Experiential consumption of a South African wine farm destination as an agritourism attraction

Abstract

As agritourism has been gaining in popularity as a form of special interest tourism, researchers have investigated different aspects of this phenomenon. However, academic literature seems to be mostly atheoretical thus far. Considering the highly experiential nature of agritourism activities, the current study tested the potential power of experiential consumption dimensions on explaining visitor flow experience, satisfaction with, and loyalty toward an agritourism attraction located on a wine farm in South Africa. A large data set collected with an onsite survey was analyzed. The study reveals several theoretical findings and extends the literature on the experiential dimensions of agritourism/wine tourism/farm tourism, as well as providing practical implications that may aid operators of such attractions to make more informed decisions with regard to their tourism product and budget allocation.

Keywords

Agritourism experiential consumption flow loyalty satisfaction wine tourism

Introduction

The popularity of agritourism as a form of special interest tourism continues to grow (Santeramo and Barbieri, 2017). Being able to view onsite processing of agricultural products is a key example of working farm agritourism (Phillip et al., 2010), of which winery visitation forms a key part and continues to increase in popularity (Sparks, 2006). While academic research in the area of wine tourism was almost nonexistent until the 1990s (Bonn et al., 2018), it now encompasses a substantial and growing body of literature that continues to increase in both breadth and depth. While agritourism typically takes place in an agricultural setting and usually includes recreational and educational components (Arroyo et al., 2013), wine tourism is often more broadly defined to include wine-related events that occur in both agricultural and nonagricultural settings (Getz, 2000; Hall et al., 1997; Johnson, 1998).

The numerous definitions of wine tourism include winery visitation, which, with the exception of urban wineries, falls firmly under the umbrella of agritourism (Dimitriovski and Joukes, 2017; Flanigan et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2005). The aforementioned forms of tourism also bear many similarities to and frequently overlap with a number of other niche or special interest tourism areas such as ecotourism, sustainable tourism, nature tourism, mountain tourism, and rural tourism.

Wineries benefit from wine tourism in a number of ways, including direct-to-consumer wine sales and increased brand loyalty (Alonso et al., 2014; Bruwer et al., 2013). While ‘wine tourism’ was originally thought of as visits to wineries for the purposes of tasting and purchasing wine, the extant literature shows that wine tourists nowadays desire more experiences, including gastronomic and retail opportunities, cultural and recreational experiences, and a pleasurable rural landscape (Brown et al., 2006; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Cohen and Ben-Nun, 2009). This has led to many wineries adding additional facilities and experiences in order to expand their tourist attraction product and cater to these desires (Bufquin et al., 2018). In order to be successful in the competitive tourism market, it is important to provide visitors with a highly satisfactory experience that may yield loyalty.

While the literature on agritourism and wine tourism is extensive, the majority of the studies have focused on specific aspects of the farms or the regions in which they are located. Most of the studies have not addressed these tourism destinations as holistic tourist attractions that typically include inherent or exhibited natural or cultural value, historical significance, natural beauty, and other added amenities that create an overall leisure and amusement experience (Alonso and Liu, 2011; Kidd et al., 2004; López-Guzmán et al., 2014; Miró and Caruso, 2017). In addition, while the collection of studies includes both qualitative and quantitative contributions, the measurement tools used to capture visitor experiences have been based largely on input from visitors, farmers, and experts in the specific research setting rather than on theory. Thus, a theoretical foundation for a holistic measurement of experience in the context of agritourism or wine tourism is lacking in the literature. Finally, these studies, especially the qualitative contributions, often rely on small sample sizes (Brandth and Haugen, 2014; Kaaristo and Järv, 2012; Pikkemaat et al., 2009) and, therefore, a larger sampling of the population may reveal new and different findings with regard to the various experiential consumption characteristics.

Experiential consumption dimensions have been used in other attraction settings, including theme parks (Milman and Tasci, 2018; Tasci and Milman, 2018) and mountain tourism (Milman and Zehrer, 2018; Milman et al., 2017). However, Milman and Tasci’s (2018) and Tasci and Milman’s (2018) studies were conducted online with visitors who had a theme park experience at unspecified time points in the past, where respondent memory may not be as robust as visitors on-site. The authors noted that results may differ with data from visitors on-site and visitors of different types of attractions and in other locations. Additionally, Milman and Zehrer’s (2018) study was exploratory in nature, without delving into the specific dimensions of experience. The current study controls for memory by conducting on-site data collection while investigating the influence of specific dimensions of experience on satisfaction with and loyalty toward an agritourism attraction.

Additionally, the current study builds on the agritourism literature, which has addressed host–guest interactions and conflicts as well as economic impacts, but with no attention to the actual product or experience offered by these attractions and the impact on guest satisfaction or loyalty. The current study investigates the experiential consumption dimensions of an agritourism attraction, using Schmitt’s (1999a) five strategic experiential modules (SEMs) in an effort to identify the influence of experiential dimensions on the flow experience at the attraction, satisfaction with the attraction, and loyalty toward the attraction. Thus, the study has multiple contributions; it extends the generalizability of previous research, furthers the cumulative development of consumer experience research by retesting some concepts in a different consumption setting, and extends the body of knowledge on product and experience development in the context of agritourism.

Literature review

Agritourism

Agritourism is broadly defined as visiting a working agricultural setting, usually a farm or ranch, for leisure, recreation, or educational purposes (Arroyo et al., 2013; Tew and Barbieri, 2012). Farm-based activities typically include participating in a variety of undertakings such as self-harvesting, corn mazes, festivals, private events, classic hospitality services like bed and breakfast, self-catering accommodation, camping, dining, wine and beer tastings, and/or agricultural learning such as hands-on workshops (Barbieri, 2014). Arroyo et al. (2013) suggested that an agritourism definition should include the terms agricultural setting, entertainment, farm, and education. Their study recommended that agritourism embraces staged or authentic activities that are carried out on working farms.

In the past several decades, agritourism’s popularity has increased worldwide, reflecting visitors’ growing interest in agritourism and related recreational services (Santeramo and Barbieri, 2017). In the United States, for example, during the 2007–2012 period, the number of farms offering agritourism increased by 42% from 23,350 to 33,161, grossing an income of US$704 million (University of Tennessee, 2014). In Europe, rural tourism growth is three times greater than that of the tourism industry in general (Zoto et al., 2013). Agritourism is also projected to continue growing in the future (Arroyo et al., 2013).

The literature on agritourism is diverse and approaches the subject from different perspectives. A group of studies primarily addressed the definitions and typologies of agritourism (Arroyo et al., 2013; Cornelia et al., 2017; Flanigan et al., 2014; Phillip et al., 2010.). The second group of contributions studied the farmers’ perspective and the various conflicts associated with the farms’ transformation from primarily an agricultural production site to a tourism destination that produces experiences and services for guests. These studies investigated the farmers’ motives to operate an agricultural tourism business (Ingram, 2002); the farmers’ role in facilitating their guests’ experiences (Kaaristo and Järv, 2012); the farmers’ management of volunteers, students, and other guests (Prince and Ioannides, 2017); the impact of sincerity between hosts and guests in producing the experience (Prince, 2017); the impact of heritage and culture on the relationship between the hosts and the guests (Brandth and Haugen, 2014); and gender roles in the hospitality process (Cassel and Pettersson, 2015).

The third group of studies looked at demand and supply of visitors’ experiences, their motivation to seek farm tourism holidays (Ingram, 2002), and their visit’s overall experience on satisfaction and loyalty (Kidd et al., 2004; Miró and Caruso, 2017). Kidd et al. (2004) proposed guest activity groupings, namely, passive recreation, farm activities, and active recreation. Other studies addressed the process of co-creation and the interactive experience between the customer and the hospitality service provider (Harrington, 2017), and various evaluation criteria are related to particular farm experiences such as wine, cuisine, and craftwork (Alonso and Liu, 2011; López-Guzmán et al., 2014); horsemanship and horse-based tourism (Helgadóttir, 2006); and vegetable tourism (Carril et al., 2015).

Wine tourism

There are many definitions of wine tourism, the most oft-quoted being ‘visitations 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., 1997: 6). This definition does not limit wine tourism to just winery and vineyard visitation but also includes other attributes of a grape wine region. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in its Georgia Declaration on Wine Tourism (UNWTO, 2016: 1), defined wine tourism more broadly as ‘Wine Tourism, a crucial component of gastronomy tourism, has evolved into a key element for both emerging and mature tourism destinations in which tourists can experience the culture and lifestyle of destinations while fostering sustainable tourism development’.

A group of studies explored agritourism in the world’s wine-producing regions. These studies addressed wine regions as destinations and investigated their development and formation process (Basiuk and Udvorgeli, 2014), the dimensions of their perceived image (Bruwer and Joy, 2017), their brand equity (Gómez et al., 2015), and visitors’ attitudes toward wine and travel motivations (Yozukmaz and Bekar, 2017). Several studies looked at the economic impact of wine tourism and the value added to stakeholders (McFarlane et al., 2017), as well as the hosts’ perspective regarding the implications for agriculture, the natural environment, and the community (Poitras and Getz, 2006). As in the other agritourism studies mentioned, several studies have discussed the evolution of wine tourism destinations into all-inclusive tourist attractions (Bridge, 2017; Jaffe and Pasternak, 2004).

A large body of literature addressed multiple aspects of wine tourism in different wine regions of the world. These studies explored the various dimensions of the winery visitor experience (Cohen and Ben-Nun, 2009), the staging of wine tourism experiences (Pikkemaat et al., 2009), winery servicescape (Charters et al., 2009; Park et al., 2019), consumers’ expectations and performance of services and products (O’Neill and Palmer, 2004), the alignment of experiences designed by wine tourism suppliers with tourists’ perceived expectations (Donna and Ann Marie, 2016), experiential priorities of wine suppliers and visitors (Quadri-Felitti and Fiore, 2016), wine tourists’ purchasing behavior (Kolyesnikova and Dodd, 2008), and winery visitors’ revisit intentions (Back et al., 2018). To date, no studies have examined the experiential consumption dimensions of the visitor experience.

Experiential consumption dimensions

Providing visitors with satisfactory tourism experiences is crucial to achieving success in a highly competitive marketplace. Schmitt (1999a, 2003) and Pine and Gilmore (2011) developed widely cited conceptual theories for understanding the consumer experience. They suggested that experience is a complicated phenomenon that should be investigated from multiple perspectives using a holistic approach. Schmitt (1999a) suggested that experience may be divided into different types, each with its own inherent structures and processes. Managers typically view five types of experiences as SEMs that include sense, feel, think, act, and relate (Schmitt, 1999a).

The current study used Schmitt’s (1999a) five SEMs in order to holistically capture the visitor experience at a wine farm attraction. Borrowing from the cognitive science and philosophy of the psychological disciplines, Schmitt (1999a, 1999b, 2003) suggested that consumers do not focus on the products’ function but rather pay more attention to different aspects of their experiences. He/she conceptualized different aspects of consumer experiences to include the abovementioned five experiential modules. Sensory experiences are gained through the five senses, inner feelings and emotions are gained during the consumption process, intellectual experiences are formed through cognitive and imaginative problem-solving, and bodily and physical experiences are formed through interactions and lifestyles. Finally, some experiences relate to not only the individual consumer but also other individuals, groups, cultures, and institutions (Schmitt, 1999a, 1999b).

Flow, satisfaction, and loyalty

Csikszentmihalyi (1990: 4) defined flow as ‘the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter’ and ascribed several concepts to this state: as an outcome of complete attention on and high enjoyment of the activity involved, this state leads to a loss of sense of time and space, social self-awareness, and worries, and to gain motivation, sense of ecstasy, self-confidence, serenity, and clarity, the totality of all resulting in an overall positive state.

Flow is a concept that is inherently relevant to leisure activities, and several studies have therefore included flow, either as a mediator or outcome variable in models explaining the relationships between different concepts. Tasci and Ko (2015), for example, measured fun in a destination context, where flow emerged as a dimension of fun besides social, psychosocial, and emotional dimensions. A study by Choi et al. (2016) revealed a positive influence of flow on satisfaction with and revisit intention for performing art shows. Fu et al.’s (2017) study revealed flow as an antecedent of visitor attitude and brand loyalty toward theme park brands. Milman and Tasci’s (2018) study also used flow as an explanatory variable for satisfaction and loyalty, and their results revealed no influence on either variable. Even though flow was not explained by experiential dimensions in previous research, all five of Schmitt’s (1999a, 2003) SEMs can be influential on the levels of involvement and enjoyment and thus the flow experience of visitors.

In addition to flow, satisfaction has also been extensively studied as an important outcome variable in many consumption contexts. Satisfaction is a consumer’s overall judgment of a product based on the discrepancies between expectations before consuming and perception of the product’s performance (Oliver, 1999). Several studies have investigated and revealed the positive relationship between satisfaction and likelihood to return to a destination or an attraction (Fotiadis, 2016; Jarvis et al., 2016; Jensen, 2007). Milman and Tasci (2018) tested the relative influence of Schmitt’s (1999a, 2003) SEMs on satisfaction using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model. Among the included five experiential dimensions, i.e. sense, feel, think, relate, and act, only feel was influential in explaining satisfaction.

As an important factor of business success, consumer or brand loyalty has also been widely studied in tourism (Dick and Basu, 1994; Garland and Gendall, 2004; Tasci, 2017; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Loyal consumers of a brand are expected to tolerate service failure, accept price increases, provide positive feedback and word-of-mouth, and repurchase the brand (Dick and Basu, 1994; Garland and Gendall, 2004). Several factors including satisfaction, risk perception, motivation, commitment, involvement, and trust have been investigated in relation to brand loyalty (Anderson et al., 1994; Tasci, 2017; Zins, 2001). However, similar to flow and satisfaction, the influence of experiential consumption dimensions on loyalty has also received very limited attention in the literature. Milman and Tasci (2018) tested the predictive power of the five SEM experiential consumption dimensions in explaining consumers’ loyalty toward theme parks. Their results revealed that none of the dimensions were influential in explaining loyalty. However, the authors inferred an indirect influence of the feel dimension on loyalty through satisfaction. Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H1: Experiential dimensions (sense, feel, think, act, and relate) influence flow experience.

H2: Experiential dimensions (sense, feel, think, act, and relate) influence satisfaction.

H3: Experiential dimensions (sense, feel, think, act, and relate) influence loyalty.

Agritourism products and services embedded in local culture, nature, and diverse events and experiences are assumed to address all of these experiential consumption modules, which are thus used in the current study. The objectives of the study are multiple. First, the popularity of different products and services offered at a wine farm attraction was assessed. Second, the performance of a wine farm attraction on the five experiential consumption modules (Schmitt, 1999a) experienced by consumers was evaluated. Then, using the same rationale used by Milman and Tasci (2018), the flow experience at the attraction, satisfaction with the attraction, and loyalty toward the attraction were also measured. Finally, the proposed three hypotheses about the influence of experiential dimensions on flow, satisfaction, and loyalty were tested using OLS multiple regression model.

Agritourism/wine tourism in South Africa

Agritourism has become an increasingly important form of special interest tourism that occurs in both developed and developing countries (Sznajder et al., 2009). While there is little academic research on agritourism in South Africa in general, most of the research in this area relates to the growth in wine tourism and wine routes in the Western Cape Province (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2014). Besides wine, other agritourism activities available in South Africa include olive farming, fruit farming, flower growing, fruit picking, cheese tasting, fishing, horse riding, animal petting and feeding, bird watching, ostrich farming, collecting bird eggs, and farm stays, to name just a few (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2014). While wine tourism remains the largest subset of agritourism, many South African wine farms have been diversifying their tourist product offerings by introducing innovative products that increase their competitiveness (Back, 2016; Ferreira and Muller, 2013). This is unsurprising, as wine tourists have been shown to desire more from their wine tourism experience than simply the tasting and purchasing of wine (Brown et al., 2006; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Cohen and Ben-Nun, 2009). Consequently, wine farms around the world have been adding additional activities and experiences beyond wine (Bufquin et al., 2018), and South Africa is no exception. During a keynote speech at the Business of Wine and Food Tourism conference held in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 2017, the CEO of Wesgro, the official trade and investment promotion agency for Cape Town and the Western Cape Province, spoke of South Africa’s draft wine tourism strategy. This strategy defines wine tourism in South Africa as ‘…travel to wineries, wine regions or wine festivals and events for the purpose of enjoying food and drink, hospitality, activities, scenery, culture and local South African lifestyles, while fostering sustainable economic development’ (Harris, 2017). As per this definition, it is noteworthy that wine tourism may, but need not necessarily, include wine. The current study was conducted at a major agritourism attraction located on a wine farm near Cape Town, in the heart of South Africa’s wine lands, which fits perfectly within this definition.

Methods

Study context

The study’s setting was a farm established in the late seventeenth century and operated as a wine farm for over 300 years, which has transformed into a major agritourism attraction and destination over the past decade. Comprising roughly 400 ha, the property is located on mountainside slopes extending down onto the valley floor, with stunning vistas of the surrounding mountains and valleys and Cape Town’s famed Table Mountain in the distance, thereby immersing visitors in a sensual, rural environment.

A number of old farm buildings have been converted to produce a variety of mainly agricultural products, together with complementary activities and experiences for visitors. Besides the original underground cellar and wine tasting room, the visitor experience portfolio includes a brewery, a gin distillery, a chocolate factory, a deli, a coffee shop/coffee bean roastery, a charcuterie, three restaurants, a picnic area, a gift shop, an art gallery, and a glass-blowing studio. Visitors are able to view and learn about the production processes of the various products, engage in product tastings, purchase products, and stroll around the beautiful grounds. Attracting more than 400,000 visitors per year according to the privately owned attraction’s owners, the farm has become a popular tourist destination, falling within the broadest of wine tourism definitions.

A structured survey was designed to include questions about sociodemographic variables (age, gender, country of residence, age), travel distance, duration of visit, past visits, travel party, decision-making time frame, activities engaged in, favorite and least favorite activity, products purchased, satisfaction level with the experience dimensions of the attraction (sense, feel, think, act, and relate), flow experience at the attraction, and loyalty toward the attraction. The activities and products purchased were developed based on the attraction’s actual offerings. Respondents were asked to select the activities that they participated in and purchases that they made during their visit along with their most favorite and the least favorite activity. Attraction experience dimensions included 22 items to be rated on a satisfaction scale (1 = Completely unsatisfactory; 7 = Completely satisfactory). Items used by Tasci and Milman (2018) were adapted to wine farm attraction experience contexts. The satisfaction scale, the flow experience scale, and the loyalty scale included four items each, all measured with an agreement scale (1 = Completely disagree, 7 = Completely agree).

The survey was pilot-tested prior to launching the main study. Fifty surveys were collected and inspected for issues in survey items’ length, wording, understandability, and redundancy. Field workers administering the survey reported no issues, thus, the data collection proceeded. The survey was conducted at the attraction during the summer months of 2017/2018, just prior to visitors concluding their visit. To help with the response rate, a bonus (a spice blend produced on the farm) was offered to all respondents who completed the self-administered survey. A total of 468 surveys were completed; however, missing values due to unanswered questions revealed different sample sizes for different variables. SPSS 20.0 was used to analyze the data. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample profile, the farm products, and the attraction experience dimensions. Three OLS multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the relative impact of the attraction experience dimensions on flow, satisfaction, and loyalty of respondents. Even though using factor analysis techniques is recommended for summarizing and reducing scale data into manageable factors, much of the variance and meaning are lost in this process. In order to keep the richness of the data describing the experience of this agritourism attraction and how each of the experience elements explains visitors’ flow experience, satisfaction, and loyalty, factor analysis was not utilized. Instead, the influence of each individual item on the dependent variables was measured.

Findings

As can be seen in Table 1, the sample was dominated by respondents between 18 and 44 years old and female respondents. The majority of respondents were domestic South African visitors (82.1%), followed by visitors from the United Kingdom (7.7%). Table 2 reveals that the most popular visiting day was Saturday (24.4%), followed by Thursday (22.2%) and Sunday (14.7%). Respondents were more likely to visit in the afternoon (79.1%) than in the morning (20.9%). Most of the respondents visited when the temperature was either hot (57.3%) or mild (37.8%) and when the weather was sunny (70.3%) or windy (21.4%); as the study was conducted during the summer months, these findings are to be expected).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

Variables	N = 468
Age (categories, %)
18–24	20.5
25–34	30.1
35–44	19.9
45–54	14.1
55–64	9.8
65+	5.3
Gender (%)
Male	36.8
Female	63.0
Country of residence (%)
South Africa	82.1
United Kingdom	7.7
United States	.9
Germany	3.2
Others	5.8

Table 2.

Trip characteristics of the sample.

	N = 468
Variables	%	Mean	Minimum	Maximum
Day of the visit (%)
Sunday	14.7
Monday	12.6
Tuesday	8.5
Wednesday	12.4
Thursday	22.2
Friday	5.1
Saturday	24.4
Time of the visit
Morning	20.9
Afternoon	79.1
Temperature of the visit day
Cold	4.3
Mild	37.8
Hot	57.3
Weather condition of the visit day
Sunny	70.3
Rainy	6.4
Windy	21.4
Cloudy	1.5
Overnight stay (yes, %)	37.6
Visit for an event or with a tour (yes, %)	8.3
Number of nights away from home (mean)		12.44	1	90
Number of nights in the Cape Town/Winelands area (mean)		6.74	0	90
The approximate distance of Spice Route from home for day trippers (km, mean)		55.06	3	1500
Number of times visited Spice Route before (mean)		2.25	0	100
Number of days the decision made before visiting Spice Route (mean)		4.830	0	365
Number of hours planned to spend at Spice Route (mean)		3.61	1	70
Number of adults (over 18) in the party to visit Spice Route (mean)		3.22	0	21
Number of children under 18 in the travel party (mean)		0.77	0	7

About one-third of respondents (37.6%) visited the farm during an overnight stay trip, while only 8.3% came for an event or with a tour. Overnight visitors stayed away from home for about 12 nights, about 7 of these being in the greater Cape Town area. Those who were on a day trip traveled about 55 km each way, on average. Respondents visited the attraction more than twice on average and made the decision to visit the attraction about 5 days prior and planned to spend about three and a half hours there, on average. The travel parties included just over 3 adults and about 1 child under the age of 18.

Table 3 lists the activities participated in and purchases made at the attraction. The most popular activities that the visitors participated in were wine/beer/gin tasting (73.3%), followed by viewing the scenery (73.1%) and chocolate tasting (69.2%). The least popular activities were having a picnic (4.3%), charcuterie tasting (25%), and visiting the deli (29.7%). However, these did not entirely correspond to the respondents’ most favorite and least favorite activities. The top three most favorite activities were wine/beer/gin tasting (29.5%), chocolate tasting (24.4%), and having a meal/drink at one of the restaurants (19.9%), while the top three least favorite activities were wine/beer/gin tasting (14.1%), visiting the gift shop (12%), and visiting the glass studio (11.1%%). In line with the most popular and least popular activities, most popular purchases were chocolate (42.3%), wine (29.9%), and beer (23.5%), while the least popular acquisitions were glass items (3%), coffee beans (6.6%), and gin (7.3%).

Table 3.

Activities participated in and purchases made during the attraction visit.

Variables	N = 468
Activities (yes, %)
Wine/beer/gin tasting	73.3
Viewing the scenery	73.1
Chocolate tasting	69.2
Had a meal/drink at one of the restaurants	67.7
Taking photos of the scenery	64.3
Visiting the gift shop	39.1
Visiting the glass studio	36.3
Laying on the grass	33.5
Visiting the café/coffee shop	29.9
Visiting the deli	29.7
Charcuterie tasting	25.0
Having a picnic	4.3
Others	8.1
Most favorite activity (top 3, yes, %)
Wine/beer/gin tasting	29.5
Chocolate tasting	24.4
Having a meal/drink at one of the restaurants	19.9
Least favorite activity (top 3, yes, %)
Wine/beer/gin tasting	14.1
Visiting the gift shop	12.0
Visiting the glass studio	11.1
Purchases (yes, %)
Chocolate	42.3
Wine	29.9
Beer	23.5
Meats	14.3
Deli items	11.5
Gifts	10.5
Gin	7.3
Coffee beans	6.6
Glass items	3.0
Other purchases	8.3

As can be seen in Table 4, all the attraction’s experience dimensions were rated above the midpoint of the seven-point satisfaction scale. When the attraction’s experience dimensions were examined, the most satisfactory dimension was related to a sensory experience associated with the surrounding scenic view beyond the attraction (6.51). Feel experiences followed and were associated with opportunities to spend time with family and friends (6.48); the feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security (6.47); and the appeal of the overall atmosphere (6.35). An act experience associated with walking around the farm was also among the top experiential consumption variables.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics of attraction experience dimensions (N = 468).

Winery experience dimensions1 = Completely unsatisfactory, 7 = Completely satisfactory	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard deviation
Appeal of the scenic views (sense)	467	1	7	6.51	0.801
Opportunities to enjoy time with family and friends (feel)	466	1	7	6.48	0.804
Feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security (feel)	466	1	7	6.47	0.822
Appeal of the overall atmosphere (feel)	466	1	7	6.35	0.830
Opportunities to walk around (act)	466	1	7	6.35	0.969
Friendliness of staff (feel)	465	1	7	6.30	0.898
Photo opportunities (act)	463	1	7	6.24	0.971
Taste of food at the restaurants/cafés (sense)	457	1	7	6.18	1.004
Welcoming atmosphere for visitors (relate)	465	1	7	6.13	1.079
Taste of the food and beverage tasting(s) (e.g. wine tasting, beer tasting, chocolate tasting, gin tasting, etc.; sense)	462	1	7	6.13	1.004
Comfort level of background noise and sounds (sense)	467	1	7	6.13	1.098
Opportunities to interact with the staff (act)	465	1	7	5.99	1.133
Variety of aromas (sense)	466	1	7	5.86	1.254
Commitment to environmental friendliness (relate)	462	1	7	5.84	1.199
Stimulation of attention with interesting information (think)	455	2	7	5.70	1.139
Landscaping with indigenous plant species (relate)	463	1	7	5.61	1.355
Shopping opportunities (act)	461	1	7	5.49	1.278
Stimulation for new ideas (think)	460	1	7	5.49	1.264
Opportunities to learn (think)	459	1	7	5.46	1.293
Service to local communities (relate)	452	1	7	5.35	1.410
Providing a sense of history (think)	465	1	7	5.00	1.506
Opportunities to touch the artwork and products (sense)	449	1	7	4.74	1.621

It should be noted that the most satisfactory experiential consumption factors while visiting the wine farm attraction were not associated with the farm itself or its experiential features, but rather elements beyond the tourist attraction such as the scenery or the emotions associated with the visit. Similar findings were revealed by Milman and Zehrer (2018) who studied a mountain attraction, as well as Fountain (2018) who studied the interests and engagement of Chinese tourists in wine tourism experiences in New Zealand.

It is interesting to mention that sense experiences associated with the tasting of the food or alcoholic beverages were ranked eighth (6.18) among all the experiential consumption items. This is an important finding that should be considered by owners and operators, as many agritourism/wine tourism destinations emphasize the educational aspect of harvesting, producing, and tasting of agricultural products and sometimes overlook other important elements that contribute to their guests’ overall satisfaction.

While many tourist attractions, including heritage tourism sites, museums, and theme parks, aim to communicate the educational aspect of the experience, this was not the case in this study. The findings suggest that think experiences recorded lower levels of satisfaction, compared to the sense, feel, act, and relate experiential consumption dimensions. The findings indicate that experiences like providing a sense of history (5.00), opportunities to learn (5.46), stimulation for new ideas (5.49), or stimulation of attention with interesting information (5.70) yielded lower levels of visitor satisfaction.

Respondents’ ratings on the flow experience while visiting the attraction, level of satisfaction with the attraction, and loyalty toward the attraction were also rated highly. As can be seen in Table 5, all dimensions of these variables were rated above 5, on average. The average of flow experience was 6.05, while that of satisfaction was 6.03 and loyalty was 6.00. These averages were further used as dependent variables in the OLS regression analyses in order to identify the attraction’s experience dimensions explaining flow, satisfaction, and loyalty (Tables 6 and 7). Results revealed that not all experience dimensions contribute to explaining the dependent variables. Ten experiential dimensions explained flow experience. These were taste of the food and beverage, feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety and security, appeal of the scenic views, providing a sense of history, opportunities to touch the artwork and products, commitment to environmental friendliness, comfort level of background noise and sounds, and stimulation for new ideas. It was surprising that the three of these experiential consumption dimensions, namely, the appeal of the scenic views, opportunities to touch the artwork and products, and commitment to environmental friendliness were negatively correlated with the flow experience; in other words, the higher the satisfaction level with these dimensions, the lower the flow experience.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics of flow experience at the attraction, satisfaction with the attraction experience, and loyalty toward the attraction (N = 468).

1 = Completely disagree, 7 = Completely agree	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard deviation
Flow experience at the winery
While at Spice Route, I forgot about my ordinary life	467	1	7	6.12	1.079
I lost the sense of time and place	465	1	7	6.02	1.082
I forgot about my obligations	465	1	7	5.81	1.353
Spice Route took me out of my daily routine	462	1	7	6.25	1.094
Averaged Overall Flow	460	2.5	7	6.05	0.962
Satisfaction with the winery
I had a very pleasant experience in Spice Route	466	3	7	6.50	0.782
The service I received was much better than I expected	462	2	7	5.96	1.034
The products were exceptionally good quality	462	2	7	6.11	0.966
They made me feel very important	464	1	7	5.52	1.219
Averaged overall satisfaction	456	2.5	7	6.03	0.806
Loyalty toward the winery
I will visit Spice Route again	467	1	7	6.46	0.949
I will recommend Spice Route to my friends and family	466	1	7	6.55	0.789
I will talk about Spice Route on social media/Facebook	465	1	7	5.42	1.856
Spice Route is my preferred farm destination	462	1	7	5.55	1.334
Averaged overall loyalty	459	1.25	7	6.00	0.982

Table 6.

Results of the regression model testing the significance of attraction experience dimensions in explaining future visit intention (n = 413).

Model fit:	R ² = 0.319, Adj. R² = 0.280, f = 8.257, α = 0.000
Dependent variable: Flow (averaged overall flow)1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree	b	SE	ß	t	α	T**
Independent variables: Winery experience attributes1 = completely unsatisfactory, 7 = completely satisfactory*
(Constant)	1.961	0.481		4.075	0.000
Taste of the food and beverage tasting(s) (e.g. wine tasting, beer tasting, chocolate tasting, gin tasting, etc.)	0.120	0.054	0.122	2.247	0.025	0.593
Feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety and security	0.127	0.064	0.109	1.996	0.047	0.587
Appeal of the scenic views	−0.162	0.068	−0.129	−2.367	0.018	0.588
Providing a sense of history	0.120	0.041	0.185	2.928	0.004	0.439
Opportunities to touch the artwork and products	−0.116	0.035	−0.193	−3.351	0.001	0.531
Commitment to environmental friendliness	−0.108	0.041	−0.134	−2.628	0.009	0.680
Comfort level of background noise and sounds	0.145	0.049	0.155	2.983	0.003	0.651
Stimulation for new ideas	0.112	0.043	0.146	2.601	0.010	0.557
Dependent variable: Satisfaction (Averaged Overall Satisfaction)1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree	R ² = 0.546, Adj. R ² = 0.520, f = 21.037, α = 0.000
Independent variables: Winery experience attributes1 = completely unsatisfactory, 7 = completely satisfactory*
(Constant)	0.458	0.333		1.377	0.169
Taste of the food and beverage tasting(s) (e.g. wine tasting, beer tasting, chocolate tasting, gin tasting, etc.)	0.112	0.037	0.136	3.057	0.002	0.594
Providing a sense of history	0.071	0.028	0.131	2.525	0.012	0.439
Friendliness of staff	0.169	0.043	0.179	3.969	0.000	0.581
Stimulation of attention with interesting information	0.088	0.035	0.121	2.522	0.012	0.515
Photo opportunities	0.099	0.037	0.117	2.665	0.008	0.615
Comfort level of background noise and sounds	0.080	0.034	0.101	2.372	0.018	0.654
Stimulation for new ideas	0.068	0.030	0.106	2.299	0.022	0.550
Landscaping with indigenous plant species	0.062	0.025	0.103	2.444	0.015	0.660
Dependent variable: Loyalty (averaged overall loyalty)1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree	R ² = 0.272, Adj. R ² = 0.231, f = 6.551, α = 0.000
Independent variables: Winery experience attributes1 = completely unsatisfactory, 7 = completely satisfactory*
(Constant)	1.159	0.515		2.251	0.025
Taste of the food and beverage tasting(s) (e.g. wine tasting, beer tasting, chocolate tasting, gin tasting, etc.)	0.156	0.057	0.154	2.733	0.007	0.593

*Only independent variables explaining the dependent variable are listed.

**All tolerance values are above the cutoff point of 0.19 (Hair Jr et al., 2010), hence multicollinearity and/or singularity, namely, none of the independent variables have the probability of being a linear combination of other independent variables or have the probability of being dependent highly on other independent variables (Hair Jr et al., 2010).

Table 7.

Summary of regression results in attraction experience dimensions explaining flow, satisfaction, and loyalty.

Winery experience dimensions	Flow	Satisfaction	Loyalty
Appeal of the scenic views (sense)	−
Opportunities to enjoy time with family and friends (feel)
Feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security (feel)	+
Appeal of the overall atmosphere (feel)
Opportunities to walk around (act)
Friendliness of staff (feel)		+
Photo opportunities (act)		+
Taste of food at the restaurants/cafés (sense)
Welcoming atmosphere for visitors (relate)
Taste of the food and beverage tasting(s) (e.g. wine tasting, beer tasting, chocolate tasting, gin tasting, etc.; sense)	+	+	+
Comfort level of background noise and sounds (sense)	+	+
Opportunities to interact with the staff (act)
Variety of aromas (sense)
Commitment to environmental friendliness (relate)	−
Stimulation of attention with interesting information (think)		+
Landscaping with indigenous plant species (relate)		+
Shopping opportunities (act)
Stimulation for new ideas (think)	+	+
Opportunities to learn (think)
Service to local communities (relate)
Providing a sense of history (think)	+	+
Opportunities to touch the artwork and products (sense)	−

On the other hand, the experience attributes explaining satisfaction with the attraction were taste dimension related to the food/beverage tastings, providing a sense of history, friendliness of staff members, stimulation of attention with interesting information, photo opportunities, comfort level of background noise and sounds, stimulation for new ideas, and landscaping with indigenous plant species.

Unlike flow experience, level of satisfaction had a positive relationship with all of these experiential consumption dimensions; the higher the satisfaction with these dimensions, the higher the satisfaction with the attraction. Nonetheless, when it came to identifying the attraction experience attributes explaining visitor loyalty, only one experience dimension was significant: the food/beverage tastings. The significant constant values and low R ² values may imply that there are other potential explanatory variables for both flow and loyalty, while an insignificant constant and high R ² value imply strong explanatory power of the variables for satisfaction.

Discussion and implications

Theoretical implications

The study revealed several theoretical implications. First, the attraction’s visitors have specific demographic and travel behavior characteristics. The wine farm attraction’s visitors were typically domestic visitors, representing younger age groups, are likely to travel in small groups, and are loyal repeat visitors. These findings are consistent with visitors’ characteristics to other wine and agritourism destinations. For example, in 2016, the average Napa Valley visitor was 42.7 years old, with 40% of those surveyed categorized as ‘Gen Xers’ and 30% as ‘Millennials’. A similar age structure was recorded in the South African study. Furthermore, wine and agritourism attractions primarily capture domestic markets (82.1% in the South African study and 79.1% of the Napa Valley’s visitors surveyed). The visit to wine and agritourism attractions were in groups, demonstrating a social experience (3.22 adults at the South African attraction and 4 adults at the Napa Valley attractions). Patrons to the agritourism attractions were repeat visitors with an average of 2.9 trips to the Napa Valley wineries and 2.25 trips to the South African attraction (Visit Napa Valley, 2018).

Second, as in the case of other wine and agritourism attractions (Visit Napa Valley, 2018), the most popular visitor activity was wine and other alcoholic beverage tastings. However, it is interesting to note that the visitors’ overall experience was not associated with the attraction’s core product, but rather its surroundings and other complementary experiences. The most powerful experiential consumption experiences reported by the respondents were associated with the appeal of the scenic views; opportunity to enjoy time with family and friends; feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security; or appeal of the overall atmosphere. The experiences associated with the core products (taste of food at the restaurants and cafes or wine, beer, chocolate, or gin tastings) were secondary experiences and trailed those intangibles experiences. This is consistent with other attraction studies where visitors reported the noncore experience as more powerful than the core product experience. For example, in a recent study of the Nordkette mountain attraction in Austria, the most popular visitor activity was viewing the scenery and taking photographs rather than any activity on the mountain. The visitor experience was shaped beyond the attraction’s immediate geographical boundaries (Milman et al., 2017). With these findings, the current study not only adds to the current knowledge on agritourism attractions but also extends the generalizability of previous research.

Third, the study confirmed that the customer experience might be associated with rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, or even spiritual involvement (Pine and Gilmore, 2011; Schmitt, 2003). The three regression models confirmed that consumers’ flow, satisfaction, and loyalty were associated with the attraction’s tangible core products like the taste of food and beverage, but also feelings of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security, and the scenic views. The attraction’s visitors’ flow and satisfaction were also impacted by spiritual involvement like commitment to environmental friendliness, stimulation of new ideas, or stimulation of attention with interesting information.

Fourth, the study confirmed that customer experience at an attraction is the outcome of the interaction and interface between the organization and its customers. This may include the organization’s physical performance, the senses stimulated, and the emotions evoked, each spontaneously measured against customer expectations across all moments of contact (Milman and Zehrer 2018; Milman et al., 2017; Shaw and Ivens, 2005). The attraction’s employees can facilitate these tasks, and this study confirmed the important role of the staff’s friendliness and the welcoming atmosphere. These findings further the cumulative development of consumer experience research by retesting some concepts in a different consumption setting and extend the body of knowledge on product and experience development in the context of agritourism.

Practical implications

The findings revealed that even though the most popular and most favorite activities were related to the palate, namely wine/beer/gin tasting, chocolate tasting, and having a meal/drink, the most satisfactory attraction experience dimensions were related to other sensual and emotional experiences. The appeal of the scenic views; opportunities to enjoy time with family and friends; and the feeling of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security were rated as the most satisfactory.

Furthermore, the study concluded that the majority of the visitors’ experiences were unfocused and beyond the physical boundaries of the attraction, in keeping with Milman and Zehrer’s (2018) previous findings. Therefore, the attraction’s management should promote new lines of experiences through the process of co-production (Minkiewicz et al., 2014). Consequently, the taste-related product experiences should be embellished with scenic views, social dynamics, peacefulness, tranquility, and safety and security.

This co-production process could be attained through developing indoor and outdoor ‘experience stations’ that promote visitor involvement. The attraction’s management should consider developing educational and hands-on programs associated with the core product like outdoor cooking or chocolate making demonstrations. Other educational programs and workshops that are not directly related to the core product portfolio should include the history of wine, spirituality, sustainability (flora and fauna), bird watching, photography workshops, or artistic expressions.

The co-production process may also include enhanced guest–employee engagement such as offering wine and food tastings at different locations around the attraction, discussing their production process and their attributes, while visitors simultaneously enjoy the view. Outdoor portable bars or tasting stations may extend the physical setting of the tastings to other locations. Enhancing family interactions could be achieved through activities for children, such as hands-on ice cream and chocolate making and other activities like storytelling and interactive games using the farm’s products as the core theme anchors.

Creating more focused experiences for all market segments may also embrace the production of special seasonal events like grape harvesting or solstice celebrations, shows, concerts, and more. To promote the visitors’ feelings of peacefulness, tranquility, safety, and security, designated relaxation, sunbathing, or quiet zones could enhance visitors’ engagement and the personalization of the experience. These special tranquil havens could be spread throughout the attraction and may be integrated with different relaxing activities such as massages, meditation, and yoga.

The innovative visitor experiences should focus on the actual attraction rather than away from the attraction, and hence connect customers more to the brand, increase their length of stay, and enhance revenue (Pine and Gilmore, 2011). This is particularly important for achieving consumer loyalty since the taste dimension related to the food and beverage is the only attraction experience dimension affecting loyalty.

Finally, decision makers should review their budgets carefully and may divert some funding to different experiences such as scenic viewing platforms, walking paths and hiking and biking trails, and creating seating and picnic areas for rest and relaxation in a tranquil atmosphere. Children's playgrounds designed with the attraction’s theme (e.g. a merry-go-round or swings with seats shaped like farm animals or a maze made of grapevines) could be added to enhance this important visitor segment. We may hypothesize that the actual agricultural experience may become secondary or complementary to other experiences the attraction may offer.

Limitations and future research suggestions

The current study was conducted at a single wine farm attraction in South Africa. Results would benefit by being validated for other similar attractions, as well as different attractions in South Africa and in other countries. Since the majority of respondents are South African, a cross-cultural comparison was not possible in this study. Future studies should test differences in favorite agritourism/wine farm attributes as well as attributes explaining flow, satisfaction, and loyalty of different consumer segments based on cultural background.

Besides, the survey was conducted at the time of experience and the results may differ if they were measured after leaving the destination. The social desirability bias of respondents may have influenced the ratings of attraction experience attributes. Mail or e-mail surveys after returning home may reveal more objective results. In addition, longitudinal studies with repeated surveys may help in revealing the long lasting or decaying impression of the wine farm attraction experience attributes and thus help in generating strategies for extending impressions. Further, individual items rather than factors assessed by factor analyses were used as independent variables in regression analysis. Future studies need to group the items using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and/or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to see whether they group into the five modules as described by Schmitt (1999a, 2003). The study used separate regression analyses to investigate the influence of the wine farm attraction experience dimensions on flow, satisfaction, and loyalty. Future studies need to investigate the interrelations among all these concepts using structural equation modeling, partial least squares, or path analysis, depending on the nature of the data. The current study analyzed the entire sample without comparing domestic and international visitors. As the results may differ for different nationalities, future studies need to investigate possible differences between domestic and international visitors as well as between different nationalities.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alonso

Bressan

O’Shea

, et al. (2014) Educating winery visitors and consumers: an international perspective. Current Issues in Tourism 17(6): 539–556.

Alonso

Liu

(2011) The potential for marrying local gastronomy and wine: the case of the ‘fortunate islands’. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(4): 974–981.

Anderson

Fornell

Lehman

(1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58: 53–66.

Arroyo

Barbieri

Rich

(2013) Defining agritourism: a comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tourism Management 37: 39–47.

Back

(2016) More than just wine: the evolution of wine tourism in South Africa. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally 26. Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2012/Visual/26 (accessed 9 February 2019).

Back

Bufquin

Park

(2018) Why do they come back? The effect of winery tourists motivations and satisfaction on the number of visits and revisit intentions. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration. Epub ahead of print 5 September 2018.

Barbieri

(2014) An activity-based classification of agritourists. In: Proceedings book of the 45th annual international conference of Travel and Tourism Research Association, Brugge, Belgium, 18–20 June 2014.

Basiuk

Udvorgeli

(2014) Formation features of wine tourism destinations. Ukrainian Food Journal 3(4): 641–648.

Bonn

Cho

(2018) The evolution of wine research: a 26-year historical examination of topics, trends and future direction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(1): 286–312.

10.

Brandth

Haugen

(2014) Embodying the rural idyll in farm tourist hosting. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 14(2): 101–115.

11.

Bridge

(2017) Trends in wine tourism: the Fladgate group perspective. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 9(6): 679–684.

12.

Brown

Havitz

Getz

(2006) Relationship between wine involvement and wine-related travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 21(1): 31–45.

13.

Bruwer

Alant

(2009) The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: an experiential view. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21: 235–257.

14.

Bruwer

Coode

Saliba

, et al. (2013) Wine tourism experience effects of the tasting room on consumer brand loyalty. Tourism Analysis 18(4): 399–414.

15.

Bruwer

Joy

(2017) Tourism destination image (TDI) perception of a Canadian regional winescape: a free-text macro approach. Tourism Recreation Research 42(3): 367–379.

16.

Bufquin

Back

Park

J-Y

, et al. (2018) The effects of architectural congruence perceptions on winery visitors’ emotions and behavioral intentions: the case of Marqués de Riscal. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 9: 56–63.

17.

Carril

Vila

De Carlos Villamarín

(2015) Assessing visitor satisfaction with a pioneering agritourism project: vegetable tourism in the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat (Barcelona). Pasos: Revista De Turismo Y Patrimonio Cultural 13(4): 741–755.

18.

Cassel

Pettersson

(2015) Performing gender and rurality in Swedish farm tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 15(1-2): 138–151.

19.

Charters

Fountain

Fish

(2009) “You felt like lingering…”: experiencing “real” service at the winery tasting room. Journal of Travel Research 48(1): 122–134.

20.

Choi

Kim

Kang

, et al. (2016) The influence of flow and satisfaction of realistic performing art on revisiting intention. Advanced Science and Technology Letters 126: 173–178.

21.

Cohen

Ben-Nun

(2009) The important dimensions of wine tourism experience from potential visitors’ perception. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(1): 20–31.

22.

Cornelia

Ioan

Sorin

, et al. (2017) Types of consumers of agroturism. Agricultural Management/Lucrari Stiintifice Seria I, Management Agricol 19(1): 177–180.

23.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Journal of Leisure Research 24(1): 93–94.

24.

Dick

Basu

(1994) Customer loyalty: towards an integrated framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2): 99–113.

25.

Dimitriovski

Joukes

(2017) Wine tourism in an agritourism context: insight into agritourism providers’ perceptions. Journal of Tourism and Development (27/28): 1905–1916.

26.

Donna

Ann Marie

(2016) Wine tourism suppliers’ and visitors’ experiential priorities. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28(2): 397–417.

27.

Ferreira

Muller

(2013) Innovating the wine tourism product: food-and-wine pairing in Stellenbosch wine routes. African Journal for Physical Health, Education, Recreation and Dance 19(2): 72–85.

28.

Flanigan

Blackstock

Hunter

(2014) Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: a typology-based study. Tourism Management 40: 394–405.

29.

Flanigan

Blackstock

Hunter

(2015) Generating public and private benefits through understanding what drives different types of agritourism. Journal of Rural Studies 41: 129–141.

30.

Fotiadis

(2016) Modifying and applying time and cost blocks: the case of E-Da theme park, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Tourism Management 5: 434–442.

31.

Fountain

(2018) The wine tourism experience in New Zealand: an investigation of Chinese visitors’ interest and engagement. Tourism Review International 22(1): 67–79.

32.

Kang

Tasci

ADA

(2017) Self-congruity and flow as antecedents of attitude and loyalty towards a theme park brand. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 34(9): 1261–1273.

33.

Garland

Gendall

(2004) Testing Dick and Basu’s customer loyalty model. Australasian Marketing Journal 12(3): 81–87.

34.

Getz

(2000) Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development, Destinations. New York: Cognizant.

35.

Gómez

Lopez

Molina

(2015) A model of tourism destination brand equity: the case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tourism Management 51: 210–222.

36.

Hair

Jr Black

Babin

, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

37.

Hall

Cambourne

Macionis

, et al. (1997) Wine tourism and network development in Australia and New Zealand: review, establishment and prospects. International Journal of Wine Marketing 9(2): 5–31.

38.

Harrington

(2017) Harnessing hospitality to enhance guest services. Journal of Business (10756124) 32(8): 41.

39.

Harris

(2017) Keynote speech by the CEO of Wesgro. In: Business of wine and food conference, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 20 September 2017.

40.

Helgadóttir

(2006) The culture of horsemanship and horse-based tourism in Iceland. Current Issues in Tourism 9(6): 535–548.

41.

Ingram

(2002) Motivations of farm tourism hosts and guests in the South West Tapestry Region, Western Australia: a phenomenological study. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 2(1): 1.

42.

Jaffe

Pasternak

(2004) Developing wine trails as a tourist attraction in Israel. International Journal of Tourism Research 6(4): 237–249.

43.

Jarvis

Stoeckl

Liu

(2016) The impact of economic, social and environmental factors on trip satisfaction and the likelihood of visitors returning. Tourism Management 52: 1–18.

44.

Jensen

(2007) An empirical investigation of the relationships between hygiene factors, motivators, satisfaction, and response among visitors to zoos and aquaria. Tourism Review International 11(3): 307.

45.

Johnson

(1998) Wine tourism and network development in Australia and New Zealand: review, establishment and prospects. International Journal of Wine Marketing 10: 5–31.

46.

Kaaristo

Järv

(2012) Our clock moves at a different pace: the timescapes of identity in Estonian rural tourism. Folklore 51: 109–132.

47.

Kidd

King

Whitelaw

(2004) A profile of farmstay visitors in Victoria, Australia and preliminary activity-based segmentation. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 11(4): 45–64.

48.

Kolyesnikova

Dodd

(2008) Effects of winery visitor group size on gratitude and obligation. Journal of Travel Research 47(1): 104–112.

49.

López-Guzmán

Castillo Canalejo

Cerezo López

(2014) Analysing the potential of wine tourism of the island of Fogo (Cape Verde). Tourismos 9(2): 241–258.

50.

McFarlane

Blackwell

Mounter

, et al. (2017) Combining amenity with experience: exploring the hidden capital of a winescape experience. Tourism Economics 23(5): 1076.

51.

Milman

Zehrer

Tasci

(2017) Measuring the components of visitor experience on a mountain attraction: the Case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria. Tourism Review 72(4): 429–447.

52.

Milman

Zehrer

(2018). Exploring visitor experience at a mountain attraction: the Nordkette Mountain in Tirol, Austria. Journal of Vacation Marketing 24(2): 172–186.

53.

Milman

Tasci

ADA

(2018) Exploring the experiential and sociodemographic drivers of satisfaction and loyalty in theme park context. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 8: 385–395.

54.

Minkiewicz

Evans

Bridson

(2014) How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management 30(1-2): 30–59.

55.

Miró

Caruso

(2017) Tourist experiences in rural tourism: a case study from Puglia Region. International Journal of Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism 2(2): 103.

56.

Oliver

(1999) Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63(4): 33–44.

57.

O’Neill

Palmer

(2004) Wine production and tourism: adding service to a perfect partnership. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45(3): 269–284.

58.

Park

J-Y

Back

Bufquin

, et al. (2019) Servicescape, positive affect, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: the moderating role of familiarity. International Journal of Hospitality Management 78: 102–111.

59.

Phillip

Hunter

Blackstock

(2010) A typology for defining agritourism. Tourism Management 31(6): 754–758.

60.

Pikkemaat

Peters

Boksberger

, et al. (2009) The staging of experiences in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 18(2/3): 237–253.

61.

Pine

Gilmore

(2011) The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School.

62.

Poitras

Getz

(2006) Sustainable wine tourism: the host community perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(5): 425.

63.

Prince

(2017) Working towards sincere encounters in volunteer tourism: an ethnographic examination of key management issues at a Nordic eco-village. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(11): 1617–1632.

64.

Prince

Ioannides

(2017) Contextualizing the complexities of managing alternative tourism at the community-level: a case study of a Nordic eco-village. Tourism Management 60: 348–356.

65.

Quadri-Felitti

Fiore

(2016) Wine tourism suppliers’ and visitors’ experiential priorities. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28(2): 397–417.

66.

Rogerson

(2014) Agritourism and local economic development in South Africa. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 26: 93–106.

67.

Santeramo

Barbieri

(2017) On the demand for agritourism: a cursory review of methodologies and practice. Tourism Planning and Development 14(1): 139–148.

68.

Schmitt

(1999a) Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to your Company and Brands. New York: Free Press.

69.

Schmitt

(1999b) Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management 15(1-3): 53–67.

70.

Schmitt

(2003) Customer Experience Management: A Revolutionary Approach to Connecting with your Customers. New York: Wiley.

71.

Shaw

Ivens

(2005) Building Great Customer Experiences. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

72.

Sparks

(2006) Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioral intentions. Tourism Management 28(5): 1180–1192.

73.

Sznajder

Przezbórska

Scrimgeour

(2009) Agritourism. Wallingford: CABI.

74.

Tasci

ADA

(2017) A quest for destination loyalty by profiling loyal travelers. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 6(3): 207–220.

75.

Tasci

ADA

(2015) A funscale for understanding the hedonic value of a product: the destination context. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 33(2): 162–183.

76.

Tasci

ADA

Milman

(2018) Exploring experiential consumption dimensions in the theme park context. Current Issues in Tourism. Epub ahead of print 6 May 2017.

77.

Tew

Barbieri

(2012) The perceived benefits of agritourism: the providers perspective. Tourism Management 33(1): 215–224.

78.

University of Tennessee (2014) 2007 and 2012 Census of agriculture data and direct sales, CSAs, value-added products and agritourism for selected southern states and the United States. Available at: https://ag.tennessee.edu/cpa/Information%20Sheets/CPA%20231.pdf (accessed 9 February 2019).

79.

UNWTO (2016) Georgia declaration on wine tourism. Available at: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/georgia_declaration.pdf (accessed 26 January 2019).

80.

Visit Napa Valley (2018) Visit Napa Valley releases the 2016 Napa Valley Visitor Industry Economic Impact & Visitor Profile. Available at: https://www.visitnapavalley.com/articles/post/visit-napa-valley-releases-the-2016-napa-valley-visitor-industry-economic-impact-visitor-profile/ (accessed 17 January 2019).

81.

Yoon

Uysal

(2005) An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management 26: 45–56.

82.

Yozukmaz

Bekar

(2017) Constructing a profile of domestic wine tourists: the case of Sirince. Journal of International Social Research 10(50): 1058–1064.

83.

Yuan

Cai

Morrison

, et al. (2005) An analysis of wine festival attendees’ motivations: a synergy of wine, travel and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing 11(1): 41–58.

84.

Zins

(2001) Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: some experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12(3–4): 269–294.

85.

Zoto

Qirici

Polena

(2013) Agrotourism – a sustainable development for rural area of Korca. European Academic Research I(2): 209–223.