Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visitors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Agritourism in the United States
1.2. Agritourism in Missouri
2. Literature Review
2.1. Intrinsic Motivation
2.2. Environmental Behavior
2.3. Value–Belief–Norm Theory
2.4. Agritourism Destination Attributes
2.5. Agritourism Risk Attributes
2.6. Agritourism Food Attributes
2.7. Visitors’ Revisit and Recommendation Intentions
3. Methodology
3.1. Survey Instrument
3.2. Data Collection and Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Demographics of Respondents
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.3. Pearson’s Correlation Analysis
4.4. Structural Equation Modeling
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5.2. Limitations and Future Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rauniyar, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Kapoor, S.; Mishra, A.K. Agritourism: Structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 46, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, C. Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: A comparison between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 252–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeck, G.; Che, D.; Veeck, A. Americas changing farmscape: A study of agricultural tourism in Michigan. Prof. Geogr. 2006, 58, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo, C.G.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholder’s perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andéhn, M.; L’Espoir Decosta, J.P. Authenticity and product geography in the making of the agritourism destination. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 1282–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: A typology-based study. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanal, A.R.; Honey, U.; Omobitan, O. Diversification through ‘fun in the farm’: Analyzing structural factors affecting agritourism in Tennessee. Int. Food Agribus. Man. Rev. 2020, 23, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillip, S.; Hunter, C.; Blackstock, K. A typology for defining agritourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 754–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nickerson, N.P.; Black, R.J.; Mccool, S.F. Agritourism: Motivations behind Farm/Ranch Business Diversification. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M. Agritourism as a means of sustainable development for rural communities: A research from the field. Int. J. Inter. Environ. Stud. 2014, 8, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Chiappa, G.; Andreu, L.; Gallarza, M.G. Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum. Int. J. Cul. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2014, 8, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, Y.S.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, C.K. Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tew, C.; Barbieri, C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Deng, F. How to influence rural tourism intention by risk knowledge during COVID-19 containment in China: Mediating role of risk perception and attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leo, G.; Brien, A.; Astor, Y.; Najib, M.; Novianti, S.; Rafdinal, W.; Suhartanto, D. Attraction loyalty, destination loyalty, and motivation: Agritourist perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suhartanto, D.; Dean, D.; Chen, B.T.; Kusdibyo, L. Tourist experience with agritourism attractions: What leads to loyalty? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2020, 45, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd Razaka, A.; Shamsudinb, M.F.; Abdul, R.M. The influence of atmospheric experience on Theme Park Tourist’s satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysia. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2020, 6, 20–39. [Google Scholar]
- Carpio, C.E.; Wohlgenant, M.K.; Boonsaeng, T. The demand for agritourism in the United States. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 1, 254–269. [Google Scholar]
- Brune, S.; Knollenberg, W.; Stevenson, K.T.; Barbieri, C.; Schroeder-Moreno, M. The influence of agritourism experiences on consumer behavior toward local food. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 1318–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomfret, G.; Bramwell, B. The characteristics and motivational decisions of outdoor adventure tourists: A review and analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1447–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Lehto, X.Y. Travel by families with children possessing disabilities: Motives and activities. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, D.; Jeong, J.; Moon, J. The effect of agritourism experience on consumers’ future food purchase patterns. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. Int. Sociol. 2011, 26, 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L.; Keizer, M.; Farsang, A.; Watt, A. Environmental values in post-socialist Hungary: Is it useful to distinguish egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values? Sociol. Cas. 2012, 48, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Al-Ansi, A.; Olya, H.G.; Kim, W. Exploring halal-friendly destination attributes in South Korea: Perceptions and behaviors of Muslim travelers toward a non-Muslim destination. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolnicar, S.; Knezevic Cvelbar, L.; Grün, B. Do pro-environmental appeals trigger pro-environmental behavior in hotel guests? J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Huang, L.; Whitmarsh, L. Home and away: Cross-contextual consistency in tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1443–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Back, R.M.; Tasci, A.D.; Milman, A. Experiential consumption of a South African wine farm destination as an agritourism attraction. J. Vacat. Mark. 2020, 26, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megeirhi, H.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Ramkissoon, H.; Denley, T.J. Employing a value-belief-norm framework to gauge Carthage residents’ intentions to support sustainable cultural heritage tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1351–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H.; Bilsky, W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, T.H.; Wu, H.C.; Huang, W.S.; Liou, G.B.; Huang, C.; Hsieh, C.M. Determinants of tourists’ intentions to agrotourism in Vietnam from perspectives of Value–Belief–Norm theory. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2021, 38, 881–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Sharma, R. Pro-environmental behavior of adventure tourists: An applicability of value belief norm theory. Tour. Interdiscip. J. 2019, 67, 253–267. [Google Scholar]
- Caber, M.; Albayrak, T.; Matzler, K. Classification of the destination attributes in the content of competitiveness. J. Vacat. Mark. 2012, 18, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battour, M.; Ismail, M.N.; Battor, M. The impact of destination attributes on Muslim tourist’s choice. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eusébio, C.; Vieira, A.L. Destination attributes’ evaluation, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A structural modelling approach. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 15, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozak, M. Measuring tourist satisfaction with multiple destination attributes. Tour. Anal. 2013, 7, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albayrak, T.; Caber, M. Destination attribute effects on rock climbing tourist satisfaction: An Asymmetric Impact-Performance Analysis. Tour. Geogr. 2016, 18, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.H.; Nelson, C.M.; Kim, C. Pro-environmental behavior in sport event tourism: Roles of event attendees and destinations. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 719–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aven, T.; Renn, O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, A.M.; Baláž, V. Tourism risk and uncertainty: Theoretical reflections. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clinch, H.; Filimonau, V. Instructors’ perspectives on risk management within adventure tourism. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2017, 14, 220–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centner, T.J. New state liability exceptions for agritourism activities and the use of liability releases. Agric. Hum. Values 2010, 27, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, M.; Grudzień, P. The essence of agritourism and its profitability during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Agriculture 2021, 11, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holland, R.; Khanal, A.R.; Dhungana, P. Agritourism as an Alternative On-Farm Enterprise for Small US Farms: Examining Factors Influencing the Agritourism Decisions of Small Farms. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agyeiwaah, E.; Otoo, F.E.; Suntikul, W.; Huang, W.J. Understanding culinary tourist motivation, experience, satisfaction, and loyalty using a structural approach. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baby, J.; Joseph, A.G. Influence of travelers’ pro-environmental behavior and support of the local economy towards purchase intention of local foods. Int. J. Food Sci. Agric. 2023, 7, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, R.C.; Arku, G.; Gilliland, J.A. Local food networks as catalysts for food policy change to improve health and build the economy. Loc. Environ. 2015, 20, 1103–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrickson, M.; Massengale, S.H.; Weber, C. Introduction to Local Food Systems. Univ. Mo. Extn. 2015, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Baby, J.; Joseph, A.G. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior in local food purchasing. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Syst. 2024, 17, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
- Baby, J.; Joseph, A.G. Tourists’ perceptions and motivations for local food. J. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2023, 5, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindasamy, R.; Kelley, K. Agritourism consumers’ participation in wine tasting events: An econometric analysis. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2014, 26, 120–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baby, J.; Barbieri, C.; Knollenberg, W. How Memorable Are Agrifood Travel Experiences? Tour. Hosp. 2023, 4, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Liu, P. Food safety in school foodservice operations: A review of health inspections in the state of Missouri. Food Prot. Trends. 2020, 40, 154–163. [Google Scholar]
- Testa, R.; Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Migliore, G. Culinary tourism experiences in agritourism destinations and sustainable consumption—Understanding Italian tourists’ Motivations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, C.G.Q.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bui, H.T.; Le, T.A. Tourist satisfaction and destination image of Vietnam’s Ha Long Bay. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 795–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Pearce, J.; Wen, J.; Dowling, R.K.; Smith, A.J. Segmenting Western Australian national park visitors by perceived benefits: A factor-item mixed approach. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 814–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doyle, L.; Brady, A.M.; Byrne, G. An overview of mixed methods research–revisited. J. Res. Nurs. 2016, 21, 623–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quella, L.; Chase, L.; Conner, D.; Reynolds, T.; Wang, W.; Singh-Knights, D. Visitors and values: A qualitative analysis of agritourism operator motivations across the US. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2021, 10, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.H.; Lee, M.J.; Hwang, Y.S. Tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior in response to climate change and tourist experiences in nature-based tourism. Sustainability 2016, 8, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Wei, M.; Qu, H.; Qiu, S. How does self-image congruity affect tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior? J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 2156–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angell, S.Y.; Behrens, R.H. Risk assessment and disease prevention in travelers visiting friends and relatives. Infect. Dis. Clin. 2005, 19, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toader, A.; Mocuta, N. The risk management in tourism, rural tourism and agritourism. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 20, 477–482. [Google Scholar]
- Katuk, N.; Ku-Mahamud, K.R.; Kayat, K.; Hamid, M.N.A.; Zakaria, N.H.; Purbasari, A. Halal certification for tourism marketing: The attributes and attitudes of food operators in Indonesia. J. Islamic Mark. 2020, 12, 1043–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Chen, J.; Hu, B. Authenticity, quality, and loyalty: Local food and sustainable tourism experience. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, W.J.; Wolfe, K.; Hodur, N.; Leistritz, F.L. Tourist word of mouth and revisit intentions to rural tourism destinations: A case of North Dakota, USA. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 15, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaPan, C.; Barbieri, C. The role of agritourism in heritage preservation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 17, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, C.; Tew, C. The economic benefits of agritourism in Missouri farms. Mo. Dep. Agric. 2010, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
Destination Attributes (DAs) | Risk Attributes (RAs) | Food Attributes (FAs) |
---|---|---|
Convenient location Parking and Disability accommodations On-site restrooms Adequate rest areas (bench, rest lounge etc.) Employee behavior Price/value of activities Availability to use credit card Wi-Fi availability Enjoyable activities and programs Information about facilities and program Road signages COVID-19 safety policy/practice | On-site help from employees Emergency information’s (with contact name, phone numbers, farm name and address) Visitors’ personal protective equipment (helmets, seat belts, and gloves) Drinking water facilities Protection from farm animals Handling of pesticides and hazardous chemical Limiting kids’ access to hazardous areas (farm equipment, pesticides, and chemicals) | Food served appears fresh Serving at appropriate temperature Clean surroundings and utensils Free from contaminations Properly arranged, packed, and sealed Away from animal area and restrooms Description/labeling of the ingredients Food safety certification Employee attire (apron, gloves, etc.) Employee personal hygiene |
Socio-Demographic Indicators | Number | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender (n = 615) | |||
Male | 294 | 47.8% | |
Female | 321 | 52.2% | |
Annual Income (n = 615) | |||
Less than USD 20,000 | 71 | 11.5% | |
USD 20,000–USD 34,999 | 96 | 15.6% | |
USD 35,000–USD 49,999 | 77 | 12.5% | |
USD 50,000–USD 74,999 | 105 | 17.2% | |
USD 75,000–USD 99,999 | 80 | 13.0% | |
USD 100,000–USD 149,999 | 103 | 16.7% | |
USD 150,000 or more | 83 | 13.5% | |
Education (n = 615) | |||
High School Graduate (includes Equivalency) | 134 | 21.8% | |
Some College, No Degree | 131 | 21.3% | |
Associate degree | 77 | 12.5% | |
Bachelor’s Degree | 164 | 26.7% | |
Graduate or Professional Degree | 109 | 17.7% | |
Race/Ethnicity (n = 615) | |||
African American or Black | 71 | 11.5% | |
Caucasian or White | 478 | 77.7% | |
Asian or Pacific Islander | 28 | 4.6% | |
Others | 38 | 6.2% |
Dimension | Variables | Mean | SD | Factor Loading | C.R. | AVE | Cronbach Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intrinsic Motivation | IM1 | 3.93 | 0.970 | 0.776 | 0.870 | 0.573 | 0.870 |
IM2 | 4.04 | 0.970 | 0.751 | ||||
IM3 | 4.07 | 0.936 | 0.759 | ||||
IM4 | 3.91 | 0.936 | 0.729 | ||||
IM5 | 3.86 | 0.967 | 0.768 | ||||
Environmental Behavior | EB1 | 4.16 | 0.858 | 0.808 | 0.893 | 0.625 | 0.893 |
EB2 | 4.25 | 0.822 | 0.804 | ||||
EB3 | 4.14 | 0.872 | 0.783 | ||||
EB4 | 4.23 | 0.807 | 0.784 | ||||
EB5 | 4.28 | 0.827 | 0.773 | ||||
Destination Attributes | DA1 | 4.02 | 1.064 | 0.774 | 0.950 | 0.615 | 0.950 |
DA2 | 4.02 | 1.051 | 0.801 | ||||
DA3 | 3.97 | 1.092 | 0.782 | ||||
DA4 | 4.05 | 1.063 | 0.780 | ||||
DA5 | 4.08 | 1.015 | 0.779 | ||||
DA6 | 4.06 | 1.055 | 0.794 | ||||
DA7 | 4.13 | 1.056 | 0.804 | ||||
DA8 | 4.01 | 1.058 | 0.792 | ||||
DA9 | 3.95 | 1.079 | 0.778 | ||||
DA10 | 4.03 | 0.992 | 0.773 | ||||
DA11 | 3.98 | 1.034 | 0.770 | ||||
DA12 | 4.05 | 1.038 | 0.783 | ||||
Risk Attributes | RA1 | 3.99 | 0.928 | 0.781 | 0.915 | 0.607 | 0.915 |
RA2 | 4.06 | 0.855 | 0.797 | ||||
RA3 | 4.08 | 0.900 | 0.817 | ||||
RA4 | 4.03 | 0.869 | 0.769 | ||||
RA5 | 4.02 | 0.912 | 0.766 | ||||
RA6 | 3.97 | 0.924 | 0.767 | ||||
RA7 | 3.97 | 0.860 | 0.753 | ||||
Food Attributes | FA1 | 4.21 | 0.796 | 0.759 | 0.934 | 0.585 | 0.933 |
FA2 | 4.19 | 0.828 | 0.802 | ||||
FA3 | 4.23 | 0.794 | 0.777 | ||||
FA4 | 4.23 | 0.848 | 0.761 | ||||
FA5 | 4.24 | 0.810 | 0.747 | ||||
FA6 | 4.23 | 0.793 | 0.762 | ||||
FA7 | 4.24 | 0.778 | 0.750 | ||||
FA8 | 4.25 | 0.795 | 0.768 | ||||
FA9 | 4.18 | 0.836 | 0.779 | ||||
FA10 | 4.20 | 0.839 | 0.740 | ||||
Revisit | RV1 | 4.38 | 0.805 | 0.839 | 0.827 | 0.706 | 0.849 |
Intentions | RV2 | 4.38 | 0.810 | 0.841 | |||
Recommendation | RE1 | 4.43 | 0.775 | 0.850 | 0.850 | 0.739 | 0.827 |
Intentions | RE2 | 4.35 | 0.813 | 0.869 |
Variables | IM | EB | DAs | RAs | FAs | RVs | REs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IM | 1.000 | ||||||
EB | 0.484 *** | 1.000 | |||||
DA | 0.313 *** | 0.478 *** | 1.000 | ||||
RA | 0.468 *** | 0.622 *** | 0.606 *** | 1.000 | |||
FA | 0.521 *** | 0.666 *** | 0.519 *** | 0.772 *** | 1.000 | ||
RV | 0.403 *** | 0.434 *** | 0.351 *** | 0.520 *** | 0.493 *** | 1.000 | |
RE | 0.327 *** | 0.454 *** | 0.504 *** | 0.525 *** | 0.490 *** | 0.785 *** | 1.000 |
Hypothesis | Path | Coefficient | S.E. | p-Value | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Intrinsic Motivation → Destination Attributes | 0.123 | 0.066 | 0.064 | Not Supported |
H2 | Intrinsic Motivation → Risk Attributes | 0.223 ** | 0.079 | 0.008 | Supported |
H3 | Intrinsic Motivation → Food Attributes | 0.260 ** | 0.078 | 0.008 | Supported |
H4 | Environmental Behavior → Destination Attributes | 0.436 ** | 0.062 | 0.004 | Supported |
H5 | Environmental Behavior → Risk Attributes | 0.529 ** | 0.077 | 0.004 | Supported |
H6 | Environmental Behavior → Food Attributes | 0.547 ** | 0.077 | 0.004 | Supported |
H7 | Destination Attributes → Revisit Intentions | 0.073 | 0.060 | 0.222 | Not Supported |
H8 | Destination Attributes → Recommendation Intentions | 0.268 ** | 0.068 | 0.004 | Supported |
H9 | Risk Attributes → Revisit Intentions | 0.300 ** | 0.101 | 0.004 | Supported |
H10 | Risk Attributes → Recommendation Intentions | 0.230 * | 0.095 | 0.011 | Supported |
H11 | Food Attributes → Revisit Intentions | 0.218 * | 0.104 | 0.027 | Supported |
H12 | Food Attributes → Recommendation Intentions | 0.179 * | 0.093 | 0.039 | Supported |
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. |
© 2024 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/).
Share and Cite
Baby, J.; Kim, D.-Y. Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visitors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction. Land 2024, 13, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091466
Baby J, Kim D-Y. Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visitors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction. Land. 2024; 13(9):1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091466
Chicago/Turabian StyleBaby, Jibin, and Dae-Young Kim. 2024. "Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visitors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction" Land 13, no. 9: 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091466