TOURISTS’ PERCEPTION OF LAFUN AND ABULA FOR CULINARY TOURISM IN IBADAN, OYO STATE, NIGERIA
T. G. Yusuf
Department of Family, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife
Oyelere, K. A. Haruna, Z. A. B.
Department of Family, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife
Haruna, Z. A. B.
Department of Hospitality Management,
Kwara State Polytechnics, Ilorin, Kwara State.
Abstract
The study examined tourists’ perception of Lafun and Abula (LA) for culinary tourism (CT) in Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to determine; tourists’ awareness of CT, tourists’ participation in CT, tourists’ perception of CT, tourists’ awareness of LA as indigenous food of Ibadan, and tourists’ opinion on showcasing LA for CU. The study was carried out in popular tourists’ destinations in Ibadan. Simple random sampling technique was used to select 250 tourists who participated in the study. Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation) were used to present data collected. Results showed that; majority of the tourists (63.2%) were aware of CU, few (29.6%) had participated in it, majority had a positive perception of CU, majority (93.2%) were aware of LA as indigenous food Ibadan, and majority (86.8%) agreed that LA is worthy of showcasing for CU. Correlation analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between; age (r = 0.205, p= 0.010), household size (r = 0.142, p= 0.025) and perception of CU. Correlation analysis also showed a positive and significant relationship between age (r = 0.191, p= 0.002), participation in social organization (r = 0.163, p= 0.010) and awareness of LA. It was therefore concluded that tourists were aware of LA and CU, had a good perception of CU and were of the opinion that LA should be showcased for CU. Hence, Oyo State Tourism Board should formulate policy that will bring local food vendors, tour operators, and management of destinations together in an attempt to position and promote LA for CU.
Key words: Culture, Tourism, Culinary, Cuisines, Perception
Introduction
Culinary tourism (CU) is also referred to as gastronomic tourism or food tourism. It involves travelling from one place to another to taste delicious cuisines and drinks. Traditional food has its importance from a social, cultural and economic point of view. It preserves the tradition of a region as well as attracts tourists to the destination. CU is interconnected with destination marketing and management. In fact, there are tourists who love to travel to various destinations to taste different cuisines (Sangeeta, 2021). It is about food as a subject and medium, destination and vehicle for tourism. It is about individuals exploring foods new to them as well as using food to sell their histories and to construct marketable and publicly attractive identities and it is about individuals satisfying curiosity. It is about experiencing food in a mode that is out of ordinary that steps outside the normal routine (Lucy, 2013). CU is one of the most important tourism industries. It tells stories about a region's history, inhabitants, and landscape (Sotiriadis, 2015). It enriches tourists’ experiences, and can be a useful tool for boosting economic, social, and community growth. According to Sidali et. al. (2013), it has the potential to inspire and draw prospective tourists. It refers to trips to destinations where the key driving factors are local food and beverages. Food is an undeniable necessity for vacationers, as well as a daily basic requirement for all humans. CU has tremendous potential to make the tourism industry a valuable component of most countries' growth and development plans. During their journeys, a large percentage of travelers consider dining and food to be important activities. However, the importance of food in destination marketing has received little attention until recently, both globally and locally (Bokunewicz and Shulman, 2017). CU is the pursuit of one-of-a-kind and unforgettable dining and drinking experiences. In other words, it is made up of tourists' perceptions and satisfaction with the tastes of food and beverages (Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2016). Culinary tourists go beyond just tasting different local foods, its benefits are more for the local community than for the tourists, such as; improving sales of produce by the local farmers, ensuring visitors’ acknowledgement of cultural and natural landscape, protection of old traditions in relation to food and wine products as well as prepared dishes, imparting marketable skills among the locals when they sell their local cuisines to the tourists, creating new restaurants or dining experiences, multiplier effects of overnight stay in local hotels, educating visitors about the local cultures, and most importantly, the development or expansion of local businesses. Even though CU is a significant part of the tourism industry, it is still a field where many researchers have not done extensive research (Lee et. al.., 2015). It is in line with the afore listed benefits of CU that this study was designed to assess tourists’ perception of positioning a special local cuisine; Lafun and Abula (LA) indigenous to Ibadan people of Oyo State, Nigeria for culinary tourism. Cassava flour is used for making Lafun. To get the flour, cassava is processed, dried and blended to powdery form. T make Lafun, sieve the cassava flour, put in a boiling water, stir till the flour is totally incorporated, add water and steam for about 2 minutes, stirring continues until Lafun is smooth and lump free (K’s Cuisine, 2022). To make Abula, cook peeled beans over average heat for about an hour, mash the cooked beans, add ingredients such as; smoked fish, salt, pepper, crayfish, and palm oil and cooked for about 5 minutes. Stir continuously until the oil changes from red to yellow (Thomas, 2017).
Plate 1: Lafun and Abula Source: Oyelere, 2021
Research Questions
The research questions formulated to guide this study include;
- Are the respondents aware of culinary tourism?
- Have they ever participated in culinary tourism?
- How do the respondents perceive culinary tourism?
- Are the tourists aware of LA as indigenous food of Ibadan?
- What is the opinion of the tourists on showcasing LA for CU?
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study include the following;
- To determine respondents’ awareness of culinary tourism
- To determine respondents’ participation in culinary tourism
- To determine respondents’ perception of culinary tourism
- To determine tourists’ awareness of LA as indigenous food of Ibadan
- To determine tourists’ opinion on showcasing LA for CU
Hypotheses of the Study
- There is no significant relationship between socio-economic characteristics of tourists and perception of culinary tourism.
- There is no significant relationship between socio-economic characteristics of tourists and awareness of culinary tourism.
Methodology
Design for the Study: Descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study.
Study Area
The research was done in Ibadan. Ibadan is the capital city of Oyo State and it is located in the southwestern part of Nigeria on longitude 7023’47’’N and Latitude 3055’0’E and the city covers about 3,080 square kilometers. Ibadan was established in 1830 as military base but has transformed into a thriving commercial city. With population of over 1.3 million people, Ibadan is the third most populous city in Nigeria and the largest city by land mass. The region comprises of eleven local government areas. Ibadan is a city of many firsts such as; the first University in Nigeria (University of Ibadan), the first Television station in Africa (NTA Ibadan), the first sky scraper in Nigeria (Cocoa House), the first stadium in Nigeria (liberty stadium), the first teaching hospital in Nigeria (University College Hospital), the first housing estate in Nigeria (Bodija Housing Estate), the first dualized road in Nigeria among others. The Ibadan people are majorly of Yoruba tribe though the nature of its thriving industries has made it a home for many other tribes in the country. The main economic activities engaged in by the populace includes agriculture, factory work, service sector, transportation, handcraft, etc. With its strategic location close to Lagos State, the city is also a home to many industries such as Agro-allied, textile, food processing, health care and cosmetic, tobacco and cigarette manufacturing etc. The study areas comprise of numerous tourism destinations spread across the eleven local government areas of the city including the Zoological Garden in the University of Ibadan, Cocoa House in Dugbe, Mapo Hall, National Museum, Bowers’ Memorial Tower in Oke Aare, Trans Amusement Park, Ace Mall, Jericho Mall, Ventura Mall and Oke Ibadan Hill among others. Egungun and Oke Ibadan festival are also part of tourism generating activities of Ibadan.
Population for the Study
The population for this study consist of tourists who were on tour to Ibadan. Notable tourists’ attractions like; National Museum Ibadan, Agodi Gardens, Mapo Hall, Bower’s Memorial Tower, Ventura Mall, University of Ibadan and Trans Amusement Park were purposively selected because they attract a high number of tourists.
Sample for the Study
The sample population was selected by simple random technique across the selected attractions. In all, a total of two hundred and fifty respondents participated in the study.
Instrument for Data Collection
Questionnaire consisting of open and close ended questions was used for data collection. The research questions guided the design of the instrument. The instrument gathered data on; respondents’ awareness, perception, and participation in culinary tourism. Cronbach Alpha reliability method was used to establish the reliability of the instrument. Reliability coefficient of 0.82 was obtained. The research instrument was validated in order to assess its ability to obtain the needed information from the respondents. Face and content validity were carefully conducted by subjecting the research instrument to thorough screening and judgment of experts who are academics that specialized in tourism management.
Data Collection Methods
Two research assistants together with the researcher were involved in the data collection. The research assistants were trained to enable them understand the objectives of the study and the design of the research instrument. All the respondents were literate hence; they were only guided in filling the questionnaire.
Data Analysis
The version 20 of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze data collected. Frequency, percentage, and mean were used to analyze data on research questions while correlation analysis was used to test the hypotheses.
Results
Socio – economic characteristics of respondents
Table 1 shows that majority (64.8%) of the respondents were female. Most of the respondents were single (69.2%), within the age bracket 21 – 30 years (62.8%), had no children (66.4%) and had tertiary education (90.8%). The table also shows that majority of the respondents were self – employed (67.6%) and earned below #250,000 monthly. Finally, majority of the tourists (75.0%) belonged to social organization.
Table 1: Distribution of Personal Characteristics of Respondents
n = 250
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
Male |
88 |
35.2 |
|
Female |
162 |
64.8 |
|
Marital status |
|
|
|
Single |
173 |
69.2 |
|
Married |
70 |
28.0 |
|
Widowed |
5 |
2.0 |
|
Divorced |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Age (years) |
|
|
|
11 – 20 |
35 |
14.0 |
|
21 – 30 |
157 |
62.8 |
|
31 – 40 |
23 |
9.2 |
|
41 – 50 |
23 |
9.2 |
|
51 and above |
12 |
4.8 |
|
Educational information |
|
|
|
No formal education |
1 |
0.4 |
|
Primary |
11 |
4.4 |
|
Secondary |
11 |
4.4 |
|
Tertiary |
227 |
90.8 |
|
Occupation |
|
|
|
Student |
12 |
4.8 |
|
Civil servant |
30 |
12.0 |
|
Self employed |
169 |
67.6 |
|
Trader |
22 |
8.8 |
|
Farmer |
9 |
3.6 |
|
Artisan |
8 |
3.2 |
|
Do you belong to any social organization? |
|
|
|
Yes |
125 |
50.0 |
|
No |
125 |
50.0 |
|
If yes, which of the following do you belong to? |
|
|
|
Descendant association |
8 |
3.2 |
|
Community association |
26 |
10.4 |
|
Social club |
67 |
26.8 |
|
Cooperative Society |
11 |
4.4 |
|
Trade Union |
13 |
5.2 |
|
Monthly income |
|
|
|
Below #250,001 |
234 |
93.6 |
|
#250,001 - #500,000 |
12 |
4.8 |
|
#500,001 - #750,000 |
1 |
0.4 |
|
#750,001 - #1,000,000 |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Above #1,000,000 |
1 |
0.4 |
|
Number of children |
|
|
|
0 |
166 |
66.4 |
|
1-3 |
69 |
27.6 |
|
3-6 |
15 |
6.0 |
|
Source: Field Survey 2021 |
|
|
Respondents’ perception of culinary tourism
A 5 points Likert Scale was used to establish the tourists’ perception of culinary tourism. A mean (x̄) score of 2.5 and above indicates agreement with any of the perception statements while a mean score of 2.49 and below indicates disagreement. Judging from the data in table 2, the tourists perceived that; CU will lead to low patronage of other foods (x̄ = 2.93), help in preserving local heritage and culture (x̄ = 4.31), contribute to long term sustainability of local agriculture (x̄ = 4.16), lead to under patronage of other tourist attractions (x̄ = 3.10), gives the opportunity to explore other non-regular type of food (x̄ = 2.56), provide employment opportunities for locals (x̄ = 4.23), provide revenue for government (x̄ = 4.06), promote other forms of tourism in a destination (x̄ = 4.18), tourists are willing to pay more to try traditional foods (x̄ = 4.23), and can be made a component of any tour to Ibadan (x̄ = 4.15). Majority (x̄ = 2.80) believed it cannot lead to inflation in the city due to increase in tourist traffic and that it has the power to create cooperative marketing opportunities for the restaurants (x̄ = 4.35). Most (x̄ = 4.21) respondents believed food can serve as attraction for tourists. However, majority (x̄ = 3.22) believed that; eating in restaurants can cause food poisoning and associate health issues and that, developing AL for CU will alter the indigenous way of preparation, packaging and presentation (x̄ = 2.55).
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents’ Perception of Culinary Tourism
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, U = Undecided, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly Disagree
n = 250
|
STATEMENT |
SA |
A |
U |
D |
SD |
Mean±SD |
|
|
Freq (%) |
Freq (%) |
Freq (%) |
Freq (%) |
Freq (%) |
|
|
It has the power to create cooperative marketing opportunities for restaurants |
120 (48.0%) |
104 (41.6%) |
20 (8.0%) |
06 (2.4%) |
00 (0.0%) |
4.3520±0.7309 |
|
It will lead to low patronage of foreign eateries |
26 (10.4%) |
81 (32.4%) |
53 (21.2%) |
64 (25.6%) |
26 (10.4%) |
2.9320±1.1887 |
|
It will help in preserving local heritage and culture |
118 (47.2%) |
104 (41.6%) |
18 (7.2%) |
07 (2.8%) |
03 (1.2%) |
4.3080±0.8196 |
|
It can lead to inflation in the city due to increase in tourist traffic |
35 (14.0%) |
79 (31.6%) |
53 (21.2%) |
68 (27.2%) |
15 (6.0%) |
2.7960±1.1627 |
|
It will contribute to the long-term sustainability of local agriculture |
101 (40.4%) |
106 (42.4%) |
25 (10.0%) |
18 (17.2%) |
00 (0.0%) |
4.1600±0.8772 |
|
It can lead to under-patronage of other tourists’ attraction |
31 (12.4%) |
68 (27.2%) |
57 (22.8%) |
82 (32.8%) |
12 (4.8%) |
3.0960±1.1331 |
|
Food can serve as an attraction for tourists |
108 (43.2%) |
103 (41.2%) |
23 (9.2%) |
15 (6.0%) |
01 (0.4%) |
4.2080±0.8717 |
|
Eating in restaurants can cause food poisoning and associate health issues |
23 (9.2%) |
47 (18.8%) |
64 (25.6%) |
84 (33.6%) |
32 (12.8%) |
3.2200±1.1666 |
|
It gives the opportunity to explore a non-regular type of food |
06 (2.4%) |
31 (12.4%) |
31 (12.4%) |
110 (44.0%) |
72 (28.8%) |
2.1560±1.0508 |
|
It can provide employment opportunities |
107 (42.8%) |
107 (42.8%) |
23 (9.2%) |
13 (5.2%) |
00 (0.0%) |
4.2320±0.8227 |
|
It will provide revenue for the government |
84 (33.6%) |
111 (44.4%) |
41 (16.4%) |
13 (5.2%) |
01 (0.4%) |
4.0560±0.8625 |
|
It can promote other forms of tourism in Ibadan |
98 (39.2%) |
109 (43.6%) |
34 (13.6%) |
07 (2.8%) |
02 (0.8%) |
4.1760±0.8269 |
|
It will alter the indigenous methods of preparation, packaging and presentation |
47 (18.8%) |
85 (34.0%) |
61 (24.4%) |
47 (18.8%) |
10 (4.0%) |
2.5520±1.11547 |
|
It can be made a component of any tour to Ibadan |
85 (34.0%) |
131 (52.4%) |
21 (8.4%) |
13 (5.2%) |
|
4.1520±0.7819 |
|
It can pull many tourists to Ibadan |
109 (43.6%) |
103 (41.2%) |
26 (10.4%) |
10 (4.0%) |
02 (0.8%) |
4.2280±0.8502
|
|
Source: Field Survey 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respondents’ awareness and participation in culinary tourism
Table 3 shows that majority of the tourists (63.2%) have heard and know about culinary tourism, although few (29.6%) had participated in it. Also, very few (24.0%) had visited a destination solely for culinary tourism.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents’ awareness and participation of Culinary Tourism
n = 250
|
Culinary Tourism Knowledge |
Yes |
No |
Mean±SD |
|
Have you ever heard of culinary tourism before now? |
158 (63.2%) |
92 (36.8%) |
1.6320±0.4832 |
|
If yes, have you ever participated in one? |
74 (29.6%) |
176 (70.4%) |
1.2960±0.4571 |
|
Have you ever visited a destination solely for culinary tourism? |
60 (24.0%) |
190 (76.0%) |
1.2400±0.4279 |
|
Source: Field Survey 2021 |
|
|
|
Respondents’ awareness of Lafun and Abula as indigenous food of Ibadan and their opinion on showcasing it for culinary tourism
Table 4 shows that majority of respondents (93.2%) were aware of Lafun and Abula as indigenous Ibadan food. The tourists got to know about the food through friends and families (66.8%), self-experience (57.6%), social media (28.0%), restaurant menu list (27.6%), travel guide book (9.2%), and tour guide (7.6%). Majority (86.8%) agreed that the food is worthy of showcasing for culinary tourism. Majority (65.6%) agreed that people can travel down to Ibadan solely to participate in culinary tourism associated with this food. Also, majority of the tourists either eat LA frequently (36.4%) or occasionally (33.3%) any time they are on tour to Ibadan.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Awareness of Lafun and Abula, and their Frequency of Consumption
n = 250
|
Awareness of Lafun and Abula |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Are tourists aware of the food; Lafun and Abula? |
|
|
|
Yes |
233 |
93.2 |
|
No |
17 |
6.8 |
|
If yes, how did they get to know about it? |
|
|
|
Tourist guide |
19 |
7.6 |
|
Self-experience |
144 |
57.6 |
|
Restaurant’s menu list |
69 |
27.6 |
|
Social media |
70 |
28.0 |
|
Travel guide books |
123 |
9.2 |
|
Friends and families |
167 |
66.8 |
|
Others |
11 |
4.4 |
|
Is LA worthy of showcasing for tourism purposes? |
|
|
|
Yes |
217 |
86.8 |
|
No |
33 |
13.2 |
|
Can tourists travel down to Ibadan purely for CU? |
|
|
|
Yes |
164 |
65.6 |
|
No |
86 |
34.4 |
|
Consumption of LA when on tour to Ibadan? |
|
|
|
Frequently |
91 |
36.4 |
|
Occasionally |
83 |
33.3 |
|
Rarely |
40 |
16.0 |
|
Never |
36 |
14.4 |
|
Source: Field Survey, 2021 |
|
|
Relationship between socio – economic characteristics of respondents and perception of culinary tourism
Table 5 shows the correlation analysis showing the relationship between socio-economic characteristics of respondents and perception of culinary tourism. The table reveals that age (r = 0.205, p= 0.010) and household size (r = 0.142, p= 0.025) had a positive and significant relationship with perception of culinary tourism. This implies that the older the respondents, the better their perception of culinary tourism. The correlation analysis also shows that; the larger the household size of the respondents, the better the perception of culinary tourism.
Table 5: Correlation Analysis Between Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents and Perception of Culinary Tourism.
|
Variables |
Correlation coefficient (r) |
Coefficient of determination (r²) |
P – value |
|
Age |
0.205 |
0.042025 |
0.010 |
|
Level of education |
0.055 |
0.003025 |
0.390 |
|
Household size |
0.142 |
0.020164 |
0.025 |
|
Source: Field Survey, 2021 |
|
|
|
Relationship between socio-economic characteristics of respondents and awareness of Lafun and Abula as indigenous food of Ibadan
Table 6 shows correlation analysis which reveal the relationship between socio-economic characteristics of respondents and awareness of Lafun and Abula as indigenous food of Ibadan. The table reveals that age (r = 0.191, p= 0.002) and participation in social organization (r = 0.163, p= 0.010) had a positive and significant relationship with awareness of Lafun and Abula. This implies that the older tourists have a better awareness of the food than the younger tourists. This analysis also shows that, participation in social organization increases tourists’ awareness of the food.
Table 6: Correlation Analysis Between Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents and Awareness of Lafun and Abula Among Respondents
|
Variables |
Correlation coefficient (r) |
Coefficient of determination (r²) |
P – value |
|
Age |
-0.191 |
0.036481 |
0.002 |
|
Level of education |
0.086 |
0.007396 |
0.177 |
|
Household size |
-0.163 |
0.026569 |
0.010 |
|
Source: Field Survey, 2021 |
|
|
|
Discussion
UNCTAD (2013) reported that with increasing globalization and disposable income, tourism has over the last few decades become one of the largest and fastest growing industries. Findings of this study showed that; younger people, female, single and people without children participated more in tourism. It further showed that; people with higher education and higher income participated more in tourism. These findings are in consonance with those of; Mihaela and Cornel (2013), Richard (2004), Sheng (2008) and Silberberg (1995) who concluded from their various studies that; women worldwide have high involvement in tourism whether it is through being visitors, hosts or employees in the tourism destination sector. They also identified single status, income, fashion, education and convenience as other factors influencing participation in tourism. The tourists involved in this study showed a positive perception of culinary tourism in all ramifications. This is in line with the submission of; Sandra and Ana (2015) who concluded from their study that; tourists exhibit greater interest in gastronomy as a travel motivation in the Spain and Slovenia, where they value aspects related to this activity more positively and the willingness to pay more to try traditional food is high and similar in both cities. However, this study established that culinary tourism could result in; food poisoning and associated health issues, low patronage of other foods, and under patronage of other attractions. This study further established that majority of the tourists were aware of culinary tourism. This implies that CU is popular. According to Portland (2020), the global culinary tourism market generated $1,116.7billion in 2019 and is estimated to reach $1,796.5billion by 2027. This study established a positive and significant relationship between tourists’ age, household size and perception of CU. This implies that the older the tourist, the better the perception of culinary tourism and the larger the household size of the tourist, the better the perception of CU. This study also established a positive and significant relationship between age; participation in social organization and awareness of LA. This implies that the older tourists have a better awareness of the food than the younger tourists and that, participation in social organization increases tourists’ awareness of the food.
Conclusion
The study showed that tourists have a good perception of CU. Culinary tourism is popular among the tourists. Participation in CU is low among the tourists. Few tourists sampled had visited destinations solely for CU. The tourists got to know about LA through family and friend, self-experience, social media, restaurant menu list, travel guide book, and tour guides. The tourists were of the opinion that LA is worthy of showcasing for culinary tourism. While the factors influencing perception of CU include; age and household size, those influencing awareness of CU by tourists include; age and participation in social organization.
Recommendations
Taking the findings of this study into consideration, it is recommended that LA should be packaged and showcased for CU by Oyo State Tourism Board. This could be achieved by coming up with policy that will bring local food vendors, tour operators, and management of destinations together in an attempt to promote this tourism niche. Since majority of the tourists are aware of the food, marketing effort should be focused on stimulating and winning the interest of prospective tourists. However, while promoting the food for CU, efforts should be made not to tamper with the authenticity of the food which may result from an attempt to modernize preparation, packaging, and presentation.
References
Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2016). Interested in Eating and Drinking? How Food Affects Travel Satisfaction and the Overall Holiday Experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 9-26
Bokunewicz, J. F., & Shulman, J. (2017). Influencer Identification in Twitter Networks of Destination Marketing Organizations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(2): 205-219.
K’s Cuisine (2022). How to Make Lafun – White Amala (Cassava Flour Fufu). Retrieved from www.kscuisine.com and accessed on 8/8/2022.
Lee, A. H. J., Wall, G., & Kovacs, J. F. (2015). Creative Food Clusters and Rural Development Through Place Branding: Culinary Tourism Initiatives in Stratford and Muskoka, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 133–144. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.05.001.
Lucy. L. (2013). Culinary Tourism: A Folkloristic Perspective on Eating and Otherness. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net and accessed on 23/7/2022.
Mihaela, S. J. and Cornel, N. J. (2013). Gender Trends in Tourism Destination, Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 92 (2013) 437 444.
Oyelere, K. A. (2021). Tourists’ Perception of Lafun and Abula for Culinary Tourism in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. An Unpublished B.Sc Thesis of the Department of Family, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, Nigeria.
Portland, O. R. (2020). Global Culinary Tourism Market to Reach $1,796.5 Billion by 2027: AMR, GlobeNewswire.
Richards, G. (2004). The Festivalisation of Society: The Case of Catalunya. Tilburg, Netherlands.
Sanda, S. and Ana, M. C. (2015). A Comparative Study of Tourist Attitudes Towards Culinary Tourism in Spain and Slovenia, British Food Journal, Vol. 117(9):2387- 2411. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2015-0008
Sangeeta, B. (2021). The Advent of Culinary Tourism, Its Scope and Challenges. International Journal of Creative Resources Thoughts, 9 (5): 120 – 128.
Sheng, C., Shen, M., & Chen, M. (2008). An Explanatory Study of Types of Special Interest Tour Preferences and Preference Demographic Variables Analysis, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(3), 271-284.
Sidali, K. L., Kastenholz, E., & Bianchi, R. (2013). Food Tourism, Niche Markets and Products in Rural Tourism: Combining the Intimacy Model and the Experience Economy as a Rural Development Strategy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8-9), 1179-1197.
Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 16(5): 361-365
Sotiriadis, M. D. (2015). Culinary Tourism Assets and Events: Suggesting a Strategic Planning Tool. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1214- 1232.
Thomas, S. (2017). How to Make Abula Soup: Step – By – Step Yummy Recipe. Retrieved from https: //jijiblog.com and accessed on 8/8/2022.
UNCTAD (2013). Sustainable Tourism: Contribution to Economic Growth and Sustainable Development, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.