Abstract This study introduces a new approach to assessing the role of integrated rural tourism, including agritourism, ecotourism, and rural tourism, in sustainable rural development. Going beyond the traditional “Triple Bottom Line” approach based on economic, social, and environmental factors, this study adds elements of an expanded perspective that includes governance, technological innovation, and good health and well-being in assessing sustainable rural development. The result clarifies this field’s leading trends and interactions from 1990 to 2024. Additionally, the research builds a knowledge framework to promote long-term sustainability and transformative growth in rural areas while clarifying challenges and future research directions. Harmonizing these three types of tourism, agricultural development, and rural sustainability will lead to improvement. The findings contribute to our understanding of sustainable tourism practices and provide insights for policymakers and industry stakeholders striving to improve rural development initiatives. Keywords: Sustainable rural development; Integrated rural tourism; Agritourism; Ecotourism; Rural tourism. Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 1 School of Hospitality and Tourism - Hue University, 22 Lam Hoang, Hue City, Vietnam. E-mail: dtthao@hueuni.edu.vn. ORCID: 0009-0008-8978-4652 2 School of Hospitality and Tourism - Hue University, 22 Lam Hoang, Hue City, Vietnam. E-mail: ntbngoc@hueuni.edu.vn. ORCID: 0000-0001-8611-1235 3 Department of Economics -AWKUM, Pakistan; Postdoc Research Fellowship - Henan University, China. Email: kamal@awkum.edu.pk 4 Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, 102 Phung Hung, Thuan Thanh Ward, Hue City, Vietnam. E-mail: dvvinh@huaf.edu.vn.ORCID: 0009-0007- 8022-3456 * Corresponding author: dtthao@hueuni.edu.vn BioProducts Business 10(1), 2025, pp. 1–19. ISSN 2378-1394 https://doi.org/10.22382/bpb-2025-001 Do Thi Thao 1 *, Nguyen Thi Bich Ngoc 2, Muhammad Abdul Kamal 3, Dang Van Vinh 4 1. Introduction Efforts to promote comprehensive sustainable rural development (SRD) often emphasize the integration of three main types of tourism: agritourism (AT), rural tourism (RT), and ecotourism (ET), collectively known as “integrated rural tourism” or IRT (Roman & Kawęcki 2024; Yeager et al. 2024). This concept is gaining global attention because it optimizes resources and fosters a sustainable, multi-dimensional development model. IRT is deemed an essential and meaningful model amid the depletion of resources and environ- mental degradation, which necessitates a tourism development model that balances economic, social, and environmental factors (Belliggiano et al. 2020; Gao & Wu 2017; Zhang et al. 2015). The IRT approach is imperative for diversifying income sources and reducing dependence on a single economic sector. It aids in conserving cultural values and agricultural heritage while protecting the natural environment through green and sustainable tourism activities, organic farms, and smart villages (Ciolac et al. 2022; Hussain et al. 2023). Moreover, it encourages local community participation and enhances the quality of life, contributing to comprehensive and sustainable socioeconomic development (Hussain et al. 2023). Post-COVID-19, there has been a rise in techno- logical innovations and wellness tourism types such as Airbnb in rural villages, improving management and tourism experiences as well as the mental and physical health of residents and tourists (Pesonen & Komppula 2010; Xue & Shen 2022). Notably, empow- mailto:dtthao@hueuni.edu.vn mailto:ntbngoc@hueuni.edu.vn mailto:kamal@awkum.edu.pk mailto:dvvinh@huaf.edu.vn mailto:dtthao@hueuni.edu.vn 2 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 ering women in tourism activities significantly con- tributes to community development reduces gender inequality, and encourages the active involvement of all members of society (Quang et al. 2023). The trend toward digital technology innovation plays a vital role in managing and developing rural tourism. Technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, Augmented Reality (AR), and Virtual Reality (VR) help optimize manage- ment processes, promote tourism effectively, and enhance the authenticity of the tourist experience, thereby increasing satisfaction and loyalty (Hussain et al. 2023; Park & Lee 2019). Furthermore, wellness models are being integrated into the IRT model, intro- ducing new and unique types of tourism in rural areas and attracting many tourists. IRT provides a serene space close to nature, enabling visitors to relax and rejuvenate. This model meets tourism needs while improving visitors’ mental and physical health (Xue & Shen 2022). IRT diversifies the rural economy and fosters community participation, ensuring economic development is balanced with environmental protec- tion. The active involvement of local communities guarantees that economic benefits are distributed fairly and sustainably, enhancing the quality of life and social stability (Klakočar & Pavić 2024; Tiwari & Nguyen 2024). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first effort to integrate the three primary types of tourism, Agritourism, Rural Tourism, and Ecotourism into a cohesive IRT model. This study is an exten- sion beyond the conventional Triple Bottom Line framework to explore the multifaceted impacts of IRT, including innovations in digital technology, em- powering policies, and improving quality of life. The research delves into emerging trends, international collaborations, and topic developments to iden- tify future research prospects and explore existing gaps. Additionally, it presents a concept knowledge framework that investigates the interactions among the three tourism types and their contributions to SRD while assessing challenges and outlining future research avenues and scientific inquiries. The fol- lowing are three research objectives for the work: (1) Analyze the research progress of SRD through collaboration, co-occurrence of keywords relation- ships, and trends and dynamics of key themes, providing a comprehensive, multidimensional view of the field’s development. (2) Create a theory-based, new knowledge framework for this field that helps create a logical and unique understanding of how IRT research impacts SRD. (3) Identify current challenges and future research directions, supporting future scholars in conduct- ing more extensive research. The paper begins with an introduction and a theo- retical background on SRD. Afterward, it presents the methodology, followed by the analysis of results, discussion, and conclusion. Additionally, the paper addresses current challenges and future research directions, offering valuable insights and practical recommendations for policymakers and researchers in these fields. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1 Triple Bottom Line theory and sustainable development The triple bottom line (TBL) theory, which measures the performance and sustainability behavior of com- panies by considering three aspects—economic, so- cial, and environmental— is considered “a great and far-reaching metaphor” (Elkington & Rowlands 1999; Henriques 2013). The TBL provides a tool to evaluate the performance and success of organizations by measuring their impacts in the economic, social, and environmental areas, which is considered a practical framework for sustainable development (Nogueira et al. 2023). The TBL has expanded the traditional financial reporting framework to also address social and environmental impacts, reflecting a shift from focusing solely on profits to a more multidimensional view of sustainable development related to society and the environment in order to optimize the use of resources efficiently and sustainably and to sup- port future generations (Sala 2020). This includes maintaining long-term profitability while protecting natural resources and creating social value. The social dimension refers to the responsibility of orga- nizations towards the community, including imple- menting fair labor practices, promoting community participation, and improving the quality of life for local populations (Cheng & Xu 2021). Organizations that apply TBL are expected to deliver responsible Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 3 and equitable operations. Finally, the environmental dimension of TBL emphasizes minimizing the nega- tive impact of economic activities on the environment through saving resources, reducing emissions, and protecting biodiversity (Sala 2020). The TBL model has become an important tool in assessing sustainable development in many different fields. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that before 1990, this term was not popular, but now, a simple search on Google can return more than three million results related to TBL, a sharp increase from the 52,400 results found in 2004 (Norman & MacDonald 2004). However, in the current development trend, TBL has been expanded due to its limitations in addressing the complexity of sustainability in modern organizations. 2.2 SRD and factors beyond the TBL model The original TBL model assessed sustainable develop- ment based on economic, social, and environmental factors, and it has been applied in many studies to assess sustainable development in different fields (Elkington & Rowlands 1999). However, in the context of SRD, this model needs to be expanded to fully re- spond to factors affecting sustainable development in line with modern development trends and new global challenges. One of the necessary factors to expand TBL in rural development is tourism, espe- cially when it integrates models such as agritourism, ecotourism, and rural tourism, which have become an indispensable part of sustainable development strategies in rural communities. Additional factors, such as governance, technology, and public health, have been studied recently based on rapid social change and the need for comprehensive develop- ment (Apostolopoulos et al. 2020). Governance helps improve policy and community engagement, technol- ogy supports the optimization of tourism manage- ment and the protection of cultural heritage, while public health promotes sustainable development through IRT models (Mihai et al. 2021; Yanan et al. 2024). Many previous studies have shown that the expansion of TBL in tourism models such as agricul- ture, eco-tourism, and rural tourism promotes eco- nomic development, improves the quality of life, and preserves cultural values (An & Alarcón 2020; Tang & Xu 2023; Cheng & Xu 2021). In particular, digital technology and public participation are important in enhancing management effectiveness and sustain- able development (Jiang et al. 2023). The current study has expanded the TBL model to link these elements with the typical sustainable development goals (SDGs) governance for SDG 16, technology for SDG 9, and public health for SDG 3, creating a more comprehensive rural development framework. Based on recent studies and development trends, the study develops a theoretical framework for sustainable rural tourism development based on IRT. 3. Methodology 3.1 Bibliometric approach The bibliometric is a quantitative method that uses bibliographic databases to analyze and predict re- search trends, while clarifying research structures and systems (Donthu et al. 2021; Merigó & Yang 2017). The bibliometric method has become popular, as evidenced by an analysis of 18,432 scientific stud- ies published between 1980 and 2023 that included bibliometric analysis (İri & Ünal 2024). This method allows for tracking research trends, evaluating aca- demic results, and understanding scientific collabora- tions through quantitative information analysis for forecasting and decision-making (Lazarides et al. 2023). This method applies mathematical and statisti- cal techniques to analyzing scientific documents to explore the conceptual structure and development of research topics (Pranckutė 2021). In order to meet the research objectives in this work, bibliometric analysis was chosen as an effec- tive way to collect and identify basic information about publications in the field. This study identi- fies influential authors and publication sources and the most influential countries, which is especially meaningful for the direction and strategy of coop- eration (Valenzuela-Fernández et al. 2018). Notably, the study builds a visual map of the relationship between countries and international research col- laborations, assesses the role of countries in the global scientific community, identifies important research centers, and discovers new cooperation opportunities. We conduct a co-occurrence analysis of keywords in scientific articles. This analysis helps to identify relationships between research topics and the connections between keywords in differ- ent research clusters. The term co-occurrence of keywords is the simultaneous appearance of two or 4 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 more keywords in a research paper, indicating a con- nection or relationship between research concepts. Through this, important research trends are clarified, helping to build an overview of the development of the research field over time. In combination, we use a thematic map construction tool, a powerful visualization method to describe the relationships between major research topics, highlighting cen- trality and community structure, to illustrate hot topics and their connections (Nica 2024; Rusydiana 2021). This map helps identify prominent topics and shows their distribution and changes in scientific publications. The topic map helps researchers easily identify key areas and major research trends in the field. In addition, current trends in research topics are analyzed to understand better the topics that are attracting attention and developing strongly over time, the basis for identifying challenges and potential research opportunities. Staying abreast of current trends will help researchers stay updated on the latest developments and emerging challenges in their field and guide future research directions. 3.2 Research design and data collection A reliable and complete dataset is a prerequisite for bibliometric research, as it ensures accurate analysis and visualization of publication trends (Passas 2024; Rogers et al. 2020). This study used a set of docu- ments retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) for several reasons: (1) WoS applies strict selection criteria, ensuring only high-quality, peer-reviewed journals are included, making the retrieved documents reliable, trust- worthy, and highly relevant for academic research (Pranckutė 2021) (2) The database offers a wide range of journals and articles, ensuring researchers have access to es- sential documents and stay updated on the latest developments (Birkle et al. 2020). (3) WoS is ideal for bibliometric analysis due to its compatibility with software like VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, citeSpace, etc. (Jing et al. 2024). Building on previous studies on bibliometric re- views and establishing a good keyword strategy ensures the representativeness of studies identified in bibliometric reviews, influencing the quality of the results (Arici et al. 2023; Harari et al. 2020). This study fully complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol guidelines to ensure transparency and qual- ity in its implementation, presenting total systematic relations and comprehensive analysis (Page et al. 2022). This study applied PRISMA to ensure trans- parency, systematization, and reproducibility in the document selection process (Page et al. 2022). The use of PRISMA in bibliometric review is consistent with recent research trends when many researchers have applied this method to standardize the document screening process, minimize bias, and improve the quality of analysis (Nica 2024; Rusydiana 2021). Each step, from data collection to data synthesis, ensures transparency, completeness, and accuracy. Using the procedure, cleaning, checking for synonyms, and expanding keywords were performed thoroughly. Specifically, the process consists of four steps: iden- tification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Step 1 – Identification: We conducted multiple searches and tested many keyword strategies during November 2024, resulting in the selection of key- words for the study: (“Integrated Rural Tourism” OR “rural tourism” OR “ecotourism” OR “agritourism” OR “agrotourism”) AND (“Sustainable Rural Development” OR “sustainab* development”) AND (“impact*” OR “effect*” OR “role”). After searching, 1130 relevant publications were found. Step 2 – Screening: In step 2, the 1130 documents from step 1 were screened, selecting only journal articles written in English to ensure consistency in the analysis (Arici et al. 2023; Harari et al. 2020). Some documents were deemed irrelevant to the research topic, even though they were indexed in search engines. We conducted a manual screening to find documents relevant to the research topic. They relied on abstracts and titles to ensure they were relevant to the research scope and contained at least two keywords in the article. The results ob- tained 987 articles focusing on the research topic. Step 3 – Eligibility: The 987 articles collected from step 2 were subjected to a rigorous standardization process (Taskin & Al 2019), including the author’s name, journal origin, and the existence of the journal at present. This process resulted in 964 collected ar- ticles, which were retained for bibliometric analysis. To further support the analysis and build a knowledge framework on the impact of IRT on SRD, the research Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 5 team continued to screen and select high-quality articles from reputable journals in the next step. Step 4 – Data synthesis: This process was conducted using the 964 articles retained from step 3 to perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, these articles demonstrate precise research methods, convincing results, new contributions to theory and practice, structured presentation of ideas, and link- age to current research and have reliable references (Chiu et al. 2014), and were structured coherently and relevant to the research topic (Ting & Cheng 2017). This process was carried out within a week. As a result, we narrowed the list to 31 articles that were the most relevant and used them for in-depth analysis in a cluster and knowledge framework, cita- tion, and further clarification in the co-occurrence of keywords analysis. There are many tools to support bibliometric anal- ysis, but each tool has different outstanding features. Combining VOSViewer and Biblioshiny can enhance bibliometric analysis by leveraging the strengths of both tools. VOSviewer is known to be superior in cre- ating visual representations of complex bibliometric data, allowing researchers to map topics and track keyword evolution over time (Contreras & Abid 2022; Van Eck & Waltman 2010). In parallel, the Biblioshiny software in RStudio is used for bibliometric mapping, creating visual representations of data and trends in the evolution of topics over time, allowing for detailed and comprehensive bibliometric analysis (Thangavel & Chandra 2023). Integrating these tools can provide a more robust analytical framework, allowing researchers to visualize complex data and perform in-depth reference reviews. 3.3 Publication statistics The descriptive analysis shows that the total number of citations for 964 articles in 347 journal sources was 17,297. The average number of citations per article was 17.94, while the h-index was 75. Figure 1 illustrates the publications and citations in studies on IRT and SRD from 1990 to November 2024. The slow publication growth from 1990 to 2009 shows that this research field had not yet received attention. Since 2010, the number of publications has increased rapidly, especially in 2016–2024, with a peak in 2023. This trend reflects that IRT research has become an area of great interest in the academic community, associated with the increasing awareness of sustain- able development in rural areas in the context of globalization (Figure 1). 3.4 Most relevant authors/countries/sources: Most relevant authors: These authors often have a significant number of scientific publications; their works are highly cited and significantly influence the scientific community. Table 1 shows a picture of the distribution of influence and contribution of authors in the research community, from the number of papers published to the level of citation and the distribution of contributions in collaborative research. Liu Y has the most significant impact, with 8 articles and 105 citations, reflected in a collaboration index of 3.75. Ciolac R and Iancu T have a high number of 184 citations, but a low number of articles fractional- Figure 1. Total publications and cumulative citations (1990–2024). 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 Publication Citations 6 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 ized at 1.07. Moreover, Shen CC has 71 citations, but the articles fractionalized at 2.27. Adamov T has 184 citations and records the lowest articles fractional- ized at 0.97. They may be leaders or play important roles in large research projects and are the leading authors in research works. Most relevant sources: The articles and the impact index show the importance of the current development of sustainable IRT and how these sources are related through articles published in influential journals. The research results in Table 2 show that SRD is becoming increasingly important in the context of globaliza- tion and climate change. Recent studies published in prestigious journals such as Sustainability (H-index 29), Journal of Sustainable Tourism (H-index 21), and Land (H-index 7) show a strong focus on sustainable development through IRT, especially in land resource management, environmental protection, and rural community support in line with the journal’s objectives. In addition, journals that tend to analyze the en- vironmental impacts of rural tourism or are from the perspective of environmental protection and ecology in rural tourism, especially in sensitive areas of the ecological environment, are also of interest to many scholars. Most cited countries and countries’ scientific produc- tion: Knowing these countries will help researchers quickly identify important research topics and influ- ential scientific areas. Furthermore, it is a basis for international cooperation to promote the develop- ment of international research and participate in learning and applying advanced research methods. Table 3 analyzes the relationship between scientific output and the level of influence through citations of the top five countries; the results provide insights into each country’s overall scientific output and its influence in the research field. Countries’ scientific production: China ranked No. 1 with 287 published articles, a significant difference from other countries in the ranking. This shows that China is investing and focusing heavily on research and development activities, becoming a powerhouse in global scientific development. The United States ranked No. 2 with 53 articles, followed by Spain, Italy, and Romania. The significant difference in the num- ber of products between China and other countries reflects the great scale and influence of Chinese science in this research field. Most cited countries: Regarding scientific capacity, China again affirmed its No. 1 position, followed by the United Kingdom, USA, Spain, and Italy. However, despite the advantage in the number of publications, average article citations are much lower than those of the other countries in the top five rankings. This shows China’s strategy of investing and focusing heavily on research and development activities, be- coming a powerhouse in global scientific develop- ment. Other developed countries such as the USA, UK, Spain, and Italy are also in the leading group, demonstrating their traditional position in this field. 3.5 Collaborations between countries Figure 2 is a map that visualizes the network of scien- tific and academic collaborations between countries worldwide from 1990 to 2024. This shows that China is playing an increasingly important role in the global research ecosystem, becoming a key scientific col- laboration center for the field of IRT. Besides China, countries like the USA, UK, Germany, France, and Italy emerged as significant branches in this network and developed early, before 2018. With their development advantages, these countries form densely connected clusters, reflecting the close cooperation between the Table 2. Refereed journals with most articles regarding integrated rural tourism. Rank Sources Articles H-index Publication Year-start 1 Sustainability 172 29 2015 2 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 37 21 2011 3 Land 26 7 2020 4 Environment Development and Sustainability 20 7 2019 5 Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 19 3 2006 Table 1. Distribution and influence of five highly cited authors in integrated rural tourism research. Rank Authors Articles Citation Average citation/ paper Articles fractionalized 1 Liu Y 8 105 13.125 3.75 2 Ciolac R 7 184 26.286 1.07 3 Iancu T 7 184 26.286 1.07 4 Shen CC 7 71 10.143 2.27 5 Adamov T 6 184 30.67 0.97 Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 7 world’s leading research centers and a long history of research on IRT development in SRT. In addition, Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Vietnam have also appeared from 2021 to the present, showing the connection, diffusion, and globalization of scientific activities beyond traditional centers. 3.4 Co-occurrence of keywords analysis Using the software VOSviewer (version 1.6.17), 131 keywords from 4060 were included, based on a threshold of 10 occurrences, meaning only keywords appearing 10 or more times were analyzed. This elimi- nates rare or irrelevant keywords, improving analysis accuracy. Table 4 shows the keywords representing the clusters. The clusters in the co-occurrence of key- words analysis show the main topic groups and the relationships between the keywords in each group (Figure 3 and Table 4). The keyword network shows the formation of six main clusters representing the main themes in the study. Each cluster consists of a group of closely related keywords, reflecting the trends and focuses in IRT research. Cluster 1 con- sists of 25 keywords, representing concepts such as community participation, livelihood improvement, cultural identity preservation, women’s empower- ment, and social impact. Cluster 2, with 23 keywords, Table 3. Most cited countries and countries’ scientific production on integrated rural tourism (1990–2024). Countries’ scientific production Most cited countries Rank Country Publications Rank Country TC Average article citations 1 China 287 1 China 3714 12.90 2 USA 53 2 United Kingdom (UK) 1753 76.20 3 Italy 51 3 USA 1533 28.90 4 Spain 49 4 Spain 1128 23.0 5 Romania 38 5 Italy 1012 19.50 Figure 2. International research collaboration network in integrated rural tourism. 8 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 Table 4. Summary of co-occurrence of keywords analysis. No. Cluster label Number of keywords Representative keywords 1 Integrated rural tourism and communities and social development 25 Local community, community participation; livelihoods; social impact, employment; rural identity; power, community-based tourism (CBT); rural communities; rural tourism; traditional villages, social capital; heritage; cultural exchange, women’s empowerment; gender equality, rural tourism, agritourism; social inclusion, rurality 2 Integrated rural tourism and sustainable economy 23 Integrated rural tourism; economic impact; local economic; rural tourism, agritourism, ecotourism, sustainable rural, income diversification; infrastructure; investment promotion; value-added growth 3 Sustainable ecotourism and rural development 24 Ecotourism; SDGs; environmental education; conservation; circular economy; ecological; responsible tourism; preservation; conservation; rural revitalization; climate changes; CO2 emission 4 Innovation and integrated tourism technology for rural sustainability 21 Innovations, smart tourism, smart farm, GIS, virtual tours, sustainable rural tourism; digitalization, Big Data; rural tourism, authenticity, agritourism, rural tourism, automation; empowerment, youth entrepreneurship 5 Integrated rural tourism and governance 20 Conservation policy; management, stakeholder, tourism management; governance; policy; destination management; regulations 6 Integrated rural tourism well-being and good health 18 Quality of life; satisfaction, poverty, rural ecotourism, life satisfaction; well-being, health; environmental quality; social development; loyalty. Figure 3. Keyword co-occurrence network in integrated rural tourism research. Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 9 focuses on economic aspects such as economic im- pact, income diversification, infrastructure develop- ment, and investment in rural tourism. Cluster 3, with 24 keywords, focuses on environmental protection, conservation education, and circular economy devel- opment in the context of climate change. Cluster 4 includes 21 keywords, emphasizing the role of digital technology and innovation in tourism development. Cluster 5 includes 20 keywords, emphasizing the importance of governance and sustainable man- agement in rural tourism development. Cluster 6 has 18 keywords, focusing on factors that improve quality of life, community health, and visitor satisfac- tion. Figure 3 illustrates the keyword co-occurrence network, showing the connections and correlations between the keyword clusters. The keywords in each cluster reflect the characteristics of a core research interest and the contributions of each field to SRD through IRT. 3.6 Temporal trends and thematic mapping analysis In addition, through RStudio bibliometric analysis of Biblioshiny, we generated the density and central- ity of keywords based on their temporal evolution. Based on the latest trend (2024), the keywords that were used a lot were “land use” and “environmental impacts.” Meanwhile, the keywords “agritourism,” “well-being and good health,” and “sustainable rural development” appeared simultaneously with high density in 2021. Other high-density keywords such as “responsible tourism” and “ecotourism” appeared to have high density in 2020 (Figure 4). In addition, we analyzed a thematic map to identify niche, emerging, or declining topics and underlying topics (Figure 5). Thematic maps were created using author keywords from the 964 publications in the database that had been searched and screened previ- ously. This presents a thematic map categorizing key topics in SRD research based on their development degree (density) and relevance degree (centrality). Topics in “satisfaction” “community participation,” and “eco-inovation” are in the Motor Themes quad- rant, indicating high relevance and development. Basic Themes, such as “rural tourism,” “sustainable tourism,” and “rural development” are emerging but still developing. Topics in the Emerging or Declining Themes quadrant (lower-left), like “biodiversity con- Figure 4. Temporal trends of research topics in integrated rural tourism. 10 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 servation” and “sociocultural sustainability” have lower current relevance but are gaining importance for future research. In addition, Niche Themes such as “climate change adaptation”, “coastal area”, and “marine economics” show significant development but are less central in current studies. This map (Figure 5) highlights the evolving focus on SRD and IRT, particularly environmental and community-based conservation approaches. 4. Discussion 4.1 Discussion of research clusters Cluster 1 – Integrated Tourism, Rural Communities, and Social Development: This cluster highlights the role of IRT in fostering community development, enhancing livelihoods, and creating socioeconomic impacts for local populations. IRT serves as both an economic sector and a tool for promoting sustain- able development through community participation (Saarinen & Lenao 2014). By engaging local people as tourism service providers, tour guides, home- stay owners, or handicraft producers, IRT generates employment, boosts income, and improves overall livelihoods (Baby & Kim 2024; Ramaano 2023b). Additionally, IRT facilitates cultural integration by allowing tourists to engage with local traditions, enhancing rural destinations’ appeal, and fostering mutual understanding (Ciric et al. 2021). Successful rural tourism initiatives often involve active commu- nity participation, promoting equitable development and empowering marginalized groups, particularly women and youth, to engage in decision-making and address gender equality (Dang & Phan 2023; Guo et al. 2023). Furthermore, IRT supports social capital development by encouraging collaboration among community members, fostering inclusion, and promoting local economic growth (Rocca & Zielinski 2022). IRT also plays a key role in preserving cultural identity and heritage by facilitating cultural exchange and raising awareness of traditional values (Tang & Xu 2023; Zhang et al. 2024; Yang et al. 2022). Ultimately, IRT strengthens community and social participation, forming the foundation for sustainable rural devel- opment (SRD). Cluster 2 – Integrated Rural Tourism and Sustainable Economy: IRT is important in promoting economic and sustainable development in rural areas (Baby & Kim 2024; Bannor et al. 2022). Analyses by (Bannor et al. 2022; Giaccio et al. 2018) combining tourism with agricultural activities and cultural heritage con- servation has created many investment opportu- nities, diversifying income sources and improving infrastructure, helping rural communities develop economically and ensuring sustainable environ- mental and cultural conservation. Developing local Figure 5. Thematic map of integrated rural tourism research trends. Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 11 products, accommodation in agricultural tourism, and ecotourism development to stimulate value growth, strengthen connections between tourists and local people, and contribute to the sustainable development of the local economy (Oliver & Jenkins 2003; Quaranta et al. 2016). Some authors have sug- gested that improving tourism infrastructure, such as transportation systems, accommodation, and public utilities, benefits not only tourists but also local com- munities (Brune et al. 2021; Thakur et al. 2024). In addition, from the perspective of Rocca and Zielinski (2022), IRT stimulates investment by connecting rural tourism businesses, agriculture, and local industries. This integration enhances the value of agricultural products, increases tourist traffic and promotes economic revitalization. The increased demand for rural tourism also encourages investment from the government and the private sector in infrastructure development projects and sustainable initiatives. Cluster 3 – Sustainable Ecotourism and Rural Development: Recent research has focused on in- tegrating environmental protection with SRD, es- pecially in the context of climate change and the growing demand for responsible tourism (Chen et al. 2023). Ecotourism is an important element in the sustainable development of rural areas, rais- ing awareness and education about environmen- tal protection. Through educational programs at destinations, ecotourism helps tourists realize the importance of protecting natural resources and sup- porting sustainable development goals (Fang et al. 2018; Ivona 2021). Responsible ecotourism practices contribute to promoting sustainability in rural areas, from economic growth and strengthening social structures to environmental conservation (Chiu et al. 2014; Mary et al. 2024). Circular economy in ru- ral tourism optimizes resource use and minimizes negative environmental impacts through resource reuse, recycling, waste reduction, and the promotion of renewable energy, thereby protecting ecosystems and promoting sustainable development (Mihai et al. 2021; Rodríguez et al. 2020). IRT can restore degraded areas by combining economic activities and environ- mental protection, benefiting the local economy and ecosystem (Hatma Indra Jaya et al. 2024; Xiang & Yin 2020). The relationship between environmental protection and sustainable tourism development is becoming a key strategy to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Gabriel-Campos et al. 2021; Mancini et al. 2022) Cluster 4 – Innovation and Integrated Tourism Technology for Rural Sustainability: This cluster high- lights the important role of innovation and technol- ogy in IRT development, especially in the context of digital transformation and changing tourist demand, as represented by 21 keywords. Innovation and tech- nology play an important role in developing SRD by improving operational efficiency, promoting cultural heritage, and contributing to socioeconomic growth (Ciolac et al. 2022; Hussain et al. 2023). Integrating AI technologies, supporting the resolution of sustain- ability challenges, enables efficient resource manage- ment and reduces environmental impacts in tourism activities (Jiang et al. 2023). Along with the develop- ment of technology and innovation in management through stakeholder empowerment and community- led models, it is essential for sustainable growth in rural tourism sectors (Rocca & Zielinski 2022; Zhao et al. 2011). In addition, business innovation helps to differentiate local businesses, increase community engagement, and promote social inclusion, in line with the SDGs (Antão-Geraldes & Sheppard 2020; Cosma et al. 2014) Cluster 5 – Integrated Rural Tourism and Governance: Governance plays a key role in IRT with sustainable development, acting as an intermediary and coordi- nating the collaboration among different stakehold- ers to generate socioeconomic and environmental benefits (Apostolopoulos et al. 2020; Marzo-Navarro et al. 2017). Effective governance ensures that tour- ism development is consistent with the target ambi- tions of economic growth, cultural preservation, and environmental sustainability, promoting long-term benefits and minimizing potential negative impacts on rural areas (Cawley & Gillmor 2008; Dos Anjos & Kennell 2019). Effective governance helps manage and respond to fluctuations or risks such as natural disasters and epidemics, ensuring benefits for local communities and minimizing negative impacts, sup- porting economic growth and social stability in rural areas (Pennington-Gray et al. 2014). Implementing effective management rules ensures sustainable practices and wise destination management, using natural resources and cultural assets appropriately to maintain ecological balance and promote com- munity welfare (Bichler 2021). Effective destination 12 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 management strategies involve establishing rules that support tourism infrastructure and environ- mental management, which help local communities benefit economically while maintaining ecological integrity and enhancing the visitor experience (Mihai et al. 2021). Cluster 6 – Well-being and Good Health: IRT im- proves the quality of life of rural communities through employment opportunities, income generation, and infrastructure improvements, alleviating poverty (Baby & Kim 2024; Bannor et al. 2022; Ramaano 2023b). In addition, tourism activities also increase community connections, and local people can learn and exchange experiences, contributing to the con- struction and development of the local economy and society toward SDGs (Dang & Phan2023). Rural inte- grated tourism not only can help protect the environ- ment but also can contribute to improving the health of the community as well as tourists themselves. For example, resort tourism and health tourism activi- ties can improve the physical and mental health of tourists, increasing tourists’ level of satisfaction, as well as improving local communities (An & Alarcón 2020; Chen et al. 2023). In addition, IRT activities help tourists feel connected to nature, enhance relaxation, reduce stress, and increase tourist satisfaction with tourist destinations. The positive impacts of rural tourism on health, social development, and loyalty are considered important factors in promoting the sustainable development of rural areas (Leo et al. 2021). In addition, IRT can enhance the subjective well-being of women, where tourism development improves their quality of life and daily experiences (Cheng & Xu 2021; Pesonen & Komppula 2010). 4.2 Discussion on the implications of key trends and emerging themes As the thematic map suggests, the underlying themes related to rural sustainable development provide a foundation for understanding core concepts and research areas related to rural tourism and sustain- able rural development. Niche themes in the litera- ture expand research on sustainable development issues, especially in coastal areas and industries related to fisheries, tourism, and climate change adaptation. The emergence of niche themes such as marine ecotourism, small-scale fisheries, and climate change adaptation underscores the importance of sustainable practices in IRT. These elements create opportunities to connect tourism with environmental protection and community development and contrib- ute to building more effective models of sustainable development. The core motto themes show how IRT impacts SRT in terms of economic, community, and environmental aspects that are harmonized to create a tourism model that is not only financially beneficial but also protects and promotes cultural and natural values, thereby promoting sustainable development for both the community and the econ- omy. A core theme focuses on building a tourism model that supports economic growth, protects the environment, and improves the quality of life of local communities through sustainable develop- ment strategies. This theme reflects a holistic view of integrating creative, community, environmental, and economic elements into tourism development, in relation to the increasing emphasis on sustainable and environmentally friendly aspects of rural tourism development, including natural elements. The emerg- ing/declining theme shows a deep understanding of the harmony between economic development and environmental protection, creating an integrated rural tourism model in which socio-cultural sustain- ability and biodiversity conservation in rural tourism development are linked with ecotourism. In addition, rural tourism development appears to intersect with the underlying theme that has profound implications based on the fundamental elements of rural sustain- able development. The elements of gender equality and heritage intersect with the underlying themes that under- pin social welfare and equality development. The emerging themes related to the deep understand- ing of the elements of IRT development that impact SRT intersect with the underlying themes based on the elements of empowerment and heritage, which shows that many new approaches show an evolu- tion in rural tourism development based on these underlying theoretical foundations. In contrast, the niche topics show much broader streams related to environmental protection from a new perspective on coastal tourism and climate change. Based on the image analysis, it is possible to provide an overview of the linkages between sustainable development, community empowerment, and environmental con- servation in rural tourism, highlighting the relation- Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 13 ship between protecting natural resources, improving community life, and maintaining cultural values 4.3 Building the knowledge framework Based on the analysis of IRT and SRD, we can eas- ily see that the whole development process of this topic is very complicated; each stage has had differ- ent research directions and “hot topics.” These new research directions may be expanding or deepening existing topics; therefore, changes in research topics and directions are always moving and developing. Previous studies have conducted assessments and analyses of rural sustainability from different ana- lytical perspectives. However, the existing studies have not yet established a knowledge framework, making it difficult for readers to obtain important information concisely and intuitively. Therefore, it is necessary to build a new valuable, comprehensive, and intuitive theoretical knowledge framework for research related to IRT’s impact on SRD, which will provide an overall picture of this field and directions for future research. The resulting research framework clearly and concisely presents the overall research relationships, essential stakeholders, and new re- search directions to provide valuable references for future studies (Figure 6). 4.4 Current challenges The above analysis reveals that the impact of IRT on SRD includes a combination of various related top- ics. Combined trends inevitably complicate the rela- tionship between movement and innovation in the topics, which opens up new interdisciplinary issues. Based on the above analysis and framework, the field faces the following challenges, which scholars and practitioners need to pay attention to, specifically: (1) Role of IRT in SRD remains ambiguous in prior stud- ies: While tourism boosts economic opportunities in rural areas, it can also result in environmental degradation and resource overexploitation. This raises questions: How can tourism be designed to benefit rural communities and safeguard local re- sources simultaneously? What conflicts of interest arise between tourism and other economic sec- tors? Lastly, what are the ethical responsibilities of stakeholders—local governments, businesses, and communities—in fostering sustainable tour- ism development? (2) Transforming tourism enterprises’ business models: Transforming from a traditional business model to a sustainable one requires tourism enterprises to change their operations and management. The challenge is how enterprises can maintain profits while applying sustainable principles, such as minimizing environmental impacts, protecting cultural heritage, and ensuring social equity. (3) Resource management issues in sustainable tourism: One of the major challenges in developing IRT and SRD is the rational management and use of natural and cultural resources. How do we bal- ance the utilization of resources for tourism and their conservation? (4) Changing tourist habits and awareness: Although many tourists increasingly choose sustainable tourism, attracting and maintaining their partici- pation in sustainable tourism activities remains a major challenge. How can we raise tourists’ awareness of the long-term benefits of sustain- able tourism and encourage them to change their travel habits? (5) Disparities in national resources: Large countries have advantages in resources for developing tourism. Sustainable tourism can be difficult for countries and regions with limited resources. How can disparities in access to and implementation of sustainable tourism be reduced between regions, and in both developed and developing countries? How can equitable distribution of sustainable development in society be ensured between coun- tries? Mechanisms must be established to support and share experiences and knowledge to ensure sustainable tourism can be implemented evenly and effectively in all localities. (6) Integrating cultural and social factors into sustain- able tourism is essential but presents challenges: How can local cultural values be preserved with- out compromising their authenticity? With dif- fering interests among community groups, how can conflicts in development methods and goals be resolved to achieve consensus? Furthermore, how can communities better understand the long-term benefits of sustainable development and adapt their perspectives to align with these trends? 14 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 (7) The method of achieving SRD is still vague: Many detailed factors affect the effectiveness and ef- ficiency of achieving sustainable tourism; these factors affect sustainable tourism differently. In addition, it is still unclear what detailed ap- proaches can be used to achieve sustainability. Specific approaches may need to be designed to integrate with national and regional policies to synchronize sustainable development activities. 4.5 Future research direction Research on sustainable development in rural areas is constantly growing, especially on IRT. This has led to a richness in approaches and a great change in its central themes and positions in each period. Therefore, researchers need to have a full and cor- rect understanding of future research directions and characteristics in SRT development. Theoretically, we deduce the following research characteristics based on our current knowledge framework and challenge analysis. (1) Developing climate-resilient coastal ecotourism mod- els in rural areas: Future research needs to ex- plore the development of climate-resilient coastal ecotourism models. This includes studying the interactions between climate change, coastal ecosystems, and the communities that depend on these resources and developing tourism de- velopment strategies that minimize the impacts of climate change. (2) Analyzing protection mechanisms and tourism devel- opment strategies that do not degrade the quality of land resources: This may also include finding ways to minimize the negative impacts of tourism on the ecosystems and biodiversity of rural areas. It is essential to investigate the effects of climate change on coastal tourism destinations, particu- larly those with significant cultural heritage value. The research will help identify effective protection measures and sustainable tourism development in this context. Figure 6. Knowledge framework for the impact of integrated rural tourism on sustainable rural development. Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 15 (3) Creative community tourism and preservation of local culture: Future research will focus on de- veloping creative community tourism models in which local communities actively create tourism products while preserving and promoting local cultural values. This research direction will seek ways to help rural communities maintain cultural traditions while developing tourism. (4) Application of technology and innovation in rural tourism development: New technologies such as VR, AR, or digital platforms must be studied to develop creative IRT products, attract tourists, and create economic opportunities for local com- munities while protecting and developing natural and cultural resources. (5) SRD focusing on gender equality and empowerment of vulnerable communities: This research direction will focus on developing sustainable IRT strategies in which women, children, and vulnerable groups can participate and benefit from tourism activi- ties. The research will assess the effectiveness of sustainable tourism models in creating economic opportunities and development for these com- munity groups. (6) Social equity and benefit distribution in tourism development: This research will explore how to ensure equity in the distribution of tourism ben- efits so that rural communities can benefit fairly from tourism development without causing social polarization. (7) Research that can create tourism development mod- els in which factors such as community welfare, natural resource protection, and tourist satisfaction are effectively integrated. (8) Green rural tourism and carbon emission reduction: The study will focus on developing rural tourism models that protect the environment and contrib- ute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These models may include promoting renewable energy, sustainable transport, and tourism activities that minimize environmental impacts. 5. Conclusion Using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny, we performed a visual bibliometric analysis of documents from WoS from 1990-2024. The results showed the publication trends of influential journals, authors, and countries. Furthermore, the analysis of the collaboration net- work of countries, together with the analysis and co-keywords, revealed that IRT impacts SRD with expanded perspectives to provide challenges and future research trends. Specifically, some key find- ings are as follows: (1) This trend reflects that IRT research has become an area of great interest in the academic com- munity, associated with the increasing awareness of sustainable development in rural areas in the context of globalization. (2) The analysis of the collaboration network shows that major countries such as the USA, Italy, and the UK collaborate more frequently in this field, especially China, emerging after 2020, affirming its position in the quantity and influence of research. Additionally, the large population of China may also contribute to its high level of scientific pro- duction. However, Asian countries have relatively weak global cooperation, implying that global cooperation should be expanded, especially in developing countries. In addition, development strategies have differences in the research ap- proaches of countries, between prioritizing the production of many documents and focusing on high-quality publications. (3) Keyword co-occurrence network analysis shows that IRT impacts SRD with broader perspectives than traditional ones. In addition to the impact on economic improvement, social development, and environmental protection, many studies also focus on factors affecting technological innova- tion, governance, and the impact on welfare and good health. The challenges and research direc- tions towards SRD are based on environmental protection policies, climate change adaptation, especially for coastal areas, and policies in land management for IRT. Researchers need to clearly understand the implications of these keywords to contribute valuable findings in this field. This study is innovative. From a knowledge per- spective, we analyzed and reviewed the research progress of IRT from the perspective of collaboration, influencing factors, and co-phenomena. This analysis is full-scale, multidimensional, and integrated to pro- 16 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 vide sufficient information for readers to understand the dynamics of this field. Theoretically, we have built a new knowledge framework for this field, facilitating a clearer, more vivid, and faster understanding of the logical structure and development of SRD based on tourism development. Practically, we identify the current challenges and characteristics of future re- search, guide scholars to identify more appropriate research concerns, and continue to practice more effective research in the future. There are some limits, however. Firstly, as re- searchers using the WoS for the data search sources, we limit the wide range of sources found in the sci- entific community. Secondly, our limitation is only “articles,” so many works have not been studied. Furthermore, because the language chosen was English, valuable academic studies published in other languages may have been missed. Despite these limitations, the methodology we used was the best choice currently available for achieving the most accurate results possible. In the future, we will update the latest publications to conduct more in-depth analyses based on additional findings and will combine methods to develop a new research model. In addition, we will include more databases from other sources to make the results more rep- resentative. Furthermore, we will explore literature in other languages to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Acknowledgment We sincerely thank the Science and Technology Fund of Hue University, project No. DHH2023-10-35, for supporting this research. References An, W., & Alarcón, S. (2020). How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability, 12(18), 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187758 Antão-Geraldes, A. M., & Sheppard, V. A. (2020). Promoting sustainable tourism in rural and natural areas through small business innovation: the case of Atenor village (Northeast, Portugal). Journal of Ecotourism, 19(2), 185– 193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2019.1607864 Apostolopoulos, N., Liargovas, P., Stavroyiannis, S., Makris, I., Apostolopoulos, S., Petropoulos, D., & Anastaso- poulou, E. (2020). Sustaining rural areas, rural tourism enterprises and EU development policies: A multi- layer conceptualisation of the obstacles in Greece. Sustainability, 12(18), 7687. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12187687 Arici, H. E., Arasli, H., Köseoglu, M. A., Sokmen, A., & Arici, N. C. (2023). Job embeddedness in hospitality and tourism scholarship: Past, present, and future research agenda. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 109, 103417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103417 Baby, J., & Kim, D.-Y. (2024). Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visi- tors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction. Land, 13(9), 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land13091466 Bannor, R. K., Oppong-Kyeremeh, H., Amfo, B., & Allotey, A. A. (2022). Diversification into agritourism by cocoa farmers in Ghana as an alternative source of income. Agricultural Finance Review, 82(5), 960–982. https://doi. org/10.1108/AFR-10-2021-0136 Belliggiano, A., Garcia, E. C., Labianca, M., Valverde, F. N., & De Rubertis, S. (2020). The “eco-effectiveness” of agritourism dynamics in Italy and Spain: A tool for evaluating regional sustainability. Sustainability, 12(17), 7080. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177080 Bichler, B. F. (2021). Designing tourism governance: The role of local residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdmm.2019.100389 Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scien- tific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018 Brune, S., Knollenberg, W., Stevenson, K. T., Barbieri, C., & Schroeder-Moreno, M. (2021). The influence of ag- ritourism experiences on consumer behavior toward local food. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1318–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520938869 Cao, X., Luo, Z., He, M., Liu, Y., & Qiu, J. (2021). Does the self- identity of Chinese farmers in rural tourism destinations affect their land-responsibility behaviour intention? The mediating effect of multifunction agriculture percep- tion. Agriculture, 11(7), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture11070649 Cawley, M., & Gillmor, D. A. (2008). Integrated rural tourism: Concepts and practice. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.011 Chen, S., Sotiriadis, M., & Shen, S. (2023). The influencing factors on service experiences in rural tourism: An in- tegrated approach. Tourism Management Perspectives, 47, 101122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101122 Cheng, L., & Xu, J. (2021). Benefit-sharing and residents’ subjective well-being in rural tourism: An asym- metric approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 21, 100631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdmm.2021.100631 Chiu, Y.-T. H., Lee, W.-I., & Chen, T.-H. (2014). Environmen- tally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Exploring the role of destination image and value perception. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(8), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.818048 Ciolac, R., Iancu, T., Popescu, G., Adamov, T., Feher, A., & Stanciu, S. (2022). Smart Tourist Village—An Entrepre- neurial Necessity for Maramures Rural Area. Sustainabil- ity, 14(14), 8914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148914 Ciric, M., Tešanovic, D., Kalenjuk Pivarski, B., Ciric, I., Banjac, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148914 Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 17 M., Radivojevic, G., ... & Šmugovic, S. (2021). Analyses of the Attitudes of Agricultural Holdings on the Development of Agritourism and the Impacts on the Economy, Society and Environment of Serbia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13729. Contreras, F., & Abid, G. (2022). Social sustainability studies in the 21st century: A bibliometric mapping analysis us- ing VOSviewer Software. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 16(1), 167–203. https://hdl. handle.net/10419/261309 Cosma, S., Paun, D., Bota, M., & Fleseriu, C. (2014). Inno- vation–a useful tool in the rural tourism in Romania. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.073 Dang, T. P. A., & Phan, Q. A. (2023). Ethnic Minority Women and Tourism Development in Vietnam: Revisiting So- cial Capital and Cultural Construction. Tourism Review International, 27(3–4), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.372 7/154427223X16819417821697 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analy- sis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2021.04.070 Dos Anjos, F. A., & Kennell, J. (2019). Tourism, governance and sustainable development. In Sustainability 11(16), p. 4257). Mdpi. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164257 Elkington, J., & Rowlands, I. H. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century busi- ness. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1006129603978 Fang, W.-T., Lien, C.-Y., Huang, Y.-W., Han, G., Shyu, G.-S., Chou, J.-Y., & Ng, E. (2018). Environmental literacy on ecotourism: A study on student knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intentions in China and Taiwan. Sustain- ability, 10(6), 1886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061886 Gabriel-Campos, E., Werner-Masters, K., Cordova-Buiza, F., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2021). Community eco-tourism in rural Peru: Resilience and adaptive capacities to the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.016 Gao, J., & Wu, B. (2017). Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tourism Management, 63, 223– 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.003 Giaccio, V., Giannelli, A., & Mastronardi, L. (2018). Explain- ing determinants of agri-tourism income: Evidence from Italy. Tourism Review, 73(2), 216–229. https://doi. org/10.1108/TR-05-2017-0089 Guo, Q., Yang, X., & Chen, H. (2023). The influence of women’s empowerment on tourism involvement and sustainable tourism development: The moderating role of tourism cooperatives. Asia Pacific. Journal of Tourism Research, 28(10), 1130–1146. Harari, M. B., Parola, H. R., Hartwell, C. J., & Riegelman, A. (2020). Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommen- dations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377 Hatma Indra Jaya, P., Izudin, A., & Aditya, R. (2024). The role of ecotourism in developing local communities in Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism, 23(1), 20–37. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2022.2117368 He, Y., Huang, P., & Xu, H. (2018). Simulation of a dynami- cal ecotourism system with low carbon activity: A case from western China. Journal of Environmental Manage- ment, 206, 1243–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv- man.2017.09.008 Henriques, A. (2013). CSR, sustainability and the triple bot- tom line. In The triple bottom line (pp. 26–33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773348 Hussain, S., Ahonen, V., Karasu, T., & Leviäkangas, P. (2023). Sustainability of smart rural mobility and tourism: A key performance indicators-based approach. Technol- ogy in Society, 74, 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techsoc.2023.102287 İri, R., & Ünal, E. (2024). Bibliometric analysis bibliometric analysis of research (1980-2023). Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilim-ler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2), 386–403. https:// doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1446738 Ivona, A. (2021). Sustainability of rural tourism and pro- motion of local development. In Sustainability 13 (16), p. 8854. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168854 Jiang, G., Gao, W., Xu, M., Tong, M., & Liu, Z. (2023). Geo- graphic information visualization and sustainable de- velopment of low-carbon rural slow tourism under artificial intelligence. Sustainability, 15(4), 3846. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su15043846 Jin, X., Wang, L., Zhang, Z., & Yan, J. (2022). Factors affecting the income of agritourism operations: Evidence from an Eastern Chinese County. Sustainability, 14(14), 8918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148918 Jing, Y., Wang, C., Chen, Y., Wang, H., Yu, T., & Shadiev, R. (2024). Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: A systematic literature review. Edu- cation and Information Technologies, 29(8), 9283–9311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6 Khanal, A. R., & Mishra, A. K. (2014). Agritourism and off- farm work: survival strategies for small farms. Agricul- tural Economics, 45(S1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ agec.12130 Klakočar, T., & Pavić, L. (2024). Seeking wellness in rural tourism value chain: evidence from Slovenian farm stay. Glasnik Srpskog Geografskog Drustva, 104(1), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.2298/GSGD2401427K Lazarides, M. K., Lazaridou, I.-Z., & Papanas, N. (2023). Bibliometric analysis: bridging informatics with sci- ence. The International Journal of Lower Extrem- ity Wounds, 15347346231153538. https://doi. org/10.1177/15347346231153538 Leo, G., Brien, A., Astor, Y., Najib, M., Novianti, S., Rafdinal, W., & Suhartanto, D. (2021). Attraction loyalty, destina- tion loyalty, and motivation: agritourist perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(9), 1244–1256. https://doi. org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1772207 Mancini, M. S., Barioni, D., Danelutti, C., Barnias, A., Bračanov, V., Pisce, G. C., Chappaz, G., Đuković, B., Guarneri, D., & Lang, M. (2022). Ecological Footprint and tourism: Development and sustainability monitoring of ecotourism packages in Mediterranean Protected Areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 38, 100513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100513 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.073 https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2017-0089 https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2017-0089 18 BioProducts Business 10(1) 2025 Mary, S. R., Zaal, M. H., & Pour, M. H. (2024). Factors in the formation of visitor’s environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) in damavand mountain, Iran. Journal of Ecotourism, 23(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 724049.2022.2147939 Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Vinzón, L. (2017). Key variables for developing integrated rural tourism. Tourism Geographies, 19(4), 575–594. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/14616688.2017.1336785 Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J.-B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004 Mihai, F.-C., Gündoğdu, S., Markley, L. A., Olivelli, A., Khan, F. R., Gwinnett, C., Gutberlet, J., Reyna-Bensusan, N., Llanquileo-Melgarejo, P., & Meidiana, C. (2021). Plas- tic pollution, waste management issues, and circular economy opportunities in rural communities. Sustain- ability, 14(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010020 Nica, I. (2024). Bibliometric mapping in the landscape of cybernetics: insights into global research networks. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2023-2365 Nogueira, E., Gomes, S., & Lopes, J. M. (2023). Triple bottom line, sustainability, and economic development: What binds them together? A bibliometric approach. Sustain- ability, 15(8), 6706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086706 Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bot- tom of “triple bottom line.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211 Oliver, T., & Jenkins, T. (2003). Sustaining rural landscapes: The role of integrated tourism. Landscape Research, 28(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390306516 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoff- mann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., & Brennan, S. E. (2022). The PRISMA 2020 state- ment: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaracion PRISMA 2020: una guia actualizada para la publicacion de revisiones sistematicas. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica= Pan American Journal of Public Health, 46, e112–e112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. recesp.2021.06.016 Park, D.-B., Lee, K.-W., Choi, H.-S., & Yoon, Y. (2012). Factors influencing social capital in rural tourism communities in South Korea. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1511–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.005 Park, J., & Lee, S. (2019). Smart village projects in Korea: Rural tourism, 6th industrialization, and smart farming. In Smart Villages in the EU and Beyond (pp. 139–153). Em- erald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978- 1-78769-845-120191011 Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: the main steps. Encyclopedia, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclope- dia4020065 Pennington-Gray, L., Schroeder, A., & Gale, T. (2014). Co- management as a framework for the development of a tourism area response network in the rural community of Curanipe, Maule Region, Chile. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(3), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21568316.2014.890124 Pesonen, J., & Komppula, R. (2010). Rural wellbeing tour- ism: Motivations and expectations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17(1), 150–157. https://doi. org/10.1375/jhtm.17.1.150 Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ publications9010012 Qian, C., Sasaki, N., Shivakoti, G., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Effec- tive governance in tourism development–An analysis of local perception in the Huangshan mountain area. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 112–123. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.08.003 Quang, T. D., Phan Tran, N. M., Sthapit, E., Thanh Nguyen, N. T., Le, T. M., Doan, T. N., & Thu-Do, T. (2023). Beyond the homestay: Women’s participation in rural tourism development in Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14673584231218104. https://doi. org/10.1177/14673584231218103 Quaranta, G., Citro, E., & Salvia, R. (2016). Economic and social sustainable synergies to promote innovations in rural tourism and local development. Sustainability, 8(7), 668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070668 Ramaano, A. I. (2023a). Environmental change impacts and inclusive rural tourism development on the livelihoods of native societies: evidence from Musina Municipality, South Africa. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-04-2023-0089 Ramaano, A. I. (2023b). Nature and impacts of tourism development facilities and activities on the livelihoods of communities in Musina municipality. Tourism Plan- ning & Development, 20(4), 696–720. https://doi.org/10 .1080/21568316.2022.2115124 Rocca, L. H. D., & Zielinski, S. (2022). Community-based tourism, social capital, and governance of post-conflict rural tourism destinations: the case of Minca, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Tourism Manage- ment Perspectives, 43, 100985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tmp.2022.100985 Rodríguez, C., Florido, C., & Jacob, M. (2020). Circular econ- omy contributions to the tourism sector: A critical literature review. Sustainability, 12(11), 4338. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su12114338 Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Sample size in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 125(1), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7 Roman, M., & Kawęcki, N. (2024). Agritourism in academic research: Literature review and cluster analysis. Tu- ryzm/Tourism, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.18778/0867- 5856.34.1.04 Rusydiana, A. S. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of journals, authors, and topics related to COVID-19 and Islamic fi- nance listed in the Dimensions database by Biblioshiny. Science Editing, 8(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.6087/ kcse.232 Saarinen, J., & Lenao, M. (2014). Integrating tourism to rural development and planning in the developing world. Development Southern Africa, 31(3), 363–372. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2014.888334 Sala, S. (2020). Triple bottom line, sustainability and sus- tainability assessment, an overview. Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future, 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0-12-815581-3.00003-8 Tang, M., & Xu, H. (2023). Cultural integration and rural tourism development: A scoping literature review. Tourism and Hospitality, 4(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00003-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00003-8 Thao et al. — Sustainable rural development through integrated agritourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism: A bibliometric review 19 Taskin, Z., & Al, U. (2019). Natural language processing applications in library and information science. On- line Information Review, 43(4), 676–690. https://doi. org/10.1108/OIR-07-2018-0217 Thakur, S., Sood, S., Singh, R. K., & Singh, R. (2024). Status of homestay tourism in Indian Himalayan region: Analysis of customer review and policy support for sustain- able tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(4), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584231170578 Thangavel, P., & Chandra, B. (2023). Two decades of M- commerce consumer research: A bibliometric analysis using R biblioshiny. Sustainability, 15(15), 11835. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su151511835 Ting, D. H., & Cheng, C. F. C. (2017). Developing pro-envi- ronmental behaviour: Ecotourism fieldtrip and expe- riences. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1212–1229. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-03-2016-0052 Tiwari, S., & Nguyen, T. P. L. (2024). Towards social equity and sustainable economic prosperity through eco- tourism: A case of caste diversified community along Annapurna Sanctuary trail (AST), Nepal. World Develop- ment Perspectives, 34, 100592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wdp.2024.100592 Valenzuela-Fernández, L., Nicolas, C., & Merigo, J. M. (2018). Overview of the leading countries in marketing re- search between 1990 and 2014: A bibliometric analysis. American Journal of Business, 33(4), 134–156. https://doi. org/10.1108/AJB-09-2017-0030 Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOS- viewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-009-0146-3 Xiang, C., & Yin, L. (2020). Study on the rural ecotourism resource evaluation system. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 20, 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eti.2020.101131 Xue, L.-L., & Shen, C.-C. (2022). The sustainable develop- ment of organic agriculture: the role of wellness tourism and environmental restorative perception. Agriculture, 12(2), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020197 Yeager, E. P., Soulard, J., Deale, C., & Milazzo, L. (2024). Rural resiliency through peer-to-peer accommodations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(7), 1392–1412. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2235888 Yang, W., Fan, B., Tan, J., Lin, J., & Shao, T. (2022). The spatial perception and spatial feature of rural cultural landscape in the context of rural tourism. Sustainability, 14(7), 4370. Yanan, L., Ismail, M. A., & Aminuddin, A. (2024). How has rural tourism influenced the sustainable development of traditional villages? A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 10(4). Zhang, R., Xi, J., Wang, S., Wang, X., & Ge, Q. (2015). Vil- lage network centrality in rural tourism destination: A case from Yesanpo tourism area, China. Jour- nal of Mountain Science, 12, 759–768. https://doi. org/10.1007%2Fs11629-014-3129-7 Zhang, C., Knight, D. W., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., Zhou, M., & Zi, M. (2024). Rural tourism and evolving identities of Chinese communities in forested areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(4), 695-712. Zhao, W., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Echtner, C. M. (2011). Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1570–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2011.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100592 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100592 https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2235888 https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2235888 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.006