**1. Introduction**

Since the second half of the last century, a series of social, economic, and environmental changes have considerably altered the planetary balances, generating events such as climate change, pollution, and loss of biological diversity [1]. The growing gap between rich and poor countries and the resource crisis in the energy, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors has grown more and more with the years, making essential a new concept of development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need" [2].

Consequences of continuous economic growth (i.e., high social costs, indiscriminate use of natural resources, generalized pollution, etc.) led to a common understanding that the development pathways are no more sustainable and radical changes are needed [3]. A "*new trajectory for development*" is emerging, highlighting from the one side, the limits, and contradictions of the traditional development paradigm, from the other side, the need to transition to sustainable development strategies able to balance economic growth with cultural and natural resource conservation [4]. Fundamentals of such strategies are the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental), which are best known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) [5]. Building on the principle of "leaving no one behind", in September 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasizing a holistic approach to achieving sustainable development for all [6].

From the industrial revolution on, rural communities have been facing many challenges such as poor commodity prices, rising input costs, environmental pressures, and globalization. Farmers have been increasingly forced to leave their farms and seek other jobs elsewhere, causing a shift of economic activities and population toward urban areas and exposing the rural ones to economic, social, and environmental decline [7–9].

Rural development can be defined as "an overall improvement in the economic and social well-being of rural residents and the institutional and physical environment in which they live" [10]. Nowadays, the concept of rural development is becoming increasingly complex, going beyond the boundaries of the economic sphere and leading to a growing emphasis on the not overexploiting natural resources and landscape, as well as on the stimulation and valorization of existing tangible (e.g., infrastructure, monuments, typical local foods, etc.) and intangible assets (culture heritage, traditions, history). The importance of involving local communities in common development pathways leveraging on territorial specificities of rural areas (e.g., the heritage of natural resources and landscape and the traditions of typical agriculture) is generally understood [11]. Several authors recognized the fundamental contribution of the agrifood sector to the sustainable development of rural areas, indicating evolutionary paths of di fferentiation and integration able to produce long-lasting development [12,13]. More recent patterns of the agricultural sector evolution highlight structural changes on both the demand and the supply side. On the demand side, consumers become more and more attentive to aspects linked up to the quality and typicality of production, while the supply side is characterized by new supply chain configurations, based on a closer relationship between producer and consumer and on the disintermediation of wholesalers.

To better exploit such evolution patterns, farmers and other organizations have started organizing themselves in rural networks deploying alternative business models aimed to guarantee competitive advantages, to improve farm revenue streams, to resume taking an active role in the agrifood system, and to develop new consumer market niches [14]. Such models are characterized by a re-connection among producers and consumers with these explicit ethical and political goals: re-vitalization of territory identity and rural community relations to local food and agriculture, linking with sustainable agriculture, economically viable, and socially responsible practices [15]. In fact, consumers are paying more and more attention toward viable practices like the "zero kilometers" approach, where the supply and consumption of food products to consumers occurs in the same location (or nearly) as the production [16]. These networks aim at shortening the physical and social distances between producers and consumers by minimizing the number of intermediaries in the food supply chain, having the potential to positively a ffect the sustainable development of rural areas along all the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) in agricultural systems [17–19].

In this work, we consider a particular model of agricultural business, namely agritourism, where farms, which deploy tourism activities, represent a touchpoint between a network of rural actors (no-profit organizations, local firms, public administrations) and tourists interested in enjoying the local territory. In fact, rural tourism represents a growing market o ffering to rural communities' growth opportunities that arise from the emerging trends in tourism demand, which tend to pay more attention to the values of culture, food, and the countryside. It can bring a valuable contribution to the sustainable development of rural areas. Its contribution can be expressed not only in financial terms, but also in terms of jobs, enhancement and revitalization of community pride, encouragemen<sup>t</sup> to the adoption of new working practices, and the injection of new vitality into sometimes-weakened economies [20]. In this sense, agritourism represents an authentic form of rural tourism as it allows tourists to live a real and authentic rural experience on a working farm, participating in agrifood activities (e.g., harvesting, feeding, preserves preparation) being in contact with animals and nature and enjoying the food produced and cooked on the farm [21].

Nowadays scholars from di fferent perspectives agree that agritourism can be the right tool to balance the needs of rural tourists with those of rural communities, o ffering real opportunities for economic and social development while mitigating undesirable impacts on the environment and other socio-cultural aspects [9,22,23]. This work aims to provide a holistic outlook of the di fferent perspectives under which scientific literature deals with the topic of agritourism as a means to support the sustainable development of rural areas. To reach this aim, we performed a systematic review of the scientific literature in order to point out the linkages between agritourism and sustainability.

## **2. Theoretical Background**

#### *2.1. The Agritourist Farms*

The substantial changes that a ffected the tourism and the agricultural sectors, as well as the growing competitive pressure, led small farmers to explore the feasibility of complementary economic strategies in the attempt to preserve their business initiatives. Specifically, farmers are continually looking for "new ways" of doing business in order to increase the competitive advantage in the global market, improve their sources of income, expand the activities of farms, "use" agricultural products in new ways and innovative, and develop new customer niches [24]. Agritourism activities are increasingly seen as a diversification strategy for agricultural entrepreneurs and as a form of support for the rural economy [25]. In fact, the EU agricultural policies led to a reorientation from a "productionist" agricultural paradigm toward more complex business models, among which the "agritourism" model stands out [26]. As stated by Sonnino, agritourism should be considered as a sustainable strategy: in its stated objectives, it promotes the conservation of a broadly conceived rural environment through its socioeconomic development [5].

In the scientific literature, the term "agritourism" is understood according to di fferent meanings and often synonymous with the terms "agrotourism", "farm tourism", "farm-based tourism", and "rural tourism". In order to provide a clearer overview, in Table 1 we provide some definitions of "agritourism" adopted in the scientific literature.


**Table 1.** Overview of definitions for agritourism given in the scientific literature.

Many authors adopt the term "working farm" where tourism services are provided besides traditional agricultural activities [27,29]. However, agritourism and rural tourism are not properly synonymous since the first represents a subset of the latter activities [35,36]. Both agritourism and rural tourism cannot be defined only in terms of the services provided in a place. The definition must include the availability of resources put in value to satisfy a demand through services. In [5,33], authors emphasize that tourism services provided in a working farm have to be strictly connected and complementary with respect to the activity of the agricultural entrepreneur. The term "connection" means that tourism activities are based on the raw materials and the premises of the farm, while the term "complementary" indicates that the tourism activity cannot exist outside an operating farm, but neither can it prevail in the context of the same over typically agricultural activities. In our intent the term agritourism refers to tourism services provided by agricultural entrepreneurs within their own farm, also allowing visitors to take part, directly or indirectly, in agricultural activities. In particular, agritourism farms may offer services as hospitality, meal provision, farm tour, on-site processing of agricultural goods, pick-your-own activities, and so on [21]. It must be emphasized that the study of agritourism has been dealt with according to different approaches, depending on the scientific discipline of reference. The two perspectives mainly adopted concern tourism and agricultural entrepreneurship, addressing agritourism related issues from an organizational, sociological, and economic point of view [37].

#### *2.2. Sustainability Impacts*

Since the concept of sustainability was introduced by the Brundtland Report [2], the pillars of the triple bottom line have been successfully used as a framework to holistically investigate the impact of different entrepreneurial activities across the social, economic, and environmental dimensions [22]. In the scientific literature, there are several frameworks to measure the magnitude of such impact on all the possible dimensions and we can briefly refer to these measures as sustainability impacts. Although the indicators used in those frameworks are strictly dependent on the reference industry [38,39], indicators are generally grouped according to the type of measured performance and the extent of the impact. For what concerns the type of performance, such models extend the concept of the economic bottom line (namely, the profit) of traditional accounting frameworks, adding an ecological and social perspective. Social equity, environmental and economic actors are also known under the 3P concept, "People, Planet, Profit" respectively [40]. The extent of the impact relates to sustainability at a micro or a macro level [41]. While the micro-level pertains to business value aspects related to the single enterprise (farm), the macro-level deals with the generation of value for the whole industrial branch or the region (or country) where the company operates [42].

Multidimensional approaches to sustainability are widely adopted also in agricultural and tourism settings. In the case of agriculture, the combination of traditional subsistence and modern farming practices paves the way to new agricultural models such as agroecology, which foster ecologically, culturally, and socially integrated practices and facilitate resilience through diversity [19,43]. Sustainability and rural tourism are always more intertwined, highlighting the increasing interest of tourists in experiencing the rural environment and being part of the social fabric of the local community [44].

Agritourism is the business activity that best embodies the aspects just presented, as it represents fully the precepts of sustainable agriculture, as well as those related to sustainable tourism. In fact, Agritourism is seen as a "smart chance" for the sustainable development of rural communities, with multiplier effects on some important parts of economic and social life [45]. Previous research found that agritourism farms act as a stimulus for other local activities (e.g., agrifood producers, handicrafts, restaurants, shops) [4,32] as well as contributing to the preservation of customs and the local culture [46]. Tew and Barbieri [28] put in evidence that farm entrepreneurs are motivated in starting agritourism activities because of the increase in farm's revenue stream, offering the possibility to capture new customers more than traditional farming, and the improvement of the farmer's quality of life, promoting a way of life in contact with nature and providing alternative job opportunities with their families. These factors are important in contexts characterized by higher costs of land and input in general, especially for small businesses [3].

Some authors have dealt with the study of the motivations underlying the setting up of agritourism activities, emphasizing the dual role of agritourism for both individual "actors" (rural tourism operators, intermediaries in the tourism sector, and visitors) and the rural community as a whole [31]. However, the scientific literature lacks a systematic overview of the potential benefits of the agritourism industry for the long-lasting development of rural areas. This limitation is essentially due to the complexity of the set of economic and non-economic objectives associated with agritourism activities. We intend to fill this gap using the methodology described in the next section.
