Driving Mechanisms of the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism: A Mixed Method Study

Abstract

Integration with rural tourism is an important way to achieve the sustainable development of ecological farms. Existing literature on the integration of agriculture and tourism lacks discussion from the microscopic farm level, making it difficult to capture the complex mechanisms of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. This paper attempts to address this problem by exploring the driving factors of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. The research aim of this paper is to construct a theoretical framework for driving the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. We first conducted research on farms in four ecological agriculture demonstration zones: Ziquejie in Loudi, Hunan Province; Heshi in Shilin, Yunnan Province; Rongjiang in Dali, Yunnan Province; and Youxiqiao Village in Hunan Province. We interviewed 64 stakeholders in ecotourism and used grounded theory methods to construct a model and propose hypotheses. On this basis, a measurement scale was designed, and data was collected from 1041 Chinese ecological farms (ecological farm operators) using a structured questionnaire. The partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) was used to model and analyze the data to test the constructed model. The study found that higher market demand, regional economic level, intrinsic development needs, intrinsic resource endowments, technical support, and resource integration can promote the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Market demand and intrinsic development needs constitute the generative force of agritourism integration, while resource integration and intrinsic resource endowments constitute the development force of agritourism integration, and technical support and the regional economic level constitute the supporting force of agritourism integration.

1. Introduction

Agricultural tourism, which makes use of the unique landscapes formed during the practice of ecological agriculture, is an effective way to improve the economic benefits of ecological agriculture using market mechanisms [1,2,3]. Eco-agricultural tourism has become a strategic choice for economic development in many rural areas [4,5]. Ecological farms are the carriers of ecological agriculture, taking into account the dual goals of ecological environmental protection and sustainable agricultural development, but their economic benefits face challenges [6]. Promoting the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism is not only a new practice to solve the economic benefits of ecological agriculture, but it has also gradually become an important field of research for scholars studying the healthy development of ecological agriculture [7].

Currently, a series of valuable studies on the integration of agriculture and tourism have been conducted using the principles of economics. A considerable amount of literature is based on macro data, and quantitative analysis methods are used from a macro perspective to explore the level of integration of agriculture and tourism [8], key drivers [9], mechanisms [10], paths to implementation [11], and effects [12,13]. The current situation and dynamic development process of agritourism have been interpreted, but there is relatively little literature exploring the mechanism of agritourism integration from a micro perspective. Studying agritourism integration from a micro perspective can provide insight into the specific mechanisms of individual farmers, community interactions, and ecological practices, and reveal the true drivers of differentiated needs, conflicts of interest, and sustainable paths obscured by macro data.

Micro-studies on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism mainly focus on economic benefits [2]. Some scholars believe that developing agritourism using the unique landscape of ecological farms is an effective way to improve the economic performance of ecological farms [14]. For example, additional income can be obtained from tickets, accommodation and catering, as well as from tourists’ payments for experiential activities such as picking and agricultural culture [15]. From a cost perspective, the resources of the farm, such as land, facilities, and labor, can be reused by tourism projects, which can reduce the cost of additional investments [12]. In addition, the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism can also cleverly fill income gaps. During the off-season, tourism projects such as winter spas and festivals can be held to make full use of idle resources and achieve stable year-round income growth [16]. Some scholars have also studied the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism using ecological farm operators as the research subjects and found that the key factors for integration are economic and social motives. In Europe and the United States, economic motives are generally more important than social motives. However, for most regions, both are important [17].

Obviously, academia has not yet reached a consensus on the driving forces and paths of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. To solve this problem, scholars have attempted to summarize the path to achieve this from the interactive development model of ecological farms and rural tourism. From the perspective of the development of interactive models, there are two main types: one is the interactive model guided by the government, which is generally in the initial stage of integrated development. The government becomes the main participant, providing policy support and financial guarantees through advanced planning, direct subsidies, small loans, etc., with the aim of guiding the rational input of factors and promote the positive interaction of the rural tourism industry [18]. The second is the development model of the integration of agriculture and tourism, in which the government provides policy guidance, constructs infrastructure, extends the industrial chain of rural and ecological farms, promotes the integration of agriculture and tourism, and achieves industrial transformation and upgrading [19].

However, two important gaps in existing research limit our understanding of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. First, current research has shortcomings at the theoretical construction level. Most studies are based on a single discipline [5] and fail to integrate the multiple factors of “ecology-economy-society” from a systems theory perspective to build a comprehensive theoretical model. This makes it difficult for research to deeply analyze the complex relationships involved in the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, limiting the universality and practical guidance value of the research results. Second, there are deficiencies in the scope and depth of research. Existing research mainly focuses on the integration of agriculture and tourism at the regional level [20], and there is less research on the specific integration models and paths of ecological farms and rural tourism at the micro level with practical applications. In addition, most research methods focus on descriptive analysis [21], and there is a lack of verifiable empirical research and mechanism mining, resulting in an unclear understanding of the internal mechanism of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

Therefore, the main research aim of this study is to bridge this gap by exploring the driving mechanisms of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. To achieve this aim, it is expressed in the following two objectives: (1) to construct a conceptual framework for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism; (2) to test the causal relationships between the factors.

This study applied an exploratory mixed-method design combining qualitative and quantitative methods. First, a model of the driving factors for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism was constructed using grounded theory (qualitative research). Then, PLS-SEM (quantitative research) was used to assess the causal relationships and impacts of the variables in order to answer the following core question: How can the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism be achieved based on the choices of stakeholders in ecological farm tourism?

This paper makes three new contributions to the existing literature in this field. First, it constructs a “three-force” driving model for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, providing a theoretical basis for subsequent research. Second, it provides empirical evidence from China for the study of the driving mechanism of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Third, this study explores the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism by combining qualitative and quantitative methods, providing a methodological reference for future research on the integration of agriculture and tourism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study used a mixed method combining qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a quantitative measurement tool for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. First, in the qualitative research phase, the grounded theory method (GT) was used to conduct in-depth interviews with stakeholders of eco-farm tourism to analyze the survey results and construct a model of the driving factors for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. The aim was to explain the mechanism of the influence of driving factors on the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism from a theoretical perspective. Then, in the quantitative phase, an assessment questionnaire was first developed based on the results of GT and combined with relevant literature. Next, the association mechanism was quantitatively evaluated using the PLS-SEM technique. PLS-SEM is a structural equation model based on partial least squares, which is used to evaluate measurement models as external models and structural models as internal model [22,23]. PLS-SEM in this study aims to investigate the causal relationships between the constructs in the theoretical model and explore the direction and statistical significance of the relationships [24]. The overall study design is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Qualitative Research Based on GT

GT is a common method of qualitative analysis. It is based on research data to construct explanatory theories that reveal the intrinsic nature behind phenomena [25,26]. Due to differences in epistemological aspects and research processes, there are currently three main schools of GT: classic GT represented by Glaser; processual GT represented by Strauss, Corbin and Clarke; and constructivist GT represented by Charmaz [27,28]. Regardless of the school, GT has the following four main characteristics: first, the researcher must not have preconceptions and must design the research and draw conclusions based on the data; second, the data must be continuously compared and analyzed; third, theoretical sampling must be carried out until the concepts, categories, and relationships between categories are saturated; and fourth, the ultimate goal is to construct a theory, not to verify it [29].

This study mainly adopts the process of GT to construct a framework of the driving mechanism of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism for two reasons. First, GT can dig deep into the integration process of agriculture and tourism by systematically and reliably analyzing qualitative data [12,30]. Second, existing theories do not adequately explain the dynamic mechanisms of agritourism integration. Existing research mostly uses “industry correlation” (such as the input-output method) or “coupling coordination models” in industrial economics for quantitative analysis, but it is difficult to capture dynamic elements such as stakeholder games in the process of agritourism integration [31].

2.2.1. Data Collection

This study focused on the theme of “Drivers of integration of eco-farms and rural tourism” (see Appendix A for interview outlines), and used semi-structured interviews to collect data [32], and the NVivo 11 Plus computer-assisted qualitative analysis platform to code and efficiently extract the factors influencing the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. A total of farm operators, tourists, and public sector-related staff from several ecological agricultural demonstration areas, namely Ziquejie in Hunan, Shilinheshi in Yunnan, Rongjiang in Dali and Yauxiqiao Village, were invited to be the interviewees for the interviews. Five farm operators, five tourists, two village cadres, two members of farmers’ cooperatives, and two government staff were randomly selected from each region. Selecting these five types of subjects for interviews is essentially building a more comprehensive agritourism integration system that covers the market demand side (tourists), the supply side (operators), the resource allocation side (cooperatives), the governance side (village cadres), and the institutional side (government). Through interviews with eco-farm operators and tourists, we can gain insight into the supply and demand relationship of eco-farm tourism; through interviews with village cadres, we can clarify the role of conflict coordination in the process of collective resource allocation; through exchanges with farmers’ cooperatives, we can gain a deeper understanding of the reorganization of factors of production; and as the implementer of industrial policies, government staff are familiar with local industrial policies and their implementation, so it is also important to conduct interviews with them. This research design not only fits the data-saturation principle of GT, but also accurately captures the dynamic feedback mechanism of “policy transmission—market response—community adaptation” in the process of agritourism integration.

All interviews were conducted in Chinese, audio-recorded and transcribed with participants’ consent, and then analyzed line by line. The analysis was conducted according to the method suggested by Corbin and Strauss [29]. Data were collected and analyzed in such a way that the data from each interview were analyzed before the next interview. Questions that were not answered in the first interview were emphasized more in subsequent interviews. Thus, the first interview raised questions for the next interview [33]. In total, the interviews lasted about 30 h, and 64 interview transcripts were obtained, with more than 500,000 words of raw data collected through post-textual organization, resulting in a memo of more than 20,000 words (in Chinese). Memo played a key role in GT research in documenting the research process, facilitating theoretical reflection, organizing coding relationships, and providing direction and material for subsequent research, serving as an important bridge between data collection and theory generation [29].

2.2.2. Coding

Based on the GT characteristics, data coding and collection went hand in hand to generalize and develop the theory by continuously categorizing, comparing, and linking data and codes [26,29]. The coding process was divided into three main stages: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. First, in the open coding stage, we labeled important events in the original data sentence by sentence to reflect the essence of important things and “open the topic” for the subsequent stage of coding [34,35]. Second, in the axial coding stage, the main focus was on comparing the labels from the open coding stage with the new labels and grouping them based on their relevance to one another in order to create initial categories of new concepts. At the same time, concepts from different categories were compared with one another to explore the connections between them and construct the initial conceptual framework [34]. The final stage was selective coding, where core categories were further identified and generalized, and the relationships between them were explored. Through this process, a theoretical model that could explain the phenomenon of agriculture-tourism integration was constructed [29,36]. Ultimately, we found that six core concepts could drive the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, and the specific mechanisms will be elaborated in Section 3.1. An example of the GT coding process is shown in

Table 1. Example of coding process for grounded theory.

Selective Coding (Core Category)	Axial Coding (Initial Category)	Open Coding (Initial Concept)	Example of An Original Statement	Serial Number	Reference Points
Market demand	Leisure need	Leisure vacation	“It’s the weekend, it’s hard to take a day off, bring the family to fish, breathe fresh air, don’t want to do anything, just come to escape the heat”.	T18	s153
		Health and wellness	“It’s really cool, with high oxygen ions and such good tea, wellness at its best, and I’ve rented apartments for wellness”.	T18	s161
		Sightseeing experience	“Look, there are terraces in front of us, tea here, and the scenery is stunning, especially cozy with the clouds after the rain”.	T18	s166
	Experiential need	Educational experience	“We have a farming museum here, and we also let the students experience digging sweet potatoes, so that they can understand farming culture”.	T18	s153
		Production experience	“When the rice flowers bloom, many tourists come to the fields to catch their own fish to eat, which is very delicious”.	T5	s41
		Gourmet experience	“The specialty of our farm is hot pot, so we use this specialty and combine it with the loquat garden to create a hot pot loquat garden. At night, our place is lit up with flashing lights, and people come here to drink and enjoy the night view. When the loquats are ripe, you can also pick them while eating hot pot, which will increase the bond between you”.	T3	s40
	Authentic need	Avoidance experience	“It’s so comfortable here, a temporary escape from the hustle and bustle of the city”.	T18	s193
		Authentic	“Our terraced fields allow us to experience the original ecological environment”.	T1	s190

.

2.3. Quantitative Research Based on PLS-SEM

In the second stage of the study, we used PLS-SEM to further explore the statistical significance of the constructs in the model and to test the theoretical model, using the model constructed by GT as the basic framework.

PLS-SEM is a statistical analysis method that combines partial least squares regression (PLS) and structural equation modelling (SEM). Compared with covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), PLS-SEM focuses more on theoretical construction and exploration, and is suitable for developing new theoretical frameworks or verifying hypotheses [22]. In addition, PLS-SEM has the following advantages. First, PLS-SEM does not require the data to follow a normal distribution, making it more widely applicable. Second, PLS-SEM can handle structural models with multiple constructs and complex relationships. Third, PLS-SEM can improve the predictive validity of the model by optimising the explanatory power of endogenous variables [37]. Since the purpose of this study is to explore the new mechanism of agritourism integration, PLS-SEM is more applicable than CB-SEM [22].

2.3.1. Questionnaire Development

In order to test the theoretical model in the quantitative phase, a questionnaire was compiled based on the concepts developed in the qualitative phase, the interview data and the existing literature [15,18,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. The questionnaire consists of two parts, one of which measures the core variables of the theoretical model using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree~5 = strongly agree), and the other part contains demographic information.

To ensure the validity of these concepts in empirical analysis, the items extracted in the first stage were first reviewed by five scholars in the fields of ecology and tourism management on the scales developed. Ten ecological farm operators were then invited to review the scales to confirm whether they could understand the meaning of each item and to test whether the initially set items were clearly expressed and easy to understand. Based on the review comments, we made the necessary adjustments to those items with ambiguous expressions to ensure that the measurement items were accurately expressed.

To ensure the reliability and validity of the survey questionnaire, a pre-survey was conducted in the provinces of Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, and Guizhou between February and March 2023. The research subjects were ecological farm operators. The sampling method used was purposive sampling and multi-stage random sampling. Specifically, in each province, three prefecture-level cities were randomly selected, and then three counties were randomly selected in each city. Finally, six ecological farms were randomly selected in each county for investigation. A total of 450 questionnaires were collected. After excluding incomplete or randomly filled-in questionnaires, 382 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of about 85%. Based on this data, we conducted a reliability and validity analysis of all the concepts in the scale. The measurements included Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and the Fornell–Larcker test [22]. Items that did not meet the standards were revised to obtain the official questionnaire, as shown in

Table 2. Survey questionnaire.

Main Variable	Sub-Variable	Description
Market demand	Experiential demand	The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm addresses the recreational needs of visitors. (ED1)
		The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm addresses the educational needs of visitors. (ED2)
		The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm meets the aesthetic needs of visitors. (ED3)
	Authenticity demand	The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm addresses the tourists’ desire to escape the hustle and bustle of urban life. (AD1)
		The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm meets the tourists’ yearning for a sense of place. (AD2)
		The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm caters to the visitors’ desire for authenticity and rustic experiences. (AD3)
	Leisure demand	The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm meets the leisure and vacation needs of visitors. (LD1)
		The development of tourism projects at this ecological farm addresses the health and wellness needs of visitors. (LD2)
Regional economic level	Regional infrastructure	The surrounding rural roads of this ecological farm facilitate the integration of the ecological farm with rural tourism. (RI1)
		The strong network signal of this ecological farm facilitates the integration of ecological farming and rural tourism. (RI2)
		The good network signal along the route to this ecological farm can facilitate the integration of the ecological farm with rural tourism. (RI3)
	Economic development level	The high income of local permanent residents can facilitate the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. (EDL1)
		The high level of leisure consumption among local permanent residents can promote the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. (EDL2)
		This ecological farm, being in close proximity to the urban area, facilitates the integration of ecological farming with rural tourism. (EDL3)
Intrinsic development needs	Economic benefits	The development of rural tourism projects at this ecological farm enables the farm to achieve greater profitability. (EcB1)
		The development of rural tourism projects by this ecological farm enables farmers to achieve increased income. (EcB2)
		The development of rural tourism projects at this ecological farm has enabled the diversification of its operations. (EcB3)
		The development of rural tourism projects by this ecological farm enhances the value of agricultural products by transforming the production landscape of ecological farm products. (EcB4)
	Social benefits	This ecological farm can provide job opportunities for local farmers. (SB1)
		The development of rural tourism projects by this ecological farm has enabled local farmers to obtain greater income. (SB2)
		The development of rural tourism projects by this ecological farm enables visitors to taste and purchase fresh and safe organic food. (SB3)
	Ecological benefits	The development of rural tourism projects at this ecological farm enhances soil conditions through the improvement of cultivation methods. (ElB1)
		The development of rural tourism projects at this ecological farm facilitates the establishment of an ecological circulation system within the farm. (ElB2)
		This ecological farm develops rural tourism projects to enhance the local living environment. (ElB3)
	Brand building	This ecological farm utilizes news media to promote the integration of agriculture and tourism through reporting. (BB1)
		This ecological farm collaborates with major tourism platforms to promote agricultural products. (BB2)
		This ecological farm participates in promotional activities for agricultural products, including tourism products. (BB3)
		This ecological farm participates in tourism conferences and other events to introduce its agricultural products to customers. (BB4)
		This ecological farm enhances the quality management of agricultural products through the development of tourism projects. (BB5)
		This ecological farm develops tourism projects to enhance farmers’ service awareness. (BB6)
Intrinsic resource endowment	Business scale	The land scale of this ecological farm can support the development of rural tourism. (BS1)
		The agricultural output of this ecological farm can meet the demand for picking and purchasing by tourists engaged in rural tourism. (BS2)
		The annual revenue of this ecological farm can support the development of rural tourism. (BS3)
	Capital resources	The funds raised by this ecological farm can support the development of rural tourism. (CaR1)
		The operator of this ecological farm has invested sufficient capital for the development of rural tourism. (CaR2)
		The investment ratio of external funding to self-financing in this ecological farm is appropriate for rural tourism development. (CaR3)
Technical support	Digital technology	This ecological farm currently applies advanced agricultural production information technologies, such as precision irrigation and remote sensing technology, in the development of tourism products. (DT1)
		This ecological farm currently employs advanced digital technologies for measuring temperature, humidity, and other production-related parameters in the development of tourism products. (DT2)
		The tourism information technologies mastered by this ecological farm, such as the monitoring and forecasting system for tourist numbers and the online booking system, facilitate the development of tourism products. (DT3)
		This ecological farm possesses its own live streaming technology, which can facilitate the development of tourism products. (DT4)
	Industry-academia collaboration	This ecological farm collaborates with research institutes and universities on agricultural technology. (IC1)
		This ecological farm collaborates with research institutes and universities for the development of tourism products. (IC2)
Resource integration	Cultural resources	The folk customs of the location of this ecological farm can facilitate the integration with rural tourism. (CuR1)
		The cultural techniques of the location of this ecological farm can facilitate the integration with rural tourism. (CuR2)
		The folk art present at the site of this ecological farm can facilitate the integration with rural tourism. (CuR3)
		The traditional cuisine of the location of this ecological farm can promote the integration with rural tourism. (CuR4)
	Ecological resources	The biodiversity surrounding this ecological farm can facilitate the integration of rural tourism. (ER1)
		The ecological quality surrounding this ecological farm can facilitate the integration with rural tourism. (ER2)
		The ecological environment protection at the site of this ecological farm can facilitate the integration with rural tourism. (ER3)
	Policy resources	The existing government financial subsidy policies for the integration of agriculture and tourism can promote the convergence of ecological farms and rural tourism. (PR1)
		The existing financial loan policies for the integration of agriculture and tourism are well-established and can promote the convergence of ecological farms and rural tourism. (PR2)
		The existing tax reduction policies for the integration of agriculture and tourism can effectively promote the convergence of ecological farms and rural tourism. (PR3)
		The existing certification system enhances the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. (PR4)
		The existing land transfer policies are well-structured and can facilitate the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. (PR5)
Degree of Integration		This ecological farm promotes mutual enhancement, win-win benefits, and balanced development with rural tourism. (DOI1)
		The tourism and leisure value of this ecological farm has been explored. (DOI2)
		The ecological tourism products in this region have become more diversified and enriched due to the development of ecological farms. (DOI3)

.

2.3.2. Data Collection

From May to October 2023, we conducted a questionnaire survey in all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government of China, excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. The survey targets were the operators of ecological farms.

First, three cities were randomly selected from each province (municipality or autonomous region). Then, three counties were randomly selected from each city, and four to five ecological farms were randomly selected from each county as research targets. In order to ensure the validity of the questionnaire data, the survey was mainly conducted through on-site visits. For some ecological farms in remote areas, the survey was mainly conducted by commissioning local friends or using methods such as telephone, QQ, and WeChat. The questionnaire was filled out by the person who had the final say on the farm (such as the owner, manager, or partner). A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed, 1052 were returned, and after excluding unqualified questionnaires, 1041 valid questionnaires were finally determined, with an effective rate of 87.6%.

3. Results

3.1. Results of GT Analyses

After a systematic analysis of GT, we found that six factors promote the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, namely market demand, regional economic level, intrinsic development needs, intrinsic resource endowments, technical support, and resource integration. On this basis, we constructed a model of the driving factors for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism and proposed six hypotheses on the relationship between the driving factors and integration (Figure 2). How these factors affect the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism will be explained below.

3.1.1. The Impact of Market Demand on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

Changing market demands require the transformation and upgrading of traditional ecological farms. Tourists pursue identity, and nostalgia is an important feature that represents their identity [36]. For example, one consumer said, “When I went to this farm, the staff were very simple, and I felt like I was back home. (T18-s188) (T18 represents interviewee number 18, and s188 indicates that the quoted text is located in paragraph 188 of the interviewee’s interview data. Similar conventions are used below)”. So the needs of its consumers have gradually changed from a single sightseeing tour to an ecological leisure experience. The interaction between the two has made ecological farms a tourist destination.

The demand for agricultural products in the tourism market and the use of agricultural products in the tourism market have created a complementary market, splitting and restructuring the industrial chain, which is the most direct driving force for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism [30]. First, with the advent of the experience era, tourists are more interested in the authentic production and living experience of ecological farms. For example, “Seeing the terraced fields here, you can feel the original ecological environment. (T1-s190)” To meet tourists’ pursuit of an immersive rural experience that “allows you to see mountains, water, and remember your nostalgia”, it also promotes ecological farms to maintain their authenticity. Second, rural tourism can meet the experiential needs of tourists in five areas: entertainment, empathy, aesthetics, escape, and education. Interviews have shown that rural tourism offers a variety of experiences, is highly entertaining, and can bring a different experience on an emotional level. For example, “Usually we are busy, but here we can go fishing, participate in outdoor activities, participate in parent-child activities, etc. Through these activities, I can experience a different state of life. (T19-s87)” Third, tourists can achieve the goals of leisure, health, and comfort during their stay at an eco-farm, satisfying their leisure needs. For example: “It’s really cool, with high oxygen ions and such good tea, wellness at its best, and I’ve rented apartments for wellness. It allows me to relieve stress and relax my body. (T18-s161)”.

In summary, market demand is the original driving force that triggers the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Market demand is specifically manifested in the authentic, experiential, and leisurely consumption needs of tourists. Stimulated by this, ecological farms must upgrade and transform, innovate and develop products, and strengthen their complementary relationship with the tourism market. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: 

Market demand has a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.1.2. The Impact of the Regional Economic Level on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

The income level of residents directly determines the income of rural tourism and the needs of tourists. The demand for high-level products and services such as tourism depends on the residents’ discretionary income [46]. In areas with a high regional economic level, as income levels continue to rise, people’s living standards are also improved, their consumption power is stronger, and they are more willing to pursue a higher quality of life by practicing rural tourism [47]. The integration of ecological farms and rural tourism is an important part of tourism development, which is greatly affected by the level of economic development. Areas with a high regional economy are more likely to pursue spiritual needs and have a higher tendency to consume for pleasure, thus driving the integrated development of agricultural and tourism. For example, T4, an ecological farm operator, said, “People’s living standards are getting higher and higher. City dwellers usually stay in steel and concrete every day and are increasingly willing to come to ecological farms to spend money”.

Moreover, regions with a high level of regional economy are more receptive to new things and ideas, and are more likely to accept the new model brought about by the integration of agriculture and tourism, thus promoting the improvement of the integration of agriculture and tourism [48]. At the same time, cities with a regional economy have more resources and are more likely to invest funds in the integration of agriculture and tourism, which can create a good environment for the development of the integration of agriculture and tourism, thus improving the degree of integration of agriculture and tourism [49]. For example, farm operator T3’s farm is located in the suburbs of the city (with a relatively high regional economic level). The farm combines the local specialty of hot pot with the farm’s specialty of loquat orchards to launch a new project called “Loquat Orchard Hot Pot”. During the season when the loquats are ripe, tourists can enjoy both eating hot pot and picking loquats, which attracts a large number of tourists to come and experience it.

In addition, as the regional economic level increases, local governments have more funds to increase the construction of social public infrastructure, and the road density and basic information coverage can be expanded, thus providing convenient conditions for ecological farms to develop tourism businesses and facilitating travel for tourists [50]. For example, one tourist (T18) said: “In the past, it took an hour and a half to drive from the city center to the farm. Now that the highway is open, it’s only a 40-min drive to the farm, which is much more convenient than before”.

It can be inferred that regions with a high regional economic level, where residents have higher income and consumption levels and are more willing to accept new things, are more conducive to the development of ecological farm tourism. At the same time, a more complete infrastructure also facilitates the integration of ecological farms and tourism. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed:

H2: 

The regional economic level has a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.1.3. The Impact of Intrinsic Development Needs on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

The pursuit of maximum efficiency is an intrinsic development need of ecological farms and the original driving force behind the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism [42]. In recent years, traditional ecological farms have faced challenges to their sustainable development due to high production costs, low production efficiency, and increasing resource constraints [51]. The integration of ecological farms and rural tourism can promote the development of multiple functions of agriculture, increase added value, and promote the re-creation and reuse of ecological farm resources [52].

We found that most ecological farm operators choose to integrate with rural tourism for the purpose of increasing income. The integration of agriculture and tourism has enabled ecological farms to expand their income channels and extend the value chain of ecological farms. The value chain of traditional ecological farms is from sowing before the production of agricultural products to harvesting after production, while after integrating with rural tourism, the value chain extends from sowing before the production of agricultural products to sightseeing during production, and then to harvesting and experiencing after production. For example, T17, a staff member of the government of Youxiqiao Village, said: “Before participating in rural tourism, the annual per capita income of farmers in our village was about 2000 yuan (about 276 US dollars). Now it is about 15,000 yuan (about 2073 US dollars)”. Second, the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism can have a social effect, driving employment and income growth among farmers around the farms.

Third, the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism can also have an ecological effect, because “ecological farms have improved their farming methods and soil conditions by participating in rural tourism (T3-s12)”, which has also improved the ecological environment around the farms.

On this basis, the integration of ecological farming and rural tourism helps to increase the exposure of farm products, accumulate word-of-mouth publicity, and gradually develop into a regional brand over time, thereby attracting more consumers and creating a virtuous cycle. For example, farm operator T5 said: “Our cold tea is very famous now, so many tourists come just for that, to drink the tea and stay on the farm for a few days”.

In summary, the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism has been accelerated by intrinsic development needs such as economic, social, and ecological benefits and brand building. This leads to the hypothesis that:

H3: 

Intrinsic development needs have a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.1.4. The Impact of Intrinsic Resource Endowments on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

The intrinsic resource endowments of ecological farms are an important driving force for the integration and development of agritourism [53]. This is mainly reflected in two aspects: the scale of capital and the scale of operations. Intrinsic resources affect the costs and benefits of ecological farm production, determine the development direction of the farm industry, and directly affect the possibility of ecological farms benefiting from the integration with rural tourism [54].

For traditional ecological farms that want to transform or upgrade their industries, integration with rural tourism is a good way to develop. In the process of integration, capital can be effectively concentrated, the scale of land and production capacity can be expanded, and the direction of development can be shifted from single agricultural production to diversified services, thereby improving the operating efficiency of the farm [55]. For example, the chairman of an ecological farm (T6) said: “In 2018, the ecological farm I managed began to integrate with rural tourism. The ecological farm was jointly invested in by me and two other partners, with a total initial investment of more than 4 million (about 552,880 US dollars). The farm covers an area of more than 400 hectares (mainly used for tea cultivation), and that year it earned more than 8 million (about 1,105,760 US dollars). So, we decided to continue expanding the rural tourism project, investing an additional 4 million yuan (about 552,880 US dollars) to build homestays, leisure courtyards, and entertainment facilities. We also took out another loan of more than 2 million yuan (about 276,440 US dollars) until 2022 to build a parent-child experience park. So far, the park has established its own brand and has a relatively complete rural tourism industry chain. The revenue generated by tourism also accounts for nearly half of the farm’s total revenue”.

The intrinsic resource endowments of ecological farms are an important driving force for the integration and development of ecological farms and rural tourism, mainly in terms of capital scale and business scale. Enterprises are an effective driving force for the integration and development of ecological farms and rural tourism. Ecological farms provide tourists with agricultural products and leisure tourism products, which are constantly improved and updated according to market demand. Diversified operations of ecological farms and the construction of ecological farm tourism brands will further broaden the depth, breadth, and level of integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. On this basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: 

Intrinsic resource endowments have a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.1.5. The Impact of Technical Support on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

Due to the permeable and multiplicative nature of high technology, the transformation of ecological farms led by technological innovation has enabled new technologies to quickly penetrate traditional ecological farms. This process is inevitably accompanied by the integrated development of the primary, secondary, and tertiary industries and industry-university research cooperation [56]. For example, “We cooperate with agricultural universities to use information remote sensing technology to place chips in hydroponic plants to monitor plant growth. (T2-s108)” In addition, the application of high-tech production support technology and production technology in ecological farms is conducive to enhancing production efficiency and the quality of agricultural products, and promoting the optimal allocation of ecological farms [57]. For example, “The use of 5G Internet technology and Internet of Things technology to assist in fish and pig farming, and the precise delivery of feed, has greatly saved labor costs and enabled digital and intelligent farming. (T8-s185)”.

In addition, agricultural information technology provides technical support for the transformation of farm products into leisure products and is also one of the important mediums for the transformation of farm functions [58]. A village cooperative staff member, T17, said, “During the Spring Festival, our county also held a national tourism conference, using digital information AR technology to recreate scenes of local rice cake making, folk songs, shamanism, etc., to immerse visitors in the new environment. (s51).” The widespread application of e-commerce technology has promoted the effective connection between the demand and supply of agricultural leisure products and has facilitated more convenient and efficient project management and services after the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, thus promoting the high-quality integrated development of ecological farms and rural tourism. For example, many farms have their own online stores or shopping apps. Tourists can learn about farm tourism projects and products online and make reservations online, while the farms can provide services such as home delivery through express delivery.

It can be seen that technical factors have played a decisive role in the development of traditional agriculture, and that technology also plays an important supporting role in the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Technical support not only effectively improves the efficiency and quality of farm operations and production but also shortens the distance of communication between them and tourists, enhances the tourist experience, and promotes the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed:

H5: 

Technical support has a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.1.6. The Impact of Resource Integration on the Integration of Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

Resources such as specialty agriculture, farming activities, agricultural festivals, and agro-ecological environments are an important basis for the integration of agriculture and tourism, and an important source of the appeal of agricultural leisure products [59,60]. Ecological farms integrate cultural resources (such as traditional customs of ethnic minorities), ecological resources (such as a wide variety of plants and animals), and tourism resources (such as local tourist attractions) in their locations. They embed new functions of tourism such as leisure, experience, and sightseeing into their own industrial chains, thereby creating ecological farm tourism products and forming the farm’s own characteristics.

On this basis, policy support is an important factor in the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, with the functions of support, coordination, and supervision [18]. Governments at all levels have issued corresponding policies, regulations, and guidelines for the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism to guide, support, and promote their integrated development and optimize the structure of ecological farms and rural tourism [61], providing a favorable development environment for the in-depth integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

In this study, the Ziquejie terraced fields are a prime example of good resource integration. “Ziquejie terraced fields are located in Xinhua County, Hunan Province, and are one of China’s three most famous terraced fields. Integrated with tourist attractions such as Meishan Dragon Palace and Daxiongshan, they form a boutique route. The beauty of the terraced fields is not only visual beauty, but also a cultural accumulation. For more than 2000 years, the southern rice culture and the Miao and Yao mountain fishing and hunting culture have blended together in the Ziquejie terraced fields. Miao and Yao culture has been passed down from generation to generation, and folk customs such as the grass dragon dance and the Nuo mask dance have been listed as national intangible cultural heritage. Meishan martial arts and Meishan Nuo opera have also been included in the national intangible cultural heritage list. Ziquejie terraced fields have created an immersive terraced field experience brand through the coloured rice fields viewing project, terraced field ecological walking trails, and Meishan farming culture performance projects, forming a characteristic path of ’original state protection, active use, and business integration’. On this basis, multiple government departments in Hunan Province jointly hosted the “Ziquejie Terraced Fields Dialogue with the World” forum, which showcased the characteristics of Ziquejie to the world and increased its popularity at home and abroad”.

It can be seen that with the development of the agricultural leisure tourism market and on the basis of resource integration, the value of tourism in ecological farm operations will be further explored and enhanced. This leads to the hypothesis that:

H6: 

Resource integration has a positive impact on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism.

3.2. PLS-SEM Analysis Results

3.2.1. Descriptive Statistics

There were 1041 respondents in this study, with a male-to-female ratio of about 9:1, indicating that most of the decision-makers of ecological farms are still men. In terms of educational attainment, more than 70% of the respondents have received higher education at the college level and above, which is much higher than the popularization rate of higher education in rural China [62]. In terms of age distribution, the respondents were mainly concentrated in the 40–65 age group (N = 915, accounting for 87.89%). In terms of years of operation, more than 80% of the respondents said that they had 4 years or more of experience in operating an ecological farm, which means that most of the respondents have relatively rich experience in managing ecological farms. The results of descriptive statistics are shown in

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Characteristic	Description	Number	Proportion (%)
Gender	Male	935	89.82
	Female	106	10.18
Education	High school and below	295	28.34
	Associate degree	136	13.06
	Bachelor’s degree	587	56.39
	Postgraduate degree	23	2.21
Age	≤40	42	4.03
	41–55	581	55.81
	56–65	334	32.08
	>65	84	8.07
Years of management operation	Within 1 year	42	4.03
	1–3 years	146	14.02
	4–6 years	230	22.09
	6–9 years	529	50.82
	Over 9 years	94	9.03
Total		1041	100.00

.

3.2.2. Research Model

The results of the grounded theory analysis show that there are six main latent variables driving the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. However, these latent variables are difficult to measure directly and are reflected through multiple dimensions. Therefore, it is more reasonable to use a multilevel model for estimation [23]. In addition, using a multilevel model for measurement can also reduce the complexity of the model and make the theory more concise [63,64].Therefore, we constructed a second-order model as shown in Figure 3 to measure the research hypotheses and evaluate the model based on the recommendations of Wetzels et al. [23].

3.2.3. Results of Model Evaluation

The evaluation of a research model using PLS-SEM analysis involves two different steps. The first step involves the evaluation of the measurement (external) model, which involves assessing the characteristics of the constructs and measurement items that represent them. The second step involves the evaluation of the structural (internal) model and the relationships between the constructs specified by the research model [22,23].

(1) Measurement model assessment

To examine the characteristics of the measurement indicators, a zero model without any structural relationships was specified for the first-order latent variables [65]. On this basis, its reliability and validity were assessed. Cronbach’s alpha (CA) was used to assess internal consistency [22], while factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to assess the convergent validity of the model [22,66,67]. The results are shown in

Table 4. Characteristics of the Measurement Model.

First Order	Items	Loadings	CA	CR	AVE	Second Order	CR	AVE
ED	ED1	0.842	0.783	0.873	0.697	Market demand (MD)	0.843	0.643
	ED2	0.845
	ED3	0.818
AD	AD1	0.844	0.784	0.874	0.699
	AD2	0.842
	AD3	0.822
LD	LD1	0.882	0.742	0.886	0.795
	LD2	0.901
RI	RI1	0.844	0.788	0.876	0.702	Regional economic level (REL)	0.843	0.729
	RI2	0.838
	RI3	0.832
EDL	EDL1	0.876	0.836	0.901	0.753
	EDL2	0.870
	EDL3	0.857
EcB	EcB1	0.833	0.844	0.895	0.681	Intrinsic development needs (IDN)	0.876	0.638
	EcB2	0.833
	EcB3	0.794
	EcB4	0.841
SB	SB1	0.878	0.854	0.911	0.774
	SB2	0.889
	SB3	0.873
ElB	ElB1	0.868	0.833	0.900	0.749
	ElB2	0.871
	ElB3	0.859
BB	BB1	0.812	0.844	0.912	0.633
	BB2	0.801
	BB3	0.785
	BB4	0.833
	BB5	0.763
	BB6	0.776
BS	BS1	0.857	0.823	0.894	0.739	Intrinsic resource endowment (IRE)	0.835	0.717
	BS2	0.857
	BS3	0.864
CaR	CaR1	0.833	0.780	0.872	0.695
	CaR2	0.839
	CaR3	0.829
DT	DT1	0.857	0.861	0.906	0.706	Technical support (TS)	0.819	0.697
	DT2	0.854
	DT3	0.834
	DT4	0.816
IC	IC1	0.874	0.702	0.870	0.770
	IC2	0.881
CuR	CuR1	0.850	0.840	0.893	0.675	Resource integration (ReI)	0.838	0.634
	CuR2	0.826
	CuR3	0.813
	CuR4	0.798
ER	ER1	0.831	0.763	0.864	0.679
	ER2	0.828
	ER3	0.813
PR	PR1	0.806	0.858	0.898	0.637
	PR2	0.792
	PR3	0.817
	PR4	0.793
	PR5	0.783
DOI	DOI1	0.859	0.790	0.877	0.704
	DOI2	0.817
	DOI3	0.841

. The CA values of all first-order constructs exceed the 0.7 suggested by Hair Jr et al. [22], indicating that the model has high internal consistency. The factor loadings of all items exceeded 0.7, the CR values of the first-order constructs were greater than 0.8, and the AVE was greater than 0.5, all of which satisfied the critical conditions proposed by Hair Jr et al. [22] and Fornell & Larcker [67]. In addition, as shown in

Table 5. Distinctive validity test (Fornell–Larcker criterion).

	AD	BB	BS	CaR	CuR	DOI	DT	ED	EDL	ER	EcB	ElB	IC	LD	PR	RI	SB
AD	0.836	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
BB	0.203	0.796	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
BS	0.181	0.186	0.859	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
CaR	0.139	0.177	0.435	0.833	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
CuR	0.148	0.148	0.131	0.184	0.822	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
DOI	0.367	0.338	0.319	0.252	0.357	0.839	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
DT	0.202	0.146	0.211	0.192	0.192	0.35	0.84	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
ED	0.469	0.148	0.144	0.118	0.178	0.34	0.183	0.835	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
EDL	0.211	0.131	0.173	0.157	0.154	0.32	0.205	0.126	0.868	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
ER	0.147	0.126	0.102	0.122	0.48	0.305	0.214	0.172	0.162	0.824	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
EcB	0.155	0.468	0.158	0.152	0.14	0.321	0.118	0.159	0.116	0.099	0.825	□	□	□	□	□	□
ElB	0.192	0.518	0.176	0.18	0.197	0.364	0.164	0.183	0.145	0.144	0.534	0.866	□	□	□	□	□
IC	0.167	0.1	0.192	0.195	0.156	0.31	0.431	0.204	0.128	0.113	0.135	0.117	0.878	□	□	□	□
LD	0.457	0.162	0.174	0.135	0.18	0.39	0.17	0.433	0.189	0.181	0.185	0.189	0.179	0.891	□	□	□
PR	0.124	0.092	0.132	0.167	0.474	0.314	0.151	0.162	0.183	0.459	0.089	0.175	0.115	0.164	0.798	□	□
RI	0.186	0.125	0.208	0.154	0.178	0.359	0.252	0.178	0.456	0.161	0.141	0.213	0.158	0.191	0.192	0.838	□
SB	0.172	0.532	0.156	0.135	0.16	0.354	0.15	0.169	0.154	0.123	0.543	0.551	0.109	0.17	0.092	0.158	0.88

, the square root of AVE exceeds the correlation between this construct and other constructs in the model, indicating that the model has discriminant validity [22,23,67]. The HTMT method was used to test the model, and all HTMT values were less than 0.85 (

Table 6. Distinctive validity test (HTMT).

□	AD	BB	BS	CaR	CuR	DOI	DT	ED	EDL	ER	EcB	ElB	IC	LD	PR	RI	SB
AD	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
BB	0.243	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
BS	0.225	0.219	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
CaR	0.178	0.214	0.542	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
CuR	0.181	0.172	0.158	0.226	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
DOI	0.465	0.404	0.396	0.32	0.438	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
DT	0.245	0.166	0.251	0.234	0.227	0.425	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
ED	0.597	0.178	0.179	0.151	0.219	0.432	0.221	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
EDL	0.26	0.153	0.209	0.194	0.183	0.393	0.242	0.157	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
ER	0.19	0.152	0.129	0.158	0.598	0.394	0.264	0.22	0.204	□	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
EcB	0.189	0.541	0.19	0.187	0.165	0.391	0.137	0.195	0.138	0.123	□	□	□	□	□	□	□
ElB	0.237	0.602	0.212	0.223	0.236	0.448	0.194	0.227	0.173	0.18	0.634	□	□	□	□	□	□
IC	0.225	0.127	0.253	0.262	0.204	0.416	0.555	0.276	0.168	0.155	0.174	0.152	□	□	□	□	□
LD	0.598	0.199	0.223	0.177	0.228	0.507	0.213	0.565	0.239	0.241	0.234	0.24	0.248	□	□	□	□
PR	0.15	0.105	0.157	0.203	0.557	0.379	0.176	0.198	0.216	0.566	0.104	0.207	0.149	0.206	□	□	□
RI	0.236	0.15	0.258	0.196	0.219	0.455	0.306	0.226	0.562	0.207	0.173	0.263	0.213	0.251	0.233	□	□
SB	0.209	0.609	0.185	0.166	0.191	0.431	0.175	0.205	0.182	0.153	0.637	0.652	0.141	0.212	0.107	0.192	□

), further supporting the discriminant validity of the model [22].

Next, we measured the CR and AVE values of the higher-order model, as shown in the last two columns of Table 4. It can be found that all CR values are greater than 0.8, and the minimum AVE value is 0.634, indicating that the model is reliable [23]. In addition, the loadings of all first-order latent variables on the second-order latent variables are greater than 0.7 and are significant at the 0.01 significance level, further supporting the reliability of the model [22,23].

(2) Structural model assessment

Table 7. Structural model test (Bootstraps = 5000).

Hypothesis	Relationship	Path Coefficient (β)	p Values	Result	R2
H1	MD→DOI	0.228	0.000	Supported	0.453
H2	REL→DOI	0.167	0.000	Supported
H3	IDN→DOI	0.233	0.000	Supported
H4	IRE→DOI	0.105	0.000	Supported
H5	TS→DOI	0.160	0.000	Supported
H6	ReI→DOI	0.206	0.000	Supported

summarizes the test results of the structural model. It can be seen that market demand (β = 0.228, p = 0.000), regional economic level (β = 0.167, p = 0.000), intrinsic development needs (β = 0.233, p = 0.000), intrinsic resource endowments (β = 0.105, p = 0.000), technical support (β = 0.160, p = 0.000), and resource integration (β= 0.206, p = 0.000) all have a positive effect on the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, and hypotheses H1~H6 are all valid. The R² value of the model’s degree of integration is 0.453, which achieves middle explanatory strength [66]. After that, we assessed the predictive relevance of the model using the Blindfolding program, and the Q² value of the DOI was 0.312 (greater than 0), indicating that the model has predictive relevance [22].

4. Discussion

4.1. Integration Mechanism Between the Ecological Farms and Rural Tourism

This study aims to construct a conceptual framework using qualitative and quantitative methods, based on which hypotheses are formulated and tested using the PLS-SEM method. The results of the GT found that market demand, regional economic level, intrinsic development needs, intrinsic resource endowments, technical support, and resource integration are the core elements to promote agritourism integration, and a model of the driving factors of ecological farm and rural tourism integration was constructed based on this. Many scholars study the integration of agritourism using the push-pull theory, and the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism is a complex system of dynamic evolution [68], and this study refers to the principle of dynamics [10], and according to the process of the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, the sustainability of the integration can be further categorized into the synergy of the generative force, the development force, and the supporting forces. Demand is the starting point of innovation [69], so the fundamental needs inherent in eco-farms and market demand are the generative forces for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. Resources are the basis of the development force of agritourism integration [70], and internal resource endowment is integrated with cultural resources and tourism resources to derive into new business forms. Therefore, internal resource endowment and resource integration constitute the development force. Regional infrastructure guarantees the accessibility of scenic spots [71], the higher the income of residents, the higher the purchasing power [72], and technology plays a supportive role for the development of agritourism integration [73]. Therefore, the regional economic level of development and technical support are supporting forces. The generative force induces the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, the development force generates new forms of tourism, while the supporting force continuously innovates tourism products, as shown in Figure 4. Compared with the unidirectional linear causality framework of traditional push-pull theory [74], the three-dimensional driving force model constructed in this study presents significant theoretical innovation and application advantages. First, the push-pull theory takes demand-side behavioral motivation as a single research perspective and follows the linear explanatory logic of “environmental stimulus—behavioral response” [75]. The three-force analysis framework constructed in this model realizes the two-way coupling between the supply side and the demand side. Second, under the framework of development force theory, the interaction between “resource integration” and “intrinsic resource endowments” is clearly defined, highlighting the process of transforming resources from a static endowment state to a dynamic value creation state.

The results of PLS-SEM analysis further validate the reliability of the model of driving factors in the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, and there are also some new findings. Market demand and intrinsic development needs are the most critical elements in driving the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. In terms of market demand, Skuras et al. (2006) argued that the combination of agricultural production and tourism services facilitates the supply and demand relationship between rural and urban areas [76]. Similar results were found in this study, where market demand pushes eco-farms to continually improve the value-added of agricultural products and the quality of services, leading to wider economic, environmental, and social benefits. Unlike Fleischer & Tchetchik [77], who found that agricultural activities on working farms do not have a value to tourists, this study found that tourists experiencing agricultural activities is an important element in promoting eco-farms and rural tourism integration. Since the beginning of this century, rural tourism in China has changed from simply “eating local food, picking fruits and vegetables, and staying in a farmhouse” to returning to nature, learning about agriculture, increasing knowledge, relaxing and enjoying leisure, and improving health and fitness [15,78,79]. Eco-farms not only have the function of producing healthy food, but also have unique agricultural landscapes and cultures, which make them a good place for urban residents to visit for leisure [79]. Therefore, eco-farm operators must invest in agri-tourism programs to meet the leisure experience, entertainment experience, and truth-seeking experience of tourists according to the changing market situation. With regard to intrinsic development needs, rural tourism has a significant positive impact on farmers’ sustainable income [80] and is one of the important reasons for stimulating farmers’ willingness to participate in rural tourism [81]. This study also found similar results. The linkage of interests among various entities is an important part of the intrinsic development needs of ecological farms, which actively promotes the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism and is of great significance for achieving common prosperity for farmers [12]. Therefore, ecological farm operators should actively explore diversified business models, such as “company + rural cooperative + farmer” and “leading enterprise + rural cooperative + farmer”. Agricultural tourism cooperatives with Chinese characteristics have strengthened the collective economy. Farmers form a benefit linkage based on land rent, equity dividends, and wages through land circulation, land funds, labor shareholding, and labor work, thus realizing the transformation of farmers from a marginal position benefiting from tourism to a dominant position.

Rural area infrastructure is an important condition for the realization of rural tourism [82], and improved regional facilities provide convenience for tourists’ travel [83]. This paper also found similar results. Therefore, the government departments should improve the local transportation system to ensure traffic safety. Secondly, the coverage of signals should be strengthened to ensure the normal use of electronic devices by tourists on the way to and within the ecological farm.

For small-scale farms, economic pressure is the main reason that prompted farmers to initially recognize the need for diversification [84]. This study found that farm size and capital (internal resource integration) are the least influential factors in the integration of ecological farming and rural tourism. This may be because the sample farms surveyed have an area of more than 4 hectares, and ecological farm produce has a certain scale of production, with its own brand and mature sales channels. Secondly, it may be related to Chinese policies, with strong financial loan support and the government actively attracting foreign investment.

Tourism plays an effective role in rural development, and long-term technical support is crucial [85]. This study also found similar results, with the use of new technologies enhancing the economic value of agriculture, improving agricultural production efficiency, and optimizing resource allocation [86]. Therefore, technical support promotes the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. Ecological farm operators use technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, and smart agricultural equipment to optimize agricultural production processes, ensure the ornamental value of agricultural landscapes, and restore historical scenes through 3D modeling and VR technology. They also participate in the production process virtually, digitize culture, and enhance tourists’ immersive experience with personalized smart explanations. Combined with agricultural science and technology experience projects, they attract tourists and improve education and interest. Secondly, service efficiency is improved through services such as an intelligent reservation system and unmanned equipment. Finally, the deep processing of agricultural products with the help of technology, the traceability of agricultural products through blockchain technology, the promotion of the “agricultural products + tourism + shopping” model, and the integration of online and offline tourism will increase the premium price of agricultural products.

4.2. Impact on Literature

This paper shows the mechanism of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, which is mainly achieved through the joint action of the generative force (market demand and intrinsic development needs), the development force (resource integration and intrinsic resource endowments), and the supporting force (technical support and regional economic level). Previous research on the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism mainly focused on factors such as business models, new forms of tourism, and benefit linkages that promote the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism [87]. Our research builds on this foundation and explores the driving forces behind the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. It organically connects the development process of the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism, forming a “three-force” model that provides a more comprehensive and detailed interpretation. This enriches the research literature on the integration of agriculture and tourism.

4.3. Impact on Practice

The deep integration of ecological farms with local cultural resources and tourism resources is a key path to achieving sustainable development. This integration process not only requires an in-depth exploration of the local cultural connotations but also needs to rely on innovative design to cleverly transform ecological resources into unique tourist attractions. This research result is highly consistent with the views of Walker & Moscardo [88]. Based on this, ecological farms should actively promote the living inheritance of farming culture. Specifically, endangered farming techniques, such as terraced irrigation systems and traditional seed preservation methods, can be transformed into experiential activities that tourists can participate in. IPs for festivals with regional characteristics can be carefully created in conjunction with the agricultural cycle, giving traditional agricultural activities new vitality and appeal. At the same time, abstract visual symbols can be extracted from elements such as farm tools, clothing, and buildings, and applied to the design of the tourism signage system to enhance the cultural recognition of the farm. In terms of hardware facilities and cultural space creation, abandoned barns, waterwheels, and other facilities are protected and restored, transformed into cultural exhibition halls, recreating the farming scenes of the past, creating a memory space full of memories and stories for tourists, allowing them to immerse themselves in the experience of the complete life chain and deeply feel the charm of farming culture. In terms of tourism product development, make full use of crop by-products to develop creative tourism products, invite craftsmen to teach on-site, pass on traditional skills, and enrich the cultural experience of tourists. At the same time, characteristic theme homestays are designed to provide tourists with a comfortable and culturally rich accommodation environment. In addition, ecological farms should also focus on visualizing production, organically combining agricultural production with aesthetic design, and constructing functional landscape facilities to meet the needs of agricultural production while enhancing the visual beauty of the farm. Seasonal products are developed based on the phenological cycle, and experiential products are designed in layers to meet the needs of different tourist groups, achieving precise market segmentation and further enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of ecological farms. This study found that government policies play a very significant role in the integration of ecological farms and rural tourism. In the case of China, government policies play a key role as a core driver, regulator, and risk balancer in this integration and development [18].

5. Conclusions

This study constructs the “three forces” model of generative, development, and supporting forces through GT, and verifies the causal relationship among the factors through the PLS-SEM method. It is found that market demand and intrinsic development needs constitute the generative force for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, resource integration and intrinsic resource endowments constitute the development force for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, and technical support and the regional economic level constitute the supporting force for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. Market demand, regional economic level, intrinsic development needs, intrinsic resource endowments, technical support, and resource integration have a positive impact on the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism. This suggests that the “three forces” model is applicable to the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism and can be extended to similar agritourism integration.

The results of the study are of great significance to the integration and development of ecological farms and rural tourism. First, eco-farms should utilize their own resources and surrounding ecological resources, explore local cultural resources, shape the special tourism products of agritourism integration, and create new forms of tourism to satisfy the leisure, entertainment, and truth-seeking experience of tourists. Second, strengthen the linkage of stakeholders and actively explore diversified business models. This is an effective measure to increase the active participation of farmers in agritourism integration. Third, the government strengthens the investment in agritourism integration, such as the construction of infrastructure, reducing taxes, and actively introducing technology and talents, etc. It is possible that eco-farms are more concerned about the distribution of project funds in the process of disbursement, and that the initial capital investment in agritourism integration is large, and eco-farms produce a greater perception of risk for agritourism integration, and an effective measure is for the government to increase the proportion of the investment in agritourism projects in the early stage. Therefore, this study provides practical guidance and sustainable development strategies for eco-farms, as well as a scientific basis and precise policy reference for government departments to formulate effective and feasible systems.

Although this paper constructs a reliable “three forces” model, it has limitations. First, the study sample is limited to eco-farms in the Chinese region, which may limit the generalizability of the conclusions. Further research could extend the study area to obtain more generalizable conclusions. Second, despite the strong explanatory power of the research model for the integration of eco-farms and rural tourism, there may be other unexplored drivers, which provide directions for further research. Finally, a dual case study approach can be considered to analyze the dynamic integration process of eco-farms and rural tourism in more depth.