A S T

June 2013
A SNAPSHOT OF TENNESSEE
AGRITOURISM: 2013 UPDATE
BY Kim Jensena, Megan Bruchb, Jamey Menarda, and Burt Englisha a
Agri‐Industry & Modeling Analysis Group|AIM‐AG, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, b Center for Profitable Agriculture, University of Tennessee Extension ii
Executive Summary This study used results from a statewide survey conducted in early 2013 to create a current
profile of agritourism, as well as potential issues that agritourism businesses face in startup or
daily operations. A total of 171 firms responded to the survey, most of which were operational
agritourism businesses.
Among agritourism firms, the most common types of businesses were on-farm retail markets,
school field trips/tours, event hosting, pick-your-own operations, hayride or wagon rides, farm
tours other than school field trips, on-farm gift shops, weddings, other family fun activities, and
pumpkin patches. In October, over 74 percent of the agritourism businesses were open, while in
January, only about 32 percent were open reflecting the seasonal nature of many agritourism
attractions. About 63 percent of the firms had less than $50,000 in sales in 2012. Agritourism
firms employ a combination of full- and part-time employees as well as both seasonal and yearround employees. Many of the agritourism operations derived income from other farm sources
and also from off-farm sources. The median number of visits per farm in a year was 1,000 visits.
The mean expenditures per visit as estimated by the agritourism operators was $35.12, while the
median was $20. Visitor expenditures included admission, purchases of products, concessions,
souvenirs, and other expenditures.
The most commonly used methods of promotion included websites, Pick Tennessee
Products, Facebook business pages, road signs, brochures, email, and the TN Vacation Guide.
Among firms that had used Pick Tennessee Products, the Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the
Tennessee Farm Fresh program, they believed it had increased their agritourism sales by over 9.3
percent.
The most cited types of business problems faced by these businesses included deciding how
to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current with new promotion, developing
advertising, identifying target customers, attracting customers to visit, keeping and evaluating
records, and finding employees.
Nearly 63 percent of the business operators had attended an agritourism or direct marketing
workshop, conference or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for
iii
Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last three years. Among
those attending, the average estimate of their agritourism sales in 2012 that were influenced by
the information and/or assistance they obtained from the educational events they attended in the
last three years was a 19.9 percent increase.
When asked about their views on agritourism, most had the goal of attracting new customers
over the next two years, were optimistic about the future of the industry, and expected their sales
to increase in the future. Examples of limiting factors noted by the respondents were personal
characteristics, such as their age or lack of family members to pass the business on to, or
business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs.
For the visitor expenditures at agritourism attractions, the direct estimated statewide
economic impacts were over $34.4 million, and with multiplier effects, over $54.2 million. These
visitor expenditure impacts only represent a portion of the economic impacts that may result
from these farms since many of the operators also relied on other sources of farm income.
This study was funded in part by grants and gifts from the Tennessee Agritourism
Association, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Farm Credit Mid-America,
Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, and USDA Rural Development.
iv
Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Methods and Data ............................................................................................................... 2 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Current Status of Businesses........................................................................................................... 3 Types of Agritourism and Sales ...................................................................................................... 6 Land Use and Farm Products Sold............................................................................................... 10 Estimated Visits and Visitor Expenditures.................................................................................... 13 Promotional Methods Used .......................................................................................................... 15 Problems Faced by Agritourism Businesses ................................................................................. 18 Workshops, Conferences, and Tours Attended by Agritourism Business Operators.................... 19 Views by Agritourism Business Operators ................................................................................... 21 Projected Economic Impacts from Agritourism ........................................................................... 22 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 27 References ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 30 Appendix B: Answers to Text Questions..................................................................................... 40 v
List of Tables Table 1. Number of Full-, Part-Time, Seasonal, and Year Round Employees .............................. 5 Table 2. Types of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012......................................................... 7 Table 3. Share of Estimated Sales From Type of Agritourism Business, 2012............................ 10 Table 4. Farm Products Produced for Income on Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ....................... 12 Table 5. Visitor Expenditures Across Type of Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ........................... 14 Table 6. Promotional Methods Used by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 .................... 16 Table 7. Types of Business Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ........ 18 Table 8. Ratings of Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 .................... 19 Table 9. Views by Business Operators about Agritourism Business........................................... 21 Table 10. Projected Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Venues, 2012 ................... 23 Table 11. IMPLAN Sectors for Visitor Expenditures at Agritourism, 2012 ............................... 24 Table 12. Relative Share of Sales by Type of Agritourism and IMPLAN Sector ...................... 25 Table 13. Direct Values from Product Purchase by Visitors in IMPLAN Based on Relative
Income Shares and Expenditures .................................................................................................. 25 Table 14. Projected Economic Impacts from Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism
Sites, 2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 27 vi
List of Figures Figure 1. Status of Tennessee Businesses Contacted, 2012…………………………………... 3
Figure 2. Percentage of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses Open by Month, 2012…………. 5
Figure 3. Percentages of Businesses Open in January, by Type of Agritourism Attraction…. 6
Figure 4. Percent of Operations Having Agritourism Type, Ten Most Common Types, 2012 8
Figure 5. Gross Sales Revenues from Agritourism Businesses, 2011-2012………………….. 9
Figure 6. Sources of Income, 2012……………….……………….……………….…………. 9
Figure 7. Acreage Use on Agritourism Farms……………………………………………….. 10
Figure 8. Acreage Dedicated to Agritourism and All Farm Acres……………………………. 11
Figure 9. Average Visitor Expenditures on Tennessee Agritourism Operations as
Estimated by Business Operators, 2012……………………………………………………..... 13
Figure 10. Helpfulness of Workshops, Conferences, or Tours……………………………….. 20
vii
viii
A SNAPSHOT OF TENNESSEE AGRITOURISM: 2013 UPDATE
Introduction
Tennessee is in a unique position to participate in the agritourism industry with both the
agriculture and tourism industries contributing greatly to the state’s economy. Agritourism
provides Tennessee farmers a chance to build and diversify farm income by bringing the public
to the farm to purchase farm products and to learn about agriculture and enjoy recreational
activities. It also provides rural communities with the opportunity to gain additional economic
activity from tourism spending in their areas.
In 2003-2004, the University of Tennessee and the
Center for Profitable Agriculture, with support from the
Tennessee Agritourism Initiative partners, conducted a
survey of agritourism operators to obtain a snapshot of the
industry in the state (Jensen et al., 2005). Since that time,
the landscape and state of agritourism in Tennessee has
evolved. Resources have been invested in educational
programs, the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement CostShare Program (TAEP), and promotional programs to
potential consumers. In addition, changes in legislation and
lawsuits have altered the legal environment for agritourism
operators. New agritourism operations have been developed
and some existing operations have expanded or closed. As
agritourism operators and the Tennessee agritourism
industry partners plan for the future, it is important to have
an updated picture of where the industry stands now, almost
10 years from the previous study.
This study used results from a statewide survey
conducted in early 2013 to create a current profile of
1
Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program (TAEP), Producer Diversification TAEP is a cost share assistance program for long term investments in Tennessee’s livestock and farming operations. Cost share assistance is offered to Tennessee farmers, agricultural organizations and public farmers’ market entities. Agritourism is one focus area of the TAEP Producer Diversification Program. The program is administered by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. From 2005 to 2012, 188 agritourism projects received $1,362,572 in funding from the program. http://www.tn.gov/agriculture/enh
ancement/prod_divers.shtml agritourism, as well as potential issues that agritourism businesses face in startup or daily
operations. This information will be helpful in understanding the number and types of
agritourism enterprises that exist, challenges faced, assistance needed and ideas for future
programs. Based on the types of industries represented, economic impacts from visitor
expenditures at the agritourism operations across the state will also be projected. Specific objectives of this study are to:
•
Provide industry information needed for individual business planning and development,
local and state policy development and enforcement, and resource allocation;
•
Identify impacts and evaluate effectiveness of existing educational, cost-share, technical
assistance and promotion programs; and
•
Identify needs for future educational and technical assistance programs.
SurveyMethodsandData
Existing and potential Tennessee
agritourism businesses were identified
through the Tennessee Department of
Agriculture’s Pick Tennessee Products
listings and/or referrals from County
Extension agents across the state. A total of
450 contacts identified for the survey. The
first survey mailing occurred January 4,
2013, with a follow up reminder postcard
mailed January 15, 2013. A second mailing to those contacts who had not responded was
conducted January 24, 2013. Of the contacts, 9 percent were bad addresses or the contact was
deceased or out of business, leaving 429 viable contacts. In total, 171 responded, for an overall
response rate of 39.9 percent.
2
A copy of the survey instrument can be found in the Appendix A of this document. The
survey contained questions about several topics. The respondents were asked about their
current agritourism status and information regarding the characteristics of the agritourism
operations. They were also asked about estimates of visitor expenditures at their operations and
their overall income, including agritourism based, other farm based, and non-farm
income. Respondents were asked about how they market their agritourism attraction and types
of challenges they face. The data are summarized with mean responses for continuous
questions such age, while categorical responses, such as types of agritourism attractions are
summarized with percentages. Throughout this document, the letter “N” denotes the number of
responses to a particular question or set of questions.
Results
CurrentStatusofBusinesses
To discover the percentage of businesses contacted that were still operating as agritourism
businesses, the respondents were asked about the current status of their agritourism operations.
Figure 1 displays information about the current business status of the respondents contacted.
The majority contacted, 83.0 percent, were currently operating an agritourism business. Another
3.6 percent currently did not
Currently Operate
Agritourism Business
operate an agritourism business
but planned to in the future. An
3.6%
6.7% 6.7%
additional 6.7 percent had
Do Not Currently Operate
Agritourism, But Plan to in
Future
operated an agritourism
Do Not Currently Operate
Agritourism, Did in Past
83.0%
business but were no longer
doing so. About 6.7 percent
Do Not Currently Operate
Agritourism, Do Not Plan
to in Future
(N=165) did not operate an agritourism
business and had no plans to do
Figure 1. Status of Tennessee Businesses Contacted, 2012 so.
3
For those who were no longer in the agritourism business, they were asked why they had left
agritourism. The reasons why former agritourism operators were no longer in business included
that:

they just wanted to do something else,

they could not attract enough customers or make enough sales,

liability was too big of a risk,

they didn’t have enough help or cooperation from family,

illness, and

their local school systems stopped field trips.
A total of 10 cited some reason why they left agritourism, with these reasons being
distributed widely across the reasons above. However, the most common response (30%) was
that they could not attract enough customers or make sales. Among those currently operating an
agritourism business, they had been in business for an average of 11.4 years, while the median
was 9 years (N=132).
The average numbers of employees on agritourism operations, by employee type, are shown
in Table 1. Among all firms there was an average of 1.7 seasonal full-time employees, 4.5
seasonal part-time employees, 2.3 year round full-time employees, and 2.0 year round part-time
employees. The second column provides these averages only for the agritourism operations that
have these types of employees. For these operations, there was an average of 5.5 seasonal fulltime employees, 7.7 seasonal part-time employees, 3.7 year round full-time employees, and 4.8
year round part-time employees. Most firms appeared to use a combination of seasonal part-time
employees and year round full-time employees. If we assume part time employees work about 20
hours a week and use the information that the average operation is open 180.9 days per year,
then the average number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis would be 5.3=
4
[(1.7+4.5*.5)*180.9 + (2.3+2.0*.5)*365]/365. Across the 510 agribusiness firms statewide
according to the 2007 Census, this would be about 2,703 employees statewide.1
Table 1. Number of Full‐, Part‐Time, Seasonal, and Year Round Employees Average Number of Employees Operations Percent with Employee Type All Operations with Employee Employee Type (N=125) Type (N=125) Seasonal Employees Full time 1.7 5.5 (N=39) 31.2% Part time 4.5 7.7 (N=73) 58.4% Year Round Employees Full time 2.3 3.7 (N=77) 61.6% Part time 2.0 4.8 (N=53) 42.4% On average, the firms were open 180.9 days per year (N=130). Figure 2 shows the percent of
the firms that were open in particular months of the year. The month in which the highest
percentage of agritourism
operations was open was
October at 74.8 percent-likely reflecting importance of
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
Fall-oriented activities and
school field trip visits. Not
surprisingly, January was the
month with the lowest
percentage of businesses
being open (31.8 percent).
1
20.0%
71.1%
60.7%64.4% 59.2% 74.8%
62.2%
57.0%
62.2%
51.9%
41.5%
34.1%
31.8%
0.0%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2. Percentage of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses Open by Month, 2012 The 2007 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 510 farms providing agritourism and
recreational services. The 2012 Census is ongoing and economic impacts projections could
change with the new estimates of the number of agritourism operations when available.
5
Whether the attraction was open in January was compared across types of attractions. Those
businesses for which at least 25 percent were open in January are shown in Figure 3. Notably,
% Open in Jan
those with wineries, music, bed and breakfasts, horseback riding were most likely to be open.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
87.5%
64.3% 66.7%
38.7%
42.9% 44.4%
50.0%
29.8% 30.3% 31.3% 31.8%
25.0% 27.3%
Type of Agritourism Attraction
N=132 Figure 3. Percentages of Businesses Open in January, by Type of Agritourism Attraction TypesofAgritourismandSales
As seen in Table 2, among the firms currently operating an agritourism business, the most
common types of businesses were on-farm retail markets, school field trips/tours, event hosting,
pick-your-own operations, hayride or wagon rides, and farm tours other than school field trips,
on-farm gift shops, weddings, other family fun activities, and pumpkin patches. The
percentages of farms having one or more of the ten most common types of businesses are shown
in Figure 4. Over 40 percent of the firms had on-farm retail businesses and/or hosted school
field trips. Some of the least common types of agritourism businesses were on-farm fee fishing,
horseback riding, music/theatre, and ziplines. Over 30 percent had event hosting and/or pickyour-own operations. Among other types of attractions reported that were not listed as options in
6
the survey question were historical settlements, Amish stores, bakeries, dinners, gardens,
greenhouses, guest ranches, museums, grain mill and museum, playgrounds, and traveling zoos.
On average, the respondents had 4.7 types of attractions. The median number of attractions was
4 (N=134). The percentages in Table 2 are similar to those found in the 2003/2004 study of
Tennessee agritourism (Jensen et al. 2005).
Table 2. Types of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 Type of Agritourism Business On Farm Retail Market (Offering Farm Products) School Field Trips/Tours Event Hosting – Birthday Parties, Corporate Event, Etc. Pick‐Your‐Own Operation Hayride Or Wagon Ride Farm Tours Other Than School Field Trips On‐Farm Gift Shop Event Hosting – Weddings Other Family Fun Activities Pumpkin Patch Farm Animal Exhibit On‐Farm Food Service, Concessions, Café, Or Restaurant On‐Farm Workshops Or Classes Maze (Corn, Sorghum, Hay) Farm Animal Petting Other Major Attraction Winery On‐Farm Bed & Breakfast Or Other Lodging Cut‐Your‐Own Christmas Trees Haunted Attraction Day Camp On‐Farm Camping On‐Farm Fee Fishing On‐Farm Horseback Riding Music Concerts Or Contests, Theatre Shows, Plays, Etc. Zipline 7
Percent of Respondents (N=134) 43.3% 41.8% 35.8% 32.8% 29.1% 26.1% 24.6% 23.9% 20.9% 20.1% 19.4% 17.9% 16.4% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 12.7% 11.2% 9.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.0% 6.0% 5.2% 4.5% 2.2% 50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
43.3%
41.8%
35.8%
32.8%
29.1%
26.1%
24.6%
23.9%
20.9%
20.1%
(N=134)
Figure 4. Percent of Operations Having Agritourism Type, Ten Most Common Types, 2012 The percentages of businesses that had sales within the given sales categories for 2011 and
2012 are shown in Figure 5. For both 2011 and 2012, over 14% had sales of less than $2,500. A
group of firms constituting about 18-20% of firms have sales of $10,000-$24,999. About 1415% of firms have $250,000 or more in sales. Comparing 2012 with 2011, the percent in the top
two largest sales categories fell, while the percentages in the smallest and moderate size
($10,000-$24,999) rose. If the mid-points of the sales categories are used as sales estimates and
$1,000,000 is used as the top category, the average sales is projected at $135,302.70, while the
median value is $17,500 reflecting the large number of relatively small operations.
8
25.0%
20.0%
15.0% 13.6%
10.0%
20.3%
19.2%
14.8%
14.8%
16.0%
12.0%11.7%
10.2%
10.4%
7.2%6.3%
10.9%
11.2%
5.6% 4.7%
5.0%
6.3%
4.8%
0.0%
2011
(N=125 for 2011, N=128 for 2012) 2012
Figure 5. Gross Sales Revenues from Agritourism Businesses, 2011‐2012 Percent of Income
The businesses surveyed received
about 40.8 percent of their income from
agritourism (Figure 6). While over 26
percent was derived from other farm
sources, and nearly 31.0 percent was
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
derived from off-farm sources. Only
40.8%
26.8%
Agritourism Other Farm
Sources
about 16.0 percent of the respondents
30.9%
Nonfarm
Sources
(N=119) relied solely on income from agritourism.
Figure 6. Sources of Income, 2012 9
Table 3. Share of Estimated Sales From Type of Agritourism Business, 2012 Percent of Sales Among those With Business Type 87.1 75.0 46.2 Type of Business Winery (N=16) Christmas Trees (N=10) On‐Farm Retail Markets (N=48) Pick‐Your‐Own (N=30) 44.8 Pumpkin Patch (N=10) 28.3 Corn Maze (N=10) 28.3 Survey respondents were asked to
Other Family Fun (N=11) 22.2 indicate what percentage of their sales
School Field Trips (N=37) 19.3 On‐Farm Food (N=16) 16.8 came from each attraction type in their
Classes or Workshops (N=12) 15.8 agritourism enterprise. As can be seen
Weddings (N=20) 13.7 in Table 3, those with wineries
Gift Shop (N=20) 13.8 Hayride (N=16) 10.1 estimated that 87.1 percent of their
Tours (N=22) 9.4 sales came from the winery itself. For
Event Hosting (N=30) 7.1 Christmas tree operations, the share from Christmas trees was 75.0 percent. On-farm retail
markets estimated sales from the market part of the operation was 46.2 percent. Operations with
pick-your-owns indicated 44.8 percent of sales came from that activity. Pumpkin patches, corn
mazes, other family fun, school trips, on-farm food, classes, gift shops, hayrides, tours, and event
hosting all appeared to be part of more diversified operations sales-wise. Attraction types with
less than ten enterprises responding were not included in Table 3.
LandUseandFarmProductsSold
Other Uses, 208, 83.2%
Agrito
urism, 42.5, 16.8%
The average number of acres per farm involved in
agritourism businesses were 42.0 acres and the median
number of acres was 12 acres (N=115). The average
number of all acres on farms involved in agritourism are
(N=115) Figure 7. Acreage Use on Agritourism Farms 250.0, while the median farm acres was 73 (N=115).
10
Using the average number of acres per farm and the average number of acres involved in
agritourism, the number of acres directly involved in the agritourism portion of the farms
represented 16.8 percent of total acres (Figure 7).
The acreage dedicated to agritourism and all farm acreage were classified into size categories
and percentages in each size category were calculated as shown in Figure 8. Notably, many
producers had more than 105 acres on their farm (43.9 percent), but many also dedicated 15 or
less acres to agritourism (51.6 percent). Farms with less than 15 total acres accounted for 12.2
percent of respondents. The average share of acres on farms dedicated to agritourism is 63.1
percent, but the median was much lower at 20 percent (N=115).
Percent in Acreage Category
60.0%
51.6%
50.0%
43.9%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
16.9%
12.2% 12.2%
12.2%
8.9%
3.3% 5.7%
1.6%
8.9%
4.8%
2.4%
0.0%
Total Acres
3.2%9.7%
2.4%
Agritourism Acres
<15
15 to 29
30 to 44
45 to 59
60 to 74
75 to 89
90 to 104
105 and greater
Figure 8. Acreage Dedicated to Agritourism and All Farm Acres
Most agritourism operators, 81.0 percent, produced and sold a product from their farm for
income purposes (N=133). As shown in Table 4, a variety of farm products were produced on
the farm for income. Most common agricultural crops produced were berries (other than
strawberries) at 27.1 percent, pumpkins (24.8 percent), vegetables (20.3 percent), and corn (19.5
percent). For livestock, about one fifth of the farmers sold cattle and calves for income. Other
11
products constituted about 15.0 percent. Other products not provided in the list of choices on the
survey included alpacas, broom corn, daylilies, fish (for example trout or salmon), herbs,
flowers, loufah sponges, milo, pheasants, rabbits, sweet sorghum, stone ground corn meal, valueadded soap and candles, wheat straw, and wine. This was followed by eggs at 9.8 percent and
goats at 8.3 percent.
Table 4. Farm Products Produced for Income on Agritourism Businesses, 2012 % Producing Crops (N=133) Livestock and Other Blueberries, Blackberries or 27.1% Cattle and Calves Raspberries Pumpkins 24.8% Other Vegetables 20.3% Eggs Corn 19.5% Goats Grapes 15.8% Timber Hay 14.3% Sheep Greenhouse/ Nursery Plants 12.8% Honey Soybeans 10.5% Poultry Strawberries 9.8% Hogs Apples Christmas Trees Wheat Other Fruit Peaches Cotton Tobacco 9.0% 8.3% 8.3% 6.7% 5.3% 2.3% 2.3% Dairy Products % Producing (N=133) 21.8% 15.0% 9.8% 8.3% 7.5% 6.8% 6.0% 6.0% 4.5% 3.8% 12
EstimatedVisitsandVisitorExpenditures
As part of the survey, the agritourism
business operators were asked about their
estimates of how much visitors spend, on
4.2%
3.1%
15.9%
average, at their attractions. On average,
13.4%
63.4%
overall expenditures by visitors were
$35.12 per visit (N=105). Expenditures
Admission
Purchases of Products
over $1,000 were omitted since the
Concessions
Souvenirs
majority of the expenditures represent
Other
smaller amounts. The percentages of
visitor expenditures by type are shown in
Figure 9. Over 63 percent of expenditures
by visitors were estimated to come from
purchases of products from the farm.
Admissions accounted for 13.4 percent of
expenditures, while souvenirs were about
4.2 percent, and concessions were around
3.1 percent. Other types of expenditures
were about 15.9 percent. Other
Admission
Purchases of Products
Concessions
Souvenirs
Other Total Do Not Charge Charge Overall Admission Admission
$4.69
$12.95 $0.00 $22.25
$4.08 $32.56 $1.10
$1.48
$5.60 $35.12 $1.47 $1.54 $0.15 $20.19 $0.89 $1.44 $8.70 $43.59 Figure 9. Average Visitor Expenditures on Tennessee Agritourism Operations as Estimated by Business Operators, 2012
expenditures encompassed activities not included in admission, lodging, additional trips, and
workshop fees. The median expenditure was $20. About 36.2 percent of the firms charged an
admission fee. Among those charging admission fees, the average expenditure was $20.19, while
among those not charging admission fees, the average expenditure was $43.59. For those
businesses charging an admission, average admission expenditure was about $12.95 or 64.2% of
visitor expenditures. Among those businesses that did not charge admission, about $32.56 or
74.7% of visitor expenditures were on purchases of products, while this number was $4.08 or
20.2% for those charging admission.
Expenditure values can be compared with the 2003 study of agritourism businesses. Using
those with estimated expenditures of less than $75 which was 90 percent of the 2003/2004
13
sample, the average expenditure was $18.45. Using these same criteria, the average expenditure
among those spending less than $75 (86.0 percent of the sample), was $19.49 very similar to the
value of the prior study.
As can be seen in Table 5, if an agritourism business had a certain type of business, this
tended to influence the level of visitor expenditure. For example, venues with on-farm fee
fishing, other attractions, classes or workshops, bed and breakfasts or lodging, other family fun,
or event hosting tended to have higher average per visitor expenditures as estimated by the
business owners. Among those with the lowest visitor expenditures were corn mazes, ziplines,
haunted attractions, and petting zoos. It is important to note that many agritourism businesses
included several types of attractions, so these averages simply represent those across whether or
not they had that type of attraction. As an example, on average visitors spent $66.53 per person
at agritourism businesses which offered on-farm classes, while on average visitors spent $30.12
at agritourism businesses which did not offer on-farm classes.
Table 5. Visitor Expenditures Across Type of Agritourism Businesses, 2012 Type of Attraction On‐Farm Fee Fishing On‐Farm Workshops or Classes Other Attractions On‐Farm Bed and Breakfast/Lodging Other Family Fun Activities Event Hosting‐Birthdays, Corporate Events, Etc. On‐Farm Retail Market Event Hosting ‐Weddings On‐Farm Camping Pumpkin Patch Winery Music Concerts or Contests, Theatre Shows, Etc. Cut‐Your‐Own Christmas Trees On‐Farm Gift Shop School Field Trips/Tours Day Camp 14
Expenditure per Visitor Across Whether Business Has Type of Attraction (N=103) Yes No $122.17 $30.05 $66.53 $30.12 $64.17 $30.90 $56.43 $33.89 $41.00 $33.82 $38.83 $33.43 $36.30 $34.70 $34.90 $35.59 $34.80 $35.45 $34.02 $35.82 $31.91 $36.02 $27.80 $35.81 $26.30 $36.40 $23.23 $39.54 $21.86 $39.77 $18.30 $36.50 Table 5. Continued. Expenditure per Visitor Across Whether Business Has Type of Attraction (N=103) Yes No $17.36 $44.72 $17.31 $39.52 $17.04 $40.41 $14.86 $36.25 $14.05 $39.64 $12.24 $40.33 $12.00 $35.88 $11.25 $37.46 Type of Attraction Pick‐Your‐Own Operation On‐Farm Food Service, Concessions, Etc. Farm Animal Exhibits Horseback Riding Petting Zoo Corn Maze Zipline Haunted Attractions Overall, the business operators estimated they had 15,932 visits per operation per year
(N=110). Across the responding operations, the total visits is 1,752,520 (N=110). The median
number of visits was 1,000 visits per year, suggesting that the majority of operations fell toward
the smaller number of visits. The median of 1,000 visits per year is the same as that from the
prior study in 2003/2004 (Jensen et al., 2005). If the number of visitors is compared across
whether the operations were open more than 180 days out of the year, those open fewer days had
5,434 visitors on average, while those open more than 180 had an average of 30,537 visitors.
If the average number of visitors are multiplied by the average expenditure in Figure 9, then
the overall expenditures per operation can be estimated (15,932 x $35.12= $559,531.80 per
operation). If the median number of visitors (1,000) and median expenditure per visitor ($20.00)
are used then the estimate of overall expenditures per operation at the medians is $20,000 per
operation. PromotionalMethodsUsed
As can be seen from Table 6, the most commonly used forms of promotion were a business’s
website, followed by use of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture’s Pick Tennessee Products
program, a business’s Facebook page, road signs, brochures, email, the TN Vacation Guide,
newspaper, and the local Chamber of Commerce.
15
Table 6. Promotional Methods Used by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 Promotional Method Website Pick Tennessee Products Facebook Business Page Road Signs Brochures Email TN Vacation Guide Newspaper Chamber of Commerce Festivals Regional, county or local tourism guides or websites
Radio Advertising Tennessee Agritourism Association Membership Tennessee Farm Fresh Program News Releases Coupons Other Billboards On‐line deals (Groupon, Social Living)
Point of Sale Samples Mailings Television Advertising Twitter Agritourismsworld.com Sponsorships/partnership marketing
Facebook Ads Google Ads Pinterest Blogs Media Days Percent Using (N=133) 82.7% 65.2% 60.2% 56.4% 53.4% 45.9% 42.9% 42.1% 41.4% 36.8% 30.8% 25.6% 24.4% 23.3% 20.3% 18.8% 16.5% 15.8% 15.8% 13.5% 12.8% 12.0% 10.5% 9.8% 9.8% 6.8% 6.0% 6.0% 5.3% 3.8% Other forms of promotion listed by the business operators were word of mouth, Local Table,
food fairs, wine trail, local festivals, local farmers markets, hosting free events such as Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Wall, Christmas tree growers associations, AHS website advertising,
festivals, magazines, American Herbalist Guild listing, vacation lodging sites, movie theater
video commercial ad that ran before every movie, and NC and Appalachian Trail courses.
16
Tennessee Agritourism Association The mission of the Association is to promote quality growth and development of agritourism inTennessee. The Association arose through the Tennessee Agritourism Initiative spearheaded by the Tennessee Departments of Agriculture, Tourist Development, and Economic and Community Development, University of Tennessee Extension and the Tennessee Farm Bureau federation. The members of this association have voluntarily associated themselves together in an organization to carry out the following purposes a) Provide informational, networking, educational, and other activities that support agritourism operations, and b) Promote the growth of agritourism throughout the State of Tennessee. http://tennesseeagritourism.org/TNFarms/. The businesses were asked if their venue was promoted by Pick Tennessee Products, the
Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh program, by what percent they
estimate the promotional assistance influenced their agritourism sales in 2012. About 79.7
percent had used one or more of these services. The average change in sales was a 9.3 percent
increase in 2012 (N=104). Using the midpoint of the 2012 sales category (for example $25,000
to $49,999 is $37,500) and multiplying each by the estimated percent change provides an
estimate of change in sales. The estimated average change in sales due to the promotion is
$13,435.60 (N=102) and the median is $1,031.25. If the value of $13,435.60 is used along with
79.7 percent of firms using these services, across the 510 agritourism businesses statewide (2007
Census of Agriculture) the projected 2012 sales impact is about $5,461,168.
Pick Tennessee Products The Pick Tennessee Products program is administered by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. The program assists farmers/producers as well as manufacturers/processors that produce fresh agricultural products or food products with promotion and marketing under the Pick Tennessee Products logo. http://www.picktnproducts.org/index.html Tennessee Farm Fresh Tennessee Farm Fresh is a specialized program in cooperation with the Tennessee Farm Bureau and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. This program is in place o assist producers market their Farm Fresh products and to assist in educating consumers on how to find them. http://www.tnfarmfresh.com/
17
ProblemsFacedbyAgritourismBusinesses
Table 7 displays results regarding which issues were considered to be problems faced by the
agritourism businesses. Problems experienced by at least half the businesses included attracting
customers to visit, deciding how to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current
with new promotion, developing advertising, identifying target customers, and keeping and
evaluating records.
Table 7. Types of Business Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 Percent Considering Issue N Issue as a Problem Attracting customers to visit 125 71.2 Deciding how to promote business 128 71.1 Capital for infrastructure 132 68.2 Staying current with new promotion 126 66.7 Developing advertising 128 60.1 Identifying target customers 125 57.5 Keeping and evaluating records 132 53.0 Finding employees 128 48.4 Dealing with increased competition 129 45.0 Obtaining liability insurance 130 43.1 Obtaining permission for roadside signage 131 40.5 Maintaining visitor safety 131 40.5 Training and managing employees 128 38.3 Understanding labor regulations 128 32.8 Scheduling tours 128 30.5 Obtaining financing 128 29.7 Scheduling employees 127 29.9 Obtaining required permits 126 27.8 Providing excellent customer service 138 25.0 Facing challenges with local zoning 129 20.2 Meeting health department requirements 128 18.0 Maintaining good relationships with neighbors 130 17.7 Working with family members 129 16.3 In Table 8, results are presented regarding the seriousness of the problem believed by
those to be an issue. The issue which rated as a moderate to serious problem was obtaining
permission for roadside signage. This was followed by obtaining financing, liability insurance,
capital for infrastructure, and finding employees. Examples of additional problems not on the
18
list provided in the survey included access to resources, such as county water, additional land,
road access, building cash flow during off season, competing with large retailers, a slowed
economy, weather issues, and wildlife issues. For a listing of additional problems, see Appendix
B at the end of this document.
Table 8. Ratings of Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 Rating (1=somewhat, Issue N 2=moderate, 3=serious) Obtaining permission for roadside signage 53 2.2 Obtaining financing 38 1.9 Obtaining liability insurance 56 1.9 Capital for infrastructure 90 1.8 Finding employees 62 1.8 Attracting customers to visit 89 1.7 Deciding how to promote business 91 1.7 Developing advertising 77 1.7 Obtaining required permits 35 1.6 Facing challenges with local zoning 26 1.6 Identifying target customers 73 1.5 Training and managing employees 49 1.5 Dealing with increased competition 58 1.4 Understanding labor regulations 42 1.4 Scheduling tours 39 1.4 Scheduling employees 38 1.4 Meeting health department requirements 23 1.4 Staying current with new promotion 84 1.3 Keeping and evaluating records 70 1.3 Maintaining good relationships with neighbors 23 1.3 Working with family members 21 1.3 Maintaining visitor safety 53 1.3 Providing excellent customer service 32 1.2 Workshops,Conferences,andToursAttendedbyAgritourismBusiness
Operators
Nearly 63 percent of the business operators had attended an agritourism or direct marketing
workshop, conference, or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for
19
Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last 3 years (N=132). All
respondents who attended found the workshop, conference, or tour helpful on some level. As
shown in Figure 10, about 59.8 percent found the events very helpful, while 31.7 percent found
them somewhat helpful (N=82). Among those attending, the average estimate of percent of their
agritourism sales in 2012 that were influenced by the information and/or assistance they obtained
from the educational events they attended in the last 3 years was a 19.9 percent increase (N=77).
Using the midpoint of the 2012 sales category (for example $25,000 to $49,999 is $37,500) and
multiplying each by the estimated percent change provides an estimate of change in sales. The
estimate of the change in sales due to workshop participation is $23,516.67 on average (N=72).
The median value is $3,500. If the mean value of $23,516.67 is multiplied by 63 percent
attending and the 510 farms reported to be in agritourism (2007 Census of Agriculture), the total
projected value to agritourism operators from workshop participation would be about
$7,555,906.
When asked how they would use information learned from workshops, conferences, or tours,
a variety of responses were provided. These are listed in detail in Appendix B of this document.
However, many cited being more capable to
deal with business issues, such as marketing,
8.5%
31.7%
(N=82)
online/social networking presence, hiring and
managing employees, logistics management,
signage development and permission,
obtaining insurance, and dealing with laws,
Very helpful
59.8%
Somewhat
helpful
Slightly
helpful
regulations, and taxes.
Figure 10. Helpfulness of Workshops, Conferences, or Tours 20
Agritourism Education Educational programs for farmers interested in agritourism and agritourism have been held frequently in Tennessee since 2003. The educational programs have been made possible through the funds and efforts of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, the Center for Profitable Agriculture, the Tennessee Farm Bureau, USDA Rural Development, the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development, Tennessee Agritourism Association and other supporting organizations. Seven multi‐day, state‐wide conferences have been held in various parts of the state, and two, three‐day tours of operations in multiple states have been offered. In addition, many regional and local workshops and tours focusing on issues important to the success of agritourism and direct marketing operations have been held. Educational publications related to agritourism and direct marketing have also been developed. For more information about educational opportunities for agritourism operators visit https://ag.tennessee.edu or contact the Center for Profitable Agriculture at [email protected]. The respondents were also asked about suggestions for future educational events. A detailed
listing of these responses is also provided in Appendix B. Examples of some of the responses
included, understanding new health insurance changes, serving bus tours, festivals setup and
management, having more local speakers and leaders in specific segments of the industry,
breakout sessions according to level of experience, laws and regulations compliance, help
applying for grants, facilities tours, and industry segment specific information. ViewsbyAgritourismBusinessOperators
As shown by level of agreement with statements about agritourism in Table 9, the agritourism
operators appeared to be optimistic about the future of agritourism, planned to attract more
customers, and expected to increase sales. The respondents somewhat disagreed with the
statement that they would exit agritourism in the next 5 years.
Table 9. Views by Business Operators about Agritourism Business Statement About Agritourism Business My goals include attracting more customers over the next 2 years (N=133) I am optimistic about the future of the agritourism industry in Tennessee (N=134) I expect my sales to increase in the future (N=133) My agritourism operation is successful (N=133) I plan to expand the number of products (N=133) My agritourism operation is profitable (N=128) I expect to hire more employees in 2013 than I did in 2012 (N=133) I plan to exit the agritourism business in the next 5 years (N=132) a Strongly Disagree=1, Somewhat Disagree=2, No Opinion=3, Somewhat Agree=4, Strongly Agree=5 21
Agreementa 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.8 2.6 The respondents were asked
what the most limiting factors that
may prevent them from reaching
goals for their agritourism
operations were. A detailed listing
is provided in Appendix B. Some
cited personal characteristics, such
as their age or lack of family
members to pass the business on to,
others cited business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs. Others listed issues
particular to their local area such as competition, school trip policies, lack of community
support, and being located in very rural areas away from large populations. Others cited
natural events, such as weather and pests.
The respondents were also asked what one resource, information, or assistance they would
most need to reach their goals for their agritourism operation. A detailed listing is provided in
Appendix B. Several listed additional promotional assistance, additional TAEP grant money,
horticultural Extension assistance, business training such as record and bookkeeping, managing
labor issues, and financial help, such as low interest loans to develop new attractions.
ProjectedEconomicImpactsfromAgritourism
The 2007 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 510 farms providing agritourism and
recreational services and is used in making statewide economic impacts projections. Because the
medians and means for visits per operation and expenditures per operation differ widely, it was
decided to break down the firms into those falling at or above the median of 1,000 visits and
those have below 1,000 visits. As shown in Table 10, mean expenditures by category were
calculated for these two sizes of firms. The 510 firms was then multiplied by the percent falling
at or above 1,000 visitors (60.6 percent) and below 1,000 visitors (39.4 percent ) to project 309
22
firms falling in the larger visits category and 201 in the smaller visits category. The median of
visits among the firms with at least 1,000 visits was 5,000, while the median of visits among
firms with less than 1,000 visits was 200. The projected number of firms in each category and
the median number of visits were used for each category, along with the mean expenditures for
both categories of firms to arrive at estimates of statewide expenditures for both firm categories.
Table 10. Projected Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Venues, 2012 Type of Expenditure Admission Statewide Total Expenditure Projections Per Person Expenditures ≥1000 Visits $3.70 <1000 Visits $6.17 ≥1000 Visits $5,716,500 <1000 Visits $248,034 All $5,964,534 Purchases of Products $12.83 $36.38 $19,822,350 $1,462,476 $21,284,826 Concessions $1.23 $0.92 $1,900,350 $36,984 Souvenirs $1.48 $1.48 $2,286,600 $59,496 Other $1.42 $11.88 $2,193,900 $477,576 Total $20.66 $56.83 $31,919,700 $2,284,566 $1,937,334 $2,346,096 $2,671,476 $34,204,266 *Per person expenditures multiplied by median number of visitors for each size category (5,000
visitors and 200 visitors) and projected number of firms (309 firms and 201 firms).
In order to project the economic impacts of these visitors’ on-site expenditures, the total
expenditures and expenditures by category were used with IMPLAN. As shown in Table 11,
admission or user fees expenditures were classified as IMPLAN sector 410, Other Amusement
and Recreation. Other food and drink was classified as sector 413, Food Service and Drinking
Places, and non-food souvenir items as sector 329, Retail Stores-General Merchandise. Because
many of the respondents indicated that their other expenditures were for games and activities
inside the venue, other was classified as 410, Other Amusement and Recreation.
23
Table 11. IMPLAN Sectors for Visitor Expenditures at Agritourism, 2012 Type of Expenditure Admission Purchases of Products Concessions Souvenirs Other Total IMPLAN Sector 410, Other Amusement & Recreation See Table 12 413, Food Service And Drinking Places 329, Retail Stores ‐ General Merchandise 410, Other Amusement & Recreation Purchases of specific types of products were not asked in the survey. However, the farm
operators were asked about the shares of sales they derived from various types of agritourism
operations (See Table 3). These values were re-calculated for all firms, not just those with that
type of operation, and then across firms with at least 1,000 visits and those firms having less than
1,000 visits.
Those firms with at least 1,000 visits had about 18.8 percent of their sales from on-farm retail
markets, 6.1 percent from pick-your-own, 6.8 percent from cut-your-own Christmas trees, 4.8
percent from corn mazes, 4.4 percent from pumpkin patches, and 20.9 percent from wineries.
The shares relative to each other (found by summing to get a total from these types of products
and taking the share to each specific type of product) are calculated and are in the third column
of Table 12. Those firms with less than 1,000 visits had about 25.6 percent of their sales from
on-farm retail markets, 19.8 percent from pick-your-own, 9.5 percent from cut-your-own
Christmas trees, .6 percent from corn mazes, 2.0 percent from pumpkin patches, and 4.6 percent
from wineries. The shares relative to each other (found by summing to get a total from these
types of products and taking the share to each specific type of product) are calculated and are in
the fourth column of Table 12.
Based upon the relative sales shares, direct total industry output shares were assigned for
products purchased from on farm-retail markets (half assigned to fruit farming, IMPLAN sector
4, and half assigned to vegetable farming, IMPLAN sector 3), wineries (sector 72), pick-yourown (assigned to fruit farming, IMPLAN sector 4), cut-your-own Christmas trees (sector 6),
pumpkin patches (assigned to vegetable farming, sector 3), and corn mazes (sector 2, grain
farming). The relative shares to each of these sectors is multiplied by the projection of statewide
24
expenditures on product purchases to get the projected amount allocated to each type of
purchased product, shown in Table 13.
Table 12. Relative Share of Sales by Type of Agritourism and IMPLAN Sector Share of All Sales ≥1000 <1000 Type of Business Visits Visits On‐Farm Retail 18.8% 25.6% Market Pick‐Your‐Own 6.1% 19.8% Christmas Trees 6.8% 9.5% Corn Maze Pumpkin Patch Winery Percent of Overall Sales 4.8% 4.4% 20.9% 61.8% 0.6% 2.0% 4.6% 62.1% Relative Shares ≥1000 Visits 30.4%
9.9%
11.0%
7.8%
7.1%
33.8%
100.0%
<1000 Visits IMPLAN Sector Allocation 41.2% 50% to 4, Fruit Farming & 50% to 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 31.9% 4, Fruit Farming 15.3% 6, Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production 1.0% 2, Grain Farming 3.2% 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 7.4% 72, Wineries 100.0% IMPLAN Sector 2, Grain Farming 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 4, Fruit Farming 6, Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production 72, Wineries IMPLAN Sector Shares ≥1000 Visitors <1000 Visitors 7.8% 1.0% 22.3% 23.8% 25.1% 52.5% 11.0% 15.3% 33.8% 7.4% Table 13. Direct Values from Product Purchase by Visitors in IMPLAN Based on Relative Income Shares and Expenditures IMPLAN Sector <1000 Visits $14,625 All $1,560,768 $4,420,384 $348,069 $4,768,453 4, Fruit Farming $4,975,410 $767,800 $5,743,210 6, Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production 72, Wineries Products Purchases Total $2,180,459 $223,759 $2,404,217 $6,699,954 $19,822,350 $108,223 $1,462,476 $6,808,178 $21,284,826 2, Grain Farming ≥1000 Visits
$1,546,143 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 25
The direct value of output by Tennessee agritourism firm generated from visitor expenditures
is then projected using an economic input/output model for Tennessee. Each projected statewide
expenditure type, as assigned in Tables 12 and 13 are input into the IMPLAN economic
input/output model for the state. IMPLAN employs a regional social accounting system and can
be used to generate a set of balanced economic/social accounts and multipliers. Output from the
model includes descriptive measures of the economy including total industry output,
employment, and value-added for over 400 industries in the Tennessee economy.
Total industry output is defined as the value of production by industry per year. Employment
represents total wage and salary employees, as well as self-employed jobs in a region, for both
full-time and part-time workers. Total value added is defined as all income to worker paid by
employers; self-employed income; interests, rents, royalties, dividends, and profit payments; and
excise and sales taxes paid by individuals to businesses. Labor income includes employee
compensation and proprietor income. Employee compensation is the total payroll cost of the
employee paid by the employer and includes wage and salary, all benefits and employer-paid
payroll taxes. Proprietor income consists of payments received by self-employed individuals and
unincorporated business owners.
Direct effects measure the response for a given industry given a change in final demand for
that same industry. Indirect effects represent the response by all local industries from a change in
final demand for a specific industry. Induced effects represent the response by all local industries
caused by increased (decreased) expenditures of new household income and inter-institutional
transfers generated (lost) from the direct and indirect effects of the change in final demand for a
specific industry. Total effects are the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects.
The direct total industry output measures derived from the last column of Table 10 are
inputted for direct total industry output for each industry, with their total being in the first
row/column under the output heading of Table 14. The IMPLAN model is then used to
estimate indirect and induced effects for output, as well as employment, labor income, and
value-added and results displayed in Table 14.
26
Table 14. Projected Economic Impacts from Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Sites, 2012 Impact Type Output* Employment Labor Income Value Added Direct Effect $34,204,266 521.6 $6,667,271 $16,453,265 Indirect Effect $11,110,860 110.6 $3,825,647 $5,976,994 Induced Effect Total Effect $8,919,503 $54,234,629 71.8 704.0 $3,101,216 $13,594,135 $5,306,751 $27,737,011 *Based on visitor expenditures as estimated by the business operators.
As can be seen in Table 14, the on-site visitor expenditures at agritourism businesses directly
contribute $34.2 million to the state’s economy. When multiplier effects are included, these onsite visitor expenditures contribute $54.2 million. These estimates are larger than those derived
from an earlier study of Tennessee agritourism visitor expenditure impacts, with between $16
and $17 million in direct effects estimated as part of that study (Jensen et al., 2006). The industry
employs 522 directly due to visitor expenditures, and with multiplier effects, the employment
increases to 704 jobs. Expenditures at agritourism facilities generate about $6.7 million in labor
income directly and $13.6 million with multiplier effects included. These expenditures generate
$16.4 million in value-added directly and $27.7 million with multiplier effects. It is important to
note that, as shown in Figure 5, only about 40.8 percent of the owners’ incomes were generated
from agritourism sources. Moreover, 27 percent of their income was derived from other farm
sources. This means that economic impacts from visitor expenditures are really only part of the
economic impacts that accrue from the farming operations at which agritourism attractions are
held.
SummaryandConclusions
The purpose of this study was to provide an updated snapshot of the Tennessee agritourism
industry. To obtain data for the analysis, agritourism operators were surveyed by mail in early
2013. A variety of agritourism attractions were represented, from on-farm retail markets, to
school tours, to weddings, and to wineries. The business operators promoted their venues in
several ways, including online and through social media, as well as signs and print methods such
as brochures and newspapers. Many agritourism operators had participated in state-sponsored
27
promotion and assistance and promotion programs and they projected this assistance helped their
sales by over 9.3 percent. Many had also participated in workshops or conferences and believed
this assistance has helped boost their sales by nearly 20 percent.
The most cited types of business problems faced by these businesses included deciding how
to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current with new promotion, developing
advertising, identifying target customers, attracting customers to visit, keeping and evaluating
records, and finding employees.
When asked about their views on agritourism, must had the goal of attracting new customers
over the next 2 years, were optimistic about the future of the industry, and expected their sales to
increase in the future. Examples of limiting factors noted by the respondents were personal
characteristics, such as their age or lack of family members to pass the business on to, or
business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs.
The visitor expenditures at agritourism attractions have projected statewide economic
impacts of over $34 million directly, and with multiplier effects, over $54 million. These visitor
expenditure impacts only represent a portion of the economic impacts that may result from these
farms since many of the operators also relied on other sources of farm income.
28
References
Jensen, K., G. Dawson, M. Bruch, J. Menard, and B. English. 2005. Agri-tourism in Tennessee:
Current Status and Future Growth, 2003-2004. Report to the Tennessee Agri-Tourism
Steering Committee. Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Internet site: http://aimag.ag.utk.edu/pubs/agritour.pdf.
Jensen, K., C. Lindborg, B. English, and J. Menard. 2006. Visitors to Tennessee Agri-tourism
Attractions: Demographics, Preferences, Expenditures, and Projected Economic Impacts.
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee. Internet site:
http://web.utk.edu/~aimag/pubs/research%20report%20visitors%20surveys3.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. 2007
Census of Agriculture: Tennessee. Internet site:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_St
ate_Level/Tennessee/tnv1.pdf
29
AppendixA:SurveyInstrument
30
Calling All Tennessee Agritourism Operators – Help Create a New Snapshot of Tennessee Agritourism The purpose of this survey is to create a current profile of Tennessee agritourism. This information will be helpful in understanding how many and what types of enterprises exist, the economic impact to the state, challenges faced, assistance needed and ideas for future programs. You were identified as a Tennessee agritourism operator. Please take approximately 10 minutes to complete this survey and return it by mail in the postage paid envelope. The survey must only be completed by an individual 18 years old or older. Participation is voluntary, and participants will not be identified. Responses are confidential and will not be connected with specific individuals or operations. Data provided will be summarized by researchers involved in the study and reported as summary statistics. Support for this study has been provided by: 






Center for Profitable Agriculture Farm Credit Mid America Tennessee Agritourism Association Tennessee Department of Agriculture Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics USDA Rural Development If you have questions regarding the study, please contact Ms. Megan Bruch, Marketing Specialist with the Center for Profitable Agriculture, at (931) 486‐2777 or [email protected] or Dr. Kim Jensen, University of Tennessee, at (865) 974‐7231 or [email protected]. Please reply by January 21, 2013 for your information to be most helpful. An agritourism operation could be described as a farm combining primary elements and characteristics of agriculture and tourism and providing members of the general public a place to purchase farm products and/or enjoy a recreational, entertaining or educational experience. Common agritourism operations or attractions are listed in Question 9.
31
1. Please select the option that best describes your current situation. ___ ___ ___ ___ I currently operate an agritourism business (Please skip to Question 4.) I do not currently operate an agritourism business but plan to in the future (Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelope and return by mail.) I do not operate an agritourism business but did in the past. (Please go to Question 2.) I do not operate an agritourism business and do not plan to in the future (Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelope and return by mail.) 2. Which ONE of the following options best describes the reason you are no longer in the agritourism business? ___ I retired from working. ___ I just wanted to do something else. ___ I could not attract enough customers or make enough sales. ___ The costs of operating the business were too high. ___ There were too many regulatory issues. ___ Liability was too big of a risk for me to take. ___ I didn’t have enough help or cooperation from my family. ___ Other (Please specify.) _________________________________________________________ 3. How long was your agritourism operation open? ______ years (Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelop and return by mail.) 4. How many years has your agritourism operation been in business? _______ years 5. Please indicate the number of acres involved in your agritourism operations and the total number of acres in your farm(s). (Include all acres of your operation whether they are owned or rented.) _____ acres involved in agritourism operations _____ total acres of your farm (include those in agritourism and other farming operations) 6. In each blank, provide the number of people who were employed by your agritourism operation in 2012 for each category of employment (including owners, managers, etc. that worked for the operation)? _____ Full time seasonally _____ Part time seasonally _____ Full‐time year‐round _____ Part time year‐round 7. About how many days was your agritourism operation open in 2012? _______ # of days 8. What months was your agritourism operation open in 2012? (Circle the months.) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 32
9. Please check each type(s) of agritourism attractions that best describe your operation and, if possible, indicate what percentage of your sales in 2012 were earned by that attraction. % of sales that come This describes my from this part of my agritourism agritourism operation
operation (check if you host this attraction) ATTRACTION TYPE a. On farm retail market (offering farm products) b. Pick‐your‐own operation c. Cut‐your‐own Christmas trees d. School field trips/tours e. Farm tours other than school field trips f. Day camp g. Maze (corn, sorghum, hay) h. Haunted attraction i.
Hayride or wagon ride j.
Pumpkin patch k. Farm animal exhibit l.
Farm animal petting m. Zipline n. Event hosting – weddings o. Event hosting – birthday parties, corporate event, etc. p. On‐farm fee fishing q. On‐farm camping r. On‐farm food service, concessions, café, or restaurant s. On‐farm horseback riding t. Music concerts or contests, theatre shows, plays, etc. u. Winery v. On‐farm workshops or classes w. On‐farm bed & breakfast or other lodging x. On‐farm gift shop y. Other family fun activities z. Other major attraction: please specify ______________ aa. Other major attraction: please specify ______________ (Please continue to the next page.) (for example 25%; numbers should add to 100%) 33
10. Please indicate which of the following agricultural products you produce for income? (Please check the box for each selection that applies.) Apples Blueberries, Blackberries or Raspberries
Wheat Soybeans Grapes Cotton Peaches Tobacco Strawberries Hay Other Fruit Sheep Vegetables Goats Pumpkins Cattle and Calves Christmas Trees Hogs Greenhouse/Nursery Plants Dairy Products Honey Poultry Eggs Timber Corn Other (specify) ________________ 11. What were the gross sales revenues from your agritourism business in 2011? (Please check the best answer.) Remember, individual responses are held confidential and are not connected with an individual or operation. Less than $2,500 $75,000 ‐ $99,999 $2,500 ‐ $4,999 $100,000 ‐ $249,999 $5,000 ‐ $9,999 $250,000 ‐ $499,999 $10,000 ‐ $24,999 $500,000 ‐ $749,999 $25,000 ‐ $49,999 $750,000 ‐ $999,999 $50,000 ‐ $74,999 $1,000,000 or greater 12. What were the gross sales revenues from your agritourism business in 2012 (or your best estimate for sales for 2012 if actual data is not yet available)? (Please check the best answer). Remember, individual responses are held confidential and are not connected with an individual or operation. Less than $2,500 $75,000 ‐ $99,999 $2,500 ‐ $4,999 $100,000 ‐ $249,999 $5,000 ‐ $9,999 $250,000 ‐ $499,999 $10,000 ‐ $24,999 $500,000 ‐ $749,999 $25,000 ‐ $49,999 $750,000 ‐ $999,999 $50,000 ‐ $74,999 $1,000,000 or greater 34
13. For 2012, please estimate the percentage of your total income that came from agritourism, other farm income, and other non‐farm/agritourism income. ______ % income from agritourism ______ % income from other farm sources ______ % of income from non‐farm/agritourism _100__ % TOTAL (The numbers on the 3 lines above should sum to 100%.) 14. On average, how much do you estimate each visitor spent per visit in 2012? (consider each visitor individually, not a group or a family as a whole) $______ per visitor per visit This amount was spent on…. (Place the estimated $ amount by each category of expenditures. These items added together should equal the total $ you estimated in the blank above.) $________ Admission or user fees $________ Purchasing products produced on the farm (fruit, vegetables, wine, cheese, meat, plants, cornstalks, etc.) $________ Other food and drink (concessions – meals, snacks, beverages) $________ Non‐food souvenir items $________ Other (Please describe: ____________________________________________) 15. About how many visits did your agritourism operation attract in 2012? (count each visitor individually for each time he/she visited) ________ visits 16. How did you promote your agritourism operation in 2012? (Please check all that apply.) Website Pick Tennessee Products (PickTnProducts.org) Facebook business page TN Vacation Guide/TNVacation.com Facebook ads Tennessee Farm Fresh Program Twitter Tennessee Agritourism Association membership Google ads Regional, county or local tourism guide or website Blog Chamber of Commerce Email or e‐newsletter list Sponsorships/partnership marketing Pinterest Direct mail Newspaper advertising Coupons Business brochures On‐line deals (Groupon, Social Living) Television advertising News releases Radio advertising Media days Road signs Special events or festivals Billboards Point of sale samples Agritourismsworld.com Other (specify) ___________________ 35
17. If your venue was promoted by Pick Tennessee Products, the Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh program, by what percent would you estimate the promotional assistance influenced your agritourism sales in 2012? __________ % change in sales (if no change, please indicate with “0%”) 18. Please describe any suggestions or ideas you may have for future agritourism promotion efforts by the groups such as the Tennessee Departments of Agriculture, Tourist Development and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh Program. ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 19. The following is a list of potential issues you may have faced in the start‐up or operation of your agritourism business. Please rate each issue based on how much of a problem it has been for you over the last three (3) years. Possible ratings are “Not a Problem,” “Somewhat of a Problem,” “A Moderate Problem,” or “A Serious Problem.” If the issue does not apply to your venue, please check the “Not Applicable” option. Not a Problem Somewhat A Moderate of a Problem Problem a. Obtaining permission for roadside signage b. Obtaining liability insurance c. Obtaining financing d. Facing challenges with local zoning e. Dealing with increased competition f. Identifying target customers g. Deciding how to promote the business to target customers h. Developing advertising and promotion materials i. Attracting customers j. Providing excellent customer service k. Staying current with new promotion methods l. Obtaining required permits or licenses 36
A Serious Problem Not Applicable to My Operation m. Finding/hiring employees n. Training and managing employees o. Scheduling employees p. Scheduling groups for tours or parties This list continues on the next page, at Question 20. 20. The following is a list of potential issues you may have faced in the start‐up or operation of your agritourism business. Please rate each issue based on how much of a problem it has been for you over the last three (3) years. Possible ratings are “Not a Problem,” “Somewhat of a Problem,” “A Moderate Problem,” or “A Serious Problem.” If the issue does not apply to your agritourism venue, please check the “Not Applicable” option. Not a Problem Somewhat A Moderate of a Problem Problem A Serious Problem Not Applicable to My Operation q. Having enough capital for infrastructure, operation and marketing r. Maintaining visitor safety s. Meeting health department requirements t. Understanding labor regulations u. Keeping and evaluating records v. Maintaining good relation‐
ships with neighbors w. Working with family members 21. What other issues, if any, not listed in Questions 19 and 20 have been “A Serious Problem” for your operation in the last three (3) years? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 22. Have you attended an agritourism or direct marketing workshop, conference or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last three (3) years? _____ Yes (Go to question 23) _____ No (Skip to question 27) _____ Don’t Know (Skip to question 27) 37
23. For my business, the information from this workshop, conference or tour was…. (Check one answer) _____ Very Helpful _____ Somewhat Helpful _____ Slightly Helpful _____ Not Helpful At All 24. How did you use the information learned at the workshop(s), conference(s) and/or tour(s)? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 25. By what percent would you estimate the information and/or assistance you obtained from the educational events you attended in the last 3 years influenced your agritourism sales in 2012? _____________ % change in sales (if no change, please indicate with “0%”) 26. What suggestions do you have for future educational events? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 27. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Strongly Somewhat Disagree Disagree I am optimistic about the future of the agritourism industry in Tennessee. I plan to exit the agritourism business in the next 5 years. I plan to expand the number of products, attractions or services offered at my business in the next 2 years. My goals include attracting more customers to my enterprise over the next 2 years. I expect to hire more employees in 2013 than I did in 2012. I expect my sales from agritourism to increase in the future. My agritourism operation is successful. My agritourism operation is profitable. 38
No Opinion Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Don’t Know 28. What are the two most limiting factors that may prevent you from reaching your goals for your agritourism operation? 1.
2.
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 29. What ONE resource, information or assistance do you most need to help you reach your goals for your agritourism operation? 1.
________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your assistance in completing this survey! 

Please return your completed survey in the business reply envelope. Replies received by January 21, will be most helpful. If you would like to receive additional information or agritourism resources, please complete the enclosed orange postcard and return it by mail. 39
AppendixB:AnswerstoTextQuestions
40
Q21 What other issues, if any, not listed in Questions 19 and 20 have been “A Serious Problem” for your operation in the last three (3) years? Access to county water Additional space to grow Building inspectors and architects understanding what we are trying to do. Cash flow during off season Competition with big box stores Demand exceeding capabilities Economic downturn Figuring out advertising costs, what percent should be spent Finding employees Finding proper assistance Having enough time/man power How to grow and pay for it Startup issues Insurance costs Keeping up with internet marketing budgets for marketing Lack of funding/capital Locational demographics Logistics Marketing is a foremost obstacle Obtaining signs and sign vandals and theft People realizing we have quality zoos and livestock exhibits available in state Pricing issues Public driveway access Rebuilding customer base after an incident with adjacent farm Schools are doing away with fall field trips This operation is funded by money appropriated by Congress. Funding shortages. Weather Wildlife eating products Q24 How did you use the information learned at the workshop(s), conference(s) and/or tour(s)? Allowed me to post info on TN tourism website Bookkeeping skills, Quicken Focusing business and business strategy Hiring and employee management Implementing ideas on their individual operations Improved understanding of regulations, safety issues, ADA requirements Improving quality and service Logistics Logo development Marketing/advertising ideas and skills 41
Networking New product ideas Signage tips Social media, websites, Facebook, online presence Stay informed Understanding tax regulations Workshop needed to complete qualifications for TAEP. Q26 What suggestions do you have for future educational events? Assistance understanding how affordable care act affects agriculture and seasonal employees Attracting and serving bus tours Breakout sessions for beginning, intermediate, expert levels on certain topic Co‐operative marketing and industry marketing Drought management strategies Festivals setup and management Have more local agritourism speaker at events Hear from top leaders in each sector of agritourism How to apply for grants How to attract new customers Law/regulation/tax compliance Laws and health regulations Looks for more low‐cost options to improve fruit production Marketing classes for direct sales Marketing strategies More on licenses, business vs tax licenses, more on TAEP New ideas/attractions to draw in more people Online marketing Problems for small startups Safety Scheduling off‐season field trips Signage Smaller workshops Social media marketing Tours of other agritourism businesses Transition of family business Winery specific information 42
Q28 What are the two most limiting factors that may prevent you from reaching your goals for your agritourism operation? Access to farmers markets Access to infrastructure Access to land Adequate parking Advertising and advertising costs Age Attracting new customers Cash flow Cohesive network of producers not in place Community acceptance and support Competing attractions Competing products Construction development Cost of product vs cost of purchase Demand growing faster than supply Difficulty growing own products‐weather, plant diseases Feed and fuel costs up Finding labor Government regulation Grant funding Growing business while maitaining existing Health Health Insufficient income Insurance Keeping aware of new laws and regulations Keeping sufficient variety of stock Labor‐Dependable and costs Liability uncertainty Limited land Location in very rural area Location/access/parking New attraction ideas No family coming into operation Not enough state support for promoting wine trails Obtaining financing Operating capital, obtaining capital School policies on tours Signage and signs from main roads Slowed economy State/federal regulations, laws, taxes, permits, fees, and processes Sufficient income from operation Technical knowledge and support Three tier system for selling wine 43
Weather Weeds and pests Working off the farm and managing business Q29 What at ONE resource, information or assistance do you most need to help you reach your goals for your agritourism operation? Additional TAEP Grant Money Additional UT Extension Horticulture assistance Adequate stock Ads/Promotion letting people know about business Advertising Better connections with local government Better cooperation among state agencies Business bookkeeping and tax information Business training Continuing educational programs Cooperatively advertising (50/50 share) Cost sharing and assistance from USDA Dealing with weather problems Developing a marketing plan Extension research/knowledge on pumpkin production, mums, vegetable crops, etc. Financial assistance Finding and retaining labor Having a TN Agritourism category for organics or herbs Help with codes/regulation/zoning How to obtain financial help Information on inclusion in the trails and byways program and welcome centers Information on TN laws regarding farm agritourism Insurance Irrigation system Less regulation Liability insurance and available labor pool for small operations. Lobbying to counter liquor lobby Low interest loans to develop attractions Marketing grants/for things such as radio, billboards, etc mailouts Methods to directly reach schools and teachers in general area Recordkeeping Reform of state laws and tax breaks Regulations employment, licensing, permits Signage Social networking help State assistance in promoting wine trails in the state To be allowed to direct sell outside of winery and festivals Weed control methods 44