Industrial heritage as a chance for tourism

Knowledge of English

przedmiot fakultatywny

Contact hours with teacher 30 h:

- participation in lectures – 10 h

- participation field study visits – 20 h

Self-study hours 70 h:

- preparation for field study visits – 30 h

- preparation for project – 20 h

- preparation for test - 19 h

- consultation and work with teacher – 1 h

Altogether: 100 hrs ( 4ECTS)

Student:

W1. has advanced knowledge of the nature and the evolution of management theory in tourism of post-industrial sites

W2. is familiar with factors affecting the development of industrial tourism

W3. is acquainted with with key principles of managing intellectual property in the context of industrial tourism

Student:

U1. is able to analyse problems related to advantages and disadvantages of the development of industrial tourism and formulating own opinions

U2. is able to develop solutions to use of post-industrial sites potential and knows implemented projects

U3. can analyse and present scientific and popular scientific text in English; can lead thematic conversations in English

Student

K1: understands the significance of developing his/her knowledge and skills and inspires other persons to follow

K2: contributes to team projects in the field of industrial tourism and coordinates them also as their leader

K3: can cooperate within teams working on post-industrial tourism as their member or leader

Problem lecture, case study, project

- wykład problemowy

- ćwiczeniowa
- projektu

The aim of the course: analysis of industrial heritage in the context of the development of tourism

1. Industrial tourism - factors affecting the development of industrial tourism, definition, concepts and relationship with other forms of tourism.

2. The development of Industrial tourism in Poland and in the world.

3. Industrial and post-industrial heritage in Poland.

4. Adaptation of post-industrial objects as a form of revitalization and a chance for development of the city / region.

5. Industrial infrastructure (objects) as a part of territorial branding

6. Advantages and disadvantages of industrial tourism development

Case studies implemented as field classes: visit in min. two selected post-industrial sites in Kujawsko-Pomorskie Region

Frew, Elspeth Ann. Industrial tourism: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Diss. Victoria University, 2000.

Frantál B., Kunc J., 2011, Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Czech experience, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 499-519.

Frantál B., Urbánková R., 2014, Energy tourism: An emerging field of study, Current issues in Tourism. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.987734

Frew, Elspeth A. "Industrial tourism theory and implemented strategies." Advances in culture, tourism and hospitality research 2 (2008): 27-42.

Hjalager, Anne-Mette. "Tourism destinations and the concept of industrial districts." Tourism and Hospitality Research 2.3 (2000): 199-213.

Hospers, Gert-Jan. "Industrial heritage tourism and regional restructuring in the European Union." European Planning Studies 10.3 (2002): 397-404.

Otgaar, A., 2012, Towards a common agenda for the development of industrial tourism, Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, pp. 86-91.

Otgaar, Alexander. "Towards a common agenda for the development of industrial tourism." Tourism management perspectives 4 (2012): 86-91.

Otgaar, Alexander HJ, Leo Van Den Berg, and Rachel Xiang Feng. Industrial tourism: opportunities for city and enterprise. Routledge, 2016.

Rugh, Susan. "Branding Utah: Industrial Tourism in the Postwar American West." Western Historical Quarterly 37.4 (2006): 445-472.

Xie, Philip Feifan. "Developing industrial heritage tourism: A case study of the proposed jeep museum in Toledo, Ohio." Tourism Management 27.6 (2006): 1321-1330.

Assessment methods:

- test from theoretical part

- participation in the field trips and project from practical part

Mark from test:

Fail-to 3,0 - 2.0,

Satisfactory- 3,0-3,39 p. – 3.0,

3,40-3,74 p.– 3.5,

3,75-4,19 p. – 4,

4,20-4,50 p.– 4,5,

Above 4,50 p.– 5.

Mark from project:

Lack of project – fail-2.0

Very low-quality project – satisfactory- 3.0,

Low quality project – satisfactory plus - 3.5,

Average-quality project – good- 4,

Good-quality project– good plus- 4,5,

Very good-quality project – very good- 5.

not applicable