































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 4, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Anthony C. Caruso, Graduate Research Assistant, Oklahoma State University, 214 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, OK 74074, 

Anthony.caruso@oksate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4179-9199 
2. Audrey E. H. King, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 106D Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, OK 74074,  

audrey.king@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6150-0223 
3. Bradley M. Coleman, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 238 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, OK 74074, 

b.coleman@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747 
84 

 

Harvesting Insights: Rural Community Members’ Perceptions 
of Agritourism in Oklahoma 

 
A. C. Caruso1, A. E. H. King2, B. M. Coleman3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: August 16, 2024 
Accepted: December 9, 2024 
Published: December 11, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
community capitals; Great Plains, 
online survey; rural development, 
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic 
Growth   

Abstract 
Rural communities face significant challenges such as persistent poverty, 
aging infrastructure, food insecurity, and natural disasters. With 
agriculture as a primary focus, these communities increasingly depend on 
external income and technology. Agritourism offers a promising solution 
by allowing farmers to diversify their income streams while promoting 
rural development. In Oklahoma, there are over 400 agritourism venues 
(USDA NASS, 2022). However, urbanization and climate change continue 
to reshape the agricultural landscape, affecting farmers and rural 
communities. This study examines the perceptions of agritourism among 
rural citizens in southwest Oklahoma and its potential for rural 
development. Utilizing the Community Capitals Framework (Flora et al., 
2007) and Chase et al. (2018) agritourism framework, the study surveyed 
159 residents, revealing a generally positive perception of agritourism as 
beneficial for communities and agriculture. Despite recognizing its 
benefits, respondents indicated a need for more guidance on how to 
engage in agritourism. The findings suggest although there is awareness 
and appreciation of agritourism, there is also a significant opportunity for 
expansion and support. Extension services and state agencies are 
recommended to provide targeted education and training to maximize 
agritourism's economic and community development potential in rural 
areas. 

 

mailto:Anthony.caruso@oksate.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4179-9199
mailto:audrey.king@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6150-0223
mailto:b.coleman@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  85 
 

Introduction and Problem 
 
Rural communities face a multitude of hardships, including persistent poverty, aging 
infrastructure, food insecurity, and natural disasters (Blue Bird Jernigan et al., 2017; Burton et 
al., 2013; Sadri et al., 2018). Furthermore, most rural communities are agriculturally focused 
and face the same vulnerabilities of the agricultural industry (Gowda et al., 2018). Agricultural 
producers continue to seek opportunities to diversify and seek alternative sources of income to 
increase profits (Khanal & Mishra, 2014). Agritourism is known to assist in both the 
development of rural communities and allow farmers to diversify their incomes (Barbieri & 
Tew, 2016; Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). Agritourism in Oklahoma is responsible for $64 
million USD in overall economic impact in 2012 (Murphy et al., 2017).  
 
Urbanization and climate change have changed the agricultural landscape, negatively affecting 
rural communities that are agriculturally dependent (Brune et al., 2021; Che, 2008). However, 
agritourism is one approach that can rejuvenate such communities. The benefits of agritourism 
include positive economic impacts for producers and communities, improvement of agricultural 
literacy, and strengthening of local food systems and communities (Brune et al., 2021; Che, 
2008; Lupi et al., 2017). Agritourism is extensive in Oklahoma, it encompasses over 400 
registered operations, consisting of u-pick farms, hunting/fishing guides, and other experiences 
(USDA NASS, 2022).  
 
Agritourism has been extensively researched in Oklahoma regarding its marketing, legality, and 
overall economic impact (Bowman et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2017). 
However, the perceptions of community members who live near agritourism operations have 
not been studied. Understanding such perspectives will guide the support and training needed 
to expand agritourism further in Oklahoma. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study used Emery and Flora’s (2006) Community Capitals Framework along with Chase et 
al. (2018) Agritourism Framework to inform survey design and interpretation of results. The 
Community Capitals Framework outlines seven capitals, or resource categories, that can be 
leveraged for community development: (a) human, (b) financial, (c) built, (d) natural, (e) 
political, (f) social, and (g) cultural. Natural and financial capitals are the foci within the 
community capitals framework which best align with agritourism. Natural capital is widely 
known as the existing resources a community possesses that can be used for sustainable 
development (e.g., weather, natural beauty, and amenities; Emery & Flora, 2006). Financial 
capitals encompass wealth, security, credit, and investment (e.g., taxes, grants, and loans) 
(Flora et. al., 2007). The Community Capitals Framework includes the flows and stocks of 
resources available for community development. Capitals can be invested or leveraged to 
increase the livability of communities. For example, the natural capital resource of timber could 
be cut and sold, resulting in increased financial capital (Emery & Flora, 2006). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  86 
 

Chase et al.’s (2018) agritourism framework sorts agritourism into five broad categories: Direct 
sales, hospitality, education, outdoor recreation, and entertainment. Within the five broad 
categories, core and peripheral activities contribute to the agritourism framework. Core 
activities are generally accepted as agritourism, such as direct sales or farm experiences such as 
pumpkin patches. Peripheral activities lack an active connection to production agriculture, such 
as farmers markets and hunting experiences. Although the definitions of agritourism related 
activities vary, researchers agree on agritourism’s value as a whole (Chase et al., 2018). 
However, agritourism perceptions of rural community members have not been widely 
explored.  
 

Purpose 
 
This research aims to explore the perceptions about agritourism in rural southwest Oklahoma 
and its possible use for rural development. The four main objectives of this research were to: 
1. Describe the rural citizen participants. 
2. Describe participant’s interactions with agritourism. 
3. Determine the level of awareness of agritourism offerings in participants' counties.  
4. Describe the perceptions of agritourism in rural communities. 
5. Determine the relationship between agritourism perception and connection to agriculture. 
 

Methodology 
 
To gain a comprehensive understanding of rural community members' perceptions of 
agritourism, a mixed-methods convergent design survey was employed in southwest Oklahoma 
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This approach offers a more complete insight than relying solely 
on quantitative or qualitative methods. We employed the questionnaire variant of convergent 
mixed methods, adopting a QUANT + qual lens (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). In this variant of 
the convergent design, closed-ended quantitative questions and open-ended qualitative 
questions are included in a single questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 19 questions: 
(a) seven demographic questions, (b) six, five-point Likert-scale questions, (c) four close-ended 
questions, and (d) two open-ended response questions. The close-ended question asked 
participants if they had agritourism experiences and what experiences they are aware of in 
their community. The two open-ended questions asked participants to define agritourism and 
asked for any additional comments concerning agritourism. The questionnaire was reviewed for 
face and content validity by two experts in survey design who were external to the authorship 
team (Creswell, 2014). One expert was an associate professor of agricultural communications, 
and the other was a social science research coordinator at a Land-Grant institution. Per the 
panel’s recommendations, the instrument was edited for readability and navigability.  
 
Online, non-probability, opt-in sampling was used (Creswell, 2014). The Qualtrics-created 
questionnaire was distributed in 2023 utilizing Facebook posts, Facebook advertisements, and a 
flyer posted in rural communities. The distribution of questionnaires was focused on the 
southwestern region of Oklahoma. Specifically, the questionnaire was promoted in three ways: 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  87 
 

(a) Posted in Facebook groups that served southwestern Oklahoma; (b) Advertised through 
paid, tailored Facebook posts to the region; and (c) Posted by flyer within communities, which 
included an accompanying QR code. The questionnaire included a screening question to ensure 
only residents and/or landowners of southwest Oklahoma participated in the study. In total, 13 
Facebook posts were made to various community groups and extension social media pages. 
The questionnaire was open to responses for eight consecutive weeks, and 174 responses were 
recorded. Of the 174 responses, two responses were from QR codes from posted flyers, and 
172 originated from Facebook. The Facebook advertisement had 84 link clicks and a reach of 
3,061 users. Of the 174 responses, 159 were included in the analysis. The remaining 15 were 
not analyzed due to incomplete responses. If the only question answered was the informed 
consent, the response was considered incomplete and excluded from analysis. Participants 
were not required to answer all questions. Questions left blank were not used in the analysis.  
 
Descriptive statistics and Chi-Square analysis were used for quantitative data, an alpha level of 
.05 was used for statistical tests. Qualitative data were analyzed using MAXQDA24 and the 
constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965). A total of 136 responses were first open-coded, 
and 16 codes were assigned. Next, axial and selective coding were completed, resulting in 
seven themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). One researcher led the qualitative analysis, and themes 
were confirmed by the entire research team. Verbatim responses from participants were used 
to support the analysis process and reduce researcher bias (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). To 
ensure rigor and trustworthiness, the following measures were taken: (a) themes were 
negotiated by the research team, (b) data were triangulated using quantitative question 
responses, (c) data were reviewed several times to achieve prolonged engagement, and (d) 
bracketing and reflexivity were used to reduce bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tufford & Newman, 
2012). 
 
Due to the sampling method and sample size, these findings are not generalizable. It is unlikely 
all residents of southwest Oklahoma were reached by this survey. In addition, we recognize the 
questionnaire variant (QUANT + qual) of the convergent design often limits the richness of 
qualitative data collection (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Further, we were unable to 
implement member checking to increase the trustworthiness of data analysis. Although 
demographic information was collected, researchers are unable to determine if the perceptions 
of agritourism represent the demographics of southwest Oklahoma. 
 

Findings 
 
The personal characteristics of the 159 participants are displayed in Table 1. Tillman County had 
the highest response rate, followed by Greer County. Both counties are located in southwest 
Oklahoma and were part of the targeted demographics for the scope of this study. Participants 
had a varying connection to agriculture, with most respondents having grown up on a farm or 
ranch or were currently farmers or ranchers. The majority of participants were female (58%), 
and 15% of participants were male.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  88 
 

Table 1 
 
Demographic Characteristics of Participants 

Variable n % 
Gender  

Female 92 58% 
 Male 24 15%  

Prefer Not to Answer 43 27% 
Age  

18-24 6 4%  
25-34 12 8%  
35-44 19 12%  
45-54 21 13%  
55-64 24 15%  
65+ 31 19%  
Prefer Not to Answer 46 29% 

Race  
White 104 81% 

 American Indian or Alaska Native  4 3%  
Asian  2 2%  
Black  1 1%  
Prefer Not to Answer 6 5%  
Hispanic/Latino(a) 11 9% 

Connection to Agriculture  
Grew up on farm or ranch 29 18% 

 Farmer or Rancher 27 17%  
Other  22 14%  
None 20 13%  
Grandparents or relative  17 11%  
Prefer Not to Answer 44 28% 

County  
Tillman 36 23% 

 Greer 33 21%  
Jackson 17 11%  
Harmon 10 6%  
Beckham 5 3%  
Kiowa 5 3%  
Comanche 2 1%  
Other  7 4%  
Prefer Not to Answer 43 27% 

 
Overall, participants indicated they were familiar with agritourism. One hundred and three 
respondents (64.8%) knew what agritourism was, and 56 respondents (35.2%) did not know 
what agritourism was. Of the participants who indicated they were farmers or ranchers (n = 27), 
11 indicated they would add agritourism, eight said they would possibly add agritourism, and 
eight indicated they would not add agritourism to their operation. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  89 
 

Sixty-one respondents (43.6%) had visited an agritourism experience, 55 (39.3%) had not, and 
24 (17.1%) were unsure if they had visited an agritourism experience. Most respondents 
reported being aware of one to three agritourism operations in their county. Table 2 displays 
respondents’ awareness of agritourism in their community quantifying the number of 
agritourism operations that they have knowledge of in their county.  
 
Table 2 
 
Community Awareness of Agritourism Operations (n = 129) 

Question 

0 
Agritourism 
Operations 

1-3 
Agritourism 
Operations 

4-7 
Agritourism 
Operations 

7+  
Agritourism 
Operations 

f % f % f % f % 
How many agritourism operations are 
you aware of in your county? 37 28.7 74 57.4 15 11.6 3 2.3 

 
Respondents had most frequently visited farmers' markets, pumpkin patches, and hayrides 
when asked what agritourism operations they have visited. The least frequently visited were 
fishing guide services, hunting guide services, and on farm concerts. Table 3 displays the results 
of the type of agritourism experience respondents had visited.  
 
Table 3  
 
Agritourism Visitation (n = 159) 

Agritourism Activity 
Have Visited Have Not Visited 

f % f % 
Farmers Market 104 65.4 55 34.6 
Pumpkin Patch 92 57.9 67 42.1 
Hayride 81 50.9 78 49.1 
Hiking 55 34.6 104 65.4 
On Farm Weddings 35 22.0 124 78.0 
U-Pick Experience 30 18.9 129 81.1 
Other on Farm Events 26 16.4 133 83.6 
Farm to Dinner Experience 24 15.1 135 84.9 
Fishing Guide Service 20 12.6 139 87.4 
Hunting Guide Service 16 10.1 143 89.9 
On Farm Concerts 11 6.9 148 93.1 

Note. Respondents chose which experiences they have visited. Ones that were missing were 
counted as not visited. 
 
Participants were asked to define agritourism in an open-ended response question. Three 
themes emerged from their responses. When defining agritourism, participants described it as 
education-focused, experience-centered, and revenue-driven. These three themes are explored 
below.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  90 
 

Education-Focused 
Participants frequently described agritourism with words like “learning,” “education,” or 
“immersive.” One participant defined agritourism as “Educational tours on farms.” Another 
replied with, “Education about farm life.” Yet another described agritourism as: “Agriculture-
based businesses and sites that are open for tourists to visit and learn about agriculture.”  
 
Experience-Centered 
Participants also referred to agritourism as an experience. One participant described 
agritourism as “Tourists visit your farm to engage with nature. Having the opportunity to 
participate firsthand in the farming experience.” Participants described these experiences as 
exclusively for people not involved in agriculture. For example, one response said, “A farm visit 
experience for non-ag folks.” Participants also described these experiences as advantageous for 
producers, particularly in an economic sense, saying “Attracting visitors. . . to make a profit out 
of the experience in the farm environment.” 
 
Revenue-Driven 
Participants described agritourism as revenue and profit-driven, describing agritourism as 
“Anything that is agricultural that will bring people to see it or spend money” and a “great way 
for farmers and ranchers to supplement their income.” One farmer described agritourism as 
particularly beneficial to his operation, saying “It’s a way I can make extra income from my farm 
by allowing people to stay in my cabin, hunt on my farm, and fish in some of my ponds.” 
 
The Likert-scale perception questions had varying results regarding agritourism, with positive 
perceptions of existing agritourism operations and optimism of the ability to utilize agritourism 
as a rural development component. The belief that agritourism is beneficial to their county was 
majority agreed upon (67.2%) as well as agritourism bringing value to their community (58.5%). 
The majority of participants strongly agreed that agritourism should be expanded in their 
county (58.2%) where two respondents disagreed that it should be expanded (1.6%). Most 
participants agreed that agritourism brings tourism to their county (73.1%) and that their 
counties had enough resources to sustain agritourism (60.2%). Participants disagreed that there 
were enough agritourism offerings in their county (42.6%). Table 4 shows the results of the 
perception Likert scale questions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  91 
 

Table 4 
 
Frequencies and Percentages of Participants’ Perceptions of Agritourism 

Question 

Strongly 
Agree 

Somewhat 
Agree Neutral 

Somewhat 
Disagree 

Strongly 
Disagree Total 

f % f % f % f % f % 
Agritourism is beneficial 

to my county  
82 67.2 26 21.3 12 9.8 1 .8 1 .8 122 

Agritourism brings value 
to my community 

69 58.5 32 27.1 13 11 4 3.4 0 0 118 

Agritourism should be 
expanded in my county 

71 58.2 35 28.7 14 11.5 0 0 2 1.6 122 

Agritourism brings 
tourism to my county 

47 39.5 40 33.6 22 18.5 8 6.7 2 1.7 119 

My county has enough 
resources to sustain 
agritourism 

29 24.6 42 35.6 23 19.5 15 12.7 9 7.6 118 

There are enough 
agritourism operations 
in my county 

2 1.6 6 3.8 21 17.2 41 33.6 52 42.6 122 

Note. Respondents were not required to answer all questions; therefore, totals do not equal 
the study’s sample. 
 
The last question on the survey was an open-ended question asking participants had additional 
comments regarding agritourism. Four themes emerged from their responses: (a) Agritourism is 
Good for Agriculture, (b) More Guidance is Needed, (c) Increase Agritourism, and (d) 
Agritourism is Good for Rural Communities.  
 
Agritourism is Good for Agriculture 
Participants perceived agritourism as beneficial for all agriculture, offering an opportunity to 
promote the industry and educate consumers. One participant said agritourism was an 
opportunity “to draw visitors from urban areas to enjoy and appreciate the fruits of agriculture. 
It helps them [visitors from urban areas] understand how agriculture actually and directly 
affects them.” Another participant had similar ideas saying, “This is a good way to get the word 
out to people about something the agricultural industry provides to others.” 
 
More Guidance is Needed 
When asked for final thoughts about agritourism, Participants expressed a need for more 
guidance to engage producers in agritourism. One participant said “My county has some folks 
that grow and sell products. We could use a market for them to sell and a few more farm-type 
venues in my opinion. We are waiting for guidance.” One farmer also directly asked for 
guidance, saying “I’m working to create new opportunities on my farm. Guidance would be 
great if you’re tracking respondents!” 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  92 
 

Increase Agritourism 
Participants were excited about agritourism and wished to see more in their areas, saying “I 
feel people would like to see more agritourism activities in my area.” One participant even 
called for greater efforts state-wide saying, “Any expansion of farming activities that brings an 
additional revenue stream is desperately needed, statewide!” Finally, another participant called 
for greater engagement in agritourism saying “I believe there should be more agritourism 
activities to promote agriculture and to help demystify what agriculture is really like.” 
 
Agritourism is Good for Rural Communities 
In the final question, participants commented on the benefits agritourism offered for rural 
communities. One of these perceived benefits was community revenue. One participant said 
“Agritourism helps build business within the community . . . and gains revenue in rural 
communities.” Another participant thought agritourism had the potential to bring new visitors 
to their community saying “it would increase the people that visit my community, I think it 
would be good, a positive thing for our rural area.”  
 
Chi-square tests of independence were used to determine if relationships existed between 
participants’ perceptions of agritourism and their connection to agriculture. Researchers 
wanted to explore whether the influence of rurality and agriculture affected respondent’s 
perceptions of agritourism.  For each of the six items measuring participants’ perceptions, there 
was no significant association with their connection to agriculture when measured at an alpha 
set a priori of .05. Table 5 displays the results of the chi-square analyses highlighting the 
insignificant association between connection to agriculture and perceptions.  
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  93 
 

Table 5 
 
Results of the Chi-Square Tests of Independence 

Perception 
Question 

No 
Connection 

Farmer or 
Rancher 

Grew up on 
Farm/Ranch 

Grandparents 
Farmed or 
Ranched Other χ! p Total 

n % n % n % n % n % 
Enough 

Agritourism 
operations in 
my county 

20 17.39 27 23.47 29 25.21 17 14.78 22 19.13 25.87 .056 115 

Agritourism 
should be 
expanded in 
county 

20 17.39 27 23.47 29 25.21 17 14.78 22 19.13 12.49 .408 115 

Agritourism is 
beneficial to 
my county 

20 17.39 27 23.47 29 25.21 17 14.78 22 19.13 19.41 .079 115 

Agritourism 
brings 
tourism to 
county 

20 17.39 27 23.47 29 25.21 17 14.78 22 19.13 11.96 .746 115 

County has 
enough 
resources to 
sustain 
agritourism 

20 17.54 27 23.68 28 24.56 17 14.91 22 19.30 25.77 .057 114 

Agritourism 
brings value 
to my 
community 

20 17.54 27 23.68 28 24.56 17 14.91 22 19.30 6.94 .862 114 

Note. Respondents were not required to answer all questions; therefore, totals do not equal 
the study’s sample. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Residents in rural southwest Oklahoma viewed agritourism as an unsaturated market with 
room for expansion in their communities. This poses an opportunity to use agritourism for rural 
development in Oklahoma. The majority of respondents’ perceptions of agritourism were 
positive, and they viewed agritourism as beneficial for their community. Participants indicated a 
need for additional guidance on how to get started with agritourism or the opportunities 
available. 
  
Overall participants were well aware of the agritourism operations present in their 
communities. The majority of respondents indicated there were three to five agritourism 
operations in their county. In actuality, there are four registered in Tillman County, three in 
Jackson County, one in Greer County, and none in Harmon (Oklahoma Department of Food and 
Forestry, 2024). Participants viewed agritourism as a revenue-driven, educational experience. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  94 
 

This aligns with Chase et al. (2018) framework and definition of agritourism. Participant’s 
varying definitions of agritourism, also aligns with previous research. Some research defines 
agritourism as recreational activities (i.e., visiting farms, ranches, or other agricultural settings) 
and other considers visiting farmer’s markets as agritourism (Ammirato et al., 2020; Barbieri & 
Tew, 2016; Brown et al., 2014; Carpio et al., 2008).  
 
Participants’ connection with agriculture was not statistically related to their perceptions of 
agritourism. Perhaps this is because the sample included mostly rural citizens who, if lacked a 
direct connection to agriculture, have higher exposure to agriculture than urban citizens 
(Gowda et al., 2018). Furthermore, the primary economic driver in three of the seven counties 
represented is agriculture (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 
2017).  
 
Since there was no significant relationship between participant's connection to agriculture and 
perceptions of agritourism, future research should consider if audience segmentation based on 
rurality would be beneficial to agritourism operations. The lack of a relationship between the 
variables suggests agritourism should be marketed to audiences, regardless of their connection 
to agriculture. Moreover, the qualitative responses revealed participants viewed agritourism as 
an activity exclusively for urban audiences or those not connected to agriculture. Although 
urban audiences likely have much to learn from agritourism, and are a worthwhile audience to 
pursue, rural and agricultural audiences can also benefit from agritourism experiences and 
should be equally considered. Agritourism operations could benefit from marketing their 
experiences specifically to agricultural and rural audiences.  
 
Extension and state agencies should work together to continue to educate agricultural 
producers about opportunities in agritourism. Perhaps offering regional trainings or 
informational sessions would provide the guidance our results indicate producers are craving 
(Schmidt et al., 2022). The economic feasibility of agritourism in this region should be further 
explored. Further, the relative cost benefit to producers and communities alike should be 
studied.  
 
Whether agritourism can be used as an aspect of rural development should be researched 
further to determine the impact existing agritourism operations have on rural Oklahoma. 
Where Schmidt et al. (2022) found western states’ rural communities benefiting from the 
expenditures agritourism tourists have. Due to the limitations of sampling and response rate of 
the questionnaire, future research should focus on the distribution of the instrument in other 
regions of Oklahoma to investigate the differences in perceptions across regions. Although 
Facebook advertisements are convenient for data collection, considering in-person data 
collection may result in higher response rates and more complete responses. Perceptions of 
agritourism research should include a qualitative analysis of agritourism from both producers 
and consumers of agritourism in rural communities to expand on the perceptions. 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  95 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Support for this project was provided by the Oklahoma State University Rural Renewal 
Initiative, supported by the Office of the Vice President for Research, Oklahoma Agricultural 
Experiment Station and Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. 
 
This research has previously been presented at the Association of International Agricultural and 
Extension Education Conference. Citation: Caruso, A. C., & King, A. E. H. (2024). Harvesting 
insights: Exploring rural community members’ perceptions of agritourism. Presented at the 
Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education Conference, Orlando, FL. 
 
Author Contributions: A. Caruso – Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing-
original draft; A. King – Conceptualization, methodology formal analysis, writing-original draft, 
supervision; B. Coleman- Methodology, formal analysis, writing- review and editing.  
 

References 
 
Ammirato, S., Felicetti, A. M., Raso, C., Pansera, B. A., & Violi, A. (2020). Agritourism and 

sustainability: What we can learn from a systematic literature review. Sustainability, 
12(22), 9575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229575 

 
Barbieri, C., & Tew, C. (2016). Perceived impact of agritourism on farm economic standing, sales 

and profits. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2010/Oral/34 
 
Blue Bird Jernigan, V., Wetherill, M. S., Hearod, J., Jacob, T., Salvatore, A. L., Cannady, T., 

Grammar, M., Standridge, J., Fox, J., Spiegel, J., Wiley, A., Noonan, C., & Buchwald, D. 
(2017). Food insecurity and chronic diseases among American Indians in rural 
Oklahoma: The THRIVE study. American Journal of Public Health, 107(3), 441–446. 
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303605 

 
Bowman, B., Settle, Q., Riggs, A., Tomas, S., & King, A. E. H. (2020). Characteristics of Oklahoma 

agritourism Facebook posts. Journal of Applied Communications, 104(1). 
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2294 

 
Brown, J. P., Goetz, S. J., Ahearn, M. C., & Liang, C. L. (2014). Linkages between community-

focused agriculture, farm sales, and regional growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 
28(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413506610 

 
Brune, S., Knollenberg, W., Stevenson, K. T., Barbieri, C., & Schroeder-Moreno, M. (2021). The 

influence of agritourism experiences on consumer behavior toward local food. Journal 
of Travel Research, 60(6), 1318–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520938869 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229575
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2010/Oral/34
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303605
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2294
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413506610
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520938869


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  96 
 

Burton, L. M., Lichter, D. T., Baker, R. S., & Eason, J. M. (2013). Inequality, family processes, and 
health in the “new” rural America. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(8), 1128–1151. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487348 

 
Carpio, C. E., Wohlgenant, M. K., & Boonsaeng, T. (2008). The demand for agritourism in the 

United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(2), 254–269. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41220626 

 
Chase, L. C., Stewart, M., Schilling, B., Smith, B., & Walk, M. (2018). Agritourism: Toward a 

conceptual framework for industry analysis. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and 
Community Development, 8(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.081.016 

 
Che, D. (2008). Agritourism and its potential contribution to the agricultural economy. CABI 

Reviews, (2007), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20072063 
 
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 

approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research 

(3rd ed.). SAGE. 
 
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with 

community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490152 

 
Flora, C. B., Emery, M., Fey, S., & Bregendahl, C. (2007). Community capitals: A tool for 

evaluating strategic interventions and projects [Fact Sheet]. North Central Regional 
Center for Rural Development. http://winnemuccafutures.com/blog1/wp-
content/uploads/2010/05/7-capitalshandout.pdf 

 
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 

12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843 
 
Gowda, P., Steiner, J. L., Olson, C., Boggess, M., Farrigan, T., & Grusak, M. A. (2018). Agriculture 

and rural communities. In Reidmiller, D. R., C.W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, K. 
L. M. Lewis, T. K. Maycock, and B. C. Stewart (Eds.), Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the 
United States: Fourth national climate assessment (Vol.2, pp.391-437). U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. 
https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH10 

 
Khanal, A. R., & Mishra, A. K. (2014). Agritourism and off-farm work: Survival strategies for small 

farms. Agricultural Economics, 45(S1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12130 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487348
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41220626
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.081.016
https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20072063
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490152
http://winnemuccafutures.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/7-capitalshandout.pdf
http://winnemuccafutures.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/7-capitalshandout.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH10
https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12130


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  97 
 

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic 
research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031 

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. 
 
Lupi, C., Giaccio, V., Mastronardi, L., Giannelli, A., & Scardera, A. (2017). Exploring the features 

of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy, 64, 
383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.002 

 
Murphy, C., Melstrom, R., Norwood, B., & Jones, R. (2015). Modeling revenue and visitation 

patterns of agritourism operations in Oklahoma—
ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1821392054?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses 

 
Murphy, C., Melstrom, R. T., Shideler, D., & Cummings, J. (2017, March). Agritourism in 

Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension 
Service. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/agritourism-in-oklahoma.html 

 
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry. (2024). Oklahoma Agritourism. 

Oklahoma Agritourism. http://oklahomaagritourism.com 
 
Ramsey, M., & Schaumleffel, N. A. (2006). Agritourism and rural economic development. 

Indiana Business Review, 81(3), 6–9. 
https://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2006/fall/article3.html 

 
Sadri, A. M., Ukkusuri, S. V., Lee, S., Clawson, R., Aldrich, D., Nelson, M. S., Seipel, J., & Kelly, D. 

(2018). The role of social capital, personal networks, and emergency responders in post-
disaster recovery and resilience: A study of rural communities in Indiana. Natural 
Hazards, 90(3), 1377–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3103-0 

 
Schmidt, C., Chase, L., Barbieri, C., Rilla, E., Knights, D. S., Thilmany, D., ... & Leff, P. (2022). 

Linking research and practice: The role of extension on agritourism development in the 
United States. Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), 4(3), 33-48. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.323987 

 
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures 

and techniques. SAGE.  
 
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 

11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316 
 
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2017). USDA ERS - County 

typology codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-typology-codes/ 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.002
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1821392054?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1821392054?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/agritourism-in-oklahoma.html
http://oklahomaagritourism.com/
https://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2006/fall/article3.html
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3103-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.323987
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-typology-codes/


Caruso et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535  98 
 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2022). USDA/NASS QuickStats [Dataset]. 
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ 

 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.535
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

