Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism in the

              © PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
Vol. 13 N.o 4. Special Issue Págs. 741-755. 2015
www .pasosonline.org
Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism
project: vegetable tourism in the Parc Agrari del Baix
Llobregat (Barcelona)
Valerià Paül Carril*
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (España)
Noelia Araújo Vila** Pablo de Carlos Villamarín***
Universidade de Vigo (España)
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín
Abstract: Among the major changes that have occurred in the tourist sector in recent years, of particular
note has been the constant emergence of new products that seek to satisfy the needs of tourists demanding
new kinds of consumer experiences. A good example of this is agritourism, in which the tourist participates
in the typical activities of a working farm. This study focuses on a recent variant of this type of tourism,
known as vegetable tourism (or holeriturismo in Spanish). Specifically, an assessment is undertaken of a
pioneering project in Spain on an agricultural park: the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat (Barcelona). Based
on the information obtained from a survey conducted in the Park itself, the degree of visitor satisfaction with
the various activities they experience is analysed. Using non-parametric statistical methods, the study seeks
to determine whether the visitors’ socio-demographic profile and their knowledge of the concept of vegetable
tourism have a significant impact on their assessments.
Keywords: agritourism, vegetable tourism, Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat, non-parametric statistical
methods, satisfaction.
La evaluación de la satisfacción del visitante con un proyecto agroturístico pionero: el turismo de
verduras en el Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat (Barcelona)
Resumen: Entre los principales cambios que se han producido en el sector turístico en los últimos años, de
mención especial ha sido la aparición constante de nuevos productos que buscan satisfacer las necesidades
de los turistas más exigentes. Un buen ejemplo de ello es el agroturismo, en el que el turista participa en
las actividades típicas de una explotación agraria. Este estudio se centra en una variante reciente de este
tipo de turismo, conocida como holeriturismo. En concreto, el análisis se lleva a cabo en un proyecto pionero
en España en un parque agrario: el Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat (Barcelona). Con base a la información
obtenida de una encuesta realizada en el propio Parqu , se analiza el grado de satisfacción de los visitantes
con las diversas actividades que experimentan. A través del uso de métodos estadísticos no paramétricos,
el estudio busca determinar si el perfil sociodemográfico de los visitantes, y su conocimiento del concepto de
turismo de verduras tienen un impacto significativo en sus valoraciones.
Palabras Clave: agroturismo, holeriturismo, Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat, métodos estadísticos no para-métricos,
satisfacción.
* Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (España); E­‑mail:
v.paul.carril@usc.es
** Doctora en Dirección y Planificación del Turismo. Investigadora y profesora invitada del Dpto. de Organización de Empresas
y Marketing (Universidad de Vigo); E­‑mail:
naraujo@uvigo.es
** Universidad de Vigo (España); E­‑mail:
pdecarlo@uvigo.es
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
742 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
1. Introduction
Peri­‑urban
agricultural spaces have gradually been converted into places for the practice of a range of
leisure, recreational and tourist activities. Thus, the farmers’ traditional tasks are today being undertaken
alongside other activities such as hiking and running (Bryant et al., 1982; Bryant and Johnston, 1992).
The direct result of these changes has been the emergence in these spaces of the activities of agritourism,
which have evolved considerably so that today they encompass the full participation of tourists in the
tasks of a working farm, including the tasting of the products that are harvested and produced on it.
This combination of leisure activities and agriculture does not require any particular investment, since
it is based on an existing infrastructure: that of agriculture and the land. Furthermore, agritourism
contributes to the conservation of an area’s farming, inasmuch as it “consumes” the products of farming
as well as its places of production (Paül and Araújo, 2012; Michelin et al., 2007).
Clearly, a key element here is the management of the public use of these peri­‑urban
parks (Arnberger
and Brandenburg, 2007). The leisure and recreational activities that were first to emerge at the urban
edge were primarily walking, cycling and running. However, in more recent times, there has been a
growing awareness of the need to promote more original initiatives to develop tourism and the public
use of peri­‑urban
agricultural parks, so that tourists might become more familiar with the agricultural
nature of these spaces. It is this need that the agritourism sector has responded to, although in general
the sector has been associated with quintessentially rural areas and not peri­‑urban
areas (Paül and
Araújo, 2012). In the Mediterranean region, peri­‑urban
agriculture corresponds largely to its market
gardens and orchards (Meeus, 1995), which means that agritourism should be based around horticultural
crops, i.e. fruit and vegetables. From here we derive the Spanish term used in the Mediterranean of
holeriturismo, from the Latin Holus meaning vegetable + tourism, that is, vegetable tourism, and
which basically involves the exploration of the region’s market gardens and orchards. According to
unpublished documents of the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat (Baix Llobregat Agricultural Park) – in
which this variety of tourism has been a pioneer project – this variant of agritourism can be defined as
the tourism that takes as its point of reference and main element of interest market garden vegetables
and, by extension, fruit and all their associated qualities of flavour, colour and texture, etc., as well as
the traditional practices employed by the farmers in their cultivation. In short, the aim is to disseminate
a better understanding of the region’s market gardens.
The large body of literature that has concerned itself with agritourism (Hoyland, 1982; Frater, 1983;
Murphy, 1985; Pearce, 1990; Bowen et al., 1991; Hilchey, 1993; Viñals, 1999; Mesa, 2000; Przezbórska,
2003; Hernando et al., 2003; Phillip et al., 2010) has tended to focus its attention on what the sector
can offer. Moreover, the few studies examining demand in the sector have tended to examine tourism
in rural areas and not specifically agritourism (Kastenhold et al., 1999; Frochot, 2005; Molera and
Albaladejo, 2007; Park and Yoon, 2009; Oh and Schuett, 2010). Drawing on survey information, this
literature identifies different segments of tourists in relation to the benefits sought and determines
their profiles as a function of their socio­‑demographic
characteristics or patterns of behaviour while
on holiday. However, from a review of this literature it quickly becomes apparent that little is known
about the profile of the consumers of agritourism or their opinions about this type of tourism, essential
information to provide the necessary feedback for those that promote this sector. This paper seeks to
fill this gap.
Based on the fundamental principle of marketing according to which all products have to satisfy the
needs, desires and wants of the consumer, the concept of market segmentation emerges. This means
“viewing a heterogeneous market as a number of smaller homogeneous markets, in response to differing
preferences, attributable to the desires of customers for more precise satisfactions of their varying
wants’’ (Smith, 1956, p.6). This strategic choice has enabled firms in many sectors to successfully tackle
constant changes in consumer behaviour.
A fundamental concern when undertaking such segmentation is the definition of the variables on
which it will be based. Frank et al. (1972) proposed a classification of these variables that remains an
essential reference in the field, as is evidenced by a number of recent studies including Li et al. (2011)
and Radder and Han (2011). This classification identifies two levels, that of generality (general and
brand specific) and that of objectivity (observable and unobservable), as shown in Table 1.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 743
Table 1: Model of variables that influence market segmentation
General Specific
Observable
−−Demographic: gender, age,
marital status...
−− Socio­‑economic:
income,
occupation, education…
−−Geographic: nationality, región,
habitat…
−−Usage frequency and situation
−−Brand and store loyalty
−− State of adoption
−− Type and place of purchase
Unobservable
−− Personality traits
−− Personal values
−− Lifestyle
−− Perceptions
−−Expectations
−− Preferences
−−Attitudes
Source: own elaboration based on Frank et al. (1972)
According to the literature, segmentation analysis begins by examining the variables (objective and
general) included in the northwest quadrant, or more specifically those that define the socio­‑demographic
profile of the consumer. Indeed, a central concern of this paper, which seeks to fill gap in the litera-ture
on agritourism, is the delimitation of the socio­‑demographic
profile of the tourist or visitor who
participates in the activities associated with this type of tourism. The analysis also takes into account
other segmentation variables (specific and subjective) that lie in the southeast quadrant of the proposed
model, that is, the degree of knowledge that tourists have of the agritourism product being examined.
Unsurprisingly, there is considerable consensus to the effect that consumer familiarity with a particular
product category influences the assessments consumers make of novel versions of that product (Alba
and Hutchinson, 1987; Zhou and Nakamoto, 2007). In short, by analysing whether different consumer
groups make significantly different assessments, valuable information can be obtained that promoters
can use to improve the design and subsequent acceptance of a product.
This paper examines the vegetable tourism initiative undertaken by the Parc Agrari del Baix
Llobregat (Barcelona, ​Spain). Planned in 2008, it was launched as a pilot project in 2009, to determine
the degree of acceptance by tourists and visitors as well as by the farmers of the area. Exploiting the
park’s typical resources, and in an attempt to link tourism to them, a range of activities are offered
that make up an integrated tourism product:
•• Visits to farms specializing in one particular crop, in order to learn more about the specific vegetable
and the landscape in which it is grown and to hear the explanations of the farmer.
•• Exhibitions dedicated to the specific vegetable in a specially designed interpretation centre.
•• Product tasting/production workshops.
•• Visits to restaurants in the area where dishes can be tasted using the vegetables grown in the park.
•• This is the first agritourism experience designed by a peri­‑urban
agricultural park in Spain, as
well as being the only one to be exclusively known as a vegetable tourism project. The pioneering
nature of the present case gives added interest to this research.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In the next section the methodology employed is
outlined, including details regarding the determination of the sample to be analysed. The results are
then reported and discussed in the final concluding section.
2. Analytical methodology and sample
Based on the findings of a survey conducted in the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat, this section analyses
visitor assessments of the route and its activities, and also considers the level of understanding that
the interviewees professed to have of vegetable tourism and the way in which they actually defined the
activity. Similarly, using non­‑parametric
tests, the study seeks to determine whether these assessments,
including visitor responses regarding how much they know about vegetable tourism and how they
define it, differ significantly depending on the characteristics of the respondents’ profiles. The aim is
to provide information that can improve the design of vegetable tourism routes, taking into account
the preferences and wishes of the target audience, and to highlight the extent to which it is important
to explain to the visitors the activity they are taking part in.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
744 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
To record the respondents’ level of satisfaction with the route and its activities, we used a Likert scale,
as is usual in studies assessing the satisfaction of consumers or users of a product or service (Oliver, 1981;
Dubé­‑Rioux,
1990; Oliver, 1999; Cronin et al., 2000; Vanhamme, 2000; Brady et al., 2001; Jun et al., 2001 and
Van Dolen et al., 2004). Specifically, it is a five­‑point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = indifferent,
4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree), composed of eleven items related to different aspects of the route and its
activities that might affect the assessment that visitors make of the product being offered to them (Table 2).
Table 2: Items used in evaluating visitor satisfaction with the route and its activities
A The number of activities programmed is sufficient.
B All the activities have been interesting.
C All the explanations have been enjoyable.
D I enjoyed the guided walk through the fields.
E I enjoyed the guided visit to the exhibition.
F I enjoyed tasting the artichokes.
G I enjoyed meeting the farmer.
H The activities lasted the right amount of time.
I I enjoyed the pacing and rhythm of the activities.
J The number of participants is correct.
K The attention provided by the staff is good.
The survey includes two additional questions that seek to determine the extent to which the interviewees
are familiar with the concept of vegetable tourism and how they define it (Table 3). First, the interviewees
were asked whether they knew what this type of tourism was. They were presented with four alternative
responses, with which it was hoped to ascertain whether their taking part in the route had influenced
their understanding of the idea underpinning the activity. Second, the respondents were allowed to choose
between possible definitions of vegetable tourism: one that was correct (“Tourism aimed at discovering
market gardens and orchards”); another that was basically acceptable (“Visits to a suburban farming
area in the outskirts of a city”); and two that were incorrect (“Market gardening in the outskirts of a city”
and “Suburban farming”). In this way, it was hoped to discover whether the knowledge supposedly held
by the respondent about the activity corresponded to an accurate understanding of its actual meaning.
Table 3: Questions determining the level of understanding that the interviewees
professed to have of vegetable tourism and the way in which they actually defined it.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT VEGETABLE TOURISM IS?
a) I’ve never heard of it before.
b) I’d never heard of it until I started the route, but now I know what it means because it has been
explained to me.
c) I have heard of it, but I still do not know what it means.
d) I’ve been able to find out what it means for myself during or after finishing the route.
HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE VEGETABLE TOURISM?
a) Visits to a suburban farming area in the outskirts of a city.
b) Market gardening in the outskirts of a city.
c) Tourism aimed at discovering market gardens and orchards.
d) Suburban farming.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 745
The survey was administered in the months of February and March 2011 by personal interviews
conducted with the visitors as they finished the specific vegetable tourism activity. In these months, the
main product being shown on the route was the artichoke (known in Catalan as CarxofaPrat), which
explains why some of the questions on the survey specifically mention this vegetable. The total number
of interviews conducted was 655, of which 313 were valid (47.8% response rate) (Table 4).
Table 4: Technical details defining the research
Characteristics Survey
Population Visitors of the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat
Geographical area Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat
Sample size 313 valid surveys
Sample error ± 5.5%
Confidence level 95% Z = 1.96 p=q=0.5
Sample design Systematic random sampling
Data collection method Personal interview
Field work conducted between: 12/02/2011­‑20/
03/2011
Five variables were considered when determining the profile of the interviewees: sex, age, level of
education, occupation and monthly family income (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Socio­‑demographic
profile of the interviewees (N = 313)
GENDER AGE
LEVEL OF EDUCATION OCCUPATION
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
746 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME
Source: own elaboration.
As can be seen, slightly more than two thirds of those interviewed are women. In addition, they
are, on the whole, mature in age and well educated: only 21.4% of the respondents are under 45 years
of age while 50.2% have a university degree. As for their occupation, almost four of every ten work
as salaried employees (a quarter of these in the state sector), while a fifth are retired. Finally, 85.3%
live in households with a monthly income of between 601 and 3,600 euros, distributed almost evenly
between those with an income of between 601 and 1,800 euros, on the one hand, and those with an
income of between 1,801 and 3,500 euros, on the other. In short, the average profile of the interviewees
is that of a woman aged between 55 and 64 years of age, with a university degree, working as a salaried
employee and whose monthly family income is between 1,801 and 3,600 euros, three to six times the
minimum salary in Spain.
Given that the data are ordinal and do not follow a normal distribution,1 the non­‑parametric
Kruskal­‑Wallis
H­‑test
and the Mann­‑Whitney
U­‑test
(Sheskin, 2007) were used to analyse whether
the assessments of the route and its activities are significantly different depending on the profile of
the interviewees and their responses regarding their knowledge and definition of vegetable tourism.
When more than two samples are compared, the H­‑test
fails to identify where the difference occurs,
i.e., between which specific groups there is a systematic difference. It is, therefore, necessary to use
the Mann­‑Whitney
U­‑test.
Thus, in the case of the sex variable, as there are only two options (i.e., two
unrelated samples), the two tests yield the same result, and so the U­‑test
is applied directly. For the
rest of the variables, in which the number of options is greater than two (i.e., more than two unrelated
samples), the H­‑test
is applied first and, in those cases in which the test detects the presence of a
significant relationship, the U­‑test
is used to determine between which two specific groups it occurs.2
In short, the hypotheses tested are:
•• Null Hypothesis (H0): no differences occur between any of the samples in terms of their responses
to the questions posed. In other words, no systematically higher or lower assessments are recorded
for any of the groups (samples) with respect to the others.
•• Alternative Hypothesis (HA): a difference is recorded between at least two of the samples in terms
of their responses to the questions posed. In other words, systematically higher or lower appraisals
are recorded in at least one of the groups (samples) with respect to the others.
3. Analysis and results
Below the results of the survey are analysed, beginning with those obtained in response to the
questions regarding the visitors’ knowledge and definition of vegetable tourism. As can be seen in Figure
2, there is a clear majority (70.6%) of respondents who believe they have understood what this type of
tourism means, above all those that attribute this understanding to the explanations received while
taking part on the route. By contrast, 22.4% claim never to have heard the concept before; whereas,
only 7% recognize that they still do not understand what it means despite having heard people use the
term. When defining this type of tourism, a clear majority (77.9%) of those interviewed opted for the two
accepted definitions and in fact the majority of those chose the correct one. It is worth stressing that,
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 747
among those claiming to know what vegetable tourism is as a result of the explanations received on the
route, 81.03% chose the two accepted definitions. An almost identical figure (80.77%) was recorded by
those who claimed to have found out the meaning for themselves during or after the route. By contrast,
the percentage of correct responses fell ten points among those who claimed not to knowing the meaning
of vegetable tourism. Therefore, in most cases the knowledge held by the respondent about the activity
corresponded to an accurate understanding of its meaning.
Figure 2: Knowledge and definition of vegetable tourism among the interviewees
DO YOU KNOW WHAT VEGETABLE
TOURISM IS?
HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE VEGETABLE
TOURISM?
Note: Never heard before: I’ve never heard of it before; Now I know: I’d never heard of it until I started the
route, but now I know what it means because it has been explained to me; Still don’t know: I have heard
of it, but I still do not know what it means; Find out for myself: I’ve been able to find out what it means
for myself during or after finishing the route. Visit: Visits to a suburban farming area in the outskirts of a
city; Market gardening: Market gardening in the outskirts of a city; Tourism: Tourism aimed at discovering
market gardens and orchards.
Source: own elaboration.
Given that our main interest in this section is the items that capture the level of user satisfaction
with the route and its activities, we need to analyse the reliability of the scale. The value of Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficient (0.914) indicates that the scale has a high level of internal consistency. Moreover, the
inter­‑item
correlation matrix shows that the correlations between the different elements on the scale
are all positive (no items are coded with an opposite sign to the others) and they can be considered
acceptable, with a predominance of values between 0.4 and 0.58, although item F (“I enjoyed tasting the
artichokes”) presents two correlations with values below 0.3. However, this item presents a correlation
with the scale formed by the remaining items (corrected index of homogeneity) greater than 0.40
(specifically, 0.464), which allows us to consider it consistent with the rest of the scale. Furthermore,
were it to be eliminated, the value of the Alpha coefficient rises to just 0.915. Therefore, the analysis
confirms the validity and reliability of the survey used to measure the degree of satisfaction of the
interviewees with the vegetable tourism activity undertaken.
In general, the opinions expressed by those interviewed regarding the route and its activities are
very positive (Table 5). The mean values of the assessments are over 4 in all instances, fluctuating
between 4.17 for item H (“The activities lasted the right amount of time”) and 4.78 for item K (“The
attention provided by the staff is good”). In addition to item K, four more items received an appraisal
above the average for all the items (4.44): F (“I enjoyed tasting the artichokes”), G (“I enjoyed meeting
the farmer”), B (“All the activities have been interesting”) and D (“I enjoyed the guided walk through
the fields”). The median, mode (in both cases the maximum value was predominant), the maximum
and the minimum indicate the same result. In short, the route and its activities appear to have made
a very favourable impression on the participants of the vegetable tourism experience.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
748 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
Table 5: Main descriptors of the assessments obtained for the eleven items on the survey
ITEM A B C D E F G H I J K
Nº answers 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313
Average 4,32 4,48 4,40 4,46 4,26 4,68 4,63 4,17 4,29 4,38 4,78
Median 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5
Mode 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Minimun 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
Maximun 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Note: You can see the meaning of each item in Table 2.
Source: own elaboration.
Having presented the main findings from the responses to the survey, we next analyse whether the
appraisals of the route and its activities differ significantly according to the sex, age, level of education,
occupation and the family income of the interviewees, as well as according to the declared knowledge
and real knowledge of the meaning of vegetable tourism. Below, the most important results are shown
for those cases in which statistically significant differences were observed between two groups when
applying the Mann­‑Whitney
U­‑test
(Table 6).
Table 6: Statistics corresponding to significant cases obtained
when applying the Mann­‑Whitney
U­‑test
ITEM GROUPS N ρ MIDRANGE ITEM GROUPS N ρ MIDRANGE
B
Man 103
0,0196
(0,05)
142,03
E
Self­‑employed
23
0,0012
(0,003)
13,26
Woman 210 164,34
Employed
in the
home
8 23,88
D
Man 103 0,0444
(0,05)
143,99 E
Self­‑employed
23 0,0018
(0,003)
29,98
Woman 210 163,38 Retired 60 46,61
E
Man 103 0,0178
(0,05)
141,13 F
0­‑600
12 0,0014
(0,008)
43,42
Woman 210 164,79 601­‑1800
126 71,98
F
Man 103 0,0238
(0,05)
144,56 C
601­‑1800
126 0,0023
(0,008)
85,60
Woman 210 163,10 >3600 34 61,62
G
Man 103 0,0091
(0,05)
141,93 I
601­‑1800
126 0,0011
(0,008)
86,12
Woman 210 164,39 >3600 34 59,69
J
Man 103 0,0024
(0,05)
137,09 J
601­‑1800
126 0,0031
(0,008)
85,58
Woman 210 166,76 >3600 34 61,68
D
Primary 31
0,0026
(0,003)
27,66
B
Now I
Know 195
0,0046
(0,008)
112,55
PhD 16 16,91 Still don’t
Know 22 77,55
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 749
ITEM GROUPS N ρ MIDRANGE ITEM GROUPS N ρ MIDRANGE
I
Salaried 121
0,0029
(0,003)
62,69
A
Visit 112
0,0026
(0,008)
73,25
Employed
in the
home
8 100,00 Suburban
farming 25 49,96
E
State
workers 77
0,0019
(0,003)
55,01
Self­‑employed
23 35,39
Note: You can see the meaning of Now I know, Still don’t know,
Visit and Suburban farming in Figure 2. In turn, ρ is the p­‑value
for
the contrast (in parenthesis, the level of risk (a) taken after applica‑tion
of Bonferroni correction).
Source: own elaboration.
A good way to illustrate the above results is using the corresponding box plots (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Box plots of the significant cases when applying the Mann­‑Whitney
U­‑test
ITEM B ITEM D ITEM E
ITEM F ITEM G ITEM J
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
750 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
ITEM D ITEM I ITEM E
ITEM E ITEM E ITEM F
ITEM C ITEM I ITEM J
ITEM B ITEM A
Note: You can see the meaning of Now I Know, Still don’t know, Visit and Suburban farming in Figure 2.
Source: own elaboration.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 751
As can be seen in Figure 3, in most cases the median value enables us to distinguish the group with
the highest assessment scores, independent of how similar or distinct the distribution functions of both
groups are. However, in the case of items F and G, the median value of the appraisals made by men
and women is the same, which makes it necessary to turn to their respective distribution functions to
verify whether the appraisals of the women are higher.
In short, the tests undertaken reveal the following results:
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the sex of the interviewees:
the U­‑test
shows that, in the case of items B, D, E, F, G and J, significant differences occur between the
respective assessments made by men and women. For the six items the women’s evaluations are always
more positive. In other words, the women hold a more favourable opinion than the men regarding their
interest for all the activities offered, on the guided walk through the fields, on the guided visit to the
exhibition, of the artichoke tasting, of the meeting with the farmer and regarding the adequacy of the
number of people on the tour.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the age of the interviewees:
the H­‑test
shows that were no significant differences between the appraisals made by the different age
groups for any of the items. It seems, therefore, that the assessment of the route and its activities is
not conditioned by the age of the participants.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the level of education of the
interviewees: the H­‑test
shows that, in the case of item D, the appraisals are significantly different
between two or more groups defined on the basis of the interviewees’ level of education. The U­‑test
shows that these differences occur, exclusively, between individuals with primary studies and those that
hold a PhD. Specifically, the group with the lowest level of education holds a more favourable opinion
of the guided walk through the fields than the more highly qualified group.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the occupation of the
interviewees: the H­‑test
shows that, in the case of items E and I, the appraisals are significantly
different between two or more groups defined on the basis of the occupation of the interviewees. The
U­‑test
shows that, in the case of item E, those that work in the state sector, those that are employed in
the home and those that are retired make statistically more positive appraisals than the self­‑employed.
Likewise, in the case of item I, the same test shows that those employed in the home make significantly
more positive appraisals than those that work as salaried employees. In short, the guided visit to the
exhibition is enjoyed less by the self­‑employed
than it is by state workers, those that are employed in
the home and the retired; while the pacing and rhythm of the activities is more highly appraised by
those employed in the home than it is by those that work as salaried employees.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the monthly family income
of the interviewees: the H­‑test
shows that, in the case of items C, F, I and J, the assessments differ
significantly between two or more groups defined on the basis of the monthly family income of the
interviewees. The U­‑test
shows that individuals in the group with the second lowest income (601­‑1,800)
make statistically more positive appraisals than those in the group with the lowest income (0­‑600),
in
the case of item F, and than those in the group with the highest income (>3,600), in the case of items
C, I and J. In other words, in the two groups of lowest income levels, the individuals with a family
income below 600 euros did not enjoy the artichoke tasting as much. Moreover, the individuals in the
group with the second lowest income level enjoyed the explanations more and appreciated the pacing
and rhythm of the activities more, considering the number of participants to be more correct than was
the case of those with the highest levels of income.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the participants’ knowledge
of vegetable tourism: the H­‑test
shows that, in the case of item B, the assessments differ significantly
between two or more groups defined on the basis of their responses to the question: Do you know
what vegetable tourism is? The U­‑test
shows that these differences occur, exclusively, between those
that respond: “I’d never heard of it until I started the route, but now I know what it means because it
has been explained to me” and those that answer: “I have heard of it, but I still do not know what it
means”. Specifically, the first group offers more positive appraisals. In other words, those that declare
that they have discovered the meaning of vegetable tourism during their visit report more favourable
impressions of all the activities than those reported by individuals who, even after the visit, still do
not know what vegetable tourism is.
The assessment of the route and its activities as a function of the definition given of
vegetable tourism: the H­‑test
shows that, in the case of item A, the assessments differ significantly
between two or more groups defined on the basis of their response to the question: How would you
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
752 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
define vegetable tourism? The U­‑test
shows that these differences occur, exclusively, between those that
respond: “visits to a suburban farming area in the outskirts of a city” and those that answer: “suburban
farming”, with the former reporting more positive appraisals. Therefore, the respondents that hold
a basically acceptable definition of vegetable tourism have a more favourable opinion regarding the
sufficiency of the number of activities programmed than those who hold an erroneous definition.
4. Discussion and conclusions
Among the many new trends observed in the tourism sector, the one that stands out most is perhaps
the emergence of a new type of tourist, with their own set of highly individualised tastes and expectations
that are increasingly oriented towards a so­‑called
experiential consumption (Pine and Gilmore, 1999).
This new tendency represents a considerable challenge for an established power of the tourist sector
such as Spain, which is suffering a reduction in the profitability of its traditional sun and beach tourist
product due, among other factors, to direct competition from other Mediterranean destinations (Kozak
and Martin, 2012). As a result, and as is emphasised in Spain’s Tourism Plan Horizon 2020 (SGT, 2007),
one of the main current lines of action involves the innovative design of a new range of tourist products.
These adhere to a strategy of market segmentation that permits the development of proposals that
are better adapted to the new requirements of the market and which promote deseasonalisation and
a more equitable socio­‑territorial
balance of tourist flows.
Among the various alternatives proposed special mention should be made, given the direct invol-vement
of the tourist and the consequent emanation of their emotions and sensations, of the tourist
activity being developed on working farms and within the sector of agritourism (Phillip et al., 2010).
Aimed at satisfying the increasing experiential needs of tourists, agritourism has evolved, giving rise
to the appearance of a range of innovative variants. Among these we find vegetable tourism, or what
amounts to the same thing, a sector aimed at discovering market gardens and orchards, and which
has been the focus of this paper.
The existence of this unique and innovative activity in Spain, specifically in the Parc Agrari del Baix
Llobregat, represents an excellent opportunity to obtain information first hand about a type of tourism
that may well establish itself as an attractive alternative for certain areas specialising in the production
of vegetable crops in peri­‑urban
environments. These include the market gardens of Valencia and Murcia
(Meeus, 1995), and the zones of intensive production of horticultural crops along the coast of Andalusia
(Molinero et al., 2011). In contrast with the typical approach adopted in analyses of agritourism projects,
this article has considered it more interesting to focus on the demand factor in this sector.
The results obtained show that the average profile of the person who enjoys activities related to
vegetable tourism is that of a woman, fairly advanced in years, with a university degree, working
as a salaried employee and with a medium­‑high
purchasing power. Likewise, the evidence obtained
shows that the explanations received by the visitors while on the agritourist route help improve their
understanding of the concept of vegetable tourism.
Furthermore, it is apparent that those who participate in vegetable tourism activities are very satisfied
with the route, as is reflected in the high assessment scores awarded to each of the activities included
on it. These results seem to confirm the thesis of such authors as Carpenter et al. (1994), according to
which consumers show a more favourable predisposition to a new product.
In general, the opinions of the women interviewed tend to be more positive than those of the men,
while the age of the visitors does not have a significant influence on their appraisals. Interestingly,
certain aspects of the route receive a poorer assessment from individuals with a higher income than
they do from those classified in a medium­‑low
level income group. Thus, the study is able to contribute
new evidence regarding the influence of socio­‑demographic
variables on the tourists’ appraisals of
the destinations they visit, compared to previous contributions (Beerli and Martin, 2004; Craggs and
Schofield, 2011).
Yet, undoubtedly, what is most significant is that the interest expressed by those visitors who believe
they understand the concept of vegetable tourism thanks to the explanations offered on the tour is
significantly higher for all the route’s activities than it is among those who, following the visit, remain
unsure as to what the sector actually is. Likewise, the number of activities programmed is considered
to be more appropriate as the visitors’ knowledge of vegetable tourism improves. These results are
largely in line with those obtained by Zhou and Nakamoto (2007), who verify that it is the consumers
that are most familiar with a product that tend to offer better assessments of it.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 753
In short, the evidence suggests that novel experiences such as the one analysed here can be highly
attractive, above all if the operators are successful in ensuring that users understand the exact nature
of their offer. However, if the design and management of such alternative proposals are to be improved,
it is essential to conduct in­‑depth
analyses of the demand, with the aim, among others, of identifying
the specific segments of tourists that might be attracted by it and of determining the fundamental
characteristics of their profile.
5. Acknowledgements
This paper has been prepared as part of the project CSO2009­‑12225­‑C05­‑03,
funded by the Spa-nish
Ministry of Science and Innovation.
6. End notes
1. This is confirmed by comparing the z­‑scores
for kurtosis and skewness with the critical region (a =
0.05) obtained from the normal distribution and the application of the Kolmogorov­‑Smirnov
one­‑sample
test (a = 0.05).
2. To avoid Type I error, we use the Bonferroni correction, which involves dividing the level of risk
(a = 0.05) by the number of comparisons made (k), which depends on the number of groups (n) in which
the variable under consideration has been divided (k = n(n­‑1)/
2).
References
Alba J W, Hutchinson, J W.
1987. “Dimensions of consumer expertise”. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4): 411­‑454.
Arnberger A, Brandenburg C.
2007. “Past On­‑Site
Experience, Crowding Perceptions and Use Displacement of Visitor Groups to a
Peri­‑Urban
National Park”. Environmental Management, 40: 34­‑45.
Beerli A, Martín J D.
2004. “Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis­‑a
case study of Lanzarote, Spain”. Tourism Management, 25(5): 623­‑636.
Bowen R L, Cox L, Fox M.
1991. “The interface between tourism and agriculture”. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2): 43­‑54.
Brady M K, Robertson C J, Cronin J J.
2001. “Managing behavioral intentions in diverse cultural environments: an investigation of service
quality, service value, and satisfaction for American and Ecuadorian fast­‑food
customers”. Journal
of International Management, 2(7): 129­‑149.
Bryant C R, Johnston T R R.
1992. Agriculture in the City’s Countryside. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.
Bryant C R, Russwurm L H, Mclellan A G.
1982. The City’s Country­side.
Land and Its Management in the Rural­‑urban
Fringe. Longman: London/
New York.
Carpenter G S, Glazer R, Nakamoto K.
1994. “Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes”.
Journal of Marketing Research, 3(31): 339­‑350.
Craggs R, Schofield P.
2011. “The quays in Salford: an analysis of visitor perceptions, satisfaction and behavioural intention”.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(13): 583­‑599.
Cronin J J, Brady M K, Hult G T.
2000. “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions
in service environments”. Journal of Retailing, 2(76): 193­‑218.
Dubé­‑Rioux
L.
1990. “The power of affective reports in predicting satisfaction judgments”. Advances in Consumer
Research, 17: 571­‑576.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
754 Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism
Frank R E, Massy W F, Wind Y.
1972. Market segmentation. Prentice­‑Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Frater J M.
1983. “Farm tourism in England. Planning, funding, promotion and some lessons from Europe”. Tourism
Management, 3(4): 167­‑79.
Frochot I.
2005. “A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: a Scottish perspective”. Tourism Management,
3(26): 335–346.
Hernando Riveros S, Marvin Blanco M.
2003. “El agroturismo, una alternativa para revalorizar la agroindustria local como mecanismo de
desarrollo local”. http://www.infoagro.net/shared/docs/a5/ACF2DB6.pdf (accessed 16 April 2009).
Hilchey D.
1993. Agritourism in New York State: opportunities and challenges in farm­‑based
recreation and
hospitality. Department of Rural Sociology, University Ithaca: New York.
Hoyland I
1982. “The development of Farm Tourism in the UK and Europe: Some Management and Economics
Aspects”. Farm Management, 10(4): 383­‑389.
Jun S, Hyun Y L, Gentry J W, Song C.
2001. “The relative influence of affective experience on consumer satisfaction under positive versus
negative discrepancies”. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
14: 141­‑153.
Kastenholz E, Davis D, Paul G.
1999. “Segmenting Tourism in Rural Areas: The Case of North and Central Portugal”. Journal of Travel
Research, 4(37): 353­‑363.
Kozak M, Martin.
2012. “Tourism life cycle and sustainability analysis: Profit­‑focused
strategies for mature destinations”.
Tourism Management, 1(33):1 88­‑194.
Li X, Meng F, Uysal M, Mihalik B.
2011. “Understanding China’s long­‑haul
outbound travel market: An overlapped segmentation approach”.
Journal of Business Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 19 October 2011.
Meeus J H A.
1995. “Pan­‑European
landscapes”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1­‑3(
31): 57­‑79.
Mesa M.
2000. El turismo rural y el desarrollo local, in V Pérez, E Carrillo, Desarrollo local: manual del uso.
Federación Andaluza de Municipios y Provincias y Editorial ESIC: Madrid: 556­‑600.
Michelyn Y, Aznar O, Guerreira F, Ménadier L, Planchat C, Vollet D.
2007. The Saint­‑Nectaire
cheese landscapes: myth or reality?, in B Pedroli (Ed.), Europe’s living
landscapes. Essays exploring our identity in the countryside. KNNV Publishing: Zeist: 48­‑64.
Molera L, Albaladejo I P.
2007. “Profiling segments of tourists in rural areas of South­‑Eastern
Spain”. Tourism Management,
3(28): 757­‑767.
Molinero F, Ojeda J F, Tort J Eds.
2011. Los paisajes agrarios de España. Caracterización, evolución y tipificación. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino: Madrid.
Murphy P E.
1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen: New York.
Oh J Y J, Schuett M A.
2010. “Exploring expenditure­‑based
segmentation for rural tourism: overnight stay visitors versus
excursionists to fee­‑fishing
sites”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1(27): 31­‑50.
Oliver R L.
1981. “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings”. Journal of Retailing,
1(57): 25­‑48.
Oliver R L.
1999. “Whence Consumer Loyalty”. Journal of Marketing, 63, Special Issue: 33­‑44.
Park D­‑B,
Yoon Y­‑S.
2009. “Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study”. Tourism Management,
1(30): 99­‑108.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 4. Special Issue. Julio 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Valerià Paül Carril, Noelia Araújo Vila, Pablo de Carlos Villamarín 755
Paül V, Araújo N.
2012. “Agroturismo en entornos periurbanos: enseñanzas de la iniciativa holeriturismo en el Parc Agrari
del Baix Llobregat (Cataluña)”. Cuadernos de Turismo, 29: 183­‑208.
Pearce P L.
1990. “Farm Tourism in New Zeland. A social situation analysis”. Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 337­‑352.
Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K.
2010. “A typology for defining agritourism”. Tourism Management, 6(31): 754­‑758.
Pine B J, Gilmore J H.
1999. The experience economy. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Przezbórska L.
2003. Relationships between rural tourism and agrarian restructuring in a transitional economy: The
case of Poland, en D Hall, L Roberts, M Mitchell Eds. New Directions in Rural Tourism. Ashgate:
Aldershot: 203­‑222.
Radder L, Han X.
2011. “Segmenting And Profiling South African Minibus Taxi Commuters: A Factor­‑Cluster­‑Tabulation
Analysis Approach”. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 12(10): 127­‑138.
Secretaría General de Turismo (SGT)
2007. Plan del Turismo Español Horizonte 2020. Documento Ejecutivo. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo
y Comercio: Madrid.
Sheskin D J.
2007. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (Fourth Edition), Chapman
& Hall/CRC: Boca Ratón (Florida).
Smith W R.
1956. “Product differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies”. Journal
of Marketing, 1(21): 3­‑8.
Van Dolen W, De Ruytter K, Lemmink J.
2004. “An empirical assessment of the influence of customer emotions and contact employee performance
on encounter and relationship satisfaction”. Journal of Business Research, 5(57): 437­‑444.
Vanhamme J.
2000. “The Link Between Surprise and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research on how best to Measure
Surprise”. Journal of Marketing Management, 6(16): 565­‑582.
Viñals M J.
1999. Los espacios naturales y rurales. Los nuevos escenarios de turismo sostenible, en M J Viñals, A
Bernabé Eds. Turismo en espacios naturales y rurales. Universitat Politècnica de València: València:
13­‑33.
Zhou K Z, Nakamoto K.
2007. “How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? The moderating role of
product familiarity”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1(35):53­‑62.
Recibido: 07/01/2013
Reenviado: 18/03/2013
Aceptado: 29/04/2013
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos