Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: 0250-8281 (Print) 2320-0308 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

Agritourism: structured literature review and

bibliometric analysis

Sourav Rauniyar, Maya Kant Awasthi, Sanjeev Kapoor & Ashok K. Mishra

To cite this article: Sourav Rauniyar, Maya Kant Awasthi, Sanjeev Kapoor & Ashok K. Mishra
(2020): Agritourism: structured literature review and bibliometric analysis, Tourism Recreation
Research, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913

Published online: 24 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913

Agritourism: structured literature review and bibliometric analysis

a
Sourav Rauniyar , Maya Kant Awasthia, Sanjeev Kapoora and Ashok K. Mishra b

a
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Lucknow, India; bArizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper performs a systematic review of the research literature in the field of agritourism. In the Received 6 January 2020
study, using a structured literature review methodology, established as well as emerging research Accepted 6 April 2020
clusters have been identified for epistemological analysis. Such analysis helps in the identification of
KEYWORDS
key research topics, interrelations, and collaboration patterns in the field of agritourism and other Agritourism; farmers; farm
research areas involving similar concepts. Graphical mapping of the agritourism research field is tourism; agriculture;
done using visualization of similarities (VOS). VOS software analyzed bibliographic data of 459 bibliometric analysis
research publications obtained from Web of Science and Scopus databases from a period of
1980–2019. This graphical mapping illustrated the authors’ and countries’ contributions, their
collaboration, and publication pattern over the period. This paper gives insights about majorly
studied research themes and also identified common areas of current research interest and
potential directions for future research.

Introduction
Agritourism is slowly emerging as a distinct form of rec-
reational activity in the basket of options available with
the tourist while selecting tourism destinations (Rozier
Rich et al., 2016). The United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) has estimated that the rural economy is
highly augmented by agritourism. USDA estimated that
there is an increase of 600 million US dollars in agritour-
ism related activities from 2002 to 2012. It took com-
bined receipts of agritourism and recreation services
and estimated that the values from receipts of agritour-
ism and recreation services had grown five times from
2002 to 2007 (USDA: NASS 2009, USDA: NASS 2014).
This confirms the role and contribution of agritourism
in overall tourism recreational activities. Revenue from
agritourism in India is growing at an annual growth
rate of 20% (Business Economics, 2019). Whereas, in
China, revenue generation from agritourism activities is
reported to be 400 billion RMB grossing from an
average of 300 million tourists per year. The output of
Israeli agritourism has seen an annual growth rate of
about 15% (Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Devel-
opment, 2014).
A close look at agritourism research literature
suggests that there is divergence among researchers at
the conceptual level (Barbieri, 2019). In a few cases, agri-
tourism and agro-tourism have been even interchange-
ably used as farm tourism and rural tourism (Fleischer
& Tchetchik, 2005; Yang et al., 2010). The concept of
agritourism is, therefore, classified by the researchers
under different agritourism product categories. These
researchers have used the degree of involvement of
tourists in agriculture-related activities performed
during tourism service product generation and con-
sumption as the basis for such categorization of agritour-
ism products (Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008; Nilsson, 2002;
Phillip et al., 2010).
Although the research area of agritourism is getting
more diversified, it is still inconclusive of the potential
economic and social benefits of agritourism (Tew & Bar-
bieri, 2012). Researchers advocate that the economic and
non-economic agendas which are supposed to be
addressed by agritourism are not clear because of
limited consolidation of research work (Barbieri, 2009;
McGehee & Kim, 2004; Ollenburg & Buckley, 2007).
Future agritourism research needs to identify themes in
which researchers could contribute viz. gender issues,
rural-urban migration issues, unemployment, use of
technology, and heritage preservation (Barbieri et al.,
2019). It is also observed that we do not have any sys-
tematic structured bibliometric and network analysis of
agritourism literature in the body of agritourism litera-
ture (Santeramo & Barbieri, 2017). Review of agritourism
literature further suggests that though in last few years,
the volume of research literature and number of
researchers working in the field of agritourism research
are growing continuously (Rozier Rich et al., 2016), still
it is relatively small when compared with other research

CONTACT Sourav Rauniyar sourav.rauniyar@iiml.ac.in

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.
domains (Choo, 2012; Santeramo & Barbieri, 2017). There
is little research documenting the role of agritourism
(Chikuta & Makacha, 2016; Sullins et al., 2010). The lack
of unanimity in terms of outcomes of agritourism
necessitates the need for a systematic literature review
of the agritourism research (Rozier Rich et al., 2016).
Against this backdrop, the paper attempts to present
a systematic review of agritourism literature. The paper
uses the bibliometric analytical tool to identify estab-
lished and emergent research clusters for the typological
analysis. Such analysis enabled the identification of key
research themes, interrelations, and collaboration pat-
terns in the field of agritourism (Fahimnia et al., 2015).
The systematic mapping of the agritourism research
field in the paper graphically illustrates the evolution of
research publications over the period and identify
areas of current research interests. Identification of
major issues, themes, challenges and potential areas of
agritourism will help agritourism marketers, destination
managers, policymakers, and other significant stake-
holders to design strategies to develop and strengthen
the status of all the partners involved in an agritourism
value chain.
Literature on agritourism concept
It is observed that in the developed countries, concep-
tual work in the field of agritourism started as early as
the 1980s but in south Asian countries, which have
mostly agrarian economies, such concept is not explored
much (Bowen et al., 1991; Cawley & Gillmor, 1995;
Chikuta & Makacha, 2016; Davies & Gilbert, 1992; Frater,
1983; Hjalager, 1996; Nickerson et al., 2001; Pizam &
Pokela, 1980). Flanigan et al. (2015) observed that there
is a lack of consensus regarding the abstraction, scope,
and theorization of agritourism. This absence of a
common ground has constrained the creation of
effective policies to support agritourism (Addinsall
et al., 2017; Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). A review of con-
ceptual research work on agritourism typology suggests
that different types of agritourism have been conceptu-
alized by the researchers based on particular attributes
of agritourism (Phillip et al., 2010). Depending on the
epistemological framework used, different authors have
defined agritourism through different, though related
perspectives. Some researchers conceptualized agritour-
ism as any practice developed on a working farm to
attract visitors (Barbieri & Mshenga, 2008). Whereas,
other researchers viewed agritourism as a specific type
of rural tourism activity in which the hosting house
must be integrated into an agricultural estate which is
inhabited by the proprietor. In such a process, visitors
are allowed to take part in farming or complementary
activities on the property (Marques, 2006). Agritourism
is also conceptualized by the researchers as a rural enter-
prise that incorporates both - a working farm environ-
ment and a commercial tourism component (McGehee
et al., 2007). Few researchers viewed agritourism pro-
ducts as tourism products that are directly connected
with the agrarian environment, agrarian products or
agrarian stays (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997).
Sonnino (2004) has conceptualized agritourism as
activities related to hospitality, performed by the agricul-
tural entrepreneurs and their family members where
these activities remain connected and complementary
to farming activities (as cited in Phillip et al., 2010). A
review of research literature suggests that researchers
treated agritourism activities as tourism activities under-
taken in non-urban regions by the individuals, whose prin-
cipal employment is in the primary or secondary sector of
the economy (Iakovidou, 1997). Agritourism has also been
perceived as tourist activities of small-scale, family or co-
operative in origin, being developed in rural areas by
people employed in agriculture (Kizos & Iosifides, 2007)
and provision of touristic opportunities on working
farms (Wall, 2000). These divergent conceptualizations of
the agritourism domain suggest that agritourism is
broadly conceptualized as an amalgamation of agricul-
tural resources, activities, and traditions with fun and edu-
cational purposes, which is served as a tourism product
and ultimately augment farmers’ income. Such dissimilar
theorization of agritourism by the researchers makes a
systematic literature review of agritourism remarkably
necessary and also conceptually challenging task.
Authors have argued that mass tourism and resort
based modern tourism does not contribute to local com-
munity development, hence there is a need for agritour-
ism (Naidoo & Sharpley, 2016). Agritourism is said to
minimize the negative effects of tourism and serves
dual purpose of enhancing the well-being of the finan-
cially distressed rural community and contributing to
sustainable tourism development (Sharpley, 2009; Su
et al., 2019). Now that the tourists want to spend less
time in their journey, agritourism has now become a
major form of tourism, where a majority of tourists are
from nearby cities and spend one or two days on
vacation (Christou & Sharpley, 2019; Bai et al., 2019).
Literature on economic contribution of
agritourism
Researchers have observed that farmers increasingly use
agritourism for augmenting and diversifying their family
income (Tew & Barbieri, 2012). This income augmenta-
tion strategy is more prevalent among farmers who are
facing an agrarian crisis and rural distress (Barbieri &

Mahoney, 2009; Nickerson et al., 2001). Income augmen-
tation strategies like agritourism are more prominent
among small farmers who mostly live in peri-urban
areas, and are under great pressure of advanced urban-
ization (Gomes et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018). The
benefits of farmers and suppliers from agritourism is
now well established in a range of international contexts
(Nematpour & Khodadadi, 2020). They found that among
other factors, the pursuit of self-values and income
growth are the most important factors for farmers to
engage in agritourism. Agritourism also contributes to
agricultural sustainability, which is now of significant
concern across national boundaries (Lupi et al., 2017).
Developing agritourism reflects farmers’ desire to
educate and motivate young tourists about agriculture
(Petroman et al., 2016). Agritourism has been highly suc-
cessful in a few western countries such as the United
Kingdom, France, and the USA. Western farmers also
get an additional income by witnessing cross-marketing
(e.g. branding and promotion) and sales of farm products
from tourists. Researchers have found that every third
farm in the United Kingdom is involved in agritourism
activities. This ratio is even higher in countries like
France and Italy (Bernardo et al., 2004).
Researchers identified that educational utility, cross-
marketing utility, and strengthening agritourism epis-
temology are some prospective benefits of agritourism,
which are still unmeasured (Barbieri et al., 2019). The
positioning of agritourism is a very important factor for
its success (Fleischer et al., 2018). Researchers have ident-
ified a need for expansion of epistemological and meth-
odological advancement of agritourism research
(Broccardo et al., 2017). Agritourism, in general, has a
positive impact on the economy, but few researchers
also reported adverse effects of agritourism. They
found out that agritourism may also lead to a decrease
in agricultural output due to disturbances in the ecologi-
cal process caused by tourist intrusion. A decrease in
agricultural labour and seasonality in farm income are
some other negative outcomes of agritourism activities
(Jamshidi et al., 2017; Tchetchik et al., 2006).
Methodology
For analyzing research work related to agritourism, we
have adopted Rowley and Slack (2004) methods of sys-
tematic literature review (SLR). SLR methodology is a
structured methodology for scanning knowledge
resources and designing the mind map to perform a
structured analysis of literature, its descriptions, and
building the bibliography. Another advantage of SLR
methodology is that it allows differentiation of the
process and impact of systematic review from other
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 3
traditional or conventional literature review methods
(Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). This method is a five-
step methodology involving data collection evaluation
of data, searching and locating information sources,
developing a conceptual framework, and collating
research and summarizing. The method is contextualized
for the prospect of this research (Figure 1). This method-
ology is essential for identifying the most influential
studies, determine the topical areas of research, and
provide insights for current research interests and direc-
tions for future research in the field of agritourism
research. To study the influence and productivity of
authors, and countries’ contribution and collaboration,
analyses are presented in the bibliometric study part of
the paper (Park et al., 2011). Visualization of similarities
(VOS) viewer software, developed by Van Eck and
Waltman (2010), was used to establish the bibliographic
overview with the help of co-citation & co-occurrence
analyses, bibliographic coupling, and maps (Cobo et al.,
2011; Merigó et al., 2016).
Study parameters
In the study, quantitative research output measuring
techniques have been used to quantify and analyze the
research output of studies done in the themes of ‘agri-
tourism,’ agrotourism,’ farm tourism,’ and ‘rural
tourism’. Keeping in mind that these are the various
nomenclatures given by authors for a similar concept
(Yang et al., 2010), all of them are studied to make the
study more comprehensive. The parameters that have
been used in the study are mentioned in Table 1. A
similar set of parameters viz. authors, journals, citation
patterns have been used to study the structure of
different research themes used by different researchers
(Bornmann & Mutz, 2015; De Bakker et al., 2005; Fahimnia
et al., 2015; Hall, 2011; Merigó et al., 2015; Rey-Martí et al.,
2016). The parameters can be pre-specified in the menu
selection of the VOS viewer software. The flow and struc-
ture of steps involved in the SLR methodology of Rowley
and Slack (2004) contextualized for our research are
given in Figure 1.
Data Extraction
The research data for the study included variables like
keywords, authors, journals, citations, country, the collab-
oration between authors, year of publication, number of
research articles published per year, and the theme of
research. The data on these variables were extracted
from two databases, i.e. Web of Science (WoS) and
Scopus, as these databases curate most of the research
literature created in the field of agritourism and
4 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.

Figure 1. Steps involved in SLR methodology of Rowley and Slack (2004).

Table 1. Study parameters. literature corpus to date. Out of these 459 research pub-
S. No. Parameter Type Description lications, single-authored documents constitute about
1 Publications articles, number of publications and 10%, while the remaining 90% of the articles were
proceedings, their types multi-authored, indicating the popularity of collaborative
reviews
2 Contribution h-index of Dominance of the author in nature of research among authors in the field of
authors the field agritourism.
3 Authors count number number of authors in
individual papers
4 Authors per average number average number of authors
article per article Research protocol development
5 Cited reference the number Number of times the paper
counts has been cited For reviewing a research work, we developed a protocol
6 References per average number average number of
article references per article to document the analysis method and research publi-
7 Most relevant name journals in which the highest cation inclusion criteria. In this review research, Web of
journal number of researches of
this theme are published Science and Scopus databases have been used to
search for research articles, review articles, and proceed-
ings papers containing at least one of the terms: ‘agri-
management science in general (Aksnes & Sivertsen, tourism’, ‘agrotourism’, ‘farm tourism’, or ‘rural tourism’
2019). These databases include scientific journals, in their titles, abstracts, and/or keywords from 1980 till
books, and conference proceedings. WoS and Scopus June 2019. Web of Science gave a total of 369 results,
are both online bibliographic and citation indexing ser- while Scopus gave 240 results. After removing the dupli-
vices maintained and published by the Institute for cates, we achieved a total count of 459 research works
Scientific Information and Elsevier, respectively. At related to agribusiness. The initial search result from
present, WoS is maintained by Clarivate Analytics. the period of 1980–2019 is given in Table 2. This timeline
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of is selected, keeping in mind that the concept was oper-
peer-reviewed literature including those published by ationalized during the 1980s (Davies & Gilbert, 1992;
Elsevier, Emerald, Taylor and Francis, Springer, Informs, Nickerson et al., 2001; Pizam & Pokela, 1980).
and Interscience. This study is based on the agritourism
research work available on these databases.
Table 2. Initial search results for the period 1980–2019.
Main Information about data Search Result (Number)
Documents 459
Data statistics of the study Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 214
Keywords Plus (ID) 499
Screening of available research work literature reveals Author’s Keywords (DE) 1254
that in the field of agritourism research, altogether, 995 Average citations per documents 8.538
authors contributed 459 research publications to the

Identification of important keywords
The word cloud analysis has been used on the available
corpus of agritourism literature to identify the major key-
words that are used most frequently in the field of agri-
tourism research. In our literature corpus, important
keywords were identified based on the frequency of
occurrence of most discussed and researched keywords
(Figure 2).
A systematic analytical method was adopted to
search, review the related literature, and to identify the
keywords related to the theme of agritourism, agrotour-
ism, rural tourism, and farm tourism. Firstly, ‘agritourism’
‘or’ ‘agrotourism’ ‘or’ ‘farm tourism’ ‘or’ ‘rural tourism’ was
used to search the database to look for the use of at least
one of these terms in either of title, abstract, author key-
words, and keywords plus of all the journals available in
the database of Web of Science and Scopus. Then word
cloud analysis was performed using the title, abstract,
keywords of all these papers. The choice of word cloud
analysis helps in identifying the primary keywords used
in the literature associated with agritourism. Then all
defined keywords have been used to search the data-
bases in the context of agritourism, agrotourism, farm
tourism, or rural tourism. The keywords identified by
this process are then arranged based on their relevance.
These papers were then reviewed individually to obtain
information on the research theme, explore the research
question addressed, methodology, key findings, and
future works.
Figure 2. Word-cloud analysis of agritourism research literature.
Note: In above word cloud analysis, ‘tourism’ appears larger than ‘farm tourism’ and ‘rural tourism’ because ‘tourism’ is a common word in these terms, so the
program used to plot the word cloud considers ‘tourism’ multiple times than it actually occurs uniquely.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 5
Identification of key research themes in
agritourism research.
To identify major research themes in the body of litera-
ture, a comprehensive framework that augments the
dynamics of both demand and supply of agritourism
organizations was found most effective by the researchers
(Brandano et al., 2018). Such a framework is further advan-
tageous because it helps in identifying the reasons and
the justifications about the externalities that lead to the
choice of an organization over others (Wong et al.,
2017). Nine major research themes are identified, which
are highly researched in agritourism and allied research
contexts. Their percentage contribution to the agritourism
research gamete is presented in Figure 3.
Bibliometric analysis
For visually analyzing the data structures, co-citation
mapping techniques have been found very useful
(Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Futing, 2004). In this method,
there exists a set of nodes and edges when a co-citation
map of papers is plotted. This co-citation map then
becomes the visual representation of the list of articles
in the reference list. The nodes of the map represent the
journal articles and the edges of this map represent the
co-occurrence of these nodes (Leydesdorff & Rafols,
2011). The frequency of co-citation means how frequently
two papers are cited together by a third paper. Those
papers which have a similar subject area are cited together
6 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.

Figure 3. Representation of major themes identified.

by other articles more often and hence their co-citation can be arranged in the following order. Agritourism,
frequency will increase (Hjørland, 2013). Such analyses rural tourism, agrotourism, farm tourism, tourism, rural
have methodological superiority over the traditional development, sustainable development, rural areas, agri-
method of literature review (De Bakker et al., 2005). culture, and entrepreneurship. Analysis of the text indi-
cates that ‘rural tourism’, ‘agrotourism’ and ‘farm
tourism’ are more popular than the word ‘tourism’
Result and discussion
(Figure 2).
Keywords used in agritourism research
A word cloud (Figure 2) is a visual representation of text Conceptual research analysis
data, where the size of a particular word can visualize the
Review of agritourism literature suggests that agritour-
frequency and their assigned importance by the
ism has covered a large number of inter-related research
researchers. Larger the size of a word in the word
themes, and researchers have taken a broad and diver-
cloud, more is the number of times that word is used
gent view of the agritourism concept. Conceptual analy-
in the corpus. The result of word cloud analysis reveals
sis of research work on agritourism shows that 54% of
that among farm-related tourism terms, ‘agritourism’ is
total research work treats the research domain as agri-
the most frequently used term by the researchers.
tourism, while 39% identifies it with rural tourism, and
Descriptive keyword analysis has been undertaken for
the remaining 7% give it a tag of farm tourism.
binary words like ‘sustainable development’ and ‘rural
development’ by treating these binary words as one
word. Top 10 most frequent keywords have been ident- Identification of major research themes
ified based on their frequency of occurrence in the litera-
ture (Table 3). The word cloud analysis suggests that in For this study, existing knowledge literature on agritour-
order of frequency of use, agritourism related keywords ism was differentiated and divided into different clusters
for a structured literature review. This structured litera-
ture review analysis suggests that agritourism literature
Table 3. Top ten keywords.
Author Keywords Number of articles
can be primarily clubbed into nine major research
Agritourism 178
themes. The themes identified are ‘policy implication/
Rural Tourism 81 strategic changes’, pricing’, motivations/determinants
Agrotourism 54 for engaging in agritourism’, ‘diversification strategies’,
Farm tourism 45
Tourism 31 ‘challenges and opportunities’, ‘use of information and
Rural Development 28 communication technology’, ‘sustainable development’,
Sustainable Development 18
Rural Areas 14 ‘typology’, and ‘gender role’.
Agriculture 13 The findings of the study indicate that the identifi-
Entrepreneurship 13
cation of factors that create tourists’ perception of

agritourism destination is one of the essential research
themes explored by the researchers (Pesonen et al.,
2015). Identification of crucial elements for perception
creation has been another critical research theme on
which researchers have worked. Traditional and
genuine food, culture, environmental externalities, and
authenticity emerged as the most essential elements of
perception creation (Brandano et al., 2018). On the
demand side, identification of determinants that
influence the likelihood of choosing one type of firm
over the other for agritourism has been another critical
research theme that attracted the attention of research-
ers (Hung et al., 2016a). Researchers also found that the
impact assessment of agritourism activities has been an
important research theme that is explored by agritourism
scholars. Researchers observed that demographic charac-
teristics except gender have a statistically significant
effect on income diversification decision of farmers
(Lipton, 1980). Among other traits, education exhibits
the highest positive impact on the decision to diversify
sources of income by the farmers (Amanor-Boadu, 2013).
A review of studies indicates that the maximum focus
of agritourism researchers has been on policy research
in the field of agritourism sector (Flanigan et al., 2015; Gal-
luzzo, 2017; Lupi et al., 2017). Preference for policy-related
research topics can be attributed to the preference of
important journals on the policy analysis related to agri-
tourism and its externalities like farmers’ distress,
migration-related policies, and increasing environmental
concern. It is observed that these policies have a trickle-
down effect on the farmers pursuing agritourism and
similar practices (Giaccio et al., 2018). Motivation to
augment farmers’ income from agritourism emerged as
the second most important research theme. Like any
other business activity, agritourism also requires seed
capital investment for building skills, organizing resources,
and doing promotion, but a majority of farmers in devel-
oping countries are vulnerable and financially weak
(Lybbert & Sumner, 2012). Hence it becomes challenging
for them to invest in a new income generation activity
like agritourism. As a natural consequence, researchers
observed that in agritourism, capital inadequacy is a
serious issue (Yang, 2012). Research related to agritourism
pricing policies and the use of agritourism as an income
diversification technique has emerged as the next most
crucial research themes (Palkechová & Kozáková, 2015;
Veeck et al., 2006; Viglia & Abrate, 2017). A review of the
research literature of agritourism suggests that the use
of technology, its typology, and gender diversification in
the field of agritourism have not been studied much by
the researchers (Figure 3).
The study of linkages between agritourism and heri-
tage preservation has been another important research
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 7
theme explored by the researchers. Researchers
observed that farmers are failing to realize the potential
of agritourism and heritage preservation fully (LaPan &
Barbieri, 2014). Review of agritourism literature suggests
that farmlands, farmers, and agritourism attributes are
significantly associated with the motivation driving heri-
tage preservation. Researchers infer that the quality of
interactions between agritourism operators could be an
important factor for business survival (Srisomyong &
Meyer, 2015). Study of the type of tourists who prefer
agritourism over other conventional forms of tourism
and what brings them on-site has been another
popular research theme (Che et al., 2005). It has been
observed that inconsistency in branding diminishes mar-
keting effectiveness and hinders stakeholders’ collabor-
ation in agritourism (Barbieri et al., 2016). Need and
priority analysis of agritourism have also been a
popular research theme among researchers. A spectrum
of agritourists’ needs has been studied in several studies
(McGehee, 2007; Rozier Rich et al., 2016; Srikatanyoo &
Campiranon, 2010; Sznajder et al., 2009). Comparative
analysis of the research work of emerging economies
with those of developed markets reveals that the priori-
ties of agritourists of these two markets have some com-
parability (Varmazyari et al., 2018). In both the markets,
destination choice of tourists is influenced by consider-
ation of being with the family, viewing natural scenery,
and enjoying the smells and sounds of nature (Soto-
mayor et al., 2014).
Researchers observed that agritourism growth poten-
tial is very high but due to knowledge and innovation
gaps, we are unable to realize it (Hjalager et al., 2018).
As a natural consequence, innovation gap analysis in
the field of agritourism attracted the attention of a few
researchers. Researchers identified the ‘portfolio gap’,
‘change motivation gap’, ‘policy departmentalization
gap’, ‘resource interpretation gap’ and ‘knowledge gap’
as an innovation gap in agritourism (Hjalager et al.,
2018). Locating the optimum scale of operation and
efficient allocation of agricultural and non-agricultural
resources has also attracted the attention of researchers.
The findings of the studies suggest that in the agritour-
ism and recreation sector, technical factors are more criti-
cal in comparison to other sectors (Arru et al., 2019). The
motivation for agritourism has been another popular
research theme studied. The studies related to character-
istics of farmers who adopt agritourism reveal that
younger, risk-seeking farmers with secured farm succes-
sion and less productive soils are more inclined towards
farm income diversification through agritourism
(Meraner et al., 2018). Their proximity to urban areas
positively influences these farmers. These agritourism
practicing farmers prefer specialization on high-value
8 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.

crops and effective uses of extension consultancy ser- Bibliometric analysis

vices (Khanal & Mishra, 2014; Meraner et al., 2018; Santer-
Publication trend analysis
amo & Morelli, 2016). Analysis of pricing strategies
Agritourism is a relatively new research area. Extensive
adopted in the agritourism sector reveals that the
knowledge output in the form of research publications
pricing model adopted by the agritourism producer is
started appearing in the early 1990s (Busby & Rendle,
based on three factors, viz. internal attribute, external
2000). The publication trend analysis of agritourism
attribute & reputation of the site (Viglia & Abrate,
research literature indicates that the domain of agritour-
2017). Researchers also found that the success of agri-
ism is still in its rapid growth and expansion period
tourism is positively dependent on the quantity and
(Figure 4). Park et al., 2011 highlight that the number
quality of human resources available in farm families
of research articles published in quality journals in a
and the size of the farms (Hung et al., 2016b).
theme can be considered as a proxy to measure the
The determinants of the international demand for
development of a research theme and identify the
rural tourism have been identified in a few research
authors, countries, and institutions which can be
studies. These studies examined the differences in subsi-
regarded as the leader in the research domain. Agritour-
dies, policy interventions and marketing campaigns
ism research literature shows a geometric growth
adopted by the agritourism entrepreneurs across
pattern. Study findings revealed that the domain of agri-
countries (Santeramo, 2015). Many researchers focussed
tourism research literature is showing a healthy 17%
on the advantages and disadvantages, opportunities,
annual growth rate. The publication trend analyses also
and challenges of agritourism (Colton & Bissix, 2005; Di
indicate that altogether 214 journals have contributed
Gregorio, 2017; Kordel, 2016; Mpiti et al., 2016; Naidoo
to the publication of 459 articles and proceedings,
& Pearce, 2018; Wang et al., 2016). Finally, gender issues
which suggest the spread of agritourism research litera-
have also been studied in few agritourism studies.
ture across a large number of journals. Agritourism is a
These studies explored how women use farm tourism
multidimensional topic. As a result, it attracts the atten-
activity as an instrument of empowerment. The findings
tion of researchers from diverse research fields like
of these studies suggest that in any agrarian society,
tourism, agriculture, policy, marketing, development,
the persistence of a patriarchal ideology can complicate
sustainability, gender, rural and countryside, etc.
the process of women empowerment (Annes & Wright,
2015; Pattnaik et al., 2018; Tacoli & Mabala, 2010). To com-
prehend the evolution of literature, trend, and other Authors’ description
related issues, the study classified different cogent cat- The analysis of the authors’ description indicates that the
egories of agritourism research themes using parameters majority of agritourism research work is collaborative,
of the year of publication, the methodology used, key where more than one author is involved in the execution
journals, sample years, country-wise distribution, sub- of research work. It is observed that only one-tenth of the
areas being studied, variables applied and the nature of total documents are single-authored. Total of 995 authors
the economy and financial market. featured in the corpus of research work in agritourism,

Figure 4. The publishing trend in the area of agritourism.

 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 9

agrotourism, farm tourism, and rural tourism. Out of Table 5. Top manuscripts as per citations.
them, 896 are authors of multi-authored documents. Total TC
Citation per
The predominance of collaborative research makes the Paper by Journal (TC) year
research of this domain rich in terms of content, cover- Sharpley R, 2002 Tourism Management 215 12.65
age, and quality of publications. Even though the pool Sharpley & Vass, 2006 Tourism Management 150 11.54
Busby & Rendle, 2000 Tourism Management 134 7.05
of researchers working in agritourism research remained
Canoves et al., 2004 Geo Forum 126 8.4
low (Total 995). Research quality indices (Thomson Philip et al., 2010 Tourism Management 125 13.89
Reuters and ABDC quality ranking lists) have been used Fleischer & Tchetchik, 2005 Tourism Management 116 8.29
Brandth & Haugen, 2011 Journal of Rural Studies 95 11.88
for quality categorization of journals. Because of a rela- Nilsson PA, 2002 Annals of Tourism Research 92 5.41
tively new and niche nature of agritourism as a research Tew C & Barbieri, C., 2012 Tourism Management 90 12.86
Lordkipanidze et al., 2005 Journal of Cleaner Production 90 6.43
domain, a minimal number of researchers (total 995) are
involved in this domain of research.
influential as it received a higher number of citations
Author dominance analysis per article (Table 6). The analysis also suggests that
In the study, the function dominance analysis has been althoe boldness of the line joining two bubbles shows
used to calculate the author’s dominance ranking as pro- the inter-country collaboration. A visual inspection of
posed by Kumar and Kumar (2018). Bibliometric function Figure 5 shows more collaboration in countries like
dominance analysis suggests that Choo (2012) and USA-Australia, UK-Thailand and so on. The highest con-
Otepka et al. (2009) have a dominance factor of 1 as in tributor countries also have the highest single country
all their research publications, they appear as the first publications and multi-country publications. It is also
author (Table 4). observed that in agritourism research in general, there
Barbieri is found to be the highest contributor with is significant interlinkages and collaboration across
the highest number of research publications in the countries (Figure 5).
domain of agritourism (Table 4). Co-authorship (Figure Analysis of publication data of agritourism research
8) and co-citation network (Figure 6) suggest that most reveals that dissemination of agritourism research is
top contributors also have denser co-authors in their concentrated only in few high-ranking reputed research
network and get the highest citations. journals. The study suggests that the top ten journals
together published 27% of all existing agritourism litera-
Country contribution ture. Research articles constitute the majority of the
Analysis of literature indicates that the USA, UK, and research publications, while conference proceedings
Norway are some of the highest contributing countries and review articles in agritourism contribute only 4
in agritourism literature as the highest number of percent of total research literature published. Frequent
research articles originate from these countries. There publication of agritourism research articles in reputed
is a positive externality of early realization of the poten- international journals like ‘tourism management’ indi-
tial of agritourism, which leads to increased consultancy cates that research undertaken in the field of agritour-
demand opportunities of agritourism from industry and ism is of high quality, novelty and relevant. The
availability of research funds. These may be the factors quality of the journal has been ascertained by using par-
responsible for the dominance of these countries in the ameters like the impact factor of the journal and Austra-
area of agritourism research. The analysis also suggests lian Business Deans Council’s quality ranking of journals.
that although the USA and UK seem to have a clear dom- Mostly reputed international journals feature in the list
inance, among them research done in the UK is more of journals that publish agritourism researches most

Table 4: Author dominance.

Dominance Total Single- Multi- First- Table 6. Total Citations per Country.
Author Factor Articles Authored Authored Authored S. N. Country Total Citations Average Article Citations
Choo H 1 5 0 5 5 1 USA 1108 14.579
Otepka P 1 5 0 5 5 2 United Kingdom 818 54.533
Brandth B 0.83 6 0 6 5 3 Norway 227 22.700
Cretu Rc 0.71 8 1 7 5 4 Italy 198 4.500
Ohe Y 0.67 6 3 3 2 5 Spain 197 11.588
Giaccio V 0.4 5 0 5 2 6 Israel 129 43.000
Barbieri C 0.29 16 2 14 4 7 Poland 118 3.026
Sharpley R 0.25 5 1 4 1 8 Sweden 111 27.750
Kizos T 0.2 6 1 5 1 9 Denmark 92 92.000
Mastronardi L 0.2 5 0 5 1 10 Greece 90 7.500
10 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.

Turk oland Russia Japan

key Pola
ola United
Un
nited kingdom
Korea Austria
A
Argentina
a Singapore
Colombia
a Peru
South afric
icca
a Iran
Cuba
a Portugal
Thailand
nd
d Taiwan
Bahamas Usa
Germany
erm
many
any Ita
al
aaly

Czech republic
p F
France

Cana
C nada
na a Brazil

Crooatia
oa a Rom
mania
m

New
w ze
zea
aland
aala nd
d Greece

Switzer
ittzzzer
zerla
erla
aand China

Isr
srrrael
ra Sp
Spain

Monteneg
ten
e eg
gro Ukraine

Australia
Au
ust
us
ustttr
trara
aalia
ia
a Kenya

Denm
De
en
enm
nm
mar
arrrk
k Afghanistan
fg

Netherlands
eth
t r Lithuania

Sllovakia
S Finland

Mauritius
Mau Honduras
Malaysia Estonia
Ecuador
d Chile
Bulgaria
u
ul
ulga Indonesia
Belgium
m Kazakhstan
Ireland
ela
l Nicaragua
S
Serbia Slovenia
M
Mexico Ghana
Jamaica Norway
N yMacedonia India Sweden

Figure 5. Most productive countries.

frequently (Table 7). This shows that highly reputed Table 7. Top 10 publishing journals contributing to the area of
journals are publishing these topics, despite the rigour agritourism.
in publication. Number of articles
Journal published
Scientific Papers Series MEEARDa 34
Co-citation analysis of authors Sustainability 19
In the study, co-citation network analysis has been used Tourism Management 17
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11
to study the frequency of cases when two (or more) European Countryside 10
sources have been cited in the third paper, which has Economics and Environment 8
Current Issues in Tourism 7
a similar timeline of publication. The size of the bubble Pasos-Revista De Turismo Y Patrimonio 7
of a node indicates the volume of research work on agri- Cultural
Economics of Agriculture 6
tourism published by that author. Relative distance in Journal of Central European Agriculture 6
the map is an indication of the frequency that a third a
Faculty of Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural
common paper has cited these two authors (or journals), Development.
so two closely situated authors (or periodicals) have
been co-cited more often. Two different colours (here, the bubble more is the repetition of that keyword in
red and blue) are the significance of the presence of the literature. Figure 7 shows the result of the co-occur-
two clusters. For eg. Philip et al., 2010 and Barbieri, rence of keywords. Close look of the co-occurrence map
2013 are more frequently cited together; McGehee and suggests that agritourism, rural tourism, tourism, diver-
Kim, 2004 and Arroyo et al., 2013 are co-cited more sification, management, rural areas, typology, Michigan,
often (Figure 6). England, authenticity, ecotourism are some of the key-
words of agritourism literature which have been used
Co-occurrence of keywords most frequently.
Analysis of co-occurrence of keywords used in agritour- The distance between the two terms is an indication
ism literature shows how frequently these words have of how commonly they have been used together in a
been used together as keywords and indicates how journal article. It can be observed that closely situated
often they co-occur in the literature. Larger the size of terms have been used more regularly in a higher
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 11

Hjalager am
m 1996

Oppermann
permaaann
nn m 19
1996 Sznajder
Sz
S zn
najder m.
najder m 2009−1

Wea
eeaav

pio
io
o ce 2008

K zo
Kizos
Kizo
oss t 2007
o

Figure 6. Co-citation network.

Figure 7. Co-occurrence of keywords along with ‘Agritourism’.

12 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.
Figure 8. Co-authorship network.
number of research articles than those two words which
are located relatively farther in the map. The study
findings also indicate that biodiversity and agroecology
words are placed side by side, suggesting that they are
more frequently used in research papers. On the other
hand, biodiversity and service quality are located at a
relatively greater distance in the map, which suggests
that these words have appeared in a research paper
less frequently. The appearance of the word Michigan
Figure 9. Timeline view of Bibliographic Coupling with Sources.
and England is suggestive of the frequency of location
of agritourism research.
Co-authorship analysis
To analyze the extent of collaborative research in the
field of agritourism, co-authorship network analysis is
done. Co-authorship network map (Figure 8) indicates
how frequently two or more authors have done colla-
borative research in agritourism. The authors who are

placed together have co-authored research papers more
frequently than the authors who are placed relatively
farther. On the map, authors who are connected with
the same coloured lines have co-authored in a multi-
author paper. Analysis of co-authorship reveals that in
the field of agritourism, Arroyo C. G., Flanigan S., and Bar-
bieri C. seem to have worked together most frequently.
Analysis of the timeline view of research articles
shows the spatial pattern of publication of agritourism
research in relevant journals. A close look at the time-
line view map of agritourism research (Figure 9) indi-
cates that the colour range of published journals is
in a continuum from blue (2010) to yellow (2018).
The journals which published agritourism articles in
mid-years are colour-coded in shades of green. It is
observed that around the year 2010, agritourism
research articles were more published in journals
which are represented by the yellow nodes viz.
Journal of Agriculture and Research and Sociology
Ruralis. Whereas, in later years, more agritourism
research work got published in journals like Sustain-
ability, represented in the timeline map by a bluish
node.
Conclusions
The paper attempted to present a structured review of
Agritourism literature. Review of agritourism literature
suggests that though in the last few years, volumes of
research literature and the number of researchers
working in the field of agritourism research is growing
continuously and getting diversified, still it is relatively
small when compared with other management research
domains. The publication trend shows a geometric incre-
ment in the research progression of this area. This paper
developed a five-step protocol for systematic literature
review of agritourism (and allied concepts viz., agrotour-
ism, farm tourism and rural tourism) (Fleischer &
Tchetchik, 2005; Yang et al., 2010), based on Rowley
and Slack (2004) method of systematic literature
review. We presented a systematic structured biblio-
metric and network analysis in the body of agritourism
literature to fulfil the gap of unavailability of any such
research which would analytically and objectively deter-
mine the prominent research clusters in the domain of
agritourism.
Important keywords were identified, which shows the
relative frequency of their use and hence most
researched areas under the theme of agritourism. Poten-
tial knowledge frontiers and research gaps related to
agritourism have been identified through an iterative
cycle of defining search keywords. Noteworthy contri-
butions are highlighted and aggregated in the ‘research
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 13
theme’ section of the paper. This paper identified influ-
ential research works and authors, their co-citation, dom-
inance, and collaboration. Emergent research clusters in
the field of agritourism literature were identified by the
thorough manual study of all the research work available
in the domain. Policy implications are found to be the
region that is most researched in the context of agritour-
ism. The study discussed the factors which influence the
decision choice of tourism destination, perception cre-
ation and its externality (Brandano et al., 2018; Che
et al., 2005; Sotomayor et al., 2014). It further covers
the importance of farmers’ characteristics and reasons,
which prompt them to augment their income via such
on-farm practices (Amanor-Boadu, 2013; Meraner et al.,
2018). The importance of technical factors in the recrea-
tion industry and agritourism in particular (Arru et al.,
2019) has also been discussed. The study further high-
lights the innovation gap, marketing, and pricing tech-
niques (Hjalager et al., 2018; Viglia & Abrate, 2017). The
findings of the study suggest that there is a relatively
higher concentration of the influential agritourism
research work among a small number of scholars.
The majority of the research work in agritourism is
originating from the USA, UK, and Netherlands.
Whereas, research originating from Asian and African
countries which still have agrarian economies is not
much. The USA seems to have the highest number of
citations, the highest number of single country and
multi-country publications. Research work originating
from the USA is collaborative and referred the most.
The UK seems to be the most influential country as it
received the highest number of citations per article.
Review of the performance of research of top individual
researchers suggests that Barbieri C. is the most cited
author in the field of agritourism but has a low domi-
nance score due to low scoring in collaboration and
co-authorship. The highly referred journals are enlisted,
which shows the prospect of publication in similar jour-
nals of high repute. The publication timeline shows
that period during 2000–2004 has been the golden era
for agritourism research as the research citation of agri-
tourism research has increased significantly this period.
One reason for the decline of publication maybe
because of the reported increase in the rigour of research
post-2005 (Fahimnia et al., 2015).
The study highlights the conceptual divergence exist-
ing in the typology of agritourism and other related con-
cepts. Authors have reported clear growth potential in
services like agritourism (Hjalager et al., 2018). It also indi-
cates that themes like the use of ICT in agritourism and
the involvement of gender-related issues are very
thinly studied. Such ideas need the attention of research-
ers and practitioners and need to be further explored.
14 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.
Limitations of the study
In the last few years, there has been reasonable progress
in terms of the volume of scholarly publications on agri-
tourism research. However, it is still not sufficient for
developing a theme-wise annual trend analysis of all
the themes identified in the paper. Research publications
are scarce on themes like ‘gender’, ‘sustainable develop-
ment’ and ‘ICT use’ which are less researched. For this
study, research publications from two well established
and mostly used databases- Scopus and Web of
Science are included as they cover most of the research
publications of recognized refereed journals, but other
databases like Ebsco, ProQuest and ScienceDirect are
not included. The reason for this is two-fold. First, most
of the publications in these databases were replications
of what is already available in Scopus and/or Web of
Science. Second, these databases do not provide the
publications for the period considered for this study
(i.e. 1980–2019).
Directions for future research
It has been observed that there is a strong need to ident-
ify important research themes that remained unexplored
but are critical to realizing the potential of agritourism
(Barbieri et al., 2019). Future research could include
further study of themes which are found to be less
focussed upon like gender issues (Shortall, 2008); sustain-
able development, rural-urban migration (Anderson,
2015). With the world of digitization, the use of infor-
mation and communication technology is another prom-
ising area, which explores the use of modern technology
for farm recreation, the use of social media for pro-
motional information dissemination, educating service
providers about the current standards and practices of
the hospitality industry. Once the research area is well
developed to contain sufficient research under all the
themes, theme-wise publication trend analysis can be
another research area to explore. The majority of
research on the issue of agritourism has been performed
in developed economies. As emerging economies are
primarily agrarian, these economies have a greater
scope for agritourism. Hence, future work can target to
study the status of agritourism focussing on developing
countries.
Managerial contribution
The satisfaction of visitors is affected negatively when
there is a mismatch between the expectation and
reality in terms of what they opt for and what they actu-
ally receive at the point of dissemination of agritourism
service (Bowen, 2001; Narangajavana et al., 2019). Such
dissatisfaction is more prominent in the service sector
(Koc & Bozkurt, 2017). Tourist expectations are not rela-
tively explored in agritourism research. This results in a
compromise of marketing campaigns done to promote
agritourism (Addinsall et al., 2017; Veeck et al., 2006). To
reduce this gap, it is necessary to streamline the agri-
tourism service product with the expectation of the con-
sumer. This will help to give certain promotional labels
to agritourism and hence will enable potential consu-
mers to identify the activities and services associated
with agritourism (D’Souza et al., 2019). This will help
to signal out the desired image of agritourism (Sahebal-
zamani & Bertella, 2018). Identification of major issues,
themes, challenges and potential areas of agritourism
will help agritourism marketers, destination managers,
policymakers, and other significant stakeholders to
design strategies to develop and strengthen the status
of all the partners involved in an agritourism value
chain.
Theoretical contribution
Review of literature on agritourism suggests that epis-
temological and methodological advancement of agri-
tourism are two critical elements of agritourism
(Barbieri et al., 2019; Santeramo & Barbieri, 2017). This
paper contributes to both these areas. This bibliometric
analysis will help researchers in the identification of
unexplored themes of agritourism for further research.
The study identifies prominent scholars and countries
of agritourism research. This paper helps in collating
different perspectives of agritourism research. This
research helps in the theorizing of agritourism as a
concept. The structured bibliometric and network analy-
sis performed in this paper could supplement the
absence of such an analysis of agritourism (Santeramo
& Barbieri, 2017). The systematic literature review of agri-
tourism research could enable the identification of key
research themes, interrelations, and collaboration pat-
terns in the field (Fahimnia et al., 2015). This systematic
mapping of the agritourism research field helps in
effective visualization of available literature in the field
of agribusiness as it graphically illustrates the evolution
of research publications over the period and helps in
the identification of areas of current and potential
future research interests.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Sourav Rauniyar is a Doctoral Research Scholar in Indian Insti-
tute of Management Lucknow. His major areas of research
interest include tourism economics, travel research, agribusi-
ness management, marketing management.
Maya Kant Awasthi is Professor in Centre for Food and Agribu-
siness Management at Indian Institute of Management
Lucknow. His current research and consultancy interest
includes rural development, rural marketing, agribusiness man-
agement, quality management, agricultural services marketing
management, land valuation & marketing. He is a member of
several organizations including International Food and Agribu-
siness Management Association, World Academy of Humanities
and Social Sciences and Indian Society of agricultural Econ-
omics. He has several publications and cases under his name
in reputed journals including Land Use Policy, Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics.
Sanjeev Kapoor is Professor in Centre for Food and Agribusi-
ness Management at Indian Institute of Management
Lucknow. His current research and teaching interests include
rural and micro finance, agro-processing and irrigation man-
agement, agricultural procurement. He has research publi-
cations in journals like International Journal of Consumer
Studies, British Food Journal.
Ashok K. Mishra is Professor in W. P. Carey School of Agribusi-
ness and chairperson of Kemper and Ethel Marley Foundation.
He has held reputed positions previously like professor at
Louisiana State University, as economist for the Economic
Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a
decade. His research areas include food security, agribusiness
finance and management, agri-food system and labour and
household economics. He has more than 150 research publi-
cations under his name in journals like American Journal of
Agricultural economics, European Review of Agricultural Econ-
omics, Review of Economics of the Household, Ecological Econ-
omics, Land use policy. He is also co-editor of several journals
and editor of Agricultural Economics and Journal of Agribusi-
ness in Developing and Emerging Economies.
ORCID
Sourav Rauniyar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9149-627X
Ashok K. Mishra http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0988-1428
References
Addinsall, C., Scherrer, P., Weiler, B., & Glencross, K. (2017). An
ecologically and socially inclusive model of agritourism to
support smallholder livelihoods in the south Pacific. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(3), 301–315. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1250793
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assess-
ment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science.
Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21. https://
doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
Amanor-Boadu, V. (2013). Diversification decisions in agricul-
ture: The case of agritourism in Kansas. International Food
and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(2), 57–74.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 15
Anderson, W. (2015). Cultural tourism and poverty alleviation in
rural Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Journal of Tourism and Cultural
Change, 13(3), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.
2014.935387
Annes, A., & Wright, W. (2015). ‘creating a room of one’s own’:
French farm women, agritourism and the pursuit of empow-
erment. Women’s studies international forum, 53 (November-
December), 1–11.
Arroyo, C. G., Barbieri, C., & Rich, S. R. (2013). Defining agritour-
ism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in
Missouri and North Carolina. Tourism Management, 37, 39–
47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007
Arru, B., Furesi, R., Madau, F. A., & Pulina, P. (2019). Recreational
services provision and farm diversification: A technical
Efficiency analysis on Italian agritourism. Agriculture, 9(2),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020042
Bai, J., So, K. C., Tang, C. S., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2019).
Coordinating supply and demand on an on-demand
service platform with impatient customers. Manufacturing
& Service Operations Management, 21(3), 556–570.
Barbieri, C. (2009). A comparison of agritourism and other farm
entrepreneurs: Implications for future tourism and sociologi-
cal research on agritourism. In D. B. Klenosky, & C. L. Fisher
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern recreation
research Symposium; 2008 March 30-April 1; Bolton Landing,
NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-42 (pp. 343–349). US Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Barbieri, C. (2013). Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in
the US: A comparison between agritourism and other farm
entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21
(2), 252–270.
Barbieri, C. (2019). Agritourism research: A perspective article.
Tourism Review, 75(1), 149–152.
Barbieri, C., & Mahoney, E. (2009). Why is diversification an
attractive farm adjustment strategy? Insights from Texas
farmers and ranchers. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1), 58–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.001
Barbieri, C., & Mshenga, P. M. (2008). The role of the firm and
owner characteristics on the performance of agritourism
farms. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00450.x
Barbieri, C., Stevenson, K. T., & Knollenberg, W. (2019).
Broadening the utilitarian epistemology of agritourism
research through children and families. Current Issues in
Tourism, 22(19), 2333–2336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1368
3500.2018.1497011
Barbieri, C., Xu, S., Gil-Arroyo, C., & Rich, S. R. (2016). Agritourism,
farm visit, or … ? A branding assessment for recreation on
farms. Journal of Travel Research, 55(8), 1094–1108. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0047287515605930
Bernardo, D., Valentin, L., & Leatherman, J. (2004, August 15–
16). Agritourism: If we build it, will they come [paper presen-
tation]. Risk and Profit conference, Manhattan, KS.
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern
science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of pub-
lications and cited references. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
Bowen, D. (2001). Antecedents of consumer satisfaction and
dis-satisfaction (CS/D) on long-haul inclusive tours—a
reality check on theoretical considerations. Tourism
Management, 22(1), 49–61.
16 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.
Bowen, R. L., Cox, L. J., & Fox, M. (1991). The interface between
tourism and agriculture. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 43–
54.
Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2011). Farm diversification into
tourism–implications for social identity?. Journal of Rural
Studies, 27(1), 35–44.
Brandano, M. G., Osti, L., & Pulina, M. (2018). An integrated
demand and supply conceptual framework: Investigating
agritourism services. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 20(6), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2218
Broccardo, L., Culasso, F., & Truant, E. (2017). Unlocking value
creation using an agritourism business model.
Sustainability, 9(9), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091618
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Futing, T. (Eds.). (2004). The sage
encyclopedia of social science research methods. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
Busby, G., & Rendle, S. (2000). The transition from tourism on
farms to farm tourism. Tourism Management, 21(6), 635–
642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00011-X
Business Economics. (2019, January 16). Growth of agricul-
tural tourism in India. http://businesseconomics.in/
growth-agricultural-tourism-india.
Cánoves, G., Villarino, M., Priestley, G. K., & Blanco, A. (2004).
Rural tourism in Spain: An analysis of recent evolution.
Geoforum, 35(6), 755–769.
Cawley, M., & Gillmor, D. A. (1995). Farm diversification: Studies
relating to the west of Ireland. Teagasc.
Che, D., Veeck, A., & Veeck, G. (2005). Sustaining production and
strengthening the agritourism product: Linkages among
Michigan agritourism destinations. Agriculture and Human
Values, 22(2), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-004-
8282-0
Chikuta, O., & Makacha, C. (2016). Agritourism: A possible
alternative to Zimbabwe’s tourism product. Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Management, 4(3), 103–113. https://
doi.org/10.17265/2328-2169/2016.06.001
Choo, H. (2012). Agritourism: Development and research.
Journal of Tourism Research & Hospitality, 1(2), 1–2. https://
doi.org/10.4172/2324-8807.1000e106
Christou, P., & Sharpley, R. (2019). Philoxenia offered to tourists?
A Rural Tourism Perspective. Tourism Management, 72, 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.007
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera,
F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis,
and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62
(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
Colton, J. W., & Bissix, G. (2005). Developing agritourism in Nova
Scotia: Issues and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,
27(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v27n01_06
Davies, E. T., & Gilbert, D. C. (1992). A case study of the develop-
ment of farm tourism in Wales. Tourism Management, 13(1),
56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(92)90033-4
De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bib-
liometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on cor-
porate social responsibility and corporate social
performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0007650305278086
Di Gregorio, D. (2017). Place-based business models for resilient
local economies. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People
and Places in the Global Economy, 11(1), 113–128. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JEC-02-2015-0016
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Brouwer, A. R. (2019). Ecolabels infor-
mation and consumer self-confidence in decision making: A
strategic imperative. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1636845
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply
chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis.
International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003
Flanigan, S., Blackstock, K., & Hunter, C. (2015). Generating public
and private benefits through understanding what drives
different types of agritourism. Journal of Rural Studies, 41, 129–
141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.002
Fleischer, A., & Tchetchik, A. (2005). Does rural tourism benefit
from agriculture? Tourism Management, 26(4), 493–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.10.003
Fleischer, A., Tchetchik, A., Bar-Nahum, Z., & Talev, E. (2018). Is
agriculture important to agritourism? The agritourism attrac-
tion market in Israel. European Review of Agricultural
Economics, 45(2), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/
jbx039
Frater, J. M. (1983). Farm tourism in England—planning,
funding, promotion and some lessons from Europe.
Tourism Management, 4(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0261-5177(83)90061-4
Galluzzo, N. I. C. O. L. A. (2017). The impact of the common agri-
cultural policy on the agritourism growth in Italy. Bulgarian
Journal of Agricultural Science, 23(5), 698–703.
Giaccio, V., Mastronardi, L., Marino, D., Giannelli, A., & Scardera,
A. (2018). Do rural policies impact on tourism development
in Italy? A Case study of agritourism. Sustainability, 10(8),
2938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082938
Gomes, E., Abrantes, P., Banos, A., Rocha, J., & Buxton, M. (2019).
Farming under urban pressure: Farmers’ land use and land
cover change intentions. Applied Geography, 102, 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.12.009
Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis,
journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in
tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.001
Hjalager, A. M. (1996). Agricultural diversification into tourism:
Evidence of a European community development pro-
gramme. Tourism Management, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0261-5177(95)00113-1
Hjalager, A. M., Kwiatkowski, G., & Østervig Larsen, M. (2018).
Innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2017.1287002
Hjørland, B. (2013). Citation analysis: A social and dynamic
approach to knowledge organization. Information
Processing & Management, 49(6), 1313–1325. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ipm.2013.07.001
Hung, W. L., Lee, Y. J., & Huang, P. H. (2016b). Creative experi-
ences, memorability and revisit intention in creative
tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(8), 763–770. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.877422
Hung, W. T., Ding, H. Y., & Lin, S. T. (2016a). Determinants of per-
formance for agritourism farms: An alternative approach.
Current Issues in Tourism, 19(13), 1281–1287. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13683500.2015.1037254
Iakovidou, O. (1997). Agro-tourism in Greece: The case of
women agro-tourism co-operatives of Ambelakia. Medit, 8
(1), 44–47.

Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014).
Rural Development Program in Israel 2015–2020 (Hebrew).
Jamshidi, O., Sobhani, S. M. J., Hajimirrahimi, S. D., & Nourozi, A.
(2017). On the effects of tourism development on rural
areas (A case study of giayn District, nahvand county).
International Journal of Agricultural Management and
Development (IJAMAD), 8(2), 287–297. DOI:10.22004/ag.
econ.292538.
Khanal, A. R., & Mishra, A. K. (2014). Agritourism and off-farm
work: Survival strategies for small farms. Agricultural
Economics, 45(S1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12130
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing
systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE-
2007-01). Software Engineering Group, Keele University &
Department of Computer Science, University of Durham.
Kizos, T., & Iosifides, T. (2007). The contradictions of agrotourism
development in Greece: Evidence from three case studies.
South European Society & Politics, 12(1), 59–77. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13608740601155443
Koc, E., & Bozkurt, G. A. (2017). Hospitality employees’ future
expectations: Dissatisfaction, stress, and burnout. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 18(4), 459–473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1305318
Kordel, S. (2016). Selling ruralities: How tourist entrepreneurs
commodify traditional and alternative ways of conceiving
the countryside. Rural Society, 25(3), 204–221. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10371656.2016.1255475
Kumar, S., & Kumar, S. (2018). Publication productivity of scien-
tists of Icar-Indian Institute of Oilseeds research: A sceinto-
metrics study. In G. Ratbinasabapathy, H. Raj, K.
Veeranjaneyulu, & V.K. Bharti (Eds.), Re-engineering of
Agricultural Libraries and Emerging Technologies: Challenges
and Opportunities - Proceedings of NCALUC-2018 conference
(pp. 294–308). BS Publication.
LaPan, C., & Barbieri, C. (2014). The role of agritourism in heri-
tage preservation. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(8), 666–673.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.849667
Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Local emergence and global
diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of pat-
terns of network formation. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 846–860.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21509
Lipton, M. (1980). Migration from rural areas of poor countries:
The impact on rural productivity and income distribution.
World Development, 8(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0305-750X(80)90047-9
Liu, Y., Li, J., & Yang, Y. (2018). Strategic adjustment of land
use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use
Policy, 74, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.
07.005
Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., & Backman, M. (2005). The entre-
preneurship factor in sustainable tourism development.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(8), 787–798.
Lupi, C., Giaccio, V., Mastronardi, L., Giannelli, A., & Scardera, A.
(2017). Exploring the features of agritourism and its contri-
bution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy, 64,
383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.002
Lybbert, T. J., & Sumner, D. A. (2012). Agricultural technologies
for climate change in developing countries: Policy options
for innovation and technology diffusion. Food Policy, 37(1),
114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.11.001
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 17
Marques, H. (2006). Searching for complementarities between
agriculture and tourism—the demarcated wine-producing
regions of northern Portugal. Tourism Economics, 12(1),
147–155. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387141
McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A
Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2),
111–124. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost634.0
McGehee, N. G., & Kim, K. (2004). Motivation for agri-tourism
entrepreneurship. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 161–
170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268245
McGehee, N. G., Kim, K., & Jennings, G. R. (2007). Gender and motiv-
ation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship. Tourism Management,
28(1), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.022
Meraner, M., Pölling, B., & Finger, R. (2018). Diversification in
peri-urban agriculture: A case study in the Ruhr metropolitan
region. Journal of Land use Science, 13(3), 284–300. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2018.1529830
Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016).
Academic research in innovation: A country analysis.
Scientometrics, 108(2), 559–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-016-1984-4
Merigó, J. M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D.
(2015). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of business
research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business
Research, 68(12), 2645–2653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2015.04.006
Mpiti, K., de la Harpe, A., de la Harpe, A., Mpiti, K., De la Harpe, A.,
& Twum-Darko, M. (2016). Factors affecting agritourism
growth in rural communities of Lesotho. In M. Twum-Darko
(Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Business
and Management Dynamics 2016: Sustainable economies in
the information economy (pp. 87–94). AOSIS, Cape Town.
https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2016.
Naidoo, P., & Pearce, P. L. (2018). Enclave tourism versus agritour-
ism: The economic debate. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(17),
1946–1965. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1235554
Naidoo, P., & Sharpley, R. (2016). Local perceptions of the rela-
tive contributions of enclave tourism and agritourism to
community well-being: The case of Mauritius. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 16–25. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.11.002
Narangajavana Kaosiri, Y., Callarisa Fiol, L. J., Moliner Tena, M. A.,
Rodriguez Artola, R. M., & Sanchez Garcia, J. (2019). User-gen-
erated content sources in social media: A new approach to
explore tourist satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2),
253–265.
Nematpour, M., & Khodadadi, M. (2020). Farm tourism as a
driving force for socioeconomic development: A benefits
viewpoint from Iran. Current Issues in Tourism, 24, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1711712
Nickerson, N. P., Black, R. J., & McCool, S. F. (2001). Agritourism:
Motivations behind farm/ranch business diversification.
Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.
1177/004728750104000104
Nilsson, PÅ. (2002). Staying on farms: An ideological back-
ground. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 7–24. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00081-5
Ollenburg, C., & Buckley, R. (2007). Stated economic and social
motivations of farm tourism operators. Journal of Travel
Research, 45(4), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750
7299574
18 S. RAUNIYAR ET AL.
Otepka, P., Habán, M., & Goldová, P. (2009). State of rural devel-
opment and agritourism in chosen regions of Slovakia and
Great Britain–comparison and evaluation. Scientific Papers
Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural
Development, 9(3), 153–156.
Palkechová, L., & Kozáková, J. (2015). The economy of agritour-
ism Establishments in selected agricultural Entities in the
Slovak Republic. Economics of Agriculture.
Park, K., Phillips, W. J., Canter, D. D., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality
and tourism research rankings by author, university, and
country using six major journals: The first decade of the new
millennium. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(3),
381–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348011400743
Pattnaik, I., Lahiri-Dutt, K., Lockie, S., & Pritchard, B. (2018). The
feminization of agriculture or the feminization of agrarian
distress? Tracking the Trajectory of Women in Agriculture
in India. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(1), 138–155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2017.1394569
Pesonen, J., Komppula, R., Kronenberg, C., & Peters, M. (2011).
Understanding the relationship between push and pull
motivations in rural tourism. Tourism Review, 66(3), pp. 32–
49. https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371111175311
Petroman, I., Varga, M., Constantin, E. C., Petroman, C., Momir, B.,
Turc, B., & Merce, I. (2016). Agritourism: An educational tool
for the Students with agro-food profile. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 39, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671
(16)30244-1
Phillip, S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2010). A typology for
defining agritourism. Tourism Management, 31(6), 754–758.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001
Pizam, A., & Pokela, J. (1980). The vacation farm: A new form of
tourism destination. In D. Hawkins, E. Shafer and J. Rovelstad
(Eds.), Tourism Marketing and Management Issues (pp. 203–
216). George Washington Press.
Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016).
A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2015.10.033
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review.
Management Research News 27, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.
1108/01409170410784185
Rozier Rich, S., Standish, K., Tomas, S., Barbieri, C., & Ainely, S.
(2016). The current state of agritourism research in the
United States. Travel and Tourism Research Association:
Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 12. https://
scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2010/Visual/12
Sahebalzamani, S., & Bertella, G. (2018). Business models and
sustainability in nature tourism: A systematic review of the
literature. Sustainability, 10(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su10093226
Santeramo, F. G. (2015). Research note: Promoting the inter-
national demand for agritourism: Empirical evidence from
a dynamic panel data model. Tourism Economics, 21(4),
907–916. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2014.0397
Santeramo, F. G., & Barbieri, C. (2017). On the demand for agri-
tourism: A cursory review of methodologies and practice.
Tourism Planning & Development, 14(1), 139–148. https://
doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2015.1137968
Santeramo, F. G., & Morelli, M. (2016). Modelling tourism flows
through gravity models: A quantile regression approach.
Current Issues in Tourism, 19(11), 1077–1083. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13683500.2015.1051518
Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism
diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management,
23(3), 233–244.
Sharpley, R., & Vass, A. (2006). Tourism, farming and diversification:
An attitudinal study. Tourism Management, 27(5), 1040–1052.
Sharpley, R. (2009). Tourism development and the environment:
Beyond sustainability? Earthscan.
Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J. (1997). Rural tourism. An introduction.
International Thomson Business Press.
Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially
inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation,
and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of
Rural Studies, 24(4), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2008.01.001
Sonnino, R. (2004). For a ‘piece of bread’? Interpreting sustain-
able development through agritourism in Southern
Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00276.x
Sotomayor, S., Barbieri, C., Stanis, S. W., Aguilar, F. X., & Smith, J. W.
(2014). Motivations for recreating on farmlands, private forests,
and state or national parks. Environmental Management, 54(1),
138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0280-4
Srikatanyoo, N., & Campiranon, K. (2010). Agritourist needs and
motivations: The Chiang Mai case. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 27(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548400903579795
Srisomyong, N., & Meyer, D. (2015). Political economy of agri-
tourism initiatives in Thailand. Journal of Rural Studies, 41,
95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.07.007
Su, M. M., Wall, G., Wang, Y., & Jin, M. (2019). Livelihood sustain-
ability in a rural tourism destination-Hetu Town, Anhui
Province, China. Tourism Management, 71, 272–281. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.019
Sullins, M., Moxon, D., & Thilmany, D. D. (2010). Developing
effective marketing strategies for agritourism: Targeting
visitor segments. Journal of Agribusiness, 28(2), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.131366
Sznajder, M., Przezbórska, L., & Scrimgeour, F. (2009). Agritourist
services and products. Agritourism, 132–154. https://doi.org/
10.1079/9781845934828.0132
Tacoli, C., & Mabala, R. (2010). Exploring mobility and migration
in the context of rural—urban linkages: Why gender and
generation matter. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2),
389–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247810379935
Tchetchik, A., Fleischer, A., & Finkelshtain, I. (2006). Rural
tourism: Development, public intervention and lessons from
the Israeli experience. Discussion Papers 7148, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural
Economics and Management.
Tew, C., & Barbieri, C. (2012). The perceived benefits of agri-
tourism: The provider’s perspective. Tourism
Management, 33(1), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2011.02.005
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture
Statistics Service. (2009). 2007 Census of Agriculture (Report
No. AC-07-A-51). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2007/Full_
Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture
Statistics Service. (2014). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2014/
index.php.pdf

Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer,
a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics,
84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Varmazyari, H., Asadi, A., Kalantari, K., Joppe, M., & Rezvani, M. R.
(2018). Predicting potential agritourism segments on the
basis of combined approach: The case of Qazvin, Iran.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 442–457.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2195
Veeck, G., Che, D., & Veeck, A. (2006). America’s changing farm-
scape: A study of agricultural tourism in Michigan. The
Professional Geographer, 58(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00565.x
Viglia, G., & Abrate, G. (2017). When distinction does not pay off-
Investigating the determinants of European agritourism
prices. Journal of Business Research, 80, 45–52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.004
Wall, G. (2000). Agrotourism. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of
Tourism (pp.14–15). Routledge.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 19
Wang, X., Li, X. R., Zhen, F., & Zhang, J. (2016). How smart is your
tourist attraction?: Measuring tourist preferences of smart
tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach.
Tourism Management, 54, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2015.12.003
Wong, I. A., Wan, Y. K. P., & Gao, J. H. (2017). How to attract and
retain generation Y employees? An exploration of career
choice and the meaning of work. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 23, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.
2017.06.003
Yang, L. (2012). Impacts and challenges in agritourism
development in Yunnan, China. Tourism Planning &
Development, 9(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21568316.2012.726257
Yang, Z., Cai, J., & Sliuzas, R. (2010). Agro-tourism enterprises as
a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban
development in China. Habitat International, 34(4), 374–
385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.002