Potentials of Agrotourism on Social and Economic

AR

TIC

LE

S

(119—142) | CZECH JOURNAL OF TOURISM 02 / 2019 | 119

Potentials of Agrotourism on Social

and Economic Development of the Selected

Agricultural Farms and Adjoining Communities

in South-Western Nigeria

Sunday Oladipo Oladeji / Olukayode Temitope Ariyo / Opeyemi Iyinoluwa Alabi

e-mail: [email protected]

Department of Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo

State, Nigeria

Oladeji, S. O., Ariyo, O. T, & Alabi, O. I. (2020). Potentials of Agrotourism on Social and Economic Development of the

Selected Agricultural Farms and Adjoining Communities in South-Western Nigeria. Czech Journal of Tourism, 8(2), 119–142.

DOI: 10.2478/cjot-2019–0008.

Abstract

Agrotourism industry has contributed immensely to economy of many developing nations, especially in Asia and

Sub-Saharan Africa. This forms a basis for these research findings aimed at assessing the potential of agrotourism

in Obasanjo Farm and Oakfield farm for improving the livelihood of immediate communities. This study employed

a multiple research instrument while theoretical and specific practical approaches were used in the identification

and classification of the potential agrotourism activities using a thematic qualitative, descriptive quantitative and

SWOT analysis. The results show that 71% of the respondents have basic knowledge of agrotourism. The Likert

scale shows that the respondents completely agreed (4.52) that agrotourism is beneficial to people and equally

agreed (4.56) on the need to develop it. Recommendations are drawn from the SWOT analysis on the need for

farm management to strengthen available opportunities through incorporating agrotourism activities with other

farming activities, while addressing the environmental threats and organisational weaknesses.

Keywords

agrotourism, farming, rural communities, livelihood, opportunities

JEL classification: O13, Z32

AR

TIC

LE

S

Potentials of Agrotourism on Social and Economic Development of the Selected ...

120 | CZECH JOURNAL OF TOURISM 02 / 2019 | (119—142)

Introduction

Many nations express economic boom as a result of increasing opportunities derivable from the Agrotourism sector (Sznajder et al., 2009). Agrotourism is a subset of rural tourism, which embraces recreational activities while on a visit to rural environments. It is regarded as the process of attracting visitors/tourists to agricultural areas or farm-lands to gain knowledge about farm activities or for recreational purposes (Veeck et al., 2006; Lamb, 2008). The World Tourism Organisation (1998) defines it as a practice which involves offering a place for the tourists to sleep in the farmhouse or in a separate guesthouse, providing meals and organizing guests’ activities while participating in the unified farming operations. Havlicek, Lohr, and Benda (2011) explain the concept of agrotourism as a form of visits to rural areas where there are provisions and availability of amenities for accommodation in an agricultural farm house during which engage-ment in daily agricultural activities and those that encourage education of the culture are encouraged. Some of the activities that the tourists are encouraged to participate in the course of their stay in the rural farm include horse riding, winery tours, agricultural exhibits, traditional methods and techniques of harvesting and processing of agricultural products, farmer markets, fishing, garden tours, free hunting, and on-farm sales.

According to Malkanthi and Routry (2011), some important factors need to be identi-fied theoretically as potentials for agrotourism development. Songkhla and Somboon-suke (2013) indicate that there is a need for interaction between agrotourism and local agriculture as a way of promoting the agrotourism policy in developing countries. The authors suggest forms of agrotourism activities for a sustainable use of local resources for agrotourism. Dergisi (2017) presents four components including strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities and threats as a framework for developing agrotourism. The au-thor emphasizes that strengths and weaknesses are internal factors and attributes of the organization while opportunities and threats are external factors and attributes of the environment that cannot be ignored. The research findings from these authors (Hron & Srnec, 2004; Malkanthi & Routry, 2011; Songkhla & Somboonsuke, 2013; Dergisi, 2017) serve as a basis for developing a theoretical analysis in this study.

For this research, agrotourism potentials and its contribution to rural development at the study sites are viewed from the perspective of three stakeholders, including farmers, tourists, and the rural communities. These categories of stakeholders are involved in this study to identify their roles in service provision, organization and delivery of eco-tourism products in agrotourism, and assess an inter and intra relationship mechanism with other stakeholders. The perception of the farmers or farm managers in terms of a wide range of activities and amenities provided or the services rendered together with opinion of the rural dwellers regarding the agrotourism activities, amenities and services were harnessed with a view to attract potential tourists to the selected farms as a means of generating extra income. Both the theoretical framework and thematical analysis was employed in generating information on the potentials of agrotourism industry in the study areas. The findings of this research study will explore advancement of agrotourism industry in the selected rural areas of Nigeria.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Theoretical basis

A brief historical perspective of agrotourism revealed that the practice had been in ex-istence since the late 19th century as a result of migration of people from urban areas to rural areas with intention to visit their love ones for a certain period of time. This was facilitated with the invention of automobile that makes travelling over a distance much easier and faster (Hatch, 2006). The author further explained that the aftermath of World War II and the period of great depression gave rise to the promotion of rural development in the 1960s. Researchers gave a schematic presentation of agrotourism in which they related agriculture with activities that had educational or leisure purposes for travellers (Vaugeois et al., 2017). These researchers emphasized that agritourists con-sumed both tangible and intangible products as part of their experience during the visit.

There are indications that agrotourism business increases a capital base of the farm operators through income generation from the expenditure of the tourists during the course of their visits to their farms (Sharpley, 2002; Keith et al., 2003; Colton & Bissix, 2005; Huybers, 2007; Malkanthi & Routry, 2011). Research shows that farmers over the years have evolved to combine tourism with their farm business to supplement the in-come generated from their farm, especially the small-scale or family-owned farms. Slee et al. (1997) earlier pointed out that it was highly expedient for farmers to be adequately informed and knowledgeable of the potentials of agrotourism for this industry to thrive and bring the desired benefits. The authors observed that farmers needed to change their orientation on spending the income from the harvesting season during the plant-ing seasons and not realizing that it is possible to earn even more during the planting season when agrotourism is introduced into their farming business. Kosic (2015) and Ro-hana (2015) reported that provision of items, activities, and attractions during the plant-ing season and off-season could trigger the development of agrotourism. The authors emphasized that there was a need for farmers to offer tourists tangible goods, such as craft, fresh fruits/vegetables, and food items to purchase and also offer them intangible services, such as participation in festivals, cultural dances, game viewing, sharing of rid-dles, jokes, music, cooking, traditional ceremony or celebrations.

Furthermore, agrotourism practice enhances diversification of farming operations, which consistently allow farmers to mitigate their risks, for instance, in the case of poor agricultural yields and at the same time they generate not only an additional income from the non-farm production but also higher returns (Brandth & Haugen, 2007). There is therefore a need for farmers to adopt agrotourism since this will provide opportuni-ties to raise additional earnings apart from the money generated from the sales of their agricultural products. Furthermore, it will also promote marketing and publicity of the farm by the tourists.

While there are potential opportunities offered to the farm operators as entrepre-neurs through promoting agrotourism, surrounding communities can equally benefit from it as well. The immediate family of the farmers represent an integral part of the local community or rural dwellers that cannot be ignored when discussing the benefi-ciaries from the practise of agrotourism. The innovation of agrotourism and its rapid

AR

TIC

LE

S



growth in many developed countries is a result of both economic consideration and a set of fundamental or market-related goals, such as creating employment for family mem-bers, pursuing a rural livelihood and socializing with tourists (Barbieri, 2010). Associated benefits with the adoption of agrotourism can be of economic gains to the surrounding communities in form of employment generation or improvement in the altruism or non-use values of the farm or what can be referred to as non-economic or intrinsic values. Nickerson et al. (2001), Fisher (2006), Juixia and Jigang (2007) emphasize that provision of facilities to receive and accommodate visitors that participate in agrotourism activi-ties will invariably generate additional avenue for alternative or supplemental income to the farm family, especially in times of economic distress, such as poor harvest or lower prices, which is especially important as the agricultural context changes and costs associ-ated with production has been observed to be on increase (Ilbery, 1991; Salamon, 2003).

Veeck et al. (2006) state that the positive economic impacts of agrotourism is not only being felt by the immediate family members of the farmers but the multiplier effects on the local community is also significant in terms of contribution to local markets through generating local employment and sales taxes. This forms part of the suggestion of Saxena et al. (2007); Sharpley (2007) as a basis for stimulating the local economy and infrastructure development. The authors observe that as income is generated through visitors from outside the local area, additional revenue is introduced to the microsystem of local individuals, the community or hosting region. This explains the reason why em-ployment generation, tax incentives and promoting better utilization of farm production have been listed as some of the goals of agrotourism (Nickerson et al., 2001; McGehee & Kim, 2004). The attainment of the goals of agrotourism is considered as benefits not only to the farmers but also to the rural dwellers, the adjoining communities, govern-ment and the tourists (Barbieri & Mahoney, 2009). The most important thing is to en-sure that the overall goal of agrotourism is sustainable.

Apart from the aforementioned economic and environmental gains of agrotourism to the farmers and to the local community respectively, the social benefits of agrotourism to the tourists cannot be overstressed. The socialization aspect of agrotourism involves hosting visitors for a recreational daily use and farm activities, as well as educational pro-grams and lodging and accommodation (Nickerson et al., 2001; Ollenburg & Buckley, 2007). This forms part of the view of Veeck et al. (2006); Lamb (2008) that the agrotour-ism industry offers nature-based attractions for visitors/tourists to agricultural areas or farmlands to gain knowledge about farm activities or for recreational purposes. In ad-dition to the provision of natural attractions for the tourists, Havlicek et al. (2011) add that agrotourism support availability of amenities and infrastructural facilities (Songkhla & Somboonsuke, 2012) for accommodation of the tourists in the agricultural farmhouse during which engagement in daily agricultural activities and those that encourage edu-cation of the culture are encouraged. The authors list some of the agricultural and cul-tural activities which include horse riding, winery tours, agricultural exhibits, traditional methods and techniques of harvesting and processing of agricultural products, farmer markets, fishing, garden tours, cultural displays, free hunting, and on-farm sales. Ol-lenburg and Buckley (2007) maintain that the involvement of customers in recreational

AR

TIC

LE

S



activities, educational programmes, lodging and accommodation provided by the agro-tourism suppliers is of equal benefits to both the suppliers and the customers. Likewise, the involvement in agrotourism activities offers the tourists an ecosystem service deriv-able through breathing of unpolluted and fresh air unlike what operates in the urban areas as a result of release of high percentage of carbon into the air (Ciolac et al., 2019). It is equally important to emphasise that tourists are also given the opportunity to be educated about rural environment and participate in farm activities, such as cows and/or horses riding, pick fruits, feed animals, or buying fresh farm products (Walke, 2013).

It could be deduced that the inability of farmers to adopt agrotourism may be due to the lack of research on agrotourism in developing countries (Soykan, 2003; Akpnar et al., 2004; Çikin et al., 2009), including Nigeria. Farmers, therefore, have no factual in-formation about the benefits of agrotourism and even those that may have heard about it have few or no resources to start it up. All these limitations could be regarded as an impediment for the development of the agrotourism industry.

In the same vein, Mazlan and Juraimi (2016) and Rambodagedara et al. (2015) stress that transition from agricultural production to catering for the accommodation, food needs and offering hospitality services to the tourists is not always an easy process, and farm operators must be ready to face numerous challenges. The authors state that to reap the benefits that agrotourism enterprises can generate to farm operators, hygiene and basic requirements considering the lack of the urban visitors and the presence of unorganized sector in the agrotourism industry must be met.

Methodology

The study areas for this research are Obasanjo Farms Nigeria Limited and Oafil Farms. Obasanjo Farms Nigeria is located in Sango-Otta (latitude 70 57’N, and longitude 40 47’E) with an estimated population of 163,783 (National population census, 2006). The farm is known for the cultivation of field crops, rearing of poultry for slaughter and breeding, breeding of rabbits, fish production, pig breeding, chicken and egg produc-tion. Oakfield Farm is located in Ido Local Government, Oyo state (latitude 70 17’50” to 7044’50” and longitude 3033’20” to 3051’11”) (Figure 1) with a population estimated to be 103,261 (National Population Commissions, 2010). It was established to produce high-quality agricultural products, i.e. crop production (maize, cassava, pepper, okra, and plantain), poultry production (broilers, layers, and turkey) and delivery services. The farm product is supplied to farmers all over the country and to West Africa, its objective is to operate the most effective and efficient agricultural system that enhances mutual value and wealth.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Figure 1 Map showing Ido local Government area Oyo State

Source: Olatunji et al. (2016)

The first-hand information on the location of the farms was collected through an online search engine (Google) and validated through ground truthing and a reconnais-sance survey to the study areas to seek the consent of the stakeholders, authenticate the research instrument and get familiarized with the sites. The stakeholders selected for this study are categorized into two key players (Park, farm or destination managers) and the subject (tourists that are part of the community dwellers. The communities were purposively selected based on their proximity to the farms while the Key Informants Interview was conducted for the farm managers that are working on the farm. The selec-tion of the Key Informants was based on the year of their experience and their length of stay in the farm business. The primary data was acquired using a self-administered ques-tionnaire (to the tourists), field observation, and a short interview with the farmworkers. A modified method of random geographic cluster sampling (RGCS) used in Himelein et al. (2013) (Table 1) was used to sample the selected communities in the study areas while multistage sampling was used in selecting the respondents. In the first stage, com-munities at 0.5km radius from the farms were traversed to establish their proximity to the farms. In the second stage, households were systematically selected and respondents were purposively selected at household level based on their willingness to participate in the study. The system of administration was oral and self-administered questions about social demographic characteristics, knowledge of agrotourism, medium of information and perceived derivable benefits were obtained from the respondents. A total of 438 respondents were purposively selected and administered. The questionnaire cut across respondents in the two adjoining (0.5km radius) communities (Ota in Ogun State and Eleiyele area of Ibadan, Oyo State)

AR

TIC

LE

S



Table 1 Strata used for a random geographic cluster sample

S/N Definition Expected Radius

1 Towns High 0.1km

2 Settled agriculture areas, commercial farms Low 0.5km

3 Within 2km of major river or swamps High 1km

4 Within 10km of major river or swamps Medium 2km

5 Remainder Low 5km

Source: Kristen et al. (2013)

Data analysis

This study represents an exploratory approach, which intends to understand the po-tentials of agrotourism development. Therefore, the data analysis was limited to a the-matic-qualitative analysis, descriptive -quantitative analysis and SWOT analysis. The two key players were selected for interviews and administration of the structured question-naire. The results are presented descriptively in the form of frequency, percentage, ta-bles, and chart. A modified method of classification of agrotourism by Walke (2013) was used in classifying the potential agrotourism activities, attractions, and facilities that were observed either available or unavailable during the field exercise. The information obtained through the field observation, interview and administration of the question-naire served as the basis for the SWOT analysis. The 5-point rating Likert scale (not at all = 1 to very well = 5) was used to rate the impression of the respondents after their farm visit and visitor’s’ response toward agrotourism benefit and development was rated on the 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree (Ram-seook-Munhurrun et al., 2011). Weighted mean scores were computed and the upper limit of data concerning all three parameters are 4.5–5.0 and the lower limit score <1.5.

∑Weighted Frequency (WX)Weighted Mean (WM) = ————————————————————— ∑Frequency of respondent (X)

Where weighted frequency = frequency × weighted value

Decision rule:

The responses of tourists on agrotourism benefit and development were rated on a scale of 5; Strongly agree = 4.5–5.0, Agree = 3.5–4.4, Undecided = 2.5–3.4, Disagree = 1.5–2.4, Strongly disagree = <1.5

AR

TIC

LE

S



Results and discussion

Qualitative thematic analysis of the interview and field observation

The qualitative data were analysed thematically based on the information obtained dur-ing the interview. This information was complemented with the field observation. The Social Science Queries Technique was used in identifying the themes for the analysis. The Social Science Queries Technique (SSQT) was considered in view of its numerous advantages and relevance to this study, as described by Creswell (2014). The author states that SSQT is effective in generating social and cultural themes, provides a true picture of social phenomena and offers opportunities for the interpretation of the data collected in arriving at a meaningful conclusion. On the basis of the strength of this technique, three major themes that are directly related to tourism were identified, including farm-ing activities, number of employed staff and their level of education and the willingness for the farm workers to allow visitors for agrotourism (Table 2).

Table 2 Thematic analysis of the interview conducted for the farm managers and workers

VariableResponses

Obasanjo Farm Oakfield Farm

Farm activities Crop production: oil palm, cassava,

maize, plantain.

Animal production: rearing of

poultry for slaughter and breeding,

breeding of rabbits, fish production,

pig breeding, chicken and egg

production.

Crop production: maize,

cassava, pepper, okra,

plantain.

Poultry production: broilers,

layers, and turkey

Number of workers and their

level of education

Over 50 workers

Both skilled and unskilled

7 workers

Both experienced and

unskilled

Would visitors be allowed on

farm?

No, due to the biosecurity

measures on farm

Yes, but on a segmented

land different from farmed

land due to the bio-security

measures

Source: Field Survey (2018)

The result of the thematic analysis revealed that practice of farming activities, such as crop production, fish production and dairy will offer lasting experience and oppor-tunities for the tourists (Walke, 2013). There is a need to increase the skill and level of education of the staff encountered during the course of the study in line with the global agrotourism practise, considering the fact that the industry is a relatively new concept, especially in this part of Nigeria. A lack of research (Soykan, 2003; Akpnar et al., 2004; Çikin et al., 2009) and insufficient training of workers in the field of tourism service pro-vider, such as accommodation, catering and hospitality, has been identified (Mazlan &

AR

TIC

LE

S



Juraimi, 2016; Rambodagedara et al., 2015).This is in line with the view of Kiper (2013) that ecotourism is a relatively new management strategy and one that requires intensive and well-focused training of staff that are deficient in the areas of environmental inter-pretation and education; trail design and maintenance; impact monitoring techniques, including limits of acceptable change; visitor management techniques; communication and human relations skills; accounting; fundraising and public relations; and extension techniques. However, the restriction placed by some farm management not to allow visi-tors to access their farms due to the bio-insecurity issues is likely to impact influx to the farms negatively. The issue of bio-insecurity that was raised can be easily addressed if the appropriate agency saddled with the responsibility of ensuring biosafety in Nigeria is in-volved. Part of the mandate of the Nigeria Biosafety Management Agencies is to ensure security of bio resources in the country. Parry et al. (2005) confirmed that a low level of tourists´ participation in on-farms activities is largely due to the restriction of their unapproachability. The research findings of the interview with the farm workers were complemented with field observation. This is aimed at establishing the state of man-made facilities, such as accessible roads, built up areas and accommodation (Table 3).

Table 3 Field observation

Obasanjo farm Oakfield farm

It was observed that

— road access to the farm is in excellent

condition;

— products, such as eggs, are being sold to

locals;

— encroachment to the farm is high as there are

many residential buildings around the farm.

It was observed that

— road accessibility to the farm is in excellent

condition;

— products, such as eggs, are being sold to

locals;

— encroachment is low as there are few

buildings around the farm.


It was observed that the road accessibility to the farms is in excellent condition and farm products are readily sold to the locals. One major factor that might negatively af-fect the expansion of the farms in the nearest future is the possibility of encroachment into the farm areas as a result of the built-up area. In addition, the information obtained through the field observation serves as a basis for classification of the identified on-farm agricultural activities as either available or unavailable (Table 4).

AR

TIC

LE

S



Table 4 Classification of the identified potential agrotourism activities

General agrotourism

classification

Agrotourism

activities

Obasanjo

farm

Oakfield

farm

Direct agricultural sales

or marketing

Direct on-farm sales Available Available

Market store Available Available

Educational

tourism/experience

Farm tour Available Available

Farm work demos Unavailable Unavailable

On-farm entertainment

Corn maze Available Available

Agricultural museum and display Unavailable Unavailable

Festival/event on Farm Unavailable Unavailable

Hay wagon/animal rides Unavailable Unavailable

Hospitality service Farm made foods/restaurant Available Available

Farm camping Unavailable Unavailable

Outdoor recreation

Farm hunting Unavailable Unavailable

Fishing Unavailable Unavailable

Bird watching Available Available

Hiking path Unavailable Unavailable


The general classifications of ecotourism activities are in accordance with Wal-ke’s (2013) whose study further listed viticulture activities, such as wine tasting and par-ticipation in winemaking process. This classification justifies the needs for the manage-ment of these farms to support agrotourism activities that are available and to make nec-essary provisions for those that are unavailable. For instance, there is a need to support the production of food crops and poultry on a regular basis for them to be available at the farm made foods/restaurant for the consumption by the visitors. This will also boost the income of the farmers and improve the economy of the farm. This supports the findings of Kosic (2015) and Rohana (2015) that the development of farm-based activi-ties and provision of items, such as food, fruits for the visitors, could assist the farmers in planning on how to generate additional income to support their farming activities through agrotourism practices. It was deduced that both farms are presently practicing direct agricultural sales or marketing (direct on-farm sales and market stores) as they are readily available. Facilities that support educational tourism/experience, such as farm tour and demonstration of agricultural techniques, are also available.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Quantitative descriptive analysis of the socio-economic characteris-tics of farm community respondents

This study revealed information on the socio-economic characteristics of the potential tourists staying around Obasanjo Farm and Oakfield Farms in Otta, Ogun State, and Ibadan, Oyo State, respectively. The tourists’ demographic characteristics features that were assessed in this study include gender, age, and ethnicity, level of education, marital status, and occupation (Table 5).

Table 5 Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Demographic

characteristicsVariable Frequency Percentage

GenderMale 258 59

Female 180 41

Age

15–24 118 27

25–54 202 46

55–64 83 19

65 and above 35 8

Ethnicity

Yoruba 267 61

Igbo 57 13

Hausa 61 14

Fulani 13 3

Other 40 9

Education

Primary 40 9

Secondary 114 26

Tertiary 254 58

None 30 7

Marital status

Single 140 32

Married 237 54

Divorced/Separated 18 4

Widow/Widower 43 10

AR

TIC

LE

S



Occupation

Trader 83 19

Civil Servant 48 11

Self-employed 162 37

Farmer 66 15

Student 57 13

Other 22 5


It was revealed in the survey that male respondents prevailed over the female re-spondents in the selected farms. This supports the findings of Arild et al. (2008), Sandra (2011). These authors state that the male participation in farming activities prevails over the female participation. Majority of the respondents are between the age range of 25–54 (46%); the number of married respondents is also high (54%). This is an indication that relatively few numbers of aged individual in these communities in the age group of 65 years and above are willing to participate in agrotourism related activities which is in line with the findings of Zaim et al. (2013). According to Kosmaczewska (2015), the more residents with higher level of education qualification, the more agrotourism practice is performed.

Knowledge of agrotourism and factors responsible

for the agrotourism practice

A more significant number of the respondents (71%) in this study perceived agrotour-ism compared to 21% of them (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Knowledge of agrotourism

Yes

71%

No

29%


AR

TIC

LE

S



The sources of information on agrotourism as provided by the respondents that per-ceived agrotourism include media, friends, place of work, schools and family members, but media takes the highest percentage (31.9%) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Sources of agrotourism awareness

media

32%

family

8% friends

28%

place

of work

19%

others

not specified

13%


Despite the fact that the highest number of the respondents (71%) in this study have heard of agrotourism from various sources, a large number of them (64%) are yet to embark on agrotourism activities (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Respondents who have/have not visited a farm

visited

a farm

35%

not visited

a farm

64%

zero

1%


AR

TIC

LE

S



This finding is in line with the observations of Damerell et al. (2013), Kovar and Ball (2013) whose potential learners, mostly children and youth, make the choice to visit an agrotourism venue more compared to the adults that already have the knowledge. The reasons for the low-level turn up of tourist to farms according to this study can be accounted to ignorance of potential tourists about the various agrotourism activities that could be performed on farms. Vallera and Bodzin (2016) assume that learning outcomes beyond the acquisition of knowledge, including critical thinking skills and at-titudes are needed to address complex issues, such as to gather much needed support for agrotourism and other local food systems. There are indications that the knowledge of agrotourism is still in its infancy in these communities. This supports the findings of Maumbe (2012) who states that agrotourism in most countries in Africa is still in its developing phase due to the short history of its importance. The need for a paradigm shift from traditional agricultural literacy about food to incorporate other psychological variables, such as belief, attitudes and conversational skills, has been emphasized (Powell et al., 2008). However, Soykan (2003), Akpnar et al. (2004), Çikin et al. (2009) maintain that little attention directed towards research in agrotourism in Nigeria has contributed to low knowledge of its immense opportunities. Those that have once visited the study went further to ask for the reasons behind their visits. The major reason for their visits was the need to be closer to nature (37%), followed by their desire to recreate and relax (34%) (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Reasons for visits

urban pressure

and tension

11%

need to be close

to nature

37%

adventure

experience

18%

recreation

and relaxation

34%


The respondents expressed their readiness to explore the agrotourism activities that are potential to these farms. A higher percentage (25%) of the respondents perceived that there was a need for the farm management to provide the opportunities engaging

AR

TIC

LE

S



them in the sales and purchases of agricultural products; 22% of them supposed that they should be exposed to agricultural farm education as part of the agrotourism activi-ties (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Perceived agrotourism activities

agricultural

shows

20%

sales of agricultural

products

25%

on farm

food service

18%

agricultural

education

22%

accomodation

service

15%


Brscic (2006) states that the most critical factor that agrotourists considered is the availability of attractions that can satisfy their needs. Furthermore, they did not mind the cost of payment to enjoy on-farm accommodation, feeding, catering service and other related activities that cannot be reached in urban areas. Agrotourism is considered as a form of farm tourism or agricultural tourism that should offer educational and recreational purposes for the visitors and travellers to agricultural farm areas (Lamb, 2008). Williams et al. (2001) maintain that agrotourism is a combination of experiencing natural settings and products of agricultural operations. The authors emphasize that agrotourism is closely related to ecotourism in the sense that it provides tourists with opportunities to experience a broad spectrum of agriculturally based products, recrea-tional and hospitality services that are eco-friendly. This supports the findings of Koens et al. (2009) who claim that the visit to experience nature forms part of the factors re-sponsible for the growth and development of ecotourism in Costa Rica. This shows that agrotourism practice in these selected farms support social and economic products in terms of services and tangible goods. This is line with the view of Bwana et al. (2015) that agrotourism offers opportunities for tourists to experience farm-based activities, such as farm tours to observe harvesting and processing of agricultural products, provided hospitality service, observed non-materialistic (language, dressing, communication, fes-tival) and materialistic (art and craft) forms of culture and natural heritage, such as

AR

TIC

LE

S



monuments or archaeological sites. All this contributes to income generation, cash flow and additional profit for the local communities (Huybers, 2007).

Agrotourism benefits and development

The decision of the local communities on the benefits of agrotourism on the scale of 5 was that they completely agree (weighted mean 4.52) and that the industry should be developed (4.56) (Table 6). This is in line with the views of Sevgi (2011), as a basis for the development of Agrotourism in Kosbucagi Village in Erdemli Borough of Mersin Province. The author emphasizes that agrotourism has contributed immensely to the rural development model, especially in alleviating the poverty of women in Kosbucagi Village and the development of this form of tourism should be mostly encouraged on farmlands. This is also in line with the findings of Malkanthi et al. (2011) as part of the reasons for promoting agrotourism in most of the countries across the world with the aim of developing rural communities on a sustainable basis. Agrotourism is considered an appropriate rural development model that can be used in diversifying Nigeria mono economy, generate employment for the youth and improve livelihood of the local com-munities. Agoralumierri (2009) observes that the challenge of economic development is great and over the decades Nigeria has tried a number of development strategies. For instance, despite the oil wealth of Nigeria, greater proportions of the citizens live in rural and poor urban settlements under poor and subsistence conditions (Oladele, 2001). The contributions of agrotourism industry to the development of countries like Serbia with a focus on the Vojvodina Province in Northern Serbia has been reported by Petrović et al. (2017). Eneji et al. (2016) emphasizes the need to promote domestic tour-ism which is presently thriving in Nigeria with interest in local context. The development of ecotourism and other forms of comprehensive poverty reduction programmes at the rural levels would further improve the livelihood and economic well-being of the locals in the developing countries, especially those that are leaving adjacent to ecotourism ar-eas (Oladeji & Omotayo, 2013).

AR

TIC

LE

S



Table 6 Likert scale of potential tourists’ responses about the agrotourism benefits and development

Variable

Co

mp

lete

ly

ag

ree

So

me

ho

w a

gre

e

Ne

ith

er

ag

ree

no

r d

isa

gre

e

So

me

ho

w

dis

ag

ree

Co

mp

lete

ly

dis

ag

ree

We

igh

ted

su

m

We

igh

ted

mea

n

Decision

Agrotourism is

beneficial (A)330 84 21 - 3 438 4.52

Completely

agree

Agrotourism

should be

developed (B)

330 88 9 7 4 438 4.56Completely

agree


SWOT analysis

The SWOT matrix (Table 7) was developed based on the predictions about the re-lationships that exist among the variables collected through the questionnaire, in-terview, field observation and literature review (Hron & Srnec, 2004; Malkanthi & Routry 2011; Songkhla & Somboonsuke 2013; Dergisi, 2017). LoBiondo-Wood et al. (2000) state that the theoretical framework provides the basis for observations, defi-nitions of concepts, research analysis, design and generalization. The SWOT analysis based on the survey revealed the external (opportunity and threat) and internal fac-tors (strength, weakness), which could impact the agrotourism development in the study locations (Table 9).

The presence of vast hectares of land which is used for farming activities is consid-ered as the strength for the agrotourism development in both farms (30,000 hectares in Obasanjo farm and 50 hectares of farmland with intensive farming activity and 1,000 hectares acquired but not yet farmed in Oakfield farm). This land can be segmented into smaller parts that can be used strictly for agrotourism activities as used in ATBA method (Agriculture, Tourism, Beautification, and Amenity segmentation method) highlighted by Elsevier (2015). The farm also plants varieties of crops (Table 2) which include cassa-va, maize, pepper, okra and plantain; each crop variety comes with a different agrotour-ism activity in support of agrotourism and generates income, saves additional costs, and creates rural employment, as observed by Kunasekaran et al. (2012). With easy acces-sibility to both farms as confirmed by majority of the respondents (Table 3), the direct contact to the farms is facilitated without much stress, thereby enhancing agrotourism development in these communities. This also forms part of the views of Kunasekaran et al. (2012) as factors necessary for development of agrotourism. The easy accessibility is considered as the strength for the development of agrotourism in these farms.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Some of the farm managers are unwilling to incorporate agrotourism when asked during an interview session with them. This is considered as the weakness for the devel-opment of agrotourism in these farms. This category of farm managers claimed that the inflow of visitors to farm might bring challenges, such as the introduction of diseases to farm animals and that, this might require additional efforts in putting up necessary measures to avoid this incidence. The challenges pointed out by the farm managers form part of the views of Mazlan and Juraimi (2014) and Rambodagedara et al. (2015). The authors reveal that moving from the agricultural production to the provision of tourism products, such as accommodation and catering services for the tourists is not always an easy process and farm operators must be ready to face numerous challenges. Although the respondents claimed to have basic knowledge of agrotourism, further discussion dur-ing the interview revealed that their in-depth knowledge and understanding of agrotour-ism activities and associated benefits were low. This is also the weakness for achieving the objectives of the agrotourism industry. Melkanthi and Routry (2011) claim that part of the impediments to agrotourism development is that the farmers are not aware of the benefits of agrotourism. Apart from the lack of awareness and in-depth understanding of the associated benefits of agrotourism practices, inadequate agrotourism infrastruc-tures (Table 3) are also considered as weakness. Kunasekaran et al. (2012) state that the provision of adequate infrastructural facilities is an essential component of the agrotour-ism industry that cannot be ignored, especially in meeting the need of urban visitors.

Majority of the respondents surveyed around the farming community desire the de-velopment of agrotourism (Table 6). This is considered a potential opportunity that could assist the farm managers in developing agrotourism. The farming communities and their willingness to participate in agrotourism activities is of utmost importance for the success of the programme. These findings are in tandem with the observation of Calina et al. (2009), who claim that the interest of the local community aid the agrotour-ism development in Romania. The availability of youths between 25 and 54 years (Table 5) in the neighbouring communities is also a tremendous potential opportunity for the agrotourism growth. The development of tourism offers job opportunities for the un-employed youth, thereby contributing to local economy, as quoted by Cichowska and Klimek (2011). The availability of the agrotourism attractions, such as farm made food/restaurants, where farm crops are prepared and serve to the tourists, is of immense op-portunities for the visiting tourists. Another available activity, such as bird watching, is equally important (Table 5) since it offers a recreational activity to the visitors.

The continuous increase in the human population may eventually lead to urbanization of the farming communities, which brings along pollution, increases waste generation and energy consumption. The findings show that the encroachment to the farm is high as there are many residential buildings around these farms (Table 2). This poses seri-ous threats for the potential agrotourism development in the study areas. For instance, there is a possibility of forfeiture of landownership as a result of increasing expansion, encroachment with attendant land conflict or grievances, as observed by Ravi (2015); Malkanthi and Routry (2011).

AR

TIC

LE

S



Ta

ble

7 S

WO

T m

atr

ix

Str

en

gth

sW

eakn

esses

Ob

asan

jo f

arm

s

Oakfield

O

basan

jo f

arm

s

Oakfield

–Larg

e s

cale

farm

ing; havi

ng a

bove

30,0

00 h

ecta

res for

farm

ing

activi

ties

–Varieties o

f th

e c

r op

pla

nte

d, such

as c

assava

, m

aiz

e

–P

ractice o

f m

echaniz

ed

farm

ing

–A

vaila

bility

of a s

ignifi

cant

num

ber

of

both

skilled

and

unskilled

lab

our

–A

vaila

bility

of fa

rm s

tor e

s for

–th

e s

ale

s o

f fa

rm p

rod

ucts

–E

asy

farm

accessib

ility

–M

ed

ium

-scale

Farm

ing; havi

ng 5

0

hecta

res o

f fa

rmin

g a

ctivi

ties a

nd

alread

y acq

uired

1,0

00 h

ecta

r es

more

–Varieties o

f cr o

ps p

lante

d s

uch a

s

maiz

e, p

ep

per, o

kra

, and

pla

nta

in

–The p

ractice o

f m

echaniz

ed

farm

ing

–P

resence o

f p

ristine e

nvi

r onm

ent

due t

o t

he lo

w le

vel o

f in

dustr

ial

activi

ties

–The w

illin

gness o

f th

e m

anagem

ent

to s

tart

up

agro

tourism

on

a fra

gm

ent

of th

e farm

–E

asy

accessib

ility

to t

he farm

–The u

nw

illin

gness o

f th

e farm

managem

ent

to in

corp

ora

te

agro

tourism

due t

o t

he b

io-s

ecurity

issues

–In

suffi

cie

nt

infr

astr

uctu

re for

farm

tourism

purp

oses

–Lack o

f accom

mod

ation facilities

–Low

leve

l of aw

are

ness o

f th

e

agro

tourism

benefit

s

–M

anagem

ent

fear

of th

e b

io-s

ecurity

issues

–In

ad

eq

uate

infr

astr

uctu

re for

farm

tourism

purp

oses

–Lack o

f accom

mod

ation facilities

–Lack o

f a s

ignifi

cant

num

ber

of la

bour

that

can b

e u

sed

in

agro

tourism

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

Th

r eats

Ob

asan

jo f

arm

s

Oakfield

O

basan

jo f

arm

s

Oakfield

–The d

esire o

f th

e c

om

munity

to

deve

lop

agro

tourism

– –A

vaila

bility

of a n

um

ber

of

agr o

tourism

att

ractions in

the a

rea

will s

up

port

agro

tourism

activi

ties

–A

vaila

bility

of a b

ig n

um

ber

of

unem

plo

yed

youth

with t

he c

hances

of engagem

ent

in a

gro

tourism

secto

r

–The r

ead

iness o

f th

e c

om

munity

aro

und

the farm

to d

eve

lop

agro

tourism

–A

vaila

bility

of th

e a

gro

tourism

att

ractions in

the farm

will s

up

port

agr o

tourism

activi

ties

–A

vaila

bility

of num

ero

us u

nem

plo

yed

youth

that

can b

e e

mp

loye

d in

the

agr o

tourism

secto

r

–U

rbaniz

ation e

ncro

achm

ent

in t

he

surr

ound

ing c

om

munity

–B

io-insecurity

–The g

rad

ual i

ncre

ase in

pop

ula

tion

whic

h m

ay

lead

to e

ncro

achm

ent

–B

io-insecurity

So

urc

e: F

ield

Surv

ey (2018)

AR

TIC

LE

S



Conclusion and recommendation

There are potentials for the development of the agrotourism industry in Oyo State and Ogun State area of Nigeria as reflected in the information obtained from the selected farms for this study. The intent of the potential tourists to visit farms in the rural areas with available agrotourism attractions and activities will generate additional income for the farm operators, farmers’ immediate families and local communities. This may have social and economic benefits on the surrounding communities with multiplier effects. The availability of agrotourism attractions, such as farm made food/restaurants, where farm crops are prepared and served to the tourists, is of immense opportunities for the visiting tourists. This is connected with the willingness of the potential tourists to support the agrotourism industry to improve the economy of these areas. However, the encroachment into the farm areas as a result urbanization is considered a threat to the expansion of the agrotourism industry in the areas in the nearest future. The issue of biosecurity that was raised by the farm managers need to be mitigated in such a way that the envisaged impact on the spread of zoonotic diseases can be avoided. The Nigeria Biosafety Management Agencies saddled with the responsibility of ensuring security of bio resources in the country should be involved.

There is a need for the incorporation of amenities that could make the tourists to enjoy their stay, have unique experience and lasting memory. Organised workshops to increase their level of education on crop and animal husbandry and operational use of farm ma-chines should be incorporated into the farm activities. A marketplace for the purchasing of agro-cultural incentives and other products that can promote farm tour should be con-sidered. The introduction of all these activities will facilitate exciting agrotourism activities in Obasanjo Farms and Oakfield Farms. As part of the mitigation measures, segmenta-tion of farmlands should be prepared to prevent the transfer of diseases from human to animals and vice-versa. Rural communities can likewise designate community lands for agrotourism with the development of modernized green villages that will be suitable for tourist visits. The Federal Government of Nigeria should support the development of the agrotourism industry as an alternative means of generating more revenue.

References

Agoralumiere. (2009). Impacts of Arts and Culture on Tourism [online]. Developed and delivered by Agoralumiere International in partnership with CAJ (South Africa) commissioned by Arterial Network. Retrieved from https://www.creative-africa.org.

Akpınar, N., Talay, I., Ceylan, C., & Gunduz, S. (2004). Rural Women and agrotourism in the Con-text of Sustainable Rural Development: A Case Study from Turkey. Environment, Development

and Sustainability, 6(4), 473–486.Barbieri, C. (2010). An Importance-Performance Analysis of the Motivations behind Agri-tourism

and Other Farm Enterprise Developments in Canada. Journal of Rural and Community Develop-

ment, 5(1/2), 1–20.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Insight from Texas farmers and ranchers. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2009), 58–66. Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2007). Gendered Work in Family Farm Tourism. Journal of Compara-

tive Family Studies, 38(3), 379–393. Brscic, K. (2006). The impact of agrotourism on agricultural production (pp. 559–563). In Proceed-

ings from the First International Conference on Agriculture and Rural Development, Topusko, Croatia.Bwana, M. A., Olima, W. H. A., Andika, D., & Agong, S. G. (2015). Seizing an Opportunity of

a Public-Private Partnership Initiative for Agrotourism Development as a Strategy for Poverty Reduction in Kisumu, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention,

4(10), 52–64.Calina, A., Calina, J., Iagaru, R., & Croitoru, A. (2009). Researches on the potential and impact

of agrotourism upon the economic and social-cultural development of rural areas in the South-West of Romania (pp. 139–143). In Zbornik Medunarodni Simpozij Agronoma, Opatija, Hrvatska, 16–20 Veljače 2009.

Cichowska, J., & Klimek, A. (2011). The Role of Agrotourism in the Development and Conversion. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich, 11, 97–107.

Çıkın, A., Çeken, H., & Uçar, M. (2009). The Effect of Tourism on Theagricultural Sector, Agro-Tourism and Economic Results. J. Agric. Econ., 15(1), 1–8.

Ciolac, R., Adamov, T., Lancu, T., Popescu, G., Lile, R., Rujescu, C., & Marin, D. (2019). Agrotour-ism-A Sustainable Development Factor for Improving the ‘Health’ of Rural Settlements. Case Study Apuseni Mountains Area. Sustainability, 11(5), 1467. DOI: 10.3390/su11051467.

Colton, J. W., & Bissix, G. (2005). Developing Agrotourism in Nova Scotia: Issues and Challenges. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(1), 91–112.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Damerell, P., Howe, C., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Child-orientated environmental education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1). DOI: 10.1088/1748–9326/8/1/015016.

Dergisi, U. S. A (2017). Swot Analysis: A Theoretical Review. The Journal of International Social

Research, 10(51), 994–1006. DOI: 10.17719/jisr.2017.1832.Eneji, M. A., Odey, F. A., & Bullus, M. L. (2016). Diversification of Nigeria’s Economy; Impact of

Tourism on Sustainable Development in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Humanities

and Social Studies, 3, 36–44.Fisher, D. (2006). The Potential for Rural Heritage Tourism in the Clarence Valley of Northern

New South Wales. Australian Geographer, 37(3), 411–424.Havlicek, Z., Lohr, V., & Benda, P. (2011). ICT and agrotourism in Czech Republic. Department of

Information Technology, FEM, Czech University of Life Sciences.Himelein, K., Eckman, S., & Murray, S. (2013). The Use of Random Geographic Cluster Sampling to

Survey Pastoralists [online]. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6589. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2320861.

Hron, J., & Srnec, K (2004). Agrotourism in the context with the rural development [online]. Czech University of life Sciences Praque. Electronic document. Retrieved from https://www.czu.cz.

Huybers, T. (2007). Tourism in Developing Countries, Economics and Management of Tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Massachusetts: USA.

Juixia, S., & Jigang, B. (2007). Anthropological Tourism Analysis on Community Participation. Chinese Sociology and Anthropology, 39(3), 50–68. DOI: 10.2753/CSA0009–4625390303.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Keith, D., Rilla, E., George, H., Lobo, R., Tourte, L., & Ingram, R. (2003). Obstacles in the agro-tourism regulatory process: Perspectives of operators and officials in ten California countries. AIC Issues Brief, 22, 1–6.

Kosmaczewska, J., & Gospodarki, W. S. (2015). The Relationship between Development of Agro-tourism in Poland and the Local Community Potential the Relationship between Development of Agrotourism. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, XV(2), 89–99.

Koens, J. F., Dieperink, C., & Miranda, M. (2009). Ecotourism as a development strategy: Expe-riences from Costa Rica. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(6), 1225–1237. DOI: 10.1007/s10668–009–9214–3.

Kosic, K. (2015). Key Principles of Rural Tourism Households Development Strategy: Case Study of Vojvodina. Economics of Agriculture, 62(4), 975–988142. DOI: 10.5937/Ekopolj1504975k.

Kovar, K., & Ball, A. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy research: A synthesis of the litera-ture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 167–178. DOI: 10.5032/jae.2013.01167.

Kunasekaran, P., Ramachandran, S., Samdin, Z., & Awang, K. (2012). Factors Affecting Farmers’ Agro Tourism Involvement in Cameron Highlands, Pahang. OIDA International Journal of Sus-

tainable Development, 4(1), 83–90.Lamb, R. (2008). How Agrotourism Works [online]. Retrieved from http://adventure.howstuffworks.

com/agrotourism.htm/printable. Llbery, B. (1991). Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West

Midlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 7(3), 207–218.LoBiondo-Wood, G., Williams, L., & Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Family adaptation to

a child‘s transplant: Pre transplant phase. Progress in Transplantation, 10(2), 81–87. DOI: 10.1177/152692480001000203.

Malkanthi, S. H., & Routry J. K. (2011). Potential for Agrotourism Development: Evidence from Sri Lanka Journal of Agriculture Science, 6(1), 45–58.

Maumbe, B. M. (2012). The use of Information and Communication Technologies Among Agro-tourism Firms in West Virginia: Implications for Market Competitiveness and Sustainability. International Food and Agribusiness Management Association World Forum and Symposium, June 9–18, Shanghai, China.

Mazlan, N., & Juraimi, A. (2014). Development and challenges of the agrotourism in Malaysia. Journal of ISSAAS, 20(1), 131–138.

McGehee, N. G., & Kim, K. (2004). Motivation for Agri-Tourism Entrepreneurship. Journal of

Travel Research, 43(2), 161–170.National Population Commission. (2010). Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2006 Population and Housing

census. Population distribution by Sex, State, LGAs and Senatorial district, priority table Vol. III. Abuja, Nigeria.

Nickerson, N., Black, R., & McCool, S. (2001). Agrotourism: Motivations behind Farm/Ranch Business Diversification. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 19–26.

Oladele, O. I. (2001). Farmer perception of the relevance of livestock production technologies in Oyo-State, Nigeria. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 13(6), 37–45.

Oladeji, S. O., & Omotayo, K. (2013). Ecotourism industry a panacea for sustainable economic development in rural communities: case study of Osse river park, Ondo-State, Nigeria. Journal

of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(8), 72–93.Olatunji, S. B. et al. (2016). Street Mapping of Iddo Local Government Metropolis Ibadan, Oyo

State, Nigeria. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, 3(6), 422–429.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Ollenburg, C., & Buckley, R. (2007). Stated economic and social motivations of farm tourism op-erators. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 444–452.

Petrović, M. D., Blešić, I., Vujko, A., & Gajić, T. (2017). The role of Agrotourism’s Impact on the local community in a Transitional Society: A Report from Serbia. Transylvanian Review of Ad-

ministrative Sciences, 50E(2017), 146–163.Powell, D., Agnew, D., & Trexler, C. (2008). Agricultural literacy: Clarifying a vision for practical

application. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 85–98. DOI: 10.5032/jae.2008.01085.Rambodagedara, R. M. M. H. K., Suranga Silva, D. A. C., & Perera, S. (2015). Agro-Tourism Develop-

ment in Farming Community: Opportunities and Challenges. Research Report No. 188, Hector Kob-bekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Wijerama Mawatha Colombo: Sri Lanka.

Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Munhurrun,V., & Panchoo, A. (2011). Total quality management adop-tion in a Public Hospital: Evidence from Mauritius. Global Journal of Business Research, 5(3), 67–77.

Ravi, K. N. (2015). Effect of Urbanization on Livelihood of Farmers in Dairy and Crop Production System

in the Peri-Urban Area of Bengaluru. Master’s thesis, National Dairy Research Institute.Rohana, P. M. (2015). Agri Tourism as a Risk Management Strategy in Rural Agriculture Sector:

With Special Reference to Developing Countries. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 11(1), 1–12.Salamon, S. (2003). From Hometown to Nontown: Rural Community Effects of Suburbanization.

Rural Sociology, 68(1), 1–24. Sandra, B. (2011). Women, land and poverty in Zimbabwe: Deconstructing the impacts of the fast

track land reform program. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(1), 316–330. Saxena, G., Clark, O., & Ilbery, B. (2007). Conceptualizing Integrated Rural Tourism. Tourism

Geographies, (4), 347–370.Sevgi, T. R. (2011). An application of a women-oriented agro-tourism rural development model in

improving local economy. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9714–9723.Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural Tourism and the Challenge of Tourism Diversification: The Case of

Cyprus. Tourism Management, 23(3), 233–244.Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship Attractions and Sustainable Rural Tourism Development: The Case

of the Alnwick Garden, England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–142. DOI: 10.2167/jost604.0.

Slee, B., Fair, H., & Snowdon, P. (1997). The Economic Impact of Alternative Types of Rural Tour-ism, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48(1–3), 179–192.

Songkhla, T. N., & Somboonsuke, B. (2013). Interactions between agrotourism and Local Agri-cultural Resources Management: A Case Study of Agrotourism Destinations in Chang Klang District, Southern Thailand. Discourse Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 1(3), 54–67.

Soykan, F. (2003). Rural Tourism and the Importance of Tourism to Turkey. J. Aegean Geogr., 12(2003), 1–11, Izmir.

Sznajder, M., Przezbórska, L., & Scrimgeour, F. (2009). Agrotourism: Journal of Sustainable Tourism

17(6).753–754 Kiper, T. (2013). Role of Ecotourism in Sustainable Development, Advances in Landscape Ar-

chitecture, Murat Özyavuz. IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/55749. Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-landscape-architecture/role-of-ecotourism-in-sustainable-development.

Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). Knowledge, skills, or attitudes/beliefs: The contexts of ag-ricutural literacy in upper-elementary science curricula. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 101–117.

AR

TIC

LE

S



Vaugeois, N. L., Bence, S., & Romanova, A. (2017). Farm diversification through agri-tourism. A Man-

ual to Guide Agri-tourism Development in British Columbia. A publication of the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture.

Veeck, G., Che, D., & Veeck, A. (2006). America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan. In: The Professional Geographer, 58(3), 235–248.

Walke, S. G. (2013). Critical Study of Agrotourism Industry in Maharashtra. Symbiosis International University, Pune.

Williams, P. et al. (2001). Agrotourism Market and Product Development Status Report. Centre for Tour-ism Policy and Research Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada pp138

World Tourism Organisation. (1998). Compendium of Tourism Statistics 1993–1997, Nineteenth Edi-tion. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.

Zaim, F., Azimi, H., Mahazan, M., Sulaiman M. Y., Bahaman, A. S, Lawrence, D., & Hayrol, A. (2013). Involvement in Agro-Tourism Activities among Communities in Desa Waawasan Nelayan Villages on the East Coast of Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(2).

Documents

Potentials of Agrotourism on Social and Economic