Rural Tourism and Land Use: Unveiling Global Research Trends, Gaps, and Future Pathways

Abstract

Rural tourism influences rural communities, yet its growth often leads to substantial land use changes, creating both opportunities and tensions. Despite this, a comprehensive overview of the literature examining their intersection is absent. To address this gap, this study employed a bibliometric analysis of 497 documents from the Web of Science database spanning 1994 to 2025. Methods included major publication trend analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and co-citation analysis to uncover publication trends, dominant themes, and intellectual structure. Results indicate a rapidly expanding, interdisciplinary field characterized by strong international collaboration and a focus on sustainability, environmental planning, and integrated land management. Key thematic clusters include geospatial tools, environmental stewardship, urbanization impacts, social dimensions, and economic assessment of rural landscapes. The intellectual foundations are rooted in spatial planning, ecosystem services, socio-economic impacts, and ecotourism’s conservation goals. Gaps identified include lack of synthesis studies, underrepresentation of qualitative methods, insufficient policy-implementation research, and underrepresentation of European and intra-Global South collaborations. The study calls for future works to address these gaps through interdisciplinary approaches, longitudinal monitoring, and expanded regional collaborations. By mapping the field’s evolution, this study provides a foundational reference for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to balance tourism development with sustainable land use in rural areas.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, rural tourism has become an increasingly important component of both local development strategies and global tourism dynamics. Defined broadly as tourism that takes place in non-urban areas and emphasizes local culture, landscapes, and traditions [1], rural tourism contributes significantly to the diversification of rural economies, revitalization of rural communities, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage [2]. Rural tourism, as part of a wider shift toward experiential and sustainable travel, is often seen as a viable means to counter rural depopulation, stimulate small-scale entrepreneurship, and promote more inclusive development [3]. However, this growth is not without consequences. In many cases, the development of rural tourism infrastructure, increased land commodification, changes in land ownership, and the reconfiguration of land use practices have generated both opportunities and tensions in rural settings [4].

One of the most visible outcomes of rural tourism-driven transformation can be the alteration of rural landscapes—an anthropogenic shift in land use with far-reaching consequences. Evidence shows that, in some regions, agricultural lands are increasingly being converted into tourism resorts [5], residential zones are repurposed as short-term rentals [6], and natural ecosystems are reshaped to accommodate tourism infrastructure [7]. These changes often produce uneven outcomes by intensifying competition over scarce resources [8] and deepening spatial inequalities [9].

These complex dynamics are in many contexts further exacerbated by the absence of integrated planning frameworks [10]. Although advanced technical tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Cellular Automata (CA) models [11], and landscape character assessments [12] offer promising planning solutions, their deployment often occurs in disciplinary silos, limiting their broader strategic impact. Despite the growing importance of the interlinkages between rural tourism and land use, no bibliometric study to date has explicitly focused on this intersection. Even though there are prior bibliometric analyses that explore key relevant aspects such as rural tourism and/or agritourism [13,14,15,16] and rural land use [17,18] they all address the two concepts separately and/or neglect the systematic exploration of how rural tourism and land use influence each other globally. Even empirical studies such as [19], which examine land suitability for rural tourism, are geographically limited and lack a broader synthesis.

This fragmented literature reveals a clear gap: there is no comprehensive bibliometric analysis mapping the global intersection of rural tourism and land use. This study fills that gap by conducting the first global bibliometric analysis explicitly focused on their interrelationship. In particular, the study aims to achieve the following:

• Provide a performance-based overview of rural tourism and land use research;
• Identify dominant and emerging themes through keyword co-occurrence analysis;
• Map the intellectual structure using co-citation analysis;
• Highlight knowledge gaps and propose future research directions.

By synthesizing and visualizing the evolution of academic inquiry at the intersection of rural tourism and land use, this study contributes a timely and novel perspective to the literature. It provides a comprehensive and data-driven understanding of how the academic conversation around rural tourism and land use has evolved globally. Also, it sets a foundation for the future development of this field. Serving as a foundational reference, the findings aim to support multiple stakeholders seeking to understand the spatial, environmental, and developmental implications of rural tourism and its relationship to land use planning and policy. In particular, policymakers will benefit from evidence-based insights to design sustainable rural tourism strategies; researchers can identify priority areas and foster cross-disciplinary collaboration; and practitioners, including planners and NGOs will gain synthesized best practices to address land use conflicts.

The subsequent parts of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the relevant literature. Section 3 outlines the methodologies for data collection and bibliometric analysis including limitations. In Section 4, the findings are presented, covering descriptive statistics, publications trends, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and co-citation analysis. Section 5 delves into a detailed discussion of these results including key characteristics of the research landscape, thematic clusters and intellectual foundations, current research gaps and avenues for future research. Lastly, Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review

Rural tourism has emerged as a driving force behind significant changes in land use, socioeconomic restructuring, and environmental conditions in many regions of the world. In this section, we present major findings of latest works on rural tourism and land use which is divided thematically into the following areas: (1) land use change and spatial restructuring; (2) environmental and ecosystem impacts; (3) socio-economic outcomes and rural revitalization; (4) accessibility and infrastructure; and (5) planning tools and modeling approaches. Tabular summary of these studies are also provided (

Table 1. Review of related literature.

Source	Study Title	Major Findings
[20]	Tourism-driven rural spatial restructuring in the metropolitan fringe: An empirical observation	Commercial land increased 230% (2010–2018); housing converted to hybrid tourist residences at 18%/year
[6]	Mixed land use levels in rural settlements and their influencing factors: A case study of Pingba Village in Chongqing, China	Tourism resources and homestead policies were primary drivers of land mix diversity
[21]	Spatial morphology evolution of rural settlements induced by tourism: A comparative study of three villages in Yesanpo tourism area, China	Compactness decreased 38% in core tourism zones; building density increased near attractions
[9]	Spatial polarization of villages in tourist destinations: A case study from Yesanpo, China	Core-periphery gap widened: 15% villages captured 82% of tourism revenue; polarization index increased from 0.42 to 0.67 (2005–2015)
[22]	Rural tourism and Albergo Diffuso: a case study for sustainable land use planning	Diffused hotel model reduced new construction by 72% while increasing heritage building utilization
[19]	Land use suitability analysis of rural tourism activities: Yenice, Turkey	28% of the study area highly suitable for ecotourism; slope and vegetation cover were most influential factors
[5]	Factors affecting the change in agricultural land use to tourism: A case study on the southern coasts of the Caspian Sea, Iran	Land conversion likelihood increased by 8.7× near highways; soil fertility loss was primary ecological concern
[23]	Impacts of rural tourism-driven land use change on ecosystems services provision in Erhai Lake Basin, China	Tourism expansion reduced water yield (−12.7%) and carbon storage (−8.3%), but increased soil retention (+5.1%)
[8]	The state-led tourism development in Beijing’s ecologically fragile periphery: Peasants’ response and challenges	73% of farmers reported land value appreciation; 61% faced seasonal water shortages due to tourism
[7]	Perspectives for environmental conservation and ecosystem services on coupled rural–urban systems	Urban demand drives 64% of rural land conversion; payment schemes improved water quality in 78% of cases
[24]	Agritourism initiatives in the context of continuous out-migration: Comparative perspectives for the Alps and Chinese mountain regions	Direct sales increased farm income by 19–38%; youth retention was 5× higher in tourism-adopting households
[25]	Frontier of rural revitalization in China: a spatial analysis of national rural tourist towns	Every 1% increase in tourist towns reduced rural-urban income gap by 0.6%; spillover effects extended 50 km
[26]	Agricultural production under rural tourism on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: From the perspective of smallholder farmers	Tourism participation reduced cropland abandonment by 41%; low-income households showed 3.2× higher diversification
[27]	Rural tourism accommodation prices by land use-based hedonic approach: First results from the case study of the self-catering cottages in Asturias	Mountain views added 19% price premium; agricultural adjacency decreased prices by 12% due to odor/nuisance
[28]	Spatial arrangements of tourist villages: Implications for the integration of residents and tourists	Segregated pathways reduced resident-tourist conflicts by 67%; shared plaza spaces increased interaction by 41%
[29]	Sustainable accessibility in rural destinations: a public transport network approach	Seasonality caused 47% reduction in transport connectivity; integrated ticketing improved tourist mobility by 31%
[30]	Spatially illustrating leisure agriculture: Empirical evidence from picking orchards in China	Optimal service radius = 15 km; orchard density positively correlated with road density.
[11]	Tourism land use simulation for regional tourism planning using POIs and cellular automata	Model accuracy = 89% (Kappa); accommodation POIs were strongest predictor of land change (β = 0.76)
[12]	Conceptual framework of rural landscape character assessment to guide tourism development in rural areas	Historic features contributed 58% to landscape attractiveness; visual corridors were critical for wine tourism routes
[31]	Identifying the spatiotemporal patterns of traditional villages in China: a multiscale perspective	Village clusters show “high-east, low-west” distribution; 68% concentrated along historic trade routes
[32]	Using a VGI and GIS-based multicriteria approach for assessing the potential of rural tourism in Extremadura (Spain)	62% of high-potential areas were underutilized; landscape esthetics contributed 42% to suitability scores

).

2.1. Land Use Change and Spatial Restructuring

Tourism-induced spatial transformations are among the most prominent land use shifts in rural areas. Numerous studies emphasize how the demand for tourism has led to the growth of commercial and mixed-use land. For example, Gao & Cheng [20] noted a 230% increase in commercial land and an annual 18% conversion of residential housing into tourist accommodations in China. Similarly, Chen et al. [6] found that homestead policies and tourism resources were important factors influencing the diversity of land use in Pingba Village, China. In core tourism zones, spatial compaction and building densities shift markedly. A study by Xi et al. [21] noted that settlement compactness declined by 38%, while building density increased near tourist attractions. The pattern of polarization is also evident in a study conducted in Yesanpo by Xi et al. [9], where 15% of villages captured 82% of tourism revenues, and the polarization index rose from 0.42 to 0.67 between 2005 and 2015. In another case, housing policies supporting Albergo Diffuso in Italy reduced new construction by 72%, while enhancing heritage building reuse [22]. Also, Tourism prompts shifts in land suitability and functionality. Ayhan et al. [19] found that 28% of Yenice, Turkey, was highly suitable for ecotourism, primarily influenced by slope and vegetation. Ghadami et al. [5] reported that agricultural land conversion to tourism was 8.7 times more likely near highways, with soil fertility loss as a key environmental tradeoff.

2.2. Environmental and Ecosystem Impacts

Tourism-driven land changes have substantial ecological implications. In the Erhai Lake Basin, Liu et al. [23] found that tourism expansion led to a 12.7% decrease in water yield and an 8.3% loss in carbon storage, though soil retention improved by 5.1%. Liu [8] reported that while 73% of farmers experienced land value appreciation, 61% faced seasonal water shortages due to tourism pressures. The urban-rural ecological relationship is further explored by da Silva et al. [7], who found that urban demand accounted for 64% of rural land conversion, but payment for ecosystem services improved water quality in 78% of cases. On the Caspian Sea coast, Ghadami et al. [5] emphasized the ecological cost of tourism-related land change, particularly in terms of soil fertility degradation.

2.3. Socio-Economic Outcomes and Rural Revitalization

Rural tourism has played a crucial role in stimulating local economies and reversing demographic decline. In the Alps and Chinese mountainous regions, Dax et al. [24] found that agritourism initiatives led to a 19–38% increase in farm income and youth retention rates five times higher than in non-tourism households. Zhan et al. [25] showed that every 1% increase in tourist towns correlated with a 0.6% reduction in the rural-urban income gap, with effects extending up to 50 km from tourism hubs. At the household level, Lun et al. [26] demonstrated that tourism participation on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau reduced cropland abandonment by 41%, with low-income households exhibiting 3.2 times more income diversification. In the case of self-catering cottages in Asturias, Spain, Bilbao-Terol et al. [27] noted a 19% price premium for mountain views, while proximity to agricultural land reduced prices by 12% due to odors and nuisance. The integration of tourists and locals is vital for long-term socio-cultural sustainability. Soszyński et al. [28] found that segregated pathways reduced resident-tourist conflict by 67%, while shared plaza spaces enhanced interaction by 41%.

2.4. Accessibility and Infrastructure

Tourism success in rural regions is often contingent on seasonal and spatial accessibility. Tomej & Liburd [29] highlighted a 47% decline in public transport connectivity during off-peak seasons but noted that integrated ticketing systems improved tourist mobility by 31%. Road networks also influence agricultural tourism, as seen in Cui et al. [30], where orchard density was strongly correlated with road density, and the optimal service radius was determined to be 15 km.

2.5. Planning Tools and Spatial Modeling

Advanced modeling techniques offer critical insights for tourism-driven land planning. Shi et al. [11] employed CA and Points of Interests (POIs) data to simulate tourism land use, achieving 89% model accuracy (Kappa) and revealed that accommodation POIs were the strongest predictors of land change. Zakariya et al. [12] proposed a landscape character assessment framework, identifying that historic features contributed 58% to attractiveness, and visual corridors were essential for wine tourism route planning. From a conservation perspective, Wu et al. [31] found that 68% of traditional villages were concentrated along historic trade routes, with spatial patterns showing a high-east, low-west distribution. González-Ramiro et al. [32] used Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) and GIS to assess rural tourism potential in Extremadura, Spain revealing that 62% of high-potential areas were underutilized, with landscape esthetics contributing 42% to suitability scores.

In sum, latest works on rural tourism and land use underscore the multifaceted impacts of rural tourism on land use, ecosystems, and livelihoods. While tourism provides economic and demographic benefits, it also introduces environmental pressures and socio-spatial imbalances, thus asking for careful planning and implementation for its sustainability.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, combining both performance analysis and science mapping to investigate the research landscape at the intersection of rural tourism and land use. Bibliometric methods offer a systematic, replicable, and quantitative approach to mapping scholarly output, identifying key contributors, influential publications, thematic clusters, and research gaps in a given domain [33,34]. This methodological approach was chosen due to its strength in capturing the structural and dynamic evolution of scientific knowledge. It supports objective synthesis of large volumes of literature across time and geography and reveals patterns of collaboration and citation that are difficult to discern through traditional literature reviews. As depicted in Figure 1, the workflow followed in this study consisted of the following phases: (i) data collection: search query design and execution in Web of Science (WoS); (ii) data cleaning and processing: exclusion filtering and screening; (iii) data analysis and visualization: performance metrics and network mapping.

3.2. Data Collection, Extraction and Preprocessing

The WoS collection was selected as the primary data source due to its rigorous indexing standards, wide coverage of high-impact journals, and compatibility with bibliometric tools like Bibliometrix and VOSviewer [36]. To capture the interdisciplinary scope of rural tourism and land use, the following search string was used in the Web of Science Topic Search (TS): (“rural tourism” OR “agritourism” OR “farm tourism” OR “ecotourism” OR “cultural tourism” OR “community-based tourism”) AND (“land use” OR “land-use change” OR “land management” OR “land cover” OR “spatial planning” OR “agricultural land use”). This Boolean string was designed to ensure a comprehensive coverage of relevant works with the understanding that irrelevant records would be removed during subsequent filtering phases. While “rural tourism” is the central focus of the study, the inclusion of more/less related terms such as “ecotourism,” “cultural tourism,” and “community-based tourism” reflects the fact that, in many contexts, these forms of tourism overlap with and are practiced within rural landscapes, particularly where land use is concerned. The search covered the time period from 1994 to 2025, capturing 31 years of scholarly discourse and allowing for the analysis of historical trends and recent developments. The initial search returned 552 documents. Exclusion criteria’s were applied based on document type (proceedings papers, early access articles, editorial material, and retracted publications) and language (non-English documents) to ensure the analysis was constructed only on finalized, peer-reviewed, and comparable works. A subsequent title and abstract screening was then carried out to retain only studies directly relevant to the topic, while excluding those with unclear focus, off-topic content, or insufficient information. Following this process, a final dataset of 497 documents was retained for analysis. The selected dataset was exported on 15 June 2025 in plain text format from WoS and imported into Biblioshiny (version 5.0) for performance analysis [33] and VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) for science mapping [37].

3.3. Bibliometric Techniques and Indicators

Two key bibliometric techniques (i.e., performance analysis and science mapping) were undertaken. The performance analysis aimed to evaluate the productivity and impact of publications across different dimensions using annual scientific production, most productive authors, leading journals, institutions, and countries and influential works. The science mapping, on the other hand, involved the construction of bibliometric networks to explore structural patterns in the literature. These include keyword co-occurrence analysis using all keywords (author keywords and keywords plus) to identify emerging themes and conceptual clusters and co-citation analysis (using cited references) to uncover intellectual foundations.

3.4. Software and Visualization Tools

Two main bibliometric software tools were used: (i) Biblioshiny, version 5.0, a bibliometrix R-package for performance analysis [33] and (ii) VOSviewer, version 1.6.20, for science mapping including network visualizations, clustering algorithm and overlay visualizations [37]. These tools were selected over others due to their user-friendly interfaces, compatibility with large datasets, and robust features for both quantitative performance metrics and visual mapping, making them particularly suitable for comprehensive and replicable bibliometric analysis [33,37].

3.5. Validation and Reliability

Several steps were taken to ensure data accuracy and reproducibility including the use of a standardized, high-quality database (WoS), manual screening of titles and abstracts to ensure relevance, consistency in keyword standardization (e.g., “land use” vs. “land-use”). Additionally, the methods and search string were documented for replicability, aligning with best practices in bibliometric research [34].

3.6. Limitations

Despite its rigor, this study has some limitations: (i) database limitation: using only WoS may exclude some relevant studies from Scopus, Google Scholar, or gray literature. (ii) keyword constraints: the search string may not capture all relevant terms due to variation in terminology across disciplines. (iii) language bias: the exclusion of non-English publications may overlook important regional studies. Therefore, these constraints should be acknowledged when interpreting the results of this study.

4. Results

4.1. Main Information About the Data

As shown in

Table 2. Main information about the data.

Description	Results
Timespan	1994:2025
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.)	242
Documents	497
Annual Growth Rate %	9.77
Document Average Age	6.63
Average Citations per Doc	21.95
References	27,559
Document Contents
Keywords Plus (ID)	1232
Author’s Keywords (DE)	1763
Authors
Authors	1805
Authors of Single-Authored Docs	42
Authors Collaboration
Single-Authored Docs	43
Co-Authors per Doc	4.01
International Co-Authorships %	34
Document Types
Article	476
Book Chapter	1
Review	20

, the bibliometric analysis encompassed 497 documents published between 1994 and 2025, sourced from 242 journals and other publications, reflecting a moderately diverse academic base. With an annual growth rate of nearly 10%, the data shows sustained academic impact (average document age of 6.63 years and 21.95 average citations per document). The high number of 27,559 references cited across the dataset underscores the field’s reliance on a broad knowledge base. The dataset contained 1763 author keywords (DE) and 1232 Keywords Plus (ID), revealing a rich thematic diversity in rural tourism and land use research. A total of 1805 authors contributed to the literature, with only 4 authors (2.3%) producing single-authored documents. The dominance of multi-authored works is further evidenced by the average of 4.01 co-authors per document, signaling strong collaborative tendencies in this research domain. Notably, 34% of publications involved international co-authorships, suggesting that rural tourism and land use studies are increasingly shaped by cross-border academic partnerships. The overwhelming majority of publications were journal articles (476), followed by 20 reviews and 1 book chapter.

4.2. Annual Scientific Production

The analysis of annual scientific production reveals a clear evolution in research output, demonstrating how scholarly interest in rural tourism and land use has developed over time (Figure 2). This could be classified into 3 different phases (early phase, gradual growth and rapid expansion). (i) In the early phase (1991–2004), the field began with minimal activity, with only 1 publication in 1991, followed by sporadic output in the late 1990s and early 2000s. (ii) gradual growth (2005–2016): a noticeable rise begins in 2005 (5 articles), followed by fluctuations but an overall upward trend. 2008 (14 articles) marks the first major spike. The period 2010–2016 sees consistent double-digit outputs, peaking at 23 articles in 2016. (iii) rapid expansion (2017–2023): from 2017 (35 articles), publications surge dramatically, reaching 52 in 2023—the highest in the dataset. 2018–2019 show near-doubling from previous years (46 and 48 articles). Despite a slight dip in 2020 (30 articles) recovery is swift in 2021 (47 articles) and the trend remains strong in 2025 with partial data (18 articles so far as of 15 June 2025).

4.3. Most Relevant Sources

Figure 3 shows the distribution of publications across key journals revealing dominant journals in the field including Sustainability (42 articles), Land (35 articles) and Land Use Policy (27 articles). Other prominent journals include Ecological Indicators (10 articles), PLOS ONE (9 articles), Science of the Total Environment (8 articles), Journal of Sustainable Tourism (7 articles), Environmental Management (6 articles), Ecosystem Services (5 articles) and Journal of Ecotourism (5 articles).

Additionally, Bradford’s Law [38] was applied to identify the core journals contributing to the field of rural tourism and land use research. According to this bibliometric principle, scholarly literature is often concentrated in a limited number of core sources, while the remainder is scattered among a broader set of less frequent contributors. Results reveal 3 zones (

Table 3. Core sources by Bradford’s Law [38].

Zone	Number of Journals	Ratio to Core Journals
1	169	1
2	164	0.97
3	164	0.97

). Zone 1 (core journals) comprises 169 journals, which can be considered the most productive or “core” sources in this field. These journals contribute a disproportionately high volume of research on rural tourism and land use, indicating the existence of a moderately concentrated core knowledge base. Zone 2 and zone 3 each contains 164 journals, contributing roughly an equal volume of articles as Zone 1. The ratio to core journals for both Zone 2 and Zone 3 is approximately 0.97, meaning the number of journals required in each outer zone is nearly equal to the core. This is somewhat atypical compared to the expected Bradford distribution (which usually shows an exponential increase).

4.4. Most Relevant Authors

The analysis of authorship patterns reveals key contributors who have significantly shaped the discourse on rural tourism and land use. Lindsey PA and Liu JG are the top contributors each with six articles closely followed by Zhang JD (five articles) and Chen XD, Hull V, Jeong JS, Lee JH, Masoudi M, Nagendra H, and Romañach SS each with four articles (Figure 4).

Furthermore, the distribution of author productivity in rural tourism and land use research follows a pattern consistent with Lotka’s Law [39] which describes the inverse relationship between the number of authors and their publication output in scientific fields. As shown in Figure 5, the findings reveal a highly skewed distribution where most authors (92.5%) contribute minimally (only 1 document), while a small fraction (0.1%) accounts for the majority of publications (reaching 6 papers).

4.5. Most Relevant Affiliations

Figure 6 provides the analysis of institutional affiliations highlights the academic centers driving research on rural tourism and land use, with a clear dominance of Chinese institutions alongside strong contributions from U.S. and international universities. Chinese Academy of Sciences leads overwhelmingly with 43 articles. Also, the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS (13 articles) and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, CAS (11 articles) and the Ministry of Education, China (9 articles) further underscore China’s coordinated, academy-driven research model. On the other hand, U.S. contributions include the State University System of Florida (15 articles), University of Florida (13 articles), University of California System (11 articles) and Michigan State University (9 articles). Other global affiliations in the top 10 are University of Pretoria (10 articles) and University of East Anglia (9 articles, UK).

4.6. Leading Countries (Based on Corresponding Author’s Country)

Table 4. Countries scientific production.

Country	Articles	Articles %	SCP	MCP
China	93	18.7	74	19
USA	54	10.9	30	24
South Africa	25	5	10	15
Spain	24	4.8	15	9
Iran	23	4.6	16	7
Australia	19	3.8	10	9
India	16	3.2	9	7
Brazil	15	3	9	6
Indonesia	13	2.6	10	3
Mexico	12	2.4	7	5

shows the top 10 leading countries in the scientific production of rural tourism and land use research, based on the country of the corresponding author. This approach counts each country once per publication, avoiding duplication in multi-author collaborations. Using this method, China dominates research output (18.7% of articles), with 74 Single Country Publications (SCP). The U.S. ranks second (10.9%) but leads in Multiple Country Publications (24 MCP). South Africa, Spain, Iran, and Australia show moderate output with more/less balanced domestic/international work, while emerging contributors like India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico exhibit growing but still localized research. Notably, European nations beyond Spain are underrepresented, and Global South collaborations remain limited.

4.7. Most Global Cited Documents

Table 5. Most global cited documents.

Title	Source	TCs
Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?	[40]	137
Impacts of rural tourism-driven land use change on ecosystems services provision in Erhai Lake Basin, China	[23]	123
Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China	[41]	116
Creating land markets for rural revitalization: Land transfer, property rights and gentrification in China	[42]	113
Sensitising rural policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe	[43]	109
Land use suitability analysis of rural tourism activities: Yenice, Turkey	[19]	86
Who is consuming the countryside? An activity-based segmentation analysis of the domestic rural tourism market in Portugal	[44]	70
Ecoregion-based conservation in the Carpathians and the land-use implications	[45]	70
Changes in land use of a village driven by over 25 years of tourism: The case of Gougezhuang village, China	[46]	64
Tourism-driven rural spatial restructuring in the metropolitan fringe: An empirical observation	[20]	59

illustrates the most influential studies on rural tourism and land use revealing diverse themes, with the highest-cited work by Lothian [40] (137 citations) questioning whether landscape quality is inherent or subjective, shaping debates on rural esthetics. Close behind, Li et al. [23] (123 citations) examine tourism-driven land use changes in China’s Erhai Lake Basin, highlighting threats to ecosystem services. Yang et al. [41] (116 citations) explore agro-tourism as a form of multifunctional agriculture in peri-urban China, while Kan [42] (113 citations) links rural tourism to land market liberalization and gentrification. Van Berkel and Verburg [43] (109 citations) assess spatial variations in European rural development, advocating region-specific policies. Ayhan’s [19] (86 citations) GIS-based analysis identifies optimal zones for rural tourism in Turkey, offering practical planning insights. Eusébio et al. [44] (70 citations) segment Portugal’s rural tourism market by visitor activities, aiding targeted development. Similarly cited, Turnock [45] (70 citations) analyzes conservation challenges in the Carpathians, tying ecotourism to land use conflicts. Xi et al. [46] (64 citations) document a Chinese village’s transformation over 25 years, showing tourism’s role in rural restructuring. Finally, Gao and Cheng [20] (59 citations) reveal how metropolitan fringe tourism in China accelerates rural spatial changes.

4.8. Co-Occurrence Analysis

Co-occurrence analysis offers insights into the thematic clusters of a research field by identifying how frequently, and in what combinations, key terms appear across the scientific literature [34]. In this study, a co-occurrence analysis was performed using VOSviewer version 1.6.20 with the full counting method, where each keyword is counted once per document, regardless of repetition. To ensure the analysis captured influential and recurring keywords, a keyword co-occurrence threshold of 10 occurrences was applied. This specific value was chosen as it provided an optimal balance between inclusivity and clarity, with sensitivity analyses confirming the resulting analysis was robust to small threshold variations. This filtering process reduced the initial 2995 keywords to a more analytically tractable set of 56 that met the inclusion criteria. Figure 7 presents the network map of the study’s keyword co-occurrence analysis, where nodes (circles) represents a keyword, edges (lines) represents the frequency and strength of co-occurrence between keywords in the same documents and colors denote clusters of thematically related terms [37]. As shown, the keywords with the highest frequency and total link strength are ‘‘ecotourism, conservation, tourism, land-use, biodiversity, management, ecosystem services, GIS and rural tourism’’ indicating their centrality to the research corpus.

Furthermore, the keywords co-occurrence analysis revealed five major clusters, each represented by a distinct thematic orientation (

Table 6. Co-occurrence clusters.

Cluster	Keywords	Total	Thematic Area
1	AHP, area, climate-change, ecology, framework, GIS, land, land use, model, policy, province, region, sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable tourism, system, tourism development.	17	Integrated planning for sustainable rural tourism.
2	biodiversity, biodiversity conservation, conservation, deforestation, dynamics, ecotourism, forest, land-use change, management, national-park, protected areas, remote sensing, resilience, wildlife.	14	Biodiversity conservation and nature-based tourism.
3	agriculture, areas, china, diversity, land use change, land-use, landscape, patterns, rural tourism, urbanization.	10	Land use dynamics in agricultural and transitional rural areas.
4	agritourism, attitudes, community, impact, impacts, perceptions, recreation, spatial planning, tourism.	9	Socio-spatial impacts and community engagement.
5	benefits, cultural ecosystem services, ecosystem services, indicators, quality, valuation.	6	Valuing ecosystem services in rural tourism contexts.

). These clusters were identified through VOS viewer’s modularity-based clustering, a method that groups closely related nodes based on co-occurrence density [37]. The five clusters were manually named by examining the most frequent and thematically related keywords within each group [34]. As displayed in Table 6, cluster 1 focuses on the integration of GIS tools, climate considerations, and sustainability frameworks to guide land use and tourism development in rural areas. Cluster 2 centers on the interplay between tourism and environmental stewardship, particularly within forests, protected areas, and national parks. Cluster 3 examines the transformation of agricultural landscapes under the pressures of urbanization, tourism, and land use change, often with a geographical focus on regions like China. Cluster 4 investigates how rural communities perceive and are affected by tourism, emphasizing local attitudes, recreational opportunities, and planning processes. Cluster 5 addresses the measurement and valuation of cultural and ecological benefits provided by rural landscapes, particularly through indicators of quality and ecosystem services.

Moreover, the overlay visualization of keyword co-occurrence shows a clear temporal evolution in rural tourism and land use research (Figure 8). Earlier studies (2017–2018) focused on conservation-related topics such as biodiversity, deforestation, and protected areas, while more recent research (2020–2021) has shifted toward integrated planning, sustainable tourism, spatial modeling, and ecosystem service valuation.

4.9. Co-Citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis examines the frequency with which pairs of references are cited together and is significant for identifying intellectual foundations that shape scholarly discourse [34]. The analysis was conducted using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) with the full counting method and cited references as the unit of analysis [37]. A minimum threshold of 10 citations per reference was set to focus on the most influential works, resulting in 24 highly cited references out of an initial pool of 27,559. The analysis revealed four distinct thematic clusters, each representing a major research strand in rural tourism and land use (

Table 7. Co-citation clusters.

Cluster	Theme	Cited References	Citations	TLS
1	GIS and sustainable ecotourism planning	[47]	23	53
		[48]	17	36
		[49]	12	31
		[50]	13	38
		[51]	11	17
		[52]	11	32
		[53]	14	30
		[54]	18	41
2	Ecosystem services in land use decisions	[55]	11	25
		[56]	15	31
		[57]	13	29
		[58]	10	13
		[59]	14	20
		[60]	11	16
3	Rural tourism as socioeconomic strategy	[61]	10	14
		[62]	11	14
		[63]	11	16
		[64]	10	18
		[65]	10	11
4	Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation	[66]	12	21
		[67]	15	18
		[68]	15	16
		[69]	21	12
		[70]	15	25

). These clusters were named through a qualitative examination of the cited references in each group [34]. As displayed in Table 7, the first cluster highlights the application of geospatial tools (e.g., GIS, AHP, MCDA) for optimizing ecotourism site selection including the works of [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. The second cluster centers on the economic assessment of ecosystem services and their integration into land use policy. Representative studies in this cluster include studies [55,56,57,58,59,60]. Building on the works of [61,62,63,64,65], the third cluster explores tourism as a diversification strategy for rural economies. The final fourth cluster critically evaluates ecotourism as a conservation tool. Seminal contributions include [66,67,68,69,70].

5. Discussion

5.1. Key Features in the Research Domain

The bibliometric analysis of rural tourism and land use research from 1994 to 2025 reveals a dynamic and evolving field characterized by a steady increase in scholarly output, interdisciplinary engagement, and growing international collaboration. The annual growth rate of 9.77% in document production, coupled with a relatively young average document age of 6.63 years, signals a burgeoning area of inquiry with sustained academic interest. This rapid expansion, particularly evident from 2017 onwards, aligns with global trends emphasizing sustainable development, rural revitalization, and the increasing pressures on land resources [71,72,73]. The significant average citations per document (21.95) further underscore the impactful nature of the published works, indicating that research in this domain is frequently referenced and contributes meaningfully to broader academic discourse. The extensive number of author keywords (1763) and Keywords Plus (1232) highlights the thematic richness and multifaceted perspectives adopted by researchers. The substantial number of references (27,559) further emphasizes the reliance on a broad knowledge base, indicating that researchers integrate diverse theoretical frameworks and empirical findings to address complex challenges at the nexus of rural tourism and land use. Collaboration is a defining characteristic of this research domain, as evidenced by the high average of 4.01 co-authors per document and the low percentage of single-authored works (2.3%). This trend towards multi-authored publications suggests that the complexity of rural tourism and land use issues often necessitates diverse expertise and collaborative efforts [74]. Furthermore, the notable 34% of publications involving international co-authorships points to a global recognition of shared challenges and the need for comparative and transnational research approaches in addressing issues related to rural tourism development and land use [74]. The overwhelming dominance of journal articles (476 out of 497 documents) confirms that peer-reviewed publications are the primary vehicle for disseminating research findings. However, the limited number of review articles (20) suggests an opportunity for greater synthesis and consolidation of existing knowledge, which could help to identify emerging trends and direct future research efforts more effectively.

The analysis of annual scientific production, categorized into three distinct phases (early phase, gradual growth, and rapid expansion), illustrates the maturation of the field. The rapid expansion from 2017 to 2023, culminating in a peak of 52 articles in 2023 might be attributed to a significant increase in funding, conference activity, and interdisciplinary studies, solidifying rural tourism and land use as a prominent research area. While a slight dip in 2020 might be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions, the swift recovery in 2021 and continued strong output in 2025 (despite half-year data) demonstrate the enduring relevance and scholarly interest in this domain. Regarding relevant sources, journals such as Sustainability, Land, and Land Use Policy emerged as highly prolific, underscoring the interdisciplinary nature of rural tourism and land use research, with a strong emphasis on sustainability, land management, and environmental policy. The application of Bradford’s Law [38] while identifying a core of 169 journals, also revealed a relatively dispersed distribution of research across many journals. This atypical Bradford distribution, where the outer zones contain a similar number of journals as the core [38] suggests that research in rural tourism and land use is not confined to a few specialized outlets but rather permeates a broad spectrum of academic publications, reflecting its interdisciplinary nature. The analysis of authorship patterns, following Lotka’s Law [39], highlighted a highly skewed distribution where a small fraction of authors contribute a significant portion of publications, with Lindsey PA and Liu JG as top contributors. This pattern is common in many scientific fields and suggests the presence of established research groups or highly productive individual scholars who drive a substantial portion of the research output [39]. Finally, the geographical distribution of research, as indicated by affiliations and country contributions, reveals a prominent role for Chinese institutions, particularly the Chinese Academy of Sciences, alongside significant contributions from U.S. universities. This bipolar structure, complemented by niche contributions from institutions in South Africa and the UK, points to a strong influence of China’s coordinated, academy-driven research model and U.S.-led academic networks. While China dominates overall output, the U.S. leads in international collaborations, highlighting distinct research approaches and priorities across different regions. The underrepresentation of European nations (beyond Spain) and limited intra-Global South collaborations suggest potential avenues for fostering broader geographical engagement in future research endeavors.

The most cited studies [19,20,23,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] on rural tourism and land use cover diverse themes, from landscape perception to tourism-driven land changes, spatial planning tools, rural policy insights, market segmentation and conservation challenges. Together, they reflect the field’s interdisciplinary focus on environmental, social, and spatial transformations. They also underscore China and US led research output further supporting the previous results (most relevant affiliations and countries).

5.2. Thematic Groupings Identified Through Co-Occurrence Analysis

The keyword co-occurrence analysis offers a comprehensive overview of the dominant research topics and their interconnections. The most frequently occurring keywords, such as “ecotourism,” “conservation,” “tourism,” “land-use,” “biodiversity,” “management,” “ecosystem services,” “GIS,” and “rural tourism,” clearly indicate the centrality of these concepts to the research domain. The prominence of these terms suggests a strong academic interest in the intersections of tourism development, environmental management, and community engagement within rural contexts. Their high total link strengths further emphasize their interdisciplinary nature, with terms like “ecotourism” connecting environmental and social dimensions, and “land-use change” linking to spatial and dynamic aspects of land studies. These linkages reveal how studies on rural tourism and land use are increasingly integrated with environmental science, spatial planning, and community development, rather than being viewed in isolation. Also, the five identified clusters provide a more granular understanding of the field’s thematic landscape: Cluster 1 underscores a strong focus on the application of geospatial tools and comprehensive planning frameworks while cluster 2 highlights the critical interplay between tourism and environmental stewardship. Cluster 3 examines how pressures from urbanization and tourism influence land use patterns, cluster 4 delves into the social dimensions of rural tourism and cluster 5 addresses the measurement and economic assessment of benefits provided by rural landscapes. These identified co-ocurrence clusters reflect the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the field, drawing insights from tourism studies, geography, land use planning, and environmental sciences. Additionally, the overlay visualization of keyword co-occurrence reveals a clear temporal evolution within the field with earlier research (2017–2018) largely concentrated on conservation-related topics while more recent studies (2020–2021) show a discernible shift towards integrated planning, sustainable tourism, spatial modeling, and ecosystem service valuation.

5.3. Intellectual Foundations of the Field

The co-citation analysis offers valuable insights into the intellectual foundations of the field by identifying the most influential works and revealing four distinct research strands. Cluster 1, shaped by works such as [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54], highlights the technical and methodological foundations of spatial planning in rural tourism, particularly the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Cluster 2 centers on the conceptualization of ecosystem services and their integration into land use policy and economic assessment, drawing on key contributions like [55,56,57,58,59,60]. Cluster 3, informed by sources [61,62,63,64,65], reflects a scholarly focus on the socio-economic impacts of rural tourism, including community benefits, market development challenges, and strategies for successful rural tourism enterprises. Cluster 4 captures debates on the effectiveness of ecotourism in achieving conservation goals, addressing potential negative impacts, and ensuring equitable benefits for local communities, with influential works such as [66,67,68,69,70]. Overall, the intellectual foundations identified in the co-citation analysis align with the keyword analysis, emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of rural tourism research. The field bridges diverse academic domains, including geography (GIS applications), ecological economics (ecosystem services), rural sociology (community-tourism dynamics), and conservation biology (biodiversity impacts).

5.4. Identified Gaps and Suggested Paths for Future Research

Despite the significant growth and increasing sophistication of rural tourism and land use research, as revealed by the bibliometric analysis, several gaps and promising avenues for future inquiry can be identified:

• Limited synthesis and review articles: The dominance of journal articles (476 out of 497 documents) and the comparatively low number of review articles (20) suggest a need for more comprehensive synthesis studies. Future research should prioritize producing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and conceptual frameworks that consolidate existing knowledge, identify emergent patterns, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions and policies in rural tourism and land use. Such synthesis are useful for bridging theoretical divides, refining methodologies, and offering clearer guidance for practitioners and policymakers [75].
• Methodological innovation in social and cultural dimensions: While there is a strong emphasis on GIS and quantitative analysis for spatial planning and ecosystem services, as evidenced by co-occurrence Cluster 1 and co-citation Cluster 1 and 2, there appears to be a lesser focus on innovative qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to explore the nuanced social and cultural impacts of rural tourism. Future research could benefit from employing more participatory research designs, ethnographic studies, and longitudinal qualitative analyses. This enables deeper, context-rich understanding of community dynamics, captures evolving perspectives over time, and empowers local voices in shaping research outcomes [76].
• Bridging the gap between research and policy implementation: Despite the policy-oriented focus highlighted in co-occurrence Cluster 1 (“integrated planning for sustainable rural tourism”) and co-citation Cluster 2 (“ecosystem services in land-use decisions”), a clearer understanding of the actual translation of research findings into effective policy and practice remains an important area for exploration. Future studies could investigate the mechanisms of policy adoption, the challenges of implementation, and the factors influencing the success or failure of rural tourism and land use policies in diverse contexts. Case studies examining policy impact assessments and the role of stakeholders in policy development would be particularly valuable.
• Addressing the underrepresentation of European nations and Intra-Global South collaborations: The analysis of country scientific production revealed an underrepresentation of European nations (beyond Spain) and limited intra-Global South collaborations. This could be due to complex factors such as varying national research priorities, and unequal access to funding and resources for international collaboration. Future research should actively encourage and facilitate collaborative projects involving a wider range of European countries, potentially exploring diverse rural development models and policy approaches across the continent. Similarly, fostering more South-South collaborations is crucial to address region-specific challenges and share best practices in rural tourism and land use in developing contexts, moving beyond the current bipolar structure dominated by China and the U.S.
• Long-term socio-ecological monitoring and adaptation to climate change: While “climate change” appears as a keyword in co-occurrence Cluster 1, and the “biodiversity conservation and nature-based tourism” cluster (co-occurrence cluster 2) touches upon environmental dynamics, there is a need for more dedicated long-term monitoring studies. Future research should focus on understanding the longitudinal socio-ecological impacts of rural tourism and land use changes, particularly in the context of accelerating climate change [4]. This might include examining vulnerability assessments, adaptive management strategies for rural communities and ecosystems, and the role of rural tourism in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts [77].
• Integrating digital technologies and big data analytics: While “GIS” and “remote sensing” are prominent, the field could further leverage the opportunities presented by other digital technologies and big data analytics. This includes using social media data for understanding tourist behavior, sentiment analysis, and destination image; applying artificial intelligence for predictive modeling of tourism flows and land use changes; and utilizing advanced sensor technologies for environmental monitoring [78]. Such approaches could offer new insights and enhance the precision of research in rural tourism and land use.

By addressing these identified gaps, future research in rural tourism and land use can continue to evolve, offering more comprehensive insights, developing more robust methodologies, and ultimately contributing to more sustainable and equitable outcomes for rural communities and their environments worldwide.

6. Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving research landscape at the intersection of rural tourism and land use, highlighting key trends, thematic clusters, intellectual foundations, and critical gaps that shape the field. The study reveals several defining characteristics of rural tourism and land use research, reflecting its development, diversity, and global scope. Firstly, the analysis of the main dataset underscores a growing scholarly momentum and interdisciplinary richness in this field, supported by sustained citation impact, robust international collaboration, and a wide thematic scope. In terms of temporal trends, the evolution of annual scientific output demonstrates a clear transition from an early phase of limited activity to a period of rapid expansion after 2017, suggesting increasing academic and policy interest in the nexus between tourism and land use. Moreover, the distribution of publications across key journals, such as Sustainability, Land, and Land Use Policy, confirms the field’s core emphasis on sustainability, environmental planning, and integrative land management, further reinforcing its interdisciplinary nature. Similarly, the analysis of author productivity reveals a highly skewed pattern in line with Lotka’s Law, where a small group of prolific contributors, including Lindsey PA and Liu JG, play a central role in shaping discourse within a larger base of occasional authors. In addition, institutional affiliation patterns point to a bipolar research landscape led by China and the United States, where China’s academy-driven output and the U.S.’s extensive collaborative networks collectively drive global knowledge production. Furthermore, the geographical distribution of research confirms China’s dominance in overall output and the U.S.’s leadership in international collaboration, while highlighting underrepresentation from European countries (beyond Spain) and limited intra-Global South engagement—indicating areas for future expansion. Finally, the most highly cited documents in the field, largely originating from China and Europe, focus on themes such as landscape esthetics, gentrification, and spatial restructuring, thereby establishing foundational perspectives that continue to guide and influence current research trajectories. The keyword and co-citation analyses demonstrate the field’s thematic richness, with dominant clusters focusing on integrated planning, ecosystem services, socio-spatial impacts, and biodiversity conservation. These clusters reflect the complex interplay between tourism development, environmental stewardship, and rural livelihoods, reinforcing the need for holistic approaches that balance economic benefits with ecological and social sustainability. Despite these advancements, several critical gaps remain. The limited number of review articles suggests a need for more synthesis efforts to consolidate knowledge and guide future research directions. Methodological innovations, particularly in qualitative and participatory approaches, could deepen understanding of community dynamics and cultural impacts. Additionally, the underrepresentation of European and intra-Global South collaborations points to opportunities for broader geographical engagement, fostering comparative studies that account for diverse rural development models. By addressing these gaps, scholars can contribute to more sustainable and equitable rural development, ensuring that tourism serves as a catalyst for environmental conservation, cultural preservation, and community well-being in an era of rapid global change.