You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

25 August 2021

“Agro”, “Agri”, or “Rural”: The Different Viewpoints of Tourism Research Combined with Sustainability and Sustainable Development

,
and
1
Department of Tourism, Ionian University, 49132 Corfu, Greece
2
Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athina, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2021, 13(17), 9550;https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179550
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Rural Tourism
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The objective of this study is to review the different viewpoints of research addressing “agro”, “agri”, or “rural” tourism, ascertain the implications of relevant scientific articles and suggest future research avenues related to sustainability and sustainable development issues. A two-step systematic approach was followed in identifying “agrotourism”, “agro tourism”, “agro-tourism”, “agritourism”, “agri tourism”, “agri-tourism”, or “rural tourism” articles in the Scopus database. Articles were selected if they corresponded to the keywords: sustainable development, sustainability, local development; thus, 252 papers were selected. The findings indicate that the literature does not analyze integrated approaches to sustainability, sustainable and local development in depth. The results are discussed mainly on qualitative grounds, from the supply side and with limited policy recommendations. They also display that the papers mainly refer to single case studies and comparative studies are lacking.

1. Introduction

The meaning of the terms “agro-”, “agri-” or “rural” tourism differs from region to region, year to year, community to community, enterprise to enterprise. Definitional inconsistencies are highlighted in the literature by many authors (e.g., [1,2,3,4]. Recently, [5] made an effort to harmonize these definitions). In brief, sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, and there seems to be a growing consensus that rural tourism is a broader spatial term [2] and the “working farm” is the most frequently cited requirement for agritourism [3] for both North American and European studies. In the exploration of scientific articles related to “agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism, it is obvious that the results increase over time, revealing the growing interest in these kinds of tourism. Lane and Kastenholz (2015) underline that while rural tourism appears to have grown, it has also changed, and academic interest in it has changed too [6]. Dimitrovski, Leković and Joukes (2019) try to delimit the most frequent topics within the agritourism literature by defining a sample of 21 Crossref journals indexed in Web of Science [7]. For agritourism research, see also the recent articles [8,9]. Another recent article related to agritourism literature review and bibliometric analysis (referring to the Web of Science and Scopus databases for the period of 1980–June 2019) is that of Rauniyar, Awasthi, Kapoor and Mishra (2020) [10]. Similarly, Pérez-Olmos and Aguilar-Rivera (2021) carried out a systematic review for agritourism by searching documents in EBSCO, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science corresponding to the period 2010–2020 and focusing geographically on the region of Mexico [11]. Furthermore, Ammirato, Felicetti, Raso, Pansera and Violi (2020), with the aim to highlight [12] the linkages between agritourism and sustainability, performed a review of the scientific literature by analyzing papers through a text mining solution (the Latent Dirichlet Allocation—LDA) and introducing the level of analysis of each study: “micro-level paper”—a single agritourism farm as the research focus; “macro-level paper”—the effects of sustainability on a region or the industry as focus and aim.
In our study, by applying a systematic international literature review, the findings of articles in the Scopus database on “agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism are combined with sustainability and sustainable development issues, nowadays widely used in a wide range of areas and activities. These findings are studied by the authors, classified under six main themes, synthesized and analyzed thematically and geographically. Furthermore, in an attempt to confirm our identification of the most important issues and findings of the sample articles, an overview of agritourism is provided with the use of a knowledge map. The research goal is to confirm the fact that “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism need to further adopt the concepts of sustainable development, sustainability and local development.

2. Materials and Methods

With the goal of analyzing the different viewpoints of scientific research addressing “agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism, we followed a two-step systematic approach. Firstly, we defined the title and the keywords for the search of documents dealing with these forms of tourism. The English terms used for the literature review were “agrotourism”, “agro tourism” or “agro-tourism”; “agritourism”, “agri tourism” or “agri-tourism”; and “rural tourism”. These terms were searched in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of scientific articles in the Scopus database. Rauniyar et al. (2020), in a similar work [10], as mentioned above, called Scopus the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature including those published by Elsevier, Emerald, Taylor and Francis, Springer, Informs, and Interscience. The search was undertaken in early 2020 and yielded 2339 documents. Next, the keywords of those articles were placed into categories (based on the idea of [6], enriched by the authors); the journals where these articles were published and the origin country of the authors were also identified (see Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). In the second stage, the articles were limited to English language studies which included the keywords: (a) sustainable development; (b) sustainability; (c) local development. Thus, the final number of papers was 252. At this stage, the full papers were studied by the authors and classified under six main themes as follows: (1) the three dimensions of sustainable development: economy, society, environment; (2) integrated approaches to sustainable development, sustainability and local development; (3) three additional issues, very important for the tourism sector: supply, demand and residents; (4) policy; (5) methods used: qualitative and quantitative; (6) geography of the cases: case study area/country. The final list of themes was derived by initial classifications from the keywords and the themes of each paper, which we afterwards categorized according to thematic relevance. These six main themes and approaches were not exclusive, and each paper could be classified under more than one theme and/or approach. In the following section, the first results of our exploration include all six themes with a deeper analysis concerning the main findings of three themes (1, 2 and 6) and a number of sub-themes.
Table 1. Keywords in categories from “Agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism articles in the Scopus database (March 2020).
Table 2. Scientific journals publishing “agro-”, “agri-” or “rural” tourism articles (1975–2020), (only journals with >20 papers are shown).
Table 3. “Agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism articles (1975–2020) by country of authors’ affiliation (only countries with >50 papers are shown).

3. Results

From the analysis of the scientific papers’ keywords, summarized in Table 1 (for more details, see the analysis of Table 1 in the Supplementary Materials—Table S1), we can conclude that many different forms of tourism are referred to and terms are used interchangeably (for example, farm tourism, sustainable rural tourism). Moreover, a significant percentage of keywords (approximately 22%) include geographic information (e.g., countries, regions and characteristics of the selected case study areas). Planning, developing, managing and monitoring rural tourism destinations is a key concern, with particular interest in economic dimensions; on the other hand, the integrated concept of sustainability and rural/regional development approaches rank lower in the hierarchy of research interests. Furthermore, “new trend” keywords (such as marketing, innovation authenticity, social capital) which have appeared in the field in the last 10–15 years are frequently referred to. Cultural heritage, community (social), governance, landscape, and recreation are all, surprisingly, underrepresented. Nevertheless, more unexpected are the low scores for environment/ecology, planning and land use.
The great majority of “agro-”, agri-”, or “rural” tourism related papers are published, as expected, in tourism journals (see Table 2). Tourism Management leads the field, closely followed by Sustainability and The Journal of Sustainable Tourism (approximately 15% of the sample each).
Table 3 presents the country of authors’ affiliation. China and USA top the list, with almost the same number of papers (approximately 15% of the sample each), followed by Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy, each with over 100 papers over the years 1975–2020, making up 60% of the total sample.
The results of the second stage of our analysis, where, as already mentioned, the scientific articles were studied by the authors, classified and limited to those that include, among others, the keywords “Sustainable Development”, “Sustainability” and “Local Development”, are presented in Table 4. During this stage of analysis, a noticeable finding was that even if “agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism are important as economic, social, and environmental activities (14%, 21% and 12%, respectively), the literature does not analyze in depth integrated approaches of sustainability, sustainable and local development (found in only 14% of the sample papers). Such findings are discussed mainly qualitatively (56%, compared to 44% quantitatively), especially from the supply side of such activities (19.5%), while their combination with policy recommendations is limited (only 2%).
Table 4. Keywords of 252 articles in categories.
With reference to the location/geography of the cases, our analysis indicates that the articles most frequently examine single case studies. There is thus a lack of comparisons between different cases and countries. Only approximately 7% of the authors apply such a comparison between two or more countries. Figure 1 presents the geography of the case study areas/countries used in the sample articles. More specifically, 55% of the authors have carried out research in thirty different European countries (with Italy, Spain and Romania being the three predominant ones), with the remaining 45% addressing various countries around the world (among them China, with 12%, and the USA, with 5% of the articles). Table 3 and Figure 1, clearly show that the country of authors’ affiliation influences the selection of the research cases.
Figure 1. Location of the case-study areas/countries.
The most important issues raised by the sample papers, as well as their findings, are summarized per theme/sub-theme (economy, society, environment, sustainable development, sustainability and local development) in Table 5.
Table 5. Presentation of the articles’ content per theme/sub-theme.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This article highlights gaps in the “agro”, “agri”, or “rural” tourism literature with regard to sustainability and sustainable development, while also shedding light on geography-related information. This meta-analysis of scientific articles related to the above-mentioned form(s) of tourism is the only review paper which also examines the location/geography of the cases and is supplementary to other meta-analyses of the agritourism literature with different topical focuses, such as, for example, [6,7,10,11,12,115].
Furthermore, in an attempt to confirm our identification of the most important issues and findings of the sample articles, an overview of agritourism is provided in Figure 2, with the use of open source knowledge maps. It is based on the 100 most relevant documents (52 open access) taken from BASE (which provides access to over 100 million documents from more than 5200 content sources in all disciplines and uses journal/newspaper article document types) up to 10th of November 2019. The algorithm groups together papers that have many words in common, in a way similar to our keywords grouping in categories. Knowledge maps provide an instant overview of a topic by showing the main areas at a glance, and papers related to each area. This makes it possible to easily identify useful, pertinent information [116].
Figure 2. Knowledge map for agritourism. Source: https://openknowledgemaps.org/ (accessed on 20 March 2020).
Our analysis points to the fact that “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism need to further adopt the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable tourism [6] as sustainability, sustainable development and local development of this form/these forms of tourism are given less attention than expected; a comparison with Karampela et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis of the literature on sustainable local development clearly shows the dearth of such themes in the “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism literature [117]. Therefore, alternative pathways towards achieving sustainability and comparisons between different cases should be addressed in future research. According to our geographical analysis, “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism are well examined and established in Europe, usually comprising a farm stay and/or meal and are well supported by governments in terms of the preservation of the scenery. Moreover, our analysis indicates that innovation in “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism is both an emerging theme in the literature and reflects the need for relevant developmental programs, as only “the existence of resources does not necessarily make an area a successful and sustainable tourism destination” [2] (p.14). In the same vein, Yang et al. (2010) [30] (p. 384) in their survey concerning agro-tourism enterprises underline that “the lack of innovation on agro-services is a bottleneck for business development”. This is also the reason why innovation along with other popular subjects in the tourism literature, marketing, authenticity and social capital, are referred to as “New trend” keywords.
Even though the most important issues of themes/sub-themes—supply, demand, residents, policy, qualitative and quantitative methods—are not presented analytically in this paper, our preliminary findings indicate that they are explored mainly on qualitative grounds, from the supply side (related to the types of farms, the services and products offered [114] (p. 164)) and with limited concern about policy implications/recommendations. These findings are in line with Yang et al. (2010) [30], pointing to the need to compare more cases, both geographically (a few examples are the references [63,76,112,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]) and in scale (micro and macro level, locally and globally), from the supply and the demand side, with different stakeholders/actors (including residents, such as reference [126]), which, in turn, might lead to an improved theoretical and practical understanding of these types of development (sustainable and local). With regard to the combination and in-depth analysis of the three dimensions of sustainable development, economy, society, and environment, what emerges is that, thus far, authors have mainly adopted mono perspectives in their studies and multidisciplinary approaches are much less embraced, as also shown by Ammirato et al. (2020) [12]. Despite the extent of scientific literature and “grey bibliography” analyzing economic, social and environmental impacts of “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism, and the fact that these forms of tourism are taken as key factors for sustainable development, sustainability and local development, integrated approaches are largely missing from relevant literature. Perhaps this confirms the fact that when the phenomenon to be investigated according to sustainability criteria (economy, environment and social) is too complex, as in the case of rural tourism, the simple summation of disciplinary approaches is always lacking while an integrated approach is needed that is not present in the literature. Additionally, despite the interest in the operationalization and measurement of sustainable development, sustainability and local development, through the combination of different dimensions and aspects, and using various indicators and composite indexes as policy tools for future planning and recommendations, such approaches are rare in the literature (see, for example, [27,83,103,106,113]).
Another crucial issue is that, for sustainable development of “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism, the balance between facilities and local culture based services [127] is important. These are cultural heritage, cultural tourism and community based tourism (culture, as well as culinary heritage, which strengthens the spirit of cultural diversity and community development, are displayed in the knowledge map, Figure 2). Nevertheless, cultural exchange and cultural diversity in the agritourism literature receive scant attention and theoretical discussion (e.g., [125] and the recent work of Karampela and Kizos [128] where, practically, led by entrepreneurs and stakeholders, agritourism and cultural tourism are promoted hand in hand). In addition, the landscape along with the environment in which the examined form(s) of tourism takes place, although paramount tourism resources, are inadequately dealt with in the literature.
Bausch et al. (2021) [129] recently proposed a behavior change research focus for sustainable tourism addressing the demand side and/or consumers’ understanding; their work concludes that “most consumers link sustainability only to environmental issues, and understand sustainability differently from sustainable tourism”. In reality, sustainability, sustainable tourism and sustainable development goals should be seen as a whole and it is extremely important for “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism to be placed and compared with other economic activities and forms of tourism. In “agro-”, “agri-” and “rural” tourism, two different sectors/fields (i.e., tourism and agriculture) are combined and cooperate. They are part of complex systems with local, regional and global interactions and they should be examined, compared and discussed in the broadest possible context. This is also the most significant contribution of this study: to illustrate the importance of understanding the relationship between the examined forms of tourism and sustainability issues, and to guide future research to promote better awareness, especially within society and among practitioners.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su13179550/s1, Table S1: Detailed Keywords in categories from “Agro-”, “agri-”, or “rural” tourism articles in the Scopus database (March 2020).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K.; methodology, S.K.; validation, S.K., A.A. and A.K.; formal analysis, S.K. and A.A.; investigation, S.K. and A.A.; data curation, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and A.A.; review and editing, S.K. and A.K.; visualization, S.K.; supervision, S.K.; funding, A.K. and S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Geographer MSc. Kelly Avanidou: map design Figure 1. An earlier draft of this article was submitted and accepted for oral presentation at ETAGRO 2021 Conference in Athens, Greece, which was postponed from October 2020 and finally will be held on 7–8th October 2021. The usual disclaimers apply.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gil Arroyo, C.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Karampela, S.; Papapanos, G.; Kizos, T. Perceptions of Agritourism and Cooperation: Comparisons between an Island and a Mountain Region in Greece. Sustainability 2019, 11, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Phillip, S.; Hunter, C.; Blackstock, K. A typology for defining agritourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 754–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tew, C.; Barbieri, C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lamie, R.D.; Chase, L.; Chiodo, E.; Dickes, L.; Flanigan, S.; Schmidt, C.; Streifeneder, T. Agritourism around the globe: Definitions, authenticity, and potential controversy. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2021, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lane, B.; Kastenholz, E. Rural tourism: The evolution of practice and research approaches–Towards a new generation concept? J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1133–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dimitrovski, D.; Leković, M.; Joukes, V. A bibliometric analysis of Crossref agritourism literature indexed in Web of Science. Hot. Tour. Manag. 2019, 7, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barbieri, C. Agritourism research: A perspective article. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barbieri, C.; Streifeneder, T. Agritourism Advances around the Globe: A Commentary from the Editors. Open Agric. 2019, 4, 712–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rauniyar, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Kapoor, S.; Mishra, A.K. Agritourism: Structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour. Recr. Res. 2020, 46, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pérez-Olmos, K.N.; Aguilar-Rivera, N. Agritourism and sustainable local development in Mexico: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 1–21. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10668-021-01413-0 (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  12. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Raso, C.; Pansera, B.A.; Violi, A. Agritourism and Sustainability: What we can learn from a systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andarani, P.; Lestari, D.F.; Rezagama, A.; Sariffuddin, S. Sustainable Ecotourism Development based on Participatory Rural Appraisal: A Case Study of Thekelan Village, Central Java, Indonesia. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 73, p. 02019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Qian, C.; Sasaki, N.; Jourdain, D.; Kim, S.M.; Shivakoti, P.G. Local livelihood under different governances of tourism development in China- A case study of Huangshan mountain area. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Trukhachev, A. Methodology for Evaluating the Rural Tourism Potentials: A Tool to Ensure Sustainable Development of Rural Settlements. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3052–3070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Park, D.P.; Nunkoo, R.; Yoon, Y.S. Rural residents’ attitudes to tourism and the moderating effects of social capital. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 112–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wen Keat, K.; Musa, N.B. Responsible Tourism System Dynamic Planning Model for Rural Area. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the Muslim World, ICT4M, Kuching, Malaysia, 17–18 November 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Barbieri, C. Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: A comparison between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 252–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stensland, S.; Baardsen, S. The effects of property and landowner characteristics on profit efficiency in salmon angling tourism in Norway. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 627–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; González, M.; Guerrero, F.M.; Caballero, R. How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Sc. Total Environ. 2011, 412, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Pacaud, L.; Vollet, D.; Angeon, V. Impact of tourism infrastructure on regional development: The implantation of a Center Parcs resort in northern France. Tour. Econ. 2007, 13, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jiang, Y.; Wang, S. Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Agritourism Consumption. Sustainability 2018, 10, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Petrovi’c, M.D.; Vujko, A.; Gaji’c, T.; Vukovi’c, D.V.; Radovanovi´c, M.; Jovanovi´c, J.M.; Vukovi´c, N. Tourism as an Approach to Sustainable Rural Development in Post-Socialist Countries: A Comparative Study of Serbia and Slovenia. Sustainability 2017, 10, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kline, C.; Barbieri, C.; LaPan, C. The Influence of Agritourism on Niche Meats Loyalty and Purchasing. J. Travel Res. 2014, 55, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ohe, Y. Retired baby boomers as operators of sustainable rural tourism: The roles and significance. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 97, 251–260. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Della Gala, M.; Frega, N.; Volpentesta, A.P. Sustainable development for rural areas: A Survey on the agritourism rural networks. IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2017, 506, 564–574. [Google Scholar]
  27. Park, D.-B.; Yoon, Y.-S. Developing Sustainable Rural Tourism Evaluation Indicators. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Butnaru, G.I.; Haller, A.P. Perspective of Sustainable Rural Tourism in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK): Comparative Study of β and σ Convergence in the Economic Development Regions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kim, S.; Jamal, T. The co-evolution of rural tourism and sustainable rural development in Hongdong, Korea: Complexity, conflict and local response. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1363–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, Z.; Cai, J.; Sliuzas, R. Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sayadi, S.; Gonzalez-Roa, M.C.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Pol. 2009, 26, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ohe, Y. Impact of Rural Tourism Operated by Retiree Farmers on Multifunctionality: Evidence from Chiba, Japan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 13, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Silva, R.F.B.D.; Rodrigues, M.D.A.; Vieira, S.A.; Batistella, M.; Farinaci, J. Perspectives for environmental conservation and ecosystem services on coupled rural–urban systems. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 15, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tigan, E.; Brinzan, O.; Lungu, M.; Milin, A.I. Ecolabeling in touristic accommodation structures- an integral part of sustainable management. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConf. SGEM 2017, 17, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ellis, V.; Bosworth, G. Supporting rural entrepreneurship in the UK microbrewery sector. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 2724–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rebollo, J.F.V.; Baidal, J.A.I. Measuring Sustainability in a Mass Tourist Destination: Pressures, Perceptions and Policy Responses in Torrevieja, Spain. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003, 11, 181–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Marzo-Navarro, M.; Pedraja-Iglesias, M.; Vinzón, L. Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective of the residents. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 586–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sims, R. Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Syamsiyah, N.; Qanti, S.R.; Wiyono, S.N.; Kusno, K.; Sulistyowati, L. Risk mitigation of mango farming in agro-tourism development in Cirebon Regency. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 306, p. 012030. [Google Scholar]
  40. Valdivia, C.; Barbieri, C. Agritourism as a sustainable adaptation strategy to climate change in the Andean Altiplano. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 11, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Quaranta, G.; Citro, E.; Salvia, R. Economic and Social Sustainable Synergies to Promote Innovations in Rural Tourism and Local Development. Sustainability 2016, 8, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Han, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, J.; Gao, Y. Research on Planning Management of the Leisure and Tourism oriented Suburban Villages Based on System Theory. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 175, p. 04027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bencivenga, A.; Giampietro, A.; Percoco, A. Rural tourism: A webgis tool for the rural resources of the appennino lucano-val d’agri lagonegrese national park, Italy. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 227, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  44. Konieczna, J.; Trystuła, A. Use of Cadastral Databases in Land Consolidation in Poland. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, 27–28 April 2017; Available online: http://enviro.vgtu.lt/index.php/enviro/2017/paper/view/104 (accessed on 3 March 2020).
  45. Nekhay, O.; Arriaza, M. How Attractive Is Upland Olive Groves Landscape? Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS in Southern Spain. Sustainability 2006, 8, 1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. González-Ramiro, A.; Gonçalves, G.; Sánchez-Ríos, A.; Jeong, J.S. Using a VGI and GIS-Based Multicriteria Approach for Assessing the Potential of Rural Tourism in Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 2016, 8, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Saito, Y.; Suzuki, T.; Kobayashi, K.I.; Sato, K.; Hirafuji, M.; Fukatsu, T.; Ichimura, R.; Yashiro, R.; Takeuchi, S.; Yuasa, K.; et al. Field Server Monitoring System for Construction of IT Farming and Agri-tourism—Trial Report from Obuse-town, Nagano Japan. In Proceedings of the 2006 SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference, Busan, Korea, 18–21 October 2006; pp. 4848–4851. [Google Scholar]
  48. Xi, J.-C.; Kong, Q.-Q.; Wang, X.-G. Spatial Polarization of villages in tourist destinations: A case study Yesanpo, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 1038–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, R.-Y.; Xi, J.-C.; Wang, S.-K.; Wang, X.-G.; Ge, Q.-S. Village Network Centrality in Rural Tourism Destination: A Case from Yesanpo Tourism Area. China J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Šimková, E. Strategic approaches to rural tourism and sustainable development of rural areas. Agric. Econ. 2007, 53, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Yang, X.; Li, H.; Chen, W.M.; Fu, H. Corporate Community Involvement and Chinese Rural Tourist Destination Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Manaf, A.; Purbasari, N.; Damayanti, M.; Aprilia, N.; Astuti, W. Community-Based Rural Tourism in Inter-Organizational Collaboration: How Does It Work Sustainably? Lessons Learned from Nglanggeran Tourism Village, Gunungkidul Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Pawson, S.; D’Arcy, P.; Richardson, S. The value of community-based tourism in Banteay Chhmar, Cambodia. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lekaota, L. The importance of rural communities’ participation in the management of tourism management: A case study from Lesotho. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015, 7, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nair, V.; Hamzah, A. Successful community-based tourism approaches for rural destinations: The Asia Pacific experience. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015, 7, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zou, T.; Huang, S.S.; Ding, P. Toward A Community-driven Development Model of Rural Tourism: The Chinese Experience. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Karagiannis, S.; Stavroulakis, D. Development of Agrotourism through the Application of Internet Technologies: Problems and Perspectives. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Sustainable Agri-production and Environment (HAICTA 2011), Skiathos, Greece, 8–11 September 2011; Volume 1152, pp. 299–308. [Google Scholar]
  58. Borrelli, I.P.; Cesaretti, G.P.; Misso, R.; Scarpato, D. Climate change, rural systems and innovation: The role of Internet. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Sustainable Agri-production and Environment (HAICTA 2011), Skiathos, Greece, 8–11 September 2011; Volume 1152, pp. 259–272. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shedenov, U.; Litvishko, O.; Kazbekov, B.; Suyunchaliyeva, M.; Kazbekova, K. Improvement of ecological tourism on the principles of sustainable economic development. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 135, p. 04047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Choo, H.; Jamal, T. Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of ecotourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Velázquez, V.F.; Colonna, J.; Pletsch, M.A.J.S.; Sallun, A.E.M.; Sallun Filho, W. The current situation of protection and conservation of the Colonia impact crater, Sao Paolo, Brazil. GeoJ. Tour. Geosit. 2016, 17, 7–20. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tuohino, A.; Hynonen, A. Ecotourism—Imagery and reality. Reflections on Concepts and Practises in Finnish Rural Tourism. Nord. Geogr. Publ. 2001, 30, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wanner, A.; Pröbstl-Haider, U. Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Rural Tourism Development—Experiences from Southeast Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ormazdi, M.R.; Pourfikouhi, A.; Armar, T. The necessities of verifying the policies of Non Governmental Organizations development in planning and management of rural tourism of Iran. Life Sci. J. 2013, 10, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dax, T.; Zhang, D.; Chen, Y. Agritourism Initiatives in the Context of Continuous Out-Migration: Comparative Perspectives for the Alps and Chinese Mountain Regions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Theodoropoulou, H.; Mitoula, R.; Astara, O.; Kaldis, P. Applied Issues of Agritourism Cooperation and Sustainable Endogenous Development. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2008, 5, 1588–1594. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tsiaras, S.; Triantafillidou, E.; Katsanika, E. Green marketing as a strategic tool for the sustainable development of less favoured areas of Greece: Women’s agro-tourism cooperatives. Int. J. Electron. Cust. Relatsh. Manag. 2016, 10, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pérez, L.F.; Hernández, J.M.; Campón, A.M. Rural Tourists and Their Attitudes and Motivations towards the Practice of Environmental Activities such as Agrotourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2013, 7, 255–264. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bambi, G.; Iacobelli, S.; Rossi, G.; Pellegrini, P.; Barbari, M. Rural Tourism to Promote Territories along the Ancient Roads of Communication: Case Study of the Rediscovery of the St. Francis’ Ways Between Florence and La Verna. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 462–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Iatu, C.; Ibănescu, B.-C.; Stoleriu, O.M.; Munteanu, A. The WHS Designation—A Factor of Sustainable Tourism Growth for Romanian Rural Areas? Sustainability 2018, 10, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Hwang, D.; Chi, S.-H.; Lee, B. Collective Action That Influences Tourism: Social Structural Approach to Community Involvement. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2013, 40, 497–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hwang, D.; Stewart, W.P.; Ko, W.-P. Community Behavior and Sustainable Rural Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 328–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tregua, M.; D’Auria, A.; Marano-Marcolini, C. Oleotourism: Local Actors for Local Tourism Development. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lanfranchi, M.; Giannetto, C. A feasibility study for a project of alternative energy production in an agritourism business in Sicily. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 75, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Martín Martín, J.M.M.; Salinas Fernández, J.A.S.; Rodríguez Martín, J.A.S.; Jiménez Aguilera, J. Assessment of the Tourism’s Potential as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Terms of Annual Stability: Application to Spanish Rural Destinations in Process of Consolidation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Giurea, R.; Precazzini, I.; Ragazzi, M.; Achim, M.I.; Cioca, L.I.; Conti, F.; Torretta, F.; Rada, E.C. Good Practices and Actions for Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Tourist Sector. Resources 2018, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Villanueva-Álvaro, J.-J.; Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.; Sáez-Martínez, F.-J. Rural Tourism: Development, Management and Sustainability in Rural Establishments. Sustainability 2017, 9, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Ferrari, G.; Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.; Vargas-Vargas, M. Environmental Sustainable Management of Small Rural Tourist Enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2010, 4, 407–414. [Google Scholar]
  79. Aoki, M. Motivations for organic farming in tourist regions: A case study in Nepal. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 2014, 16, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Asciuto, A.; Franco, C.P.D.; Schimmenti, E. An exploratory study of sustainable rural tourism in Sicily. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2013, 11, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cebrián, F.; Sánchez, I. The Landscape as a tourist resource and its impact in mountain areas in the South of Castilla-la Mancha (Spain). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2016, 11, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Skowronek, E.; Krukowska, R.; Swieca, A.; Tucki, A. The evolution of rural landscapes in mid-eastern Poland as exemplified by selected villages. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2005, 70, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Emelyanova, L.L.; Kropinova, E.G.; Voloshenko, K.J. The integrated approach to sustainable development of rural areas: The case for the agricultural sector in the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2015, 11, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fuschi, M.; Evangelista, V. The rural tourism challenge in Pescara’s hilly landscape, Italy: Awareness, integration, sustainability. GeoJ. Tour. Geosit. 2017, 20, 272–281. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ivana, B. Sustainable Landscape Management in Tara National Park (Village Jagoštica, Serbia). Geogr. Pannonica 2012, 16, 94–102. [Google Scholar]
  86. Soovali, H.; Palang, H.; Alumae, H.; Kulvik, M.; Oja, T.; Kaur, E.; Prede, M.; Pae, T. (Traditional) landscape identity-globalized, abandoned, sustained? WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 64, 926–935. [Google Scholar]
  87. Carlsen, J.; Getz, D.; Ali-Knight, J. The Environmental Attitudes and Practices of Family Businesses in the Rural Tourism and Hospitality Sectors. J. Sustain. Tour. 2001, 9, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Randelli, F.; Martellozzo, F. Is rural tourism-induced built-up growth a threat for the sustainability of rural areas? The case study of Tuscany. Land Use Pol. 2019, 86, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Razali, A.; Syed Ismail, S.N.; Awang, S.; Praveena, S.M.; Zainal Abidin, E. Land use change in highland area and its impact on river water quality: A review of case studies in Malaysia. Ecolog. Process. 2018, 7, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Xi, J.; Zhao, M.; Ge, Q.; Kong, Q. Changes in land use of a village driven by over 25 years of tourism: The case of Gougezhuang village, China. Land Use Pol. 2014, 40, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Melendez-Pastor, I.; Hernández, E.I.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Gómez, I. Socioeconomic factors influencing land cover changes in rural areas: The case of the Sierra de Albarracín (Spain). Appl. Geogr. 2014, 52, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lai, P.-H.; Lyons, K. Place-meaning and Sustainable Land Management: Motivations of Texas Hill Country Landowners. Tour. Geogr. 2011, 13, 360–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rojas-Caldelas, R.; Peña-Salmón, C.; Quintanilla-Montoya, A.L. Planning and management challenges of tourism in natural protected areas in Baja California, Mexico. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2017, 12, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kachniewska, M.A. Tourism development as a determinant of quality of life in rural areas. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015, 7, 500–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Moral, F.J.; Rebollo, F.J.; Paniagua, M.; Murillo, M. Using an objective and probabilistic model to evaluate the impact of different factors in the dehesa agroforestry ecosystem. Ecolog. Indic. 2014, 46, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nath, T.K.; Dahalan, M.P.B.; Parish, F.; Rengasamy, N. Local Peoples’ Appreciation on and Contribution to Conservation of Peatland Swamp Forests: Experience from Peninsular Malaysia. Wetl. 2017, 37, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Gullino, P.; Battisti, L.; Larcher, F. Linking Multifunctionality and Sustainability for Valuing Peri-Urban Farming: A Case Study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Farmer, J. Leisure in Living Local through Food and Farming. Leisure Sci. 2012, 34, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shen, F.; Cottrell, S.P.; Hughey, K.F.D.; Morrison, K. Agritourism sustainability in rural mountain areas of China: A community perspective. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2009, 3, 123–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Shen, F.; Ritter, P. Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism in Chongdugou, China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 511–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kantar, S.; Svrznjak, K. Development of sustainable rural tourism. Deturope 2017, 9, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  102. Addinsall, C.; Scherrer, P.; Weiler, B.; Glencross, K. An ecologically and socially inclusive model of agritourism to support smallholder livelihoods in the South Pacific. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Prevolšek, B.; Maksimovic, A.; Puška, A.; Pažek, K.; Žibert, M.; Crtomir, R. Sustainable Development of Ethno-Villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina—A Multi Criteria Assessment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Sonnino, R. For a ‘Piece of Bread’? Interpreting Sustainable Development through Agritourism in Southern Tuscany. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M. The Agritourism as a Means of Sustainable Development for Rural Communities: A Research from the Field. Int. J. Interdiscip. Environ. Stud. 2014, 8, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Loisi, R.V.; Ruggiero, G.; Rocchi, L.; Boggia, A.; Roma, R.; Dal Sasso, P. Using Analytic Network Process and Dominance-based Rough Set Approach for sustainable requalification of traditional farm buildings in Southern Italy. Land Use Pol. 2016, 59, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kastenholz, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: Insights from village visitors in Portugal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kastenholz, E. “Management of Demand” as a Tool in Sustainable Tourist Destination Development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2004, 12, 388–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ibănescu, B.-C.; Stoleriu, O.M.; Munteanu, A.; Iațu, C. The Impact of Tourism on Sustainable Development of Rural Areas: Evidence from Romania. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Artina, S.V.; Dewi, P.W.; Yulianti, T.R. SWOT Analysis of the Development of the Tourist Cibuntu Village, Cibuntu Regency, West Java. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 145, p. 012074. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gronau, W.; Kaufmann, R. Tourism as a stimulus for sustainable development in rural areas: A Cypriot Perspective. Tour 2011, 4, 83–96. [Google Scholar]
  112. Kowalska, M.; Knapik, W.; Bogusz, M. Farm Education as a Component of Sustainable Development in Selected Countries of the European Union. Probl. Ekorozw. 2016, 11, 81–88. [Google Scholar]
  113. Karampela, S.; Kizos, T. Agritourism and local development: Evidence from two case studies in Greece. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Karampela, S.; Kizos, T.; Spilanis, I. Evaluating the impact of agritourism on local development in small islands. Isl. Stud. J. 2016, 11, 161–176. [Google Scholar]
  115. Pavić, L.; Pažek, K.; Pavlovič, M. Agritourism between agriculture and tourism. A review. In 3rd International Thematic Monograph: Modern Management Tools and Economy of Tourism Sector in Present Era; Bevanda, V., Štetić, S., Eds.; Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018; pp. 243–257. [Google Scholar]
  116. Open Knowledge Maps. A Visual Interface to the World’s Scientific Knowledge. Available online: https://openknowledgemaps.org/ (accessed on 20 March 2020).
  117. Karampela, S.; Papazoglou, C.; Kizos, T.; Spilanis, I. Sustainable local development on Aegean Islands: A meta-analysis of the literature. Isl. Stud. J. 2017, 12, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wanner, A.; Seier, G.; Probstl-Haider, U. Policies related to sustainable tourism—An assessment and comparison of European policies, frameworks and plans. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 29, 100275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chiodo, E.; Fantin, A.; Dickes, L.; Arogundade, T.; Lamie, R.D.; Assing, L.; Stewart, C.; Salvatore, R. Agritourism in Mountainous Regions—Insights from an International Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Budiman, I. Climate-smart agriculture policy and (in)justice for smallholders in developing countries. Future of Food: Journal on Food. Agric. Soc. 2019, 7, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  121. Badulescu, D.; Badulescu, A. Rural Tourism Development through Cross-border Cooperation. The Case of Romanian-Hungarian Cross-border Area. East. Eur. Countrys. 2017, 23, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Cigir, K. Creating a living lab model for tourism and hospitality businesses to stimulate CSR and sustainability innovations. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 217, 569–583. [Google Scholar]
  123. Eimermann, M. Two sides of the same coin: Dutch rural tourism entrepreneurs and countryside capital in Sweden. Rural Soc. 2016, 25, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Diaconescu, D.M.; Moraru, R.; Stănciulescu, G. Considerations on gastronomic tourism as a component of sustainable local development. Amfiteatru Econ. 2016, 18, 999–1014. [Google Scholar]
  125. Assimakopoulos, A.M.; Puech, C.; Meinkoehn, F.; Gallicchio, E.; Grotiuz, I. Local-Communities Insertion Network Para America Latina: The Link-All System. In Proceedings of the ICHIM 05 Digital Culture and Heritage/Patrimoine culturel et numérique, Paris, France, 21–23 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
  126. Ma, X.L.; Dai, M.L.; Fan, D.X.F. Land expropriation in tourism development: Residents’ attitudinal change and its influencing mechanism. Tour. Manag. 2020, 76, 103957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ohe, Y.; Ciani, A. Evaluation of agritourism activity in Italy. Facility based or local culture based? Tour. Econ. 2011, 17, 581–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Karampela, S.; Kizos, T. Agritourism and cultural tourism hook up: Theoretical and practical examples. In Proceedings of the THInC 1st Tourism & Hospitality International Congress Cultural Diversity and Tourism for Community Development, Lisbon, Portugal, 19–21 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  129. Bausch, T.; Schröder, T.; Tauber, V.; Lane, B. Sustainable Tourism: The Elephant in the Room. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Factors Associated with the Equivalence of the Scores of Computer-Based Test and Paper-and-Pencil Test: Presentation Type, Item Difficulty and Administration Order
Previous
Sea Level Rise Mitigation by Global Sea Water Desalination Using Renewable-Energy-Powered Plants
Next