Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1837 2022-06-24 10:32:54 |
2 update layout and references Meta information modification 1837 2022-06-24 10:54:56 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Sánchez-Martín, J.;  Ferreira, D.I.R. Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24432 (accessed on 29 March 2024).
Sánchez-Martín J,  Ferreira DIR. Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24432. Accessed March 29, 2024.
Sánchez-Martín, José-Manuel, Dora I. Rodrigues Ferreira. "Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24432 (accessed March 29, 2024).
Sánchez-Martín, J., & Ferreira, D.I.R. (2022, June 24). Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24432
Sánchez-Martín, José-Manuel and Dora I. Rodrigues Ferreira. "Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions." Encyclopedia. Web. 24 June, 2022.
Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions
Edit

Areas with low levels of transformation are alternative destinations for tourists who prefer to visit nonmassified places and have singular experiences. The benefits of these microdestinations are their local populations, traditional products, landscapes, and heritage, which, in turn, allow the cultural and gastronomic roots to be witnessed. Based on this assumption, researchers investigated landscape preferences to determine the agritourism potential in the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Portugal/Spain), where Dehesa/Montado and traditional olive groves play important economic and sociocultural roles.

agricultural landscape agritourism Biosphere Reserve

1. Introduction

European policy has led to profound changes in rural areas. Since the 1980s, the valorization of a multifunctional vision of agriculture has been signaled through the expansion of its food production functions and nonagricultural activities [1]. This vision offers a way to design and implement strategies to enhance rural tourism and strengthen the role of agriculture. At the same time, farmers are local actors in the rural economy [2], and farms gain new dimensions, including nature and landscape management, the promotion of educational activities (e.g., agricultural education), the reinforcement of short food chains (e.g., through direct sales), the promotion and valorization of the tourism sector (e.g., agritourism), and the incentivization of the dynamics of social agriculture (e.g., therapies, rehabilitation). In parallel, trends towards healthier and more sustainable food consumption have become more prevalent [3], accompanied by lifestyles featuring increasing connections with nature and new relationships with the rural environment [4]. These trends have triggered tourism offers based on the great diversity of resources, especially those based on nature, local lifestyles, and the rural culture and its eno-gastronomic products. In fact, tourism in rural areas has grown due to its potential for territorial development, contributing to the resilience of low-density territories [5][6][7].
In the context of the Iberian Peninsula, before the COVID 19 pandemic, rural tourism was growing and being consolidated [8]. However, in the year 2020, which was marked by a recession for demand, despite difficulties, rural tourism modalities became more appetizing [9]. Farms also showed great resilience [10] in terms of both food production by continuing to innovate supply chains through the strengthening of e-commerce and through offers of agritourism services [11].
In the context of the different modalities of rural tourism, agritourism presents itself as a way to contribute favorably to local development dynamics and may play an active role in the green economic transition process. It is in this context that farmers are facing a change in role—from food producer to landscape conservationist—as well being considered drivers of the new dynamics of local entrepreneurship and innovation.
The development of rural tourism in the Iberian Peninsula happened at different speeds. However, in the 1980s, agritourism emerged as a survival strategy for farms [12]. Some examples with more stabilized markets are widely known, such as the Jaén Region in Spain, where olive oil is one of the main tourist attractions. This landscape provides a huge range of products and services related to oleotourism to the market [13]. Another interesting region in the wine tourism market is delimited by the Douro River. Human and natural heritage are intertwined in this landscape in the aromas, knowledges, and flavors present, representing authentic reservoirs of traditions, culture, and heritage. Both examples are cultural landscapes with the UNESCO-protected classification, where agriculture activity plays a key role in terms of its contribution to the preservation of gastronomic traditions, nature, and values associated with more sustainable production. In this territory, traditional landscapes, composed of many natural and artificial elements, such as fields, meadows, orchards, hedges, pastures, terraces, forested areas, tourist infrastructures, and farm buildings that tell the story of the human–nature relationship, are prominent.
However, the physical constraints and successive social, cultural, and economic influences may threaten the preservation of the natural and cultural values associated with the landscape. In this context, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC) was launched in 1972 [14] to protect, conserve, and preserve the cultural heritage associated with landscapes. This provided an opportunity to enhance the material heritage as well as the immaterial value. Later, in 2002, the Budapest Declaration [15] defined the importance of landscape planning and management through policies linking protected areas to their economic and social activities. In this context, the traditional agricultural and agroforestry landscapes of UNESCO are characterized by low-intensity land use that has multifunctionality and enhances ecosystem services [16].
In 2016, the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve was developed with the mission of preserving agroecosystems. The cultural value of this territory is due to its low density and cross-border territory factors that contribute to its high patrimonial value [17], as well as to the preservation of genuine landscapes [18].
It is possible to highlight some ongoing actions that have been put in place by the local governance, particularly those dedicated to landscape enhancement actions. For example, the municipality of Idanha-a-Nova joined the International Network of Eco Regions (INNER), which is governed by the principles associated with the active promotion of territorial food systems based on family farming and sustainable production modes that promote biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and healthy diets [19]. The management of the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve has been promoting a set of activities that enhance touristic experiences of natural landscapes, as well as showing the value of local products. These dynamics are expressed at the level of territory qualification through new infrastructures, new tourism products, or actions of territory communication, affirming the position of the area as a gastronomic destination [20].

2. Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions

Studies on the agricultural landscape have been gaining interest in the literature [20][21][22][23][24], and rural heritage has also become a study subject [10][25]. In parallel, the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes, seen as a tool to develop the economy of rural areas [26][27][28], as well an instrument that links sustainable agriculture, food security, and territorial balance [29], is valued in the literature as a way to promote rural identity [30]. This perspective is supported by the ability of agricultural landscapes to simultaneously maintain their primary functions of food production, landscape preservation, the provision of environmental services, and viability across a wide range of activities in rural areas [10].
The complexity of interconnections between the landscape and tourism has given rise to different approaches in the literature, ranging from the combination of agriculture and rural development [31], the landscape, and gastronomic tourism [7], tourism and its impact on protected natural areas [32], and to agriculture and creative tourism [33].
Several investigations have analyzed the potential and benefits of using the agricultural landscape as a tourism resource by exploring the potential of agri-food products (from olive oil [34][35][36] to wine [37][38][39] or cheese [40]), the local heritage and culture [26][33], the role of sustainable agriculture in enhancing ecosystems [41], and the impacts of tourism on farms and territorial development [10].
This topic is explored little in the literature. However, is it recognized that the people are engaged with the landscapes and are heavily influenced by land cover, specially Mediterranean landscapes [42], with positive influence on human well-being [23]. The literature argues that the extensive production models promote the biodiversity and its aesthetical value [43]. These are important characteristics that are valued and recognized as a touristic resources [44].
The literature has demonstrated the importance of knowing the values, perceptions, and preferences of a population and incorporating their opinions into decision-making processes [42]. In fact, farmers and the rural community are essential actors in the process of activity diversification, especially considering the multifunctionality of rural landscapes. Due to this, it is important to understand the motivations of a rural community for the development of effective rural tourism strategies [2], and activities that promote contact with tourists should be prioritized [45]. In general, the literature suggests that rural communities are likely to support tourism initiatives in their territories in a positive way [46]. However, it is also essential to know the opinions of tourists, both when designing tourism strategies in rural areas, as well when promoting the destinations, to project their expectations into innovative rural experiences with added value [47]. According to a previous study, the perception of the landscape is different between the local population and tourists. The latter group tends to valorize more the agricultural landscape [48].
The recognition of the cultural landscape by UNESCO has brought up the opportunity for public recognition of the importance of sustainable practices and appreciation of traditional know-how [49], and at the same time, an opportunity for its valorization has emerged. The literature also recognizes that Mediterranean landscapes, where ecological values and territorial identity prevail, are examples of landscapes that should be protected, both for their contribution to the well-being of the population [50] and their potential as tourism resources [51]. Expressions of preference for Mediterranean landscapes are often guided by ecological criteria, as in the case of Dehesa/Montado or the strong cultural and symbolic identity associated with olive groves [42]. In contrast, the threat of intensive agriculture or forestry production systems and the abandonment of agroforestry activities is endangering sustainability, compromising the well-being of local populations, and affecting touristic flow [23]. The literature also supports the idea that tourism in agricultural landscapes where sustainability values prevail encourages the adoption of healthier lifestyles [52]. Thus, experiences in rural environments that provide contact with extensive agriculture systems favor the development of sustainable tourism.
The typology of tourism that benefits the farm economy is agritourism [5][52]. Many studies have focused their attention on the positive impact of agritourism in encouraging the adoption of good sustainable management practices associated with natural and cultural heritage and positive socioeconomic repercussions on rural communities [53][54][55]. However, in the literature, there are several articles on the stabilization of the concept [56][57][58]. These are divided between those showing associations with direct contact with agriculture [59] and those showing mere associations with the observation and enjoyment of rural traditions [59][60]. This ambiguity of the concept [61] is particularly due to the following factors [56][57][61][62]: the uncertainty regarding the environments in which this type of tourism takes place (rural areas, farms, markets or fairs of agri-food products); the authenticity of the experience (staged activity related to agriculture vs. authentic agricultural activity); the nature of the contact with the agricultural activity (observation vs. participation in agricultural activities); and the characteristics of the recreational activities provided (farm stay, educational activities, agricultural activities, gastronomy). Despite this complexity, there seems to be some consensus in the identification of tourism initiatives based on agricultural activities that configure the concept of agritourism, which researchers highlight as an example:
  • The recreational activities scene is closely linked to agricultural production [63];
  • An authentic experience is one that allows a learning experience [64] through contact with nature and the territory [65];
  • The inclusion of accommodation, food, recreational activities, and learning experiences increase the level of contact with local products and authentic agriculture [65][66].
This conceptual ambiguity has led to the existence of diverse agritourism activities, sometimes distorting the context of the relationship with the rural landscape, agriculture, and gastronomy itself, causing it to be confused with the concept of rural tourism [64]. However, the literature reinforces that the aesthetic value of the landscape has a positive influence on tourist experiences [67]. At the same time, contact with agriculture provides sensory, educational, and recreational experiences with enormous potential to change individual behaviors, particularly by promoting healthier and more sustainable daily habits [68].

References

  1. Todorova, S.; Ikova, J. Multifunctional Agriculture: Social and Ecological Impacts on the Organic Farms in Bulgaria. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 9, 310–320.
  2. Peira, G.; Longo, D.; Pucciarelli, F. Rural Tourism Destination: The Ligurian Farmers’ Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13684.
  3. Campos, S.; Madureira, L. Can Healthier Food Demand be Linked to Farming Systems’ Sustainability? The Case of the Mediterranean Diet. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2019, 10, 262–277.
  4. Kuo, N.-W.; Chiu, Y.-T. The assessment of agritourism policy based on SEA combination with HIA. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 560–570.
  5. Montefrio, M.J.F.; Sin, H.L. Between food and spectacle: The complex reconfigurations of rural production in agritourism. Geoforum 2021, 126, 383–393.
  6. Sisneros-Kidd, A.M.; Monz, C.; Hausner, V.; Schmidt, J.; Clark, D. Nature-based tourism, resource dependence, and resilience of Arctic communities: Framing complex issues in a changing environment. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1259–1276.
  7. Sidali, K.L.; Kastenholz, E.; Bianchi, R. Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: Combining the intimacy model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1179–1197.
  8. De la Torre, G.M.V.; Hidalgo, L.A.; Fuentes, J.M.A. Rural Tourism in the South of Spain: An Opportunity for Rural Development. Mod. Econ. 2014, 5, 42994.
  9. Marques, C.P.; Guedes, A.; Bento, R. Rural tourism recovery between two COVID-19 waves: The case of Portugal. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 857–863.
  10. Slámová, M.; Kruse, A.; Belčáková, I.; Dreer, J. Old but not old fashioned: Agricultural landscapes as european heritage and basis for sustainable multifunctional farming to earn a living. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4650.
  11. Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M.M.; Jęczmyk, A.; Zawadka, J.; Uglis, J. Agritourism in the era of the coronavirus (COVID-19): A rapid assessment from poland. Agriculture 2020, 10, 397.
  12. Masot, A.N.; Rodríguez, N.R. Rural tourism as a development strategy in low-density areas: Case study in northern extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 2020, 13, 239.
  13. Orgaz Agüera, F.; Moral Cuadra, S.; López-Guzmán, T.; Cañero Morales, P. Estudio de la demanda existente en torno al oleoturismo. El caso de Andalucía. Cuad. Tur. 2017, 39, 437–453.
  14. UNESCO. Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites, 1962; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1962.
  15. UNESCO. Budapest Declaration on World Heritage; UNESCO: Budapest, Hungary, 2002.
  16. Gullino, P.; Larcher, F. Integrity in UNESCO World Heritage Sites. A comparative study for rural landscapes. J. Cult. Herit. 2013, 14, 389–395.
  17. Sánchez-Martín, J.M.; Rengifo-Gallego, J.I. Atractivos naturales y culturales vs desarrollo turístico en la raya Luso-Extremeña. PASOS Rev. Tur. y Patrim. Cult. 2016, 14, 907–928.
  18. Campesino Fernández, A. Recursos turístico-patrimoniales en la raya extremeña-alentejana. In Turismo de Interior en Áreas Fronterizas. Recursos e Ofertas; Pardellas de Blas, X.X., Ed.; Publication Service of the University of Vigo: Pontevedra, Spain, 2007; pp. 49–76. ISBN 9788481583458.
  19. Rede Rural Nacional. Bio-Regiões: Uma Estratégia Integrada de Desenvolvimento dos Territórios Rurais. Grupos Focais-Construção do Manual das Bio-Regiões em Portugal. 2020. Available online: https://inovacao.rederural.gov.pt/images/imagens/Doc_ProjectosRRN/Brochura.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  20. Turismo Taejo Internacional. Destino Gastronómico. Available online: www.turismotajointernacional.com (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  21. Junge, X.; Schüpbach, B.; Walter, T.; Schmid, B.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 67–77.
  22. Sayadi, S.; González-Roa, M.C.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 334–344.
  23. Surová, D.; Pinto-Correia, T. A landscape menu to please them all: Relating users’ preferences to land cover classes in the Mediterranean region of Alentejo, Southern Portugal. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 355–365.
  24. Van Zanten, B.T.; Zasada, I.; Koetse, M.J.; Ungaro, F.; Häfner, K.; Verburg, P.H. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 87–98.
  25. Chen, B.; Qiu, Z.; Nakamura, K. Tourist preferences for agricultural landscapes: A case study of terraced paddy fields in Noto Peninsula, Japan. J. Mt. Sci. 2016, 13, 1880–1892.
  26. Santoro, A.; Venturi, M.; Agnoletti, M. Agricultural heritage systems and landscape perception among tourists. The case of Lamole, Chianti (Italy). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3509.
  27. Gullino, P.; Battisti, L.; Larcher, F. Linking multifunctionality and sustainability for valuing peri-urban farming: A case study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1625.
  28. Song, B.; Robinson, G.M.; Bardsley, D.K. Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes. Land 2020, 9, 260.
  29. Hollander, G.M. Agricultural trade liberalization, multifunctionality, and sugar in the south Florida landscape. Geoforum 2004, 35, 299–312.
  30. Abellán, F.C.; Martínez, C.G. Landscape and tourism as tools for local development in mid-mountain rural areas in the southeast of spain (Castilla–la mancha). Land 2021, 10, 221.
  31. Daugstad, K. Negotiating landscape in rural tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 402–426.
  32. Sánchez-Martín, M.J.; Rengifo-Gallego, J.I.; Sánchez-Rivero, M. Protected Areas as a Center of Attraction for Visits from World Heritage Cities: Extremadura (Spain). Land 2020, 9, 47.
  33. Farsani, N.T.; Ghotbabadi, S.S.; Altafi, M. Agricultural heritage as a creative tourism attraction. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 541–549.
  34. Millán, M.G.; del Pablo-Romero, M.; Sánchez-Rivas, J. Oleotourism as a sustainable product: An analysis of its demand in the south of Spain (Andalusia). Sustainability 2018, 10, 101.
  35. De la Torre, M.G.M.-V.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Amador-Hidalgo, L. Olive oil tourism: Promoting rural development in Andalusia (Spain). Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 21, 100–108.
  36. Folgado-Fernández, J.A.; Campóm-Cerro, A.M.; Hernández-Mogollón, J.M. Potential of olive oil tourism in promoting local quality food products: A case study of the region of Extremadura, Spain. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02653.
  37. Vázquez de la Torre, M.G.M.; Gutiérrez, E.M.A. Las denominaciones de origen y las rutas del vino en españa: Un estudio de caso. PASOS Rev. Tur. Y Patrim. Cult. 2010, 8, 91–112.
  38. Baraja Rodríguez, E.; Herrero Luque, D.; Martínez Arnáiz, M.; Plaza Gutiérrez, J.I. Turismo y desarrollo vitivinícola en espacios de montaña con “alta densidad patrimonial”. Cuad. Tur. 2019, 43, 97–122.
  39. Fernández Portela, J.; Vidal Domínguez, M.J. Wine routes as engines of socio-territorial dynamisation: The case of Castilla y León. Bol. La Asoc. Geogr. Esp. 2020, 84, 1–36.
  40. Fusté-Forné, F. Tasting cheesescapes in Canterbury (New Zealand). N. Z. Geogr. 2016, 72, 41–50.
  41. Yu, X.; Mingju, E.; Sun, M.; Xue, Z.; Lu, X.; Jiang, M.; Zou, Y. Wetland recreational agriculture: Balancing wetland conservation and agro-development. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 87, 11–17.
  42. Bidegain, Í.; López-Santiago, C.A.; González, J.A.; Martínez-Sastre, R.; Ravera, F.; Cerda, C. Social valuation of mediterranean cultural landscapes: Exploring landscape preferences and ecosystem services perceptions through a visual approach. Land 2020, 9, 390.
  43. Assandri, G.; Bogliani, G.; Pedrini, P.; Brambilla, M. Beautiful agricultural landscapes promote cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 200–210.
  44. Schüpbach, B.; Bo, S.; Jeanneret, P.; Zalai, M.; Szalai, M.; Frör, O. What determines preferences for semi-natural habitats in agrarian landscapes? A choice-modelling approach across two countries using attributes characterising vegetation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 206, 103954.
  45. Christou, P.; Farmaki, A.; Evangelou, G. Nurturing nostalgia?: A response from rural tourism stakeholders. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 42–51.
  46. Figueiredo, E.; Kastenholz, E.; Pinho, C. Living in a rural tourism destination: Exploring the views of local communities. Rev. Port. Estud. Reg. 2014, 36, 1–12.
  47. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Raso, C.; Pansera, B.A.; Violi, A. Agritourism and sustainability: What we can learn from a systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9575.
  48. Surová, D.; Pinto-Correia, T. Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 311–330.
  49. Brumann, C.; Gfeller, A.É. Cultural landscapes and the UNESCO World Heritage List: Perpetuating European dominance. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2022, 28, 147–162.
  50. Surová, D.; Ravera, F.; Guiomar, N.; Martínez Sastre, R.; Pinto-Correia, T. Contributions of Iberian Silvo-Pastoral Landscapes to the Well-Being of Contemporary Society. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 71, 560–570.
  51. Nekhay, O.; Arriaza, M. How attractive is upland olive groves landscape? Application of the analytic Hierarchy Process and gis in southern Spain. Sustainability 2016, 8, 160.
  52. Xue, L.L.; Chang, Y.R.; Shen, C.C. The sustainable development of organic agriculture-tourism: The role of consumer landscape and pro-environment behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6264.
  53. Barbieri, C.; Sotomayor, S.; Aguilar, F.X. Perceived Benefits of Agricultural Lands Offering Agritourism. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2017, 16, 43–60.
  54. Belliggiano, A.; Garcia, E.C.; Labianca, M.; Valverde, F.N.; De Rubertis, S. The ‘eco-effectiveness’ of agritourism dynamics in Italy and Spain: A tool for evaluating regional sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7080.
  55. Evgrafova, L.V.; Ismailova, A.Z.; Kalinichev, V.L. Agrotourism as a factor of sustainable rural development. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Changchun, China, 21–23 August 2020.
  56. Lupi, C.; Giaccio, V.; Mastronardi, L.; Giannelli, A.; Scardera, A. Exploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 383–390.
  57. Phillip, S.; Hunter, C.; Blackstock, K. A typology for defining agritourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 754–758.
  58. Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: A typology-based study. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 394–405.
  59. Gil Arroyo, C.; Barbieri, C.; Rozier Rich, S. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47.
  60. Chase, L.; Stewart, M.; Schilling, B.; Smith, B.; Walk, M. Agritourism: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Industry Analysis. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2018, 8, 1–7.
  61. Dubois, C.; Cawley, M.; Schmitz, S. The tourist on the farm: A ‘muddled’ image. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 298–311.
  62. Ferreira, D.I.R.; Sánchez Martín, J.M. La agricultura como producto turístico en áreas rurales: Un debate abierto en la literatura. Investig. Turísticas 2020, 20, 97–123.
  63. Mastronardi, L.; Giaccio, V.; Giannelli, A.; Scardera, A. Is agritourism eco-friendly? A comparison between agritourisms and other farms in italy using farm accountancy data network dataset. Springerplus 2015, 4, 1–12.
  64. Streifeneder, T. Agriculture first: Assessing European policies and scientific typologies to define authentic agritourism and differentiate it from countryside tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 20, 251–264.
  65. Andéhn, M.; L’Espoir Decosta, J.N.P. Authenticity and Product Geography in the Making of the Agritourism Destination. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 1282–1300.
  66. Tew, C.; Barbieri, C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 215–224.
  67. Carneiro, M.J.; Lima, J.; Silva Lavrador, A. Landscape and the rural tourism experience: Identifying key elements, addressing potential, and implications for the future. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1217–1235.
  68. Kim, S.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, D.; Jeong, J.; Moon, J. The effect of agritourism experience on consumers’ future food purchase patterns. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 144–152.
More
Information
Subjects: Geography
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : ,
View Times: 396
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 24 Jun 2022
1000/1000