Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.;
Hassan, S.S.; Fayyad, S. Farm-to-Fork
and Sustainable Agriculture Practices:
Perceived Economic Benefit as a
Moderator and Environmental
Sustainability as a Mediator.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151411462
Academic Editors: Tiziana Amoriello
and Roberto Ciccoritti
Received: 14 June 2023
Revised: 12 July 2023
Accepted: 21 July 2023
Published: 24 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Farm-to-Fork and Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Perceived
Economic Benefit as a Moderator and Environmental
Sustainability as a Mediator
Ibrahim A. Elshaer 1, 2, * , Alaa M. S. Azazz 3, 4, * , Salah S. Hassan 5and Sameh Fayyad 2,6
1Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt;
sameh.fayyad@tourism.suez.edu.eg
3Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
4Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
5School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA; hassan@gwu.edu
6Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
*Correspondence: ielshaer@kfu.edu.sa (I.A.E.); aazazz@kfu.edu.sa (A.M.S.A.)
Abstract:
In recent years, there has been growing interest in promoting sustainable agriculture and
reducing the environmental impact of the food system. One approach to achieving these goals is
through farm-to-Fork (FTF) sourcing, which involves direct procurement of food products from
local farms to restaurants table. This approach has been touted as a way to support sustainable
agriculture and decrease the carbon footprint of the food supply chain. This study aims to explore
the relationship between farm-to-fork sourcing, perceived economic benefit, and environmental
sustainability. Specifically, the research examines the moderating effect of the perceived economic
benefit as well as the mediating role of environmental sustainability in the relationship between
farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing and sustainable agriculture practices. To investigate these relationships,
a web-based questionnaire was designed and collected from 298 farmers. The collected data were
analyzed via PLS-SEM. The results of the study suggest that farm-to-fork sourcing has a positive
impact on sustainable agriculture practices and both perceived economic benefit and environmental
sustainability have a moderating and mediating role in these relationships. This finding is consistent
with the idea that direct procurement of food from local farms can lead to economic benefits for both
farmers and restaurants, while also reducing the carbon footprint of the food supply chain.
Keywords:
farm-to-fork; sustainable agriculture; environmental sustainability; perceived economic
benefit; green management; sustainable performance
1. Introduction
Conventional agricultural production practices refer to the methods used in modern-
day farming that rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified crops to
boost yields. While these practices have led to significant increases in crop productivity,
they have also created a range of problems that threaten the long-term sustainability of
our food production systems. The need for more sustainable, regenerative agricultural
practices is becoming increasingly urgent as we confront the challenges of climate change,
and resource depletion [1]. In Africa, traditional agriculture management procedures and
associated land usage shifts account for one-third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [
2
,
3
].
These environmental problems are expected to be aggravated by the increasing demand
for the food production to fulfill needs and the expected dietary changes [
4
]. Scholars
asserted that increasing production to satisfy the demand for dietary changes must be
achieved alongside reduced GHG emissions. In sum, sustainable agroecosystems must be
built to fulfil today’s food and other product demands while also protecting the essential
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411462 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 2 of 16
natural resource base that will let future generations satisfy their needs [
5
]. Thus, increasing
agriculture production efficiency, enhancing farming techniques that depend on local
resources, and designing resilient strategies in the face of a changing climate all necessitate
extensive sustainable agricultural practices [
6
]. According to the Abdelrazek and El Khafif
study conducted in Egypt, sustainable agricultural practices result in water savings of
60–70%, savings in energy network power of 80–90%, chemical fertilizer savings of 60–70%,
and savings in spraying of >50% [
7
]. While it has been proven that agricultural techniques
supporting the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of farming are effective,
the widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is lacking [1].
Previous research has highlighted economic constraints, social variables, farmer char-
acteristics, sustainable practice qualities, information development and dissemination,
production marketing, and infrastructural conditions as obstacles to implementing sustain-
able agricultural practices [
1
,
8
–
10
]. Therefore, adopting these sustainable practices typically
necessitates explicit incentives, substantial effort on the part of farmers, and the cooperation
of public–private and government partnerships at the local and national levels [
11
]. In the
same vein, according to Musa and Chin [
12
], farm-to-fork (FTF) agritourism activities can
support sustainable development in rural destinations (including sustainable agricultural
practices). Through FTF practices, farmers have a regulated capitalization of sustainable
agricultural manufacture and associations with its consumers without the involvement of a
third party. The farm-to-fork (FTF) concept reflects the interdependence among agriculture
as a main food source of local activities and tourism as a booster of local agricultural food
goods and activities [
13
]. Thus, FTF activities, as a form of sustainable agritourism, are sure
to improve local environmental sustainability by supporting the host community’s quality
of life, supplying a high-quality experience for guests, and maintaining environmental
quality on which, both the host community and guests rely [14–16].
Developing countries have meager adoption rates of sustainable agricultural
practices [17]
;
here, some studies identified economic factors as a significant obstacle during the transition
and implementation of sustainable agricultural practices, particularly when new equipment
and supplies are required, as well as the low income level of farmers [
18
,
19
]. However, we
argue that agriculture–tourism partnerships through the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach can
enable farmers to overcome the economic barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices
through mutual economic benefits resulting from the shortened supply chain [20].
Previous research discussed different barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural
practices, but they have yet to concentrate mainly on developing countries [
21
–
24
]. Still,
they need to address agriculture–tourism partnerships as a tool for the success of sustainable
agricultural practice adoption. Consequently, our study endeavors to seal this gap by
(1) testing
the role of the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach in boosting sustainable agricultural
practices, (2) exploring the mediating role of environmental sustainability between the farm-
to-fork (FTF) approach and sustainable agricultural practices, and lastly, (3) conducting
an assessment of the moderating role of perceived economic benefits in the relationship
between environmental sustainability and sustainable agriculture. As far as the authors
are aware, this research is among the initial studies to investigate these direct, moderating,
and mediating connections within a single model and setting, utilizing PLS-SEM as the
primary approach for analyzing the data.
2. The Context of Egypt
Egypt, a country that heavily relies on tourism, has recently taken steps towards a more
sustainable tourism industry. The country’s tourism industry has faced several challenges
over the years, including political instability and security concerns [
25
]. In response, the
government has launched the “Egypt Sustainable Tourism Initiative” aimed at promoting
responsible and sustainable tourism practices. The initiative aims to balance the country’s
economic needs with environmental and cultural preservation [
26
]. It focuses on three main
pillars: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability [
27
].
In addition to the Egypt Sustainable Tourism Initiative aimed at promoting responsible
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 3 of 16
and sustainable tourism practices [
28
], Egypt has also taken steps towards implementing
farm-to-fork (FTF) practices in its tourism industry.
Farm-to-fork (FTF) practices involve sourcing food directly from local farmers and
producers and using it in restaurants and hotels [
12
]. There are numerous advantages to
this, such as decreasing the environmental repercussions of food transportation, bolstering
local economies, and offering tourists fresher and healthier food choices. The Egyptian
government has recognized the potential of farm-to-fork (FTF) practices in promoting
sustainable tourism and supporting local farmers [
29
]. As a result, several initiatives
have been launched to promote the use of locally sourced food in the tourism industry.
One such initiative is the “from farm to fork or F2F” initiative launched last 2020 for
a healthy and eco-friendly food system [
30
]. This initiative is a part of the “European
Green Deal.” It is “a comprehensive 10-year strategy aiming to address the challenges of
producing and consuming our food in a fair and sustainable way by reconciling what we
eat within the capacity of our planet” [
31
]. This approach primarily aims to achieve five
goals:
(1) guaranteeing
sustainable food production and its security; (2) lowering food
loss and waste; (3) encouraging sustainable food consumption and easing the transition to
sustainable, healthy diets; (4) encouraging sustainable food processing, wholesale, retail,
hospitality, and food services practices; and (5) combating food fraud along the food supply
chain [
31
]. According to studies, these five bases, for example, can successfully achieve a
50% pesticide reduction in general [
32
], decrease applied pesticide quantities by more than
60% based on canopy attributes in apple trees to lower environmental risks [
30
,
33
], and
improve the proportion of “organic agriculture” to up to 25% by 2030 [
34
]. Accordingly,
hotels and restaurants strived to use local, seasonal, and organic ingredients in their menus
and work directly with local farmers and producers [
35
]. This not only supports local
businesses and communities but also provides tourists with an authentic and unique
culinary experience. Another initiative aims to promote food safety and hygiene standards
in hotels and restaurants, while also encouraging the use of locally sourced food [
35
]. This
helps ensure that tourists can enjoy fresh and healthy food options while also supporting
local farmers and producers [
36
]. Egypt’s focus on farm-to-fork (FTF) practices (as in Siwa
city [
36
]) is not only beneficial for the tourism industry but also supports the country’s
overall sustainable development goals. By promoting sustainable agriculture practices and
reducing food transportation, the initiative helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
conserve natural resources [37].
3. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Formulation
3.1. Farm-to-Fork (FTF) Concept and Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable agricultural practices are agricultural methods that promote efficiency in
using natural resources while also reducing the environmental consequences of agriculture
and boosting farmers’ adaptive ability to climate change [
38
,
39
]. In general, sustainable
agriculture was described as “an agriculture/farming system in sustainable ways to satisfy
people’s present food and textile needs, without compromising the ability for contempo-
rary or next generations to acquire their needs based on an understanding of ecosystem
services” [40]
. Conservation agriculture methods such as mulching, no-tillage, crop rota-
tion, soil conservation, and intercropping, as well as climate-smart agriculture techniques
such as pit implanting, the use of biological manure, agroforestry, water-based harvesting
systems, alternative marketing, and erosion management bunds are examples of sustain-
able agricultural practices [
3
]. Green farmers also increasingly rely on the intelligent
re-engineering of manufacture techniques to aid in the interior control of pests and soil
fertility, careful control of modern power and rainfall, and dependence on local sources
instead of imported materials [
5
]. Adopting sustainable agricultural practices, then, re-
sults in sustainable agricultural performance (e.g., economic, social, and environmental)
through enhancing yields and family income [
41
], enhancing food safety and economic
development [
42
], lowering or eliminating the usage of harmful materials such as chemical
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 4 of 16
fertilizer, insecticides, and weedkillers, and resulting the efficient usage of natural resources
and decreased dependence on synthetic inputs [43,44].
Previous research found that socioeconomic variables, farm features, and agroclimatic
area characteristics were the most influential factors that may restrict the adoption of
sustainable agriculture techniques [
45
]. However, some scholars revealed that agriculture–
tourism partnerships through a farm-to-fork (FTF) approach might decrease the sustainable
agricultural practice barriers [
46
]. Improving agriculture–tourism links provides consider-
able prospects for encouraging local manufacture, keeping tourism profits in the region, and
enhancing the allocation of economic advantages from tourism to rural
communities [47]
.
As one of the agriculture–tourism partnerships, the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach seeks to
promote high-quality tourism and hospitality goods by establishing a value chain that en-
courages the usage of local agricultural products in the tourist sector [
48
]. Vegetables, fruits,
animal products, and handicrafts are among the essential products that can be included
in the short supply chain between hotels, restaurants, and residents in Luxor and Aswan.
Here, Berno [
49
] suggests that this notion does not have to end with the eating experi-
ence; it can also include various associated indirect and direct agritourism practices and
goods, such as flower gardening, food commemorations, farm holidays, factory trips, and
value-added items, such as souvenir food merchandise, expanding the advantages to the
local community even more. Through increasing involvement, perceived customer efficacy,
and perceived availability, more sustainable food consumption can be encouraged [
50
].
Thus, developing and promoting the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach can support sustainable
agriculture practices by raising demand for local activities and products [
49
]. In the same
vein, the benefits of this approach are not only accruing for sustainable agriculture and
the local rural community but also for the restaurants and hotels that adopt it. Hotels and
restaurant guests, especially green guests, believe that shortening the distribution channel
and purchasing directly from farmers allow them to purchase far more excellent healthy
products at lower prices than those bought from sizeable retail grocery stores because of the
lowered lead time, thus permitting fruits and vegetables to mature naturally and reducing
transportation costs [
46
]. Additionally, Smaal’s study [
51
] concluded, after conducting
direct interviews with 22 restaurants and 33 farm owners, that the farm-to-fork (FTF) initia-
tive that satisfies customers’ eco-friendly requirements financially benefits both parties and
enhances trust between them, although some issues need government assistance. Addi-
tionally, in response to green guest pressure, and in an effort to be more environmentally
consciously, restaurants have made attempts to source some of their ingredients locally
(farm-to-fork (FTF) approach) [
52
]. Thus, by adopting and promoting the principles of
the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept, hotels and restaurants can satisfy customers’ needs for
an authentic and high-quality experience [
53
], as well as local food experiences. In short,
by adopting the principles of the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept, the local rural community
(sustainable agriculture practices), restaurants, and hotels reciprocate the benefits. Given
the social exchange theory (SET), we can propose the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The farm-to-fork (FTF) conceptis positively associated with
sustainable agriculture
.
3.2. Farm-to-Fork (FTF) Concept and Environmental Sustainability
Broadly speaking, environmental sustainability pertains to the objective of safeguard-
ing and protecting environmental resources for the well-being of future generations [
54
].
Specifically, environmental sustainability indicates the rates of “renewable resource harvest,
pollution creation, and non-renewable resource depletion” that can be kept continuously.
These rates are not sustainable if they are inconsistent [
55
,
56
]. Thus, environmental sus-
tainability is considered important to sustainable development since it strives to preserve
natural capital without exceeding the environment’s assimilative waste capacity or re-
generating capabilities [
57
,
58
]. In the tourism and hospitality context, Elshaer et al. [
59
]
indicate that tourist activities can attain environmental sustainability by safeguarding
natural, physical, and man-made resources, adhering to ethical principles, implementing
appropriate policies and standards, and mitigating the detrimental impacts on the envi-
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 5 of 16
ronment. Accordingly, we argue that tourism and hospitality through the farm-to-fork
(FTF) concept can enhance rural environmental sustainability. Based on this discussion, the
below hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Farm-to-fork (FTF) concept is positively associated with
environmental sustainability.
3.3. Environmental Sustainability and Sustainable Agriculture
Multiple studies explicitly highlight the significance of environmental sustainabil-
ity as a vital factor in ensuring the long-term competitiveness of tourism destinations
and enhancing the quality of life for local residents [
60
–
62
]. Based on the study of
Abu-Hashim et al. [54]
, we argue that environmental sustainability arising from environ-
mentally friendly tourism and hospitality activities (i.e., farm-to-fork (FTF) approach) that
support local communities reinforces agro-environmental sustainability, which includes
sustainable agricultural practices. These arguments lead to the hypothesis below:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Environmental sustainability is positively associated with social
sustainable agriculture.
Based on the social exchange theory (SET) and integration of prior evidence, and
depending on the justifications mentioned earlier of the suggested three hypotheses, we
proposed the following hypotheses for mediation associations:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Environmental sustainabilitymediates the association between the farm-to-fork
(FTF) concept and sustainable agriculture.
3.4. Perceived Economic Benefit as a Moderator
In developing economies, in addition to farmers’ poor economic situation in general,
some research identified two central issues: inadequate financial support for sustainable
agribusinesses and inaccessibility to capital for these businesses due to the complicated
procedures required to develop agri-finance [
63
]. Thus, the only way to reach greater
sustainability in the agricultural field is by combining long-term sustainability and profit
along with environmental and social factors [
5
]. Based on the rationality theory, individu-
als’ inclination to participate in specific behaviors is influenced by either their formal or
substantive rationality. Formal rationality primarily considers economic factors, whereas
substantive rationality encompasses non-economic factors such as ethics and psychological
motivations [
64
]. Accordingly, when farmers decide whether to adopt sustainable agricul-
tural practices or not, they consider the personal and economical rewards that might be
achieved from this adoption [
15
]. Thus, including the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach in the
farm’s marketing products plan could provide them with large, stable direct accounts [
65
].
These arguments encourage authors to argue that the perceived economic benefits that
agriculture–tourism partnerships generate through adopting the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept
principles boost the relationship between environmental sustainability and sustainable agri-
culture. Thus, this study, based on the rationality theory, suggests the following hypothesis,
which is illustrated in Figure 1:
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
Figure 1. The research model: five study hypotheses, including the direct association of FTF with
SAPs (H1) and ES (H2) and the direct effect of ES on SAPs (H3); the mediating role of ES between
FTF and SAPs (H4) and moderating role of PEB in the relationship between ES and SAPs (H5).
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Measures
To put the theories to the test, a questionnaire-based survey was designed and dis-
seminated. The study’s scales were established after a comprehensive examination of the
literature. As a result, five dimensions were determined. The farm-to-fork (FTF) concept
was operationalized into 5 items based on the suggestion of [47,49]. Sustainable agricul-
tural practices (SAPs) were measured by nine-item a scale recommended by the authors
of [66]. Finally, environmental sustainability (ES) and perceived economic benefit (PEB)
ware operationalized using the nine-item scale proposed by the authors of [14] (see Ap-
pendix A). It is well-known in Egypt that rural areas are intertwined with tourist places,
and many farmers and local residents rely on tourism as a primary source of income,
whether from various partnerships or because the rural area itself is aractive to tourism.
Therefore, it can be argued that these measures are appropriate for this study. Further-
more, the survey questions were transcribed and clarified to guarantee their easy compre-
hensibility. After creating the scale items, one researcher transformed the questionnaire
into an online format. The research team thoroughly reviewed the online version before
sharing the URL with the intended participants. The main objectives of the study were
clearly defined, and participants were asked to contribute by completing the survey. Par-
ticipants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The URL
of the questionnaire was shared with participants through their social media profiles. The
research team regularly checked for responses on a daily basis. Following the completion
of the questionnaire, participants were given the opportunity to provide personal details,
such as their name, phone number, email address, and social media profiles. Afterwards,
the questionnaire underwent a translation process from English to Arabic, and a total of
sixteen individuals, including eight academics and eight professionals in the relevant
field, were involved in the testing of the survey to ensure its validity. The content of the
survey was kept the same and was not modified during this process. We employed a scale
ranging from 1 (indicating a strong disagreement) to 5 (indicating a strong agreement) in
the survey.
4.2. Participants and Process of Data Collection
The collection of data was conducted by administering a survey in the form of a web-
based questionnaire targeted at farmers in Luxor and Aswan, located in upper Egypt.
Luxor has 45 fixed hotels of different levels with a total of 5136 rooms and a capacity of
10,307 beds, 282 floating hotels with a total of 16,604 rooms and a capacity of 32,785 beds,
35 popular hotels with a total of 564 rooms and a capacity of 1181 beds, 180 floating hotels
out of 288 total floating hotels in the Nile River, 177 tourism companies, and 41 tourist
restaurants; in general, there is a full capacity of 22 thousand rooms, including those in
floating hotels. At the same time, Aswan owns 64 hotels between floating and fixed. The
Figure 1.
The research model: five study hypotheses, including the direct association of FTF with
SAPs (H1) and ES (H2) and the direct effect of ES on SAPs (H3); the mediating role of ES between
FTF and SAPs (H4) and moderating role of PEB in the relationship between ES and SAPs (H5).
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 6 of 16
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Perceived economic benefit moderates the influence of environmental sustain-
ability on sustainable agriculture.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Measures
To put the theories to the test, a questionnaire-based survey was designed and dis-
seminated. The study’s scales were established after a comprehensive examination of the
literature. As a result, five dimensions were determined. The farm-to-fork (FTF) concept
was operationalized into 5 items based on the suggestion of [
47
,
49
]. Sustainable agricultural
practices (SAPs) were measured by nine-item a scale recommended by the authors of [
66
].
Finally, environmental sustainability (ES) and perceived economic benefit (PEB) ware op-
erationalized using the nine-item scale proposed by the authors of [
14
] (see Appendix A).
It is well-known in Egypt that rural areas are intertwined with tourist places, and many
farmers and local residents rely on tourism as a primary source of income, whether from
various partnerships or because the rural area itself is attractive to tourism. Therefore, it
can be argued that these measures are appropriate for this study. Furthermore, the survey
questions were transcribed and clarified to guarantee their easy comprehensibility. After
creating the scale items, one researcher transformed the questionnaire into an online format.
The research team thoroughly reviewed the online version before sharing the URL with
the intended participants. The main objectives of the study were clearly defined, and
participants were asked to contribute by completing the survey. Participants were assured
of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The URL of the questionnaire was
shared with participants through their social media profiles. The research team regularly
checked for responses on a daily basis. Following the completion of the questionnaire,
participants were given the opportunity to provide personal details, such as their name,
phone number, email address, and social media profiles. Afterwards, the questionnaire
underwent a translation process from English to Arabic, and a total of sixteen individuals,
including eight academics and eight professionals in the relevant field, were involved in
the testing of the survey to ensure its validity. The content of the survey was kept the same
and was not modified during this process. We employed a scale ranging from 1 (indicating
a strong disagreement) to 5 (indicating a strong agreement) in the survey.
4.2. Participants and Process of Data Collection
The collection of data was conducted by administering a survey in the form of a
web-based questionnaire targeted at farmers in Luxor and Aswan, located in upper Egypt.
Luxor has 45 fixed hotels of different levels with a total of 5136 rooms and a capacity of
10,307 beds, 282 floating hotels with a total of 16,604 rooms and a capacity of 32,785 beds,
35 popular hotels with a total of 564 rooms and a capacity of 1181 beds, 180 floating hotels
out of 288 total floating hotels in the Nile River, 177 tourism companies, and 41 tourist
restaurants; in general, there is a full capacity of 22 thousand rooms, including those in
floating hotels. At the same time, Aswan owns 64 hotels between floating and fixed. The
occupancy rate in hotels of all types ranged between 60% and 70% during the tourist
season in the winter of 2023 [
67
]. Additionally, in the city of Luxor, 65,000 feddans of sugar
cane, 48,000 feddans of wheat, 12,000 feddans of tomatoes, 6000 feddans of maize, and
6500 feddans
of bananas are grown, in addition to grapes, cantaloupe, green beans, green
onions, green garlic, and strawberries. Among the essential agriculture-based industries
in Luxor are the manufacture of black honey, the manufacture of molasses, the fodder
industry, the manufacture of paper and cardboard, the wood and paraffin industry, the
manufacture of sauce and tomato paste, the drying of tomatoes, and the drying of onions.
Similarly, in the Aswan governorate, about 29% of the population works in cultivating an
area of 229 thousand feddans [68].
Farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing is becoming an increasingly popular approach to sustain-
able agriculture in many countries, and Egypt is no exception. In particular, the Egyptian
cities of Luxor and Aswan have been at the forefront of this trend, with a growing number
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 7 of 16
of restaurants and cafes seeking to source their ingredients directly from local farms. In
these areas, farmers have traditionally relied on selling their produce in local markets or
to intermediaries who then sell it to larger retailers or processors. However, the rise of
farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing is allowing farmers to bypass these intermediaries and sell
directly to restaurants, hotels, and cafes, creating new economic opportunities for local
farmers and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. The survey was divided into two
stages. Farmers were required to provide the necessary information for the farm-to-fork
(FTF) concept, the variables of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), and demographic
data in the 1st survey phase. One month later, farmers in the same rural destinations
were requested to complete questionnaires assessing variables related to environmental
sustainability (ES) and perceived economic benefits (PEB). The study adopted the online
questionnaire because the authors have a lot of postgraduate colleagues working in hotels
and restaurants in the two study areas. They were asked to send the questionnaire to
the target sample through social media (WhatsApp, e-mail, etc.), as well as targeting the
residents’ various social media groups. Before closing the questionnaire, three alerts were
sent within three weeks for each distribution stage. In total, 400 questionnaire forms were
distributed for both surveys. After excluding ineligible forms, 298 valid responses were
analyzed, resulting in an effective response rate of 74.5%. The study sample consisted of
246 males (82.6%) and 52 females (17.4%). The age of the participants predominantly fell
within the range of 28 to 58 years old.
Using an independent t-test sample approach, a non-response bias analysis was
performed. Bias from non-response was not an issue in this investigation because the mean
variation between early and late answers did not demonstrate any statistically significant
value (p> 0.05).
4.3. Data Analysis Methods
“Structural Equation Modelling” (SEM) and “Partial least squares” (PLS) were em-
ployed so that the justified relationships between the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept and the
variables of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) with the mediating role of the en-
vironmental sustainability (ES) and moderating role of the perceived economic benefit
(PEB) variable could be tested and estimated. The utilization of PLS-SEM enables the incor-
poration of a greater number of reflective items per factor when compared to alternative
statistical methods. Our analysis of the collected data followed Leguina’s [
69
] two-step ap-
proach, which involves evaluating the validity and reliability of the measurement with the
outer model first, and then testing and confirming hypotheses with the structural model. To
assess the outer measurement model, we applied the criteria advocated by
Hair et al. [70]
,
which include various threshold metrics such as “standardized factor loading” (greater
than 0.7), “composite reliability, CR” (greater than 0.7), “average variance extracted, AVE”
(greater than 0.5), R2 (greater than 0.1), and Stone–Geisser Q2 (greater than 0.0).
5. The Study Results
5.1. Measurement Model Assessment (Outer Model)
In line with the approach proposed by Hair et al. [
71
], we have evaluated various
aspects of the measurement model, including construct validity, factor loadings, reliability,
averaged variance extracted (AVE), internal consistency, (as shown in Table 1), and the
dimensions’ discriminant validity using factor cross-loadings (as shown in Table 2), the
Fornell–Larcker criterion (as shown in Table 3), and heterotrait–monotrait criterion (as
shown in Table 4). All suggested cutoff criteria were satisfactory [
71
,
72
], indicating that
the proposed outer model is appropriate, and the scale demonstrates good convergent
validity [
73
]. Regarding the discriminant validity of dimensions, both the Fornell–Larcker
and heterotrait–monotrait values satisfied the recommended thresholds [
74
], indicating
that our measures have good discriminant validity.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 8 of 16
Table 1. Psychometric metrics.
Loadings aValue CR AVE
Thresholds >0.7 >0.7 >0.7 >0.5
Farm-to-fork (FTF) concept 0.917 0.938 0.751
FTF_1 0.868
FTF_2 0.850
FTF_3 0.917
FTF_4 0.824
FTF_5 0.873
Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) 0.939 0.949 0.673
SAP_1 0.717
SAP_2 0.847
SAP_3 0.800
SAP_4 0.832
SAP_5 0.852
SAP_6 0.845
SAP_7 0.793
SAP_8 0.838
SAP_9 0.848
Environmental sustainability (ES) 0.929 0.946 0.778
ES_1 0.867
ES_2 0.871
ES_3 0.890
ES_4 0.905
ES_5 0.877
Perceived economic benefit (PEB) 0.894 0.927 0.760
PEF_1 0.800
PEF_2 0.885
PEF_3 0.880
PEF_4 0.917
Table 2. Fac. cross-loadings.
FTF SAPs ES PEB
FTF_1 0.868 0.683 0.661 0.645
FTF_2 0.850 0.705 0.504 0.573
FTF_3 0.917 0.555 0.570 0.572
FTF_4 0.824 0.476 0.546 0.531
FTF_5 0.873 0.568 0.538 0.554
SAP_1 0.523 0.717 0.420 0.573
SAP_2 0.656 0.847 0.517 0.591
SAP_3 0.615 0.800 0.467 0.376
SAP_4 0.574 0.832 0.700 0.529
SAP_5 0.579 0.852 0.637 0.570
SAP_6 0.578 0.845 0.623 0.496
SAP_7 0.507 0.793 0.471 0.369
SAP_8 0.504 0.838 0.426 0.494
SAP_9 0.590 0.848 0.493 0.571
ES_1 0.677 0.604 0.867 0.646
ES_2 0.572 0.600 0.871 0.598
ES_3 0.524 0.594 0.890 0.557
ES_4 0.541 0.537 0.905 0.568
ES_5 0.552 0.528 0.877 0.555
PEF_1 0.629 0.481 0.543 0.800
PEF_2 0.584 0.552 0.607 0.885
PEF_3 0.496 0.496 0.518 0.880
PEF_4 0.617 0.626 0.642 0.917
Bold items: “for good discriminant validity, the outer loading should have higher value than the cross-loading”.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 9 of 16
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
ES FTF PEB SAPs
Environmental sustainability (ES) 0.882
Farm-to-fork (FTF) 0.654 0.867
Perceived economic benefit (PEB) 0.666 0.667 0.872
Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) 0.652 0.697 0.623 0.820
Bold values: “for adequate discriminant validity, AVE (bold) has to show scores that are higher than the intervari-
able correlation coefficient”.
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
ES FTF PEB SAPs
Environmental sustainability (ES)
Farm-to-fork (FTF) 0.700
Perceived economic benefit (PEB) 0.724 0.733
Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) 0.687 0.740 0.671
HTMT: heterotrait–monotrait matrix. For appropriate discriminant validity, all HTMT values need to be <0.90.
Following the guidance of Sarstedt et al. [
75
], it was necessary to evaluate the collinear-
ity of the outer model in the subsequent analysis phase. To accomplish this, we computed
the VIF (variance inflation factor) values for each reflective item, which are expected to
be under 10 [
70
,
76
]. Our results revealed that all variables had VIF values between 1.897
and 4.168, which fell below the 10 threshold. Consequently, the data did not exhibit any
issues with multicollinearity. Subsequently, we utilized a bootstrap analysis technique
to scrutinize the suggested hypotheses and determine their corresponding t-values and
p-values’ significance level.
5.2. Hypotheses Testing (Inner Model Assessment)
Once the validity of the outer model was confirmed, the inner model paths were
evaluated using PLS-SEM for hypothesis testing. The goodness of fit of the inner model
was assessed by employing several criteria recommended by the authors of [
70
,
73
,
77
].
Table 5illustrates that our model met the necessary conditions to confirm its adequate
fit and predictive power. The Q
2
, SRMR, R
2
, and NFI scores surpassed the prescribed
thresholds. This allowed us to conduct a more in-depth examination of the proposed
hypotheses in the study. Smart PLS3 software was employed, utilizing a bootstrapping
repetition of 5000 to calculate the regression weights (
β
), t-statistics, and significance levels
(P) of the direct, indirect, and moderating effects. A total of five hypotheses were evaluated,
including three direct hypotheses, one mediating effect, and one moderating effect, as
outlined in Table 5.
Table 5. Inner model results (study hypotheses).
Hypotheses βt-Value p-Values Results
Direct Paths
H1—Farm-to-fork →Sustainable agricultural practices 0.347 4.763 0.000 Confirmed
H2—Farm-to-fork →Environmental sustainability 0.654 18.740 0.000 Confirmed
H3—Environmental sustainability →Sustainable
agricultural practices 0.381 6.495 0.000 Confirmed
Indirect mediating Paths
H4—Farm-to-fork →Environmental sustainability
→Sustainable agricultural practices 0.249 5.564 0.000 Confirmed
Moderating Effects
H5—Perceived economic benefit ×Environmental
sustainability →Sustainable agricultural practices 0.193 3.247 0.001 Confirmed
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 10 of 16
The R
2
values for sustainable agricultural practices and environmental sustainabil-
ity surpassed the suggested cut-off point of 0.10, and their Q
2
values (0.378 and 0.326,
respectively) surpassed the suggested threshold value of 0.0.
Drawing from the findings depicted in Figure 2and Table 5, the farm-to-fork (FTF)
concept had a significant and positive impact (p< 0.001) on both sustainable agricultural
practices (
β
= 0.347, t = 4.763, and p< 0.000) and environmental sustainability (
β
= 0.654,
t = 18.740, and p< 0.000), giving support to H1 and H2. The results also indicated that
environmental sustainability positively and significantly influenced sustainable agricultural
practices (
β
= 0.381, t = 6.495, and p< 0.000), confirming H3. Moreover, the variable of
environmental sustainability mediated the relationship between farm-to-fork (FTF) and
sustainable agricultural practices (
β
= 0.249, t = 5.564, and p< 0.000), signaling that H4
could be accepted.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Figure 2. The study model. FTF is positively related to SAPs (β = 0.347) and ES (β = 0.654), and ES is
positively associated with SAPs (β = 0.381) and mediated the relationship between FTF and SAPs (β
= 0.249). Moreover, the PEB moderated the effect of ES on SAPs (β = 0.193).
6. Discussion and Implication
Because developing countries generally have extensive rural residents who are
highly dependent upon farming, creating connections between tourism and agriculture
holds tremendous importance for host destinations, especially with about one-third of all
expenditures of tourism and hospitality being directed toward food products. Therefore,
the farm-to-fork (FTF) orientation would need to boost reciprocal and practical partner-
ships within this network [51]. Nonetheless, some scholars have indicated that there is a
noteworthy lack of studies addressing this link [47]. Therefore, the results of our study
reached their aims and purposes by adding to the current knowledge on agriculture-tour-
ism partnerships, specifically in the context of sustainable development in the Middle East
(an area that has yet to receive much aention) and theoretical expansion through the
suggested model. Our results showed that the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach positively im-
pacts sustainable agricultural practices (H1). Here, mainly, several scholars emphasized
the need to adopt initiatives that work for short food supply chains, such as the farm-to-
fork (FTF) approach, as a main tool to back and support the local economy, relink produc-
ers and customers, and promote sustainable development in agrarian destinations [78–
81]. According to the social embeddedness theory, Hinrichs [82] argues that the farm-to-
fork (FTF) approach as a tool to reach the direct-to-customer markets promotes a feeling
of connectedness that can support sustainable agriculture practices. The reasoning is that
when farmers (producers) and customers establish intimate social ties, farmers are more
likely to integrate customer feedback linking to product quality, environmental factors,
animal welfare, and food safety. Hotels and restaurants also can play an increasing role in
marketing local food and culinary products to promote the rural destination’s identity
and aract visitors, create social and reciprocal links in their local neighborhood, engage
in environmental and green initiatives and movements such as sustainable agricultural
practices, and thus, boost environmental sustainability in these destinations [83–85]. In
line with this, our study proved that the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept positively affected
environmental sustainability in agricultural destinations (H2). On the same statistical
path, environmental sustainability has a positive effect on sustainable agricultural prac-
tices (H3). Here, Roe et al. [86] argued that any degradation in environmental parameters
caused by tourism-related activities in rural destinations would thus pose an increased
danger to the sustainability of such rural regions, including agricultural practices, and
vice versa.
Figure 2.
The study model. FTF is positively related to SAPs (
β
= 0.347) and ES (
β
= 0.654), and ES is
positively associated with SAPs (
β
= 0.381) and mediated the relationship between FTF and SAPs
(β= 0.249). Moreover, the PEB moderated the effect of ES on SAPs (β= 0.193).
The examination of the moderating effects indicated a noteworthy influence of the
perceived economic benefit on the relationship under investigation, as demonstrated in
Figure 2. Particularly, the Smart-PLS analysis displayed that the perceived economic
benefit enhanced the significant influence of environmental sustainability on sustainable
agricultural practices (β= 0.193, t = 3.247, and p= 0.001), indicating support for H5.
6. Discussion and Implication
Because developing countries generally have extensive rural residents who are highly
dependent upon farming, creating connections between tourism and agriculture holds
tremendous importance for host destinations, especially with about one-third of all expen-
ditures of tourism and hospitality being directed toward food products. Therefore, the
farm-to-fork (FTF) orientation would need to boost reciprocal and practical partnerships
within this network [
51
]. Nonetheless, some scholars have indicated that there is a notewor-
thy lack of studies addressing this link [
47
]. Therefore, the results of our study reached their
aims and purposes by adding to the current knowledge on agriculture-tourism partner-
ships, specifically in the context of sustainable development in the Middle East (an area that
has yet to receive much attention) and theoretical expansion through the suggested model.
Our results showed that the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach positively impacts sustainable
agricultural practices (H1). Here, mainly, several scholars emphasized the need to adopt
initiatives that work for short food supply chains, such as the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach,
as a main tool to back and support the local economy, relink producers and customers,
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 11 of 16
and promote sustainable development in agrarian destinations [
78
–
81
]. According to the
social embeddedness theory, Hinrichs [
82
] argues that the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach
as a tool to reach the direct-to-customer markets promotes a feeling of connectedness
that can support sustainable agriculture practices. The reasoning is that when farmers
(producers) and customers establish intimate social ties, farmers are more likely to integrate
customer feedback linking to product quality, environmental factors, animal welfare, and
food safety. Hotels and restaurants also can play an increasing role in marketing local
food and culinary products to promote the rural destination’s identity and attract visitors,
create social and reciprocal links in their local neighborhood, engage in environmental
and green initiatives and movements such as sustainable agricultural practices, and thus,
boost environmental sustainability in these destinations [
83
–
85
]. In line with this, our study
proved that the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept positively affected environmental sustainability
in agricultural destinations (H2). On the same statistical path, environmental sustainability
has a positive effect on sustainable agricultural practices (H3). Here, Roe et al. [
86
] argued
that any degradation in environmental parameters caused by tourism-related activities in
rural destinations would thus pose an increased danger to the sustainability of such rural
regions, including agricultural practices, and vice versa.
The study aimed to test whether or not environmental sustainability mediates the
relationship between the farm-to-fork (FTF) approach and sustainable agricultural practices
(H4). The results of the study, which also confirm the aforementioned three hypotheses,
exposed that environmental sustainability was certainly a mediator between the farm-to-
fork (FTF) approach and sustainable agricultural practices. The farm-to-fork (FTF) approach
aims to monitor the environmental impact of food and rural products throughout their
lifecycle, including factors such as energy and water usage and pollution during production,
to educate consumers about the environmental sustainability of their food choices. This
encourages farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices [
64
]. According to Abbas
and Hussien’s study, which was conducted in Egypt, green restaurants implement the
principles of the FTF approach by adhering to green supply management practices, for
example, the commitment to support the local community by purchasing local organic
products and incorporating local green food ingredients in their menus [
87
]. This, thus,
supports local environmental, social, and economic sustainability and encourages farmers
to adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
Finally, PLS-SEM findings supported the moderation effects of the perceived economic
benefit on the links between environmental sustainability and sustainable agricultural
practices (H5). It is progressively more difficult for small-scale farmers to produce value
and capital to adopt sustainable agricultural practices; thus, economic factors may be
the primary determinant in adopting these practices [
84
]. Thus, sustainable agriculture
practices must be “economically viable, environmentally safe, and socially fair” to succeed
in being sustained over a long period [
88
,
89
]. Furthermore, according to rationality theory,
when farmers decide whether or not to embrace sustainable agricultural techniques, they
weigh up the personal and economic benefits that may result from this adoption. Thus, we
conclude that the economic benefits generated from shortening the supply chain between
farmers and “forks” succeed in achieving the advantages of environmental sustainability
in the local community, which, in turn, motivates and enables farmers financially to invest
in sustainable agricultural practices because green products that carry with them the
principles of sustainable development (environmental, social, and economic) are accepted
by the “forks” in light of the growing green trends in the tourism and hospitality sector.
7. Conclusions
This study has shed light on the vital relationship between farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing,
sustainable agriculture, perceived economic benefit, and environmental sustainability in
the agriculture–tourism partnership framework in the Egyptian context. The data were
collected from 298 farmers in Luxor and Aswan, located in upper Egypt, and analyzed via
PLS-SEM. The research findings have shown that farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing has a positive
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 12 of 16
impact on sustainable agriculture practices and that both perceived economic benefit and
environmental sustainability have moderating and mediating roles in these relationships,
indicating that this approach has the potential to promote sustainable agriculture practices
and reduce the carbon footprint of the food supply chain. Furthermore, the study has
demonstrated that perceived economic benefit plays a moderating role in the relationship
between environmental sustainability and sustainable agriculture practices. This suggests
that efforts to promote farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing should focus on highlighting the eco-
nomic benefits of this approach, in order to encourage the greater adoption of and support
for sustainable agriculture. The study has also revealed that environmental sustainability
mediates the relationship between farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing and sustainable agriculture
practices. This finding underscores the importance of sustainable agriculture in enhancing
the economic benefits of this approach, and suggests that promoting sustainable agriculture
can lead to greater economic benefits for both farmers and residents.
Overall, the findings of this study have important implications for Egyptian farmers,
restaurant owners, and policymakers seeking to promote sustainable agriculture and
reduce the food system’s environmental impact. By emphasizing the economic benefits of
farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing and promoting sustainable agriculture, it may be possible to
encourage the greater adoption of this approach and ultimately reduce the carbon footprint
of the food supply chain.
In future research, it will be important to investigate how different policy interventions
can be used to promote sustainable agriculture and support farm-to-fork (FTF) sourcing,
and to explore the impact of these interventions on the broader food system. With continued
research and advocacy, there is potential to establish a food system that is more sustainable
and resilient, benefiting future generations. Finally, while farm-to-fork (FTF) practices
are a valuable component of sustainable tourism, they should be integrated with other
sustainable tourism practices (i.e., eco-friendly accommodations, sustainable transportation,
and waste reduction and management) to maximize their impact and promote sustainability
in the tourism industry.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, I.A.E., S.S.H. and S.F.; methodology, I.A.E., S.F. and
A.M.S.A.; software, I.A.E. and S.F.; validation, I.A.E., A.M.S.A. and S.F.; formal analysis, I.A.E. and
A.M.S.A.; investigation, I.A.E., S.F., S.S.H. and A.M.S.A.; resources, I.A.E.; data curation, I.A.E.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.F., I.A.E., S.S.H. and A.M.S.A.; writing—review and editing,
I.A.E., S.F. and A.M.S.A.; visualization, I.A.E.; supervision, I.A.E.; project administration, I.A.E., S.F.
and A.M.S.A.; funding acquisition, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for
Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (grant no. 3742).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee,
King Faisal University (project number: 3742; date of approval: 25 April 2022).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:
Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the eligi-
bility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through e-mail.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. The Study Measures
Appendix A.1. Farm-to-Fork (FTF) Concept
-
The farm-to-fork (FTF) initiative is a helpful marketing tool for local
agriculture products
.
- Hotels and restaurants organize tourist visits to farms.
- Hotels and restaurants use local organic sustainable ingredients on their tables.
-
Hotels and restaurants provide opportunities for cultural exchange between tourists
and residents.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 13 of 16
-
Generally, generated agriculture–tourism partnerships through adopting the farm-to-
fork (FTF) concept principles are positive.
Appendix A.2. Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs)
To what extent do you carry out the following:
- Reincorporate crop residues back into the field.
- Utilize organic fertilizers as a substitute for chemical fertilizers.
- Enhance irrigation practices to ensure sustainable water management.
- Reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by 50%.
- Implement the application of biochar as an alternative to chemical fertilizers.
- Integrate cover crops into crop rotation practices.
- Intercrops cover crops alongside existing crops.
- Plants cover crops in marginal farmland areas.
-
Implement extended periods of fallow (ranging from 1 to 3 years), which can be
employed to reduce the regularity or concentration of tillage processes and conserve
soil resources.
Appendix A.3. Environmental Sustainability (ES)
-
The preservation and appreciation of our community’s diverse natural environment
are prioritized during tourism development.
-
Tourism development in our community consistently ensures the safeguarding of
wildlife and natural habitats.
-
The protection of our community’s natural environment is an ongoing commitment
for present and future generations.
-
Tourism development in our community actively promotes and upholds positive
environmental ethics.
-
The development of tourism in our community harmoniously coexists with and
respects the natural environment.
Appendix A.4. Perceived Economic Benefit (PEB)
Hotels through the farm-to-fork (FTF) concept
- Significantly contribute to the economic growth of our community.
- Provide benefits that extend beyond the tourism industry in our community.
- Bring in fresh sources of income to our communities.
- Produce substantial tax outcomes for the local government.
References
1.
Rodriguez, J.M.; Molnar, J.J.; Fazio, R.A.; Sydnor, E.; Lowe, M.J. Barriers to Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Change
Agent Perspectives. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009,24, 60–71. [CrossRef]
2.
Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P. Climate
Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
3.
Kurgat, B.K.; Lamanna, C.; Kimaro, A.; Namoi, N.; Manda, L.; Rosenstock, T.S. Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Technologies in Tanzania. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020,4, 55. [CrossRef]
4.
Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global Diets Link Environmental Sustainability and Human Health. Nature
2014
,515, 518–522. [CrossRef]
5.
Francis, C.A.; Porter, P. Ecology in Sustainable Agriculture Practices and Systems. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.
2011
,30, 64–73. [CrossRef]
6.
Horrigan, L.; Lawrence, R.S.; Walker, P. How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms
of Industrial Agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002,110, 445–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Wajcman, J.; Bittman, M.; Brown, J.E. Families without Borders: Mobile Phones, Connectedness and Work-Home Divisions.
Sociology 2008,42, 635–652. [CrossRef]
8. Young, D.L. Policy Barriers to Sustainable Agriculture. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1989,4, 135–143. [CrossRef]
9.
Nowak, P. Why Farmers Adopt Production Technology: Overcoming Impediments to Adoption of Crop Residue Management
Techniques Will Be Crucial to Implementation of Conservation Compliance Plans. J. Soil. Water. Conserv. 1992,47, 14–16.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 14 of 16
10.
Caswell, M.; Fuglie, K.O.; Ingram, C.; Jans, S.; Kascak, C. Adoption of Agricultural Production Practices: Lessons Learned from the US
Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project; United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington,
DC, USA, 2001.
11.
Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D.; et al.
A Scoping Review on Incentives for Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Their Outcomes. Nat. Sustain.
2020
,3,
809–820. [CrossRef]
12.
Pehin Dato Musa, S.F.; Chin, W.L. The Role of Farm-to-Table Activities in Agritourism towards Sustainable Development. Tour.
Rev. 2022,77, 659–671. [CrossRef]
13.
Buiatti, S. Food and Tourism: The Role of the “Slow Food” Association. In Food, Agri-Culture and Tourism; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 92–101. [CrossRef]
14.
Yu, C.-P.; Chancellor, H.C.; Cole, S.T. Measuring Residents’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Tourism: A Reexamination of the
Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2011,50, 57–63. [CrossRef]
15.
Elshaer, I.A.; AboAlkhair, A.M.; Fayyad, S.; Azazz, A.M.S. Post-COVID-19 Family Micro-Business Resources and Agritourism
Performance: A Two-Mediated Moderated Quantitative-Based Model with a PLS-SEM Data Analysis Method. Mathematics
2023
,
11, 359. [CrossRef]
16.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Ameen, F.A.; Fayyad, S. Agritourism and Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: A Moderated Mediation
Model. Agriculture 2022,12, 1586. [CrossRef]
17.
Tey, Y.S.; Li, E.; Bruwer, J.; Abdullah, A.M.; Brindal, M.; Radam, A.; Ismail, M.M.; Darham, S. Factors Influencing the Adoption of
Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Developing Countries: A Review. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2017,16, 219–320. [CrossRef]
18.
Gamon, J.; Harrold, N.; Creswell, J. Educational Delivery Methods To Encourage Adoption Of Sustainable Agricultural Practices.
J. Agric. Educ. 1994,35, 38–42. [CrossRef]
19.
Baerenklau, K.A. Toward an Understanding of Technology Adoption: Risk, Learning, and Neighborhood Effects. Land Econ.
2005
,
81, 1–19. [CrossRef]
20.
O’Donovan, I.; Quinlan, T.; Barry, T. From Farm to Fork: Direct Supply Chain Relationships in the Hospitality Industry in the
South East of Ireland. Br. Food J. 2012,114, 500–515. [CrossRef]
21.
Tey, Y.S. The Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: An Integrative Approach for Malaysian Vegetable Farmers.
Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2013.
22.
Cao, J.; Solangi, Y.A. Analyzing and Prioritizing the Barriers and Solutions of Sustainable Agriculture for Promoting Sustainable
Development Goals in China. Sustainability 2023,15, 8317. [CrossRef]
23.
Lee, D.R. Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing Countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
2005,87, 1325–1334. [CrossRef]
24.
Xia, X.; Ruan, J. Analyzing Barriers for Developing a Sustainable Circular Economy in Agriculture in China Using Grey-DEMATEL
Approach. Sustainability 2020,12, 6358. [CrossRef]
25.
Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Political Instability and Tourism in Egypt: Exploring Survivors’ Attitudes after Downsizing. J. Policy Res.
Tour. Leis. Events 2017,9, 3–22. [CrossRef]
26.
Helmy, E.M. Political Uncertainty: Challenge to Egyptian Tourism Policy; Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2014; pp. 301–315.
[CrossRef]
27. ESTP. Egyptian Sustainable Tourism. 2023. Available online: https://estportal.org/ (accessed on 19 March 2023).
28.
Shaalan, I.M. Sustainable Tourism Development in the Red Sea of Egypt Threats and Opportunities. J. Clean. Prod.
2005
,13, 83–87.
[CrossRef]
29.
Abou Ziyan, E.H.; Hassan, G.F.; Khalifa, M.A. The Impact of Sustainable Local Food Strategies on Egyptian Urban Development
Plans. Master ’s Thesis, Ain Shams University, Governorate, Egypt, 2019.
30.
Abdalla, Z.; El-Ramady, H.; Omara, A.E.-D.; Elsakhawy, T.; Bayoumi, Y.; Shalaby, T.; Prokisch, J. From Farm-to-Fork: A Pictorial
Mini Review on Nano-Farming of Vegetables. Environ. Biodivers. Soil Secur. 2022,6, 149–163. [CrossRef]
31. European Commission. European Commission Communication COM/2020/381. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Farm
to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly food System. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:ea0f9f73-9ab2-11ea- 9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 13 June 2023).
32.
Silva, V.; Yang, X.; Fleskens, L.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Environmental and Human Health at Risk—Scenarios to Achieve the
Farm to Fork 50% Pesticide Reduction Goals. Environ. Int. 2022,165, 107296. [CrossRef]
33.
Xun, L.; Garcia-Ruiz, F.; Fabregas, F.X.; Gil, E. Pesticide Dose Based on Canopy Characteristics in Apple Trees: Reducing
Environmental Risk by Reducing the Amount of Pesticide While Maintaining Pest and Disease Control Efficacy. Sci. Total Environ.
2022,826, 154204. [CrossRef]
34.
Aerni, P. COP-27: A Great Opportunity to Address the Double Crisis of Food Security and Climate Change–and for the EU to
Re-Align Its Farm to Fork Strategy. Front. Environ. Econ. 2023,1, 1082869. [CrossRef]
35.
Food Safety Initiative. Food Safety. 2023. Available online: https://www.sgs.com/en-eg/service-groups/food-safety (accessed
on 19 March 2023).
36.
UNDP. Case Study: Siwa Sustainable Development Initiative. United Nations Development Programme. Available online:
https://www.eqi.com.eg/img-uploads/6568_13055948.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2023).
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 15 of 16
37.
El-Ramady, H.R.; El-Marsafawy, S.M.; Lewis, L.N. Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Changes in Egypt; Springer: Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 41–95. [CrossRef]
38.
Mgomezulu, W.R.; Machira, K.; Edriss, A.-K.; Pangapanga-Phiri, I. Modelling Farmers’ Adoption Decisions of Sustainable
Agricultural Practices under Varying Agro-Ecological Conditions: A New Perspective. Innov. Green Dev.
2023
,2, 100036.
[CrossRef]
39. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Ameen, F.A.; Fayyad, S. Sustainable Horticulture Practices to Predict Consumer Attitudes towards
Green Hotel Visit Intention: Moderating the Role of an Environmental Gardening Identity. Horticulturae 2023,9, 31. [CrossRef]
40. Muhie, S.H. Novel Approaches and Practices to Sustainable Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022,10, 100446. [CrossRef]
41.
Manda, J.; Alene, A.D.; Gardebroek, C.; Kassie, M.; Tembo, G. Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on
Maize Yields and Incomes: Evidence from Rural Zambia. J. Agric. Econ. 2016,67, 130–153. [CrossRef]
42.
Teklewold, H.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ.
2013,64, 597–623. [CrossRef]
43.
Pham, H.-G.; Chuah, S.-H.; Feeny, S. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Findings from Panel
Data for Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 2021,184, 107000. [CrossRef]
44.
Akenroye, T.O.; Kumar, M.; Dora, M.; Ihua, U.B.; Mtonga, V.J.; Aju, O. Evaluating the Barriers to Adopting Sustainable Agriculture
Practices in Smallholder Coffee Farming: Implications for Global Value Chains; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 117–142.
[CrossRef]
45.
Myeni, L.; Moeletsi, M.; Thavhana, M.; Randela, M.; Mokoena, L. Barriers Affecting Sustainable Agricultural Productivity of
Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Free State of South Africa. Sustainability 2019,11, 3003. [CrossRef]
46.
Tippins, M.J.; Rassuli, K.M.; Hollander, S.C. An Assessment of Direct Farm-to-table Food Marketing in the USA. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 2002,30, 343–353. [CrossRef]
47. Torres, R. Linkages between Tourism and Agriculture in Mexico. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003,30, 546–566. [CrossRef]
48.
Berno, T. Fiji Grown: From Farm to Restaurant. In Keynote Address Presented at the FAO/Ministry of Agriculture Fiji Grown Workshop;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003; pp. 26–28.
49.
Berno, T. Bridging Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Tourism to Enhance Sustainability. In Sustainable Development Policy
and Administration; Mudacumura, G.M., Mebratu, D., Haque, M.S., Eds.; Chapter 9; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017.
50.
Bryła, P. Regional Ethnocentrism on the Food Market as a Pattern of Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability
2019
,11, 6408.
[CrossRef]
51.
Smaal, S.A.L. Exploring Farm-to-restaurant Relations and the Potential of a Local Food Hub: A Case Study in the City-region of
Groningen, the Netherlands. Sociol Rural. 2023,63, 223–246. [CrossRef]
52.
Jang, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Bonn, M.A. Generation Y Consumers’ Selection Attributes and Behavioral Intentions Concerning Green
Restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011,30, 803–811. [CrossRef]
53.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Authenticity, Involvement, and Nostalgia in Heritage Hotels in the Era of Digital
Technology: A Moderated Meditation Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 5784. [CrossRef]
54.
Abu-Hashim, M.; Omran, E.-S.E.; Allouche, F.K.; Negm, A. Introduction to “Agro-Environmental Sustainability in MENA Regions”;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [CrossRef]
55.
Valenti, W.C.; Kimpara, J.M.; Preto, B.D.L.; Moraes-Valenti, P. Indicators of Sustainability to Assess Aquaculture Systems. Ecol.
Indic. 2018,88, 402–413. [CrossRef]
56.
Peeters, P.; Landré, M. The Emerging Global Tourism Geography—An Environmental Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability
2011,4, 42–71. [CrossRef]
57.
Saviolidis, N.M.; Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Ólafsson, S. Challenges of National Measurement of Environmental
Sustainability in Tourism. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021,3, 100079. [CrossRef]
58. Goodland, R.; Daly, H. Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-Negotiable. Ecol. Appl. 1996,6, 1002–1017. [CrossRef]
59.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Kooli, C.; Fayyad, S. Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in
the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. Adm. Sci.
2023
,13, 109.
[CrossRef]
60.
Pulido-Fernández, J.I.; Cárdenas-García, P.J.; Espinosa-Pulido, J.A. Does Environmental Sustainability Contribute to Tourism
Growth? An Analysis at the Country Level. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,213, 309–319. [CrossRef]
61.
Farsari, Y.; Butler, R.; Prastacos, P. Sustainable Tourism Policy for Mediterranean Destinations: Issues and Interrelationships. Int.
J. Tour. Policy 2007,1, 58. [CrossRef]
62.
Hu, W.; Wall, G. Environmental Management, Environmental Image and the Competitive Tourist Attraction. J. Sustain. Tour.
2005,13, 617–635. [CrossRef]
63.
Brenya, R.; Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Ofosu, D.; Adeabah, D. Barriers to Sustainable Agribusiness: A Systematic Review and
Conceptual Framework. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2022,13, 570–589. [CrossRef]
64.
Kalberg, S. Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. Am. J. Sociol.
1980,85, 1145–1179. [CrossRef]
65.
Starr, A.; Card, A.; Benepe, C.; Auld, G.; Lamm, D.; Smith, K.; Wilken, K. Sustaining Local Agriculture Barriers and Opportunities
to Direct Marketing between Farms and Restaurants in Colorado. Agric. Hum. Values 2003,20, 301–321. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 11462 16 of 16
66.
Nong, Y.; Yin, C.; Yi, X.; Ren, J.; Chien, H. Farmers’ Adoption Preferences for Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Northwest
China. Sustainability 2020,12, 6269. [CrossRef]
67.
The Official Website of Luxor Governorate. Tourism Investment. Available online: http://luxor.gov.eg/invest/types/
torisminvest/default.aspx#:~:text=%D9%87%20%2D%20%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89%20%D8%B9
%D8%AF%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9
%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%87,%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF%20(41)%20%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%B9%D9%85%20
%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%89%20 (accessed on 13 June 2023).
68.
The Official Website of Luxor Governorate. Agricultural Investment. Available online: http://www.luxor.gov.eg/invest/
oportunity/agriculture/default.aspx (accessed on 13 June 2023).
69.
Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ.
2015
,38,
220–221. [CrossRef]
70.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE
Publications, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
71.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM);
Sage publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
72.
Henseler, J.; Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Comput. Stat.
2013
,28, 565–580.
[CrossRef]
73. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998,295, 295–336.
74.
Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.;
Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organ Res. Methods
2014
,17,
182–209. [CrossRef]
75.
Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.; Hair, J. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [CrossRef]
76.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Green Human Resources and Innovative Performance in Small- and Medium-Sized
Tourism Enterprises: A Mediation Model Using PLS-SEM Data Analysis. Mathematics 2023,11, 711. [CrossRef]
77.
Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances
in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Advances in International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing
Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. [CrossRef]
78.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Kooli, C.; Alshebami, A.S.; Zeina, M.M.A.; Fayyad, S. Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership
and Brand Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Green-Crafting Behavior and Employee-Perceived Meaningful Work. Eur. J. Investig.
Health Psychol. Educ. 2023,13, 1097–1116. [CrossRef]
79.
Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E.; et al.
Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’ Views and Perceptions from 12 European
Cases. Sustainability 2019,11, 4800. [CrossRef]
80.
Schmutz, U.; Kneafsey, M.; Sarrouy Kay, C.; Doernberg, A.; Zasada, I. Sustainability Impact Assessments of Different Urban Short
Food Supply Chains: Examples from London, UK. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018,33, 518–529. [CrossRef]
81.
Jarosz, L. The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan Areas. J. Rural. Stud.
2008
,24, 231–244.
[CrossRef]
82.
Hinrichs, C.C. Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two Types of Direct Agricultural Market. J. Rural. Stud.
2000
,
16, 295–303. [CrossRef]
83.
Bacig, M.; Young, C.A. The Halo Effect Created for Restaurants That Source Food Locally. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res.
2019
,22, 209–238.
[CrossRef]
84.
Pesci, S.; Brinkley, C. Can a Farm-to-Table Restaurant Bring about Change in the Food System? A Case Study of Chez Panisse.
Food Cult. Soc. 2022,25, 997–1018. [CrossRef]
85.
Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. Short Food Supply Chain between Micro/Small Farms and Restaurants. Br. Food J.
2018
,120,
1722–1734. [CrossRef]
86.
Roe, P.; Hrymak, V.; Dimanche, F. Assessing Environmental Sustainability in Tourism and Recreation Areas: A Risk-Assessment-
Based Model. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014,22, 319–338. [CrossRef]
87.
Abbas, T.M.; Hussien, F.M. The Effects of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence
from Restaurants in Egypt. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021,21, 358–373. [CrossRef]
88.
Lichtfouse, E.; Navarrete, M.; Debaeke, P.; Souchère, V.; Alberola, C.; Ménassieu, J. Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture: A
Review. In Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
89.
Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality
Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2023
,20, 2244.
[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Content uploaded by Sameh Fayyad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sameh Fayyad on Jul 26, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
