Farmers’ Attitudes Towards the Diversification of Agricultural Sustainable Production in Tourism in Vojvodina Province (Republic of Serbia)

Abstract

This manuscript investigates the key factors driving the diversification of agricultural production towards tourism and analyzes the impact of economic business aspects and farmers’ identity on this process. The study involved 420 farm owners from the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Factor analysis identified four main factors: motivation, resources, market conditions, and accessibility. Results show that the average monthly income of farmers is €1350, and they recognize diversification potential as a tool to improve the economic performance of their farms. However, the prevailing traditional farmer identity limits this process. This study provides insights into farmers’ attitudes towards sustainable agricultural diversification into tourism within the context of a developing country.

1. Introduction

Diversification of agricultural production towards tourism is becoming an increasingly significant strategy for the sustainable development of rural areas, where reducing dependence on primary production and enhancing farm resilience to economic and market fluctuations is essential [1,2,3]. Agritourism, as a specific form of diversification, offers opportunities for generating additional income, preserving local rural identity, and more efficient utilization of existing natural, cultural, and social resources [4,5,6].

Empirical research in developed countries indicates that diversification is not an exception but rather a dominant practice [7,8,9,10]. In Italy, over 35% of farms engage in non-agricultural activities, including tourism and product-processing [11], while in Austria more than 40,000 farms participate in various forms of agritourism [12]. In the United Kingdom, over 50% of farmers derive income from non-agricultural sources [13]. Factors commonly influencing diversification include the need for stable income, mitigation of market risks, availability of family labor, existing infrastructure, and spatial proximity to urban areas and tourist attractions [3,14,15,16,17].

In the context of Serbia and its rural development, despite the potential for agritourism growth, farm diversification remains underdeveloped [18,19,20]. This is particularly evident in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, the country’s most intensive agricultural region, where significant opportunities exist to enhance synergies between agriculture and tourism [21,22,23,24]. The region is characterized by a developed infrastructure, a large number of small and medium-sized farms, and a favorable geographic location—within a 100 km radius lie major urban tourist centers such as Novi Sad and Belgrade—creating advantageous conditions for tourism consumption and the marketing of locally sourced food products [25,26].

However, despite these advantages, numerous challenges continue to limit diversification practices: restricted access to capital, weak institutional support, lack of specialized training, and a pronounced traditional orientation among farmers [27,28,29]. In this context, farmer identity plays a significant role, often rooted in traditional values and norms, potentially hindering the adoption of new business models such as tourism development [14,17,30,31,32,33].

At the European Union level, diversification is promoted through the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly via Rural Development Measures that encourage investments in non-agricultural activities to enhance the competitiveness of rural areas and diversify income sources [34,35,36]. The United Nations also recognize the importance of this strategy—Agenda 2030, through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2 and SDG 8), promotes sustainable agriculture and inclusive economic growth [37].

The concept of multifunctional agriculture encompasses three key dimensions: production diversification (introduction of new crops or markets), income diversification (including agritourism), and structural diversification (addition of supplementary farm activities) [38,39]. Nevertheless, in Serbia, despite declared commitments to these directions, a systemic and strategic approach linking the agriculture and tourism sectors is lacking [40,41].

Psychosocial factors, particularly farmer identity, are often neglected in the literature, despite evidence that deeply ingrained self-perception patterns significantly influence innovation acceptance. Traditional identity, formed over generations, may limit willingness to engage in non-traditional activities [33,42,43]. Understanding farmers’ perceptions, motivations, available resources, market conditions, and spatial accessibility is key to formulating policies that are contextually relevant and tailored to the real needs of rural communities [28,32].

In this regard, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, with its pronounced potential and infrastructure, provides a specific framework for investigating diversification dynamics [20,26]. Its spatial configuration enables the simultaneous development of production and consumption within a radius suitable for short supply chains and local tourism, representing a significant advantage for sustainable rural development in Serbia as a developing country [25].

Considering all the above, the aim of this study is to provide a deeper insight into the factors shaping the diversification process towards sustainable tourism through an empirical analysis of farm owners’ attitudes in AP Vojvodina, and their association with economic business aspects and farmer identity. The results may contribute to the development of public policies aimed at enhancing diversification in developing countries, with an emphasis on the functional integration of agriculture and tourism.

Based on this, the study is guided by the following research questions:

Q1: Which factors are identified as critical for agricultural diversification into tourism from the farmers’ perspective?

Q2: Do farmers’ attitudes towards diversification influence their willingness to diversify their own production?

Q3: To what extent do farmers perceive diversification factors as impacting the economic performance of their farms?

Q4: What is the dominant type of identity among farmers, and does it influence their willingness to diversify their production towards tourism?

The logical coherence of the research questions is reflected in their mutual complementarity and progressive structure. The first question addresses the identification of key diversification factors; the second analyzes the relationship between attitudes and willingness to act; the third examines the perception of economic effects; while the fourth explores the role of identity as a potential driver or barrier to diversification. Thus, structural, psychological, and economic aspects of the process are encompassed, enabling a comprehensive understanding of diversification in the local context.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Understanding Farmers as Key Actors in the Diversification Process: Decisive Factors

Empirical studies consistently confirm that farmers’ decisions to diversify production into tourism depend on a complex interplay of internal and external factors shaping farm management approaches and their readiness to expand their activities [44,45]. In the context of developing countries, where systematic strategies and statistical frameworks supporting this process are still lacking, relevant diversification factors are identified based on international experiences [46,47]. Among these factors, the availability of financial capital, labor, and material resources, as well as access to market information, stand out [3]. Additionally, local infrastructure capacity and geographic location shape the practical opportunities for farms to engage in tourism flows [48], while institutional support and agricultural policies—particularly those aimed at intersectoral cooperation—further stimulate diversification [17]. Social capital and the quality of relationships with the local community are also recognized factors, enabling easier resource mobilization and trust-building, which is especially important in rural environments with strong local identities [49]. Research from Italy, the USA, and Japan confirms that motives such as securing additional income, increasing financial stability, and reducing dependence on traditional production are key economic drivers influencing diversification decisions [50,51,52]. Moreover, entrepreneurial orientation and strategic management capacity represent critical individual factors for successful diversification [17,42], while studies from Iran emphasize the importance of educational and social factors, including personal development, preservation of local culture, and community engagement [53]. Increasing attention in the literature is also given to informal factors such as personal skills, lifestyle, and farmer identity, which enable a flexible and innovative approach to involvement in tourism activities [17].

In Serbia, and particularly in Vojvodina, relevant empirical studies on this topic are lacking, and few studies have examined how farmers’ attitudes and perceptions shape their decisions to diversify [18,20,26]. These gaps highlight the need for a context-specific analysis, which justifies the focus of the first two research questions on identifying key factors from the farmers’ perspective and assessing how their attitudes influence their willingness to diversify:

Q1: Which factors are identified as critical for agricultural diversification into tourism from the farmers’ perspective?

Q2: Do farmers’ attitudes towards diversification influence their willingness to diversify their own production?

2.2. Economic Aspects of Business and Agricultural Diversification

Diversification of agricultural production towards tourism is increasingly recognized as a sustainable strategy for improving farm economic performance, especially in developing countries such as Serbia [51,54,55]. Engagement in tourism activities—such as agritourism, accommodation facilities, and direct sales to visitors—provides additional income sources, stabilizes earnings amid market instabilities, and enhances the long-term resilience of farms [52,56]. This practice also contributes to better utilization of existing resources, market expansion, and risk reduction [57,58].

However, the perception of economic benefits significantly depends on farm-specific characteristics, prior experience, and the presence of institutional support [59,60]. In countries with pronounced territorial heterogeneity, such as Serbia, spatial dimensions gain additional importance. Studies in developed European countries indicate that the likelihood of diversification is higher if farms are located near urban or cultural centers, and that factors such as direct sales and public incentives play a decisive role in farm income [58,61,62,63].

Findings from other developing countries like Iran show that farmers perceive diversification as a driver of economic and social development of local communities [53], while Arru et al. [64] highlight the need for detailed analysis of how income levels affect willingness to diversify. Such an approach can provide valuable insights for policymakers on development priorities in agrarian regions. Although diversification towards tourism can improve the economic sustainability of farms, most of the existing knowledge comes from developed countries, while in Serbia there is little research on how farmers perceive the economic effects of diversification [20,25,26]. This gap justifies the third research question:

Q3: To what extent do farmers perceive diversification factors as impacting the economic performance of their farms?

2.3. Farmer Identity and Diversification Towards Tourism

In contemporary decision-making and economic behavior theories, identity is increasingly considered a key psychosocial framework shaping individual choices, especially regarding professional and strategic decisions [65]. In the agricultural context, farmer identity represents not only a declarative affiliation with the profession but also a set of deeply rooted values, norms, and expectations that guide attitudes towards innovation and farm transformation. In this sense, identity can be viewed as a relatively stable structure influencing openness to diversification, including the transition from production to the tourism sector [43].

The literature identifies two types of professional farmer identity: the traditional identity, focused exclusively on primary production, and the extended identity, which includes additional, often non-traditional activities such as educational and tourism services [42,66]. While the traditional identity is characterized by resistance to change and a strong production orientation, the extended identity is associated with greater willingness to innovate, broader managerial capacities, and better adaptation to market changes [42]. Ohe [42] highlights key factors contributing to the formation of the extended identity: international experience, involvement in open social learning networks, gender dimension, and proactive education in early professional development. Notably, farmers with an extended identity do not exhibit a tendency towards status quo behaviors, nor do they hesitate to devise and implement new business models [67,68].

Conversely, a strong emotional attachment to land, tradition, and family values—while important for preserving rural identity—can hinder diversification processes [64]. This emotional component further complicates rational decisions to shift towards tourism activities, as farmers’ socio-emotional well-being often outweighs purely economic considerations [69].

Despite the European Union policies recognizing diversification as a key strategy for stabilizing and increasing farm incomes for years [70,71], the success of these strategies also depends on subjective factors—among which identity holds a central position. It has been observed that even when external incentives are favorable, diversification will not be embraced unless there is internal readiness among farmers to reinterpret their professional role and open up to new opportunities [72,73].

The success of diversification strategies largely depends on farmer identity, which shapes the willingness to adopt new activities [43]. In Vojvodina, there is a lack of relevant studies examining how identity type influences decisions on diversification towards tourism [23,25]. Therefore, the fourth research question focuses on identifying the dominant type of identity and its impact on the diversification of agricultural production into tourism.

Q4: What is the dominant type of identity among farmers, and does it influence their willingness to diversify their production towards tourism?

Examining this relationship allows for a better understanding of psychosocial barriers as well as developmental potentials shaping farmers’ decisions in contemporary rural communities. Additionally, the insights gained from this research may contribute to designing targeted policies and support measures that consider not only economic but also identity-related characteristics of agricultural producers.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Researched Area

The research was conducted in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, located in the northern part of the Republic of Serbia, and representing one of the country’s most important agricultural regions (Figure 1). Vojvodina stands out for its high level of agricultural development, both in terms of production volume and the number of registered farms—totaling 157,103, of which nearly all are family farms (156, 138), with an average asset value of approximately €8953 [74]. This region, with developed infrastructure, favorable geographic location, and rich multiethnic and multicultural heritage, possesses pronounced agro-cultural characteristics that provide significant potential for the development of agritourism. The combination of advanced agriculture and growing tourist traffic makes Vojvodina a particularly suitable area for exploring opportunities to diversify agricultural production towards tourism [20,21]. This territory, characterized by distinct agro-cultural features and heritage, offers significant potential for investigating the possibilities of agricultural diversification towards tourism.

Despite this, diversification through farm involvement in tourism activities remains modest. According to available data, only 512 agricultural farms in Serbia are engaged in tourism, with 107 located in Vojvodina. Existing studies predominantly address agritourism solely from the perspective of hospitality activities on farms, while the marketing of agri-food products to the tourist market—as a form of indirect diversification—is largely overlooked [21,25,74]. Additional challenges to developing the tourism functions of agricultural holdings relate to a pronounced labor shortage, which directly limits capacities for creating and maintaining quality tourism products [20,75,76].

3.2. Research Design and Phases

This study was conducted in three interrelated phases: (1) a review of the relevant literature, (2) pilot testing of the research instrument, and (3) a survey among farmers in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The aim of these phases was to systematically identify and operationalize factors influencing the diversification of agricultural production towards tourism, with a focus on the specific socio-economic, cultural, and institutional contexts of Serbia as a developing country.

3.3. Design of the Survey Questionnaire

In the first phase, a search of the scientific literature was conducted in the Scopus database covering the period from 2000 to 2024. Keywords used included: “diversification of agricultural production towards tourism,” “diversification indicators,” “rural tourism,” and “farmer identity.” After an initial screening of several hundred papers, about 60 of the most relevant studies were selected for further analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies formed the basis for constructing the indicators used in the survey instrument.

The methodological approach relied on validated models from similar developing country contexts, such as Indonesia, Iran, and Eastern European countries, as well as developed countries with a long tradition of agritourism. Factors related to institutional and market environments were modeled following studies by (DorockiRois-Díaz et al. [49], Yoshida et al. [17], Nematpour and Khodadadi [53], Zdon-Korzeniowska and Dorocki [77], Adamov et al. [78], and Yusriadi et al. [79], mostly conducted in developing countries. Economic benefit indicators of diversification were based on models by Arru et al. [64] and Miaris et al. [80]. Questions related to farmer identity were developed using theoretical frameworks proposed by Haugen [81] and Ohe [43], which distinguish between traditional and modern farmer identities relevant to innovation readiness and tourism engagement. The attitude regarding willingness to diversify agricultural production towards tourism was adapted from Yusriadi et al. [79].

Empirical research consistently shows that diversification decisions arise from the interdependence of internal and external factors, including access to capital, human resources, markets, institutional support, and social capital [17,48,49]. Given the absence of systematic statistical tools for mapping diversification in Serbian agriculture, a comparative approach based on international practice was used to establish basic valid research indicators [25,26].

Identified variables were further refined in collaboration with experts from gastronomy, agriculture, and tourism fields. Accordingly, a questionnaire was developed encompassing five sections. The first covered socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and attributes of their farms. The second examined factors influencing attitudes toward diversification into tourism through statements rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The third section addressed economic aspects of farm operations, with respondents reporting income and expenses based on balance sheets and rating their satisfaction with income on a closed 1–5 scale. The fourth section focused on farmer identity, where respondents classified themselves into professional identity groups ranging from traditional (focused on primary production) to extended identity, including additional activities such as educational and tourism services [32,42]. The traditional identity is characterized by resistance to change and production orientation, while the extended identity is associated with openness to innovation, broader managerial skills, and market adaptability. The fifth section gathered respondents’ attitudes regarding their willingness to diversify agricultural production toward tourism.

3.4. Pilot Testing

Pilot testing was conducted in March 2025 via email with a randomly selected sample of farm owners. The aim was to identify and resolve potential ambiguities and technical issues prior to the main survey. Participants could mark statements with a score of 6 if deemed unclear. The pilot study included 50 respondents, consistent with the recommendation that the pilot sample be at least 10% of the target population [82]. Results indicated that all variables were perceived as clear and comprehensible.

3.5. Data Collection

The survey was conducted between April and May 2025 using a structured questionnaire completed by the farm owner through direct contact. A total of 420 respondents participated, with farms located near urban tourist centers such as Novi Sad and Belgrade. Farmers were surveyed both on their farms and during agricultural events.

The response rate was lower than expected due to the large number of registered farms in Vojvodina and a combination of factors: mistrust and fear of potential taxation when reporting income and economic information, the high average age of farm owners (55–64 years, with a significant share over 65 who are less actively involved), and low levels of formal education—many respondents had only primary education, while the number of highly educated farmers was negligible [74]. These demographic and educational factors hindered independent questionnaire completion, despite the fact that assistance was often offered.

Considering these circumstances, the total of 420 valid questionnaires meets the statistical requirements for analysis, including factor analysis (minimum of 200 valid responses) [83]. Respondents’ self-assessments, particularly regarding income and identity, were taken into account with acknowledgment of potential biases, while methodological triangulation was applied through a combination of survey research, informal conversations, and observations at events, enhancing data validity and reliability [84].

3.6. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, verzija 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) 27. Initial analysis included descriptive statistics to summarize sample characteristics and individual variables, presented as percentages for clearer understanding of response structure.

To examine the latent structure of the scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring. The number of factors was determined based on parallel analysis [85], and Promax rotation was applied for better interpretability. Item discrimination analysis was performed; items with correlations below 0.30 were excluded from further analysis. The mean inter-item correlation (MIC) was calculated as the average correlation among items within factors, with an acceptable range between 0.20 and 0.50 [86].

Relations between respondents’ attitudes and economic performance indicators were also analyzed. The variable “product placement on foreign markets” was coded binarily (0 = no, 1 = yes), while satisfaction with income was assessed via a Likert scale (1–5). The difference between income and expenses was treated as an ordinal variable. Depending on data type, biserial correlation, Pearson’s correlation, and Spearman’s rank correlation were applied. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.01, ensuring high reliability of the findings [87].

4. Results

4.1. Discussion of the Research Findings on the Characteristics of Agricultural Holdings

The analysis of the characteristics of agricultural holdings in the sample of 420 respondents reveals key aspects shaping the agricultural sector in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (

Table 1. Information on agricultural holdings. Research results (n = 420).

Category	Response	Number of Respondents	%
Type of Agricultural Education	Agricultural secondary vocational school	43	10.2
	Agricultural faculty	18	4.3
	No agricultural education	146	34.8
	Informal agricultural education	58	13.8
	Generational learning within the family	155	36.9
Size of Agricultural Holding/Industrial Production	Less than 1 ha	29	6.9
	1–2 ha	87	20.7
	5–10 ha	178	42.4
	10–50 ha	97	23.1
	Over 50 ha	29	6.9
Economic Value of Holding (€)	0–2000	40	9.5
	2000–4000	29	6.9
	4000–8000	54	12.9
	8000–15,000	38	9.0
	15,000–25,000	85	20.2
	Over 25,000	174	41.4
Credit/Loan for Farm Development	Yes	249	59.3
	No	171	40.7
Land Ownership	Own all the land	228	54.3
	Lease (rent)	25	5.9
	Part ownership/part lease	167	39.8
Satisfaction with Agricultural Income	Completely dissatisfied	119	28.3
	Mostly dissatisfied	87	20.7
	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	146	34.8
	Mostly satisfied	58	13.8
	Completely satisfied	10	2.4
Main Occupation	Farmer	236	56.2
	Other	184	43.8
Employees Outside Family	Yes	87	20.7
	No	333	79.3
Number of Employees (among those who employ others)	1 person	30	34.5
	2–5 persons	39	44.8
	5–10 persons	14	16.1
	11–50 persons	4	4.6
Primary Activity is Agriculture	Yes	222	52.9
	No	198	47.1
Farm Location	Novi Sad	135	32.1
	Bač	22	5.2
	Bačka Palanka	135	32.1
	Bački Petrovac	18	4.3
	Bečej	29	6.9
	Beočin	2	0.5
	Srbobran	29	6.9
	Vrbas	20	4.8
	Žabalj	11	2.6
	Titel	10	2.4
	Temerin	11	2.6
Product Placement on Domestic Market	All products	326	77.6
	Most products	47	11.2
	About half	20	4.8
	Do not place any products	27	6.4

).

The educational profile of farmers shows that a significant portion (36.9%) acquired knowledge through generational learning within the family, while a smaller share (14.5%) holds formal education at the secondary or higher level in agriculture. This profile indicates the dominant role of traditional knowledge and practices in managing farms, consistent with findings from the region [88,89]. Limited formal education may pose a barrier to adopting innovative techniques and modernizing production [90].

Farm size is predominantly medium (5–10 ha, 42.4%), corresponding to average family farm sizes in Southeastern Europe and the EU [91]. Such structure supports sustainable family farming but may limit economic efficiency and opportunities for industrial-scale production [92].

Economic value of holdings shows that a considerable number of producers (41.4%) manage capital valued over €25,000, indicating potential for investment and modernization. However, the significant share with low economic value (under €8000 for 29.4%) points to heterogeneity in financial capacities and possible development constraints [93].

Most farmers (59.3%) use credit or loans as financing sources, highlighting an active need for additional capital to improve production. This tendency aligns with research from developing countries, where credit plays a key role in diversification and modernization processes [94].

Land ownership is stable for the majority (54.3% own all land they cultivate), while a substantial portion combines ownership and lease (39.8%). This ownership model is characteristic of post-privatization agrarian systems in the region and may influence investment decisions and long-term planning [95].

Satisfaction with agricultural income is generally low, with nearly half of respondents expressing dissatisfaction. This indicates pronounced economic vulnerability among producers, likely due to market uncertainties, low added value, and lack of systemic support [52].

Regarding employment, most holdings (79.3%) rely on family labor, confirming the dominance of a traditional family production model, while hiring external workers is generally limited to small teams, consistent with similar EU studies [96].

Interestingly, for half of the respondents, agriculture is the primary occupation, while the rest combine farming with other jobs. This duality reflects an adaptive survival strategy and additional income sources, common in rural areas of developing countries [90].

Geographical distribution shows a concentration of farms in larger municipalities such as Novi Sad and Bačka Palanka, possibly due to better infrastructure, market conditions, and access to markets [89].

Finally, product placement is mostly focused on the domestic market (77.6% of respondents), indicating limited internationalization and potential vulnerability to changes in domestic demand. This situation is common in countries with weaker export-oriented agriculture [91].

The results highlight significant challenges and potentials in Serbia’s agricultural sector, with a dominant traditional farm structure and limited formal education, but evident readiness to invest through loans. Economic vulnerability and dissatisfaction with income should be regarded as critical points for further support, while capacity-building for modernization and diversification through education programs and improved market conditions is essential.

These findings align with general trends in the region and EU, where family farming remains the dominant model but requires enhanced capacities, financial support, and market access [90,92,94].

At the same time, statistical indicators show continuous growth in tourist traffic, including both domestic and international visitors to the region [97], thus opening opportunities to strengthen market demand for authentic, locally based tourist experiences. Vojvodina, as a multiethnic and multicultural region, holds strategic importance for the development of sustainable forms of tourism in Serbia and the broader regional context [98].

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Farmers’ Attitudes

To identify the number of factors in the questionnaire, a factor analysis was conducted. Based on the parallel analysis, it was possible to extract 5 factors that explain 50.74% of the total variance, or 41.98% of the common variance (

Table 2. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained by the extracted factors of farmers’ attitudes.

No. of Factors	Initial Values				After Extraction		λ After Rotation
	Parallel Analysis	Λ	% of Variance	Cumulative %	% Variances	Cumulative %
1	1.97	8.02	24.30	24.30	22.90	22.90	7.56
2	1.84	3.16	9.57	33.87	7.83	30.73	2.58
3	1.76	2.01	6.09	39.96	4.27	35.00	1.41
4	1.66	1.81	5.48	45.44	3.56	38.56	1.17
5	1.58	1.75	5.30	50.74	3.43	41.98	1.13
6	1.51	1.31	3.97

).

The extracted factors were then subjected to Promax rotation and interpreted based on the pattern matrix. The first factor explains 22.90% of the common variance and comprises 13 items (

Table 3. Factor pattern matrix—Motivation.

Items	Loadings
I have a desire to increase the total household income through production diversification.	0.81
I believe tourism can mitigate financial risks in agriculture.	0.77
Agriculture is no longer a sufficient source of income, so I am seeking alternative opportunities.	0.71
I see tourism as an opportunity for personal and professional development.	0.68
I believe diversification increases the competitiveness of my farm.	0.64
I think I can positively influence the image of my region as a tourist destination.	0.62
I want to contribute to the development of the local community through tourism.	0.59
It is important for me to preserve and promote local tradition and way of life.	0.38
I am inspired by the idea of contributing to the preservation of my region’s identity through the hospitality tourism sector.	0.37
Introducing tourism helps me to involve family members in the joint business.	0.34
Tourism is a way to ensure long-term financial stability.	0.31

). The variables with the highest loadings are: “By introducing tourism activities, I want to increase my household income”, “Diversification towards tourism enables me to secure an additional source of income”, and “I have a desire to increase the total household income through production diversification”. The structure of this factor indicates that it can be labeled Motivation.

The second factor comprises 7 items and explains 7.83% of the common variance (

Table 4. Factor loading matrix for Resources.

Items	Loadings
Lack of financial capital is an obstacle to starting tourism activities.	0.79
I cannot invest in tourism due to insufficient funds.	0.71
The location of my farm is suitable for the development of tourism activities.	0.63
Family support is crucial for realizing the idea of diversification towards tourism.	0.48
I do not have enough energy or time for additional business ventures.	0.47
Lack of qualified labor prevents me from developing tourism activities.	0.46
I could not manage a tourism business without hiring additional people.	0.33

). The variables with the highest loadings are: “Lack of financial capital is an obstacle to starting tourism activities”, “I cannot invest in tourism due to insufficient funds”, and “The location of my farm is suitable for the development of tourism activities”. The structure of the factor suggests the name Resources.

The third factor also includes 7 items and explains 4.27% of the shared variance (

Table 5. Factor loading matrix of Market Conditions.

Items	Loadings
There is significant demand for agricultural products in my region.	0.71
I consider hospitality and tourism to be attractive business opportunities.	0.55
Direct sales to tourists and hospitality businesses are more profitable than sales via distributors.	0.52
I lack sufficient knowledge or resources to independently promote my products and services.	0.46
Lack of infrastructure limits my opportunities for direct sales to tourists and hospitality businesses.	0.41
* Local promotion and market access are limited, which hinders product placement.	0.35
* The agricultural products market is too unpredictable for long-term security.	0.33

* Indicates items excluded from the final version.

). Two items did not show significant discriminative power (“Local promotion and market access are limited, which hinders product placement” and “The agricultural products market is too unpredictable for long-term security”) and were therefore excluded. In the final version, this factor contains 5 items. The variables with the highest loadings are: “There is significant demand for agricultural products in my region”, “I consider hospitality and tourism to be attractive business opportunities”, and “Direct sales to tourists and hospitality businesses are more profitable than sales through distributors”. The structure of the factor suggests the name Market Conditions.

The fourth factor includes 3 items and explains 3.56% of the common variance. However, one item did not achieve significant discriminative power (“Good road infrastructure enables greater tourist visits and distribution of products to hospitality facilities”) and was therefore excluded. The final version of this factor contains 2 items (

Table 6. Factor loading matrix of Accessibility.

Items	Loadings
My farm is located near main tourist routes.	0.50
* Good road infrastructure enables greater tourist visits and distribution of products to hospitality facilities.	0.45
The location of the farm is a key factor in making the decision to diversify.	0.42

* Indicates item excluded from the final version.

). The factor loading matrix is labeled Accessibility.

The fifth factor was not retained for further analysis due to unclear structure and lack of interpretability.

Correlations between the obtained scales of farmers’ attitudes range from low to moderate, varying between 0.10 (between Motivation and Accessibility, and this is the only non-significant correlation) and 0.48 (between Motivation and Market Conditions).

The reliability of the scales is satisfactory, except for the Accessibility scale, which shows inadequate reliability due to the small number of items, but it was still included in further analyses (

Table 7. Descriptive data, reliability, and average inter-item correlation.

Scales of the Questionnaire	M	SD	α	MIC
Motivation	3.57	0.85	0.90	0.42
Resources	2.58	0.90	0.75	0.31
Market Conditions	3.70	0.77	0.70	0.31
Accessibility	2.99	1.13	0.49	0.33

).

4.3. Correlations of Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Agricultural Diversification into Tourism, Economic Aspects, and Farmer Identity

Farmers’ income, expressed as the net monthly balance (difference between income and expenses), averages 158,518.00 RSD (€1350), with a high standard deviation of 818,345, indicating significant variability within the sample. Complete income and expense data were not provided by 62 respondents. Additionally, nine respondents reported negative net income, meaning their expenses exceeded their income, while seven respondents operated with income and expenses approximately balanced at zero. The remaining respondents had positive net income.

Regarding satisfaction with income, the average rating is 2.42 on a five-point scale (where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied”), with a standard deviation of 1.12, indicating relatively low satisfaction with the current economic situation.

When asked which form of farmer identity they consider themselves to belong to, 342 farmers (81.2%) identified with the traditional farmer identity, while 96 respondents (18.8%) identified with the expanded farmer identity. Regarding whether they want to diversify agricultural production toward tourism, 354 respondents answered “no”, while 66 indicated “yes”.

Table 8. Correlations of Farmers’ Attitudes and Indicators.

Farmers’ Attitude Scales	Income/Expenses	Satisfaction with Income	Farmer Identity	Desire for Diversification of Agricultural Production into Tourism
Motivation	0.17	0.09	−0.40 **	0.12
Resources	0.03	0.11	0.09	0.08
Market Conditions	0.15	−0.01	−0.29 **	0.10
Accessibility	0.12	0.08	0.09	0.05

Note: The variable for product placement in foreign markets was coded as 0 = no, 1 = yes, and biserial correlations were calculated for it. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the satisfaction with income variable, and Spearman rank correlations were used for the income–expense difference variable. ** p < 0.01.

presents the correlations between farmers’ attitudes toward agricultural diversification, economic aspects, and farmer identity.

Correlation analysis of farmers’ attitudes towards diversification, economic indicators, and identity provides additional insights. Motivation for diversification is positively, though weakly, correlated with net income (r = 0.17) and satisfaction with income (r = 0.09), suggesting that farmers with higher income and greater satisfaction show slightly higher motivation for diversification, but this relationship is not strong. Similarly, market conditions have a mild positive correlation with income (r = 0.15), while the correlation with income satisfaction is nearly nonexistent (r = −0.01).

The most interesting findings relate to farmer identity. There is a negative and statistically significant correlation between identity and motivation for diversification (r = −0.40, p < 0.01), as well as between identity and perception of market conditions (r = −0.29, p < 0.01). This suggests that farmers who strongly identify with the traditional agricultural identity exhibit lower motivation for diversification and a weaker perception of favorable market conditions for new activities, including tourism. On the other hand, positive correlations between other factors (resources, accessibility) and identity are weak and not statistically significant. Correlations between the desire for diversification and the factors of motivation, resources, market conditions, and accessibility are positive but very weak (ranging from 0.05 to 0.12), indicating that these factors alone do not strongly influence farmers’ expressed desire to diversify production toward tourism.

Overall, these results highlight the complexity of relationships between economic factors, identity, and attitudes in the context of agricultural diversification. The traditional identity acts as a significant barrier to motivation and willingness to diversify, while economic indicators have a limited direct impact on farmers’ attitudes and intentions.

5. Discussion

The discussion of the results highlights the complexity of the process of diversifying agricultural production towards tourism in the context of a developing country. Starting from the identified factors—motivation, resources, market conditions, and accessibility—the analysis focuses on how these aspects shape farmers’ attitudes and their readiness to engage in sustainable, non-traditional activities such as tourism. Additionally, the role of economic indicators and farmers’ identity is considered, with particular emphasis on the personal perception of the farmer’s role in the contemporary business environment. Given that respondents expressed significant dissatisfaction with their monthly incomes while maintaining a predominantly traditional identity, the results point to the existence of institutional and cultural barriers that slow down the diversification process [99,100]. These findings are discussed in the light of existing theoretical frameworks and comparable studies, aiming to provide a deeper understanding of obstacles and potential in transforming agriculture through tourism.

The study results provide insight into the factors that, from the farmers’ perspective, shape readiness to diversify agricultural production towards tourism, directly addressing the first research question. Exploratory factor analysis identified four stable and theoretically grounded factors: motivation, resources, market conditions, and accessibility. These factors explain nearly 42% of the shared variance, indicating the complexity and multidimensionality of the decision to diversify.

The most significant factor, motivation, encompasses both economic components (income increase, stability) and value–cultural components (preserving tradition, contributing to the community), aligning with previous research that confirms farmers are not solely driven by economic calculations but also personal values and aspirations [51,52,101,102]. Notably, motivation includes entrepreneurial and social motives, implying that diversification is more than an economic decision—it is part of a broader developmental and identity narrative [103].

The resources factor includes financial, human, and physical capacities, corroborating the international literature emphasizing the importance of capital availability and workforce [17,79,104]. Limited access to investment funds and dependence on family resources largely constrain opportunities to engage in tourism activities, particularly in regions with lower institutional capacity and support [105]. The low average score on the resources scale (M = 2.58) reflects a perceived deficit that further complicates diversification efforts.

The third factor, market conditions, relates to perceptions of demand, business opportunities, and distribution infrastructure. A positive perception of the market, especially regarding direct sales to tourists, suggests that some farmers see opportunities for immediate valorization of their products through tourism. However, promotional barriers and limited sales channels remain challenges, consistent with findings from rural areas in Italy and Japan [42,50,103,106].

The accessibility factor, though with weaker reliability due to the small number of items, indicates the importance of location and proximity to tourist flows. This finding supports claims that spatial connection to main tourist routes and quality of local infrastructure play a crucial role in diversification initiatives [48,105,107]. Yet, the low correlation between this factor and other dimensions suggests its partial and contextual significance.

Addressing the second research question, concerning the influence of farmers’ attitudes on their readiness to diversify, it was found that although attitudes show a positive but weak association with the desire to diversify, they alone are insufficient to strongly motivate a transition to new business models. Motivation and market perception form an important psychological framework for readiness, but their strength is insufficient to overcome external barriers such as institutional support, resource access, and infrastructure capacity [79,108,109,110]. This indicates that the diversification process is not a simple reflection of personal will, but a result of complex interactions between internal attitudes and the external environment.

Regarding the third research question, which concerns perceptions of the impact of diversification factors on economic aspects of farming, statistical data confirm a positive, albeit moderate, association between motivation and market conditions with farmers’ net incomes. This suggests that farmers recognize diversification as a potential tool to improve the economic performance of their farms. However, low satisfaction with income indicates the presence of structural limitations and unfavorable market conditions, which may restrict the realization of economic benefits from diversification [100]. Moreover, correlations of resources and accessibility with economic indicators are not significant, suggesting that financial capacity alone is insufficient to ensure the success of diversification strategies without favorable market and institutional conditions.

Responding to the fourth research question, the analysis of farmers’ identity reveals a clear dominance of traditional identity. This strong identity pattern negatively correlates with motivation for diversification and perception of market conditions, implying that farmers with a pronounced traditional identity show less readiness to engage in tourism and other non-traditional activities [102,111]. These findings confirm that identity plays a key role in shaping attitudes and decisions, with traditional identity potentially acting as a significant barrier in the process of change and adoption of innovative business models.

Overall, the results indicate a multilayered structure of factors shaping farmers’ readiness for diversification: psychological attitudes and market perception, economic capacities, and deeply rooted identity patterns. For a successful transition to sustainable diversification models, including tourism, it is necessary to simultaneously work on changing attitudes, strengthening economic conditions, and providing institutional support that can mitigate traditional barriers [108,109,110]. In this regard, the results point to the need for a dual approach in developing policies: on one hand, strengthening market mechanisms and financial incentives for diversification, and on the other hand, educational and advisory interventions that could encourage identity reinterpretation and openness to innovation [100,112]. Studies indicate that income diversification in rural areas, combined with improved access to education and services, significantly enhances household resilience [113].

It is important to emphasize that the high variability in incomes, including a significant number of those operating at a loss or break-even point, highlights the fragility of the economic position of many farms. Diversification towards tourism can represent an effective mechanism to increase resilience, but only if the complex factors shaping farmers’ decisions, especially those related to identity dimensions, are taken into account [43,112]. Therefore, the development of integrated policies linking education, market mechanisms, and cultural change can encourage farmers to overcome existing barriers and actively participate in diversifying their farms.

These findings underscore the need for a deeper reflection on farmers’ identity, which emerges as not merely a cultural trait but a structural barrier that significantly constrains diversification potential [65,81]. Comparative studies support this interpretation: for instance, research in Southern Europe has shown that strong traditional identities can limit the willingness of farmers to adopt new business models, even when financial incentives are present [7,14,15,64]. Similarly, in Japan and Italy, cultural attachment to farming as a way of life has been found to slow down the adoption of agritourism, despite favorable market conditions and policy frameworks [16,17,43]. In this light, the Serbian case aligns with international evidence, but also highlights the particular intensity of identity-related barriers in contexts where institutional support is weak and market volatility high [100,110].

What makes identity a particularly compelling result in this study is its interaction with other factors. Unlike resources or accessibility, which may be improved through targeted investment [104,111], identity is deeply embedded in values and perceptions of farmers’ social roles [65,81]. This suggests that diversification policies cannot rely solely on economic measures but must incorporate long-term educational and cultural strategies aimed at reshaping identity narratives towards openness, innovation, and sustainability [67,69,72]. Without addressing identity as a critical barrier, efforts to promote rural tourism and sustainable diversification risk remaining partial and ineffective [14,100].

Building on these insights, it is essential to highlight the interconnection between agricultural production, rural tourism, and sustainable development. Diversification through agritourism not only provides farmers with additional income [52,55,56,57] but also contributes to the broader goals of sustainability by fostering environmental awareness, preserving cultural landscapes, and strengthening social cohesion in rural areas [1,2,5,6]. As recent research indicates, sustainable rural development is most effective when agricultural activities are integrated with tourism initiatives that promote local resources and traditions, thereby enhancing regional competitiveness and resilience [3,4,26,27]. This perspective aligns with broader theoretical discussions on the evolution and challenges of sustainable development [114] and is consistent with recent insights emphasizing the role of smart specialization and regional development strategies in tourism-dependent economies [115]. In the Serbian context, such integration is particularly relevant, as rural tourism represents a strategic opportunity to bridge economic, cultural, and environmental objectives, aligning diversification efforts with long-term regional development priorities [20,25,26]. From a methodological standpoint, this study contributes to advancing this discussion by developing an analytical framework for examining the diversification of agricultural production towards tourism in the context of developing countries, combining validated international models with locally adapted indicators [10,12,19,20]. The inclusion of farmer identity as a distinct analytical dimension further strengthens the connection between production, tourism, and sustainable development, as identity shapes farmers’ capacity to embrace diversification pathways that align with broader regional goals [65,81,99]. The application of rigorous statistical procedures ensured the robustness of the findings, while the integration of attitudinal, market, and structural factors provides a solid basis for formulating targeted development policies grounded in empirical evidence and directed toward sustainable regional growth [87,104,111].

6. Conclusions

Diversification of agricultural production towards tourism represents an increasingly important mechanism for improving the rural economy, especially in developing countries such as Serbia. Based on the results of factor analysis, four key factors shaping farmers’ attitudes towards this process were identified: motivation, resources, market conditions, and accessibility.

Motivation, as a factor of personal initiative and ambition, was significantly associated with income but negatively correlated with a strong traditional identity, suggesting that farmers who strongly identify with traditional patterns are less motivated to innovate. Resources, understood as the availability of infrastructure and capacities, did not show a strong connection with outcomes, indicating that possession of resources alone is insufficient to stimulate diversification. Market conditions, which encompass the perception of stability and demand, were positively associated with income but negatively with identity, indicating possible resistance to a market-oriented approach among traditional producers. Accessibility, in terms of availability of information, knowledge, and support, showed moderately positive associations but did not represent a decisive factor.

Overall, the findings confirm that diversification is a multidimensional process intertwining economic, psychological, and structural factors. The average monthly income of respondents is approximately €1350, and the high level of dissatisfaction with financial stability further emphasizes the need to develop alternative income sources such as tourism. Simultaneously, the strong traditional identity dominating among respondents (over 80%) may limit the willingness to undertake innovative steps, indicating that changes depend not only on economic calculations but also on the perception of one’s role in social and professional contexts.

Theoretical contribution of this paper: This study contributes to research on agritourism in Serbia and the Balkans, where previous analyses have primarily focused on the general perception and potential of agritourism. Unlike recent Greek studies that examined institutional barriers [116], regional differences in perception and cooperation [117], and the link between agritourism and economic and sustainable development [118], this study simultaneously investigates economic factors and farmers’ identity as a central explanatory factor, providing new insights into diversification processes in transitional economies such as Serbia and complementing regional and international agritourism literature.

Practical contribution: The findings of this study provide valuable guidance for targeted interventions in rural development, agritourism policy, and farmer education. Effective strategies should not rely solely on infrastructure and financial incentives, but also on educational and advisory programs that help redefine the role of farmers in contemporary society. By fostering motivation, supporting identity transformations, and developing market skills and access, these interventions can facilitate the transition to diversified and sustainable business models. The results are particularly relevant for institutions involved in agritourism development, local governments, and development agencies, as they offer concrete directions for policies that integrate economic diversification with cultural heritage preservation and regional sustainability.

Limitations of this study: The study relies on quantitative methods and self-assessments, which may affect the accuracy of data on incomes, attitudes, and identities. The research was conducted on a sample from the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, so the results cannot be automatically generalized to the whole of Serbia. Additionally, the analysis did not include deeper narratives and individual experiences that could further illuminate the context of decisions.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should cover different regions and types of farms, as well as the long-term dynamics of diversification acceptance through longitudinal studies. It is recommended to use mixed methods to combine quantitative findings with qualitative insights, especially regarding the understanding of the meaning producers assign to their own identity and its impact on business decisions. Special attention should be given to designing programs that can foster the development of an innovative farmer identity—as entrepreneurs, hosts, and participants in rural tourism.