Farms are increasingly exploring alternative activities, including agritourism, to remain competitive in the farming business (Thilmany and Ahearn, 2013; Hardesty et al., 2014). While most farms are generating profits through agritourism activities, farmers consider agritourism to be crucial for the ongoing operation of their businesses rather than for earning higher profits (Tew and Barbieri, 2012). According to USDA (2019), farm agritourism revenue increased by more than three times between 2002 and 2007, and agritourism revenue grew from $704 million in 2012 to nearly $950 million in 2017, after adjusting for inflation. The nature of activities classified as agritourism and the definition of agritourism varies slightly across different research studies. However, the majority of definitions adopted by literature (McGehee, 2007; Bagi and Reeder, 2012) consider agritourism as an enterprise or operation that consists of an integrated tourism component in a working farm. USDA (2022) broadly defines agritourism as a commercial venture that connects agriculture with tourism to attract visitors to farms for education or entertainment purposes while generating revenue for farm owners. The goal of agritourism is to bring the public to farms and generate additional income by offering activities like farm tours, pumpkin patches, pick-your-own, fishing, wagon rides, horse riding, agricultural/rural heritage museums, bed and breakfast, petting zoos, corn mazes, festivals and fairs, and wineries. The history of agritourism is traced back to the late 18th century (Bruch et al., 2005); however, its popularity and commercialization in the US are relatively recent. As urbanization grows, agritourism now has even more potential to offer rural experiences to urban dwellers and promote culture and knowledge.

In general, US residents exhibit a high affinity for tourism and are willing to pay for tourism services, as evidenced by the heavy reliance of Canada and Mexico's tourism industries on US visitors—more than 500 million annual domestic trips in Canada and Mexico are made by US visitors (Gartner, 2004). Similarly, when visitors perceive the user fees as fair and are supportive of spending in areas that align with their preferences, they are also willing to pay these fees (Chung et al., 2011). In terms of most demographic characteristics, agritourists are not significantly different from other rural tourists (Ainley and Smale, 2009). The demand for agritourism appears to be primarily driven by local residents (Bernardo et al., 2004; Jensen et al., 2006), while there is also notable interest from international visitors like Chinese tourists, who express a willingness to pay for rural food and lodging experiences in the US (Wu et al., 2020). Agritourism helps rural farming communities earn additional income by bringing visitors to their farms from different places and locations and helps to increase the region's economic activities. Therefore, agritourism boosts the rural economy and helps to protect rural farmland, addressing the threats posed by large retailers and global food chains on rural life to some extent (Gartner, 2004). Furthermore, agritourism could help to add value to crops and livestock products and increase the competitive power of family farms by providing a supplementary source of income. Agritourism combines elements of both the tourism industry and the agriculture industry. A study conducted by Omobitan and Khanal (2022) found that small farms in Tennessee can cover less than half of farm expenses from money generated from the sale of agricultural products while remaining expenses are met through earnings from off-farm work, credit, government support, and other sources. Khanal and Mishra (2014) found that diversification is key for small farms to sustain their farming business. Thus, agritourism is one of the promising and economically feasible on-farm diversification options for small farms (Joo et al., 2013; Khanal and Mishra, 2014; Whitt et al., 2019; Holland et al., 2022). Most farms that are already engaged in agritourism activities do these activities primarily for economic reasons (Nickerson et al., 2001). Findings show that additional income generated through agritourism enables farms to remain viable in the farming business during poor production seasons (Barbieri and Mshenga, 2008; Tew and Barbieri, 2012). Therefore, agritourism is a feasible, sustainable method of farm diversification for small and medium sized farms, and family farms (Holland et al., 2022).

According to the Agritourism System Model proposed by McGehee (2007), the agritourism system comprises dynamic activities between agritourism providers, agritourism visitors, and Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs). The system mainly includes producers willing to offer agritourism activities, visitors, marketing strategies, and Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs) in the industry (McGehee, 2007; Carpio et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2020), which can pose both opportunities and challenges. In Tennessee, the Pick Tennessee Products and Tennessee Agritourism Association play a role similar to that of a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) by actively promoting and supporting the marketing efforts of local agricultural products and agritourism activities. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture is promoting agritourism through educational and cost-sharing program (Jensen et al., 2013) in collaboration with several organizations aiming to educate producers about agritourism. Tennessee Agritourism Association and Pick Tennessee products are some of the efforts to expand agritourism within rural communities, promote local products, and provide information to visitors about agritourism venues.

We recognize three main outlooks and gaps based on overall agritourism-related previous studies and efforts in Tennessee. First, researchers (Khanal and Mishra, 2014; Holland et al., 2022) and government stakeholders discuss agritourism as a potential feasible on-farm diversification strategy in Tennessee. Though few previous studies in Tennessee have discussed the general characteristics of the visitors (Bernardo et al., 2004), the specific agritourism activities offered in small farm operations in Tennessee have not been closely analyzed and examined. Second, numerous promotional efforts have been made to encourage farms to adopt agritourism and encourage people to visit agritourism destinations. However, information on the current status of visitors and the amount of visitor expenditure on agritourism operations is lacking. Third, the effect of visitor expenditure on the Tennessee economy and regional development is unknown. Findings and investigation on these three aspects will provide insight into policymakers and researchers and help them understand the consequences and benefits of agritourism activities for Tennessee. Our study builds on these previous efforts and addresses these research gaps by estimating visitor numbers, expenditure per visitor, and the regional economic impact of agritourism in Tennessee.

The remaining content of this paper is structured under four sections. The literature review section critically evaluates previous works on agritourism. The data and methods section discusses primary and secondary data used and provides an overview of an input-output-based model (IMPLAN) on the estimation of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The results and discussion section presents and discusses findings on visitor numbers, visitor spending, and the output of the impact estimations. Finally, the conclusion section summarizes the key findings and discusses the broader implications of the research.

While the United States has been lagging in the development of the agritourism industry compared to Europe and Asia, there has been a notable increase in the number of agritourism farms in recent years. Researchers have represented this growing industry and presented agritourism system models (McGehee, 2007). A number of studies have focused on the producer side (Bagi and Reeder, 2012; Tew and Barbieri, 2012) and the consumer side (Carpio et al., 2008; Melstrom and Murphy, 2018; Wu et al., 2020). McGehee's (2007) agritourism system model proposes that both agritourists and agritourism providers are motivated by economic and ideological factors to engage in agritourism activities. To ensure the effective functioning of the agritourism system, it is crucial to facilitate proper communication and remove any obstacles between them. Producers with larger land areas, nearer to central cities, with higher education, and located in rocky mountain regions and southern plains are more likely to be involved in agritourism (Bagi and Reeder, 2012). A study by Melstrom and Murphy (2018) found that agritourism destinations nearer to metropolitan areas and those owned by college graduates are likely to draw more visitors. In contrast to this, Carpio et al. (2008) found that people living in urban areas are less likely to visit a farm. Further, Carpio et al. (2008) also found that larger family size and the presence of children (s) under 6 years old increases the probability of households visiting agritourism destinations. Carpio et al. (2008) estimated a mean price elasticity of −0.43 and income elasticity of 0.24 associated with agritourism visits and posits that the agritourism visitor in the U.S., on average, makes 10.3 trips per year.

While several studies have focused on producer motivation to offer agritourism activities and visitors' motives for visiting agritourism destinations, very few studies (Jensen et al., 2006, 2013; Das and Rainey, 2010; Magnini, 2017) have estimated visitor numbers, visitor spending, and the resulting economic impact of agritourism in the state or regional economy. The economic impact estimation of agritourism is particularly challenging because there is no specific sector identified as agritourism in the formal industry classification systems, as it is listed neither under agriculture nor under tourism. Note that commonly used and referenced industry classification systems for industry and sectors in the US include the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Therefore, there have been mixed approaches across studies on what sectors to include in agritourism. For example, Das and Rainey (2010), in Arkansas-specific estimation, used the data on the number of visitors and total agritourism expenditure dividing total visitors into two groups: those involved in on-farm hunting and those involved in any other related activities. With this, findings suggested that agritourism generated around $120 million directly in Arkansas Delta Byways in 2007, in which on-farm hunting accounted for 90% of expenditure. Further, they predicted that agritourism visitors will continue to increase and agritourism will create more jobs and assist the farming community in the region. Regional impact estimation studies use input-output-based models, which are presented in the methods section. One of the commonly used regional economic impact estimation systems is IMPLAN (Economic Impact Analysis for Planning; https://implan.com/), a regional economic impact assessment software system that also maintains selected industry and sector-specific data (more in the data and methods section).

In Tennessee, Jensen et al. (2006) estimated the economic impact of visitor spending on Tennessee's economy. They used responses from visitor surveys and used 2005 IMPLAN data and software in economic impact analysis. Jensen et al. (2006) found that the average expenditure per visitor was $27.08 for winery farms and $14.35 for non-winery farms. The medium number of agritourism visitors per farm per year was 2,000 for non-winery farms and 10,800 for winery farms. The direct economic impact associated with visitor spending was estimated at ~$17 million, while total industry output was estimated at $31 million, with a total value added of $16.64 million. In the study by Jensen et al. (2006), attractions like on-farm bed and breakfast, on-farm vacations, museums, and Christmas tree farms were not included in the estimation of economic impacts. Following up on their previous study, Jensen et al. (2013) surveyed 171 farm operators in Tennessee and found that agritourism operators earned $35.12 from each visitor, of which 63.4% was from the purchase of farm products, 13.4% from admission fees, 4% from souvenirs, 3.1% from concessions, and 15.19% from other activities. The study estimated that the direct contribution of visitor spending to Tennessee's economy is around $34 million, which is double the previous estimates of Jensen et al. (2006).

A more recent impact study of agritourism was conducted by Magnini (2017), who estimated the economic impact of agritourism in the state of Virginia, the State sharing the border with Tennessee. Magnini's (2017) study considers visitors' on-farm and off-farm spending and estimates total impact. The study found that on-farm visitors' spending directly contributes $216.3 million and off-farm spending contributes $1.093 billion (~$3 per person in the US) to the state's economy and puts $1.2 billion (~$4 per person in the US) as the direct total effect and $2.2 billion (~$7 per person in the US) as the total industry output contribution of visitors. However, one should note that Magnini's (2017) study includes agritourism visitors' off-farm spending, such as visitor spending on outside hotels and motels, off-farm food service establishments, and other sports events, in addition to the direct spending of visitors in agritourism farms. Therefore, the greater contribution comes from the tourism effects outside the farm rather than visitor spending in agritourism farms.

Overall, past impact studies, including a few agritourism impact studies (Jensen et al., 2006, 2013; Magnini, 2017), have used selected sectors and sub-sectors listed under broader agriculture sectors to estimate regional impacts and multiplier effects. The agritourism income per farm calculation is important in impact estimation because it is typically used to make projections about aggregate agritourism income by multiplying it by the number of such farms in the region. Then, the impacts are estimated using the selected industry's relationship with other related industries to account for spillover and ripple effects to both production and market spectrum linkages in the economy.

Tennessee's agritourism industry has been expanding in recent years with the development of new agritourism businesses. Several public and private institutions are making efforts to connect agritourism farms with visitors. Tennessee has also experienced an expansion of metropolitan areas and growth in the tourism sector with direct and indirect market expansions in the last decade. These have implications for agritourism growth, which can be investigated with recent data. Khanal et al. (2020), using county-level data and spatial regression in Tennessee, found significant effects of structural factors such as demographics and educational, economic, and cultural capital factors on the number and location of agritourism establishments. Depending on the location in Tennessee (east, middle, and west), the top three most common agritourism activities in recent years include hosting weddings on the farm, bed and breakfast on the farm, pumpkin patches, and corn and hay mazes (Khanal et al., 2020).

Our study contributes to agritourism and regional economic impact studies in at least two ways. First, it estimates the recent economic impact using the latest data, which captures the most recent growth in the sector, market, and agritourism farms in Tennessee. Second, unlike previous studies in Tennessee (Jensen et al., 2006, 2013), we directly addressed the agritourism incomes of the farms and the estimated weekly visitors per farm rather than relying on the visitors' or farms' responses according to recalled estimates of visitor spending per farm. Therefore, our study is likely to better capture the farm-induced or farm-surrounded spillover or ripple effects in the economy—the aspect more important for agricultural policymakers. In order to assist current agritourism operators, researchers and scholars, and related stakeholders, our study provides updated pictures of visitors and agritourism, farm incomes, visitor spending in agritourism operations, and the economic impact of these on the state's economy. Documentation and quantification of the impacts are expected to facilitate the promotion of agritourism farms and the agricultural sector and invite more entrepreneurs and farmers to new business ventures in the agriculture and tourism interface.

Using the contact information maintained by Pick Tennessee Products and the Tennessee Agritourism Association, a primary survey was conducted between November 2019 and January 2020 to collect data from farms and agricultural operations, including agritourism operations, from the east, west, and middle region of Tennessee. A survey questionnaire was created using Qualtrics, and links were distributed via email to 1,139 farmers. Two reminder emails were sent to the farmers who did not respond to the initial email. The first one was emailed 2 weeks after the initial email, and the other 7–10 days after the first reminder email. The primary survey's main purpose was to gather information about agricultural and farm activities, agritourism operations, the number of visitors to the farms, and their assets, revenues, and incomes. In particular, farms' income from agritourism, number of visitors, and average spending information from the primary survey are used in the estimation of the economic impact of agritourism. A total of 160 responses with a response rate of 14.05% were collected, and 139 suitable full responses were used in further analysis and calculations.

The questionnaire asked about the types of agritourism attractions offered on their farms. As presented in Figure 1, commonly offered agritourism-related activities in our sample farms include farm and school tours, retail farm stands, event hosting, on-farm entertainment like hayrides or wagon rides, selling gifts and floral products, and pick-your-own. These results were similar to the findings of Jensen et al. (2013) and Rich et al. (2016). Based on the frequency distribution of these offerings, we identify admission fees, product purchases, concessions, souvenirs, festivals and wedding events, hayrides or wagon rides, and games and activities inside the venue as major expenditure categories.

We conducted economic modeling and impact estimations using IMPLAN software and its industry-level data for 2019. As described in its data overview report (IMPLAN, 2023), IMPLAN uses multiple secondary sources to maintain its industry database in the input-output economic modeling system. Main raw data sources include the data from economic and statistical service agencies of the US government: (a) Bureau of Economic Accounts (BEA) for national income and product accounts, employment, GDP, state and county level tax, county-level personal income, regional economic accounts, (b) US Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and Economic Research Service, (c) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for wage and salary incomes, county-level industry, industry information by classification systems, consumer expenditure survey, and (d) US Census Bureau for county business patterns, annual survey of manufacturers, revenue and spending by state, county, and city governments (IMPLAN, 2023).

To project the economic impact, total expenditure was allocated to different sectors in IMPLAN. The sectors identified to match the IMPLAN-listed sector are presented in Table 1. Admission fees, which constitute major expenditure for farm visits, farm tours, and school tours are represented by sector 504, other amusement and recreation. Expenditure from product purchase was classified into sector 2, grain farming; sector 3, vegetable and melon farming; sector 4, fruit farming; sector 6, greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture; and sector 106, wineries. Grain farming represents production from corn mazes, and retail farm stands. Vegetable and melon farming represents production from pumpkin patches, retail farm stands, and pick-your-own. Fruit farming represents retail farm stands and pick-your-own. Similarly, sector 6 represents selling floral products and sector 106 represents selling winery products. Sector 511, all other food and drinking places, and sector 411, general merchandise stores, represent expenditures for concessions and souvenirs. Other remaining expenditure was classified equally into sector 420, scenic and sightseeing transportation and scenic activities for transportation, representing hayrides or wagon rides; sector 500, promoters of performing arts and sports and agenda for public figures, representing festivals and wedding events; and sector 504, other amusement and recreation industries representing games and activities inside venues.

This study is focused on estimating the visitor numbers of agritourism operations, visitor expenditures, and the resulting economic impact. It is evident from the findings that the number of visitors and their spending has remained relatively stable or slightly increased in the US over the past two decades. However, as rural tourism in countries like Canada and Mexico relies heavily on US visitors, our research indicates that agritourism providers in the US have the potential to attract a larger number of local agritourists and boost revenue significantly through effective marketing and advertising strategies.

Agriculture and farm sectors are important parts of the regional economy. However, the economic contributions from unique multifaceted aspects underlying the agriculture and farm sector have received limited attention in impact estimation studies. Studies on agritourism, specifically considering it as a viable economic enterprise, have increased relatively recently in the US compared to Europe. Tennessee is one of the most important states for both agriculture and tourism; it has shown a rapid increase in agritourism farms in recent years and can be considered an important representative state for agritourism studies. Considering the increasing popularity of agritourism, it is compelling to document its contribution, interaction, and interdependence with other sectors and the ripple and spillover effects it can generate in the economy. This study captures these aspects and estimates the economic impact of agritourism in Tennessee using both primary survey data and secondary information on the industries in the region.

We also found that the majority of agritourism farms are open for visitors during summer, spring, and fall, while only approximately half of the farms are open during the winter season. Farm and school tours, retail farm stands, event hosting, and on-farm entertainment are among the most common attractions offered by agritourism farms. We found that an agritourism farm earns on average $99,684 in annual income from agritourism. Our estimation based on calculations of visitor numbers and spendings assumed and the use of IMPLAN models show the total industry output of 118.54 million, 1,271 jobs, $29.89 million in labor income, and $50.95 million in value added in the state. It is important to understand the sector's linkages in input and output relations to other industries. Interestingly, we found that $53.45 million in output generation and $18.83 million in labor income contributions of agritourism are through indirect and induced effects. This indicates the nature and magnitude of the interrelationship of agritourism to other industries and its potential integration to boost regional economic growth in multiple sectors. These have greater implications on the interdependent sectors of agritourism, government tax revenue generation, and the regional economy. For example, wineries, amusement, and recreational industries, fruit farming, and vegetable and melon farming are the top industries that boost their output and employment as the agritourism sector grows. Additionally, recreational and amusement industries and food and drinking places in the region have remarkable positive expansion in their value-added products and services as the agritourism sector grows. We show that spending in the agritourism farms triggers activities through multiplier effects—every dollar spent on agritourism farms adds an additional 82 cents of output and adds an extra $1.30 in value added to the state's economy.

The findings of this study show the importance of the agritourism sector to the regional economy, considering Tennessee as an example state. This study provides important insights into the contribution of agritourism, interrelated sectors, multiplier effects, and economic development that are potentially from farm- and agriculture-centric spending and investment. From a regional economic development perspective, our study portrays a scope to expand agritourism. Improvements and efforts in this sector and related agribusinesses could attract more out-of-state visitors and generate income for the State. The study provides useful information to agriculture and tourism-related research and extension programs, policymakers, and investors, specifically to promote and enhance agritourism. Finally, we acknowledge some limitations and suggestions for future studies. Our estimations on visitor numbers and their average spending are calculations based on the formula we presented in projecting numbers with assumptions, may have limitations due to small sample biases or overestimations. A few limitations that are inherent in IMPLAN's industryand sector-level classification data and modeling system are beyond the scope of this study. The use of multiple regional impact estimation software and cross-comparison could enhance the robustness of findings in future studies. Additionally, we did not collect information on visitor characteristics in our primary survey. Future similar studies could also collect primary information from both visitors and agritourism farm businesses to derive additional insights into the nature of visitors and their spending.

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available, because only responses to limited specific questions were applied in the calculation of the part of this study's estimation. Therefore, full primary survey data is not applicable. Requests to access the datasets should be directed at: akhanal1@tnstate.edu.

PD: data compilation, methodology design, data analysis, and writing—original draft. AK: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, resources, software, primary survey design, supervision, validation, and writing—review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.