agricultural tourism zoning

Chapter 6.2 Food Security and Sovereignty

• Remove Code Barriers
• Create Incentives
• Fill Regulatory Gaps

Special Use Permits for Agritourism on Farms

Introduction.

Many small farms are facing economic hardships due to increased urbanization and competition. Farmland across the U.S. is threatened by non-farm development that focuses on residential, commercial, and industrial growth. [1] Farmland is also threatened by climate change, globalization, and competition making it increasingly difficult for small farms to be financially stable. [2] Many small farmers have needed to sell land because of financial difficulties, and since 2001 developers and others have converted over 11 million acres of agricultural land to non-farm development. [3] Whenever farmland is converted to non-farm development, potential food production, wildlife habitats, associated ecosystem services, and open spaces are permanently lost, as non-farm uses are rarely returned to agricultural uses. [4] Specifically relevant to this brief, conversion of farmland to other uses often results in increased real estate values and property taxes, making it difficult for farmers to stay in or move to the area. [5]

To help make farming more economically viable, some local governments are trying to support agritourism. Agritourism, also known as agricultural tourism, is a combination of agriculture and tourism. [6] Agritourism exists in many different forms, but the primary purpose is to attract visitors to agricultural areas. [7] Some examples of agritourism include corn mazes, hayrides, agricultural education centers, winery tours, and special events, such as weddings and concerts, hosted on agricultural land. [8]

Agritourism has gained international popularity to combat the loss of small farms and help preserve agricultural areas. [9] This trend is extremely popular throughout Europe and Canada, and increasingly in the United States. [10] Many localities have begun permitting agritourism activities on agricultural land subject to special use or conditional use permits.

Some localities have begun permitting specific activities on agricultural land subject to a special use permit [11] by providing extensive lists of special uses that farmers may consider. [12] Localities may also decide if they wish to limit agritourism to certain agricultural zones, [13] or to permit agritourism on any lot where the primary purpose is agriculture. [14] Lastly, some localities have begun permitting agritourism as a special use in all rural areas in addition to purely agricultural lots. [15]

The primary goal of agritourism is to help preserve agricultural areas, which is often reflected in the specific guidelines or requirements. Most localities require special use permits that require event plans and approval by zoning boards. [16] Some localities place requirements on the lots that wish to host agritourism activities, such as requiring agriculture to be the primary land use. [17] Furthermore, to ensure activities do not cause a nuisance to the surrounding landowners many localities require hosts of agritourism to provide adequate parking, [18] to limit sound amplification, [19] and to prove certain health and safety standards are met. [20]

Permitting farmers to host nonagricultural events on agricultural land can bestow many benefits upon them and their communities. As mentioned above, small farms face difficulties due to increased urbanization and competition. [21] However, increased urbanization near small farms provides a large market base to farmers looking to host nonagricultural events on their land. [22] Agritourism is a way for small farms to market directly to consumers in urban and suburban areas. [23] Furthermore, agritourism provides an avenue of diversification to help small farmers remain viable. [24] Agritourism is a means for small farmers to respond to both rising urbanization and competition. [25]

In addition, events on agricultural land can be a source of significant revenue. [26] A study in Virginia found that agritourism brought about $1.5 billion in revenue to Virginia in 2015. Seventeen percent of that amount went to agricultural venues, [27] and the remainder went to surrounding area businesses, helping to boost local rural economies. [28] Furthermore, a study in Missouri found that almost every farm that participated in agritourism increased profits. [29] This study also found that about a quarter of the farms that participated saw a two-fold increase in profits from the previous year. [30] The increase in profits did not depend on the farms acreage or their distance from urban centers, meaning that almost any farm can benefit from the introduction of agritourism. [31]

Furthermore, agritourism can help maintain agricultural land. [32] Agritourism provides new market opportunities for small farms to continue operation, [33] and can add utility to otherwise unused areas and structures on their land. [34] Agritourism also provides a platform for citizens to learn about agricultural activities, operations, and lifestyles. [35] Agritourism can also help educate new farmers through direct interaction and observation of agricultural methods. [36] Agritourism is also a new market that can encourage entrepreneurs to start a small farm of their own. [37]

Lastly, agritourism can provide considerable social benefits to agricultural areas. [38] Hosting events enables farmers to interact with many citizens from their community and beyond. [39] Agritourism helps to promote new interests for farmers and their communities such as recreation, tourism, and community events. [40] Events on farms also create opportunities for community engagement and can foster a sense of community pride. [41] Moreover, some areas have seen higher rates of female participation in agritourism, which could help lead to more female entrepreneurs. [42]

However, there are potential negatives that must be considered before permitting agritourism. Agritourism may create conflicts between conflicting land uses. Some agritourism activities such as weddings and festivals are not related to agriculture and may cause concerns to neighbors of the hosting lot. [43] Neighbors adjacent to agritourism hosting lots have complained of increased traffic, noise, trespassers, and the frequency of events. [44] There is also concern from these neighbors that too much agritourism will lead to the loss of the rural character of the area. [45] Some communities require farms to be a minimum size, provide adequate parking, and limit sound amplifications, in an effort to decrease nuisances to surrounding lots. [46] Additionally, communities can limit the type of activities that may occur on farms, [47] or they may require agriculture to remain the primary use of the land. [48]

In addition to concerns of conflicting land uses, communities must also consider certain health and safety concerns. To begin, there are concerns of E. Coli and other contaminants spreading to people from interacting with animals and animal waste. [49] Some activities hosted on farms also present concerns of personal injury such as mazes, hayrides, and bouncy castles. [50] To prevent infection and injury it is vital that permitted events hosted on farms are conducted in a safe manor. As mentioned, some communities limit the type of events that may be hosted, which helps prevent dangerous activities from occurring. [51] Additionally, communities often require certain conditions be met for the operation of events, often approved by zoning departments. [52] Some communities even require approval from health departments to ensure events are conducted in a safe manor. [53]

Sylvan Township, MI

Sylvan Township, Michigan, permits properties in the Agricultural District (AG) to be used for agricultural tourism. [54] Landowners that wish to use their land for agricultural tourism must receive a special land use permit. [55] The town permits a variety of activities for agricultural tourism, including wineries, outdoor mazes, hayrides, petting zoos, and more. [56] The intent of the ordinance is to protect natural agricultural areas while providing economic stability to the locality and landowner. [57]

While the town permits a variety of activities on agricultural land, it places restrictions on the activities to ensure the agricultural character remains. [58] The town requires agricultural activities to be the primary use of the land, and other activities may only constitute an accessory use. [59] Furthermore, to ensure activities do not cause a nuisance, the town requires farms hosting activities to be a minimum size, provide adequate parking, and limit sound amplifications. [60] Ordinances such as this provide opportunities for farmers to increase revenue, while ensuring that agricultural areas are protected. [61]

To view the provision see Sylvan Township (Washtenaw Co.), MI, Code of Ordinances § 30-808 (2019).

Troup County, GA

Troup County, Georgia, permits many events on agricultural land subject to a special use permit. [62] The intent of the ordinance is to permit agritourism while preserving the rural character of the area and protecting the health of other citizens. [63] Agritourism is permitted in Troup County to increase revenue and advertising for local farmers. [64] Additionally, Troup County recognizes the academic and social opportunities that agritourism offers. [65]

Events taking place on agricultural land must be approved by the Building, Zoning and Planning Department to ensure the proper operation of said event. [66] Moreover, large-scale events require safe restrooms, which are approved by the health department. [67] Large-scale events are also required to have measures in place to handle the increased traffic. [68] Ordinances such as this allow farmers to host events while limiting potential negatives that may be associated with large gatherings.

To view the provision see Troup County, GA, Code of Ordinances § 5.7 (2020).

Weber County, UT

Weber County, Utah, permits agritourism subject to a conditional use permit. [69] To preserve the agricultural character of the land, the county requires that at least 50 percent of the hosting property be used for agricultural purposes. [70] Furthermore, the sale of motorized vehicles and equipment is prohibited, except for the occasional sale of farm equipment. [71] The county includes a large list of recommended activities to consider in agritourism plans, [72] including barn dances, corn mazes, open-air markets, and many more. [73] This ordinance permits farmers to diversify their income, while ensuring agricultural use remains the primary use of the land.

To view the provisions see Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances §§ 104-5-6 (a),   108-21-3 (h),   108-21-5 (2019).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES

Lexington-Fayette County, KY, Zoning Ordinance § 8-3 (2017) (permitting agritourism and outdoor recreation in all agricultural-natural areas subject to a conditional use permit).

Blountsville, AL, Code of Ordinances § 40 (b) (2) (2013) (permitting outdoor entertainment and special events subject to a special exception use permit).

Keene, NH, Code of Ordinances § 102-302 (2017) (permitting agriculture-related recreational and educational activities in their agricultural district subject to a special exception permit).

Manchester, VT, Land Use & Development Ordinance § 1.14 (2018) (permitting events and other activities on agricultural land subject to a conditional use permit).

Walton County, FL, Code of Ordinances §§ 2.02.01 (D) (3), 2.02.02 (D) (3) (2019) (permitting commercial outdoor amusements as a conditional use in both their General Agriculture and Large Scale Agriculture districts).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Mary Gold & Rebecca S. Thompson, USDA, List of Alternative Crops and Enterprises for Small Farm Diversification (updated Jan. 2020), https://perma.cc/SQ9K-4WYA .

Barbara Berst Adams, Agritourism: Tips for Getting Started, Eco Farming Daily, https://perma.cc/8FE8-26BS (last visited Aug. 18 2020).

William Neuman, Small U.S. Farms Find Profit in Tourism, The New York Times (June 9, 2011), https://perma.cc/F59A-93EJ .

Alexandra Lizano & Elizabeth Rumley, The Nat’l Agric. Law Ctr., States’ Agritourism Statutes, https://perma.cc/7QGL-NMHW (last visited Aug. 18, 2020).

[1] Julia Freegood et al., Farms Under Threat: The State of the States , Am. Farmland Tr. 1, 3 (2020), https://perma.cc/EHK6-HS46 .

[2] Nha Thi Huynh Nguyen et al., The Attitudes Towards Agro-tourism Impacts and Its Effects on Participation in Agro-tourism Development, 7 Afr. J. of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 1, 1-5 (2018), https://perma.cc/D3RT-TF8Q .

[3] Freegood et al., supra note 1.

[4] See id. at 1-2.

[5] See Erika Fredrickson, In Montana, Houses are Replacing Farmland , High Country News (Jan. 15, 2018), https://perma.cc/M6NK-6NZR .

[6] Agritourism-An Overview, The Nat’l Agric. Law Ctr., https://perma.cc/D4BZ-RSY2 (last visited Aug. 18 2020).

[9] New Travel Trends for 2017: Agritourism Farmstays , Your Amazing Places, https://perma.cc/FB78-2LCX (last visited Aug 18, 2020).

[11] Walton County, FL, Code of Ordinances §§ 2.02.01 (D) (3), 2.02.02 (D) (3) (2019).

[12] Manchester, VT, Land Use & Development Ordinance § 1.14 (2018).

[13] Sylvan Township (Washtenaw Co.), MI, Code of Ordinances § 30-808 (2019).

[14] Madera County, CA, Code of Ordinances § 18.94.190 (2019).

[15] Lexington-Fayette County, KY, Zoning Ordinance § 8-3 (2017).

[16] Troup County, GA, Code of Ordinances § 5.7 (2020).

[17] Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances § 108-21-3 (h) (2019).

[18] Sylvan Township (Washtenaw Co.), MI, Code of Ordinances § 30-808 (2019).

[20] Troup County, GA, Code of Ordinances § 5.7 (2020).

[21] Brian J. Schilling et al., Examining the Economic Benefits of Agritourism: The Case of New Jersey, 3 J. Agric., Food Sys., & Community Dev. 199, 201 (2012), https://perma.cc/6GL2-W7WR .

[23] Ramiro E. Lobo et al., Agritourism Benefits Agriculture in San Diego County, UC Davis (Dec. 1999), https://perma.cc/38UT-NKW8 .

[24] Schilling et al., supra note 21.

[26] Vincent P. Magnini, Ph.D. et al., The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Agritourism in Virginia 7 (2017), https://perma.cc/5P8U-ANQS .

[29] Carla Barbieri & Christine Tew, Perceived Impact of Agritourism on Farm Economic Standing, Sales and Profits 8 (2016), https://perma.cc/CX6U-YV82 .

[32] Lobo et al., supra note 23.

[33] Travel Or., Benefits and Challenges With Agritourism Enterprises 1 (2017), https://perma.cc/T3U2-ZKB5 .

[34] Lobo et al., supra note 23.

[35] Travel Or., supra note 33.

[36] Ioan Petroman, Agritourism: An Educational Tool for the Students with Agro-Food Profile, 39 Procedia Econ. & Fin. 83, 87 (2016), https://perma.cc/22FP-NX9N .

[37] Emilio Chiodo et al., Agritourism in Mountainous Regions- Insights from an International Perspective, 11 Sustainability 1, 9 (2019), https://perma.cc/5UEJ-72GB .

[38] Christine Tew, Importance of Agritourism for Agripreneur Goal Accomplishment 12 (2010), https://perma.cc/3EQ6-AHWD .

[41] Humaira Irshad, Alta. Agric. & Rural Dev., Impacts of Community Events & Festivals On Rural Places 1-15 (2011), https://perma.cc/W9WW-TMSC .

[42] Chiodo et al., supra note 37.

[43] Diana Keith et al., Agric. Issues Ctr., Obstacles in the Agritourism Regelutory Process: Perspectives of Operators and Officials in Ten California Counties 3 (2003), https://perma.cc/8BYY-ZZMN .

[46] Sylvan Township (Washtenaw Co.), MI, Code of Ordinances § 30-808 (2019).

[47] Keene, NH, Code of Ordinances § 102-302 (2017) .

[48] Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances §§ 104-5-6 (a),   108-21-3 (h),   108-21-5 (2019).

[49] Peggy Kirk Hall & Ellen Essman, The Nat’l Agric. Law Ctr., Recent Agritourism Litigation in the United States 7 (2020), https://perma.cc/35Y6-TWH8 .

[51] Keene, NH, Code of Ordinances § 102-302 (2017) .

[52] Troup County, GA, Code of Ordinances § 5.7 (2020).

[54] Sylvan Township (Washtenaw Co.), MI, Code of Ordinances § 30-808 (2019).

[62] Troup County, GA, Code of Ordinances § 5.7 (2020).

[69] Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances § 104-5-6 (a) (2019).

[70] Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances § 108-21-3 (h) (2019).

[72] Weber County, UT, Code of Ordinances § 108-21-5 (2019).

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Human Nutrition and Food Safety
• Local Foods and Communities

AgriTourism

Agritourism is a form of commercial enterprise that links agricultural production and/or processing with tourism to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch, or other agricultural business for the purposes of entertaining or educating the visitors while generating income for the farm, ranch, or business owner.[National Agricultural Law Center.  Agritourism - An Overview [nationalaglawcenter.org] .]

Selected Resources

Agritainment [psu.edu].

Opportunities and considerations for starting an entertainment venture on your farm.

Agritourism [agmrc.org]

Identifies agritourism businesses; discusses management, marketing and risk management issues; and provides related resources and links.

See also: Best Management Practices in Agritourism [agmrc.org] .

Come and Get It! What You Need to Know to Serve Food on Your Farm [misa.umn.edu]

A toolkit and roadmap to help farmers start an on-farm food service venture.

Growing Your Brand [msstate.edu]

Training modules, tools and guides to help you understand your market and create a marketing plan.

A Guide to Successful Agritourism Enterprises [uvm.edu] [pdf, 15 MB]

A comprehensive guide for starting an agritourism program, including information on assessing resources, creating a business plan, goal setting, record keeping and finances, as well as safety and risk management and marketing.

Vermont Agritourism Collaborative [uvm.edu]

An extensive collection of material pertinent to all aspects of agritourism including guides and factsheets, videos, tools, information contacts, funding resources, and more.

Key Tools and Products

Extension training for agritourism development.

The program teaches how to minimize farm safety risks, manage liability, mitigate financial risk, and improve marketing strategies.  It features workshops, webinars, web-based resources, videos and factsheets.

Agritourism - An Overview

The National Agricultural Law Center defines agritourism and provides background, examples, and related legal issues.  

Alternative Crops and Enterprises for Small Farm Diversification

Information about how to grow diverse crops, raise multiple animal species, or employ other techniques to minimize the risk of any farming endeavor.

Page Content Curated By

FAQ: Agritourism on Your Farm

By Farm Commons

Educational or recreational activities on your farm, u-pick operations, wedding facilities, and other events can be wonderful ways to deepen the connection between farmers, customers, and community. Agritourism ventures can build buyer loyalty, increase sales, and increase peoples’ understanding of where their food comes from—all while helping the public understand why sustainable farming is important!

Like all other farm enterprise activities, agritourism ventures have risks. Good risk management can help maximize the value of farm events while minimizing any legal risks of the venture. The questions below are an excellent place to start in striking that balance.

My farm operation is allowed under my local zoning ordinance. Does that mean an agritourism venture is allowed as well?

The short answer is no. Even where a farm operation is allowed, zoning ordinances can prohibit agritourism ventures. This is because agritourism is often classified as an entertainment, educational, or other commercial, non-agricultural use of the property. These other uses may not be allowed in agricultural, residential, or urban zones. More likely, agritourism ventures will require an event permit, conditional use permit, or even a variance before they are allowed. Securing event or conditional use permits is generally fairly easy, so long as the farmer allows enough time for the process.

Farmers will need to do more research to learn their specific zoning obligations. One option is to call the local zoning authority (which may be a city, town, county, or other unit of government), explain the proposed venture, and ask if it’s allowed. Other farmers may prefer to research the zoning code themselves. Many local entities have their zoning codes online. Start by discovering in which code the property falls, and then read up on which activities are allowed or disallowed in that zone. Other options include talking with a local attorney or asking a reference librarian for assistance.

Does agritourism change my legal obligations regarding employee wages and workers’ compensation?

Yes, agritourism can change the farm’s employment law obligations. If they don’t already, most farmers will need to pay at least the minimum wage and provide workers’ compensation once they start an agritourism venture.

In some states, farmers take advantage of exceptions that allow them to pay less than the minimum wage or go without workers’ compensation. Farmers need to know that these agricultural exemptions to minimum wage and workers’ compensation requirements may not apply once they begin agritourism events. Agritourism is typically considered a commercial activity, not an agricultural activity. This area of law can be complex and farmers should consult our additional resources for more detail.

Where legal research is a barrier, there is a risk management strategy available: pay workers at least the minimum wage and provide workers’ compensation. Failure to do so if it’s required by law can result in heavy fines and obligations for back wages, and there is no penalty for doing so if it turns out not to be required.

Does agritourism change the way I do tax reporting and accounting?

Yes, agritourism activities are handled differently than production agriculture activities with respect to federal taxes. Agritourism activities are reported in accordance with IRS Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business. This is because the IRS considers agritourism a “non-farm” business activity (even though it occurs on your farm).

This can be confusing to farmers, because “farming” income and losses are reported on IRS Schedule F. As the IRS sees it, farming includes things like growing and harvesting crops, raising livestock or poultry, and preparing unmanufactured farm products for market and delivery to market. On the other hand, hosting weddings and corn mazes, for example, are considered non-farming activities.

For example, if a farmer hosts a wedding in her barn and charges a fee, the fee would be included on the Schedule C. Likewise, wedding-related expenses (for example, event insurance or construction costs to remodel the barn for weddings) are also included on the Schedule C. The results of the Schedule C are then carried to the farmer’s regular tax return form, just as the Schedule F results are generally transferred to the Form 1040.

Am I liable if someone is injured at my farm event?

It’s usually impossible to predict who will be responsible for potential injuries at farm events. It all depends on the details: what, where, and how. Fortunately, farmers don’t need to know complex details behind legal liability for injuries. The best and easiest way to manage legal liability is to make sure the farm has insurance coverage and to follow the terms of the insurance policy. Under a good policy, the insurance company will provide an attorney to defend the farm. Then, it’s the attorney’s job to understand and present the legal arguments that vindicate the farm. Insurance is valuable even for the safest farms. Even if the farm did nothing wrong, that needs to be proven in court.

Although farmers typically have general farm insurance policies that cover farm- related injuries, these policies often do not cover agritourism. Often, farmers have to do a little research and talk to their insurance agent to learn if they have coverage for their envisioned event. If not, the insurance agent is also the best source for getting coverage.

A few options are generally available. A special event endorsement or rider may work best for the occasional event. If the event is held frequently, a commercial line of insurance may be a better choice. A commercial insurance policy is designed to cover injuries extending from the business as a whole, not just the farm operation. Farmers can often add a commercial policy to their farm policy at an affordable rate.

As part of the policy terms and conditions, insurance companies may require specific precautions such as repairing infrastructure, posting signs, or providing other warnings — things that are probably good ideas anyway. Because the insurance company knows the ins and outs of legal liability in detail, they assist their customers in minimizing the chance of liability.

Do I need to collect sales tax for tickets, meals, and other items sold as part of my agritourism venture?

Farms offering agritourism options may need to collect sales tax on tickets or fees, meals, and items sold. Most states exempt raw agricultural products from sales tax requirements, so farmers may not be experienced with sales tax. However, agricultural or grocery exemptions often do not extend to entertainment, services, meals, crafts, and other components of an agritourism venture.

If sales taxes are required, the farm will need to open a tax account — something farmers may already have done if they have engaged in other taxable sales. Once a sales tax account has been opened, withheld taxes may be deposited into the account on a regular basis. The state department of revenue generally provides detailed information on how to open these accounts and remit taxes.

If I host on-farm events, what accommodations do I need to make for people with disabilities?

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits businesses that serve the public from discriminating against people with disabilities. This means that business entities that host public events must make sure they don’t exclude people with disabilities. For example, the farm should provide a way for people in wheelchairs to experience the event. Of course, things like accessible parking spaces, ramps, wide paths, and accessible picnic tables meet that requirement. But, simple things such as offering assistance pushing a wheelchair uphill or carrying a customer’s items to a vehicle are also reasonable accommodations in many instances. Failure to provide reasonable accommodations can lead to lawsuits and fines.

Simple and low-cost solutions are often available for insuring access to disabled persons. Where major renovations are necessary, tax breaks may be available for making ADA-related access improvements. Since each farm event is different, call the Federal Department of Justice’s ADA hotline with specific questions about their events and facilities. Each state has local Small Business Administration offices that can also answer questions.

DISCLAIMER: This guide does not provide legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship between the reader and author. Always consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.

Farm Commons is a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering sustainable farmers with the legal resources they need. We create practical, user-friendly educational resources. We also support sustainable farmers in proactively implementing legal best practices, collaborating on innovative legal solutions, and encouraging each other as leaders creating the change they seek. For more information, visit www.farmcommons.org .

Kacey Deamer

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Membership Overview

Membership renewal, frequently asked questions, special offers, knowledge center, knowledge center overview, publications.

• PAS Reports
• PAS QuickNotes
• Zoning Practice

Applied Research

• APA Foresight
• Green Communities
• Hazards Planning
• Planning and Community Health

Research KnowledgeBase

• Contributor's Dashboard
• Featured Collections
• Search All Collections

Topic Based Resources

• Autonomous Vehicles (AV)
• Climate Change
• Disaster Recovery
• Infrastructure

Planning Advisory Service

Conferences and learning, conferences and learning overview, national planning conference, planners' day on capitol hill, upskilling planners.

AICP Overview

One path to aicp, certification maintenance, maximize your credential, aicp fellows, policy and advocacy, policy and advocacy overview, policy issues, planners' advocacy network, state government affairs, amicus curiae, career center, career center overview, job seekers, advance your career, choosing the planning profession, mentoring at apa, in your community, in your community overview, what is planning, great places in america, national community planning month, national planning awards, planning home, consultants, connect with apa, connect with apa overview, students and new planners, member directory, awards and honors, equity diversity inclusion, advertise with apa, apa foundation.

APA Foundation Overview

Ways to give, apa scholarships, foundation donors, michigan agricultural tourism local zoning guidebook and model zoning ordinance provisions, by: michigan agricultural tourism advisory commission, https://www.networksnorthwest.org/userfiles/filemanager/3159/, agritourism | food systems.

This guide was developed by the Michigan Agricultural Tourism Advisory Commission, created by the state to study the impact of local zoning on agricultural tourism businesses. The guidebook explains the importance of zoning that allows for agricultural tourism. It defines the term and lists the benefits of these uses. The guide lists and describes a number of different agricultural tourism business types. It offers model zoning ordinance provisions to help local governments address agricultural tourism by incorporating some or all of the recommended language within an existing zoning code.

• Agritourism: where agriculture and tourism meet
• Community development

A corn maze. Barn weddings. A tour of a bison ranch.

Today the public is seeking authentic, on-farm experiences that can extend from well-known activities, such as a pick-your-own berries on-farm, to an overnight stay in a yurt in a sheep pasture and duck hunting on the edge of a farmer’s pond.

All of these on-farm activities are part of agritourism, which is most simply defined as where agriculture and tourism meet. Often this entails attracting visitors on-farm to experience its location or products, but the variety of possibilities and farmer ingenuity consistently presses the boundaries of the term.

What is the value for farmers and communities?

For some farmers, agritourism may be a source of new revenue to diversify business. For others, inviting visitors on the farm to see daily operations may help better educate the public about agriculture. Whatever the reason, however, whenever a visitor and farmer share a positive exchange, good things happen.

For rural communities, agritourism can play an important role in business and community development. On-farm businesses provide an avenue for local business development and can attract visitors — and their spending — to the communities. In addition, they can help define a local identity or preserve rural amenities and character.

MN Statute 604A.40 defines agritourism :

“Agritourism activity” means activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows organizations or members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, charitable, or educational purposes, to view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities, including, but not limited to: farming; viticulture; winemaking; ranching; and historical, cultural, farm stay, gleaning, harvest your-own, or natural activities and attractions. An activity is an agritourism activity whether or not the participant pays to participate in the activity.

Is agritourism right for my operation?

Similar to investigating any additional enterprise, you must decide how an agritourism venture will complement your current activities. Agritourism can be as simple as hosting an early childhood class to see farm animals or as complex as developing a posh farm-to-table dining business.

Connecting with educational resources, associations, and agencies that support agritourism activities in Minnesota is a great way to start and explore possibilities, anticipate risks, and build connections with other operators. An open exploration should provide tangible ideas of how agritourism plays out in “real life” and give a grounded view of how to get started.

Come and Get It (a guidebook for on-farm food service) provides assessments and questions to provoke your thinking:

• What is my current schedule like?
• Is there synergy with other farm operations?
• Where is the bulk of my current time and commitment to this operation going?
• What is the appeal of your farm to visitors? How do you present your farm to visitors?

These questions related to risk management, food safety, and customer service are key to examine before launching even the simplest on-farm event to make sure you and your visitors have a positive experience.

Use the links and information in the below section to help plan for and promote agritourism. 

• United States Small Business Development Administration offices are located around the state and offer free business consulting.
• Come and Get it Guide, Serving Food on the Farm is a guidebook produced by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture.
• Building a Sustainable Business booklet is available from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture.
• Farmstay Manual is a publication of the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture.
• Iowa State University’s Agricultural Marketing Resource Center provides a comprehensive set of information and resources for agritourism.
• Minnesota state statute provides limited immunity from liability for farmers that host agritourism activities.
• Starting a food business roadmap is a Minnesota Department of Agriculture resource to help people navigate licensing and regulation requirements for starting a food business.
• Minnesota Department of Agriculture provides a searchable licensing and inspections list.
• Legal considerations are summarized at FarmCommons.
• National Agricultural Law Center provides agricultural and food law research and information.
• Making your farm safe for youth provides unique challenges. This Farm Safety for Youth fact sheet from University of Minnesota Extension provides ideas and guidance.
• Mitigate the risks for those that come in contact with animals or animal waste on your farm by reading this Animal Contact in Public Settings fact sheet from University of Minnesota Extension.
• Handwashing and Farm Safety resources are available from the Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (UMASH).
• Those serving food on their farms should have standard operating procedures approved by their food service inspector. The standard operating procedures for food service by University of Minnesota Extension can be helpful.
• Safer Farm Animal Contact Exhibits (Safer FACEs) online training is available through the Minnesota Department of Health.
• Integrating safety into agritourism provides walkthroughs, checklists and resources to help ensure the safety and health of your visitors.
• Minnesota Grown is the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s marketing program for Minnesota farms and farm products.
• Explore Minnesota is Minnesota’s tourism promotion agency.
• Marketing in a digital era toolkit , a guide from the Center for Rural Enterprise Engagement, helps those in agriculture develop a successful marketing plan.

Download PDF version

Join our mailing list for updates on agritourism resources and efforts in Minnesota from the below link.

Minnesota's showcase of rural innovation expands, yet has more potential for success.

Survey results show an 18% drop in sales and a 10% decrease in jobs due to COVID-19 restrictions. Read more findings from Extension's study.

Food forests are food production systems that combine perennial and annual plants in a multi-story cropping design. Communally managed food forests are a sustainable way to address the increased need …

Reviewed in 2022

© 2024 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

• Report Web Disability-Related Issue |
• Privacy Statement |
• Staff intranet

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 March 2023

The benefits of tourism for rural community development

• Yung-Lun Liu 1 ,
• Jui-Te Chiang 2 &
• Pen-Fa Ko 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  137 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

11 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Development studies

While the main benefits of rural tourism have been studied extensively, most of these studies have focused on the development of sustainable rural tourism. The role of tourism contributions to rural community development remains unexplored. Little is known about what tourism contribution dimensions are available for policy-makers and how these dimensions affect rural tourism contributions. Without a clear picture and indication of what benefits rural tourism can provide for rural communities, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. The objectives of this study are threefold. First, we outline a rural tourism contribution model that policy-makers can use to support tourism-based rural community development. Second, we address several methodological limitations that undermine current sustainability model development and recommend feasible methodological solutions. Third, we propose a six-step theoretical procedure as a guideline for constructing a valid contribution model. We find four primary attributes of rural tourism contributions to rural community development; economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational, and 32 subattributes. Ultimately, we confirm that economic benefits are the most significant contribution. Our findings have several practical and methodological implications and could be used as policy-making guidelines for rural community development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Creativity development of tourism villages in Bandung Regency, Indonesia: co-creating sustainability and urban resilience

Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies

Knowledge mapping of relative deprivation theory and its applicability in tourism research

Introduction.

In many countries, rural areas are less developed than urban areas. They are often perceived as having many problems, such as low productivity, low education, and low income. Other issues include population shifts from rural to urban areas, low economic growth, declining employment opportunities, the loss of farms, impacts on historical and cultural heritage, sharp demographic changes, and low quality of life. These issues indicate that maintaining agricultural activities without change might create deeper social problems in rural regions. Li et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed why some rural areas decline while others do not. They emphasized that it is necessary to improve rural communities’ resilience by developing new tourism activities in response to potential urban demands. In addition, to overcome the inevitability of rural decline, Markey et al. ( 2008 ) pointed out that reversing rural recession requires investment orientation and policy support reform, for example, regarding tourism. Therefore, adopting rural tourism as an alternative development approach has become a preferred strategy in efforts to balance economic, social, cultural, and environmental regeneration.

Why should rural regions devote themselves to tourism-based development? What benefits can rural tourism bring to a rural community, particularly during and after the COVID pandemic? Without a clear picture and answers to these questions, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. Understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development is critical for helping government and community planners realize whether rural tourism development is beneficial. Policy-makers are aware that reducing rural vulnerability and enhancing rural resilience is a necessary but challenging task; therefore, it is important to consider the equilibrium between rural development and potential negative impacts. For example, economic growth may improve the quality of life and enhance the well-being index. However, it may worsen income inequality, increase the demand for green landscapes, and intensify environmental pollution, and these changes may impede natural preservation in rural regions and make local residents’ lives more stressful. This might lead policy-makers to question whether they should support tourism-based rural development. Thus, the provision of specific information on the contributions of rural tourism is crucial for policy-makers.

Recently, most research has focused on rural sustainable tourism development (Asmelash and Kumar, 2019 ; Polukhina et al., 2021 ), and few studies have considered the contributions of rural tourism. Sustainability refers to the ability of a destination to maintain production over time in the face of long-term constraints and pressures (Altieri et al., 2018 ). In this study, we focus on rural tourism contributions, meaning what rural tourism contributes or does to help produce something or make it better or more successful. More specifically, we focus on rural tourism’s contributions, not its sustainability, as these goals and directions differ. Today, rural tourism has responded to the new demand trends of short-term tourists, directly providing visitors with unique services and opportunities to contact other business channels. The impact on the countryside is multifaceted, but many potential factors have not been explored (Arroyo et al., 2013 ; Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). For example, the demand for remote nature-based destinations has increased due to the fear of COVID-19 infection, the perceived risk of crowding, and a desire for low tourist density. Juschten and Hössinger ( 2020 ) showed that the impact of COVID-19 led to a surge in demand for natural parks, forests, and rural areas. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) demonstrated that the countryside is gaining more domestic tourists due to natural, gastronomic, and local attractions. Thus, they contended that the COVID-19 pandemic created rural tourism opportunities.

Following this change in tourism demand, rural regions are no longer associated merely with agricultural commodity production. Instead, they are seen as fruitful locations for stimulating new socioeconomic activities and mitigating public mental health issues (Kabadayi et al., 2020 ). Despite such new opportunities in rural areas, there is still a lack of research that provides policy-makers with information about tourism development in rural communities (Petrovi’c et al., 2018 ; Vaishar and Šťastná, 2022 ). Although there are many novel benefits that tourism can bring to rural communities, these have not been considered in the rural community development literature. For example, Ram et al. ( 2022 ) showed that the presence of people with mental health issues, such as nonclinical depression, is negatively correlated with domestic tourism, such as rural tourism. Yang et al. ( 2021 ) found that the contribution of rural tourism to employment is significant; they indicated that the proportion of nonagricultural jobs had increased by 99.57%, and tourism in rural communities had become the leading industry at their research site in China, with a value ten times higher than that of agricultural output. Therefore, rural tourism is vital in counteracting public mental health issues and can potentially advance regional resilience, identity, and well-being (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ).

Since the government plays a critical role in rural tourism development, providing valuable insights, perspectives, and recommendations to policy-makers to foster sustainable policies and practices in rural destinations is essential (Liu et al., 2020 ). Despite the variables developed over time to address particular aspects of rural tourism development, there is still a lack of specific variables and an overall measurement framework for understanding the contributions of rural tourism. Therefore, more evidence is needed to understand how rural tourism influences rural communities from various structural perspectives and to prompt policy-makers to accept rural tourism as an effective development policy or strategy for rural community development. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the section “Literature review” presents the literature review. Our methodology is described in the section “Methodology”, and our results are presented in the section “Results”. Our discussion in the section “Discussion/implications” places our findings in perspective by describing their theoretical and practical implications, and we provide concluding remarks in the section “Conclusion”.

Literature review

The role of rural tourism.

The UNWTO ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as a type of tourism in which a visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activity, agriculture, rural lifestyle/culture, angling, and sightseeing. Rural tourism has been used as a valid developmental strategy in rural areas in many developed and developing countries. This developmental strategy aims to enable a rural community to grow while preserving its traditional culture (Kaptan et al., 2020 ). In rural areas, ongoing encounters and interactions between humans and nature occur, as well as mutual transformations. These phenomena take place across a wide range of practices that are spatially and temporally bound, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, farm tourism, cultural heritage preservation, and country life (Hegarty and Przezbórska, 2005 ). To date, rural tourism in many places has become an important new element of the regional rural economy; it is increasing in importance as both a strategic sector and a way to boost the development of rural regions (Polukhina et al., 2021 ). Urban visitors’ demand for short-term leisure activities has increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Slater, 2020 ). Furthermore, as tourists shifted their preferences from exotic to local rural tourism amid COVID-19, Marques et al. ( 2022 ) suggested that this trend is a new opportunity that should be seized, as rural development no longer relies on agriculture alone. Instead, other practices, such as rural tourism, have become opportunities for rural areas. Ironically, urbanization has both caused severe problems in rural areas and stimulated rural tourism development as an alternative means of economic revitalization (Lewis and Delisle, 2004 ). Rural tourism provides many unique events and activities that people who live in urban areas are interested in, such as agricultural festivals, crafts, historical buildings, natural preservation, nostalgia, cuisine, and opportunities for family togetherness and relaxation (Christou, 2020 ; Getz, 2008 ). As rural tourism provides visitors from urban areas with various kinds of psychological, educational, social, esthetic, and physical satisfaction, it has brought unprecedented numbers of tourists to rural communities, stimulated economic growth, improved the viability of these communities, and enhanced their living standards (Nicholson and Pearce, 2001 ). For example, rural tourism practitioners have obtained significant economic effects, including more income, more direct sales, better profit margins, and more opportunities to sell agricultural products or craft items (Everett and Slocum, 2013 ). Local residents can participate in the development of rural tourism, and it does not necessarily depend on external resources. Hence, it provides entrepreneurial opportunities (Lee et al., 2006 ). From an environmental perspective, rural tourism is rooted in a contemporary theoretical shift from cherishing local agricultural resources to restoring the balance between people and ecosystems. Thus, rural land is preserved, natural landscapes are maintained, and green consumerism drives farmers to focus on organic products, green chemistry, and value-added products, such as land ethics (Higham and Ritchie, 2001 ). Therefore, the potential contributions of rural tourism are significant and profound (Marques, 2006 ; Phillip et al., 2010 ). Understanding its contributions to rural community development could encourage greater policy-maker investment and resident support (Yang et al., 2010 ).

Contributions of rural tourism to rural community development

Maintaining active local communities while preventing the depopulation and degradation of rural areas requires a holistic approach and processes that support sustainability. What can rural tourism contribute to rural development? In the literature, rural tourism has been shown to bring benefits such as stimulating economic growth (Oh, 2005 ), strengthening rural and regional economies (Lankford, 1994 ), alleviating poverty (Zhao et al., 2007 ), and improving living standards in local communities (Uysal et al., 2016 ). In addition to these economic contributions, what other elements have not been identified and discussed (Su et al., 2020 )? To answer these questions, additional evidence is a prerequisite. Thus, this study examines the following four aspects. (1) The economic perspective: The clustering of activities offered by rural tourism stimulates cooperation and partnerships between local communities and serves as a vehicle for creating various economic benefits. For example, rural tourism improves employment opportunities and stability, local residents’ income, investment, entrepreneurial opportunities, agricultural production value-added, capital formation, economic resilience, business viability, and local tax revenue (Atun et al., 2019 ; Cheng and Zhang, 2020 ; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006 ; Chong and Balasingam, 2019 ; Cunha et al., 2020 ). (2) The sociocultural perspective: Rural tourism no longer refers solely to the benefits of agricultural production; through economic improvement, it represents a greater diversity of activities. It is important to take advantage of the novel social and cultural alternatives offered by rural tourism, which contribute to the countryside. For example, rural tourism can be a vehicle for introducing farmers to potential new markets through more interactions with consumers and other value chain members. Under such circumstances, the sociocultural benefits of rural tourism are multifaceted. These include improved rural area depopulation prevention (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ), cultural and heritage preservation, and enhanced social stability compared to farms that do not engage in the tourism business (Ma et al., 2021 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). Additional benefits are improved quality of life; revitalization of local crafts, customs, and cultures; restoration of historical buildings and community identities; and increased opportunities for social contact and exchange, which enhance community visibility, pride, and cultural integrity (Kelliher et al., 2018 ; López-Sanz et al., 2021 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Silva and Leal, 2015 ). (3) The environmental perspective: Many farms in rural areas have been rendered noncompetitive due to a shortage of labor, poor managerial skills, and a lack of financial support (Coria and Calfucura, 2012 ). Although there can be immense pressure to maintain a farm in a family and to continue using land for agriculture, these problems could cause families to sell or abandon their farms or lands (Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). In addition, unless new income pours into rural areas, farm owners cannot preserve their land and its natural aspects; thus, they tend to allow their land to become derelict or sell it. In the improved economic conditions after farms diversify into rural tourism, rural communities have more money to provide environmental care for their natural scenic areas, pastoral resources, forests, wetlands, biodiversity, pesticide mitigation, and unique landscapes (Theodori, 2001 ; Vail and Hultkrantz, 2000 ). Ultimately, the entire image of a rural community is affected; the community is imbued with vitality, and farms that participate in rural tourism instill more togetherness among families and rural communities. In this study, the environmental benefits induced by rural tourism led to improved natural environmental conservation, biodiversity, environmental awareness, infrastructure, green chemistry, unspoiled land, and family land (Di and Laura, 2021 ; Lane, 1994 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). (4) The leisure and educational perspective: Rural tourism is a diverse strategy associated with an ongoing flow of development models that commercialize a wide range of farming practices for residents and visitors. Rural territories often present a rich set of unique resources that, if well managed, allow multiple appealing, authentic, and memorable tourist experiences. Tourists frequently comment that the rural tourism experience positively contrasts with the stress and other negatively perceived conditions of daily urban life. This is reflected in opposing, compelling images of home and a visited rural destination (Kastenholz et al., 2012 ). In other words, tourists’ positive experiences result from the attractions and activities of rural tourism destinations that may be deemed sensorially, symbolically, or socially opposed to urban life (Kastenholz et al. 2018 ). These experiences are associated with the “search for authenticity” in the context of the tension between the nostalgic images of an idealized past and the demands of stressful modern times. Although visitors search for the psychological fulfillment of hedonic, self-actualization, challenge, accomplishment, exploration, and discovery goals, some authors have uncovered the effects of rural tourism in a different context. For example, Otto and Ritchie ( 1996 ) revealed that the quality of a rural tourism service provides a tourist experience in four dimensions—hedonic, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition. Quadri-Felitti and Fiore ( 2013 ) identified the relevant impact of education, particularly esthetics, versus memory on satisfaction in wine tourism. At present, an increasing number of people and families are seeking esthetic places for relaxation and family reunions, particularly amid COVID-19. Rural tourism possesses such functions; it remains a novel phenomenon for visitors who live in urban areas and provides leisure and educational benefits when visitors to a rural site contemplate the landscape or participate in an agricultural process for leisure purposes (WTO, 2020 ). Tourists can obtain leisure and educational benefits, including ecological knowledge, information about green consumerism, leisure and recreational opportunities, health and food security, reduced mental health issues, and nostalgia nurturing (Alford and Jones, 2020 ; Ambelu et al., 2018 ; Christou, 2020 ; Lane, 1994 ; Li et al., 2021 ). These four perspectives possess a potential synergy, and their effects could strengthen the relationship between rural families and rural areas and stimulate new regional resilience. Therefore, rural tourism should be understood as an enabler of rural community development that will eventually attract policy-makers and stakeholders to invest more money in developing or advancing it.

Methodology

The literature on rural tourism provides no generally accepted method for measuring its contributions or sustainability intensity. Although many statistical methods are available, several limitations remain, particularly in terms of the item generation stage and common method bias (CMB). For example, Marzo-Navar et al. ( 2015 ) used the mean and SD values to obtain their items. However, the use of the mean has been criticized because it is susceptible to extreme values or outliers. In addition, they did not examine omitted variables and CMB. Asmelash and Kumar ( 2019 ) used the Delphi method with a mean value for deleting items. Although they asked experts to suggest the inclusion of any missed variables, they did not discuss these results. Moreover, they did not assess CMB. Islam et al. ( 2021 ) used a sixteen-step process to formulate sustainability indicators but did not consider omitted variables, a source of endogeneity bias. They also did not designate a priority for each indicator. Although a methodologically sound systematic review is commonly used, little attention has been given to reporting interexpert reliability when multiple experts are used to making decisions at various points in the screening and data extraction stages (Belur et al., 2021 ). Due to the limitations of the current methods for assessing sustainable tourism development, we aim to provide new methodological insights. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Steps required in developing the model for analysis after obtaining the data.

Many sources of data collection can be used, including literature reviews, inferences about the theoretical definition of the construct, previous theoretical and empirical research on the focal construct, advice from experts in the field, interviews, and focus groups. In this study, the first step was to retrieve data from a critical literature review. The second step was the assessment of omitted variables to produce items that fully captured all essential aspects of the focal construct domain. In this case, researchers must not omit a necessary measure or fail to include all of the critical dimensions of the construct. In addition, the stimuli of CMB, for example, double-barreled items, items containing ambiguous or unfamiliar terms, and items with a complicated syntax, should be simplified and made specific and concise. That is, researchers should delete items contaminated by CMB. The third step was the examination of construct-irrelevant variance to retain the variances relevant to the construct of interest and minimize the extent to which the items tapped concepts outside the focal construct domain. Variances irrelevant to the targeted construct should be deleted. The fourth step was to examine intergroup consistency to ensure that there was no outlier impact underlying the ratings. The fifth step was to examine interexpert reliability to ensure rating conformity. Finally, we prioritized the importance of each variable with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multicriteria decision-making approach. All methods used in this study are expert-based approaches.

Selection of experts

Because this study explores the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development, it involves phenomena in the postdevelopment stage; therefore, a few characteristics are essential for determining the choice of experts. The elements used to identify the experts in this study were (1) the number of experts, (2) expertise, (3) knowledge, (4) diversity, (5) years working in this field, and 5) commitment to participation. Regarding the number of experts, Murphy-Black et al. ( 1998 ) suggested that the more participants there are, the better, as a higher number reduces the effects of expert attrition and rater bias. Taylor-Powell ( 2002 ) pointed out that the number of participants in an expert-based study depends not only on the purpose of the research but also on the diversity of the target population. Okoli and Pawlowski ( 2004 ) recommended a target number of 10–18 experts for such a purpose. Therefore, we recruited a group of 18 experts based on their stated interest in the topic and asked them to comment on our rationale concerning the rating priorities among the items. We asked them to express a degree of agreement or disagreement with each item we provided. We adopted a heterogeneous and anonymous arrangement to ensure that rater bias did not affect this study. The 18 experts had different backgrounds, which might have made it easier for them to reach a consensus objectively. We divided the eighteen experts into three subgroups: (1) at least six top managers from rural tourism businesses, all of whom had been in the rural tourism business for over 10 years; (2) at least six academics who taught subjects related to tourism at three different universities in Taiwan; and (3) at least six government officials involved in rural development issues in Taiwan.

Generating items to represent the construct

Step 1: data collection.

Data collection provides evidence for investigation and reflects the construct of interest. While there is a need to know what rural tourism contributes, previous studies have provided no evidence for policy-makers to establish a rural community strategy; thus, it is essential to use a second source to achieve this aim. We used a literature review for specific topics; the data we used were based on the findings being presented in papers on rural tourism indexed in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). In this study, we intended to explore the role of rural tourism and its contributions to rural development. Therefore, we explored the secondary literature on the state of the questions of rural development, sustainable development, sustainability indicators, regional resilience, farm tourism, rural tourism, COVID-19, tourist preferences, and ecotourism using terms such as land ethics, ecology, biodiversity, green consumerism, environmentalism, green chemistry, community identity, community integration, community visibility, and development goals in an ad hoc review of previous studies via Google Scholar. Based on the outcomes of this first data collection step, we generated thirty-three subattributes and classified them into four domains.

Step 2: Examine the face validity of omitted variables and CMB

Face validity is defined as assessing whether a measurement scale or questionnaire includes all the necessary items (Dempsey and Dempsey, 1992 ). Based on the first step, we generated data subattributes from our literature review. However, there might have been other valuable attributes or subattributes that were not considered or excluded. Therefore, our purposes for examining face validity were twofold. First, we assessed the omitted variables, defined as the occurrence of crucial aspects or facets that were omitted (Messick, 1995 ). These comprise a threat to construct validity that, if ignored by researchers, might result in unreliable findings. In other words, face validity is used to distinguish whether the researchers have adequately captured the full dimensions of the construct of interest. If not, the evaluation instrument or model is deficient. However, the authors found that most rural tourism studies have not assessed the issue of omitted variables (An and Alarcon, 2020 ; Lin, 2022 ). Second, we mitigated the CMB effect. In a self-report survey, it is necessary to provide a questionnaire without CMB to the targeted respondents, as CMB affects respondent comprehension. Therefore, we assessed item characteristic effects, item context effects, and question response process effects. These three effects are related to the respondents’ understanding, retrieval, mood, affectivity, motivation, judgment, response selection, and response reporting (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Specifically, items containing flaws from these three groups in a questionnaire can seriously influence an empirical investigation and potentially result in misleading conclusions. We assessed face validity by asking all the experts to scrutinize the content items that we collected from the literature review and the questionnaire that we drafted. The experts could then add any attribute or subattribute they thought was essential that had been omitted. They could also revise the questionnaire if CMB were embedded. We added the new attributes or subattributes identified by the experts to those collected from the literature review.

Step 3: Examine interexpert consensus for construct-irrelevant variances

After examining face validity, we needed to rule out items irrelevant to the construct of interest; otherwise, the findings would be invalid. We examined the interexpert consensus to achieve this aim. The purpose was to estimate the experts’ ratings of each item. In other words, interexpert consensus assesses the extent to which experts make the same ratings (Kozlowski and Hattrup, 1992 ; Northcote et al., 2008 ). In prior studies, descriptive statistics have often been used to capture the variability among individual characteristics, responses, or contributions to the subject group (Landeta, 2006 ; Roberson et al., 2007 ). Many expert-based studies have applied descriptive statistics to determine consensus and quantify its degree (Paraskevas and Saunders, 2012 ; Stewart et al., 2016 ). Two main groups of descriptive statistics, central tendencies (mode, mean, and median) and level of dispersion (standard deviation, interquartile, and coefficient of variation), are commonly used when determining consensus (Mukherjee et al., 2015 ). Choosing the cutoff point of interexpert consensus was critical because we used it as a yardstick for item retention and its value can also be altered by a number on the Likert scale (Förster and von der Gracht, 2014 ). In the case of a 5-point Likert scale, the coefficient of variation (CV) is used to measure interexpert consensus. Hence, CV ≤ 0.3 indicated high consensus (Zinn et al., 2001 ). In addition, based on the feedback obtained from the expert panel, we used standard deviation (SD) as another measurement to assess the variation in our population. Henning and Jordaan ( 2016 ) indicate that SD ≤ 1 represents a high level of consensus, meaning that it can act as a guideline for cutoff points. In addition, following Vergani et al. ( 2022 ), we used the percentage agreement (% AGR) to examine interexpert consensus. If the responses reached ≧ 70% 4 and 5 in the case of a 5-point Likert scale, it indicated that the item had interexpert consensus; thus, we could retain it. Moreover, to avoid the impact of outliers, we used the median instead of the mean as another measurement. Items had a high consensus if their median value was ≥4.00 (Rice, 2009 ). Considering these points, we adopted % AGR, median, SD, and CV to examine interexpert consensus.

Step 4: Examine intergroup consistency

In this expert-based study, the sample size was small. Any rater bias could have caused inconsistency among the subgroups of experts; therefore, we needed to examine the effect of rater bias on intergroup consistency. When the intergroup ratings showed substantially different distributions, the aggregated data were groundless. Dajani et al. ( 1979 ) remarked that interexpert consensus is meaningless if the consistency of responses in a study is not reached, as it means that any rater bias could distort the median, SD, or CV. Most studies have used one-way ANOVA to determine whether there is a significant difference between the expected and observed frequency in three or more categories. However, this method is based on large sample size and normal distribution. In the case of expert-based studies, the expert sample size is small, and the assessment distribution tends to be skewed. Thus, we used the nonparametric test instead of one-way ANOVA for consistency measurement (Potvin and Roff, 1993 ). We used the Kruskal‒Wallis test (K–W) to test the intergroup consistency among the three subgroups of experts. The purpose of the K–W test is to determine whether there are significant differences among three or more subgroups regarding the ratings of the domains (Huck, 2004 ). The judgment criteria in the K-W test depended on the level of significance, and we set the significance level at p  < 0.05 (Love and Irani, 2004 ), with no significant differences among groups set at p  > 0.05 (Loftus et al., 2000 ; Rice, 2009 ). We used SPSS to conduct the K–W test to assess intergroup consistency in this study.

Step 5: Examine interexpert reliability

Interexpert reliability, on the one hand, is usually defined as the proportion of systematic variance to the total variance in ratings (James et al., 1984 ). On the other hand, interexpert reliability estimation is not concerned with the exact or absolute value of ratings. Rather, it measures the relative ordering or ranking of rated objects. Thus, interexpert reliability estimation concerns the consistency of ratings (Tinsley and Weiss, 1975 ). If an expert-based study did not achieve interexpert reliability, we could not trust its analysis (Singletary, 1994 ). Thus, we examined interexpert reliability in this expert-based study. Many methods are available in the literature for measuring interexpert reliability, but there seems to be little consensus on a standard method. We used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among the experts for each sample group (Goetz et al., 1994 ) because it was available for any sample size or ordinal number. If W was 1, all the experts were unanimous, and each had assigned the same order to the list of objects or concerns. As Spector et al. ( 2002 ) and Schilling ( 2002 ) suggested, reliabilities well above the recommended value of .70 indicate sufficient internal reliability. In this study, there was a strong consensus when W  > 0.7. W  > 0.5 represented a moderate consensus; and W  < 0.3 indicated weak interexpert agreement (Schmidt et al., 2001 ). To measure Kendall’s W , we used SPSS 23 to assess interexpert reliability.

Step 6: Examine the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

After examining face validity, interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability, we found that the aggregated items were relevant, authentic, and reliable in relation to the construct of interest. To provide policy-makers with a clear direction regarding which contributions are more or less important, we scored each attribute and subattribute using a multicriteria decision-making technique. Fuzzy AHP is a well-known decision-making tool for modeling unstructured problems. It enables decision-makers to model a complex issue in a hierarchical structure that indicates the relationships between the goal, criteria, and subcriteria on the basis of scores (Park and Yoon, 2011 ). The fuzzy AHP method tolerates vagueness and ambiguity (Mikhailov and Tsvetinov, 2004 ). In other words, fuzzy AHP can capture a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when considering complex, multicriteria decision-making problems (Erensal et al., 2006 ). In this study, we used Power Choice 2.5 software to run fuzzy AHP, determine weights, and develop the impact structure of rural tourism on sustainable rural development.

Face validity

To determine whether we had omitted variables, we asked all 18 experts to scrutinize our list of four attributes and 33 subattributes for omitted variables and determine whether the questionnaire contained any underlying CMB. We explained the meaning of omitted variables, the stimuli of CMB, and the two purposes of examining face validity to all the experts. In their feedback, the eighteen experts added one item as an omitted variable: business viability. The experts suggested no revisions to the questionnaire we had drafted. These results indicated that one omitted variable was revealed and that our prepared questionnaire was clear, straightforward, and understandable. The initially pooled 34 subattributes represented the construct of interest, and all questionnaires used for measurement were defendable in terms of CMB. The biasing effects of method variance did not exist, indicating that the threat of CMB was minor.

Interexpert consensus

In this step, we rejected any items irrelevant to the construct of interest. Consensus measurement played an essential role in aggregating the experts’ judgments. This study measured the AGR, median, SD, and CV. Two items, strategic alliance (AGR = 50%) and carbon neutrality (AGR = 56%) were rated < 70%, and we rejected them accordingly. These results are shown in Table 1 . The AGR, median, SD, and CV values were all greater than the cutoff points, thus indicating that the majority of experts in this study consistently recognized high values and reached a consensus for the rest of the 32 subattributes. Consequently, the four attributes and 32 subattributes remained and were initially identified as determinants for further analysis.

Intergroup consistency and interexpert reliability

In this study, with scores based on a 5-point Likert scale, we conducted the K–W test to assess intergroup differences for each subattribute. Based on the outcomes, the K–W test yielded significant results for all 32 subattributes; all three groups of experts reached consistency at p  > 0.05. This result indicated that no outlier or extreme value underlay the ratings, and therefore, intergroup consistency was reached. Finally, we measured interexpert reliability with Kendall’s W . The economic perspective was W  = 0.73, the sociocultural perspective was W  = 0.71, the environmental perspective was W  = 0.71, and the leisure and educational perspective was W  = 0.72. These four groups of W were all ≧ 0.7, indicating high reliability for the ranking order and convergence judged by all subgroup experts. These results are shown in Table 2 .

The hierarchical framework

The results of this study indicate that rural tourism contributions to rural community development comprise four attributes and thirty-two subattributes. The economic perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.387. In addition, rural tourism has long been considered a possible means of sociocultural development and regeneration of rural areas, particularly those affected by the decline in traditional rural

activities, agricultural festivals, and historical buildings. According to the desired benefits, the sociocultural perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.183. Moreover, as rural tourism can develop on farms and locally, its contribution to maintaining and enhancing environmental regeneration and protection is significant. Therefore, an environmental perspective can determine rural tourism’s impact on pursuing environmental objectives. Our results indicate that the environmental perspective encompasses seven subattributes and that its weight is w  = 0.237. Furthermore, the leisure and educational perspective indicates the attractiveness of rural tourism from visitors’ viewpoint and their perception of a destination’s value and contributions. These results show that this perspective encompasses seven subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.193. This specific contribution model demonstrates a 3-level hierarchical structure, as shown in Fig. 2 . The scores for each criterion could indicate each attribute’s importance and explain the priority order of the groups. Briefly, the critical sequence of each measure in the model at Level 2 is as follows: economic perspective > environmental perspective > leisure and educational perspective > sociocultural perspective. Since scoring and ranking were provided by 18 experts from three different backgrounds and calculated using fuzzy AHP, our rural tourism contribution model is established. It can provide policy-makers with information on the long-term benefits and advantages following the completion of excellent community development in rural areas.

The priority index of each attribute and sub-attribute.

Discussion/Implications

In the era of sustainable rural development, it is vital to consider the role of rural tourism and how research in this area shapes access to knowledge on rural community development. This study provides four findings based on the increasing tendency of policy-makers to use such information to shape their policy-making priorities. It first shows that the demand for rural tourism has soared, particularly during COVID-19. Second, it lists four significant perspectives regarding the specific contributions of rural tourism to rural community development and delineates how these four perspectives affect rural tourism development. Our findings are consistent with those of prior studies. For example, geography has been particularly important in the rural or peripheral tourism literature (Carson, 2018 ). In terms of the local geographical context, two contributions could be made by rural tourism. The first stems from the environmental perspective. When a rural community develops rural tourism, environmental protection awareness is increased, and the responsible utilization of natural resources is promoted. This finding aligns with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ). The second stems from the leisure and educational perspective. The geographical context of a rural community, which provides tourists with geographical uniqueness, advances naturally calming, sensory-rich, and emotion-generating experiences for tourists. These results suggest that rural tourism will likely positively impact tourists’ experience. This finding is consistent with Kastenhoz et al. ( 2020 ). Third, although expert-based approaches have considerable benefits in developing and testing underlying phenomena, evidence derived from interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability has been sparse. This study provides such evidence. Fourth, this research shows that rural tourism makes four main contributions, economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational, to rural community development. Our results show four key indicators at Level 2. The economic perspective is strongly regarded as the most important indicator, followed by the environmental perspective, leisure and educational perspective, and sociocultural perspective, which is weighted as the least important. The secondary determinants of contributions have 32 subindicators at Level 3: each was identified and assigned a different weight. These results imply that the attributes or subattributes with high weights have more essential roles in understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. Policy-makers can use these 32 subindicators to formulate rural tourism development policies or strategies.

This study offers the following five practical implications for policymakers and rural communities:

First, we argue that developing rural tourism within a rural community is an excellent strategy for revitalization and countering the effects of urbanization, depopulation, deforestation, and unemployment.

Second, our analytical results indicate that rural tourism’s postdevelopment contribution is significant from the economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational perspectives, which is consistent with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ).

Third, there is an excellent opportunity to build or invest more in rural tourism during COVID-19, not only because of the functions of rural tourism but also because of its timing. Many prior studies have echoed this recommendation. For example, Yang et al. ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as the leading industry in rural areas, offering an output value ten times higher than that of agriculture in China. In addition, rural tourism has become more attractive to urban tourists amid COVID-19. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic created a strong demand for rural tourism, which can mitigate threats to public mental health, such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, isolation, and insomnia. Marques et al. ( 2022 ) showed that tourists’ preference for tourism in rural areas increased substantially during COVID-19.

Fourth, the contributions of this study to policy development are substantial. The more focused rural tourism in rural areas is, the more effective revitalization becomes. This finding highlights the importance of such features in developing rural tourism to enhance rural community development from multiple perspectives. This finding echoes Zawadka et al. ( 2022 ); i.e., policy-makers should develop rural tourism to provide tourists with a safe and relaxed environment and should not ignore the value of this model for rural tourism.

Fifth, our developed model could drive emerging policy issues from a supporting perspective and provide policy-makers with a more comprehensive overview of the development of the rural tourism sector, thus enabling them to create better policies and programs as needed. For example, amid COVID-19, rural tourism created a safe environment for tourists, mainly by reducing their fears of contamination (Dennis et al., 2021 ). This novel contribution that rural tourism destinations can provide to residents and visitors from other places should be considered and built into any rural community development policy.

This study also has the following four methodological implications for researchers:

First, it addresses methodological limitations that still impede tourism sustainability model development. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure as the guideline; it is imperative that rural tourism researchers or model developers follow this procedure. If they do not, their findings tend to be flawed.

Second, to ensure that collected data are without extraneous interference or differences via subgroups of experts, the assessment of intergroup consistency with the K–W test instead of one-way ANOVA is proposed, especially in small samples and distribution-free studies.

Third, providing interexpert reliability evidence within expert-based research is critical; we used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among experts for each sample group because it applies to any sample size and ordinal number.

Finally, we recommend using fuzzy AHP to establish a model with appropriate indicators for decision-making or selection. This study offers novel methodological insights by estimating a theoretically grounded and empirically validated rural tourism contribution model.

There are two limitations to this study. First, we examine all subattributes by interexpert consensus to delete construct-irrelevant variances that might receive criticism for their lack of statistical rigor. Future studies can use other rigorous methods, such as AD M( j ) or rWG ( j ) , interexpert agreement indices to assess and eliminate construct-irrelevant variances. Second, we recommend maximizing rural tourism contributions to rural community development by using the general population as a sample to identify any differences. More specifically, we recommend using Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the overall reliability and validity of the data and results. It is also necessary to provide results for goodness-of-fit measures—e.g., the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), or root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Numerous empirical studies have illustrated how rural tourism can positively and negatively affect the contexts in rural areas where it is present. This study reveals the positive contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. The findings show that using rural tourism as a revitalization strategy is beneficial to nonurban communities in terms of their economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational development. The contribution from the economic perspective is particularly important. These findings suggest that national, regional, and local governments or community developers should make tourism a strategic pillar in their policies for rural development and implement tourism-related development projects to gain 32 benefits, as indicated in Fig. 2 . More importantly, rural tourism was advocated and proved effective for tourists and residents to reduce anxiety, depression, or insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this emerging contribution, rural tourism is becoming more critical to tourists from urban areas and residents involved in rural community development. With this model, policy-makers should not hesitate to develop or invest more in rural communities to create additional tourism-based activities and facilities. As they could simultaneously advance rural community development and public mental health, policy-makers should include these activities among their regional resilience considerations and treat them as enablers of sustainable rural development. We conclude that amid COVID-19, developing rural tourism is an excellent strategy for promoting rural community development and an excellent alternative that could counteract the negative impacts of urbanization and provide stakeholders with more positive interests. The proposed rural tourism contribution model also suggests an unfolding research plan.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alford P, Jones R (2020) The lone digital tourism entrepreneur: Knowledge acquisition and collaborative transfer. Tour Manag 81:104–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104139

Article   Google Scholar  

Altieri MA, Farrell JG, Hecht SB, Liebman M, Magdoff F et al (2018) The agroecosystem: determinants, resources, processes, and sustainability. Agroecology 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429495465-3

Ambelu G, Lovelock B, Tucker H (2018) Empty bowls: conceptualising the role of tourism in contributing to sustainable rural food security. J Sustain Tour 26(10):1749–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1511719

An W, Alarcon S (2020) How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability 12(18):7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187758

Arroyo C, Barbieri C, Rich SR (2013) Defining agritourism: a comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour Manag 37:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007

Asmelash AG, Kumar S (2019) Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tour Manag 71:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.020

Atun RA, Nafa H, Türker ÖO (2019) Envisaging sustainable rural development through ‘context-dependent tourism’: case of Northern Cyprus. Environ Dev Sustain 21:1715–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0100-8

Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M (2021) Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 50(2):837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Carson DA (2018) Challenges and opportunities for rural tourism geographies: a view from the ‘boring’ peripheries. Tour Geogr 20(4):737–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/4616688.2018.1477173

Cheng L, Zhang J (2020) Is tourism development a catalyst of economic recovery following natural disaster? An analysis of economic resilience and spatial variability. Curr Issues Tour 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1711029

Choi H-SC, Sirakaya E (2006) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour Manag 27(6):1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018

Chong KY, Balasingam AS (2019) Tourism sustainability: economic benefits and strategies for preservation and conservation of heritage sites in Southeast Asia. Tour Rev 74(2):268–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2017-0182

Christou PA (2020) Tourism experiences as the remedy to nostalgia: conceptualizing the nostalgia and tourism nexus. Curr Issues Tour 23(5):612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1548582

Coria J, Calfucura E (2012) Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: the good, the bad and the ugly. Ecol Econ 73(15):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024

Cunha C, Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ (2020) Entrepreneurs in rural tourism: do lifestyle motivations contribute to management practices that enhance sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? J Hosp Tour Manag 44:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.007

Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK (1979) Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 13(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6

Dempsey PA, Dempsey AD (1992) Nursing research with basic statistical applications, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett, Boston

Google Scholar  

Dennis D, Radnitz C, Wheaton MG (2021) A perfect storm? Health anxiety, contamination fears, and COVID-19: lessons learned from past pandemics and current challenges. Int J Cogn Ther 14:497–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41811-021-00109-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Di TF, Laura M (2021) How green possibilities can help in a future sustainable conservation of cultural heritage in Europe. Sustainability 13(7):3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073609

Erensal YC, ncan TÖ, Demircan ML (2006) Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey. Inf Sci 176(18):2755–2770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.004

Everett S, Slocum SL (2013) Food and tourism: an effective partnership? A UK-based review. J Sustain Tour 21(6):789–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.741601

Förster B, von der Gracht H (2014) Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight—a comparison of panels based on company-Internal and external participants. Technol Forecast Soc Change 84:215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/.techfore.2013.07.012

Getz D (2008) Event tourism: definition, evolution and research. Tour Manag 29(3):403–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017

Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Shale HM, Lang AE, Chernik DA, Chmura TA, Ahlskog JE, Dorflinger EE (1994) Utility of an objective dyskinesia rating scale for Parkinson’s disease: inter- and intrarater reliability assessment. Mov Disord 9(4):390–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.870090403

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hegarty C, Przezborska L (2005) Rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganizing rural areas in old and new member states—a comparison study of Ireland and Poland. Int J Tour Res 7(2):63–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.513

Henning JIF, Jordaan H (2016) Determinants of financial sustainability for farm credit applications—a Delphi study. Sustainability 8(1):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010077

Higham JES, Ritchie B (2001) The evolution of festivals and other events in rural Southern New Zealand. Event Manag 7(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599501108751461

Huck SW (2004) Reading statistics and research, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

Islam MS, Lovelock B, Coetzee WJL (2021) Liberating sustainability indicators: developing and implementing a community-operated tourism sustainability indicator system in Boga Lake, Bangladesh. J Sustain Tour. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1928147

James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69(1):322–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Juschten M, Hössinger R (2020) Out of the city - But how and where? A mode-destination choice model for urban–rural tourism trips in Austria. Curr Issues Tour 24(10):1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1783645

Kabadayi S, O’Connor G, Tuzovic S (2020) Viewpoint: the impact of coronavirus on service ecosystems as service mega-disruptions. J Serv Mark 34(6):809–817. reurl.cc/oen0lM

Kaptan AÇ, Cengı̇z TT, Özkök F, Tatlı H (2020) Land use suitability analysis of rural tourism activities: Yenice, Turkey. Tour Manag 76:103949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.07.003

Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ, Marques CP, Lima J (2012) Understanding and managing the rural tourism experience—the case of a historical village in Portugal. Tour Manag Perspect 4:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.009

Kastenholz E, Carneiro M, Marques CP, Loureiro SMC (2018) The dimensions of rural tourism experience: impacts on arousal, memory and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark 35(2):189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350617

Kastenhoz E, Marques CP, Carneiro MJ (2020) Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. J Destin Mark Manage 17:100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100455

Kelliher F, Rein L, Johnson TG, Joppe M (2018) The role of trust in building rural tourism micro firm network engagement: a multi-case study. Tour Manag 68:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.014

Kozlowski SW, Hattrup K (1992) A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. J Appl Psychol 77(2):161–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161

Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(5):467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002

Lankford SV (1994) Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. J Travel Res 32(3):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759403200306

Lane B (1994) What is rural tourism? J Sustain Tour 2(1&2):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510680

Lee TH, Jan FH (2019) Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents perceptions of the sustainability. Tour Manag 70:368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003

Lee J, Árnason A, Nightingale A, Shucksmith M (2006) Networking: Social capital and identities in European rural development. Sociol Rural 45(4):269–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00305.x

Lewis JB, Delisle L (2004) Tourism as economic self-development in rural Nebraska: a case study. Tour Anal 9(3):153–166. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354204278122

Li Y, Westlund H, Liu Y (2019) Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world. J Rural Stud 68:135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003

Li Z, Zhang X, Yang K, Singer R, Cui R (2021) Urban and rural tourism under COVID-19 in China: research on the recovery measures and tourism development. Tour Rev 76(4):718–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2020-0357

Lin CL (2022) Evaluating the urban sustainable development strategies and common suited paths considering various stakeholders. Environ Dev Sustain 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02021-8

Liu CY, Doub XT, Lia JF, Caib LA (2020) Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: an empirical investigation from China. J Rural Stud 79:177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.046

Loftus IM, Naylor AR, Goodall SM, Crowther LJ, Bell PRF, Thompson MM (2000) Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 activity in unstable carotid plaques: a potential role in acute plaque disruption. Stroke 31(1):40–47. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.31.1.40

López-Sanz JM, Penelas-Leguía A, Gutiérrez-Rodríguez P, Cuesta-Valiño P (2021) Sustainable development and rural tourism in depopulated areas. Land 10(9):985. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090985

Love PED, Irani Z (2004) An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Inf Manag 42(1):227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.011

Ma X, Wang R, Dai M, Ou Y (2021) The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. J Sustain Tour 29:1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1826497

Markey S, Halseth G, Manson D (2008) Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. J Rural Stud 24:409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.012

Marques H (2006) Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism—the demarcated wine-producing regions of Northern Portugal. Tour Econ 12(1):147–155. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387141

Marques CP, Guedes A, Bento R (2022) Rural tourism recovery between two COVID-19 waves: the case of Portugal. Curr Issues Tour 25(6):857–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1910216

Marzo-Navar M, Pedraja-Iglesia M, Vinzon L (2015) Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective of the residents. Tour Geogr 17(4):586–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1062909

Messick S (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50(9):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2004.04.001

Mukherjee N, Huge J, Sutherland WJ, McNeill J, Van Opstal M, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2015) The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods. Ecol Evol 6(9):1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387

Murphy-Black T, Lamping D, McKee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) CEM and their use in clinical guideline development—factors which influence the process and outcome of CDMs. Health Technol Assess 2(3):1–88

Nicholson RE, Pearce DG (2001) Why do people attend events: a comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. J Travel Res 39:449–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750103900412

Northcote J, Lee D, Chok S, Wegner A (2008) An email-based Delphi approach to tourism program evaluation: involving stakeholders in research design. Curr Issues Tour 11(3):269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140315

Oh CO (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tour Manag 26(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.014

Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

Otto JE, Ritchie JRB (1996) The service experience in tourism. Tour Manag 17(3):165–174

Paraskevas A, Saunders MNK (2012) Beyond consensus: an alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 24(6):907–924. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211247236

Park DB, Yoon YS (2011) Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators. Int J Tour Res 13(5):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.804

Petrovi´c MD, Vujko A, Gaji´c T, Vukovi´c DB, Radovanovi´c M, Jovanovi´c JM, Vukovi´c N (2018) Tourism as an approach to sustainable rural development in post-socialist countries: a comparative study of Serbia and Slovenia. Sustainability 10(1):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010054

Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K (2010) A typology for defining agritourism. Tour Manag 31(6):754–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Polukhina A, Sheresheva M, Efremova M, Suranova O, Agalakova O, Antonov-Ovseenko A (2021) The concept of sustainable rural tourism development in the face of COVID-19 crisis: evidence from Russia. J Risk Financ Manag 14:38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010038

Potvin C, Roff DA (1993) Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74(6):1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939920

Quadri-Felitti DL, Fiore AM (2013) Destination loyalty: effects of wine tourists’ experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Tour Hosp Res 13(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358413510017

Ram Y, Collins-Kreiner N, Gozansky E, Moscona G, Okon-Singer H (2022) Is there a COVID-19 vaccination effect? A three-wave cross-sectional study. Curr Issues Tour 25(3):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1960285

Rice K (2009) Priorities in K-12 distance education: a Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educ Technol Soc 12(3):163–177

Roberson QM, Sturman MC, Simons TL (2007) Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? Organ Res Methods 10(4):564–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294746

Ryu K, Roy PA, Kim H, Ryu H (2020) The resident participation in endogenous rural tourism projects: a case study of Kumbalangi in Kerala, India. J Travel Tour Mark 37(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1687389

Schilling MA (2002) Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad Manag J 45(2):387–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069353

Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule P (2001) Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. J Manag Inf Syst 17(4):5–36. https://reurl.cc/RrE1qG

Silva L, Leal J (2015) Rural tourism and national identity building in contemporary Europe: evidence from Portugal. J Rural Stud 38:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005

Singletary M (1994) Mass communication research: contemporary methods and applications. Longman, New York

Slater SJ (2020) Recommendations for keeping parks and green space accessible for mental and physical health during COVID-19 and other pandemics. Prev Chronic Dis https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200204

Spector PE, Cooper CL, Sanchez JI, O’Driscoll M, Sparks K, Bernin P et al. (2002) Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Acad Manag J 45(2):453–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069359

Stewart BT, Gyedu A, Quansah R, Addo WL, Afoko A, Agbenorku P et al. (2016) District-level hospital trauma care audit filters: Delphi technique for defining context-appropriate indicators for quality improvement initiative evaluation in developing countries. Injury 47(1):211–219. https://reurl.cc/WrMLOk

Su MM, Dong Y, Geoffrey W, Sun Y (2020) A value-based analysis of the tourism use of agricultural heritage systems: Duotian Agrosystem, Jiangsu Province, China. J Sustain Tour 28(12):2136–2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1795184

Taylor-Powell E (2002) Quick tips collecting group data: Delphi technique. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Tew C, Barbieri C (2012) The perceived benefits of agritourism: the provider’s perspective. Tour Manag 33(1):215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005

Theodori GL (2001) Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well-being. Rural Sociol 66(4):618–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2001.tb00087.x

Tinsley HEA, Weiss DJ (1975) Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. J Couns Psychol 22(4):358–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076640

UNWTO (2021) Rural tourism. https://www.unwto.org/rural-tourism . Accessed 3 Nov 2021

Uysal M, Sirgy MJ, Woo E, Kim H (2016) Quality of Life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tour Manag 53:244–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013

Vail D, Hultkrantz L (2000) Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecol Econ 35(2):223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00190-7

Vaishar A, Šťastná M (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia preliminary considerations. Curr Issues Tour 25(2):187–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1839027

Vergani L, Cuniberti M, Zanovello M et al. (2022) Return to play in long-standing adductor-related groin pain: a Delphi study among experts. Sports Med—Open 8:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00400-z

World Tourism Organization (2020) UNWTO recommendations on tourism and rural development—a guide to making tourism an effective tool for rural development. UNWTO, Madrid

Book   Google Scholar  

Yang Z, Cai J, Sliuzas R (2010) Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int 34(4):374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.002

Yang J, Yang RX, Chen MH, Su CH, Zhi Y, Xi JC (2021) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J Hosp Tour Manag 47:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008

Zawadka J, Jęczmyk A, Wojcieszak-Zbierska MM, Niedbała G, Uglis J, Pietrzak-Zawadka J (2022) Socio-economic factors influencing agritourism farm stays and their safety during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Poland. Sustainability 14:3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhao W, Brent Ritchie JR (2007) Tourism and poverty alleviation: an integrative research framework. Curr Issues Tour 10(2&3):119–143. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit296.0

Zinn J, Zalokowski A, Hunter L (2001) Identifying indicators of laboratory management performance: a multiple constituency approach. Health Care Manag Rev 26(1):40–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44951308

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan

Yung-Lun Liu

Dayeh University, Changhua, Taiwan

Jui-Te Chiang & Pen-Fa Ko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

We declare all authors involved in the work. The division of labor is stated as follows; Conceptualization: J-TC; Supervision: J-TC; Methodology: Y-LL; Investigation: Y-LL; Data collection, analysis, and curation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK; Original draft preparation: J-TC, Y-LL; Review: P-FK; Interpretation and editing: P-FK; Validation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jui-Te Chiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Obtaining ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution for such tourism management in Taiwan is unnecessary. This study was granted an exemption from requiring ethical approval.

Informed consent

To obtain the necessary permissions, prior to the questionnaire survey, we contacted all 18 content experts by telephone and explained the purpose of this study. This research was limited to an anonymous survey with no additional personal information recorded or analyzed beyond that shown to the survey experts. Subsequently, we sent the questionnaire with detailed information to those who confirmed that they wanted to cooperate. We have included all three authors’ contact information and the letter of withdrawal of cooperation for all eighteen experts.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, YL., Chiang, JT. & Ko, PF. The benefits of tourism for rural community development. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2022

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 31 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Agritourism in Pennsylvania - Legal and Regulatory Issues

Source: Pixabay

There are several important legal considerations when starting an agritourism operation in Pennsylvania, such as zoning, liability insurance, accommodating visitors with disabilities and, if you have animals, animal welfare regulations. In this article we provide an overview of the typical issues an agricultural operator would encounter when starting an agritourism operation, or if you would like to expand your operation and add more activities.

Zoning laws regulate land uses. These laws can affect every business and many activities. Under Article VI Section 617.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, violating a zoning ordinance could result in fines up to $500, plus fees. 

Agritourism operators should be aware that zoning ordinances may include parking, hours of operation, traffic, noise, lighting, structures, and more.

In order to find the applicable zoning laws, operators can request a copy of their local ordinance from the local zoning office or planning board. Due to the unique nature of agritourism, zoning laws may not specifically address certain aspects of all activities. Before an operator can begin planning, it may be beneficial to contact an attorney to assist in reviewing current laws and to assess requirements associated with the proposed operation.

In some situations, it may be clear that the planned agritourism activity is not permitted under the local zoning laws. The operator could consider a conditional use permit, variance, or non-conforming use. These permits grant an exception to the landowner to use the property in a way that does not conform with the zoning ordinance.

Liability & Insurance

What should you keep in mind.

Agritourism operations have risks similar to any entertainment operation, but with the added dangers normal of farm or ranch activities. Agritourism participants with no farm familiarity could unknowingly act in a manner that could cause harm to themselves or others. The operator should make note of any equipment or animals that could be hazardous to children or the uninformed. In addition, the operator should make note of other potential risks including the terrain, paths and walkways, zoonotic diseases, weather, and parking. Common-sense actions may address some of these risks. For example, an operator should purchase a first aid kit, put up 'do not touch' signs, buy rock salt for ice or hay for mud, and keep dangerous animals away from guests.

Agritourism participants are owed the highest duty of care and, as such, landowners must inspect their property, must warn of any dangerous conditions, and must remedy these conditions.

Some U.S. states have passed agritourism liability protection statutes. Under liability protection statutes, a landowner must not engage in willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that could cause harm, but otherwise has no duty to the participant.

Generally, so long as the landowner complies with the statute, they will be protected from lawsuits. In order to meet the statute requirements for this liability protection, most states require the agritourism operator to post warning signs in easily visible locations around their operation.

At the time of publication, Pennsylvania does not have an agritourism statute providing liability protection.

Without state liability protection legislation, an agritourism operator should definitely consider liability insurance and entity formation.  An operator should first check to see if liability insurance is required by their municipality. The operator should also consider the cost: comparing how much protection is needed and how much the operator can afford to spend. Not all insurance companies will cover the varied activities offered in agritourism operations. The operator must make sure that the insurance company understands all aspects of the proposed operation.

Even with insurance, an operator should consider entity formation for liability protection. Depending on the type of entity created, the operator might receive transferability or tax benefits. For example, an operator could create a corporation, or Limited Liability Company (LLC). When creating this type of entity, the business owner, or agritourism operator, may decide which assets to move into the corporation or LLC. Entity creation allows the operator to choose to keep personal assets out of the agritourism operation. In this case, if an injured participant brings a lawsuit against the agritourism operation, the participant would only be able to recover from the assets within the business entity. If the operator kept personal assets separate from the business and complied with entity requirements, their personal assets would be protected.

Accommodating visitors with disabilities

If an operator holds public events that are accessible to everyone, they should ensure that visitors with disabilities have access to these events as well. Which type of accommodations are needed will depend on the event and the types of accommodations you are planning (for example accessible walkways, wide paths for wheelchairs, spacious parking spaces designed for visitors with disabilities).  For more information, please see the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) .

Animal Welfare Act

Petting zoos are a great way to educate the public about raising farm animals. Therefore, it is important to set an example of appropriate animal husbandry. The animal's health and safety, besides visitor's safety, is of paramount importance. The minimum an operator has to adhere to is the animal welfare act . In addition, Pennsylvania passed a comprehensive animal protection law (Act 10) in 2017.

Every operator should get familiar with the l icensing and registration under the animal welfare act . For example, if you keep eight or fewer domesticated farm type animals for exhibition then you are likely to be exempt from licensing.  

Keeping animals and having visitors interact with them adds new risks to your operations. Inform your insurance agent that you are planning on adding a petting zoo to your attractions to obtain an updated quote, ensuring that your liability insurance coverage is adequate.

Close encounters of animals with humans introduces the risk of zoonotic diseases. Salmonella , Cryptosporidia , Listeria , and E. coli O157:H7 or Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (also known as pathogenic E. coli ) are some of the important pathogens. For more information, please see Penn State Extension's publication on Reducing E. coli Infections in People .

Offering food and concessions

Operators that will be providing food to visitors should contact the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Food Safety to learn about what options and requirements that they may be subjective to under the law.  The use of "residential style kitchen" to prepare food and serve to the public currently falls under the Limited Food Establishment regulations (3 Pa.C.S.A Sub Section 5721-5737). The types of food produced on the property, and either sold or provided, are 'limited' to foods that are not required to have temperature control for safety. Foods that would require heat or cold to maintain safety are included in the list of prohibited practices.  Examples of food products that could be made include; Baked goods that do not require temperature control for safety; Beverages may include root beer, lemonade, lemon iced tea and other acid drinks that have a pH below 4.6; Juices must have a pH below 4.6 and can only be sold directly to the consumer; Jam & Jellies as long as proper procedures and formulas are followed; and Candy Making.  

Under the Limited Food Establishment regulation, a PDA inspector will discuss what types of foods can be produced in the home and offered. He/She will inspect your kitchen to discuss any concerns identified. Additionally, a water test will be required prior to being approved. Upon completion of the application and approval, you may begin to make those items discussed with the PDA sanitarian. 

Should you decide to serve meals/entrees, offer temperature control for safety (TCS) bakery products, or cold/hot foods, then you will need to discuss the regulations for commercial retail establishments with the food sanitarian.  Your designated kitchen will need to meet the PA Food Code for commercial applications. Home based kitchens that are approved under the commercial retail establishment license will be inspected annually and must follow the practices outlined in the PA Food Code.

Building Codes

Pennsylvania's statewide building code is referred to as Uniform Construction Code (UCC) and is assigned its own code enforcement staff, or utilizes a third-party agency contracted for code enforcement. The UCC adopted the International Building Code 2015 as its official code.

If the municipality has no code enforcement assigned, Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry is responsible for code enforcement. Over 90% of the 2,562 municipalities in Pennsylvania have adopted the UCC. In those cases where the municipality has opted out of the UCC, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is the building authority. Typically, the township or the city are responsible for code enforcement and permit applications. The township website will have your permit application and your building inspector contact information.  It is best to start to work with the building inspector from the start of your project, this will save you from making costly mistakes. The inspector will often offer valuable advice as you begin your new endeavor.

Type of operations: Changing use of an existing building (e.g. residential to food service):

In the case of changing the use of an existing building, a permit application must be submitted and awarded, an inspection must take place, and a new Certificate of Occupancy must be awarded for the intended facility use.  Changes being made to existing structure should be listed on the permit application, along with facility aims. For commercial use, compliance American Disabilities Act is typically required. 

Before applying for the permit for the change in use, consult the county comprehensive plan's zoning ordinance to make sure this is an acceptable use of the property. If it is not, you may apply for a zoning variance in order to allow you to fulfill your intentions.

You should be aware of Pennsylvania's fire regulations to understand your occupancy code for your permit application, and the associated requirements as they can have a significant impact on the cost of your project.

New construction:

For new construction the requirements above also apply, but you will also need to consider utility easements, soil conditions, sensitive environs, architectural review requirements, and utility availability.  Typically, an elevation drawing of the proposed facility is required with the permit application.

Agriculture operations have a permit exemption in the state of Pennsylvania for buildings that are used for storage and certain operations (e.g. maple sap processing).  The permit exemption form and specific regulations can be found on the Central Keystone Council of Government website . For structures that will not stand for more than 30 days, no permit is required.

Legal disclaimer

Penn State Extension does not provide legal advice, nor is its work intended to be a substitute for such advice and counsel. As such, the materials and information provided here do not constitute legal advice and are for informational purposes only. While efforts are made to maintain and update these resources, no warranty or other guarantee is made regarding the timeliness or accuracy of any materials or information provided. If you have any additional questions regarding zoning and liability issues, please contact the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law at Penn State: [email protected] .

This material is based upon work supported by USDA/NIFA under Award Number 2018-70027-28588.

Northeast Extension Risk Management Education

• Local food systems
• Agritourism
• Craft Beverages
• Agricultural Policy Analysis
• Geospatial Intelligence Analytics
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED Neighborhood Development AP, Homes AP, Buildings AP)
• Climate Change
• Sustainable Economic Development
• Broadband Access
• Market Research
• Sustainable Tourism
• Economic Resource Development
• Hemp Building
• Agriculture Infrastructure
• Entrepreneurship
• Food systems
• High Performance Homes

• Food Safety and Nutrition
• Lead Instructor-FSPCA Human Foods-Preventative Controls
• Lead Instructor-FSPCA Animal Feeds-Preventative Controls
• Lead Instructor-FSMA Produce Safety Alliance
• Certified Instructor/Proctor for ServSafe, Retail Food Service

• Value-added agriculture
• Agricultural entrepreneurship
• Value-added dairy entrepreneurship
• Value-added dairy foods marketing
• Online marketing and sales
• Social media
• Direct marketing
• Farm and ag business management
• Business planning

You may also be interested in ...

Food Safety Modernization Act: Produce Grower Certification Training

Milk Production Records for Management Control

Pennsylvania Farm Account Book

Starting at $15.00

Pennsylvania Farm Account Book, Part 1

Orchard Management: Cultivars, Rootstocks, and Training Systems

Using Quickbooks to Manage Your Farm Business

Responding to Customers Effectively Online

Off-Season and Accelerated Lamb Production

Strawberry Production

E-commerce Payment Methods

Personalize your experience with penn state extension and stay informed of the latest in agriculture..

Agritourism – An Overview

Agritourism is a field that is growing in popularity as producers try to diversify and increase profits.  By combining agriculture and tourism, agritourism offers new sources of revenue but also presents potential problems and legal complications to agritourism operators.

“Agritourism” Defined

Simply stated, agritourism could be thought of as the crossroads of tourism and agriculture. Stated more technically, agritourism can be defined as a form of commercial enterprise that links agricultural production and/or processing with tourism to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch, or other agricultural business for the purposes of entertaining and/or educating the visitors while generating income for the farm, ranch, or business owner.

Regardless of the exact definition or terminology, any definition of agritourism should include the following four factors:

• combines the essential elements of the tourism and agriculture industries;
• attracts members of the public to visit agricultural operations;
• is designed to increase farm income; and
• provides recreation, entertainment, and/or educational experiences to visitors.

The term “agritourism” is often used interchangeably with “agri-tourism,” “agrotourism,” “farm tourism,” “agricultural tourism,” or “agritainment.”

Examples of Agritourism

Agritourism operations exist throughout the United States and the world. They range from small operations that function on a seasonal basis and offer limited consumer services to large operations that operate throughout the year and provide numerous consumer services. Common examples of agritourism include:

• pumpkin picking patches;
• corn mazes;
• U-Pick operations;
• petting and feeding zoos;
• cut-your-own Christmas tree farms;
• dude ranches;
• demonstration farms;
• agricultural museums;
• living history farms;
• on-farm farmers’ markets;
• winery tours and wine tasting;
• rural bed & breakfasts; and
• garden tours.

Examples of actual agritourism operations can be easily located through routine internet searches and through web sites, such as  agritourismworld.com , that provide comprehensive databases of agritourism operations throughout the country.

Importance of Agritourism

Agritourism presents a unique opportunity to combine aspects of the tourism and agriculture industries to provide a number of financial, educational, and social benefits to tourists, producers, and communities. Agritourism gives producers an opportunity to generate additional income and an avenue for direct marketing to consumers. It enhances the tourism industry by increasing the volume of visitors to an area and the length of their stay. Agritourism also provides communities with the potential to increase their local tax bases and new employment opportunities. Additionally, agritourism provides educational opportunities to the public, helps to preserve agricultural lands, and allows states to develop business enterprises. While agritourism may create new potential revenue streams, it also presents new legal issues for farmers and landowners.

Legal Issues

Landowner/operator liability.

Liability is a significant concern for farmers, ranchers, and others who operate agritourism enterprises.  Simply stated, a landowner who opens his or her land to the public faces the risk that he or she could be considered liable if an entrant is injured while on the property.

The duty of care owed to someone who is on a landowner’s property has traditionally depended on whether the entrant is classified as a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee.  The classification of invitee is the most relevant to agritourism operators, though either of the other two categories could apply under certain circumstances.

Trespassers are persons who are on the land without the landowner’s permission.  As a general rule, landowners owe trespassers no duty of care except to avoid intentionally injuring them.  However, children who are trespassers may be owed a higher duty of care depending on the situation and jurisdiction.

A licensee is someone who is on the property with permission but does not provide any economic benefit to the landowner, such as a hunter or fisherman who does not compensate the landowner for access to the land.  Generally, licensees must be told of hidden dangers and the landowner owes a duty of care to not act in a way that would harm the licensee.

Invitees are persons who enter upon the premises with the permission of the landowner or operator.  Invitees provide an economic benefit to the landowner or operator and are owed the highest duty of care.  The landowner must warn invitees of potential dangers and must keep the premises relatively safe for them.  The term “invitees” not only includes paying customers at the agritourism operation but may also include employees that are staffing the event.  This heightened standard for invitees necessitates the creation of a risk management plan to address issues before they become a problem.

For more information regarding landowner liability issues, visit the  Landowner Liability Reading Room.

Agritourism Statutes

Many states have passed agritourism statutes that may create an affirmative defense to lawsuits brought by injured customers.  Generally, these statutes protect against “inherent risks” associated with running an agritourism operation, such as the condition of the land and building.  Many have an exception disallowing their use if the operator is negligent or grossly negligent in the running of the agritourism business.  It is important to read the state statute carefully because many require certain steps before an agritourism operator may use the statute in defense.  Many states require that agritourism operators post warning signs with specific language that is included in the statute.  Failure to comply with the agritourism statute may limit its usefulness as a defense.

For more information regarding these laws, visit the  Agritourism State Laws Compilation Map.

Animal Welfare Act

Animals used strictly for agricultural purposes are exempt from regulation under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).  However, the AWA is applicable when animals are exhibited, even if the animals are farm animals.  According to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA agency that administers the AWA, the exhibition of animals includes petting zoos, roadside zoos, trained animal shows, and educational displays.  An agritourism operator who uses animals for exhibition purposes should be aware of the potential application of the AWA. For more information regarding animal welfare, please visit the  Animal Welfare Reading Room.

Other Considerations

Agritourism enterprises may involve a variety of other legal issues, depending largely on the activities involved and the laws of the state where the business is located.  Producers who provide food stands or restaurants must consider local food safety and public health laws that may apply and laws governing liquor licenses if alcohol is served on the premises.  For more information on food safety, please visit the  Food Safety Reading Room .  In addition, agritourism operators should be aware that many of their activities may not be covered by standard farm insurance policies and that additional liability coverage may be needed to cover injuries arising from agritourism activities.

Agritourism operations may also face issues with zoning restrictions, building codes, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, taxation, and business permits.  Zoning restrictions are an issue that many new agritourism operators do not think about, but disputes with neighbors caused by increased traffic, noise, etc. have led to costly litigation.  The  Agritourism Reading Room contains resources addressing these topics and many others; however, it is important to note that agritourism operations face many unique challenges because of location and the type of services that they offer.

Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program

Agritourism.

University of California researchers define agricultural tourism (agritourism) as any income-generating activity conducted on a working farm or ranch for the enjoyment and education of visitors. It includes the interpretation of the natural, cultural, historic, and environmental assets of the land and the people working on it.

The Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (AgMRC) provides a list of business activities that it categorizes as agritourism. Examples of agritourism activities include but are not limited to U-Pick farms, on-farm markets, pumpkin patches and corn mazes, outdoor recreation, farm stays, demonstration farms and more. The purpose of these enterprises is multi-faceted. As the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) describes it: “farmers and ranchers rely on the natural resources of their land - the soil, water, air, plants, wildlife, and scenery - to keep their family on the farm and the farm in their family.” Agritourism can play a role in maintaining the land’s resources and enable the development of a more sustainable food system.

**This page gives general information about agritourism as an important part of sustainable agriculture.  If you are interested in learning about our Agritourism program, which includes resources, training, and a website for farmers to promote their operations, visit our  agritourism website. 

Agritourism activities can provide the supplemental income necessary to allow for the preservation of small and mid-scale farms, ranches, and rural communities. It can be promoted as an outlet for local residents and tourists to experience direct contact and interaction with agriculture and natural resources. Increasing public interaction with local farms and ranches can promote an understanding and appreciation for the working landscapes that help maintain or enhance natural resources.  

Long-term agritourism sustainability depends on preserving the quality of the nature-based environment that includes productive agriculture. The AgMRC outlines seven best management practices for an agritourism business  – authentic experience, educational experience, customer service, adequate facilities, safe and accessible environment, community relations, and planning for a financial future. Many agritourism operators express a desire to educate visitors or as a tool for community outreach as some of the key motivating factors in implementing and managing their tourist-focused activities. The vast majority of the US population is not directly engaged in agriculture; agritourism efforts provide an opportunity for these individuals to engage with their local food system. These types of interactions may empower individuals to make more sustainable food and lifestyle choices and can increase the extent of rural advocacy among city dwellers.

Permitting issues, environmental health regulations, and liability or insurance concerns were the three most prominent factors limiting the implementation of agritourism. The UC Agricultural Issues Center found that the permitting system was overwhelmingly viewed by farm operators as misleading, time-consuming, or costly ( AIC Issues brief ). In order to obtain clearances, permits, and licenses, operators must follow a planning and permitting process that addresses land-use development, environmental health and safety, licenses and taxes, and direct marketing. Rules and regulations for agritourism operations vary by county, increasing the potential for miscommunication or misunderstandings within the system. Refer to the California Agritourism: Permits and Regulations webpage for information on the best approaches for meeting the regulations required to begin and sustain an agritourism operation.  

University of California Contributions - Research

UC has engaged in a variety of research initiatives and programs aimed at promoting the development of sustainable agritourism. To investigate the political, social, and economic characteristics of agritourism in California, researchers from UC Cooperative Extension and the UC Small Farm Program performed an extensive survey of farmers engaging in various agritourism practices in 2009. With this information, researchers are able to better understand the needs of California agritourism and create outreach programs to assist in the development of the sector. The UC survey team focused on determining the types of activities that farmers were engaged in, marketing techniques, management and staffing practices, profitability, and the characteristics of typical visitors. Detailed survey information was published in UC ANR’s quarterly journal, California Agriculture: California agritourism operations and their economic potential are growing.  

The survey determined that more than 2.4 million visitors participate in agritourism activities yearly. Although the California wine business plays a critical role in the agricultural economy of the state, the survey only included small wineries (those producing fewer than 10,000 cases annually) that were also engaged in non-wine-related agritourism activities. It is estimated that the wine industry attracts an additional 21 million tourists spending $2.1 billion each year within the state. More information on the California wine business can be found on the  Wine Institute’s website  or through the  UC Davis Viticulture and Enology  department.  

The survey found that 68% of farms offering agritourism activities were considered a “small farm” by the USDA. These farms operate with gross annual sales of less than $250,000. Income diversification is a crucial aspect for small-scale farms to maintain economic viability. Supplementing traditional production with agritourism practices can help buffer seasonal fluxes in farm income and market volatility. Roughly 75% of the survey respondents indicated that they were motivated to implement agritourism practices as a method of increasing profitability. In a different study to better understand the market and resources realistically available to farmers, UC researchers studied the  economic impacts of agritourism . This report found that especially at the urban-rural interface, agritourism provides economic incentives for growers, opportunities for product diversification, and helps to educate the public about the importance of supporting local agriculture.

UC Contributions - Outreach and Community Involvement

To meet the needs of small-scale farmers in California the UC Cooperative Extension established the UC Small Farm Program in 1979 which operated as a statewide program of UCANR until 2009. This program developed field and marketing research aimed at the needs of small-scale farmers who may not be reached by traditional extension programs ( Small Farms Program 15 yr report ). Small Farm Advisors continue to work from county-based Cooperative Extension offices and are organized as the  UC ANR Small Farms Network .

In addition to ongoing extension efforts by program coordinators and county advisors, UC has several publications to assist farmers and ranchers in establishing agritourism into their businesses. In 2006 Desmond Jolly, with the UC Small Farm Center, published  A Handbook for Planning and Managing Agritourism and Nature Tourism Operations . ANR offered a 2011 revised edition of  Agritourism and Nature Tourism in California . Written by UC Cooperative Extension advisors, Holly George and Ellie Rilla, this book is used as a teaching guide by the statewide agritourism workshops.

Agritourism efforts are now housed at UC SAREP under the direction of  Rachael Callahan , the Statewide Agritourism Coordinator. She manages the UC SAREP Agritourism program’s website and writes the  California AgTour Connections e-newsletter . The website provides news, fact sheets, and additional resources including the  UC Agritourism Directory and Calendar .

Callahan helps organize workshops, classes, and lectures, such as the   Agritourism Intensive   three-session course designed to familiarize small-scale farmers with the regulations and management needs of agritourism operations. Callahan mentions there have been at least 2,000 ranchers and farmers who have participated in these workshops, which provide opportunities for participants to meet the visitor bureau and the county staff, attend field trips and start their own business and marketing plans. Since 2011, the UC Small Farm Program and then UC SAREP has worked with partners to provide resources, such as summits, trainings and guides for agritourism operators. Examples of projects include Agritourism Intensive Trainings ,  Building a Farm Trail Project , a guide for  Marketing Regional Farms and Wineries , and  Regional Agritourism Summits (2017) .

UC Resources

The UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources maintains a  directory of agritourism operations  in the state of California.

The UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program houses an  agritourism program t hat works with county-based UC Cooperative Extension farm advisors, provides resources for agritourism operators and hosts California's statewide directory and calendar of agritourism operations.

The  California AgTour Connections e-newsletter  is a chance for growers, agritourism operators, county staff, tourism professionals, and others to keep up with news and information.

Contributors: Leigh Archer, Bev Ransom, Mariah Coley

How to cite this page UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. 2017. "Agritourism." What is Sustainable Agriculture? UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. <https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/agritourism>

A national information resource for value-added agriculture

• FoodSearcher Tool
• Clay-Target Shooting Facilities
• Equine Agritourism
• Fee and Lease Pond Fishing
• Rural Weddings
• Aquaculture
• Grains & Oilseeds
• Livestock, Dairy, Poultry
• Specialty Crops

Agritourism

Overview Types of Agritourism Businesses Management Marketing Risk Management Resources and Links  

According to the U.S. Travel Association, travel and tourism is a $1,127 billion industry in the United States that has directly generated more than 9 million jobs. An increasingly popular and growing opportunity for agricultural producers is agritourism.

The U.S. Census of Agriculture shows an increasing trend in agritourism and related recreational services as well as direct sales of agricultural products. The Census of Agriculture first used the term “agri-tourism” in 2007 with a question about “agri-tourism and recreational services such as farm or winery tours, hay rides, hunting, fishing, etc.” Using this limited definition, agritourism income grew by 67% over 10 years (between 2007 and 2017) and more than doubled when including direct sales of agricultural products, which is viewed as an important part of agritourism by many definitions. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, 28,575 farms offered agritourism and recreational services resulting in $949 million in sales. In addition, direct-to-consumer sales brought in $2.8 billion in sales for 130,056 farms. The next Census of Agriculture will be performed in 2022.

Types of Agritourism Businesses

An agritourism business can be defined as any person, farm, or corporation actively engaged in the operation, management, or promotion of an agriculturally-related tourism business open to the public. Examples of agritourism activities include but are not limited to: 

• U-pick farms give customers a hands-on farm experience by inviting them to come pick products from the field to purchase and take home. Common types of products offered at u-pick farms include fruits, vegetables, pumpkins, flowers, and Christmas trees.
• On-farm markets give customers the opportunity to come purchase produce and/or products on the farm property. Common types of farm markets include farm stands (outdoor booth on the farm) and farm stores (enclosed store on the farm).
• Farms that grow and sell pumpkins. On-farm pumpkin patches often sell their pumpkins as a u-pick and/or through an on-farm market. 
• A maze cut out in a cornfield that customers can navigate through.
• Farms and businesses engaged in growing grapes for wine and/or wine making. Many wineries provide on-farm entertainment including, but not limited to, wine-tastings, wine-trails, music, and on-farm dinners.
• A flower farm that invites visitors to come see or experience the flower crop in the field . Floriculture farms may host events and workshops, provide a flower u-pick and offer photography opportunities.
• A working farm that invites visitors on their property to see or experience the farm . Examples of demonstration farms include but are not limited to dairies, conservation farms, and cattle ranches.
• A farm that invites customers to pick or buy Christmas trees on their farm.
• Farm stays invite visitors to stay on a farm property.
• A farm that engages with visitors by giving them a tour of their farm.
• An educational opportunity for kids to come experience a farm and engage in agriculture practices.
• On-farm dining experience, often including a specialty chef, farm fresh food, and entertainment.
• Opportunities for visitors to come interact with horses on the farm. Types of equine agritourism can include trail riding, horseback riding lessons, dude ranches, horse camps, boarding facilities, and equine therapy farms.
• Landowners opening up their pond to visitors for fishing.
• Landowners inviting visitors on their land to hunt usually for a fee.

Best Management Practices for an agritourism business include:

• Providing an authentic farm or ranch experience
• Providing an educational experience
• Providing excellent customer service
• Providing adequate public facilities
• Maintaining a safe and accessible environment
• Creating good community relations
• Planning for your financial future

When starting an agritourism business or assessing your existing operation, consult the available resources and consider the following best management practices:

• Authentic Farm or Ranch Experience  - Agritourism provides visitors with an educational experience aside from one that is solely commercial. It is important to keep in mind that your farm/ranch is often the “face of farming and ranching” in your community, region, or state. A product you offer to visitors may be the experience of farm or ranch living. It is also important to understand what aspects of agriculture your local associations (agricultural, tourism, and marketing) emphasize in your region so that you can develop your own niche in coordination with other farms and attractions nearby.
• Educational Experience  - Farms and ranches can offer an agriculturally-oriented educational experience suitable for different ages. Food and fiber production, land stewardship, and history of agriculture are common topics that visitors enjoy learning about.  Another way to diversify your operation and educate guests may be on-property recreational activities (e.g., fishing, hunting, trail riding, cross-country skiing, or hiking).
• Customer Service  - This should be an integral part of your business planning. Training your staff to interact with customers in an appropriate way will ensure a safe and high quality experience for customers. It also ensures these customers will return and tell other potential customers about your business.
• Adequate Public Facilities  - Your farm/ranch needs to have sufficient capacity (staff and infrastructure) to provide basic services such as parking, transportation, signage, customer assistance, education, and roads. In order to maintain a safe and customer friendly business, provision of services and facilities like restrooms becomes necessary.
• Safe and Accessible Environment  - You should ensure that your property and facilities are maintained and in compliance with zoning, health, food safety, and environmental regulations. It is useful as well to create a risk management plan for your farm/ranch. In addition, depending on your type of business, consider compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates equal customer access to certain facilities (entrances, exits, and bathrooms).
• Community Relations  - To create good community relations, it is important to regularly provide opportunities for organized groups and individuals in your community to visit your property (e.g., schools and business associations).
• Planning for your Financial Future  - Regularly review your business plan and appropriately add value (price) to all farm/ranch services, products, and experiences in order to provide for the long-term sustainability of your business.

What is your farm story? How you market and promote your farm is an essential part of managing your business. Telling your story, having a clear mission and creating a culture for customers to engage in will help develop an environment where customers feel welcome. It is important that you understand and are passionate about the agritourism business you are promoting.

Start by developing a marketing plan. Who is your target audience? What experience and education do you want to share with them? How are you going to communicate with them? Thinking about your target audience will help you narrow down your best marketing channels. Having an online presence through websites, blogs, social media, e-newsletters, and Google is a great way to reach a broad audience. It is important to keep your business information updated on a regular basis. Other forms of marketing may include print-ads, mailers, cooperative marketing, tourism organizations, and agritourism/farm associations.

A powerful business marketing tool is reviews from satisfied customers. Whether it is by word-of-mouth, social media, or Google reviews, satisfied customers will be an asset to your business. New customers grow your business; satisfied repeat customers sustain and market your business to another wave of customers. 

Many producers who are involved in agritourism note there is synergism in having non-competing agritourism enterprises in the area to increase traffic to the area and provide more tourism attractions for customers. A list of resources and organizations supporting agritourism can be found  here .

Risk Management

Farmers and ranchers are legally responsible (liable) for the well-being of their customers and employees.  Considering safety and minimizing risk are important parts of business planning. To protect your agritourism business, it is important to create a risk management plan.   Some of the main areas of risk and negligence include site safety risk, product risk, employee related risk, and financial risk.  To ensure the well-being of your business, it is recommended that you avoid certain activities, use liability waivers, purchase insurance, practice good management techniques, train employees, and pay attention to the legal structure of your business.

Checklist for Managing Risk

• Key consultants to determine your needs are lawyers, insurance agents, financial managers, and accountants.
• Before you start implementing any business plans it is critical that you review local, state and federal laws and regulations; such as zoning, signage, employee tax withholding, food-related inspections, licenses or fees, and the risk management planning associated with animal exhibits and animal-human health concerns. Contact your county planning department to learn about your property’s zoning requirements and to figure out what permits you may need.
• Site Safety: Consider physical site hazards including visitor activities and attractive nuisances such as farm equipment likely to attract children.
• Product: Consider what you are selling or producing and any health or safety regulations or considerations
• Employee related: Know your employees and know what will be required on-site to safeguard their health and safety
• Financial: Consider current record-keeping, billing processes, assets and debts
• Post rules for customers and conduct regular inspections
• Post and implement employee rules and regulations
• Using proper signage can help reduce liability, but it does not remove liability.
• Establish a labeling protocol for products
• Establish a protocol based on state regulations for handling products
• Business liability
• Product liability
• Workers’ compensation
• It is important to have a good insurance policy and a good working relationship with your insurance agent.
• Consider using preventative measures like waivers or product warnings if warranted.

Understand your state’s laws relating to your property and business. Work with a trusted lawyer to see that your farm is set up for success. 

Risk Management Education for Farmers with On-Farm Visitors, Iowa State University Extension & Outreach

This online curriculum offers information and tools to enhance the safety and health of an on-farm operation that allows visitors on their property. Participation in this program will lead to new skills and techniques to implement practical management solutions on your farm. 

Risk Management Education for Farmers with On-Farm Visitors Course Link  

Agritourism Safety and Health Best Practices Checklists, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Risk Management Planning

Risk Management Planning for Agritourism , University of Vermont Extension

“Don’t Break A Leg… Managing Risks on Your Small Farm,”  “Managing Marketing Risks” and other Risk Management Articles. The Small Farms Program-Cornell University

Farm Commons  

Health and Safety Guidelines National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health , Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (NIOSH)  Toll-Free: 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348

National Safety Council  - Farm safety & workplace fact sheets (scroll down for Agricultural Safety) Toll-Free: 800-621-7615   NIOSH Agricultural Research Centers

The National Children's Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety  

Insurance Information North American Farmer’s Direct Marketing Association  - Member’s liability insurance list, 62 White Loaf Road, Southhampton, MA 01073, 413-529-0386

National Center for Agricultural Law, Research, & Information , University of Arkansas, School of Law, 479-575-7646

Resources/Other Links

2019 Best Practices in Agritourism  (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Stand  (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Stay  (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Tour  (PDF)

How to Develop a Pick-Your-Own Business  (PDF)

How to Host a Farm Dinner  (PDF)

How to Host a Summer Camp  (PDF)

How to Host Weddings  (PDF)

U.S. Travel Association , 2019. U.S. Travel and Tourism Overview

U.S. Census of Agriculture , USDA (2012, 2017). Table 6&7. Income From Farm-Related Sources

How Oregon State University Programming Supports the Development of Agritourism Activities (Including Farm-Direct Sales) in Oregon ,  2019

On-farm Agritourism Activities in Marion County, Oregon from 2017-2018 ,  2019

Vermont Agritourism Collaborative , University of Vermont Extension  

Additional Resources

National Resources USDA Risk Management Education Agency  - Develops educational materials for 50 states. National Ag Risk Library , University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, Toll-free 800-234-1111 Regional Risk Management Education Centers Northeast Center for Risk Management Education , University of Delaware, 302-831-2538

North Central Risk Mgmt Education Ctr , University of Nebraska, 402-472-2235

Southern Region Risk Mgmt Education Ctr , University of Arkansas, 501-671-2175

Western Center for Risk Management Education , Washington State Univ., 509-335-6360  

Accessibility Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act 800-514-0301 (voice) 800-514-0383 (TTY) State Resources Your State’s: Department or Agency of Agriculture, State Agritourism Organization, Department of Marketing or Tourism, University Cooperative Extension Service, and directories from the  National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils , and  Natural Resources Conservation Service .

Agritourism Value Added Producer Grant Profiles and Recipients 

African Alliance of Rhode Island (PDF)

Avena Botanicals (PDF)

Big Picture Farm (PDF)

Boothby's Orchard & Farm Winery (PDF)

Fuzzy Udder Creamery(PDF)

Gothberg Farms (PDF)

TMK Creamery (PDF)

When Pigs Fly Farm (PDF)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Many materials can be made available in alternative formats for ADA clients. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964.

The names, words, symbols, and graphics representing Iowa State University are trademarks and copyrights of the university, protected by trademark and copyright laws of the U.S. and other countries.

Tourism Extension

Agritourism

El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.

Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.

Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.

Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.

English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.

Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.

Agritourism Resources

Tourism Extension is advancing knowledge of agritourism’s role in revenue diversification of family farms and revitalization of rural communities. In North Carolina, depressed agricultural revenues and the decline of demand for traditional cash crops like tobacco are encouraging farmers to offer a variety of recreational, educational, and tourism activities to make their finances more resilient. Our experience on the motivations and outcomes of agritourism development among family farms and small landowners is critical to facilitate successful agritourism operations.

Videos & Podcasts

• Agritourism in North Carolina  (November 2020; by Justin Moore)
• Agritourism: Heading Out on the Farm (August 2020; by Dee Shore)
• NC Women in Agritourism  (2017, Meredith Brown)
• Leading not following: Know your customers – Mandie Boahn, Raised in a Barn Farm
• Building connections: Make yourself at home  – Sandra Sarlinga, Piemonte Farm
• Getting involved: Take a seat at the table – Tina Gross, Gross Farms
• Educating the public: Show them what it takes

NC Agritourism Resources

• North Carolina Agritourism Networking Association works across the state to identify and promote best practices, build a network, address challenges, and celebrate successes while advocating to address needs.
• North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
• VisitNCfarmstoday.com  can help you find farms in your area that may have activities available.
• Extension Resources – The Agritourism & Societal Well-Being Lab
• Integrating Safety into Agritourism
• Agritourism Highway Signage

NC Agritourism Rules & Regulations

Bona Fide Farming Exempt Status NC General Statute 160D-903(a)

• (A  farm sales tax exemption  certificate issued by the Department of Revenue.
• A copy of the property tax listing showing that the property is eligible for participation in the   present‑use value program   pursuant to G.S. 105‑277.3.
•  A copy of the farm owner’s or operator’s Schedule F from the owner’s or operator’s most recent federal income tax return.
• Forest management

Agritourism General Statute 99E-30, 99E-32, 99E-31:

• Definitions
• Update on Warning Signage (2023) Section 2

Publications & Factsheets

• Four Lessons to Build Resilience in Agritourism by Brune, Vila, Lawson, & Knollenberg (2021).
• Cultivating Local Foods Consumers: Using Agritourism to Promote Local Foods by Brune, Knollenberg, Barbieri, Stevenson, Reilly, Strnad, & Driscoll (2021).
• Success of Women in Agritourism: She Will Get What She Wants by Savage, Barbieri, Jakes, & Morais (2018).
• North Carolina women’s success in agritourism: Turning challenges into opportunities by Halim, Barbieri, Jakes, & Morais (2016).
• Are Neighbors Benefiting from Wine Tourism Development? Perceptions from the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina by Farzana Halim, Xu, Li, & Barbieri (2016).
• How Beneficial is Agritourism? North Carolina Farmers and Residents Respond by Xu, Barbieri, Rich, Seekamp, & Morais (2014).
• Agritourism, Farm Visits, Agro-Tourism –  Oh My! Do Farmers, Residents, and Extension Faculty Speak the Same Language? by Rozier Rich, Xu, Barbieri, & Gil Arroyo; North Carolina State University, & University of Missouri (2012).
• Agritourism Opportunities for Farm Diversification by Rozier Rich, Tomas, Colucci, Komar, Schilling, & Carleo; North Carolina State University & Rutgers University (2011).
• The Economic Benefits of Agritourism in Missouri Farms by Barbieri & Tew; University of Missouri (2010).
• Agritourism in Missouri: A Profile of Farms by Visitor Numbers  by Barbieri & Tew; University of Missouri (2010).
• A Preliminary Assessment of Agritourism in Missouri by Barbieri & Tew; University of Missouri (2009).

Other Resources

Agritourism Collaborative, University of Vermont:

• Getting Started with Agritourism
• Farm Experiences
• Financial Planning
• Safety, Liability & Regulations
• Host Weddings on Your Farm
• Develop a Farm Stay
• Develop a Pick-Your-Own Business
• Develop a Tour on Your Farm
• Host Summer Camp on Your Farm

A How-To Guide for Successful Agritourism Enterprises by Bullen & Wolfe

• Considering an Agritourism Enterprise?
• Customer Service
• Marketing Your Agritourism Enterprise
• Promoting Your Agritourism Business
• Qualifying and Quantifying Your Personal Agritourism Potential
• Regulations That May Affect Your Agritourism Enterprise
• Risk Assessment and Management

American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA) Tribal Agritourism Resource Page

AgrifoodGateway: Horticulture International – Horticulture International (AgriFoodGateway) is the most comprehensive horticulture information database with more than 3,400 technical bulletins from research institutions around the world.

Pick-Your-Own (U-Pick) Marketing [factsheet] by Matt Ernst & Tim Woods, University of Kentucky, CES.

Agritourism Best Management Practices and Plan of Operation   by Dora Ann Hatch; LSU Ag Center – Research and Extension

Western Profiles of Innovating Agricultural Marketing: Examples from Direct Farm Marketing and Agri-Tourism Enterprises for sale from University of Arizona CES

Agricultural Marketing Resource Center Iowa State University & USDA

Center for the Micro Eco-Farming Movement

National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health Safety

Visit NC Wine Marketing Campaign

Zoning and Health Considerations in Agritourism by Lisa Chase, Varna Ramaswamy, Steven Burr, Jascha Zeitlin, Gary Green, & Michael Dougherty Iowa State Univ., Vermont CES, Utah CES, & Wisconsin CES

Share this Article

• Open access
• Published: 01 April 2018

Tourism–Agriculture Nexuses: practices, challenges and opportunities in the case of Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia

• Diriba Welteji 1 &
• Biruk Zerihun 2  

Agriculture & Food Security volume  7 , Article number:  8 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

32k Accesses

10 Citations

Metrics details

Linkage of tourism with agriculture is critical for maximizing the contribution of local economic and tourism development. However, these two sectors are not well linked for sustainable local development in many destinations of developing countries. The objective of the study was assessing the practice, challenges and opportunities of tourism–agriculture nexuses in Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia.

Community-based cross-sectional study design was employed, and 372 households were selected using multistage stratified random sampling technique for quantitative data and qualitative data were collected using FGD and key informant interview. Quantitative data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as χ 2 test to see the association of dependent and outcome variables, and qualitative data were coded and thematically analyzed.

Results and conclusion

The findings of this study revealed that there is no economically profitable coexistence between agriculture and tourism. Agriculture is the major economic activity of the community. Moreover, the market-based linkage of the two sectors was challenged by the practices of non-commercial type of agricultural activities; small market size of tourism industry; and its mere dependency on wildlife. The growing tourist flows and government attentions are pointed out as opportunities. Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Park Management Office and other stakeholders should pay attention to ensure linkage and market-based interaction between tourism and agriculture for sustainable local economic development in the study areas.

Introduction

Tourism has been viewed as a powerful tool for developing countries to trade their way out of poverty as these benefits are said to trickle down to the more peripheral regions, disadvantageous communities and the poor [ 1 , 2 ]. The potential contribution of tourism to the well-being of rural communities in developing countries involves the agricultural development of economic linkages [ 3 ]. According to Lejarraja and Walkenhorst [ 4 ] the successful broadening and deepening of local agricultural and tourism linkages is an integral part of making tourism work for economic diversification. With the emergence of a new wave of rural and green tourism, there is a strong possibility that the position of agricultural or farm tourism may assume more prominence in consumer vacation decisions leading to the injection of a new source of ideas for tourism product development and marketing within farm-based tourism destinations [ 5 ].

Enhancing linkages between agriculture and tourism presents significant opportunities for stimulating local production, retaining tourism earnings in the locale and improving the distribution of economic benefits of tourism to rural people [ 6 ]. The two productive sectors, i.e., agriculture and tourism, seem to offer the best opportunities for inclusive economic growth in several countries of the world such as in Pacific island countries, and therefore, the promotion of linkages between tourism and agriculture should help create economic opportunities, build resilience in rural communities and enhance sustainable development in both sectors [ 7 ].

However, empirical evidences show two views regarding the practicality of the linkage between tourism and local agricultural activities. According to the first evidence, tourism and local agricultural activities are not linked in most destination economy due to different factors such as the seasonality nature of tourism, low quality of local products, tourism industries’ dependence on imported supplies and absence of direct linkage between agriculture enterprises and tourism industries [ 8 ]. Contrary to this, studies conducted in Mexico [ 6 ], Fiji [ 9 ] and Gambia [ 10 ] indicated the existence and importance of the linkage between tourism and selected local agricultural productions such as different animal production, vegetables, fruits, fishing, bee keeping, coffee, crops and dairy products.

Agriculture provides not only the tourism industry resources for food consumption but also the background for attractions in rural environments [ 3 ]. Arguably, it is important to find out pathways of harnessing such linkage so as to maximize the contribution of tourism for the agricultural sector and sustainable local economic development at large. One of these pathways is “indirect benefit flows” to the poor through induced impacts which exist through tourism supply chains [ 11 ], and direct benefit flows to the poor through direct contacts with visitors.

According to Ethiopia’s Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of Tourism Development, tourism’s potential for cross-sectoral complementarities such as its linkage with agriculture is yet to be realized so as to create opportunities for the livelihood diversification of the local communities, thereby enhancing sustainable local development [ 12 ]. Currently, due to its increasing growth and high and profitable export values, tourism is being considered as a key economic activity to achieve the goals of Millennium development and poverty alleviation by the government of Ethiopia [ 11 ]. In 2011/2012, the total impact of tourism activities in Ethiopia accounted for US$462 million as estimated by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism [ 13 ]. The revenue was earned from 584,000 visitors. In terms of reducing unemployment, 224,000 jobs were created during the stated year. The income has increased by 69%, whereas the number of visitors grown by 14% compared to the previous year. However, it is argued that tourism will fail as a trigger for local agricultural economic development if there are no inter-sectoral collaboration and fomenting of sustainable linkages between tourism demand and other sectors in the destination economy [ 8 ] and [ 14 ].

The livelihood activities of the local communities surrounding Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP), which is one of the mega tourist destinations of Ethiopia, are smallholder agricultural activities [ 15 ]. Considering such realities and the contribution of tourism to the local economy and conservation of biodiversity, the objective of this study was to assess the linkage and factors affecting the linkage between the two economic sectors in Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia, with the following specific research questions:

Which sector is the major livelihood option for the local community in the study area?

Is there market chain relationship between the tourism and agricultural sectors that helps the symbiotic coexistence in the study area?

What are the factors that affect the demand and supply relationship of the two sectors in the study area?

Review of related literature

Tourism–agriculture nexus.

The potential contribution of tourism to the well-being of rural communities in developing countries involves the development of economic linkages [ 3 ]. Fomenting the creation of linkages between tourism and agriculture has recently received considerable attention as a strategy for rural and agricultural development in stagnating rural areas. As tourism and agriculture transform, there will be growing interest among governments, the private sectors, academics, donor agencies and nonprofit organizations to better understand the relationship between these two sectors, to encourage interaction and to become involved in fostering these linkages [ 2 ].

The research conducted by Berno [ 9 ] in Fiji of Pacific areas showed different mechanisms that supported agriculture–tourism linkages. These are market approach —tourism operators buying produce directly from local markets; product-led approach —hotels establishing relationships or contracts with individual suppliers often for specific products; surplus approaches —market stakeholders approaching hotel operators with surplus produce for sale; cooperative approaches —the formation of farmers’ cooperatives to supply hotel operators; creation of demand approaches —the introduction of menu items using local indigenous products; “grow-your-own” approaches—the use of on-site hotel gardens to supply the accommodation with a limited range/amount of fresh produce; “ boutique” approaches —organic and/or hydroponic gardens attached to high-end accommodation and strategic business unit model.

Challenges of linking tourism with agriculture

Different researchers [ 2 , 6 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ] pointed out a set of different factors as challenges of tourism–agriculture nexus: demand-related factors including the type of accommodation ownership; tourism industry maturity; health and safety concerns; and seasonality. The supply-related factor as physical limitations; poor product quality due to missing knowledge about tourist expectations; high prices of locally produced food; technological and processing limitations; competition for labor; undercapitalization of the agrarian sector; and landscape. Market and intermediary factors, which include marketing and infrastructure constraints, mistrust between traders and agriculture supply and craft producers, prevent from better cooperation; middlemen are the third limiting factors for the linkage between tourism and agriculture. The fourth factor is government policy which includes unfavorable investment policy; lack of credit and micro-finance support; and limited education.

The role of linkage between tourism and agriculture for local development

The linkages between tourism and agriculture involves looking at people who may benefit directly from tourist expenditure, such as hotel/restaurant staff, taxi drivers, guides, craft market stakeholders or communities in partnership arrangements with tourist investors which depends on agricultural products such as vegetables, fruits, fishing, honey production, coffee and crops [ 10 ]. The income earned from such supply chains is described as “pro-poor flows” as tourism linkages are able to incorporate the poor and local economic linkages have the potential to reduce leakages by circulating money around the local economy in a way that creates multiplier effects. When such linkages are created, local communities will get economic benefits and reduce the exploitation pressures on tourism resources, thereby increasing the conservation efforts [ 27 , 28 ].

Description of the study area

Nominated in 2009 to the World Heritage Tentative List, Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP) is one of the highest incidences of animal endemicity of any terrestrial habitat in Ethiopia and the world. It is located 400 km southeast of Addis Ababa in Oromia National Regional State and belongs to the Bale-Arsi massif. The park is within geographical coordinates of 6 ° 29′–7 ° 10′N and 39 ° 28′–39 ° 57′E. It covers an area of 247,000 hectare or 2400 km 2 with an altitudinal range of 1500–4377 meters above sea level. The local boundary of BMNP lies within five woredas: Adaba (west), Dinsho (north), Goba (northeast), Mana-Angetu (south) and Berbere (east). Tullu Dimtu, altitude 4377 m asl., is the highest peak in the park and the second highest peak in Ethiopia. The park includes an Afroalpine plateau over 3500 m asl and a major section of moist tropical forest, the second largest in Ethiopia [ 29 ].

Within the park, rivers cut deep gorges; alpine lakes feed streams; and water accepts gravity’s fate at several waterfalls. Harenna Escarpment splits the park in two, running fracture like from east to west. To the northeast of the escarpment lies the high-altitude plateau known as the Sanetti Plateau (4000 m). The plateau is broken by a series of volcanic plugs and small peaks, including Tullu Dimtu. To the south, the land gradually falls away from the plateau, and a thick heather belt gives way to heavily forested areas known collectively as the Harenna Forest [ 30 ].

The park is also known for its endemic wildlife, particularly the Ethiopian Wolf and the Mountain Nyala. The sighting of an Ethiopian wolf, the world’s rarest canid, is the most guaranteed on the Sanetti Plateau. But there are plenty of other no-less-remarkable endemics to be seen, including Menelik’s Bushbuck and the Giant Mole rat. BMNP is also famous for its incredible number of endemic birds. Usually, the endemics are very easily seen. The birdlife in the juniper forests around the park headquarters is outstanding too [ 29 ].

BMNP map: Source ; Ethio-GIS, 2016 [ 31 ]

The residents in and around the Bale National Park are practicing pastoralism and agricultural activities. They are raring cattle, sheep and goats. In addition to this, different farming activities such as cereals and crops, vegetables and fruits, and fishing are being practiced in BMNP. Tourism such as tour guiding, scouting, tourism enterprises/associations like cookers and handicraft producers and sellers, horse renting, etc., is another economic activity [ 29 ].

Study design and data source

In this research, community-based cross-sectional study design was employed, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to capitalize on the strengths of each approach and offset their different weaknesses [ 32 , 33 ]. The quantitative data were collected through household survey, while qualitative data were gathered using key informant in-depth interview, FGD, field observation and document analysis. Key informant in-depth interview was conducted with two experts each from park management, agriculture office, culture and tourism office and three elders from local community, respectively. Two FGDs were conducted with knowledgeable local inhabitants one at Rira kebele and one at Gojera from the two adjacent kebeles Gojera and Gofingra of rural kebeles, while one FGD was conducted at Horasoba and Dinsho kebele with 8–10 members each using interview guide checklist. Quantitative data were collected from 372 sample household heads drawn from the total of 2405 households in the purposively selected four rural and one urban kebele of the study area based on proximity to the park, and the estimated sample size is allocated to each using proportional allocation to size of total sample households in each kebele.

Sampling and sample size determination

The quantitative data were obtained by means of interview schedule from the 372 household heads. The sample size was determined using Yamane [ 34 ] formula:

where n is sample size, e margin of error, N is total target population, e is level of precision.

Therefore, the sample size determined at ± 5% precision and 95% confidence level will be 342 households. That is, \(n = \frac{2405}{{1 + 2405(0.05^{2} )}} = 342\) and to compensate none response rate (10%) or 30 households were added and the total sample size was 372 households. Finally, it was proportionally allocated to each kebele as 42, 59, 66, 79 and 126, respectively.

Methods of data analysis

Qualitative data were coded and thematically analyzed. However, for quantitative data analysis the questionnaires were checked for completeness and consistency of the responses and entered into SPSS version 20 software and cleaned for analysis. Descriptive statistics was performed and presented in tables, pie charts, percentages, means and graphs. Using χ 2 test, the associations between the dependent and outcome variables were determined. In addition, the findings from the in-depth interviews with key informants, field observations, document analysis and survey were triangulated and compared.

Analysis of results

Demographic characteristics of respondents.

As depicted in Fig.  1 , the age category of the majority of respondents were found to fall within the range from 29 to 39 and 40 to 50, with the percentage share of 32 and 31%, respectively, whereas very few of them (5%) were above 60 years old.

Source : Field Survey, 2015

Age of Respondents

In terms of level of education, 41% of the respondents were 1st to 4th grade complete, 2% of them attained certificate level, 2% of them diploma, and 1% of the attained degree and above, respectively, as indicated in Fig.  2 . As depicted in Fig.  3 , majority of the respondents (83%) were male, while only 16% of them were female.

Educational status.

Sex of respondents.

As listed in Table  1 , farming is the main occupation of the majority of respondents accounting for 81.1% with the minor proportion; about 7.5% of the respondents were self-employed participating in different small-scale business activities, while inconsiderable proportion, about 4% of them engaged in tourism businesses.

As indicated in Table  2 , 86% of the respondents had already been living in all villages of the study area since their birth, in mainly Dinsho Town and Gojera, whereas only few respondents had been living in the study area for about 10 years or above.

As already indicated in Fig.  4 , annual income distribution of the respondents, 37% of them earn less than 10,000.00 Ethiopian Birr per annum, 28% of respondents earn between 11,000.00 and 20,000.00 where by an annual income of few respondents was above 21,000.00 Ethiopian Birr yearly in ascending order. Here, low annual income of the respondents would be an indicator for the need to have diversified sources of income or livelihood approaches for the communities in and around Bale Mountains National Park. In the case of size of land holding, majority of the respondents (62.5%) own the land size of 1.5–3 ha (Table  3 ).

Annual income.

According to the responses of 56.1% of respondents for access to credit services, there is no easy access to credit to launch both tourism and agricultural business activities. On the contrary, 43.9% of the respondents have confirmed the availability of credit facility for those individuals or associations who want to invest in both sectors. Concerning the number of livestock and equines owned, 30.2 and 27.8% of the respondents have from 11 to 20 and 6 to 10 livestock, respectively, whereas 31.3 and 18.1% of the respondents have from 6 to 10 and 1 to 5 equines, respectively. However, 19.2 and 18.3% of the respondents do not have livestock and equines, respectively. In case of the trends of the number of livestock and equines owned, 64.4% of respondents stated that the size of livestock and equines was decreasing due to expansion of crop farm and conservation of tourism resources (Table  4 ).

Practices of agriculture in Bale Mountains National Park

As it can be depicted from Table  5 , considerable proportion of the respondents replied that cereals (73.3%), cabbage (82.7%), potato (86.5%) and onion and garlic (66.3%) were the major agricultural crops being produced in the study area due to the favorable climatic condition.

In addition to crop production, people also engage in different animal-rearing activities. As indicated in Table  6 , 75.5 and 85.4% of respondents engage in farm activities as cattle and sheep and goat fattening, respectively, as an alternative livelihood option around Bale Mountains National Park. On the contrary, they did not engage in supplying farm activities such as poultry and eggs, cow milk and milk products, fruits and vegetable, and spices to the tourism sector as a result of absence of market linkage with tourism. Furthermore, the tourism industry outsourced the market of almost all such farm products to the market of other parts of the country. Moreover, majority of respondents indicated that grazing land availability was decreasing from time to time. The FGD discussants said that,

“The increasing demand for more fields for cultivation of cereals led to the shrinking of park area and grazing land for their livestock. Moreover, the numbers of livestock and the grazing land area are also on a decreasing trend from time to time.”

These in turn had been further endangering the fate of biodiversity conservation of the park at large in the study area.

Practices of tourism in Bale Mountains National Park

Tourist attractions and income generation from tourism sector.

As shown from the statistical data recorded by Bale Mountains National Park Office, the numbers of visitors are increasing from year to year. Hence, the trend of flow of visitors is significantly increasing every year (Fig.  5 ).

Source : BMNP Annual Report, 2007 E.C [ 35 ]

Annual flow of tourists visiting Bale Mountains National Park per year.

Similarly, as depicted in Fig.  6 , the income generated from tourism is increasingly throughout the specified period of time.

Source : BMNP Annual Report, 2007 E.C [ 36 ]

Trend of income generated from tourism sector per year.

This growth trend of flow of visitors and income gained from the industry is bringing opportunities for the establishment of hotel and lodging industries in and around Bale Mountains National Park, thereby increasing the opportunities for the supplies of commercial agricultural products to those sectors (Figs.  5 , 6 ).

Linkage of tourism with agriculture

According to the interviewees, due to the extensive agricultural activities, infant stage of tourism industries and its dependency on merely imported agricultural products, there is no significant income gain from tourism for the residents of the study area. Specifically, an effort had been exerted to identify the agricultural products which are currently being supplied to tourism industries by local people (Table  7 ).

As it can be observed from Table  7 , concerning the availability of supply of agricultural outputs to tourism industry from local source, the finding has shown that majority of the respondents are not supplying fattened cattle, sheep and goat, vegetables, milk and its by-products, poultry and egg, coffee, honey and bamboo to the tourism industry and tourists. On top of these, fruits and fishes are not being produced by the residents of the study area. Insignificantly, 7.8, 6.5, 5.7, 3.8 and 2.7% of respondents replied that they are selling sheep, honey, vegetables, cattle and goats to tourism sector, respectively. Equivocally, the absence of supplying commercial agricultural products to the tourism industry like lodges and hotels is an indicator for the absence of linkage between tourism and agriculture in the aspect of market-based supply–demand chain. Generally, using χ 2 test, the livelihood dependency of residents in relation to tourism and agriculture as sources of income and their annual income were discussed and analyzed. As listed in Table  8 , the association between annual income and agriculture is significant as the p value of 0.001 was less than the conventional p value of 0.05.

On the other hand, the researchers tried to see the association between annual income and tourism, and the result in Table  9 depicted that there is no association between dependency on tourism and their annual income due to the p value of 0.452 which was greater than the conventional p value of 0.05.

Therefore, the livelihood of residents of the study area is highly depending on agriculture than on tourism. This can be an indicator for the absence of the nexuses between these two sectors in Bale Mountains National Park (Table  9 ).

So far, situations of agriculture and tourism as economic activities in and surrounding of Bale Mountains National Park and the nexuses between tourism and agriculture had been discussed and confirmed the absence of commercial and tourism demand-driven agricultural activities, and this resulted in the nonexistence of agriculture–tourism linkage based on business and mutual existence scenarios.

Agricultural encroachment

The key informants from park management staff, Dinsho Woreda Agriculture office and FGD and the representatives of local residents pointed out some of the challenges faced by the park as:

“The park had been very much challenged by the continuing pressure from the local communities for the demand of land for the purpose of agriculture activities both cereals and grazing land for their cattle and settlement as the size of population was increasing from time to time. Accordingly, the farmers illegally penetrate to the areas of the park through plowing and settling inside the park and engage in mixed farm.”

Health and hygiene concern

Due to the fact that local agricultural products are blamed to have less quality, tourists or hotels do not want to risk themselves in compliance with health and safety standards. The result of FGD and interview with hotels and lodges manager and workers also depicted similar situation of high demand of imported agricultural products. The manager of Bale Mountains Lodge argued that:

“We are importing agricultural products from outside of this area mainly from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia because of our fear of health and hygiene issues resulting from poor quality of the products, technological and processing related problems like poor harvesting technique improper storage, packaging, and transportation of agricultural products.”

Lack of customers’ preference for local farm products and market size

Tourism industries provide the products that most interest their customers. According to the result of the survey conducted with residents of the study area, 73.3% of respondents indicated that tourists are not interested to buy local farm products due to their hesitation about the unreliable standard quality of local farm products and services (Fig.  7 ).

Source : Field survey 2015

Interest of tourists to buy local products.

Similarly, the interviewed lodge and hotel owners in the study area described as:

Mostly, the customers/tourists are interested to use imported packed products than local farm products. Moreover, tourism markets are relatively small food markets in remote areas due to the fact that there are very small flows of tourists for very short visits. As a result, the market may not be large enough to generate significant agricultural food products demand locally.

Therefore, the market demand of agricultural products by tourism industry in the study area was very low.

Procurement, taxation and institutional issues

In this study, an effort has been exerted to investigate the demands of lodges and hotels to buy local farm products. According to the interviewees, this is not because of the absence of interests from the side of lodges and hotels industry, but it is due to the procurement and taxation regulation of the government. Bale Mountain Lodge Manager pointed out that:

“As an industry, it is expected that receipt should be issued for each and every sales and purchase undertaken. As a result, local farmers are unable to issue legal receipts or invoices for the sales of agricultural products for the hotels and lodge. Due to this, we are forced to buy supplies from the outsiders who can provide receipts or invoices.”

In line with this, FGD conducted with representatives of local residents in Rira kebele of the study area also showed similar finding. In their word of mouth:

“There is/are no well-established institution(s) or government organization responsible in facilitating market value chains interlinkage for both tourism and agriculture through organizing local farm products suppliers associations and facilitating them to have their own legal receipts or invoices while selling their farm products, leading to have no symbiotic co-existence between tourism and agriculture through market exchange.”

Absence of favorable investment opportunities

Due to the low level of linkage between agriculture and tourism in rural protected areas, government support in the investment was very important so as to minimize encroachments extensive farm to the park. On the other hand, the focus group discussants and interviewees from local residents disclosed as:

“Regardless of its potentials and possibilities of income diversification like agriculture, tourism, and other commercial activities in rural areas, there, was the gap between policy and practice at the grass root levels. The practices on the ground do not allow easy access to favorable investment procedures credit service in rural areas.”

Absence of marketing channels and local intermediaries

In this regard, the interview with Bale Mountain and Dinsho Lodges indicated the absence of marketing channel and intermediaries who are playing the bridging role of linkage between tourism and agricultural sectors. Moreover, one of the members of FGD held at Dinsho stated that:

“There was no market network that connects the tourists and local producers around Dinsho as intermediary agent or market cooperative or farm market union. The tourists rarely visit the local market and there were no agents that link the two sectors. There were also no well-established hotel/lodge that can entertain the tourists in the town of Dinsho and mostly the tourists who are visiting the wild animals go back to either Robe or Goba towns for accommodation.”

Opportunities of linking tourism with agriculture

Improved market and technology situations.

Considerable efforts have been made to identify possibilities of introduction of new innovative technology, improved price of farm products and income due to linkage between tourism and agriculture in the park development areas. However, as indicated in Table  10 , 89.2, 90.3 and 86.5% of the households disagree with the opportunities created due to synergistic coexistence between tourism and agriculture. Similarly, the focus group discussants also affirmed:

“The local community around the park lost the grazing land, the benefit from the forest area and large area committed to the park for free. Sometimes, the local government tell the people that the development of the park benefit the local community in introducing important infrastructures such as veterinary clinic, schools, health center and introducing new productive farm technologies. However, there was no demand-driven introduction of new farm technology by tourism industry into agricultural activities of providing sustainable benefits for the residents.”

Cost advantages of local farm products

Buying locally produced farm products such as cabbage, potato, honey, coffee and garlic can have financial benefits over imported produce, due to the assumptions that such locally produced farm products have lower transport costs than imported produces; are fresh as the time from harvesting to sale is reduced; and the buyer has greater influence and flexibility in the production of food because of the closer relationship with a local supplies, rather than imported produces.

Growing governments’ attention

Recognizing the benefits of tourism industry for poverty alleviation and considering tourism as a pro-poor development alternative, Ethiopian government is giving due emphasis for tourism industry. This will bring opportunities for the agricultural products to be supplied for the tourism sectors.

The role of local intermediaries in the marketing channels is indispensible in creating linkage between the suppliers (local farm producers) and tourism industry (hotels and lodges). This is due to the fact that agriculture supply producers are often unable to provide these services themselves, and in Tanzania and Ethiopia, there are examples of hoteliers contracting purchasers to manage this interface between large numbers of small providers and small numbers of large buyers [ 32 ]. In this regard, the interview with Bale Mountain and Dinsho Lodges shows that there are no marketing channel and intermediaries who are playing the roles of making linkage between tourism and agricultural sectors. There is/are also no well-established institution(s) or government organization that are responsible in facilitating market value chains for both tourism and agriculture sectors through organizing local farm product suppliers associations and facilitating them to have their own legal receipts or invoices while selling their farm products, leading to have no symbiotic coexistence between tourism and agriculture. This is similar to the results of a study by Mitchell and Coles [ 33 ] on the issue of tourism-related food supply chains in Ethiopia. For example, hotel demand for food supplies is a small percentage of the total marketable surpluses in secondary destinations such as Lalibela 3%; Axum 2%; and Arba Minch 0.4%.

Conclusion and recommendation

This study was aimed to see the practices, challenges and opportunities of the linkage and symbiotic coexistence between tourism and agriculture arising from direct, indirect and induced impacts in Bale Mountains National Park. Therefore, the study revealed that cereals, horticulture (except fruits), sheep and cattle are the major agricultural products though coffee and honey are being produced mainly in Rira village. Productivities of cereals and livestock are increasing though the size of farm and grazing lands are decreasing proportionally from time to time.

However, there is no practical linkage between tourism and agriculture in Bale Mountains National Park with respect to the symbiotic coexistence and market-based value chain scenarios. The market-based value chains of the two sectors are challenged by the practices of non-commercial type of agricultural activities; the mere wildlife-dependent tourism activities; health and hygiene concern and lack of customers’ preference for local farm products; small market size of tourism industry; absence of favorable investment opportunities in both sectors; lack of marketing abilities of the local farmers; and absence of marketing channels and local intermediaries. The encroachment on local people due to the need of extensive farm and grazing land and settlement expansion; growing firewood demand; and human–wildlife conflict are some additional challenges. In spite of such challenges, the areas huge potential for agro- and village tourism, huge potentials of coffee, honey, and highland fruits like apple productions, cost advantages of dependency on local farm products; fish farming and sport fishing; growing tourist flows and government attentions are pointed out as opportunities to ensure symbiotic coexistence and value chain linkages between tourism and agriculture.

Therefore, unrestricted efforts to create an eco-village and sustainable local development through creating symbiotic coexistence and market-based value chain or linkages between tourism and agriculture by the governmental, non-governmental, educational and any concerned stakeholders are very crucial.

Recommendation

Therefore, the finding of this research suggests the following way forwards to governmental, non-governmental, educational, and other stakeholders: the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Park Management, NGOs, local government, Ministry of Justice, EPA, Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and MaddaWalabu University should make coordinated efforts mobilizing local community at the grass root.

For market-based value chain or linkage between tourism and agriculture

Conducting intensive and extensive promotional campaign to increase the number of tourists.

Developing and diversifying tourism activities to increase the length of stay and tourists expenditure on food sourced from the poor farmers.

Facilitating to focus tourism market-tailored to agricultural activities.

Encouraging intermediaries or tourism industries such as hotels and lodges to process the raw agricultural products than buying the end value of agricultural commodities.

Establishing farmer-owned accommodation or hotels and lodge who will directly serving tourists using their agricultural products.

Facilitating pro-poor local small enterprises that will produce and supply agricultural products to hotels and lodges.

Developing agro-tourism to enable tourists participating in farming activities; exploring local culture; enjoying the landscape and agro-biodiversity; and observing organic and conventional agricultural practices.

Utilizing coffee and honey production potentials for tourism market.

Giving capacity empowerment training about the production of quality tourism market demand-tailored agricultural products.

Facilitating and setting regulations about the procurement and taxation systems so as to enable the tourism sectors purchase agricultural products directly from the local poor farmers.

For symbiotic coexistence between tourism and agriculture

Facilitating intensive agricultural activities to minimize pressure to the park.

Encouraging livestock production using cut-and-carry system.

Establishing buffer zone so as to minimize the penetration of wild animals to the farming areas of the residents in and around the park.

Facilitating urban settlement options so as to avoid or minimize illegal settlement inside the park.

Providing alternative energy sources for the residents.

Abbreviations

Bale Mountain National Park

Ministry of Culture and Tourism

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority

Scheyvens R. Exploring the tourism–poverty nexus. In: Hall CM, editor. Pro-poor tourism: who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction. Clevedon: Channel View Publications; 2007. p. 121–41.

Google Scholar  

Torres R, Momsen J. Introduction. In: Torres R, Momsen J, editors. Tourism and agriculture: new geographies of production and rural restructuring. London: Routledge; 2011.

Telfer DJ, Wall G. Linkages between tourism and food production. Ann Tourism Res. 1996;23(3):635–53.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lejarraja I, Walkenhurst P. Diversification by deepening linkages with tourism. Washington DC: International Trade Department, The World Bank; 2007.

Gomes AJ. Integrating tourism and agricultural development. In: Gayle DJ, Momsen J (eds) 1986: Linkages between tourism and agriculture: problems for the smaller Caribbean economies; 1993, pp. 516–36.

Torres R. Linkages between tourism and agriculture in Mexico. Ann Tourism Res. 2003;30(3):516–66.

UNEP. Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication a synthesis for policy makers. Paris, France. 2011. Retrieved from www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/…/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf . Accessed 16 Apr 2014.

Lacher RG, Nepal SK, From leakages to linkages: local-level strategies for capturing tourism revenue in Northern Thailand. Tour. Geog; 2010. vol. 12, p. 77–99.

Berno, T. Not because of the food—can Pacific cuisine become an attribute of the Pacific tourism product?, Paper presented at the Council of Australian Universities in Tourism and Hospitality Education Conference, 2–5 February, 2005, Alice Springs, Australia; 2005.

Mitchell J. Faal J. The Gambian tourist value chain and prospects for pro-poor tourism, Oversea Development institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD; 2008.

Mitchell J, Ashley C. Tourism and poverty reduction: pathways to prosperity. London: Earthscan; 2010.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Ethiopian Tourism Annual Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2012.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Tourism Development Policy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2009.

Kausar DR, Nishikawa Y, Nishimura Y. How could management of Borobudur World Heritage Site be enhanced for improving tourism impact for the community? A preliminary comparison with the Angkor World Heritage site. Forum Int. Dev. Stud. 2011;40:31–42.

BMNP. Annual Report of Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia; 2013.

Rhiney K. Agritourism linkages in Jamaica: case study of the Negril Lll-inclusive hotel sector. In: Torres R, Momsen J, editors. Tourism and agriculture: new geographies of production and rural restructuring. London: Routledge; 2011.

Torres R. Momsen JH. Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives, Progress in Development Studies; 2004.

Eiligmann, A. Opportunity study for Krama and doormats made from garment waste, International Development Consultants (IDC), for International Trade Centre; 2009.

Meyer D. Pro-poor tourism: from leakages to linkages: a conceptual framework for creating linkages between the accommodation sector and ‘poor’ neighboring communities. Curr. Issues Tour. 2007;10:558–83.

Timms B. Caribbean agriculture–tourism linkages in a Neoliberal world: problems and prospects for St Lucia. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2006;28:35–56.

Brown B. Strengthening of the tourism sector through the development of linkages with the agricultural sector in St Kitts and Nevis. Paper prepared for the inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, Basseterre, St Kitts; 2003.

Telfer DJ, Wall G. Strengthening backward economic linkages: local food purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tour. Geog. 2000;2:421–47.

Butler RW. The concept of the tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for managers of resources. Can. Geogr. 1980;24(1):5–12.

Rogerson CM. Strengthening agriculture–tourism linkages in the developing world: opportunities, barriers and current initiatives. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012;7:4.

O’Ferral A. Tourism and agriculture on the north coast of the Dominican republic. Revista Geográfica. 1991;113:171–91.

Momsen, J. Linkages Between Tourism and Agriculture in the Caribbean. Paper presented at international geographical union conference (IGU), August, 1996. The Hague, Netherlands; 1996.

Ashley C, Haysom G. The development impacts of tourism supply chains: increasing impact on poverty and decreasing our ignorance. London: Earthscan; 2008.

Spratt C, Walker R, Robinson B. Module A5: mixed research methods. Common wealth of Learning; 2004. Retrieved from: www.col.org/Site Collection Documents/A5.Pdf/Accessed 8 April 2014.

Bale Mountain General Management Plan. Bale Mountains National Park General management Plan compiled and edited by Frank Furt Zoological Society, Institute of Biodiversity conservation, Ethiopia; 2007.

Demeke A, Ashok V. Ecotourism for environmental conservation and community livelihoods, the case of the Bale Mountain National Park, Ethiopia. J. Environ. Sci. Water Resour. 2013;2(8):250–9.

Ethiopia Mapping Agency. Geographical information system map of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2016.

Mitchell J, Keane J, Laidlaw J. Making success work for the poor: package tourism in Northern Tanzania; Final report; 2009.

Mitchell J, Coles C. Enhancing private sector and community engagement in tourism services in Ethiopia, Project Report for the World Bank; 2009.

Yamane T. Determining sample size for research activities, J. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 1967.

BMNP. Annual Report of Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia. 2007.

Lisle, J. D., 2011.The Benefits and Challenges of Mixing Methods and Methodologies: Lessons Learnt From Implementing Qualitatively Led Mixed Methods Research Designs in Trinidad and Tobago.

Download references

Authors’ contributions

BZ designed and led the study, structured the concepts, reviewed much of the studies and analyzed much of the qualitative and quantitative data and further developed the manuscript, while DW identified and developed important concepts, validated and helped design the arguments, conceived and helped design of the study, assisted in analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data and editions of the final manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude goes to Research and Community Services Directorate, MaddaWalabu University, for funding this research. We extend our gratitude to the Research and Technology Transfer Coordinator and research committee of Business and Economics School for their valuable reviews and comments to make this paper as good as possible. Our appreciation also goes to those who facilitated and participated during data collection. BMC journal of Agriculture and Food Security deserves our heartfelt appreciation for assisting the funds required for publication process and critical evaluation of the paper through peer review. Finally, our colleagues, who gave us constructive advises, deserve due acknowledgement.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of supporting data

The authors declare that they can submit the required data at all times. The datasets used will be available from the authors up on request.

Consent for publication

The manuscript to be submitted to the Journal of Agriculture and Food Security has been approved by the authors. The authors would declare that the manuscript had neither been submitted nor been published in the other journals. All presented case reports have verbal consent.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance and letters of permission were obtained from Research and Community Service Directorate of MaddaWalabu University and relevant government offices. Verbal consent was obtained from every participant informing the aim of the study, and the information obtained kept confidential. Besides, the researchers gave due attention for environmental (wildlife and their habitats, other natural resources), and sociocultural (language, religion, customs, etc.) considerations of participants.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to BMC JAFS for waivers resolution of the fund required to process this article for publication by MS ID: = 1241901772057531.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, Ethiopia

Diriba Welteji

Department of Tourism Management, Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, Ethiopia

Biruk Zerihun

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diriba Welteji .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Welteji, D., Zerihun, B. Tourism–Agriculture Nexuses: practices, challenges and opportunities in the case of Bale Mountains National Park, Southeastern Ethiopia. Agric & Food Secur 7 , 8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0156-6

Download citation

Received : 03 November 2017

Accepted : 02 January 2018

Published : 01 April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0156-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Agriculture
• Local economic development

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Research on the integrated development of agriculture and tourism in inner Mongolia

• Fu, Longtian
• Yturralde, Chere'Cato
• Valencia, Lita Gayrama

The coordinated development of agriculture and tourism is very important. On the basis of the index system of the predecessors, the development effect index after the integration of the subsystems is added, so as to construct the evaluation index system of the integrated development of agriculture and tourism in Inner Mongolia. The entropy weight method is used to set the weight value for each index, and the panel data from 2001 to 2019 collected from the Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook and the China Yearbook are analyzed with the coupled coordination degree model. The research results show that the development of agriculture and tourism in Inner Mongolia has been highly coupled since 2004; it has been reluctantly coordinated from 2007 until 2019 to achieve high-quality coordination; from 2001 to 2011, the development of tourism lagged behind the development of agriculture, while after 2012, the development of agriculture has been lagging behind the tourism industry. Wang (Asia Pac J Tour Res 24(6):550-562, 2019), Li and Du (Sustainability 13(10), 2021) had got similar conclusions. The article puts forward suggestions from two aspects. On the one hand, using the tourism as the trigger for the development of agriculture tourism by developing more agricultural-related tourism products so as to fully tap the tourism attributes of agriculture. The marketing of tourism products should be consciously inclined to agriculture; on the other hand, the promoting the development of tourism can be realized by adopting modern agriculture, which includes cultivating new types of large agricultural households, supporting the development of large and medium-sized farms, promoting the development of green agriculture and industrialized and three-dimensional agriculture. The modern agriculture can be deeply integrated with the tourism industry, thereby promoting the development of tourism. The research results and suggestions put forward in this paper have certain reference significance for the coordinated development of agriculture and tourism in Inner Mongolia and Southeast Asia.

• Inner Mongolia;
• Agriculture;
• Integrated development

• The Enablers
• Expert views
• Edition notice
• Flagship Events

World Export Development Forum 2023

• Micro Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSME) Day
• Día Internacional de la Mujer
• Journée internationale des femmes
• International Women’s Day
• Shetrades global
• Good Trade Summit 2023
• For meeting participants
• Travel conditions for meeting participants
• Conditions de voyage pour les participants aux réunions
• Restricciones de viaje para los participantes en reuniones
• Femmes et marchés publics
• Mujeres en la adquisición pública
• Women in Public Procurement
• Let's #OrangetheWorld
• Get in touch
• Press releases
• Media advisories
• In the media
• Social media
• Domaines d'impacts et principaux services
• Impact areas and core services
• Áreas de impacto y servicios principales
• Agribusiness and food systems
• Fruits and vegetables
• Creative industries
• E-commerce policy
• Fibres, textiles and clothing
• Information and communication technology and outsourcing
• Manufactured goods
• Professional services
• Transportation and logistics
• Digital transformation and e-commerce
• Industrial competitiveness
• International value chains
• Investment policy
• Least developed country competitiveness
• Multilateral trade integration
• Non-tariff measures
• Regional trade integration
• Trade development strategies
• Trade facilitation
• Trade in services
• Trade policy formulation and implementation
• Access to finance and investment
• Business resilience
• Covid-19 response
• Export marketing and branding
• Entrepreneurship and strategic innovation
• MSME export development
• Production operations
• Sustainable packaging
• Skills development
• Deforestation
• Green competitiveness
• Human rights due diligence
• Responsible sourcing
• Sustainability standards
• Sustainable trade and investment
• Migrants and refugees
• Women's economic empowerment
• Youth and trade
• Asociaciones
• Partenariats
• Partnerships
• Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises
• Business Support Organizations
• Policymakers
• Priority groups
• Least developed countries
• Landlocked developing countries
• Small island developing states
• Sub-Saharan Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Middle East and North Africa
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Asia and the Pacific
• Research and data
• Import of goods
• Export of goods
• Import of services
• Export of services
• Africa Marketplace Explorer
• African Trade Observatory
• Export potential map
• Global trade helpdesk
• Investment map
• Latin America and the Caribbean Marketplace Explorer
• LDC Trade Tracker
• Market access map
• Market price information
• Procurement map
• Rules of origin facilitator
• Trade briefs
• SheTrades.com
• SDG trade monitor
• SheTrades outlook
• Standards map
• Sustainability gateway
• Sustainability map
• Ye! Community
• SME Trade Academy
• Business diagnostic and benchmarking
• Global Textile Academy
• NTM business surveys
• Strategies Implementation Management Tool
• Trade obstacles alert mechanism
• Intra-African trade e-learning
• SheTrades virtual learning space
• Standards e-learning
• Supply Chain Management
• Thematic collections
• Food and agriculture
• Inclusive trade
• Regional trade
• SME Competitiveness Outlook
• Sustainability
• For contributors
• Style guide and resources
• Biblioteca electrónica
• Bibliothèque électronique
• ITC e-library
• Financement
• Financiación
• Adquisiciones
• Procurement
• Service des achats
• ITC and you
• Asia Marketplace Explorer
• Export Potential Map
• Global Trade Helpdesk
• Investment Map
• Market Access Map
• Market Price Information
• Procurement Map
• Rules of Origin Facilitator
• Trade Briefs
• Trade Strategy Map
• Green to Compete
• SheTrades Outlook
• Standards Map
• Sustainability Gateway
• Sustainability Map
• SDG Trade Monitor
• YE! Young Entrepreneurs
• Benchmarking - TSI performance improvement
• ecomConnect
• NTM Business Surveys

International Trade Centre tools

• News & Events
• " data-item-id="lang-switcher">
• ITC and you Business Business support organizations Policymakers Funders & partners Media Academia
• Visit news & events

See how our work is featured in the media, receive the latest updates from the field directly into your inbox, or view our global collection of photos, videos and podcasts.

• Visit our work

We provide tailored support, aligned with national objectives, to grow trade opportunities for micro, small and medium businesses in developing countries.

• Visit resources

Our market analysis and resource solutions will help you review crucial trade related information in over 200 countries and territories.

• Visit about us

We aim to bring prosperity, inclusiveness and sustainability to developing countries through trade-related development assistance.

• Visit this section
• news & events
• Media centre
• Regions and countries
• Data and analysis
• Publications
• Business support organizations
• Funders & partners
• Trade Forum
• Visit events

World Export Development Forum (WEDF)

• World Trade Promotion Organizations (WTPO) Conference and Awards
• Good Trade Summit / T4SD Forum
• Visit campaigns
• Visit media centre
• media centre
• Info for journalists
• Visit multimedia
• Visit impact areas and core services
• impact areas and core services
• Visit topics
• Goods and services
• Business environment
• Business performance
• Visit clients
• Visit priority groups
• priority groups
• Visit regions and countries
• regions and countries
• Priority countries
• Visit data and analysis
• data and analysis
• Trade statistics
• Visit tools
• Market data
• Sustainability and inclusivity
• Visit e-learning
• Visit publications
• publications
• Visit who we are
• Structure and Management
• Gender equality, diversity and inclusion
• Innovation Lab
• ITC 60 years
• Visit governance
• The Joint Advisory Group (JAG)
• The Consultative Committee of ITC Trust Fund (CCITF)
• Corporate documents
• Visit careers
• Job opportunities
• Visit trade forum
• trade forum
• Visit world export development forum (wedf)
• world export development forum (wedf)
• Visit world trade promotion organizations (wtpo) conference and awards
• world trade promotion organizations (wtpo) conference and awards
• Visit good trade summit / t4sd forum
• good trade summit / t4sd forum
• Visit info for journalists
• info for journalists
• Visit food and agriculture
• food and agriculture
• Visit goods and services
• goods and services
• Visit business environment
• business environment
• Visit business performance
• business performance
• Visit sustainability
• sustainability
• Visit inclusive trade
• inclusive trade
• Visit priority countries
• priority countries
• Visit trade statistics
• trade statistics
• Visit market data
• market data
• Visit sustainability and inclusivity
• sustainability and inclusivity
• Visit structure and management
• structure and management
• Executive Director
• Deputy Executive Director
• Visit history
• 50th anniversary
• Former Executive Directors
• Visit corporate documents
• corporate documents
• Annual report
• Strategic plan
• Operational plan
• Financial report and audited financial statements
• Proposed programme budget
• Visit job opportunities
• job opportunities
• Staff and consultancies
• Internships

ITC’s annual flagship event on trade and development, featuring strategies to connect businesses to new markets. 

The World Export Development Forum, the International Trade Centre’s annual flagship event, is the ideal platform to discuss the latest issues around trade and development and strategies to connect businesses to new markets. It supports inclusive, sustainable and prosperous economies.

Participants are from all over the world, including business leaders, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and representatives of international organizations, business support organizations and the media.

Date: 26-29 June 2023 Location: Ulaan Bataar, Mongolia Partners: Co-host: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Mongolia

High-level panels, practical workshops and business-to-business meetings aimed to boost innovation and forge business deals. Expanding trade opportunities for women entrepreneurs and youth received special focus.

Past events

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - 18-22 November 2019   Trade and Invest in One Africa

Lusaka, Zambia - 11-12 September 2018     Scaling up through trade: Skill - Innovate - Connect    

Budapest, Hungary - 25-26 October 2017 Trade – A force for good: Include, Innovate, Integrate   

Colombo, Sri Lanka- 12-13 October 2016   Trade for Success: Connect, Compete, Change

See videos from the event

Doha, Qatar - 20-21 October 2015   Sustainable Trade: Innovate, invest, internationalize

Kigali, Rwanda - 15-17 September 2014   SMEs: Creating jobs through trade 

Jakarta, Indonesia - 15-17 October 2012   Linking growth markets: New dynamics in global trade 

Istanbul, Turkey - 10-11 May 2011 Private sector engagement with LDCs for tourism-led growth and inclusive sustainable development 

Chongqing, China - 9-12 September 2010  

Adapting to post-crisis world trade patterns, and lessons for export development 

Montreux, Switzerland - 8-11 October 2008: Consumer Conscience: How Environment and Ethics are Influencing Exports 

Montreux, Switzerland - 8-11 October 2007:   Bringing Down the Barriers - Charting a Dynamic Export Development Agenda

Berlin, Germany - 27-30 September 2006: Export Development and Poverty Reduction: Linkages and Implications for Export Strategy-Makers 

Montreux, Switzerland - 5-8 October 2005: Export of Services: Hype or High Potential? - Implications for Strategy-Makers 

Montreux, Switzerland - 26-29 September 2004: Competitiveness through Public–Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons Learned 

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago - 18-21 January 2004:   Regional debate 

Cancun, Mexico - 6-9 September 2003:   Business for Development: Implications for Strategy Maker 

Santa Cruz, Bolivia - 11-14 June 2003:   Regional debate 

Sofia, Bulgaria - 12-15 November 2003:   Regional debate   

Montreux, Switzerland - 25-28 September 2002:   Managing Competitive Advantage: The Values of National Strategy  

Muldersdrift, South Africa - 25-27 November 2002:   Regional debate 

Montreux, Switzerland - 26-29 September 2001:   Is Your Trade Support Network Working?  

Nairobi, Kenya - 26-28 November 2001:   Regional debate 

Montreux, Switzerland - 27-30 September 2000:   Export Development and the Digital Economy  

Annecy, France - 26-29 September 1999:   Redefining Trade Promotion - The Need for a Strategic Response 

Photo gallery

Opening Ceremony - WEDF 2023

Paths to Diversification: Business Cases

B2Bs meetings - WEDF 2023

Youth Ecopreneur Awards: Green Pitch Competition

In Conversation: Trade Trends

Powering Digital Transformation with Local Innovation

Closing Ceremony & Ecopreneur winners

Related news

World Export Development Forum 2023: new trade routes are green, digital

Mongolia’s new National Export Strategy

ITC SheTrades Mongolia Hub launched at the 2023 World Export Development Forum

ITC Executive Director closing remarks at WEDF 2023

Entrepreneurs from Mongolia, Bangladesh win youth pitch contest at World Export Development Forum

Mongolian President, ITC head: Future of trade driven by small businesses, with focus on green and digital

ITC, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development partner to empower Mongolian women entrepreneurs

ITC Executive Director opening remarks at the World Export Development Forum (WEDF), Ulaan Bataar, Mongolia

Trade Finance Global announces media partnership with International Trade Centre on the World Export Development Forum

Finalists revealed for global young entrepreneurs pitch contest

Extended deadline, new category added: Global young entrepreneurs pitch contest

Youth Innovators Wanted: Apply now for the Youth Ecopreneur Award and make a positive impact on the planet

Related publications, events & trainings, world export development forum (wedf) 2019.

African Union headquarters, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

The World Export Development Forum 2019 in Addis Ababa was organized in the context of the Africa Industrialization Week and was co-hosted with the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the African Union Commission. Over 1000 participants from all over the world, including...

Launch event for the World Export Development Forum 2023

The International Trade Centre (ITC) and the Permanent Mission of Mongolia in Geneva are delighted to invite you to the launch event for the World Export Development Forum (WEDF) 2023. The launch event on 15 February takes place at ITC headquarters in Geneva. Join us to hear what businesses,...

Shangri-La Hotel, Ulaanbaatar

At the World Export Development Forum, we talk trade, do business and drive development. It is the ideal setting to shape trade development and connect small businesses to new markets for green and inclusive trade. The theme is Diversify through Green Trade. B2Bs are in ICT, natural fibres and...

ITC contact

Share this article.

How will the new Asheville rail line be funded? Advocates to look for tourism taxes

ASHEVILLE - As regional advocates step up to coordinate funding efforts for the proposed Asheville-Salisbury rail route, one of the next steps is identifying local funding solutions for the project, which, in its entirety, is projected to cost $665 million.

One of those solutions for an early funding local match to federal funding for the line — a match that is expected to cost between "$150,000 to $400,000" — could come from the local tourism development authority.

Members of the Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority subsidiary Explore Asheville, including CEO Vic Isley, met with members of the WNC Rail Committee and the city of Asheville Department of Transportation to discuss funding efforts for the Asheville-Salisbury Rail Corridor, WNC Rail Committee Chair Ray Rapp said during a June 5 WNC Rail Committee meeting.

The BCTDA is able to fund capital projects through two avenues: the Tourism Product Development Fund and the Legacy Investment from Tourism Fund. In the past year, the TPDF and LIFT funds have provided nearly $17 million to local capital projects expected to increase tourism revenues. Another $15 million is expected to be available for fiscal year 2025, according to the recently discussed BCTDA fiscal year 2025 budget.

"Recently, Explore Asheville was delighted to participate in a positive informational meeting with Asheville-Salisbury Corridor advocates," Explore Asheville spokesperson Ashley Greenstein told the Citizen Times June 5. "It’s very early on in the conversation, so they shared important background on the exciting prospective project and we outlined respective Tourism Product Development Fund and Legacy Investment from Tourism Fund criteria and timelines."

Rapp said he believes the goals of the project are in line with the "mission and purpose of the TDA."

In December, a $500,000 grant for the project was announced by the  Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration alongside the announcement of a massive infrastructure overhaul to the "S-Line" between Richmond and Raleigh.

The next step for the Asheville to Salisbury route would be an additional estimated "$150,000 to $400,00" in local match funding  for the "project planning" stage of the Corridor ID program, which involves the creation of the Service Development Plan, N.C. Department of Transportation Rail Division Director Jason Orthner said. The funding must come from a non-federal source, like a Metropolitan Planning Organization, city or state government.

The specific amount required to fund this part of the project may not come until the end of the "scoping" phase, which just officially began and will end within a March or May 2025 time frame, Orthner said. When NCDOT reaches that point, the specific budget needed for local funding will be clearer, he said.

For project planning, the additional non-federal match is 10% of what the FRA has put into the process.

After that step is funded, the next step in the process is the project development stage, which will require a much higher 20% local match to the FRA's funding.

Interim city of Asheville Department of Transportation director Paul Ballard called the conversation with the BCTDA "very positive," as the committee continues to catch local officials up to speed on the state of the project.

"It's serious now and we have timetables and we have financial needs," Ballard said during the June 5 meeting, though noted the TDA had asked for more information about the projects after the May 25 meeting between the organizations.

Leaders from the Land of Sky Regional Council recently expressed interest in supporting the effort by coordinating regional leaders, towns and organizations that may be able to provide non-federal funding for the rail project .

Another plan to produce funding is the recently introduced N.C. Senate Bill 821, which would provide an additional $1 million in state funding for the seven North Carolina train routes identified in the CID program.

Despite support from state senators, including local Democratic Sen. Julie Mayfield, Rapp, a former Democratic state legislator, noted the bill had "gone nowhere" after being introduced. The bill was referred to the committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate on May 6.

Timing for Asheville-Salisbury corridor

While funding remains a top priority for state and regional sponsors of the plan, the WNC Rail Feasibility Study released in December provides a better picture of how long it would take to travel on the system.

The Asheville-Salisbury corridor is "the longest" out of the seven identified by the CID program, Orthner said.

Here are times it would take to travel by rail given in the study, compared to times it would take to travel by car and bus according to Google:

Salisbury to Asheville

• Train : 3 hours and 35 minutes
• Car : 2 hours and 10 minutes
• Bus : 3 hours and 30 minutes

Raleigh to Asheville

• Train : 6 hours and 47 minutes
• Car:  3 hours and 50 minutes
• Bus : 6 hours and 20 minutes

Charlotte to Asheville

• Train : 4 hours and 26 minutes
• Bus : 2 hours and 55 minutes

More: Asheville passenger rail plan finds local support as NC rail funding bill is introduced

More: Eastern Band of Cherokee set to vote on recreational marijuana; When could sales begin?

Will Hofmann is the Growth and Development Reporter for the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA Today Network. Got a tip? Email him at [email protected]. Please help support this type of journalism with a  subscription  to the Citizen Times.