Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2022, 12(4), 12–22 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2022.4.02 RURAL TOURISM AND AGRITOURISM IN POLAND – DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND EVOLUTION OF TERMINOLOGY Jolanta Wojciechowska The Institute of Urban Geography, Tourism and Geoinformation, The Faculty of Geographical Sciences, University of Łódź, Kopcińskiego 31, 90–142 Łódź, Poland, ORCID: 0000-0002-0386-0749 e-mail: jolanta.wojciechowska@geo.uni.lodz.pl Citation Wojciechowska J., 2022, Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 12(4), 12–22. Abstract The paper describes the evolution of rural tourism and agritourism in Poland and presents the terms which define tourism in rural areas. First, the terms used over three historical periods in Poland are discussed: interwar, socialist and post-socialist. In this part, the long tradition of recreation in the Polish countryside and how it developed differently from West European countries is presented. Following that, the concept of Polish agritourism exogeneity is explained, seen in the way it was introduced and popularised at the time of political and economic transformations. In contrast to the evolutionary process of agritourism development in West European countries, the revolutionary origins of agritourism in Poland were the foundation of a hierarchy of terms defining tourism as connected with the countryside and farming. Key words tourism, rural tourism, agritourism, terminology, Poland. Received: 20 September 2022 Accepted: 21 November 2022 Published: 30 December 2022 1. Introduction Agritourism in Poland has been developing for over 30 years. It arose after the collapse of communism (after 1989), in a period of political and economic change, and its origins are associated with the Chamber of Agriculture and Tourism in Suwałki (north-east Poland), a foundation which launched nationwide agritourism seminars – still an important place for an exchange of views between tourism academics and practitioners. The first inventory carried out in 1996 revealed 2,489 agritourism farms and 21,522 bed places (Raport..., 1997). Since that time, an upward trend has been observed. In 2007, there were 8,800 agritourism farms with over 87,000 bed places, then a decline followed in 2009 – 5,500 farms with 57,100 bed places. In 2010, however, the Statistics Poland registered 7,000 agritourism farms with 82,700 bed places, while in 2013 there were 7,800 farms with 82,900 bed places (http://msport. gov.pl/statystyka-turystyka). This scale of magnitude persists despite the coronavirus pandemic (2019– 2021). In general, agritourism constitutes 0.3% of all farms in Poland (Wojciechowska, 2018). Agritourism, in the period of 30 years of its existence constitutes 3–4% of the total number of tourist beds. That makes agritourism a niche market in Poland with a demand still growing. However, Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology 13 large fluctuations can be observed at the supply level – some facilities disappear while others appear. Agritourism contributes to many positive changes – especially visible in the settlements, as well as in the mentality of a local community. The aim of the paper is to describe the evolution of tourism in rural areas and present major changes, as well as differences, in the approach to the idea and development of rural tourism in Poland. The complicated history of Poland1 had an influence on different approaches to the definitions of terms defining tourism forms in rural areas, and it is suggested that the development of rural tourism had taken an alternative course, compared to other European countries. The paper presents the evolution of the Polish terminology connected with tourism in the countryside in certain periods of time, i.e. in the interwar, socialist and post-socialist periods. Moreover, the purpose is to explain the concept of agritourism exogeneity in Poland and to define its attributes and position in the system of terms. The methodology of the discussion presented here is based on the first of studies in the Polish literature on the subject, with reference to the European literature. 2. Insights into the countryside tourism transformation in Poland as a tourist phenomenon and a term In Poland, like in many other countries in Europe, tourism in rural areas has a long tradition (e.g. Dziegieć, 1995; Kulczycki, 1977; Lane, 1994, 2009; Nilsson, 2002; Oppermann, 1996; Schöppner, 1988; Sharpley, Roberts, 2004; Sharpley, Sharpley, 1997). In Poland, generally, the development of tourism in rural areas went through the same processes as in West European countries before World War I, but those changes occurred a few years or several decades later, mainly due to the partition of the country among three occupants and the lack of statehood2. The development of the Polish territory, torn into three parts, varied economically and socially. In addition, the parts were located peripherally in relation to the original Polish land. Both those facts had an influence on the development of rural tourism. Many development processes in tourism followed the European trends of that time, but others could not even start. One of the processes which did occur was the 19th- century fashion among intellectuals and financial elite to rest in palaces and manor houses built in rural areas, often surrounded with romantic gardens. Following the urbanization processes, the number of city dwellers going on recreational and health trips to the countryside started to grow as well. It was for them that accommodation started to be provided, and soon summer settlement complexes started to be designed. Moreover, rural regions were gradually becoming tourist penetration areas for large numbers of youth and involved citizens working in sports and tourism associations, which were most often founded by elite members in order to strengthen national awareness (Kulczycki, 1977). An example of the other group of processes comes from the field of broadly understood tourism policy, referring to the formation of organizational structures of tourism. In the second half of the 19th and in the early 20th century, in many European countries, self-governing and national organizational tourism structures started to be formed from the bottom up. Due to the political situation (the occupants’ policy), the Polish society disregarded and did not propagate the economic role of tourism. Neither did it care to introduce Polish elements into the administrative structure of that time. It could only be done when Poland regained independence, i.e. after 1918. It must be stressed that the beginnings were difficult because the young Polish state had to deal with many important problems, such as reconstruction of the country after it had been destroyed in World War I, mental, linguistic and cultural reintegration of the society, industrial and agricultural development, etc. Nevertheless, the process of forming the organizational structures of tourism in the country finally started in 1919 (establishing the Tourism Office at the Ministry of Public Works), and followed a different course than in West European countries. It was not a spontaneous and bottom-up process, but rather a top-down one, based on external ideas and models, as well as the experience of other European countries. The ideas of building tourism industry and its organizational formation were implemented top-down, i.e. directly by the government or state administration. The ideas were not only imposed, but often unfamiliar ideologically, external. It can be assumed then that initially tourism development and its organizational formation in the young Polish state was a revolutionary process for the society (Wojciechowska, 2009). 1 Especially events such as: the partitions of the country among occupants (1772, 1793, 1795), inclusion into the socialist block (1944–1989) and the change of the political-economic system after 1989. 2 For 123 years – since 1795 (the last partition of the country) to 1918 (the date of regained independence of the country). 14 Jolanta Wojciechowska The development of tourism in rural areas in the interwar period was also vital to state authorities, which resulted in the development of the summer holiday tourism concept, according to which countryside inhabitants were being prepared to receive tourists, provide them with accommodation and food, as well as encouraged to build houses to let. The bodies responsible for carrying out such field operations (especially in the mountain regions) were territorial economic self-governments and state administration institutions (Łazarek, 1972). As a result of this activity, summer holiday tourism was steadily growing, summer resorts being typically situated around large cities and in the tourist zones some distance away, i.e. in the mountains and at the seaside. However, a systemic development of this form of tourism was not achieved. Research into summer holiday tourism included collecting statistical data. Specialist terminology included the term “summer holiday tourism” (Leszczycki, 1938), related to “summer holidaymakers” – the participants of this movement. The change of the state’s political system to socialism after World War II, which was followed with a complete transformation of economic and social relations, resulted in a different approach to tourism. It was treated as a social, non-productive area, subsidised by the state. Thus, it became a significant tool, playing a very important role in shaping the attitudes of the citizens of a socialist country. The task of enabling all citizens to participate in tourism and recreation was carried out by state companies (owning their own holiday resorts), schools (organising summer camps for children and youth, hiking trips, etc.) or social organizations (youth, school, student, etc). The pre- war tradition of receiving summer holidaymakers was part of private business activity – contradicting the ruling ideology. In the first years of the socialist period, the number of trips to the countryside was limited, and the recreational function at some destinations even disappeared. This phenomenon was observed mainly in the suburban zones of large cities, where pre-war summer holiday areas were inhabited permanently by migrant population. In the 1950s, the idea of summer resorts in rural areas was reactivated, but it was controlled by the state, which actually hampered their development and contributed to the creation of the illegal “rented accommodation black market” (especially in the 1980s). It mainly offered night stay to tourists. Tourism in the rural areas of socialist Poland developed first of all at the holiday centres belonging to state enterprises and on private recreational plots of land belonging to the city inhabitants (second homes). An explosion of this form of recreation in rural areas in Poland came about in the 1970s and caused spatial, physiognomic and functional changes in many villages, which became a study object. Different authors discussed tourism in the countryside and, in particular, recreational settlement (e.g. Dziegieć, Liszewski, 1984; Matczak, 1985; Wojciechowska, 2017). The terms used in literature at that time pointed to the place where the phenomenon occurred, e.g. “tourism in the countryside” or “tourism in rural areas”. That resulted from intensive changes in rural areas, taking place at that time under the influence of the increasingly expansive tourism. Tourism in the rural areas of West European countries was developing differently. French researchers emphasise that this development was connected first of all with the socio-economic changes taking place mainly in the late 1950s and 1960s (Barbier, 1991; Coulet, 1991). The progressing mechanization and modernization of agriculture decreased employment in this economic sector and caused an outflow of country inhabitants to cities. Those phenomena inspired a search for ideas, first how to stop unfavourable changes in the countryside (occurring since the 1970s) (Barbier, 1991; Durbiano, 1991). The initial approach involved solving the current problems of countryside inhabitants and providing them with ideas how to gain alternative income from tourism. That approach led to (e.g. in France) buying out land to build second homes and taking over the incomes from tourism by external entrepreneurs. Only later (since the 1980s) was the focus shifted to the future of the countryside inhabitants, and tourism development started to be planned, with the local community being involved (Coulet, 1991; Richez, Richez-Battesti, 1991). Rural tourism developed in West European countries mainly as a result of the activity undertaken by the governments of individual countries, and next within the framework of the programs of the European Economic Community, later the European Union, and other international organizations, such as OECD. This also applies to France, where in the 1950s the government launched the “Gites Ruraux” project, in which farmers were offered wide-ranging help of advisors, e.g. as regarded adapting buildings so that they could serve tourists (Fleischer, Pizam, 1997). Other countries whose governments supported entrepreneurship in tourism in rural areas include Germany, Austria and Great Britain. These countries became leaders in the development of rural tourism in Europe. Rural tourism, and especially agritourism3, became a highly organised activity run by active 3 The definitions of these types of tourism are discussed in sections No. 3 and 4. and energetic associations. We may quote the example of the French federation “Gites de France” – the oldest one in Europe, founded in 1955, or the German association “Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof ” (founded in 1973). These organizations established a specific character of their activity, particularly visible in giving the priority to cooperation at the national level. In the case of the French federation, the priority concerns the relevant ministry, while in the case of the associations in Germany or Austria – agricultural organizations, e.g. the farmers’ association or agricultural chambers. Generally, it can be said that West European countries developed three types of policy as regards rural tourism. The first type concerns tourism based on market principles, the second type – tourism based on the involvement of authorities, and the third one is a mixed model. In most countries, we find the mixed model, where the private sector shows initiative as regards the development of the tourist product, and the state supervises this development and shapes individual elements of the base and infrastructure (Davies, Gilbert, 1992). After 1989, Poland entered the next phase of economic and social changes. Adopting the rules of market economy led to some changes in the ownership system, management and development plans of many recreation-related facilities. At the same time, new opportunities appeared to use foreign aid funds (e.g. PHARE) to stimulate rural areas through tourism in different ways. The style of recreation changed among tourists looking for the possibility to practice more individualised, active and cognitive recreation. As a result of opening the Polish society to the West, numerous associations, community unions and foundations interested in tourism development were established. There appeared brochures, information booklets, catalogues, as well as guidebooks for the organisers of tourism in rural areas. At the time of the system transformation in Poland, we could observe negative social phenomena, such as economic crisis, marginalization of agriculture as the basis of keeping up the family, or pauperization of society. Following the example of West European countries, relevant Polish ministries (of agriculture and of tourism) started to see agritourism as a possibility to relieve the deepening crisis of the agricultural sector and to offer an idea for an alternative source of income to farmers and cheap recreation to tourists. Agritourism in Poland – both as a term and as a tourism phenomenon – appeared at the time of the system transformation. In the early publications, both popular and scientific, the authors used the form of the word which was directly taken from German, Austrian and Swiss materials (agroturyzm). The Polish version of the term (agroturystyka) was introduced later. In the light of the presented history of recreation in the Polish countryside, it is possible to notice a clear evolution of the Polish terminology. The concept of this evolution at three historical periods (interwar, socialist and post-socialist) is presented in Fig. 1. It is based on the diversity of terms used to refer to the predominant types of tourism at individual periods and the symbolism of changes, observable in their semantic ranges. The model points to the multitude and diversity of terms; the closer to contemporary times it gets, the larger the number of terms is. In Polish scientific literature, we can see the apparent changeability of their use, i.e. in some periods some terms dominated and in other periods they lost validity or completely disappeared. An example of such a term is “summer holiday tourism”, used in the interwar period, which during the socialist era gave way to terms “tourism in rural areas” and “tourism in the countryside”. After 1990, another term – “rural tourism” was introduced and terms derived from other languages started to be adapted, such as “agritourism” or “agri-ecotourism”. This evolution of terms expressing the continuously changing supply and demand of tourism in rural areas can refer to symbols, such as person, location and function (Fig. 1). The symbols Fig. 1. Model of the evolution of the Polish terminology regarding tourism closely connected with the countryside. Source: modified from Wojciechowska (2018). INTERVAR PERIOD SOCIALIST PERIOD POST-SOCIALIST PERIOD SUMMER HOLIDAY TOURISM TOURISM IN RURAL AREAS PERSON (participant) LOKATION (village, rural area) FUNCTION (specialization) RURAL TOURISM TIME TYPES OF TOURISM SYMBOLISM OF CHANGE AGRITOURISM AGRI-ECOTOURISM Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology 15 show that initially Polish authors used terms which were semantically related to tourism participants (summer holiday tourism – the interwar period), next – to the place of recreation (village, rural area, tourism in rural areas – socialist period), and currently – to the function and specialization of the location (agritourism, agri-ecotourism). Concluding the discussion about the tradition of recreation and the evolution of terminology in the Polish literature on the subject, we should stress that in West European countries the development of the tourism forms mentioned above was endogenous and evolutionary. In Poland, on the other hand, the process (which commenced much later) was stopped by the outbreak of the World War II, and, as a result of the political history of the country, it was redirected. After 50 years, however, the development in post- socialist Poland and in West European countries was confronted. Intuitionally, but also pragmatically, differences between various forms of tourism in rural areas in West European countries became obvious, and there were attempts to adapt some of them in Poland. The accepted foreign terms for these forms of tourism, which appeared in the 1990s, accentuate their specialist range and functions performed in rural areas. 3. The exogeneity of agritourism in Poland and the evolution of the semantic range of the terms defining tourism in rural areas In Polish literature on the subject, many definitions of the terms “agritourism” and “rural tourism” can be found. In this chapter, definitions of these terms are presented as a compilation, which has been formulated by combining attributive expressions most frequently mentioned in the definitions found in Polish literature. AGRITOURISM is a form of rural tourism which is a particular tourist undertaking at a functioning farm, organised by a farmer’s family on the basis of the resources of their own farm and the tourist assets of the vicinity, as well as in cooperation with the local community, for the benefit of tourists looking for peace and quiet, interested in the life and customs of the country. RURAL TOURISM comprises forms of tourism practiced in the countryside, related to farming, forestry, horticulture or fishery, and based on natural or cultural attractions, as well as the inhabitants’ everyday life. These forms of tourism are organised by entities which are not necessarily socially or economically connected with these areas. Agritourism was introduced into the Polish countryside in 1991 by state institutions, mainly farming consultancy centres, which started to cooperate with similar bodies abroad. Thanks to this cooperation, they first educated their own personnel, and next encouraged country inhabitants to take action and undergo training. The campaign popularising agritourism was supported by commune (gmina) councils. All the institutions mentioned above promoted agritourism through actual activity (e.g. running courses for farmers), organizationally (e.g. providing counselling services) and legislatively (sanctioning farmers’ exemption from income tax when letting up to five rooms to tourists). It can be concluded then that agritourism in Poland was created institutionally and, at the same time, it became a part of the long tradition of recreation in the countryside (Wojciechowska, 2009). However, the name of this form of recreation, as well as the way of generating tourism, based on the experience of West European countries were new. It made agritourism a novel phenomenon, both for the countryside and city inhabitants. In Poland, it developed “from scratch”, mostly as regards the professional skills and tourism social experiences of the rural inhabitants of that time. First of all, they had to understand that the innovation of agritourism involved a farmer’s family’s readiness to welcome tourists at their home and offer them an attractive stay based on the advantages of farming, countryside attractions, as well as the local community’ system of values. Moreover, they had to realise that this form of tourism follows the rules of market economy (not the socialist economy any more), i.e. develops in competitive conditions, both in the close and further environment. They had to learn how to organise tourism business in their homes and then make money from it and cooperate with others so that it could prosper (Wojciechowska, 2014). As it has been said earlier, the term agroturystyka (agritourism) in Poland was adapted from foreign terminology. Initially, it was not well received by practitioners. They preferred to use Polish names defining recreation in rural areas. They often used old terms, even from the interwar period, to refer to the tourist traffic created in a new way. Perhaps it was a way of getting used to something which was new and strange to them, coming from outside. Until the mid-1990s, the use of terminology and the understanding of it were treated quite freely, both by practitioners and academics. In the early 1990s, the definitions of terms “agritourism” and “rural tourism” appearing in Polish publications were mostly direct translations from West European literature. The next Polish definitions, based on the first two, formulated by both practitioners and 16 Jolanta Wojciechowska academics, served the purpose of popularising the new phenomena among rural community. They were an attempt to explain what tourist services in the countryside are and what effect they might bring. In the second half of the 1990s, the authors of the definitions started to distinguish between the terms “agritourism” (agroturystyka) and “rural tourism” (turystyka wiejska). All the definitions of both analysed terms appearing in Polish literature can be divided into two groups. The first one includes short, even laconic definitions, and the other one – broad and descriptive ones. Descriptive definitions present the details of accommodation, types of recreational activities, countryside attractions and other resources. The definition content depends on the author’s field of knowledge or even their practical experience. One can easily notice which aspects – economic, social, natural, agricultural or legal – the author focuses on. Many definitions of “agritourism” and “rural tourism” tended to be formulated by practitioners, e.g. employees of farming consultancy centres, higher level administration workers or local authority activists. The basic formula of Polish definitions, typical of both analysed terms, usually focuses on one aspect at a time, i.e. presents either the supply (i.e. tourism organisers) or the demand side (tourists). They are rarely considered together. It is worth mentioning that with time some expressions included in the definitions of “agritourism” underwent modifications, i.e. they were either abandoned or replaced. For instance, in the first half of the 1990s, it was stressed that agritourism was “an additional source of income for the farmer and his family”, while towards the end of that decade and currently, we speak of a “tourist undertaking” or “tourist business”. Other changes in the content of the definitions can be seen in the spatial context. Initially, the location of agritourism mentioned in the definitions was the village and rural areas, and now it is a working farm. The changes largely correspond to the issues discussed in European literature. For example, N.C. McGehee (2007), P.Ä. Nilsson (2002) or S. Phillip et al. (2010) highlight the role of farms in agritourism, while L. Roberts & D. Hall (2001) or J. Saarinen (2007) – the commercial character of rural tourism. The above analysis entitles us to present the evolution of terms defining countryside- and agriculture-related tourism used in Polish literature after 1990 (Fig. 2). The main criterion which systematises the terms is the range of the changeable definition content. In the early 1990s, the terms “agritourism” and “rural tourism” used in Polish literature were identified with each other and used interchangeably (A=RT). Only in the mid-1990s was the semantic range of “agritourism” and “rural tourism” clearly separated (AЄRT). Moreover, another term started to be used more and more often, i.e. “tourism in rural areas” (turystyka na terenach wiejskich), which was then used interchangeably with the term “rural tourism” (RT=TiRA). Definitions of the Polish term ”turystyka na terenach wiejskich” (tourism in rural areas) appeared only after 2000, when the semantic range of this term started to be distinguished. It can be stated then that in Polish literature, the semantic range of the three analysed terms crystallised in an evolutionary way, their hierarchical semantics being established at the same time. The term of the narrowest semantic range is “agroturystyka” (agritourism), which is contained in the term “turystyka wiejska” (rural tourism), while the term of the widest range is “turystyka na terenach wiejskich” (tourism in rural areas). Fig. 2. Evolution of terms defining tourism which is most closely connected with the countryside and agriculture used in Polish literature after 1990. Source: Wojciechowska (2009). Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology 17 The systematics of the terms presented above can be referred to other similar forms of tourism. Such terms, commonly used in literature, are “ecotourism” and “alternative tourism”. Fig. 2 shows that the range of these terms only partly overlaps with those discussed earlier, because not every tourist staying in a village or at a farm is a form of alternative tourism or ecotourism. The part shared by “ecotourism” and “agritourism” is referred to as “agri-ecotourism” by some authors. To sum up, the names, as well as the content and range of the definitions of the new forms of tourism presented in Polish literature raised some doubts. The exogeneity of agritourism was seen in the way it was introduced and popularised. Countryside inhabitants perceived it as something alien, external and imposed on them. Those reservations and extensive discussions resulted in an evolutionarily hierarchised system of terms defining tourism in rural areas. The process of defining has not ended yet as efforts are still being made to formulate the best definition, acknowledging the existing names at the same time. 4. The attributes of terms and the diversification of their systematics Rural tourism and agritourism have been discussed by many authors, such as E.T. Davies & D.C. Gilbert (1992), L.A. Dernoi (1991), B. Lane (1994, 2009), M. Oppermann (1996), S. Phillip et al. (2010), J. Saarinen (2007), J. Saarinen, L. Monkgogi (2014), R. Sharpley, J. Sharpley (1997), or R. Sharpley, L. Roberts (2004). Some of them have been analysing the reasons why formulating precise definitions of the terms discussed above is so difficult. The author who looked particularly closely into these reasons was Lane. When in 1991 he was asked by the OECD to formulate a definition of rural tourism, Lane stated that it was not a simple task for many reasons. One of them was the necessity to define the quantitative features of rural tourism in the context of rural area criteria, bearing in mind that the latter is understood differently in individual European countries (Lane, 2009). In the light of Polish literature, the fundamental attribute of the term “agritourism” (agroturystyka) is the working farm, where tourists are offered accommodation and other services connected with the functioning of this farm and the whole village. Therefore, agriculture and rurality (in this order) constitute the essence of this form of tourism (Wojciechowska, 2009). As regards the demand, this attribute can be seen in the fact that tourists stay on a working farm and, as a result, they have the possibility to directly observe the everyday life of the host family, as well as to participate in this life. Moreover, they can appreciate direct contact with the rural community. As regards the supply, the attribute is visible in the activities of the owners of agritourist farms, who decide to share their living, working, learning and resting space with tourists, and in this way disclose the details of their own family, professional and social life to strangers. Understood in this way, the agritourism attribute is a novelty. It also shows the differences between the summer holiday lodgings from before World War II and the socialist period. These differences (from the supply perspective) are presented in Table 1. As regards the traditional summer holiday lodgings (from before World War II), tourists usually used their own equipment, bought their own food, organised their stay themselves and maintained a rather loose relationship with the hosts. In contrast, in agritourism, the farming family is ready to receive tourists and offer them an attractive stay program. Nowadays, summer holiday lodgings are also functioning in Poland, but they are understood more as recreation at country residences or second houses, rented from their owners. Modern summer holiday lodgings are then an element of rural tourism, and not agritourism. Tab. 1. Differences between agritourism and summer holiday lodgings in the countryside in pre-war, socialist and contemporary Poland. Tourism features from the demand perspective Traditional summer holiday lodgings before World War II Summer holiday lodgings during the socialist period Agritourism (after 1991) Private everyday use equipment (bed linen, kitchen pots and other utensils) yes no no Own board yes mostly yes on request Own programme of stay yes yes on request Contacts with the hosts scarce scarce continuous Source: Wojciechowska (2009). 18 Jolanta Wojciechowska The differences between traditional summer holiday lodgings and agritourism are also noticeable in their missions. A mission is understood as the real function performed in the social environment to satisfy human needs. Missions can be divided into spontaneous ones, i.e. initiated directly by the persons involved, and controlled ones, i.e. conducted officially. A spontaneous mission of summer lodgings could be a city inhabitant’s care for their own health. In the case of agritourism, it is a search for changes on the professional plane, the effect of which is the chance to learn new skills and gain new knowledge by the organisers of this form of tourism. The controlled missions of pre-war summer holiday lodgings entailed stimulating the local community (village and town people), which was passive, uneducated and lacked the tradition of local self-government. Agritourism, on the other hand, shows the alternative of the changing role of the farmer’s profession, as well as the possibility to create a tourist recreation style by offering tourists a well-thought-out agritourist product. It has been stressed by Polish authors that the attributes of the term “rural tourism” (turystyka wiejska) are the rurality of space, both functional and landscape-related, as well as agriculture (e.g. Majewski, Lane, 2001; Wojciechowska, 2009). This form of tourism is based on attractions integrally connected with living in the country, its physiognomy, cultural resources, events which are important for the local community, as well as on the agricultural environment (animals, farming products, nature). It occurs in various functional types of villages and hamlets, e.g. farming, forest, horticultural or fishing ones, which cultivate recreational traditions. There are opinions in Poland (mainly voiced by practitioners) that the range of this term should concern the space of small towns, especially those inhabited by 2000–5000 people, most of which retain rural character. In many West European countries, this aspect is not taken under consideration, which has been stated in the OECD report (Tourism Policy…,1994) or in the report by K. Orzechowska (2019). The most important attribute of the term “tourism in rural area” (turystyka na terenach wiejskich) adopted in Polish literature is the administrative rurality of space (Wojciechowska, 2009), which means that this form of tourism occurs in areas which are administratively rural4, but they do not always comply with this “rurality” as regards the settlement system, landscape or even functions. The example could be villages and areas strongly developed touristically, rural holiday resorts, large complexes of recreational summer plots of land, specialised tourism and recreation centres within natural space (more rarely farming space), as well as national parks and other areas under strict environmental protection. Tourism takes place in strongly colonised rural areas, developed for tourism purposes, where rurality and agriculture are only administrative notions. The distinctive features (attributes) of Polish terms are presented in a graphic form in Fig. 3. The concept of the attributes and systematics of terms defining tourism in rural areas in Poland is worth referring to examples presented in European literature. The diversified understanding of terms in West European countries has been pointed out by many authors. For instance, M. Jansen-Verbeke (1990) argued that in the 1980s, in the EU states, the understanding of the terms rural tourism, agritourism Fig. 3. Distinctive attributes of the terms used in Polish literature. Source: Wojciechowska (2009). AGRITOURISM working farmstead (croft, farm, agritourist village) AGRICULTURE AND RURALITY ADMINISTRATIVE RURALITY RURALITY AND AGRICULTURE RURAL TOURISM villages, hamlets, small towns, (guesthouses, recreation centres, summer resorts) TOURISM IN RURAL AREAS villages and areas highly developed touristically and natural areas, (country resorts, summer plots of land complexes, specialist centres, landscape parks, national parks) 4 It has been established for Poland that, administratively, rural areas are all those which are situated outside the city borders. Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology 19 and farm tourism depended on the national context and the farming and tourist tradition of a given country. These states have not agreed on common definitions until today. Literature and international conferences devoted to these issues are a forum for discussion regarding their legal, economic, cultural, ecological, marketing and other aspects, delimiting the semantic range of terms and leaving a wide margin for interpreting and defining them in individual countries. The multilingual terms analysed in this article refer to the same object, but the understanding of their range varies, depending on the country, the geographical region of Europe or another part of the world. This makes it possible to identify two models of terminological systematics: one based on the West-European literature (mainly in English), the second one based on the Polish literature (Fig. 4). corresponds more to the English term farm tourism. On the other hand, the range of the term “turystyka wiejska” corresponds to two terms used in the West European literature at the same time, i.e. rural tourism and agritourism. Next, the term “turystyka na terenach wiejskich” seems to be the creation of Polish researchers, opting for a semantic range wider than rural tourism, because it refers both to areas intensively developed touristically (resorts, specialist recreation centres, complexes of second houses) and to areas where people let nature take its course (e.g. marshes, lakes, national parks). The concept of the Polish term “agroturyzm” can be seen as another achievement of Polish researchers. It is understood as a superior term in relation to “agroturystyka” and “turystyka wiejska”. Agroturyzm is a theoretical overall concept of all the issues concerning tourism related to the countryside and agriculture in the temporal and spatial aspect (Wojciechowska, 2018). The presented models may be subject to change. This statement is based on the diverse experiences of the countries of the compared language groups with regard to the development of tourism in rural areas. However, the Polish model is still valid. 5. Conclusions Tourism in rural areas is undergoing constant changes, as a result of which its new and old forms may co-exist. Their components are changeable in time, thus contributing either to the decline of a given form of tourism, or its revival, or they inspire the creation of brand-new ones. This explains the multitude and variety of terms used in European countries, whose scope is also changeable in time. Poland is a case in point here, as the evolution of terminology concerning tourism in rural areas started only in the 20th century. However, the crystallization of a hierarchical systematics of terms closely connected with the countryside has been observed only since the second half of the 1990s. Its main components are “agroturystyka”/”agritourism” (of the narrowest semantic range), “turystyka wiejska”/“rural tourism” and “turystyka na terenach wiejskich”/“tourism in rural areas”. “Agroturystyka” is a new term in Polish literature, while the other two have been used before, but since the 1990s, they have gained new meaning. Another new term is “agroturyzm” as the whole of theoretical issues regarding agritourism and rural areas. An important problem is that Polish terminology was developed at the time of the political and economic transformations after 1989, as well as when debates on rural tourism were held in the world literature. That gave a revolutionary beginning to RURAL TOURISM AGRITOURISM FARM TOURISM ENGLISH TERMINOLOGY POLISH TERMINOLOGY SYSTEM AGROTOURISM Fig. 4. The relation between Polish and English terms defining tourism in rural areas. Source: developed and modified from Wojciechowska (2009). Both models show a hierarchical system of the range of terms. The hierarchy of terms in English literature was pointed out by M. Jansen-Verbeke (1990), who wrote that rural tourism is a term of the widest semantic range and signifies all tourism in the countryside, while agritourism is merely its component, as it concerns agriculture-related tourism. The term of the narrowest semantic range, which is a component of the two terms mentioned above, is farm tourism, signifying tourist stays at farms. In further analysis, we may notice differences between this model and the Polish language model. The differences are noticeable in nomenclature and partly in the semantic range of the definitions of the terms. It is particularly visible in the case of: agritourism and “agroturystyka”, where the range of the Polish term 20 Jolanta Wojciechowska agritourism in Poland, in contrast to the endogenous and evolutionary process in West European countries. In Poland, agritourism turned out to be a new form of tourism, both for its participants and organisers, introduced via institutions, based on the experience of other countries. The term which defines it has been accepted by practitioners and academics alike and became a part of a crystallised and evolutionarily hierarchical system of terms referring to tourism in rural areas. Among the countries of the former Western block, Poland was one of the first to adopt the idea of agritourism and automatically became the leader for others. Looking globally, we can state that a significant feature of the idea of agritourism and rural tourism development is the institutional impulse. In West European countries, it was given by governments, self-governing bodies and international organizations (e.g. OECD, UE), which took patronage over the further development of agritourism (e.g. PHARE, LEADER I, LEADER II). In this way, agritourism and rural tourism became tools of the rural areas development policy, which is imposed in the hope of its bottom-up evolution. Wherever agritourism becomes a part of continuous tourism development, we can say that it spontaneously becomes an internal, bottom-up element. In other cases, it can be treated as an external tool for a long time. In Poland, a challenge for the further development of agritourism and rural tourism is the pursuit of a new identity, based on endogenous factors, where entrepreneurship and business are given priority. References Barbier B., 1991, Turystyka na obszarach wiejskich we Francji (Eng. Tourism in rural areas in France), Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Geographica, 14, 21–33. Coulet L., 1991, Turystyka wiejska turystyką swobodną (Eng. Rural tourism as free tourism), Acta Universitatis Lodzien- sis. Folia Geographica, 14, 47–53. Davies E.T., Gilbert D.C., 1992, A Case Study of the Develop- ment of Farm Tourism in Wales, Tourism Management, 1, 55–72. Dernoi L.A., 1991, About Rural and Farm Tourism, Tourism Rec- reation Research, 1, 3–6. Durbiano C., 1991, Specyficzne aspekty turystyki w środow- isku wiejskim – przypadek Gordes (Eng. The specific aspects of tourism in a rural environment – the case of Gordes), Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Geographica, 14, 121–134. Dziegieć E., 1995, Urbanizacja turystyczna terenów wiejskich w Polsce (Eng. Tourist urbanisation of rural areas in Po- land), Tourism, 5(1), 5–56. Dziegieć E., Liszewski S., 1984, Strefy podmiejskie jako tereny wypoczynkowe dla mieszkańców dużych miast w Polsce (Eng. The suburban zones as leisure areas for residents of large cities in Poland), Problemy Turystyki (Instytut Turyst- yki), 2, 11–20. Fleischer A., Pizam A., 1997, Rural tourism in Israel, Tourism Management, 18, 367–372. http://msport.gov.pl/statystyka-turystyka (accessed 07 July 2014). Jansen-Verbeke, M., 1990, Znaczenie turystyki na terenach wiejskich w Europie (Eng. The Role of the Tourism in rural areas in Europe), Problemy Turystyki (Instytut Turystyki), 1/2 (47/48), 36–48. Kulczycki Z., 1977, Zarys historii turystyki w Polsce (Eng. An outline of the history of tourism in Poland), Sport i Tury- styka, Warszawa. Lane B., 1994, What is rural tourism?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1–2), 7–21. Lane B., 2009, Rural tourism: An Overview, [in:] M. Robinson, T. Jamal (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies, Sage Publications, London, 354–370. Leszczycki S., 1938, Ruch uzdrowiskowo-letniskowy w Polsce (Eng. Health and summer holiday mobility in Poland), Ko- munikaty Studium Turyzmu UJ, 8, 3–51. Łazarek R., 1972, Ekonomika i organizacja turystyki (Eng. The economy and organization of tourism), Państwowe Wy- dawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa. Majewski J., Lane B., 2001, Turystyka wiejska i rozwój lokalny (Eng. Rural tourism and the local development), Fundacja Fundusz Współpracy, Poznań. Matczak A., 1985, Funkcja wypoczynkowa strefy podmiejskiej Łodzi (Eng. Holiday function of the suburbs of Łódź), Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Geographica, 5, 299–311. McGehee N.G., 2007, An Agritourism Systems Model: A We- berian Perspective, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111–124. doi: 10.2167/jost634.0 Nilsson P.Ä., 2002, Staying on farms: an ideological back- ground, Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 7–24. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00081-5 Oppermann, M., 1996, Rural Tourism in Southern Germany, Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 86–102. Orzechowska, K., 2019, Sprawozdanie z Pierwszego Świ- atowego Kongresu Agroturystyki: Bolzano, Włochy, 7–9.11.2018 (Eng. Report from the First World Congress of Agritourism: Bolzano, Italy, November 7–9, 2018), [in:] J. Wojciechowska, M. Makowska-Iskierka (Eds.), Warsz- taty z Geografii Turyzmu (Eng. Tourism Geography Work- shop),Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, 159–176. Phillip, S., Hunter, C., Blackstock, K., 2010, A typology for de- fining agritourism, Tourism Management, 31, 754–758. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001 Raport o stanie wiejskiej bazy noclegowej w Polsce (Eng. Report on the condition of rural accommodation facilities in Po- land), 1997, Centrum Doradztwa i Edukacji w Rolnictwie, Kraków. Richez, G., Richez-Battesti, J., 1991, Turystyka w przestrzeni wiejskiej na wyspie Korsyce (Eng. Tourism in rural space on the island of Corsica), Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Rural tourism and agritourism in Poland – development processes and evolution of terminology 21 Geographica, 14, 89–105. Roberts L., Hall D., 2001, Rural tourism and recreation: Princi- ples to practice, CABI Publishing, Cambridge. Saarinen J., 2007, Contradictions of Rural Tourism Initiatives in Rural Development Contexts: Finnish Rural Tourism Strategy Case Study, Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 96– 105. doi: 10.2167/cit287.0 Saarinen J., Monkgogi L., 2014, Integrating tourism to rural development and planning in the developing world, De- velopment Southern Africa, 31(3), 363–372. doi: 10.1080/ 0376835X.2014.88833 Schöppner A., 1988, Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof. Eine fremden- verkehrsgeographische Untersuchung, Geographisches Institut Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bohum. Sharpley R., 2004, Tourism and the Countryside [in:] A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, A.M. Williams (Eds.), A Companion to Tourism, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 374–386. Sharpley R., Roberts L., 2004, Rural Tourism – 10 years On, In- ternational Journal of Tourism Research, 6(3), 119–124. doi: 10.1002/jtr.478 Sharpley R., Sharpley J., 1997, Rural tourism. An introduction, International Thomson Business Press. London. Tourism Policy and International Tourism in OECD Countries, 1994, OECD, Paris. Wojciechowska J., 2009, Procesy i uwarunkowania rozwoju agroturystyki w Polsce (Eng. The processes and determi- nants of agrotourism development in Poland), Uniwer- sytet Łódzki, Łódź. Wojciechowska J., 2014, A summary assessment of the Agri- tourism Experience in Poland, PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 12(3), 565–579. doi: 10.25145/j.pa- sos.2014.12.042 Wojciechowska J., 2017, A model of agritourism offer polarisa- tion in metropolitan surroundings – the Łódź Metropolis: a case study, [in:] M.J. Sznajder (Ed.), Metropolitan Commut- er Belt Tourism, Routlege, London – New York, 255–266. Wojciechowska J., 2018, Agroturystyka. Signum turystyki i obszarów wiejskich (Eng. Agritourism. Signum of tourism and rural areas), Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa. 22 Jolanta Wojciechowska