Next Article in Journal
Survivability Scenario of SMEs in Facing COVID-19 Crisis Based on the Social Commerce Framework
Next Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 and Supply Chain Management: A Review with Bibliometric
Previous Article in Journal
The Power of Sustainability in the “Black Swan” Event: Entrepreneurial Cognition of Top Management Team and Dual Business Model Innovation
Previous Article in Special Issue
E-Learning Experience in Higher Education amid COVID-19: Does Gender Really Matter in A Gender-Segregated Culture?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Agritourism Farm Stays and Their Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland

1
Department of Tourism, Social Communication and Counselling, Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Law and Enterprise Management in Agribusiness, Faculty of Economics, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Faculty of Economics, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
4
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland
5
Institute of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3526; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526
Submission received: 24 February 2022 / Revised: 9 March 2022 / Accepted: 14 March 2022 / Published: 17 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economic and Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic)

Abstract

:
The article presents reasons for the choices and opinions of tourists regarding rest and its safety in agritourism farms in Poland during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We used the diagnostic survey method. We distributed the questionnaire via the Internet on Facebook in thematic groups related to tourism. Facebook respondents were also asked to provide a link to the questionnaire to their tourism-active friends (snowball sampling). We conducted the survey in January 2021. Research has shown that well-educated and well-off residents of cities most often chose agritourism. The main reason for the choice is the possibility of rest in peace and quiet, natural values, and an attractive price. Notably, during the pandemic, an important reason for choosing agritourism was to convince tourists that the risk of coronavirus infection was relatively low. This is also evidenced by the fact that most of them visited an agritourism farm for the first time during the pandemic. The attractiveness of staying on an agritourism farm was assessed highly (almost all respondents expressed their willingness to take advantage of this form of leisure again). This is due to the high evaluation of the quality of services provided, the offer’s attractiveness, and price competitiveness.

1. Introduction

In recent years, an increase in international tourist traffic could be observed [1,2,3,4,5]. Many studies and professional reports have repeatedly indicated that one of the most rapidly growing industries in the global economy is tourism [1,2]. The total contribution of the global tourism sector in GDP in 2018 was USD 8811.0 billion (10.4% of GDP) while in 2019 it increased by 3.6% to reach almost USD 9126.7 billion (10.4% of GDP) [2]. However, due to COVID-19, the tourism sector, which shows huge growth potential, has been badly affected, and the situation in the market has changed completely [6]. The global COVID-19 pandemic has initiated a destructive change in the entire system, with restrictions and travel restrictions significantly restricting tourism [7]. According to the UNTWO [8] report, it is tourism that has been affected the most by the pandemic crisis. Due to the declaration of the epidemic emergency state in many countries all over the world, the operation of tourism accommodation establishments was limited, and at some stages even completely stopped, which also affected spa treatment activities, pilgrimages, etc. [9]. The introduced restriction on the movement of people caused a rapid decline in the number of tourists using accommodation in all types of accommodation establishments, including agritourism farms [8]. The crisis in the tourism sector caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has led the number of foreign tourists arriving in Poland to drop in the first quarter of 2020 by over 22%, and predictions for the next quarters of 2020 assumed an even larger decline [8]. They were correct, as in 2020 the number of overnight stays offered in Poland to foreigners decreased by 64.6% compared with 2019 [10]. This was due to the fact that in Poland, from mid-March 2020 until the beginning of May 2021, following the epidemic threat, the operation of tourist accommodation establishments was significantly limited (and for some time even stopped), which was obviously reflected in the number of people using accommodation establishments [11].
Tourism is one of the economic sectors that has been noticeably affected by the current crisis resulting from the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [12]. The widespread introduction of restrictions in all areas of social life, which were focused on keeping a safe distance and following the sanitary regime, was reflected in a serious collapse of the tourism industry. This was influenced by two key factors. Firstly, in times of increased economic uncertainty, the demand for tourism services (as higher-level, self-actualization needs) decreases, which is connected, for example, with the lack of willingness to incur unnecessary expenses resulting from anxiety about an uncertain tomorrow. Secondly, introducing administrative restrictions in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the possibility of providing accommodation to tourists and sometimes even affected the movement of the population [13]. The explanation of such behavior can be found in the theory of behavioral economics combining economics and psychology [14,15]. Economics studies the behavior of economic entities in terms of the use of limited resources in the areas of: production, distribution, exchange, and consumption [16]. The rational model of homo oeconomicus “is poor in the analysis of dynamic external factors and psychological and social characteristics of market participants, and therefore, according to contemporary economists, it does not provide accurate data that can be assigned to any market situation” [16]. Behavioral economics neither presumes that humans are good at utility maximization nor that this is people’s sole purpose, rather they have psychological bias, limited cognitive resources, and a concern for other values, all of which may undermine their utility maximization behavior [17]. In this case, social and emotional factors are taken into account, and such an approach to economics allows for the existence of deviations from the theory of rational choice. In the case of behavioral economics, it is emphasized that “the behavior of consumers, enterprises, and consequently markets and economies, depends on psychological, institutional and even biological factors, and therefore, using the achievements of psychology, sociology, and neurophysiology, they create, just like institutional economists, interdisciplinary science” [18]. This current of the economy can largely explain the functioning of the tourism market during a pandemic as well.
After the relative stabilization of the pandemic situation and the lifting of the worst restrictions for tourism, people began to travel again. However, most of them chose to spend their holidays in their own country instead of abroad. Less popular and therefore less crowded and safer places became extremely desirable. A popular alternative to mass tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be holidays on agritourism farms [19].
The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has set a new path for agritourism. It is characterized by not only a change in tourist destinations and guests’ preferences but also by their expectations and resting habits. During the pandemic, one of the major advantages of agritourism proved to be its “seclusion”. It is agritourism farms located far from large urban centers, ensconced in the midst of fields and forests, that became a serious competition to hotels, which host a lot of unknown people, and which, in the opinion of tourists, are relatively the least safe place in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic [20]. As a result, many consumers changed their holiday plans and decided to have a rest in agritourism farms [19]. The epidemic threat affects not only consumers of travel services but also service providers. It is the owners of agritourism farms who have to find themselves in new realities and comply with strict sanitary safety guidelines. Due to the fact that each agritourism farm has its own character and works in a different natural and cultural environment, making the right decision to ensure safety is a serious challenge for their owners. Currently, the starting point to ensure that the right product is offered and is functional is to provide safety for people who are planning to stay on agritourism farms.
The purpose of this paper is to identify reasons for choosing agritourism farms and present the opinions of agritourists regarding leisure and its safety on agritourism farms during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

2. Materials and Methods

The purpose of the study was to identify reasons for choosing agritourism farms and present the opinions of Polish agritourists regarding leisure and its safety on agritourism farms during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In the study, we sought answers to questions such as:
  • What were the reasons for choosing agritourism farms, and did tourists already have some experience with this form of tourism?
  • How does the safety of agritourism compare to other types of accommodation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • What is the opinion on this type of leisure during the pandemic period and is it worthy to recommend it after the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • How do tourists rate the offer of agritourism farms?
This study used the diagnostic survey method. The survey questionnaire was distributed via the Internet (CAWI method). The reason for selecting this method was that it allowed a large number of people to be reached in order to collect the desired data. As the target group of respondents that we wished to reach included those with experience in agritourism, we decided to apply purposive sampling. The study included Polish residents aged 18 and over who rested in agritourism farms in 2020. With this in mind, we used tourism-oriented Facebook groups. These were: “Agroturystyka” (Agritourism), “Agroturystyki w Polsce pl” (Agritourism in Poland), and “Najlepsze Gospodarstwa Agroturystyczne—wypoczynek na wsi” (The Best Agritourism Farms—Holidays in the Countryside. A link to the survey questionnaire was posted in these groups. The questionnaire survey used in this study comprises two sections. Firstly, respondents were requested to respond to certain general information about reasons for choosing agritourism farms as holiday destinations, their opinion on staying on an agritourism farm after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the safety of their stay at the accommodation establishments.
The second part was devoted to answering questions about their sex, age, education, children, place of residence, material situation, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on it, in order to determine their demographic characteristics.
Respondents were invited to reply to all questions developed in the questionnaire in order to eliminate the problem of missing values.
Moreover, the respondents acquired via Facebook were asked to share the link to the survey questionnaire through social media with other people who are active in terms of tourism. Thus, we used snowball sampling to recruit study participants [19,21,22,23,24,25,26], which significantly increased the reach of this study. The survey was carried out at webankieta.pl between 4 and 31 January 2021. A total of 106 completed survey questionnaires were obtained from respondents enjoying holidays on agritourism farms. All surveys were complete and valid. According to J.T. Roscoe in [27], a sample size greater than 30 and less than 500 is suitable for most behavioral studies. He also posited that for comparative analyses, if the data set needs to be broken into several subgroups (e.g., male/female, rural/urban, etc.), 30 respondents should be considered the minimum for each group [28]. Therefore, it was assumed that the obtained research sample size satisfied the above assumptions.
Statistical analysis of the data collected from the questionnaires was carried out with the use of STATISTICA 13.3. Cronbach’s alpha value (above 0.70) formula was applied to assess the reliability and accuracy of data gathered from the surveys. Regarding the size of the research sample, nonparametric statistical procedures were used for statistical analysis: Mann–Whitney U test, Wald–Wolfowitz runs test, and Kruskal–Wallis H test. Significant results were classified as p < 0.05 [29,30].

3. Theoretical Background

3.1. The Concept of Agritourism

Agritourism is not a new phenomenon [31,32]. The term itself, which is a combination of two words: “agri” and “tourism”, perfectly illustrates the scope and essence of this field of activity [33,34]. There are numerous definitions of agritourism in the literature, which reflect the ambiguity of its meaning. However, most studies confirm that agritourism must be conducted on a farm [35,36]. Therefore, only tourism activities that are related to current farming practices and farmers’ lives can be considered agritourism [37]. This form of tourism can be defined from two perspectives:
  • Participants, i.e., guests, for whom it is a form or type of recreation—tourists come to the farm and spend their leisure time there;
  • Organizers, i.e., the hosts: farmers and tourism entrepreneurs for whom it is a tourism enterprise, they organize recreation for the visitors.
Due to the dual view of this form of tourism, we can distinguish its important features [38]:
  • Agritourism in comparison with rural tourism is limited to areas of agricultural nature, so it omits forms of tourism taking place in areas that are rural only in the administrative sense and in reality are specialized recreational regions and holiday resorts;
  • A clear link between agritourism and the farm, involving the use of rural people’s housing and businesses for accommodation purposes;
  • Recreational activity includes leisure time in the natural and cultural environment of a farm, in all areas belonging to the farm, and in its closer and further surroundings, i.e., fields, meadows, waters, and forests in the form of participating in production and using various services provided by farm owners based on agricultural and food production.
The essence of agritourism is authenticity, interaction, curiosity about yourself and your affairs and space, guaranteeing closeness to nature and freedom of movement, as well as allowing contact with other villagers and tourists.
The basic agritourism offer is primarily related to providing accommodation on a functioning farm [39]. Nowadays, the scope of the offered product is much wider (Table 1). In addition to leisure activity in the farmer’s home, where you can sleep, eat meals prepared with products from the farm or surroundings, participate in field or housework or watch crop production and animal breeding, a wide range of recreation activities is offered on and off the farm. It is worth noting that agritourism is a perfect place to show people what the farm does in order to inform them about farmers’ daily practices and activities. Interestingly, according to the study by Jęczmyk et al. [40], an element that attracts people to agritourism farm are farm animals, who are a unique tourist attraction.
Nowadays, we observe a clear interest in the natural environment and active forms of contact with nature [41,42,43], as well as in local culinary specialties [44]. It is more often that tourists prefer to stay and travel to satisfy their various interests and needs resulting from the desire to pursue hobbies and gain exciting experiences. What is more, the structure of goods and services offered is changing, which is a result of changing motivations to travel and desires for adventure as well as special and unique experiences. Tourist-desired experiences provide motivation for agritourism service providers to create a product that meets visitors’ expectations [45]. Undoubtedly, transforming tourist and tourist-related infrastructure into unique attractions, extending traditional services with elements that stir new emotions, and using modern technologies are the key actions to achieve the goal of increasing satisfaction and meeting expectations of tourists that spend their holiday on agritourism farms.
Apart from the advantages that this form of recreation offers to tourists, agritourism also brings other benefits. It is an additional source of income for farmers [46,47]. From the perspective of the agritourism farm, it is believed that it increases farm income and serves other entrepreneurial purposes of farmers [48], such as improving quality of life [49].
It is worth paying attention to the prices of agritourism services, as they are often a decisive factor in choosing one and not another agritourism farm [50]. For the seller, prices are income, and for the buyer a cost that he or she has to incur in order to acquire a specific good and use the related utility [51]. Setting prices for the comprehensive offer of an agritourism farm is difficult due to the costs of producing and selling services. First of all, this is due to the large share of work in which the members of the farming family are involved. Agritourism is an extension of the functioning of the household, and it is difficult to scrupulously separate the costs of the farming family, tourists, and those coming to the farm. When determining the price, the farmer also takes into account other factors, such as: touristic attractiveness of a given place, development of tourist infrastructure, and standard of accommodation facilities. Correctly determined prices for renting accommodation and proposed additional services determine the positive results of agritourism activities. Prices that are too high may discourage consumers from spending time in the countryside, and prices that are too low may lead to losses for the owners of the farm. In the case of prices of agritourism services, service providers may differentiate them using criteria such as: frequency of using the services, type of buyers, duration of tourists’ stay, etc. Applying various types of discounts is a method of attracting customers and extending the tourist season. The reduction in prices in low season mainly concerns accommodation, and the main income in this period can be obtained from accompanying services. The agritourism offer is constantly enriched, nowadays it is not only accommodation and meals on the farm, but also additional attractions offered to tourists.
The development of this form of tourism has a great impact on the promotion of the region [52], the stimulation of the rural environment in the development of services [53], as well as broadening the views and knowledge of people living in rural areas and their openness to the world [54]. Agritourism stimulates entrepreneurship among farmers, investments in rural infrastructure, and trade and population growth [55,56]. The agritourism literature also reveals that the benefits of this form of tourism are not limited to private economic benefits, but can also potentially extend to wider public advantages such as public education about food and agriculture and sustainable rural development [57]. Such as any type of business development, agritourism has evolved to maximize economic and non-economic benefits for farmers, while responding to the changing interests and needs of rural holidaymakers [23].

3.2. Agritourism and COVID-19

The global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic caused a deep crisis due to the strict preventive measures taken by national governments, causing an immediate economic downturn and consequently a severe collapse of tourism demand. These mandatory closures imposed during lockdown had a significant impact on the Hotel–Restaurants–Catering (Ho.Re.Ca.) sector [12]. The global tourism industry, including airlines, cruise companies, casinos, hotels, etc., for most of the time during the pandemic, reduced its activity by more than 90% worldwide [58].
Tourists are afraid of the current pandemic; they react and change their tourist travel plans [59]. However, people who are forced to stay in the country and want to go on holiday satisfy their travel needs through domestic tourism [60]. Relatively minimal domestic travel restrictions combined with difficulties or complete bans of global tourism caused domestic tourism to become the only viable option for those wishing to partake in tourism activities [61]. However, it can be noted that tourists in the current situation more often choose the offer of agritourism farms [19,62]. During the 2020 summer season, rural destinations for domestic tourists observed an increase in interest in accommodation and other tourism services [63]. It is an intimate and mostly outdoor relaxation time, which is one of the most important methods to protect against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this case, people go for agritourism because it has the advantage of spending time outside [64]. It is also a great idea for a spontaneous agri-break trip to the countryside [19].
Agritourism is an example of non-mass tourism, in which tourists spend their time in nature and in small accommodation establishments located far away from large groups of tourists, meaning that they can be considered a safe place with a relatively low risk of coronavirus infection.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Description of the Study Sample

The survey questionnaire was completed by 106 respondents. More than half of them were women. The age of the respondents varied—the youngest was 18, and the oldest was 74. Over 60% were between the ages of 30 and 49. The respondents had high education, with almost 80% of them holding an academic degree. This was reflected in their material situation, with almost 80% rated as good or very good. This situation, according to nearly 60% of the respondents, did not change significantly due to the current pandemic. The vast majority of subjects (almost 80%) lived in the city/town. People living in large cities of over 100,000 inhabitants were predominant. Almost half of the respondents had children under 18 years old. This group was dominated by those with one or two children (47.1% each). Most of the 106 respondents already had specific experiences of staying on agritourism farms. In fact, as many as 74.5% of them indicated that they have had the opportunity to rest in such a place in the past. Table 2 includes detailed characteristics of the respondents.

4.2. Motives for Choosing Agritourism Farms for Holiday Destinations

The countryside is commonly seen as an ideal holiday destination for people tired of the hustle and bustle of big-city life [56]. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that among the reasons for choosing agritourism farms as a trip destination, the vast majority of the respondents specified the possibility to relax and rest in peace and quiet, which is further facilitated by the natural values characteristic of rural areas. These reasons seem to have remained unchanged for decades. Indeed, they are identified as dominant factors by many authors who researched demand in agritourism both 20 and 30 years ago [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72] as well as in recent years, e.g., [19,45,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81].
One of the most important reasons for choosing agritourism is also the economic factor, i.e., its affordability. It should be noted that the price of accommodation on an agritourism farm is often even several times lower than the price of accommodation in a hotel. Price attractiveness, as an important reason for the interest in agritourism, is emphasized in numerous studies carried out among various social groups, both in Poland [15,80,81] as well as in other countries [82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. When choosing a village and an agritourism farm for holidays, being able to enjoy local cuisine and healthy food was also crucial for the respondents. This fact is also quite widely recognized and emphasized by other tourism researchers, e.g., [41,42,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Details on this subject are presented in Figure 1.
When choosing a tourist destination, safety plays an important role [63], and a probability of the occurrence of any risk, injury or illness during a visit in a given place can negatively affect its image [95]. In the case of agritourism, however, risks have so far been considered in a very general sense [95,96,97] or in categories such as fire safety, 24 h security staff or access to a well-stocked first aid kit [98]. This situation changed significantly with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is naturally reflected in the results of this study. Actually, more than half of the respondents were influenced in their choice by the coronavirus pandemic and the belief that due to the smaller scale of operation, the chance of infection on such a farm is much smaller than in the case of other larger accommodation establishments. The fact that more than one fourth of the respondents decided to visit such a farm for the first time during the pandemic is indicative of the high level of trust the respondent had in the safety of agritourism farms.
Given the significant proportion of the respondents having children, a fairly common reason for choosing agritourism was the possibility to travel with the whole family, including young children, as highlighted also by Blekesaune et al. [99] and Zawadka [100], as well as the opportunity to have contact with farm animals, as noted by Ingram [101] and Jęczmyk et al. [40]. The guests on agritourism farms were mainly (about 80%) residents of cities, for whom closer encounters with animal species common to the countryside are certainly attractive and welcome but unfortunately virtually impossible. The same applies to the opportunity to learn about the characteristics of a farm. However, it should be noted here that COVID-19 has significantly restricted the operation of educational farms, which are strongly connected to agritourism, one of their objectives being, in fact, to familiarize the guests with farm animals and the characteristics of agriculture [102,103].
It can be assumed that a stay on an agritourism farm was a satisfying experience for the respondents, since the vast majority (about 95%) declared that they would be willing to seek such form of recreation after the pandemic period as well, and what is more, they would recommend it to their family and friends (Table 3). Similar declarations were made by respondents in our previous research on tourist plans of Poles during the COVID-19 pandemic [19].
It is worth noting here that the respondents were slightly more likely to enjoy and recommend 2–3-day stays, often on weekends, than longer stays. This may be seen as a sign of development potential of agri-breaks, a form of leisure that is recently becoming more and more popular, which has also been pointed out in other studies [39].

4.3. Rest on an Agritourism Farm in the Respondents’ Perception

The respondents’ enjoyment of their stay on an agritourism farm is directly related to their high rating of both the leisure on the farm itself and of particular features of the agritourism product they had a chance to use (Table 4). Approximately 95% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with their stay on an agritourism farm. This results from their positive evaluation of services provided, lack of concern about contracting the coronavirus, and interesting offers and competitive prices, among other factors (Table 4). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached 0.882, exceeding the threshold value of 0.70, which indicates that all the scales were internally consistent and appropriate.
The price competitiveness of the offer proposed by agritourism farms where the respondents had their holidays was also assessed quite highly. Taking into account the fact that the price was one of the main reasons for choosing agritourism, it can be concluded that the price attractiveness of this form of tourism is an important determinant of its further development. It is also indicated in the studies of other authors [43,100,104,105].
Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the influence of demographic features (sex, age, place of residence, presence of children, and material situation) on the analyzed elements of a stay on an agritourism farm. Nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U test, Wald–Wolfowitz runs test, and Kruskal–Wallis H test) were used for this purpose. The tests showed a statistically significant effect of sex on the rating of the item “the hosts complied with epidemic requirements” (p = 0.038). Additionally, the presence of children was also found to have a statistically significant effect on the rating (p = 0.043). The presence of children also had a significant effect on the rating of the item “I felt safe as regards the coronavirus” (p = 0.041). Meanwhile, the respondents’ place of residence had a statistically significant effect on the rating of the item “the offer was interesting and attractive”.
Not insignificant, and emphasized by the respondents, is also a strong sense of safety against any possible risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Seemingly, this may be contradicted by the fact that according to the respondents the hosts did not show much concern for disciplining guests to comply with epidemic requirements (masks, distance, etc.). However, given the high sense of safety rating, it can be concluded that the tourists behaved responsibly and therefore the hosts had no need to discipline them.
When it comes to the sense of safety, it should also be mentioned that a stay on an agritourism farm, compared with other accommodations, was rated highly in this regard (3.9). It naturally gives way to accommodations for exclusive use (your own holiday cabin (4.9), rented holiday cabin (4.3), apartment (4.1) or “illegal” stay (4.7). It should be emphasized, however, that agritourism farms are ranked first among the accommodations and locations that are used simultaneously by many tourists, usually strangers (Table 5). The Cronbach’s alpha value (0.784) exceeded the cut-off point. This value indicates that internal reliability attains an acceptable level.
The statistical tests showed a significant effect on the rating for guesthouse (education p = 0.033) and private accommodation (presence of children p = 0.041). There was also a statistically significant difference in the rating by age for the following accommodations: hotel or holiday resort (p = 0.020), rented apartment (p = 0.011), guesthouse (p = 0.020), rented house/holiday cabin (p = 0.027), and camping (0.016).
In 2019, the size of the global agritourism market was valued at USD 69.24 billion. By 2027, this value is expected to reach USD 117.37 billion (compound annual growth rate of 7.42%), with the largest increase in Europe [106]. In the report cited above, growing interest in stays on agritourism farms was identified as the main factor driving the market. The interest can be seen also during the pandemic, as confirmed in this study. This is evidenced by the fact that 93.4% of the surveyed tourists who stayed on agritourism farms in 2020 expressed their willingness to visit such an accommodation again in 2021. Only 2.8% were against it, and 3.8% were undecided.
Taking into account the fact that the pandemic is still affecting Poland and other European countries, it can be expected that there will be great interest in agritourism this year. In the opinion of the authors, one of the main reasons for this is, among other factors, the high level of safety perceived by people visiting agritourism farms. Thus, it may be assumed that the coronavirus pandemic, which significantly constrained tourism development around the world [107,108], paradoxically contributes to the development of agritourism. People who wish to rest but are afraid of infection are looking for small accommodation establishments that are located in quiet places without crowds of tourists. These very criteria are met by agritourism farms. According to analyses conducted by online accommodation portals, the interest in agritourism in Poland in 2020 at least quadrupled. In some regions, there was even a 16-fold increase [109]. The boost in agritourism development during the pandemic, resulting from increased interest in this form of leisure, is also confirmed by studies conducted in various countries, such as Poland [20,59], the USA [110], Czech Republic [63] or Portugal [111]. It is also indicated by numerous opinions and accounts of agritourism farm owners from many countries in the world [109,112,113,114]. There are certainly many determinants of the increasing interest in agritourism. The list includes inconveniences associated with international travel and exorbitant prices in popular domestic tourist destinations. In the opinion of the authors, however, of key importance is the sense of safety when tourists stay on a farm.

5. Conclusions

Agritourism is one of the most important spheres of tourist activity in rural areas. Spending holidays on agritourism farms depends on many factors and results from a variety of reasons that guide tourists. Recognizing these factors during COVID-19 is particularly important as this allows changes that have occurred in this respect to be identified. This study led to the formulation of several conclusions and generalizations. Some of the most important ones are:
  • Stays on agritourism farms are chosen mostly by mature, well-educated, and financially well-off residents of large cities.
  • The main reason for choosing agritourism farms is being able to relax and rest in peace and quiet and in favorable natural conditions characteristic of rural areas, as well as attractive prices. These reasons seem to have remained unchanged for decades.
  • What is important during the pandemic period; an extremely important reason for choosing agritourism was tourists’ belief in the relatively low risk of coronavirus infection due to the small number of people staying at the accommodation establishment at the same time. This is further evidenced by the fact that more than one fourth of the respondents stayed on an agritourism farm for the first time in their lives during the pandemic.
  • One of the most important reasons for choosing agritourism is also the economic factor, i.e., its affordability. This advantage is especially important during the pandemic, when the situation of many households deteriorated significantly due to lockdowns introduced in many countries.
  • The appealing nature of a stay on an agritourism farm is rated highly, which translates into the fact that about 95% of guests decide to choose this form of recreation in the future and recommend it to their family and friends. In addition to longer stays on agritourism farms, weekend stays—the so-called agri-breaks—are also popular.
  • A high overall rating of stays on agritourism farms is mainly due to the high quality of services provided, interesting and attractive offer, being positively surprised with the countryside as a holiday destination, and attractive prices.
  • The safety and rest on agritourism farms in the context of coronavirus was rated high and surpassed options such as hotels, holiday resorts, guesthouses, and even staying with family or friends.
In the authors’ opinion, the dynamic growth of interest in agritourism during the pandemic is undoubtedly an excellent chance for the long-term development of agritourism in many countries. This increase is evidenced by the percentage of overnight stays provided in Polish agritourism farms in relation to the total number of overnight stays provided—in 2019 it amounted to 1.5% and in 2020 as much as 2.4% [115]. However, this development can involve a number of possible problems. One of them may be a stereotypical approach to the motivations and reasons for choosing the countryside as a holiday destination. The main determinant of agritourism attractiveness according to rural accommodation providers (and often consistent with actual data, as indicated by our results) is “looking for peace and quiet”. However, this mindset may unfortunately prove to be outdated. Indeed, the surge in the number of people staying on agritourism farms during the pandemic is linked to the emergence of many new preferences, expectations, and behaviors of agritourists. Recognizing them and adapting the agritourism offer accordingly can be an extremely important determinant of further agritourism development. Therefore, it seems justified and necessary for the authors to undertake an in-depth study in this area. Its findings may prove useful for rural accommodation providers in improving the offer of their farms and enable them to maintain the pace of agritourism development, which was unexpectedly and paradoxically initiated by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, it is this issue that the authors plan to address in detail in further research.

6. Limitations and Subject of Further Research

Naturally, the presented conclusions should be treated with caution and awareness of the error margin that they allow. This is due to several limitations of our research. The primary one is the sample size and method of selection. Presumably, multiplying its size and using random selection would increase the reliability of our data to a certain degree. Another disadvantage may include the fact that the study only covered Polish tourists. Admittedly, these results are mirrored in studies conducted by researchers in other countries, but selecting a sample consisting of representatives of multiple nationalities would undoubtedly enhance the quality of the study. The authors will try to overcome these shortcomings when conducting future research, which will concern new preferences, expectations, and behaviors of agritourists in the post-pandemic period. Hence, future studies should use other measures such as opinions of focus groups, which could support more in-depth analysis. Therefore, we will include a qualitative assessment through in-depth interviews in future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Z., A.J., M.M.W.-Z. and J.U.; methodology, J.Z., A.J., M.M.W.-Z., G.N. and J.U.; formal analysis, J.Z., G.N., J.U. and J.P.-Z.; investigation, J.Z., A.J., M.M.W.-Z., G.N., J.U. and J.P.-Z.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J. and M.M.W.-Z.; writing—review and editing, J.Z., G.N., J.U. and J.P.-Z.; visualization, J.Z.; J.U. and J.P.-Z.; supervision, G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). International Tourism Highlights, 2019 Edition; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2019; Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  2. World Travel & Tourism Council. Travel & Tourism. Economic Impact 2019. World. 2019. Available online: https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/dokumenti/raziskave/raziskave/world2019.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  3. OECD. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2018; OECDE Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alejziak, W. Globalna polityka turystyczna. Folia Tur. 2011, 25, 343–393. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper, C.P.; Hall, C.M. Contemporary Tourism: An International Approach, 2nd ed.; Goodfellow Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Folinas, S.; Metaxas, T. Tourism: The great patient of coronavirus COVID2019. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), 2020, 99666. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99666/1/MPRA_paper_99666.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  7. Pachucki, C.; Grohs, R.; Scholl-Grissemann, U. Is nothing like before? COVID-19–evoked changes to tourism destination social media communication. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022, 23, 100692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). UNWTO Briefing Note—Tourism and COVID-19, Issue 2. In Tourism in SIDS—The Challenge of Sustaining Livelihoods in Times of COVID-19; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kosmaczewska, J.; Poczta, W. Tourism and Socio-Economic Transformation of Rural Area: Evidence from Poland; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  10. GUS. Wykorzystanie Turystycznych Obiektów Noclegowych w 2020 Roku. Główny Urząd Statystyczny, 2021. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/kultura-turystyka-sport/turystyka/wykorzystanie-turystycznej-bazy-noclegowej-w-polsce-w-2020-r-,6,25.html (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  11. Gabryjończyk, K.; Gabryjończyk, P. Zmiany stopnia wykorzystania turystycznych obiektów noclegowych w okresie zwalczania pandemii COVID-19 w Polsce. Tur. Rozw. Reg. 2021, 15, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mastronardi, L.; Cavallo, A.; Romagnoli, L. How did Italian diversified farms tackle Covid-19 pandemic first wave challenges? Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nikolova, M.S. Behavioural Economics for Tourism: Perspectives on Business and Policy in the Travel Industry; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/books/behavioural-economics-for-tourism/nikolova/978-0-12-813808-3. (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  15. Balińska, A. Konkurencyjność agroturystyki jako formy spędzania czasu wolnego, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu nr 473 Gospodarka turystyczna w regionie. Przedsiębiorstwo. Samorząd. Współpraca 2017, 473, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dudziak, S. Ekonomia behawioralna—Interdyscyplinarne podejście do zachowań ekonomicznych. Studia Pr. Wydziału Nauk. Ekon. Zarządzania 2013, 32, 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  17. Miller, J.E.; Amit, E.; Posten, A.; Ch, H. Behavioral Economics. In Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics; Ten Have, H., Ed.; Springer Science+Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Godłów-Legwiędź, J. Ekonomia behawioralna: Od koncepcji racjonalności do wizji ustroju ekonomicznego. Ekon. Econ. 2013, 4, 24–41. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M.M.; Jęczmyk, A.; Zawadka, J.; Uglis, J. Agritourism in the Era of the Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Rapid Assessment from Poland. Agriculture 2020, 10, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zawadka, J.; Jęczmyk, A.; Uglis, J.; Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M.M. Plany turystyczne mieszkańców miast w dobie pandemii COVID-19. In Warsztaty z Geografii Turyzmu. Tom 11. Krajoznawstwo a Turystyka; Makowska-Iskierka, M., Wojciechowska, J., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland, 2021; pp. 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sadler, G.R.; Lee, H.C.; Lim, R.S.; Fullerton, J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nurs. Health Sci. 2010, 12, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Voicu, M.C. Using the Snowball Method in Marketing Research on Hidden Populations. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2011, 1, 1341–1351. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tew, C.; Barbieri, C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Naderifar, M.; Goli, H.; Ghaljaie, F. Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides Dev. Med. Educ. 2017, 14, e67670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Li, J.; Nguyen, T.H.H.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Coronavirus impacts on post-pandemic planned travel behaviours. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 86, 102964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Reznik, A.; Gritsenko, V.; Konstantinov, V.; Khamenka, N.; Isralowitz, R. COVID-19 Fear in Eastern Europe: Validation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2021, 19, 1903–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Uglis, J.; Krysińska, B. Próba zdefiniowania profilu agroturysty. (The attempt to define a profile of agritourist). Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Szczecińskiego Ekon. Probl. Usług 2012, 699, 155–166. [Google Scholar]
  28. Memon, M.A.; Ting, H.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ramayah, T.; Chuah, F.; Cham, T.H. Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2020, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stanisz, A. Przystępny Kurs Statystyki: Z Zastosowaniem STATISTICA PL na Przykładach z Medycyny T. 1; StatSoft: Kraków, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stanisz, A. Przystępny Kurs Statystyki z Zastosowaniem STATISTICA PL na Przykładach Z Medycyny T. 2; StatSoft: Kraków, Poland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hjalager, A.M. Agricultural diversification into tourism. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gil Arroyo, C.; Barbieri, C.; Rozier Rich, S. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sznajder, M.; Przezbórska, L.; Scrimgeour, F. Agritourism; CABI International: Wallingford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karampela, S.; Andreopoulos, A.; Koutsouris, A. “Agro”, “Agri”, or “Rural”: The Different Viewpoints of Tourism Research Combined with Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zawadka, J. Ekonomiczno-Społeczne Determinanty Rozwoju Agroturystyki na Lubelszczyźnie (na Przykładzie Wybranych Gmin Wiejskich); Wydawnictwo SGGW: Warsaw, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. McGehee, N.G.; Kim, K. Motivation for Agri-Tourism Entrepreneurship. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Streifeneder, T. Agriculture first: Assessing European policies and scientific typologies to define authentic agritourism and differentiate it from countryside tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 20, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Drzewiecki, M. Podstawy Agroturystyki; Oficyna Wydawnicza Ośrodka Postępu Organizacyjnego: Bydgoszcz, Poland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jęczmyk, A.; Uglis, J. Organizacyjno-prawne uwarunkowania rozwoju turystyki na obszarach wiejskich. In Współczesne Dylematy Polskiego Rolnictwa; Zarzecka, K., Kondracki, S., Eds.; Wydawnictwo PSW JP II: Biała Podlaska, Poland, 2017; pp. 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jęczmyk, A.; Uglis, J.; Steppa, R. Can Animals Be the Key to the Development of Tourism: A Case Study of Livestock in Agritourism. Animals 2021, 11, 2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yeoman, I.S.; McMahon-Beattie, U. The experience economy: Micro trends. J. Tour. Futures 2019, 5, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Mehmetoglu, M.; Engen, M. Pine and Gilmore’s Concept of Experience Economy and Its Dimensions: An Empirical Examination in Tourism. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 12, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sadowski, A.; Wojcieszak, M.M. Geographic differentiation of agritourism activities in Poland vs. cultural and natural attractiveness of destinations at district level. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Balinska, A.; Zawadka, J. Culinary tourism as a way to use the potential of rural areas: The case of Swietokrzyskie province. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference Economic Science for Rural Development, No 50 Jelgava, LLU ESAF, Jelgava, Latvia, 9–10 May 2019; pp. 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M. Global Trends and Their Potential Impact on the Development of Rural Tourism and Leisure Activities in Poland. In Tourism and Socio-Economic Transformation of Rural Area. Evidence from Poland; Kosmaczewska, J., Poczta, W., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 291–361. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jęczmyk, A.; Uglis, J.; Graja-Zwolińska, S.; Maćkowiak, M.; Spychała, A.; Sikora, J. Research note: Economic benefits of agritourism development in Poland—An empirical study. Tour. Econ. 2015, 21, 1120–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zawadka, J. The importance of agritourism in the economic development of rural areas. In Regional Management: Theory, Practice and Development; Hittmár, Š., Ed.; University of Žilina: Žilina, Slovakia, 2012; pp. 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  48. Barbieri, C.; Streifeneder, T. Agritourism Advances around the Globe: A Commentary from the Editors. Open Agric. 2019, 4, 712–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Barbieri, C. A Comparison of Agritourism and Other Farm Entrepreneurs: Implications for Future Tourism and Sociological Research on Agritourism. In Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; Klenosky, D.B., Fisher, C.L., Eds.; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 343–349. [Google Scholar]
  50. Balińska, A. Determinanty popytu mieszkańców Warszawy na usługi agroturystyczne. Ekon. Probl. Tur. 2014, 1, 251–264. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jęczmyk, A.; Sammel, A. Ceny usług agroturystycznych w województwie wielkopolskim. Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. Agrobiz. 2012, 3, 136–139. [Google Scholar]
  52. Brzozowska, A.; Niedziółka, A. Management in Agritourism Promotion as an Element of Support Agritourism Services by Local Authorities. Valahian J. Econ. Stud. 2016, 7, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Firlej, K. The Polish sector of agri-tourism and rural development. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2006, 8, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wartecka-Ważyńska, A. Educational aspects of agritourism business in Poland. Cult. Soc. Educ. 2018, 2, 231–243. [Google Scholar]
  55. Marks-Bielska, R.; Babuchowska, K.; Lizińska, W. Agritourism as a form of business activity in rural areas. Acta Sci. Polonorum. Oeconomia 2014, 13, 69–79. [Google Scholar]
  56. Roman, M.; Roman, M.; Prus, P. Innovations in Agritourism: Evidence from a Region in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Generating public and private benefits through understanding what drives different types of agritourism. J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 41, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernandes, N. Economic Effects of Coronavirus Outbreak (COVID-19) on the World Economy. SSRN J. 2020, WP-1240-E. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Roman, M.; Grudzień, P. The Essence of Agritourism and Its Profitability during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. Agriculture 2021, 11, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hussain, A.; Fusté-Forné, F. Post-Pandemic Recovery: A Case of Domestic Tourism in Akaroa (South Island, New Zealand). World 2021, 2, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Joo, D.; Xu, W.; Lee, J.; Lee, C.K.; Woosnam, K.M. Residents’ perceived risk, emotional solidarity, and support for tourism amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Başay, S. The importance of organic agriculture and agro tourism in the Covid-19 pandemic. In Theory and Research in Agriculture, Forestry and Aquaculture Sciences II; Özrenk, K., Bozdoğan, A.M., Bozdoğan, N.Y., Eds.; Gece Kitaplığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2020; pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vaishar, A.; Šťastná, M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia Preliminary considerations. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 25, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Roman, M.; Niedziółka, A. Agroturystyka Jako Forma Przedsiębiorczości na Obszarach Wiejskich; Wydawnictwo SGGW: Warszawa, Polska, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hall, C.M. Introduction to Tourism in Australia: Impacts, Planning and Development, 2nd ed.; Longman Cheshire: Melbourne, Australia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lane, B. What is rural tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Morrison, A.M.; Pearce, P.L.; Moscardo, G.; Nadkarni, N.; O’Leary, J.T. Specialist Accommodation: Definition, Markets Served, and Roles in Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 1996, 35, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pearce, P.L. Farm tourism in New Zealand. Ann. Tour. Res. 1990, 17, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pigram, J.J. Planning for tourism in rural areas. Bridging the policy implementation gap. In Tourism Research. Critiques and Challenges; Pearce, D.G., Butler, R.W., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1993; pp. 156–174. [Google Scholar]
  70. Roberts, L.; Morag, M.; Hall, D. New directions in rural tourism: Local impacts and global trends. In New Directions in Rural Tourism; Roberts, L., Hall, D., Morag, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lane, B. Rural Tourism: An Overview. In SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies; Tazim, J., Robinson, M., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; Available online: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-tourism-studies/book229423 (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  72. Moric, I. Clusters as a Factor of Rural Tourism Competitiveness: Montenegro Experiences. Bus. Syst. Res. 2013, 4, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Artuger, S.; Kendir, H. Agritourist Motivations: The Case of Turkey. IJBM 2013, 8, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Balińska, A. Agritourism as a form of recreation for students. In Cultural Tourism in a Digital Era: First International Conference IACuDiT, Athens Greece, 2014; Katsoni, V., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 313–323. Available online: https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/16806/1/2488-8014-1-PB.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  75. Sotomayor, S.; Barbieri, C.; Stanis, S.W.; Aguilar, F.X.; Smith, W.J. Motivations for Recreating on Farmlands, Private Forests, and State or National Parks. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Barbieri, C.; Xu, S.; Gil-Arroyo, C.; Rich, S.R. Agritourism, Farm Visit, or...? A Branding Assessment for Recreation on Farms. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 1094–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Barbieri, C.; Sotomayor, S.; Aguilar, F.X. Perceived Benefits of Agritourism: A Comparison between Missouri Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Residents. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 2016. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2011/Visual/59/?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fttra%2F2011%2FVisual%2F59&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  78. Malkanthi, S.H.P.; Routray, J.K.; Amuwala, S.; Nguyen Thi Thuy, H. Demand for Agritourism in Sri Lanka. J. Hosp. Tour. 2016, 12, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tovmasyan, G.; Avetisyan, S.; Tatosyan, K.; Mirijanyan, L.; Galustyan, I.; Rushanyan, A. Analyzing the Demand of Agritourism for International Tourist in Armenia. MMI 2020, 4, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kosmaczewska, J. Evolution of Rural Tourism in Poland in 1989–2019. In Tourism and Socio-Economic Transformation of Rural Areas. Evidence from Poland; Kosmaczewska, J., Poczta, W., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  81. Przezbórska-Skobiej, L. Key Changes for Rural Tourism Development in Poland in 1989–2019. In Tourism and Socio-Economic Transformation of Rural Area. Evidence from Poland; Kosmaczewska, J., Poczta, W., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zawadka, J.; Balińska, A.; Gabryjończyk, P. Agritourism as a Form of Free Time Activity Among Families with Kids in Poland. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2021, 24, 571–582. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sieczko, A.; Sieczko, L. Determinanty popytu usług agroturystycznych. Probl. Rol. Swiat. 2018, 18, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Skuras, D.; Petrou, A.; Clark, G. Demand for rural tourism: The effects of quality and information. Agric. Econ. 2006, 35, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hill, R.; Loomis, J.; Thilmany, D.; Sullins, M. Economic Values of Agritourism to Visitors: A Multi-Destination Hurdle Travel Cost Model of Demand. Tour. Econ. 2014, 20, 1047–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Santeramo, F.G.; Morelli, M. Modelling tourism flows through gravity models: A quantile regression approach. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Santeramo, F.G.; Barbieri, C. On the demand for agritourism: A cursory review of methodologies and practice. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2017, 14, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Chew, E.Y.T.; Jahari, S.A. Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rand, G.E.D.; Heath, E.; Alberts, N. The Role of Local and Regional Food in Destination Marketing: A South African Situation Analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2003, 14, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jolly, D.A.; Reynolds, K.A. Consumer Demand for Agricultural and on-Farm Nature Tourism; Small Farm Center: Davis, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sims, R. Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Andersson, T.D.; Mossberg, L.; Therkelsen, A. Food and tourism synergies: Perspectives on consumption, production and destination development. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Dougherty, M.L.; Brown, L.E.; Green, G.P. The Social Architecture of Local Food Tourism: Challenges and Opportunities for Community Economic Development. J. Rural. Soc. Sci. 2013, 28. Available online: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol28/iss2/1 (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  94. Rahman, M.S.; Zaman, M.H.; Hassan, H.; Wei, C.C. Tourist’s preferences in selection of local food: Perception and behavior embedded model. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Brune, S.; Knollenberg, W.; Stevenson, K.T.; Barbieri, C.; Schroeder-Moreno, M. The Influence of Agritourism Experiences on Consumer Behavior toward Local Food. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 1318–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sieczko, A.; Parzonko, A.J.; Bienkowska-Gołasa, W. Principles of the experience economy in designing an agritourism product. Agric. Econ. Czech. 2020, 66, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wu, T.; Henneberry, S.R.; Ng’ombe, J.N.; Melstrom, R.T. Chinese Demand for Agritourism in Rural America. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Lago, N.A.A. Tourism Demand and Agriculture Supply: Basis for Agritourism Development inQuezon Province. Asia Pac. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2017, 5, 1–9. Available online: http://www.apjmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/APJMR-2017.5.3.2.01.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  99. Blekesaune, A.; Brandth, B.; Haugen, M.S. Visitors to Farm Tourism Enterprises in Norway. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 10, 54–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Zawadka, J. Agritourism as a way of spending free time of urban families with children. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2019, 21, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ingram, G. Motivations of farm tourism hosts and guests in the South West Tapestry Region, Western Australia: A phenomenological study. Indo Pac. J. Phenomenol. 2002, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Forleo, M.B.; Palmieri, N. The potential for developing educational farms: A SWOT analysis from a case study. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2019, 25, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Buonaccorsi, A. Italian real estate market during COVID-19: An increasingly green future? Bio Based Appl. Econ. 2021. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PNLJVt5Eidi2hS-bQ8DW7n-8GlUN2bgj/view (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  104. Bosmann, M.; Hospers, G.-J.; Reiser, D. Searching for Success Factors of Agritourism: The Case of Kleve County (Germany). Eur. Countrys. 2021, 13, 644–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fatmawati, I.; Bestari, S.A.; Rostiani, R. Key Success Factors’ Identification of Farm Tourism: A Case from Indonesia. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 232, 02020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Agritourism Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, by Type (Direct-Market, Education & Experience, and Event & Recreation), and Regional Forecast, 2020–2027. Available online: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/agritourism-market-103297 (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  107. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 29, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Haywood, K.M. A post COVID-19 future—tourism re-imagined and re-enabled. Tour. Geogr. 2020, 22, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nowy Trend na Wakacje. Agroturystyka da się Lubić, tu nie ma Dzikich Tłumów. Available online: https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/nowy-trend-na-wakacje-polacy-stawiaja-na-agroturystyke-6650890517736352a.html (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  110. Kalaitzandonakes, M.; Ellison, B.; Guarino, J.; Endres, R.; Endres, B. Pumpkin Patches during the Pandemic: How Agritourism Operations in Illinois are Coping with Covid-19. Farmdoc. Dly. 2020, 10. Available online: https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/11/pumpkin-patches-during-the-pandemic-how-agritourism-operations-in-illinois-are-coping-with-covid-19.html (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  111. Silva, S.; Carvalho, P. Rediscovering the Rural as a Tourist Destination in Pandemic Times: The Case of Portugal. w Handbook of Research on the Impacts and Implications of COVID-19 on the Tourism Industry; Demir, M., Dalgıç, A., Ergen, F.D., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 684–702. [Google Scholar]
  112. Campbell, L. Farms Are Becoming Popular Staycation Destinations. Available online: https://modernfarmer.com/2020/07/farms-are-becoming-popular-staycation-destinations/ (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  113. Ogletree, K. Agritourism Is Booming Despite Pandemic. Available online: https://farmflavor.com/north-carolina/agritourism-is-booming-despite-pandemic/ (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  114. Harvey, E. Why Agriculture Is Key to Caribbean’s Tourism Sector Post-COVID-19 Pandemic. Available online: https://blog.iica.int/blog/why-agriculture-key-caribbeans-tourism-sector-post-covid-19-pandemic (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  115. GUS. Turystyka w 2020 r. (Tourism in 2020). Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa, Rzeszów 2021. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/kultura-turystyka-sport/turystyka/turystyka-w-2020-roku,1,18.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).
Figure 1. Reasons that persuaded the respondents to choose agritourism farms as holiday destinations in 2020 [in %, n = 106]. Source: authors’ own research.
Figure 1. Reasons that persuaded the respondents to choose agritourism farms as holiday destinations in 2020 [in %, n = 106]. Source: authors’ own research.
Sustainability 14 03526 g001
Table 1. Current scope of agritourism product.
Table 1. Current scope of agritourism product.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF AGRITOURISM PRODUCT
accommodationrooms, apartments, small houses, campings, and others
mealsmeals prepared with products (often organic) from your own farm or from nearby farms, traditional, local, and regional dishes and meals
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF AGRITOURISM PRODUCT ASSOCIATED WITH THE FARM
farm activities and observation of the agricultural production processdirect and indirect participation in the process of crop and animal production, activities traditionally performed on the farm—feeding the animals, helping milk the cows, etc., watching and participating in farm work: harvesting, plowing, hay production, etc.
observing and participating in agricultural product processingmeat processing, milk processing (making cheese, yoghurt, etc.), processing of plant products (cereals, vegetables, and fruits), production of homemade preserves and traditional local and regional products
direct and indirect contact with livestock and domestic animalspetting zoo, agrisafari, feeding, and other animal-oriented activities including milking the cows, shearing the sheep, horseback riding, etc.
offer regionalisationinterior decoration, meals, and hosts’ clothing
teaching and educational activitieseducation in the field of plant and animal production, education in the field of agricultural product processing, education in the field of environmental, nature and consumer awareness, education in the field of tangible and intangible rural cultural heritage, and traditional professions and folk creativity
courses and workshopsculinary courses and workshops—dishes, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, handicrafts and high culture workshops (e.g., painting, sculpture, music, and photography), etc.
“rural” spa and various forms of therapyregeneration and beauty treatments, equine-assisted therapy, therapy using plant and animal medicines, specific diets, etc.
trips around the neighbourhood organized by the hostssightseeing tours of the area organized by the hosts, sleigh, carriage and tractor rides, etc.
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF AGRITOURISM PRODUCT ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIQUENESS OF RURAL AREAS
recreational infrastructure and equipment and active forms of relaxation in rural areaspossibility of renting sport and recreational equipment, access to recreational infrastructure in rural areas, marked hiking trails, various forms of physical activity in the rural environment (hiking, cycling, canoeing, horseback riding, skiing, and others), survival, outdoor games, etc.
hobbyfishing, mushroom picking, birdwatching, and others
sightseeinglearning about and using local anthropogenic (tangible and intangible culture, folklore, rituals, beliefs, customs, etc.) and nature values of rural areas
Source: authors’ own elaboration.
Table 2. Characteristics of the respondents.
Table 2. Characteristics of the respondents.
Feature[%]
Sex
female53.8
male46.2
Education
basic vocational, lower secondary, and primary education2.8
secondary18.9
higher78.3
Material situation assessment
very good16.0
good61.3
bearable22.6
bad and very bad0.0
Assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on material situation
remained unchanged57.5
deteriorated27.4
improved2.8
hard to say12.3
Place of residence
village20.8
town up to 50 thousand inhabitants19.8
town of 50–100 thousand inhabitants14.2
city of more than 100 thousand inhabitants45.3
Presence of children (under 18 years of age) in the household
Household without children51.9
Household with children48.1
Age
Up to 2918.9
30–3932.1
40–4931.1
50 and more17.9
[number of years]
mean40.6
median39
Source: authors’ own research.
Table 3. Willingness of the respondents to stay on an agritourism farm after the COVID-19 pandemic and to recommend agritourism to family and friends broken down by length of stay [in %, n = 106].
Table 3. Willingness of the respondents to stay on an agritourism farm after the COVID-19 pandemic and to recommend agritourism to family and friends broken down by length of stay [in %, n = 106].
Length of StayDefinitely YesProbably YesI Have No OpinionProbably NotDefinitely Not
2–3 day stays63.331.14.70.90.0
Stays over 3 days52.939.64.71.90.9
Source: authors’ own research.
Table 4. Respondents’ rating and opinion on selected elements of stay on an agritourism farm on a scale from 1 (definitely no) to 5 (definitely yes) [n = 106].
Table 4. Respondents’ rating and opinion on selected elements of stay on an agritourism farm on a scale from 1 (definitely no) to 5 (definitely yes) [n = 106].
SpecificationMeanStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
Overall, I am satisfied with my stay on an agritourism farm4.30.87−1.925.19
I rate highly the quality of tourist services provided on the farm where I stayed4.30.83−1.855.20
I felt safe as regards to the coronavirus4.20.90−1.844.51
I was satisfied or positively surprised with the countryside as a holiday destination4.00.95−1.392.37
The offer was interesting and attractive4.10.88−1.523.33
It seems that agritourism farms have been extremely popular this year3.70.91−0.390.41
The offer was competitively priced3.70.98−0.51−0.15
The recreation and sport equipment available was frequently disinfected and safe to use3.30.940.04−0.03
The hosts complied with epidemic requirements—wore masks and kept a distance3.41.11−0.40−0.81
The hosts disciplined guests who failed to comply with epidemic requirements2.90.980.52−0.19
Source: authors’ own research.
Table 5. Safety of stay at each accommodation establishment as rated by the respondents on a scale from 1 (least safe) to 5 (most safe) [n = 106].
Table 5. Safety of stay at each accommodation establishment as rated by the respondents on a scale from 1 (least safe) to 5 (most safe) [n = 106].
Type of AccommodationI Have No Opinion12345Mean
[%]
Your own holiday cabin/second home7.50.00.00.95.785.74.9
“Illegally” in a tent, caravan15.11.90.02.813.267.04.7
Rented house/holiday cabin7.50.02.98.638.142.94.3
Rented apartment5.70.03.812.353.824.44.1
Agritourism farm3.80.00.925.554.715.13.9
Camping (using your own tent or caravan)12.30.05.721.735.824.53.9
Stay with family/friends7.50.94.833.032.121.73.7
Private accommodation (rented room)9.42.910.534.336.26.73.4
Guesthouse9.45.712.348.121.72.83.0
Hotel or holiday resort6.616.131.137.74.73.82.5
Source: authors’ own research.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zawadka, J.; Jęczmyk, A.; Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M.M.; Niedbała, G.; Uglis, J.; Pietrzak-Zawadka, J. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Agritourism Farm Stays and Their Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

AMA Style

Zawadka J, Jęczmyk A, Wojcieszak-Zbierska MM, Niedbała G, Uglis J, Pietrzak-Zawadka J. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Agritourism Farm Stays and Their Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zawadka, Jan, Anna Jęczmyk, Monika Małgorzata Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Gniewko Niedbała, Jarosław Uglis, and Joanna Pietrzak-Zawadka. 2022. "Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Agritourism Farm Stays and Their Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop