Agritourism: experience design, activities, and revisit intention

Abstract

Purpose Previous studies have discussed individual effects that certain agritourism activities have on visitor response while ignoring interaction effects. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to discuss both the individual and interaction effects of agritourism activities on tourist revisit intention. Design/methodology/approach This study classified agritourism activities into four categories and collected 883 valid samples. Logistic regression was then applied to test the influence of agritourism activities on tourist revisit intention. Findings Based on the results of the statistical analysis, it was found that those agritourism activities, which required mutual cooperation such as do-it-yourself (DIY), animal interaction/feeding and fruit and vegetable picking, enhanced tourist revisit intention. Furthermore, the agritourism groups participating in activities with or without children did not have consistent revisit intentions regarding animal feeding/interaction activities. In particular, this study found that willingness to revisit for tourists with children was influenced by animal feeding/interaction, but not for tourists without children. Research limitations/implications This study demonstrates that not all agritourism activities enhance revisit intention. For this reason, agritourism businesses should consider redesigning their activities related to visitor and animal interactions as increasing conscientiousness regarding animal welfare, especially with regard to animal abuse. Additionally, those activities focused on education and ecology are not as appreciated by tourists as they may have been previously assumed between different groups. Originality/value The findings of this study reveal that if the types of agritourism activities could fulfill visitors' expectations and desires they are more likely to have a satisfying experience. The authors consider some of these notions to be a kind of unrealistic fantasy regarding agritourism and the kind of activities involved therein. This kind of fantasy is likely formed by visitors 2019 past experiences and culture. As a result, the authors conclude that agritourism activities focused on the education of plants and ecology do not achieve the truly preferred aim of better interaction between people. Objetivo Estudios anteriores han tratado los efectos individuales que tienen algunas actividades agroturísticas sobre la respuesta del visitante ignorando los efectos de interacción. Por eso, el objetivo de este estudio es tratar conjuntamente los efectos individuales y de interacción de las actividades agroturísticas sobre la intención de volver a visitar del turista.

Agritourism experience value cocreation impact on the brand equity of rural tourism destinations in China

“…Owing to the differences in culture and agricultural production methods, agritourism includes a variety of experience activities and is generally classified into DIY, animal feeding or interaction, natural ecology guide and crops picking (Cheng, 2013; Rong-Da Liang et al , 2020). This study focuses on agritourism experience value cocreation, thus involving the agritourism experience activities as mentioned above.…”

“…Agritourism is a form of tourism activity occurring in rural areas and is related to agricultural production and farmers’ lifestyle (Streifeneder, 2016). Agritourism requires tourists’ participation (Li and Li, 2021), so it is regarded as a critical platform of value cocreation (Cannas et al , 2019; Cubillas et al , 2017; Li and Li, 2021; Rong-Da Liang, 2017; Rong-Da Liang et al , 2020). Previous studies believed that stakeholders create brands through interaction (Buhalis and Park, 2021; Payne et al , 2009), which is also applicable to tourism destination brands.…”

“…However, rural tourism destinations primarily focused on agricultural production instead of meeting tourists’ needs (Brandth and Haugen, 2007). During an agritourism experience, the roles of tourists have changed from passive receivers of value to cocreators of value (Rong-Da Liang, 2017; Rong-Da Liang et al , 2020). As a new method of value creation, the core of value cocreation is customers and the customers are always cocreators of value (Vargo and Lusch, 2014), which is more consistent with the role of customers in the agritourism experience consumption text (Li and Li, 2021).…”

Repeat tourists’ perceived unfavorable changes and their effects on destination loyalty

“…The research sample is Chinese tourists who revisited a destination within the past two years and reported to have witnessed unpleasant changes at the destination. Given the possible impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists (Liang et al , 2021), tourists’ perceptions of the pandemic were controlled for data analysis. This study is one of the first to provide empirical evidence that destination-based changes may adversely affect repeat tourists’ destination loyalty.…”

The role of farm-to-table activities in agritourism towards sustainable development

“…Most of the research on agritourism focusses on the utilitarian approach. The emphasis of the research is mostly on socio-cultural and environmental remunerations of agritourism, the economic advantages of agritourism to farmers and the local community (Barbieri, 2019); impacts of community market development on the residents' well-being (Fakfare and Wattanacharoensil, 2020); the interaction effects of agritourism activities on tourist revisit intention (Liang et al, 2020); as well as personality traits affecting experiences (Leri and Theodoridis, 2020), to name a few. Future perspectives on agritourism are evolving and involve more studies on how agritourism spaces can better resolve societal growing dissonances emanated from the rural-urban gap.…”