Enclave Tourism Versus Agritourism System †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss aout the Enclave Tourism Versus Agritourism System. Answer: Introduction: This plan helps in the strengthening of the tourism sector, helps in the improvement of job and used to develop the working skills in the youth. The positive impact of this program is increase in the social networking which will help in reducing the isolation during the visit in the farm. It also increases the pride of the community through the engagement of the community (Boley et al. 2014). This plan will also help to secure the employment needs of the community in the present and in future. The negative impacts of this plan are reduction in the capacity of businesses in the survival period of the economic loss. This loss also effects on the survival of the community because due to the poor prospects of the work the migration occurs both inside the country and to other countries. The negative standards of the society and the economy will lead to the reduction in the standards of the mental health (Carneiro, Eusbio and Caldeira 2017). The intended consequences of LFSP in development of work in agro-tourism are that the society and the economy are motivated in such a manner which generally focuses on the strength of the existing community which are relevant and had been used practically. As the time passes the local measures are to be supported by the collaboration of the measures of the region; the supplementary income had been improved and the financial support could be achieved by the mobilization of the resources and the networking of the region. The access can be improved for both the socio-economic benefits through participation and the management of the plan can be achieved by the help of the committees that are nominated by the local peoples. There is a development of the sets of new skills by providing practical training and this will help in increasing the prospects of job across the world (Milner et al. 2014). The development of the new skills of the workers will increase the prospects of job among the youth in the agro-tourism industry (e.g. manual labor to business management). For the agriculturists, stress can be alleviated with help amid crest gathering seasons, expanding merchandise creation for more noteworthy accumulating and conveyance. The chance to share the frequently private and disconnecting cultivating way of life can likewise exhibit huge social prizes for people (Hwang and Lee 2015). In the agro tourism industry, both the agrarian item and the farmhouse are the primary parts of the business. Consequently, by enabling an untrained laborer to work in the improvement of the item may prompt different unintended outcomes. These unintended results bargains of the great nature of sustenance, delays in the improvement of the item, increment in the word related wellbeing, increment in the introduction to the allergens of the conditions (e.g. dust), increment in the anxiety administration with the assistance of the volunteers, which the agro tourism income does not adjust with the endeavors that are required for the manageability of program. According to the advocacy toolkit: The issue: The agro tourism can be done in a particular time of the season when the farming is done. Rest of the time the workers those are working in this industry loses their work due to which they become unemployed which leads to the low income of the whole family. This low income leads to the migration of the people in search of finding some job so that their rate of income increases. Now for reducing this unemployment and migration a strategic plan can be developed which will help in maintaining the employment (Park et al. 2014). There are many factors which leads to low income, but the most important factor is unemployment. Unemployment generally creates a shortage of financial stability which gradually leads to low income and eventually towards poverty. The unemployed people and their families will have a low standard of living as compared to the employed people. The answer: After preparing this strategic plan, I will ask a local farm for implementing this plan and have a watch that does this plan is working or not. For making the farm committee to implement this plan, I will describe them that at the time of the season when there is no farming the youth become unemployed at that time you may apply this plan in which you can engage the workers in some different tasks or train them for farming by providing them certain amount of wages (Park et al. 2014). The audience: For implementing the strategy I will choose some of the farm and their committee members to address the strategy plan. The best way to communicate with them is by presentation which will describe them about the plan. Timing: Most of the people are ready to listen because they dont want to be unemployed or leave their home and migrate. Personal cost: The farmers and the wholesalers generally decide the pricing of the tourism. The direct consumer must be charged the full price for the products. The tour guide receives a 10% discount from the farm. The wholesaler receives a 20-20% of discount which will depend upon profit or loss of the agro-tourism (Lane and Kastenholz 2015). Various numbers of assumptions have been made for this proposal, which includes a real interest, wish and need for expanding the tourism. With this strategy the youths will get the capacity for the participation, which increases the number of population in the workers from the community. This strategy will help the farmers to have time for their development and skills; it will provide the interests in the training of the youth and the outcome of the plan will be equal for all of the stakeholders (i.e. farmers, investors and participants) (Naidoo and Pearce 2016). Despite of the given limitations, the LFSP is the appropriate plan for the worker and the farmer in the agro-tourism industry, given that manual labor and outdoor activities are likely to be lifestyle interests for this age group. Further it can be said that, utilization of the existing resources, the strengths and the interests of the community, will help to develop a sustainable model for the promotion of health which will empower the total community through the increase in action, the engagement of a farmer and collaboration with the market and the stakeholders, among the people of different age group and different business sectors (Barcus, H., 2014). References Barcus, H., 2014. Sustainable development or integrated rural tourism? Considering the overlap in rural development strategies.Journal of Rural and Community Development,8(3). Boley, B.B., McGehee, N.G., Perdue, R.R. and Long, P., 2014. Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens.Annals of Tourism Research,49, pp.33-50. Carneiro, M.J., Eusbio, C. and Caldeira, A., 2017. The Influence of Social Contact in Residents Perceptions of the Tourism Impact on Their Quality of Life: A Structural Equation Model.Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality Tourism, pp.1-30. Hwang, J. and Lee, S., 2015. The effect of the rural tourism policy on non-farm income in South Korea. Tourism management,46, pp.501-513. Lane, B. and Kastenholz, E., 2015. Rural tourism: the evolution of practice and research approachestowards a new generation concept?.Journal of Sustainable Tourism,23(8-9), pp.1133-1156. Milner, J.M., Van Beest, F.M., Schmidt, K.T., Brook, R.K. and Storaas, T., 2014. To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates.The Journal of Wildlife Management,78(8), pp.1322-1334. Naidoo, P. and Pearce, P.L., 2016. Enclave tourism versus agritourism: the economic debate.Current Issues in Tourism, pp.1-20. Park, D.B., Doh, K.R. and Kim, K.H., 2014. Successful managerial behaviour for farm-based tourism: A functional approach.Tourism Management,45, pp.201-210.