ARTICLES

America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural

Tourism in Michigan*

Gregory Veeck
Western Michigan University

Deborah Che
Kansas State University

Ann Veeck
Western Michigan University

Agricultural tourism incorporates visits to farms for the purposes of on-site retail purchases, enjoyment, and
education. Long popular in the European Union (EU), agritourism is gaining popularity throughout the United
States. Interest has grown as a result of stagnant grain prices, rising farm costs, and growing international com-
petition. For rural areas seeking new economic options, the potential of these operations to generate new sources of
income through sales and horizontal linkages to other tourism-based activities has sparked interest beyond the
farm gate. This article, based on a survey and a statistical analysis of 300 agritourism operations in Michigan,
summarizes factors associated with successful operations. Key Words: agritourism, Michigan, rural development.

Our farm is 140 acres and we used to be heavy
into commercial agriculture . . . cherries, peach-
es, and apples, and eighteen years ago, my mom
and dad started the retail portion with one hay
wagon and make-your-own caramel apples in
our barn where we threw sheets over all the
equipment and the tools and we turned it into a
retail (operation) for September and October.
Now, it’s grown into four hay wagons and a
haunted house, animal farm, cornfield maze, U-
pick apples, caterpillar crawl, and we have a small
bakery . . . and we’re doing many other enter-
tainment things and, in five years, we will prob-
ably be totally out of commercial agriculture,
and (be) strictly a retail operation. It’s getting
harder and harder commercially to make a living
with the way the prices are for the fruit that we’re
raising. So, not only am I transitioning from
generations, but basically trying to revolutionize
the business so I’m able to stay and hopefully
have something there for my kids.
—Sixth-generation Michigan farmer
he global restructuring of agriculture re-
T quiring scale economies, coupled with con-
sumer concerns about the safety of ‘‘industrial’’
food production, has resulted in the transfor-
mation of ‘‘working’’ countrysides based on
agro-industrial production to new forms shaped
by entrepreneurial uses of local resources
(Marsden et al. 1993). One of these new forms,
agritourism, has considerable potential to
increase net revenues for relatively small,
higher-cost producers in advanced industrial-
ized countries beyond those possible from
wholesale operations of similar scale ( Johnson
2003). Defining agricultural tourism is some-
thing akin to the blind men and the elephant,
but there is general agreement that agritourism
incorporates visits to farms for the purposes of
on-site retail purchases, enjoyment, and educa-
tion (cooking classes, flower classes, and farm
history among others; Small Farm Center

*We dedicate this article to Sandra Hill, who was an early and persuasive supporter of agritourism in Michigan. Sandy wore many ‘‘hats’’ well: farmer,
state legislator (1/1993–12/1996), MDA employee, and agritourism activist. Many will miss her.
This project was conducted jointly by researchers in the Geography Department of Western Michigan University and by the Michigan Department of
Agriculture. Funding for the project was made possible through a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture. We are very grateful for
this support. We also wish to thank the editor and the four anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved this article.

The Professional Geographer, 58(3) 2006, pages 235–248 r Copyright 2006 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, May 2004; revised submissions, March 2005 and September 2005; final acceptance, November 2005.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.
236 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006
2004). Participating farmers hope for signifi-
cant and steady retail sales, but the components
of entertainment and education that are also
provided make agritourism more than simply a
relocation of retail sales to a family farm. Long
important in the European Union (EU), agri-
tourism is gaining popularity throughout the
United States. Interest has grown as a result of
stagnant staple prices, rising farm costs, and
growing international competition. This shift
to agritourism is taking place in the state of
Michigan, where more than 90 percent of the
state’s 53,273 farms are family operations, and
62 percent of farms reported sales of less than
$10,000 for the 2002 Agricultural Census
(USDA 2003).
Push factors evolving in traditional wholesale
agriculture have made conversions to agritour-
ism more attractive to many of Michigan’s
smaller family farm operations. Low priced im-
ports and agglomeration in the fruit and dairy
industries have put pressure on small whole-
sale fruit, vegetable, maple syrup, and honey
operations. Many feed-based farms (corn and
soybeans) also face new pressures from domes-
tic producers and slumping exports.
In addition to push factors, the potential for
increased revenues and profits ( pull factors) also
favors the development of agritourism in Mich-
igan. Michigan’s diverse climate and products,
the relatively high population density through-
out the southern third of the state, and the
proximate large urban areas in adjacent states
give agritourism great potential for the creative
farmers of Michigan. Operations as diverse as
roadside produce stands, vineyards with win-
eries, retail/wholesale greenhouses selling cut
flowers and bedding plants, apple orchards,
berry U-picks, Christmas tree farms offering
cocoa and sleigh rides, and spring and fall on-
farm farmers’ markets can potentially raise farm
incomes while offering consumers farm-fresh
produce, educational and recreational opportu-
nities, and social interaction with growers.
This article summarizes the current status of
agritourism in Michigan based on a detailed
survey of family farms operating as agritourism
businesses. We report on the range of activities
that comprise Michigan’s agritourism industry,
and provide data derived from our survey to
illustrate the importance of these firms to the
rural economy, including the number of visitors
to the different types of operations, and the
characteristics of these businesses, including
promotional costs, wages, taxes, and revenues.
These data are evaluated through regression
analysis to identify the relationships among the
variables and the net income reported by these
agritourism businesses. Regression analysis al-
lows us to estimate the contributions that a set of
variables including visitors, advertising, and the
number of employees make to net income. Prior
to reporting the results of our survey and our
regression analysis, we discuss globalization and
the ongoing restructuring of the rural economy
as the context for agritourism development in
Europe, the United States, and specifically
Michigan. We then present our findings on
the economic conditions and relationships as-
sociated with these farms using data from a 2003
mail survey of 302 on-farm agritourism opera-
tors. We offer our conclusions and recommen-
dations on how to further this strategy for rural
economic development and diversification.
The Challenge of the Global
Marketplace
Agriculture has always been an uncertain busi-
ness. Global trade patterns have changed dra-
matically in recent decades for all agricultural
commodities, including corn, barley, sorghum,
rice, wheat, soybeans, cotton, tobacco, fruits,
vegetables, essential oils, and other specialty
crops such as honey. Most experts include the
following factors as root causes of the current
reorganization of the global food, drug, and
fiber system: (1) the inclusion of agricultural
products in the 1994 World Trade Organization
(WTO) agreements has brought new producers
such as Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and
even China into the global marketplace (Knox,
Agnew, and McCarthy 2003); (2) livestock and
avian diseases within the United States, and
more importantly abroad, have slowed both
meat/poultry exports and domestic meat con-
sumption, reducing domestic and international
grain demand; and (3) trade/consumer disa-
greements regarding the safety and environ-
mental impacts of genetically modified (GM)
grains, oil crops, tobacco, and cotton have low-
ered demand for some GM varieties of these
products, while dampening overall demand for
U.S. imports due to fear of ‘‘genetic pollution’’
or cross-pollination of GM varieties with local
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan
varieties (Wright and Nebel 2002; Hsin 2003;
Cunningham, Cunningham, and Saigo 2005).
Consequently, U.S. wheat, corn, and rice ex-
ports have stagnated or declined since the ‘‘good
old days’’ of the early 1980s. This slowing of
exports is the opposite of expectations when the
United States demanded in 1994 that agricul-
ture be included in the Uruguay Round of talks
that initiated the WTO (Weidman 1996). As
exports have slowed, domestic prices through-
out much of the Midwest have declined. At the
same time, prices are also more volatile. Most
experts now feel that U.S. grain producers will
continue to face flat price projections and
shrinking markets in the short to medium term
(USDA 2004). As a consequence, the average
amount of U.S. farmland devoted to export
crops has declined from 103.6 million acres in
1980 to 77 million acres in 2003, a decline of
25.6 percent (USDA 2003). Better enforcement
of tariff agreements, a gradual reduction in in-
ternational grain stocks, and the promise of
amiable solutions to GM export bans currently
in place for Japan, South Korea, and the EU may
reverse the outlook for exports in the future, but
at least for now many small farmers are suffer-
ing. At present, it is clear that the market ex-
pansion anticipated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for American agriculture in the
post-WTO era has not occurred as expected.
As exports have slowed, a greater amount of
low-cost grain has remained within the U.S.
market, depressing prices and lowering net
returns for many types of farms. Equally im-
portant, smaller farms are having a harder time
competing with the agribusinesses that are often
their neighbors.
Farm scale has long played a role in the
efficiency of any farming operation in the Unit-
ed States, including the family farm. The aver-
age U.S. farm in 2002 incorporated 441 acres.
The average Michigan farm was 189 acres, or
42.8 percent of the national average (USDA
2003). Michigan grain farmers have been
squeezed more than most—they have less acre-
age but higher costs. For many smaller farms,
the production of traditional crops is no longer
providing an acceptable income from the land.
Farmland is more expensive in Michigan due to
intervening opportunities (nonfarm uses) and
state tax regulations. Taxes are adjusted and
increased if land is sold and taken out of agri-
culture even once; the tax structure is not re-
237
adjusted even if the land is later restored to crop
production. Also, scale economies cannot easily
be reached for grain and/or hay for dairy oper-
ations on farms of fewer than 500 acres.
Although corn, soybeans, and hay have tra-
ditionally been Michigan’s most important
crops in terms of sown acreage, they have nev-
er been the most profitable crops in a state
blessed with fine soils and diverse climates.
Family farm operations for fruits and dairy are
much smaller in terms of farm size, but their
value per acre is much greater. In fact, by dollar
value, milk is Michigan’s most valuable farm
product ($793,800,000 in 2003; NASS 2004).
From the late 1980s until the mid-1990s fruits
and vegetables became increasingly popular
crops in Michigan as farms accrued higher re-
turns per acre compared to returns for grains,
dry beans, or sugar beets.
Unfortunately, the smaller wholesale fruit
and vegetable operations that produce some of
the highest quality apples, blueberries, cherries,
and asparagus in the nation have had a difficult
time competing in the current global market-
place. Part of this trend is the result of greater
international competition. Congressional ap-
proval of Permanent Normal Trade Relations
( PNTR) with China in October 2000 was
initially viewed by the Michigan Department
of Agriculture (MDA) as key to sustaining the
economic viability of Michigan’s food and
agriculture producers since it would open the
Chinese market (Michigan Department of Ag-
riculture 2002). However, with its similar grow-
ing seasons and crops, China has proved to be a
major competitor for many U.S. agricultural
products, including some important Michigan
crops such as apples, honey, and garden/house
plants (NASS 2004).
Although direct competition is certainly sig-
nificant in some cases, Michigan farmers do not
always go head-to-head with farmers from Chi-
na or other developing nations. Just as Michigan
was developing a competitive asparagus market
with a well-organized co-op, skilled growers,
and excellent brand recognition, lower-priced
asparagus from Mexico, Chile, and Ecuador
flooded the market and Michigan growers were
once again looking for alternatives. More often
than direct competition, agricultural imports
from developing nations to west and southeast
coast markets cause a ‘‘ripple effect’’ that chang-
es the economics of production in Michigan.
238 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006
For example, as China exports apple juice con-
centrate to U.S. wholesalers, apple farmers in
Washington and California face increasing
pressure to move lower grade fruit into other
markets. Because China now controls 43 per-
cent of the global apple juice concentrate trade
(NASS 2004), growers in western states
have started to ship more apples into the
Midwest rather than converting the apples
to concentrate that is more expensive than
Chinese imports. This means greater competi-
tion in Michigan’s regional markets for fresh
apples, leading to lower Midwest prices. The
case for apples and apple juice is far from
unique. Many Michigan farm products face
similar competition, including honey/wax from
China, grapes from Chile, vegetables from
Mexico, and peaches and Christmas trees from
the U.S. Southeast.
Another important cause of declining com-
petitiveness results from the domestic aggrega-
tion of farms and dairies in Michigan and
throughout the United States. This aggrega-
tion can result in larger, more stable farms,
but it often leaves many farm families without
opportunity. Supersized dairy and hog farms are
turning a large profit for a very limited number
of Michigan farmers, but smaller operations
find it difficult to remain in business without
changing strategies because larger firms push
wholesale prices below the break-even prices of
smaller enterprises. Dairy operations with more
that 3,000 head, termed Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs), now account
for one-fourth of Michigan’s $3.5 billion farm
sector. Estimates by the MDA suggest there
are only 200 to 300 of these supersized dairy
farms in the state, a fraction of the 5,600 hog
and dairy operations that exist in Michigan. In
the coming decade, if CAFOs are not limited,
other dairy farms in Michigan will find it in-
creasingly difficult to survive (Christoff 2003a,
2003b). Michigan’s agricultural sector is simul-
taneously headed in two different directions:
(1) large factory farms that ‘‘mass-produce
cheap produce for the supermarkets’’ and (2)
limited acreage entrepreneurial farms that sell
fresh and organic produce on site or in farmers’
markets and/or participate in the growing agri-
tourism industry (Brooks and Lynch 2004, 1A).
Because small-scale farming operations face
problems competing in wholesale markets,
there is considerable enthusiasm for the rela-
tively high returns that are possible with a well-
run agricultural tourism operation.
Agritourism as a Response to
Agricultural Restructuring
Declining exports and changes in rural land use
are related to the growth potential for Michigan
agritourism. Although agritourism has taken
place in areas such as alpine Austria for nearly
one-hundred years ( Pevetz 1991), it has recent-
ly become a key strategy in the EU’s 1992 and
1996 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to
diversify agricultural economies impacted by
cost-price squeezes and the technological tread-
mill (Busby and Rendle 2000; Nilsson 2002).
Agritourism, which is supported by structural
adjustment funding in the EU, fits into the
multifunctional European model of agriculture.
Agriculture is viewed as key to maintaining food
production/security, rural landscapes, and en-
vironmental protection (Hollander 2003). In
agrarian-touristic peripheries not suited for in-
tensive agriculture, but where the primary, sec-
ondary, and tertiary sectors are coordinated and
local specialties are produced for local con-
sumption and export, tourism and related land
uses can result in interregional transfer of ex-
ternal resources and endogenous development
(Conrad 1990). Agritourism, which attracts
urbanites nostalgic for the rural experience of
their childhood, offers the possibilities of selling
high-value local/regional foods to guests,
renting rooms, creating jobs, and maintaining
the regional service base ( Pevetz 1991; Busby
and Rendle 2000; Nilsson 2002; Clemens
2004). Agritourism involving farm stays and
branded regions for wine, cheese, and fruit have
helped small European farms deal with falling
prices for commodities for years (Slee, Farr,
and Snowdon 1997; Grykien 1999; Ilbery et al.
1998).
To date, agricultural tourism in the United
States is not as extensively developed as in the
EU. Agritourism is often overlooked in overall
appraisals of the U.S. farm sector due to
the relatively small size of many operations,
the lack of national political action committees,
and a shortage of reliable data with respect to
the number of operations and their revenues,
employment, and economic impact. However,
rural areas in the United States, seeking new
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan
economic strategies, are increasingly interested
in farm-based agritourism operations to gen-
erate new sources of income through sales,
services, and related horizontal linkages with
other tourism-based local activities (Small Farm
Center 2004). Agritourism already represents a
significant and enduring source of farm income,
rural employment, and state and local tax rev-
enues in the rapidly changing agricultural econ-
omy (Nickerson, Black, and McCool 2001).
Given the rising operating costs and stagnant or
declining wholesale prices for many field crops,
as well as those for milk, poultry, and livestock,
conversion of traditional commodity-based
farms to agritourism operations has enabled
many part-time farm families to retain control
of their farms (Nickerson, Black, and McCool
2001; Johnson 2003; Lange 2003). The farm
businesses in turn provide visitors with a chance
to visit rural America and spend time outdoors
with family and friends (Farmstop.com 2004;
SMRDCB 2004). Moreover, for consumers in-
creasingly distrustful of the nation’s food supply,
agritourism operations offer farm-to-table links
with new, possibly more healthy alternatives to
domestic or international superfarms and their
‘‘industrial’’ produce. Although organic pro-
duce may be the fastest growing trend in this
regard, many families simply wish to purchase
locally grown produce that is ‘‘fresher’’ than
the fruits and vegetables sold in chain super-
markets.
Given the declining profitability for Ameri-
ca’s smaller farms, many small-farm families
have turned to agritourism. In every state there
is a complex spatiotemporal geography to these
conversions. Small, rural farms accessible to
urban areas capitalize first by ‘‘harvesting’’ near-
by consumers looking for cheaper produce, or-
ganic produce, specialty crops, and/or a relaxing
day in the country. Those states with high pop-
ulation density coupled with small mean farm
size, including Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Maryland, recognized the potential of agricul-
tural tourism earlier than states with fewer large
cities and lower population density. As a conse-
quence, the U.S. Northeast and Atlantic states
developed state networks promoting agricul-
tural tourism earlier than did states in the West
and the Midwest. Departments of agriculture in
the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic states also
provided the most sophisticated support (Hilc-
hey 1993; Kuehn et al. 2000). In the late 1970s,
239
these regions held the earliest statewide confer-
ences promoting agritourism. States in the
Midwest, South, and West generally followed
suit in the late 1980s (Mahoney 1987; Gartner,
Limback, and Adiarte 1996).
Beyond the farm gate, agricultural tourism
offers important opportunities for links be-
tween agricultural producers and the tourism
industry, resulting in increased regional eco-
nomic benefits and reduced leakage (Berno
2004; Telfer and Wall 1996; Torres 2002). A
Canadian example is offered by the Taste of
Niagara, an alliance of food producers, proces-
sors, distributors, hotels, wineries, restaurants,
and chefs in Ontario’s Niagara Region that pro-
motes the use of local products in the tourism
industry (Telfer 2000). Increased interconnec-
tions between the farm and the restaurant table
can increase sales of local produce as well as
promote local cuisine. Local cuisine may devel-
op into a peak part of the tourist experience,
rather than being a supplemental experience
merely extending the ontological comfort of
home food consumption (Quan and Wang
2004).
Agritourism businesses can also increase rev-
enues at other proximate tourism-related firms
and amenities such as restaurants, hotels, gift
stores, and gas stations. A $15.00 trip to pick
apples on the farm may entail a visit to a corn
maze or haunted house along the way, stopping
for a nice meal to celebrate after ‘‘the harvest,’’ a
quick stop at a nearby craft shop or bakery to get
a few gifts, or even a boat trip or wagon ride at
dusk to top off a wonderful day in the country.
Estimated savings of 50 percent or more can
accrue from picking your own produce (LeDuc
Farms 2003), but saving a few dollars on apples,
blueberries, or strawberry jam three or four
times a year does not fully explain the growing
popularity of on-farm sales and visits, or why the
estimates of attendance for agritourism in many
states are growing at a record-setting pace
(SMRCDB 2004). U.S. agritourism operations
also sell prepared food (donuts, pies, and cider)
and farm products ( fruits, vegetables, plants,
and trees), but just as important they offer a
‘‘farm experience,’’ a chance for fresh air and a
day outside:
Tourism is the fastest growing business in the
world. And since September 11, customers are
seeking safer ways to have an enjoyable experi-
240 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006
ence. Agricultural tourism can bridge the gap
between farm and city dwellers, to the benefit of
both. At one time most city people had relatives
in the countryside, they no longer have them
available since so few people live on farms. Many
city people want farm vacations, to get away, but
they don’t have relatives or friends who are
farmers. . . . Agricultural tourism provides en-
joyment and education for the public, promotes
products for the farm, and increases income for
the farm. . . . Most of all, they want to see how
a real farm works and to be a part of that cycle
of life for a time.
—(Cross 2004)
Agritourism is coming of age in the United
States. As recommended by the USDA Advisory
Committee on Agricultural Statistics, the 2007
U.S. Agricultural Census will have a new section
devoted to agritourism (Advisory Committee
2002). Until this nationwide survey is complete,
comprehensive statistics related to agritourism
do not exist. However, with the goal of estab-
lishing benchmark data on the contributions of
these businesses to the state and local economy
and culture, a team from Western Michigan
University (WMU) and the MDA instituted a
survey intended to identify the economic and
cultural benefits of Michigan’s agritourism sec-
tor. This article reports some of the results of
the survey and analyzes these data through
regression analysis to identify factors associated
with predicting net income.
Data: The Michigan Agricultural
Tourism Survey
Until recently, little systematic research had
been done to evaluate the economic impact (in-
come, wages, taxes) of the increasingly impor-
tant agritourism businesses in Michigan. This is
because, first, state government leaders are still
not sure who should collect the data and pro-
mote agritourism. The traditional state tourism
department, Travel Michigan, is just now con-
sidering how to promote these farm businesses,
once considered as out of their area. The MDA
has an Agricultural Development Division with
five full-time employees, but no one is assigned
solely to promoting agritourism, though some
in the office feel more attention must be paid to
agritourism development if and when the state
budget crisis eases (Craig 2005). Second, given
the great diversity in the types of operations, it is
difficult to collect comparable data in a large
enough sample to make statistically sound gen-
eralizations. Only with a significant sample
size can any reliable generalizations be made
regarding the economic importance of these
operations.
After discussions with the heads of some
growers groups who helped with recruiting, in
2003 members of the project team convened
three Michigan agritourism focus groups in
three parts of the state: in Kalamazoo (south-
west Michigan), Ellsworth (northwest lower
peninsula), and Flint (approximately 50 miles
north of Detroit) with the eventual goal of
implementing a systematic agritourism survey.
The Flint focus group met via a video network.
Each of the three focus groups included people
from six to nine family farm agritourism oper-
ations. The sessions elicited ideas and opinions
of agritourism operators to help design a com-
prehensive survey to assess the impact of agri-
tourism on Michigan’s economy. The survey
contained questions about location, products
and services, visitation, income, employees,
wages, revenues, and advertising. Additionally,
several sets of questions were designed to iden-
tify opinions related to the benefits of these
businesses, as well as problems that operators
currently face. Responses to these questions
were evaluated using five-point Likert scales to
gauge the severity and significance of each prob-
lem. The survey also incorporated a number of
open-ended questions related to current and
future concerns and problems. The project for-
mat, including the development of surveys for
both firms and consumers, followed that of
Slee, Farr, and Snowdon’s (1997) comprehen-
sive study of rural tourism in Scotland. Only the
portion of this survey related to the economic
impact of agritourism with respect to visitors,
employment, advertising, and income is analy-
zed in this study.
After evaluating the survey, the MDA mailed
the forms to approximately 1,500 agritourism
operations—a number determined by budget-
ary constraints facing the MDA, which paid for
this portion of the project. All mailed surveys
went to family-based firms, and, throughout the
article, we intend the terms family farm and firm
to be interchangeable. Additional surveys were
distributed at various industry meetings and
conventions during late 2002 and early 2003.
Approximately 20 percent, or 311 surveys (301
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan
usable), were returned to the MDA by June
2003 and were included in this analysis.
Prior to presenting findings, it is important to
discuss the limitations of this study. Currently
there is no way of knowing the relationship
between our sample of 301 usable surveys and
the entire population of such firms in Michigan.
No determination can be made of exactly how
many family farms engage in agritourism activ-
ities, although Hill estimated that more than
4,000 family farms in Michigan1 are involved.
Assuming her estimate is correct, this would
mean that approximately 7.5 percent of all farms
in Michigan derive at least some of their income
from agritourism activities. Every effort was
taken to distribute surveys whenever possible
but we do not believe the survey to be entirely
random. Farmers who are more active in com-
modity groups and with stronger MDA ties are
probably overrepresented. Nevertheless, the
survey represents the first systematic study of
this increasingly important type of tourism for
many rural places in Michigan.
Results and Discussion
The following subsections summarize the main
types of agritourism operations identified from
the survey. Farm characteristics are based on
301 usable surveys, and include descriptions of
the types of operations that participated in the
survey, as well as summaries of the length of
operation, net sales and net income, the num-
bers of visitors to the farms, promotional ef-
forts, total wages paid, and characteristics of the
employment offered. The summaries of the
various types of agritourism operations are fol-
lowed by the presentation of an ordinary least
squares (OLS) linear regression model designed
to estimate the effects of the variables men-
tioned earlier on the net incomes reported by a
subsample of these businesses. Only some busi-
nesses participating in the study reported their
net incomes, so the sample used for the regres-
sion analysis included sixty-four households.
We conclude with an interpretation of results
and some thoughts on methodological prob-
lems and issues for further study.
Characteristics of Agritourism Operations
After the surveys were returned to the MDA, the
data were coded and each business was classified
for analysis based on the dominant self-reported
241
source of revenue. After an initial classification
based on fourteen types of operations, all farms
were reclassified as one of ten types of opera-
tions. Of course, agritourism in Michigan takes
many forms, including U-pick fruits, on-farm
farmers’ markets,2 and various seasonal attrac-
tions such as Fall/Halloween operations or
those centered on Christmas. Table 1 summa-
rizes these categories and the associated prod-
ucts and services offered. Many of the farms
obviously offer products from more than one
category but were assigned to a group based on
the owner’s opinion of the most important
(lucrative) activities that were offered to farm
visitors. Because of Michigan’s diverse climate
and the relatively high population density
throughout the southern half of the state,
Michigan has the widest possible range of agri-
tourism activities. Some activities are those that
would be expected: U-picks for berries, apples,
pears, peaches, and apricots, or pumpkin patch-
es with corn mazes and haunted houses for Hal-
loween. Others, such as deer parks for petting
and feeding deer, vineyards with wine-making
classes, or dairy farms where visitors milk a cow,
pasteurize the milk, and make ice cream, are less
common. Still, all of the operations summarized
in Table 1 offer on-farm retail sales of some
group of core products, along with variable
amounts of rural relaxation and education.
The products and activities offered by each
business partially determine the periods of op-
eration, and the income generated by agritour-
ism. Based on survey results, 81 percent of the
agritourism firms in our sample were open sea-
sonally, and 19 percent were open year round
(Table 2). The average number of full days of
operation was 174.5 days, but the standard
deviation was 115 days. Thus, there is a consid-
erable range in how important agritourism ac-
tivities are to annual incomes. Many of our focus
group informants indicated that product and
service diversification—that is, developing ac-
tivities and products that allowed the farms to
extend the time they could remain open—was
one of the most critical strategies for a successful
operation. Apple orchards must add a pumpkin
patch and corn/sorghum mazes to operate later
into the fall. Similarly, fall markets can open
earlier in spring or summer by adding a fish-
pond, a petting zoo, or a strawberry U-pick.
The number of operating days is not neces-
sarily correlated to the number of visitors
242 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006

Table 1 Ten major types of agritourism operations in Michigan

Category and number
of operations Description of products and services

1. Berries (36) U-pick berry fruits: strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, and cranberries. Often provide picking
buckets, water, hand washing stations, and rides to fields. Additional retail food products such as jams,
syrup, and baked goods are also offered.
2. Orchard (55) U-pick or ready-to-sell tree fruits: apples, cherries, peaches, pears, and plums. Many provide other
products such as snacks, jams, and jellies. Coffee, pie, cider, and donuts are often sold in the fall season.
3. Farm market (54) Typically an in-town location with assorted fruits and vegetables. May also include crafts, baked goods,
jams, and jellies. The most diverse product lines are offered by these operations.
4. Fall harvest (34) These are diverse, usually seasonal, operations combining retail sales with farm experiences. Fall foods,
including pies, cider, candies, and donuts are offered in conjunction with U-pick apples, hay rides,
pumpkin patches, and corn mazes. Some locations may also have a haunted house or haunted/regular
sorghum or corn maze.
5. Christmas (33) Evergreen tree farm with U-cut Christmas trees. Some have a holiday shop selling candy, coffee, hot
cocoa, wreaths and boughs, stands, ornaments, and precut trees. Some also sell ‘‘flocked’’ trees, and a
number offer wagon/sleigh rides in December.
6. Animal products and Variety of offerings: animal observation in natural settings; organized hunting ranches; sheep, alpaca,
attractions (19) and llama farms with natural fiber sales; stocked fishponds; and petting zoos. Horseback riding is also
included here, but in the context of on-farm sales of related products as well.
7. Farm experience (10) Dairy farms, but also include operations that offer a variety of produce and fruits in conjunction with
activities such as wagon rides, petting zoos, equipment/activity demonstrations, and farm tours. There
is a strong element of visitor participation, as well as a frequent focus on historical and contemporary
activities.
8. Honey/maple (10) Variety of products centered on either honey/wax or maple sugar, syrups, and sauces. In most cases
many other food-related products are also sold, such as herb teas and spices.
9. Nursery (36) Wide range of bedding plants, annuals, perennials, ornamental shrubs, trees, and landscaping services.
10. Vineyard (14) Wine tasting, wine, grapes, fruit cordials, and vineyard tours.

Source: Generated by the farm surveys.

( Pearson’s r ¼ .224, p ¼ .001). In fact, the vari-
ous types of ‘‘Fall Harvest’’ operations (Hal-
loween-based operations, apples, cider, fall
markets) have a relatively short (seventh low-
est) average season of 137.29 days, but reported
the greatest average number of visitors per
operation (n ¼ 37,628; Table 3). The arrival of
this many customers in almost any rural area of
Michigan obviously presents some challenges
(traffic, noise) but is also a considerable oppor-
tunity for nearby businesses, state parks, and
tourist destinations. Thus, in addition to em-
ployment and taxes, farm operations spin off
benefits to local economies. Well-promoted
agritourism operations can bring an influx of
people (and dollars) to many small towns akin to
having the July 4th parade every day.
The busiest seasons, based on customer visits,
were fall (40 percent of visitors) and summer (35
percent), with the remainder of visitors almost
equally divided between spring and winter. Ob-
viously, these figures are also somewhat contin-

Table 2 Comparative statistics for full days of operation for the ten categories of agritourism firms
Mean no. Std. Std. Minimum no. Maximum no.
Type of Operation N of days deviation error of days of days

Animal products 18 274.61 101.968 24.034 90 365

Berries 35 99.23 58.399 9.871 27 214
Christmas 31 50.39 57.777 10.377 23 267
Fall harvest 34 137.29 88.893 15.245 21 365
Farm market 53 176.94 85.286 11.715 16 365
Farm experience 9 232.56 129.937 43.312 55 365
Honey/maple syrup 9 339.44 54.512 18.171 210 365
Nurseries 35 224.94 92.568 15.647 45 365
Orchards 52 161.15 106.834 14.815 30 365
Vineyards 14 356.43 32.071 8.571 245 365
Total 290 173.84 114.937 6.749 16 365

Source: Summarized from the farm surveys.

Note: The total number 290 reflects the fact that responses were not provided on some of the 301 useable surveys.
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan 243
Table 3 Mean values for selected variables by type of agritourism operation
Full-time Part-time Advertising Gross Net
Category of business Customers employees employees expenses sales income

(1) Animal farms/Activities 7,597 1.75 3.89 14,875 51,227 8,975

(2) Berry farms 3,953 1.64 8.14 2,655 44,601 9,766
(3) Christmas 3,841 0.72 5.92 1,448 20,914 11,597
(4) Fall harvest 37,628 3.8 20.83 4,441 214,479 16,480
(5) Farm markets 14,035 2.55 3.83 6,171 164,479 9,518
(6) Farm experience 7,311 2 2.83 4,211 114,559 10,250
(7) Honey/maple 782 0.57 3.71 500 23,333 18,250
(8) Nurseries 3,940 3.26 4.81 7,505 152,907 25,790
(9) Orchards 10,650 2.56 13.31 4,912 201,671 9,419
(10) Vineyards 24,857 4.42 7.45 14,881 425,250 52,701
Grand means 11459.4 2.327 7.472 6,160 141,342 17,275

Source: Survey data.

gent on the types of operations. Most fruit and
vegetable U-pick operations draw the majority
of their visitors in summer and fall. Halloween-
and Thanksgiving-related operations that we
aggregated as our ‘‘fall harvest’’ group had a very
short season, yet their number of visitors greatly
exceeded those of many of the other groups.
For the businesses in our sample, the most
important products as defined by gross sales
value for each type of firm were (1) apples, (2)
Christmas trees, (3) pumpkins, (4) animal prod-
ucts (natural wools, fishing ponds, horseback
riding), (5) strawberries, (6) sweet corn, (7) blue-
berries, (8) bedding plants, (9) other trees/shrubs,
and (10) wine/grape products (Figure 1). The
products that the public initially seeks when
visiting the farms vary. Increasingly, successful
operators recognize the importance of value-
added secondary products produced on the
farm or sold in on-farm retail shops, or both. An
$8.00 peck of apples brings in the customer, but
the fresh-baked pie ($6.50), the jar of apple but-
ter ($2.99), the gallon of cider ($2.99), or the
surprisingly ubiquitous ‘‘country’’ potpourri
($4.89) raises gross revenues and profits.
A slightly different picture results when gross
sales and net income by type of firm are studied
in conjunction with visitors, employees, and
advertising and promotional costs. Table 3 pro-
vides mean values for these diagnostic variables
for each of the ten types of operation, and really
gets to the heart of the matter. Mean estimates
for net incomes by firm type vary widely from
$52,701 for wineries to slightly more than
$9,000 for animal products and animal attrac-
tions. The numbers are surprisingly consistent,
with most types of operations generating a net
income of $10,000 to $15,000. It is clear that
the majority of these operations serve as sup-
plemental sources of income. Only the vine-
yards consistently provide full-time work and
incomes.
The average annual gross sales for the win-
eries participating in the survey were $425,250,
with a standard deviation of almost a half a
million dollars. The second highest grossing
group was ‘‘fall harvest,’’ followed by nursery
operations that are often joint wholesale/retail
operations. The enormous range in revenues
reflects the difficulties inherent in sample aver-
ages, but also underscores the wide range of ac-
tivities and types of operations included within
agritourism.
The survey results also indicate the impor-
tance of these firms to the local employment
base. A typical agritourism firm employs an av-
erage of just over 9.8 nonfamily workers, in-
cluding an average 2.3 full-time workers and 7.5
part-time workers (Table 3). If family members
are included, the average number of full-time
workers increases to 3.14 persons. Part-time
workers worked an average of 19.4 hours/week
during the operating season. Average wages for
shift managers in 2002 were $9.42 per hour; for
full-time employees, the average rate was $7.58
per hour. Even for part-time workers, the mean
hourly rate of $6.84 was above the current min-
imum wage of $5.15 Assuming there is one shift
manager, 2.1 full-time workers, and 10.12 part-
time workers (19.42 hours/week), the average
firm participating in the survey paid out ap-
proximately $2,029.90 in local wages for every
40 hours of operation. The largest operations
employ dozens of people, the smallest have only
244 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006

45
40
35
Number of farms

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
es

ts

es

ts

bs

es

es

er

s
ee

in

rie

er
or

in
uc

an

id
pl

rri

ru

bl

rri
pk

ow
tC
Tr

er

C
Ap

od

ta
Pl
be

sh

he
m

ge

Fl
ee
as

Pr

s/
w

ue

C
Pu

pl
in
ra

ee

Ve
Sw
tm

Ap
Bl
al

dd
St

Tr
is

Be
hr

i
An
C

Figure 1 Most common products ranked as highest in gross sales in 2003.

one or two, but all of this enters the local econ-
omy while providing part-time work for
high school and college students throughout
Michigan.
Explaining Variations in Net Income for
Agritourism Operations in Michigan
Regression analysis is used to explain variations
in net income based on the following variables
introduced in the previous section: (1) custom-
ers (estimated number of visitors per year,
NUMVIS); (2) promotional investments in ad-
vertising (annual $ spent on all forms of adver-
tising and signage, PROMINV); (3) bus groups
(number of buses/year, BUSGRP); and (4) total
estimated annual wages ($/year, WAGETOT).
The number of customers was included since
the greater the number of visitors, the higher
sales should be. Second, although no one would
dispute that advertising in America works, in-
clusion of promotional expenses in the model
allows us to establish the quantitative relation-
ship between advertising and income. Third,
bus groups were included as the use of buses
by public school classes for field trips really
underscores the educational aspects of the
agritourism industry. Certainly more than
95 percent of visitors arriving on buses are
elementary and middle school students. This
variable registered a weak correlation (r ¼ .287,
p ¼ .001) with the total number of visitors, so
both variables were included in the final func-
tion. School groups are only common when the
farms are near large cities such as Lansing or
Grand Rapids, but they also serve as a surrogate
for scale and the sophistication of operations.
Firms drawing bus groups are mostly near ma-
jor metropolitan areas, but they also expend
more advertising and effort to access the school
groups and retirement communities offering
bus trips. The results from the regression anal-
ysis are presented in Table 4.
The exploratory model uses sixty-four farms
because many firms are simply unwilling to
provide income data (Y). The model yields an
adjusted R2 of .587 (F ¼ 23.743, p ¼ .0001).
Based on the standardized beta coefficients
(Table 4), the most important factor of those
selected for the model is the money spent on
promoting the business. Every dollar spent on
promotion results in $2.51 in net revenues (not
sales!).
The next significant predictor, total wages
paid out, has an inverse effect on Y: the higher
the payroll, the lower the net returns. This
finding raises some interesting issues related to
the optimum size of these agritourism opera-
tions, above which they cease to attract those
seeking a rural experience. It may be that when
operations are too large, the farm experience, or
contact with the farmer and the farm experi-
ence, is lost. As mentioned earlier, saving money
is not really the major force behind the success
of agritourism operations. On the other hand,
those operations more dependent on family
labor conserve cash by shifting the burden of
longer hours to family members. In some cases,
these smaller operations may be more efficient,
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan
Table 4 Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis predicting income from agritourism operations:
Coefficients and model statistics for predicting annual net income by firm
Unstandardized coefficients
Model Beta Std. Error
1 (Constant) 2562.717 2283.236
promomon 2.510 .432
numvisit .412 .143
busgrps 679.595 252.419
wagetot
.219 .063
Source: Generated by survey data.
Notes: Dependent variable: net income per operation.
R2 ¼ .587, F ¼ 23.743, significant at .0001.
n ¼ 64 farm operations (cases).
but this economic efficiency comes at some cost.
If children are asked to work excessively long
hours, they may leave the very farm the family is
fighting to save to pass to the next generation.
Not surprisingly, the number of visitors and
bus groups are both positively associated with
net income. In other words, the more people,
the more sales. School groups are usually
charged a fixed rate per child. Again, the im-
portance of these businesses is greater than the
economic activity identified at each business.
Visitors to a U-pick or farm market will spend
additional monies along the way. The Michigan
findings support the differences according to
the scale of operations identified in earlier lit-
erature based on empirical studies in the EU.
Promoting Agritourism Has Benefits Beyond
the Economy
Agricultural tourism is an increasingly impor-
tant option for small farm families in the state of
Michigan. For a variety of economic reasons,
many farm families have moved away from con-
ventional wholesale operations to agritourism,
and the public has embraced these new recre-
ational options. There can be little doubt that,
taken collectively, these activities potentially
represent a growing source of income and
employment for much of rural Michigan. Agri-
tourism has many facets—from simply picking
fresher fruit, to learning to bake or make wine,
to the relaxation of a day spent horseback riding,
to a wintry outing to cut the family Christmas
tree. It seems certain that the activities provided
by the state’s farmers as agritourism activities
will continue to diversify as new ideas are
developed, tested, and implemented.
245
Standardized coefficients
Beta t Sig.
1.122 .266
.777 5.808 .000
.272 2.881 .005
.248 2.692 .009

.451
3.452 .001
The economic benefits with respect to em-
ployment and wages are clear. Of course, there
are benefits to the tax base as well. Questions
related to taxes were included in the survey but
only a limited number of respondents provided
answers and, in many cases, the responses in-
cluded property taxes and income taxes, as well
as the sales and payroll taxes that were the in-
tended target of the question. Successful firms
must ‘‘think off-farm’’; they must invest in pro-
motion, produce new products, develop new
activities, and come to grips with the complica-
tions associated with managing group tours,
dealing with county health departments, and
acquiring permission to expand road signage.
Benefits from agritourism go beyond opera-
tors and customers to the surrounding commu-
nities. Through on-site sales, value-added
production, and services (such as school tours,
corn mazes, and Halloween activities), agri-
tourism yields the additional income that ena-
bles operators not only to maintain a ‘‘way of
life’’ but often to retain the family farm. Admit-
tedly, the strategy is not without social and psy-
chological costs. Families and communities
must to some extent open their doors to trav-
elers from afar. Customers are not always well
behaved or tidy, and small-town life sometimes
changes with strangers around. Still, there are
many benefits beyond economics. For the cus-
tomers, agritourism provides a place to obtain
fresh produce and experience nature with their
families. For rural communities and the state of
Michigan, agritourism generates employment
and tourism and tax revenues, while helping to
maintain open space and the viability of Mich-
igan agriculture. By expanding product offer-
ings, agritourism’s sales potential can be further
246 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006
increased while simultaneously providing visi-
tors with greater choice.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Given agritourism’s benefits, the state of Mich-
igan should provide further support for this
sector that integrates Michigan’s second and
third largest industries, tourism and agriculture.
At present, no employee of the MDA is charged
as a primary task with promoting agricultural
tourism or helping farm families’ transition to
agritourism (Craig 2005). This would seem
shortsighted. An important move toward a
comprehensive study of the role of agritourism
throughout the United States will be the inclu-
sion in the 2007 Agricultural Census of an entire
section devoted to agricultural tourism. The
census will provide critical information with
respect to the numbers of farms involved and the
economic contributions of these activities.
Nevertheless, more must be done to actively
promote these activities. Agritourism operators
need assistance in dealing with other govern-
mental agencies on regulatory issues such as
zoning/local ordinances, the loss of property tax
homestead exemptions when a commercial op-
eration is developed on the farm, signage place-
ment and fees, and a spate of multiagency/local
regulations including the health department
regulations related to foods that are prepared
and sold on-site. Families considering a switch
to agritourism need the help and support that
the MDA can provide, at least as a source of
advice. Equally important, the state of Michigan
should provide financial support to strengthen
the links between tourism, agriculture, and na-
ture, especially since Michigan’s agricultural
products can help draw more visitors. The New
York Times recently devoted extensive print and
Web coverage to Michigan as a ‘‘flavorable va-
cationland,’’ offering cherries and other tree
fruits, game, and wines and spirits (Apple 2003).
By making food a peak part of the tourism ex-
perience, Michigan can maximize its potential
of drawing tourists from the state’s traditional
tourism-generating areas as well as from outside
the region. According to Hjalager (1996), the
eating culture is a distinctive feature of destina-
tions, yet it is underestimated in rural tourism.
Marketing and promotional support are crit-
ical. Danish and U.K. studies have found that
small to medium-sized, locally owned agritour-
ism and rural tourism enterprises have limited
entrepreneurship capabilities related to innova-
tions in management, product development,
and planning for future growth. Their owners
may be constrained entrepreneurs who lack
tourism business skills and capital (Shaw and
Williams 1998; Ioannides and Petersen 2003).
Although the level of entrepreneurship was not
a primary focus of our research, we surmise that
small, Michigan agritourism operators, who
were forced by globalization to shift from pro-
duction to consumption-oriented activities,
share these problems. There is a very wide
range of expertise and ambition among the farm
families in our sample. Strengthening existing
operations, as well as encouraging additional
agricultural businesses, especially as the market
is not saturated, can help to bolster an area’s
reputation for agritourism (Che, Veeck, and
Veeck 2005). Initially, government funding and
training should be targeted at two types of
farmers: (1) small farmers facing financial hard-
ships (including high debt loads and poor re-
turns on traditional field crops of fruit
wholesalers) who would benefit from training
programs on how to begin such an operation;
and (2) efforts should be made to identify inno-
vative operators so that they can be encouraged
to share their expertise and ideas with their
neighbors.
Michigan agritourism offers many benefits to
the rural areas where these farms are located and
should be supported. Beyond wages and taxes,
these farm activities help many families stay on
the farm, and provide a new draw of customers
to area businesses. Further, keeping farm fam-
ilies on the farm slows urban sprawl, while
maintaining an important aspect of state history
and heritage. Finally, and perhaps more impor-
tant than all the money is that fact that these
businesses give all of us wonderful opportunities
to ‘‘go back to the farm.’’’
Notes
1
In 2002, Sandra Hill of the MDA developed a mail-
ing list of more than 2,000 agritourism operations.
Although many of these did not respond to the survey
or were returned due to change of address, they were
operating and at one time responded to MDA in-
quiries or advertised in the Yellow Pages. Hill be-
lieved she was able to identify only half of the
 America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan
operating firms and that the actual number might be
around 4,000 businesses. This was only an estimate
on her part.
2
The term ‘‘farm market’’ is somewhat problematic.
In this study, the term is used to denote family farm
operations that sell many more products than are
actually produced on the farm. A family may produce
ten to fifteen varieties of vegetables but sell thirty—
buying the rest wholesale or from other farmers. Our
‘‘farm market’’ category must be distinguished from
Farmers Markets held several times a week in most
cities and towns in the United States during summer
and fall.
Literature Cited
Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee on Agri-
cultural Statistics). 2002. Executive Summary Feb-
ruary 19–20th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC:
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Apple, R. W., Jr. 2003. Up North: Michigan’s flavorful
vacationland. New York Times http://www.nytimes.
com/2003/07/30/dining/30MICH.htm (last accessed
2 March 2005).
Berno, T. 2004. New approaches to sustainable tour-
ism: Optimizing the linkages between agriculture
and tourism in the Fiji Islands. Paper presented at
the Centennial Meeting of the Association of Amer-
ican Geographers, Philadelphia, PA, March 2004.
Brooks, J., and J. Lynch. 2004. Small farms thrive
despite Metro sprawl; Defying national trend,
small-scale farmers meet increased demand for
fresh, organic produce. The Detroit News 22 June:
1A, 6A.
Busby, G., and S. Rendle. 2000. The transition from
tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tourism Man-
agement 21:635–42.
Che, D., A. Veeck, and G. Veeck. 2005. Sustaining
production and strengthening the agritourism
product: Linkages among Michigan agritourism
destinations. Agriculture and Human Values 22 (2):
225–34.
Christoff, C. 2003a. Big farms cause big stink. Detroit
Free Press http://www.freep.com/news/mich/
cafo22_20030721.html (last accessed 1 March 2004;
hard copy can be obtained from authors).
———. 2003b. Dairy industry in Michigan: Waste
runoff a worry with mega-farms. Detroit Free
Press http://www.freep.com/news/mich/cafo22_
20030722.html (last accessed 1 March 2004; hard
copy can be obtained from authors).
Clemens, R. 2004. Keeping farmers on the land: Agri-
tourism in the European Union. Iowa Ag Review 10
(3): 8–9.
Conrad, J. 1990. Development paths for rural areas in
the European Community. Land Degradation and
Rehabilitation 2:57–68.
247
Craig, Robert. 2005. Michigan Department of Agri-
culture, telephone interview 24 August 2005.
Cross, C. 2004. Agricultural Tourism—ISAI (Inter-
national Sports Adventure Institute; http://
www.satglobal.com/agricultural_tourism.htm (last
accessed 2 March 2005).
Cunningham, W. P., M. A. Cunningham, and B.
Saigo. 2005. Environmental science: A global concern.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Farmstop.com. 2004. Tourists flocking to farms now
have help with new website: Farmstop.com. http://
www.farmstop.com/articles/farmstoprelease.asp
(last accessed 2 March 2005).
Gartner, W., L. Limback, and A. Adiarte. Economic
impact of tourism in Minnesota. Minnesota Agricul-
tural Economist 684 1: 5–7.
Grykien, S. 1999. Tourist farms in Lower Silesia,
Poland. GeoJournal 46:279–81.
Hilchey, D. 1993. Agritourism in New York State: Op-
portunities and challenges in farm-based recreation and
hospitality, 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Farming Alternatives
Program, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell
University (reprint).
Hjalager, A.-M. 1996. Agricultural diversification into
tourism: Evidence of a European Community
development programme. Tourism Management 17
(2): 103–11.
Hollander, G. 2003. Agricultural trade liberalization,
multifunctionality, and the political ecology of sug-
ar in Florida. Paper presented at the Political Ecol-
ogy at Home conference, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, March 2003.
Hsin, H. 2003. Bittersweet harvest: The debate over ge-
netically modified crops. Annual editions: Global
issues 2003/2004. Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/
Dushkin.
Ilbery, B, I. Bowler, G. Clark, A Crockett, and A.
Shaw. 1998. Farm-based tourism as an alternative
farm enterprise: A case study from the Northern
Pennines, England. Regional Studies 32 (4): 355–64.
Ioannides, D., and T. Petersen. 2003. Tourism ‘‘non-
entrepreneurship’’ in peripheral destinations: A
case study of small and medium tourism enter-
prises on Bornholm, Denmark. Tourism Geographies
5 (4): 408–35.
Johnson, L. A. 2003. Agritourism industry brings
the public, money to state’s farms. Associated
Press Business News. Dateline: Colt’s Neck, NJ, 19
October.
Knox, P., J. Agnew, and L. McCarthy. 2003. The ge-
ography of the world economy, 4th ed. London: Arnold.
Kuehn, D., D. Hilchey, D. Ververs, K. L. Dunn, and P.
Lehman. 2000. Considerations for agritourism devel-
opment. Oswego, NY: New York Sea Grant, SUNY
College at Oswego (reprint).
Lange, L. 2003. Bountiful new crop; Rural America
reaps lucrative harvests via agritourism. Knoxville
News-Sentinel (Tennessee) 5 October: F-1.
248 Volume 58, Number 3, August 2006
LeDuc Farms. 2003. Interview with employees at
LeDuc Blueberries and Strawberries, Highway 43,
Paw Paw, MI, August 2003.
Mahoney, E. 1987. Michigan’s AG-Tourism program.
In Agriculture and tourism in Wisconsin: Report on the
first Ag-Tourism Conference, 6–8. Madison: The
Recreation Resources Center, College of Agricul-
ture, University of Wisconsin.
Marsden, T., J. Murdoch, P. Lowe, R. Munton, and A.
Flynn. 1993. Constructing the countryside. London:
UCL Press.
Michigan Department of Agriculture. 2002. New
markets. http://www.michigan.gov0,1687,7-125–
14963–,00.html (last accessed 14 February 2003;
hard copy can be obtained from authors).
NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2004.
‘‘Michigan 2003-2004 Highlights.’’ Available
online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/mi/Templates/
STHILGTS.pdf
Nickerson, N. P., R. J. Black, and S. F. McCool. 2001.
Agritourism: Motivations behind farm/ranch busi-
ness diversification. Journal of Travel Research
40:19–26.
Nilsson, P. A. 2002. Staying on farms: An ideological
background. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1): 7–24.
Pevetz, W. 1991. Agriculture and tourism in Austria.
Tourism Recreation Research 16 (1): 57–60.
Quan, S., and N. Wang. 2004. Towards a structural
model of the tourist experience: An illustration
from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Manage-
ment 25:297–305.
Shaw, G., and A. M. Williams. 1998. Entrepreneur-
ship, small business culture, and tourism develop-
ment. In The economic geography of the tourist industry:
A supply-side analysis, ed. D. Ioannides and K. G.
Debbage, 235–55. London: Routledge.
Slee, B., H. Farr, and P. Snowdon. 1997. The eco-
nomic impact of alternative types of rural tourism.
Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 (2): 179–92.
Small Farm Center. 2004. Agricultural Tourism.
http://sfc.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/definition.html
(last accessed 2 March 2005).
Southern Maryland Resource Conservation and De-
velopment Board, Inc. (SMRCDB). 2004. Taking
the First Step: Farm and Ranch Alternative Enterprise
and Agritourism Resource Evaluation Guide with tech-
nical and financial assistance from the United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), Resource Econom-
ics and Social Sciences Division.
Telfer, D. J. 2000. Tastes of Niagara: Building
strategic alliances between tourism and agriculture.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Ad-
ministration 1 (1): 71–88.
Telfer, D. J., and G. Wall. 1996. Linkages between
tourism and food production. Annals of Tourism Re-
search 23 (3): 635–53.
Torres, R. 2002. Toward a better understanding of
tourism and agriculture linkages in the Yucatan:
Tourist food consumption and preferences. Tourism
Geographies 4 (3): 282–306.
USDA. 2003. 2002 Census of Agriculture - Preliminary
data. USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service. http://www.nass.udsa.gov/census/cen-
sus02 (last accessed 2 March 2005).
———. 2004. USDA agricultural baseline projections to
2013. Staff Report WAOB-2004-1. Washington,
DC: USDA Office of the Chief Economist.
Weidman, J. M. 1996. The US food and agriculture
system and the GATT/WTO Uruguay Round
Agreement on Agriculture. http://www.csupo-
mona.edu/  jis/1996/Weidman.pdf (last accessed
2 March 2005).
Wright, R. T., and B. J. Nebel. 2002. Environmental
science: Toward a sustainable future. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
GREGORY VEECK is a Professor of Geography at
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
E-mail: gregory.veeck@wmich.edu. His research in-
terests include agriculture and rural development in
China, the United States, and East Asia.
DEBORAH CHE is an Assistant Professor of Geog-
raphy at Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
66506. E-mail: dche@k-state.edu. Her research in-
terests include nature-based tourism, destination
branding, and race/ethnicity issues in tourism and
recreation.
ANN M. VEECK is an Associate Professor of Mar-
keting at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
MI 49008. E-mail: Ann.Veeck@wmich.edu. Her re-
search interests include family consumption patterns
and food consumption patterns in China and the
United States.