1 Perceived Drivers and Barriers to Entering The
PERCEIVED DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO ENTERING THE SUSTAINABLE AGRITOURISM AND ECOTOURISM INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA
By KOTRYNA KLIZENTYTE
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2018
1
© 2018 Kotryna Klizentyte
2
To my family and friends
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my committee for the patience, constant guidance, and support throughout the process of this thesis. I especially thank Dr. Taylor Stein for the mentorship throughout the years, believing in my research abilities, and opening my mind to the world of recreation and ecotourism. I thank my sister, Gabriele Klizentyte, for the support and love throughout this process. I could not have completed this endeavor without my two dogs, Tig and Tay, who have made the experience as entertaining and fun as it could be. I thank all the teachers, advisors, and mentors I have ever had throughout my entire academic career that saw my potential and encouraged me to achieve my dreams.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4
LIST OF TABLES ...... 7
LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9
ABSTRACT ...... 10
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17
Sustainable Tourism ...... 17 Agritourism ...... 18 Impacts ...... 18 Sustainable Agritourism Practices ...... 21 Ecotourism ...... 24 Impacts ...... 24 Sustainable Ecotourism Practices ...... 25 Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory ...... 29 Rate of Adoption ...... 31 Perceived Advantages of Adopting an Innovation ...... 31 Potential Drivers and Barriers Affecting Rate of Adoption ...... 32 Adopter Types ...... 34 Adopter Generalizations ...... 35
3 METHODS ...... 41
Data Collection ...... 41 Research Question 1: Sustainable Ecotourism and Agritourism Practices ...... 42 Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages, Barriers, and Drivers ...... 45 Research Question 3: Differences and Similarities of Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers...... 46
4 RESULTS ...... 58
Socioeconomic Information ...... 58 Research Question 1: Sustainable Ecotourism and Agritourism Practices ...... 58 Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Barriers, and Drivers ...... 60 Agritourism ...... 60 Ecotourism ...... 61
5 Research Question 3: Differences and Similarities of Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers...... 63 Risk-taking and Sustainable Tourism Behavior ...... 63 Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Barriers, and Drivers ...... 63
5 DISCUSSION ...... 81
Research Question 1: Diffusion of Sustainable Tourism Practices ...... 81 Agritourism ...... 81 Ecotourism ...... 82 Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Drivers, and Barriers ...... 83 Agritourism ...... 83 Perceived advantages and constraints ...... 83 Barriers and drivers ...... 86 Ecotourism ...... 88 Perceived advantages and constraints ...... 88 Barriers and drivers ...... 89 Research Question 3: Differences Between Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers ...... 91 Conclusion ...... 93
APPENDIX
A AGRITOURISM QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 99
B ECOTOURISM QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 105
C IRB CONFIRMATION ...... 111
LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 113
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 119
6 LIST OF TABLES
Table page 2-1 Early adopter characteristics based on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory ...... 39
2-2 Internal drivers and barriers to adopting sustainable tourism practices ...... 40
3-1 Summary of sustainable ecotourism practices listed in the questionnaire ...... 47
3-2 Summary of sustainable agritourism practices listed in the questionnaire ...... 48
3-3 Cronbach alpha values for tested factors for the ecotourism sample ...... 48
3-4 Factor loadings for adopter categories for the ecotourism sample ...... 49
3-5 Factor loadings for perceived advantages and constraints of the eco- innovation for the ecotourism sample ...... 50
3-6 Factor loadings for barriers to adopting eco-innovations for ecotourism ...... 51
3-7 Factor loadings for drivers of the eco-innovation for the ecotourism sample ...... 52
3-8 Cronbach alpha values for tested factors for the agritourism sample ...... 52
3-9 Factor loadings for adopter categories for the agritourism sample ...... 53
3-10 Factor loadings for perceived advantages and constraints of the eco- innovation for the agritourism sample ...... 54
3-11 Factor loadings for barriers for the agritourism sample ...... 55
3-12 Factor loadings for drivers of the eco-innovation for the agritourism sample ...... 56
3-13 Reliability of innovation index for ecotourism ...... 57
3-14 Reliability of innovation index for agritourism ...... 57
4-1 Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic profiles for agritourism respondents (n=49) ...... 65
4-2 Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic profiles for ecotourism respondents (n=138) ...... 66
4-3 Descriptive statistics for sustainable agritourism practices ...... 67
7 4-4 Descriptive statistics for sustainable ecotourism practices ...... 68
4-5 Spearman rho correlation coefficient for agritourism ...... 69
4-6 Spearman rho correlation coefficient for ecotourism ...... 70
4-7 Mann-Whitney U test results for medium versus high practice use groups for ecotourism sample ...... 71
4-8 Descriptive statistics for perceived advantages of sustainable agritourism behaviors ...... 72
4-9 Descriptive statistics for barriers to adoption for agritourism participants ...... 73
4-10 Descriptive statistics for drivers to adoption for agritourism participants ...... 74
4-11 Descriptive statistics for perceived advantages of sustainable ecotourism behaviors ...... 75
4-12 Descriptive statistics for barriers to adoption for ecotourism respondents ...... 76
4-13 Descriptive statistics for drivers to adoption for ecotourism participants ...... 77
4-14 Mann-Whitney U test for risk-taking and sustainable tourism practices for ecotourism and agritourism comparison ...... 78
4-15 Mann-Whitney U test for perceived advantages for ecotourism and agritourism comparison ...... 78
4-16 Mann-Whitney U test for barriers to adoption for ecotourism and agritourism comparison ...... 79
4-17 Mann-Whitney U test for drivers to adoption for ecotourism and agritourism comparison ...... 80
8 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Roger’s diffusion of innovation normative bell curve for adopter categories ...... 37
2-2 Ziffer’s sustainability spectrum for nature-based and ecotourism providers ...... 38
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to The Graduate School Of The University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science PERCEIVED DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO ENTERING THE SUSTAINABLE AGRITOURISM AND ECOTOURISM INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA By Kotryna Klizentyte December 2018 Chair: Damian Adams Major: Forest Resources and Conservation
Economically and environmentally, ecotourism, nature-based tourism, and agritourism businesses in Florida are important tourism opportunities that have variable levels of sustainable tourism practices. Implementing sustainable tourism practices is dependent upon the available resources to these businesses, and there are few research studies that focus on the differences and similarities between ecotourism, nature-based, and agritourism business that have successfully implemented, are interested in implementing, or do not want to implement sustainable tourism practices.
Because of this lack of knowledge, the diffusion theory of innovation was used to place various nature-based, ecotourism, and agritourism businesses into adopter categories, and understand the perceived advantages, barriers, and drivers to adopting sustainable tourism practices (the eco-innovation). Over 850 nature-based and ecotourism, and 390 agritourism businesses across the state of Florida were surveyed to explore the factors affecting the adoption of sustainable tourism practices. The relative advantage, compatibility, and internal drivers, such as intrinsic and social motivation, were the biggest promoters of employing sustainable tourism practices. Barriers to adoption included cost, external organizational aid, and small business planning. Professionals
10 and organizations in the tourism industry can utilize the results of this study to identify barriers, gaps of knowledge, and utilize successful drivers of adopting sustainable tourism practices in order to unify and promote businesses that provide exceptional and environmentally responsible tourism experiences to natural and agricultural areas.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Tourism is a dominant industry in the state of Florida, contributing over 82 billion dollars in spending to the state’s economy in 2014 (Visit Florida, 2014). Florida has a dynamic mixture of conventional tourism attractions, such as theme parks and vacation cruises, and nature-based opportunities, like national parks and coral reef preserves.
Natural and agricultural area tourism are an expanding and dominant subsector of
Florida’s thriving tourism industry. In National Park Service lands alone, visitor spending equated to over $845 million in economic output to Florida in 2017 (National Park
Service, 2017). These economic output calculations exclude the economic value of state and local parks, national forests, most aquatic preserves, greenways, agricultural areas, and many other natural areas, which likely contribute even more to the state of
Florida’s economy. The supply of nature-based and agritourism opportunities are abundant and the demand is exponentially increasing, bringing local, regional, and international visitors to the state (Stein et al., 2010).
Ecotourism and agritourism are relatively new concepts within the field of tourism (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Nature-based tourism is visitation to enjoy natural areas (The Nature Conservancy, 2005). In comparison, ecotourism is the environmentally responsible travel and visitation to enjoy and appreciate nature that promotes conservation, has a low visitor impact, provides for socioeconomic involvement of local people, and has an education component (The Nature
Conservancy, 2005). Compared to nature-based tourism, ecotourism provides greater opportunities for biodiversity, ecological conservation, and cultural preservation of areas while providing economic opportunities for local people and regions (Drumm & Moore,
12 2002). This differentiation is important to the sustainability of the natural areas visited; nature-based tourism can exploit natural areas in a way that increases environmental degradation, and focuses on selling nature without considering visitor impact (Burton,
1998).
Agritourism is defined as all rural enterprises which incorporate both a working farm environment and a commercial tourism component (Weaver & Fennell, 1997).
Florida has a historical agricultural presence that serves as a cultural, as well as economic, commodity for the state. However, there are a growing number of farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, who are moving away from traditional agricultural production to non-agricultural enterprises (Carbieri & Mshenga, 2008). This is attributed to low agriculture commodity prices, increasing production costs, and little governmental support to sustain small-scale agricultural operations (McGeehee & Kim, 2004).
Conversely, there is a growing demand of agritourism opportunities from urban dwelling populations (Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). Urban populations are often disconnected from food production, and there is an increasing interest in viewing agricultural operations, active recreational self-harvesting, and general outdoor activities (McGehee, 2007).
With Florida’s rich history, variety of agriculture, and growing urban populations, there are many opportunities for the economic advancement of small-scale farmers.
Innovation is a major driver of growth within the tourism industry, however, there is a lack of knowledge of the role innovation plays in the development and expansion of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism (Kvam & Straete, 2010). An innovation is defined as, “a new, changed, or more effective method, idea, product, service, process, or technology that creates a value for which customers will pay” (Dodgson & Gann,
13 2010). In tangent, an eco-innovation is defined the same as an innovation, except there is an environmental characteristic (Dodgson & Gann, 2010). The concept of an eco- innovation is even newer than that of nature tourism, gaining attention in the 1990s with environmentally friendly technologies (Bell & Ruhanen, 2016). Although agritourism in itself is not a new concept, the use of distinct sustainable agritourism practices to accommodate tourists is a fairly new endeavor that has been minimally researched
(Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). For the scope of this research, an eco-innovation in ecotourism will be defined as a strategy that uses nature areas as an opportunity for tourism, and incorporating practices that promote low impact visitation, conservation, education and local income. The eco-innovation in agritourism will be a strategy that uses agricultural areas as an opportunity for tourism and incorporating cultural and historical heritage, conservation practices, and involvement of local people. These definitions are appropriate to the concept of an innovation because the idea of using nature and agricultural areas in a sustainable manner is a relatively novel practice that creates value for which customers will pay. The main concepts between both the ecotourism and agritourism innovation are utilizing natural and agricultural areas as a recreation destination and integrating conservation education or practices, coupled with low impact visitation and involving local people, is the environmental component.
There are opportunities for ecotourism and agritourism operators of small-scale businesses to go beyond simply providing educational and tourism experiences to visitors. Using sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices within their operations can enhance visitor numbers and therefore, financial income. In various studies, visitors preferred ‘eco-efficient’ planning and destination options to traditional, ‘business-as-
14 usual’ options (Kelly et al., 2006). Visitors were also willing to pay supplemental fees for services that offset environmental degradation from their behaviors (Kelly et al., 2006).
Agritourism providers tend to have more control over what sustainable practices they can implement, as these small to medium sized farming operators own their lands. For example, these business owners can dictate development planning, solid waste options, recreation opportunities, renewable energy, and greenspace protection within their owned lands. Ecotourism operators, on the other hand, may be providing tours or educational programming on public lands, and may not have the authority to implement solid waste recycling bathroom facilities, solar panel infrastructure, or play a role in development planning (Kelly et al., 2006).
This study aims to use Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory to characterize and understand business owners’ external and internal factors that promote or dissuade them from implementing sustainable tourism practices (Rogers, 2003). Each nature- based, ecotourism, and agritourism operator will be categorized into groups based on their adoption of eco-innovations and risk-taking behavior in order to assess all factors and variables within this study. The internal and external drivers and barriers will be identified to understand the decisions of ecotourism and agritourism providers. In addition, the study will address key differences in business owner values and overall business structure between sustainable tourism providers and non-sustainable tourism providers in the ecotourism and agritourism industry. This study aims to help identify any communication gaps, provide insightful commonalities and differences, and inform organizations, businesses, and institutions of the barriers and drivers of sustainable practices in the ecotourism and agritourism industry. Current agritourism and
15 ecotourism operators in Florida that have marine-based, land-based, and agricultural based businesses will be assessed in terms of the factors outlined by the diffusion theory of innovation.
Specific research questions include:
1) What sustainable practices are being diffused in ecotourism and agritourism
businesses in Florida?
a) Is the implementation of sustainable practices related to the risk taking behaviors
of the business or business owner?
2) What barriers and drivers impact ecotourism and agritourism businesses
implementing sustainable practices?
a) Do the barriers and drivers differ based on sustainable behaviors or risk taking
behaviors?
3) What are the differences and similarities among ecotourism and agritourism groups?
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainable Tourism
Ecotourism and agritourism can both be grounded within sustainable tourism, and situated in the saturated market of the tourism industry, especially in South Florida
(Hassan, 2000). Sustainable tourism industries, like agritourism and ecotourism, require the integration of traditional tourism development concepts and ecological conservation practices to produce valuable and unique opportunities for visitors. The definition of sustainable tourism varies greatly, and can vary in aspect when discussing individual businesses, national tourism development plans, or global policy (Harris et al., 2002).
Harris et al., (2002) describe two different interpretations of sustainable tourism- light green and dark green. Light green sustainable tourism providers are based in a traditional tourism and anthropocentric view with a primary goal of expanding tourism opportunities to promote economic activity. In this case, sustainable tourism is landscape and aesthetic amenity, local ecosystem benefits, and elements of a townscape (Harris et al., 2002). On the other end of the spectrum, dark green sustainable tourism providers have a background in some kind of environmental sciences and prefer to protect natural resources that support tourism instead of focusing on expanding economic growth from tourism related opportunities.
Linking Harris’ et al., (2002) concepts of light and dark green sustainable tourism to this study, the ideal ‘sustainable’ ecotourism operator is predominately dark green, with a smaller light green ideology concerning personal economic profit. The ideal
‘sustainable’ agritourism operator would also be considered dark green, because the operator would be trained in ecological agricultural activities that promote land
17 conservation (e.g. rotating crops, not developing lands or creating impervious surfaces) but also be significantly more light green than ecotourism operators because they sell their agricultural products and embrace sustainable agritourism practices for intrinsic and economic purposes (e.g. more market demand from tourists wanting organic produce). This study identifies the ‘ideal’ sustainable agritourism and ecotourism business operators as intrinsically motivated to enhance economic growth, while meeting sustainable goals, enhancing or preserving the environmental integrity of their area, and educating their visitors about sustainable practices (Karakaya, Hidalgo, &
Nuur, 2014; Kesidou & Demirel, 2012).
Agritourism
Impacts
In Florida, tourism is only second to the agricultural industry in terms of gross domestic product for the state (NASS, 2012). Currently, Florida has over 47,000 farms, and roughly a third of these farms (16,877 farms) are under 49 acres (NASS, 2012).
The state of Florida has some of the largest cities in the United States by population, such as Jacksonville and Miami, yet significant rural areas, which include over 2.7 million acres and significantly contribute to Florida’s agricultural production (NASS,
2012). The family farm community is shrinking due to low agricultural commodity prices, attractive land development, high production costs, and a lack of government sponsored agricultural programs (McGeehee & Kim, 2004; Weaver & Fennell, 1997).
The small-scale farmers and ranchers, are shifting from traditional agricultural production to non-traditional enterprises, such as agritourism, in order to sustain profits
(Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). This transition has encouraged visitors, mostly local urban
18 dwellers, to visit the rural areas surrounding their city core. Beginning in the 1990s, research has examined the growing importance of incorporating tourism into small-scale agricultural operations to provide supplemental income to family farms. Agritourism may be a viable option for additional income and requires agricultural operators to open their doors to visitors.
Agritourism opportunities can include outdoor recreation, educational programming, entertainment, hospitality, and product sale. These can take many forms, such as u-pick produce, venues, corn mazes, farm stays, agriculture festivals, or farm tours (McGeehee, 2007). If conducted in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, agritourism operations have the potential to increase prices on in-farm sales of value-added products and services for the long term (Bowler et al., 1996).
Agritourism business owners not only obtain additional income, but can acquire tax incentives, employ family members, network with a variety of people and expand the use of farm resources (McGeehee & Kim, 2004; Nickerson et al., 2001; Ollenburg &
Buckley, 2007).
Implementing agritourism, however, takes planning, training, and financial investment and allocation that can involve risks to small-scale farmers seeking agritourism as additional income sources (Veeck et al., 2006). Knowledge surrounding small business planning may be required to ensure the return on both financial and time investment of agritourism (McGeehee, 2009). Liability and risk management issues may arise when visitors come in direct contact with produce, equipment, livestock, and infrastructure on farmer’s property (Phillip et al., 2009). Another potential impact of agritourism is the loss of cultural identity to small-scale farming families, as well as
19 community objection from the farming community to bringing visitors to their rural area
(McGeehee, 2009).
A potential opportunity for agritourism comes from those producers who sustainable manage agriculture land to include wildlife habitat, which can attract visitors.
For example, Florida is twelfth in the United States for beef cattle with 1.7 million heads of cattle (Main et al., 2004). These cattle ranches, especially in South Florida contain a majority of Florida’s remaining natural habitats, and are protected from development or degradation. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission estimate that over
50% of habitat utilized by the Florida Panther, a critically endangered species, is on privately owned cattle ranching land (Main et al., 2004). These areas are important corridors and resting stops for migrating bird species. Dairy and row crop farmers face increasing limitations and restrictions on nitrogen and other water pollutant emissions and therefore may benefit from leaving wetland ecosystems on their lands and create artificial wetlands that ameliorate pollutants, and provide wildlife viewing and aesthetic lands for visitors (Osei et al., 2000). Aside from agricultural based tourism, nature-based tourism can play a part in these agricultural areas via wildlife viewing, which attracted
1.8 million visitors in 1996 (Main et al., 2004). Many studies conclude that farm tourists are specifically interested in viewing wildlife and conserved habitats (Denman, 1994).
Preservation of natural habitats, especially wetlands, on agricultural lands in Florida is monumental for providing ecosystem services such as water quality and quantity, as well as carbon sequestration.
As good stewards of the land, small and medium sized family farms depend on sustainable land management practices to ensure the quality and productivity of their
20 lands for generations to come (Carlsen et al., 2001). But, do small-scale and owner- operated agritourism businesses hold themselves to the same standard of care as traditional tourism operators in providing their visitors with sustainable agritourism opportunities? If so, this may present a strong motive in achieving sustainable tourism.
If not, there may be a need for education, training, planning, and incentives from outside organizations to push for sustainable tourism practices. By categorizing and understanding the various barriers and drivers to entering and remaining in the sustainable agritourism business, and comparing the results with those in non- sustainable agritourism businesses, this study will produce insights that can be used statewide and generalize each type of business operator.
Sustainable Agritourism Practices
Sustainable agritourism practices themselves can vary from operation to operation. For the purpose of this research, sustainable agritourism practices are activities that educate visitors about conservation or sustainability in agriculture, preserve cultural heritage, reduce visitor impacts, and promote local people (Barieri &
Mshenga, 2008; Carlsen et al., 2001). Agritourism depends on aesthetically pleasing environments and productive outdoor systems, and it is to be expected that agritourism operators are intrinsically and financially motivated to implement sustainable agritourism practices (Carlsen et al., 2001). Middleton and Hawkins (1998) propose a connection between the ecological and economic benefits of using sustainable agritourism practices in agricultural tourism. These include avoiding negative public relations, reducing operating costs, conserving resources, meeting customer demands, and increasing market advantage (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). Ateljevic and Doorne (2000)
21 found that tourists prefer to visit environmentally conscious small businesses than larger, less sustainable operations.
In order to assess the sustainability of businesses in this study, a sustainable agritourism spectrum was created that places each participant on the spectrum based on the number of sustainable agritourism practices currently being conducted, or interest in doing so. On a global scale, the World Tourism Organization provides guidelines on what constitutes sustainable tourism practices in the private tourism industry. The top ten actions include: waste management, energy conservation, fresh water conservation, waste water treatment, hazardous substances, land-use planning, involving local people in environmental decisions, designing infrastructure for sustainability, and partnerships and networking for sustainability (World Tourism
Organization, Agenda 21). Many of these actions can be difficult for small, owner- operated agritourism businesses to achieve, such as designing infrastructure and hazardous substance management. On a smaller scale and for the scope of this research, sustainable agritourism practices will include: providing environmentally sustainable tourism products (organic, local produce), minimizing tourism impacts from business operations, efficiently using resources, employing local people, providing accurate information about the environment and sustainable agricultural operations, building sustainable infrastructure (traditional building styles), and using environmentally sustainable practices to connect visitors with the heritage of the lands (Goodall &
Stabler, 1992; Denman, 1994; Middleton & Hawkins, 1998).
Some of these practices require education and knowledge by the owner-operator and employees. A study conducted by Carlsen et al. (2001) indicated that a majority of
22 farm-based tourism business owners stated higher levels of interest and support for utilizing heritage and nature conservation practices in their businesses. However, despite interest, barriers may prevent these interested businesses from successfully implementing sustainable agritourism practices in the long term. McKercher (1998) suggested a conflict within his research—business owners who were intrinsically motivated to start ecotourism and agritourism businesses using sustainable practices, but could not produce a profit, would then stop using the sustainable practices to survive. Another study by Berry and Ladkin (1997) identified commonalities between perceived barriers of implementing sustainable tourism practices. Similarities included confusion about sustainable practices, the financial input outweighing future benefits, no knowledge of their businesses individual impact to the environment, lack of outside aid, and no support from government agencies.
By involving agritourism and ecotourism providers who do not implement sustainable agritourism practices, this study seeks to identify common barriers voiced by this population. After identifying these barriers and successful drivers, organizations like the Cooperative Extension Service could provide the necessary tools to help them start implementing, or improve their current sustainable agritourism practices. There are few previous research studies using sustainable agritourism practices as the innovation in the diffusion theory to categorize sustainable agritourism and non-sustainable tourism operators in Florida. Previous agricultural research using the diffusion theory is geared on the rate of adoption based on agricultural production technologies, such as genetically modified crops or water conservation equipment (Rogers, 2003).
23 Ecotourism
Impacts
Tourism in natural areas, if conducted unsustainably, can damage vegetation, disrupt wildlife, compact soils, impact water quality, and increase air pollution, among other impacts (Fennell & Smale, 1992). Overtime, the cumulative effects of small-scale nature tourism and ecotourism businesses can damage natural areas (Nelson, 1994).
Economically, ecotourism can be an unstable source of income that can be impacted by weather, governmental constraints, and the state of the economy. Investments to initiate ecotourism practices, build necessary infrastructure, and employ qualified staff can be high enough to discourage owner-operated businesses from entering the industry
(Jacobsen & Robles, 1992). Socially, ecotourism has the potential to decrease the sense of community pride and sense of place with unsustainable tourism practices that may degrade important community natural areas.
On the other hand, ecotourism has the potential to prevent these environmental and social problems bringing visitors to natural areas may bring to an area while producing an economic gain (Fennell & Smale, 1992). A key feature of ecotourism is promoting local natural area conservation by increasing visitor and local awareness of the environment through the conservation efforts of local ecotourism businesses
(Jacobsen & Robles, 1992). If a natural area brings visitors, these visitors not only spend money at the site, but may also contribute to other businesses within the same time period. For example, if a visitor goes to a state park, he or she may also buy gas, go to a restaurant, and pay for lodging, all of which contributes to the local economy. A local government, or another entity that has the authority, may place more emphasis on conserving a natural area that provides this kind of economic benefit (Silva & McDill,
24 2004). Ecotourism can fund conservation and scientific research, as evident in areas such as South Africa, where concerned visitors and local residents used ecotourism profits to protect African wild dog habitat (Lindsey et al., 2005). An underscored value of ecotourism is its potential to instill ecological awareness and social ethics into the tourism industry, which can be solely focused on economics and lack a utilitarian approach. The value of educating a variety of visitors from different locales and viewpoints is a key piece in supporting and funding effective conservation efforts (Berry
& Ladkin, 1997).
Sustainable Ecotourism Practices
Compared to traditional tourism that focuses on the visitor motivations and needs to promote business, ecotourism takes resource management, environmental quality, and local residents into account (Burton, 2010). Ecotourism is offered at the state level by the park system, tourism attractions, government organizations and agencies, and private-sector businesses (Honey, 2008). Because of the gaining popularity in nature- based and ecotourism experiences, especially in Florida, private businesses marketing
‘ecotourism’ opportunities are increasing in number (Visit Florida, 2014). Across the country, states have been making an effort to control and organize mass tourism by promoting and incorporating state-run ecotourism organizations and including private ecotourism businesses (Honey, 2008). Ecotour operators are the link between the visitor and their destination; often this is through guided tours, experiences, educational programs, and overnight lodging opportunities. Small ecotour and nature-based tour businesses are run by the founders, which allow them to make personal connections with their visitors and specialize in one kind of experience, such as bird watching, kayak trips, or flora and fauna identification hikes (Honey, 2008).
25 To be successful, ecotourism operators need to meet the needs of a wide variety of visitors who may be extremely interested and dedicated to the environment or more casual in environmentalism (Boyd & Butler, 1996). Although businesses may attract a certain type of visitor, it is rare to have a uniform group of visitors each time, and it is the businesses’ responsibility to appeal to all types of visitors and provide the best experience possible (Burton, 1998). It is a challenge to balance both the needs of the visitors, which drives the economic success of the business, with ecotourism and sustainable principles that may ‘turn off’ visitors who are less interested in minimizing their impacts.
Despite the push from states for sustainable tourism in the form of ecotourism, many private nature-based tourism businesses market themselves as ‘ecotourism’ operations, when in reality are only providing tourism experiences in natural areas. As previously stated, ecotourism requires the following components: promoting conservation, a low visitor impact, providing for socioeconomic involvement of local people, and more recently added to its definition, an education component. What is preventing these private nature-based businesses from providing true ecotourism opportunities to visitors?
Previous studies suggest there is a lack of understanding of what ecotourism is among both visitors and business owners, as well as no communication structures that can be used to disseminate information to them (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Godfrey, 1998;
Hardy & Beeton, 2001). Businesses in the tourism industry are mostly small-scale companies that may lack both the capacity and competence to obtain and use the knowledge needed to implement an innovation (Kvam & Straete, 2010). Cooperation
26 between companies is not common, as business owners see themselves as market competitors and lack the resources to network within and outside of their business; the most successful cases of networking among tourism firms involved other organizations facilitating communications (Hjalager, 2002). McKercher and Robbins (1998) state many nature tourism business owners are trained in marketing or have an ecological background, not both, and they lack the tourism knowledge needed to properly market themselves to visitors.
This study utilizes the barriers of nature tourism businesses from McKercher and
Robbins (1998): lack of business planning, research, customer service skills, ability to cope with risks, and marketing skills. Because a major component of Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory is the communication channels of an industry, categorizing and investigating the factors that facilitate or impede the diffusion of ecotourism practices can provide state agencies with the opportunity to aid small businesses. Few previous studies examine how these ecotourism businesses learn, adopt, and diffuse sustainable tourism practices (Daphet et al., 2012). Even fewer studies specifically pinpoint innovation’s role in the expansion of nature-based tourism (Kvam & Straete, 2010).
In order to assess the sustainability of the businesses in this study, a sustainable ecotourism spectrum was created that enables the placement of each business on the spectrum based on the number of sustainable ecotourism practices currently being conducted, or interest in doing so. Honey (2008) identifies ecotourism requirements that are specific to United States tourism: natural destinations, minimal impact, building environmental awareness, direct financial benefits to conservation, financial benefits to local people, respecting local culture, and support for human rights and democratic
27 movements. Many of these principles, however, may not be feasible with the necessary tourism practices that businesses need to employ to be financially sustainable. There are over 18 different names for nature-based tourism, from green tourism to ethical tourism, each with slightly different definitions of what should be considered included
(Valentine, 1993).
In the nature-based tourism industry, there is a spectrum of operators, ranging from those who meet none of ecotourism’s criteria, or do the minimum required, to those who meet every criterion (Burton, 1998). Ziffer’s (1989) spectrum summarizes the concept of a nature-based tourism continuum and is used within this study to classify nature-tour operators as either ecotourism providers or nature-tourism providers (Figure
2-2). Ziffer identifies five major categories of tour operators (listed from nature-based unsustainable, to ecotourism sustainable): selling nature, unaware or uncaring about impacts, sensitive operators, donors that give back to the environment, and doers that initiate conservation efforts. Accompanying these major categories are more specific subdivisions that further divide the four categories into varying levels of sustainability
(listed in Figure 2). Burton (1998) explains the problem with Ziffer’s spectrum is identifying where along this continuum nature-based tourism providers become ecotourism providers. For this study, based on extensive literature review and the definition of ecotourism, nature-based tourism operators are defined as those who are aware of their impact who seek to educate visitors by providing information. Ecotourism operators are sensitive tour operators who actively seek to influence visitor attitudes and behaviors, and directly or indirectly support conservation efforts.
28 Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory
The diffusion of innovation theory is a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the way an innovation spreads through a social system. Diffusion is specifically defined as the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (Rogers, 2003).
Many elements compose the diffusion concept, but four main elements that are present in all diffusion programs are innovation, communication channels, time, and the social system (Rogers, 2003). Previous empirical studies focusing on ecotourism and agritourism related to the diffusion theory hone in on the diffusion of eco-innovations in the form of technologies and their adoption into traditional tourism businesses, such as hotels and restaurants (Bell & Ruhanen, 2016). There is a general lack of research regarding the spread of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices as an innovation within the tourism industry.
The process of the communication channel involves an innovation, an individual that has learned how to use the innovation, another individual who has not experienced the innovation, and a communication channel connecting the two units. Although basic in form, communication channels have a high influence of determining the spread of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). One of the most common causes of an innovation failure is that the participants are heterophilous, which is the degree to which individuals who interact are different in certain attributes (Rogers, 2003). Within the scope of this study, the heterophily and homophily of each participant, accompanied with the social system, will be examined as a barrier or driver to the diffusion of sustainable ecotourism or agritourism practices within the tourism industry. This will be primarily deduced through targeted internal and external driver and barrier survey questions, and supplemented by
29 a demographic analysis such as education, age, and business background. Rogers’
(2003) identifies specific demographic characteristics to correlations between rate of adoption. These will be further explained within the adopter category section.
Time is one of the most important elements when beginning to understand the innovation’s rate of adoption in a system, and overall success, yet was not be feasible to study within the scope of this study (Rogers, 2003). Instead, this research will explore innovativeness and its relation to adopter types to understand the time frame, barriers, and drivers to implementing sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices.
Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual is earlier in adopting the innovation in comparison to other members of the same social system (Rogers, 2003). Based on time to adoption, the following adopter categories classify members: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 2003). Classifying adopters into time groups can highlight important barriers and drivers to adoption of eco-innovations, and assess the important differences between those that readily adopt eco-innovations, and those that may experience more obstacles to adoption. Additional in-depth explanation of categorization within this study will be provided below.
Finally, the social system is the set of interconnected individuals, organizations, information groups, or other subsystems that work to achieve a common goal.
Understanding the various stakeholders in the social system is vital to understanding adopter categorizations, barriers, and drivers that influence the diffusion of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices. Specifically, this study will identify opinion leaders and change agents within the nature tourism and agritourism industries. An opinion leader is an actor who through social accessibility, conformity to social norms, and
30 technical competence is able to influence others in the social system to adopt an innovation (Valente & Pumpuang, 2007). Change agents are similar to opinion leaders except that they are usually professionals with expertise in the industry, rather than in the social system (Rogers, 2003). Identifying change agents and opinion leaders within the study set could identify any gaps in social systems that might prevent the diffusion of innovation, as well as identify the barriers or drivers, via institutions or organizations, that impact nature tourism and agritourism suppliers.
Rate of Adoption
Central to the adoption of an innovation and characterizing adopters is that the diffusion of an innovation is an uncertainty-reduction process (Rogers, 2003).
Individuals are more motivated to adopt an innovation that reduces risk and uncertainty, and innovations with the least amount of uncertainty have a faster rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is the relative speed that an innovation is adopted by members of the social system, usually measured within a specific time period (Rogers, 2003). The rate of adoption is the numerical indicator of the steepness of the adoption curve (Rogers,
2003). Related to the main element of time, the rate of adoption is assessed using the five perceived advantages of using sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers,
2003). These advantages, coupled with understanding the communication channels around the adoption of the innovation, and the role of change agents in the system, provide a strong basis for the rate of adoption.
Perceived Advantages of Adopting an Innovation
Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived better than another innovation or idea. The relative advantage is generally characterized and
31 observed by the members of the social system, and is positively correlated to the rate of adoption (Rodgers, 2003). For example, the relative advantage of using sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices for an ecotourism or agritourism business may be a marketing advantage for visitors specifically looking for minimal impact tourism experiences in natural areas, therefore attracting more users than others that do not implement sustainable practices. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is consistent with existing values and personal motivations of the adopter. Applying this concept to sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices may involve business owners adopting these practices because they are intrinsically motivated to help conserve the environment, educate visitors about conservation or keep their historical heritage alive.
Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is difficult to use or understand.
If an innovation is complex to learn and therefore implement, it has a lower rate of adoption. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation can be experimented with on a limited time basis. This reduces the risk and uncertainty by allowing businesses to have a trial period to make sure the innovation is advantageous. Innovators are more likely to view trialability more important than late adopters. Finally, observability is the degree to which the advantages or disadvantages of the innovation are seen by others.
The more observable the advantages of an innovation are to others, the greater its rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003).
Potential Drivers and Barriers Affecting Rate of Adoption
Identifying specific internal and external drivers and barriers to adoption can provide vital information to the social structure, as well as individual values that are impeding or promoting certain branches of ecotourism and agritourism (Bell & Ruhanen,
32 2016). Internal drivers are values the individual possesses that motivates them to adopt the innovation. Examples include financial gain, intrinsic motivation, and market advantage. External drivers are outside entities or organizations that promote the adoption and diffusion of the innovation. This can include state and government organizations, recognition from others, and change agents. Internal barriers are obstacles, predominately business related, that prevent the innovation from being adopted or implemented. These obstacles include lack of training, marketing experience, and initial startup costs. External barriers are also economic and organizational obstacles that prevent the innovation from being adopted by groups outside the social system and individual business. These may be too difficult or impossible for a business to control, such as community objections and funding support
(Bell & Ruhanen, 2016; McGeehee, 2007). A complete list of internal and external drivers and barriers included in this study is presented in Table 2-2.
Change agents and opinion leaders, or lack thereof, can represent a powerful internal on external driver or barrier. Because change agents are professionals within the related industry, they will be identified by asking ecotourism and agritourism suppliers what professional organizations, groups, or leaders they collaborate with for any tourism development. Opinion leaders, on the other hand, will pose more of a challenge to identify, as they are individuals who bring new information and disseminate them into the social system usually via word of mouth (Song et al., 2007). To identify opinion leaders, participants will be asked if they obtain any information from other organizations, individuals, groups, or other sources in their tourism network.
33 Small-sized ecotourism and agritourism operators, mainly individually owned businesses, are the focus of this study. Small businesses are defined as any organization that employs fewer than 50 people (Europa, 2003), but are not simply smaller versions of larger businesses. There are unique, specific internal and external drivers and barriers that dictate rate of adoption for small businesses (MacGregor &
Vrazalic, 2005). Past studies have shown that smaller scale, privately owned businesses are less likely to adopt innovations due to cost of implementation (Kuan &
Chau, 2001; MacGregor & Vrazalic, 2005; Kim, 2006), lack of skilled labor (Warden &
Tunzelana, 2004) and required time for change (Heung, 2003). These factors may easily be surpassed by larger corporations that have available funding to implement, research, and adopt new innovations (Abou-Shouk, 2013).
Adopter Types
Adopters of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices, as in adopters of other innovations, do not adopt the practices at the same time or in the same way.
Understanding and categorizing types of adopters and the way in which practices are adopted assists in identifying new potential users of the practices, developing separate marketing strategies for each category of adopter, and predicting the future use of the adoption of the innovation (Mahajan, 1990). Creating the adopter types depends on the number of adopter categorizations, percentage of adopters included in each category, and a process to define each category (Mahajan, 1990). Rogers (2003) suggests a widely utilized approach to define each category. It is assumed that the adopter distribution takes the profile of a normal bell-shaped curve. Using the mean time of adoption and its standard deviation attains five adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Mahajan, 1990). This method is
34 advantageous because it can be easily replicated across a broad spectrum of innovations and populations, and the normative bell-shaped curve assumes that the innovation is accepted and its usage and adoption can continue to be predicted. As shown in Figure 2-1, the majority of adopters fall into the early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggard (16%) groups.
Adopter Generalizations
Typically, innovators are individuals in the population who are the first to develop new ideas, are willing to take on a high amount of risk, and are venturesome. Early adopters are similar to innovators in intrinsic motivation to adopt the innovation, but differ in that they serve leadership roles, are well networked and respected in the community, but may still need aid with initial implementation. It is important to note that innovators have a higher threshold for risk and uncertainty, and it is independent from all other adopter categories except for innovators (Rogers, 2003). The early majority need to know the innovation is advantageous to adopt before implementing it, and adopt before the average person. The late majority are more unwilling to change and accept uncertainty, therefore, they need to be thoroughly convinced the innovation will not fail. Finally, laggards are usually forced to adopt the innovation from necessity, as they may be financially outcompeted by other businesses who adopted the innovation
(Rogers, 2003).
There are predetermined generalizations created by Rogers for categorizing each class of adopters. The criterion for adopter categorization is innovativeness, which is the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of the social system (Rogers, 2003). Rogers argued that people within each adopter category also share similar characters, which
35 can be placed under three headings: (1) socioeconomic status, (2) personality values and (3) communication behavior.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of Roger’s generalized characteristics of early adopters within the diffusion of innovation theory. For example, early adopters are generally more educated, have larger sized businesses, have the ability to deal with uncertainty and risk, are more socialized within their communities, and seek out new information on their innovations more frequently.
Because this study involved one survey and not an assessment over time,
Rogers’ adopter categories cannot be implemented. Instead, this study will only categorize participants into adopter types. Risk-takers are those participants that display a higher amount of innovativeness in relation to their business. Risk-takers encompass what Rogers’ defines as innovators or early adopters, and are the only representatives of ability to absorb risk and uncertainty.
36
Figure 2-1. Roger’s diffusion of innovation normative bell curve for adopter categories (adapted from Rogers, 2003)
37
Figure 2-2. Ziffer’s sustainability spectrum for nature-based and ecotourism providers (adapted from Burton, 2010)
38 Table 2-1. Early adopter characteristics based on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory Socioeconomic status Personal values Communication behavior More years of Greater empathy More social formal education Less dogmatism participation Higher social Greater ability to deal More highly status (income) with abstractions interconnected Greater degree Greater rationality through interpersonal of upward social More favorable networks in their mobility attitude toward social system Larger-sized change More networks units Better able to cope outside, than within, (businesses, with uncertainty and their own social companies) risk system Less fatalistic More contact with (degree to which change agents individual perceives a Greater exposure to lack of ability to mass media control his/her future) communication Higher personal and channels business aspirations Greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels Seek information about innovations more actively Greater knowledge of innovations High degree of opinion leadership
39 Table 2-2. Internal drivers and barriers to adopting sustainable tourism practices Internal External Driver Economic success Regulations (policy Social/cultural and government) motivation Recognition and Alignment with legitimacy objectives Market demand Intrinsic motivation State and local Competitive tourism advantage organizations Change agents or opinion leaders
Barrier Inexperience in Community marketing objections Lack of skilled No guarantee for workers return on Lack of investment infrastructure Funding support Liability issues and risk management Lack of small business planning Lack of education or certifications Initial cost Opportunity cost for resource allocation
Bell & Ruhanen, 2016 and McGehee, 2004
40 CHAPTER 3 METHODS
Data Collection
In this study, two questionnaires were sent out via an online survey to nature- based ecotourism and agritourism businesses across Florida. For the ecotourism and nature-based sample, businesses were identified with searches of outfitter organizations, Visit Florida marketers, and county websites. The ecotourism questionnaire contained 30 questions, though depending on the type of ecotourism provider, not all questions were answered. The agritourism businesses were identified through searches of Florida agriculture associations, Visit Florida marketers, and county websites. The Cooperative Extension Service offices in each of Florida’s 67 counties were also contacted to identify agritourism businesses that do not advertise widely. The agritourism questionnaire contained 30 questions, depending on the type of agritourism provider. Both questionnaire instruments included five sections: the sustainable tourism spectrum, risk categories, perceived advantages of the eco-innovation, internal and external drivers and barriers, and demographic information, which are described below.
The questionnaire was emailed to 894 ecotourism and 394 agritourism business owners, following the Dillman (2011) web survey guidelines. Participants were given three weeks to respond. Every Tuesday in each of the three weeks, those who had not completed the questionnaire were sent email reminders. Thank you emails were sent to those who responded on Tuesdays. In order to explore nonresponse bias, fifteen participants from each sample who did not complete the questionnaire were called to record how they differed from respondents. For the ecotourism sample, the results suggest that non-respondents were predominately outfitters and environmental
41 educators that worked for the government. For the agritourism sample, based on the responses from eight participants, the non-respondents were farmers who conducted tourism seasonally, those who recently stopped providing tourism opportunities, or vineyard and wine-tasting business owners.
Research Question 1: Sustainable Ecotourism and Agritourism Practices
The purpose of creating a sustainable behavior index is to understand what sustainable agritourism or ecotourism practices are being adopted in Florida, and if these sustainable behaviors correlate to the risk adverseness of the respondent. The respondents were given a set of sustainable agritourism or ecotourism practices established by the literature, and were given a scale to assess their usage of these practices (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). For the agritourism sample, the practices were categorized in either sustainable farm practices or tourism practices. For ecotourism and nature-based participants, the questionnaire lists 14 sustainable ecotourism practices, and participants are asked to assess if, and how often, their businesses conduct each practice. These practices were chosen based on a literature review of similar studies, such as Honey (2008), Valentine (1993), and Harris et al., (2002). For agritourism based participants, the questionnaire lists 15 sustainable agritourism practices to place participants on the sustainable agritourism spectrum. The sustainable agritourism practices were chosen based on a literature review (Goodall & Stabler 1992,
Denman 1994, Middleton & Hawkins 1998) and with World Trade Organizations standards.
Based on the range of responses, a mean for each business was calculated, placing each business into three categories- no or low practice use, medium practice
42 use, and high practice use. The ranges for each category were created by evenly dividing the highest mean score (5) by three. The sustainable behavior index groups were then used to compare and statistically analyze the relationship between adoption of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism behaviors and the level of risk taking displayed by the businesses.
Risk-taking index. Because this study did not incorporate time regarding adoption of the eco-innovation in order to establish Rogers’ five adopter categories, another method to measure the innovativeness of each business based on Rogers’ theory was used. Using Rogers’ (2003) generalizations, innovators are the most likely to participate in high risk business behaviors, therefore, in lieu of using the term
‘innovators’, this study will use ‘risk takers,’ due to the exclusivity and strong relationship to innovative behavior (Tables 3-4 and 3-9). A Likert scale was utilized, ranging from 1
(I strongly disagree) to 5 (I strongly agree). Reverse coding was conducted with the mean scores for pro-risk taking items that were in conjunction with non-risk taking items.
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for adopter type questions. A confirmatory factor analysis was preferred to an exploratory analysis because the diffusion theory was used to assume relationships between variables, and the data collected was used to see if the actual data supports the theory. In the agritourism and ecotourism sample, five adopter type factors were identified: risk takers, influenced by others, adopt for necessity, help others adopt, and reluctant without evidence of success (see Table 3-4).
Within the identified risk-taking questions from the confirmatory factor analysis, the reliability of the risk-taking questions was tested using the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient (Tables 3-13 and 3-14). The alpha coefficient for the risk-taking index
43 questions for the ecotourism and agritourism sample were 0.738 and 0.728, respectively. These Cronbach alpha values are considered acceptable (alpha > 0.70 is reliable). It is important to note that one question factored in the risk-taking behavior index that was not directly related to risk-taking behavior, which was, “influenced others to use practices.” In Roger’s diffusion theory, this characteristic represents early adopters, who are also the most adept at taking risks.
Based on businesses responses to the specific risk-taking questions identified, a mean score was calculated for each individual business respondent, giving them a ‘risk taking score.’ For the ecotourism businesses, risk takers and non-risk takers were split into two groups. Individual business’ risk-taking scores that ranged from 1 to 3 were placed in the non-risk-taking group, while businesses that scored between 3.1 to 5 were placed in the risk taker group. Due to the small sample size of agritourism business sample, businesses could not be placed into risk taking versus non-risk-taking groups, and are further analyzed as a group of the entire sample.
The data for each variable was tested for linearity using SPSS Software. Results suggest data are not normally distributed, therefore nonparametric statistical models were used. The Spearman rho correlation coefficient was calculated to measure the association between a business’s sustainable behavior index and the risk-taking index, as well as the association with perceived advantages, barriers, and drivers. The
Spearman rho correlation is used with nonparametric data to test association, scale and direction of the relationship, not to detect differences in means between groups.
44 Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages, Barriers, and Drivers
The perceived advantages of sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices assessed perceived the complexity, compatibility, trialability, observability, and relative advantage, as adapted from Rogers (2003). Questions regarding internal and external drivers and barriers were adapted from a similar study by Bell & Ruhanen (2016), who used eco-certifications as the innovation to track this diffusion within the industry.
Various barriers and drivers, supported by Silva & McDill (2004), were identified in the questionnaire and businesses were required to answer on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important) on the impacts the particular barriers and drivers had to implementing sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices (Appendix C for a full list of barriers and drivers). Based on these responses, businesses were given an individual mean score for barriers and drivers.
In the ecotourism sample, the confirmatory factor analysis identified the following perceived advantages groups: compatibility, and relative advantages (Table 3-5). The confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm attributes for trialability. Instead, complexity, trialability, and observability components factored together, creating a “contraints” category. For barriers, three groups were identified: small business planning, supporting institutions, and trainings (Table 3-6). For drivers, two groups were identified: personal and economic motivations and outside organizations (Table 3-7).
In the agritourism sample for perceived advantages of adopting eco-innovations, three groups were identified: constraints, compatibility, and relative advantages (Table
3-10). For barriers, four groups were identified: customer relations, supporting institutions, small business planning, and cost (Table 3-11). For drivers, three groups
45 were identified: outside organizations, social motivations, and policy and markets (
Table 3-12).
A Spearman rho correlation coefficient was calculated for each variable to test the association between barriers, drivers, perceived advantages and constraints, risk- taking behavior and the sustainable behavior index. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the differences between the medium use practice and high use practice group’s perceptions of barriers, drivers, and perceived advantages and constraints, only within the ecotourism sample. The agritourism sample did not have a reliable sample size for all tested variables (n>30) so the Mann-Whitney U test could not be implemented. This test is used to compare differences between two independent groups with an ordinal dependent variable and not normally distributed data (non- linear). In order for this test to be successful, the analysis is only used for variables that are exactly the same between the samples. The agritourism sample did not have a reliable sample size for all tested variables (n>30) and could not implement the Mann-
Whitney U test.
Research Question 3: Differences and Similarities of Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers
The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the differences between the agritourism and ecotourism sample. Only the variables that were exactly the same between the two samples were analyzed. The Mann-Whitney U test results highlight the associations between how the agritourism and ecotourism sample perceive each variable, allowing conclusions to be drawn about differences in perceived advantages and constraints, demographics, barriers, and drivers to adopting sustainable tourism behaviors.
46 Table 3-1. Summary of sustainable ecotourism practices listed in the questionnaire Help visitors understand the impact of unsustainable tourism Aware of impacts caused by tourism practices, and actively tries to prevent or reverse any impacts Make sure to follow state and local regulations for ecotourism Go above state and local regulations to minimize impacts Provide information about conservation practices Provide information about ecology and the environment Provide information to change visitors’ attitudes about sustainability and the environment Provide in person interpretive tours Provide information via brochures and signs Support local conservation activities Practice minimum impact tourism Act to improve the environment and restore damage in natural areas you may not bring visitors to Influence policy and management to sustainability Employ local employees (at least 50% of workforce)
47 Table 3-2. Summary of sustainable agritourism practices listed in the questionnaire Sustainable farm practices Protection or propagation of native plants Wildlife habitat improvement Organic farming methods Farm waste management Water conservation Have organic certifications and renew when needed Tourism practices Educational tours about farm practices Hands-on educational demonstration for tourists Wildlife habitat improvement Infrastructure for tourists Support conservation efforts Actively seek to influence tourists’ behaviors Employ local employees (at least 50% of workforce) Have education certifications and renew when needed Provide fresh regional produce and/or meals to tourists “Green” overnight lodging
Table 3-3. Cronbach alpha values for tested factors for the ecotourism sample Cronbach alpha Adopter types 0.746 Perceived advantages and constraints 0.712 Barriers 0.887 Drivers 0.793
48 Table 3-4. Factor loadings for adopter categories for the ecotourism sample Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 Adopter types Risk takers Willing to take financial 0.962 risk Accept a high amount 0.824 of uncertainty Influenced others to use 0.614 practices Influenced by others Saw others using these 0.96 practices Influenced by other 0.854 businesses Adopt for necessity Outcompeted by others 0.944 Need outlined details to 0.670 start Last business to use 0.651 practices Help others implement Results of practices 0.783 visible to others New ways to improve 0.691 practices People ask my opinion 0.507 Reluctant without evidence of success Worried about the risk 0.722 of using practices Need to see other 0.633 businesses successful Unwilling to use 0.609 Eigenvalue 3.789 3.053 2.251 1.602 1.230 Percent of variance 23.66 19.08 14.07 10.01 7.68 explained Cumulative variance 23.66 42.74 56.81 66.82 74.51
49 Table 3-5. Factor loadings for perceived advantages and constraints of the eco- innovation for the ecotourism sample Factor loadings Perceived 1 2 3 advantages and constraints Constraints Need time 0.704 redesigning Implement on 0.679 limited time basis Difficult and 0.673 complex to learn Need to see other 0.597 business success Compatibility Personal 0.963 motivations Consistent with 0.887 existing values Relative advantage Increased tourists 0.785 0.757 Increased profits Enhanced status 0.679 in community
Eigenvalue 3.489 2.238 1.633 Percent of 26.84 17.22 12.56 variance explained Cumulative 26.84 44.01 56.62 variance
50 Table 3-6. Factor loadings for barriers to adopting eco-innovations for ecotourism Factor loadings Barriers 1 2 3 Small business planning Lack of small business 0.622 planning Infrastructure 0.634 Supply of skilled workers 0.567 Liability issues 0.722 Initial cost 0.566 Marketing 0.698 Supporting institutions State and local 0.717 organization aid No funding support 0.797 Community objections 0.639 No guaranteed return on 0.753 investments Training Customer service training 0.881 Education 0.656 Help from outside 0.519 organizations Interested tourists 0.417
Eigenvalue 6.035 1.946 1.018 Percent of variance 43.109 13.900 7.274 explained Cumulative variance (%) 43.109 57.010 64.284
51 Table 3-7. Factor loadings for drivers of the eco-innovation for the ecotourism sample Factor loadings Drivers 1 2 Personal and economic motives Social or cultural 0.795 motivation Alignment with objectives 0.692 Market demand 0.557 Recognition and 0.468 legitimacy Economic success 0.423 Outside organizations State and local 0.731 organization aid Professionals in industry 0.700 The Extension Service 0.580 Regulations 0.514
Eigenvalue 3.589 1.371 Percent of variance 39.875 15.234 explained Cumulative variance (%) 39.875 55.109
Table 3-8. Cronbach alpha values for tested factors for the agritourism sample Cronbach alpha Adopter types 0.731 Perceived advantages and constraints 0.725 Barriers 0.843 Drivers 0.747
52 Table 3-9. Factor loadings for adopter categories for the agritourism sample Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 Adopter types Risk takers Willing to take financial 0.962 risk Accept a high amount 0.824 of uncertainty Influenced others to 0.614 use practices Influenced by others Saw others using these 0.96 practices Influenced by other 0.854 businesses Adopt from necessity Outcompeted by others 0.944 Need outlined details to 0.670 start Last business to use 0.651 practices Help others implement Results of practices 0.783 visible to others New ways to improve 0.691 practices People ask my opinion 0.507 Reluctant without evidence of success Worried about the risk 0.722 of using practices Need to see other 0.633 businesses successful Unwilling to use 0.609 Eigenvalue 3.789 3.053 2.251 1.602 1.230 Percent of variance 23.66 19.08 14.07 10.01 7.68 explained Cumulative variance 23.66 42.74 56.81 66.82 74.51
.
53 Table 3-10. Factor loadings for perceived advantages and constraints of the eco- innovation for the agritourism sample Factor loadings Perceived advantages 1 2 3 and constraints Relative Advantage Enhanced status 0.839 Increased tourists 0.832 Visible results 0.828 Easy to integrate 0.823 Easy for employees 0.732 to learn Compatibility Consistent with 0.843 existing values Consistent with 0.843 personal motivations Everyone should 0.674 use Constraints Need time 0.845 redesigning Difficult and 0.792 complex to learn Tried on trial basis 0.568
Eigenvalue 4.38 2.18 1.72 Percent of variance 36.5 28.17 14.41 explained Cumulative variance 36.5 54.67 69.08
54 Table 3-11. Factor loadings for barriers for the agritourism sample Factor Loadings Barriers 1 2 3 4 Customer relations Interested tourists 0.810 Infrastructure 0.756 Supply of skilled workers 0.713 Liability issues 0.585 Initial cost 0.528 0.519 Customer service training 0.406 No supporting institutions State and local 0.939 organization aid No funding support 0.737 0.543 Community objections 0.662 Small business planning Lack of small business 0.798 planning Marketing 0.684 Education 0.523 Cost No guaranteed return on 0.817 investments
Eigenvalue 5.05 2.54 1.36 1.06 Percent of variance 36.1 18.2 9.7 7.6 explained Cumulative variance (%) 36.1 54.3 64.0 71.5
55 Table 3-12. Factor loadings for drivers of the eco-innovation for the agritourism sample Factor Loadings Drivers 1 2 3 Outside organizations Professionals in tourism 0.945 industry State and local tourism 0.868 organizations The Extension Service 0.648 Social motivations Educate visitors about 0.891 agricultural story Social or cultural 0.617 motivation Alignment with objectives 0.609 Economic success 0.515 Policy and markets Recognition and 0.827 legitimacy Regulations 0.728 Market demand 0.494
Eigenvalue 2.515 2.311 1.882 Percent of variance 25.15 23.11 18.81 explained Cumulative variance (%) 25.15 48.26 67.01
56 Table 3-13. Reliability of innovation index for ecotourism Statement Mean Standard Cronbach F-value Significance deviation alpha Influenced others 4.16 0.756 0.738 122.434 0.000 to use practices Willing to take a 2.95 1.107 high financial risk to use innovation Willing to accept 3.15 1.062 a high amount of uncertainty to use innovation
Table 3-14. Reliability of innovation index for agritourism Statement Mean Standard Cronbach F-value Significance deviation alpha Influenced others 3.28 0.944 0.728 5.454 0.006 to use practices Willing to take a 2.74 1.163 high financial risk to use innovation Willing to accept 2.77 1.224 a high amount of uncertainty to use innovation
57 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
Socioeconomic Information
Agritourism participants were predominately 36 to 55 years old (29.8%) and 56 to
75 years old (29.8%), with a Bachelor’s degree (21.3%), earning an income from tourism between $0 to $29,000 (23.4%) and have 1 to 400 annual tourists (42.6%) (
Table 4-1). Ecotourism participants were between the ages of 56 to 75 (44.2%), with a
Bachelor’s degree (31.2%), earning an income above $90,000 (14.5%), and have more than 800 tourists visit their facilities per year (47.1%) (Table 4-2).
Research Question 1: Sustainable Ecotourism and Agritourism Practices
For the agritourism sample, the top three sustainable farm practices based on means were conserve water (M=3.41, SD=1.339), conserve wildlife habitat (M=2.72,
SD= 1.433), and farm waste management (M= 2.58, SD= 1.537). The lowest three sustainable farm practices implemented were organic certifications (M=1.64, SD=
0.800), protection and propagation of native plants (M= 2.33, SD= 1.354), and organic farming methods (M= 2.44, SD= 1.449).
The top three tourism practices were influence attitudes and behaviors of tourists
(M=3.210, SD=1.405), employ local people (M=3.17, SD=1.593), provide infrastructure for tourists (M=3.17, SD=1.451), and educational tours about farm practices (M=2.92,
SD= 1.222). Alternatively, the lowest three tourism behaviors based on means were green lodging (M=1.64, SD=1.058), education certifications (M=2.52, SD=1.422), and hands on educational demonstrations (M=2.65, SD= 1.266). Means were recalculated to represent the risk taking and non-risk-taking group within the agritourism sample.
Non-risk takers had higher means associated each listed practice or behavior, indicating
58 that this group participates in these practices more than the risk-taking group (Table 4-
3). Overall, there was more implementation of tourism practices than farm practices.
For the ecotourism sample, the top three sustainable behaviors based on means were practicing minimum impact tourism (M=4.42, SD=.9166), supporting local conservation activities (M=4.36, .9373), and providing information about ecology and the environment (M=4.35, SD=.9759). The lowest three sustainable behaviors based on means were employing local employees (M=3.82, SD=1.490), influencing policy and management (M=3.77, SD=1.244), and helping visitors understand the impact of sustainable tourism (M=3.64, SD= 1.177). Means for the risk taking and non-risk-taking group within the ecotourism sample varied based on practices and behaviors. The non- risk-taking group had higher means regarding supporting local conservation efforts, provide information about conservation, go above and beyond local and state regulations for tourism, act to improve the environment (restoring damage in areas you don’t bring visitors to), and provide information via information and brochures (Table 4-
4).
The results of the Spearman rho coefficient test for the agritourism sample indicate a weak positive linear relationship between risk taking behavior (index) and implementing sustainable behaviors (r(37)= 0.352, p< .05, Table 4-5). For the ecotourism sample, the Spearman rho correlation coefficient test showed that there was no statistically significant association between the sustainable behavior index and the risk-taking index, and the results were not shown in Table 4-6.
59 Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Barriers, and Drivers
Agritourism
In terms of the perceived advantages and constraints of adopting sustainable agritourism practices, the agritourism respondents perceive compatibility as the most beneficial advantage of adoption, and constraints as the least influential variable for adoption. The non-risk taker group had higher constraint means over the risk-taking group. The medium practice use group had higher means than the high practice use group in the relative advantage and trialability of the adoption (Table 4-8).
Regarding barriers to adopting sustainable agritourism practices, the top three barriers were interested tourists (M=3.51, SD=1.077), no guarantee return on investment (M=3.49, SD=1.075), liability issues (M=3.50, SD=1.065), and initial cost
(M=3.50, SD=.969). The lowest three barriers were education (M=2.90, SD=.983), lack of small business planning (M=2.91, SD=1.171), and community objections (M=2.95,
SD=1.303). Overall, the medium practice use group had higher means than the high practice use group, except in the case of state and local organization aid and marketing, where the high practice use group viewed those variables as larger barriers to adoption.
Compared to the non-risk taker group, the risk-taking group had higher means for every barrier except for community objections, although the difference is marginal (Table 4-9).
The top three drivers to adoption for the agritourism sample were economic success (M=4.36, SD=.685), market demand (M=4.30, SD=.674), and educating visitors about their agricultural story (M=4.09, SD=.750). The lowest three drivers were social or cultural motivation (M=3.58, SD=1.052), professionals in the industry (M=3.60,
SD=1.061), and the Cooperative Extension Service (M=3.86, SD=.843). The high
60 practice use group had higher means than the medium practice use group, except for market demand, where the medium use group perceived market demand as a greater driver to adoption than the high practice use group. The non-risk-taking group had lower means than the risk-takers across all variables (Table 4-10).
A Spearman’s correlation was run to assess the relationship between all variables in this study, and found weak positive relationships between lack of supporting institutions (barrier) and outside organizations (driver, rs=.389, p=.017), age and cost
(barrier, rs=.359, p=.034), and customer relations (barrier) and social motivations
(driver, rs=.343, p=.033). There is a positive moderate relationship between social motivations and sustainable agritourism behaviors (rs=.406, p=.010) and between small business planning (barrier) and outside organizations (drivers, rs=.389, p=.017).
Moderate negative relationships exist between cost and trialability (rs=-.400, p=.039) and between small business planning and income (rs=-.555, p=.005). The variables that correlated within the same groups (i.e. barriers with barriers) were not assessed, as a strong correlation could be a result from being in the same group (Table 4-5).
Ecotourism
For the ecotourism sample, compatibility was also the most beneficial advantage of adoption. The risk-taking group had higher means in the relative advantage and compatibility of adoption than the non-risk-taking group. The medium practice use group had lower means than the high practice use group for relative advantage, and scored similarly with the high practice use for trialability and compatibility factors (Table 4-11).
For the ecotourism sample, the top three barriers to adoption are no funding support (M=3.31, SD=1.207), lack of interested tourists (M=3.11, SD=1.319), and lack of state and local organization aid (M=3.10, SD=1.253). The lowest three barriers to
61 adoption are lack of small business planning (M=2.42, SD=1.104), customer service training (M=2.55, SD=1.138), education (M=2.55, SD=1.161), and community objections
(M=2.58, SD=1.190). The medium practice use and high practice use groups had a similarity of means, except with lack of small business training, no guarantee return of investment, and interested tourists, where the medium practice use group perceived these factors as more of a barrier than the high practice use group (Table 4-12).
For the ecotourism sample, the top three drivers to adoption were alignment with objectives (M=4.44, SD=.455), market demand (M=4.28, SD=.771), and recognition and legitimacy (M=4.19, SD=.803). The lowest three drivers were the Cooperative Extension
Service (M=3.47, SD=.981), economic success (M=3.59, SD=1.042), and regulations
(M=3.89, SD=1.008). The high practice use group had higher means than the medium practice use group in all variables except the Cooperative Extension Service. Overall, the non-risk-taking group had higher means than the risk-taking group, except for economic success and professionals in the industry (Table 4-13).
The Spearman rho correlation test found weak positive relationships between relative advantage and outside organizations (driver, rs=.302, p=.001), compatibility and personal/economic motivation (driver, rs=.360, p=.001) and compatibility and outside organizations (rs=.360, p=.001). There is a weak negative relationship between relative advantage, small business planning (barrier, rs=-.235, p.013) and supporting institutions
(barrier, rs=-.300, p=.002). For compatibility, there is also a weak negative relationship between small business planning (barrier, rs=-.305, p=.001) and income (rs=-.277, p=.029). Finally, a weak negative relationship exists between personal/economic
62 motivation (driver), supporting institutions (barrier, rs=-.372, p=.001) and training
(barrier, rs=-.235, p=.012) (Table 4-6).
A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to analyze the differences in medium and high practice use groups within the ecotourism sample (Table 4-7). The only statistically significant results indicate that the medium use group values social motivation and alignment with objectives more than the high practice usage group.
Research Question 3: Differences and Similarities of Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers
Risk-taking and Sustainable Tourism Behavior
The results of the Mann-Whitney U test provide information regarding which sample, either the agritourism or ecotourism group, had a higher statistically significant median score than the other group. This allows conclusions to be drawn about the differences of perceived barriers, drivers and advantages of adopting the eco- innovations across the two samples. The risk-taking behavior (U=1456.20, p=.001) and sustainable tourism behaviors (U=2158, p=.001) of the ecotourism group were statistically higher than that of the agritourism group (Table 4-13).
Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Barriers, and Drivers
For perceived advantages the ecotourism sample ranked statistically higher than the agritourism sample in relative advantage (U=1743, p=.002), and compatibility
(U=635.50, p=.001). Constraints in the agritourism sample was statistically higher than the ecotourism sample (U=1599, p=.001) (Table 4-14). The ecotourism sample only ranked higher for the following barriers: customer service training (U=1482, p=.013) and education (U=1602, p=.014). The agritourism sample ranked statistically higher in the following barrier variables: small business planning (U=1631, p=.031), lack of skilled
63 workers (U=1396.50, p=.001), liability and risk management (U=1583.50, p=.02), initial cost (U=1336, p=.002), marketing (U=1555.50, p=.005), community objections
(U=1533.50, p=.029), and no guaranteed return on investment (U=1448.50, p=.008)
(Table 4-15).
For drivers, the ecotourism sample ranked higher in social/cultural motivation
(U=144.50, p=.002), alignment with objectives (U=1530, p=.003), and professionals in the industry (U=1580, p=.031). The agritourism sample ranked statistically higher in economic success (U=1168, p=.000) and the Cooperative Extension Service (U=1575, p=.050) (Table 4-16).
64 Table 4-1. Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic profiles for agritourism respondents (n=49) Whole sample (%) Income from tourists $0-29,999 23.4 $30,000-59,000 14.9 $60,000-89,000 2.1 $90,000+ 10.6 Prefer not to answer 48.9 Age 18-35 12.8 36-55 29.8 56-75 29.8 75+ 4.3 Prefer not to answer 23.4 Education GED/High School 6.4 Some college 19.1 Technical degree 8.5 Bachelor’s degree 21.3 Master’s degree 17.0 Doctoral degree 4.3 Prefer not to answer 23.4 Number of tourists 1-400 tourists 42.6 401-800 tourists 8.5 801+ tourists 25.5 Prefer not to answer 23.4
65 Table 4-2. Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic profiles for ecotourism respondents (n=138) Whole sample (%) Income from tourists $0-29,999 13.8 $30,000-59,000 10.9 $60,000-89,000 7.2 $90,000+ 14.5 Prefer not to answer 53.6 Age 18-35 5.1 36-55 23.9 56-75 44.2 75+ 2.2 Prefer not to answer 24.6 Education GED/High School 0.7 Some college 16.7 Technical degree 2.9 Bachelor’s degree 31.2 Master’s degree 22.5 Doctoral degree 4.3 Prefer not to answer 21.7 Number of tourists 1-400 tourists 21.0 401-800 tourists 11.6 801+ tourists 47.1 Prefer not to answer 20.3
66 Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics for sustainable agritourism practices Whole Std. Variance Risk Non- Sample Deviation taker risk Mean (n=19) taker (n=54) (n= 35) Sustainable 2.52 1.65 2.71 farm practices Water conservation 3.41 1.339 1.793 2.41 3.26 Wildlife habitat 2.72 1.433 2.053 1.75 2.80 improvement Farm waste 2.58 1.537 2.363 1.42 2.60 management Organic farming 2.44 1.449 2.101 1.42 2.33 methods Protection or 2.33 1.354 1.832 1.75 2.31 propagation of native plants Organic certifications 1.64 .800 .639 1.16 2.96 Tourism 2.77 1.66 2.83 practices Influence attitudes 3.21 1.405 1.974 1.91 3.31 and behaviors of tourists Employ locals 3.17 1.593 2.538 1.91 3.34 Infrastructure for 3.17 1.451 2.105 1.67 3.33 tourists Educational tours 2.92 1.222 1.494 1.67 2.93 about farm practices Fresh local meals to 2.87 1.481 2.194 1.83 2.96 tourists Support conservation 2.81 1.481 2.194 1.50 2.80 efforts Hands-on 2.65 1.266 1.603 1.72 2.53 educational demonstrations for tourists Education 2.53 1.422 2.023 1.58 2.80 certifications Green lodging 1.64 1.058 1.119 1.16 1.53
67 Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for sustainable ecotourism practices Sustainable Whole Std. Variance Risk- Non-risk behavior/practice Sample Deviation taker taker (n=41) Mean (n=76) (n=140) Practice minimum 4.42 .9166 .840 4.43 4.41 impact tourism Support local 4.36 .9373 .878 4.30 4.32 conservation activities Provide information 4.35 .9759 .952 4.40 4.28 about ecology and the environment Provide information 4.30 .9740 .949 4.28 4.36 about conservation practices Make sure to follow 4.27 .9165 .840 4.36 4.25 state and local regulations about ecotourism Provide information 4.15 1.076 1.158 4.19 4.16 to change visitors’ attitudes about sustainability Provide in person 4.14 1.231 1.515 4.30 3.98 interpretive tours Aware of impacts 4.04 1.089 1.187 4.11 4.07 caused by tourism, tries to prevent or reverse impacts Go above state and 4.03 1.100 1.211 4.02 4.08 local regulations to minimize impacts Act to improve 4.02 1.132 1.282 3.96 4.05 environment; restore damage in areas you do not bring visitors to Provide information 3.90 1.200 1.439 3.64 4.00 via brochures and signs Employ local 3.82 1.490 2.220 4.08 3.74 employees Influence policy and 3.77 1.244 1.548 3.73 3.82 management Help visitors 3.64 1.177 1.384 3.60 3.72 understand impact of sustainable tourism
68 Table 4-5. Spearman rho correlation coefficient for agritourism Agritourism Sustainab Compatibili Social Custo Supportin Small Cost le ty motivatio mer g busines agritouris n (driver) relatio institution s m ns s planning behavior (barrier) total Risk rs .352* taking Si .028 index total g Sustainabl rs .406* e rs agritouris Si .010 m g behavior total Age rs .359 * Si .034 g Income rs -.555** Si .005 g Trialability rs - .400 * Si .039 g Relative rs .436** advantage Si .003 g Outside rs .389* .525** organizati Si .017 .001 on g (drivers) Social rs .343* motivation Si .033 (drivers) g Customer rs .613** relations Si .000 g Supporting rs .357* .388 institutions * Si .033 .018 g
69 Table 4-6. Spearman rho correlation coefficient for ecotourism Ecotourism Trial Compati Personal/ec Outside Small Suppo Train abilit bility onomic organiza busin rting ing y motivation tions ess institut plann ions ing Risk taking rs .199* index total Sig .044 Income rs -.277* Sig .029 Relative rs .536** .302** - -.300** advantage .235* Sig .000 .001 .013 .002
Compatibilit rs .360** .360** - -.372** - y .305* .235* * Sig .000 .000 .001 .000 .012 Personal/ec rs .403** onomic Sig .000 motivation Small rs .415** .361* business * planning Sig .000 .000 Supporting rs .301* institutions * Sig .001
70 Table 4-7. Mann-Whitney U test results for medium versus high practice use groups for ecotourism sample Variable Group Mean Sum of Mann- Wilcoxon W Z rank ranks Whitney U Social or cultural Medium 81.92 9853.50 1232.50 2034.50 -3.329 motivation* High 53.29 2034.50 Alignment with Medium 118.84 16757 772 2185 -8.540 objectives** High 40.72 2185
71 Table 4-8. Descriptive statistics for perceived advantages of sustainable agritourism behaviors Perceived Whole Std. Variance Risk taker Non-risk taker No use Medium High use advantage sample dev mean mean (n=54) (n=3) use (n=11) (n=49) mean (n=9) (n=63) Relative 3.64 3.69 3.36 advantage Increased 3.72 .938 .880 3.00 3.82 2.00 3.76 3.50 tourists Enhanced 3.57 .889 .791 3.20 3.61 1.00 3.58 3.50 status in community Results visible 3.60 .919 .844 3.40 3.63 1.00 3.68 3.16 to others Easy to 3.86 .884 .782 3.80 3.87 2.00 3.90 3.67 integrate with current resources Easy for 3.46 .832 .693 3.40 3.47 1.00 3.54 3.00 employees Compatibilit 4.05 4.02 4.22 y Consistent with 4.30 .659 .435 4.00 4.33 1.00 4.26 4.50 existing values Consistent with 4.26 .650 .423 4.25 4.25 3.00 4.22 4.50 personal motivations Everyone 3.59 .778 .605 3.40 3.62 2.00 3.58 3.66 should adopt Trialability 2.91 2.96 2.61 Need time 2.89 1.027 1.055 2.60 2.92 2.00 2.87 3.00 redesigning Difficult and 2.75 .882 .778 2.40 2.79 2.00 2.79 2.50 complex to learn Willing to 3.09 .935 .875 3.20 3.07 1.00 3.22 2.33 implement on limited time basis
72 Table 4-9. Descriptive statistics for barriers to adoption for agritourism participants Barrier Whole sample Std. Variance Risk taker Non-risk No use Medium High use mean (n=43) dev mean taker mean (n=3) use (n=29) (n=14) (n=12) (n=31) Customer 3.40 3.67 3.24 3.57 3.19 relations Interested tourists 3.51 1.077 1.161 3.89 3.24 2.33 3.68 3.11 Infrastructure 3.43 .966 .934 3.78 3.28 2.33 3.56 3.56 Supply of skilled 3.43 1.039 1.080 3.78 3.38 2.33 3.60 3.67 workers Liability issues 3.50 1.065 1.134 3.33 3.24 2.33 3.48 3.11 Initial cost 3.50 .969 .939 4.00 3.24 2.33 3.84 2.78 Customer service 3.00 .961 .961 3.22 3.04 2.33 3.26 2.89 training Supporting 3.26 3.53 3.32 3.43 3.46 institutions State and local 3.37 1.157 1.338 3.70 3.26 2.50 3.24 3.75 organization aid No funding support 3.46 1.185 1.401 3.80 3.41 2.50 3.52 3.50 Community 2.95 1.303 1.698 3.10 3.30 2.33 3.52 3.13 objections Small business 2.97 3.52 2.91 3.13 3.07 planning Lack of small 2.91 1.171 1.372 3.33 2.79 2.33 3.00 3.00 business planning Marketing 3.12 1.194 1.425 3.89 3.07 2.33 3.24 3.44 Education 2.90 .983 .966 3.33 2.86 2.33 3.16 2.78 Cost No guaranteed return 3.49 1.075 1.156 4.40 3.30 2.50 3.72 3.25 on investments
73 Table 4-10. Descriptive statistics for drivers to adoption for agritourism participants Driver Whole Std. Var Risk Non-risk No Medium High sample dev taker taker use use use mean mean mean (n=3) (n=29) (n=14) (n=43) (n=12) (n=31) Outside 3.80 3.87 3.75 3.75 4.07 organizations Professionals in 3.60 1.061 1.125 3.60 3.61 3.00 3.60 3.80 tourism industry State and local 3.93 .921 .848 4.00 3.82 3.00 3.80 4.30 tourism organizations The Extension 3.86 .843 .711 4.00 3.81 3.50 3.84 4.11 Service Social 4.03 4.10 3.95 3.99 4.23 motivations Educate visitors 4.09 .750 .563 4.10 3.86 2.67 4.00 4.10 about agricultural story Social or cultural 3.58 1.052 1.106 3.70 3.55 2.00 3.68 3.80 motivation Alignment with 4.07 .789 .623 4.00 4.03 4.00 3.92 4.30 objectives Economic 4.36 .685 .469 4.60 4.34 4.00 4.35 4.70 success Policy and 4.09 4.30 3.94 4.14 4.03 markets Recognition and 4.00 .826 .683 4.20 3.86 3.00 4.00 4.10 legitimacy Regulations 3.98 .975 .951 4.30 3.79 3.00 4.00 4.00 Market demand 4.30 .674 .454 4.40 4.18 4.00 4.42 4.00
74 Table 4-11. Descriptive statistics for perceived advantages of sustainable ecotourism behaviors Perceived Whole Std. Variance Risk Non-risk No use Medium High use advantage sample dev taker taker mean (n=3) use (n=34) (n=66) mean mean (n=47) (n=128) (n=81) Relative 3.73 3.51 3.81 advantage Increased tourists 3.77 .790 .624 3.96 3.65 2.00 3.53 3.85
Enhances status 3.96 .834 .695 4.02 3.92 2.00 3.80 4.01 in community Increased profit 3.47 .983 .966 3.60 3.39 2.00 3.20 3.56 Trialability 2.41 2.45 2.41 Need time 2.26 .949 .901 2.17 2.31 1.00 2.47 2.19 redesigning Try on a limited 2.76 1.072 1.150 2.47 2.93 3.00 2.72 2.77 time basis Difficult and 2.11 .861 .741 2.04 2.16 3.00 2.10 2.12 complex to learn Need to see other 2.54 .979 .959 2.48 2.57 1.00 2.53 2.54 businesses succeed Compatibility 4.53 4.48 4.55 Consistent with 4.69 .558 .311 4.77 4.65 3.00 4.69 4.70 personal motivations Consistent with 4.70 .542 .293 4.72 4.68 2.00 4.70 4.70 existing values Everyone should 4.43 .768 .590 4.51 4.39 2.00 4.47 4.42 adopt Easy to integrate 4.30 .798 .637 4.51 4.17 2.00 4.07 4.38 with current resources
75 Table 4-12. Descriptive statistics for barriers to adoption for ecotourism respondents Barrier Whole Std. Variance Risk Non-risk No use Medium High use sample dev taker taker mean (n=3) use (n=34) (n=66) mean mean (n=47) (n=128) (n=81) Small 2.74 2.84 2.60 2.79 2.73 business planning Lack of small 2.42 1.104 1.219 2.73 2.13 2.00 2.63 2.37 business planning Infrastructure 3.08 1.288 1.660 3.19 2.85 3.00 3.00 3.09 Supply of skilled 2.81 1.219 1.487 2.91 2.69 3.00 2.75 2.83 workers Liability issues 2.78 1.250 1.562 2.95 2.59 3.00 2.88 2.74 Initial cost 2.73 1.131 1.279 2.64 2.87 3.00 2.83 2.70 Marketing 2.63 1.254 1.599 2.61 2.49 1.00 2.67 2.63 Supporting 3.01 3.00 3.00 3.06 3.03 institutions State and local 3.10 1.253 1.569 3.18 3.02 1.00 3.13 3.14 organization aid No funding support 3.31 1.207 1.457 3.20 3.35 4.00 3.35 3.31 Community 2.58 1.190 1.416 2.51 2.61 1.00 2.52 2.64 objections No guaranteed 3.06 1.204 1.450 3.09 3.02 2.00 3.22 3.04 return on investments Training 2.71 2.73 2.65 2.89 2.65 Customer service 2.55 1.138 1.294 2.56 2.56 4.00 2.67 2.51 training Education 2.55 1.161 1.348 2.55 2.46 4.00 2.50 2.54 Help from outside 2.63 1.208 1.459 2.70 2.61 4.00 2.55 organizations Interested tourists 3.11 1.319 1.739 3.09 2.98 4.00 3.38 2.99
76 Table 4-13. Descriptive statistics for drivers to adoption for ecotourism participants Drivers Whole Std. Var Risk Non-risk No Medium High sample dev taker taker use use use mean mean mean (n=3) (n=34) (n=66 ) (n=128) (n=81) (n=47) Personal/ 4.13 4.15 4.17 3.83 4.25 economic motivations Social or cultural 4.18 .841 .707 4.18 4.27 4.50 3.75 4.35 motivation Alignment with 4.44 .674 .455 4.38 4.48 4.50 4.00 4.56 objectives Market demand 4.28 .771 .595 4.22 4.33 4.50 3.92 4.36 Recognition and 4.19 .803 .644 4.11 4.25 4.00 4.04 4.24 legitimacy Economic 3.59 1.042 1.085 3.85 3.52 3.50 3.42 3.75 success Outside 3.85 3.82 3.85 3.80 3.84 organizations State and local 4.03 .818 .669 3.95 4.00 4.00 3.92 3.96 organization aid Professionals in 4.02 .917 .841 4.13 3.94 3.50 3.79 4.08 industry The Extension 3.47 .981 .962 3.47 3.48 3.00 3.75 3.40 Service Regulations 3.89 1.008 1.016 3.72 3.96 3.00 3.75 3.93
77 Table 4-14. Mann-Whitney U test for risk-taking and sustainable tourism practices for ecotourism and agritourism comparison Variable Group Mean Sum of Mann- Wilcoxon W Z rank ranks Whitney U Risk taking Eco 84.94 9853.50 1456.50 2236.50 -3.349 behavior** Ag 57.35 2236.50 Sustainable Eco 118.84 16757 727 2158 -8.640 tourism Ag 40.72 2158 behavior**
Table 4-15. Mann-Whitney U test for perceived advantages for ecotourism and agritourism comparison Variable Group Mean Sum of Mann- Wilcoxon W Z rank ranks Whitney U Trialability** Eco 74.61 9102 1599 9102 -4.008 Ag 108.16 4759 Relative Eco 98.89 13153 1743 2778 -4.206 advantage** Ag 61.73 2778 Compatibility** Eco 100.29 12235.50 635.50 1625.50 -7.731 Ag 36.94 1625.5
78 Table 4-16. Mann-Whitney U test for barriers to adoption for ecotourism and agritourism comparison Variable Group Mean Sum of Mann- Wilcoxon W Z rank ranks Whitney U Lack of small Eco 71.81 8186 1631 8186 -2.560 business Ag 92.18 3595 planning* Infrastructure Eco 72.02 8066 1738 8066 -1.741 Ag 85.76 3259 Supply of skilled Eco 70.54 8182.50 1396.50 8182.50 -3.511 workers** Ag 98.75 3752.50 Liability* Eco 70.64 7911.50 1583.50 7911.50 -2.146 Ag 89.83 3413.50 Initial cost** Eco 68.43 7664 1336 7664 -3.550 Ag 96.34 3661 Marketing** Eco 70.77 7996.50 1555.50 7996.50 -2.818 Ag 93.12 3631.50 State and local Eco 71.25 7695.50 1809.50 7695.50 -.881 organizations Ag 78.09 2889.50 No funding Eco 72.06 7854 1859 7854 -.736 support Ag 77.76 2877 Community Eco 68.70 7419.50 1533.50 7419.50 -2.180 objections* Ag 85.55 3165.50 No guarantee on Eco 68.29 7443.50 1448.50 7443.50 -2.653 return on Ag 83.85 3287.50 investment** Customer Eco 69.73 7810 1482 7810 -2.485 service training* Ag 89.33 3216 Education* Eco 70.80 7930 1602 7930 -2.351 Ag 89.34 3395 Interested Eco 73.11 8261 1802 8261 -1.663 tourists Ag 86.33 3367
79 Table 4-17. Mann-Whitney U test for drivers to adoption for ecotourism and agritourism comparison Variable Group Mean Sum of Mann- Wilcoxon W Z rank ranks Whitney U Social or cultural Eco 79.50 8506.50 1444.50 2224.50 -3.025 motivation** Ag 57.04 2224.50 Alignment with Eco 79.70 8528 1530 2350 -2.922 objectives** Ag 58.75 2350 Market demand Eco 74.15 7934.50 296.50 2796.50 -.337 Ag 71.71 2796.50 Recognition and Eco 76.36 8170 1674 2415 -1.754 legitimacy Ag 63.55 2415 Economic Eco 64.92 6946 1168 6946 -4.442 success** Ag 98.30 3932 State and local Eco 73.46 7786.50 1912.50 2653.50 -.493 organization Ag 69.83 2653.50 Professionals in Eco 77.23 8264 1580 2321 -2.154 the industry* Ag 61.08 2321 The Cooperative Eco 68.72 7353 1575 7353 -1.957 Extension Ag 83.43 3087 Service* Regulations Eco 72.95 7805.50 2027.50 7805.50 -.026 Ag 73.14 2779.50
80 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
Research Question 1: Diffusion of Sustainable Tourism Practices
Agritourism
Many of the sustainable agritourism behaviors and practices being diffused in
Florida include practices that are both agricultural best management practices, such as water conservation and wildlife habitat improvement, as well as tourism opportunities.
Organic farming methods and certifications were consistently the lowest adopted farming practices within the sample. This sample of agritourism business owners, however, have adopted more tourist-based practices and behaviors, such as influencing attitudes and behaviors of tourists and providing infrastructure for visitors. The non-risk takers in the sample are implementing more sustainable agritourism practices; because the listed tourism practices are adaptable with traditional agricultural best management practices, there may be a lower perceived risk to adoption.
These results parallel a similar study by Carlsen et al., (2001), in which family- operated agritourism businesses were studied in Australia. The top environmental practices of family owned agritourism businesses were also following water conservation procedures and educating guests on conservation matters. Although this study did not indicate whether agritourism businesses were family run, the socioeconomic results indicate that the majority of agritourism business owners have small-scale operations, with less than $30,000 in business income from tourists and hosting up to 400 tourists in a year.
The statistically significant positive correlation between risk-taking behavior and implementation of sustainable agritourism behavior implies that there is a perceived
81 gamble (in a financial or social aspect) of adopting or altering business practices to better suit tourism. This information highlights the need to make the agritourism business model more attractive to agricultural businesses that are interested by minimizing risks via providing enough information, programming, or external aid.
Ecotourism
The sustainable ecotourism practices and behaviors listed in the questionnaire reflect varying levels of sustainability- from bare minimum ecotourism principles, such as employing local people, to going above and beyond the three principles of ecotourism, such as acting to restore damage in natural areas tourists do not visit.
Overall, the results suggest that these respondents participate in a moderate level of sustainable behaviors and practices. For example, almost all ecotourism business owners participate in minimum impact tourism, and support local conservation activities through voluntourism, donations or marketing, but fewer go farther than this by influencing policy and management or helping visitors understand the impact of sustainable tourism. The majority of the sample were high practice users, which is further supported by the overall high averages of sustainable ecotourism practice use in the results. Most of the risk-taking groups participated in the majority of listed practices.
The non-risk-taking group participated more in supporting local conservation, providing information to visitors about conservation, and going above and beyond local standards to improve the environment than risk-takers. A suggested reason for this could be due to the low resource input into these sustainable tasks. For example, volunteering or marketing for an organization or non-profit that supports conservation in the community may only require an ecotourism business owner’s time, but not any monetary input or another investment that poses a higher risk.
82 There was no statistically significant relationship between risk-taking behavior and implementing sustainable ecotourism behaviors. Most of the ecotourism businesses in the sample were risk-takers and implemented many of the listed practices. This finding may mean that the ecotourism businesses in this sample are perceiving the listed sustainable ecotourism practices and behaviors as low risk to adopt, yet view themselves as risk-takers because of starting or simply maintaining a new small business. A study that analyzes specific barriers to ecotourism suppliers and businesses supports this hypothesis by concluding that their sample of ecotourism business owners experienced that an ecotourism business owner, especially one that starts a business, must be ready to absorb personal and financial risks and owners must be, “hard-working, determined, partient, and innovative in this field” (Silva &
McDill, pg. 300, 2004).
Research Question 2: Perceived Advantages and Constraints, Drivers, and Barriers
Agritourism
Perceived advantages and constraints
The compatibility of adopting sustainable agritourism practices was the highest perceived advantage among all agritourism participants, regardless of risk-taking behavior, and medium practice or high practice usage. This supports the fact that many agritourism and agricultural providers find it beneficial to use sustainable agricultural practices in order to uphold the productivity of their lands for decades (Carlson et al.,
2001). Many sustainable agritourism practices overlap with sustainable agricultural practices, such as reduction of waste, improving water conservation, implementing infrastructure that reduces impacts, and minimal impact tourism that does not degrade
83 the land. Therefore, this sample finds implementing sustainable agritourism practices well-matched to their current business practices and values, as it would not take as many resources to start using sustainable tourism practices. This is supported by
Rogers’ (2003) generalization that the compatibility of a previous idea with a similar new innovation can increase the rate of adoption. For example, a dairy operation that provides educational tours for visitors may find low risk and high reward by also marketing for more visitors by highlighting any sustainable BMPs the business conducts, such as natural animal waste management. The high practice usage group perceives the adoption of sustainable agritourism practices as the most compatible with their existing values and personal motivations, which defines Rogers’ concept of compatibility stated above.
Although relative advantage was fairly important for adoption of sustainable agritourism practices, the sample did not indicate it was the most important perceived advantage. This does not reciprocate Rogers (2003) assumption that the perception of relative advantage aspect is one of the strongest predictors of the rate of adoption.
Another study involving United States farmers confirmed that relative advantage is the most important stimulus to the rate of adoption, specifically the economic impact the innovation can bring to the farm business (Fliegel & Kivlin, 1966). Another study of the adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses found that the relative advantage of an innovation was the only significant advantage of intitiating and maintaining the adoption of innovations (Premakurmar & Roberts, 1999). The finding that compatibility is more advantageous than relative advantage suggests that the small-scale agritourism businesses in this sample may find that components of relative
84 advantage, such as decreasing discomfort, saving time and effort, and increasing social status, are not as influential as the components of compatibility, such as alignment with existing values and resources, as well as intrinsic motivation.
The results of the study imply that this sample does not view constraints as an essential perceived concern to adopting sustainable agritourism practices. The constraint factor group contained components of complexity, observability, and trialability, which all respondents perceived the least influential in the decision-making process of adopting the eco-innovation. Based on Rogers’ (2003) generalizations, trialability is more important for innovators than for later adopters. Because innovators are supposed to be risk-takers, the risk-taking behavior group identified in the study found trialability as less of an advantage than the non-risk-taking group, which does not fit the diffusion theory model. Trialability may not be important to risk-takers because they have already implemented some sort of sustainable agricultural practice and have been influenced that sustainability has a low rate of risk and uncertainty. Implementing sustainable agritourism practices, therefore, should be a similar process and yield a similar result. Additionally, many of these practices may not be implemented on a limited time basis.
The low perceived complexity of adopting the eco-innovation indicates that sustainable agritourism practices are not difficult for business owners to implement; lack of knowledge is not an obstacle preventing adoption. Observability between agritourism operations may not be a factor because small-scale farming operations are so diverse- many implement different practices, sell or market different products, and perceive themselves as different from other operations. A study assessing the adoption of social
85 media technologies in agritourism operations shows that observability for later adopters
(or non-risk-takers) has more importance to adoption than seeing other businesses succeed because these operators need to see the benefit of adopting the innovation first hand within their own businesses; the participants viewed their business as having different objectives, activities, and goals as their peers, therefore, are more influenced by personal experiences than observing the effects of the innovation on other businesses (Shaw, 2013).
Barriers and drivers
The most influential barriers to adopting sustainable agritourism practices involve customer relations, such as interested tourists, infrastructure for tourists, liability issues, and supply of skilled workers. This result is supported by a study investigating the relationship between agritourism operators and destination marketing organizations, where the largest barriers to success is an inexperience in marketing, a lack of skilled workers to facilitate positive tourism experiences, and lack of infrastructure that supports tourism in agricultural areas (McGeehee, 2007). Initial cost and no guaranteed return on investment were considerable barriers to adoption in this sample. The cost of adopting sustainable agritourism practices can be variable and dependent upon size and location of the agricultural enterprise. A study researching the barriers and drivers to implementing agritourism in Australia states that if the business goals are to supplement income from tourism by at least 50%, a large amount of marketing, possible infrastructure to accommodate tourists, and customer service training may be needed to achieve the amount of visitor numbers needed to produce a substantial profit (Ecker et al., 2010). The intial cost and investment must not exceed the expected income of tourism; this is the largest risk to an agritourism business, as many small-scale
86 operators do not have surplus funds to rely on if the investment fails (Barbieri &
Mshenga, 2008).
Economic success and market demand were the primary driver for implementing sustainable agritourism practices. Financial motivation is crucial in agritourism businesses that implement tourism as a primary or supplementary income, but the actual added revenue gained from agritourism is minimal, as is employment
(McGeehee, 2007). Regardless, even a small extra input can be enough for a small- scale agritourism business to financially survive (McGeehee, 2007). Social motivations, like educating visitors about agricultural stories, and alignment with objectives, are secondary drivers to adopting eco-innovations. Agritourism can be considered both an income source and marketing opportunity, because it serves as a setting to educate visitors about the sustainable practices of the operation, as well as the farmer’s values
(Mahoney & Barbieri, 2007; Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). Many studies support the finding that social motivations are second only to economic success (McGeehee, 2007;
Carlsen et al., 2001). Some of the lowest drivers included professionals in the industry and the Cooperative Extension Service, which implies that outside organizations are not being utilized by this agritourism business sample. Expectedly, those in the high practice use group of sustainable agritourism behaviors utilize the listed drivers, which could contribute to their implementation of most of the practices.
For this sample, an increase in social and cultural motivation was statistically significant to an increase in sustainable agritourism behavior. This could mean that despite any financial barriers, intrinsic motivation is driving this group to implement practices anyway, for their tourists or own satisfaction. The older the participants are in
87 the sample, the more they perceive cost as a barrier to adopting sustainable agritourism practices. Perhaps there is a lack of knowledge of new innovations and technologies, as well as markets that prevent older farmers from adopting new practices.
Ecotourism
Perceived advantages and constraints
The high compatibility of adopting sustainable ecotourism practices within the ecotourism businesses in the sample is indicative of strong environmental values and intrinsic motivations to minimize environmental impacts of tourism (Smerecnik &
Anderson, 2011). This is supported by the participants’ high value of personal and economic motivations, which include social motivation and alignment with objectives.
The relative advantage of adopting sustainable ecotourism practices was slightly less advantageous than compatibility. Relative advantage is most often expressed as an economic profitability, as the case in this study (Rogers, 2003). The economic relative advantage of using sustainable ecotourism practices is to attract the growing number of tourists that demand ‘true’ ecotourism experiences (Liu, 2003). For participants who are motivated by financial successes, implementing sustainable ecotourism practices may not produce a substantial economic profit (Smerecnik &
Anderson, 2011). For example, some sustainable ecotourism practices, such as involvement in conservation efforts, and impacting policy, may not encourage more tourism to their business. Relative advantages of sustainable adoptions can also include the cost savings from reduction in energy usage, infrastructure, and resource management. Many ecotourism operators use public lands, such as state parks or preserves, for places of natural area access. These ecotourism outfitters, guides, and other businesses do not have the authority or need to use cost-saving sustainable
88 practices for their visitors on public lands. Because of this, the relative advantage is perceived as a secondary advantage to compatibility.
Constraints of sustainable ecotourism practices were not as important to this sample. This may be due to the fact that because they are already bringing visitors to natural areas, participants perceived using sustainable ecotourism practices as minimal risk. This is supported by a study about adopting green technology by traditional tourism businesses, where trialability was not found as a perceived advantage because most adopters conducted intensive research before adoption (Smerecnik & Anderson, 2011).
Also, there may be difficulty in partially adopting sustainable ecotourism practices on a limited time basis, such as minimum impact tourism and support of conservation efforts.
Complexity and observability did not impact adoption of sustainable ecotourism practices, indicating there is little lack of knowledge of sustainable practices, and seeing others successful does not influence adoption. This may be because of how fragmented the ecotourism industry is, with little to no communication between businesses.
Barriers and drivers
By far, the largest impediment to adopting sustainable ecotourism practices for this sample is a lack of supporting institutions, including state and local organizations, and funding support. This deviates from other studies that assess the barriers of ecotourism businesses, such as a study that compares the barriers of agencies and ecotourism suppliers that found that ecotourism providers mostly fail in marketing and business skills, and have little management experience and lack information on where to begin (Silva & McDill, 2004). Silva and McDill (2004) did find that common issues for small businesses are connected to the lack of government and financial incentive programs. Similarly, a study about the diffusion of eco-certifications in small ecotourism
89 businesses in Australia found that cost and lack of funding via government aid were the largest impediments to eco-certification adoption (Bell & Ruhanen, 2016). As expected, the medium practice use group in this sample found all barriers more influential than those within the high practice usage group. Small business planning and training barriers were low scoring in this sample, indicating that obstacles such as supply of skilled workers, infrastructure for tourists, and customer service training are less of a hurdle to overcome. This may be explained by small-scale ecotourism operators having minimal numbers of employees, and may be less concerned with liability issues because they are not responsible for public lands, which are predominately where guides and outfitters may bring tourists (Ateljevis & Doorne, 2000).
Personal and economic motivations are the promoters of adopting sustainable ecotourism practices in this sample. Similarly, Bell and Ruhanen (2016) found that the diffusion of eco-certifications resulted from drivers such as alignment with objectives, intrinsic motivation and environmental ethics, and recognition of sustainable efforts.
Outside organizations were important, but were the lowest scoring drivers in the sample, especially the Cooperative Extension Service. Bell and Ruhanen (2016) also found that the social system in Rogers’ diffusion theory was unsuccessful in spreading awareness or information about the eco-innovation. The fragmented nature of the private ecotourism businesses, as well as lack of a social system is the reason why ecotourism businesses rely on self-research of eco-innovations, which may not always be credible (Bell & Ruhanen, 2016). This finding is an important indication of a major gap in the ecotourism industry in Florida.
90 The statistically significant associations between all variables in consideration found that increasing the outside organizations (such as professionals in the industry and state and local organizations) and decreasing the lack of supporting institutions would contribute to a greater relative advantage for adopting the eco-innovation. This is supported by the results of this study and other research literature, where social systems and the overall ecotourism industry is fragmented and relies on self-research
(Bell & Ruhanen, 2016). Increasing the perceived compatibility of adopting the eco- innovation into an ecotourism business is associated with increasing personal and economic motives and outside organizations, as well as decreasing the small business planning barriers and lack of supporting institutions. Outside organizations are again identified as important motivators to help business owners overcome barriers and find ways to make sustainable ecotourism practices more compatible with existing resource use. The differences in the medium practice use and high practice use groups in the ecotourism sample were also analyzed, and it was found that the medium practice use group valued social and cultural motivation and alignment with objectives more than the high practice use group. Perhaps if the barriers were less of an obstacle for this group, the medium practice use group could implement more sustainable ecotourism practices.
Research Question 3: Differences Between Agritourism and Ecotourism Providers
Ecotourism businesses display more risk-taking behavior and implement more sustainable tourism behaviors than agritourism businesses in this sample. The lack of risk-taking ability of the agritourism group can be due to tourism being a secondary income source, the primary being some kind of agricultural operation (Barbieri &
Mshenga, 2008). Because of this, agritourism business owners’ main priorities lie in the
91 longevity of their agricultural operations because they also serve as the tourism opportunity. Generally, there is a higher ability to absorb risk with higher business incomes (Premkumar, 1999). This statement supports the finding that ecotourism businesses are more accepting of risk because their demographic information indicates that most ecotourism business make more of an annual business income from tourism than their agritourism counterparts.
Ecotourism businesses have a higher scope of perceived advantages of the eco- innovation than agritourism businesses, especially in the realm of compatibility. The results indicate many small-scale ecotourism businesses begin their operations because of intrinsic motivations to help the environment, more so than economic motivation. Sustainable ecotourism behaviors can easily mold into the business owner’s intrinsic motivations. A study assessing the relationships between ecotourism business values and beliefs found that biospheric and environmental beliefs are “significant predictors of support for green-accommodation for tourism” (Perkins & Brown, pg 799,
2012).
Agritourism businesses face more barriers to adoption than ecotourism businesses. This is supported by the descriptive statistics, where agritourism businesses scored higher on barrier impacts than ecotourism businesses. Ecotourism businesses were more motivated by social motivations, alignment with objectives, and professionals in the industry to adopt eco-innovations. Agritourism businesses, on the other hand, were more likely to be motivated by economic success and the Cooperative
Extension Service. Because of the long history between agricultural professionals and the Cooperative Extension Service, the agritourism community may be more
92 comfortable and trusting of this organization for help regarding tourism activities than ecotourism businesses.
Demographically, agritourism participants had a younger age range, the same education, and less business income and tourists than ecotourism business participants in this sample.
Conclusion
Overall, the results suggest that both agritourism and ecotourism businesses are striving to implement tourism practices that aim for sustainability. However, their business models are different, which could explain the differences in risk-taking behaviors, drivers, and barriers influencing the adoption of sustainable tourism practices. Agritourism businesses adopt tourism as a secondary income source; the primary source being an agricultural product or operation that provides income from annual outputs, and also serves as the attraction for visitors. Ecotourism businesses are created or maintained through tourism itself; there is no secondary income source or motive besides bringing tourists to natural areas. Because of this, agritourism businesses in this sample perceive anything to do with tourism at a higher risk than ecotourism businesses. If implementing a new tourism practice has the potential to negatively impact current farm operations, it is less attractive and more of a risk to the farmer. Ecotourism businesses, however, could see implementing more tourism practices as a benefit to business; new ways to attract eco tourists looking for more sustainable experiences can produce more income.
The adoption of listed sustainable ecotourism and agritourism practices in this study suggests that there is room for both ecotourism and agritourism businesses to
93 incorporate more aspects of sustainability in their current practices. Ecotourism and agritourism businesses have similar pathways of thinking- both are socially or intrinsically motivated to better their surrounding environments, while influencing attitudes and behaviors of tourists, or educating them about their values and beliefs.
Many sustainable farming practices, like water conservation and wildlife habitat improvement, can be restructured into sustainable tourism practices. For example, enhanced wildlife habitat can attract more visitors to their lands for wildlife viewing while conserving native wildlife and ecosystems that attract such wildlife. The results of the ecotourism sample show a moderate level of sustainable practices implemented, but few are going above the minimum standards of sustainability. Without an incentivizing system for ecotourism businesses, going above and beyond minimum standards does not provide direct benefits to these businesses, or attract more visitors. There are true eco tourists who seek to have purely sustainable ecotourism experiences that could be more attracted to businesses that act to restore damage in areas visitors do not enter, or influence policy, but again this niche market is small and could be time-consuming for the ecotourism business to implement without the benefit of some financial return.
The need for outside organization involvement was a major result of this study, especially within the ecotourism sample. Lack of supporting institutions were the most important barriers to adopting sustainable tourism practices, and outside organizational aid was the least influential driver to adoption in both samples. Collaboration and communication could be the key to promoting sustainable tourism practices and reducing lack of supporting institutions. Establishing new coalitions between conservation groups, farmer stakeholders, research institutions, and traditional business
94 sectors can help incentivize more financially powerful agencies, like the local government and tourism development councils, to fund and invest in agritourism and ecotourism sectors. Government agencies, local non-profit organizations, and others can foster the conditions needed for agritourism and ecotourism businesses to implement sustainable tourism practices, such as incentives, marketing programs, and trainings.
In Florida, local and regional tourism or economic development councils are responsible for marketing, promoting, and funding the different types of tourism opportunities in their representative area. Based on experiences in previous work with
Florida ecotourism and agritourism businesses, these councils predominately promote traditional tourism opportunities, like restaurants, hotels, and other non-environmental opportunities. Having an outside organization represent the agritourism and ecotourism sector can provide a voice for the needs that these businesses have that could bolster visitor numbers, while conserving natural resources which are commodities to the area.
This study was driven by previous work in various Florida counties, where the
Cooperative Extension Service noticed a lack of collaboration between ecotourism, agritourism, and government agencies that they could help with. Many of the resulting barriers in this study were not completely impeding adoption- meaning that an organization like the Cooperative Extension Service could provide programming, direction, and other tools necessary for remaining businesses to overcome these barriers. Agricultural businesses have a well-established relationship with the
Cooperative Extension Service regarding agricultural operation advancement and innovation of new research concepts that aid in increasing production. Creating a new
95 tourism position within the Cooperative Extension Service seems to be a plausible fit.
Many Extension agents have a background in agricultural and natural resource opportunities, and with some training in the tourism industry, could be a successful liaison between agritourism and ecotourism businesses, and tourism or economic development councils.
Aside from the Cooperative Extension Service, certification organizations can serve as a unifying organization to promote sustainable practices and provide information and guidance to agritourism and ecotourism businesses. Certification is an important tool to create a standard for ecotourism and agritourism and differentiate sustainable versus non-sustainable, and in the case of ecotourism, nature-based and ecotourism providers (Honey et al., 2008). This can even provide the agritourism or ecotourism providers with a market benefit by informing those increasing number of visitors seeking ecotourism experiences to businesses certified in sustainable tourism
(Perkins & Brown, 2012). There are established organizations, like the Florida Society of Ethical Ecotourism and the Florida Agritourism Association, that have the resources to mandate and provide certifications for qualified sustainable businesses that can boost marketing and visitor numbers.
This study contributes to the diffusion of innovation theory by connecting perceived advantages and constraints to adoption with the perceived drivers and barriers surrounding the agritourism and ecotourism business model. Traditionally, the diffusion of innovation theory studies how one eco-innovation is diffused through a social system; in this study, many different practices defined the eco-innovation.
96 However, not assessing the main component of time hindered this studies ability to assess the rate of adoption of the eco-innovation.
The results of this study contribute new knowledge to the agritourism and ecotourism industries, and stakeholders in Florida. Previous studies regarding barriers and drivers to implementing sustainable tourism practices are in other states. Florida, however, is unique because it contains highly urbanized cities, rural areas, and diverse ecotourism experiences that cannot be found elsewhere. Florida’s climate also encourages year-round tourism, contrary to other states that incorporate seasonality changes to tourism practices. This study provides insight into the specific barriers and drivers that small-scale private ecotourism and agritourism businesses face in Florida, and considers outside influences, like policy and governments that are distinctive to the state.
Limitations. Limitations of this study include design: only implementing an online sampling approach which restricted the population, and subsequently the response rate.
Those participating in the questionnaire are more likely to be using sustainable tourism practices, or have innovator and early adopter like qualities, because these groups are more connected with their industries and are more likely to participate in a research setting (Rogers, 2003). Similar studies involving the adoption of eco-innovations are exclusively personal interviews, as obtaining expansive information about adoption behaviors may not yield accurate results in a general online questionnaire format. Also, sustainable tourism practices can vary from business to business, as well as the environment. For example, educational tours of a cattle ranch can have different sustainability goals than an organic farming stand. This could mean that the listed
97 sustainable tourism practices are not applicable to every respondent in the sample, leading to differences in scoring and results. In very rural communities, there may not be as many opportunities for large numbers of urban dwellers to visit their businesses, as travel distance affects the rate of tourism. This study only analyzed a piece of the diffusion theory model, which could impact the conclusions of the study.
Further investigation into a larger network of ecotourism and agritourism businesses would provide more extensive results, as well as stronger correlations.
Market segmentation of businesses could also help address specific gaps and drivers that certain businesses may have over others and inform organizations about the specific tools and programs they could develop to help these businesses overcome barriers. The results of this study indicate there is a difference in perceived advantages, drivers, and barriers for each industry model. The next step of research would be to implement a longitudinal study to understand the reasons why these differences exist.
Are there specific and identifiable policies that impact small-scale businesses in Florida, such as the agritourism liability law that relieves agritourism operators from liability of injury or death on their lands? Is the overall market expanding to a certain ecotourism or agritourism activity? Has the economic recession impacted these businesses?
Understanding the amount of trust and reliability and best approach to certain cultural groups involved in ecotourism and agritourism would be interesting to investigate.
98 APPENDIX A AGRITOURISM QUESTIONNAIRE
Agritourism Survey Thank you for your interest in our Agritourism Questionnaire.
We are surveying Florida agritourism operators and individuals involved in agritourism to better understand the barriers, drivers, and communication channels affecting agritourism businesses.
Florida has a wealth of agricultural based tourism opportunities, and many individuals own private and small-scale businesses that can provide tourists with opportunities to experience different agricultural processes and areas. By offering educational tours, farm to table produce, and other activities and educational experiences in agricultural areas, these operators help others experience Florida's agricultural heritage. However, there is little knowledge about why these agritourism operators are not providing sustainable tourism experiences. The goal is to identify gaps in communication channels that local, county, and state governments can use to suggest opportunities to enhance sustainable agritourism businesses.
Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. There is no risk, compensation, or other direct benefit to you for participating in the survey, other than the opportunity to make your experiences and opinions known. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. All responses will be anonymous and will not be connected with your name or other identifying information. Only the researchers will have access to the information we collect online. There is minimal risk that security of any online data may be breached, but since no identifying information will be collected, and the online host (Qualtrics) uses several forms of encryption other protections, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you.
The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
Note that you must be 18 years or older to participate in this study. If you agree to participate in this survey, please click on the arrow at the bottom of the page. If you have questions about this study, please contact the principal investigator, Kotryna Klizentyte :
Kotryna Klizentyte (Master's Candidate) University of Florida- School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 374 Newins- Ziegler Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-0410 Taylor Stein (Professor, Co-Investigator) University of Florida - School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 345 Newins-Ziegler Hall
99 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410 Phone: 352-846-0860 Fax: 352-846-1277 Email: [email protected]
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Florida IRB Institutional Review Board office at:
98A Psychology Building University of Florida P. O. Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Telephone: (352) 392-0433 Fax number: (352) 392-9234 Email: [email protected]
1. Do you currently implement or have the intent to implement any of these sustainable agritourism practices? Educational tours about farm practices Hands-on educational demonstration for tourists Protection or propagation of native plants Wildlife habitat improvement Organic farming methods Farm waste management Water conservation Infrastructure for tourists Support conservation efforts (donations, volunteering,sponsorships) Employ a significant number (at least 50%) of local employees Actively seek to influence tourists' behavior and attitude Have organic certifications and renew when needed Have education certifications and renew when needed Provide fresh regional produce and/or meals to tourists "Green" overnight lodging (energy saving technology)
100 2. How influential are the following factor preventing your business from using sustainable agritourism practices? Financial input Lack of information of sustainable practices Lack of employees It does not fit within my current business resources Little to no help from outside organizations to start implementing practices Lack of interested tourists Lack of things for tourists to see and do Liability risks are too great Lack of customer service education Size of business
3. Do any of these statements affecting sustainable agritourism practices relate to your agritourism business? These practices would increase the number of tourists These practices would enhance my status in the agricultural community These practices are consistent with my existing values. Using these practices could increase my business's profit. These practices are consistent with my personal motivations These practices would be easy to integrate with the resources I have. Need a lot of time redesigning our approach to incorporate practices. Every agritourism provider should use these practices These practices would be difficult and complex to learn These practices would be relatively easy for my employees to learn I would implement some practices on a limited basis before using them I would implement these practices if outlined details on how to start
4. Who or where do you go to for advice or information on new agricultural or tourism issues? (Please specify and select all that apply) Self-research Private organization or other business County Extension service Government organization (Farm Bureau, USDA, etc) Family member or business partner Other
101 5. How significant are these barriers to promoting or expanding sustainable agritourism practices?
Marketing Supply of skilled workers Infrastructure Liability and risk management Lack of small business planning Education Initial cost
6. How influential are the following drivers to your business? Regulations Recognition Market demand State and local tourism organizations Professionals in the tourism industry The Cooperative Extension Service Economic success Social motivation Alignment with objectives Educate about agricultural story
7. About how many tourists (on average) visit your business each year? 1-200 tourists 201-400 tourists 401-600 tourists 601-800 tourists 800+ tourists (please specify):
8. About how much profit does your business make per year? $10,000-19,999 $20,000-29,999 $30,000-39,999 $40,000-49,999 $50,000-59,999 $60,000-69,999 $70,000-79,999 $80,000-89,999 $90,000-99,999 $100,000+ Prefer not to answer
102 9. How many total employees are working in your agritourism business? None 1-20 people 20-200 people 200+ people
10. How much of your business income comes from tourism? (Please estimate) None Less than 1% 1-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71+%
11. Please indicate the highest level of education you have obtained GED/High School Some college Technical Degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctoral degree Other: Prefer not to answer
12. What is your current age? 18-25 years old 26-35 years old 36-45 years old 46-55 years old 56-65 years old 66-75 years old 75+ years old Prefer to not answer
13. What kind of activities and operations does your business implement? (Select all that apply) U-pick Corn Maze Wedding Venue Winery or vineyard Organic farm Farm stand Seafood market or farm Christmas tree farm
103
14. How would you characterize the type of visitation you work with? (Select all that apply) Lead educational tours Provide agricultural demonstrations Allow visitors to pick produce or crops Provide exhibits or lectures Host opportunities to interact with farm animals Provide agricultural venue for events Lead nature-based tours through agricultural lands Rent equipment Other
15. When did you start your agriculture business? (year)
16. Who or where do you go to for advice or information on new agricultural or tourism issues? (Please specify and select all that apply) Self-research Private organization or other business County Extension service Family member or business partner Other
104 APPENDIX B ECOTOURISM QUESTIONNAIRE
Ecotourism Survey Thank you for your interest in our Ecotourism Questionnaire.
We are surveying individuals and operators involved in ecotourism to get a better understanding of the ecotourism businesses.
Florida has a wealth of nature-based tourism opportunities, and many individuals own private and small-scale businesses that provide visitors with opportunities to experience nature. By offering guided walks, kayak trips, or learning experiences in nature, these operators help others experience Florida’s natural environment. But some of these businesses may not offer all they could to qualify as an “ecotourism” business. They may not provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the ecosystem they are visiting or enhance the human communities which they are staying. Ecotourism requires conservation education, benefit to local peoples, and minimal degradation of the environment visited. This study will help explore if nature-based tourism operators are not providing true ecotourism experiences, identify gaps in communication channels and locate information providers that local, county, and state governments can use to help fund or provide tools for business owners to expand or modify ecotourism businesses.
Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. There is no risk, compensation, or other direct benefit to you for participating in the survey, other than the opportunity to make your experiences and opinions known and acted upon. All responses will be anonymous and will not be connected with your name or other identifying information.
The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
Note that you must be 18 years or older to participate in this study. If you agree to participate in this survey, please click on the arrow at the bottom of the page. If you have questions about this study, please contact the principal investigator, Kotryna Klizentyte:
Kotryna Klizentyte (Master's Candidate) University of Florida- School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 374 Newins- Ziegler Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-0410 Taylor Stein (Professor, Co-Investigator) University of Florida - School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 345 Newins-Ziegler Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-0410 Phone: 352-846-0860 Fax: 352-846-1277
105 Email: [email protected]
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Florida IRB Institutional Review Board office at:
98A Psychology Building University of Florida P. O. Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Telephone: (352) 392-0433 Fax number: (352) 392-9234 Email: [email protected]
1. Do you currently implement or have the intent to implement any of these sustainable ecotourism practices? Help visitors understand the impact of unsustainable tourism Aware of impacts caused, and actively tries to prevent or reverse any impacts Make sure to follow state and local regulations for ecotourism Go above state and local regulations to minimize impacts Provide information about conservation practices Provide information about ecology and the environment Change visitors' attitudes about sustainability and the environment Provide information about ecology and the environment Provide in person interpretive tours Provide information via brochures and signs Support local conservation activities (donations, volunteering, sponsorships etc) Practice minimum impact tourism Improve the environment and restore damage in natural areas Influence policy and management to sustainability Employ local employees (at least 50% of work force)
2. How significant are these barriers to promoting or expanding sustainable agritourism practices?
Marketing Supply of skilled workers Infrastructure Liability and risk management Lack of small business planning Education Initial cost
106
3. How influential are the following drivers to your business? Regulations Recognition Market demand State and local tourism organizations Professionals in the tourism industry The Cooperative Extension Service Economic success Social motivation Alignment with objectives Educate about agricultural story
4. Do any of these statements affecting sustainable agritourism practices relate to your agritourism business? These practices would increase the number of tourists These practices would enhance my status in the agricultural community These practices are consistent with my existing values. Using these practices could increase my business's profit. These practices are consistent with my personal motivations These practices would be easy to integrate with the resources I have. Need a lot of time redesigning our approach to incorporate practices. Every agritourism provider should use these practices These practices would be difficult and complex to learn These practices would be relatively easy for my employees to learn I would implement some practices on a limited basis before using them I would implement these practices if outlined details on how to start
5. About how many tourists (on average) visit your business each year? 1-200 tourists 201-400 tourists 401-600 tourists 601-800 tourists 800+ tourists (please specify):
107
6. About how much profit does your business make per year? $10,000-19,999 $20,000-29,999 $30,000-39,999 $40,000-49,999 $50,000-59,999 $60,000-69,999 $70,000-79,999 $80,000-89,999 $90,000-99,999 $100,000+ Prefer not to answer
7. How many total employees are working in your agritourism business? None 1-20 people 20-200 people 200+ people
8. How much of your business income comes from tourism? (Please estimate) None Less than 1% 1-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71+%
9. Please indicate the highest level of education you have obtained GED/High School Some college Technical Degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctoral degree Other: Prefer not to answer
108
10. What is your current age? 18-25 years old 26-35 years old 36-45 years old 46-55 years old 56-65 years old 66-75 years old 75+ years old Prefer to not answer
11. What kind of activities and operations does your business implement? (Select all that apply) U-pick Corn Maze Wedding Venue Winery or vineyard Organic farm Farm stand Seafood market or farm Christmas tree farm Other
12. How would you characterize the type of visitation you work with? (Select all that apply) Lead educational tours Provide agricultural demonstrations Allow visitors to pick produce or crops Provide exhibits or lectures Host opportunities to interact with farm animals Provide agricultural venue for events Lead nature-based tours through agricultural lands Rent equipment Other
13. When did you start your agriculture business? (year)
109
14. What kind of operation or activity are you most associated with? Marine tour Wildlife tour Walking or cycling company Preservation or conservation land Environmental education (sightseeing, diving, fishing, etc) Outfitter (kayaks, boats, etc.) Historical or cultural tour Manage or staff any ecotourism facility (nature centers, parks, etc) Charter boat service Wildlife rehabilitation Other
110 APPENDIX C IRB CONFIRMATION
Behavioral/NonMedical Institutional Review Board PO Box 112250 FWA00005790 Gainesville FL 32611-2250 Telephone: (352) 392−0433 Facsimile: (352) 392−9234 Email: [email protected]
DATE: 3/29/2018 TO: Kotryna Klizentyte PO Box 110410 Gainesville , Florida 32611-0410 FROM: Ira Fischler, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Chair IRB-02
IRB#: IRB201800664 TITLE: Perceived Barriers and Drivers Ecotourism and Agritourism Providers in Florida Approved as Exempt
You have received IRB approval to conduct the above-listed research project. Approval of this project was granted on 3/28/2018 by IRB-02. This study is approved as exempt because it poses minimal risk and is approved under the following exempt category/categories:
2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey or interview procedures, or the observation of public behavior, so long as confidentiality is maintained. If both of the following are true, exempt status can not be granted: (a) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that the subject can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subject, and (b) Subject’s responses, if known outside the research, could reasonably place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subject’s financial standing or employability or reputation.
Special Note to Investigator:
In the myIRB system, exempt approved studies will not have an approval stamp on the consents, fliers, emails, etc. However, the documents reviewed are the ones to be used. Therefore, under ATTACHMENTS you should find the document that has been
111 reviewed and approved. If you need to modify the document(s) in any manner then you'd need to submit to our office for review and approval prior to implementation.
Principal Investigator Responsibilities:
The PI is responsible for the conduct of the study.
Using currently approved consent form to enroll subjects (if applicable) Renewing your study before expiration Obtaining approval for revisions before implementation Reporting Adverse Events Retention of Research Records Obtaining approval to conduct research at the VA Notifying other parties about this project’s approval status
Should the nature of the study change or you need to revise the protocol in any manner please contact this office prior to implementation.
Study Team:
Taylor Stein Co-Investigator
The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Institution Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. Any other distribution, copying, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and destroy this message immediately. Unauthorized access to confidential information is subject to federal and state laws and could result in personal liability, fines, and imprisonment. Thank you.
112 LIST OF REFERENCES
Abou-Shouk, M., & Mun Lim, W., & Megicks, P. (2013). E-commerce and small tourism businesses in developing countries: Drivers versus boundaries of adoption, Tourism Planning & Development 10(3), 249-266.
Ateljevis, U., & Doorne, S. (2000). Staying within the fence: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 378-392.
Barbieri, C. (2013). Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: a comparison between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 252-270.
Barbieri, C., & Mshenga, M. P. (2008). The Role of the Firm and Owner Characteristics on the Performance of Agritourism Farms, Journal Compilation for Rural Sociology, 48:2.
Barbieri, C., Mahoney, E., & Butler, L. (2008). Understanding the nature and extent of farm and ranch diversification in North America, Rural Sociology, 73(2), 205-229.
Bell, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2016), The diffusion and adoption of eco-innovations amongst tourism businesses: the role of the social system. Int. J. Tourism Res., 41(3) 291- 230. Doi:10.1080
Berry, S., & Ladkin, A. (1997) Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tourism Management, 18(7), 433-440.
Boyd, S.W., & Butler, R. W. (1996). Managing ecotourism: An opportunity spectrum approach, Tourism Management, 17(8), 557-566.
Bowler, I., Clark, G., Crockett, A., Ilbery, B., & Shaw, A. (1996). The development of alternative farm enterprises: A study of family labour farms in the Northern Pennines of England, Journal of Rural Studies, 12(3), 285-295.
Brandth, B., & Haugen, M.S. (2011). Farm diversification into tourism-Implications for social identity, Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 35-44.
Burton, R. (1998). Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: Ecotour operators’ responses to tourism growth, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(2), 117-142.
Carlsen, J., Getz, D., & Ali-Knight, J. (2001) The environmental attitudes and practices of family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(4), 281-297.
Centner, T.J. (2009) Liability concerns: Agritourism operators seek a defense against damages resulting from inherent risks, J.L. and Public Policy 19, 102-123.
113 Dabphet, S., Scott, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2012). Applying diffusion theory to destination stakeholder understanding of sustainable tourism development: A case from Thailand, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(8), 1107-1124.
Denman, R. (1994). Green tourism and farming, Cultural Tourism, 215-222. Papers presented at the Robert Gordon University Heritage Convention.
Diederen, P., Meijl, H.V., Wolters, A., & Bijak, K. (2003). Innovation adoption in agriculture: innovators, early adopters, and laggards, Cahiers d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurales, 67, 29-50.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2010). Innovation: a very short introduction. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press
Drumm, A., & Moore, A. (2002). Ecotourism Development- A Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers, Volume 1, The Nature Conservancy.
Ecker, S., Clarke, R., Cartwright, S., Kancans, R., Please, P., & Binks, B. (2010). Drivers of regional agritourism and food tourism in Australia, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Europa- The European Commission (2003). SME definition, available at: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm Website accessed May 2018.
Fennell, D.A., & Smale, B.J.A. (1992). Ecotourism and natural resource protection: Implications of an alternative form of tourism for host nations, Tourism Recreation Research, 17(1), 21-32.
Fliegel, F.C., & Kivlin, J.E. (1966). Farmers’ perceptions of farm practice attributes, Rural Sociology 31, 197-206.
Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors, Journal of Tourism Management, 21, 547-560.
Godfrey, K. (1998). Attitudes towards “sustainable tourism” in the UK: a view from local government, Tourism Management, 19(3), 213-224.
Goodall, B., & Stabler, M. (1992). Environmental auditing in the quest for sustainable tourism: The destination perspective. Tourism in Europe, G1-G13. Conference preceedings. Newcastle Polytechnic.
114
Hardy, A.L., & Beeton, R.J.S. (2001). Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism: Managing resources for more than average outcomes, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 168-192.
Harris, R., Griffin, T., & Williams, P. (2002). Sustainable tourism: a global perspective. Elsevier Science Limited.
Hassa, S. S. (2000). Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry, Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 239-245.
Hjalager, A.M. (2002) Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism, Tourism Management, 23, 465-474.
Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., & Wysocki, A.F. (2014). Local and regional food systems in Florida: Values and economic impact, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 46(2), 285-298.
Honey, M. (2001) Ecotourism and sustainable development (2nd ed.) Washington, D.C.: Island Press
Jacobson, S.K., & Robles, R. (1992). Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservation education: Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguerto, Costa Rica, Environmental Management, 16(6), 701-713.
Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 392-399.
Kelly, J., Wolfgang, H., Williams, P.W., & Englund, K. (2006). Stated preferences of tourists for eco-efficient destination planning options, Journal of Tourism Management, 28, 377-390.
Kesidou, E., & Demirel, P. (2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5), 862-870.
Kim, C. (2006). E-tourism: An innovative approach for the small and medium-sized tourism enterprises (SMTEs) in Korea, Innovation and Growth in Tourism, 135- 146.
Kuan, K., & Chau, P. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using technology-organization-environment framework, Information and Management, 38, 507-521.
Kvam, G, & Staete, E. (2010). Innovation and diffusion-different roles in developing nature-based tourism, The Open Social Science Journal, 3, 30-40.
115 Lapple, D., & Rensburg T.V. (2011) Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption, Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1406-1414.
Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R.R., Toit, J.T., & Mills, M.G.L. (2005). The potential contribution of ecotourism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South Africa, Biological Conservation, 123(3), 339-348.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459-475.
MacGregor, R. & Vrazalic, L. (2005). A basic model of electronic commerce adoption barriers: A study of regional small businesses in Sweden and Australia, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(4), 510-527.
Mahajan V., Muller, E., & Srivastava, R.K. (1990). Determination of adopter categories by using innovation diffusion models. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 37- 50.
Main, M, B., Swisher, M.E., Mullahey, J., DeBusk, W., Shriar, A.J., Tanner, G.W., Selph, J., Hogue, P., Bohlen, P., & Allen, G.M. (2004). The ecology and economics of Florida’s ranches, WEC 187, University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville, FL, available at http://edis.ufl.edu/WEC187.
McGehee, N. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111-124.
McGehee, N. (2004). Motivation for Agri-Tourism Entrepreneurship, Journal of Travel Research, 43, 161-170.
McGeehee, N., & Kim, K. (2004). Motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship, Journal of Travel Research, 43, 161-170.
McKercher, R., & Robbins, B. (1998). Business development issues affecting nature- based tourism operators in Australia, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(2), 173- 188.
Middleton, V., & Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A marketing perspective. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
National Agriculture Statistical Service (NASS). Florida Agricultural Overview-2012. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/ Website accessed May, 2018.
National Park Service (NPS). Social Science Research. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm Website accessed May, 2018.
116 Nature Conservancy. (2005). What is ecotourism? Available at https://www.nature.org/greenliving/what-is-ecotourism.xml Website accessed May, 2018.
Nelson, J.G. (1994). The spread of ecotourism: Some planning implications, Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 248-255.
Nickerson, N., Black, R., & McCool, S. (2001). Agritourism: motivations behind farm/ranch business diversification, Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 19-26.
Ollenburg, C., & Buckley, R. (2007). Stated economic and social motivations of farm tourism operators, Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 444-452.
Osei, E., Gassman, P.W., Jones, R.D., Pratt, S.J., Hauck, L.M., Beran, L.J., Rosenthal, W.D., & Williams, J.R. (2000). Economic and environmental impacts of alternative practices on dairy farms in an agricultural watershed, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(4), 466-472.
Perkins, H.E., & Brown, P.R. (2012) Environmental Values and the so-called true ecotourist, Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 793-803.
Phillip S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2009). A typology for defining agritourism, Tourism Management, 31, 754-758.
Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses, Omega, 27(4), 467-484.
Randall, C., & Rollins, R.B. (2009). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 357-374.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualising interpretation: The role of tour guides in authentic tourism, Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), 481-498.
Rodgers, E. (2003), The diffusion of innovation. Free Press, New York, NY.
Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rodgers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rodger’s theory. Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14-23
Shaw, K.E. (2013). Competencies, importance, and motivations for agricultural producers’ use of online communications, Master of Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Silva, G., & McDill, M.E. (2004). Barriers to ecotourism supplier success: A Comparison of agency and business perspectives, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(4), 289-305.
117
Smerecknik, K.R., & Anderson, P.A. (2011). The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North American hotels and ski resorts, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 171-196.
Song, X., Chi, Y., & Hino, K. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders in the blogosphere. Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM Conference on information and knowledge management.
Stein, T.V., Clark, J.K., & Rickards, J.L. (2010). Assessing nature’s role in ecotourism development in Florida: Perspectives of tourism professionals and government decision-makers, Journal of Ecotourism, 2(3), 155-172.
Stockdale, R., & Standing, C. (2006). A classification model to support SME e- commerce adoption initiatives, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(3), 381-394.
Valentine, P.S. (1993). Ecotourism and nature conservation: A definition with some recent developments in Micronesia, Tourism Management, 14(2), 107-115.
Veeck, G., Che, D., & Veeck, A. (2006). America’s changing farmscape: A study of agricultural tourism in Michigan, The Professional Geographer 58(3), 235-248.
Visit Florida. Florida Tourism Overview-2014. Available at https://www.visitflorida.org/about-us/what-we-do/tourism-fast-facts/ Website accessed May, 2018.
Warden, S., & Tunzelana, S. (2004). E-commerce: A critical review of SMME organizational barriers in tourism, In Proceedings of the 6th WWW Applications Conference, 2004, Rand Afrikaans University, Igi Glova, Johannesburg, South Africa, 701-709.
Weaver, D. B., & Fennell, D.A. (1997). The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: a profile of oeprations, Journal of Tourism Management, 18(6), 357-365.
World Tourism Organization (no date). Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry: towards sustainable development. Madrid: WTO.
118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Kotryna Klizentyte is originally from Lithuania but grew up in South Florida. She has attended the University of Florida for her bachelor’s degree in forest resources and conservation and has continued in the same department for her master’s degree, and now is pursuing her doctorate degree with the School of Forest Resources and
Conservation. She is currently focusing on ecotourism and outdoor recreation, as well as natural resource policy and economics.
119