Next Article in Journal
Influence of Biochar Organic Carbon Composition and Thermal Stability on Nitrate Retention and Tomato Yield on Soilless Biochar Amended Growth Media
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on the Coupling Coordination Relationship Between Rural Tourism and Agricultural Green Development Level: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Passion Fruit Seed Oil Supplementation for Health and Performance of Laying Hens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intersectoral Linking of Agriculture, Hospitality, and Tourism—A Model for Implementation in AP Vojvodina (Republic of Serbia)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture15080866
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agritourism and Rural Development: A Global Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research, Limitations, and Future Directions

by
Abdi Shukri Yasin
1,2 and
Zsuzsanna Bacsi
3,*
1
Doctoral School of Economics and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2100 Godollo, Hungary
2
Department of Natural Resources Management, Kebri Dehar University, Kebri Dehar 250, Ethiopia
3
Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, The Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Georgikon Campus, 8360 Keszthely, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(8), 866; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080866
Submission received: 13 March 2025 / Revised: 9 April 2025 / Accepted: 14 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leveraging Agritourism for Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agritourism has emerged as a strategic tool for fostering sustainable rural development by diversifying farm income, preserving cultural heritage, and promoting environmental stewardship. This study presents a global bibliometric analysis of research on agritourism and rural development, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of the field, identify key trends, and highlight future research directions. Utilizing the Web of Science database, 171 relevant publications from 2004 to 2024 were analyzed through bibliometric techniques, focusing on publication trends, keyword co-occurrence, and co-citation analysis. Findings indicate a growing academic interest in agritourism, with sustainability as a dominant theme. The study identifies five thematic clusters: economic contributions, policy frameworks, tourist motivations, environmental sustainability, and agritourism’s broader role in landscape conservation. Co-citation analysis highlights the intellectual evolution from foundational perspectives on rural tourism to complex discussions on sustainability and innovation. Despite these advancements, knowledge gaps persist, particularly in geographic representation, digital innovation, climate change mitigation, and policy governance. Addressing these gaps will enhance academic discourse and provide practical insights for policymakers, entrepreneurs, and rural communities. This study serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners seeking to navigate the expanding literature on agritourism and rural development.

1. Introduction

The intersection of agritourism and rural development has garnered increasing scholarly attention over the past two decades [1,2,3,4,5], emerging as a promising avenue for fostering sustainable rural economies [6], preserving cultural heritage [7], and promoting environmental stewardship [8]. Agritourism, encompassing a range of activities that connect agricultural production with tourism experiences, offers a multifaceted approach to rural revitalization [9]. It involves visits to working farms, participation in agricultural activities, accommodation in rural settings, and the purchase of local products [10]. By diversifying farm incomes, creating employment opportunities, and attracting visitors to rural areas, agritourism significantly contributes to economic growth and community resilience [4]. Furthermore, it plays a vital role in preserving traditional farming practices, promoting local food systems, and raising awareness about sustainable agriculture [11].
The concept of rural development itself is complex, multifaceted, and an ongoing process that reflects the changes in the economy, society, environment, land use, and the functional roles of rural areas over time [12]. This transformation happens due to the interaction between rural factors—such as natural resources, location, ecology, economy, and society—and external influences such as policy interventions, industrialization, urbanization, globalization, and technology. In the context of increasing globalization and urbanization, rural areas face numerous challenges, including declining agricultural employment, outmigration of young people, and degradation of natural resources [13]. Agritourism has been identified as a strategic tool for addressing these challenges, offering a pathway towards sustainable and inclusive rural development [14,15]. By linking agriculture with tourism, agritourism creates synergistic benefits, stimulating economic activity, preserving cultural landscapes, and promoting environmental conservation [16].
Although the literature on agritourism and rural development has expanded considerably, there remains a lack of comprehensive, systematic assessments of the field. Most existing reviews tend to focus on specific regions, subtopics, or theoretical perspectives, without offering a global, data-driven overview of research trends. This study aims to address this gap by conducting the first global bibliometric analysis of research on agritourism and rural development. Bibliometric analysis, a quantitative approach to studying scholarly publications, offers a valuable tool for mapping the intellectual landscape of a research area, identifying key trends, influential publications, and emerging research themes [17]. By analyzing citation patterns, keyword co-occurrence, and author networks, bibliometric studies provide a profound insight into the structure and evolution of a research field [18]. While a few bibliometric studies have touched on rural development more broadly [19,20,21], this is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first bibliometric analysis to examine the intersection of agritourism and rural development. This study makes several key contributions to the state of the art:
  • It offers a systematic and quantitative overview of the main characteristics of the research landscape, including publication trends, leading sources, author productivity, and influential articles and countries.
  • It uncovers thematic clusters through keyword co-occurrence analysis, highlighting the evolving foci within the field.
  • It identifies the intellectual structure of the field by examining co-citation patterns and identifying key foundational works.
  • It reveals potential knowledge gaps and future directions for research in agritourism and rural development.
By presenting this comprehensive analysis, the study contributes to a clearer understanding of agritourism’s role in sustainable rural development, offering practical insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. Moreover, it serves as a navigational tool for scholars entering or advancing in this multidisciplinary field.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing literature. Section 3 describes the data collection and bibliometric analysis methods. Section 4 presents the findings, including descriptive statistics and results on authorship, geography, citations, keywords, and co-citations. Section 5 offers an in-depth discussion of these findings. Finally, Section 6 draws conclusions, with policy recommendations, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

Agritourism has emerged as a pivotal driver of rural development, offering economic, social, and environmental benefits across various regions.

2.1. Economic Contributions of Agritourism

Several studies emphasize the economic benefits of agritourism in rural areas. Some of these [11,22,23,24] highlight how agritourism contributes to economic empowerment through job creation and income generation. Others [25,26] assert that agritourism supports small businesses and diversifies economic activities, fostering local development. One article about Italy [4] shows that agritourism provides supplementary income for farmers, while another about Ukraine [27] suggests that agritourism can transition from a minor actor to a significant contributor in farm household income generation and regional economic sustainability. A comparative study of Italian olive oil companies [28] revealed fluctuating profitability across regions, offering benchmarks for agri-entrepreneurs and policy guidance for supporting agro-industrial development.

2.2. Sustainable Development and Environmental Benefits

The role of agritourism in sustainable rural development is widely acknowledged. A Mexican study [29] emphasizes that agritourism must be carefully planned to maximize sustainability benefits. Other authors [30,31] highlight how agritourism promotes environmental sustainability by integrating community-based participation and resilience-focused frameworks. Furthermore, the interplay between ecological agriculture and agritourism is demonstrated [32] in fostering rural revitalization in China. Similarly, a framework for sustainable agritourism in Zimbabwe [33] underlines the importance of community involvement and environmental conservation. A recent study [34] demonstrates that integrating sustainability investments—Green Investment (GI) and Preservation Investment (PI)—significantly enhances profitability while meeting eco-conscious consumer demand, offering strategic value for sustainable rural enterprises such as agritourism. Another study [35] further illustrates that new media exposure and environmental regulation jointly drive corporate green technology innovation, highlighting the role of public scrutiny and policy tools in promoting sustainable industrial practices.

2.3. Cultural and Social Impacts

Agritourism contributes significantly to preserving cultural heritage and strengthening social cohesion. Some research publications discuss the role of agritourism in maintaining cultural traditions while supporting economic diversification [36,37]. Others note that agritourism can leverage local resources and cultural heritage to create unique tourism experiences that benefit local communities [38,39]. Another article about Botswana highlights how agritourism serves as a livelihood diversification strategy for peripheral communities, offering economic stability and cultural preservation [40].

2.4. Challenges and Strategic Approaches

Despite its potential, agritourism faces various challenges that require strategic interventions, for example, the pressures of fast urbanization on peri-urban agritourism, as in Vietnam [41]. Similarly, it is shown that while agritourism benefits mountain farmers in Thailand, ensuring fair distribution of economic gains remains a challenge [42]. Infrastructure and marketing deficiencies were identified as key obstacles to agritourism growth in Ghana [43]. Addressing these challenges requires strategic interventions, such as careful planning [41], community empowerment and fair benefit sharing [42], effective marketing strategies [44], and investing in essential infrastructure like roads, sanitation, and communication networks to support agritourism operations [43].

2.5. Government and Policy Support

Public contributions and policy interventions play a crucial role in fostering agritourism. Government support can create competitive advantages for agritourism, leading to local development [5], and clarity in agritourism definitions is also needed to enhance policy formulation and implementation [45]. Additionally, empirical evidence from China demonstrates [46] the interaction between agritourism and tourism-driven poverty reduction, underlining its potential for rural revitalization. A summary of relevant studies is given in Table 1. While prior literature offers valuable case-specific insights, it lacks a holistic overview of global research patterns, themes, and theoretical foundations. This underscores the significance of bibliometric analysis to uncover underexplored intersections—such as those between agritourism and rural development—and to guide future research agendas in a more coordinated and impactful direction.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a bibliometric analysis to systematically map the research landscape at the intersection of agritourism and rural development. Bibliometric analysis offers a structured, quantitative means of assessing scholarly output, uncovering research trends, identifying influential works, and visualizing the intellectual structure of a field [47]. This method is especially relevant for interdisciplinary and evolving fields like agritourism, where research is dispersed across multiple disciplines.

3.1. Data Source and Justification

Among several academic databases available for bibliometric research—such as Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar—this study used the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). WoS was chosen due to its relevance for the study objective, high-quality indexing of peer-reviewed publications, and structured metadata, which are essential for accurate bibliometric mapping and compatibility with tools like Bibliometrix 4.1.2 and VOSviewer 1.6.20 [48,49].

3.2. Search Strategy and Keyword Scope

To capture the interdisciplinary nature of agritourism and its role in rural development, a comprehensive Boolean search was formulated after iterative refinement of terms. The final query was (“agritouris*” OR “agro-touris*”) AND (“rural develop*” OR “community develop*” OR “rural economic*” OR “sustain* rural livelihood*” OR “local develop*”).

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The search retrieved 194 documents from WoS, covering 2004 to December 2024. The following exclusion criteria were then applied: (i) Document type: Conference proceedings, early-access articles, editorials, and notes were excluded to ensure the inclusion of finalized, peer-reviewed content. The omitted formats often lack the complete bibliometric metadata required for advanced analysis. (ii) Language: Non-English publications were excluded to ensure consistency in analysis and tool compatibility, given that most bibliometric software tools (e.g., Bibliometrix 4,1,2, VOSviewer 1.6.20) are optimized for English-language metadata. We acknowledge this as a limitation and recommend future multilingual analyses. After applying these criteria, the final dataset comprised 171 documents.

3.4. Data Processing and Analysis Tools

The dataset was processed and analyzed using: (i) Bibliometrix 4.1.2: An R package for comprehensive science mapping [17]; (ii) Biblioshiny 4.1.2: A web-based interface, used for data visualization [17]; (iii) VOSviewer 1.6.20.: A tool used for mapping keyword co-occurrence and co-citation networks [50]. All metadata were exported in “.bib” format from WoS and imported into RStudio 4.4.2 as well as VOSviewer 1.6.20 for structured analysis and visualization.

3.5. Bibliometric Techniques and Indicators

A range of techniques were employed to explore different facets of the research landscape. These include (i) descriptive bibliometrics: analysis of publication year, source (journal/book), document type, annual growth rate, average document age, average citations per document, number of references, keywords plus, author’s keywords, number of authors, single-authored documents, co-authors per document, and international co-authorships to characterize the dataset and identify key trends; (ii) source analysis: identification of leading sources (journals/books) and application of Bradford’s Law [51] to categorize journals based on their relevance and contribution to the field; (iii) author productivity using Lotka’s Law [52]; (iv) citation analysis: identification of the most influential articles based on total citations and citations per year; (v) geographic analysis: analysis of scientific production by country to understand the geographical distribution of the research effort; (vi) keyword analysis using VOSviewer 1.6.20 to map thematic clusters and identify emerging research areas [50]; and (vi) co-citation analysis using VOSviewer 1.6.20 to explore the intellectual structure of the field [50]. This multi-dimensional methodological design enhances transparency, reproducibility, and depth of insight into the research dynamics around agritourism and rural development. These techniques are summarized in Table 2.

4. Results

4.1. Main Characteristics of the Dataset

Table 3 shows the main characteristics of the dataset used for the study, generated through descriptive bibliometric analysis.
As shown in Table 3, the dataset spans two decades (2004–2024), capturing the evolution of research on agritourism and rural development. A total of 82 distinct sources (journals, books, etc.) contributed to the dataset, which comprises 171 documents. The dataset predominantly consists of research articles, which make up 163 of the 171 documents. Additionally, there are 8 review articles, indicating limited efforts to synthesize the existing body of literature comprehensively. The annual growth rate of 11.29% reflects increasing interest in the field over time. The dataset exhibits a relatively contemporary focus, with an average document age of 5.4 years. On average, each document received 13.71 citations, indicating a moderate level of academic influence and impact. The references cited across these documents amount to 7290, highlighting the extensive scholarly engagement and the interdisciplinary nature of the field. The presence of 300 keywords plus identified by computer algorithms and 538 authors’ keywords provided by the authors themselves reveals the thematic diversity of the dataset; the keywords plus structure provides auxiliary thematic insights, while the authors’ keywords reflect the nuanced research topics explored within the field [53]. The dataset involves contributions from 518 authors, showcasing a strong level of academic participation. Of these, only 15 authors produced single-authored works, underscoring the collaborative nature of research in agritourism and rural development. Collaboration is a key characteristic of this research domain, as evidenced by the 21 single-authored documents among the 171 total documents. On average, each document has 3.51 co-authors, reflecting moderate levels of teamwork and interdisciplinary engagement. Furthermore, 18.71% of the documents involve international co-authorship, suggesting a fair degree of cross-border collaboration, though there remains potential for increasing global partnerships.

4.2. Main Annual Scientific Production

Figure 1 shows the annual scientific output on agritourism and rural development.
The results demonstrate a clear evolution of interest and activity in this field, with notable shifts in production over time. The early years (2004–2008) show low-level research activity, with only two articles published in 2004 and 2006, and no output in 2005, 2007, and 2008. A turning point is observed in 2009, when scientific output increased significantly, with 7 articles published. This marks the beginning of a growth phase (2009–2018), during which annual production fluctuated between 4 and 10 articles, with the only exception in 2012. Notably, consistent increases are evident after 2016, when annual outputs steadily grew from 9 articles in 2016 to 17 in 2019. A pronounced surge in scientific production is observed from 2019 onwards, with peaks including 19 articles in 2021, 23 in 2023 (the highest annual output), and 17 projected articles in 2024.

4.3. Leading Sources

A total of 82 distinct sources contributed to the dataset, which comprises 171 documents. Table 4 reveals the top 15 sources of research on agritourism and rural development as well as their respective publishers.
Sustainability (MDPI) emerges as the leading source, contributing 33 articles (19% of total publications), underscoring its role as a prominent outlet for research in this field. This is followed by the Scientific Papers Series: Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, published by the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Romania, which accounts for 23 articles. Other notable contributors include Agriculture (MDPI), with seven articles, as well as Ekonomika Poljoprivreda—Economics of Agriculture (Balkan Scientific Association of Agricultural Economists) and the Journal of Rural Studies (Elsevier), each with five articles, further reflecting the broad appeal of agritourism as an academic field that intersects with economics, policy, and rural livelihoods. A variety of multidisciplinary and regional journals also contribute significantly, including Journal of Sustainable Tourism (Taylor & Francis) and Land (MDPI), each publishing four articles, which highlights the growing interest in the environmental and tourism dimensions of agritourism. Additionally, journals such as European Countryside (De Gruyter), Land Use Policy (Elsevier), and Tourism Planning & Development (Taylor & Francis), each contributing three articles, emphasize the importance of land management, rural policy, and planning in the development of agritourism initiatives. Regional journals like the Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science and the Scientific Papers Series: Management provide valuable localized insights into agritourism and rural development, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while smaller contributions from journals such as Ecology and Society (Resilience Alliance) and Environment Development and Sustainability (Springer) integrate agritourism into broader ecological and sustainability debates.
Additionally, the Bradford Method [51] was employed to analyze the distribution of journals related to Agritourism and Rural Development.
Zone 1 or core journals (three journals, ratio = 1) are the most influential, containing the primary research on agritourism and rural development. The small number of core journals suggests a highly concentrated field of study [51]. Zone 2 or secondary journals (23 journals, ratio = 7.6) contribute significantly to the topic but are less central than the core journals. They explore more niche aspects of agritourism and rural development. Zone 3 or peripheral journals (56 journals, ratio = 18.6) are more peripheral, with a broad but less focused interest in agritourism and rural development. While still related, they are less influential in shaping the core debates of the field.
Table 5 shows the number of journals and their ratio to core journals across three zones, revealing the concentration of research in this field.

4.4. Author Productivity

We employed Lotka’s law [52] to describe the productivity of the authors of agritourism and rural development research. The theory states that most authors contribute a single publication, while a small minority are prolific [52]. This is visualized in Figure 2, where the solid line represents the observed distribution of author productivity in our dataset, while the dashed line illustrates the theoretical distribution predicted by Lotka’s Law.
Our analysis reveals that approximately 75–80% of authors wrote only one document (Figure 2), closely conforming to the theoretical distribution of the law. We also reveal that a small number of authors produced two or more documents, highlighting a core group driving the field.

4.5. Most Influential Articles

Table 6 highlights significant contributions based on total citations (TCs) and citations per year (TCs/Y).
The most cited study [11], in Habitat International, accumulated 105 TCs with a consistent TCs/Y of 6.56, reflecting its impact on understanding peri-urban agritourism in China. Ref. [4] in Land Use Policy followed closely, with 99 TCs and a notably high TCs/Y of 11.00, showcasing agritourism’s role in rural development in Italy. Regarding TCs/Y, the work by Ammirato et al. [54] in Sustainability stands out with the highest TCs/Y of 12.17, emphasizing the growing importance of sustainability in agritourism research. Earlier works [55,56], both with 99 TCs, laid foundational insights into sustainable development and agritourism practices in Southern Tuscany and Michigan, respectively, albeit with moderate TC/Y values of 4.50 and 4.95. Recent studies, [57,58], also demonstrate strong TC/Y values of 8.57 and 8.38, reflecting heightened contemporary interest in themes like culinary tourism and innovation in rural tourism.
Table 6. Fifteen most cited articles on agrotourism and rural development research.
Table 6. Fifteen most cited articles on agrotourism and rural development research.
No.JournalTitleAuthorsYearTCsTCs/Y
1Habitat InternationalAgro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in ChinaZhenshan Yang, Jianming Cai, Richard Sliuzas [11]20101056.56
2Land Use PolicyExploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in ItalyClaudio Lupi, Vincenzo Giaccio, Luigi Mastronardi, Agostino Giannelli, and Alfonso Scardera [4]20179911.00
3Sociologia RuralisFor a ‘Piece of Bread’? Interpreting Sustainable Development through Agritourism in Southern TuscanyRoberta Sonnino [55]2004994.50
4The Professional GeographerAmerica’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in MichiganGregory Veeck, Deborah Che and Ann Veeck [56]2006994.95
5Journal of Sustainable TourismTourism on organic farms in South Korea: a new form of ecotourism?Hyungsuk Choo and Tazim Jamal [59]2009925.41
6SustainabilityAgritourism and Sustainability: What We Can Learn from a Systematic Literature ReviewSalvatore Ammirato, Alberto Michele Felicetti, Cinzia Raso, Bruno Antonio Pansera, and Antonio Violi [54]20207312.17
7Journal of Destination Marketing & ManagementLocal perceptions of the relative contributions of enclave tourism and agritourism to community well-being: The case of MauritiusPerunjodi Naidoo and Richard Sharpley [60]2016737.30
8Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and TourismInnovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourismAnne-Mette Hjalager, Grzegorz Kwiatkowski, and Martin Østervig Larsen [58]2018678.38
9SustainabilityCulinary Tourism Experiences in Agri-Tourism Destinations and Sustainable Consumption—Understanding Italian Tourists’ MotivationsRiccardo Testa, Antonino Galati, Giorgio Schifani, Anna Maria Di Trapani, and Giuseppina Migliore [57]2019608.57
10SustainabilityUnlocking Value Creation Using an Agritourism Business ModelLaura Broccardo, Francesca Culasso, and Elisa Truant [16]2017434.78
11Tourism Planning & DevelopmentExploring Agritourism Entrepreneurship in the UKChris Phelan and Richard Sharpley [61]2011392.60
12Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic SeriesAgritourism and local economic development in South AfricaChristian M. Rogerson and Jayne M. Rogerson [26]2014373.08
13Tourism Management PerspectivesAgritourism as a sustainable adaptation strategy to climate change in the Andean AltiplanoCorinne Valdivia and
Carla Barbieri [62]		2014363.00
14SustainabilityAgritourism in Mountainous Regions—Insights from an International PerspectiveEmilio Chiodo, Andrea Fantini, Lori Dickes, Temitope Arogundade, R. David Lamie, Lucilene Assing, Corinne Stewart, and Rita Salvatore [63]2019336.60
15SustainabilityThe Agroecological Approach as a Model for Multifunctional Agriculture and Farming towards the European Green Deal 2030—Some Evidence from the Italian ExperienceGiuseppe Gargano, Francesco Licciardo, Milena Verrascina, and Barbara Zanetti [64]2021336.60

4.6. Scientific Production by Country

Figure 3 reveals the leading countries involved in agritourism and rural development research, considering their share in the total number of documents.
Italy is the leading contributor, with 32 documents, reflecting its strong tradition in agritourism, particularly in leveraging it for rural development and sustainability. Romania closely follows with 30 documents, indicating its growing academic interest and potential focus on agritourism as a strategy for rural revitalization. The USA ranks third with 23 documents, showcasing its diverse agritourism practices and their role in promoting sustainable agriculture and rural community well-being. China, with 17 documents, demonstrates an emerging focus on agritourism, particularly in peri-urban areas, and its integration into multi-functional agriculture. Spain (nine documents) and Greece (seven documents) underscore Europe’s dominance in agritourism research. England and Thailand, each contributing six documents, demonstrate varied interests, with England focusing on entrepreneurship and rural innovation and Thailand exploring agritourism’s socio-economic impacts. South Africa, Australia, and Taiwan, each with five documents, illustrate diverse regional perspectives, from South Africa’s emphasis on local economic development to Australia’s innovative approaches and Taiwan’s integration of agritourism with cultural and ecological themes.

4.7. Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis

Keyword co-occurrence analysis helps to understand the conceptual structure of a research field by examining how frequently terms appear together [65]. In this type of analysis, with VOSviewer 1.6.20, two key metrics are used: (i) occurrence—the number of times a keyword appears in the dataset, indicating its frequency and significance [66]; and (ii) total Link Strength (TLS)—a measure of the strength of connections between a keyword and other keywords, representing its degree of integration within the research network [66]. Table 7 shows results of both metrics.
The keyword co-occurrence analysis reveals that ‘’agritourism’’, ‘’rural development’’, ‘’rural tourism’’, ‘’tourism’’, and ‘’agriculture’’ are the five most frequently occurring keywords as well as the five words with the highest linkage strength. This indicates that these keywords dominate the literature and are foundational and integral to research in this domain. The strong connection between “agritourism” and “rural development”, reflecting their deep interdependence, highlights that agritourism is widely recognized as a strategic tool for fostering rural economic growth and social transformation. On the other hand, the term “agro-tourism” is much less used—only five occurrences and 10 TLS are noted, compared to the 113 occurrences and 434 TLS of “agritourism”.
Furthermore, keyword co-occurrence analysis helps to identify thematic clusters, which reveal research trends and emerging areas [67]. VOSviewer 1.6.20 constructs these clusters using a modularity-based clustering algorithm, which groups keywords based on their co-occurrence strength [66]. Table 8 summarizes five clusters within the field of agritourism and rural development exhibiting distinct focal points.
According to the keywords, cluster 1 points to the economic and social aspects of agritourism, while cluster 2 centers around the broader context of rural development, both highlighting the concern about sustainability. Cluster 3 addresses the visitor experience and social dimensions of agritourism, whereas cluster 4 focuses on farm tourism’s performance and sustainability. Lastly, cluster 5 explores agritourism within a broader context. While cluster 2 is closely associated with Italy, cluster 5 relates to issues about Romania; the rest of the clusters have a more general, global focus.
Additionally, Figure 4 shows the temporal keyword co-occurrence analysis of research on agritourism and rural development. The size of a node signifies the total frequency of a keyword’s appearance, while its color represents the average publication year [50]. Keywords used in 2021 or later are shown in yellow, those from 2019/2020 appear in green, and terms from 2018 or earlier are depicted in violet (Figure 4). Results show keywords “agritourism” and “rural development” with larger nodes suggesting that these core concepts have been extensively researched in the past. Conversely, keywords “multifunctionality”, “innovation”, and “ecotourism”, with smaller nodes and a predominantly yellow or green color, signify recent usage and often represent emerging themes or concepts.

4.8. Co-Citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis identifies the relationships between scholarly works based on how frequently they are cited together in academic literature, which helps identify the intellectual structure [18]. The authors conducted this analysis using VOSviewer 1.6.20, applying the full counting method, with “cited references” as the unit of analysis [66]. To ensure the inclusion of only highly relevant works, a minimum citation threshold of 20 was set. Of the 7279 cited references, 12 met the threshold and were used to generate the co-citation clusters. For each of the 12 cited references, the total strength of the co-citation links with other cited references was calculated, and the cited references with the greatest total link strength were selected. This analysis revealed two clusters, each representing a different intellectual lineage within agritourism and rural development research (Table 9). To name the two clusters, we thoroughly examined the representative articles in each cluster.
The results indicate that agritourism and rural development research has evolved from foundational definitions and community perspectives (Cluster 1) to more complex discussions on sustainability and conceptual refinement (Cluster 2). In terms of citation counts, the second cluster exhibits significantly higher values, with the most frequently cited works reaching up to 50 citations. In contrast, the first cluster has moderate citation counts, ranging from 21 to 28. Similarly, total link strength is more prominent in the second cluster, with the highest values exceeding 200, whereas the first cluster remains below 150.

5. Discussion

5.1. Main Characteristics of the Research Landscape

The analysis of the bibliometric dataset spanning the years from 2004 to 2024 reveals the steady evolution of research interest in the connections between agritourism and rural development. The growing annual production rate, with an 11.29% increase, demonstrates the field’s increasing academic and policy relevance. This could be attributed to the global recognition of agritourism as a strategy for sustainable rural development [54,77,78]. Post-2020 resilience in research production, despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the critical role agritourism plays in post-pandemic recovery strategies and sustainable tourism development [79]. The predominance of research articles (163 out of 171 documents) over review articles (eight documents) suggests that while original research is thriving, there is a gap in the comprehensive syntheses of existing knowledge. The presence of 518 authors, with an average of 3.51 co-authors per document, highlights a collaborative research culture, though international co-authorship (18.71%) suggests room for greater global collaboration.
Regarding sources, Sustainability (MDPI) emerges as the leading journal, contributing 19% of all publications, highlighting the field’s alignment with sustainability themes. Other significant sources include Scientific Papers Series: Management and the Journal of Rural Studies, reflecting the interdisciplinary and policy-driven nature of agritourism and rural development research. The analysis by the Bradford Method underscores a concentrated research landscape, with only three core journals driving the discourse, pointing at the potential for diversification in publication outlets. Author productivity analysis, based on Lotka’s Law, indicates that most authors (75–80%) contribute only a single publication, with a small subset of prolific researchers shaping the field. This suggests that agritourism in the context of rural development is an emerging research domain, with sporadic but increasing contributions. Citation analysis further reinforces the significance of foundational studies, with three documents being highly cited [4,11,54], indicating key contributions to sustainability and agritourism. Europe dominates the research landscape likely due to its strong regional policies supporting rural diversification [80]. This is also demonstrated in previous research [75], although publications from the USA and China also show the growing interest in these countries [81,82,83,84,85]. However, there is significant potential for increased contributions from underrepresented regions, particularly Africa and Asia, to provide a more globally diverse perspective in the field.

5.2. Thematic Clusters

The keyword co-occurrence analysis highlights the dominant themes in agritourism and rural development research. The most frequently occurring keywords—”agritourism”, “rural development”, “rural tourism”, “tourism”, and “agriculture”—underscore the fundamental themes defining the field. Also, five thematic clusters emerge, reflecting the diversity of research topics: Cluster 1 explores the economic contributions of agritourism to rural livelihoods, employment generation, and community development. Cluster 2 focuses on policy frameworks, rural revitalization strategies, and sustainable agricultural practices. Cluster 3 examines tourist motivations, preferences, and the role of cultural heritage in agritourism. Cluster 4 investigates farm-based tourism operations, environmental impacts, and innovative sustainability practices. Cluster 5 explores agritourism beyond tourism, including its role in landscape conservation, ecosystem services, and alternative rural economies. Additionally, the temporal keyword analysis suggests a shift in research priorities, with newer concepts such as “multifunctionality”, “innovation”, and “ecotourism” gaining prominence, reflecting contemporary concerns about sustainability and rural resilience. These results confirm that agritourism and rural development research is highly interdisciplinary, with strong economic, environmental, and policy-related linkages [75,81].

5.3. Intellectual Structure of the Field

Co-citation analysis identifies two key intellectual clusters that define the evolution of agritourism and rural development research: Cluster 1 encompasses early research focusing on defining agritourism and its role in rural communities. Cluster 2 consists of studies on sustainable agritourism practices, policy frameworks, and innovative conceptual developments, highlighting the field’s progression towards sustainability-driven research. The prominence of the second cluster suggests that agritourism research is evolving beyond descriptive studies to engage in complex sustainability debates, innovative business models, and integrated rural development strategies. The high citation counts and link strength values in cluster 2 suggest that sustainability and conceptual frameworks have gained greater academic attention and stronger interconnections within the research field. The first cluster, while still relevant, has a narrower academic reach, focusing more on practical applications and rural community perspectives.

5.4. Research Gaps and Future Directions

Despite the growing body of research on agritourism and rural development, several gaps remain: (i) limited global representation: the dominance of European research, particularly from Italy and Romania, suggests an imbalance in geographical coverage. More studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America are needed to understand diverse agritourism models and their contextual implications; (ii) lack of review and meta-analyses: the field lacks comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These are needed to consolidate theoretical frameworks and practical applications [86]; (iii) sustainability and climate change considerations: while sustainability is an emerging theme, there is limited research on how agritourism can mitigate climate change impacts, promote regenerative agriculture, and support biodiversity conservation; (iv) sustainable and digital strategies, such as agritourism apps and smart farming technologies, assist farm owners and tourism entrepreneurs to enhance visitor experiences [87]. Also, technology and digital innovation equips farmers with business management and marketing skills [88]. Despite this, the role of digital platforms, smart farming, and agritourism tech innovations remains underexplored. Thus, there is a need for examining how digital transformation can enhance rural tourism experiences and operational efficiency; (v) policy and governance studies: there is a need for deeper investigations into the policy frameworks, governance mechanisms, and regulatory environments that shape agritourism development at national and international levels. (vi) Lastly, with only 18.71% of studies involving international co-authorship, global partnerships should be strengthened to enhance cross-regional learning. Addressing these gaps will not only enrich the academic discourse but also provide practical insights for policymakers, entrepreneurs, and rural communities.

6. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of agritourism and rural development research, revealing the key publication trends, thematic clusters, and intellectual structures shaping the field. Over the past two decades, research output has steadily increased, with an annual 11.29% rate of increase. The field is characterized by a collaborative but regionally concentrated research community, dominated by European contributions and published primarily in sustainability-focused journals. The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified five distinct research clusters, ranging from economic impacts and tourist behavior to environmental sustainability and multifunctional agriculture. Co-citation analysis further highlighted the intellectual evolution of the field from foundational perspectives on rural communities to more complex discussions on sustainability and agritourism’s multifunctionality. Despite these advancements, significant research gaps remain. These include limited representation from underexplored regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America), a lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and underdeveloped inquiry into digital innovation, climate change, and policy governance. Strengthening international collaboration and diversifying geographic perspectives will be critical for advancing a globally relevant and inclusive understanding of agritourism’s role in rural development. By addressing these gaps, future research can contribute more effectively to both theoretical enrichment and practical solutions for sustainable rural futures.
From a practical standpoint, the findings have important implications for policy and industry: (i) policymakers can leverage the identified research clusters to shape targeted rural development policies—such as funding support for multifunctional farms, sustainable tourism initiatives, and digital infrastructure in rural areas; (ii) tourism and agricultural stakeholders can draw from the field’s evolving knowledge base to develop business models that integrate local heritage, environmental stewardship, and technology-driven visitor engagement; (iii) academic institutions and research funders can prioritize capacity-building initiatives and cross-border collaborations, particularly with regions currently underrepresented in the literature.
While this study employs a rigorous bibliometric analysis to map the research landscape on agritourism and rural development, certain limitations must be acknowledged. First, the study is confined to documents indexed in the Web of Science database. Although Web of Science is recognized for its high-quality scholarly content, it excludes relevant publications indexed in other databases such as Scopus. Future research could enhance comprehensiveness by incorporating multiple databases to capture a broader range of studies. Second, despite implementing a systematic search strategy with refined keyword combinations, the study may not have captured all relevant literature due to variations in terminology and indexing practices. Expanding the search strategy by integrating additional synonyms or conducting manual validation of search results [89] could improve coverage. Third, the bibliometric techniques applied, including co-citation, and keyword analysis, provide valuable insights into research trends and intellectual structures but do not capture qualitative dimensions such as the theoretical contributions or contextual nuances of agritourism’s impact on rural development. Future studies could complement bibliometric approaches with systematic literature reviews or meta-analyses to provide a more holistic understanding of the field. Finally, the study’s reliance on English-language publications may introduce a linguistic bias, potentially overlooking significant contributions in other languages. Future research could explore multilingual bibliometric analyses or regional case studies to capture a more globally representative perspective. By addressing these limitations, future studies can refine and expand the understanding of agritourism’s role in rural development, offering deeper insights into emerging trends and interdisciplinary connections in the field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.Y. and Z.B.; methodology, A.S.Y.; software, A.S.Y.; validation, A.S.Y.; formal analysis, A.S.Y.; investigation, A.S.Y. and Z.B.; resources, A.S.Y.; data curation, A.S.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.Y. and Z.B.; writing—review and editing, A.S.Y. and Z.B.; visualization, A.S.Y.; supervision, Z.B.; project administration, A.S.Y. and Z.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study were derived from the following resources, available in the public domain: Web of Science, https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/ accessed on 31 December 2024.

Acknowledgments

The publication of the research was supported by the Doctoral School of Economics and Regional Sciences of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ciolac, R.; Adamov, T.; Iancu, T.; Popescu, G.; Lile, R.; Rujescu, C.; Marin, D. Agritourism-A Sustainable Development Factor for Improving the ‘Health’ of Rural Settlements. Case Study Apuseni Mountains Area. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Evgrafova, L.V.; Ismailova, A.Z.; Kalinichev, V.L. Agrotourism as a factor of sustainable rural development. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 421, 022058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lak, A.; Khairabadi, O. Leveraging agritourism in rural areas in developing countries: The case of Iran. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 863385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lupi, C.; Giaccio, V.; Mastronardi, L.; Giannelli, A.; Scardera, A. Exploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sgroi, F.; Donia, E.; Mineo, A.M. Agritourism and local development: A methodology for assessing the role of public contributions in the creation of competitive advantage. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M. The Potential of Agritourism in Revitalizing Rural Communities: Some Empirical Results. In Collaborative Systems for Reindustrialization. PRO-VE 2013. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Scherer, R.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. LaPan, C.; Barbieri, C. The role of agritourism in heritage preservation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 17, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shen, C.-C.; Chang, Y.-R.; Liu, D.-J. Rural Tourism and Environmental Sustainability—A Study on a Model for Assessing the Developmental Potential of Organic Agritourism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Puig, A. Agritourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism; Jafari, J., Xiao, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Anderson, T.D.; Mossberg, L.; Therkelsen, A. Food and tourism synergies: Perspectives on consumption, production and destination development. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, Z.; Cai, J.; Sliuzas, R. Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Long, H. Rural Development. In The Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Warf, B., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, Y.; Westlund, H.; Liu, Y. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M. The agritourism as a means of sustainable development for rural communities: A research from the field. Int. J. Interdiscip. Environ. Stud. 2014, 8, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sekar, S.; Balakrishnan, S.; Soundarraj, P.L.; Kannan, P.; Mishra, A.; Dhanasekaran, P.; Mishra, I. Assessing the Impact of Agro-tourism Initiatives on Rural Development and Community-based Agricultural Management. J. Environ. Bio-Sci. 2023, 37, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Broccardo, L.; Culasso, F.; Truant, E. Unlocking Value Creation Using an Agritourism Business Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1973, 24, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ariyanto, K. Rural Development Research Trends: Bibliometric Analysis Using Publish or Perish and Vosviewer. Athena J. Soc. Cult. Soc. 2023, 1, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lu, Y.; de Vries, W.T. A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Rural Development Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nasution, M.S.; Rusli, Z.; Heriyanto, M.; Syahza, A.; Zulkarnaini, Z.; Mayarni, M.; Mashur, D.; Ananda, F.; Ikhsan, M. Bibliometric analysis of rural economic development: Convergence between sustainable agriculture, digital technology, and community engagement for village self-reliance. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plann. 2025, 20, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nurlaela, S.; Mursito, B.; Shodiq, M.F.; Hadi, P.; Rahmawati, R. Economic Empowerment of Agro Tourism “Jawaunik” (Java Unique): A Case Study in Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stanovčić, T.; Peković, S.; Vukčević, J.; Perović, D. Going Entrepreneurial: Agro-tourism and Rural Development in Northern Montenegro. Bus. Syst. Res. 2018, 9, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chenari, H.M.; Nejad, M.R.S.; Agha, F.N.J.; Jensi, Z.; Kahaki, F. Providing a model of agritourism in rural development case study: Masal county, Guilan province, Iran. J. Agric. Sci.–Sri Lanka 2021, 16, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maksimović, A.; Grgić, Z.; Bicanić, D. Development of Agro-Tourism As Additional Services in Rural Areas Brčko District BIH. Ekon. Poljopr. 2010, 57, 300–303. Available online: https://ea.bg.ac.rs/index.php/EA/article/view/948 (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  26. Rogerson, C.M.; Rogerson, J.M. Agritourism and Local Economic Development in South Africa. Bull. Geography. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2014, 26, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ohorodnyk, V.; Finger, R. Envisioning the future of agri-tourism in Ukraine: From minor role to viable farm households and sustainable regional economies. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 108, 103283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Migliaccio, G.; De Blasio, A. The economic performance of Italian olive oil companies: A comparative quantitative approach using the Anova and Tukey-Kramer methods. Quant. Financ. Econ. 2024, 8, 437–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pérez-Olmos, K.N.; Aguilar-Rivera, N. Agritourism and sustainable local development in Mexico: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 17180–17200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ait-Yahia Ghidouche, K.; Nechoud, L.; Ghidouche, F. Achieving sustainable development goals through agritourism in Algeria. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cavalleri, S.A.E.; Tanwattana, P.; Grünbühel, C.M. Systemizing a rural livelihood diversification framework for sustainable community-based agritourism: A participatory approach to ensure resilience. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 993892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qi, D. Ecological agriculture and rural revitalization: Toward a post-productivist countryside in Nanjing, China. Ecol. Soc. 2024, 29, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baipai, R.; Chikuta, O.; Gandiwa, E.; Mutanga, C.N. A framework for sustainable agritourism development in Zimbabwe. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2023, 9, 2201025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Keswani, M.; Khedlekar, U. Optimizing pricing and promotions for sustained profitability in declining markets: A Green-Centric inventory model. Data Sci. Financ. Econ. 2024, 4, 83–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, Z.; Huang, Z.; Su, Y. New media environment, environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation: Evidence from China. Energy Econ. 2023, 119, 106545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Elena, S. Agrotourism potential as part of sustainable rural development in Romania, In Agrarian Economy and Rural Development —Realities and Perspectives for Romania. International Symposium, 10th ed.; The Research Institute for Agricultural Economy and Rural Development (ICEADR): Bucharest, Romania, 2019; pp. 292–297. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/221875 (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  37. Damnet, A.; Sangnak, D.; Poo-Udom, A. Thailand’s innovative agritourism in the post COVID-19 new normal: A new paradigm to achieve sustainable development goals. Res. Glob. 2024, 8, 100171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Togaymurodov, E.; Roman, M.; Prus, P. Opportunities and directions of development of agritourism: Evidence from Samarkand Region. Sustainability 2023, 15, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Karampela, S.; Kizos, T. Agritourism and local development: Evidence from two case studies in Greece. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kolawole, O.D.; Hambira, W.L.; Gondo, R. Agrotourism as peripheral and ultraperipheral community livelihoods diversification strategy: Insights from the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Arid Environ. 2023, 212, 104960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pham, T.T.H.; Cao, H.S.; Lapointe, D. Agrotourism and fast urbanisation: The double pressure of development on peri-urban agriculture in Hôi An, a small city of central Vietnam. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2023, 64, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Choenkwan, S.; Promkhambut, A.; Hayao, F.; Rambo, A.T. Does agrotourism benefit mountain farmers? A case study in Phu Ruea District, Northeast Thailand. Mt. Res. Dev. 2016, 36, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eshun, G.; Tettey, C. Agrotourism Development in Ghana: A Study of Its Prospects and Challenges at Adjeikrom Cocoa Tour Facility. Bull. Geography. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2014, 25, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Leonte, E.; Chiran, A.; Miron, P. Implementing agritourism marketing strategy as tools for the efficiency and sustainable development of rural tourism. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2016, 15, 2663–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karampela, S.; Andreopoulos, A.; Koutsouris, A. “Agro”, “Agri”, or “Rural”: The Different Viewpoints of Tourism Research Combined with Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ma, D.; Sun, D.; Wang, Z. Exploring the Rural Revitalization Effect under the Interaction of Agro-Tourism Integration and Tourism-Driven Poverty Reduction: Empirical Evidence for China. Land 2024, 13, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chadegani, A.A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ebrahim, N.A. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Formann, A.K. The Newcomb-Benford Law in Its Relation to Some Common Distributions. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lotka, A.J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 1926, 16, 317–323. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24529203 (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  53. Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 967–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Raso, C.; Pansera, B.A.; Violi, A. Agritourism and Sustainability: What We Can Learn from a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sonnino, R. For a ‘Piece of Bread’? Interpreting Sustainable Development through Agritourism in Southern Tuscany. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Veeck, G.; Che, D.; Veeck, A. America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan*. Prof. Geogr. 2006, 58, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Testa, R.; Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Migliore, G. Culinary Tourism Experiences in Agri-Tourism Destinations and Sustainable Consumption—Understanding Italian Tourists’ Motivations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hjalager, A.M.; Kwiatkowski, G.; Østervig Larsen, M. Innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Choo, H.; Jamal, T. Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of ecotourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Naidoo, P.; Sharpley, R. Local perceptions of the relative contributions of enclave tourism and agritourism to community well-being: The case of Mauritius. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2016, 5, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Phelan, C.; Sharpley, R. Exploring Agritourism Entrepreneurship in the UK. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2011, 8, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Valdivia, C.; Barbieri, C. Agritourism as a sustainable adaptation strategy to climate change in the Andean Altiplano. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 11, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chiodo, E.; Fantini, A.; Dickes, L.; Arogundade, T.; Lamie, R.D.; Assing, L.; Stewart, C.; Salvatore, R. Agritourism in Mountainous Regions—Insights from an International Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gargano, G.; Licciardo, F.; Verrascina, M.; Zanetti, B. The Agroecological Approach as a Model for Multifunctional Agriculture and Farming towards the European Green Deal 2030—Some Evidence from the Italian Experience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zupic, I.; Cater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Busby, G.; Rendle, S. The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. McGehee, N.G.; Andereck, K.L. Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. McGehee, N.G. An Agritourism Systems Model: A Weberian Perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nickerson, N.P.; Black, R.J.; McCool, S.F. Agritourism: Motivations behind farm/ranch business diversification. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Arroyo, C.G.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Barbieri, C. Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: A comparison between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 252–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Agritourism from the Perspective of Providers and Visitors: A Topology-Based Study. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Phillip, S.; Hunter, C.; Blackstock, K. A typology for defining agritourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 754–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tew, C.; Barbieri, C. The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lamie, R.D.; Chase, L.; Chiodo, E.; Dickes, L.; Flanigan, S.; Schmidt, C.; Streifeneder, T. Agritourism around the globe: Definitions, authenticity, and potential controversy. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2021, 10, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Siakwah, P.; Musavengane, R.; Leonard, L. Tourism Governance and Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2019, 17, 355–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chin, W.L.; Pehin Dato Musa, S.F. Agritourism resilience against Covid-19: Impacts and management strategies. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1950290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. OECD. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/80885d8b-en (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  81. Ndhlovu, E.; Dube, K. Agritourism and sustainability: A global bibliometric analysis of the state of research and dominant issues. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2024, 46, 100746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Su, Y.; Mei, J.; Zhu, J.; Xia, P.; Li, T.; Wang, C.; Zhi, J.; You, S. A Global Scientometric Visualization Analysis of Rural Tourism from 2000 to 2021. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dimitrovski, D.; Leković, M.; Joukes, V. A bibliometric analysis of Crossref agritourism literature indexed in Web of Science. Hotel. Tour. Manag. 2019, 7, 25–37. Available online: https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/2620-0279/2019/2620-02791902025D.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025). [CrossRef]
  84. Ansari, A.; Khan, B.; Shareef, M.; Alam, F. A bibliometric and literature-based analysis of agritourism. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2024, 11, 458–477. [Google Scholar]
  85. Răcăşan, B.S.; Adorean, C.-E.; Egresi, I.; Dezsi, S. Bibliometric Analysis of Research Interest in Rural Tourism. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2023, 14, 2605–2625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Noordzij, M.; Hooft, L.; Dekker, F.W.; Zoccali, C.; Jager, K.J. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: When they are useful and when to be careful. Kidney Int. 2009, 76, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Siregar, O.M.; Ginting, B.; Jali, M.F.M.; Nasution, M.D.T.P. Challenges in Integrating Agritourism with Sustainable Farming Practices: How Do the Willingness, Attitudes, and Entrepreneurial Competencies of Rural Youth Influence This Integration? In Harnessing AI, Machine Learning, and IoT for Intelligent Business. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Hamdan, A., Braendle, U., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; Volume 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Drăgoi, M.C.; Iamandi, I.-E.; Munteanu, S.M.; Ciobanu, R.; Țarțavulea, R.I.; Lădaru, R.G. Incentives for Developing Resilient Agritourism Entrepreneurship in Rural Communities in Romania in a European Context. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bramer, W.M.; De Jonge, G.B.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Mast, F.; Kleijnen, J. A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 15 00866 g001
Figure 1. Annual scientific production.
Figure 1. Annual scientific production.
Agriculture 15 00866 g001
Agriculture 15 00866 g002
Figure 2. Author productivity according to Lotka’s Law. Solid line: observed distribution, dashed line: theoretical distribution by Lotka’s Law.
Figure 2. Author productivity according to Lotka’s Law. Solid line: observed distribution, dashed line: theoretical distribution by Lotka’s Law.
Agriculture 15 00866 g002
Agriculture 15 00866 g003
Figure 3. Scientific production by country.
Figure 3. Scientific production by country.
Agriculture 15 00866 g003
Agriculture 15 00866 g004
Figure 4. Temporal diagram of keyword co-occurrence.
Figure 4. Temporal diagram of keyword co-occurrence.
Agriculture 15 00866 g004
Table 1. Summary of existing works on agritourism and rural development.
Table 1. Summary of existing works on agritourism and rural development.
SourceStudy TitleMajor Findings
[4]Exploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in ItalyAgritourism in Italy contributes to rural development by preserving agricultural landscapes and generating supplementary income for farmers
[5]Agritourism and local development: A methodology for assessing the role of public contributions in the creation of competitive advantagePublic contributions play a crucial role in creating competitive advantages for agritourism, leading to local development
[11]Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China Agritourism can serve as a multi-functional tool for peri-urban development, offering economic, social, and environmental benefits
[22]Economic Empowerment of Agro Tourism “Jawaunik” (Java Unique): A Case Study in IndonesiaAgritourism can significantly contribute to economic empowerment in rural areas through job creation and income generation
[23]“Going Entrepreneurial: Agro-tourism and Rural Development in Northern Montenegro”Agritourism fosters entrepreneurship and contributes to rural development by diversifying income sources
[24]Providing a model of agritourism in rural development case study: Masal county, Guilan province, IranPresents a model for agritourism development in rural Iran, highlighting its potential to boost local economies and improve livelihoods
[25]Development of agro-tourism as additional services in rural areas Brčko District BIHAgritourism can serve as a valuable additional service in rural areas, contributing to economic diversification
[26]Agritourism and local economic development in South AfricaAgritourism can contribute to local economic development in South Africa by creating jobs and supporting small businesses
[27]Envisioning the future of agri-tourism in Ukraine: from minor role to viable farm households and sustainable regional economiesAgritourism has the potential to transform rural economies in Ukraine, moving from a minor role to a significant contributor to farm household income and regional development
[28]The economic performance of Italian olive oil companies: a comparative quantitative approach using the Anova and Tukey-Kramer methodsProfitability varies across different regions of Italy, providing valuable benchmarks for olive oil entrepreneurs and offering insights for policymakers aiming to support the growth of the agro-industrial sector
[29]Agritourism and sustainable local development in Mexico: a systematic reviewAgritourism holds the potential for sustainable local development in Mexico but requires careful planning and management to maximize benefits
[30]Achieving sustainable development goals through agritourism in AlgeriaAgritourism can contribute to achieving sustainable development goals in Algeria by promoting rural development and environmental sustainability
[31]Systemizing a rural livelihood diversification framework for sustainable community-based agritourism: A participatory approach to ensure resilienceEmphasizes the importance of a participatory approach to ensure the resilience and sustainability of community-based agritourism
[32]Ecological agriculture and rural revitalization: toward a post-productivist countryside in Nanjing, ChinaEcological agriculture and agritourism are key components of rural revitalization efforts in China, moving towards a post-productivist countryside
[33]A framework for sustainable agritourism development in ZimbabweProvides a framework for sustainable agritourism development in Zimbabwe, emphasizing the importance of community involvement and environmental protection
[34]Optimizing pricing and promotions for sustained profitability in declining markets: A Green-Centric inventory modelBusinesses can boost their profits and satisfy environmentally aware customers through green investment and preservation investment. This approach offers a valuable strategy for sustainable rural businesses, such as agritourism
[35]New media environment, environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation: Evidence from ChinaThe combination of new media visibility and government environmental rules encourages businesses to adopt green technology innovations, highlighting how public attention and policy mechanisms work together to foster more sustainable industrial practices
[36]Agrotourism potential as part of sustainable rural development in RomaniaAgritourism has significant potential for sustainable rural development in Romania, offering opportunities for economic diversification and cultural preservation
[37]Thailand’s innovative agritourism in the post COVID-19 new normal: A new paradigm to achieve sustainable development goalsInnovative agritourism models are essential for achieving sustainable development goals in Thailand’s post-COVID-19 environment
[38]Opportunities and directions of development of agritourism: Evidence from Samarkand RegionIdentifies opportunities and directions for agritourism development in the Samarkand Region, focusing on leveraging local resources and cultural heritage
[39]Agritourism and local development: Evidence from two case studies in GreeceAgritourism can positively impact local development, but its effectiveness depends on local context and management
[40]Agrotourism as peripheral and ultraperipheral community livelihoods diversification strategy: Insights from the Okavango Delta, BotswanaAgritourism serves as a crucial livelihood diversification strategy for peripheral communities in Botswana, especially in remote areas like the Okavango Delta
[41]Agrotourism and fast urbanisation: The double pressure of development on peri-urban agriculture in Hôi An, a small city of central VietnamAgritourism faces challenges from rapid urbanization in peri-urban areas of Vietnam, requiring careful planning to balance development pressures
[42]Does agrotourism benefit mountain farmers? A case study in Phu Ruea District, Northeast ThailandAgritourism can provide economic benefits to mountain farmers in Thailand, but the distribution of benefits needs to be carefully managed
[43]Agrotourism development in Ghana: A study of its prospects and challenges at Adjeikrom Cocoa Tour FacilityExplores the prospects and challenges of agritourism development in Ghana, highlighting the need for addressing infrastructure and marketing issues
[44]Implementing agritourism marketing strategy as tools for the efficiency and sustainable development of rural tourismEffective marketing strategies are essential for the efficiency and sustainable development of agritourism
[45]“Agro”, “Agri”, or “Rural”: The different viewpoints of tourism research combined with sustainability and sustainable developmentExplores the varying definitions of agritourism and its relationship to sustainability and rural development, emphasizing the need for clarity in research and practice
[46]Exploring the Rural Revitalization Effect under the Interaction of Agro-Tourism Integration and Tourism-Driven Poverty Reduction: Empirical Evidence for ChinaThe integration of agritourism and tourism-driven poverty reduction can effectively revitalize rural areas in China
Table 2. Summary of the study’s methodological process.
Table 2. Summary of the study’s methodological process.
Data Collection
Search QuerySelected DatabaseExclusion Criteria
((“agritouris*” OR “agro-touris*”) AND (“rural develop*” OR “community develop*” OR “rural economic*” OR “sustain* rural livelihood*” OR “local develop*”))
⮚
WOS (n = 194)
⮚
Final documents analysed after applying exclusion criteria (n = 171)
⮚
Document type: proceeding papers, early access articles, editorials
⮚
Language: non-English
Data Analysis
Performance AnalysisScience Mapping
⮚
Annual scientific production
⮚
Leading sources
⮚
Author productivity
⮚
Most influential articles
⮚
Country’s scientific production
⮚
Keyword co-occurrence analysis
⮚
Co-citation analysis
Data Visualization
⮚
Biblioshiny
⮚
VOSviewer
Table 3. Characteristics of the dataset used for the study.
Table 3. Characteristics of the dataset used for the study.
DescriptionResults
Timespan2004–2024
Sources82
Documents171
Articles163
Reviews8
Annual growth rate %11.29
Document average age5.4
Average citations per doc13.71
References7290
Keywords plus (ID)300
Authors’ keywords (DE)538
Authors518
Authors of single-authored docs15
Single-authored docs21
Co-authors per doc3.51
International co-authorships %18.71
Table 4. Leading sources of agritourism and rural development research.
Table 4. Leading sources of agritourism and rural development research.
SourcesPublishersArticles
SustainabilityMDPI33
Scientific Papers Series: Management, Economic Engineering In Agriculture And Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Romania23
AgricultureMDPI7
Ekonomika Poljoprivreda—Economics Of AgricultureBalkan Scientific Association of Agricultural Economists5
Journal of Rural StudiesElsevier5
Journal of Sustainable TourismTaylor & Francis4
LandMDPI4
European CountrysideDe Gruyter3
Land Use PolicyElsevier3
Open AgricultureDe Gruyter3
Tourism Planning & DevelopmentTaylor & Francis3
Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural ScienceAgricultural Academy of Bulgaria2
Bulletin of Geography—Socio-Economic SeriesNicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland2
Ecology and SocietyResilience Alliance2
Environment Development and SustainabilitySpringer2
Table 5. Ratios generated for different journals using the Bradford method.
Table 5. Ratios generated for different journals using the Bradford method.
ZoneNumber of JournalsRatio to Core Journals
1st31
2nd237.6
3rd5618.6
Table 7. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of agritourism and rural development.
Table 7. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of agritourism and rural development.
KeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
Agritourism113434
Rural development66203
Rural tourism48199
Tourism43183
Agriculture30154
Sustainability21110
Diversification21104
Typology18100
Rural-development2094
Sustainable development1775
Perceptions1271
Farm1270
Farms1469
Local development1263
Food1260
Agrotourism1359
Impact1258
Linkages947
Authenticity642
Entrepreneurship738
Innovation738
Ecotourism837
Strategies736
Benefits835
Farm tourism735
Gender635
Multifunctionality635
Areas934
Demand633
Management732
Perspective532
Performance630
Motivations530
Italy729
Visitors627
Impacts625
Policy625
Romania923
Farm diversification622
Challenges521
Sustainable tourism620
Fadn519
Poverty518
Community development616
Quality516
Sustainable rural development611
Agro-tourism510
Model510
Consumption59
Table 8. Clusters of keywords.
Table 8. Clusters of keywords.
ClustersKeywords
Cluster 1:
15 keywords		areas, benefits, challenges, diversification, fad, farm, farm diversification, food, impacts, linkages, perceptions, policy, poverty, quality, sustainable tourism
Cluster 2:
11 keywords		agriculture, agritourism, demand, impact, innovation, Italy, management, rural-development, strategies, sustainable development, sustainable rural development
Cluster 3:
10 keywords		agro-tourism, authenticity, community development, ecotourism, entrepreneurship, motivations, perspective, rural development, typology, visitors
Cluster 4:
7 keywords		farm tourism, gender, local development, model, performance, sustainability, tourism
Cluster 5:
6 keywords		agrotourism, consumption, farms, multifunctionality, Romania, rural tourism
Table 9. Summary of co-citation clusters.
Table 9. Summary of co-citation clusters.
ClusterThemeCited ReferenceCitationsTotal Link Strength
1Agritourism development and rural community perspectives[68]2172
[69]28141
[70]24113
[71]26117
2Conceptualization and sustainability of agritourism[72]43170
[73]31162
[74]2389
[75]50196
[55]20104
[76]49203
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yasin, A.S.; Bacsi, Z. Agritourism and Rural Development: A Global Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research, Limitations, and Future Directions. Agriculture 2025, 15, 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080866

AMA Style

Yasin AS, Bacsi Z. Agritourism and Rural Development: A Global Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research, Limitations, and Future Directions. Agriculture. 2025; 15(8):866. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080866

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yasin, Abdi Shukri, and Zsuzsanna Bacsi. 2025. "Agritourism and Rural Development: A Global Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research, Limitations, and Future Directions" Agriculture 15, no. 8: 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080866

APA Style

Yasin, A. S., & Bacsi, Z. (2025). Agritourism and Rural Development: A Global Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research, Limitations, and Future Directions. Agriculture, 15(8), 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080866

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop