Agricultural Landscapes as a Basis for Promoting Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions

Abstract

Areas with low levels of transformation are alternative destinations for tourists who prefer to visit nonmassified places and have singular experiences. The benefits of these microdestinations are their local populations, traditional products, landscapes, and heritage, which, in turn, allow the cultural and gastronomic roots to be witnessed. Based on this assumption, the present research investigated landscape preferences in the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Portugal/Spain), where Dehesa/Montado and traditional olive groves play important economic and sociocultural roles. This investigation sought to compare the opinions of those who live there with those who visit the territory in terms of landscape and agritourism experience preferences. To this, 439 interviews were conducted, and the results were extracted through descriptive analysis techniques and parametric and nonparametric tests to understand the different opinions. The main results were that agricultural landscapes are among the most preferred, and visitors tend to give the landscape higher scores, while the local population has some ignorance of its potential. The potential of agritourism was revealed through the motivation expressed by the demand to participate in gastronomic experiences and have contact with local products, followed by participation in activities that allow people to enjoy the agricultural landscape and rural traditions. The results revealed that the agritourism concept is often confused with rural tourism and nature tourism. Thus, it is necessary to develop a strategy to support the tourism supply according to the concept of authentic agritourism. In this way, agricultural activity has an important role in driving sustainable tourism dynamics in cross-border regions and boosting new products based on the culture, nature, and biodiversity characteristics of a protected area.

1. Introduction

European policy has led to profound changes in rural areas. Since the 1980s, the valorization of a multifunctional vision of agriculture has been signaled through the expansion of its food production functions and nonagricultural activities [1]. This vision offers a way to design and implement strategies to enhance rural tourism and strengthen the role of agriculture. At the same time, farmers are local actors in the rural economy [2], and farms gain new dimensions, including nature and landscape management, the promotion of educational activities (e.g., agricultural education), the reinforcement of short food chains (e.g., through direct sales), the promotion and valorization of the tourism sector (e.g., agritourism), and the incentivization of the dynamics of social agriculture (e.g., therapies, rehabilitation). In parallel, trends towards healthier and more sustainable food consumption have become more prevalent [3], accompanied by lifestyles featuring increasing connections with nature and new relationships with the rural environment [4]. These trends have triggered tourism offers based on the great diversity of resources, especially those based on nature, local lifestyles, and the rural culture and its eno-gastronomic products. In fact, tourism in rural areas has grown due to its potential for territorial development, contributing to the resilience of low-density territories [5,6,7].

In the context of the Iberian Peninsula, before the COVID 19 pandemic, rural tourism was growing and being consolidated [8]. However, in the year 2020, which was marked by a recession for demand, despite difficulties, rural tourism modalities became more appetizing [9]. Farms also showed great resilience [10] in terms of both food production by continuing to innovate supply chains through the strengthening of e-commerce and through offers of agritourism services [11].

In the context of the different modalities of rural tourism, agritourism presents itself as a way to contribute favorably to local development dynamics and may play an active role in the green economic transition process. It is in this context that farmers are facing a change in role—from food producer to landscape conservationist—as well being considered drivers of the new dynamics of local entrepreneurship and innovation.

The development of rural tourism in the Iberian Peninsula happened at different speeds. However, in the 1980s, agritourism emerged as a survival strategy for farms [12]. Some examples with more stabilized markets are widely known, such as the Jaén Region in Spain, where olive oil is one of the main tourist attractions. This landscape provides a huge range of products and services related to oleotourism to the market [13]. Another interesting region in the wine tourism market is delimited by the Douro River. Human and natural heritage are intertwined in this landscape in the aromas, knowledges, and flavors present, representing authentic reservoirs of traditions, culture, and heritage. Both examples are cultural landscapes with the UNESCO-protected classification, where agriculture activity plays a key role in terms of its contribution to the preservation of gastronomic traditions, nature, and values associated with more sustainable production. In this territory, traditional landscapes, composed of many natural and artificial elements, such as fields, meadows, orchards, hedges, pastures, terraces, forested areas, tourist infrastructures, and farm buildings that tell the story of the human–nature relationship, are prominent.

However, the physical constraints and successive social, cultural, and economic influences may threaten the preservation of the natural and cultural values associated with the landscape. In this context, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC) was launched in 1972 [14] to protect, conserve, and preserve the cultural heritage associated with landscapes. This provided an opportunity to enhance the material heritage as well as the immaterial value. Later, in 2002, the Budapest Declaration [15] defined the importance of landscape planning and management through policies linking protected areas to their economic and social activities. In this context, the traditional agricultural and agroforestry landscapes of UNESCO are characterized by low-intensity land use that has multifunctionality and enhances ecosystem services [16].

In 2016, the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve was developed with the mission of preserving agroecosystems. The cultural value of this territory is due to its low density and cross-border territory factors that contribute to its high patrimonial value [17], as well as to the preservation of genuine landscapes [18].

It is possible to highlight some ongoing actions that have been put in place by the local governance, particularly those dedicated to landscape enhancement actions. For example, the municipality of Idanha-a-Nova joined the International Network of Eco Regions (INNER), which is governed by the principles associated with the active promotion of territorial food systems based on family farming and sustainable production modes that promote biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and healthy diets [19]. The management of the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve has been promoting a set of activities that enhance touristic experiences of natural landscapes, as well as showing the value of local products. These dynamics are expressed at the level of territory qualification through new infrastructures, new tourism products, or actions of territory communication, affirming the position of the area as a gastronomic destination [20]. Other examples are the creation of routes dedicated to some of the area’s products, such as the “Cheese Route of Extremadura”, the “Olive oil Route in Castelo Branco”, and “Olive oil experiences in Vila Velha de Ródão”. Given this framework, agritourism could become one of the drivers of tourism in this territory, encouraging tourists to visit this cross-border territory as a singular destination.

2. Literature Review

Studies on the agricultural landscape have been gaining interest in the literature [20,21,22,23,24], and rural heritage has also become a study subject [10,25]. In parallel, the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes, seen as a tool to develop the economy of rural areas [26,27,28], as well an instrument that links sustainable agriculture, food security, and territorial balance [29], is valued in the literature as a way to promote rural identity [30]. This perspective is supported by the ability of agricultural landscapes to simultaneously maintain their primary functions of food production, landscape preservation, the provision of environmental services, and viability across a wide range of activities in rural areas [10].

The complexity of interconnections between the landscape and tourism has given rise to different approaches in the literature, ranging from the combination of agriculture and rural development [31], the landscape, and gastronomic tourism [7], tourism and its impact on protected natural areas [32], and to agriculture and creative tourism [33].

Several investigations have analyzed the potential and benefits of using the agricultural landscape as a tourism resource by exploring the potential of agri-food products (from olive oil [34,35,36] to wine [37,38,39] or cheese [40]), the local heritage and culture [26,33], the role of sustainable agriculture in enhancing ecosystems [41], and the impacts of tourism on farms and territorial development [10].

Nevertheless, some gaps in the literature have been identified. Thus, this research aims to observe the preferences of local population and tourists regarding tourism activities, landscape preferences, and agritourism potential for protected areas.

To realize this investigation, it was assumed that participatory processes of the local inhabitants and tourists would provide information relevant to the structuring of a local development proposal. This method is particularly relevant to the protected landscape context [42]. Specifically, the present study focused on the following research questions:

• Are agricultural landscapes preferred for tourism activities?

This topic is explored little in the literature. However, is it recognized that the people are engaged with the landscapes and are heavily influenced by land cover, specially Mediterranean landscapes [43], with positive influence on human well-being [23]. The literature argues that the extensive production models promote the biodiversity and its aesthetical value [44]. These are important characteristics that are valued and recognized as a touristic resources [45]. One of the contributions of this study is to understand whether agricultural landscapes are the preferred ones to carry out recreational activities, taking into account the characteristics of the territory under study and exploring the preferences of the landscapes and the cultural elements most valued.

• Is the perception of the landscape different between the local population and tourists?

The literature has demonstrated the importance of knowing the values, perceptions, and preferences of a population and incorporating their opinions into decision-making processes [43]. In fact, farmers and the rural community are essential actors in the process of activity diversification, especially considering the multifunctionality of rural landscapes. Due to this, it is important to understand the motivations of a rural community for the development of effective rural tourism strategies [2], and activities that promote contact with tourists should be prioritized [46]. In general, the literature suggests that rural communities are likely to support tourism initiatives in their territories in a positive way [47]. However, it is also essential to know the opinions of tourists, both when designing tourism strategies in rural areas, as well when promoting the destinations, to project their expectations into innovative rural experiences with added value [48]. According to a previous study, the perception of the landscape is different between the local population and tourists. The latter group tends to valorize more the agricultural landscape [49]. Based on this idea, it is essential to know the opinions of the participants and how they can contribute to the proposal of agritouristic activities for the territory.

• Is agritourism suited to protected areas?

The recognition of the cultural landscape by UNESCO has brought up the opportunity for public recognition of the importance of sustainable practices and appreciation of traditional know-how [50], and at the same time, an opportunity for its valorization has emerged. The literature also recognizes that Mediterranean landscapes, where ecological values and territorial identity prevail, are examples of landscapes that should be protected, both for their contribution to the well-being of the population [51] and their potential as tourism resources [52]. Expressions of preference for Mediterranean landscapes are often guided by ecological criteria, as in the case of Dehesa/Montado or the strong cultural and symbolic identity associated with olive groves [43]. In contrast, the threat of intensive agriculture or forestry production systems and the abandonment of agroforestry activities is endangering sustainability, compromising the well-being of local populations, and affecting touristic flow [23]. The literature also supports the idea that tourism in agricultural landscapes where sustainability values prevail encourages the adoption of healthier lifestyles [53]. Thus, experiences in rural environments that provide contact with extensive agriculture systems favor the development of sustainable tourism. Thus, in this study, efforts to understand whether agricultural landscapes have potential as a tourist resource were developed.

• How is agritourism perceived?

The typology of tourism that benefits the farm economy is agritourism [5,53]. Many studies have focused their attention on the positive impact of agritourism in encouraging the adoption of good sustainable management practices associated with natural and cultural heritage and positive socioeconomic repercussions on rural communities [54,55,56]. However, in the literature, there are several articles on the stabilization of the concept [57,58,59]. These are divided between those showing associations with direct contact with agriculture [60] and those showing mere associations with the observation and enjoyment of rural traditions [60,61]. This ambiguity of the concept [62] is particularly due to the following factors [57,58,62,63]: the uncertainty regarding the environments in which this type of tourism takes place (rural areas, farms, markets or fairs of agri-food products); the authenticity of the experience (staged activity related to agriculture vs. authentic agricultural activity); the nature of the contact with the agricultural activity (observation vs. participation in agricultural activities); and the characteristics of the recreational activities provided (farm stay, educational activities, agricultural activities, gastronomy). Despite this complexity, there seems to be some consensus in the identification of tourism initiatives based on agricultural activities that configure the concept of agritourism, which we highlight as an example:

• The recreational activities scene is closely linked to agricultural production [64];
• An authentic experience is one that allows a learning experience [65] through contact with nature and the territory [66];
• The inclusion of accommodation, food, recreational activities, and learning experiences increase the level of contact with local products and authentic agriculture [66,67].

This conceptual ambiguity has led to the existence of diverse agritourism activities, sometimes distorting the context of the relationship with the rural landscape, agriculture, and gastronomy itself, causing it to be confused with the concept of rural tourism [65]. However, the literature reinforces that the aesthetic value of the landscape has a positive influence on tourist experiences [68]. At the same time, contact with agriculture provides sensory, educational, and recreational experiences with enormous potential to change individual behaviors, particularly by promoting healthier and more sustainable daily habits [69]. From this perspective, the concept of participative agritourism has a greater impact on individual experiences, supporting the idea that agritourism can provide virtuous encounters between “myself” and “nature”. This vision also allows the establishment of a more faithful connection between tradition and innovation [70], teaching the value of sustainability [71] and providing an opportunity for the differentiation of tourist destinations [72]. Therefore, this study intends to contribute to the literature, discussing the concept and activities that may be more interest to the demand.

Therefore, assuming that agritourism is a modality with low expression in the territory of study and their potential are unknown, the specific objectives of this study are in line with the previous questions:

(a)

To determine which landscapes are preferred for tourism and recreational activities in protected areas, of which are the agricultural landscapes;

(b)

To identify which cultural elements of a landscape can contribute to the enhancement of its tourism potential, exploring some differences between the scenic and functional characteristics;

(c)

To identify perceptions regarding the concept of agritourism, trying to understand when it is confused with rural tourism concept;

(d)

To assess the patterns of motivation to promote or support agritourism experience according to the availability of supply potential;

(e)

To determine the relationships between landscape preferences and motivations for agritourism, according to the availability of demand potential, and identify more suitable activities for the study area, evaluating a wide range of experiences, such as tasting endogenous products, farming, learning experiences, contact with animals, or agriculture landscape enjoying.

To answer to these objectives, the main results are based on the tourists and local population opinions. This information allows to know the potential and opportunities to develop agritourism in protected areas, especially in Iberian cross-border regions where the traditional olive grove and the agro-silvo-pastoral system (Dehesa/Montado) is still preserved and agritourism still remains unexplored. This tourism typology can leverage sustainable development dynamics.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Case Study

The present study was focused on the Tejo/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Extremadura, Spain and Centro, Portugal), and the role of the landscapes in tourism dynamics and their agritourism potential were investigated. Thus, the study area comprises the municipalities that integrate the area of the UNESCO-classified Tagus/Tajo International Transboundary Biosphere Reserve. This territory comprises 14 municipalities of NUT II Extremadura (Spain) and 3 municipalities of NUT II Centro (Portugal), occupying 428,274 ha (Figure 1). The landscape of the study area, also known as the “raia/raya”, is the result of ecological, but also cultural components, including historical factors, identity issues, and local narratives that have contributed to its preservation and transformation. Although some deep marks of the history of a cross-border territory characterized by low accessibility can be detected, there is a vast natural heritage that also justifies the existence of the Tagus International Nature Reserve (TINR). It is a territory characterized by a low demographic density (Figure 1) with a total resident population of 76,300 in 2020, of which 45% were concentrated in the urban parish of Castelo Branco. The population of this area has been marked by loss and aging trends [73,74].

The landscape of this territory has a fundamental genesis in agricultural activity (Figure 2a). The relevant agricultural crop existing in the territory is olives, with olive groves occupying approximately 6% of the study area (Figure 2b). Landscapes with traditional and rainfed production systems stand out. Traditional olive groves in terraces supported by stone walls are a characteristic landscape of the areas bordering rivers. Olives are still produced in these areas, and traditional varieties are preserved. Olive oil from this area is classified with the label Protected Designation of Origin (PDO).

The agro-silvo-pastoral system, which is essentially composed of Quercus suber and Quercus ilex, called Dehesa/Montado, is an authentic reservoir of cultural, environmental, and landscape qualities [75]. This landscape extends over about 48% of the study area and has the important function of preserving ecosystems; livestock breeding (sheep, cows, and iberian pigs); cork extraction; and the widely diverse range of wild products (asparagus, mushrooms, herbs, and medicinal plants) that are highlighted in the local gastronomic menu (Figure 2c).

The area occupied by forest and bush accounts for about 34% of the area, with typical Mediterranean forest species (Arbutus unedo, Quercus coccifera, Quercus ilex, Cistus ladanifer, Genisteae, Lavandula, etc.) highlighted (Figure 2d). However, in the last decade, the production of forest species (Pinus pinaster, Pinus pinea, and Eucalyptus) has spread, compromising the natural value of the area.

This is a territory characterized by low precipitation [76]. Thus, the rivers and reservoirs play very important roles from the perspectives of the supply for domestic consumption, irrigation, and in recreational activities. However, water resources also play a crucial role in preserving important ecosystems. Therefore, in this study, we highlight the landscapes associated with water, with the Tagus and its tributaries being the main protagonists (Ponsul, Ocreza, Sever, Eljas/Erjes, and Salor).

The rural area is predominant, and small villages stand out. In the study area, these villages play fundamental roles in access to services, accommodation, and cultural facilities, namely the villages that integrate the Historical Villages of Portugal network (Figure 2e). In these settlements, where there are deep scars from depopulation and population aging, it is possible to experience a vast and rich catalog of traditional knowledge and cultural patrimony.

From the point of view of the accommodation supply, the available statistics point to the existence of 79 rural tourism accommodation facilities (rural hotels, agritourism, and country houses) with 961 beds [77,78]. In relation to the total, only 11% of the available beds correspond to the category of agritourism. Regarding the demand, the reference data from 2019 showed that there were 296,661 overnight stays/year [77,78]. In 2020, with the pandemic crisis, there was a drop in touristic demand of about 78%. However, it should be noted that Idanha-a-Nova managed to increase the number of stays during the pandemic year, against the general trend [79].

3.2. Research Design

A methodology with different stages was designed (Figure 3). In the first step, a literature review was performed to identify the main gaps and support the questionary design according to the objectives of this study. Observation field trips and the collection of photographs that characterize the study area, as well as the compilation of statistical and cartographic data that would allow the territory to be characterized, were carried out. In the second step, a questionnaire design was performed to apply to tourists and residents to collect data and information related to their landscape preferences and evaluate the agritourism potential. Therefore, a database was created in Excel and SPSS to support the statistical analysis.

The third stage consisted of data analysis and treatment. Descriptive analysis techniques, parametric and nonparametric statistical tests, were applied. Data were also analyzed to check whether the preconditions were met before comparing both samples (tourists and local inhabitants). Although the sample size was above 30, the data distribution of the web-based samples was revealed to not be normal. Therefore, to analyze the results of the landscape evaluation, the weighted average was calculated for each landscape typology. To assess whether there were differences in opinions between the local inhabitants and tourists/visitors, a parametric test and two nonparametric tests were used (Levene’s test, Kolmogorov–Smirnova, and Mann–Whitney test U test). To distinguish the main differences about the perception of the agritourism concept and the agritourism activities with potential, the Pearson’s chi-square test was applied. The nonparametric tests applied could determine if there were differences between the two groups. All tests were already performed in the literature, as mentioned in Section 3.5.

3.3. Questionary Design

The structure of the survey was based on other studies [24,68,80,81,82]. A questionnaire addressed to the local inhabitants and tourists/visitors was designed and implemented. Based on the study aims, a survey was developed to collect information that would allow the preferences and opinions about the landscape and potential of agritourism to be identified. This was organized into the following sections: (a) profile, (b) relationship between landscape and tourism, and (c) perceptions on agritourism (

Table A1. Variables Collected in the Survey to Describe the Landscape References.

Type	Factor	Levels
Section A	Profile
Socio-demographic variable	Gender	Male/Female
	Age	Numeric
	Study level	Basic studies, Medium studies, Graduated
	Place of residence	Rural area/Urban area
	Job	Multiple responses
Section B	Relationship between landscape and territory
Pairwise comparisons of six different pictures	Dehesa/Montado_Dehesa/Montado with pasture Dehesa/Montado_Traditional olive grove Dehesa/Montado_Mediterranean forest Dehesa/Montado_Rural Settlements Dehesa/Montado_Water bodies Dehesa/Montado with pastures_Traditional olive grove Dehesa/Montado with pastures_Mediterranean forest Dehesa/Montado with pastures_Rural Settlements Dehesa/Montado with pastures_Water bodies Traditional olive grove_Mediterranean forest Traditional olive grove_Rural Settlements Traditional olive grove_Water bodies Mediterranean forest_Rural Settlements Mediterranean forest_Water bodies Rural Settlements_Water bodies	1 to 9 (1 absolute preference for the left side picture over the right-side picture; 9 absolute preference for the right-side picture over the left-side picture; 5 both pictures have the same preference level)
Landscape suitability to recreational activities	Dehesa/Montado Dehesa/Pastures with pasture Traditional olive grove Mediterranean forest Water bodies Rural Settlements	Likert: 1 (low)–5 (higher)
Landscape elements preferences	Traditional infrastructures for agriculture Mediterranean cultures Vernacular architecture Diversity of agricultural crops Water (rivers, reservoirs, river pools...) Dry stone walls Livestock Forest areas with native species Orchards Traditional and rainfed farming Fields and houses abandoned Wildlife Mechanized agriculture Intensive farming	Likert: 1 (low)–5 (higher)
Section C	Perceptions about agritourism
Agritourism	Previous experience with agritourism	Yes/No
	Motivation to participate in agritourism in the future	1–9
	Main characteristics of their experiences during the visits	Multiple responses
	Knowledge about the agritourism concept	Multiple responses
	Characterization of offer of availability to create agritourism experiences by local inhabitants	Multiple responses
	Characterization of demand side availability to participate in agritourism experiences	Multiple responses

). The survey was tested, and its completion took an average of 12 min. To test the reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated. The Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire as a whole was 0.926. This indicates very satisfactory levels of internal consistency and reliability for the questionnaire and its dimensions [83].

3.4. Data Collection

A convenience, non-probabilistic sample approach was used to survey the participants. A total of 439 questionnaires were answered, of which 46% were filled out by local inhabitants and 53% were filled out by tourists/visitors.

The error margin was 4.67 with a confidence interval of 95%, considering the statistics of the resident population by municipality and number of nights slept by demand in 2020 (since there are no tourist demand data disaggregated by municipality for the Spanish territory, aggregated data from the “Tajo International y Sierra de San Pedro” territory were used). When the data from inhabitants and tourists were analyzed separately, the sample error was 6.37 and 6.87, respectively, with 95% confidence in the most unfavorable case. This suggests that the results could be used to evaluate the landscape and agritourism potential.

The surveys were applied, with local inhabitants and tourists/visitors covering all municipalities, realized during 2020 and 2021, with the ability to conduct the surveys at a particular time, depending on the measures in place to contain the pandemic. The contents of the questionnaire were explained to the participants, and the information was collected in digital format to facilitate the organization of the information.

Databases were created in Excel, and statistical treatment was performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 28 (IBM Analytics Armonk, NY, USA).

3.5. Data Analysis

Initially, we evaluated the hypothesis that agricultural landscapes are among those preferred. For this purpose, pairs of photographs were compared [44,52]. This method allowed the evaluation of 15 pairs of photographs, which included agricultural landscapes (“Dehesa/Montado”, “Dehesa/Montado with Stockbreeding”, and “Traditional Olive Grove”) (Figure 4).

To analyze the results of the landscape evaluation, the weighted average was calculated for each landscape typology using a Likert scale (where 1 corresponds to the minimum value and 5 to the maximum value). For this purpose, the following formula was applied, where n represents the number of participants in each group:

Weighted average = {(ax1 × 1) + (ax2 × 2) + (ax3 × 3) + (ax4 × 4) + (ax5 × 5)}/n

(1)

Then, to assess whether there were differences in opinion between the local inhabitants and tourists/visitors regarding the role of agricultural landscapes in outdoor activities, as well as to check whether there were differences related to the landscape elements evaluated (functional vs. aesthetic), the following statistical tests were applied:

• The Kolmogorov–Smirnova Normality Test with Lilliefors Significance correlation: This nonparametric technique is used to check whether the data follows a normal distribution or not [84]. This technique has been applied in several tourism studies [85,86].
• Levene’s test to assess the homogeneity of the variances: This analysis considers the mean and median scores assigned by each participant to each of the variables analyzed. Given its characteristics, this technique has been used in several tourism analyses. These range from the economic perspective [87,88] to the evaluation of the incidence of personal factors in tourism market segmentation [89] and the consideration of environmental indicators in the sustainable development of destinations [90].
• The nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test, which does not require the assumption of normal distribution of the data [91], was used to determine whether the two independent samples (population and tourists) showed the same distribution for an ordinal dependent variable. The dependent variables were the assessment of the suitability of each landscape typology for the practice of recreation and tourism activities and the appreciation of landscape elements. The independent variable was the group of participants.

A significance level of p = 0.05 was used for all tests in line with the limits established in a standardized manner.

A similar method was used successfully in a study aiming to identify the differences in landscape perceptions and the relationship with the local quality of life in two different localities [92]. In addition, the study aimed to assess whether tourism activities have a positive or negative impact on sustainable development indicators in rural areas [93].

Subsequently, a statistical analysis of the alphanumeric data was performed. This included frequency distributions and crosstabs accompanied by the most commonly used control techniques, such as Pearson’s chi-square. This technique allowed us to understand the perceptions of the “agritourism concept” considering the influences of the variable “previous experience in agritourism”. To verify whether there were any relationships between the variables, the following hypotheses were tested: the null hypothesis stated that there is no relationship between the variables “concept of agritourism” and “previous experience”, while the alternative hypothesis stated that there is a relationship between the variables. For a significance level of less than 0.05 (sig. 2-tailed), the null hypothesis would be rejected, meaning that there is a relationship between the variables. This test allowed us to determine whether the authentic agritourism concept could be consolidated.

In the last stage of the study, a descriptive analysis was made by grouping the different types of agritourism experiences, ranging from contact with animals to gastronomy, farming, and others, such as contemplation of the agricultural landscape. To find out whether there was an association between the variables “suitability of each landscape typology evaluated” and “agritourism activities”, Pearson’s chi-square was used. Decisions were made at a significance level of 0.05 (sig. 2-tailed), and the null hypothesis was that there is no relationship between the variables, while the alternative hypothesis was that there is a relationship between the variables.

These analyses contribute positively to the literature, bringing novelty to the evaluation of agritourism potential by considering landscape preferences and integrating the demanding opinion to allow us to suggest products of protected areas in cross-border regions.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Respondents

Table 1. Basic demographic information for the interviewees.

		Inhabitants N = 203	Tourists N = 236
Gender	Male	47.3	56.8
	Female	52.7	43.2
Age	18-25	6.4	12.3
	26-35	9.9	16.1
	36-45	16.7	24.6
	46-55	31.5	22.0
	56-65	17.7	19.5
	>65	17.7	5.5
Nationality	Portugal	57.1	45.8
	Spain	39.9	53.0
	Others	3.0	1.3
Place of residence 1	Rural	100.0	39.8
	Urban	0.0	60.2
Study level	Elementary school	12.3	1.3
	Middle school	32.5	13.1
	High school	53.2	85.6
	Without	2.0	0.0

¹ Territorial unit was defined according to the percentage of the population living in local units (local units with a population density below 150 inhabitants per square kilometer) as predominantly urban if the share of the population living in rural local units was below 15% and predominantly rural if the share of the population living in rural local units was higher than 50% (Source: OECD, 1994. Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policy, OECD. Paris).

shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. The sample was composed of local inhabitants (N = 203) and tourists/visitors (N = 236), and the variables: gender, age, level of education, nationality, residence, and study level were recorded. About 53% of the residents were female and 57% of the tourists were male. The ages were mostly between 46 and 55 years old, with a low number of tourists over 65 years old. As expected, the interviewed inhabitants resided in rural areas, while most tourists came from urban areas (60%). Most of the participants had studied to a high school education level.

Regarding the tourists, it is noteworthy that 84% of those interviewed had visited this territory previously, and only 29% stayed overnight in the territory, of which only 54% stayed two nights. The majority had access to local products (91%), particularly olive oil, sausages, cheeses, and honey. Most tourists/visitors (46%) spent between 25 EUR and 50 EUR, and about 28% spent between 50 EUR and 75 EUR during their experience. Regarding the main activities undertaken, the most common were the following:

• Forty percent had participated in cultural and gastronomic activities, such as going to restaurants and visiting museums, monuments, and historic villages.
• Seventeen percent had participated in nature contact and contemplation activities and sports, ranging from hiking trails to photographic safaris and off-road trips.
• Sixteen percent had been involved in rural and agritourism learning activities, such as direct contact with the local population, hunting, and olive picking.
• The remaining participants in the study (28%) had participated in different activities considered to be generalist activities.

These results can be justified by the fact that the study area has a vast historical, cultural, and gastronomic heritage that is enhanced by the proximity of two countries. As it is a UNESCO protected area, activities involving a connection to nature and biodiversity enhancement are promoted. Despite the weak expression of activities involving agriculture contact, the results showed that there was an indirect appreciation of this resource manifested by participation in gastronomic experiences and the appreciation of local products. This revealed an opportunity for local restaurants to create local menus and strengthen short food chains with local farmers.

About 50% of tourists identified the landscape as the most emblematic element and the main attraction of the territory, followed by the full sensation of peace and tranquility experienced during their stay (21%).

Considering the role of the landscape in recreational and touristic activities, this study tried to extract some results about the characterization and valuation of the different landscape typologies.

4.2. How Agricultural Landscapes Are Valued

4.2.1. Photograph Pairwise Comparison: Which Is the Preferred Landscape?

The landscape pairwise comparison method allowed us to verify the presence of a consensus related to the agro-silvo-pastoral landscape, identified by the “Dehesa/Montado” label, which was considered the preferred landscape by both the local inhabitants (8.8) and the tourists (12.8). On the other hand, the landscape associated with water received the least votes with 4.4 points (

Table 2. Landscape assessment and statistics test to measure differences between the groups.

Landscape	Weighted Sum
	Tourists	Sum	Inhabitants	Sum
Dehesa/Montado	12.8	27.4	8.8	22.0
Traditional Olive Grove	8.8		6.6
Dehesa/Montado w. Stock.	5.8		6.6
Rural Settlements	7.8	19.6	7.4	17.6
Forest	7.4		5.8
Water	4.4		4.4
	Sum	47		39.6

).

In general, we can highlight the following observations:

• The agricultural landscapes were found to be the most valued (27.4 points by tourists and 22.0 points by local inhabitants).
• In general, tourists scored their preferred landscapes higher (47.0 points) than local inhabitants (39.6 points). This shows that the landscape is an attraction valued by visitors who recognize its heritage value. However, these differences emphasize a gap in knowledge about its potential by the local inhabitants.
• The landscapes “Water” (4.4) and “Forest” (5.8) were less frequently recommended by the local population as areas for outdoor activities. This revealed a level of ignorance about the natural value that these landscapes have and their role in the promotion of ecotourism activities. On the other hand, this result may reveal some weaknesses associated with the management of certain resources that deserve the attention of local authorities.
• The demand side scored the “Dehesa/Montado with stockbreeding” (5.8) and “Water” (4.4) landscapes the lowest.
• The “Water” landscape received lower scores, which may indicate some limitations in its use as a recreational setting due to pollution problems, accessibility, or due to a lack of tourism activity supply.

4.2.2. Are Agricultural Landscapes Suitable for Tourism Activities?

Complementary to the assessment of landscape preferences, the participants were asked about the suitability of the landscape for outdoor activities. For this evaluation, the first step was to determine whether the local inhabitants and tourists valued the landscape equally or whether there were differences in their perceptions. For this purpose, a normality test (

Table A2. Normality Test Showing the Adequacy of the Landscape for Tourism Activities.

Type of Participant (Resident Pop./Tourists Visit)		Kolmogorov–Smirnov a			Shapiro–Wilk
		Statistics	gl	Sig.	Statistics	gl	Sig.
Dehesa	Inhabitants	0.482	203	<0.001	0.488	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.278	236	<0.001	0.763	236	<0.001
Dehesa with stockbreeding	Inhabitants	0.455	203	<0.001	0.516	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.323	236	<0.001	0.741	236	<0.001
Traditional olive grove	Inhabitants	0.391	203	<0.001	0.671	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.362	236	<0.001	0.745	236	<0.001
Forest	Inhabitants	0.319	203	<0.001	0.812	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.303	236	<0.001	0.776	236	<0.001
Water	Inhabitants	0.290	203	<0.001	0.816	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.295	236	<0.001	0.765	236	<0.001
Rural settlements	Inhabitants	0.414	203	<0.001	0.605	203	<0.001
	Tourists	0.290	236	<0.001	0.748	236	<0.001

^a Lilliefors significance correlation.

) and analysis of variance (

Table 3. Results obtained through the Mann–Whitney U test and Levene’s test comparing the evaluations of the landscapes between inhabitants and tourists.

Landscape	Participants	Frequencies						Levene’s Test	Mann–Whitney U-Test
		5	4	3	2	1	Average	Sig.	U	Sig.
Rural Settlements	Inhabitants	22	162	15	3	1	3.99	X < 0.001 σ < 0.001	15,817.20	0.000
	Tourists	110	108	14	4	0	4.37
Dehesa/Montado	Inhabitants	24	174	5	0	0	4.09	X < 0.001 σ < 0.001	20,052.50	0.000
	Tourists	83	130	17	5	1	4.22
Dehesa/Montado w. Stock.	Inhabitants	22	173	7	1	0	4.06	X < 0.001 σ < 0.001	20,417.00	0.001
	Tourists	77	134	8	16	1	4.14
Traditional Olive Grove	Inhabitants	25	153	22	2	1	3.98	X < 0.001 σ < 0.001	22,234.50	0.115
	Tourists	56	146	10	23	1	3.99
Forest	Inhabitants	21	116	60	5	1	3.74	X < 0.133 σ < 0.017	17,219.50	0.000
	Tourists	81	117	14	24	0	4.08
Water	Inhabitants	19	104	75	5	0	3.67	X < 0.017 σ < 0.005	15,600.00	0.000
	Tourists	93	105	6	28	1	4.11

) were performed. This test allowed us to determine which statistical test could be used to explore the differences between the groups. After it had been established that there was no homogeneity of variance, the differences in opinion between the resident population and tourists were tested using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U Test (Table 3). This decision was made for a 95% confidence level. This test showed that the opinions of the local inhabitants were different from the opinions of the tourists. In other words, the landscape recommended by the local population does not always correspond to the landscape chosen by demand. These differences stand out; for example, according to tourists, the landscape “Rural settlements” had high potential for tourism; however, the local inhabitants did not recognize its potential. Regarding the agricultural landscapes associated with Dehesa/Montado, a consensus on its potential was identified; however, it was more valued by the tourists. In terms of opinions on traditional olive groves, the statistical data were not sufficient to state that there were differences between the groups (Table 3).

The results obtained confirmed the hypothesis that agricultural landscapes have potential for recreational and tourism activities, with an emphasis on the potential of Dehesa/Montado. The results highlighted that it is important to increase the awareness of local inhabitants on the cultural and patrimonial values associated with olive groves. This is important, as it may increase the interest in enhancing the supply of new touristic products that enhance the olive groves and the production of olive oil. The results also suggest a greater need to explore the reasons why natural landscapes, which are symbols of the protected natural area, are not among the most preferred for recreation and leisure. The differences in opinion also mark the need to create different strategies to plan and promote tourism activities.

4.2.3. Are the Cultural Landscape Elements Acknowledged?

The landscape provides important benefits for recreational activities and tourism and promotes physical activities, aesthetic experiences, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration for physical and psychological well-being [94]. Thus, the present study also assessed the preferences related to different elements typical of agrarian landscapes; that is, from a set of characteristics associated with the landscape or land use management practices, the present study sought to identify the characteristics that might influence the choice of certain landscape contexts, especially related to the concept of cultural landscapes [95,96].

The results in

Table 4. Landscape element preferences.

Type	Landscape Elements	5	4	3	2	1	Median	Average	Mann–Whitney U Test
									U	Sig.
Scenic	Biodiversity	155	228	42	14	0	4	4.19	18,657	<0.001
Scenic	Influence of the seasons (Spring–Summer)	109	302	23	4	1	4	4.17	19,769	<0.001
Scenic	Walking trails	91	331	12	3	2	4	4.15	18,200	0.001
Scenic	Influence of the seasons (Autumn–Winter)	74	345	16	3	1	4	4.11	21,562	0.011
Functional	Traditional infrastructures for agriculture	66	289	72	11	1	4	3.93	21,678	0.041
Functional	Mediterranean cultures	73	264	97	4	1	4	3.92	20,020	<0.001
Scenic	Vernacular architecture	83	246	94	10	6	4	3.89	22,035	0.107 **
Functional	Diversity of agricultural crops	58	263	96	12	10	4	3.79	20,250	0.001
Scenic	Water (rivers, reservoirs, river pools...)	67	245	79	44	4	4	3.74	23,372	0.627 **
Scenic	Dry stone walls	42	262	113	19	3	4	3.73	20,153	0.001
Functional	Livestock	45	116	233	37	8	3	3.35	16,201	<0.001
Scenic	Forest areas with native species	27	163	201	38	10	4	3.34	18,587	<0.001
Functional	Orchards	22	120	283	9	5	3	3.33	20,441	0.002
Functional	Traditional and rainfed farming	17	118	282	13	9	3	3.28	20,008	<0.001
Scenic	Abandoned fields and houses	28	66	243	54	48	3	2.94	17,922	<0.001
Scenic	Wildlife	11	70	234	71	53	3	2.81	18,173	<0.001
Functional	Mechanized agriculture	11	52	236	80	60	3	2.71	18,320	<0.001
Functional	Intensive farming	12	49	78	221	79	2	2.30	20,542	0.005

** Significant at the 0.01 level.

show that, in general, the aesthetic elements of a landscape are the most valued, with great emphasis on the biodiversity (4.19), the influence of the seasons (4.17 spring–summer and 4.11 autumn–winter), and the presence of walking trails (4.15). The most valued elements associated with the production functions were found to be the infrastructure supporting agricultural activity (water wells, mills, corrals, haylofts, etc.) and the presence of Mediterranean crops (3.92). As expected, the factors related to the mechanization and intensification of production were found to be the least valued (Mechanized agriculture (2.71) and Intensive farming (2.30).

In general, the results highlighted the preferences for patrimony and natural heritage, revealing the potential associated with farming, especially in terms of traditional knowledge and the preservation of natural value.

To determine whether there were differences between local inhabitants and tourists regarding their opinions on the landscape elements, a nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test was performed (Table 4). It was found that, for the elements “Water” and “Vernacular architecture”, the statistical data were not sufficient to affirm that there were differences in opinion between the groups. For the remaining elements of the agrarian landscape, the test confirmed the presence of differences in opinion between groups, particularly for the elements “livestock”, “abandoned fields and houses”, “wildlife”, and “walking trails”, which showed lower U values. These differences may be associated with perceptions about the role of each element in the landscape. For example, in the case of “livestock”, to local inhabitants, they are a way to obtain income and are therefore not valued as a tourist resource. However, ”walking trails” are most valued by tourists, which suggests the importance of activities such as hiking and mountain biking, as well as the importance of these trails as an integral part of the rural landscape.

4.3. Agritourism: From Concept to Potential

To understand the agritourism potential, we asked the participants about their previous experience in agritourism. Questions about perceptions of the agritourism concept were also asked: What is agritourism? Which activities are considered agritourism? Which target is more suitable for this modality? Which development contributions are more common? This information allowed us to verify whether the supply side would identify agricultural resources as tourist attractions and whether the demand side would recognize the role of agricultural activity in recreational tourism activities. The results obtained show that 50% of the participants had no experience with agritourism. However, a considerable portion of the participants (41%) stated that they had previous experience and showed interest in repeating the experience. This result reflects the potential growth of this modality, which could have positive impacts in terms of providing more income for farms and increasing the valorization of local products.

Only 25% of the participants affirmed that agritourism refers to tourism and recreation activities that take place on agricultural or livestock farms. This result reveals a deep ignorance of the concept, associated in most cases (37%) with tourism practices in rural areas. In fact, this result expresses profound ignorance of the concept of agritourism where it is assimilated as tourism in rural areas or just “bed and breakfast on a farm” experiences. These differences were particularly noteworthy in cases without previous experiences in agritourism, which included 101 participants (43%). However, it is also interesting to note that those who had previous experiences with agritourism frequently failed to differentiate it from nature tourism activities (

Table 5. Relationships between agritourism concept perceptions and previous experience.

	Previous Experience					Total	Sig.
	Without Interest	No, Because I Didn’t Have the Opportunity	Yes, I Want to Repeat	Yes but I Don’t Want to Repeat	I Don’t Remember
What is agritourism?
I don’t know	2	10	0	0	0	12 (2.7%)	<0.001
Contact with Nature	8	21	38	2	2	71 (16.2%)
Visit rural areas	6	101	52	3	2	164 (37.4%)
Farming	4	47	55	0	4	110 (25.1%)
Bed and breakfast on a farm	5	39	37	1	0	82 (18.7%)
Total (no.)	25 (5.7%)	218 (49.7%)	182 (41.5%)	6 (1.4%)	8 (1.8%)	439
Main target
I don’t know	3	12	2	1	0	18 (4.1%)	0.020
Alone	1	7	4	0	0	12 (2.5%)
With friends	4	67	42	4	0	117 (26.7%)
With family, children	17	132	134	1	8	292 (66.7%)
Total	25 (5.7%)	218 (49.7%)	182 (41.5%)	6 (1.4%)	8 (1.8%)	439
Main activities
I don’t know	2	12	1	0	0	15 (3.4%)	<0.001
Related to gastronomy	2	18	32	2	1	55 (12.5%)
Environmental awareness	6	29	46	1	0	82 (18.7%)
Enjoying and relaxing	5	20	27	1	1	54 (12.3%)
Farming/contact with animals	10	139	76	2	6	233 (53.1%)
Total	25 (5.7%)	218 (49.7%)	182 (41.5%)	6 (1.4%)	8 (1.8%)	439
Main impacts in territory
I don’t know	1	63	0	0	1	65 (14.8%)	<0.001
Denaturalization of rural areas	1	4	8	2	0	15 (3.4%)
Values rurality	11	104	99	3	5	222 (50.6%)
Values traditional products	6	25	53	1	2	87 (19.8%)
Values sustainable farming	6	22	22	0	0	50 (11.4%)
Total	25 (5.7%)	218 (49.7%)	182 (41.5%)	6 (1.4%)	8 (1.8%)	439
Main impacts on daily habits
Shopping at the local market	- -	- -	68	3	- -	71 (37.8%)	0.021
Rural areas as touristic destinations	- -	- -	59	1	- -	60 (31.9%)
Farming the same fresh products	- -	- -	17	1	- -	18 (9%)
More sustainable consumption	- -	- -	17	0	- -	17 (9%)
Influences family and friends to buy directly from farmers	- -	- -	8	0	- -	8 (4.3%)
Values organic products	- -	- -	8	0	- -	8 (4.3%)
Changing to healthy food habits	- -	- -	4	0	- -	4 (2.1%)
Own business related to agritourism	- -	- -	1	1	- -	2 (1.1%)
Total			182 (96.8%)	6 (3.2%)		188

).

When analyzing the associations among the variables, in this case, dichotomously by means of crosstabs and the chi-square test (Table 5), a relationship between the level of previous experience in agritourism and the affinity with the concept of agritourism was observed. This relationship translates mainly to an appreciation of the positive impacts of agritourism, generically related to the appreciation of rurality, agri-food products, and sustainability.

Regarding the most suitable target audience for the agritourism modality, the majority (67%) of participants considered agritourism to be an appropriate activity for families and children. However, it is also noteworthy that there were clear differences in opinion between those with previous experience in agritourism and those with no experience, especially those who stated that they have no idea about the sector of the public that is most suitable for this modality. This result confirms the ignorance about the impact that the potential of agritourism may have on different groups. For example, it has potential to be a family activity due to its ability to promote education and awareness activities on topics such as sustainability, fair trade, the valuation of seasonal products, and the development of rural communities; an activity shared among younger friends, as it promotes relationships between generations and the empowerment of traditional knowledge and know-how; and an activity to do alone due to the opportunity to experience direct relationships with agriculture and with farmers, enhancing learning experiences and connection with nature and rurality, which may awaken interest in the countryside lifestyle.

Regarding recreational activities that may be associated with agritourism, the majority of survey respondents stated that they prefer recreational activities that ensure direct contact with agriculture (53%), followed by education and awareness activities related to rural traditions (19%). Related to this, two different concepts were identified:

• A minor portion of respondents consider the intangible value of agritourism to be related to its role in education and awareness about issues related to biodiversity, tradition, sustainability, and proximity consumption.
• Meanwhile, the majority of respondents highlighted the participative and active characteristics of agricultural activities and their relationships with the environment, i.e., the practice component, that permits chance daily habits and is more sustainability conscious.

Although the majority of participants recognized that agritourism refers to contact activities with agriculture, the concept was not stable. This is the case, because according to the participants’ opinions, the scenario of recreational activities in agritourism is not exclusive to active agricultural or livestock farms. This result indicates some conceptual weaknesses, which has been discussed in the literature [60], as often, ecologically based, rural, and recreational experiences in agricultural environments are confused [97].

Regarding the perception of the impact of agritourism, the majority of participants emphasized the contributions of enhancing the rurality and local authenticity (50%), followed by the opportunity to valorize local products (20%). In this case, there is an emphasis on the intangible value of rurality that was confirmed particularly by those who had not yet experienced agritourism (104 cases corresponding to 47.7%), as shown in Table 4). That is, the results highlight that, although agricultural activity plays a key role in recreational dynamics, the countryside lifestyle is more attractive.

In general, these results reinforce the clear differences in participants’ opinions, highlighting the generally poor knowledge about the concept. This may explain the low expression of agritourism supply and the devaluation of this type of touristic product by the touristic demand side.

Finally, those with prior experience in agritourism had changed some of their daily habits, particularly regarding the valorization of local production and more frequent consumption of products from local markets (37.8%). The agritourism experience also made a positive contribution to the choice of rural destinations to visit as vacation destinations (31.9%), the production of some agro-food products (9%), and a change in consumption habits to prioritize organic farming products (9%). The positive impacts of the agritourism experience confirm that agritourism can be a strategy for low-density areas and an opportunity to valorize the territory’s resources.

4.4. New Products Based on Agritourism Experiences

4.4.1. Supply Potential

To understand the agritourism supply potential, the local population was consulted about their interest in creating or dynamizing the activities listed in

Table 6. Ability to offer agritourism activities (nº and %).

	Available	5	4	3	2	1
Allow tourists to undergo farming experiences	11 (15%)	54 (25%)	47 (19%)	4 (7%)	14 (13%)	16 (24%)
Sell agri-food products	20 (27%)	31 (14%)	49 (20%)	21 (35%)	24 (22%)	12 (18%)
Allow hiking activities or other on my farm	13 (17%)	45 (21%)	53 (22%)	9 (15%)	20 (19%)	11 (17%)
Share traditional know-how with tourists	11 (15%)	52 (24%)	54 (22%)	7 (12%)	22 (21%)	12 (18%)
Offer accommodation in rural areas	20 (27%)	33 (15%)	42 (17%)	19 (32%)	27 (25%)	15 (23%)
Total	75 (7%)	215 (21%)	245 (24%)	60 (6%)	107 (11%)	66 (7%)

. About 24% of the participants did not have their own resources available, so none of the possibilities questioned were applicable to them. However, it should be noted that some participants already had moderate roles in the promotion of tourism activities (7%), emphasizing the accommodation services supply (27%), and selling their own agro-foods products (27%). In general, there was high (24%) to very high (21%) interest from the local population in promoting or providing tourism activities in the future. There was a willingness to allow activities on their farms (44%), followed by an interest in demonstrating traditions for tourists and providing contact with the local culture (46%).

4.4.2. Demand Potential

The tourists were asked about their interest in participating in agritourism experiences, such as contact with animals, endogenous product tasting, enjoyment of the agricultural landscape, and appreciation of agriculture and rurality. In

Table 7. Agritourism experiences evaluation.

Agritourism Experiences	5	4	3	2	1	Median	Mode	Weighted Sums	Average
Tasting experiences/contact with endogenous products
Cheese tasting	115	84	5	21	11	4	5	979	951.8
Tasting of traditional dishes	109	89	2	25	11	4	5	968
Olive oil tasting	97	89	8	25	17	4	5	932
Eno-tourism	99	84	10	24	19	4	5	928
Agriculture landscape fruition and entertainment on farm
Hiking or mountain biking on farms	98	88	16	21	13	4	5	945	930.5
Bed and breakfasts on a farm	81	104	20	23	8	4	4	935
Visit a traditional olive oil grove	80	110	6	28	12	4	4	926
Visit orchard during the blossom	79	108	7	26	16	4	4	916
Valuing local farming and rural livelihood
Buy farm fresh food directly from farmers	96	118	0	14	8	4	4	988	920.7
Contact with farmers and local inhabitants	88	119	3	16	10	4	4	967
Rural festivals	58	90	10	49	29	4	4	807
Learning about farm lifestyle and activities or rural traditions
Learn traditional recipes	95	98	4	27	12	4	4	945	900.0
Visit an oil mill	82	111	4	27	12	4	4	932
Learn oral traditions and expressions	77	114	10	20	15	4	4	926
Learn to make/take care of a garden	79	112	8	21	16	4	4	925
Visit rural museums	75	113	7	29	12	4	4	918
Visit a winery	70	102	7	33	24	4	4	869
Learn to distill aromatic or medicinal plants	74	89	9	42	22	4	4	859
Learn about the life cycle of plants	64	87	12	49	24	4	4	826
To do something, especially with traditional process
Make goat/sheep cheese	85	115	4	18	14	4	4	947	857.4
Cook typical products and dishes	99	90	8	28	11	4	5	946
Making bread in a traditional oven	90	103	8	20	15	4	4	941
Collect and learn about edible wild mushroom	83	111	9	22	11	4	4	941
Make olive oil	67	96	10	40	23	4	4	852
Make wine	70	89	10	48	19	4	4	851
Pick fruit from an orchard	65	94	11	40	26	4	4	840
Make artisan sausages	59	70	28	50	29	4	4	788
Participate in the grape harvest	58	79	16	48	35	4	4	785
Make acorn flour	48	96	7	52	33	4	4	782
Participate in the olive harvest	44	89	13	53	37	4	4	758
Contact with animals
Horse rides	84	85	9	35	23	4	4	880	718.2
Feed animals	52	88	15	54	27	4	4	792
Be shepherd for one day	36	61	23	75	41	3	2	684
Animal milking	38	57	20	79	42	2	2	678
Beekeeping	32	52	24	83	45	2	2	651
Sheep shearing	25	53	19	91	48	2	2	624

, it is possible to observe the values obtained from the calculations of the weighted sums. In general, tourists and visitors expressed more interest in participating in “tasting experiences and contact with endogenous products” (weighted average = 951.8), such as cheese tasting (weighted sums = 979.0) or the tasting of traditional dishes (weighted sums = 968.0). Next came preferences for activities related to “agriculture landscape fruition and entertainment on the farm” (weighted sums = 930.5), with hiking or mountain biking on farms (weighted sums = 945.0) and staying at a bed and breakfast on a farm (weighted sums = 935.0) standing out.

The most valued experience was the third category of experiences related to “Valuing local farming and rural livelihood” (average = 920.7), which represents the opportunity to buy fresh farm food directly from farmers (weighted sums = 988). This result demonstrates an interest in local products and an opportunity to reinforce the consumption of seasonal and local products associated with the desire to consume fresh local products. This is possible by reinforcing the market channels between farmers and restaurants, as well promoting by agritourism activities that potentiate a contact with agriculture activities.

In terms of activities that provide “learning experiences about the farm lifestyle and activities or rural traditions”, activities related to food and traditional ways of doing things were found to be the most preferred. Regarding agritourism activities that involve direct participation in agriculture or food preparation (average = 857.4), the activity that stands out is the opportunity to learn how to make cheese (weighted sums = 947), followed by learning how to make local dishes (weighted sums = 946). This result reinforces the interest in traditional products and the opportunity to recover traditions.

Olive picking experiences were the least popular (weighted sums = 758), probably because the participants still maintain their own olive oil production, thus devaluing this activity as an opportunity for tourism. However, this does not invalidate the valorization of the territory’s potential for oleotourism. It would be necessary to design specific products adapted to the public who do not have knowledge or experience about olive groves and olive oil traditions.

Finally, the group of experiences involving contact with animals received the lowest score (average = 718.2) in terms of preferences. In this category, Horse rides (weighted sums = 880) and Feed animals (weighted sums = 792) stood out, while the least attractive experience was Sheep shearing (weighted sums = 624).

4.4.3. Agritourism Experiences Available in the Study Area According to the Demand Side Opinion

Based on knowledge about the suitability of the landscape for outdoor activities and the motivations of the demand side for agritourism experiences, it was possible to identify a set of activities with potential in the territory.

In the results obtained from the chi-square test, using a value of p < 0.05, the Dehesa/Montado landscape was shown to have a statistically significant association with activities related to experiences in the category “Valuing local farming and rural livelihood” (

Table A3. Chi-Square Test between Agritourism Experiences and Landscape Typologies.

Agritourism Experiences	Dehesa/ Montado	Dehesa/ Montado w. Stockbreeding	Olive Grove	Forest	Water	Rural
Tasting experiences/contact with endogenous products
Cheese tasting	0.811	0.761	0.328	0.566	0.033	0.714
Tasting of traditional dishes	0.914	0.736	0.805	0.171	0.010	0.333
Olive oil tasting	0.955	0.926	0.664	0.415	0.177	0.894
Eno-tourism	0.710	0.628	0.403	0.098	0.172	0.121
Agriculture landscape fruition and entertainment on farm
Hiking or mountain biking on farms	0.480	0.554	0.117	0.011	<0.001	0.137
Bed and breakfast on a farm	0.993	0.962	0.507	<0.001	0.001	0.116
Visit a traditional olive oil grove	0.227	0.287	0.057	0.381	0.545	0.701
Visit orchard during the blossom season	0.106	0.249	0.002	0.904	0.390	0.963
Valuing local farming and rural livelihood
Fresh farm food directly from farmers	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.306	0.307	0.428
Contact with farmers and local inhabitants	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.088	0.526	0.500
Rural festivals	0.853	0.853	0.264	0.012	0.004	0.162
Learning about the farm lifestyle and activities or rural traditions
Learn traditional recipes	0.92	0.706	0.611	0.055	0.162	0.649
Visit an oil mill	0.176	0.176	<0.001	0.753	0.519	0.096
Learn oral traditions and expressions	0.015	0.019	0.027	0.849	0.590	0.659
Learn to make/take care of a garden	0.802	0.693	0.465	0.017	0.094	0.313
Visit rural museums	0.126	0.118	0.001	0.071	0.015	0.544
Visit a winery	0.165	0.272	0.105	0.156	0.015	0.731
Learn to distill aromatic or medicinal plants	0.28	0.206	0.199	0.367	<0.001	0.196
Learn about the life cycles of plants	0.335	0.186	0.115	0.469	0.010	0.019
Hands in the dough or in the earth experiments
Make goat/sheep cheese	0.455	0.203	0.827	0.013	0.003	0.696
Cook typical products and dishes	0.944	0.944	0.763	0.060	0.056	0.090
Make bread in a traditional oven	0.240	0.411	0.301	0.03	0.008	0.109
Collect and learn about edible wild mushrooms	0.935	0.865	0.274	0.004	0.009	0.127
Make olive oil	0.585	0.298	0.307	0.102	0.016	0.221
Make wine	0.812	0.671	0.153	0.013	0.002	0.025
Pick fruit from an orchard	0.153	0.11	0.064	0.346	0.065	0.039
Make artisan sausages	0.097	0.044	0.063	0.118	<0.001	0.002
Participate in the grape harvest	0.655	0.444	0.124	0.028	0.020	0.469
Make acorn flour	0.889	0.828	0.311	0.262	0.271	0.758
Participate in the olive harvest	0.147	0.199	0.038	0.02	0.014	0.205
Contact with animals
Horse rides	0.777	0.818	0.542	0.042	0.250	0.428
Feed animals	0.426	0.413	0.036	0.069	0.019	0.507
Be a shepherd for a day	0.239	0.231	0.060	0.047	0.049	0.452
Animal milking	0.108	0.248	0.580	0.004	<0.001	0.026
Beekeeping	0.352	0.364	0.505	0.110	0.160	0.193
Sheep shearing	0.294	0.193	0.139	0.024	0.004	0.034

).

The olive grove industry has enormous potential to offer a wide range of touristic activities that include the involvement of the tourist in areas spanning the whole olive oil chain, from production to processing and culminating with tasting. These activities could be complemented by animal contact activities. We highlight the example of olive groves with a pasture, which were shown to have positive impacts on the valuation of other products that are complementary to the management of traditional olive groves, such as cheese or honey (

Table 8. Agritourism experiences with positive relationships with landscape typologies evaluated.

Landscape	Agritourism Experiences
A—Dehesa/Montado	Buy farm fresh food directly from farmers Contact with farmers and local inhabitants—learning experiences
B—Dehesa/Montado with stockbreeding	Buy farm fresh food directly from farmers Contact with farmers and local inhabitants—learning experiences
C—Traditional Olive grove	Visit orchard/olive grove during the blossom season Fresh farm food directly from farmers Contact with farmers and local inhabitants—learning experiences Visit an oil mill Visit rural museums Participate in the olive harvest Feed animals Be a shepherd for a day
D—Forest and scrubland	Hiking or mountain biking on farms Bed and breakfast on a farm Rural festivals Learn to make/take care of a garden Make goat/sheep cheese Cook typical products and dishes Make bread in a traditional oven Collect and learn about edible wild mushroom Make wine Participate in the grape harvest Participate in the olive harvest Feed animals Be a shepherd for a day Animal milking Sheep shearing
E—Rivers and water bodies	Taste traditional dishes Hiking or mountain biking on farms Bed and breakfast on a farm Rural festivals Visit rural museums Visit a winery Learn to distill aromatic or medicinal plants Make goat/sheep cheese Make bread in a traditional oven Collect and learn about edible wild mushrooms Make olive oil Make wine Make artisan sausages Participate in the grape harvest Participate in the olive harvest Feed animals Animal milking Sheep shearing
F—Rural settlements	Learn about the life cycle of plants Cook typical products and dishes Make wine Pick fruit from an orchard Make artisan sausages Animal milking Sheep shearing

).

In terms of natural landscapes, such as “Forest” and “Water”, or rural landscapes, the results obtained do not exclude the potential of agritourism activities. There is the potential to create transversal products that encompass different activities from nature tourism to cultural tourism and agritourism activities. According to the results obtained, there is a positive association with activities that enhance the fruition of the agriculture landscape and entertainment on the farm, as well as experiences where you “do something, especially with traditional process” and those promoting contact with animals. These results suggest that, in natural and rural areas, the provision of learning experiences and contact with agricultural activities should also be reinforced, highlighting the value of eno-gastronomic activities.

5. Discussion

The evaluation of landscapes via the pairwise comparison methodology allowed us to obtain robust results on the expressed preferences, as it involved landscapes that people may have different opinions on depending on their desires, expectations, and knowledge from actual experiences [52]. Agricultural landscapes generally received higher scores, supporting the hypothesis that agricultural landscapes are among the most preferred. At the same time, good scores were given when evaluated from the perspective of suitability for recreational activities and tourism. The study revealed the potential of activities related to gastronomic tasting experiences, the opportunity to learn how to do something related to rurality and its traditions, or the simple enjoyment of the agricultural landscape. This demonstrates the importance of the role of the landscape and gastronomy in tourism dynamics, highlighting the opportunity to value local products and the knowledge associated with their production or transformation process.

The literature argues that the links between agriculture and tourism are an excellent opportunity to improve the incomes of local people and farmers. [4,98]. In general, there is greater appreciation of the “Dehesa/Montado” landscape. This agro-silvo-pastoral system corresponds to a specific cultural landscape in the southern central area of the Iberian Peninsula that has unique characteristics [99]. It is based on an exploitation model that values native species, dryland crops, pastures, and the integration of numerous agro-forestry products with the potential for innovation based on traditional values, such as cork, the Iberian pig, and cork oak acorns. This extensive production system supports a wide range of species, and its unique characteristics give it the potential to play a driving role in the dynamics of tourism in the territory, as confirmed by the literature [100]. Several studies with different analyses of landscape preferences have been conducted, so it is difficult to compare the results obtained. However, we can observe that the “Dehesa/Montado” landscape has shown consistent results with strong manifestations regarding its role in producing agritourism products and increasing the value of local farms, traditions, and products [50,101]. This demonstrates the territory’s potential for agritourism based on learning experiences provided by contact with farmers and the rural community.

For the traditional olive grove case, it is possible to assume that it is a tourism resource that is increasingly being valued by tourists, particularly those who are motivated by new consumer attitudes, responsibilities, and needs that go beyond an accommodation experience [13]. For this reason, valuing the olive grove as a tourism resource represents an opportunity to enhance its products, particularly olive oil, a basic element of the Mediterranean gastronomy and diet, to which its important role in the health and welfare sector must be considered. There are numerous examples in the literature that highlight oleotourism as a driver of local development, especially based on cultural heritage valorization strategies [36,44,102]. In this sense, this study reinforces the need to invest in local resources, especially traditional production models and native varieties. The results show that olive grove agritourism activities need reinforced attention, as it is important to raise awareness among the local population about the potential of the olive grove as a setting for tourism activities. On the other hand, it is important to create structured products that are capable of attracting demand from tourists looking for qualified and value-added tourism alternatives. In this way, olive groves can make an effective contribution by affirming the identity of the territory. Still on this subject, it is noteworthy that there is a considerable area of traditional olive groves on terraces supported by dry stone walls in the territory. In this regard, the literature mentions that these landscape elements are widely recognized for their multifunctional value and ecosystem services [44]. In addition to being food providers, they have important roles in the prevention of soil erosion and landslides, as biodiversity providers, and in climate change mitigation [25,103,104]. Given this context, some more remote areas disconnected from rural settlements face the challenge of abandonment and invasion of production forest species, putting the aesthetic and patrimonial value of this landscape at risk. Thus, an important contribution of this study is the provision of useful information to support land use management instruments to mitigate the impact of olive grove abandonment. These results recognize that the experience and knowledge of past generations, those who built and maintained the terraced landscapes and stone walls, are in danger of being lost through a break in the learning cycle. Such a valuable landscape must be treated with a comprehensive, systematic, and long-term development vision, whether based on gastronomy, rural values, or the cultural heritage associated with the olive grove.

It should also be noted that the study confirmed that preferences for the landscape in natural and rural contexts do not exclude the valuation of experiences linked to agriculture; that is, a tourist seeking natural landscapes tends to value passive and indirect agritourism [58]. In this case, experiences that promote contact with agricultural activity, learning, tasting local food, contact with animals, and contact with rural traditions are valued. This result presents an opportunity to enhance the value of protected natural areas by creating products and tourist routes based on cultural and traditional agricultural heritage. The study also confirmed that natural landscapes are the least valued in the context of the study area, implying some concerns related to management models and the dynamization of activities related to water and forest areas.

This investigation answered the question on the differences in opinion between the local population and tourists regarding preferred landscapes and perceptions of their suitability for recreational and tourism activities. These differences demonstrate that landscapes are perceived differently depending on the goals and motivations of an individual [32,42,105]. In fact, there are many reasons for the ways landscapes are evaluated. For example, education on environmental issues may encourage a more complex analysis beyond the visual aspects of the landscape [105]; that is, valuing more aspects related to cultural and ecosystem values [24]. Another aspect that influences the manifested preferences is related to the feeling of belonging to the place. In the study area, contrary to previous research results [106], the local population was found to be more restrained in terms of valuing the landscape. This may have occurred because they maintain a more utilitarian relationship with the landscape by associating it with its function of food production or forestry. This was visible by the higher valuation of the area of the Dehesa/Montado with a pasture by the local inhabitants compared with the tourists. According to the literature [107], these differences may also be due to the relationship established by the social environment; that is, the landscape is perceived only as a place of residence and a place for meeting and social relations with people in the neighborhood, neglecting the more holistic and emotional connections. According to this approach, local inhabitants appear to be unaware of the potential of landscapes in tourism. This lack of knowledge may also be influenced by their distance from large tourism flows, which was reflected in the low expression of their capacity to undertake roles and innovate in the tourism sector. This implies a loss of development opportunities that are dependent on the contribution of tourism to revitalize the identity of the territory [48] and the loss of opportunities to attract and retain investments [36]. However, the results highlight that there is high to very high interest by members of the population in strengthening their roles as facilitators of the tourism experience, particularly through activities in partnership with tourism facilitators who can take advantage of the existing infrastructure and the opportunity to boost activities that involve sharing information. This aspect is very interesting due to the potential of these activities to impact positively on the memory construction process, which can lead to a desire to return to a destination in the future. This result also shows that the existence of a territorial development strategy can lead the population to adjust their interests. Therefore, their involvement in rural tourism strategies not only favors ethical governance models [108] but can translate into the creation of employment opportunities and increase the potential of agro-food products [109].

A greater appreciation of agricultural landscapes was identified. In addition to their ecological importance, the diversity of crops and the influence of the seasons were among the preferred elements, as also verified by other authors [21]. This result may have been influenced by positive experiences, emotions, and memories created [110]. It should also be noted that the influence of seasons on the landscape is a good indicator for the promotion of agritourism products that takes advantage of the natural cycle of crops or species reproduction.

This investigation shows that the study area has great potential for agritourism. Therefore, understanding the perceptions of the resident population and the demand side is crucial to enhance the multifunctional characteristics of the landscape [103]. In this sense, it will be important to develop mechanisms of public participation to create structured products that promote the consumption of local products by tourists and the transmission of rural values and know-how. In this way, there is a market opportunity to encourage sustainable agriculture, conserve traditional agricultural landscapes, and consequently, strengthen the local economy [111].

It was also possible to ascertain that the aesthetic value of the landscape has important value in the relationship that is established with the destination. This result is similar to that found in previous studies, confirming that the aesthetics of the agricultural landscape is valued beyond the visual aspects, with elements associated with environmental awareness and biodiversity [25] and cultural aspects that reflect the harmony of rural society also being important [112]; that is, as the demand for recreational spaces in agricultural landscapes is increasing, the value of the biodiversity [112] and aesthetics increases to more than just a traditional food production function [21]. In fact, this coincides with new ways to understand the dimensions of the landscape aesthetics that tend to value the production factors associated with the traditional [44] and sustainability aspects [113]. Another important aspect is the opportunity to integrate the sociocultural values into agricultural policies—in particular, through payment schemes that contribute to the preservation of the landscape [114] and, consequently, the valorization of sustainable production [115]. Finally, the study demonstrated that the characteristics of modern and intensive agriculture impact the landscape [44], putting the maintenance of the traditional landscape at risk [103]. As in previous studies, intensive production methods were the most penalized in the preference analysis, demonstrating that environmental services and the tangible and intangible heritage associated with the agricultural landscape should be valued and preserved [22,116].

The global analysis of the perceptions of the concept of agritourism allowed us to refute the idea that there are misconceptions about the true essence of agritourism, which is often confused as rural tourism or nature tourism. In fact, in the literature, there is a great range of definitions of agritourism, sometimes associating it with activities “based on a working farm” or with activities “not based on a working farm”, leading to some ambiguity and conceptual uncertainty [59]. This lack of knowledge was also confirmed by the literature, which presents ambiguous definitions [117] and, at the same time, supports the idea that it is a weakened brand and has little value for the promoters themselves [118,119]. This lack of conceptual accuracy may be the basis for the absence of a structured agritourism supply. As in a previous study [65], this investigation argues that authentic agritourism promotes learning experiences associated with rural activities, as well as promoting contact with authentic agricultural activities. Therefore, it is an important dimension to develop and promote in the study territory.

Despite the conceptual weaknesses, agritourism provides a framework for low-density territories that could have a positive contribution in the following ways:

• It may retain and capture more demanding audiences with high purchasing power. This happens, because the contact with agri-food production and animals enhances the memorability of experiences and has a positive effect that provokes the desire to return and buy products [97].
• It may lead to the creation of narratives about the origin of products [66], which ties in with the local culture and learning experiences that rural areas can offer.
• Given the higher unemployment rates affecting youth and women, particularly in low-density territories affected by a lack of skilled opportunities, agritourism has emerged as an opportunity to create employment [118].
• It may lead to the empowerment of rural women and the fostering of innovation as a strategy for local socioeconomic development [119].
• The promotion of agro-ecotourism [113] may be used as a strategy to promote sustainable agricultural practice [120,121].
• More sustainable food production techniques with positive impacts on the landscape, biodiversity, and natural resources may be developed [64].
• It may lead to participation of the rural community in local tourism development and management strategies [122,123], as advocated by the foundations of the European LEADER initiative [124].

It should also be noted that the present study revealed that a considerable portion of the participants with experience in agritourism had experienced positive changes in daily habits. These changes were marked by the valorization of proximity consumption markets, including buying directly from farmers and, consequently, the valorization of local production [69]. In general, an appreciation of sustainable production and the adoption of healthier habits were expressed. These results corroborated the results of previous studies, confirming that experience with agritourism has positive effects on the marketing of agricultural products [123] by increasing the intention to purchase and increasing the interest in agricultural products [64]. Thus, agritourism may positively impact small-scale agriculture and prove to be an important instrument for the survival of rural communities. Having a positive experience with agritourism was also shown to have a decisive influence on the choice of rural destinations to visit that implies, from the outset, an appreciation of these destinations. This result aligns with the trend showing that rural tourism is growing [125]. It also confirms that rural tourism is growing, which may translate into numerous opportunities for the study area.

The principal novel contribution of this study was the evaluation of the agritourism potential based on landscape preferences and perceptions of the concept. The methodology adopted allowed landscape preferences to be associated with the motivation for agritourism, highlighting the following points:

• Tourists have different motivations and interests and tend to value experiences involving the tasting of local products and gastronomy, enjoyment of the agricultural landscape, and contact with agro-food products; that is, passive and indirect agritourism activities, which, according to the literature, are more related to rural tourism, are preferred [65].
• The results show that there is an obvious need to promote agritourism [126], particularly direct and active agritourism; that is, “authentic agritourism” [65], which allows the participation in agricultural activities and promotes contact with animals [58]. According to the literature, this type of tourism has direct and immediate impacts on the sustainability of farms [81], opening up opportunities to directly purchase items and encouraging consumers to change their daily habits [69].
• The preference for natural and rural landscapes does not exclude agritourism activities. In fact, in these contexts, active agritourism experiences and direct contact with agricultural activities have potential. This confers the opportunity to create experiences that articulate nature, rurality, and agriculture.

The results also show the need to increase the length of stay at the destination. This can be made possible through the existence of structured programs that translate into memorable experiences. This study supports the design of some more specific offers that go beyond a mere lodging experience in rural areas and are particularly focused on agricultural activities. This allows a territory to distinguish itself from other destinations.

In summary, this research reveals that agricultural landscapes have a determining role in the tourism dynamics in protected landscape contexts, enhancing their agritourism potential and multifunctional characteristics. Despite these findings, the research does not provide answers to questions such as the following: What impact does agritourism have on local development? What factors explain the absence of agritourism supply in the territory? What other agricultural landscapes may be of interest in terms of value in the territory? These questions have the potential to deepen the understanding of opportunities for the development of successful agritourism destinations and, therefore, could be addressed in future research. Furthermore, a comparative study with other protected areas is needed to transcend the contextual limitations that the study presents. The present research is also limited by its methodology. Particularly, it is limited to the destination, and therefore, it is an exploratory study. The reliability of the results obtained could be strengthened with the completion of more questionnaires. It is necessary to determine the opinions of farmers and local tourism operators and to include more agricultural landscape typologies representative of different types of agriculture (intensive vs. extensive) in order to determine their potential for agritourism activity.

6. Conclusions

The present study investigated the role of the agricultural landscape tourism dynamics in a protected landscape territorial context. Protected landscapes are those where the conservation and sustainable use of their resources is important. In this sense, this study demonstrated that tourism based on the principles of valorization of local resources, traditional products, and rural values is an important tool for local sustainability and the valorization of socioeconomic activities, where agricultural activity plays the main role.

The present research has some relevant contributions to the literature. Firstly, we highlighted the gap in the literature regarding the definition of agritourism activity potential and presented a definition based on landscape preference and demand motivation.

Secondly, we showed that agricultural landscapes can be protagonists in tourism dynamics, providing the opportunity to develop and structure a more qualified tourism services supply with a positive impact on the territory. Supporting this hypothesis, agritourism presented itself as a key instrument for the sustainable development of the destination under study, as it allows:

• The creation of local narratives and the reinforcement of brands and territorial identities based on specific gastronomic resources with widely recognized potential, such as products of cork, olive oil, and cheese. These narratives gain a new dimension by incorporating dimensions of historical and cultural heritage typical of a cross-border destination, particularly one with a world heritage classification.
• The promotion of agriculture innovation, marked by the abandonment and aging of its leaders. Agritourism can contribute to the creation of jobs for younger people and can attract further investment.
• Contribution to the recovery and maintenance of traditional heritage and know-how, while favoring landscape conservation and sustainable production models.
• The driving of circular economy initiatives capable of ensuring a balance between consumption, natural resources, and collective rural resources is achieved.

Thirdly, this study showed that the concept of agritourism presents some weaknesses. We assessed how it is perceived by the demand side and how it is operationalized by the supply side. However, the results demonstrated that agritourism not only has the potential to create value-added products but also provides unique products to complement the segments of nature tourism, cultural tourism, and rural tourism. In general terms, some considerations that will need to be given attention in order to fulfill this framework are highlighted:

• The fostering of competitive rural business networks that leverage new market niches;
• The creation of structured products promoted by farmers, restaurants, and tourism managers;
• More investment in the dissemination of the territory’s agritourism products, thus consolidating opportunities for local empowerment and sustainability of the primary sector.

Fourth, this study demonstrated that the development of agritourism also depends on the perceived quality of the experience and that listening to the local population and tourists allows the design of strategies suited to their needs. In this case, this study made it possible to make important contributions to the design of agritourism proposals adapted to the vocation of the territory, i.e., to the landscapes with the greatest potential. It is worth noting that the main findings were as follows:

• The potential of the Dehesa/Montado area was recognized, both as a setting for recreational activities and for the opportunity to enhance its products.
• There is a deep lack of knowledge about the potential of the olive grove sector to promote oleotourism.
• The fragility of natural landscapes as a tourism resource was recognized, as they were found to be among the least valued. This devaluation may have been caused by the absence of recreation infrastructures, weak accessibility, or even the absence of a recreational activity supply, putting the potential of natural resources at risk.
• Experiences that involve contact with local agri-food products, enjoyment of the agricultural landscape, and the opportunity to learn about the value of rurality were valorized. Providing a mix of rural tourism and agritourism experiences stood out as the best strategy.
• Memorable experiences can be enhanced by social, emotional, and symbolic interactions with a place, which can be created by contact and learning experiences potentiated from farmers and the rural community. This points to agritourism as a positive solution for the territory.
• Considering that the concept of authentic agritourism implies a deeper involvement with farming activities, there is an opportunity to create products valued by the demand side—namely, learning experiences about either production processes or about the transformation of traditional products, such as olive oil, honey, cheese, or sausages.
• Gastronomy is a valued resource from the destination, thus pointing to the potential of local production involving the creation of brands and local identities and the promotion of short commercialization chains.

In general, this research helped to fill in some of the gaps identified in the literature by detecting the weaknesses associated with knowledge of the essence of agritourism. Therefore, this reinforced the need for a greater appreciation of this concept through the practical application of some measures, such as the appreciation of the multifunctional characteristics of landscapes in local public policies, the enhancement of rural innovation, and the valuation of ecosystem services associated with the preservation of natural and cultural heritage.