rural tourism concept

Rural Tourism

The concept of rural tourism is by no means well defined and is subject to a number of interpretation. Fleischer and Pizam associate rural tourism with the ‘country vacation’ where the tourist spends the vast proportion of his/her vacation period engaging in recreational activities in a rural environment on a farm, ranch, country home, or the surrounding areas.

OECD defines the rural area as , ” at the local level, a population density of 150 persons per square kilometer is the preferred criterion. At the regional level, geographic units are grouped by the share of their population that is rural into the following three types: predominantly rural (50%), significantly rural (15-50%) and predominantly urbanized regions (15%).

The Council of Europe employed the term ‘ rural area ‘ to denote the following characteristics:

A stretch of inland or coastal countryside, including small towns and villages, where the main part of the area is used for:

• Agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and fisheries.
• Economic and cultural activities of country-dwellers.
• Non-urban recreation and leisure areas or nature reserves.
• Other purposes such as housing.

According to Dernoi , rural tourism might be conceived as tourism activities in a ‘non-urban territory where human (land-related economic) activity is going on, primarily agriculture: a permanent human presence seems a qualifying requirement’.

The OECD states rural tourism should be:

• Located in rural areas.
• Functionally rural, built upon the rural world’s special features; small-scale enterprises, open space, contact with nature and the natural world, heritage, traditional societies, and traditional practices.
• Rural in scale – both in terms of building and settlements – and therefore, small scale.
• Traditional in character, growing slowly and organically, and connected with local families.
• Sustainable – in the sense that its development should help sustain the special rural character of an area, and in the sense that its development should be sustainability in its use of resources.
• Of many different kinds, representing the complex pattern of the rural environment, economy, and history.

Types and Forms of Rural Tourism

Any forms of tourism that showcases the rural life, art, culture, and heritage at rural locations, thereby benefiting the local community economically and socially as well as enabling interaction between the tourists and the locals for a more enriching tourism experience can be termed as rural tourism.

A variety of terms are employed to describe tourism activity in rural areas: agritourism, farm tourism, rural tourism, soft tourism, alternative tourism, eco-tourism , and several others, which have a different meaning from one country to another, and indeed from one country to another.

The term ‘rural tourism’ has been adopted by the European Community (EC) to refer to all tourism activity in a rural area.

Types and forms of rural tourism are following as:

Agritourism: although often used to describe all tourism activities in rural areas, more frequently either term relates to tourism products which are ‘directly connected with the agrarian environment, agrarian products or agrarian stays’: staying at farm, whether in rooms or camping, educational visits, meals, recreational activities, and the sale of farm product or handicrafts.

Farm Tourism: explicitly farm-related and most usually associated with tourism involving staying in farm accommodation and seeking experiences from farm operations and attractions.

Wilderness and Forest Tourism: tourist explores the wilderness and natural beauty of the rural area. It may be implicitly included within notions of rural tourism, or they may be regarded as separate. In wilderness and forest tourism, tourists travel to the natural habitat of plants and animals.

It mostly encompasses non-consumptive interactions with wildlife and nature, such as observing and photographing animals in their natural habitats. Wilderness and forest tourism includes various tourism activities such as wild photography, safari, bird watching, trekking, and hiking etc.

Green Tourism: green tourism refers to tourism in the countryside or green areas. It is more commonly used to describe forms of tourism that are considered to be more environmentally friendly than traditional, mass tourism . In rural areas, green tourism is an important form of rural tourism.

Green tourism is portrayed as an approach to tourism development which seeks to develop a symbiotic relationship with the physical and social environment on which it depends and implicitly seeks to attain sustainability ideals.

Ecotourism: it is a form of nature tourism (tourism to natural, unspoiled areas) which assumes active promotion of environmental conservation and direct benefits for local societies and cultures, together with the provision for tourists of a positive, educative experience. Ecotourism is a group of sustainable tourism activities occurred in the natural environment.

Rural Tourism Activities

Various estimates suggest that tourism in rural areas makes up 10 to 20% of all tourism activity, and a Eurobarometer survey reported that 23% of European holidaymakers choose the countryside or rural areas as a destination every year.

Various cultural and nature-based activities occur in rural areas. The rural environment has a long history of being managed for recreational purposes, and this symbiotic relationship has had important impacts on both environment and activities.

A range of tourism and recreation activities are found in the countryside. We can categorize these activities on the bases of their nature. Types of rural tourism activities are following as:

• Cultural activities
• Water-related activities
• Health-related activities
• Aerial activities
• Passive activities
• Sporting activities
• Hallmark events
• Business-related activities

Touring include various tourism activities such as hiking, horse riding, touring in gypsy caravans, motorized touring, small village/town touring, cycling, adventure holiday or wilderness holidays.

Various cultural related tourism activities are found in rural areas. Archaeology, restoration sites rural heritage studies, museums, courses in crafts, artistic expression workshops are some examples of the cultural activities of rural tourism.

Fishing, swimming, river tourism, canoeing, kayaking, windsurfing, speedboat racing, sailing are some examples of water-related activities of rural tourism .

A variety of sporting activities of rural tourism are found in rural areas. Some examples are potholing, rock climbing, orienteering, Tennis, Golf, low-intensity downhill skiing, and hunting.

Health-related activities such as fitness training, assault course, spa and health resorts are the popular activities of rural tourism. A large group of tourists travels to rural areas for the sole purpose of health improvement through health-related tourism activities.

Passive activities such as relaxation holidays in the rural milieu, nature study in outdoor settings including birdwatching and photography, landscape appreciation are also some famous activities of rural tourism.

Importance and Benefits of Rural Tourism

Rural tourism is an important form of tourism sector which plays an important role and gives many benefits to rural areas community. When tourists travel to rural areas, they support the local economy and helps in various way. Rural tourism helps in the development of rural areas and living standards of host communities.

Some importance and benefits of rural tourism are following as:

• Provides a source of new, alternative or supplementary income and employment in rural areas.
• Rural tourism spurs infrastructure development in rural areas.
• Help to reduce gender and other social power
• Encourage collective community
• Reinvigorate local culture.
• Instill the sense of local pride, self-esteem, and identity
• Contribution to conservation and protection.
• Increase the living standards of the local community.
• Assists refurbishment and re-use of abandoned properties.
• Provide opportunities for retaining population in areas that might otherwise experience depopulation.
• Enable areas to be repopulated.

Rural tourism is a growing form of tourism. It is not just farm stays or visits to rural areas. It is more than that. Rural tourism benefits the host community of rural areas as well as surrounding natural environment through preservation and conservation of natural resources.

Rural Tourism Issues and Challenges

The major issues and challenges of rural tourism need to preserve the environment an natural resources, the need of education, proper understanding for both tourists and local people, and the need to generate a democratic movement which helps people at all levels to participate in tourism development.

Some important issues and challenges of rural tourism are following as:

• Economic Leakages.
• Local price inflation.
• Distort local employment structure.
• Seasonal patterns of demands.
• Manufacture or distort local ‘culture’ for commodification and staged authenticity.
• Destroy indigenous culture.
• Natural habitat destruction of rural wildlife.
• Littering, emission and other forms of pollution.
• Congestion.

The cooperative system in rural tourism can be an effective approach in bringing positive impact in rural areas. Local people can monitor and control the negative impacts of rural tourism on their own society, if they have an equal stake and authority in management and development.

Characteristics of Rural Tourism

The concept of rural tourism has a noble cause. It is another kind of sustainable tourism that exploits resources in rural regions, causes little or no harmful impact, and generates increasing benefits to rural areas in term of rural productivity, employment, improved distribution of wealth, conservation of the rural environment and culture, local people’s involvement, and a suitable way of adapting traditional beliefs and values to modern time.

Some characteristics features of rural tourism are following as:

• Seasonality
• Fragmentation
• External market needed
• Co-operation needed between internal and external market
• Role of women
• Economic role: side income for farmers and other entrepreneurs in the rural area.

Rural tourism could help in boosting the local performing arts and help conserve the local culture and can prevent rural migration. Rural tourism could attract the tourists by providing an excellent glimpse of the village ambiance with local cuisine.

Rural Tourism Development

Rural tourism development is more than just a planned process. Using an actor-oriented approach, it can be seen as a dynamic, on-going socially constructed and negotiated process that involves many social actors who continuously reshape and transform it to fit it to their perceptions, needs, values, and agendas.

Rural tourism development attracted increasing in the 1990s and a growing literature has contributed to our understanding of it as an evolving phenomenon.

According to Long and Lane, rural tourism has moved into its second phase of development, it’s first having been characterized by growth in participation, product and business development, and partnership. In their review of rural tourism development, Long and Lane argue that rural tourism- at least in Europe and North America – is entering a more complex phase of expansion, differentiation, consolidation, and understanding.

Its second predicted to be more complex, and is likely to be, given the questions that remain regarding its place in policy, its integration in practice, and its dynamic role within the restructuring countryside and within wider tourism development processes.

As tourism continues to be developed in rural areas in order to counter the economic decline in the primary production sectors, the need for sustainable forms of development is recognized. Since the early 1990s, the concept of sustainable tourism development has achieved almost universal acceptance as a desirable and appropriate approach to, and goal of, tourism development.

Rural tourism development has been driven by the need for economic growth and diversification and it is important, therefore, that tourism’s potential contribution to rural economic growth is not diluted by the over-specificity of principles of sustainable tourism.

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Product development.

• Rural tourism
• Gastronomy and Wine Tourism
• Mountain Tourism
• Urban Tourism
• Sports Tourism
• Shopping Tourism

share this content

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

Rural Tourism

Rural tourism has a high potential to stimulate local economic growth and social change because of its complementarity with other economic activities, its contribution to GDP and job creation, and its capacity to promote the dispersal of demand in time (fight seasonality) and along a wider territory.

UN Tourism understands Rural Tourism as "a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle / culture, angling and sightseeing.

Rural Tourism activities take place in non-urban (rural) areas with the following characteristics: i) low population density, ii) landscape and land-use dominated by agriculture and forestry and iii) traditional social structure and lifestyle".

Best Tourism Villages by UN Tourism

With the vision of making tourism a positive force for transformation, rural development and community wellbeing, UN Tourism launched the ' Best Tourism Villages by UN Tourism ' initiative.

It seeks to advance the role of tourism in valuing and safeguarding rural villages along with their associated landscapes, knowledge systems, biological and cultural diversity, local values and activities (agriculture, forestry, livestock and/or fisheries), including their gastronomy.

• STAR, digital self-assessment tool for rural destinations

UN Tourism has unveiled its pioneering digital self-assessment tool designed to progress tourism development in rural areas. The UN Tourism Self-assessment Tool to Assist Rural Destinations, STAR, allows local public authorities in rural destinations to self-evaluate and measure their level of tourism development. It also provides tailored recommendations, benchmarking different destinations and generating valuable data and insights for Member States to enhance sustainable and inclusive tourism policies.

Tourism and Rural Development: Understanding Challenges on the Ground – Lessons learned from the Best Tourism Villages by UNWTO Initiative

  Tourism and Rural Development: A Policy Perspective

Tourism and Rural Development: A Policy Perspective - Results of the UN Tourism Survey on Tourism for Rural Development to Member States

Compilación de buenas prácticas del turismo indígena – Enfoque regional sobre las Américas

UN Tourism Recommendations on Tourism and Rural Development

  UN Tourism Recommendations on Tourism and Rural Development – A Guide to Making Tourism an Effective Tool for Rural Development

AlUla Framework for inclusive Community Development through Tourism

The Framework provides guidance and inspiration to all governments, as well as all other key stakeholders in the tourism sector – including regional and local governments, the private sector, industry associations, civil society, communities and tourists – with the aim of fostering a truly holistic and integrated approach to inclusive community development through tourism.

  AlUla Framework for inclusive Community Development through Tourism

  AlUla Framework for inclusive Community Development through Tourism – Executive Summary

International Rural Tourism Development – An Asia-Pacific Perspective

  International Rural Tourism Development – An Asia-Pacific Perspective

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 March 2023

The benefits of tourism for rural community development

• Yung-Lun Liu 1 ,
• Jui-Te Chiang 2 &
• Pen-Fa Ko 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  137 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

15 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Development studies

While the main benefits of rural tourism have been studied extensively, most of these studies have focused on the development of sustainable rural tourism. The role of tourism contributions to rural community development remains unexplored. Little is known about what tourism contribution dimensions are available for policy-makers and how these dimensions affect rural tourism contributions. Without a clear picture and indication of what benefits rural tourism can provide for rural communities, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. The objectives of this study are threefold. First, we outline a rural tourism contribution model that policy-makers can use to support tourism-based rural community development. Second, we address several methodological limitations that undermine current sustainability model development and recommend feasible methodological solutions. Third, we propose a six-step theoretical procedure as a guideline for constructing a valid contribution model. We find four primary attributes of rural tourism contributions to rural community development; economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational, and 32 subattributes. Ultimately, we confirm that economic benefits are the most significant contribution. Our findings have several practical and methodological implications and could be used as policy-making guidelines for rural community development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Creativity development of tourism villages in Bandung Regency, Indonesia: co-creating sustainability and urban resilience

Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies

Knowledge mapping of relative deprivation theory and its applicability in tourism research

Introduction.

In many countries, rural areas are less developed than urban areas. They are often perceived as having many problems, such as low productivity, low education, and low income. Other issues include population shifts from rural to urban areas, low economic growth, declining employment opportunities, the loss of farms, impacts on historical and cultural heritage, sharp demographic changes, and low quality of life. These issues indicate that maintaining agricultural activities without change might create deeper social problems in rural regions. Li et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed why some rural areas decline while others do not. They emphasized that it is necessary to improve rural communities’ resilience by developing new tourism activities in response to potential urban demands. In addition, to overcome the inevitability of rural decline, Markey et al. ( 2008 ) pointed out that reversing rural recession requires investment orientation and policy support reform, for example, regarding tourism. Therefore, adopting rural tourism as an alternative development approach has become a preferred strategy in efforts to balance economic, social, cultural, and environmental regeneration.

Why should rural regions devote themselves to tourism-based development? What benefits can rural tourism bring to a rural community, particularly during and after the COVID pandemic? Without a clear picture and answers to these questions, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. Understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development is critical for helping government and community planners realize whether rural tourism development is beneficial. Policy-makers are aware that reducing rural vulnerability and enhancing rural resilience is a necessary but challenging task; therefore, it is important to consider the equilibrium between rural development and potential negative impacts. For example, economic growth may improve the quality of life and enhance the well-being index. However, it may worsen income inequality, increase the demand for green landscapes, and intensify environmental pollution, and these changes may impede natural preservation in rural regions and make local residents’ lives more stressful. This might lead policy-makers to question whether they should support tourism-based rural development. Thus, the provision of specific information on the contributions of rural tourism is crucial for policy-makers.

Recently, most research has focused on rural sustainable tourism development (Asmelash and Kumar, 2019 ; Polukhina et al., 2021 ), and few studies have considered the contributions of rural tourism. Sustainability refers to the ability of a destination to maintain production over time in the face of long-term constraints and pressures (Altieri et al., 2018 ). In this study, we focus on rural tourism contributions, meaning what rural tourism contributes or does to help produce something or make it better or more successful. More specifically, we focus on rural tourism’s contributions, not its sustainability, as these goals and directions differ. Today, rural tourism has responded to the new demand trends of short-term tourists, directly providing visitors with unique services and opportunities to contact other business channels. The impact on the countryside is multifaceted, but many potential factors have not been explored (Arroyo et al., 2013 ; Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). For example, the demand for remote nature-based destinations has increased due to the fear of COVID-19 infection, the perceived risk of crowding, and a desire for low tourist density. Juschten and Hössinger ( 2020 ) showed that the impact of COVID-19 led to a surge in demand for natural parks, forests, and rural areas. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) demonstrated that the countryside is gaining more domestic tourists due to natural, gastronomic, and local attractions. Thus, they contended that the COVID-19 pandemic created rural tourism opportunities.

Following this change in tourism demand, rural regions are no longer associated merely with agricultural commodity production. Instead, they are seen as fruitful locations for stimulating new socioeconomic activities and mitigating public mental health issues (Kabadayi et al., 2020 ). Despite such new opportunities in rural areas, there is still a lack of research that provides policy-makers with information about tourism development in rural communities (Petrovi’c et al., 2018 ; Vaishar and Šťastná, 2022 ). Although there are many novel benefits that tourism can bring to rural communities, these have not been considered in the rural community development literature. For example, Ram et al. ( 2022 ) showed that the presence of people with mental health issues, such as nonclinical depression, is negatively correlated with domestic tourism, such as rural tourism. Yang et al. ( 2021 ) found that the contribution of rural tourism to employment is significant; they indicated that the proportion of nonagricultural jobs had increased by 99.57%, and tourism in rural communities had become the leading industry at their research site in China, with a value ten times higher than that of agricultural output. Therefore, rural tourism is vital in counteracting public mental health issues and can potentially advance regional resilience, identity, and well-being (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ).

Since the government plays a critical role in rural tourism development, providing valuable insights, perspectives, and recommendations to policy-makers to foster sustainable policies and practices in rural destinations is essential (Liu et al., 2020 ). Despite the variables developed over time to address particular aspects of rural tourism development, there is still a lack of specific variables and an overall measurement framework for understanding the contributions of rural tourism. Therefore, more evidence is needed to understand how rural tourism influences rural communities from various structural perspectives and to prompt policy-makers to accept rural tourism as an effective development policy or strategy for rural community development. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the section “Literature review” presents the literature review. Our methodology is described in the section “Methodology”, and our results are presented in the section “Results”. Our discussion in the section “Discussion/implications” places our findings in perspective by describing their theoretical and practical implications, and we provide concluding remarks in the section “Conclusion”.

Literature review

The role of rural tourism.

The UNWTO ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as a type of tourism in which a visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activity, agriculture, rural lifestyle/culture, angling, and sightseeing. Rural tourism has been used as a valid developmental strategy in rural areas in many developed and developing countries. This developmental strategy aims to enable a rural community to grow while preserving its traditional culture (Kaptan et al., 2020 ). In rural areas, ongoing encounters and interactions between humans and nature occur, as well as mutual transformations. These phenomena take place across a wide range of practices that are spatially and temporally bound, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, farm tourism, cultural heritage preservation, and country life (Hegarty and Przezbórska, 2005 ). To date, rural tourism in many places has become an important new element of the regional rural economy; it is increasing in importance as both a strategic sector and a way to boost the development of rural regions (Polukhina et al., 2021 ). Urban visitors’ demand for short-term leisure activities has increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Slater, 2020 ). Furthermore, as tourists shifted their preferences from exotic to local rural tourism amid COVID-19, Marques et al. ( 2022 ) suggested that this trend is a new opportunity that should be seized, as rural development no longer relies on agriculture alone. Instead, other practices, such as rural tourism, have become opportunities for rural areas. Ironically, urbanization has both caused severe problems in rural areas and stimulated rural tourism development as an alternative means of economic revitalization (Lewis and Delisle, 2004 ). Rural tourism provides many unique events and activities that people who live in urban areas are interested in, such as agricultural festivals, crafts, historical buildings, natural preservation, nostalgia, cuisine, and opportunities for family togetherness and relaxation (Christou, 2020 ; Getz, 2008 ). As rural tourism provides visitors from urban areas with various kinds of psychological, educational, social, esthetic, and physical satisfaction, it has brought unprecedented numbers of tourists to rural communities, stimulated economic growth, improved the viability of these communities, and enhanced their living standards (Nicholson and Pearce, 2001 ). For example, rural tourism practitioners have obtained significant economic effects, including more income, more direct sales, better profit margins, and more opportunities to sell agricultural products or craft items (Everett and Slocum, 2013 ). Local residents can participate in the development of rural tourism, and it does not necessarily depend on external resources. Hence, it provides entrepreneurial opportunities (Lee et al., 2006 ). From an environmental perspective, rural tourism is rooted in a contemporary theoretical shift from cherishing local agricultural resources to restoring the balance between people and ecosystems. Thus, rural land is preserved, natural landscapes are maintained, and green consumerism drives farmers to focus on organic products, green chemistry, and value-added products, such as land ethics (Higham and Ritchie, 2001 ). Therefore, the potential contributions of rural tourism are significant and profound (Marques, 2006 ; Phillip et al., 2010 ). Understanding its contributions to rural community development could encourage greater policy-maker investment and resident support (Yang et al., 2010 ).

Contributions of rural tourism to rural community development

Maintaining active local communities while preventing the depopulation and degradation of rural areas requires a holistic approach and processes that support sustainability. What can rural tourism contribute to rural development? In the literature, rural tourism has been shown to bring benefits such as stimulating economic growth (Oh, 2005 ), strengthening rural and regional economies (Lankford, 1994 ), alleviating poverty (Zhao et al., 2007 ), and improving living standards in local communities (Uysal et al., 2016 ). In addition to these economic contributions, what other elements have not been identified and discussed (Su et al., 2020 )? To answer these questions, additional evidence is a prerequisite. Thus, this study examines the following four aspects. (1) The economic perspective: The clustering of activities offered by rural tourism stimulates cooperation and partnerships between local communities and serves as a vehicle for creating various economic benefits. For example, rural tourism improves employment opportunities and stability, local residents’ income, investment, entrepreneurial opportunities, agricultural production value-added, capital formation, economic resilience, business viability, and local tax revenue (Atun et al., 2019 ; Cheng and Zhang, 2020 ; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006 ; Chong and Balasingam, 2019 ; Cunha et al., 2020 ). (2) The sociocultural perspective: Rural tourism no longer refers solely to the benefits of agricultural production; through economic improvement, it represents a greater diversity of activities. It is important to take advantage of the novel social and cultural alternatives offered by rural tourism, which contribute to the countryside. For example, rural tourism can be a vehicle for introducing farmers to potential new markets through more interactions with consumers and other value chain members. Under such circumstances, the sociocultural benefits of rural tourism are multifaceted. These include improved rural area depopulation prevention (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ), cultural and heritage preservation, and enhanced social stability compared to farms that do not engage in the tourism business (Ma et al., 2021 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). Additional benefits are improved quality of life; revitalization of local crafts, customs, and cultures; restoration of historical buildings and community identities; and increased opportunities for social contact and exchange, which enhance community visibility, pride, and cultural integrity (Kelliher et al., 2018 ; López-Sanz et al., 2021 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Silva and Leal, 2015 ). (3) The environmental perspective: Many farms in rural areas have been rendered noncompetitive due to a shortage of labor, poor managerial skills, and a lack of financial support (Coria and Calfucura, 2012 ). Although there can be immense pressure to maintain a farm in a family and to continue using land for agriculture, these problems could cause families to sell or abandon their farms or lands (Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). In addition, unless new income pours into rural areas, farm owners cannot preserve their land and its natural aspects; thus, they tend to allow their land to become derelict or sell it. In the improved economic conditions after farms diversify into rural tourism, rural communities have more money to provide environmental care for their natural scenic areas, pastoral resources, forests, wetlands, biodiversity, pesticide mitigation, and unique landscapes (Theodori, 2001 ; Vail and Hultkrantz, 2000 ). Ultimately, the entire image of a rural community is affected; the community is imbued with vitality, and farms that participate in rural tourism instill more togetherness among families and rural communities. In this study, the environmental benefits induced by rural tourism led to improved natural environmental conservation, biodiversity, environmental awareness, infrastructure, green chemistry, unspoiled land, and family land (Di and Laura, 2021 ; Lane, 1994 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). (4) The leisure and educational perspective: Rural tourism is a diverse strategy associated with an ongoing flow of development models that commercialize a wide range of farming practices for residents and visitors. Rural territories often present a rich set of unique resources that, if well managed, allow multiple appealing, authentic, and memorable tourist experiences. Tourists frequently comment that the rural tourism experience positively contrasts with the stress and other negatively perceived conditions of daily urban life. This is reflected in opposing, compelling images of home and a visited rural destination (Kastenholz et al., 2012 ). In other words, tourists’ positive experiences result from the attractions and activities of rural tourism destinations that may be deemed sensorially, symbolically, or socially opposed to urban life (Kastenholz et al. 2018 ). These experiences are associated with the “search for authenticity” in the context of the tension between the nostalgic images of an idealized past and the demands of stressful modern times. Although visitors search for the psychological fulfillment of hedonic, self-actualization, challenge, accomplishment, exploration, and discovery goals, some authors have uncovered the effects of rural tourism in a different context. For example, Otto and Ritchie ( 1996 ) revealed that the quality of a rural tourism service provides a tourist experience in four dimensions—hedonic, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition. Quadri-Felitti and Fiore ( 2013 ) identified the relevant impact of education, particularly esthetics, versus memory on satisfaction in wine tourism. At present, an increasing number of people and families are seeking esthetic places for relaxation and family reunions, particularly amid COVID-19. Rural tourism possesses such functions; it remains a novel phenomenon for visitors who live in urban areas and provides leisure and educational benefits when visitors to a rural site contemplate the landscape or participate in an agricultural process for leisure purposes (WTO, 2020 ). Tourists can obtain leisure and educational benefits, including ecological knowledge, information about green consumerism, leisure and recreational opportunities, health and food security, reduced mental health issues, and nostalgia nurturing (Alford and Jones, 2020 ; Ambelu et al., 2018 ; Christou, 2020 ; Lane, 1994 ; Li et al., 2021 ). These four perspectives possess a potential synergy, and their effects could strengthen the relationship between rural families and rural areas and stimulate new regional resilience. Therefore, rural tourism should be understood as an enabler of rural community development that will eventually attract policy-makers and stakeholders to invest more money in developing or advancing it.

Methodology

The literature on rural tourism provides no generally accepted method for measuring its contributions or sustainability intensity. Although many statistical methods are available, several limitations remain, particularly in terms of the item generation stage and common method bias (CMB). For example, Marzo-Navar et al. ( 2015 ) used the mean and SD values to obtain their items. However, the use of the mean has been criticized because it is susceptible to extreme values or outliers. In addition, they did not examine omitted variables and CMB. Asmelash and Kumar ( 2019 ) used the Delphi method with a mean value for deleting items. Although they asked experts to suggest the inclusion of any missed variables, they did not discuss these results. Moreover, they did not assess CMB. Islam et al. ( 2021 ) used a sixteen-step process to formulate sustainability indicators but did not consider omitted variables, a source of endogeneity bias. They also did not designate a priority for each indicator. Although a methodologically sound systematic review is commonly used, little attention has been given to reporting interexpert reliability when multiple experts are used to making decisions at various points in the screening and data extraction stages (Belur et al., 2021 ). Due to the limitations of the current methods for assessing sustainable tourism development, we aim to provide new methodological insights. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Steps required in developing the model for analysis after obtaining the data.

Many sources of data collection can be used, including literature reviews, inferences about the theoretical definition of the construct, previous theoretical and empirical research on the focal construct, advice from experts in the field, interviews, and focus groups. In this study, the first step was to retrieve data from a critical literature review. The second step was the assessment of omitted variables to produce items that fully captured all essential aspects of the focal construct domain. In this case, researchers must not omit a necessary measure or fail to include all of the critical dimensions of the construct. In addition, the stimuli of CMB, for example, double-barreled items, items containing ambiguous or unfamiliar terms, and items with a complicated syntax, should be simplified and made specific and concise. That is, researchers should delete items contaminated by CMB. The third step was the examination of construct-irrelevant variance to retain the variances relevant to the construct of interest and minimize the extent to which the items tapped concepts outside the focal construct domain. Variances irrelevant to the targeted construct should be deleted. The fourth step was to examine intergroup consistency to ensure that there was no outlier impact underlying the ratings. The fifth step was to examine interexpert reliability to ensure rating conformity. Finally, we prioritized the importance of each variable with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multicriteria decision-making approach. All methods used in this study are expert-based approaches.

Selection of experts

Because this study explores the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development, it involves phenomena in the postdevelopment stage; therefore, a few characteristics are essential for determining the choice of experts. The elements used to identify the experts in this study were (1) the number of experts, (2) expertise, (3) knowledge, (4) diversity, (5) years working in this field, and 5) commitment to participation. Regarding the number of experts, Murphy-Black et al. ( 1998 ) suggested that the more participants there are, the better, as a higher number reduces the effects of expert attrition and rater bias. Taylor-Powell ( 2002 ) pointed out that the number of participants in an expert-based study depends not only on the purpose of the research but also on the diversity of the target population. Okoli and Pawlowski ( 2004 ) recommended a target number of 10–18 experts for such a purpose. Therefore, we recruited a group of 18 experts based on their stated interest in the topic and asked them to comment on our rationale concerning the rating priorities among the items. We asked them to express a degree of agreement or disagreement with each item we provided. We adopted a heterogeneous and anonymous arrangement to ensure that rater bias did not affect this study. The 18 experts had different backgrounds, which might have made it easier for them to reach a consensus objectively. We divided the eighteen experts into three subgroups: (1) at least six top managers from rural tourism businesses, all of whom had been in the rural tourism business for over 10 years; (2) at least six academics who taught subjects related to tourism at three different universities in Taiwan; and (3) at least six government officials involved in rural development issues in Taiwan.

Generating items to represent the construct

Step 1: data collection.

Data collection provides evidence for investigation and reflects the construct of interest. While there is a need to know what rural tourism contributes, previous studies have provided no evidence for policy-makers to establish a rural community strategy; thus, it is essential to use a second source to achieve this aim. We used a literature review for specific topics; the data we used were based on the findings being presented in papers on rural tourism indexed in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). In this study, we intended to explore the role of rural tourism and its contributions to rural development. Therefore, we explored the secondary literature on the state of the questions of rural development, sustainable development, sustainability indicators, regional resilience, farm tourism, rural tourism, COVID-19, tourist preferences, and ecotourism using terms such as land ethics, ecology, biodiversity, green consumerism, environmentalism, green chemistry, community identity, community integration, community visibility, and development goals in an ad hoc review of previous studies via Google Scholar. Based on the outcomes of this first data collection step, we generated thirty-three subattributes and classified them into four domains.

Step 2: Examine the face validity of omitted variables and CMB

Face validity is defined as assessing whether a measurement scale or questionnaire includes all the necessary items (Dempsey and Dempsey, 1992 ). Based on the first step, we generated data subattributes from our literature review. However, there might have been other valuable attributes or subattributes that were not considered or excluded. Therefore, our purposes for examining face validity were twofold. First, we assessed the omitted variables, defined as the occurrence of crucial aspects or facets that were omitted (Messick, 1995 ). These comprise a threat to construct validity that, if ignored by researchers, might result in unreliable findings. In other words, face validity is used to distinguish whether the researchers have adequately captured the full dimensions of the construct of interest. If not, the evaluation instrument or model is deficient. However, the authors found that most rural tourism studies have not assessed the issue of omitted variables (An and Alarcon, 2020 ; Lin, 2022 ). Second, we mitigated the CMB effect. In a self-report survey, it is necessary to provide a questionnaire without CMB to the targeted respondents, as CMB affects respondent comprehension. Therefore, we assessed item characteristic effects, item context effects, and question response process effects. These three effects are related to the respondents’ understanding, retrieval, mood, affectivity, motivation, judgment, response selection, and response reporting (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Specifically, items containing flaws from these three groups in a questionnaire can seriously influence an empirical investigation and potentially result in misleading conclusions. We assessed face validity by asking all the experts to scrutinize the content items that we collected from the literature review and the questionnaire that we drafted. The experts could then add any attribute or subattribute they thought was essential that had been omitted. They could also revise the questionnaire if CMB were embedded. We added the new attributes or subattributes identified by the experts to those collected from the literature review.

Step 3: Examine interexpert consensus for construct-irrelevant variances

After examining face validity, we needed to rule out items irrelevant to the construct of interest; otherwise, the findings would be invalid. We examined the interexpert consensus to achieve this aim. The purpose was to estimate the experts’ ratings of each item. In other words, interexpert consensus assesses the extent to which experts make the same ratings (Kozlowski and Hattrup, 1992 ; Northcote et al., 2008 ). In prior studies, descriptive statistics have often been used to capture the variability among individual characteristics, responses, or contributions to the subject group (Landeta, 2006 ; Roberson et al., 2007 ). Many expert-based studies have applied descriptive statistics to determine consensus and quantify its degree (Paraskevas and Saunders, 2012 ; Stewart et al., 2016 ). Two main groups of descriptive statistics, central tendencies (mode, mean, and median) and level of dispersion (standard deviation, interquartile, and coefficient of variation), are commonly used when determining consensus (Mukherjee et al., 2015 ). Choosing the cutoff point of interexpert consensus was critical because we used it as a yardstick for item retention and its value can also be altered by a number on the Likert scale (Förster and von der Gracht, 2014 ). In the case of a 5-point Likert scale, the coefficient of variation (CV) is used to measure interexpert consensus. Hence, CV ≤ 0.3 indicated high consensus (Zinn et al., 2001 ). In addition, based on the feedback obtained from the expert panel, we used standard deviation (SD) as another measurement to assess the variation in our population. Henning and Jordaan ( 2016 ) indicate that SD ≤ 1 represents a high level of consensus, meaning that it can act as a guideline for cutoff points. In addition, following Vergani et al. ( 2022 ), we used the percentage agreement (% AGR) to examine interexpert consensus. If the responses reached ≧ 70% 4 and 5 in the case of a 5-point Likert scale, it indicated that the item had interexpert consensus; thus, we could retain it. Moreover, to avoid the impact of outliers, we used the median instead of the mean as another measurement. Items had a high consensus if their median value was ≥4.00 (Rice, 2009 ). Considering these points, we adopted % AGR, median, SD, and CV to examine interexpert consensus.

Step 4: Examine intergroup consistency

In this expert-based study, the sample size was small. Any rater bias could have caused inconsistency among the subgroups of experts; therefore, we needed to examine the effect of rater bias on intergroup consistency. When the intergroup ratings showed substantially different distributions, the aggregated data were groundless. Dajani et al. ( 1979 ) remarked that interexpert consensus is meaningless if the consistency of responses in a study is not reached, as it means that any rater bias could distort the median, SD, or CV. Most studies have used one-way ANOVA to determine whether there is a significant difference between the expected and observed frequency in three or more categories. However, this method is based on large sample size and normal distribution. In the case of expert-based studies, the expert sample size is small, and the assessment distribution tends to be skewed. Thus, we used the nonparametric test instead of one-way ANOVA for consistency measurement (Potvin and Roff, 1993 ). We used the Kruskal‒Wallis test (K–W) to test the intergroup consistency among the three subgroups of experts. The purpose of the K–W test is to determine whether there are significant differences among three or more subgroups regarding the ratings of the domains (Huck, 2004 ). The judgment criteria in the K-W test depended on the level of significance, and we set the significance level at p  < 0.05 (Love and Irani, 2004 ), with no significant differences among groups set at p  > 0.05 (Loftus et al., 2000 ; Rice, 2009 ). We used SPSS to conduct the K–W test to assess intergroup consistency in this study.

Step 5: Examine interexpert reliability

Interexpert reliability, on the one hand, is usually defined as the proportion of systematic variance to the total variance in ratings (James et al., 1984 ). On the other hand, interexpert reliability estimation is not concerned with the exact or absolute value of ratings. Rather, it measures the relative ordering or ranking of rated objects. Thus, interexpert reliability estimation concerns the consistency of ratings (Tinsley and Weiss, 1975 ). If an expert-based study did not achieve interexpert reliability, we could not trust its analysis (Singletary, 1994 ). Thus, we examined interexpert reliability in this expert-based study. Many methods are available in the literature for measuring interexpert reliability, but there seems to be little consensus on a standard method. We used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among the experts for each sample group (Goetz et al., 1994 ) because it was available for any sample size or ordinal number. If W was 1, all the experts were unanimous, and each had assigned the same order to the list of objects or concerns. As Spector et al. ( 2002 ) and Schilling ( 2002 ) suggested, reliabilities well above the recommended value of .70 indicate sufficient internal reliability. In this study, there was a strong consensus when W  > 0.7. W  > 0.5 represented a moderate consensus; and W  < 0.3 indicated weak interexpert agreement (Schmidt et al., 2001 ). To measure Kendall’s W , we used SPSS 23 to assess interexpert reliability.

Step 6: Examine the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

After examining face validity, interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability, we found that the aggregated items were relevant, authentic, and reliable in relation to the construct of interest. To provide policy-makers with a clear direction regarding which contributions are more or less important, we scored each attribute and subattribute using a multicriteria decision-making technique. Fuzzy AHP is a well-known decision-making tool for modeling unstructured problems. It enables decision-makers to model a complex issue in a hierarchical structure that indicates the relationships between the goal, criteria, and subcriteria on the basis of scores (Park and Yoon, 2011 ). The fuzzy AHP method tolerates vagueness and ambiguity (Mikhailov and Tsvetinov, 2004 ). In other words, fuzzy AHP can capture a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when considering complex, multicriteria decision-making problems (Erensal et al., 2006 ). In this study, we used Power Choice 2.5 software to run fuzzy AHP, determine weights, and develop the impact structure of rural tourism on sustainable rural development.

Face validity

To determine whether we had omitted variables, we asked all 18 experts to scrutinize our list of four attributes and 33 subattributes for omitted variables and determine whether the questionnaire contained any underlying CMB. We explained the meaning of omitted variables, the stimuli of CMB, and the two purposes of examining face validity to all the experts. In their feedback, the eighteen experts added one item as an omitted variable: business viability. The experts suggested no revisions to the questionnaire we had drafted. These results indicated that one omitted variable was revealed and that our prepared questionnaire was clear, straightforward, and understandable. The initially pooled 34 subattributes represented the construct of interest, and all questionnaires used for measurement were defendable in terms of CMB. The biasing effects of method variance did not exist, indicating that the threat of CMB was minor.

Interexpert consensus

In this step, we rejected any items irrelevant to the construct of interest. Consensus measurement played an essential role in aggregating the experts’ judgments. This study measured the AGR, median, SD, and CV. Two items, strategic alliance (AGR = 50%) and carbon neutrality (AGR = 56%) were rated < 70%, and we rejected them accordingly. These results are shown in Table 1 . The AGR, median, SD, and CV values were all greater than the cutoff points, thus indicating that the majority of experts in this study consistently recognized high values and reached a consensus for the rest of the 32 subattributes. Consequently, the four attributes and 32 subattributes remained and were initially identified as determinants for further analysis.

Intergroup consistency and interexpert reliability

In this study, with scores based on a 5-point Likert scale, we conducted the K–W test to assess intergroup differences for each subattribute. Based on the outcomes, the K–W test yielded significant results for all 32 subattributes; all three groups of experts reached consistency at p  > 0.05. This result indicated that no outlier or extreme value underlay the ratings, and therefore, intergroup consistency was reached. Finally, we measured interexpert reliability with Kendall’s W . The economic perspective was W  = 0.73, the sociocultural perspective was W  = 0.71, the environmental perspective was W  = 0.71, and the leisure and educational perspective was W  = 0.72. These four groups of W were all ≧ 0.7, indicating high reliability for the ranking order and convergence judged by all subgroup experts. These results are shown in Table 2 .

The hierarchical framework

The results of this study indicate that rural tourism contributions to rural community development comprise four attributes and thirty-two subattributes. The economic perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.387. In addition, rural tourism has long been considered a possible means of sociocultural development and regeneration of rural areas, particularly those affected by the decline in traditional rural

activities, agricultural festivals, and historical buildings. According to the desired benefits, the sociocultural perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.183. Moreover, as rural tourism can develop on farms and locally, its contribution to maintaining and enhancing environmental regeneration and protection is significant. Therefore, an environmental perspective can determine rural tourism’s impact on pursuing environmental objectives. Our results indicate that the environmental perspective encompasses seven subattributes and that its weight is w  = 0.237. Furthermore, the leisure and educational perspective indicates the attractiveness of rural tourism from visitors’ viewpoint and their perception of a destination’s value and contributions. These results show that this perspective encompasses seven subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.193. This specific contribution model demonstrates a 3-level hierarchical structure, as shown in Fig. 2 . The scores for each criterion could indicate each attribute’s importance and explain the priority order of the groups. Briefly, the critical sequence of each measure in the model at Level 2 is as follows: economic perspective > environmental perspective > leisure and educational perspective > sociocultural perspective. Since scoring and ranking were provided by 18 experts from three different backgrounds and calculated using fuzzy AHP, our rural tourism contribution model is established. It can provide policy-makers with information on the long-term benefits and advantages following the completion of excellent community development in rural areas.

The priority index of each attribute and sub-attribute.

Discussion/Implications

In the era of sustainable rural development, it is vital to consider the role of rural tourism and how research in this area shapes access to knowledge on rural community development. This study provides four findings based on the increasing tendency of policy-makers to use such information to shape their policy-making priorities. It first shows that the demand for rural tourism has soared, particularly during COVID-19. Second, it lists four significant perspectives regarding the specific contributions of rural tourism to rural community development and delineates how these four perspectives affect rural tourism development. Our findings are consistent with those of prior studies. For example, geography has been particularly important in the rural or peripheral tourism literature (Carson, 2018 ). In terms of the local geographical context, two contributions could be made by rural tourism. The first stems from the environmental perspective. When a rural community develops rural tourism, environmental protection awareness is increased, and the responsible utilization of natural resources is promoted. This finding aligns with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ). The second stems from the leisure and educational perspective. The geographical context of a rural community, which provides tourists with geographical uniqueness, advances naturally calming, sensory-rich, and emotion-generating experiences for tourists. These results suggest that rural tourism will likely positively impact tourists’ experience. This finding is consistent with Kastenhoz et al. ( 2020 ). Third, although expert-based approaches have considerable benefits in developing and testing underlying phenomena, evidence derived from interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability has been sparse. This study provides such evidence. Fourth, this research shows that rural tourism makes four main contributions, economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational, to rural community development. Our results show four key indicators at Level 2. The economic perspective is strongly regarded as the most important indicator, followed by the environmental perspective, leisure and educational perspective, and sociocultural perspective, which is weighted as the least important. The secondary determinants of contributions have 32 subindicators at Level 3: each was identified and assigned a different weight. These results imply that the attributes or subattributes with high weights have more essential roles in understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. Policy-makers can use these 32 subindicators to formulate rural tourism development policies or strategies.

This study offers the following five practical implications for policymakers and rural communities:

First, we argue that developing rural tourism within a rural community is an excellent strategy for revitalization and countering the effects of urbanization, depopulation, deforestation, and unemployment.

Second, our analytical results indicate that rural tourism’s postdevelopment contribution is significant from the economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational perspectives, which is consistent with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ).

Third, there is an excellent opportunity to build or invest more in rural tourism during COVID-19, not only because of the functions of rural tourism but also because of its timing. Many prior studies have echoed this recommendation. For example, Yang et al. ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as the leading industry in rural areas, offering an output value ten times higher than that of agriculture in China. In addition, rural tourism has become more attractive to urban tourists amid COVID-19. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic created a strong demand for rural tourism, which can mitigate threats to public mental health, such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, isolation, and insomnia. Marques et al. ( 2022 ) showed that tourists’ preference for tourism in rural areas increased substantially during COVID-19.

Fourth, the contributions of this study to policy development are substantial. The more focused rural tourism in rural areas is, the more effective revitalization becomes. This finding highlights the importance of such features in developing rural tourism to enhance rural community development from multiple perspectives. This finding echoes Zawadka et al. ( 2022 ); i.e., policy-makers should develop rural tourism to provide tourists with a safe and relaxed environment and should not ignore the value of this model for rural tourism.

Fifth, our developed model could drive emerging policy issues from a supporting perspective and provide policy-makers with a more comprehensive overview of the development of the rural tourism sector, thus enabling them to create better policies and programs as needed. For example, amid COVID-19, rural tourism created a safe environment for tourists, mainly by reducing their fears of contamination (Dennis et al., 2021 ). This novel contribution that rural tourism destinations can provide to residents and visitors from other places should be considered and built into any rural community development policy.

This study also has the following four methodological implications for researchers:

First, it addresses methodological limitations that still impede tourism sustainability model development. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure as the guideline; it is imperative that rural tourism researchers or model developers follow this procedure. If they do not, their findings tend to be flawed.

Second, to ensure that collected data are without extraneous interference or differences via subgroups of experts, the assessment of intergroup consistency with the K–W test instead of one-way ANOVA is proposed, especially in small samples and distribution-free studies.

Third, providing interexpert reliability evidence within expert-based research is critical; we used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among experts for each sample group because it applies to any sample size and ordinal number.

Finally, we recommend using fuzzy AHP to establish a model with appropriate indicators for decision-making or selection. This study offers novel methodological insights by estimating a theoretically grounded and empirically validated rural tourism contribution model.

There are two limitations to this study. First, we examine all subattributes by interexpert consensus to delete construct-irrelevant variances that might receive criticism for their lack of statistical rigor. Future studies can use other rigorous methods, such as AD M( j ) or rWG ( j ) , interexpert agreement indices to assess and eliminate construct-irrelevant variances. Second, we recommend maximizing rural tourism contributions to rural community development by using the general population as a sample to identify any differences. More specifically, we recommend using Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the overall reliability and validity of the data and results. It is also necessary to provide results for goodness-of-fit measures—e.g., the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), or root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Numerous empirical studies have illustrated how rural tourism can positively and negatively affect the contexts in rural areas where it is present. This study reveals the positive contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. The findings show that using rural tourism as a revitalization strategy is beneficial to nonurban communities in terms of their economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational development. The contribution from the economic perspective is particularly important. These findings suggest that national, regional, and local governments or community developers should make tourism a strategic pillar in their policies for rural development and implement tourism-related development projects to gain 32 benefits, as indicated in Fig. 2 . More importantly, rural tourism was advocated and proved effective for tourists and residents to reduce anxiety, depression, or insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this emerging contribution, rural tourism is becoming more critical to tourists from urban areas and residents involved in rural community development. With this model, policy-makers should not hesitate to develop or invest more in rural communities to create additional tourism-based activities and facilities. As they could simultaneously advance rural community development and public mental health, policy-makers should include these activities among their regional resilience considerations and treat them as enablers of sustainable rural development. We conclude that amid COVID-19, developing rural tourism is an excellent strategy for promoting rural community development and an excellent alternative that could counteract the negative impacts of urbanization and provide stakeholders with more positive interests. The proposed rural tourism contribution model also suggests an unfolding research plan.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alford P, Jones R (2020) The lone digital tourism entrepreneur: Knowledge acquisition and collaborative transfer. Tour Manag 81:104–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104139

Article   Google Scholar  

Altieri MA, Farrell JG, Hecht SB, Liebman M, Magdoff F et al (2018) The agroecosystem: determinants, resources, processes, and sustainability. Agroecology 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429495465-3

Ambelu G, Lovelock B, Tucker H (2018) Empty bowls: conceptualising the role of tourism in contributing to sustainable rural food security. J Sustain Tour 26(10):1749–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1511719

An W, Alarcon S (2020) How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability 12(18):7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187758

Arroyo C, Barbieri C, Rich SR (2013) Defining agritourism: a comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour Manag 37:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007

Asmelash AG, Kumar S (2019) Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tour Manag 71:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.020

Atun RA, Nafa H, Türker ÖO (2019) Envisaging sustainable rural development through ‘context-dependent tourism’: case of Northern Cyprus. Environ Dev Sustain 21:1715–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0100-8

Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M (2021) Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 50(2):837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Carson DA (2018) Challenges and opportunities for rural tourism geographies: a view from the ‘boring’ peripheries. Tour Geogr 20(4):737–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/4616688.2018.1477173

Cheng L, Zhang J (2020) Is tourism development a catalyst of economic recovery following natural disaster? An analysis of economic resilience and spatial variability. Curr Issues Tour 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1711029

Choi H-SC, Sirakaya E (2006) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour Manag 27(6):1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018

Chong KY, Balasingam AS (2019) Tourism sustainability: economic benefits and strategies for preservation and conservation of heritage sites in Southeast Asia. Tour Rev 74(2):268–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2017-0182

Christou PA (2020) Tourism experiences as the remedy to nostalgia: conceptualizing the nostalgia and tourism nexus. Curr Issues Tour 23(5):612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1548582

Coria J, Calfucura E (2012) Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: the good, the bad and the ugly. Ecol Econ 73(15):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024

Cunha C, Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ (2020) Entrepreneurs in rural tourism: do lifestyle motivations contribute to management practices that enhance sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? J Hosp Tour Manag 44:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.007

Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK (1979) Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 13(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6

Dempsey PA, Dempsey AD (1992) Nursing research with basic statistical applications, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett, Boston

Google Scholar  

Dennis D, Radnitz C, Wheaton MG (2021) A perfect storm? Health anxiety, contamination fears, and COVID-19: lessons learned from past pandemics and current challenges. Int J Cogn Ther 14:497–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41811-021-00109-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Di TF, Laura M (2021) How green possibilities can help in a future sustainable conservation of cultural heritage in Europe. Sustainability 13(7):3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073609

Erensal YC, ncan TÖ, Demircan ML (2006) Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey. Inf Sci 176(18):2755–2770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.004

Everett S, Slocum SL (2013) Food and tourism: an effective partnership? A UK-based review. J Sustain Tour 21(6):789–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.741601

Förster B, von der Gracht H (2014) Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight—a comparison of panels based on company-Internal and external participants. Technol Forecast Soc Change 84:215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/.techfore.2013.07.012

Getz D (2008) Event tourism: definition, evolution and research. Tour Manag 29(3):403–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017

Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Shale HM, Lang AE, Chernik DA, Chmura TA, Ahlskog JE, Dorflinger EE (1994) Utility of an objective dyskinesia rating scale for Parkinson’s disease: inter- and intrarater reliability assessment. Mov Disord 9(4):390–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.870090403

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hegarty C, Przezborska L (2005) Rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganizing rural areas in old and new member states—a comparison study of Ireland and Poland. Int J Tour Res 7(2):63–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.513

Henning JIF, Jordaan H (2016) Determinants of financial sustainability for farm credit applications—a Delphi study. Sustainability 8(1):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010077

Higham JES, Ritchie B (2001) The evolution of festivals and other events in rural Southern New Zealand. Event Manag 7(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599501108751461

Huck SW (2004) Reading statistics and research, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

Islam MS, Lovelock B, Coetzee WJL (2021) Liberating sustainability indicators: developing and implementing a community-operated tourism sustainability indicator system in Boga Lake, Bangladesh. J Sustain Tour. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1928147

James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69(1):322–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Juschten M, Hössinger R (2020) Out of the city - But how and where? A mode-destination choice model for urban–rural tourism trips in Austria. Curr Issues Tour 24(10):1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1783645

Kabadayi S, O’Connor G, Tuzovic S (2020) Viewpoint: the impact of coronavirus on service ecosystems as service mega-disruptions. J Serv Mark 34(6):809–817. reurl.cc/oen0lM

Kaptan AÇ, Cengı̇z TT, Özkök F, Tatlı H (2020) Land use suitability analysis of rural tourism activities: Yenice, Turkey. Tour Manag 76:103949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.07.003

Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ, Marques CP, Lima J (2012) Understanding and managing the rural tourism experience—the case of a historical village in Portugal. Tour Manag Perspect 4:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.009

Kastenholz E, Carneiro M, Marques CP, Loureiro SMC (2018) The dimensions of rural tourism experience: impacts on arousal, memory and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark 35(2):189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350617

Kastenhoz E, Marques CP, Carneiro MJ (2020) Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. J Destin Mark Manage 17:100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100455

Kelliher F, Rein L, Johnson TG, Joppe M (2018) The role of trust in building rural tourism micro firm network engagement: a multi-case study. Tour Manag 68:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.014

Kozlowski SW, Hattrup K (1992) A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. J Appl Psychol 77(2):161–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161

Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(5):467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002

Lankford SV (1994) Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. J Travel Res 32(3):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759403200306

Lane B (1994) What is rural tourism? J Sustain Tour 2(1&2):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510680

Lee TH, Jan FH (2019) Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents perceptions of the sustainability. Tour Manag 70:368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003

Lee J, Árnason A, Nightingale A, Shucksmith M (2006) Networking: Social capital and identities in European rural development. Sociol Rural 45(4):269–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00305.x

Lewis JB, Delisle L (2004) Tourism as economic self-development in rural Nebraska: a case study. Tour Anal 9(3):153–166. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354204278122

Li Y, Westlund H, Liu Y (2019) Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world. J Rural Stud 68:135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003

Li Z, Zhang X, Yang K, Singer R, Cui R (2021) Urban and rural tourism under COVID-19 in China: research on the recovery measures and tourism development. Tour Rev 76(4):718–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2020-0357

Lin CL (2022) Evaluating the urban sustainable development strategies and common suited paths considering various stakeholders. Environ Dev Sustain 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02021-8

Liu CY, Doub XT, Lia JF, Caib LA (2020) Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: an empirical investigation from China. J Rural Stud 79:177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.046

Loftus IM, Naylor AR, Goodall SM, Crowther LJ, Bell PRF, Thompson MM (2000) Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 activity in unstable carotid plaques: a potential role in acute plaque disruption. Stroke 31(1):40–47. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.31.1.40

López-Sanz JM, Penelas-Leguía A, Gutiérrez-Rodríguez P, Cuesta-Valiño P (2021) Sustainable development and rural tourism in depopulated areas. Land 10(9):985. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090985

Love PED, Irani Z (2004) An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Inf Manag 42(1):227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.011

Ma X, Wang R, Dai M, Ou Y (2021) The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. J Sustain Tour 29:1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1826497

Markey S, Halseth G, Manson D (2008) Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. J Rural Stud 24:409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.012

Marques H (2006) Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism—the demarcated wine-producing regions of Northern Portugal. Tour Econ 12(1):147–155. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387141

Marques CP, Guedes A, Bento R (2022) Rural tourism recovery between two COVID-19 waves: the case of Portugal. Curr Issues Tour 25(6):857–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1910216

Marzo-Navar M, Pedraja-Iglesia M, Vinzon L (2015) Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective of the residents. Tour Geogr 17(4):586–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1062909

Messick S (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50(9):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2004.04.001

Mukherjee N, Huge J, Sutherland WJ, McNeill J, Van Opstal M, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2015) The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods. Ecol Evol 6(9):1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387

Murphy-Black T, Lamping D, McKee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) CEM and their use in clinical guideline development—factors which influence the process and outcome of CDMs. Health Technol Assess 2(3):1–88

Nicholson RE, Pearce DG (2001) Why do people attend events: a comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. J Travel Res 39:449–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750103900412

Northcote J, Lee D, Chok S, Wegner A (2008) An email-based Delphi approach to tourism program evaluation: involving stakeholders in research design. Curr Issues Tour 11(3):269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140315

Oh CO (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tour Manag 26(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.014

Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

Otto JE, Ritchie JRB (1996) The service experience in tourism. Tour Manag 17(3):165–174

Paraskevas A, Saunders MNK (2012) Beyond consensus: an alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 24(6):907–924. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211247236

Park DB, Yoon YS (2011) Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators. Int J Tour Res 13(5):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.804

Petrovi´c MD, Vujko A, Gaji´c T, Vukovi´c DB, Radovanovi´c M, Jovanovi´c JM, Vukovi´c N (2018) Tourism as an approach to sustainable rural development in post-socialist countries: a comparative study of Serbia and Slovenia. Sustainability 10(1):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010054

Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K (2010) A typology for defining agritourism. Tour Manag 31(6):754–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Polukhina A, Sheresheva M, Efremova M, Suranova O, Agalakova O, Antonov-Ovseenko A (2021) The concept of sustainable rural tourism development in the face of COVID-19 crisis: evidence from Russia. J Risk Financ Manag 14:38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010038

Potvin C, Roff DA (1993) Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74(6):1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939920

Quadri-Felitti DL, Fiore AM (2013) Destination loyalty: effects of wine tourists’ experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Tour Hosp Res 13(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358413510017

Ram Y, Collins-Kreiner N, Gozansky E, Moscona G, Okon-Singer H (2022) Is there a COVID-19 vaccination effect? A three-wave cross-sectional study. Curr Issues Tour 25(3):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1960285

Rice K (2009) Priorities in K-12 distance education: a Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educ Technol Soc 12(3):163–177

Roberson QM, Sturman MC, Simons TL (2007) Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? Organ Res Methods 10(4):564–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294746

Ryu K, Roy PA, Kim H, Ryu H (2020) The resident participation in endogenous rural tourism projects: a case study of Kumbalangi in Kerala, India. J Travel Tour Mark 37(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1687389

Schilling MA (2002) Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad Manag J 45(2):387–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069353

Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule P (2001) Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. J Manag Inf Syst 17(4):5–36. https://reurl.cc/RrE1qG

Silva L, Leal J (2015) Rural tourism and national identity building in contemporary Europe: evidence from Portugal. J Rural Stud 38:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005

Singletary M (1994) Mass communication research: contemporary methods and applications. Longman, New York

Slater SJ (2020) Recommendations for keeping parks and green space accessible for mental and physical health during COVID-19 and other pandemics. Prev Chronic Dis https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200204

Spector PE, Cooper CL, Sanchez JI, O’Driscoll M, Sparks K, Bernin P et al. (2002) Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Acad Manag J 45(2):453–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069359

Stewart BT, Gyedu A, Quansah R, Addo WL, Afoko A, Agbenorku P et al. (2016) District-level hospital trauma care audit filters: Delphi technique for defining context-appropriate indicators for quality improvement initiative evaluation in developing countries. Injury 47(1):211–219. https://reurl.cc/WrMLOk

Su MM, Dong Y, Geoffrey W, Sun Y (2020) A value-based analysis of the tourism use of agricultural heritage systems: Duotian Agrosystem, Jiangsu Province, China. J Sustain Tour 28(12):2136–2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1795184

Taylor-Powell E (2002) Quick tips collecting group data: Delphi technique. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Tew C, Barbieri C (2012) The perceived benefits of agritourism: the provider’s perspective. Tour Manag 33(1):215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005

Theodori GL (2001) Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well-being. Rural Sociol 66(4):618–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2001.tb00087.x

Tinsley HEA, Weiss DJ (1975) Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. J Couns Psychol 22(4):358–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076640

UNWTO (2021) Rural tourism. https://www.unwto.org/rural-tourism . Accessed 3 Nov 2021

Uysal M, Sirgy MJ, Woo E, Kim H (2016) Quality of Life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tour Manag 53:244–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013

Vail D, Hultkrantz L (2000) Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecol Econ 35(2):223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00190-7

Vaishar A, Šťastná M (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia preliminary considerations. Curr Issues Tour 25(2):187–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1839027

Vergani L, Cuniberti M, Zanovello M et al. (2022) Return to play in long-standing adductor-related groin pain: a Delphi study among experts. Sports Med—Open 8:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00400-z

World Tourism Organization (2020) UNWTO recommendations on tourism and rural development—a guide to making tourism an effective tool for rural development. UNWTO, Madrid

Book   Google Scholar  

Yang Z, Cai J, Sliuzas R (2010) Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int 34(4):374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.002

Yang J, Yang RX, Chen MH, Su CH, Zhi Y, Xi JC (2021) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J Hosp Tour Manag 47:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008

Zawadka J, Jęczmyk A, Wojcieszak-Zbierska MM, Niedbała G, Uglis J, Pietrzak-Zawadka J (2022) Socio-economic factors influencing agritourism farm stays and their safety during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Poland. Sustainability 14:3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhao W, Brent Ritchie JR (2007) Tourism and poverty alleviation: an integrative research framework. Curr Issues Tour 10(2&3):119–143. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit296.0

Zinn J, Zalokowski A, Hunter L (2001) Identifying indicators of laboratory management performance: a multiple constituency approach. Health Care Manag Rev 26(1):40–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44951308

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan

Yung-Lun Liu

Dayeh University, Changhua, Taiwan

Jui-Te Chiang & Pen-Fa Ko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

We declare all authors involved in the work. The division of labor is stated as follows; Conceptualization: J-TC; Supervision: J-TC; Methodology: Y-LL; Investigation: Y-LL; Data collection, analysis, and curation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK; Original draft preparation: J-TC, Y-LL; Review: P-FK; Interpretation and editing: P-FK; Validation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jui-Te Chiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Obtaining ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution for such tourism management in Taiwan is unnecessary. This study was granted an exemption from requiring ethical approval.

Informed consent

To obtain the necessary permissions, prior to the questionnaire survey, we contacted all 18 content experts by telephone and explained the purpose of this study. This research was limited to an anonymous survey with no additional personal information recorded or analyzed beyond that shown to the survey experts. Subsequently, we sent the questionnaire with detailed information to those who confirmed that they wanted to cooperate. We have included all three authors’ contact information and the letter of withdrawal of cooperation for all eighteen experts.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, YL., Chiang, JT. & Ko, PF. The benefits of tourism for rural community development. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2022

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 31 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Tourism in rural areas as a broader concept: Some insights from the Portuguese reality

For sustainable rural development, the complementarity between the socioeconomic activities developed in rural areas is fundamental to create synergies and economic dynamics with positive externalities for the populations in less favoured spaces. The great challenge for the rural regions is the creation of attractive employment to avoid the desertification of these areas and the respective consequences. Some of the impacts of the rural exodus are related to the agroforestry activities abandonment and the increase of biomass in the respective land which, in certain circumstances, is fuel for forest fires. Tourism in rural areas/space (TRA/S) may contribute significantly to improving the complementarity among activities in less favoured spaces and promoting sustainability in mentioned areas. From this perspective, this research aims to explore dimensions associated with TRA/S, highlighting the main contributions from the scientific literature and showing that it can be considered, in some contexts, a broader concept than the concept of rural tourism. To achieve these objectives, first a systematic review based on metrics from the bibliometric analysis was carried out, considering 165 documents found in the Scopus database in a search performed on 19 March 2024 for the following topics and conditions: “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space.” Then, statistics on the Portuguese reality are presented and analysed, highlighting evidence of the context in Portugal. The findings obtained from the systematic review and bibliometric analysis show the importance of this economic activity for the rural regions and reveal some gaps in the literature that may be considered in future studies, namely the following: the links between tourism in rural areas and economic dynamics should be further developed, further address the interconnection between TRA/S dynamics and the Sustainable Development Goals, and more knowledge about the particularities of each Portuguese context. The statistical analysis of the Portuguese context shows that tourism in rural areas has benefited from the pandemic; it seems that tourists have discovered this form of tourism.

1 Introduction

Tourism in rural areas/space (TRA/S) is an important economic sector [ 1 ] that has grown in importance over the last decade in some contexts [ 2 ] and can be considered as a link between different economic activities [ 3 ]. From this perspective, this tourism is fundamental for balanced development in less favoured regions and has its relevance as an economic sector within the global economy and within the dynamics of tourism.

The literature highlights the different relationships of TRA/S worldwide, such as in the following frameworks: Spanish [ 4 ], French [ 5 ], Dutch [ 6 ], Polish [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], and Romanian [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. These are just a few examples of the interlinkages of tourism in rural geographies around the world, among many others.

Specifically in Portugal, the asymmetric development among rural and urban spaces is a concern, particularly for public institutions, because of the consequences of this unbalanced development. TRA/S may play a crucial role in promoting more economic dynamics in the less favoured regions. There are several examples highlighted by the scientific literature about the different dimensions of TRA/S in Portugal. Some of these examples are presented in the following. Some of the studies show the contributions of these activities to the creation of local employment and socioeconomic synergies. Tourism in rural spaces is, in fact, interrelated with the economic development in rural regions [ 13 ], because it can be a complement of agriculture and small industry and may contribute to a more integrated growth of the rural regions [ 14 ].

The research found in the literature related to rural tourism for Portuguese realities focuses, for example, on the following topics: nature-based tourism in the Aldeia da Pedralva [ 15 ], Ways of Saint James in the interior north of Portugal [ 16 ], artisans and rural tourism [ 17 ], entrepreneurship and rural tourism in Alto Alentejo [ 18 ], entrepreneurship and sustainable tourism [ 19 ], the different needs of rural tourists in the centre and north of Portugal [ 20 ], rural tourism and COVID-19 [ 21 ], Schist Villages Network in the centre of Portugal [ 22 ], rural tourism in coastal areas [ 23 ], cultural tourism with the dream houses built by Portuguese that emigrated in other times [ 24 ], rural tourism demand [ 25 ], renewable energy in rural tourism [ 26 ], and tourism in rural space and the cultural heritage preservation [ 27 ].

There are not so many studies about TRA/S considering bibliometric analysis, which justifies the research presented here for these topics and considering metrics from the scientific literature to carry out a systematic review. A study developed by a team of researchers from Dubai (UAE) and Bangladesh [ 28 ] considered bibliometric analysis and systematic review for topics related to rural tourism but with other approaches. Other scientific contributions focused on the definitions and challenges [ 29 ]. Our perspective is to consider this concept (TRA/S) as a broader approach than rural tourism, although sometimes these two expressions are used as similar. For example, Portuguese legislation in 1997 considered tourism in rural areas as encompassing the following modalities [ 30 ]: residential tourism, rural tourism, agro-tourism, village tourism, and country houses. The approaches taken into account in this research contribute to bringing added value to the scientific context. Other documents considered the rural tourism topic for bibliometric analyses related to the following issues: rural tourism research [ 31 ], community-based tourism [ 32 ], perceptions related to rural tourism [ 33 ], rural tourism complexity [ 34 ], sustainable tourism [ 35 ], rural tourism and rural development [ 36 ], nature-based tourism [ 37 ], tendencies in the literature about rural tourism [ 38 ], Romanian framework [ 39 ], and agritourism [ 40 ].

The reality described before reveals that there is still a field to be explored about tourism in rural areas in Portugal. Conversely, not many studies consider tourism in rural areas as a broader concept than rural tourism and explore it through bibliometric analysis. In addition, the literature shows the importance of bringing more insights into the reality in Portugal. In this framework, this study aims to highlight dimensions from the scientific literature and statistical information about TRA/S that may be considered as benchmarks of and for the Portuguese dynamics in these topics. These insights may be used as support for the different stakeholders, including the scientific community for future research. This study analyses the scenario of TRA/S worldwide, highlighting the specific case of Portugal in these realities.

The great novelty and added value of this research is to highlight that TRA/S is not the same as rural tourism and that it makes sense to highlight and analyse the concept of TRA/S as a broader approach. Conversely, the new dynamics brought about by climate change [ 41 ] and the COVID-19 pandemic [ 42 ] have created new challenges and opportunities that are also worth analysing and exploring in this research.

In addition to this introduction, this study is structured in five more sections. Section 2 presents the material and methods, Section 3 presents the bibliometric analysis, Section 4 presents the systematic review, Section 5 presents the presentation and analysis of the Portuguese context, and Section 6 presents the discussion and main conclusions.

2 Materials and methods

To achieve the aims proposed, a systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA statement [ 43 ] based on metrics from the bibliometric analysis [ 44 ]. For the bibliometric analysis, the procedures proposed by the software VOSviewer [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] were followed. For this bibliometric analysis and systematic review, 165 documents were considered from a search performed on 19 March 2024 (without any restriction for the period of time) in the Scopus [ 49 ] database for the following topics: “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space.” To highlight the Portuguese reality, a set of statistical information is presented and analysed.

In the following section for bibliometric analysis, the results for author keywords items (considering co-occurrence links) and for the following items, taking into account bibliographic coupling links, will be presented: authors, countries, organisations, and sources. Figures highlight the items with the highest number of occurrences (for the author keywords) and of documents (for the items of the bibliographic coupling links). The dimension of the circles and labels in the figures is related to the number of these attributes. Tables present the top 20 items with the highest average normalised citations (average normalised number of citations obtained by the documents in which a keyword appears or the average normalised number of citations obtained by the documents published by a source, an author, an organisation, or a country). The normalisation corrects the impact of time on the number of citations documents have. In addition to the average normalised citations, tables also show other attributes, such as occurrences (the number of documents in which a keyword appears), documents (the number of documents produced by a source, an author, an organisation, or a country), total link strength (total strength of the links of an item with others), average publication year (the average publication year of the documents in which a keyword appears or the average publication year of the documents produced by a source, an author, an organisation, or a country), and average citations (the average number of citations obtained by the documents in which a keyword or a term appears or the average number of citations received by the documents produced by a source, an author, an organisation, or a country). This and other information can be found in the VOSviewer manual [ 47 ].

General review of the literature;

Bibliometric analysis of 165 documents obtained from the Scopus database, on 19 March 2024, for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space”;

Systematic review of the top 20 documents with the highest normalised citations (considering the results of the bibliometric analysis);

Analysis of the Portuguese context.

3 Bibliometric assessment based on bibliographic data

Considering co-occurrence links, Figure 1 reveals that the author keywords with the highest number of occurrences are the following: rural tourism, tourism, rural areas, tourism in rural areas, sustainability, rural development, and cultural tourism. Conversely, Table 1 shows that the author keywords with the highest average normalised citations are, for example, rural settlements, sustainable rural development index (SRDI), tourism recovery, creativity, smart mobility, smart tourism, rural innovation, and cultural learning. These findings highlight, for example, the relationships of tourism in rural areas with the sustainability, culture, creativity, and new technologies associated with the digital transition.

Author keywords items, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and co-occurrence links. (a) Full network and (b) network around the items with the highest number of occurrences. Source: Own elaboration.

Top 20 author keywords with the highest average normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and co-occurrence links

Source: Own elaboration.

Taking into account bibliographic coupling links and authors as items, Figure 2 highlights Elisabeth Kastenholz and Manuela Blapp as the most productive researchers. When considering the average normalised citations ( Table 2 ), the top 5 authors are the following: Miroljub Milinčić, Dušan Ristić, Danijela Vukoičić, Ricardo Bento, and Alexandre Guedes. These results reveal that the most productive authors are not those with the highest impact on the scientific communities. Portugal and Italy are among the countries of affiliation with the biggest values for the number of documents and average normalised citations ( Figure 3 and Table 3 ). The College of Urban and Environmental Sciences (China) and Breda University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands) are the organisations with the biggest number of documents ( Figure 4 ), and organisations from Portugal are those with the biggest average normalised citations ( Table 4 ). Finally, Sustainability and Tourism Management are the sources with the greatest number of documents ( Figure 5 ), and Land Use Policy , International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research , Technology in Society , Journal of Hospitability and Tourism Management , and Current Issues in Tourism are those with greatest average normalised citations ( Table 5 ). These findings show the differences in the production of documents and the impact of scientific results between researchers. Conversely, the results obtained reveal that the Portuguese scientific community have made a significant contribution to knowledge related to the topics discussed here.

Authors items, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links. (a) Full network and (b) network around the items with the highest number of documents. Source: Own elaboration.

Top 20 authors with the highest average normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links

Countries items, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links. (a) Full network and (b) network around the items with the highest number of documents. Source: Own elaboration.

Top 20 countries with the highest average normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links

Organisations items, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links. (a) Full network and (b) network around the items with the highest number of documents. Source: Own elaboration.

Top 20 organisations with the highest average normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links

Sources items, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links. (a) Full network and (b) network around the items with the highest number of documents. Source: Own elaboration.

Top 20 sources with the highest average normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links

4 Systematic review based on bibliometric analysis

Table 6 presents the documents with the highest normalised citations. These documents highlight the importance of interlinkages between handicrafts and tourism in rural areas from a perspective of creative tourism [ 17 ] and the interrelationships of endogenous resources with sustainable development [ 50 ]. Creative tourism, under specific conditions, may bring relevant contributions to rural development [ 51 ]. Gastronomic, natural, and cultural heritage, for example, play a crucial role in the sustainability of rural areas [ 52 ]. Travelling for food and drink is, in fact, something that attracts tourists [ 53 ]. In any case, there is still some work to do to promote better and analyse tourism in rural spaces [ 54 ], and these activities have positive and negative impacts [ 55 ].

Top 20 documents with the highest normalised citations, considering full counting (as counting method), for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space” and bibliographic coupling links

The entrepreneurship associated with small businesses can promote rural tourism [ 18 ], namely the entrepreneurial dynamics motivate healthy lifestyles. Lifestyle entrepreneurship may be a way to promote more balanced tourism [ 19 ], as well as permaculture [ 56 ], rural events [ 57 ], smart rural mobility [ 58 ], and well-being and wellness amenities [ 59 ].

Tourism in rural areas has increased its importance and has been implemented in different ways, including agritourism [ 60 ] and geotourism [ 61 ]. This tourism appears as an alternative to generating income for the populations that remain in less favoured regions [ 62 ]. This tourism also appears as an alternative to tourism outside the rural spaces, namely in contexts such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 21 ].

In these contexts, it is important to understand the attitudes and perceptions of the residents about the impacts of rural tourism. Particularly to provide the stakeholders with adjusted information that will allow the design of adequate policies and the adoption of more sustainable decisions in the respective regions [ 63 ]. A better understanding of the rural contexts will benefit the respective small businesses [ 64 ]. The specific characteristics of the rural spaces create conditions to attract tourists to these areas, but, in certain circumstances, also bring additional difficulties to achieving the requirements of the tourism industry [ 65 ].

5 Trends in residential and rural areas tourism in Portugal

Taking data from the Portuguese database Pordata [ 66 ], Table 7 shows the results (as a percentage of the total) for various indicators associated with residential and rural areas tourism in tourist accommodation. In general, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have had an impact on the relative importance of residential and rural areas tourism. In fact, these modalities of tourist accommodation increased their relative importance, particularly in terms of the number of beds, number of overnight stays, average number of stays, number of guests, thousands of euros in total income, number of rooms, and average income per room.

Ratio in percentage (%) between the values of residential and rural areas tourism and the total in tourist accommodation, for various indicators, in Portugal

In each column, the cells with a bold values correspond to the highest values. Source: Own elaboration.

On average, over the period considered, residential and rural areas tourism, in relation to total tourist accommodation, represents around 26% of the number of establishments, 6% of the number of beds, 3% of the number of overnight stays, 4% of the number of guests, 5% of the number of staff employed (although for statistical information up to 2018), 3% of total income, and 6% of the number of rooms. On average, the average income per room obtained by residential tourism and rural areas tourism is 61% of the average income received by all tourist accommodations. Conversely, the average number of stays in residential and rural areas tourism is 81% of the average for all tourist accommodations.

Although the statistics available on Pordata refer to tourism in rural areas and residential tourism, the number of guests, for example, in tourism in rural areas represented 82 per cent in 2012 and around 90 per cent in 2022 for the total of tourism in rural areas and residential tourism. Similar proportions were found for the number of overnight stays [ 67 ].

The number of average stays in 2022 in tourism in rural space/residential in Portugal was highest in the Algarve and the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira ( Figure 6 ). Conversely, residents of European and African countries had the highest average stays ( Figure 7 ). Figure 8 shows that the tourists with the highest average stays come from the following countries: Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Austria, Poland, Czechia, Other Africa, Ireland, and Finland. Tourists from China and Brazil have the lowest average stays [ 68 ].

Average stay (number of nights) in tourism in rural space/residential in Portugal, Portugal Mainland, and NUT II, in 2022. Source: Own elaboration.

Average stay (number of nights) in tourism in rural space/residential according to country/continent of residence in 2022. Source: Own elaboration.

Average stay (number of nights) in tourism in rural space/residential according to country of residence in 2022. Source: Own elaboration.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients [ 69 ] obtained following the Stata [ 70 , 71 , 72 ] software procedures reveal that the strongest correlations for the number of average stays in tourism in rural space/residential in the Portuguese NUTS II (in 2022) are between the Centro and the Algarve, the Centro, and the Alentejo and between the Alentejo and the Algarve ( Table 8 ). Eventually, these regions could define joint strategic plans for these types of tourism.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between Portuguese NUTS II, for the number of average stays for tourism in rural space/residential (data disaggregated by tourists’ country of residence in 2022)

*, statistically significant at 5%. Source: Own elaboration.

6 Discussion and conclusions

TRA/S plays a fundamental role in improving the income of the local population and, in this way, promoting a more sustainable rural development. In this way, this study proposes to contribute to bringing more knowledge about the different dimensions of these subjects. For that, a search on the Scopus database was carried out for the topics “tourism in rural areas” or “tourism in rural space.” From this search, performed on 19 March 2024, 165 documents were obtained. These documents were assessed through bibliometric analysis (following VOSviewer software procedures) and systematic review (considering the PRISMA statement).

6.1 Main findings of the present study

The literature survey highlighted that these topics may be further investigated through bibliometric assessment and systematic review. Conversely, the scientific literature shows the importance of bringing more socioeconomic dynamics for the rural contexts, and tourism in rural spaces may contribute significantly to these frameworks, especially in countries, such as Portugal, with tendencies of desertification of the interior and overpopulation in some areas of the littoral. The studies that considered examples of tourism in rural areas in the Portuguese realities focused particularly on nature-based tourism, Ways of Saint James, handicraft, entrepreneurship, sustainability, tourism demand, Schist Villages, cultural tourism, and cultural heritage. This literature analysis reveals that some issues may be explored deeper in future research for the Portuguese specificities, namely the following: bring more insights about the interrelationships between TRA/S and the economic dynamics in these frameworks, particularly bringing more suggestions on how this tourism may contribute for the economic growth and the creation of employment; contribute further for understanding about the interlinkage among the TRA/S activities and the Sustainable Development Goals; highlight the specific conditions of each Portuguese context. Some of these suggestions may be considered for the TRA/S dynamics implemented in other countries. In fact, the systematic review, carried out for the top 20 documents with the greatest normalised citations, highlights the following domains: handicraft activities, creativity, sustainability, natural and cultural heritage, travelling for food and drink, entrepreneurship, well-being and wellness services, agritourism, and geotourism.

The bibliometric analysis carried out for TRA/S activities developed worldwide shows that the author keywords with the biggest number of occurrences and average normalised citations are associated with sustainability, integrated rural development, cultural tourism, creativity, smart approaches, and innovation. Conversely, the most productive countries (and with the highest impact on the scientific community) are, for example, Portugal and Italy. Additionally, organisations from China and the Netherlands are the most productive, and those from Portugal have more impact on the scientific community. Lastly, Land Use Policy , for example, is a source among those with the biggest scientific impact, and Sustainability and Tourism Management are between the most productive (with more documents).

Analysis of the Portuguese context reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic favoured the dynamics of tourism in rural areas. In fact, the various indicators associated with this tourism have improved since 2019. In any case, there is still room to improve the indicators in some Portuguese NUTS II and to improve the average stays of tourists coming, for example, from China and Brazil. Finally, NUTS II from the centre and south of Portugal show a strong correlation in the number of average stays, showing that they will eventually be able to define joint strategic plans for these types of tourism.

6.2 Implication of findings and comparison with other studies

In terms of practical implications, this research highlights that TRA/S plays a significant role in promoting more sustainable development in the rural regions [ 62 ], namely interlinking economic activities with heritage [ 27 ], sustainability, creativity [ 51 ], innovation, and digital transition approaches. There is an enormous potential to be explored worldwide for tourism in rural spaces, with benefits for local populations, sustainability, and economic dynamics. Particularly, Portugal has a great diversity of rural heritage that may be promoted through economic activities, where tourism has its relevance. The findings presented here may be relevant benchmarks for and of the Portuguese scenario.

6.3 Conclusions, strengths and limitations, recommendation, and future direction

This research highlights the importance of distinguishing the concepts of rural tourism and tourism in rural areas. Conversely, it brings a set of insights into the concept of tourism in rural areas that can be considered by the academic community as a basis for future research in these subjects. The analysis of the Portuguese case reveals that there are regions where some indicators related to these types of tourism can be improved and some of these regions could benefit from close cooperation to define strategic plans for tourism in rural areas. One of the limitations of the study has to do with the difficulty in finding more disaggregated data and for longer time series.

In terms of recommendation, it is suggested to promote the publication of more information about tourism in rural areas in the free access international databases. It could be important also to give more attention to these activities in the framework of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. The European Union has created several policy instruments, particularly since the 1990s, to promote TRA/S, but there is still some way to go to improve the measures designed for rural development. For future research, in addition to the suggestions presented throughout the study, it would be interesting to analyse the impacts of the national and international policies and legislation on the performance of several TRA/S activities and dynamics.

Acknowledgments

Furthermore, we would like to thank the CERNAS Research Centre and the Polytechnic Institute of Viseu for their support.

Funding information: This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., within the scope of the project Refª UIDB/00681/2020 ( https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/00681/2020 ).

Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and consented to its submission to the journal, reviewed all the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. Conceptualisation, VJPDM and RNT; data curation, VJPDM and RNT; formal analysis, VJPDM and RNT; funding acquisition, VJPDM; investigation, VJPDM and RNT; methodology, VJPDM and RNT; resources, VJPDM; software, VJPDM; supervision, VJPDM; validation, VJPDM and RNT; visualisation, VJPDM and RNT; writing – original draft, VJPDM and RNT; writing – review & editing, VJPDM and RNT.

Conflict of interest: Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho, who is the co-author of this article, is a current Editorial Board member of Open Agriculture. This fact did not affect the peer-review process.

Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

[1] Baležentis T, Kriščiukaitiene I, Baležentis A, Garland R. Rural tourism development in Lithuania (2003–2010) – A quantitative analysis. Tour Manag Perspect. 2012;2–3:1–6. 10.1016/j.tmp.2012.01.001 . Search in Google Scholar

[2] Navarro JG. Analysis and assessment of the profitability of rural tourism in the province of Ávila. Invest Turisticas. 2020;19:121–38. 10.14198/INTURI2020.19.06 . Search in Google Scholar

[3] Litheko A, Potgieter M. Strategic management of tourism stakeholders: Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela, South Africa. Afr J Hospitality Tour Leisure. 2019;8(2):1–23. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Morales-Urrutia X, Naranjo-Gaibor A, Tejada-Moyano S, Vargas-Ramos F. Public policies for rural tourism in Spain. Adv Intell Syst Comput. 2021;1327:223–34. 10.1007/978-3-030-68083-1_18 . AISC. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Vitte P. Tourism in rural areas of France: The need for more meaningful planning. Rev de Geogr Alp. 1998;86:69–85. 10.3406/rga.1998.2893 . Search in Google Scholar

[6] Brooker E, Joppe M. Entrepreneurial approaches to rural tourism in the netherlands: distinct differences. Tour Plan Dev. 2014;11:343–53. 10.1080/21568316.2014.889743 . Search in Google Scholar

[7] Baum S. The tourist potential of rural areas in Poland. East Eur Countrys. 2011;17:107–35. 10.2478/v10130-011-0006-z . Search in Google Scholar

[8] Król K. Forgotten agritourism: abandoned websites in the promotion of rural tourism in Poland. J Hospitality Tour Technol. 2019;10:461–72. 10.1108/JHTT-09-2018-0092 . Search in Google Scholar

[9] Król K. Digital cultural heritage of rural tourism facilities in Poland. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev. 2021;11:488–98. 10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2019-0130 . Search in Google Scholar

[10] Călina A, Călina J, Tiberiu I. Research regarding the implementation, development and impact of agritourism on romania’s rural areas between 1990 and 2015. Environ Eng Manag J. 2017;16:157–68. 10.30638/eemj.2017.018 . Search in Google Scholar

[11] Creţu RC, Moraru C. Countryside and rural tourism in Romania – A marketing perspective. Qual – Access Success. 2011;12:161–6. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Partal C. Romanian rural tourism emergence. Qual – Access Success. 2011;12:1026–33. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Ruiz-Real JL, Uribe-Toril J, de Pablo Valenciano J, Gázquez-Abad JC. Rural tourism and development: evolution in scientific literature and trends. J Hospitality Tour Res. 2022;46:1322–46. 10.1177/1096348020926538 . Search in Google Scholar

[14] Ibănescu B-C, Stoleriu OM, Munteanu A, Iațu C. The impact of tourism on sustainable development of rural areas: evidence from Romania. Sustainability. 2018;10:3529. 10.3390/su10103529 . Search in Google Scholar

[15] Agapito D, Mendes J, Valle POD. The rural village as an open door to nature-based tourism in Portugal: The Aldeia Da Pedralva Case. Tourism. 2012;60:325–38. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Azevedo P. The ways of saint james in Trás-Os-Montes and Alto Douro as an example of soft tourism in rural areas. Eur Ctry. 2021;13:314–29. 10.2478/euco-2021-0020 . Search in Google Scholar

[17] Bakas FE, Duxbury N, Vinagre de Castro T. Creative tourism: catalysing artisan entrepreneur networks in rural portugal. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2019;25:731–52. 10.1108/IJEBR-03-2018-0177 . Search in Google Scholar

[18] Cunha C, Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ. Entrepreneurs in rural tourism: do lifestyle motivations contribute to management practices that enhance sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? J Hosp Tour Manage. 2020;44:215–26. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.007 . Search in Google Scholar

[19] Duarte M, Dias Á, Sousa B, Pereira L. Lifestyle entrepreneurship as a vehicle for leisure and sustainable tourism. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(4):3241. 10.3390/ijerph20043241 . Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Kastenholz E, Davis D, Paul G. Segmenting tourism in rural areas: the case of North and Central Portugal. J Travel Res. 1999;37:353–63. 10.1177/004728759903700405 . Search in Google Scholar

[21] Marques CP, Guedes A, Bento R. Rural tourism recovery between two covid-19 waves: the case of portugal. Curr Issues Tour. 2022;25:857–63. 10.1080/13683500.2021.1910216 . Search in Google Scholar

[22] Moutela JAT, Trentin F, Roget FM. Stakeholders’ integrated perspective of the schist villages network as a tourist destination: Motivational factors. J Tour Dev. 2021;36:605–18. 10.34624/rtd.v36i2.9233 . Search in Google Scholar

[23] Ramos D, Costa C, Teles F. Tourism in low density areas: a review of coastal and rural development practices. In Tourism Innovation: Technology, Sustainability and Creativity. London: Routledge; 2019. p. 113–26. 10.4324/9780429022814-8 Search in Google Scholar

[24] Santos R. “Dream houses” of portuguese emigrants and the development of cultural tourism. Heranca Hist Herit C J. 2018;1:67–92. 10.29073/heranca.v1i2.130 . Search in Google Scholar

[25] Silva L. The demand for tourism in rural areas. Etnografica. 2007;11:141–63. 10.4000/etnografica.1896 . Search in Google Scholar

[26] Silva L. Adoption of renewable energy innovations in the portuguese rural tourist accommodation sector. Morav Geogr Rep. 2022;30:22–33. 10.2478/mgr-2022-0002 . Search in Google Scholar

[27] Skoczek M. Rural tourism as a factor of cultural heritage protection in Spain and Portugal. Pr Stud Geogr. 2003;32:35–48. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Siddiqui SA, Parahoo S, Sadi MAN, Afzal MNI. Rural tourism as a transformative service of community well-being: a systematic literature review. IJSDP. 2021;16:1081–90. 10.18280/ijsdp.160609 . Search in Google Scholar

[29] Rosalina PD, Dupre K, Wang Y. Rural tourism: a systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. J Hospitality Tour Manag. 2021;47:134–49. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.03.001 . Search in Google Scholar

[30] Diário da República n.o 152/1997, Série I-A Decreto-lei 169/97, de 4 de Julho. https://dre.tretas.org/dre/83161/decreto-lei-169-97-de-4-de-julho (accessed on 30 May 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[31] Karali A, Das S, Roy H. Forty years of the rural tourism research: reviewing the trend, pattern and future Agenda. Tour Recreat Res. 2024;49(1):173–200 10.1080/02508281.2021.1961065 Search in Google Scholar

[32] Krittayaruangroj K, Suriyankietkaew S, Hallinger P. Research on Sustainability in community-based tourism: a bibliometric review and future directions. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2023;28(9):1031–51. 10.1080/10941665.2023.2276477 Search in Google Scholar

[33] Lulu L, Ramachandran S, Bidin S, Subramaniam T, Chaoyi C. A bibliometric analysis of residents’ perceptions in rural tourism development using citespace. Tour Plan Dev. 2024;21(4):438–61. 10.1080/21568316.2023.2209057 . Search in Google Scholar

[34] Priatmoko S, Kabil M, Akaak A, Lakner Z, Gyuricza C, Dávid LD. Understanding the complexity of rural tourism business: scholarly perspective. Sustainability. 2023;15:1193. 10.3390/su15021193 . Search in Google Scholar

[35] Ferreira J, Vaz MF, Silvério AC, Fernandes PO. The Relationship of Rural Tourism with Sustainable Tourism and Outdoor Activities: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2022 17th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI); June 2022. p. 1–5. 10.23919/CISTI54924.2022.9820157 Search in Google Scholar

[36] Singhania O, Swain SK, George B. Interdependence and complementarity between rural development and rural tourism: a bibliometric analysis. Rural Soc. 2022;31(1):15–32. 10.1080/10371656.2022.2062198 Search in Google Scholar

[37] Rivero-Guerra AO. The scientific production of nature-based tourism: bibliometric analysis of the clarivate analytics databases. Rev Gen de Informacion y Documentacion. 2021;31:461–93. 10.5209/RGID.76973 . Search in Google Scholar

[38] Leković M, Cvijanović D, Pantić N, Stanišić T. Evaluative bibliometric analysis of recent trends in rural tourism literature. Econ Agric. 2020;67:1265–82. 10.5937/ekoPolj2004265L . Search in Google Scholar

[39] Stanciu M, Popescu A, Stanciu C. Rural tourism, agrotourism and ecotourism in romania: current research status and future trends. Sci Pap-Ser Manag Econ Eng Agric Rural Dev. 2023;23:745–58. Search in Google Scholar

[40] Rauniyar S, Awasthi MK, Kapoor S, Mishra AK. Agritourism: structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour Recreat Res. 2021;46(1):52–70. 10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913 Search in Google Scholar

[41] Javan K, Mirabi M, Hamidi SA, Darestani M, Altaee A, Zhou J. Enhancing environmental sustainability in a critical region: climate change impacts on agriculture and tourism. Civ Eng J. 2023;9(11):2630–48. 10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-11-01 Search in Google Scholar

[42] Farooqui MO, Alshdaifat SA, Siddiquei MI. A socio-legal study on vaccine tourism in the context of covid-19 travel restrictions. Emerg Sci J. 2023;7:1653–62. 10.28991/ESJ-2023-07-05-012 . Search in Google Scholar

[43] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 . Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[44] Martinho VJPD. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the russia–ukraine conflict on land use across the world. Land. 2022;11:1614. 10.3390/land11101614 . Search in Google Scholar

[45] van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84:523–38. 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 . Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[46] van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D, eds. In Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 285–320. ISBN 978-3-319-10377-8. 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13 Search in Google Scholar

[47] van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Manual for VOSviewer Version 1.6.20; 2023. Search in Google Scholar

[48] VOSviewer VOSviewer – Visualizing Scientific Landscapes Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com// (accessed on 28 March 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[49] Scopus Scopus - Document Search Available online: https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri? display = basic#basic (accessed on 28 March 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[50] Quaranta G, Citro E, Salvia R. Economic and social sustainable synergies to promote innovations in rural tourism and local development. Sustainability. 2016;8:668. 10.3390/su8070668 . Search in Google Scholar

[51] Blapp M, Mitas O. Creative tourism in balinese rural communities. Curr Issues Tour. 2018;21:1285–311. 10.1080/13683500.2017.1358701 . Search in Google Scholar

[52] Bel F, Lacroix A, Lyser S, Rambonilaza T, Turpin N. Domestic demand for tourism in rural areas: insights from summer stays in three French Regions. Tour Manag. 2015;46:562–70. 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.020 . Search in Google Scholar

[53] Boniface P. Tasting tourism: Travelling for food and drink. London: Routledge; 2016. ISBN 978-1-315-24177-7. Search in Google Scholar

[54] Clark G, Chabrel M. Measuring integrated rural tourism. Tour Geogr. 2007;9:371–86. 10.1080/14616680701647550 . Search in Google Scholar

[55] Ristić D, Vukoičić D, Milinčić M. Tourism and sustainable development of rural settlements in protected areas - example NP Кopaonik (Serbia). Land Use Policy. 2019;89:104231. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104231 . Search in Google Scholar

[56] Epuran G, Tescașiu B, Tecău A-S, Ivasciuc I-S, Candrea A-N. Permaculture and downshifting-sources of sustainable tourism development in rural areas. Sustainability. 2021;13:230. 10.3390/su13010230 . Search in Google Scholar

[57] Fytopoulou E, Tampakis S, Galatsidas S, Karasmanaki E, Tsantopoulos G. The role of events in local development: an analysis of residents’ perspectives and visitor satisfaction. J Rural Stud. 2021;82:54–63. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.018 . Search in Google Scholar

[58] Hussain S, Ahonen V, Karasu T, Leviäkangas P. Sustainability of smart rural mobility and tourism: a key performance indicators-based approach. Technol Soc. 2023;74:102287. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102287 . Search in Google Scholar

[59] Pesonen JA, Tuohino A. Activity-based market segmentation of rural well-being tourists: comparing online information search. J Vacat Mark. 2017;23:145–58. 10.1177/1356766715610163 . Search in Google Scholar

[60] Streifeneder T, Hoffmann C, Corradini P. The future of agritourism? a review of current trends of touristic commercialisation in rural areas. Ann Reg Sci. 2023;71:93–119. 10.1007/s00168-022-01126-w . Search in Google Scholar

[61] Torabi Farsani N, Coelho C, Costa C. Geotourism and geoparks as gateways to socio-cultural sustainability in qeshm rural areas, Iran. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2012;17:30–48. 10.1080/10941665.2011.610145 . Search in Google Scholar

[62] Dong E, Wang Y, Morais D, Brooks D. Segmenting the rural tourism market: the case of potter county, pennsylvania, USA. J Vacat Mark. 2013;19:181–93. 10.1177/1356766712471231 . Search in Google Scholar

[63] Kastenholz E, Paço A, Nave A. Wine tourism in rural areas – hopes and fears amongst local residents. Worldw Hospitality Tour Themes. 2023;15:29–40. 10.1108/WHATT-08-2022-0095 . Search in Google Scholar

[64] Roberts L, Hall D. Consuming the countryside: marketing for ‘rural tourism. J Vacat Mark. 2004;10:253–63. 10.1177/135676670401000305 . Search in Google Scholar

[65] Kausar DR, Nishikawa Y. Heritage tourism in rural areas: challenges for improving socio-economic impacts. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2010;15:195–213. 10.1080/10941661003629995 . Search in Google Scholar

[66] Pordata Several Statistics. https://www.pordata.pt (accessed on 30 May 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[67] INE Several Statistics Available online: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain? xpgid = ine_main&xpid = INE (accessed on 10 June 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[68] Estatísticas Do Turismo – 2022; Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P., Ed.; 2023. Search in Google Scholar

[69] Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904;15:72–101. 10.2307/1412159 . Search in Google Scholar

[70] Stata Statistical Software for Data Science Available online: https://www.stata.com/ (accessed on 10 June 2024). Search in Google Scholar

[71] StataCorp Stata 15 Base Reference Manual 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[72] StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 15 2017. Search in Google Scholar

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Rural tourism development in China: Principles, models and the future

• Published: 29 January 2013
• Volume 10 , pages 116–129, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Ling-en Wang 1 , 2 ,
• Sheng-kui Cheng 1 ,
• Lin-sheng Zhong 1 ,
• Song-lin Mu 1 , 2 ,
• Bijaya G. C. Dhruba 1 , 2 &
• Guo-zhu Ren 1  

Rural tourism in China, has undergone a rapid development in the last three decades. It is an emerging and effective catalyst that promotes industrial restructuring, agricultural development and the upgrading of rural areas. However, there remains little understanding about the core issues of rural tourism in China: the exact connotation, the principles, the development models and the future directions. This review paper identifies the key issues based on literature analysis, national statistics and press reports to form a general picture of the past, the current and the future prospects of China’s rural tourism. The paper firstly addresses the definition, content and principles of rural tourism, and then provides an overview and brief evaluation of the progress and the current development models in China. Finally, based on the analysis of the experiences and problems, the authors sum up with five pathways of the future development of China’s rural tourism from the perspective of rural tourism resources, product, market and promotion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

How was rural tourism developed in China? Examining the impact of China’s evolving rural tourism policies

Rural Tourism as a Tool for Sustainable Development: Lessons Learned in Estonia

Sustainable Development of Rural Tourism in Emerging Economies in Asia: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Aspects from Vietnam

An HX, Zhang LX (2010) Research on the development of the experience rural tourism. Journal of Beijing Second Foreign Language College 7:93–96. (In Chinese)

Google Scholar  

An XH (2010) The thinking of principles and development strategies of leisure agriculture in Henan Province, China. Agricultural Inspection 3:339–341. (In Chinese)

Bachleitner R, Zins AH (1999) Cultural tourism in rural communities: the residents’ perspective. Journal of Business Research 44:199–209.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bai l, Zhang XH (2010) Comparative study of ancient village tourism development and management. Value Engineering 23(2):30–31. (In Chinese)

Baoren S (2011) Rural tourism in China. Tourism Management 32:1438–1441.

Bramwell B, Lane B(1994) Rural tourism and sustainable rural development. London: Channel View. Campbell LM (1999) Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3):534–553.

Cha F (2004) Studying on the origin and definition of rural tourism. Journal of Ankang Normal College 16(12):29–32. (In Chinese)

China National Tourism Administration (2008) China’s Tourism Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Travel & Tourism Press. pp 55–70. (In Chinese)

Policy and Regulation Department of China National Tourism Administration (2008) The Sample Survey of Chinese Domestic Tourism in 2008. Beijing: China Travel & Tourism Press. pp 85–90. (In Chinese)

Crouch D (2006) Tourism, consumption and rurality. pp 255–264 in Cloke P, Marsden T and Mooney PH eds, Handbook of rural studies (London: Sage)

Du J, Xiang P (1999) Thinking of sustainable rural tourism development. Tourism Tribune 1: 15–18. (In Chinese)

Davis JS, Morais DP (2004) Factions and enclaves: small towns and socially unsustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 43:3–10.

Duk-Byeong P, Kwang-Woo L, Hyun-Suk C, et al. (2012) Factors influencing social capital in rural tourism communities in South Korea. Tourism Management 33:1511–1520.

Diao ZG (2006) Thoughts about exploring holiday vocation and tourism in rural areas. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning 27(6):39–42. (In Chinese)

Dong HN, Zhang MD, Liu YW (2007) A study on the present state of land use for leisure tourism in the suburbs of Beijing and its future trend. Tourism Tribune 22(4):48–52. (In Chinese)

Fan C (2002) The development of rural tourism. Journal of Yuzhou University 19(5):20–23. (In Chinese)

Fan ZJ (2006) The development and strategies status of China’s folk customs tourism. Economic Research Group (8):46–47. (In Chinese)

Feng SH (2002) An analysis of the tourist sources market an study of behavior model of travelers. Tourism Tribune 17(6):45–48. (In Chinese)

Gao MZ (2008) The mechanism of increasing the income of peasants by rural tourism. Commercial Research 06:157–160. (In Chinese)

Gao Sl, Huang SS, Huang YC (2009) Rural tourism development in China. International Journal of Tourism Research 11:439–450.

Gartner WC (2004) Rural tourism development in the USA. International Journal of Tourism Research 6(3):151–164.

Gu XG, Wang DG (2007) Study on spatial distribution of National Agricultural Tourism Demonstrations. Resource Development & Market 23(7):653–655. (In Chinese)

Guo HC, Han F (2010) Review on the Development of Rural Tour. Progress in Geography 29(12): 1597–1605. (In Chinese)

Gyan PN, Surya P (2012) Application of appreciative inquiry in tourism research in rural communities. Tourism Management 33(4):978–987.

Hassan SS (2012) Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research 38(3):239–245.

He JM, Li LH (2002) The discussion of the “Rural Tourism” concept. Journal of Southwest Normal University 28(5):125–128. (In Chinese)

He JM (2004) Review of the study on rural tourism in China. Tourism tribune 19(1):92–96. (In Chinese)

He JM, Li HX, Wang Q (2004) Rural Tourism in China, A Case Study of Nongjiale in the Chengdu Metropolitan Area. Mountain Research and Development 24(3):260–262. (In Chinese)

He XR (2001) The origin, situation and development trend of China’s rural tourism. Journal of Beijing Second Foreign Language college 1:90–94. (In Chinese)

He W (2004) Grasp the culture characteristics of rural tourism and root out the folk culture in Chengdu Trinity Township. Journal of leshan Normal University 19(2):86–89. (In Chinese)

Hu J, Xu XT, Xie SY (2007) Research on sustainable utilization of rural tourism resources. Research of Agriculture Modernization 28(6):723–726. (In Chinese)

Huang CL (2003) Preliminary study of rural tourism in Huangshan City. Human Geography, 18(1):24–28. (In Chinese)

Jenkins CL (1980) Tourism policies in developing countries: a critique. Tourism Management 1(1):36–48.

Lane B (1994) What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(1/2):7–21.

Li LJ, Wang L (2007) Research on rural tourism market characteristics in suburban areas — A case of rural tourism in suburban Changsha city. Tourism Tribune 2: 67–71. (In Chinese)

Lin HJ, Ying R (2009) Comparison of Rural Tourism at Home and Abroad and Inspiration. Journal of Dezhou University 25(4):62–65. (In Chinese)

Liu HY (2005) Thinking about the connotation of rural tourism. Journal of Xihua Normal University 02:15–18. (In Chinese)

Liu JC, Var T (1986) Residents’ attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 13:193–214.

Liu l (2004) Research on rural tourism. Journal of Anhui Normal University (Natural Science) 27(4):461–464. (In Chinese)

Liu SM, Chen QH (2007) Analysis on the growth mechanism of rural tourism industry in Fujian province. Problems of Forestry Economic 27(3):233–237. (In Chinese)

Lu C, Zhang XH (2008) Analysis of China’s rural tourism market development status. Agricultural Sciences 36(16): 6904–6906. (In Chinese)

Ma B (1996) Theory and practice of regional tourism development. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing press. (In Chinese)

MacDonald R, Jolliffe L (2003) Cultural rural tourism-evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2):307–322.

Martin O (1996) Rural tourism in southern Germany. Annals of Tourism of Research 1:86–102.

Maia L, Han B, Mikael B (2005) The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Product 13:787–798.

Ma Y, Zhao L, Song H et al. (2007) Study on the Chinese rural tourism development pattern—A Case of Chengdu. Economic Geography 27(2):336–339. (In Chinese)

McGehee NG, Andereck KL (2004) Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research 43:131–140.

Michael DS, Richard SK (1998) Tourism dependence and resident attitude. Annals of Tourism Research 4:783–802.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC) (2011) Annual Statistical Report on National Economy and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China 2010. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20110228_402387821.htm (accessed on 23 December 2011). (In Chinese)

Pedford J (1996) Seeing is believing: the role of living history in marketing local heritage. In T. Brewer (Ed.), The marketing of tradition (pp. 13–20). Enfield Lock: Hisarlink Press.

Perales R.M. Y (2002) Rural tourism in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4):1101–1110.

Petermason, Joanne C (2000) Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 27(2):391–411.

Qiu YM (2005) Research on the interaction between the development of rural tourism and rural industrial structure adjustment. Agriculture Economy 12:39–41. (In Chinese)

Robert M, Lee J (2003) Cultural rural tourism evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 2:307–322.

Rosa MYP (2002) Rural tourism in Spain. Annals of Tourism of Research 4:1101–1110.

Ruth M, John M (2011) Sustainable Rural Tourism: Lessons for rural development, Journal of European Society for Rural Sociology 51(2):175–194.

Ryan C, Gu H, Zhang W (2009) The context of Chinese tourism: an overview and implications for research. In: Ryan C & Gu H (Eds.), Tourism in China: Destination, cultures and communities (pp 327–336). New York London: Routledge.

Saxena G (2008) Integrated rural tourism—A border case study. Annals of Tourism Research 35(1):233–254.

Sharpley R, Roberts L (2004) Rural tourism—10 years on. International Journal of Tourism Research 6(3):119–124.

Shao QW (2007) Develop rural tourism and facilitate new rural area construction. Journal of Qiushi 1:42–44. (In Chinese)

Shao QW (2005) Sample survey of China’s domestic tourism. Beijing: China Travel & Tourism Press. (In Chinese)

Shen GF (2005) Discussion on the development of rural tourism. Ecological Economy 12:95–98. (In Chinese)

Sun J, Su Q (2004) The visual influence and management for ancient village. Human Geography 19(4):37–40. (In Chinese)

Sun YH, Min QW, Cheng SK, et al. (2010) Study on the tourism resource characteristics of agricultural heritage. Tourism tribune 25(10):57–62. (In Chinese)

Tan JX (2004) Research progress and prospects of travel ecommerce. Journal of Chengdu Technology University 12(1):66–67. (In Chinese)

Tosun C (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21(6):613–633.

Traval China (2011) The Travel Law may be introduced in 2012. Available online: http://www.china.com.cn/travel/txt/2011-03/05/content_22058809.htm (accessed on 18 October 2011). (In Chinese)

Wang B (1999) Viewing the future of rural tourism based on the comparative status of rural tourism between China and foreign. Tourism Tribune 2:38–42. (In Chinese)

Wang HX, Cui FJ (2005) Our national rural tourism products system and its impacts research. Journal of Tibet University 20(1):81–90. (In Chinese)

Wang J (2005) Discussion of customs tourism development. Journal of Yanshan University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 6:125–128. (In Chinese)

Wang YC, Xu CC, Guo HC (2005) Discussions on the new trends of rural tourism development in China. Arid Land Geography 28(6):862–867. (In Chinese)

Wu BH (2001) Regional tourism planning theory. Beijing: China Tourism Press. pp 270–271. (In Chinese)

Wu E, Cai YL, Jin B (2002) The objectives, characteristics and products of rural tourism. Journal of Beijing Forestry University 24(3):78–82. (In Chinese)

Xiao YX, Ming QZ, Li SZ (2001) The concept and type of rural tourism. Tourism Science 3:8–10. (In Chinese)

Xiong JP, Liu CL, Yuan J (2006) Online-commerce development and its network system construction of rural tourism. Economic Geography 26(2):340–345. (In Chinese)

Xu MH, He Y, He YY (2009) The situation and prospects of experiential agricultural tourism development. Modern Business Trade Industry 17:118–119. (In Chinese)

Xue QH (1997) Analysis of customs tourism resources protection and development. Ideological Front 5:56–59. (In Chinese)

Yao ZG, Su Q (2006) An study on the major content of Chinese rural tourism papers. Journal of Xinzhou Normal University 22(1):101–104. (In Chinese)

Yao ZG, Su Q, Lu HQ, et al. (2007) An analysis of overseas rural tourism discussion. Economic Geography 27(6):1046–1050. (In Chinese)

Yao SY (1997) Research on the rural tourism. Journal of Beijing Second Foreign Language College 3:42–46. (In Chinese)

Yang LM, Wu N (2004) Tutorial of modern travel ecommerce. Beijing: Electronics Industry Press. (In Chinese)

Yang M, Bai TB (2006) The influence of village tourism on the structural adjustment and optimizing of the countryside industry. Journal of Yunnan Nationalities University 23(2): 89–92. (In Chinese)

Yang X (1992) It is imperative to development rural tourism. Tourism Tribune 7(2):38–41. (In Chinese)

Yang YM, Jiao CC (2008) The principle, mode and spatial distribution of Heilongjiang agricultural tourism. Commercial Economy 9:14–15. (In Chinese)

Mansfeld Y, Jonas A (2006) Evaluating the socio-cultural carrying capacity of rural tourism communities: A ‘Value Stretch’ Approach, Tijdschrift voor Economists en Social Geografie 97(5):583–601.

Yuan J (1985) Lead the development of rural economy based on tourism. Rural Economy 12:15–17. (In Chinese)

Zhang N, Zhu XX, Song JP (2009) Research on the model and experience of abroad rural tourism development. Economic Research Guide 25:160–162. (In Chinese)

Zhang Q, Chen ZW (2003) The rural tour and the development of the rural tour of Jilin province. Journal of Jilin Normal University (Natural Science Edition) 11(4):29–31. (In Chinese)

Zhang Y, Zhang Y (2007) Rural culture and development of rural tourism. Economic Geography 27(3):509–512. (In Chinese)

Zhao XB (2007) The effects of rural to urban migration. Architectural and culture 37(3):98–101. (In Chinese)

Zheng QM, Zhong LS (2004) A discussion of developing models of community-involved rural tourism. Tourism Tribune 19(4):33–37. (In Chinese)

Zheng Y, Liu T (2008) Research on the restrictive factors of the transfer of rural female labor—based on the investigation in north Henan. Journal of Pingdingshan University 23(5):6–8. (In Chinese)

Zhou J (2009) Analysis of the government-led dynamic mechanism for rural tourism development in the new era. Special Zone Economy 1:173–175. (In Chinese)

Zhou LQ, Huang ZH (2004) Sustainable development of rural tourism in China: challenges and policies. Economic Geography 24(4):572–576. (In Chinese)

Zhong LQ (2009) The village’s participation in folk custom tourism —A case study of a white Yi ethnic village in Guangxi Napo county. Journal of Nanning Normal University 26(67):34–37. (In Chinese)

Zhu B (1987) Exploring farmer’s involvement in tourism in Wuxi. Finance and Trade Economy References 12:64. (In Chinese)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 10010, China

Ling-en Wang, Sheng-kui Cheng, Lin-sheng Zhong, Song-lin Mu, Bijaya G. C. Dhruba & Guo-zhu Ren

Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

Ling-en Wang, Song-lin Mu & Bijaya G. C. Dhruba

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin-sheng Zhong .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, Le., Cheng, Sk., Zhong, Ls. et al. Rural tourism development in China: Principles, models and the future. J. Mt. Sci. 10 , 116–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2501-3

Download citation

Received : 25 August 2012

Accepted : 20 December 2012

Published : 29 January 2013

Issue Date : February 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2501-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Rural tourism
• Definitions
• Development models
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research