A Pathway to Sustainable Agritourism: An Integration of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Resource Dependence Theories

Abstract

Agritourism has grown significantly worldwide in recent years, even during the COVID-19 pandemic when faced with various challenges. To understand the reasons behind the rapid growth and be better prepared for future crises, this study interviewed 22 agritourism businesses in Texas (USA) regarding the influence of the pandemic and their adaptation strategies. Results indicated that COVID accentuated the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of agritourism business owners, which is key to their growth during the pandemic while highlighting the resource-dependent nature of agritourism businesses. Despite lacking governmental policy support at all levels, agritourism businesses thrived during the pandemic through their creative adaptations. This study provides valuable implications for sustainable agritourism development.

1. Introduction

Agritourism, as a form of sustainable tourism, refers to farms that integrate agricultural production and processing with tourism to promote diverse activities and increase income while preserving scenic areas and providing educational and entertainment experiences for their guests [1]. Agritourism retains substantial potential to boost economic and social development while promoting environmental conservation, therefore gaining significant growth and popularity worldwide [2]. Agritourism has been popularly linked to the Triple-Bottom-Line (TBL) concept to discuss its contributions to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental components; it is also noted to contribute to the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [3]. Therefore, the sustainable development of agritourism plays a significant role in advancing the SDGs by serving both people and the planet [4]. The focus of this paper is not to establish a connection between agritourism and the TBL concept, nor to specifically evaluate the contribution of agritourism in advancing the SDGs. Instead, we emphasize fostering sustainable agritourism development by comprehending the factors that influence the agritourism business operations. However, it is essential to understand the general relationship between agritourism and sustainability (i.e., the TBL concept and SDGs) and what agritourism can offer through sustained and thriving agritourism businesses.

Economic incentives have been a common and widely discussed advantage of agritourism worldwide [3]. Specifically, in the United States, the agritourism sector experienced a 67% revenue increment from 2007 to 2017 [5] and thrived even during the pandemic due to its outdoor setting being capable of facilitating social distancing and other risk-mitigating behaviors [6,7,8]. Despite its growth, agritourism businesses continue to face challenges. For example, they were under the guidelines (e.g., mask-wearing mandate, implementing hand sanitization and washing stations, crowd management, and restricted capacities for visitors and activities) provided by the Centers for Disease Control during the pandemic; however, they had the right, as small businesses, to decide what protocols to install to protect their guests from the virus [9]. Little is known about how agritourism businesses responded to COVID-19. Additionally, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) and other policy challenges play a significant role in the success of an agritourism venture. Without ESE and other supportive policy mechanisms, agritourism businesses could suffer less-than-optimal outcomes, close operations, or never launch. There is a research gap in understanding how ESE and other supportive policy mechanisms positively or negatively impacted agritourism businesses, particularly during the crisis (i.e., COVID-19). Accordingly, this study aims to explore agritourism businesses under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic to delve into ESE and other policy-driven challenges. With a better understanding of how agritourism businesses can flourish, conditions that benefit agritourism businesses can be created.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Agritourism: Critical Success Factors

Critical success factors in agritourism vary by its development stage and location, necessitating a contextual and stage-specific approach to public and private agritourism development strategies [10,11,12]. The affecting context includes internal and external factors [13,14]. In analyzing the perceived benefits of agritourism participation relative to economic and non-economic motivations, Tew and Barbieri [15] argue that an agritourism venture’s success can only be accurately assessed relative to the farmer’s composite set of goals. Through the lens of sustainability, research in agritourism success factors expands to include stakeholder engagement and the complementary triple-bottom-line values of sociocultural benefit and environmental conservation [11,16]. Jin et al. [17] highlight the trade-offs between these triple-bottom-line pursuits, noting that larger operations economically outperform smaller ones, but at the expense of local sociocultural benefits. Despite the expanded success factors of agritourism, a national survey of agritourism operators revealed that increasing farm revenue was the goal most frequently identified as being important to agritourism operations [18].

In a review of 105 agritourism articles, Baipai et al. [10] find that few studies directly seek to identify agritourism success factors. The authors identify 19 success factors, which are also echoed in studies outside the sample, with agritourism products [19,20], conservation of biodiversity [11,16], and skills and competence [21] appearing most predominantly. In order of diminishing literature prevalence, the remaining 16 factors include direct marketing [22], support from government [23], family involvement [24], safety and security [25], education and training [17,20], location [26], zoning and by-laws [12], community participation [24], farmers’ perceptions [18], support infrastructure [27], collaboration and partnerships [28], insurance, licenses, and permits [29], positioning themes [30], size of farm [30], and tourist perceptions [31].

2.2. Agritourism and COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the tourism industry, including the agritourism sector [32]. In addition to safety-driven shifts in personal preferences and travel behavior [33,34], lockdown measures posed direct financial challenges [35]. Still, some agritourism entities have shown resilience and innovative adaptations, indicating a path for sectoral recovery [8]. Agritourism businesses, by offering socially distanced services, gained popularity among tourists seeking lower-risk environments [36,37,38]. Recent agritourism resilience research [36,39,40] observed strategic pivots, including diversifying income streams and incorporating digital and virtual experiences to maintain customer engagement, which helped sustain operations and expanded market reach amidst restrictions on physical mobility. The pandemic also promoted a re-evaluation of extant business models to adapt to align with the needs of the market [41]. The importance of proactive strategies (e.g., Corporate Social Responsibility—CSR behaviors linked to community, environment, and heritage) was also underscored in their influence on the performance of agritourism businesses [42]. Most recently, agritourism has been emphasized for its role in bolstering community resilience and economic recovery, while relying on community-sourced inputs (e.g., social capital and networking links) [43]. The state of social capital, including peer networks, is critically important for the survival of small-scale and rural businesses [44,45,46]. This holds true for agritourism businesses [11,21,43], particularly during crisis-driven situations.

2.3. Policy Role in Agritourism

Policy guidelines are a valuable resource for developing agritourism businesses. Governments can intervene through policy to catalyze agritourism development, though implementation gaps may reduce effects [47]. The lack of a clear definition of agritourism policy mirrors the broader challenge governments experience in delineating which businesses qualify for regulation under agritourism laws [48]. Agritourism policy refers to the regulations and guidelines established by local, regional, national, and multinational governing bodies to limit and support agritourism businesses. Some multinational policies include European Union subsidies for agritourism to promote diversification and stability to curb rural emigration [49]. National policies (e.g., Italy) restrict devoting too much operational attention to agritourism [50]. Regional stakeholders and policymakers play a role by integrating the support system of the broader tourism industry [51]. Policy stretches down to the community level through permitting and zoning, and efforts to help local entrepreneurs navigate and remove participation barriers [52]. The U.S. has no national agritourism policy, though 39 states have enacted agritourism-impacting laws. Most commonly, the legislation addresses civil liability, agricultural activity qualifications, and land use and zoning [48].

Policy can impact farmers’ access to the capital necessary for diversification into agritourism [53]. Beyond successful endeavor initiation, growing generational deficits in the agricultural labor market require workforce educational policy shifts that provide the competencies and social identity necessary to attract and sustain the next generation [21,24,54,55]. Some researchers also voiced concerns over policy being potentially a powerful tool favoring the landed elite and marginalizing under-resourced family operations, citing examples of capital-intensive certification barriers [56]. Other researchers suggested that successful government intervention to develop agritourism requires local stakeholder engagement in the policy dialogue [57,58]. So far, few studies have looked at individual agritourism businesses and their operational adjustments to follow governmental regulations before and during COVID-19 [36,38].

2.4. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Resource Dependence Theories

2.4.1. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) is defined as an individual’s belief in his/her ability to successfully achieve the tasks (e.g., coping with unexpected challenges, developing new products) of entrepreneurship [59]. ESE is derived from self-efficacy theory [60,61] and has been well-studied in the outdoor recreation and tourism field for its influence on individuals’ motivations and behavior in challenging situations [62]. Existing tourism and hospitality entrepreneurship research emphasizes ESE as a means of enabling individuals with high ESE who believe in their own abilities to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities [63,64]. These individuals were found to be more confident and capable when facing and dealing with uncertainties associated with day-to-day business operations [63,64,65] and were more resilient in overcoming failure [63]. As such, ESE is considered a significant driver of enterprise performance [64,66], including small tourism firms [67], and is crucial in determining and explaining entrepreneurial actions [65].

ESE was postulated to be multi-dimensional. Chen et al.’s [59] seminal work in ESE identified five dimensions, including marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking, and financial control. De Noble et al.’s [68] six-dimensional ESE model was also popularly adopted [64,69]. Abundant previous research also identified antecedents of ESE, including entrepreneurs’ place identity [64], firm and individual characteristics, education and training, and work experience [70]. Although ESE is a strong predictor of entrepreneurial intentions and, ultimately, action [71], its relationship with entrepreneurial behavior, when incorporating personality and environmental factors, remains unclear [72,73]. Limited research has been conducted to identify the factors affecting entrepreneurial behavior using either qualitative or mixed methods approaches [74]. Furthermore, the construct of ESE remains empirically underdeveloped, with considerable room for further refinement of the construct (e.g., dimensionality) [75]. Considering that tourism entrepreneurs differ drastically from those in other industries [76], and that individuals’ ESE may be elevated through training and education [77], more research is needed to explore ESE as associated with tourism overall, and specifically in the agritourism context, for increased entrepreneurial triumphs.

2.4.2. Resource Dependence Theory (RDT)

Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), proposed by Pfeffer and Salancik [78], is a prominent theory in strategic management that acknowledges the influence of external factors on organizational behavior [79]. The fundamental assumption of RDT is that dependence on critical and important resources influences the actions of organizations, and both their actions and decision-making can be explained based on that specific dependency situation [80]. Though considered a leading theory for understanding organization-environmental relationships, RDT is not well explored [81]. RDT was primarily adopted in tourism research related to events to explain the power dynamics between different stakeholders [82,83]. Most recent research has also employed RDT in community-based tourism [84], where residents seek external support to enhance their capacity [85] in explaining the role of intermediary organizations. We argue that external factors greatly influence agritourism businesses. However, it is essential to identify these factors and mitigate the negative impacts of external factors that hinder their business performance.

Government policy, regulation, and enforcement are critical for the business environment [86]. Although contextual issues may constrain organizations, efforts can be made to minimize uncertainty and dependence [79]. The performance of the business is directly or indirectly affected by industry regulations, among other factors. For agritourism businesses, we can argue that uncertainty, the level of competition, and regulation affect their size and the success of their operation, among others. Technology (e.g., information and communication, social media) may also play a critical role in shaping agritourism businesses [87,88,89], which brings additional prospects either facilitating or inhibiting agritourism business development [90]. Agritourism businesses, their actions, and decision-making processes largely depend on external factors [80], making RDT a relevant and applicable approach.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Context

Texas stands out nationally as a historical hotspot for agritourism, based on the clustering of counties with high rates of farm participation [91]. Texas farms offer a diverse range of agritourism products, including wineries, u-pick produce farms, apiaries, wildlife cabins in natural reserves, and farm-based wildlife event centers. The state accounts for 16.8% of the 28,617 farms nationally that reported income from agritourism and recreational services in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture [92], almost four times the next highest count in California. Many agritourism businesses benefited from tourists perceiving them as a safer alternative for fulfilling latent travel desires [38]. Still, the number of agritourism operations reported in Texas overall in the 2022 Agricultural Census decreased by 15.85% compared to the 2017 census.

Texas’s extensive agricultural sector presents significant potential for agritourism, especially given the large number of farms with low sales revenue. The state is home to 230,662 farms, of which approximately 92% are small, low-sales operations [93], as over 45% of farms reported under USD 2500 earnings in sales, and another 24% with sales between USD 2500 and USD 10,000. Only a small fraction (8.5%) reported earnings exceeding USD 500,000 in sales [92]. Despite the vast number of farms, only 2% reported income from agritourism and recreational services [92]. Agritourism is valuable to Texas for preserving small family farms through operational diversification and revenue enhancement [94,95]; as such, targeted research into agritourism success factors could benefit these small-scale operations.

Varying government and industry responses to the COVID-19 pandemic underscore the importance of policy and enforcement in maintaining business sustainability during market disruptions. Little has been written about extant policy [95] or the crisis-driven measures implemented that affect the Texas agritourism industry. Texas’s lone agritourism business policy is called the Texas Agritourism Act [96]. The law states that an agritourism entity is not liable to any person for injuries or damage to an agritourism participant who is injured on agricultural land, provided that the landowner posts the required signage and the participant signs an appropriately worded liability release before participating in agritourism activities [97].

3.2. Data Collection

This study took a qualitative approach. We used a purposive sampling of an inexhaustive list of 437 agritourism businesses published on the Nature Tourism website of Texas A&M University’s AgriLife Extension Service [98]. Businesses were selected to represent diverse venture types, land ownership sizes, and geographical locations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the interview protocol that consisted of four major sections: (1) general questions to draw characteristics of agritourism businesses as well as questions targeting a general assessment of motivations and aspirations behind pursuing an entrepreneurial journey in agritourism; (2) questions related to prospects and challenges in agritourism; (3) questions on agritourism policy, and (4) demographic questions. Each interview lasted approximately 45 min. Interviews were audio-recorded. A total of 22 interviews were conducted from February to April 2022 (

Table 1. Participants’ Profiles and Agritourism Business Characteristics.

Identifier	Business Type	Gender	Age Category	Ethnicity	Income Level	Family Run	Area in Acres
AB01	Flower Farm	Female	50+	White	USD 50,001–100,000	Yes	51–100
AB02	Nature Cabins	Female	50+	White	USD 200,001+	Yes	>100
AB03	Apiary	Female	50+	White	USD 50,001–100,000	Yes	0–25
AB04	Winery	Male	50+	White	USD 200,001	Yes	0–25
AB05	Peach Farm	Male	18–35	White	N/A	Yes	>100
AB06	Lavender Farm	Female	36–50	White	USD 200,001+	Yes	0–25
AB07	U-pick Farm	Female	50+	White	USD 0–50,000	Yes	0–25
AB08	Vineyard	Female	36–50, 50+	Hispanic	USD 200,001+	Yes	51–100
AB09	Family Activity Farm	Male	50+	White	USD 200,001+	Yes	51–100
AB10	Christmas Tree Farm	Male	50+	White	USD 200,001+	No	26–50
AB11	U-pick Farm	Male	50+	White	N/A	Yes	0–25
AB12	Winery	Female	36–50	White	USD 50,001–100,000	Yes	26–50
AB13	Flower Farm	Female	36–50	White	N/A	Yes	51–100
AB14	Family Activity Farm	Male	50+	White	N/A	Yes	N/A
AB15	Winery	Male	50+	White	USD 200,001+	Yes	26–50
AB16	Pecan Orchard	Male	50+	White	USD 0–50,000	Yes	0–25
AB17	Vineyard	Male	50+	White	USD 100,001–200,000	Yes	>100
AB18	Hands-on Education Farm	Male	50+	White	N/A	Yes	26–50
AB19	U-pick Farm	Male	50+	White	USD 50,001–100,000	Yes	0–25
AB20	Family Activity Farm	Female	50+	White	N/A	Yes	51–100
AB21	Cattle Ranch	Male	36–50	White	USD 100,001–200,000	Yes	51–100
AB22	Wine Collective	Male	36–50	White	USD 200,001+	Yes	0–25

).

3.3. Data Analysis

Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed, according to Braun and Clarke [99]. The study ensures reliability and validity through the application of Lincoln and Guba’s [100] four criteria of trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. These criteria are reflected across all stages of the research process. In the conceptualization phase, the study design and interview protocols were informed by a comprehensive review of relevant literature. During data collection, purposive sampling was employed to achieve socio-demographic diversity among participants. The process allowed flexibility in engagement, facilitated the collection of rich, detailed data, and continued until thematic saturation was reached. In the analysis phase, the first author led the development of initial themes and sub-themes. These were subsequently reviewed and refined by the second and third authors through a critical lens grounded in the study’s theoretical framework. Final themes were confirmed through consensus among all authors. In presenting the findings, the researchers ensured that themes were non-repetitive and each was supported by representative participant quotations [101,102].

4. Results

A thematic analysis led to three overarching themes and sub-themes representing impact of crisis and existing struggle (i.e., increased demand for agritourism, loss of event revenue, succession planning, and vulnerability to weather), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (i.e., motivation, diversification and alignment with new market trends, collaboration, and adaptation strategies), and resource dependency (i.e., policy issues–regulatory burden, agritourism act, and inconsistent property tax exemption criteria, human resource needs, lack of other supporting mechanisms) (Figure 1). Our findings suggest that agritourism businesses encounter prospects and challenges of an unpredictable nature, which are often difficult to control. Therefore, factors associated with ESE and resource dependence influence businesses and their outcomes.

4.1. Impact of Crisis and Existing Struggle

4.1.1. Increased Demand for Nature-Based Tourism

The pandemic increased the demand for nature-based tourism due to social distancing mandates and limitations on indoor activities. Outdoor spaces played a role in addressing mental health needs during the pandemic, offering unrestricted areas for patrons. This need for outdoor spaces led to an influx of customers for agritourism businesses, reducing fears of permanent closure among these business owners. In response, these businesses prioritized creating safe and welcoming outdoor spaces to meet customer needs. One participant noted,

It was the best thing that ever happened to our business. We had so many more customers coming. We lost all our chefs, who had previously been 40% of our business. But we gained way more and new people […] A lot of that has been maintained, though some of them, you know, they just came during the scariest times. We probably still have more regular customers than we did previously, and now the chefs are back, too. We had a great year financially in 2020.

(AB07, U-pick farm)

4.1.2. Loss of Event Revenue

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on agritourism businesses, particularly in terms of lost event revenue. While agritourism facilities were ultimately well-suited for social distancing, many businesses were damaged by initial reschedules and eventual force majeure cancellations of group events, necessitating customer refunds and further straining business finances. One participant shared,

Our event center conducts weddings, private events, showers, and retirement parties. We got constant postponements. Because people are postponing our dates, we are filling up, and we had to refund people’s money because they had to cancel their events. We still had to fulfill our contracts and still make wine.

(AB12, winery)

4.1.3. Succession Planning

As agritourism operations approach generational or life-season ownership transitions, owners must reckon with the possibility or foregone conclusion that the land may not remain with the family and may be repurposed or subsumed. One participant said,

[I’m] pushing 60, and I have three kids with no interest in it at all. Everything I’ve built is just going to go down. Kids just don’t want to keep going. It’s just Father’s deal; they all have their own lives and good jobs.

(AB09, family activity farm)

4.1.4. Vulnerability to Weather

Agritourism intersects with weather vulnerability through both tourism and agriculture facets of the industry. By operating in the physical context of a working farm, agritourism businesses rely on the weather to provide suitable conditions for growing and hospitality activities. Unpredictable amounts of rain, wind, or temperature variance may disrupt suitable conditions. One participant explained,

I can’t make it rain when we’re dry, and I can’t make it not rain when we are already wet and muddy. Some people get a rainstorm, and they’re out of business for the weekend. So, the weather is probably our greatest disadvantage. We can’t overcome the weather, and we can’t predict it.

(AB20, family activity farm)

4.2. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

4.2.1. Motivation

Intrinsic motivations, rather than financial gains, primarily drove the study participants. They took pride in offering remarkable products, services, and experiences and found satisfaction in sharing knowledge and values with the community. Some businesses focused on providing employment and social engagement opportunities for marginalized communities (e.g., refugees), while others aimed to positively impact customers and their communities by creating awareness and empowering behavior change. One participant stated,

Success has changed its definition through the years. Now older and wiser, I would say happy guests and, more importantly, changed guests, changed opinions about our environment and our power to change our environment […] I feel like it’s a success when someone says they are going to change their behavior to be more environmentally friendly.

(AB02, nature reserve cabins)

Agritourism was described as a way to serve local and surrounding communities. Business owners aimed to preserve their farms for future generations and create a unique experience for community members. Building relationships with customers and offering in-person experiences were crucial in making people feel welcome and part of a community. Agritourism also serves to combat isolation and provide access to high-quality products.

People are increasingly isolated and don’t know where they come from. I think giving them a vision of what’s out there besides the grocery store and just going to the office and coming home. I think we’re providing a valuable thing to society.

(AB13, flower farm)

4.2.2. Diversification and Alignment with New Market Trends

Participants in the study tend to diversify their businesses, tapping into emerging trends and market demands—for example, a floral operation promoting a renewed regional emphasis on the Day of the Dead holiday. During the observance, participants build elaborate displays characterized by large quantities of marigold flowers. As an already culturally significant tradition for Mexican Hispanics in the region, the observance garnered elevated awareness in light of the loss of life during the pandemic, thus driving demand.

Day of the Dead is a huge floral holiday here in Texas […] We reduced bucket prices that week to help promote that tradition because it’s just so fundamentally enriching for families […] Since COVID, so many people have died […] And there were people the year before and then the first year of COVID who had never done an altar.

(AB01, flower farm)

Another participant described plans to convert the on-site farmhouse into a learning center to educate children about food sources and expand educational programs on their farm. These actions demonstrate their proactive approach to adapting and expanding their offerings in response to evolving market dynamics, utilizing available resources to do so. One participant shared,

The mental health of the world and that whole niche of tourism has really exploded. My goal is to add maybe a yoga class or build a greenhouse where we could have it. I’m going to call it the guest garden, and they can come to my garden really, but I’ll share it with anybody who wants […] We asked all of our guests to compost. We have a small compost container in each cabin, and I want them to see the compost that they use over the weekend—I want them to see the full cycle.

(AB02, nature reserve cabins)

4.2.3. Collaboration

Participants emphasized the significance of collaboration within the agritourism community to optimize profitability, cut costs, and maximize the success of their businesses by leveraging the collective knowledge and experiences of the agritourism community. They highlighted the value of networking with fellow business owners in rural areas, referring customers, exchanging ideas for public engagement, and gaining knowledge about agritourism practices. Participants actively engaged with industry associations and professional networks to enhance their understanding of the field. One participant stated,

Most of my information comes from my competition, and in a good way. And I’ll share it with them in a heartbeat. I’m part of Texas. I’m part of the Texas Beekeepers’ Association. I spoke about agritourism at the last convention. I have no secrets. I welcome anyone who wants to do it. I actually think the more people that do it, the better off we are. We’ve got more customers than we can handle.

(AB03, apiary)

4.2.4. Adaptation Strategies

Agritourism businesses implemented various adaptation strategies, which were influenced by external mandates and the businesses’ priorities and values. To comply with external mandates, businesses adhered to sanitization practices, implemented social distancing measures, and limited customer capacity. Cleaning stations were set up, equipment was regularly sanitized, and online ordering and curbside pick-up options were implemented. Certain adaptations lasted beyond immediate safety concerns and created ongoing value. Businesses discovered that changes such as seated wine tastings instead of standing at the bar and offering private tour options enhanced the customer experience and increased satisfaction. These changes fostered personalized interactions, deeper engagement, and stronger customer loyalty. Consequently, businesses decided to retain several adaptations even as COVID-19 restrictions eased. One participant explained,

Because we were limited by the number of visitors we could have during COVID-19, where we could only have about 100 visitors at a time, we chose not to have children take those seats from the adults who were going to buy some wine. So, we stopped having children. Once COVID-19 stopped, we put out a survey to our wine club members. 78% of our members said we don’t want children. Let’s keep things the way they are. And we have a huge percentage of teachers, and they’re like, I have enough to deal with at school. Can you please leave it without the kids? It’s been a great change.

(AB08, vineyard)

4.3. Resource Dependency

4.3.1. Policy Issues

Regulatory Burden

Larger agritourism businesses are troubled by the time and effort consumed by compliance with state and national oversight agencies such as the U.S. and Texas Departments of Agriculture. The necessity for security and access restriction in sizable agricultural operations, perceived as potential public health targets, also restricts the public access required for agritourism. Notably, a tendency to intentionally operate below specific size thresholds to avoid labor-intensive record-keeping was reported. As one participant from a U-pick farm explained,

We just try to stay away from the government because they don’t do anything helpful, sparsely, from our experience. They always just want season times and all that. So, we don’t make enough money from agriculture. The Texas Department of Agriculture has come out to check in, and we make sure that we make little enough in this so that we don’t have to do all the extensive record-keeping that larger farming businesses have to do. You know, like keeping track of when you put a seed in the ground […] and record every single step you do—if you’re a bigger operation. So, since we’re so small, we never have to do that.

(AB07, U-pick farm)

Agritourism Act (Limited Liability)

Interviewed agritourism businesses spoke of national, regional, and state-level policies that could be implemented to support their operations. Still, only a few discussed the Agritourism Act’s effects on protecting their business’s liability. Participants noted that the Act had not resulted in reduced insurance premiums but instead brought additional paperwork burden to insurers, which reinforced the liability limitation. One participant said,

We have posted the Texas law […] that you’re coming on a working farm. We have posted that at every entrance to our farm, as well as at a few other locations. But other than that, we’re insured, obviously, where we have the customer sign a waiver. So, we use a program […] for our bookings, and when they sign up for anything at our farm, they have to sign a waiver. It’s all electronic and recorded. I can’t imagine following the paper on that.

(AB03, apiary)

Inconsistent Property Tax Exemption Criteria

Participants acknowledged that the criteria for property tax agriculture exemptions in Texas could significantly benefit some agritourism entities. A participant from an apiary praised this exemption system,

We have had this fantastic situation in Texas where people can get an ag exemption with honeybees since 2011. So, if you own five acres to 20 acres, or if you have an improvement on your property, if you own six to 21 acres […] you could get honeybees instead and get a reduction on your property taxes.

(AB03, apiary)

However, contrary experiences were also brought up, as some agritourism entities may be left out despite their agricultural activities. One participant described being denied tax exemptions,

I would love for lavender to be considered a crop so that we could get an ag (agriculture) exemption. Because right now, we pay full taxes. Our land is not considered for an exemption, even though we are farming on it.

(AB06, lavender farm)

4.3.2. Human Resource Needs (e.g., Labor Shortage and Guest Worker Policy)

Agritourism businesses require a sufficient headcount of competent and capable employees to function effectively in both the science of agriculture and the art of hospitality, as well as to meet the physical demands of both. Participants engaged in U-pick farms cited the labor reduction benefits of transferring harvesting tasks to the customers. This deflection of labor costs becomes central to the U-pick business model. Other participants who require more labor to produce agritourism products, services, and experiences describe challenges in finding employees who are physically, technically, and culturally compatible. One participant described physical job requirements,

Long hours. Hard, physical work. Do you want to work in the tasting room for me? The first thing I ask is, can you pick up 45 pounds because a case of wine is 40 pounds. You’re on your feet a lot, and if you work at the winery, it’s physical. Wines never sleep, so long hours are part of the business.

(AB15, vineyard)

Participants also raised the difficulty of hiring skilled labor, a situation exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Operations seeking guest worker support called for more efficient invitation processes and more permissive visa allotments. As one participant from a Christmas tree farm explained,

The ability to hire non-US workers more easily would be helpful. Right now, the estimate is that it would cost us because you must provide housing and stuff like that […] about $75,000 a year for two workers. You are paying for average fees and all that kind of stuff. However, you cannot even qualify for them because all the slots—not just all the needs, but all the available slots for workers—are occupied. So, it would be extremely helpful if there were a bit more flexibility in those slots to hire our guest workers. And bring them in to help, particularly in agriculture.

(AB10, Christmas tree farm)

4.3.3. Lack of Other Supporting Mechanisms (e.g., Signage/Marketing Needs and Extension Service Expertise and Training Needs)

The findings highlight the perceived benefits of highway signs for promoting agritourism businesses in Texas. Participants emphasized the potential benefits for both operators and consumers while also acknowledging the high cost associated with it. One participant stressed the importance of differentiation among Department of Transportation agritourism signs to provide specific information for travelers,

It would help smaller farms not to have someone showing up at their door all the time because they’re not open. I have seen reviews complaining that “I drove all the way back in there, and the gate was closed.” I think there might be a way for Texas to tackle that.

(AB03, apiary)

Participants noted the lack of expertise among some extension agents in various agritourism products (e.g., wine, flowers, honey, and polyculture organic produce), leading agritourism business owners to rely on self-taught practices and independent research. Participants also raised the issue that some extension agents may have a limited understanding of the tourism aspect of agritourism, which diminished businesses’ desire for support and engagement. One participant commented that their business partnership with an extension agent was short-lived,

So, when we first started, I worked with our original owners and our ag extension agent […] He came out and helped a lot with the original owners, getting everything lined out and how to move forward. But that was years ago, and since then, we’ve kind of just done it on our own […] It would be beneficial if they were more engaged or had more resources […] That would be fabulous. The problem is that most of them are more crop, plant, or tree-based […] [our product] is such a different critter. That is not normally their specialty. [He] helped us do a ton of research and find out more, but even universities do not really study what we are growing.

(AB06, lavender farm)

5. Discussion

The daily operation of agritourism farms is characterized by vulnerability to the unpredictable, whether in terms of existing challenges such as succession planning and weather, or concerning dynamic market and social conditions (e.g., the pandemic). Despite the resource-dependent nature of the agritourism sector, many agritourism business owners with high entrepreneurial efficacy were able to devise various adaptation strategies to successfully navigate unpredictable events.

The sub-themes of motivation, diversification, and alignment with new market trends, collaboration, and adaptation strategies reflect the characteristics of ESE [63,64,65] and are consistent with the literature on agritourism success factors [10]. Agritourism success is often associated with farmers’ non-economic motivations and values-based rationality [15,71]. The strategic diversification and alignment to market trends (e.g., tapping into the renewed interest in cultural traditions and expanding offerings to include educational and mental wellness programs) underscore the importance of innovation and risk-taking, key components of ESE [59] observed in other studies [39,41,103].

Collaboration among agritourism operators for knowledge exchange and mutual support further echoes the literature’s emphasis on social capital and network engagement as crucial for success [11,21,43,104]. Moreover, the adaptation strategies adopted in response to COVID-19, from implementing safety measures to reevaluating service offerings based on customer feedback, underscore the resilience and capacity of agritourism operators to navigate uncertainties. Such resilience is consistent with previous ESE research [63,64]. Also, these strategies not only ensured immediate compliance with health guidelines but also fostered deeper customer engagement and loyalty, suggesting that adaptability and customer-centric innovations can lead to sustained success and resilience in the face of crises [39]. In addition, the ESE themes (e.g., diversification and alignment with new market trends, collaboration) identified in this study also align well with the dimensions of ESE (e.g., innovation, marketing) suggested in previous research [59]. By illustrating how agritourism operators leverage their intrinsic motivations, innovate in response to market demands, collaborate within their community, and adapt to external challenges, the study provides evidence of the contribution of ESE in navigating the complexities of agritourism ventures.

The study’s findings, viewed through the lens of RDT, offer insight into the sector’s nuanced relationship with external conditions, particularly in terms of policy, labor, and support mechanisms. The study’s findings on regulatory burdens align with RDT’s principles, highlighting the strategic adaptations of agritourism businesses to minimize regulatory dependencies and uncertainties. Businesses strategically positioning themselves to mitigate the impacts of external regulatory pressures reflect RDT’s premise that organizations’ efforts to maintain autonomy and operational efficiency in the face of external constraints are crucial [79]. However, an operation reporting deliberate limitations on growth to circumvent regulatory complexities presents a paradox, balancing operational flexibility against the potential for scalability and sustainability. This dynamic state underscores the profound influence of governmental policies on business strategies within the agritourism sector [86]. The mixed effectiveness of the Agritourism Act in addressing liability concerns is consistent with Centner’s prediction [105] that liability protection legislation would result in confusion and administrative burden while not reducing the financial exposure of operators. Combined with the variability in property tax exemption benefits, the findings highlight a gap between legislative intentions and the operational realities faced by agritourism operators [23,25]. The labor challenges highlighted in the findings resonate with the critical success factors related to human resources [21], emphasizing the sector’s reliance on skilled labor that can navigate the dual demands of agriculture and hospitality.

The exacerbation of these challenges by the COVID-19 pandemic further underscores the significance of external factors in shaping agritourism operations, aligning with RDT’s focus on external dependencies [80]. The identified gaps in support mechanisms, particularly in marketing and extension services, emphasize the need for targeted support to enhance the visibility and operational expertise of agritourism operators. This finding aligns with the literature on the importance of support infrastructure and education for agritourism success, highlighting the potential for alignment between government services and the sector’s specific needs [17].

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study highlights the resilience of Texas agritourism businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, which aligns with other contemporaneous agritourism literature [36,39]. Many of the business owners’ motivations and resultant behaviors, characterized by innovation, adaptability, and a proactive approach to crisis management, reflect the dimensions of ESE. This observation is consistent with prior research that positions ESE as a significant predictor of entrepreneurial behavior and success in the face of adversity [59,64]. The critical agritourism success factors identified by Baipai et al. [11] align with ESE, encompassing skills and competence, education and training, direct marketing, collaboration and partnerships, and family involvement. Improvement in these areas suggests a likely increase in entrepreneurial confidence. Moreover, the study underscores how external factors, such as regulatory burdens, labor shortages, and inadequate policy support, can limit the potential outcomes achievable by agritourism businesses, regardless of ESE level.

RDT frames this predicament, positing that organizations’ behaviors and strategies are significantly influenced by their dependencies on external resources [78]. The theory provides a useful lens for understanding the constraints faced by agritourism operators and the necessity of strategic responses to these constraints. Agritourism success factors identified by Baipai et al. [10] contain several resource-dependent factors, including government support, community participation, collaboration and partnerships, support infrastructure, and regulatory compliance through insurance, licenses, and permits. A combination of greater predictability, reliability, or decreased dependence in these areas indicates improved outcomes vis-à-vis RDT. The role of policy emerges as a pivotal factor that could enhance ESE by providing a more supportive environment for agritourism businesses and mitigating the limiting effects of resource dependencies outlined by RDT. Policies aimed at reducing regulatory complexities, facilitating access to labor, and providing targeted support and resources could empower agritourism entrepreneurs, enabling them to leverage their ESE more effectively. Additionally, policy interventions could address the gaps in support mechanisms, such as marketing and extension services, thereby enhancing the resilience and sustainability of the agritourism sector.

The alignment of the study’s findings with the broader literature on agritourism success factors, ESE, and RDT underscores the interconnectedness of individual entrepreneurial traits [20,21,30] and the broader external environment [11,23,25,28,57] in determining the success of agritourism ventures. The study suggests that while ESE is crucial for persevering in crises and having the confidence to capitalize on opportunities, the full potential of agritourism businesses can only be realized within a supportive policy framework that acknowledges and addresses the challenges posed by external dependencies.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study is among the few that examined agritourism through the lens of ESE. Results show that ESE helps explain the behavior, particularly the adaptability and perseverance of farmers when faced with unexpected and challenging situations (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic in this study). Place identity and social capital, as reflected through collaboration with other farms, are also related to ESE, as suggested by the latest research [106]. Hallak et al. [69] suggested that ESE, regardless of whether the business is family-owned or not, is an important indicator of business performance. The external environment and resources can hinder the performance of individuals, even those with high ESE. By connecting to RDT, this study outlines specific aspects of support that may be beneficial to agritourism farms, along with the reasoning behind them. As such, this study extends previous ESE research to be integrated with RDT. Indeed, the findings of this study support the relevance of ESE in examining agritourism settings.

RDT underscores the importance of stakeholder collaboration and external support, as suggested by previous research [84]. Rural residents often lack the necessary resources (e.g., managerial expertise, financial assistance) to achieve their goals [85], and thus they need to find and utilize resources available outside their communities, as well as assistance from government or NGOs [84,107]. As findings suggest, government-led policies can significantly impact the existing operation of or the decision to operate agritourism businesses, as we discuss the regulatory burden, tax exemption issue, the Agritourism Act, and insurance costs. Labor shortages or guest worker policies appear to complicate agritourism business operations, which are externally controlled by policymakers yet significantly impact day-to-day business activities. While businesses recognize the need for improved signage practices to facilitate business operations, findings also reveal a gap between extension agent experts and agritourism business operators, hindering their ability to run their businesses successfully. So far, the application of RDT in tourism research has been sporadic and limited [84]. This study extends the traditional RDT study context to agritourism.

6.2. Practical Implications

Individual entities’ influence supersedes governmental policy and support within the agritourism industry. The role of government in agritourism is lacking strength, and many operations find themselves relying on one another for market information, creative adaptations, and the sharing of knowledge and customer bases. While self-sufficiency and collaboration have kept agritourism alive, implementing government programs to support agritourism businesses would lead to stronger networks within the agritourism industry while also providing better promotion of agritourism, attracting a much broader audience to agritourism entities, and reducing the uncertainty of revenue from agritourism. There are benefits beyond socio-economic aspects serving the SDGs, while successful agritourism businesses are noted to foster rural economic development and community well-being [3]. The agritourism industry is gaining popularity globally [2], as in the United States [5]. With the increased prospects of agritourism, growing tourism opportunities are equally beneficial for visitors. Therefore, the success of the agritourism industry is important from various stakeholders’ perspectives. Hence, improving the ESE and increasing supportive policy mechanisms to promote agritourism businesses is imperative.

As a hybrid of the agriculture and tourism industries, agritourism falls outside of the competencies or focus of the major state entities that would most predictably offer support, such as the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Texas A&M University AgriLife Extension Service, and the Office of the Governor—Economic Development and Tourism (Travel Texas). Consistent with Barbieri et al. [108] and Gil Arroyo et al. [109], operators in the study occasionally struggled to articulate a definition and boundaries for the industry. This may contribute to inaction on the policy front. Confusion persists regarding what constitutes agritourism and who should be responsible for promoting its success. Consequently, there is an opportunity to consolidate recognition for the industry’s untapped potential value to the state by codifying terminology and administrative responsibility. The Texas A&M University AgriLife Extension Service is well positioned to leverage its existing mandate and delivery structure to distribute agritourism-specific knowledge and resources effectively. Education and training have a positive relationship with participation in agritourism [110]. The state could develop centralized program capabilities to capitalize on this opportunity through managed promotion and distribution across the state’s 250 county extension offices.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study was conducted only in Texas, given that the state is a hotspot for the agritourism sector in the U.S. and the growth of agritourism during the pandemic as a national and global phenomenon, the findings of this research have broader implications. The study had a higher number of older, white participants, which is consistent with the typical profile of U.S. farmers. To capture a comprehensive picture of agritourism business owners, future studies should include those from different demographic backgrounds. This approach will help uncover unique insights and creative solutions that may have been overlooked due to the demographic homogeneity of the study sample. This study utilized one-time data collected through semi-structured interviews. Future studies can utilize longitudinal data to further evaluate adaptation strategies and any changes to those strategies during or after crises, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of adaptability and resilience among agritourism businesses and their associated implications. Looking forward from a demand perspective, tourists’ desire for personal alignment with destination ethics will continue to define the success of agritourism [16]. Based on reported customer mental health benefits and increased demand for nature-based destinations during the pandemic, future studies should consider the importance of agritourism context and values alignment with customer mental health objectives as they relate to purchase and revisit intentions.