Phases of rural/village tourism development
(An interpretation of Butler’s tourist area life cycle concept for rural tourism)[1]
‘Actors of the European Countryside’ - Seminar
1-5 October 1997
Erdõtarcsa, Hungary
Dr. Kovács Dezsõ
Gödöllõ Agricultural University
Rural Sociology Department
Gödöllõ 2103, HUNGARY
phone:36-28-410200
fax: 36-28-410804
email:
Dr. Kovács Dezsõ
Phases of rural/village tourism development[2]
(An interpretation of Butler’s tourist area life cycle concept for rural tourism)
Introduction
Changes in the political system and the emergence of a market economy have had major effects on rural economies in Central and Eastern Europe. The nineties have caused serious drawbacks to the countryside by shrinking formal rural workplaces and incomes. The rural economy under these new circumstances has experienced a high level of unemployment, losses of former employment areas, the transformation of agriculture, the devaluation of properties, etc. Nevertheless, these changes have opened up and necessitated many private initiatives which have resulted in some interesting familial and community attempts, among others, to develop new forms of tourism in rural settings. The common feature in these developments has been the development of local initiatives often starting from scratch, with few if any antecedents and even without any serious assistance from the state or other agencies.
These initiatives in Central - Eastern Europe may remind the western observer of those which took place in their countries 20 to 30 years ago, such as village renewal activities, community development and development of private or community facilities for tourists. In many rural areas, tourism has been viewed as a general panacea for the rural crisis. The recognition that leisure is a terrain of possible entrepreneurialism and that the countryside may hold many recreational venues has stimulated many local groups, from families to village mayors, to explore the inherent values and resources in their immediate environment.
The exploration and recognition of the amenities of the countryside and its possibilities in tourism has increased its value and future perspectives. This appreciation of the countryside has occurred even in those areas where tourism was never an issue before. This new phenomenon can be called the manifestation of leisure potential of the countryside. This not only includes the natural environment, but also the skills, accumulated knowledge and capital of local people, and their cultural heritage as well.
In this paper I will describe and conceptualise how rural tourism appears and has grown in the countryside where tourism never before played a role in such settings. My observations and experience are mainly based on the Hungarian case and, to a limited extent, on the experiences of other Central and Eastern European countries. I use Butler’s tourism area life cycle concept as a general development pattern to describe the spontaneous take off of rural tourism. This starting phase which I refer to as spontaneous, has been long ‘forgotten’ in the developed countries, and perhaps never existed in that form as it is now in Central or Eastern Europe. The process itself and different aspects of how rural tourism has emerged have special significance in rural development and may contribute to a better understanding of the behaviour of small enterprises, mechanisms of family and community enterprises and actions, the selection process of people for certain activities and characteristics of local innovations.
Private Accommodation in Hungary
To understand the issues of village tourism, we have to review the development of private accommodations during the last decades. Before WW II, a national movement and civic association was organised, with the aim of developing national holidays in the countryside mainly in the form of establishing paying guest service in villages. In 1939, this organisation already had 4000 designated houses labelled as paying guest service in about 252 villages throughout the country.(Kovács L.-Takács J.1966: 34)
The fifties brought a modest result in tourism development, although social tourism received significant support in those years. The take-off in Hungarian tourism after WW II occurred in 1964 (Kovács L.-Takács J. 1966: 196). In that year, the figures of both active and passive tourism exceeded 1 million. More than 1 million tourists, mainly from the socialist countries, visited the country and also, the number of Hungarians travelling abroad was more than 1 million.
The figures of paying guest services were rather modest at that time. Markos and Kolacsek (1961: 185), in their excellent book, defined the basic figures of paying guest service at the end of the fifties. In 1955 there was only a 2784 bed capacity and between 1956 and 1958, only 40 to 61 villages offered private accommodation for tourists. Obviously it was strongly controlled and co-ordinated by IBUSZ, the main travel agency at that time in Hungary. By 1958 the amount of bed capacity increased to 8152. This accounted for 15% of the entire Hungarian hotel and holiday house capacity. Due to high hotel investment costs, paying guest service was aimed at further expansion mainly for Hungarian guests. (Rózsa M. 1965: 20)
However, this type of private accommodation received very peculiar consideration from the authorities. It was considered a substitute for missing hotel accommodations, especially in resort areas. It was just an additional type of lodging, a kind of buffer, which in case of high demand could solve accommodation problems of tourists in the country. (Imre J. 1981: 62) This general approach of substituting lacking hotel capacity existed for decades and paying guest service was organised mainly through travel agencies. It was encouraged by authorities to increase the number of private accommodations in resort areas and also to control them.
In spite of extensive hotel construction during the seventies, increased tourist demand was fulfilled by private accommodation. Paying guest service multiplied at Lake Balaton and Budapest and in holiday resort areas. Owners of houses or second homes often tried to rent out their houses without the assistance of travel agencies. It was considered illegal trade and the government tried to implement a lump sum tax system in order to legalise this private and ‘black’ economic activity. Paying guest service often served not only the needs of tourists, but also as temporary accommodation for those workers who worked far away from their homes.
By 1979, the official or registered numbers of private accommodation capacity increased to 120,700 beds and its share in the commercial lodging capacity was 52%.
Guest nights spent in private accommodations also represented about 50% of the guest nights in commercial lodgings. These figures, however, showed only the tip of the iceberg, because experts estimated that the actual figures were 4-5 times higher. Thus the headache for officials was that only every 5th private accommodation was registered of the approximately half-million private bed capacity (Imre J. 1981: 68). Another expert that time estimated an even higher figure, calculating an 800,000 private bed capacity (Balogh O. 1984: 193). The majority of these private accommodations was determined more by strict market rules than ineffective government regulation (Imre J. 1981: 70).
Since the political change, the official attitude towards private accommodation forms has not really changed. Looking at the official figures of the nineties, an even lower proportion of private home or second home owners rent out their lodging through travel agencies. In 1993, of the 573,000 private bed capacity, only 11% was rented out through travel agencies (Tourism in Hungary.1993: 31). In 1996 statistics one can find only the officially registered accommodation numbers, which were even less, about a 31,000 bed capacity (Turizmus Magyarországon 1996: 24). The trend shows that while, during the nineties, the number of tourists and visitors doubled in Hungary, private accommodations almost disappeared from officially registered statistics. Apartment and second home owners try to make their fortune individually and do not trust in travel agencies.
Village Tourism in Hungary
Although both paying guest services and village tourism are forms of private accommodations, there is a big difference between these two forms. Paying guest service is usually an urban or resort phenomenon which does not require any particular action from the house or room owners because the existing attractions bring a lot of tourists to the place. Village tourism, on the other hand, has to create its own particular attractions, organisations and facilities in order to attract tourists to the countryside. It requires co-operation, training, sound leadership and commitment from local people, very demanding requirements in a disintegrating local society.
Rural/village tourism development in Hungary during the nineties shows an interesting example of the diversification of household resources and exploration of hidden or unused local values for tourism development. Spontaneous development, which has been the dominant characteristic in the past seven years, will be gradually replaced by a more organised and better-managed activity. The learning process on both sides - policy makers and rural tourism providers - has been slow and full of ignorance of the interests of the other.
During the nineties, village tourism has received only very limited policy support. Tourism development occurred and rested on the shoulders of village women and some enthusiastic village mayors, marketing entrepreneurs and academics. The only serious measure during this period was the introduction of a home economics curriculum in special secondary schools and some designated primary schools.
Village tourism, by the definition of Personal Tax Regulation and National Tourist Board, simply means private accommodation services in those village houses or premises where the owners or hosts also reside. Lodging facilities with less than 10 beds or those earnings under 300,000 Ft. are exempt from personal income tax. There is no further distinction for this type of exemption and for the definition of village tourism. It could be the product of farmers, local women, miners, teachers, shopkeepers or pensioners: no distinction has been made thus among product providers. Furthermore, there is no distinction made among the different types of products and services either.
Village tourism in its initial phase is based on existing family resources. It can be considered an extension of the family household and the marketing of accumulated capital in village houses and exploitation of the cultural and human capital of families (Kovács D 1993a,b). The main motivation for having guests in a private house is to get additional income which helps to maintain the household or the former or desired standard of living. Unlike Germany, Austria or other EU countries, where rural tourism is encouraged as a diversification of family agricultural enterprise under the 2328/91 Council regulation, rural or village tourism in Hungary does not refer to agriculture but to villages and families in rural settings. The basis of this new activity within households are two or three empty rooms, enough free time for guests, hospitality, good food and the amenities of the countryside. Most families have a vineyard and wine cellar, a pleasant yard and a garden. However, the connection between village tourism and agriculture is different due to the former collectivisation and the dual, large versus small scale (household) agricultural structure (Kovács D. 1993b). Agricultural products, nevertheless, play an important role in village tourism because many rural families are self-sufficient in goods, producing vegetables, fruits, meat, sausage, wine, etc. This small scale production within the household is not enough for family subsistence, but the surplus can be sold either in the local market or through tourism. This is not a diversification of family agricultural enterprises, but rather the more effective exploitation of those accumulated family resources, which for different reasons has been untapped. Thus, the background to rural/village tourism in Hungary is in most cases not a farm, but a sort of mixed household in which regular income originates from the main jobs and supplemental income from agricultural activities. Most of these hosts in village tourism are not farmers or farm women, nor are they employed in agriculture, but rather they are village inhabitants having a household with garden, or a vineyard, etc. In most cases these village women belong to the local elite. Their educational level is significantly higher than the local average. Often parents or grandparents of these village citizens belonged to the well-to-do or middle peasants who went through a peasant embourgoisement process between the two world wars. The signs of the accumulated and cultural capital of those generations are often present in village tourism business. Having guests in the house who provide additional income can be considered a part time occupation particularly during the tourist season. The official concept of village tourism also encompasses this additional income- generation function in villages outside of main tourism territories.
Village tourism provision also depends on the family’s way of life. In many cases the decision to have guests in the private home is connected with a significant change in the family structure and lifestyle. Different reasons - marriage of sons or daughters, death of grandparents, illness, retirement, unemployment - play a role in starting the tourism venture. As household composition decreases, former activity and daily schedules change. Diminishing tasks result in more free time, yet the need to support children and to maintain the household and former living standard still exists.
In addition to income requirements, social needs also play an important role in village tourism. Opportunities to meet people and to learn about their lives, to gain new knowledge of different countries and people and to make friends are also part of the personal motivations of the hosts. These non-economic motivations are also acknowledged in the findings of Opperman’s research of rural tourism (1995: 67) in southern Germany. The extent of village tourism, however, is not comparable to paying guest services in Hungary. Most estimates declare about a 15-20,000 bed capacity in village tourism, which is just a small fragment in comparison with paying guest service.
The Butler’s tourist area life cycle concept
Although much literature is available about rural tourism in developed countries, recent experiences in a different environment can be used only to a limited extent. Countries which have already acquired almost half a century of experience in rural tourism development cannot be compared to those countries where rural tourism is a rather new phenomenon. Publications on rural tourism often do not disclose and describe the precise terrain of investigation and lead to confusion and misunderstanding among those who are not aware of western institutions and local conditions. Special terms as community, local level, region and network may hold very diverse meanings in different countries.
Another factor which rarely receives attention in rural tourism literature of developed countries is the permanent and long term state and EU assistance (Leader I-II) to develop rural tourism. It does appear in studies concerned with the activities of developing agencies and the supportive effect of financial measures, tax and other legal regulations, access to markets and the involvement of state and public organs. These are obvious instruments for rural development and rural tourism, nevertheless, these preconditions as backbones of tourism development are very often missing in Central and Eastern European countries. Rural/village tourism is more like a social movement which fights for official recognition and efficient support measures. While officials very quickly learn and use western terminology as a kind of lip service, efficient measures to provide the necessary basis for rural tourism are not followed. Without paying attention to these important determinants, one can hardly understand the nature of rural tourism development in different countries.
Butler’s tourist area life cycle concept (Butler 1980) is very frequently cited in tourism literature. This concept describes different phases of development in a tourist area in terms of time and the number of visitors. These are very important variables and with them one can easily identify different stages of development. However, the general tourist area life cycle development can be applied to rural tourism development only with certain qualifications. This paper identifies the differences between rural tourism development and general tourist area life cycle development. I put emphasis not on the tourists, but the hosts, the tourism service providers.
Butler has implemented the product cycle concept to tourist areas and described the characteristics of development. In his hypothetical curve he described six stages. The first two stages of Butler’s curve are called exploration and involvement. The exploration stage being characterised by „a small number of tourists,” and „no specific facilities provided for visitors.” Butler says that because of the little modification in local life to suit tourism, such an area may be highly attractive as destination.
During the involvement stage, „some local residents ...begin to provide facilities primarily or even exclusively for visitors.” At this stage , the beginnings of formalised tourist industry - marketing, an anticipated season, tourist areas - can be seen developing, although involvement with local culture remains high. As concerns rural tourism, I think the first two stages are the most relevant to our subject. The shape of the curve in the other stages of development is less steep than in popular tourist areas. It comes from the nature of rural tourism which is always aimed to retain locally controlled activity.