A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland

              © PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
Vol. 12 N.o 3. Special Issue. Págs. 565-579. 2014
www .pasosonline.org
Abstract: This paper presents the nature, scale and types of agritourism as experienced in Poland where
both in terms of occupation and social phenomenon it has been accepted as a new economic activity by the
rural population. First, the author explains the origins of agritourism in Poland, which are different to the
countries of Western Europe, revealing particularities in terminology. Next, the major achievements and is-sues
regarding the development of agritourismm in Poland are presented, both in practice and theory. The
author states that overall on balance the experience is positive and that two development processes can be
differentiated: exogenous and endogenous. The endogenous one poses a challenge for Polish agritourism in
search of a new identity.
Key Words: rural tourism, agritourism, types of agritourism, evolution of agritourism, rural development,
Eastern Europe; Poland
Un resumen de la evaluación de la experiencia de Agroturismo en Polonia
Resumen: Ese artículo presenta la escala y los tipos de agroturismo experimentados en Polonia, donde, tan-to
al nivel ocupacional como social, ha sido considerado como una nueva forma de atividad económica por la
población rural. En primer lugar, el autor explica los orígenes del agroturismo en Polonia, que son diferentes
a los de los países de Europa Occidental, y muestra sus particularidades en la terminología. A continuación,
se muestran los principales logros y problemas del desarrollo del agroturismo en Polonia, tanto en la práctica
como en la teoría. El autor afirma que, globalmente, la experiencia es positiva y que se pueden diferenciar
dos procesos de desarrollo: exógeno y endógeno. El endógeno plantea un desafío para el agroturismo polaco
en la búsqueda de una nueva identidad.
Palabras Clave: turismo rural, agroturismo, tipos de agroturismo, evolución de agro­‑turismo;
desarrollo
rural Europa del Este; Polonia
A summary assessment of the Agritourism
Experience in Poland
Jolanta Wojciechowska*
University of Lodz (Poland)
* Assistant Professor at the University of Lodz/Łódz´, The Faculty of Geographical Sciences, The Institute of Urban Geography
and Tourism. E­‑mail:
jolwoj@geo.uni.lodz.pl
1. Introduction
The tourism experience may be viewed from
different perspectives, e.g. sociological, phy-sical,
anthropological, economic, geographical
and psychological, with an important link to
the sustainability discussion. The process may
be analysed not only from the point of view of
the tourists, but also of tourism suppliers or
“creators” (local stakeholders). Different au-thors
disagree about the definition of tourism
experience. Usually, it is treated as an element
of consumption (Prentice et al., 1998; Urry, 1990)
whose important aspects include visual impres-sions
(looking, watching), but also taste, smell
and other stimuli, all potentially contributing to
“place authenticity”. This kind of experience, re-sulting
from sensorial perception, is described in
ways often contradicting each other (Cohen, 1979;
MacCannell, 2002; Urry, 2007), but agreeing in
the purpose of seeking high quality.
The direct provision of different forms of accom-modation
and attractions has occurred in Poland,
increasing local tourism suppliers’ experience.
Jolanta Wojciechowska
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
566 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
The tourists’ experiences, in form of impressions,
sensations or knowledge gained based on their
observation of reality and events, are also of con-cern
to tourism creators. The issue of the tourism
experience may then be approached from a planning
and management perspective (e.g. Gannon, 1993;
McGehee, 2007). It may also be studied in terms
of quantitative and qualitative effects/impacts
on host communities (Mathieson and Wall, 1982;
Krippendorf, 1987) that result from a set of ac-tivities
and social relations, as well as from the
behaviour of tourism creators. The author uses
the latter, qualitative, approach for analysing the
development of agritourism in Poland.
The aim of the paper is to present the agritou-rism
experience in Poland, both practically and
conceptually, where both in terms of occupation
and as a social phenomenon, it may be regarded
as a new and relevant form of economic activity.
This new type of tourism was developed ‘from
scratch’, despite the continued tradition of leisure
in the Polish countryside. The author presents not
only the most important achievements and suc-cesses,
but also critical issues in the development
of agritourism in Poland, also discussing future
challenges for this activity.
2. Literature review
Recreation in rural areas in Europe has a long
tradition, as stressed by several authors, such
as Schöppner (1988) or Oppermann (1996), and
in Poland by Leszczycki (1938), Warszyn´ska and
Jackowski (1979), and Dziegieć (1995). Agritourism
as a particular component of rural tourism has
been discussed by Clarke (1999), Nilsson (2002),
and Phillip et al. (2010). Arguments for not treating
agritourism as synonymous with rural tourism have
been presented by many authors (e.g. Arnold and
Staudacher, 1981; Dernoi, 1991; Embacher, 1994).
Majewski and Lane (2001: 44) mention that
the early appearance of agritourism as a form of
rural tourism placed it in a prominent position.
This thesis was confirmed by the bibliography of
rural tourism, compiled by Lane in 1994 for the
OECD, which showed that most studies referring to
rural tourism focus on agritourism (Lane, 1994a).
Similar observations were made by Wojciechowska
(2003) when compiling the Polish bibliography
of agritourism and rural tourism for the period,
1990­‑2002,
also analysing the research undertaken
from 1990­‑2007.
Dividing that period into several
sections allowed the author to grasp the most
significant transformations in the Polish literature
concerning rural tourism. They are worth a brief
presentation.
In the first period ­‑
1990­‑1992
­‑
the authors of
Polish publications primarily showed the possibi-lities
of tourism development in rural areas, using
examples from Western European countries. Also
the practical guidebooks for the inhabitants of rural
areas popularized these methods of stimulating the
rural community as it was done in those countries
(e.g. Wojciechowska, 1992).
In the next period ­‑
1993­‑1995
­‑
authors dis-cussed
the conditions, opportunities and issues
of agritourism development in Poland, pointing
to the advantages of agritourism as an economic
activity, but with a mainly theoretical perspective.
The terminology they used was vague, as the terms
“agritourism” and “rural tourism” were applied
interchangeably.
In 1996­‑1999,
the scope of the issues studied was
becoming considerably larger, likewise the number
of researchers from different disciplines dealing
with agritourism and increasingly interested in this
phenomenon (agriculture, economics, geography,
sociology). In that period, understanding gained
in other disciplines was used in many academic
publications. However, those presenting field
research mostly contained descriptive information.
After 2000, more and more research integrating
theory and practice has appeared where results
concern both theory and practice. For local stakehol-ders’
(practitioners) use, special methods have
been developed for specific projects, such as village
branding (Szalewska, 2000). Some publications
presented after 2004 contained theoretical concepts
and models, such as:
•• a model of the rural tourism market (Bott­‑Alama,
2004),
•• a model of agritourism development effects
(Wojciechowska, 2006),
•• agritourism farm economics and the relations
between agricultural production and agritou-rism
(Sznajder and Przezbórska, 2006),
•• the idea of tourist function development levels
in rural areas in Poland (Durydiwka, 2007),
•• types of agritourism farms and their spatial
differentiation in Poland; profiles of agritourism
farm owners (Wojciechowska, 2007a),
•• defining the terms and terminology system
regarding rural and agritourism (Majewski,
2005, Wojciechowska, 2007b).
In 2010 several publications presented the achie-vements
of Polish agritourism over a twenty­‑year
period, but many critical remarks could also be
found (e.g. Bednarek­‑Szczepańska,
2011; Wojcie-chowska,
2011).
European Union programs additionally con-ditioned
the development of the Polish literature
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 567
on the subject: national reports presented the
conditions of Polish agritourism development,
and other publications, directed at more practical
approaches, like guidebooks, catalogues, maps, etc.
also appeared. The programs furthermore enabled
many practitioners and academics to study the
development of agritourism in other countries, not
only through seminars, exchange of publications
and workshop materials, but also directly through
research trips.
In conclusion, it must be stressed that the range
of issues discussed is wide and has visibly changed
over time in the Polish academic literature. Ini-tially,
the focus was on general, conceptual issues,
such as general development opportunities and
directions, often in the context of the Western Eu-ropean
experience. Next, attention was redirected
to the consequences of agritourism development,
presented through local examples, which in turn
became the basis for creating models and theore-tical
concepts. Such changes are typical of recent
research areas and must be taken into account
when reflecting on the future of agritourism in
particular destination contexts.
3. Methodology
This paper is the distillation of the author’s
research undertaken on agritourism development
over many years, starting from 1990, initially on
the subject of stimulating local communities in the
rural gminas/communes of central Poland by means
of tourism. Gradually, the range of issues studied
widened and a large quantity of statistical data has
been collected, permitting a better understanding of
the phenomenon and its evolution in this country.
This data studied the dimension and evolution of
agritourism nationwide and in individual regions,
as well as opinions of stakeholders’ regarding their
motivations to get involved with agritourism,
methods applied and results of this development.
Surveys focused on the opinions of the inhabitants
of rural areas, tourists arriving in the countryside,
the people running agritourism farms and those
involved in agritourism associations. This long­‑lasting
research, enriched by field observation
and literature review, as well as by participation
in regional, national and international research
projects, has resulted in a document, published
in 2009, bringing together all aspects of Polish
agritourism (Wojciechowska, 2009).
This paper contains selected parts of the last
mentioned document, as well as new reflections on
opportunities, critical issues and future challenges
for agritourism in Poland. It is divided into four
sections. The first explains the origins of agritou-rism
in Poland, which are different from West
European countries, and also presents differences
in terminology. The second part concerns the most
important achievements and critical issues in
agritourism development in practice, while the
third part concerns theory. The fourth presents
the challenges that must be faced yielding a new
identity of agritourism in Poland.
4. The specificity of Polish agritourism origins
and definitional issues
Tourism in rural areas in Poland has a long
tradition. The first travellers to the countryside,
before the end of the 19th century, were from the
small intellectual and financial elite living in cities
who spent their leisure time mainly at palaces,
manor­‑estates
or spas. As a result of urbanization
in the 19th century, the number of city dwellers
taking recreational and health­‑improving
trips
increased. It was for them that accommodation
started to be ‘arranged’ in the countryside, followed
by the development of compact summer resort
complexes (Kulczycki, 1977).
In the interwar period, when Poland had re-gained
independence, rapid development and a
spatial concentration of summer tourism occurred,
with a clear distinction into summer resorts built
close to large cities, and those appearing far away
from urban centres at attractive locations, i.e. in
the mountains and on the coast. At that time, the
idea of the development of “summer tourism” was
conceived, within which rural residents were being
prepared to receive tourists. The institutions res-ponsible
for the organization of such activities were
local and national administrative bodies. It was also
the beginnings of research (including statistical)
into summer tourism. Research terminology inclu-ded
the concept of “summer holiday tourism”, the
expression coming from “summer holiday­‑makers”
­‑
participants of this type of recreation (Leszczycki,
1938; Warszyńska and Jackowski, 1979).
The socio­‑political
system established after
World War II had an influence on tourism deve-lopment
in rural areas. The pre­‑war
tradition of
receiving holiday­‑makers
was regarded as a private
business, which was, in fact, contradicting the
‘mandatory ideology’. In the first years after World
War II, trips to the countryside were limited, and
in some areas the recreational function disappe-ared
altogether. This was observable in the rural­‑urban
fringe of large cities where summer resort
settlements were being increasingly inhabited
by new permanent residents. In the late 1950’s,
the idea of summer resorts in rural areas was
re­‑activated,
but it remained under state control
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
568 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
which actually hampered development and led to
the appearance (especially in the 1980’s) of the
so­‑called
‘accommodation black market’, offerong
mainly accommodation to tourists. Tourism in rural
areas was, at that stage, mostly centred in the
holiday resorts belonging to state enterprises, as
well as in urban inhabitants’ second homes on their
private plots of land. Various authors then started
to discuss tourism in rural areas, mostly concerning
second homes (Liszewski, 1987; Matczak, 1985).
The year 1989 was the beginning of economic
and political transformation in Poland. Adopting
the rules of the market economy resulted in many
recreational facilities changing ownership, as well
as in substantial changes of the way they were
administered and developed. At the same time,
opportunities for using foreign funding appeared
which permitted new ways of stimulating rural
areas through investment in tourism. Changes in
the recreation style of tourists, who were looking
for opportunities to enjoy a more individual, ac-tive
and cognitively enriching recreation, were
also observed. Following the example of Western
Europe, associations, commune (gmina) ‘unions’
and foundations interested in tourism development
appeared. Numerous brochures, catalogues and
guides for the organizers (stakeholders) of tourism
in rural areas were published. Simultaneously,
many socially adverse phenomena, such as econo-mic
recession, the marginalization of agriculture
as a means of supporting rural populations and
impoverishment in rural areas were also found.
Similar to Western countries, agritourism was iden-tified
as an opportunity to improve the declining
situation of the agricultural sector and to offer an
alternative source of income to farmers as well as a
cheap and appealing type of recreation to tourists.
Agritourism – both as a term and a recognized
tourism phenomenon – appeared in Poland at the
time of the political­‑economic
transformation. The
idea of agritourism was “officially introduced” to
the Polish countryside in 1991 by state institutions,
mainly farming consultancy bodies, which started
cooperation with similar institutions abroad. They
first trained their own personnel, and then started
to encourage and educate the rural populations to
invest in agritourism. The campaign popularizing
agritourism as a rural development tool was taken
up by commune (gmina) councils and relevant
ministries. They supported the development of
agritourism (e.g. organizing courses for farmers),
organizationally (e.g. counselling services) and le-gally
(sanctioning farmers’ exemption from income
tax when letting up to five rooms).
It should be acknowledged that the introduction
of agritourism in Poland, in the actual format, was
institutional, thus continuing the traditional approach
to recreation in the countryside. The term, however,
is quite new (derived from German), and signifies the
method of generating tourism on farms, as popular in
several West European countries. In Poland, it was
developed “from scratch” (as referred above), when
considering the skills and social experiences (with
tourists) of rural inhabitants at that time. They had to
learn the rules of agritourism, above all to understand
that the innovation of agritourism lies in the readiness
of a farmer’s family to receive tourists at their home
and to offer them an interesting program based on
farming, the attractions of the countryside, and the
local community’s system of values. They had to see
that this form of tourism takes place in conditions
of a market economy, which means in a competitive
context from both nearby and other regions. They had
to learn to organize agritourism, earn money from
it and cooperate with others in order to develop it.
As mentioned above, the term agroturystyka
(agritourism) in Poland was taken from foreign
terminology. Initially, practitioners were unwilling
to accept it, preferring native terms referring to
recreation in rural areas. They often used old
terminology, even from the interwar period, to
refer to the newly generated tourism. Perhaps it
was a way to get accustomed to something whi-ch
was new, unfamiliar and came from outside.
Various terms were used and understood quite
freely both by practitioners and by scholars, until
the mid­‑1990’
s. However, the semantic range of
the term “agritourism”, as well as other similar
terms , was gradually established in the Polish
academic literature. The set of terms is arranged
hierarchically in Figure 1 to clarify the integration
and connections between the mostly used concepts.
Figure 1. The relation between Polish
and English terms defining tourism
in rural areas
R U R A L T O U R I S M
A G R I T O U R I S M
F A R M T O U R I S M
T U R Y S T Y K A N A T E R E N A C H W I E J S K I C H
T U R Y S T Y K A W I E J S K A
A
G
R O
T
U R Y
S T
Y
K
A
A g r o t u r y z m
P O L I S H T E R M IN O L O G Y S Y S T E M E N G L I S H
T E R M I N O L O G Y
Source: developed and modified from Wojciechowska (2007b)
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 569
The term with the narrowest semantic range is
”agroturystyka” (agritourism). From the demand
perspective, it is defined in Polish literature as
a tourist’s stay on a farm, while from the supply
perspective – as a tourist enterprise run by a family
on their own farm. Thus, this term corresponds
to the English term farm tourism1 . The Polish
term ”turystyka wiejska” corresponds to two terms
used in the English literature: rural tourism and
agritourism. It refers to tourism and leisure stays
in the countryside, e.g. in former agricultural buil-dings
or at other facilities such as guest­‑houses,
private rooms to let, etc., but still in areas shaped
by agriculture.
The term ”turystyka na terenach wiejskich”
(tourism in rural areas) seems to be the creation
of Polish academics, who consider it as having a
wider semantic because it refers to areas defined
as “rural” in the Polish legislation, quite distinct
areas2, where tourism may be well­‑developed
(recreation resorts, specialist recreation centres,
complexes of second homes), and also those where
nature dominates (e.g. marshes, lakes, forests,
national parks). Similarly, the Polish concept of
”agroturyzm” should be considered as a product
of Polish academia and understood as including
both ”agroturystyka” and ”turystyka wiejska”. The
author believes that agroturyzm is a term that
theoretically comprises all the issues referring to
the spatial and temporal aspects of tourism related
to the countryside, including its link to agriculture
(Wojciechowska, 2009).
Compared to the English terms, the Polish
terminology model has a distinct individuality.
Another approach to the problem of terminology
can be observed in the Russian literature, where
researchers stress that they are just starting their
studies, regarding both – practice and theory. The
literature contains English terms, e.g. rural tou‑rism,
and their equivalents in Russian (Birzakov,
2005). The authors of definitions quote English or
German authors (Birzakov, 2005; Klitsunova, 2004),
but there are also numerous definitions by Russian
researchers. For example, Bulgakova defines rural
tourism (sielski turizm) as follows: a particular type
of tourism, comprising organized and unorganized
forms of recreation at a rural destination for the
purpose of coming closer to nature, learning about
the rural style of life, and the traditions of running
a farmstead – on a professional and amateur level
(Bulgakova, 2003: 314). A slightly different defi-nition
is offered by Skoblikova, who claims that
rural tourism (sielski turizm), also referred to as
agroturizm or agroekoturizm, is a form of tourism in
a rural area, where tourists live the local style of life
while staying at farms and in villages (Skoblikova,
2005: 47). Many Russian academics look at rural
tourism and agritourism from the perspective of
natural assets and nature protection (Panov, 2003;
Drozdov, 2003; Mazurov, 2004; Starcieva, 2004),
and treat the terms discussed as constituents of the
ecotourism concept, thereby making rural, nature
and ecotourism overlapping concepts.
An analysis of the terminology system used in
Poland shows a continuous evolution of terms and
their semantic ranges. Majewski and Lane claim
that rural tourism is a constantly changing and
developing; not a static concept (Majewski and
Lane, 2001: 32), in fact like many others. This
observation applies to the other terms discussed
here as well. The evolution of the Polish terms
and their semantic ranges from the time after the
war until the present day are shown in Figure 2.
The diagram shows that in the interwar period,
the terms defining tourism in rural areas focused
on their participants (holiday­‑makers),
in the next
period on the place of recreation (countryside), and
nowadays mainly refer to its function, or even spe-cialization.
Terms like ‘agritourism’, ‘ecotourism’,
‘alternative tourism’ or ‘sustainable tourism’ in
particular, point to special tourism activities in
rural areas, which may be more or less associated
with farming, with nature tourism or other more
specialist pursuits, as actually identified as a trend
for the global rural tourism phenomenon (Lane,
2009).
Figure 2. Evolution of Polish terms defining tourism in rural areas
T I M E I N T E R W A R
P E R I O D P S O C I A L I S T O S T - S O C I A L I S T P E R I O D
P E R I O D
T Y P E S
O F T O U R I S M
S U M M E R
T O U R I S M
H O L I D A Y T O U R I S M
I N R U R A L A R E A S
R U R A L
T O U R I S M
A G R I T O U R I S M
A G R I - E C O T O U R I S M
S Y M B O L I S M
O F C H A N G E
P E R S O N
( p a r t i c i p a n t )
L O C A T I O N
( v i ll a g e , r u r a l a r e a ) F U N C T I O N ( s p e c i a l iz a t io n )
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
570 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
In conclusion, it must be stressed that agri-tourism
in Poland turned out to be a new form of
tourism, for its participants (demand), organizers
(supply) and the superstructure, as well. It was
introduced institutionally and based on the expe-rience
of other countries, associated with the hope
of it serving as a rural development tool. The term
defining it has been accepted by practitioners,
scholars and politicians alike, and belongs to the
evolutionary hierarchical system of terms referring
to tourism in rural areas.
5. Major achievements and issues of agritou-rism
development in Poland based on actual
experience
The achievements of Polish agritourism are
numerous and varied, as briefly presented in Table
1 and discussed in this section. On a practical level,
they should be considered within particular demand
and supply dynamics. In the first case, the achie-vement
is the creation of a new form of recreation
for tourists, permitting accommodation on farms
and farm visits. As far as supply is concerned, the
main achievement is that inhabitants of rural
areas have gained an additional and sometimes
alternative source of income and a new occupation.
As a result of the popularization of agritourism,
other organisations generating and supporting
its development appeared. They are mostly agri-tourism
associations, which together with the
Polish Federation of Rural Tourism (PFTW) form
an agritourism self­‑governing
body which deals
with legal aspects and lobbies for agritourism
development. The Federation’s achievement was
the establishment of categories of rural accommo-dation
in 1997. In 2012, the rules of categorization
were changed on the basis of experience in Poland.
Moreover, the Federation promotes agritourism on
the www.agroturystyka.pl social network and is
a member of the European rural tourism accom-modation
association EUROGITES since 1997.
The quantitative effects may be measured by
the scale and evolution of the accommodation
facilities in the country. The first comprehen-sive
evaluation of agritourism development in
Poland was undertaken in 1996 and an inventory
showed that there were 1952 farms receiving
tourists, offering 15,653 bed places (Raport o
stanie wiejskiej bazy noclegowej w Polsce, 1997).
Since then, the number has increased, however
difficult the identification of the exact number of
agritourism facilities. From the very beginning
the number has fluctuated. During many years,
many agritourism farms have disappeared, but
many new ones have opened, too. This fluctuation
is not always taken into account in the statistics,
therefore these are only estimates. In 2007, there
were over 87,000 bed places in 8,800 agritourism
facilities (Klembowska and Nowaczyk, 2008:
118­‑122).
According to the Institute of Tourism,
in 2009 there was a decrease in the number of
facilities to 5,473, and in the number of bed
places to 57,100 (www.intur.com.pl). However,
in 2010, the Central Statistical Office registered
7,000 agritourism facilities with 82,700 bed­‑places.
They were found in 55% of the total Polish
communes (gminas), as single or combined units
(Bednarek­‑Szczepańska,
2011: 261). Some villages
show a compact and integrated concentration
of agritourism farms. They are distributed in
certain zones of the country ­‑
the mountains (in
the south), uplands (south­‑east)
and a section of
the lake district including the coastal lowland
(in the north) (Figure 3). Thus, they are located
above all in tourism zones rich in natural and
landscape attractions (the north and the south
of the country), and much less in the farming
belt of the lowlands in central Poland.
Table 1. Major achievements and critical issues in the development of Polish agritourism
Achievements Critical Issues
– encouraging the rural population to find a new
source of income and occupation;
– creating a new form of leisure;
– creating organisations which can generate and
enhance development;
– creating legal, administrative and organizational
development mechanisms;
– establishing a clear positive role for the
multifunctional development of villages and
farms.
– the ephemeral character or inefficiency of
development­‑generating
rural tourism activity,
insufficient understanding of innovation as a
constant challenge;
– overlapping activities and competences of pro­‑development
institutions; a lack of integration
and weak position ) of agritourism self­‑governing
bodies;
– weakness and inconsistency of legal,
administrative and organizational development
mechanisms.
Source: developed and modified from Wojciechowska (2011)
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 571
Figure 3. The geographical variation
of agritourism development intensity
in Poland
A g r ito u r is m
d e v e lo p m e n t
in te n s ity
lo w
m id
h ig h
Source: developed and modified from Wojciechowska (2009)
The author studied the precise location of
agritourist farms, i.e. their location within the
settlement system and natural environment.
The studies were conducted along the Odra River
valley and other landscape zones of the country
(lowlands, uplands and mountains). They enabled
the author to construct a model of their location
in the geographical environment, permitting a si-multaneous
analysis of the intensity of agritourism
development in different parts of the country. The
main elements of this model are the countryside,
the forest and the water.
Figure 4. The location model of Polish
agritourist farms
A g r o t o u r is t f a r m
R i v e r
F o r e s t
0 – 1 k m 0 – 1 k m
Source: Wojciechowska (2009)
As visible in Figure 4, agritourist farms are
usually situated in a village, close to or away from
its centre, within a short distance from the neigh-bours
(several dozen meters). Outside the village,
in the hamlets, there are few agritourist farms.
The main assets of such a farm are its attractive
natural surroundings. It is best when the distance
from the farm to a water reservoir and forest does
not exceed one kilometer. A river, lake or pond
give the tourists an opportunity to swim and fish,
being significant assets of the recreational offer,
similar to forests of different sizes, mainly used
for hiking and nature observation. In this model,
the location features resulting from the natural
conditions in the nearest surroundings are much
more important than the settlement features,
determining their tourist attractiveness. According
to the agritourist farms owners, such elements
as nature, forest, water or historical monuments
significantly increase the chances for their success
(e.g. Wojciechowska, 2000; Wojciechowska et al.,
2006).
Agritourism farms mainly offer guest rooms
(about 76% of the total offer) and sometimes holiday
flats and campsites (12% each). Farms generally
offer up to five guest rooms, which are free from
income taxes (77%). It contrasts with what is offered
in many other European countries, where the main
offer is holiday flats/apartments ( Bott­‑Alama,
2004: 56; Sznajder and Przezbórska, 2006: 148).
The Polish reality results from the fact that at
the time of introducing agritourism, it was mostly
rooms that were let, being less costly than investing
in fully equipped holiday apartments. Another
tendency is that in most cases the offer consists of
accommodation only (45­‑55%),
followed by an offer
of accommodation + board (20­‑30%).
The full offer,
consisting of accommodation + board + attractions
constitutes 15­‑20%
of all offers (Wojciechowska,
2009).
Currently, given the tourist functions that an
agritourist farm may perform, the most popular
is the general recreation offer. It usually featu-res
some attractions, like having a barbecue,
mushroom picking, cycling or sunbathing. It
is followed by a specialized recreation offer,
which usually features horse riding (for recre-ational,
sporting or rehabilitation purposes),
as well as fishing in natural or fish breeding
water reservoirs. This particular offer contains
other attractions as well, connected with winter
sports, especially in the mountainous regions (e.g.
skiing or tobogganing). The third in line is the
health–oriented offer, quite broadly understood,
because the very fact that the hosts serve meals
cooked from their own agricultural products is
promoted by them as the health function. Other
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
572 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
attractions include eating dietetic or vegetarian
food, having the possibility to sleep on hay in a
barn, or being engaged in farm work. The least
frequent offers are those related to specialized
services, such as the possibility to do recreational
gymnastics, having massages or rehabilitation
training. Finally, we have the educational and
entertainment offer, both of which occur at
similar frequency. The former one is connected
with running “green schools”, organizing school
lessons for children and teenagers, or classes (also
for adults) teaching them new or rare skills (e.g.
baking home­‑made
bread or glass painting). This
particular offer is based on the different skills and
talents of the hosts. Tourists who book their stay
at such farmsteads even one year in advance, are
generally attracted by the entertainment offer,
which is particularly popular among groups of
friends who want to spend some time having
fun together. This offer does not always require
a particular program for the guests, but rather
an appropriate preparation of the facility (e.g.
dining rooms or food provisions).
Summing up this part of the article, we should
point out that agritourism offers differ according
to the natural and cultural attractions of a given
region, rather than the skills or licences held by
agritourism farm owners or members of their
families. The agritourism offer is based more on
the elements of rural life, i.e. on the elements of
the surrounding countryside, its culture, nature
and other attractions, than on agriculture.
It is worth mentioning that for 20 years the
agritourism accommodation infrastructure
has constituted 3­‑4%
of the overall number of
accommodation facilities in Poland (Bednarek­‑Szczepańska,
2011: 265; Wojciechowska, 2009:
115). During the summer holiday season, over
80,000 bed places on agritourism farms provide
the potencial for about five million person­‑days3,
as well as being a source of direct income for about
9,000 families (8,900 facilities in 2011). In reality,
bed­‑places
on agritourism farms are used mostly
in the summer holidays and during the rest of
the year only in a percentage of about 20­‑30%
(Bednarek­‑Szczepańska,
2011; Wojciechowska,
2009). On a national scale, these figures may not
seem very impressive, and more specific studies
may simply show that over the period of 20 ye-ars
only some individuals have been successful.
However, the author is convinced that this does
not diminish the significance of agritourism in
the multi­‑functional
development of individual
villages and farms. Careful and rational intro-duction
of agritourism in the rural space may
contribute to many positive changes, both in the
physical form of the local settlements, in setting
into value certain local agriculture products and
cultural assets and in widening the inhabitants’
horizons and “opening” their mentality. In the
light of research undertaken on agritourism in
Poland, farm owners see the following positive
changes resulting from the activity: possibility
of learning and broadening horizons, learning of
foreign languages, meeting new friends through
the activity, better relationships within the own
families (Bott­‑Alama,
2004; Szalewska, 2000;
Połomski, 2010; Wojciechowska, 2009).
However, there are also many critical issues
connected with the practical side of agritourism.
Table 1 presents them divided into three groups.
The first one concerns the ephemeral character
of activities (both owners of agritourism farms,
and associations), as well as their invisibility in
the tourism market and lack of understanding of
innovation as a constant challenge. The majority
of regional and local associations were founded in
the 1990’s. In 2010, only 10% of them had been
operating for over 15 years (Wojciechowska, 2009:
95). Most function for a short period of time –
about 5 years. This means that many agritourism
associations founded in the 1990’s do not exist any
more. The position of the Federation, which is the
main organization, is weakening. The number of
member associations seemingly stays the same
(c.40­‑45),
but they are not the same associations
continuing the same activities (www.agroturystyka.
pl). Two or three times as many associations do not
belong to the Federation, and operate alongside,
eventually duplicating efforts and clearly resulting
in a sub­‑optimal
coordination of agritourism in
Poland. Moreover, the weakness and inconsistency
of the legal, administrative and organizational
mechanisms contributes to an unnecessary overla-pping
of activities and competences between those
involved in or supporting agritourism development.
Some are becoming dangerously competitive with
each other, creating more harm than opportuni-ties
for a successful and competitive agritourism
development in the country.
In conclusion, it should be stressed that agri-tourism
in Poland has developed spontaneously,
although introduced by a top­‑down
approach
making use of available funding and copying con-cepts
from other Western European countries.
As a “new” form of tourism (in its actual shape),
over a relatively short period of time (20 years),
it has created both supply and demand, as well
as achieved an established position within the
national tourism system. Despite many problems
accompanying agritourism development, overall
the practical experience of agritourism should
be regarded as positive, though still in constant
adaptation and yet improvable.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 573
6. Polish agritourism in academia
In the field of academia, agritourism achieve-ments
are both quantitative and qualitative. The
first includes the constantly growing number of
academic publications, conferences, seminars,
research programmes, as well as centres or ins-titutions,
which include the word ‘agritourism’ in
their titles. This reflects the broad study field of
agritourism. Here, representatives of different
disciplines are looking for answers to questions
concerning agritourism from the point of view of
their own academic fields. As a result, agritourism
is studied in disciplines such as agriculture, econo-mics,
sociology and tourism geography (Table 2).
A qualitative achievement is the fact that
there are an increasing number of studies which
show how agritourism develops, having achieved
some degree of maturity in their specific fields of
research. The authors of these publications have
formulated and developed a detailed methodology
for agritourism studies. This process, however, has
taken place differently in different disciplines. A
literature review shows that researchers from
different disciplines study agritourism practically
independently of one another and in the termino-logy
appropriate to a given discipline. An effect of
such an approach is a poor integration of knowledge
from different disciplines. Some conferences gather
representatives of many disciplines in order to
work out an interdisciplinary approach, and Polish
agritourism symposia4 invite practitioners to take
part in them. Despite these efforts, it must be
said that the interdisciplinary approach is still
underdeveloped. It is easy to notice the lack of
research projects bringing together specialists
from different fields to seek answers to the same
questions. The interdisciplinary approach would
make it possible to create a common platform
for discussion among representatives of different
disciplines involved in agritourism studies and
would certainly benefit the development of the
understanding of the phenomenon as well as the
preparation of a sound basis of action. During the
20 years of agritourism in Poland, no such platform
has been formed.
Another issue concerning academic research
in agritourism is the fact that progress in these
studies is clearly mostly quantitative, although
still typically not representative of the nationwide
phenomenon. There are a multitude of publications
and expert assessments, but the research results
they contain are very modest, mostly of descriptive
nature, often not representative and very rarely
regarding the whole country (partly due to a lack
of uniform and continuous statistical data). This
leads to yet another issue, namely difficulties with
the comparability of research results, both in time
and space. The situation does not encourage rese-archers
to repeat their work in order to analyse
the changes taking place over time. On top of that,
continuous terminological discussion regarding the
term ‘agritourism’ in the diverse disciplinary fields
works against theoretical integration. This in turn
means poor integration of theory and practice. The
number of studies is seemingly large, but if we look
at the results, they are not very impressive. This is
confirmed by the fact that there is little research
concerning differences in demand in Poland, as
regards the range, structure, features and trends
of the changes which are so important for the
practitioners, namely for strategically managing
demand. Kastenholz (2004) made a similar obser-vation
for North Portugal.
Concluding, agritourism is a relatively new
phenomenon in the Polish academic life, not to say
a new research field. It is an example showing that
practice may stimulate theoretical studies, as well
as provide research fields and issues.
7. Seeking a new identity for Polish agritourism
The future development of Polish agritourism
may follow two patterns. The first one may be called
exogenous, and the other – the new or endogenous
Table 2. Major achievements and issues in research on Polish agritourism
Achievements Critical Issues
– conducting extensive research and analysis;
– stimulating research in a variety of disciplines
(e.g. agriculture, economics, sociology,
geography, pedagogy);
– establishing regularities in the cognitive
process and creating theoretical models in
various disciplines.
– poor methodological integration;
– research progress is clearly rather quantitative;
– difficulties concerning the comparability and
repeatability of research results;
– lacking consensus and constant terminological
discussion which hampers the integration of
theory;
– ineffective integration of theory and practice.
Source: developed and modified from Wojciechowska (2011)
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
574 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
approach. The former has lasted for about 15 ye-ars
and was a somehow spontaneous reaction on
typically external factors, such as:
•• international cooperation structures challenging
the country’s integration,
•• European Union aid or structural funds (for
example the Programmes PHARE TOURIN
and SAPARD)5.
This development was strongly inspired by
the experiences of other countries. Exogenous
factors played a major role at that time. Within
the national space, this ‘inspired’ agritourism, i.e.
agritourism farms and associations, appearing
at different places like ‘railway engines’ running
without a timetable, pulling other ‘railway car’
behind them and losing many on the way.
However, around 2005, when the aid programs
came to an end, and the EU structural programs
had yet to be introduced, new difficulties emerged
in the development of agritourism. They were
mostly connected with the increasing international
competition in the tourism market, rural tourists’
growing expectations, the need to provide a high
quality offer, and the consequent financial expen-ditures
both agritourism farms and associations
need to face. These and other increasingly visible
obstacles and challenges gave the most persevering
and experienced actors in agritourism in Poland
an impulse to seek a new development model.
Based on the past experience in the field and
the recognition of the before­‑mentioned
unsolved
problems, reflected in much of the academic re-flections,
one may suggest that Polish agritourism
has been looking for a new identity for at least five
years and on different levels: organizational, social
and spatial. The direction of this search is being set
(e.g. during conferences) by the Polish ‘Federation
of Agritourism Association’ which stresses the need
to constantly adapt to a changing and challenging
reality. The aim of the organization is to make the
changes creative, oriented towards new ideas,
most of all on the basis of endogenous resources.
This endogenous model is a challenge for Po-lish
agritourism in the pursuit of its new identity
and this involves finding answers to questions,
which are currently concerning practitioners and
academics alike, such as the questions regarding:
1) What kind of agritourism offer should be the tar-get
and how to differentiate this offer spatially?
What to offer around large Polish cities, what in
traditional villages or in tourism zones in rural
areas? To what extent should the differentiation
of the offer be spontaneous or follow a plan?
2) Should there be a differentiation within the
agritourism activity regulations distinguishing
between agritourism as an additional source of
income for farming families or as the main source
of income (business) for families or individuals
living in a rural area? If so, how?
3) How can the Polish Federation of Agritourism
Associations change the image of Polish agri-tourism,
so that the organization can coordinate
its development?
4) What should be taken into account in the spa-tial
planning of the Polish countryside as far as
agritourism development is concerned?
5) To what extent can a local community decide
on the scale of agritourism development on
individual farms or on the tourism facilities
in their village, to avoid damage to the spatial
system, heritage, landscape, etc. of individual
settlements?
6) How can this community face the phenomenon
of ‘becoming a part of the tourism attraction it
offers’, a phenomenon which has caused a number
of the internal and external conflicts observed
in Polish agritourism?
The last mentioned problem is highlighted by the
sociologist Połomski, who describes the life of the
residents of villages situated in protected nature
areas (within the premises of the Bieszczadzki Na-tional
Park). He uses the metaphor of the ‘monkey
and the open­‑air
museum’ for the phenomenon he
studies, where villages stop being places of food
production, lose their farming roles for the benefit of
tourist functions, providing entertainment and fun,
making tourists look at the residents like ‘monkeys
in an open­‑air
museum’ (Połomski, 2010: 129). Not
all residents are happy with this role, not all believe
such activities to be appropriate for them. The lack
of choice of activity often results in migration, while
staying in the village without getting involved
in tourist services is often associated with being
pushed to the brink of social life. It is an example
of a conflict inside the local community, but also
conflicts resulting from how such communities are
perceived by other, especially the neighboring ones,
must be taken into account. Descriptions of such
delicate cases can also be found in Polish literature
on social impacts of agritourism development in
some cases.
In face of the above problems, it seems impor-tant
to provide local communities with knowledge
of the optimum and incontrovertible indicators
of agritourism development, possibly in many
aspects. The suggestion seems reasonable in the
context of the spatial development of every village
in a given region in Poland. It makes sense to give
agritourism its place in the postulated vision of
spatial rural development, including a dimension
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 575
of socio­‑economic
development. The possibility of
presenting the scale of agritourism development
effects (its benefits and costs) should be very im-portant
for local communities, too. This knowledge
on the possible negative side and limitations of
agritourism may avoid disappointment caused
by excessive hopes connected with tourism de-velopment.
It also becomes possible to define the
optimum number of agritourism farms for a given
locality, which will enable the community to choose
the form of development, e.g. as an agritourism
village or rather with individual accommodation
facilities belonging to a regional or national ne-twork
This statement may be confirmed by the
case of the village of Śladków Mały. It is located
near Kielce city in Góry Świętokrzyskie Region
(in the south­‑east
of the country on the uplands).
In the 1990’s this village was announced as ’an
exemplary agritourism village’. In 1999 it had 25
agritourism farms, while in 2010 – only 10. The
large number of agritourism farms in a village,
without any significant tourism assets resulted
in social conflict (Wojciechowska, 2011: 71). By
defining the limits of agritourism development,
it will be possible to prevent its excessive growth
in a given village. Uncontrolled and spontaneous
development over a period of time is not favo-rable
from the perspective of neither tourists
nor inhabitants. Sharpley and Sharpley suggest
that tourism and recreation play a pivotal role
in debates concerning the extent to which rural
areas should be developed or conserved (Sharpley
and Sharpley, 1997). However, geographical space
is a strictly limited resource (Urry, 2007: 73), in
agritourism as well.
The questions above show that the time has
come to review the present tight legal and or-ganizational
‘corset’, as well as the development
directions of Polish agritourism. It may be said that
in the past 20 years, both practice and academic
research have been focused on techniques suppor-ting
its development. Now, a reflection on how to
better plan agritourism development is needed.
The researchers’ task should therefore be to help
planning agritourism, trying to consider both the
tendencies and forecasts of the tourism market
and the socio­‑economic
development context of
the countryside and the specific territories and
communities where agritourism is put into prac-tice,
aiming at sustainable tourism development
benefitting all stakeholders involved (Saxena et
al., 2007; Kastenholz, 2004). In this context, the
establishment of rules and techniques for mea-suring
and evaluating the effects of agritourism
activity is also needed to assess its impacts and
help recommend an optimum level of the activity
and to more successfully manage it within the
overall rural development process.
8. Conclusions
The Polish agritourism is marked by very
specific origins, shaped by a historical, political,
economic, cultural and social context, a corres-pondingly
particular course of development
and own terminology system (Wojciechowska,
2009). Contrary to Western European countries,
where agritourism has developed in a relatively
organic evolutionary process, with development
mainly caused by endogenous factors, in Poland
it started in a rather ‘revolutionary’, abrupt way
and was originally caused by exogenous factors,
implying a series of difficulties and challenges
many agritourism actors face nowadays. This
approach is gradually changing to a more en-dogenous
model of development, better linked
to endogenous resources and competences and
thereby, arguably, with an enhanced potential
to further sustainable agritourism development
in Poland (Saxena et al., 2007). Considering
the evolution of agritourism in Poland, despite
the difficulties of systematically and rigorously
assessing its scale, structure and patterns over
time and despite “ups and downs” over time and
some clearly negative examples observed (e.g.
Połomski, 2010; Wojciechowska 2000, 2011), the
activity has achieved a certain level of maturity,
with the global balance of the agritourism expe-rience
in Poland, on both practical and academic
levels, being positive.
The present challenge for Polish agritourism
is the pursuit of a new identity, based on the
before mentioned endogenous factors. This new
agritourism development approach should, in
fact, yield a more satisfactory development for
all involved, produce higher levels of tourist sa-tisfaction
and agritourism competitiveness, while
simultaneously setting into value endogenous
assets, without jeopardizing natural nor cultural
heritage nor social structures and identity of
local communities, in short yielding sustainable
rural tourism development (Garrod et al., 2006;
Kastenholz, 2004; Saxena et al., 2007). Whether
benefits are possible, and whether the role of
agritourism will be perceived positively, depends
on those involved in organizing it. They decide
how well they can use the positive opportunities
given by agritourism, and to what extent they
allow negative influences to intervene. For these
people agritourism, like technology, cannot be
good or bad in itself. What turns out to be the
final effect in a given situation depends on the
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
576 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
skills of the agritourism provider and the ways
it is exploited.
Bibliography
Arnold, K. and Staudacher, Ch.
1981 ”Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof. Eine empirische
Untersuchung der Struktur und Entwicklung einer
spezifischen Erholungsform und ihrer Auswirkun-gen
auf die Land­‑
und Forstwirtschaft in
Niederösterreich”. Wiener Geographische Schriften,
55/56: 50–79.
Bott­‑Alama,
A.
2004 ”Uwarunkowania rozwoju turystyki wiejskiej
w województwie zachodniopomorskim” (Deter-minants
of the development of rural tourism in
zachodnio­‑pomorskie
voivodship). Rozprawy i
studia, t. (DLXXV) 501,
Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Szczecin.
Bednarek­‑Szczepańska,
M.
2011”Mit o agroturystyce jako szansie rozwojowej
dla polskiej wsi” (The myth of agritourism as a
development opportunity for Polish countryside).
Czasopismo Geograficzne, 82(3): 249­‑270.
Birzakov, M. B.
2005 ”Viedienie v turizm” (Introduction to tourism).
Nationalnaya Akademia Turizma, Baltysky
Miezdunarodny Institut Turizma, Moskwa – St.
Petersburg.
Bulgakova, A. N.
2003 ”Osobiennosty razvita sielskogo turizma v
Zarubieznoy Evrope” (Curiosities of the deve-lopment
of
rural tourism in the Western Europe). In: Alek-sandrova,
A. J. (Ed.) Teoria i praktyka mie-zdunarodnogo
turizma, Sbornik statiey, Moskovski Gosudars-tvienny
Univiersitet, Moskva, pp. 312­‑330.
Clarke, J.
1999 ”Farm accommodation and the communication
mix”. Tourism Management, 17: 611­‑620.
Cohen, E.
1979 ”A Phenomenology of Tourist Experience”.
Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological
Association, 13(2): 179­‑201.
Dernoi, L. A.
1991 ”About Rural and Farm Tourism”. Tourism
Recreation Research, 1: 3­‑6.
Durydiwka, M.
2007 ”Kształtowanie się funkcji turystycznej na
obszarach wiejskich w Polsce” (Shaping the tourist
function of rural areas in Poland). In Kurek, W.,
Mika, M. (Eds.) Studia nad turystyką. Tradycje,
stan obecny i perspektywy badawcze. Geograficzne,
społeczne i ekonomiczne aspekty turystyki, IGGP,
Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków, pp. 261­‑269.
Drozdov, A.V.
2003 ”Sovriemienny ekoturizm. Koncepcy i
praktyka” (Modern ecotourism. Theory and
practice). In: Aleksandrova, A. J. (Ed.) Teoria i
praktyka miezdunarodnogo turizma, Sbornik
statiey, Moskovski Gosudarstvienny Univier-sitet,
Moskva, pp. 245­‑260.
Dziegieć, E.
1995 ”Urbanizacja turystyczna terenów wiejskich
w Polsce” (Tourist urbanisation of rural areas
in Poland). Turyzm, 5(1): 5­‑56.
Embacher, H.
1994 ”Marketing for agri­‑tourism
in Austria:
Strategy and realization in a highly developed
tourist destination”. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 2 (1&2): 61­‑76.
Gannon, A.
1993 ”Metoda GMA w agroturyzmie” (The Method
of GMA in Agritourism). In: Agroturyzm a rozwój
wsi. Wprowadzenie do rozwijania przedsięwzięć
agroturystycznych. (Rural Development Throu-gh
Agri­‑Tourism.
A guide to developing an agri­‑tourism
enterprises. 1990, FAO Regional Office
For Europe in Rome), for the Polish edition by
Centrum Doradztwa i Edukacji w Rolnictwie,
Kraków, pp. 19­‑43.
Garrod, B., Wornell, R., and Youell, R.
2006 “Re­‑conceptualising
rural resources as
countryside capital: The case of rural tourism”.
Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1): 117­‑128.
Jansen­‑Verbeke,
M.
1990 ”Znaczenie turystyki na terenach wiejskich
w Europie” (The Role of the Tourism in rural
areas in
Europe). Problemy Turystyki, Instytut Turystyki,
1/2 (47/48): 36­‑48.
Kastenholz, E.
2004 “«Management of Demand» as a Tool in Sus-tainable
Tourist Destination Development”.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5): 388­‑408.
Klembowska, D. and Nowaczyk, J.
2008 ”Baza noclegowa w gospodarstwach agro-turystycznych
w Polsce” (Accommodation in
agritourism farms in Poland). In: Sikorska­‑Wolak
I. (Ed.), Ekonomiczne i społeczne aspekty
rozwoju turystyki wiejskiej. SGGW, Warszawa,
pp. 117­‑124.
Klitsunova, V.A.
2004 ”Sielski turizm: osnovnye uslovya i principy,
obespecivayushcye ustoycivye razvite” (Rural
tourism: The base and conditions for sustai‑nable
development). In: Turizm i regionalnoye
razvitie, Matierialy III miezdunarodno naucno­‑prakticeskoy
konferency, 4–6.10.2004, Smolensky
Gumanitarny Univiersitet, Smolensk. pp. 120­‑124.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 577
Krippendorf, J.
1987 “The Holiday Makers: Understanding the
impact of leisure and travel”. Butterworth­‑Heinemann,
Oxford.
Kulczycki, Z.
1977 “Zarys historii turystyki w Polsce” (An outline
of the history of tourism in Poland). Sport i
Turystyka, Warszawa.
Lane, B.
1994a ”Rural Tourism: A Bibliography”. In: Tourism
Policy and International Tourism in OECD
Countries, Paris.
1994b ”What is rural tourism?”. Journal of Sus‑tainable
Tourism, 2(1­‑2):
7­‑21.
2009 ”Rural tourism: An Overview”. In: Robinson,
M. and Jamal, T. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook
of Tourism Studies, London: Sage Publications,
pp. 354­‑370.
Leszczycki, S.
1938 ”Ruch uzdrowiskowo­‑letniskowy
w Polsce”
(Health and summer holiday mobility in Poland).
Komunikaty Studium Turyzmu UJ, z. 8.
Liszewski, S.
1987 ”Geneza i rozwój osadnictwa wypoczynkowego
w otoczeniu Łodzi” (The origin and development
of holiday settlements in the area of Łódź). Acta
Universitatis Lodziensis. Turyzm, 3: 33­‑54.
MacCannell, D.
2002 Turysta. Nowa teoria klasy próżniaczej. (The
Tourist. A New Theory of the Leisure Class. 1976
Schocken Books. Published by arrangement
with the University of California Press) for the
Polish edition by Muza SA, Warszawa.
Majewski, J.
2005 ”Definiowanie terminu agroturystyka – pojęcia
wąskie i szerokie” (Defining agritourism – nar-row
and broad notions). In: Sawicki, B., Bergier
J., (Eds.) Uwarunkowania rozwoju turystyki
związanej z obszarami wiejskimi. PWSZ, Biała
Podlaska, pp. 102­‑107.
Majewski, J. and Lane, B.
2001 ”Turystyka wiejska i rozwój lokalny” (Rural
tourism and the local development). Fundacja
Fundusz
Współpracy, Poznań.
McGehee, N.G.
2007 ”An Agritourism Systems Model: A Weberian
Perspective”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
2: 111­‑124.
Matczak, A.
1985 ”Funkcja wypoczynkowa strefy podmiejskiej
Łodzi” (Holiday function of the suburbs of Łódź).
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Geographi‑ca,
5: 299–311.
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G.
1982 “Tourism: economic, physical and social
impacts”. Longman, London.
Mazurov, J. L.
2004 “Ekoturizm v Rossi: globalny kontekst i na-cionalnye
osobiennosty“ (Ecotourism in Russia:
general
context and national variety). Riegionalnye iss‑lyedowanya.
Nauczny jurnal, 1(3), Izdatielstvo
„Universum”, Smolensk.
Nilsson, P. Ä.
2002 ”Staying on farms: an ideological background”.
Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 7­‑24.
Oppermann, M.
1996 ”Rural Tourism in Southern Germany”.
Annals of Tourism Research, 23: 86­‑102.
Panov, I. N.
2003 ”Ekologicesky turizm i jego rol v ustoycivom
razvity tierritory” (Ecotourism and its role in the
development of the territory). In: Aleksandrova,
A. J. (Ed.) Teoria i praktika miezdunarodnogo
turizma,
Sbornik statiey, Moskovski Gosudarstvienny
Univiersitet, Moskva, pp.275­‑279.
Połomski, K.
2010 Miejsce i przestrzeń. Krajobraz w
doświadczeniu mieszkańców Bieszczadzkiego
Parku Narodowego (Place and space. The
landscape in the experience of inhabitants of
Bieszczady National Park). SCHOLAR, FDPA,
Warszawa, pp. 183.
Phillip, S., Hunter, C. and Blackstock, K.
2010 ”A typology for defining agritourism”. Tourism
Management, 31: 754­‑758.
Prentice, R. C., Witt, S.F. and Hamer, C.
1998 ”Tourism as experience. The case of heritage
Parks”.Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1): 1­‑24.
Raport o stanie wiejskiej bazy noclegowej w
Polsce, 1997, (Report on the condition of rural
tourism accommodation in Poland). Projekt
PL.­‑0310­‑02­‑02,
Turystyka Wiejska: Rozwój
wiejskiej bazy noclegowej, Program Phare Tourin
II, DG Agroprogress International AL, Centrum
Doradztwa I Edukacji w Rolnictwie, Kraków,
pp.62.
Roberts, L. and Hall, D.
2001 ”Rural tourism and recreation: Principles to
practice”. Cambridge: CABI Publishing.
Saxena, G., Clark, G., Oliver, T., Ilbery, B.
2007 “Conceptualizing Integrated Rural Tourism,
Tourism Geographies”. An International Journal
of Tourism Space. Place and Environment, 9(4):
347­‑370.
Schöppner, A.
1988 ”Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof. Eine frem-denverkehrsgeographische
Untersuchung”.
Bochumer Materialien zur Raumordnung, 36.
Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J.
1997 ”Rural tourism. An introduction”. Internatio-nal
Thomson Business Press. London
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
578 A summary assessment of the Agritourism Experience in Poland
Skoblikova, A.L.
2005 ”Sovremennye problemy razvitia ekologiceskogo
turizma v Russia” (Contemporary problems of the
development of ecotourism in Russia). In: Sovrie-miennye
probliemy razvitia turizma i turistskogo
servisa, Sbornik naucnyh dokladov i statiey, t. 1,
ST. Petersburskaya Gosudarstviennaya Akademya
Servisa i Ekonomiky, St. Petersburg, pp. 46­‑53.
Starcieva N.V.
2004 ”Primenenye reklamy v organizacy ekologi-ceskogo
turizma” (On Using Advertisment in
Ecoturism Organization). In: Turizm i regionalnoye
razvitie, Matierialy III miezdunarodnoy naucno­‑prakticeskoy
konferency, 4–6.10.2004, Smolensky
Gumanitarny Univiersitet, Smolensk, pp. 235­‑238.
Szalewska, E.
2000 ”Rozwój turystyki wiejskiej w strefie
południowego Bałtyku w powiązaniu ze
Słowińskim Parkiem Narodowym” (Development
of agritourism in the south zone of the Baltic Sea
in connection with the Słowiński National Park).
Materiały VIII Ogólnopolskiego Sympozjum
Agroturystycznego,Wysowa, 11–14 września 2000
r., Krajowe Centrum Doradztwa Rozwoju Rolnic-twa
i Obszarów Wiejskich, Kraków, pp.115­‑130.
Sznajder, M. and Przezbórska, L.
2006 ”Agroturystyka” (Agritourism). Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa.
Urry, J.
1990 ”The consumption of tourism”. Sociology,
24: 23­‑35.
2007 ”Spojrzenie turysty”. (The Tourist Gaze. 2002,
2nd edition published by Sage Publications of
London, Thousand Oaks nad New Delhi) for the
Polish edition by PWN SA, Warszawa.
Warszyńska, J. and Jackowski, A.
1979 Podstawy geografii turyzmu (The Base of
Tourism Geography). PWN, Warszawa.
Wojciechowska, J.
1992 Aktywizacja wsi poprzez działalność
turystyczną. Poradnik praktyczny dla samorządów
lokalnych i mieszkańców wsi (Activating the
countryside through tourist activity. Practical
guide for local governments and rural population).
UKFiT­‑KGMiT,
Łódź­‑Warszawa,
pp.43.
2000 ”Rozwój i konsekwencje agroturystyki na
przykładzie Śladkowa Małego” (The development
and
consequences of agritourism on the example of the
village of Śladków Mały). Problemy Turystyki,
3/4: 95­‑104.
2003 ”Agroturystyka w dziedzinie nauki i praktyki
– przegląd bibliografii za okres 1990­‑2002”
(Agri-tourismin
the field of theory and practice – the
bibliography for the period 1990­‑2002).
Zeszyty
Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej w Krakowie,
402(90): 66­‑79.
2006 ”An evaluation of the effects of agro­‑tourism
development”. Turyzm, 16(2): 65­‑74.
2007a ” Types of Polish agrotourism farm and
owner profiles”. Turyzm, 16(1): 65­‑74.
2007b ”Systematyka i wyróżniki pojęć dotyczących
turystyki na obszarach wiejskich” (The classi-fication
and distinguishing features of terms
defining tourism in rural areas). In Kurek, W.,
Mika, M. (Eds) Studia nad turystyką. Tradycje,
stan obecny i perspektywy badawcze. Geografi‑czne,
społeczne i ekonomiczne aspekty turystyki,
IGGP, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków, pp.
259­‑308.
2009 “Procesy i uwarunkowania rozwoju agroturys-tyki
w Polsce” (The Processes and Conditions of
Agritourism Development in Poland). Uniwer-sytet
Łódzki, Łódź, pp. 167.
2011”Twenty Years of Polish Agritourism: The
Past and The Future”. Tourism, 21/1­‑2:
67­‑72.
Wojciechowska, J., Barska, M. and Mroczek, M.,
2006 ”Zróżnicowanie gospodarstw agroturys-tycznych
w Polsce i ich przystosowanie do
turystyki aktywnej na przykładzie gminy
Wiżajny” (Diversification of agritourism farms
in Poland and preparing for active tourism on
the example of Wiżajny commune). In: Świeca,
A., Kałamucki, K. (Eds) Rozwój turystyki aktyw‑nej
na Roztoczu – regionie pogranicza/Active
Tourism and Its Development In the Roztocze
Region – Borderland Area, Kartpol s.c., Lublin,
pp. 61­‑71.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/glossary/
terms/phare_en.htm (20.12.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/glossary/
terms/sapard_en.htm (20.12.2013)
www.agroturystyka.pl (11.02.2013)
www.intur.com.pl/jurek098m.htm (10.02.2010)
Notes
The hierarchy of terms in the English language literature
was mentioned by Jansen­‑Verbeke
(1990), who wrote that
rural tourism has the widest semantic range and means
‘all tourism in the countryside’, while agritourism is its
sub­‑term,
because it concerns ‘farming­‑related
tourism’.
The term of the narrowest semantic range, which is
subordinate to the ones mentioned above, is farm tourism,
which means ‘tourist stays on farms’. The definition and
forms of tourism in rural areas have also been discussed
by Lane, 1994b; McGehee, 2007; Roberts and Hall 2001;
Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997, and others.
2 In Poland each area outside of a town/city is termed as
“rural area”, corresponding to about 96% of the country’s
territory.
3 Person­‑days
is a unit of measurement, which tells how
many total days a tourists spent at the destination. Person­‑days
corresponds to the product of the number of days
of summer holiday and bed places on agritourism farms.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 12 N° 3. Special Issue. Mayo 2014 ISSN 1695-7121
Jolanta Wojciechowska 579
Example calculation: July – 31days and August – 31days,
total: 62 days and the product: 62 (days) x 80,000 (bed
places) = 4,960,000 ≈ 5,000,000 person­‑days.
4 They have been held since 1993, at first annually, and since
2001 every two years. In 2013 the fifteenth symposium
was held.
5 PHARE ­‑
Poland and Hungary: Assistance Program for
Restructuring the countries’ Economies, created in 1989,
as one of the three pre­‑accession
instruments financed
by the European Union to assist the applicant countries
of Central and Eastern Europe in their preparations
for joining the European Union. In Poland were three
programmes (Tourin I, II, III) directed to the development
of tourism (http://ec.europa.eu/).
SAPARD ­‑
Special Accession Programme for Agriculture
and Rural Development, established in June 1999 by
the Council of the European Union to help countries of
Central and Eastern Europe deal with the problems of
the structural adjustment in their agricultural sectors
and rural areas (http://ec.europa.eu/).
Recibido: 04/11/2013
Reenviado: 20/01/2014
Aceptado: 29/01/2014
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos