Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.com Linking Wine Preferences to the Choice of Wine Tourism Destinations Graham Brown and Donald Getz Journal of Travel Research 2005; 43; 266 DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272027 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/3/266 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Travel and Tourism Research Association Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Linking Wine Preferences to the Choice of Wine Tourism Destinations GRAHAM BROWN AND DONALD GETZ This article explores the links between wine consumers’ preferences for wine from particular countries or regions and their interest in, and propensity to travel to, specific wine regions. Data from a convenience sample of 161 wine consumers in Calgary, Canada, revealed that specific appellation-oforigin preferences (e.g., for Australian or French wines) do have an influence on travel preferences and patterns. Nearly 70% of respondents preferred to drink wines from particular origins, and planned wine-related travel by respondents closely matched those geographic preferences. Other factors, however, were also shown to be important in shaping wine tourism destinations, including distance and cognitive factors. Implications are drawn for wine tourism marketing and for destination-choice theory. Recommendations are made for future research. Keywords: wine preferences; wine tourism; destination choices Wine tourism is a form of special-interest travel based on the desire to visit wine-producing regions or in which travelers are induced to visit wine-producing regions, and wineries in particular, while traveling for other reasons (Getz 2000). Of interest in this article are the factors shaping long-distance wine tourism (defined here as being travel away from one’s home region for 1 or more nights) and particularly the influence of wine preferences based on geographic origin (i.e., their appellation). The specific question being investigated is whether a preference for drinking wine from particular countries or regions will motivate consumers to visit those areas for wine-related reasons. One of the major themes expressed in the wine tourism literature is the need for more consumer-based research (Hall et al. 2000) and in particular the need to better understand the characteristics, motives, and preferences of wine tourists (Charters and Ali-Knight 2002). The link between wine consumption and wine-related travel has largely been neglected, with most studies of wine tourists drawing from winery visitors rather than wine consumers in general. If a link can be demonstrated between wine preferences by origin of the wine and resultant travel to those regions, it will have important implications for wine and wine tourism marketing. Some theoretical implications regarding destination choice would also follow. WINE TOURISM AND WINE CONSUMERS What Motivates the Wine Tourist? Reviews of research on wine tourists are contained in books by Hall et al (2000) and Getz (2000). Additional material has been published in various journals, especially in the International Journal of Wine Marketing. Several conference proceedings are available that deal in whole or part with wine tourism (e.g., Dowling and Carlsen 1998; Cullen, Pickering, and Phillips 2002). Mitchell, Hall, and McIntosh (2000) concluded that much of the research concerned supply-side issues from the perspective of wineries hosting visitors, and much less had been completed on demand-related questions. In particular, little is known about the international or long-distance wine tourist, partly because of the tendency to sample winery visitors (who are normally operationalized as “wine tourists”) and partly owing to the general absence of travel-related content in wine consumer research. For the purposes of this article, long-haul tourists are defined as those who travel outside their home region for 1 or more nights (as opposed to day- trippers or excursionists). Charters and Ali-Knight (2000) determined from a sample of Western Australian winery visitors that about one- third could be called “wine lovers” who desired a learning experience at wineries; they had a “comprehensive grounding in wine education.” A small component of this segment was called the “connoisseur,” and this group was much more interested in learning about wine production. The implication is that wine tourists might seek out destinations that offer Graham Brown is the Foundation Professor of Tourism Management in the School of International Business at the University of South Australia, Adelaide. He acts as the network coordinator for the Co-operative Research Centres for Sustainable Tourism for South Australia. The authors are grateful for funding from University of Calgary, Haskayne School of Business, and particularly the Canadian Pacific Visiting Professor program. Donald Getz is a professor in the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. He has both a personal and research interest in wine and wine tourism as well as family businesses, event management, and event tourism. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, February 2005, 266-276 DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272027 © 2005 Sage Publications Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 267 the learning experience they desire, although Charters and Ali-Knight also concluded that a “bundle of benefits,” and not just wine-related experiences, appealed to wine lovers. Johnson’s (1998) typology of “generalist” versus “specialist” is germane. Johnson argued that some winery visitors take the visit more seriously than others and have therefore different needs. Presumably, the specialist is similar to the wine lover of other typologies. The place of wine in lifestyles has also been examined, leading Hall et al. (2000) to have concluded that the experiential aspects of lifestyle (such as socializing, travel, entertaining, and dining out) are more important than the materialistic aspects. One large-scale consumer study is directly pertinent. The Travel Activities and Motivation Survey (TAMS), commissioned in part by the Canadian Tourism Commission (Lang Research Inc. 2001), included the development of a wine and cuisine index reflecting travel related to food and wine. The study determined that 12.9% of adult Canadians and 17.9% of adult Americans had a high level of interest in wine and cuisine-related travel, and an additional 17.2% of Canadians and 17.2% of Americans had moderate interest. Segmentation revealed that the greatest interest levels in Canada occurred among young and mature couples and young and mature singles, and that interest increased with household income and education levels. Overall, the best target segment was identified as being “affluent mature and senior couples.” The Appeal of Wine Regions There is a growing body of research-based literature on the attractiveness of wine-producing regions plus considerable opinion on how to develop these destinations. Very little in this body of literature, however, provides insight or evidence concerning the link between wine preferences and wine-related travel. Prevailing attitudes in the wine and tourism industry associate wine quality with wine tourism demand. For example, one of the first regional wine tourism strategies was prepared for Western Australia in 1998. Wine tourism was defined as “travel for the experience of wineries and wine regions and their links to the Australian lifestyle and encompasses service provision and destination marketing” (Carlsen and Dowling 2001, p. 46). A SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, based on consultations, yielded a number of perceived strengths, including premium quality wines; a unique, attractive environment; regional produce and fine cuisine; a variety of lifestyle experiences; a variety of accommodation styles and price range; a range of associated regional crafts and merchandise; a range of existing events in wine regions; many existing small family-owned and -operated wineries; many new ventures in the wine and tourism business; and a high level of support. In a study of critical success factors for wine tourism, Getz et al. (1999) obtained the opinions of wine and tourism- industry professionals in both Australia and Washington State. Results showed clearly that professionals believed wine quality to be one of the top attractions, and this is a frequent theme in wine tourism development and planning. The implication would appear to be that tasting quality wines motivates visits to wineries. Although there has been little in the way of systematic or comparative research into the appeal of wine regions, Charters and Ali-Knight (2000) admonished that wine tourist expectations are likely to vary from region to region. No one set of critical success factors will apply everywhere. Williams (2001a, 2001b) studied the evolution of wine region imagery as reflected in the advertising pages of Wine Spectator magazine. He concluded that imagery shifted through the decade of the 1990s from an emphasis on wine production and related facilities to more aesthetic and experiential dimensions. The imagery of wine country as a rural paradise has been conveyed to wine consumers, in which leisure, cuisine, scenery, and outdoor activities are bountiful. But Williams noted that consumer research on perceived and preferred wine country imagery is needed to permit proper wine region positioning. Bruwer (2003) thought the appeal of wine regions to be based on “difference of place,” and these differences must be branded. Both natural and cultural features are important, but attractiveness is also related to distance (real and perceived) to markets. Wine tourism and wine exports should be mutually reinforcing. Sharples (2002), for example, suggested that the reputation (i.e., how well known it is for quality) and export of Chilean wines fuel wine tourism to that country. Consumers who have experienced a wine-producing region might be more likely to become loyal customers and to spread a positive word about the wines. What is unknown are the dynamics of this interaction and the resulting pattern of travel preferences and choices. Chaney (2002) argued that many consumers simplify their wine choices by picking them on the basis of country of origin, and noted that many retailers display wines by country and region of origin. Chaney further observed a link between preferences and travel among UK wine consumers, noting that “for most people part of the travel experience involves sampling the local food and drink in a relaxed environment.” Travel experiences therefore influenced her respondents as to future wine choices. Destination Choice Theory What does wine say about the destination—as opposed to, say, food or manufactured products—that might create a desire to visit? If wine can be considered an indirect influence on travel choices, what exactly are the properties of greatest importance (e.g., wine quality, intangibles like lifestyle association, or specific landscape imagery)? A review of well-known travel and destination choice models, many of which are compared by Hudson (2000) and Pizam and Mansfeld (2000), suggests that wine can have several impacts on destination choice, both push factors (motives and the like) and pull factors (i.e., the attractiveness of destinations). The “choice model” described by Ryan (2002, p. 62) is used as a framework for the following discussion, a summary of which is provided in Figure 1. Ryan’s model is particularly useful in permitting the wine-related factors to be linked to five generic choice factors. Tourist variables (needs, motives, personality, lifestyle, life stage, and experience). Needs (e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy, reviewed in both Hudson 2000 and Ryan 2002) are at the root of travel and leisure motives, but no one “needs” to drink wine or visit wine regions. Rather, basic human needs are in part met through leisure and travel experiences. Interactions among personality, lifestyle, life stage, and experience shape specific travel motivations, and these can include the follow- Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 268 FEBRUARY 2005 FIGURE 1 WINE-RELATED FACTORS IN THE DESTINATION CHOICE MODEL Wine-Related Factors Tourist variables: Basic needs are met through needs, motives, wine tourism experiences; these personality, lifestyle, motivate travel life stage, experience Learning about wine and culture, wine and landscape Sharing wine tourism experiences with significant others and likeminded travelers Gaining esteem (through acquired knowledge and experiences; to “master” wine) Serious leisure and involvement (wine central to lifestyle; amateurism) Relaxation in wine regions (idyllic rural landscapes) Marketing variables Preferences for particular wines and destination by origin country or specific awareness appellation Destination branding by wine companies Wine tastings specific to their origin Comarketing by destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and wine industry Personal visits to wineries and wine regions, plus word of mouth, influence future travel Affective association Cultural and historic links favor of destinations certain destinations (e.g., North Americans and European links) Exports of wines affect availability and encourage loyalty Pilgrimages to famous and important wineries and wine regions Authenticity of the cultural experience (wine as an integral part of lifestyle) Tourist destination The “evoked set” of known and preferences preferred wine-specific destinations versus general- purpose travel preferences Situational variables Risk reduction; cost and distance barriers; packaging; knowledge about the wine regions Source: Adapted from Ryan (2002). ing generic types (from Ryan 2002, p. 35, following Beard and Ragheb 1983): intellectual (to learn, explore, and discover), social (linked to friendship and interpersonal relationships, plus the need for the esteem of others), compe tence-mastery (to achieve, master, challenge, and compete), and stimulus-avoidance (to escape or relax). Of particular relevance to most forms of special interest travel are the intellectual and competence-mastery motivations. In terms of wine tourism, these appear to translate into the genre-defining activities of visiting wineries and vineyards to learn about wine (see Charters and Ali-Knight 2000 for a pertinent discussion). Escape and relaxation are also clearly associated with wine regions, because the imagery presented of wine regions stresses an idyllic rural and cultural experience or lifestyle. As a result, wine consumers who read Wine Spectator are potentially inculcated with a belief that wine regions are worthy of a visit (Williams 2001a, 2001b). Increasingly, wine regions are being developed with spas, golfing, special events, country inns, and other pleasant diversions (Getz 2000). The social dimension should also be prominent in wine tourism and not just through travel with likeminded people or meeting them in the wine region. In terms of life stage, the presence of a “significant other” who is also a wine lover might encourage wine tourism, whereas having children at home is possibly a disincentive. Belonging to a wine club or having other wine consumers as one’s reference group might strongly influence the value placed on wine tourism. The wine consumer’s level of involvement with wine in general or particular wines has been studied in the context of wine purchase behavior, but the tourism dimension has barely been addressed (see Lockshin and Spawton 2001 for an overview). Studies of leisure and recreation involvement (e.g., Havitz and Dimanche 1999) suggest, by extension, that those who are highly involved with wine can be expected to explicitly value wine as a central part of their lifestyle and to exhibit behaviors such as joining clubs, making wine (as a hobbyist), reading about it, and collecting or cellaring preferred wines. Highly involved wine consumers (about one- third of the total) like to learn and will refer to the region of origin as one purchase cue (Lockshin and Spawton 2001). According to those researchers, very few consumers stick to one brand but like to try the unfamiliar and search for the unknown brands from familiar regions. The highly involved wine consumer engages in “serious leisure,” defined by Stebbins (1992) as being typified by the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills, perseverance, amateurism (e.g., making wine at home), searching for durable benefits or self-actualization, enhancement of self- image, and self-gratification. Serious leisure often encompasses one’s entire social world, and Ravenscroft and van Westering (2001) have discussed wine involvement in these terms. The concept of recreation activity specialization is closely related to involvement. Bryan (1977) conceptualized a continuum of behavior from the general to the specialized, which is reflected by equipment, skills used, and preferences for specific recreation settings. Ditton, Loomis, and Choi (1992) added a “social worlds” perspective in which at one end of a continuum is the least specialized subworld and its members and at the other end is the most specialized subworld and its members. Scott and Shafer (2001) argued that recreational specialization has generally been treated by leisure researchers as a measure of intensity of involvement, and has been used to explore variation among activity participants in terms of their preferences, motivations, attitudes, and the like, but they stressed a developmental process in Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 269 which specialization is a progression in behaviors, skills, and commitment. They argued that progression is not a typical path but may well be the least common trajectory among recreation participants. Marketing variables and destination awareness. Marketing of wine destinations is done by tourism organizations as well as individual wineries and wine companies. The wine industry often associates their brands with specific appellations and promotes visits to their wineries (see Getz 2000 for a case study of Australia’s Southcorp). As the number of potential wine destinations has been steadily increasing, owing to both the spread of wine production and the growing importance assigned to wine tourism, it is becoming more difficult to find competitive advantages. Awareness of the wine-producing region can be increased through repeated purchase of wines (which might have pertinent information on the label), discussions with other wine consumers, formal wine tastings, background reading on wines, or comarketing by wineries and wine destinations. The vast majority of wines are, however, sold without much in the way of destination information or imagery on the labels, and in some countries (including Canada), wines made from imported grape juice can be sold with misleading origins. Consumers who are highly involved with wine in their lifestyle or who are interested in specific wines by origin might be more likely to enjoy learning about wine- producing regions regardless of their travel experiences and propensity. Marketing efforts might not always be a determining factor in attracting wine tourists. Research by Dodd (1995) concerning visitors to Texas wineries found that word-of-mouth recommendations were the most important source of information used, followed by previous exposure to the winery’s labels and other sources. Brochures were most important to visitors living more than 30 miles from the visited winery. Affective associations of destinations. Although wine production is expanding geographically around the world (now including countries like India, China, and Japan), wine has strong and positive associations with certain countries. This is based in part on culture (such as the strong links between North America and Europe) and the volume and quality of wine exports (which more recently favors Australia and South America). The notion of “pilgrimage” is also relevant. In social settings such as wine clubs and wine tastings, or among wine- loving friends, there is a high probability that word of mouth as well as formal information about wine regions will be shared. An element of status might very well be associated with visits to famous or even out-of-the-way wine regions. Much as golfers “collect” experiences at different courses, wine lovers might sequentially visit wine regions in search of novelty and variety. And just as golfers might strongly desire to play at St. Andrews in Scotland, the home of golf, wine lovers might desire to make a pilgrimage to the origins of famous or preferred wines. Many wine-related Web sites provide evidence that consumers think in terms of pilgrimage, and marketers use this concept in their wine tourism promotions. For example, Lee Foster (2003) expressed it this way: “Every traveler with an interest in wine and food owes himself or herself, at some point in life, a pilgrimage to Bordeaux. I will always remember my own journey to this gustatory shrine.” What sets a pilgrimage apart from other special-interest travel is that very specific sites hold deep meaning for the visitors. There will be a search for authenticity, often manifested in seeing the actual grapes, physical plant, and personnel that produce favored wines. It might also be argued that famous wine regions, like Bordeaux, are pilgrimage destinations even for those who prefer wines from elsewhere. If true, this would suggest that the Bordeaux “brand” holds “equity” for the destination as well as its wine producers (see Lockshin and Spawton 2001 for a discussion of brands, involvement, and wine tourism). Wine tourist research in Canada has made it clear that wine tourists also seek cultural experiences and engage in active outdoors pursuits (Williams and Kelly 2001; Lang Research Inc. 2001). The wine region must therefore offer a bundle of benefits, not just wine-related opportunities. If wine tourists are better educated and more sophisticated travelers, then they are more likely than others to be demanding of their selected destinations. Tourist destination preferences. The concept of an “evoked set” (Howard 1963) of destinations is pertinent. According to Um and Crompton (2000, p. 87), it is the mental list of destinations consisting of “those remaining from an initial awareness set after some reduction process has been implemented.” Um and Crompton argued that when applied to tourism, the evoked set should be thought of as “probable destinations” within some period of time. This contrasts with the “inept set” of those rejected. An “inert set” of destinations includes those that cannot be evaluated by the consumer because of a lack of information. The implication is that potential wine tourists will possess a short list of preferred or likely destinations. At a general level, in the minds of wine tourists, the evoked set could consist of all wine regions—because each would offer something new. Or, when asked about their likely travel to wine regions, the evoked set might be much narrower. It could be based on the normal barriers of time and distance and/or wine-specific criteria such as reputation for wine, preference for those wines, or knowledge about the wine experiences available in each. The current research is the first to explore actual and preferred wine tourism destinations among a group of consumers in their home city. Situational variables. Um and Crompton (2000) said that final destination choice has more to do with constraints and risk-reduction behavior than with the attributes of destinations— which are important in the awareness and evoked sets. Actual travel decisions are affected by many situational variables, and these have not been examined for wine tourists. This current research does examine the influence of distance and packaging. RESEARCH METHOD What is unique about the current consumer research is that it covers wine-related travel habits and preferences of wine consumers who do not live near a wine region and were not selected on the basis of their travel patterns or winery visits. It is exploratory research in that a convenience sample Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 270 FEBRUARY 2005 was taken, and no attempt is made to generalize the findings to a larger population. Data were obtained from a self-completion questionnaire completed by 161 wine consumers in Calgary, Canada—a city not geographically close to any wine regions. The respondents all belonged to one of several social wine clubs (not a purchasing club) or attended a wine-tasting event held at a retail outlet. There was no prescreening, so actual travel behavior and wine preferences were initially unknown. Through the cooperation of the retailer, surveys were handed out and collected from attendees at a wine-tasting event. Two wine clubs agreed to provide mailing lists of their members, and each was sent a questionnaire with a postage-paid, return envelope included. The wine consumer questionnaire was developed in part through a focus group in which a small number of wine consumers who drank socially together were asked to informally discuss their involvement with wine, their wine preferences, and the connection to wine tourism. It became clear that for some wine lovers, travel in general led to an interest in wine (especially from living abroad), whereas for others, wine tourism follows naturally from growing involvement with wine as part of their lifestyle. The questionnaire was structured similar to the order of results presented below, beginning with general questions on wine purchases and preferences, then on past travel involving wine, and finally on future intentions. This article does not report all of the findings but concentrates on establishing the link between preferences and destinations. In the ensuing results section, the specific relevant questions and metrics are noted. The response rate is unknown, but a large proportion of the questionnaires that were distributed were completed. The number returned was considered adequate to achieve the study objectives, and the sample frame ensured that respondents exhibited an interest in wine. This represented the only requirement for inclusion in the study, and a comparison with a sample selected at random from the entire population was not necessary. RESULTS Profile of the Calgary Respondents Table 1 profiles the respondents, showing basic demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. Almost half (48.4%) were males, and the average age was 49. Seventy percent were married, but only 29% had children living at home. Of those with children at home, the mean age of the offspring was 17 years. The sample contains a large proportion of self-employed (30.1%) compared to employed (45.5%), and a fairly high level of retirees (20.5%). They were very well educated: 67% had completed or were working on a university degree, of which 29% were postgraduate; another 22% had completed or were attending a college. Given their education levels and employment characteristics, it is no surprise to find high household incomes. Overall, it can be seen that this sample of wine consumers were mostly mature, married adults in an upper socioeconomic group. This certainly fits the North American profile of wine consumers in general (as profiled in Getz 2000 and in the TAMS study by Lang Research Inc. 2001). TABLE 1 PROFILE OF THE CALGARY RESPONDENTS (N = 161) Age Mean: 49 22-29: 8 (5.4%) 30-39: 19 (12.8) 40-49: 45 (30.4) 50-59: 50 (33.8) 60-69: 23 (15.5) 70-71: 3 (2.0) Gender Males: 48.4% Females: 51.6% Marital status Married: 70% Respondents with children 29% living at home Mean age of children living at home: 17 Range: 2-37 for youngest Employment status Employed: 45.5% Self-employed: 30.1 Retired: 20.5 Unemployed: 3.8 Education (highest level High school: 7.7% completed or in progress) College: 23.1 University 39.7 Postgraduate 29.5 Household income (in Under $20,000: 1.7% Canadian dollars) $20,000-39,000: 5.8 $40,000-59,000: 11.6 $60,000-79,000: 16.5 $80,000-99,000: 14.9 $100,000-119,000: 16.5 $120-139,000: 10.7,000 $140,000-159,000: 2.5 $160,000 +: 19.8 Ever involved professionally 5.6% in wine industry Wine club membership 57% belonged to 1 or more (average 1.59 clubs) Wine tastings attended in 89% (average 8 tastings) previous 12 months Wine Consumption Patterns Owing to the sampling frame, all respondents were wine consumers—mostly members of a wine club or attendees at a wine tasting hosted by a retailer. More than half (57%) of the respondents were members in one or more wine clubs (average for those who were members: 1.59 clubs), but it must be remembered that this is largely an artifact of the sampling. Eighty-nine percent had been to a wine tasting in the past year, with the average number (among those going to tastings) being an impressive 8 tastings. Nearly three-quarters owned books about wine, with the average number owned being 7. Thirty-eight percent read magazines about wine, with an average of 1.55 magazine subscriptions among those who subscribed at all. This fact suggests that wine magazines are not reaching the majority of serious wine consumers. Slightly more than one-quarter make their own wine, and so it is clear that hobbyist winemakers are also serious wine consumers. In terms of making wine purchases, the average number was 29 times in the past 12 months, with spending averaging $136 (Canadian) a month. All the respondents bought some quantity. The main price range paid for a wine bottle was Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 271 TABLE 2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PREFERRED WINE, WINE REGIONS PREVIOUSLY VISITED, AND WINE REGIONS MOST LIKELY TO BE VISITED Number of Mentions: Number of Preferring Number of Mentions: Wine from Mentions: Most Likely This Country Have to Visit, (% of Sample, Already Next Summing Visited 3 Years All Three (% Visited % to Visit COUNTRY Preferences) for Wine) for Wine) Comments on Each Country’s Position France 80 (23.2) 36 (56) 71 (46.5) Classic wine destination; always a winner Australia 69 (20.6) 15 (60) 48 (44.1) Major growth potential for wine tourism Canada 42 (12.2) 89 (45) 71 (46.0) Close to home; wine tourism will continue to grow Italy 40 (11.6) 10 (30) 46 (47.5) Classic wine destination; always a winner United States 40 (11.6) 56 (50) 78 (51.5) Close to home; wine tourism will continue to grow Chile 32 (9.3) 3 (0) 6 (33.3) Modest potential; constrained by distance and lack of differentiation Germany 8 (2.3) 6 (33.3) 8 (0.0) Performing well below potential New Zealand 7 (2.0) 8 (25) 6 (60.0) Potential could be enhanced through packaging with Australia Spain 6 (1.7) 2 (100) 9 (71.0) Potential to grow but lacks regional differentiation South Africa 4 (1.2) 2 (0) 11 (55.6) Potential to grow; constrained by distance but benefits from appealing image Argentina 3 (0.9) 0 1 Terra incognita; constrained by distance and lack of knowledge Portugal 3 (0.9) 5 (0) 3 (0) The rest of Europe needs differentiation Greece 0 3 (50) 0 Slovakia 0 1 (0) 0 Europe 3 (0.9) 3 (33.3) 5 (50) United Kingdom 0 1 Slovenia 0 1 Hungary 0 1 Various international 3 (0.9) North American 2 (0.6) Australia/ New Zealand 2 (0.6) South American 1 (0.3) between $13 and $30, inclusive of midpriced to premium wines but not luxury brands. Sixty-one percent maintained a wine cellar, with an average of 319 bottles per cellar among those who had one. No data were collected on preference for, or consumption of, types of wine (e.g., reds, whites, sparkling, fortified, or dessert). Wine Preferences by Origin Table 2 displays data on the three variables of relevance to the question of whether wine preferences by origin or appellation lead to wine tourism to specific wine regions. The nature of the data (number of times mentioned) and the measures used (percentages) make it impossible to establish a statistical correlation between these three variables, so a qualitative evaluation is provided. Respondents were asked first if they “prefer to buy wines produced in particular regions?” (yes or no), and if the answer was yes, they were asked to write in the names of up to three regions, starting with their most favorite. The names of regions or countries provided were of great interest, given the goal of linking wine preferences with wine tourism destinations, but so too were the ways in which respondents interpreted the word region. Nearly 70% preferred to buy wine from one or more particular region. This is not specifically a measure of loyalty, because appellation preferences might very well change throughout time. Table 2 shows the combination of three choices, with France being top choice with 80 mentions and accounting for 23.2% of all origins mentioned. Australia, Italy, the United States, Chile, and Canada were the other major wine sources mentioned. The popularity of Australia is likely to be in part an artifact of the sampling frame, because one of the clubs sampled was an Australian wine club. The data on wine preferences also provide an insight to the interpretation of the word region and how consumers perceive wine origins in a geographical sense. The main regions of France and Italy are well known, so it is no surprise that Bordeaux (15 mentions), Rhone (15), and Burgundy (7) were very popular and that 7 other French regions were mentioned. Similarly, within Italy there were specific preferences for wines from Tuscany (7 mentions) and three other regions. In Canada and the United States, three levels were recorded: country, state/province, and specific wine regions. This can perhaps be attributed to more intimate knowledge based on proximity and previous visits. Californian wines were the most popular (21 mentions for the state Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 272 FEBRUARY 2005 as a whole plus Napa receiving 4 and Sonoma 1). The nearby province of British Columbia was the most frequently mentioned origin of favored Canadian wines (12 mentions plus 11 others specifically for the Okanagan Valley). Other countries that produce preferred wines were not as well known when it comes to regions and subregions. Although Australian wines were mentioned 69 times (20.6% of the total), only four specific appellations were mentioned, with the top one being Barossa with 3 mentions. Although Chilean wines were also popular (32 mentions and 9.3% of the total), no one mentioned a region within that country. German wines were not very popular (8 mentions), but respondents did mention two regions; the Mosel (2 mentions) and Rhinefalz (1). Only the Rioja region of Spain was specifically identified (1 mention), and in all the other countries mentioned, there was no regional differentiation. On one hand, affiliation with an origin-specific wine club or attendance at country-specific wine tastings should increase consumers’ knowledge and possibly their regional preferences. On the other hand, the fame and availability of wines from specific countries and regions should influence consumer preferences. It might be impossible to prove which comes first, so a mutually reinforcing process could be at work. It would, however, seem that the special interest of the respondents creates knowledge about wine regions that, in turn, provides a mechanism for enhanced geographical awareness. This heightened knowledge provides scope, at a minimum, for a more sophisticated approach to destination decision making in countries that are subject to the relevant insight. Previous Wine-Related Travel The second variable quantified in Table 2 is that of previous visits to wine-producing destinations. Respondents were asked to write in the names of any regions they had visited in the past 5 years and, for each region, to indicate the purpose (see below for details). Fully 79% of respondents had visited a wine-producing region in the past five years, which is remarkable given Calgary’s distance from the nearest region, the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. The percentage of visits made for wine- related purposes ranged from 0 to 100%, but more important is the fact that three destinations (i.e., France, the United States, and Australia) attracted both high numbers of visits and at least 50% of them were for wine-related reasons. Canadian destinations were most frequently mentioned (89 times), of which 45% were wine-related trips. Table 2 indicates the proportion of travelers who traveled because of their interest in wine. The specific instruction was to write in “main reasons for visit to the region” after a general introduction stated, “We are also interested to learn whether your interest in wine was the main reason for visiting the region or if other reasons were more important in your decision.” Answers were coded into four categories: wine related (accounting for 45% of all trips mentioned), vacations (37.7%), conference (6.1%), visiting family (9.6%), and scenery (0.9%). If two reasons were equally mentioned, and one was wine, the answer was coded as being wine related. The influence of proximity is shown in the popularity of British Columbia, although it must be noted that British Columbia is the preferred holiday destination in general for residents of Calgary. The Okanagan Valley attracted 59 mentioned trips, of which 46% were wine related. The other top North American regions visited were California (Napa Valley in particular, with 20 mentioned trips, of which 61% were wine related), Washington State (8 and 62.5%), and other parts of British Columbia (the Fraser Valley near Vancouver and Vancouver Island). The top overseas country visited was France (36 and 56%), with 8 regions mentioned (Burgundy was highest at 6 and 67%). Australia had attracted 15 trips, of which 60% were wine related, and 4 regions were mentioned (Hunter Valley at 3 and 100% was highest). The other popular overseas destinations had been Italy, with 3 regions mentioned; New Zealand (4); Germany (2); and Portugal (1). Distance is evidently less important than might be expected when it comes to major wine-related destinations: witness the popularity of France, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand. The negligible performance of South America (3 had visited Chile, but none of the visits was wine related, and none mentioned Argentina) suggests that other factors were much more important. Planned travel. Future wine-related travel was examined, first with the question “How interested are you in visiting a wine-producing region in the next three years?” Five response categories were provided, and 51.3% checked Definitely plan to visit a wine region. In addition, 19.4 % were very interested, and 18.8% were interested. Only 1.9% were definitely not interested. Table 2 displays the levels of interest in future visits to wine regions, following the question “Please list the wine- producing regions you would be most likely to visit in the next three years.” Although respondents were asked to rank their answers from most likely downwards, all the replies have been combined for this table. Respondents were also asked to write in their main reasons, and the results were coded in the same way as for the question on wine regions previously visited. Overall, 46.7% of the reasons were wine- specific or included wine (wine was sometimes mentioned equally with other reasons). The United States is the top likely future destination for travel in general as well as for wine-related travel, and three levels of destination (national, state/provincial, and region) were mentioned. Presumably, mentioning the United States in general suggests either multiple visits to wine regions or some degree of uncertainty. California, however, is well enough known by respondents to constitute a wine destination on its own (it was mentioned by 36, with 44% wine related). In addition, Napa on its own also has great appeal (26 and 62%). Canada and France were virtually equal in their appeal for future trips (both 71 mentions and about 46% wine related). Within Canada, the Okanagan Valley was the preferred future destination (38, 43%), whereas France as a whole is perceived to be a wine destination (38, 34.5%) as are specific regions (Bordeaux 8, 75%; Burgundy 7, 67%; and Loire 5, 20%). Italy and Australia were also almost equal as preferred future destinations for both general travel and wine-related purposes. Five Australian regions were mentioned (from 1 to 3 times only,) but it is largely seen as a single destination. Italy, on the other hand, both is a single destination (26, 28.6%) and contains the popular wine destination of Tuscany (another 15 mentions, 67% wine related). Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 273 Future research should examine the actual patterns of wine tourism to examine the routes, linkages, and country or regional combinations. The Calgary data do hint that Europe in particular, and to a lesser extent Australia plus New Zealand, are considered to be logical combinations for wine- related travel. The Relationship between Preferred Wine and Wine- Related Travel. Although the relationships shown in Table 2 cannot be statistically quantified, a qualitative interpretation has been provided under the heading comments on each country’s position. This summary concentrates on each country’s attractiveness as a wine destination, but additional insights are made below on the apparent links between wine popularity by origin and travel to that origin. Two countries, France and Italy, stand out as “classic” tourism and wine destinations, because both possess an abundance of cultural, landscape, and wine-related attractiveness. They are perennial favorites for Calgarians and North Americans in general. Their future as wine destinations is assured. Many wine consumers prefer the wines of France (23%) and Italy (12%), although it is worth noting that twice as many preferred French wines than Italian. It is also clear that these countries attract wine-related trips from many wine consumers who did indicate a preference for their wines. It seems probable that multiple regions in the two countries will often be combined in one visit and possibly with other European wine regions as well. Australia emerges as possessing major wine tourism growth potential on both the basis of wine preferences (21% of respondents preferred Australian wines) and likely future visits for wine and general purposes. Wine consumers who visit Australia for other reasons are highly likely to seek out specific wine regions, especially the Hunter Valley because it is close to Sydney. New Zealand shows some potential and probably could benefit from the demand for Australia through 2-country packaging for wine tourists. Both Canada and the United States benefit from proximity to Calgary, and both general-purpose and wine-related travel will likely continue to grow. California’s Napa Valley is a classic destination, and the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia is achieving this status among Calgarians. Sonoma could benefit more from joint promotions with Napa. Because of proximity and the frequency of travel by Calgarians to British Columbia, the Okanagan will undoubtedly become a differentiated wine tourism destination, with the distinctive South Okanagan poised to become an appellation. Chile and Argentina have been labeled terra incognita because of their lack of internal differentiation and low levels of planned visitation. The preference for Chilean wines in particular (9%) has not yet translated into travel preference, presumably because of a lack of knowledge about the wine tourism product or low travel appeal in general. It is not distance alone that penalizes South America, as the appeal of Australia (and to a lesser extent South Africa) proves. Image enhancement and detailed information directed at wine consumers are a necessity for South American wine regions. Germany is somewhat of an enigma in that it compares poorly to France and Italy, yet offers numerous wine routes and distinctive regions combined with interesting scenery and cultural opportunities. The Mosel and Rhine Valleys do have an identifiable but modest appeal within the Calgary sample, but this country is clearly underachieving. The problem could be complacency on the part of the German wine industry and tourism agencies. There is also the possibility that Germany is identified as mostly a white wine producer and that serious wine tourists seek out the regions producing red wines, but that hypothesis will have to be tested in future research. South Africa shows modest growth potential. Its image is just recovering from the decades of wine embargoes and is still weak in North America. The image of its wine regions is appealing, however, and it can quite possibly benefit from being environmentally and culturally exotic. Spain also shows modest potential but appears to suffer mainly from a lack of regional differentiation. Only Rioja is known among the Calgarians, so improved information and image enhancement should result in more travel. The same can be said of Portugal and the rest of Europe. There are many wine regions that Calgarians appear to know little or nothing about. One response suggests that family ties, for example with Slovenia or Slovakia, lead to wine tourism, so perhaps the “visiting friends and relatives” market in North America could be exploited in promoting wine tourism. A proportional map of the wine world. Figure 2 is a proportional map of the wine world as indicated by the wine- related travel preferences of the sampled Calgary wine consumers. The proportions are based on the number of respondents indicating that they would most likely visit these destinations in the next 5 years for wine-related reasons (e.g., the United States had 78 mentions, and Canada and France received 71 each). Within Canada, British Columbia dominates— in part because of proximity—whereas California dominates the United States. France and Italy are differentiated by regions in the minds of these respondents, but other countries are not. The map cannot be generalized to the whole population of wine consumers or Calgarians, because the sample introduced one or more biases particularly favoring Australia. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that wine consumers are potential wine tourists who form an evoked set of preferred wine tourism destinations based in part on their wine preferences. Other factors likely explaining this evoked set include knowledge about the wine regions and general perceptions of destination attractiveness. In this context, the “classic destinations” of France and Italy will always remain popular. Cultural differences among consumers in different countries should be tested regarding their “wine tourism worlds,” and a random sample of consumers might also produce significant variations. CONCLUSIONS This exploratory research sought to identify a link between wine preferences by appellation with long-distance, wine tourism destination choices (past and projected) among a sample of wine consumers. Given the measures used, the strength of this relationship (as shown in Figure 2) cannot be tested statistically. Because a causal link cannot be demonstrated, qualitative analysis of each destination’s position was undertaken. The top preferences included the classic wine destinations of France and Italy, close-to-home destinations in Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 274 FEBRUARY 2005 FIGURE 2 PROPORTIONAL MAP OF WINE DESTINATIONS MOST LIKELY TO BE VISITED BY CALGARY WINE CONSUMERS (SHOWING NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING EACH COUNTRY AND THE PERCENT SAYING THE TRIP WOULD BE WINE RELATED; ALSO SHOWING THE NUMBER OF REGIONS MENTIONED IN EACH COUNTRY) (71; 46% for wine) (5 regions; British Columbia dominant) CANADA (78; 51.55% 6 regions; (California dominant) USA FRANCE (71; 46.5%) (9 regions) REST OF EUROPE & Europe in general 8(25%) GERMANY (8; 0%) (2 regions) ITALY (46; 47.5%) (4 regions) AUSTRALIA (48; 44.1% (5 regions) PORTUGAL 3(0) (1 region) SPAIN 9 (71%) (1 region) ARGENTINA AFRICA NEW (6; 33.3%) 1 (0) (11; 55.6%) CHILE ZEALAND (6; 60%) SOUTH Canada and the United States, and the major growth potential country of Australia. Proximity was definitely a factor, reflected in the popularity of the closest wine regions in British Columbia (but not close enough to be a day trip) and California. But distance alone does not fully explain the link, as proven by the popularity of Australia relative to South America and South Africa. The poor performance of Germany and other European countries relative to France and Italy suggests strongly that marketing and image are also important in differentiating wine tourism destinations, unless this is a reflection of preferences for certain types of wine such as red versus white. France and Italy are widely favored as general tourism destinations for their combinations of history, culture, food, and wine. Several countries (notably, Argentina and lesser European wine-producing nations) emerged as terra incognita in the minds of Calgary wine consumers, because the consumers did not relate to specific wine regions or appellations within those countries. Several wine tourism destinations showed a degree of potential to develop this market, with New Zealand potentially gaining by cooperating with Australia, and South Africa holding a strong image but demonstrating weak performance so far. Spain shows potential if it can communicate more about its wine regions, because only Rioja was known. Similarly, the increasing popularity of Chilean wines in Canada should translate into future wine tourism if Chile can convince wine consumers of its general destination appeal and differentiate its appellations. Practical marketing implications are suggested by this research. First and foremost, increasing wine exports from a country or region can result in wine tourism to that area—but tourism and the wine industry must be allies in realizing the benefits. The wine consumer needs information about the origins of the wine, and strong geographical differentiation between countries and within countries is required. Those charged with developing and marketing wine tourism would do well to consider social wine clubs and countrythemed wine tastings to spread their messages to responsive target segments. Clubs and tastings appear to be primary ways in which preferences are either established or reinforced, and in which information is shared about wine regions. Theory and Future Research It was found that nearly 70% of 161 wine consumers in Calgary expressed a preference for one or more wines by their origin, and within the same sample, there was a high level of past and projected travel for wine-related reasons to the wine regions from which preferred wines originated. This relationship is neither causal nor linear but gives rise to Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 275 the hypothesis that wine preferences do influence travel choices and in particular will influence wine-related travel. This research suggests that both push and pull factors are likely to be at work in generating long-distance wine tourism and that the personal dimension (i.e., Ryan’s “tourist variables”) is probably most important. For those engaged in serious leisure or with high levels of involvement in wine (as part of their lifestyle), there is likely a strong predisposition for pleasure travel to wine regions—or at least to include wine in general-purpose travel. In this context, the actual choice of wine destination is of most interest, including the question of what role is played by wine preferences. First, in the context of special-interest tourism, it appears that consumer involvement with wine or other leisure and lifestyle pursuits will directly influence both the awareness and evoked sets of preferred destinations. In this research, it was found that wine consumers had visited and will likely visit a select group of wine regions based on both their preferences for wine from certain regions and their awareness and perceptions of what those wine regions offer. It can be concluded that certain leisure and lifestyle interests (especially for those people who are highly involved or engaged in serious leisure) automatically carry with them a heightened interest in travel to a particular set of destinations. Behaviors and activities most associated with the pursuit (e.g., wine tasting and learning about wine), and the desire for making a pilgrimage to famous and important places that hold special meaning, shape the choice of travel destinations. Furthermore, for leisure pursuits that engender an evoked set of desirable destinations (such as the specific number of known wine-producing regions), consumers will possibly engage in sequential travel—to satisfy both their need for pilgrimage to the most important places and their desire for novelty within the evoked set. The desire for mastery or self- esteem within the subculture of wine lovers might also lead to a desire for visiting remote and minor wine-producing regions, as these visits may increase one’s knowledge and reputation within their circle of wine lovers. More refined research will be required to examine the sequential patterns of wine tourism, and to test the hypothesis that there are important destination choice factors related to pilgrimage, novelty, mastery or self-esteem. For example, after the obligatory pilgrimage to France and Italy, which wine regions become most appealing? Or do wine lovers go back to their favorite wine regions repeatedly? Another theoretical question arises from the observation made in this research that wine consumers engage in wine- related activities while traveling for other purposes. Although respondents traveled to many destinations for reasons other than wine, where possible they included wine in their activities. Research will be required to determine the relative contribution of wine to the overall destination choice, and how wine-related activities are accommodated within other-purpose travel. In the context of recreation activity specialization, there are some clues provided in this research suggesting that Bryan’s (1977) concept of specialization will apply to wine consumption and wine tourism, but this will have to await future testing. Specifically, the data suggest that there is a highly involved group of wine consumers who engage more in specialized behavior, but the data do not shed light on how their specialization occurred. It is also unknown how exactly the specialized “social world” (Ditton, Loomis, and Choi 1992) of wine lovers links to destination choices, but the evidence suggests that appellation-specific wine tastings and the networking associated with social wine clubs are influential. And with regard to the argument made by Scott and Shafer (2001) that progression to specialization is the least common path, it is unknown what exactly constitutes the finest level of specialization in wine tourism. The research only suggests a hypothesis that specialization results in travel to wine regions that are farther away, are more precisely defined appellations or subregions, and more precisely match wine preferences by origin. Several other important research questions are suggested. Are there gender or age differences? The notion of wine pilgrimage and the authenticity of pilgrimage sites or areas deserves examination from the travelers’ perspectives. This might be a good problem for ethnographic or participant observation research. A large-scale, random survey of the general population (preferably in different countries) would enable several important determinations. This research has examined only wine consumers, but to what extent do nonconsumers engage in wine tourism? The wine tourism world map constructed on the basis of the limited sampling of Calgarians is likely to be different when all wine consumers are consulted and to vary by city and country, thereby necessitating random sampling within targeted populations. How one gets started in the specialization continuum is another important practical and theoretical question that requires examination through more systematic coverage. REFERENCES Beard, J., and M. Ragheb (1983). “Measuring Leisure Motivation.” Journal of Leisure Research, 15 (3): 219-28. Bruwer, J. (2003). “South African Wine Routes: Some Perspectives on the Wine Tourism Industry’s Structural Dimensions and Wine Tourism Product.” Tourism Management, 24 (4): 423-35. Bryan, H. (1977). “Leisure Value Systems and Recreational Specialization: The Case of Trout Fishermen.” Journal of Leisure Research,9 (3):174-87. Carlsen, J., and R. Dowling (2001). “Regional Wine Tourism: A Plan of Development for Western Australia.” Tourism Recreation Research,26 (2): 45-52. Chaney, I. (2002). “Promoting Wine by Country.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 14 (1): 34-42. Charters, S., and J. Ali-Knight (2000). “Wine Tourism: A Thirst for Knowl- edge?” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12 (3): 70-81. ——— (2002). “Who Is the Wine Tourist?” Tourism Management, 23 (3): 311-19. Cullen, C., G. Pickering, and R. Phillips (2002). Bacchus to the Future: Proceedings of the Inaugural Brock University Wine Conference. St. Catherines, Canada: Brock University. Ditton, R., D. Loomis, and S. Choi (1992). “Recreation Specialization: Reconceptualization from a Social Worlds Perspective.” Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (1): 33-51. Dodd, T. (1995). “Opportunities and Pitfalls of Tourism in a Developing Wine Industry.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7 (1): 5-16. Dowling, R., and J. Carlsen, eds. (1998). Wine Tourism: Perfect Partners. Proceedings of the First Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Australia, May. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research. Foster, L. (2003). “A Pilgrimage to Bordeaux: The Bordeaux Wine Country of France.” http://www.fostertravel.com/FRBORD.html (accessed October 2003). Getz, D. (2000). Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development, Destinations. New York: Cognizant. Getz, D., R. Dowling, J. Carlsen, and D. Anderson (1999). “Critical Success Factors for Wine Tourism.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 11 (3): 20-43. Hall, M., L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, and N. Macionis (2000). Wine Tourism around the World. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 276 FEBRUARY 2005 Havitz, M., and F. Dimanche (1999). “Leisure Involvement Revisited: Drive Properties and Paradoxes.” Journal of Leisure Research, 31 (2): 122 49. Howard, J. (1963). Marketing Management Analysis and Planning. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Hudson, S. (2000). “Consumer Behavior Related to Tourism.” In Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, edited by A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld. New York: Haworth, pp. 7-32. Johnson, G. (1998). “Tourism in New Zealand: A National Survey of Wineries.” Master’ thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Lang Research Inc. (2001). TAMS (Travel Activities and Motivation Survey): Wine and Culinary. http://www.tourism.gov.on.ca/english/ tourdiv/tams. Lockshin, L., and T. Spawton (2001). “Using Involvement and Brand Equity to Develop a Wine Tourism Strategy.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13 (1): 72-82. Mitchell, R., M. Hall, and A. McIntosh (2000). “Wine Tourism and Consumer Behaviour.” In Wine Tourism around the World, edited by M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, and N. Macionis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 115-35. Pizam, A., and Y. Mansfeld, eds. (2000). Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism. New York: Haworth. Ravenscroft, N., and J. van Westering (2001). “Wine Tourism, Culture and the Everyday: A Theoretical Note.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3 (2): 149-63. Ryan, C., ed. (2002). The Tourist Experience. 2nd ed. London: Continuum. Scott, D., and C. Shafer (2001). “Recreational Specialization: A Critical Look at the Construct.” Journal of Leisure Research, 33 (2): 319-44. Sharples, L. (2002). “Wine Tourism in Chile: A Brave New Step for a Brave New World.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 14 (2): 43-54. Stebbins, R. (1992). Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure. Montreal, Canada: McGill University Press. Um, S., and J. Crompton (2000). “The Roles of Image and Perceived Constraints at Different Stages in the Tourist’s Destination Decision Process.” In Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, edited by A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld. New York: Haworth, pp. 81-102. Williams, P. (2001a). “The Evolving Images of Wine Tourism Destinations.” Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (2): 3-10. ——— (2001b). “Positioning Wine Tourism Destinations: An Image Analysis.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13 (3): 42-60. Williams, P., and J. Kelly (2001). “Cultural Wine Tourists: Product Development Considerations for British Columbia’s Resident Wine Tourism Market.” International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13 (3): 59-77. Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.