Environmental Engineering and Management Journal December 2011, Vol.10, No.

12, 1911-1921
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania

AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION AND THE SUSTAINABILITY

OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS: POSSIBILITIES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AGROTOURISM

José-Manuel Hernández-Mogollón, Ana-María Campón-Cerro,

Felipe Leco-Berrocal, Antonio Pérez-Díaz
University of Extremadura, Department of Business Management and Sociology, Faculty of Business Studies and Tourism,
Avda. Universidad, s/n; 10.071 – Cáceres, Spain

Abstract

Agrotourism, a form of tourism that falls within the framework of rural tourism, is based on the tourism taking place on farms
with the possibility of doing work with the owners of the farm with this being seen as a leisure activity, educational in nature and
of interest to members of many groups. The importance of this kind of tourism resides in the possibility of complementing the
income generated from the farm with income produced by the tourism, as well as assuring the conservation of the environment
and the agricultural system in which it takes place. The objective of this paper is to highlight the possibilities for the development
of agrotourism in areas where it has had little impact, from the perspective of agricultural entrepreneurs and their willingness to
diversify their traditional activities and make them compatible with tourism. A survey of 494 entrepreneurs carried out in
Extremadura (Spain) shows the existence of a positive attitude to the development of tourism (80%), though these same
entrepreneurs also show some reluctance to actually participate in it themselves. From this survey it can be seen that although this
kind of tourism has great potential in the area with interesting benefits related to increasing the income and quality of life of the
agricultural entrepreneur (74%), as well as the preservation of the landscape and rural heritage (71%), it still faces many
challenges.

Key words: agricultural diversification, agrotourism, environmental sustainability, tourism management

Received: September, 2011; Revised final: December, 2011; Accepted: December, 2011

1. Introduction of the year-, the appearance of new market segments

Recent years have seen large changes in the
tourist market. From the point of view of the supply
side it can be seen that there has been an increase in
competition between destinations, the arrival of the
low cost concept, new distribution and promotion
channels based on information technologies and
communication (ITCs) and the globalization of long
haul travel. From the perspective of demand there has
been a reduction in the length of vacations -which has
encouraged the taking of shorter trips at various times
(low cost, early retirees, singles, etc.) and multi-
motivational markets, a reduction in destination
loyalty, better informed clients who often opt to
organize their own trips, a search for more active
experiences, concern for cultural environmental
surroundings, and greater overall expectations from
clients who now look for new seansations, quality and
sustainability. The new tourist is an active tourist, a
multiple consumer of experiences and feelings and
interested in new products. In this context experience


Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: jmherdez@unex.es; Phone: 0034927257480 (#57906)

This paper was presented within 4th International Conference on Tourism and Environment, 28th – 30th September, Cáceres, Spain
 Hernández-Mogollón et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10 (2011), 12, 1911-1921
starts to have a key role in overall tourist motivation
(Corral, 2007).
It is the moment of specific tourisms, in
contrast to that of generic tourism in which the set of
motivations is broader. In specific tourisms a
particular resource has the capacity to capture the
interest of a specific group of people and get them to
go to a particular place to enjoy it. Tourism today is
made up of many specific markets. Their importance
is due to factors such as the greater profitability
produced by investments in tourism, the greater
stability they provide for markets in which they are
based and the reputation which they give to
destinations. It is in this framework that sun and
beach, cultural, nature, business, health and rural
tourism are based (Pulido, 2011).
It is within the broader framework of rural
tourism that agrotourism is to be found, the kind of
tourism which is the focus of this study. Agrotourism
is based on the carrying out of the tourist activity on
selected farms where the possibility of doing farm
work alongside the owners of the farm is offered to
the tourists. For the farm owners the tourism is
complementary to their main business. Agrotourism is
thus a leisure activity but is also educational in nature,
being based on country work and life (Campón et al.,
2010).
Undoubtedly this type of tourism responds to
the demands of the new tourists, avid for experiences
and sensations. Corral (2007) notes that in destination
planning and the design of tourism products the
management of experience as a souvenir is
fundamental. The senses of the client must be acted
on so that this stimulus generates an experience which
exceeds expectations. This results in a theming of
destinations on the basis of the typology of the tourist
product that is to be promoted.
Another factor that must be taken into account
is the close link produced between tourism and
farming as well as that between tourism and the
conservation of natural heritage. The benefits
produced by agrotourism derive from the possibility
of making compatible the income generated by
farming with that produced by tourism, in the process
developing an educational and leisure activity of
interest to many groups such as families, students,
students of nature and the environment, etc. (Campón
et al., 2010). Furthermore the role played by the
natural surroundings as the scene for the carrying out
this activity is clear (Choo and Jamal, 2009), a role in
this case centered on agricultural landscapes. For all
of these reasons it is necessary to work for the
sustainable development of the agricultural systems
concerned, diversifying their economic performance
but ensuring their conservation.
The objective of this paper is to highlight the
possibilities for the development of agrotourism in
areas where it has had little impact, from the
perspective of agricultural entrepreneurs and their
willingness to diversify their traditional activities and
make them compatible with tourism as well as
sustainable and respectful of the natural surroundings.
1912
To achieve this objective, empirical work has been
done based on a survey of agricultural entrepreneurs
in the region of Extremadura (Spain).
The results presented below arise from a project
conducted at the University of Extremadura and
funded by the Regional Government of Extremadura
called the Agrotourism Strategic Plan for the Region
of Extremadura (Leco et al., 2008). Some of these
results have already been presented to the scientific
community (Campón et al., 2010, Pérez and Leco,
2010).
This study is divided into five sections. The
first is introductory in nature. Agrotourism is then
presented as an activity that can be integrated with
agricultural income, the sustainable development of
the landscape and income derived from tourism. The
third section looks at the research scenario and the
methodology while the fourth presents the results
found. The fifth and final section consists of the
conclusion and final reflections.
2. Agrotourism: integrating agricultural
diversification, landscape sustainability and
tourism
The prominent role currently played by
tourism in the socio-economic development of rural
areas cannot be denied and this has had a knock-on
effect that can be seen in the number of regions
seeking to establish themselves as tourist destinations.
Local administrations are realizing its benefits and, in
particular, the amount of employment that its
development produces. These considerations are even
more relevant when the outsourcing of productive
activities is taken into account as a result of the
agricultural crisis and the closing of factories as a
result of shifting production facilities overseas. From
the economic point view, to the spending of tourists
must be added the investments made by local
administrations and private businesses to facilitate the
carrying out of the activity. To the direct income
produced by tourism (accommodation, catering,
transport, activities, etc.) the indirect effect produced
on the local economy must be considered (medical
services, security, banking, local commerce, etc.) as
well as the effect on employment. Tourism, by
comparison to industry, involves the intensive use of
human capital which in turn implies a quantitative as
well as a qualitative benefit, both in economic and
social terms. In the socio-cultural area tourism
involves the construction of new infrastructure, not
only related to communication and transport, but also
to leisure and culture, such as museums, parks and
interpretative centers, etc., infrastructure from which
residents as well as tourists benefit. The
environmental benefits produced by tourism must
also be remembered, because the fact that one of the
main tourist attractions of a given area consists of its
natural resources obliges both the public and private
sector to make greater efforts to preserve the
environment (Campón, 2007).
 Agricultural diversification and the sustainability of agricultural systems
The rural areas to which we refer here, as a
result of the agricultural crisis from which they are
suffering, according to the European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC, 2006) in its report titled
The contribution of tourism to the socio-economic
recovery of areas in decline, have a great opportunity
to take advantage of tourism as a “a viable alternative,
moving their economic development towards a
strong, stable industry, with good current and future
prospects, which creates jobs and is capable of
sustaining an economic, social and environmental
balance”. Sharpley and Vass (2005) point out that
tourism began to be seen as a development tool in
rural areas to supplement farming starting in the
1980s.
Under the umbrella of the diversification of
farm activities there can be found a broad range of
initiative from the incorporation of new farming
activities, different from traditional ones, to the
provision of professional services separate from
agriculture such as tourism. Among the different
concepts and typologies of economic diversification
in rural areas, agrotourism is one of the activities
acquiring greatest importance in the framework of the
multi-functionality of its functions and the use of
farms, with the objective of assuring the viability of
the farms (Francès and Méndez, 2001). According to
the General Secretariat of Tourism (SGT, 1993)
agrotourism is that type of tourism which is directly
related to farms, providing supplementary income for
farmers. It is, therefore, a specific kind of rural
tourism, or a sub-type of tourism within the
framework of rural tourism. Mediano (2002) indicates
that the concept of agrotourism is more restricted that
of rural tourism because rural tourism covers all the
types of tourist activities carried out in the rural world
and not only that carried out on farms, as in the case
of agrotourism. The simultaneous carrying out of the
tourism and the agricultural activity carried out by the
farmer is, thus, the principal differentiating
characteristic of agrotourism. Haig (2006) supports
this idea and points out that the difference between
rural tourism and agrotourism, though from the point
of view of the tourist it might not be obvious, resides
in the activities carried out by the farm owner, as in
agrotourism the farm owner carries on with his or her
farming activities with tourism simply being a
supplement for his or her income. Sayadi and
Calatrava (2001) have similar views. In their view the
most important aspects of agrotourism are the
reception, lodging, food, leisure activities and
participation in farm work. So, if rural tourism is
understood as a set of recreational activities carried
out in rural areas then agrotourism is a form of rural
tourism in which these activities are linked to farming
activities.
Parra and Calero (2006) see agrotourism as
being much more than a range of tourism products
and services in the countryside. They see it as
involving a new way of understanding the act of
travel, a different sensibility, a positive attitude to
nature and its landscapes, to local culture and people.
As a result it can be stated that the agrotourism
product should include shared or independent
accommodation in the home of the farmer, that it is an
activity which includes all the family and safeguards
their customs and traditions, that it provides a quite
stay the receiving of treatment as if the tourist was a
member of the family and direct contact with the rural
world and nature. In the view of Pulido (2011) the
ideal product should be differentiated, adopted to the
capacity of the territory to generate value, with the
involvement of all the actors in the area, experiential,
that is, based on the capacity to stimulate the
imagination and participation of the tourist,
segmented or orientated to segments of demand
which appreciate what it has to offer and, therefore,
exclusive, prepared for a unique client, sustainable
and responsible both in production and consumption
and without risk and so with a solid reception
structure. According to Sharpley and Vass (2005),
agrotourism is a flexible business, not at all rigid in
comparison with hotel infrastructure, and it can
expand or contract in accordance with demand.
Pulido (2011) also holds that it has a strong link with
other kinds of specific tourism such as ornithology,
gastronomic, mycology, nature, wine and ethnic
tourisms.
With respect to the benefits of this kind of
tourism, in the first place it responds to the needs of a
population that wishes to enjoy nature, the rural world
and its culture at an attractive price and there is a
large market with these desires (families, couples,
older people, children, etc.). From the economic point
of view the income from accommodation along with
that from catering and leisure activities generates
direct, indirect and induced effects in the revival of
the local economy. Other beneficial aspects would be
the necessary upgrading of heritage assets, the direct
marketing of agricultural and artisan products, the
recognition of the role of women in the rural world,
the recognition of the farmer’s role in society and
cultural exchange (Parra and Calero, 2006). Several
studies lend support to the importance of agrotourism
as a diversifier of rural income with the resulting
economic benefits for farms (Fleischer and Pizam,
1997; Fleischer and Tchetchik, 2005; Hjalager, 1996;
Oppermann, 1996; Weaber and Fennell, 1997). It is
true that caution must be applied to the making of
certain assertions but these authors coincide in
signaling that agrotourism does not bring great
economic benefits and its capacity to generate
employment is limited, though it does help in
maintaining the viability of the farm.
According to Pulido (2011) agrotourism is a
specific tourism that is experiencing growth because,
as well as providing a supplement for farm incomes,
it encourages close relations between the tourist with
agricultural activities and local identity. It can also
favor the maintenance of agricultural systems (Leco
and Mateos, 2006), as well as the landscape as natural
and cultural heritage (ethnographic, ethnological,
gastronomic, etc.), through the intersection between
human activity and natural resources (González,
1913
 Hernández-Mogollón et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10 (2011), 12, 1911-1921
1995). All of this contributes to the conserving of the
enormous complexity of landscapes (Beaufoy et al.,
1994; De Juana et al., 1993) and the maintaining of
high levels of biodiversity and complexity in them. It
also permits, thanks to the implementation of
different forms of management and control, the
sustainable development of agricultural systems; it is
even the case that protected landscapes are totally or
partially configured by agricultural activities.
As is the case with every form of tourism that
is based on a natural resource, efforts must be made to
sustain and conserve that resource. According to
McGehee (2007), the involvement of family farms
can contribute to the survival of local communities,
landscapes and eco-systems. Choo and Jamal (2009)
and Knowd (2006) maintain in their research that
agrotourism is a form of sustainable tourism. Choo
and Jamal (2009), on the basis of their research, point
to a strong relationship between sustainable tourism,
agrotourism and ecotourism. The result is the practice
of tourism on eco-organic farms (Fig. 1). These
authors point to the fact that in the same way that
ecotourism has a sustainable focus for the
development of natural areas its principles can also be
applied to small scale agriculture. In this way the
development of agrotourism in rural areas can be seen
as a form of sustainable agriculture and ecological
conservation. Knowd (2006) maintain that the
economy of areas reliant on agriculture and tourism
encourages the better use of natural ecosystems and
agriculture. According to Dernoi (1983), traditional
rural occupations such as agriculture are of great help
in preserving the environment. Furthemore, this kind
of tourism is based on accommodation within the
homes of residents and so promotes a balance in
overall ecology (natural and human) given that
development of tourist activities must not overburden
the existing human and natural environment.
Fig. 1. Eco-organic farm tourism (Choo and Jamal, 2009)
The development of agrotourism has been
different in Spain from that of other European
countries. Although rural tourism has appeared in the
majority of rural areas in Spain as a predominant
activity in the processes of rural development,
agrotourism has not been a frequent part of this
1914
development. The situation is different in countries
such as Sweden, Austria, Germany, Holland and
France where the supply of agrotourism has doubled
in the last ten years. 20% of Swedish farms, 10% of
Austrian farms, 8% of German, Dutch and British
farms, 4% of French farms and 4.5% of farms in
Mediterranean mountain area currently offer some
kind of tourist accommodation. In Spain, by contrast,
only 0.5% of farms offer agrotourism activities. The
causes of this low level of agrotourism activity could
be due to the fact that supply is poorly defined and
structured (farmers lack information and sufficient
disposition to get involved in tourism), lack of
demand (possibly because of the proximity in time to
their rural roots of the majority of Spanish families),
the very definition of agrotourism (each autonomous
community defines it in its own way in its legislation
and sometimes these definitions contradict each
other), or simply because of the scarcity of research
into and analysis of the state of agrotourism in Spain,
a scarcity even more marked in relation to the market
structure and potential of this activity (Sayadi and
Calatrava, 2001). This lack of specific research on
agrotourism has also been remarked upon by authors
such as Oppermann (1996), McGehee (2007) and
Sharpley and Vass (2005). McGehee (2007) points to
the fact that there has been little research on the
necessities for and obstacles in the way of the success
of such businesses, while Sharpley and Vass (2005)
mention the lack of work on the attitude of the farm
entrepreneur towards the diversification of his
business by the introduction of tourism. All of these
being questions dealt with in this present study.
Furthermore, according to Pulido (2011) there is a
complete lack of knowledge about the real situation.
According to the EcoAgrotourism Foundation,
agrotourism accounts for between 5 and 10% of
Spanish tourism while the Spanish Association of
Rural Tourism (ASETUR) estimates that 2-3% of its
members are involved in agrotourism. The number of
entrepreneurs in this area who come originally from
cities is also noteworthy. All of this points to the
necessity for carrying out serious studies of
agrotourism.
3. Methodology
This study was carried out in Extremadura
(Spain). This region is situated in the south east of the
Iberian Peninsula and has an area of 41582 square
kilometers (approximately 8% of the surface area of
Spain), 1102410 inhabitants and a population density
of 26.51 inhabitants per square kilometer according to
the National Geographic Institute (IGN) and the
National Statistics Institute (INE) on January 1st,
2009. Due to its natural and cultural wealth and as a
predominantly rural region it has a lot of potential for
the development of agrotourism, a development that
would be favored by the existing supply and demand
for rural and nature tourism it possesses. It is also
noteworthy that a large number of the protected
landscapes of Extremadura are wholly or partly
 Agricultural diversification and the sustainability of agricultural systems

shaped by agricultural activities, which increases the
value of the region for agrotourism development. So
far there have been few initiatives in this regard,
which could be due to the factors mentioned by
Sayadi and Calatrava (2001). Looking first at the
legal issues, article 82 of the recent regional
legislation Law 2/2011 of 31 January 2011, on the
development and modernization of tourism in
Extremadura (Regional Government of Extremadura,
2011), identifies agrotourism as an alternative tourism
activity and seeks to separate it from the activities
related to rural accommodation, covered by a separate
piece of legislation Decree 87/2007 of 8 May 2007,
on the organization and classification of tourism
accommodation in rural environment (Regional
Government of Extremadura, 2007). Given the legal
and conceptual doubts which seem to exist it is not
surprising that the possibilities offered by the region
are not being taken advantage of. This present study
aims to determine whether one of the main actors
involved, the farm entrepreneurs, are well disposed to
the development of this activity, or whether they
constitute a barrier to it.
An exploratory design has been opted for in
order to allow for the obtaining of knowledge and
ideas of a state of affairs where these are scarce
(Weiers, 1986). A quantitative methodology was used
so as to permit the measuring and analysis of statistics
produced from a sample of the population under study
(Trespalacios et al., 2005). The personal interview
was chosen as a technique with the aid of a structured
questionnaire with formalized questions and possible
answers. A convenience non-probability sampling
was used, where the sample is composed of sampling
units which facilitate its measurement and are
accessible and favorable (Miquel et al., 2000). The
sampled universe consisted of all the agricultural
entrepreneurs of the region. Microsoft Excel was used
for compiling and analyzing the data. The field work
was carried out between January and February 2009.
A total of 494 agricultural entrepreneurs were
surveyed from all the areas of Extremadura. The
technical specifications for this research are shown in
Table 1.
4. Results
The results of the empirical study carried out
will now be presented. Table 2 presents some notes
on the characteristics of the sample which participated
in this research. Although this is a convenience
sample it is worthwhile to add some notes describing
the agricultural entrepreneurs which form part of it.
The bulk of the sample was made up of men (80.4%),
which reflects the small number of women involved
in farm business (19.6%). With regard to age, the
biggest consisted of those aged between 45 and 65
years (52.0%), followed by a group made up of those
younger than 45 years (42.1%), which suggests the
possible existence of a group of young agricultural
entrepreneurs better disposed to starting new
businesses on their farms. 50.4% of those surveyed
had completed primary school and only 18.8% had
completed secondary school. In principle, this data
regarding education level might suggest the existence
of a barrier for the development of agrotourism with
regard to the training that would be needed in order to
get new initiatives underway. Farming was carried
out full time by 68.4% of the sample, which might
suggest the need to supplement incomes with money
derived from tourism and so not be dependent on just
one economic activity.

Table 1. Technical specifications

Universe Extremadura agricultural entrepreneurs

Scope Extremadura (Spain)
Method of collecting information Personal interview with structured questionnaire
Database Directory
Sampling unit Extremadura agricultural entrepreneurs
Population size Non defined
Sample size 494
Sampling Convenience non-probabilistic sample
Fieldwork January and February 2009
Number of surveys 494
Valid responses All

Table 2. Characteristics of the sample (n=494)

Variables Responses Percentage

Gender Men 80.4%
Women 19.6%
Age Less than 45 years old 42.1%
Between 45 and 65 years old 52.0%
More than 65 years old 5.9%
Education level Primary 50.4%
Secondary 30.8%
High 18.8%
Dedication Full time 68.4%
Part time 31.6%

1915
 Hernández-Mogollón et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10 (2011), 12, 1911-1921

Table 3. Level of knowledge of agrotourism

Yes 66.2%
Knowledge of agrotourism No 33.0%
Doesn't know/didn't answer 0.8%
Yes 21.7%
Knowledge of businesses involved in agrotourism No 77.3%
Doesn't know/didn't answer 1.0%

Table 4. Benefits of agrotourism

No response 16%
To improve knowledge of rural life 21%
Yes 80% New source of income 17%
Alternative to existing rural life 19%
Other 27%
Interest in the integration of
No response 30%
farming in the supply of tourism
Incompatible with farming 15%
products
No 18% More work 2%
Not viable 10%
Other 43%
Doesn't know/
2%
didn't answer
No response 21%
Increased income 27%
Yes 74%
Another source of income 31%
Other 20%
Agrotourism contribution to
No response 15%
increasing income levels and
Poor profitability 20%
quality of life of agricultural No 23%
entrepreneurs I have doubts 23%
Other 15%
Doesn't
know/didn't 3%
answer
No response 33%
Improve conservation 48%
Yes 71% Better knowledge of rural life 9%
Tourism awareness 5%
Other 6%
Agrotourism contribution to the
No response 58%
conservation of landscape and
rural heritage I have doubts 10%
No 27%
Damages the landscape 27%
Other 5%
Doesn't
know/didn't 2%
answer
No response 40%
If there is economic assistance 9%
Yes 57%
Alternatives for the rural world 39%
Other 12%
No response 58%
Possibilities of agrotourism as an
Incompatibility with farming 22%
option for the future of the
No 29% Agricultural crisis 5%
agricultural entrepreneur
Poor profitability 4%
Other 11%
Doesn't
know/didn't 14%
answer

Table 3 presents the level of knowledge of
agrotourism possessed by these entrepreneurs. In spite
of the fact that 66.2% of those surveyed said that they
know about the activity, only 21.7% knew of a
specific business involved in this area. Given the fact
that the study was carried out in Extremadura, these
results might indicated that while the activity is
known and attempts are being made to promote it,
there are still very few functioning businesses
involved in it in the areas where these farmers live.
The results concerning the benefits offered by
the development agrotourism in the view of the
respondents can be found in Table 4. 80% believe the
integration of farming into tourism to be interesting,

1916
 Agricultural diversification and the sustainability of agricultural systems

but only 17% saw it as a new source of income. 18%
rejected this integration with 15% of these doing so
on the grounds that it is not compatible with farming,
10% on the grounds that it is not viable and 2% on the
grounds that it generates more work. On the positive
side 74% of the sample believed that agrotourism
contributes to increasing the income and quality of
life of agricultural entrepreneurs, given that it
involves an increase in the profitability of the farm
(27%) and a supplementary source of income (31%).
Of those who believed the opposite (23%), 20%
Table 5. Disposition of the agricultural entrepreneur to implement agrotourism initiatives on his or her holding
believed the activity to offer little profitability. 71%
of those surveyed supported the view that agrotourism
contributes to the preservation of the landscape and
rural heritage, 48% believed it leads to greater
conservation of the environment and 9% to greater
knowledge of the rural scene. 27% held a contrary
opinion even believing that agrotourism damaged the
landscape. With regard to the possibilities of
agrotourism as an option for the future for the
agricultural entrepreneur, 57% had a positive view
and 29% a negative one.

Mountain 42.9%
Irrigated land 13.0%
Olive groves 14.8%
Preferred landscape for agrotourism Vineyards 8.9%
Livestock 32.2%
Crops 4.3%
Other 5.5%
Harvesting olives 6.3%
Show pasture, farm, livestock 20.9%
Look at the scenery 12.4%
Producing vegetables, fruit, cereals 13.8%
Possibilities for holding offered by Handling livestock 12.2%
agrotourism Looking a wildlife (flora, fauna, ornithology) 2.8%
Hiking 9.5%
Helping with farm activities 8.3%
Collecting and preparing products 3.6%
Other (slaughter, hunting, fishing, accommodation, horse riding) 27.3%
Electricity 11.9%
Accommodation 8.7%
Access and communications 13.6%
Water 6.7%
Main problems for agrotourism on the Infrastructure and installations 13.2%
holding Time 9.3%
Irritation for the livestock 2.6%
Funding, investment, lack of assistance 19.8%
Training 4.9%
Other (climate, size and type of holding, SPAB) 31.2%
Horticulture 20.5%
Olive production 13.6%
Vineyards 6.9%
Handling of cattle 18.2%
Handling of bull fighting livestock 1.2%
Handling of sheep 24.5%
Handling of goats 9.5%
Kinds of activities the entrepreneur would
Handling of pigs 17.0%
offer on his holding
Handling horses 10.5%
Replanting 16.0%
Preparing products (oil, bread, sausage and similar products) 11.9%
Slaughter 22.5%
Hunting and fishing 13.4%
Collecting things that grow in the forests 18.8%
Other activities 9.2%
Just catering 5.5%
Just accommodation 10.5%
Accommodation and catering 15.2%
Kinds of services the entrepreneur would offer Guided tours of the land 43.7%
on his holding Visits to neighboring villages 25.9%
Cultural opportunities in neighboring villages 15.4%
Just live on the holding (share space and experiences) 14.4%
Other services 5.7%

1917
 Hernández-Mogollón et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10 (2011), 12, 1911-1921
Table 6. General disposition of agricultural entrepreneurs towards using their holding for agrotourism
Yes 44%
Disposition towards using
holding for agrotourism
No 53%
Doesn't
know/didn't 3%
answer
Of those with a positive view 39% saw it as an
alternative for the rural scene and 9% thought it a
possibility as long as economic assistance was
provided. Of those who doubted in the possibilities of
agrotourism as a possibility for the future, 22% thought
it incompatible with farming, 5% rejected it on the
grounds of the agricultural crisis and 4% because of its
low profitability. In the light of the data in Table 4
there can be no doubt that there exists a favourable
opinion regarding agrotourism among agricultural
entrepreneurs, a factor that could be critical for its
development.
With the general view of agricultural
entrepreneurs towards the activity having been set out,
attention can now be turned to Table 5 which deals
with their disposition towards implementing
agrotourism initiatives on their farms. 42.9% were of
the view that best landscape for implementing
agrotourism was the mountains, followed by livestock
(32.2%) and olive groves (14.8%). Mountain
agriculture was seen as the most suitable for the
implementing of agrotourism, surely as a result of it
being the most attractive for rural tourism. Livestock
provides the option of observing such activities as
milking, shearing, feeding, etc. Olive groves in
themselves already constitute a type of tourism with
tourists routes, oil tourism, etc. (Millán and Agudo,
2010; Millán et al., 2010). With regard to the tourism
possibilities offered by the farm owned by those
surveyed for the development of agrotourism, in the
first place were activities such as slaughter, hunting,
fishing, accommodation and horse riding (27.3%),
followed by showing pastures and livestock (20.9%),
participating in the growing of crops (cereals,
vegetables, fruits) (13.8%), looking at the scenery
(12.4%) and handling livestock (12.2%). The main
problems that those surveyed saw their holdings facing
if they got involved with agrotourism would be such
factors as the climate, the size and type of the holding
and its location in a SPAB [Special Protected Area for
Birds] (31,2%). Then funding, investment and lack of
aid come (19.8%). Other problems included access and
communication (13.6%), infrastructure and
installations (13.2%) and electricity (11.9%). It can
thus be seen that the two fundamental types of barriers
foreseen by these entrepreneurs are those related to
1918
No response 29%
New sources of income 16%
If there are benefits and profits 9%
Diversification of activities 24%
Help with farming activities 1%
Other 22%
No response 34%
A lot of investment and little funding 7%
It is neither profitable nor beneficial 6%
Lack of time 13%
Other 40%
infrastructure and services and economic ones related
to the need for funding and high levels of investment.
With regard to the activities, the entrepreneurs
would be willing to offer on their farms there would be
handling sheep (24.5%), cattle (18.2%) and pigs
(17.0%), slaughtering (22.5%), horticulture (20.5%),
the collection of things that grow in the woods
(mushrooms, asparagus, etc.) (18.8%), and
reforestation, care of the forest and environmental
conservation (16.0%). With regard to services, they
would offer guided tours of the land (43.7%), visits to
neighboring villages (25.9%), catering and
accommodation (15.2%), cultural opportunities in
surrounding areas (15.4%) and living on the farm
(14.4%).
In spite of the results presented in table 4 which
show positive opinions about the benefits of
agrotourism, the evidence indicates that the general
disposition of agricultural entrepreneurs to implement
agrotourism activities on their holdings is not that
favorable given that 53% of those surveyed said that
they would not implement agrotourism on their
holdings. However, they showed a considerable degree
of indecision in showing their reasons for this response
with 34% not providing any information at all. Some of
the reasons given included lack of time (13%), the need
for a big investment and the scant funding available
(7%), that agrotourism is neither a beneficial nor
profitable activity (6%), among other reasons (40%).
Those that were indeed favorably disposed (44%) said
that it would diversify their activities (24%) and be
another source of income (16%), among other reasons
(22%) (see Table 6).
5. Conclusions
In this study we have tried to show the
importance of agrotourism as a sustainable activity to
diversify and complement a declining agricultural
sector, as a way of ensuring the survival of farms and
the families that live on them as well as the associated
agricultural landscape. Agrotourism also offers a
response to a new kind of demand for tourism that
looks for more authentic and personalized experiences,
contact with rural roots and an educational experience
 Agricultural diversification and the sustainability of agricultural systems
of interest to families, students, and those curious about
nature.
The public authorities have become aware of the
importance of incorporating tourism into farming
activities and the range of direct, indirect and induced
benefits this brings to the areas where it is carried out.
The main actors in the development of this sector are
the agricultural entrepreneurs who, depending in their
attitude to it may constitute either barriers to it or
drivers of it. In order to find out the possibilities of
developing agrotourism in areas with potential for it,
but where it has not been widely implemented, a
survey was carried out of the opinions of 494
agricultural entrepreneurs in Extremadura, Spain. An
attempt was made to find out the willingness of
respondents to diversify the activities of their holding
by making it compatible with tourism and to discover
their opinion with regard to the likely effect of
agrotourism on the preservation of the natural
environment where it is carried out.
The results of the survey indicate that we are
faced with a predominantly male group of
entrepreneurs (80.4%). There is also a group of
entrepreneurs younger than 45 years old (42.1%), who
might possibly be better disposed to starting new
businesses on their holdings. However, the poor level
of academic achievement of these entrepreneurs might
constitute a barrier to the development of agrotourism,
especially in that would limit their capacity to
understand the functioning of the tourist sector.
However, this does not have to constitute an
insurmountable obstacle as there is the possibility of
partnering with other, better trained entrepreneurs and
agrotourism might be of interest to the children of the
existing entrepreneurs who are probably both better
educated than their parents and less interested in
farming. In any case the authorities should be aware of
this problem so as to try to solve it by providing
training aimed at these possible promoters of
agrotourism. 68.4% of those entrepreneurs work full
time on their land, which might be taken as an
indication of a need to supplement their incomes from
tourism and not have the family economy depending
on a single activity. This also leads us to think of the
existence of a relatively large number of entrepreneurs
who have other sources of income. Given this behavior
it seems reasonable to think of agrotourism being
accepted a new source of income.
With regard to the degree of knowledge of
agrotourism possessed by these entrepreneurs, 66.2%
said that they were aware of agrotourism, but only
21.7% said that they knew of an actual agrotourism
business. These data appear to be contradictory, and
highlights a very positive view of agrotourism as a path
to economic development combined with a high degree
of ignorance regarding how to put into practice. Also,
given that this study was carried out in Extremadura,
the results obtained may indicate that the agrotourism
initiatives in the region are very few in number and not
widely known.
In spite of this, agrotourism has great potential
in Extremadura. It has significant natural and cultural
resources that maintain traditional, sustainable forms of
work that produce products of high quality, unique
agricultural systems with a high degree of potential as
tourism resources, very positive experiences in the last
two decades in rural and nature tourism, a good market
position as a nature and cultural destination in urban
markets and adequate sales structures for this type of
product. Furthermore, the government of the region has
realized the importance of developing this sector and
participates in such projects as the already mentioned
Agrotourism Strategic Plan for the Region of
Extremadura along with the University of
Extremadura, the Demeter Project along with the
Regional Development Agency of Alentejo (ADRAL,
Portugal) and others such as the Taejo Internacional
Project and Pegla Project. These latter projects involve
such activities as the strengthening of agrotourism in
the trans-frontier area. The final aim of these activities
is to maintain the communities situated along the
border between Spain and Portugal and encourage
sustainable and balanced development.
In general terms it can be affirmed that these
entrepreneurs have a positive attitude to the
development of tourism (80%), though they are
reluctant to actually get involved in it themselves
(53%). From these results it can be seen that though
this kind of tourism has great potential in Extremadura
and has significant benefits related to increasing the
income and improving the quality of life of the
entrepreneur (74%), as well as conserving the
landscape and rural heritage (71%), it still faces
significant challenges. The biggest barriers faced by
these entrepreneurs regarding the introduction of this
activity into their holdings are those related to the
necessary infrastructure and services and the necessity
for funding and a high level of investment.
It is necessary, therefore, to try to deal with
these problems, as well as encourage favorable
opinions among the entrepreneurs and their disposition
towards actually getting involved in the adventure of
tourism. It would be advisable for Extremadura to
develop a network of agrotourism establishments using
a common brand. This would facilitate the definition of
the product and its internal consistency (homogeneity
of service) while allowing for a certain degree of
variety arising from the agricultural systems where the
establishments are located. It would also be
recommendable to guide and support this development
with financial and management assistance, in the early
stages of the introduction and establishment of this
kind of tourism. In short, the aim would be consolidate
Extremadura, in the medium and long term, as an
agrotourism market of excellence at the local and
international levels, on a sustainable basis and with
respect for the environment where the business is
located, the agricultural landscape.
The limitations of this study are mainly centered
on the possible errors that may have derived from the
completion of fieldwork, the statistical treatment of
data and the choice of a convenience sample, which
forces us to take certain precautions when extrapolating
the results produced by the study to a universal level.
1919
 Hernández-Mogollón et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10 (2011), 12, 1911-1921
Furthermore this study only offers a partial view of
reality as its focus was only agricultural entrepreneurs.
The first line of future research that suggests
itself is to apply this same study to public officials,
tourists and residents of these rural areas in an attempt
to obtain a general view of the potential for
agrotourism in Extremadura from the point of view of
all the actors involved. Furthermore, there has been
little research into agrotourism so it would be desirable
to signal to the scientific community the necessity for
more study of this growing area of tourism, a type of
tourism which could be of great help to very depressed
rural areas who see their traditional source of income,
agriculture, in danger. Such studies would lead to a
better conceptualization and legal definition of
agrotourism and a structured organization of its
provision and marketing. The development and
consolidation of Extremadura as an agrotourism
destination could constitute an opportunity for the
maintenance of its farm families, economies and
landscapes.
References
Beaufoy G., Baldock D., Clark J., (1994), The nature of
farming: Low intensity farming systems in Nine
European Countries, Institute for European
Environmental Policy, London.
Campón A.M., (2007), Cáceres as a rural tourist destination
in international markets, Publications Service of Official
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Caceres,
Cáceres.
Campón A.M., Leco F., Pérez A., Hernández J.M., (2010),
Agrotourism in Extremadura: an opportunity for
economic diversification in rural areas, In: Proceedings
of the XV Rural Geography Colloquium, territory,
landscape and rural heritage, (in Spanish), Leco F.,
Pérez A., Mateos B., García R., Alberdi V., (Eds.),
University of Extremadura, Publications Service, 466-
476.
Choo H., Jamal T., (2009), Tourism on organic farms in
South Korea: a new form of ecotourism, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17, 431-454.
Corral F., (2007), Tourist destination competitiveness
through sensations management, (in Spanish), Journal of
Economics, Society, Tourism and Environment,
RESTMA, 5, 77-84.
De Juana E., Martín-Novella C., Naveso M.A., Pain D., Sears
J., (1993), Farming and birds in Spain: threats and
opportunities for conservation, RSBP Conservation
Review, 7, 67-73.
Dernoi L.A., (1983), Farm tourism in Europe, Tourism
Management, 4, 155-166.
EESC, (2006), European Economic and Social Committee,
The contribution of tourism to the socio-economic
recovery of areas in decline (2006/c 24/01), (in
Spanish), Official Journal of the European Union
(OJEU) of 31-01-2006, On line at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:200
6:024:0001:0010:ES:PDF.
Fleischer A., Pizam A., (1997), Rural tourism in Israel,
Tourism Management, 18, 367-372.
Fleischer A., Tchetchik A., (2005), Does rural tourism benefit
from agriculture?, Tourism Management, 26, 493-501.
Francès G., Méndez M., (2001), Agrotourism as a
diversification strategy of Catalan farms, (in Spanish),
1920
IV Spanish Association of Agricultural Economics
Congress, Pamplona.
González P., (1995), Western Mediterranean land-use
systems as antecedents for semiarid America, In: Global
land use change. A perspective from the Columbian
perspective, Turner II B.L., Gómez A., González F., Di
Castri F. (Eds.), CSIC, Madrid, 131-149.
Haig N., (2006), Agrotourism, an open window to rural
world, (in Spanish), Sustrai: Journal of Agriculture and
Fisheries, 76, 40-45.
Hjalager A.M., (1996), Agricultural diversification into
tourism-Evidence of a European Community
development programme, Tourism Management, 17,
103-111.
Knowd I., (2006), Tourism as a mechanism for farm survival,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 24-42.
Leco F., Mateos A.B., (2006), Traditional farming systems,
environment and sustainable development: pasture as
geographical and cultural fact, Norba, Journal of
Geography, XI, 165-182.
Leco F., Pérez A., Hernández J.M., (2008), Agrotourism
Strategic Plan for the Region of Extremadura, Regional
Government of Extremadura.
McGehee N.G., Kim K., Jennings G.R., (2007), Gender and
motivation for agritourism entrepreneurship, Tourism
Management, 28, 280-289.
Mediano L., (2002), A case of tourism marketing:
agrotourism in Basque Country, (in Spanish),
Management Notebooks, 1, 55-68.
Millán M.G., Agudo E.M., (2010), Gastronomic tourism and
Designations of Origin in southern Spain: olive oil
tourism. A case study, (in Spanish), Pasos, Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 8, 91-112.
Millán M.G., Pérez L.M., Morales E., (2010), Olive Oil
Route in the Baena PDO as a strategic option of
development, (in Spanish), Journal of Economics,
Society, Tourism and Environment, RESTMA, 10, 33-52.
Miquel S., Bigné E., Lévy J., Cuenca A., Miquel M., (2000),
Marketing research, (in Spanish), McGraw Hill, Madrid.
Oppermann M., (1996), Rural tourism in Southern Germany,
Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 86-102.
Parra E., Calero F.J., (2006), Agrotourism, sustainable
tourism and ultraperipheral areas: the case study of
Canary Islands, (in Spanish), On line at:
http://www.mcrit.com/rup/documentos/EParra_FCalero.
pdf.
Pérez A., Leco F., (2010), Heritage and agrotourism:
proposals for the pasture future, In: Proceedings of the
XV Rural Geography Colloquium, territory, landscape
and rural heritage, (in Spanish), Leco F., Pérez A.,
Mateos B., García R., Alberdi V. (Eds.), University of
Extremadura, Publications Service, 533-546.
Pulido J.I., (2011), Agrotourism and rural tourism as
economic development engines. A perspective from
sustainability, (in Spanish), Agrotourism, Employment
& Training Conference, Mérida.
Regional Government of Extremadura, (2007), Decree
87/2007 of 8 May 2007, on the organization and
classification of tourism accommodation in rural
environment, Official Journal of Extremadura (DOE) of
15-05-2007, (in Spanish), On line at:
http://doe.juntaex.es/ultimosdoe/mostrardoe.php?fecha=
20070515.
Regional Government of Extremadura, (2011), Law 2/2011 of
31 January 2011, on the development and modernization
of tourism in Extremadura, Official Journal of
Extremadura (DOE) of 02-02-2011, (in Spanish), On
line at:
http://doe.juntaex.es/pdfs/doe/2011/220O/11010002.pdf.
 Agricultural diversification and the sustainability of agricultural systems

Sayadi S., Calatrava J., (2001), Agrotourism and rural Trespalacios J., Vázquez R., Bello L., (2005), Marketing
development: current situation, potential and strategies research, methods of collecting and analyzing
in the Spanish southeastern mountain areas, (in Spanish), information for marketing decision making, (in Spanish),
Tourism Notebooks, 7, 131-157. Thomson, Madrid.
SGT, (1993), General Secretariat of Tourism, The Spaniards´ Weaber D.B., Fennell D.A., (1997), The vacation farm sector
holidays, (in Spanish), Journal of Tourism Studies, 119- in Saskatchewan: a profile of operations, Tourism
120, 153-177. Management, 18, 357-365.
Sharpley R., Vass A., (2006), Tourism, farming and Weiers R., (1986), Marketing research, (in Spanish), Prentice
diversification: an attitudinal study, Tourism Hall, Mexico.
Management, 27, 1040-1052.

1921