农业旅游外文文献翻译

合集下载

乡村文化旅游来自加拿大的案例研究外文文献翻译

文献出处：MacDonald R, Jolliffe L. Cultural rural tourism: Evidence from Canada [J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2003, 30(2): 307-322.原文Cultural rural tourism: Evidence from CanadaRoberta ; JolliffeAbstractTourism has become a development tool for many rural and more isolated areas to supplement traditional industries that are often in decline. In this paper, development of cultural rural tourism is examined in a case study of a French Acadian region on an island in eastern Canada. The roles of culture and community-based partnerships are considered in a proposed framework with four evolving development stages. The findings suggest that the framework is useful for rural tourism development; that culture, which is often well preserved in rural areas, is a valuable resource to include; and that community-based partnerships such as cooperatives may be very effective.Keywords: cultural tourism; rural development; community-based partnership IntroductionRural communities and peripheral areas such as islands face the challenge of continuous economic development. Where primary traditional industries such as fishing and farming are in decline, tourism often becomes another tool to help create jobs and to raise the standards of living. These areas realize this potential throughdevelopment of local resources, culture, and heritage. The integration of such alternative sources may help to sustain local economies and to encourage local development. Actually many tourists seek rural destinations which offer pleasant experiences related to the natural environment, historic heritage, and cultural patterns. It is this culture and heritage that are often well preserved between generations in rural areas and it is in periods of economic decline that their residents seem to cling more to a distinct heritage. Culture and tourism then become resources for socioeconomic development in rural and peripheral communities. This has been observed in studying cultural tourism in many of the small islands of the North Atlantic.The rural tourism concept has many interpretations (Page and Getz, 1997 and Sharpley et al., 1997).Bramwell and Lane (1994) propose that rural tourism can include activities and interests in farms, nature, adventure, sport, health, education, arts, and heritage. In 1996, Pedford expands the concept into living history such as rural customs and folklore, local and family traditions, values, beliefs, and common heritage.Turnock (1999) further broadens the view of rural tourism to embrace all aspects of leisure appropriate in the countryside. Given these various findings, the concepts for this particular study are integrated as cultural rural tourism. This is defined as referring to a distinct rural community with its own traditions, heritage, arts, lifestyles, places, and values as preserved between generations. Tourists visit these areas to be informed about the culture and to experience folklore, customs, natural landscapes, and historical landmarks. They might also enjoy other activities in a ruralsetting such as nature, adventure, sports, festivals, crafts, and general sightseeing. This concept fits the WTO (1994) finding that environmental and cultural heritage are major themes that can be conserved for future use while benefiting the present. Cultural rural tourism developmentTo help understand the cultural rural tourism process, a framework is proposed for analysis of the development activities that occur in the case study. The framework is based on a variety of sources that indicate a niche for providing tourists an educational, adventuresome, and enriching experience. The sources include the model by Lewis (1998), the tourism product lifecycle findings of Butler (1980) and Hill (1993), and the findings by Prohaska (1995) for the development of cultural tourism in island destinations, which are often rural areas. Also considered are Pedford’s findings (1996) that local residents need to become involved as part of an area’s living history to aide local cultural tourism. The host provides the knowledge of traditions and folklore which contribute to tourists’authentic experiences without endangering the resource concerned. This fits with the US National Trust Heritage Tourism program that promotes heritage development by balancing short-term gain and long-term preservation. The framework as shown inTable 2 incorporates the findings of these studies.Stage one is the initial evolution when a rural region employs the tourism concept in its economic development process. This involves the integration of cultural and rural resources into the socioeconomic planning for a community. The process seems to begin slowly when a few tourists arrive in the community and someresidents see an opportunity. This stage includes more of individual offerings. The second stage evolves from this simple start. It is the stage to plan and to implement strategies that start to benefit the whole region. This will develop into more formal plans based on cooperation among the community’s residents, organizations, and businesses. In rural areas, this might involve partnerships between local and regional groups as well as national organizations and various levels of government. Page and Getz (1997)discuss the importance of community cooperation and partnerships in rural tourism. Prohaska (1995) also notes that local hosts tend to seek government assistance for heritage areas with unique or distinct identities that have been developed over generations. At this stage, examples may include festivals and special cultural events to attract more tourists into an area.The third stage is developing the plans into more advanced and formal cultural rural tourism offerings that benefit the community in the short-term and conserve the resources for the long-term. At this stage, there are increased efficiency and effective development of more permanent attractions, activities, and educational programs of the natural environment, historical sites, and cultural experiences. A tourism organization for the region also takes control of the process to ensure more coherent and integrated marketing of the area. The final stage is the fully centralized planning and implementing of tourism in the rural region. At this point, the planning should be responsible, appropriate, and enduring for short and long-term community benefits while also preserving its resources. It is at this fourth stage that five principles proposed by the US National Trust play a role to help guide the preservation oflong-term cultural rural tourism. These principles include authenticity and quality, education and interpretation, preservation and protection, local priorities and capacity, and partnerships (Prohaska 1995). In general, this framework is like a pyramid with a few people at the top in stage one starting the process slowly. By stage four, the base is broad and includes many people and organizations working in team efforts in the process for the benefit of the whole region.译文乡村文化旅游:来自加拿大的案例研究罗伯塔; 乔利夫摘要旅游业已经成为许多农村和偏远地区的重点开发产业，用以补充当地的传统产业。

农业观光旅游英语作文

农业观光旅游英语作文Agricultural tourism, also known as agritourism, has gained popularity worldwide as people seek authentic and immersive experiences in rural areas. This form of tourism allows visitors to engage with agricultural activities, learn about farming practices, and experience the rural way of life. In this essay, we will explore the significance of agricultural tourism and its impact on both tourists and local communities.Firstly, agricultural tourism offers tourists a unique opportunity to connect with nature and gain hands-on experience in farming activities. Visitors can participate in activities such as fruit picking, animal feeding, and crop harvesting, allowing them to appreciate the hard work and dedication required in agricultural production. Moreover, agricultural tourism provides educational opportunities for tourists to learn about sustainable farming practices, environmental conservation, and the importance of agriculture in feeding the world's growingpopulation.Furthermore, agricultural tourism plays a crucial role in supporting local economies and preserving rural communities. By attracting tourists to rural areas, agritourism creates additional sources of income for farmers and rural businesses. Farmers can diversify their revenue streams by offering farm tours, selling farm-fresh produce, and providing accommodation and dining services. Additionally, agricultural tourism helps to revitalize rural communities by stimulating economic growth, preserving cultural heritage, and promoting community engagement.Moreover, agricultural tourism has environmental benefits by promoting sustainable land use practices and conservation efforts. Many agritourism destinations prioritize eco-friendly practices such as organic farming, water conservation, and wildlife habitat preservation. Through educational programs and farm tours, tourists gain awareness of the environmental challenges facing agriculture and the importance of protecting naturalresources for future generations.In conclusion, agricultural tourism offers a unique and enriching travel experience for tourists while providing economic opportunities for rural communities and promoting environmental sustainability. By engaging with agricultural activities and learning about farming practices, tourists gain a deeper appreciation for the food they consume and the importance of agriculture in supporting livelihoods and feeding the world. As agritourism continues to grow in popularity, it will play an increasingly important role in connecting people with the land, fostering cultural exchange, and promoting sustainable development.。

乡村旅游中英文对照外文翻译文献

乡村旅游中英文对照外文翻译文献Assessment of Rural Tourism in Turkey Using SWOT Analysisn:XXX。

located at the crossroads of Asia。

Europe。

and Africa。

covers an area of approximately 780,000 square kilometers and has a coastline of 8,000 kilometers。

According to the 2000 n census。

the country has a n of 67,803,927.with approximately 35% XXX has nearly 37,000 villages。

with two-thirds of them having pXXX。

one-third of XXX.Body:XXX years。

In order to assess the potential of rural tourism in XXX。

a SWOT (Strengths。

Weaknesses。

Opportunities。

and Threats) analysis was conducted.Strengths:Turkey has a rich cultural heritage。

with many XXX。

as well as natural beauty。

such as mountains。

forests。

XXX。

XXX.XXX:One of the main XXX。

many rural areas lack access to basic services such as XXX。

XXX.Opportunities:There is a growing XXX has recognized this trend and has XXX。

关于旅游业农业的外文文献

关于旅游业农业的外文文献Agriculture in Tourism: A Review of the LiteratureTourism and agriculture are two industries that are closely interconnected. As tourism has grown into a major economic force around the globe, it has also brought opportunities for the development of agriculture in tourism destinations. This paper provides a review of the literature on the relationship between agriculture and tourism, with a focus on the benefits and challenges of integrating agriculture into tourism development.Benefits of Agriculture in TourismThe integration of agriculture into tourism development can provide a range of benefits for both the tourism industry and the local agricultural sector. For the tourism industry, agriculture can provide a unique selling point for destinations, offering visitors a chance to experience local food and culture. Agritourism, or tourism that is based on agricultural activities, can also offer new revenue streams for tourism businesses, as well as opportunities for the development of niche tourism markets.For the agricultural sector, tourism can provide new markets for local products and services, as well asopportunities for diversification and income generation. In addition, the integration of agriculture into tourism development can help preserve local cultural heritage and traditional farming practices, as well as promote sustainable agriculture and rural development.Challenges of Agriculture in TourismDespite the potential benefits of integrating agriculture into tourism development, there are also several challenges that must be addressed. One major challenge is the need for coordination and collaboration between the tourism and agricultural sectors. This can be difficult to achieve, as the two industries often have different priorities and goals.Another challenge is the need for appropriate infrastructure and services to support agritourism activities, such as transportation, accommodation, and marketing. This can be particularly challenging in rural areas, where infrastructure and services may be limited.Finally, there is a need for careful planning and management of agritourism activities to ensure that they are sustainable and do not have negative impacts on the local environment or community. This requires a balance between the economic benefits of tourism and the need to protect localresources and cultural heritage.ConclusionThe relationship between agriculture and tourism is complex and multifaceted, offering both opportunities and challenges for tourism development in rural areas. While the integration of agriculture into tourism can provide a range of benefits for both industries, careful planning and management are necessary to ensure that these benefits are realized in a sustainable and responsible manner.。

乡村旅游和经济发展外文翻译文献

外文文献翻译(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Frederick M. Rural Tourism and Economic Development[J]. Economic Development Quarterly the Journal of American Economic Revitalization, 1993, 7(2):215-224.英文原文Rural Tourism and Economic DevelopmentM FrederickTourism is a popular economic development strategy. The author reviews three diverse books that study tourism from various social science perspectives ——economic, sociological, psychological, and anthropological. Ryan ’ s book is multidisciplinary in approach and covers all major topics of tourism; tourist experience; and marketing. Michal Smith details the negative affects of tourism development in rural areas of the southeastern United States. Finally, V alene Smith ’ s book presents international case studies that document cultural changes caused by tourism development. Despite their different focuses, all three books agree that tourism development has its benefits and costs and that changes to the destination areas are inevitable. Careful planning and marketing can lessen the harmful effects of tourism development.Tourism is an increasingly popular elixir to economic rural and urban underdevelopment. Its current prominence in the array of localeconomic development strategies can be traced to several features of the tourism industry. Tourism jobs are mostly low-skill jobs, which are a good fit with the job skills of many rural residents. Also, tourism has a potential for creating an export base that builds on favorable local advantages such as a pleasant climate or sites of historic or natural interest. More important, tourism strategies mesh with the current political philosophy and budget realities of minimizing government involvement and investment. The accommodations, restaurants, and entertainment activities that necessarily accompany tourism are assumed to be provided by the private sector. Critics of tourism as a development strategy cite its low-paying and dead-end jobs, its degradation of the local natural environment, and its potential corruption of local culture and customs. Further, not every jurisdiction in need of jobs and a tax base has tourism potential.The study of tourism, like much of the economic development literature, draws from a wide range of disciplines. The forte of economists is in addressing the affects of tourism on the local economy; however, economists fail to describe who tourists are or why they travel. Anthropologists ’ major contribution to defining and studying tourism is in examining the impacts of tourism on local culture. Psychologists are more likely to dwell on the motives for tourism, but they ignore the impacts. Clearly, the complete definition of tourism includes theeconomic, social, anthropological, and psychological viewpoints. One strength of Recreational Tourism: A social Science Perspective by Chris Ryan is its multidisciplinary approach to the study of tourism. In contrast, the case studies from around the world found in Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by V alene Smith, dwell on tourism from the perspectives of history and anthropology, with its focus on the culture affects of tourism and tourism ’ s role in the acculturation process. Behind the Glitter: The Impact of Tourism on Rural Women in the Southeast, by Michal Smith, focuses on the economic and cultural effects of tourism in the rural Southeast.Benefits of tourismPerhaps chief among the advantages of tourism is that it is seen as obtainable, even for communities with minimal public resources. Most communities envision negligible public investments such as new roads, history markers, town cleanup, storefront rehabilitation, and marketing. The private sector is expected to provide hotels, motels, restaurants, entertainment, and other tourist accommodations.Second, tourism is a relatively easy-to-understand concept for the lay public and can, therefore, generate local support. Community pride leads residents to conclude that their home town has something to offer tourists. Tourism builds on perceived and existing local advantages or amenities, such as sites of historical interest, mountains and other placesof natural beauty, pleasant climates, or clean air. Tourism development uses these resources, which are “ free ” in the sense that the tourism industry has not paid for them. In some cases, these natural resources would have small economic value without tourism development. Mieczkowske cites the Alps, “ dying ” fishing or mill towns of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces, and Caribbean islands as places where tourism has given economic value to natural amenities. Thus tourism can have a positive economic effect in such areas of otherwise low economic productivity.Third, decades of experience in smokestack chasing has been disappointing for many communities. The competition for manufacturing plants is intense and as long as manufacturing employment continues its downward trend, competition for the remaining plants will only increase. Also, tourism is perceived as a cleaner industry for the environment than is manufacturing.Fourth, rural tourism havens tend to be growth. This decade became known as the population turnaround as it was the first time in the history of the United States the population of rural areas grew at faster rates than urban areas. In Behind the Glitter, Smith found that 65 of the 84 rural tourism counties in her study of the Southeast had population growth equal to or exceeding the national rate of growth in the 1970s.,these nonmetropolitan counties grew 37.9% and in the 1980s, they grew at astill impressive rate of 24.6%.Fifth, tourism is a labor-intensive industry, creating large numbers of jobs that employ low-skill workers and youths, who may otherwise remain unemployed. The low-skilled nature of tourism jobs is ideal for economies with poorly educated or trained labor forces. These added jobs help cut welfare rolls and provide a source of tax revenue.Finally, tourism development means more income and profits for tourist-related businesses. Local income from tourist expenditures is mostly spent again in the local area, which leads to more local income, and perhaps, to more local jobs. Such indirect benefits of tourism are measured via regional economic impacts of tourism. Ryan’ s book has a section that introduces techniques used to measure the economic impacts of tourism. Many other studies also focus on measuring economic effects of tourism. In contrast, other sources of economic activity, particularly for remote counties, create relatively few direct and indirect benefits. For example, nuclear power plants, waste disposal sites, and many manufacturing plants create relatively few jobs and generate small amounts of local purchases.Aside from the fact that not all communities can be tourist havens, tourism development has its costs. It seems that every benefit of tourism development has a corresponding cost.中文译文乡村旅游和经济发展作者:弗雷德里克国籍:美国出处:SAGE 出版社旅游业是一种十分受欢迎的经济发展战略。

乡村旅游与可持续发展外文资料翻译

④出版时间（或刊号）：September 1998,
⑤所译页码：Part2
RURAL TOURISM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
Rural tourism is a segment of the total tourist industry which is particularly important in Hungary, in a country with no spectacular natural attractions, without seaside, high mountains, rainforest or herds of exotic animals. However, its attractive cultural landscapes with small villages, thermal springs, rivers and lakes, combined with the traditional hospitality, are able to offer pleasant experiences to the kind of tourist who is looking for relaxation and recreation in a calm setting.
On one hand, rural tourism development can play an important role in the diversification of the Hungarian tourist supply and in the creation of a more complex and colourful country image. On the other hand, rural tourism is not only the end, but the means to stimulate economic growth, to increase the viability of underdeveloped regions, and to improve the living standards of local populations.

西班牙乡村旅游外文翻译(可编辑)

外文翻译rural tourism in SpainMaterial Source:Annals of Tourism Research, 2002Author:ElsevierRural tourism is to some rural villages to understand the people, customs and etiquette, etc There are some villages at the time of planting products rice, maize, sorghum, wheat, etc., fruit trees, streams, small bridges viewing and their understanding of the storyTourists in the countryside usually in remote areas of the traditional village and nearby to stay, learn and experience the rural lifestyle activities. The village can also be as a tourist base to explore the surrounding areasFirst, an overview of rural tourism1. The origin of rural tourismSpain scholars Rosa Mary'a Yagu ¨ e Perales 2001 will be divd d into the traditional rural tourism rural tourism Homecoming or Traditional Rural Tourism and modern rural tourism Modern Rural Tourism two Traditional rural tourism in the industrial revolution, mainly due to a number of urban residents from rural areas in order to "go home" inthe form of vacation. Although the traditional rural tourism will have on the local economic impact of some valuable,and to increase opportunities for exchanges among the urban and rural areas, but it and the modern rural tourism there was a great difference mainly reflected in: the traditional rural tourism activities are mainly carried out during the holidays; not effective in promoting local economic development; not to increase local employment opportunities and improve the financial environment. In fact, the traditional rural tourism in many parts of the world developed and developing countries are widespread in China, this tradition often classified as rural tourism travel to visit relatives Tourism is a modern village in the 20th century, the 80's in the rural areas a new type of tourism, especially in the 90's after the 20th century, the rapid development of tourism tourists obvious motive from the traditional tourists go home. The characteristics of modern rural tourism mainly as follows: time travel is not limited to holidays; modern rural tourists take full advantage of the beautiful landscape of rural areas, the natural environment and architecture, and cultural resources; modern rural tourism's contribution to the rural economy is not only the performance of increase in local revenue, but also in creating local employment opportunities,but also the tradition of local economic weakness has injected new vitality Modern village of tourism on economic development in rural areas have a positive role in promoting, with thecharacteristics of modern people with the rapid increase of tourists, the modern development of rural tourism has become an effective means of the rural economy. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish this kind of "go home" of the tourism or rural tourism traditional and modern distinction between rural tourism. At present, we are talking about refers to the modern rural tourism rural tourism 2. The definition of rural tourism Academic circles both at home and abroad on the rural tourism has not completely uniform definition of the following views:Spain scholar Gilbert and Tung 1990 that: Rural Tourism Rural tourism is the farmers to provide accommodation for tourists and other conditions, to the farm, ranch, such as a typical rural environment, a variety of leisure activities to engage in a form of tourism World Commission for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD, 1994, P.15 is defined as: carried out in rural tourism, rural-style rurality is the center of rural tourism and the unique selling point Arie Reichel and Israel Oded Lowengart and the United States Ady Milman 1999 that clear and concise: rural tourism region is located in rural tourism. Rural areas with special offerings, such as small-scale tourism enterprises, regional to open and the characteristics of sustainable development British Bramwell and Lane 1994 that: rural tourism is not only the agriculture-based tourism activities, but more than one level of tourism activities, which in addition to agriculture-based holiday tourism, butalso include special interest in nature-based tourism, ecotourism, walk during the holidays,mountain climbing and horse riding and other activities, adventure, sports and health tourism, hunting and angling, educational travel, cultural and traditional tourism, as well as some regional folk tourism The relevant definition of rural tourism more,Li-Hua Li Jing-ming and the narrow sense that refers to rural tourism in rural areas, in a rural natural and cultural objects for the tourist attraction of tourism. The concept of rural tourism includes two aspects: first, took place in ruralareas, the village is as a tourist attraction of the two are indispensable Second,analysis of rural tourism development1. Status of the development of rural tourismSince the 70's since the 19th century, rural tourism in rural areas in developed countries has grown rapidly. This is the promotion of the economic downturn, the development of rural areas has played a very important role Blaine and Golan 1993; Dernoi 1991. Rural tourism to the local economy and the significance has been fully proved Fleischer & Pizam, 1997; Page & Getz,1997; OECD, 1994. In many countries, rural tourism is considered to be a recession and to prevent the increase of agricultural income in rural areas an effective means Arie Reichel, Oded Lowengart, Ady Milman, 1998 The development of rural tourism development in the world very quickly, in 2001, more than 10,000 villages in the Italiantourism enterprises received a total of 2,100 million visitors, turnoverof 900 billion liras about430 million U.S. dollars, compared to2000 an increase of 12.5% Xinhuanet, 2001.12.30. In the United States has 30 states for a clear policy on the tourism industry in rural areas, 14 of which states the overall development of tourism in their planning includes rural tourism Luloff et al, 1994. In Israel, the development of rural tourism as a revenue decline in the rural areas as an effective complement the increase in the number of rural tourism enterprises Fleischer & Pizam, 1997. At the same time, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the former Eastern Europe and the Pacific region, including in many countries are of the viewthat the tourism industry inrural areas, rural economic development and the driving force for economic diversification Hall, & Jenkins, 1998 United Kingdom Richard Sharpley 2001 that the rural tourism enterprises are facing major challenges: lack of support; the lackof training; tourism facilities and the lack of attraction; short season obviously,the utilization rate is not high;marketing aspects inefficient In the late 20th century, Spain, through its nearly 20-year study of rural tourism concluding that the modern rural tourism is very conducive to promoting the development of rural areas of Spain, in Spain and more modern village at the age of tourists between the ages of 25-45 for the community high level of education, strong purchasing power of urban residents,rural activities on the enjoyment of them adopt apositive attitude, the main rural tourism activities, including sports, and agriculture-related areas such as labor and tourism, rural tourists, these modern multi-use of existing facilities, including The village is full of vigor and the farmhouse and other small hotels Bardo'n1987, 1990; Bote 1987,1988; Candela 1992; Fuentes 1995 China's rural tourism development around the major tourist and leisure agriculture mainly agricultural, are currently being marketed to tourism, study, learning, participation, eating rice farming, dry farming of living, enjoy the music farm" for customs the content of tourism; to harvest a variety of farm products as the main contents of the picking of tourism and agriculture to traditional folk festivals for the content of the rural areas, tourism and other festivals 译文西班牙乡村旅游资料来源:旅游研究纪事,2002 作者:爱思唯尔乡村旅游被人们理解为理解人们的习俗和礼仪等等。

休闲农业英文文献5

Limits to mass tourism’s effects in ruralperipheriesRobin Biddulph ⇑University of Gothenburg,Swedena r t i c l e i n f o Article history:Received 3October 2013Revised 14November 2014Accepted 17November 2014Available online 9December 2014Coordinating Editor:Sanjay Nepal Keywords:Tourism Rural Periphery Livelihoods Mobility Cambodiaa b s t r a c tEconomic linkages between mass tourism cores and rural periph-eries are widely proposed as developmental.This article adopts alivelihoods approach to investigate the inﬂuence of a major Cam-bodian tourism destination on its rural hinterland.A quantitativepre-study of three rural villages indicated that links were mainlyindirect,through labour migration.The qualitative main phasefound villagers adapting skills and social networks to a range ofemployments in diverse locations.Poor households in the ruralperiphery were thus already connected to wider economies withtourism playing a distinctive low-risk,low-return role in their live-lihood strategies.Policy on poverty and tourism should beinformed by an understanding of rural households’existing liveli-hood portfolios and the strategic contingent decisions which shapethem.Ó2014The Author.Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an open accessarticle under the CC BY-NC-SA license (/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).IntroductionThis article contributes to understanding the relationships between tourism booms and impover-ished rural peripheries by conducting livelihoods research in three villages in the rural periphery of a major tourist destination.A policy-oriented mainstream in literature on tourism and development has,in step with changing ideas in development theory (Scheyvens,2011),seen increasing ﬂows of tourists into poor countries as a potential driver of development (Brown &Hall,2008).The assumption of pro-poor tourism and its antecedents is that strengthening links to the local economy can increase /10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.0110160-7383/Ó2014The Author.Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).⇑Address:Human Geography Unit,PO Box 630,40530Göteborg,Sweden.Tel.:+46317861397;fax:+46317861398.E-mail address:Robin.Biddulph@geography.gu.seR.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–11299 the proportion of tourist spending that goes to the poor and can therefore reduce poverty(Ashley,Roe, &Goodwin,2001;Cater,1987;de Kadt,1979;Mitchell&Ashley,2010).Critical scholars with a political economy orientation,often inﬂuenced by metropolis satellite the-ory(see Chaperon&Bramwell,2013,pp.132–135;Lacher&Nepal,2010a,pp.947–953),have sug-gested that tourism strengthens relations of dependency between peripheries and cores both within and between nations(Britton,1982;Brohman,1996;Mbaiwa,2005).Notwithstanding this theoretical stance,however,they tend to recommend reform and regulation of tourism rather than self-reliance(Britton,1982,p.355;Brohman,1996,pp.66–67),even if Mbaiwa’s solution involves promoting domestic tourism alongside international tourism(Mbaiwa,2005,pp.169–170).There is in other words a surprisingly broad consensus amongst tourism scholars that tourism cores should be better linked to rural peripheries.While engaging mass tourism has been seen as the key challenge for pro-poor tourism policy (Goodwin,2009;Scheyvens,2007,p.251),most reported success has been achieved with smaller-scale community-based initiatives(Zapata,Hall,Lindo,&Vanderschaeghe,2011).In the case of such smaller-scale initiatives,substantial academic attention has been paid to the context.A livelihood approach,which means studying how households strategically deploy their assets and capacities in order to satisfy current and future needs(Scoones,1998),has shed light on the extent to which addi-tional incomes from tourism may or may not be compatible with current and intended ways of mak-ing a living(e.g.Fabinyi,2010;Mbaiwa&Sakuze,2009;Mbaiwa&Stronza,2010;Simpson,2009;Tao &Wall,2009).The same attention to existing livelihoods has not been applied in the rural peripheries of mass tourism destinations.This article addresses that gap by reporting on livelihoods research in three rural villages in Siem Reap province,Cambodia.During the past two decades,the number of visitors to Cambodia,attracted by the ancient temples of Angkor,has expanded by an order of30,from118183visitors in1993to3584307in2012(Royal Government of Cambodia,2014).Tourism at Angkor has been a major driver of national development and has transformed the provincial town of Siem Reap.Meanwhile,however,the rural province of Siem Reap,where the temples are located,has remained one of the poorest provinces in an already poor country.This article describes the livelihoods of villagers in three villages in rural Siem Reap and explains how,and to what extent,the tourism boom centred on the provincial town and the tem-ple complex has reoriented those livelihoods.The remainder of this introduction describes the theoretical approach by elaborating furtherﬁrstly on the relationship between livelihoods,mobility and tourism,and secondly on the relationship between tourism and core-periphery dynamics.Livelihoods,mobility and tourismOriginating in the1980s,the livelihoods approach in development studies suggested that experts (both researchers and practitioners)need to step outside the assumptions and rationalities of policy, avoid the biases and misunderstandings generated by shortﬁeld visits,and to invest more systemat-ically in understanding situations from the viewpoint of people who are imagined as beneﬁciaries (Chambers,1983;Scoones,2009).Implicit in the approach,therefore,is that it does not begin from a particular sectorial view,but rather places different sectors in the context of people’s overall circum-stances and intentions.In the livelihoods literature,household assets are commonly conceptualised as a pentagon ofﬁve kinds of‘capital’:natural,physical,social,ﬁnancial,human(Scoones,1998).With respect to tourism and rural peripheries in the global South,the livelihoods approach has lar-gely been used to study the effects of community-based initiatives,especially eco-tourism and wildlife tourism,setting people’s tourism-related activities in the context of a portfolio of livelihood activities. It is thereby possible to identify synergies or opportunity costs(e.g.Mbaiwa&Sakuze,2009;Mbaiwa &Stronza,2010;Simpson,2009;Tao&Wall,2009).A major theme in livelihoods research in the global South has been de-agrarianisation or‘‘the new rurality’’.While both national statistics and local cultural identities suggest that agriculture is domi-nant,livelihoods research has depicted rural households as less agriculture-dependent(Rigg,2006) and characterised by‘‘widespread occupational experimentation’’(Bryceson,2002,p.725).The tour-ism literature,meanwhile,has tended to be somewhat bifocal,seeing declining rural agriculture100R.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–112(orﬁsheries)and seeking to evaluate tourism as the single alternative to this decline(Carte, McWatters,Daley,&Torres,2010;Fabinyi,2010;Gascón,2014).The juxtaposition of the two litera-tures suggests that tourism scholarship should perhaps be more open to the possibility that tourism incomes are only one part of a broader process of rural income diversiﬁcation.Alongside a diversiﬁcation of income sources(which may be generated at home),livelihoods schol-arship is alsoﬁnding rural livelihoods to be increasingly multi-local.Managing a contemporary rural household is less likely to be a question of farming a plot of land and accessing local natural resources; it is more likely to include identifying opportunities in distant places and getting access to the trans-port and communication required to exploit those opportunities(Rigg,2013;Silvey&Elmhirst,2003). This empirical insight aligns with thinking about place in human geography in recent decades.Places are no longer understood as containing the resources upon which populations depend,or even as the locations where most of life is experienced.They are instead understood as sites ofﬂow,as having por-ous boundaries and as being characterised byﬂuidity(c.f.Castree,2009;Massey,1994;Pred,1984).This understanding of the rural poor as mobile and networked implies a different emphasis to that sometimes found in tourism studies.Tourism literature tends to conceive of mobility as integral to,or a consequence of,tourism.Tourism mobilities have been deﬁned as‘‘all those mobilities that are gen-erated by the actions of tourists’’(Xin,Tribe,&Chambers,2013,p.82).There have been calls to focus on tourism as mobility(Hall,2005),and on mobility as a theoretical perspective to be further pursued in tourism studies(Cohen&Cohen,2012,pp.2180–2183).These perspectives on the internal dynam-ics of tourism may also be usefully applied to the contexts that tourism affects,even those that are remote and rural.Mass tourism and the rural peripheryThere are multiple ways in which a booming tourism centre might generate improvements in the conditions of people living in the periphery.Pro-poor tourism impacts have been conceived of as threefold.Firstly,there are direct effects–poor people earn as workers or sellers within the tourism sector.Secondly,there are indirect effects–earnings generated by tourism in non-tourism sectors, including multiplier effects from tourism workers spending earnings in the local economy.And thirdly,there are dynamic,long-term effects on such things as institutions,infrastructure and manage-ment of the natural environment(Mitchell&Ashley,2010).For most poor people living in the rural periphery,these links necessarily operate over distance.Peo-ple may have to migrate to the core to labour or do business.Or they may produce goods in the periph-ery which are then transported for sale in the core.However,tourism capital also seeks diversiﬁcation beyond the core(Gibson,2009,p.529),meaning that a rural periphery will likely play host to some smaller scale activities and destinations,though these will likely be a minority.In this study,one of the three case study villages selected contains a secondary tourist attraction which tourists visit on the way to the temples.The literature clearly indicates that opening up an interface with tourists does not guarantee economic beneﬁts,and certainly not broad-based ones(Gascón,2014;Hall,2007;Lacher &Nepal,2010b;Sharpley,2002;Walpole&Goodwin,2000).However,the presence of tourists in one of these peripheral villages will provide the basis to make comparisons between a peripheral site that hosts a secondary tourist attraction and peripheral sites which do not directly encounter tourists.This study therefore provides a portrayal of livelihoods in three rural villages in a province where a mass tourism destination is the major economic activity but where,at least in theﬁrst two decades of rapid expansion,this has not engendered widespread rural development.The questions to be answered are:(i)How do the households in the study villages earn their livings?(ii)What role does tourism play both in current livelihoods and future plans?(iii)How have contextual factors shaped livelihood strategies and enabled or constrained tourism’s inﬂuence?Livelihoods and mobilities in rural Siem ReapCambodia’s turbulent modern history,tourism’s role in national economic recovery and the effects of Angkor tourism-related development on the region are crucial to the context of this study.R.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–112101Cambodia’s late twentieth century history of genocide and war is gradually being superseded by polit-ical stabilisation and rapid if fragile economic recovery(Chandler,1993;Heder,2005;Hughes&Un, 2011).Superpower realignments following the fall of the Berlin wall enabled internationally-sponsored elections and a formal transition to market-oriented democracy in1993.This was followed by a gradual consolidation of peace by1998.Since then,economic growth has been steady,poverty has diminished and the country has gradually ascended in the Human Development index to the extent that it is now ranked as having medium rather than low human development.Census data con-tinue to suggest that85%of the population live in the countryside,and classify70%of the population as having farming as their main source of income.However,scholars in Cambodia have been docu-menting a rise in mobile,multi-local livelihoods(e.g.Biddulph,2011;Brickell,2011;Derks,2005) and this suggests that a breakdown of the rural as a distinct sphere is taking place,as it is elsewhere in Southeast Asia(Rigg,2001)and beyond(Rigg,2006).Tourism has played a signiﬁcant role in the national recovery.By2011tourism’s direct contribu-tion to GDP was9.5%,and its total contribution22.1%,higher than in any other country in Southeast Asia(WTTC.,2012,p.8).Tourism has therefore been described as Cambodia’s‘second engine of eco-nomic growth’after the garment industry(Royal Government of Cambodia,2006,p.17).Pro-poor tourism was promoted as a key government policy to achieve sustained growth and poverty reduction (Royal Government of Cambodia,2002,pp.75–77;2006),although the recently adopted national tour-ism strategy(2012–2020)prioritises increased tourist numbers and does not include speciﬁc poverty reduction provisions(Royal Government of Cambodia,2012).Internationally,meanwhile,Cambodia is noted as a country where relatively little of tourists’spendingﬁnds its way into the hands of the poor (Dwyer&Thomas,2011;Mitchell&Ashley,2010).The focus of the tourism boom in Cambodia is the Angkor temple complex located in Siem Reap province in the north-west of the country.Constructed between the9th and13th Centuries and recog-nised as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in1992(Wager,1995),Angkor has developed rapidly as a tourist destination.The tourism boom at Angkor transformed the provincial town of Siem Reap.In the early1990s it had the feel of a rural village.Now it has paved roads,air-conditioned hotels,trafﬁc jams and a continuing land and construction boom(the authorﬁrst visited Siem Reap in1992was resident there1994–5and has returned most years since).Tourism dominates the economy of the town with over50%of jobs being tourism-related(Chheang,2010).The rural surroundings have not,however, been transformed;Winter writes that tourism has made the town of Siem Reap into‘‘an enclave of imbalanced wealth and development,and a micro-economy beyond which lies sustained rural pov-erty’’(Winter,2008,p.537).A small body of research has examined the impacts of tourism on villages within a20kilometre radius of the provincial town(Ballard,2005;Brickell,2008;Brickell,2011;Chheang,2010;Vutha& Sokphally,2007).This constitutes an area which,if not quite peri-urban,is distinguished by the fact that people can commute daily by bicycle into the town(Vutha&Sokphally,2007,p.51).Overall this research suggests that in these near-lying areas tourism has had a limited effect on agriculture,that many household livelihood strategies are being reoriented away from agriculture to non-agricultural activities and that low-wage opportunities in tourism are increasing.However,they also show that it may be difﬁcult for any given household to access opportunities and poorer households in particular struggle to take advantage of either business opportunities or better paid jobs,not least because of competition from in-migrants from other provinces.Brickell’s work differs from the others in terms of its scale and its attention to mobility.While the others are principally village studies,she focuses on dynamics within households,including the gen-dered implications of tourism’s effects.She described livelihoods as translocal(deliberately contrasted with the concept of transnational in migration studies)and characterised localities as‘‘speciﬁc situated places of connectivity that enable,rather than curtail,mobility within and beyond the nation’’(Brickell, 2011,p.35).This captures the conception of place employed at the scale of the village in this article.Study method:applying a livelihood approach in rural Siem ReapIn order to move beyond the peri-urban fringe of Siem Reap,three villages were selected that were sufﬁciently remote from the provincial capital(35–50kilometres by road)that they were not withinFig.1.Location of Case Study Villages.R.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–112103Table1Villages and interviewees.Village Description#Households#Survey responses#Follow-up interviewsKhnar Near temples,tourists visit daily199179(89.9%)27(13.6%/15.1%) Doun On Near temples,no tourists232187(80.6%)21(9.0%/11.2%)Champey Far from temples,no tourists10389(86.4%)18(17.4%/20.2%) Total534452(84.6%)56(10.5%/12.4%)A survey was administered to every household in the villages with response rates between eighty and ninety percent(see Table1).The survey comprisedﬁrstly individual data which served as a village census yielding information on age,sex,birthplace,current location,and main livelihood activities at the time of the survey,and secondly household data which yielded information on livelihood activities throughout a12-month period,strategies in times of crisis(such as an expensive illness in the family) and aspirations for future generations.Individual data,not requiring memory,was more reliable,but seasonally biased.Household data was less reliable because it required villagers to recall activities over a year,but it was also less seasonally biased.Questions on monetary income were avoided since this kind of information cannot be reliably collected in rural Cambodian villages without highly inten-sive methods.Qualitative interviews were conducted in Khmer language during weeklong stays in late2012 when3–4in-depth interviews per day were conducted.Theﬁrst8–10interviews were conducted with households in different areas of the village whose livelihood activities corresponded to the main portfolios identiﬁed for that village by the quantitative survey.Selection of subsequent informants was to pursue particular issues or knowledge gaps identiﬁed in the earlier interviews.Members of 56households across the three villages were interviewed(Table1).Interviews covered family history, current livelihoods,the speciﬁc circumstances and choices leading to those livelihoods,and future plans and aspirations.Questions about the role of tourism in household livelihoods were asked last, thereby setting them in the context of villagers’overall strategies.The author conducted the quanti-tative research with two research assistants and three villagers.The56qualitative interviews com-prised35by the author who interviewed in Khmer and took notes in English,and21by a research assistant who took notes in Khmer which the author translated into English.Audio-recordings of29 of the56interviews are held by the author.Results of quantitative pre-studyThe quantitative survey gave an initial overview,which was most reliable where it did not involve any reliance on memory or on data requiring economic analysis.Questions about location of all house-hold members therefore provided the most trustworthy data.When surveyed,65.7%of adult villagers were at home,or in the village area,10.6%were in the provincial town where the tourism economy is focused whilst only3.3%were abroad in Thailand(see Table2).Given the dominance of tourism in the Siem Reap town economy,even jobs that are not directly in the tourism industry can be assumed to indirectly beneﬁt from it.Of the adults in Siem Reap at the time of our survey,18out of117(15.3%)were directly employed in the tourism industry.Some common activities,particularly washing cars and stone carving were only engaged in by villagers from one village(see Table3).When households were asked about their main sources of income for the previous year,agriculture was the dominant activity in all villages.Other important activities were geographically focused,nota-bly weaving and sugar palm production in Doun On,ﬁrewood and charcoal production in Khnar and to a lesser degree(given its smaller population)agricultural labouring in Champey(see Table4).These patterns appeared to suggest potential supply chains into the tourism market.A key element of livelihoods research relates to people’s longer term ambitions.Despite living in the province with Cambodia’s main tourist attraction,villagers overwhelmingly aspired for their chil-dren to get government jobs(86speciﬁed teaching and43speciﬁed nursing).Less than5%mentioned direct tourism employment(see Table5).This statistical summary provides the background to what follows,namely the results of qualitative enquiries which sought to set these quantitative ﬁndings in the context of the changes that have occurred in the two villages over the past two decades (1993–2012).The qualitative results are pre-sented in three parts.Part one examines livelihoods in the village area;part two,livelihood activities outside the village;and part three the speciﬁc livelihood impacts of tourists visiting Khnar village.Livelihoods in the local landscapeThe same changes that initiated the tourism boom –peace,followed by liberal democracy and the opening of markets –also initiated changes in the rural landscape.Much of lowland Cambodia enjoyed peace and security from 1979,but for the villagers of Siem Reap,the threats of raids by guerrilla insur-gents,the uneven presence of government troops and the unpredictable use of landmines by both sides meant that the 1980s and much of the 1990s were a time of danger and poverty.Insecurity meant that mobility and economic activity were severely curtailed.Villagers were,for example,forbidden from carrying food to the ﬁelds for fear that they might be feeding the Khmer Rouge.All three villages were affected:the Doun On village chief had his house burned down,and slept in different locations each night to avoid being captured and killed;villagers in Khnar recalled gunﬁghts between government and Khmer Rouge soldiers in the village area;in Champey,a woman recalled how just months before local Khmer Rouge units defected in 1994they came to the village and killed her husband because,they said,he had a Vietnamese heart inside his Cambodian body.When peace came,the initial driver of rural transformation was timber.Both locals and outsiders set up sawmills in all three villages to cut the newly accessible forests.Once the most valuable timber was gone,the labourers and small logging entrepreneurs moved out again,leaving villagers to begin informally claiming the degraded forest land which at that time had little market value.Many house-holds that during the 1980s and 1990s only had a hectare or so of rice land now claimed 5–10hectares of partially cleared forest.Without mechanical equipment,and with daily food needs limiting labourTable 2Location of Adult village members (source:Survey data collected Feb-Mar 2012).ChampeyDoun On Khnar Total At home85(36.6%)177(46.3%)192(39.3%)454(41.2%)In village area73(31.5%)53(13.9%)144(29.4%)270(24.5%)Within district27(11.6%)57(15.0%)75(15.3%)159(14.4%)Siem Reap town11(4.7%)65(17.0%)41(8.4%)117(10.6%)Another province12(5.2%)18(4.7%)28(5.8%)58(5.2%)Thailand22(9.5%)10(2.6%)4(0.8%)36(3.3%)No reply/missing 2(0.9%)2(0.5%)5(1.0%)9(0.8%)232(100.0%)382(100.0%)489(100.0%)1103(100.0%)Table 3Main activity of adults in Siem Reap.ResponseDirect tourism employmentChampey Doun On Khnar Total Washing cars015015Construction labour14510Stone carving (souvenirs)0606Hotel work0336Domestic labour1405Restaurant work0415Tour Guide0011Other9293169Total116541117Direct tourism sub-total 013518104R.Biddulph /Annals of Tourism Research 50(2015)98–112R.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–112105Table4Main reported source of income for the household over the past twelve months.Response Champey Doun On Khnar TotalFarming689695229 Weaving02410 Retailing181524 Firewood/charcoal002222 Construction48921 Agricultural labour93618 Sugar palm production010010 Hotel&Restaurant work0033 Other7382671 Total89187179455Table5Respondents’aspirations for children’s generation.Response Frequency%Government work–civilian22950.3Farming459.9Government work–police/military16 3.5Tour guide11 2.4Tourism–hotel/restaurant8 1.8Other7416.3Don’t know7215.8Total455100.0availability,converting forestland to agricultural use was a slow process and theﬁelds never became particularly productive.A spike in land prices in the late2000s saw buyers from the national capital Phnom Penh and from Siem Reap town looking to purchase land in the countryside.In each village land acquired in the late 1990s was sold to outsiders in the late2000s,though with slightly different circumstances in each village.In Champey,after land prices fell,speculators sublet land to plantation farmers from eastern Cambodia who provided some seasonal labour opportunities for villagers.In Doun On a mysterious company acquired a large area of land using local authorities as mediators,but has not yet occupied the land and continues to allow villagers to farm it.In Khnar,the village on the road to the temples, outsiders not only bought agricultural land but also residential land in the heart of the village.These buyers included foreigners and Cambodians returning from overseas,thus constituting a form of international connectedness unlike anything in the other two villages.Both the local timber booms in the late1990s and the land boom in the late2000s generated infu-sions ofﬁnancial capital into village households,often amounting to several thousand US dollars. These were mainly used to improve housing,but also to purchase motorcycles,hand tractors,televi-sions and mobile phones.Generally,while appreciating the lifestyle improvements,villagers expressed regret and frustration at not knowing how to use this capital to generate stable,regular incomes.These changes provide some of the context for the livelihood activities reported by villagers.In all of the villages over half of the respondents reported their own farming as their main source of income (Table4).However,our qualitative interviews revealed that few households had a regular surplus of rice,that only a handful of households raised livestock commercially and that fruit and vegetable pro-duction was only for household consumption,with rare surpluses being traded inside the village.The high value villagers’ascribed to agricultural income seemed to relate as much to a cultural identity as to economic beneﬁts.Meanwhile,poor soils and a lack of irrigation to enable reliable water supply meant that there seemed little prospect of these villages producing signiﬁcant surpluses and thereby linking to supply chains into the Siem Reap tourist economy.106R.Biddulph/Annals of Tourism Research50(2015)98–112Other important sources of income related to the exploitation of natural resources locally,such as basket weaving and sugar palm production in Doun On andﬁre wood and charcoal production in Khnar(Table4).However,with the successive waves of logging and land sales the local natural resources on which these activities depended were either utterly depleted(Champey)or severely degraded(Doun On and Khnar).Villagers described having to travel further to collectﬁrewood for sugar palm production in Doun On and charcoal production in Khnar,and described their incomes from these activities as declining and likely to disappear.Basket weaving in Doun On was an interesting case in this respect.This was a traditional activity, apparently local and suitable for tourist-oriented production.However,interviews revealed a convo-luted supply chain.The reeds used for weaving are no longer available locally so villagers travel over-night on trucks to collect them in a neighbouring province.Demand for baskets has increased,with some older women having only recently learned weaving from neighbours to respond to this demand. However,this demand came not from tourism,but from traders in Siem Reap who export to Thailand. It is possible that villagers’skills and experience give them some comparative advantages to poten-tially reorient production to a tourist market,however the supply chain does not begin in the local area,the product is not currently suitable for tourists(too rough and bulky)and the villagers’established contacts link them to a different market.Overall,with the natural resource base dwindling,the traditional skills,or human capital,of the villagers are becoming obsolete.In order to adapt to the continuing depletion of local natural resources they have increasingly resorted to labour migration and multi-local livelihoods. Livelihood activities beyond the villageIncreased mobility was experienced both as an imperative and as an opportunity.One old lady, suffering impaired vision and partial paralysis,explained it as the deﬁning characteristic of contem-porary village life.She contended that anybody could go anywhere,and that anybody who wanted paid work couldﬁnd it.The only exceptions,she noted wryly,were those who were too old or sick to take advantage of such opportunities.The February2012survey found34%of villagers active away from the village area(Table2).This compares with38%in a study of another lowland rice village in southern Cambodia which used sim-ilar methods(Biddulph,2010).There was,however,a stark contrast between the2010study and the Siem Reap study regarding the extent to which a single urban core dominated.In the2010study84% of those away from the village were in the national capital Phnom Penh.By contrast,of villagers work-ing away from home in the Siem Reap study villages,43%were working in their home districts and returning home at night;32%were in Siem Reap provincial town(including18of this117employed directly in tourism);16%were in other provinces of Cambodia and10%were in Thailand.In other words,despite the visible wealth of the tourism boom in Siem Reap and the relative poverty of the countryside,the town is not dominant when viewed in the context of the choices available to households.Even more pronounced than the geographical distribution was the diverse range of livelihood activities.The117labour migrants in Siem Reap town were engaged in34different income-generat-ing activities.There was only one activity(car washing with15people)employing more than ten people,and onlyﬁve activities employing more thanﬁve people(the other four being hotel work, stone carving,construction,ﬁshing).The qualitative research uncovered the stories which explained some of the village speciﬁc path dependencies in relation to employment.Almost all people who had worked in Siem Reap reported getting their jobs via recommendations from friends or relatives,often replacing the person who rec-ommended them.In Doun On,villagers working in car washes(there were none from the other villages)was traced back to one man who established a car wash business in town15years previously. As the trade expanded from three to over20businesses in Siem Reap,so did the network of contacts of Doun On villagers in that trade.Less visible in the surveyﬁndings,but similarly important from the viewpoint of securing work on decent terms,was a construction foreman from Champey to whom villagers turned when looking for building jobs.。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

文献信息：文献标题：Farm Tourism: A Preliminary Study of Participants’Expectations and Perceptions of Farm Tours（农业旅游：一项关于参与者对农业旅游的预期和看法的研究）国外作者：L. Coomber, C. Lim文献出处：International Environmental Modellingand Software Society,2004 字数统计：英文2434单词，13262字符；中文4258汉字外文文献：Farm Tourism: A Preliminary Study of Participants’Expectations and Perceptions of Farm Tours Abstract Tourism is a major redistributor of resources within the domestic sector with substantial multiplier effects. The majority of tourism businesses in Australia are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As tourism is a labour-intensive industry, the promotion of tourism SMEs blends well with models of community and regional development, as small firms provide the underpinning for local entrepreneurship and job generation. Farm tourism encompasses a set of economic activities with a tremendous potential for future domestic earnings and regional development, drawing on services provided by local governments and regional communities. The paper analyses whether there are significant differences between the expectations and perceptions of participants of a guided tour in an organic farm. The results of the research may be useful in developing an interpretive and tour management model which will help to sustain rural communities in farm environments through tourism, and engage the support of local and regional government.Keywords:Farm tourism; servicescape; expectations; perceptions; interpretationINTRODUCTIONPigram and Jenkins [1994] argue that the fluctuating and politically sensitive nature of the rural sector and the contribution of tourism to Gross Domestic Product, employment and incomes have given rural tourism an opportunity to gain greater prominence. With the increasing susceptibility of farm produce to global prices, regional restructuring has brought changes to traditional farming activities and lifestyles. The decline in traditional farming activities and the resulting loss of agricultural income in Australia, is a serious problem facing, and in sustaining, rural communities. But tourism has created a renewed awareness of, and demand for, rural values and environments.Government agencies have increased their interest in farm tourism as a strategy for creating regional jobs, selling local products, supporting small-scale business and retaining farming lifestyles The Regional Tourism Programme is a Federal Government commitment to regional tourism [Australian Government: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2003, Online]. In 1999- 2000, about 2 percent of Australia’s farms were undertaking some activity other than agricultural production [ABS, 2003].Tourism is a major redistributor of resources within the domestic sector with substantial multiplier effects. The majority of tourism businesses in Australia are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As tourism is a labour-intensive industry, the promotion of tourism SMEs blends well with models of community and regional development, as small firms provide the underpinning for local entrepreneurship and job generation. Farm tourism encompasses a set of economic activities with a tremendous potential for future domestic earnings and regional development, drawing on services provided by local governments and regional communities. Thus, tourism in regional Australia is playing an important role in regeneration and diversification.The paper analyses different aspects of visitors’satisfaction, and whether there are significant differences between the expectations and perceptions of participants of a guided tour in an organic farm. Kiwi Down Under, a small farm- tourism enterprise,is located sixteen kilometres from the city of Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. The owner conducts traditional style walking tours for visitors. Refreshments, food and organic produce are available for sale at the tea-house. Guided tours on farms which provide education about the farm environment, and interaction with the host, are the important aspects of the farm experience. The results of the research may be useful in developing an interpretive and tour management model which will help to sustain rural communities in farm environments through tourism, and engage the support of local and regional government.FARM TOURISMRural and farm tourism, as a category of alternative tourism, is a growing sector of tourism. The growing number of tourists venturing into rural regions, and the limited and spasmodic research in the farm tourism sector, suggests that empirical research in this area is needed. There has been limited research in farm tourism because the latter lacks a comprehensive body of knowledge and theoretical framework, which is largely due to problems with definition [Oppermann, 1995].Farm tourism is a sub-sector of rural tourism. According to Roberts and Hall [2001], farm tourism is one of the five categories of rural tourism, the others being ecotourism, cultural, adventure and activity tourism. The broader sector of rural tourism can be defined as tourism activity in rural areas and has different meanings in different countries. The European community uses rural tourism to refer to all tourism activity in rural areas, but ignores large-scale mass recreation complexes in otherwise rural areas.Hill et al [1996] define rural tourism as ‘the natural life tourism, through which the customer may access the natural environment as opposed to commercially developed tourist activities and locations’(p. 50). Rural tourism has been initiated to satisfy tourists who are seeking healthy, active, relaxing and culturally valid experiences to escape urban crowds and stressful workplaces.The term ‘farm tourism’is used in some regions or countries withagrotourism or agritourism. Whatever the label, most often it refers to ‘rural tourism conducted on working farms where the working environment forms part of the product from the perspective of the consumer’[Roberts and Hall, 2001].Farm tourism can include:（1）Accommodation（2）Farm visitor centres, galleries and museums（3）Farm shops for produce and crafts（4）Guided walks and farm trails（5）Educational visits（6）Farm activities, such as mustering, fruit picking, horse riding and fishing （7）Food and beverage outletsA common feature relevant to all of the above is management by the owner/farmer with help from the family household. Tourism is usually secondary to the farm activities.Considerable attention has been given to food tourism and wine tourism in recent years. When visits to farms, and farm tours are part of the experience, these forms of tourism are best categorised as sub-sectors of farm tourism. The tangible and intangible elements of the farm landscape attract visitors and influence their level of satisfaction. Hall et al [2003] use the terms ‘winescape’ and ‘foodscape’. Similarly, ‘servicescape’ can just ifiably be used to examine farm tourism.SERVICESCAPE, EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONSThe supply of farm tourism is about the countryside as a site of consumption. Hall et al [2003] argue that there appears to be an increasing need for some consumers to reconnect with the countryside as a source of recreation and relaxation, offering peace, solitude, fresh air and wide open spaces.The servicescape becomes relevant in the delivery of the product. In this study, service delivery is largely facilitated by the guide’s interpretation. Features of the servicescape include noise, odour, temperature, layout, signage, access, convenience and so on. These ambient conditions affect the five senses and make the participantfeel comfortable or uncomfortable. They serve as cues impacting on behaviour and emotional response, influencing the level of satisfaction with the tour.Expectations and perceptions, together with motivation, are the factors often used to measure satisfaction and hence tour quality. Lovelock et al [1998] define expectations as ‘pre-purchase beliefs about service provision that act as a standard or reference point for judging post-purchase performance’ (p.121).Perceptions are defined by Greenberg and Baron [1997] as the process through which people select, organise and interpret information gathered by the senses in order to understand the world.The provider and user are in close proximity implying that satisfaction is influenced by consumers’ perceptions of service and the attention they receive. Satisfaction is dependent on performance. Lovelock et al [1998] define satisfaction as meeting expected needs and desires and is the consumer’s post-purchase evaluation.Interpretation uses themes, perspectives and linkages. It develops an appreciation of sense of place. It creates for the visitor an understanding of the history and significance of events, people and objects with which the site is associated. Many urban people lack understanding of rural life and there is a growing recognition of the need for education.DISCUSSIONThe participants from the education segment of the market responded to a pre-tour and post-tour survey that examined attitudes to twelve elements of the farm servicescape. These elements are related to behavioural and physical dimensions. In this pilot study, a small purposive convenience sample of thirty-six tertiary students is used.A conventional approach to measuring satisfaction using before-and-after tour questionnaires is reasonably easy to administer and it is cost effective. Post-tour questionnaires are most important in reflecting on the experience, while a pre-tour questionnaire is acceptable as the respondents would have enough knowledge oraccess to information (for example, advertising) to answer the questions accurately. It is recognised that this instrument could restrict respondents from expressing their feelings adequately, especially in the complex dimensions of servicescape and inter-relationships. Hence, follow-up research using observation and interview techniques would be useful.Twelve close-ended questions on a five-point Likert-type scale are used to measure respondent attitude to a range of elements in the servicescape. Given that most criticism of SERVQUAL lies in its generic nature [Yoon and Ekinci, 2003], this study has chosen dimensions and elements relevant to the farm landscape environment to measure customer satisfaction. The elements of the servicescape used are embedded in the tour activity. Three additional questions in the survey also provided information about the respondents, namely:˙67% has not previously participated in a farm tour˙53% do not have any connection with tourism in their work or career goals˙75% are under the age of 25Table 1 provides the mean scores of the pre- and post-tour responses to various activities on the farm, and the estimated t-statistic to test whether they are statistically significant at the 5% level (the critical value for the two-tailed test of paired differences is 2.03). Differences between expectations and perceptions which impact on satisfaction and quality, have implications for management and marketing of farm tourism. All pre-tour means are statistically different from post-tour means, which reject the null hypotheses that there are no differences between participants’expectations and perceptions of farm activities at the 5% level of significance.Participants expected more walking in the farm than they actually engaged in. While they found it easy to move around on the uneven and sloping terrain, it was not what they had expected. Another important element of guided tours is related to time spent standing at the one site, often listening to commentary. Contrary to the participants’expectation, they were not standing around at any one site for too long.Individuals respond to farm noises and smells differently. Responses in relation to these questions are very subjective. Nonetheless, participants have found the farm noise and smell to be more pleasant than expected. The guide could have modified their behaviour when he perceived fear, anxiety or discomfort, to generate a positive response.Respondents felt comfortable with the farm environment then expected. This may appear a little surprising since 67% of the respondents have indicated that they have not previously participated in a farm tour. Comfort relates to a number of other elements and may help explain this response.It would seem that the guide has provided clear and meaningful commentary, and has engendered a positive mood in the participants, as there is a significant difference between expected and perceived responses in relation to understanding farm activities. Most farm tours are conducted in winter because kiwi fruit growing, which is the main activity and attraction, is in a dormant state.In making other farm features the focus of the tour, it is imperative that the guide presents the information effectively.It seems that the guide has made the farm experience an enjoyable one even though the participants interacted less extensively with him than expected.Finally, the respondents did not expect and did not find the availability of food and drink for sale to be important. Sales from the food and organic produce outlet of the enterprise could supplement the small business income. Given that the tour was conducted on a pleasant ‘sunny’ winter day and/or the participants were students, their responses to this aspect of the farm tour were not surprising.CONCLUSIONOverall, the participants have found the farm experience to be enjoyable and have felt comfortable with the farm environment. The study also shows that the guide has provided the tourists a good understanding of farm activities through effective interpretative tours. Owners of small farm tourism businesses are often not aware of performance strategies to encourage interaction and involvement of participants.Evaluation is important in aiding adaptation of techniques to different groups within the same market segment.This research has been conducted in a ‘real’ farm setting as opp osed to a theme park or agrodome, and is particularly applicable to smaller tour groups seeking a less formal and staged experience. It is necessary to identify how customers define the standards and parameters for their evaluation. Farmers are hosts, but they are also interpreters and guides to a different way of life [Pearce, 1988]. Satisfying customers expectations will go some way towards re- imaging, or creating a positive image of rural landscapes. It will also facilitate an understanding of farming people who have contributed greatly to regional economies in Australia through their activity and lifestyle.Table 1: Means for questionnaires and t-statistic showing significance of differences between the mean.中文译文：农业旅游：一项关于参与者对农业旅游的预期和看法的研究摘要旅游业是一个重要的重新分配资源，在国内行业中乘数效应较大。