




































Georgian Geographical Journal 

50 
 

 

The Role of Agritourism in Rural 

Economy Diversification: Do Georgian 

Farmers Fully Leverage Its Potential? 
Mzia Tutberidze1 , Aleksandre Shakhnazarovi1*  
1 Department of Human Geography, Tbilisi State University: Vakhushti 

Bagrationi Institute of Geography, Tbilisi, Georgia 
* Corresponding author: aleksandre.shakhnazarovi@tsu.ge  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Agritourism is an emerging segment of tourism that creates opportunities to diversify the income of 
farms by adding new activities, attractions, and experiences, allowing these rural households to break 

into new markets, attract more visitors, and reduce the risks associated with overreliance on a single 

activity (Wu et al., 2024). As various studies have shown, agritourism has a positive impact on farm 
income, and the income growth rate of farmers engaged in agritourism is higher than that of non-

agritourism farms (Grillini et al., 2023), from the perspective of service providers, agritourism is a 

source of higher and more stable income for not only exclusively agritourism service providers but also 

in the broader community, on regional level, in general, as the increased number of tourists positively 
influences the turnover of local businesses, groceries, museums, etc. (Martinus et al., 2024). 

In addition, there is a growing scholarly interest in this phenomenon. As Ndhlovu & Dube's 

bibliometric search and content analysis have shown, an increasing number of studies are devoted to 
the relationship between agrotourism and sustainable development. However, on the one hand, there 

are signs of the "North-South dichotomies", expressed in a quite uneven distribution of studies 

conducted in developed and developing countries, and, on the other hand, the studies tend to focus on 
economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability and to a lesser extent on socio-cultural-

historical aspects of agritourism (Ndhlovu & Dube, 2024), while one of the key components of 

agritourism is storytelling. 

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2025, 5(3) 50-61 

© The Author(s) 2025 

 
This article is an open access article distributed under 

the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 

DOI: 

https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

Abstract 

Agritourism development is considered to be an effective way to raise the 

income of rural households and address their vulnerabilities associated with 

overdependence on agricultural activities by proposing additional activities 

on the farms. This has incentivized farmers and governments to introduce and 

invest in developing so-called “non-agricultural” undertakings, including 

under EU CAP. However, as various scholars have identified based on 

economic analysis, agritourism demonstrates quite varying results as regards 

farm size, output, experience, location and other factors. Its complex and 

varying nature has only been exacerbated by the non-existence of a single 

definition and cross-cutting nature causing confusion with rural tourism. In 

light of the newly adopted law of Georgia “on Tourism” and proposed tax 

cuts for agritourism service providers, this research aims to identify 

agritourism service providers in Georgia and the activities they offer to the 

visitors by conducting qualitative in-depth interviewing and on-site 

observation enabling to elaborate recommendations to better manage and 

address the needs of rural households in diversifying their income and making 

effective use of the existing agritourism potential. In addition, the research 

contributes to the everlasting challenge to define agritourism as it is essential 

prerequisite to develop adequate and needs-based policy framework for 

agritourism, allowing to provide tailored support to rural households in a long 

run. In this regard, local context should serve as the cornerstone. 

Keywords: Agritourism, rural tourism, rural economy, diversification, 

policy framework for agritourism. 

Citation: Tutberidze, M., & 

Shakhnazarovi, A. The Role of 

Agritourism in Rural Economy 

Diversification: Do Georgian Farmers 

Fully Leverage its Potential? 

Georgian Geographical Journal 2025, 

5(3), 50-61. 

https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.03.07 

 

mailto:aleksandre.shakhnazarovi@tsu.ge
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-4684
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2920-611X


Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

51 
 

At the same time, the number of tourism service providers in Georgia is increasing, who promote their 
services and position their destinations as agritourist destinations, accompanied by increased state 

engagement to regulate and support the industry. In 2023, the law of Georgia “on Tourism” was 

adopted, which defines agritourism (Law of Georgia “on Tourism”, 2023), while the Tax Code of 
Georgia envisages a special tax regime for agritourism service providers (operators). 

In light of the abovementioned developments, it should be noted that there is a lack of consensus 

among scholars regarding the definition of agritourism, as the concept fully or partially overlaps with 
Rural Tourism, Gastronomic Tourism, Cultural, Heritage, and Historical Tourism. 

This research aims to identify and further analyse agritourism destinations in Georgia and their 

proposed activities, and to develop recommendations for diversifying farms and increasing income. We 

defined the units of observation as the agritourism destinations listed in the ELKANA and AGROGATE 
databases, as well as those found through personal contact. Moreover, we tried to collect observations 

not only from agritourism service providers and study the activities they carry out, but also, a secondary 

objective of our inquiry was to assess the perspectives of tourists and visitors themselves who are 
receiving such services. 

To achieve the aim of the study, the following two research questions were defined: 

What types of agritourism activities are offered to visitors/tourists in Georgia? 

What is needed to utilise Georgia's agritourism resources and potential efficiently? 

Methods and Materials 

Given the nature of the research topic and the ambiguity in the definition of agritourism, the research 
was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, we conducted an in-depth analysis of relevant literature 

to conceptualise agritourism and articulate an appropriate conceptual definition. This was essential to 

avoid confusion between agritourism and rural tourism, enabling proper selection for the survey. 
Considering that there is no official (officially recognised) list of agritourism facilities in Georgia, 

which could have served as a basis for quantitative research, it was considered appropriate to conduct 

an in-depth qualitative study. Several non-probability sampling techniques were used to select the 

respondents for the survey, in particular, quota and purposive sampling (Neuman, 2014). As part of the 
selection, in the first stage, we selected relevant cases that, to a certain extent, aligned with the study's 

purpose. This sample was drawn from the ELKANA and AGROGATE databases and from personal 

contacts. Afterwards, quota sampling was conducted based on three criteria: gender, location, and the 
services/activities offered. This was important, especially for the service/activities category, as the study 

was mainly conducted in a wine-producing region of Georgia, and we tried to avoid surveying 'only 

wineries', which would have biased the study. 
Finally, based on the literature review and survey results, recommendations were developed to better 

utilise agritourism potential in Georgia's rural areas. 

Study Area 

As mentioned earlier, there is still no unified list of agritourism destinations in Georgia, making it 
difficult to identify relevant service providers. Therefore, obtaining generalizable results at the national 

level is difficult. Consequently, given the research budget and other limitations, it was decided to focus 

the research on two regions of Georgia: Kakheti and Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti. More 

precisely, we focused on the Zemo (Upper) Racha part of the Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 
region. 

It is also worth noting that Kakheti, according to information obtained from ELKANA and 

AGROGATE databases and personal contacts, is characterised by a high concentration of agritourism 
destinations compared to other regions of Georgia. 

Results 

Conceptualizing Agritourism 

One of the most obvious challenges of the relevant scientific literature on agritourism and tourism 

is the lack of clarity and improper definition/conceptualisation of key terms and concepts. Agritourism 
is one segment of rural tourism, although, for some scholars, the two terms have the same meaning. For 

example, Brandth and Haugen use “farm tourism” and “Agritourism “(Brandth & Haugen, 2010) 

interchangeably. Grillini et al. consider agritourism part of rural tourism, which involves agricultural 
activities and attracting visitors to the farm (Grillini et al., 2023). Considering agritourism's complex 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

52 
 

and overlapping nature, some researchers refer to it as "enigmatic" (Martinus et al., 2024), reflecting 
the challenges associated with its conceptualisation. 

"Rural tourism" or "tourism in rural areas (activities that are carried out in rural areas)" can include 

various activities and types of tourism services, such as Agri, ecological, ethnographic, cultural and 
cognitive, medical, and some types of sports tourism. 

Rural tourism development began in the 1970s in Spain, Italy, the US, France, and other countries, 

while in developing countries it commenced later, in the 1990s. In today's world, rural tourism is 
considered an alternative way to stimulate entrepreneurship and rural economic development, helping 

revive lagging rural areas and local economies and transferring capital and jobs from cities and 

developed areas to non-industrial areas (Khartishvili et al., 2019). It is also noteworthy that currently, 

rural tourism accounts for 15% of Europe’s tourism industry (Kusters & Khartishvili, 2019). 
The prerequisites for the development of rural tourism are the need of city residents for recreation 

in a new, ecologically clean environment and a new way of life, which is due to the growth of 

urbanization; low prices for recreation in rural areas; the possibility of consuming ecologically clean 
products; various opportunities for organizing rest; engagement in agricultural activities on the farm 

and familiarization with local culture, gastronomy, and customs (Aleksandrova, 2010). 

Rural tourism is considered one of the priority destinations of tourism by the World Tourism 

Organization, and to encourage it, every year the tourist village of the year is named (in 2023, Mestia 
was the best tourist village in the world). 

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1994) describes rural 

tourism as "tourism that takes place in rural areas" and specifies that rural tourism is a complex, 
multifaceted activity; It is not just farm tourism. It includes farm stays, ecotourism activities, hiking, 

horse riding, adventure, sports and wellness tourism, hunting and fishing, educational travel, art, 

cultural heritage tourism, and, in some cases, ethnographic tourism (Development Committee on 
Tourism Secretariat, 1994). 

According to another definition (Comox Valley, 2010), “rural tourism” is travel from an urban 

environment to rural areas for the traveler to enjoy and experience natural beauty, the tranquility of 

small towns, the richness of culture, and escape from the pressures of urban life to have pleasant 
experiences and improve the quality of life" (Khartishvili, 2020). 

Rural tourism in Georgia is a relatively new type of tourism, although it has important traditions. 

Due to the close familial ties between the urban and rural populations of Georgia in the 20th century, it 
was common, especially in the summer and sometimes in the winter, to rest in rural areas with relatives 

or in their own homes or rented apartments, especially for families with children. “Tourists” mainly 

rented homes in those villages that served as resorts or resort areas and had facilities for the treatment 
and recovery of the population, since there were not enough accommodations in those resorts, and the 

distribution of trips there was carried out under conditions of a centrally planned economy. Since the 

1970s, this phenomenon has been supplemented by the transfer of garden plots in the outskirts of large 

and medium-sized cities a very low prices to employees of enterprise institutions. This form of 
recreation was closer to today's concept of rural tourism, since the owners of garden plots were 

themselves involved in agricultural activities on their family farms, rather than the previously discussed 

forms of stays with relatives or in rented apartments, which involved less involvement in village life 
and farming. Most such settlements, especially near big cities, still serve their original functions. 

Agritourism is a special form of tourism that combines organised and unorganised recreational 

activities for tourists in rural areas to connect with rural nature, lifestyle, and agricultural traditions. 

This type of tourism is distinguished by special forms of spending free time, such as taking care of 
cattle, working in a garden, a vegetable garden, or a vineyard, tasting local cuisine, walking, and 

arranging picnics in rural areas (Aleksandrova, 2010). 

In the Law of Georgia “on Tourism” that was adopted in 2023, agritourism is defined as a type of 
tourism, the activities of which are carried out on a farm and encompasses receiving tourists, providing 

meals, sharing /familiarizing with a rural lifestyle, local traditions, and sights, engaging tourists in 

agricultural activities, providing them with locally produced agricultural products and performing other 
activities related to tourism and agriculture (Law of Georgia “on Tourism”, 2023). As evidenced by this 

definition, it covers a wide range of activities, including other tourist services that are not directly related 

to agritourism. However, it is geographically limited because, according to the definition, agritourism 

is carried out only on farms. 
The mentioned definition is mainly consistent with the definition provided by Martinus et al (2024), 

which is also shared by the authors of this article, according to which, agritourism is “economic 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

53 
 

exchange via a range of on/off-farm and authentic/staged experiences directly or indirectly related to 
agriculture” (Martinus et al., 2024, p. 3). 

The local context should also be taken into account when conceptualising. Among agritourism 

facilities in Georgia, wine cellars are the most sought-after, primarily destinations for gastronomic or 
wine tourism rather than agritourism; however, many of these destinations offer accommodation and 

host tourists who often participate in harvest and wine-pressing activities. 

 

 
Figure 1. Defining Agritourism (based on a literature review) 

 

The Results of the Survey 

As part of the survey, 17 respondents were interviewed in two regions of Georgia, namely Kakheti 

and Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti (in particular, Zemo (Upper) Racha–Oni Municipality) 

through face-to-face in-depth interviews. The geographical distribution of the respondents in terms of 
the municipality was as follows: Akhmeta Municipality (6 respondents), Telavi Municipality (3 

respondents), Gurjaani Municipality (2 respondents), one respondent each from Sighnaghi, Kvareli and 

Sagarejo municipalities and three respondents from Oni Municipality (Zemo (Upper) Racha). The 
varying levels of agritourism activity explain such a distribution of respondents and are largely 

proportional to the geographical distribution of the agritourism destinations. 

The Results of the Survey in Kakheti Region 

Kakheti region, both from the historical perspective and at the current stage, is the centre of 
viticulture and winemaking in Georgia. According to the 2023 data, out of the 221.2 thousand tons of 

grapes processed in Georgia, 204 thousand tons of grapes were processed in the Kakheti region; at the 

same time, more than 81% of the income from the sale of grapes comes from Kakheti (National Wine 
Agency of Georgia, 2023). Therefore, one of the criteria for selecting respondents for the survey was 

their activity and location, so the research was not limited to the perspective of winery owners, who are 

quite a few in Kakheti. The question of whether the agritourism destination was located on the "Wine 
Route" served as a filter/contingency question. As a result, of the 14 selected respondents, only 6 own 

an agritourism destination located on the “Wine Route”, which enabled us to draw conclusions about 

the challenges facing the agritourism sector in the region and to develop relevant recommendations. 

In selecting respondents, it should be noted that before the face-to-face interview, we did not ask 
detailed questions about their activities and limited ourselves to more general questions, for example, 

"Do you consider your activity as agritourism?" "Are you currently engaged in agritourism activity?" 

These questions allowed us to exclude from the initial list the agrotourism destinations that no longer 
considered their activities to be agrotourism and/or did not express a willingness to discuss their 

experience. 

As a result, 14 respondents were interviewed face-to-face, and the general information about them 

is summarised in Table 1. 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

54 
 

Gender 

Male 14% 

Female 86% 

Age 

18 -34 21% 

35 - 54 36% 

55 and over 43% 

Household Size 

1 0% 

2 - 4 64% 

5 and more 36% 

Educational Level 

Graduate (at least bachelor's degree or equivalent) 100% 

Table 1. The general information about the respondents of the Survey in the Kakheti Region 
The majority of respondents (84%) have been engaged in tourism activities for at least 5 years and 

have been providing "agritourism" services, 8% of respondents had 3-4 years of experience in delivering 

agritourism services. Therefore, the interviewed agritourism service providers had significant practical 
experience in this area, which enabled us to ask detailed questions about their activities, existing 

challenges, and opportunities. 

Since the public's perception and understanding of "agritourism" are not uniform or accurate, before 
asking detailed questions about their activities, it was important for us to understand how our 

respondents perceive agritourism and whether the “agritourism” services they provide align with their 

understanding of the phenomenon. For this purpose, during the survey, we asked the respondents to 

name 3-5 words or phrases that they associate with agritourism, and the results of this exercise are 
summarised in Figure 2. 

 

 
Figure 2. Word Cloud - How do the respondents understand "agritourism"? 

 

After this, we asked the respondents to evaluate how their activities correspond to the vision of 

agritourism they described, and we got the following result: 14% of the respondents believe that their 

activity "corresponds to some extent", 57% believe that their activity "corresponds", and 29% believe 
that their activity "fully corresponds". It should be noted that one of our respondents (Respondent_10) 

considered that her destination was closer to being ecotourism than agritourism, although she did not 

substantiate her answer. While describing agritourism and the activities she offers, she used 
words/phrases such as "family environment" and "tranquillity/quietness", and "close/direct contact with 

tourists", which, in our opinion, are elements of agritourism. 

In terms of employment, the survey results show that tourism activities, including agritourism, are a 

source of income for many people living in rural areas. Most of our respondents (73%) are assisted by 
at least one household member in delivering agritourism activities. In addition, it is significant that each 

of our respondents employs at least one person (excluding household members) with varying intensity. 

Respondent_11 mentioned that during the summer-autumn season, in addition to household members, 
she employs seven people in agritourism activities. However, as already mentioned, this usually has 

seasonal/episodic character and largely depends on the demand and the type of service that tourists 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

55 
 

request (Respondent_12 mentioned that she periodically employs a cook when there is a demand from 
tourists for a master class in cooking local dishes, and Respondent_10 mentioned that she periodically 

employs a neighbour when there is a demand for a horse tour). 

Agritourism activities require specific education/experience on which to base the business's success. 
As highlighted by Martinus et al. (2024), respondents engaged in agritourism service provision had 

„deep prior experience in agriculture“ (p. 3), which served as a basis for their subsequent activities. 

Therefore, an important part of our questionnaire was devoted to the experience and support (in terms 
of education or material-technical assistance) that our respondent agritourism service providers received 

in starting or expanding their businesses. 

Before the start of agritourism activities, agriculture (primary production or processing) was the 

main activity of only 33% of the respondents. In comparison, the main activity for 67% was non-
agricultural. The majority of respondents were employed in the public sector, predominantly in the field 

of law, and their activities did not intersect with tourism or agriculture. In addition, from an educational 

perspective, we can consider the education of only 29% of respondents to be in line with their current 
activities, namely, tourism, viticulture-winemaking, food technology, and agribusiness. The results of 

our research provide a different picture in this respect compared to the results of Martinus et al.’s study, 

which was conducted in Western Australia. 

The words "spontaneously", "by chance", "personal initiative", and "own imagination" 
predominated in the answers of the majority of respondents to the question "What prompted you to start 

your agritourism business?". As a result, we can conclude that the majority of agrotourism service 

providers surveyed in Kakheti did not have a prior clear vision of their tourism business development 
when they started their activities, and according to their answers, the initiation of tourism business and 

the formation of relevant service types are mainly the result of random processes. All respondents 

indicate that they get information from different sources to expand their agritourism activities. These 
sources include: information available on the Internet in open access, personal or family members' 

travel/living abroad and services received there, and services/activities requested by tourists. 

86% of the surveyed agritourism service providers in Kakheti benefited from "state or 

international/non-governmental organisation grant/co-financing or other assistance, and most of them 
benefited from various financial assistance schemes. It should be noted that the majority of respondents 

found it difficult to accurately recall all the assistance they received to start or expand agritourism 

activities, as most participated in 3 or more projects, indicating a high level of investment in this 
segment of economic activity. 

Another block of questions was devoted to the types of provided agritourism services and the profile 

of visitors/tourists. 
From a service point of view, it should be noted that the vast majority of respondents offer a wide 

range of services to visitors/tourists. The clarifying questions revealed that the majority of surveyed 

agritourism service providers do not offer a standard set of services to guests and use a very flexible 

approach. This approach involves pre-arranging the types of services in agreement with the 
visitor/tourist or the connecting travel company, and planning the services accordingly. For example, 

Respondent_08 mentioned that "tourists agree on the service in advance and the tour is planned 

accordingly", and Respondent_12 mentioned that "they always know exactly who is coming, when and 
what service they want". 

The services provided by the respondents are diverse; however, it is noteworthy that when we asked 

whether they involved their guests in farming activities, only half (50%) offered such services, while 

79% of the respondents had a farm and engaged in agricultural activities (primary production). 
Therefore, despite having a farm, some of the agritourism service providers preferred not to engage the 

guests in their farming activities, for example, Respondent_12 has several varieties of grapes planted in 

her vineyard, and despite the request of tourists to participate in the process of picking grapes, she says 
no, because “tourists may not pay attention to what kind of grapes they are picking", which will damage 

the quality of her wine. 

According to the survey results, the most popular services are serving local dishes/drinks (93% of 
respondents), involving guests in the preparation of local dishes (71%), and getting to know the ethnic 

characteristics (71%). In addition to activities and master classes related to viticulture and winemaking, 

such as wine pressing, Churchkhela preparation, etc., as well as Khinkali master classes (such services 

are provided by more than half of the respondents), about a third of our respondents offer quite unique 
food/beverages to guests, such as mulberry leaf tea, Khinkali made from nettle leaves, etc. About a third 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

56 
 

of the respondents also use the harvest from their vegetable gardens/plots for cooking, and about 20% 
involve guests in the picking process. 

In our opinion, to fully share the agritourism experience, service providers need to accommodate 

guests, as more extended stays facilitate sharing this experience through Storytelling. Accordingly, we 
inquired whether the respondents had accommodation and how much time on average they spent 

communicating with visitors/tourists. Based on the survey results, 64% of agritourism service providers 

can accommodate guests. In addition, only 36% of respondents spend more than 3 hours a day in direct 
contact with tourists. In terms of average visit duration, two groups of agritourism service providers 

were distinguished. The first group mainly focuses on short visits, and the average visit duration with 

these respondents is less than 6 hours. The second group offers a broader range of services to customers, 

including accommodation. This group of respondents (50% of respondents) named 1-4 days as the 
average duration of the visit. 

Concerning Storytelling, only 29% of the respondents indicated that their service provision involves 

telling stories about local traditions and ethnic characteristics. We can consider the mentioned aspect as 
the main challenge of the interviewed agritourism service providers, as, in our opinion, a close 

connection should exist between agritourism services and Storytelling. 

Regarding the profile of visitors/tourists, first, it should be noted that the absolute majority (over 

90%) of the surveyed agritourism service providers received more than half of their visitors/guests from 
abroad (i.e., non-residents). Only one destination (Respondent_07) was predominantly visited by 

citizens of Georgia (up to 60% of visitors), but the pandemic significantly changed their visitor profile, 

with 80% of guests being foreign residents by 2020. This dynamic coincides with the tendency 
mentioned by another respondent (Respondent_05) that "the number of local tourists significantly 

increased after the pandemic (Covid-19)". Despite this trend, the general conclusion is that the surveyed 

agritourism destinations in the Kakheti region are less popular with the population of Georgia, as 
Respondent_03 noted, "I do not even remember the last time I received a guest from Georgia. 

We also asked our respondents to recall the "countries from which they received the most guests" 

and "the farthest settlement or country from which they received a guest". The results were quite 

impressive as the respondents were able to recall visitors from Japan and the USA (Respondent_08), 
Canada (Respondent_07), South Korea (Respondent_05 and Respondent_06), New Zealand, Australia, 

the USA, Canada and Japan (Respondent_11). In the case of Respondent_04, the host had collected 

banknotes (national currency) of "all the countries of the world", most of which had been left by the 
visitors. 

As for the most visitors, according to our respondents, tourists mostly visited from European 

countries, mainly Germany, Poland and France. It should be noted that, although Russian citizens 
predominate among international tourists in Georgia, only one of our respondents (Respondent_05) 

listed Russian tourists among their main guests. We did not ask the respondents to explain our 

observation, only during an in-depth interview with one respondent (Respondent_12), she touched on 

this issue and explained, "I am also surprised that I do not have Russian tourists... maybe it is the result 
of high prices. However, in the case of another respondent (Respondent_06), who allowed visitors to 

leave their initials and the name of their hometown/country on the walls, we noticed many inscriptions 

referring to several Russian cities, including during the last year, although the respondent did not name 
tourists from Russia as the main country of origin. 

Another issue we touched upon during the in-depth interviews was the means of promoting 

agritourism destinations/services and the significance of the location of the respondent's "agritourism 

destination". In terms of advertising their services, the majority of respondents use a wide range of 
communication channels and involve almost all household members who can do so. It should also be 

noted that those members of the respondent's household who are fluent in English or other foreign 

languages (Respondents_04, _08, and _12) are particularly actively involved in communication with 
potential customers. In the case of Respondent_07, she used "sign language" to communicate with a 

French tourist who visited her tourist attraction without prior reservation. 

While assessing the importance of location for the success of agritourism activities, more than 80% 
of respondents consider the location of their destination to be "very important or important". 

Challenges and Opportunities of Agritourism in Kakheti Region - The Perspective of our Respondents 

As a result of the survey, a wide range of impending circumstances was revealed, ranging from the 

personal/household level to current processes in the region and the world, which, according to the 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

57 
 

respondents, negatively impact their activities. When answering this question, the respondents also 
remembered funny stories. One female respondent mentioned that her family member told her the 

following when she started agritourism activities: "You harm my image/reputation by taking money for 

food" (Respondent_04). Apart from these relatively “funny” moments, about 20% of female 
respondents found "stereotypes" to be a challenge, though this was less about the female role than about 

ethnic aspects. 

"Massive influx of non-resident guides" (Respondent_03), "non-existing tax benefits" 
(Respondent_05), and "political situation in the Region and the World" (Respondent_11) were named 

as other hindering factors. 

Most of the respondents named "access to finance" as an obstacle; however, at the same time, they 

mentioned the help they received through various state, international, and other aid instruments. As 
mentioned in the survey, almost 90% of respondents have benefited from various financial assistance 

mechanisms, and the majority have participated in more than one support scheme. 

Regarding the contributing factors, the most frequent answers were: "location", "support from the 
family", "knowledge of languages", "tradition of hospitality", and "authenticity". 

Speaking about prospects, the majority of respondents mentioned the need for greater financial 

support for business expansion and for government regulation of the agritourism sector. 

The Results of the Survey in Zemo (Upper)Racha Region 

Zemo (Upper) Racha region was chosen as the study area to assess the trends, challenges, and 

opportunities of agritourism development in Georgia from a “non-traditional” agritourism region 

perspective. Zemo (Upper) Racha is currently characterised by quite severe socio-economic conditions, 
with growing depopulation accompanied by complex natural processes that hinder tourism development 

in the region. As mentioned, Kakheti is the centre of winemaking and viticulture in Georgia; at the same 

time, it has a higher concentration of farms than Zemo (Upper) Racha, and its proximity to the capital 
should be considered a contributing factor to the development of the agritourism industry in Kakheti. 

Despite the different geographical and socio-economic characteristics, the research conducted in 

Zemo (Upper) Racha region revealed largely similar, and in some respects identical, results. 

Out of the 3 agritourism service providers whom we interviewed, 2 respondents have more than 5 
years of experience, and one has been delivering agritourism services for about a year. Therefore, they 

have significant practical experience in agritourism. However, similar to the results in Kakheti, before 

starting the agritourism business, 2/3 of respondents in the Zemo (Upper) Racha region had no prior 
experience in agriculture or agritourism (or related fields); in particular, they were employed in a public 

institution (i.e., public servants). 

From the service types perspective, it is worth noting that, as in Kakheti, the interviewed agritourism 
operators in Zemo (Upper) Racha offer tourists a wide range of services. However, they do not offer 

guests a standard set of activities that adequately reflect the true identity of their agrotourism 

destination. As Respondent_16 pointed out, a tourist's request for specific services is crucial. As a result, 

in our opinion, the identity of the agritourism destination is to a certain extent compromised. 
The questions asked about the profile of visitors/tourists also showed us similar results, in particular, 

international tourists accounted for the most significant part of the income of 2 out of 3 respondents, 

while in the case of one respondent (Respondent_16), the distribution was essentially equal. In the case 
of Zemo (Upper) Racha, the agritourism destinations mainly were visited by guests from European 

countries (similar to the results from Kakheti), and the respondents used various means of 

communication to contact international tourists. In the case of Respondent_17, whose agritourism 

destination was mainly visited by Polish tourists, a member of the household of Polish origin played a 
crucial role in communication with international visitors. 

The level of investment and access to financial resources should be considered as the main 

differentiating circumstances revealed as a result of the survey conducted in the two target areas. In 
particular, only one of the three interviewed respondents (Respondent_15) had used a grant/co-

financing from the state or an international/local organization or other financial instruments to start or 

expand his or her agritourism business. In contrast, 86% of the surveyed agritourism service providers 
in Kakheti have benefited from such assistance and most of them have participated in at least 3 different 

support schemes. 

Discussions 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

58 
 

Questions about the motivation for starting agritourism activities revealed that respondents' decision 
was not driven by the decline in agricultural activities, consistent with a study by Wu et al. in Taiwan. 

This study found that farm diversification was driven more by the desire to generate additional income 

and use existing resources more efficiently than by reducing "traditional" farming activities (Wu et al., 
2024). 

The survey conducted in both Kakheti and Zemo (Upper) Racha clearly showed that the surveyed 

agritourism destinations depend to a significant extent on income from international tourism, thereby 
increasing the vulnerability of these service providers to global political, economic, or social processes, 

especially crises. The economic analysis conducted by Bacsi and Szálteleki (2022) shows that 

agritourism is characterized by similar trends in farm output and income during the financial crisis (such 

as a 2008 financial crisis), however, in the case of the Covid-19 crisis in 2020, farm incomes from 
agricultural production have been largely stable, while agritourism incomes have declined by 35% in 

2019-2020 (Bacsi & Szálteleki, 2022), indicating the acute sensitivity of agritourism to mobility-related 

constraints. 
Concerning the income of surveyed agritourism destinations in Kakheti and Zemo (Upper) Racha 

regions, according to the results of the survey, a visitor spends on average less than 1000 GEL per visit 

in the surveyed agritourism destinations; a more detailed distribution is presented in Figure 3. 

 

 
Figure 3. On average, how much a visitor/tourist spends per visit (service providers' perspective) 

 

The success of agritourism as a business activity is significantly influenced by "farm identity" 
(Brandth & Haugen, 2010), which encompasses not only the farm's location and proximity to natural 

and cultural attractions but also the farmers themselves. As one of the respondents of Brandth and 

Haugen's (2010) research pointed out, they become part of the tourism product willingly or unwillingly 
(Brandth & Haugen, 2010). However, location remains one of the most important factors shaping a 

visitor's experience (Martinus et al., 2024). This opinion is confirmed by our research results, as 

mentioned, more than 80% of respondents in Kakheti consider the location of their destination "very 

important or important". 
The popularity of the agritourism product and the willingness to repeat the visit are also significantly 

influenced by "engagement", which is manifested in the host's ability to create a pleasant and friendly 

environment for the visitor, to ensure their involvement in farming activities and to share the rural 
lifestyle and experience (Martinus et al., 2024). The role of the host involves Storytelling, telling a 

unique story related to a village or a farm to the visitors, preparing dishes based on local recipes or 

engaging guests in their preparation, as well as carrying out farming activities in a traditional way, not 
through modern technologies (Brandth & Haugen, 2010). Storytelling is considered one of the key 

elements in the context of the visitor experience, enhancing the sense of authenticity and 

belonging/connection to the place, which in turn ensures repeat visits to the farm; however, this requires 

„a holistic and coordinated approach“ (Martinus et al., 2024). Despite the recognised role and 
importance of storytelling in agritourism, our survey revealed that less than a third of our respondents 

employ storytelling techniques as part of their agritourism experience. 

Both internal and external factors influence farm diversification. The results of the study by Wu et 
al.  (2024) highlighted the importance of external factors in this process, in particular, the attractiveness 

30%

60%

10%

Mean expenditure of one visitor/tourist during one stay

Less than GEL 199 GEL 200 - 499 GEL 500 - 999



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

59 
 

of agritourism service (demand for this type of service in the tourist market), improvement of transport 
infrastructure and technological progress in the field of communication were named as determining 

factors (Wu et al., 2024, p. 8), which brings these destinations closer to consumers and increases the 

motivation to invest. The survey conducted as part of our study showed that the majority of agritourism 
service providers actively use various communication channels, which may increase tourists' interest, 

including international tourists'. It is also important to note that most respondents have used various 

available financial assistance schemes to improve/expand their agritourism businesses. 
When discussing the importance and promotion of agritourism, its economic and social aspects 

should be adequately considered. A study by Grillini et al. (2023) in the Austrian-Italian border region, 

examining the intersection of agritourism (ATFs) and non-agritourism (non-ATFs) farms with 

sustainability, revealed differences in sustainability outcomes. In particular, the results differed across 
the three indicators of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental). From an economic 

perspective, the income of agritourism farms has been increasing, but their agricultural output has been 

decreasing, which may ultimately negatively impact food security. From a social perspective, 
relationships between people within the farm are strengthened. However, communication among 

community residents is reduced, and, from an environmental perspective, agritourism farms rely more 

on agri-environmental-climatic practices, thereby making their production more sustainable in this 

regard (Grillini et al., 2023). Based on Bacsi and Száteleki's (2022) study, the relationship between 
agritourism income and farm output/performance was not straightforward. However, medium-sized 

farms in the EU were more involved in agritourism service provision and therefore received more 

income from these activities (Bacsi & Szálteleki, 2022). 
As for the state's support of agrotourism, it is important to analyse both its positive and negative 

aspects. Grillini et al (2023) consider that when planning to support agritourism, support should be 

limited to farms with limited potential for agricultural development, for example, smallholders, areas 
with an unfavorable climate, or other hindering factors that have little effect on agricultural production 

(Grillini et al., 2023). 

Martinus et. al. (2024) consider the lack of visitors' and users' perceptions/impressions as a limitation 

of their research and a promising direction for further research (Martinus et al., 2024) because it could 
reveal different tendencies and factors, rather than studying the issue from the perspective of tourism 

service providers. 

The present study sought to fill this gap in the literature, although in most of the agritourism 
destinations we visited, tourists were absent. In those agritourism destinations where services were 

provided to tourists, the service was either not agritourism in nature or, in other cases, our intervention 

could have hindered agritourism service delivery to consumers. 

Conclusion 

Agritourism, first of all, means diversifying the agricultural activities of farms in rural areas by 

adding non-agricultural activities. This is aimed at reducing the overdependence of farms and farmers 
on primary agricultural production and the risks associated with it. Agritourism creates additional 

income and employment opportunities in rural areas and reduces the risks associated with seasonality, 

which was confirmed by our research. 
As mentioned, agritourism intersects with various types of tourism, including gastronomic, cultural 

heritage, and adventure tourism. In our opinion, the starting point for agritourism services should be 

raising tourists' awareness of farming practices through demonstrations and/or storytelling, and 
increasing the country's population's interest in the countryside in general. On the other hand, the 

experience of the agritourism service provider is important.  Our survey showed that the majority of 

people involved in agritourism lack a clear vision for developing their agritourism business. 

More than half of the respondents also offer accommodation to guests, facilitating direct contact 
with tourists, although only a third employ storytelling strategies, a key element of agritourism. 

According to our survey results, the main challenge for agritourism destinations is the risk of 

authenticity and excessive dependence on international tourism. Research conducted in Kakheti and 
Zemo Racha highlighted the sector's excessive reliance on income from international visitors, leaving 

agritourism operators vulnerable to international political developments. 

In addition, the mix of different tourist services, in our opinion, reduces the likelihood of an authentic 

agritourism experience. At the same time, as various studies indicate, the farm's identity is essential for 
repeat visits to agritourism destinations. In our opinion, this challenge can be addressed by offering a 

niche agritourism product/service. 



Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

60 
 

The fact that the agritourism destinations included in this study are not attractive to local tourists 
suggests a lack of authenticity in the surveyed destinations. In other words, the agritourism destinations 

participating in the research and their products/services are authentic with respect to Georgia, that is, 

they express the national identity, and are a visiting card of Georgia, but are not authentic on the 
farm/destination level. To increase Georgian tourists' involvement, it is necessary to understand better 

the state of play and study agritourists' perceptions and impressions. 

The respondents of the survey consider that the factors contributing to the development of their 
agritourism destination include a good location, family support, language proficiency, the tradition of 

Georgian hospitality, and the authenticity of the tourist attraction. Certain stereotypes, the absence of 

economic benefits, and the global and regional political situations were identified as obstacles. By 

generalising these factors, we think that, in parallel with the development of agriculture in Georgia and 
through financial and other incentives provided by the state, further successful development of 

agritourism is possible. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Authors’ contribution 

A.S. conceived of the presented idea. Both authors contributed to the design and implementation of 

the research and the writing of the manuscript. Both authors provided critical feedback and helped shape 

the research, analysis, and manuscript. 

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank all the respondents for participating in the survey and in-depth interviews. We 
are grateful to Tbilisi State University, Institute of Geography, for funding the field trip to the Kakheti 

region, which was critical for gaining a proper understanding of the “situation on the ground”. 

ORCID iD 

Mzia Tutberidze https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-4684 

Aleksandre Shakhnazarovi https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2920-611X 

Reference 

Agrogate. List of Agritourism Destinations. https://agrogate.world/ 

Aleksandrova, A. (Ed.). (2010). Geografia tuzima [Geography of Tourism] (in Russian). M 

Bacsi, Zsuzsanna & Szálteleki, Péter. (2022). Farm Profitability and Agritourism in the EU - Does size matter?. 

DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Tourism and Regional Development. 14. 152-171. 

10.32725/det.2022.018. 

Brandth, Berit & Haugen, Marit. (2010). Farm Diversification into Tourism—Implications for Social Identity?. 

Journal of Rural Studies. 27. 35-44. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.09.002. 

Development Committee on Tourism Secretariat. Tourism Strategies and Rural Development; OECD: Paris, 

France, 1994. 

ELKANA. List of farms. https://ruraltourism.ge/objects/region 

Grillini, G., Sacchi, G., Streifeneder, T., & Fischer, C. (2023). Differences in sustainability outcomes between 

agritourism and non-agritourism farms based on robust empirical evidence from the Tyrol/ Trentino 

mountain region. Journal of Rural Studies. 104. 103152. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103152. 

Khartishvili, L. (2020). Agroturizmis samartlebrivi baza da saertashoriso gamocdileba [The legal base of 

Agritourism and international experience] (in Georgian). 

http://awf.org.ge/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/3AgrotourLow.pdf 

Khartishvili, Lela & Muhar, Andreas & Dax, Thomas & Khelashvili, Ioseb. (2019). Rural Tourism in Georgia 

in Transition: Challenges for Regional Sustainability. Sustainability. 11. 410. 10.3390/su11020410. 

Kusters, N., & Khartishvili, L. (2019). Rural Tourism: Concept, organisation, standards and marketing. 

https://cu.edu.ge/files/gallery/International%20Relations/2020/nuffic/Naut+Kusters_Ruraltourism+-

+english.pdf 

Law of Georgia “on Tourism”.15 December 2023 (adopted). https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/6012850 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-4684
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2920-611X


Tutberidze & Shakhnazarovi 2025 5(3) 

61 
 

Martinus, K., & Boruff, B., & Picado, A. (2024). Authenticity, interaction, learning and location as curators of 

experiential agritourism. Journal of Rural Studies. 108.103294.10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103294. 

National Wine Agency of Georgia. Annual Report 2023. https://wine.gov.ge/Ge/Reports 

Ndhlovu, Emmanuel & Dube, Kaitano. (2024). Agritourism and sustainability: A global bibliometric analysis of 

the state of research and dominant issues. 100746. 10.1016/j.jort.2024.100746. 

Neuman, W. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Seventh Edition). 

Pearson Education Limited 

Tax Code of Georgia (consolidated version). 2024. 

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1043717?publication=224 

Wu, T., Chen, C., Hsu, A. Y., & Wall, G. (2024). Farm diversification through agritourism: innovation 

synergies. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 27(3), 509-525. 

https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2022.0167 


