Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Baby, J.; Barbieri, C.;
Knollenberg, W. Creative Tourism:
An Umbrella for Agrifood Travel
Experiences? Tour. Hosp. 2024,5,
1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.3390/
tourhosp5040076
Academic Editor: Brian Garrod
Received: 31 October 2024
Revised: 27 November 2024
Accepted: 2 December 2024
Published: 6 December 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Creative Tourism: An Umbrella for Agrifood Travel Experiences?
Jibin Baby 1, Carla Barbieri 2, * and Whitney Knollenberg 2
1College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA;
jibinbaby@missouri.edu
2Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; whitney_knollenberg@ncsu.edu
*Correspondence: carla_barbieri@ncsu.edu
Abstract: Creativity is becoming more relevant to increasing destinations’ distinctiveness. While
anecdotal evidence suggests that travel to experience any aspect of the agrifood process encompasses
key indicators of Creative Tourism (CT), the alignment of agrifood experiences with CT remains
unexplored, limiting destinations’ potential to leverage the growing demand for both creative and
agrifood experiences. Thus, we assessed the importance of CT indicators across three types of agrifood
experiences (agritourism, craft beverages, food) in contrast with beach-going (control) while traveling
using hypothetical scenarios. We collected data in 2023 from a non-random panel of 1019 residents
across the USA (250 pre-established quotes per travel scenario) using an electronic survey. Results
showed that those in the agrifood travel scenarios, notably in agritourism, perceived higher levels
of creativity as compared to those in the control group across all creative domains, which supports
CT as a suitable scholarly framework to position agrifood travel experiences. Results also indicate
that destinations having strong agrifood experiences—and notably agritourism—should build upon
their shared creative elements, mainly gravitating around experiencing local livelihoods, to increase
their competitiveness. This study’s results can inform destinations seeking to strengthen their
distinctiveness by catering to the increasing number of tourists seeking creative food, agricultural,
and beverage experiences.
Keywords: agritourism; craft beverage tourism; creativity; culinary tourism; travel scenario
1. Introduction
Tourists are actively seeking new, unique, and meaningful experiences that move
beyond mere entertainment that allows them to change their lives [
1
,
2
]. To capitalize on
this trend, tourism destinations are incorporating creativity into their offerings to stand
out and increase their competitive advantage [
3
]. Furthermore, Creative Tourism (CT) has
emerged to bring together locals and tourists through engaged activities offered in shared
spaces that create meaningful interactions, foster unique and life-changing experiences,
and strengthen local culture and traditions [2].
From its early development in the 1990s, additional benefits of CT continue to emerge
notably by increasing differentiation in a competitive tourism market, promoting collabora-
tion, and supporting local communities [
4
] through fostering cultural exchange, economic
development, and sustainable tourism practices [
2
]. It responds to tourists’ increasing
desires, especially young ones, to engage in interactive experiences that can support their
personal development and identity creation [
5
]. Blending creativity into tourism has also
served to foster entrepreneurial diversification by supporting local producers (e.g., farm-
ers, craft distillers), artists, and performers who directly or indirectly support destination
offerings [4,6].
Agrifood tourism, understood as travel activities centered in any stage (production,
processing, distribution, consumption) of the agri-food system [
7
], seems to embody at-
tributes that are in line with CT. As such, over the past two decades, agrifood tourism
Tour. Hosp. 2024,5, 1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5040076 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/tourismhosp
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51364
has advanced interest from policymakers, marketers, local food producers, and scholars
seeking to maximize its potential [
8
] while capitalizing on its growing popularity among
travelers [
9
]. This is especially pertinent for travel to visiting working agricultural settings
for recreation or education (agritourism) [
10
], to enjoying unique and authentic foods
(culinary tourism) [
11
], and to taste, prepare, or learn about craft beverages (craft beverage
tourism) [12].
The growing popularity of these forms of agrifood tourism is pushing destinations to
increase their level of creativity to distinguish themselves based on the uniqueness of their
agricultural, food, and beverage products [
9
]. Agrifood tourism provides resources for
immersive, authentic experiences (e.g., U-pick, cooking classes, grape stomping) through
close interactions with locals, thus promoting co-creation [
1
]. Such interconnectedness
of food, culture, and community fosters learning [
13
–
15
], which ultimately instills revisit
intention and positive word of mouth [16,17].
The existing literature on both CT and agrifood tourism reveals that these forms
of travel share common elements, particularly their emphasis on offering unique and
authentic experiences and fostering active engagement with local cultures and commu-
nities. However, the extent to which agrifood tourism can integrate the principles of CT
to offer transformative and culturally enriching experiences remains largely unexplored.
More specifically, there is no information on the potential alignment of the staple forms—
agritourism, culinary tourism, craft beverage tourism—of agrifood experiences with CT.
Filling this knowledge gap is essential and timely given the increasing demand of travelers
seeking transformative and agrifood experiences and the suitability of CT to move destina-
tions beyond sustainability towards regeneration. Such information can guide destinations
and travel agencies in programming, managing, and marketing offerings to enhance the
creativity of their culinary, beverages, and agricultural activities, ultimately supporting
community development.
Thus, we conducted this study to evaluate the stated relevance of CT indicators across
agritourism, culinary tourism, and craft beverage tourism by addressing three intercon-
nected objectives. First, to identify the perceived significance of CT indicators associated
with agritourism, culinary tourism, and craft beverage tourism. Second, to contrast the
perceived significance of CT indicators between agrifood tourism and a standardized form
of travel experience (beach tourism). Third, to test the extent to which personal and lifestyle
indicators are associated with different forms of agrifood and beach tourism.
2. Literature Review
The production and consumption of travel experiences have evolved towards fos-
tering the active involvement of tourists; in such evolution, destinations have increased
their efforts to infuse creativity into their offerings to enhance their attractiveness [
1
,
18
].
The growing articulation between tourism and creativity also responds to the need for
alternative development models that reduce negative impacts on the destinations and
increase benefits for locals [
3
], as well as the expansion of the creative economy, which
provides numerous opportunities for synergy and collaboration and that relies on creative
industries (e.g., arts, communication) to increase distinctiveness in the global economy [
19
].
In this growing quest, CT has emerged as the academic and industry framework to depict
the infusion of creativity into travel offerings. Notable efforts to infuse creativity into travel
experiences are evident when associated with local food production, distribution, and
consumption, coined as agrifood tourism [7].
2.1. Creative Tourism (CT)
CT started as an elongation of or a reaction to cultural tourism that emerged from
tourists’ increased desire for interactive experiences that would instill their personal devel-
opment and identity rather than a static cultural appreciation, notably related to tangible
resources [
2
,
20
]. Over time, CT has evolved into a diversification strategy that seeks to
incorporate local traditions into a broad range of travel experiences. Doing so makes CT
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51365
a catalyst for local value-added offerings (thus increased price), destination innovation,
sustainable development, cultural preservation, and increased economic return for local
entrepreneurship [1,3].
CT heavily relies on building relationships across tourism actors, notably by devising
experiences that require the interaction of locals and tourists (co-creation) through cultural
immersion and creativity [
21
]. While the stimulation of tourists’ senses through co-creation
creates distinction [
1
,
18
], cultural immersion helps to revive local craftsmanship, intangible
heritage, customs, and traditions (re)making destinations appealing for residents to live and
outsiders to explore [
2
,
3
]. Furthermore, personalizing experiences (e.g., choosing the level
of spice in a cooking class), nurturing or untapped creative potential (e.g., artwork training),
and facilitating meaningful interactions with locals shifts the destination’s value from its
resources to the tourists’ experiences [
6
,
18
], which produces highly satisfied tourists [
16
,
17
].
The development of CT necessitates the presence of a mix of characteristics (i.e.,
creative indicators) in four domains: activities, place, facilitator, and conscientious travel
attitudes. However, it is important to acknowledge that the four-domain typification of
creative indicators is for scholarly purposes. Put together, CT embodies creativity through
the engaged and conscious participation of tourists, locals’ engagement from the experience
design to delivery, and how and where the local–tourist relationship is facilitated [22].
The first domain refers to the activities offered, which should be creative enough
to stimulate active participation and meaningful interactions from locals (experience
providers) and tourists (experience consumers) to the point of co-creating the experi-
ence [
1
,
18
]. A typical example is engaging in traditional arts (e.g., folk dances) and crafts
(e.g., pottery making), which, in addition to their learning component, allow tourists to
experience a different lifestyle and culture. Tourists favor creative activities for their unique-
ness and authenticity, which tend to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience [
16
]. The level of
embedded creativity that may even push tourists outside of their comfort zones tends to
imprint memorability [16,20].
The second domain refers to the need to embed creativity into the places tourists visit
or where activities are offered to add value to the destination [
20
,
23
]. Creative places convey
stories, heritage, and history through their physical ensemble or visual décor [
22
], which
facilitate tourists’ learning about and immersing themselves in the local lifestyle [
22
,
23
].
However, the pinnacle of creative places occurs when locals share their spaces with tourists,
such as local bars and diners [6,22].
Activity or travel facilitators (third creative domain), such as guides or artisans leading
classes or demonstrations, also contribute to creative experiences by easing meaningful
interactions between locals and tourists [
16
,
17
]. Creative facilitators entice tourists’ par-
ticipation by boosting their interest [
22
] and creating equal, empathetic, and respectful
tourist–local relationships [
6
] to the extent of making their experiences salient from similar
ones [
23
]. Locals, especially those entrenched in their communities, are the most suitable
to facilitate such interaction as they can share firsthand unique information about the
community (e.g., stories, myths) and the activity (e.g., culinary secrets) that tend to be
passed on orally to the next generation [6].
The last CT domain is conscientious travel attitudes (i.e., conscientiousness). Tourists
seeking creative experiences have strong attitudes toward conserving the natural, agricul-
tural, and cultural elements of a destination [
22
], which is intertwined with their desire to
gain a more profound knowledge of the locals’ culture and lifestyles [
6
,
24
]. Such interest,
along with cultural embeddedness, may seed local–tourist collaborations that can preserve
traditions and cultivate creative skills in the host destination [
25
]. CT also stimulates
identity formation and self-improvement that can reach (by educating and inspiring) the
younger generation of travelers and locals [22,24].
2.2. Creative Indicators Behind Agrifood Tourism
Agrifood tourism is a specialized type of travel that caters to visitors seeking unique
experiences centered around local cuisine, such as tasting traditional dishes and beverages,
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51366
and agricultural practices, like olive harvesting and grape stomping [
7
]. Professionals
in tourism, policymakers, food producers, and scholars are showing a growing interest
in agrifood tourism as a means of regional revitalization and a pathway for enhancing
resilience [
8
]. Agrifood travel experiences promote the destination’s competitiveness
and are suitable for delivering a mix of economic (e.g., job creation), socio-cultural (e.g.,
heritage preservation), and environmental (e.g., reduced transportation costs) benefits to
host communities [
26
–
28
]. Three distinct types of agrifood tourism stand out for their rapid
expansion on a global scale: agritourism, culinary tourism, and craft beverage tourism. All
these forms of agrifood tourism include unique and authentic experiences that connect
tourists with the host community, revealing an insider’s perspective of local ways of
living [
13
,
27
]. Thus, they align with escapist experiences that require participants to take
an active role (e.g., hands-on activities), which, beyond enabling visitors to break away
from their daily routines, empower them to become co-creators of their own experiences,
fostering a deeper connection with the local culture and community [29].
Agritourism, which results from the agriculture and tourism intersection, is broadly un-
derstood as visiting agricultural facilities to engage in recreational or educational activities
in working agricultural settings for recreation or education [
10
]. The range of agricultural
practices (e.g., agroforestry, cattle ranching), landscapes (e.g., mountains, coastal), and
activities (e.g., cookouts, leisure tours) shuffled to satisfy the variety of visitors’ motivations
(e.g., landscape appreciation, agricultural education, entertainment), defines a diverse
agritourism industry. Broadly, agritourism encompasses farm recreation and hospitality
(e.g., farm stays, festivals, hayrides), agricultural education either through formal (e.g.,
workshop) or hands-on (e.g., u-pick) experiences, and outdoor recreation (e.g., nature
observation, fishing).
Despite such variation, and although never investigated, evidence suggests that
agritourism embraces several CT indicators. Common agritourism offerings (e.g., u-pick,
cheesemaking workshops, school visits) tend to be [agriculturally] authentic [
30
] and
involve some sort of experiential and place-based education [
31
]. Also, tangible agricultural
heritage (e.g., old tools, historic tractors) is often used to indirectly (e.g., décor) or directly
(e.g., repurposing of barns into chapels) support agritourism offerings [
26
], which aligns
with CT’s emphasis on cultural preservation [
20
,
22
]. Furthermore, locals’ active role in the
provision of CT [
13
] is a key agritourism feature as farmers are not only the predominant
developers and managers, but their interaction with visitors is fundamental for success [
32
].
Culinary tourism, defined as traveling for the primary purpose of tasting unique foods,
has become one of the fastest-growing forms of niche tourism [
11
]. Culinary tourists seek
authentic fares to experience first-hand the destination’s traditional ways of living (e.g., din-
ing at authentic local restaurants) and deepen their relationships with local people, such as
interacting with chefs and cooks [
33
], which appear to correspond with CT [
15
,
34
]. In their
quest for authenticity, culinary tourists step beyond traditional eateries, taste prepared
foods, and visit local ingredients stores (e.g., specialty shops) and farmers’ markets [
34
].
Doing so strengthens local food systems, which contributes to environmental (e.g., lower
transportation costs), socio-cultural (e.g., local cuisine preservation), and economic (e.g.,
job creation) sustainability [28], which is also an aimed output of CT [20,24].
Craft beverage tourism, or traveling to taste, prepare, or learn about craft beverages,
such as artisanal brews, spirits, and wines [
12
], keeps flourishing in popularity [
14
]. Focused
on authenticity, community, and exploration, the development of craft beverage tourism
requires infusing creativity and innovation into their products (e.g., beer, moonshine,
whiskey) and methods (e.g., traditional brewing techniques) to attract these specialized
tourists who seek unique experiences [
27
] and to immerse themselves in the local history,
culture, and ways of living [
35
]. Thus, craft beverage tourism seems to align with CT by
emphasizing localism [
14
] by using locally produced or Indigenous ingredients (e.g., fruits,
herbs) and shared spaces (e.g., local bars) while fostering meaningful producer–consumer
interactions [35].
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51367
2.3. Ontological Synthesis
Chiefly, there is a pressing need to investigate alternative models that can minimize the
negative impacts of the tourism industry while maximizing benefits for local communities.
Creative tourism offers a promising solution by infusing destinations with creativity and
leveraging local talents (e.g., artists) and resources (e.g., crafts, stories) to attract the growing
number of travelers seeking enriching and meaningful activities. Travel to engage with
various aspects of the agrifood system—notably through agritourism, culinary tourism,
and craft beverage tourism—appears to embody several indicators across the four creative
domains. However, the extent to which these three types of agrifood experiences align
with the CT indicators remains unexplored, a gap our study was set to address.
3. Materials and Methods
Our evaluation of the stated relevance of CT elements across agritourism, culinary
tourism, and craft beverage tourism was guided by a positivist approach, supporting the
conception that knowledge is divulged from a neutral and quantifiable observation of
activity, action, or reaction to generate explanatory associations [
36
], in this case between
CT indicators and agrifood tourism. Accordingly, quantitative methods were used to
measure and compare these variables.
3.1. Survey Instrument
Guided by the literature, we designed a survey instrument for data collection to ad-
dress the study objectives by querying indicators of CT and a set of personal characteristics
and travel behaviors. We used an extensive multi-dimensional inventory of CT indicators
(activities, place, facilitator, conscientiousness) as a guiding point [
22
], although modified
to acclimate the narrative to study hypothetical scenarios based on other supporting scales.
Specifically, we queried the importance of 11 activity characteristics (e.g., unique activities,
hands-on participation) capturing uniqueness, authenticity, immersion in the local culture,
and personal growth [
1
,
16
–
18
]. We assessed the importance of the place through seven
items (e.g., are used by the locals, display stories of the history) reflecting a connection to
the place and culture [23].
We queried the extent to which respondents like activity facilitators to do through six
items (e.g., encouraging participation, sharing local knowledge related to the activity) that
foster participants’ engagement in experiences while traveling [
6
,
22
]. We gauged partici-
pants’ attitudes toward conscientious travel through four items (e.g., feeling responsible
for preserving the local heritage, seeking to reinforce self-identity), capturing their cultural,
environmental, and individual awareness [
22
,
24
]. All items were ordered randomly and
measured on a series of 21-point scales ranging from zero (extremely unimportant, dislike
very much, strongly disagree) to 20 (extremely important, like very much, strongly agree).
In terms of personal characteristics, we queried personality traits through eight items
(e.g., doing frightening things, exploring unknown places) depicting risk seeking and
exploration [
37
] as well as attitudes towards creativity (five items, e.g., making me forget
about other things, cultivating potential) which are fundamental to assess stimulation,
emotional reinforcement, and escapism [
22
] in a series of 21-point scales (0 = strongly
disagree; 20 = strongly agree). Participants also reported their political ideology through a
21-point scale anchored in far left (0) and far right (20). Travel behavior indicators (number
of trips per year, length of the trips, change in travel behavior due to COVID), lifestyle indi-
cators (e.g., relationship status, household composition), and socio-demographic indicators
(gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, income, geographic region, adulthood residency)
were also queried using a combination of nominal and ordinal scales as suitable.
3.2. Study Sample, Survey Procedures, and Data Analysis
We opted for a non-random sampling technique for this study as it is well suited
for exploratory studies on less-understood topics, such as this one. More specifically,
we followed a quota sampling design that allowed us to ensure the representation of
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51368
participants with specific characteristics that need to be represented [
38
], in this study, we
balanced distributions between genders and geographic representation across the United
States of America (USA). We purchased a sample of adults residing in the USA from a
survey panel provider (Dynata, Shelton, CT, USA). We collected data in March 2023 via
an online survey. The participants first accessed a travel scenario page describing an all-
expense paid trip of two days, including accommodation in a 5-star hotel. The scenario
asked participants to imagine that they had no barriers to travel (i.e., no time conflicts and
no family obligations). Specific details of the itinerary (e.g., arrival and check-out times), as
well as a 4 h excursion to choose from, were provided; participants could also choose “I
prefer to stay at home”, in which case they exited the survey.
The four excursion options were to visit two local working farms to tour the orchards,
harvest fruits, pet some farm animals, and chat with the farmers to learn about the farm
lifestyle (1—Agritourism); two local eateries to tour their facilities and try samples of local
foods, and prepare a couple of traditional dishes with the local chefs (2—culinary tourism);
two local alcoholic craft beverage facilities to take a tour, taste samples of their products, and
learn to prepare a traditional beverage from the producers (3—craft beverage tourism); and
a popular nearby beach to enjoy the sun, swim in its calm waters, access beach equipment,
refreshments from two local stands, and a paddle board (4—beach tourism). The latter was
included as a control group given its popularity among the masses that tend to encompass
few if any, indicators of CT. No matter the destination chosen, participants went through
the same questions. We collected data until scenarios reached their target (originally set
at 250). To encourage participants to select their preferred activity, participants exited
the survey if their preferred scenario was fulfilled. Given the time elapsed between the
scenario quota being reached and closing it, responses slightly exceeded the quota for all
scenarios (agritourism = 255; culinary tourism = 255; craft beverage tourism = 254; beach
tourism = 255).
A total of 1019 responses were included in the analysis, which included a mix of
descriptive and inferential statistics. We ran descriptive tests to profile participants based
on their personal attributes (e.g., demographic, travel behaviors) and to summarize CT
elements. We computed Cronbach’s Alphas (
α
) to confirm the internal reliability of the
four CT indicators, two personality traits, and creative perceptions adopting a minimum
0.6 threshold [
39
]. As the assumptions of analysis of variance were not met (i.e., data were
not normally distributed), we used the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare the independent
samples, followed by pairwise comparisons across the travel scenarios, as suggested for
studies with large sample sizes [
40
]. For better interpretability, the four CT indicators
(activities, place, facilitator, conscientiousness) and three personal characteristics (risk-
seeking, exploration, creative perception), which we measured on a continuum scale, were
divided into three groups: low (0–10.99), medium (11–16.99), and high (17–20). We used
chi-square tests to compare personal and lifestyle indicators across the four travel scenarios
(p< 0.05). We applied Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons in all post hoc tests
(p= 0.05/6).
4. Results
4.1. Respondents Profile
Respondents were proportionally distributed across genders, being 50.8% male, 47.9%
female, and 1.3% non-binary (Table 1). They were also from across all age groups; the largest
proportion (21.6%) were between 36 and 45 years old, followed by those aged between
26 and 35 (18.9%)
and 66 and above (16.0%). Most respondents were White (79.4%); smaller
proportions of participants self-identified as Black (11.4%), Latin, Hispanic or Chicano/a
(11.4%), or Asian (5.2%). Respondents reported having high levels of formal education;
about half hold a four-year college (21.8%) or graduate (26.5%) degree. Similar proportions
of respondents reported an annual household income lower than USD 50,000 (36.8%) or
at least USD 100,000 (32.6%). On average, respondents had a centrist political ideology
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51369
(M = 11.53), although those self-positioned within the far right (16.9%) doubled those
within the far left (7.8%) political ideologies.
Table 1. Respondents’ socio-demographic profile.
Socio-Demographic Indicators Number Percent
Gender (n = 1019)
Male 518 50.8
Female 488 47.9
Non-binary 13 1.3
Age (n = 1019)
18–25 years 139 13.7
26–35 years 193 18.9
36–45 years 220 21.6
46–55 years 147 14.4
56–65 years 157 15.4
66 and above 163 16.0
Education (n = 1019)
High school graduate or less 219 21.5
Some college 197 19.3
Technical degree 111 10.9
College degree 222 21.8
Master’s degree 193 18.9
Doctoral/professional equivalent 77 7.6
Income (n = 1019)
Less than USD 25,000 178 17.5
USD 25,000–USD 49,999 197 19.3
USD 50,000–USD 74,999 157 15.4
USD 75,000–USD 99,999 155 15.2
USD 100,000–USD 149,999 176 17.3
USD 150,000 or more 156 15.3
Political Ideology (n = 1014) 1
Far left 79 7.8
Center left 138 13.6
Center 415 40.9
Center right 211 20.8
Far right 171 16.9
Mean (11.53)
1Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Far Left” to “20 = Far Right”.
The geographic representation of the respondents was proportionally distributed in
the Northeast (24.5%), Midwest (24.0%), South (27.4%), and West (24.1%) regions of the
USA (Table 2). During adulthood, most of the respondents lived in either large cities (25.2%)
or their suburbs (38.7%), with the smallest proportion being rural (18.1%) or small town
(18.0%) dwellers. Most respondents were parents (53.0%) or living only with adults at
home (70.4%); 36.7% reported being in a committed partnership, and 27.9% were singles.
Respondents were avid travelers who predominantly took one or two (44.6%) and three to
five (37.6%) trips per year, mostly short (55.0%) and medium (61.6%) term trips. About half
of respondents traveled about the same before and after COVID (49.2%).
Cronbach’s alpha showed high internal reliability within the exploration (
α
= 0.866)
and risk-seeking (
α
= 0.916) personality traits and creative perceptions (
α
= 0.929; Table 3).
Respondents showed high levels of exploration (M= 13.06) traits and their comprising
variables, with over a third reporting high levels of likeness to explore unknown places
(39.9%; M= 14.46) and love for trying new and exciting experiences (34.7%; M= 14.14).
Conversely, respondents had low levels of risk-seeking (M= 9.07), having most little
likeliness for wild parties (62.0%; M= 8.68), trying risky sports/activities (58.1%; M= 9.27),
and doing frightening things (57.0%; M= 9.28). Respondents reported high levels of
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51370
agreement with creative perspectives (M= 13.87). Over one-third agreed that creative
activities positively affect emotions (35.9%; M= 14.29), are stimulating (35.8%; M= 14.25),
and make people forget about other things (35.5%; M= 13.90).
Table 2. Lifestyle and travel indicators of respondents.
Lifestyle Indicators Number Percent
Geographic Region (n = 1019)
Northeast 250 24.5
Midwest 245 24.1
South 278 27.3
West 246 24.1
Adulthood Residency (n = 1014)
Large city 256 25.2
Suburb near large city 392 38.7
Small city or town 182 18.0
Rural area 184 18.1
Family Role and Relationship Status (n = 1291) 1
I am a parent 538 53.0
I am a primary caregiver 97 9.5
I am in a committed partnership 373 36.7
I am single 283 27.9
Household Composition (n = 876) 1
Living only with adults 617 70.4
At least 1 child younger than 6 years old 67 7.6
At least one child 6–11 years old 87 9.9
At least one child 12–17 years old 105 12.0
Number of Trips per Year (n = 1019)
None 81 7.9
1–2 trips 454 44.6
3–5 trips 383 37.6
More than 5 101 9.9
Length of Trips (n = 1232) 1
Short-term trips 515 55.0
Medium-term trips 577 61.6
Long-term trips 140 15.0
Change in Travel Behavior due to COVID (n = 937)
Travel less than before COVID 365 39.0
Travel about the same than before COVID 461 49.2
Travel more after COVID 111 11.8
1Participants could check more than one response.
Table 3. Respondents’ personality traits and creative perceptions.
Personal Indicators (n= 1019) Low
(0–10.99)
Medium
(11–16.99)
High
(17–20) Mean Standard
Deviation
Exploration Personality Trait (α= 0.866) 113.06 4.32
Like to explore unknown places 24.3% 35.8% 39.9% 14.46 4.96
Love to try new and exciting experiences 25.6% 39.7% 34.7% 14.14 4.94
Change my itinerary on impulse when I travel 38.4% 36.9% 24.7% 12.46 5.45
Get restless when I spend too much time at home 39.2% 33.0% 27.8% 12.28 5.88
Prefer friends who are spontaneous 43.3% 34.5% 22.2% 12.00 5.48
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51371
Table 3. Cont.
Personal Indicators (n= 1019) Low
(0–10.99)
Medium
(11–16.99)
High
(17–20) Mean Standard
Deviation
Risk Seeking Personality Trait (α= 0.916) 19.07 6.26
Like to do frightening things 57.0% 24.6% 18.4% 9.28 6.75
Like to try risky sports/activities 58.1% 23.8% 18.1% 9.27 6.68
Like wild parties 62.0% 20.5% 17.5% 8.68 6.86
Creative Perceptions (α= 0.929) 113.87 4.41
Positively affect my emotions 23.4% 40.7% 35.9% 14.29 4.80
Are stimulating 23.3% 40.9% 35.8% 14.25 4.76
Make me forget about other things 26.9% 37.6% 35.5% 13.90 5.26
Increase my confidence 30.2% 38.1% 31.7% 13.61 5.08
Cultivate my potential 32.2% 38.3% 29.5% 13.28 5.10
1Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Strongly disagree” to “20 = Strongly agree”.
4.2. Perceived Importance of Creative Tourism Indicators
All four CT domains had very strong internal reliability (Table 4). Creative characteris-
tics of the place (
α
= 0.935; M= 14.38) were the CT domain with the highest importance
rate. Specifically, respondents considered most important that the settings for engaging in
activities while traveling are visually attractive (M= 15.20), are one of a kind (M= 14.68),
and help experience the local lifestyle (M= 14.56). Facilitator conduct (
α
= 0.922; M = 14.21)
followed. Respondents reported high levels of likeness to facilitators that shared local
knowledge related to the activities (M= 14.79) and shared something unique about the
local community (M= 14.51). Although still over the scale mid-point, less than a third of
respondents liked facilitators who encouraged participation (29.4%; M= 13.66) or led them
into the imaginative world (26.9%; M= 13.91).
Regarding activities (α= 0.940; M= 14.09), over one-third of respondents considered
it most important to engage in those that are authentic (38.5%; M= 15.01), once in a
lifetime experience (39.6%; M= 14.77), enable close interactions with family and friends
(39.5%; M= 14.71), are unique (37.9%; M= 14.60) and representative of the destination
(35.8%; M= 14.59), and let to experience different lifestyles (35.2%; M= 14.14). Conversely,
activities that are out of their comfort zone (M= 12.19) or that require hands-on participation
(M= 13.27) were considered the least important. Conscientious travel attitudes (
α
= 0.875;
M= 13.35) were the ones that respondents ranked the lowest, although they agreed on
activities that seek to conserve the natural environment (M= 14.07). Engaging in activities
that seek to reinforce self-identity (M= 12.06) was the creative indicator with the overall
lowest ranking.
Table 4. Perceived importance of creative indicators by domains.
Indicators by Domain (n= 1019) Low
(0–10.99)
Medium
(11–16.99)
High
(17–20) Mean Standard
Deviation
Activity (α= 0.940) 114.09 3.77
Are authentic 18.5% 43.0% 38.5% 15.01 4.31
Once in a lifetime experience 21.7% 38.7% 39.6% 14.77 4.60
Enabled close interactions with my
family/friends 22.5% 38.0% 39.5% 14.71 4.70
Are unique 21.3% 40.8% 37.9% 14.60 4.59
Representative of the destination 21.7% 42.5% 35.8% 14.59 4.37
Allow me to immerse in the local culture 24.6% 42.5% 32.9% 14.21 4.62
Let me experience different lifestyles 26.2% 38.6% 35.2% 14.14 4.79
Involve some sort of learning 28.3% 40.4% 31.3% 13.80 4.90
Create meaningful interactions with locals 29.0% 38.9% 32.1% 13.67 4.99
Require hands-on participation 33.1% 38.4% 28.5% 13.27 5.06
Outside of my comfort zone 39.9% 37.6% 22.5% 12.19 5.39
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51372
Table 4. Cont.
Indicators by Domain (n= 1019) Low
(0–10.99)
Medium
(11–16.99)
High
(17–20) Mean Standard
Deviation
Place (α= 0.935) 114.38 3.87
Visually attractive 17.4% 40.7% 41.9% 15.20 4.21
One of a kind (unique) 20.5% 42.0% 37.5% 14.68 4.39
Experience the local lifestyle 22.7% 38.6% 38.7% 14.56 4.59
Reflect the traditional culture 24.5% 42.0% 33.5% 14.20 4.57
Display stories of its history 27.3% 38.8% 33.9% 14.11 4.72
Feeling connected to the local heritage 27.0% 40.0% 33.0% 13.97 4.74
Used by locals 27.8% 38.7% 33.5% 13.97 4.68
Facilitator Conduct (α= 0.922) 214.21 3.93
Sharing local knowledge related to the activity 20.4% 40.1% 39.5% 14.79 4.49
Sharing something unique about the local
community 22.1% 42.6% 35.3% 14.51 4.45
Give me space to try the activity my way 26.1% 39.1% 34.8% 14.20 4.57
Tell stories 25.8% 40.9% 33.3% 14.18 4.60
Leading into the imaginative world 26.9% 41.2% 31.9% 13.91 4.64
Encourage my participation 29.4% 39.4% 31.2% 13.66 4.98
Conscientious Travel Attitudes (α= 0.875) 313.35 4.39
Seek to conserve the natural environment 27.5% 37.6% 34.9% 14.07 4.93
Feel responsible to preserve the local heritage 29.6% 39.5% 30.9% 13.74 4.97
Look for self-improvement 30.9% 39.0% 30.1% 13.54 5.08
Seek to reinforce self-identity 43.5% 33.5% 23.0% 12.06 5.57
1
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Extremely unimportant” to “20 = Extremely important”.
2
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Dislike very much” to “20 = Like very much”.
3
Measured on a
21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Strongly disagree” to “20 = Strongly agree”.
4.3. Differences in the Importance of Creative Indicators Across Study Scenarios
The perceived importance of composite creative activity characteristics, as well as most
of their individual indicators, significantly varied across scenarios (Table 5). Pairwise tests
indicated that respondents who preferred agritourism (M= 14.87) rated higher creative
activities overall than those who chose culinary (M= 14.11) and beach (M= 13.58) tourism.
Participants in this group also placed significantly higher importance on activities that are
authentic (M= 15.43), representative of the destinations (M= 15.24), unique (M= 15.19),
and allow experiencing different lifestyles (M= 14.69) than those preferring beach tourism
(M= 14.40, M= 13.90, M= 14.05, M = 13.24, respectively).
They also considered more important than those who opted for culinary and beach
experiences activities that allow them to immerse in the local culture (M
agri
= 14.96;
M
food
= 14.06; M
beach
= 13.42), include learning involvement (M
agri
= 14.92; M
food
= 13.66;
M
beach
= 12.70), require hands-on participation (M
agri
= 14.32; M
food
= 13.11; M
beach
= 12.30),
and are outside their comfort zone (M
agri
= 13.39; M
food
= 11.53; M
beach
= 11.53). The agri-
tourism group also considered activities enabling meaningful interaction with locals more
important (M= 14.91) than those who opted for the other experiences (M
food
= 13.67;
M
craft
= 13.76; M
beach
= 12.34). Craft beverage enthusiasts (M= 13.76) considered it more
important to have meaningful interaction with locals than beachgoers (M= 12.34).
The perceived importance of creative places while traveling also significantly differed
across scenarios regarding their composite score and most indicators. Pairwise, those
who chose agritourism considered more important places that are overall more creative
(M= 15.03) and those who help to experience the local lifestyle (M= 15.26) and reflect
traditional culture (M= 14.96) than those who chose beach tourism (M= 13.62, M= 13.50,
M= 13.38, respectively). Places displaying the stories of history were more valued by
those in the agritourism scenario (M= 15.25) than their culinary (M= 14.07) and beach
(M= 12.74) counterparts; this indicator was also more valued for those who chose craft
beverage experiences (M= 14.36) than those in the beach tourism group (M= 12.74).
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51373
Participants in the agritourism scenario rated significantly higher places that facilitate the
connection to local heritage (M= 14.99) than their counterparts (M
food
= 13.95, M
craft
= 14.03,
M
beach
= 12.90). Places that are used by locals were more important for the agritourism
group (M= 14.91) than the craft beverage (M= 13.95) and beach (M= 12.88) tourism
groups. Those who chose culinary experiences considered more important than their beach
counterparts places that help to experience the local lifestyle (M
food
= 14.94; M
beach
= 13.50)
and are used by locals (Mfood = 14.14; Mbeach = 12.88).
Table 5. A comparison of creative indicators across travel scenarios.
Indicators by Domain (n= 1019) Agri-
Tourism
Culinary
Tourism
Craft
Beverage
Tourism
Beach
Tourism
(Control)
H-Value p-Value
Activity 114.81 a13.98 b14.14 13.39 b20.890 <0.001
Are authentic 15.43 a15.06 15.14 14.40 b8.147 0.043
Once in a lifetime experience 15.14 14.82 14.67 14.43 3.252 0.354
Close interactions with my family/friends 14.77 14.39 14.67 15.02 4.534 0.209
Are unique 15.19 a14.57 14.59 14.05 b8.958 0.030
Representative of the destination 15.24 a14.47 14.76 13.90 b12.703 0.005
Allow me to immerse in the local culture 14.96 a14.06 b14.39 13.42 b15.204 0.002
Let me experience different lifestyles 14.69 a14.54 14.09 13.24 b10.423 0.015
Involve some sort of learning 14.92 a13.66 b13.91 12.70 b25.840 <0.001
Meaningful interactions with locals 14.91 a13.67 b13.76 b,c 12.34 b,d 33.846 <0.001
Require hands-on participation 14.32 a13.11 b13.33 12.30 b20.215 <0.001
Outside of my comfort zone 13.39 a11.53 b12.33 11.53 b22.349 <0.001
Place 115.03 a14.50 14.39 13.62 b20.802 <0.001
Visually attractive 15.01 15.09 15.08 15.60 3.040 0.386
One of a kind (unique) 14.82 14.86 14.73 14.32 3.683 0.298
Experience the local lifestyle 15.26 a14.94 -,c 14.54 13.50 b,d 20.767 <0.001
Reflect the traditional culture 14.96 a14.44 14.02 13.38 b16.402 <0.001
Display stories of its history 15.25 a14.07 b14.36 -,c 12.74 b,d 35.164 <0.001
Feeling connected to the local heritage 14.99 a13.95 b14.03 b12.90 b27.041 <0.001
Used by locals 14.91 a14.14 -,c 13.95 b12.88 b,d 26.857 <0.001
Facilitator Conduct 214.98 a14.03 b14.27 13.55 b19.479 <0.001
Sharing local knowledge 15.28 a14.79 15.04 14.08 b11.856 0.008
Sharing something unique about the local
community 15.19 a14.76 14.37 13.74 b13.961 0.003
Give me space to try the activity my way 15.16 a13.59 b14.09 13.95 b16.017 0.001
Tell stories 14.99 a14.22 14.23 13.31 b16.004 0.001
Leading into the imaginative world 14.66 a13.67 13.91 13.44 b11.718 0.008
Encourage participation 14.64 a13.17 b14.04 -,c 12.81 b,d 21.227 <0.001
Conscientious Travel Attitudes 314.43 a12.79 b13.54 12.65 b25.891 <0.001
Seek to conserve the natural environment 14.84 a13.52 b14.39 13.55 b12.860 0.005
Feel responsible to preserve local heritage 15.00 a13.27 b13.96 12.77 b27.634 <0.001
Look for self-improvement 14.40 a13.10 b13.65 12.93 b13.102 0.004
Seek to reinforce self-identity 13.43 a11.31 b12.17 11.37 b22.431 <0.001
a,b,c,d
Different literal superscripts indicate significant pairwise differences.
1
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging
from “0 = Extremely unimportant” to “20 = Extremely important”.
2
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from
“0 = Dislike very much” to “20 = Like very much”.
3
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Strongly
disagree” to “20 = Strongly agree”.
We also found significant differences in preferences for creative indicators in the
facilitators’ conduct across respondents from different scenarios in their composite and item-
by-items indicators. Those in the agritourism group liked significantly more the overall
facilitators’ creative conduct (M= 14.98) as well as their ability to share local knowledge
(M= 15.28) and something unique about the local community (M = 15.19), telling stories
(M= 14.99), and leading visitors to imaginative world (M = 14.66) as compared to those
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51374
in the beach tourism group (M= 14.08, M= 13.74, M= 13.31, M= 13.44, respectively).
Participants in the agritourism group, as compared to those in the culinary and beach
tourism groups, also significantly liked more facilitators that give space to try activities
in the respondents’ way (M
agri
= 15.16; M
food
= 13.59; M
beach
= 13.95) and encourage their
participation (Magri = 14.64; Mfood = 13.17; Mbeach = 12.81). Those who chose craft beverage
tourism (M= 14.04) liked significantly more facilitators who encouraged their participation
than those who chose beach tourism (M= 12.81).
Regarding conscientious travel attitudes, those who preferred agritourism reported
significantly higher attitudes in the composite score (M= 14.43) than those who opted for
culinary (M= 12.79) and beach (M= 12.65) experiences. We obtained similar results for
all the domain indicators, namely attitudes toward conserving the natural environment
(M
agri
= 14.84; M
food
= 13.52; M
beach
= 13.55) and the local heritage (M
agri
= 15.00; M
food
= 13.27;
M
beach
= 12.77), as well as looking for self-improvement (M
agri
= 14.40; M
food
= 13.10;
M
beach
= 12.93) and reinforce their self-identity (M
agri
= 13.43; M
food
= 11.31; M
beach
= 11.37).
4.4. Profiling Respondents Across Study Scenarios Across Study Scenarios
Respondents across study scenarios showed several statistical personal differences ex-
cept for their gender composition (Table 6). Age-wise, respondents who chose to engage in
agritourism seem younger (
χ2
= 50.880; p= <0.001), notably as compared to those preferring
craft and beach experiences. Specifically, a larger proportion of respondents between 18 and
45 years old (66.6%) opted to engage in agritourism than in craft beverage (47.3%) or beach
(46.3%) experiences. Results also indicate a significantly smaller proportion of very young
adults (18–25 years) in the craft beverage group (5.9%) as compared to the beach group
(16.1%). Respondents who chose the agritourism scenario reported significantly higher
levels of education than their counterparts (
χ2
= 44.847; p= <0.001), especially related to
post-graduate degrees (37.5%) as compared to those who opted for excursions featuring
culinary (23.6%), craft beverage (23.6%), and beach (21.3%) experiences.
In terms of personal tendencies, respondents statistically varied on their political
leaning (H= 7.395; p= <0.001), exploration (H= 14.557; p= 0.002), and risk-seeking
(H= 40.725; p= <0.001) personality traits, and creative perceptions (H= 16.360; p= <0.001).
Pairwise comparisons indicate that those preferring agritourism experiences leaned more
towards the right political views (M= 12.63) than those who opted for culinary (M= 10.65)
and beach (M= 11.04) experiences. They reported higher levels of exploration (M= 13.82)
and risk-seeking (M= 11.19) personality traits than their counterparts in the culinary
(M
explore
= 12.68; M
risk
= 8.03), craft beverage (M
risk
= 9.04), and beach (M
explore
= 12.59;
Mrisk = 8.05) groups. Those opting for agritourism experiences also reported higher levels
of agreeability (M= 14.76) with creative perceptions than those who opted for culinary
(M= 13.27) and beach (M= 13.59) tourism.
We found a few significant differences across the groups’ lifestyle indicators (Table 7).
In terms of household composition, although the proportion of households composed of
only adults was significantly different (
χ2
= 7.957; p= 0.047), no significant differences
were obtained in the post-hoc pairwise comparisons. In terms of where respondents have
resided most of their adulthood (
χ2
= 24.690; p= 0.003), it seems that a larger propor-
tion of respondents who chose agritourism have lived in rural areas (21.8%) and large
cities (32.5%) as compared to those who chose culinary (12.7%, 27.6%, respectively), craft
beverage (19.0%, 20.8%, respectively), and beach (19.2%, 20.0%, respectively) tourism.
Regarding travel behavior, only medium-length trips were significantly different across
groups (
χ2
= 9.255; p= 0.026), although no significant differences were obtained in the post
hoc pairwise comparisons.
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51375
Table 6. A comparison of personal attributes across travel scenarios.
Personal Indicators Agri-
Tourism
Culinary
Tourism
Craft
Beverage
Tourism
Beach
Tourism
(Control)
Significance
Statistic p-Value
Gender
Male 49.0% 49.8% 54.0% 50.5% χ2= 7.191 0.304
Female 49.4% 47.8% 44.9% 49.5%
Non-binary 1.6% 2.4% 1.1% 0%
Age
18–25 years 18.8% a13.7% 5.9% b,c 16.1% b,d χ2= 50.880 <0.001
26–35 years 24.7% 20.4% 18.9% 11.8%
36–45 years 23.1% 22.3% 22.5% 18.4%
46–55 years 13.8% 11.8% 17.3% 15.0%
56–65 years 9.8% 15.7% 16.5% 19.5%
66 and above 9.8% 16.1% 18.9% 19.2%
Education
High school graduate or less 23.2% a22.3% b19.3% b21.1% bχ2= 44.847 <0.001
Some college 13.4% 22.3% 18.9% 22.7%
Technical degree 8.6% 7.5% 13.8% 13.7%
4-year college degree 17.3% 24.3% 24.4% 21.2%
Master’s degree 23.4% 16.8% 18.1% 17.3%
Doctoral/professional degree 14.1% 6.8% 5.5% 4.0%
Personal Tendencies (means)
Political ideology 112.63 a10.65 b11.88 11.04 bH= 23.528 <0.001
Exploration personality trait 213.82 a12.68 b13.20 12.59 bH= 14.557 0.002
Risk seeking personality trait 211.19 a8.03 b9.04 b8.05 bH= 40.725 <0.001
Creative perceptions 214.76 a13.27 b13.86 13.59 bH = 16.360 <0.001
a,b,c,d
Different literal superscripts indicate significant pairwise differences (Bonferroni adjusted p< 0.008).
1
Measured on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 = Far left” to “20 = Far right”.
2
Measured on a 21-point
scale, ranging from “0 = Strongly disagree” to “20 = Strongly agree”.
Table 7. A comparison of lifestyle indicators across travel scenarios.
Lifestyle Indicators Agri-
Tourism
Culinary
Tourism
Craft
Beverage
Tourism
Beach
Tourism
(Control)
Significance
Statistic p-Value
Household Composition 1
Only adult(s) 66.8% 69.8% 71.0% 73.6% χ2= 7.957 0.047
Kid(s) 6 years old or younger 9.3% 8.4% 6.2% 7.2% χ2= 0.921 0.820
Kid(s) 6–11 years old 11.7% 10.9% 11.4% 5.9% χ2= 5.301 0.151
Kid(s) 12–17 years old 12.2% 10.9% 11.4% 13.3% χ2= 0.879 0.831
Adulthood Residency
Rural area 21.8% a12.7% b19.0% b19.2% bχ2= 24.690 0.003
Small city or town 15.5% 17.8% 19.7% 18.9%
Suburb near large city 30.2% 41.9% 40.5% 41.9%
Large city 32.5% 27.6% 20.8% 20.0%
Number of Trips per Year
None 7.9% 9.5% 6.3% 8.3% χ2= 14.814 0.096
1–2 trips per year 39.6% 44.3% 42.5% 51.7%
3–5 trips per year 43.9% 36.4% 40.5% 29.4%
More than 5 trips per year 8.6% 9.8% 10.7% 10.6%
Length of Trips 1
Short-term trips 45.1% 41.7% 41.0% 39.8% χ2= 1.024 0.796
Medium-term trips 44.4% 43.2% 48.4% 51.1% χ2= 9.255 0.026
Long-term trips 10.5% 15.1% 10.6% 9.1% χ2= 6.940 0.074
a,b
Different literal superscripts indicate significant pairwise differences (Bonferroni adjusted p< 0.008).
1Participants could check more than one response.
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51376
5. Discussion
Collectively, these results indicate that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to in-
tegrating CT into agrifood experiences. Among participants in this study, agritourism
experiences, rather than craft beverage or culinary experiences, seem most likely to align
with CT. In line with prior studies suggesting the potential for integrating creative elements
into agritourism [
13
], these findings advance the understanding of how agritourism opera-
tions can leverage CT elements. Doing so could help agritourism providers diversify their
offerings to stand out in a competitive marketplace, increase market share, and achieve the
intended outcomes of offering agritourism experiences (e.g., educating the public about
agricultural production).
The elements of CT that emerged as central to respondents’ connection to an agri-
tourism experience revolve around meaningful interactions with locals and their culture.
Elements such as opportunities to “immerse in the local culture” or “experience local
lifestyle”, facilitators “sharing local knowledge”, and a feeling of being “responsible to pre-
serve local heritage” were significantly more important to those interested in agritourism
experiences than for those preferring other agrifood experiences or going to the beach
(control). It is well-established that farmers engage in agritourism to connect visitors to
agrarian spaces [
26
], educate them on agricultural practices [
13
,
31
], and sustain cultural
practices [
30
,
32
]. Our findings indicate that individuals drawn to agritourism experiences
are in line with farmers’ cultural and educational desires, particularly concerning immer-
sion into agrarian lifestyles and processes. These findings advance our understanding of
the outcomes of agritourism and offer actionable marketing and product development
actions for agritourism operators, effectively bridging theory to practice.
Additionally, our findings provide an initial foray into understanding the profiles
of visitors who may engage in CT in an agrifood context. Such information is vital for
expanding the knowledge of CT, particularly on how the tourism industry can utilize it for
marketing and promotion purposes. Aligning with previous knowledge that agritourism
attracts families [
31
], younger participants in this study chose agritourism experiences over
other agrifood or the control (beach) experiences. Additionally, the highest level of formal
education among those choosing agritourism supports the extant literature [13].
Beyond demographics, however, these findings paint a more comprehensive picture of
the profile of potential agritourism visitors. Our findings show that those who chose agri-
tourism experiences displayed significantly higher levels of exploration and risk-seeking
personality traits, and creative perceptions constitute an emerging knowledge, thus rein-
forcing the distinctiveness of specialized niche markets that programming and marketing
actions should consider, especially in relation to CT [
22
,
28
,
41
]. The higher proportion of
political right-leaning among participants who chose agritourism adds to the nuanced
factors, notably political ideologies, shaping attitudes toward travel [
42
]. In the increasing
political polarization context of the USA, this finding is especially intriguing. While political
right ideologies align with their strong concern and presence in the agrarian context of the
USA, they challenge the political left-leaning of those who are more concerned with local
food system issues and, thus, more eager to support agritourism.
5.1. Scholarly Contributions
A major contribution of this study is providing evidence to position agrifood experi-
ences within the CT framework, which advances the emerging body of literature on CT
and agrifood tourism in key ways. Our study results expand the conceptualization of
CT that is heavily associated with cultural and artistic manifestations by incorporating
travel experiences on different aspects of local food production (agrifood tourism), notably
agritourism and, to a lesser extent, craft beverage, and culinary tourism.
Our study also advances the understanding of the complex dynamics of agrifood
tourism [7,8] by identifying commonalities and differences across their three staple forms.
Chiefly, while agritourism is salient for embedding most CT elements, craft beverage and
culinary tourism share the quest for intimacy with host communities and their ways of
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51377
living. Yet, differences in some creative elements (e.g., the extent to which facilitators
should encourage tourists’ participation) enrich our understanding of the extent to which
tourists experience or expect creativity in different contexts.
Our study also carries methodological contributions related to CT, especially in the
context of agrifood experiences. Although we used a validated multi-dimensional inventory
of CT indicators to guide our creativity scale [
20
,
22
,
24
], we thoroughly revised it to be
inclusive of the key characteristics of agricultural, craft beverage, and culinary experiences.
The strong internal reliability we obtained in all four creative domains examined (activity,
place, facilitator conduct, conscientious travel attitudes) suggests its suitability to use in the
future and even to test in other forms of creative travel experiences for further validity.
5.2. Practical Implications
Study results carry salient practical implications to inform agrifood tourism desti-
nations to position their creative offerings as differentiating factors that are not easily
replicated [
6
,
18
]. Our results suggest that destinations comprising a wealth of agrifood
experiences should build upon their strongest shared creative elements—mainly those
gravitating around experiencing local livelihoods—when designing their offerings and
marketing activities to improve their competitiveness. Results also indicate these desti-
nations should use the visual appeal of their agrifood experiences in their promotions
(e.g., cultural richness), which is fundamental to enhancing their attractiveness [
18
,
25
,
41
].
In doing so, it is advisable that these destinations foster collaborations across providers of
other types of CT, leveraging the pulling capacity that food experiences offer [41].
Results also yield practical implications for destinations holding rich agritourism
offerings and their providers, given their high level of creative elements. To devise and
promote their distinction, agritourism providers should highlight the creative elements
of their family’s connection to the farm (e.g., storytelling that weaves in family history
and traditions). They should also emphasize messages appealing to conscientious travel
attitudes (e.g., enhance your farming skills, help us to preserve the farming heritage) while
portraying the farm’s creative attributes, local features, and the farmer–visitor interactions.
Given the importance of personalization in niche tourism offerings, especially in
rural settings [
41
], agritourism providers should program and promote engaging activities
tailored to young families, appealing to their sense of exploration and adventure (e.g., play
with baby goats; try grape stomping). Presenting and programming these activities in
ways that tap into their desires for meaningful and engaging experiences—especially those
involving agricultural learning—can enhance their satisfaction and, in turn, encourage
repeat visits and positive word of mouth [16,17,32].
Finally, salient personal attributes associated with different types of agrifood experi-
ences should be incorporated when programming and communicating offerings to tailor
offerings, which is fundamental to target niche tourists [
28
,
41
]. For example, the program-
ming and promotion of agritourism should be appealing to young audiences, regardless of
their household composition. Creative messages appealing to a highly educated market
with a desire to explore the ‘adventurous’ agrarian context would also be suitable when
offering agritourism.
5.3. Study Limitations and Insights for Future Research
The contributions of our study should be considered in view of a few limitations
regarding the sample and data collection techniques. Using a non-random quota sample,
although suitable to explore a new topic like ours, cautions the generalization of the study
results to a broader population [
38
]. The combination of online data collection and hy-
pothetical travel scenarios may not necessarily translate to actual visitors’ perspectives
as the scenarios may have presented some biases (e.g., too idyllic) or may have inadver-
tently enticed some respondents to choose one scenario over their preferred one. For
example, touring the vineyards and chatting with farmers about the farm lifestyle may
have reinforced the romanticized image of farming, thus enticing more affinity for creative
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51378
indicators. These limitations call for replicating this study among actual agrifood tourists,
preferably while visiting a destination, to reduce recollection distortions, either augmenting
or decreasing their perceived creativity. Doing so can also increase the validity of our
composed scale.
We identified the extent to which creativity is perceived to be embedded in agrifood
travel experiences through the four most salient indicators of CT. However, considering
the infancy of this construct, we suggest future studies use qualitative methods of inquiry
to unveil additional creative indicators and whether—and if so, how—they may interplay.
Future studies might also seek to elucidate the high prevalence of risk-seeking personality
traits among those who chose agritourism, as these might yield useful, practical information
for providers. Moving forward, more research is needed to evaluate the impact of CT
experiences on future travel antecedents (e.g., attitudes, intentions, emotions) and effects
(e.g., destination and activity image, memories, satisfaction).
6. Conclusions
In this study, we investigated the extent to which potential tourists perceive agrifood
experiences to embody various CT indicators in contrast to a popular form (beach) of
tourism. Chiefly, our results indicate that CT can serve as a framework for the study
and practice of agritourism and, to a lesser extent, culinary and craft beverage tourism.
By identifying common (e.g., visually attractive) and distinct (e.g., meaningful interactions
with locals) creative indicators across agrifood experiences, our study findings advance the
incipient scholarship of CT and agrifood tourism, especially to elucidate their complex dy-
namics.
Such identification also offers valuable insights for destination marketers and man-
agers to enhance their competitiveness by leveraging a diverse mix of agrifood experiences.
Specifically, our findings can guide tourism stakeholders (e.g., destination managers and
policymakers) in designing and promoting immersive and authentic agrifood offerings
that appeal to the growing segment of travelers who value environmentally friendly and
sustainable destinations while seeking meaningful experiences for personal enrichment.
Doing so not only supports the diversification of destination offerings but can also foster
community engagement, support local economies, and strengthen the visitor’s intentions
to revisit and recommend the destination.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.B. and W.K.; methodology, C.B., J.B. and W.K.; software,
J.B. and C.B.; formal analysis, J.B. and C.B.; investigation, J.B. and C.B.; data curation, J.B. and
C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B. and C.B.; writing—review and editing, C.B. and W.K.;
supervision C.B.; project administration, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due
to this investigation followed an administrative review by the Institutional Review Board of North
Carolina State University and was approved as exempt from the policy as outlined in the Code of
Federal Regulations (Exemption: 46.101. Exempt d.2) on 9 November 2021 (IRB Review 24548).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from
the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Galvagno, M.; Giaccone, S.C. Mapping creative tourism research: Reviewing the field and outlining future directions. J. Hosp.
Tour. Res. 2019,43, 1256–1280. [CrossRef]
2. Richards, G. Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011,38, 1225–1253. [CrossRef]
3. Richards, G. Designing creative places: The role of creative tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020,85, 102922. [CrossRef]
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51379
4.
Remoaldo, P.; Cadima-Ribeiro, J. Creative Tourism as a New Challenge to the Development of Destinations: The Portuguese Case Study:
Cultural and Creative Industries: A Path to Entrepreneurship and Innovation; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
5.
Chen, C.F.; Chou, S.H. Antecedents and consequences of perceived coolness for Generation Y in the context of creative tourism—
A case study of the Pier 2 Art Center in Taiwan. Tour. Manag. 2019,72, 121–129. [CrossRef]
6. Blapp, M.; Mitas, O. Creative tourism in Balinese rural communities. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018,21, 1285–1311. [CrossRef]
7.
Liu, S.Y.; Yen, C.Y.; Tsai, K.N.; Lo, W.S.A. Conceptual framework for agri-food tourism as an eco-innovation strategy in small
farms. Sustainability 2017,9, 1683. [CrossRef]
8.
Fountain, J.; Cradock-Henry, N.; Buelow, F.; Rennie, H. Agrifood tourism, rural resilience, and recovery in a post disaster context:
Insights and evidence from Kaikoura-Hurunui, New Zealand. Tour. Anal. 2021,26, 135–149. [CrossRef]
9. Ellis, A.; Park, E.; Kim, S.; Yeoman, I. What is food tourism? Tour. Manag. 2018,68, 250–263. [CrossRef]
10.
Gil Arroyo, C.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and
North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013,37, 39–47. [CrossRef]
11.
Green, G.P.; Dougherty, M.L. Localizing linkages for food and tourism: Culinary Tourism as a community development strategy.
J. Comm. Develop. Soc. 2009,39, 148–158. [CrossRef]
12.
Kline, C.; Slocum, S.L.; Cavaliere, C.T. Craft Beverages and Tourism: The Rise of Breweries and Distilleries in the United States; Springer:
New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1.
13.
Brandano, M.G.; Osti, L.; Pulina, M. An integrated demand and supply conceptual framework: Investigating agritourism services.
Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018,20, 713–725. [CrossRef]
14.
Hubbard, P. Enthusiasm, craft and authenticity on the High Street: Micropubs as ‘community fixers’. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2019,20,
763–784. [CrossRef]
15.
Robinson, R.N.; Getz, D.; Dolnicar, S. Food tourism subsegments: A data-driven analysis. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018,20, 367–377.
[CrossRef]
16.
Ali, F.; Ryu, K.; Hussain, K. Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A study of creative
tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2016,33, 85–100. [CrossRef]
17.
Hung, W.L.; Lee, Y.J.; Huang, P.H. Creative experiences, memorability and revisit intention in creative tourism. Curr. Issues Tour.
2016,19, 763–770. [CrossRef]
18. Richards, G. Creative tourism: Opportunities for smaller places. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2019,15, 7–10. [CrossRef]
19.
Long, P.; Morpeth, N.D. Tourism and the Creative Industries: Theories, Policies and Practice; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames,
UK, 2016.
20.
Tan, S.K.; Kung, S.F.; Luh, D.B. A model of ‘creative experience’ in creative tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013,41, 153–174. [CrossRef]
21.
Richards, G. Making Places Through Creative Tourism. In Cultural Sustainability, Tourism and Development: (Re)articulations in
Tourism Contexts; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2021.
22. Tan, S.K.; Luh, D.B.; Kung, S.F. A taxonomy of creative tourists in creative tourism. Tour. Manag. 2014,42, 248–259. [CrossRef]
23.
Bakas, F.E.; Duxbury, N. Development of rural areas and small cities through creative tourism: The CREATOUR project. ABET
2018,8, 74–84.
24.
Tan, S.K.; Tan, S.H.; Luh, D.B.; Kung, S.F. Understanding tourist perspectives in creative tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016,19,
981–987. [CrossRef]
25.
Duxbury, N.; Bakas, F.E.; Vinagre de Castro, T.; Silva, S. Creative tourism development models towards sustainable and
regenerative tourism. Sustainability 2020,13, 2. [CrossRef]
26.
Barbieri, C. Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: A comparison between agritourism and other farm en-
trepreneurial ventures. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013,21, 252–270. [CrossRef]
27.
Knollenberg, W.; Gil Arroyo, C.; Barbieri, C.; Boys, K. Craft beverage tourism development: The contributions of social capital.
J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021,20, 100599. [CrossRef]
28.
Testa, R.; Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Migliore, G. Culinary Tourism experiences in agritourism destinations and
sustainable consumption: Understanding Italian tourists’ motivations. Sustainability 2019,11, 4588. [CrossRef]
29. Pine, J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy; Harvard Business Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
30.
Fanelli, R.M. Seeking gastronomic, healthy, and social experiences in Tuscan agritourism facilities. Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 2. [CrossRef]
31. Barbieri, C.; Stevenson, K.T.; Knollenberg, W. Broadening the utilitarian epistemology of agritourism research through children
and families. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019,22, 2333–2336. [CrossRef]
32.
Liang, A.R.D.; Hsiao, T.Y.; Chen, D.J.; Lin, J.H. Agritourism: Experience design, activities, and revisit intention. Tour. Rev. 2021,
76, 1181–1196. [CrossRef]
33.
Soltani, M.; Nejad, N.S.; Azad, F.T.; Taheri, B.; Gannon, M.J. Food consumption experiences: A framework for understanding
food tourists’ behavioral intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021,33, 75–100. [CrossRef]
34.
Su, D.N.; Johnson, L.W.; O’Mahony, B. Analysis of push and pull factors in food travel motivation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020,23,
572–586. [CrossRef]
35.
Carrillo, B.; Barbieri, C. Thriving in a world of giants: Craft breweries work in a major tourism destination. J. Travel Res. 2024.
advance online publication. [CrossRef]
36.
Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
Tour. Hosp. 2024,51380
37.
Hoyle, R.H.; Stephenson, M.T.; Palmgreen, P.; Lorch, E.P.; Donohew, R.L. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation
seeking. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2002,32, 401–414. [CrossRef]
38.
Hair, J.F.; Bush, R.P.; Ortinau, D.J. Marketing Research: Within a Changing Information Environment; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY,
USA, 2003.
39. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
40. Yatim, B.; Ismail, S. MANOVA versus alternative methods. AIP Conf. Proc. 2014,1635, 934–939.
41.
Sidali, K.L.; Kastenholz, E.; Bianchi, R. Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: Combining the intimacy
model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015,23, 1179–1197. [CrossRef]
42.
Vukomanovic, J.; Barbieri, C.; Knollenberg, W.; Yoshizumi, A.; Gil Arroyo, C. To travel or not to travel during COVID-19:
The influence of political ideology on travel intentions in the USA. Ann. Tour. Res. Insights 2022,3, 100078. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
