Visitor Centers,Collaboration,and the Role of Local Food and Beverage as Regional Tourism Development Tools

Regional Tourism Development and the Role of Visitor Centers

In recent decades, increasing interest in tourism development in many rural regions, including nontraditional tourist destinations, has been fueled by strong needs to revive rural communities. In some rural regions, regional development agencies and local sectors strive to provide hope to their community, often in the belief that tourism’s multiplier effects (see, e.g., Arfini, Bertoli, & Donati, 2002; Balaguer & Cantavella-Jordá, 2002; Oh, 2005; Sinclair & Sutcliffe, 1982) may contribute to a community’s well-being, particularly in the form of tourists’ visitation and consumption (Khan, Seng, & Cheong, 1990). Despite tourism’s potential or actual benefits (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Reeder & Brown, 2005), there is agreement that this sector is not the panacea for rural regions or tourist destinations (Jackson & Murphy, 2006; Oppermann, 1996; Tisdell, 1998). However, the establishment or development of tourism, as may be the development of horticultural, aquaculture, mining, or other sectors is often meant to be one more piece in completing the “puzzle” of long-term well-being to benefit and revitalize rural communities.

Clearly, tourism development would not stand a chance without the direct participation- and expenditures- of visitors. Moreover, the demand of various consumer segments for “different” experiences, activities, or simply for uncovering new corners of the world are substantially contributing to the emergence of new travel destinations. In this context, Hassan (2000) refers to “market diversification of traveller needs” (p. 240) as a reason for the development of “niche and specialty tourism segments” (p. 240), of which adventure tourism is one example. Consumers in this tourism category have the financial means to invest, sometimes incurring considerable expenditures, to travel afar to less frequented places (Torres, 2002) where the mainstream of travelers may never travel to.

However, still today the real challenge for many emerging tourism destinations, including those located in rural areas is finding the means to draw visitors to their region, particularly quality visitors. Quality visitors are those who may not only have the means to afford substantial travel, food and beverage, and other costs, but also those who value an area or a region’s genuine features, including its traditions, arts, culture, and food. Geographic/physical isolation, lack of funds to invest in promotional activities, and limited availability of attractions to keep visitors for several days within their confines are some of the many challenges rural destinations face.

To strengthen promotional, marketing, and other strategies, visitor centers can be a key resource that rural communities can use, not only in tourism development but also in promoting local food and service sectors. As some studies suggest (see, e.g., Hobbin, 1999), visitor centers are major disseminators of information about a region, thereby contributing to visitors’ positive experiences. In studying convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) in the United States, Wang and Fesenmaier (2007) explain that these “coordinate the constituent elements in the destination, which are quite independently diverse, in order to attain the desired single image” (p. 863). Their findings demonstrated that the tourism industry expects visitor bureaus “to provide leadership in initiating, managing and maintaining the destination marketing networks in order to stay competitive” (p. 873). Even more important, they are expected to skillfully coordinate partnerships between private and public sectors (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007, p. 873).

Visitor centers also provide opportunities to maximize an area or a region’s space, and project images of the region, its foods, history, traditions, arts, and culture. For instance, interpretive themes that visitor centers feature serve to guide visitors through the history, culture, flora/fauna, traditions, and activities available of one or different areas. Both young and the more mature visitors may see the visitor center as education and entertainment. Moscardo and Pearce (1986) examined secondary data to study environmental interpretation among visitors to visitor centers. These authors found that “positive relationships between visitor enjoyment and visitors’ information recall can be achieved in centers with highly specific interpretive themes” (p. 106), and also “links between visitor enjoyment and a broadly based measure of visitor learning” (p. 106).

However, the aim and objectives of visitor centers transcend beyond the mere need to inform, assist, or even “entertain” visitors. Fallon and Kriwoken (2003) mention that “is not enough to only assess a visitor centre’s sustainability by its popularity with visitors” (p. 289) and suggest that when designing and establishing a visitor center, the needs of managers, local and cultural communities and operators should be considered (p. 289). Also, an argument could be made for visitor centers to actively engage in connecting the community (businesses, local groups) and visitors to create a harmonious relationship. Some communities are already involved in these relationships through various activities, such as food, arts and craft festivals, and other cultural events.

Importance of Collaborative Relationships

Apart from one or several distinctive elements (e.g., natural attractions, heritage/cultural sites, food and wine themes) that help draw visitors to their area, collaborative initiatives are critical in communities’ quest to develop their tourism sector. According to Wood and Gray (1991), “Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders . . . engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (p. 146). However, in referring to other literature, Wood and Gray (1991) acknowledge “outcomes toward which the collaboration is directed” (p. 149), including change (Roberts & Bradley, 1991), social change (Pasquero, 1991), and responding to the environment or “addressing shared problems” (Selsky, 1991, p. 92; also, see Cummings, 1984) as part of collaborative efforts.

Many studies have alluded to the importance of collaborative relationships in various business environments (see, e.g., Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 2002; Cho, Schmelzer, & McMahon, 2002; Filiatrault & Lapierre, 1997; Harp, Hoover, Crockett, & Wu, 1998; Palmer, Dunford, Rura-Polley, & Baker, 2001; Sheth & Sharma, 1997). In the field of tourism, Jamal and Getz (1995) provide a thorough review of extant collaboration frameworks concerning community-based tourism planning. These authors, for instance, refer to Gray (1985, 1989) to discuss a three-stage model illustrating the process of collaboration for community-based tourism planning (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 190), with the first stage involving problem setting, whereby stakeholders and issues are identified. The second stage refers to direction setting, which consists of the appreciation of a sense of common purpose and “identifying and sharing future collaborative interpretations” (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 189). Finally, the third stage entails implementing or “institutionalizing the shared meanings that emerge as the domain develops” (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 189), including assigning goals and tasks and monitoring ongoing process (p. 190).

In the context of collaboration within rural environments, local sectors and bodies (e.g., hospitality and food growers) can be very influential in promoting local foods, helping boost the region’s image in terms of its food and hospitality offerings. For example, Wang and Fesenmaier (2007), Jackson and Murphy (2006), Novelli, Schmitz, and Spencer (2006), Wargenau and Che (2006), as well as Brunori and Rossi (2000) illustrate the contribution and impact of collaborative relationships, networks, and clusters on the development, establishment, and potentially on the long-term sustainability of tourism themes in rural areas. More specifically, when investigating wine tourism development in the South West region of the state of Michigan, Wargenau and Che (2006) have indicated the importance of horizontal relationships between this region’s wineries in terms of promotion, production, and joint advertising. Furthermore, the authors have suggested the essential role of vertical relationships between wineries and local businesses (hotels, restaurants). These efforts have been extended to the promotion of local wine festivals, wine education, and the development of new markets for local wines (Wargenau & Che, 2006).

The South West of Western Australia and the Blackwood River Valley Region

The South West region of Western Australia, of which the BRV region is part of (Figure 1), has a very long tradition for its agriculture, cattle, and fishing industries. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007), livestock for meat (cattle, sheep) is raised in conjunction with grain growing, a major crop grown in the region. In addition, major orchard crops in this region include apples, plums, prunes, pears, potatoes, carrots, broccoli, and onions (South West Development Commission, 2010). In 2006, almost three fourths of all apples produced in Western Australia and two thirds of grape production were from the South West region (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). The Shire of Manjimup, also in the South West region, is the largest exporter of cauliflowers in Western Australia (South West Development Commission, 2010). The fishing industry, although smaller than other of the region’s food-related sectors, is also important (South West Development Commission, 2010), especially in commercial fishing and in aquaculture, with marron, silver perch, yabbies, and trout being among the dominant subsectors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1

Approximate Geographic Location of the Blackwood River Valley Region

As has been the case of other areas of the South West of Western Australia, within the BRV region the development of the wine grape growing sector has experienced remarkable growth in recent years. According to the Blackwood Valley Wine Industry Association (2005), there are some 50 vineyards and more than 20 wineries, of which many (10) have cellar doors. Illustrating the recent development of this sector, this association was formed in 1996; in recent years, it has hosted the Blackwood Valley and Western Australia Boutique Wine Show every year in the month of October (Blackwood Valley Wine Industry Association, 2005).

The very recent events of the development and establishment of the tourism sector are well documented in the BRV’s website (BRV, 2010). For instance, there is mention that only as recently as in 2005, a “Welcome to the Blackwood River Valley” sign was installed on major roads leading to the Valley (BRV, 2010). Also in 2005, a planning and marketing strategy was developed for the Blackwood River Marketing Association (BRMA); this initiative was further complemented by the creation of the association’s website (www.blackwoodrivervalley.org.au/).

Although it is recognized that tourism, including wine tourism has only recently developed—or started to develop to some extent—in the South Western region of Western Australia, a limited number of studies have explored different sectors of this region from an entrepreneurship, tourism, or hospitality perspective. Among the few studies conducted in recent years focusing on these areas, Alonso and Liu (2010) and Alonso and Northcote (2009) investigated winery operators predominantly among operations located in the South West. The findings of these studies allude to the potential or actual associations between these rural sectors and those of tourism and hospitality.

The present study seeks to add to the limited body of knowledge concerning visitor centers, particularly in the South West of Western Australia by using visitor centers of the BRV region as a case study.

Rationale for the Study and the Chosen Region

Several reasons support the decision to choose an exploratory approach in the present study. First, the characteristics of the developing BRV tourism region, and its proximity to Margaret River, a major tourist destination in Western Australia were believed to be of much merit, particularly in terms of studying strategic and other elements conducive to the further (tourism) development of this area. Second, the rich agricultural background of the region and its currently burgeoning wine-producing sector were considered to be key aspects in development efforts and therefore meritorious of preliminary investigation. The fact that very little has been reported about this region from an academic angle or perspective also suggested that such exploratory approach could provide initial information about ways in which this region is going about to promote and develop its tourism sector. Clearly, the investigation of collaborative efforts among the region’s visitor centers and local sectors (wine, farming) was the main focus of the study.

Data Collection Process

During November of 2009, contact was established with four visitor centers in the BRV region (Nannup, Balingup, Bridgetown, and Boyup Brook) by e-mail communication. This preliminary contact served as an introduction to the study and to invite managers and/or center representatives to participate in a face-to-face interview; all visitor centers’ contact persons accepted to participate in the study.

In December of 2009, the researchers traveled to the BRV region and conducted the face-to-face interviews at days and times that were convenient to the individuals who agreed to participate in this process. In three cases, the researchers interviewed visitor center managers whereas the fourth interview was conducted with a visitor center staff member who had worked at the center for more than 4 years. Thus, in all cases it was assumed that the participants had a certain level of familiarity and experience with recent developments concerning the local tourism industry as well as ongoing collaborative initiatives with other centers and rural sectors. The semistructured interviews were conducted in three separate days, lasted an average of 45 minutes each, and were all recorded and saved as Windows computer audio files. The content of the interviews was transcribed verbatim and saved in Microsoft Word.

The themes addressed in the interviews were concerned with the research questions mentioned previously and that included collaboration between the visitor centers and regional sectors/entities. In addressing the research questions, it was expected that responses would identify challenges visitor centers face in their efforts to develop regional tourism. This form of content analysis is consistent with Krippendorff’s (2004) framework, where he indicates, “Inferences that are intended to answer the research question constitute the basic accomplishment of the content analysis” (p. 30). In addition, and in accord with Weber (1990) and Phillimore and Goodson (2004), content analysis was also useful in grouping or separating into different themes some of the comments or further elaboration respondents provided in addition to addressing the questions during the interviews. The responses of the four different participating individuals were coded in numbers ranging from one to four, for instance, Respondent 1 was coded R1, Respondent 2, R2 and so forth.

Importance of Collaborative Relationships Among Visitor Centers

When participants were asked about the extent to which they collaborated with other visitor centers, it became clear that the management of the visitor centers was striving for strengthening existing collaborative relationships locally. Because of the proximity of an established and more popular tourist destination (Margaret River), not surprisingly individual shires are seeking to unite forces and market themselves as a single tourist destination:

We have a mechanism where we have a joint committee [the BRV Marketing Association], which is a collaboration of Bridgetown, Boyup Brook, Nannup, and Nannup Shires. Those areas collaborate together to promote the area between them, and they produce various advertising brochures and tour maps and various things to promote our particular area. (R1)

We’re very collaborative with [three other local visitor/tourist centres]. We collaborate because what we’re trying to do is more promote a region rather than each individual town, so we’re trying to get people to see it as a region of the Blackwood Valley, and so that they can come and do all these things [activities available]. So we all really cross-promote a lot and work together . . . We also work very strongly with them . . .” (R2)

These comments are consistent with previous research emphasizing the key role of different forms of collaboration. For example, although “lack of coordination and cohesion within the highly fragmented tourism industry is a well-known problem to destination planners and managers” (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 186), it has also been discussed that increasingly “go-it-alone” attempts are giving way to more collaborative and cooperative efforts (Gunn, 1988, in Jamal & Getz, 1995). As the two other cases (R3, R4) illustrate, the desire for strong relationships also led to the visitor center representatives to seek collaboration and establish relationships with other tourism stakeholders beyond the region’s boundaries. Interestingly, although there was a strong interest in promoting and marketing the BRV region, neighboring tourist destinations that could be considered market competitors were also included in collaborative efforts:

. . . we send brochures over there to Margaret River but in the Blackwood Valley we have an organization of the four towns, that is: Nannup, Balingup, Boyup Brook and Bridgetown, which is the Blackwood Marketing Association . . . We meet on a monthly basis; so from that point of view we have quite a bit of networking between the four areas. So that would include attractions and wineries . . .” (R3)

We are members of the BRV Marketing Association . . . and have four meetings with all other the visitor Centres of the Southwest from Bunbury, Harvey, Margaret River and Albany, Walpole; they all come and meet in Pemberton. Sometimes the people from the tourism office from Perth will come down and talk to us. So I guess there is a bit of a networking opportunity there to talk about what is happening within each visitor centre. (R4)

Collaboration and Local (Rural) Sectors: The Case of BRV Wineries

Mirroring the visitor centers’ interest in promoting scenery, arts, crafts, and events, when asked about the extent to which they were working or linking with the burgeoning wine sector, a certain degree of collaboration was identified,

. . . if we’re doing anything in town we use local wines from that point of view. When we have the [local event] and the small farms field day, then the wineries come in to display their wines and if they can, do wine tastings. So from that point of view we do involve them in the town . . . I think it [wine tourism] is a growing thing. (R2)

Overall, however, the association between visitor centers and the region’s food sectors still appears to be rather weak and tentative:

I mean it is fairly small in Blackwood River at the moment, but it’s definitely growing . . . I think because people have concentrated on Mount Barker and Swan Valley and Margaret River, but I think people are learning that there are wines in here. Even down the road . . . they [winery] have the top red wine in Western Australia this year . . . That was a real achievement . . . (R2)

[t]he wine industry saw that it was important to be involved in our local tourism association at a grass-roots level and they provided a representative to come along . . . the wine industry wanted an input in what happens in tourism . . . and our the local community. (R3)

At the same time, however, the same respondent recognized the marginal role that the local wine industry played in contributing to raising the local area’s tourism profile:

It [wine tourism] is not significant at this point. I suppose it’s like agriculture within our area at present time. There are fluctuations in how prosperous the wine producers are in relation to product and commodity prices. We don’t have a huge number of vineyards in our area, so it only plays a little part at this point . . . but we do have an active wine association here so we’re trying to lift the profile. We’re trying to develop it. They’ve been working for four or five years now, they’ve had a boutique wine show which they tell me they had one recently earlier this year. And they say it’s been growing each year they’ve held it, so that’s positive . . . even in these tough economic times. (R3)

These findings are in stark contrast to the strong associations other studies (Wargenau & Che, 2006) found between the wine product and other business stakeholders of the local area, and how wine contributed to raising the profile of the region as a tourist destination. Similarly, other contemporary studies (Telfer, 2001; Telfer & Wall, 1996; Torres, 2002) have documented “symbiotic” relationships between local rural sectors (e.g., wineries) and hospitality businesses. Clearly, the visitor centers of the BRV region are aware that in other Western Australian regions such as Swan Valley or Margaret River, the appeal of wine tourism is much stronger and has a much longer history. Therefore, the main emphasis in drawing visitors to the area appears to be the promotion and marketing of events and the “different” natural environments (native forests, rivers) or “the myth of nature” (Bessière, 1998, p. 22) in comparison with other regions.

Observations conducted in and around the town where one of the visitor centers was located demonstrated that some 10 wineries were located nearby. Although clearly there is an abundance of wineries within close physical distance, because of the developing nature of the region’s wine industry illustrated by its recent establishment (Blackwood Valley Wine Industry Association, 2005), shortcomings were acknowledged concerning any formal wine-related activities:

There have been nobody [sic] doing tours or anything because of a lot of those wineries don’t have cellar doors. It is a little bit hard, but recently we’ve had someone approach us who wants to do little bus tours and try and incorporate the wineries. So we’re trying to help him with feedback to create a business that will perhaps incorporate wine visits for people, and because we don’t have enough [wineries open to the public], he’ll mix it with other things. But we’re really hoping to extend that and actually get people to realize that there are wineries to visit here as well as in Margaret River. But it is a totally different approach to wine production here, and that is what we’ll have to focus on. It’s very small owner operated boutique type wineries . . . It’s a whole different sort of thing, but we’ll make it a country experience for them. (R4)

Despite the apparent hesitance or slowness in promoting and marketing the local wine sector as a source to draw tourists to the region, the case of a third visitor center that was redoubling its efforts to promote wine and tourism clearly demonstrates the potential of wine tourism for the BRV region. Though small, the local wine sector has grown to several dozen vineyards, including many that have opening their doors in recent years (Blackwood Valley Wine Industry Association, 2005). Not surprisingly, the same respondent recognized the importance of wine tourism for the area and how local businesses were also becoming more aware of the important role that the wine sector could play:

[w]e’ve got the wine display there. The wineries in the region have their own little marketing group . . . they have created a display that promotes all different wineries in the region and then we try to give [maps of the wine region] to people who come in . . . [Wine tourism is] very important . . . since tourism has been growing and people are realizing operators and owners of businesses are realizing the value of tourism, there has been a big growth in confidence in the main streets . . . when I started coming rather probably ten years ago every time you only come once or twice a year for holiday and every time you see that little shop open, the next time you come the shop would be closed. There was no consumer confidence and now for the last four or five years maybe you can see a real confidence growing in the main street. People are really, really shopping and doing business and a lot more continuity and a lot more confidence in the town . . . it’s really growing . . . And wine would be one of them. (R4)

Collaboration Between BRV Visitor Centers and Other Regional Sectors

Similar to the present developmental stage of wine tourism in the BRV region, despite its strong agricultural background, as well as most of the South West region, a very weak association was identified between the region, its food produce, and tourism stakeholders:

There is one organic farm here and she hoped to do tours and different things but we haven’t heard any more of that, so no, we don’t have any farms. We’ve got sheep, cheese and cottages on a farm so to speak but not actually farming as in agriculture; nobody operates a business like that from a tourism aspect . . . I know in Margaret River they’ve got some farms and cottages and they take people out in the afternoon, they take people up to paddocks and they light little barns and do the marshmallows and they’ve got lamb feeding, but they’ve got the population and the tourist population there, whereas any sort of project like in this region is still developing. We don’t have the number of people like in Margaret River . . . (R1)

Well, we only have one member who has [a] farm stay . . . The other thing we do on Farm Field Day is we have farm visits. So people who come for the day can book on a visit and they run all day and they go out to local farms and see what people are doing there, and it involves more than just the farming activities, it’s the lifestyle, utilising solar power, wind power and whatever else they doing there . . . (R2)

As with the other groups [visitor centres], it [farm/agri-tourism] is in the very primary stages where they’re trying to develop that aspect of their tourism, of their business, and so that is only just starting to emerge, there are little whispers about creating something in that sense. And that I think has been driven from a state tourism level where they have asked to start sending questions out on to these . . . that are associated with agro business . . . to record their interest back to tourism in Western Australia. So that’s where it’s just started and just begun. I’d say dollar wise it’s negligible at this stage. (R3)

As was the case with the local wine sector, these findings are in contrast to those of previous studies (Bessière, 1998; Brunori & Rossi, 2000; Everett & Aitchison, 2008; Fox, 2007; Green, & Dougherty, 2008; Groves, 2001; Hall, Sharples, Mitchell, Macionis, & Cambourne, 2003; Hjalager & Corigliano, 2000; Hjalager & Richards, 2002; Montanari & Staniscia, 2009) that highlighted the importance of collaboration. Indeed, some of these authors found that relationships between local foods or gastronomy and other local business stakeholders have contributed to boosting tourism development and to creating an identity by providing additional activities that in the case of food/gastronomy can draw tourists to a region. Bessière (1998) for instance points out: “As identity marker of a region and/or as a means of promoting farm products, gastronomy meets the specific needs of consumers, local producers and other actors in rural tourism” (p. 21).

Even in the current state of lack of development of a local or regional food/gastronomic theme, one visitor center respondent (R4) acknowledged receiving requests for farm tourism and occasionally was involved,

Mainly as booking agents . . . If it’s farm tourism they [farm tourism operators] usually have a couple of chalets on their place, they have some animals . . . we actually can promote their products when we get people inquiring and say “we’ve got a few young kids” and that sort of thing. And we say: “well . . . this kind of thing where there is interaction with animals . . . is “available,” and try to promote it that way. (R4)

In referring to farm tourism, the same respondent (R4) also alluded to the importance of providing alternative activities as opposed to those more available (e.g., beach, wine and food tourism) in the popular neighboring Margaret River region:

I think it [farm tourism] is quite important for this area in particular because you do get a different clientele that comes here as opposed to Margaret River. We do get more families that want the “nature theme,” the natural experience, that sort of thing. Your main market over there would be more older [sic], wealthier people who want to do the whole sort of touring and the restaurants, whereas here you get people who want a more quality time with their family, get out in the bush, do some walks, see some animals, that sort of thing, so it’s a different type of client. (R4)

Visitor Centers’ Contribution in Developing and Promoting Food and Wine Tourism

Participants’ responses clearly suggest very opposed levels of promotion and availability of farm tourism, farm produce, and local foods. The manager (R3) of the least involved visitor center, for example, stated,

We don’t at this stage. There are a few boutique growers, in particular probably meat and beef and venison within our area that’s developing their own markets. But they’re doing it “tough;” they are doing it by themselves. In one sense we don’t help; they haven’t come to us . . . they’re not a member of our association. They haven’t tied their core business in association with tourism. They’re finding their own way in that sense; they’re attending events and activities within the region themselves to promote their own product. They’re not involved in the tourism association to develop anything at a ground level through tourism . . . There is possibly scope in it. But again: you can only do as much as you can with your resources and because there’s limited resources on what we can do to help them promote themselves as well. But the first thing is, we or they have to get together and decide that we can work together to benefit each other. (R3)

A second visitor center only marginally promoted such activity mainly because there was very limited availability of farms open to the public (R1):

We have a bed and breakfast operation that is a member of our association; she [operator] makes apple preserves and a lot of the accommodation providers bake loaves of bread to put for people staying so when they arrive they have homemade loaves of bread and they offer those sorts of things. (R1)

The comment of the third respondent (R2) indicated even more involvement:

I think we promote local produce . . . we are very keen on that, not just ours but anything in the Blackwood Valley or Margaret River. The shops in town try to sell anything that’s local, Western Australian or in the [Blackwood] Valley, so we’re very strong on that. The [business name] produce herbal products which they make right here . . . so yes, that would be a key issue I think. (R2)

The highest level of involvement was clearly stated in the comment of the fourth participating visitor center:

We have recently had an olive oil state wide judging competition held here. We have a wine competition here once a year . . . in the town hall, in Bridgetown. We had a wine and food fair a couple of years, we ran out of people to run that, but we still have the wine judging here so we’re hoping to get back to that again and try to make that more into a weekend type event with other food produce as well. That hopefully will grow. Of course the markets, we also had a Christmas fair. Someone did a Christmas fair of all local produce and that was crafts and local food. And that was held in the local hall and that was a really good success. That was the first time they’ve done it. So they put out all local people in the region that had produce or product to come and have an indoor market at the town hall, especially in time for Christmas. So that was really showcasing local products as well . . . Sort of mini events like that is probably the main way we do it at this stage. (R4)

In studying the potential of agro-tourism for a mass-tourism destination (Canary Islands, Spain), Parra López and Calero García (2006) mention the relevance this tourism concept has been gaining in recent years. Other areas of the world (Hegarty & Przezborska, 2005; McGehee & Kim, 2004) have also developed their forms of agro-agri and other forms of agricultural tourism. The commercial potential and the popularity that rural areas seem to have for different groups of consumers, including those in countries with a culinary identity is suggested by Bessière (1998).