May 27, 2026

Nigeria Hybrid Agrotourism Model

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.yxmvm8dd9g3p/v1
  • 1Linyi University
  • Aliyu Ismail
Aliyu Ismail
Icon indicating open access to content
QR code linking to this content
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.yxmvm8dd9g3p/v1
Protocol Citation: Aliyu Ismail, Ailiang Xie, Basma Ibrahim Jalido 2026. Nigeria Hybrid Agrotourism Model. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.yxmvm8dd9g3p/v1
License: This is an open access  protocol  distributed under the terms of the  Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Other
We attempted this protocol but could not get it to work in our workspace
Created: May 26, 2026
Last Modified: May 27, 2026
Protocol  Integer ID: 317936
Keywords: agritourism, systematic review, PRISMA, policy transfer, multi-level governance, Rural Revitalization, NHAM, nigeria hybrid agrotourism model agritourism, agritourism governance, nigeria hybrid agritourism model, transferable chinese principles to nigeria, major agrarian economy, pathway to rural income diversification, rural income diversification, embedding transferable governance logic, fragmented governance, transferable governance logic, developing country, governance structure, weak institutional coordination, tier governance, institutional reality, nigeria, cultural endowment, institutional trajectory, nigerian evidence, transferable chinese principle, federal policy coordination, community partnership, central policy
Abstract
Agritourism in developing countries offers a credible pathway to rural income diversification and cultural preservation, yet the governance structures that determine its outcomes are poorly theorized in comparative perspective. This systematic review examines agritourism governance in China and Nigeria, two major agrarian economies with sharply divergent institutional trajectories following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 1,078 records retrieved via Google Scholar and three open-access databases, 22 peer-reviewed studies met inclusion criteria (17 China; 5 Nigeria). The Chinese evidence reveals coordinated multi-level governance that combines central policy steering with adaptive local implementation, producing measurable outcomes at scale. The Nigerian evidence documents fragmented governance marked by policy discontinuity and weak institutional coordination, despite favorable agricultural and cultural endowments. Drawing on this comparative synthesis, we propose the Nigeria Hybrid Agritourism Model (NHAM), a three-tier governance framework that adapts transferable Chinese principles to Nigeria's federal, multi-ethnic, and security-constrained context. The NHAM operates through federal policy coordination, state-community partnerships, and community-based enterprise development, embedding transferable governance logic within local institutional realities rather than transplanting foreign structures wholesale. Priorities for future research include pilot evaluation, longitudinal impact assessment, and structured South-South comparative work.
Attachments
Icon for PRISMA Protocol.pdf
PRISMA Protocol.pdf
238KB
Guidelines
**PRISMA 2020 Checklist**

**TITLE**
1. Identify the report as a systematic review. (Location: Title page)

**ABSTRACT**
2. See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. (Location: Abstract)

**INTRODUCTION**
3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. (Location: Introduction 1.1)
4. Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. (Location: Introduction 1.2)

**METHODS**
5. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. (Location: Methods 2.2)
6. Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. (Location: Methods 2.3, 2.4)
7. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. (Location: Methods 2.4, Appendix B)
8. Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. (Location: Methods 2.5)
9. Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. (Location: Methods 2.6, Appendix C)
10a. List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought. (Location: Methods 2.2, 2.6)
10b. List and define all other variables for which data were sought. (Location: Methods 2.6, Appendix C)
11. Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, processes of obtaining or confirming information from study investigators. (Location: Methods 2.7, Appendix D)
12. Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. (Location: N/A—narrative synthesis)
13a. Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis. (Location: Methods 2.8)
13b. Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis. (Location: Methods 2.6, 2.8)
13c. Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. (Location: Results 3.1–3.4, Tables 1–4)
13d. Describe any methods used to synthesise results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). (Location: Methods 2.8)
13e. Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. (Location: Discussion 4.1–4.4)
13f. Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. (Location: N/A—narrative synthesis)

**RESULTS**
14a. Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. (Location: Results 3.1, Figure 1)
14b. Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. (Location: Appendix A (excluded studies not listed but described in screening))
15. Cite each included study and present its characteristics. (Location: Table 1, Appendix A)
16. Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. (Location: Appendix D)
17. For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group and (b) an effect estimate and its precision. (Location: Tables 2–4, Results 3.2–3.3)
18a. For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. (Location: Discussion 4.1)
18b. Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. (Location: N/A—narrative synthesis)
18c. Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. (Location: Discussion 4.2)
18d. Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted. (Location: N/A)
19. Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results arising from reporting biases. (Location: Discussion 4.4)
20. Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. (Location: Discussion 4.1–4.4)

**DISCUSSION**
21a. Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. (Location: Discussion 4.4, Appendix E)
21b. Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. (Location: Discussion 4.4, Appendix E)
21c. Discuss the implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. (Location: Discussion 4.3, 4.4)

**OTHER INFORMATION**
22a. Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. (Location: Methods 2.1)
22b. Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. (Location: Methods 2.1)
22c. Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. (Location: N/A)
23. Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. (Location: None declared)
24. Declare any competing interests of review authors. (Location: None declared)
25. State which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. (Location: Appendix C (extraction template); other materials available on request)
Materials
NA
Safety warnings
NA
Ethics statement
NA
Before start
NA
Search String for NHAM
ID: C1
Focus: China
Search String: "agritourism" OR "agro-tourism" OR "rural tourism" China governance policy
Date: Nov 2025
Retrieved: 460
Deduped: 194
Screened: 194
FT Assessed: 26
Included: 17
ID: C2
Focus: China
Search String: "leisure agriculture" China policy development
Date: Nov 2025
Retrieved: 208
Deduped: 208
Screened: 208
FT Assessed: 21
Included: 0 (dup)
ID: C3
Focus: China
Search String: "nong jia le" tourism governance China
Date: Nov 2025
Retrieved: 187
Deduped: 187
Screened: 187
FT Assessed: 20
Included: 0 (dup)
ID: C4
Focus: China
Search String: "rural revitalization" tourism villages China
Date: Nov 2025
Retrieved: 198
Deduped: 198
Screened: 198
FT Assessed: 24
Included: 0 (dup)
ID: N1
Focus: Nigeria
Search String: "agritourism" OR "agro-tourism" Nigeria development policy
Date: Dec 2025
Retrieved: 201
Deduped: 201
Screened: 201
FT Assessed: 24
Included: 5
ID: N2
Focus: Nigeria
Search String: "rural
Date: Dec 2025
Retrieved: 60
Deduped: 60
Screened: 60
FT Assessed: 10
Included: 0 (dup)
PRISMA 2020 Checklist
PRISMA 2020 Checklist
Protocol references
China Studies (n = 17)
1. Chen, A., & Scott, S. (2014). Rural development strategies and government roles in the development of farmers' cooperatives in China. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 4(2), 1–15.
2. Guo, Y., & Li, S. (2025). Multilevel governance of low carbon tourism in rural China: Policy evolution, implementation pathways and socio-ecological impacts. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1482713.
3. Hu, H., et al. (2025). Thematic evolution and transmission mechanisms of China's rural tourism policy: A multi-level governance framework for sustainable development. Sustainability, 17(20), 9187.
4. Lin, H., et al. (2025). Can the Chinese cultural consumption pilot policy facilitate sustainable development in the agritourism economy? Agriculture, 15(11), 1117.
5. Liu, C., et al. (2020). Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: An empirical investigation from China. Tourism Management, 76, 103955.
6. Liu, W., et al. (2016). Evolution of tourism in a flagship protected area of China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8–9), 1168–1183.
7. Park, C. H. (2014). Nongjiale tourism and contested space in rural China. Modern China, 40(6), 1–25.
8. Song, B., & Robinson, G. M. (2020). Multifunctional agriculture: Policies and implementation in China. Geography Compass, 14(5), e12538.
9. Su, B. (2011). Rural tourism in China. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1438–1441.
10. Su, B. (2013). Developing rural tourism: The PAT program and 'Nong jia le' tourism in China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(6), 591–605.
11. Tang, B. (2022). Research on the symbiosis model of the core interest subjects of Chinese ancient village tourism sites in the context of rural revitalization. Sustainability, 14(19), 12001.
12. Wang, J., et al. (2025). Agro-tourism integration and county-level sustainability: Mechanisms and regional heterogeneity in China. Sustainability, 17(10), 4549.
13. Wang, Y. (2019). Political economy of tourism development in rural China: Case of Luting Township, Zhejiang. Tourism Planning & Development, 16(4), 445–462.
14. Yang, J. (2023). The dynamics and driving mechanisms of rural revitalization in western China. Agriculture, 13(7), 1448.
15. Ying, T., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Networks, citizenship behaviours and destination effectiveness: A comparative study of two Chinese rural tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8–9), 1318–1334.
16. Zhang, R., et al. (2022). Improving the framework for analyzing community resilience to understand rural revitalization pathways in China. Tourism Management, 88, 104429.
17. Zhu, Y., et al. (2024). How has rural tourism developed in China? Examining the impact of China's evolving rural tourism policies. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 1–25.

Nigeria Studies (n = 5)

18. Adisa, R. S. (2013). Agro-tourism in North-Central Nigeria: Perceptions, performance, problems, and prospects. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 1–10.
19. Ale, A. B. (2025). Assessment of the involvement of farmers in agro-tourism activities in Ondo State. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Business, Development and Agricultural Innovation, 1(1), 1–15.
20. Emeafor, O. F., & Okpoko, P. U. (2017). Analyzing local participation in agro-tourism in Abakaliki area of Ebonyi State. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Studies, 3(1), 1–11.
21. Janet, O. J. (2024). Effect of policy on the development of agro-based micro-enterprises in Nigeria. Review of International Journal of Commerce, Research and Human Social Sciences, 3(12), 1–15.
22. Lawal, A. I., et al. (2018). Economic growth, agricultural output and tourism development in Nigeria. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 489–501.
Acknowledgements
Professor Ailiang Xie of the Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of History and Culture, Linyi University