Art. 52 sec. 1 of the Regeneration Act of 9 October 2015 allowed municipalities which, at the time of its entry into force, did not have a valid revitalization program, to carry out revitalization activities on the basis of a revitalization program other than the municipal revitalization program. The choice of procedure was left by the legislature of the municipality, assuming that at the initial stage of the implementation of the law, only the municipality should test its instrument, referring to the nature and scale of its needs. The ROP Managing Authority in Małopolska as the only one in the country introduced the requirement of developing municipal revitalization programs for all municipalities that did not have a current revitalization program at the time of the entry into force of the Act. Therefore, these municipalities, in order to benefi t from EU funding under ROP WM 2014-2020 for revitalization activities planned in the programs, were not able to rely on the derogation contained in art. 52 sec. 1 of the Act. Regardless of the size of the municipality and the nature of revitalization needs, they were compelled to develop a document complying with the statutory procedure, the fi rst stage being the delimitation of the degraded area and the revitalization area and confi rmation by the resolution of the municipality council. As a result Małopolskie Voivodeship has become Poland’s largest laboratory of methodology of delimitation of these areas and development of revitalization programs. The aim of the article is to present the diversity of applied methodological approaches to the delimitation of revitalization areas in Małopolskie Voivodeship and to describe the most noteworthy, as well as to indicate the most common errors in the designation of these areas.

This text contains an analysis of the ways in which men and women engage in selected hospitality practices, including such questions as the feminine transmis sion of hospitality patterns, the division of responsibilities in preparing for guests, and places for meeting socially (at home and outside the home). On the basis of material gathered by the team of the Archive of Research on Everyday Life, the author finds numerous paradoxes and inconsistencies between women’s beliefs and their behaviors. In attempting a theoretical explanation, reference is made to the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu, Jean-Claude Kaufmann, Harriet Bjerrum Nielsen, and Monica Rudberg. Analysis leads to the conclusion that the multiple and time-con suming responsibilities associated with receiving guests mostly fall to women and thus contribute to their ability to sustain symbolic power over the home space. Consequently, hospitality perpetuates the traditional division into what is public and considered “masculine” and what is private or “feminine.”