ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Enri Uusna PLACE ATTACHMENT IN RURAL ESTONIA: QUALITATIVE SAMPLES FROM LUSTIVERE, ADAVERE AND OBINITSA KOHASEOTUS EESTI MAAPIIRKONDADES: KVALITATIIVNE VALIMIUURING LUSTIVERE, ADAVERE JA OBINITSA NÄITEL THE THESIS For applying the degree of Master of Science in Landscape Protection and Preservation Supervisor: Mart Külvik PhD Co-supervisor: Joanna Storie MSc Tartu 2015 ABSTRACT Modern Estonia represents a Post-Soviet society where the framework of participation in local communities is not well organised. This absence in participation practices is related to the lack of participation in the Soviet era and the unawareness of the people-place relationships within the local authorities hampers the successful introduction of participatory practices. To understand these people-place relationships the theory of place attachment (or sense of place) was applied, through Scannell and Gifford‟s “Person-Process-Place” model. A total of 23 qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted in the study areas of Lustivere, Adavere and Obinitsa to answer 2 research questions: (1) Which factors strengthen or weaken the place attachment of the inhabitants of the study areas; (2) How do these factors influence the inhabitants‟ will to participate in local development processes? Place attachment in Lustivere was demonstrated through the feelings and cognitional experiences of the locals, the cultural setting, the community and the environment, whilst poor local infrastructure was the main issue. Obinitsa strengths were the feelings and cognitional experiences of the locals, the cultural setting, the community and the environment, with the main issue being discord in the local municipal council. The local environment was highlighted in Adavere, but exhibited issues within the local community, culture and infrastructure. The correlations were strong between the interviewees‟ motivations to participate and the “Person” and “Place” dimensions. The “Process” themes were too case-specific for correlation. This study concludes it would be necessary to examine the “Process” of how the locals develop attachment towards their place in developing a more functional participation framework in a community. LÜHIKOKKUVÕTE Tänapäeva Eesti näol on tegemist sotsialismijärgse ühiskonnaga ajstul, mil avalikkuse kaasamine kohalikes kogukondades ei ole kuigi pädevalt organiseeritud. See kaasamispraktika puudujääk on seotud puuduliku Nõukogudeaegse kaasamisega ning teadmatus kogukondade elanike seostest sealse elukeskkonnaga raskendab kaasamispraktika edukat introdutseerimist. Mõistmaks paremini seoseid inimeste ja nende elukeskkonna vahel, lähtuti antud väitekirjas kohaseotuse teooriast, rakendades Scannell & Giffordi „isik-psühholoogia-paik“ („Person- Process-Place“) mudelit. 23 poolstruktureeritud intervjuud viidi läbi Lustivere, Adavere ja Obinitsa kantides, et vastata kahele uurimisküsimusele: (1) Millised kohaseotuse tegurid tugevdavad või nõrgestavad uurimispiirkondade elanike kohaseotust; (2) Kuidas mõjutavad need tegurid uurimispiirkondade elanike valmidust olla kaasatud kohalikus arendustegevuses? Lustivere elanike kohaseotust tugevdavad tegurid olid sealsete elanike emotsioonid ja kognitiivsed kogemused; sealne kultuuriareen, kogukond ja keskkond. Puudujäägid infrastruktuuris olid Lustivere peamiseks kohaseotust nõrgestavaks teguriks. Obinitsa elanike kohaseotust tugevdavad tegurid olid sealsete elanike emotsioonid ja kognitiivsed kogemused; sealne kultuuriareen, kogukond ja keskkond. Lahkhelid kohalikus vallavolikogus olid Obintsa peamiseks kohaseotust nõrgestavaks teguriks. Adavere elanike kohaseotust tugevdavaks teguriks oli sealne keskkond, kuid omas puudujääke kogukonnas, kultuuritaustas ja infrastruktuuris. Kohaseotuse isiku ja asupaiga dimensioonide ja intervjueeritute kaasatuse valmiduse vahel olid tugevad seosed. Kohaseotuse psühholoogilises dimensioonis kajastatud teemad olid liiga indiviidipõhised, et näidata korrelatsiooni. Uurimusest võib järeldada, et loomaks edukamaid kaasamismetoodikaid, tuleks kogukonna piires põhjalikumalt pühenduda sealsete elanike psühhoogilise kohaseotuse mõõtme teguritesse. Põhjalikud teadmised protsessist, kuidas ühe kogukonna elanike side oma elukeskkonnaga on välja kujunenud, võivad aidata luua selle kogukonna elanike jaoks vastuvõetama ja motiveerivama metoodika kaasamispraktikaks. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ 1 LÜHIKOKKUVÕTE .................................................................................................................. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 6 1. A SENSE OF PLACE / PLACE ATTACHMENT .................................................................. 8 1.1. Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. The concept of “place“ ..................................................................................................... 9 1.3. What is sense of place? ................................................................................................... 10 1.4. The tripartite framework ................................................................................................. 12 1.4.1. Person ...................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.2. Process ..................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.3. Place ........................................................................................................................ 15 1.5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 15 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 17 2.1.Study areas ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Data collection ................................................................................................................ 18 2.3. Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 20 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 24 3.1 The narrative of Lustivere ............................................................................................... 24 3.1.1. Community resources .............................................................................................. 24 3.1.2. Engagement in Lustivere ......................................................................................... 26 3.1.3. Connection themes .................................................................................................. 29 3.1.4. Reasons for staying in Lustivere ............................................................................. 38 3.1.5. Power ....................................................................................................................... 39 3.2. The narrative of Adavere ................................................................................................ 41 3.2.1. Community resources in Adavere ........................................................................... 41 3.2.2. Engagement in Adavere ........................................................................................... 43 3.2.3. Connection themes .................................................................................................. 49 3.2.4. Reasons for staying in Adavere ............................................................................... 57 3.2.5. Power ....................................................................................................................... 58 3.3. The narrative of Obinitsa ................................................................................................ 59 3.3.1. Community resources in Obinitsa ........................................................................... 59 4 3.3.2. Engagement in Obinitsa .......................................................................................... 62 3.3.3. Connection themes .................................................................................................. 66 3.3.4. Reasons for staying in Obinitsa ............................................................................... 76 3.3.5. Power ....................................................................................................................... 77 3.4. Differences and commonalities of study areas ............................................................... 79 3.4.1. Differences and commonalities: community resources, local issues and the past .. 79 3.4.2. Differences and commonalities: engagement and connection themes .................... 86 3.4.3. Differences and commonalities: reasons for staying and power ............................. 91 3.4.4. Differences and commonalities: Conclusion ..........................................................