AAggrrii--ttoouurriissmm iinn TTeennnneesssseeee:: CCuurrrreenntt SSttaattuuss aanndd FFuuttuurree GGrroowwtthh,, 22000033--

22000044

Report to the Tennessee Agri-Tourism Steering Committee By

Kim Jensen, Gena Dawson, Megan Bruch, Jamey Menard, and Burton English

July 13, 2005

Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agriculture, 302 Morgan Hall, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996

Table of Contents Page

Topics:

Background …………………………………………………………………………… 1

Study Purposes………………………………………………………………………... 1

Prior Research………………………………………………………………………… 2

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………… 5

Results Number of Enterprises and Attractions…………………………………………….. 6 Types of Attractions……………………………………………………………..….. 7 Location and Types of Attractions…….……………………………….……............ 9 Multiple Attractions…………………………………………………………............ 11 Gross Sales Revenues……………………………………………………………….. 14 Years of Experience…………………………………………………………………. 16 Operation Acreage………………………………………………………………….. 17 Number of Employees……………………………………………………………….. 18 Number of Days Open Per Year…………………………………………………….. 19 Peak Months of Operation………………………………………………………….. 20 Number of Visitors Per Year………………………………………………………... 21 Dollars Spent per Visitor……………………………………………………………. 21 Types of Advertisement…………………………………………………………….... 23 Future Plans………………………………………………………………………… 24 Types of Assistance Services Used and Effects ………………………………...…... 26 Assistance Needed……………..……………………………………………………. 28

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………… 31

References……………………………………………………………………………… 33

Appendix 1. Survey Instrument………………………………………….…………... 34

Appendix 2. Location Maps of Agri-Tourism Attractions………………….……… 39

Tables:

Table 1. Number of Attractions by Type…………..…………….……………………. 8 Table 2. Regional Locations of Responding Agri-Tourism Enterprises………………. 10 Table 3. Attraction Numbers per Enterprise………….………….……………………. 11 Table 4. Combinations of Attractions…………………………………………………. 12 Table 5. Gross Value of Agri-Tourism Sales Revenues………………………………. 14

Table 6. Percent of Enterprises In Sales Category by Type of Attraction…………….. 16 Table 7. Years of Experience by Type of Attraction……………………………..…... 17 Table 8. Average Number of Employees by Type of Attraction…...………………... 18 Table 9. Average Number of Days Open by Type of Attraction……………………... 20 Table 10. Estimated Visitor Expenditure by Type of Attraction………………………. 22 Table 11. Types of Advertisement Used to Promote Agri-tourism……………………. 23 Table 12. Planned Future Agri-tourism Attractions……………………………………. 25 Table 13. Potential New Agri-tourism Attractions by Current Attraction Type……………………………………………………………………..........

26

Table 14. Types of Marketing/Promotion and Other Assistance Services Needed………………………………………………….…………………….

29

Table 15. Years of Experience and Assistance Services Needed………………………. 30 Table 16. Sales Revenues and Assistance Services Needed…………………………... 31

Figures:

Figure 1. Locations of Responding Agri-Tourism Enterprises, 2003 and 2004…………………………………………………………………….

7

Figure 2. Percents of Enterprises by Type of Agri-Tourism Attraction………………. 9 Figure 3. Percents of Enterprises by Number of Agri-Tourism Attractions………...… 11 Figure 4. Percent of Enterprises in Sales Categories…………………………………... 15

Summary

Agri-tourism is a potential means to enhance farm incomes, sustain farming operations, and add economic activity to rural areas. While agribusiness operations with agri-tourism activities have long existed, no formal accounting of these types of operations exists as part of the Census of Agriculture. Via a mail survey, this study assists in compiling a detailed inventory of the number and types of agri-tourism related businesses in Tennessee, updates and expands the 2003 agri-tourism inventory conducted by the Center for Profitable Agriculture, examines current promotion methods used for agri-tourism, including how publicly provided promotion and assistance services may have impacted the agri-tourism industry in the state, and determines the types of assistance used and needed by agri-tourism operators.

A total of 183 responses to the 2004 survey were collected for a survey response rate

of 48 percent. Of those who responded, approximately 68 percent currently operate an agri-tourism related business, 16 percent plan to begin an agri-tourism related business in the future, with the remaining 23 percent not having future plans to operate an agri-tourism business.

For those operators who operate an agri-tourism attraction, the most common types

were on-farm retail markets, on-farm restaurants/eating establishments, on-farm tours, pick-your-own farms, farm festivals and fairs, pumpkin patches, cut-your-own Christmas trees, and on-farm petting zoos. While many of the operators offered more than one attraction, the majority of the operators offered three or less attractions. Over 60 percent had annual gross sales revenues of less than $25,000. Less than 15 percent had sales in excess of $100,000. For the firms responding to either the 2003 or the 2004 survey, a projected value for total sales across these firms is estimated at over $21 million per year. The average numbers of full-time and part-time employees were 1.9 and 3.9, respectively. Median expenditures per visitor to agri-tourism attractions was $15.00, with the majority spent on purchasing the venue’s product and admission or user fees.

The most common types of advertisement used were word of mouth, business signs,

www.picktnproducts.org website, and newspaper advertising. The respondents, who used government sponsored promotional assistance, projected about 10 percent sales growth due to the positive affect of using these assistance services. Among those attending agri-tourism workshops, the positive effect on sales was projected at over 14 percent.

1

AAggrrii--ttoouurriissmm iinn TTeennnneesssseeee:: CCuurrrreenntt SSttaattuuss aanndd FFuuttuurree GGrroowwtthh,, 22000033--22000044

Background

Agri-tourism enterprises and attractions are a potential means to enhance farm incomes,

sustain farming operations, and add economic activity to rural areas. The Tennessee Agri-

tourism Initiative Steering Committee defined agri-tourism as “an activity, enterprise, or

business which combines primary elements and characteristics of Tennessee agriculture and

tourism and provides an experience for visitors which stimulates economic activity and impacts

both farm and community income” (Bruch, 2004). While agribusiness operations with agri-

tourism activities, attractions, or enterprises such as pick-your-own, on-farm retail markets, etc.

have long existed, no formal accounting of these types of operations exists as part of the Census

of Agriculture. Therefore, the magnitude and diversity of the agri-tourism industry in the state

was not well documented. Under the direction of the Tennessee Agri-Tourism Initiative

Steering Committee, in 2003, an inventory of agri-tourism businesses was conducted by the UT

Center for Profitable Agriculture (Bruch and Holland, 2004).

Study Purposes

The purpose of this project is to assist in compiling a detailed inventory of the number

and types of agri-tourism related businesses in Tennessee updating and expanding the 2003

inventory conducted by the Center for Profitable Agriculture. In addition, this study also

examines promotion methods currently used for agri-tourism in Tennessee are and measures

impacts of how publicly provided promotion and assistance affects agri-tourism enterprises in

the state. Finally, the study is used to determine the types of assistance currently in use and those

needed by operators of agri-tourism related enterprises.

2

Prior Research

In 2003, Bruch and Holland (2004) conducted a study of agri-tourism businesses in

Tennessee. A telephone survey yielded 210 usable responses. Participants in the survey were

located throughout the state in 75 of the 95 Tennessee counties. Results from their study

indicated that the majority of enterprises offered more than one attraction to their visitors and

that about 60 percent of the operations were only open seasonally. The estimate of the annual

number of visitors from survey respondents in 2002 was 3.5 million, with the majority visiting

from in-state. The study also provided information about the issues and obstacles faced by the

operators of these enterprises. Some of the difficult issues mentioned were promotion, signage,

finding and hiring qualified employees, identifying target markets, insurance, financing, and

preparing business plans. Areas indicated as service being needed by agri-toursim entrepreneurs

were advertising, marketing, promotion, and funding. Also, the report indicates that there is a

need for more education and outreach.

Another study examined agri-tourism in the state of Michigan (Che, 2005). Several

methods were used to collect data about the agri-tourism industry. These included a producer

survey, consumer survey, and a focus group as well as a web based GIS mapping system. The

main purpose of the producer survey was to gain insight into the conditions and practices

currently being used in Michigan agri-tourism operations. The purpose of the consumer survey

was to determine the characteristics and consumption decisions of consumers visiting the agri-

tourism destinations. Responses from the focus groups comprised of agri-tourism were used to

assess the impact of agriculture-based destinations on Michigan’s tourism economy. The study

identified a need by agri-tourism operators for assistance in dealing with government agencies on

issues such as zoning, property tax exemptions, signage, and local regulations. In the study, the

3

recommendation was made to producers that they should use the tourism experience to

emphasize quality locally grown produce.

Wood, Halbrendt, Liang, and Wang (2000) examined the impact of agriculture on the

tourism industry and the economy of Vermont. In their study, visitors were asked about the

effects of the agricultural landscape on their tourism experience. They found that 84 percent of

visitors valued the agricultural landscape and that nearly 60 percent would be less likely to visit

Vermont if there were very few farms.

A study of New Hampshire’s agricultural tourism (New Hampshire Department of

Agriculture, 2002) showed that local visitors were about twice as likely as out-of-state visitors to

have participated in agriculturally related activity. Apple or berry picking was the most

commonly cited activity, followed by sleigh or hay rides. Most visitors responding to the New

Hampshire study were willing to pay a premium for New Hampshire grown or made products.

The statewide estimate of tourist spending on farm products was about $26 million per year, and

the number of trips was estimated at 520,000 annually.

A study of New York state agri-tourism was conducted by surveying visitors to agri-

tourism attractions and the business owners (Hilchey and Kuehn, 1999). The study results

showed the majority of visitors to retail-oriented businesses such as farm stands, greenhouses,

maple producers, Christmas tree farms, pick-your-own operations, and livestock breeding and

sales farms were from the home county of the business. In contrast, farm-stay bed and breakfasts

and wineries had larger share of their customers visiting from outside the county where the

business was located. The study results also showed that most customers visit agri-tourism

attractions with friends or family. The results of both the visitor and business surveys showed

that word-of-mouth was the most effective method of attracting visitors followed by

4

advertisements in newspapers. Business features preferred by customers included availability of

family activities, the setting and hospitality of the business, tasting food and/or wines, and

picking fresh fruits and vegetables. Customers were also asked what type of activities they

would like to try in the future. Most often cited included sampling local foods and wines,

picking produce, horseback riding, and going on hayrides. The estimated size of the industry

was 2,087 businesses, with farm stands and Christmas tree farms constituting the largest number

of operations. Primary concerns of the agri-tourism business operators were liability/insurance

concerns and marketing/promotion/advertising concerns.

In Georgia, a study of agri-tourism was conducted by contacting local Chambers of

Commerce about agri-tourism attractions in their area (Curtis, Bergstrom, McKissick, Kriesel,

and Thomas, 2002). A total of 70 agri-tourism operations were identified by the Chambers of

Commerce. The majority of the tourism attractions identified by the Chambers of Commerce

offered agricultural tours. The peak season for the agri-tourism business identified was Fall.

The estimated mean number of visitors per year to each enterprise was 10,131, while the median

was 500. In a study of Georgia agri-tourism visitors, respondents were asked to rate the

importance of several factors affecting their agri-tourism visits (Doherty, Bergstrom, and

McKissick, 2001). Farm scenery was rated as most important followed by ability to pick your

own produce and appreciation of farm values.

Govindasamy, Pingali, and Hossain (1998) studied income generating potential of non-

conventional farm-related activities, including offering farm tours, organizing farm festivals, and

offering petting zoos for children and their families. Among the farmers surveyed, arranging

farm festivals and offering petting zoos were more effective ways to increase income than some

other activities. They also found that farmers with markets in urban and suburban areas were

5

better positioned to obtain higher incomes from these alternatives than were farmers located in

more rural areas.

Methodology

In late 2004, a mail survey of potential agri-tourism venues was conducted as follow-up

to the 2003 agri-tourism enterprise inventory. First, a listing was compiled for 381 agricultural

enterprises thought to be agri-tourism related that either were not included in or did not respond

to the 2003 inventory survey. Next, a survey was mailed to each of the 381 firms for voluntary

completion. The first mailing was followed-up with a second mailing composed of reminder

post cards to each enterprise that had not yet responded. Finally, a third mailing included another

copy of the survey was issued to the remaining enterprises of which no response had been

received. Out of the 381 targeted enterprises 183 responses were received for a response rate of

just over 48 percent. Of these 183 responses, 125 currently operated an agri-tourism enterprise.

The survey instrument was comprised of two major sections. The first section contained

questions about the agri-tourism venue, including type of venue, estimated revenues, estimated

visitor expenditures, and promotional methods used. The agri-tourism operators were also asked

about their future plans for the business. The second section contained questions about

assistance services the business operators had used and the types of assistance services they

perceived as needed. Those attending publicly sponsored workshops or training and

participating in publicly sponsored promotion programs were asked to project the impacts of

participation on their business’ sales.

Select questions from the 2004 and 2003 inventory studies were identical or similar.

These questions were duplicated across the two surveys for the purposes of comparison.

Examples include the type of operation, value of sales, number of employees, and other firm

6

characteristics. Where comparable questions were included in both surveys, the data analysis

includes both sets of survey data. The results are summarized using means and percents. In

addition, some correlations or associations are examined between various agri-tourism business

characteristics.

Results

Number of Enterprises and Attractions

The respondents were asked to indicate whether they currently operate an agri-tourism

related business; do not currently operate an agri-tourism related business, but plan to in the

future; or do not operate an agri-tourism related business and do not plan to in the future. The

responses to this question indicated that 125, approximately 68 percent, of the respondents

currently operate an agri-tourism related business. Only 16, or almost 9 percent, of the

respondents indicated that they do not currently operate an agri-tourism related business, but plan

to do so in the future. The remaining 42, or approximately 23 percent, indicated they do not

operate an agri-tourism related business and do not plan to in the future. In combination with

the 2003 inventory, the total number of agri-tourism enterprises who responded to both inventory

surveys and indicated they currently operated an agri-tourism business was 335 (210 from the

2003 inventory and 125 from the 2004 update). A statewide map showing the locations of

responding agri-tourism enterprises is displayed in Figure 1.

7

Figure 1. Locations of Responding Agri-Tourism Enterprises, 2003 and 2004.

● = respondents to 2004 survey ● =respondents to 2003 survey

Types of Attractions

Those who indicated they currently operated an agri-tourism attraction were then asked to

answer a series of questions regarding their operations, including the types of agri-tourism

enterprises and attractions they operated in Tennessee. The purpose of asking these questions

was to determine if there is any correlation between the types of attraction offered at an

enterprise with more than one attraction. Also, an objective was to determine if a particular type

of enterprise was more likely to offer two or more attractions, how many, and which ones.

Displayed in Table 1 are the number of particular types of attractions and percentages of the

attractions that were offered by the survey participants who indicated they operate an agri-

tourism business.

8

As shown in Table 1, the most common types of attractions were on-farm retail markets,

on-farm restaurants, on-farm tours, pick-your-own farms, farm festivals and fairs, pumpkin

patches, cut-your-own Christmas trees, and on-farm petting zoos. Of the combined inventory,

nearly half had on-farm retail markets (Figure 2). Over 40 percent had an on-farm restaurant or

eating facility. As shown in Figure 2, over 35 percent conducted on-farm tours and over 26

percent operated pick-your-own farms. Almost 28 percent of the 125 operations that responded

indicated that they had a pick-your-own farm and approximately 25.6 percent have an on-farm

retail market. In addition to those listed below in Table 1, a number of agri-tourism business

owners had other types of attractions. These included attractions such as on-farm camping or

day camps.

Table 1. Number of Attractions by Type. Number of Enterprises with Attraction TypeType Attraction 2004 2003 Combined On-farm retail market 32 129 161 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 35 108 143 On-farm tour 26 92 118 Pick-your-own farm 35 53 88 Farm/farm products related festivals and fairs* 9 59 68 Pumpkin Patch 24 39 63 On-farm petting zoo 14 39 53 Cut-your-own Christmas tree 19 20 39 Century Farm 11 24 35 Corn maze 10 22 32 On-farm bed and breakfast 9 15 24 On-farm horseback riding 15 8 23 Winery 5 15 20 On-farm fee fishing 10 8 18 On-farm vacation 6 11 17 * Only on-farm festivals and fairs were included in the 2004 survey.

9

Figure 2. Percents of Enterprises by Type of Agri-tourism Attraction.

48.1

35.2

26.320.3 18.8 15.8

11.6 10.4 9.5 7.2 6.9 6.0 5.4 5.1

42.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Attraction Type

Perc

ent H

avin

g A

ttrac

tion

On-farm re tail market On-farm re staurant/e ating e s tablishme ntOn-farm tour Pick-your-own farmFarm/farm products re late d fe s tivals and fairs* Pumpkin PatchOn-farm pe tting zoo Cut your own Chris tmas tre eCe ntury Farm Corn mazeOn-farm be d and bre akfast On-farm horse back ridingWine ry On-farm fe e fishingOn-farm vacation

*Only on-farm festivals and fairs were included in the 2004 survey.

Location and Type of Attractions

Location of survey respondents were divided into three regions of the state: West, Middle

and East. The Western region of Tennessee has 22.2 percent of the responding enterprises, the

middle region has 37.4 percent, and the Eastern region has 40.4 percent.(N=334).

If the types of attractions are compared across region, several regional patterns emerge.

As shown in Table 2, a variety of agri-tourism enterprises are located more often in the East and

Middle regions of the state. Exceptions are on-farm petting zoos, which are fairly evenly

distributed across the three major regions of Tennessee, and farm festivals and fairs, which are

10

more common in the East and West regions of the state. Statewide maps of locations of the

various agri-tourism attractions are provided in Appendix 2.

Table 2. Regional Locations of Responding Agri-Tourism Enterprises. Percent Located in Region (N=334) Type Attraction West Middle East On-farm retail market 21.7 37.3 41.0 On-farm tour 25.4 28.8 45.8 Pick-your-own farm 20.5 47.7 31.8 Farm/farm products related festivals and fairs 30.6 22.6 46.8 Pumpkin Patch 25.4 38.1 36.5 On-farm petting zoo 30.2 34.0 35.8 Cut-your-own Christmas tree 21.0 29.0 50.0 Century Farm 20.0 42.9 37.1 Corn maze 18.7 34.4 46.9 On-farm bed and breakfast 12.5 37.5 50.0 On-farm horseback riding 13.1 39.1 47.8 Winery 10.0 45.0 45.0 On-farm fee fishing 22.2 38.9 38.9 On-farm vacation 17.3 37.9 44.8 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 23.8 34.3 42.0

If the agri-tourism attraction locations are examined across population density, about 25.1

percent were located in the counties with at least 200 persons per square mile. About 28.7

percent were located counties with population densities of less than 200 persons per square mile,

but at least 100 persons per square mile. Therefore, over half of the agri-tourism enterprises are

in counties with population densities of at 100 persons per square mile. According to year 2000

population estimates (2003 Tennessee Statistical Abstract), counties with population densities of

at least 200 persons per square mile were Anderson, Bradley, Davidson, Hamblen, Hamilton,

Knox, Montgomery, Rutherford, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Washington, and Williamson.

Counties with at least 100 persons, but less than 200 persons per square mile population density,

11

included Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Coffee, Greene, Hawkins, Jefferson, Loudon, Madison,

Maury, McMinn, Putnam, Roane, Robertson, Sevier, Tipton, and Wilson.

Multiple Attractions

Since many of the operations participating in the study offer more than one attraction, a

break down of the number of attractions offered by the enterprises has been demonstrated in

Table 3. The results in Table 3 indicate that from the 2004 inventory, 55 of the respondents, or

44 percent, only offered one attraction. As shown in Figure 3, when the 2004 and 2003

inventories were combined, about 29 percent only offered one attraction. The majority offered

three or less attractions.

Table 3. Attraction Numbers Per Enterprise.

Enterprises with Number of Attractions Number of Attractions

per Enterprise 2004 2003 Combined 1 55 42 97 2 29 42 71 3 18 50 68 4 12 42 54 5 6 12 18 6 3 8 11

>6 2 14 16

Figure 3. Percents of Enterprises by Number of Agritourism Attractions.

29.0

21.220.3

16.15.4 3.3 4.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 >6Number of Attractions

12

To identify combinations of attractions offered, correlations between attraction types

were evaluated. In Table 4, types of attractions that were most and least likely to be in

combination with another type of attraction are listed. The two categories were based upon

positive or negative correlations that were statistically significant with a 95 percent confidence

level. As can be seen in Table 4, for example, a common combination was a pumpkin patch,

corn maze, and petting zoo. Another combination was an on-farm vacation that might have a

stay in an on-farm bed and breakfast and horseback riding. On-farm eating establishments were

sometimes combined with museums or pick-your-own or retail markets. From the responses, it

appears that cut-your-own Christmas tree farms and wineries tend to be more “free standing

operations” than some other types of agri-tourism attractions. However, some wineries offered

on-farm tours.

Table 4. Combinations of Attractions.

Type of Attraction

Most Likely to Be Combined With

(Positive Correlation)

Least Likely to be Combined With

(Negative Correlation) Cut-your-own Christmas tree

Farm related festivals or fairs, On-farm tours, Pick-your-own

On-farm bed and breakfast

On-farm vacation, On-farm horseback riding

On-farm retail market, Farm related festivals or fairs, Pick-your-own

Winery On-farm tour Pumpkin patch On-farm vacation On-farm bed and breakfast, On-

farm horseback riding, On-farm petting zoo, On-farm fee fishing

Pick-your-own

On-farm horseback riding On-farm bed and breakfast, On-farm vacation

On-farm retail market, Pumpkin patch, Pick-your-own

On-farm museum Farm related festivals or fairs, Century Farm, On-farm tour, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

13

Table 4. Continued. On-farm retail market On-farm tour, Pumpkin patch,

Corn maze, Pick-your-own, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

On-farm bed and breakfast, On-farm horseback riding

Farm related festivals or fairs

Farming related museum, On-farm petting zoo

Cut-your-own Christmas tree, On-farm bed and breakfast, Pick-your-own

Century Farm Farming related museum, On-farm tour, Pumpkin patch, Corn maze, On-farm petting zoo, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

On-farm tour On-farm vacation, Farming related museum, On-farm retail market, Century farm, Pumpkin patch, Corn maze, On-farm petting zoo, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

Pumpkin patch On-farm retail market, Century Farm, Corn maze, Pick-your-own farm, On-farm petting zoo

On-farm bed and breakfast, On-farm horseback riding

Corn maze On-farm retail market, Century Farm, On-farm tour, Pumpkin patch, Pick-your-own, Petting zoo

Pick-your-own farm On-farm retail market, Pumpkin patch, Corn maze

Cut-your-own Christmas tree, On-farm bed and breakfast, On-farm vacation, On-farm horseback riding, Farm related festivals or fairs, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

On-farm petting zoo On-farm vacation, Farm related festivals or fairs, Century Farm, On-farm tour, Pumpkin patch, Corn maze, On-farm fee fishing, On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

On-farm fee fishing On-farm vacation, On-farm petting zoo

On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

Farming related museum, On-farm retail market, Century Farm, On-farm tour, Pick-your-own, On-farm petting zoo

14

Gross Sales Revenues

Agri-tourism operators were asked to indicate their sales revenues by category for the

prior year (Table 5). For the 2004 survey, 117 responded to the question, while on the 2003

survey, 156 responded to the question. This gave a total of 273 responses to the question across

the two surveys. The numbers of firms in each sales category across the two surveys are

displayed in Table 5, along with a combined total. The percent of the enterprises falling in each

sales category are shown in Figure 4. Just over 18 percent had less than $2,500 in sales, while

less than 15 percent had sales in excess of $100,000. About 20 percent of the firms had sales of

$10,000 to $25,000. If the middle dollar value of each interval is multiplied by the number of

firms ($1,000,000 is used for the $1,000,000 or greater category), then an estimate of total sales

revenues is projected at $21,563,640 for the 273 responding firms. It is important to note that

because the surveys were done across two years, the sales of the firms participating in the 2003

survey could have changed by 2004 when the survey of the additional firms was conducted.

Table 5. Gross Value of Agri-tourism Sales Revenues. Number of Enterprises Sales Revenues 2004 2003 Combined Less than $2,500 28 22 50 $2,500-$4,999 11 18 29 $5,000-$9,999 11 22 33 $10,000-$24,999 26 28 54 $25,000-$49,999 12 16 28 $50,000-$99,999 16 23 39 $100,000-$249,999 2 20 22 $250,000-$999,999 11 4 15 $1,000,000 or greater 0 3 3

15

The percents falling into sales categories were compared for firms having a particular

type of agri-tourism venue. For these comparisons, the sales categories were collapsed into three

categories (less than $10,000 in annual sales, $10,000-$49,999 in annual sales, and at least

$50,000 in annual sales). The percents in each sales category by type of agri-tourism attraction

are shown in Table 6. Enterprises with cut-your-own Christmas tree attractions tended to be

smaller in terms of value of sales, while on-farm bed and breakfasts, farm vacations, horseback

riding, festivals and fairs, and wineries were larger in terms of value of sales. The types of

businesses where the majority had at least $50,000 in sales were farm related museums and

wineries.

Figure 4. Percent of Enterprises in Sales Categories.

18.3

10.6

12.119.8

10.3

14.3

8.1 5.5 1.1

Less than $2,500 $2,500-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999$10,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$99,999$100,000-$249,999 $250,000-$999,999 $1,000,000 or greater

16

Table 6. Percent of Enterprises In Sales Category by Type of Attraction. Percent with Annual Sales of: Type of Attraction

Less than $10,000

$10,000-$49,999

At Least $50,000

Cut-your-own Christmas tree 63.9 30.6 5.6

Pick-your-own farm 42.9 32.5 24.7

On-farm fee fishing 40.0 26.7 33.3

On-farm retail market 39.3 27.9 32.9

On-farm tour 36.0 31.0 33.0

Century Farm 34.5 41.4 24.1

Pumpkin patch 34.0 43.4 22.6

On-farm restaurant/eating establishment

32.8 34.5 32.8

On-farm petting zoo 32.6 32.6 34.8

Farming related museum 30.8 15.4 53.9

Corn maze 30.8 38.5 30.8

On-farm bed and breakfast 28.6 47.6 23.8

Farm/farm products related festivals or fairs

21.3 41.2 37.5

On-farm vacation 20.0 33.2 46.8

On-farm horseback riding 20.0 40.0 40.0

Winery 0.0 10.5 89.5

Years of Experience

Respondents were asked to provide the number of years they had operated an agri-

tourism enterprise. There were 122 responses for this question out of the 125 respondents who

said that they operated an agri-tourism enterprise. The responses ranged from less than one year

to 64 years of experience. The mean response was 10.6 years of experience. When both the 2004

and 2003 survey data were combined, the average number of years in business was 11.8 years,

with a median of 10 years (N=325). About 34.5 percent of the respondents had 5 years or less

experience. As shown in Table 7, the average years of experience was calculated across the type

17

of attraction. While those operating corn mazes had an average of 8.3 years of experience, those

operating farm festivals or fairs had 13.8 years. The results in Table 7 suggest that some of the

of the attractions are more likely to be operated by respondents with fewer years of experience,

for example corn mazes, on-farm vacations, on-farm horseback riding, and on-farm bed and

breakfasts.

Table 7. Years of Experience by Type of Attraction. Type of Attraction

Average Years of Experience

Corn maze 8.3 On-farm vacation 9.2 On-farm horseback riding 9.4 On-farm bed and breakfast 9.5 Winery 10.4 On-farm tour 11.2 On-farm petting zoo 11.3 Century Farm 11.5 Pumpkin patch 11.8 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 11.9 On-farm retail market 12.6 Pick-your-own farm 12.7 Cut-your-own Christmas tree 13.5 Farming related museum 13.7 On-farm fee fishing 13.8 Farm/farm products related festivals or fairs 13.8

Operation Acreage

Respondents were asked to provide the amount of acreage on which their agri-tourism

enterprise was operated. There were 115 responses to this question. The responses ranged from

less than one to 25,000 operation acres. The mean response was approximately 480 acres per

operation while the median response was approximately 26 acres per operation. The differences

in mean and median responses indicate the distribution of responses is skewed such that a low

number of enterprises with a large amount of acreage inflate the mean. In terms of acreage,

18

these results suggest that the majority of the operations are fairly small in size. According to

Tennessee Agriculture 2004 (TASS, 2004), the average size of all farms in Tennessee in 2003

was about 133 acres.

Number of Employees

Respondents were asked how many full-time and part-time employees they employed.

For the 2004 survey, there were 121 responses received for this question. The number of full-

time employees ranged from 0 to 25 and the number part-time employees ranged from 0 to 300

per response. The mean response for full-time employees was 1.6 and the mean was

approximately 5.4 for part-time employees. When the results from both 2003 and 2004 surveys

were combined, the average number of full-time employees was 1.9, while the average number

of part-time employees was 3.9 (N=328). About 67.1 percent stated that they had no full-time

employees, while 54.3 said they had no part-time employees. This suggests that many of the

agri-tourism attractions are operated by the owners, often with no outside or hired full time

employees. As shown in Table 8, some types of attractions appear to rely more heavily on part-

time employees, possibly seasonal workers. Examples of those relying more heavily on part-

time workers include corn mazes, pick-your-own farms, on-farm retail markets, and pumpkin

patches.

Table 8. Average Number of Employees by Type of Attraction. Type of Attraction

Average Number of Full

Time Employees

Average Number of Part Time Employees

On-farm bed and breakfast 0.2 0.8 Winery 0.6 2.6 On-farm horseback riding 1.0 1.5 On-farm vacation 1.1 2.2 On-farm fee fishing 1.1 1.3 Corn maze 1.2 5.4

19

Table 8. Continued. Type of Attraction

Average Number of Full

Time Employees

Average Number of Part Time Employees

Cut-your-own Christmas tree 1.3 2.7 On-farm tour 1.5 3.2 Pick-your-own farm 1.7 6.5 On-farm retail market 1.9 5.0 Pumpkin patch 2.7 8.2 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 2.8 5.9 On-farm petting zoo 5.0 5.5 Farm/farm products related festivals or fairs 5.4 5.8 Century Farm 6.5 6.6 Farming related museum 12.4 9.2

Number of Days Open Per Year

The survey respondents that indicated that they operate agri-tourism related businesses

were asked to give their estimate of how many days per year they were open for business. From

the 2004 survey, there were 116 responses to this question ranging from 6 to 365 days per year

with a mean of approximately 160. When the two surveys were combined the average number

of days open was 191. The median was 180 days. About 37.8 percent of the respondents from

the combined surveys were open less than 90 days out of the year, while another 35.7 were open

at least 270 days out of the year. Shown in Table 9, if the average number of days open is

compared across type of attraction, enterprises with cut-your-own Christmas trees were open the

fewest days on average (76 days), while wineries were open the most days on average (341

days).

20

Table 9. Average Number of Days Open by Type of Attraction. Type of Attraction Average Number of Days Open Cut-your-own Christmas tree 76 Corn maze 131 Pumpkin patch 138 Pick-your-own farm 143 Farm/farm products related festivals or fairs 178 On-farm petting zoo 186 On-farm retail market 192 Century Farm 219 On-farm tour 223 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 240 On-farm horseback riding 258 On-farm vacation 267 Farming related museum 284 On-farm fee fishing 287 On-farm bed and breakfast 315 Winery 341

Peak Months of Operation

The peak months of business for agri-tourism venues, as a combined group, were from

May through October (N=322). Some exceptions exist, however. For example, the peak months

for those with cut-your-own Christmas trees were November and December. While the wineries

cited year round business, with the Fall months through December the most often cited peak

months. The most often cited peak months for on-farm vacations were May and June followed

by September and October. Peak months for pumpkin patches, corn mazes, and petting zoos

were September and October. May through October were peak months for bed and breakfasts,

on-farm horseback riding, on-farm retail markets, and fee fishing. For pick-your-own

operations, the most often cited peak months were the summer months, in particular July. The

most often cited peak months for farm festivals and fairs were August, September, and October

21

Number of Visitors

Survey participants were asked to estimate the number of visitors their business receives

each year. Of the 101 respondents who answered this question, responses for their estimate of

how many visitors they receive each year ranged from 5 to 100,000 visitors annually. The mean

response was 4,298 visitors, although the median was 500, indicating more enterprises had an

average number of visitors on the lower end of the range than on the higher end. When the 2004

and 2003 survey results were combined, the median number of visitors is 1,104. One reason for

the difference between the two medians is that while off-farm festivals and fairs were included in

the 2003 survey, 2004 survey limited festivals and fairs to those that are conducted on-farm.

Dollars Spent by Visitors

Survey participants were asked to report their estimate of the amount each visitor spends

at their operation on average per visit each year. The 2004 survey respondents’ estimates of how

much each customer spent ranged from $0 to $1,500, with an average of $55.49 (N=115).

However, the median estimated visitor expenditure was $15.00, indicating more enterprises had

per-customer sales on the lower end of the range. Three enterprises reported customers on

average spent nothing at their enterprise because they gave free farm tours. Approximately 41

percent of respondents reported an average between $1 and $10 spent by customers. Only about

10 percent reported average sales per customer of $75 or more. When the sales estimates are

combined with those from the 2003 survey, the average expenditure per customer is $39.45, with

a median expenditure of $15.00. If the median expenditures per person of $15.00 are multiplied

by the median number of visitors, 1,104, an estimated value of sales to customers is about

$16,560.

22

In the 2004 survey, as a second part to the visitor expenditure question, the business

owners were asked to estimate the values of types of expenditures by their visitors. They were

asked to break down their estimate of average sales revenues into five categories. The five

categories given were (1) admission and user fees, (2) purchasing the farm/venue’s products, (3)

other food and drink, (4) non-food souvenir items, and (5) other. When the expenditure

categories were summed for each of the 108 respondents, the average estimated expenditure was

$56.35. A breakdown of the estimated expenditures is shown in the upper portion of Table 9.

The largest portions of expenditures were either on admission or user fees or purchasing the

venue’s products. In the bottom half of Table 10, estimated expenditures are shown for

enterprises reporting estimated visitor expenditures of less than $75. For these firms, which

constitute about 90% of the responses to the question, the average admission fee was $4.55,

while the average product purchase was $11.46. Expenditures on food and drink averaged $1.72,

while estimated purchases of non-food souvenir items averaged $0.67.

Table 10. Estimated Visitor Expenditure by Type. Type of Expenditure Estimated Amount Per Visitor All Respondents (N=108) Admission or User Fees $25.59 Purchasing the farm/venue's product $28.35 Other food and drink $1.70 Non-food souvenir items $.66 Other $.05 Total $56.35

Respondents Reporting Expenditures of

less than $75 per person (N=97) Admission or User Fees $4.55 Purchasing the farm/venue's product $11.46 Other food and drink $1.72 Non-food souvenir items $.67 Other $.05 Total $18.45

23

Types of Advertisement

The 2004 survey included a question about types of advertising and promotion used. As

shown in Table 11, the most common types of advertisement and promotion used were word of

mouth, business signs, www.picktnproducts.org web site, and newspaper advertising. Each of

these types of advertisements had been used by more than half of the responding agri-tourism

businesses. Television advertising, coupons, and point-of-sale samples were the three least used

methods. About 23 percent of the respondents indicated that they used other methods of

advertising. These included the yellow pages, flyers, business cards, billboards, magazines,

journals, outdoor shows, teacher in-service, Christmas cards to customers, AAA, TV Specials,

call lists, WIC vouchers/EBT, and farm coloring books.

Table 11. Types of Advertisement Used to Promote Agri-tourism. Type of Advertisement/ Promotion

Percent Using Method (N=123)

Word of mouth 90.2 Business sign 70.7 TN Department of Ag web site 61.8 Newspaper ads 58.5 Brochures 44.7 Own business website 39.0 Regional, county, or local brochures or web sites 30.9 Chamber of Commerce 30.9 Direct mail 27.6 Tennessee Vacation Guide 21.1 Radio advertising 20.3 News releases 16.3 Coupons 9.8 Point-of-sale samples 9.8 Television ads 7.3 Other 22.8

24

Future Plans

Survey respondents were asked if they planned to expand their current agri-tourism

attractions (N=136). From the 2004 survey, 59 operators, approximately 43 percent, replied that

they planned to expand their current attractions. Another 36 percent indicated they planned to

expand into another type of agri-tourism attraction. Forty-four respondents, approximately 32

percent, planned to remain about the same size. Twelve operators, approximately 8 percent of the

responses, indicated that they planned to decrease the size of their business or exit the agri-

tourism business. In the 2003 survey, 63 percent of the 210 respondents stated that they planned

to expand in the future. If the 2004 and 2003 data are combined, the overall percent of the

businesses with some type of planned expansion is about 62 percent.

Survey respondents indicating planned future expansion into a new type agri-tourism

attraction were asked about the types of ventures into which they would enter. The percentages

of respondents who indicated they would expand into a particular type of agri-tourism venture

are displayed in Table 12. On-farm tours were the most common type of planned expansion into

a new venture, receiving 30.6 percent of the responses, followed by on-farm retail markets

(28.57 percent). Approximately 22 percent of the respondents indicated that they would start up

other ventures not listed in the survey. These included tournaments, school and education

programs, horse drawn wagon/carriage rides, picnicking, hiking or biking activities, or candy and

food manufacturing.

25

Table 12. Planned Future Agri-tourism Attractions. Type of New Attraction

Potential Number New Attractions

Percent of Responses

On-farm tour 15 30.6 On-farm retail market 14 28.6 Corn maze 11 22.5 Festivals or fairs 10 20.4 Pumpkin patch 10 20.4 On-farm bed and breakfast 8 16.3 Pick-your-own farm 8 16.3 On-farm horseback riding 6 12.2 On-farm petting zoo 6 12.2 On-farm restaurant/eating establishment 6 12.2 On-farm camping 5 10.2 On-farm fee fishing 5 10.2 On-farm vacation 5 10.2 Cut-your-own Christmas tree 3 6.1 On-farm day camps 3 6.1 Winery 2 4.1 Farming related museum 1 2.0 Other 11 22.5 Total 129

The responses regarding types of planned attractions were then compared across the type

of existing attractions the business already had. A listing of potential attractions by existing

attraction is shown in Table 13. For example, some operators of bed and breakfasts projected

future expansion into on-farm restaurants. As listed earlier in this document, some of the more

common types of existing agri-tourism attractions are on-farm retail markets, pick-your-own

farms, and farm tours. Among on-farm retail markets with planned expansion into new

attractions, some potential new attractions included cut-your-own Christmas tree, on-farm bed

and breakfast, winery, farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tours, pumpkin patch, corn maze,

pick-your-own, on-farm day camp, or an on-farm restaurant. Among pick-your-own operations,

the new potential attractions listed included cut-your-own Christmas tree, on-farm bed and

26

breakfast, winery, on-farm vacation, farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tour, pumpkin patch,

corn maze, on-farm fee fishing, on-farm camping, on-farm day camps, or an on-farm restaurant.

Table 13. Potential New Agri-tourism Attractions by Current Attraction Type. Current Attraction Potential Attractions Cut-your-own Christmas tree farm

On-farm bed and breakfast, on-farm retail market, farm festivals, on-farm tours, pumpkin patches, pick-your-own, on-farm restaurant

On-farm bed and breakfast

On-farm restaurant

Winery Century farm On-farm vacation Horseback riding On-farm horseback riding

On-farm bed and breakfast, on-farm vacation, farm festivals, pumpkin patch, petting zoo, on-farm camping, on-farm day camps, on-farm restaurant

Farming related museum

On-farm retail market

On-farm retail market Cut-your-own Christmas tree, on-farm bed and breakfast, winery, farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tours, pumpkin patch, corn maze, pick-your-own, on-farm day camp, on-farm restaurant

Farm/farm products festivals or fairs

On-farm bed and breakfast, on-farm retail market, Century farm, on-farm tours, pumpkin patch, corn maze, petting zoo, on-farm day camp, on-farm restaurant

Century farm Farm festivals, on-farm restaurant On-farm tour On-farm bed and breakfast, winery, farm festivals, Century farm, pumpkin

patch, corn maze, on-farm restaurant Pumpkin patch On-farm retail market, farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tours, corn

maze, pick-your-own, on-farm day camp, on-farm restaurant Corn maze Farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tour, pumpkin patch Pick-your-own farm Cut-your-own Christmas tree, on-farm bed and breakfast, winery, on-farm

vacation, farm festivals, Century farm, on-farm tour, pumpkin patch, corn maze, on-farm fee fishing, on-farm camping, on-farm day camps, on-farm restaurant

On-farm petting zoo Farm festival, pumpkin patch, corn maze on-farm restaurant On-farm fee fishing Pumpkin patch, petting zoo, on-farm restaurant

Types of Assistance Services Used and Effects

Respondents who indicated that they had used government sponsored promotional

assistance (Tennessee Department of Agriculture website at www.picktnproducts.org; the

Tennessee Vacation Guide at TNVacation.com); and regional, county, or local tourism

27

guidebooks or websites) were asked to estimate how much they expected this assistance would

influence their agri-tourism sales next year. There were 63 responses to this question ranging

from 0 to 50 percent. The mean response was approximately a 10 percent increase.

Respondents were asked about attendance at agri-tourism workshops sponsored by the

Tennessee Department of Agriculture and/or the UT Extension Service as part of the Tennessee

Agri-tourism Initiative. There were 136 responses to this question. Fifty-six of the respondents,

41.2 percent, said they had attended agri-tourism workshops and/or events. Among the 56 who

had attended workshops, 44.6 percent indicated the information given at these workshops and/or

events were very helpful, 39.3 percent indicated that it was somewhat helpful. Only 4 percent

found the workshops not to be helpful at all.

The information from the workshops that respondents found to be most beneficial

included marketing, networking, new tourism ideas, hearing the experiences of other operators,

and insurance information. When asked to estimate by what percentage the information and/or

assistance they obtained from the workshops will influence their agri-tourism sales in the next

year the responses varied from 0 to 50 percent. The mean response they projected was a 14.4

percent increase in sales.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate what other assistance or services they have

used in the development of their agri-tourism business. Of the 135 responses to this question,

over 41 percent had used the University of Tennessee Extension Service’s assistance, 7.5 percent

had used USDA Grants or Loans, nearly 4 percent had used Small Business Administration

Technical Assistance, and almost 3 percent had used Small Business Administration Grants or

Loans. Approximately 14 percent had used some other type of assistance. Examples of other

types of assistance used included visiting other farms, networking, vocational rehabilitation

28

services, UT Fruit and Vegetable grower events and meetings, TN Farm Bureau, Chamber of

Commerce, TN Tourism Council, Senate offices, grower contracts, CRP/FSA, SCS, books and

internet research, and other states’ Agriculture Departments and Extension Offices.

Assistance Needed

Some suggestions by respondents for future workshops included more marketing

oriented workshops, producer panels, legal requirements information, insurances/liability

coverage information with names of firms who cater to agri-tourism, more farm tours, on-farm

food preparation guidelines. Other suggestions were information about developing programs for

school children, information about e-commerce, information about collecting and paying sales

taxes, assistance preparing media kits, advanced web-site training, educating the public about

farm related businesses, and local conferences with adjacent counties.

Respondents were also asked what types of marketing and promotion assistance services

their businesses needed (N=136). As shown in Table 14, the top five types of assistance needed

were: internet site development, liability and insurance issues, assistance identifying and making

tour bus and travel group contacts, market research, and visitor safety analysis. Fifty-six

respondents, slightly more than 41 percent, indicated assistance with Internet site development,

while 55 respondents, approximately 40 percent, needed assistance with liability and insurance

issues. Additionally, approximately 11 percent of the respondents indicated they needed some

type of assistance other than those types that were listed in the survey. Some of the other types of

assistance cited as needs by the respondents included identifying sources of grant monies and

assistance applying for grants, establishing a large equestrian center near the Great Smoky

Mountains, state tax compliance assistance, information and assistance on establishing a corn

mazes, finding mailing lists for local markets, suggestions for on-farm improvements and

29

expansion, food product labeling information, assistance getting into regional and state visitor

guides, assistance locating capital, assistance obtaining highway signs, and help with how to start

up an agri-tourism attraction.

Table 14. Types of Marketing and Promotion Assistance Services Needed. Types of Marketing and Promotion Assistance Needed

Percent Needing (N=136)

Internet site development 41.2 Liability and insurance issues 40.4 Assistance identifying and making tour bus and travel groups contacts 27.2 Market Research 26.5 Visitor safety analysis 25.0 Assistance developing copy materials for brochures 23.5 Assistance with development and placement of signs 23.5 How to do a marketing plan 22.8 Assistance developing ads for newspapers or magazines 19.1 Assistance locating capital to finance marketing promotion efforts 19.1 Identifying your primary audience 15.4 Other 11.0 Assistance planning traffic flow and management 9.6

In Table 15, the percents needing particular types of assistance are shown across whether

the agri-tourism operator had at least 10 years experience. With the exception of how to do a

marketing plan, a higher percent of less experienced businesses were in need of assistance than

more experienced businesses.

30

Table 15. Years of Experience and Assistance Services Needed.

Percent Needing

Assistance

Type of Assistance Less than 10 years

10 years or greater

Assistance developing ads for newspapers or magazines 20.3 14.3 Assistance developing copy materials for brochures 23.2 18.4 Assistance identifying and making tour bus and travel group contacts 30.4 18.4 Assistance locating capital to finance marketing and promotion efforts

21.7 16.3

Assistance planning traffic flow and management 13.0 4.1 Assistance with development and placement of signs 27.5 18.4 How to do a marketing plan 17.4 30.6 Identifying your primary audience 13.0 12.2 Internet site development 42.0 36.7 Liability and insurance issues 36.2 36.7 Market research 21.7 26.5 Other 14.5 8.2 Visitor safety analysis 24.6 20.4

Shown in Table 16, the needs for assistance were compared across firms of different sales

categories (less than $10,000 in sales, $10,000 to $49,999 in sales, and $50,000 or greater in

sales). Assistance developing ads for newspapers or magazines, how to do a marketing plan, and

assistance identifying their primary audience were needed at about the same level across firm

sizes. Larger firms expressed a stronger need for assistance developing copy materials for

brochures, assistance locating capital to finance marketing and promotion efforts, help with

liability and insurance issues, and market research. Medium sized firms expressed the strongest

needs for assistance identifying and making tour bus and travel group contacts and internet site

development. Small and medium firms expressed a stronger need than larger firms for assistance

with development and placement of signs. Smaller firms expressed stronger needs than larger

firms for assistance planning traffic flow/management and visitor safety analysis.

31

Table 16. Sales Revenues and Assistance Services Needed.

Percent Needing Assistance Type With Sales of:

Type of Assistance

Less than $10,000

$10,000-$49,999

At Least $50,000

Assistance developing ads for newspapers or magazines 16.7 18.4 17.2 Assistance developing copy materials for brochures 20.8 18.0 31.0 Assistance identifying and making tour bus and travel group contacts 20.8 31.6 27.6 Assistance locating capital to finance marketing and promotion efforts 16.7 15.8 27.6 Assistance planning traffic flow and management 14.6 7.9 6.9 Assistance with development and placement of signs 25.0 26.3 17.2

How to do a marketing plan 25.0 21.0 24.1

Identifying your primary audience 14.6 13.2 10.3

Internet site development 37.5 55.3 31.0

Liability and insurance issues 37.5 28.9 51.7

Market research 12.5 28.9 37.9

Other 10.4 21.0 3.4

Visitor safety analysis 33.3 18.4 13.8

Conclusions

The agri-tourism industry in Tennessee is still a relatively young industry, with an

average experience level of the business operators of only around 10 years. For the firms

responding to the 2003 and 2004 surveys, a projected value for total sales revenues is over $21

million. In addition, the majority of the agri-tourism operators plan to expand their operations in

the future, either through expansion of their current attractions or expansion into new types of

attractions. The industry is diversified across many types of agri-tourism attractions and in many

32

cases, the business operators have diversified into more than one type of agri-tourism attraction.

Many of the agri-tourism operators still rely heavily on word-of-mouth and signs to advertise

their businesses. However, there was a strong interest in assistance of how to develop internet

sites. In general, the agri-tourism firms that were less experienced expressed a greater for

assistance than more experienced firms. However, analysis of assistance needs across firm size

suggests more variability of assistance needs across size. For example, a higher percent of larger

firms expressed a need for assistance with liability and insurance issues, while a higher percent

of smaller firms expressed needs for visitor safety analysis.

33

References

Bruch, M. and Holland, R. A Snapshot of Tennessee Agritourism: Results from the 2003 Enterprise Inventory. The University of Tennessee Center for Profitable Agriculture, October 2004.

Che, D., G. Veeck, A. Veeck, and D. Lemberg Michigan Agritourism: Strengthening

Michigan’s Agriculture and Tourism Industries. Western Michigan University Departments of Geography and Marketing. Internet site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/FSMIP/FY2001/MI0337.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2005)

Curtis, W., J. Bergstrom, J. McKissick, W. Kriesel, and W. Thomas. Agricultural and

Nature-Based Tourism: Survey Results From Georgia's Chambers of Commerce. January 2002. CR-02-02. Internet site: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/ bergstromrpt.pdf. (Accessed May 5, 2005).

Doherty, B., J. Bergstrom, and J. McKissick. Summary Results of Georgia Citizens'

Attitudes Towards Agricultural Tourism and Land-Based Recreational Opportunities. May 2001, CR-01-23. Internet site: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/agtourism.pdf. (Accessed May 5, 2005).

Hilchey, D. and D. Kuehn. Agritourism in New York: A Market Analysis. 1999. Internet site:

http://www.cce.cornell.edu/programs/programs/CaRDI_new/cd_toolbox_2/tools/agritourism_ny.cfm. (Accessed May 5, 2005).

Rumbletree Incorporated for New Hampshire Department of Agriculture. New Hampshire

Department of Agriculturel Marketing Research and Recommendations. Summer 2003. Internet site: http://www.state.nh.us/agric/pdf/publications/THE%20IMPACT%20OF %20AGRICULTURE%20ON%20NEW%20HAMPSHIRE.pdf (Accessed May 5, 2005).

Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service. Tennessee Agriculture 2004. Internet site:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/tn/web2004bltn.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2005). Wood, N., C. Halbrendt, K. Liang, and Q. Wang. Interdependence of Agriculture and

Tourism: Quantifying the Value of the Agricultural Working Landscape in Vermont. Paper presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Tampa, Florida, 2000.

34

APPENDIX 1. Survey Instrument.

35

36

37

38

39

APPENDIX 2. Location Maps of Agri-Tourism Attractions.

40

Figure A2.1. On-farm Retail Markets.*

Figure A2.2. On-farm Tours.

*Each dot represents one agri-tourism enterprise with a particular type of attraction. The three color shaded areas represent the three regions of the state, West, Middle, and East

41

Figure A2.3. Pick-Your-Own Farms.

Figure A2.4. Farm Related Festivals or Fairs.

42

Figure A2.5. Pumpkin Patches.

Figure A2.6. On-Farm Petting Zoos.

43

Figure A2.7. Cut-your-own Christmas Tree Farms.

Figure A2.8. Century Farms.

44

Figure A2.9. Corn Mazes.

Figure A2.10. On-Farm Bed and Breakfasts.

45

Figure A2.11. Horseback Riding.

Figure A2.12. Wineries.

46

Figure A2.13. On-Farm Fee Fishing.

Figure A2.14. On-farm Vacations.

47

Figure A2.15. On-Farm Restaurants/Eating Establishments.