|
|
Back to the speakers' list
Back to the program
Rural tourism: can it reach critical mass and create jobs and income sufficient to compensate for the demise of agriculture? The case of Poland Prof. Grzegorz GOLEMBSKI - The Poznan University of Economics, Poland
Dr Janusz MAJEWSKI - University of Agriculture, Poznan, Poland
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to identify prospects for the development of rural tourism as an alternative for agriculture activity. At first the definition of rural tourism was done. Then the factors that could have a significant impact on rural tourism future development was discribed. On the base of these factors four hypotheses regarding the prospects of rural tourism as an alternative to agriculture was advanced.
The verification of hypothesis was done on the base of case studies. Only viable method of assesment appeared to be an analysis of individual cases, largely diverse and typical for different settings, giving a basis for some general observations.
The case studies confirmed validity of the hypotheses put forward in this paper. On the base of them various barriers restricting agrotourism development in Poland was identified. The most important of them are: credit barrier, quantitative development and seasonality barrier as well as infrastructural, civilisation and work force barrier.
In Western Europe there is an image of Poland as an agricultural country with a relatively low level of industrialisation and urbanisation, a feature until recently denoting civilisation backwardness. This image is only partially true given that Poland has regions which are highly- and even over-industrialised (such as Upper Silesia) beside highly intensive agricultural areas, until recently regarded as modern (such as Wielkopolska), and indeed regions where traditional farming prevails and where population density is low (such as Podlasie in Eastern Poland or – better still – regions in north-eastern Poland). Generally speaking, however, Poland is a country of diverse natural landscape and built-up areas, unique in Europe in terms of its biodiversity.There are approximately two million agricultural farms in Poland, half of which produce only for their own consumption and do not sell produce to the market. This is small wonder, given that an average farm size in south-eastern Poland is about 3.5 hectares. If, however, we take into account traditional farming techniques used by these farms, their product “diversification” (everything in small amounts), attractive scenery and heritage objects abounding in the area, we cannot help but conclude that this is where rural tourism and agrotourism can thrive. And this is indeed the case: south-eastern Poland has the greatest number of rural tourism accommodation facilities. However, to complete the picture of agriculture in Poland we must look at regions in northern Poland, where an average farm size is 21.5 hectares (Warmia & Mazury Province) or 24.1 hectares (West Pomerania Province), and where farm units cultivating several hundred hectares of land are not uncommon. But statistically, the average farm size in Poland is 8.5 hectares.
Regional variation in farm sizes is high, with the average cultivated land area being 8.44 hectares:
Average farm size in selected provinces
(All statistical data derived from: GUS – Central Office of Statistics, General Agricultural Census, Warsaw 2003).
Poland has an outdated employment structure. The agriculture sector, which is responsible for just over 4% of the Gross National Product, employs 30% of the total working population. The fragmentation of farms means that most of them are not self-sufficient. When Poland joins the EU, such farms will face a stiff competition and may not be able to sustain the minimum level of existence.
At the same time there are numerous opportunities for the development of tourism in rural areas that might provide alternative income source for rural populations, and change the existing employment structure without the need for the country dwellers to migrate to cities. Such opportunities emanate from the following facts:
- Poland has large land areas where the population density is low (less than 60 people per square kilometre), and where forestation exceeds 30% of the area, lake districts (more than 5% of inland waters), grasslands, river valleys providing a quiet, serene, idyllic scenery not readily found in the developed countries of Western Europe;
- There are remnants of primaeval forests in Poland characterised by unique climatic and landscape conditions;
- Many attractive regions in Poland offer good accessibility, which will be further improved by a network of motorways planned for construction during the next five years.
Such regions include:
- Pomerania Lake District, Ziemia Lubuska, West Wielkopolska (Notecka Forest) in north-western Poland near the German border;
- Masuria, Augustów Wilderness, Bia_owieska Forest, Suwalskie Lake District in the north-east;
- The Narew and Bug river basin in the east, and also Bieszczady Mountains, and the mountain ranges of Beskid Niski and Sadecki in the south-east, bordering Slovakia and Ukraine.
Other reasons for developing rural tourism in Poland include:
- Overpopulation of traditional tourism destinations that are nearing their carrying capacity;
- Closeness to demand sources, given that domestic demand is still prevailing;
- Attractive pricing compared with typical hotel and boarding houses offerings in domestic destinations, or outbound tourism packages; and finally:
- Changing consumer preferences – tourists increasingly seek a contact with nature and pursue more active forms of recreation.
THE AIM
Thus the aim of this paper is to identify prospects for the development of rural tourism as an alternative for agricultural activity.
Although rural tourism has only a small share of Poland’s tourism market, government and local authorities see it as an important factor for sustainable tourism development in the future. Still well below capacity, the country’s rural areas are in a strong position to develop tourism strategies with long-term environmental objectives. By so doing, authorities hope to establish the country’s reputation as a clean and relatively „unspoiled” country in contrast with its negative image cause by previous industrial intensification (Roberts L., Hall D., 2001).DEFINITIONS
To confront the challenge posed by the heading of this paper we must first answer the question: what is rural tourism and what does critical mass mean? Shall we debate rural tourism per se or a wider concept of tourism in rural areas? The latter option includes in the considerations larger tourism companies and totally changes the optics. The former option narrows down the analysis to single-person, or better still – family-run small firms, and – rarely encountered nowadays – local companies and co-operatives owned by residents of a village or commune.
Rural tourism in its purest form should be:
- Based in rural areas
- Functionally rural – built on the properties characteristic of the countryside such as: small scale production, open spaces, contact with nature and heritage, traditional communities and customs;
- Rural in scale – both in terms of dwelling sizes and community sizes, thus typically small;
- Traditional in character, developing slowly and organically, based on local families; it would often be controlled by local communities and developed with a purpose of long-term benefits to the area;
- Diverse, reflecting a complex nature of the rural environment, economy, history and location (Majewski, Lane, 2001 p.40).
Meanwhile, tourism in rural areas does not have to meet these criteria. Generally, the only requirement for it is the location in an administratively rural area, hence the character of the area is not material. Moreover, such types of tourism projects often significantly change the traditional rural scenery as they rarely conform to the existing regional architecture and scale (e.g. hotel-style accommodation, bungalow complexes).
In this work we will focus our considerations on the rural tourism in its narrow meaning. An answer to the question about critical mass and when this mass is achieved is not unequivocal, as it depends on the criteria we define. We have several possibilities:
- Individual economic (financial) criterion for a service provider/company, based - for example - on the number of employees, or an average income from work in the country – perhaps less or maybe more.
- Collective criterion (for a place or area), where due to its contribution to the local economy tourism has become a significant part of it;
The critical mass will not be the same for a large profit-oriented tourism enterprise and a small family-run firm (typical in rural tourism). Even the small family-run firms will differ among each other in terms of critical mass depending on the region where they are located, because of variations in average incomes, different needs and mentality.
This can be illustrated by the differences in GNP per capita. If we take the average for the country as 100% (EUR 4,538 per annum), the GNP per capita for the top five provinces in Poland (WEST) amounts to 114.2%, whereas for the five least developed provinces (EAST) this figure is only 73.5% . Even bigger differences are apparent in the city-country comparison. For example, the GNP per capita in Warsaw is EUR 13,435, in Pozna_ – EUR 9,298, and in rural regions on average 2,800 – 3,000 euros.
Another question about the critical mass: should tourism to be an alternative or supplementary source of income? Depending on the answer, the objectives and expected revenues will be set at different levels. Typically, tourism is initially regarded as a supplementary source of income, and after a certain while for some people it becomes the alternative source of income replacing agriculture altogether or pushing it aside to the secondary role. This transformation takes place not only in individual farm units but often in entire villages or regions. Sometimes agricultural function carries on just for the benefit of tourists, and in order to maintain the character of agrotouristic farm.
With reference to the word sustainable, being the topical theme of this conference, we might ask a thought-provoking question: do we need to reach a critical mass? After all, we are talking about sustainable tourism for which the economic criterion is not more important than ecological and ethical considerations. This is particularly true for local and family-run firms, which – unlike typical profit-oriented companies – do not regard the economic criterion as the overriding factor, although they do not lose site of it. This attitude underpins the vitality of rural tourism, for which authenticity of the offering is a major element. We lose this authenticity if everything becomes secondary to the profit criterion (Bramwell B., Lane B. (ads), 1994).
FACTORS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF AGROTOURISM IN POLAND
In outlining the prospects for rural tourism we must accept a number of factors that could have a significant impact on its future development. Such factors include:
- Successful development of rural tourism can only take place in attractive areas – in tourism regions occupying a certain spatial area.
- State policy at all levels of authority (central, regional and local), which is (or should be) a result of adopted strategy implementation.
- Efficiency and profitability of agriculture as a result of:
- state agricultural policy
- area and quality of available farm land, the state of professional knowledge, and the level of farm work mechanisation.
- Market competition. It concerns both the agricultural production and provision of agrotourism services.
- Development of rural tourism is only possible in less urbanised areas.
- Seasonality of service provision – except for mountain destinations, a typical tourism season is short, lasting up to three months at the most.
- Supra-economic motives for running agrotourism facilities, such as opportunity to interact with people from big cities, pleasure derived from customer satisfaction (entries in guest books), or opportunity to present one’s own crafts or arts to visitors.
Ad. 1.
Spatial tourism units in terms of geographic and socio-economic space, where tourism phenomena take place, encompass the tourism area and the tourism region (G. Go_embski, 1999). The concept of area – as a freely defined space within the country, fulfilling the tourism function – does not require a strict delimitation criteria, hence higher in the spatial units hierarchy is the tourism region. The tourism region can be defined by its area delineated on the basis of features similarity, or it can have a nodal structure. Rural tourism can only develop in the former types of regions.The precondition for identifying regions within tourism areas is the valuation of resources deciding of their attractiveness. These resources include tourism attributes, condition of the natural environment and the level of its protection, and accessibility. Using a method of synthetic indicators that evaluate tourism attractiveness of destinations, the most attractive regions in terms tourism function have been identified from within areas covering 1/8 of Poland (areas generally regarded as attractive to tourism). These are the regions most likely to support development of rural tourism.
Ad. 2.
An expression of state policy at the central level is the government tax and credit policy. Tax rebates can stimulate a greater scale of activity. Lower interest rates of loans (although higher than the inflation rate) and grace periods for loan repayments reflect on the state credit policy in terms of providing stimulating measures aimed at lowering business risk.
An expression of regional authorities’ strategy is the definition of the product core in selected areas and the vision of tourism supply.The regional authorities’ strategy should also include improvements to dwelling conditions in the area (renovation and refurbishment of rural buildings), assistance in fostering cultural identity of local communities, and protection of the environment. The role of regional authorities also extends to regional marketing including promotion of agrotourism services, and retraining people through appropriate training schemes.
Further down the authority structure, local governments are responsible for the state of technical infrastructure (mainly gas distribution network, and sewage), whose inadequacy results in higher running costs and lower service quality. Local authorities are also responsible for signposting the area, tourism information, construction and maintenance of tourist trails, etc. This is illustrated in diagram 1.
Ad. 3.
Following the implementation of market economy principles in Poland at the beginning of nineteen-nineties, profitability in agriculture dropped significantly. Prices for fertilizers and machinery markedly rose, whereas the selling prices for agricultural products began to fall. Fluctuation of prices further increased the risk of farming. At the same time in order to fight hyperinflation interest rates on loans rose to a level that rendered them totally uneconomic. For a farmer all that was a sufficient reason to seek additional sources of income, especially for small farms that ceased to be self-sufficient.A number of factors provide a good argument for developing agrotourism in small farms. Firstly, if those are family farms – and such farms predominate in Poland – their owners should be interested in extra income afforded by tourism. Secondly, small farms – often for economic reason - use very little (or none at all) artificial fertilisers and crop protection chemicals. Although many farms do not have ecological certificates, frequently the quality of offered products meets the criteria of ecology. Small farms of 1 – 5 hectares constitute 59% of the total number of farm units, 6 -10 hectare farms are 22% of the total, and those above 10 hectares in size constitute 19% of the total.
Typically, small farms that produce very little do not have enough money to start up a tourism operation and they often lack spare rooms for guests. To top it all, they are not regarded by banks as creditworthy, so they cannot even take out a loan. Larger farms, on the other hand, those that achieve satisfactory profits from farm production, fruit-growing, or horticulture, despite financial ability are not interested in running a supplementary tourism operation regarding it as an extra burden. Given that families operating large farms usually work 10 hours a day on the farm, it not realistic to expect them to take up tourism as a supplementary business activity. In small farms, on the other hand, a working day lasts on average 4.3 hours.
The countryside is also characterised by a slow diffusion of innovation, a fact observable also in rural tourism. Therefore in rural communities an important role is attributed to pioneers (leaders) who are the first to take the risk of new activity. These trailblazers are being watched by others in the community and followed if successful. In early nineteen-nineties such role was undertaken by migrants from cities who were the first to deliver tourism services. These were people, mostly university educated, who back in the nineteen-eighties had decided not only to live in the countryside but also run a farm, an activity highly profitable in those days.
Ad. 4.
Competition stems primarily from the multiplicity of producers. Lower prices for farm products cause farmers to increase production to compensate for the lost revenue. That in turn intensifies the difficulty of selling the products. Even though the number of households living off the farm has fallen significantly, still the number of agricultural producers is too high.Currently the households living off a farm include 10.5 million people, or 27.4% of the total population (9.4% less than in 1996), of whom 80% actually live in the countryside.
For 16.6% of that population a farm is their only source of income (21.3% in 1996);
2% declare that a farm is their main source of income (2.2% in 1996);
14.8% declare that a farm is their supplementary source of income (33.5% in 1996);
11.7% support their family exclusively or mainly from work outside the farm
15.8% declare that their only or main source of income is a pension (or disability benefit)
38.9% are dependents.On the other hand, the number of agrotourism farms has increased dramatically. Competition in the market is the reason for exceptionally low prices, affecting profitability and putting off the prospects for achieving critical mass (compare examples).
The relevant figures for the last thirteen years are as follows:1990: 590 farms provided agrotourism services
1997: 4 800 farms
2002: 13 200 farms
2003: approximately 15 000 farms
n 2002 about one million visitors used the services of agrotourism farms.Ad. 5.
Development of rural tourism is limited by progressive urbanisation. For this reason city outskirts have to be excluded from this process, with the radius of exclusion depending on the size of the urban unit. It is reasonable to accept the following radii for the respective city sizes (based on the population numbers):
50-100 thousand: 10 kilometres
101-500 thousand: 15 kilometres
501-1000 thousand: 20 kilometresIt is accepted (Drzewiecki, 1992) that the degree of urbanisation is expressed by the density of population per square kilometre of agricultural land. The maximum allowable figure for an area to serve the purpose of tourism and recreation has been put at 80 residents per square kilometre. Fragmentation of settlements and location away from trunk roads is considered to be an added advantage.
Thus the selected regions, attractive for tourism development, should be analysed from the viewpoint of the urbanisation indicator, which would probably reduce the size of these areas.HYPOTHESES
Based on the previous considerations we can advance four hypotheses regarding the prospects of rural tourism as an alternative to agriculture. These are as follows:
- There is a strict relationship between rural tourism critical mass and the attractiveness of an area and its urbanisation. The precondition for rural tourism development is the existence of development strategy for the tourism product in a selected area.
- Low profitability of agriculture is a factor both stimulating and delaying development of tourism in rural areas.
- Evolutionary character of changes in the traditional rural environment means that in the early stages of its development rural tourism it is regarded as a supplementary source of income, and only later it becomes an alternative source of earnings.
- There exist a number of barriers hindering development of agrotourism which need to be overcome in order that the volume and quality of agrotourism services can grow and make it a viable alternative for agriculture.
CASE STUDIES
(based on the survey carried out in November 2003 in cooperation with Ms Janina Sta_czyk, President of the KOSA Central Pomerania Agrotourism Society).Generalization of agrotourism phenomena in Poland is very difficult. The country is big, tourism regions are numerous and extremely diverse (mountains, seaside, lake districts, etc), and seasonality of services differs between regions. Development of agrotourism depends on the size of farms, type and profitability of agricultural production, location, residents’ mentality, and many other factors. For this reason the only viable method of assessment appears to be an analysis of individual cases, largely diverse and typical for different settings, giving a basis for some general observations.
The case studies cover seven examples of agrotourism farms operating in the region of Central Pomerania in Poland. This area includes both the seaboard for which the distance of 15 to 20 kilometres from the sea decides about attractiveness of a destination, and lake districts whose varying terrain and forestation make the areas attractive as such.CASE n°1
CHLOPY – a farm situated 200 metres from the Baltic shoreline.The farm was purchased in 1975 by a family from the city of Bydgoszcz (territory annexed by Prussia before the 1st World War). A 7 hectare farm included a house built in 1819, which was in a state of considerable disrepair. The buyer was himself a farmer; his wife had completed vocational training in catering at the secondary level. The reason for buying the farm was a desire to develop agricultural production. The farm progressively expanded through acquisitions of neighbouring plots and specialised in cow and geese rearing.
In early nineteen-eighties the farm began selling meals to tourists (taking advantage of the farmer’s wife training and skills). All the money earned in that way was, however, ploughed back into the farming business (purchase of machines, fertilisers, etc.). In those days profitability of agriculture was high.
Even though in the summer season the influx of tourists to the seaside was enormous and demand for accommodation and food services high, a mental barrier became apparent (“why should we keep strangers in the house?!”), which effectively delayed a decision about house expansion and letting rooms to tourists.
Following political and economic changes in the beginning of nineteen-nineties, a dramatic decline in agriculture production profitability took place. Production costs rose steeply while selling prices fell. In 1995 new regulations allowed setting up camp sites on farm land. Another set of regulations restricted tax free room letting to a maximum of five rooms. The studied case is a two-generation family (two families registered at the address), so as many as ten rooms could be set aside for letting free of tax. In January 1996 the family made a decision to give up farm production altogether and renovate and expand the house. Existing farm buildings were converted into a day-room and a bicycle store. Toilets, bathrooms, shower cabins and washbasins were installed for users of the campsite. All rooms let to tourists have their own bathrooms. A general impression is very good – the place is clean and adorned with flowers.
The refurbishment and expansion were carried out by DIY methods and financed by own money. About 60% of all annual profits are set aside for investments. Demand is high. Despite cool climate customers come all year round, although bed occupancy outside high season ranges from 10% (January, February) to 50% (May, September). Currently the farm offers 22 beds.To calculate sales, costs and profits the following assumption were made:
Number of beds: 22
Occupancy in respective months:
July, August 100% May, June, September 50% March, April, October, November, December 15% January, February 10%
Prices per bed:
July, August PLZ 30-40 Other months PLZ 20-25
Meal prices:
Adult PLZ 15 Child PLZ 10 Number of places at campsite: 60
Prices: PLZ 10 per person
Running costs + depreciation charge 50% of sales
(no hired manpower)
Costs include: power, gas, cesspool emptying, painting and decorating, laundry, food ingredients, etc.Table 1
Sales
(PLZ)
Total annual sales: PLZ 175.550 Running costs and depreciation (50% of sales) PLZ 85.775 PROFIT PLZ 85.775 (1 EUR = PLZ 4,5) About 60% of profits (or PLZ 52 000) is set aside for further investments. The balance is consumed by the hosts. The disposable income is thus PLZ 2 815, or EUR 625 per month. In Poland this is 50% higher than the average take home pay .
CASE n°2
KISZKOWO, town of BEDZINO
Location: 2.3 kilometres from the seashore, farm land Farm size: 30 hectares, cultivated Status: third generation farmers, 5-person family Type of farm production: pig raising + animal feed production Supplementary business: sawmill since 1986 Profitability of farm production: declining since 1990 Profitability of sawmill business: none, production was first limited and ultimately discontinued in 1995 Beginnings of agrotourism: 1997, as a result of income decline Number of rooms to let: 3 Number of beds: 8 Bed occupancy: 80 à 90% over three months Price per bed: PLZ 30 Price per meal: PLZ 15 (dinners only) Number of sold meals: 200 per month Supplementary services: bicycle hire, bonfire events, smoking of fish (included in the price)
Running costs + depreciation charge: approx. 50% of sales (no hired manpower) Money available for investments: none Credit facility: none Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 40% Calculation of sales and profits: see Appendix
CASE n°3
MACHLINY, town of Czaplinek
Location: Drawskie Lake District, about 100 kilometres from the sea. Undulated terrain, plenty of woods and lakes; 200 metres from the lake shore Farm size: 15 hectares, cultivated Status: Inherited farm, a family of four (grandmother, mother, grown-up son, daughter (still at school)
No knowledge of foreign languagesType of farm production: Traditional crops (grains); farm animals for own needs (1 milk cow, 10 pigs, poultry) Profitability of farm production: Low and further declining, providing maximum 30% of total family income, low class soil Beginnings of agrotourism: 1995, as a remedy for falling earnings from farm production Number of rooms to let: 3 double rooms, shared bathroom
2 double chalets each with own bathroom
2 four-person chalets and kitchenetteTotal number of beds: 18 Bed occupancy: May – 30%, Jun – 30%, Jul – 70%, Aug – 70%, Sep – 10% Price per bed plus dinner: PLZ 40 (100% visitors eat in) Supplementary services: Bicycle hire, boat hire, barbeque, smoking of fish,
(included in the price) basketball fieldRunning costs + depreciation charge: Approx. 40% of sales Money available for investments: Yes, refurbishment of facilities to raise standards Credit facility: Yes – obtained a bank loan Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 40% Calculation of sales and profits: See Appendix CASE n°4
Agrotourism farm « LISÓWKA »
Location: Manowo Commune, Lakeland, 40 kilometres from the sea on canal joining two lakes (Majka – 1 km, Rosnowo – 3 km, in the woods Farm size: 20 hectares, not cultivated Status: Inherited farm, a family of three. No money to start up a profitable farm production. Plans for forestation of the land. Revenus non agricoles : Husband: fire-fighter; wife: amateur painting on glass, occasionally for sale; education: general secondary Beginnings of agrotourism: 1997 Number of rooms to let: 2 suites; number of beds: 8 Bed occupancy: May – 20%, Jun – 50%, Jul – 100%, Aug – 100%, Sep – 70% Price per bed: PLZ 20 Price per dinner: PLZ 14 (50% buy dinners) Supplementary services: Bicycle hire, bonfire events, mushroom drying (included in the price) Extra income: Craft sales No hired man-power, all work done by family members (3 persons)
Running costs + depreciation charge: 50% of sales Money available for investments: None Credit facility: None Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 33% Future plans: Swimming pond, 2 ponies, second floor expansion (2 extra rooms) Calculation of sales and profits: See Appendix CAS n°5
Farm of SARBINOWO
Location: About 1.5 kilometres from the sea; a 200 year-old house is let out to tourists, the family lives in a newly built house. Agricultural terrain. Farm size: About 15 hectares, cultivated Status: The farm was purchased in the early nineteen-eighties. Both owners have university education (Master’s degree in horticulture). Family of seven, two family members work outside the farm. Type of farm production: Strawberry plantation, until 1995 on 8 hectares of land, currently on approx. 3 hectares Other activity: Horse breeding, currently six horses for riding, with the view to extend the tourism season Profitability of farm production: Declining, mainly due to difficulties in hiring pickers (ban on hiring foreign workers). Crops have to be limited. High risk of production due to price fluctuations. Beginnings of agrotourism: 1999 following detailed feasibility study Number of rooms to let: 4 ; number of beds: 14 Bed occupancy: Jun – 25%, Jul – 100%, Aug – 100%, Sep – 10%
25% of guests are foreignPrice per bed plus dinner: PLZ 35 – high season, PLZ 25 – low season
(children up to 7 years old pay 50% of price)Food: 1 soup per day plus 1 dinner without soup for 90% of guests Price per meal: 20 PLN Supplementary services: Bicycle hire, table tennis, fishing, 4-wheel-drive rides (included in the price) Supplementary services @ extra charge: Horse riding @ PLZ 25/hour average Running costs + depreciation charge: Accommodation: 45%
Food: 40%
No hired manpowerMoney available for investments: Not much, about 25% of total profits Credit facility: None Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 20% Future plans: Roofed horse-riding enclosure, conversion of the old house attic into two apartments (maximum twenty people in double rooms), chalets, tennis court, canteen Calculation of sales and profits: See Appendix
CAS n°6
POPOWO, town of BEDZINO
Location: About 10 kilometres from the sea, agricultural land, some woods, 10-year-old house Farm size: 34 hectares Status: Family of five, secondary agricultural education Type of farm production: Dairy farm: 25 milk cows, EU certificated. Total production is contracted to a Swedish company Non-farm activity: None Profitability of farm production: Satisfactory; stable prices fixed at about PLZ 0.9 per litre. Yield per cow: 7 200 litres per year Beginnings of agrotourism: 1997; triggered by a great influx of tourists to the seaside following catastrophic floods in the mountains in southern Poland, causing congestion in areas closer to sea Bed occupancy: Only in summer, and even then not 100% Price per bed: PLZ 20 Food provision: None Supplementary services: Supplementary services: fishing rods hire, bonfire events, opportunity to work
on farm (included in the price)NOTE: The host family regard room hire as an opportunity to meet other people and have some entertainment in the summer season
Running costs + depreciation charge: 35% of sales (no hired man-power) Money available for investments dans l’agrotourisme : None Credit facility: None Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 8,7% Calculation of sales and profits: See Appendix CAS n° 7
MASZKOWO, town of SIANÓW
Location: Lakeland, 25 kilometres from the sea. Undulated terrain, plenty of woods and lakes. Close to the city of Koszalin Farm size: 25 hectares, not cultivated Status: Inherited farm, a family of five. Secondary and university education Type of farm production: Chicken farm – about 25 000 chickens (also the main ingredient of meals served to tourists) Profitability of farm production: Satisfactory and stable; at this production scale the farm can easily support the whole family Beginnings of agrotourism: 1996, as the wife’s hobby, the husband sustained an injury in an accident (lost hand) Number of rooms to let: 5; number of beds: 20; all rooms with bathrooms Bed occupancy: May – 20%, Jun – 20%, Jul – 70%, Aug – 100% Price per bed plus dinner: PLZ 25 All-day food: PLZ 25. All guests use the service. Supplementary services: Bicycle hire, open air swimming pool, fish pond
(included in the price)Running costs + depreciation charge: Accommodation: 50% of sales
Food: 70% of salesMoney available for investments: yes (but not much is utilised) Credit facility: None Share of tourism income in total annual earnings: 8,6% Calculation of sales and profits: See Appendix VERIFICATION OF HYPOTHESES
The case studies confirm validity of the hypotheses put forward in this paper. Since the development of agrotourism depends on many factors (as described earlier), we can use the method of controlled experiments (Samuelson, 1995), treating one element as a variable and fixing all others at pre-determined values.
If we accept that the more attractive the region the more likely income from tourism can become an alternative for farm production revenues (HYPOTHESIS 1), the case studies largely confirm this assumption.Table 2
Chlopy 200 m from the sea Kiszkowo 2,3 km from the sea Machliny Lakeland Lisówka Lakeland Sarbinowo 1 km from the sea Popowo 10 km from the sea Maszkowo 25 km from the sea If, however, we accept that the share of tourism income in the overall farm income depends on the profitability of farm production (Hypothesis 2), then the results confirm this assumption as well.
Chlopy Kiszkowo Machliny Lisówka Sarbinowo Popowo Maszkowo The described examples explain the reasons for slow rate and a relatively small scale of rural tourism development, and illustrate why there are remote chances for it to reach critical mass. The main reasons are the following:
- a high share of medium-sized and large farms that are doing well and do not need to diversify into supplementary business activity in pursuit of extra income
- on the other extreme, a high share of very poor and/or very small farms that have no financial ability or spare accommodation space to let,
- unattractive surroundings, paucity of heritage objects, little to occupy the tourist, too great a distance to potential markets,
- reluctance or lack of ability to cooperate with other farmers, local authorities, and tourism enterprises with a view to improve infrastructure and run joint marketing operations,
- mental barriers, lack of entrepreneurship spirit.
The case studies have identified various barriers restricting agrotourism development in Poland. These are:
- Credit barrier. Development of agrotourism in Poland brings back the memories of natural economy. Almost none of the farm owners used a bank credit facility. The reasons are twofold: high interest rates and lack of grace periods for loan repayments. In this situation refurbishments and new investments are barely possible. Currently, interests charged on bank loans exceed 10%, with inflation running at 1.5%. Overcoming this barrier is a basic prerequisite for agrotourism development.
- Quantitative development barrier. Agrotourism is not a large scale operation. It does not constitute an alternative proposition for prospering farms, even though the seasonality risk and demand risk encountered in agrotourism business are less than the risk of farm production. The scale of agrotourism business is effectively limited by the tax system (only 5 rooms can be let free of tax), and also by a concern that attractiveness and quality of services might deteriorate if too many guests are accommodated. The small-scale character of the business effectively limits revenues, and consequently development possibilities of farms. These possibilities are further limited by:
- Seasonality barrier. Season extension entails extra costs, associated primarily with the need to heat rooms and provide extra services to entertain guests. The sources of additional, growing costs also include:
- Infrastructural barrier. Most villages in Poland lack sewage and gas distribution networks. Cesspools are used for liquid waste (not particularly hygienic and very costly to run), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in refillable cylinders is used for cooking – a fuel much more expensive and less safe than pipe-delivered natural gas.
- Structural barrier in terms of demand for agrotourism services. So far this demand has been coming from less affluent customers and those preferring passive recreation. A strong downward pressure on prices is apparent.
- Civilisation barrier. By this term we understand the general level of education, as well as the ability to keep abreast of civilisation changes and to comprehend these changes, an ability constrained by the countryside living conditions experienced until now. The level of education is linked to the knowledge of foreign languages, understanding of quality standards generally complied with in Europe, and understanding of changing tendencies in consumer demand. The civilisation barrier also refers to the mental attitude of country dwellers, characterised by a mistrust of strangers. To a considerable extent the countryside mentality has been shaped by isolation from urban culture influences. Cultural differences among people coming from various parts of Poland also play a significant role. These differences were shaped by Poland’s turbulent history that saw the annexation and partition of the country two hundred years ago, and great peoples’ migrations after the Second World War. And finally, the specific mental attitude of country dwellers may be partially due to a feeling of grudge, given that in the last fifteen years their incomes have fallen considerably behind those enjoyed in cities.
- Workforce barrier. Notwithstanding Poland’s high rate of unemployment (exceeding 17%), particularly in areas touristically attractive that are usually deprived of industry and other forms of business activity, agrotourism can hardly be regarded as a job-creating operation. It is exactly self-sufficiency in terms of man-power that underpins the economic success of agrotourism farms. The downside of not hiring outside workforce is, of course, a limited development ability of agrotourism as such.
Unemployment rates (September 2003)
17.5% average for the country
Warmie & Mazurie Province 27,5% West Pomerania 26,0% Lubuskie Province 25,5% Lower Silésie Province 21,9% Those are very “touristic” provinces.
CONCLUSIONS
Agrotourism has a great potential for development in Poland. It has the ability to partially compensate for the demise of agriculture on the land covering about 20% of the country’s total area (ie. over 60 000 square kilometres). We exclude from this equation bankrupt state run farms that used to employ not more than 13 – 15% of the total population working in agriculture.
Without a doubt, rural tourism has not reached a critical mass in Poland and does not create jobs in sufficient numbers. Agricultural farms left to their own devices will not be able to make a sizable impact on the quantity and quality of tourism services in general. To do so, agrotourism needs state assistance at all levels of authority and external assistance (European Union), though this does not have to be in the form of direct payment. To be constructive, state assistance must be based on a development strategy for tourism in selected areas.
Development strategies should be understood as long term objectives for tourism product development and implementation in a destination, accompanied by resources enabling the strategy realisation (Marciniak, 1998). Both the objectives and resources depend on regions’ endogenous conditions (such as nature resources, but also organisational ability to construct and coordinate actions), and on conditions of the external environment (such as activities of central organisations providing the legal and economic framework). Development strategies are not merely a part of tourism product management in a destination, but they should also be regarded as instruments determining sustainable product quality improvement and financial growth of service providers, self-governments, and local communities in the long term.
Success of a strategy pivots on the vision of agrotourism as the core tourism product. Such a strategy must be all-encompassing, providing framework for the construction of infrastructure, environmental protection, consultancy, and training.
Rural tourism is not the universal solution to the ailments of the rural world. It is one enterprise which can possibly have significant „spin-off” effect which could help to slow down or in some cases counterbalance the disintegration of the local fabric. But to be a totally effective rural development tool it must be a part of a strategic economic development plan that is a plan which helps to combat agriculture underemployment plan and rural unemployment generally.
Such a plan should encompass the social, economic, environmental, physical and administrative development of an area and should aim at diversifying the economic base through complimentary activities. These activities could include services, craft and maintenance industries, auxiliary farm and non farm products, small farming properly networked, small manufacturing businesses and wholesale and retail trade. Through a diversification strategy, with a broad level of community participation and with local initiative, greater security is provided for the community than through single sector development. Single economic development is synonymous with insecurity in rural development terms (Gannon, 1994)..Agrotourism development strategy should be a starting point in procuring European Union assistance to finance comprehensive plans for the development of tourism products that would raise attractiveness of regions, and extend tourism seasons, etc. These funds should be used for:
- econstruction of the core of the tourism product and its paraphernalia (mainly to restore authenticity of rural areas where the product is based)
- construction and reconstruction of the services value chain.
Assistance funds could also be used for:
- renovation of heritage objects such as palaces, heritage parks, archaeological sites;
- renovation of park complexes;
- area development of the countryside, and restoration of its authenticity;
- expansion and modernisation of existing agrotourism farms;
- provision of catering facilities including assistance in reconstruction of old Polish kitchen stoves and revitalisation of old Polish recipes;
- starting up souvenir productions;
- construction of car parks;
- construction of cycle tracks and walkways.
A reconstruction of credit facility provisions for rural areas is necessary in order that farmers could gain access to low interest loans repayable over extended periods. Liberalisation of tax regulations could be an added advantage.
Finally, territorial marketing emerges as an issue of utmost importance. Here the coordinator function is performed by regional authorities.
Promoting attributes of tourism destinations at trade shows is the responsibility of provincial authorities. The marketing activities in respect of the proposed tourism product should be coordinated be a special purpose section of the provincial government. Only a comprehensive action plan will ensure success of the tourism product designed for a specific area.
At the local authority level, a similar marketing section should implement policies laid down by the coordinating body, and assume responsibility for the marketing strategy in the product fragment located within its administration.
The final links in the marketing process are owners and immediate administrators of specific facilities.The last 8 or 9 years have already witnessed an impressive growth of agrotourism. Mental barriers are being broken, and there is more understanding among farmers of market requirements and demands for improved quality. Farmers have shown a strong will and initiative to take on themselves the risk and responsibility for structural reconstruction of agriculture.
With help and support from outside, agrotourism can to a large extent mollify the shock caused by the necessity to change employment structures in Poland and by a drastic downsizing of agriculture.
REFERENCES
- Augustyn M. National Strategies for Rural Tourism Development and Sustainability: The Polish Experience, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1998, Vol. 6, No 3.
- Bramwell B., Lane B. (eds), Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development, Channel View Publication, Clevedon, 1994.
- Drzewiecki M., Agroturystyka. Zalozenia - uwarunkowania – dzialania, Instytut Wydawniczy Swiadectwo, Bydgoszcz 1995.
- Drzewiecki M., Wiejska przestrzen rekreacyjna, Warszawa 1992.
- European Commission, A Framework for Indicators for the Economic and Social Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Bruxelles 2001.
- Gannon A., Tourism as a factor in Rural Community Economic Development for Economies in Transition, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1994, Vol. 2, No 1&2.
- Golembski G., The Role of Public Sector in Developing, Tourism Product Strategies for Tourism Destinations, The Journal of the Poznan University of Economics, 2003.
- Golembski G. (eds), Regionalne aspekty rozwoju turystyki, PWN, Warszawa 1999.
- Majewski J., Lane B., Turystyka wiejska i rozwój lokalny, Fundacja Fundusz Wspólpracy, Poznan 2001.
- Marciniak M. (eds), Mikro i makro ekonomia, PWN, Warszawa 1998.
- Powszechny Spis Rolny 2002, GUS, Warszawa 2003.
- Roberts L., Hall D., Rural Tourism and Recreation. Principles to Practice, CABI Publishing, Wallingford 2001.
- Samuelson, Novdhaus, Ekonomia, PWN, Warszawa 1995.
APPENDIX
Calculations of sales, costs and profits for case studies 2 - 7
APPENDIX 1
CASE STUDY n°2
KISZKOWO, town of BEDZINO
APPENDIX 2
CASE STUDY n°3
MACHLINY, town of CZAPLINEK
APPENDIX 3
CASE STUDY n°4
« LISÓWKA » ROSNOWO-LISOWA
APPENDIX 4
CASE STUDY n°5
SARBINOWO Farm
APPENDIX 5
CASE STUDY n°6
POPOWO, town of BEDZINO
APPENDIX 6
CASE STUDY n°7
MASZKOWO, town of SIANÓW
Source : G. Golembski
