation of the rigid concept of the workplace. Furthermore, the empirical findings of this study support the theoretical concept of multilocality, and show how remote work and second home use intersect in potentially transformative ways. Scholars such as Perkins and Thorns (2006) have questioned the traditional dichotomy between the primary and second home, emphasizing how distinctions between work, leisure, and everyday life are increasingly blurred due to structural changes in late modern society. However, remote work should not lead us to mistakenly conclude that work is independent of place. We have not (yet) dematerialized the working process and still require a physical location, whether it be a home, a second home, a beach, a café, or somewhere else. The spaces of work have not disappeared; they have multiplied and overflowed from the office into various other environments. These changes are accompanied by both infrastructural and symbolic adaptations. The boundaries between living and working, between family life and professional obligations, are becoming increasingly intertwined so much so that new defensive strategies have emerged, such as the right to disconnect (Eurofound 2024). One limitation of this study is that it offers only initial and localised (Croatia only) insights into this phenomenon. However, the study’s strength lies in its in-depth exploration. It can also serve as a potential methodological framework for capturing the highly fluid group of second home workers. To the best of our knowledge, it represents one of the few empirical evidences regarding who and to what extent works from a second home. Although this topic has been widely discussed theoretically and many hinted at the possibilities of such a practice, there remains a scarcity of empirical findings. In closing, we may say that while the pandemic confined people to their homes, it simultaneously opened the door for a new and different valuation of second homes, a shift largely made possible by perpetual advancement of technology. Not only did people begin to reflect more on their housing situations (Zoğal et al. 2020), but they also started reconsidering their work environments. It remains to be seen, in future studies, whether this practice will become a normalized and regular activity during stays in second homes, what are the advantages and disadvantages of remote work from second homes compared to other typical spaces used for this practice, how it will affect the frequency of such stays, and whether it will become a significant driver of multilocality. Finally, it is worth exploring whether this will lead to long-term changes in engagement with the second home location, increase interaction and even integration with local communities, thereby adding a developmental dimension to the phenomenon of second home ownership. Acknowledgments This work has been fully supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project number IP-2022-10-8104. References Adamiak, C., Pitkänen, K. & Lehtonen, O. (2017) Seasonal residence and counterurbanization: the role of second homes in population redistribution in Finland. GeoJournal 82(5) 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9727-x Alexander, B., Ettema, D. & Dijst, M. (2010) Fragmentation of work activity as a multi-dimensional construct and its association with ICT, employment and sociodemographic characteristics. Journal of Transport Geography 18(1) 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.010 Alonsopérez, M. J., Brida, J. G. & Rojas, M. L. (2022) Second homes: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing 8(1) 16–26. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6581499 Athanasiadou, C. & Theriou, G. (2021) Telework: systematic literature review and future research agenda. Heliyon 7(10) e08269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08269 Bachimon, P., Eveno, P. & Espinel, C. G. (2020) Primary and secondary place of residence, the digital link and the rise of presence. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 12(4) 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2020-0033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9727-x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.010 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6581499 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08269 https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2020-0033 212 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Bailey, D. E. & Kurland, N. B. (2002) A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4) 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144 Bürgin, R., Mayer, H., Kashev, A. & Haug, S. (2021) Digital multilocality: new modes of working between center and periphery in Switzerland. Journal of Rural Studies 88 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.024 Caros, N. S., Guo, X., Zheng, Y. & Zhao, J. (2023). The impacts of remote work on travel: insights from nearly three years of monthly surveys. arXiv: 2303.06186. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06186 Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Castells, M. (2000) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture – Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Čavar, I., Bulian, L. & Dubreta, N. (2023) Exploring work from home: scale construction and its use in determining Croatian engineers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences 47(1) 83–107. https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.47.1.5 Čivljak, R., Markotić, A. & Capak, K. (2020) Earthquake in the time of COVID-19: the story from Croatia (CroVID-20). Journal of Global Health 10 010349. https://jogh.org/2020/jogh-10-010349 Dex, S. & McCulloch, A. (1997) Flexible Employment: The Future of Britain’s Jobs. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Doling, J. & Arundel, R. (2022) The home as workplace: a challenge for housing research. Housing. Theory and Society 39(1) 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1846611 Eurofound (2024) Is it a right to disconnect? [Audio recording]. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/ commentary-and-analysis/all-content/episode-20-it-right-disconnect. 01.09.2025. Eurofound (2025) Living and working in Europe 2024. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Eurostat (2020) How usual is it to work from home? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products- eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200424-1#:~:text=There%20are%20different%20trends%20 reflected,they%20usually%20worked%20from%20home.&text=The%20Netherlands%20and%20 Finland%20topped,Your%20rating%20has%20been%20submitted. 08.12.2025. Felstead, A. & Henseke, G. (2017) Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment 32(3) 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097 Garrote Sanchez, D., Gomez Parra, N., Ozden, C., Rijkers, B., Viollaz, M. & Winkler, H. (2021) Who on Earth can work from home? The World Bank Research Observer 36(1) 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab002 Hannonen, O., Åkerlund, U. & Pitkänen, K. (2024) Recent developments in second home research: has the COVID-19 pandemic spurred a re-thinking of second home mobilities? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 24(2) 173–198. Hall, C. M., Müller, D. K. & Keen D. (2004) Second home tourism impact, planning and management. In Hall, C. M. & Müller, D. K. (eds.) Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes, 15–32. Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27195510.6 Hiltunen, M. J. & Rehunen, A. (2014) Second home mobility in Finland: patterns, practices and relations of leisure oriented mobile lifestyle. Fennia 192(1) 1–22. https://doi.org/10.11143/8384 López-Igual, P. & Rodríguez-Modroño, P. (2020) Who is teleworking and where from? Exploring the main determinants of telework in Europe. Sustainability 12(21) 8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218797 Marinos, C. (2024) Workationners: toward a proposed typology. HAL working paper. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04834145. 01.09.2025. Messenger, J., Vargas, O. L., Gschwind, L., Boehmer, S., Vermeylen, G. & Wilkens, M. (2017) Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:75393. 01.09.2025. Miletić, G.-M. & K. Peračković (2020) Povremeno živjeti drugdje [Occasionally living elsewhere]. Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb. Miletić, G.-M., Peračković, K. & Marinović Golubić, M. (2017) Socio-spatial patterns of the contemporary second home phenomenon in Croatia. Društvena istraživanja 26(1) 79–100. https://doi.org/10.5559/ di.26.1.05 Miletić, G.-M., Žanić, M. & Peračković, K. (2024). Što se krije iza smanjenja broja stanova za odmor u Hrvatskoj? Analiza promjena u strukturi stambenog fonda 2011.–2021. [What is behind the decline in the number of vacation homes in Croatia? An analysis of changes in the structure of housing stock 2011–2021]. Sociologija i prostor 62(3) 425–447. https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.62.3.2 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.024 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06186 https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.47.1.5 https://jogh.org/2020/jogh-10-010349 https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1846611 https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/commentary-and-analysis/all-content/episode-20-it-right-disconnect https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/commentary-and-analysis/all-content/episode-20-it-right-disconnect https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200424-1# https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200424-1# https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097 https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab002 https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27195510.6 https://doi.org/10.11143/8384 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218797 https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv https://doi.org/10.5559/di.26.1.05 https://doi.org/10.5559/di.26.1.05 https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.62.3.2 FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 213Geran-Marko Miletić et al. MojPosao (2025) Fleksibilni radni aranžmani: radnice u Hrvatskoj češće rade od kuće od muškaraca. MojPosao.hr 08.10.2025 https://mojposao.hr/savjet/691a2883-a357-11f0-aaf8-029087d631b1/ fleksibilni-radni-aranzmani-radnice-u-hrvatskoj-cesce-rade-od-kuce-od-muskaraca. 08.12.2025. Müller, D. K. (2021) 20 years of Nordic second-home tourism research: a review and future research agenda. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 21(1) 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2020.1823244 Müller, D. K., Back, A. & Hoogendoorn, G. (2024) Second homes: post-pandemic perspectives on second homes and multilocal living. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 24(2) 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2024.2437163 Nadler, R. (2009) Multilocality: an emerging concept between the terms of mobility and migration. Working paper. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1289.9927 Narodne novine (2025) Uredba o radu na izdvojenom mjestu rada i radu na daljinu u državnoj službi [Regulation on Remote Work and Teleworking in the Civil Service]. Narodne novine 21. Oliveira, J. (2021) Notes about second homes and teleworking: comparing Portugal and Norway. Finisterra: Revista Portuguesa de Geografia 55(117) 139–144. https://doi.org/10.18055/Finis20071 Ollo-López, A., Goñi-Legaz, S. & Erro-Garcés, A. (2020) Home-based telework: usefulness and facilitators. International Journal of Manpower 42(4) 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-02-2020-0062 Opačić, V. T. & Koderman, M. (2024) Second homes, COVID-19 pandemic and the (not so) "new reality": changes in the patterns of second home use on the Island of Krk, Croatia. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal 72(2) 233–251. https://doi.org/10.37741/t.72.2.8 Perkins, H. C. & Thorns, D. C. (2006) Home away from home: the primary/second-home relationship. In McIntyre, N., Williams, D. R. & McHugh, K. E. (eds.) Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity, 67–81. CABI Publishing. Randall, L., Ormstrup Vestergård, L., Rohrer, L., Huynh, D., Lidmo, J., Stjernberg, M., Weber, R., Sigurjonsdottir, H. R., Guðmundsdóttir, H. & Kivi, L. (2024) Remote work: effects on Nordic people, places and planning 2021–2024. Nordregio, Stockholm. https://pub.nordregio.org/r-2022-3-remote-work-effects-on-nordics. 01.09.2025. Raun, J., Järv, O., Okkonen, P., Rantanen, M., Hyyryläinen, T., Ryynänen, T. & Toivonen, T. (2023) New avenues for second home tourism research using big data: prospects and challenges. Current Issues in Tourism 26(6) 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2138282 Ravalet, E. & Rérat, P. (2019) Teleworking: decreasing mobility or increasing tolerance of commuting distances? Built Environment 45(4) 582–602. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.45.4.582 Rogić, I. (2006). Odnos spram kuće za odmor u Hrvatskoj u strategiji urbanizacije 1945. – 2005. [Attitude towards second homes in Croatia in the 1945–2005 urbanisation strategies]. Društvena istraživanja 15(1-2) 3–26. https://hrcak.srce.hr/18107 Schier, M., Hilti, N., Schad, H., Tippel, C., Dittrich-Wesbuer, A. & Monz, A. (2015) Residential multi- locality studies – the added value for research on families and second homes. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 106(4) 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12155 Siha, S. M. & Monroe, R. W. (2006) Telecommuting's past and future: a literature review and research agenda. Business Process Management Journal 12(4) 455–482. Stanton, C. T. & Tiwari, P. (2021) Housing consumption and the cost of remote work. Nber working paper no. 28483. Thomsin, L. (2002) Télétravail et Mobilités. Les Editions de l'Université, Liège. Thompson, B. Y. (2019) The digital nomad lifestyle: (remote) work/leisure balance, privilege, and constructed community. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure 2(1) 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-00030-y Urien, B. (2023) Teleworkability, preferences for telework, and well-being: a systematic review. Sustainability 15(13) 10631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310631 Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Polity Press, Cambridge. Zoğal, V., Domènech, A. & Emekli, G. (2020) Stay at (which) home: second homes during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Tourism Futures 8(1) 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-06-2020-0090 http://MojPosao.hr https://mojposao.hr/savjet/691a2883-a357-11f0-aaf8-029087d631b1/fleksibilni-radni-aranzmani-radnice-u-hrvatskoj-cesce-rade-od-kuce-od-muskaraca https://mojposao.hr/savjet/691a2883-a357-11f0-aaf8-029087d631b1/fleksibilni-radni-aranzmani-radnice-u-hrvatskoj-cesce-rade-od-kuce-od-muskaraca https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2020.1823244 https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2024.2437163 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1289.9927 https://doi.org/10.18055/Finis20071 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-02-2020-0062 https://doi.org/10.37741/t.72.2.8 https://pub.nordregio.org/r-2022-3-remote-work-effects-on-nordics https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2138282 https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.45.4.582 https://hrcak.srce.hr/18107 https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12155 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-00030-y https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310631 https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-06-2020-0090