Community Questionnaire Surveys: Estoniafiles.voog.com/0000/0012/9655/files/COMCOT Analysis of... · Web viewCommunity Questionnaire Surveys: Estonia (Lake Võrtsjärv, Maidla and

COMCOT (An innovative tool for improving the competitiveness of

community based tourism)

Community Questionnaire Surveys: Estonia

(Lake Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa)

Consultancy Report for COMCOT (An innovative tool for improving the competitiveness of community based tourism)

Dr. Kathy Velander*

December 2012

*Centre for Ecotourism and Wildlife Management Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh, Scotland

1



Summary

Community surveys were undertaken in the six COMCOT areas, Lohja, Virolahti and Pyhtää in Finland and Lake Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa in Estonia. The detailed results from the three communities from Estonia are presented in the report that follows, but are summarised below.

Summary:

1) Overall the members of the communities are pro-tourism with 200 of the 234 individuals surveyed saying tourism should increase. Only one person 234 stated that tourism should decrease, with the other 33 suggesting it should stay the same.

2) When asked about the positive and negative impacts tourism would have on the area, 179 positive aspects were highlighted compared to 6 negative comments.

3) Participants were asked about the potential impacts of tourism on life in their community and life in the area in two sets of Stapel questions ( 28 questions in total). The average scores for impact on personal life, range between -1.24 to 2.36, with the eight significant differences occurring between the sexes, along with two differences between age groups and two related to length of residency. The results from Maidla produced five significant differences between the attitudes of men and women, but it must be remembered that Maidla had a strongly skewed male / female ratio (17 males/ 51 females) which might impact on these results. In all cases for Maidla (‘Enjoying my garden’, ‘My water supply’, ‘Enjoying peace and quiet’, ‘Enjoying the landscape’ and a ‘Feeling of space’), women were more positive about the aspects than men. Setomaa produced three significant differences between men and women, with the men being more positive about the factors than the women (‘My food supply, ‘Spending time with non-residents’, ‘My cultural identity’). Two significant differences were found between age classes. The first in Maidla was ‘Spending time with non-residents’, where younger people showed a more positive attitude. Setomaa showed a nearly significant difference (p = 0.055) with the younger people responding more positively about the impact on ‘My household income’. The final two significant differences occurred in the Lake Võrtsjärv results with the length of residency showing a difference in the ‘Enjoying the landscape’ and in those from Maidla for ‘Spending time with non-residents. The most negative response to this was from the people who had moved into the area more than 10 years ago, while in contrast the people who had always lived there were most positive about the potential impact of tourism on this aspect.

4) When asked about the impacts on the community as a whole, the results were even more widely spread with averages ranging from -3.15 to 4.00. Most of the significant differences were again shown between men and women in Maidla (‘Economy of the area’, ‘Creating jobs for younger generations’, ‘Heritage sites and buildings open’ and ‘Beauty of landscape’). Again this may be an artefact of the sex bias and women were in all cases more positive about the potential impact of tourism on their life style than men. Setomaa showed a significant difference between age groups with regards to ‘Economy of the area’ with the over 66s being most positive and the 18 – 25 year olds being least positive about the impact tourism would have on the economy of the area. Note even if the eldest group is ignored because of the small sample size of ‘2’, the next most positive

2



group was the 36 – 55 year olds who were well represented with 27 individuals being in this group.

5) When the three communities were compared, fourteen significant differences were found: seven in impacts on Personal Life and seven in impacts on Life in the Area. The Setomaa community were either highest or lowest in eight of these aspects, with the people from Maidla returning the highest or lowest score in five and Võrtsjärv in one. It would seem that the Setomaa people are most concerned about the factors related to tourism that have the most potential to have a negative impact on their life or the life in the area (e.g. ‘Feeling safe’, ‘Enjoying peace and quiet’, ‘Impacts on the countryside’, ‘Peace and quiet’, ‘Wild plants and animals’ and ‘Air quality’). However, they were also more positive about the potential benefits on ‘My household income’ and interestingly on how it would impact on ‘Preservation of local culture’. It should be noted that one respondent noted that one of his/her concerns was that Setomaa would become a living history museum, but obviously the community does see the potential benefits of tourism to retaining their unique culture. Maidla had high scores on ‘My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents’, ‘Spending time with non-residents’, ‘My cultural identity’ and ‘Economy of the area’ and the lowest score (e.g. showing most concern) in ‘Driving

around the area’. This suggests the community is keen to welcome tourism, although within the limitations of their concerns. All communities expressed some concern about tourists behaving badly. Võrtsjärv provided the most positive score on the impacts of tourism on the ‘Beauty of the landscape’. This might reflect the various comments about the state of some of the buildings and houses in the communities as well as reeds on the lake which prevent access, with the underlying suggestion that more tourism would encourage a higher standard of care of the area in general .

6) Finally the Action Plans were examined and compared to the factors people would like to see changed in their communities relating to activities, jobs, services and opportunities. The proposed actions covered a number of issues raised by the people either partially or entirely. Many that they did not address were social issues (e.g. crime, increase in number of elderly residents, alcohol related issues). Some of the partially address issues, e.g. more services and better access to public transport, could result from tourism development, at least during the main tourist season.

7) In conclusion the results of this study show that the communities are in general pro-tourism and that there are potential providers among all age groups. Similarly the action plans if carried out have the potential to meet many of the desires of the local communities. By presenting the concerns of the locals, it should be possible to establish mitigation measures from the very onset of tourism development, to reduce the impact increased tourism could have. For example, if a local community wishes to keep tourists out of a specific area, then they can do various things to divert tourists to other areas, but these should be planned from the outset.

The potential tourism experiences that are on offer in these three areas are linked by their association with water, but each also has its unique selling point, and both factors should be emphasised when tourism strategy and experiences are finalised.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank all the people who carried out the survey, translated the results into English and entered them into the Excel file. Without their hard work, the study would not have been possible.

3



Introduction

Community based tourism (“where the local community has substantial control over, and involvement in, its development and management, and a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community” (WWF International, 2001), forms the basis of the COMCOT project. But in order to be truly community based, it is necessary to understand how community members feel about their local area including the aspects they like as well as dislike, things they would like to keep as well as those they would like to change. Similarly it is necessary to understand how they feel about the current state of tourism in their area, whether they would like to see numbers increase or decrease and why. Although entrepreneurs are the initiators of tourism products and experiences, they are often focussed on their own projects and may not see the wider opportunities a community and area can offer. Hence community input has a role to play in refining their ideas as well as suggesting additional possibilities based on their familiarity with the local environment. However, communities also have their own issues with incomers and tourists and these must be understood and mitigated where possible when offering new tourist experiences and products. This is particularly important where local traditions, religion or customs are involved; the commodification of local culture is a dangerous path to take. Not only does it produce a fake experience for the discerning tourist, but it can also annoy local people resulting in consequences that are then reflected in their attitude and treatment towards tourists. Tourism offers jobs, income, improved infrastructure and in general wider opportunities for the local people, but it can also cause environmental damage as well as causing rifts within local communities. Good planning and an interested community can reduce some of these issues.

Community questionnaire surveys were undertaken as part of the COMCOT process to investigate various aspects of the community and their relationship with tourism. The results of the questionnaires are presented below for communities in Estonia: Lake Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa.

Methods

Data was collected in the three areas of Estonia via a ‘self completion’ questionnaire (see Appendix 1 for questionnaire and participants information sheet). Questionnaires were available in Estonian and administered on site by employees of the COMCOT partnership. While some of the surveys were carried out during meetings specifically addressing the COMCOT project, others were in general locations, e.g. shops and community buildings, to ensure a broad participation by the local community. Individuals over the age of 18 were approached on a next to pass basis (Veal, 1997), details of the survey were provided and a questionnaire was handed out to those wishing to take part. In compliance with Edinburgh Napier University’s Ethics requirements, all participants were asked to sign a form agreeing that their data could be used in the survey and also told they could withdraw from the study at any time. Anonymity was guaranteed for all individuals participating in the survey. The questionnaires were stored in a safe area and the data on password protected computers.

The questionnaire was both qualitative and quantitative, consisting of 52 questions in a combination of open, forced choice (e.g. yes/no or tick an option) and Stapel scale questions (11 point) as well as

4



providing an opportunity for participants to make further comments. The results of the study were transcribed onto Excel spreadsheets and analysed using SPSS providing both descriptive and quantitative statistics (Mann-Whitney U and the Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed).

Results Demographic information for the three communities is presented in the following figures, tables with numbers are given in the Appendix 3. In all tables the (n = ) represents the number of people in that sample. In some cases the actual number of answers is greater than the sample size because people could select more than one option.

Question 45: Gender

Figure 1: Gender of Participants (Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa)

5



Question 46: Age

Figure 2: Age groups (Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa)

It can be seen in the above diagrams that there is a female bias in people taking part in the survey, particularly in Maidla. This will be discussed further later on in this report when the responses to Questions 17 to 44 are examined. There was less of a difference in age groups, with the largest categories in each area being the 36 – 55 age group followed by the 55 – 65, 26 – 35 and 18 – 25. The 66 and upwards the least represented in all areas. This ensures that the data sets are comparable when considering specific differences in opinions across the three communities with respect to age class.

6



Communities are made up of a number of different types of people, some want to be involved in everything, others prefer to merely watch. Often the duration of time spent residing in the community can be a factor in individual’s behaviour. To this end the people surveyed were asked how long they had lived in the survey area.

Question 1: How long have you lived in the area?

Figure 3: How long in the area? (Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa)

The distribution of people in the five categories (Always, Born returned, Moved into Area, Not specified and Other) are similar between the three communities. Maidla has a slightly larger population of incomers which probably reflect the employment opportunities of the mines while operational.

7



Occupation is another useful demographic variable as it indicates the employment diversity of the community. Hence ‘ What is your occupation?’ was asked in question 47.

Table 1: Occupations of participants (Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa)Võrtsjärv Maidla SetomaaRetired person 7 Old age pensioner 6 Will not reveal 12Manager 5 Seamstress 5 Pensioner 11Student 5 Teacher 4 Teacher 10Official 4 Worker 3 Worker 5Teacher 3 Clerk 2 Customer service staff 3Housewife 2 Homemaker 2 Manager 3Parish secretary 2 Pupil 2 Bookkeeper 2Sound engineer 2 Aide to kindergarten teacher 1 Cleaner 2Specialist 2 At home with a young child 1 Kindergarten teacher 2Worker 2 Sports hall 1 Public servant 2Administrator 1 Auxiliary worker in kitchen 1 Sous chef 2Administrator-accountant 1 Call centre operator 1 Advisor 1Assistant 1 Care home nurse 1 Bookkeeper - cashier 1Bibliographer 1 Chief of platoon 1 Border guard 1Builder 1 Civil servant 1 Chef 1Businessman 1 Cleaner 1 Clerk 1Consultant 1 Cleaning services 1 Collections manager 1Culture and sport 1 Construction business 1 Company manager 1Farmer 1 Cutter (in clothes making) 1 Cook of care home 1Fisher 1 Digger driver 1 Disability pensioner 1Head of municipality 1 Director of library 1 Entrepreneur 1Lawyer 1 Disability pensioner 1 Executive manager 1Management member 1 Do not work 1 Finisher-sander man 1Municipality leader, Tarvastu municipality 1 Employed old age pensioner 1 Head chef 1Parental leave 1 Employee of local government 1 Head of care home 1Professor 1 Food and beverage manager 1 Junior police officer 1Secretary 1 Guard 1 Librarian 1Seller 1 Hairdresser 1 Municipality clerk 1Servicer 1 Head chef 1 Museum teacher 1Store manager 1 Hostel housekeeper 1 Museum worker 1Supervisor 1 Instructor 1 None 1Teacher helper 1 Kindergarten teacher 1 Office manager 1Technical manager 1 Manager 1 Operator 1Tourism business owner 1 Master 1 Pupil 1Tourism manager 1 Middle manager 1 Rural municipality mayor 1

Village house Housewife 1Old age pensioner, employed at a social house 1 Rural municipality secretary 1

Youth worker 1 Private entrepreneur 1 Secretary 1

Self-employed 1Shareholder of company, manager 1

8



Service staff 1 Shop assistant 1Shop manager 1 Social worker 1Specialist 1 Specialist 1Student 1 Student 1

Teacher and head of library 1Technician 1Worker of care home 1

In all cases, where the job title was given, pensioners made up the largest number of people surveyed in all communities and proportionally represented approximately 10% of the people surveyed. Teachers, managers and workers also accounted for three or more individuals in at least two of the three communities.

Questions 2 – 5 explored what people liked most about living in their area following by the problems they faced, what changes they would you to see and the changes they would prefer did not occur.

Common factors that people liked and did not want to see changed included nature, peace and quiet and aspects relating to their homes, friends and family. Issues included lack of jobs, lack of services, poor infrastructure (particularly mentioning poor roads), depopulation, lack of entertainment and recreational facilities and more support for people in general. These are similar to the comments made by the Finnish COMCOT surveys (Velander, K., 2012).

A list of the main factors that arose in the three communities is provided below with the full results presented in Tables 2 - 5.

Like Nature and specific aspects of local countryside and scenery (e.g. lakes, sea, forests) Peace and quiet Lack of traffic Clean air Community aspects including homes, life style, culture, nice people, friends and neighbours

and their homes

Problems Environmental impacts (particularly in Maidla) Depopulation, loss of young people Lack of jobs / poverty / low pay Lack of entertainment Poor public transport Poor infrastructure, shops and services (particularly poor roads)

9



Changes More jobs and better pay Better services More care for the environment More recreational and cultural activities, particularly in the evening and winter More residents (particularly young people) More support for local people Support for entrepreneurs Tourism development (Maidla only)

Changes would not like to see Depopulation Environmental degradation including disturbing nature, pollution and littering Job losses Schools closing and other closures resulting from depopulation Increase in crime Decrease in services, shops and businesses

In addition the lack of accommodation along with the desire for more and better accommodation was a factor for all communities with one individual in Lake Võrtsjärv particularly mentioning that currently disused older building should be refurbished or torn down. It should be noted that this has been mentioned in several of the consultancy reports from The market Specialists for this project.

Although the project could directly impact on some of these points (e.g. more recreation, culture, activities, tourists and jobs), knock on effects could include better services, shops and possibly public transport.

10



Table 2: Question 2: What do you like most about living in this area? Factors suggested by 5 or more of the individuals surveyed are shown in red.

What do you like about living in this area?Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102)

Environmental Factors (65%) Environmental Factors (45%) Environmental Factors (54%) Nature 30 Peace and quiet 8 Peace and quiet 32Lake Võrtsjärv 14 Nature 6 Countryside 26Peaceful and quiet 16 Forests 5 Nature 24Agriculture 2 Lack of traffic 5 Scenery 7Fields 2 Clean air 4 Clean air 6Forests 2 Woodlands for mushroom/berry picking 3 Secure environment 3Landscape 2 Purtse river 3 Pine wood 3Birds / bird song 2 Lack of noise 2 Space 2Clean environment 2 Quiet 2 Forests 2Forest 2 Beautiful landscape 2 Lakes 2Village area 2 Forests and bogs are nearby 1 Little traffic 1Fishing 1 Vicinity of the sea 1 Local scenery 1Location 1 Wildlife 1 Privacy 1Natural areas close by 1 Close to outdoors 1Nice surroundings 1 Countryside 1Own garden 1 Nice surroundings 1Relaxing nature 1River 1Rurality 1Sailing 1Sunsets 1Väike-Emajõgi 1Võrtsjärv area 1

Socio-cultural Factors (31%) Socio-cultural Factors (45%) Socio-cultural Factors (41%)People 10 My home/ garden / allotment 5 Nice people 16My home 8 Life style 4 My home 14Proximity to the city 3 Privacy 4 Born here 12Safe 3 Good neighbours 2 Seto culture 11Good neighbours 3 Hobby groups 2 Lifestyle 7Small place 2 Home near the Purtse river 2 Friends 4Attitude 1 Active people 1 Family 3Attractions 1 Cultural activities 1 Community 3Active people 1 Estonian language speaking 1 Traditions 3Community 1 Estonian minded 1 Best place 1Dialect 1 Family friends are nearby 1 Cosy here 1Family 1 Feeling of ownership 1 Feel safe 1Feeling 1 Few people 1 Fewer people 1Good place to raise children 1 Friendly people 1 Good fishing 1History 1 Good acquaintances are important 1 Good hunting 1Everything 2 Good school 1 Graveyard peaceful and well maintained 1School / Kindergarten 2 Kindergarten nearby 1 Heritage 1

Many facilities for children 1 Pace of life 1Neighbours do not interfere each other 1 Small place 1Kiviõli 1Pace of life 1Playgrounds 1Relatives 1Roots (origin) 1Rural life very much 1Safe living environment 1Small area 1Sporting facilities 1

11



Suburban area 1Away from dense residential areas 1Varied events 1Village life 1No need to communicate with unpleasant people and Russians unless I want to 1

Socio-economic Factors (4%) Socio-economic Factors (11%) Socio-economic Factors (5%)Job 1 Tarmac road 4 Good services 4Public services 1 Everything is nearby 2 Colleagues 2Transport 1 Health care are in the place 2 Job 2No big running 1 Property and being a landlady 1 Fast developing living environment 1Good traffic 1 Workplace is nearby 1 Developing tourism 1

Many opportunities 1

The features people liked are as summarised earlier with peace and quiet, nature and lifestyle aspects rating highly on the list.

Table 3: Question 3: What problems do you face living here? Factors suggested by 5 or more of the individuals surveyed (5%) surveyed are shown in red.

Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102)

Environmental Factors (1%) Environmental Factors (10%) Environmental Factors (1%)

Wall between people and lake 1Impact of the mine (to landscape, air pollution, access to property) 6 Weather and resulting conditions 1Potable water is not clean 3Air pollution 1Environmental issues 1Industrial landscapes 1

Socio-cultural Factors (35%) Socio-cultural Factors (18%) Socio-cultural Factors (22%)Few young people 4 I have no problems 5 Depopulation 11People leave village and went to cities 4 Crime to an extent (petty theft) 2

Cross border problems (intruders, smugglers and poachers) 4

Alcohol problem 3Cronyism Long term of power of the ruling elite 2 Envy / Malice between people 3

Few activities in winter 2Inward looking people - outsiders unwelcome 2 Aging population 2

Uncoordinated rescue on lake 2 Complicated relationships 1 Holiday Makers 2

Apathy 1Relationships with speakers of another language 1

Russian petrol carriers and their allies bothersome 2

Conflicts between people 1 Few leisure facilities for age group 20-40 1 Speeding drivers 2Conservationists who don't consider with local people 1 Few opportunities for self-realisation 1

Carelessness in neighbourly relationships 1

Co-operation and people who really care and want to develop the region 1 Lots of non-Estonian speaking population 1 Conservative people 1Low aspirations 1 Apathy 1 Alcoholism 1Multiculturalism 1 National issues 1 Few visitors 1No big problems 1 People´s inactivity 1 Fishermen 1

Own school 1 Reserved character of people 1Group of people opposed to culture 1

People's passivity in cooperation 1 Strange questionnaires 1 Human trafficking 1Reed – no attractive beaches and swimming places 1 Low subsistence capacity of area 1Rural environment 1 Minor offences crime 1Village-problems 1 People have little faith in their 1

12



home placePeople slow to act 1Poor area for pensioners 1Poor people skills in managing conflict 1Social problems 1Young people don't speak local language 1

Socio-economic Factors (64%) Socio-economic Factors (71%) Socio-economic Factors (78%)Transport issues 8 Lack of shops 11 Lack of jobs 28

Poor roads 7 Lack of jobs 27Lack of services (doctors, dentists, hairdressers, ATM) 23

Lack of services (e.g. ATM) 5 Bad road conditions 8 Distance to towns and cities 18Money 3 Lack of services (ATM, Doctor,Post office) 9 Lack of shops 9

Distance from other centers 2Bus service infrequent/ poorly time tabled/ expensive 8 Lack of goods 8

Electricity interruptions 2 Lack of entertainment/restaurants 3 Poverty 7Limited public transport options 2 Transport issues 3 Low pay 7Rubbish 2 Lack of sauna 2 Poor public transport connections 7Better road maintenance in winter 1 Distance to centre 2 Lack of entertainment 5Bigger shops 1 Better looking facades of houses 1 Youth unemployment 4

Communications 1Compensation from mining is mostly used for developing the centre 1 Lack of transport 3

Decreasing business 1Lack of development, need to encourage growth 1 Poor roads 3

Distance for my job 1 Few challenges in employment 1 High prices 3

Distance for other centres 1

Forest villages do not get things done (e.g. no signs with village names on, even though repeatedly asked for). 1

General issues that occur in any rural area 2

Distance from Tartu 1 High fuel expenses 1 Poor infrastructure 2

Few workers 1

In Maidla business is converged into municipality leaders´ MTÜ (non-profit organisation). 1 Poor internet access 2

Good traffic 1 Lack of repair services 1 Poor maintenance of village 2Infrastructure 1 Little tourism 1 Poor housing 2Local municipality hasn't enough money 1 Low salaries 1 Problems typical of remote areas 2

Mosquitoes 1 No direct connection with Kiviõli 1Work related problems, too rigid hours 2

No restaurants for tourists 1 No street lights (a remote village) 1Carelessness state and local agencies 1

Noise and loud music in summer evenings 1 Problems with accommodation 1 Lack of entrepreneurship 1Poor internet 1 Problems with utilities 1 Lack of labour force 1Poor material chances 1 Shop is still a place for drinking in public 1 School closing 1

Shortage of accommodation 1Tourism development takes little account of local people 1

Project based life, lack of stability and continuity disruption 1

Improve tourism offering 1 Poor waste collection 1 Distance to towns and cities 1Lack of vision deters entrepreneurship 1

Depopulation, lack of jobs and the factors that result from this (e.g. poverty, low pay), poor infrastructure and lack of entertainment featured highly on this list. In addition Maidla residents were concerned about the environmental destruction caused by the open cast mining.

13



Table 4: Question 4: What changes would you like to see? Factors suggested by 5 or more of the individuals surveyed (5%) surveyed are shown in red.

Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102)

Environmental Factors (13%) Environmental Factors (6%) Environmental Factors (1%) Improve lakeside (access, bike trails, picnic areas) 7

More attention to environment as the area has many companies which pollute it. 2 Less litter 1

Restore old good resting and holiday places 2New mine will reduce quality of environment 1 Cleaner surroundings 1

More care for nature and environment 1 A rise in the level of air pollution 1

Nature-tourism development 1

Change appeared after the quarry was closed down but now it feels it is going for the better 1Resolution of environmental problems, that life and environment stabilised and the area would be guaranteed a sustainable development. 1

Socio-cultural Factors (41%) Socio-cultural Factors (30%) Socio-cultural Factors (35%)

More community activities 6More support for young people / families in the area 5 More young people 12

More people from outside 4 No changes 4 More people 9Activity centres for different wishes and anticipations 3 More activities for young families 2 More cooperation and caring 4

Area vitality 2 More active community life 2Young people to stay and value the area 4

Coordinated rescue on lake 2 More people 2 More young families coming in 3Fewer people leaving 2 Nursing home for elderly people 1 More support for local culture 3More for young families 2 I am satisfied with what we have 1 Schools to remain open 2Better organized seamarks 1 I cannot remember 1 Better accommodation 2Interesting camps 1 Increase in child benefits 1 More active citizens 2More active people 1 Living environment should remain as it is 1 Retain secondary school 2More cooperation 1 More empathy in people 1 Improve quality of life 2More homes repaired 1 More cultural life 1 Better welfare for people 1

More information for sailors 1 Retain Estonian language in area 1Local people should be more valued 2

More sailors on lake 1Tackle social issues e.g. unemployment, low salary, lack of opportunities for leisure. 1

More activities for young people 1

More young people 1 All residents feel welcome 1More children in kindergartens and Schools 1

Open air concerts 1More attention to local people, not just tourists 1 More community activities 1

People must take care of their home areas 1 Happier and more satisfied people 1 More accommodation 1Region and people can become more ethical 1 To have a safe life here 1

Retain what has been preserved 1

Retain our school 1 More action, less posturing 1Seto children should speak language 1

Swimming places 1Better community relationships 1

Swimming pool 1 No changes 6Village-life improved 1 Fewer criminals 1

Fewer transient tourists 1

Socio-economic Factors (46%) Socio-economic Factors (64%) Socio-economic Factors (64%)More jobs and better pay 11 More jobs 15 More jobs and better wages 56Business development 4 Improve roads 10 Develop entrepreneurship 7Dust-free roads 3 Tourism development 5 More shops 4Better roads and infrastructure 2 Village shop 5 Better services 4

Better transport 2 More leisure facilities 4Local government should benefit people 3

More farms and farm animals 2 Farming to increase / improve 3 Rise in living standards 3

14



Better support for local business 1 Better bus services 2 More businesses 3Better support for the local area development 1 Building of more blocks of flats 2 Develop Area 3

Complex services 1More restaurants and evening entertainment 2 Improve roads 3

Increase tourism services 1 Absence of hotels 1 Investments in the region 3

More opportunities 1Better transport network with bigger towns and the capital city 1 Economic development 2

More restaurants with local food 1Cooperation between the municipality and entrepreneurs 1

More companies providing goods and services 2

More services 1 Fair procurement through fair competition 1 Positive development 2More support from public sector 1 For the area to develop 1 Street lights in village 2More tourism 1 Help to improve tourism in the countryside 1 Better bus services 2

New pier 1Improvement in facilities - to have the village sauna redecorated/renovated 1

Better cooperation between municipalities / communities 2

Old buildings must be demolished or used 1 More Infrastructure 1 Improve infrastructure 2

Retain our shop 1 Terraced houses etc. (Maidla municipality) 1Government to show concern for local people 2

Sell locally produced goods in region 1 More businesses 1More restaurants and entertainment 1

Small business development 1 More local input into municipality plans 1 Better use of local money 1Teamwork between local businesses and people 1 More locally produced goods 1

Better performance of small municipalities 1

Tourism activities improved 1 Transparent admin of municipality 1

Community to have more leaders who initiate development 1

Develop tourism 1

Good internet connections 1Improve education 1Less power of old local government 1Better tourist facilities 1

More support for farming 1Seto municipality 1Government to recognise SE Estonia is part of Estonia 1

Maidla was the community most in favour of tourism development, although the desire that all communities showed for more jobs would result from an increase in tourism.

15



Table 5: Question 5: What changes would you prefer not to see? Factors suggested by 5 or more of the individuals surveyed (5%) surveyed are shown in red.

Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102)Environmental Factors (19%) Environmental Factors (32%) Environmental Factors (11%)

Damaged nature 2Environmentally harmful activities e.g. Mining 18 Pollution 3

Empty farms 2 More noise from mining 1 Road sides covered in 3

Forest destruction 2Destruction of the environment, spoiling of scenery 2

Võrtsjärv eutrophication 2Excessive felling of forests and keeping nature unspoiled 1

Contamination 1 Hunting areas should be kept 1Destruction of natural areas 1 Sales of state forest for clearing 1

Enlarging reed around the lake Võrtsjärv 1Selling places of natural beauty to foreigners. 1

Free access to Võrtsjärv 1 Destruction of fishing areas 1Wall between people and lake 1Socio-cultural Factors (73%) Socio-cultural Factors (46%) Socio-cultural Factors (70%)Depopulation 7 Young people leaving to find jobs 4 Depopulation 15

Closure schools, institutions, buildings 7Tourism where locals don't benefit 3 Loss of heritage culture 10

Too many tourists/ badly behaved ones 6 Russification 2 Closure of rural schools 8Mass-tourism 6 Estonians leaving the area 2 Young people leave 8Apartment buildings 3 School closures 2 Urbanisation or area/region 6All is well at the moment 2 Increase in crime 2 Area being overcrowded 3Antisocial people 2 Depopulation 2 Seto language disappears 2Passivity and apathy 2 Don't know 2 Area dies out 2

Young people leave the countryside 2Concerned how new mine will impact on our lives 1 Area becomes peripheral 2

Too many people 2Tourism - too many new people will change our identity 1 No change 2

Children won't recognize domestic animals 1 Overpopulation 1 Mass tourism 2Foreigners buy land beside Võrtsjärv 1 Area becoming a ´land of pensioners´ 1

Conflict between fishers and tourism development 1 Second homes of foreign people 1

Becoming some kind of reservation called Setomaa (Seto municipality, Seto county, etc.) 1

I don't know 1 Urbanisation of the area 1 Blocks of flats 1

Lose what we have 1 Things to remain as are 1Carelessness of people towards each other and envy 1

Lose community 1 Change is extraordinary 1 Closure of agencies 1Negative changes 1 Migrant labour 1 Deserted farmsteads 1Warm feeling of area 1 Desertion of the area 1Increase poverty 1 Discrimination of people 1People must keep our village clean 1 Estonians disappear from the region 1

EU norms imposed 1Foreigners buy flats and houses for summer houses 1Helpless disabled people who drink excessively 1Loss of community spirit 1Inferiority complex 1No other religion in the region, only Orthodox. 1Outsiders taking over 1Rise in crime 1Safety 1Setomaa to become an open air museum. 1

16



Young people lose desire to work 1Socio-economic Factors (7%) Socio-economic Factors (22%) Socio-economic Factors (19%)Business closure 2 Large scale industry 4 Area becomes an industrial 7Chemical industry 1 Job losses 3 Job losses 3

Large industry 1Continued restructuring of community 1 Loss of services and infrastructure 2

Too intensive traffic 1 Transparency in local govt. 1 Poverty 2Local government made up of centre party members 1 Centre of the municipality disappears 1Local men going elsewhere to find work 1 Compulsory liquidation of local government 1Not to merge with another municipality 1 Merger of municipalities 1To have access to mains water 1 High unemployment in the area 1

Illogical administrative reform 1Price rises 1Poor political decisions 1Transfer of jobs to local towns 1

The changes that locals preferred not to see are predictable with depopulation and resulting closures being a factor in all communities. Võrtsjärv particularly mentioned massed tourism and tourists behaving badly. This probably is a reaction to current issues with tourist boats on the lake, with loud music and intoxicated party goers being an issue in the area. Further development of tourism in that area must take these concerns into account. Maidla again was concerned about the environmental impacts of mining. Setomaa was also concerned about the loss of heritage and culture along with the depopulation of the rural areas through urbanisation.

Question 12 explored the identity of the areas in the sense of what key words the community members would use to describe their region (See Table 30 in Appendix 4). They give an interesting perspective to the areas, illustrating both good and bad points. The main common factor was nature, followed by individual aspects of each community. This included for Lake Võrtsjärv, the lake and associated activities on the water and on land (e.g. bird watching), for Maidla, the Ash hills and the Manors and for Setomaa all aspects of the Seto culture along with the presence of Spa hotels in that area. The unique factors for Lake Võrtsjärv and Maidla, related to the presence of the Lake and the quarry, while the local Seto culture along with its proximity to the Russian border provides a wealth of activities for tourism. Maidla is also in an excellent position to offer tourist activities to the Russians, although it was also the only community to specifically mention concerns about ‘Russification’, although Setomaa expressed concerns about cross border illegal activities.

The key words provide some interesting ideas to explore as part of the tourism experience, and should be revisited when discussing the action plans to assess whether some of these ideas could be integrated into the tourism experiences proposed. For example, tourists might find the following foods, activities or concepts quite fascinating – black bread, specific culture and heritage related activities and experiences as well as the enjoyment of the natural assets of all three communities

17



Question 13 was more specific, asking what is unique to your area. The results are directly relevant to this report, so are given below.

Table 6: Question 13: Are there any of these characteristics/ places that are unique to your area and if so which ones?

Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102) Lake Võrtsjärv 10 Maidla manor 20 Seto leelo singing 26Fishing 5 Ash hills 10 Folk costumes 10Nature 3 Aidu open quarry 6 Everything is unique 8Eels 2 Bogs and marshes 3 Tsässons 6Fresh air 2 Kiviõli ash hills 2 Värska mineral water 6Lossimäe 2 Mining museum 2 Seto language 5Manor houses 2 Aidu rowing canal (when completed) 2 Boot of Saatse 4Meleski Glass-museum 2 Nature 2 Cold soup 4Bird watching 2 Aidu open quarry areas 1 Medicinal mud 4Culture 2 Artificial landscapes 1 Seto Farm Museum 5Bagpipes 1 Bear watching hides 1 Nature 5Beautiful reservoirs Visitor game "Forgotten manors" 1 Churches 3Boat harbor and tower 1 Comb-shaped lakes of the quarrying area 1 Culture 3Boats 1 Cultural events 1 Värska spa hotel 3Coastal villages 1 Forest Brothers dug out 1 Cemeteries 2Cruises 1 Forgotten manors 1 Cemetery of Old Believers 2Ennukse bunker 1 Heino Lipp sports competition 1 Handicraft 3Fairs 1 Industrial landscape 1 Home-made cheese 2Forests 1 Kiviõli ash hill 1 Local accordion 2Fortresses 1 Kiviõli motocross trail 1 Local food 2Handicrafts 1 Kohtla mining museum 1 Mineral water 2Important people from here 1 Kohtla-Nõmme mining museum 1 Museums 2Kolga-Jaani municipality 1 Lights at the manor event in Maidla 1 Silver jewellery 2Landscape 1 Motorsports on the ash hill 1 Smoke sauna 2Library 1 Ontika limestone cliff 1 Spa hotel 2

Limnology Station 1 Purfestival along the Purtse river 1Statue of Peko at Seto Farm Museum 2

Loodi Põrguorg 1 Rowing canal 1 Värska water centre 2

Manor schools 1 Sirtsi boulder 1Language - most speak Võru dialect 1

Martin Klein home-place 1 Sirtsi stone 1 Beresje village of Old Believers 1Nature tourism 1 Motofestival on Kiviõli ash hill, 1 Border area 1Nice people 1 Sirtsi stone 1 Seto Kingdom 2Peaceful place 1 Mine dispersed settlement 1Puka 1 Valaste waterfall 1 Folk dance (costumes) 1Raba farm (Johannes Laidoners homeplace) 1 Forests 1

Härma Müürimägi sandstone outcrop 1

Rõngu Lossimägi 1 Peaceful place 1 Hino lake 1Sailing on the Võrtsjärv 1 Hirvemäe skiing tracks 1Smoked bream 1 Home-made spirit 2Smoked eel 1 Jewellery 1Soomaa nature park 1 Landscape 1Tarvastu castle hill 1 Leelo dancing 1Tarvastu castle ruins 1 Lüübnitsa village and lake shore 1Trepimägi 1 Luhamaa church, built by locals 1Vaibla village 1 Luhamaa hilly landscapes 1Väike-Emajõgi 1 Luhamaa Orthodox church 1Valma fisher-village 1 Lutepää sand dune (like desert) 1Valma man (restored by M.Gerassimov) 1 Meeksi Jaanikivi boulder 1Viiralt oak 1 Meremäe tourist farm and 1

18



viewing towerViljandi county 1 Mineral water and medicinal mud 1

Village days 1 Monuments, churches, tsässons, Värska spa hotel and water centre 1

Vooremägi 1 Mud treatments 1Water 1 Obinitsa Seto Museum 1

Old Believers´ community at Beresje 1

Forests 1 Piusa caves 1 Podmetsa stone crosses 1 Poetry 1 Seto events/parties 1 Seto villages 1 Some houses and edifices 1

Tsässons, Mikitamäe - second oldest wooden building in Estonia 1

Värska lake and Piusa river 1 Värska surroundings - church 1 Village at Beresje 1 Village parties 1

Well-maintained and exciting museums 1

Wildlife 1

Table 7: Key word overlap: Võrtsjärv, Maidla, Setomaa

Võrtsjärv (n = 65) Maidla (n = 68) Setomaa (n = 102)Folk culture Nature CultureForests Manor houses HandicraftHandicraft Forests LandscapeLandscape Peaceful place NatureManor houses ForestsNaturePeaceful place

Overlap occurred in 7 key words for two of the three communities, and two words ‘nature’ and ‘forest’ was given for all. The degree of overlap adds continuity to the overall project, but in order to develop a USP for each area, needs to be taken into account. Again the unique points should be examined and integrated into the tourist experiences.

The following table gives a list of suggestions by local people of things to do in their area (Question 14). The number in the column to the right of each item represents the number of people suggesting that activity or place.

19



Table 8: Question 14: If a tourist came to your area, what would you suggest they do?

Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa Sailing on the Võrtsjärv 8 Maidla manor 36 Seto Farm Museum in Värska 39Võrtsjärv 8 Kiviõli ash hills 9 Värska spa hotel and water centre 26Ennukse bunker 7 Aidu open quarry 7 Saatse museum 11Tondisaar 6 Kohtla-Nõmme mining museum 7 Seto tea house 11Fishing 4 Sirtsi boulder 5 Hiking trails 10

Greete motel 4Sports ground in this park - sports facility 4 Boot of Saatse 8

Tarvastu church 4 Toila Oru park 4 Meremäe viewing tower 8Vooremägi 4 Motocross track 3 Spa hotel 8Jõesuu 3 Northern coast 3 Tsässons 8Limnology Station 3 Valaste waterfall 3 Vastseliina castle 8Lossimäed 3 Boating trip on the Purtse river 2 Piusa caves 7

Meleski Glass Manufacture 3Forest Brothers dugout and memorial (Virunurme) 2 Värska mineral water production unit 7

Devil's Stone 2Hunting tourism - Maidla hunters´ union. 2 Hino lake and its surroundings 6

Handiwork house/ museum 2 Marshes 2 Museums 6Lossimäe 4 Mehide - Aruvälja nature trail 2 Obinitsa Museum 5Maleski Museum 2 Ontika 2 Seto Art Gallery 5Manor houses (Kärstna, Suislepa, Tarvastu) 2 Peipsi lake 2 Seto museums in Obinitsa 5Tamme paljand 2 Quarries 2 Luhamaa village centre 4Valma adventure park 2 Wildlife camera 2 Nopri farm 4Visitor Centre in Jõesuu 2 Woodlands and bogs 2 Obinitsa church 4Adventure park 1 Aruvälja-Mehide nature trail 1 Saatse church and cemetery 4ATV trip in forests beside Võrtsjärv 1 Bogs and marshes 1 Värska church and cemetery 4Bagpipes 1 Cultural Events 1 Meremäe tourist farm 3Nature 1 Hiking trails 1 Mikitamäe tsässon 3Castle walls 1 Industrial landscape 1 North camp and buildings 3Cruises on Võrtsjärv 1 Kindegarten 1 Seto community house 3Culture 1 Kukruse manor 1 Seto Kingdom Day 3Devil's Stone walking-trail 1 Kuremäe nunnery 1 Seto tourist farm 3Emajõgi 1 Lakes 1 Tonja village 3Fishers life 1 Mining areas 1 Beresje village 2Hang glider 1 Muraka bog 1 Border crossing point 2Holstre lake 1 Narva visit 1 Churches 2Holstre-Polli tervisekeskus 1 Narva waterfalls 1 Country life museum 2In future: Oiu harbor and restore old manor houses 1 Nature tourists would watch bears 1 Koidula border crossing point 2Information Centre 1 Oil shale layer in Ojanurme quarry 1 Lämmijärv lake 2Islands in the Võrtsjärv (Pähksaar, Tondisaar) 1 Ontika limestone clint 1 Laossina 2

Jaan Tõnisson birthplace 1Ontika, manors (Sagadi, Vihula, Palmse, Kalvi, Maidla) 1 Lüübnitsa and Beresje villages 2

Johannes Ölaidoners homeplace 1 Purtse fortified house 1 Luhamaa border crossing point 2Kalasaare farm 1 RMK hiking trails 1 Luhamaa church 2Kale sailing boat /Tartu county 1 Seli bog 1 Mustoja landscape reserve 2Karksi castle 1 Sirtsi bog 1 Nature 2

Kärstna chapel hill 1 Tourist farm 1Obinitsa lake and Mother of Song statue 2

Kivilõppe harbor 1 Uljaste lake 1 Õrsava lake and its surroundings 2Kolga-Jaani church 1 Nature 1 Piusa outcrops 2Kõver kõrts 1 Valaste viewing platform 1 Piusa river valley 2Kuutsemägi 1 Varessaare 1 Rõuge valley 2

Lake Museum 1 Viewing towers near bears´ dens 1South and North camp of Estonian Army 2

Landscape 1 Virunurme Forest Brothers dugout 1 Taarka statue 2

20



Limnology center - lake museum 1 Tsiistre flax museum and village centre 2Fish 1 Vana-Jüri soap workshop 2Loodi lake 1 Värska -> Podmotsa, Värska small town 2Loodi Põrguorg 1 Värska border guard station 2Luke manor 1 Värska Seto Farm Museum 2Manor schools (Suislepa, Kärstna) 1 Viewing tower at Munamägi 2Monument in Kolga-Jaani 1 Beach at the spa hotel 1Mouth of river Emajõgi - Jõesuu views 1 Bog lakes near Misso 1Music 1 Community centre 1Mustjärve walking-trails 1 Estonian-Russian border 1No much attractions 1 Fish ponds 1Oiu harbor 2 Härma sandstone outcrop 1Pikasilla rest area 1 Hirvemäe holiday centre 1Plane 1 Jaanikivi boulder 1Polli oak 1 Jõeveere private museum 1Pritsumehe park (nicely shaped park in Puka) 1 Jumalamägi hill 1Puka 1 Kirikumäe 1Puka Fireman 1 Kõvera lake 1Punavare 1 Lake shore 1

Rannu municipality 1 Lakes in Misso municipality (Pulli, Hino, Kise) 1

River 1 Local film ´Peko's Day´ 1Rõika glass factory workers houses 1 Local handicraft shop 1Rõngu park 1 Lüübnitsa viewing tower 1sailing on the Emajõgi 1 Luhamaa former schoolhouse 1Studio 1 Määsi hill 1

Suislepa Hiking Trail 1 Medicinal mud and mineral water in Värska 1

Suislepa Manor 1 Meremäe hill 1Tamme Polder 1 Miiksa and Obinitsa church 1Tamme sand-stone cliffs 1 Mikitamäe - Võõpsu, Lüübnitsa 1Tarvastu castle ruins 1 Misso racing track 1Tarvastu handiworkers house 1 Munamägi hill 1Tarvastu municipality 1 Napi pine 1Tarvastu museum 1 Nature - Piusa caves 1Tarvastu polder 1 New stadium 1Tarvastu river 1 Obinitsa 1Tarvastu Stronghold Hill – near Mustla 1 Obinitsa community house 1Tilli Kadastik 1 One could visit Vetevana farm 1To sail with the kale boat 1 Peipsi Lake Games in summer 1Tõravere Observatoorium 1 Peko hill 1Trepimägi 1 Performances of local leelo choirs 1Vaibla 1 Pine woods 1Valma fisher-village 1 Piusa sand caves 1Vehendi village 1 Places of natural beauty 1Vellavere watermill 1 Podmotsa and Värska cemeteries 1Viiralt oak 1 Podmotsa cemetery 1

Viljandi county manors 1 Point where three borders meet (Parmu) 1

Viljandi Lake 1 Põrste lake recreational area 1Villem Reimani homeplace 1 RMK nature centre 1Visitors centre 1 Saatse 1Vooremäe rest area 1 Saatse and Värska 1Vooremäe-Pikkasilla 1 Saatse Museum 1Võrtsjärv adventure park 1 Sacrificial stone 1Võrtsjärv Museum 1 Sanaka bar 1Walking-trail beside Õhne river 1 Seto and Obinitsa museums 1

21



Seto community house (Seto food) 1 Seto community house in Obinitsa 1 Seto events e.g. Religious holidays 1 Seto Leelo day 1 Seto villages 1 Seto villages of Värska 1 Setomaa highest hill 1 Sights at Obinitsa and Meremäe 1 Silma spring 1 Smoke sauna 1 Statue and performance of Peko 1 Statue of Mother of Song 1 Technical sports - both sport and hobby 1 Tereski hill 1 To enjoy nature 1

To make Seto handicraft in a handicraft society workshop in Värska 1

Tour guides show everything 1 Treski tsässon 1 Värska and Saatse churches 1

Värska medicinal mud and mineral water 1

Värska outdoor stage 1 Võpolsova villages 1 Walk around Värska lake 1 Winding roads in hilly landscape 1

Many of the above items suggested are either local tourist attractions or activities already available in the area. Some of these are part of the general action plans, but the communities should revisit their action plans taking into account these suggestions.

Finally people were asked whether there were any areas or activities that should be kept private from tourists, the following tables list these.

22



Table 9: Questions 15: Do you think some places should be kept private for use by local people only? (Multiple answers were possible, so the total number of answers may be greater than the number of people responding to that question.)

Võrtsjärv (n = 13, 20%) Maidla (n = 11, 16%) Setomaa (n = 30, 30%) Home 13 Private houses and property 10 Private courtyards and gardens 7if local people don`t want tourism, then we must to consider this 1 Cemeteries (or with guide only) 7 Cemetery 5lake waterside 1 Churches 2 Churches 2

Loodi nature park 1Cannot reveal these places to other people 1 Tsässons 2

Mustjärv 1 Forests 1Cemeteries on religious holidays 1

Private areas beside lake 1 Holy springs 1 Holy springs 1Private land 1 Mädajägi river as it is clean 1 No driving in nature reserves 1Vehendi pinewood life-region 1 No cars in nature reserves 1 Mädajägi river as it is clean 1Võrtsjärv area must belong to local people 1 Sacrificial stones 1 Obinitsa cemetery 1

Tourist farms 1People's yards and gardens and also forest 1

Tsässons 2Perhaps Mädajõgi river (clean nature and water) 1

Värska church 1Person's courtyard should remain private 1

Vicinity of farms 1 Poogandi lake 1 Vulnerable places, e.g. Reserves 1 Sacrificial stones 1 Tourist farms 1 Värska church 1 Vicinity of farms 1

Between 16% and 30% of the people suggested areas that should be kept private with homes, private property and cemeteries being cited most frequently. What was reassuring for tourism, is that the other 70 – 84% of the population felt people should be enable to enjoy the regions and if we ignore the aspect of private homes and property this figures rises to 75 – 89%. Overall it suggest that tourists will be welcome in the three areas, as long as they show respect of private property and local customs.

23



Table 10: Questions 16: Do you think some activities should be kept private for use by local people only? (Multiple answers were possible, so the total number of answers may be greater than the number of people responding to that question.)

Võrtsjärv (n = 6, 9%) Maidla (n = 7, 10%) Setomaa n = 23, 22.5%)Jaanipäev 2 Hunting 3 Religious festivals 6Preserve nature 1 Events related to Sirtsi boulder 1 Cemetery events 2Local dance party 1 Hobby fishing on Purtse river 1 Commemoration of the deceased 2Some special events 1 Places of worship 1 Giving gifts to Peko 1

Fishing 1Steam sauna of the village heated with timber 1 Women's Day in spring 1

Doing Seto handicraft 1Events related to family traditions 1

Everyday life of common people and daily activities 1

Leelo singing should remain a tradition 1 Midsummer festivities in villages 1 People's homes 1

Sights which are located in people's private grounds 1

Some customs which should be passed on from generation to generation in Seto community only 1

Some local cultural events 1 Traditional activities should remain private 1 Praying 1

Religious practices and those related to local traditions were most cited as activities at which tourists are not welcome. However, the number of people expressing this view was low from the Lake Võrtsjärv (9%) and Maidla (10%) participants. Setomaa had a slightly higher input of 22.5%.

There are always conflicts between tourists and local people in relation to the annoyance factors of tourism compared to the possible benefits it brings such as job opportunities, increased income for shops and improved infrastructure. Note also that a good tourist trade raises the profile of an area, often bringing with this access to other funds for economic and infrastructure development. However, local feelings and attitudes must not be ignored. There are also various studies looking at the cycle of local people’s attitudes to tourism, the classic being Doxey (1975). In his work Doxey develops an ‘Index of Irritation’ going from stage 1 – Euphoria (during the development stage) to stage 2 – Apathy, stage 3 – Irritation and ending up in stage 4 – Antagonism, where tourists are just something to be exploited. There will always be some conflict between tourists and local people, even if it is just for parking spaces, but by identifying potential issues at the start of the tourism development period, many of these can be avoided or mitigated to reduce the impacts.

Question 6: How would you describe your participation in Community Events.

The role people play in local community events is illustrated in the following figures. This is important as it shows who is likely to take part in new developments and hence who are the drivers for tourism within the community. The results were analysed in relation to how long people had lived in the area with the community being divided into three groups: people who have always lived in the community, those that were born there, have gone away and now returned and those who are new to the community. Note the

24



first two questions are linked in that people who ticked 6 (a), often ticked 6 (b). The sample size quoted is the actual number of people answering the question. The category ‘Other’ includes people who work in the areas, but do not live locally as well as some individuals who only reside in the areas for part of the year.

Figure 4: Võrtsjärv: How would you describe your participation in community events?

In the Lake Võrtsjärv community, slightly more returnees and incomers take part in planning community events and activities and over all the people who have moved in take part more than either the true locals or the returnees. It is interesting to note how little input the returnees have in attending community events compared to people in the ‘Always’ lived there and ‘Moved in’ categories. However, it can be seen from subsequent graphs that this pattern is repeated in the Maidla community.

25



Figure 5: Maidla: How would you describe your participation in community events?

As with Lake Võrtsjärv the people most likely to take part in community activities are people who have always lived there and those who have moved in.

Figure 6: Setomaa: How would you describe your participation in community events?

26



The results from the Setomaa community in contrast to the other two show a larger input by local people in planning and attending community events and activities. Interestingly those who were born there and returned, although showing the second largest input into planning events, are the second lowest for attending (‘Other was the lowest). Those that have moved in are more than twice as likely to attend events than the ‘born returned’ category. The results suggest that 45% of the people who have always lived in the community take part in and /or attend local events along with 30% of the incomers. Returnees make up another 19%.

The number of organisations to which a person belongs (Question 7) is an indicator of how active that individual is within their community. However, it is also directly related to the number of organisations available and might include national or international organisations, hence some caution must be used when interpreting these results.

Question 7: Do you participate in any community organisations and if so which ones?

Figure 7: To how many organisations do you belong?

When comparing the figures overall, there was no significant difference between how long a person had been in the community and the number of organisations to which they belonged (Kruskal-wallis test, Chi2 = 1.968, p = 0.374). This was in contrast to the Finnish communities were people who had been born there and returned on average belonged to more organisations.

Table 11: Duration of time spent in the community compared to number of organisations joined.Duration in Community Average number of organisationsAlways 0.82Born Returned 0.10Moved into area 0.74

27



When comparing the different communities, there was no significant difference between the number of organisations to which people belonged in the three areas (Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi2 = 5.188, p = 0.075.

Table 12: Comparison between the number of organisations to which community members belonged.

Community Average number of organisationsVõrtsjärv (n = 58) 0.84Maidla (n = 47) 0.51Setomaa (n = 102) 0.81

Finally when looking at the relationship between ‘How long in the area’ and the role people played in community activities over all three communities, the following results were found (Test: Kruskal-Wallis test, 2 df., n = 230).

Table 13: Duration of time spent in area and the role a community member plays.

Involvement in community activities Always Born

Returned Moved into area Chi2 p =

Take part in planning and running 0.27 0.38 0.24 2.663 0.447

Attend most events 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.185 0.980Attend occasionally 0.57 0.53 0.49 4.934 0.177Attend rarely 0.06 0.09 0.18 11.371 0.010Would like to take part 0.13 0.06 0.12 2.179 0.536

When planning and attendance at events was analysed, the only significant different was in the people who ‘Attend rarely’, with the people who have moved in being the least likely to attend events and activities. However, it must be remembered that in Setomaa true incomers played a large role in community events in contrast to Lake Võrtsjärv and Maidla. Hence the partners should consider this when approaching people to support future development of the areas.

28



Question 8 – 11: The role of tourism in the Community

Questions 8 through 11 dealt with the role of community members in tourism.

Figure 8: Question 8: Are you or someone in your household involved in tourism and if not would you like to be involved?

These figures show that 26% of Lake Võrtsjärv) community members are currently involved in tourism, 9% in Maidla and 22% in Setomaa. However, when asked if they like to be involved, 22 (34%) from Lake Võrtsjärv responded positively, 20 (29%) from Maidla and 38 (37%) from Setomaa giving an average of 34% of the population surveyed showing an interest in working in tourism, which is considerably higher than most rural communities. This is much higher than the results of the survey work in Finland where just below 11% of the people in the communities showed an interest in working in tourism. The Finnish results are similar to those for Scotland, where hotels

29



and restaurants in ‘remote rural areas’ derive up to 13% of their employment from tourism and in ‘rural areas’ 7% (Scottish Government, 2009). However, when jobs in wildlife tourism are considered, they account for an additional £182.9 million (GBP) with the equivalent of 7,714 FTE jobs (International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, Bournemouth University, 2010), representing an even larger proportion of the rural population (approximately 1 million people live in rural Scotland).

When asked what proportion of their income was derived from tourism, 56% or less of the people surveyed earned 50% or less of their income from tourism with only 24% receiving more than 75% of their income. Setomaa had the highest number of people in the top two categories.

Table 14: Percent of income derived from tourism

Proportion of income derived from tourism Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa% in each category

less than 25% 12 3 6 47%26-50% 1 1 2 9%51-75% 2 2 5 20%more than 75% 3 0 8 24%

Table 15: Income from tourism Seasonal and Full or Part time

Võrtsjärv Maidla SetomaaSeasonal 12 3 10Year around 10 3 12

Full time 9 1 11Part time 12 4 11

It can be seen from the above table that income from employment in tourism was fairly evenly distributed between seasonal versus year around and full time versus part time.

30



The numbers of people taking part or wishing to take part were also analysed in relation to age groups, to assess who would be the future providers of tourism in the areas. People over the age of 66 showed the least interest in taking part in tourism (15%). However over half of the the remaining people surveyed in all age groups suggested they would like to take part in tourism, suggesting there is a good potential work force in all three areas.

Table 16: People taking part in tourism and those who would like to take part.

Age Group Võrtsjärv Involved

Võrtsjärv would

like to be

Maidla - Involved

Maidla would like to

be

Setomaa Involved

Setomaa would like

to be

Total in age

class

Shown as percentage of people

surveyed in age class

18 – 25 (n = 25) 5 2 0 4 1 2 14 56%

26 - 35 (n = 32) 3 2 1 3 4 6 19 59%

36 – 55 (n = 120) 9 9 3 10 14 23 68 57%

56 – 65 (n = 42) 5 3 2 2 3 7 22 52%

66 – 75 (n = 13) 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 15%

75+ (n = 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Total 22 17 6 20 22 38 125Percentag

e 33% 26% 9% 31% 22% 37%

31



Question 10 explored whether people would like tourism to increase, decrease or stay the same, and if so why. Question 11 examined the potential positive and negative impacts. Figures 9 and 10 below illustrate the results of these two questions (shown in percentages of each population), associated comments are presented in Table 17 and 18.

Figure 9: Should tourism increase, decrease or stay the same?

Figure 10: Are the impacts positive, negative or equally positive/negative?

All three communities were very positive about the role of tourism, both in that it should increase and that the impacts are mainly positive.

32



Table 17: The positive aspects of tourism suggested by the communities.

Võrtsjärv Maidla SetomaaMore money 11 More jobs, better standard of living 14 Income / jobs 51More jobs 9 Creates opportunities for promoting the area 8 Show culture 8Better infrastructure 3 Tourism offers entertainment opportunities for local people 5 No change 5Business development 4 Good for municipality 3 Beautiful place 4More jobs for young people 3 More people visiting the area 2 Few tourism now 4More life to village 2 More accommodation would be built 2 Improve community life 2More young people come to live here 2 More people would remain to live in the area 2 Encourage local community 1Tourism development 2 Opportunities for young people 1 Increase profile of area 1Area more attractive 1 Because we have too little tourism 1 Interesting for visitors 1Better roads and trim sights 1 Competition would considerably diversify enterprise 1 More life in country 1Brings benefit to local tourism enterprise 1 More income for local businesses 1 More people 1Few nature tourism business 1 Increases entrepreneurship 1 Region flourish 1Improve village life 1 Living conditions would improve locally 1 Unused potential 1Local community development 1 More people would come into the area 1 Many possibilities to development 1 Local government pays attention to tourists, local people pushed to background 1 More accommodation 1 We have beautiful manors and pretty places 1 More people 1 More sales 1 Promote the economy 1 Seasonal turn more possible 1 Space for development 1 Better use of area 2 There is a lack of services 1 Too many tourists isn`t good 1

33



If the people thought tourism had negative impacts, they were asked to describe what they were.

Table 18: The negative aspects of tourism suggested by the communities.Võrtsjärv Maidla SetomaaNo negative comments

It is nice to see people travelling but I would not wish the place to become too noisy

Current situation is good. Excessive numbers of tourists would decrease security levels.

The local government pays lots of attention to tourists, local people are pushed to the background

There are quite a lot of those who cross the border, I do not want so many of them hereToo many tourists is not good, problems with themToo many visitors will have adverse effect on environment

Questions 17 – 44: How does tourism impact on your personal life and that of the community?

The following three tables summarise the results of the two sets of Stapel questions ( 28 questions in total) asking community members to rate how tourism would firstly impact on their own personal lives, followed by that of the community. The factors are graded on a scale of – 5 to +5 with 0, meaning there is no impact either way. Hence any factor with a positive score has a positive impact with the degree being as much as 5 and any with a negative impact can go as low as -5. Note that these scales are subjective, in that everyone has their own baseline of tolerance, but they do give a general feeling for how the community responds to tourism. The average scores for impact on personal life, range between -1.24 to 2.36, while those concerning life in the community range from -3.15 to 4.00. This suggests there are more concerns about the impacts of tourism on life in the area.

The information was analysed firstly in relation to the community, with the factors being assessed for any association with Gender, Age or Length of Residency. The communities were then compared using the complete data set.

The factors that proved to be statistically significant are shown in red along with the averages for each component. If a factor is significant, the averages show where the differences lie. The significant results are show in Table 19 below, but more detailed information for all communities are shown in Tables 31 - 38 (in Appendix 5).

34



Table 19: Significant differences in people’s responses to the question about the impact tourism has on their personal lives. (Significant differences shown in Red)

VÕRTSJÄRVGender

(Mann-Whitney U Test)Age

(Kruskal-Wallis Test)Length of residency(Kruskal-Wallis Test)

Male Female U-value Sig. p=. 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66+ Value test Sig. p=. Always Born/left/

returned0-10 yrs 10+ yrs Value

testSig. p=.

Sample size n= 29 n = 36 n = 9 n= 11 n = 30 n = 12 n = 3 n = 18 n = 11 n = 9 n = 21

Enjoying the landscape 0.59 0.22 462.005 0.332 0.44 1.00 0.17 0.42 0.00 2.059 0.725 0.78 0.09 0.56 -0.19 10.396 0.015

MAIDLA

Sample Size n = 16 n = 45 n = 9 n = 9 n = 27 n = 14 n = 2 n = 19 n = 279 n = 10 n = 22

Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies -0.56 0.17 248.00 0.031 -0.56 1.00 -0.19 -0.21 1.00 6.495 0.165 -0.52 0.56 0.50 -0.10 2.035 0.565

My water supply -0.06 0.22 245.00 0.010 0.33 0.56 0.00 0.14 -0.50 5.483 0.241 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.05 5.159 0.161

Spending time with non-residents 1.00 0.66 335.00 0.470 2.11 1.11 0.61 -0.08 0.50 11.330 0.023 1.14 0.63 0.50 0.60 10.632 0.014

Enjoying peace and quiet -1.13 -0.20 253.00 0.052 0.22 -0.22 -0.37 01.15 -1.00 7.221 0.125 -0.85 -0.50 -0.50 -0.05 0.576 0.902

Enjoying the landscape -0.67 0.23 221.00 0.007 0.44 0.67 -0.11 -0.54 0.00 8.804 0.066 -0.42 0.63 0.20 0.05 1.942 0.584

Feeling of space -1.07 -0.09 227.50 0.042 0.00 0.00 -0.19 -1.15 0.00 8.816 0.066 -0.53 -0.50 -0.40 -0.10 1.9420.584

SETOMAA

Sample Size n = 33 n = 69 n = 7 n= 12 n = 59 n = 15 n=9 n = 431 n= 14 n = 13 n = 24

My household's income 1.45 1.16 1049.50 0.491 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.83 0.67 9.260 0.055 1.70 0.57 1.38 1.00 3.315 0.346

My food supply 0.88 0.01 835.00 0.015 0.44 -0.36 0.13 0.58 0.00 2.631 0.621 0.70 -0.43 0.69 -0.04 5.989 0.173

Spending time with non-residents 2.36 1.13 754.50 0.005 1.22 2.09 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.499 0.974 1.53 0.57 2.46 1.38 5.372 0.146

My cultural identity 2.00 1.22 808.50 0.014 0.56 1.36 0.93 1.25 0.00 1.722 0.787 1.70 1.21 1.08 1.54 1.363 0.714

It can be seen in the above table that the main significant differences in opinion concerning the impacts of tourism lies mainly between the sexes, with two differences between age groups and two related to length of residency. The results from Maidla produced five significant differences between the attitudes of men and women, but it must be remembered that Maidla had a strongly skewed male / female ratio (17 males/ 51 females) which might

35



impact on these results. In all cases for Maidla (‘Enjoying my garden’, ‘My water supply’, ‘Enjoying peace and quiet’, ‘Enjoying the landscape’ and a ‘Feeling of space’), women were more positive about the aspect than the men. Setomaa produced three significant differences between men and women, with the men being more positive about the factors than the women (‘My food supply, ‘Spending time with non-residents’, ‘My cultural identity’). Two significant differences were found between age classes. The first in Maidla with ‘Spending time with non-residents’, where younger people showed a more positive attitude. Setomaa showed a nearly significant difference (p = 0.055) with the younger people responding more positively about the impact on ‘My household income’. The final two significant differences occurred in the Lake Võrtsjärv results with the length of residency showing a difference in the ‘Enjoying the landscape’ and in those from Maidla for ‘Spending time with non-residents. The most negative response to this was from the people who had moved into the area more than 10 years ago, while in contrast the people who had always lived there were most positive about the potential impact of tourism on this aspect.

When the impact on the community as a whole was examined, the following table summarises the significant results. Results for individual communities are presented in Tables 34 to 36 in Appendix 5. (Significant differences shown in red).

Table 20 : Significant differences in people’s responses about the impacts of tourism on ‘life in the area’

VÕRTSJÄRVGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p=. 18-25 26-35 36-55 56-65 66+ Value Sig. p=. AlwaysBorn/left/

returned0-10y 10+y Value Sig. p=.


No Significant differences

MAIDLA

Sample size n = 16 n = 45 n = 9 n = 9 n = 27 n = 14 n = 2 n = 22 n = 7 n = 9 n = 19

Economy of the area 1.71 3.15 204.00 0.012 3.75 3.00 2.80 1.93 4.943 0.293 2.41 2.86 2.78 3.05 2.098 0.552Creating jobs for younger generations 2.06 3.27 231.50 0.031 4.00 2.44 3.11 2.43 2.67 2.378 0.667 2.80 2.56 1.89 3.62 4.783 0.188

Heritage sites and buildings open 1.13 1.52 203.50 0.040 2.38 1.67 2.44 2.00 1.50 1.447 0.836 1.95 0.88 1.89 2.90 6.975 0.073

Beauty of landscape -0.56 0.47 231.00 0.016 0.00 0.89 0.19 -0.08 -0.50 3.029 0.553 0.15 0.14 -0.33 0.48 1.728 0.631

SETOMAA

36




Economy of the area 3.52 3.33 1002.00 0.314 1.71 3.25 3.66 2.87 4.00 10.028 0.040 3.56 2.79 3.69 3.50 4.650 0.199

Most of the significant differences were again shown between men and women in Maidla (‘Economy of the area’, ‘Creating jobs for younger generations’, ‘Heritage sites and buildings open’ and ‘Beauty of landscape’. Again this may be an artefact of the sex bias and woman are in all cases more positive about the potential impact of tourism on their life style than men. Setomaa showed a significant difference between age groups with regards to ‘Economy of the area’ with the over 66s being most positive and the 18 – 25 year olds being least positive about the impact tourism would have on the economy of the area. Note even if the eldest group is ignored because of the small sample size of ‘2’, the next most positive group is the 36 – 55 year olds who were well represented with 27 individuals being in this group.

Finally in Table 21 a comparison is made between the three communities and the impacts tourism has on personal life and life in the community in general. The full results are provided in Table 37. (Significant differences shown in red).

Table 21: Comparison between the impacts of tourism on personal life and life in the area for the three communities.VÕRTSJÄRV, MAIDLA

and SETOMAA (Q 17 – 44)

Personal Life Life in the Area

Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa Chi2 Sig. p=. Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa Chi2 Sig. p=.

Sample Size n = 65 n = 61 n = 102 n = 58 n = 58 n = 102

My household's income 0.18 0.43 0.61 16.279 0.000 Economy of the Area 2.00 2.68 2.16 8.309 0.016My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents

0.75 1.62 1.39 13.151 0.001 Impacts on the countryside (e.g. litter) -0.45 -0.93 -1.26 19.537 0.000

Feeling safe -0.02 -0.13 -0.33 13.859 0.001 Preservation of local culture 1.37 1.52 1.61 31.919 0.000

Driving around the area -0.59 -0.85 -0.83 7.460 0.024 Peace and quiet -0.38 -0.36 -0.86 12.317 0.002Spending time with non-residents 0.52 0.87 0.22 8.863 0.012 Beauty of landscape 0.31 0.05 0.22 7.200 0.027My cultural identity 0.35 0.82 0.44 8.376 0.015 Wild plants and animals -0.11 0.04 -0.39 14.057 0.001Enjoying peace and quiet -0.22 -0.06 -0.44 6.134 0.047 Air quality -0.09 -0.13 -0.44 16.783 0.000

When the three communities were compared, fourteen significant differences were found, seven in impacts on Personal Life and seven in impacts on Life in the Area. The Setomaa community were either highest or lowest on eight of these aspects, with the people from Maidla returning the highest or lowest score on five and Võrtsjärv on one. It would seem that the Setomaa people are most concerned about the factors related to tourism that have the most potential to have a negative impact on their life or the life in the area (e.g. ‘Feeling safe’, ‘Enjoying peace and quiet’, ‘Impacts on the countryside’, ‘Peace and quiet’, ‘Wild plants and animals’ and ‘Air quality’). However, they were also more positive about the potential benefits on ‘My household income’ and interestingly on how it would

37



impact on ‘Preservation of local culture’. It should be noted that one respondent noted that one of his/her concerns was that Setomaa would become a living history museum, but obviously the community does see the potential benefits of tourism to retaining their unique culture.

Maidla had high scores on ‘My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents’, ‘Spending time with non-residents’, ‘My cultural identity’ and ‘Economy of the area’ and the lowest score (e.g. showing most concern) in ‘Driving around the area’. This suggests the community is keen to welcome tourism, although within the limitations of their concerns. All communities expressed some concern about tourists behaving badly. Võrtsjärv provided the most positive score on the impacts of tourism on the ‘Beauty of the landscape’. This might reflect the various comments about the state of some of the buildings and houses in the communities as well as reeds on the lake which prevent access, with the underlying suggestion that more tourism would encourage a higher standard of care of the area in general.

38



Action Plans

Finally it is necessary to consider the relationship between the results of the Community Surveys and the proposed Action Plans developed from the project to date. This involves comparing how the action plans meet community needs and desires and the potential knock on effect from any developments that occur. It is also necessary to look at any potential issues that may arise, in order to mitigate these if possible. Similarly it is worthwhile seeing how they link with the local attractions already available as suggested by community members. Each community is covered separately.

Table 22: Võrtsjärv Action Plan linked to Challenges and DesiresAction Plan: Strategic Objectives Community comments that it fully

or partially addressesPotential knock on effects

Potential issues Links to local attractions recommended by community members

Identify and adopt the most cost-effective marketing measures for the Lake Vortsjarv area.Develop unique Lakeside products and services around the area's strongest assets such as:● more hiking and biking trails in and

around the Lakeside communities as well as within the wider area, with links to providers in the nature reserves -- particularly the ones adjoining the inlet and outlet rivers;

● the potential to develop stories around the Lake’s Gates (and possibly Ghost Island), utilising local storytellers;

● extending the tourism season through using the area's seasonal assets to good effect, including those on and within the Lake itself.

Improve lakeside (access, bike trails, picnic areas)Restore old good resting and holiday placesMore care for nature and environmentNature-tourism developmentSwimming placesSwimming poolMore tourismWall between people and lakeMore information for sailorsMore sailors on lakeBetter organized seamarksCoordinated rescue on lakeNew pier

More jobs More people from outsideFewer people leavingMore for young familiesVillage-life improvedMore young peopleFew young peoplePeople leave village and went to citiesFew activities in winterBetter public transport options

Retain our shop

Low aspirationsMulticulturalism ApathyReed – no attractive beaches and swimming placesNo restaurants for touristsNoise and loud music in summer eveningsPoor internetPoor material chancesShortage of accommodation

Limnology StationInformation Centre Suislepa Hiking Trail Valma fisher-village Walking-trail beside Õhne riverDevil's Stone walking-trailEmajõgi

Valma adventure parkIn future: Oiu harbor and restore old manor h

Mustjärve walking-trails

Utilise the power of events, fairs and festivals in attracting more day and overnight visitors into the area and in raising its profile in the market place.

Interesting camps More community activitiesActivity centres for different wishes and anticipationsArea vitalityOpen air concertsMore tourism

Assess and define the concept of quality (of Better support for local business Dust-free roads

39



places and people) - and how it can be developed and consistently delivered - around and within Lake Vortsjarv communities.

Better support for the local area development Tourism activities improvedIncrease tourism services

Better roads and infrastructureBetter transportPeople must take care of their home areasRegion and people can become more ethicalMore homes repairedClean up rubbishBetter road maintenance in winter

Develop local skills and attitudes based on meeting local as well as visitor needs within a coherent capacity building programme e.g. in crafts, birdwatching (especially around the visitor centre), and internal as well as external communication skills.

More jobs and better payBusiness developmentMore opportunitiesMore support from public sectorSmall business developmentTeamwork between local businesses and peopleOld buildings must be demolished or usedMore restaurants with local foodSell locally produced goods in region More active peopleMore cooperationCo-operation and people who really care and want to develop the regionPeople's passivity in cooperation

Conflicts between peopleConservationists who don't consider with local peopleTransport issuesPoor roadsLack of services (e.g. ATM)Few workers

Underpin the development effort through ensuring that visitors are well-informed at every point on the visitor journey but especially around the Lake and its Gateway points as well as within accommodation and other tourism providers (through community capacity building in particular).Develop links with Tartu as a University City through the Lake and Limonology, Centre,

Distance from Tartu Limnology center - lake museum

40



with the city providing accommodation for visitors and performing the role of Lake Vortsjarv service centre.All Actions Increase pride in local

area and through this encourage people to take greater care of the environment (e.g. less litter, better maintenance of properties)

Concerns not addressed by Action plans

Infrastructure e.g. electricity interruptions Mosquitoes Social issues relating to housing and health

41



Table 23: Maidla: Action Plan linked to Challenges and Desires

Action Plan: Strategic Objectives Community comments that it fully or partially addresses

Potential positive knock on effects

Potential issues Links to local attractions recommended by community members

Assess and map the extent and potential of existing local resources within the context of preparing a Maidla Tourism Development Plan which is built around the opportunities presented by the new Water Sports Centre, the Mining Museum and other imaginative features which will be developed within the project.

Tourism developmentMore leisure facilitiesHelp to improve tourism in the countryside

More local input into municipality plansMore attention to environment as the area has many companies which pollute it.Resolution of environmental problems, that life and environment stabilised and the area would be guaranteed a sustainable development.

In doing so, build upon the other destination strengths in their own right but also take every opportunity to link them to the Sports Centre whenever possible.

More locally produced goodsMore activities for young families

Maidla manorWildlife cameraAruvälja-Mehide nature trail

Within this strategic planning approach make an evidence-based case for encouraging new self catering and other forms of tourism accommodation development, involving key players and personalities in this process wherever possible.

Absence of hotels More businesses

Ensure that the quest for new development is matched by development of Maidla’s basic infrastructure, with particular reference to roads, parking, toilets and visitor information provision.

Improve roadsBetter transport network with bigger towns and the capital city More Infrastructure

Village shopMore active community lifeBetter bus servicesFor the area to developImprovement in facilities - to have the

42



village sauna redecorated/renovatedMore restaurants and evening entertainment

Develop a well researched Maidla brand that is built upon the values, attributes, benefits and personality of the area and promoted effectively through Maidla tourism businesses and communities as well as on a Municipality basis.Support all these development and marketing efforts with a capacity building programme to develop the required local skills, beginning in local schools and being designed to win “hearts and minds” as well as building capacity within all age groups.

More jobsTackle social issues e.g. unemployment, low salary, lack of opportunities for leisure.

Happier and more satisfied people

Cooperation between the municipality and entrepreneurs

Establish effective means of monitoring and reviewing progress within a system of continuous improvement which is inclusive of all in the public and private sectors which can make a contribution to tourism growth.All Actions Increase pride in local area and

through this encourage people to take greater care of the environment (e.g. less litter, better maintenance of properties)

Concerns not addressed by Action plans Welfare issues (elderly people, government support for individuals and family) Relationships with local authorities National issues including conflict with neighbouring

43



Table 24: Setomaa: Action Plan linked to Challenges and Desires

Action Plan: Strategic Objectives Community comments that it fully or partially addresses

Potential positive knock on effects

Potential issues Lnks to local attractions recommended by community members

Develop destination, management and marketing capabilities through the development of a strategic plan for tourism in the area. It should be based on collaboration, differentiation and innovation that is underpinned by community spirit and pride

Community to have more leaders who initiate developmentBetter community relationships

Local government should benefit peopleBetter cooperation between municipalities / communities Better use of local moneyBetter performance of small municipalities

Identify and build upon local attributes (landscapes, townscapes, heritage, culture, activities) accompanied by initiatives involving local food, crafts, entertainment and people

Positive developmentMore restaurants and entertainmentMore jobs and better wagesMore support for farming

Develop Area Improve roadsStreet lights in villageBetter bus servicesBetter servicesImprove infrastructure Lack of services (doctors, dentists, hairdressers, ATMLack of entertainment

Conservative peoplePeople slow to actPoor maintenance of village

Värska spa hotel and water centre Nopri farmVarious villages, towns, churches and cemeteries

Develop a brand with a marque that represents the area to be used to identify all products, goods and services produced by and provided in the region. This symbol should clearly portray the main characteristics of the region and over time could be developed into a brand that will identify all products, facilities and services offered

More support for local cultureSeto children should speak languagePeople have little faith in their home placeYoung people don't speak local language

Seto tea houseTsässonsVastseliina castlePiusa cavesVana-Jüri soap workshop

Develop a Setomaa trail and linked to this provide high quality information to facilitate the movement of tourists throughout the region, ensuring they are offered a fully supported service and an excellent learning experience through interpretation, orientation and communication between tourists, tourism service and activity providers. (See Strategic Objective 10)

Poor public transport connections Poor roads

Various museumsSeto Art GalleryVillages, churches and cemetaries

Use existing events to support the heritage trail and consider developing additional events such as

More companies providing goods and services

More shops Seto Kingdom Day

44



local markets to encourage tourism. Use the new brand in local markets to encourage the production and sale of locally branded foods.

Improve quality of life

Encourage new activity tourism providers. More businesses Investments in the regionEconomic developmentDevelop tourism / Better tourist facilitiesDevelop entrepreneurship

More people / young people Rise in living standardsMore active citizensSchools to remain openMore young families coming in

Piusa caves, outcrops and river valleyRõuge valleyNumerous lakesHärma sandstone outcropHirvemäe holiday centreVarious hillsNumerous walking trailsPõrste lake recreational areaNature reserves

Capitalise on the fact that Setomaa adjoins the Russian border, bringing with it the history of the division of the Seto people as well as its Soviet past.

Cross border problems related to illegal activitiesIssues with traffic to and from Russia

Viewing towersKoidula border crossing pointPoint where three borders meet (Parmu

Make the Seto heritage come alive via story telling where the folk and heritage aspect is emphasised. The story telling could take place in novel locations, such as forests, traditional farm yards and/or collective farm buildings.

Young people to stay and value the areaSeto children should speak language

Young people don't speak local languageGroup of people opposed to culture

Local film ´Peko's Day´Statue and performance of Peko Seto Leelo day

Identify one flagship project within the area that underpins the unique characteristics of Setomaa and will provide a strong foundation for future projectsAll Actions Increase pride in local area

and through this encourage people to take greater care of the environment e.g. less litter, better maintenance of properties)

Concerns not addressed by Action plans

45



Welfare issues (elderly people, government support for individuals and family) National issues including conflict with neighbouring countries

Overall assuming the Action plans are carried out, many of the desires of the local people should be met, and those that are not covered in the plan are mostly related to issues that cannot be solved by tourism.

46



Conclusions

The results of this study show that the communities are in general pro-tourism and that there are potential providers among all age groups. Similarly the action plans if carried out have the potential to meet many of the desires of the local communities. By presenting the concerns of the locals, it should be possible to establish mitigation measures from the very onset of tourism development, to reduce the impact increased tourism could have. For example, if a local community wishes to keep tourists out of a specific area, then they can do various things to divert tourists to other areas, but these should be planned from the outset.

The potential tourism experiences that are on offer in these three areas are linked by their association with water, but each also has its unique selling point, and both factors should be emphasized when tourism strategy and experiences are finalised.

References

International centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, Bournemouth University (2010) ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WILDLIFE TOURISM IN SCOTLAND, Scottish Government Social Research, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/311951/0098489.pdf.

Doxey G.V. (1975) A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences, in Travel and Tourism Research Associations. Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, San Diego.

MacIntyre, D. and Velander, K. (2012) Action plans for COMCOT partners. Consultancy report.

Scottish Government (2009) Tourism Key Sector Report, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/297632/0092594.pdf

Veal, A.J. (1997) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism – a Practical Guide. London:Pearson Professional

Velander, K. (2012) Community Questionnaire Surveys: Finland. COMCOT (An innovative tool for improving the competitiveness of community based tourism) Consultancy Report, 61pp

Velander, K., Matilainen, A. and Lähdesmäki, M. (2012) COMCOT, a cross border tourism community based tourism project. Leisure Studies Conference, Edinburgh, July 2012.

WWF International (2001) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development, WWF International.

47

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/297632/0092594.pdf



Appendix 1: COMCOT Community Tourism Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take around 10 - 15 minutes to answer all the questions. Thank you for answering the questions in the most accurate way possible. Remember that this questionnaire is anonymous.

The first questions aim to identify your relationships with your area.

1. How long have you lived in this area? Always I was born here but left (for education/work/personal reasons) and returned _______ years

ago I moved into the area and have lived here for ____________ years

2. What do you like most about living here?

3. What problems do you encounter living here?

4. What changes would you like to see in this area?

5. What changes would you prefer not to see in this area?

6. How would you describe yourself in relation to your community (you can tick more than one)?

I take part in the planning and running of community events / activities. I attend most community events / activities. I take part occasionally in community events / activities. I rarely or never attend community events / activities. I would like to participate more in the planning and running of community events / activities.

7. Do you participate in any community organisations and if so which ones?

48



The next questions aim to identify the role tourism plays in your life and area (Summer home residents are considered as locals for this portion of the questionnaire)

8. a. Are you or is someone in your household involved in a tourism business?

Yes No

b. If you are not personally involved in providing tourism services would you like to be?

Yes No

9.a. If yes to the last question, what proportion of your income is derived from tourism?

Less than 25%

26-50%

51-75%

Greater than 75%

b. And are the financial benefits (please tick all that are appropriate).

Seasonal

Throughout the year

Full-time

Part-time

10. Would you like your tourism business to:

Increase Why?

Decrease

Stay the same

11. In your opinion, the impacts of tourism on the area are:

Mostly positive

Mostly negative

Equally positive and negative

12. List a maximum 10 characteristics of your area that would identify it to a tourist and encourage them to visit you. (e.g. for Scotland these might be hills, lochs, heather, whisky, bagpipes, kilts, shortbread, standing stones, ruins, stone walls.)

49



13. Are any of these characteristics/places unique to your area and if so which ones?

14. If a tourist came to your area, what would you suggest they see or do? Please tick any businesses or places that you wish and add additional ones. Feel free to mark their location on the attached map.

15. Do you think some places should be kept private for use by local people only? Yes No

If so, please list them below or mark them on the attached map.

16. Do you think some activities should be kept private for local people only? Yes No

If so, please list them below.

50



Please grade the impact tourists have on your personal quality of life during peak season (June-July / August).

-5 represents the most negative effect and 5 the most positive effect. If you consider there is no effect, choose 0.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5Example -5 -4 -3 X -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

17. My household’s income -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

18. My daily routine -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

19. My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

20. Feeling safe -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

21. Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

22. Driving around the area -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

23. My water supply -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

24. My food supply -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

25. Spending time with non-residents -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

26. My cultural identity -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

27. Enjoying peace and quiet -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

28. Enjoying the landscape -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

29. Feeling of space -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

51



Now grade how the following aspects of life in the area are affected by tourism, in your own opinion, during peak season. -5 represents the most negative effect and 5 the most positive effect. If you consider there is no effect, choose 0.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5Example -5 -4 -3 X -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

30. Economy of the area -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

31. Creating jobs for younger generations -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

32. Maintaining population of the area -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

33. Traffic issues -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

34. Impacts on the countryside such as litter -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

35. Number of shops open -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

36. Number of restaurants and hotels open -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

37. Entertainment opportunities -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

38. Preservation of local culture: Traditional music, crafts and activities

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

39. Heritage sites and buildings open -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

40. Peace and quiet41. Beauty of landscape -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

42. Wild plants and animals -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

43. Water quality -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

44. Air quality -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Please tell us about yourself (circle the appropriate answer or fill in the blank)45. Gender: Male Female

46. My age: 18 – 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

47. Occupation ___________ Location of your place of work (town, municipality) _________

48. Where do you live (municipality or area)? _______________________________

49. If you commute to work, how far do you travel (in km)? _______________________________

50. I live there throughout the year in the summer summer and weekends

51. Number of people in your household Adults __________ Children ___________

52. This is the last part of the questionnaire. In this part, you can if you wish express your views and feelings about the future of tourism in your area, and/or about the future of the community. You can write as much as you want by using the back of this page

Thank you very much for answering this questionnaire. Remember the information you are giving will not be linked to your name or address or any personal information about you and your households. The results will be provided at your COMCOT community meetings in 2012.

52



Participants Information Sheet

The aim of this research is to investigate the potential for the development of community based tourism in this area. It is funded under Interreg IV A along with inputs from local partners.

The results of the research should enable us to identify what the local community feels they can offer tourists, who would like to be involved in tourism expansion and how the community feels about tourism including potential negative impacts as well as benefits,

All data collected will be anonymous, strictly confidential and adhere to the individual partners ethical codes of practice. Once the study has been completed all data will be destroyed.

Thank you for your time and assistance

If you have any additional questions, please contact:

53



Appendix 2: Additional Comments

Table 25: Question 52 - Võrtsjärv: This is the last part of the questionnaire. In this part, you can if you wish express your views and feelings about the future of tourism in your area, and/or about the future of the community. You can write as much as you want by using the back of this page

VõrtsjärvFeeling goodI am open to any offer of employment in the tourism sectorMass tourism is not suitable in this area. Events should be linked to local culture and nature. Involve more local people, because this eliminated their fears medium tourismMore different tourism- services; better connection with local business; performance-based tourismMore walking-trails, attractions, sailing on Võrtsjärv, available tour guidesno touristsOur tourism could be same good as in TurkeyTourism businesses must to do more work together, developmentTourism developed Tourism developed in Võrtsjärv areaTourism has two different sides: good and bad. Can spread diseases and weed.Tourism must be more developed; Tourism create more job; More interesting life for local people; strange people are interesting.Võrtsjärv must to be symbol of this regionwe can use tourism to developing our area business and living environment. It makes more job and better infrastructure.We must developing all different areas in Võrtsjärv region, not only tourism

54



Table 26: Question 52 – Maidla This is the last part of the questionnaire. In this part, you can if you wish express your views and feelings about the future of tourism in your area, and/or about the future of the community. You can write as much as you want by using the back of this page

Maidla

An increase in tourism will definitely impact on the lives of local people. There will be jobs in Aidu water sport centre and also in 2013 when the adventure tourism centre opens in Kiviõli which is close to Maidla municipality. This would reduce young families leaving the area in great numbers. Unfortunately the new mine under planning at Uus- Kiviõli, by Eesti Energia kaevandused AS, which includes a major part of forest villages, will have a negative impact on tourism development as well as the development of attractive residential areas. Even today some forest villages do not issue building permissions to young families, the reason given is that the desired plot is within the mining area of the new mine. Environmental impacts will become factor of everyday life as a result of the mining (e.g. water disappears from wells, noise and vibration), which may result in many families leaving the area. Mining also affects real estate prices.

Handicraft, exhibition of antiquities, presentation of handicraft skills, selling forest produce, making of nature-related products (runic symbols, runic songs). Ancient songs, tales, games of the areaI have no idea yet of life when big projects are put in operation. Our municipality is mostly affected by the rowing canal in AiduI'd like to see the Aidu water sports centre in operation in reality, it may become a tourist magnet in the area

If developing anything, it should be hunting tourism, or hides for tourists for watching wildlife (photographers), e.g. there is one for watching brown bears

In 2016 a rowing canal will open in Aidu quarry possibly, and then there will be a heavier influx of tourists into the area

No comments from Setomaa

55



Appendix 3 Demographic data, Questions

Table 27: Gender of participants (Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Maidla)

Q 45 Gender Male Female Not specified Total

Võrtsjärv 29 36 7 65

Maidla 17 51 68

Maidla 33 69 102

Table 28: Age

Q 46 Age 18-25 26-35 36-55 56-65 66+ Not specified

Total

Võrtsjärv 9 11 30 12 3 0 65

Maidla 9 9 31 15 4 0 68

Maidla 7 12 59 15 9 0 102

Table 29: How long in the area

Q 1 How long in area?

Always Born Returned

Moved in Other Total

Võrtsjärv 23 10 26 6 65

Maidla 22 10 34 2 68

Maidla 43 14 37 8 102

56



Appendix 4

Table 30: Key Words – Võrtsjärv, Maidla and Setomaa

Vortsjarv Maidla Setomaa TotalLake Võrtsjärv 33 Maidla manor 38 Seto Leelo 64Nature 21 Ash hills 23 Folk costumes and Jewellery 44Sailing /boats/watersports 12 Aidu quarry 8 Nature 23Fishing 8 Mines 7 Seto culture 22Eels 5 Forests 6 Värska mineral water 22Smoked fish / eels 4 Purtse river 6 Folk dance 17Bogs /Marshes 4 Quarry 6 Seto handicraft 16Tondisaar 4 Oil shale 5 Seto language 16Boats 3 Rowing canal 5 Seto museums 15Landscape 3 Bogs and marshes 4 Landscapes 14Peaceful 3 Pur-fest 3 Seto food 12Agriculture 2 Sirtsi boulder 3 Spa hotel 12Area parishes 2 Untouched nature 3 Tsässons 11Bagpipes 2 Motocross track 3 Traditions 11Birds 2 Artificial landscapes 2 Seto Kingdom 9Emajõgi 2 Day of the municipality 2 Home-made spirit 9Ennukse bunker 2 Hunting 2 Silver jewellery 9Estonian zither 2 Industrial landscape 2 Lakes 8Fishermen 2 Muraka bog 2 Forests / pine woods 8Fresh air 2 Ontika limestone cliff 2 Medicinal mud 8Lake Museum 2 Sea 2 Language 7Limnology Station 2 Young people 2 Seto people 7Lossimäe 2 Construction and exploitation of the rowing canal 2 Fishing 6Mulk national costumes and -dance 2 Lots of woodlands 2 Churches 6

57



Nature tourism 2 Aidu quarry 1 Home-made cheese 6Õhne river with walking trail 2 Active holiday facilities 1 Cold soup 6Bird watching 2 Adventure tourism centre 1 Local accordion 4Forest and field 2 Agriculture 1 Hiking trails 4

Trepimägi 2Aidu oil shale quarry (dozens of square kilometres of land dug up - water centre in future 1 Onion 3

Väike-Emajõgi 2 Aidu quarry and excavators 1 Valleys 3Vehendi, Trepimägi 2 Aidu water sport centre under planning today 1 Estonian-Russian border / guards/crossing 3Walking-trails 2 Aidu water sports centre under development 1 Boot of Saatse 2Water 2 Ancient area ´Maidla mõõk´ 1 Peko 2Friendly and smart people 2 Ancient forests (Sirtsi stone linked to forest) 1 Religion 2200 years old glass history 1 Bear watching hide where they have a den 1 Seto holidays 25 road junction 1 Beautiful sights 1 Smoke sauna 2Accordion 1 Beautiful woodlands 1 Tea house 2Active holiday 1 Big game (animals) 1 Transfiguration Day 2Adventure park 1 Bogs 1 Water centre 2Beautiful reservoirs 1 Boulder (in Sirtsi village) 1 Dispersed settlement 2Beautiful women 1 Clean nature 1 Hills 2Beer 1 Events at Maidla manor 1 Hirvemäe Holiday Centre 2Black bread 1 Foreigners 1 Marshlands 2Bunker 1 Forest brothers´ dugout 1 Forests for picking berries and mushrooms 2Castle ruins 1 Former industrial landscape 1 Located between Russia and Latvia 2Church 1 Gossip 1 Orthodox church 2

Coastal villages 1Heino Lipp sports competition in the park of Maidla manor 1 Specific features of Setomaa 2

Eduard Viiralt 1 Highest waterfall - Valaste 1 Holiday centre 2Estonia's oldest public library 1 Ideas unheard of 1 Life style 2Ethnic clothing 1 Kiviõli adventure tourism centre 1 Band Zetod 1Folk culture 1 Kiviõli hill climbing competition, motocross 1 Barns 1

58



Fortresses 1 Kohtla mining museum 1 Beads 1Gnats 1 Kuremäe nunnery 1 Beautiful nature 1Good quality accommodation 1 Landscape 1 Berries 1Handiwork 1 Large forests rich in berries and mushrooms 1 Blini 1Heritage 1 Lights at the manor event 1 Buildings 1History 1 Maidla basic school 1 Cemetery 1Hunters 1 Maidla Manor Day 1 Events, e.g. Seto Kingdom day 1Johannes Laidoner 1 Marshes 1 Existence (mood) 1Kaavere village-square 1 Municipality days (festivity) 1 Forest lakes 1Kärstna chapel hill 1 Music event "Lights at the Manor" 1 Fortified farms 1Kolga-Jaani church 1 Narva castle 1 Health treatments 1Kõver kõrts 1 Nature in general 1 Hino lake 1Lake beside church 1 Nature tourism 1 History 1Local culture 1 Peace and quiet 1 Home-made spirit (hansa) 1Lossimägi 1 Peipsi lake 1 Local food 1Manor houses 1 Prejudice 1 Luhamaa border crossing point 1Manor schools 1 Relatively much forest 1 Luikjärve farm 1

Mother's care 1Results of oil shale processing - ash and ganque hills 1 Meremäe viewing tower 1

Mulgimaa 1 River 1 Mushrooms 1Mushroom- and berries forests 1 Rumours 1 Music 1Nature (woods, swamp) 1 Silence 1 Nature tourism 1Necessary conditions for life 1 Sports facilities 1 Nature trails 1Poldre tower 1 Tark öökull/ Wise Owl 1 Spa hotel 1

Puka 1Future water sport centre in the form of a rowing canal 1 Oats porridge 1

Punavare 1 Heart of Virumaa 1 Obinitsa Seto Museum 1Recreational areas 1 River 1 Old Believers 1

59



Relaxing and entertainment 1 Uljaste esker 1 Old Believers´ cemetery 1Rõngu gardens 1 Uljaste lake 1 Orthodox religion 1Sakala upland 1 Valaste waterfall 1 Peace and quiet 1Service 1 Unique Maidla manor 1 People with community spirit 1Silence 1 Village tales 1 Performance ´Peko´ 1Small place 1 Virumaa 1 Picturesque nature 1Smoke oven 1 Visitor game ´Forgotten manors´ 1 Playing instruments 1Soomaa 1 Waterfalls 1 Rag rugs 1Sour cream 1 Well preserved nature 1 Religious customs 1Sparsely populated 1 Sandstone outcrops 1Studio 1 School 1Suislepa apple-tree 1 Specific heritage region 1Sunsets 1 Statue of Taarka 1Tarvas, forests 1 Piusa river 1Tarvastu castle hill 1 Traditions related to ancestors 1Tarvastu castle ruins 1 Village parties 1Tarvastu church 1 Tarvastu polder 1 Tourism 1 Trepimägi 1 Ulge rest-area 1 Valma 1 Valma man 1 Vehendi 1 Viiratsi Community Center 1 Village-life 1 Vodka 1 Vooremägi 1 Võrstjärv games 1

60



Warm bread 1

61



Appendix 5: Impacts of tourism on personal quality of life and life in the community.

Table 31. Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Võrtsjärv (gender, age, length of residency); Q17-29: Please grade the impact tourists have on your personal quality of life during peak season. -5 = the most negative effect, +5 = the most positive effect, o = no effect). (Significant differences shown in red)

VÕRTSJÄRVGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p= 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66+ Value Sig. p= Always Born/left/returned 0-10 yrs 10+ yrs Value Sig. p=


My household's income 0.97 0.610.24 433.500 0.165 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.83 0.67 2.898 0.575 0.78 0.45 1.33 0.57 2.789 0.425

My daily routine 1.48 0.94 389.00 0.137 0.56 1.82 1.18 1.17 1.00 3.815 0.432 1.33 0.36 1.38 1.30 1.277 0.735

My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents

1.86 1.60 457.50 0.482 1.67 2.18 1.62 2.00 0.00 5.072 0.280 2.44 0.64 1.78 1.65 6.027 0.110

Feeling safe 0.14 0.08 519.50 0.972 0.44 0.55 -0.20 0.50 -1.00 6.648 0.156 0.56 0.18 -0.33 -0.24 3.376 0.337

Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies 0.59 0.28 509.50 0.849 1.11 0.91 0.10 050 -0.67 3.836 0.429 0.56 0.27 0.56 0.00 1.150 0.765

Driving around the area 0.97 1.20 496.50 0.874 1.33 1.45 1.03 1.00 0.00 3.762 0.439 1.17 0.45 1.50 1.00 3.267 0.352

My water supply 0.07 0.11 499.50 0.923 -0.22 -0.09 0.14 0.58 -0.67 6.618 0.158 0.39 0.18 0.00 0.10 1.063 0.786

My food supply 0.03 0.28 442.50 0.174 0.44 -0.36 0.13 0.58 0.00 2.039 0.729 0.44 0.18 0.44 0.10 1.547 0.671



Enjoying peace and quiet -0.03 -0.31 520.00 0.978 0.22 0.09 -0.43 0.08 -1.00 1.827 0.768 0.22 0.00 -0.33 -0.90 2.926 0.403

Enjoying the landscape 0.59 0.22 462.005 0.332 0.44 1.00 0.17 0.42 0.00 2.059 0.725 0.78 0.09 0.56 -0.19 10.396 0.015

Feeling of space 0.24 0.03 499.50 0.737 0.33 0.73 -0.23 0.50 -0.67 3.622 0.460 0.56 -0.09 -0.22 -0.38 4.330 0.228

Overall mean

62



Table 32: Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Maidla (gender, age, length of residency); Q17-29: Please grade the impact tourists have on your personal quality of life during peak season. -5 = most negative effect, +5 = most positive effect, o = no effect. (Significant differences shown in red)

MAIDLAGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p= 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66 + Value Sig. p= Always Born/left/returned 0-10y 10+y Value Sig. p=

Sample Size n = 16 n = 45 n = 9 n = 9 n = 27 n = 14 n = 2 n = 19 n = 279 n = 10 n = 22

My household's income 0.10 0.31 336.50 0.532 0.44 0.00 0.33 0.14 1 3.958 0.412 0.14 0.25 0.20 0.45 1.597 0.660

My daily routine 1.24 0.91 319.00 0.398 1.89 1.75 0.64 0.77 0.50 7.817 0.099 1.00 1.38 1.33 0.74 5.103 0.164

My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents

0.38 0.78 325.50 0.504 1.11 0.89 0.56 0.43 1.00 3.878 0.423 0.76 0.63 0.40 0.75 3.581 0.310

Feeling safe -0.38 0.16 275.50 0.164 0.44 -0.44 -0.08 0.29 -0.50 1.308 0.860 -0.14 0.75 -0.50 0.00 1.125 0.771

Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies -0.56 0.17 248.00 0.031 -0.56 1.00 -0.19 -0.21 1.00 6.495 0.165 -0.52 0.56 0.50 -0.10 2.035 0.565

Driving around the area -0.06 0.51 264.50 0.123 0.33 0.75 -0.04 0.93 0,=.00 1.818 0.769 -0.05 0.75 0.67 0.53 0.381 0.944

My water supply -0.06 0.22 245.00 0.010 0.33 0.56 0.00 0.14 -0.50 5.483 0.241 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.05 5.159 0.161

My food supply 0.56 0.41 342.00 0.846 0.11 1.33 0.15 0.62 1.00 3.934 0.415 0.20 1.13 1.00 0.20 3.442 0.328

Spending time with non-residents 1.00 0.66 335.00 0.470 2.11 1.11 0.61 -0.08 0.50 11.330 0.023 1.14 0.63 0.50 0.60 10.632 0.014


Enjoying peace and quiet -1.13 -0.20 253.00 0.052 0.22 -0.22 -0.37 01.15 -1.00 7.221 0.125 -0.85 -0.50 -0.50 -0.05 0.576 0.902

Enjoying the landscape -0.67 0.23 221.00 0.007 0.44 0.67 -0.11 -0.54 0.00 8.804 0.066 -0.42 0.63 0.20 0.05 1.942 0.584

Feeling of space -1.07 -0.09 227.50 0.042 0.00 0.00 -0.19 -1.15 0.00 8.816 0.066 -0.53 -0.50 -0.40 -0.10 1.133 0.769

Overall mean

63



Table 33: Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Setomaa (gender, age, length of residency); Q17-29: Please grade the impact tourists have on your personal quality of life during peak season. -5 = most negative effect, +5 = most positive effect, o = no effect. (Significant differences shown in red)

SETOMAAGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p= 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66 + Value test Sig. p= Always Born/left/

returned 0-10y 10+y Value test Sig. p=.


My household's income 1.45 1.16 1049.50 0.491 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.83 0.67 9.260 0.055 1.70 0.57 1.38 1.00 3.315 0.346

My daily routine 1.39 0.81 976.00 0.231 0.56 1.82 1.18 1.17 1.00 4.588 0.332 0.98 1.21 1.31 0.75 0.741 0.864

My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time

summer residents1.15 1.19 1126.50 0.929 1.67 2.18 1.62 2.00 0.00 0.953 0.917 1.44 1.00 0.69 1.17 1.752 0.625

Feeling safe -0.61 -0.74 1090.00 0.720 0.44 0.55 -0.20 0.50 -1.00 6.537 0.162 -0.74 -0.86 -1.00 -0.50 2.694 0.441

Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies -0.03 0.19 1048.50 0.499 1.11 0.91 0.10 0.50 -0.67 7.020 0.135 0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.04 0.560 0.905

Driving around the area 1.03 0.70 1007.50 0.334 1.33 1.45 1.03 1.00 0.00 3.124 0.537 0.77 0.50 1.15 0.79 0.500 0.919

My water supply 0.21 0.19 1079.50 0.516 -0.22 -0.09 0.14 0.58 -0.67 1.834 0.766 0.19 0.36 0.00 0.21 0.516 0.915

My food supply 0.88 0.01 835.00 0.015 0.44 -0.36 0.13 0.58 0.00 2.631 0.621 0.70 -0.43 0.69 -0.04 4.989 0.173



Enjoying peace and quiet -1.24 -0.77 1013.00 0.359 0.22 0.09 -0.43 0.08 -1.00 1.300 0.861 -1.00 -1.21 -2.00 -0.38 5.528 0.137

Enjoying the landscape 0.15 0.17 1117.50 0.862 0.44 1.00 0.17 0.42 0.00 3.619 0.460 0.40 -0.07 0.00 0.04 2.629 0.452

Feeling of space -0.18 0.04 1068.50 0.591 0.33 0.73 -0.23 0.50 -0.67 3.194 0.526 0.02 -0.29 -0.23 0.13 0.839 0.840

Overall mean

64



Table 34. Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Võrtsjärv (gender, age, length of residency); Q30-44: Please grade how the following aspects of life in the area are affected by tourism, during peak season. -5 = most negative effect, +5 = most positive effect, o = no effect. (Significant differences shown in red)

VÕRTSJÄRVGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p=. 18-25 26-35 36-55 56-65 66+ Value test Sig. p=. Always Born/left/




Creating jobs for younger generations 2.41 2.50 0.033 0.857 3.22 2.55 2.30 2.33 2.00 2.580 0.630 2.59 1.40 3.00 2.18 4.261 0.235

Maintaining population of the area 2.24 2.37- 476.50 0.668 2.78 2.27 2.38 2.00 1.67 1.846 0.764 2.32 1.70 3.11 1.94 4.958 0.175

Traffic issues 0.07 0.77 412.00 0.184 -0.11 0.64 0.34 0.83 -0.33 2.528 0.640 0.73 0.50 0.44 -0.13 0.550 0.908

Impacts on the countryside (e.g. litter) -0.75 -1,17 434.50 0.340 -1.78 -1.18 -0.83 -0.58 -1.00 3.472 0.482 -1.32 -0.60 -0.67 -1.24 1.182 0.757

Number of shops available 1.39 1.53 438.00 0.582 2.00 1.64 1.72 1.00 -1.67 7.579 0.108 2.15 0.67 1.89 0.65 5.151 0.161

Number of hotels/restaurants open 1.72 2.14 456.500 0.480 2.56 1.82 2.00 1.45 2.00 1.984 0.739 2.38 0.60 2.33 1.94 5.607 0.132

Entertainment opportunities 1.52 2.23 391.50 0.242 2.67 1.82 1.79 1.70 2.00 2.132 0.711 2.60 1.20 2.25 1.82 3.286 0.350

Preservation of local culture 2.07 2.66 419.50 0.227 2.56 1.73 2.79 2.17 1.33 4.749 0.314 2.73 1.20 2.78 2.25 5.211 0.157

Heritage sites and buildings open

2.34 2.58 480.00 0.572 3.33 1.73 2.67 2.25 1.67 4.884 0.299 2.86 1.40 3.22 2.18 4.933 0.177

Peace and quiet 0.10 -0.37 421.50 0.236 0.67 -0.40 -0.07 -0.42 -1.67 2.275 0.685 0.00 -0.50 -0.22 -0.29 0.241 0.971

Beauty of landscape 0.97 0.94 497.00 0.734 0.78 0.36 1.03 1.67 0.00 3.252 0.517 1.36 0.10 1.44 0.53 3.459 0.326

Wild plants and animals 0.28 0.40 494.50 0.855 0.67 0.09 0.37 0.36 0.00 0.188 0.996 0.19 -0.10 0.56 0.29 1.865 0.601

Water quality 0.28 0,17 481.00 0.548 0.00 -0.45 0.63 0.08 -0.33 5.473 0.242 0.14 0.10 0.33 0.18 0.583 0.900

65



Air quality 0.55 0.25 457.50 0.280 0.33 0.00 0.60 0.33 0.00 2.974 0.562 0.42 0.30 0.56 0.18 0.978 0.807

Overall mean

66



Table 35: Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Maidla (gender, age, length of residency); Q30-44: Ple0.ase grade how the following aspects of life in the area are affected by tourism, during peak season. -5 = most negative effect, +5 = most positive effect, o = no effect. (Significant differences shown in red)

MAIDLAGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p=. 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66+ Value test Sig. p=. Always Born/left/


Sample size n = 16 n = 45 n = 9 n = 9 n = 27 n = 14 n = 2 n = 22 n = 7 n = 9 n = 19

Economy of the area 1.71 3.15 204.00 0.012 3.75 3.00 2.80 1.93 4.943 0.293 2.41 2.86 2.78 3.05 2.098 0.552

Creating jobs for younger generations

2.06 3.27 231.50 0.031 4.00 2.44 3.11 2.43 2.67 2.378 0.667 2.80 2.56 1.89 3.62 4.783 0.188

Maintaining population of the area

1.94 1.91 357.50 0.863 3.0 2.56 2.04 1.00 0.67 5.595 0.232 2.62 1.22 1.89 1.71 2.849 0.415

Traffic issues 0.38 0.95 293.00 0.432 1.56 0.44 0.92 0.00 2.00 4.955 0.292 1.06 1.67 -0.33 0.76 4.675 0.197

Impacts on the countryside (e.g. litter)

-0.56 -0.52 330.50 0.922 -0.75 -0.5 -0.23 -1.00 -0.50 1.941 0.747 -0.50 0.25 -1.50 -0.50 2.596 0.458

Number of shops available 0.65 1.44 295.50 0.232 0.25 1.11 1.77 0.93 0.67 2.984 0.561 1.62 0.56 0.33 1.70 3.170 0.366

Number of hotels/restaurants open

1.41 2.29 291.00 0.137 1.88 2.44 2.43 1.27 1.50 3.236 0.519 2.41 1.38 1.11 2.29 2.907 0.406



Heritage sites and buildings open

1.13 1.52 203.50 0.040 2.38 1.67 2.44 2.00 1.50 1.447 0.836 1.95 0.88 1.89 2.90 6.975 0.073

Peace and quiet -1.13 -0.46 259.50 0.442 -00.29 -0.86 -0.21 -1.46 -1.50 7.621 0.107 -1.25 -0.59 -1.25 -0.59 0.930 0.818

Beauty of landscape -0.56 0.47 231.00 0.016 0.00 0.89 0.19 -0.08 -0.50 3.029 0.553 0.15 0.14 -0.33 0.48 1.728 0.631

Wild plants and animals -0.56 -0.33 300.50 0.493 -0.38 -0.88 -0.15 -0.38 -2.00 1.819 0.769 -0.75 -0.14 0.33 -0.50 2.798 0.424

Water quality -0.50 0.13 282.00 0.090 0.11 -0.33 0.07 -0.31 0.67 2.531 0.639 0.15 0.25 -0.70 0.00 3.281 0.350

Air quality -0.44 -0.07 335.50 0.635 0.11 -0.56 0.04 -0.31 0.67 2.200 0.699 -0.20 0.00 -0.78 0.05 1.764 0.623

Overall mean

Table 36: Resident ratings according to socio-demographic variables in Setomaa (gender, age, length of residency); Q30-44: Please grade how the following aspects of life in the area are affected by tourism, during peak season. -5 = most negative effect, +5 = most positive effect, o = no effect. (Significant differences shown in red)

67



SETOMAAGender



Male Female U-value Sig. p=. 18-25 26-35 36 - 55 56 - 65 66+ Value

test Sig. p=. Always Born/left/returned 0-10y 10+y Value

test Sig. p=.



Creating jobs for younger generations 2.97 2.87 1100.50 0.782 2.14 2.42 3.00 2.67 3.89 4.970 0.290 3.02 2.36 3.00 3.17 2.377 0.498

Maintaining population of the area 2.00 2.72 962.00 0.200 2.00 2.25 2.57 2.2 3.11 1.810 0.771 2.72 2.36 2.15 2.75 1.659 0.646

Traffic issues 0.82 0.84 1079.50 0.666 -0.43 0.00 1.03 1.20 1.00 6.042 0.196 1.19 0.93 0.08 0.96 2.591 0.459

Impacts on the countryside (e.g. litter) -2.18 -1.88 963.00 0.203 -1.57 -1.83 -2.14 -1.87 -1.67 0.839 0.933 -1.84 -1.64 -3.15 -1.75 6.510 0.089

Number of shops available 1.85 1.39 996.00 0.299 1.71 1.17 1.61 1.27 1.89 2.433 0.657 1.67 0.86 1.38 1.67 3.334 0.343

Number of hotels/restaurants open 2.30 2.35 1081.00 0.676 1.86 1.92 2.34 2.20 3.44 0.4775 0.311 2.40 2.07 2.23 2.63 0.914 0.822



Heritage sites and buildings open 2.45 2.35 1122.00 0.905 2.29 2.50 2.41 2.27 2.33 0.156 0.997 2.28 1.71 2.38 3.08 6.569 0.087

Peace and quiet -1.09 -1.14 1112.00 0.847 -1.14 -1.17 -1.15 -0.73 -1.56 0.826 0.935 -1.00 -0.71 -1.92 -1.13 2.706 0.439

Beauty of landscape 0.03 0.43 991.00 0.274 -1.14 -0.42 0.42 0.73 0.89 5.361 0.252 0.56 -0.21 -0.08 0.75 2.392 0.495

Wild plants and animals -0.79 -0.51 973.00 0.222 -1.29 -0.75 -0.61 -0.27 -0.33 1.250 0.870 -0.42 -0.79 -1.38 -0.25 3.694 0.297

Water quality 0.18 -0.04 1058.00 0.518 -1.14 0.50 -0.03 0.60 -0.22 7.373 0.117 0.47 -0.21 -0.46 -0.08 4.794 0.187

Air quality -0.21 -0.35 1055.50 0.532 -1.00 -0.33 -0.37 0.60 -0.78 2.609 0.625 0.07 -0.50 -0.54 -0.50 1.083 0.781

Overall mean

Table 37: The comparison between all three communities for questions 17 – 44 concerning the impacts of tourism in the area on personal life and life in the area in general. (Kruskal-Wallis test) (Significant differences shown in red)

68



VÕRTSJÄRV, MAIDLA and SETOMAA

(Q 17 – 44)

Personal Life(Kruskal Wallis Test)

Life in the Area(Kruskal Wallis Test)

Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa Chi2 Sig. p=. Võrtsjärv Maidla Setomaa Chi2 Sig. p=.

Sample Size n = 65 n = 61 n = 102 n = 58 n = 58 n = 102

My household's income 0.18 0.43 0.61 16.279 0.000 Economy of the Area 2.00 2.68 2.16 8.309 0.016

My daily routine 0.19 0.40 0.28 1.598 0.450 Creating jobs for younger generations 1.61 1.59 1.28 4.478 0.107

My socialising habits with other permanent or full-time summer residents 0.75 1.62 1.39 13.151 0.001 Maintaining population

of the area 1.58 2.16 1.67 3.879 0.144

Feeling safe -0.02 -0.13 -0.33 13.859 0.001 Traffic issues -0.19 -0.69 -0.26 2.864 0.239

Enjoying my garden/land/hobbies 0.25 0.20 -0.17 2.484 0.289 Impacts on the countryside (e.g. litter) -0.45 -0.93 -1.26 19.537 0.000

Driving around the area -0.59 -0.85 -0.83 7.460 0.024 Number of shops available 1.22 1.18 1.37 1.993 0.369

My water supply 0.04 0 0.00 0.095 0.954 Number of hotels/restaurants open 1.42 0.92 1.56 2.080 0.353

My food supply 0.04 0.19 0.00 0.234 0.890 Entertainment opportunities 1.49 0.81 1.22 1.049 0.592

Spending time with non-residents 0.52 0.87 0.22 8.863 0.012 Preservation of local culture 1.37 1.52 1.61 31.919 0.000

My cultural identity 0.35 0.82 0.44 8.376 0.015 Heritage sites and buildings open 1.40 1.21 1.37 0.722 0.697

Enjoying peace and quiet -0.22 -0.06 -0.44 6.134 0.047 Peace and quiet -0.38 -0.36 -0.86 12.317 0.002Enjoying the landscape 0.14 0.31 -0.05 1.779 0.411 Beauty of landscape 0.31 0.05 0.22 7.200 0.027Feeling of space -0.15 -0.14 0.00 1.810 0.405 Wild plants and animals -0.11 0.04 -0.39 14.057 0.001

Water quality -0.14 0.01 -0.50 0.282 0.869

Air quality -0.09 -0.13 -0.44 16.783 0.000

69

Documents

Community Questionnaire Surveys: Estoniafiles.voog.com/0000/0012/9655/files/COMCOT Analysis of... · Web viewCommunity Questionnaire Surveys: Estonia (Lake Võrtsjärv, Maidla and