Heritages and Transformations of Agrarian Structures and the Rural Tourism Dynamic in the Czech Republic

Since the early 1990s, understanding the evolutions of the countryside has been of central importance to an analysis of transformations in the economic fabric of the Czech Republic. The major political rupture of 1989 and the country’s accession to the European Union in 2004 provoked a wide variety of responses to new market demands (Zrinscka, 1997). The deep social and cultural changes, partially legitimated and accompanied by domestic and European political projects, modified both the uses to which the Czech countryside was put – indeed, it was increasingly affected, to varying degrees depending on the region in question, to residential use, leisure and tourism – and society’s views on rural areas themselves. The new uses of the countryside have, to varying extents, transformed local socio-economic systems by orienting a percentage of rural employment, previously dominated by agriculture, towards tourism. While tourism in the Czech countryside is not a new phenomenon, the socio-economic integration of rural areas by means of tourism is now reflected in a markedly increased capacity to accommodate visitors. This process goes hand in hand with improvements in communication infrastructure and the diversification of the offer of tourist products. It is based, particularly in the commercial sector, on a service economy which, at the same time, it helps to boost.


Introduction
Since the early 1990s, understanding the evolutions of the countryside has been of central importance to an analysis of transformations in the economic fabric of the Czech Republic.The major political rupture of 1989 and the country's accession to the European Union in 2004 provoked a wide variety of responses to new market demands (Zrinscka, 1997).The deep social and cultural changes, partially legitimated and accompanied by domestic and European political projects, modified both the uses to which the Czech countryside was put -indeed, it was increasingly affected, to varying degrees depending on the region in question, to residential use, leisure and tourism -and society's views on rural areas themselves.The new uses of the countryside have, to varying extents, transformed local socio-economic systems by orienting a percentage of rural employment, previously dominated by agriculture, towards tourism.While tourism in the Czech countryside is not a new phenomenon, the socio-economic integration of rural areas by means of tourism is now reflected in a markedly increased capacity to accommodate visitors.This process goes hand in hand with improvements in communication infrastructure and the diversification of the offer of tourist products.It is based, particularly in the commercial sector, on a service economy which, at the same time, it helps to boost.Today, at the national level, the tourism and leisure dynamic is marked by strongly contrasting spatial characteristics.Of course, while the differentials between the potential of the countryside and regional cultural heritages are often vital, they do not, on their own, constitute the answer to questions that must take into account other territorial factors (the proximity of the clientele; accessibility to markets; the specific nature of the social, cultural and economic structures of particular regions; the degree to which various actors are involved, etc.).Factors linked to the transformation of agriculture play an important role in a country in which tourism, seen as an aid to overcoming the farming crisis which followed the transition from Socialism in 1989, is closely linked to agriculture, which continues to serve as a pillar and a motor.Due to the strength of this link, tourism has been and continues to be highly sensitive to changes in the agricultural sector.The objective of this

The function of tourism and spatial contrasts
In the Czech Republic, as in most European countries, leisure has become, along with health, one of the areas in which expenditure has increased most rapidly.In terms of volume, expenditure on leisure rose by a factor of six between 1989 and 2006, 1 significantly more than the 150% increase registered in most Western countries.At the same time, thanks to the fact that the buying power of Czech tourists has increased substantially since the fall of Communism and that many wealthy tourists, essentially from Germany and Austria, are now visiting a country which is cheaper than their own, the leisure industry has, on a yearby-year basis, grown significantly.Thanks to the current popularity of green issues, the Czech countryside is now able to position itself in a rapidly expanding tourist market.Examples of this trend include not only the relatively small increase in the number of traditional tourist facilities such as hotels, but also, and more importantly, to the sharp rise in the number of farms involved in agro-tourism and other forms of rural tourism. 2 That said, not all of the Czech Republic's rural regions are outstandingly attractive, and while these dynamics tend to be spatially extensive, they differ from region to region.

The number of tourists varies from region to region
The intensity of tourism is a very useful indicator in terms of gauging the degree of involvement of the Czech countryside in this sector of economic activity.The notion corresponds to the number of overnight stays per 10,000 inhabitants in a specific geographical area.That said, one must be certain of the kind of overnight stays in question: some statistics include non-hotel accommodation (gîtes, refuges, camping sites, youth hostels); while others do not.However, such official statistics often overlook various kinds of tourism.For example, in the Czech Republic, there are a large number of second homes -known as Chalupas -located in the countryside.In the Socialist period, such homes were generally small, rustic buildings with modest gardens, constructed by their owners, the equivalent to Russian datchas.Tourist intensity merely reflects official, national and international figures, which artificially accentuate differences between various regions.In effect, if tourist intensity appears to be very high in some of the country's western regions and very low in others, this is because official tourism, the only kind for which statistics are kept, is more concentrated than the kind of non-hotel-based family tourism characteristic of certain rural sectors. 3  Tourist activities are articulated around certain extremely popular destinations, leaving vast tracts of countryside unexploited.This phenomenon reveals highly pronounced spatial contrasts emphasizing the marginalization of vast rural tracts in the eastern, industrial part of the country.In the Novy Jicin and Ostrava regions, where the old mining and manufacturing industries, which are now in deep crisis, have left their mark on the countryside, the number of overnight stays per 10,000 inhabitants is a little over 900 per year.
Elsewhere, while there is little tourism beyond traditionally popular areas, urban zones and a few outstanding sites (Bohemian Paradise Lake, for example), tourism increases in intensity the nearer one gets to the country's western borders.The regions around Prague, the veritable engine of the Czech tourist industry, have long attracted visitors.In the regions of Beroun, Praha-zapad, Praha-Vychod and Nymburk, tourist intensity is high, with occupancy rates often surpassing, in the communes with the best links to the Czech capital, 20,000 overnight stays per 1,000 inhabitants per year.The same is true for Moravia's traditional tourist areas which, with approximately 30,000 overnight stays per 1,000 inhabitants per year, have a comparable effect on the local socio-economic fabric.In spite of their modest altitude, the Hercynian Mountains in the Polabí agricultural basin in the Liberec region were, largely thanks to their continental climate, developed as a winter sports destination by the Socialist regime.Indeed, they rivalled, and continue to rival, facilities in the snowier mountains of central Europe (the Polish Carpathians, the High Tatras in Slovakia).Of course, while the transition from socialism to post-socialism had a profoundly destabilizing effect on facilities less able to deal with the growing demands of the clientele, the substantial investments accorded by European and Czech institutions (the Ministry of Tourism and Development), local authorities (Regions, Municipalities) and large German industrial groups have created a range of modern hotels far better able to meet the standards of contemporary tourists, most of whom are from Austria and Germany.

A tourism offer in the process of diversification
With a longer history than winter sports, spas and climatism, which essentially date from the mid-19 th century, continue to attract visitors to the north-west of the country (the Hradec-Kralové region) and to the southern part of the Czech-Moravian Highlands.As early as 1920, the Elbe Valley attracted over 80,000 visitors per year.Indeed, enthusiasm for these activities never waned, even during the Communist era, when Party leaders came to relax with their families at the Kuks and Dvur Kralové baths.Since the change in the political system -and partially thanks to EU pre-accession structural funds such as SAPARD4 and the LEADER+5 European Initiative Programme -major development projects have transformed and modernized spa towns, considerably diversifying their tourist offer. 6At Marienbad and Karlsbad in northern Bohemia, which boasts the country's oldest baths and the ones busiest during the Socialist period, demand from foreign tourists and an injection of Western capital has boosted the sector.In the Giant Mountains on the Polish border, it is baths specializing in the treatment of illnesses such as rheumatism, which, supported by domestic public-sector policy, have experienced the highest degree of development.In southern Moravia, market demands have obliged local actors (politicians, associations and entrepreneurs) to offer, in their establishments, mixed services (leisure and health) in order to develop parallel markets and boost their clientele.Lastly, in the south of the country and in the White Carpathians, where the country's oldest thermal baths have suffered long-term decline, a substantial architectural heritage and the availability of specialized labour has, thanks to public aid, made it possible to partially reorient services towards new health and social sectors (centres for handicapped people, specialized geriatric centres).
Green and nature-based tourism play a role of central importance in the Czech tourist industry (Majerová , 2000) .As in many European countries, changes in consumer habits on the part of the clientele have provided new opportunities to develop forms of tourism more closely associated with the environment.A diverse range of services is offered, albeit with a clear emphasis on gîte-style establishments.Here again, according to a pronounced east-west gradient, the offer in gîtes, chambres d'hôtes-style guest houses, and other types of farm hostels is largely located in the west of the country (Šumava), and in a few scattered areas in Moravia and the Sudetenland.All these areas boast outstanding agricultural landscapes and picturesque natural sites, and offer a range of open air activities (rambling, cycling, equestrian sports, white water rafting, etc.).Teaching farms are also popular; indeed, almost one agro-tourist farm in five7 has, over the course of the last few years, become involved in providing this type of service.Most such farms are located in the provinces surrounding Prague and Brno.

The links between tourism and agriculture dynamics
Since the early 1990s, rural tourism has been closely linked to agriculture, either directly, with farms being used for agro-tourism purposes,8 or indirectly, by means of support and promotion for local products.Indeed, agro-tourism plays a significant role in rural tourism.Generally speaking, in 2005, agro-tourism accounted for over 40% of total occupancy in the Czech tourist industry.In the country's most westerly regions, the occupancy rate was well over 70%.Indeed, in the Klatovy region near the German border, agro-tourism accounted for 80% of the occupancy rate.Due to these close links, rural tourism has been and remains highly dependent on the evolutions of a rapidly evolving agricultural sector.Breaking with the collectivist system which had provided the framework for its development for almost fifty years, the agricultural sector underwent a process of decollectivization which impacted farms, production capacity and the diversification of rural activities in a brutal and sometimes destructive way (Majerová , 2000) .
In the second part of the article, the potential links between agricultural and tourism dynamics will be examined with a view to understanding how they are articulated.A multivariant analysis based on a series of tourism and agricultural indices will be applied to establish a map of the Czech Republic in function of the links (or lack of links) between agriculture and tourism.The ensemble of spatial analyses on the basis of which this typology has been developed combine the following criteria: In Type 1 establishments the correlation between the tourist dynamic (expressed in terms of occupancy rates) and the agricultural dynamic (expressed in terms of production value) is one of the lowest in the country (0.29).Tourism, largely independent of farms, is above all oriented towards leisure in relatively traditional establishments such as hotels and hostels, and in social tourism centres (youth hostels).In the highly fertile Polabí Basin, the agricultural sector, which has been modernized, has never provided any kind of service to the tourist industry.A highly profitable sector in which income has risen fourfold in the last ten years, agriculture in the region has never looked to tourism to boost its earning capacity.

Sumava: Rural tourism replacing an agricultural sector in crisis
In 1998, tourism in Type 2 establishment was the heart of economic activity for over 78% of farmers.Tourist services were introduced not so much to diversify agricultural activity with a view to compensating for lost revenue, but simply as a means of developing tourism per se.In effect, most farms function according to a commercial logic based on generating profit almost exclusively from tourism.Agriculture, a marginal activity deeply affected by the privatization of State farms, has been largely supplanted by tourism which.Indeed, tourism not only benefits from both natural and man-made advantages (mountainous regions, the wealth of local heritage and culture) but also from the proximity of Bavaria.The relatively unfertile nature of the land having forced farmers into systems of extensive cattle rearing, agriculture often serves merely as a status symbol or a shop window for tourist activities.With a correlation coefficient close to 0.80 between the evolution of the value of agricultural activity and the growth in value of tourism (in volume), agricultural productivity is inversely proportional to that of tourism.While 89% of intensive production units (which account for only 9% of farms) are not involved in agro-tourism, 92% of the most extensive holdings are taking an intensive approach to developing additional tourist services.
In peripheral areas emptied of their German minority populations after the Second World War and repopulated by Czech colonists, the State took it upon itself to promote regions which, while not blessed with areas of outstanding natural beauty, played an important role in controlling the border.In 1989, giant State farms were broken up and taken over by private companies which took on responsibility for managing real estate and non-real estate assets in a region in which there were few requests for the restitution of farm land (the former owners, of German origin, having been expelled).Relatively harsh environmental conditions militated against the creation of individual farms.A large number of companies (most of them specializing in rearing cattle for milk) rapidly fell victim to economic realities.From 1995, poor agricultural yields, financial difficulties and the limited possibilities of economic reconversion led to a large number of farms going bankrupt and selling their production tools to individuals more interested in the potential of architectural and real estate heritage (which had not been destroyed by the Socialist regime) and the region's proximity to Bavaria (a source of tourists), than by its agricultural potential.Today, this heritage, rehabilitated and transformed, partially thanks to the EU's LEADER+ programme 9 provides a range of tourist services, including accommodation, visits to teaching farms and catering.

The Czech-Moravian highlands: Rural tourism designed to make up for lost revenue
Although a substantial number of farms are involved in tourism, an activity which can be decisive in terms of their survival, in Type 3 establishments, agricultural production is both their raison d'être and their main source of income.Here, farmers aim to generate additional revenue, either because income levels have dropped, or because the needs of households have increased.Generally speaking, farmers are primarily motivated by the need to generate fresh revenue enabling them to keep their money-losing farms in business.Sceptical in regard to the Common Agricultural Policy, which proved difficult to adapt to the intensive model after 1989 (a small decrease in the number of people working in agriculture, low added value in terms of production), destabilized by fluctuating yields, and in the absence of sufficient capital to invest in the most profitable production units, Type 3 establishments express a desire for autonomy vis-à-vis global economic approaches which escape them.Two sub-categories can be observed.
-Type 3a: While in the most efficient agricultural areas, modernization based on the dominant model of intensive production has been carried out at the price of a substantial decrease in the number of people working in the sector and a selective relocalization of production units, the weakness of natural yield and of substitute 9 Introduced in 1991-1993, the EU's LEADER 1 initiative, which, at the time, has 12 members, was initially renewed within the framework of the LEADER II programme for a further five years (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999) in the form of pilot interventions designed to stimulate innovative approaches at the local level, and renewed again in 2000 with the name LEADER+.The programme was gradually rolled out to new member states as they joined the Union.The LEADER initiative takes an innovative approach to the development of rural areas in Europe.Its originality resides first and foremost in its decision-making processes and the projects which derive from them.Using a bottom-up approach, the LEADER method is based on principles of subsidiarity and partnership.Decisions concerning local development strategy and individual projects are taken by bodies located as close as possible to the sites in question.
activities in industry and services means that the problem of agricultural overemployment has only been partially resolved, and a large number of small farms, most of which function in a quasi-autarkic manner, continue to function.These small farms (of an average size of 8 hectares)10 generate a relatively low level of income (less than €4,000 per year on average).Many of them are obliged to practice a form of relatively unprofessional agro-tourism benefitting from little external support.The objective of such establishments is to generate additional revenue from tourism, applying a development strategy based on the diversification of products and clients with a view to protecting themselves against the ups and downs of the agriculture industry.Sometimes to cater to the needs of the family, sometimes to generate additional revenue through tourism, these structures tend to function on the individual plot model developed under the Socialist system and to encourage very small-scale agro-tourism (Kučerová , 2004) , the dynamic of which remains extremely limited.-Type 3b: The regions adjacent to the country's northern border experienced the same series of events as Šumava: the expulsion of the German population, forced collectivization, and the introduction of State farms which marginalized independent farmers on a long-term basis and led to an increase in the number of part-time enterprises.In these last, a form of agro-tourism which, although relatively incoherent and unprofessionalized and only occasionally capable of taking the reality of local markets fully into account, seems, unlike Type 3 establishments, to provide the basis of an activity which, over time, has acquired a specific structure and the ability to diversify.In the regions benefitting from major amenities and a location nearer to the border than Type 2 establishments, occupancy rates have risen considerably since 2000.While the tourism dynamic is still relatively weak, accommodation services are increasingly viewed as part of an innovative strategy applied by agro-tourism entrepreneurs who no longer see agriculture as an entirely profitable business in its own right.At the same time, with the emergence of new localized extensive farms essentially raising cows and sheep, this form of tourism is part of the "re-activation" of a link between the territory and its products (by means of the development of qualitative strategies and the promotion of terroir products) which was undermined, during the Communist period, by State farms, but rendered possible by the collapse, in the liberal economic system, of the intensive agricultural model after 1995.

A strong correlation between agricultural and tourist dynamcis in southern Moravia
Type 4 establishments are characterized by a significant positive correlation (+0.67) between an agricultural dynamic (production value) which is relatively favourable in economic and social terms (a small decline in the active agricultural population and the maintenance of levels of productivity), and a development of rural tourism (in terms of the number of visitors) largely focused on agro-tourism.In this region, faced by problems of industrial standardization based on the intensive model, a technique frequently applied in the most fertile areas of the central part of the Morava Valley but not used in a large part of the region (foothills, central hilly areas), more original forms of production were implemented after 1989.Inherited from the few very small private farms that had avoided collectivization (and which already constituted, long before the events of 1989, an alternative to the cooperative, intensive agricultural model), these original approaches are often central to local tourism.11 In the context of economic globalization, both in terms of production and consumerism, in Type 4 enterprises, there has been a spectacular comeback of extensive agricultural production techniques.While in spite of the fact that, due to their still relatively high production costs, Type 4 enterprises have little hold on national and international markets, they are now part of the local tourism dynamic of which they constitute the foundation and from which they derive substantial economic benefits.In this context, local specificity is sought by means of a process of co-development involving both agriculture and tourism based on family smallholdings, local resources both human and material, the elaboration of competitive advantages associated with processes of reterritorialization, and the promotion of territorial externalities.This translates into a modification of the notion of the seal of approval, with a broader and more efficient territorialisation of local products.These new links with the territory can assume a variety of aspects ranging from a simple reference to the area in which products are grown, to a closer association with or even an integration into the geographical area in which goods are produced or services delivered.An example of this is the Wine Road in southern Moravia which has, on the one hand, helped to dynamize and professionalize the regional hotel offer, and, on the other, to relaunch wine production by reintroducing direct sales and wine outlets.In all these approaches, the notion of authenticity plays a central role, as it is associated by tourists with local Moravian culture, local people, local products, nature, etc.In this perspective, even if rural areas no longer automatically correspond to the agricultural world, in terms of image, agriculture nevertheless plays an important role in the way in which tourism and heritage are articulated.This context, theoretically favourable to agricultural diversification through tourism, places new demands on farmers, whose place in society has changed substantially.

Conclusion
Rural tourism is not a new phenomenon.The socio-economic integration of rural areas by means of the development of tourism is today reflected in the increase in the number of beds available to tourists, the renovation of hotel infrastructure, and the rise in the number of chambres d'hôtes.Accompanying improvements in infrastructure and a substantial diversification in the offer of tourist products, it now provides a dependable support mechanism for a service economy which it simultaneously helps to boost.
The evolution of consumer habits in terms of choice of rural accommodation, occupancy rates and, above all, the growing interest of agricultural communities in agro-tourismfinancially more remunerative than agriculture, a sector profoundly destabilized by the change in political system in the 1990s -have led to a partial conversion of village economies to tourism and leisure.The rising number of chambres d'hôtes in country villages and the development of new forms of agro-tourism, linked in part to a significant increase in the numbers of foreign tourists, estimated at 30% of the total, and whose development factors are often characterized to a greater degree by a particular agricultural and social situation than by more traditional economic and environmental considerations, are today largely responsible for the growth of a kind of tourism marked by a distinct lack of professionalism.A large majority of actors in the agricultural sphere launch themselves into the tourist sector, managed and organized in an entirely different way from agriculture, with either little or no training.
The typology presented above makes it possible to analyze the links between agriculture and tourism.These links can be represented according to a clear east-west gradient; to regions whose dynamics are "independent" the one from the other (Silesia, the Central Moravian plateaux); and to areas in which the two sectors are closely associated with one other (Šumava, Sudètes).This typology, which highlights the existence of contrasting dynamics and relatively close links between the two sectors, is based on a series of different criteria.Some are environmental, concerned both with agricultural potential which, when it is relatively weak, can encourage the practice of palliative agro-tourism, and with the introduction of a whole series of improved amenities (landscapes, local cultures, etc.).The unequal distribution of these factors -or, in other words, nature, the quality and abundance of amenities that can be promoted by agriculture or tourism or both -logically generates a differentiation in the dynamic of various regions, not all of which have the same advantages.That said, the development of the tourist sector is equally correlated to the potential to highlight such factors by introducing adequate facilities and services.Generally speaking, what attracts tourists to a specific area is often a combination of the natural and the artificial, or, in other words, the activities potentially offered by a combination of different facilities.But all this should be addressed by means of a complex analysis involving a number of extra-recreational factors, both negative and positive (fashion trends in agro-tourism, for example).
Other factors are linked to the positioning of specific areas in relation to the rural-urban continuum and to how easily accessible those areas are.Based on "support" farms whose productive output is generally negligible compared to profits derived from tourism (notably in the west of the country), these benefit from the proximity of Bavarian and Austrian cities which provide a steady flow of tourists.Generally speaking, the further away from such cities, the less tourists there are due to factors such as distance and time, distance and price, and distance in terms of the (relatively poor) quality of transport infrastructure.
Other factors are linked to real estate.For example, even though the renovation of agricultural buildings and their conversion into gîtes is part of a drive to safeguard architectural heritage, its primary purpose is to increase their economic value.Here again, the unequal distribution of architectural heritage, sometimes conserved by the Communists in the least "agro-economically" profitable regions, and sometimes destroyed or transformed as part of the development of giant farms, also introduce an important differentiation in the Czech tourism dynamic, since it would not be true to say that all the country's regions possess an architectural heritage worth saving.
Lastly, other factors are linked to the social structures of rural territories, particularly those in the agricultural sphere.The 1989 transition and accession to the European Union had a profound, long-term effect on agricultural society which, in a new, liberal and competitive economic context was suddenly faced by the problematic of profitability.While in the most fertile areas -those best suited to the intensive model -agricultural production techniques could be modernized in a relatively short space of time thanks to EU funding, elsewhere, in the country's easternmost provinces, the issue of agrarian overpopulation and of the economic viability of farmsteads, which has still not been resolved, is partially occluded by the development of a kind of "default" tourism the future of which is often uncertain.

Map 2 .
Tourist intensity in Czech Republic in 2010 www.intechopen.comHeritages and Transformations of Agrarian Structures and the Rural Tourism Dynamic in the Czech Republic 215

-
The number of employees per agricultural and tourism enterprise (in 2005) and an evolution per 100 inhabitants between 1995 and 2005.-Type of tourist structures (traditional hotels, agro-tourism structures) and farms (size in hectares) and their evolution between 1995 and 2005.-Productivity of farms and areas in which they specialise.-Agricultural and tourism revenue.-Number of independent workers, entrepreneurs and employees, and whether the jobs in question are full-time or part-time.Map 3. Capacity of accomodation (hosting) of the establishments of agrotourism in Czech Republic in 2010 3.1 Central Bohemia: A tourist dynamic independent from agriculture