Challenges Facing Agritourism: How Are Producers Coping?

Table 1. What Agritourism or Direct-
Marketing Activities Does Your Operation
Currently Engage In?

Note: Respondents were able to select all that apply.

Agricultural direct-marketing and agritourism contribute millions of dollars annually to the local food economy (Veeck, 2016). Family farms participate in agritourism in order to diversify their operations and preserve their cultural heritage, and agritourism can positively influence local economic development, farmer income, and the rural landscape and environment (Schilling, Attavanich, and Jin, 2014; Ammirato et al., 2020; Paras, Michaud, and Hoffman, 2022; Quella et al., 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns arose about the resiliency of the global food supply chain. As a result of the disruption of the supply of grocery items and travel restrictions, consumers turned toward local food and recreation. During the pandemic, visiting local agritourism businesses was considered relatively safe and appealed to families for the peaceful and idyllic atmosphere and the perceived healthiness of the local food and recreation opportunities (Wojcieszak-Zbierska et al., 2020). In general, local agritourism and direct marketing businesses and, specifically, the impact of COVID-19 on these businesses, are an underresearched area of the agriculture industry that has primarily been studied internationally (Wojcieszak-Zbierska et al., 2020; Magno and Cassia, 2021; Roman and GrudzieÅ„, 2021; Cesaro et al., 2022; Östh et al., 2023; Zawadka et al., 2022). To expand our knowledge about U.S.-based enterprises, we assessed the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on agritourism and direct-marketing farms in the Northeast.

In one of the only U.S. studies focused on the agritourism-COVID-19 relationship, researchers in North Carolina found that while farmers diversified into virtual activities and anticipated positive long-term benefits from instituting online practices, their adaptations were made under uncertainty about repeatedly changing safety guidelines (Brune, Knollenberg, and Vilá, 2023). We build on this research by surveying agritourism operations in key agricultural counties in New York and Connecticut; together these states include 7,676 farms that offer direct sales or agritourism (Schmidt et al., 2023a, 2023b). Our core research objective was to gain a better understanding of the needs and composition of agritourism businesses post-COVID-19. Agritourism can be an especially important outlet in areas facing pressure from increasing land prices, such as in the Northeast, due to its ability to allow farmers to profit and earn additional revenue from the amenity-rich rural landscapes that attract tourists (Paras, Michaud, and Hoffman, 2022). The percentage of agricultural income coming from agritourism is increasing in the Northeast (Schmidt et al., 2022); a recent study in New Hampshire found agritourism creates 11,000 jobs and contributes $66 million in tax revenue (SMARInsights, 2021).

Our study focused on the types of operations conducting agritourism, the composition of their customers, and how COVID-19 and labor shortages affected their businesses. We found that to adjust to labor shortages, agritourism farmers made adaptations to their operations and worked more hours. While there appear to have been more positive than negative effects from COVID-19 for some operations, this was not true for all, and there was significant heterogeneity among respondents. Our results describe the experiences and struggles faced by agritourism operators in the Northeast during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, and we provide recommendations for future study.

Table 2: What Types of Positions Are You
Having the Most Trouble Hiring for Right
Now?

Note: Respondents were able to select all that apply. Total
n = 55 (respondents who stated an intention to hire new
employees). A position was categorized as “production” if it
was general physical, general farm, harvester, livestock
handling or applicator. A position was categorized as
“nonproduction” if it was manager, sales, accounting, chef,
CDL operator, mechanic, line worker, fermentation, veterinarian,
or shift related.

Survey Population

The survey was implemented between October 2022 and March 2023 in 10 counties in New York and Connecticut.These counties were selected because of the number of farming operations and outdoor recreational opportunities available in the area. While there is no set definition for local (Schmidt et al., 2022), for the purposes of our study we used the National Agricultural Law Center description of “any commercial enterprise that links agricultural production and/or processing with tourism in order to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch, or other business.” Given the overlapbetween agritourism and direct marketing, we clarified that this included “when producers sell agricultural products directly to the end-user consumers” (National Agricultural Law Center, 2023). Direct-marketing and agritourism farms were identified through the Northeast Organic Farming Association websites for New York (https://www.nofany.org/directory/) and Connecticut (https://guide.ctnofa.org/), the Hudson Valley Bounty farm directory (https://hudsonvalleybounty.com/businesses), and the New York Department of Agriculture’s Farmers’ Market List (https://agriculture.ny.gov/farmers-markets-county). Based on available contact information, each farm either received an email with the survey link or a phone call. We sent six emails to each farm. All nonrespondents then received a follow-up phone call. Farms without an email address received two direct messages on Facebook or Instagram. Farms that only had a phone number received three phone calls, and a voicemail was left with the third call.

Table 3: Overall, How Did the COVID-19
Pandemic Affect Your Agritourism and/or
Direct-Marketing Operations?

Note: Respondents were able to select all that apply. Total
n = 100. A farm was categorized as exclusively selling direct
to consumer if they only selected “sells unprocessed
agricultural direct to consumer,” “sells processed agricultural
products direct to consumer,” “sells meat direct to consumer,”
“farm stand,” “roadside stand,” or “firewood.”

Results

Of the 533 agritourism operations identified in 10 study counties, we received 120 responses, for a response rate of 22.5%. The average respondent had been in business 37 years (SD ± 55; range = 1–301), with an average gross revenue of $352,291 (SD ± 1,197,404 ; range = $1,500 to $10,000,000). Respondents were diverse in their operations (Table 1), though a majority reported selling agriculture products directly to consumers, primarily through farm stands. Agritourism or direct marketing was core to the business operations for 68.6% of respondents.

Labor Shortages

Respondents suggested that agritourism operations are facing labor shortages and also demonstrating resilience resulting from necessary adjustments made during the COVID-19 pandemic. Operators reported variation in the number of hours per week spent managing or working at their operations. Approximately 30% of respondents worked less than 20 hours, and another 30% reported working 60 hours or more. More than half of respondents (54%) were not fully staffed; 28% had to reduce or change their operations because of staffing shortages in 2022. Instead, owners reported working longer hours. Of those with reduced staffing or operations, 35% did not have a plan to hire more employees. It should be noted that 38% of our respondents had no employees. Of those with employees, half of respondents had both full and part-time employees, while the remainder had either one or the other.

For the 55 respondents who sought additional labor, most sought part-time employees (76%). Other staffing strategies included offering internships (43%) or seeking full-time employees (38%), volunteers (33%), or foreign seasonal workers (17%). Respondents reported that staffing difficulties varied based on the needed skillset (Table 2), with particular difficulty finding general farm labor (67%), general or physical labor (45%), customer service and sales staff (40%), and harvesting or picking crews (27%). This aligns with anecdotal evidence that it is increasingly difficult to find part-time labor as younger workers are prioritizing activities such as education and other extracurricular activities over part-time work (Rosenblatt, 2021; DeSilver, 2022; Gruber, 2023). It also matches research showing that potential workers under 25 are less likely to seek summer employment (Bauer at al., 2019). The most common recruiting practices were employee referrals and networks (76%), social media (54%), and advertising on the business website (38%), which together demonstrate the importance of informal networks in agriculture. It also aligns with research suggesting that components of agritourism operations are increasingly online as a result of COVID-19 (Brune, Knollenberg, and Vilá, 2023). Only 18% of respondents intended to recruit at colleges or universities and 8% from trade schools.

There was difficulty in hiring both production and nonproduction positions regardless of the recruitment method used, and relying on multiple methods did not improve success. We found that 86% of those who used multiple methods experienced trouble hiring production positions, as did 90% of those who used only networks and referrals. Similarly, we found that 63% of operations using multiple methods had difficulty hiring nonproduction positions, compared to 50% of businesses using only networks and referrals to recruit; this difference was not statistically significant at the 5% level. During our period of interest, existing personal networks seemed to provide the most reliable method for recruiting.

Table 4: Operations Closing during
COVID-19

Note: n = 101 respondents provided information on both their
operation type and COVID-19 impacts. We did not define
temporary or permanent in the survey, instead allowing
respondents to select “stopped some operations temporarily”
or “stopped some operations permanently” in response to the
question “Overall, how did the COVID pandemic affect your
agritourism and/or direct-marketing operations?” A farm was
categorized as offering “Entertainment or experiential activities”
if it included U-Pick, animal encounters, farm walks,
birdwatching, education, or Christmas trees. A farm was
categorized as “sells direct to consumer” if it selected sells
unprocessed agricultural direct to consumer, sells processed
agricultural products direct to consumer, sells meat direct to
consumer, farm stand, roadside stand or firewood. A farm was
categorized as only selling direct to consumer if it did not also
offer entertainment, food, or farm stays.

COVID-19

We found that operations experienced effects of the COVID-19 pandemic differently (Table 3). The most frequently selected COVID-19 impact was that they received more customers (57%), whereas only 22% of operators reported receiving fewer customers. However, one respondent suggested that, while there was an uptick in customers during the pandemic, demand has decreased since then. Approximately the same percentage of respondents stated that they temporarily closed an aspect of their operation (29%) and began a new operation (27%); 45% of respondents reported experiencing supply chain issues. When farms were characterized by whether they exclusively sold through direct-to-consumer channels, and/or offered typical agritourism activities, farms that exclusively sold direct to consumers were less likely to have to both stop some of their operations temporarily and begin new operations. They were also less likely to report receiving fewer customers or noticing a change in customer sociodemographics or location.

In Table 4, we compare the impact of COVID-19 across different types of operations. While most farms in our sample were diversified, with several types ofoperations, some general trends existed. Operations identifying as a brewery or ice cream stand reported closures (Table 4), presumably as they would not have been allowed to operate under initial pandemic restrictions. While operations selling firewood or incorporating animals and wildlife were more likely to report a closure, the greatest percentage of closures occurred for those selling agricultural products directly to consumers and offering farm walks. Among categorized operation types, those selling food were most likely to report at least one temporary closure as well as a permanent closure. Less than half of farms that included entertainment or experiential activities reported a temporary closure, and 9% closed some operations permanently. However, because many farms incorporated both direct to consumer and entertainment options, we further created a mutually exclusive category representing farms that only sold products direct to consumer. We found that this type of operation reported the lowest level of COVID-19 interruption (24% compared to 39% for farms that offered solely entertainment or a combination of entertainment and direct to consumer).

Table 5: Which of These Adaptations Will
You Maintain Going Forward?

Note: Respondents were able to select all that apply.

We found that 68% of operations had at least one positive impact (more customers or new operations), while only 44% noted a negative impact (fewer customers or halting operations in some way). Operations with gross revenues greater than $100,000 were more likely to report a positive COVID-19 impact (83%) compared to those with revenue of $100,000 or less (60%). In terms of operation type, U-Pick farmers (e.g., which allow customers to self-harvest from orchards or fields) were more likely to report a positive impact, while apiaries, breweries, and wineries had negative experiences. However, there were no additional differences related to agribusiness type or age of the operation. In sum, our respondents indicated that COVID-19 had a more positive than negative impact on agritourism operations, and there were few definitive business characteristics that explained differences in COVID-19 experiences.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported making at least one change to their business in response to COVID-19. The most-mentioned adaptation was to move to an online format (31%; Table 5); 69% of those businesses stated they would continue with this change. COVID-19-induced technological change seems to be viewed positively by a majority of adopters. The next most common adaptations were to begin offering delivery (17%) or takeout (14%). From our data, the number of adaptations did not appear to vary based on operation age or size. However, there did appear to be differences based on type of operation. Those who sold some type of processed agricultural product were more likely to make an adaptation (74%) relative to those who did not (53%). Thus, our data suggested that in-house processing of goods forced additional adaptations that might require additional labor or the use of a separate facility (e.g., commercial kitchens).

Table 6: Operations With a Primarily Local
or Tourist Customer Base

Note: n = 103 respondents provided information on both their
operation type and whether their customers were primarily
tourists or locals. Of those, 86 had a local customer base
and 17 had a tourist customer base. We did not provide a
definition for “local” or “tourist”; respondents self-interpreted
these terms for their response.

Agritourism and Local

Most agritourism operators were local residents, with 89% of farmers stating that they lived full-time in the town where their business is located. This seemed true for their customer base, with 77% of respondents believing that the majority of their customers were local residents (15% indicated that the majority of theircustomers were tourists). Half of respondents stated their customers changed seasonally, primarily observed as more total customers in the summer and more locals in the winter.

Operation types differed in whether customers were believed to be primarily locals or tourists (Table 6). Relatively speaking, a greater proportion of operations with non-local customers included animal encounters, short-term rentals or farm stays, firewood, wildlife observations, or a roadside stand. Breweries and wineries also were more likely to note that their customers were primarily tourists.

Overall, 12% of all respondents believed their customer base changed as a result of COVID-19 (Table 7); however, that response differed between those who perceived tourists as their primary customer base (24%) versus locals (7%). Of those who observed a change in their customer base from primarily tourists to locals, all but one respondent noted an increase in the number of customers, suggesting that businesses might be attracting a new type of customer.

Businesses whose customer bases were mainly tourists noted a change in their customers and having to “stop some operations permanently but continue others” (41.2%) or “stop some operations permanently” (23.5%). This was more prevalent than in businesses with a local customer base (23.7% and 5.3%, respectively). Tourist-oriented businesses that were apiaries, Christmas tree farms, and wineries were among those that noted a reduction in the number of customers. However, a greater percentage of businesses with primarily tourist customers also began new operations (35%), compared to businesses with local customers (22%). These results suggested that COVID-19 may have created more of a disruption to operations that primarily catered toward tourists than locals. Additionally, 24% of businesses with a primarily tourist customer base noted a change in the sociodemographics of their customers, yet this was the case for only 16% of businesses whose customer base was primarily locals, potentially mirroring a shift in who had direct access to those businesses.

Table 7. Variation in COVID-19 Impacts

Note: n = 101 respondents provided information about
COVID-19 impacts, 76 of whom primarily catered toward
locals and 17 of whom had a tourist customer base. The
remaining eight respondents were unsure whether the
majority of their customers were local or tourists.

Conclusion

We used survey responses from 120 farms in New York and Connecticut to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on agritourism operations. While respondents overall tended to experience more positive than negative impacts from COVID-19, results differed by operation. Beyond the scope of our data, there likely are elements that influenced success, as agritourism requires owners to employ a wide array of competencies including business acumen, socio-emotional skills, and hospitality (Schmidt et al., 2022). Additionally, the small sample size likely affected our ability to identify strong patterns across operations. Most farms made at least oneadaptation due to COVID-19, and while farm size (in terms of gross revenue) did not seem to influence whether a farm implemented adaptations, it did influence whether they noted positive or negative outcomes from COVID-19. However, operations that exclusively participated in direct-to-consumer sales appeared to have fewer disruptions as they were less likely to both close or open new operations.

Operations also differed in whether they primarily catered toward tourists or local residents. Both types of farms saw similar changes in customer numbers and demographics, but businesses that catered toward tourists more often reported closing at least one part of

their operation. Operations also reported staffing shortages, leading to owners either working more hours, reducing operations, or both. Most farms relied on informal local-based networks when recruiting newemployees; using additional practices did not appear to influence their likelihood of finding labor.

There has been concern that consumer interest in local food during the pandemic was situational rather than permanent; although our results suggest a shift toward local did occur, its permanence is an open research question. Given the role agritourism can play in rural economic development, work could be done to study and improve the support services available for these operations. Growing interest in developing agritourism Extension programming is illustrated by several Northeastern states having established active Agritourism Extension programs, providing a roadmap for improving outreach in this area (Schmidt et al., 2022). Most states have local food consumption branding such as CTGrown or New York State Grown and Certified, and organizations such as chambers of commerce and Departments of Agriculture could collaborate to develop similar campaigns for agritourism. Additionally, while a lack of available farm labor was highlighted as a constraint, a minority of respondents were actively recruiting at colleges or trade schools. This suggests a potential missed opportunity, especially given stated interest in offering internships, and is an area that could warrant further study. An important finding of our study is that the technology-forcing nature of the pandemic may have permanent impacts on agritourism business operations, which warrants further study, especially given the new customer exposure noted by respondents.

Ammirato, S., A.M. Felicetti, C. Raso, B.A. Pansera, and A. Violi. 2020. “Agritourism and Sustainability: What We Can Learn from a Systematic Literature Review.” Sustainability 12(22):9575.

Bauer, L., P. Liu, E. Moss, R. Nunn, and J. Shambaugh. 2019. “All School and No Work Becoming the Norm for American Teens.” Brookings Institution. Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/all-school-and-no-work-becoming-the-norm-for-american-teens/.

Brune, S., W. Knollenberg, and O. Vilá. 2023. “Agritourism Resilience during the COVID-19 Crisis.” Annals of Tourism Research 99:103538.

Cesaro, L., A. Giampaolo, F. Giarè, R. Sardone, A. Scardera, and L. Viganò. 2022. “Italian Farms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Main Problems and Future Perspectives. a Direct Analysis through the Italian FADN.” Bio-Based and Applied Economics 11(1):21–36.

DeSilver, D. 2022. “After dropping in 2020, teen summer employment may be poised to continue its slow comeback.” Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/21/after-dropping-in-2020-teen-summer-employment-may-be-poised-to-continue-its-slow-comeback/.

Gruber, P. 2023. “Why Are So Few Young People Choosing to Be Farmers?” Lancaster Farming. Available online: https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/ag-business/why-are-so-few-young-people-choosing-to-be-farmers-opinion/article_169028ac-b201-11ed-b11d-cb27f3144d6c.html.

Hollas, C.R., L. Chase, D. Conner, L. Dickes, R.D. Lamie, C. Schmidt, D. Singh-Knights, and L. Quella. 2021. “Factors Related to Profitability of Agritourism in the United States: Results from a National Survey of Operators.” Sustainability 13(23):13334.

Magno, F., and F. Cassia. 2021. “Effects of Agritourism Businesses’ Strategies to Cope with the COVID-19 Crisis: The Key Role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Behaviours.” Journal of Cleaner Production 325:129292.

National Agricultural Law Center. “Agritourism Overview.” Available online: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/agritourism/ [Accessed November 9, 2023].

Östh, J., M. Toger, U. Türk, K. Kourtit, and P. Nijkamp. 2023. “Leisure Mobility Changes during the COVID-19 Pandemic – an Analysis of Survey and Mobile Phone Data in Sweden.” Research in Transportation Business & Management 48:100952.

Paras, C., T. Michaud, and M. Hoffman. 2022. “Sustaining New England’s Iconic Tourism Landscapes: An Exploratory Study to Examine Perceptions of Value from Farmers and Fishermen.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 12(1):141–156.

Quella, L., L. Chase, D. Conner, T. Reynolds, W. Wang, and D. Singh-Knights. 2021. “Visitors and values: A qualitative analysis of agritourism operator motivations across the U.S.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 10(3):287–301.

Roman, M., and P. GrudzieÅ„. 2021. “The Essence of Agritourism and Its Profitability during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic.” Agriculture 11(5):458.

Rosenblatt, L. 2021. “Farm Labor Shortage Nothing New, Getting Worse, Farmers Say.” AP News. Available online: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-health-coronavirus-pandemic-business-50121aa858e9f7cb2c708d94602ef366.

Schilling, B.J., W. Attavanich, and Y. Jin. 2014. “Does Agritourism Enhance Farm Profitability?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(1):69–87.

Schmidt, C., L. Chase, C. Barbieri, E. Rilla, D.S. Knights, D. Thilmany, S. Tomas, L. Dickes, S. Cornelisse, R.D. Lamie, R. Callahan, H. George, and P. Leff. 2022. “Linking Research and Practice: The Role of Extension on Agritourism Development in the United States.” Applied Economics Teaching Resources 4(3).

Schmidt, C., K. Lo, L. Chase, C. Hollas, J. Entsminger, S. Tomas, S. Goetz, and S. Cornelisse. 2023a. “Agritourism in Connecticut.” Penn State University, The University of Vermont, NERCRD, The University of Maine, and Oklahoma State University. Available online: https://aese.psu.edu/outreach/agritourism/projects/nifa-agritourism/state-factsheets/northeast.

Schmidt, C., K. Lo, L. Chase, C. Hollas, J. Entsminger, S. Tomas, S. Goetz, and S. Cornelisse. 2023b. “Agritourism in New York.” Penn State University, The University of Vermont, NERCRD, The University of Maine, and Oklahoma State University. Available online: https://aese.psu.edu/outreach/agritourism/projects/nifa-agritourism/state-factsheets/northeast.

SMARInsights. 2021. “The Economic Impact of Agritourism: New Hampshire 2019.” New Hampshire Department of Business and Public Affairs. Available online: https://www.agriculture.nh.gov/publications-forms/documents/agritourism-economic-impact.pdf.

Veeck, G., L. Hallett IV, D. Che, and A. Veeck. 2016. “The Economic Contributions of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan.” Geographical Review 106(3):421–440.

Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M.M., A. JÄ™czmyk, J. Zawadka, and J. Uglis. 2020. “Agritourism in the Era of the Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Rapid Assessment from Poland.” Agriculture 10(9):397.

Zawadka, J., A. JÄ™czmyk, M.M. Wojcieszak-Zbierska, G. NiedbaÅ‚a, J. Uglis, and J. Pietrzak-Zawadka. 2022. “Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Agritourism Farm Stays and Their Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland.” Sustainability 14(6):3526.