지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This research was made in order to investigate the situation of Korean Tourism Farms(K.T.F.) serving as a supplier for visitors. of K.T.F. to be more desired.
As a result of the investigation about its characteristics from the sides of users. resources and management each through the general tourism farms of 157 areas in our country as of late 1992. the facts as follows have come out.
First, though there's no statistical significance between the number of yearly visitors and the yearly income per house of tourism farms in our country. the positive correlations between them is to be seen.
Second, from the side of users. K.T.F. has a characteristic of via-system type that it is closely connected with tourism resources around. But its location related to the number of tourism resources is little important. The most important thing is to use successfully the tourism resources of the area where a tourism farms is located. The variables significanced to the number of yearly visitors to tourism farms are tourist route types and general working expenses. And those significanced to house-income are the distance from the seat of a provincial office and general working expenses.
1) Tourism farms in Korea were distributed to 5 Sihgtseeing Areas all over the country. The percentages of tourism farms distributed by Sightseeing Area are as follow: Southeastern Sightseeing Area 26.8%. Northern Sightseeing Area 19.7%, and Jeju Sightseeing Area 6.4% classfied by 23 developing small Sightseeing Area. 45.1 percent tourism farms of Northern Sightseeing Area were located in Seoul suburbs Area and 28.9 percent of Central Sightseeing Area in Daejeon suburbs Area and 28.9 percent of Southwestern Sightseeing Area were distributed to Gwangju sururbs Area. also in Southeastern Sightseeing Area. 26.2 percent tourism farms were distributed to Hanryou Sea Sightseeing Area and Hapchon Sightseeing Area each.
2) For the conditions of nature and location, tourism farms of a in land-water type account for the highest percentage 57.3%, and a mountain-vally type and a seaside type were 32.5% and 10.2% each. About the configuration of the ground. farms located in even land were 39.5 percent. and in hilly and mountainous districts were 34.4% and 26.1% each.
3) With the nearer tourism resources to tourism farms. historical and cultural resources were the highest percentage 42.7% and 24.8 percent natural scenery resources, 24.2 percent artificial resources, 5.7 percent special resources next in order. Historical and cultural resources had places of scenic and historical interest, natural scenery had mountains, the artificial had amusement parks and the special had nearby mineral spring resorts in most cases.
4) Generally, 52.9 percent tourism farms held about 4 - 7 tourism resources around them and their yearly incomes per house was quite high on the average. too
5) In tourist route, via-stay type accounted for the highest percentage 47.1%, and the next was 38.9 percent simply via type. Among the average yearly visitors were a number of people of via-stay type and stay type. but the average yearly income was the highest in the farms of via-stay type.
6) A number of korea tourism farms generally had small towns with a population of about 50~100 thousand at the back. the number of the average yearly visitors was large in the case of the farms which had cities with a population less than one million or more them ten million behind them. But in the case from five to ten million. the average yearly incomes per house was high.
7) About the distance from the seat of a provincial office, 41.4 percent tourism farms were located between 30 and 60 Kilometers, and 35.0% were 60-90 Km. the number of the the average yearly visitots was the largest in 30 - 60 Km. but the average yearly income per house was the highest in the distance over 90 Kilometers.
8) As for the type of tourism farm development. a rest area type in the mountains was the highest 47.8 percent and a weekend farm of a family unit type was 24.8%. From the side of the the average yearly visitors, a rest area type in the mountains had the largest number but the average yearly income per house of a rest area type at the coast appeared highest
About tourism resources of the third, K.T.F. is characterized by tourism farming specified by tourism on the basis of agricultural resources. Tourism farming is little removed from the form of simple farm products sale. and has assumed a style of commercial farming centering around the suburbs of a city. The variables significanced to the yearly house-income of tourism farms are the existence of native local foods and general working expenses.
1) As a farming area, the highest 26.1 percentage was a mountain diversified farming area. The next 24.8% was a mountain dry-field farming area. The number of the average yearly visitors was large in mountain diversified farming areas. But the average yearly income per house was in the order of a suburb farming area. a mountain diversified farming area and a mountain dry-field farming area.
2) By the type of tourism farming, a farm products sale type and space service type were 66.9% and 33.1% each. the average yearly visitors could be seen in a space service type and the average yearly income per house of a farm products sale type were higher than that of the other
3) About specified tourism farming, the highest 61.1% was a type based on farm products stores. The next 19.7% was a tourism fruit garden. A tourism pot-planting garden had the largest number of the average yearly visitors on the average and a tourism vegetable garden had the highest income yearly.
4) As for main growing items of tourism farm, fruits(23.3%), livestock(21.9%), vegetables(16.8%) and special crops(12.8%) could be investigated in order. Fruits were pears, persimmons, chesnuts, jujubes and etc. Livestock were black goats and deers as a stock and korean fowls, pheasants and fowls with black bones as a poultry. vegetables were for four seasons. And special crops were beekeeping, medical plants, mushrooms, indian corns and minor cereals
5) Tourism farms with organic farm products were 46.5 percent.
6) 52.2 percentage of tourism farms had native local foods and peculiar cooking styles, and the average yearly income per house of these farms was twice higher than other farms.
The last is from the side of management. In our country is a special quality that K.T.F. is run and built with regard to natural environment of the area and conditions of location according to manager's ability. Particularly, the scale of general working expenses invested according to size of farm has the most important effect upon the facilities and management of the tourism farm. And the variables significanced to its general income a year are certified as size of a farm and general working expenses in this study.
1) In a managing type, an individual management type by participation of the great number
was the highest 38.9% and a joint control type 34.4%, an individual enterprise type 23.6%, a joint investment type by several individuals 2.5% next in order. The number of the average yearly visitors was large in an individual management type and a joint investment type. And the average yearly income per house was the highest in a joint investment type.
2) For the size of farm. the highest 50.3 percentage farms were under 3000~9000 pyong accounted for 40.8%. The number of the average yearly visitors was the largest in the farms of 15000-30000 pyong and in the average yearly income per house the farms over 30000 pyong were the highest.
3) About the area of subsidiary facilities. the farms under 20 percentage of the general area accounted for the highest 65.5%. The average yearly visitors and income per house were the most and highest when the area of subsidiary facilities was under 20 - 40%.
4) Concerning sale type of main farm products and special products. a consignment sale type and a self-production and consignment sale half-and-half type were 36.9% each. In the average yearly visitors the percentage of a consignment sale was the highest. And that of half-and-half type was higher in the average yearly income per house.
5) In business activities, tourism farms, which had been in activity such as building a signboard for P.R. were 63.7%. The percentage of the average yearly visitors and income per house were all highest in the farms in activity
6) From the side view of amount invested, tourism farms, which the amount invested was about 1~3 hundred million. accounted for the highest 40.8%, and tourism farms of about 3~4 hundred million were 29.9%. The percentage of the average yearly visitors was the highest in the farms of over one billion and that of the average yearly income per house appeared the highest over about 3-10 hundred million.
This paper tried to find out the characteristics of tourism farms in our country through the three sides: users, resources and management. But it seems more desirable to find out the characteristics of location through the relation between tourism farms and agricultural resources, and to investigate tourism resources through the relation to facilities on the basis of the characteristics of location, and then to study the characteristics of K.T.F. through its management considering the tourism resources specified.
Accordingly studying tourism farms hereafter, the synthetic examination and estimation from the sides of supply, demand, facilities and management should be made on the basis of the locational characteristics such as natural conditions. And it is believed that the limits would be overcome in the future.
As a result of the investigation about its characteristics from the sides of users. resources and management each through the general tourism farms of 157 areas in our country as of late 1992. the facts as follows have come out.
First, though there's no statistical significance between the number of yearly visitors and the yearly income per house of tourism farms in our country. the positive correlations between them is to be seen.
Second, from the side of users. K.T.F. has a characteristic of via-system type that it is closely connected with tourism resources around. But its location related to the number of tourism resources is little important. The most important thing is to use successfully the tourism resources of the area where a tourism farms is located. The variables significanced to the number of yearly visitors to tourism farms are tourist route types and general working expenses. And those significanced to house-income are the distance from the seat of a provincial office and general working expenses.
1) Tourism farms in Korea were distributed to 5 Sihgtseeing Areas all over the country. The percentages of tourism farms distributed by Sightseeing Area are as follow: Southeastern Sightseeing Area 26.8%. Northern Sightseeing Area 19.7%, and Jeju Sightseeing Area 6.4% classfied by 23 developing small Sightseeing Area. 45.1 percent tourism farms of Northern Sightseeing Area were located in Seoul suburbs Area and 28.9 percent of Central Sightseeing Area in Daejeon suburbs Area and 28.9 percent of Southwestern Sightseeing Area were distributed to Gwangju sururbs Area. also in Southeastern Sightseeing Area. 26.2 percent tourism farms were distributed to Hanryou Sea Sightseeing Area and Hapchon Sightseeing Area each.
2) For the conditions of nature and location, tourism farms of a in land-water type account for the highest percentage 57.3%, and a mountain-vally type and a seaside type were 32.5% and 10.2% each. About the configuration of the ground. farms located in even land were 39.5 percent. and in hilly and mountainous districts were 34.4% and 26.1% each.
3) With the nearer tourism resources to tourism farms. historical and cultural resources were the highest percentage 42.7% and 24.8 percent natural scenery resources, 24.2 percent artificial resources, 5.7 percent special resources next in order. Historical and cultural resources had places of scenic and historical interest, natural scenery had mountains, the artificial had amusement parks and the special had nearby mineral spring resorts in most cases.
4) Generally, 52.9 percent tourism farms held about 4 - 7 tourism resources around them and their yearly incomes per house was quite high on the average. too
5) In tourist route, via-stay type accounted for the highest percentage 47.1%, and the next was 38.9 percent simply via type. Among the average yearly visitors were a number of people of via-stay type and stay type. but the average yearly income was the highest in the farms of via-stay type.
6) A number of korea tourism farms generally had small towns with a population of about 50~100 thousand at the back. the number of the average yearly visitors was large in the case of the farms which had cities with a population less than one million or more them ten million behind them. But in the case from five to ten million. the average yearly incomes per house was high.
7) About the distance from the seat of a provincial office, 41.4 percent tourism farms were located between 30 and 60 Kilometers, and 35.0% were 60-90 Km. the number of the the average yearly visitots was the largest in 30 - 60 Km. but the average yearly income per house was the highest in the distance over 90 Kilometers.
8) As for the type of tourism farm development. a rest area type in the mountains was the highest 47.8 percent and a weekend farm of a family unit type was 24.8%. From the side of the the average yearly visitors, a rest area type in the mountains had the largest number but the average yearly income per house of a rest area type at the coast appeared highest
About tourism resources of the third, K.T.F. is characterized by tourism farming specified by tourism on the basis of agricultural resources. Tourism farming is little removed from the form of simple farm products sale. and has assumed a style of commercial farming centering around the suburbs of a city. The variables significanced to the yearly house-income of tourism farms are the existence of native local foods and general working expenses.
1) As a farming area, the highest 26.1 percentage was a mountain diversified farming area. The next 24.8% was a mountain dry-field farming area. The number of the average yearly visitors was large in mountain diversified farming areas. But the average yearly income per house was in the order of a suburb farming area. a mountain diversified farming area and a mountain dry-field farming area.
2) By the type of tourism farming, a farm products sale type and space service type were 66.9% and 33.1% each. the average yearly visitors could be seen in a space service type and the average yearly income per house of a farm products sale type were higher than that of the other
3) About specified tourism farming, the highest 61.1% was a type based on farm products stores. The next 19.7% was a tourism fruit garden. A tourism pot-planting garden had the largest number of the average yearly visitors on the average and a tourism vegetable garden had the highest income yearly.
4) As for main growing items of tourism farm, fruits(23.3%), livestock(21.9%), vegetables(16.8%) and special crops(12.8%) could be investigated in order. Fruits were pears, persimmons, chesnuts, jujubes and etc. Livestock were black goats and deers as a stock and korean fowls, pheasants and fowls with black bones as a poultry. vegetables were for four seasons. And special crops were beekeeping, medical plants, mushrooms, indian corns and minor cereals
5) Tourism farms with organic farm products were 46.5 percent.
6) 52.2 percentage of tourism farms had native local foods and peculiar cooking styles, and the average yearly income per house of these farms was twice higher than other farms.
The last is from the side of management. In our country is a special quality that K.T.F. is run and built with regard to natural environment of the area and conditions of location according to manager's ability. Particularly, the scale of general working expenses invested according to size of farm has the most important effect upon the facilities and management of the tourism farm. And the variables significanced to its general income a year are certified as size of a farm and general working expenses in this study.
1) In a managing type, an individual management type by participation of the great number
was the highest 38.9% and a joint control type 34.4%, an individual enterprise type 23.6%, a joint investment type by several individuals 2.5% next in order. The number of the average yearly visitors was large in an individual management type and a joint investment type. And the average yearly income per house was the highest in a joint investment type.
2) For the size of farm. the highest 50.3 percentage farms were under 3000~9000 pyong accounted for 40.8%. The number of the average yearly visitors was the largest in the farms of 15000-30000 pyong and in the average yearly income per house the farms over 30000 pyong were the highest.
3) About the area of subsidiary facilities. the farms under 20 percentage of the general area accounted for the highest 65.5%. The average yearly visitors and income per house were the most and highest when the area of subsidiary facilities was under 20 - 40%.
4) Concerning sale type of main farm products and special products. a consignment sale type and a self-production and consignment sale half-and-half type were 36.9% each. In the average yearly visitors the percentage of a consignment sale was the highest. And that of half-and-half type was higher in the average yearly income per house.
5) In business activities, tourism farms, which had been in activity such as building a signboard for P.R. were 63.7%. The percentage of the average yearly visitors and income per house were all highest in the farms in activity
6) From the side view of amount invested, tourism farms, which the amount invested was about 1~3 hundred million. accounted for the highest 40.8%, and tourism farms of about 3~4 hundred million were 29.9%. The percentage of the average yearly visitors was the highest in the farms of over one billion and that of the average yearly income per house appeared the highest over about 3-10 hundred million.
This paper tried to find out the characteristics of tourism farms in our country through the three sides: users, resources and management. But it seems more desirable to find out the characteristics of location through the relation between tourism farms and agricultural resources, and to investigate tourism resources through the relation to facilities on the basis of the characteristics of location, and then to study the characteristics of K.T.F. through its management considering the tourism resources specified.
Accordingly studying tourism farms hereafter, the synthetic examination and estimation from the sides of supply, demand, facilities and management should be made on the basis of the locational characteristics such as natural conditions. And it is believed that the limits would be overcome in the future.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 연구사
Ⅲ. 연구방법
Ⅳ. 관광농원의 현황
Ⅴ. 관광농원의 특성
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
관광농원 개발사업의 현황 및 운영실태에 관한 고찰
농어촌관광학회지
2000 .02
-
江原地域 觀光農園 經營改善에 관한 硏究
농어촌관광학회지
1996 .02
-
지속가능한 한국형 농촌관광의 개발에 관한 연구
관광레저연구
2004 .02
-
관광농원별 기대 및 인지된 노블티(novelty) 차이 분석 : 물고기관광농원과 금학산관광농원 사례를 중심으로
농어촌관광학회지
2010 .12
-
일본의 관광농업을 통한 지역경제 활성화에 관한 연구
농어촌관광학회지
2000 .02
-
濟州地域 觀光農園의 現況과 開發方向
농어촌관광학회지
2000 .02
-
정보화가 농가소득 증대에 미치는 영향
농촌계획
2006 .01
-
農漁村觀光休養資源의 開發實態와 發展方向에 關한 硏究 - 강원도를 중심으로 -
농어촌관광학회지
1997 .02
-
경영회생지원 농지매입사업 이용실태에 관한 사례연구: 강원지역 농가를 중심으로
농촌계획
2014 .01
-
농업의 6차산업화가 농가 및 농업법인의 농업 및 농외소득에 미치는 영향
농촌계획
2014 .01
-
팜파티 속성에 대한 중요도-만족도 분석(IPA) 연구
농촌지도와 개발
2015 .01
-
서울근교 관광농원 및 주말농장의 원예작물 재배현황과 운영에 관한 연구
농어촌관광학회지
1996 .02
-
농촌공원의 자원별 관광농업 개발방법에 관한 연구
농어촌관광학회지
1998 .02
-
귀농인의 농촌체험관광사업 추진 사례 분석
농어촌관광학회지
2013 .12
-
빅데이터 분석을 통한 팜파티 방향 탐색에 관한 연구
Culinary Science & Hospitality Research
2019 .08
-
도 단위 농촌지도정책이 농가 소득에 미치는 영향 - 원예·특작 농가지도사업을 중심으로 -
농촌지도와 개발
2018 .01
-
계층화 분석과정(AHP)을 이용한 농촌 체험장의 우선순위 분석
지역사회연구
2008 .09
-
농업구조정책의 평가와 방향 정립에 관한 연구 : 쌀 농업을 중심으로
한국농촌경제연구원 기본연구보고서
2011 .11
-
소규모 농가의 영농의사결정 지원을 위한 재무정보시스템 설계 및 구현
Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management
2006 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-522-013759724