The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism

Abstract

Agri-tourism, which involves tourists visiting working farms for entertainment and learning, has become more popular over the years. This paper focuses on the supply side of agri-tourism and investigates the motives that South African farmers have for offering agri-tourism activities and attractions on their farm. Based on a study with 557 respondents from all nine provinces of South Africa, 148 respondents indicated that they were currently offering some form of agri-tourism. The results identified the most popular agri-tourism activities and attractions as farm stay/accommodation, hunting, hiking/nature trails, and wildlife viewing and photography. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, which identified two factors, namely, preservation of culture and heritage and economic advantages. Based on the mean values, economic advantages were the main reason why farmers decided to offer agri-tourism activities and attractions.

Full text

Research Article
Christelle Charlien van Zyl*, Peet van der Merwe
The motives of South African farmers for offering
agri-tourism
https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2021-0036
received March 19, 2021; accepted May 6, 2021
Abstract: Agri-tourism, which involves tourists visiting
working farms for entertainment and learning, has become
more popular over the years. This paper focuses on the
supply side of agri-tourism and investigates the motives
that South African farmers have for offering agri-tourism
activities and attractions on their farm. Based on a study
with 557 respondents from all nine provinces of South
Africa, 148 respondents indicated that they were currently
offering some form of agri-tourism. The results identified
the most popular agri-tourism activities and attractions as
farm stay/accommodation, hunting, hiking/nature trails,
and wildlife viewing and photography. An exploratory
factor analysis was conducted, which identified two fac-
tors, namely, preservation of culture and heritage and eco-
nomic advantages. Based on the mean values, economic
advantages were the main reason why farmers decided to
offer agri-tourism activities and attractions.
Keywords: agri-tourism motivations, agri-tourism, South
Africa, farmers, agri-tourism activities/attractions
1 Introduction
Agri-tourism is described by different researchers [1,2]as
the amalgamation of the tourism and agriculture indus-
tries. Torres and Momsen [3]state that the relation-
ship between these two industries is highly complex
and multifaceted. According to Karthik and Gajanand
[4], agri-tourism allows a tourist to visit an agricultural
setting or a working farm, whereas Malkanthi and Routry
[5]are of the opinion that agri-tourism is used by farmers
as a strategy to contribute and enhance agricultural
development on their farm; in some cases, they even
use it as a way to promote sustainable rural development.
Tew and Barbieri [6]describe agri-tourism as nearly any
activity or attraction that allows for research or leisure in
an agricultural setting.
Some of the first forms of agri-tourism in the world
were found in the United States of America (US)and Italy.
This type of tourism gained popularity in the 1920s in the
US, when travelling became more common [7]. Although
the term “agri-tourism”is relatively new in the US,
learning about agriculture and celebrating harvests by
visiting farms and ranches is a long-standing tradition.
In the late 1800s, as the US became increasingly urba-
nised, families living in cities would visit farms or ranches
to escape city life and learn about farming and rural life
[8]. Italy is considered another excellent example of imple-
menting agri-tourism. When farms were abandoned from
the 1950s to 1970s, the country passed the Agriturismo law
in 1985 to encourage and support farm stay in rural
areas [7].
In South Africa, the first form of agri-tourism consisted
of visits to game farms/ranches inthe early 1950s. This was
followed by visits to ostrich farms in the Oudtshoorn
region for ostrich racing and riding, which became quite
a popular activity in the 1960s. The next type of agri-
tourism (and maybe one of South Africa’smostpopular
agri-tourism products)was wine tourism, which involved
tourists visiting wine estates for wine tasting; this origi-
nated in the early 1970s [9].
Today, agriculture and tourism are two of South
Africa’s main contributors to its gross domestic product
(GDP)and part of the vital economic sectors in the
country, together with the mining service, transport,
manufacturing, and energy production industries [10].
In 2019, the tourism industry accounted for 2.9% of the
GDP (and indirectly, 8.6%), whereas the agriculture indus-
try’s contribution was 1.88% of the country’sGDP[11,12].
Therefore, both sectors are important.
Although a few agri-tourism products in South Africa
can be traced back to the 1960s, it is still a relatively new
tourism product for the country [9]; when investigating

* Corresponding author: Christelle Charlien van Zyl, School for
Tourism Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom,
2520, North West Province, South Africa,
e-mail: christellecvanzyl@gmail.com
Peet van der Merwe: School for Tourism Management, North-West
University, Potchefstroom, 2520, North West Province, South Africa
Open Agriculture 2021; 6: 537–548
Open Access. © 2021 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

previous research on the topic, the literature review
retrieved only a handful of studies, conducted in specific
areas, for example, in the Mopani District, Limpopo [13],
the Western Cape [14], the Stellenbosch wine routes [15],
an agri-festival in South Africa [16], and a general study
on the size and scope of agri-tourism in South Africa [9].
As limited work was conducted in the past [17], more
research in this regard is needed to grow agri-tourism
further and, more important, assist current product owners
as well as new entries into the market with valuable infor-
mation to improve and better develop this sector of the
tourism industry. Therefore, the problem that this research
wants to address is to fill the void in knowledge on why
agri-tourism is offered by South African farmers; in other
words, what their motives are.
2 Literature review
This literature review of the study consists of three sec-
tions, namely, the background to agri-tourism, advan-
tages and disadvantages of agri-tourism, and previous
research on the motives of farmers for hosting agri-
tourism on their land.
2.1 Background to agri-tourism
Although there is no universal definition of agri-tourism yet,
many researchers came forward with definitions thereof. A
chronological flow of these definitionsispresentedasfollows:
2015: Bwana et al. [18]describe agri-tourism as a
synonym for farm tourism or agriculture tourism, where
the key is the interaction between the agricultural producer,
the farm products, and the tourist. According to Mastro-
nardi et al. [19], only a farmer can perform agri-tourism.
2016: Petroman et al. [20]refer to agri-tourism as an
activity that focuses on both agriculture and tourism.
2017: Rong-Da Liang [21]is of the opinion that agri-
tourism is a special type of tourism that is combined with
agricultural products. Lupi et al. [22]point out that agri-
tourism is part of rural tourism.
2018: Fleischer et al. [23]divide agri-tourism into
agriculturally based recreational activities; agricultural
education; and rural-based, outdoor recreation and hos-
pitality services.
2020: Canovi and Lyon [24]maintain that agri-tourism
is a farm-related activity that is based on a working farm
for the purpose of entertainment or education.
2021: Quella et al. [25]state that agri-tourism includes
(but is not limited to)both core and peripheral agri-
tourism activities that take place on a farm within the
five categories of agri-tourism (education, direct sales,
entertainment, outdoor recreation, and hospitality).
From the above definitions, it is deducted that agri-
tourism includes activities provided in an agricultural
setting (whether they are leisure-, education-, agricul-
tural produce-, or adventure-oriented)and mainly within
a rural setting. To better understand the position of agri-
tourism within the larger tourism industry, no better
explanation can be provided than that of Wearing and
Neil [26]. The authors divided the tourism industry into
mass tourism and alternative tourism. As perceived from
its name, mass tourism includes vast numbers of tourists
visiting an area; the marketers are thus going for more feet.
The areas include cities, beachfronts, amusement parks, and
other places where the sustainability of tourism is dependent
on the number of feet passing through [26,27].
Alternative tourism (Figure 1), on the other hand, is
tourism whose purpose is to be consistent with natural,
social, and community values and allows both hosts and
guests to enjoy positive and worthwhile interaction and
shared experiences [26]. Agri-tourism fits into this cate-
gory, as can be seen in Figure 1.
The agri-tourism sector of the tourism industry can
be interpreted visually, as shown in Figure 2. Once the
amalgamation takes place and the tourism and agricul-
ture industries are combined, agri-tourism can be viewed
from the demand or supply side. This study will investi-
gate the supply side, as the focus is on why (motive)
farmers (suppliers)offer agri-tourism. Bernardo et al.
[28]divided agri-tourism products and services that farmers
can provide on their farm into five distinct categories.
These categories include outdoor recreation, educational
experiences, entertainment, hospitality services, and on-
farm direct sales.
Many researchers have identified innovation as a key
element towards agri-tourism [29,30]. Innovation can be
described as adding a new or significantly improved pro-
duct to a business [31]and might not mean the same to
each agri-tourism farm owner [30]. While the importance
of innovating has grown in recent years, Dudićet al. [32]
describe it as crucial to any business.
Innovation can also be added through agricultural
technology [29]. The improvement of agricultural tech-
nology innovation can also contribute to rural economic
development and therefore also to agri-tourism. Farmers
have the opportunity to make use of external sources of
innovation by working with other entities. Examples of
areas in which innovation can be implemented within the
538 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe

agri-tourism sector include adventure, education, and
artistic farms [33].
2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of
offering agri-tourism
There are several advantages for farmers/producers to
offer agri-tourism on a farm. Researchers identified the
following advantages: the opportunity to generate an
additional income (through the tourism products); the
opportunity to expand farming operations to include
more activities; the opportunity to inform tourists/visi-
tors of the agriculture industry and farm-life and thus
educate them at the same time; the opportunity to intro-
duce an alternative use for agricultural land that is not
currently in use; the opportunity to create awareness of
the farmer’s agricultural products; the opportunity to
develop a new business enterprise; and agri-tourism
MASS TOURISM ALTERNATIVE
TOURISM
AGRI-TOURISM ADVENTURE SCIENTIFIC EDUCATIONAL CULTURAL
Nature tourism, of which ecotourism is an aspect
TOURISM
Figure 1: Alternative tourism [26].
Figure 2: The demand and supply side of agri-tourism [28].
The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism 539

can assist the farmer in creating long-term sustainability
for the farm as a business enterprise [5,13,28,34–40].
Agri-tourism also offers advantages to the local com-
munities, namely new employment opportunities that
can lead to economic development in the local commu-
nities; the upgrading of local facilities and services, as
more people travel to the area; diversification of the local
economy by providing a new source of income; and an
alternative form of tourism that tourists can enjoy locally
[5,13,28,34–40].
Myer and De Crom [13]researched the possible ben-
efits of offering agri-tourism on a farm from the viewpoint
of the tourist, as well as the farmer and the local commu-
nity. The data revealed the following benefits (in order of
importance): education of the tourist; more exposure for
the farmer; acquiring additional income; boosting local
tourist attractions; adding value to products; and gener-
ating recognition for farmers.
There are, however, also disadvantages to the offering
of agri-tourism that are influenced by both the agriculture
and tourism industries. Saayman [41]and Saayman [42]
listed the following challenges that farmers can face when
offering agri-tourism on their farms: the tourism industry
can be seasonal and, frequently, weather-dependent; if
a tourism product is the only source of income, a sudden
closure may lead to significant financial challenges; there
is a risk of overdevelopment when natural resources
become exhausted; the issue of employing “outsiders”
when there are already local communities waiting for job
opportunities; tourists bring a risk of pollution (e.g., noise,
air, water, and visual and/or improper waste disposal);
and the possibility of conflict between the farmer and
the tourist.
Different researchers [9,13,43]identified other chal-
lenges that farmers might face when offering agri-tourism,
namely the need to pay the high liability insurance for
tourists visiting the farm; the cost of damages that tourists
may cause to the farmer’s farm, land, animals, equipment,
and more; the disturbance of day-to-day farming activ-
ities; and possible antisocial behaviour such as crime.
2.3 Previous research on motives of farmers
for offering agri-tourism
Phelan and Sharpley [44]indicate that research on agri-
tourism, specifically motives for offering agri-tourism on a
farm, has grown significantly. Previous research regarding
the motives for offering agri-tourism on farms includes
that of [45–50].
The motives of farmers or ranchers for diversifying
the business to include agri-tourism activities and attrac-
tions in the state of Montana in the United States (US)
were researched by Nickerson et al. [45]. The results list
the top five motives as an additional income, an oppor-
tunity to fully use their resources, fluctuations in agricul-
tural income, employment for family members, and because
it is an interest/hobby of theirs.
An attitudinal study in England was conducted by
Sharpley and Vass [46], based on tourism, farming, and
diversification. The study found that farmers’attitudes
towards the following three reasons were positive, there-
fore there are motives for agri-tourism: it is important
to diversify their farm business for long-term financial
security; it provides the best opportunity for generating
extra income; and it is the only choice available for
diversification.
Ollenburg and Buckley [47]investigated the reasons
why farmers started tourism enterprises in Australia. The
study identified five distinct categories, namely economic
needs, such as an additional income and lots of money;
family considerations, such as opportunities for their
children to live and work on the farm; social aspects,
such as educating tourists and meeting interesting people;
the desire for independence, such as having one’sown
career and working on the farm (rather than off-farm);
and a provision for retirements, such as spare time after
retiring or a retirement income.
In a study undertaken in Canada, Barbieri [48]inves-
tigated the motives behind agri-tourism and other farm
enterprise developments. The study identified four dif-
ferent entrepreneurial goals, namely firm profitability,
market-related, family-related, and personal goals. The
five most important motives identified by the research
were to generate additional income, continue farming,
enhance personal/family quality of life, increase/diver-
sify the market, and generate revenues from existing
resources.
While analysing agri-tourism as a part of rural devel-
opment in Italy, Santucci [50]identified several motives
as to why farmers have to diversify their farms’activities
by offering tourism. These motives are listed in the litera-
ture as making full use of assets for a family member
to engage in agri-tourism activities and to create job
opportunities.
A follow-up study by Cassia et al. [51], conducted
two years later in Italy, identified five motives, namely
an economic motive; a personal and family motive; a
tangible rural heritage preservation and enhancement
motive; an agri-food heritage preservation and enhance-
ment motive; and a rural way of life heritage preservation
540 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe

and enhancement motive. The study found that the most
important one was the personal and family motive, fol-
lowed by the rural way of life heritage preservation and
enhancement, and tangible rural heritage preservation
and enhancement motives. The least important one was
the economic motive.
Schilling et al. [49]investigated the economic bene-
fits of agri-tourism in New Jersey (US)and identified three
motives of farmers for offering agri-tourism. Other than
the normal one, namely, to generate potential additional
revenue, the researchers identified entrepreneurism, to
employ family on the farm, and the desire for an agrarian
lifestyle.
Several motivations for implementing agri-tourism
on a farm were identified by LaPan and Barbieri [52];
they concluded that agri-tourism is driven by a complex
set of goals that include a variety of motivations. This
includes economic motives (increased revenue), market
motives (to provide a better service to current clients),and
individual or family motives (to enjoy a rural lifestyle).
In a recent study on agri-tourism in Vermont (USA),
Chase et al. [53]found that building goodwill in the
community was a key motivation for farmers to develop
agri-tourism on their farms. Other important motivations
identified include increasing revenue, educating the
public on agriculture, and enjoying social interactions
with the public.
From the work of the various researchers above, this
literature study identified the motives of farmers who
incorporate agri-tourism on their land. The question to
be answered is why South African farmers incorporate it
on their land; are the reasons the same or will this
research be able to identify different motives?
3 Method of research
This section discusses the study area, the process of col-
lecting the data (description of the questionnaire used),
and a discussion on how the data were handled and
analysed.
3.1 Study area
A quantitative research approach was followed through
a standardised questionnaire. The research population
for this research was farmers from all nine provinces of
South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal; Mpumalanga; Limpopo;
Gauteng; North West; Free State; Eastern Cape; Northern
Cape; Western Cape).Figure 3 is a map of South Africa that
also illustrates the nine provinces as well as the capital
cities of each province.
3.2 Data collection procedures
A standard questionnaire was designed for this quantita-
tive research. The questionnaire consisted of four sec-
tions, but for this study, only the results from Section A
and a part of Section B were to be used in order to create a
profile of the respondents (farmers)who answered the
questionnaires; the researchers wanted to understand
the main agri-tourism activities and attractions currently
offered on farms and the motives for implementing these
activities and attractions. The questionnaire was devel-
oped based on the work of Barbieri and Tew [55], Brown
and Hershey [56], and Statistics South Africa [57]. The
four sections were as follows:
(A)The first section was aimed at gathering information
about the farmer and his or her farm. Basic demo-
graphic questions were included in order to under-
stand the profile of the respondents, for example,
gender, year of birth, and level of education. Other
questions were tailored to understand the profile of a
farmer with regard to the farm setup.
(B)The second section only focused on agri-tourism
activities. First, a basic question was asked to iden-
tify the number of years the farmer has been offering
agri-tourism. Next, farmers were asked about their
motives for offering agri-tourism. Based on the 47
agri-tourism activities and attractions provided, farmers
were asked to indicate what activities/attractions they
were offering and what they planned to offer within the
next five years.
(C)This section identified different marketing elements
used by the respondents.
(D)The last section was based on three open questions
about the expansions that respondents are planning
for the future, how they would suggest improvement
and growth for agri-tourism, and any other suggestions.
For the selection of respondents from the population,
a non-probability sampling method, more specifically a
convenience (non-probability)sampling, was used. Two
different platforms were used to collect the data: First, an
e-questionnaire was sent to members of different agricul-
tural organisations such as Agri-SA and their provincial
affiliations. There were approximately 80 questionnaires
The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism 541

collected through this method, also known as computer-
administered data collection. Second, questionnaires were
distributed by the researcher among the respondents at agri-
cultural events across South Africa. Different organisations
involved in the development and management of agriculture
in South Africa assisted with this distribution, including the
largest agricultural event, the annual NAMPO Harvest Day
(2018). Approximately 480 questionnaires were collected
through this method.
In the end, a total of 557 useable questionnaires were
received, of which only 148 respondents indicated that
they were offering agri-tourism activities and attractions
on their farms. This resulted in 26.6% of the respondents.
The 148 respondents hosting agri-tourism on their land
were used for the data analysis of this study.
3.3 Data handling and analysis
Data were exported to Microsoft® Office Excel 2016, in
which graphs and charts were created in order to visually
understand the basic findings of the data. Next, the data
were analysed by using the SPSS software version 22.0
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), which allows
for more complex findings. An exploratory factor analysis
(EFA)was performed in order to understand the motives
that drove farmers to implement agri-tourism on their
farms. Table 1 lists the two factors identified with 62.9%
of the variance explained.
To establish whether the analysed data are accep-
table for an EFA, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used
to confirm the patterned relationships, as pshould be
smaller than 0.05 [58]. For these data, Bartlett’s test indi-
cated that the value of pis 0.000, which confirmed that
factor analysis of satisfactory degree should be used, sup-
ported by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure (KMO)of
sampling adequacy, to determine if the sampling was
adequate. An adequate sample has a KMO value larger
than 0.50 [58]. For this study, the KMO value was 0.866.
Based on the two factors identified, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient (α)values were between 0.863 and 0.901, indi-
cating that the internal consistencies were “good”(α>
0.8)and “excellent”(α>0.9)[59]. Table 1 also identifies
the mean values (ranging from 2.6287 to 3.1919 based on a
five-point Likert scale)and the values of the inter-item
correlations (ranging from 0.472 to 0.645). These results
Figure 3: A map of South Africa [54].
542 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe

indicate that the EFA is acceptable and can be used to
interpret the results.
4 Results and discussion
The results section is divided into the characteristics of
the respondents (their demographic profile), the pre-
ferred activities provided, and the motives for offering
agri-tourism on farms.
4.1 Characteristics of the respondents
The demographic characteristics of the 148 respondents
who indicated that they are offering some form of agri-
tourism on their farm are illustrated in Table 2. The ques-
tionnaire was mainly submitted to the farmer/farm owner/
farm manager to complete. As the agriculture industry is
still mainly male-dominated [60], most of the respondents
(farmers)in this survey were male (87.7%)and between
the ages of 40 and 59 (44.2%); 50.3% of the respondents
obtained a diploma or degree, and 26.2% were fifth gen-
eration (or more)farmers on the land. The profile of the
respondents of this study is similar to the profile of farmers
in Canada in terms of age, education, and multigenera-
tional characteristics [48], except that 68.8% Canadian
farmers were male. Farmers in the Caribbean are also described
as mainly older (above 50)and male [61].Thirty-one percent
(31.7%)of the respondents who were offering agri-tourism
Table 1: Factor analysis: motives for offering agri-tourism
Motives for offering agri-tourism Factor 1 Factor 2
Preservation of culture and heritage Economic advantages
To preserve the rural heritage and traditions 0.914
To preserve natural resources and ecosystems 0.854
To preserve the farm and farmland 0.819
To share the agricultural heritage and rural lifestyles with visitors 0.803
To educate the visitors and public about agriculture 0.821
To provide quality local products 0.416
To generate an additional income 0.916
To diversify farming activities 0.830
To use the farm’s resources to its fullest potential 0.565
To provide job opportunities for family members/relatives 0.554
To provide job opportunities for the local community 0.531
To provide recreational activities for visitors 0.500
Cronbach’s alpha 0.901 0.863
Mean 2.6287 3.1919
Inter-item correlation 0.645 0.472
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation.
Total variance explained: 62.903%.
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Characteristics Number Valid percentage (%)
Gender (n=146)
Male 128 87.7
Female 18 12.2
Age (n=120)
Below 25 15 12.5
25–39 28 23.3
40–59 53 44.2
Above 60 24 20.0
Education (n=143)
No school 1 0.7
Matric/Grade 12 34 23.8
Diploma, degree 72 50.3
Post-graduate 29 20.3
Professional 7 4.9
Generation farmer (n=141)
First 28 19.9
Second 24 17.0
Third 26 18.4
Fourth 26 18.4
Fifth or more 37 26.2
Member of tourism association (n=142)
Yes 45 31.7
No 96 67.6
The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism 543

on their farms indicated that they form part of a tourism
association.
4.2 Popular agri-tourism activities and
attractions
Forty-seven (47)agri-tourism activities and attractions
were identified and used in the research; in the results,
each type of activity and attraction was presented at least
once. Based on the work of Bernardo et al. [28], the five
categories that agri-tourism activities and attractions
can be divided into are outdoor recreation, educational
experiences, entertainment, hospitality services, and
on-farm direct sales. The same activity categories were
used for this study.
Table 3 lists the top activities and attractions in each
of the five categories of agri-tourism of this study. The
most popular agri-tourism activities and attractions offered
in South Africa that were identified in this study are farm
stay/accommodation; hunting; hiking trails/nature trails;
wildlife viewing and photography; cycling; farm tours;
fishing; bird watching; wedding and special events on
farms; picnicking; camping; social events; animal rides;
restaurants; mountain climbing; water activities; and off-
road vehicles driving/4 ×4 routes, thereby falling under
the categories of outdoor recreation and hospitality services.
4.3 Motives for hosting agri-tourism
Based on the twelve constructs tested in the question-
naire to determine motives [5,6,49,55]of farmers to offer
agri-tourism on their farms, the following two factors are
presented:
The first factor (Factor 1)was named preservation of
culture and heritage. It includes constructs such as to
preserve the rural heritage and traditions;to preserve nat-
ural resources and ecosystems;to preserve the farm and
farmland;to share the agricultural heritage and rural life-
style with visitors; and to educate the visitors and public
about agriculture. The mean value of this factor is 2.6287,
making it the least important factor of the two.
This preservation factor is supported by the research
of LaPan and Barbieri [52], who found in their study on
the role of agri-tourism in heritage preservation that pre-
serving rural heritage was the most important motive for
offering tangible heritage preservation on an agri-tourism
farm. Many researchers have identified education as a
core element in agri-tourism and include education when
defining any form of agri-tourism [36,62,63]. Chase et al.
[53]agreed that both educating the public on the agricul-
tural industry and building goodwill with the community
were essential motives for the farmers when developing
agri-tourism. It was not the case with this research,
although education was one of the constructs under
this factor.
The second factor (Factor 2),economic advantages,
includes constructs such as to provide quality local pro-
ducts; to generate an additional income; to diversify
farming activities; to use farm resources to its fullest
potential; to provide job opportunities for family mem-
bers/relatives; to provide job opportunities for local com-
munities; and to provide recreational activities for visitors.
The mean value of this factor is 3.1919, which is the
highest factor of the two, thus making it the most impor-
tant factor for South African farmers to offer agri-tourism
on their farms.
According to Flanigan et al. [64], the financial or
economic motive is one of the most important motives
for offering agri-tourism; different researchers support
this finding [65–67]. Both farm resources (tangible)and
Table 3: Agri-tourism activities and attractions
Agri-tourism activities/attractions Number of farmers
offering (n=148)
Outdoor recreation
Hunting 85
Hiking trails/nature trails 51
Wildlife viewing and photography 49
Cycling 44
Fishing 35
Bird watching 34
Picnicking 30
Educational experiences
Farm tours 44
Historical memorials 13
Food and beverage pairing 11
Entertainment
Concerts 14
Barn dance 12
Hospitality service
Farm stay/accommodation 101
Wedding and special event on
farms
34
Social events 27
On-farm direct sales
Roadside stands/farm stalls 14
U-pick operations 12
544 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe

human resources (job opportunities)were identified by
Hung et al. [68]as essential to any agri-tourism farm.
Choo and Park [69]identified agri-tourism as one of the
most popular alternatives to the use of farm resources
for more revenue. Economic motives and personal and
family motives (to provide job opportunities for family
members/relatives)were separated by Cassia et al. [51];
their study found personal and family motives to be the
most important and economic motives the least impor-
tant in Italy. This research concurs with previous work by
Nickerson et al. [45]and LaPan and Barbieri [52], who
identified an increase in revenue as the most important
motive of farmers for hosting agri-tourism.
4.4 Discussion
Based on the two factors identified, the most important
motive of farmers was an economic advantage (mean
value: 3.1919); as they say in South Africa, “If it pays, it
stays.”Farmers in South Africa must use their resources
(farms)to their fullest potential to generate income, as
they face a number of challenges, including a low level of
education and skills among workers (especially among
farmworkers), a lack of access to credit, globalisation
challenges, the impacts of climate change, water pro-
blems (both drought and flooding), and the basic risk
and vulnerability of the farmers and their workers [69].
This is supported by Nickerson et al. [45]who identified
the same economic advantages as motives for farmers to
offer agri-tourism in Montana (USA). Similar motives
were found in Australia by Ollenburg and Buckley [47]
as an additional income was necessary when considering
family as well.
Based on these challenges, farmers need an addi-
tional income source and respondents indicated that
agri-tourism had been considered as this source. It is,
however, important to note that not all farms are suitable
for agri-tourism. There are two decisive aspects: first, the
location of the land, in other words, the distance from the
source market; and second, possible products and activ-
ities [70]. Location is critical in tourism product develop-
ment [71,72]. If farms are too far from the source market,
this might not work; if they are situated nearer (2–3h
drive)to the big cities or towns, it increases the chance
of success, especially if situated next to important routes
that travellers use to travel through South Africa or close
to other important tourism products (e.g., a national
park). Farmers must also be able to provide the tourist
with a product [73,74].
5 Conclusion
Agri-tourism offers a variety of advantages to farmers
who host agri-tourism on their farm, namely economic
benefits, job creation, community upliftment, and preser-
vation. This study was conducted to fill the void on rea-
sons why farmers in South African offer agri-tourism on
their land. The two motives were revenue generation
(economic)and preservation of culture and heritage.
The research found similar motives to those previously
identified in different countries, of which economic rea-
sons were the most commonly found motive. This con-
firms that the motives of farmers for hosting agri-tourism
are similar in different countries (preservation of culture
and heritage, education, economical/revenue generation,
and diversify farming activities). Therefore, one can say
that the situation on farms is similar and that farmers
experience similar problems, of which the most impor-
tant one is revenue generation. This research contribu-
tion lies in the following: first, this is the first study of its
kind conducted in South Africa; second, the study iden-
tified for the first time the motives of South African
farmers for offering agri-tourism; and last, the essential
agri-tourism activities were pinned down.
The motives identified also raise a number of questions
for future research. How can farm resources be redirected
towards agri-tourism activities and attractions? What
type of agri-tourism activities or attractions generate
the most income? How should natural resources be pre-
served through agri-tourism? What type of recreational
activities would tourists be interested in on a farm?
This research contribution lies in the following: first,
this is the first study of its kind conducted in South
Africa; second, the study identified for the first time the
motives of South African agri-tourism products. As agri-
tourism research is still relatively new in South Africa and
research is limited to South African case studies, this
research presents the starting point for agri-tourism lit-
erature in South Africa that future researchers can build
on to create a better understanding of agri-tourism in the
country.
It is recommended that if there is an old farmhouse or
stables that can be transformed into accommodation, this
is a plus. Wildlife, beautiful nature, or a working farm
will further contribute to the possible products that can
be developed. The key product and activities from this
study are listed in Table 3, which farmers can now use
to see whether they will be able to host agri-tourism
successfully.
It is also advisable to obtain professional help, as
farmers are familiar with farming, but tourism is a
The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism 545

completely different industry in which service product
development and experience are key aspects of success.
This might be one of the essential reasons why farmers
sometimes struggle to develop tourism products on their
land [1,74].
Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge multiple
South African agricultural organisations for their assis-
tance in promoting this research, including AgriSA and
their provincial affiliations, TAU South Africa, and Potatoes
South Africa.
Funding information: Funding was received from NWU
TREES to assist with the distribution of questionnaires.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of
interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during
and/or analysed during the current study are available in
the Boloka Institutional Repository, https://repository.
nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/33095/Van%20Zyl_CC_
2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
References
[1]Moraru RA, Ungureanu G, Bodescu D, Donosa D. Motivations
and challenges for entrepreneurs in agritourism. Agron Ser Sci
Res/Lucrari Stiintifice Ser Agron. 2016;59(1):267–73.
[2]Weaver DB. Tourism and the elusive paradigm of sustainable
development. In: Lew AA, Hall CM, Williams AM, editors.
A companion to tourism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd;
2004. p. 510–21
[3]Torres RM, Momsen JH. Introduction. In: Torres RM,
Momsen JH, editors. Tourism and agriculture: new geogra-
phies of consumption, production and rural restructuring. New
York: Routledge; 2011. p. 1–9
[4]Karthik D, Gajanand P. Agri-tourism –an overview; 2017.
Available from: https://www.biotecharticles.com/PDF_
Articles/Agri_toutism_BA_4135.pdf
[5]Malkanthi S, Routry J. Potential for agritourism development:
evedance from Sri Lanka. J Agric Sci. 2011;6(1):45–57.
doi: 10.4038/jas.v6i1.3812.
[6]Tew C, Barbieri C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: the
provider’s perspective. Tour Manag. 2012;33(1):215–24.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005.
[7]Walden J, Webb A, Hobbs D, Hepler K. A three-year action plan
for the promotion of agritourism in the state of Colorado.
Colorado: Walden Mills Group. (Cultural, heritage and agri-
tourism strategic plan); 2013. Available from: https://www.
colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/HAgPLANFINAL.pdf
[8]Chase LC, Stewart M, Schilling B, Smith B, Walk M.
Agritourism: toward a conceptual framework for industry
analysis. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev. 2018;8(1):13–9.
doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2018.081.016.
[9]Van Zyl CC. The size and scope of agri-tourism in South Africa.
Master’s degree. Potchefstroom: North-West University; 2019.
[10]Tibane E, editor. Pocket guide to South Africa 2015/16. 13th ed.
Pretoria: Government Communications and Information
System (GCIS); 2016. Available from: https://www.gcis.gov.
za/sites/default/files/docs/resourcecentre/pocketguide/
PocketGuide15-16SA_foreword.pdf
[11]Plecher H. South Africa: distribution of gross domestic product
(GDP)across economic sectors from 2009 to 2019; 2020.
Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/371233/
south-africa-gdp-distribution-across-economic-sectors/
[12]South Africa. Tourism sector recovery plan, COVID-19
response; 2020. Available from: https://www.tralac.org/
documents/resources/covid-19/countries/3992-south-africa-
tourism-sector-recovery-plan-covid-19-response-august-
2020-request-for-comments/file.html
[13]Myer S, De Crom E. Agritourism activities in the Mopani District
municipality, Limpopo province, South Africa: perceptions
and opportunities. TD: J Transdis Res South Afr.
2013;9(2):295–308.
[14]Van Niekerk C. The benefits of agritourism: two case studies in
the Western Cape. Master’s degree. Stellenbosch:
Stellenbosch University; 2013.
[15]Ferreira SL, Muller R. Innovating the wine tourism product:
food-and-wine pairing in Stellenbosch wine routes. Afr J Phys
Health Edu Recreat Dance. 2013;19(Suppl 3):72–85.
doi: 10.4314/AJPHERD.V19I0.
[16]Fourie M. Factors influencing visitor loyalty at an agri-festival
in South Africa. Master’s degree. Potchefstroom: North-West
University; 2014.
[17]Jȩczmyk A, Uglis J, Graja-Zwolińska S, Maćkowiak M,
Spychała A, Sikora J. Research note: economic benefits of
agritourism development in Poland: an empirical study.
Tour Econ. 2015;21(5):1120–6.
[18]Bwana M, Olima WH, Andika D, Agong SG, Hayombe P.
Agritourism: potential socio-economic impacts in Kisumu
County. IOSR J Humanities Soc Sci. 2015;20(3):78–88.
doi: 10.9790/0837-20377888.
[19]Mastronardi L, Giaccio V, Giannelli A, Scardera A. Is agri-
tourism eco-friendly? A comparison between agritourisms and
other farms in Italy using farm accountancy data network
dataset. SpringerPlus. 2015;4(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40064-
015-1353-4.
[20]Petroman I, Varga M, Constantin EC, Petroman C, Momir B,
Turc B, et al. Agritourism: an educational tool for the students
with agro-food profile. Proc Econ Financ. 2016;39(1):83–7.
doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30244-1.
[21]Rong-Da Liang A. Considering the role of agritourism co-
creation from a service-dominant logic perspective. Tour
Manag. 2017;61:354–67. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.002.
[22]Lupi C, Giaccio V, Mastronardi L, Giannelli A, Scardera A.
Exploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to
rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy.
2017;64(1):383–90. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.002.
[23]Fleischer A, Tchetchik A, Bar-Nahum Z, Talev E. Is agriculture
important to agritourism? The agritourism attraction market in
Israel. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2018;45(2):273–96. doi: 10.1093/
erae/jbx039.
546 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe

[24]Canovi M, Lyon A. Family-centred motivations for agritourism
diversification: the case of the Langhe Region, Italy.
Tour Plan Dev. 2020;17(6):591–610. doi: 10.1080/
21568316.2019.1650104.
[25]Quella L, Chase L, Wang W, Conner D, Hollas C, LeffP, et al.
Agritourism and on-farm direct sales interviews: report of
qualitative findings; 2021. Available from: https://www.uvm.
edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/
US_Interview_Report.pdf
[26]Wearing S, Neil J. Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possi-
bilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.
[27]Page SJ, Dowling RK. Ecotourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall; 2002.
[28]Bernardo D, Valentin L, Leatherman J. Agritourism: if we build
it, will they come. Paper presented at Risk and Profit
Conference; 2002 Aug 19–20; Manhattan, Kansas. Manhattan:
AgManager Info; 2004. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.
psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.512.1330&rep=rep1&
type=pdf
[29]Liu Y, Ji D, Zhang L, An J, Sun W. Rural financial development
impacts on agricultural technology innovation: evidence from
China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1110–27.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031110.
[30]Roman M, Roman M, Prus P. Innovations in agritourism:
evidence from a region in Poland. Sustainability.
2020;12:4858–79. doi: 10.3390/su12124858.
[31]Gukushu MC. A critical assessment of innovation as a
determinant of tourism competitiveness. PhD thesis.
Potchefstroom: North-West University; 2018.
[32]DudićZ, DudićB, MirkovićV. An important determinant of the
success of innovations –the commercialization of innova-
tions. In: AleksićVS, editor. Proceedings of the 4th
International Scientific Conference on contemporary issues in
economic, business and management; 2016 Nov 9–10;
Kragujevac, The Republic of Serbia. Belgrade: PRESSIA ltd;
2016. p. 21–8.
[33]Khanal AR, Mishra AK. Agritourism and off‐farm work: survival
strategies for small farms. Agric Econ. 2014;45(Suppl):65–76.
doi: 10.1111/agec.12130.
[34]Balamurugan A, Kannan R, Nagarajan SK. Rural tourism
development constraints and possibilities with a special
reference to Agri-Tourism: a case study on Cashew agri-
tourism destination –Rajendrapattinam Village in
Vriddachalam Taluk of Cauddalore Districs, Tamil Nadu. In:
Manhas PS, editor. Sustainable and Responsible tourism:
trends, practices and case. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private
Limited; 2012. p. 42–53
[35]Jensen KL, Bruch Leffew M, Menard RJ, English BC. Analysis of
factors influencing agritourism businesses perceptions about
expansion. J Food Distrib Res. 2014;45(2):118–34.
[36]Pittman HM. Planting the seeds for a new industry in Arkansas:
Agritourism. An Agricultural Law Research Article. The National
Agricultural Law Center; 2006. Available from: https://
nationalaglawcenter.org/publication/view/pittman-planting-
the-seeds-for-a-new-industry-in-arkansas-agritourism-
national-aglaw-center-publications-2006/
[37]Privitera D. Factors of development of competitiveness: the
case of organic-agritourism. Proceedings of the 113th
EAAE Seminar: the Role of Knowledge, Innovation and
Human Capital in Multifunctional Agriculture and
Territorial Rural Development, December 9–11, 2009.
Belgrade, Republic of Serbia: European Association of
Agricultural Economists; 2009.
[38]Saayman M, Snyman JA. Entrepreneurship: tourism style.
Potchefstroom: Leisure C Publications; 2005.
[39]Schilling BJ, Marxen LJ, Heinrich HH, Brooks FJ. The opportunity
for agritourism development in New Jersey. New Brunswick:
Food Policy Institute; 2006.
[40]Van Zyl C, Saayman M. Determining the size and scope of agri-
tourism in South Africa. In: Maurer C, Siller HJ, editors.
Proceedings of the 7th ISCONTOUR 2019 Tourism Research
Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Student
Conference in Tourism Research; Innsbruck, Austria.
Norderstedt: BoD –Books on Demand; 2019 Apr 13–14.
p. 187–98
[41]Saayman M. Hospitality, leisure and tourism management.
Potchefstroom: Institute for Tourism and Leisure
Studies; 2009.
[42]Saayman M, editor. En route with tourism: an introductory
text. 4th ed. Claremont: Juta & Company Ltd; 2013.
[43]Sharpley R, Sharpley J. Rural tourism. An introduction.
London: International Thomson Business Press; 1997.
[44]Phelan C, Sharpley R. Exploring agritourism entrepreneurship
in the U.K. Tour Plan Dev. 2011;8(2):121–36. doi: 10.1080/
21568316.2011.573912.
[45]Nickerson NP, Black RJ, McCool SF. Agritourism: motivations
behind farm/ranch business diversification. J Travel Res.
2001;40(1):19–26.
[46]Sharpley R, Vass A. Tourism, farming and diversification:
an attitudinal study. Tour Manag. 2006;27(5):1040–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.10.025.
[47]Ollenburg C, Buckley R. Stated economic and social motiva-
tions of farm tourism operators. J Travel Res.
2007;45(4):444–52. doi: 10.1177/0047287507299574.
[48]Barbieri C. An importance-performance analysis of the moti-
vations behind agritourism and other farm enterprise devel-
opments in Canada. J Rural Commun Dev. 2010;5(1–2):1–20.
ISSN: 1712-8277.
[49]Schilling BJ, Sullivan KP, Komar SJ. Examining the economic
benefits of agritourism: the case of New Jersey. J Agric Food
Syst Commun Dev. 2012;3(1):199–214. doi: 10.5304/
jafscd.2012.031.011.
[50]Santucci FM. Agritourism for rural development in Italy, evo-
lution, situation and perspectives. J Econ Manag Trade.
2013;3(3):186–200.
[51]Cassia F, Bruni A, Magno F. Heritage preservation: is it a
motivation for agritourism entrepreneurship? Proceedings
of the 27th Annual Sinergie Conference; Campobasso, Italy;
2015 Jul 9–10. p. 565–74
[52]LaPan C, Barbieri C. The role of agritourism in heritage pre-
servation. Curr Issues Tour. 2014;17(8):666–73. doi: 10.1080/
13683500.2013.849667.
[53]Chase L, Wang W, Bartlett R, Conner D, Quella L, Hollas C.
Agritourism and on-farm direct sales survey: results from
Vermont; 2021. Available from: https://www.uvm.edu/sites/
default/files/Vermont-Tourism-Research-Center/survey/
Vermont-Agritourism-Survey-Report-012021.pdf
[54]Orange Smile. South Africa. Provinces map of South Africa;
2021. Available from: https://www.orangesmile.com/
common/img_country_maps_provinces/south-africa-map-
provinces-0.jpg
The motives of South African farmers for offering agri-tourism 547

[55]Barbieri C, Tew C. A preliminary assessment of agritourism in
Missouri. Columbia: University of Missouri & Missouri
Department of Agriculture; 2009. Available from: https://
agrimissouri.com/pdf/agritourismsurvey.pdf
[56]Brown L, Hershey C. Wisconsin agritourism survey report.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Center for
Community & Economic Development; 2012. p. 2012. Available
from: https://crawford.extension.wisc.edu/files/2010/05/
2012-WI-Agritourism-Survey.pdf
[57]Statistics South Africa. Agriculture Survey 2012 (Preliminary).
(P1101); 2013. Available from: http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/
publications/P1101/P11012012.pdf
[58]Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis:
focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant
Methods Psychol. 2013;9(2):79–94. doi: 10.20982/
tqmp.09.2.p079.
[59]Jain S, Angural V. Use of Cronbach’s alpha in dental research.
Med Res Chron. 2017;4(3):285–91. ISSN: 2394-3971.
[60]Shisler RC, Sbicca J. Agriculture as carework: the contradic-
tions of performing femininity in a male-dominated occupa-
tion. Soc Nat Resour. 2019;32(8):875–92. doi: 10.1080/
08941920.2019.1597234.
[61]Thomas A, Moore A, Edwards M. Feeding island dreams:
exploring the relationship between food security and agri-
tourism in the Caribbean. Isl Stud J. 2018;13(2):145–62.
doi: 10.24043/isj.66.
[62]Arroyo CG, Barbieri C, Rich SR. Defining agritourism: a com-
parative study of stakeholders’perceptions in Missouri and
North Carolina. Tour Manag. 2013;37:39–47. doi: 10.1016/
j.tourman.2012.12.007.
[63]Irshad H. Rural tourism –an overview. Canada: Rural
Development Division, Government of Alberta; 2010.
[64]Flanigan S, Blackstock K, Hunter C. Generating public and
private benefits through understanding what drives different
types of agritourism. J Rural Stud. 2015;41(1):129–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.002.
[65]Busby G, Rendle S. The transition from tourism on farms to
farm tourism. Tour Manag. 2000;21(6):635–42. doi: 10.1016/
S0261-5177(00)00011-X.
[66]Getz D, Carlsen J. Characteristics and goals of family and
owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospi-
tality sectors. Tour Manag. 2000;21(6):547–60. doi: 10.1016/
S0261-5177(00)00004-2.
[67]Weaver DB, Fennell DA. The vacation farm sector in
Saskatchewan: a profile of operations. Tour Manag.
1997;18(6):357–65. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00039-3.
[68]Hung W-T, Ding H-Y, Lin S-T. Determinants of performance for
agritourism farms: an alternative approach. Curr Issues Tour.
2016;19(13):1281–7. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2015.1037254.
[69]Choo H, Park D-B. The role of agritourism farms’characteris-
tics on the performance: a case study of agritourism farm in
South Korea. Int J Hospitality Tour Adm. 2020;1–14.
doi: 10.1080/15256480.2020.1769520.
[70]Sadowski A, Wojcieszak MM. Geographic differentiation of
agritourism activities in Poland vs. cultural and natural
attractiveness of destinations at district level. PLoS One.
2019;14(9):e0222576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222576.
[71]Enright MJ, Newton J. Determinants of tourism destination
competitiveness in Asia Pacific: comprehensiveness and uni-
versality. J Travel Res. 2005;43(4):339–50. doi: 10.1177/
0047287505274647.
[72]Ramsey D, Malcolm CD. The importance of location and scale
in rural and small town tourism product development: the case
of the Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre, Manitoba, Canada.
Can Geog/Le Géog Canadien. 2018;62(2):250–65.
doi: 10.1111/cag.12409.
[73]Colton JW, Bissix G. Developing agritourism in Nova Scotia:
Issues and challenges. J Sustain Agric. 2005;27(1):91–112.
doi: 10.1300/J064v27n01_06.
[74]Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K. A typology for defining
agritourism. Tour Manag. 2010;31(6):754–8. doi: 10.1016/
j.tourman.2009.08.001.
548 Christelle Charlien van Zyl and Peet van der Merwe