CC BY
4Aß QTal and Practice A^ÍCU""^
Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Region
UDK 338.48
Vasile A., Bazga B., Smoleanu A.
IS AGRO TOURISM INSTRUMENT IN VALUING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL COMMUNITY'S POTENTIAL IN CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIES?
Abstract: Rural tourism has become over time a veritable tool in unlocking the potential of rural communities, mobilizing resources, shaping rural communities in order to identify new opportunities to increase revenues from first level, other than traditional farming. The main objective of this paper is the analysis on the development of
tourist accommodation capacities in rural areas and their influence in the economic potential of communities, especially those in rural areas.
Key words: rural tourism, sustainability, traditional farming, agricultural potential.
Vasile A. -
Ph. D., Associate professor Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti, Faculty of Economic Sciences, B-dul Bucuresti no. 39, 100680, Ploiesti Prahova, Romania.
E-mail: andrei_jeanvasile@yahoo.com
Smoleanu A. -
MA, Provus Service Provider, Calonfirescu Steet, No.2, Ploiesti, Prahova, Romania E-mail: alex_andra_s8@yahoo.com
Bazgá B. -
Ph. D., National Intelligence Academy • §oseaua Odai nr. 20, sector 1, Bucure§ti, Romania E-mail: bogdan.bazga@gmail.com
Mihai Viteazul»,
Introduction
Agriculture constitutes for the areas and rural communities in many European countries the main activity of the economy, that people are addicted to not only to ensure the necessary food and daily living but also source of income for many of them. Although lately witnessing the diversification of rural environment and farming has become multifunctional, it continues to constitute the backbone for activities in rural communities. The role and importance of agriculture for rural communities remains indisputable in this light, but it also requires identification of viable instruments in increasing the importance of capitalizing on the potential they have. Tourism and agriculture diversity and the existence of numerous interconnections can provide for rural areas a better use of available economic potential default supply structures and level of development of social life in the villages. Tourism, especially rural tourism can help exploit new potentials and create value in Romanian rural communities. Rural tourism can contribute to a significant improvement of sustainable, smart and inclusive development in rural communities by diversifying agricultural pluriactivity. The importance of rural tourism as a factor of economic growth in rural areas has been addressed in a number of papers (such as Garrod et al., 2006; Fleischer and Tchetchik, 2005; Fleischer, A., Felsenstein, 2000; Ribeiro and Marques, 2002) [3, 2, 6].
By economic activity, rural tourism in rural areas constitutes an anchor defining a considerable potential in strengthening the capitalization of the agricul-
ture potential layers and is equally a tool to respond to future challenges facing rural communities.
Rural areas and rural communities related to define fully capitalized potential in terms of GVA generated by involving the tourism activity of labor resources and farms that can easily diversify their agricultural tourism activity in practice. In Romania the importance of promoting rural tourism as a factor of growth was achieved in: Gherasim, 2012; Iorio and Corsale, 2010 or Dorobantu and Nistoreanu, 2012 [4, 5, 1]. The structure of rural areas varies significantly from one Member State to another, including the same economic space, amplifying the decoupling of socio-economic development, infrastructure standards, environmental quality or the ability to attract resources on the production agritourism. Thus in Table 1 and Figure 1 are shown distribution of GVA by type of region, 2011 in EUR million and as % of total.
From Table 1 it can be seen an unbalanced distribution both in terms of the typology of areas (rural, intermediate and urban) but also in terms of share of the three areas in the European economies considered. If the EU level more high value of GVA was created in the urban Regions (5890819 million Eur) and the lowest in the rural Regions (1793841 million Eur), the same situation is specific and with most of the analyzed. GVA creation in the rural communities is therefore dependent on the evolution of the main economic, specific, sectors, namely agriculture. From this perspective, we can say that promoting agritourism activities will constitute a genuine instrument to exploit the agricultural potential areas, particularly print avail-
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
able training resources on the production and consequently increase competitiveness in agriculture and in the countryside. Starting from one of the determining characteristics of agriculture and rural tourism, and from their anchoring local and regional, in the context of globalization, the dimensions of rural acquires new valences and special meanings. Development of local value chains will amplify the importance of rural tourism in rural communities and thus creating well-being. In Figure 1 we can notice distribution of GVA by type of region in 2011 as % of total.
Table 1 - Distribution of GVA by type of region, 2011-EUR million-
Rural regions Intermediate regions Urban regions
EU 1793841 3557300 5890819
Belgium 18407.1 62765.8 248659.7
Bulgaria 8252.4 11753.1 13318.3
Czech Rep. 38554.9 51485.1 50035.4
Denmark 49488.4 86123 62920.7
Germany 324406.7 865106.7 1127921
Estonia 4431.6 1158.4 8575
Greece 62998 15972.6 104166.5
Spain 63206.1 297828.8 597749.3
France 406597.9 539942 846269.1
Croatia 16849.2 8492.6 12534.7
Italy 254484.7 589908.2 568334.3
Hungary 28803.7 22927.3 32128.9
Austria 96419 65355 108812
Poland 85550.9 105413.5 134811.3
Portugal 41822 20275.1 87134.3
Romania 36860.6 47467.2 30622.9
Slovakia 25163.7 20025.5 17206.7
Finland 56400 44750 61373.5
Sweden 48273.1 187094.2 102081
UK 29044.4 303456.7 1204453
Source: European Commission, 2016
From the analysis of Figure 1, it can be easily noticed significant differences in the creation and distribu-
tion of regional GVA. Urban areas generate the highest level of GVA, being also the ones that mobilizes and host major industries. GVA distribution can be seen in a relatively diminished compared to the EU average of GVA in rural areas in developed European economies and a relatively above average for the states that joined after 2005. Thus, according to (European Economic and Social Committee, 2012), agriculture and food sector in the EU employs around 40 million people in rural Europe, forming the backbone of these areas and ensuring high-quality food for 500 million consumers [8].
From this perspective, the role and importance of agriculture for the European states, including Romania, is quite high, this representing an activity with major implications for rural communities.
According to the same European document, agriculture is largely a family economic activity for most Member States; four fifths (80 %) of the workforce in agriculture is represented by farm holders and their families. (European Economic and Social Committee, 2012) [8].
1. Rural tourism in the EU-28 and Romania
To discuss the role and importance of rural tourism for European economies we have started this analysis to analyze tourism infrastructure, namely the distribution of bed-places by type of region. In Table 2 is presented the distribution of bed-places by type of region in Romania and Some EU-28 in 2013.
From the perspective of distribution of bed-places by type of tourism infrastructure, it can be seen as a general remark a concentration of accommodation capacity in the case of densely-populated areas where there is little natural tourist phenomenon intensity is high. Rural tourism is a comparative approach which combines two fundamental concepts: multifunctional agriculture and tourism, contributing in this situation to achieve a high well-being in rural communities and social integration of agriculture-related activities. From the analysis of tourism infrastructure there may be differences in terms of both physical approach from the perspective of distribution of tourism infrastructures, as well as the relationships with the other sectors of the economy, which requires a framework of appropriate size representation of this activity. In Figure 2 is shown distribution of bed-places by type of area ( % of total) in 2013.
100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0
y = 0,0609x + 28,71
R2 = 0,001
J J a I J
I.I J ll. 1 I J I J гп4
I Г Г P ■ lllll P ■■■ Ш 1"Г П1 1 1 ■■
rill fllvE I I II I I II I I Г I
WmOQQWWWfc^^JJ
JHO W
РчРчр^ ai
E W ^ m
Rural regions Urban regions
Intermediate regions -Линейная (Intermediate regions)
Figure 1 - distribution of GVA by type of region in 2011
Source: authors based on: European Commission, 2016
88 QTal and Practice
Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Region
Table 2 - Tourism infrastructure Distribution of bed-places by type of region, in 2013
Total Thinly populated areas Intermediate areas Densely-populated areas
Bulgaria 302,433 99,049 117,026 87,110
Czech Rep 740,671 444,095 132,699 86,358
Germany 3,481,558 1,523,512 1,149,311 61,045
Estonia 55,482 27,767 9,955 815,960
Spain 3,437,362 1,435,228 1,254,074 n.a.
France 5,049,726 2,843,876 1,116,910 748,060
Italy 4,728,180 2,143,824 1,792,182 28,078
Latvia 38,400 13,906 8,190 13,130
Lithuania 69,287 33,043 16,835 16,304
Hungary 422,039 197,085 131,567 7,570
Poland 679,445 315,070 201,073 107,394
Portugal 491,099 130,791 207,263 163,302
Romania 291,244 79,172 114,896 153,045
Finland 254,112 142,676 57,289 34,436
Sweden 805,033 457,710 200,118 54,147
Source: authors based on: European Commission, 2016
Figure 2 can be seen in a cast with a high degree of concentration in densely-populated areas where, for most of the analyzed states. If we consider for analysis, Romania, one can notice that the distribution of bed-places is 44.1 % in densely-populated areas, compared to 28.7 % Bulgaria, 17.2 % Poland or 15.9 % France. Regarding intermediate areas, in the case of Romania, 33.9 % is the distribution of bed-places, compared to 38.6 % in Bulgaria, 32.2 % in Poland and 60.4 % in France. From Figure 2 we can easily notice that tourism is valued higher as generating activity in thinly-populated GVA areas. To fill the role and place of rural, section 2 is made a brief analysis of tourist reception with functions of establishments of tourist accommodation types and ownership structures for Romania.
2. Rural tourism - vector in increasing recovery potential in Romania
In order to highlight this section we provided a brief analysis of the evolution of tourist reception with functions of establishments of tourist accommoda-
tion types and ownership structures - Rural Tours in Romania during 2000-2015. Establishments of tourist reception are a decisive element in understanding the evolution of rural tourism in the rural communities, especially in this perspective that we only consider the accommodation capacities in rural areas.
The transition to a market economy in Romania imposed a significant transformation of the economic paradigm that has affected, as it was natural, the cushioning and tourism sector. Table 3 provides the evolution of establishments of tourist reception with functions of tourist accommodation types and ownership structures - rural tourism, 2000-2015.
Table 3 - Establishments of tourist reception with functions of tourist accommodation types and ownership structures - rural tourism
2000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Total 400 956 1292 1412 1210 1598 1918
Full state ownership NA 2 5 5 11 15 16
Majority state ownership NA 1 2 1
Full private ownership 399 950 1252 1373 1165 1544 1863
Cooperative ownership 1 2 3 2 6 7 5
public property NA NA NA NA 3 3 4
Full foreign ownership NA NA 2 2 18 22 22
Public ownership of national and local interest NA 1 28 30 4 6 7
Note: NA - no data available Source: authors based on (NIS, 2016a)
From Table 3 we can observe a significant evolution of the establishments of tourist reception with functions of tourist accommodation types and ownership structures for Romania. If in 2000 there were only 400 units, 15 years later they were in number of 1918, of which most were in full private ownership, 399 (2000)
■ Thinly-populated areas ■ Intermediate areas ■ Densely-populated areas
Figure 2 - Distribution of bed-places by type of area ( % of total) in 2013
Source: authors based on: European Commission, 2016
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
9000000 8000000
1 6000000 J 5000000
4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000
0
Total
Full state ownership Full private ownership
2000200520072009201120132014
Figure 3 - Tourist accommodation capacity in function by type of tourist accommodation structures by
ownership
Source: authors based on (NIS, 2016b)
and 1863 (2015). Public ownership of national and local interest have experienced only syncope. If in 2005 there was only one unit, in 2015 they were in number of 7, after the period 2007 to 2009 it fluctuated from 28 units to 30 units. This situation reflects the transition to a market economy and emphasizing private interest in agro-tourism and rural tourism. In Figure 3 completed installation will be presented to this situation, the evolution of overnight stays in tourist accommodation structures, by types of structures and ownership.
From the perspective of overnight stays in tourist accommodation structures, by types of structures and ownership may notice an increase in this indicator, which entitles to say that rural tourism is a powerful tool in raising the fence to exploit the Romanian potential of agricultural and rural space.
Conclusions
Rural tourism is an essential factor in increasing the potential national economic recovery. From this
perspective it is recommended an extension of the scope of the FEADR to finance investments in the development of rural SMEs that value agricultural potential in terms of regional cooperation between existing companies expanded in rural communities. Suitable tourist activities shows initiative of some companies that brings together rural available resources. Also it is needed a sustainable transfer of knowledge in order to sustain an capitalizing higher potential areas through diversification of activities, including travel support and guarantee in employment in rural areas and support economic practices development in tourism promotion, by stimulating the promotion of interests of social partners in rural areas.
Also, since GAV generated at rural communities, tourist accommodation capacities should be promoted and encouraged to grow, and local authorities must implement and encourage the access to European funds.
REFERENCES:
1. Dorobantu M. R., Nistoreanu P. Rural tourism 7. and ecotourism-the main priorities in sustainable development orientations of rural local communities in Romania. Economy Transdis-ciplinarity Cognition. 2012. № 15(1). 259 p.
2. Fleischer A., Felsenstein D. Support for ru- 8. ral tourism: Does it make a difference?: Annals of tourism research. 2000. № 27(4).
P. 1007-1024.
3. Fleischer A., Tchetchik A. Does rural tourism 9. benefit from agriculture?: Tourism Management. 2005. № 26(4). P. 493-501.
4. Gherasim D. Rural Tourism in Roma- 10. nia / Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition. 2012. № 15(1). 279 p.
5. lorio M., Corsale A. Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania / Journal of Ru- 11. ral Studies. 2006. № 26(2). P. 152-162.
6. Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside capital: The case of rural tourism. Journal of rural studies / Garrod B., Wornell R., Youell R. 2006. № 22 (1). P. 117-128.
Ribeiro M., Marques C. Rural tourism and the development of less favoured areas-be-tween rhetoric and practice / International journal of tourism research. 2002. № 4(3). P. 211-220.
Capacitatea de cazare turistica in functiune pe tipuri de structuri de primire turistica pe forme de proprietate / Institutul National de Statistica. TEMPO online. NIS. Comitetul Economic §i Social European / PAC in perspectiva anului 2020. NAT/520 Bruxelles. 2012.
Innoptari in structuri de primire turistica, pe tipuri de structuri si forme de proprietate / Institutul National de Statistica. TEMPO online. NIS.
Agriculture and Rural Development(2016) / European Commission. CAP context indicators. URL:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ cap-indicators/context/2014/indicator- table_ en.pdf
ff7000000
