Przegląd Geograficzny (2026) vol. 98, iss. 2

Does a local food product have coordinates? Mapping Poland’s food traditions

Alina Gerlée, Małgorzata Harasimowicz, Maria Zachwatowicz, Sylwia Kulczyk, Marta Grzywacz, Marta Derek

Przegląd Geograficzny (2026) vol. 98, iss. 2, pp. 135-152 | Full text
doi: https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2026.2.1

In this article, we present a method for mapping the spatial diversity of traditional food products based on their descriptive characteristics. We also present the results of its implementation by analyzing the spatial distribution of Polish traditional food products that have been entered on the List of Traditional Products or have obtained one of the geographical indications used in the European Union.

A detailed identification of the spatial diversity of traditional food products is important for the sustainable development of local social-ecological systems and, consequently, for human well-being and the good condition of the natural environment. The importance of local systems – encompassing beliefs, traditions, and practices maintained by communities – is considered a significant adaptive strategy to the environment in which they live (Vandebroek et al., 2011; Pascual et al., 2023). The process of registering a traditional product in an official system (often driven by economic and promotional needs) requires the interpretation of local knowledge and practices. This process involves both the identification of engaged stakeholders and decisions about how the product is presented. This applies to all components of its characterization, including its spatial range. Official registers of traditional food products should therefore be treated not as representations of tradition itself, but rather as interpretations created for operational purposes. The information they contain about the location of traditional food products simultaneously indicates areas where stakeholder groups actively engaged in promoting traditional food are present.

The primary data source for this paper was the List of Traditional Products maintained since 2005 by the Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The selection of appropriate products and its justification, together with the documentation of traditions associated with them lasting at least 25 years (Ustawa…, 2023), can be described as a process of operationalizing heritage through the identification of products linked to local or regional traditions. Polish products with EU certification that have an assigned geographical indication (PDO, PGI) were also included.

As a result, 2,120 products recognized as traditional food products were mapped based on the procedure shown in Figure 1. The mapping process relied on the analysis of descriptive product characteristics and the identification of their spatial references. Most of the products were associated with a regional rather than strictly local range. The main areas of concentration included Silesia (Śląsk), Cieszyn Silesia (Śląsk Cieszyński), Kashubia (Kaszuby), Greater Poland (Wielkopolska), and Kuyavia (Kujawy) (Fig. 4). The spatial ranges of traditions associated with the particular product categories differed, although the three most numerous categories – prepared dishes and meals, meat products, and bakery and confectionery products – showed similar distribution patterns (Fig. 6).

The mapping revealed the spatial dimension of the reported traditional products, which has not been widely analyzed in the existing literature. It also shows that food traditions are not only difficult to define unambiguously but even more difficult to map. The List of Traditional Products was created as a tool for identifying and collecting manifestations of food heritage; however, it was not designed as a spatial dataset or as a system for the regionalization of food traditions. As a result, it constitutes a broad, internally diverse, and methodologically inconsistent collection. The study demonstrates that the list should be treated less as a direct reflection of the richness of traditions themselves and more as their interpretation for operational purposes. The map presenting the ranges of products by municipality reflects the level of interest among stakeholder groups actively engaged in promoting traditional food. The spatial perspective offered by the mapping may serve as a platform for interpreting and communicating food heritage, as well as supporting consumer education and the development of culinary tourism.

Keywords: traditional food, food heritage, mapping, traditional food products

Alina Gerlée [a.gerlee@uw.edu.pl]
Małgorzata Harasimowicz [ma.harasimow@student.uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych
Maria Zachwatowicz [m.zachwatowicz@uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych
Sylwia Kulczyk [skulczyk@uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych
Marta Grzywacz [m.grzywacz14@student.uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych
Marta Derek [m.derek@uw.edu.pl], Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych

Citation

APA: Gerlée, A., Harasimowicz, M., Zachwatowicz, M., Kulczyk, S., Grzywacz, M., & Derek, M. (2026). Czy produkt tradycyjny ma współrzędne? Kartowanie tradycji żywnościowych w Polsce. Przegląd Geograficzny, 98(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2026.2.1

MLA: Gerlée, Alina, et al. "Czy produkt tradycyjny ma współrzędne? Kartowanie tradycji żywnościowych w Polsce". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 98, no. 2, 2026, pp. 135-152. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2026.2.1

Chicago: Gerlée, Alina, Harasimowicz, Małgorzata, Zachwatowicz, Maria, Kulczyk, Sylwia, Grzywacz, Marta and Derek, Marta. "Czy produkt tradycyjny ma współrzędne? Kartowanie tradycji żywnościowych w Polsce". Przegląd Geograficzny 98, no. 2 (2026): 135-152. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2026.2.1

Harvard: Gerlée, A., Harasimowicz, M., Zachwatowicz, M., Kulczyk, S., Grzywacz, M., & Derek, M. 2026. "Czy produkt tradycyjny ma współrzędne? Kartowanie tradycji żywnościowych w Polsce". Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 135-152. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2026.2.1