Behavioral Intentions of Wine Tourists in Southern New Jersey
Using the Experience Economy Framework
by
L. Renee Baker
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
Wilmington University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
Wilmington University
April 2016
ii
Behavioral Intentions of Wine Tourists in Southern New Jersey
Using the Experience Economy Framework
by
L. Renee Baker
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Business Administration.
Signed ______Ruth T. Norman, Ph.D., Chair of Dissertation Committee
Signed ______Robert W. Rescigno, Ed.D., Member of Dissertation Committee
Signed ______John L. Sparco, Ph.D., Member of Dissertation Committee
Signed ______Donald W. Durandetta, Ph.D., Dean, College of Business
Original signed copy is on file in the DBA Dean’s office and is available upon request. iii
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation with gratitude and love to my awesome and amazing family, my supportive and loving husband, Les and my beautiful and smart children, Ty, Ebony, and
Nia. You mean the world to me. I love you all so much. Your belief in me and support of this process made this possible.
To my parents, Ronald and Emily, your unwavering love and support has always been appreciated. I love you and appreciate you more and more every day. To my forever friend and
‘sister’, Linda, you are the best. Thank you for always being there for me throughout life’s journey. To my close friend, Laila, from business school and beyond, thank you for being a friend. I am especially grateful for all of your help and support including weathering the elements to help me get my research done. I appreciate you, babe. To my buddy, Laney, thank you for being a friend and driving to endless wineries and exploring Southern New Jersey to get this research completed. To my extended family and friends, thank you for standing by me.
Every experience, both good and bad, is a learning opportunity. Throughout this journey,
I have learned so much about myself and what it truly means to pursue what you really want.
Although there is so much more I want to learn, it will be more focused and more aligned to my desires and how I want to feel. So while this journey has ended, I am looking forward to what’s next in this journey called life and enjoying every moment of the ride with gratitude and happiness. Like a fine wine, I will only get better with time. The best is yet to come…onwards and upwards. Cheers!
iv
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their patience, guidance, an unwavering support, and valuable feedback throughout the dissertation journey.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Robert Rescigno and Dr. Ruth Norman for their extraordinary leadership of the DBA program during my tenure at Wilmington University.
Also, I thank the faculty and staff of the DBA program at Wilmington University for their commitment to excellence in teaching and their dedication to helping students succeed.
To my wonderful and supportive classmates. Your intelligence, professionalism, ambition, and inspiration helped me get through. I hope I encouraged you as much as you have encouraged me.
Thank you, Dr. Donna Quadri-Felitti & Dr. Anne Marie Fiore for your extensive research on this topic and your time and guidance throughout the process.
Many thanks to the American Wine Society, specifically Joe Broski, Board Member and
Jaki Giberson, CS, Chapter Chair of the Hammonton Chapter.
To all of the Southern Jersey vineyard owners that took the time to talk to me and allowed me to complete the research at the vineyards - Thank you.
Last but not least, I have to acknowledge the person who encouraged me to get a doctorate. This process would not have started if it wasn’t for Dr. Denny Gioia, who during my
MBA program at Penn State, saw something in me that I didn’t see in myself and encouraged me to pursue a doctorate. v
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiential perceptions and behavioral intentions of wine tourists in the Southern New Jersey Wine Region using the experience economy framework. The central constructs of the experience economy model are the 4Es: education, esthetics, entertainment, and escapist. To date, there is limited information and research on wine tourism in New Jersey. This study surveyed 197 participants and explored the extent to which satisfaction with these dimensions of the winery experience correlates with intent to return and intent to recommend. The findings suggest that wine tourists in Southern New
Jersey are pleased with their winery experiences. Furthermore, the findings indicate that perception of esthetics and education was positively associated with intent to return in the
Southern New Jersey wine region. Perception of esthetics, education, entertainment, and escapist are positively associated with intent to recommend. Overall, the perception of esthetics had the largest effect on both intent to return and to recommend.
vi
Table of Contents Dedication ...... iii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Abstract ...... v
List of Figures ...... x
Figure ...... x
List of Tables ...... xi
Table ...... xi
List of Appendices ...... xii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background ...... 1
The Wine Industry ...... 2
Wine Tourism ...... 3
Wine Tourism and the Experience Economy ...... 4
The Southern New Jersey Wine Industry ...... 6
Statement of the Problem ...... 9
Research Aims and Objectives ...... 11
Working Model ...... 11
Research Questions ...... 12
Research Question Number One ...... 12 Research Question Number Two ...... 12 Research Question Number Three ...... 12 Significance of the Study ...... 12
Definition of Terms ...... 13 vii
Summary ...... 14
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 15
Criteria Used in the Literature Review Search ...... 15
Experience Economy ...... 15
The 4Es in the Experience Economy ...... 17
Entertainment ...... 19 Education ...... 19 Esthetics ...... 20 Escapism ...... 20 Tourism and the Experience Economy ...... 21
Wine Tourism ...... 23
North American (U.S.) Wine Tourism ...... 25
North American Wine Tourists ...... 29
Locals Versus Wine Tourists ...... 30
Expectations of Wine Tourists...... 31
Theories in Winery Marketing ...... 37
The Impact of Wine Tourism on Wineries ...... 38
Summary ...... 39
METHODOLOGY ...... 40
Research Design ...... 41
Population and Sample ...... 42
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria ...... 43 Sample Description ...... 43 Sample Size ...... 44 viii
Wine Tourists Visitor Instrument ...... 45
Procedures ...... 47
Data Analysis ...... 48
Research Question Number One ...... 48 Education ...... 49 Escapist ...... 49 Esthetics ...... 49 Entertainment ...... 50 Research Question Number Two ...... 50 Null hypothesis 2a ...... 51 Alternative hypothesis 2a ...... 51 Null hypothesis 2b ...... 51 Alternative hypothesis 2b ...... 51 Research Question Number Three ...... 52 Null hypothesis 3 ...... 52 Alternative hypothesis 3 ...... 52 Limitations ...... 53
Ethics Related to Human Subject Participation ...... 53
Summary ...... 54
RESULTS ...... 55
Population and Descriptive Findings ...... 57
Instrumentation and Reliability ...... 59
Assumptions ...... 62
Tests of Hypotheses ...... 65
Research Question 1 ...... 65 Conclusion Related to Research Question 1 ...... 65 ix
Research Question 2 ...... 65 Null hypothesis 2a ...... 66 Alternative hypothesis 2a ...... 66 Conclusion Related to Null Hypothesis 2a ...... 69 Null hypothesis 2b ...... 70 Alternative hypothesis 2b. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend...... 70 Conclusion Related to Null Hypothesis 2b...... 73 Research Question 3 ...... 74 Null hypothesis 3 ...... 74 Conclusion Related to Research Question 3 ...... 76 Summary ...... 78
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 80
Discussion ...... 80
Summary of the Study and Findings ...... 81
Research Question 1 ...... 81 Research Question 2 ...... 82 Research Question 3 ...... 82 Conclusions of the Study ...... 83
Implications ...... 87
Limitations of the Study ...... 88
Future Research ...... 88
Conclusion ...... 90
References ...... 92
Appendices ...... 97
x
List of Figures
Figure
1 Value of global wine consumption in 2010 and 2014 ...... 3
2 Southern New Jersey wineries ...... 7
3 Working concept model ...... 12
4 Four realms of experience ...... 18
5 Typical wine tourist activities within the 4E model of the experience economy...... 21
xi
List of Tables
Table
1 Top 10 States for Wine Production in 2012 (Largest to Smallest) ...... 26
2 Typical Attractions at North American Wineries ...... 27
3 Summary of Global Wine Regions ...... 34
4 Frequency Counts and Percentages of Descriptive Variables ...... 58
5 Likert-Scaled Items ...... 60
6 Measures of Central Tendency and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for all Factors of the Day
Tripper’s Visitor Instrument...... 61
7 Correlation Coefficients of Independent Variables Used in Hypothesis Testing ...... 64
8 Results of the Baseline Multiple Regression Model for Intent to Return Regressed on
Independent Variables ...... 67
9 Results of the Multiple Regression Model With Moderator Variables for Intent to Return
Regressed on Independent Variables ...... 69
10 Results of the Baseline Multiple Regression Model for Intent to Recommend Regressed on
Independent Variables ...... 71
11 Results of the Multiple Regression Model With Moderator Variables for Intent to
Recommend Regressed on Independent Variables ...... 73
12 Logistic Regression Analysis of Satisfaction Regressed on the Independent Variables ...... 76
13 Composition of Qualitative Data ...... 77
14 Comparison of the Research ...... 86
xii
List of Appendices
A Visitors’ Survey ...... 98 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Growth, expansion, and globalization are occurring in every sector of the economy, but the fastest growing sectors are related to the consumption of experiences. Because consumers are seeking more than a consistently high level of product or service, firms are marketing experiences as they try to meet consumer demand (Wilson, 2009). Consumers seek more than a higher degree of quality; they want unique experiences - a desire that is driving organizations to develop value-added products or services. Today, tourism and leisure make extensive use of theming and staging, not only in theme parks but also in zoos, shopping malls, restaurants, festivals, hotels, tours, video games or virtual reality (Engler, 2011).
A staged experience economy can create a memorable consumption experience, according to Pine and Gilmore (1999). Pine and Gilmore’s model emphasized the “delivery- focused” and staged efforts of businesses to organize and sell optimal experiences for consumers through the 4Es. The four realms of consumer experience - educational, escapist, esthetic, and entertainment experiences are referred to as the 4Es. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, tourist destinations began to be packaged as “experiences” in an attempt to meet this demand. Since this marketing concept began, the experience economy has been considered a paradigm that can enhance business performance.
The value created by consuming tourism experiences depends upon the tourist and his or her state of mind at a given moment, and the experience must address and fit the needs of the tourist (Andersson, 2007). Tourists consume destinations differently based on their divergent 2 needs and wants. McKercher, Wong, and Lau (2006) identified six different activity styles of tourists within a destination to characterize these differences in consumption. According to the authors, tourists can be classified as wanderers, tour-takers, pre-planners, explorers, uncommitted, or intimidated (McKercher et al., 2006). Consumption styles differ based on individual personality, motivation, and desired level of engagement. According to researchers
Ritchie and Crouch (2003), destination stakeholders must share a common vision to create a
“landscape of experience -- experiencescapes” (as cited in O’Dell, 2005, p. 16). Mossberg (2007) stated that regardless of the tourism product being offered, the tourist is still influenced by the experiencescape, which includes other tourists, the physical environment, and the personnel, even when there is not a shared vision.
This study aims to apply the experience economy framework to trends in wine tourism within the Southern New Jersey Wine Region. Furthermore, the framework can be utilized to explore ways to strengthen the Southern New Jersey wine experience. A brief background on the wine industry, wine tourism, and the experience economy, and the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region follows to lay the foundation for the present study. While the consumption aspect of the wine tourism product (which includes the wine and the experiences wine tourism provides) received some attention in recent studies (Bruwer & Alant, 2009; Bruwer et al., 2012; Quadri-
Felitti & Fiore, 2012), addressing the desires and gaps of wine tourists’ has not had much focus.
The Wine Industry
Global wine production and consumption have been on the rise in recent years, showing a marked increase from 2010 to 2014 (see Figure 1). Despite increased consumption worldwide, however, the United States (U.S.) remained the biggest international market for wine 3 consumption in 2014 (International Organization of Vine and Wine [OIV], 2014). New wine is now being produced in many regions of the U.S. in response to a growing base—both geographically and demographically—among consumers of wine (PR Newswire, 2013). This movement has required the wine industry to adapt to the changing consumer landscape by using progressive approaches to winning market share. As a result of these changes, incorporating wine consumption with tourism has been a subject of much interest to vineyard owners as well as scholars.
Figure 1. Value of global wine consumption in 2010 and 2014. Adapted from Value of global wine consumption in 2010 and 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars), by Statista, 2014. Copyright 2014 by Statista. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/232948/value-of-global-wine- consumption/Statista.
Wine Tourism
Over the past two decades, wine tourism has gained importance in the experience economy in response to the changing market due to wine’s connection to specific cultural destinations (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013). Wine tourism has been found to impact the local 4 economy in a positive way—improving the image of the destination while simultaneously enhancing the income of the local wine sector (Zisou, 2013). Wine tourism can lead to significant economic growth in rural areas and even require new construction and infrastructure in regions that are growing particularly rapidly. For instance, the wine, grape production, and related industries in North Carolina increased in total economic value from $813 million in 2005 to $1.28 billion in 2008 (Frank, 2009). The Washington wine industry made a total impact of approximately $8.6 billion within the state in 2010–2011 versus $3 billion in 2007 (A
Stonebridge Research Report, 2012).
Wine Tourism and the Experience Economy
As business competition increases and economic pressures mount, companies have tried to differentiate their offerings; this effort spawned the concept of bundling goods and services with consumer experiences, and thus to the concept of an experience economy (Fiore et al.,
2007). People have also started seeking engaging experiences.
Wineries have become increasingly involved in the experience economy as a way to meet tourists’ demands for an engaging and dynamic experience. As Sternberg (1997, as cited in Oh et al., 2007) argued, the experience economy is about having a staged experience. According to this theory, the primary motivating factor for visiting a destination is the mental and emotional image that the tourist draws of the destination, not the actual physical characteristics of the destination.
Tourists and consumers seek engaging experiences, but these have to be accompanied by the goods and services at the destination. Tourism researchers, as well as destination managers, are seeking to better understand the tourist experience, how it is formed, and how it has gained such importance. 5
In the experience economy, food and beverages are closely linked to tourism as tourists seek local, novel, and authentic or appealing experiences. Consumer value is no longer simply embedded in services; now meaning or value is co-created through consumption (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). Wine is an ideal consumer product to meet tourists’ demand for linking food and beverages to their experience.
Wine tourism involves the object (wine) in combination with different activities including food, entertainment, and education in wine processing—the combination of which can generate an appealing experience. Adding to this experience is the beauty of the rural settings in which the wine tourism destinations are immersed. Researchers have explored wine tourism demand with a particular focus on the sociodemographic and psychological characteristics of the tourists and the purposes of their visit. As such, wine tourists have been segmented based on several variables including lifestyle, wine or tourist destination involvement, and purpose of visit. Quantifying the motivations, satisfaction, and spending of wine tourists has drawn the most attention from wine tourism researchers (Mitchell & Hall, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000).
Exploratory studies into the perspectives of rural wine region stakeholders have also gained the interest of tourism researchers (Hall et al., 2005; Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013; Sznajder et al.,
2009). The emerging development of research into wine tourism has generated various interpretations of how this phenomenon should be characterized. Wine-related activities such as tastings and festivals generate interest and enthusiasm among tourists. For purposes of this study, rural wine tourism is considered a visit to experience the attributes of a grape-growing wine region (Hall et al., 2009). 6
Napa Valley is one of the most successful and well-researched wine tourism destinations
(McRae-Williams, 2006). However, research has also been conducted in lesser-known areas such as Idaho and North Carolina, demonstrating the value of this type of tourism (Quadri-Felitti &
Fiore, 2013). Little to no research has explored Southern New Jersey as a wine region. However,
Southern New Jersey is beginning to gain attention in the wine industry, although it still lacks many adaptations to adequately accommodate an evolving consumer base.
The Southern New Jersey Wine Industry
The first vineyards were planted in New Jersey just before the American Revolution.
New Jersey is now the seventh in the nation in production of wines and is home to several award-winning wineries, producing a wide variety of both red and white wines (PineyPower,
2013). New Jersey has three micro-regions considered suitable for grape growing, and each is an official American Viticultural Area, according to Department of Agriculture of New Jersey
(2006). These include the Central Delaware Valley in Central New Jersey, Warren Hills on the northwestern edge, and the Outer Coastal Plain in Southern New Jersey (New Jersey, 2006).
In the United States, each year 30 million travelers participate in the wine-related activities, contributing 7% of the entire revenue earned from the tourism industry (New Jersey
State Legislature, 2015). The Southern New Jersey Wine Region is a growing industry looking to become competitive in the manufacturing and delivering of local and well-known wines (Thach
& Olsen, 2002). The Outer Coastal Plain is ideal for local wine production in Southern New
Jersey, with several of the vineyards producing award-winning wines; still, not many wineries in the state make outstanding wines (Taber, 2008). As in Napa in 1976, the quality wine industry in
New Jersey is comparatively young (Ashenfelter & Storchmann, 2012). When wine is believed 7 to be from New Jersey, it receives lower enjoyment ratings than when the identical wine is believed to be from California—regardless of whether the wine is actually from New Jersey or
California (Ashton, 2014). In particular, the Southern New Jersey region enjoys excellent weather suitable for wine culture. The warmer winters experienced in the area in recent years as a result of global warming have been a boon for grape production, enabling oenologists to plant varieties that might not otherwise have survived in this region (PineyPower, 2013).
There are approximately 17 wineries in Southern New Jersey that have seen recent success and utilized marketing to promote their vineyards (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Southern New Jersey wineries in 2015. Reprinted from TrueVine (2015). Retrieved from Google Maps
Collectively, New Jersey’s wine industry currently generates about $40 million a year
(New Jersey State Legislature, 2015). However, vineyards from the area have larger ambitions
(Davidson, 2013). Several vintners are active in the region and expect to make New Jersey the 8 next Napa. They are trying to promote the notion of New Jersey as an internationally recognized wine capital. The local vintners have high hopes because a panel of respected wine critics at the
Judgment of Princeton, a blind tasting event, modeled after the wine tasting at the 1976
Judgment of Paris and determined a close tie between New Jersey wines and two wines from
France. Adding credibility to the result is that the competition was organized with the help and support of George Taber, the respected wine journalist and author of The Judgment of Paris.
Moreover, Stirling (2013) has confirmed that vineyards in the southern part of New Jersey competed on par with some of the best French wines during the blind-tasting event, further stirring the ambitions of vintners.
However, the quality winemakers in New Jersey face a classic economic issue known as a collective-action problem. There are about 50 wineries in the state of New Jersey, 17 of those wineries are in Southern New Jersey; however, only 10 of these make “good” wines, according to the American Association of Wine Economists (Davidson, 2013). A shift in the perception of tastemakers (including sommeliers, critics, and distributors) is essential to changing the reputation of the wine produced in the region. Several on-the-fence observers (as described by
Davidson, 2013) do not know which are the more respected among the New Jersey wines and therefore, may sample the wrong ones. With a shift in the perception of the tastemakers, these on-the-fence observers would receive guidance so they may focus on the reputed wines, thereby enhancing the image of wine production in the region.
Through mutual trust and sharing resources among the wineries, the collective-action problem can be resolved so that the wineries in Southern New Jersey could collectively thrive,
Davidson (2013) contended. Based on the thoughts of the political economist Elinor Ostorm, 9
Davidson (2013) has explained that collective action occurs when competitors trust one another and together steward a shared resource—in this case, the reputation of New Jersey wines. It may be possible for individual wineries to make short-term profits through the adoption of short-term measures—a strategy that requires creating self-governing associations to help wineries develop their strategy.
As an area of future research, known researchers (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013) have acknowledged that emerging wine regions such as the Outer Coastal Plain in Southern New
Jersey have not yet been explored. Some studies have measured the success of wine development against the behavior and perceptions of wine tourists in well-known regions, information which may not apply to wine tourists in the Southern New Jersey region. Increasingly, the wine tourism industry is concerned with understanding the drivers of consideration of their customer base and what draws them to vineyards, beyond just drinking wine. Obtaining additional data about this wine tourism region within the context of the experience economy would help vintners and researchers alike understand the drivers of their customer base and the various factors that draw them to vineyards in addition to the wine itself. Furthermore, wine quality is just one aspect of the wine experience. Each experience is as unique as the person engaging in the experience.
Statement of the Problem
New Jersey is currently the seventh largest producer of wine in America, but the wine produced in the region gets little exposure or respect (Capuzzo, 2013). Still, the wine industry is the fastest growing segment of the state’s agricultural business. Wines from New Jersey can be shipped to other states and sold at retail outlets. Yet, the wine still lacks the support of the state in promoting the agri-tourism business, Capuzzo (2013) contended. The vintners receive a 10 special crop grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including funding for the wine-trail program, which comprises a series of tours and special events within the region. The Division of
Travel and Tourism also provides promotional support through its website VisitNJ.org.
However, beyond this backing, the industry has been left to promote wine tourism on its own through non-profit agencies such as the New Jersey Wine Growers Association (NJWGA), a group of vintners in the region that has been attempting to sponsor wine festivals, tastings, and wine-trail events throughout the state.
Also, because of economic pressures, wineries tend to adopt short-term measures in wine making techniques, thereby compromising the quality of the wines produced. Moreover, despite efforts by individual wineries to produce higher quality wine and to promote themselves, New
Jersey wines have a negative image. The negative image is mostly due to the quality of wine.
Even restaurants are reluctant to include New Jersey wines on their lists (Capuzzo, 2012).
Because of the emerging nature of the state’s wine industry, there remains very limited information and research available on wine tourism in Southern New Jersey.
Nonetheless, a growing body of research has taken a holistic approach to understanding the nature of the wine tourist experience within a broader context (Beames, 2003; Colman, 2008,
Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013). Additionally, current research has utilized the central constructs of the experience economy model, “the 4Es”—education, esthetics, entertainment, and escapist
(Pine & Gilmore, 1999)—to explain the experiential nature of wine tourism.
The study measures the Southern New Jersey wine region and the perceived performance on the 4Es and the experience for visitors. This section of the study compares the visitors’ experience to these contributions of the wineries in the region along the four realms of 11 experience. Also, the study investigates the wine tourists’ perceived gaps for the stakeholders and what is needed from the tourists’ viewpoint in developing a successful wine tourism destination and product.
As wine tourism grows in Southern New Jersey, the timing is appropriate for research focused on the region. It will be useful for those agencies looking to build awareness for the region, those marketing the destination, as well as the vintners operating the wineries that make up the wine tourism region in South Jersey.
Research Aims and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to understand the behavioral intentions and experiential preferences of existing wine tourists and the experiential perceptions of wine tourists towards the
Southern New Jersey Wine Region using the experience economy framework, or the 4Es. The experiential nature of wine tourism is considered important given that consumers are no longer at the end of the marketing chain but are now considered active agents (Schroeder, 2010). This shift is part of other current cultural and socioeconomic changes. Thus, with the aim of understanding the behavioral intentions of wine tourists in Southern New Jersey, the objectives of this study were:
• To rate the experiential attributes that wine tourists experienced in Southern New
Jersey.
• To ascertain relationship between the 4Es with intent to return/recommend.
Working Model
The diagram in Figure 3 represents the study in a working model:
12
Figure 3. Working concept model.
Research Questions
Research Question Number One
How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region rate the 4Es?
Research Question Number Two
Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and local/nonlocal status with their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?
Research Question Number Three
What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contributes to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Significance of the Study
Much of the extant research on wine tourism has focused on theories of pleasurable and experiential consumer behavior to recognize the varying aspects of wine tourism (Bruwer & 13
Alant, 2009; Getz & Carlsen, 2007; Williams, 2006). This study aimed to contribute to the existing literature and body of knowledge on the subject by focusing on the experiential nature of wine tourism in Southern New Jersey.
The outcome of this study is expected to help the wine industry in Southern New Jersey, as well as to build an understanding of wine tourist experiential desires, which might be useful in other regions. Another finding may serve to provide a better understanding of whether the 4E framework could be used more broadly in designing and marketing new consumer offerings to address the gaps that wine tourists’ face in the region. The research will not be definitive in either of the last two points, but will help build upon an existing body of knowledge.
According to recent tourism data derived from the State of New Jersey, the area is in growth mode as a wine region and vineyard owners, therefore, have a desire to understand and then accentuate the four elements of the overall wine tourism experience that are so valued by customers. They are also interested in the result of evaluating the effect of the setting on the visitors’ overall wine tourism experience.
Definition of Terms
Behavioral Intentions: Intention is regarded as the motivation necessary to engage in a particular behavior (Lam & Hsu, 2004). For purposes of this study, behavioral intentions are the wine tourists’ (a) intention to return to the destination, and (b) the intention to recommend the destination to others.
Experience Economy: Consumers’ demand for unique experiences beyond merely consuming products and services because the consistent, high level of product and service quality can no longer be used to differentiate choices for consumers (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). 14
Experiential Consumption Theories: Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) experience economy model delineated 4 realms of consumer experience: educational, escapist, esthetic, and entertainment experiences, which are referred to as the “4Es.” This theory has stood out among the various applications of the experiential view of consumer behavior and reflects consumer participation in creating the experience, either passive (or active), and the intersecting vertical continuum reflect a consumer’s absorption of or immersion in the experience (Pine & Gilmore,
1999).
Winescape: Winescape describes the human improvement of the natural landscape with three primary elements: “(1) the grapes and their needs, (2) the natural environments that best meet those needs, and (3) the viticulturists and winemakers who determine everything . . . within the broader context of cultural practices and economic viability” (Peters, 1997, p. 8). A winescape includes the cultural, environmental, and social aspects of the wine growing rural location (Quadri-Felitti, 2012).
Summary
Chapter 1 began with a problem statement, which prompts the purpose and significance to conduct the research study. Research questions to be addressed through this research were presented, along with a statement of hypotheses. The chapter then proceeded to describe assumptions, delimitations, and limitation of the research study. Some definitions of terms to be used throughout the dissertation were then described. Chapter 1 concluded with a background of the study to lay out the context of the research study and further its importance. 15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of the literature focuses on the experience economy as it relates to the research questions. The research questions focus on understanding the behavioral intentions of wine tourists that may consider Southern New Jersey as a wine tourism destination although there is limited research in this area; some literature on the region are included.
Additionally, literature related to North America wine tourism locations has been included due to limited research on Southern New Jersey as a wine tourist destination. Much of the literature is focused on the experience economy or the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) and to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Criteria Used in the Literature Review Search
Inclusions: The primary sources for this study include peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertations obtained from various online databases including Google Scholar and EBSCO. The following terms were utilized in the EBSCO search: experience economy, wine tourism, behavioral intentions, New Jersey wine industry, and wine industry
Exclusions: The following terms were excluded in the EBSCO search: tourist experience, tourism motivations, destination marketing.
Experience Economy
The experience economy is based on the perspective that economic development should include value-added consumer experiences in different sectors such as the rural economy, tourism, and hospitality, as well as the retail sector and restaurant business (Fiore et al., 2007).
Fiore et al. (2007) have posited that enriching consumer experiences can lead to a sustained 16 competitive advantage for a small rural business; this principle applies to the tourism and wine tourism industries as well. In fact, the experience economy has gained growing importance in wine tourism research (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013). Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2013) utilized the constructs of the experience economy model to explain the experiential nature of wine tourism.
They focused on the hedonic (pleasant or unpleasant experiences) and experiential consumption theories in wine consumption, highlighting the appealing experiences that consumers seek.
Experiences are at the core of this framework. Pine and Gilmore (1999) have defined experiences as “events that engage individuals in a personal way” (p.12). Staging experiences have become a strategic imperative as organizations recognize the value delivered to customers through such experiences. There is an increased interest within the wine industry in the different experiential elements that draw the customer base to vineyards beyond the motivation to drink wine.
A growing body of research focuses on a holistic approach to understanding the nature of the wine tourist experience (Beames, 2003; Colman, 2008). Beames (2003) hypothesized the importance of creating an overall experience for wine tourists, comprised of encompassing the wine and food theme, wine tasting, visiting local attractions and savoring the rural atmosphere to connect tourists to the region. The complimentary aspects of wine tasting along with other activities such as fine dining and balloon rides enhance wine tourists’ experiences as Colman
(2008) studied for Napa County. Both researchers highlighted the experiential nature of how wine regions can enhance the tourism experience. Pine (2000) proposed that mass customization is the best way to shift into the experience economy, by turning customer interactions into a memorable event that engages the customer in every way. 17
In recent years, researchers have enlisted various techniques to understand the behaviors and intentions of wine tourists to improve consumer experiences. One such technique is the 4E framework, conceptualized by Pine and Gilmore (1999), which is a multidimensional framework for evaluating the nature of consumer experiences. Pine and Gilmore (1999) posited, “An experience is not an amorphous construct; it is as real an offering as any service, good, or commodity” (p. 3).
The 4Es in the Experience Economy
The 4E framework utilizes the central constructs of the experience economy model, the
4Es—education, esthetics, entertainment, and escapist (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Among the 4Es, the educational and escapist elements help co-create experiential value for tourists. The esthetic and entertainment elements are meant to captivate consumers with sensorial environments.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2013) have suggested that each of the 4Es has a potential role in wine tourism. Depending on whether the tourists have active involvement (where customers personally affect the performance or event) or passive involvement (where customers do not directly affect or influence performance), they are either consumers or co-creators of one or more of the 4Es throughout the experience.
Each of the four realms of experience can be emphasized through customer participation.
For instance, active participation results in educational and escapist experiences, whereas passive participation characterizes esthetic and entertainment dimensions. The active participants are of greater significance as they affect the performance or event by becoming part of the experience
(Oh et al., 2007). Such active participants absorb the offerings and remain immersed in the destination environment as they derive educational or escapist experiences. The research on 18 active participants implies that tourism or destination managers must seek out active participants and develop measures to engage them. However, passive participants also help shape positive consumption outcomes of memories, satisfaction, and the intention to return.
Nevertheless, Oh et al. (2007) clarified that the four axes as shown in Figure 4 should not be adopted as a rigid rule because boundaries across dimensions could change depending upon the individual experience.
Figure 4. Four realms of experience. Adapted from Pine and Gilmore (1999).
Moreover, Smith, Davis, and Pike (2010) found that wine tourism can fulfill the needs of the cultural tourist by providing esthetic as well as experiential involvement. A potential approach for achieving each of the four elements of the 4Es in the case of Southern New Jersey wine tourism will be evaluated based on the findings of the present study. 19
Entertainment
To augment tourists’ experiences, wineries have devised various strategies such as local cultural programs, events, wine and food festivals, and overnight stays as efforts to provide entertainment experiences to wine tourists (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013). Wineries have even included art, music, and cultural heritage as part of the entertainment package for wine tourists.
Education
Several scholars and researchers have highlighted the importance of an educational experience in wine tourism. According to a study by Sparks (2007, as cited in Quadri-Felitti &
Fiore, 2013), the key attribute desired by wine tourists was personal development. Indeed, these sensation seekers viewed learning as a great motivation in wine tourism, making education one of the top five motivating factors, as identified by Bruwer and Alant (2009). Festivals and galleries serve a dual purpose of education and entertainment (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012).
Tourists learn about viticulture during vineyard tours offering informative narrations by winery staff. After a couple of vineyard tours, many visitors will have learned about as much as they care to know about wine making and may require other experiences to keep them returning. Such an experience can provide dual benefits of education and entertainment. Hence, Pine and
Gilmore (1999) have referred to these aspects as edutainment (as cited in Quadri-Felitti & Fiore,
2012). Edutainment is tours of vineyards and winemaking facilities with informative narrations is an example of both the educational and entertainment dimensions as tourists learn about viticulture and are engaged by the presenters (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012). 20
Esthetics
The esthetic element, according to Quadri (2012), encompasses the natural, cultural, and social aspects of the wine tourism destination and thus warrants focus by marketers. The esthetic motivation of wine tourists derives from the beauty of the vineyards, the natural landscape, and the rural settings—all of which are essential components of the wine tourism experience.
Tourists enjoy immersion in a beautiful environment (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012). Driving down rural roads along the vineyards thus becomes a consumption activity for excursionists.
Wineries even focus advertising on the esthetic experience of the region. Esthetics, particularly in the rural setting similar to Southeastern Jersey such as the Niagara region, has provided a high degree of visitor enjoyment to the wine tourism experience (Carmichael, 2005).
Escapism
The urban population has been drawn to the rural settings of vineyards for an escapist experience. In addition to enjoying an esthetic experience in the beauty of the natural rural settings, they may engage in numerous activities, such as hot-air-ballooning and bicycle tours, harvesting, or even grape stomping—providing them with a distraction and escape from their busy urban lives (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013). The escapism can be highly immersive, transporting the consumer to a different time and place. Such forms of entertainment is rated an important dimension of wine tourism (Fountain & Charters, 2008). In fact, the greater the number of activities offered by wine tourism destinations, the greater the escapism experience of the wine tourists.
If all four dimensions of the 4Es were present in one single destination, the wine tourist would be thoroughly absorbed in a single tourism experience; based upon researchers’ findings 21
(Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012) it appears to be unusual to have all four. Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
(2012) have tabulated the different 4E experiences that wine tourists derive through wine tourism
(see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Typical wine tourist activities within the 4E model of the experience economy.
Tourism and the Experience Economy
Several studies have applied the 4E framework conceptualized by Pine and Gilmore
(1999) to measure tourist experiences. Although Oh et al. (2007) found it to be a practical framework, they established that even as experiential dimensions have structural consistencies, other consequences of tourist experiences such as satisfaction, memory, overall quality, and arousal may be difficult to predict. However, findings from a survey of 970 wine tourists conducted by Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2013) revealed that experiences play an important role in the satisfaction derived from creating visitor memories and destination loyalty intentions in wine tourists. 22
Based on data gathered from 970 visitors to the Chautauqua-Lake Erie wine tourism destination, Quadri-Felitti, and Fiore (2012) determined the experiential nature of wine tourism.
The measures from the study demonstrated the validity of the experience economy in predicting intentions to recommend and intentions to return to the wine destination. Findings from the
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012) study were consistent with the measurement of these experiential elements in other tourism settings (Hosany & Withiam, 2010; Oh et al., 2007). Theirs was the first study to examine the experience economy from the perspective of both tourists and tourism providers. The study also found a gap between what tourists believed the wine tourism supply chain offered and what the tourists experienced. Therefore, an instrument for tourists’ perception and how businesses prioritize are both relevant to the present study.
Findings by Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2013) and Oh et al. (2007) have been consistent about the esthetic dimension. Both studies found that the esthetic dimension was the dominant determinant of the experiential outcomes and that this dimension had the strongest influence in establishing a memorable wine tourism experience, which in turn shapes the wine tourist’s satisfaction. Notably, the escapist and entertainment dimensions did not enhance tourist satisfaction according to Oh et al. (2007), although Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2013) argued that education plays a significant but less important role than the other factors in creating memories and satisfaction. Therefore, findings have been consistent on the esthetic dimension but opinions differ across other dimensions. However, factors such as group size, demographics, and the location could also have impacted the outcome of the studies. 23
Wine Tourism
Wine tourism is visiting vineyards, wineries, wine festivals, and wine shows in which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a grape wine region are primary motivating factors for visitors (Hall et al., 2003, as cited in Neilson & Madill, 2014). Wine and tourism are both associated with relaxation and communing with others; moreover, both support food consumption and offer an opportunity to learn about the destination and its people (Axelsen
& Swan, 2010; Bruwer, 2003). Wine tourism is therefore characterized as a combination of consumer behavior, a destination development strategy, and a marketing opportunity for the wine industry (Poitras & Getz, 2006).
Wine tourism is of importance to the economy while quality wines yield cultural value.
Wine adds to the competitiveness of a destination by playing a predominant, complementary or exclusive role in attracting tourists (Bruwer, 2003). Wine is now promoted as a means of an opportunity for new rural entrepreneurship, new tourist activities, and a new form of rural life.
The tourists are offered an opportunity to meet the “‘winemaker’,” which according to Bruwer
(2003), is a marketing tactic in this industry.
The importance of wine tourism and its impact on communities has been substantiated by several studies and researchers in many countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South
Africa, and countries in North America (Bruwer, 2003; Centonze, 2010; Getz & Brown, 2006;
Oh et al., 2007; Pine & Gilmore, 2001; Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013; Tourism Research
Australia, 2009). Wineries and administrative authorities have been aggressively pursuing marketing activities to attract tourists in their regions. 24
Wine tourism is a form of consumer behavior that if vigorously promoted by the wine industry could help destinations develop and market wine-related attractions and imagery (Getz
& Brown, 2006). Wine tourists perceive wine and food to be a cultural experience and look for destinations with plenty of variety including outdoor recreation opportunities (Getz & Brown,
2006). In Europe, special wine routes and official wine roads have been developed and often comprise a designated itinerary, marking the different wineries while providing information on the region and other attractions to create a more cultural-related experience.
Pratt and Sparks (2014) have explored the linkage between destination image, self- congruity, and attitude toward wine tourism, which in turn predicted behavioral intentions. Self- congruity is the match between a brand image and an individual’s self-concept (Sirgy & Su,
2000, as cited in Pratt & Sparks, 2014). Where the self-concept is the “totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). This theory holds in the context of tourism (with destinations as brands); destination managers could position their destination to match the market segments they seek to attract (Usakli & Baloglu,
2011).
In the field of tourism, the application of self-congruity theory—based on the assumption that consumers prefer brands or products that have images similar to their self-image—is limited
(Sirgy, 1982, as cited in Pratt & Sparks, 2014). However, the level of wine involvement impacts self-congruity, and thus individual attitudes toward wine tourism appear to be a significant predictor of behavioral intentions (Pratt & Sparks, 2014). Therefore, understanding the image and attitude of wine tourists could help increase visits to wine destinations. 25
While many studies have found similarities and connections between the wine and tourism industries, some researchers have pointed to their divergences. Carlsen (2004) emphasized that different economic conditions apply in the wine and tourism industries, suggesting a framework for understanding the implications of generational differences in wine consumption from both the wine industry and tourism industry perspective. Because of the pressures on existing wine and tourism enterprises, Carlsen (2004) offered the opinion that if the two industries recognize opposite economic activities, research issues, and priorities would be easier to identify and thus to integrate the characteristics of both economic activities.
North American (U.S.) Wine Tourism
The number of wineries in the United States grew from 2,100 in 1995 to 8,300 in
February 2015 (Wines & Vines, 2015). The Hudson Valley region, located in New York, is
America’s oldest winemaking and grape-growing region (Hudson Valley Wine Country, 2008).
North Carolina is home to some 400 vineyards and at least 70 wineries in 30 counties, most of which are small, family-owned, and operated in the traditional manner (Brown & Smith, 2010).
Wineries in Connecticut and the State of Texas have also gained importance, attracting most tourists from within their respective state, with a small percentage from another state or country
(Donovan, 2011). Table 1 includes a list of the top 10 states for wine production.
26
Table 1
Top 10 States for Wine Production in 2012 (Largest to Smallest)
State Wine production in gallons California 667.6
New York 26.4 Washington 24.5 Oregon 6.8 Pennsylvania 3.6 Ohio 3.0 Kentucky 2.4 Florida 1.9 New Jersey 1.6 Texas 1.2
According to Williams, Graham, and Mathias (2006), wine tourism in North America is defined by both permanent attractions and special events. Small businesses in the area provide products and services to visitors on a seasonal basis, as shown in Table 2.
27
Table 2
Typical Attractions at North American Wineries
Adapted from “Land Use Policy and Wine Tourism Development in North America’s Pacific Northwest,” by P. W. Williams, K. Graham, and L. Mathias, 2006, In J. Carlsen and S. Charters (Eds.), Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management and Marketing (p. 32), Cambridge, MA: CAB International. Copyright 2006 by CAB International.
While the seasonal and permanent attractions play an important role in North American wine tourism, wineries in North America are adopting different strategies to attract tourists depending upon their strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to gain more market share
(Williams et al., 2006). For instance, the Hudson Valley wine cluster in North America has shown several advantages, such as access to farm labor, natural environment, knowledge of wine making, and access to local suppliers, as well as proximity to large population centers (Centonze,
2010). North Carolina wineries have faced challenges due to changes in policies, climate conditions, a need for trained labor, and a paucity of funds (Brown & Smith, 2010). 28
Marketing strategies included efforts to create an environment for wine appreciation
(Wargenau & Che, 2006). Some wineries plant vineyards, expand their wineries, and open tourist-friendly tasting rooms, which have helped eliminate the stigmas of elitism and mystery surrounding wine consumption (Shriver, 2006). The Hudson Valley Wineries and wine trails offered award-winning wines made from classic European varieties, regional hybrids, and even delicious fruit wines. Since Southern New Jersey is located close to the Hudson Valley, effective marketing could draw tourists Southern New Jersey as well.
Wineries in Connecticut and Texas have paired food and wine as a tourism marketing strategy (Donovan, 2011). Smaller wineries have demonstrated greater use of this strategy as a marketing tool because they must exert greater effort in promoting their product. Wineries in
Denver tend to focus on mountain biking and golfing; those in Virginia stress their proximity to
Jefferson-era landmarks; and wineries in New York reference the Corning Glass Museum
(Shriver, 2006). Such wineries mostly relied on word-of-mouth publicity generated through consumers.
Farm wineries, in turn, promoted their sites for weddings, special tasting events, and receptions as a marketing tool (Swaminathan, 2001). Additionally, the study showed that farm wineries, similar to the ones in Southern New Jersey, employ a promotional approach to increase their offerings to wine tourists.
Differentiating between the urban and rural wineries, Donovan (2011) found that urban wineries used education as a tourism marketing strategy. Conversely, the rural wineries offered advantages such as a country experience of vineyard walks, picnic areas, and scenic views. 29
Therefore, regardless of size and location, each winery had the opportunity to use different elements as marketing tools to enhance its image and sales.
Swaminathan (2001) noted that while North Carolina has received wine tourists, their winemakers lack the marketing skills to attract quality tourists. Moreover, most farm wineries lack the necessary resources for mass-market advertising (Swaminathan, 2001). Brown and
Smith (2010) have suggested the use of Stebbins serious leisure perspective (SLP), a theoretical framework for the study of leisure, as a guide to developing the wineries in North Carolina and to attract wine consumers. SLP provides the theoretical framework that synthesizes three main forms of leisure, known as serious leisure, casual leisure, and project-based leisure (Hall &
Sharples, 2003).
Since New Jersey faces similar challenges as North Carolina, applying SLP to the
Southern New Jersey region and introducing others forms of leisure, including food and overnight stay could boost wine tourism in the region. All these incentives ultimately place emphasis on offering tourists a holistic experience, as pointed out by Bruwer and Alant (2009).
Bruwer and Alant (2009) have also contended that consumers’ desire to engage in wine tourism is usually impulsive and the duration short, which suggests that marketing, should be strong to entice consumers immediately. Wine tourism is often a part of a package, according to Neilson and Madill (2014), and is linked to other recreational activities such as historical, leisure, or cultural attractions in the wine region.
North American Wine Tourists
The profile of the wine tourist is relatively consistent across North America. As such, wine tourists in the Lake Erie region, as characterized by Quadri (2012), are similar to those in 30 other regions of the U.S. Quadri (2012) described them as relatively affluent, educated, older
Americans who had a similar income and education level. According to the study by Quadri
(2012), the most frequent level of education was an earned bachelor degree with income ranging between $60,000 (U.S.) to just under $105,000. Based on the study by Quadri (2012), wine tourists in the Lake Erie Wine Region tend to be educated and affluent.
Quadri (2012) also contended that women are more likely to recommend the Lake Erie wine tourism product than men. Because of diminishing distinctions between generational perceptions, tastes, and attitudes, age also failed to predict tourists’ future intentions (Quadri,
2012). Regardless of age, today’s wine tourists seek similar experiential effects. Furthermore, because demographics do not predict tourist behavior, Quadri (2012) suggested combining motivation and attitude, and integrating lifestyle with life stages and preferences with a place of residence. Geographical segmentation may affect future intentions because the driving distance to the destination may be a predictor of tourist behavior. Tourist engagement with a variety of activities such as visiting different wineries and farms; dining in restaurants; or attending festivals, cultural, or recreational events may positively impact tourists’ recommendations and future visits (Quadri, 2012).
Locals Versus Wine Tourists
The motivation for visiting wineries might also differ between local populations in the region and international tourists or visitors from distant places that come to the region with the specific purpose of a winery visit (Neilson & Madill, 2014). While locals might be making a casual visit, others might be seeking an experience as contended by Neilson and Madill (2014).
However, wineries in New Jersey should attempt to make casual visits from local people also 31 significant and experiential, thereby arousing their interest to repeat such visits. Each type of wine tourist or visitor may be seeking a different experience.
In a study of wine tourists and local wine visitors to the Shawnee Hills Wine Trail in
Southern Illinois, Smith et al. (2010) found that these were two distinct market segments and advised that they should be treated accordingly. While both segments were interested in wine tasting, the wine tourists were drawn to the experience of the wine trails (Smith et al., 2010). In contrast, the local wine visitors were more compelled by the entertainment value, which may require a different marketing approach. Developing weekend getaway packages for wine tourists can generate additional interest and likely extend their stay (Smith et al., 2010). This distinction is of significance and could aid Southern New Jersey wineries in the development of different marketing approaches to promote wine tourism in the region.
Expectations of Wine Tourists
Several studies have attempted to explore the expectations and preferences of wine tourists in different parts of the world, providing a global perspective, with certain common perceptions emerging from this research. Fountain and Charters (2008) have recognized that wine tourists are not a homogenous group, explaining that the industry is beginning to recognize the need to understand the specific differences within this population. In general, winery visitors worldwide are highly educated, have higher-than-average household incomes, and have knowledge—to some extent—of wines (Getz & Brown, 2006). Charters and Ali-Knight (2000), however, observed that, as wine lovers, winery visitors also desire a learning experience at wineries (as cited in Brown & Getz, 2005). Regarding experiences, the needs and expectations of wine tourists may also differ. Although not clarified by Brown and Getz (2005), these 32 differences could vary based on age and general education, apart from specific knowledge of wines.
Bruwer’s (2003) study focused on the importance of wine routes since tourists recognized and appreciated the difference in landscape and winescape or esthetics when moving between wine routes. Thus, tourists expected that different wine routes must carry a distinctive trademark or brand identity (Bruwer, 2003). As vineyards make claims of distinctive attributes through advertisements, the expectations of tourists also rise, contended Bruwer (2003).
Getz and Brown (2006) also had similar findings from a study of 161 wine consumers in
Canada that lived far away from wineries. Such tourists preferred wine destinations that offered a wide range of cultural and other outdoor attractions. Other components of the wine tourism experience as highlighted by Getz and Brown (2006) included focusing on wine as a core product, and on the essential destination characteristics.
The expectations of first-time wine tourists could differ from those who have already had such experiences. Thus, Alant and Bruwer (2004) explained that first-time visitors’ motivations included discovering and tasting wine, sightseeing, and finding information about winery products (as cited in Neilson & Madill, 2014). However, repeat visitors are inclined to relax and socialize. It, therefore, seems important to calibrate destination image to meet the demands of first-time wine tourists and thus create a competitive advantage over other destination choices.
Wine involvement is a characteristic of wine tourists that has been gaining importance in wine literature aimed at involving tourists in experiences beyond just leisure (Fountain &
Charters, 2008). Tourists differ across their level of knowledge, involvement, and interest, and across education level and personality characteristics—all of which are likely to impact their 33 expectations and experiences. The Gen Y in Fountain and Charter’s (2008) study appeared eager for experiences but also sought a personalized and flexible service that responded to their needs—in particular, to the need to be recognized as individuals. According to Dodd and Bigotte
(1997), older people were less critical of their winery experience than the younger generation (as cited in Fountain & Charters, 2008). For the younger tourists, service quality was a determinant of their satisfaction with the winery visit.
While wine tasting is important, younger visitors wanted to enjoy the entire experience of the winery (Fountain & Charters, 2008). Interaction enhanced the winery experience, according to Fountain and Charters (2008). Because this population lacks experience, it needs guidance in the entire process; hence, the cellar door staff should be able to respond to its queries and concerns. Therefore, to develop a new segment (Gen Y-ers), the wineries would benefit by focusing on the service aspect to make them feel at ease and attempt to develop long-term brand loyalty (Fountain & Charters, 2008). These findings could be significant in making recommendations for the development of Southern New Jersey Wine industry, as they suggest that wineries should segment their target customers and devise separate plans for different generations, including the baby boomers and Gen Y.
Wine tourist behavior can differ across regions and culture, hence making it essential to understand individual wine tourism experience (Bruwer & Alant, 2009). Wine producers need to understand the intrinsic aspects that impact tourist behavior. While the motivation for one tourist may be the desire to taste and buy wine, for another it could be the desire for socializing and deriving hedonic experiences. Moreover, not all wine tourists are wine drinkers and as such, they may have other wine-related motivations related to education or esthetics based on their needs. 34
Several researchers have confirmed that key motivations of wine tourists are considered to be for the enjoyment and purchase of wine (Alant & Bruwer, 2004, 2009; Bruwer, 2003;
Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002; Hall et al., 2000). Additionally, there are secondary motivations from an experiential view, such as socializing, education about wine, entertainment, esthetics, relaxation, having a day out or an escapist experience that round out the motivations of wine tourists (Carmichael, 2005; Carlsen, 2004; Dodd, 1995; Getz & Brown, 2006; Hall et al., 2000).
A summary of the regions is found in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary of Global Wine Regions
Researcher Wine region Findings The results revealed that in the Wine Region dimension motivation is affected regarding geographic location about the permanent home origin of the visitors. There are similarities and marked differences Coonawarra and McLaren between the motivations of first‐ Alant & Bruwer (2004) Vale wine regions in South time and repeat visitors and Australia subsequent behaviors in the different wine regions. Motivations are significantly affected by knowledge of the wine region, the products, and wineries through previous visits. Niagara, Ontario wineries Results indicated, overall, the rural landscape of Niagara is found to be Carmichael (2005) highly important in visitor enjoyment of the wine tourism experience. Two wine regions in This research evaluated the demand Charters & Ali-Knight Western Australia for an educational element in the (2000) overall process, within Australia. 35
Texas wineries Findings indicated that winery visitors tend to have high incomes and are highly educated. The Dodd (1995) attributes most important to these visitors are the taste of the wine, overall quality, winery cleanliness.
Several studies have highlighted the importance of designing festival experiences as a tool to influence visitor perceptions. Wine festivals can promote wineries and wine products
(Yuan & Jang, 2008) and are also an indicator of lifestyle tourism experience (Kruger,
Rootenberg, & Ellis, 2013). Wine festivals can influence customer behavioral intentions (Yuan
& Jang, 2008) as well as perceptions (Axelsen & Swan, 2010). The wine festival attributes most likely to influence tourist perceptions to include unique and different experiences, atmosphere, new experiences, and the hype and glamor surrounding the events (Axelsen & Swan, 2010).
Wine festivals are an opportunity to raise awareness of the product as well as the destination region.
Wine festivals can also improve relationships with consumers and reduce distribution costs, Kruger et al. (2013) have contended. Wine festivals serve as catalysts for wine tourism, explained Yuan and Jang (2008). However, to derive these benefits, consumers should be able to gain experiences that could enhance their quality of life (Bruwer, 2003), including communing with others, having opportunities to learn about wine, and having social interactions and opportunities to relax and experience tranquility. Therefore, wine, food, art, and culture all form important aspects of the different experiences that wine tourists seek, and can be offered through the wine festival venue. 36
Yuan and Jang (2008) also found a link between perceived festival quality, satisfaction with the wine festival, greater awareness of the wineries and wine festivals, and future behavioral intentions to buy local wine products. Therefore, satisfied wine festival customers can become repeat or long-term wine consumers. However, Yuan and Jang (2008) also cited the importance of evaluating the impact of wine festivals on each element of consumer behavior. Interaction with other wine lovers was not an influencing factor, which suggests that individuals focus on their personal experiences rather than interpersonal interactions (Axelsen & Swan, 2010).
Several factors that have been found to resonate through the wine tourism literature on the experiences sought by wine tourists include destination experience, personal development, and core wine experience (Neilson & Madill, 2014). A sum of these three experiences makes for a satisfactory winery visit; the authors have contended. The destination experience should take into account the greenery and surroundings that support the escapist experience (Neilson &
Madill, 2014). The opportunity to feel enlightened and inspired leads to personal development.
The core wine experience comes through interaction with the winemaker and the winery staff, by tasting wine and having the opportunity to purchase rare wine at affordable prices (Neilson &
Madill, 2014).
Wine tourists as wine consumers predominantly seek pleasurable experiences to fulfill needs linked to a holistic experience not necessarily limited to wine consumption. This total experience occurs in the context of what is known as winescape, Bruwer and Alant (2009) have explained. Winescape is characterized by three basic elements: the presence of vineyards, winemaking activity, and the wineries where the wine is processed and stored. The landscape 37 also forms an important part of the winescape. Winescape can play an important part in winery marketing if owners have the necessary advertising skills.
Theories in Winery Marketing
There are many different elements to be considered when it comes to successfully marketing wineries. Some research has explored the importance of service quality to effective marketing efforts (Griffin & Loersch, 2007). Service quality is an important criterion in gaining a competitive advantage in the industry, and it has led to the development of attribution-based management techniques (Parasuraman et al., 1985, as cited in Griffin & Loersch, 2007). Griffin and Loersch (2007) investigated wine tourists’ expectations and found that these tourists have high expectations of—and placed considerable importance on—staff, regarding knowledge, a friendly attitude, and their ability to understand and meet consumer needs. This finding then suggests the value of adequate staff training to ensure the quality experiences of tourists. It also highlights how important it is for wineries in emerging wine regions such as Southern New
Jersey to train staff to efficiently and effectively deliver customer service. This effort ultimately is the key to the success of wine tourism operations. Wine tourists also expect the tasting rooms to be clean and well-presented while adequate signage and parking enable visitors to devote quality time to wine tasting (Griffin & Loersch, 2007). The future of any wine tourism destination depends upon the quality and value-for-money of its wines as well its maintenance of high standards of service, Griffin and Loersch (2007) have contended.
Bruwer and Alant (2009) have emphasized using the natural landscape as a brand element in marketing wine destinations. Of course, local visitors may not value the natural landscape of the region and hence may not perceive it as an important aspect of wine tourism. 38
Promotional messages should thus be balanced by focusing on the core wine tourism product as well as wine tasting and the hedonic experience (Bruwer & Alant, 2009). For first time visitors, the emphasis should be on elements of the natural environment; to attract repeat visitors, marketing efforts should be strongly wine related (Bruwer & Alant, 2009).
The Impact of Wine Tourism on Wineries
The possible adverse effects of wine tourism development on wineries include urbanization pressures due to residential development in agricultural zones, conflicts between winery operators and residents in the region, and the encroachment of nonagricultural activities onto farming lands (Williams et al., 2006). Solely focusing on wine as a tourism product can adversely impact the beauty of the regional winescape. Sometimes unrealistic expectations from wine tourism can lead to long-term ill effects on the wineries and the region in general. Improved supplier-visitor interactions and sound management policies can lead to sustainable wine tourism and long-term growth of wineries. These principles are universally applicable to all wineries in
North America and are particularly significant for Southern New Jersey as it begins to place more focus on a growth strategy.
To achieve sustainable wine tourism in California’s Napa Valley—considered the world’s most developed wine destination—strategies have been employed to limit development, modify demand for winery visits, encourage other attractions in the region, and promote high- yield wine tourism (Carlsen & Ali-Knight, 2004, as cited in Poitras & Getz, 2006). This scheme suggests that wine tourism should not be promoted to mass tourism, which can lead to degradation of the region. A study conducted by Byrd, Bosley, and Dronberger (2009) compared stakeholder perceptions of the tourism impact on the rural community. The authors emphasized 39 that all four stakeholder groups (government, entrepreneurs, tourists, and the community) must be included in discussions about tourism development in the region. The perceptions of government officials were found to be significantly different from those of the tourists and residents on issues such as improving the quality of life and growth in the local economy.
However, it is quite likely that local communities and residents are not aware of wine tourism’s positive impacts on the region, which means that destination managers must communicate the benefits of tourism to individuals residing in the surrounding rural areas. This finding is relevant to the present study because the New Jersey wine region is a rural area and growth of wine tourism in the region could impact the local economy and the well-being of the residents. Thus, the winery owners must remain in constant touch with the local communities.
This initial investigation is exploratory and may serve as a foundational comparison from which gaps between the Southern New Jersey tourist’s experience and the behavioral intentions may be identified, and subsequently, remedies sought.
Summary
Chapter 2 focused on the review of the literature with an emphasis on the experience economy or the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment). The review of the literature included research related to the behavioral intentions of wine tourists considering Southern New
Jersey as a wine tourism destination. Additionally, literature related to other North America wine tourism locations, including emerging regions, was included due to limited research on Southern
New Jersey as a wine tourism destination. Chapter 3 will define the methodology for the study. 40
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methods used in the present study and discusses the following: (a) sample populations and data collection procedures, (b) instrument and survey preparation, and (c) data analysis methods. A cross-sectional survey design was employed using a survey to solicit responses from wine tourists in the Southern New Jersey wine region. The data gathered from the survey were used to determine wine tourists’ level of satisfaction with the
4Es. The research design was structured to address the following research questions and corresponding hypotheses:
Research Question 1: How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region rate the 4Es?
Research Question 2: Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and local/nonlocal status with their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern
New Jersey Wine Region?
Null Hypothesis 2a: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Alternative Hypothesis 2a: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return. 41
Null Hypothesis 2b: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Alternative Hypothesis 2b: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Research Question 3: What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contribute to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Null Hypothesis 3: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Alternative Hypothesis 3: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Research Design
This section details the methodology employed for data collection as well as the statistical tools and techniques utilized for evaluating the collected data and information
(Cambourne, Macionis, Hall, & Sharples, 2000). The present study followed a cross-sectional quantitative design. This type of quantitative design seeks to examine potential relationships between variables (Bernard, 2006; Cooper & Schindler, 2005; Creswell, 2005; Johnson &
Christensen, 2007; Neuman, 2006). The two design components (cross-sectional and 42 quantitative) are examined separately in order to provide further insight into why they were appropriate for this study.
Cross-sectional designs involve collecting data at one point in time (Krathwohl, 1997;
Wiersma, 2000). The visitors surveyed in this study visited the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region in the fall and winter of 2015–2016 and were not followed longitudinally over time.
Quantitative research, in turn, attempts to identify relationships between variables using trends, meanings, and suggested characteristics (Bordens & Abbott, 2007; Creswell, 2005;
Graziano & Raulin, 2006; Leedy & Ormrod, 2004). A quantitative design allowed this researcher to explore the relationship between measurements of behavioral intentions, the 4Es, and visitor satisfaction. The quantitative research method utilizes the ability to gather data based on survey responses, to formulate statistical results, and to integrate numbers to initiate a final analysis.
To promote awareness of the research and to encourage participation by wine tourists, the researcher attended wineries and events and shared information about the study. Participating wineries also encouraged participation through announcements and flyers to enhance awareness among the target population and demonstrate their support of the research. Survey Monkey software was used to present the survey to a sample of participants from a population of visitors within Southern New Jersey and to collect the data. Thus, a convenience sample was employed for the data collection.
Population and Sample
The Southern New Jersey wine industry has approximately 12,000 tourists attracted to the region to participate in events and activities every year, a trend that has led to industry growth in the region (Brown & Smith, 2010). However, it was not possible for the researcher to 43 contact and interview such a large population to obtain their views regarding wine-related tourism in general and the Southern New Jersey wine region in particular. As such, the sample population examined was restricted to individuals who visited the wine region and participated in wine-related events such as wine tastings, live music at the wineries, wine and painting parties, and educational wine tours during the fall and winter of 2015–2016.
A convenience sample was employed to obtain an adequate number of local and nonlocal wine tourists for the data collection. The researcher attended wineries and events to share information about the research and recruit participants. Participating wineries also encouraged participation through announcements and flyers to enhance awareness and in support of the research to the target population. The researcher approached visitors at the various wineries and events, asked if they were interested in completing the survey, and recorded their age and home zip code. The researcher tallied the visitor as local or nonlocal based on their zip code. Visitors who lived within a 50-mile radius of the winery were classified as local. Visitors who lived outside of a 50-mile radius of the winery were classified as nonlocal.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Tourists were included based on their age of 18 years or older and their willingness to participate in the study when approached by the researcher.
Sample Description
A total of 220 wine tourists approached by the researcher were willing to participate in the study. All of the participants self-reported their age and confirmed that they were 18 years or older.
The participating wineries that served as research study sites included: 44
Auburn Road Vineyards
Cape May Winery & Vineyard
Coda Rossa Winery
DiMatteo Vineyards
Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery
Heritage Vineyards Laurita Winery
Plagido’s Winery
Turdo Vineyards & Winery
Sample Size
It was anticipated that approximately 200 visitors would be included in the study, although over 250 visitors were approached. To ensure that this sample size would be sufficient, a set of three a priori power analyses was performed that calculated the required sample size to yield adequate power. GPOWER v3.1.2 software and PASS 2008 software were used in this 45 determination. All a priori power analyses were set at a power level of .80, meaning that one has an 80% chance of seeing significance that is truly present in the data.
The a priori power analysis was performed for the multiple regression with an alpha level of .05, medium effect size of 0.25, and a power of .80, and indicated that a total sample size of 102 participants was required to achieve 80% power.
A power analysis was also performed for a two-tailed test of correlation, with an alpha level of .05, power of .80, and a medium effect size of |r| = .30. The results indicated that a sample of 82 participants was required to achieve power at 80%.
A power analysis was then performed for the logistic regression using PASS 2008 software to determine the odds ratio that is detectable from the sample; this was calculated using a power of .80, alpha level of .05, and baseline probability of satisfaction for the population of
.43. The odds ratio was determined to be between 1.8 and 2.3, with greater correlation between independent variables leading to higher odds ratios necessary for the power to remain at .80. This resulted in a sample size of 197. At this sample size, the logistic regression model would be able to detect moderate to large effect sizes.
Wine Tourists Visitor Instrument
The visitor instrument was approved (see Appendix A) for usage by Quadri-Felitti, who employed it in her 2012 study. Quadri-Felitti’s visitor instrument questionnaire assessing the experience economy (4Es) adapted the measurement instrument developed and tested by Oh et al. (2007) in a rural bed and breakfast setting to a wine tourism setting (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore,
2013). Demographic measures included gender and age in years. The visitor’s home residency was collected through zip codes. The individual’s highest degree completed was measured with 46 choices from high school/GED to graduate degree or greater. Additionally, the descriptive data collected included the month and year of the participants’ latest wine-related trip as well as the number of previous visits they had made to Southern New Jersey’s wine region. The questionnaire also asked how many nights the visitor stayed in the area, with options ranging from zero to five or more —an item that was adapted from other studies to reflect the characteristics of the Southern New Jersey region (Brown et al., 2006; Bruwer & Alant, 2009;
Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002; Galloway et al., 2008; Getz & Brown, 2006b; Getz et al., 2008;
Hashimoto & Telfer, 2003; Park, Reisinger, & Kang, 2008; Quadri-Felitti, 2012; Sparks, 2007;
Tassiopoulos et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 2004).
The visitors’ behavioral intentions were measured using six items: three items about intent to return and three items about intent to recommend. The items were rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale with anchors of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A 7-point Likert- type scale was chosen over a 5-point scale to provide more options to the visitors and to maintain consistency with the measurement instrument developed and tested by Quadri-Felitti (2012). The intent to return item of I will choose a different wine tourism destination next time was reverse coded in order to orient it in the same direction as the other two items prior to performing any statistical analysis. These measures were similar to those used by Baker and Crompton (2000),
Brady, Cronin, and Brand (2002), Chen and Tsai (2007), Quadri-Felitti (2012), and Zeithaml,
Berry, and Parasuraman (1996). To test the validity of the survey, Cronbach’s alpha was run on the ten pilot survey results with an alpha coefficient of .82, which is above the appropriate threshold of .70. 47
The section of the visitor questionnaire assessing the experience economy (4Es) used the same measurement instrument developed and tested by Quadri-Felitti (2012). Subsequently, it was pilot tested with ten of the researcher’s friends and family members who went on a tour of several vineyards in the Southern New Jersey Region.
The four independent variables of the experience economy were measured using a 16- item measurement scale, with four items for each of the four experiential elements. Previous research by Quadri-Felitti (2012) found that each of the four scales had Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above .70: alpha = .95 for entertainment, alpha = .94 for education, alpha = .85 for escapist, and alpha = .77 for esthetics. This original scale was successfully adapted and implemented in a cruise environment (Hosnay & Witham, 2010). After this subsequent study’s analysis of the factor loadings from its CFA, the scale was reduced to 14 items. The 16-item survey was used for this study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were obtained for the 4Es as measured for the sample collected in this study. All four of the alpha coefficients were above the
.70 threshold for showing internal reliability (Pallant, 2007).
Procedures
The data collection instrument utilized in this study was a questionnaire, which was tested with a pilot study. Institutional permission was obtained from the Human Subjects Review
Committee. The settings and techniques employed included capturing, coding, and editing the raw data following procedures similar to those used by Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012). Since the respondents were required to answer the questionnaires electronically or on hard copy, the relevant data was captured in-person or online using the survey tool. All information was then 48 transferred to SPSS. The processed data were then subjected to statistical evaluations as part of the analysis process.
Data Analysis
Descriptive analysis was employed to profile tourists regarding demographic traits, as well as to determine their wine tourism profile and wine-related behavior. Multiple regression was run to determine the characteristics of tourists that best predict the dependent variables.
Research by Cheema (2014) indicated that there are many investigations and comparisons of the performance of methods for handling missing data both in general (Afifi &
Elashoff, 1966; Graham, Hofer, & MacKinnon, 1996; Haitovsky, 1968; Peng, Harwell, Liou, &
Ehman, 2009; Peugh & Enders, 2004; Wayman, 2003; Young, Weckman, & Holland, 2011), and in the context of specific factors such as proportion of missing data (Alosh, 2009; Knol et al.,
2010; Rubin, 1987) and sample size (Alosh, 2009; Rubin, 1987). Considering the available research on these various methods, the researcher determined that the best technique for handling missing data given the circumstances of this study was listwise deletion.
A total of three research questions were addressed in this study. The hypotheses, operationalization of variables, and specific statistical tests performed are presented below according to each research question.
Research Question Number One
How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region rate the 4Es?
The descriptive statistics for the 4Es of education, escapist, esthetics, and entertainment included means, standard deviations, medians, and sample ranges. The 4Es were operationalized as follows: 49
Education. The education variable was defined by averaging each participant’s responses to four items from the survey instrument:
• My trip to Southern New Jersey made me more knowledgeable
• I learned a lot
• Visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region stimulated my curiosity to learn new
things
• My trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region was a real learning experience
Visitors rated each of the four items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The possible range of scores for the education variable was divided by 4 to obtain the average rating.
Escapist. The escapist variable was defined by averaging each participant’s responses to four items from the survey instrument:
• I felt I played a different character here
• I felt like I was living in a different time or place
• Being in the Southern New Jersey Wine Region let me imagine being someone else
• I completely escaped from reality
Visitors gave a rating for each of the four items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7
= strongly agree. The possible range of scores for the escapist variable was divided by 4 to obtain the average rating.
Esthetics. The esthetics variable was defined by averaging each participant’s responses to four items from the survey instrument: 50
• I felt a sense of harmony
• Being in the Southern New Jersey Wine Region was very pleasant
• The setting was pretty bland
• Southern New Jersey as a wine region is very attractive
Visitors gave a rating for each of the four items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7
= strongly agree. The third item, The setting was pretty bland, was reverse coded prior to summation of participants’ responses to the four items. The possible range of scores for the esthetics variable was divided by 4 to obtain the average rating.
Entertainment. The entertainment variable was defined by averaging each participant’s responses to four items from the survey instrument:
• Activities of others were amusing to watch
• Watching others perform was captivating
• I really enjoyed watching what others were doing
• Activities of others were fun to watch
Visitors gave a rating for each of the four items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7
= strongly agree. The possible range of scores for the entertainment variable was divided by 4 to obtain the average rating.
Research Question Number Two
Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region? 51
Null hypothesis 2a. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Alternative hypothesis 2a. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Multiple regression was performed to test null hypothesis 2a. The behavioral intentions variable of intent to return was constructed by averaging the Likert scores of 3 items from the questionnaire:
• I am willing to visit the Southern New Jersey Wine Region again
• I will definitely come back to this destination
• I will choose a different wine tourism destination next time
Visitors gave a rating for each of the three items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7
= strongly agree. The responses for the item, I will choose a different wine tourism destination next time, were reverse coded prior to averaging the item scores.
Null hypothesis 2b. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Alternative hypothesis 2b. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend. 52
Multiple regression was performed to test null hypothesis 2b. The behavioral intentions variable was constructed by averaging the Likert scores of the three items relating to intent to recommend from the questionnaire:
• I will recommend the Southern New Jersey Wine Region to others
• I will encourage others to visit the Southern New Jersey Wine Region
• I will have many stories to tell about this experience
Visitors gave a rating for each of the three items on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7
= strongly agree.
Research Question Number Three
What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contribute to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Null hypothesis 3. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Alternative hypothesis 3. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Logistic regression was performed with the dependent variable of satisfaction which was derived from the final question on the survey instrument, Overall, were you satisfied with your most recent trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region? The responses were coded as 1 = satisfied and 0 = not satisfied. Independent variables corresponded to the 4Es of (a) education,
(b) escapist, (c) esthetics, and (d) entertainment. 53
Limitations
Results obtained from research studies always need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of the data gathered and the statistical tests conducted; this study is no exception. The researcher encountered several limitations that need to be considered in relation to this research study (Pratt, 2014). First, low willingness to participate impacted the sample size of the study.
Second, the timing of the study was not ideal. The data was collected during the fall and winter of 2015–2016, which is not the high tourist season for Southern New Jersey. It is important to recognize that off-season tourists may differ from high-season tourists in some respects. High tourist season in Southern New Jersey occurs during the summer months, commencing Memorial
Day weekend and lasting through Labor Day weekend. Third, the sample is not generalizable to the general population of Southern New Jersey wine tourists. This is due to the fact that a convenience sample, a type of nonprobability sampling in which people are sampled simply because they are convenient and willing sources of data for researchers (Lavrakas, 2008), was used for data collection.
Ethics Related to Human Subject Participation
While conducting the research, the researcher complied with practical security measures to maintain the confidentiality of all information sources. Participant names were not used in the study. Instead, each participant was given a unique numerical identifier before data analysis.
Moreover, the researcher conducted the research with honesty and integrity. Additionally, the researcher has complied with all moral and ethical considerations involved in human subjects research (Shanka & Taylor, 2010). 54
Summary
Chapter 3 defined the methodology processes used for this cross-sectional, quantitative, correlational study. The sample encompassed local and nonlocal wine tourists in the
Southern New Jersey Wine Region. Data were collected via the Wine Tourists survey instrument, which was approved for usage by Quadri-Felitti, who utilized it in her 2012 study
(see Appendix A). Using the data collected, descriptive analysis and hypothesis testing was performed with multiple regression and logistic regression. Chapter 4 will provide a report of the study findings.
55
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Chapter 4 presents the results of the research in a descriptive format as well as with tables. The chapter is divided into four sections: (a) population and descriptive findings, (b) instrumentation and reliability, (c) investigation of assumptions related to inferential analysis, and (d) hypothesis testing. SPSS v22.0 was used for all descriptive and inferential analysis. All inferential analyses were tested at the 95% level of significance.
The purpose of this study was to understand the behavioral intentions of existing wine tourists as well as the experiential perceptions of wine tourists toward the Southern New Jersey
Wine Region using the experience economy framework, or the 4Es. There were two objectives of this study: (a) to rate the experiential attributes that wine tourists experienced in Southern
New Jersey, and (b) to ascertain relationship between the 4Es with intent to return/recommend and satisfaction. The three research questions and the associated hypotheses addressed in this study were as follows:
Research Question 1: How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region rate the 4Es?
Research Question 2: Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?
Null hypothesis 2a: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return. 56
Alternative hypothesis 2a: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Null hypothesis 2b: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Alternative hypothesis 2b: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Research Question 3: What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contribute to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Null hypothesis 3: None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Alternative hypothesis 3: At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Descriptive statistics were used to address Research Question 1, two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2a, two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2b, and a logistic regression analysis were performed to address Research Question 3. 57
Population and Descriptive Findings
The population included in this study encompassed tourists in the Southern New Jersey wine region. A convenience sample of individuals who visited the wine region and participated in wine-related events such as wine tastings, live music at wineries, wine and painting parties, and educational wine tours during the fall and winter of 2015–2016 was utilized. The total sample size for this study was N = 197. Table 4 presents the frequencies and percentages of the descriptive variables of the study, as well as the dichotomous variable of satisfaction, which was used as the dependent variable in the logistic regression analysis.
The descriptive variable of age was not included in Table 4 because it is a continuous variable. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 years to 71 years (Mean = 40.74 years, SD = 11.84 years). More than half of the sample was female participants (55.8%). The majority of participants were visiting a winery in the South New Jersey region for leisure purposes (90.9%).
About one fourth of all participants graduated from high school (25.4%), while slightly over half of all participants graduated from college (51.8%), and around one fifth of all participants completed graduate school (19.8%). The percentage of participants local to the Southern New
Jersey region (66.5%) was much higher than the percentage of nonlocal participants (33.5%).
The majority of nonlocal participants spent one night in or around Southern New Jersey during their most recent visit (62.4%). Over half of the nonlocals sample visited the Southern New
Jersey region four times during the last 12 months (56.3%). Additionally, the majority of the sample visited a winery in Southern New Jersey during the last 12 months (56.3%). Nearly all of the participants were satisfied with their most recent trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region (94.9%), while a very small percentage of participants were not satisfied (5.1%). 58
Table 4
Frequency Counts and Percentages of Study Variables
Variable Frequency % Gender Male 86 43.7 Female 110 55.8 No response 1 0.5 Primary purpose of visit Leisure 179 90.9 Business 16 8.1 No response 4 2.0 Highest level of education completed
Graduated high school 50 25.4
Graduated college 102 51.8
Completed graduate school 39 19.8
No response 6 3.0 Nonlocal
Participant is local 131 66.5
Participant is not local 66 33.5
59
(continued)
Table 4 (continued) Variable Frequency % No response 2 1.0 Times visited South New Jersey Region in the last 12 months 1 55 27.9 2 10 5.1 3 17 8.6
4 111 56.3
No response 4 2.0
Times visited a winery in Southern Jersey in the last 12
months 1 160 81.2
2 22 11.2
3 11 5.6 No response 4 2.0 Satisfaction Yes 187 94.9 No 10 5.1 Note. N = 197.
Instrumentation and Reliability
The instrument used in this study was an adaption of the Day Tripper’s Visitor
Instrument developed by Oh et al. in 2007 and used by Quadri-Felitti in 2012. The instrument was used mainly to assess the experience economy (4Es). In this study, the adapted version of 60 the visitor instrument contained 32 items: eight demographic items, 22 Likert-scaled items, a dichotomous item regarding the participants’ satisfaction with their experience, and an open- ended survey item. Two Likert-scaled items were negatively worded and had to be reverse coded for analysis: (a) item 15 from the esthetics factor, and (b) item 26 from the intent to return factor.
However, when reliability was checked, it was determined that the two reverse coded items contributed to a low Cronbach’s alpha value on the corresponding constructs. Therefore, the two items were not included in their respective constructs. The remaining 20 Likert-scaled items were split into 6 factors: (a) Education (items 5, 6, 7, and 8), (b) Escapist (items 9, 10, 11, and
12), (c) Esthetics (items 13, 14, and 16), (d) Entertainment (items 17, 18, 19, and 20), (e) Intent to recommend (items 21, 22, and 23), and (f) Intent to return (items 24 and 25).
Table 5
Likert-Scaled Items
Factor Items Education 5, 6, 7, and 8 Escapist 9, 10, 11, and 12 Esthetics 13, 14, and 16 Entertainment 17, 18, 19, and 20 Intent to recommend 21, 22, and 23 Intent to return 24 and 25
Likert-scaled items were scored from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An average score for each factor was computed and used in the analysis. Higher scores for the 4E variables indicated that participants were in greater agreement, hence more satisfied, with the corresponding experiential elements of their visit. Higher average intent to recommend scores 61 indicated that the participants were more likely to recommend the Southern New Jersey winery they visited. Furthermore, higher intent to return scores indicated that the participants were more likely to return to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region.
Table 6 presents measures of central tendency and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the continuous variables referred to as the 4Es: education score, escapist score, esthetics score, and entertainment score. The four “E” variables measured the participants’ perceived experience in the four realms of education, escapist, esthetics, and entertainment. Table 6 also presents measures of central tendency for the two score variables of intent to return and intent to recommend, which were used as dependent variables in the multiple regression analysis.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is a measure of internal reliability. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of .70 or greater indicates good reliability of a construct (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All constructs returned a Cronbach’s alpha value above .70. Therefore, the constructs measuring the
4Es were considered reliable and were used in the inferential analysis.
Table 6
Measures of Central Tendency and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for all Factors of the Day Tripper’s Visitor Instrument
Standard Cronbach Factor Mean deviation Median Sample range Alpha
Education 5.05 1.40 5.50 1.25 – 7.00 .926 Escapist 3.36 1.75 2.75 1.00 – 7.00 .879 Esthetics 5.91 0.80 6.00 1.67 – 7.00 .714 Entertainment 5.17 1.40 5.75 1.00 – 7.00 .927 Intent to return 5.88 1.02 6.00 1.50 – 7.00 .792 62
Table 6 (continued)
Intent to recommend 5.51 1.07 5.67 1.67 – 7.00 .764 Note. N = 197.
Assumptions
Two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2 and logistic regression analysis was performed to address Research Question 3. The dataset was investigated to ensure that it satisfied the assumptions of regression analysis, namely: the absence of missing data; the absence of outliers, normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity; and the absence of multicollinearity between the independent variables.
None of the records was missing data on either of the dependent variables of the study.
Many of the independent variables were missing a small percentage of the data. SPSS software offers an option of pairwise deletion of records with missing data. Pairwise deletion is a technique that excludes cases only when they are missing data for a particular analysis but includes the cases for all analysis for which they have the needed information (Pallant, 2013).
Therefore, in order to retain as much power as possible for the study, the individual records missing information on the independent variables were excluded only from the analysis for which they did not contain full data. However, those records were included for the analyses for which they contained a full set of data. Therefore, the assumption of absence of missing data was met.
Outliers in a dataset have the potential to distort the results of an inferential analysis. A check of box plots for the dependent variables of intent to return and intent to recommend was 63 performed to visually inspect for outliers. The box plots indicated multiple outliers for both intent to return (<4% of the data) and intent to recommend (6% of the data). After further inspection, it was determined that all outliers have scores within the possible range for each dependent variable. Furthermore, a check of the means (intent to return Mean = 5.88, intent to recommend Mean = 5.51) and 5% trimmed means (intent to return Mtrimmed = 5.99, intent to recommend Mtrimmed = 5.59) indicated numbers close in value, confirming that the outliers were not adversely impacting the distribution of the data. Because the outliers were within acceptable range of the dependent variables and were not adversely impacting the means, the records with the outliers were retained for analysis and the assumption of absence of outliers was met.
Logistic regression is sensitive to outliers and multicollinearity (Pallant, 2013). A check of residuals on the case wise listing returned by SPSS for the dependent variable of satisfaction was performed to inspect for outliers. A case with a residual value of greater than 2.5 or less than -2.5 indicates that the model did not fit well for that particular record (Pallant 2013).
In the logistic regression model, there were no outliers. Therefore, all cases were retained for analysis with the logistic regression, and the outlier assumption was met.
Normality for the dependent variables was investigated with SPSS Explore. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality indicated a non-normal distribution on the intent to return variable (p < .01) and the intent to recommend variable (p < .01). A visual check of histograms and Normal Q-Q plots for the variable scores also indicated a left skew. A comparison of the mean (intent to return M = 5.88, intent to recommend M = 5.51) and median
(intent to return Median = 6.00, intent to recommend Median = 5.67) values was performed for the dependent variables; both of these measures of central tendency were close in value, further 64
confirming that skew and outliers were not impacting the data. Therefore, the violation of the
assumption of normality does not adversely impact the analysis.
Assumptions of linearity between study variables and homoscedasticity were checked
using scatterplots of the data. The assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity were met.
Multicollinearity occurs when independent variables of a study are highly correlated with each
other. A high correlation is a correlation coefficient between two variables of .90 or greater
(Pallant, 2013). Multicollinearity was checked between the variables used as independent
predictor variables in both regression analyses by performing Pearson’s product moment
correlational analysis. Multicollinearity was not detected for any of the variables used as
independent predictors for the regression analysis (see Table 7). Therefore, the assumption of
absence of multicollinearity was met.
Table 7
Correlation Coefficients of Independent Variables Used in Hypothesis Testing
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Times1. visited a winery in Southern Jersey in the - last2. 124 months -.019 .220** .190** . 3. Education4. 5 -.023 -.005 -.027 .072 . 5. - Escapist6. 6 .059 .026 .218** .056 .473** . 7. Esthetics8. 7 .055 .045 .051 -.044 .372** .301** . 9. - Entertainment10. 8 .050 .218** .016 -.027 .319** .278** .192** . Note. N = 197. * p < .05 (2-sided test); **p < .01 (2-sided test). 65
Tests of Hypotheses
A total of (N = 197) records were included for hypothesis testing. Descriptive statistics were used to address Research Question 1, two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2a, two multiple regression analyses were performed to address
Research Question 2b, and a logistic regression analysis was performed to address Research
Question 3. The results of the analyses are presented according to each of the research questions.
Research Question 1
How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region rate the 4Es?
The descriptive statistics previously presented in Table 4 were used to address
Research Question 1. First, the descriptive findings indicate that participants agree that Southern
New Jersey wineries are an attractive, pleasant experience (Mean = 5.91, SD = 0.80). Second, participants somewhat agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are educational (Mean = 5.05,
SD = 1.40). Third, participants somewhat agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are entertaining (Mean = 5.17, SD = 1.40). Fourth, participants somewhat disagree that Southern
New Jersey wineries are an escape from reality (Mean = 3.36, SD = 1.75).
Conclusion Related to Research Question 1
Participants rated Esthetics highest of the 4E’s and Escapist lowest of the 4E’s. As it relates to the dependent variables, higher intent to recommend scores indicated that participants were more likely to recommend the Southern New Jersey winery they visited. Furthermore, higher intent to return scores indicated that participants were more likely to return to the
Southern New Jersey winery they visited. 66
Research Question 2
Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?
A total of four multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research
Question 2a and Research Question 2b. The first two regression models were performed using the dependent variable of intent to return, and the second two regression models were performed using the dependent variable of intent to recommend. Initially, a baseline regression model was performed for each hypothesis including the independent variables of: education score, escapist score, esthetics score, entertainment score, and local status of the participant (coded 0 = local and
1 = nonlocal). Following the baseline regression model, a more complex regression model with possible moderator variables was performed for each hypothesis including the independent variables of: gender (coded 0 = female, and 1 = male); primary purpose of visit (coded 0 = leisure, and 1 = business); age (continuous); number of times the participant visited a winery in
Southern Jersey in the last 12 months (continuous), the 4Es, and local versus nonlocal status. The results of each regression are presented below.
Null hypothesis 2a. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics,
(d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Alternative hypothesis 2a. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist,
(c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
The F-statistic of the omnibus test for the baseline regression model indicated that this model was a good fit for the data, F (5, 191) = 25.48, p < .0005, with R2 of .400 (.384 adjusted). 67
The adjusted R2 value indicated that the predictor variables in the model explained about 38% of the variance in the dependent variable of intent to return scores. Further investigation of the model coefficients was performed, and it was determined that education score was a significant predictor of intent to return, B = 0.23, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each 1-point increase in education score, intent to return scores increased by .23 points such that participants were more likely to return to wineries they found educational. Furthermore, esthetics score was a significant predictor of intent to return, B = 0.56, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each
1-point increase in esthetics score, intent to return scores increased by .56 points, which is indicative of participants being more likely to return to wineries they found esthetically pleasing.
No other predictors were significant. Results of the baseline multiple regression model performed to address Research Hypothesis 2a are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Results of the Baseline Multiple Regression Model for Intent to Return Regressed on Independent Variables
Unstd. Regression Std. Beta t-test Variable Coefficient Error Coefficient statistic p-value
Constant 1.38 0.46 --- 3.04 .003 Education 0.23 0.05 0.31 4.62 <.0005 Escapist -0.03 0.04 -0.05 -0.78 .438 Esthetics 0.56 0.08 0.44 7.22 <.0005 Entertainment 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.80 .426 Local status -0.20 0.12 -0.09 -1.65 .100 Model summary F = 25.48, p < .0005 R2 = .400 Adjusted R2 = .384 68
Note. N = 197.
The F-statistic of the omnibus test for the regression model with possible moderator variables indicated that this model was a good fit for the data, F (9, 178) = 14.82, p < .0005, with
R2 of .428 (.399 adjusted). The adjusted R2 value indicated that the predictor variables in the model explained about 40% of the variance in the dependent variable of intent to return scores.
Further investigation of the model coefficients was performed and it was determined that gender was a significant predictor of intent to return, B = -0.26, p = .028. This finding indicates that males scored .26 points lower on the intent to return factor than females, suggesting that males are less likely to return to wineries than females. Furthermore, education score was a significant predictor of intent to return, B = 0.22, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each 1-point increase in education score, intent to return scores increased by .22 points such that participants are more likely to return to wineries they find educational. Lastly, esthetics score was a significant predictor of intent to return, B = 0.56, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each
1-point increase in esthetics score, intent to return scores increased by .56 points, which is indicative of participants being more likely to return to wineries they find esthetically pleasing.
These findings support the findings of the baseline regression model performed. Results of the multiple regression model with possible moderator variables performed to further investigate
Research Hypothesis 2a are presented in Table 9.
69
Table 9
Results of the Multiple Regression Model With Moderator Variables for Intent to Return Regressed on Independent Variables
Unstd. Std. Beta t-test p-value Variable Regression Error Coefficie statistic Coefficient nt Constant 1.25 0.49 --- 2.53 .012 Gender -0.26 0.12 -0.13 -2.21 .028 Primary purpose of visit -0.21 0.22 -0.06 -0.97 .335 Age <0.005 <0.005 0.02 0.31 .760
Times visited a winery in Southern 0.17 0.11 0.09 1.56 .120 Jersey in last 12 months Education 0.22 0.05 0.30 4.40 <.0005
Escapist -0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.60 .547 Esthetics 0.56 0.08 0.44 6.97 <.0005 Entertainment 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.77 .443 Local status -0.12 0.13 -0.06 -0.92 .358 Model summary F = 14.82, p < .0005 R2 = .428 Adjusted R2 = .399 Note. N = 197.
Conclusion Related to Null Hypothesis 2a
The omnibus test for the baseline regression model indicated a good fit for the data, F (5,
191) = 25.48, p < .0005. There were two significant predictors of intent to return: education (B =
0.23, p < .0005) and esthetics (B = 0.56, p < .0005). These findings indicate that participants are more likely to return to wineries they find educational and esthetically pleasing. Furthermore, the 70 omnibus test for the regression model with possible moderator variables indicated a good fit for the data, F (9, 178) = 14.82, p < .0005. In this model, there are three significant predictors of intent to return: gender (B = -0.26, p = .028), education (B = 0.22, p < .0005), and esthetics (B =
0.56, p < .0005). These findings indicate that male participants are less likely to return to wineries than female participants. These findings also support the previous finding that participants are more likely to return to wineries they find educational and esthetically pleasing.
Therefore, Null Hypothesis 2a was rejected given that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that at least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to return.
Null hypothesis 2b. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Alternative hypothesis 2b. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
The F-statistic of the omnibus test for the baseline regression model indicated that this model was a good fit for the data, F (5, 191) = 51.17, p < .0005, with R2 of .573 (.561 adjusted).
The adjusted R2 value indicated that the predictor variables in the model explained about 56% of the variance in the dependent variable of intent to recommend scores. Further investigation of the model coefficients was performed and it was determined that education score was a significant predictor of intent to recommend, B = 0.27, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each 1- point increase in education score, intent to recommend scores increased by .27 points.
Additionally, escapist score was a significant predictor of intent to recommend, B = 0.07, p = 71
.038. This finding indicates that for each 1-point increase in escapist score, intent to recommend scores increased by .07 points. Furthermore, esthetics score was a significant predictor of intent to recommend, B = 0.57, p < .0005. This finding indicates that for each 1-point increase in esthetics score, intent to recommend scores increased by .57 points. Lastly, entertainment score was a significant predictor of intent to recommend, B = 0.09, p = .023. This finding indicates that for each 1-point increase in entertainment score, intent to recommend scores increased by .09 points. Results of the baseline multiple regression model performed to address Research
Hypothesis 2b are presented in Table 10.
Table 10
Results of the Baseline Multiple Regression Model for Intent to Recommend Regressed on Independent Variables
Variable Unstd. Std. Beta t-test p-value Regression Error Coefficient statistic Coefficient Constant 0.14 0.40 --- 0.35 .726 Education 0.27 0.04 0.35 6.12 <.0005 Escapist 0.07 0.03 0.12 2.09 .038 Esthetics 0.57 0.07 0.43 8.29 <.0005 Entertainment 0.09 0.04 0.12 2.30 .023 Local status -0.20 0.11 -0.09 -1.86 .065 Model summary
F = 51.17, p < .0005 R2 = .573 Adjusted R2 = .561 Note. N = 197.
72
The F-statistic of the omnibus test for the regression model with possible moderator variables indicated that this model was a good fit for the data, F (9, 178) = 28.51, p < .0005, with R2 of .590 (.570 adjusted). The adjusted R2 value indicated that the predictor variables in the model explained about 57% of the variance in the dependent variable of intent to recommend scores. Further investigation of the model coefficients was performed and it was determined that the number of times a participant visited a winery in Southern Jersey in the last
12 months was a significant predictor of intent to recommend, B = 0.25, p = .013. This finding indicates that for each additional visit a participant made to a winery in Southern New Jersey in the last 12 months, participants’ scores were .25 points higher on the intent to recommend factor. Furthermore, all 4E variables were significant predictors of intent to recommend: education score (B = 0.26, p < .0005), escapist score (B = 0.08, p = .033), esthetics score (B =
0.56, p < .0005), and entertainment score (B = 0.10, p = .021). These findings suggest that participants are more likely to recommend wineries they find educational, wineries that give participants a sense of escape, wineries that are esthetically pleasing, and wineries that are entertaining. These findings support the findings of the baseline regression model performed.
Results of the multiple regression model with possible moderator variables performed to further investigate Research Hypothesis 2b are presented in Table 11.
73
Table 11
Results of the Multiple Regression Model with Moderator Variables for Intent to Recommend Regressed on Independent Variables
Variable Unstd. Std. Beta t-test p-value Regression Error Coefficient statistic Coefficient Constant 0.06 0.44 --- 0.14 .888 Gender -0.03 0.11 -0.01 -0.25 .804 Primary purpose of visit -0.10 0.20 -0.03 -0.53 .599 Age <0.005 <0.005 -0.05 -0.95 .344 Times visited a winery in Southern 0.25 0.10 0.12 2.50 .013 Jersey in last 12 months
Education 0.26 0.05 0.34 5.93 <.0005 Escapist 0.08 0.04 0.12 2.14 .033 Esthetics 0.56 0.07 0.42 7.84 <.0005 Entertainment 0.10 0.04 0.12 2.33 .021 Local status -0.13 0.12 -0.06 -1.16 .249 Model summary F = 28.51, p < .0005 R2 = .590 Adjusted R2 = .570 Note. N = 197.
Conclusion Related to Null Hypothesis 2b
The omnibus test for the baseline regression model indicated a good fit for the data, F (5,
191) = 51.17, p < .0005. There were four significant predictors of intent to recommend: education (B = 0.27, p < .0005), escapist (B = 0.07, p = .038), esthetics (B = 0.57, p < .0005), and entertainment (B = 0.09, p = .023). These findings indicate that participants are more likely to recommend wineries they find educational, wineries that give them a sense of escape, wineries 74 that are esthetically pleasing, and wineries that are entertaining. Furthermore, the omnibus test for the regression model with possible moderator variables indicated a good fit for the data, F (9,
178) = 28.51, p < .0005. In this model, there were five significant predictors of intent to recommend: number of times a participant visited a winery in Southern Jersey in the last 12 months (B = 0.25, p = .013), education (B = 0.26, p < .0005), escapist (B = 0.08, p = .033), esthetics (B = 0.56, p < .0005), and entertainment (B = 0.10, p = .021). These findings indicate that for each additional visit a participant made to a winery in Southern New Jersey in the last 12 months, participants’ scores were .25 points higher on the intent to recommend factor. These findings also support the previous findings from the baseline model that participants are more likely to recommend wineries they find educational, wineries that give them a sense of escape, wineries that are esthetically pleasing, and wineries that are entertaining. Therefore, Null
Hypothesis 2b was rejected given that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that at least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of intent to recommend.
Research Question 3
What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contribute to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Null hypothesis 3. None of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Alternative hypothesis 3. At least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience. 75
A logistic regression model was performed using the dependent variable of satisfaction
(coded 1 = satisfied, and 0 = not satisfied). Originally, all independent variables were included in the logistic regression model as in the multiple regression models described above: gender
(coded 0 = female, and 1 = male); primary purpose of visit (coded 0 = leisure, and 1 = business); age (continuous); number of times the participant visited a winery in Southern New Jersey in the last 12 months (continuous); education score; escapist score; esthetics score; entertainment score; and local status of the participant (coded 0 = local, and 1 = nonlocal). A logistic regression model was performed with five independent variables of: education score, escapist score esthetics score, entertainment score, and local status of the participant (coded 0 = local and 1 = nonlocal). Results of this logistic regression model are presented in Table 12.
The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients gives an indication of how well the model performs over and above results that would be obtained for a model with no predictors entered
(an intercept-only model). The test was statistically significant χ2 (5) = 40.19, p < .0005, indicating that, as a set, the predictors reliably differentiated between those who were satisfied with their trip to the winery and those who were not. The goodness-of-fit of the logistic regression model was also assessed using the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test, χ2 (8) = 2.64, p =
.955. For this test, a p-value greater than .05 indicates that the data fits well with the model.
Therefore, goodness-of-fit was indicated for this model.
Percentage accuracy in classification (PAC) of the correct outcome category of satisfaction for the five predictors in the model was 95.9%, a slight improvement over the base model constant only (no predictors, all cases reported satisfied) percentage correct of 94.9%.
Wald statistics indicated that only one of the predictors, esthetics, contributed significantly to the model: Odds Ratio = 5.23, 95% CI for Odds Ratio = (2.13, 14.36); p < .0005. 76
The odds ratio for the esthetics variable indicated that the odds of a participant being satisfied are
5.53 times greater for each 1-point increase in the esthetics variable. Thus, for each 1-point increase in the esthetics score, participants were 453% more likely to be satisfied with their winery experience than participants who did not find the winery to be esthetically pleasing.
Statistical significance was not found for any of the other predictor variables.
Table 12
Logistic Regression Analysis of Satisfaction Regressed on the Independent Variables
95% CI for B
Std. Level of Odds Variable Intercept Error Wald significance Ratio Lower Upper Constant -10.57 3.49 9.19 .002 <0.005 ------Education 0.11 0.31 0.12 .733 1.11 0.60 2.06 Escapist 1.17 0.70 2.81 .094 3.21 0.82 12.57 Esthetics 1.71 0.49 12.30 <.0005 5.53 2.13 14.36 Entertainment 0.36 0.30 1.46 .227 1.43 0.80 2.56 Local status -0.93 0.97 0.92 .339 0.40 0.06 2.64 Note. N = 197.
Conclusion Related to Research Question 3
Findings of the logistic regression indicated that participants with higher esthetics scores had 5.53 times the odds to be satisfied with their experience. Since the odds ratio is greater than
1, for each 1 point increase in the esthetics, or every time the score goes up by 1, participants are
453% more likely to be satisfied with their experience than participants who rated lower scores on the esthetics variable. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that at least one of the variables of (a) education, (b) escapist, (c) esthetics, (d) 77 entertainment, and (e) local/nonlocal status is a statistically significant predictor of a satisfactory wine tourism experience.
Qualitative Review
An open-ended question was asked at the end of the survey, “Please feel free to describe what, if anything, was missing from your trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?”
For the qualitative portion of the research, 28 responses were received. The responses ranged from participants seeking lodging options to participants who wanted more live entertainment in the wine region. With 32.1% of participants who responded to the open-ended question seeking food or dining and another 25% of participants seeking a combination of entertainment and food or dining, it appears that there were not enough food/dining options during visits to the Southern
New Jersey wineries. Wine tourists seek an experience that “is a complex interaction of natural setting, wine, food, cultural, and historical inputs and above all the people who service” them
(Charters, 2006, p. 214). On the basis of the responses, participants consistently sought dining options during their visit to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region. Although dining was not listed as one of the 4E’s, based on the survey, it is an important component to wine tourists and worth mentioning. The total sample size for the qualitative responses was N = 28. The composition of the open-ended responses is listed in Table 13.
78
Table 13
Composition of Qualitative Data
Number of % Coding Category Respondents
Food/Dining 9 32.1 Food /Dining & Entertainment 7 25.0 Note. N = 28.
Entertainment 5 17.9 Summary Education 3 10.7 Chapter 4 began with Lodging 2 7.2 Other 2 7.2 a description of the demographics of the participants in the study. Following the report of demographics, instrumentation and inferential analysis variable constructs were briefly defined. Assumptions for the inferential analyses were then discussed. Following the demographic and assumption sections, inferential analyses were performed to investigate the research questions for the study.
Descriptive statistics were used to explore Research Question 1. The most significant finding was that participants agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are an attractive, pleasant experience. Two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2a.
These findings indicate that (a) males had lower intent to return scores than females, and (b) that participants were more likely to return to wineries they found educational and esthetically pleasing. Two multiple regression analyses were performed to address Research Question 2b.
The findings indicate that for each additional visit a participant made to a winery in Southern
Jersey in the last 12 months, participants’ scores were .25 points higher on the intent to recommend factor. The results also indicate that participants are more likely to recommend wineries they find educational, wineries that give them a sense of escape, wineries that are esthetically pleasing, and wineries that are entertaining. Therefore, Research Hypotheses 2a and 79
2b were supported, indicating that there was an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region.
Additionally, logistic regression was performed to address Research Question 3. The findings indicated that participants who found the winery to be esthetically pleasing were much more likely to be satisfied with their wine tourism experience than participants who did not find the winery to be esthetically pleasing. Therefore, Research Hypothesis 3 was also supported.
Lastly, a review of the qualitative data was provided to provide insights into the position of the wine tourists who visited the region. The tourists were asked what they were missing from their trip to the Southern New Jersey wine region. The findings, based on the responses, indicated dining as an area that was missing from 28.6% of visitors experience when visiting the Southern New Jersey wine region. Chapter 5 will present a discussion of the results as well as the implications of the findings related to the literature review and recommendations for further research.
80
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter 5 summarizes and interprets the findings of the research reported in the results chapter and includes the discussion, conclusions, and implications of the study. The chapter is divided into four sections: (a) discussion, (b) summary of the study and findings, (c) implications and applications, and (d) future research.
Discussion
While growth, expansion, and globalization are occurring in every sector of the economy, the fastest growing sectors are related to the consumption of experiences. Given these circumstances, the purpose of this research study was to explore wine tourism in Southern New
Jersey using the experience economy framework, or the 4Es. The present study investigated the relationship between the experiential perceptions and behavioral intentions of wine tourists in the
Southern New Jersey Wine Region using the experiential model derived from Pine and Gilmore
(1999). The study focused on the model’s four realms of experience: education, esthetic, entertainment, and escapist (the 4Es).
A growing body of wine tourism research has validated the relevance of the experiential view (Ali-Knight & Carlsen, 2003; Charters et al., 2009; Galloway et al., 2008; Getz & Carlsen,
2008). In particular, extant research has demonstrated the ways in which the experience economy presents an understanding of consumer behavior and intentions (Hayes & MacLeod, 2007;
Morgan et al., 2009; Pikkemaat et al., 2009; Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012). The present research has identified the 4Es as motivations for wine tourists in the Southern New Jersey wine region.
Therefore, fulfilling the expectations that lead to consumer satisfaction and tourists’ intentions to revisit and to recommend the destination must flow through each of the 4Es separately. For the 81 purposes of this study, intention is regarded as the motivation necessary to engage in a particular behavior (Lam & Hsu, 2004), and consumer intention is recognized as an important predictor of forecasting sales and customer loyalty (Luo & Homburg, 2007; March & Woodside, 2005;
Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2013).
Due to the emerging nature of the state’s wine industry, overall awareness of the region is limited, and previous perceptions about the wine have been negative. To the researcher’s knowledge, as of the date of writing, no other research had explored the Southern New Jersey
Wine Region to understand how satisfaction with the 4Es relates to the behavioral intentions of wine tourists.
Summary of the Study and Findings
The population for this study encompassed visitors to the wineries of the Southern New
Jersey Wine Region. A convenience sample of individuals who visited the wineries and participated in wine-related events such as wine tastings, live music at wineries, wine and painting parties, and educational wine tours during the fall and winter of 2015–2016 was collected for analysis. The total sample size for this study was N = 197.
This study adds to the body of literature regarding the 4Es and wine tourism in Southern
New Jersey. Moreover, the findings of this study validate some of the results from the Quadri-
Felitti and Fiore (2012) study, which investigated the 4Es in the Lake Erie wine region. The findings of this study are briefly summarized below in relation to each research question and its corresponding hypotheses.
Research Question 1
How do wine tourists visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region rate the 4Es? 82
Descriptive statistics were used to explore Research Question 1. It was determined that participants agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are an attractive, pleasant experience.
Additionally, participants somewhat agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are educational.
Furthermore, participants somewhat agree that Southern New Jersey wineries are entertaining.
Finally, participants somewhat disagree that Southern New Jersey wineries are an escape from reality.
Research Question 2
Is there an association between wine tourists’ experiential perceptions and their behavioral intentions when visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?
Multiple regression analyses were used to explore Research Question 2. The findings indicated that participants who visit wineries in Southern New Jersey were more likely to return to wineries that they found educational and esthetically pleasing. Additionally, these findings indicated that males score significantly lower on intent to return than females, and those participants who visit wineries in Southern New Jersey will recommend the wineries in the region more frequently versus not recommending them. Based on these findings, Research
Hypotheses 2a and 2b were both supported.
Research Question 3
What aspect(s) of the 4Es (education, escapist, esthetics, or entertainment) contribute to the wine tourists having a satisfactory wine tourism experience?
Logistic regression was used to explore Research Question 3. The findings indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between wine tourism experience satisfaction and the independent variable of esthetics. Of the 197 study respondents, 187 were satisfied.
Therefore, Research Hypothesis 3 was also supported. The fact that 95% of the respondents 83 answered yes to having a satisfactory wine experience posed a challenge for the analysis since the data were not evenly distributed on this outcome.
Logistic regression was chosen to address Research Question 3 given its dichotomous nature. The purely dichotomous nature of the satisfaction measure may have contributed to a lack of variation in response. If this study were performed again, the researcher would recommend providing a range of answers in order to differentiate between varying levels of satisfaction using a Likert scale.
Conclusions of the Study
Like Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012), this study sought to explain the relationship of the four experiential constructs to the outcomes of wine tourists’ future intentions to recommend and return to the region. Whereas the current study focused on the Southern New Jersey Wine
Region, Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012) investigated wine tourism in the Lake Erie Wine region, which encompasses the western parts of New York and Pennsylvania. The sample size for the present study was smaller with 197 participants, compared to 970 respondents (wine tourists and business owners) in Quadri-Felitti and Fiore’s (2012) study.
Although the approach to the present study was different from the Quadri-Felitti study
(2012) in that the present study looked at wine tourists in an relatively unknown wine region rather than tourists and business owners of a well-known wine region, some comparable results can be identified. Comparable results between the two studies related to the correlation between the 4Es and intent to return and intent to recommend. For the present study, esthetics, education, and gender proved to be statistically significant for intent to return. Additionally, esthetics, education, entertainment and escapist proved to be statistically significant for intent to recommend. In comparison, the Quadri-Felitti study found all 4Es esthetics, escapist, education, 84 and entertainment to be statistically significant for intent to return and intent to recommend.
Unlike the present study, the Quadri-Felitti study found negative coefficients among two of the four 4E independent variables; education and entertainment. Negative coefficients for the education and entertainment variables from the Quadri-Felitti study are confusing because they suggest that as satisfaction with education and entertainment increases, the intent to return or recommend decrease. The present study showed a positive relationship for education and entertainment. Although the Quadri-Felitti study predicted positive relationships between all 4Es, the negative results for both education and entertainment were the lowest contributing constructs in the study (Quadri-Felitti, 2012) and do not have an impact on the overall results.
Gender was also a significant predictor of intent to return, in the present study. The findings indicated that on average, males scored .25 points lower on the intent to return factor than females. According to the present study’s research, males are less likely to return to the wineries they visited in the Southern New Jersey region. Similarly, in the Quadri-Felitti study, women were more likely to return to the wine destination than males. Furthermore, for the
Quadri-Felitti study, times visited also proved to be a significant predictor of intent to return as it related to esthetics. This was not the case in the present study. Additionally, gender and age were not statistically significant as they relate to intent to recommend for the present study. This conclusion is similar to the Quadri-Felitti study (2012).
In the present study, the researcher found that esthetics and education were statistically significant for intent to return. In comparison, Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012) found that esthetics, education, and entertainment were statistically significant. In both studies, esthetics explained the greatest proportion of their future behavioral intentions as compared to the three other dimensions. The 4Es explained 38.4% of the total variance for intent to return (R2 = .384) 85 and 56.1% of the total variance for intent to recommend (R2 = .561), in the present study. The
4Es explained 58.0% of the total variance for intent to return (R2 = .58) and 72% of the total variance for intent to recommend (R2 = .72) for the Quadri-Felitti study. The larger sample in the Quadri-Felitti study may account for the higher explanatory power of the model. It is important to note, however, that the coefficients in the two studies are not directly comparable.
The present study used average scores for each factor to compute the of the 4E variables.
Conversely, the Quadri-Felitti study used a sum to compute the 4Es. Hence, the comparison of the two studies is relative to the order of the coefficients, but not the absolute values.
Thus, these findings support the extant research that indicates that consumers select destinations for the pleasure and uniqueness they offer that differs from modern, everyday urban or suburban life (Quadri-Felitti, 2012). The findings of the current study reveal that beauty or esthetics add to the appeal of destinations, thus further confirming Quadri-Felitti and Fiore’s
(2012) findings.
Research conducted by Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007) showed esthetics was the main determinant of experiential outcomes. Getz and Carlsen (2008) suggested that wine tourists seeking an escape need entertaining presentations of educational activities for a positive experience representing the entertainment and the education realm. Other past studies have resulted in esthetics being the central characteristic of the rural wine tourism experience and a fundamental attraction of the wine destination (Alant & Bruwer, 2004; Bruwer & Alant, 2009;
Carmichael, 2005; Cohen & Ben-Nun, 2009; Peters, 1997; Williams, 2001). The contribution of the esthetics realm is much stronger than the remaining three realms of the 4Es with a higher coefficient in the present study as well as the Quadri-Felitti study as shown in Table 14. 86
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012) argued that of the four realms, education played a significant but less important role than the other constructs in creating memories and satisfaction.
The present study found the education realm to have a significant but less prominent role than esthetics, but with a stronger impact than entertainment and escapist in intent to return and intent to recommend. Finally, the escapist realm was found to be significant for intent to recommend with a lower coefficient than the remaining realms of esthetics, education and entertainment of the present study while escapist was found to be the second most important predictor in the
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore study (2012). A possible reason why escapist was a less important predictor in the current study is that a higher percent of participants were local residents. The comparison of the present study to the Quadri-Felitti research is listed in Table 14.
Table 14
Comparison of the Research
Researcher Baker Quadri-Felitti
Research Focus Southern NJ Lake Erie Wine Region Wine tourists and business Sample Wine tourists owners Coefficients
Esthetics 0.91 Esthetics .563 Escapist 0.12 Intent to return Education .228 Education -0.19 Entertainment -0.20 2 Adjusted R .384 .58 Esthetics .572 Esthetics 0.94 Intent to Education .268 Escapist 0.09 recommend Entertainment .089 Entertainment -0.17 Escapist .071 Education -0.07 2 Adjusted R .561 0.72
87
Both studies found that all 4Es are present in the wine tourism experience for the regions of Southern New Jersey and Lake Erie Wine Country, respectively, and each found higher values for intent to recommend. Furthermore, both studies found that demographic characteristics played a minimal role in predicting future intentions, with the exception of gender: women were more likely to recommend both wine tourism regions than men.
Implications
To improve wine tourists’ experiences in Southern New Jersey, it becomes important for vineyard owners to understand how improving satisfaction with the 4Es can increase the behavioral intentions of wine tourists. Only by understanding these consumer perceptions will vineyard owners be able to address tourists’ areas of interest in order to increase intent to return and recommend which will in turn increase revenues and enhance the profile of the region.
Based on the findings of the current study, esthetics is the most critical area on which vineyard owners should focus, thus allowing them to utilize the 4Es to improve or enhance wine tourism experiences in the Southern New Jersey region. Esthetics was statistically significant for both intent to recommend and intent to return and rated highly for overall satisfaction.
In addition to the findings from the quantitative analysis, 28 respondents provided additional qualitative suggestions for improving the winery experience. While somewhat anecdotal, the suggestions provide options which could be validated in future studies. Nearly
18% of the participants who responded to the open-ended question reported that in some cases entertainment options were limited. Furthermore, 25% of the participants stated that wineries should pair entertainment with dining options to improve the overall experience. Moreover, dining options was the most frequently mentioned issue in the qualitative review with 32.1% of the participants mentioning dining as an area that was missing from the Southern New Jersey 88 wine region. Although these narrative responses represented a small cross-section of the overall participants, vineyards may seek to include more dining and entertainment as part of their offerings in an effort to improve the customer journey related to wine tourists’ experiences.
Limitations of the Study
This study had several limitations, including a low response rate or willingness to participate, as well as the poor timing of the study. A convenience sample was employed for the data collection to reach the highest number of participants. Despite obtaining nearly 200 usable surveys, the data collected may not represent the general population of wine tourists in Southern
New Jersey given the sampling method chosen for the study. Moreover, the data were collected during the fall and winter of 2015–2016, which is not a high tourist season in Southern New
Jersey. Off-season tourists may differ from high-season tourists in some respects, which could potentially contribute to varying results depending on the season. Future recommendations would use longitudinal data extended to the spring and summer months to capture more data with a larger sample size. Additionally, to increase the size of the survey, future surveys may expand the survey to include the entire state of New Jersey rather than the Southern New Jersey region.
Future Research
This study contributes to the emerging body of research on applying the experience economy to wine regions and tourist experiences. Given that this is the first study to examine tourist satisfaction and relevance of the 4Es for the Southern New Jersey Wine Region, additional research is needed in order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of this growing region. Since the wine tourism industry is concerned with understanding the factors driving their 89 customer base and drawing them to vineyards beyond just drinking wine, there are several areas for future research.
First, future research could employ a longitudinal approach to determine whether wine tourists’ perceptions change during different seasons or over extended periods of time. For example, a future study might measure perceptions of wine tourists over the course of a year, thus capturing tourist sentiments in the more popular spring and summer months as well as the slower fall and winter months.
Second, future studies may be able to increase the sample size by expanding the sample population to include the entire state of New Jersey rather than limiting it to the Southern New
Jersey region. A larger sample size may yield more variance in participant responses. Moreover, if a different sampling method were chosen, the results would also potentially be generalizable to a broader population.
Third, an in-depth study of tourist sentiments regarding Southern New Jersey as a wine region would provide further insights into the influence of the 4Es on consumer behavior.
Considering the indication from 28 respondents on the qualitative review that eating is part of the overall experience tourists are seeking, there may be an opportunity for the addition of a fifth E.
Future research could introduce this fifth E, eating, into the 4E framework and assess how this additional dimension ranks in comparison to the other four. Such a study could potentially yield insightful data regarding the importance of dining to the overall consumer experience.
Fourth, future researchers could study to what extent the 4Es are consistent across emerging regions by comparing the entire state of New Jersey with other emerging wine regions.
Finally, future studies could also seek to investigate business stakeholders’ perceptions regarding what is needed for successful wine tourism development in the region. Such a study could 90 examine how vineyard business owners align and could investigate their attitudes regarding the issues and challenges surrounding wine tourism growth in the state. Considering the increasing importance of business owners working together to provide a consistent wine tourism experience, studies of this nature would provide useful information to help identify potential areas for collaboration.
Conclusion
This study indicates that wine tourists in Southern New Jersey are pleased with their wine experiences overall. There remains room for improvement, however. The present study found that the elements of the 4Es that are most important to increasing intent to return are esthetics and education. Furthermore, all 4E’s, esthetics, education, entertainment, and escapist are important for increasing intent to recommend. Satisfaction with esthetics is the most important predictor of intent to return and intent to recommend.
Satisfaction with escapist was not a statistically significant predictor of intent to return and was the least important predictor of intent to recommend. Moreover, the findings indicate that participants are least satisfied with the escapist component of the 4Es. With 66.5% of participants classified as local consumers, wine tourists may not feel fully immersed or transported to another sense of reality given that they are 50 miles or less from home. Additional investment into the escapist realm, including targeted marketing strategies drawing on this concept, may contribute to increased consumer satisfaction in this area. Given the study’s findings, however, wineries should focus the majority of their attention and investment on the sensory appeal of the Southern New Jersey wine region. It is also important for tourism suppliers and marketers to emphasize esthetics as the principal experiential dimension for wine tourists. 91
Moreover, as noted in the finding from the qualitative review, wineries may consider including more dining options.
This study’s exploration of Southern New Jersey wine tourism sought to advance recognition for the theoretical and practical value of identifying behavioral intentions and experiential perceptions toward the Southern New Jersey Wine Region using the experience economy framework, or the 4Es. As such, this research represents a first step in opening the pathway for future scholars in this arena and introducing Southern New Jersey wine tourism into the academic conversation. As more research becomes available in the future, researchers will be able to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between experiential attributes and how the 4Es impact satisfaction in the wine tourism experience and preferences with respect to intent to return/recommend for the Southern New Jersey Wine Region.
92
References
Andersson, T. D. (2007). The tourist in the experience economy. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 46–58.
Ashenfelter, O., & Storchmann, K. (2012). Editorial: The Judgment of Princeton and other
articles. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 139–142.
Ashton, R. H. (2014). “Nothing good ever came from New Jersey”: Expectations and the sensory
perception of wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(3), 304–319.
Axelsen, M., & Swan, T. (2010). Designing festival experiences to influence visitor perceptions:
The case of a wine and food festival. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 436–450.
Barber, N., Ismail, J., & Dodd, T. (2007). Purchase attributes of wine consumers with low
involvement. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14(1), 69–86.
Brown, G., & Getz, D. (2005). Linking wine preferences to the choice of wine tourism
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 266-276.
Brown, C. A., & Smith, R. (2010). Wine tourism: A serious leisure approach. Journal of Service
Science (JSS), 3(1), 52.
Bruwer, J., & Alant, K. (2009). The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: an experiential
view. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(3), 235–257.
Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions
of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30(5), 693–
703.
Cambourne B., Macionis, N., Mangoli, H. C., & Sharples, L. (2000). The future of wine tourism.
In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine Tourism around 93
the World: Development, Management and Markets (pp. 297–320). Burlington, MA:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Carlsen, P. J. (2004). A review of global wine tourism research. Journal of wine research, 15(1),
5–13.
Carmichael, B. (2005). Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in the
Niagara region, Ontario, Canada. Tourism Geographies, 7(2), 185–204.
Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2000). Wine tourism-a thirst for knowledge? International
Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(3), 70–80.
Dodd, T. H. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry.
International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5–16.
Engler, C. (2011). Authenticity vs. staged experiences (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Brighton, England). Retrieved from http://themedattraction. com/authenticity.htm
Fiore, A. M., Niehm, L., Oh, H., Jeong, M., & Hausafus, C. (2007). Experience economy
strategies: Adding value to small rural businesses. Journal of Extension, 45(2), 1–13.
Fountain, J., & Charters, S. (2010). Generation Y as wine tourists: Their expectations and
experiences at the winery cellar door. Tourism and Generation Y, 15(5), 47–57.
Frank, R. (2009). The economic impact of wine and wine grapes on the state of North Carolina.
Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006). Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a demand
analysis. Tourism management, 27(1), 146-158.
Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2008). Wine tourism among Generations X and Y. Tourism, 56(3),
257–270.
Hall, C. M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B., & Macionis, N. (2009). Wine Tourism around the
World. New York: Routledge. 94
Lavrakas, P. J. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947
McKercher, B., Wong, C., & Lau, G. (2006). How tourists consume a destination. Journal of
Business Research, 59(5), 647–652.
Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59–74.
Neilson, L., & Madill, J. (2014). Using winery web sites to attract wine tourists: An international
comparison. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 26(1), 2–26.
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism
applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132.
Poitras, L., & Donald, G. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism: The host community perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 425–448.
PR Newswire. (2013). Rabobank report: Global wine industry Q3 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rabobank-report--global-wine-industry-q3-
2014-269242221.html
Quadri-Felitti, D., & Fiore, A. M. (2012). Experience economy constructs as a framework for
understanding wine tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(1), 3–15.
Quadri-Felitti, D. L., & Fiore, A. M. (2013). Destination loyalty: Effects of wine tourists’
experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
13(1), 47–62.
Ritchie, J. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism
perspective. UK: CABI.
Schroeder, J. E. (2010). Value creation and the visual consumer. Changing Consumer Roles. 95
Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shanka, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Discriminating factors of first-time and repeat visitors to wine
festivals. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(2), 134–145.
Smith, S., Davis, N., & Pike, J. (2010). Rural tourism development: A case study of the Shawnee
Hills Wine Trail in Southern Illinois. Journal of Extension, 48(5), 1–11.
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist
behavioral intentions. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1180–1192.
SPSS for Windows v.15.0 (2006). Chicago, IL, USA.
Stangor, Charles. (2004). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Statista. (2014). Value of global wine consumption in 2010 and 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars).
Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/232948/value-of-global-wine-
consumption/
Swaminathan, A. (2001). Resource partitioning and the evolution of specialist organizations: The
role of location and identity in the US wine industry. Academy of Management Journal,
44(6), 1169–1185.
Taber, G. M. (2008). The Judgment of Princeton. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 143–151.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Triola, M. (2010). Elementary statistics (11th ed.), Boston: Pearson Education. 96
Tsikriktsis, N. (2005). A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research.
Journal of Operations Management, 24, 53–62.
Tutzauer, F. (2003). On the sensible application of familywise alpha adjustment. Human
Communication Research, 29(3), 455–463.
Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of
self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114–127.
Wargenau, A., & Che, D. (2006). Wine tourism development and marketing strategies in
Southwest Michigan. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(1), 45–60.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537.
Wilson, J. (2009). Tourism geographies: Space, place and lifestyle mobilities. Tourism
Geographies, 11(1), 124–126.
Williams, P. W., Graham, K., & Mathias, L. (2006). Land use policy and wine tourism
development in North America’s Pacific Northwest. In J. Carlsen and S. Charters (Eds.),
Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management and Marketing (pp. 27-46). Cambridge,
MA: CAB International.
Yuan, J. J., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and
behavioral intentions: Exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research.
Zorn, C. (2011). Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: A review with
applications. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 470–490.
97
Appendices
98
Appendix A
Visitors’ Survey
How many times have you visited the South Jersey region within the last 12 months? ______times
How many times, have you visited a winery in Southern Jersey in the last 12 months? ______times
Was the primary purpose of your most recent visit to South Jersey wineries and/or vineyards? Leisure, Business or Other
(Please choose only one)
If other, please describe.
How many nights did you stay in or around Southern New Jersey during your most recent visit? (choose only one)
• 0
• 1 - 3
• 4 - 7
• 7 +
99
The following statements will allow you to rate your feelings or thoughts as relates to your most recent experience visiting the Southern New Jersey wineries and/or vineyards. Please circle only one response for each statement that best describes your agreement with each statement. a. My trip to Southern New Jersey made me more knowledgeable.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree b. I learned a lot.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree c. Visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region stimulated my curiosity to learn new things.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree 100
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree d. My trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region was a real learning experience.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
a. I felt I played a different character here.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
101 b. I felt like I was living in a different time or place.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree c. Being in the Southern New Jersey Wine Region let me imagine being someone else.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree d. I completely escaped from reality.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree 102
• Agree
• Strongly agree a. I felt a sense of harmony.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
b. Being in the Southern New Jersey region was very pleasant.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree c. The setting was pretty bland.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree 103
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree d. Southern New Jersey as a wine region is very attractive.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree a. Activities of others were amusing to watch.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree b. Watching others perform was captivating. 104
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree c. I really enjoyed watching what others were doing.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree d. Activities of others were fun to watch.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree 105
• Strongly agree
What are your thoughts after visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region? Would you recommend the region? a. I will recommend the Southern New Jersey Wine Region to others.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree b. I will encourage others to visit the Southern New Jersey.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree c. I will have many stories to tell about this experience.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree 106
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
What are your thoughts about visiting the Southern New Jersey Wine Region? a. I am willing to visit the Southern New Jersey again.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
b. I will definitely come back to this destination.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree 107 c. I will choose a different a different wine tourism destination next time.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Agree
• Strongly agree
Overall, were you satisfied with your most recent trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region? (Choose only one)
• Yes
• No
Please feel free to describe what, if anything, was missing from your trip to the Southern New Jersey Wine Region?
Please tell us a little more about yourself:
1. What is your gender (please circle only one)
• Male
• Female
How old are you? 108
______Years
What is your zip code?
______
4. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Choose only one)
• Less than high school
• High school or GED
• Associate degree
• Bachelor degree
• Graduate degree