Tourism Geographies

An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment

ISSN: 1461-6688 (Print) 1470-1340 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Agriculture tourism and the transformation of

rural countryside

Tsung-chiung (Emily) Wu

To cite this article: Tsung-chiung (Emily) Wu (2018): Agriculture tourism and the transformation of
rural countryside, Tourism Geographies, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2018.1434819

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1434819

Published online: 07 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtxg20
TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1434819

20TH ANNIVERSARY VOLUME COMMENTARY

Agriculture tourism and the transformation of rural

countryside

The world’s population continues to expand, reaching levels that are pressing the limits of
our natural resources (Livi-Bacci, 2017). Geographically, the impacts of that population
growth extend far beyond the metropolitan urban centers where it is concentrated.
Throughout the world, rural, agricultural countryside, and the small towns that support
them are being transformed, with tourism being one of the primary, and more visible,
agents of change. Agriculture had made for a scenic idyllic countryside for hundreds of
years. Facets of the countryside are changing, however, because of contemporary devel-
opment. Development and changes of rural communities are closely related to changes
in rural economics. Traditional agriculture, the main economic activity, is no longer the
main or sole economic driver in most rural communities. Many alternative rural goods
and services are invented to increase economic benefit in response to developmental
challenges to rural communities and market demands for countryside from general pub-
lics. Developmental alternatives, such as organic farming, natural farming, conservation,
tourism, and second homes, constitute a distinct style of rural economics, and direct rural
communities toward a very different development. The quality of the countryside attracts
visits and partly encourages requests for enjoyment of nature and a harmonious lifestyle.
Thus, tourism and recreation businesses are often on the first priority, especially for those
communities possessing abundant natural resources and garden-like rural landscapes.
The blooming of tourism in rural areas has invited much discussion, especially on its
potential for rural economics. Close attention is given to the transformation of traditional
agriculture, the previous economic core, into tourism-related businesses, the new possibil-
ities for local economics, and consequences to various aspects of rural communities. Previ-
ous researches have examined economic contributions and challenges (e.g. Ateljevic &
Doorne, 2003; Sharpley, 2002). Agriculture-tourism development may increase household
income, tax revenue, and employment opportunities, but it is also likely to suffer from eco-
nomic leakage, problematic distribution of economic and social benefits, and undesirable
jobs. Possible consequences are mixed and complicated. Therefore, it is critical to relate
consequences with the process of transformation. In other words, the mechanisms of agri-
culture-tourism transformation need to be quested further and in depth.
The traditional agriculture has often diversified by adding various tourism business
functions and operations to become a multi-functional agriculture establishment, that
nurtures a new style of rural industries, and is called agri-tourism (agro-tourism), farm-
based tourism, rural tourism (countryside tourism), or leisure farms. The multi-functionality
and diversification of agriculture through tourism is key to this movement in rural regions.
This multi-functionality creates a development spectrum ranged from a sole production
of crops to plural functions that incorporate traditional agriculture with various non-agri-
culture operations (Van der Ploeg & Roep, 2003). Several empirical studies (e.g. Ilbery,

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 COMMENTARY

1991; Sharpley, 2002; Wu, 1997) demonstrated the innovative applications for tourism
businesses based on the agriculture resources, farming knowledge, natural environment,
countryside landscape, and local culture, history, and people. The creative production of
agriculture and rural resources presents a valuable style of pro-active and responsive rural
economics that continuously facilitates the agriculture-tourism transformation and
requires more research attention.
The creative progress of multi-functionality that shifts agriculture to tourism-related
establishment can be and should be systematically evaluated. Based on cases in North
America, Mahoney and Barbieri (2003) adopt the concepts of vertical integration and hori-
zontal integration to reveal strategic diversifications. Programing fruit-picking into a tour-
ist program is a vertical integration strategy. Establishing a pastoral cottage for tourist
lodging is a horizontal integration strategy requiring high investment. In Asia, the 1 £ 2 £
3 Agriculture Industrialization Model, proposed by Japanese scholar Hiroshi (2013), has
become popular for rural tourism rejuvenation in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. This model
unfolds limitless initiations through compounding mixtures driven by blending functions
from primary (agriculture), secondary (manufacture), and tertiary (commerce and service)
industrial sectors. The upgrade of agriculture production is expected to increase economic
profits and enhance rural economical sustainability. This multi-functional agriculture-tour-
ism gradually builds a new balanced sequence for rural economics, society, politics, geo-
graphical landscape, and resources and environment. Concurrently, multi-functional
agriculture-tourism development can make rural businesses and economics more flexible
and adaptive to unpredicted challenges from external variations, such as economic fluctu-
ation, globalization, environmental changes, or social-culture transformation.
Tourism and recreation are important revitalization policies implemented by govern-
ments to fight longtime recessions in rural regions. Rural communities and residents
(especially farmers or landowners) are encouraged to become involved and invest in
developmental projects and marketing programs. Numerous examples exist in rural com-
munities in many countries: Taiwan, Japan, United States, Canada, Australia, France,
United Kingdom, Italy, German, and Demark. Commodifying farms and rural areas to meet
the recreational needs of tourist market is the core revitalization strategy for agriculture-
tourism development. ‘Commodification’ often triggers critiques for possible negative
consequences: with the countryside turned into a commodity that can be sold and
bought (Little & Austin, 1996). Rurality is commercially elucidated and constructed for
tourism marketing and promoting purposes, and rural counties gradually loss their ability
to define their own rural (Garrod, Wornell, & Youell, 2006). Finally, the economic leakage
from the existing system and biased economic distribution vastly reduces promised eco-
nomic gains for the rural communities (Bennett, Lemelin, Koster, & Budke, 2012). Agricul-
ture-tourism development cannot get away from these commodification critiques, while
it adopts many creative innovations (upon agriculture and rurality) to intensify tourism
businesses. Multi-functionality development of agriculture-tourism engages in a compli-
cated commodifying process: intangible tourist experiences are produced, instead of tan-
gible materials, and recreational, education, aesthetic, enjoyment values are delivered,
instead of mainly utility values. To determine consequences or effectiveness of commodi-
fication of agriculture-tourism transformation, complications of multi-functionality should
not to be ignored. Furthermore, a complex commodity chain is needed to reveal
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 3

processes of various agriculture-tourism supplies from raw material, production, sale, and
marketing, to consumption. Deconstructing the main actors and actions separately from
commodifying would be beneficial to understand the delineation of rural landscapes, dis-
tribution of economic gains and debts, and allocation of social-political powers for agricul-
ture-tourism development. In addition to famers, community organizations, local
businesses, travel agencies, other mediators, non-governmental groups and government
agents could serve as actors because of their various strengths in ways to influence
manipulation of rural resources to service the purposes of commodification.
Paddy fields, traditional farming, honest farmers, playful kids, folk songs, and tasty local
foods make people nostalgic about rural. Bed and breakfast, leisure farms, vocational
ranches, souvenir shops, chain restaurants, parking lots, and department stores make peo-
ple wonder about rural. As tourism is chosen and rural areas develop, changes in country-
side and the transformation of traditional rural economics are inevitable. In the future, we
will see more and more new routes of commodification on rural and agriculture resources
induced by tourism spreading through the rural areas. This economic transformation is
expected to cause noticeable changes to rural economics and other aspects of rural com-
munities, such as physical landscape, social and political relations, and general well-being.
No matter how much academics dislike the ideal of commodification, the primary issue
that continues to require more research and understanding is resource commodification.
It is necessary to thoroughly decode the commodifying process to enhance its ‘effective-
ness’, and to face with the possible consequences of agriculture-tourism transformation.
Under the context of agriculture tourism, we need to take special considerations on the
distinct focuses of multi-functionality of businesses, the inherent attributes of tourism,
and the political/social process on commodification, which facilitate a creative, but com-
plex rural economics, and further mutation on traditional agriculture countryside.

References
Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2003). Culture, economy and tourism commodities: Social relations and
production and consumption. Tourist Studies, 3(2), 123–141.
Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and
building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities.
Tourism Management, 33(4), 752–766.
Garrod, B., Wornell, R., & Youell, R. (2006). Re-conceptualizing rural resources as countryside capital:
The case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 177–128.
Hiroshi, Gokyu (2013). Exploring and analyzing best-selling products. The sixth industrialization – the
new business model on cooperation among agriculture, manufacture and commerce. Taipei:
Zgibgweu.
Ilbery, B. W. (1991). Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West
Midlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 7(3), 207–218.
Little, J., & Austin, P. (1996). Women and the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(2), 101–111.
Livi-Bacci, M. (2017). A concise history of world population. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Mahoney, E., & Barbieri, C. (2003, January). Farm and ranch diversification: Engaging the future of agri-
culture. Presented at The Graduate Institute of Leisure, Recreation, and Tourism Management,
National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management, 23(3), 233–244.
4 COMMENTARY

Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Roep, D. (2003). Multi-functionality and rural development: The actual situation
in Europe. In G. van Huylenbroeck & G. Durand (Eds.), Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm
for European Agriculture and Rural Development (pp. 37–53). Hampshire: Ashgate.
Wu, T. C. (1997). How to create business opportunities for small to medium farms? Agricultural and
natural resources for recreation and tourism. Agriculture Policy and Review, 62, 36–41.

Tsung-chiung (Emily) Wu
Department of Tourism, Recreation & Leisure Studies,
National Dong-Hwa University, Shoufeng, Taiwan
tcwu@gms.ndhu.edu.tw