Achieving Sustainable Agritourism

1Sustainable Agritourism: An Exploration of Its Integration and Benefits

Sustainable Agritourism:An Exploration of Its’ Proper Integration and Benefits

A literature review presented

by

Alessandra Basadonna

to

The School of Arts and Sciences

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science

in the field of

Hospitality and Tourism Management

Endicott CollegeBeverly, Massachusetts

May, 2013


Topic Page Title Page 1

Index 2

Chapter 1: Overview 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction 5

Target Markets 6

Established Agritourism in Europe and Asia 7

Benefits 9

Pro-Poor Tourism 12

Establishing Successful Agritourism 14

Chapter 3: Methodology 20

Chapter 4: Results 21

Chapter 5: Limitations and Conclusion 32

Chapter 6: References 34

Chapter 7: Appendix 38


Overview

The objective of this capstone is to research the resources available to local leaders in

order to properly integrate and promote sustainable agritourism and its’ benefits into their

communities. The goal of agritourism is to create sustainability in agriculture and tourism,

therefore persuading local communities to take advantage of the ensuing social, economic,

natural and cultural benefits. The investment in human resources creates motivation to improve

the standard of living, causing a domino effect of job creation, social capital and environmental

awareness.

A study was conducted to research why agritourism is not more prevalent in the United

States, specifically Connecticut. Students in between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five were

asked to answer a questionnaire focusing on education in basic environmental awareness, as well

as organic farming and agritourism activities. The students were divided into two main age

groups; those in high school between the ages of fourteen and eighteen and those in college

between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one. Almost all of those in high school were aware of a

local farm while almost half of the college students were not. Furthermore, half of the college

students had never visited a farm while almost all of the high school students had. These high

school students had also claimed to have been educated in environmental responsibility and

awareness in school, concluding that if environmental consciousness is taught in schools,

agritourism will be better integrated into our communities.

Even though most of the participants had no desire to want to travel for organic products

or visit agritourism locations, almost all of them agree with the social and economic benefits of

agritourism and sustainability. The underutilization of education and marketing resources is

proving to hinder the future development of agritourism and therefore making its’ benefits,


though desirable, unreachable. With better use of the marketing and promotion resources as

hand, as well as more education on the linkages between agriculture and tourism, agritourism can

continue to expand and improve the quality of life and community, as well as provide economic

and environmental sustainability.

Introduction


Agritourism comprises rural enterprises that incorporate both a functioning farm and

commercial tourism component, for example: orchards, wineries and vineyards, pumpkin

patches, corn mazes and organic farms (Stoddard, Evans & Davé, 2008). Agritourism provides

an authentic experience in agriculture, including farming, education in organic lifestyles, and the

creation one-of-a-kind products using only tools and supplies available on the farmland. The

goal is to create sustainability in tourism, or as stated by Stoddard, Evans and Davé, (2008), “a

level of tourism activity that can be maintained over a long term because it benefits the social,

economic, natural and cultural environments of the area in which it takes place” (p 248).

According to McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, (2010), agritourism connects

residents within a community to work towards common goals and “social capital” to create

sustainability of tourism within their region. It uses agriculture and the travel/tourism industry to

open up new, profitable markets for farm products and services as well as travel experience

(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). Agritourism also offers seasonal employment opportunities,

new income for farmers, new products and new markets, as well as promoting a more organic

lifestyle to help support the “green” movement (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2007).The purpose of

this literature review is to examine the agritourism industry and its’ social, economic and

environmental benefits, as well as study ways in which this type of tourism can be incorporated

into more communities in the United States of America.

Target Markets


Among other niche tourism industries, agritourism began as a need to break free from the

classification of mass tourism segments, such as business or leisure (Fall & Lubbers, 2010).

There are more than only business and leisure travelers; instead there are an incredible amount of

travelers, each with different needs that are now being satisfied by different niche tourism

industries. According to Trunfio, Petruzzellis and Nigro, (2006), consumers looking for new

experiences push the tourism operators to develop a relationship with the destination, as well as

the heritage. “Tour operators have the ability to transform parts of the tourism industry, such as

environmental attractions and tourist services, in order to provide travelers with tools to create

new products with personality and originality” (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006, p

427).Therefore, to respond to the changing environment, niche markets should be offered to

personalize products and experiences to satisfy the needs of all different types of tourists

(Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006).

According to the U.S. Travel Association, in a study done in 2003, a little under fifty

percent of travelers say that their experience is better when they can see and do something

authentic (Fall & Lubbers, 2010). This fifty percent is not just including urban and culture

travelers, but tourists as a whole. In other words, this fifty percent is saying that even if initially

they were not travelling for an experience in agriculture, if presented with the opportunity, half

of the travelers would go to visit an agritourism business for the experience (Fall & Lubbers,

2010). The distinctive experience that agritourism offers is extended to all tourists, no matter

the age or social ranking.

According to Fall and Lubbers, (2010), the major market agritourism targets are people

who are looking for authenticity and experience, as well as those who are interested in rural

tourism and the benefits of the agricultural experience. Another group that agritourism targets


are those suffering from economic hardships but still want to travel and experience new things

(McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon & Perdue, 2010). Those tourists who are suffering financially can

still travel and experience something unique without having to worry about air fare or hotel

costs. Kelly, (2010), stated that another more recent target market are the people who are

looking to take a step back from the societies in which they live that are constantly pushing for

newer and faster technology. Tourists want farmers to take them back to a simpler time and give

them a better sense of well-being and community (Kelly, 2010).

Established Agritourism in Europe and Asia

The idea of agritourism is slowly but surely being adopted from Europe and has

expanded greatly within the past ten to fifteen years. Since most European nations do not have

industrial agricultural companies, there is more of a focus on the local food and therefore the

tourism, both local and international, is automatically combined with this organic lifestyle (Che,

D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). For example: in Italy, people only enjoy foods and wines at

certain times of the year and/or in certain regions because this way they know that it is fresh and

local. Now, due to the U.S.s’ recent movement towards more organic choices, agritourism and

its’ benefits for both the farmer and the consumer are becoming more and more obvious (Cone,

C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000).

In comparison with European nations, specifically Italy, there is a significant lack of

environmental education in general, as well as almost no education in sustainability (Totáro &

Simeone, 2001). Two hundred students from Sannio University in Benevento, Italy and two

hundred students from a high school nearby were questioned on their environmental awareness,

as well as their environmental sensibility, management capacity and ecotourism involvement


(Totáro & Simeone, 2001). The university students scored higher, which was expected, but both

groups tested very high with knowledge about basic ecological information as well as the ability

to manage and promote environmental tourism development (Totáro & Simeone, 2001). This is

because the university offers many environmental classes, such as Environmental Education,

Ecology, Environmental Law, Environmental Statistics and Environmental Economy. The

November after this study was performed, The Italian University System Reform took place,

providing degrees in Tourism Science, Tourism Economy, Environmental and Cultural Science

and Tourism Management Expert of Environmental and Cultural Tourism. This shows that the

cooperation between Italian universities will allow the application of environmental protection

and sustainability to tourism (Totáro & Simeone, 2001). Since this reform was done eleven

years ago, it proves how far ahead Europe is in the education and application of sustainability, as

well as the involvement in agritourism and ecotourism.

Parts of Asia have taken advantage of the high demand for natural resources and

integrated agritourism into their communities, revitalizing the local economy in more than one

area (Huang, 2006). The government in Taiwan, specifically, encouraged a change in the rural

economy after the most recent recession by creating businesses that stimulate the economy,

while responsibly using natural resources (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2007). According to

Huang, (2006), the “leisure farm industry” began to change in the form of recovering and

restructuring towards the service industry. Agritourism, as well as rural tourism, was used to

create jobs, provide additional income as well as economic benefits to rural and isolated areas

(Huang, 2006). The farmers understood the competitive advantage for natural resources, so they

used that demand to expand their business. Even though many farmers are very isolated and


without knowledge or training in the tourism field, agritourism, rural tourism and leisure farm

tourism operations increased dramatically from 2002 to 2006 (Huang, 2006).

Benefits

Farmers love to open their homes to tourists and educate them on agriculture, share their

experience with new people and share their personal products (Kyungmi and McGehee, 2004).

As stated by Che, Veeck and Veeck, (2005), farmers also diversify their business in hopes of

utilizing all of their available resources, so that all of their money is well spent as well as

providing products that might be very useful to others. Another motive for farmers to turn their

farms into an agritourism business is to provide healthy and organic food products at a fair price

(McGehee, 2007). By offering activities such as “pick-your-own”, farmers can offer healthier

products to the public, as well as pushing more people to buy local and organic to support

sustainable agriculture. Also, in response to a rapidly changing agricultural environment,

farmers are using agritourism and other alternative food production to counteract the

industrialization of agriculture (Welsh, 2008). The ten largest U.S. based multinational

corporations control over sixty percent of the food and beverages sold in the United States and

are continuing to grow. This means that the industrial farms will exist in a few rural

communities, causing other smaller farms to be washed out. If the farms, farmers and suppliers

become fewer and fewer, local communities will suffer both economically and socially (Welsh,

2008).

Agritourism pushes for a special connection between the farmer and the tourists. In order

for this to be successful, though, there has to be a strong sense of “social capital” within the

community. Social capital, as stated by McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, (2010), is defined


as the community involvement and collaboration. It is economically successful within

communities, when the three key roles of information sharing, coordination of activities, and

collective decision making are used (McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, 2010). By setting

goals together, residents of the community collaborate together, leading to a stronger sense of

community and the achievement of social capital. The creation of agritourism directly effects

the surrounding communities because it brings more tourists to the area as well as impacting the

area financially; therefore it is up to these residents to share recent information on the tourism

industry, coordinate activities to appeal to their target market of tourists and collaborate together

to make decisions for the benefit of the community. McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue

(2010), state that this “social capital” created by agritourism is the cornerstone to sustainable

tourism and financial stability within a community.

Strong networks within the community are vital to the economic success of an

agritourism attraction. A new agritourism business needs careful planning and a lot of research,

among other factors, in order to be successful (Nickerson, Black & McCool, 2001). Since most

farmers only have their farm as a source of income, they have adjusted to the demand for

agritourism by expanding acreage, increasing production and diversifying their income on their

farm (Buckley & Ollenburg, 2007). Now, many agritourism businesses have actually grown

from providing minimal secondary income to becoming the primary source of income for a

family (Kyungmi & McGehee, 2004). A study conducted by Fall and Lubbers, (2010), found

that “for every one dollar spent at an agritourism attraction, eighty-five cents of economic

activity is generated through multiplier effects” (p. 18). This income that a farmer is making

due to a new agritourism attraction has a multiplier effect, meaning that the initial change in

spending causes a larger change in output. So, not only is the new income beneficial for the


farmer, but this new income that will be spent within the community can stimulate the local

economy, creating a domino effect (McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, 2010).

The multiplier effect caused by agritourism businesses is a direct effect of the “buy local”

trend. Buying locally is extremely financially rewarding to the local community and is also a

driving force behind agritourism (Fall & Lubbers, 2010). By having farmers diversify their

business and create more local attractions, more income is created and eventually there is a need

for more help on the farm, as well as a higher demand for more employees with interpersonal,

marketing or other hospitality skills (Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). Even if someone does not

wish to be hired at an already existing farm, agritourism creates opportunities for individuals to

be able to sustain a rural lifestyle and be financially successful. By creating new jobs and local

attractions, agritourism has the potential to completely reverse the negative economic state

(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006).

Farmers who offer agritourism are beginning to understand their competitive advantage

in the tourism industry. Agritourism businesses sell an experience, and recently tourists are

looking for these experiences in environmentally friendly places due to the recent trend on

“green living” (Wicks, 2001). In this new era of the “green movement”, tourism is being used to

preserve the environment and environmental practices while improving economic conditions in

rural parts of the United States (Meador, 2010). Farmers who own and manage agritourism

locations are a huge part of a movement to make conservation a priority. While agritourism is

not a branch of ecotourism, both go hand-in-hand with the idea of providing financial benefits,

empowering local communities, as well as using natural resources for entertainment (Meador,

2010). The tourists who visit a farm or a ranch take part in many non-consumptive activities and

become part of a daily practice to conserve efficiently (Meador, 2010). A healthy, natural


environment is critical to the sustainability of agritourism because tourists visit these locations

for geography as well as the cultural, natural and historic resources (Stoddard, Evans & Davé,

2008). Also, since agritourism is a partner in ecotourism, there is still a sense of responsibility in

the travel experience. According to Singh, Slotkin and Vamosi, (2006), the benefits of

ecotourism and agritourism include “…conserving biodiversity, sustaining the well-being of the

local people, experiential learning, responsible action by tourism stakeholders, the use of

renewable resources and local participation and ownership” (p 120). The goal of agritourism and

ecotourism together is to sustain natural environments for tourists while providing social and

economic benefits to the local community (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2006). Utilizing the

natural resources available in a natural environment to provide unique experiences and products

makes agritourism a partner in ecotourism and sustainable agriculture (McGehee, 2007).

Pro-Poor Tourism

Under the niche market of agritourism, there is a movement called Pro-Poor Tourism,

which is defined as “tourism that generates net benefits for the poor” (Torres & Momsen, 2004).

This idea suggests that the tourism sector has the ability to reduce and/or extinguish poverty over

other economic sectors of the government because, since tourism is labor intensive, it has the

ability to provide employment (Torres & Momsen, 2004). Pro-poor tourism and agritourism

encourage the utilization of natural capital, such as agriculture or other products produced on

farms, to create more financial opportunities. Torres and Momsen, (2004), explain that

agritourism is the umbrella market over pro-poor tourism because agritourism targets all types of

tourists, while pro-poor tourism focuses on assisting poor citizens in selling their natural capital

and creating a sustainable food supply. Agritourism, as all tourism, has the ability to bring


tourists to the product, creating increased opportunities for the poor to connect with the market in

which to sell their products. So, not only do pro-poor tourism and agritourism work towards

economic growth within communities, but they also fight for peace, security, democracy and

human rights by fighting for financial and social stability and equality (Torres & Momsen,

2004). Pro-poor tourism also suggests a plan to invest its’ revenues into health and education

improvements. This fulfills pro-poor tourisms’ goal in “…improving conditions for the poor,

creating human and social capital, while also encouraging agritourism’s goal in improving

sustainable environmental practices” (Torres & Momsen, 2004).

The establishment of Pro-Poor Tourism is tricky because since the poverty population is

not well educated, there is inadequate training and understanding of the tourism industry which

is necessary (Torres & Momsen, 2004). The lack of knowledge about the tourism industry will

be discussed more fully in the next section, but it applies specifically to this area of tourism

because the poor population can become vulnerable and unfortunately be taken advantage of.

Torres and Momsen, (2004), also explain that encouraging the poor population to become more

competitive might lead to an increase in harm to the agricultural environment. In other words, if

there is little to no knowledge on how to properly develop agricultural products, as well as a

general lack of knowledge on the tourism industry, then the two cannot be established correctly

resulting in possible harm to local environment. For example: a lack of knowledge on how to

link agriculture and tourism can lead to diverting land and water resources away from agriculture

to support the urbanization of tourism. This could result in focusing more on revenue and an

increase of tourism production instead of maintaining sustainable farming practices (Torres &

Momsen, 2004).


Establishing Successful Agritourism

As briefly mentioned earlier, in order to obtain a successful agritourism business and

therefore be able to sustain tourism, it is important to understand who the target market is, how

they will be targeted, how their needs will be met, as well as what they will be offered

(Nickerson, Black & McCool, 2001). In the previous example, Taiwan has no organization in

charge of the agritourism or rural tourism market because there is a lack of knowledge and

training, marketing skills, promotion etc. Even though agritourism in Taiwan is increasing, there

is a lack of knowledge about the niche market and all niche tourism markets in general. Major

advantages of having an agritourism business in the United States or other more developed

countries are the educational opportunities, field training, information accessibility and

organizations to head tourist operations (Huang, 2006). Even in the United States, though, the

farm owners do not know who to market towards and furthermore how to reach that market, so

most people don’t even know that there are agritourism businesses available for visit (McGehee,

2007).

The lack of communication between farms and tourists is due to a lack of communication

between the destination marketing organizations and the farmers. Destination marketing

organizations should be established specifically to promote agritourism opportunities and

therefore help increase communication between farmers and travelers. What is promoted and

how it is promoted is vital to the sustainable development of agritourism in rural communities

(McGehee, 2007). Even though technology is constantly expanding and almost everyone uses

the internet and/or has a “smart phone”, agritourism is still an unknown market and that is

because farmers do not know how to market their products correctly. Farms that offer

experiences in agriculture should be contacting these marketing organizations to promote their


low-budget, organic and sustainable experiences, especially because green products and

experiences are trending right now.

Leadership in developing the agritourism market is vital because the tourism operator is

the link between the target market and a specific territory (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006).

Management and development of agritourism is necessary for the benefit of the farmer and the

tourist, as well as the surrounding community. According to Trunfio, Petruzzellis and Nigro,

(2006), leadership will ensure that the farmer knows who to target and how to target them,

spread the common vision and goal of the establishment, make certain that all laws and

regulations are known and followed, assist with pricing as well as educate the employees on

proper customer service. Also, by establishing a management team, tourists are assisted in their

choice of which agritourism destination best suits their desires and budgets(Trunfio, Petruzzellis

& Nigro, 2006).

Finally, leaders would make sure that the surrounding community is on-board with the

development of an agritourism business by informing them on how the new market will impact

their community (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). By creating a sustainable supply chain

and showing consideration for the existing community, the tourist has a higher quality

experience which creates customer loyalty, strengthens brand value and increases marketing

opportunities (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). If the new agritourism business is

successful, the new supply chain will help the tour operator to reduce the risk of conflict with

suppliers, staff and local communities, as well as improve its status as a partner in tourism

destination operation (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). As a result, key business resources

are improved, such as: capital, the ability to develop products that are in demand, relationships

within the region as well as relationships with the staff.


Many tourism organizations are local and regional which is very important because it can

stimulate further demand from an already strong market (Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). For

instance, promotion in nearby touristy or more populated regions can bring tourists who are

already on vacation to a farm or ranch for a day visit. Since many agritourism locations are

small and do not get a lot of publicity, it is extremely vital that tourism marketing organizations

promote their small businesses to tourists that are already travelling to the area but that might not

be aware of agritourism (McGehee, 2007). Another tool used to create more income and give

tourists a more memorable experience is regionalization. As stated by Ramsey and

Schaumleffel, (2006), regionalization is an “…essential strategy for developing the agritourism

experience by drawing on the power of clusters of interesting sites, activities, and events that can

only be accomplished on a regional basis through cooperation” (p 7). Attracting tourists to an

area where there is more than one farm, ranch or vineyard offers the tourist more options, as well

as pushing them to see and do more, creating more income.

Every small area or region has something different to offer, which is why collaboration is

so important. Tourist preferences differ by age, gender, education level, as well as income, so

offering more than one activity, as well as more than one location, can bring more tourists to the

area (Stoddard, Evans, Davé, 2008). Indiana is a good example of an area that understands the

importance of agritourism to the health of rural communities and the sustainability of farms

(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). The Office of Tourism Development in Indiana collaborates

with other organizations to help develop agritourism in more areas, as well as dedicating

themselves to helping communities sustain services that target these rural trends. The result was

almost seven billion dollars and fifty-eight million visitors in 2006, and they are still growing

(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006).


As stated previously, EU countries have spent more than two billion dollars on

agritourism in rural areas to improve and diversify economically, as well as preserve the

landscape (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). Farmers and the agriculture industry in the

U.S. struggle with problems stemming mainly from financially competitive industrial farms

(Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). These conflicting conditions can be solved with the

implementation of sustainable agritourism, as farms in Michigan and Indiana have done. Along

with providing an alternative source of income, farmers have been able to keep and protect their

land from damage as well as educate more people about food production and providing these

people with distinct agricultural products (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). In order to

overcome the barriers of instituting and maintaining agritourism, many Michigan farmers had to

figure out a way to market their product. As stated by Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., (2005),

the main marketing problem stems from two origins: isolated geography and independent

decision making. Farmers tend to focus more on improving independent production instead of

marketing and are therefore limiting themselves. It was then decided that collaborative alliances

should be formed to allow the farmers to market their products to a broader audience, as well as

remain competitive (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). Farmers in Michigan are

capitalizing on their comparative advantages along with their diverse products by marketing

together near large tourist areas. In summary, Michigan farmers have successfully managed to

integrate sustainable agritourism by using co-opetition, or competing and co-operating at the

same time.

Along with Michigan and Indiana, California has also been able to implement successful

and sustainable agriculture thereby promoting the agritourism market (Campbell, 1997). By

promoting economic development that is community-controlled, community members have


become more involved with local agriculture, taking the focus away from industrial farming and

private organizations (Campbell, 1997). The California Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture,

CASA, acknowledges the fact that in order for agritourism to be successful, sustainable

agriculture must exist. Farmers alone can establish sustainable agriculture on their own personal

farms by diversifying their crops and conserving natural capital (Campbell, 1997). In order to

expand the idea of sustainable agriculture, though, community involvement is crucial because

farmers may lack necessary levels of capital, technology or product experience. The goal of

sustainable agriculture, as stated many times, is to maintain a level of agriculture that

consistently provides social, economic and environmental benefits. But the CASA is also

striving to create subgroups focused on food security; this includes lowering poverty and hunger

rates as well as providing adequate nutrition (Campbell, 1997). The CASA has been able to

establish grower information networks, marketing coalitions and political collaboration as well

as achieve all forms of social, economic and environmental goals by rejecting the individualistic

work ethic and focusing more on mutual sacrifice (Campbell, 1997).

Western Massachusetts has also shown initiative by adopting the idea of Community-

Supported Agriculture from Europe in 1985 (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). Community-

Supported Agriculture, or CSA, is a growing social movement that is trying to make a direct

connection between food producers and consumers (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). Basically,

it is an agreement between a producer and a group of members that purchase a share at the

beginning of a season. According to Cone, C.A. and Myhre, (2000), this allows farmers to plan

for a guaranteed market and the upfront money provided by the members pays for the real cost of

production thus supporting local growers. All of the risks are shared, so if there is poor harvest,

the members and the farmer get less (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). This community fights


the idea of industrial agriculture and combines the idea of social capital with sustainability. All

of the members are required to assist the farmer in one way or another, either through the

contractual agreement or through volunteering, and the farmer in return grows whatever food

they need. According to Cone, C.A. and Myhre, (2000), in the U.S. in 1999 there were over one

thousand CSA farms and as of 2000 there were about thirteen thousand. In 1994, there were

about six million dollars in CSA share sales, but since the growth and expansion, each farm has a

different share cost so it is difficult to project the sales today (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000).

CSA supports agritourism in the sense that it creates a sense of community and involvement,

supports sustainability and a healthy environment as well as giving members authentic

experiences and the knowledge of who grows their food and where it is grown (Cone, C.A. &

Myhre, A., 2000). There are CSA farms all over the United States and the new “green

movement” is expected to increase the numbers.


Methodology

The developed questionnaire is focused on determining why agritourism is not more

prevalent in the United States and pinpoint the resources that have encouraged its’ expansion

thus far. A stratified sampling of students in sophomore year of both High School and College in

southern Connecticut was chosen to complete the questionnaire. Research has proven to suggest

that the lack of education on agriculture and the environment significantly impacts the growth

and development of agritourism. Twenty-five surveys were given to one teacher at both schools,

and then randomly distributed to students by those teachers. Being from Connecticut, there was

a high level of interest in comparing my level of education with the younger generations. Mercy

High School and Southern Connecticut State University are located in central/south Connecticut.

Mercy is located in a rural area while Southern is more urbanized.

These populations were broken up according to their age, their location and finally what

factor has impacted their environmental education the most. These categories were chosen to be

able to show a correlation of which age groups were the most educated, how they became

educated and furthermore if their location impacted that education. After providing a brief

explanation on Agritourism, the population was also asked if some of the available resources

should be utilized to take advantage of the benefits of Agritourism. Although not all of the

available resources were included in the questionnaire, education and marketing as well as

community, conservation and Pro-Poor Tourism options are included. Some of the questions

were developed to inquire if the students knew about local agriculture; if they had visited any

farms or plan to visit them in the future. Other questions focused on their education of farming,

sustainability and their benefits. The questions aim to conclude if Agritourism will continue to

expand in the future based on the willingness of future leaders to utilize available resources.


Results

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14S1 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 1S2 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1S3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 2S4 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1S5 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1S6 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1S7 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1S8 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1S9 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1S10 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1S11 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1S12 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1S13 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1S14 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1S15 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1S16 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1S17 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1S18 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1S19 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1S20 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 1S21 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1S22 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1S23 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1S24 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3S25 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 1S26 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1S27 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1S28 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3S29 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 1S30 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1S31 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1S32 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 3S33 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1S34 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1S35 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3S36 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 1S37 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 1S38 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 1S39 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1S40 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1S41 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1S42 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1S43 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1S44 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1S45 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 1S46 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1S47 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1S48 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1S49 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1S50 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1Average 1.64 1.74 3.3 1.22 1.32 1.3 1.44 2.08 2.64 1.86 2.95 1.34 1.24 1.18


Numb

erCh

oice 1

Choic

e 2Ch

oice 3

Choic

e 4Ch

oice 5

Ques

tion

Q114

-18 (1

)19

-21 (2

)22

-25 (3

)25

+ (3)

Wha

t is yo

ur ag

e?Q2

Rural

(1)

Subu

rban

(2)

Urba

n (3)

How

would

you d

escri

be w

here

you l

ive?

Q3Int

erne

t (1)

Fami

ly (2)

Comm

unity

(3)

Telev

ision

(4)

Scho

ol (5)

Whic

h one

of th

e foll

owing

has i

nflue

nced

you t

he m

ost in

envir

onmn

etal e

duca

tion?

Q4Ye

s (1)

No (2

)Ar

e the

re an

y farm

s in y

our a

rea?

Q5Ye

s (1)

No (2

)Ha

ve yo

u eve

r visi

ted an

y of t

hese

farm

s?Q6

Agre

e (1)

Unde

cided

(2)

Disag

ree (3

)Yo

u can

name

at le

ast o

ne na

tural

reso

urce

that

is na

tive t

o Con

necti

cut.

Q7Ag

ree (

1)Un

decid

ed (2

)Dis

agree

(3)

If you

knew

of a

nearb

y farm

ers m

arket,

you w

ould

visit i

t.Q8

Agre

e (1)

Unde

cided

(2)

Disag

ree (3

)Yo

ur ge

nerati

on do

es no

t wan

t to v

isit fa

rms.

Q9Ag

ree (

1)Un

decid

ed (2

)Dis

agree

(3)

There

is no

diffe

renc

e betw

een b

uying

fruit

s and

vege

tables

at a

groce

ry sto

re an

d buy

ing th

em di

rectl

y fro

m a f

arm.

Q10

Agre

e (1)

Unde

cided

(2)

Disag

ree (3

)To

urist

s trav

el to

plac

es fo

r the

ir natu

ral re

sour

ces

Q11

Agre

e (1)

Unde

cided

(2)

Disag

ree (3

)Or

ganic

food

s are

the s

ame p

rice a

s non

-orga

nic fo

ods.

Q12

Agre

e (1)

Unde

cided

(2)

Disag

ree (3

)Or

ganic

prod

ucts

are be

tter f

or yo

ur he

alth i

n com

paris

on w

ith no

n-orga

nic pr

oduc

ts.Q1

3Ag

ree (

1)Un

decid

ed (2

)Dis

agree

(3)

Learn

ing ho

w to

farm

wou

ld he

lp th

ose b

elow

the p

overt

y line

main

tain a

stea

dy su

pply

of foo

d.Q1

4Ag

ree (

1)Un

decid

ed (2

)Dis

agree

(3)

It is a

good

idea

for g

rowi

ng an

d dev

elopin

g farm

s to h

ire th

ose w

ho ar

e cur

rently

unem

ploye

d.


Table 1

Frequency %Total Number of Surveys 50 100%

Age 14-18 26 52%Age 19-21 17 34%Age 22-25 6 12%Age +25 1 2%

Rural 21 42%Suburban 21 42%City 8 16%

Internet 3 6%Family 22 44%Community 3 6%Television 1 2%School 21 42%

Table 1 shows that most participants were between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one and lived in rural or suburban areas of Connecticut. Out of the fifty participants, most have been influenced by either their family or school in regards to environmental education. This finding is encouraging to McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue’s (2010) statement, explaining that social capital is the cornerstone to sustainable tourism and financial stability within a community. The more educated a community is in environmental health and sustainability, the better the chance of successfully integrating and promoting agritourism.


Table 2

Q4: Are there any farms in your area?

Average Answer YesYes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Ages 14-18 23 3 26 Rural 20 1 21 Internet 3 0 3Ages 19-21 11 6 17 Suburban 18 3 21 Family 14 8 22Ages 22-25 4 2 6 City 1 7 8 Community 2 1 3Ages +25 1 0 1 Television 0 1 1

School 20 1 21Total 39 11 50 39 11 50 39 11 50

Table 3

Q5: Have you visited any of these farms? (For those who answered Yes above)

Average Answer YesYes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Ages 14-18 22 1 23 Rural 16 4 20 Internet 3 0 3Ages 19-21 6 5 11 Suburban 17 1 18 Family 9 5 14Ages 22-25 4 0 4 Community 2 0 2

School 19 1 20Total 32 6 38 Total 33 5 38 Total 33 6 39

As shown in Table 1, most participants were high school and college students between the ages of 14 and 21. In Tables 2 and 3, the high school students stated that they were aware of local farms and have visited them in the past, while about only half of the college students, who had stated to have knowledge of local farms, actually have visited them. Table 3 also proves that the students who had acquired environmental education in schools had also gone to visit the local farms. This proves Totaro and Simeone's (2001) finding that the lack of education on the topic of environmental education and sustainability negatively impacts the spread of agritourism. In Totaro and Simeone's (2001) study, two hundred students from southern Italy were questioned on their environmental awareness, as well as their environmental sensibility, managemental capacity and ecotourism involvementand tested very high with knowledge about basic ecological information as well as the ability to manage and promote the environmental tourism development. Over twenty percent of the 50 surveyed students from Connecticut were not even aware of any local farms.


Table 4

Q6: You can name one natural resource that is native to Connecticut.

Average* 1.3Ages 14-18 1.58 Rural 1.33 Internet 2.00Ages 19-21 1.00 Suburban 1.38 Family 1.09Ages 21-25 1.00 Community 1.00

School 1.48

*On a scale of 1 to 3. 1 being "Agree", 2 being "Undecided" and 3 being "Disagree"

Table 4 shows that all students over the age of 19 can name one natural resource that is native to Connecticut. High school students in between the ages of 14 and 18 were more undecided about what natural resources were native to Connecticut. Students who previously claimed to have acquired environmental education in school were in between "Agree" and "Undecided", almost leaning more towards "Undecided". While those who obtained knowledge about the health of the environment from the internet were also "Undecided", students who were educated through family and community mostly stated that they were able to name one natural resource from Connecticut. Those from rural and suburban environments, for the most part, also stated that they could probably name one natural resource from Connecticut. As stated on Tables 2 and 3, the lack of environmental education is apparent and seems to become worse with younger generations.


Table 5

Q7: If you knew of a nearby farmers market, you would visit it.


School 1.33


Table 6

Q8: Your generation does not want to visit farms.

Average* 2.08Ages 14-18 1.85 Rural 2.24 Internet 1.33Ages 19-21 2.18

Suburban 2.05 Family 2.23

Ages 21-25 2.67

Community 2.00School 2.05


Tables 5 and 6 represent the likelihood for a high school or college student to visit a farmers market. High school students seemed to mostly agree that if they were aware of a nearby farmers market, they would go visit it. On the other hand, college students leaned more towards the "Undecided" choice for this category. In summary for question 8, high school and college were "Undecided" on the topic of visiting farms. Those ages 21 to 25 were the only category that was heading towards "Disagree", and therefore believe that their generation might want to visit farms. As a whole, these results disagree with Fall and Lubbers (2010) findings from a study done in 2003 by the U.S. Travel Association, which stated that about fifty percent of all travelers say that their experience is better when they can see and do something authentic. Fall and Lubbers (2010) concluded that about fifty percent of travelers would visit an agritourism


location for the experience if presented with the opportunity, which is not what the results from Tables 5 and 6 found.

Table 7

Q9: There is no difference between buying fruits and vegetables at a grocery storeand buying them directly from a farm.


School 2.67


Table 7 shows an average of "Undecided" but leaning more towards "Disagree" rather than "Agree", meaning that they are mostly unaware of the difference between buying locally and purchasing imported goods at a grocery store. These results prove that the students realize that there is a difference between buying locally and not. This complements McGehee, Lee, O'Bannon and Perdue (2010) argument for the multiplier effect and its' benefits.


Table 8

Q10: Tourists travel to places for their natural resources. For example: travelling to Italy for olive oil.


School 2.33


Table 8 finds that generally the students agree that tourists will travel for a certain natural resources, but are also leaning towards the "Undecided" choice. Unlike Tables 5 and 6, these results agree with Fall and Lubbers (2010) findings that fifty percent of travelers say that their experience is better when they can see and do something authentic, and they will travel for an authenticity and experience if they were aware of it.


Table 9

Q11: Organic foods are the same price as non-organic foods.

Average* 2.95Ages 14-18 2.92 Rural 2.95 Internet 2.67Ages 19-21 2.94 Suburban 2.9 Family 2.95

Ages 21-25 3.00Community 3.00School 2.95


Table 10

Q12: Organic products are better for your health in comparison with non-organic products.


School 1.14


Tables 9 and 10 show the students opinions on organic products in comparison with non-organic products. Together, the students think that there is a price difference between the two. They also believe that organic products are healthier in comparison with non-organic products. The eldest group is in between agreeing with the statement and the "Undecided" option, unlike the younger


groups who seem to agree that organic products are healthier than non-organic.

Table 11

Q13: Learning how to farm would help those below the poverty line.


School 1.19


Table 12

Q14: It is a good idea for growing and developing farms to hire those who are currently unemployed.


School 1.29


Tables 11 and 12 are meant to outline the students opinions on the basic definition for Pro-Poor Tourism. The students for the most part agree that farming would help those below the poverty line in employment opportunities as well as maintain a steady food supply. The results of this survey encourage Torres and Momsen's (2004) argument to use agritourism to push the Pro-Poor Tourism movement forward.


Limitations

Even though the intention was to aim the questionnaire at a younger audience, it could

have also been distributed to an older group to create a better comparison of knowledge on

sustainability and the environment. The two groups were all adolescents/young adults and

therefore did not encapsulate the significant difference in education between generations, as

planned. Furthermore, the high school sophomore students might have been too young of a

group to fully understand the concept of Agritourism and sustainability.

The questionnaire was developed to pinpoint which available resources need to be

utilized in order to better establish agritourism in the United States. It included education and

marketing as well as Pro-Poor Tourism objectives and briefly covered competition and

community. It did not, however, include questions covering conservation and environmental

responsibility or expand on the topics of community involvement, competition for natural

resources.

Conclusion

Building upon already existing human and natural capital is the main benefit of achieving

sustainability because the necessary tools are already available. Its’ development focuses on


taking the territory at hand and using collective human resources to develop a quality of life that

can be maintained in the future (Theodoropoulou, Mitoula, Astara & Kaldis, 2008). These

resources, in summary, include education and marketing, community, competition, conservation

and training. The most apparent of these that is lacking is education; it is impossible to expand

on ideas that do not yet exist. The lack of knowledge on basic agriculture, as well as the

combination of agriculture and tourism, is the main reason that the development of sustainability

is being stalled. According to the analysis, the group in their second or third year of college

stated that they were able to name one resource that is native to Connecticut, while most of those

in their second year of high school could not. Both of these groups claim to not know the

difference between buying locally and buying from large industries. Half of those participants

ranging from ages eighteen to twenty-one weren’t aware of any farms in their area and moreover,

only half of those that were aware of farms had visited them. With better use of the marketing

and promotion resources at hand, as well as increasing environmental education, agritourism has

the potential to continue to grow and improve the quality of life and community, and provide

economic and environmental sustainability (McGehee, 2007).


References

Buckley, R. & Ollenburg, C. (2007). Stated Economic and Social Motivations of Farm Tourism

Operators. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 444-452.

Campbell, D. (2000). Community-Controlled Economic Development As A Strategic Vision

for the Sustainable Agriculture Movement. Making Waves, 11 (3), 17-25.

Che, D., Veeck, A. &Veeck, G. (2005). Sustaining Production and Strengthening the

Agritourism Product: Linkages Among Michigan Agritourism Destinations. Agriculture and

Human Values, 22 (2), 225-234.

Cone, C.A., Myhre, A. (2000). Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative

to Industrial Agriculture? Human Organization, 59 (2), 187-197.

Fall, L. & Lubbers, C. (2010). Assessing and Expanding Niche Market: Determining How IMC

Information Sources Predict Participation in Agritourism Activities Among Vacation Travelers.

International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 2 (1), 17-18.


Huang, L. (2006). Rural Tourism Revitalization of the Leisure Farm Industry by Implementing

An E-Commerce Strategy. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12 (3), 232-245.

Kelly, D. (2010). Agritourism A Growing Trend for Rural Landowners; Offers A New Type of

Farm Income. Missouri Beginning Farming Grant on behalf of the National Institute of Food

and Agriculture. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from

http://missouribeginningfarming.blogspot.com/search/label/agritourism.

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

of Travel Research, 43 (2), 161-162.

McGehee, N. (2007). An Agritourism Systems Model: A Weberian Perspective. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 33 (1), 111-124.

McGehee, N., Lee, S., O’Bannon, T. & Perdue, R. (2010). Tourism-related Social Capital and

It’s Relationship With Other Forms of Capital: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Travel

Research, 49, (4), 486-500.

Meador, S. (2010). Making Conservation A Business Priority. E-review of Tourism Reasearch,

8 (2), 7-10.


Nickerson, N., Black, R. & McCool, S. (2001). Agritourism: Motivations Behind Farm/Ranch

Business Diversification. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 444-452.

Ramsey, M. & Schaumleffel, N. (2006). Agritourism and Rural Economic Development.

Indiana Business Review, 81 (3), 6-9.

Singh, T., Slotkin, M., & Vamosi, A. (2007). Attitude Toward Ecotourism and Environmental

Advocacy: Profiling the Dimensions of Sustainability. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13 (2),

119-134.

Stoddard, J., Evans, M., Davé, D. (2008). Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Blue Ridge

National Heritage Area. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49 (3), 245-257.

Theodoropoulou, H., Mitoula, R., Astara, O. & Kaldis, P. (2008). Applied Issues of

Agritourism Cooperation and Sustainable Endogenous Development.American Journal of

Applied Sciences, 5 (11), 1588+.

Torres, R. & Momsen, J. (2004). Challenges and Potential Linking Tourism and Agriculture to

Achieve Pro-Poor Tourism Objectives. Progress In Development Studies, 4 (4), 294-318.

Totáro, E.A. & Simeone, A. (2001). Environmental and Cultural Tourism as a Model of an

Economic Sustainable Activity: Sensibility and Participation Sannio University Students.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2 (3), 238-249.


Trunfio, M., Petruzzellis, L., Nigro, C. (2006). Tour Operators and Alternative Tourism in Italy:

Exploiting Niche Markets to Increase International Competitiveness. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (5), 426-438.

Welsh, R. (2008). Farm and Market Structure, Industrial Regulation and Rural Community

Welfare: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (1-2), 21-

28.

Wicks, B. (2001). Agritourism: Selling An Experience. Missouri Alternatives Center’s

Bimonthly Electronic Newsletter, “AG Opportunities”, 12 (3).Retrieved February 27, 2013 from

http://agebb.missouri.edu/mac/agopp/arc/agopp040.txt.


Appendix

Hello,

I am currently working on my final thesis at Endicott College and would appreciate if you could participate in my survey on Sustainable Agritourism, which is the combination of agriculture and tourism to create environmental, social and economic benefits. Approximately 50 people will be randomly selected and asked to complete a survey that asks questions about their views on Sustainable Agritourism. The questionnaire is short and will take less than 5 minutes to complete.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point.

Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported only in my thesis. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential and anonymous. If you have any questions about the survey or the procedures or would like to receive a synopsis of the results, you may contact me, Alessandra Basadonna, at Endicott College or by email at the email address specified below.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

Sincerely,Alessandra [email protected], Endicott CollegeSchool of Hospitality and Tourism


1. What is your age?a. 14-18b. 19-21c. 21-25d. 25+

2. How would you describe where you live?a. Rural (mostly land)b. Suburban (city outskirts)c. Urban (city)

3. Which one of the following as influenced you the most in environmental education?a. Internetb. Familyc. Communityd. Televisione. School

Agritourism is the combination of agriculture (farms) and tourists, for example: visiting pumpkin

patches or farmers markets. It is being promoted to encourage more environmentally friendly

activities, as well as to create more jobs and encourage more participation in community

involvement. Please keep this in mind as you answer the following questions.

4. Are there any farms in your area? This includes vineyards, pumpkin patches, Christmas tree farms etc.a. Yes


b. No

5. Have you ever visited any of these farms?a. Yesb. No

6. You can name at least one natural resource that is native to Connecticut.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

7. If you knew of a nearby farmers market, you would visit it.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

8. Your generation does not want to visit farms.a. Agreeb. Undecided c. Disagree

9. There is no difference between buying fruits and vegetables at a grocery store and buying them directly from a farm.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

10. Tourists travel to places for their natural resources. For example: travelling to Italy for olive oil.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

11. Organic foods are the same price as non-organic foods.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree


12. Organic products are better for your health in comparison with non-organic products.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

13. Learning how to farm would help those below the poverty line maintain a steady supply of food.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

14. It is a good idea for growing and developing farms to hire those who are currently unemployed.a. Agreeb. Undecidedc. Disagree

15. Is it okay for me to use your confidential answers in my study?a. Yesb. No

Achieving Sustainable Agritourism

Documents

Transcript of Achieving Sustainable Agritourism