Advertisement

Conclusions

  • Katia L. SidaliEmail author
Conference paper
  • 2.4k Downloads

Abstract

The preceding contributions have revealed different “realities of farm and rural tourism” as well as multiple possibilities of its interweaving with other forms of tourism such as culinary tourism as well as other aspects of experiencing “nature” and “agrarian life” such as on educational farms. This final chapter explores the extent to which these themes can be placed in a contextual landscape to enhance further empirical research. The conceptual framework that we are going to introduce focuses on individuals’ consumption patterns and shows how these shape the nature of farm tourism. At first glance the relationship between farmers and tourists, which is the core of farm tourism, appears to be based largely on contrasts. For instance, Getz, Carlsen and Morrison (2004) stress that farming is “supply-driven”, whereas tourism is “market-led”. Furthermore, farmers travel the least, rural tourists on the contrary travel very frequently. Henceforth, market and consumer orientation is a difficult goal to reach.

Keywords

Rural Tourism Tourism Research Preceding Contribution Heritage Tourism Difficult Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, B. (2008). The new agritourism. Hosting community and tourists on your farm. Auburn, California: New World Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Getz, D., Carlsen, J., and Morrison, A. (2004). The family business in tourism and hospitality. Oxfordshire: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hill, R., and Busby, G. (2002). An inspector calls: farm accommodation providers' attitudes to quality assurance schemes in the county of Devon. International journal of tourism research, 4(6), 459-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hjalager, A. M. (1996). Agricultural diversification into tourism. Tourism Management, 17(2), 103-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Knudsen, D. C. and Greer, C. E. (2008). Heritage tourism, heritage landscapes and wilderness preservation: the case of National Park Thy. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(1), 18-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kwa, C. (2005). Alexander von Humboldt's invention of the natural landscape. The European legacy, 10(2), 149-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nilsson, A. P. (2002). Staying on farms—An Ideological Background. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 7-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Roberts, L., and Hall, D. (2004). Consuming the countryside: marketing for "rural tourism". Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 253-263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Romeiß-Stracke, F. (1998). Vorwärts: Zurück zur Natur? Trends im Tourismus und ihre Konsequenzen für den Urlaub auf dem Lande. In H.-G. Burger, G. Diehl and M. Packeiser (Eds.), Der deutsche Landtourismus - Wege zu neuen Gästen (Vol. 3). Frankfurt a. M.: DLG (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft).Google Scholar
  10. Schulze, G. (1992). Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  11. Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J., and van Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success in rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 132-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations