Wineryvisitation

sets

191

International Journal of WineBusiness ResearchVol. 22 No. 2, 2010

pp. 191-210# Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1751-1062DOI 10.1108/17511061011061748

Winery visitation setsIntra-regional spatial movements of wine

tourists in branded regions

Karin Alant and Johan BruwerSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discern the intra-regional visitation patterns of winetourists. Exploratory research was conducted in two branded wine regions, to conceptualise thespatial movement of wine tourists in a theoretical construct.Design/methodology/approach – Information was obtained from a random sample of 214 visitorsto 25 wineries in two branded wine regions in South Australia. Data were collected by means of face-to-face interviews using a highly structured questionnaire at each of the winery cellar door venues.Findings – A conceptual theory regarding winery visitation sets (VSs) was developed. Discernablespatial visitation patterns to wineries result from the dynamic interaction of visitors’ needs and theincumbent winery profiles that exist in a hierarchy within a wine region. The grouping ofsequentially visited wineries in the three-tier hierarchy form specific VSs of wineries. Winery profilesare initially determined by visitation incidence: the most visited Regional Centre Point (RCP) wineryis followed by sequentially less visited regional profile (RP) wineries and a third tier of regionalattribute (RA) wineries. Visitation pattern trends are identifiable and differ between first-time andrepeat visitors.Research limitations/implications – It is possible to detail the market segmentation of winetourists quite accurately in terms of their psychographics and demographics and favoured visitationpatterns within the branded wine region. This will also provide important insights into the balance ofwinery and cellar door roles in the region and confirm the ‘‘optimal’’ number of wineries required tofulfil the needs of the ever-increasing numbers of wine tourists.Originality/value – This paper is of value to academic researchers, wine industry practitioners andtravel and accommodation providers alike as it provides the foundation for a conceptual theory toexplain the discernable intra-regional visitation patterns of wine tourists to the cellar doors ofwineries.

Keywords Winemaking, Tourism, Australia, Regional marketing, Brands

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe spatial movement of tourists within their primary destination has arguably beenthe ‘‘cinderella’’ research activity of tourism. While researchers are still fixated onelucidating tourist motivations and movements to and from a destination, the actualintra-destination movement should be viewed as a source of veritable new conceptsand understanding.

Wine tourism in Australia is considered to encompass visitation to wine producingareas and facilities to experience related wine, food, landscape and cultural activities(Winemakers Federation of Australia, 2002). The visitors to a wine region move withinthe wine region between different wineries and facilities catering for their various needsas tourists and visitors (wine, food, accommodation, petrol station, etc.), thereby creatingspatial patterns of movement within the context of so-called wine tourism. Theattractiveness of the wine region as a primary destination is on where it is locatedgeographically and how all the inherent landscape and vineyards, as well as builtcharacteristics (infrastructure and winery production facilities for example) are

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1062.htm

IJWBR22,2

192

perceived. Furthermore, a variety of practical factors such as time available, weather,travel companions and so forth would impact on how the visit would occur or progress.Within this context, motivations and needs governing the choice of which wineries tovisit, the first-time (FT) or repeat visitor (RV) dynamic, as well as visitors’ familiaritywith wineries, products or brands would arguably influence their behaviour and interalia all movement patterns. It would therefore affect the visitor’s spatial patterns of intra-wine region movement.

Wineries compete to attract visitors. The relationship between wine producer, productand wine consumer has become a finely balanced business partnership in the context ofthe highly competitive global wine market (Hall et al., 2000; Getz and Brown, 2006). Winetourism is recognised as a modern, economically based construct imbedded inconsumptive behaviour and viewed by producers as an opportunity for direct wine sales(Bruwer, 2002; Dodd and Gustafson, 1997; Hall et al., 2000). More importantly, it is alsoregarded as a promising beginning at the place of origin for the long-term wine consumer-product relationship, to be nurtured perpetually. Consequently, the battle for visitors’attention is first fought at the level of providing a unique experience at the cellar door (orwinery facility) that could be transposed into brand loyalty, repeat visitation andspreading the word (Dodd, 1995, 1999; Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002; Hall et al., 2000;Mitchell, 2006).

Given the rich variety of factors influencing behaviour, it could be assumed that theintra-destination wine region movements are guided by both careful planning andconversely, on-the-spur-of-the-moment decision making. Whereas simultaneouslypredictable and random, the spatial movement of visitors in wine regions can beconceptualised in a theoretical construct, as will be demonstrated in this article.

2. Literature frameworkWine tourism or visitation to wine regions is a phenomenon that has come under closescrutiny mainly in the last decade. The theory and definitions relating to the main field(s)of the research it is rooted in, namely tourism and leisure, has generated many stillongoing and much deliberated issues. Wine tourism as a fairly new special interestelement thereof is however, not greatly endowed with in-depth theory. Themes prevalentin the emergent body of research in the field of wine tourism have only recently beenidentified. Mitchell and Hall (2006) list seven themes: the wine tourism product, winetourism and regional development, quantifying winery visitation, segmenting the wineryvisitation market, behaviour of winery visitors, the nature of the winery visit andbiosecurity and wine tourism. Carlsen and Charters (2006) in turn identify five thematicgroupings in research publication: wine tourism culture and heritage, wine tourismbusiness, wine tourism marketing, wine tourists and wine tourism systems. Morespecifically, the aspects most likely to be relevant to the intra-destination spatial patternsin wine tourism, namely the motivations of the visitor, the FT/RV dynamic and brandingon regional level are broadly encapsulated within these.

2.1 MotivationsTourism amongst a range of elements could be viewed as ‘‘. . . primarily for leisure orrecreation, although business is also important’’ (Hall, 2003, p. 8). Wine consumers areinvolved with a complex social product associated with indulgent behaviour, whichresearch has shown could also feed their leisure and relaxation needs through winetourism (Beverland, 1998; Carmichael, 2005; Getz and Brown, 2006).

Wineryvisitation

sets

193

Visitation to a wine region therefore implies motivation to partake in an intoxicatingsubstance (wine), interaction with food culture, local people and pleasurable leisureactivities. It is arguably in the realm of the hedonic pursuit of pleasure, leisure, recreationand experiential activities. Hedonic needs like pleasure and desire are seated in emotionand can be motivational in character (Goossens, 2000). Wine tourism points to somespecialisation that according to Pearce (2005) implies both knowledge and previousexperience of the activity, as well as a certain level of investment therein. Themotivations for participation in the diversity of experiences possible within a wine regioncan include previous experience of the wine product or brand and desire to see where it isproduced and experience a sense of place in relation to the product (Hall et al., 2000).Charters and Ali-Knight (2002) concluded that the higher the interest of the visitor as awine consumer in wine, the higher the integration with activities beyond tasting andbuying wine like learning and cultural experiences, but that this could vary acrossregions and cultures. The link between wine consumption and wine-related travel wasalso demonstrated in a Canadian study by Getz and Brown (2006). Visitors to a wineregion look for special experiences not only connected to wine, but also relaxation, rest,education, rural landscape and scenery (Carmichael, 2005) and fulfilling yearnings of aromantic and cultural nature (Getz and Brown, 2006). The complexity of wine tourism asan activity relying on the setting, socialisation and interaction on various levels (Mitchell,2006) is nevertheless considered an important factor in linking the product to theconsumer/visitor.

The primary motivations of visitors to winery cellar doors are ‘‘to taste wine’’ and ‘‘tobuy wine’’ in inter-changeable order and as such can be viewed as fundamentalconsidering the context. However, the so-called secondary motivations related to socialaspects, having time away and other experiences (Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Hall et al.,2000; O’Mahony et al., 2005) may relate to needs for self indulgent hedonic or self-fulfilling experiences. Pearce (2005, pp. 64-5) suggests that the core factors to alltravel, regardless of previous experience are ‘‘three dimensions of motivationfunctions: . . .novelty, escape/relax and relationship [strengthen]. . .’’. The ‘‘novelty’’ factorrelates to motives of varying experiences including interests and fun, while the ‘‘escape/relax’’ factor motives relate to getting away and resting and the relationship (strengthen)factor motives focus on companionship of family and friends in experiences (Pearce,2005). Wine region visitors’ motivations at the macro level (which region to visit) andmicro level (which winery(ies) to visit and what experiences to have there) may well fitthese categorisations.

2.2 FT and repeat visitationAll visitors to a (branded) wine region fall into one of two visitation categories, namelyFTor RVs (Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Getz and Brown, 2006; Carmichael, 2005; Hall et al.,2000). This is very pertinent to wine tourism, since up to 40-50 per cent of visitors tocellar doors can be FT visitors and consequently 40-50 per cent therefore RVs inAustralia (Bruwer, 2002) as also recorded by Carmichael (2005) where 56.9 per cent ofvisitors to the Niagara wine region in Canada were RVs. The significance for cellardoors is that RVs by implication already have a product/experience relationship withthe winery. Future business propagation demands that the visitor experience be valueenhanced in order for positive word-of-mouth and possible future sales in the retailsector (Bruwer, 2002; Bruwer and House, 2003; Mitchell, 2006).

Various viewpoints on the phenomenon of repeat visitation have been exposited ingeneric tourism and leisure research. Pioneering research (Gitelson and Crompton,

IJWBR22,2

194

1984) revealed five basic affective factors recognised in repeat visitation: low risk ofbad experiences occurring, meeting familiar people, emotional attachment, un-explored experiences and exposing others to enjoyable experiences previously had.These factors can be recognised in the social experience seeking context of winetourism and the complexity of the relationship with the product and product-relatedexperiences identified in later research studies:

. Later research identified four stylistic behaviours: RVs look for the sameexperiences at the same destination; at its same secondary destinations; differentexperiences at the same destination; or at different secondary destinations(Pearce and Moscardo, 2001).

. McKercher and Wong (2004) delineated four visitor typologies: FT main-destination and repeat main-destination visitors, as well as FT secondary-destination and repeat secondary-destination visitors were identified. Theynoted (2004, p. 179) that ‘‘origin, demographic profile and trip characteristics’’must be considered with both the FT/repeat dimension and main/secondarydestination dimension in order to understand tourist behaviour within adestination.

. Alant and Bruwer (2004) proposed a motivational framework for collectinginformation to facilitate the understanding of wine tourists’ (visitors’) behaviourwithin a wine region specifically. The three main dimensions they exposit: visitorprofile (demographics, etc.), wine region profile (winery profiles, geography, etc.)and visit dynamic (FT or repeat) have sub-dimensions such as wine brandaffinity and knowledge, accessibility of region, winery cellar door characteristics,travel party permutation and travel mode linked to the motivations of winetourists, and so forth. Their contention was that visitor behaviour should beviewed in all three dimensions in as much detail as possible. The relationalbenefits of such information for business and marketing planning areemphasised, but the significance of the actual visitation choices for collaborativeregional level development has not been researched before.

More recent research into the intra-destination movements of (generic) tourists mappedvisitors’ spatial patterns utilising geographic information system (Lau and McKercher,2006). Three major aspects affect tourist movements: human ‘‘push’’ factors(motivations, visit dynamic, travel party, etc.), physical ‘‘pull’’ factors (location,geography, etc.) and time factors (the duration of the total trip and stay over). Thoughexploratory in nature, the study found differences in the intra-destination patternsidentified for FT and RVs. This finding can be supportive of the concept that if a wineregion is the main destination, the individual wineries located within the region aresecondary, intra-destination ports of call. Winery (cellar door) visitation choices wouldtherefore inform on intra-destination movement and associated behaviour antecedents.

2.3 Social nature of wine tourismWine tourism is an activity which lends itself to travelling with friends, family andpartners to share experiences. The experiential nature of intra-destination travel in awine region is manifested in meeting other (like minded) people and observing theenvironment, which may trigger responses, for example an interesting sign board mayinstigate a detour or a vista of a cellar door set in a vineyard landscape may elicit aromantic yearning for a rustic type experience. Experiential pursuits are more likely to

Wineryvisitation

sets

195

foster social relationships than material possessions (Van Boven, 2005). Research inwine tourism has indicated that people travel in groups of two or more persons andthat decision-making time to actually undertake a trip may vary (Bruwer, 2002).

2.4 Branding of wine regionsMost wine producing regions are organised in defined areas of geographic delimitationwithin a country. The practice of denoting wine quality and labelling practices isknown as controlled appellations. Traditional practice in some instances, mainly in theOld World wine countries, even include controlling grape varieties and wine makingtechniques and is now viewed as restrictive to innovation by some (Robinson, 2006).

The Australian wine industry has since 1993 used the term geographical indication(GI) to protect the use of names for wine zones, regions or sub-regions underinternational law. This practice fulfils agreements with the European Union and theUSA on wine trade and intellectual property rights issues. The only restriction on theuse of GI for wine is that 85 per cent of fruit included in the final product must be fromthe GI (AWBC, 2009).

Moving on to the descriptive aspect, only Johnson and Bruwer (2007, p. 277) havegone as far as to suggest a definition of what a wine regional brand is, viz ‘‘a heldperception (or belief) about a bounded wine area space that is usually holistic andmulti-dimensional in nature, the elements of which are ‘glued together’ by inter-relatedwinescape elements and/or the people and natural and physical attractions within it’’.

It has been intimated that being from the land is what cultivates the mystiquearound wine (Thode and Maskulka, 1998). Hence, wine as an agricultural productlinked to the ‘‘terroir’’ concept lends itself to so-called ‘‘place-based’’ marketing, anextension of the country of origin marketing strategy.

Five dimensions of wine region equity which affect consumer preferences have beenidentified as: functional, price, social, emotional and environmental benefits (Orth et al.,2005). Branded ‘‘places’’ (wine regions) are thus recognised as having value for wineconsumers in both product and different lifestyle segments. The benefit of a regionalbrand umbrella to small- to medium-sized wineries is that it adds another dimension tothe winery’s product brand and is a communication opportunity to inform theconsumer about the product’s added value (Bruwer and House, 2003).

The development of inter-organisational structures in the Australian wine industryis according to Aylward and Zanko (2006) indicative of the shift to localisation andregionality. It is a counter balance to the no-boundaries (and by implication lessdefinition) wine landscape created by cross country border joint ventures in the globalwine industry. They reason that clustering of SMEs in certain key wine producingareas will facilitate collective and collaborative growth in industry functions likeinnovation, research and development and raw materials amongst other things. Thus,the Australian wine industry can anchor its wine reputation in its regions, while beinga major global wine supplier (Aylward and Zanko, 2006).

Wine tourism is irrevocably linked to the grape growing land and the region’swineries with cellar doors completing the so-called ‘‘winescape’’ (Peter, 1997 cited inHall et al., 2000). The premise for wine tourism is that people (not all necessarily wineconsumers) like to travel to the area or place of wine production to explore the rural/winescape aspect (Hall et al., 2000) or as part of a lifestyle experience and productexploration (Carmichael, 2005; Getz and Brown, 2006). The wine tourism landscape hasbecome contingent upon wineries with cellar doors (and other amenities on offer) thatin 2007 constituted 73 per cent (1,565) of all Australian wine producers. This includes a

IJWBR22,2

196

large number of SMEs, crushing between 20 and 1,000 tonnes of grapes that make up59 per cent (1,272) of all wine producers (Winetitles, 2007).

The incidence of visitation to individual wineries can be related to ‘‘place-based’’wine brand equity for the individual brands representing a region. It can also be abarometer of regional growth and sustainability. Objective evaluation of individualwinery attributes and how that adds to the wine region’s destination allure would seeman impossible task given the diversity of types of attributes and the subjective natureof needs fulfilment.

The reality is that an individual winery has certain attributes that impact on itsbusiness development in that each winery’s cellar door has to attract a lucrativenumber of visitors within a highly competitive regional context. The hedonic pursuit ofvisitors drives them to visit specific wineries intra-destination. Knowledge of thehuman ‘‘push’’, physical ‘‘pull’’ and time factors (Lau and McKercher, 2006) wouldilluminate what happens intra-destination in a wine region and why spatial patternsoccur.

No research has considered the spatial patterns of visitation in wine regions andtherefore the manifestation of visitor behaviour on the ground so to speak. Opportunitytherefore exists to augment literature and fundamental wine tourism theory in thisregard. The inter-relatedness of visitor motivations and winery profiles in the contextof wine tourism could result in specific intra-destination spatial patterns. This studycontends that these spatial patterns manifest in what can be considered as a theoreticalconcept and this will be exposited in the next section.

3. Winery visitation set (VS) conceptual theory3.1 BackgroundFor the purposes of this article the word ‘‘winery’’ will denote a winery facility with acellar door or tasting room and amenities and other facilities open to the public. Thewineries clustered within a demarcated and branded wine region, all contribute to theallure of the region as a destination by way of their individual characteristics, bothtangible (landscape, architecture and products, etc.) and intangible (brand image,consumer loyalty, etc.). Regional branding in the form of holistic promotion of a wineregion incorporates the dynamics of individual winery identities, product styles andqualities against the backdrop of the unique regional differentiating factor: thegeographical location, climate and geomorphic markers such as soil type and aspect.

Measuring the appeal of a winery identity objectively in relation to others in thewine region is difficult. The pertinent factors contributing to, for example an ‘‘awesomewinescape’’ or ‘‘great ambience’’ could not be identified without some subjective bias.Therefore, it is suggested that the appeal of winery identities should first be measuredby means of an easily quantifiable factor: how many visitors a winery attracts(visitation incidence) in relation to other wineries and the region as a whole over aspecific time period of say, one year. Second, the attributes of a specific winery identity,which contributes to visitation, can then be isolated by means of observation forexample, noting the garden setting people utilise, the historical buildings, and so forth,and by measuring visitors’ motivations to visit the winery and region. The latter wouldbe related to personal needs and expectations amongst others and therefore a broadcategorisation of attributes would seem prudent.

The most fundamental factor in winery and wine region visitation is that visitorscome there intent on having an experience, whether it be to buy a favourite wine orrelax or partake of some activity like a picnic or taste an interesting wine or enjoy a

Wineryvisitation

sets

197

drive through the landscape. Regardless of needs and motivations and appealingattributes, experience is the common denominator. Therefore, categorising attributes interms of the experience options that are available to visitors, rather than a pre-determined set of attributes would be possible. Experience options in turn should bejust that, an option identified, but not qualified in terms of the intensity of experienceand therefore unbiased from a research point of view. Four concepts that guide thedevelopment of a winery VS theory are proposed.

3.1.1 Concept 1. Wineries within a branded wine region can be organised into ahierarchy of winery profile sub-groups based on the incidence (consistent frequency) ofvisitation (Figure 1). The hierarchy can be constructed as follows (adoptednomenclature indicated in brackets):

. The Regional Centre Point Winery (RCP winery) is consistently the most visitedwinery. The high visitation incidence is most likely related to the winery’shistory, a well crafted brand image and the diverse options of experienceavailable. This winery/facility is reflective of the region’s brand image and willmost probably be linked to the development history of region.

. Regional profile wineries (RP wineries) sequentially have lower visitation thanthe RCP. However, the high visitation incidence is related to the winery’s history,strong brand image and the options of experience available. These wineryfacilities are also reflective of the region’s brand image and development history.

. Regional attribute wineries (RA wineries) denote and comprise of all the otherwineries in the region. These wineries are thought to have unique individualisticexperience options available relating to the winery brand name and its historyand specific attribute(s). The differences between RP and RA wineries are thesalience of their brand images and the extent of options of experience on offer(see Concept 2).

The premise is that within each wine region there exists one RCP winery and at leastfour RP wineries based on the fact that an average of four to five wineries can be visitedin a day (Bruwer, 2002). The quantitative measurement inherent in the hierarchyallows all wineries to be viewed objectively in the first instance and to be arrangedinto profile types. Based on the winery profile type, the winery’s identity with itsattributes can be described in terms of a broader experience categorisation exposited asConcept 2.

3.1.2 Concept 2. The options of the experience available at a winery and within awine region, which could realise and satisfy very diverse visitor needs (consumer

Figure 1.Hierarchy of winery

profiles

IJWBR22,2

198

based, tourist oriented, leisure seeking, image seeking, actualisation, etc.) areconceptualised as four experience category values hereafter denoted by the acronymREEP values:

(1) Category 1: Recreation experience value (physical activity at the destination).

(2) Category 2: Education experience value (learning and ‘‘discovering’’ typeactivity).

(3) Category 3: Entertainment experience value (fun, enjoyable, relaxing activity).

(4) Category 4: Pleasure experience value (sensual, aesthetic and hedonic activity,perceptions and impressions).

The term ‘‘experience values’’ is utilised broadly based on the premise that visitors areon a hedonic pursuit, which is fundamentally about seeking enjoyment in experiencerelated to the wine region and all it encompasses: the landscape, the wines, the food, thepeople, the history, the brands, the architecture and the ecology. The fulfilment value ofan experience available would be different for each visitor and therefore to measure itobjectively, all experiences and visit activity are categorised into the four values.

The comprehensive range of experience options available to the visitor is termed thetotal experience (TE). The TE range of experiences relates to the wine region asprimary destination and can also apply to individual wineries in a focused context. TheREEP value categories are experiential in character and are what characterises the TErange. Capturing the visitors’ behaviour within the REEP values (even if overlapping)means the winery identity attributes can be quantified and measured against theexperience options available at other wineries in the region.

The TE is a characteristic of all wineries to a greater or lesser degree depending onthe winery profile, whether RCP, RP and RA. It can be viewed as a reflection of whatthe winery owners perceive the needs of visitors to be and what experiences areprovided to fulfil them and at the same time reinforce their brand or brand image. It issuggested that there is a direct relation between visitation incidence and extent ofexperience options (TE) in the REEP values included in a winery identity.

The more extensive the TE of a winery, the closer the winery profile fits to the RCPprofile, which arguably has the most extensive TE in the hierarchy. It is necessary topoint out that it does not mean the winery has a myriad of amenities compared toothers. Attributes are exactly not measured in such an assumed and pre-determinedmanner. The intensity of the TE is also not measured in a specifically describednumber of experiences, since it is acknowledged as being subjective. A sliding scale ofTE ranging from lowest needs fulfilment to highest needs fulfilment would exist, butdoes not affect the measurement of REEP values outside of the subjective context ofintensity of experience for the visitor.

The wine region as a whole would have a degree of TE extensiveness related to thelife cycle stage of development of the wine region as a destination that is reflected to adegree in the sum of the TEs of all the wineries.

3.1.3 Concept 3. The three tiers of winery profiles facilitate identification of how thewineries are linked and visited as a group, individually or sequentially, on a single tripby a visitor and his/her travel party (Figure 2). A group of varied winery profilesvisited in sequence form a VS (conceptualised as VS theory).

The winery profiles in the hierarchy form two discernible types of VSs. The firstone, the regional visitation set (RVS) comprises the RCP winery and four RP wineries(thus five in total) which form a cluster of wineries that are the most visited

Wineryvisitation

sets

199

destinations in the region. The wineries in this cluster are visited sequentially and non-sequentially due to the formation of secondary VSs. The SVSs are clusters of wineriesmade up of the RCP, RP and RA Wineries in various permutations. The formation ofVSs can be considered a function of FT or repeat visitation and how the visitor’s needsand motivations fit the winery profiles and TE values of the winery identities.

The composition of the number of wineries visited in a day, manifest in discerniblepatterns incorporating the winery profiles to be known as visitation pattern trends.There are seven basic pattern trends, which incorporate a myriad of options of VS,depending on the size of the wine region (number of wineries) – see Figure 3.

The seven basic patterns trends are derived from the reality of for example, avisitor’s movement in one day comprising a winery VS in no specific order:

1 RCP wineryþ 2� RP wineries þ 1� RA winery

Figure 3.Winery visitation pattern

trends – loop diagram

Figure 2.Winery profiles diagram

and visitation loops

IJWBR22,2

200

The order of visitation is not a factor in this instance, nor the number of wineriesvisited (four in total). The basic pattern trend is RCP þ RP þ RA. The same forexample with a RA þ RA þ RA þ RA VS, which is a basic RA pattern trend, thevisitor preferring to visit only RA wineries.

The choice of wineries is a function of the individual winery identities (based onbrand image, history, experience options available to the visitor, etc.) and visitorprofiles (based on demographics, lifestyle, leisure and pleasure needs, brand andproduct awareness, consumption, needs, etc.).

3.1.4. Concept 4. Regional context: regional branding refers to the promotion totarget group(s) of a specific geographical wine region in terms of certain unique grapewine products, physical features (for example terroir, climate, soil, etc.) and otherattributes (for example being the oldest wine region in Australia). Wineries locatedwithin the wine region have their own brand image both individually and linked to theregional brand image.

Maintaining a balance of the different winery identities and thus the varied optionsentrenched in REEP values is imperative for differentiation within the region and forenhancing the brand image of the region. It is in fact suggested that the uniqueness ofRA wineries within a region need to be nurtured and developed carefully to prevent ahomogeneous super-commercialised intra-destination developing. Diversity is thoughtto be a crucial factor in the destination appeal.

The success of RP wineries (measured in numbers of visitors) is thought to be linkedto direct involvement in the development of the regional brand and contribution to thedevelopment of the region as a multi-focal destination by for example offering moreand varied experience options. Lifestyle options, events related to art, music and food,the local produce, crafts, the scenery, history and a spectrum of accommodation, allform part of the regional identity and the attractiveness thereof.

The number of RP wineries (the RVS) will be a direct function of the developmentstage of the RP wineries themselves and region specifically as a destination. Thenumber of RA wineries will vary according to the regional production capacity andeconomic viability of operating a cellar door in relation to producer resources andstrategies. The wineries in the RVS form a crucial intra-destination in a wine region.This phenomenon can be utilised by the RVS wineries to mutual benefit and facilitateoptions of collaborative marketing.

4. Research studyThe main aim of the study was to explore whether the visitation behaviour of visitorsin terms of the choices of wineries to visit to a branded wine region would result indiscernable patterns, which are related to individual winery identities. The secondaryaim was to identify the antecedents to the visitation behaviour of the wine tourists. Itshould be noted that this exploratory study is focused on the conceptualisation,development and gathering of data to broadly support the directions identified towardswhat can eventually be developed as a well-rooted theory and is as such path-breakingin nature. No setting and statistical testing of hypotheses are therefore conducted assuch in this article as this would be ‘‘premature’’.

4.1. Study areaTwo geographically diverse branded wine regions in South Australia were used in thestudy. The Coonawarra wine region (CWR) is located in the south-east of SouthAustralia, 15 km from the Victoria State border in the Limestone Coast tourism region.

Wineryvisitation

sets

201

The region at the time of the study had 22 operating winery cellar doors located alongthe 24 km stretch of road known as the Riddoch Highway and is approximately anequal distance of 4-5 h driving time from both the cities of Adelaide and Melbourne.The McLaren Vale wine region (MVR) is located in the Fleurieu Peninsula tourismregion, a 30 min drive from Adelaide, the capitol of South Australia and 15 min fromthe ocean. There were 36 operational and accessible winery cellar doors in the region atthe time of the study.

The number of wineries included in the study represented the different profile typesin the regions and also represented a diverse selection of the varied winery profiles inthe regions.

4.2 MethodologyThe first step was to select a survey sample of wineries considered to be at least a50 per cent representation of the wineries in the region. The total number of wineriesthus required for the study (Z) is made up of X and Y numbers of different wineries asfollows:

A total of X wineries are considered high profile wineries in the region while a totalof Y wineries would be representative of the diversity of other wineries in the region:

X þ Y ¼ Z ¼ minimum 50% representation of the total

number of wineries in the region

In the case of the CWR a minimum total of 11 wineries was required, and six winerieswere identified as crucial to the study (based on consultation with stakeholders,secondary research and personal observation) and termed ‘‘profile wineries’’ (Xcomponent). Another eight wineries from the others willing to participate was chosento form the Y component.

For the MVR six wineries were identified as ‘‘profile wineries’’ (X component), butunfortunately two of these wineries declined to take part in the study. Only seven otherwineries could be accommodated in the timeframe of the study and therefore theMcLaren Vale was slightly under represented in terms of the number of wineries.

The final survey sample therefore included:

. CWR: 6X wineries þ 8Y wineries ¼ 14 wineries in total and 110 surveys completed

. MWR: 4X wineries þ 7Y wineries ¼ 11 wineries in total and 104 surveyscompleted

Both quantitative and qualitative research was undertaken by means of personalinterviews utilising a purpose-designed, highly structured and pre-testedquestionnaire. All interviews took place within the confines of a cellar door.

The respondents were chosen on the basis that only one person in a couple or groupof people could take part. In order to maintain randomness, the person whose birthdaycame soonest was identified as the respondent. In terms of further screening, onlypeople who had actually drunk wine in the last 3 months were deemed eligible.

The total number of respondents (n ¼ 214) was sufficient for an exploratory studyand a high level of control was attained due to the personal interview strategy. Theperception of brand elements is in part an abstract notion and therefore the qualitativedata collected on the regional brand elements had to be quantified by means oforganising the information into different elements, for example references to wine, the

IJWBR22,2

202

physical environment, etc. The frequency of references was noted and given a ranking.The groupings were then condensed into a summary of regional brand elements.

5. Research findings5.1 Visitation dynamicThe phenomenon of a high incidence of FT or repeat visitation in wine tourism could insome instances be attributed to the spatial relationship (or lack thereof) of the regionwith a big visitor source market, as well as through product-related experiences (Dodd,1999). A more structured look at this phenomenon in tourism theory (Gitelson andCrompton, 1984) may explain some of the individualistic behaviours that manifest inwine tourism, for example the number of wineries chosen to visit and the sometimesimpulsive changing of the travel itinerary. A wine region as a destination choice wouldgenerally have several winery destinations to choose from and at each of these somesimilar and different experiences may be had. These in turn, impact on the incidence ofFT and repeat visitation.

Table I shows that FT and RV statistics vary markedly between the two wineregions. Whereas the CWR have an almost 50-50 split, the MWR has a much higherrepeat visitation incidence (70 per cent) than FT visitors (30 per cent). The proximity ofMcLaren Vale to the Adelaide city environs may account for the RVs being able tomake short-term decisions to visit the region, that is situated close by (compared toCWR).

The mean for the number of cellar doors visited per day is 4.8 for the overall study. Thehighest mean was captured in the CWR for FT visitors at 5.7 cellar doors per day.Maximising time in a distanced region and the accessibility of wineries situated along theRiddoch Highway contribute to this behaviour. The lowest mean of 3.3 cellar doors visitedper day by RVs in MWR is shaped by the proximity of the region to the city (30 mindriving distance). This could indicate shorter experiences due to time constraints (forexample wine tasting and having lunch at one winery over lunch time) or longer visits torepeat destinations, where prior knowledge assures that expectations are met. FT visitorsin both wine regions visit on average more cellar doors per day than RVs.

It is also important to note that visitors to both regions are regular wine touristswho indicated that 3.0-3.8 wine regions were visited in the 12-month period prior tovisiting cellar doors in the CWR and MWR (Table II).

5.2. Travel antecedentsTable III indicates that the decision-making process is overshadowed by the fact thatmost people (65 per cent for the overall study) make the decision to visit a wine region

Table I.Visitation mode for FTand RVs

Visitation dynamic Study CWR MWR

FT visitors to region (%) 39.7 49.1 30.4RVs to region (%) 60.3 50.9 69.6Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

Cellar door visitation incidence and intervalsNumber of cellar doors visited per day – all visitors 4.8 5.6 4.0Number of cellar doors visited per day – FT visitors 5.3 5.7 4.8Number of cellar doors visited per day – RVs 4.2 5.1 3.3Means for number of visits to a particular cellar door 2.8 2.2 3.4

Wineryvisitation

sets

203

joint with other people or have no say at all. The high social context of visitation towine regions is also clear. The hedonic nature of the visit could be ingrained in theshort decision-making times relevant to the MWR with 30 per cent of RVs making thedecision in the last 24 h before the visit took place. The FT visitors to the CWR clearlyplan more carefully with 59 per cent making the decision during the last one to threemonths prior to visiting. This could be due to the geographic location of the CWR andthe longer duration of the trip or travel plans as a result.

5.3 Choice of wineriesTable IV shows that the most dominant factor that would affect the winery choice is theknowledge and previous experience of the product. This is very significant for marketersand wineries. The top five factors for the overall study would indicate that wine touristsrely heavily on the product experience, knowledge of the brand (that is inter-related withthe regional brand), the previous experience in the region and planning the trip.

They are also driven in their choice by the desire to discover and have new wine-related experiences – the second most important factor overall. This is on a par with

Table III.Travel antecedents

Factors indicatedCWR (%) MWR (%)

Study (%) First-time Repeat First-time Repeat

When the final decision was madeDuring the last 24 h 16.6 9.3 5.4 16.1 30.1During the last week 24.5 14.8 21.4 22.6 34.2During the last month 22.3 35.2 19.6 19.4 16.4During the last 3 months 19.9 24.1 28.6 16.1 12.3During the last 6 months 7.5 3.7 7.1 19.4 5.5

Person making final decisionJoint with other people 37.4 38.9 37.5 25.8 41.0Self 35.3 37.0 48.2 12.9 34.2Decision by others 27.3 24.5 14.4 61.3 24.6

Travel companionsPartner/spouse and friends, family, others 46.3 35.4 42.9 51.6 54.1Partner/spouse 45.8 55.6 44.6 45.2 39.7On my own 7.9 9.3 12.5 3.2 5.5

Configuration of travel party Mean Mean Mean Mean MeanOverall number of persons 3.4 – – – –CWR number of persons 3.5 2.7 4.3 – –MWR number of persons 3.1 – – 2.9 3.5

Table II.Wine regions visited for

cellar door tastings bythe visitor

Wine regions visited in one year with the purpose to visitcellar doors

Totalstudy (%)

CWR(%)

MWR(%)

Means for number of visits to wine regions per annum 3.3 3.6 3.1Means for number of visits to wine regions by FTvisitors per annum 3.4 3.8 3.0Means for number of visits to wine regions by RVsper annum 3.2 3.3 3.1

IJWBR22,2

204

the (prompted) motivations for visiting the cellar door indicated as being to enjoydifferent wines and find special and interesting wines, to find information on thewinery’s products and experience the atmosphere at the winery.

The fulfilment of visitor’s needs and expectations (Table V) is an important aspectof the visit and can reflect in repeat visitation as it does in the MWR, where visitorsseemed overall more satisfied with 92-94 per cent of visitors (FT and RVs) indicatingthat the visit was definitely up to their expectations. The lower satisfaction rate of‘‘definitely, yes’’ for the CWR of 73-76 per cent correlates with the longer planning anddecision making period and time for expectations to build.

5.4 Incidence and identification of visitation pattern trendsPatterns occur when visitors choose various wineries to visit and the combination foreach visitor is viewed only in terms of the three winery profile types that have beenidentified.

The research data obtained for the two wine regions were analysed using the threewinery profile types and the resultant pattern trends are summarised in Tables VI andVII. The results are exposited in terms of the FT and repeat visitation and the trends donot indicate the number of wineries a person visited, only combination of wineriesvisited in terms of the three winery profile types:

Table IV.Factors influencing thechoice of wineries tovisit

Summary of factors influencing choiceRank for

total studyTotal studyresponses CWR MWR

Know the wine/indicating previous experience with theproduct 1 214 120 94To discover new wines, wine-related experiences, to learnnew things, show someone 2 149 87 62Know the brand/have heard of it, experience mentioned 3 121 97 24Know the winery/cellar door, indicating previousexperience in region 4 105 33 72Choice pre-planned, determined before coming to regionby self or others 5 92 43 49Recommended by people outside of region 6 59 30 29Choice influenced by incidence factor while in region 7 53 32 21Spontaneous, spur of the moment choice 8 47 28 19Attributes of winery or cellar door mentioned 9 43 22 21Recommended in media/book, etc. 10 41 21 20To look for things other than wine 11 39 22 17Recommended while in the region 12 20 12 8

Table V.Fulfilment of visitors’expectations

Expectations fulfilled CWR FT CWR RV MWR FT MWR RV

Definitely, yes 76 73 94 92More or less, yes 22 18 6 7Uncertain 2 4 – –Not quite, no – 5 – –Definitely not – – – 1Total (%) 100 100 100 100

Notes: FT ¼ first-time visitor; RV ¼ repeat visitor

Wineryvisitation

sets

205

(1) FT visitors to the CWR favour the Pattern Trend 1 (RCP þ RP þ RA), visitingthe RCP cellar door, as well as RP and RA type cellar doors.

(2) The inclusion probability of the 5.7(� 6) wineries could thus be determinedcalculating the total incidence of the specific pattern trend and determining theaverage in relation to the number of wineries in contention for the RP and RAcategories. The base data refer to a trend and not determined numbers.Therefore the resultant average can only be termed a probability.

(3) According to this method and keeping in mind that there are 22 operationalcellar doors in the CWR, the probability of inclusion is as follows:

. One RCP winery has 68.6 per cent inclusion probability;

. Two RP wineries each have 39.8 per cent inclusion probability; and

. Three RA wineries each have 16.8 per cent inclusion probability.

In the CWR the RCP winery at the time of the study had several attributes that woulddistinguish it from other wineries in the region and account for the high visitationfrequency. These attributes provide the visitor with a high level of TE as per thepremise of the most well-known winery in the region. The REEP values in terms ofwhat they can see, do, partake of and experience include a diversity of products,information and a sense of places. This could be close to the ultimate symbiosis of abrand perception and a sense of place.

The three most prevalent visitation pattern trends in the CWR involve the RAwineries in each one and the RCP in at least two. This means that visitors to the CWR

Table VII.Significance of pattern

trends in CWR

Regionalaverage

FTvisitors RVs

RCP cellar door probability in pattern (%) 62.7 68.6 57.3RP cellar door probability in pattern (overall incidenceprobability shared by four cellar doors) (%) 41.0 39.8 42.0RA cellar door probability in any pattern (overall incidenceprobability shared by 17 cellar doors) (%) 15.9 16.8 15.0Average number of wineries visited in one day 5.6 5.7 5.1

Notes: Visitation pattern for Mr/Ms X:

RCP þ RP1 þ RP2 þ RA1 þ RA2 þ RA3

Table VI.CWR: summary of

pattern trends

Pattern no. Pattern type Study (n) (%) FT (n) (%) Repeat (n) (%)

1 RCP þ RP þ RA 51 46.5 28 51.8 23 41.12 RCP þ RP 3 2.7 1 1.9 2 3.63 RCP þ RA 12 10.9 6 11.1 6 10.74 RP þ RA 31 28.2 14 25.9 17 30.35 RCP 3 2.7 2 3.7 1 1.86 RP 5 4.5 – – 5 8.97 RA 5 4.5 3 5.6 2 3.6

Total 110 100.0 54 100.0 56 100.0

IJWBR22,2

206

would most likely go to a combination of the RCP, RP and RA wineries as one option orthe combinations represented by the RCP þ RP trend (any number of RA wineriesinvolved) and the RP þ RA combination of wineries (any number of RP and RAwineries involved). Note that the trend does not indicate the number of wineries visited,only the trend in terms of the winery profiles.

The most prevalent patterns for the MVR are different in that the combination of theRCP, RP and RA wineries as one option is similar (Table VIII). The MWR visitors alsofavour the combinations represented by the RP þ RA trend (any number of PR andRA wineries involved), as well as the RA (any number of RA wineries involved).

These pattern trends are particularly significant in terms of the RA wineries. Therewould be fierce competition to be included in the stated probability. However, the highincidence of the RA wineries in the pattern trends would point to the importance ofthese wineries in providing a balanced visitation destination for the visitor. Previousdiscussions have pointed out that the visitor desires new wine-related options and thatthere has to be diversity within individual wineries and the region as a whole to live upto the expectations and needs of the visitor.

The significance of visitation trends and patterns has been exposited in theexamples. These will also provide insight into the balance of winery and cellar doorroles in the region and confirm the number of wineries required to fulfil the needs ofincreasing numbers of wine tourists.

The RVS is formed by the combination of the RCP and the RP wineries. Thesecondary VSs are formed by combinations of the RCP, RP and RA wineries.Determining what these sets are would facilitate marketing benefits of the brand anddifferent price segments on offer, as well as the attributes that would cater forexperience needs of the visitor (REEP values of the TE).

6. Conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations6.1 ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that the visitation patterns of wine tourists to winery cellardoors can be conceptualised as a theoretical construct, are linked to the FT or repeatvisitation dynamic, and can be useful in the promotional and branding strategies ofboth individual wineries and their region(s).

The formation of associative sets of wineries for visitation purposes and to bemarketed as such to the wine tourist is therefore possible. The RP and RA wineries in abranded wine region need not be intimidated by the position of the RCP winery butrather look for the intra-regional destination cluster that a group of wineries can

Table VIII.MVR: summary ofpattern trends

Pattern no. Pattern type Study (n) (%) First-time (n) (%) RV (n) (%)

1 RCP þ RP þ RA 26 25.0 12 38.7 14 19.22 RCP þ RP 9 8.7 1 3.2 8 11.03 RCP þ RA 10 9.6 3 9.7 7 9.64 RP þ RA 30 28.8 9 29.0 21 28.85 RCP 2 1.9 – – 2 2.76 RP 4 3.8 1 3.2 3 4.17 RA 23 22.1 5 16.1 18 24.7

Total 104 100.0 31 100.0 73 100.0

Wineryvisitation

sets

207

collectively form, whether with or without the RCP winery. This is a part of the premiseof the theory on visitation patterns exposited in this article.

The research suggests that it is possible to plan marketing according to associativesets of wineries linked to certain travel behaviour. Also, that knowledge of thevisitation patterns would make it possible to determine how many cellar doors a wineregion can accommodate and sustain in terms of current number of visitors andprojected number of future visitors.

The most dominant factor that affects the winery choice of a visitor to a wine regionis the knowledge and previous experience of the product. This is very significant formarketers and wineries. The top five factors overall for the study would indicate thatwine tourists rely heavily on the product experience, knowledge of the brand (that isinter-related with the regional brand), the previous experience when visiting the regionand planning the trip.

6.2 Managerial implicationsAs a result of the findings of this study it will be possible to detail the marketsegmentation of wine tourists quite accurately in terms of their psychographics anddemographics and favoured visitation patterns within the branded wine region. Thefocus on the regional level can be the relationship between different profiles of wineriesrelated to the needs of the various consumer segments. This will also provideimportant insights into the balance of winery and cellar door roles in the region andconfirm the ‘‘optimal’’ number of wineries required to fulfil the needs of ever-increasingnumbers of wine tourists.

The high incidence of repeat visitation in the MWR and the lower average ofwineries visited per day indicates that either visitors have limited time, or stay longerat the wineries they do visit, or are involved in the other attractions in the region, forexample the restaurants and the beaches. The MWR has to guard its regional brandimage against losing ground as a prime wine producer in the state and should reinforcethe quality wine product aspect constantly against the main competitors.

The significance of wine being the most recognised brand element for the CWRregional brand is that maintaining the consistency and quality products is the key totheir survival as a wine region and destination of wine tourists.

6.3 Research limitationsA limitation of this study is its exploratory nature and the fact that it is limited to onecountry only, namely Australia. Research in other country environments should beconducted to expand this knowledge base and for comparative purposes. The study islimited to a sampling population of wine tourists who travel in quieter periods of theyear. Furthermore, access to the wineries in the wine regions were limited due to theperception of the winery owners that the interview/survey method may have anintrusive effect on visitation to the cellar doors.

This study is path-breaking in terms of its investigation of the patterned intra-regional spatial movements of wine tourists when visiting winery cellar doors inbranded wine regions and this in itself was a constraint in that the various dimensionsand antecedents of winery VSs were not known beforehand leading to some stillunanswered questions and unexplored research angles. For example, the study did notto any depth probe the underlying motives of what causes a person to exhibit thevisitation pattern behaviour.

IJWBR22,2

208

6.4 Recommendations for further researchGiven the fact that wine regions as tourism destinations have lifecycles similar to othertourist areas, it would be of value to determine by means of the probability of trendshow many wineries the regions could ultimately accommodate on an economicallyfeasible basis for both the individual wineries and the region as a whole. The visitationpatterns also could highlight the wineries with the different profiles that are mostlyvisited together and because their diversity for example appeal to certain visitorsegments. This would facilitate the so-called co-operative marketing principle.

The concept of hierarchies of wineries introduced in this article aids theunderstanding of the regional dynamics affecting visitation choice, namely: theinteraction of tangible (geographic location) and intangible (the regional and winerybrands) factors with diverse winery profiles. The future pursuit of this avenue ofresearch leads to two salient issues:

(1) understanding of the significance of a specific location within these patternsand the emergent collaborative marketing options for diverse winery identities;and

(2) determining the ‘‘optimal’’ number of wineries that could successfully becontained within a wine region within a time context or lifecycle. The saturationof visitation to certain winery profiles may affect the tourism sustainability ofthe region.

The development of sustainable wine tourism and regional development could benefitand this should be researched on a cross national scale in more wine regions inAustralia and elsewhere.

This exploratory study was focused on the conceptualisation, development andgathering of data to broadly support the directions identified towards what caneventually be developed as a well-rooted theory in wine tourism. Based on the directionsidentified herein, future research should strive to formalise this theory further.

References

Alant, K. and Bruwer, J. (2004), ‘‘Wine tourism behaviour in the context of a motivationalframework for wine regions and cellar doors’’, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 27-37.

Australia Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC) (2009), available at: www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid¼273 (accessed 17 May 2009).

Aylward, D. and Zanko, M. (2006), ‘‘Emerging interorganisational structures in the Australianwine industry: implications for SME’s’’, Proceedings of the 5th Global Conference onBusiness and Economics, Cambridge, July.

Beverland, M. (1998), ‘‘Wine tourism in New Zealand – maybe the industry has got it right’’,International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 24-33.

Bruwer, J. (2002), ‘‘The importance and role of the winery cellar door in the Australian wineindustry: some perspectives’’, The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker,Vol. 463, pp. 56-61.

Bruwer, J. and House, M. (2003), ‘‘Has the era of regional branding arrived for the Australian wineindustry? Some perspectives’’, The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker,Vol. 479, pp. 56-61.

Carlsen, J. and Charters, S. (Eds) (2006), ‘‘Introduction’’, Global Wine Tourism: Research,Management and Marketing, CABI International, Wallingford, pp. 1-16.

Wineryvisitation

sets

209

Carmichael, B.A. (2005), ‘‘Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in theNiagara Region, Ontario, Canada’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 185-204.

Charters, S. and Ali-Knight, J. (2002), ‘‘Who is the wine tourist?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23,pp. 311-9.

Dodd, T. (1995), ‘‘Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry’’, Journal ofWine Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 5-16.

Dodd, T. (1999), ‘‘Attracting repeat visitors to wineries’’, International Journal of Wine Marketing,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 18-28.

Dodd, T. and Gustafson, A.W. (1997), ‘‘Product, environment and service attributes that influencecustomers attitudes and purchases at wineries’’, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 4No. 3, pp. 41-59.

Getz, D. and Brown, G. (2006), ‘‘Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a demandanalysis’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 146-58.

Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), ‘‘Insights into the repeat vacation phenomena’’, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 199-217.

Goossens, C. (2000), ‘‘Tourist information and pleasure motivation’’, Annals of Tourism Research,Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 301-21.

Hall, C.M. (2003), Introduction to Tourism: Dimensions and Issues, 4th ed., Pearson Education,Frenchs Forest.

Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (2000), Wine Tourism Around theWorld, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Johnson, R. and Bruwer, J. (2007), ‘‘Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: theconsumer perspective’’, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,pp. 1-37.

Lau, G. and McKercher, B. (2006), ‘‘Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: aGIS approach’’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 39-49.

McKercher, B. and Wong, D.Y.Y. (2004), ‘‘Understanding tourism behaviour: examining thecombined effects of prior visitation history and destination status’’, Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 43, pp. 171-9.

Mitchell, R. (2006), ‘‘Influences on post-visit wine purchase (and non-purchase) by New Zealandwinery visitors’’, in Carlsen, J. and Charters, S. (Eds), Global Wine Tourism: Research,Management and Marketing, CABI International, Wallingford, pp. 95-109.

Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M. (2006), ‘‘Wine tourism research: the state of play’’, Tourism ReviewInternational, Vol. 9, pp. 307-32.

O’Mahony, B., Hall, J., Lockshin, L. and Brown, G. (2005), Understanding the Impact of WineTourism on Future Wine Purchasing Behaviour: Wine Tourism Experiences and FutureBehaviour, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Orth, U.R., Wolf, M.M. and Dodd, T.H. (2005), ‘‘Dimensions of wine region equity and their impacton consumer preferences’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 88-97.

Pearce, P. and Moscardo, G. (2001). ‘‘Been there and already done it before’: understandingvisitors repeat trips to the Great Barrier Reef’’, in Pforr, C. and Janeczko, B. (Eds),Capitalising on Research, Proceedings of the 11th Australian Tourism and HospitalityResearch Conference, University of Canberra, Belconnen.

Pearce, P.L. (2005), Tourist Behaviour – Themes and Conceptual Schemes, Channel ViewPublications, Clevedon.

Robinson, J. (Ed.) (2006), The Oxford Companion to Wine, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thode, S. and Maskulka, J. (1998), ‘‘Place-based marketing strategies, brand equity and vineyardvaluation’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 379-99.

IJWBR22,2

210

Van Boven, L. (2005), ‘‘Experientialism, materialism, and the pursuit of happiness’’, Review ofGeneral Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-42.

Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) (2002), ‘‘Wine tourism strategic business plan 2002-2005’’, available at: www.wfa.org.au/PDF/NWTS%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf (accessed 17May 2009).

Winetitles (2007), Wine Industry Statistics – Wine Producers, available at: www.winebiz.com. au/statistics/wineries_state.asp (accessed 17 May 2009).

Corresponding authorJohan Bruwer can be contacted at: johan.bruwer@adelaide.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints