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. 


