CC BY
976 Ä and Practice
Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Hegton
UDK 338.48
Petrovic M., Bjeljac Z., Vujko A.
ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE CYCLE OF AN AGRITOURISM DESTINATION -A THEORETICAL APPROACH
Abstract: The paper examined the life cycle model of an agritourism destination and its consequences. To achieve that, authors of the paper used Butler's model, as one of the most complete and most widely accepted models of a tourist destination life cycle. According to presented approach, tourist destinations pass through the cycle, which consists of six basic stages: research, inclusion or participation, development, consolidation, stagnation and stabilization, and finally rejuvenation or fall. In addition, authors presented main characteristics of life cycle phases of an agritourist
destination, suggested by Swarbrooke [7]. These are the key propositions to start an initiative for the local communities to involve and actively participate in agritourism development. The results provide residents and local authorities with important community perceptions pertaining to the life cycle of an agritourism destination and main characteristics on the relation local residents - visitors.
Key words: agritourism, evolution cycle model, rural area, locals, visitors.
Petrovic M.-
Ph.D., Research Associate, Geographical Institute «Jovan CvijiC»,
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA)
Belgrade, Serbia
Tel.: +381 11 26 36 395
E-mail: m.petrovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Bjeljac Z. -
Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Geographical Institute
«Jovan Cvijic», Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA)
Belgrade, Serbia
Tel.: +381 11 26 36 395
E-mail: z.bjeljac@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Vujko A.-
Ph.D., Assistant Professor,
Novi Sad Business School
Novi Sad, Serbia
Tel.: +381 64 914 26 45
E-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com
Introduction
The effect of global processes on economy growth is reflected in direction and intensity of the international and domestic tourist flows, as well as in the development of particular types of tourism, so called special interests' tourism. In modern studies on the development of the international tourist trends, agritourism has raised as its very increasing and significant segment. There are many spatial guidelines in the terminology of agritourism and its relation to rural tourism [8, 5, 11]. In the USA, these two types of tourism are actually identical, considering that in most parts of the US there are spacious rural areas, with numerous ranches and farms, so that the narrow notion of rural area according to the European norms is almost non-existent here. On the other hand, among the EU member states, where many rural areas also have prominent non-agricultural functions (e.g. forestry, breeding hunting and fishing species, hospitality, craftsmanship etc.), the differences between agritourism and rural tourism are significant. This is justified by the fact that in many rural areas of the EU the extensive agricultural production is almost extinct, but the local community has found alternative ways of income and in this way remained in the rural area (e.g. production crafts, traffic business, numerous types of entrepre-neurship). Contrary to the aforementioned examples, in the Eastern European countries, where the process of deruralisation was very intense and rad-
ical, private rural households and the local village community are very poor financially, therefore rural and agritourism are treated as an entirely new way of business (Sznajder et al., 2009). As many authors suggest [3, 4, 9, 12, 5], agritourism is a part of rural tourism, which takes place on farms and other types of rural households, where there is a possibility of receiving food, beverage and/or accommodation, apart from the basic agricultural activity. Moreover, these authors state that hospitality, with a focus on the local gastronomic offer, may become an integral part of agritourism activities, with specific life cycle from introduction, to the fall of the market participation.
Results and discussion
The life cycle of a service or a product comprises all the phases through which a service or a product passes, from the entrance on the market to the level on which it is still profitable to keep it in the production program [2]. In the sphere of tourism, it is necessary to make a difference between the overall tourist product, i.e. tourist destination and a partial tourist product, i.e. tourist company. In this relation, it is necessary to mention that the life cycle of an agritourist economy company directly depends on the phase in a life cycle of a destination in which it is formed, but it also works in the opposite direction. The phases of the development cycle of a partial agritourist product are most often observed through
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
five phases, and they are: introduction, growth, maturity, satiation and fall of the market participation. The mentioned phases should be understood as the approximation of real trends on the market, because of the spotted relativity, i.e. unevenness in the speed of trends of various products on the market. However, undisputable is the role of the assessment of agritourist product life cycle as an instrument of planning in the future.
The life cycle of an agritourist destination passes through phases similar to the above, so it is often called evolution cycle, as well. The reason for using such a term lies in the main characteristics of a tourist destination, and especially in the significance of space as its element. Such a cycle takes into consideration all the changes of tourist demand manifestations (various visitors with different needs and motives) and the changes of a tourist offer based on which all kinds of events and/or characteristics of a tourist destination change.
Butler has given one of the most complete and most widely accepted models of a tourist destination life cycle (Figure 1). According to this approach, tourist destinations pass through the cycle which consists of six basic phases: research, inclusion or participation, development, consolidation, stagnation and stabilization, rejuvenation or fall [1].
1. The initial phase comprises the phase of research and the phase of inclusion or participation. The phase of research is characterized by a small number of visitors, who individually come to a tourist destination, i.e. without any mediation of a tourist agency or other legal entity. In the destination there is no infrastructure or superstructure or they are scarce, so the number of visitors is also limited. The contact with the local community is often intensive, and the total impact of tourism on the destination is small or irrelevant. In the sec-
ond sub-phase, the phase of participation or inclusion, very obvious is a larger number of tourist visits to the destination. The visitors are most often attracted by the fact that it is a new, and still not established rural destination. The local population begins to adapt to tourism development and increases the number of local initiatives for tourism development and the enrichment of material basis. In this phase the most outstanding is the seasonal tourist movement, and the impact of tourism is becoming more obvious, which usually leads to the inclusion of the public sector in numerous segments of tourist development in the destination (e.g. the construction of roads, tourist signalization, souvenir shops, etc.).
2. The growth phase is characterized by a general progress, when tourist infrastructure is concerned, and also by the appearance of clearly defined market segments, the stimulated marketing activities, but also by the inclusion of legal entities outside the tourist destination. In this phase, the number of visitors is significantly higher than the number of locals, which often leads to numerous conflicts between these two groups. In a significant amount, the local participation and the local control over tourist development is decreased, and there are signs of gradual degradation of the conditions for a stay. Adequate policy and investing are necessary, especially by the public sector, and with the aim to protect the resources for further, continuous development.
3. In the phase of maturity and consolidation, there is a decrease in the number of the coming tourists, even though their absolute number increases and significantly exceeds the number of residents. Tourist and business centers are developed as separate units with-
Rejuvenation
/ Reduced growth
CRITICAL
RANGE OF ¿r—-----►stabilization
CAPACITIES' Stagnation
ELEMENTS
Consolidation /
\ Decline
! Development Rapidly decline
/ Participation
Research
TIMEFRAME
Figure 1 - Tourist destination evolution cycle model
Source: Adapted according to Butler (1980)
78 Quaeez and^ Agr^ulturaL
Journal Bulletin of Stnvroiiol Hegion
in a destination. In the development a very intensive part is taken by numerous market subjects, such as tourist and non-tourist facilities from many business spheres (e.g. retail chains, craft workshops for mass production of souvenirs, new public services...). Very obvious are local attempts to attract visitors because the largest part of local economy is tightly connected with agritourism activities.
During the phase of stagnation, a tourist destination is no longer especially popular with visitors, even though it already has a recognizable market position and image. The maximum number of visitors has been achieved, with total use of all the hospitality capacities, which causes numerous social, economic and ecological problems. The change in ownership of a place is very common, and the building of new places is rare, with the increase of the local ownership of the places.
The end of evolution cycle means the choice among several main types of approach: stabilization, limited growth, rejuvenation, fall and distancing from tourist trends (sudden fall). The solution for this stagnation phase can be the introduction of new attractions, the engagement of unused resources, current hospitality facilities renovation or redirection of a tourist product or market. This stage is called a rejuvenation phase. A limited growth or stabilization, leans on this phase, because it contains certain ac-
tivities directed towards the product or market modification of an agritourist destination.
4. If due to fall of the number of visitors and further decrease of market a destination is no longer able to fight with the competition, then it gets into a decline phase. When it is estimated that it is not profitable for the destination to make changes of a produce or market in order to refresh or rejuvenate, a tourist destination decides to abandon the participation on the tourist market. In the observed moment, the role of the local authorities in a destination should be decisive in the management of changes, which involves making a strategy, which would involve investment partnership with a private sector.
The model of an agritourist destination life cycle suggests that each of the cycle phases has consequences concerning: number and type of visitors, level of contact between locals and tourists, the level of changes in a destination and the bearers of the control on local tourist economy business. The nature of these relations is shown in the Table 1. According to this model, the development of a destination initiates problems as a result of the fact that entrepreneurs outside the tourist destination start to take control over the local tourist economy, while the contact between locals and visitors becomes more formal and more institutionalized.
Table 1 - Characteristics of life cycle phases of an agritourist destination
Stages The Capacity Contact Changes Control Type of number tourists of tourists
Research Vei sma y ill Sm|ll Lo w No ne L^cal Alloj :entric
Participation r Lo^al r 1 r Regional N alloc Ce sar-entric / ntric
Development Maxi mal NonloCal Hi featui gh eless Rele ^ant National / International
Consolidation r The highest point Al le l the /els Near-psychocentric / Psychocentric
Stagnation Stably
Decline Sm; ill Lo^al Hi mech gh nical Local increasing
Rejuvenation New Reli cts National / International Ce |tric
Changing High Low Relevant
Source: Adapted according to Swarbrooke (1999)
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
The concept of a life cycle can be observed from two standpoints [6]. According to thefirst standpoint, it is believed that this concept is extremely useful as a means of predicting and understanding sales trends. Thesecond standpoint supports the thesis that life cycle concept of a destination is not useful for predicting because it does not reflect many variables that can affect sales and the choice of strategy aimed to gaining a competitive advantage. It can be concluded that it is virtually impossible to define the precise duration of the whole life cycle and the duration of its phases. This conclusion especially refers to agritourist products, both in a partial and the integrated form, primarily because of its structure, definition of certain cycle phases and the definition of breaking points between them.
Conclusions
With the mentioned details, the problems with the application of a cycle originate from the general overview of agritourist market, i.e. the rejection of the fact that the number of market segments in a destination determines the number of products, which can appear in different phases of the evolu-
tion cycle. For example, one agritourist destination can be in the phase of introduction for young people, and for the seniors, it can be in the decline phase or vice versa. On the other hand, the model of a life cycle of a destination can be very applicable with small, rural destinations, while it is almost inapplicable with the whole country and/or region as a tourist destination.
According to the presented standpoints and theses, it can be easily concluded that the model of a life cycle of a destination on a micro-level can also be observed as a life cycle of a place in agritour-ism, including all the accompanying development phases. Leaning on the previously presented standpoint that this model can be very applicable on small and extremely specialized destinations, the conclusion points to the opinion that the model is extremely useful for planning and predicting in agritourism, in the same amount as in other aspects of tourist activities in rural areas.
Acknowledgment: The research was supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (Grant III47007).
REFERENCES:
1. Butler R.W. The Concept of Tourism Area Cycle of Evaluation: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer, 1980. P. 5-12.
2. Grudeva E. National peculiarities in perception of the seasons in the Russian and English languages (on phycholinguistic experiment data) // Paradigmata poznani. 2017. № 1. C. 62-65.
3. Hovinen G. R. Revisiting the destination li-fecycle model: annals of Tourism Research. 2002. № 29(1). P. 209-230.
4. Miletic R., Todorovic M. Ecotourism and Complementary Activities as a Possibility of Including in the Development process // The Development and Potentials of Ecotourism on Balkan Peninsula / Geographical Institute «Jovan Cvijic» Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Belgrade, 2003. Vol. I. P. 85-93.
5. Parra-López E., Calero-Garcia F.J. Agrotour-ism, sustainable tourism and ultraperipheral areas: the case of the Canary Islands. Pasos, 2006. P. 85-97.
6. Petrovic M. D. Agritourism in contemporary scientific literature: agroekonomika. 2003. P. 59-60, P. 94-113.
7. Popesku J. Menadzment turisticke destinac-ije : Singidunum University / Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management. Belgrade, 2011.
8. Swarbrooke J. Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 1999.
9. Todorovic M., Bjeljac Z. Rural Tourism in Serbia as a Concept of Development in Undeveloped Regions: acta geographica. Sloveni-ca, 2009. № 49 (2). P. 453-473.
10. Todorovic M., Stetic S. Ruralni turizam. Belgrade: Forma B, 2009.
11. Agritourism / Sznajder M., Przezborska L., Scrimgeour F. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2009.
12. An Overview of Agritourism Development in Serbia and European Union Countries / Petrovic M. D., Radovic G., Terzic A. // International Journal of Sustainable Economies Management. 2015. № 4(2). P. 1-14.
13. Development of Farmers' Perception Scale on Agro Tourism in Cameron Highlands / Kunasekaran P., Ramachandran S., Ya-cob M. R., Shuib, A. // World Applied Sciences Journal (Special Issue of Tourism & Hospitality). Malaysia, 2002. № 12. P. 10-18.
14. Leisure Time in Countryside: The Health Aspects of Agritourism Activities / Petrovic M. D., Vujko A., Blesic I. // International Journal Scientific and Applicative papers. № 8(1 ). P. 131-136.
15. Tourism Impact Attitude Scale (TIAS) as a Tool of Contemporary Analysis in Agritourism / Petrovic M. D., Bjeljac Z., Demirovic D.Third International Scientific-Practical Conference Sustainable Development of Tourism Market: International Practice and Russian Experience. Stavropol, 2015.
