Regional Studies, Vol. 32.4, pp.

355 364

Farm-based Tourism as an Alternative Farm Enterprise: A Case Study from the Northern Pennines, England
B R IA N IL BE RY * , IA N B OW L E R , G O R DO N C L A R K , A L A S TA IR C RO C KE TT and A L A S TA IR S H AW
*Department of Geography, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK Department of Geography, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, UK
(Received October 1996; in revised form February 1997) I L B ERY B., B OWL E R I., C L A R K G., C ROC KET T A. and S H AW A. (1998) Farm-based tourism as an alternative farm enterprise: a case study from the northern Pennines, England, Reg. Studies 32, 355 364. This paper examines the development of farm-based tourism in the less favoured area of the northern Pennines. Farm tourism is conceptualized as an alternative farm enterprise (AF E) comprising one of seven possible `pathways of farm business development. As such, the development of farm-based tourism (FBT) is in uenced by a range of factors both external and internal to the farm. Lower levels of family labour distinguish tourist AF E farms from non-tourist AFE farms, while diVerent types of FBT are associated with particular farm and household characteristics. Nevertheless, the reasons for adopting tourist enterprises are diverse and often very individualistic. Institutional involvement in FBT in the study area is increasing, but it is reactive rather than proactive and tends to constrain as well as enable the development of farm tourism. Few farmers have contacted institutions about new or existing farm tourism enterprises. However, levels of inter-agency networking are increasing and a core of eight institutions is now dominating institutional behaviour towards AF Es and FBT in the northern Pennines, especially in Northumberland. More research is needed on the interactions between farm households and institutions in the development of FB T. Agricultural restructuring Northern Pennines Post-productivist transition Alternative farm enterprises Farm-based tourism

I L B ERY B., B OWL ER I., C L AR K G., C ROCKE TT A. et S H AW A. (1998) Le tourisme base sur la ferme en tant quune entreprise agricole alternative: etude de cas provenant des Pennines du nord, au Royaume-Uni, Reg. Studies 32, 355 364. Cet article examine le developpement du tourisme base sur la ferme dans la region de favorise e des Pennines du nord. Le tourisme base sur la ferme est vu comme une entreprise agricole alternative (alternative farm enterprise, AF E) comportant un des sept `sentiers du developpement de lentreprise agricole eventuels. En tant que tel, le developpement du tourisme base sur la ferme (farm-based tourism, FB T) se voit in uencer par une serie de facteurs et `externes et `internes . Des aides familiales moins nombreuses distinguent les fermes AFE touristiques des fermes AFE non-touristiques, alors que le type de FB T se rapporte aux caracteristiques particulieres de la `ferme et du `foyer. Toujours est-il que la raison detre des entreprises touristiques varie et est souvent tres individualiste. La participation des organismes au FBT dans la zone en question saccro t mais s avere plutot reactionnelle que dynamique et a tendance a entraver aussi bien que faciliter le developpement du tourisme base sur la ferme. Rares sont les fermiers qui se sont mis en contact avec des organismes au sujet des entreprises agricoles touristiques, soit nouvelles, soit existantes. Cependant, les reseaux dagences se developpent et un `noyau de huit
0034-3404/98/040355-10 1998 Regional Studies Association

I L BE RY B., B OWL E R I., C L A RK G., C ROCKET T A. und S H AW A. (1998) Ferien auf dem Bauernhof als alternative Bauernhofunternehmen: eine Fallstudie aus den nordlichen Pennines, England, Reg. Studies 32, 355 364. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Entwicklung des Tourismus in Form von Ferien auf dem Bauernhof in dem weniger begunstigten Gebiet der nordlichen Pennines. Tourismus in Form von Ferien auf dem Bauernhof wird als alternatives Bauernhofunternehmen (AFE) aufgefa t, das eines von sieben moglichen ``Wegen zur geschaftlichen Entwicklung des Bauernhofs darstellt. Als solche wird die Entwicklung des Tourismus auf der Grundlage des Bauernhofs (FB T) durch eine Reihe uberbetrieblicher und au erbetrieblicher Faktoren des Hofs bestimmt. AF E Ferienhofe unterscheiden sich von AFE Nicht-Ferienhofen durch weniger von Familienmitgliedern verrichtete Arbeit, wahrend verschiedene Typen des FBT mit besonderen Bauernhof-und Haushaltseigenheiten in Verbindung gebracht werden. Nichtsdestowniger gibt es verschiedene, und oft sehr individuelle, Grunde fu r die Aufnahme von Feriengasten. Institutionelle Beteiligung in FBT war im Untersuchungsgebiet im BegriV, zuzunehmen, doch ist dies eher eine Reaktion als wegweisend, und halt die Entwicklung des Tourismus in Form von Ferien auf dem Bauernhof ebenso zuruck wie es ihn ermoglicht. Nur wenige Bauern haben sich zwecks neuer oder bereits angelaufener

356

Brian Ilbery, Ian Bowler, Gordon Clark, Alastair Crockett and Alastair Shaw
Unternehemen ``Ferien auf dem Bauernhof mit Institutionen in Verbindung gesetzt. Das Ausma der Zusammenarbeit mit Agenturen nimmt jedoch weiter zu, und in den Nordpennines, besonders in Northumberland, bilden nun acht Institutionen einen ``Kern , die den Ton des institutionellen Verhalten zu AF Es und FBTs angeben. Die Zusammenarbeit von Institutionen und bauerlichen Haushalten bedarf weiterer Untersuchung. Landwirtschaftliche Umstrukturierung Ubergang von Produktionsleistung zu Alternativen Alternative bauerliche Unternehmen Tourismus in Form von Ferien auf dem Bauernhof Nordliche Pennines

organismes dominent maintenant le comportement des organismes envers les AFE et le FBT dans les Pennines du nord, surtout dans le Northumberland. Il faut plus de recherche sur les interactions entre les foyers agricoles et les organismes impliques dans le developpement du FBT. Restructuration agricole Transition post-productiviste Entreprises agricoles alternatives Tourisme base sur la ferme Pennines du nord

I N T RO D UC T I O N The shift towards a post-productivist agricultural system is now well advanced in many developed market economies. This restructuring, commonly referred to as the `post-productivist transition (PPT) (L OWE et al., 1993; S H UC K S M I T H , 1993), is characterized by such attributes as a reduction in food output, the progressive withdrawal of state subsidies for agriculture, the growing environmental regulation of agriculture and the creation of a more sustainable agricultural system (I L BE RY and B OWL ER , 1998). The PPT is being manipulated by state intervention and, in particular, by changing agricultural policies at national and international levels. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1992 and the GATT agreement on world trade in agricultural commodities in 1993 have combined to prevent farm households either maintaining or increasing their income through further increases in food production. Indeed, CAP reforms have broken the link between (decoupled) farm incomes and the volume of food produced by moving away from high support prices for food towards direct income aid for farmers (R O B I NS O N and I L B E RY, 1993). The increasing spatial diVerentiation associated with productivist agricultural systems is likely to continue under the PPT, mediated by such factors as farm size, farm type, resource endowment and land ownership. DiVerent localities seem likely to respond in diVerent ways to the PPT, re ecting their di Verent histories, traditions and resources. Whilst agricultural systems in core areas are likely to remain highly productive, those in more peripheral or lagging regions may become less productive and increasingly marginal. The future of agriculture and farm households in less favoured areas (LFAs) is thus far from certain, especially with the reorientation of the CAP towards a less protective domestic market. Consequently, core areas will bene t from their natural comparative advantage and competitive position, making it di Ycult to agree with N AY L OR , 1995, p. 283, when he states that the overall eVect of CAP reforms and GATT is likely to be `a redistribution of aid to the less intensive and less welloV areas . . . and hence a contribution to the reduction in regional income disparities. Farmers are having to learn to adjust to this changing policy framework and a range of adjustment strategies has been recognized in the literature (M A R S D EN et al., 1989). These include pluriactivity, where farm households search for new sources of income from a range of alternative enterprises, both on and oV the farm. Considerable research has been conducted into both the socio-economic and geographical dimensions of pluriactivity, often in marginal upland areas (for example, E D MO N D and C R A B T R E E , 1994; B ATEM A N and R AY, 1994), and more speci c aspects relating to other gainful activities (OGAs) oV the farm (for example, G A SS ON , 1987) and farm diversi cation on the farm (for example, I L B ERY, 1991; I L B ERY and B OWL ER , 1993). Recently, B OWL E R et al., 1996, have examined the development of pluriactivity in the context of other possible adjustment strategies by farm households in marginal agricultural areas. Nevertheless, farm-based tourism (FBT), easily the most dominant form of on-farm diversi cation, has received only limited attention (E VAN S and I L B ERY, 1992; D A VI E S , 1992) and there have been few attempts to diVerentiate farms with tourism enterprises from those with other types of farm diversi cation. This paper aims to examine the development of FBT in the context of alternative farm enterprises (AFEs) in the marginal upland area of the northern Pennines, England. Designated as a Less Favoured Area (LFA), the area was chosen for its economically marginal and problematic type of farming, but attractive landscape for tourism as evidenced by the adjacent Northumberland National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) designated areas (Fig. 1). Farming problems include: the physical constraints of the uplands; low farm incomes; high dependence on CAP subsidies; vulnerability to market uctuations in the demand for sheep and beef ; and the narrow range of traditional farm enterprises in the area. However, the scenicallyattractive nature of the area presents opportunities for tourism and recreational activities and thus the develop-

Farm-based Tourism as an Alternative Farm Enterprise

357

5. Maintaining the traditional model of conventional farm production 6. Winding down to hobby or semi-retired farming 7. Retirement from farming These pathways describe alternative accumulation and survival strategies for farm businesses and represent a set of models against which empirical evidence may be examined. They are not mutually exclusive and it is quite possible for farm households to combine di Verent pathways: for example, OGA with structural diversi cation. While an individual farm business may make the transition from pathway 1 through to pathways 6 and 7, it is highly unlikely for farm households in marginal agricultural areas to move back towards pathway 1. Indeed, marginal areas are likely to have few industrial farms and it is logical that diVerent localities will be dominated by particular pathways and pathway combinations. The word `alternative in the term `AFE implies something di Verent from the usual or traditional as a source of income to farm households in a de ned region. Thus an AFE is a new (innovative) on-farm enterprise that involves the conversion, diversi cation or extensi cation of the farm business. A distinction is normally drawn between non-traditional agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises as regards the output of products and services from the farm business. Consequently, AFEs relate to pathways 2 and 3, but exclude income from oV-farm OGA (pathway 4). FBT, as an AFE, has the potential, therefore, to bring a new source of income to a farm business without the necessity of deploying farm resources oV the farm, or adding to the surplus production of traditional agricultural commodities in the region. The farm household and external institutions C O NC E P T UA L C O N S I D E RAT I O N S Pathways and alternative farm enterprises Detailed descriptions and explanations of pathways of farm business development and AFEs have already been developed by B OWL E R et al., 1996. In summary, seven pathways of farm business development can be identi ed, with FBT located as an example of structural diversi cation (i.e. pathway 3) and pluriactivity consisting of both pathways 3 and 4: 1. Extension of the industrial model of productivist agriculture, based on traditional farm products 2. Redeployment of farm resources into new agricultural products on the farm (agricultural diversi cation) 3. Redeployment of farm resources into new nonagricultural products on the farm (structural diversi cation) 4. Redeployment of farm resources into employment oV the farm (OGA) Post-structuralist approaches to social science advocate the need to examine the choices made by farm households within the constraints of wider socio-economic and political factors. Such an approach has been described as `action in context (M A R S D EN et al., 1992; W A R D and L OWE , 1994) which, in the context of AFEs, means examining factors working both external and internal to the farm household (Fig. 2). Looking rst at external factors, two elements dominate: rst, the wider macro-trends in the economy and society, which are treated as contextual in this paper; and secondly, the behaviour of various institutions which can exert an in uence on farm households. An institution is de ned here as any state or non-state organization, department or agency that plays a role in the development of AFEs. Institutions can operate at a variety of spatial scales (international, national, regional and local) and have a range of functions (e.g. nancial, advisory, technical and marketing). In this paper, we examine the two-way relationship

Fig. 1. The northern Pennines study region ment of tourist AFEs by farm households. AFEs are rst conceptualized as just one out of a number of possible adjustment strategies or `pathways of farm business development (B OWL ER et al., 1996); their development is aVected by a range of external and internal factors relating to the behaviour of institutions and farm businesses. The paper then reports on some of the ndings from surveys relating to FBT carried out with farm businesses and institutions drawn from the northern Pennines in 1993 and 1994.

358

Brian Ilbery, Ian Bowler, Gordon Clark, Alastair Crockett and Alastair Shaw
membership-based ones was selected based on a reading of their annual reports and publicity documents. The nal sample was drawn so as to include national and local, public and private, agricultural and nonagricultural institutions, and to cover the main functions of institutions towards AFEs, such as research, grant-aid, training and promotion. Within each institution a key person (or key people) was identi ed and interviewed. The interviewee had to be suYciently senior to appreciate the context of the institution and how it worked with other institutions; they also had to know in some detail how the institution interacted with farmers regarding AFEs. An institutional rather than personal response was sought at interview. For small institutions the choice of interviewee, and the response, was usually unproblematic, but extensive enquiries were often required within larger institutions to identify the most suitable person. The interview schedule contained some closed factual questions, but most were open-ended to allow for the diversity of institutions encountered. Turning to the farm and farm household, they create a set of internal factors which help to determine the type of AFEs, if any, adopted by the farm business. A contingent relationship may exist between the size, type and tenure of farms and diVerent forms of AFE, just as gender relations within the farm family, stage in the family life cycle, succession, and educational and occupational experiences of family members may all impact on the di Verent pathways of farm business development. There is clearly a need to appraise the motives and attitudes of family members and the role of individual decision makers within the farm household. This has been accomplished by utilizing the behavioural search-based model of decision making developed by B OWL E R et al., 1996. The model comprises three stages (Fig. 2): rst, the stimulus for change from either the external environment and/or the internal environment; secondly, the search for a suitable pathway of farm business development; and thirdly, the choice of either an AFE or other pathway(s) of farm business development. The identi cation of relevant farm and farm household variables is explained in B OWL E R et al., 1996, together with an explanation of how a representative sample of farm businesses was found in the study area. A questionnaire was used in interviews with farm families to collect a wide range of information about the farm business and farm family, the adoption or non-adoption of AFEs, and attitudes towards and perceptions of external institutions. Variables relating to the various stages of the decision-making process and characteristics of the farm business and farm household were identi ed. From these a series of 34, mainly derived, variables was developed which were thought a priori to be potential reasons for a farmer to choose either one pathway rather than another or FBT in preference to other types of AFE. These variables,

Fig. 2. External and internal factors affecting AFE development

between institutions and the development of AFEs (FBT) in a traditional upland area. Institutions can shape how AFEs develop, but the development of AFEs may also cause institutional structures to change. Thus there is a need to examine the links operating between the plethora of institutions and their `action spaces (M U R DO C H and M A R S D EN , 1995). This is important in a locality such as the northern Pennines because, as M U R D O C H and M A R SD E N , 1995, p. 308, remark, `localities are constituted by networks of relations operating over various spatial scales . In order to determine the scale of institutional involvement in the development of AFEs in the northern Pennines, a sample of 27 institutions out of the 78 identi ed as relevant to AFEs were selected for detailed interview (see C L A R K et al., 1997). A senior manager was interviewed in each institution, and two interviews were conducted with di Verent departments of Tynedale and Weardale District Councils, bringing to 29 the number of interviews completed. The institutions were selected purposively to represent the main dimensions of the institutional environment. All the key agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were included and then a sample of the smaller

Farm-based Tourism as an Alternative Farm Enterprise

which related to the physical structure of the farm, the sociology of the farm family and the farm family business were subjected to a number of discriminant analyses. Three stages were followed in drawing a sample of 200 farms for administering the questionnaire. First, a random sample of 120 farms (6% of agricultural holdings) was taken from a list of farms in the Yellow Pages business directory. This produced an estimate of the extent and nature of the diVerent pathways of farm business development. The farm sample was shown to be representative of all farms in terms of farm size and type. Second, so as to obtain a suYcient number of farms with AFEs for statistical analysis, this sub-group was increased to a nal total size of 80 by purposively sampling additional farms known to have an AFE. The purposive sample was taken from a list of farms with AFEs drawn from a mixture of business directories, eld observation and information gathered from interviews with the randomly selected farm families. Third, the sample size was increased to 200 (10% of agricultural holdings) by a further random sample of farms within the study region.

359

F A RM - B A S E D T O URI S M ( F B T ) A S A N A F E P AT H WAY C H O I C E FBT accounts for 59% of all AFEs in the 200-farm sample (Table 1). Of the 79 separate tourist enterprises, 59 (75%) are concerned with accommodation and the remaining 20 with recreation. There is a reasonably even split between the main types of farm-based accommodation: serviced (22); self-catering (22); and caravans/camping (15). Livery/pony trekking and sport/leisure dominate the recreational enterprises. Serviced accommodation demonstrates the most consistent rate of growth in the northern Pennines, with 43% being established in the 1970s or earlier, 24% in the 1980s and 29% in the 1990s. Caravans/camping and livery/pony trekking are among the oldest established Table 1. Distribution of AFE types on the 82 AFE farms: the 200-farm sample
AFE type Tourism, of which: Accommodation Serviced accommodation Self-catering accommodation Caravans/camping Recreation Livery/pony trekking Sport/leisure Contracting Retailing/processing/manufacture Other on-farm services Woodland/deer No. 79 22 22 15 11 9 18 16 16 5 13 12 12 4 % of total 59

AFEs, while self-catering accommodation and sport/ leisure enterprises are the most recent. Just over 100 (104) full-time and 236 part-time jobs are related speci cally to AFEs; of these, 29% and 50% respectively involve family members. Interestingly, it is family labour that diVerentiates tourist AFE farms from non-tourist AFE farms. A discriminant analysis, based on 35 farms with tourist AFEs only and 30 farms with non-tourist AFEs only, indicates that non-tourist AFE farms (at 227 family members per farm) have signi cantly higher levels of family labour than tourist AFE farms (168). Indeed, tourism appears to be a strategy for farms that are short of family labour, but have available the labour of the husband and wife together with, for serviced accommodation in particular, spare living accommodation on the farm as a result of fewer family members. In many instances bedrooms have been vacated by children who have grown up and left the farm. This helps to account for the dominance of small-scale bed and breakfast ventures and caravan sites among the tourist enterprises. Tourist AFE farms also have lower levels of hired labour. Further analysis revealed that initial investment was higher for tourist AFEs than for non-tourist AFEs, although subsequent investment has been higher in the latter. This may re ect the fact that more non-tourist than tourist AFE farms plan to make further changes to their AFEs over the next ve years. Alternatively, it could be that the costs of tourist AFEs are front-loaded, re ecting institutional regulatory eVects (see below). Further insights into AFE development and FBT in particular can be provided by examining di Verent farm and household characteristics of AFE farms. For example, AFEs tend to be absent from very small farms ( < 10 ha) in the study area, while a high proportion (57%) are found on farms of over 50 ha (33% on farms over 100 ha). However, 64% of serviced accommodation and 73% of livery/pony trekking are located on farms of less than 50 ha. In contrast, 62% of self-catering and 67% of caravan/camping AFEs are concentrated on farms of over 50 ha. Certain diVerences are also apparent in terms of occupancy; while nearly half of the AFE farms own over 90% of their land, the next highest category (at 23%) is those owning less than 10% of their land. In terms of AFE types, self-catering, livery/pony trekking and caravans/camping tend to occur on mainly owner-occupied farms, whereas retailing and sports/leisure are biased towards farms that own limited amounts of land. For most tourist AFE types, farm business pro ts are between 5,000 and 20,000; this is so for farms with sport/leisure (78%), caravans (75%), serviced accommodation (58%) and self-catering (50%) (Table 2a). However, a bimodal distribution is apparent for serviced and self-catering accommodation because 32% and 30% respectively have overall pro ts of less than 5,000. Farms with livery/pony trekking have among the lowest pro ts of all, with 55% recording a pro t of

360

Brian Ilbery, Ian Bowler, Gordon Clark, Alastair Crockett and Alastair Shaw
Table 2. Pro t and debts for farms with FBT, 1992
Zero < 5,000 5,000 20,000 > 20,000 No. farms 11 20 8 11 11 33 40 46 50 22 19 20 12 9 9 22 20 13 10 9

Tourist AFE type a. Pro t Serviced accommodation Self-catering accommodation Caravans/camping Livery/pony trekking Sport/leisure b. Debt Serviced accommodation Self-catering accommodation Caravans/camping Livery/pony trekking Sport/leisure 16 15 17 33 0 27 25 31 20 22

% in each category 16 15 0 22 11 9 5 0 0 11 58 50 75 33 78 32 30 23 30 44

Note: Not all farmers provided pro t and debt gures.

less than 5,000 in 1992 (33% had no pro t at all). Signi cantly, 71% of the 70 AFE farms providing the necessary information obtain over 10% of their business income from AFE (47% obtain over 40% of their income in this way). These principal AFE farms contrast with the 29% of AFE farms which get less than 10% of their income from AFE (marginal AFE farms). Although farms with livery/pony trekking have among the lowest pro ts, 80% are classed as principal AFE farms. This falls to 62% for serviced accommodation, 61% for caravans and 38% for both self-catering accommodation and sport/leisure. In sum, it would appear that AFEs do not really transform the economic situation of relatively low farm business pro ts in the northern Pennines; however, they do seem to ensure the survival of such businesses. When debt levels are examined, it is found that a number of tourist AFE farms are not in any debt; this is the case for 63% of farms with serviced accommodation, 31% for caravans, 25% for self-catering accommodation and around 20% for both livery/pony trekking and sport/leisure. Nevertheless, 50% of farms with livery, 46% with caravans, and 40% with selfcatering accommodation are in debt by over 20,000 (Table 2b). Just 6% of AFE farms are run by single farmers, whereas this gure rises to 17% for non-AFE farms. Similarly, AFEs tend not to be adopted by married couples with children under the age of six. Stage in the family life cycle has been shown to be important in the uptake of diVerent forms of pluriactivity (G A S S O N and P OT T ER , 1988; G A SS ON and W I N T ER , 1992; P OT T ER and L O BL E Y, 1996) and the north Pennines study produced some evidence to suggest that farm families at diVerent stages of the family life cycle select particular types of AFEs. For example, while serviced accommodation is biased towards farm couples with no children (32%), self-catering is most common on farms with children between the ages of six and 16 (33%). Female partners are particularly important in

the establishment and running of accommodationbased AFEs, a nding in line with a national survey of farm-based accommodation (E VANS and I L B ERY, 1992). Certain other di Verences are apparent in terms of the age and education of the farmer. While serviced accommodation, caravans and sports/leisure AFEs tend to be run by people over the age of 45 who left school at the age of 16 or earlier, self-catering accommodation and livery/pony trekking favour a more even distribution of ages and higher levels of formal education. Such analyses permit the pro ling of diVerent types of FBT by farm and household characteristics. For example, serviced accommodation favours smaller farms run by couples with no children who have been in charge of the farm from before 1980. Farm business pro ts are below 20,000 and AFEs are the main source of income; the farms tend not to be in debt. The male partner is usually over 40 and left school early. The female partner is often instrumental in the decision to adopt serviced accommodation; she tends to run this AFE and has previous oV-farm work experience. In contrast, self-catering favours larger, owner-occupied farms where both pro t and debt levels are higher. AFEs tend not to be the main source of income in a business which is run by couples with children between the ages of six and 16. The female partner is again important in the running of the AFE and the male partner tends to be younger and more educated than those with serviced accommodation. DiVerent again are those farms with livery/pony trekking. They tend to occupy small, owner-occupied and recently acquired farms which have small pro ts and high debts. AFEs are easily the main source of income on farms run by young and well-educated farmers (often women) who have children of various ages. The women tend to have more oV-farm experience than the men and both sons and daughters are instrumental in the decision to develop the horse and/or pony enterprise. Formal training tends to be higher for this type of AFE than for any other.

Farm-based Tourism as an Alternative Farm Enterprise

Although such pro ling of FBT may provide some indirect explanations of why farm households adopt particular types of FBT, the real reasons are often very individual and defy categorization into distinct groups. The often very speci c reasons for adopting FB T as the main type of AFE have to be considered. These are best presented in the form of a number of cameos. Among the survey sample were a small number of large farms and estates. For example:
Farmer X runs a very large farm (nearly 900 ha) with sheep and suckler cow enterprises. Both debts and pro ts are very high and he is one of the few accumulators in the area, making continuous changes to the farm business in order to increase income. He is unmarried, a part-time consultant and holds numerous oYcial positions in the community. A former shepherds cottage was converted into holiday accommodation, with the aid of a local government grant, re ecting the farmers entrepreneurial attitude and attempt to maximize income from an underutilized resource. Nevertheless, minimal income is derived from the AFE.

361

ha are owned), the majority of which is unimproved grassland used for sheep and suckler cows. It was the wifes idea to immediately make use of three spare bedrooms in the farmhouse for serviced accommodation. This began slowly through advertising with the Tourist Board, the Mothers Union and a farm sign. Since 1973, six cottages (three derelict) have gradually been converted into selfcatering accommodation (completed in 1990). Finance came from bed and breakfast pro ts and MAFF grants. Following the local vicars suggestion, the farm started having privately owned caravans in 1975; they now have 35 charged at 300 each per year. The stimulus to develop FB T has always been the need to increase income for the family, but both partners have a strong personal interest in farm tourism. Over 60% of business income comes from AFEs, without which the farm business would not be suYciently viable to leave to their daughters.

I N S T I T UT I O N A L B E H AV I O UR A N D F A RM - B A S E D T O URI S M ( F B T ) The theoretically diverse and rich institutional environment for AFE development in the northern Pennines has been detailed elsewhere (C L A R K et al., 1997). Here, just two dimensions of that institutional environment as they relate to farm-based tourism (FBT) are considered further: rst, do the institutions enable or constrain the development of FBT; and second, to what extent does networking occur between institutions, especially as regards FBT? Looking rst at the general institutional environment, 19 of the 27 organizations interviewed had been set up after 1970 and six since 1990 (the latter particularly featuring tourism). However, only three institutions are concerned exclusively with AFEs, with a further ve primarily so. For the majority, therefore, AFEs are a minor part of what they do often a function added to their existing ones. Nevertheless, the 29 interviewees claimed a total of 124 AFErelated functions (43 each), ranging from nance and advice, through marketing and promotion, to regulation, representation and policy making. They operate at local, regional and national scales; some function at a single scale (e.g. district councils), while others cover several scales (e.g. AD AS). The survey provided very little evidence that the institutions were actively targeting farmers for FBT; they were mainly reactive rather than proactive, except in the function of information provision. Only ve interviewees knew how many staV were involved with FBT; the rest either did not know or did not allocate staV speci cally to FBT. Only three had increased their staV for FBT and just three had increased their budget for FBT. However, rural tourism (including FBT) is the only AFE which has become more heavily supported and been speci cally incorporated into institutional objectives and plans. The increasing emphasis on tourism has indeed led to the creation of separate tourism departments by the district councils. Outside speci c membership organizations, only ADAS has

Also in the study area are a small number of farms that have diversi ed into tourist AFEs as a result of lifecourse events. This usually involves children leaving home and freeing up spare bedrooms for serviced accommodation. However, the case below shows the possible impact of divorce on AFE development:
Farmer Y was left with the farmhouse and outbuildings and a small amount of land ( < 15 ha) when she divorced. Income from 80 sheep was insuYcient and so FB T was developed as a deliberate strategy to make the business pay. Serviced accommodation was developed by converting some of the outbuildings into six bedrooms in 1987 and this was followed by further conversions into a self-catering unit for nine people in 1988. Large sums of money were invested in the accommodation, although some funding was obtained through CoSIRA and the Farm Diversi cation Grant Scheme. The tourist accommodation was advertised widely, with the most successful being in Best B and B in the World. Do-it-yourself livery for two horses is a third AFE on the holding. The farmer was previously employed as a cook in London and has a personal interest in farm tourism. She is an Agricultural Training Board (ATB) committee member and has served as Chair of the Farm Holiday Bureau. Debts are now decreasing, whilst income continues to rise; over 90% comes from the AFEs. Quality of life has increased considerably and there is now a viable business for the children, if they are interested.

Probably the most common example of FBT in the northern Pennines is where farm businesses have adopted some form of accommodation AFE, especially bed and breakfast, in order to survive. This usually involves one or two rooms in the farmhouse, but can develop on a larger scale, as the following example shows:
Farm Z is run by a couple who moved to this tenanted holding in 1949. The farm now consists of 450 ha (124

362

Brian Ilbery, Ian Bowler, Gordon Clark, Alastair Crockett and Alastair Shaw
Table 3. The main institutions for AFE and FBT development
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ADAS (food, farming, land and leisure) Rural Development Commission District planning departments Northumbria Tourist Board Northumberland Training and Enterprise Council Agricultural Training Board (Landbase) North Pennines Tourism Partnership Farm Holiday Bureau

provided training on FBT and AFEs for its staV and only two institutions have a formal investment plan speci cally for AFE apart from standard tourism. These features are not indicative of a dynamic institutional environment for FBT development; indeed, the interviewees knowledge of FBT and farmers in the area was limited. None knew how many FBT farmers they had helped since the mid-1980s and it was only the speci c membership organizations who could say (from their membership lists) how many farmers they were currently involved with. Rather remarkably, 31% of interviewees could think of no reasons why farmers should not or would not adopt AFEs; 32% blamed non-adoption on the inadequacies of the farmers (their traditional attitude or lack of capital and/or marketing skills); and 17% could see no barriers to anyone adopting AFEs. Only tourism organizations understood the clear advantages which the northern Pennines possessed for FBT development (landscape and heritage). Thus the interviewees were not well-informed about farmers with AFE, FB T in the study area and how both FBT and AFE might interact with local farming activities. In short, the institutions appear not to be providing an enabling environment for the development of FBT. Of course, the interaction between institutions and farmers is a two-way one and the survey of farm households also indicated that the institutions had not had a major eVect on their behaviour. Only 32% of the 82 AFE farmers had contacted an institution about new or existing AFEs. This was mainly for advice and/ or to obtain a grant, although the latter was a bene t of the search process rather than an initial stimulus to developing an AFE. This calls into question the costeVectiveness of institutional grant schemes which, in many cases, seem to be subsidizing investment that would have occurred anyway (the selectivity or deadweight eVect). While the various functions of the institutions advice, information provision, grants, marketing and lobbying are intended to provide an enabling environment for AFE development and FB T in particular within the northern Pennines, the survey indicated that the institutions can work in four main ways to constrain FBT (C L A R K et al., 1997). First, the planning departments of the district councils may hinder FB T adoption directly through the refusal of planning permission or indirectly through delays, legal costs or management eVort diverted from running the business. They implement building regulations, operate landscape protection policies in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AO NB), and check that proposals conform with approved local and structure plans. Second, health, safety and environmental legislation, which has increased considerably since the mid-1980s, tends to impede FBT by raising capital and running costs and requiring more training. Third, quality standards, such as site and room standards for farm-based

accommodation, can raise the entry barriers to the relevant sector and act against new entrants, the undercapitalized and those wanting to be low-cost producers competing on price. Finally, nancial barriers stem from organizations charging for their services, such as advice and grading. Without such expenditure, it may be diYcult to advertise in key publications (e.g. the Farm Holiday Bureaus Stay on a Farm). Even former state bodies now reconstituted as semi-public agencies, such as AD AS and the ATB, are charging farmers for their services. Overall, therefore, the increase in the enabling (pro-FB T) activities of institutions has been matched by other actions which constrain the adoption of FBT, giving only a modest net eVect. Nevertheless, on a more positive note the institutions have invested FBT with a legitimacy that they formerly lacked in the eyes of farmers focused on traditional food production. The second area of concern in this section is the extent to which institutions interact with each other. Networking as an institutional strategy has clearly increased in recent years and 17 of the 27 institutions have ve or more contacts with other institutions regarding AFEs. The main reasons given for such contact were furthering joint ventures, general contacts, training, meeting statutory requirements, and marketing or product development. Networking is also a device for integrating policies for small areas using a `one-stop-shop approach. For example, the North Pennines Tourism Partnership and the Durham Rural Dales Centre are multi-agency bodies which are designed to avoid inter-agency duplication and coordinate information ows to farm households on alternative enterprises and funding sources. However, most of the links involve public or semi-public bodies and the private sector is not heavily involved. Networking among the institutions in the area is neither random nor uniform. Instead, a core of eight institutions dominate, and bene t from, the institutional environment for AFEs (Table 3). These include national organizations with proven agricultural expertise and local authority planning departments which represent the current local state and nexus of political power. Three further points can be made about this institutional core: rst, it is dominated by public bodies (the Farm Holiday Bureau is the only private sector organization); second, tourist organizations are promi-

Farm-based Tourism as an Alternative Farm Enterprise

nent; and third, there are more Northumberland than Durham agencies, providing locally diVerentiated levels of support for AFEs. C O N C L US I O N Increasing spatial diVerentiation is a likely outcome of the post-productivist transition in the agricultural sector of developed market economies. In particular, marginal upland regions, because of their physical handicaps and relative remoteness, will nd it even more diYcult to compete with productive agricultural systems in more prosperous lowland regions. This raises issues over the future of farming in upland areas and the ways in which households might adjust to a rapidly changing and increasingly international policy framework for agriculture. The development of AFEs and especially FBT is one possible pathway forward for marginal agricultural regions. Located within the context of pathways of farm business development, this paper has reported on the ndings from two surveys (of farmers and institutions) which examined the importance of external and internal factors in the adoption of FBT in the northern Pennines. A number of key ndings emerged from the surveys. First, it is possible to discriminate between farms within as well as between pathways. For example, non-tourist AFE farms tend to have higher levels of family labour than tourist AFE farms. Tourism is often a strategy for farms short of family labour, but one where the female partner can employ her labour to raise the income from the farm business. This feature has resulted in the dominance of small-scale bed and breakfast enterprises and caravan sites. Second, di Verent types of tourist AFEs are dominated by di Verent farm and household characteristics. However, the reasons for adopting FBT are often complex and very speci c to particular farm businesses. Here an under-researched topic is the importance of the personal characteristics of household members in adopting FBT as regards their attitude toward, and willingness to interact with, clients. The third nding relates to the institutions concerned with FBT in the northern Pennines which, although rich and diverse in nature, tend to behave in a reactive rather than proactive manner. There is a lack of understanding of the problems facing farm households in upland areas, especially in relation to the adoption of tourist-based AFEs. Institutions tend not to target particular farms or groups of farms and many aspects of their behaviour constrain rather than enable the development of FBT. Indeed, there is minimal direct interaction between institutions and farmers, and less than one-third of AFE adopters had contacted institutions for information and advice about new or existing AFEs. Despite the lack of farmer institution interaction, the nal nding relates to the growth in inter-agency networking, especially among a small group of the

363

most powerful institutions and in Northumberland more than in Durham. This networking is likely to increase with the trend towards more diverse economic activities in rural areas. The development of umbrella organizations such as the North Pennines Tourism Partnership and the Durham Rural Dales Centre allows national resources to be combined with local knowledge; this in turn promotes local synergy and gives credibility to local entrepreneurs, both of which enhance local competitiveness. There is clearly a need for more work on the interface between farm households and institutions. The factors preventing farmers from making better use of institutional information and advice need to be understood, just as institutions need to play a much more proactive role in the development of FBT and other AFEs. This interaction is vital to secure a business future for farm households in the northern Pennines and to engender a form of local economic development which relies a lot less on agriculture. It should be remembered that this paper has presented results for just one LFA area and for one speci c time period. Further work could usefully be conducted for other marginal upland areas and for the mid-1990s. Overall, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that FBT often does little more than ensure the survival of family farm businesses; it does not appear to oVer a major growth point for the rural economy of the north Pennines. Indeed, saturation point is soon reached, especially for serviced accommodation which is often forced onto a `quality treadmill of continually improving and upgrading the facilities oVered. Yet again, it is the more dynamic and innovative farm businesses that are able to prosper, at the expense of the more marginal ones. There would appear to be two possible future pathways for FBT if and when the family life cycle causes the supply of family labour to cease. First, having achieved its original objectives, FBT will close down; thus there would be a high death rate to match the high birth rate. Second, hired labour could be brought in; as this is more expensive than family labour, FBT would need to expand. In turn this raises issues over the `quality treadmill and possible over-supply. Future research needs to see how FB T farms divide along these two pathways and to examine whether or not farm families involvement with FBT (and thus freemarket mechanisms) has provided them with any lessons for their core business of food production.

Acknowledgem ents This paper arises out of a programme of collaborative research by the following: the Departments of Geography at the Universities of Leicester, Coventry, Lancaster, Caen and Trinity College, Dublin; the Scottish Agricultural College (Aberdeen); CEM AGREF (Clermont Ferrand); Teagasc (Dublin); and the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Patras. The research was funded under the EUs CAM AR programme.

364

Brian Ilbery, Ian Bowler, Gordon Clark, Alastair Crockett and Alastair Shaw
RE F E RE N C E S

B AT EM A N D. and R AY C. (1994) Farm pluriactivity and farm policy: some evidence from Wales, J. Rural Studies 10, 1 13. B OWL ER I. R., C L AR K G., C ROCKET T A., I L BERY B. W. and S H AW A. (1996) The development of alternative farm enterprises: a case study of family labour farms in the northern Pennines of England, J. Rural Studies 12, 285 95. C L A RK G., B OWL E R I. R., C ROCKE TT A., I L B ERY B. W. and S H AW A. (1997) Institutions, alternative farming systems and local re-regulation, Environ. Plann. A 29, 731 45. D AV I ES E. T. (1992) A case study of the development of farm tourism in Wales, Tourism Mgt. 13, 56 63. E D M ON D H. and C RA B TR EE J. (1994) Regional variation in Scottish pluriactivity: the socio-economic context for diVerent types of non-farming activity, Scot. Geogr. Mag. 110, 76 84. E VA N S N. J. and I L BE RY B. W. (1992) Farm-based accommodation and the restructuring of agriculture: evidence from three English counties, J. Rural Studies 8, 85 96. G A SS O N R. (1987) The nature and extent of part-time farming in England and Wales, J. Agric. Econ. 38, 175 82. G A SS O N R. and P OT TE R C. (1988) Conservation through land diversion: a survey of farmers attitudes, J. Agric. Econ. 39, 240 51. G A SS O N R. and W I NT ER M. (1992) Gender relations and farm household pluriactivity, J. Rural Studies 8, 175 82. I L B ERY B. W. (1991) Farm diversi cation as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West Midlands, J. Rural Studies 7, 207 18. I L B ERY B. W. and B OWL E R I. R. (1993) The Farm Diversi cation Grant Scheme: adoption and non-adoption in England and Wales, Environ. Plann. C 11, 161 70. I L B ERY B. W. and B OWL ER I. R. (1998) From agricultural productivism to post-productivism, in I L B ERY B. W. (Ed) The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, London. L OW E P., M U RD O C H J., M AR SD EN T., M U NTO N R. and F LY NN A. (1993) Regulating the new rural spaces: the uneven development of land, J. Rural Studies 9, 205 22. M A RS D EN T., M U N TO N R., W H AT MO RE S. and L IT T L E J. (1989) Strategies for coping in capitalist agriculture: an examination of responses of farm businesses in British agriculture, Geoforum 20, 1 14. M A RS D EN T., M U NTO N R. and W A RD N. (1992) Incorporating social trajectories into uneven agrarian development: farm businesses in upland and lowland Britain, Sociologia Ruralis 32, 408 30. M U RD O CH J. and M A RSD EN T. (1995) The spatialization of politics: local and national actor-spaces in environmental con ict, Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 20, 368 80. N AY L O R E. (1995) Agricultural policy reform in France, Geography 80, 281 83. P OT TER C. and L O B L EY M. (1996) Unbroken threads? Succession and its eVects on family farms in Britain, Sociologia Ruralis 36, 286 306. R O B IN SO N G. and I L BERY B. W. (1993) Reforming the CAP: beyond MacSharry, in G I L G A. W. (Ed) Progress in Rural Policy and Planning vol. 3, pp. 197 207. Belhaven Press, London. S H U CKSM I T H M. (1993) Farm household behaviour and the transition to post-productivism, J. Agric. Econ. 44, 466 78. W A RD N. and L OWE P. (1994) Shifting values in agriculture: the farm family and pollution regulation, J. Rural Studies 10, 173 84.