Hochschule Geisenheim University

and

Justus-Liebig-University Giessen

Faculty 09 - Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences, and Environmental Management

Investigating the Characteristics and the Economic Impact of Tourism in German Wine Regions

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften (Dr. agr.)

submitted by Maximilian Carl Tafel, M. Sc. Born: September 4, 1987 Pegnitz, Germany

Geisenheim, June 2020 This thesis was accepted on January 27, 2021 as a doctoral dissertation in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften (Dr. agr.) by the Hochschule Geisenheim University and the Faculty 09 - Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences, and Environmental Management, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen.

Examination Committee:

Supervisor and 1st Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. Gergely Szolnoki

Supervisor and 2nd Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Roland Herrmann

3rd Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Axel Dreyer

1st Examiner: Prof. Dr. Robert Anton Göbel

2nd Examiner: Prof. Dr. Ramona Teuber

Head of the Committee: Prof. Dr. Simone Loose

Parts of this thesis have been published in peer-reviewed journals as:

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2019). Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg, 69, 196-207.

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2020). Estimating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22, 788-799. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2380.

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2020). Relevance and challenges of wine tourism in Germany: a winery operators’ perspective. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 33 (1), 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-11-2019-0059.

Declaration of originality

I declare that I have prepared the submitted thesis independently and without unauthorised third-party help and that no other than the in the thesis listed facilities have been used. All text passages that are quoted literally or analogously from other published papers and all information that are based on verbal statements are identified as such.

I have observed the principles of good scientific practice as defined in the statutes of the Hochschule Geisenheim University and the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen for safeguarding good scientific practice when carrying out the analyses of my research mentioned in the thesis.

Maximilian Carl Tafel

Geisenheim, June 2020

i

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Gergely Szolnoki from the Department of Wine and Beverage Business Research at Geisenheim University for his guidance and continuous support at every stage of the process. I also thank Prof. Dr. Roland Herrmann from the Department of Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences, and Environmental Management at Justus-Liebig-University Giessen for his helpful feedback that helped to improve the scientific quality of the thesis.

I wish to thank Wines of Germany for funding the research and for putting me in touch with the relevant stakeholders. My sincere thanks go to the regional tourism and winegrowers associations in all the 13 German wine regions for their help throughout the research process and for giving me the opportunity to present the results to a wider audience.

I want to thank the more than 100 students who helped to collect data. I thank Stacey Blatt for proofreading the thesis. And finally, I would like to thank Norman Weis for encouraging me to pursue a doctorate.

I am grateful for my family who has always supported me in every phase of my life.

ii

Summary

Wine tourism is a growing niche market around the world. Germany seems to offer an ideal platform for this promising market. However, there is very limited knowledge about the economic significance of wine tourism in Germany and about understanding visitors’ needs and expectations. By proposing a framework for three different studies across all 13 German wine regions, including both the travelers’ and the wineries’ perspective, this thesis aims to alter the understanding of wine tourism in Germany. The three main research questions derived from a survey of the literature (see Chapter 1) are:

1. What differentiates wine tourists in Germany from other tourist segments? 2. How large is the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany? 3. How relevant is wine tourism in Germany from a winery operators’ perspective?

In order to separate wine tourists from other tourist segments, a quantitative study with 4,478 visitors to wine regions was carried out. By interviewing visitors at “wine-neutral” locations such as city centers or cultural sites, this approach differed from previous research. After segmentation, travelers were divided into wine tourists and other tourist segments. Then, a modified multiplier model was developed that allows measuring the economic impact of wine tourism. Finally, to include the wineries’ perspective, 199 qualitative in-depth interviews and 703 quantitative online questionnaires were collected and analyzed. It is the aim of the winery surveys to reveal the relevance and main challenges of wine tourism in Germany.

Results show that 7.2 million wine tourists, of whom 89% are Germans, visit the country’s wine regions each year. For them, tasting wine, enjoying nature and combining food and wine experiences are the main motivating factors for visiting a wine region. Wine tourism has a disproportionately large economic impact of EUR 5.0 billion annually, contributing to the income of 71,846 people. From an average winery operator’s perspective, wine tourism accounts for 24% of company sales. Despite an increasing demand in wine-touristic activities, the number of wineries, as well as restaurants, is declining which reduces the attractiveness for culinary-focused wine tourists. To successfully develop wine tourism in Germany, there is a clear need for collaboration among stakeholders. Furthermore, the preservation of cultural landscapes plays an important role in attracting visitors.

This thesis advances the understanding of wine tourism in Germany from a visitor’s as well as a winery’s point of view. The approaches developed for segmenting wine tourists and for assessing the economic impact of wine tourism can be applied in any wine region of the world.

iii

They can also be transferred to other forms of special-interest tourism (e.g. alpine tourism and culinary tourism). The findings and discussions can be used for teaching students and training stakeholders at the regional, entrepreneurial and personal level. Wine tourism could help to balance inequalities between rural and urban areas in terms of income and employment levels. This, combined with the preservation of natural resources and cultural landscapes, could lead to sustainable regional development in the German wine regions.

iv

Zusammenfassung

Weintourismus ist ein weltweit wachsender Nischenmarkt. Deutschland scheint eine ideale Plattform für diesen vielversprechenden Markt zu bieten. Es gibt jedoch nur sehr begrenzte Kenntnisse über die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Weintourismus in Deutschland und über die Bedürfnisse und Erwartungen der Besucher. Durch die Durchführung dreier verschiedener Studien in allen 13 deutschen Weinregionen, die die Sichtweise von Reisenden und Weingütern einbeziehen, soll diese Arbeit das Verständnis von Weintourismus in Deutschland verbessern. Die drei wichtigsten Forschungsfragen, die aus einer Literaturrecherche abgeleitet wurden (siehe Kapitel 1), sind:

1. Was unterscheidet Weintouristen in Deutschland von anderen Touristensegmenten? 2. Wie groß ist die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung von Weintourismus in Deutschland? 3. Wie relevant ist Weintourismus in Deutschland aus Sicht der Weingüterbetreiber?

Um Weintouristen von anderen Touristensegmenten zu unterscheiden, wurde eine quantitative Studie mit 4.478 Besuchern durchgeführt. Durch die Befragung von Besuchern an „weinneutralen“ Orten wie Innenstädten oder kulturellen Sehenswürdigkeiten unterschied sich dieser Ansatz von früheren Untersuchungen. Anhand eines neu entwickelten Segmentierungsansatzes wurden die Reisenden in Weintouristen und andere Touristensegmente unterteilt. Anschließend wurde ein modifiziertes Multiplikator-Modell entwickelt, das die Messung der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Weintourismus ermöglicht. Um schließlich die Perspektive der Weingüter einzubeziehen, wurden 199 qualitative Tiefeninterviews und 703 quantitative Online-Fragebögen gesammelt und analysiert. Ziel der Weingüterbefragungen ist es, die Relevanz und die wichtigsten Herausforderungen des Weintourismus in Deutschland aufzuzeigen.

Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass jährlich 7,2 Millionen Weintouristen, davon 89% Deutsche, die Weinregionen des Landes besuchen. Für sie sind Wein, Natur und die Kombination von Essen und Wein die Hauptmotivationsfaktoren für den Besuch einer Weinregion. Weintourismus hat mit 5,0 Milliarden Euro jährlich eine überproportional hohe wirtschaftliche Bedeutung und trägt damit zum Einkommen von 71.846 Menschen bei. Aus der Sicht eines durchschnittlichen Weingutbetreibers macht der Weintourismus 24% des Unternehmensumsatzes aus. Trotz steigender Nachfrage nach weintouristischen Angeboten ist die Anzahl von Weingütern sowie Restaurants rückläufig, was die Attraktivität der Weinregionen für die kulinarisch orientierten Weintouristen verringert. Um Weintourismus in Deutschland erfolgreich zu entwickeln, besteht

v

ein klarer Bedarf an Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Beteiligten. Darüber hinaus spielt der Erhalt von Kulturlandschaften eine wichtige Rolle, um Besucher anzulocken.

Diese Arbeit erweitert das Verständnis des Weintourismus in Deutschland sowohl aus Sicht der Besucher als auch aus der der Weingüter. Die entwickelten Ansätze zur Segmentierung von Weintouristen und zur Messung der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Weintourismus können in jeder Weinregion der Welt angewandt werden. Außerdem lassen sie sich auf andere Formen von Nischentourismus (z. B. alpiner Tourismus oder kulinarischer Tourismus) übertragen. Die Ergebnisse und Diskussionen können genutzt werden, um Studierende zu unterrichten und Beteiligte auf regionaler, unternehmerischer und persönlicher Ebene weiterzubilden. Weintourismus könnte dazu beitragen, Einkommensunterschiede zwischen städtischen und ländlichen Gebieten anzugleichen. Dies könnte in Verbindung mit dem Erhalt der natürlichen Ressourcen und Kulturlandschaften zu einer nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung in den deutschen Weinregionen führen.

vi

Table of contents

Declaration of originality...... i

Acknowledgements ...... ii

Summary ...... iii

Zusammenfassung ...... v

Table of contents ...... vii

List of figures ...... x

List of tables ...... xi

List of abbreviations ...... xiii

1 Introduction ...... - 1 -

1.1 Segmentation of wine tourists ...... - 6 -

1.2 Measuring the economic impact of tourism ...... - 11 -

1.3 Wine tourism development in rural areas ...... - 16 -

1.4 Chapter outline ...... - 21 -

2 Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities ...... - 23 -

2.1 Abstract ...... - 24 -

2.2 Introduction ...... - 24 -

2.3 Literature review...... - 25 -

2.3.1 Wine tourist segmentation ...... - 26 -

2.3.2 Motivation of wine tourists ...... - 27 -

2.4 Material and Methods ...... - 29 -

vii

2.5 Results ...... - 30 -

2.6 Discussion ...... - 36 -

3 Estimating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions ...... - 39 -

3.1 Abstract ...... - 40 -

3.2 Introduction ...... - 40 -

3.3 Literature review...... - 41 -

3.4 Research design ...... - 45 -

3.4.1 Model specification ...... - 45 -

3.4.2 Data collection and extrapolation ...... - 46 -

3.5 Results ...... - 49 -

3.5.1 Survey areas ...... - 49 -

3.5.2 Visitation and wine-touristic visitations ...... - 52 -

3.5.3 Visitor characteristics ...... - 53 -

3.5.4 Structure of the expenditure ...... - 53 -

3.5.5 Economic impact ...... - 54 -

3.6 Discussion ...... - 58 -

3.6.1 Conclusions ...... - 58 -

3.6.2 Practical implications ...... - 59 -

3.6.3 Limitations and future research recommendations ...... - 61 -

4 Relevance and challenges of wine tourism in Germany: A winery operators’ perspective ...... - 62 -

4.1 Abstract ...... - 63 -

4.2 Introduction ...... - 64 -

viii

4.3 Literature Review ...... - 65 -

4.3.1 Relevance of wine tourism ...... - 66 -

4.3.2 Challenges affecting wine tourism development ...... - 68 -

4.4 Material and methods ...... - 70 -

4.5 Results ...... - 72 -

4.5.1 Relevance...... - 72 -

4.5.2 Challenges ...... - 77 -

4.6 Discussion ...... - 82 -

4.6.1 Conclusions ...... - 83 -

4.6.2 Practical Implications ...... - 83 -

4.6.3 Limitations and future research recommendations ...... - 85 -

5 Perspectives and outlook ...... - 87 -

5.1 Integrating findings from the publications ...... - 87 -

5.2 Research Contribution ...... - 90 -

5.2.1 Academic implications ...... - 90 -

5.2.2 Managerial implications ...... - 91 -

5.3 Limitations and future perspectives ...... - 93 -

6 References ...... - 95 -

7 Funding...... - 109 -

ix

List of figures

Figure 1: Decision tree to determine the share of wine tourists ...... - 49 -

Figure 2: Map of the wine regions in Germany ...... - 50 -

Figure 3: Total visitor days, share of wine tourists, and visitor density for the year 2017 ...... - 52 -

Figure 4: Personal, entrepreneurial and regional benefits of wine tourism in Germany ...... - 74 -

Figure 5: Personal, entrepreneurial, and regional challenges to wine tourism in Germany ...... - 79 -

x

List of tables

Table 1: The sample: Frequencies of the total study and segments ...... - 30 -

Table 2: Educational degree and income ...... - 31 -

Table 3: Age and wine involvement (wine interest and wine knowledge on a Likert scale from 1-5)...... - 31 -

Table 4: Consumption habits ...... - 32 -

Table 5: wine purchase behavior ...... - 32 -

Table 6: Travel motivation ...... - 33 -

Table 7: Daily expenses ...... - 34 -

Table 8: Expenses for wine during the stay ...... - 35 -

Table 9: Factors influencing which winery to visit ...... - 35 -

Table 10: Existing economic impact studies on wine tourism ...... - 43 -

Table 11: Complementary information about German wine regions (see Figure 2) .. - 51 -

Table 12: Visitor characteristics of tourists in German wine regions, divided by states (significant differences occur between a and b) ...... - 55 -

Table 13: Structure of tourist expenditure in Euros per person per day in German wine regions, divided by states ...... - 56 -

Table 14: Economic impact of tourism in German wine regions in Euros and income equivalents, divided by states ...... - 57 -

Table 15: Challenges of wine tourism found in previous academic research ...... - 69 -

Table 16: The sample: Number of respondents and total area under vines (in hectares) ...... - 72 -

Table 17: Change in winery visitor numbers over the past three years ...... - 75 -

Table 18: Contribution of wine tourism to total company sales ...... - 76 -

Table 19: Past and future investments in wine tourism ...... - 77 -

Table 20: Regional challenges (multiple answers possible) ...... - 80 -

xi

Table 21: Wishes expressed to regional decision-makers (open question) ...... - 80 -

Table 22: Reasons for not engaging in wine tourism (multiple answers possible) .... - 81 -

Table 23: Willingness to start participating in wine tourism in the next five years ... - 81 -

xii

List of abbreviations

ACOVI Asociación de Cooperativas Vitivinícolas Argentinas

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

AUS Australian Dollar

BMEL Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft

BMWi Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie

CGE Computable General Equilibrium

Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt

DWIF Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr e.g. Exempli gratia (for example)

EIA Economic impact analysis

EUR Euro etc. Et cetera

FES Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung i.e. Id est (that is to say)

I-O Input-Output ha Hectares km Kilometers km2 Square kilometers n Sample size

OIV International Organisation of Vine and Wine

Qual. Qualitative

Quant. Quantitative

RQ Research question

Sig. Significant

USD US-Dollar

WTTC World Travel & Tourism Council

xiii

UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization

χ2 Chi-squared

% percent

$ Dollar

xiv

1 Introduction

The travel and tourism sector has a tremendous economic impact. In 2018, it contributed USD 8.8 trillion to the global economy, which equals 10.4% of global GDP. With a growth rate of 3.9%, it outpaced world economic growth (3.2%) for the eighth consecutive year, ranking second only behind the manufacturing sector (4.0%). 319 million jobs are related to the travel and tourism sector, which equals 10% of global employment. One in five newly created jobs has been in tourism. Considering the challenge of more and more jobs being automated due to digitalization, tourism’s contribution to employment will likely continue to gain importance (WTTC, 2019). The World Tourism Organization (2020) defines tourism as “a social, cultural and economic phenomenon which entails the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes”. ‘People’ in this definition are termed visitors. Visitors can be further divided into overnight visitors, if their trip includes an overnight stay, or otherwise as same-day visitors/excursionists (Klijs, 2016).

Wine tourism is a niche market that captures the overlap between wine production and the tourism sector (Gómez et al., 2018). It can be defined as “travel related to the appeal of wineries and wine country, a form of niche marketing and destination development, and an opportunity for direct sales and marketing on the part of the wine industry“ (Getz, 2000, p. 4). While producing wine entails selling and/or exporting a product, wine tourism is focused on attracting visitors. In terms of job creation, wine tourism can be more important than the production of wine itself (Foltz et al., 2007). It is a niche market that provides several benefits, which are important to be recognized by wine producers and policy-makers (Bruwer, 2003).

Research on wine tourism originated in the mid-1990s and has experienced an increased interest ever since. Researchers identified the “nexus between the wine industry and the tourism industry, and established a separate knowledge domain based on a framework and an agenda for research” (Gómez et al., 2018, p. 2). Some authors have provided helpful overviews on wine tourism research. The latest was authored by Gómez et al. (2018), which built on earlier works of Carlsen (2004) and Mitchell and Hall (2006). Gómez et al., who reviewed 20 years of wine tourism research between 1995 and 2014, separated the research into eight categories:

1. wine tourism development 2. winery and cellar door 3. wine tourist behavior

- 1 -

4. wine events and festivals 5. marketing and promotion 6. critical success factors 7. wine tourism models 8. education and other

The authors included 176 papers from 25 journals in their research. They found that wine tourism development, with 35% of the publications, was the largest subsection, followed by wine tourist behavior (26%). Of the reviewed articles, 33% were published between 1995 and 2004, and the remaining 66% in the following ten years (Gómez et al., 2018).

A constant topic in wine tourism research is the difference between the ‘Old World’, i.e. Europe, and the ‘New World’, i.e. every country outside of Europe. Therefore, some substantial differences between the ‘two worlds’, in regards to wine tourism, will be explained.

Wine production in Europe has been in existence for thousands of years and is an integral part of the culture of these countries (Gómez et al., 2018). This is why there is a vast number of small wineries on the European continent, which offer a huge diversity of producers (Getz, 2000). Even though winery operators have always sold wine directly to travelers, they have not always considered wine tourism to be very relevant. Due to a decline in consumption, the number of wineries has been dropping for decades. Nowadays, smaller, traditional producers are diversifying into the expanding field of wine tourism in order to sustain their businesses, and consequently parts of the culture as well (Carlsen and Boksberger, 2013).

In New World wine countries, it goes the other way. The amount of wine produced and consumed has been growing, and so has the number of vineyards and wineries. Whereas the production of wine has been the sole focus of wine-makers for millennia in Europe, New World countries have long put their focus on marketing and tourism. In New World countries such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, wine tourism is firmly integrated into their country’s marketing strategies. These countries can look back to decades of experience. From a European point of view, much can be learned from the expertise of New World countries. However, the substantial differences between the two ‘worlds’ have to be kept in mind (Alonso et al., 2013).

Out of the 176 papers that Gómez et al. (2018) reviewed, most were conducted in Australia (N=51), followed by the USA (N=32), Canada (N=26) Spain (N=21), and New Zealand (N=19). 71% of all published papers have been published on these five countries (including studies that examined more than one country). With the exception of Spain, all of these countries are New

- 2 -

World countries (Gómez et al., 2018). Despite two thirds of the worldwide wine production taking place in Europe (OIV, 2019), publications on the topic of wine tourism amount to only 27%, of which 79% took place in the last ten years (Gómez et al., 2018). Different authors have long mentioned the need for Old World countries to increase their focus on this lucrative market. Wargenau and Che (2006, p. 47), for example, mention that “tourism has not been seen as central for the European wine industry compared to newer wine producing areas”. Spain was early to discover wine tourism as a tool for rural development/revitalization and to preserve the natural and cultural heritage of the wine-growing regions (Hall et al., 2000).

The earlier papers have often used qualitative approaches and have been rather descriptive. They focused on exploring the wine tourism phenomenon (e.g. Macionis & Cambourne, 1998) or the behavior of wine tourists (e.g. Mitchell and Hall, 2001). Later, providing a theoretical foundation was found to be more relevant. Still, descriptive papers continued to be published, because European countries had started to explore wine tourism. Concerning the methods used, 34% of publications applied qualitative approaches, followed by 31% which used univariate or bivariate approaches. A further 28% used multivariate analysis and the rest of the publications (7%) were of philosophical or conceptual nature (Gómez et al., 2018).

In 2000, Hall et al. (2000) laid the foundation with the book “Wine Tourism Around the World”. According to the authors, traveling to wine regions was already popular among European royal houses in the 17th century for the Grand Tour, and probably since the time of ancient Greece and Rome. Therefore, wine tourism in Europe can be appropriately ranked among cultural tourism (Hall et al., 2000). According to Getz (2000), the historical and cultural heritage of Europe favors an increase in demand for wine tourism.

Wine, as specific travel interest, did not appear until the mid-19th century. At this time, several factors came together. First, the construction of the railway network facilitated the access to wine. Second, the growth of a new middle class, which started to consume quality wine alongside aristocracy; and finally, the classification of the Bordeaux Châteaux in 1855 which gave wine and wine regions for the first time – officially and explicitly – a travel identity. Some specific châteaux became tourist attractions which provided a marketing tool for the region (Hall et al., 2000).

Hall et al. (2000) have remained influential. Even today, the most frequently used definition of wine tourism: “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors” (Hall et al., 2000, p. 3), is found in this book. This definition appears very

- 3 -

narrow and has indeed been questioned from the beginning. Johnson (1998, cited in Hall et al., 2000) argues that the scenic appeal of a wine region might be quite unrelated to wine consumption. Also, it is hard to define at what point a visitor to a wine region becomes a wine tourist. The topic of how to distinguish between wine tourists and other tourist segments will be an important part of this thesis (see Chapter 2).

Europe is the world's largest travel market, and Germany, with a total contribution of EUR 348 billion (10.7% of GDP) in 2018, ranks first in the region. 87% of this amount can be attributed to domestic tourism. Therefore, the success of Germany as a travel destination lies mainly in Germans taking vacations in their home country (WTTC, 2018). According to UNWTO (2019a), the “greatest wine tourism destinations receive visitors from their domestic markets” (UNWTO, 2019a, p.4).

A significant amount of research has been published on wine tourism in Germany, the majority of which are in German. Müller and Dreyer (2010) were pioneers in this regard. With their book “Weintourismus - Märkte, Marketing, Destinationsmanagement” (English: “Wine tourism – markets, marketing and destination management”), the authors provided much information for German-speaking countries. The authors found that German literature on the topic dates back to the early 1990s. Authors like Jätzold (1993) ranked wine tourism in Germany among cultural tourism, more specifically gastronomic cultural tourism (Müller and Dreyer, 2010). Other German publications related to wine tourism research in Germany that should be mentioned are Szolnoki (2018), Dreyer et al. (2015), Scherhag (2013), Rüdiger and Hanf (2017), Kagermeier (2010) and Orth and Stöckl (2011).

One example of the few international publications on wine tourism in Germany was authored by Job and Murphy (2006). The aim of their work was to provide an overview of the main challenges of the Mosel valley, especially in regard to the cultural landscape, by conducting interviews with stakeholders in the wine and tourism industry. The authors concluded that tourism is an “integral and indispensable component of any future cultural heritage conservation strategies” (Job and Murphy, 2006, p.333). Later, Koch et al. (2013) found that the predominantly small German wineries sustain their families’ businesses through tourism, thereby helping to preserve aspects of the country’s culture.

Examples of international journal publications on the topic of wine tourism in Germany are scarce. Sanchez et al. (2016) found that Germany ranks seventh in terms of international authorships in Europe. This is quite low considering the fact that tourism in Germany has the

- 4 -

greatest economic impact on the continent (WTTC, 2017) and that, in terms of wine production, Germany ranks fourth (OIV, 2019).

In Germany, there is currently no study on the wine tourism phenomenon conducted in each of the 13 German wine regions. Therefore, this thesis aims to enhance the wine tourism product in Germany by examining its main characteristics and importance. The most effective way of showing the importance of tourism is by estimating its economic impact on the regions. However, in order to evaluate the economic effects, wine tourists have to be differentiated from tourism in wine regions in general. Therefore, the first aim of this thesis is to determine the share of wine tourists in each of the regions (Chapter 2). Secondly, the economic impact of wine tourism will be assessed (Chapter 3). And thirdly, the largest category, ‘wine tourism development’, with 35% of all publications (Gómez et al., 2018), will be discussed in Chapter 4 in order to derive academic as well as managerial implications for enhancing the wine tourism product in Germany.

In order to successfully tackle these three aims, an overview will be given about the existing research on the topics. In doing so, research gaps and areas for future investigation will be identified. The first topic to be addressed is the segmentation of wine tourists.

- 5 -

1.1 Segmentation of wine tourists

Different people have different needs. In order to satisfy consumers’ needs, knowledge about consumer behavior is crucial. „Consumer behavior research is important for stakeholders in wine tourism because it can help provide important insights into who the wine tourist is, what motivates them to visit a winery, take a guided tour, attend a wine festival or purchase wine and why, thus allowing marketers and managers to effectively target and develop markets.” (Mitchell et al., 2000, S. 118).

Exploring consumer behavior “is a cornerstone in the marketing strategy of tourism” (Molina et al., 2015, p. 194); and market segmentation is a key concept in consumer behavior. It means dividing the consumers, in this case tourists, “into smaller groups of consumers with different needs” (Molina et al., 2015, p. 194). This makes it easier to target the needs of these homogeneous groups. “It is a relevant tool in strategic marketing that aids in the understanding of consumers” (Molina, 2015, p. 194).

Wine tourists are so-called special-interest tourists (Bruwer, 2003). This means that they have a strong particular interest and choose destinations and activities which focus on this interest (Weiler, 1992). Special-interest tourists are willing to spend more money on their trips to have the experience they are looking for (MacKay et al., 2002). Furthermore, wine tourism is a fundamental part of gastronomy tourism (UNWTO, 2017). Wine tourists not only want to enjoy local wine, but also pair it with local food (e.g. Charters and Ali-Knight, 2000; Alant and Bruwer, 2004; López-Guzmán et al., 2011). This leads to the conclusion that there is a special form of tourism called “gourmet tourism” in which both components - wine and food - are equally valued (Etcheverria, 2015).

Wine consumers have a significantly higher willingness to participate in wine-touristic offers than non-wine consumers (Dodd, 2000). Therefore, attention will be given to the world wine market. Between 2014 and 2018, the world wine consumption rose by 2.0%. The international wine trade, meaning the sum of exports from all countries, also rose. This could be one of the reasons for an increased interest in wine tourism. Germany, in terms of wine consumption, ranks fourth in the world. The consumption has been steady in the last five years. In terms of importing wine, with 14.7 million hectoliters, it is number one in the world. However, in terms of volume, exports as well as imports appear to be slightly decreasing (Wines of Germany, 2019). This could indicate a shift from Germans consuming international wine to consuming more and more German wine. Relating this to wine tourism, it could mean that domestic wine

- 6 -

tourism is gaining importance. On the other hand, prices for exported wines are increasing which could again contribute to Germany becoming a high quality wine destination for potential international visitors.

Gómez et al. (2018) found that wine tourist behavior is the second most frequent topic in wine tourism research with 26% of all publications, of which the majority (65%) were segmentation papers. In total, the authors found 30 different segmentation papers which amount to 17% of all research done on wine tourism. “The majority of consumer segmentation research is based on the analysis of visitors to wine cellars in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the US” (Gómez et al., 2018).

Molina et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis on the topic of wine tourist segmentation. The authors found that segmentation approaches in wine tourism can be classified into two big subsections: those using demographic and those using psychographic variables. Some authors combined the two forms of variables. Dodd and Bigotte (1995) were pioneers in the context of wine tourist segmentation. They used demographic variables to cluster winery visitors in Texas. Using univariate analysis, they found that wine tourists are of advanced age, with a high level of education and income. Two years later, the authors confirmed their findings applying the method of cluster analysis (Dodd and Bigotte, 1997).

The majority of wine tourist segmentation studies used psychographic characteristics (Molina et al., 2015). Hall (1996, cited in Hall and Macionis, 1998) was the first in this regard, taking winery visitors’ interest in wine as main segmentation variable. Their three proposed segments: “wine lovers”, “wine interested” and “curious tourists”, were replicated for years (e.g. Bruwer, 2003; Houghton, 2008). Charters and Ali-Knight (2000), who applied this segmentation approach in Australia, found that the highly involved “wine lover” does not only come because of the wine, but also because of the combination of wine and food. The authors observed that there is no stereotypical wine tourist. Two years later, the same authors introduced a fourth segment called “hanger on” who “goes to the winery with no apparent interest in wine, but as part of a group, which [had] decided to visit the attraction” (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002).

Alebaki and Iakovidou (2011) tried to provide a better understanding of the term ‘wine tourist’ by taking into account the different segmentation approaches. The authors introduced four tourist segments: “wine lovers”, “neophytes”, “occasional visitors” and “hangers on”. The highly involved “wine lover” “are usually highly educated and high income and whose prime objectives for visiting the area are: visiting the winery, meeting the winemaker and learning more about wine and wine making” (Alebaki and Iakovidou, 2011, p. 130). The authors

- 7 -

suggested that researchers should further consider the difference between wine tourists and average travelers to a wine region.

Williams and Kelly (2001) introduced a different approach in Canada by not just including winery visitors. The authors used secondary data from the British Columbia Visitor Study in Canada. All of the respondents used for the analysis had either visited a farm or a winery. They formed the two segments “wine tourists” and “other tourists” and found that “wine tourists” had significantly higher expenses than other tourists. Ignatov and Smith (2006) aimed to provide an insight into the culinary tourism market in Canada by using TAMS (Travel Activities and Motivations Survey) data. They formed three segments: one that is primarily interested in food, another one, whose main interest is in wine, and a third one that has increased interest in both food and wine. People in the third group had undertaken more activities, were found to be older, better educated and had higher incomes than in the other segments.

In Spain, Marzo-Navarra and Pedraja-Iglesias (2009) interviewed 209 residents in three different cities in Aragón. The authors noticed that most of previous research had been conducted on winery visitors. As a result, it is likely that there is a bias towards this highly involved segment which is often referred to as “wine lover”. Despite choosing this different approach, the authors also found highly involved wine tourists to be older, with a higher wine consumption and involvement. The authors also said that wine tourists could be further segmented into "those who participate in wine tourism as the main reason for a trip, vs those who participate in wine tourism as a secondary element" (Marzo-Navarra and Pedraja- Iglesias, 2010, p. 359). Clemente-Ricolfe et al. (2012) chose a similar approach, also in Spain, by interviewing residents in the city of Valencia. Respondents were segmented into “the current wine tourism market (AM) and the potential market of wine tourism (PM)”. AM being described as “the total number of people who at any specific time have carried out tourism in a wine-producing area”, and PM including the AM plus the people willing to participate in wine tourism (WP). Results show that 48.5% of the population of Valencia can be ranked among the AM, and 28.2% can be ranked among WP. Respondents from the AM segment were found to have higher educational degrees and income, as well as wine consumption and interest (Clemente-Ricolfe et al. 2012).

Cho et al. (2017) introduced a segmentation model using travel constraints. The targets for the survey were wine consumers that were approached via e-mail. Applying a factor-cluster segmentation approach, the authors identified five different homogeneous groups: “highly constrained”, “cost & time conscious”, “family togetherness”, “unmotivated”, and “minimally

- 8 -

constrained”. The two groups “family togetherness” and “minimally constrained” were found to show the highest interest in undertaking travel to wine regions. They were quite similar in terms of being highly educated and having a high income. However, the “minimally constrained” segment was younger and had a higher share of singles.

The most recent segmentation study was authored by Bruwer et al. (2018). By applying a novel segmentation method (self-organizing maps and bagged clustering), five different motivation clusters of cellar door visitors were identified: “wine learners”, “dining enthusiasts”, “wine buyers”, “wine enthusiasts”, and “wine connoisseurs”. These segments only differed in regard to gender and previous visit to the wine region. The authors state that aspects such as “tasting wine, eating at the winery, and enjoying the relaxing setting should be regarded by wine tourism providers as of paramount importance, and hence, developed and utilized to the fullest extent possible” (Bruwer et al., 2018, p. 10). The authors highlighted the importance of the region’s scenic beauty and food experiences (Bruwer et al., 2018).

In Germany, Szolnoki (2018) researched wine tourism in the Rheingau region at ”wine-neutral” locations. The author identified four types of tourists: “Wine and Rheingau lovers”, who have a high interest in wine and visit the region several times a year; “Wine-oriented tourists”, who enjoy the culinary offerings of the Rheingau for pleasure but do not come to the region very often; “first-time tourists”, who come to the region mainly because of its nature and history; and “foreign tourists”, who have less knowledge about the Rheingau and buy less wine in the region” (Szolnoki, 2018, p. 165).

In terms of travel motivation, the most important factor is the region’s scenic beauty (Grybovych et al., 2008; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Bruwer et al., 2018). Furthermore, the experience of combining food and wine has proven to be a prevalent travel motive (Grybovych et al., 2008; Bruwer et al., 2018, López-Guzmán et al., 2014). Concerning the source of information for choosing which winery to visit, word of mouth is the most important one (Bruwer and Thach, 2013). Szolnoki et al. (2014) identified relaxation and participating in a wine tour as main motives for visiting the Rheingau region in Germany. Rüdiger et al. (2015), also in Germany, identified relaxation and pleasure/enjoyment as prime motivating factors for visiting a wine region.

In summary, since the beginning of academic research, it has been clear that not all visitors to wine regions could be called wine tourists. According to the definition of Hall et al. (2000), wine tourists are primarily motivated by tasting the wines and experiencing the features of a wine region. In most of the existing studies, winery visitors were interviewed (Gómez et al.,

- 9 -

2018). Since winery visitation is perhaps the most important wine tourism experience (Galloway et al., 2008), the highly involved wine tourist is the focus of these publications (Alebaki and Iakovidou, 2011). There are some studies that include not only winery visits. It was suggested that these segmentation methods should be conducted in different regions and with broader samples (Alonso, 2009; Marzo-Navarra and Pedraja- Iglesias, 2009; Alebaki and Iakovidou, 2011; Clemente-Ricolfe et al., 2012). In order to draw comparisons to other groups of interest, visitors that participate in wine tourism as a secondary travel element should be introduced (Navarra and Pedraja- Iglesias, 2009; Clemente-Ricolfe et al., 2012).

Currently, there is no study showing the difference between wine tourists, people that engage in wine tourism as a secondary element, and other non-wine-related travelers. Hence, an approach needs to be developed that includes all of these visitor groups to find out segment-specific differences. Szolnoki (2018) conducted interviews at “wine-neutral” locations in the German region Rheingau which provides an interesting approach to build on. As there is no segmentation study that has incorporated all 13 German wine regions, the first research question of this thesis is:

RQ1: What differentiates wine tourists in Germany from other tourist segments?

- 10 -

1.2 Measuring the economic impact of tourism

Visitors to tourism destinations spend money on goods and services, creating direct and indirect economic impacts. This money flows into the local economy and adds value, income, employment, etc. (Klijs, 2016). The complexity of the topic and its significance for tourism practice and policy has made this one of the most interesting areas of tourism research (Mattes et al., 2017). Economic impact analyses are important for the following stakeholders:

• policy makers or local authorities who are interested in either the impacts of subsidies given to events, activities, facilities etc., or in the comparison of impacts of tourism to

other forms of resource allocation; • hotels, restaurants, and other tourism businesses that have a common interest in receiving financial support as a community; • and the tourism industry as a whole (including semi-public and many private actors) to create awareness among the public and therefore lead to decisions that are favorable to tourism (Stynes, 1997).

In assessing the economic impact of tourism, the selection of a suitable model is a crucial decision. According to Fletcher (1989), the model selection is “determined by the main purpose of the research, the resources available for the study, the time constraint imposed on the researchers, and the structure of the economy in question” (Fletcher, 1989, p. 515). When it comes to the regional or sub-regional level, however, some data are often not available or hard to obtain (Mayer et al., 2010).

Klijs (2016) wrote his PhD thesis on the discussion of the “measurement of regional economic impacts of tourism”. The aim of the thesis was to establish criteria for selecting an adequate model for each specific case. According to the author, economic impact analyses at the regional level “often need to make the most out of limited data and need to be carried out within a relatively small budget and a limited amount of time” (Klijs, 2016, p. 19). In order to compare the different approaches, the author first created a list of criteria based on an extensive literature review. Second, he presented the list to 31 experts and let them define the most relevant criteria. The most important criteria for selecting the right model are:

1. Direct impacts 2. Transparent results 3. Spending in traditional tourism industries 4. Impact on value added

- 11 -

5. Impact on employed persons (Klijs, 2016)

Third, he compared the five most frequently used economic impact analyses: Input-Output (I- O), Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) and the three most common multiplier models (Export base, Keynesian, ad hoc). Input-Output (I-O) models are the most frequently used models, with 57% of all publications between 1971 and 2014. In eleven of those 44 years, I-O models were used exclusively. From 2000 onwards, the different models began to coexist independently and were chosen by the authors according to their needs. In the following paragraphs, these models will be described.

I-O models use input-output tables to “describe inter-industry relationships among economic sectors” (Klijs et al., 2012, p. 1191). By tracing inflows of money back to these sectors, I-O models allow for direct and secondary impacts to be assessed (Klijs et al., 2012). This method is tied to many restrictive assumptions such as ‘no seasonality’, ‘no differences between skilled/unskilled work’ and ‘no people holding multiple jobs’. Furthermore, there are the assumptions of ‘no scarcity’, meaning “that increases in visitors’ spending always lead to positive economic impacts”; ‘linearity’ (meaning “firms can only change production levels by buying inputs from the same suppliers in the same proportion”); and ‘homogeneity’, meaning that “firms cannot increase output of one product unless they proportionally increase output of all other products”. These above assumptions often force researchers to make compromises (Klijs et al., 2012, p. 1190-1191).

I-O models show the positive but ignore the negative influences of economic activities, even though the negative effects can sometimes be even larger than the positive effects. Therefore, Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models were introduced as an improvement to I-O models (Dwyer et al., 2004). They try to “model the economy, as far as possible, as it really is, recognizing other markets, and capturing feedback effects” (Dwyer et al., 2010, p. 15). CGE models can be seen as extended I-O models. The ‘no scarcity’ assumption is removed (Klijs et al., 2012).

In order to create I-O and CGE models, data about supply linkages among firms are required, mostly in the form of I-O tables. These data are often times not available at the sub-national level. It is possible to construct these models from survey data. However, this can be very expensive, especially if a study aims to include several regions in the analysis (Mayer et al., 2010). A solution could be the use of a model that does not depend on I-O tables such as multiplier models (Klijs et al., 2012).

- 12 -

Multiplier models have been successfully applied in scientific as well as applied research. As a result, many different multipliers have been developed which consider different types of data (Archer, 1984). Tourism multipliers “vary widely from area to area and perhaps the only satisfactory conclusion which can be reached about the size of multipliers is that it is dangerous to generalize“ (Archer, 1977, p. 61). Multiplier models are one of the oldest concepts for determining the economic impact of tourism: their origins lie essentially in the theoretical considerations of Keynes (1933; 1936). This is why today one speaks of Keynesian multiplier approaches (Archer, 1977).

Comparing I-O, CGE and multiplier models, Klijs (2016) found that, for many criteria, CGE models are the preferred choice. CGE models potentially produce more realistic results due to their flexibility and detail. Multiplier models lead to less realistic outcomes, but they are more transparent, efficient and comparable. I-O models lie in-between the other two approaches which might explain their extensive usage. However, especially due to their strong assumptions (‘no scarcity of production factors’ and ‘no productivity changes’), the accuracy of the results is limited. In summary, the choice of model “should always depend on the specific context of each EIA” but the best model “could be probably found somewhere in between I-O and CGE” (Klijs, 2016, p. 180).

In terms of data about regional economic structure, Germany, as well as other European countries, has to face a substantial information deficit. I-O and CGE models need such data, mainly in the form of I-O tables and are under consideration by many different touristic-relevant sectors. In German-speaking countries, these models are only conditionally considered to be suitable for carrying out economic impact analyses at the regional level (Job et al, 2005). Therefore, the so-called value added analysis (German: Wertschöpfungsanalyse) is preferred (Woltering, 2012).

The value added analysis was developed further for tourism-specific analyses (Küpfer and Elsasser, 2000; Rütter et al., 1996) and is therefore called touristic value added analysis (German: touristische Wertschöpfungsanalyse). In German-speaking countries, it has often been equated with the two more general terms tourism multiplier (German: Tourismusmultiplikator) or touristic multiplier (German: touristischer Multiplikator) (Woltering, 2012). It calculates the potential income that tourism generates in terms of income equivalents and can therefore be properly ranked among income multipliers. Since it goes back to the Keynesian theory, it has also been referred to as Keynesian income multiplier (e.g. Mayer et al., 2010).

- 13 -

A Keynesian income multiplier approach not only provides comparable results, but is also easily understandable and therefore easy to communicate (Klijs, 2016). Furthermore, it is applicable at the regional and even local level (e.g. Bengsch et al., 2008; Berwert et al., 2002; Harrer and Scherr, 2002). In addition, touristic segments, such as wine tourism, can be calculated separately (Woltering, 2012). According to this method, the economic impact of tourism in German national parks, and a special segment of ‘visitors with high national park affinity’, was estimated (see Mayer et al., 2010). It is the recommended standard approach for assessing regional economic impacts of tourism in nature conservation areas (Job et al., 2006).

Economic impact analyses on the topic of wine tourism mostly exist in the form of industry reports. There are, however, three scientific contributions that addressed the topic: Kim and Kim (2002) determined the economic impact of wine tourism in Michigan using I-O modeling. Foltz et al. (2007) estimated the contribution of the grape and wine industry to Idaho’s agribusiness and tourism sector. By using a multiplier model, the authors found that “wine tourism has higher direct and indirect labor content than wine production” (Foltz et al., 2007, p. 86). Grybovych et al. (2019) assessed the economic impact of wine tourists in Northeast Iowa, using the IMPLAN, a variation of I-O modeling.

In Germany, the Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr (DWIF) carried out economic impact studies in two German wine regions, Franconia (2012) and Mosel (2016). The method that was used, as for the estimation of tourism in German national parks, was the touristic value added analysis. The results show that in the Mosel wine region, there were 7.2 million overnight stays and 18.0 million day trips (in total, not just wine-related). Together they created an economic impact of EUR 1.3 billion, giving 22,780 people their primary income (DWIF, 2017). In the German wine region of Franconia, 13.5 million overnight stays and 62.5 million day trips were undertaken annually. The tourists generated EUR 3.2 billion, providing the primary income for 64,500 people (DWIF, 2013a).

In summary, economic impact analyses (I-O, CGE and multiplier models) differ considerably in terms of complexity, data demands, underlying assumptions, and in the precision of their results. “An ‘ideal model’ for many applications of [economic impact analyses] in tourism could be found somewhere in between I-O- and CGE-models” (Klijs et al., 2012, p. 1197). Due to missing data at the regional or local level in Germany, applying these models would require prohibitive level of funding. This has led to the dissemination of a special type of multiplier model in German-speaking countries: a Keynesian income multiplier called touristic value added analysis. This model has proven useful in determining the economic impact of tourism at

- 14 -

the sub-regional level. The economic impact of tourism in two German wine regions was also estimated according to a similar model (DWIF, 2013a; DWIF, 2017). These empirical analyses provide a good benchmark for comparing results produced in this work (see Chapter 3). These two studies, however, do not differentiate between wine tourists and other forms of tourism. Currently, there is no study showing the economic impact of wine tourism in any of the German wine regions. Hence, the derived research question is:

RQ 2: How large is the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany?

- 15 -

1.3 Wine tourism development in rural areas

Many rural areas are diversifying into food and beverage tourism to promote their agricultural foundation (Hall et al., 2000). Due to the wide range of benefits, such as job creation, wine tourism has the potential to benefit local communities and even whole regions, therefore serving as a tool for positive rural tourism development, and economic development as a whole. However, the successful development of wine tourism is a “lengthy and complex process” (Grybovych et al., 2019, p. 572).

Wine tourism development, with 35% of publications, is the strongest pillar in wine tourism research. The majority of these papers were focused on the development of wine routes, challenges affecting the wine tourism product and the potential of wine tourism for regional development (Gómez et al., 2018). The early papers originated mostly in New World countries like Canada (e.g. Wilkins and Hall, 2001) and Australia (e.g. Beames, 2003). More recently, publications on Old World wine countries such as Italy (e.g. Contò et al., 2014), Greece (e.g. Stavrinoudis et al., 2012) and Germany (e.g. Koch et al., 2013) have increasingly caught researchers’ attention. In the last years, research on wine tourism development in China (e.g. Qiu et al., 2013) has experienced increased interest (Gómez et al., 2018).

Wine tourism development has many kinds of impact on host communities and their residents, such as increased traffic, disturbance in wine production, increased competition of wineries with local businesses, and a “perception of inappropriate types or scale of development” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 680). Competition for wine tourists “can grow to a point where the economic sustainability of individual wineries or entire areas is threatened” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 680). In 2001, Dodd and Beverland (2001) introduced a framework which proposes five life-cycles of a wine tourism destination:

1. Winery establishment 2. Winery recognition 3. Regional prominence 4. Maturity 5. Tourism decline

A region in a later life-cycle stage can be rejuvenated. The Californian Napa Valley, probably one of the most prominent wine tourism destinations, was at some point heading towards the stage of tourism decline. However, the communities began strengthening their collaboration to manage existing tourism rather than only trying to attract more tourists. At this point, Napa

- 16 -

Valley achieved rejuvenation and the area avoided the stage of decline as a destination. At the same time, other areas such as Sonoma Valley became more popular. Areas in a later life-cycle stage are increasingly perceived as ‘not the real wine industry’ by tourists who are then likely to “go elsewhere and start a new cycle in these other areas” (Dodd and Beverland, 2001, p. 19). Some areas, however, are so unique that they always provide a reason to visit (Butler, 1980). Niagara Falls and the French châteaux can be seen as examples to be emulated by wine tourism. Because of Napa’s exclusivity, the region will probably stave off decline, as long as the wineries keep producing excellent wines. In the last years, various strategies were employed in Napa Valley that even “limit development, modify demand for winery visits and encourage high-yield wine tourism by managing wine tourism through de-marketing and the promotion of alternative attractions (Carlsen & Ali-Knight, 2004)” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 680). De- marketing might make a wine region more exclusive, which, in some cases, could contribute to successful wine tourism development.

There are numerous features of a wine region contributing to its attractiveness and success as a tourism destination, such as landscape, regional brand image, infrastructure, economic development, geographic location, wine products, etc. (Carlsen, 2004; Marzo-Navarro & Pedraja-Iglesias, 2012). Wine regions that are renowned for their wines are, by nature, successful in combining attributes that enhance the appeal of the region and the likelihood of visitation (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017). Carlsen (2004) and Getz and Brown (2006) state that the key success factors for wine tourism destinations can be divided into three dimensions:

1. quality and number of wineries (critical mass) 2. region's physiographical appeal 3. how the product is augmented by cultural tourism products

For the creation of a successful wine tourism destination, collaboration among stakeholders is crucial (Alonso et al., 2013). In this context, horizontal and vertical collaboration are important, as well as government support (Wargenau and Che, 2006). Furthermore, a close proximity to metropolitan areas provides an important advantage since these areas provide vital source markets (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017; Howley and Van Westering, 2008; Alonso an Liu, 2010; Villanueva and Moscovici, 2016; Baird et al. 2018; Soontiens et al., 2018). Connected to this, it is important to mention that wine tourists are often domestic visitors, escaping hectic city life to enjoy nature and a more rural environment (Baird et al., 2018). According to UNWTO (2019a), the “greatest wine tourism destinations receive visitors from their domestic markets, from neighboring countries and from wine-consuming (but not producing) countries”.

- 17 -

The creation of wine routes is an important element of wine tourism development (Gómez et al., 2018). Wine routes are complex networks between entities which aim to enhance a destination’s value by integrating pre-existing social and cultural networks (Brunori & Rossi, 2000). They can be seen as cultural itinerary that plays a part in the overall tourism strategy. This itinerary integrates suppliers such as wineries, museums, and restaurants into a holistic structure. Unfortunately, due to a lack of cooperation by some stakeholders, not all wine routes have proven to be successful (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017). Authors around the world have put their research focus on examining the system of wine routes. Examples are Thessaloniki, Greece (Tzimitra-Kalogianni et al., 1999), Maule Valley, Chile (Sharples, 2002) and Bairrada, Portugal (Correia, et al., 2004). Research on wine routes has diversified into developing sophisticated and innovative networks, clusters and alliances (Gómez et al., 2018).

A competitive positioning of wine tourism regions has become an important issue, because demand is growing and wine regions are “now competing aggressively to attract high-yield wine tourists” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 680). However, wine regions do not necessarily target only wine tourists. Destinations offering a wide range of experiences can enjoy a competitive advantage. This is why more and more offerings have emerged that enhance the tourism product with more than just wineries (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017). In this context, the combination of wine and food has been shown to be successful. It responds to a “growing trend toward experiential tourism with an emphasis on food-and-wine” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 680). Therefore, it plays a major role in attracting visitors and contributes to the image of a food-and-wine region.

Wine tourism is “better developed in South Africa than any country […]. Most wineries have excellent tasting facilities, and many have superb restaurants with spectacular mountain vineyard views offering the special wild game and seafood of the country” (Winkler, 2012, p. 2). From three pioneer open cellar doors in 1971 to a well-developed network of 21 wine routes, South Africa has probably one of the best wine tourism infrastructures in the whole world. The culture and leisure industry around Cape viticulture is the “fourth most important tourism attraction of international tourists to the country” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 677). Wine tourism in South Africa can look back on decades of experience and is therefore an interesting example to learn from. Ferreira and Hunter (2017) revised the history of wine tourism development in South Africa. The authors state that wine tourism has significantly contributed to driving economic and social development, especially in the rural areas where limited job opportunities and unemployment are prevalent (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017).

- 18 -

After decades of success, the South African wine industry formed a strategic exercise called WISE (Wine Industry Strategic Exercise). After a baseline study, the consensus was found to create a national wine tourism strategy. “Eventually the Ministry of Tourism in South Africa has recognised the role of wine tourism as job creator and retainer as well as positive image builder with South Africa's first national wine tourism strategy that was launched in November 2016” (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017, p. 678). The authors see the best government support in the protection of cultural and natural resources and research funding (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017).

In Australia, the first national wine tourism strategy was launched in 1998 due to a government grant. In 2009, this strategy was updated and prolonged. Currently, wine tourism is firmly integrated in the country’s National Long-Term Tourism Strategy (Australian Grape & Wine Inc, 2019). There is a strong partnership between Wine Australia and Tourism Australia, supported by the government. AUS 7.4 million will be invested in wine tourism projects in the next few years. An incredible AUS 1.5 million were invested in a 60-seconds ‘Super Bowl’ advertisement in the USA. This generated “more than 100 million views on social media, more than 12,000 media articles and $74 million in estimated advertising value” (Wine Australia, p. 11, 2018).

Due to the high economic relevance, wine tourism products are developed around the world. Apart from rather exotic destinations such as Thailand (Chong, 2017) or Bali (Febianti and Arcana, 2017), China is building up a huge wine industry, with a big focus on making these wine regions attractive places for visitors. Even countries which have more than 5,000 years of wine tradition, such as Armenia and Georgia, are increasingly investing in wine tourism infrastructure (UNWTO, 2015). Furthermore, other forms of beverage tourism products such as beer tourism (Rogerson and Collins, 2014) or tequila tourism (Millán Vázquez de la Torre et al., 2014) are experiencing an increase in demand.

Today, wine tourism is recognized by the UNWTO as a tool for sustainable rural development. It helps in preserving a destination’s cultural heritage while providing substantial economic benefits. Therefore, it creates jobs while it helps sustain the regions’ culture and identity (UNWTO, 2017). Different authors like Salvado and Kastenholz (2017), Alonso and Liu (2012), Baird et al. (2018), Poitras & Getz (2006), Villanueva and Moscovici (2016) amd Peris- Ortiz et al. (2016) have started exploring this phenomenon.

In summary, for successful wine tourism development, collaboration among stakeholders is crucial. Wines of Germany started collaborating with Germany Travel in 2008 (Müller and Dreyer, 2010). Furthermore, the German Society for Tourism Research founded the

- 19 -

Commission for Wine and Culinary Tourism in 2009 (Dreyer, 2011). Clearly, the willingness to collaborate at the national level exists. What is still missing is governmental support at the national level. Even today, wine tourism is not integrated into the national tourism strategy. As mentioned, the creation of wine routes is an important part of wine tourism development. One of the world’s first wine routes was established in Germany in 1920. By the end of the 1970s, all 13 German wine regions had their own wine routes (Hall et al., 2000). Unfortunately, many of these wine routes, such as the Mosel Weinstrasse, faded into nonexistence. The reasons for this remain unknown and are probably hard to identify.

Gómez et al. (2018) state that due to the success in New World wine regions, the interest in developing wine tourism has risen significantly. Especially, “identifying challenges […] has continued to be a prevalent area of research” (Gómez et al., p. 11). In Germany, there is currently no existing study aimed at this topic. It has not even been acknowledged that there is increasing demand for wine tourism in the country. Moreover, the critical mass (quality and number of wineries), which is one of the key factors in determining success in wine tourism (Getz and Brown, 2006), is not known. Therefore, it is important to identify the share of wineries in Germany that actually participate in wine tourism. In addition, visitor numbers to wineries and the development of demand remain unknown. Gómez et al. state that it “would be deemed timely for researchers from Old World wine countries to expand their research objectives to include more extensive supply based research” (Gómez et al., 2018, p. 11). Therefore, a survey with winery operators should be conducted that aims to answer the following research question:

RQ 3: How relevant is wine tourism in Germany from a winery operators’ perspective?

- 20 -

1.4 Chapter outline

The following sections will give an overview of important aspects surrounding wine tourism addressed in the different papers, which comprise the main parts of this thesis. All of the introduced approaches can be conducted in any wine region and applied to other forms of special-interest tourism.

Chapter 2: Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities (Paper I)

Differentiating between wine tourists and other tourist segments was mostly done by interviewing winery visitors. Since the visitation of wineries is probably one of the most important indicators for wine tourism (Galloway et al., 2008), the highly involved wine tourist segments were the main subject of these publications (Alebaki and Iakovidou, 2011). In order to compare winery visitors to other tourist segments, it was necessary to develop a different approach.

Paper I introduces an approach to segment tourists in wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities. Visitors were not interviewed at wineries, but at “wine-neutral” locations. By applying a two-step segmentation approach, including the variables of winery visitation and importance of wine in the travel motivation, visitors were divided into “Primary Wine Tourists”, “Secondary Wine Tourists” and “Non-Winery Visitors”. Using Chi-Square analyses and one- way ANOVA tests, significant differences among the segments will be determined. The approach of Paper I constitutes the basis for further investigation in Paper II.

Chapter 3: Estimating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions (Paper II)

Germany is the number-one European country in terms of tourism revenue (WTTC, 2018). Despite wine-growing in Germany having a long history, the economic value of wine tourism in Germany is not known. In order to help stakeholders make the right policy and investment decisions, it is necessary to evaluate the economic importance of wine tourism in Germany.

Paper II presents a way for investigating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions. By connecting a multiplier approach with the segmentation approach developed in Paper I, the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions, and consequentially wine tourism, will be determined.

- 21 -

Chapter 4: Relevance and challenges of wine tourism in Germany: a winery operators’ perspective (Paper III)

In Germany, the number of wineries dropped from 20,558 to 15,931 between 2010 and 2016 (Wines of Germany, 2019). German winery operators have started to diversify into touristic services in order to sustain their businesses (Koch et al., 2013). However, the importance of wine tourism from a winery perspective has not been sufficiently investigated.

Paper III introduces a mixed-methods framework that integrates both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The paper aims to put Germany on par with other countries in terms of academic research on the topic of wine tourism from a wineries’ perspective. Apart from showing the relevance of wine tourism in Germany, implications will be derived on how to overcome the main challenges. The proposed framework provides a way for effectively investigating the topic of wine tourism from a producer’s perspective.

- 22 -

2 Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities

This chapter represents an article published by the author of this dissertation and Prof. Dr. Gergely Szolnoki as co-author.

Any reference to this chapter should be cited as:

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2019). Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg, 69, 196-207.

- 23 -

2.1 Abstract

The purpose of this work is to introduce a new segmentation approach to find out differences between so-called wine tourists and other segments that are not primarily motivated by the product wine. 1,735 visitors to wine regions were interviewed at wine-neutral places like city centers or cultural sights. By using a face-to-face questionnaire, travelers provided information about their motivation, activities and expenses during their stay, as well as their socio- demographic characteristics. About half of the respondents had not visited a winery during their stay, thus called Non-Winery Visitors; about one third could be classified as Primary and the rest as Secondary Wine Tourists. Primary Wine Tourists (the ‘real’ wine tourists) were found to be older than the other segments. Also, they have a higher educational degree and income, as well as wine consumption and involvement. During their travels, they had significantly higher expenses than other tourists. All respondents listed nature/the landscape and recreation/relaxation as main motivating factors. A recreational concept which includes food and wine, as well as outdoor activities in nature as part of a holistic experience could not only benefit the tourists, but also the wine, gastronomy and entertainment sectors.

2.2 Introduction

Germany is the number one European country in terms of total value added through travel and tourism. The sector annually contributes about 348 billion Euros to the German GDP. This number is predicted to rise each following year by 1.4% (WTTC, 2018). The success of this lucrative sector is mainly due to domestic tourism (87%). Ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, there has been a boost in domestic holidays (BMWi, 2013). In the last decades, the main needs of German travelers were self-realization and social esteem. Nowadays, the zeitgeist goes more towards searching for authenticity, tradition and home. Environmental awareness and sustainability are natural components of the German lifestyle. Thus, an intact environment as well as regional foods and experiences are becoming important influences on consumer goods and services (BMWi, 2014). Because of these trends, the willingness to take tours to rural areas such as wine regions is expected to grow.

With a vineyard area of 102,000 hectares, the German wine sector produces about 8.9 million hectoliters of wine, ranking 10th in the world. Like in many other countries in Europe, Germany has a large number of wine-producing companies. But this number has been significantly decreasing: between 2010 and 2015, the number of wine enterprises dropped from 20,558 to 15,931. The wine consumption, on the other hand, is steady. Annually, 20.6 million hectoliters

- 24 -

are consumed within Germany. About 45% of this volume is German wine (Wines of Germany, 2017) of which 16% is bought directly from the winemaker (Szolnoki and Hoffmann, 2014).

Tourism in wine regions is an important part of rural tourism. Wine tourism, however, is part of so-called special-interest tourism (Bruwer, 2003). This means that people belonging to this segment have a strong particular interest and choose destinations and activities with a strong focus according to this interest (Weiler, 1992). Special-interest tourists are willing to spend more money on their trips to have the experience they are looking for (MacKay et al., 2002). Also, there is a close link between wine tourism and gastronomy. This leads to the conclusion that there is a special form of tourism called “gourmet tourism” in which both components – the wine and the food - are equally valued (Etcheverria, 2015; cited in Peris-Ortiz et al., 2015).

In the last 25 years, wine tourism has played an increasingly important role in scientific research. However, most of the publications on this topic come from New World countries, such as Australia. Due to the noticeable success of wine tourism around the world, many countries have increased their focus on this lucrative market. In Europe, scientists and governments have noticed the economic significance of this sector. The Spanish Wine Tourism Association, for example, together with the Chamber of Commerce of Spain and other parties, decided to encourage the use of Business Intelligence tools in the context of a decision support system in wine tourism. The aim is to help wineries in their strategic touristic decisions by scientifically gathering data. In order to succeed in this sector, data has to be collected, analyzed and integrated. In particular, meeting the needs of tourists has to be a priority. Authors like Müller and Dreyer (2010) and Dreyer (2011) contributed profoundly to the understanding of wine tourism in Germany. However, there is still a lack of research into who the tourists in German wine regions really are.

This work can be seen as a classical segmentation study with a slightly different approach to previous research. The purpose is to get an inside perspective into who the tourists in German wine regions are and to find out their travel motivations. Also, segment-specific differences are analysed so that each group can be provided with targeted services in the future.

2.3 Literature review

In this chapter, a general overview of wine tourism research is given. Also, the topics of wine tourist segmentation and motivation will be further illuminated.

- 25 -

Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in the number of papers published on wine tourism (Gómez et al. 2018). Different researchers like Carlsen (2004), Mitchell and Hall (2006) and Alebaki et al. (2009) have provided helpful overviews across the field and suggestions about future research fields of interest. Probably the most recent overview on wine tourism research is authored by Gómez et al. (2018), who reviewed papers from 20 years of publications on this topic from 1995 to 2014. They provide an insight into the current status quo in wine tourism research. The findings reveal that wine tourist behavior studies account for 26% of all publications. The majority of these publications focus on the segmentation of wine tourists (65%). In most of the existing studies, winery visitors are interviewed. Since winery visitation is perhaps the most important wine tourism experience (Galloway et al., 2008), the highly involved wine tourist is in the center of these publications. The authors identified 30 wine tourist segmentation studies (Gómez et al., 2018). Mentioning all the existing publications would be beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, an attempt is made to only mention the authors that laid the groundwork for wine tourism research as well as papers that were influential or contributed to the topics of segmentation and motivation.

One of the most cited definitions of wine tourism can be found in Hall et al.’s (2000) book titled Wine Tourism around the World where it is defined as “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors”. Shortly after the definition, it is discussed who the wine tourist actually is and that it is clear that not every visitor of a wine region can be referred to as such (Hall et al., 2000). Different people want different experiences. This is the fundamental idea of wine tourist segmentation.

2.3.1 Wine tourist segmentation

In the following, segmentation approaches are listed in a chronological sequence. Dodd and Bigotte (1997) provided a principal segmentation study using demographic variables by interviewing winery visitors in Texas. They found age and gender to be strong indicators for different segments (Dodd and Bigotte, 1997). Another way of identifying segments is by using psychographic characteristics. These studies account for the majority of wine tourist segmentation studies. Hall and Macionis (1998), who investigated winery visitors in Australia and New Zealand, proposed three wine tourist segments: Wine lovers, Wine interested and Curious tourists (Hall et al., 2000). Charters and Ali Knight (2000, 2002), who modified this segmentation approach in Australia, found that wine and food pairings are important for the highly involved segment wine lover. Furthermore, the authors added the segment called Hanger on who “goes to the winery with no apparent interest in wine, but as part of a group, which has

- 26 -

decided to visit the attraction” (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002). In South Africa, Bruwer (2003) also adopted Hall and Macionis’ segmentation, so did Houghton (2008) (Molina et al., 2015). Thus, this segmentation approach was used for ten years and appears to be the most replicated.

In 2009, Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias tried a different approach by interviewing residents in three main cities in Aragón using a face-to-face questionnaire. The authors point out that knowledge from studies like theirs “is even more necessary in those areas where this type of tourism is in the initial stages” (Marzo‐Navarro and Pedraja‐Iglesias 2009). Clemente-Ricolfe et al. (2012) also interviewed residents in Spain (Valencia). They distinguish between the actual wine tourism market (AM) and the people willing to practice wine tourism (WP). The results indicate that 48.5% of the population of Valencia can be ranked among the AM, and 28.2% can be ranked among WP. Furthermore, people in the AM appear to have higher educational degrees and income, they consume wine more frequently, and have a higher wine interest and knowledge than the rest (Clemente-Ricolfe et al. 2012).

Alebaki and Iakovidou (2009), who compared different market segmentation approaches, state the need to further investigate wine tourists’ characteristics, motives and preferences. And that this should be done in different regions at different locations. It is also necessary to “obtain data from broader samples”, ideally from tourists who are not only winery visitors. Thus, more research is needed to fully understand wine consumers in general (Alebaki and Iakovidou, 2009). Alonso (2009) interviewed travelers at the ferry terminal of Wellington, which is “the gateway to a large number of people traveling to the South Island of New Zealand” and segmented them into domestic and international travelers (Alonso, 2009).

2.3.2 Motivation of wine tourists

In 2004, Alant and Bruwer, “measured the motivations for engaging in wine tourism and specific behaviors related to it” (Alant and Bruwer, 2004). The results showed that the main reason for making the trip, apart from visiting wineries and tasting or buying wines, is to experience the combination of food and wines. In Iowa, United States, it was found that wine tourists are attracted by the whole experience package, not just the wine. In addition to tasting wines, visitors want to enjoy the scenery, have a good time with friends and family, relax and taste locally produced foods (Grybovych et al. 2013). Lopez-Guzman et al. (2014), who interviewed winery visitors at the Sherry wine route in Spain, also found that the relationship between wine and local food is important (López-Guzmán et al., 2014). Concerning the source of information for choosing which winery to visit, word of mouth is the most important (Bruwer and Thach, 2013). In Germany, Szolnoki et al. (2014) did research on wine tourism in the

- 27 -

Rheingau region. Here, relaxation and participating in a wine tour were the main motives to visit the region (Szolnoki et al., 2014). Rüdiger et al. (2015), also in Germany, identified relaxation and pleasure/enjoyment as prime motivating factors in visiting a wine region (Rüdiger et al., 2015). Bruwer and Alant (2009) say that the “most important characteristic of the entire winescape is the region’s scenic beauty” and that the “decision to engage in wine tourism is generally impulsive, even spurious, the visit duration short and the motivations guiding the visitors’ behavior predominantly hedonic in nature” (Bruwer and Alant, 2009).

To sum up, there has been a consensus about the existence of different tourist segments in wine- growing regions since the beginning of academic research in this field. The segment referred to as “wine tourist”, on the other hand, seems to be problematic. By definition, the wine tourist is primarily motivated by tasting the wines and experiencing the features of a grape wine region. Visiting a cellar door is presumably the most important wine tourism experience. Thus, most of the research has been done on “real” wine tourists, but there have been almost no comparisons made between the wine tourists and the rest. Except for the study of Szolnoki et al. (2018), which can be seen as a preceding study, in the Rheingau region, Germany, there are three studies that are the most comparable to this one. Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias (2009), who interviewed residents in Spain, suggested that surveying only one region is too little to draw conclusions. The authors also said that wine tourists could be further segmented into “those who participate in wine tourism as the main reason for a trip, vs those who participate in wine tourism as a secondary element” (Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias, 2009). Clemente- Ricolfe et al. (2012) also stated that “it would be interesting to analyze different kinds of behavior to determine if wine was the main or secondary reason for the trip”. Furthermore, it is pointed out that it would be useful to not only conduct the study in one region (Clemente- Ricolfe et al. 2012). Alonso (2009), who interviewed tourists randomly at a ferry terminal in New Zealand, suggested choosing different geographical interview locations. Alebaki and Iakovidou (2009), who compared different segmentation approaches, also advised conducting interviews in different regions at different locations. Furthermore, he suggested obtaining data from broader samples, ideally of not just winery visitors.

Thus, the gap to be filled is defined as follows: First, interviews should be conducted in more than one region. Second, different geographical interview locations should be chosen, at best at wine-neutral locations. Third, in addition to the aspect of visiting wineries, a segment of people who participate in wine tourism as a secondary element should be introduced.

- 28 -

2.4 Material and Methods

The survey was conducted face-to-face within the period from May 1, 2017 to June 10, 2017. Targets for the survey were tourists in six of the 13 German wine regions. The acreage of the targeted regions (Baden, Franken, Mosel, Nahe, Sachsen, Württemberg) rounds up to 115,598 acres (46,721 ha), which is roughly 46% of the total German wine-growing area. Since the overall approach was to not just interview “real” wine tourists at cellar doors, wine festivals or such, 8 to 10 wine-neutral interview locations (i.e. city centers, cultural sights etc.) were selected in cooperation with the regional wine associations. The method at hand was a Face-to- Face survey. The questionnaire was inspired by and builds upon a study from Szolnoki et al. (2018), who interviewed tourists in a similar way in the Rheingau region in Germany. Travelers were asked about their motivation, activities and expenses during their stay, as well as their socio-demographic characteristics. Because the questionnaire was not easy to fill out, the respondents were supported by trained interviewers. In total, 1,843 questionnaires were collected, of which 1,735 were usable, delivering an overall rate of 94%.

One of the study’s main purposes was to find out the share of Primary Wine Tourists, in other words “real” wine tourists. Their main motivation in choosing a wine region as travel destination is the wine and its production. Subsequently, they will be compared to other less- involved tourist segments. To perform this, a two-step segmentation approach was developed. First, the respondents were clustered into two groups by whether or not they had visited or were still expecting to visit one or more wineries during their current trip. After this step, there were the two segments of Winery Visitors and Non-Winery Visitors. Since visiting a winery is perhaps the most important wine tourism experience, it attracts mainly highly involved wine lovers. These can be classified as wine tourists. However, literature also tells us that there is a possibility of so-called Hangers on, i.e. people that don’t have a big interest in wine but came to the winery as part of the group (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002). Because of that, winery visitors were also asked about the relevance of wine/winemaking in their travel motivation on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, 1 meaning ‘irrelevant’ and five meaning ‘very important’. If winery visitors checked 4 or 5 in this question, thereby stating that wine/winemaking played at least an important role during the trip for them personally, they belonged to the segment of Primary Wine Tourists. The rest of the winery visitors who did not consider wine/winemaking an important factor in their trip consequently were classified as Secondary Wine Tourists. In the end, there were three tourist segments that play a role for the rest of this paper: 1. Primary Wine Tourists, 2. Secondary Wine Tourists, 3. Non-Winery Visitors. Because the segmentation was based on winery visits, the term ‘winery tourism’ would be more suitable than ‘wine tourism’.

- 29 -

Due to the latter term being more popular in literature, the term ‘wine tourism’ will be used to avoid long terms and confusion.

Many previous studies took a deeper look into socio-demographic characteristics, behavior, motivation or psychographics. Usually, homogeneous segments are built, which are then described extensively before conducting further analyses. The approach introduced in this paper only includes two simple variables: winery visit (yes or no); role of wine in travel motivation (scale 1-5). Hence, the study stands out in terms of its simplicity. Further analyses concerning the characteristics follow only after the segmentation, not before. In order to determine if there are significant differences among the segments, Chi-square analyses and one-way ANOVA tests were carried out.

2.5 Results

In this section, the results of the conducted analyses are described.

89% of the respondents were German, the remaining 11% international tourists. After conducting the segmentation, 1,668 of the 1,735 tourists could be used for further analyses. The rest did not answer one of the two questions used as segmentation variables. As described in Table 1, 32% of the respondents could be classified as Primary Wine Tourists, another 18% as Secondary Wine Tourists and the other 49% as Non-Winery Visitors.

Table 1: The sample: Frequencies of the total study and segments

Visitor group Total study Primary Wine Tourists Secondary Wine Tourists Non-Winery Visitors N 1,668 541 307 820 Percent 100.0 32.4 18.4 49.2

The first question to be answered is if there are socioeconomic differences among the segments. There are no significant differences concerning the share of domestic and international travels and gender. There are, however, differences relating to the educational level, the monthly income, age, as well as interest in wine and wine knowledge. It can be said that Primary Wine Tourists have a higher educational level and income. As shown in Table 2, around 40% of this segment holds a college degree, and about 20% earns more than 4,000 Euros monthly (after taxes), which is the highest income category used in the questionnaire. The percentage of Non- Winery Visitors is around 9%.

- 30 -

Table 2: Educational degree and income

Visitor group χ2 Sig. Total Primary Wine Secondary Wine Non-Winery study Tourists Tourists Visitors % [1,735] % [541] % [307] % [820] Hold college degree 33.0 39.6 34.7 28.0 29.163 0.000*** Earn more than 4000 Euro monthly 13.3 19.8 12.8 8.9 41.396 0.000*** ***Significant at .001 level.

The Primary and Secondary Wine Tourists have an average age of about 50 to 51 years whereas Non-Winery Visitors on average are about 47 years old (see Table 3). Primary Wine Tourists have a higher interest in wine and a higher wine knowledge than Secondary Wine Tourists. There are also significant differences between Secondary Wine Tourists and Non-Winery Visitors. This shows that the formed segments have different involvement levels which is supported by literature and shows that the formed segments make sense.

Table 3: Age and wine involvement (wine interest and wine knowledge on a Likert scale from 1-5)

Visitor group Anova Total study Primary Wine Secondary Wine Non-Winery Means Tourists Means Tourists Means Visitors Means F Sig. Age 48.9 51.1a 50.1a 46.9b 11.312 0.000*** interest (1-5) 3.6 4.4a 3.4b 3.1c 228.378 0.000*** knowledge (1-5) 2.7 3.4a 2.5b 2.3c 153.278 0.000***

***Significant at .001 level. Differences occur between a, b and c.

In Table 4 it can be seen that 36% of all respondents consume wine several times a week. While the percentage of Primary Wine Tourists in this is 57%, almost a quarter of the Non-Winery Visitors drink wine more than once a week. This shows that, even if not for all of them, wine is a primary motivating travel factor, wine consumption is high across all segments.

- 31 -

Table 4: Consumption habits

Visitor group χ2 Sig. Total Primary Wine Secondary Non-Winery study Tourists Wine Tourists Visitors % [1,735] % [541] % [307] % [820] consume wine several times per week 36.3 57.3 34.2 23.3 251.306 0.000*** ***Significant at .001 level.

Across all respondents, 38% of the wine that is consumed privately is bought directly from the winegrower. Primary Wine Tourists buy more than half (55%) directly from the producer, as shown in Table 5. There is a significant difference between Primary and Secondary Wine Tourists as well as between Secondary Wine Tourists and Non-Winery Visitors. Both of the winery visitor segments consume more German wine than the Non-Winery Visitors. To sum up, it can be said that, even if Primary Wine Tourists consume wine more frequently, buy a lot of the consumed wine directly from the producer and drink more German than foreign wine, the percentage of the total study indicates that all the respondents seem to belong to a specific wine- involved client base, who prefer German wines.

Table 5: Wine purchase behavior

Visitor group Anova Total Primary Wine Secondary Non-Winery study Tourists Wine Tourists Visitors Means Means Means Means F Sig. share of wine purchases directly from winery (%) 37.7 55.4 a 41.5 b 22.9 c 129.197 0.000*** percentage of German wine 67.2 70.9 a 69.7 a 63.4 b 10.54 0.000*** ***Significant at .001 level. Differences occur between a, b and c.

One of the study’s purposes was to find out if there are different motivators among the wine tourism segments (see Table 6). Therefore, the respondents were given a list of 14 potential motivators and were asked to check a maximum of three, including the category ‘other’. The most important travel motivators across all segments are, in order of importance: nature/landscape, wine, relaxation, pleasure (food and drinking) and being together with people. For the Primary Wine Tourists, wine is, of course, more important than the rest and even more important than the landscape. It turns out that the combination of food and drinking is also more

- 32 -

important to this segment than to the others. For Secondary Wine Tourists, outdoor activities (hiking or bicycling) are more important than for the rest and they want to get to know something new. The only category, where there is a significant difference in favor of Non- Winery Visitors having a higher percentage than the other segments is ‘other‘. Generally speaking, the landscape is more important to winery visitors than to the rest.

Table 6: Travel motivation

Visitor group χ2 Sig. Primary Secondary Non- Wine Wine Winery Total study Tourists Tourists Visitors %[1,735] % [541] % [307] % [820] nature / landscape 38.4 41.2 46.3 33.7 17.613 0.000*** wine 30.7 66.4 26.4 8.8 511.25 0.000*** recreation / relaxation 25.6 25.0 29.0 24.8 2.278 0.320 pleasure / food and 23.2 33.1 18.9 18.3 drinking 43.958 0.000*** being together with 19.6 20.7 18.6 19.3 people 0.682 0.711 hiking or bycicling 17.0 17.2 21.5 15.2 6.200 0.045* visit friends or relatives 16.8 14.8 16.6 18.2 2.679 0.262 cultural things 16.7 15.2 18.9 16.8 1.998 0.368 get to know something 13.2 9.4 18.6 13.7 new 14.599 0.001** happiness with former 10.0 9.1 11.7 9.9 visits 1.567 0.457 coincidence 3.8 2.0 5.2 4.5 7.356 0.025* the region's presitge 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.2 0.121 0.941 business trip 3.1 2.2 2.6 3.8 2.943 0.230 other 10.6 4.1 9.8 15.1 42.452 0.000***

*,**,***Significant at .05, .01, .001 level.

To evaluate the economic value that wine tourism contributes to the wine, gastronomy and other businesses, respondents were not only asked about the expenses for wine during their trip, but also about their daily expenses on gastronomy and other food and entertainment (results shown

- 33 -

in Table 7). The average daily expenses of all respondents for gastronomic services were 33.50 Euros. For other food, respondents paid 8.20 Euros and 18.70 Euros on entertainment. It should be pointed out that in studies like this, respondents tend to answer in a socially desirable manner. Therefore the amount of money spent on all the different categories could be overestimated. However, a tendency regarding spending behavior can still be demonstrated. Taking a look at the differences in spending behavior among the segments, Primary Wine Tourists spent about 10 Euros more in restaurants than the rest. The result complies with their travel motivation (more interest in pairing wine and food). They also spent about 4 Euros per capita more on entertainment than the other segments. The expenses for “other food” from Secondary Wine Tourists and Non-Winery Visitors are quite similar whereas Non-Winery Visitors spent about two Euros less. Altogether it can be said that Primary Wine Tourists spent about 15 Euros more per capita per day than the other two segments.

Table 7: Daily expenses (in €)

Visitor group Anova Non-Winery Total study Primary Wine Secondary Wine Visitors Means Tourists Means Tourists Means Means F Sig. Gastronomy 33.50 40.60 a 29.50 b 31.10 b 22.551 0.000*** Entertainment 18.70 21.40 a 17.20 b 17.60 b 5.571 0.004** Other food 8.20 9.10 a 9.30 a 7.30 b 4.775 0.009** Total 60.40 71.10 56.00 56.00 **,***Significant at .01, .001 level. Differences occur between a and b.

Due to their higher wine involvement, it is not surprising that Primary Wine Tourists (158 Euros) had higher wine expenses than Secondary Wine Tourists (62 Euros), who accordingly had higher wine expenses than the Non-Winery Visitors (8 Euros). Among all respondents, the average amount of money spent on the purchase of bottles of wine during their stay was 70 Euros (see Table 8).

- 34 -

Table 8: Expenses for wine during the stay

Visitor group Anova Total study Primary Wine Secondary Wine Non-Winery Means Tourists Means Tourists Means Visitors Means F Sig. Wine 70,00 157,70 a 62,30 b 8,40 c 140,051 0,000*** ***Significant at .001 level. Differences occur between a, b and c.

In order to take a closer look at the differences between Primary and Secondary Wine Tourists, they were asked what brought them to the last winery they visited. Only one answer was possible. Therefore, as shown in Table 9, only one Chi-square analysis was carried out. For both segments, the most important reason for having visited the last winery were recommendations by friends and family. Interestingly, for Primary Wine Tourists, recommendations appeared to be even more important. Almost one quarter (24%) of the Secondary Wine Tourist segment stated that friends or family had decided that they visit the last winery. Compared to Primary Wine Tourists (14%), this is noticeably higher. Also, 17% of the Secondary Wine Tourists came to the winery by accident. The percentage of Primary Wine Tourists in this category accounts for 9%.

Table 9: Factors influencing which winery to visit

Visitor group χ2 Sig. All winery Primary Wine Secondary visitors Tourists Wine Tourists

% [848] % [541] % [307] 26,393 0,000*** recommendations by friends and family 35.9 38.9 30.6 I've heard or read about the winery 20.6 22.5 17.3 friends or family have decided that we come here 17.3 13.8 23.6 I came here by incident 11.8 9.1 16.5 Other 14.4 15.8 12.0 ***Significant at .001 level.

- 35 -

2.6 Discussion

In this following section, the results of this study are compared to the ones found in previous literature. Also, implications for the use of the results are drawn. Finally, limitations of the study are identified.

As stated in the introduction, 45 % of the consumed wine in Germany is produced domestically (Wines of Germany, 2017). Furthermore, the share of wines bought directly from the winemaker is 16% (Szolnoki and Hoffmann, 2014). In our study, 67% of the consumed wine was produced locally, and the share of wines bought from the winemaker was 38%. This means that all the people visiting German wine regions belong to a special group of wine consumers and cannot be compared to the rest of the German population.

Although a simple approach was followed, the results proved to be congruent with the literature. ‘Real’ wine tourists (Primary Wine Tourists) were found to be older, better educated and had higher incomes than the other segments, as stated by Ignatov and Smith (2006). Referring back to the study of Clemente-Ricolfe et al. (2012), they called winery visitors the ‘actual wine tourism market’ (AM). According to their results, 48.5% of the Valencian population can be ranked among the AM. That number is almost met in this study: 51% of all respondents visited a winery and therefore belong to the AM. Also, the studies confirm each other in terms of winery visitors having a higher educational degree and income, as well as wine consumption and involvement. As Williams and Kelly (2001) found, wine tourists (in this work referred to as Primary Wine Tourists), had significantly higher expenses during their travels than other tourists. As found by Bruwer and Alant (2009), tourists in this study chose to visit a wine region for hedonic reasons (landscape, wine, relaxation, food), with nature being the most important motivator. Consistent with different authors (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002; Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Ignatov and Smith. 2006; Grybovych et al., 2013; Lopez-Guzman et al., 2014), the segment with the highest wine involvement showed the same tendency of enjoying wine and food pairings. This leads to the conclusion that wine tourism in Germany could be labeled ‘gourmet tourism’ (Etcheverria, 2015; cited in Peris-Ortiz et al., 2015). Bruwer and Thach (2013) stated that for choosing a winery to visit, word of mouth is the most important factor. In the present work, the same results came to light: 36% of all winery visitors said that they chose the winery because of recommendations from friends or family. However, one-quarter of Secondary Wine Tourists stated that friends or family had made the decision to visit the winery. Therefore, this segment can probably be best compared with the segment Hanger on which is for people who came to the winery as part of a group (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002). Due to

- 36 -

the similarity of the results to previous studies, the conclusion can be drawn that the introduced segmentation approach, as simple as it is, is reasonable.

As mentioned, wine tourism belongs to so-called special-interest tourism. Travelers with a special interest spend more money on their trips, participate in more activities and have a higher travel frequency. There are visitors to German wine regions that are primarily motivated by experiences related to the product wine. In this work, these people were labeled Primary Wine Tourists. This is the most promising segment due to its higher expenses for wine, restaurants and entertainment. Therefore it could make sense for different parties to put their marketing focus on this segment. However, this segment only accounts for about one third of all respondents. 18% were classified as Secondary Wine Tourists. They visited a winery even though wine was not an important factor for having chosen the region. For them, it is more about being in nature and relaxation. The same goes for the third segment of Non-Winery Visitors. Since the latter two segments account for two thirds of the sample, they should not be neglected. There are many ways to provide targeted services for each segment. In the following, recommendations are given for an alternative that tries to cover the main needs of all segments.

Across all the respondents, nature, wine, relaxation, and pleasure (wine and food) are the most important motivators. Nature and recreation/relaxation can be linked together, so can wine and food. Also, there is a link between relaxation and the joy of food. Finally, there are two main points that should be addressed by marketers: nature and enjoyment. Tours could be provided to explore nature in the region, then go to a winery, enjoy good food and taste wine. All respondents have an above average education, income level and wine consumption. However, Primary Wine Tourists have an even higher educational degree and income than the rest. Also, the combination of wine and food is more important to them. A good way to cover the various needs could be to provide three kinds of mixed plates, accompanied by wines. The plates should differ in terms of quality and pricing, but should all have a good basic quality – sophisticated and authentic. Now, after the basic needs of the visitors are covered, there could be additional offers according to segment-specific needs: Primary Wine Tourists have a higher wine interest and knowledge. Because of this, there should be the possibility to take a guided tour to the vineyard, the production facilities, or both. To make it also appealing to the other segments, one or two glasses of wine should be offered during the tour. Secondary Wine Tourists undertake more outdoor activities. There could be a map with two or three different walking/hiking routes between 30 minutes and one hour. Like this, people could at least take a walk after having a meal. For Non-Winery Visitors, the aspect of being together with people/friends/family is

- 37 -

important. There is no obvious reason why they couldn’t pick a winery as location. In order to assure that big groups of people can be served, a sufficient amount of seats is crucial.

Even though some interesting insights were gained in this paper, there are several limitations: The first one is probably most significant: German wine regions often stretch across different areas. Therefore, it is hard to obtain useful data about visitor numbers, age brackets and so on. Since the population is not known, the sample cannot be seen as representative. Also, the results cannot be generalized for all German wine regions, because the interviews were conducted in only six of the 13 denominations. Nevertheless, the segmentation approach itself could be applied in any wine region of the world. A subsequent study that incorporates the other seven German wine regions was conducted in 2018. Furthermore, variables related to the respondents’ lifestyle were not included. This could have helped to provide a better understanding of the respondents’ motives. In addition, as done by Clemente-Ricolfe et al. (2012), the share of people willing to participate (WP) in wine touristic activities in the future was not captured. This could be of interest for further research. Finally, some problems connected to the simplicity of the approach should be pointed out: wine tourists in this work only included the respondents that visited wineries. Surely there are people who visited the region with a clear wine focus but did not visit a winery. In the future, this could be taken into account and further differentiated according to visiting wine festivals, wine booths, wine houses etc.

- 38 -

3 Estimating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions

This chapter represents an article published by the author of this dissertation and Prof. Dr. Gergely Szolnoki as co-author.

Any reference to this chapter should be cited as:

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2020). Estimating the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22, 788-799. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2380.

- 39 -

3.1 Abstract

With an economic impact of EUR 291 billion, Germany is the number-one European country in terms of tourism revenue. German wine regions have a long history of production, but the value of these regions as tourism destinations has only recently received recognition. In the last few years, wine tourism has gained increasing importance and is believed to result in sustainable development by creating jobs while at the same time preserving a region’s heritage. The aim of this paper is to estimate the economic impact of tourism in German wine regions in order to help stakeholders make the right policy and investment decisions. Therefore, a modified multiplier model was developed that allows for the economic impact of wine tourism to be assessed. By collecting 4,478 questionnaires in all 13 German wine regions, travelers provided information about their travel behavior, expenditures, and socio-demographic characteristics. After conducting segmentation, the economic impact of tourism as well as wine tourism was estimated for each of the wine regions. The results show that tourism in German wine regions has an economic impact of EUR 26.4 billion, providing 384,878 people with their primary income. Due to higher expenditures, wine tourists show a disproportionately high economic impact of EUR 5.0 billion, which makes this niche market generate income for 71,846 people. The right investments in this lucrative market could help balance regional economic disparities and achieve sustainable tourism development in the country.

3.2 Introduction

Germany is the 4th richest country in the world (World Bank, 2019). However, wealth is not equally distributed within the country. One of the main imbalances is found between rural areas and urban agglomerations (FES, 2019). Ninety percent of the country’s territory is rural. These areas are important because of their recreational value, their cultural landscapes, and their natural resources. In order to assure sustainable development in these regions, people have to be prevented from moving away by creating equal living conditions to those present in cities (BMEL, 2018). One way to stimulate economic development in these rural regions is tourism, as it generates income while at the same time promoting cultural heritage and traditions (WTTC, 2012).

In terms of the total contribution to GDP, Germany, as a travel destination, ranks first in Europe. Including the indirect effects, the travel and tourism sector accounts for EUR 291 billion (8.6% of GDP), resulting in about 5.4 million jobs, which is roughly 12% of the total employment in the country (WTTC, 2019a). This makes it more important than any other

- 40 -

industry that is typically associated with Germany. The sector leaves mechanical engineering (EUR 252 billion), the chemical and pharmaceutical industry (EUR 196 billion), and the information technology sector (EUR 134 billion) far behind (Welt, 2019). With a predicted long-term tourism growth rate of 1.2%, the country ranks 183 out of 185 countries. Domestic tourism is very strong within the country, at 85% of the total contribution (WTTC, 2019a). Worldwide, domestic tourism accounts for 71% of the total tourism contribution (WTTC, 2019b). Domestic tourism, especially in industrialized countries such as Germany, can help in “counter balancing regional imbalances in terms of income and employment levels” (Fletcher, 1989, p. 515).

Wine-growing in Germany has more than 2,000 years of tradition behind it (Wines of Germany, 2019). However, German wine regions have only recently been seen as touristic-relevant destinations (Szolnoki, 2018). Over the last few years, wine tourism has been identified as a growing niche market (UNWTO, 2016). More importantly, it has been recognized as an approach to achieve sustainable rural development as it promotes both the tangible and the intangible heritage of a destination. It plays an important role in terms of natural resource and cultural preservation while generating substantial economic and social benefits. Also, it responds to customers’ evolving needs and expectations of experiencing a destination’s culture and lifestyle (UNWTO, 2017).

Many destinations have realized that wine tourism benefits not only the wineries, but all areas of the regional economy. Germany, as a large saturated market with high levels of domestic tourism, appears to be ideal for effective wine tourism development. In order to make the right policy and investment decisions, empirical evidence is crucial (WTTC, 2018). This paper aims to develop a model for measuring the economic impact of wine tourism using a modified Keynesian income multiplier model. Thus, regional imbalances between rural and urban areas could be leveled and sustainable development in German wine regions could be achieved.

3.3 Literature review

Visitors to tourism destinations spend money on goods and services, creating economic impacts. This money flows into the destination’s economy and impacts value added, income, employment, etc. To analyze the economic impacts of tourism, several methods/models are currently being used. The most used models are the input–output (I-O) and the computable general equilibrium (CGE) and multiplier models. These differ considerably in terms of complexity, data demands, underlying assumptions, and in the precision of their results (Klijs et

- 41 -

al., 2012). The choice of methodology is “determined by the main purpose of the research, the resources available for the study, the time constraint imposed on the researchers, and the structure of the economy in question” (Fletcher, 1989, p. 515). The most broadly used method for estimating the economic impact of tourism is I-O modeling. By taking into account intersectoral purchases, I-O models allow for the modeling of economic impacts across sectors. As an alternative to I-O models, CGE models have been introduced. They can be seen as extended I-O models (Klijs, 2016). Authors such as Dwyer et al. (2004) have proposed them as an improvement to I-O models since they include resource constraints and feedback effects. Due to their detail and flexibility, they “potentially lead to more realistic outcomes” (Klijs, 2016, p. 135).

The I-O and CGE models need information about the demand as well as the supply side of the destination, mainly in the form of I-O tables. On a local level, however, this information (especially supply) is often not available. In the case of missing I-O tables, the researcher either has to create them or draw on a model that does not depend on the use of I-O tables; that is, a multiplier model (Klijs, 2016). Multiplier models “provide a measure of the effects of an exogenous change in final demand on the sales output of industries in the economy” (Dwyer, 2010, p. 424). The most frequently used multiplier models are Export Base (e.g. Chang, 1981), the ad hoc multiplier (e.g. Archer and Owen, 1972; Milne, 1987), and the Keynesian multiplier (e.g. Archer, 1977; Archer and Fletcher, 1996). Compared to the I-O and CGE models, they are relatively transparent, efficient, and comparable (Klijs, 2016).

Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in the number of papers published on wine tourism (Gómez et al., 2018). However, there are only two scientific publications on the topic of the economic impact of wine tourism. Kim and Kim (2002) determined the economic impact of wine tourism in Michigan using I-O modeling. Foltz et al. (2007) measured the contribution of the grape and wine industry to Idaho’s agribusiness and tourism sector. By using a multiplier model, the authors found that “wine tourism has higher direct and indirect labor content than wine production” (Foltz et al., 2007, p. 86). Usually, economic impact studies in the wine industry are available in the form of industry reports. Often, the methodology is not revealed. However, due to there being scant scientific evidence in the relevant research field, an overview of the existing results and used methods is given below (see Table 10). To make the results more comparable, all other currencies were converted into Euros.

In this paragraph, all reports using I-O modeling will be described. In the USA and Canada, the IMPLAN (impact analysis for planning) system, a variation of I-O models (IMPLAN, 2019),

- 42 -

was the chosen method. Results for 2017 in the USA show that 15 million travelers in the country could be called wine tourists. These predominately domestic visitors are responsible for 43 million unique winery visits every year. The economic impact of wine tourism in the USA is EUR 15.8 billion. Therefore, 187,729 jobs in the USA rely directly on wine tourism (Wineamerica, 2017). In California, 23.6 million wine-touristic visits (2018) generate an annual economic impact of EUR 6.5 billion. Interestingly, the state is accountable for about 81% of the country’s wine production, but only for about 40% of the economic impact from wine tourism (California Wines, 2018). This could indicate that the volume of produced wine does not translate into the amount of tourist expenditure. In Canada, the estimated number of wine tourists in 2015 was 3.7 million. These tourists generate a total impact from wine-related tourism of EUR 1.4 billion (Canadian Vintners Association, 2017). For Australia (2014), the estimate was about 60 million visitor nights to Australian wineries. Using I-O modeling, the final estimation of the economic impact was EUR 5.4 billion (Wine Australia, 2015).

In France, the economic impact of wine tourism was calculated using a multiplier model. Here, the estimated number of wine tourists in 2016 was 10 million. They generate EUR 5.2 billion annually. When looking at the 2009 results (7.5 million wine tourists), the growth rate is higher than 30% (Atout France, 2017). In Argentina, the economic impact was calculated using a self- developed approach that included four variables: number of wineries, visitors to wineries, direct income from wine tourism, and other non-measurable benefits. The results show that 1.5 million wine tourists generate about EUR 1.4 billion in 2017 (ACOVI, 2018). Italy received four to six million international wine tourists (14 million wine-touristic visitor days) in 2015. By multiplying the visitor days with the average expenditure of EUR 193, the estimated economic impact is EUR 2.6 billion (Città del Vino, 2016).

Table 10: Existing economic impact studies on wine tourism

Number of Wine tourist wine expenditures Source Method/Model tourists (EUR billion) (million) USA Wineamerica, 2017 I-O 15 15.8 Argentina ACOVI, 2018 Multiplier 1.5 1.4 Australia Wine Australia, 2015 I-O 0.6 5.4 Canadian Vintners Association, Canada I-O 3.7 1.4 2017 France Atout France, 2017 Multiplier 10 5.2 Italy Città del Vino, 2016 Multiplier 4-6 2.6

- 43 -

In Germany, the Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr (DWIF) carries out economic impact analyses for many tourism destinations, including states, travel regions, and even districts. Also, it conducted economic impact studies in two German wine regions, Franconia (2012) and Mosel (2016). The method that was used was the Keynesian income multiplier. By collecting long-term economic data on tourism, the DWIF calculated direct and indirect income multipliers.

The results show that in the Mosel wine region, there were 7.2 million overnight stays and 18.0 million day trips (in total, not just wine-related). Together they created an economic impact of EUR 1.3 billion, giving 22,780 people their primary income (DWIF, 2017). In the German wine region of Franconia, 13.5 million overnight stays and 62.5 million day trips were undertaken annually. The tourists generated EUR 3.2 billion, providing the primary income for 64,500 people (DWIF, 2013a).

As the above-listed results show, there are only a few studies that have dealt with the economic impacts of wine tourism. As it currently stands, there are no existing studies showing the overall economic impact of wine tourism in Germany. Furthermore, the economic impact of tourism within German wine regions is not known.

In choosing an appropriate model, the I-O and CGE models are the most accepted and most frequently used methods. However, one problem came up early: The geographical boundaries of the German wine regions have not yet been officially defined. Often they stretch across district and even state borders. Without this information, visitor numbers cannot be retrieved from the Statistical Offices. Thus, the demand side is difficult to model. More importantly, in order to apply one of these methods, I-O tables would have to be available, but in Germany, these tables are only available for the state level. In order to create I-O tables, a suitable committee that consists of key players and information-producing units has to be founded. It is possible to create hybrid models or models derived completely from survey data (Klijs, 2016). In our case though, with 13 different regions to consider, the time constraint and the resources available were limiting factors. Thus, we drew on a “model that does not depend on an I-O table, i.e. a multiplier model” (Klijs, 2016, p. 16).

- 44 -

3.4 Research design

3.4.1 Model specification

This paper uses a Keynesian income multiplier model for measuring the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany. The approach is appropriate for modeling the demand side on the regional level when supply data cannot be obtained. The model follows the reasoning that inflows of money into a tourism destination lead to income for companies and inhabitants. Companies and inhabitants then increase their consumption and savings. Successive consumption again increases income, which translates into savings and consumption. This cycle continues on repeat. In each round, so-called leakages (e.g. savings) reduce the effects (Schaffer, 1999).

For each individual wine region, the calculation of the annual economic impact was carried out in the following steps:

(1) Gross tourist spending 𝒈𝒈 𝑺𝑺 = 𝑘𝑘 𝑔𝑔 𝑆𝑆 𝑁𝑁 � 𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 where 𝑠𝑠 is=1 the total annual number of visitor days and is the mean daily expenditure in each sector s of the economy (1, 2, …, k). 𝑁𝑁 𝒆𝒆

(2) Net tourist spending 𝒏𝒏 𝑺𝑺 = 𝑘𝑘 𝑛𝑛 𝑔𝑔 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 − � 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 where 𝑠𝑠 =is1 the value-added tax for each economic sector.

𝐕𝐕𝐕𝐕𝐕𝐕𝐬𝐬 (3) Direct regional income (from tourism spending) 𝐝𝐝 𝑹𝑹𝐈𝐈 = 𝑘𝑘 ( ) 𝑑𝑑 𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 � 𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚 where m𝑠𝑠=1 is the direct income multiplier; that is, the amount of income generated through the inflow ofd money.

(4) Indirect regional income (from tourism spending) 𝒊𝒊 𝑹𝑹𝑰𝑰

- 45 -

= 𝑘𝑘 𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑖 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ��𝑆𝑆 − 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑚𝑚 where 𝑠𝑠m=1 is the indirect income multiplier; that is, the amount of income generated through prepaid suppliersi that are necessary for maintaining the touristic service quality. These include the supply and procurement of goods (e.g. bread from the local bakery, electricity from energy providers), provision of services (e.g. insurances, bank loans) and investments in structural maintenance (e.g. renovation work by craftsmen). The induced effects of tourism are not captured in this model.

(5) Total regional income (from tourism spending)

= + 𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑖 The𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 final𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 step𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is the calculation of the income equivalents IE; that is, the number of people who would be able to live off the income generated by tourist expenditure. It must not be confused with the number of jobs. Since an income often supports more than one person, the number of jobs would be lower. This approach was chosen because it describes income effects more accurately than the calculation of job numbers.

(6) Total income equivalents IE

= 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑐𝑐 where𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 RI is the average annual income of an employed person in the German tourism sector. c In order to find out the share of the economic impact generated by wine tourists, the calculation was done twice for every region: Once for all tourists in German wine regions and the second time only for wine tourists. The method on how to distinguish between wine tourists and other tourists will we explained in the following sub-chapter (see also Figure 1).

3.4.2 Data collection and extrapolation

In order to calculate the economic impact according to the method above, we needed to obtain the following variables:

• The total annual number of visitor days N; • The mean daily expenditure in each economic sector ;

𝒆𝒆𝒔𝒔

- 46 -

• The income multipliers and ; 𝒅𝒅 𝒊𝒊 • The average income per𝒎𝒎 capita of𝒎𝒎 a person that is employed in tourism ; and 𝒄𝒄 • The share of wine tourists. 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹

In order to retrieve the annual number of overnight stays from the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), it was necessary to determine which German districts are located in wine regions since the borderlines of the wine regions have not been officially defined. Within the country, there are 401 districts that are divided into 294 rural districts and 107 independent cities (Destatis, 2018). To define which of them lie within German wine regions, all of them were examined. In some cases, the district was attributable to more than just one wine region. In other cases, only a portion of the district could be referred to as wine region. Hence, a factor that represents the district’s share of what could be called a wine region was created in coordination with the relevant regional associations (tourism and winegrowers associations). After double- checking with the experts, we had a final version of all the relevant districts and their partial wine areas. Then the number of overnight stays, all of which were from the year 2017, could be obtained from the Federal Statistical Office (numbers don’t include Peer-to-Peer accommodations such as Airbnb). Since many of the districts lay only partially in German wine regions, the number of overnight stays was then multiplied by the same factor. To exclude the underage population, we only interviewed consumers who had a minimum age of 16 years. The official statistics show that 92% of the German population is at least 16 years old (Federal Statistical Office, 2019). Therefore, the number of overnight stays was then multiplied by a factor of 0.92. Now, we had the final number of overnight stays in each of the 13 German wine regions. In order to obtain the number of day trips, we used regional conversion factors from the Federal Ministry for Business and Energy (BMWi) that allow for the conversion of the number of overnight stays into the number of day-trippers (BMWi, 2014). Finally, we had the final number of visitor days N.

It is possible to use multipliers from earlier studies (e.g. Auld & McArthur, 2003). In our case, the multipliers were obtained from the DWIF (2013b, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018). We took a look at six different reports and then built arithmetic means. was found to be constant 𝒊𝒊 at 30% across all sectors, which is supported by Mayer et al. (2010).𝒎𝒎 In the same reports, 𝒅𝒅 ranged from 65 to 68%, leading to a mean value of 67%. The mean value for the regional𝒎𝒎 income per capita of an employed person in the German tourism sector was acquired from 𝒄𝒄 the German Federal𝑹𝑹 𝑹𝑹Statistical Office (Destatis, 2019).

- 47 -

The mean daily expenditure per visitor was gained through a face-to-face survey. Using an interviewer-administered questionnaire, respondents provided information about their travel motivation, wine activities, duration of their stay, visitor type (overnight visitor vs. day-tripper), their type of accommodation, and their daily travel expenditure for accommodation, gastronomy, entertainment, food, wine (purchase of regionally produced bottles of wine), and “other/rest”. The survey was conducted during two interview periods (March 1, 2017 to June 10, 2017 and April 24, 2018 to June 8, 2018). The target groups for the survey were tourists in German wine regions. A heterogeneous basic population is not known since wine regions stretch across districts and states. Still, interviewers were instructed to choose respondents according to their sex and age brackets (equally distributed), with a minimum age of 16 years. In order not to just interview wine-oriented tourists, the interviews were not conducted at wineries or wine festivals etc, but at eight to ten “wine-neutral” interview locations per wine region (e.g. city centers or cultural sights). The interview locations were selected by the regional tourism and/or winemakers’ associations. To assure a sufficiently large data pool, the goal of the survey was to collect at least 300 questionnaires in each region, leading to 3,900 questionnaires for Germany as a whole. In total, 4,913 questionnaires were collected, of which 4,478 were usable, delivering an overall rate of 91%.

To find out the share of wine tourists, we used a segmentation method developed by Tafel and Szolnoki (2019) that segments tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities. The authors interviewed 1,735 tourists in six German wine regions at wine-neutral interview locations. To divide visitors into wine tourists and other tourists, respondents were asked two successive questions, described in the decision tree below (Figure 1).

- 48 -

Figure 1: Decision tree to determine the share of wine tourists

If visitors had visited a winery during their stay and also considered wine/wine-making to be an important or very important in their travel motivation, they are called Primary Wine Tourists which are considered “real” wine tourists (Tafel and Szolnoki, 2019). For this work, the share of wine tourists was determined for each region individually.

3.5 Results

3.5.1 Survey areas

In Germany there are 13 German wine regions that are formed by 72 districts (53 rural districts and 19 district-free cities). Although this paper aims at strengthening rural areas, cities located in the wine regions are not excluded because they are important source markets for visitors, especially those undertaking day trips (Soontiens et al., 2018). The defined wine-growing districts are located in eight different federal states. Federal states in Germany are mainly governed separately and investments also occur on the state level. Therefore, this paper’s findings will prove most useful if the results are shown for the relevant states, even if the figures were calculated separately for each wine region. Also, the results are more easily accessible if they are produced for less than 13 separate regions. The East German states of Saxony, Saxony- Anhalt, and Thuringia were cumulated into one category and will be called East German states (EAST) for the rest of this paper. The final relevant states are Baden-Württemberg (BA-WÜ),

- 49 -

Bavaria (BAV), Hesse (HE), Rhineland-Palatinate (RL-P), and EAST. It is important to mention that these names and abbreviations do not refer to the whole states, but to the share of the states that can be called wine regions. Figure 2 shows the extent of the wine regions on a map of Germany (illustrated with district and state borders). The 13 encircled numbers stand for the 13 wine regions (see Table 11).

Figure 2: Map of the wine regions in Germany

Table 11 shows the wine regions that are numbered in Figure 2. Also, it shows the areas of the wine regions, the district-free cities, and the federal states they are located in. The area sum of all the districts that lie in wine regions is 33,475 km2, which represents 9.4% of Germany’s surface area being denoted as a wine region. The number of inhabitants in these regions is 8,662,606, which is roughly 10.4% of the German population. Thus, the population density in the German wine regions is slightly higher (259 inhabitants per km2) than the average (232 inhabitants per km2) (Destatis, 2018).

- 50 -

Table 11: Complementary information about German wine regions (see Figure 2)

No. Wine regions State/Category Size (km2) District-free cities within the region 1 Baden Baden-Württemberg 9,438 Baden-Baden, Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, Freiburg im Breisgau 2 Württemberg (BA-WÜ) 3,726 Stuttgart, Heilbronn 3 Ahr 534 - 4 Middle Rhine 1,170 - 5 Mosel Rhineland-Palatinate 2,967 Koblenz, Trier 6 Nahe (RL-P) 1,010 - 7 Palatinate 1,658 Landau in der Pfalz, Neustadt an der Weinstraße 8 Rheinhessen 1,202 Mainz, Worms 9 Saale-Unstrut East German States 4,385 Jena, Weimar 10 Saxony (EAST) 1,222 Dresden Bavaria Franconia Aschaffenburg, Schweinfurt, Würzburg 11 (BAV) 5,557 12 Hessische Bergstraße Hesse 315 - 13 Rheingau (HE) 292 Wiesbaden

Figure 3 shows the cumulated geographical area for the wine regions in each state, the visitor density, and the share of wine tourists. Also, the y-axis shows the visitor days per year. The area of the wine regions in the states ranges from 607 km2 (Hesse) to 13,164 km2 (Baden- Württemberg), and the share of wine tourists ranges from 9.5% (Hesse) to 16.0% (Bavaria). The highest visitor density is found in the wine regions of Hesse (18,908), and the lowest ones are in the East German and Bavarian wine regions (both at around 6,000).

- 51 -

6,040 Visitor density [visitor days per km2]

16.0 Share of wine tourists [%]

2 13,164 km 8,541 km2 5,607 km2 5,557 km2 607 km2

Figure 3: Total visitor days, share of wine tourists, and visitor density for the year 2017

3.5.2 Visitation and wine-touristic visitations

With a count of 187.7 million visitor days, the wine regions in Baden-Württemberg received more visitors than the other states combined (53.8%). Here, it should be mentioned that big cities such as Stuttgart contribute to this high number, especially in terms of the day trips that are taken. The share of wine tourists on the other hand is the second lowest (11.4%) in this state. Rhineland-Palatinate, with its six wine regions, ranks second with a total of 82.7 million visitor days (23.7%). Except for Mainz, there are no cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants in this state, which is why most of the tourism here can be counted as rural. Summing up, more than three quarters (77.5%) of all visitor days in German wine regions are undertaken in two states. These two states, however, cover eight of the 13 German wine regions.

The wine regions in East Germany in terms of size, visitor days, and the share of wine tourists show almost identical numbers to the Bavarian wine regions. The state of Hesse is home to two small wine regions, which have a geographical area of only 607 km2. Also, the state has the lowest share of wine tourists (9.5%). However, the state has the highest visitor density of all five “states” (18,809 visitor days per square kilometer). Thus, despite their size, the wine regions in this state perform best in this regard.

- 52 -

Wine tourists account for about 45.7 million visitor days, which is 13.1% of all visitor days in the German wine regions. Of these, around 40.1 million are day trips and the remaining 5.7 million are overnight stays. Taking the average length of stay for an overnight stay as 2.4 nights, there are 2.3 million wine tourists who stay overnight. Furthermore, dividing the number of wine-touristic day trips by a factor of 8 (average day visits per year), there are 5 million more wine tourists in Germany. To sum up, there are 7.3 million wine tourists visiting German wine regions every year.

3.5.3 Visitor characteristics

Table 12 shows the visitor characteristics in each region. The highest share of women can be found in the East German wine regions (56%). The mean age is fairly similar in each state, except for East Germany. Here, the mean age (52.2 years) is significantly higher than in the other states (45.4 to 47.6 years). The highest share of day visitors was found for the wine regions of Hesse (63.1%) and the lowest share was in the Bavarian wine regions (40.6%). Overnight guests mostly stay in hotels (47 to 50%). The highest share of guests sleeping in wineries was in Bavaria (9.2%), followed by Rhineland-Palatinate (8.2%). In East Germany, the share of people sleeping in wineries was only about 0.7%. The longest stays for overnight visitors were found to be in the wine regions of Baden-Württemberg (3.7 nights). At 2.3 nights, the shortest average stay of overnight guests was in the Bavarian wine regions.

3.5.4 Structure of the expenditure

Table 13 illustrates the structure of the expenditure of both day-trippers and overnight visitors in each state. The highest overall expenditure was in the wine regions of Rhineland-Palatinate (EUR 78.45) and the lowest was in Bavaria (EUR 69.41), so the difference is EUR 9.04. In all states, most of the daily expenditure was either spent on accommodation (overnight guests) or on gastronomy (day-trippers). Overnight visitors spent about 35% of their daily expenditure on accommodation and another 30% in restaurants. Day-trippers spent about 40% of their daily expenditure in restaurants and another 25% on entertainment. In three cases (Baden- Württemberg, Bavaria, and Hesse), the overnight visitors in wine regions spent a similar amount of money on both accommodation and gastronomy. The average daily spending amount on locally produced bottled wine is EUR 5.09. The highest share spent on wine was in the Bavarian wine regions: Here, day-trippers spent 12.0% and overnight guests spent 5.5% of their daily expenditure on this category. The lowest share of money spent on wine was in the East German wine regions. However, the highest share of expenditure was spent on entertainment in these

- 53 -

regions (overnight visitors: 20.9%; day-trippers: 32.3%), together with the wine regions in Baden-Württemberg.

3.5.5 Economic impact

Table 14 summarizes the estimated economic impact of tourism and of wine tourism in German wine regions. The wine regions in Baden-Württemberg have the highest economic impact with a gross tourist spending of EUR 14.2 billion, of which EUR 2.2 billion was generated by wine tourism. Wine regions in Rhineland-Palatinate, with EUR 6.5 billion of gross tourist spending, experienced less than half of the economic impact of Baden-Württemberg. However, due to a higher share of wine tourists (15.3%), the impact of wine tourists of EUR 1.4 billion is reasonably good. Hesse, on first sight, appears to experience a small economic impact. However, considering its size of only 607 km2, it performs quite well as it is the most significant region in terms of gross tourist spending per km2.

Summing up, tourism in the German wine regions has an economic impact of EUR 26.4 billion. It produces EUR 7.1 billion of direct and EUR 4.5 of indirect regional income. This leads to a total regional income of EUR 11.6 billion resulting in 384,878 income equivalents. The share of wine tourists in terms of visitor days is around 13%. Due to higher expenditures, the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany adds up to about 19% (EUR 5.0 billion), translating into the primary income of 71,846 people.

- 54 -

Table 12: Visitor characteristics of tourists in German wine regions, divided by states (significant differences occur between a and b)

Variable n Baden-Württemberg Rhineland-Palatinate Bavaria East Germany Hesse Sex 4,410 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 50.7% 49.3% 52.2% 47.8% 48.0% 52.0% 44.1% 55.9% 52.8% 47.2%

Age 4,395 47.1b 47.6b 45.4b 52.2a 47.2b

Visitor type 4,463 Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight 56.9% 43.1% 50.4% 49.6% 40.6% 59.4% 42.1% 57.9% 63.1% 36.9%

Accommodation 2,063 Hotel - 47.9% - 46.8% - 50.3% - 47.7% - 47.6% Guesthouse - 5.3% - 10.3% - 12.4% - 14.3% - 15.7% Winery - 3.0% - 8.2% - 9.2% - 0.7% - 6.0% Holiday apartment - 8.0% - 10.1% - 5.2% - 9.7% - 6.0% Camping - 7.2% - 8.6% - 6.5% - 7.0% - 5.4% Youth Hostel - 8.0% - 2.8% - 4.6% - 3.3% - 1.5% Friends/relatives - 17.9% - 9.5% - 8.5% - 14.3% - 13.0% Other - 2.7% - 3.8% - 3.3% - 3.0% - 4.8% Mean overnight stays 2,065 3.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 2.4

- 55 -

Table 13: Structure of tourist expenditure in Euros per person per day in German wine regions, divided by states

Baden-Württemberg Rhineland-Palatinate Bavaria East Germany Hesse Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight n 351 266 1,050 1,032 106 155 222 306 614 360 Mean daily expenditure 72.53 122.57 69.81 116.75 62.93 122.09 69.68 117.94 62.47 129.44

Accommodation - 37.5% - 35.8% - 36.0% - 37.2% - 33.9% Gastronomy 38.8% 28.1% 42.1% 32.9% 37.2% 32.0% 42.1% 29.5% 41.1% 32.4% Entertainment 29.0% 17.7% 24.0% 14.3% 21.5% 12.2% 27.6% 18.5% 21.4% 16.1% Food 13.7% 7.1% 13.1% 7.6% 15.8% 7.4% 12.0% 6.3% 16.7% 8.9% Wine 6.5% 2.6% 9.1% 2.6% 12.0% 5.5% 6.6% 1.4% 7.4% 2.3% Other/rest 11.9% 7.0% 11.8% 6.8% 13.5% 6.9% 11.8% 7.1% 13.4% 6.5%

Total mean expenditure 75.57 78.45 69.41 76.29 68.89

- 56 -

Table 14: Economic impact of tourism in German wine regions in Euros and income equivalents, divided by states

Baden-Württemberg Rhineland-Palatinate Bavaria East Germany Hesse Total Wine Tourism Total Wine Tourism Total Wine Tourism Total Wine Tourism Total Wine Tourism Gross tourist spending (EUR million) 14,186 2,231 6,488 1,368 2,330 723 2,566 514 790 103 Direct regional income (EUR million) 3,817 598 1,743 366 628 194 689 138 213 28 Indirect regional income (EUR 2,404 377 1,098 230 396 122 434 87 134 17 million) Total regional income (EUR million) 6,221 975 2,841 596 1,024 316 1,124 225 347 45 Income equivalents (total number) 207,168 32,479 94,620 19,855 34,099 10,531 37,420 7,482 11,571 1,498

- 57 -

3.6 Discussion

3.6.1 Conclusions

The aim of this work was to estimate the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany to provide empirical evidence for policy and investment decisions. Therefore, a new model was developed. After defining the districts that are located within wine regions in accordance with regional tourism and wine experts, it became clear that 9.4% of German land can be called a wine region. The total number of visitation days to German wine regions divides into 45.7 million overnight stays and 303.3 million day trips. The final results show that, including indirect effects, tourists within German wine regions spend EUR 26.4 billion annually. The estimated number of wine tourists in Germany is 7.3 million. They produce 13% of all the touristic visitor days in German wine regions. Due to higher travel expenditures, they generate an above average economic impact of 19% (EUR 5.0 billion).

If compared with official numbers about Germany, it becomes clear that the overall economic impact of EUR 26.4 billion is about 9.4% of the overall direct and indirect impact of the travel and tourism sector in Germany (EUR 291 billion) (WTTC, 2018). Thus, the share of German wine regions covering the country and the share of tourism in these regions align precisely. The Federal Statistical Office notes that there were 459.4 million overnight stays in Germany in 2017 (Destatis, 2018). Furthermore 2,947.6 million day trips were undertaken (BMWi, 2014). Hence, 10% of all overnight stays and 10.3% of all day trips in Germany were spent within wine regions in 2017. This figure also almost matches the defined wine-region area and the economic impact of tourism in these regions.

Even though wine tourism has been playing an increasingly important role in scientific research, economic impact studies are scarce. In the USA, Canada, and Australia, I-O models were used. Due to missing supply data, this approach could not be applied in our case. Therefore, the results are difficult to compare. Studies that used a similar approach to ours were conducted in France and Italy. In France, 10 million wine tourists created an economic impact of EUR 5.2 billion in 2016 (Atout France, 2017), and in Italy, tourist expenditures in 2015 amounted to EUR 2.6 billion, generated by four-to-six million wine tourists (Città del Vino, 2016). Our estimations show that in terms of the number of wine tourists, Germany lies right in the middle (7.2 million). The economic impact of EUR 5.0 billion on the other hand is about the same as in France and twice as high as for Italy. Since in France and Italy the amount of produced wine is significantly higher than in Germany, it could be assumed that wine tourism should be a much stronger sector, too. However, as is seen in the case of California (81% of US wine production,

- 58 -

40% of the economic impact of wine tourism in the USA), a higher amount of produced wine does not necessarily translate into a higher economic impact. Also, in Germany, domestic tourism, at 87% of tourist spending, is stronger than in France (70%) and in Italy (77%) (WTTC, 2018). Therefore, domestic wine tourism could be assumed to be higher, too. Furthermore, since Germans have a higher income, travel expenses are probably also higher.

The DWIF conducted economic impact studies in two German wine regions. Even if the authors did not investigate the economic impact of the niche market of wine tourism, they used a similar model to the one proposed in this work. Hence, in two regions, their studies provide a benchmark for comparing our results. The DWIF (2013a) found that in the German wine region of Franconia, the economic impact of tourism amounted to EUR 3.2 billion in 2012, providing an income for 64,500 people. Our results for Bavaria (Franconia is the only wine region in this state) show an economic impact of EUR 2.3 billion, giving 37,347 people an income. In this case, our results are below the estimated impact determined in the previous study (DWIF, 2013a). Another study conducted in 2016 in the Mosel wine region showed that EUR 1.3 billion was earned annually from tourism, which translates into an income for 22,780 people (DWIF, 2017). Although not shown separately in this work due to the state-level approach, our results for this wine region show EUR 1.7 billion in tourism earnings, resulting in 26,659 regional incomes. In sum, compared to previous studies, one wine region was estimated to be 24% higher and the other one 28% lower. If we assume that the rest of the regions have a similar range in terms of discrepancies, the results for all German wine regions could be considered congruent with those the DWIF would find if they were to conduct studies in all German wine regions.

This paper introduces a way to measure the economic impact of wine tourism using a modified Keynesian income multiplier model. It is effective for estimating economic impacts in countries where data, especially on the supply side, are hard to obtain. It is the first scientific publication measuring the economic impact of wine tourism in a whole country.

3.6.2 Practical implications

Wine tourism in combination with a strong domestic tourism market can provide a robust tool for sustainable development and for leveling regional imbalances, especially in industrialized countries such as Germany (WTTC, 2018). Imbalances in the country occur mainly on two levels: First, due to the migration of people from rural areas to urban agglomerations, and second, due to the strong structural differences between East and West Germany (FES, 2019).

- 59 -

In the following paragraphs, implications for regional associations and public authorities are given that can contribute to achieve a sustainable development in German wine regions.

It may appear contradictory, but to counter the imbalances between rural and urban populations, cities can provide a strong source market for tourists. The urban population in the cities in wine regions can undertake day or weekend trips for recreational purposes and thus generate economic impacts in their surroundings. Cities that are located close to wine regions can be taken into account, too. Frankfurt, for example, has at least six wine regions within a 1.5-hour driving distance. Thus, some of the purchase power of urban agglomerations can partially flow back into rural areas and therefore contribute to sustaining and furthering the structure in these regions. Consequently, wine regions and undertaking trips to them should be promoted in urban agglomerations that are strategically well located.

Imbalances between East and West Germany due to the separation of the country until 1990 have been a constant topic in German politics. The relevant East German states of Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia show the highest migration rate in Germany (Destatis, 2019). Our results show that the structure of the East German wine regions is very similar to the Bavarian wine region of Franconia, which is one of the most successful wine tourism destinations in the country (in terms of cooperation and promotion). Hence, one of the biggest practical implications is to strengthen the structurally disadvantaged East German states through wine tourism. Here, investments could benefit the Eastern half of Germany by generating job opportunities and thus preventing people from moving to West Germany. Also, there are strategically interesting cities in and around the East German wine regions that could be targeted as well. There are historic cities such as Weimar and Dresden that lie directly in the wine regions and receive many tourists. Also, there are cities such as Leipzig (the fastest-growing city in Germany) and Erfurt that lie within one hour’s travel from these wine regions. So, providing day trips from these cities to the surrounding wine regions would probably be of benefit. Furthermore, Berlin, as the capital and biggest city in Germany, is only about two hours away. Thus, this would be a perfect source market for weekend trips. Of course, targeting the right client base should play a role: Our results show that the share of women in East German wine regions is higher than in the other wine regions. In addition, more money is spent on entertainment. Only 0.7% of the respondents in this region slept in wineries. This share is at least four times lower than in any other German wine region. This could indicate that there is too little supply in this regard. Hence, more wineries should probably offer the opportunity of sleeping on site. Perhaps new wineries could open that specialize in the field of accommodation.

- 60 -

These could offer entertainment programs that include wine in their activities. Considering the high percentage of women, female trip packages like bachelorette parties could make sense.

Another problem in Germany is the increasing mean age of the German population. The mean age of German citizens is 44 years and 4 months (Destatis, 2017). In our results, the age range was from 45 to 52 years old, so it was even slightly higher than the German average. This could indicate that the willingness to undertake trips to wine regions may increase. Generally speaking, the results showing the nature of the travelers (sex, age, visitor type, accommodation type, etc.) identify visitor groups that could be helpful for targeted destination management.

3.6.3 Limitations and future research recommendations

To apply the proposed model, the number of day-trippers has to be determined. In Germany, there is a report by the Federal Ministry for Business and Energy that allows for the regional conversion of the number of overnight stays into the number of day-trippers. This may not be the case in other countries. Then, the number of day-trippers would have to be estimated for each respective region. In the case of Germany, the distance to big cities positively influences the number of day-trippers per overnight stay. This can be a helpful insight for converting the number of overnight stays into the number of day-trippers.

Since wine regions sometimes stretch across several states and even districts, we defined the districts that lie in these regions. In some cases, districts could not be counted solely as a wine region. Thus, the share of the districts that can be called a wine region had to be determined and double-checked with regional experts. This procedure has shown to be very time-consuming. If a similar study was to be conducted, it could be more useful to go one step further and define the relevant communities (not districts) that lie in the wine regions. This would eliminate the problem of defining a share of the districts that can be called a wine region.

- 61 -

4 Relevance and challenges of wine tourism in Germany: a winery operators’ perspective

This chapter represents an article published by the author of this dissertation and Prof. Dr. Gergely Szolnoki as co-author.

Any reference to this chapter should be cited as:

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2020). Relevance and challenges of wine tourism in Germany: a winery operators’ perspective. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 33 (1), 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-11-2019-0059.

- 62 -

4.1 Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to put Germany on par with other countries in terms of academic research on the topic of wine tourism from a producer’s perspective.

Design/methodology/approach

For this study, 199 in-depth interviews and 703 online questionnaires with winery operators in Germany were collected and analyzed according to a mixed-methods framework.

Findings

The results indicate that wine tourism is highly relevant, not only for wineries but also for the families behind the predominantly small companies. The respondents reported increased demand for wine tourism activities, particularly those that are close to large cities. The findings show that the main challenges in the German wine tourism sector are to achieve a coordinated collaboration among stakeholders and to stop the ongoing concentration process in the restaurant industry.

Social implications

Appropriate strategic decisions backed by governmental support may help to enhance Germany’s developing wine tourism industry, thereby preserving cultural heritage and strengthening some of the country’s structurally disadvantaged rural areas.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is the first mixed-methods framework study in the research field of wine tourism that includes producers from all wine regions in one country.

- 63 -

4.2 Introduction

Wine tourism is a growing niche market that is continuously increasing in importance globally (Gómez et al., 2018; UNWTO, 2016). It not only responds to consumers’ desire to experience a region’s culture and lifestyle, but also contributes to a sustainable tourism industry, since it creates jobs while at the same time preserving the region’s heritage (Alonso and Liu, 2012; UNWTO, 2017). Interestingly, research on this topic did not originate in traditional wine- producing countries like France, but rather in relatively young wine-producing countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (Gómez et al., 2018). In these countries, wine tourism has been regarded as highly relevant for several decades, and is therefore incorporated into national tourism strategies (Alonso et al., 2015).

Viticulture and wine production in the European context boasts a tradition reaching back several millennia and has played a key role in the continent’s wealth. These regions’ value as tourism destinations, however, has only recently achieved recognition (Gómez et al., 2018). For a long time, “tourism [had] not been seen as central for the European wine industry compared to newer wine producing areas” (Wargenau and Che, 2006, p. 47). At some point, wine consumption in Europe dropped significantly, which resulted in a heavy decline in the number of wineries. Wine production was no longer enough: owing to the success of wine tourism strategies in other countries, European countries have increasingly intensified their focus on this lucrative market (Alonso et al., 2013). Nowadays, some of these countries aim to sustain their cultural heritage through wine tourism.

Despite its small geographic area, Germany’s GDP is the highest in Europe (World Bank, 2019), with a high average income. Furthermore, it boasts the largest travel and tourism sector on the continent (WTTC, 2019). With 87% of tourist expenditures generated through domestic tourism, the sector’s success mainly relies on Germans choosing to take vacations in their home country (WTTC, 2018). A strong domestic tourism industry favors wine tourism, as does a high level of income (UNWTO, 2019a). Higher income translates into higher wine consumption, which has led to Germany’s having one of the world’s highest per-capita wine consumption rates. In terms of wine production, the country currently ranks fourth in Europe, after Italy, France and Spain. Unlike the latter three countries, Germany’s production and consumption volumes are consistent. Nonetheless, Germany’s wineries have recently exhibited a sharp decline in number (Wines of Germany, 2019).

- 64 -

Wine tourism in Germany is a relatively new phenomenon, which may explain why the market has failed to reach its full potential (Brown and Getz, 2005). Wineries and regional authorities have only recently come to recognize the opportunities that wine tourism can offer. Nonetheless, a shift toward recognition of wine tourism’s importance has occurred. Nowadays, German wineries are increasingly including wine tourism services in their business strategies. Small wineries in particular sustain their families’ businesses through tourism thereby helping to preserve aspects of the country’s culture (Koch et al., 2013).

While Germany may appear to offer an ideal platform for the implementation of wine tourism, it lags behind other countries in terms of academic research in this area (Sanchez et al., 2017). Moreover, the topic has yet to find its place in the national tourism strategy. Hence, awareness of the sector’s significance has yet to be fully developed. German winery operators seem to have already recognized the potential of this lucrative market. However, there is no study showing the relevance or the challenges of wine tourism in Germany from a winery perspective. This paper introduces a new way to investigate the topic of wine tourism by including producers from all wine regions in one country according to a mixed-methods framework. This enables a way to make up for the lack of research and put Germany on par with other countries. By elucidating the market’s relevance and challenges from a producers’ perspective, potential challenges can be tackled and sustainable tourism development in German wine-producing regions can be maximized.

4.3 Literature Review

Wine tourism is a fundamental component of gastronomy tourism (UNWTO, 2017). Wine tourists not only wish to enjoy local wines, but also to pair them with local dishes (see, e.g., Charters and Ali-Knight, 2000; Alant and Bruwer, 2004; López-Guzmán et al., 2014). This has resulted in the acknowledgment of a special form of tourism called “gourmet tourism”, in which both components, wine and food, are equally valued (Etcheverria, 2015). Thus, a robust hospitality infrastructure is an important component of the wine tourism industry. Other important motivators for wine tourists are the regions’ scenic beauty (Bruwer and Alant, 2009) and the visitors’ level of wine involvement (Charters and Ali-Knight, 2000). The most widely cited definition of wine tourism explains it as “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors” (Hall et al., 2000, p. 3).

- 65 -

Oftentimes, wine tourists are day-trippers from urban agglomerations. Hence, proximity to large cities offers considerable advantage in terms of attracting wine tourists (Howley and Van Westering, 2008; Alonso and Liu, 2010; Villanueva and Moscovici, 2016; Baird et al. 2018; Soontiens et al., 2018). Connected to this, it is important to mention that wine tourists are often domestic visitors, escaping hectic city life to enjoy nature and a more rural environment (Baird et al., 2018). According to UNWTO (2019a), the “greatest wine tourism destinations receive visitors from their domestic markets, from neighboring countries and from wine-consuming (but not producing) countries”.

For the creation of a successful tourism destination, collaboration among stakeholders is crucial (Alonso et al., 2013, UNWTO, 2017). In this context, horizontal and vertical collaboration are important, as well as government support (Wargenau and Che, 2006). Many countries have therefore devised national strategies for successfully developing wine tourism. The cultural system of the region in question plays a major role in the wineries’ willingness to cooperate with each other (Mitchell et al., 2012). Also, the reason for wineries to get involved in wine tourism can range from logical (e.g. profit maximization) to illogical (e.g. lifestyle) goals which can lead to regional problems (Dawson et al., 2011). In addition, “not every grower will necessarily want to be involved, and indeed may not be able to afford to become involved” (Fraser and Alonso, 2006, p. 19).

4.3.1 Relevance of wine tourism

Since the beginning of scientific research on wine tourism around 1995 (Dodd, 1995), the field has experienced continued growth and has diversified into several different subsections (Gómez et al, 2018, Sanchez et al., 2017; Bonn et al., 2018). Concerning the methods applied, the majority of published papers so far (34%), of which more than half were focused on wine tourism development, have used qualitative methods. A further 31% were based on univariate and/or bivariate analysis (Gómez et al., 2018): “Interestingly, the papers which are descriptive between 2005 and 2014 tend to be research from old world wine countries who are exploring the wine tourism phenomenon in their country” (Gómez et al., 2018, p.8). Two thirds of the world’s wine volume is produced in Europe (OIV, 2019). However, publications from European countries on the topic of wine tourism account for only 27% (Gómez et al., 2018). Slowly but steadily, the topic has also found its place in academic research from European countries. Sanchez et al. (2017) conducted a bibliometric analysis of wine tourism research available from the Scopus and WoS databases. They found that Spain, in terms of authorship, is the most progressive European country in this regard, but that Italy, Greece, and France are increasingly

- 66 -

shifting their focus toward the development of wine tourism products. Germany ranks seventh, in joint place with Croatia and behind even the United Kingdom (Sanchez et al., 2017).

Wine and the wish to visit wineries are experiencing an increasing interest in people’s lifestyle. Therefore, wine tourism has become a key element in attracting visitors to wine regions (Molina et al., 2015) and it plays a major role in the preservation of cultural landscapes (Santeramo at al., 2016). In order to successfully participate in wine tourism as a winery, not only the core product (wine) is important, but also augmenting it with supplementary services. In this context, good customer care and skilled winery staff have found to be viable for taking advantage of the benefits of wine tourism (Byrd et al., 2015).

German winery owners have come to realize the potential that lies in wine tourism and started to employ more and more touristic services to sustain their businesses (Koch et al., 2013). Also, collaboration between Wines of Germany and Germany Travel has been established and a part of the German Wine Fund, which is financed by German wine-growers, is invested in wine tourism. Still, there is a high level of disregard of many stakeholders in the country (Dreyer et al., 2015). Therefore, wineries play a central role in meeting the touristic demand and in compensating supply deficits (Rüdiger and Hanf, 2019). According to Rüdiger and Hanf (2017), 16.6% of German winery sales can be attributed to touristic activities.

In sum, the international relevance of wine tourism has risen steadily in recent decades, and meanwhile the number of scholarly publications in this field has also increased. European countries have begun to explore the topic later than countries beyond the continent. In Germany, it seems that winery operators have realized the potential of this lucrative market. However, no study exists that confirms the existence of increasing demand for wine tourism in the country. Furthermore, the proportion of German wineries employing wine tourism strategies, their length of involvement in the industry, the number of winery visitors, and the amount of investments are not known. In addition, the benefits of wine tourism in Germany, such as the proportion of direct wine sales that can actually be attributed to wine tourism, have yet to be revealed. Gómez et al. (2018) observe that it “would be deemed timely for researchers from Old World wine countries to expand their research objectives to include more extensive supply based research” (Gómez et al., 2018, p. 11). Therefore, this study’s first research question is as follows:

RQ1: How relevant is wine tourism in Germany from the winery operator’s perspective?

- 67 -

4.3.2 Challenges affecting wine tourism development

To identify the main challenges in wine tourism development derived from scientific literature, a publication by Gómez et al. (2018) was taken as the starting point. The authors provide an overview of the research undertaken between 1995 and 2014. They found that “wine tourism development”, accounting for 35% of the publications, is the biggest research subsection. All papers that investigate this topic from the winery operator’s perspective were examined and reviewed for indicators of challenges. Since Gómez et al.’s article (2018) only reviewed papers up to 2014, the research was complemented by more recent publications from 2015 onwards.

Table 15 provides an overview of the most frequently cited challenges, grouped as regional, entrepreneurial, and personal challenges. The primary regional challenge is the need for coordinated collaboration among stakeholders (13), followed by the need for an appropriate communication strategy (6) and the need to consider other forms of tourism aside from wine tourism (6). Further regional challenges include the lack of financial and legislative support (5), lack of fundamental research (4), an immature transportation network (4), preserving natural resources (3), and an ongoing concentration process (2). In terms of entrepreneurial challenges, investments (3), a lack of touristic knowledge (3), and the need for appropriate pricing (3) and communication strategies (2) were mentioned. A key challenge on a personal level is the lack of awareness among winery operators of the market’s significance (4). Interestingly, when the results from the Old and New Worlds are compared, few differences are observed. This may indicate that challenges in wine tourism are the same around the world.

- 68 -

Table 15: Challenges of wine tourism found in previous academic research

N Sources / References

Regional challenges Wilkins and Hall, 2001; Alonso et al., 2008; Steward et al., 2008; Alonso and Liu, 2010; Alonso and Liu, 2012; Bamberra and Wickramasekara, 2012; Hojman Coordination/collaboration 13 and Hunter-Jones, 2012; Alonso et al., 2013; Nicolosi et al., 2016; Ferreira and Hunter, 2017; Salvado and Kastenholz, 2017; Baird et al., 2018; Figueroa & Rotarou, 2018; Stewart et al., 2008; Alonso and Liu, 2012; Baird et Communication strategy 6 al., 2018; Figueroa & Rotarou, 2018; Ramos et al., 2018; Del Chiappa et al., 2019 Alonso et al. 2008; Nicolosi et al., 2016; Ferreira and Other forms of tourism 6 Hunter, 2017; Ramos et al., 2018; Winfree et al., 2018; Del Chiappa et al., 2019 Alonso et al., 2008; Alonso and Liu, 2012; Alonso et Financial and legislative support 5 al., 2015; Nicolosi et al., 2016; Chong, 2017 Stewart et al., 2008; Hojman and Hunter-Jones, 2012; Lack of research 4 Alonso and Liu, 2012; Alonso et al., 2013 Stewart et al., 2008; Scherrer et al., 2009; Ferreira and Transportation network 4 Hunter, 2017; Figueroa & Rotarou, 2018 Wilkins and Hall, 2001; Salvado and Kastenholz, Natural resources 3 2017; Baird et al., 2018 Wilkins and Hall, 2001; Hojman and Hunter-Jones, Concentration process 2 2012 Entrepreneurial challenges Alonso and Liu, 2010; Nicolosi et al., 2016; Chong, Investments 3 2017 Charters and Menival, 2011; Carlsen and Boksberger, Technical knowledge 3 2013; Nicolosi et al., 2016 Scherrer et al., 2009; Charters and Menival, 2011; Pricing 3 Bamberra and Wickramasekara, 2012 Communication strategy 2 Alonso et al., 2008; Carlsen and Boksberger, 2013 Personal challenges Charters and Menival, 2011; Alonso et al., 2008; Lack of awareness 4 Baird et al., 2018; Del Chiappa et al., 2019

- 69 -

In Germany, the most frequently mentioned regional challenge is the protection of the vineyards as cultural landscapes (Job and Murphy, 2006; Müller and Dreyer, 2010; Schumacher, 2014). It should be pointed out that two of these three sources refer to the German wine region of Mosel, where the protection of steep slopes is a constant topic of concern. The second most mentioned challenges were the need for coordinated collaboration (Koch et al., 2013; Kagermeier, 2010), the lack of research (Job and Murphy, 2006; Koch et al., 2013) and the lack of an adequate communication strategy (Koch et al., 2013; Schumacher, 2014). Furthermore, gastronomic and accommodation issues (Schumacher, 2014) and awareness of other tourist segments (Kagermeier, 2010) present challenges for German wine regions. In terms of entrepreneurial challenges, the typical German winery’s structure can be disadvantageous, since it is characterized by poor availability of resources available and a dearth of knowledge about the tourism industry (Koch et al., 2013). A personal challenge would again be the lack of awareness of wine tourism’s potential as a lucrative market (Job and Murphy, 2006).

It seems that the establishment of coordinated collaboration among stakeholders and the creation of an appropriate communication strategy are the key challenges currently facing wine tourism development. This is evident in both international and German literature. The lack of research appears to be a bigger issue in Germany. This is reflected in a contribution by Sanchez et al. (2017), who found that Germany ranks seventh in terms of international authorships in Europe, despite the fact that tourism in Germany has the greatest economic impact on the continent and that, in terms of wine production, Germany currently ranks fourth. This highlights the importance of directing focus toward the challenges that may inhibit this market. Thus, this study’s second research question is:

RQ2: What are the main challenges affecting wine tourism development in Germany?

4.4 Material and methods

To assess wine tourism’s relevance and its associated challenges in the German context in greater depth, two studies - both qualitative and quantitative research - were conducted according to a mixed-methods framework. This approach was chosen due to its flexibility: questions of a more probing character were asked in in-depth interviews, whereas the online survey served to gather data via more easily accessible questions. The surveys were conducted in parallel in each of Germany’s 13 wine regions. The questions were developed based on previous literature (see Table 1).

- 70 -

The aim of the qualitative study was to demonstrate the relevance of wine tourism by highlighting its benefits and to identify the main challenges from a winery operators’ perspective. The questionnaire, based on previous research conducted among winery operators, was divided into two distinct sections: the first included questions about the company’s type and structure, while the second contained questions about the perceived benefits and challenges from the winery operator’s perspective. The method used was a semi-structured in-depth interview. The interviews took place between April 2017 and May 2018. The in-depth interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone and lasted about 20 minutes. The survey’s targets were wineries that include touristic activities in their business strategies, because they are better aware of the existing benefits and challenges of wine tourism. In selecting the companies, emphasis was placed on heterogeneity with respect to winery size and location within the regions. To assure a sufficiently large data pool, at least 15 qualitative interviews were conducted in each of the 13 German wine regions, resulting in a total of 199 interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed literally. The analysis was conducted using the software MaxQDA Version 12. The applied evaluation method was qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2015). During the evaluation process, new findings were collected, inductively categorized, and bundled into clusters.

The quantitative online survey’s two major objectives were to demonstrate the relevance of wine tourism and to check the veracity of the challenges that were identified in the qualitative study. Targets for the survey were all German independent self-marketing wine estates, of which the total population in 2015 was 7,283 (Loose and Pabst, 2018). The questions were based on previous research about wine tourism development from a winery operators’ perspective. The final structured questionnaire was divided into three different sections: one for wineries that provide wine touristic services; a second for those who are currently not engaged in touristic activities; and a third that included all respondents and gathered data on topics including direct wine sales, company size, distance to cities, and the producers’ respective wine regions. To acquire the biggest sample possible, the questionnaire was launched online using the SosciSurvey tool. The survey was conducted between January 15, 2018 and February 16, 2018. Targets for the survey were German wine producers. Potential respondents were selected in cooperation with the relevant regional associations (e.g. tourism and wine-growers associations) in each of the 13 German wine regions. About 3,000 wine producers were invited to participate in the survey, of whom 703 completed the questionnaire, delivering a response rate of 23.4%. Data were analyzed using the program IBM SPSS Statistics 24. To identify relationships between the variables, Chi-square analyses and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted.

- 71 -

As Table 16 illustrates, a total of 199 qualitative in-depth interviews and 703 online questionnaires were collected. The total area of hectares cultivated by all respondents that participated in the online survey was 13,963 hectares, which is equal to roughly 14% of all German vineyards. In terms of the wineries’ sizes (in hectares), the bigger companies were overrepresented while the smaller wineries were underrepresented. Family-owned wineries accounted for 93% of the vineyards that participated.

Table 16: The sample: Number of respondents and total area under vines (in hectares)

Qual. in-depth Total area Region Quant. online survey Interviews under vines* Ahr 15 13 561 Baden 15 37 15,834 Franconia 15 55 6,139 Hessische Bergstraße 15 4 462 Middle Rhine 17 30 469 Mosel 15 163 8,770 Nahe 15 50 4,225 Palatinate 15 116 23,652 Rheingau 17 42 3,191 Rheinhessen 15 137 26,617 Saale-Unstrut 15 13 772 Saxony 15 3 497 Württemberg 15 37 11,360 Unknown - 3 - Total 199 703 102,549 *Source: Wines of Germany (2019)

4.5 Results

In this chapter, the results concerning the relevance of wine tourism will be presented first, followed by elucidation of the challenges affecting wine tourism from the winery operators’ perspective.

4.5.1 Relevance

To demonstrate why wine tourism is relevant from the winery operators’ perspective, first the perceived benefits that were illuminated in the qualitative study are revealed.

- 72 -

4.5.1.1 Qualitative study

During the process of evaluating the qualitative interviews, it became clear that not all winery operators answered the question from the same perspective: most respondents answered from an entrepreneurial point of view. However, some also highlighted the regional angle and some even offered their own personal perspectives, i.e., what matters to them as private individuals. Therefore, the qualitative results are illustrated and described from three perspectives: personal, entrepreneurial, and regional.

The most frequently mentioned benefit is that wine production provides them with a livelihood (15). For these respondents, their family’s subsistence depends on income generated by tourism (“It is our source of income, our purpose in life. And you can look into a safe future with it”). Furthermore, since visitors come directly to them and buy their wine, they are not required to undertake extensive deliveries, giving them more personal free time (13). The third personal benefit is the joy of having direct contact with numerous different people (12). The respondents stated that they extract motivation from these interpersonal relationships. Most of the time, their visitors are in a good mood, which creates a pleasant environment for their daily business.

In terms of entrepreneurial benefits, most acknowledged the increased sales (63), especially through direct cellar door wine sales. Furthermore, tourism generates new customers. The second-largest entrepreneurial advantage is thus the ability to secure new clients (45). Another benefit is the positive promotional effect (32): satisfied customers like to make return visits. The wineries particularly benefit from positive word of mouth. The respondents reported that many new customers visit their wineries for the first time on the basis of recommendations (“Many new customers reach our winery by word of mouth. In addition, this is a good advertisement for us, because satisfied guests like to come back."). They also stated that they can achieve greater customer retention through the personal relationships that they build during conversation with visitors. In their opinion, wine tourism allows for a good storytelling which results in greater customer loyalty (25). Last but not least, another key advantage is that the workload inherent in wine production can be more effectively explained to the guests on site. This lends the wineries the legitimacy required to claim a higher price per bottle (13).

At the regional level, respondents see the benefit of wine tourism as leading to increased cooperation (3). In their eyes, the entire region benefits from the fact that cooperation among stakeholders is enhanced. In addition, the preservation of the landscape was mentioned several times as an important issue: for the respondents, the landscape is the face of the region and thus must be maintained. Hence, another benefit is the preservation of the cultural landscape (3).

- 73 -

Figure 4: Personal, entrepreneurial and regional benefits of wine tourism in Germany

4.5.1.2 Quantitative study

In our sample of 703 respondents, 601 (85.5%) reported that they were engaged in touristic activities. The mean duration of involvement was 22 years (median: 20), verifying that wine tourism is a relatively new phenomenon in Germany. The average number of tourists who visit wineries each year is 2228 (median: 500), of whom an estimated 89% are German visitors. Table 17 illustrates how visitor numbers have changed over the past three years in relation to the wineries’ proximity to urban agglomerations: 61.6% have experienced an increasing demand in touristic winery visits, 34.4% did not perceive any change, and 4.0% have witnessed a decline in visitor numbers. Hence, it may be said that most wineries sense an increasing demand. Further chi-squared analysis reveals that the shorter the winery’s distance from the nearest large city, the more respondents reported an increase and the less a decrease in visitor numbers.

- 74 -

Table 17: Change in winery visitor numbers over the past three years proximity to nearest big city (km) χ2 Sig. Total study < 16km 16-30km > 30km number of tourists … % [703] % [204] % [252] % [245] 10.108 0.039* … has increased 61.6 67.5 62.8 55.8 … has remained 34.4 31.4 33.5 37.7 constant … has decreased 4.0 1.2 3.7 6.5

*Significant at.05 level.

Table 18 indicates the share that wine tourism contributes to company sales. Therefore, cellar door wine sales to tourists were included in the questionnaire as well as the share of company sales that can be attributed to wine touristic offerings in general. The contribution of cellar door sales to overall company sales amounts to 40.3%, of which an estimated 27.9% is due to tourists purchasing wine directly from producers during winery visits. By multiplying cellar door sales by the portion of company sales attributable to touristic cellar door sales, the amount of cellar door sales attributable to wine tourism was determined. The results show that 12.7% of German wine companies’ sales are due to touristic on-site visits. The share that all touristic offerings, including wine sales, contribute to company sales is 24.4%. In the results presented in Table 18, significant differences reveal that company size directly influences company sales: the smaller the winery, the more important wine touristic offerings are for profits.

- 75 -

Table 18: Contribution of wine tourism to total company sales Company size (hectares) Total study < 8 ha 8 - 15 ha > 15 ha ANOVA Means % Means % Means % Means % share of company sales F Sig. [n=703] [n=242] [n=225] [n=221] (total) cellar door sales 40.3 48.8a 39.3b 31.9c 23.723 0.000*** x share of cellar door sales to tourists 27.9 35.6a 22.6b 24.8b 15.185 0.000***

= (total) cellar door 12.7 18.1a 9.9b 9.5b 22.939 0.000*** sales to tourists all wine touristic 24.4 34.4a 20.7b 16.3c 45.799 0.000*** offerings ***Significant at .001 level. Differences occur between a, b and c.

From previous literature (Alonso and Liu, 2010; Nicolosi et al., 2016), it emerged that investments are the primary entrepreneurial challenge to wine tourism from a producer’s perspective. Table 19 details the investments that German wineries have made over the past ten years, as well as the planned investments for the coming three years. Of the 601 wineries participating in wine tourism activities, 324 gave an answer above zero concerning their investments over the past decade. Here, the arithmetic mean was EUR 194,272. In terms of future investments over the coming three years, the arithmetic mean was EUR 98,698. As Table 19 illustrates, in terms of distance from large cities, no significant difference could be determined. However, looking at future investments, it became clear that wineries that are in the shortest distance-from-big-cities category (<16km) plan to invest EUR 177,800, which is more than double the proposed investments of the other two categories. This may be a reflection of the result that the closer the wineries’ proximity to large cities, the greater the increase in visitor numbers over the last three years. As one would expect, there are also significant differences with respect to company size: the bigger the acreage, the greater the investments.

- 76 -

Table 19: Past and future investments in wine tourism

proximity to next

big city (km) Total study < 16km 16-30km > 30km ANOVA Means Means Means Means investments F Sig. [n=703] [n=204] [n=252] [n=245] past 10 years 194,272 193,855 186,488 202,120 0.056 0.946 next 3 years 98,698 177,800a 68,433b 73,989b 5.216 0.006** **Significant at .01 level. Differences occur between a and b.

4.5.2 Challenges

In this section, the challenges facing wine tourism in Germany are investigated. Furthermore, the reasons for wineries’ lack of participation in wine tourism and their possible openness to incentives are analyzed.

4.5.2.1 Qualitative study

As with the qualitative results of the perceived benefits, the explored challenges are again divided into personal, entrepreneurial, and regional challenges.

The key personal challenge to participation in wine tourism is the increased workload (20). Respondents stated that, increasingly, they must be available during their supposed leisure time, to the extent that the respondents fear to suffer burnout. Since most of the wineries are family- owned, it does not really matter who is available; someone must always be there, often at the expense of the entire family ("One family member has to be here at all times. It is at the family's expense and of course that should not be the case."). Moreover, the problem of intergenerational conflicts (19) and the advanced age of the respondents continue to be aggravated by tourism and the resulting increased workload. It would require even more family work and create more issues of succession than are already present (“The difficulty with me is that I don't have a successor yet. As I said, I am 71 years old and I don't know how long my wife and I can still do that").

As with the personal challenges, the respondents perceive the additional time required as the chief entrepreneurial problem of wine tourism (67), since it entails considerable organization and bureaucracy. This results in insufficient time for other business operations (“At the entrepreneurial level, I say it's time. Of course, bottle sales and vineyard work take precedence,

- 77 -

and there is often simply not enough time for other activities."). A further challenge lies with the clientele itself. The respondents reported that visitors usually have very high demands on winery visits, even though they buy little wine on site. In addition, according to the respondents, the guests are less loyal than previously. The demanding and parsimonious clientele (45) is thus the second-largest entrepreneurial challenge in wine tourism (“There are tourists who want to have a nice chat with the winemaker and only buy two bottles of wine. The winemaker is bound to spend time and it is not rewarded.”). To be and to remain attractive to visitors, non-negligible investments must regularly be made. Here, the companies perceive another major challenge (43). In particular, they often ask themselves what the right ratio of investment might be—that is, how much they can invest to make it ultimately worthwhile.

At the regional level, the chief bottleneck is the restaurant industry (44). This presents challenges for the entire region. Opening hours were frequently criticized, since it can be difficult to find something at lunchtime. In addition, the restaurants, just like the wineries themselves, have the same problems of succession (“I think there is a lot more that could be improved in the gastronomy in our region. I don't know where to eat really well anywhere around here”). The need for coordinated collaboration also presents a challenge in this sector (25). The respondents were of the opinion that if everyone were to work together, ultimately the entire region would benefit from this collaboration. A variety of difficulties are presented in this regard, however: in the respondents’ opinion, oftentimes no real management level is present in the regional associations. Sometimes everything depends on a single individual who may not even possess the requisite know-how. In addition, members of managerial boards sometimes operate their own wineries or run other businesses. Thus, those with responsibility often lack the time to do more for the region (“I also see it here in the region that it is actually too little intertwined, i.e. there are great entrepreneurs, but everyone does his own thing. We could be even stronger if we cooperated more, promoted each other more, etc.”). The final major regional challenge is an accommodation deficit (25).

- 78 -

Figure 5: Personal, entrepreneurial, and regional challenges to wine tourism in Germany

4.5.2.2 Quantitative study

When participants were asked about regional challenges, the transportation network, at 46%, was identified as the main challenge (see Table 20). However, close behind were the problems with the restaurant industry (44%). Furthermore, leisure activities appear to be scarce (31%), as do shopping opportunities (22%). Twenty percent of the respondents mentioned that their regions have no dedicated tourism websites. In the “Other” category, which was selected by 24% of the respondents, the respondents were invited to report further challenges in open- question format. The most frequently cited additional challenges were accommodation (29), further gastronomic (13) and infrastructural issues (9), the region’s missing prominence (9), collaboration (5), and transport - particularly taxi - issues (4).

- 79 -

Table 20: Regional challenges (multiple answers possible) Wineries that are engaged in wine tourism (601) Regional challenges N Percent of cases Poor transportation network 270 46 Lack of gastronomic infrastructure 259 44 Lack of attractions / leisure activities 185 31 Lack of shopping facilities 130 22 No dedicated website 115 20 Poor traffic infrastructure 106 18 Poor hiking or biking infrastructure 103 17 Lack of friendliness on part of family 78 13 Region's bad reputation 52 9 Other 143 24

Table 21 shows the most frequently mentioned hopes for the region. Collaboration/coordination (85) was cited most often, followed by two other desires, which are a more robust communication strategy and improved signage (maps, itineraries and/or signposts), each of which was mentioned 46 times. Financial support (26), a better hospitality infrastructure (25), communal events (22), and communal tasting rooms (22) were also mentioned.

Table 21: Wishes expressed to regional decision-makers (open question) Wineries that are engaged in wine tourism (n=601) Coordinated Financial and Legislative Communication Infrastructure collaboration support Collaboration/coordinatio Communication (46) Signage (46) Financial support (26) n (85) More wine Communal events (22) Gastronomy (25) Legislative support (4) marketing (21) Communal tasting rooms Accommodation website (12) (22) (19)

The final purpose of the quantitative survey was to determine why wineries choose not to engage in wine tourism (see Table 22). The main reason for not participating in wine tourism is a lack of time (72%). In addition, a greater capacity (37%) and major investments would be required (36%). Twenty percent said that their regions attracted too few tourists. Another 15% do not consider their wineries to be sufficiently attractive destinations, while 12% consider inadequate accessibility to be a problem. Again, the “Other” category provided space for

- 80 -

suggested further categories in an open-question format. These further reasons include age- related issues (2) and that the companies do not consider wine tourism necessary for their success (2).

Table 22: Reasons for not engaging in wine tourism (multiple answers possible) Wineries that are not engaged in wine tourism (n=102) Reasons N Percent of cases Lack of time 73 72 Insufficient capacity 38 37 Large investments 37 36 Little tourism in the region 20 20 Poor attractiveness of winery 15 15 Poor attractiveness of region 12 12 Large distance to big cities 12 12 Lack of interest 11 11 Other 17 17

The final questions concerned the non-participants’ willingness to begin implementing wine tourism services in their business operations within the next five years. As Table 23 indicates, 65% of non-participants could imagine (at least possibly) becoming active in wine tourism over the next five years. The other 35%, who responded “No” to the question, were subsequently asked if they would change their minds in the case of support offered by interested representatives. If this were the case, 94% of the respondents whose first instinct was not to participate, said that they would (possibly) be willing to take action.

Table 23: Willingness to start participating in wine tourism in the next five years

Wineries that are not engaged in wine tourism (n=102) Yes Maybe No Could you imagine getting involved in wine tourism? 29.0 36.4 34.6 Wineries that don’t participate and are not interested in getting involved in wine tourism (n=37) Yes Maybe No And in the case of financial or legislative support? 22.2 72.2 5.6

- 81 -

4.6 Discussion

Wine tourism is a growing sector globally, in both market-saturated and burgeoning regions (UNWTO, 2016). In this study, the same was found in Germany’s case. In particular, those wineries that are close to large cities (Baird et al. 2018; Alonso and Liu, 2010; Soontiens et al., 2018; Howley and Van Westering, 2008; Villanueva and Moscovici, 2016) seem to be experiencing increased demand and are therefore open to investing significantly more money in wine tourism initiatives. This may be a reflection of an ongoing urbanization process. Hence, in this regard, Germany seems to act in the same manner that has been witnessed around the globe. What distinguishes Germany from other countries is the importance of domestic tourism (WTTC, 2018). The same appears to be the case in German wine tourism. Winery operators estimated that domestic visitors accounted for around 89% of their touristic footfall. Thus, wine tourism in Germany appears to offer urban citizens a means of escaping hectic city life and enjoying the rural vineyards in their surrounding regions. In terms of length of involvement, with an average of 20 years’ engagement, German wine tourism services, just as in many other countries, are a relatively new phenomenon, especially considering the 2,000-year-old wine- producing tradition and culture that the country boasts (Wines of Germany, 2019).

A coordinated collaboration has been identified as crucial for a successful wine tourism destination, both in previous studies and in the present study. Not only do winery operators perceive collaboration as one of the main challenges, but they also acknowledge it as one of the chief benefits of wine tourism. When asked in open-question format what the respondents desired for their regions, the response most frequently given was “collaboration”. This indicates that winery operators not only recognize the need to pull together, but also desire it. In terms of coordination, it has emerged that regional associations are often managed on a part-time basis by winery operators who may not necessarily possess the necessary touristic know-how. On a national level, collaboration has been established between Wines of Germany and Germany Travel, and part of the German Wine Fund, which is financed by German wine-growers, is invested in wine tourism. The second biggest challenge is the inadequacy of several wine regions’ hospitality infrastructures. Since wine tourism is a component of gastronomic tourism, a robust gastronomic infrastructure is vital for successful wine tourism products. Germany’s wine-producing regions are primarily rural areas and are therefore impacted by ongoing depopulation. This may be one of the reasons for the decline in number of wineries and restaurants, which contradicts the increasing demand for wine tourism.

- 82 -

Wine tourism requires the willing engagement of winery operators (Del Chiappa et al., 2019). The main reasons for not participating in wine tourism appear to overlap with the main challenges encountered when participating in wine tourism: the additional time and workload that added to the already demanding entrepreneurial work of producing and selling wine. Winery operators should therefore exercise careful consideration before changing from a pure product to service-oriented business. When hypothetically reassured of financial or legislative support, 94% of non-participants suddenly reported their (at least potential) willingness to incorporate wine tourism elements into their companies. Hence, the wineries are sufficiently willing to establish a strong supply structure in this regard. With 24.4% of total company sales, the contribution of wine touristic services is of major relevance for the wineries, and this significance is likely to increase. As previous literature has observed (Koch et al. 2013), wine tourism is more important for smaller wineries (< 8 ha), accounting for 34.4% of total sales. When asked about the perceived benefits of wine tourism, the most frequent response was that the entire family’s subsistence relies on offering services to tourists.

4.6.1 Conclusions

Wine tourism in Germany is characterized by a strong domestic tourism. This can be seen as favorable for being a lucrative marketplace. For the wineries, employing touristic strategies is a new phenomenon, with an average of 20 years of engagement. Nonetheless, wine tourism, with a contribution of 24.4% to company sales, is already highly relevant. As visitor numbers to wineries are increasing, the wineries are willing to invest more money in touristic services than they did in the past. The main challenges in the German wine tourism sector are to achieve a coordinated collaboration among stakeholders and to stop the ongoing concentration process in the restaurant industry. Fortunately, there is great willingness to collaborate among the wineries which is helpful in building a successful tourism destination. What remains problematic is the decrease in number of restaurants. These seem to have similar problems to wineries which are labor shortage and succession problems. Often times, not even winery operators know where to enjoy a nice meal. This lowers the wine regions’ attractiveness for the culinary-oriented wine tourists.

4.6.2 Practical Implications

The main recommendation that arises from this study is that further collaboration be implemented among stakeholders. On the national level, the partnership between Wines of Germany and Germany Travel is a positive step in the right direction. What remains lacking is governmental support. Structural differences between urban and rural areas are a major concern

- 83 -

in German politics. A strong domestic tourism industry can help to balance income and the effects of employment (Fletcher, 1989). In Germany, domestic tourism is stronger than in most other countries worldwide (WTTC, 2018). Hence, if wine tourism is strengthened through government support via promotion in cities, the regional imbalances in parts of the country may be smoothed out, and sustainable development may be achieved in these regions. One means of achieving better collaboration are community events during which visitors and citizens can meet face-to-face, thereby dispelling fear of the unknown and mitigating prejudices (Seraphin et al., 2019). Wines of Germany has to this end launched a consumer trade fair in Hamburg, and has expanded the successful concept into two of Germany’s other major cities (Munich and Essen). The fairs are divided into sections that represent the Germany’s different wine regions. This concept should be pursued further and transferred to more cities. Thus, regional stakeholders may remain in contact with one another while simultaneously promoting Germany as a destination for wine tourism.

The key question that remains is how supporting legislation, in terms of wine tourism development, might look. Restaurants have increasingly closed down in German wine regions. Since wine tourism is a part of gastronomic tourism, support for gastronomic infrastructure through the provision of incentives may help to ensure diversity in dining options. Moreover, since small wineries are more dependent on wine tourism (Koch et al., 2013) and are not obliged to manage large production volumes, it would be reasonable for them to invest more time in touristic activities. If these activities prove too time-consuming for those that employ new staff with a touristic background could make sense. In this context, scholarships for young people in wine regions who wish to pursue careers in tourism may be a useful approach to developing Germany’s wine tourism industry. Of course, this is only one aspect and doesn’t come close to all the complexities of running a small winery business. Another factor is the wineries’ distance from big cities: the respondents whose companies were closest to urban regions witnessed the greatest increase in visitor numbers overall. As previous literature has indicated (Baird et al. 2018; Alonso and Liu, 2010; Soontiens et al., 2018; Howley and Van Westering, 2008; Villanueva and Moscovici, 2016), big cities provide the key market for domestic and international wine tourism. To summarize, the wineries most eligible to receive financial or legislative support may be smaller wineries that are located close to cities and which operate restaurants. These could function as door openers, and may thus offer a means of elevating visitors’ interest in communities that are further away.

A further priority is the establishment of a successful communication strategy, which is supported by the findings from earlier literature (e.g. Alonso and Liu, 2012). In this context,

- 84 -

first it is of primary importance that German wine tourism, as well as the country’s regional wine tourism, has a public face in the form of a website, which is not yet the case. In addition, since cities are important source markets for visitors, it may be expedient to open up points of contact (e.g., regional wine store with information about the wine regions) in the largest cities in close proximity to the respective wine regions. Thus, people may become increasingly aware of opportunities to travel to the wine-producing regions. Therefore, some of the purchasing power that increasingly accumulates in cities may flow back into the surrounding rural areas. Moreover, since these points of contact will provide information about the entire region, the wine regions may experience an enhanced sense of unity. The final major recommendation is to create a robust signage infrastructure. Without this, visitors are likely to become lost. Many of the respondents expressed the desire that an adequate signage and mapping infrastructure be established.

The final point that should be mentioned is the role of nature and cultural landscapes. German viticulture is oftentimes associated with traditional steep slopes that are attractive to numerous visitors. These steep slopes are increasingly being abandoned, however, due to their low profitability (Job and Murphy, 2006). As previous German scholarship has noted (Müller and Dreyer, 2010; Job and Murphy, 2006; Schumacher, 2014), the protection of cultural landscapes is particularly important in the German context, as has been observed in other wine regions (e.g., the Douro Valley in Portugal). These traditional vineyards attract many tourists and should therefore be preserved. From a winery operator’s perspective, allowing visitors to tour the vineyards and the consequent revelation of the arduous production circumstances and processes may support the wineries’ demands for higher prices. Ultimately, visitors want to experience these impressive landscapes. Hence, investments that help to preserve natural and cultural heritage for future generations should be encouraged.

4.6.3 Limitations and future research recommendations

This paper’s aim was to demonstrate the relevance and identify the main challenges of wine tourism in Germany. It is important to mention that this offers a generalized perspective. To shed light on the regions themselves, it would be important to examine each individually. One of the goals of this study was to ascertain the proportion of wineries that participate in touristic activities. We may assume that the study attracted more interest from wineries that are actually involved in tourism to some extent. This phenomenon constitutes involvement bias in market research (Szolnoki and Hoffmann, 2013) Therefore, the proportion of participating wineries of 85.5% is likely overestimated. Hence, despite the large overall sample size, the results cannot be

- 85 -

deemed representative. Despite these limitations, the results provide an important first insight into some unexplored questions.

It is important to reiterate that Germany, compared to other countries, lags behind in terms of research in this area. To avoid losing pace with other wine-producing countries, a long-term study could be introduced. This would allow developments to be monitored, and strategic decisions, on the entrepreneurial, regional, state, or national levels, to be facilitated on the basis of these data. In this context, we refer the reader to Alonso and Liu (2012), who observe that few studies “have taken a longitudinal approach to investigate (1) the extent to which wineries become involved in wine tourism, (2) whether they actually benefit from it over time and (3) what impediments, if any, prevent them from maximizing the opportunities that wine tourism may provide”. This idea may be further developed for a Europe-wide panel study for the purpose of comparing countries, and thereby securing support from the European Union. Collaboration among stakeholders has often been found to be a key success factor in wine tourism, as several authors have already observed. This merits further research, as has previously been observed by Bamberra and Wickramasekara (2012).

- 86 -

5 Perspectives and outlook

This chapter integrates the findings of the three research articles and discusses future research implications. As shown in the Introduction, the research interest on the topic of wine tourism has been increasing for decades. In New World countries such as Australia and South Africa, research dates back several decades. Due to the commercial success outside of Europe and the decline in wine consumption in Europe, researchers on the continent have started to focus on the wine tourism market. Germany, unlike its neighbors, has not experienced a decline in wine consumption, which could be one of the main reason why it has neglected the field of wine tourism. The country has been slow to recognize that wine tourism has a higher economic relevance for a wine region than the production of wine itself. Wine tourism contributes to preserving regional heritage and balancing income distribution in the country. In a highly lucrative tourism market such as Germany, the development of a national wine tourism concept could have widespread positive implications.

This thesis can be seen as a starting point for many researchers to dig deeper into the German wine regions so that the tourism products in each wine region can be optimized and therefore Germany benefits as a whole. The approaches developed in this thesis can be applied in any wine region of the world. Also, they can be transferred to other forms of special-interest tourism (e.g. alpine tourism and culinary tourism).

5.1 Integrating findings from the publications

Germany has the largest tourism sector among all European countries in terms of tourism revenue. This is largely attributable to domestic tourism (87%) (WTTC, 2018). In this regard, Germany differs from most other countries in the world. In Chapters 2 and 3, similar results came to light for the topic of wine tourism. Not only were 89% of the surveyed tourists (and wine tourists) Germans, but the quantitative survey with winery operators showed the same results: According to the respondents, 89% of visitors to their wineries were Germans, confirming that most of wine tourism in Germany could be ranked among domestic wine tourism (RQ1). According to UNWTO (2019a), the most successful wine tourism destinations receive domestic visitors. Hence, Germany, as a large tourism market with strong domestic tourism, could be seen as favorable for the successful implementation of a nationwide wine tourism concept.

- 87 -

Most of the German wineries are small companies with limited resources (Koch et al., 2013). While the vineyard area has remained the same for decades, the number of wineries has been decreasing significantly. Between 2010 and 2016, the number dropped from 20,558 to 15,931, which is a decline of 22.5% (Wines of Germany, 2019). The results in Chapter 4 show that 24% of company sales can be attributed to wine tourism. For the smallest wineries (< 8ha), about a third of their company sales (34%) was generated through wine tourism (the smaller the company, the bigger the significance of wine tourism). It became clear that small wine producers do not only diversify into wine tourism for entrepreneurial reasons. The respondents sometimes see it as necessary for their family’s livelihood. Of the 703 respondents in the online survey, 93% of the responding winery operators ran family-owned businesses. Considering that wine tourism accounts for 24% of sales, it can be said that this niche market is highly significant for the wineries (RQ3). From a regional point of view, this can also be confirmed: Results from Chapter 3 show that wine tourism in Germany, with an economic impact of EUR 5.0 billion, generates income for 71,846 people (RQ2).

Almost three quarters of the tourists in German wine regions (73%) did not visit any wineries during their travels (results include all 13 German wine regions, not just the results across six regions presented in Chapter 2). For them and for “Secondary Wine Tourists” (14%), it was not the wine that made them visit the regions in the first place, but the nature/landscape. For “Primary Wine Tourists” (the “real” wine tourists), wine was the major travel motivation. However, nature/landscape was significantly more important to them than to “Non-Winery Visitors”. From previous research it has been revealed that the maintenance and protection of natural resources and cultural landscapes seems to play a bigger role in Germany than in other countries. In Chapter 4, the same results were found: winery managers see the protection of cultural landscapes as one of the main regional challenges in wine tourism. Hence, the protection of the natural appeal and cultural landscapes in German wine regions seems to be an issue that needs to be addressed further. According to Jätzold (1993), wine tourism in Germany can be ranked among gastronomic cultural tourism. Due to the importance of nature and cultural landscapes, this definition could be complemented by the term ‘nature’ tourism (RQ1).

Sustainability and environmental awareness are natural components of the German lifestyle which is why consumption of regional and sustainably produced products is increasing (BMWi, 2013). The German wine consumption patterns show a similar tendency: While the volume of wine consumed has remained steady for decades, imports and exports of German wines are slightly decreasing, and thus the share of consumed domestic wine is rising (Wines of Germany, 2019). Since wine consumption is closely related to interest in wine tourism (Dodd, 2000), this

- 88 -

could indicate that the willingness to travel to wine regions can be expected to grow among the German population. In Chapter 4, it was found that 62% of German winery operators reported an increase and 34% stated that demand had remained mainly the same in the last three years. Winery operators also stated that they are planning on investing more money in wine tourism than in the past, confirming that demand in Germany is increasing. Interestingly, the shorter the distance is to the next urban center, the higher the increase in demand and the higher the planned investment amount (RQ3).

For the successful development of wine tourism, coordinated collaboration among stakeholders (including governments) is crucial (Alonso et al., 2013). In Chapter 4, results show that winery operators in Germany understand the importance of cooperation and identify it as one of their goals. It is important to state that in some German wine regions, the regional collaboration is pretty strong while in others, there is room for improvement. At the national level, collaboration between Wines of Germany and Germany Travel was started in 2008. In the scientific realm, the Commission for Wine and Culinary Tourism by the German Society for Tourism Research was founded in 2009 (Dreyer, 2011). There seems to be a clear trend towards a nationally coordinated effort. Unfortunately, government support at the national level has yet to be granted. In Australia, for example, wine tourism has been funded by the government for over 20 years and is an important contributor to the entire sector’s success (Australian Grape & Wine Inc, 2019).

Wine tourism is part of gastronomy tourism (UNWTO, 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising that the pleasure of enjoying food in restaurants plays an important role. This has been found in much previous research and also in this thesis (see Chapter 2). Not only is enjoying a nice meal more important to wine tourists compared to other segments, but they also spend more money in restaurants (RQ1). Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem in the wine regions’ restaurant infrastructure. Winery operators in Chapter 4 reported an ongoing decline in restaurants. Due to this increasing scarcity, it is often difficult for the respondents to recommend a restaurant to their clients. Especially at lunch time, finding a place to eat out seems to be a problem. It is interesting to see that wineries and restaurants in wine regions seem to be undergoing a similar decline in numbers.

- 89 -

5.2 Research Contribution

5.2.1 Academic implications

From an academic point of view, there is a lack of research about the wine tourism phenomenon in European countries compared to New World wine regions. In order to take advantage of a presumably highly attractive market, the potential value has to be enumerated. This research proposed a method to combine three different studies in all 13 German wine regions (consumer- and producer-oriented) to explore the wine tourism phenomenon. This provides a useful insight on how the overall situation of wine tourism in a country looks like, which has implications at the national level. The wine regions, however, are so diverse that implications cannot be transferred to each wine region in identical form. In order to really enhance national wine tourism development in a country, it is important to look at each wine region individually.

To show the value of wine tourism in Germany, it was first important to define the share of visitors who can be called wine tourists. Therefore, a segmentation approach was established in Chapter 2 that separates wine tourists from other tourist segments. For the study, visitors to wine regions were interviewed at “wine-neutral” interview locations such as city centers or cultural sites. By taking into account previous research implications, tourists to German wine regions were segmented into three visitor groups, based on their travel motivation and wine activities: “Primary Wine Tourists” (i.e. real wine tourists) for which wine-related experiences are “prime motivating factors” (Hall et al., 2000, p.3), ‘Secondary Wine Tourists’ who “participate in wine tourism as a secondary element” (Marzo-Navarra and Pedraja- Iglesias, 2010, p. 359) and ‘Non-Winery Visitors’. Since most of the earlier research had been conducted at cellar doors, this approach differed from previous research. Despite this, findings matched earlier research results which can be seen as a positive sign for the validity of the segmentation method. Hence, this approach can be seen as effective and can therefore be recommended for application in other wine regions of the world. In the case of this research, it was necessary for Chapter 3, which aimed to calculate the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany.

Following the example of economic impact analysis on nature tourism in German–speaking countries (e.g. Mayer et al., 2010), a modified multiplier model was developed. Other models such as CGE or I-O could have potentially produced more modest, more realistic results (Klijs et al., 2012). However, due to missing data at the sub-regional level, time constraints and 13 different wine regions to be calculated, the model was probably the only approach possible. It can be seen as a way for effectively calculating the economic impact of any kind of special- interest tourism. This method not only produces results that are easier to understand and

- 90 -

therefore more helpful to decision-makers, they are also more comparable than other economic impact models. In many New World countries, I-O models such as IMPLAN can be calculated easier due to higher data availability. In Europe, however, these data are hard to obtain because of a traditional small-scale structure of the countries. Hence, the developed model could provide a way for estimating the value across all European wine-growing countries.

In Chapter 4, two surveys with winery operators were combined in a mixed-methods framework that included both qualitative and quantitative research. This enabled a way to make up for the lack of research on the topic of wine tourism development from a producer perspective, and put Germany on par with other countries. The aim of the paper was to include the winery operators’ perspective on the topic of wine tourism to reveal the relevance and challenges that wine tourism in Germany is facing. Respondents were asked about the importance of wine tourism for them and how the demand has developed. They were also asked about the perceived benefits and challenges. They were even invited to express their opinions, criticism and requests to regional decision-makers. This can provide helpful insights about how to improve the development of wine tourism in a country. The two surveys were conducted in parallel. This approach was chosen due to its flexibility: the qualitative survey served to answer questions of a more probing character and the online survey served to gather data via more easily accessible questions. The online survey also served to check the veracity of the challenges that were identified in the qualitative study. It may have been more useful to analyze the in-depth interviews before conducting the online survey. This way, the results of the in-depth interviews could have been discussed and hypotheses could have been deduced, which then could have been checked for veracity in the online survey. However, this would require much time. In this thesis, time for conducting the winery surveys amounted to about a year and a half.

5.2.2 Managerial implications

It is important to do further research on the topic of wine tourism from a winery’s perspective in order to understand their position as one of the central stakeholder groups. In this research, wine tourism has shown to be highly significant, but also highly demanding. It is important to realize the significance but also the challenges.

Introducing touristic services into a winery means a lot of work on top of an already challenging business. This can mean little free time for the winery operators, which can have a negative impact on their families. Most German wineries are family businesses, meaning respective family members also have less free time. In the end, there is less family time, less leisure time and perhaps more stress. This is something to seriously take into consideration before

- 91 -

diversifying a wine-producing into a wine tourism business. On the other hand, respondents mentioned the family’s subsistence achieved through wine tourism as one of the main benefits, meaning that the sales generated through tourism are not negligible. Also, being in contact with the tourists seems to be a “nice task“. Since the guests are mostly in a good mood, respondents extract motivation from these interpersonal relationships. Even today, word of mouth is the best promotion. If winery visitors have a nice experience, they will share it with their social circle which results in new potential customers. In addition, personal interaction at wine-touristic activities makes for good storytelling which generates greater customer loyalty. And finally, showing the wine production with visitors can lend the legitimacy required to claim a higher price per bottle. If a winery operator wants to enjoy the benefits of tourism while keeping his or her focus on production, employing touristic staff is probably essential.

Gastronomy has shown to be the word that has remained throughout the research process. Since wine tourism is actually part of gastronomy tourism, this seems logical. And, due to a growing trend of experiential tourism with an emphasis on food and wine, the combination has proven to be successful in other countries (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017). This further supports that this combination plays a major role in attracting visitors and contributes to the image of a food and wine region (Sparks et al., 2005). The results show that there is a serious dearth in the restaurant industry. According to the respondents, restaurants often have succession problems which lead to a decline in the number of restaurants. Respondents sometimes could not even recommend a local restaurant when tourists enquired. Opening hours were frequently criticized, since it can be difficult to find something at lunchtime. Without a sufficient restaurant infrastructure, it is difficult to achieve successful wine tourism development. A way to solve this problem could be found in the creation of wine routes. Wine routes serve to link the main suppliers (wineries and restaurants) with cultural suppliers such as museums (Ferreira and Hunter, 2017). With this, big traditional restaurants and wineries (‘landmark wineries’) could play a central role in collecting the critical mass of visitors. Germany has a long tradition of wine routes. One of the world’s first wine routes was established in Germany, which makes for good storytelling in this regard. However, the creation of wine routes can only be successful when there is mutual collaboration among all the stakeholders.

90% of the German territory is rural. These areas are important because of their natural resources, cultural landscapes and for their recreational value. However, these areas are getting increasingly abandoned in favor of big cities. In order to assure sustainable development in rural areas, efforts need to be made to prevent rural populations from moving away and create comparable living conditions to those in cities (BMEL, 2018). Tourism provides a way to

- 92 -

stimulate economic development in rural areas, as it generates income while promoting cultural heritage and traditions. Wine tourism even stimulates sustainable development. Germany is a relatively small country with a relatively high population density. This means that wine regions are never too far to reach from a city so that day or weekend trips are always possible. Thus, as found in previous research, cities should provide the key market for attracting potential wine tourists. There are many aspects favoring the successful development of wine tourism, such as access to a high income population in a country with a high level of domestic tourism (UNWTO, 2019a). Creating points of interest in strategically well-situated cities such as Frankfurt (max. 1.5 hours driving distance to at least six wine regions) could help in promoting wine tourism and strengthening the awareness of Germany as a wine country.

5.3 Limitations and future perspectives

Although this thesis has contributed to understanding wine tourism in Germany, it is important to mention that it has only provided an insight at the national level. Results can be used for comparisons with other countries. To draw comparisons among German wine regions, however, each region has to be evaluated for itself. Collaboration among stakeholders is one of the most important pillars of wine tourism. As in previous research, this has been one of the main results of this thesis. Hence, it would be useful to follow up on this work and investigate what kind of collaboration is already there and how it can be furthered.

Sustainability is currently one of the most important topics for consumers, researchers and politicians. Wine tourism can foster sustainable development. In the last few years, much research has been done in order to create strategies for effectively achieving sustainable tourism development. Sustainable tourism is “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impact, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and the host communities” (UNWTO, 2019b). In this thesis, the needs of the visitors and some industry stakeholders were included. Environmental issues appear in each of the chapters. Something that is left out almost entirely in this research is the perspective of the host community. Since tourism can have enormous impact on host communities, their side should be addressed in future research. Furthermore, environmental issues and the protection of cultural landscapes should be included as well. Germany has many steep slopes, which have become a symbol of the wine regions and have often been used as an image to successfully attract visitors. These steep slopes, however, are becoming fewer and fewer which lowers the incentive to visit these regions (Job and Murphy, 2006).

- 93 -

One of the main purposes of the thesis was to measure the economic impact of wine tourism in Germany. This was done by using a modified Keynesian income multiplier model. Due to missing supply data in German-speaking countries, it is the preferred model for measuring the economic impact of tourism at the regional or sub-regional level. Today there are methodologically improved approaches that could be applied if the supply side were able to be modeled. A CGE model, for example, would allow including linkages among sectors.

Wine tourism offers huge potential, not only in economic, but also in ecological and societal terms. Due to the rising importance of tourism in terms of job creation, and wine tourism being a growing niche market and a strategic tool for sustainable regional development, the significance of this topic is likely to increase over the following years. This research introduced a way to include the tourists’ and the wineries’ perspective. In a follow-up project, it would be interesting to start a cross-national study with all the different wine countries in Europe, which includes the host communities and additional stakeholders, and addresses environmental issues in detail. The next step could be to create a long-term study that monitors wine tourism development over time.

- 94 -

6 References

Alant, K., & Bruwer, J. (2004). Wine tourism behaviour in the context of a motivational framework for wine regions and cellar doors. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 27– 37.

Alebaki, M., & Iakovidou, O. (2011). Market segmentation in wine tourism: A comparison of approaches. Tourismos, 6(1), 123–140.

Alonso, A. D. (2013). Are travellers interested in wine tourism in New Zealand? International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 3 (1), 13–24.

Alonso, A. D., Bressan, A., O'Shea, M., & Krajsic, V. (2013). Perceived Benefits and Challenges to Wine Tourism Involvement: An International Perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1967.

Alonso, A. D., & Liu, Y. (2012). Old wine region, new concept and sustainable development: Winery entrepreneurs’ perceived benefits from wine tourism on Spain’s Canary Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(7), 991–1009.

Alonso, A. D., & Liu, Y. (2010). Wine tourism development in emerging Western Australian regions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 245–262.

Alonso, A. D., & Liu, Y. (2012). Visitor centers, collaboration, and the role of local food and beverage as regional tourism development tools: The case of the Blackwood River Valley in Western Australia. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 517–536.

Alonso, A. D., Sheridan, L., & Scherrer, P. (2008). Wine tourism in the Canary Islands: An exploratory study. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2), 291– 300.

Archer, B. H. (1977). Tourism Multipliers: The State of the Art. Bangor Occasional Papers in Economics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Archer, B. H. (1984). Economic Impact: Misleading Multiplier. Annals of Tourism Research 11(3), 517-518.

Archer, B. H., & Fletcher, J. (1996). The economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 32–47.

Archer, B.H., & Owen, C.B. (1972). Towards a Tourist Regional Multiplier. Journal of Travel Research, 11(2), 9–13.

Asociación de Cooperativas Vitivinícolas Argentinas (ACOVI). Enoturismo. (2018). http://acovi.com.ar/observatorio/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Enoturismo-final.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

- 95 -

Atout France. Oenotourisme. (2017). http://atout-france.fr/content/oenotourisme Accessed 6 January 2020.

Auld, T., & McArthur, S. (2003). Does event-driven tourism provide economic benefits ? A case study from the Manawatu region of New Zealand. Tourism Economics, 9(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000003101298358.

Australian Grape & Wine Inc. Harnessing the tourism potential of wine and food in Australia. (2019). https://www.wfa.org.au/assets/strategies- plans/pdfs/Wine_food_tourism_strategy.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Baird, T., Hall, C., & Castka, P. (2018). New Zealand Winegrowers Attitudes and Behaviours towards Wine Tourism and Sustainable Winegrowing. Sustainability, 10(3), 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030797.

Bamberry, G., & Wickramasekara, R. (2012). Domestic and international strategies in the Queensland wine industry. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 24(4) 302–318.

Beames, G. (2003). The rock, the reef and the grape: The challenges of developing wine tourism in regional Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 205–212.

Bengsch, L., Harrer, B., & Grasegger, S. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus in Mannheim (2008). https://docplayer.org/14783688-Wirtschaftsfaktor-tourismus-in-mannheim- endbericht.html Accessed 6 January 2020.

Berwert, A., Rütter, H., Müller, H. (2002). Volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Tourismus im Kanton Wallis. The Planning Review, 38(149), 4–12. DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2002.10556803.

Bonn, M. A., Cho, M., & Um, H. (2018). The evolution of wine research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 286–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0521.

Brown, G., & Getz, D. (2005). Linking wine preferences to the choice of wine tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 266–276.

Brunori, G., & Rossi, A. (2000). Synergy and coherence through collective action: Some insights from wine routes in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 409–423.

Bruwer, J. (2003). South African wine routes: some perspectives on the wine tourism industry’s structural dimensions and wine tourism product. Tourism Management, 24(4), 423–435.

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.

Bruwer, J., & Thach, L. (2013). Wine tourists’ use of sources of information when visiting a USA wine region. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(3), 221–237.

- 96 -

Bruwer, J., Prayag, G., & Disegna, M. (2018). Why wine tourists visit cellar doors: Segmenting motivation and destination image. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1) 1-12.

Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Ländliche Regionen verstehen. (2018). https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/LR- verstehen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Accessed 6 January 2020.

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Das Reiseverhalten der Deutschen im Inland. (2013). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Studien/studie-zum- inlandsreiseverhalten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 Accessed 6 January 2020.

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Tagesreisen der Deutschen: Grundlagenuntersuchung. (2014). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Studien/tagesreisen-der- deutschen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 Accessed 6 January 2020.

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Tourismusperspektiven in ländlichen Räumen. Handlungsempfehlungen zur Förderung des Tourismus in ländlichen Räumen. (2014). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Tourismus/tourismusperspektive n-in-laendlichen-raeumen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Accessed 6 January 2020.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.

Byrd, E. T., Canziani, B., Hsieh, Y., Debbage, K., & Sonmez, S. (2016). Wine tourism: Motivating visitors through core and supplementary services. Tourism Management, 52, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.009.

Californiawines. Statistics. (2019). https://discovercaliforniawines.com/media- trade/statistics/ Accessed 6 January 2020.

Canadian Vintners Association. The economic impact of the wine and grape industry in Canada 2015. (2017). http://www.canadianvintners.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/Canada-Economic-Impact-Report-2015.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Carlsen, J. (2004). A review of global wine tourism research. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 5–13.

Carlsen, J., & Boksberger, P. (2013). Enhancing consumer value in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(1), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471379.

Carlsen, J., & Ali-Knight, J. (2004). Managing wine tourism through demarketing: The case of Napa Valley, California. Conference paper at International Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Australia.

- 97 -

Chang, S. (1981). Measuring Economic Impact of the Mobile Municipal Auditorium Upon Alabama. Journal of Travel Research, 19(4), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758101900402

Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2000). Wine tourism - a thirst for knowledge? International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(3), 70–80.

Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management, 23(3), 311–319.

Charters, S., & Menival, D. (2011). Wine tourism in champagne, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1), 102–118.

Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., & Brymer, R. A. (2017). A Constraint-Based Approach to Wine Tourism Market Segmentation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(4), 415–444.

Chong, K. L. (2017). Thailand wine tourism: a dream or a reality?. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22 (6), 604–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1308389.

Città del vino. XII rapporto sul turismo del vino in Italia. (2016). http://www.trentinowine.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/XII-Rapporto-Nazionale- sul-Turismo-del-Vino-2014-2015-I-sem..pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Clemente-Ricolfe, J. S., Escribá-Pérez, C., Rodríguez-Barrio, J. E., & Buitrago-Vera, J. M. (2012). The potential wine tourist market: The case of Valencia (Spain). Journal of Wine Research, 23(2), 185–202.

Contò, F., Vrontis, D., Fiore, M., & Thrassou, A. (2014). Strengthening regional identities and culture through wine industry cross border collaboration. British Food Journal, 116(11), 1788–1807.

Correia, L., Passos Ascencão, M. J., & Charters, S. (2004). Wine routes in Portugal: A case study of the Bairrada wine route. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 15–25.

Dawson, D. Fountain, J., & Cohen, D. A. (2011). Seasonality and the Lifestyle “Conundrum”: An Analysis of Lifestyle Entrepreneurship in Wine Tourism Regions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5) 551-572.

Del Chiappa, G., Alebaki, M., & Menexes, G. (2019). Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development. In N. Kozak and M. Kozak (Eds.), Tourist destination management. Instruments, products, and case studies (pp. 177- 191). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Destatis. Durchschnittliche Bruttojahresverdienste von Vollzeitbeschäftigten im Jahr 2018. (2019). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Verdienste/Verdienste- Verdienstunterschiede/Tabellen/bruttojahresverdienst.html Accessed 6 January 2020.

- 98 -

[dataset] Destatis (2018). Daten aus dem Gemeindeverzeichnis: Kreisfreie Städte und Landkreise nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Bevölkerungsdichte. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja &uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj67rT3ovPjAhUKIMUKHTMUBKMQFjADegQIBRAC &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.destatis.de%2FDE%2FThemen%2FLaender- Regionen%2FRegionales%2FGemeindeverzeichnis%2FAdministrativ%2F04- kreise.xlsx%3F__blob%3DpublicationFile%26v%3D3&usg=AOvVaw1U0cPIhjq3a TCMSBBwCK73 Accessed 6 January 2020.

Dodd, T. H. (2000). Influences on cellar door sales and determinants of wine tourism success: results from Texas wineries. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Dodd, T. H. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5–16.

Dodd, T. H., & Bigotte, V. (1997). Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 46–51.

Dodd, T. H., & Beverland, M. (2001). Winery Tourism Life-cycle Development: A Proposed Model. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(2), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2001.11081339.

Dreyer, A. (2011). Wein und Tourismus: Erfolg durch Synergien und Kooperationen. Berlin: ESV.

Dreyer, A., Ratz, J., & Berauer, J. (2015). Weintourismus: Marketing für Weinregionen und Winzer. Elmsholm: ITD-Verlag.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus im Weinland Franken. (2013a). https://www.lwg.bayern.de/mam/cms06/weinbau/dateien/w5_wirtschaftsfaktor_tour ismus_im_weinland_franken.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Tourismus als Wirtschaftsfaktor in Bingen 2013 (2013b). https://www.bingen.de/media/bc9d6fa8-8138-4f1a-b0d8- cfcb923ac5b3/rWWx3w/Tourismus%20und%20Kultur/Mediathek/Wirtschaftsfaktor %20Tourismus_20150219.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus für Hessen 2015 (2015). https://wirtschaft.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/hmwvl/dwif_untersuchung_wirt schaftsfaktor_tourismus_in_hessen_2015.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus für das Bundesland Baden-Württemberg 2015 (2016a). https://mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m- mlr/intern/dateien/PDFs/Tourismus/Studie_Wirtschaftsfaktor_Tourismus_Baden- W%C3%BCrttemberg_2015.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus in Leipzig Region: Berichtsjahr 2015 (2016b). https://www.leipzig.de/fileadmin/mediendatenbank/leipzig-

- 99 -

de/Stadt/Wirtschaftsfaktor-Tourismus-Leipzig-Region-2016-BJ-2015.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus für die Region Mosel (2017). https://www.landtag.rlp.de/landtag/vorlagen/1-12-17.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

DWIF. Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus für die Region Vogtland (2018). https://www.dwif.de/images/news/PDF_2018/Wirtschaftsfaktor_Tourismus_Vogtla nd_dwif_2018.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: new and old approaches. Tourism Management, 25(3), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00131-6.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Dwyer, W. (2010). Tourism economics and policy. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Etcheverria, O. (2015). Wine Tourism and Gastronomy. In M. Peris-Ortiz, M. Del Río Rama, & C. Rueda-Armengot (Eds.), Wine and Tourism. A Strategic Segment for Sustainable Economic Development (pp. 161–177). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Febianti, F., & Arcana, K. T. P. (2016). Development of Wine Tourism and its Impact for Local Community in North Bali. Conference paper at 1st International Conference on Tourism Gastronomy and Tourist Destination, Djakarta, Indonesia.

Ferreira, S., & Hunter, C. A. (2017). Wine tourism development in South Africa: a geographical analysis. Tourism Geographies, 19(5), 676–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1298152.

Figueroa, E., & Rotarou, E. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for the sustainable development of the wine tourism sector in Chile. Journal of Wine Research, 29(4) 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2018.1532880.

Fletcher, J. E. (1989). Input–output analysis and tourism impact studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90006-6.

Foltz, J. C., Woodall, S., Wandschneider, P. R., & Taylor, R. G. (2007). The Contribution of the Grape and Wine Industry to Idaho’s Economy: Agribusiness and Tourism Impacts. Journal of Agribusiness, 25(1), 77-91.

Fraser, R. A., & Alonso, A. (2006). Do Tourism and Wine Always Fit Together? A Consideration of Business Motivations. In J. Carlsen and S. Charters (Eds.), Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management and Marketing (pp. 19-26). Wallingford: CABI.

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES). Sozioökonomischer Disparitätenbericht. (2019). http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/fes/15400-20190528.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

- 100 -

Galloway, G., Mitchell, R., Getz, D., Crouch, G., & Ong, B. (2008). Sensation seeking and the prediction of attitudes and behaviours of wine tourists. Tourism Management, 29 (5), 950–966.

Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006). Benchmarking wine tourism development: The case of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(2), 78–97.

Getz, D. (2000). Explore wine tourism: Management, development & destinations. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Gómez, M., Pratt, M. A., & Molina, A. (2018). Wine tourism research: a systematic review of 20 vintages from 1995 to 2014. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1441267.

Grybovych, O., & Lankford, S. V. (2019). Economic Impacts of a Developing Wine Tourism Industry in Iowa. In M. Sigala, & R. N. S. Robinson (Eds.), Wine Tourism Destination Management and Marketing: Theory and Cases (pp. 571-592). Cham, Springer.

Grybovych, O., Lankford, J., & Lankford, S. (2013). Motivations of wine travelers in rural Northeast Iowa. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 25(4), 285– 309.

Hall, C. M., & Macionis, N. (1998). Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In R.W. Butler, C. M. Hall, & J. M. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and recreation in rural areas (pp. 197–224). Chichester: John Wiley.

Hall, C. M., Johnson, G., Cambourne, B., Macionis, N., Mitchell, R., & Sharples, L. (2000). Wine tourism: An introduction. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Harrer, B., & Scherr, S. (2002). Ausgaben der Übernachtungsgäste in Deutschland. München: DWIF.

Hojman, D. E., & Hunter-Jones, P. (2012). Wine tourism: Chilean wine regions and routes. Journal of Business Research, 65(1) 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.009.

Houghton, M. (2008). Classifying wine festival customers: Comparing an inductive typology with Hall’s wine tourist classification. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(1), 67–76.

Howley, M., & van Westering, J. (2008). Developing wine tourism: A case study of the attitude of English wine producers to wine tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(1), 87–95.

- 101 -

IMPLAN. Key Assumptions of IMPLAN & Input-Output Analysis. (2019). https://implanhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115009505587-Key-Assumptions- of-IMPLAN-Input-Output-Analysis Accessed 6 January 2020.

Ignatov, E., Smith, S. (2006). Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists. Current Issues in Toursim 9(3), 235–255.

Jätzold, R. (1993). Differenzierungs- und Fördermöglichkeiten des Kulturtourismus und die Erfassung seiner Potentiale am Beispiel des Ardennen-Eifel-Saar-Moselraumes. In C. Becker (Ed.), Kulturtourismus in Europa: Wachstum ohne Grenzen? (pp.135- 144). Trier: Europäisches Tourismus-Institut an der Universität Trier.

Job, H., & Murphy, A. (2006). Germany’s Mosel Valley: Can tourism help preserve its cultural heritage?. Tourism Review International, 9(4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427206776330526.

Job, H., Harrer, B., Metzler, D., & Hajizadeh-Alamdary, D. (2005). Ökonomische Effekte von Großschutzgebieten: Untersuchung der Bedeutung von Großschutzgebieten für den Tourismus und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Region. Bonn: BfN-Skripten.

Job, H., Harrer, B., Metzler, D., & Hajizadeh-Alamdary, D. (2006). Ökonomische Effekte von Großschutzgebieten: Leitfaden zur Erfassung der regionalwirtschaftlichen Wirkungen des Tourismus in Großschutzgebieten. Bonn: BfN-Skripten.

Kagermeier, A. (2011). Kooperationen als Herausforderung für die Weiterentwicklung des Weintourismus. In A. Dreyer (Ed.), Wein und Tourismus: Erfolg durch Synergien und Kooperationen (pp. 69-87). Berlin: ESV.

Keynes, J.M. (1933). The Multiplier. The New Statesman and Nation, 5, 405-407.

Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, M., & Kim, S.H. (2002). Economic impacts of wine tourism in Michigan. Conference paper at 2002 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, New York, NY.

Klijs, J., Heijman, W., Maris, D.K., & Bryon, J. (2012). Criteria for Comparing Economic Impact Models of Tourism. Tourism Economics, 18(6), 1175–1202. doi: 10.5367/te.2012.0172.

Klijs, K. (2016). Tourism, income, and jobs: Improving the measurement of regional economic impacts of tourism. Wageningen University: Wageningen, NL.

Koch, J., Martin, A., & Nash, R. (2013). Overview of perceptions of German wine tourism from the winery perspective. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 25(1), 50–74.

- 102 -

Küpfer, I., & Elsasser, H. (2000). Regionale touristische Wertschöpfungsstudien: Fallbeispiel Nationalparktourismus in der Schweiz. Tourismus Journal 4(4), 433- 448.

Loose, S., & Pabst, E. (2018). Current State of the German and International Wine Markets. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68, 121-131.

López-Guzmán, T., Rodríguez-García, J., Sánchez-Canizares, S., & José Luján-García, M. (2011). The development of wine tourism in Spain. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 23(4), 374–386.

López-Guzmán, T., Vieira-Rodríguez, A., & Rodríguez-García, J. (2014). Profile and motivations of European tourists on the sherry wine route of Spain. Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 63– 68.

Macionis, N., & Cambourne, B. (1998). Wine and food tourism in the Australian capital territory: Exploring the links. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 10(3), 5–22.

MacKay, K. J., Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2002). Understanding Vacationing Motorist Niche Markets. Journal of Travel Research 40(4). 356–363.

Marzo-Navarro, M., & Pedraja-Iglesias, M. (2009). Profile of a wine tourist and the correspondence between destination and preferred wine: A study in Aragón, Spain. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(7), 670–687.

Marzo-Navarro, M., & Pedraja-Iglesias, M. (2010). Are there different profiles of wine tourists? An initial approach. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 22(4), 349–361.

Mattes, A., Eisenstein, B., & Reif, J. (2017). Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus - Methode und Ergebnisse des Tourismus-Satellitenkontos. In: B. Eisenstein (Ed.), Marktforschung für Destinationen: Grundlagen – Instrumente – Praxisbeispiele (pp. 157-176). Berlin, ESV.

Mayer, M., Müller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J., & Job, H. (2010). The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 73–82.

Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 365-380). Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands.

Millán Vázquez de la Torre, G., Caridad y Ocerín, J., Arjona Fuentes, J. M., & Amador Hidalgo, L. (2014). Tequila Tourism as a Factor of Development: A Strategic Vision in Mexico. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 20(1), 137-149.

Milne, S. (1987). Differential multipliers. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90067-3.

- 103 -

Mitchell, R., Charters, S., & Albrecht, J. N. (2012). Cultural systems and the wine tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.002.

Mitchell, R., & Hall, C. M. (2001). Self-ascribed wine knowledge and the wine behaviour of New Zealand winery visitors. The Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 16(6), 115–122.

Mitchell, R., & Hall, C. M. (2006). Wine tourism research: The state of play. Tourism Review International, 9(4), 307–332.

Mitchell, R., Hall, C. M., & McIntosh, A. (2000). Wine tourism and consumer behavior. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Molina, A., Gómez, M., Gonzalez-Daiz, B., & Esteban, A. (2015). Market segmentation in wine tourism: strategies for wineries and destinations in Spain. Journal of Wine Research, 26(3). 192–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2015.1051218.

Müller, J., & Dreyer, A. (2010). Weintourismus. Märkte, Marketing, Destinationsmanagement. Elmshorn: ITD-Verlag.

Nicolosi, A., Cortese, L., Nesci, F. S., & Privitera, D. (2016). Combining Wine Production and Tourism. The Aeolian Islands. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.381.

OIV. Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture. (2019). http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/6782/oiv-2019-statistical-report-on-world- vitiviniculture.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Orth, U. R., & Stöckl, A. (2011). Wein & Tourismus: Determinanten und Konsequenzen emotionaler Bindung zu Regionen und deren Marken. In A. Dreyer (Ed.), Wein und Tourismus: Erfolg durch Synergien und Kooperationen (pp.49-60). Berlin: ESV.

Peris-Ortiz, M., La Del Río Rama, M. C. de, & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2015). Wine and Tourism: A Strategic Segment for Sustainable Economic Development, Cham, Springer International Publishing.

Poitras, L., & Getz, D. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism: The host community perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 425–448.

Qiu, H. Z., Yuan, J., Ye, B. H., & Hung, K. (2013). Wine tourism phenomena in China: An emerging market. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(7), 1115–1134.

Ramos, P., Santos, V. R., Almeida, N. (2018). Main challenges, trends and opportunities for wine tourism in Portugal. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 10(6), 680–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-08-2018-0055.

- 104 -

Ratz, J., & Dreyer, A. (2013). Architektur als Wertschöpfungsinstrument für den Direktvertrieb von Weingütern. In L.-M. Lun, A. Dreyer, H. Pechlaner, G. Schamel (Eds.), Wein und Tourismus: Eine Wertschöpfungspartnerschaft zur Förderung regionaler Wirtschaftskreisläufe (pp. 11-38). Bozen: EURAC Press.

Rogerson, C. M., & Collins, K. J. E. (2015). Beer Tourism in South Africa: Emergence and Contemporary Directions. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 24(3), 241–258.

Rüdiger, J., & Hanf, J. (2019). Das Leistungsbündel Weintourismus als Strategie für Weinbaubetriebe. Conference paper at 59. Jahrestagung der Gewisola, Braunschweig, Germany

Rüdiger, J., & Hanf, J. (2017). Weintourismus als Instrument des Direktvertriebes in der Weinwirtschaft. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 95(2), 1-24.

Rüdiger, J., Hanf, J., & Schweickert, E. (2015). Die Erwartungshaltung von Weintouristen in Deutschland. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 93(2), 1-23.

Rütter, H., Guhl, D., & Müller, H. (1996). Wertschöpfer Tourismus: Ein Leitfaden zur Berechnung der touristischen Gesamtnachfrage, Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung in 13 pragmatischen Schritten. Bern: Rüschlikon.

Salvado, J., & Kastenholz, E. (2017). Sustainable Wine Tourism Eco-systems through Co-opetition. Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento, 27 (28), 1917–1931.

Sánchez, A. D., Del Río Rama, M., & García, J. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001.

Santeramo, F. G., Seccia, A., & Nardone, G. (2017). The synergies of the Italian wine and tourism sectors. Wine Economics and Policy, 6(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2016.11.004.

Schaffer, W.A.. Regional impact models. (1999). http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Schaffer/regionalGT.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Scherhag, K. (2013). Weintourismus und Marketing. Köln: Lohmar.

Scherrer, P., Alonso, A., & Sheridan, L. (2009). Expanding the destination image: Wine tourism in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(5), 451–463.

Schumacher, K. P. (2014). Weintourismus an der Mosel. Standort, 38(4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00548-014-0360-y.

Sharples, L. (2002). Wine tourism in Chile…A brave new step for a brave new world. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 14(2), 43–53.

- 105 -

Soontiens, W., Dayaram, K., Burgess, J., & Grimstad, S. (2018). Bittersweet? Urban proximity and wine tourism in the Swan Valley Region. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 105–112. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.08.008.

Stavrinoudis, T. A., Tsartas, P., & Chatzidakis, G. (2012). Study of the major supply factors and business choices affecting the growth rate of wine tourism in Greece. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(7), 627–647.

Stewart, J. W., Bramble, L., & Ziraldo, D. (2008). Key challenges in wine and culinary tourism with practical recommendations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(3), 303–312.

Stynes, D. J.. Economic impacts of tourism (1997). https://msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/pdf/ecimpvol1.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Szolnoki, G. (2018). New approach to segmenting tourists in a German wine region. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 30(2), 153–168.

Szolnoki, G., & Hoffmann, D. (2014). Neue Weinkundensegmentierung. Geisenheim: GFHG.

Szolnoki, G., & Hoffmann, D. (2013). Online, Face-to-Face and Telephone Surveys: Comparing Different Sampling Methods in Wine Consumer Research. International Journal of Wine Economics and Policy, 13(2), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001.

Szolnoki, G., Noack, S., & Tafel, M. (2014). Wine tourism: an explorative study in the region Rheingau. Conference paper at 8th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Geisenheim, Germany.

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2019). Segmenting tourists in German wine regions by travel motivation and wine activities. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg, 69, 196-207.

Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I., Papadaki-Klavdianou, A., Alexaki, A., & Tsakiridou, E. (1999). Wine routes in Northern Greece: Consumer perceptions. British Food Journal, 101(11), 884–892.

UNWTO. UNWTO to hold the 1st Global Conference on Wine Tourism in Georgia in 2016 (2015). https://www.unwto.org/archive/europe/press-release/2015-11- 04/unwto-hold-1st-global-conference-wine-tourism-georgia-2016 Accessed 6 January 2020.

UNWTO. Wine Tourism – a growing tourism segment. (2016). https://media.unwto.org/press-release/2016-09-09/wine-tourism-growing-tourism- segment Accessed 6 January 2020.

UNWTO. Measuring Sustainable Tourism. (2019b). https://webunwto.s3-eu-west- 1.amazonaws.com/2019-08/folderfactsheetweb.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

- 106 -

UNWTO. UNWTO Wine Tourism Prototype (2019a). http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/prototipoturismoenologicovcortalr_2.pd f Accessed 6 January 2020.

UNWTO. Glossary of tourism terms (2020). https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism- terms Accessed 6 January 2020.

UNWTO. Second Global Report on Gastronomy Tourism (2017). http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/gastronomy_report_web.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Villanueva, Emiliano C.; Moscovici, Dan (2016). Sustainable wine tourism development in burgeoning regions: lessons from New Jersey and Connecticut. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 12(4), 313-332.

Wargenau, A., & Che, D. (2006). Wine tourism development and marketing strategies in Southwest Michigan. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(1), 45–60.

Welt. Deutschland verspielt sein touristisches Potenzial. (2019). https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article189839813/ITB-Deutschland-verspielt-sein- touristisches- Potenzial.html?wtmc=socialmedia.facebook.shared.web&fbclid=IwAR0NOcqkAcX fJPOU4pYHp20ypKj2_fiFykcgXchNEaSCnTu75RieM14JQmg Accessed 6 January 2020.

Weiler, B. (Hg.) 1992: Special interest tourism. London: Belhaven.

Wilkins, M., & Hall, C. M. (2001). An industry stakeholder SWOT analysis of wine tourism in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 77–81.

Williams, P. W., & Kelly, J. (2001). Cultural wine tourists: Product development considerations for British Columbia’s resident wine tourism market. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 59–76.

Wine Australia. Economic Contribution of the Australian Wine Sector. (2015). https://www.wineaustralia.com/WineAustralia/media/WineAustralia/PDF/Market- Insights/2016/Final-AgEconlus-Economic-Contribution-Australian-Wine-Sector.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Wine Australia. Wine Australia Annual Report 2017–18. (2018). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ah UKEwjWnMXx_s7pAhVFyKYKHUHiCtMQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.wineaustralia.com%2Fgetmedia%2Febe35292-c517-4486-aef6- 4320fbb7f24b%2FWA_AnnualReport1718_E.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3YJfPiUZQ8TLQ cZBNT4KjE Accessed 6 January 2020.

Wineamerica. 2017 Economic Impact Study Of the Wine Industry. (2017). https://wineamerica.org/wp-

- 107 -

content/themes/wineamerica/pdfs/Methodology.pdf?9d7bd4&9d7bd4 Accessed 6 January 2020.

Wines of Germany. 2000 Jahre Weintradition. (2019). https://www.deutscheweine.de/wissen/weinbau-weinbereitung/geschichte/ Accessed 6 January 2020.

Wines of Germany. Deutscher Wein Statistik ‘17/’18. (2017). https://www.deutscheweine.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Website/Service/Downloads/ PDF/Statistik_2017-2018.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Wines of Germany. Deutscher Wein Statistik ‘19/’20. (2019). https://www.deutscheweine.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Statistik_2019-2020.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Winfree, J., McIntosh, C., & Nadreau, T. (2018). An economic model of wineries and enotourism. Wine Economics and Policy, 7(2), 88–93.

Winkler, D. The Wines of South Africa (2012). http://www.iwinereview.com/sample/i- WineReview-R30-Wines_of_South_Africa.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

Woltering, M. (2012). Tourismus und Regionalentwicklung in deutschen Nationalparken. Würzburger Geographische Arbeiten, Würzburg: Germany.

World Bank. GDP (current US$). (2019). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=DE&most_rece nt_value_desc=true&year_high_desc=true Accessed 6 January 2020.

WTTC. Germany 2019 Annual Research: Key Highlights. (2019a). https://www.wttc.org/economic-impact/country-analysis/country-reports/ Accessed 6 January 2020.

WTTC. The comparative economic impact of travel & tourism. (2012). https://www.wttc.org/- /media/files/reports/benchmark%20reports/the_comparative_economic_impact_of_t ravel__tourism.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

WTTC. Travel & Tourism - Economic Impact 2019: World. (2019b). https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions- 2019/world2019.pdf Accessed 6 January 2020.

WTTC. Travel & Tourism - Economic Impact 2018: Germany. (2018). https://www.wttc.org/economic-impact/country-analysis/country-reports/ Accessed 6 January 2020.

- 108 -

7 Funding

The project was funded by the German Wine Fund (Deutscher Weinfonds; grant number: n/a).

- 109 -