See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266498330

The Agritourism as a means of sustainable development for rural

communities: a research from the field

Article  in  International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies · November 2014

DOI: 10.18848/2329-1621/CGP/v08i01/53305

CITATIONS READS

20 8,305

2 authors:

Salvatore Ammirato Alberto Michele Felicetti

Università della Calabria Università della Calabria
61 PUBLICATIONS   349 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Entrepreneurship View project

Learning, Management and Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salvatore Ammirato on 13 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Agritourism as a Means of Sustainable
Development for Rural Communities: A Research
from the Field
Salvatore Ammirato, University of Calabria, Italy
Alberto Michele Felicetti, University of Calabria, Italy

Abstract: As from the second industrial revolution, rural communities have been affected by a continuous social and
economic decline. The traditional economic development paradigms moved people and investments towards the
industrialized metropolitan areas, causing depopulation of rural areas and loss of their cultural heritages. This
development model became, with time, unsustainable from the social, cultural, and economic point of view. Modern
patterns of rural development highlight that a rational and planned exploitation of agricultural resources together with
the valorization of cultural and naturalistic heritage of rural areas are the right leverages to assure sustainable growth.
In this work we analyze the potentials of Agritourism as a means of sustainable development for rural areas. To reach
this aim, we present some findings of an explorative survey carried out in the Calabria region of Italy during 2012 on a
sample of 52 farms offering agritourism activities. After analyzing the extent of the agritourism phenomena in the region,
the survey aims to evaluate if agritourism can support sustainable development of a rural community becoming the hub
of an “agritourism rural network.”

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Agritourism, Rural Areas, Rural Networks, Rural Communities

Introduction

R ecent years have been characterized by a growing interest in rural areas (Leon, 2005).
Rural communities have been invested from deep changes consisting mainly in the shift
of economic activities and population to urban areas and in the loss of significance of the
agricultural sector as the most important sector in terms of production, wealth and number of
employees as it was in the past centuries, although this is not uniform. These phenomena brought
a crisis in traditional structure and organization of rural areas, exposing them to the risk of an
economic, social, and environmental decline (Murdoch, 2000). Rural areas are facing a wide
range of problems such as the growth of the unemployment rates, emigration, impoverishment of
the soil, hydrogeological instability, loss of traditions, etc. The relevance of the “rural
development” question is evident in the geographical extension of the EU rural areas (about 90%
of the overall territory) and the deep changes which occurred in such areas in a relative short time
(Hodge, 1986). The scientific literature often identifies such rural areas as "Lagging Rural
Regions" (LRRs) (Volpentesta and Ammirato, 2007), referring to those areas with endemic
problems that are broadly characterized by geographical remoteness, low population density, low
income levels, limited employment opportunities, dependency on agriculture, poor service
provision, and poor development capacities (Illbery et al., 2004).
If past development strategies were mainly focused on economic growth pathways,
nowadays consequences of such indiscriminate growth (i.e: high social costs, indiscriminate use
of natural resources, generalized pollution, etc.), have questioned the paradigm of “continuous
economic growth” as the way to answer the rural communities’ needs. The concept of rural
development is becoming increasingly complex, going beyond the boundaries of the economic
sphere and leading to a growing emphasis on the not overexploitation of natural resources and
landscape, as well as on the stimulation and valorization of existing tangible (infrastructure,
monuments, typical local foods, etc…) and intangible assets (culture heritage, traditions, history).
Scholars group such patterns into the concept of “sustainable development,” asserting the
importance to involve local actors in common development pathways which lever on the

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies

Volume 8, 2014, www.thesocialsciences.com, ISSN 2329-1621
© Common Ground, Salvatore Ammirato and Alberto Michele Felicetti, All Rights Reserved
Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

territorial specificity of rural areas, particularly the heritage of natural resources and landscape
and the traditions of typical agriculture, in order to produce long lasting development under the
social, cultural and economic viewpoints (Chiffoleau, 2009; Allen et al., 1991). In particular,
agriculture has been recognized as being important to reducing poverty and promoting rural
development (Arias Segura, 2010). Together with policymakers, the scientific community
manifested a growing interest in the potentials of the agricultural sector as a means to gain
sustainable development as well. In particular, a growing scientific interest in what can be
described as "a new trajectory for development" emerged in rural Europe highlighting limits and
contradictions of the traditional development paradigm (Knickel and Renting, 2000).
The march towards a sustainable development paradigm originates from the local actors,
firstly the farmers, who are looking for “new ways” of doing business, exploring the viability of
alternative economic strategies (McGehee and Kyungmi, 2004). According to (Van der Ploeg et
al., 2010), the main questions for farmers still remains “How, why, to what extent and under
what conditions can the combination of activities within a rural enterprise positively affect costs,
benefits, risks and prospects? .”
Actually, farmers and other organizations have started organizing themselves spontaneously
in rural networks in order to solve their problems and those of rural communities. New and
alternative business models have developed with the aim to guarantee competitive advantages, to
improve farm revenue streams, to return in taking an active role in the agrifood system, and to
develop new consumer market niches (Goodman, 2003). Such models are known as Alternative
AgriFood Networks, AAFNs (Renting et al., 2003), which are collaborative networks in the
agrifood sector characterized by a re-connection among producers and consumers with these
explicit ethical and political goals: “re-vitalisation of territory identity and rural community
relations to local food and agriculture, linking with sustainable agriculture, economically viable
and socially responsible practices” (Volpentesta and Ammirato 2008).
In this work we support the thesis that a successful development strategy for rural
communities can exist only if according to a sustainability paradigm (Ammirato and Felicetti,
2013a) (Volpentesta and Ammirato, 2013). In particular we discuss of a particular form of
AAFN, the agritourism rural network, where agritourism can be considered as the contact point
between a network of economic actors, all belonging to the same rural community, and rural
tourists who are interested in enjoy the local territory in the forms of baskets of typical products
and community services wrapped up by the network’s members (Ammirato and Felicetti, 2013a).
The aim is to deepen the understanding of the Agritourism phenomenon and evaluate its potential
as a model for the sustainable development of rural communities. With this goal, we carried out
an explorative survey on a regional sample of farms which offer agritourism activities to tourists.
All the surveyed farms were located to Calabria, a lagging rural region in the southern part of
Italy.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the theoretical background of the study is
summarized in order to have a fully understanding of the research questions reported in section 3.
Survey results and discussion are present in section 4 followed by conclusions in section 5.

Theoretical Background
Over the last decade agriculture has re-emerged as a sector of interest for investors and policy
makers all over the world. As stated in (Arias Segura, 2010), “agriculture has been recognized as
being important to reducing poverty and promoting rural development .” However, there is
growing recognition that the effects of agricultural policies and programs go beyond the direct
benefit to rural livelihoods. The sector has strong linkages with the rest of the economy, and this
is one of the most powerful ways to aid economic growth and supports nation building. When
agriculture grows, so does the economy in general, speeding up the reduction of rural and urban
poverty. Together with policymakers, the scientific community manifested a growing interest in

18
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

the potentials of the agricultural sector as a means to gain sustainable development as well. In
particular, a growing scientific interest in what can be described as "a new trajectory for
development" (Knickel and Renting, 2000) in rural Europe emerged, carried out as a series of
answers to the limits and contradictions of the previous paradigm development. Although not all
scholars use the term sustainable, the new rural development model includes the general
principles of sustainability mentioned above. Agriculture over the centuries has set the current
European landscapes as a unique semi-natural environment, often with a wide variety of habitats
and species whose livelihood depends on the continuation of farming (Sonnino et al., 2008).
Sustainability in agriculture is to be understood as a use of land and natural resources in such
a way that:

 natural resources, habitats, landscapes, and biodiversity are also available in the
future. It is important to take into account the biophysical nature of agricultural
production and its close dependence on the specific characteristics of local
ecosystems (environmental dimension);
 resources are used in an efficient way, contributing to the development of rural
territories (economic dimension);
 job opportunities are ensured as well as the access to resources and services
provided by farmers (social dimension).

From the consumers side, the increasing demands for quality safe, healthy and ethically
correct food, led to a widening consensus that conventional agriculture is no more sustainable
and radical changes are needed (Watts et al., 2005). New organizational networks, based on
processes of synergic collaboration (Volpentesta et al., 2012); between farmers, consumers and
other rural actors emerged in recent years in order to propose solutions for the rural community
question (Volpentesta and Ammirato, 2010; Bowler et al., 1996). Problems are better understood
when analyzed from different perspectives, thus a collection of differently skilled actors can, in
principle, go beyond individual knowledge and reach new solutions for the whole community’s
questions (Higgins et al., 2008; Jarosz, 2008; Volpentesta et al., 2013; Weaver and Fennel,
1997). Various studies (Bratec, 2008; Clemens, 2004), state that farmers might be able to realize
their expectations by shortening long and complex agrifood supply chains and by embedding
high “typical and quality” features, strictly linked to local agrifood products, within their
production processes. AAFNs give farmers a direct means to increase their revenues by reducing
intermediaries along the supply chain as well as the opportunity to strengthen relationship with
consumers, by offering “personal” quality guarantees on products (McGehee and Kyungmi,
2004; Clemens, 2004). The AAFN paradigm is strictly interconnected with relocalization
principles which are seen as a way to reinvigorate rural communities, reducing producers’
dependence on subsidies and increase agricultural competitiveness (Rotheram, 2013).
Relocalization is characterized by the stimulation of local traditions and environmental and
cultural heritage as means of improving well-being, authenticity, and, in a more general sense,
quality of life
Strictly related to the development of sustainable agriculture, is the topic of sustainable rural
tourism. It is a form of rural territory fruition that emphasizes environmental and cultural
characteristics normally synthesized with "cultural heritage" (Burr, 2011). Sustainable tourism is
defined as those forms of tourism that does not alter social and artistic heritage and natural
environment, fostering the development of other social and economic activities in the rural area.
“The objective of sustainable tourism is to retain the economic and social advantages of tourism
development while reducing or mitigating any undesirable impacts on the natural, historic,
cultural or social environment. This is achieved by balancing the needs of tourists with those of
the destination” (WTO). In such context, rural communities see “tourism” as an opportunity to
diversify the economy and revitalize rural areas. In fact, rural tourism is a growing market,

19
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

offering interesting opportunities that stem from the ability to respond to some of the emerging
trends in tourism demand. These trends can be summarized in two main directions (Ammirato
and Felicetti, 2013b):

 Stimulation of Cultural heritage, folklore, traditions and a renewed interest in

buildings and rural landscapes;
 Health and well-being that is expressed in the pleasure of quality of life, air, water,
and in eating in a healthy and genuine way.

In this context, agritourism is the business activity that best embodies the aspects just showed up,
as it represents fully the precepts of quality production, local development, short agrifood chain,
as well as those related to new trends taking place within the tourism (Ammirato, 2010).

Agritourism and Rural Networks

From an organizational point of view, a rural community is characterized by different

autonomous entities (people and organization) that live and operate in a rural area. While these
entities are heterogeneous in terms of their operating environment, culture, social capital and
goals, they aim to achieve the common goal of sustainable local development in order to increase
their general competitiveness in a larger area. A rural community is generally characterized by
shared principles, infrastructures and culture, where networking and cooperation is practiced
among their members. Within a rural community it is possible to identify particular kinds of
Collaborative Networks (Ammirato el al., 2013), the Rural Networks, which are forms of AAFN
whose members are not only agrifood producers, but also suppliers of touristic service,
craftsmen, artists, local public administrations, etc. who want exploit advantages of AAFNs and
relocalization offering tourists to experience rural tourism while tasting/buying local agrifood
products. Members of a rural network are a subset of the rural community actors that establish
long term and structured collaboration relationships and align their actions, interests, resources
and goals, in order exploit business opportunities arising from direct and not-mediated
connections with customers.
In (Ammirato and Felicetti, 2013), the concept of Agritourism Rural Network, ARN, has
been introduced considering agritourism as a farm activity able to give sustainable development
to rural communities. In an ARN, an agritourism farm represents the hub of a rural network, the
place where agrifood products and tourism services meet consumers demand for relocalization,
the trigger to motivate further direct business opportunities between tourists and other rural
community actors. In figure 1 a graphical representation of the concepts of rural community,
rural network and agritourism rural network is given.

20
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1: Graphical Representation of the Concepts of Rural Community, Rural Network and
Agritourism Rural Network

Agritourism is a widely debated topic in the scientific literature. The Italian legislative
system defines agritourism as “tourism activities exercised by farmers through the exploitation of
their own farm according to logic of "connection.” “complementarity” and “non-prevalence”
(Sonnino, 2004). In the scientific literature the term "agritourism" is often understood as a
synonym for "farm tourism,” "farm-based tourism,” and "rural tourism. All these definitions
present a common point in the rural/agricultural context in which services are provided (Tew and
Barbieri, 2012; Karabati et al, 2009; McGehee et al., 2007: Marques, 2006). Many authors utilize
the term "working farm" where tourism services are provided besides traditional agricultural
activities. In our intent, rural tourism refers simply to tourism services provided in a rural
context, while agritourism refers to “tourism services provided by agricultural entrepreneurs
within their own farm, allowing also visitors to take part, directly or indirectly, in agricultural
activities.” In particular, agritourism farm may offer services as hospitality, meal provision, farm
tour, on-site processing of agricultural goods, pick-your-own activities and so on (Phillip et al.
2010).
In (McGehee, 2007) author emphasizes the dual role of agritourism for both individual
"actors" (rural tourism operators, intermediaries in the tourism sector and visitors) and rural
community as a whole. In fact, agritourism farms serve as a stimulus for other local activities
(agrifood producers, crafts, restaurants, shops) (Sofo and Ammirato, 2013; Ollenburg and
Buckley, 2007,), as well as contributing to the preservation of customs and the local culture
(Sofo et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2006). Several authors addressed the study of the reasons
underlying agritourism activities, both from agritourism entrepreneurs and broader territorial
systems (rural communities) point of view. In (Tew and Barbieri, 2012) authors state that
entrepreneurs are motivated in starting agritourism activities because of the increasing in farm’s
revenue stream, offering the possibility to capture new customers than traditional farming, and
the improvement of farmer’s quality of life, promoting a way of life in contact with nature and
providing alternative job opportunities with their families. These factors are important in contexts
characterized by higher costs of land and input in general, especially for small businesses
(Volpentesta and Ammirato, 2013).
In those rural communities where members actively collaborate with farmers in their
arrangement of agritourism services provision, we can observe the rise of an agritourism rural
network.

21
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

The Research Questions

In this section we propose some results of a survey conducted among farms of a rural region. The
overall survey design was complex and finalized to a deep comprehension of the agritourism
phenomenon, from different points of view (economic, organizational, social, cultural, etc.). In
this section we report some aspects of the survey which can be useful to understand if and how
farmers and rural actors, exploit agritourism potentials as a means to gain sustainable
development to a rural community. Moreover, we aim to highlight the presence of agritourism
rural networks in the surveyed region where rural actors operate together with agritourism farms
for the sustainable development of the rural community. In details, the research questions can be
defined as follow:

RQ1: Do farmers understand the importance of setting agritourism activities within

their farm (i.e.: to what extend do farmers engage in agricultural activities)?

RQ2: Can the agritourism farm be a direct contact point between the rural community
offer of products/services and the tourist request for relocalization?

 Do farmers offer tourists possibilities to enjoy the cultural and/or naturalistic

heritage of the region? When such possibilities are offered, do tourists enjoy them?
 Do farmers offer tourists possibilities to taste and buy typical local agrifood
products of the region? When such possibilities are offered, do tourists enjoy them?

RQ3: Is it possible to highlight the presence of an agritourism rural network in

supporting the activities of the agritourism farm?

 In their products and services offer, do farmers act in formal cooperation with other
suppliers of the rural networks?
 Which is the percentage of products or services sold through the agritourism farm
that is supplied by local firms/associations?
 Are there any long-term supply contracts with such firms/associations?
 How many local workers are engaged by the farm exclusively to carry out the
agritourism activities?

Survey Results and Discussion

To address the research questions, we designed a methodology made up of four steps which can
be summarized as follow:

 step 1: determine the overall number of agribusiness in the region, and how many
of them are officially authorized to offer an agritourism experience and are
currently active. The set of such agritourism farms constitutes the population of
interest for our analysis.
 step 2: Definition of a questionnaire to be delivered to the managers of the
agritourism farms within the population of interest. Responses to the questionnaire
will be analyzed to answer the research questions.
 step 3: Delivery of the questionnaire to the farms’ managers and gathering of their
completed survey forms. The set of agritourism farms whose managers filled the
questionnaire constitutes the sample of the analysis.
 step 4: Analysis of the managers’ responses of the sample in order to answer the
research questions and discussion.

22
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The proposed methodology has been applied to the agritourism farms located in the Calabria
region (Italy) and has been carried out from 01 October 2012 to 31 December 2012; first results
have been proposed in (Ammirato & Felicetti, 2013a).
The importance of the agricultural sector in Calabria is evident in the more recent statistical
survey. In 2009, the agricultural industry contributes 4.9% to the aggregate regional product (in
the EU-27 this parameter accounts around 1.2%) and accounts for 11.07% of the total
employment in the region (3,71% in Italy). Agriculture’s contribution to the whole EU-27
economy was above 3.5 % in 36 out of the 241 regions in the EU. These included eight regions
in Greece, all regions in Romania except for the capital city region, five regions in Poland
(mainly in the east), four regions in northern and eastern Bulgaria, four regions in the east and the
south of Hungary, and two regions in each of France (Champagne-Ardenne and the overseas
region of Guyane), Italy (Provincia Autonoma Bolzano and Calabria) (EUROSTAT, 2012).
In line with step 1 of the methodology, the population of interest, P, of our analysis was
selected using an official agritourism database directly purchased from the Italian Chambers of
Commerce. The “Regional agritourism farms registry” at the office of the Regional Department
of Agriculture was used as a cross reference to validate the selections. We surveyed that the
number of Calabrian farms offering some forms of agritourism experience is rapidly increasing
in few years; the number of new authorized agritourism activities in the period 2005–2010
presented a grow rate of 56% (from 313 to 488) while the Italian national rate was 26% in the
same period (from 15.327 to 19.304) (ISTAT, 2013). In particular, at the end of 2010, on
137.790 agribusinesses present in Calabria, only 488 (0.35%) (0.26 % in 2005) were authorized
and active in agritourism; so P is made up of 488 agritourism farms. In the other Italian regions
agritourism is much more widespread both in absolute and proportional terms. Tuscany and
Trentino Alto Adige are the regions where agritourism is most diffused. In Tuscany, on 97.935
agribusinesses, 4.125 deploys agritourism activities (4.2%) while in Trentino Alto Adige on
26.600 farms, 2.998 of them offers agritourism activities (11.27%) (ISTAT, 2013).
According to step 2, a questionnaire was set up containing 10 questions. For each farms
belonging to P, we tried to have a phone meeting with the managers in order to deliver the
questionnaire. On 488 agritourism farms in P, 52 of them, the 10.6%, agreed to answer the
questionnaire. After a telephonic interview with the farm managers, we gathered their responses;
at the end of step 3 the final sample was made up of 52 farms. According to step 4, for each of
the farms in the sample, we analyzed the gathered responses and statistical results of the analysis
are reported in the next section.
To answer RQ1, we can put in contrast quantitative results from official statistical data and
qualitative results from our survey. First data point out that few are the Agritourism farms in
Calabria (488), especially in relative terms on the overall number of agribusiness activities in the
region (0.35%) and to analogous rates in other Italian regions (4.2% of Tuscany’s farms and
11.27% of Trentino Alto Adige’s farms) Looking at the statistical analysis of questionnaires in
the sample, 38% of respondents affirmed that over half of the overall farm’s yearly turnover
come from the agritourism activities, while 29% declared that the rate of turnover coming from
agritourism activities is between 20% and 50%. Overall, 67% of respondents declared that more
than 20% of the farm’s yearly turnover comes from agritourism activities. Looking at the costs
side, 21% of respondents declared that more than 50% of the farm’s costs come from the
agritourism activities, while 23% declared that the rate of costs ascribed to the agritourism
activities is between 20% and 50%. Overall, 44% of respondents stated that the rate of total
agribusiness costs ascribed to the agritourism activities is more than 20%. Moreover, 51% of
respondents affirm the will to increase the investments in the agritourism activities in the
following year, with respect to the previous year, while only 8% of them want to reduce the
investments.
The small number of agritourism farms present in Calabria, suggests that we cannot
positively answer to RQ1. Anyway, the rapid increase of the new authorized agritourism

23
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

activities in the last few years (+56% in the period 2005-2010) point out that the attention
towards the importance of setting an agritourism activity within the farm is spreading among
farmers of the regions. Such attention is strengthened by statistical data from the survey which
highlight the economical positive results reported by agribusiness where agritourism activities
are present and the generalized will of sampled agribusiness to continue invest and, in many
cases, to increase the investments. Positive feedback stated from the surveyed farms can be an
important reason in motivate other farmers in doing the same and it can help to explain the rapid
growth rate of new authorized activities in Calabria.
To answer RQ2, we identify some activities that let tourists enjoy the cultural and/or
naturalistic heritage of the region as well as taste and/or buy typical agrifood products of the
region. For each activity, we asked respondents to state if such activity was present in their
agritourism offer and, in case of positive answer, to indicate the percentage of their customers
who purchased it in the previous year. Results are presented in table 1.

Table 1: Percentage of Activities Offered and Purchased in Surveyed Agritourism Farms

Activity percentage of percentage of
agritourism farms customers who
offering the activity purchased the activity
Overnight accommodation 84,62% 34,58%
Visits to touristic places requiring an
23,08% 45%
entrance ticket
Visits to touristic places at free entrance 51,92% 45,28%
Educational farm (e.g. milking cows,
sheepdog display, cattle drives, feeding or 44,23% 19%
petting animals)
Horse riding 19,23% 22,5%
Archery 11,54% 25%
Mountain bike 21,15% 40%
Trekking 36,54% 22,5%
Quad 3,85% 0%
Other sporting activities 34,62% 38,33%
Meal provision 94,23% 84,63%
Tasting of self-produced food 65,38% 55%
Selling of self-produced food 71,15% 17%
Tasting of products of other local farms 9,62% 20%
Selling of products of other local farms 13,46% 20%
Active participation in the life of the farm
(‘pick-your-own’ facilities, participation in 40,38% 17%
farm tasks)

Overall, data point out that surveyed farms intend agritourism mainly as a means to:

 let tourists enjoy services within the property of the farm (overnight
accommodation, educational farm) or, at the most, visits to touristic places at free
entrance;

24
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

 taste/buy/eat self-produced food

So we cannot give positive answer to RQ2, highlighting that agritourism is still intended by
farmers only as a means to sell products/services self-produced. At the same time, the rural
community is not able to exploit the presence of agritourism farms as direct contacts point with
the tourists intended as potential customers.
To answer RQ3, is important to note that statistical analysis of responses in the sample point
out that:

 40% of respondents declared they have some kinds of formal cooperation with
other actors of the rural network
 12% of respondents declared that more than 20% of the agrifood products utilized
in their agritourism activities come from other actors of the rural network; 61%
stated that less than 20% of the agrifood products they utilized in their agritourism
farms come from other local actors. Only 27% stated they utilized only agrifood
products self-produced. Overall, 71% of respondents utilize products supplied from
the rural network.
 67% of respondents who utilize products supplied from the rural network, affirmed
to have long-term and stable supply contracts with the other actors of the rural
networks;
 on average, almost 5 local workers are engaged by the farm exclusively to carry out
the agritourism activities

Data show the emergence of real agritourism rural networks in Calabria. Rural community
benefits from the agritourism presence mainly for agrifood producers, which receive direct
benefits from long-term contract, and local workers, who are directly engaged for the agritourism
services offered to tourists. Less diffused are connections with non-food producer’s local
partners.

Conclusions
In this paper we investigated the agritourism phenomenon with the aim to give an original
contribution to the debate on sustainable development for rural communities. In particular, we
proposed an original methodology to deepen the extent of the agritourism phenomena in a region
and to evaluate how agritourism can support sustainable development becoming the hub of an
Agritourism Rural Network. By means of the methodology, we conducted an explorative survey
carried out in the Calabria region, Italy, during 2012 on a sample of 52 farms offering
agritourism activities.
Results of the survey highlight that agritourism activities, even if not diffused among
Calabrian farms, give farmers important revenues being an alternative way for selling farms’
products and services. Stable rural networks exist within the orbit of the Calabrian agritourism
farms considering the agritourism farm as the hub of a rural network, the contact point between
rural network offer and tourists/customers demand. Local suppliers, through their long-term
contracts with the farm, offer agritourists their goods and services having an indirect contact with
them (mediated by the farm); such provisions contribute to enrich and complete the basket of
rural offer to the tourists. Moreover, local workers benefit from employment opportunities at the
farm site. In fig 2 a graphical representation of the most diffused agritourism rural network
model in Calabria.

25
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Figure 2: Graphical Representation of the Most Diffused Agritourism Rural Network Model in
Calabria

Results of the survey are contrasting: on the one side, they confirm the importance of setting
agritourism activities, both for farms and for the rural community, as a means to revitalize the
rural communities through a sustainable development strategy. On the other side, rural
communities do not fully exploit benefits from direct connections with agritourism customers.
The lack of connections is unclear: is it the community that cannot understand potentials of this
connection or is it a lack of entrepreneurial farsightedness among agritourism farmers? Further
studies are undergoing in order to clarify the question.

26
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES
Allen, P., D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy, S. Gliessman, “Integrating social, environmental, and
economic issues in sustainable agriculture.” American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture, 6 (1), (1991): 34-39.
Ammirato, S., “An empirical study of agritourism evolution and e-commerce adoption
challenges.” Journal of Information Technology and Tourism, 12(1), (2010):89-104
Ammirato, S., A.M. Felicetti, “The potential of Agritourism in revitalizing rural communities:
some empirical results.” In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Scherer, R.J. (Eds.) PRO-VE
2013. Collaborative Systems for Reindustrialization, IFIP AICT, vol. 408, pp. 481–490.
Springer, Heidelberg (2013).
Ammirato, S., A.M. Felicetti, “Tourism Breeding Environment: forms and levels of collaboration
in the tourism sector”. In Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Scherer, R.J. (Eds), PRO-VE 2013,
Collaborative Systems for Reindustrialization, IFIP AICT, vol. 408, pp. 517-524.
Springer, Heidelberg, (2013).
Ammirato, S., M. Della Gala, A.P. Volpentesta, “Alternative Agrifood Networks as Learning
Communities: Some Issues for a Classification model.” In Information Systems, E-
learning, and Knowledge Management Research - 4th World Summit on the Knowledge
Society, Edited by M.D. Lytras et al.; WSKS 2011, Mykonos, Greece, September 21-23,
2011. Revised Selected Papers. Communications in Computer and Information Science
278, (2013):293-300.
Arias Segura, J., “The contribution of agriculture to sustainable development in Jamaica.” Inter-
American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, San Jose, Costa Rica. San José,
Costa Rica (2010).
Bowler, I., G. Clarke, A. Crockett, B. Iberry, A. Shaw, “The development of alternative farm
enterprises: A study of family labour farms in the Northern Pennines of England.”
Journal of Rural Studies, 12(3), (1996):285-295.
Bratec, M., “Sustaining through gastronomy: The case of slow food movement in Slovenia, its
impacts on socio-cultural environments and tourism development.” In Proceedings of
the Best En Think Tanks VIII—“Sustaining Quality of Life through Tourism,” June 24–
27, Izmir, Turkey, (2008).
Burr, S.W., “Agricultural tourism and rural Development: Developing Value-Added Farm and
Ranch Resources to Diversify Operations Beyond Agricultural Production.” Rural
Connections, 9, (2011):11-14;
Chiffoleau, Y., “From Politics to Co-operation: The Dynamics of Embeddedness in Alternative
Food Supply Chains .” Sociologia Ruralis, 49 (3), (2009): 218–235.
Clemens, R., “Keeping farmers on the land: Adding value in agriculture in the Veneto Region of
Italy.” MATRIC Briefing Paper 04-MBP 8 Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and
Information Center, Iowa State University, USA, (2004).
EUROSTAT, Agriculture statistics at regional level, Data from February 2012.
Goodman, D., “Editorial the quality ‘‘turn’’ and alternative food practices: reflections and
agenda.” Journal of Rural Studies, (2003).
Higgins, V., J. Dibden, C. Cocklin, “Building alternative agrifood networks: Certification,
embeddedness and agrienvironmental governance.” Journal of Rural Studies, (2008):15-
27.
Hodge, I. D., “The scope and context of rural development.” European Review of Agricultural
Economics, 13 (3), (1986): 271-282.
Ilbery, B., D. Maye, M. Knafsey, “Forecasting supply chain developments in lagging rural
regions,” Journal of Rural Studies, 20, (2004): 331-344.
ISTAT, Sixth General Census of Agriculture in Italy, 2013.

27
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Jarosz, L., “The city in the country: Growing alternative foodnetworks in Metropolitan areas .”
Journal of Rural Studies(24), (2008): 231-244.
Karabati, S., E. Dogan, M. Pinar, L.M. Celik, “Socio-Economic Effects of Agri-Tourism on
Local Communities in Turkey: The Case of Aglasun .” International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 10(2), (2009):129-142.
Knickel, K., H. Renting, “Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of
multifunctionality and rural development.” Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), (2000): 512–528;
Leon, Y., “Rural development in Europe: a research frontier for agricultural economists,”
European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32 (3), (2005): 301-317.
Marques, H., “Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism.” Tourism
Economics, 12, (2006):147–155.
McGehee, N. G., K. Kyungmi, “Motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship.” Journal of Travel
Research, 43, (2004): 161–170.
McGehee, N. G., “An Agritourism Systems Model: A Weberian Perspective.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15:2, (2007):111-124.
Murdoch, J., “Networks - a new paradigm of rural development?” Journal of Rural Studies 16
(4), (2000): 407-419.
Ollenburg, C., R. Buckley, “Stated economic and social motivations of farm tourism operators.”
Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), (2007):444 – 452.
Phillip, S., C. Hunter, L. Blackstock, “A typology for defining agritourism.” Tourism
Management, 31, (2010): 754–758.
Rotheram, I. D., “Emerging concepts and Case Studies of Eco-cultural Tourism,” in Cultural
Tourism, Edited by R. Raj, K. A. Griffin,N. D. Morpeth (eds.), , CAB International,
2013.
Renting, H., T. Marsden, J. Banks, “Understanding alternative food network: exploring the role
of short food supply chains in rural development.” Enviroment and Planning A, 35,
(2003):393-411.
Sofo, F., S. Ammirato, M. Sofo, “Leadership as a process to create organizational culture and
group learning,” Organizational Cultures, 12 (1), (2013):71-84.
Sofo, F., S. Ammirato, “Establishing a Learning Culture: The Importance of Relationships within
an Organization.” Communications in Computer and Information Science, 278,
(2013):271-277.
Sonnino, R., “For a ‘Piece of Bread’? Interpreting Sustainable Development through Agritourism
in Southern Tuscany.” Sociologia Ruralis, 44(3), (2004): 285–300.
Sonnino, R., Y. Kanemasu, T. Marsden, “Sustainability and Rural Development,” in Unfolding
Webs: The Dynamics of Regional Rural Development, Edited by J. D. Van der Ploeg, T.
Marsden, 2008.
Van der Ploeg, J. D., A. Long, J. Banks, “Rural development: The state of the art,” in Living
countrysides. Rural development processes in Europe: The state of the art, edited by J.
D. Van der Ploeg, A. Long & J. Banks, 8-17. Doetichem-NL:Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie
bv, 2010.
Volpentesta, A. P., S. Ammirato, S., Alternative agrifood networks in a regional area: A case
study, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26, (1-2), (2013):
55-66.
Volpentesta, A. P., S. Ammirato, S., “A Collaborative Network Model for Agrifood Transactions
on Regional Base,” in Knowledge Management, Information Systems, E-Learning, and
Sustainability Research, Communications in Computer and Information Science, edited
by M. D. Lytras, 319-325. Berlin: Springer Heidelberg, (2010).
Volpentesta, A.P., S. Ammirato, “Networking agrifood SMEs and consumer groups in local
agribusiness.” Pervasive Collaborative Networks. IFIP International Federation for
Information Processing, 283, (2008): 33-40.

28
 AMMIRATO & FELICETTI: AGRITOURISM AS A MEANS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Volpentesta, A.P., S. Ammirato, “Evaluating web interfaces of B2C e-commerce systems for
typical agrifood products.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 7(1), (2007):74-91.
Volpentesta, A. P., S. Ammirato, M. Della Gala, “Classifying short agrifood supply chains under
a knowledge and social learning perspective,” Rural Society, 22(3), (2013): 217-229.
Volpentesta, A. P., S. Ammirato, F. Sofo, “Collaborative design learning and thinking style
awareness,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(4), (2012): 948-958.
Volpentesta, A. P., S. Ammirato, F. Sofo, “Thinking style diversity and collaborative design
learning,” IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 307,
(2009):785-796.
Volpentesta, A.P., A.M. Felicetti, “Representing and mapping research competencies within a
scientific community.” The international journal of knowledge, culture and change in
organizations: annual review, 12, (2013).
Tew, C., C. Barbieri, “The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective.”
Tourism Management 33, (2012):215-224.
Watts, D. C. H., B., Ilbery, D. Maye, “Making Alternative systems of food provision.” Progress
in Human Geography, 29(1), (2005): 22–40.
Weaver, D. B., D.A. Fennell, “The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: A profile of
operations.” Tourism Management, 18(6), (1997): 357–365.
Wilson, J., D. Thilmay, D., P. Watson, “The role of agritourism in Western states: place specific
and policy factors influencing recreational income for producers.” Review of Regional
Studies, 36(3), (2006):381–399.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Salvatore Ammirato: Researcher and Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical,
Energy, and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

Alberto Michele Felicetti: Research Fellow, Department of Mechanical, Energy, and

Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

29
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Environmental Studies is one of eight thematically
focused journals in the collection of journals that
support the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences
knowledge community—its journals, book series,
conference and online community.

The journal offers social science based interpretations

and interdisciplinary explorations of the connections
between human and natural environments.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this

journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of practice—including documentation of
socially-engaged practices and exegeses analyzing the
effects of those practices.

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental

Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2329-1621

View publication stats