ArticlePDF Available

21 2018 Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns Zawadzka

Abstract

The main objective of this article is to indicate transport accessibility (according to two criteria: fly & 60 and 6x60x60) and information accessibility (on the Internet) of all Polish (28) and all Nordic (9) towns – members of the International Network of Cities Where Living is Good. The research was conducted using the non-reactive methods: content analysis and desk research. The analysis has shown that the fly&60 criterion is met by eight Cittaslow towns (seven Polish and one Nordic), and the 6x60x60 criterion – by five towns (four Polish and one Nordic), that confirms the thesis on the peripheral nature of Cittaslow cities, what in fact may be perceived as an attracting factor. Their location, away from frequently used routes, may attract (some of them already do so) tourists seeking alternative forms of leisure, following a growing global trend of sustainable tourism. The level of accessibility to online information on the Cittaslow towns is varied, but rather low.
Barometr regionalny
tom 16 nr 2
Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns
Alicja K. Zawadzka
University of Gdańsk, Poland
Abstract
The main objective of this article is to indicate transport accessibility (according to two criteria:
fly&60 and 6×60×60) and information accessibility (on the Internet) of all Polish (28
) and all Nordic
(9
) towns members of the International Network of Cities Where Living is Good. The research was
conducted using non-reactive methods: content analysis and desk research. The analysis has shown that
the fly&60 criterion is met by eight Cittaslow towns (seven Polish and one Nordic), and the 6×60×60
criterion by five towns (four Polish and one Nordic), which confirms the thesis on the peripheral na-
ture of Cittaslow cities, which in fact may be perceived as an attracting factor. Their location, away
from frequently used routes, may attract (some of them already do so) tourists seeking alternative forms
of leisure, following a growing global trend of sustainable tourism. The level of accessibility to online
information on the Cittaslow towns is varied, but rather low.
Key words: small towns, Cittaslow, accessibility of small towns, peripherality
JEL: R40, R41, R50
Introduction
Small towns not only the Cittaslow network members due to limited accessibility resulting
from their peripheral location and often underdeveloped public transport networks, as well as a
lack of proper tourist infrastructure, tend to lose, in terms of tourist attractiveness, to some big-
ger cities located in their close vicinity Rejowiec Fabryczny loses its tourist attractiveness when
confronted with Zamość, Nowy Dwór Gdański with Malbork or Gdańsk and Murowana Goślina
with Poznań (Zawadzka 2017c, 130).
The research problem presented in the article is part of a larger research issue that concentrates
on contemporary issues regarding socio-spatial development of small towns (less than 50 000 in-
habitants), which face a number of different problems typical for small towns yet also have some
values (both material and social) that are impossible to achieve in large cities and metropolises.
The experience gained during interviews conducted with residents during several study visits to
the selected Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns in 2010: Biskupiec, Eidskog (NO), Svendborg
(DK); Falköping (SE); in 2012: Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, in 2016: Nowy Dwór Gdański, Górowo
Iławeckie, Gołdap, Ryn allows us to state that the recognition of the Cittaslow brand is low.
There are also noticeable deficits of knowledge among residents not only on the ideological as-
sumptions of the Cittàslow movement, but also on the fact their town is a member of this network”
(Zawadzka 2017c, 135).
The research area comprises all Polish (28) and all Nordic (9) towns members of the Inter-
national Network of Cities Where Living is Good. The aim of the analyses is to recognize both
transport (aviation, road and rail) and information (whether and where information on: towns being
members of the Cittaslow network, their general characteristics and all related events are published
on the Internet) accessibility.
E-mail addresses of the authors
Alicja K. Zawadzka: alicja.zawadzka@ug.edu.pl
© 2018 by Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Administracji w Zamościu
All Rights Reserved
48 Alicja K. Zawadzka
1 Dynamics of development and the importance of the Cittaslow network
Nowadays, as of November 2017, 241 towns in 30 countries and territorial areas in the world belong
to the Cittaslow network. Poland, after Italy a founder country having 84 towns in the network,
is the second best with 28 member towns. The largest number of Polish Cittaslow towns (20) is
located in Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship, two in Opolskie Voivodship, one in Śląskie, Wiel-
kopolskie Pomorskie, Lubelskie, Łódzkie, and in Zachodnio-Pomorskie voivodships. The structure
of the Polish Cittaslow network is diverse both urban communes are members of the network,
whole urban-rural communes as well as only towns that are part of urban-rural communes (tab. 1).
Nordic Cittaslow towns are located in Scandinavia: in Denmark (Svendborg, Mariagerfjord 1),
in Norway (Eidskog 2, Sokndal 3, Ulvik, Levanger) and in Sweden (Falköping) and also in Finland
(Kristinestad) and in Iceland (Djúpivogur 4). In the rest of the Nordic countries there are no Cit-
taslow towns. Nordic towns have been joining the Cittaslow network since 2003 while the Polish
ones since 2007. Nonetheless, since 2012 at least two Polish towns have become members of the
Cittaslow network each year (tab. 2, see page 50). Population of the towns varies, but almost 90%
of them have less than 25 000 inhabitants (tab. 3, see page 50).
The analysis of more than 60 scientific articles published between 2005 and 2017 (of which
more than 70% are from 2015–2017) has confirmed the continuously increasing importance of the
Cittaslow idea perceived as a research issue. Among the issues being in the scope of interest of
researchers representing different disciplines of science there are:
sustainable tourism (Jung, Ineson, and Miller 2014; Park and Kim 2016; Presenza, Abbate, and
Perano 2015) also called slow tourism (Dickinson and Lumsdon 2010; Lowry 2011),
slow travel (Dickinson and Lumsdon 2010; Sukiennik 2014),
rural tourism (Hjalager, Kwiatkowski, and Larsen 2018; Khoo-Lattimore and Adeyinka-Ojo
2013), and
green tourism (Maćkiewicz and Konecka-Szydłowska 2017).
The Cittaslow is also a subject of general considerations on philosophical ideas behind the move-
ment itself, the certification process, the tourist aspect of the phenomenon (the above-mentioned
slow tourism as well as eco-gastronomic) and social issues like the slow lifestyle (Galibarczyk 2017;
Górski, Maćkiewicz, and Rutkowski 2017; Knox 2005; Konecka-Szydłowska 2017; Kopeć 2012;
Lowry 2011; Nilsson et al. 2011; Parkins and Craig 2006; Pink 2009; Presenza, Abbate, and
Perano 2015; Rembarz and Labuhn 2017; Salm 2017; Strzelecka 2017b, 2017c; Sukiennik 2014;
Zadęcka 2016).
Cittaslow towns in different countries were also investigated in: Australia (Pink and Lewis 2014),
Germany (Sept and Potz 2013), Great Britain (Pink 2008, 2011) 5, South Korea (Sohn, Jang, and
Jung 2015), Poland (Hutnikiewicz 2009; Maćkiewicz and Konecka-Szydłowska 2017; Mazur-Belzyt
2014), in Poland and France together (Kwiatek-Sołtys and Maine 2015), and in Spain (Pink and
Servon 2013). In the scientific literature there are also numerous case studies regarding Cittaslow
towns: Clonakilty in Republic of Ireland (Broadway 2015); Goolwa in Australia (Park and Kim
2016); Midden-Delfland in Netherlands (Dogrusoy and Dalgakiran 2011); two Turkish towns: Se-
ferihisar (Dogrusoy and Dalgakiran 2011) and Vize (Hatipoglu 2015); two British towns: Aylsham
(Pink 2007) and Mold (Jung, Ineson, and Miller 2014); four German towns: Hersbruck (Dogrusoy
and Dalgakiran 2011; Mayer and Knox 2006), Meldorf (Zawadzka 2017a, 2017b, 2017c), Penzlin
(Zawadzka 2017a), and Waldkirch (Mayer and Knox 2006); and finally seven Polish towns: Bisz-
tynek (Gruszecka-Tieśluk 2013; Poczobut 2010), Lidzbark Warmiński (Gruszecka-Tieśluk 2013;
Poczobut 2010; Strzelecka 2017a), Murowana Goślina (Kaczmarek and Konecka-Szydłowska 2013),
1. The capital of the commune of Mariagerfjord is Hobro.
2. The capital of the commune of Eidskog is Skotterud.
3. The capital of the commune of Sokndal is Hauge i dalane.
4. In a further part of the article, Nordic Cittaslow towns are listed in alphabetical order of the member coun-
tries’ names.
5. Although in the title of the second article there is the UK (thus The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland), it actually refers only to Great Britain because there are no Cittaslow towns in Northern Ireland
(however, one Cittaslow town is in the Republic of Ireland).
Tab. 1. Basic information on Polish Cittaslow (in alphabetical order)
Town Voivodship Type
aPart
bAccession act
Barczewo Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XXXVIII/2013 Rady Miejskiej w Barczewie
z dnia 25 lutego 2013 r.
Bartoszyce Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr XXXIX/297/2014 Rady Miasta Bartoszyce
z dnia 27 marca 2014 r.
Biskupiec Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr XXXVIII/285/06 Rady Miejskiej w Biskupcu
z dnia 30 marca 2006 r.
Bisztynek Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XXXI/149/06 Rady Miejskiej w Bisztynku
z dnia 27 kwietnia 2006 r.
Dobre
Miasto Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XXXVII/262/2013 Rady Miejskiej w Dobrym
Mieście z dnia 21 lutego 2013 r.
Działdowo Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr VII/51/15 Rady Miasta Działdowo z dnia 26
marca 2015 r.
Głubczyce Opolskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr XIX/151/16 Rady Miejskiej w Głubczycach
z dnia 27 kwietnia 2016 r.
Gołdap Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr XXX/192/2012 Rady Miejskiej w Gołdapi
z dnia 28 listopada 2012 r.
Górowo
Iławeckie Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr XLVII/235/2013 Rady Miasta Górowo Iławe-
ckie z dnia 11 grudnia 2013 r.
Jeziorany Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XIV/80/2015 Rady Miejskiej W Jezioranach
z dnia 30 grudnia 2015 r.
Kalety Śląskie urban the whole
commune Uchwała nr 279/XXXI/2013 Rady Miejskiej w Kaletach z
dnia 22 sierpnia 2013 r.
Lidzbark Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr VI/39/15 Rady Miejskiej w Lidzbarku z dnia
12 marca 2015 r.
Lidzbark
Warmiński Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr L/306/06 Rady Miejskiej w Lidzbarku War-
mińskim z dnia 14 czerwca 2006 r.
Lubawa Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr XVI/170/2012 Rady Miasta Lubawa z dnia
27 czerwca 2012 r.
Murowana
Goślina Wielkopol-
skie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XL/380/2010 Rady Miejskiej w Murowanej
Goślinie z dnia 26 kwietnia 2010 r.
Nidzica Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XLII/574/2013 Rady Miejskiej w Nidzicy
z dnia 30 grudnia 2013 r.
Nowe Miasto
Lubawskie Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban Uchwała nr LXIII/282/10 Rady Miejskiej w Nowym Mie-
ście Lubawskim z dnia 20 kwietnia 2010 r.
Nowy Dwór
Gdański Pomorskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr 313/XXXVI/2014 Rady Miejskiej w Nowym
Dworze Gdańskim z dnia 30 kwietnia 2014 r.
Olsztynek Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XII-127/2011 Rady Miejskiej w Olsztynku
z dnia 29 grudnia 2011 r.
Orneta Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr BRM.0007.7.2015 Rady Miejskiej w Ornecie
z dnia 25 lutego 2015 r.
Pasym Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XXIX/191/2013 Rady Miejskiej w Pasymiu
z dnia 26 listopada 2013 r.
Prudnik Opolskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr LVI/872/2014 Rady Miejskiej w Prudniku
z dnia 30 kwietnia 2014 r.
Rejowiec
Fabryczny Lubelskie urban Uchwała nr XLI/196/13 Rady Miasta Rejowiec Fabrycz-
ny z dnia 24 czerwca 2013 r.
Reszel Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XXII/133/2004 Rady Miejskiej w Reszlu
z dnia 12 lipca 2004 r.
Ryn Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr XVIII/155/12 Rady Miejskiej w Rynie z dnia
5 marca 2012 r.
Sępopol Warmińsko-
Mazurskie urban-rural only the town Uchwała nr VIII/38/15 Rady Miejskiej w Sępopolu z dnia
29 maja 2015 r.
Sianów Zachodnio-
Pomorskie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr XXXI/182/2016 Rady Miejskiej w Sianowie
z dnia 26 listopada 2016 r.
Rzgów Łódzkie urban-rural the whole
commune Uchwała nr XXXI/237/2017 Rady Miejskiej w Rzgowie
z dnia 1 lutego 2017 r.
a Type of commune; b Part belonging to Cittaslow
50 Alicja K. Zawadzka
Nowy Dwór Gdański (Zawadzka 2017a), Prudnik (Twardowska-Jania 2017), Reszel (Gruszecka-
Tieśluk 2013; Poczobut 2010), and Ryn (Gruszecka-Tieśluk 2013; Poczobut 2010).
Not only the members of the network, but also several potential Polish Cittaslow towns, like
Puck and Kartuzy (Rembarz and Labuhn 2017) and Rawa Mazowiecka (Kalisiak 2017) were also
noted and studied.
2 Transport accessibility
2.1 Town accessibility according to the fly&60 criterion
Most of the Cittaslow’s towns, apart from Reszel and Lidzbark Warmiński (in which there are well-
known castles), Ryn (where Ekomarina is located) Gołdap (which is the only health resort among all
Tab. 2. Chronology of the accession of Polish and Nordic cities to the Cittaslow network
Year Polish Cittaslow towns Nordic Cittaslow towns
2003 Levanger (NO), Sokndal (NO)
2004 –
2005 –
2006 –
2007 Biskupiec, Bisztynek, Lidzbark Warmiński, Reszel Falköping (SE)
2008 Svendborg (DK)
2009 Eidskog (NO)
2010 Murowana Goślina, Nowe Miasto Lubawskie
2011 Djúpivogur (IS), Kristinestad (FI)
2012 Lubawa, Olsztynek, Ryn
2013 Barczewo, Dobre Miasto, Gołdap Mariagerfjord (DK)
2014 Górowo Iławeckie, Kalety, Nidzica, Nowy Dwór Gdański,
Pasym, Rejowiec Fabryczny
2015 Bartoszyce, Działdowo, Lidzbark, Prudnik, Orneta Ulvik (NO)
2016 Głubczyce, Sępopol, Jeziorany
2017 Sianów, Rzgów
Tab. 3. Population of Polish and Nordic towns belonging to the Cittaslow network
Population Poland Norway Denmark Finland Iceland Sweden Total
Below 1 000 1 1
1 001–2 000 1 1
2 001–3 000 3 3
3 001–4 000 2 1 3
4 001–5 000 3 3
5 001–10 000 4 1 1 6
10 001–15 000 8 8
15 001–20 000 3 1 1 5
20 001–25 000 4 4
25 001–30 000 1 1 2
30 001–35 000 0
35 001–40 000 0
40 001–45 000 1 1
45 001–50 000 0
Over 50 000 0
Total 28 4 2 1 1 1 37
Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns 51
Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns), or Svendborg (which was the “Town of the year” in Denmark
in 2000) are not main tourist destinations. The ones that are located close to bigger cities and are
well connected with them have a better chance to develop tourism. The analysis of the accessibil-
ity of the Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns according to the criterion fly&60 has been done by
the author. This criterion is met by a town which can be reached from the nearest city with an
airport serving regular connections, in less than 60 minutes, using both road and rail connections.
Spatial distribution of Polish Cittaslow towns has been analyzed. Some of them have cities
with airports serving regular connections in their vicinity: Nowy Dwór Gdański Gdańsk; the
towns located in the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship Olsztyn, and because this airport does
not offer connections to Warsaw, the analysis also included road and rail connections to Gdańsk.
For Sianów, due to the similar distance, two cities were taken into consideration Szczecin and
Gdańsk. For Murowana Goślina Poznań, or Rzgów Łódź, for Rejowiec Fabryczny Lublin,
for Kalety Katowice, for Głubczyce and Prudnik Katowice and Wrocław. For the Finnish Cit-
taslow towns Turku. For Icelandic Reykjavík, and Höfn. For Danish Aalborg, Aarhus, and
Kopenhaga. For Norwegian Cittaslow towns Oslo, Trondheim, Stavanger, and Bergen. And for
the Swedish Cittaslow town Göteborg.
Only 7 out of 28 Polish towns meet the fly&60 criterion: Barczewo, Dobre Miasto, Murowana
Goślina, Olsztynek, Pasym, Rejowiec Fabryczny, Rzgów. Among the Nordic Cittaslow towns (9),
only the Danish one Mariagerfjord meets the fly&60 criterion (tab. 4, see page 52).
2.2 Town accessibility according to the 6×60×60 criterion
Accessibility criterion 6×60×60 means a town that is located at a road distance less than
60 km from one of the six largest cities in the country (in terms of the number of inhabitants)
while covering this distance takes less than 60 minutes. The largest cities in Poland are Warszawa,
Kraków, Łódź, Wrocław, Poznań, Gdańsk; in Finland: Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere, Vantaa, Oulu,
Turku; in Iceland: Reykjavík, Kópavogur, Hafnarfjörður, Akureyri, Keflavík, Garðabær; in Den-
mark: Kopenhaga, Aarhus, Odense, Aalborg, Frederiksberg, Gentofte; in Norway: Oslo, Bergen,
Stavanger, Trondheim, Fredrikstad, Drammen; in Sweden: Sztokholm, Göteborg, Malmö, Uppsala,
Västerås, Örebro. The analysis of the location of 28 Polish towns has shown that only three of them
meet the criteria 60×60: Rzgów (15 km form Łódź, 15 minutes); Murowana Goślina (25 km form
Poznań, 35 minutes) and Nowy Dwór Gdański (40 km form Gdańsk, 40 minutes). And among nine
Nordic Cittaslow towns, only two: Mariagerfjord (55 km form Aalborg, 45 minutes) and Svendborg
(50 km form Odensy, 40 minutes).
3 Information accessibility
3.1 Partner towns
Partner towns (called also “partner cities”, “twin towns”, “sister cities” or in Iceland “friend
towns”) are a form of partnership between towns (cities) in different countries, aimed at cultural,
economic and information exchange. In order to state whether partner cities of the Cittaslow towns
are also other towns being members of the same network, it was necessary to identify the partner
towns of all the Cittaslow members. Almost all Polish Cittaslow towns cooperate with partner
towns (excepting is Rzgów which has no partner agreements signed, however, it cooperates with
the Ukrainian city of Storożyniec and Italian Sana Bartolomeo Val Cavargna). None of the partner
towns of Polish Cittaslow towns are a member of the Cittaslow network.
The partner cities for the Nordic Cittaslow towns are: for Kristinestad (FI) Sala (SE), Novello
(IT); for Mariagerfjord (DK) Falköping (SE), Lier, Klepp (NO), Kokemäki (FI), Boleslawiec (PL),
Bábolna (HU), Viesite (LV) for Svendborg (DK), Aasiaat (GL), Bodø (NO), Bozhou (CN), Brain-
tree Stralsund (GB), Dolný Kubín (SK), Jönköping (SE), Kuopio (FI), Stężyca (PL); for Falköping
(SE) Kokemäki (FI), Mariagerfjord (DK), Lier (NO), Sigulda (LV), Fontanellato (IT). Icelandic
(Djúpivogur) and Norwegian Cittaslow towns (Eidskog, Levanger, Sokndal and Ulvik) do not
cooperate under such partnership agreements. The above-mentioned comparison of the partner
Tab. 4. Road and railway accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns
Cittaslow town City with
an airport Distance
(km) Time of road
travel (min) Time of railway
travel (min)
Barczewo Olsztyn
Gdańsk 20
170 30
160 15
190
Bartoszyce Olsztyn
Gdańsk 70
175 75
155
Biskupiec Olsztyn
Gdańsk 40
190 45
175
Bisztynek Olsztyn
Gdańsk 60
175 65
165
Dobre Miasto Olsztyn
Gdańsk 25
140 30
125 55
235
Działdowo Olsztyn
Gdańsk 75
190 65
150 80
95
Głubczyce Katowice
Wrocław 105
155 90
115
Gołdap Olsztyn
Gdańsk 160
295 60
270
Górowo Iławeckie Olsztyn
Gdańsk 70
150 75
130
Jeziorany Olsztyn
Gdańsk 35
165 40
155
Kalety Katowice 50 50 70
Lidzbark Olsztyn
Gdańsk 85
190 80
145
Lidzbark Warmiński Olsztyn
Gdańsk 50
150 55
140
Lubawa Olsztyn
Gdańsk 70
165 65
130
Murowana Goślina Poznań 25 35 40
Nidzica Olsztyn
Gdańsk 60
185 50
135 80
175
Nowe Miasto Lubawskie Olsztyn
Gdańsk 80
165 80
135
Cittaslow town City with
an airport Distance
(km) Time of road
travel (min) Time of railway
travel (min)
Nowy Dwór Gdański Gdańsk 40 40
Olsztynek Olsztyn
Gdańsk 30
160 30
120 50
205
Orneta Olsztyn
Gdańsk 50
115 50
105 85
265
Pasym Olsztyn
Gdańsk 30
215 40
165 25
225
Prudnik Katowice
Wrocław 125
115 90
100 175
165
Rejowiec Fabryczny Lublin 60 45 40
Reszel Olsztyn
Gdańsk 70
195 70
180
Ryn Olsztyn
Gdańsk 85
235 75
205
Sępopol Olsztyn
Gdańsk 90
190 90
170
Sianów Szczecin
Gdańsk 175
185 165
165
Rzgów Łódź 15 15 40
Kristinestad (FI) Turku 240 185 245
Djúpivogur (IS) Reykjavík 550 415
Mariagerfjord (DK) Aalborg
Aarhus 55
65 45
50 40
60
Svendborg (DK) Kopenhaga 170 125 125
Eidskog (NO) Oslo 120 100 115
Levanger (NO) Trondheim 75 75
Sokndal (NO) Stavanger 100 100 140
Ulvik (NO) Bergen 150 140
Falköping (SE) Goteborg 125 100 70
Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns 53
towns indicates that there are no interconnections with only one exception: Falköping (
SE
) and
Mariagerfjord (DK), both members of the Cittaslow network, are partner cities. In addition, one of
the partner towns of the Swedish Falköping is the Italian Cittaslow Fontanellato.
3.2 Cittaslow towns on the Internet
Although the Cittaslow network increases the number of members each year, it gains experience
in international cooperation and measurable profits to improve the aesthetics and quality of life in
cities in the future (e.g., in March 2015, the association “Polish Cities Cittaslow” was established
and the Marshal of Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship assigned EUR 51,1 million for revitalization
of 14 towns being members of this association in 2014–2020), despite increased interest in the so-
called slow life and its growing social significance, brand recognition is still low, also among the
inhabitants of member towns (Zawadzka 2017c, 128).
Although there is a logo of the association on posters informing about cultural and entertain-
ment events “an orange colored snail turned to the left and bearing houses and steeples of a city,”
and in the space of member cities can be found snail sculptures inspired by this logo, this lacks
a direct message for the inhabitants, not only about the assumptions of the Cittaslow movement
and the objectives set which the city undertook to implement when accessing the network, but also
some basic information about the towns’ membership in the network. Possibilities of an in-depth
analysis of endogenous capital held at the initial stage of the certification process are not used.
The exception is the approach taken by the mayor of Meldorf which involved inhabitants in this
process, which created added value: “making residents aware of their endogenous capital, both in
the material dimension and in strong social ties” (Zawadzka 2017a, 89–90).
In order to research the presence of the town in the Internet space through the prism of mem-
bership in the Cittaslow network, content analysis was performed:
on the international association’s website,
on websites of communes of Polish and Nordic members,
in Wikipedia in English and native languages for individual towns, and
in the social media and other media.
The main internet platform aimed at promoting the Cittaslow network and informing about current
events in member cities is the website of the association (www.cittaslow.org alias www.cittaslow.net),
on which, as of March 2, 2018, all Polish (except for the youngest Polish Cittaslow Rzgów) and
all the Nordic Cittaslow were listed. For the majority of towns (21 Polish and 4 Nordic), there are
descriptions of the region, history, monuments and other tourist attractions of the towns (tab. 5).
One of the requirements the member town undertakes to subscribe to the “Cittaslow Interna-
tional Charter” is to put the association’s logo on its official letter paper and website.
6
The analysis
of the content posted on the official websites of the municipalities (as of March 2, 2018) shows that
on most of them (21 Polish and 7 Nordic) there is the association’s logo (tab. 5), and its location
varies: in a noticeable place at the top of the website Barczewo, Biskupiec, Jeziorany, Kalety,
Lidzbark Warmiński, Nidzica, Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, Olsztynek, Orneta, Prudnik, Ryn oraz
Sokndal (NO), and from the side or bottom of the website Bartoszyce, Bisztynek, Dobre Miasto,
Lidzbark, Lubawa, Nowy Dwór Gdański, Pasym, Rejowiec Fabryczny, Reszel, Sępopol, Kristines-
tad (
FI
), Djúpivogur (
IS
), Svendborg (
DK
), Eidskog (
NO
), Levanger (
NO
), Ulvik (
NO
). In most cases
of Polish pages, clicking on the logo causes a redirect to the cittaslowpolska.pl website. The excep-
tions are the Lidzbark’s and Olsztynek’s websites (on the Lidzbark’s website a calendar of events
related to membership in the Cittaslow network opens, and the logo on the Olsztynek website is
inactive). On the communes’ websites of Nordic Cittaslow towns, clicking on the Cittaslow logo
opens a page with information about both the Cittaslow association and the town in the context
of its presence in it. The exception is the website of the commune of Eidskog (NO), where a link
redirecting to cittaslow.com is invalid. There is no logo of association on the following websites
of the communes: Działdowo, Głubczyce, Gołdap, Górowo Iławeckie, Murowana Goślina, Sianów,
Rzgów, Mariagerfjord (DK) and Falköping (SE).
6. See: Cittaslow International Charter, 12 May 2014, [@:] http://www.cittaslow.org/sites/default/files/content/
page/files/257/charter_cittaslow_en_05_18.pdf.
54 Alicja K. Zawadzka
When searching cities and towns on English version of Wikipedia website (as of March 2, 2018)
only for five of them is there information on membership in the Cittaslow network (tab. 5): Reszel,
Kristinestad (FI), Djúpivogur (IS), Levanger (NO), and Sokndal (NO). When searching on the
websites in native languages 7 only for eleven towns is there such information (tab. 5): Biskupiec,
Bisztynek, Głubczyce, Pasym, Prudnik, Reszel, Ryn, Djúpivogur (IS), Svendborg (DK), Levanger
(NO), and Sokndal (NO).
7. pl.wikipedia.org, fi.wikipedia.org, is.wikipedia.org, da.wikipedia.org, no.wikipedia.org, sv.wikipedia.org.
Tab. 5. Accessibility of information on the Internet about Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns
Cittaslow town
Description
of the city at
cittaslow.org
(cittaslow.net)
Presence of
the Cittaslow
logo on the
commune
website
Presence of information
about the town’s member-
ship in Cittaslow
on the Wikipedia
website in English
Presence of information
about the town’s member-
ship in Cittaslow
on the Wikipedia
website in native language
Barczewo yes yes no yes
Bartoszyce yes yes no no
Biskupiec yes yes no yes
Bisztynek yes yes no yes
Dobre Miasto yes yes no no
Działdowo yes no no no
Głubczyce yes no no yes
Gołdap yes no no no
Górowo Iławeckie no no no no
Jeziorany no yes no no
Kalety yes yes no no
Lidzbark no yes no no
Lidzbark Warmiński yes yes no no
Lubawa yes yes no no
Murowana Goślina no no no no
Nidzica yes yes no no
Nowe Miasto Lubawskie yes yes no no
Nowy Dwór Gdański yes yes no no
Olsztynek yes yes no no
Orneta no yes no no
Pasym yes yes no yes
Prudnik yes yes no yes
Rejowiec Fabryczny yes yes no no
Reszel yes yes yes yes
Ryn yes yes no yes
Sępopol no yes no no
Sianów yes no no no
Rzgów
ano no no no
Kristinestad (FI) yes yes yes no
Djúpivogur (IS) yes yes yes yes
Mariagerfjord (DK) yes no no no
Svendborg (DK) no yes no yes
Eidskog (NO) no yes no no
Levanger (NO) no yes yes yes
Sokndal (NO) yes yes yes yes
Ulvik (NO) no yes no no
Falköping (SE)
bno no no no
a Rzgów does not appear on www.cittaslow.org alias www.cittaslow.net.
b There is only a 3 min 50 s long video promoting Falköping.
Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns 55
The international association Cittaslow International does not receive widespread social
media coverage: its Twitter profile (as of 2 March 2018) is observed by over 5 000 people; Ins-
tagram profile by over 1 000 people, 8 the YouTube channel has less than 300 subscribers. The
profiles on Facebook: Cittaslow International has been followed by over 15 000 people, Cittaslow
Polska by over 3 000 people. Only two towns created individual profiles. However, the profile
Cittaslow Ulvik is followed by just one person, and the profile Ogilla Cittaslow Falköping, which
is observed by 36 people, actually means “cancel Cittaslow Falköping.
The Polish website (cittaslowpolska.pl), apart from some information on current events regard-
ing the association, reports on past events, and a press repository on Cittaslow, contains also
contact details and photos taken in all member cities, except for the youngest Polish Cittaslow
town Rzgów. There are no descriptions of the member towns (e.g., information about the region
or places and buildings worth visiting). Despite the fact that each town has a reference to the of-
ficial websites of the commune, on most of them, as already mentioned, when you click on the logo
of the association, you return to cittaslowpolska.pl.
There is no separate website aimed at promoting the Nordic cities, but on the official website
of the commune of Kristinestad (FI), there is a folder for all the Nordic Cittaslow towns. In addi-
tion, some member towns have created their own websites: Reszel (cittaslow.reszel.pl), Svendborg
(cittaslow.svendborg.dk), Mariagerfjord (cittaslow-mariager.dk).
Summary
“Provincial towns are often overlooked in tourist guides and, because of their size, are not marked
on the regional maps. Only a few of them are capable of promoting themselves using their spa
status or taking advantage of the fact that a famous scientist or artist was born there” (Za-
wadzka 2017b, 99). Spatial distribution of the cities i.e., their dense network, visible especially
in Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship, fosters the combination of several tourist destinations into
one tourist trip. Moreover, tourist offers of the majority of the Polish Cittaslow towns are not at-
tractive enough to spend more than one or two days there. Certainly, their diversity, number and
high spatial concentration are advantages of the Polish Cittaslow towns as good impressions after
visiting one of them may trigger further visits in other towns of the network.
The peripheral location of the majority of the Polish and Nordic Cittaslow towns, along with
the lack of railway connections, defines the tourist characteristics of these small towns. This may
be an advantage, for example for a tourist tired from the stimulus of big cities (their rich offer of
culture and entertainment but also global hotel networks, restaurants or shops and large number
of other tourists) and wanting to take advantage of a different, calmer form of leisure, quiet and
calmness the rarest goods of the modern western world. “The socio-spatial conditions of small
towns make them increasingly popular destinations for tourists travelling in the rapidly growing
global trend called “sustainable tourism,” “green tourism” or ‘slow tourism’ as an alternative to
the “all-inclusive,touring trips or accommodation in a 5-star hotel. This form of relaxation may
seem to be archaic and old fashioned; however, it is a response to today’s fast-paced and consumer-
centered nature of globalization” (Zawadzka 2017b, 100).
Access to online information on the Polish and Nordic towns in the context of their membership
in the Cittaslow network varies, but it is rather low, and on official websites of the communes, it is
often limited to mentioning that a given city belongs to the network. “A proper promotion empha-
sizing benefits of sustainable tourism can increase tourist attractiveness of small towns. However, in
spite of the fact that more revenues from the increased tourist traffic comes into the town’s budget,
institutions and individual households, the local leaders have stressed that they are not interested
in development of mass tourism, but they would rather expect to host well-informed and interested
tourists traveling individually or in small groups” (Zawadzka 2017b, 100).
Due to the fact that the towns’ information accessibility needs to be refined, this kind of pro-
motion should be encouraged. It will encourage local authorities to actions aimed at increasing the
8. Apart of that, there are over 40 000 on Instagram posts marked #cittaslow.
56 Alicja K. Zawadzka
number of tourists visiting their towns on the one hand, and on the other it will counteract mass
tourism that may lead to the loss of the genius loci of these small towns in a long term perspective.
References
Broadway, M. 2015. “Implementing the Slow Life in Southwest Ireland: a Case Study of Clo-
nakilty and Local Food.Geographical Review 105 (2): 216–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846
.2014.12067.x.
Dickinson, J., and L. Lumsdon. 2010. Slow Travel and Tourism. Tourism, environment and
development series. London – Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Dogrusoy, I.T., and A. Dalgakiran. 2011. “An Alternative Approach in Sustainable Plan-
ning: Slow Urbanism.” ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 5
(1): 127–142.
Galibarczyk, M. 2017. “Sieć Cittaslow jako wizerunkowy produkt turystyczny województwa
warmińsko-mazurskiego.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edi-
ted by E. Strzelecka, 110–121. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Górski, Ł., B. Maćkiewicz, and A. Rutkowski. 2017. “Przynależność do Polskiej Krajowej
Sieci Cittaslow a rynek nieruchomości.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast
Cittaslow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 123–134. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Gruszecka-Tieśluk, A. 2013. Lokalny wymiar ruchu Slow w Polsce na przykładzie Slow
Food oraz Cittaslow. Doctoral thesis, Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii, Uniwersytet Warszawski,
Warszawa.
Hatipoglu, B. 2015. “‘Cittaslow’: Quality of Life and Visitor Experiences.Tourism Planning
& Development 12 (1): 20–36. doi: 10.1080/21568316.2014.960601.
Hjalager, A.M., G. Kwiatkowski, and M.O. Larsen. 2018. “Innovation Gaps in Scandi-
navian Rural Tourism.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 18 (1): 1–17. doi:
10.1080/15022250.2017.1287002.
Hutnikiewicz, I.M. 2009. “Polska Krajowa Sieć Miast ‘Cittaslow.’” In Specyfika odnowy ma-
łych i średnich miast w Polsce, edited by J. Poczobut. Kraków: Stowarzyszenie Forum Re-
witalizacji.
Jung, T.H., E.M. Ineson, and A. Miller. 2014. “The Slow Food Movement and sustaina-
ble tourism development: a case study of Mold, Wales.International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research 8 (4): 432–445. doi: 10.1108/IJCTHR-01-2014-0001.
Kaczmarek, U., and B. Konecka-Szydłowska. 2013. “Prospectives for Development of Small
Towns in Wiel-kopolska Voivodeship.” In Kleinestädte in Mittel- und Osteuropa: Perspekti-
ven und Strategien lokaler Entwicklung, edited by J. Burdack and A. Kriszan, 6688. Leipz-
ig: Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde.
Kalisiak, A. 2017. “Analiza możliwości włączenia Rawy Mazowieckiej do sieci Cittaslow w kon-
tekście doświadczeń Lidzbarka Warmińskiego.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć
miast Cittaslow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 282–302. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Khoo-Lattimore, C., and S.F. Adeyinka-Ojo. 2013. “Slow Food Events as a High Yield
Strategy for Rural Tourism Destinations: the Case of Bario, Sarawak.Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes 5 (4): 353–364. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-03-2013-0012.
Knox, P.L. 2005. “Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World.Journal of Urban
Design 10 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1080/13574800500062221.
Konecka-Szydłowska, B. 2017. “Zróżnicowanie polskiej sieci miast Cittaslow w aspekcie spo-
łeczno-gospodarczym.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edited
by E. Strzelecka, 61–73. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Kopeć, A. 2012. “Cittaslow Alternative Idea of Urban Development of Small Cities.” In Ur-
ban energy, edited by I.M. Burda, A. Kopeć and G. Rembarz, 52–56. Gdańsk: Politechnika
Gdańska.
Kwiatek-Sołtys, A., and H. Maine. 2015. “Cittaslow, a Qualitative Approach to Small Tow-
ns’ Local Development.In Miasto w badaniach geografów. Tom 2, edited by M. Soja and
A. Zborowski, 123–136. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki
Przestrzennej.
Lowry, L.L. 2011. CittaSlow, Slow Cities, Slow Food: Searching for a Model for the Development
of Slow Tourism. Paper read at Seeing the Forest and the Trees Big Picture Research in a
Detail-Driven World, 2011.06.19–21, at London, Ontario, Canada.
Accessibility of Polish and Nordic Cittaslow Towns 57
Maćkiewicz, B., and B. Konecka-Szydłowska. 2017. “Green Tourism: Attractions and Ini-
tiatives of Polish Cittaslow Cities.” In Tourism in the City. Towards an Integrative Agenda
on Urban Tourism, edited by N. Bellini and C. Pasquinelli, 297–309. Springer International
Publishing Switzerland.
Mayer, H., and P.L. Knox. 2006. “Slow Cities: Sustainable Places in a Fast World.Journal
of Urban Affairs 28 (4): 321–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2006.00298.x.
Mazur-Belzyt, K. 2014. “Współczesne podstawy rozwoju małych miast na przykładzie sieci
miast Cittaslow.” Problemy Rozwoju Miast (3): 39–45.
Nilsson, J.H., A.C. Svard, A. Widarsson, and T. Wirell. 2011. “‘Cittaslow’ Eco-Gastro-
nomic Heritage as a Tool for Destination Development.Current Issues in Tourism 14 (4):
373–386. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2010.511709.
Park, E., and S. Kim. 2016. “The Potential of Cittaslow for Sustainable Tourism Development:
Enhancing Local Community’s Empowerment. Tourism Planning & Development 13 (3):
351–369. doi: 10.1080/21568316.2015.1114015.
Parkins, W., and G. Craig. 2006. Slow Living. Oxford – New York: Berg.
Pink, S. 2007. “Sensing Cittaslow: Slow Living and the Constitution of the Sensory City.The
Senses and Society 2 (1): 59–77.
———. 2008. “Sense and Sustainability: the Case of the Slow City Movement.Local Environ-
ment 13 (2): 95–106. doi: 10.1080/13549830701581895.
———. 2009. “Urban Social Movements and Small Places.” City 13 (4): 451–465.
———. 2011. “Amateur Documents? Amateur Photographic Practice, Collective Representation
and the Constitution of Place in UK Slow Cities.” Visual Studies 26 (2): 92–101.
Pink, S., and T. Lewis. 2014. “Making Resilience: Everyday Affect and Global Affiliation in
Australian Slow Cities.” Cultural Geographies 21 (4): 695–710. doi: 10.1177/1474474014520761.
Pink, S., and L.J. Servon. 2013. “Sensory Global Towns: an Experiential Approach to the
Growth of the Slow City Movement.Environment and Planning A 45 (2): 451–466. doi:
10.1068/a45133.
Poczobut, J. 2010. “Działania rewitalizacyjne w miasteczkach polskiej krajowej sieci miast ‘Cit-
taslow.’” Zarządzanie Publiczne (1/2): 105–119.
Presenza, A., T. Abbate, and M. Perano. 2015. “The Cittaslow Certification and Its Effects
on Sustainable Tourism Governance.Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal 5 (1):
4064.
Rembarz, G., and B. Labuhn. 2017. “Potencjał rozwoju strategii slow city dla rozwoju miast
kształtujących się metropolii polskich. Na przykładzie Pucka i Kartuz miast Gdańskiego Ob-
szaru Metropolitalnego.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edi-
ted by E. Strzelecka, 135–159. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Salm, J. 2017. “Idea Cittaslow a tożsamość miast województwa warmińsko-mazurskiego. Między
Umbrią a Warmią i Mazurami.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cit-
taslow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 74–81. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Sept, A., and P. Potz. 2013. “Cittaslow-Germany: dove i piccoli centri urbani si rappresentano.
U3 i Quaderni (3): 57–64.
Sohn, D., H.-J. Jang, and T. Jung. 2015. Go Slow and Curvy. Understanding the Philosophy
of the Cittaslow Phenomenon. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Strzelecka, E. ed. 2017a. Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow. 2nd
ed extended. Monografie / Politechnika Łódzka. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
———. 2017b. “Małe miasta a nowoczesne modele rozwoju miast.” In Alternatywne modele
rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 1340. Łódź: Wydawnictwo
Politechniki Łódzkiej.
———. 2017c. “Tworzenie Karty Rozwoju Małego Miasta.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju
miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 191–206. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politech-
niki Łódzkiej.
Sukiennik, M. 2014. “Turystyka w czasach przesytu. Slow Travel jako alternatywa.Turystyka
Kulturowa (3): 21–38.
Twardowska-Jania, A. 2017. “Oddolna inicjatywa wprowadzenia Prudnika do sieci miast Cit-
taslow.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Cittaslow, edited by E. Strzele-
cka, 177–181. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Zadęcka, E. 2016. “Downshifting. Koncepcja nowego stylu życia w małym mieście.” Handel
Wewnętrzny. Marketing, Rynek, Przedsiębiorstwo 62 (4): 350–360.
58 Alicja K. Zawadzka
Zawadzka, A.K. 2017a. “Identyfikacja inicjatyw służących budowaniu tożsamości lokalnej w wy-
branych miastach sieci Cittaslow.” In Alternatywne modele rozwoju miast. Sieć miast Citta-
slow, edited by E. Strzelecka, 82–96. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.
———. 2017b. “Making Small Towns Visible in Europe. The Case of Cittaslow Network the
Strategy Based on Sustainable Development.” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sci-
ences: 90–106. doi: 10.24193/tras.SI2017.6.
———. 2017c. “Potencjalne implikacje społeczno-ekonomiczne akcesji do sieci Cittàslow w erze
przyspieszenia.” In Gospodarka przestrzenna kluczowe problemy i koncepcje badawcze,
wyzwania praktyki, profil i innowacyjność edukacji, edited by P. Churski, 125–141. KPZK
PAN.
... Roads and their surroundings, including roadside tree alleys, are natural, cultural and technical components of a landscape that enhance the attractiveness of tourist destinations. Roadside greenery can be regarded as a tourist product for visitors who travel by car, motorcycle or bicycle, in particular in slow regions that promote the slow tourism concept [32][33][34][35]. The Council of Europe regularly analyzes and publishes reports on workshops concerning the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. ...
Article
Full-text available
The main challenge in the efforts to protect roadside tree alleys is to achieve a balance between the local development and the conservation of biodiversity. The problem of aging and disappearing roadside tree alleys was analyzed based on a critical review of the literature, various types of reports related to this topic and the provisions of international and Polish acts of law on biodiversity conservation and landscape protection. The following research hypotheses were formulated: 1. The preservation and restoration of roadside tree alleys promotes biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, and it constitutes an important social and scientific problem, and 2. detailed guidelines are needed to formulate effective programs for the protection of roadside tree alleys. The results of the study were used to formulate the universal guidelines for designing programs for the protection of roadside tree alleys. The potential barriers and obstacles that can occur in each stage of the proposed algorithm were identified and discussed on the example of Poland. In the summary, the answer to the question used as the title of the article should be affirmative. However, many actions must be taken. Most of them are included in the proposed guidelines and some of them are given as recommendations.
Article
Full-text available
The paper presents the results of a study on the attractiveness to tourists and natives of the cultural qualities of coastal towns on The Pomeranian Way of St. James that are members of the Cittaslow network. Attention to the quality of urban life is inscribed in the development policies of towns applying to join the Cittaslow movement. In order to join the network (apart from the size criterion), towns need to meet a minimum of 50% plus one of the 72 criteria grouped into seven categories. One of the category is Quality of Urban Life Policy, so the towns applying to join Cittaslow commit themselves to actions aimed at improving the quality of urban life. The study on the attractiveness of cultural qualities of towns to tourists and natives was conducted using the author’s BRB method, whose added value is its universality and the possibility to study small towns regardless of their membership in the Cittaslow network. BRB is an acronym that stands for BUILDINGS, RELATIONSHIPS, BALANCE, and comprises three scopes of activities: BUILDINGS (iconic building and important sites where the inhabitants and the tourists are present); RELATIONSHIPS (the visual effects of the relations between the inhabitants and the town) and BALANCE (solutions that implement modern technologies). This method enables identification of places that are important to the inhabitants, where urban life takes place and which are often created with the involvement of the inhabitants. These are often the same spaces as those that attract tourists and perhaps stimulate them the desire to visit the town again (BRB—be right back). The aim of the BRB method is shown the attractiveness of small towns. The study has shown that the characteristic feature of Polish Cittaslow towns is their diversity: the architectural attractiveness of three towns is high both to tourists and natives. On the other hand, the urban attractiveness of the examined towns is an insufficient.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of the article is to analyse changes in landscape structure after 1989 in selected communes of the Chełm county in the Lublin Voivodeship, namely the urban commune of Rejowiec Fabryczny, and two urban-rural communes Rejowiec and Siedliszcze. The landscape structure was analysed based on data on land cover from the CORINE Land Cover data base. GIS tools were used for the analysis of landscape structure transformations with the application of landscape metrics. Moreover, an attempt was made to examine the affiliation to the Cittaslow network in the context of landscape transformations. The study showed that changes in land cover are not only related to the sprawl of building development, but also to an increase in the area of agricultural land outside the range of irrigation facilities, and an increase in the mean surface area of such land. A decline in land cover transformations has also been observed since 2012, as confirmed by the landscape structure diversity index. It may be related to the membership in the European Union (among others Common Agricultural Policy). The study showed no effect of affiliation with the Cittaslow network on landscape transformations. A continuation of the proposed analyses is required in a broader time perspective and in a specific spatial range.
Chapter
Full-text available
Abstract: Zróżnicowanie polskiej sieci miast Cittaslow w aspekcie społeczno-gospodarczym Streszczenie: Celem opracowania jest omówienie zróżnicowania poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego miast należących do krajowej sieci Cittaslow. W tym celu na podstawie wskaźnika syntetycznego dokonano dwudzielnej klasyfikacji miast w zakresie wymiaru ludnościowo-gospodarczego i turystyczno-rekreacyjnego oraz określono stopień dopasowania w obu wymiarach. Prowadzi to do wydzielenia czterech klas miast: 1/ klasy miast dobrze dopasowanych w zakresie wysokiego poziomu obu wymiarów 2/ klasy miast dobrze dopasowanych w zakresie niskiego poziomu obu wymiarów, 3/ klasy miast o przeciętnym poziomie dopasowania w obu wymiarach i 4/ klasy miast o dużych rozbieżnościach w obu wymiarach. Najwyższą pozycję w klasyfikacji zajmuje Murowana Goślina położona w aglomeracji poznańskiej, która charakteryzuje się wysokim poziomem rozwoju w obu wymiarach, a miastem o największych rozbieżnościach jest Ryn położony w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim. Słowa kluczowe: poziom rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego, wskaźnik syntetyczny, polska sieć miast Cittaslow
Chapter
Full-text available
Lokal basierte Kleinstadtentwicklung im östlichen Europa: Potenziale, Probleme und Praktiken – eine Einführung / Joachim Burdack Entwicklungsperspektiven sächsischer Kleinstädte: Dippoldiswalde, Grimma, Großenhain, Ostritz und Waldenburg / Joachim Burdack; Henryk Meschwitz Entwicklungsstrategien und soziales Kapital in den schrumpfenden Kleinstädten Südestlands / Kadri Leetmaa; Mari Nuga; Anette Org Entwicklungsperspektiven lettischer Kleinstädte: Aizkraukle, Alūksne, Dobele, Salacgrīva, Saldus / Silveta Zvejniece Perspectives for development of small towns in Wielkopolska voivodeship / Urszula Kaczmarek / Barbara Konecka-Szydłowska Entwicklungstypen von Kleinstädten in Sachsen / Joachim Burdack Urbane Regime in Kleinstädten Mittel- und Osteuropas / Agnes Kriszan Schlussbetrachtungen zu Perspektiven und Strategien lokaler Entwicklung in Kleinstädten / Joachim Burdack; Agnes Kriszan
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the article is to identify strategies for the development and promotion of small towns based on the implementation of the principles of sustainable development, using both endogenous social capital, unique material values of cultural heritage as well as values of the natural environment. The strategy described in this article is a derivative of the benefi ts of membership in the Cittaslow global network, the peripheral location of small towns to metropolises as well as other alternative values of small towns not accessible to large cities. It has been shown that Cittaslow can be both an indicator of sustainable development, an activator of sustainable tourism as well as an instrument for raising awareness of the endogenous capital of small towns. The background to the considerations on potential implications of accession to Cittaslow is the analysis of contemporary international networks of cities whose priority or one of the key objectives is to act in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
Chapter
Full-text available
“Cittaslow - The International Network of Cities of the Good Life” is an alternative idea of urban development of small cities. It is a new system for the management of city through Environmental Policy, Infrastructure Policy, Technologies and Equipment for the Quality of City, Local Products, Hospitality and Knowledge. The mental results of Cittaslow are the maintenance of local traditions (food, craft, customs etc.) and creation of relationship between inhabitants and the place where they live. The visible results are noticeable in public spaces as: less accidental advertising and unwanted graffiti, less destroyed or bad building conditions, more high quality public green areas and coherent color scheme of buildings and other structural elements of the city. All these results make Cittaslow, or our Cities a better place to live.
Chapter
Full-text available
W artykule wskazano możliwości wykorzystania filozofii ruchu Slow, do wykształcenia nowego modelu Metropolitalnych Slow City (MSC). Odniesiono się do założeń ruchu Cittaslow, pokazując potencjały dla alternatywnego kierunku strategii rozwojowej w duchu „miast dobrego życia” dla ośrodków w granicach obszarów metropolitalnych. W podsumowaniu założenia teoretyczne zilustrowano przykładem innowacyjnego modelu projektu rewitalizacji historycznej tanki miejskiej. Kształtowanie się obszaru metropolitalnego wokół Zatoki Gdańskiej stawia nowe wyzwania dla miast dotąd nie identyfikujących się bezpośrednio z aglomeracją Trójmiejską. Puck i Kartuzy to kaszubskie, powiatowe centra administracyjne, położone na styku dalekich exurbiów głównego, policentrycznego zurbanizowanego trzonu metropolii i atrakcyjnych terenów turystycznych pasa nadmorskiego i pojezierza. Jako historycznie ukształtowane ośrodki lokalne, stolice kultury regionalnej, są znaczącymi węzłami głównych szlaków turystycznych. Jednocześnie delikatne i unikalne walory zarówno kultury kaszubskiej jak i lokalnego krajobrazu naturalnego i miejskiego są dziś silnie zagrożone. Zarówno szybko i chaotycznie urbanizujący się Obszar Metropolitalny Gdańsk-Sopot-Gdynia (OM G-S-G), jak i rozbudowująca się infrastruktura turystyczna w strefie nadmorskiej noszą w rejonach Pucka i Kartuz znamiona niekorzystnych działań spekulacyjnych. Parcie inwestycyjne przenoszące na grunt lokalny globalne modele biznesowe, a wraz z nimi uniwersalne wzorce architektoniczne. Niekorzystne skutki gospodarcze odbijające się na jakości życia mieszkańców (gentryfikacja), wymagają natychmiastowego określenia nowej strategii rozwoju miast - utrzymania ich wiodącej roli wizerunków lokalnej tożsamości. Koncepcja MSC wydaje się posiadać szereg potencjałów mogących stanowić atrakcyjną alternatywę dla obecnego stanu braku koherentnej wizji przyszłości tych ośrodków miejskich. http://repozytorium.p.lodz.pl/handle/11652/1475
Article
Full-text available
Drawing on primary data from a consumer survey (N = 2000), this study demonstrates a clear growth potential in rural tourism in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, which is, however, hampered by innovation gaps. At the conceptual level, the study offers a model that identifies the following five innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism: (1) the portfolio gap, (2) the policy departmentalization gap, (3) the knowledge gap, (4) the change motivation gap, and (5) the resource interpretation gap. At the empirical level, the study shows that rural tourism has its basis in a dichotomy between authenticity and modernization. New and prospective customer groups, particularly from Germany, demand more diversified and higher quality rural tourism products than current groups, for example, in relation to outdoor opportunities, leisure festivals, and cultural activities. With rural assets, it is possible to expand the portfolio without compromising the rural image. Rural tourism enterprises and destinations remain slow movers in terms of innovation endeavours, and the study indicates that the discrepancies between potential customers’ service expectations and their spending patterns can partially explain this phenomenon. The merit of the innovation gap model is that this model identifies potential rebalancing actions at both enterprise and destination levels.
Chapter
Green tourism is a dynamically growing world trend. Also cities see a possible path of development in building a tourist offer based on sustainable, environmentally friendly and responsible tourism. They are increasingly aware of the great potential lying in the relationship between tourism and the natural environment in cities. Urban green tourism is also a response to the need, emphasised by the participants of the 3rd Global Summit on City Tourism, to make a city enjoyable to all citizens, tourists and investors and to spread the benefits of urban tourism to its surroundings, thus reinforcing its impact and managing congestion. Applied to a city, the general principles of ecotourism, i.e. nature conservation, education, economic benefits for local communities, relevance of cultural resources, minimum environmental impact and maximum environmental sustainability, host community participation, natural areas, culture, and small-scale tourism, go well with the ideas of the Cittaslow movement. Thus, Cittaslow cities are units especially well prepared to develop urban green tourism. The ecological and landscape values that are a significant part of their endogenous capital could stimulate their socio-economic development in which urban green tourism would play a vital role. This chapter seeks to determine to what extent Polish Cittaslow cities see the possibility of development based on this form of tourism. A detailed examination is made of 23 cities belonging to the dynamically developing Polish National Cittaslow Network.
Book
This book introduces readers to the concepts of sustainability and philosophy of slowness for the management of public entities such as cities or regions. While many urban communities face economic challenges that clearly show the limitations of growth and ever-increasing speed, this book explores an alternative, thought-provoking standpoint in five chapters. The first chapter explains the importance and essence of slowness, smallness and sustainability for public organizations, while the second addresses the concept of “slow life” in an emotional society. Chapter three examines the issue of “slow management” and presents arguments for the value of small businesses as the true foundation of the economy. Chapter four rounds out the coverage with a focus on agriculture. Finally, in chapter five, the authors discuss the overall benefits of a “slow and curvy” management style in order to provide happiness, economic and social sustainability.
Article
It is widely recognized that travel and tourism can have a high environmental impact and make a major contribution to climate change. It is therefore vital that ways to reduce these impacts are developed and implemented. 'Slow travel' provides such a concept, drawing on ideas from the 'slow food' movement with a concern for locality, ecology and quality of life. The aim of this book is to define slow travel and to discuss how some underlining values are likely to pervade new forms of sustainable development. It also aims to provide insights into the travel experience; these are explored in several chapters which bring new knowledge about sustainable transport tourism from across the world. In order to do this the book explores the concept of slow travel and sets out its core ingredients, comparing it with related frameworks such as low-carbon tourism and sustainable tourism development. The authors explain slow travel as holiday travel where air and car transport is rejected in favour of more environmentally benign forms of overland transport, which generally take much longer and become incorporated as part of the holiday experience. The book critically examines the key trends in tourism transport and recent climate change debates, setting out the main issues facing tourism planners. It reviews the potential for new consumption patterns, as well as current business models that facilitate hyper-mobility. This provides a cutting edge critique of the 'upstream' drivers to unsustainable tourism. Finally, the authors illustrate their approach through a series of case studies from around the world, featuring travel by train, bus, cycling and walking. Examples are drawn from Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas. Cases include the Eurostar train (as an alternative to air travel), walking in the Appalachian Trail (US), the Euro-Velo network of long-distance cycling routes, canoe tours on the Gudena River in Denmark, sea kayaking in British Columbia (Canada) and the Oz Bus Europe to Australia. © Janet Dickinson and Leslie Lumsdon, 2010. All rights reserved.
Article
The slow movement has recently offered an alternative approach to sustainable tourism development, and this study aims to investigate the potential of Cittaslow philosophy and practices for enhancing local community involvement and empowerment in the tourism sector through which sustainable tourism is better implemented. Qualitative research was conducted on the case of Goolwa in South Australia, the first non-European Cittaslow. The results reveal that not only did Cittaslow accreditation and its accompanying practices encourage local community participation in decision-making processes, but also revitalised the locality of Goolwa through promoting local specialities and products, in particular food and wine. A stronger and more effective collaboration among local communities, businesses and residents after the Cittaslow accreditation was noted in the context of psychological and social aspects of local community empowerment, especially for developing and managing tourism. This paper further discusses the implications of Cittaslow through which local community empowerment and sustainability in tourism can be more achievable.