UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED ECONOMICS
AG R I C U LT U R A L A N D
N AT U R E - BA S E D
TOURISM
S U RV E Y R E S U LT S F RO M G E O RG I A ' S
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
Wayne Curtis
John Bergstrom
John McKissick
Warren Kriesel
William Thomas
AGRICULTURAL AND NATUREBASED TOURISM
SURVEY RESULTS FROM GEORGIA'S CHAMBERS
OF COMMERCE
INTRODUCTION
The University of Georgia Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, in
coordination with the Georgia Agriculture Extension Service, conducted a survey on agritoursim and nature-based (eco-) tourism in Georgia in the fall of 2001.
This survey was sent to all Chambers of Commerce and Development Authorities within the
State of Georgia. They were asked to provide information on the agricultural and/or naturebased tourism operations within their region.
Information collected on agri/eco-tourism operations will be posted on the Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics website. This website will eventually have advanced
search capabilities for the location and type of operations within Georgia.
METHODOLOGY
The initial survey was sent by mail to Georgia's Chambers of Commerce in September 2001.
Each Chamber was sent a memorandum describing the survey, its reasoning, a definition of
agri/eco-tourism operations, and return contact information.
The survey defined agri-tourism as any tourism operation that is directly dependent upon an
agricultural operation. School farm tours, pick-your-own fruit and vegetable operations, and farm
produce stands are examples of agri-tourism business.
Nature-based, or eco-tourism, is defined as travel and visitation to an operation not directly
dependant upon agricultural and for the purpose of enjoyment, study, and the appreciation of nature
and any accompanying cultural features. Historical bed and breakfast operations, wildlife tours, and
paid hunting or fishing rights are examples of eco-tourism business.
For response, two charts divided agricultural and nature-based operations. The charts
requested information seen in the example below. These charts were enclosed with the
memorandum along with a pre-paid business reply envelope.
„ Table 1: Example Tourism Response Chart
A follow-up memorandum was sent in November 2001 to all Chambers that had not replied
to the initial survey. A box titled "Not Applicable" was added to the charts to account for
those areas which had no known agri/eco- tourism operations.
RESULTS
The results of the survey have been digitized into two tables of the same format:
•The brown table refers to all agri-tourism operations
•The green table refers to eco-tourism operations
To date, there have been 50 responses with 101 eco-tourism operations and 70 agri-tourism
operations recorded within Georgia.
Agricultural Tourism Times of
Operation
Nature-Based Tourism Operation
Times of Operation
Months
3
4
Spring
5
All Spring
6
7
Summer
8
All Summer
9
10
Fall
11
All Fall
12
1
Winter
2
All Winter
All Year
Unavailable Information
81
80
78
76
79
78
78
78
88
90
88
86
88
80
80
80
75
7
Months
3
4
Spring
5
All Spring
6
7
Summer
8
All Summer
9
10
Fall
11
All Fall
12
1
Winter
2
All Winter
All Year
Unavailable Information
33
34
34
33
32
32
33
31
36
39
38
36
26
27
26
26
24
16
„ Table 2: Displays the number of the calendar month and the quantity of tourism operations operative
during that time. Seasonal responses are displayed in the left column and are also incorporated in the
individual month column on the right.
Nature-based Tourism
Ag- Tourism
Acres
Customers/Year
1,033,128.50
152.71
2,496,550.00
69,251.00
801.00
3,201.00
1,801.00
25,001.00
69,858.80
130,373.67
Min
1.50
69.00
Max
396,000.00
579,503.00
Total
Mean
Median
Mode
St. Dev.
Acres
Customers/Year
14,301.00
376.34
243,139.00
10,130.79
Median
22.50
500.00
Mode
20.00
100.00
1,232.33
40,532.70
Min
1.00
5.00
Max
7,000.00
200,000.00
Total
Mean
St. Dev.
„ Table 3: Displays statistics on the acreage and customers/year of agricultural and Nature-based
tourism operations
„ Table 4: Displays the Agricultural types of tourism grouped into numerical labels. Types of tourism
are grouped, totaled, and ranked.
Agricultural Types of Toursim
2
3
4
56 7 8
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
8
„ Table 5: Displays the Nature-based types of tourism grouped into numerical labels. Types of tourism
are grouped, totaled, and ranked.
Top 10 Nature-based Types of
Toursim
0
10
20
6
3
1
8
3
2
4
5
5
0
1
10
6
4
2
8
20
DATA STORAGE AND REFERENCE
The results of this survey are useful as a reference to Georgia's agricultural and nature-based
tourism operations. This reference provides the size, locations, time of operation, types of
facilities and equipment used, types of tourism offered, and contact information. These
results can be used by the private sector or by public and business groups that seek out
agricultural and nature-based experiences.
With the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), the survey results can be stored
for retrieval, display, search and query, manipulation, and analysis. The tables can be linked
to assign Georgia counties with attributes from the survey results. Introduction into a GIS
will provide advanced capabilities for further research, data management, and display.
FUTURE OPTIONS
Further analysis of the tourism industry is needed for studies of economic feasibility.
Information on revenue and operation costs is difficult to acquire. Furthermore, studies on
the competitive market of the agri/eco-tourism industry would be useful for determining the
elasticity of demand as a result of competitive experiences (TV, Six Flags, or an aesthetic
drive through the countryside).
Agricultural and Nature-based tourism operations compete with all leisure, sport, and
educational experiences. The uniqueness of the operation distinguishes the operation from
other experiences, and therefore, is vital to its success. But in order to determine whether a
tourism operation may be feasible, one must consider many variables such as: location,
uniqueness of the operation, size of the operation, start-up costs (fixed), variable costs
(advertising and accommodations), and the elasticity of demand present and future.
Other factors may make studies of feasibility increasingly diverse. For example, many
agricultural tourism operations may provide school tours at no charge because the owners
desire to teach children within the community about their farming operations. Other naturebased tourism experiences are available in State Parks that are often offered as a free public
good to all.
Research has shown that most agricultural and nature-based tourism operations function at
sites where the land and facilities already exist. As a result, most of the fixed costs are
already covered and operation success becomes dependent upon demand for the experience
offered and accommodation costs.
Future research should focus on these two variables. Information obtained by continuing
this research will be useful to existing farmers and landowners considering the introduction
of tourism into their operation plans. As farmers and landowners attempt to increase the
efficiency of their operations, this research may provide practical insight into maximizing
profits and total utility while minimizing the costs of tourism accommodations.
For further information contact:
Wayne Curtis
Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics
301 Conner Hall
The University of Georgia
240 Riverbend Road
Athens, GA 30605-9854
tcurtis@agecon.uga.edu