AGRI-TOURISM: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTING
PRO-POOR TOURISM
Ms. Magdalena Ngassa
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management
St. Augustine University of Tanzania
P. O. Box 307, Mwanza, Tanzania, East Africa
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to provide a
brief overview of agri-tourism as an unlocked
opportunity for pro-poor tourism. This paper
focuses on the types of agri-tourism activities
that can be offered in different places to help
marginalized people to get rid of poverty.
This overview represents only a small amount
of information about agri-tourism activities in
different parts of the world. Pro-poor tourism
(PPT) is an overall approach to tourism
development and management aiming at
unlocking opportunities for the poor to obtain
benefits from tourism which can be economic
and non-economic, social, cultural and
environmental. As a kind of pro-poor tourism,
agri-tourism is any practice developed on a
working farm with the purpose of attracting
visitors.
The paper reviewed different literatures
concerning the meaning, interpretation and
principles of pro-poor tourism and agritourism from online materials, journals and
books. Therefore, the author concludes that
agri-tourism can contribute to agricultural
development and at the same time provide
opportunities to rest, relax, enjoy and study
about farming for the visitors. Hence, it
unlocks the opportunities which bring net
benefits to the poor. It then will make the
poor not simply sustain their lives by the sale
of traditional crops and livestock that have
provides a flat net income for many years.
Instead, the poor will become entrepreneurs,
generating additional income from both “offfarm activities and on-farm activities”.
Therefore, if well planned and developed
agri-tourism can be used as a strategy for
implementing pro-poor tourism. In addition
the Government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, community
organizations and the poor themselves all
have critical and very different roles to play in
PPT.
Key words: Pro-poor tourism, agri-tourism
and agricultural activities
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Concept of Pro-poor Tourism
(PPT)
Tourism is one of the world’s largest
industries, generating an estimated 11% of
global Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
employing 200 million people and
transporting nearly 700 million international
travelers per year in 2010, a figure that is
expected to double by 2020. During the
ancient times, it was believed and still
believed that wealthy people have always
travelled to distant parts of the world, to see
great buildings, works of art, learn new
languages and experience new cultures and to
taste different cuisines (William & Theobald,
1998). Then, after having all these
experiences, what was left behind? Poor
communities
remained
poor,
mainly
economically as those experiences were and
are costly for poor people in terms of reduced
access to land, coastal areas and other
valuable resources.
Tourism is a massive and growing industry
already affecting millions of the poor, so a
marginal improvement. It could generate
substantial economic benefits. Also, tourism
has advantages over other sectors in relation
to poverty reduction. Tourism is a very
diverse industry which increases the scope for
wide participation (e.g. informal sector). In
tourism, the customer comes to the product,
offering opportunities to make additional
sales (linkages). Tourism by its very nature is
more labour-intensive than many other
sectors, such as manufacturing, and can
employ many people without neglecting poor
ones.
(http://www.propoortourismkenya.org/what_is_propoortourism.html).
In the view of possible economic benefits
poor people, many means of getting
communities to reduce poverty through
tourism have been developed. Such means
have led to new and different terminologies
pertaining to tourism such as sustainable
tourism, ecotourism, sustainable ecotourism,
community-based tourism and the like. In
addition, different forms of tourism have been
developed.
On the way to helping communities reduce
poverty, pro-poor tourism evolved with the
aim that seeks to utilize tourism as strategic
tool to alleviate poverty among marginalized
communities. Any form of tourism can
contribute to poverty reduction. But, specific
means need to be identified in which tourism
industries as well as tourists can directly and
indirectly generate economic benefits for the
poor. This is what Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) is
all about. PPT can be defined as tourism
which provides net benefits for poor people.
PPT is not a specific tourism product or
sector. It is not the same as eco-tourism or
community-based tourism, although these
forms of tourism can also be pro-poor; i.e.
they can bring net benefits to the poor
(http://www.propoortourismkenya.org/what_is_propoortourism.html).
In reality, PPT is an overall approach to
tourism development and management aiming
at unlocking opportunities for the poor to
obtain benefits from tourism (ibid.). These
can be economic and non-economic, social,
cultural and environmental benefits (Dilys
and Penny, 2001). As an approach, three core
activities are needed: increasing access of the
poor to economic benefits (by expanding
business and employment opportunities for
the poor, providing training so they are in a
position to take up these opportunities and
spreading income beyond individual earners
to the wider community); addressing the
negative social and environmental impacts
often associated with tourism (such as lost
access to land, coastal areas and other
resources
and
social
disruption
or
exploitation); and policy/process reform (by
creating a policy and planning framework that
removes some of the barriers to the poor, by
promoting participation of the poor in the
planning and decision-making processes
surrounding tourism, and by encouraging
partnerships between the private sector and
poor people in developing new tourism
products (Dilys and Penny, 2001). Therefore,
this article describes the agro-tourism as a
particular form of tourism opportunities that
can be pro-poor.
1.1.1 Principles and Strategies of Pro-poor
Tourism
According to Ashley et al. (2000) and Roe
and Urquhart (2004), the following list of the
principles and strategies of pro-poor tourism
is not exhaustive. They are all about: (i)
participation whereby people must participate
in tourism decisions if their livelihood
priorities are to be reflected in the way
tourism is developed; (ii) a holistic
livelihoods approach whereby there must be
recognition of the range of livelihood
concerns of the poor (economic, social and
environment, short and long-term); (iii) a
balanced approach whereby diversity of
actions is needed from the micro to the macro
level. Linkages are crucial for wider tourism
systems. Complementary products and sectors
(for example, transport and marketing) need
to support pro-poor initiatives; (iv) Wide
participation whereby pro-poor principles
apply to any tourism segment, though
strategies may vary between them (for
example wildlife tourism and cultural
tourism); (v) Distribution in which promoting
pro-poor tourism requires some analysis of
the distribution of both benefits and costs and
how to influence it; (vi) Commercial realism
whereby pro-poor tourism strategies have to
work within the constraints of commercial
viability; (vii) Cross-disciplinary learning
whereby pro-poor tourism needs to draw on
lessons from poverty analysis, environmental
and small impacts and reforming the policy
process as well as enhancing the participation
of the poor through capacity building and
skills transfer.
1.2
Agri-tourism
Agri-tourism is a hybrid concept that merges
elements of two complex industries (namely,
agriculture and travel/tourism) to open up
new profitable markets for farm products and
services and provide travel experiences for a
large regional market (Bruce and Christopher,
2003). It has different related terms as
presented in table below.
Table 1: Overview of Definitions Used in the Literature on Agri-tourism and Related Labels
Term Used
Agritourism
Definition
‘‘any practice developed on a
working farm with the purpose
of attracting visitors’’
Reference
Barbieri and Mshenga (2008)
‘‘a specific type of rural
tourism in which the hosting
house must be integrated into
an agricultural estate,
inhabited by the proprietor,
allowing visitors to take part in
agricultural or complementary
activities
on the property’’
Marques (2006)
‘‘rural enterprises which
incorporate both a working
farm environment and a
commercial tourism
component’’
McGehee (2007) and
McGehee, Kim, and Jennings
(2007)
‘‘tourism products which are
directly connected with the
agrarian environment, agrarian
products or agrarian stays’’
Sharpley and Sharpley (1997)
Term Used
Agrotourism
Farm Tourism
Definition
Reference
‘‘activities of hospitality
performed by agricultural
entrepreneurs and their family
members that must remain
connected and complementary
to farming activities’’
Sonnino (2004)
‘‘tourism activities which are
undertaken in non-urban
regions by individuals whose
main employment is in the
primary or secondary sector of
the economy’’
Iakovidou (1997)
‘‘tourist activities of smallscale, family or co-operative in
origin, being developed in rural
areas by people employed in
agriculture’’
Kizos and Iosifides (2007)
‘‘provision of touristic
opportunities on working
farms’’
‘‘rural tourism conducted on
working farms where the
working environment forms
part of the product from the
perspective of the consumer’’
Wall (2000)
‘‘tourist activity is closely
intertwined with farm activities
and often with the viability of
the household economy’’
Gladstone and Morris (2000)
‘‘to take tourists in and put
them up on farms, involving
them actively in farming life
and production activities’’
‘‘Commercial tourism
enterprises on working farms.
This excludes bed and
breakfast establishments,
nature-based tourism and
staged entertainment’’
Clarke (1999)
Iakovidou (1997)
Ollenburg and Buckley (2007)
Term Used
Definition
‘‘activities and services offered
to commercial clients in a
working farm environment for
participation, observation or
education’’
‘‘a part of rural tourism, the
location of the accommodation
on a part-time or full-time farm
being the distinguishing
criterion.’’
Farm-based
tourism
Vacation Farms
1.3
Reference
Ollenburg (2006)
Oppermann (1996)
‘’increasingly used to describe
a range of activities. [which]
Roberts and Hall (2001)
may have little in common with
the farm other than the farmer
manages the land on which
they take place’’
‘‘phenomenon of attracting
Evans and Ilbery (1989)
people onto agricultural
holdings’’
Ilbery, Bowler, Clark, Crockett,
‘‘an alternative farm
and Shaw (1998)
enterprise’’
‘‘incorporate both a working
Weaver and Fennell (1997)
farm environment and a
commercial tourism
component’’
How Agri-tourism is Performed
Unfortunately, little empirical research has
been done on agri-tourism in Africa. Most of
the material that follows is taken for
developed countries and South Africa.
However, this information can be useful for
planners in the tourism sector of African
countries. Normally, agri-tourism is smallscale and low-impact (Wicks and Merrett,
2003; Wall, 2006). In agri-tourism a native or
local farmer offers tours to their agriculture
farm to allow visitors to view them growing,
harvesting, and processing locally grown
crops such as maize, sorghum or any produce
the person would not come across in their
areas. Often the farmers would provide farmstay opportunities including educational
programs and recreational activities (Nilsson,
2002; Weaver and Fennell, 1997). Therefore,
this could be suitable for the marginal farms
since they have vast areas in which to practice
small scale and low-impact agri-tourism
activities.
1.4 A List of Fun Making Agri-tourism
Activities
1.4.1. U-Pick Operations or Pick Your Own
(PYO): Visitors are allowed to harvest (pick)
their own fruits, vegetables, and other
products. U-Pick operations can include
pumpkins, apples, strawberries, peaches,
grapes, blackberries, Christmas trees, etc. as
shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: U-pick Operations
Source:
http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActiv
ities.html
1.4.2 On-Farm Produce Stand: Rather than
have visitors pick their own fruits and
vegetables, on-farm produce stands provide
harvested fruits, vegetables, or value-added
products (such as jams, canned fruits and
vegetables) for retail sales as shown in
Figures 2 and 3 below.
Figure 2: Harvested Vegetables
Figure 3: Harvested Fruits
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.3 On-Farm Restaurant, Dinners, and
Bakery: Some farms may choose to offer food
and beverages to guests visiting the farm.
Another option is to offer on-farm meals
several times a year where visitors are served
food straight from the farm as shown in
Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: On Farm Restaurant
Source:
http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActiv
ities.html
1.4.4 Educational Farm Tours and
Demonstrations: These types of tours and
demonstrations are often interactive and
provide hands on education. Tours and
demonstrations can be given on an individual
basis to the visiting public and to school
groups or other organizations. Examples
Figure 5: Farm Tour
include
cheese
production,
milking
demonstrations, picking cotton, how-to
classes (such as canning), and discussions on
the history of farming as illustrated in Figures
5, 6 and 7 below.
Figure 6: Farm Demonstrations
Figure 7: Education to School Group
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.5 On-Farm Activities: Many farms offer a
variety of on-farm activities for children and
adults. For example, corn/mazes u-pick,
Figure 8: Horseback Riding
wagon/hay/sleigh rides, petting zoos, pig
races, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing
as shown in Figures 8 and 9 below.
Figure 9: Pumpkins U-pick
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.6 Animal Exhibits: Animal exhibits often
allow visitors to view various farm-related
animals up close for educational purposes
Figure 10: Petting Zoos
(such as butterfly farm) or entertainment
purposes (as with a petting zoo) as shown
Figure 10 below.
Source:
http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActiv
ities.html
Figure 11: On Farm Lodging Cottage
1.4.7 On-Farm Bed And Breakfast, Inn,
Cottage, or Campground: Overnight lodging
on the farm can include meals, participation
in various farm chores, or other area
attractions (horseback riding, tickets to a
museum). Often these supplementary options
cost an additional fee or are included in a
package as illustrated on Figures 11 and 12
below.
Figure 12: On-farm Breakfast
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.8 Hands-On Farm Chores: Hands-on farm chores allow visitors to actively participate in farm
chores while learning about life on a farm. Chores can include milking cows, feeding farm animals,
collecting eggs, shearing sheep, and baling hay as illustrated in Figures 13 and 14 below.
Figure 13: Collecting Eggs
Figure 14: Feeding Farm Animals
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.9 Farm Vacations and Dude Ranches:
On-farm lodging (bed and breakfast, inn, and
cottages) combined with hands-on farm
Figure 15: Shearing Animals
chores (shearing sheep, feeding farm animals)
provides visitors with an extended stay and
farm experience as indicated in Figure 15.
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.10 Vineyards and Wineries: Growers can
host
vineyard
tours,
winemaking
demonstrations, wine tastings, wine classes,
Figure 16: Bakery Class
as well as bakery classes or events and
festivals for visitors or local businesses as
shown in Figures 16, 17 and 18 below.
Figure 17: Vineyards
Figure 18: Wineries
Source: http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html
1.4.11 On-Farm Festivals and Events
(Harvest Festivals, Music Festivals): Growers
can host celebrations of a specific event or
interest, a unique aspect of a community, or a
specific holiday. For example, a seasonal
festival (fall harvest festival), music festival,
arts and crafts festival, flower festival as
demonstrated in Figure 19.
Figure 19: On-farm Festivals and Events
1.4.12 Wildlife Viewing and Photography:
Farms can provide a safe and suitable
environment for visitors seeking opportunities
to view and photograph wildlife as shown in
Figure 20: Animal Viewing
Source:
http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActiv
ities.html
Generally, agri-tourism can be categorized as
on-farm and off-farm activities. The list of
possible on-farm activities according to
Wilson, et al.
(2006) include: outdoor
recreation
(fishing,
hunting,
wildlife
photography,
horseback
riding,
bird
watching); educational experiences (farm and
cannery tours, cooking classes, wine tasting,
cattle drives, or help work on the ranch);
entertainment (harvest festivals or corn
mazes); hospitality services (farm and ranch
stays, guided tours or outfitter services) and
on-farm direct sales (u-pick operations or
roadside stands). On the other hand, off-farm
activities typically involve: opportunities to
purchase and eat local foods (farmer’s
markets, fruit stands and country stores,
restaurants highlighting locally harvested
foods) or educational and entertainment
experiences (community festivals and events
featuring agriculture heritage and museums
featuring local agricultural heritage).
It should be noted that the descriptions of
agri-tourism activities above differ from one
place to another. Therefore, agri-tourism may
be any form of farm-based tourism operation
that provides economic benefit to the farm
owner(s) and provides on-farm and off-farm
entertainment, activity, or product for the
visitor.
1.5 Visitor’s Motivating Factors to Travel
Gaworecki (2003) wrote that there are factors
which motivate visitors to travel which then
create market segmentation as shown in the
Table 2.
Table 2: Possible Attractions and Market Segmentation for Agri-tourism
Market Segmentation
Attractions
• Water rafting
Children Groups
• Steer roping
• Animal riding
• Tree climbing
• Swimming, sailing
• Forest trips
• Horseback riding
Young Couples Without Children
• Water rafting
• Oxen cart drive
• Swimming
Young Couples with Children
• Horse riding
• Sailing
• Animal observation
Middle Aged Couples without Children
Older Couples
Singles
• Bird observation
• Cattle behavior
• Calf delivery
• Wildlife behavior
• Country life experience
• Milking practices
• Small calve roping
• Pond and river fishing
• Cheese making
• Local cuisine
• Social life
• Meeting new people
• Barbecues
• Fishing, sailing
• Sunset watch
Source: Adapted from Gaworecki W. (2003)
1.6
Great Pro-poor Potential of Agritourism
1.6.1 Economic Contribution of Agritourism
Dilys and Penny (2001) have listed the
following characteristics of agri-tourism that
contribute to an understanding of this
specialized form of modern tourism.
1.
Agri-tourism is a diverse industry. This
increases
the scope
for
wide
participation, including the participation
of the informal sector.
2.
The customer comes to the product,
providing considerable opportunities for
linkages (e.g. souvenir selling). Poor
people do not incur any travel expenses
when they live on the farm that is
visited.
3.
Agri-tourism is highly dependent upon
natural capital (e.g. wildlife, scenery)
and culture. These are assets that some
of the poor have, even if they have no
financial resources.
4.
Agri-tourism can be more labour
intensive than manufacturing.
5.
Compared to other modern sectors, a
higher proportion of agri-tourism
benefits (jobs, petty trade opportunities)
go to women (although it is not known
whether these are necessarily the
poorest women).
Hyungsuk, (2012) in the article entitled Agritourism: Development and Research wrote
that off-farm activities have contributed about
75% of farm income to some American
farmers. Furthermore, it has been reported
that farmers who have turned to agri-tourism
could be as much as 40 percent more
profitable than those who have not although
not all of them have been successful. In the
three states where he tracked the economic
impact of agri-tourism, the annual agritourism revenue ranged from $20 million in
Vermont (USA) to $26 million in New York
state (USA) in 2003. In Hawaii (USA),
revenues rose 30% to $34 million, from 2000
to 2003. In addition, Europe experienced an
annual growth rate of 6% from 2002 to 2004
(Ibid.). In the article entitled The Economic
Contributions of Agri-tourism in New Jersey
(USA), it has been noted that farm-gate
revenues generated from agri-tourism in New
Jersey totaled $57.5 million in 2006 (Rutgers,
2011). It has been further reported that 40%
of agri-tourism farms with less than $250,000
in total farm income derived all of their farm
income from agri-tourism and only 8% from
agri-tourism for farms earning more than
$250,000 in total farm income and relied
exclusively on agri-tourism as a revenue
source. In addition, among farms reporting
agri-tourism income, agri-tourism revenues
averaged $33,382 per farm. In New Jersey
agri-tourism revenue reported by larger farms
($250,000 or more in total farm sales) was
substantial, averaging $191,607 per farm and
totaling more than $29 million in aggregate
(Ibid.).
Research was conducted by Thomas et al. in
2006 on Maine’s (USA) farms. The findings
indicated that on agri-tourism farms with less
than $5,000 in total annual farm revenue,
agri-tourism provides nearly two-thirds of
that total revenue. On agri-tourism farms with
between $50,000 and $249,999 of total
income, agri-tourism activities account for
slightly more than one-half of farm revenue.
Moreover, on agri-tourism farms with more
than $1 million of annual sales, agri-tourism
provides less than 15% of their total sales. In
addition to those findings, Thomas et al.
(2006) came up with the empirical evidence
which show how agri-tourism farms and
income by type of activity in Maine
contribute to the livelihood of marginal farms
as seen in Table 3. These findings indicate
that agri-tourism plays a great important role
as pro-poor to marginal farms in Maine, USA.
Table 3: Distribution of Maine Agri-tourism Farms and Income by Type of Activity
*Percent of all Agri-tourism
Percent of all
Farms
Agri-tourism Income
Description of Activity
1. Roadside stands
2. On-farm retail store
3. Pick-your-own
4. Farmers markets
5. On-farm recreation sales
6. On-farm restaurant or snack bar
7. Lodging and accommodations
36.9%
33.6%
28.7%
26.8%
7.0%
2.9%
1.3%
15.1%
54.8%
12.4%
14.4%
1.7%
1.5%
0.0%
100.0%
*Column does not sum to 100% because farms may engage in more than one agri-tourism activity.
Research was conducted by William in 2006
on dairy farms in South Africa. The findings
indicate that the amount of money the
primary producer or farmer is paid for milk
has increased from just under Rand 1 per litre
in 1996 (LACTODATA) to just under Rand 2
per litre in 2006. On the other hand, the
consumer price for milk has increased from
just over Rand 3 per litre in 1996, to almost
Rand 5.50 per litre in 2006. Furthermore,
Tembe, (2010) in his article entitled Coffee
Tourism Project Attracts More Visitors he
wrote that the Coffee Tourism Project,
popularly known as Kahawa Shamba in the
Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania attracted over
6,000 tourists from 39 countries. This enabled
small scale coffee farmers to earn from Tsh
1,875,000 to Tsh 227.038, 100 in 2010. These
findings also indicate that agri-tourism can
play an important role as a form of Pro-Poor
Tourism for marginal farms in African
countries.
1.7
SUPPORTING
AGRI-TOURISM
AS
PRO-POOR
TOURISM:
STRATEGIC ACTION REQUIRED
According to Hall and Brown, (2006),
expanding
poor
people’s
economic
participation by addressing constraints and
maximizing employment opportunities is the
best strategic action to enhance economic
participation of the poor in tourism enterprise.
Therefore, this strategy can also be applied in
agri-tourism activities as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Actions to Enhance Economic Participation of the Poor in Tourism Enterprise
Constraints on Participation of the
Action that Can Reduce Constraints
Poor in Tourism
Lack of human capital
Education and training targeted at the poor (particularly
women) to enable the uptaking of employment and selfemployment opportunities.
Lack of finance or credit
Expand access to micro-finance (e.g. SACCOS). Gradual
pace of tourism development-avoiding crash
development relying on outside investment.
Lack of organization. Exclusion by
Recognize and support organizations of poor producers.
organized formal sector interests
Recognize organized tourism interests as just one voice
to be heard among others.
Location far from tourism sites
Develop new core tourism assets and infrastructure in
relatively poor areas but where a potentially
commercially viable product exists.
Lack of market power. No ownership/
Strengthen local tenure rights over land, wildlife, cultural
control over resource of market value.
heritage, access to scenic destinations and other tourism
No bargaining power with investors
assets. Use planning to encourage potential investors to
develop their own strategies for enhancing local impacts
for the poor
Regulations and bureaucracy. Exclusion Minimize red tape, revise or remove regulations that
from registered and promoted
exclude the least skilled, ensure that necessary tourism
categories of tourism facility / service
regulations embrace sectors and activities operated by the
poor with appropriate standards and processes
Inadequate access to tourist market
Enhance vendors’ access to tourists through e.g. siting
resorts near public access routes and vice versa;
supporting organized markets for informal and smallscale sellers in towns or adjacent to national parks
Limited capacity to meet requirements
Business support to improve quality, reliability of supply,
of tourism market
transport links
Underdevelopment of
Incorporate domestic/regional tourism and independent
domestic/regional/independent tourism tourism into planning strategies. Avoid excessive focus
in comparison with international
on international all-inclusives
tourism and all-inclusives
Government support targeted to formal Recognize the importance of the informal sector, support
sector
it in planning processes
New tourism opportunities conflict with existing livelihood strategies
Source: Adapted from Ashley et al., Pro Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart of the Tourism Agenda, 2006 in
Hall and Brown (Eds), Tourism and Welfare: Ethics, Responsibility and Sustained Well-Being, Wallingford, UK: CABI,
2006
2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this article was to describe various aspects of agri-tourism and its relation to
pro-poor tourism. As a piece of library research, the article reviewed literature from different
journals and books concerning agri-tourism and pro-poor tourism. Key words such as agritourism, pro-poor tourism, agricultural activities and diversification were used to access such
materials from the internet. Unfortunately, very little empirical research has been done on this
topic in Africa.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Given that tourism is already a fact of life for many of the world’s poor, whether or not it is
more or less pro-poor than other sectors is perhaps irrelevant to our brief discussion. The
challenge is to enhance the many positive impacts it can have and reduce the costs it can
place on the poor (Dilys and Penny, 2001).
Government, the private sector, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), community
organizations and the poor themselves all have critical and very different roles to play in PPT.
The private sector can be directly involved in pro-poor partnerships. At a minimum, private
operators should participate in product and market development to ensure commercial
realism. There is much that only governments can do, so a leading role played by the
government in PPT is a great advantage. At a minimum, there needs to be a policy
environment that facilitates PPT. The poor themselves are critical to PPT, but they often also
need to be organized at the community level in order to engage effectively in agri-tourism. It
is often invaluable to have a fourth party to catalyze and support PPT efforts of others. This is
often, though not always, a role for a non-governmental organization. Donors, through their
role in supporting agri-tourism plans and the ‘sustainable agri-tourism’ agenda, can also
promote PPT. Early experience shows that PPT strategies do appear able to ‘tilt’ the industry,
at the margin, to expand opportunities for the poor and have potentially wide application
across the industry. Poverty reduction through PPT can therefore be significant at a local or
district level. National impacts would require a shift across the sector, and will vary with
location and the relative size of agri-tourism.
In a nut shell, agriculture and tourism are closely related fields by creating a win-win
situation for both sectors (Singh, 2007). Agri-tourism can contribute to agricultural
development at the same time providing opportunities to rest, relax, enjoy and study about
farming for the visitors. Hence it can unlock opportunities which bring net benefits to the
poor. It then will make the poor not to have to solely sustain their lives by the sale of
traditional crops and livestock that have provided a flat net income for many years. Instead,
the poor will become entrepreneurs, generating additional income from both “off-farm
activities and on-farm activities”.
While not a complete solution for marginal areas, agri-tourism shows potential as an option
for economic development. It relies heavily on an urban population for a customer base.
Agri-tourism will benefit from the increasing urbanization of the many developing countries
combined with social movements celebrating local and natural experiences. It is also in line
with the millennium development goal that seek to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by
2015. It hopes to half the proportion of the people whose income is less than $ 1 a day and
also half the proportion of people who suffer from the hunger (United Nations, 2005). These
goals are especially important in Africa. The future of agri-tourism looks good for those who
remain in marginal areas and wish to continue deriving their living from the land. Therefore,
if well planned and developed, agri-tourism can be used as a strategy for implementing the
policy of Pro-Poor Tourism in East Africa.
REFERENCES
Ashley, C. 2000. The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Experience in Nambia. ODI
Working Paper 128. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Ashley, C., Boyd, C. and Goodwin, H., 2000. Pro-poor tourism: Putting poverty at the heart
of
the
tourism
agenda.
Natural
Resource
Perspectives
no.51.
http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/51.pdf. Accessed 29.05.2005.
Ashley, C., Boyd, C. and Goodwin, H., 2006. Pro-poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart
of the Tourism Agenda in Hall, D. and Brown, F., 2006. Tourism and Welfare: Ethics,
Responsibility and sustained Well-being. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. 2005. From Philanthropy to a Different Way of Doing Business:
Strategies and Challenges in Integrating Pro-Poor Approaches into Tourism
Business.
ATLAS
Africa,
Pretoria.
http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/Publications%20partnership/
propoor_business_ATLASpaper.pdf. Accessed 9/7/2005
Barbieri, C., & Mshenga, P. M., 2008. The role of the firm and owner characteristics on the
performance of agritourism farms. Sociologia Ruralis, 48, 166–183.
Britton, S. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 9 (3), 968-974.
Brohman, J. 1996. New Directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of
Tourism Research Vol. 23, 48-70.
Cattarinich, X. 2001. Pro Poor Tourism Initiatives in Developing Countries: Analysis of
Secondary Case Studies. PPT Working Paper No. 8 Centre for Responsible Tourism,
International Institute for Environment and Development and Overseas Development
Institute, London.
Clarke, J., 1999. Marketing structures for farm tourism: Beyond the individual provider of
rural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 26–47.
D’Sa, E. 1999. Wanted: tourists with a social conscience. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 11 (2-3), 64-68.
Dilys, R. and Penny, U. 2001. Pro-Poor Tourism: Harnessing the world’s largest industry
for the world’s poor. www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/Doc10076.pdf.
Accessed 11.07.2013
Evans, N. J., & Ilbery, B. W., 1989. A conceptual framework for investigating farm based
accommodation and tourism in Britain. Journal of Rural Studies, 5, 257–266.
Gaworecki W., 2003. Tourism, Ed. 4, Warsaw: Polskie Wydaw. Ekonomiczne.
Goodwin, H. 2005. Pro-Poor Tourism: Principles, Methodologies, and Mainstreaming.
Keynote presented to International Conference on Pro-Poor Tourism Mechanisms and
Mainstreaming,
Universiti
Teknologi
Malaysia,
4-5
May,
Melaka.
http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/
Publications%20partnership/HG_Melaka_presentation.pdf. Accessed 9/7/2013
Gladstone, J., & Morris, A., 2000. Farm accommodation and agricultural heritage in Orkney.
In: F. Brown (Ed.), Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Case Studies. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Limited, 91–100.
Hulme, D. and Shephard, A. 2003. Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Development Vol.
31, 403-423.
Hummel, J. 2002. Re-inventing Sustainable Tourism: Correcting Existing the Existing? The
Role of SNV/ Netherlands Development Organisation in Development of Pro-Poor
Sustainable Tourism. Kathmandu: SNV/ Nepal.
Hyungsuk,C., 2012. Agri-tourism: Development and Research.
www.scitechnol.com/JTRH/JTRH-1-e106.php. Accessed 15.07.2013
Iakovidou, O., 1997. Agro-tourism in Greece: The case of women agro-tourism co-operatives
of Ambelakia. Medit, 1, 44–47.
Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., Clark, G., Crockett, A., & Shaw, A., 1998. Farm-based tourism as an
alternative farm enterprise: A case study from the Northern Pennines, England.
Regional Studies, 32, 355–364.
Kizos, T., & Iosifides, T., 2007. The contradictions of agrotourism development in Greece:
evidence from three case studies. South European Society and Politics, 12, 59–77.
Mahony, K. and van Zyl, J. 2001. Practical Strategies for Pro-Poor Tourism. Case Studies in
Makuleke and Manyeleti Tourism Initiatives. Working Paper No. 2. CRT, IIED and
ODI PPT. London. http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/safrica_cs2.pdf. Accessed
6/7/2005.
Marques, H., 2006. Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism – the
demarcated wine-producing regions of northern Portugal. Tourism Economics, 12,
147–155.
McGehee, N. G., 2007. An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15, 111–124.
McGehee, N. G., Kim, K., & Jennings, G. R., 2007. Gender and motivation for agritourism
entrepreneurship. Tourism Management, 28, 280–289.
Nilsson, P. A., 2002. Staying on farms: An ideological background. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29, No.1, pp7-24.
Ollenburg, C., 2006. FarmTourism in Australia: A Family Business and Rural Studies
Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation Christian-Albrechts University of Keil (Germany) and
Griffith University (Australia).
Ollenburg, C., & Buckley, R., 2007. Stated economic and social motivations for farm tourism
operators. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 444–452.
Oppermann, M., 1996. Rural tourism in Southern Germany. Annals of Tourism Research, 23,
86–102.
Remenyi, J. 2004. Poverty and development: the struggle to empower the poor in Kingsbury,
D., Remenyi, J., McKay, J. and Hunt, J. (Eds) Key Issues in Development. Basingdale,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 190-220.
Roe, D. and Urquhart, P., 2004. Pro-poor tourism: Harnessing the world’s largest industry for
the world’s poor in Bigg, T. (Ed.), Survival for a Small Planet-The Sustainable
Development Agenda. London: Earthscan, 309-325
Roberts, L., & Hall, D., 2001. Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice.
Wallingford, UK : CABI.
Rutgers, 2011. Economic Contributions of Agritourism in New Jersey
http://njsustainingfarms.rutgers.edu/Agritourismwp/_pdf. Accessed 15.07.2013.
Sahn, D.E. and Stiefel, D.C. 2003. Progress toward the Millennium Development Goals in
Africa. World Development Vol. 31 (1), 23-52.
Shaw, G. and Williams, A., 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J., 1997. Rural Tourism: An Introduction. London: Thomson
Business Press.
Singh,R.,2007.Agritourism in India,
http://www.managementparadise.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-19506.html.
Accessed 17.05.2010
Sonnino, R., 2004. For a ‘Piece of Bread’? Interpreting sustainable development through
agritourism in Southern Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 44, 285–300.
Tembe, Peter, 201. “Coffee tourism project attracts more visitors”, Daily News, December 2,
2011,
Thomas, G.A., Todd, M.G. and James, C., 2006. The Economic Contribution of Agri-Tourism
to the Maine Economy, No.563,2.
http://www.umaine.edu/soe/files/2009/06/repstaffpaper563.pdf. Accessed 15.07.2013
United Nations, 2005. The Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations, New
York.
Wall, G., 2000. Agrotourism in J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Tourism. London:
Routledge, 14–15
Wall, G., 2006. The nature of urban and community tourism in W. Jamieson (Eds.),
Community Destination Management in Developing Economics. New York, Harworth
Hospitality Press.
Weaver, D.B. and Fennell, D.A, 1997. The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: A profile
of operators. Tourism Management, Vol.18, No.6, 357-365.
Wicks, E. and Merrett, C. D., 2003. Agritourism: An economic opportunity for Illinois.
http://www.iira.org/pubsnew/publication/IIRA- RRR-577.pdf. Accessed 23.04.2012
William, F. and Theobald, 1998. Global Tourism: The Next Generation. Burlington, MA:
Business Economic. Elsevier Science.
William, G., 2006. Dairy Farming in South Africa – Where To Now?,
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Da
iry/Documents/18_William_Gertenbach__paper.pdf. Accessed 09.10.2013.
Wilson, J., Thilmany, D., and Sullins, M., 2006. Agritourism: A Potential Economic Driver
in the Rural West. Economic Development Report. Cooperative Extension. Colorado
State University.
Department
of
Agricultural
and
Resource
Economics.
http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/csuagecon/extension/docs/impactanalysis/edr06-01.pdf.
Accessed 16.08.2013
http://www.alabamaagritourism.com/AgriTourismActivities.html. Accessed
22.06.2013
http://www.propoortourism-kenya.org/what_is_propoortourism.html. Accessed 16.07.2013