Creative Commodification of rural life from a performance perspective: A study of two south-east Estonian farm tourism enterprises

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

This study has been supported by the European Union through the Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence CECT), the Estonian Science Foundation (Project SF0180157s08 and Grant 6687) and the Norwegian Science Council (Grant EMP 54).

Notes

1. Rurality was defined as being multifunctional by the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Agenda 2000.

2. The decrease in economic importance of the agricultural sector and, at the same time, the accumulation of agricultural production into large holdings means that the images of traditional rural ways of life are changing in Estonia. According to Statistics Estonia, on the basis of the first estimates of the 2010 Agricultural Census, the number of agricultural holdings in Estonia has decreased almost three-fold as compared to the last census, the 2001 Agricultural Census (from 55,700 to 19,700), and this is especially reflected among small and medium-size agricultural holdings. “Agricultural holding” has been defined as a single unit, both technically and economically, which has single management and which produces agricultural products, where (1) there is at least one hectare of utilized agricultural land or, (2) there is less than one hectare of utilized agricultural land but agricultural products are produced mainly for sale or the economic size of the holding is at least one European Size Unit (ESU) (Statistics Estonia, available at: www.stat.ee, accessed 20 July 2011).

3. In the context of the decrease in rural households, it is characteristic that the Development Strategies of Estonian Rural Tourism for 2004–2007 and 2010–2014 do not stress the potential of agricultural activities as major attractions for rural tourism. Instead, the importance of nature, history and regional cultural heritage as resources for rural tourism products are mentioned as priorities. It is also stated in these documents that rural entrepreneurs should be more oriented towards providing elaborated experiences and educational workshops in order to increase the attractiveness of rural destinations during other seasons, in addition to summer, which is the main season.

4. In English, the terms “tourist farm”, “holiday farm” and “recreation farm” are more common. However, the concept “farm tourism” remains diversely defined due to the heterogeneous development of the practice itself (the vast range of activities that can be related to it), as well as the differences between policies and requirements in different countries (see Phillip et al. 2010). The ambivalent meaning of “tourism farm” used by rural entrepreneurs in Estonia is related to the specificity of the local practice, which is rarely connected with agricultural activities. The terminological confusion is also facilitated by state legislation, as “farm” (“talu” in Estonian) is defined as an object of real estate and ownership, whereas there are no specifications of who is a farmer and what farm living is about. The Estonian Tourism Act states that “The word ‘turismitalu’ (tourism farm) may be used in the names of guest houses, hostels, holiday villages and camps, holiday homes and bed-and-breakfasts located in rural areas” (Tourism Act 2000, http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/paraframe.asp#x003F;ua=1&loc=text&lk=et&sk=en&dok=X40063K3.htm&query=&tyyp=&ptyyp=&fr=no&pg, accessed July 20, 2011).

5. Today the non-profit organization Estonian Rural Tourism (established in 2000) unites 316 rural tourism service providers (approximately 45% of them are accommodation providers, but the exact number of farm tourism enterprises is not clear due to the lack of special statistics; not all rural entrepreneurs are members of the organization).

6. Kanepi municipality website (available at www.kanepi.ee, accessed 20 July 2011).

7. Rõuge municipality website (available at www.rauge.ee, accessed 20 July 2011).

8. 2010 Agricultural Census, Statistics Estonia (available at www.stat.ee, accessed 20 July 2011).

9. In agreement with the hostess Maie, the farm-work day at the Mesipuu Farm was also filmed in 2006 (ERM V 498).

10. However, we agree with researchers who consider tourists and visitors to museums or heritage sites to be active performers and co-creators, not just passive spectators of “staged” commodities (see Edensor 2001; Jackson & Kidd 2011; Smith 2006).

11. There are a few other farm tourism enterprises in Estonia that provide the experience of doing some farmwork to their guests. However, the farm tourism entrepreneurs expressed in interviews conducted by Ester Bardone in Võru County in 2008–2010 that this option seems not to be very popular among domestic tourists, most of whom still have some experience of agricultural activities, either from their childhood or in their adult years.

12. Similar edutaining days or events during which farmworks are demonstrated or celebrations from the Estonian folk calendar are performed for visitors are also organized by the Estonian Agricultural Museum and the Estonian Open Air Museum.

13. See the website of the Sepa Farm (available at www.sepp.ee/rouge, accessed 20 July 2011).

14. Enterprise Estonia (EAS), established in 2000, promotes business and regional development in Estonia. Enterprise Estonia is one of the largest institutions within the national support system for entrepreneurship, providing financial assistance, advice, cooperation opportunities and training for entrepreneurs, research establishments, the public and the third sector.

15. Blacksmithing as a tourist attraction in a farm environment is also performed by two other blacksmiths in south-east Estonia, in the Põlva and Otepää municipalities. Open workshops on blacksmithing for visitors are held in the Narva Museum and the Estonian Agricultural Museum. Several men can be seen performing the role of the blacksmith forging smaller items (e.g., nails) at multiple local fairs and festivals.

16. Peeter, as an entrepreneur, has two different websites – one to promote his main field of activity, his job as a blacksmith (Peeter Reemann'i sepikoda, http://www.sepp.ee, accessed 8 August 2010), and the other dedicated to his tourism-related business (Sepa talu, www.sepp.ee/rouge http://www.sepp.ee/rouge/, accessed July 20, 2011).

17. An opportunity to forge a symbolic item on the wedding day is also a service provided for newlyweds by some other blacksmith-entrepreneurs in Estonia.

18. For instance, in the performance enacted on 25 July 2009, the bride, the bridegroom and their parents were originally from Võru County and, in the case of the performance on 9 July 2011, the parents of the newlyweds were born in Võru County and had kept their childhood farm in Rõuge as a holiday house, whereas the young couple themselves lived in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia.

19. For instance, in Gretna Green, Scotland, some blacksmiths were known as “anvil priests”, as they had the right to marry people, and now the tradition has been re-established as a commodity offered by a local museum.

20. “Fortune-smith” is a reference to the Estonian proverb Igaüks on oma õnne sepp (in English, “Each man is the blacksmith of his own fortune”).