rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganising rural areas in old and new member states — a...

ABSTRACT

Both assessment of the physical, economicand social impacts of enlargement andmonitoring the implementation of policydirectives are vital to future EuropeanUnion operation. This paper investigatestourism development within relativelyunderdeveloped regions within Ireland andPoland, and it suggests implications fortourism operations. Comparison is madebetween product and service offerings inboth regions. Strong similarities existbetween the profiles of operators, operatormotivations differ, and businessdiversification depends on regionalresources and dependency on tourismmarkets. The level of diversificationultimately determines rural tourismdevelopment. The value of using Ireland asa reference model for Polish developmentand critical issues for tourism advisors and policy makers are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 17 November 2003; Revised 7 March 2004; Accepted2 July 2004

Keywords: Rural tourism, agri-tourism, devel-opment, funds, policy, small enterprises

INTRODUCTION

The importance of tourism to developedeconomies and in the economic restruc-turing of weaker European economies is

not refutable. The activities associated withtravel, tourism and recreation affect people inmany different ways and have a profoundimpact on social, cultural and economic per-spectives of life in any society. The tourismindustry encapsulates multiple sectors, forexample, hospitality, food and craft, and canhave significant benefits for local rural areas.Yet tourism instigates change in employment,regional development, environment or con-sumer protection, health, new technology,transport and culture. Although research ontourism enterprise is approached from avariety of operating environments — the eco-nomic, sociological, cultural, geographical,political and legal (Ritchie, 1994; Bushell et al.,2001) — this empirical investigation will focuson the economic dimension. The WorldTourism Organisation (WTO) and the Euro-pean Commission (EC) refer to the economicimportance in particular of tourism for future

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 7, 63–77 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.513

Rural and Agri-Tourism as a Tool forReorganising Rural Areas in Old andNew Member States — a ComparisonStudy of Ireland and PolandCecilia Hegarty1,* and Lucyna Przezborska2

1Northern Ireland Centre for Entrepreneurship, NICENT, University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, Newtownabbey, County Antrim BT37 0QB, UK2Department of Economics in the Agri-Food Industry, Agricultural University of Poznan, 28 Wojska Polskiego St. 60-637 Poznan, Poland

*Correspondence to: C. Hegarty, Northern Ireland Centrefor Entrepreneurship, NICENT, University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, Newtownabbey, County AntrimBT37 0QB, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

growth, employment and development (European Commission, 2002a; WTO, 2003).

At present it is estimated that tourismdirectly employs approximately eight millionpeople in the EU. This represents up to 5% oftotal employment and 3–8% of GDP (varies bymember state) as well as 30% of total externaltrade in services. If employment and GDPincludes other sectors connected with tourism,such as transport or distributive trade, thesefigures increase to 20 million job-posts and12% of GDP (European Commission, 2001a,2002b). Certain forecasts for the EU predictincreases of approximately two million jobs intravel and tourism within the next 10 years(European Commission, 2002b).

It is not surprising that tourism has beenrecognised as one of the major sectors for pro-viding employment opportunities in the futureand in particular in less developed and periph-eral regions of Europe (Wanhill, 1977; Brownand Hall, 2000). Hall (1998) suggested tourismcould provide a key component for integratingpost-socialist European countries. Operators inthis environment regard tourism as a means toachieve employment, income generation andeconomic stability while providing new usesfor older facilities and often providing a focalpoint for community activity (OECD, 1994).Tourism revitalises rural areas because theprimary industry, i.e. agriculture, can berestructured and the multitude of small farmscan adjust to price-cuts and increased compe-tition (OECD, 1994). Economic restructuringand engagement in the tourism sector providessignificant implications for operators withinrural regions. In general, families diversifytheir wealth holdings in order to make themmore secure. Kaila (1999) indicated that theprimary motivation factor for operators todiversify their economic base through tourismactivities was related to their desire not to beoverreliant on agricultural income. This trend,which shifts dependency away from agricul-tural production, is experienced in manydeveloped economies and has been linked tosocial change in Ireland (Commins, 1986).

European tourism authorities and policyadvisors generally believe that tourism offers‘a natural development path’ for rural Europe,particularly in the most disadvantaged areas.For instance, the European Commission and

Agriculture Directorate General state thattourism activity dominated the business plansin 71 of the 217 LEADER I Local Action Groups(LAGs) (European Commission, 2001b). Bycontrast, central and eastern European coun-tries have experienced different structural conditions to those of western Europe and didnot participate in the processes of agricul-tural restructuring accompanying the EU’sCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP). As aresult, rural change within these areas hastended to take place at a much slower rate. It is anticipated that EU enlargement will be a catalyst for processes of rural change, economic development and tourism devel-opment. Monitoring and evaluating theseprocesses and their impacts on European inte-gration has strategic advantages, especially in comparing structural differences betweenMember States (National Economic and SocialCouncil, 1997).

In making comparisons between EUMember States, researchers and policy makersmust be mindful of existing inconsistencies.First, initial tourism development is likely tobe manifested in small-scale agri-tourismenterprises that are a by-product or result ofoff-farm diversification, as experienced inPoland (Getz and Carlsen, 2000). Second, laterstages in the development cycle show engage-ment in new start-up ventures of rural tourismwhere operators target diverse specialistmarkets and develop tourism-specific enter-prises, as is the case in Ireland (Hegarty andMcDonagh, 2003). Tourism is challenged bychanging market opportunities, for instance,continuing to satisfy growth of visitor demandwithin an enlarged EU. Tourism operators will adapt to these challenges and evolve dif-ferent strategies for capitalising on marketopportunities.

Ireland has benefited from European policysince accession in 1973 but in some regions, forinstance the Midlands, tourism development is reflecting earlier stages in the developmentcycle similar to those of new Member States.This slow rate of development suggests thevalue of a comparative study betweenrural/agri-tourism businesses in Ireland andPoland that should assist rural tourism opera-tors, agricultural policy planners and ruraldevelopment authorities.

64 C. Hegarty and L. Przezborska

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 7, 63–77 (2005)

CONCEPTS OF RURAL AND AGRI-TOURISM WITHIN THE EU

Rural tourism and agri-tourism are terms thatare often used interchangeably. They are sym-biotic, with agri-tourism as a part of the overallconcept of rural tourism related to agrarianactivities or off-farm diversification (Robertsand Hall, 2001). In Ireland, tourism in ruralareas is no longer as closely connected to theland and is best described as rural tourism. Asthe majority of Polish operators are enteringinto tourism and enterprises have evolvedfrom farming enterprises, agri-tourism bestdescribes their economic activity. The terms aregrouped together for comparative purposes.

Within the EU, rural/agri-tourism is con-sidered to be crucial to allaying mass out-migration and economic decline. This is thereason why ‘appropriate policies have beenimplemented to support its development. Toillustrate, the EC Directorate General for Agriculture introduced the Objective 5b andLeader Programmes’ (Hjalager, 1996, p. 103).

Ireland

The roots of Irish rural tourism are based in apredominantly (two-thirds) agricultural-basedeconomy where changing agricultural prac-tices and policies have indirectly embodiedtourism by shaping landscapes and lifestyles(CERT, 1998). Tourism development in ruralIreland is similar to parts of northern Europewith its cooler climate; it is tangible due to con-straints such as location, service or producttype (Ó Cinnéide and Walsh, 1990). Ruraltourism invites visitors to enjoy the aestheticquality of rural spaces (Western DevelopmentCommission, 2000) and offers intimate experi-ences and authentic products on a small scale.There exists several specialist segments. Theindustry is shifting towards clustering strat-egies (Bord Fáilte, 2000) to increase growth,which can be inhibited by poor infrastructureor exchange rate levels — Ireland is the secondmost expensive country in Europe afterFinland (Eurostat, 2002).

Although farmhouses and country homesoriginally constituted the largest proportion of tourist accommodation, 26% growth during1985–1990 was due to non-farming entrants

making five or more bedrooms available forbed and breakfast accommodation for touristmarkets (Ó Cinnéide and Walsh, 1990). Thefoundation attractions associated with Irishrural tourism involve:

(1) farm activities — turf cutting, farmhousecooking and animal feeding;

(2) off-farm activities — fishing, bird/dolphinwatching, hill/forest walks, golf, etc.;

(3) attractions — health farms, heritage trails,art and crafts or Gaelic language;

(4) entertainment — music/dance in tradi-tional pubs, barn dances and parish centers;

(5) heritage attractions — abbeys, museums,gardens, caves, churches and castles.

Uneven distribution of tourist flows in Irishtourism has surfaced as a factor causing satu-ration within the sector. Tourism growth polesare located in the Southwest, accounting for ‘43per cent of the national total of Tourism Ser-vices and Attractions providers . . . twenty-nine per cent [of these] are owner managed orfamily run’ (CERT, 1997, p. 4). By contrast, theBorder and Midlands region accounts for amere 15% (CERT, 1997). Whereas tourismnumbers in Dublin and the Southwest grew by156.1% between 1993 and 1999, growth in theNorthwest and Midlands-east was only 95.2%on a much lower level of tourist numbers (Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants,2000, pp. 5–6). Although Irish tourism is notyet facing a carrying capacity crisis by inter-national standards, there are spatial and sea-sonal implications for managing rural tourismdevelopment.

Poland

Poland is essentially a rural country: approxi-mately 93% of the total territory is designatedrural and most is lowland — 91.5% of thecountry is situated less than 300m above sealevel. It has a northern continental climate withstrong seasonality constraints. Much poten-tial exists to find niche markets for furthertourism specialisation. Poland’s geographicallocation provides a wide range of possibilitiesfor nature-related tourism with diverse landscapes — forests, lakes, national protectedareas, cultural sites, the Baltic Sea shore andmountains — in addition to historical sites and

Reorganising Role of Rural and Agri-Tourism 65


attractions (L&R Consulting, 1997; Ziolkowski,2003).

During the 1990s, the Polish National TouristOrganisation together with expertise withinthe European Union analysed the potential offorming unique Polish tourism products. Fiveproducts were identified that would be com-petitive in European tourism markets. Thesewere:

(1) city and cultural tourism;(2) active tourism;(3) rural tourism and agri-tourism;(4) transit tourism;(5) border-zone weekend tourism (Legienis,

2000; Ziolkowski, 2003).

Rural tourism, agri-tourism and activetourism in particular are directly connected torural areas. Tourism development in Polishrural areas has developed since the nineteenthcentury, but its development accelerated at theend of the twentieth century as a result of the introduction of a market economy and therestructuring of the Polish agricultural sector.The majority of agri-tourism operators arelocated in the Mazury Lake District of north-eastern Poland, Kaszuby and Bory Tucholskiein the mid-north, along the Baltic Sea in thenorth, in the mountains along the southernborder of Poland, and in the western part ofPoland. From a supply perspective the existingaccommodation base appears sufficient tosatisfy demand levels. The Ministry of Agri-culture and Rural Development of Poland esti-mated the total number of agri-tourism farms(farm-stays), rural tourism (rural home-stays)and eco-tourism accommodation in 2002 as 13154 units, comprising 137164 beds whichaccommodated 960132 visitors (6.7% of totalnational overnight stays). Although growthwithin the accommodation sector in rural andagri-tourism increased significantly during1990, subsequent decline continued until 2002,when significant increases were noted (Min-istry of Agriculture and Rural Development,2003). Evidence shows Polish consumers gen-erally follow western European trends, henceproduct or service diversification and qualityand professional service will become impor-tant for further development, as shown inother central-eastern European countries suchas the Slovak Republic (Clarke et al., 2001).

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EU

During the past 30 years, EU structural fundsand cohesion funds have contributed totourism development in Ireland. Ireland joinedthe EU in 1973 as a peripheral and relativelypoor country with average GDP per capita at62% of the EU average (European ParliamentOffice in Ireland, 2003a). After a 15-year period(1973–1988), when Ireland’s GDP per capitaexperienced a negligible increase to 66% of theEU average, the state was recognised as dis-advantaged and designated as an Objective 1region (average incomes at or below 75% of the EU average). Since then tourism progressin Ireland has benefited significantly from EUfunds as witnessed in successive NationalDevelopment Plans (NDP) (1988–1993,1994–1999, 2000–2006), and CommunitySupport Frameworks (CSF) in such sectors astourism, transport, rural development andenvironmental services. In addition, from 1992Ireland became one of the four Member Statesin receipt of cohesion funds. At first, the entirecountry was classified as an Objective 1 region;however, when certain regions excelled in economic performance and overreached theeligibility criteria for Objective 1, Ireland wasdivided into two NUTS II (territorial units for statistical purposes) regions. Although theBorder, Midlands and Western (BMW) regionremained in Objective 1, the Southern andEastern regions were classified as transitionalObjective 1 (European Parliament Office inIreland, 2003b).

During the ensuing 5-year planning period(1988–1993) Ireland’s average GDP per capitaincreased to 82% of the EU average, andduring 1993–2001 it overtook the average toreach 119%. The image of Ireland changed dra-matically, previously defined as a poor periph-eral state it became known as ‘The Celtic Tiger’having successfully transformed its economy,expanded hi-tech industries and made signifi-cant decreases in unemployment (Departmentof Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 2000).The success of Irish markets for tourism hasbeen heralded as exemplary for new EUMember States (Department of Agriculture,Food and Rural Development, 1998; Depart-ment of Finance, 2000; Volkman, 2001;



Heneghan, 2002). Ireland’s experience ofregional development, including tourismdevelopment, could prove beneficial to thepreparation and implementation of regionaldevelopment policies in Poland. As a newMember State, Poland appears to be positionedat a development stage similar to that ofIreland during its integration into the EU in1973. Table 1 summarises the economic posi-tion of Ireland and Poland as new MemberStates on accession into EU.

The EU–Poland Joint Consultative Commit-tee has been working to help generate debateon how to best apply regional developmentplans in Poland according to the Irish example.Tourism, agriculture, environment, infra-structure, human resources and job creationform key components and objectives of theregional plan. The Committee underlined that the positive impacts of structural funds in Ireland were related to the following factors:

(1) high level and all-inclusive involvement of social actors/partners, local author-ities, regional subcommittees, govern-ment departments and the European Commission;

(2) capacity to absorb all aspects of funds in acohesive way;

(3) identification of key areas for investmentwhere maximum turnover is possible;

(4) local participation in planning, managingand monitoring funding programmes;

(5) proactive societal approach to take upavailable structural fund opportunities;

(6) complementary behaviour and successfulinteraction of fund programmes (EuropeanCommission, 2002a).

Although Ireland and Poland are currentlyat different stages of economic development, at their respective points of entry into the EUthey expressed similar conditions, especially in the agricultural and rural developmentsectors. Specific regional comparisons showsimilar development trends within thesesectors. Restructuring these sectors is vital tosustaining primary industries, to assistingrural dwellers or farmers in adapting to thechanges in rural lifestyles and farming and topreparing them for the implications of thesechanges through developing alternative enter-prises and seeking out niche markets withinthe sector.

Although the sector in Ireland has proveneconomically viable over a short period oftime, it remains heavily subsidised by diverseEU programmes promoting regional, eco-nomic and social development, especially bystructural funds: LEADER (LEADER+ invest-ments totalling €28 million in Northern Irelandand €109.2 million Republic of Ireland), ERDF(European Regional Development Fund), ESF



Table 1. Economic position of Ireland (1973) and Poland (2004) on their EU accession. Irish sources: authors’calculations/estimations from Irish Central Statistical Office (1971), O’Hagan (1975, p. 368), Dooney (1988),Kennedy et al. (1988, pp. 82, 86, 143) and Foley and Mulreany (1990, p. 11). Polish sources: CEC (2002) andGUS (2003)

Economic variable Ireland Poland

GDP per capita in PPS* (as percentage of the EU average) 62.0 39.7GDP percentage annual growth 4.4 1.1Share of agriculture in GDP 6.5 3.4National unemployment rate (%) 5.5 21.7Rural unemployment rate (%) 2.5 20.7Share of rural population (as percentage of total population) 43.0 38.2Number of farms (larger than 1ha) 93467 1956100Share of farms providing non-agricultural activity (percentage 25.0 12.4

share of the total number of farms)Average size of a farm (ha) 12.3 8.44

*Purchasing power standards — an artificial currency that reflects differences in national price levels that arenot taken into account by exchange rates.

(European Social Fund) and EAGG (EuropeanAgriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund) inconjunction with the cohesion fund (EuropeanCommission, 2000a). There are concerns aboutthe pace of development especially in westernareas of Ireland, and the uneven distribution of tourist numbers and revenue generated. Bycontrast, in underdeveloped regions, haphaz-ard development, overlap in policy structuresand lack of vertical and horizontal integrationneed to be addressed. There are clear lessonsfor Poland to learn here. Knowledge of thedynamics of the entrepreneur or operatorcould provide concrete steps for prepara-tion in developing the rural tourism sector in Poland.

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FORTOURISM IN POLAND

Growth within the tourism sector in Polandwas significant during the 1990s, with a pacefaster than some traditional European touristdestinations. The total number of arrivals toPoland during 1990–1999 increased from 18.2million to 89.1 million and revenue frominbound tourism reached €7798 million in 1997(GUS, 2003). Since 1998, however, the numberof international arrivals to Poland has been indecline. Although the number of internationalarrivals increased on average by 3.9% in 2002within central and eastern Europe, Poland wasone of the few exceptions to this trend. Polandexperienced a 5.3% decline in internationalarrivals as a whole between 2001 and 2002(Institute of Tourism, 2003). Income fromtourism and day-trip shoppers amounted to only €3943 million in 2002, of which 27% was connected to business travel, 23% leisure tourism, and 21% visiting friends and relatives (GUS, 2003; Institute of Tourism 2003).

Poland’s integration into the EU will resultin further changes in the size and structure of tourist flows because EU member countriesmust adhere to a common policy towards non-European citizens regarding visa require-ments, which may have an impact on the flowsof substantial numbers of eastern Europeansvisiting Poland. Lill et al. (2003) suggest thatPoland should maintain its position as a

tourism destination because of increased flowsnot only from EU Member States but also fromincreased domestic demand.

The Polish authorities have been attemptingto identify strategical implications of Poland’saccession to the EU for future tourism devel-opment. The Polish Tourist Organisation hasargued that investment in the foreign tourismindustry in Poland will strengthen tourismorganisation and management and improvefacilities, the variety of services and quality of experiences (Polish Tourist Organization,2003). Ziolkowski (2003) foresaw two majortourism implications for Polish accession: first,price reductions for customers, especially intransportation costs, would follow the intro-duction of low-cost airlines; and second, as aconsequence, the transport mode of arrivalsinto Poland will change. Low-fare airlines may be favoured instead of travelling long dis-tances by car, which in its turn may causetourism concentration and distribution prob-lems, but is likely to encourage reductions incar rental prices (Ziolkowski, 2003). Poland’sInstitute for Tourism expects the number ofvisitors arriving from EU Member States togrow, at least in the initial post-accessionperiod. The Polish Tourist Organisation andthe Institute for Tourism have signalledincreased interest in Poland since its integra-tion with the EU, and especially from youngpeople, schools and students (Ziolkowski,2003). There are implications here for develop-ing inexpensive rural tourism packages tar-geted towards younger markets with grouptravellers. Rural tourism operators, however,may not wish to attract low-budget customerson short stays because of the workloadinvolved, especially in accommodation enterprises.

SURVEYS

In Ireland the investigation focused on thedevelopment potential for better integratedtourism in the lagging rural regions of Europeas part of a European-assisted research pro-gramme (European Commission, 2000b). Arelatively underdeveloped tourism region, theNorth Midland Counties (NMC) was selected,enclosing five midland counties of Westmeath,Longford, Roscommon, Cavan and Leitrim



within Republic of Ireland. It is predominantlyrural with a developing tourism sector basedon its inland water resources and characterisedby ‘soft’ development of heritage, cultural andenvironmental resources. Inland waterwaysinclude the Shannon–Erne waterway, andencourage a range of water-based activities.Cycling routes and hill-walking centres arebeing developed. These tourism developmentsremain to be integrated with organic pro-ducers and craftspeople, sculpture centres,environmental and organic schools, andmythology associated with local lakes. Small-scale festivals and events have low visitoryields. Growth in the number of tourism enter-prises was positive during the 1980s but themajority of current operators was establishedduring the mid-1990s.

A resource audit was conducted and from164 possible enterprises, a sample populationof 67 enterprises was selected across a range of accommodation, attraction, activity andbusiness types. Sixty-four interviews werecompleted during the summer and autumn of2002. Operators were questioned on businessestablishment and operation, development,supports and links and vision for change anddevelopment in the future.

In Poland a developing rural tourism regionwas selected in the west of the country —Wielkopolska province. Rural tourism enter-prises here mostly have been established rela-tively recently. Just 3.8% was involved intourism prior to the 1990s. The region reflectsa dominance of small and medium-sized enter-prises (SME); a dominant SME sector is typical in European tourism (EuropeanCommission, 2002c) with rural/agri-tourismforming an emergent sector (Getz and Carlsen,2000). Interviews were conducted during 2000with 183 rural and agri-tourism enterprisesand their operators, representing 78.9% of thetotal number. There follows an examination of the operators’ perspective, detailing theirdemographic characteristics and motivations.Development strategies of rural/agri-tourismenterprises are compared in terms of diversifi-cation of services. The level of dependency ontourism markets in each region produces mea-sures for assessing overall tourism develop-ment and for advising policy within the ruraltourism sector.

COMPARISON OF RURAL/AGRI-TOURISMOPERATORS IN NMC ANDWIELKOPOLSKA REGIONS

Profile

Within the NMC region in Ireland 79% of theenterprises were privately owned and mostinvolved one or two persons in co-preneur-ship, or family partnerships. A further 14%were community owned and only 7% werepublic limited companies (families or NGOs).The data show approximately 30% of respon-dents were aged 50–60 years, and many of the remainder were aged 30–50 years. Entrepreneurial gender varied by nature of the enterprise as males dominated in enter-prises involving angling (100%), cruising(80%) and golf (71%) — businesses with higherturnover and profit levels; whereas femalesdominated in serviced (59%) and self-cateringaccommodation (63%). Operators were mainlyindigenous to the region (63%), but non-indigenous operators tended to excel in par-ticular innovations, such as angling-relatedenterprises including accommodation andboat hire.

Those interviewed had relatively high stan-dards of education: 31% had third level quali-fications and a further 41% had completedsecond level education. Previous businessexperience was important but entrepreneursdid not actively participate in tourism training.The participation rate was overall just 17.2%for training to establish a rural tourism enterprise, for customer care or for productmarketing. Information communication andtechnology (ICT) and language are notabledeficit skill areas. Some 92.1% had not workedin the sector prior to establishing their business.

Similarly, all enterprises (183) within theWielkopolska region were owner-operated,with many small-scale family enterprises. In general rural/agri-tourism operators wereco-preneurs, i.e. entrepreneurial couples(61.8%). Single females owned 20.2% of enterprises and single males of 18.0% of enterprises. The dominant age category ofrespondents was 41–50 years (44.3%). Opera-tor demographic characteristics (gender andage) reflected the structure of the resident pop-



ulation within the region and the countrybecause there were more females and moremiddle-aged people than very young/veryold. Two-thirds of those surveyed (73.5%) atminimum were educated to secondary level and 47.3% of them could speak at leastone foreign language, usually German orRussian.

Motivations

The motivational factors for establishingrural/agri-tourism enterprises are indicated in Table 2. Operators were motivated by generating income as a result of new opportu-nities created from agricultural downturns andthe ensuing restructuring of rural areas,although this had less impact on those morerecently established enterprises in the NMCregion.

The type of enterprise established wasdependent upon operators’ financial needs,interests or desires and capabilities (includeseducation and experience), but business prod-ucts and services needed to have a viable placein competitive European markets. Operatorsexpressed the need to fulfill a business dream,as something they always wanted to do. Manyoperators have sought to continue their rurallifestyle and traditions, such as farming orcrafts, but with readjustments, notably todeclining income from traditional sources.Operators wish to remain in control over their

own destiny. In the Polish sample, changes intraditional practices are relatively recent, andoperators are unsure of the developmentprocess, especially when businesses are con-nected to personal hobbies. Such uncertainty isreflected with the lower rating of 12.6% (Table3). Despite high unemployment rates in ruralareas in Poland, only 4.4% regarded tourismactivity as creating employment opportunities,evidence of a tourism sector in the early devel-opment stages.

Within the NMC region, the motivationalfactor most significant was the identification ofa potential investment and business opportu-nity. The capacity for growth and previousinvolvement and/or inherited skills fromoperating a family business encouraged opera-tors into enterprises with the potential forlarger scale growth, such as hotels. Within theNMC region evidence from non-indigenousentrepreneurs showed they were dissatisfiedwith previous employment and urban qualityof life. The primary national source area fornon-indigenous operators is Dublin, and theprimary non-national source market is the UK,together with France, Germany and the USA.Non-local operators tended to have a greaterappreciation and protection of traditional rurallandscapes and lifestyles that resulted in thecreation of more business or market oppor-tunities. With the introduction of new borderregulations, non-indigenous entrepreneurshipis likely to increase in importance in EU policy.



Table 2. Comparison of entrepreneurial motivations in Ireland and in Poland

NMC region Ireland Wielkopolska region,(n = 506) Poland (n = 183)a

Motivations Percentage of total number of rural/agri-tourism enterprises

Financial 77.5 95.6New opportunity/experience/people/ 74.9 74.9

businessDecreased revenue from traditional 13.3 17.5

livelihoodLifestyle choice/decision (control destiny) 42.3 12.6Employment opportunity 10.1 4.4Market opportunity (assist farming sales) 16.8 0.6Other reasonsb 9.3 9.8

a Representing about 78.9% of the total number of rural tourism and agri-tourism enterprises of the Wielkopolska regionand about 2.0% of the total number of rural tourism and agri-tourism enterprises of Poland in 2000.b Mostly relating to more detailed listed motivational factors, for example, type of market opportunity.

Motivations for rural/agri-tourism opera-tors in the Wielkopolska region were gener-ally related to income generation. Higher disposable income for rural people throughagricultural diversification or through thedevelopment of new industrial or tertiary eco-nomic activities was cited as the most im-portant advantage of rural/agri-tourismdevelopment. Operators generally had morethan one motive for their involvement intourism activity. Increased social contact withvisitors was especially cited by elderly entre-preneurs and retired professionals. For 18.6%of the rural/agri-tourism operators, thetourism alternative provided a good opportu-nity to manage their own business and gainnew experience. It was observed that motiva-tions were dependent upon age of enterprise,with the more recently established enterprisesexpecting tourism activity to support otherenterprises or employment rather than actingas a full-time occupation. For example 17.0% of

enterprises established before the 1990s wereas a primary income source, whereas the pro-portion fell to 1.7% of businesses establishedafter 1995.

Diversification of rural/agri-tourism services

Rural/agri-tourism offers a vast range of prod-ucts and services, from accommodation (themainstay of tourism enterprises) to very spe-cific products for various niche markets, suchas specialised fishing equipment/boat hire orcheese-making processes. The diversificationof products and services can be achieved by avalue-adding process. Table 3 illustrates thisdiversity in the rural/agri-tourism sectorwithin NMC and Wielkopolska regions. Bothregions supply a broad range of services butthe NMC region appears to reflect greater specialisation.

Within the NMC region, the tourism foun-dations are accommodation and catering. Most



Table 3. Rural tourism/agritourism products and services in Ireland and Poland

Wielkopolska regionNMC region (Ireland) (Poland)

(n = 506) (n = 183)

Percentage share of the total number of rural tourism/Tourism diversification agri-tourism enterprises surveyed

Accommodation: 48.4 100.0B & B 32.8 6.5Self catering 10.9Farm-based 3.0 82.5Other 1.7 11.0

Catering (meals)a 56.3 75.4Sale of products, e.g. food 18.8 78.1Boat/ kayak/ cruise hire 14.1 42.1Bicycle hire 1.6 82.5Horseback recreation, e.g. horse coach riding 4.7 35.0Sightseeing tours 25.0 13.7BBQ/ grill/ fire places 9.4 98.9Sport activities, e.g. golf 17.2 30.6Farm and agricultural shows/farm tours and 4.7 53.6

activitiesRegional/local cuisine 14.0 6.0Children activities/playground area 9.4 14.8Othersb 42.2 98.9

a Includes bed and breakfast in Ireland.b Others include: floral art; wickerwork craft; courses in organics, environment and blacksmiths works; mushroom picking;hunting; herb collecting and drying; painting/craft exhibitions; demonstrations of brewing techniques; outdoor paintingactivities; playing/listening to traditional music; heritage attraction; fishing equipment hiring; and function room hire.

bed and breakfast operators provided three tofive guestrooms in their own home, with anaverage of nine to ten bed spaces. Accom-modation providers catering for angling markets often provided evening meals or self-catering cottages. There was an emphasis on regional/local cuisine within the region(14.0%) but a tendency to cook food for touristsrather than provide self-catering facilities onsite. Farm-based activities, agricultural showsand festivals were largely community events.

Notably 25.0% of operators were involved intransporting tourists within the region throughsightseeing tours, mostly through the largestinland waterway (Shannon–Erne waterway).The cruise hire industry was in the hands of arelatively small number of larger businesses.Although sporting activities, such as golf orangling, are provided by 17.2% of enterprises,generally enterprises in this region did notsupport active-type tourists, partly because ofhigh insurance costs. Low numbers in bicycle(1.6%) and horse recreation (4.7%) were inflatedby the use of the services by younger agemarkets. Children’s activities were additionallyprovided (9.4%) through designated play-ground areas. Within the region there was areliance on traditional skills or customs with theprovision of arts, crafts and heritage attractions.Additionally, environmental themes weregaining popularity with providers, as exempli-fied by a growing participation in organic andenvironmental training. Enterprises were gen-erally seasonal, open April–September,although there was willingness to operate allyear round if demand required, for exampleduring all of the fishing season.

In the Wielkopolska region, all enterprisesprovided some type of accommodation —varying from basic to luxury standards — thatwere a mixture of seasonal to all-year roundventures: 74.9% were open all year round.Farm-stays dominate the accommodationsector (82.5%) unlike in Ireland where ‘farm-based’ accommodation accounted for just 3.0% of all operators in the NMC region. Bedand breakfast represented a small sector inWielkopolska (6.5%). Most operators offeredonly one kind of accommodation (69.0%) andusually between two and five guest rooms intheir own home (71.0%), with an average of tenbeds provided.

Although three-quarters of businesses pro-vided catering services, only 6% offeredregional/local cuisine. Additionally, self-catering facilities were provided by almost allenterprises, and almost four-fifths offereddirect sale of food products (milk, cheese, eggs,fruits and vegetables). A range of activitieswere available, but although children werewelcome on most of the farms, special activi-ties or play areas for them were only offered in14.5% of cases. Almost all enterprises activelysought opportunities to add value to the prod-ucts and services offered and to provide aunique experience.

A comparison of tourism diversificationbetween regions revealed that it was highlyrelated to stage in the tourism developmentcycle. In Ireland, the majority of operators(67%) had founded the business themselves,22% had purchased it, and 11% iherited theirbusiness. The three-fold increase in thenumber of businesses established during the1990s was related to the increased availabilityof EU funds, especially LEADER, comple-mented by national strategies such a the estab-lishment of County Enterprise Boards.

Irish research shows that operators accessedgovernment funds according to their knowl-edge and awareness to facilitate businessdevelopment, especially relating to productdiversification and business expansion.Stronger awareness of European programmesand procedures should prove advantageousfor agri-tourism operators in the Wielkopolskaregion of Poland and also advantageous forpolicy makers who may model developmenton older Member States.

Poland appears to be directly encouragingsustainable tourism markets by providingproducts or services attractive to domesticmarkets while conscious of the growing needto attract major European markets. Assuringquality in each business component in multi-activity enterprises will likely increase inimportance for Polish enterprises.

The growth experienced in Irish ruraltourism also created new opportunities fortourism-related businesses. Operators haveresponded to higher demand by either diver-sifying or expanding the existing non-tourismbusinesses to incorporate tourism-related busi-ness components to better facilitate visitor



needs. For some operators in Ireland, the busi-ness has shifted to a total engagement withtourism activities. These findings have impli-cations for developing general products or ser-vices in rural areas in Poland. They suggestthat products or services have the potential tobe reinvented and that they are likely tobecome specialised in later developmentstages.

Where business expansion occurred withinthe NMC region in Ireland the results gener-ally indicated increased scale, turnover andemployment that assisted these enterprises tobecome more competitive within the sector.With new market opportunities available toagri-tourism operators in Poland, it is likelythat tourism facilities will need to be expandedand updated to respond to European marketdemands.

Tourism dependency

The comparative data for Ireland and Polandsuggest that there are three levels of tourismdependency.

(1) Directly related to tourism activity: entrepre-neurs derive their main source of incomefrom the enterprise. These may involve rel-atively larger scaled and unique products,services and attractions. In Ireland exam-ples are cruise hire companies or uniquetype ‘loughstyle’ angling. Polish examplesare entrepreneurs engaging in agriculturalcommodity production, usually animalproduction may be connected to horserecreation

(2) Indirectly related to tourism activity: typicalsmall-scale family business specifically con-nected to farms in Poland. For example,Rural/agri-tourism provides additionalincome through maximising householdcapacity for tourist accommodation. Entre-preneurs are not tourism-driven or depen-dent. Typical of accommodation and artsand crafts sectors

(3) Indirectly related to tourism activity and non-integrated to tourism development: microscaleenterprises deriving tourism incomethrough various activities. Typical ofmicroscale support services, e.g. shops anddining facilities.

In the NMC region, the majority of operatorslived on the site of their business and the busi-ness constituted their main primary incomesource. Operators of family business suggestedthat change in family structure had short-termeffects on the business structure and couldpotentially reduce business developmentowing to capital constraints. For instance, educating offspring to third level educationreduced capital investment for the business.

Within the NMC region operators that weremore tourism dependent tended to havegreater interaction with official tourism organ-isations and structures. By contrast, ruraltourism enterprises experiencing higher sea-sonality and having a heavier reliance on localmarkets were characterised by less interactionwith supporting bodies for tourism and oftenhad informal management and poor planningpractices.

Enterprises in Wielkopolska region weresmall scale, had low-income gains and fosteredslower growth curves as a result of legalrestrictions. For instance, agri-tourism opera-tors exceeding a five-room capacity have topay income tax on income derived fromtourism activity. This policy coupled with highseasonality in Poland limits the number of vis-itors per business per year. For instance, themost successful enterprises (34.4%) of theWielkopolska region only attract between 21and 50 visitors per year, and tourists spend amaximum of seven days in rural areas (77.1%).

Within the Wielkopolska region, in 85.2% ofcases, tourism income was supplementary to amain income source, and only 6.6% stated thattourism was their primary source: only 3.8% ofenterprises relied on tourism for 75% or moreof their income. A stronger dependency ontourism income would help to initiate betterinteraction between operators and the sup-porting bodies for tourism in the Wielkopolskaregion. Such a deeper level of engagementwith the sector would better assist develop-ment of agri-tourism tourism.

Over one-third of operators (39%) in theNMC region could be considered at level 1 —directly related to tourism activity. By contrast,because of infancy in rural tourism develop-ment, operators in the Wielkopolska region areentering at level 3 and are moving towardslevel 2. Tourism provides additional income



with only a minority finding a niche marketand relying on tourism for most of theirincome. Increased demand from touristmarkets, increased operator knowledge oftourism and the continuation of governmentsupport to develop an integrated sector wouldfacilitate the move towards level 2. AlthoughIrish operators may be content at level 1, it will be unlikely that Polish operators will beeager to rush to tourism dependency, con-sidering their recent experience of agriculturaldependency.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study has implications for tourism devel-opment in both old and new EU memberstates. Within Ireland, tourism developed at arate both conducive to nurturing potentialentrepreneurs but detrimental to integrateddevelopment of the rural tourism sector. Theensuing failure to integrate place, productquality and marketing reduced the develop-ment potential and product value of ruralIreland, as in other peripheral European states.As a result, the viability of particular ruralareas of Ireland remains questionable asshown through the NMC case study region.There have been concerns over centralisationof rural services, preservation of small-scalefamily business units, protection of rural her-itage and employment provision for the youth.These issues are also apparent and foremost inthe restructuring process in Poland.

Within Poland, regional structures of gover-nance are relatively new, and tourism advisorsare developing expertise at a similar pace tooperators, which did not happen in Ireland ini-tially and resulted in many ad hoc measuresthat were successful only in the interim period.Polish operators are wary of over reliance ontourism development. Polish entrants intorural/agri-tourism enterprises, similar to theirIrish counterparts, attempt to compensate fordepressed agricultural incomes with seasonaltourism-oriented businesses in order to sustaintheir rural lifestyle and succeed in rural andeconomically disadvantaged regions. Poland islikely to follow similar development trends toIreland, provided adequate structures exist atgovernment level for investment in the sector,e.g. creating more business opportunities and

encouraging entry into new markets. Personalmotives, such as perception of rural lifestyleand use of traditional crafts, often precedebusiness objectives for new entrepreneurs. Theconsequences of this for Poland are that thesupply side has developed much faster thandemand for products and services.

In Ireland, operators have increased marketopportunities by shifting the rural tourismproduct or service development further awayfrom natural settings and towards modernconstructions in the natural setting that remainintimate because of their small-scale. In thisnew form of rural enterprise, however, thecapacity for interpreting rural identities andespecially rural traditions and customs is com-promised. In Poland, rural and agri-tourismremains strongly connected to traditional andauthentic rurality. There are however, signs ofa change towards the Irish situation. Theresearch results suggest that this shift awayfrom traditional operator values and attitudesshould be monitored closely given its impacton the restructuring process.

Irish data show that rural tourism develop-ment has moved towards clustering strategieswith the development of theme tourism. Forinstance, environmental tourism is becomingmore important within the NMC region. Thereare similar development opportunities withinthe Wielkopolska region, for example, inorganic farming or home dairy produce. Itappears this region in Poland is targeting,perhaps unconsciously, active tourist types.Strategies may need to be put in place tomonitor emergent market segments, especiallyconcerning growth and expansion of businessfacilities.

Family businesses in rural tourism in Irelandindicate a reliance on EU structural funds to develop the business because most haveyoung dependants to support (30–60 year oldoperators). Eventually tourism dependencybecomes more related to entrepreneurialchoices (levels 2 and 3) than market opportu-nities (level 1). Only operators at level 1 whoare directly related to tourism will truly opti-mise on new tourism market opportunities.This means that leakage of EU strategies andfunds for tourism can occur through levels 2and 3. Existing and new EU policy measuresmust monitor entrepreneurial or operator



motives and strategies for tourism develop-ment within the region.

The desire for operators to become fullyengaged within the sector and with tourismadvisors influenced the success of tourismdevelopment in Ireland. Polish entrepreneurswill not emulate this as they are unlikely to betotally reliant upon tourism markets in themedium term. The managers of rural tourismdevelopment in Poland, however, can learnfrom Irish experience by recognising theimportance of the entrepreneur or operatorrelationship to tourism development, theimportance of being conscious of availablelocal natural and built resources, and beingaware of government strategies for develop-ment, including policy and regional govern-ment support structures. Polish operators willrecognise the value of the family supportnetwork in family businesses and the value ofestablishing local forums and committeesbringing together in partnership operators andofficials at the local community level.

There are limitations to the comparisonbetween Ireland and Poland, in particularregarding how operators will develop after thestart-up phase. Polish authorities and policyexperts underline the importance of develop-ing rural/agri-tourism to complement tradi-tional authentic rural settings in order topreserve the heritage of Poland. They advocatethat rural/agri-tourism must be connected tothe diversification of farm activities, whichimplies that Ireland may be only useful as areference tool to Polish entrepreneurs duringinfancy or the early development stages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the SPRITEteam in Ireland especially Teagasc, Dublin Instituteof Technology and University of Waikato in NewZealand.

REFERENCES

Bord Fáilte. 2000. Tourism Development Strategy2000–2006. Bord Fáilte: Dublin.

Brown F, Hall D (eds). 2000. Tourism in PeripheralAreas. Channel View Publications: Clevedon.

Bushell R, Prosser G, Faulkner H, Jafari J. 2001.Tourism research in Australia. Journal of TravelResearch 39: 323–326.

CEC. 2002. Regular Report On Poland’s ProgressTowards Accession. Commission Of The EuropeanCommunities: Brussels; 9 October.

CERT. 1997. Employment survey of the tourismindustry in Ireland. Tourism Services and Attrac-tions 8: 4–14.

CERT. 1998. Tourism Awareness Programme StudyPack. CERT: Dublin.

Clarke J, Denman R, Hickman G, Slovak J. 2001.Rural tourism in Roznava Okres: a Slovak casestudy. Tourism Management 22(1): 193–202.

Commins P. 1986. Rural social change. In Ireland. ASociological Profile, Clancy P, Drudy S, Lynch K,O’Dowd L (eds). Institute of Public Administra-tion: Dublin; 47–69.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Devel-opment (Ireland). 1998. A New Millennium —Setting the Challenges, Developing the Strategies,Statement of Strategies 1998–2000. StationaryOffice: Dublin.

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment(Ireland). 2000. Statement of Strategy 1998–2000.Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employ-ment: Dublin <http://www.entemp.ie/csep/statement.htm> (accessed October 2000).

Department of Finance (Ireland). 2000. EconomicReview and Outlook 2000. Stationery Office:Dublin.

Dooney S. 1988. Irish Agriculture. An OrganisationalProfile. Institute of Public Administration: Dublin.

European Commission. 2000a. Participating in theEuropean Research Programmes. Guide for Appli-cants under the Fifth Framework Programme forEuropean Research and Technological Develop-ment (1999–2001). <http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/guide/pdf/participation_en.pdf>(accessed October 2000).

European Commission. 2000b. Quality of Life andManagement of Living Resources — Supporting andPromoting Integrated Tourism in Europe’s LaggingRural Regions Technical Annex. Commission ofEuropean Communities: Brussels; September2000: 1–45.

European Commission. 2001a. Commission Commu-nication to the Council, the European Parliament, theEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Working together for the Future ofEuropean Tourism, Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels, 13.11.2001, COM 665final. <http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0665en01.pdf> (accessedNovember 2001).

European Commission. 2001b. Marketing QualityRural Tourism. The European Commission andAgriculture Directorate-General, EN Library,Rural Europe. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/



archives/leader2/rural-en/biblio/touris/contents.htm> (accessed November 2001).

European Commission. 2002a. Ireland’s Experience ofRegional Development Working Document (ESCside). Fifth Meeting of the EU–Poland Joint Con-sultative Committee, Warsaw 11–14 May.

European Commission. 2002b. Tourism and the Euro-pean Union. The European Commission Direc-torate General Enterprise (EU DG), Tourism Unit:Brussels. <http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/tourismeu.htm>(accessed October 2002).

European Commission. 2002c. Council Resolutionof 21 May 2002 on the future of European tourism(2002/C 135/01). Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities, 6 June. <http://www.esc.eu.int/pages/Enlarg/ccm/pologne/meeting5_13_05_02/di_ces46-2002_di_en.pdf> (accessed October2002).

European Parliament Office in Ireland. 2003a.Ireland — Catching Up. the European Commissionin Ireland. <http://www.euireland.ie/ireland/ireland/> (accessed September 2003).

European Parliament Office in Ireland. 2003b. EUStructural and Cohesion Funds in Ireland —Overview. The European Commission Represen-tation in Ireland. <http://www.euireland.ie/ireland/cohesion/index.htm> (accessed Septem-ber 2003).

Eurostat 2002. Cost of Living Report. Radio Reportage98FM, August.

Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants. 2000.The Tourism and Environment Initiative, Final Eval-uation Report. Fitzpatrick Associates EconomicConsultants: Dublin.

Foley A, Mulreany M. 1990. The Single EuropeanMarket and the Irish Economy. Institute of PublicAdministration: Dublin.

Getz D, Carlsen J. 2000. Characteristics and goals offamily and owner-operated business in the ruraltourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism Manage-ment 21: 547–560.

GUS (Polish Central Statistical Office). 2003. Raportz Wyników Powszechnego Spisu Rolnego 2002. GUS:Warsaw.

GUS (Polish Central Statistical Office). 2004. PolishOfficial Statistics. GUS: Warsaw. <http://www.stat.gov.pl/> (accessed September 2003).

Hall D. 1998. Tourism development and sustain-ability issues in central and south-eastern Europe.Tourism Management 19(5): 423–431.

Hegarty C, McDonagh P. 2003. Journeying towardsbecoming a destination. Tourism 50(3): 301–317.

Heneghan M. 2002. Structures and processes inrural tourism. Paper presented at the Rural

Development Conference: Signposts to Rural Change, Tullamore Court, Teagasc, Dublin, February.

Hjalager A. 1996. Agricultural diversification intotourism, evidence of a European Communitydevelopment programme. Tourism Management17(2): 103–111.

Institute of Tourism. 2003. Institute of Tourism. Insti-tute of Tourism: Warsaw. <http://www.intur.com.pl/> (accessed September 2003).

Irish Central Statistical Office. 1971. Census of Popu-lation. CSO: Dublin.

Kaila M. 1999. Economic results of pluri-active farmenterprises. Seventh EAAE Congress: Warsaw.

Kennedy K, Giblin T, McHugh D. 1988. The Eco-nomic Development of Ireland in the TwentiethCentury. Routledge: London.

L & R Consulting. 1997. Turystyka wiejska, aktywnai specjalistyczna w Polsce. Problemy Turystyki 20:171–184.

Legienis H. 2000. Atrakcyjnosc turystyczno-wypoczynkowa terenow Polski. Institute of Tourism:Warsaw. <http://www.intur.com.pl> (accessedSeptember 2003).

Lill B, Ramanen V, Pietarinen I. 2003. Poland —Tourism, Database for Business and Public Adminis-tration. Centre for Market in Transition.<http://www.balticdata.info/> (accessed Sep-tember 2003).

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.2003. Dzialanie w zakresie agroturystyki iturystyki wiejskiej. Biuletyn Informacyjny MRiRW.<http://www.minrol.gov.pl/bprasowe/BIM501/rw1.htm> (accessed March 2003).

National Economic and Social Council, Ireland.1997. European Union: Integration and Enlargement. National Economic and SocialCouncil: Dublin.

Ó Cinnéide M, Walsh J. 1990. Tourism and regionaldevelopment in Ireland. Geographical Viewpoint19: 47.

OECD. 1994. Tourism Strategies and Rural Develop-ment. Organization for Economic Co-operationand Development: Paris.

O’Hagan J. 1975. The Economy of Ireland — Policy andPerformance, 5th edn. Irish Management Institute:Dublin.

Polish Tourist Organization. 2003. Polish Official Statistics. Polish Tourist Organization: Warsaw.<http://www.pot.gov.pl/> (accessed September2003).

Ritchie J. 1994. Roles of research in tourism man-agement. In Travel, Tourism and HospitalityResearch. A Handbook for Managers and Researchers,2nd edn, Ritchie B, Goeldner C (eds). J. Wiley;New York; 13–21.



Roberts L, Hall D. 2001. Rural Tourism and Recrea-tion: Principles to Practice. CABI Publishing:Wallingford.

Volkman K. 2001. Tourism in Ireland: Observations on the Impact of European Union Funding and Marketing Strategies. ASAC: London. <http://faculty. plattsburgh.edu/karen.volkman/vita/TourismInIreland6.doc> (accessed November2001).

Wanhill S. 1977. Peripheral area tourism: a European perspective. Progress in Tourism andHospitality Research 3: 47–70.

Western Development Commission. 2000. Blueprintfor Tourism Development in the West, an Action Planfor Rural Areas. Tourism Development Interna-tional: Dublin.

WTO. 2003. World Tourism in 2002: Better thanExpected. World Tourism Organization: Madrid.<http://www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/R e l e a s e s / 2 0 0 3 / j a n / n u m b e r s 2 0 0 2 . h t m >(accessed October 2002).

Ziolkowski P. 2003. Tourism: finding a niche. TheWarsaw Voice, 4 April. <http://www.balticdata.info/poland> (accessed September 2003).



rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganising rural areas in old and new member states — a...

Documents