Ecumenopolis commuter belt tourism

Geographic differentiation of agritourism activities in Poland vs. cultural and natural attractiveness of destinations at district level

“…The first one is related to small family farms dispersed over rural areas which are used as accommodation facilities where hosts themselves provide services to guests [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The second trend suggests that agritourism farms gradually enter, and become highly competitive in, the tourism market [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. As emphasized by many researchers (the list of individual items in Table 1), the common characteristic of these trends is that agritourism activities contribute to preservation of regional (and family) heritage and represent an additional non-farming income for the farmers.…”

Considerations for Differentiating Among Rural Tourism Geographies

“…For the fringe communities, being located next to large urban centres with well-developed and integrated road networks, often in combination with rail or air transportation options, provides access to large markets, including international opportunities. The green belts and agricultural landscapes surrounding metropolitan centres provide an immediate connection to 'rural', and given various nations' growing focus on connections to sustainability, locally produced goods and services, farm to table culinary options and the 'slow' movement, such places have a locational advantage in the fringe (Fullagar, Markwell, & Wilson, 2012;Sznajder, 2017).…”

“…Whether or not the fringe offers an authentic experience of rurality (Frisvoll, 2013) is another question altogether. However, the supply of potential visitors from large metropolitan centres is significant (see Sznajder, 2017) and offers opportunities for rural communities within the fringe to develop attractions and products for urban visitors. The bulk of visitation seems to be made up of day trip and weekend markets, with festivals, events, rural recreation activities, markets, wine-based, culinary, and agritourism making up the product offering (see Sznajder, 2017;Koster, Lemelin, & Agnew, 2010).…”

“…However, the supply of potential visitors from large metropolitan centres is significant (see Sznajder, 2017) and offers opportunities for rural communities within the fringe to develop attractions and products for urban visitors. The bulk of visitation seems to be made up of day trip and weekend markets, with festivals, events, rural recreation activities, markets, wine-based, culinary, and agritourism making up the product offering (see Sznajder, 2017;Koster, Lemelin, & Agnew, 2010). As such, there is a wide array of opportunities for local and regional entrepreneurs, businesses and service providers to become involved in the tourism economy.…”

“…Lundgren, 1982;Lane, 1994;Shaw & Williams, 1994;Hall & Page, 2014;Müller, 2016;Hedlund & Lundholm, 2015). Yet, it appears that the rural tourism literature with its plethora of case studies has predominantly focused on understanding and theorising tourism at either end of the rurality spectrum: destinations close to the urban fringe (Weaver & Lawton, 2001;Weaver, 2005;Koster, Lemelin, & Agnew, 2010; see Sznajder, 2017) or more remote and exotic destinations located on or beyond the outer edges of populated peripheries (Keller, 1987;Lemelin, Dawson, Stewart, Maher,& Lueck, 2010;Müller, 2011a;Nepal, 2005;Schmallegger, Carson, & Tremblay, 2010). In contrast, tourism in the BBBs has remained comparatively neglected and under-researched (Ramsey & Malcolm, 2017).…”