Rural Tourism, Farm Tourism and Farmers’ Markets

Tourism has been traditionally centered in coastal zones, mountainous areas, and cosmopolitan cities. However, the decline in family-owned agriculture and outward migration of population has encouraged local authorities to consider rural tourism as an option for local development (Ollenburg & Buckley, 2007). Rural areas are perceived to be rich with entrepreneurial capability with small family businesses who often have deep connections to culture and heritage (Lordkipanidze, Brezet, & Backman, 2005).

In line with social entrepreneurship is the notion of ‘entrepreneuring’, a process whereby entrepreneurs and groups confront social and economic constraints and exploit opportunities (Tobias, Mair, & Barbosa-Leiker, 2013). Entrepreneuring was discussed in the context of rural Rwanda and the specialty coffee industry by Tobias et al. (2013). Specifically, the researchers explored the transformative role that entrepreneurship can play in resolving social problems in relation to persistent poverty and areas of conflict. Similarly, social entrepreneurship indicates a need for social change, and “it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society that sets the field and its practitioners apart” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p. 28). The change agents in such rural contexts were actively triggering transformational processes which have potential to lead to external interest and invariably tourism. This example demonstrates the interesting and appealing nature of entrepreneurs and their stories of why and how they do what they do (Martin & Osberg, 2007). People are attracted to “extraordinary people who come up with brilliant ideas and against all the odds succeed at creating new products and services that dramatically improve people’s lives” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, p. 28). Accordingly, one specific motive for tourism in such contexts may be to observe and/or potentially receive guidance in carrying out similar projects in different settings. While the foci of many social entrepreneurs is for the benefit of people, preventing or mitigating damage to the natural environment also encompasses the social entrepreneurship agenda, as environmentally relevant market failures represent opportunities for innovators (Dean & Mcmullen, 2007). Ecological/environmental entrepreneurs have been described as those who prioritize a pro- environmental agenda whereas sustainable entrepreneurs have been described as those who have a balanced focus in their pursuits regarding the environment, society and economy (Dixon & Clifford, 2007).

Some of the research on eco or sustainable entrepreneurs in tourism may provide an alternative lens to explore the work of SE in rural contexts. Such entrepreneurs may carry out an alternative lifestyle (Linnanen, 2002), which may be the impetus for them to move to rural contexts (Boluk & Mottiar, 2014). An environmental entrepreneur can also relate to sustainable development in rural communities through quality food production (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Lordkipanidze et al. (2005) present a case study of a successful family-based enterprise in farm tourism, Angavallen Gard (Healthy Pig Farm) in Soderslatt, Sweden. The paper describes the importance of entrepreneurs in the development of local economies. Specifically, the authors followed the food supply chain of the pig meat, the special criteria developed by the owners on animal welfare and long distance transportation in consideration of environmental impacts and water saving measures. As the farm gained consumer interest there was a natural opportunity for the family to engage in tourism. Kline et al. (2014) asserted that tourism experiences can occur at each stage of the food supply chain, as such the farm provides tourism-related opportunities. Specifically, the Healthy Pig Farm has been used for “weddings, cafe and restaurant, Picnic Park, hotel, [and a] conference hall for business” (Lordkipanidze et al., 2005). Some other opportunities for co-creation in farm-based tourism may include factory tours, tours of wineries, breweries, culinary classes, and pick your own (see Kline et al., 2014). Part of the allure for travelers may be experiencing actions that improve lives, communities, and imagines high dividends in quality of life and the world (Martin & Osberg, 2007).

A popular trend as suggested by Hjalager and Johansen (2013) is the interest in purchasing food at or near the location of production such as farmers’ markets. Farmers’ markets have provided outlets for producers to fill an important niche for those consumers interested in quality, variety, an interest in supporting local agriculture (Dodds et al., 2014), seeking authentic experiences and opportunities to experience regional specialties (Sims, 2009), and freshness, social opportunities and value (Hjalager & Johansen, 2013). Specifically, farmers’ markets are portrayed as affordable. As such, farmers’ markets can align with social interests prioritizing inclusion. Farmers’ markets are also important because consumers often perceive the food to be more holistic, healthy, and an authentic representative of sustainability due to fewer food miles (Dodds et al., 2014). Dodds et al. (2014) recommends that the socially conscious vendors of farmers’ markets can do more by endorsing the economic benefits derived from shopping locally, maximize the experience by emphasizing the local economic benefits, catering to their predominant female market, and foster a sense of community by facilitating social opportunities. While not necessarily related to tourism, there is growing consensus that the existence of farmers ’ markets can contribute to food security in rural or urban areas Ahn et al., 2014. Some programs, such as Farmer Foodshare in North Carolina USA, use ‘donation stations’ set up at markets to collect donated and unwanted food from patrons and farmers, as well as cash donations, all to be funneled through the local food access channels; their mission is to “connect people who grow food with people who need food” and the bulk of their activity occurs at markets (Farmer Foodshare, n.d).

Local foods are associated with local values, and this can be of interest to consumers (Sims, 2009). Ultimately, the notion of caring for and supplying fresh local food supports the slow food concept supporting slow tourism, which opposes hyper consumption and awakens one’s senses and seeking enriching experiences (Clancy, 2014). Local meats and niche meats are gaining popularity because consumers are considering the impacts of industrial meat production on their own health, the welfare of the animal, and the workers and surrounding communities (Food Tank, 2014). Yudina and Fennell (2013) apply the tenants of ecofeminist theory to how tourists can interact with animals, particularly through eating them. While they do not address SE per se, implications of their discussion opens the door to entrepreneurs who wish to respond to the current lack of animals humanely raised as meat sources. And for consumers traveling or at home who want to be assured of ethically-raised meat sources, Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is a food label for meat and dairy products originating from farm animals raised to the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental care (AWA, 2015). It started as a response to market demand for healthy protein sources—healthy for the consumer, the farm worker, the environment, and the animals—as well as the growing concern for humane treatment of farm animals. AWA provides technical assistance and certification for farms, stipulates guidelines for slaughter facilities, provides marketing assistance for AWA certified products, and offers educational materials for consumers.

Hence, local food can represent being better for the environment, the conservation of rural landscapes, and supporting local economies, therefore having a central role in the sustainable tourism agenda and as such providing a feel-good factor for both consumers and producers alike (Sims, 2009). Dodds et al. (2014) recommends that the socially conscious vendors of famers’ markets can do more by endorsing the economic benefits derived from shopping locally, maximize the experience by emphasizing the local economic benefits, catering to their predominant female market, and foster a sense of community by facilitating social opportunities. The four SE discussed in this chapter provide examples of socially conscious operators who also strive to add value to their communities and the natural environment. The study digs deeper, however, into the motivations and intentions of the SE, and how their environment has helped and hindered their operations. Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship and Ecological Systems Theory are the theoretical frameworks underpinning this research.