EXPLORING WINERY VISITORS IN THE EMERGING WINE REGION OF WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA By Jenni Lee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sustainable Tourism and Protected Area Management—Doctor of Philosophy 2017 ABSTRACT EXPLORING WINERY VISITORS IN THE EMERGING WINE REGION OF WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA By Jenni Lee One increasingly popular type of agritourism that has great potential to contribute to local economies is winery tourism. In part this is due to the development of cold hardy grape varieties being grown in the northern United States. As wineries in northern states represent a stillemerging tourism industry, it is critical that they develop effective strategies to attract new visitors. To do this, they need to understand winery visitors’ characteristics and their behaviors at wineries. To facilitate such understanding, this study profiled winery visitors based on their wine-related characteristics (wine consumption behavior, wine involvement), winery experience (satisfaction, primary winery activity), and socio-demographic factors. It also explored sequential relationships among winery visitors’ pre-trip characteristics (motivation, wine involvement), on-site experiences (perceived value toward winery attributes), and post-trip evaluations (satisfaction, place attachment, winery loyalty). Winery visitors in Wisconsin and Minnesota were sampled by winery personnel on-site using a protocol designed by the author. Visitors were asked to provide their e-mail addresses and a week after the contact information was collected, a post-visit online survey was emailed to them. With completed surveys, a cluster analysis was used to classify winery visitors into three groups. Factors that most contributed to these group differences were wine consumption behavior, wine involvement, and satisfaction. The groups revealed varying amounts of wine purchases and levels of winery loyalty. In addition, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) results showed that leisure-motivated and medium to low wine-involved winery visitors perceive more extensive values in their winery experience. Winery visitors’ satisfaction and place attachment were predominantly influenced by perceived social, winequality, service and aesthetic values which ultimately led to winery loyalty. The study contributes theoretically to winery tourism knowledge by including winery activities in addition to conventional wine consumption characteristics. Furthermore, evaluating the on-site experiences of visitors based on perceived value as well as the relationship among antecedents and consequence behaviors contributes to experience-economy research in a winery tourism context. Winery owners stand to benefit from this research by now being able to target key visitor groups that contribute the most to winery revenue, as well as being able to design winery experiences that are most valued and contribute to positive post-visit evaluations. Limitations are discussed and future research suggested. Copyright by JENNI LEE 2017 To my family, Thank you for always supporting me. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My academic life in Michigan was always challenging. Without support from all guidance committee members, my family, and friends, I might not have been able to overcome it. I would like to express special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Nelson, for his constant support and patience despite my program being delayed due to academic and physical challenges. He also gave me diverse opportunities to participate in research projects that helped me broaden my academic perspectives. I am deeply grateful to Dr. McCole, who allowed me to join in the winery research group. He was always willing to listen to me, discuss my difficulties and to help solve my problems. I would also like to show my deep appreciation to Dr. Holecek, who as a principle investigator of the winery project, supported me academically, emotionally, and financially. I want to express great thanks to Dr. Paulsen, who, even after his retirement, served as a guidance committee member. He was always supportive of my progress and helped me finish my degree successfully. I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Bresnahan, who provided diverse advice especially with regard to cross-cultural research. She always helped me so I could continue on my progress. Lastly, I am greatly thankful to Dr. Oh, who as my mentor, provided continued and patient support on my academic achievement. I also want to thank the faculty, staff, and my friends in the Department of Community Sustainability (CSUS). I will miss so much all the CSUS members and warm atmosphere of our department. I was able to overcome all the challenges that came my way because I was a member of the CSUS. Faculty members always provided helpful advice, and staff members helped me with all sorts of difficulties. My friends and I always commiserated with one another’s difficulties and exchanged research ideas. All of you remain with me as great memories. I am vi especially thankful to the winery group members. Being able to be a part of this group was such a great experience. I also want to thank my MSU friends who made up such a great part of my Michigan life. Their emotional and academic support provided great positive energy that helped me through many difficulties. Lastly, I want to thank my friends who are in South Korea. They always patiently listened to me talk about my tough academic life, waited for me, and finally welcomed to be back. Finally, I am extremely thankful to my parents who have supported and believed in me. While the academic life was challenging and sometimes lonely, I always knew they were always standing behind me. This feeling helped me overcome diverse challenges. Whenever I needed a chat, my sisters would listen to me describe my life and challenges. I was spared loneliness thanks to my family. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................. 5 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5 Profiling Winery Visitors ............................................................................................................ 5 Theory of Consumption Values & Perceived Value................................................................... 7 Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 11 Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 13 Perceived Value-Satisfaction-Destination Loyalty ................................................................... 16 Place Attachment ...................................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 21 HYPOTHESES AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 21 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 21 Profiling Winery Visitors ...................................................................................................... 21 Antecedents and Consequence of Winery Visitors’ Perceived Values ................................ 21 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 22 Study Background & Data Collection .................................................................................. 22 Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 23 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 27 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 27 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 27 Available Winery Services ................................................................................................... 27 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Winery Visitor Survey Participants ......................... 28 Descriptive Statistics of Variables Included in Cluster Analysis ......................................... 30 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) .......................................................................................... 32 Cluster Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36 Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) ............................................. 39 Measurement Model ............................................................................................................. 39 Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing............................................................................. 46 viii CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................ 53 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 53 Summary of Study Results........................................................................................................ 53 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 54 Profiling Winery Visitors ...................................................................................................... 54 Antecedents and Consequence of Winery Visitors’ Perceived Values ................................ 62 Theoretical and Practical Implications...................................................................................... 75 Theoretical Implications ....................................................................................................... 75 Practical Implications............................................................................................................ 79 Limitations & Future Research ................................................................................................. 84 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 87 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 89 APPENDIX A Invitation Message ........................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX B First Reminder .................................................................................................. 91 APPENDIX C Second Reminder.............................................................................................. 92 APPENDIX D End of Survey Message .................................................................................... 93 APPENDIX E Online Survey ................................................................................................... 94 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 104 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Definition of five perceived values ................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Available winery services in 60 selected Wisconsin wineries ...................................... 27 Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of winery visitor survey respondents (N = 319) ..... 28 Table 4. Primary purpose to visit the winery ................................................................................ 30 Table 5. Selected measures of satisfaction with winery visit ....................................................... 30 Table 6. Self-assessed wine knowledge ........................................................................................ 30 Table 7. Frequency of wine consumption at home ....................................................................... 30 Table 8. Frequency of wine consumption when eating out .......................................................... 31 Table 9. Percent of wine types consumed by all respondents ....................................................... 31 Table 10. EFA results for motivation (N = 304) ........................................................................... 32 Table 11. EFA results for perceived values (N = 298) ................................................................. 32 Table 12. EFA results for satisfaction with winery visit (N = 316) .............................................. 33 Table 13. EFA results for destination loyalty ............................................................................... 34 Table 14. EFA results for place attachment .................................................................................. 34 Table 15. EFA results for wine involvement ................................................................................ 34 Table 16 Cluster analysis output (mean and percentage value for each cluster) .......................... 36 Table 17. Measurement reliability and convergent validity ......................................................... 39 Table 18. Discriminant validity through Fornell-Larcker (F-L) criterion .................................... 43 Table 19. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlation ................................................ 44 Table 20. Collinearity statistic (VIF) ............................................................................................ 47 Table 21. Hypothesis testing ......................................................................................................... 48 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Five values influencing consumer choice........................................................................ 9 Figure 2. Hypothesized model ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3. PLS-SEM result ............................................................................................................. 46 xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Agritourism has gained increasing popularity across the United States, primarily due to its positive economic impacts on communities (McGehee, 2007). As an alternative to traditional agricultural activities, agritourism has contributed directly to local economies by generating revenue. Moreover, it has also contributed to the revitalization of local economies by generating new jobs and attracting tourists. These tourists have great potential to participate in other types of tourism activities and provide additional spending in local restaurants and lodging facilities (L. Brown & Hershey, 2012). There are diverse types of agritourism, such as pick-your-own fruit or vegetables and agricultural festivals, but one type that has enjoyed rapidly increasing popularity is winery tourism (Mitchell & Hall, 2006). Winery tourism, according to Dowling (1998), is “experiential tourism occurring in wine regions, providing a unique experience which includes wine, gastronomy, hospitality, culture, the arts, education, and travel” (p. 78). One thing that differentiates winery tourism from other types is its offering of tourism products that are both tangible (wines, souvenirs, Hors d’ Oeuvres) and intangible (atmosphere, staff’s service, enjoyment happiness, memories). The number of wineries in the United States continues to rise. In 2016, there were more than 8,800 wineries operating with a rapid increase of very small and limited production wineries. The leading winery region by production in the United States is still California. It accounts for 87% of annual wine production (Wine Vines Analytics, 2016, 2017). However, small and emerging wineries in other states have increased their revenue by taking advantage of winery tourism, a field that not only produces wines, but offers diverse leisure and tourism opportunities. Wisconsin and Minnesota, over the last decade, have developed a new and rapidly growing 1 industry of small vineyards that are based on a new type of grape that is hardy enough to withstand cold weather. As an emerging market, studies of wine enterprises have been conducted by integrating different fields, including viticulture, winemaking, marketing of new wine grapes, and winery tourism (L. Brown & Hershey, 2012; Schuweiler & Gustafson, 2009; Tuck & Gartner, 2014b). When a tourism market is not well-established, it is critical for tourism promoters to develop an effective strategy to attract new visitors. This includes understanding winery visitors’ needs and attitudes toward wineries. One approach to understanding winery tourists is profiling them based on their characteristics, such as their participation in winery activities, wine consumption behavior, and socio-demographic variables. In addition, psychological factors such as wine involvement and satisfaction will give more accurate implications about the internal characteristics of tourists. Profiling usually aims to identify different groups of tourists (Bruwer & Li, 2007). This approach is particularly effective when target marketing. A targeted market would be any group that contributes to a winery’s revenue and reputation. Another approach to understanding winery visitors is to investigate their pre-, during-, and post-trip behavior. This holistic approach of investigating visitors’ behavior not only enables one to observe their experiences at wineries, but also to identify factors that attract them to visit as well as their attitudes toward wineries. Understanding the pre-trip stage of tourism behavior helps predict subsequent tourism behaviors during the trip and afterwards. One of the most important factors to explaining tourist behavior is motivation (Grybovych, Lankford, & Lankford, 2013). Another possible factor is a tourist’s level of wine involvement. Wine is considered a high-end market and it has been known that tourists’ wine involvement influences greatly their wine purchasing and consumption 2 behavior (Bruwer, Burrows, Chaumont, Li, & Saliba, 2013). Since a winery is primarily a place to sell wines, evaluating customers’ level of wine involvement helps predict their purchasing behaviors at wineries. In addition to the pre-trip approach, the importance of investigating on-site tourism experiences has been propelled by the concept of the experience economy. The experience economy in tourism settings is focused on experiences that are designed and/or enhanced by the tourism supplier (H. Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007). The experience economy can be differentiated from the individual experience as the latter is serendipitous and specific to individuals, while the experience economy is shaped by a tourism supplier that provides a more desirable experience tailored to a target market (Andrades, Dimanche, Prebensen, Chen, & Uysal, 2014). Recently, to measure tourists’ on-site experiences at the tourism destination, researchers have used tourists’ perceived value (P.-T. Chen & Hu, 2010; C.-K. Lee, Yoon, & Lee, 2007; Ramseook-Munhurrun, Seebaluck, & Naidoo, 2015). Perceived value is a more common concept in marketing theory based on Vargo and Lusch’s service-dominant logic of marketing (2004). According to service-dominant logic, value toward service is co-created by a customer while the provider offers value propositions (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In a tourism context, perceived value indicates tourists’ co-creation of value through their consumption of services provided by tourism suppliers. Accordingly, measuring tourists’ perceived value of the destination’s attributes might provide better insight into how tourists perceive those attributes. Winery tourism provides diverse tourism services, such as the tasting of wines, learning about wines and wine making, and enjoying the view of vineyards (Gill, Byslma, & Ouschan, 2007). It is therefore important to understand how winery visitors interact with each of these attributes as visitors’ perceived value of these attributes will directly and indirectly impact their spending at wineries 3 and their destination loyalty (Carlsen & Boksberger, 2015; Reisinger, 2009; Shapiro & Gómez, 2014). These post-trip factors—winery visitors’ satisfaction, attachment to wine region, and destination loyalty—will help to identify types of winery experiences that are most influential in positive post-trip evaluation. Using a holistic approach will enable marketers to check whether the strategies and programs related to destinations’ quality, services, and other factors successfully lead to winery loyalty (Hosany & Witham, 2010). The purpose of the current study is, in short, to evaluate winery visitors’ behavior toward emerging wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota. The study’s primary objectives are to 1) profile the winery visitors based on wine involvement, winery satisfaction, wine consumption behavior, winery activities, and socio-demographic variables; 2) investigate current winery visitors’ behaviors through their pre-trip stage (motivation, level of wine involvement), during-trip state (perceived value on winery attributes), and post-visit evaluation (place attachment, satisfaction, destination loyalty); and 3) to recommend strategies and programs that lead to winery loyalty. 4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Profiling Winery Visitors A common market research approach is to group similar customers. Grouping customers allows a service provider to target a specific group or segment and develop one or more strategies that are tailored to specific market segments (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011). The wine market is no exception. Several studies have segmented wine consumers based on their characteristics (Bruwer & Li, 2007; Bruwer, Li, & Reid, 2002; Johnson, 2003; Spawton, 1991). Bruwer and Li (2007) segmented wine consumers and then developed the wine-related lifestyle (WRL) scale. The WRL was developed based on the literature, analysis of previous wine segmentation studies and consulting with wine experts from wine marketing, viticulture, and enology areas. Regarding the WRL, Bruwer and Li characterized it using five factors— consumption situations, ways of shopping, quality/attributes, drinking rituals, and consequences of wine. Based on these five factors, the study identified five wine consumer groups— enjoyment-oriented social wine drinkers, fashion/image-oriented wine drinkers, ritual-oriented conspicuous wine enthusiasts, purposeful inconspicuous premium wine drinkers, and basic wine drinkers. In other studies, depending on the study context, different numbers of groups were identified and each group represented distinct characteristics. Johnson’s (2003) study compared his results with that of Bruwer et al. (2002) and found a different number of groups and different group characteristics. Another wine-related area gaining popularity is winery tourism research. This field considers both wine consumption behaviors and winery tourism activities (Alebaki & Iakovidou, 2011; Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002; Marzo-Navarro & Pedraja-Iglesias, 2010; Nella & Christou, 5 2014). Such studies differ mainly in that they consider wine-related activities as well as their tourists’ behavior. To segment the winery tourists into groups, for example, Marzo-Navarro and Pedraja-Iglesias (2010) included wine consumption habits, wine-related trips, motivation, wine activities, socio-demographic characteristics and more. They found three groups—non-wine, curious, and interested tourists—with each representing different characteristics of winery tourists. In Nella and Christou’s study (2014), they segmented winery tourists based on their level of wine involvement—low, medium, or high. Each group revealed different levels of satisfaction, brand attachment, attitudes toward winery, socio-demographic characteristics and more. Another possible factor that can classify winery visitors is their level of wine knowledge. In fact, this is one of the most common factors in wine consumption research that aims to develop marketing strategies for the targeted wine market (Alebaki, Menexes, & Koutsouris, 2015; Dodd, Laverie, Wilcox, & Duhan, 2005; Famularo, Bruwer, & Li, 2010). Generally, those who know more about wine spend more on diverse types of wine (Famularo et al., 2010). There are different ways to assess winery visitors’ level of knowledge, such as gauging their objective knowledge, which is actual knowledge stored in memory (e.g., terminology, product attributes, brand facts) and their subjective knowledge, which is self-perceived knowledge (Dodd et al., 2005). However, depending on a study’s context, wine knowledge is not always related to purchase behavior (Alebaki et al., 2015). Lastly, a winery is not a place that solely sells wine; Important factors that influence winery visitors’ wine consumption as well as their winery or wine brand loyalty include their experiences with the staff and the facilities as well as the quality of wine (Shapiro & Gómez, 2014). Gómez and Kelley’s research (2013) found that when winery visitors’ levels of satisfaction rose, so did the number of bottles purchased, dollars spent at wineries, and the likelihood of repurchase. As suggested by Gómez and Kelley’s study (2013), 6 for the owners and marketers of wineries to improve their services, they need to understand how satisfied visitors are with each service. It can be seen that when it comes to thoroughly profiling different types of winery visitor groups, marketers can draw better implications by providing psychological factors, such as wine involvement and satisfaction, wine consumption behaviors, tourists’ behaviors and sociodemographic characteristics. The ultimate goal of successful winery marketing is to increase revenue by bringing in more loyal customers. To be successful, it is critical that marketers be able to identify groups that are likely to become loyal customers. Theory of Consumption Values & Perceived Value Consumer studies focusing on a product’s or a service’s get-and-give components have commonly adopted the concept of perceived value. The most widely known example of perceived value is the trade-off between the price of a product and its quality (Zeithaml, 1988). According to the theory of consumption values, however, consumer choice is a function of more than simply taking into account price value. Rather multiple consumption values can also include functional, conditional, social, emotional, and epistemic values (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991b). Sheth et al. (1991b) defined each value: Table 1. Definition of five perceived consumption values Definitions Functional value Social value “The perceived utility acquired from an alternative's capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance. An alternative acquires functional value through the possession of salient functional, utilitarian, or physical attributes. Functional value is measured on a profile of choice attributes” (p.160) “The perceived utility acquired from an alternative's association with one or more specific social groups. An alternative acquires social value through association with positively or negatively stereotyped demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural-ethnic groups. Social value is measured on a profile of choice imagery” (p. 161). 7 Table 1. (cont’d) Definitions Emotional value Epistemic value Conditional value “The perceived utility acquired from an alternative's capacity to arouse feelings or affective states. An alternative acquires emotional value when associated with specific feelings or when precipitating or perpetuating those feelings. Emotional value is measured on a profile of feelings associated with the alternative” (p. 161). “The perceived utility acquired from an alternative's capacity to arouse curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge. An alternative acquires epistemic value by questionnaire items referring to curiosity, novelty, and knowledge” (p. 162). “The perceived utility acquired by an alternative as the result of the specific situation or set of circumstances facing the choice maker. An alternative acquires conditional value in the presence of antecedent physical or social contingencies that enhance its functional or social value. Conditional value is measured on a profile of choice contingencies” (p. 163). The distinctive point of the theory is that consumption values take into account emotional and epistemic values that emphasize the hedonic value of consumption. The fundamental propositions of the theory are the following three: 1) “consumption choice is a function of multiple consumption values”; 2) “the consumption values make differential contributions in any given choice situation”; and 3) “the consumption values are independent” (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991a, p. 160). 8 Figure 1. Five values influencing consumer choice Sweeney and Soutar (2001) also asserted that the simple trade-off between price and quality is too simple to explain perceived value. Hence, they developed a more sophisticated scale that measures a broader range of customers’ perceived values. Their scale, called the PERVAL scale, is based on Sheth et al.’s (1991b) theory of consumption values. Numerous researchers have applied the theory of consumption values and the PERVAL scale in diverse contexts, such as retailing and tourism (Gill et al., 2007; Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2012; Prebensen, Woo, & Uysal, 2014; Sánchez, Callarisa, Rodríguez, & Moliner, 2006; Turel, Serenko, & Bontis, 2010). Since service quality is also important in experiential tourism activities, Petrick (2004) developed the SERV-PERVAL scale, which covers perceived service quality value. Sánchez et al. (2006) utilized the diverse dimensions of this perceived value scale to explain the overall perceived value of a tourism product. Prebensen et al. (2012) and Prebensen et al. (2013) adopted Sweeney and Soutar’s PERVAL scale to explain the tourists’ satisfaction and destination loyalty. Many tourism products are not tangible but rather experiential. Tourists experience a destination by consuming tourism products and receiving services. Perceived value can explain what tourists value about particular attributes they experience at a tourism destination through 9 on-site evaluations rather than post-visit evaluations, such as satisfaction. According to Vargo’s service-dominant logic (2008), values can be co-created by users in the process of experiencing services and/or purchasing products. That is, identifying visitors’ perceived values allows us to measure values of tourism attributes that are co-created by visitors at the tourism site. Carlsen and Boksberger (2015) identified key wine tourism attributes. They conducted a meta-analysis and included a total of 13 qualitative and quantitative wine tourism experience studies. The attributes were classified primarily based on Roberts and Sparks’s enhancement factors (2006), which include authenticity, value for money, service quality, setting, indulgence, convenience, entertainment, and lifestyle. The results from the meta-analysis indicated that the most important attributes in wine tourism settings are service quality and winery settings. The least important attributes are value for money and authenticity. Lastly, Carlsen and Boksberger emphasized the importance of understanding emotional and epistemic values for future research. Relatively few studies have empirically utilized perceived value in a winery tourism context. Gill et al. (2007) adopted diverse perceived value items, while adding several new items from a range of perceived value studies, including from those carried out by Sheth et al. (1991b), Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Petrick (2004), and Zeithaml (1988). Factor analysis identified five factors that were positively related with winery visitors’ overall satisfaction. The five are service and technical quality (e.g., quality of wine), price, social and epistemic values. X. Chen, Goodman, Bruwer, and Cohen (2016) included only three types of perceived values—value for money, hedonic value, and utilitarian value (e.g., how well the cellar door meets their needs). These three values were positively related with destination loyalty, while utilitarian value did not lead to satisfaction. Since type of value is determined by winery attributes, winery visitors will perceive, depending on the type of winery, different types of values. Accordingly, in the case of 10 emerging wineries, it would be critical to investigate winery visitors’ value toward winery attributes. Involvement Involvement is defined as “the perceived importance or relevance of a person to an object/stimulus, which is based on the person’s personal needs, values, and interests” (Nella & Christou, 2014, p. 786). The concept of involvement has been utilized widely in marketing, retailing, tourism, and leisure research (G. Brown, Havitz, & Getz, 2007; L. S. Lockshin, Spawton, & Macintosh, 1997; C.-O. Oh & Ditton, 2006). Understanding consumers and tourists’ level of involvement is important when it comes to predicting their preferences and behavioral intentions. Their level of involvement encompasses their purchases, perceived value, and visit intention as well as what types of products they prefer (G. T. Kyle, Kerstetter, & Guadagnolo, 2002; L. S. Lockshin et al., 1997; Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014). Accordingly, researchers have used different types of involvement scales, depending on their field of study, to profile the characteristics of customer and to predict future behaviors (Bruwer et al., 2013; Gerard Kyle & Chick, 2004; Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; L. S. Lockshin et al., 1997; Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014; Zaichkowsky, 1985). In consumer research, what has been most frequently applied in a variety of fields is Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) consumer involvement profile (CIP). CIP consists of four distinct facets— perceived importance of product and consequences of a mispurchase (i.e., wrong choice of product), subjective probability of a mispurchase, hedonic value of the product class, and perceived sign value of the product class. Here the consequence of a mispurchase could be unexpected product quality after purchasing and experiencing, say, a vacation package (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988; Prebensen et al., 2012). The CIP scale has also been integrated with 11 other types of involvement scales to meet a particular research background. Prebensen et al. (2012) and Prebensen, Woo, et al. (2014) utilized the CIP scale and Kyle and Chick’s (2004) leisure involvement scale to test the relationship between the perceived value of various destination experiences. Other scales of profiling consumer characteristics include the two types of involvement used by Beatty, Homer, and Kahle (1988). They examined enduring (product) and purchase (situational) involvement. According to Beatty and colleagues, enduring involvement is more related to self, hedonic pleasure, and personal importance. Purchase involvement, which is a more specific concept of situational involvement, is defined as “the outcome of an individual’s interaction with the product and the purchase situation” (Beatty et al., 1988, p. 150). Depending on whether the study concerns a personal connection with a product or the personal importance a customer attaches to purchasing a product, a different product and purchase involvement scale is used. In wine market research, Bruwer et al. (2013) profiled wine consumers based on the CIP scale as well as through additional items. Depending on a wine consumer’s level of involvement, results differed in terms of consumption level, information search behavior, and other areas. Hollebeek, Jaeger, Brodie, and Balemi (2007) used two involvement concepts—product and purchase involvement—and segmented wine consumer’s demographic and psychographic characteristics. They found that consumers put more importance on origin of wine and less on price when they are high in product and purchase involvement compared to those lowinvolvement consumers. L. S. Lockshin et al. (1997) also segmented wine shoppers based on three involvement scales—product, brand, and purchase involvement. Depending on the level of these three types of involvement, wine consumers revealed different types and levels of 12 purchasing behaviors (e.g., shopping styles, shops and loyalty) and demographic variables. G. Brown et al. (2007) utilized CIP and other relevant items, though they focused solely on the facet of enduring involvement. The authors segmented winery visitors’ behavior based on three extracted factors of involvement—expertise, enjoyment, and symbolic centrality. This is known as the wine involvement scale (WIS). Demographically, the three identified groups were the same, though they were significantly different regarding their frequency of visits to wineries, purchasing of wines in general and at wineries, attitudes toward wine-specific amenities, their future visit intention as well as several other wine-related behaviors. In sum, it can be seen that level of wine involvement is an important factor not only to predict and profile general consumers in retail settings, but also to understand both consumer and tourist behavior together. This is particularly important since small wineries generally rely on their revenue by selling their wines to winery visitors. Investigating wine involvement would be able to help wineries both satisfy tourist and consumer needs. Motivation Motivation is defined as “psychological/biological needs and wants that arouse, direct, and integrate a person’s behavior and activity” (Park, Reisinger, & Kang, 2008, p. 161). Motivation, which as a primary influence on people’s behavior, has been adopted in diverse fields including marketing, tourism, public relationships and more (Hallahan, 2000; Prebensen et al., 2012; Roy & Rabbanee, 2015). Since winery tourism is a combination of wine sales and tourism, winery tourists’ motivation could be a mixture of both industries. It is likely that depending on the characteristics of wineries and the types of tourists, their motivation could be either inclined to wine consumption/sale or tourism-related motivations. Traditionally, wine related motivation is investigated for wine consumption behaviors at 13 home or in a consumer's wine purchasing behavior in a retail environment (Brunner & Siegrist, 2011; Bruwer et al., 2013; Charters & Pettigrew, 2008; L. S. Lockshin et al., 1997; L. Thach, 2012; L. Thach & Chang, 2016). For instance, Charters and Pettigrew (2008) conducted qualitative research with regard to wine consumers’ motivation to drink wines. They focused on three aspects of motivations: utilitarian, symbolic and experiential. They found that the importance of these three aspects of motivation depended on context. However, enjoyment typically accrued from taste, food pairing, and relaxation. Brunner et al. (2011) explored more diverse types of wine consumption motivations, which included self-expression, recreation, sociability, health, style, food, pleasure, tradition, fun, and intellectual challenge. Palma, Cornejo, Ortuzar, Rizzi, and Casaubon (2014) found four main wine consumption motivations—social cohesion, sophistication, self-indulgence, and tradition accrued from family ritual and holidays. With the increasing popularity of winery tourism, numerous studies have measured winery tourists’ motivation to visit wineries (Alebaki & Iakovidou, 2011; Geide, Harmon, & Baker, 2009; Grybovych et al., 2013; Yuan, Cai, Morrison, & Linton, 2005). Diverse types of motivations have been identified that reflect the characteristics of tourists and wineries. Some studies have reported that the primary reasons for visiting wineries are to taste wine and to have a tasting experience, and some others found motivations that are related to leisure and tourism, such as to socialize, relax, and enjoy view and scenery of wine regions (Alant & Bruwer, 2004; Alebaki & Iakovidou, 2011). For example, Alant and Bruwer (2004) found that both first-time and repeat visitors’ top motivation to visit wineries were to taste and buy wines. In Alebaki and Iakovidou’s study (2015), the most important motivations for visiting the winery were tasting wine, escaping routine, enjoying the pastoral landscape and scenery, and relaxation. Grybovych et al.’s (2013) study situation of Indiana wineries was the most similar to the current study 14 (Wisconsin and Minnesota). They identified three wine tourism motivation factors: learning about wine and the winemaking process, having an authentic experience, and having a good time. In summary, the motivations of winery visitors differ widely from those of wine consumers. The more famous the wine, the more likely winery visitors are to visit to taste and buy wines (Alebaki et al., 2015; López-Guzmán, Vieira-Rodríguez, & Rodríguez-García, 2014). Conversely, winery visitors venture to the smaller, newer, and less famous wines and wineries for leisure and tourism purposes (P. W. Williams & Kelly, 2001; Yuan et al., 2005). As tourism motivation can reflect characteristics of both tourists and tourism destination, it has commonly been used as to identify factors that explain travel-related behaviors (Park et al., 2008; Sparks, 2007). While there are numerous factors that motivation can explain, one possible approach to understanding the needs of tourists with various motivations is perceived value. Prebensen, Woo, et al. (2014) stated that “value creation is driven by needs or motives and governed by cognitive processes and dispositions” (Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014, p. 913). Accordingly, Prebensen et al. (2012) and Prebensen, Woo, and colleagues (2014) conducted research on whether motivation impacts perceived value. Prebensen et al. (2012) used a motivation scale that was based on two push motivation factors—relaxation and socialization, which positively explains the perceived experience along with level of involvement on holiday trip. In Prebensen, Woo, et al.’s study (2014), positive and linear causal relationship was found among the motivation-perceived value of trip experience-satisfaction-loyalty. Since the motivation factor is a multidimensional scale itself and indicates both tourists’ internal motivation and external attributes of the tourism destination, identifying its relationship with different types of perceived value can give a better understanding of what kinds of motivated tourists put more value on specific types of destination attributes. 15 Perceived Value-Satisfaction-Destination Loyalty One of the most widely used post-trip variables in consumer and tourist research is the satisfaction factor. A vast number of studies have used satisfaction to evaluate tourists’ tourism experience. Still, an increasing number of tourism studies have sophisticatedly identified the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction (C.-F. Chen & Chen, 2010; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Scott, Laws, & Boksberger, 2012). The primary difference between perceived value and satisfaction is that perceived value can happen during various stages of the purchase process (before, during, and after). Satisfaction is naturally considered part of the post-purchase stage and an outcome variable (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Perceived values have thus been used as a different concept than satisfaction, usually as an antecedent of satisfaction (Prebensen et al., 2012; Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014; J. Williams, 2012). The relationship of these two factors allows identifying destination attributes that have the strongest relationship with satisfaction. The relationship between satisfaction and destination loyalty is a well-known relationship, demonstrated by many wine-related studies (Gill et al., 2007; Nowak & Newton, 2006; Shapiro & Gómez, 2014; Stoddard & Clopton, 2015; Yuan & Jang, 2008). Destination loyalty is generally measured with attitudinal and behavioral components, such as intention to repurchase, revisit, preference to use a particular brand, and recommend to others (Meleddu, Paci, & Pulina, 2015; Niininen & Riley, 2004; Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014). According to the service-profit chain model (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser Jr, & Schlesinger, 1994), industries’ revenue growth and profitability are determined by customer loyalty, which is mainly achieved by customer’s satisfaction. For instance, Yuan and Jang’s study (2008) demonstrated that the more satisfied visitors were who had joined a local wine festival, the more likely they were to purchase the local wine and revisit the local wineries that took part in the festival. In Nowak and Newton’s 16 study (2006), satisfaction with wine tasted at the winery made visitors more likely to purchase the same brand wine. It was also found that compared to new visitors, returning winery visitors had a higher level of satisfaction with wine quality, the tasting room, and their overall experience at the winery (Stoddard & Clopton, 2015). Shapiro and Gómez (2014) identified satisfaction toward specific winery attributes, including ambience, service, tasting protocol, tasting experience, and retail execution. All of these are expected to be related to overall satisfaction, ultimately leading to sales performance and customer retention. The results were all significant, except, intention to re-purchase, which was asked as a yes or no question. It can be seen that destination loyalty is considered an important factor in evaluating the success of tourism services (Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006; Zhang et al., 2014). Relationships among these three variables—perceived value, satisfaction, and destination loyalty—have been demonstrated by several studies in diverse tourism contexts (C.-F. Chen & Chen, 2010; C.-F. Chen & Tsai, 2008; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Hosany & Witham, 2010; C.-K. Lee et al., 2007; H. Oh, 1999; Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015). In the study by Gallarza and Saura (2006), the authors found a strong positive relationship among college students’ perceived value toward a vacation break, satisfaction, and destination loyalty, including visits to the same destination and positive word of mouth. In Lee et al.’s study (2007), Japanese tourists’ to Korea’s demilitarized zone tour indicated three types of values—functional, emotional, and overall. Each of these positively explained satisfaction, followed by a positive relationship with recommendation to others. C.-F. Chen and Chen (2010) and Ramseook-Munhurrun et al.’s studies (2015) found satisfaction played a significant role as mediator. In C.-F. Chen and Chen’s study (2010), there was a stronger relationship when satisfaction was used as a mediator between perceived value and destination loyalty, than when viewed as a direct relationship between 17 perceived value and behavioral relationship. In Ramseook-Munhurrun et al.’s studies (2015), the relationship between perceived value and loyalty was not significant; that is, satisfaction fully mediated this relationship. In sum, it can be seen that perceived value—satisfaction—and destination loyalty have a well-defined relationship worthy of being applied to current wine tourism research. Particularly, since wineries are generally equipped with diverse tourism attributes, it would be important to find perceived values that mostly contribute to destination loyalty through winery visitors’ satisfaction. Place Attachment Shumaker and Taylor (1982) defined place attachment as “a system of interlocked attitudes and behaviors that refer to the home and the household and reflect the intimacy of strength of the individual’s tie to the locale” (p. 220). Place attachment has been used both as antecedent and consequence variables. As the antecedent, due to the affective component by nature, place attachment has explained behaviors related to protecting the individuals’ attached place, such as environmentally responsible behavior, NIMBYism (not in my back yard) and willingess to pay a fee (Devine-Wright, 2009; Halpenny, 2010; Gerard Kyle, Absher, & Graefe, 2003; LópezMosquera & Sánchez, 2013). As the consequence variable, many researchers have looked at involvement with recreational and tourism activities that occur at the place and its impact on place attachment (Gross & Brown, 2008; Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005; Gerard Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2003; T. H. Lee & Chang, 2011). In recent years, an increasing number of tourism and hospitality researchers have tried to explain the antecedent and consequence effect of place attachment by using such variables as tourism services, involvement, satisfaction, and destination loyalty (G. Brown, Smith, & Assaker, 18 2016; Cardinale, Nguyen, & Melewar, 2016; S. Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2016; J. Lee, Kyle, & Scott, 2012; T. H. Lee & Shen, 2013; Line, Hanks, & Kim, 2015; Prayag & Ryan, 2012; Su, Cheng, & Huang, 2011; C.-F. Tsai, 2015; Xu & Zhang, 2016). In Lee and Shen’s study (2013), three leisure-involvement dimensions of a recreational activity (dog walking) significantly predicted place attachment to dog parks in Taiwan, which also led to attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Tourism studies have more frequently used the relationship between satisfaction and place attachment. For instance, in Prayag and Ryan’s study (2012), international tourists’ place attachment to a tourism destination (the Republic of Mauritius) was significantly related to destination loyalty, while the relationship was mediated by satisfaction. Involvement with the tourism destination was not found to be significant. In another study, two dimensions of place attachment—place identity and place dependence—were used as mediators of a relationship between festival satisfaction and destination loyalty (J. Lee et al., 2012). Line and colleagues (2015) also identified place attachment as a mediator of relationship between satisfaction with restaurants’ physical service scape (facility attractivness, ambient conditions, seating comfort, and layout). Most recently, the perceived quality of tourism services and experiences have been gauged using other variables—satisfaction, place attachment, and destination loyatly. In Su et al.’s study (2011), perceived service quality of Taiwan hot-spring tourism (service, facility, recreation experience, and information) was the main factor that explained satisfaction and that predicted place attachment, and behavioral intention (recommendation, revisit intention, and word of mouth recommendation). C.-F. Tsai (2015) also found a positive relationship between the perceived quality of a seaside holiday resort in southern Taiwan and tourists’ satisfaction, which was used as a mediator between emotional attachment and destination loyalty. Lastly, 19 tourists’ involvement in visiting cities positively predicted attachment to the city (Hanzhou, China) and that led to destination loyalty. The relationship between involvement and place attachment was mediated by satisfaction and perceived attractiveness (natural, cultural, and infrastructure) of the city (Xu & Zhang, 2016). This relationship was also found in Brown et al.’s study (2016), in which involvement in sport and attachment to the Olympic venue in London was positvely related and led to visitation intention. The relationship between attachment and visitation intention were significantly mediated by the host city’s evaluation and satisfaction. It can be seen that in addition to satisfaction, place attachment could be a good indicator of tourists’ destination loyalty. While previous studies showed mixed results among the aformentioned variables, further research is required to define the relationship. 20 CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESES AND METHODS Hypotheses Profiling Winery Visitors While segmenting winery tourists is an exploratory approach, it is anticipated that there will be two to three different groups representing different levels of wine involvement, satisfaction, wine consumption, purpose of visit wineries, wine knowledge, and socio-demographic characteristics. This study also evaluates whether each of these segmented groups reveals a different amount of wine purchased at wineries and a different level of destination loyalty (intention to revisit, purchase same brand of wine, and recommendation to other). Antecedents and Consequence of Winery Visitors’ Perceived Values Motivation Satisfaction Winery loyalty Perceived values Place attachment Wine involvement Figure 2. Hypothesized model HP1: Perceived values are more positively and diversely related to leisure-based motivation than epistemic motivation. HP2: Perceived values are more positively and diversely related to low wine involvement than high wine involvement. 21 HP3: Perceived values are positively related to satisfaction. HP4: Perceived values are positively related to place attachment. HP5: Satisfaction and place attachment both have positive impacts on destination loyalty. Methods Study Background & Data Collection Wisconsin and Minnesota have developed a new and rapidly growing industry of small vineyards and wine enterprises. There are approximately 118 wineries in Wisconsin and 49 in Minnesota. The wine produced in Wisconsin and Minnesota and that of rapidly expanding wine regions has obviously less exposure than the wine of the more famous wine regions (e.g., California's Central Valley and upstate New York) where a primary reason to visit is indeed the reputation of the wine itself. The Wisconsin and Minnesota wineries have small vineyards (some wineries in WI and MN don’t have a vineyard) and rely on new types of grapes that are hardy enough to withstand cold weather. This study is part of a larger suite of studies that explore this growing industry with integrated research on viticulture, winemaking, marketing of new wine grapes, and winery tourism (Holecek & McCole, 2016; Mansfield, 2016; Tuck & Gartner, 2014a). For participants, the study sought out wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota and access to their visitors. Seventeen Wisconsin and four Minnesota wineries cooperated with the current research. For data collection, visitors to winery tasting rooms were intercepted by winery personnel at wineries. Visitors were asked to provide their e-mail. A post-visit online survey was conducted with visitors to winery tasting rooms. A week after the e-mail address was collected, online surveys were sent out with links to the survey. After winery visitors’ surveys were collected, an online survey of the Wisconsin winery owners was also conducted to understand 22 winery attributes that each winery has. The winery owner survey was conducted only in Wisconsin because of a question that was a part of a Wisconsin winery economic impact study. The question was asked to shed light on the general availability of winery attributes of Wisconsin wineries included in this study. The data collection was conducted between late August and October of 2015. Measurement A perceived value scale was composed based on Gill et al.’s (2007) study and additional items that were based on a previously conducted Wisconsin and Minnesota winery survey. Gill et al. (2007) scale is based on three other scales—Petrick’s (2004) SERV-PERVAL scale, Sheth and colleagues’ PERVAL scale (1991a), and Sweeney and Soutar’s perceived value theory (2001). The scale includes epistemic, wine quality, service, physical quality, social, price, and emotional values. Involvement was measured based on Brown et al.’s (2007) wine involvement scale (WIS). The WIS scale primarily measures ego-involvement and was developed based on Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) consumer involvement profile (CIP) scale and additional items. The motivation scale adopted Grybovych et al’s (2013) winery tourism motivation scale, which is based on push and pull motivation and modified based on the literature and discussions with wineries. Place attachment was measured based on Williams and Jerry’s (2003) place attachment scale. Perceived value, involvement, motivation, and place attachment were measured on a 5point Likert type scale (Strongly disagree [1] – Strongly agree [5]). Satisfaction included friendlessness of staff, knowledge of staff, tasting room facility, quality of wine, and overall experience. Satisfaction was measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale (Not at all satisfied [1] – Extremely satisfied [5]). Loyalty was measured by intention to recommend the winery to others, 23 to revisit the winery, and to repurchase the winery’s wine. Each loyalty measure was based on a 5-point Likert-type scale (To very little extent [1] – To very great extent [5]). Respondents’ level of wine knowledge was measured by asking their subjective wine knowledge. A 4-point Likert-type scale was used (Not knowledgeable [1] – Very knowledgeable [4]). The study also included wine-consumption behaviors (frequency of consuming wine at home and when eating out; six wine types consumed most often—dry red and white wines; sweet red and white wines; pink/rose wines; sparkling wines). Frequency of consumption for both at home and eating out were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale (for at home, only on special occasions [1] – almost every day [4] and for eating out, almost never [1] – almost every time [4]). Regarding how much of six types of wine respondents consumed, respondents were asked to enter a percentage for each type such that the total equaled 100 percent. To profile winery tourists’ behavior, respondents were asked to choose their main purpose of the visit to the winery (purchase wine; learn more about wine; have a relaxing day out; to have a unique experience; meet the winemaker; socialize with friends or family; to be entertained; for an event; and enjoy a rural setting). Respondents could make only one choice. For spending at winery, the questionnaire asked about the amount spent to purchase wine at the winery. Lastly, sociodemographic characteristics such as education, age, gender, and income were included (see details in appendix E). Data Analysis For the profiling study, cluster analysis was conducted to identify groups that represent different types of wine-tourism visitors. Cluster analysis mainly aims for classifying groups that share similar characteristics. Thus, individuals in each cluster have the most similar characteristics with each other while those with the least similar characteristics belong to other 24 clusters (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011). Since it is hard to meet all individual customers’ requirements, targeting groups that yield the most profitable outcome could contribute to the industry's profitability by minimizing the costs for marketing and production. Customers, visitors, or consumers also are more likely to be satisfied through services that meet their requirements and preferences coupled with a desirable product. Thus, cluster analysis will shed light on winery tourists more systematically by segmenting their characteristics. Six variables were included: wine involvement at high and medium-low involvement dimensions; satisfaction regarding the friendliness and knowledge of staff; satisfaction with the tasting room facility, and quality of wine; and overall satisfaction. Added to the variables considered in clustering factors were purpose of trip, wine knowledge, frequency of consuming wine at home and when eating out, six types of wine varieties, and socio-demographic variables. Lastly, the evaluative field included the total amount of wines purchased at the winery and three types of destination loyalty. Variables entered in the evaluative field allowed for differentiation among identified groups. A two-step cluster analysis was conducted to cover both ratio and categorical variables (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011). SPSS 22 was used to conduct the cluster analysis. For the causal relationship among variables, the study conducted structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM allows the defining of causal relationship among different types of variables. Before conducting SEM analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess the dimensionality of latent variables. SPSS 22 was used to conduct EFA. The current study used partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM is useful when the primary focus of a study is prediction and exploration rather than confirming theory (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). Since covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) focuses on confirming a theory, the main technique to estimate model parameters is minimizing theoretical covariance 25 and the estimated covariance matrix. PLS-SEM is similar to multiple regression in that it needs to maximize the explained variance of the dependent variables (endogenous variables in PLSSEM) while allowing for the assessment of data quality based on measurement model characteristics (Hair et al., 2011). In addition, the bootstrapping process, which is aimed at obtaining standard errors through repeated random sampling for hypothesis testing, allows for the use of smaller sample sizes and non-normal data (Hair et al., 2011). PLS-SEM was used because the primary focus of the current study is to understand the predictive relationship among variables and the theoretical structure needed for further exploration. PLS-SEM was conducted using the Smart PLS statistic program. 26 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Data Collection Out of 866 winery visitors sampled, 340 surveys (raw response rate 39.3%, effective response rate 45.3%) were collected from Wisconsin and Minnesota wineries. From Wisconsin, 277 surveys (raw response rate 43.4%, effective rate 50.6%) were returned and from Minnesota 63 (raw response rate 27.6%, effective rate 37%). After cleaning data, 282 surveys were used for cluster analysis and 319 surveys were used for PLS-SEM. A separate survey of Wisconsin winery owners contacted 79 wineries with 60 of these completing the survey (response rate 77%). Of these wineries, 17 were also helping to conduct winery visitors’ survey. Descriptive Statistics Available Winery Services Table 2. Available winery services in 60 selected Wisconsin wineries n % Wine tasting 60 100.0 Picnic/BBQ Winery tour 45 75.0 Other Listen to live music 36 60.0 Winemaking Hors d’oeuvres/food sampling 31 51.7 Wine related class Vineyard tour 21 35.0 Grape stomp Pre/new released barrel sampling 20 33.3 Cooking class Winemaker dinner 17 28.3 Animal viewing/petting Art show 16 26.7 n % 16 16 12 11 10 8 3 26.7 26.7 20.0 18.3 16.7 13.3 5.0 Of the winery owners surveyed in Wisconsin, the most common service provided was wine tasting. Most of the wineries offered winery tours and live music services. Half of the wineries served Hour d’oeuvres/food sampling services. Two-thirds of the wineries offered a 27 vineyard tour and pre/new released barrel sampling. Some of the wineries provided a winemaker dinner, art show, and picnic/BBQ. A few of the wineries provided a winemaking/wine related class, grape stomp, and cooking class. The least common attribute was an animal viewing/petting. Other services included art classes, U-pick fruits, festival/concerts, and customer events (see Table 2). Socio-demographic Characteristics of Winery Visitor Survey Participants Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of winery visitor survey respondents (N = 319) Frequency % Gender Males 83 26.0 Females 236 74.0 Age (Mean = 49) 21-29 40 12.9 30-39 55 17.8 40-49 60 19.4 50-59 72 23.3 60-69 64 20.7 Over 70 18 5.8 State of Residence Wisconsin 176 55.2 Minnesota 57 17.9 Illinois 40 12.5 1) Other states 46 14.4 Race Caucasian 292 91.8 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 7 2.2 American Indian 4 1.3 Chinese 1 0.3 Other Asian 2 0.6 Other 2 0.6 Prefer not to answer 10 3.1 Marital status Single, never married 50 15.8 Married or domestic partnership 232 73.2 Separated 2 0.6 Divorced 27 8.5 Widowed 6 1.9 28 Table 3. (cont’d) Frequency % 203 30 18 11 10 3 57 0 64.2 9.5 5.7 3.5 3.2 0.9 18.0 0.0 32 30 51 129 74 1 10.1 9.5 16.1 40.7 23.3 0.3 69 76 174 21.6 23.8 54.5 2) Employment Employed full–time Employed part-time Self-employed Student Homemaker Unemployed Retired Other Education High school Two years’ program/technical school Some college College graduate/professional Post-graduate Other Annual Household Income Less than $50,000 $50,000 - $70,000 More than $70,000 1) Other states include: AZ, CA, CO, IA, IN, MI, MN, MO, NB, ND, NY, OH, SC, TN, TX, WA 2) Multiple selection was allowed Of the winery visitors who responded, almost two-thirds of the respondents were female and half of them were over 50 years old. Approximately 50% of respondents were from Wisconsin, 17.9% were from Minnesota, and 12.5% were from Illinois. The majority were Caucasian (91.8%). Approximately 73% of respondents were married or part of a domestic partnership and 16% were single. Almost 80% of respondents were full-time, part-time, or selfemployed. Most of the respondents were well-educated. Nearly half percent of the respondents had annual household income of more than $70,000 (see Table 3). 29 Descriptive Statistics of Variables Included in Cluster Analysis Table 4. Primary purpose to visit the winery Have a relaxing day out Purchase wine Socialize with friends or family To have a unique experience Learn more about wine For an event Other Meet the winemaker To be entertained Enjoy a rural setting Total Frequency 117 59 54 35 20 15 9 4 3 2 318 Table 5. Selected measures of satisfaction with winery visit Not at all satisfied (%) 1 2 Friendliness of staff (mean = 4.6) 1.0 1.6 Knowledge of staff (mean = 4.6) 0.6 1.3 Tasting room facility (mean = 4.4) 1.0 1.9 Quality of wine (mean = 4.5) 0.6 2.9 Overall experience (mean = 4.6) 0.0 1.9 % 36.8 18.6 17.0 11.0 6.3 4.7 2.8 1.3 0.9 0.6 100.0 Moderately satisfied (%) 3 5.1 6.7 10.9 6.1 3.8 4 21.6 24.1 26.7 26.9 25.5 Table 6. Self-assessed wine knowledge Not knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Knowledgeable Very knowledgeable Total Frequency 49 186 72 10 317 Table 7. Frequency of wine consumption at home Frequency Only on special occasions 28 1 or 2 times per month 89 1 or more times a week 139 Almost everyday 61 Total 317 30 % 15.5 58.7 22.7 3.2 100.0 % 8.8 28.1 43.8 19.2 100.0 Extremely satisfied (%) 5 70.8 67.3 59.5 63.5 68.8 Table 8. Frequency of wine consumption when eating out Frequency Almost never 54 Sometimes 131 Often 82 Almost every time 50 Total 317 Table 9. Percent of wine types consumed by all respondents Percentage of Dry red Dry white Pink/rose total wine wines wines wines consumption (%) (%) (%) 0% 38.6 46.9 53.1 1-20% 16.3 28.9 32.7 21-40% 10.7 13.2 10.7 41-60% 11.9 6.6 1.3 61-80% 11.9 2.2 1.3 81-100% 10.7 2.2 0.9 % 17.0 41.3 25.9 15.8 100.0 Sweet red wines (%) 46.7 24.9 18.0 6.9 1.9 1.6 Sweet white wines (%) 35.2 25.5 21.1 8.8 5.7 3.8 Key descriptive statistics included in the cluster analysis of winery visitors included the purpose of the visit, satisfaction with the visit, wine knowledge, wine consumption at home and when eating out, and types of wine consumed (Tables 4-9). With regard to primary purpose to visit the winery, the top-three purposes were “Have a relaxing day out” (36.8%), “Purchase wine” (18.6%), and “Socialize with friends and family” (17.0%). Overall, most respondents were highly satisfied with the winery. With regard to winery attributes, they were also highly satisfied with friendliness and knowledge of staff, tasting room facilities, and quality of wine. More than half of the respondents indicated that they were somewhat knowledgeable about wine (58.7%) and approximately one-fourth claimed that they were either knowledgeable or very knowledgeable. Twenty-eight percent of respondents consumed wine 1 or 2 times per month and 43.8% of them consumed 1 or more times per week at home. When eating out, 41.3% of respondents consumed wine sometimes and 25.9% of them indicated that they often consumed wine. Among the five different types of wines, the wine type consumed most was sweet white 31 wines. The least consumed wine type was pink/rose wines; more than half the respondents indicated that they did not consume this type of wine. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Table 10. EFA results for motivation (N = 304) LM1 LM2 LM3 LM4 LM5 LM6 LM7 LM8 LM9 EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4 Leisure motivation To relax To taste wine To have a good time with friends and family To taste locally produced wine To support local wine producers To enjoy the atmosphere of the winery To enjoy the scenery To experience a winery in Wisconsin/Minnesota To take part in an event (e.g., music, wedding, and more)* Epistemic motivation To learn about the winemaking process To learn about grape varieties To gain knowledge about wine To learn about how to choose a wine Mean S.D. Factor loadings 4.30 4.53 4.37 4.45 4.42 4.14 4.03 4.28 - 0.99 0.96 1.04 1.03 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.05 - 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.73 - 3.29 3.20 3.57 3.46 1.11 1.05 1.10 1.13 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.70 1 = Strongly agree - 5 = Strongly disagree * Items deleted due to low loadings Table 11. EFA results for perceived values (N = 298) EMV1 EMV2 EMV3 EMV4 PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 Emotional value My visit was enjoyable My visit was pleasant My visit was relaxing My visit made me feel good Price value The wines produced by this winery are less expensive than other wines produced in other regions The wines produced by this winery are reasonably priced The wines produced by this winery offer good value for the money The wines produced by this winery are worth buying 32 Mean S.D. Factor loadings 4.56 4.56 4.44 4.45 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.79 0.70 0.66 0.66 0.63 3.26 0.90 0.87 3.89 0.88 0.85 3.93 0.91 0.74 4.17 0.86 0.49 Table 11. (cont’d) SOV1 SOV2 SOV3 SOV4 WQ1 WQ2 WQ3 EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 AV1 AV2 AV3 SEV1 SEV2 SEV3 Social value Owning a bottle of wine from this winery would improve the way I am perceived by my peers Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression on other people My visit to this winery would make a good impression on other people if they learned of my visit* Giving someone a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression* Wine quality value This winery produces wines of consistent quality This winery produces wines that have a taste I enjoy This winery produces outstanding quality wines Epistemic value My visit to this winery increased my curiosity about wine My visit to this winery was something different or novel My visit to this winery taught me more about wine My visit to this winery taught me more about this winery's products Aesthetic value This winery has a beautiful landscape (e.g., vineyard, rural setting, etc.) This winery is visually appealing This winery has outstanding facilities Service value This winery's staff was personable This winery's staff was professional This winery's staff provided dependable information Mean S.D. Factor loadings 3.15 1.03 0.96 3.36 1.06 0.89 - - - - - - 4.16 4.36 4.20 0.87 0.85 0.92 -0.81 -0.80 -0.76 3.72 1.01 0.86 3.74 3.77 1.02 1.06 0.75 0.60 4.30 0.90 0.54 4.18 1.08 0.89 4.48 4.28 0.76 0.84 0.70 0.66 4.48 4.55 4.44 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.88 1 = Strongly agree - 5 = Strongly disagree * Items deleted due to low loadings Table 12. EFA results for satisfaction with winery visit (N = 316) SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 Friendliness of staff Knowledge of staff Tasting room facility Quality of wine Overall experience 1 = Not at all satisfied – 5 = Extremely satisfied 33 Mean S.D. 4.61 4.58 4.44 4.52 4.62 0.75 0.73 0.85 0.80 0.67 Factor loadings 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.88 Table 13. EFA results for destination loyalty For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to recommend to others For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to DL2 revisit the winery For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to DL3 repurchase the winery's wine DL1 Mean S.D. Factor loadings 4.46 0.83 0.93 4.41 0.92 0.92 4.44 0.88 0.91 1 = To very little extent – 5 = To very great extent Table 14. EFA results for place attachment PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA6 PA7 PA8 No other winery region can compare I feel this winery region is a part of me This winery region means a lot to me I wouldn't substitute another winery region for this one I am more satisfied visiting this winery region than any other Visiting this winery region says a lot about who I am I am very attached to this winery region I go to this winery region because it is close by* Mean S.D. 2.99 3.30 3.35 2.82 2.92 2.93 3.07 - 1.02 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.06 - Factor loadings 0.73 0.83 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.83 0.87 - 1 = Strongly agree - 5 = Strongly disagree * Items deleted due to low loadings Table 15. EFA results for wine involvement MLI1 MLI2 Medium-low involvement I wish to learn more about wine For me, drinking wine is a particularly pleasurable MLI3 experience MLI4 I have a strong interest in wine MLI5 My interest in wine makes me want to visit wine regions MLI6 I find conversations about wine very enjoyable Understanding the complexities of wine production MLI7 provides an exciting challenge MLI8 Deciding which wine to buy is an important decision MLI9 I like to purchase wine that matches the occasion ML20 Many of my friends share my interest in wine* I like to gain the health benefits associated with drinking ML21 wine* 34 Mean S.D. Factor loadings 3.89 0.86 0.99 3.63 1.01 0.81 3.80 3.94 3.59 0.94 0.92 1.00 0.76 0.72 0.69 3.52 1.04 0.68 3.63 3.65 - 1.01 1.01 - 0.60 0.51 - - - - Table 15. (cont’d) HI1 HI2 HI3 HI4 HI5 HI6 High involvement People come to me for advice about wine I am knowledgeable about wine I have invested a great deal in my interest in wine Much of my leisure time is devoted to wine-related activities Wine represents a central life interest for me My interest in wine says a lot about who I am Mean S.D. Factor loadings 2.91 3.44 2.77 1.13 0.93 1.19 -0.88 -0.84 -0.83 2.72 1.17 -0.82 2.83 3.09 1.21 1.09 -0.80 -0.54 1 = Strongly agree - 5 = Strongly disagree * Items deleted due to low loadings Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for motivation, perceived values, wine involvement, satisfaction, and winery loyalty variables (see Tables 10-15). EFA was conducted to reduce the dimension of wine involvement to be included in the cluster analysis. In addition, before conducting PLS-SEM, the dimensionality of latent variables was evaluated first to demonstrate whether the included items were assigned to pre-specified factors. With regard to the motivation factor, the results identified two dimensions—leisure and epistemic motivation. For the perceived values factor, seven dimensions were identified as expected. The wine-involvement factor came out with two dimensions—high and medium-low wine involvement. Satisfaction, place attachment, and winery loyalty factors were unidimensional factors. 35 Cluster Analysis Table 16 Cluster analysis output (mean and percentage value for each cluster) Cluster 1 Cluster 2 (39.0%) (47.2%) Dry red wines (1) 61.1% 12.8% (1) Dry white wines 20.8% 8.3% Sweet red wines (1) 3.8% 24.1% Sweet white wines (1) 5.8% 33.1% Pink/rose wines (1) 3.6% 11.9% (1) Sparkling wines 3.9 9.6 Satisfaction-Overall (2) 4.8 4.8 Satisfaction-Friendliness of staff (2) 4.8 4.8 (2) Satisfaction-Tasting room facility 4.6 4.7 Satisfaction-Knowledge of staff (2) 4.8 4.7 (2) Satisfaction-Quality of wine 4.5 4.8 Frequency of wine consumption when eating out (3) 3.1 2.0 (3) Frequency of wine consumption at home 3.2 2.4 Medium-low involvement (4) -0.5 0.4 (4) High involvement 0.4 -0.2 Wine knowledge (3) 2.4 1.9 Income 2.6 2.1 Age 52.2 47.4 Education (College graduate/professional) 49.1% 28.6% Gender (Female) 79.1% 63.2% Primary purpose of visit the winery (Having a relax day out) 30.9% 42.9% Wines purchased at the winery ($) 63.1 50.6 Recommend to other (2) 4.56 4.70 (2) Revisit the winery 4.48 4.65 Repurchase the winery’s wine (2) 4.39 4.70 Cluster 3 (13.8%) 15.3% 18.7% 15.4% 30.5% 13.9% 6.2 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 2.3 2.6 0.0 -0.3 2.1 2.5 40.5 66.7% 84.6% 30.8% 34.4 3.41 3.51 3.67 (1) Respondents were asked to fill percentage of overall wine consumption consists of the six types of wines. Total for the 6 wines types is equal to 100%. (2) 1-5 point scale; (3) 1-4 point scale; (4) EFA factor score • Cluster 1 (Wine lover): Thirty-nine percent of respondents (n = 110) were classified as wine lovers (Cluster 1). Of these, those consuming dry red wines comprised 61.1% and those consuming dry white wines comprised 20.8%. The average percentages of wine lovers drinking sweet white, sweet red, pink/rose, and sparkling wines were small—5.8%, 3.8%, 3.6%, and, 3.9%, respectively. Overall, respondents were very satisfied with the winery. They were also very satisfied with the friendliness of the staff, the tasting room facility, the staff’s knowledge of wine, and the quality of wine. They consumed wine often when eating 36 out and at home. Lower levels of medium-low involvement and higher levels of high involvement factors indicated that they were a highly wine-involved group compared to the two other clusters. Those respondents were relatively knowledgeable compared to the other two clusters. Approximately 30% of winery visitors’ primary purpose of visiting the winery was to have a relaxing day out. Most of them (79.1%) were female, with high incomes, and half of them were college graduates. The average age was 52. • Cluster 2 (Wine interested): Approximately 47 percent of respondents (n = 133) were classified as wine interested (Cluster 2). Of these, those consuming sweet white and sweet red wines were 33.1% and 24.1%, respectively. A relatively small percentage of respondents drank dry red (12.8%), dry white (8.3%), pink/rose (11.9%), and sparkling wines (9.6%). Overall, they were very satisfied with the winery. They were also very satisfied with the friendliness of the staff, the tasting room facility, the staff’s knowledge of wine, and the quality of wine. They consumed wine sometimes while eating out and at home. Higher levels of medium-low involvement and low levels of high involvement factors indicated that their wine involvement was less than that of Cluster 1. Those respondents were considered to have little knowledge of wines. Forty-three percent of respondents visited the winery primarily to have a relaxing day out. Most of them (63.2%) were female, had a high income, and 28.6% were college graduates. Their average age was 47 years old. • Cluster 3 (Wine Novice): Thirteen percent of respondents (n = 39) were classified as wine novices (Cluster 3). The wine most consumed by wine novices was sweet white (30.5%). Overall, they were moderately satisfied with the winery. They were also moderately satisfied with the friendliness of staff, the tasting room facility, the staff’s knowledge of wine, and the quality of wine. They consumed wine sometimes when eating out and at home. This group 37 was characterized as least involved in wine due to their middle levels of medium-low involvement and low levels of high involvement factors. They were considered, though, as somewhat knowledgeable about wines. Nearly 30% of winery visitors in this group visited the winery to have a relaxing day out. Most of them (84.6%) were female, had a high income, and 66.7% were college graduates. Their average age was 40. Across all respondents, the average amount spent on wines purchased at the winery was $55.20. To find out whether the level of wine consumption differed across these three groups, a one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted. The results indicated that the amount of wines purchased at the winery did in fact differ (F = 3.41, p < 0.05). A post hoc test was conducted to find which pairs of groups differed from each other. The result revealed that wine lovers and wine novices were significantly different from each other (p < .05). Wine lovers spent significantly more on average ($63.10) than wine novices ($34.40). Of the three types of winery-loyalty behaviors—intention to recommend, to revisit the winery, and to repurchase the wines—all levels of intentions were different across the three groups (F = 52.1, p < 0.001; F = 19.9, p < 0.001; F < 16.2, p < 0.001). Post hoc analysis was conducted for each behavioral intention. For the intention to recommend to others, wine novices were significantly different from wine lovers (p < 0.001) and the wine interested (p < 0.001). The intention level of recommending to others on a scale of 1-5 was lower (3.41) for novices than for wine lovers (4.56) and the wine interested (4.70). Wine lovers and the wine interested were not significantly different (p > 0.001) from each other. The same pattern was found for the intention to revisit the winery. Wine novices (3.51) scored significantly lower than wine lovers (4.48, p < 0.001) and the wine interested (4.65, p < 0.001), while there was no difference between wine lovers and the wine interested (p > 0.001). Lastly, intention to repurchase the winery’s wine was 38 significantly different across the three clusters. The wine interested scored the highest (4.70) just slightly higher than wine lovers (4.39, p < 0.05) and much higher than wine novices (3.67, p < 0.001). Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Measurement Model Table 17. Measurement reliability and convergent validity Outer loadings LM1 LM2 LM3 LM4 LM5 LM6 LM7 LM8 EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4 EMV1 EMV2 EMV3 EMV4 Leisure motivation (𝜶 = 0.91) To relax To taste wine To have a good time with friends and family To taste locally produced wine To support local wine producers To enjoy the atmosphere of the winery To enjoy the scenery To experience a winery in Wisconsin/Minnesota Epistemic motivation (𝜶 = 0.84) To learn about the winemaking process To learn about grape varieties To gain knowledge about wine To learn about how to choose a wine Emotional value (𝜶 = 0.96) My visit was enjoyable My visit was pleasant My visit was relaxing My visit made me feel good 39 0.93 Average Variance Extracted 0.63 0.88 0.64 0.97 0.91 Composite Reliability 0.79 0.80 0.68 0.84 0.85 0.81 0.71 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.85 0.79 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.95 Table 17. (cont’d) Outer loadings PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 SOV1 SOV2 WQ1 WQ2 WQ3 EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 AV1 AV2 AV3 SEV1 SEV2 SEV3 Price value (𝜶 = 0.88) The wines produced by this winery are less expensive than other wines produced in other regions The wines produced by this winery are reasonably priced The wines produced by this winery offer good value for the money The wines produced by this winery are worth buying Social value (𝜶 = 0.90) Owning a bottle of wine from this winery would improve the way I am perceived by my peers Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression on other people Wine quality value (𝜶 = 0.92) This winery produces wines of consistent quality This winery produces wines that have a taste I enjoy This winery produces outstanding quality wines Epistemic value (𝜶 = 0.81) My visit to this winery increased my curiosity about wine My visit to this winery was something different or novel My visit to this winery taught me more about wine My visit to this winery taught me more about this winery's products Aesthetic value (𝜶 = 0.87) This winery has a beautiful landscape (e.g., vineyard, rural setting, etc.) This winery is visually appealing This winery has outstanding facilities Service value (𝜶 = 0.93) This winery's staff was personable This winery's staff was professional This winery's staff provided dependable information 40 0.92 Average Variance Extracted 0.74 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.86 0.88 0.64 0.92 0.80 0.96 0.88 Composite Reliability 0.69 0.90 0.94 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.75 0.83 0.77 0.82 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.93 Table 17. (cont’d) Outer loadings SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 DL1 DL2 DL3 PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA6 PA7 MLI1 MLI2 MLI3 MLI4 MLI5 MLI6 MLI7 MLI8 MLI9 Satisfaction (𝜶 = 0.88) Friendliness of staff Knowledge of staff Tasting room facility Quality of wine Overall experience Winery loyalty (𝜶 = 0.91) For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to recommend to others For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to revisit the winery For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to repurchase the winery's wine Place attachment (𝜶 = 0.92) No other winery region can compare I feel this winery region is part of me This winery region means a lot to me I wouldn't substitute another winery region for this one I am more satisfied visiting this winery region than any other Visiting this winery region says a lot about who I am I am very attached to this winery region Medium-low involvement (𝜶 = 0.91) I wish to learn more about wine For me, drinking wine is a particularly pleasurable experience I have a strong interest in wine My interest in wine makes me want to visit wine regions I find conversations about wine very enjoyable Understanding the complexities of wine production provides an exciting challenge Deciding which wine to buy is an important decision I like to purchase wine that matches the occasion 41 0.91 Average Variance Extracted 0.68 0.94 0.85 0.93 0.66 0.92 0.61 Composite Reliability 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.78 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.75 0.81 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.82 0.86 0.80 0.76 0.84 0.82 0.83 0.79 0.72 0.62 Table 17. (cont’d) Outer loadings HI1 HI2 HI3 HI4 HI5 HI6 High involvement (𝜶 = 0.92) People come to me for advice about wine I am knowledgeable about wine I have invested a great deal in my interest in wine Much of my leisure time is devoted to winerelated activities Wine represents a central life interest for me My interest in wine says a lot about who I am 42 Composite Reliability 0.93 0.83 0.76 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.81 Average Variance Extracted 0.70 Table 18. Discriminant validity through Fornell-Larcker (F-L) criterion EMV EM EV HI LM DL MLI EMV 0.95 EM 0.28 0.82 EV 0.61 0.49 0.80 HI 0.14 0.23 0.10 0.84 LM 0.60 0.41 0.47 0.16 0.79 DL 0.45 0.22 0.42 0.01 0.22 0.92 MLI 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.70 0.32 0.12 0.78 PA 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.27 0.18 0.41 0.25 PV 0.61 0.30 0.52 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.27 SA 0.56 0.20 0.48 0.05 0.27 0.69 0.16 SEV 0.72 0.24 0.58 0.06 0.47 0.39 0.24 SOV 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.33 0.26 AV 0.65 0.28 0.56 0.07 0.46 0.43 0.22 WQ 0.62 0.31 0.58 0.05 0.50 0.52 0.20 43 PA PV SA SEV SOV AV WQ 0.81 0.33 0.32 0.25 0.48 0.37 0.42 0.86 0.48 0.52 0.39 0.46 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.37 0.46 0.55 0.94 0.31 0.57 0.62 0.95 0.34 0.38 0.89 0.62 0.92 Table 19. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlation EMV EM EV HI LM DL EMV 1.00 EM 0.31 1.00 EV 0.70 0.58 1.00 HI 0.14 0.26 0.11 1.00 LM 0.64 0.45 0.54 0.16 1.00 DL 0.48 0.25 0.49 0.04 0.23 1.00 MLI 0.33 0.41 0.34 0.77 0.32 0.12 PA 0.29 0.38 0.41 0.28 0.19 0.45 PV 0.64 0.35 0.60 0.08 0.48 0.49 SA 0.60 0.22 0.57 0.08 0.29 0.76 SEV 0.76 0.27 0.67 0.07 0.51 0.43 SOV 0.39 0.38 0.46 0.30 0.30 0.37 AV 0.71 0.32 0.67 0.08 0.50 0.47 WQ 0.66 0.34 0.67 0.07 0.53 0.57 MLI PA PV SA SEV SOV AV WQ 1.00 0.27 0.29 0.16 0.24 0.30 0.22 0.21 1.00 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.52 0.42 0.46 1.00 0.52 0.55 0.44 0.50 0.62 1.00 0.72 0.41 0.51 0.60 1.00 0.34 0.62 0.67 1.00 0.39 0.42 1.00 0.69 1.00 44 Based on the EFA results and theories related to each factor, the use of a PLS-SEM model was appropriate. Before the hypothesis testing, internal consistency of items (reliability), and convergent and discriminant validities were evaluated. For internal consistency, Hair Jr., Sarstedt, Hopkins , and Kuppelwieser (2014) recommended using both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Cronbach’s alpha for the identified dimensions ranged from 0.81-0.96, exceeding the threshold of 0.70. Composite reliability (CR) scores also were over 0.70, indicating that all dimensions had established the measures’ reliability (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014; see Table 17). Convergent validity is intended to evaluate the extent to which indicators in a construct share a high proportion of variance (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). The average variance extracted (AVE) score across all dimensions exceeded 0.5, indicating that more than half the variances were explained by indicators, thus demonstrating convergent validity (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). In addition, all outer loadings (also called, indicator reliability) were significantly loaded on corresponding factors and well-above the threshold value of 0.70 (see Table 17). Discriminant validity was confirmed by Fornell-Larcker (F-L) criterion and heterotraitmonotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. F-L allows one to determine whether a construct shares more variance with related indicators than other constructs (Hair Jr. et al., 2014. ). In Table 18, the correlation between the same constructs (diagonal scores) revealed a higher coefficient than the correlation with other constructs, thus satisfying the F-L criterion. The HTMT ratio of correlations estimate the proportion of the mean of all indicator correlations across two different constructs to the mean of the average correlations of indicators for two corresponding constructs (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). To satisfy discriminant validity, the HTMT statistic for the relationship between two constructs are required to be under 0.85 and the bootstrap confidence interval to not 45 contain a value of 1 (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). All correlation coefficients were under 0.85, thus satisfying discriminant validity. Lower (2.5%) and upper (97.5%) bounds of 95% confidence interval across all pairs of correlations did not contain a value of 1, which demonstrated discriminant validity (see Table 19). Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Aesthetic Value R2=0.23 Epistemic motivation Wine quality Value R2=0.27 Service Value v R2=0.25 Leisure motivation Satisfaction R2=0.49 Social Value R2=0.18 High involvement Mediumlow involvement Price Value R2=0.25 Emotional value R2=0.39 Epistemic Value R2=0.35 ___ p < 0.001, 0.05, 0.1 ----- p > 0.1 Figure 3. PLS-SEM result 46 Loyalty R2=0.51 Place Attachment R2=0.33 Table 20. Collinearity statistic (VIF) EMV EM EV EMV EM EV HI LM DL MLI PA PV SA SEV SOV AV WQ HI LM DL MLI PA PV 3.01 1.29 1.29 SA SEV SOV AV WQ 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 3.01 1.29 1.98 1.98 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 1.97 1.26 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 1.11 1.89 1.89 2.39 1.28 2.10 2.30 2.39 1.28 2.10 2.30 1.11 47 Table 21. Hypothesis testing HP1: MotivationPerceived values Epistemic motivation Emotional value Epistemic motivation  Epistemic value Epistemic motivation  Price value Epistemic motivation Service Epistemic motivation  Social value Epistemic motivation  Aesthetic value Epistemic motivation  Wine quality Leisure motivation  Emotional value Leisure motivation  Epistemic value Leisure motivation  Price value Leisure motivation  Service Leisure motivation  Social value Leisure motivation  Aesthetic value Leisure motivation  Wine quality HP2: Wine involvementPerceived values High involvement  Emotional value High involvement  Epistemic value High involvement  Price value High involvement  Service High involvement  Social value High involvement Aesthetic value High involvement  Wine quality Medium-low involvement  Emotional value Medium-low involvement  Epistemic value Medium-low involvement  Price value Medium-low involvement  Service Medium-low involvement Social value Medium-low involvement Aesthetic value Medium-low involvement Wine quality HP3: Perceived valuesSatisfaction Emotional value Satisfaction Epistemic value Satisfaction Price value Satisfaction Service value  Satisfaction Social value  Satisfaction Aesthetic value Satisfaction Wine quality  Satisfaction 48 Path coefficient t-value 0.00 0.33 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.12 0.54 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.16 0.40 0.43 0.01 5.97* 1.81*** 0.58 3.11* 1.81*** 2.16** 7.34* 5.41* 5.54* 5.51* 2.89* 4.95* 5.94* -0.10 -0.16 -0.17 -0.16 0.22 -0.10 -0.12 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.21 -0.02 0.12 0.10 1.75*** 2.41** 2.36** 2.41** 3.19* 1.43 1.85*** 3.57* 3.36* 3.02* 3.03* 0.29 1.63 1.51 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.43 0.11 0.01 0.14 0.33 0.45 1.57 4.58* 2.23** 0.13 1.99** Table 21. (cont’d) HP4: Perceived valuesPlace attachment Emotional value Place attachment Epistemic value Place attachment Price value Place attachment Service value Place attachment Social value  Place attachment Aesthetic value  Place attachment Wine quality  Place attachment HP5: Satisfaction, Place attachmentWinery loyalty Satisfaction  Loyalty Place attachment  Loyalty Path coefficient t-value -0.15 0.09 0.06 -0.12 0.33 0.16 0.23 1.71 1.39 0.83 1.35 5.74* 2.13** 3.21* 0.62 0.21 12.81* 5.85* *p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.1 Not significant; Significant Before interpreting the structural model output, it is recommended by Hair Jr. et al. (2014) to examine the collinearity of predictor constructs since the estimation of path coefficients is based on OLS regressions. The collinearity among predictor constructs can be examined using the variance inflation factor (VIF). VIF is estimated based on the tolerance (TOL) value, which represents the amount of variance of one construct not explained by the other constructs in the model. VIF is the reciprocal of the tolerance value (1/TOL). Therefore, a small tolerance value (lower than 0.2) and a large VIF value (higher than 5) indicate that the construct shares large variance with other constructs, thus raising the collinearity issue. VIF values indicated that all combinations of constructs were below the threshold of 5, confirming that multicollinearity was not an issue (see Table 20). Next, the significance and relevance of the structural model relationships were assessed. As a part of PLS-SEM procedure, bootstrapping was conducted with the recommended 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). Since PLS-SEM does not assume normal distribution one needs to test significance using a nonparametric bootstrap procedure. This is part of a 49 resampling procedure in which a large number of subsamples are selected from the original sample with replacement (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). Based on 5,000 subsamples and generated standard errors, the hypothesis is tested for whether path coefficients were in fact zero in the population. First, it was hypothesized that perceived values would be impacted more positively and diversely by leisure-based motivation than by epistemic motivation. Epistemic motivation had a positive influence on epistemic value (𝛽 = 0.33, p < 0.001), social value (𝛽 = 0.22, p < 0.001), and weakly to price value (𝛽 = 0.11, p < 0.1), aesthetic value (𝛽 = 0.10, p < 0.1) and wine quality (𝛽 = 0.12, p < 0.05). Among these values, the most strongly related values were epistemic and social values. The second motivation dimension, leisure motivation, was positively related to all types of values. Emotional value (𝛽 = 0.54, p < 0.001) and service value (𝛽 = 0.42, p < 0.01), which were not significant in epistemic motivation, were highly significant. Other values also indicated significant and positive relationships—epistemic value (𝛽 = 0.30, p < 0.001), price value (𝛽 = 0.35, p < 0.001), social value (𝛽 = 0.16, p < 0.001), aesthetic value (𝛽 = 0.40, p < 0.001), and wine-quality value (𝛽 = 0.43, p < 0.001). Thus, more positive and diverse relationships among leisure-based motivation and 7 different perceived values supported Hypothesis 1. The second hypothesis proposed that perceived values will be impacted more positively and diversely by low wine involvement level than by high involvement. While it was expected that highly involved wine drinkers would be slightly more particular about winery attributes, negative relationships across all perceived values, except social value, were unexpected. Those who were highly involved perceived less emotional value (𝛽 = -0.10, p < 0.1), epistemic value (𝛽 = -0.16, p < 0.05), price value (𝛽 = -0.17, p < 0.05), service value (𝛽 = -0.16, p < 0.05), and 50 wine quality value (𝛽 = -0.12, p = 0.1). However, they perceived positive social value (𝛽 = 0.22, p < 0.001). Aesthetic value was not significant. While emotional value (𝛽 = 0.23, p < 0.01), epistemic value (𝛽 = 0.21, p < 0.01), price value (𝛽 = 0.23, p < 0.01), and service value (𝛽 = 0.21, p < 0.01) were significantly and positively predicted by medium-low involvement. Social, aesthetic, and wine-quality values were not significant. While the diversity of the relationships was similar across both high and medium-low involvement, the negative and weak relationships of high involvement, aside from the social value, confirmed Hypothesis 2. The third and fourth hypotheses proposed that these seven values would be positively related with satisfaction and place attachment. Among the seven values, only service (𝛽 = 0.43, p < 0.001), social (𝛽 = 0.11, p < 0.05), and wine quality values (𝛽 = 0.14, p < 0.05) positively influenced satisfaction. Place attachment was positively explained by social (𝛽 = 0.33, p < 0.001), aesthetic value (𝛽 = 0.16, p < 0.05), and wine-quality value (𝛽 = 0.23, p < 0.001). That is, satisfaction and place attachment were partially predicted by three different value types which indicated that Hypotheses 4 and 5 were partially supported. Lastly, place attachment (𝛽 = 0.21, p < 0.001) and satisfaction (𝛽 = 0.62, p < 0.001) positively impacted winery loyalty, which supported Hypothesis 5. The PLS-SEM is mainly used for prediction purposes. In Figure 3, the coefficients of determination (R2values) are illustrated inside each endogenous factor (i.e., dependent variables). The R2 values indicate the combined effects of exogenous factors (i.e., independent variables) on an endogenous factor representing a measure of in-sample predictive power (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). With regard to perceived values dimensions, the R2 ranged from 0.18 (social value) to 0.39 (emotional value) demonstrating medium to high levels of predictive accuracy. The R2 values for satisfaction and place attachment factors were 0.49 and 0.33, respectively. Finally, showing the 51 highest R2 value was winery loyalty with a 0.51. To sum up, all exogenous factors (i.e., independent variables) did well in explaining the endogenous factors. 52 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION Summary of Study Results With regard to profiling winery visitors, three groups were identified, 1) wine lovers, 2) the wine interested, and 3) novices. The wine lover and wine interested groups spent more on wine and were more likely than novices to develop loyalty to the winery. For the relationships with perceived values, all antecedent and resultant factors revealed different relationships. For the motivation factor, the study identified two dimensions—epistemic and leisure motivations. Winery visitors who are epistemically motivated put higher values on epistemic value, followed by social, wine quality, price, and aesthetic values. Leisure-motivated winery visitors put very high values on emotional, wine quality, service, and aesthetic values, followed by price, epistemic, and social values. Two groups were confirmed as exhibiting high and medium-low involvement. High wineinvolved winery visitors only perceived positive social value while placing a negative value on the emotional, epistemic, price, service, and wine quality values. Medium-low wine-involved visitors put a higher value on emotional, epistemic, price, and services values. Winery visitors who perceived (among the seven types of values) value in the service as well as in the social and wine-quality aspects of their winery experience reported higher satisfaction with their visit. Winery visitors felt more attachment to the winery region they visited if they perceived social, aesthetic, and wine-quality values at the winery. Lastly, both satisfaction and place attachment led to winery loyalty. 53 Discussion Profiling Winery Visitors Wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota are part of an emerging industry based on new types of grape varieties. Based on cluster analysis, this study identified distinct market segments for winery visitors in Wisconsin and Minnesota. In Wisconsin and Minnesota, the study identified three types of winery visitors—wine lovers, the wine interested, and wine novices. Factors that describe winery visitors included the following: type of wines consumed, overall and specific level of satisfaction toward winery attributes, wine involvement, wine knowledge, wine consumption at home and when eating out, primary purpose of winery trip, and sociodemographic variables. With regard to wine lovers, the most dominant characteristics that differentiated them from members of the other two groups were type of wines consumed, wine involvement, and wine consumption at home and eating out. Winery visitors in the wine lovers group revealed that their wine consumption consisted on average of 60% dry red wine. In addition, they were the most highly involved with wine, more knowledgeable, and consumed wine more often when eating out and at home. Around half of them had graduated from college. The wine interested revealed that their wine consumption consisted on average of 30% sweet white wine. These group members showed a medium level of wine involvement, consumed wine sometimes when eating out and at home, and possessed a slightly lower level of wine knowledge. Overall, this group possesses a relatively lower percentage of college degrees (28%). Both wine lovers and the wine interested felt high levels of satisfaction in general and with all winery attributes. What most differentiated novices was their level of satisfaction. They were less satisfied with their winery experience in general and with all specific winery attributes. What they drank most 54 was sweet white wine. Their level of wine involvement was the lowest among three groups, though they were rather similar to the wine interested in their level of knowledge, frequency of wine consumption when eating out and at home. Their average age was 40—the youngest of the three groups—and two-thirds of them were highly educated. A common finding among all three groups was that the highest average percentage of main purpose of winery visit was to have a relaxing day out. The three groups were compared with regard to their wine purchase and winery loyalty. Wine lovers spent significantly more on wine than did novices. While the wine interested and novices had slightly different means in terms of purchase amount during their winery visit, there was no statistically significant difference. Novice group members had the lowest levels of winery-loyalty behavioral intentions—to recommend to others, to revisit the winery, and to repurchase the winery wine. Regarding such intentions, the wine interested had the highest level, which was not statistically different than wine lovers. Finally, the largest group was the wine interested, followed by wine lovers (the smallest group being wine novices). In other words, the most representative group appeared to be the wine interested. Details for each variable are illustrated below. First, the current study found that “having a relaxing day out” accounted for the highest percentage of respondents across wine lovers, the wine interested, and wine novices. Even when the data were aggregated, the top purpose of the visit was “having a relaxing day out” (36.8%), while “purchase wine” was only 18.6%. When the third most common reason—“socialize with friends and family” (17.8%)—is added, it can be seen that over half of the visitors were visiting the winery primarily for leisure purposes (not for purchasing wines). This could explain why all three groups’ top purpose of their visit was “having a relaxing day out.” It is likely that this 55 characteristic is common across emerging wine markets. This is contrary to established wine regions known for their wine production and quality, where the primary purpose of visit is most likely to be to taste and purchase wine (Alebaki et al., 2015; Holecek & McCole, 2014; P. W. Williams & Kelly, 2001; Yuan et al., 2005). In the 2012 Michigan winery study, the two most common purposes for a winery visit were “having a relaxing day out” and “socialize with friend and family,” followed by “purchase wine” (Holecek & McCole, 2014). In addition, in Yuan et al.’s study (2005), even though the visitors’ top reason to visit the Indiana Wine and Food Festival was mainly wine related, such as “for wine tasting” and “experience local wineries,” the third most common reason cited for visiting the Festival was “so I could enjoy a day out.” In the case of Williams and Kelly’s wine tourism study (2001), the study background (British Columbia, Canada) was quite similar to that of the current study in that their wineries grew hybrid grapes, were considered part of an emerging wine industry, and took advantage of wine tourism as an outgrowth of rural tourism and sales advantages. Other similarities with the current study are that their winery visitors were mainly local residents and their primary purpose of visiting was not just wine-related activities, but included tourism activities that could be included as part of winery trip. The identified local wine visitors’ attitudinal and behavioral traits, such as destination-selection attributes and satisfaction, suggest the importance of combining both tourism/leisure activities with winery activities. In sum, the findings from the current study along with aforementioned studies imply that there is a shift in the winery industry tourism market away from strictly being a wine sales- and tasting-oriented market to more of a leisure-based tourism market, particularly in emerging wine tourism regions. It is suggested that winery industries will fare better when they feature leisure-based attributes that combine both winery activities and tourism activities available in the wine region. 56 Second, one common demographic detail across these three groups is that the majority of members were women. This is contrary to findings from Europe, such as studies in the UK and Spain. For instance, Bruwer et al.’s study in the UK (2013) stated that highly involved winery visitors were mainly male, while female visitors were classified into less wine involved. MarzoNavarro and Pedraja-Iglesias (2010) also found that Spanish male wine drinkers were classified as interested wine drinkers (consumed wine every day and belonged to a wine club) and female wine drinkers as curious wine drinkers (consumed wine on weekends but did not belong to a wine club). We might also suppose that American wine culture is different from European countries (Kelley, Hyde, & Bruwer, 2015). Several wine-related studies in the United States have found that females are more likely than males to consume wine (Kelley et al., 2015). According to the Wine Market Council (2011), as citied in Kelley et al. (2015), women in the USA comprise 60% of high-end wine buyers. Furthermore, L. Brown and Hershey (2012) explored the characteristics of Wisconsin agritourists and found that more than two-thirds of respondents were female. In addition, as a part of the current project, more than 1,300 winery visitors were asked to provide the gender of each of their group members. The first member as a respondent was likely to be female, and half of the second members were female. When there were third, fourth, and fifth members of the party, the percentage that were female was still more than those that were male. Another reason that winery visitors in Wisconsin and Minnesota were predominantly female could be that the winery is primarily used as leisure place. L. Thach (2012) investigated wine consumption motivations of California wine consumers and their association with gender. The study found that while male wine consumers had higher levels of epistemical motivation, and female consumers were more likely to drink wine to relax and socialize with friends. While it would be difficult to make the generalization that most U.S. wine consumers are female or to 57 avoid respondent bias (i.e., answered mostly by female), it does seem likely that, based on the current study and project as well as other literature, females make up the majority of Wisconsin and Minnesota winery visitors. Another finding of this study is that members of the wine lovers and wine-interested groups are in the baby boomers’ generation (53-71). The youngest group was the novice group. Age seems to be the factor that is hard to generalize across wine tourism studies; depending on the characteristics of winery tourism, age ranges vary widely (Bruwer et al., 2013; L. Thach & Olsen, 2015). In Thach and Olsen’s study (2015), the highest wine spenders were the youngest group (average age 38) and the lowest spenders were the oldest group (average age 49). Income and education was consistent with most other studies; that is, wine tourists tended to be higher income and better-educated visitors than the state population as a whole (Carmichael, 2005; Dodd et al., 2005; Getz & Brown, 2006; Mitchell & Hall, 2001; Tassiopoulos, Nuntsu, & Haydam, 2004). The current study identified three groups and each of them had different levels of wine involvement. Highly involved winery visitors purchased more wines and became more loyal to specific wineries compared. This result was consistent with many segmentation studies that have dealt with wine involvement (G. Brown et al., 2007; Hollebeek et al., 2007; Nella & Christou, 2014; L. Thach & Olsen, 2015). In Brown et al.’s research (2007), among four segments of winery tourists, the highest end group—fastidious epicureans—bought wines most and had the highest records of attending wine tastings. Nella and Christou’s study (2014) also had a result similar to the current study. That is, among high-, medium-, and low-involved groups, the revisit intention of the high-involved group was higher than that of the low-involved group. Low involved group members were also the least likely to make on-site purchases at the winery. 58 The relationship between high levels of wine involvement and high purchase amounts as well as winery loyalty can be supported by diverse involvement models, but it is best explained by the concept of enduring involvement. Involvement generally can be classified into three types—enduring (product), purchase, and brand involvement (L. S. Lockshin et al., 1997). Enduring involvement reflects winery visitors’ value, feeling of interest, and enthusiasm about wine; purchase involvement is related to the purchasing situation itself, such as price of the product and shopping efforts; brand involvement is more about specific brands of wine (L. Lockshin & Spawton, 2001). Enduring involvement was more relevant to the current study due to the characteristics of wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both places were emerging markets, meaning their brand is relatively unknown, and thus brand involvement would be not adequate. Also, measuring purchase involvement would not be appropriate since unlike a wine retailing store, wineries are not just places that sell wine; they also offer/sell other wine-related articles, activities and experiences. Reflecting their high enduring involvement with wine, such visitors might purchase more wine and more easily become loyal to the winery. While highly involved wine visitors have more current sales value in terms of wine sales and their loyalty, wineries should still target the medium to low wine-involved drinker since she has the potential to become a highly-involved wine visitor and to bring others to the winery. With regard to wine knowledge, the wine interested and novices possessed less wine knowledge than wine lovers. That is, those highly involved in wine, in addition to buying the most wine and showing the most winery loyalty, possess high levels of wine knowledge. One thing to keep in mind is that, even for wine lovers, the level of wine knowledge was not extremely high. On a 4-point scale, its group members fell in the self-described range somewhat knowledgeable (2) and knowledgeable (3). 59 To introduce new types of wines, particularly in the tasting room, wineries should understand the wine types that each group prefers to drink. In this study, winery visitors were differentiated mainly into drinkers of dry wines and sweet wines. Wine lovers primarily drank dry red and white wines, with dry red wines accounting for the 61% of their wine consumption. It follows then that they drank very little sweet white and red wines or pink/rose and sparkling wines. The wine interested liked to drink sweet red and white wines. Novices preferred sweet white wines, though they drank some of the other four types (dry red, dry white, sweet red, pink/rose wines). That is, novices’ preferred wine types were less distinct than were those of wine lovers or the wine interested. According to Thach and Chang’s study (2016), in a 2016 nationwide American wine consumer survey, the top-five wine varietals were chardonnay, cabernet sauvignon, merlot, pinot noir, and pinot grigio. This ranking may explain why for wine lovers the most commonly purchased wines were both dry red and white wines. Each group may have preferred different types of wine because of their level of wine involvement and knowledge. The wine interested and the novices were inclined to like sweet wines, and consumed wine less frequently at home and when eating out than did wine lovers. It is generally known that novice wine drinkers prefer to drink sweet wines (Blackman, Saliba, & Schmidtke, 2010; Dodd, Kolyesnikova, & Wilcox, 2010). Dodd et al. (2010) found that compared to sweet-wine drinkers, those who preferred dry wines preferred red to white, were more knowledgeable, drank wines more often, and spent more on purchasing wines. Blackman et al.’s research (2010) also concluded that experienced wine consumers preferred to have wines that had low levels of sweetness. Hence, the classification of dry and sweet wine drinkers could be due to the level of wine involvement, knowledge, and frequency of wine consumption. 60 With regard to amount purchased at wineries, and level of wine loyalty (intention to recommend, revisit, and repurchase winery’s wines), wine lovers and the wine interested both showed higher amounts of wine purchases and levels of loyalty than novices. Despite their differences, wine lovers and the wine interested members showed similar levels of wine purchase amounts and loyalty. The largest difference between novices and the wine interested was their level of winery visit satisfaction. Novices had lower levels of satisfaction in general and were also less satisfied with the friendliness and knowledge of the staff, tasting room facility, and quality of wine. The result was consistent with the service-profit chain model (Gómez, 2010; Heskett et al., 1994; Nowak & Newton, 2006; Shapiro & Gómez, 2014; Yuan & Jang, 2008). The serviceprofit chain model states that satisfaction can lead to customer loyalty, which ultimately leads to revenue growth and profitability (Hogreve, Iseke, Derfuss, & Eller, in press). Diverse winery tourism studies are supported by the findings of the current study. The current study was most similar to Shapiro and Gómez’s study (2014) in that winery visitors’ overall satisfaction corresponded with their spending at wineries and the number of bottles bought. However, Shapiro and Gomez (2014) reported that winery visitors' future intention to repurchase wines was not significantly predicted by their level of satisfaction. This may be due to their use of a dichotomous scale (yes/no) when study participants were asked about repurchase intentions. The current study used a Likert-type scale that also considered their probability to visit. It should be noted, though, that the cluster analysis did not aim to identify a predictive relationship between higher satisfaction, and increasing wine purchase and loyalty. In sum, it can be seen that each of these three groups was distinct. Each represented a different level and type of wine and winery tourism-related factor. Segmentation analysis does 61 not confirm pre-existing well-identified types of winery visitors; rather it is an exploratory approach. The segmented groups, thus, reflected more the specific characteristics of Wisconsin and Minnesota wineries than general types of winery visitors. These three groups (wine lovers, the wine interested, and novices) represent the customers of wineries located in Wisconsin and Minnesota. These businesses are small- to medium-sized emerging firms that use new types of cold hardy grapes that are resistant to cold northern weather. The wineries are visited mostly by local visitors for leisure purposes. Antecedents and Consequence of Winery Visitors’ Perceived Values In this study, winery visitors in responding to certain winery attributes perceived different values, depending on their motivation and wine involvement. When each value perceived by them exceeded their expectations, the value led to their satisfaction and place attachment. Ultimately, these satisfied and attached winery visitors were more likely to become loyal customers. The current study investigated whether winery visitors could perceive value differently depending on their type of motivation and level of wine involvement (H1-2). Researchers have shown that people evaluate products differently depending on personal needs, expectations, and previous experiences (Gounaris, Tzempelikos, & Chatzipanagiotou, 2007). According to expectancy-disconfirmation theory, people evaluate products positively if the perceived quality exceeds their expectations and negatively if the perceived quality fails to meet expectations (Oliver & Swan, 1989). Since perceived value originates in cognitive evaluation, it is more likely to be influenced by the pre-visit stage of winery visitors’ characteristics, such as motivation and wine involvement (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). 62 With regard to motivation, a two-factor solution was identified as epistemic and leisure motivation. The current study adopted the Grybovych et al.’s (2013) winery motivation scale. In their study, Grybovych and colleagues found that motivation involved three factors—epistemic motivation, motivation to gain authentic experience, and to have a good time. The context of Grybovych et al.’s study (2013) was Northeast Iowa. This context is geographically and sociodemographically similar to that of the current study. The epistemic factor was consistent with the study, though the two latter factors were merged into one. This could be because both gaining authentic experiences at wineries and having a good time can be part of one’s leisure time. Thus, along with epistemic motivation, a second factor was named leisure motivation. Motivation is a needs-based construct that it is more likely to generate positive value if winery experiences meet visitors’ needs (Y. H. Kim, Kim, & Wachter, 2013). For the relationship with perceived value, those who were epistemically motivated were more likely to perceive epistemic and social values. While they also perceived positive price, aesthetic and wine-quality values, the relationships were weak. Service and emotional values were not significant. Meanwhile, those who were motivated to visit the winery for leisure purposes perceived positive value across all types of value, with emotional value being the highest followed by wine quality, price and service values, while the social value being the lowest. Thus, it can be seen that depending on winery visitors’ motivation, they perceived value differently. Those who were motivated to visit for leisure based reasons were more likely to perceive emotional value, which is plausible as leisure activities originate as hedonic experiences (Y. H. Kim et al., 2013). In addition, positive and strong relationships with other values could imply that they more easily perceived positive value toward winery attributes. They perceived generally high values across all attributes possibly because as they visited the winery for leisure, 63 they were relatively generous about its features. This seems likely since depending on winery visitors’ expectations, each can perceive value differently. For instance, Dabestani, Shahin, Shirouyehzad, and Saljoughian (2017) identified two types of customer groups, one of which had lower expectations of hotel service quality before they came but left with higher perceptions of it. The other group reacted in an opposite manner. The first group was referred to as ordinary customers and the second as fastidious customers. Both groups prioritized the importance of services differently (Dabestani et al., 2017). Similar to ordinary customers, leisure-motivated winery visitors, thus, are likely to have relatively low expectations of winery attributes and generally positive perceptions of value toward all winery features. The positive and strong relationship between epistemic motivation and perceived epistemic value was quite straightforward. It has been known that those who are interested in wines are more eager to learn and gain some mastery of wine knowledge (Famularo et al., 2010). Key benefits that those visitors may have expected include obtaining diverse wine knowledge, such as ways of storing and tasting wines, understanding the linkages between food and wine, and tasting notes (Charters & Ali-Knight, 2000). Charters and Ali-Knight (2000) emphasized the benefits of wine education as well as the demand for it in winery tourism context which is further highlighted in this study. In addition, while the leisure-motivated visitors perceived lower social value, those who were epistemically motivated perceived higher social value. According to Wolf, Morrish, and Fountain (2016), those who have intermediate knowledge about wine are more eager to learn about wine not only so they can choose better wines, but to improve their social status. Currently, wines are widely available for all types of consumers, yet they are still considered as luxury products (Villanueva, Castillo-Valero, & García-Cortijo, 2015). Hence, a wine consumer’s 64 confidence in his or her wine knowledge can be a part of a luxury experience that can enhance one’s self-identify in a more desired way. Cliff, Bejaei, King, and McArthur (2016) empirically demonstrated that those who received wine education significantly increased their level of confidence about wines. The reason that those who are eager to learn about wines perceived higher positive social value could be due to their underlying motivation to achieve a luxury experience accrued from enhanced wine knowledge. Understanding winery visitors’ motivation could be critical in wine tourism research since the behaviors of visitors differ from the behavior of those purchasing wine at retail stores. In particular, it is important to identify whether wine consumers’ behaviors are leisure or ordinary purchasing-related behaviors. Leisure is defined by three dimensions, autonomy or a sense of freedom, a sense of competence (i.e., intrinsic reward), and an enjoyable social experience. Iso-Ahola (1999) emphasized that it is hard to consider obligatory, non-work activity such as house chores and free-time activity (e.g., watching TV) as leisure activities since these two lack a sense of competence or social interaction, even though they may be done with some sense of freedom. Winery visitors’ self-determined leisure motivation could be derived from achievement through learning about wines, social interaction with like-minded people, and enjoyment of winery experiences. Merely purchasing wines at retail stores is less likely to achieve such benefits. Both leisure and epistemic motivations that are identified in this study could be considered as leisure-related motivations. However, more diverse and positive relationships between leisure motivation and seven different winery attributes imply that winery visitors’ leisure activities are motivated more from their social interaction and enjoyment than a sense of competence that derived from learning about wines. 65 In addition to motivation, wine involvement was included as a pre-trip winery visitor characteristic. The current study utilized the wine involvement scale (WIS) that was adopted from G. Brown et al. (2007). The WIS was constructed based on Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) consumer-involvement profile scale, which is based on enduring involvement. The WIS also added items tailored to wine leisure and travel activities. G. Brown et al. (2007) identified three sub-dimensions to the consumer-involvement profile—expertise, enjoyment, and symbolic centrality. The current study identified two sub-dimensions—high and medium-low involvement. High-involvement items were consistent with the expertise factor, while the rest of the enjoyment and symbolic centrality items were combined into one factor. Since items related to enjoyment and symbolic centrality represent a relatively lower involvement level than the expertise factor, the current study called this factor medium-low involvement. Low-involvement in this study, however, does not mean one had no interest about wines. The current study targeted not the general population but individuals who had already visited at least one winery. Hence, those medium-low involved winery visitors appear to have at least some interest in wines and winery visits. Being highly involved in wine was positively related only with social value; the other values—emotional, epistemic, price, service, and wine quality—were weakly and negatively related. It was anticipated that winery visitors highly involved with wine would evaluate winery attributes a bit more fastidiously than visitors with medium-low involvement; negative relationships were unexpected. With regard to medium-low involved winery visitors, they perceived positively the emotional, epistemic, price, and service values. Hence, it can be seen that depending on their level of wine involvement, winery visitors can perceive winery attributes differently. These different relationships might be explained by Stebbins’ serious and casual 66 leisure perspective. Serious leisure is defined as “the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer core activity that is highly substantial, interesting, and fulfilling and where, in the typical case, participants find a career in acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and experience” (Stebbins, 1992, p. 3). Casual leisure is defined as “immediately, intrinsically rewarding, relatively short-lived pleasurable activity requiring little or no special training to enjoy it” (Stebbins, 1997, p. 18). High and medium-low involvement visitors can be explained by serious and casual leisure, respectively. Ravenscroft and van Westering (2001) applied the serious leisure concept to wine tourism to explain winery visitors’ leisure and tourism practices. They asserted that one of the main motivations of serious leisure is to be part of a socially distinct group, membership to which signifies one’s prestige. Accordingly, their special skills, knowledge, and experiences are not just for finding the best wines or to have hedonic experiences, but to be able to socially communicate with like-minded people or to express their social-status. Those winery visitors who belong to the serious leisure group are less likely to be concerned about the price, a multi-sensory wine experience, or the wine brand (Hollebeek et al., 2007; Ravenscroft & van Westering, 2001). Rather, they might prefer wines that are only recognizable to a committed group (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010). Researchers have found that this phenomenon is more dominant if the product is perceived as a luxury item (Berthon, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2009; Pratt & Sparks, 2014; Roy & Rabbanee, 2015; Shukla & Purani, 2012). Accordingly, those highly involved in wine may have perceived only social value because they highly valued their social image, which could be enhanced by visiting and consuming wines at wineries. In contrast, medium-low involved winery visitors, as a group that pursue casual leisure, might be concerned more about their instant hedonic experiences at wineries and more likely to 67 put importance on their feeling of enjoyment and pleasure. This point is supported by their positive relationship with emotional value. In addition, medium-low involved winery visitors might expect to have more diverse winery experiences and thus perceived more diverse values within the winery attributes. Ravenscroft and van Westering (2001) differentiated winery tourists as “others” from the socially distinct group (serious leisure group) and considered them as those who come to experience a part of the wine world. That is, those medium-low involved visitors might be closer to conventional tourists, while highly involved winery visitors might be considered as individuals who enjoy everyday leisure activities. Medium-low involved visitors might purchase wines as souvenirs and gifts or for later consumption, but since that is not a part of their daily purchase routine, visitors might care more about the price of wines. They are also likely to perceive winery services as having high value, since winery employees play an important role in choosing appropriate wines and creating a positively memorable winery experience (Charters, Fountain, & Fish, 2009; O'Neill & Charters, 2000). This is particularly applicable to those who need more knowledge about wines. In sum, these are reasons why those medium-low involved visitors may have perceived high and positive values for the emotional, epistemic, price, and services values. Next, this work explored the relationship among perceived value, satisfaction, and place attachment (H3-4). The theory of consumption value states that consumer choice is a function of multiple consumption values (Sheth et al., 1991b). Since the theory has been published, however, an increasing number of studies have demonstrated that satisfaction and place attachment mediate the relationship between perceived value and behavioral intention (Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Gounaris et al., 2007; Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014; Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015; Xu & Zhang, 2016). In this study, perceived value factors that contribute to both satisfaction and 68 place attachment were wine quality and social values, which ultimately led visitors to revisit and recommend wineries, and repurchase the winery’s wine. In addition, service and aesthetic value predicted satisfaction and place attachment, respectively. While Carlsen and Boksberger’s study (2015) considered wine quality as less pronounced in a wine-tourism context, the current study indicated that wine quality is still an important factor that can increase winery visitors’ level of satisfaction and place attachment. This could be because wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota are still emerging tourism markets and are thus characterized by the original functions of wineries—serving and selling wines. In traditional wine-consumption studies, several have emphasized the importance of wine quality to improve wine sales (Charters & Pettigrew, 2007; Stoddard & Clopton, 2015). Griffin and Loersch’s study (2006), though, found that wine quality is also an important factor determining winery tourists’ experience. They measured winery visitors’ expectations and the importance of winery attributes in determining a quality experience in an emerging wine region (Canberra District, Australia). Interestingly, while visitors rated that wine quality was highly important, they had relatively low expectations of the wine quality of the visited winery. This implies that maintaining wine of good quality is still critical to determining winery visitors’ satisfaction. A factor that led to both satisfaction and place attachment, which ultimately leads to winery loyalty, was social value. Social value is defined as “the utility derived from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept” (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001, p. 211). Winery visitors can perceive social value by purchasing a winery’s wines that may enhance their social self-concept. According to self-congruency theory, people are more likely to purchase products that can reflect their self-concept and the norm of the group belonged to (Wolf et al., 2016). Hence, purchasing and consuming wines can help individuals express their shared norms and become close to their 69 ideal self-concept (Wolf et al., 2016). Included in this study were two social value items— “Owning a bottle of wine from this winery would improve the way I am perceived by my peers” and “Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression on other people.” Individuals who rated high on these items displayed their wine consumption / purchasing behaviors as part of enhancing their social self-concept. What kinds of social self-concepts can be derived from owning and consuming wine? Wine is generally considered a high-end luxury product (Wolf et al., 2016). Accordingly, winery visitors’ perceived social value could be derived from status value. Status value may be contrasted with conspicuous value, which mainly concerns expressing one’s wealth. Status value is primarily about one’s desire to earn prestige by having products (Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009). The positive relationship between perceived social value at the winery and factors related to post-visit evaluation could thus imply that wineries’ attributes in Wisconsin and Minnesota are well enough equipped to make visitors feel prestige, leading to a sense of satisfaction and place attachment. Similar to the current research, Pratt and Sparks (2014) found that those who match better between their own self-concept and a winery’s image, were more likely to have positive attitudes toward winery tourism and make them visit the winery. Prebensen, Chen, and Uysal’s study (2014) also measured tourists’ perceived social value toward general nature and cultural tourism destinations, which was not, however, a major value that contributed to their overall value perception. It seems that understanding visitors’ social value is important when the product represents prestige and social status (Sheth et al., 1991b; Tynan, McKechnie, & Chhuon, 2010). For satisfaction and place attachment, only service value led to a positive effect on satisfaction. Carlsen and Boksberger's (2015) meta-analysis found that two key wine tourism 70 attributes that can enhance winery visitors’ experience were service and setting. Consistent with this study, service value was the strongest factor explaining satisfaction. In a winery setting, service value that reflects winery staff’s expertise in wines as well as good hospitality is a key factor contributing to wine sales and satisfaction (Carmichael, 2005; Dodd & Gustafson, 1997; Gill et al., 2007; Marlowe, Brown, & Zheng, 2016; O'Neill & Palmer, 2004; O'Neill, Palmer, & Charters, 2002; Su et al., 2011). Gill et al. (2007) found that among different types of winery values, satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between service value and behavioral intention (e.g., repurchase intention, recommend to other). This implies an importance to building sequential relationships among service value, satisfaction, and visitors’ loyalty. In this study, since the main purposes of visiting the winery were mostly leisure-based, services that meet their requirement could be vital for a satisfying winery experience. Those who are not so familiar with wines would more likely rely on winery staff. The role of the staff would thus greatly impact visitors’ satisfaction. In addition to social and wine quality value, aesthetic value was positively related with place attachment. Place attachment is defined as an emotional and affective connection between an individual and a particular place (Kil, Holland, Stein, & Ko, 2012). While there are diverse reasons to be attached to a particular place, a growing number of studies have demonstrated that positive recreational and tourism experiences could make visitors form an emotional and affective connection with the tourism destination (Beery & Jönsson, 2017; Gross & Brown, 2008; Kil et al., 2012; Loureiro, 2014). For instance, Cardinale et al.’s study (2016) found that winery visitors’ positive experiences—relaxing, educational, entertaining, aesthetical and well-served tasting of good products—resulted in emotional attachment to the wine region, which led to place loyalty. In the current study, winery visitors who perceived wine quality, social and 71 aesthetic values had positive memories of their winery visit experience, which resulted in attachment to the wine region. Particularly, aesthetic value had more meaningful implications since items indicating the value concerned the visual attractiveness of the wine regions and the tasting room. Wine tourism studies have emphasized the importance of having, as a supplementary service, aesthetic elements in a winery experience (Byrd, Canziani, Hsieh, Debbage, & Sonmez, 2016; P. Williams, 2001). This indicates that to make winery visitors be emotionally connected, wineries need to have visually attractive landscapes and facilities. Price, emotional, and epistemic values did not contribute to satisfaction and place attachment. Value perception is considered a cognitive evaluation while satisfaction and place attachment are considered affective responses. Accordingly, it is likely that the preceding cognitive evaluations of price, emotional and epistemic winery attributes did not lead to positive emotional outcomes (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). As Carlsen and Boksberger (2015) found, the most basic concept in value perception is value-for-money. Nevertheless, price value was not a major factor that led to satisfaction and place attachment in the wine tourism setting. In addition, since satisfaction in this study is related with visitors’ tasting room experience and place attachment pertains to the wine region, price value might be not applicable in this setting. Nonetheless, researchers have still found that, in a retailing setting, one of the important factors when purchasing wine is price (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; L. Thach & Chang, 2016). A winery’s epistemic value failed to make winery visitors feel satisfied or attached to the winery’s region. Such a relationship with satisfaction was unexpected since tasting room visitors are more likely to rely on and interact with winery personnel to get information and knowledge about wine. Nonetheless, the result was consistent with Gill et al.’s study (2007) that knowledge 72 value did not lead to behavioral intention. Interestingly, Pikkemaat, Peters, Boksberger, and Secco (2009) also found that winery tourists rated educational experiences as the least important in their winery visit. Charters and Ali-Knight (2000) investigated in greater detail winery visitors’ attitudes toward the different types of wine knowledge offered. Winery visitors were mostly interested in ways of consuming and selecting wines and less interested in the production of wine. Perhaps for epistemic value to lead to satisfaction, the winery should provide appropriate information that could enhance one's experience at a winery. The other reason could be due to the form or method of conveying wine knowledge. To lead to satisfaction, a winery might need to offer more impressive wine education than just printed information, say, entertainmentthemed winery events, wine-related classes, and winery tours (Carlsen & Boksberger, 2015). The winery owner survey in the current study found that few wineries offered such services. Since it is well-known that knowledgeable wine drinkers are more likely to buy wines, enlightening winery visitors with entertainment-based education that increases positive emotion could contribute to winery visitors’ satisfaction as well as place attachment (Charters & Ali-Knight, 2000; Famularo et al., 2010). Carlsen and Boksberger (2015) particularly called for an empirical examination of emotional value. However, insignificant relationships with both satisfaction and place attachment were unexpected since these two post-visit factors are emotion- and affection-oriented evaluations (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; D. R. Williams & Vaske, 2003). This might imply that the winery needs to provide more memorable experiences that not only compel visitors to perceive more emotional value, but ultimately can lead to satisfaction and an emotional connection with the place. At a winery, factors that can evoke one’s emotion are diverse—the design of the winery, its atmosphere, the staff’s engagement with visitors, and the wine quality (Charters et al., 2009; 73 Ferrarini et al., 2010; Pan, Su, & Chiang, 2008). Staging and designing memorable experiences for customers have been emphasized by Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) experience economy. However, to make those experiences more satisfying and emotionally attaching, it seems critical that winery owners understand their visitors’ expectations. Pikkemaat et al. (2009) investigated both the supply and demand sides of winery attributes that could engender memorable experiences and found a discrepancy between winery owners and visitors. Since emotional value is inclined more to individual-oriented value, emotional experiences related to these winery attributes need to be designed and tailored to individual winery visitors’ needs. Lastly, both satisfaction and place attachment positively predicted winery visitors’ destination loyalty (H5). Satisfaction in particular was strongly related with destination loyalty. That is, winery visitors who felt satisfaction were more likely to recommend the winery to others, revisit the winery, and purchase the winery’s wine. The relationship between satisfaction and winery loyalty was the expected result as it has been demonstrated by numerous studies in diverse contexts (Ahrholdt, Gudergan, & Ringle, 2016; C.-F. Chen & Chen, 2010; Gounaris et al., 2007; Prayag & Ryan, 2012). Studies related to wines were no exception. Due to the growth in popularity of winery tourism, an increasing number of studies have explored winery visitors’ satisfaction with their experiences and its relationship with winery loyalty (X. Chen et al., 2016; Y. G. Kim, Suh, & Eves, 2010; T. H. Lee & Chang, 2011; L. S. Lockshin et al., 1997; Macintosh & Lockshin, 1997; Rundle-Thiele, 2005). This implies that compared to past studies that focused on wine purchases, what has become critical to securing winery visitors’ loyalty is understanding that satisfaction is derived from a diverse winery tourism experience. A relatively new approach in the tourism context is examining the relationship between place attachment and tourism destination loyalty. This relationship is now considered an 74 important concept that can help us understand tourists’ emotional connection with the tourism destination (J. Lee et al., 2012; T. H. Lee & Shen, 2013; Loureiro, 2014; Su et al., 2011; Xu & Zhang, 2016). Place attachment, however, may have a weaker relationship with tourism destination loyalty than with satisfaction since place attachment generally requires a longer-term relationship with the place or special and memorable experiences that can evoke one’s emotions (C.-T. Tsai, 2016). A relatively weaker relationship with place attachment than with satisfaction is consistent with Xu and Zhang’s study (2016). It was found that with regard to the city visited (Hangzhou, China), both domestic and international tourists’ satisfaction had a stronger relationship to destination loyalty than to place attachment. However, place attachment is still an integral part for the success of winery tourism since it has been known that those who feel attached to a place are more actively engaged to protect and enhance it (Gerard Kyle et al., 2003; S.-p. Tsai, 2012). Accordingly, providing winery visitors with experiences that are memorable and emotional enough to make them feel attached to the wine region would be valuable in generating loyal customers. Theoretical and Practical Implications Theoretical Implications The current work is mainly made up of two studies. One classifies winery visitors based on their wine-consumption behaviors and winery-tourism activities. The other investigates the relationship among winery visitors’ pre-, during-, and post-trip behaviors. In this section, several important theoretical and practical implications are identified. One of the most fundamental and systematic approaches to investigating consumers is cluster analysis. It classifies people into groups that share the most similarities (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011). Since classified groups are mainly determined by variables included, it is critical to identify 75 variables that can represent target behaviors. Winery tourism is an industry created through a combination of winery and tourism. Accordingly, finding factors that can represent each of these industries is integral to understanding both wine consumption behaviors and wine tourism activities. While several researchers have classified winery visitors based on wine consumption behavior, relatively few studies have segmented winery visitors based on tasting room experiences (Bruwer & Li, 2007; Marzo-Navarro & Pedraja-Iglesias, 2010; Mitchell & Hall, 2001; Nella & Christou, 2014). The current study has included factors related to winery tourism activities, including the purpose of visit and level of satisfaction with the different winery attributes. It does include winery visitors’ wine consumption behaviors, which are drawn from Bruwer and Li’s (2007) wine-related life style (WRL) scale. Also, the study investigates whether there is any group difference in terms of wine sales and winery loyalty. Lastly, while most small and emerging wineries sell their wine directly to winery visitors, to the best of the author’s knowledge, only one study has included total wine purchase amount (Shapiro & Gómez, 2014). By identifying winery visitors’ wine spending, the current study can see the actual behavioral relationship with their winery experience instead of the behavioral intention and establish a baseline of winery tourism spending at the participating wineries. With regard to research concerning to winery experiences, there are several theoretical implications. In marketing, it is common to measure ongoing evaluations of product attributes with the concept of perceived value. In tourism studies, though, this is relatively new (Kuo, Wu, & Deng, 2009; Mathis, Kim, Uysal, Sirgy, & Prebensen, 2016; Prebensen & Xie, 2017; Sheth et al., 1991b; Swait & Sweeney, 2000). In tourism research, tourists’ evaluations of their experience have generally been measured through their post-visit experience, such as satisfaction (Neal, Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Perceived value is effective when on-site 76 cognitive evaluation is needed (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Thus, Carlsen and Boksberger (2015) have called for empirical evaluations of winery visitors’ perceived value toward winery attributes that can enhance their experience. Reflecting the necessity of understanding on-site experiences, the current study empirically measured the winery visitors’ perceived value toward winery attributes as well as its impact on post-visit evaluation. While it has been known that perceived value is a multidimensional factor, most tourism studies have measured perceived value as unidimensional (C.-F. Chen & Tsai, 2008; Gounaris et al., 2007; Prebensen, Woo, et al., 2014). These studies generally investigated the extent of perceived value and its impacts, which makes it harder to identify which types of perceived value have the strongest impacts on tourists’ behaviors. A few studies have used the multidimensional approach of studying perceived value that was effective when identifying factors, which mostly contribute to post-visit evaluation (C.-K. Lee et al., 2007; Petrick & Backman, 2002). In winery tourism research, this approach is rarely seen. By exploring perceived value toward individual winery attributes, this study can find the factors that are most effective and thus identify areas that wineries need to improve. In addition, the current study includes visitors’ level of wine involvement and their motivation to visit. Demonstrating relationships with the winery attributes could provide more accurate implications when targeting specific types of customers. To the author’s knowledge, however, no study has addressed the question of who perceived more or less value regarding different winery attributes. Carlsen and Boksberger (2015) and Prebensen et al. (2012) have called for the inclusion of involvement and motivation to represent tourists’ needs, values, and interests, thus shedding light on tourists’ perceived value. The current study demonstrates that 77 the level of involvement and type of motivation do in fact lead winery visitors to perceive values differently. The measures of perceived value, wine involvement, and motivation are drawn from, respectively, Gill et al.’s wine cellar study (2007), Grybovych et al.’s winery involvement scale (2013), and Brown et al.’s wine involvement scale (2007). While perceived value, involvement, and motivation are well-established concepts, scales that tailor to winery tourism are still relatively new. Even though the current study does not aim to confirm the dimensionality of these factors, different numbers of sub-dimensions between the current study and studies that adopted scales confirmed the need to further explore the dimensionality of each factor. Lastly, the current study used place attachment as a post-trip evaluation factor. Place attachment has been studied for a long time in environmental psychology and sociology, but recently it has become an important concept to explain tourism experiences at a destination. While brand attachment is relatively common in wine consumer research, no study has explored the relationship between winery tourism experiences and place attachment. The positive relationship with several winery attributes and its impact on winery loyalty suggested the importance of evaluating the level of attachment of winery tourists. Most of the pioneering studies related to wineries were conducted in Australia and in famous wine regions, such as California, the results of which were not especially applicable to the current study context. Inconsistent results with the existing literature indicate that winery visitors’ behaviors can differ depending on winery context. In sum, the current study contributes to the wine tourism literature especially in the context of the small and emerging winery tourism market in the United States. 78 Practical Implications Based on this research, several practical implications are available for winery owners. Small emerging wineries that want to integrate themselves into the tourism industry must understand the various types of winery visitors as well as winery attributes that can enhance their visitors’ experience. A profiling study found that the most valuable groups in terms of wine sales and winery loyalty were the wine lover and wine-interested groups. The group that contributed least was the wine novice group. It is important that winery owners and personnel be able to identify factors that can classify winery visitors into these three groups. The factors that contributed most to the difference were wine type, wine involvement, wine consumption behaviors and satisfaction. First of all, those who made up the most highly wine-involved group were wine lovers, a group that as a whole preferred to drink dry red and white wines. The wine-interested group preferred to drink sweet red and white wines. Their level of involvement was lower than that of the wine lover group. Wine lovers consumed wine more frequently when eating out as well as at home than did the wine-interested group. Hence, winery or tasting room personnel could ask several simple questions that could enable them to estimate their visitors’ level of wine involvement and their frequency of wine consumption. They would thus be able to recommend appropriate wines for each group. Half of all winery visitors belonged to the wine-interested group which could imply that they are the most representative winery customers. This group, as well as the novice group, preferred drinking sweet wines. That is, almost two-thirds of wineries visitors who are medium to low wine-involved drinkers prefer to drink sweet wines. Since sweet wines made from cold- 79 hardy grapes are widely available in Wisconsin and Minnesota, wineries primarily serving wines made from cold-hardy grapes could benefit from targeting these two groups. Winery tourism is distinguished by being a combination of the winery and tourism sectors. Some visitors might visit the winery just for the wine consumption or wine purchase itself, while others might visit for the tourism experience of spending a leisurely portion of a day at a winery. However, many appear to visit with both broad motivations in play. Those the wine novice group might be more likely to be visiting as part of tourism. Their wine involvement is the lowest and their wine preference is less distinct than the other two groups. Such characteristics could be good indicators to help staff identify this tourist group. However, the novice groups’ lower level of satisfaction as well as their lower amount of wine purchases and loyalty levels could suggest that one component crucial to a winery’s revenue is visitors’ satisfaction. Tourism experience-based winery activities might be beneficial to those who visit the winery more for tourism purposes. In contrast, a highly wine-involved group might be better served with more wine-related activities. In sum, winery personnel need to have good communication skills that can aid in the identifying of these winery groups. Other key factors that could increase a winery’s revenue are the providing of good quality wines as well as offering professional, dependable, and knowledgeable services. What could further help in identifying customers is a database that includes visitors’ information regarding the factors included in the profiling study. Wineries could do this by asking their visitors to fill out a short survey. Especially, by requesting their e-mail address, a winery could send promotional information related to wines as well as winery news tailored to each group. 80 In addition to profiling, winery visitors’ perceived value toward available winery experiences were investigated in greater detail. Results suggest that the attributes wineries ought to focus on are their social image and their wine quality. When these attributes were perceived positively by winery visitors, it contributed to both satisfaction and place attachment. In addition, visitors’ satisfaction and place attachment were significantly impacted by, respectively, the staff’s services and the winery’s appearance and surrounding landscape. Leisure-motivated winery visitors appear to be the most valuable customers since they perceived most extensively the values of service, wine quality, and aesthetics. The social value was perceived positively by epistemic-motivated customers along with those who were highly involved with wine. Mediumlow involved visitors perceived positive service value. Ultimately, those who were satisfied with and attached to the wine region were more likely to become loyal to the winery. Pine and Gilmore (1998, p. 98) stated that “all satisfied experience occurs when a company intentionally uses services as the stage, and goods as props, to engage individual customers in a way that creates a memorable event” (p. 98). Accordingly, to provide a satisfying experience and to facilitate tourists becoming emotionally connected with the wine region, winery owners need to stage experiences that are appropriately tailored and targeted to different types of winery visitors. For visitors who are leisure-motivated and medium-low involved, wineries need to be prepared to have well-trained winery personnel, quality wine, and visually appealing winery decor, facilities, and landscape (e.g., vineyard, pastoral setting, and so on). Winery personnel need to be trained in such a way that they possess professional and dependable wine knowledge. They should also be able to provide appropriate information so that visitors can be entertained and get help tasting and purchasing wines. In addition, the winery personnel also have to have 81 effective marketing skills that can enhance the value of wine quality. Several studies have demonstrated that to those who are not wine experts, the quality of wine can be determined by subjective factors, such as bottle appearance, winery service, consumption location and more (Charters & Pettigrew, 2007; L. S. Lockshin & Timothy, 1993; Martínez-Carrasco Martínez, Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá, Del Campo Gomis, & Martínez Poveda, 2006; E. C. Thach & Olsen, 2006; Verdú Jover, Lloréns Montes, & Fuentes Fuentes, 2004). While objective wine quality is the most important attribute, winery visitors’ satisfaction might not just stem from the taste itself, but from the tasting experience, well-decorated winery facilities, an authentic atmosphere, and a beautiful surrounding landscape (Charters & Pettigrew, 2007). In addition, being able to identify winery visitors’ level of involvement as well as their motivation is important for staff who are choosing the right wine for medium- to low-involved visitors. In fact, this is the most critical ability of winery personnel since perception of wine quality can be influenced by visitors’ preferred taste, not by objective evaluation of the wine quality. For epistemically motivated and high wine-involved visitors, the winery might need more special experiences that can enhance the visitor's social image. Winery personnel need to be well-trained to serve these winery visitors and make them feel they are persons of high prestige. It is likely that visitors expect to hear some highly professional wine knowledge that is comprehensible only to wine experts. In addition, they might want to purchase and know more about vintage and luxury wines that are exclusive to wine experts. These winery visitors might be able to perceive high social value, if wineries are staged as a luxury experience. A winery does not necessarily need to be genuinely authentic or luxurious, but they can provide a luxury experience by providing high-quality service and providing an atmosphere that exudes elegance. 82 These days, an increasing number of luxury products advertise their products via social media (Doran, 2015). Social media is capable of attracting new winery consumers, but can also be used as a place where wineries can connect with existing winery visitors. These winery visitors are more likely to signal their status through social media. Signaling here indicates the behavior that mainly expresses something about the individual, such as his or her status (Gabbert, 2015). Signaling one’s status is now easier thanks to social media, such as Facebook. People commonly express their self-image, indirectly, by showing products that they have purchased. In particular, high-end or luxury products are more likely to be shown as ways of representing oneself. Signaling winery visitors’ status through social media could be used as a word-of-mouth effect, which is a particularly efficient advertising method to those small wineries where the marketing budget is limited (Gill et al., 2007) While emotional, epistemic and price values were perceived positively by each of these two types of motivated and wine-involved visitors, these were not attributes that led to satisfaction and place attachment. This indicates that winery attributes that are perceived positively by winery visitors are not sufficient to lead to satisfaction and place attachment. Concerning price value, all visitors perceived the value positively, though this failed to lead to satisfaction. It was found, however, that perceived wine quality led to both satisfaction and place attachment. This implies that winery owners ought to promote their wine based on wine quality rather than on price. To reduce the gap between wine quality and its price, winery owners should offer a free wine tasting that could reduce visitors’ perceived risk. Perceived risk is one of key factor that determines ones’ consumer behavior. When a product is new to a consumer and the price is expensive, they are more likely to care about whether their choice was a poor one (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985). Since wineries are part of an emerging market and wines 83 are mostly sold directly at the winery, visitors are more likely to perceive risk associated with purchasing wine. Accordingly, a good quality wine, proved from wine tasting, could offset the impact of the price and could ultimately lead to higher satisfaction. Another good option to improve visitors’ satisfaction from the price value could be a discounted winery membership or bundling wines and tourist experiences in a package. To develop a successful winery tourism strategy, bundling services that incorporate both winery tourism activities and wine sales will likely lead to satisfaction and place attachment. Emotional and epistemic values were factors that were perceived positively by most customers but that led to neither satisfaction nor place attachment. Hence, offering educational and memorable activities that can be bundled with wine purchases could help increase visitors’ satisfaction and place attachment. Satisfaction and place attachment that are accrued from epistemic and emotional values could be enhanced through wine educational activities that are incorporated into winery tourism activities, such as entertainment-themed winery events, vineyard tours, and wine-making experiences. In sum, while the study results might not be applicable to all types of wineries in Wisconsin and Minnesota, it confirmed the importance of understanding winery visitors’ characteristics, particularly related to their wine consumption characteristics as well as their experiences at wineries. Winery owners who plan to expand their business into the tourism industry should make an effort to better understand their customers. Limitations & Future Research While the current study contributed greatly to research on wine tourism, it is worth noting several limitations. Based on the study’s findings, some possible future research is also suggested. First, these results are applicable only to Wisconsin and Minnesota wineries even 84 though the socio-demographic results of profiling showed that winery visitors are generally female, baby boomers, and have achieved high levels of education and income. There is a plethora of wine tourism studies, but different types and levels of socio-demographics have been found depending on the characteristics of the wineries, regions, and countries. Wineries located in regions of the Northeast and North Central United States have increased in number thanks to the development of new wine grapes that are suitable for cold weather climates. To be able to generalize the current study, further research is needed in other Northeastern or North Central states, particularly with regard to winery visitors' socio-demographic characteristics, wine consumption behaviors and wine tourism activities. Second, the current study targeted visitors only during the fall. The visitors’ sociodemographic characteristics as well as their primary winery activities happened to be consistent with the unpublished results of the survey that was conducted in early summer through later fall. Nevertheless, it is still unknown whether the results of profiling and the predictive relationships might differ by the season. Accordingly, the impacts of seasonality on winery visitors’ behaviors need to be investigated in future research. Third, while the current study explored many possible winery attributes, it might be hard to generalize these to all wineries since some wineries are not equipped with a particular attribute, such as a vineyard. Accordingly, future research ought to focus on the most common attributes of Wisconsin and Minnesota wineries. Particularly since service, social, wine quality and aesthetic values are important factors that lead to winery loyalty, it would be beneficial and more generalizable to consider Wisconsin and Minnesota winery attributes that correspond to each value. 85 More specifically, winery service can be evaluated in diverse fields, such as greeting, tasting room service, winery personnel’s knowledge and more. It would be useful to investigate whether wine-involvement level and motivation type influence perceptions of each service. Also, since it was found that social value was important to those who are highly involved, investigating factors that can enhance winery and wine image would be helpful to attract future highly involved winery visitors. In wine consumer research, several studies have been conducted with regard to luxury images of wine products (Beverland, 2006; Wolf et al., 2016). Applying these studies to winery tourism could encourage wineries to stage their facilities in a more luxury-type setting. Wine quality was also an important factor that led to winery loyalty. Since wine quality can be subjective, more detailed investigation into wine quality perception with diverse involvement levels could be beneficial to wine sales and tasting room experiences. The current wine quality measure considered only a general evaluation of wine, such as consistency of flavor. Charters and Pettigrew (2007) found that wine quality can be evaluated with extrinsic (e.g., production’s drinkability, consistency, grape type) and intrinsic (e.g., pleasure feeling, appearance) factors that act differently depending on winery consumers’ wine involvement level. This approach might be particularly beneficial to evaluating an emerging wine that has been bred for cold climates. Lastly, the survey sample consisted of only those respondents who had visited the winery. In addition, most respondents were intercepted by winery personnel and asked to provide their email information. That is, there is the possibility of having a generalization issue. Future research might be improved by promoting winery visitors’ volunteer participation. One possible way could be using a receipt survey, which has recently gained greater popularity. Also, a better 86 strategy to target both current and future winery visitors might be to compare winery visitors and the general population’s attitude toward winery tourism as well as their expectations. Conclusion Winery tourism is an emerging industry that has great potential to contribute to local economies. Accordingly, successful winery tourism development could serve as an integral part of a local economic revitalization. What then should be considered to successfully develop wine tourism? Churchill and Lewis (1983) proposed that among the five stages of small business growth, the most critical issue that the industry faces is the first stage—getting enough customers. The current study was initiated from this point. Since small wineries’ main revenue is from winery visitors’ wine purchases, it is critical to identify key customers as well as their behaviors at a winery. This study found that using a group classification that is based on wine consumption behaviors, winery experiences, and socio-demographic characteristics, it is possible to effectively differentiate or segment wine purchasers and reveal different levels of winery loyalty. It was also found that winery visitors’ satisfaction and place attachment are determined by different types of perceived value for winery attributes. Lastly, depending on their level of wine involvement and type of motivation, winery visitors perceived different values of winery attributes. As numerous wine consumer and tourist behavior studies have demonstrated, winery visitors’ pre-trip characteristics, such as wine consumption behaviors, wine involvement, motivation and socio-demographic characteristics, are important indicators to explain their experience at wineries. As Prebensen, Chen, et al. (2014) suggested, evaluating visitors’ on-site experience based on perceived value is practically and theoretically meaningful. It helps in identifying key winery attributes that influence mostly post-visit evaluations and contributing to experience 87 economy research in the winery tourism context. Better informed plans and strategies may be designed by wineries with desired tourism experiences in mind. This should lead to repeat visits and an improved reputation of their wine brand. 88 APPENDICES 89 APPENDIX A Invitation Message Dear First name, During your recent visit to ### tasting room you signed up to participate in the Wisconsin/Minnesota Winery Visitor Study. We appreciate your willingness to help with this important study. The questionnaire should only take 10-15 minutes to complete. As a reminder, for participating in this study, you can be entered into a drawing to win a $100 Visa gift card. There is a place for you to enter the drawing at the end of the survey. You will receive another email reminder to complete this survey in a week if you haven't completed the survey by that time. If you have any questions about this survey, please email me at NorthernGrapesProject2015@anr.msu.edu. This study has been reviewed and approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board, and if you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact them at (517) 355-2180. Your participation is voluntary and all responses will be kept confidential. We appreciate your time and assistance in providing information about your recent tasting room visit! Sincerely, Northern Grapes Project 90 APPENDIX B First Reminder Dear First name, Last week you received a survey regarding your recent visit to ### tasting room in Wisconsin/Minnesota. Our records show that you have not yet completed the survey. The questionnaire should only take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Your feedback from your recent tasting room visit is very important to the success of Wisconsin wineries. I am very grateful for your help with this important study. Reminder: complete this survey to be entered to win a $100 Visa gift card! Thank you very much for your time and for helping us to learn more about visitors to Wisconsin tasting rooms. If you have any questions about this survey, please email me at NorthernGrapesProject2015@anr.msu.edu. Sincerely, Northern Grapes Project 91 APPENDIX C Second Reminder Dear First name, I just wanted to send a friendly and final reminder about the winery survey that you agreed to complete. Our records show you have not yet completed the survey and we would really appreciate your help. Again, your feedback from your recent tasting room visit is very important to the success of Wisconsin/Minnesota wineries. As a reminder, all survey respondents are eligible to win a $100 Visa gift card! The survey period will be ending soon and we would really appreciate your help. If you have any questions about this survey, please email me at NorthernGrapesProject2015@anr.msu.edu. Sincerely, Northern Grapes Project 92 APPENDIX D End of Survey Message We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded. If you have any questions or concerns about this study you may contact the principal investigator. E-mail -northerngrapesproject2015@gmail.com Phone - (517) 432-0289 Don't forget to reply via email with your contact information to be entered a second time to win a $100 Visa gift card! Items to include in email to NorthernGrapesProject2015@anr.msu.edu 1. 2. Name Your E-mail Address THANK YOU! Michigan State Wine Research Team Northern Grapes Project Michigan State University 172 Natural Resources Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 93 APPENDIX E Online Survey Thank you for your interest in participating in the Wisconsin/Minnesota Northern Grapes Research Project, a multi-state, multi-objective project. The goals for this project are to improve the quality of wines produced in the study region as well as the level of satisfaction with tasting room visitors’ experiences. You may choose to skip any question in which you prefer not to answer. Your participation is voluntary, and your consent to participate is indicated by completing this survey. Your responses will be confidential. You recently agreed to complete this survey when visiting the ### winery. Please answer the following set of questions that relate to your winery trip. What was the primary purpose for your visit(s) to the winery/wineries on this entire trip? (Please check only one) Purchase wine Learn more about wine Have a relaxing day out To have a unique experience Meet the winemaker Socialize with friends or family To be entertained For an event Enjoy a rural setting Other 94 We are interested about your general motivation to visit the winery on this trip. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements. What motivated you to visit a winery/wineries on this trip? Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 To gain knowledge about wine To learn about the winemaking process To learn about grape varieties To learn about how to choose a wine Strongly Disagree 1 To taste wine To taste locally produced wine To support local wine producers To experience a winery in Wisconsin Strongly Disagree 1 To have a good time with friends and family To relax To enjoy the scenery To take part in an event (e.g., music, wedding, and more) To enjoy the atmosphere of the winery 95 The following questions relate to spending units. Most often, it will include a single family or couple. A full travel party might include several spending units. For example, two couples traveling together would likely include two spending units. A spending unit might include only you if you are traveling alone or if you are covering most of your expenses. Approximately how much did your entire spending unit at the ### winery in each of the following categories: Amount Spent Merchandise purchased at the ### winery $ Wine purchased at the ### winery $ Hors d' Oeuvres/ food $ Tasting fee $ $ Other $ Total $ Please rate your agreement with the following statements based on your experience at the ### winery (the winery that asked you to participate in this survey). My visit to this winery... Strongly Disagree 1 ...taught me more about wine ... taught me more about this winery's products ...increased my curiosity about wine ... was something different or novel 96 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 This winery... Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 ... produces outstanding quality wines ... produces wines of consistent quality ... produces wines that have a taste I enjoy This winery's staff... Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 ...was professional ... was personable ...provided dependable information This winery... Strongly Disagree 1 ...has outstanding facilities ...is visually appealing ...has a beautiful landscape (e.g., vineyard, rural setting, etc.) 97 Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 My visit to this winery would make a good impression on other people if they learned of my visit Giving someone a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression Owning a bottle of wine from this winery would improve the way I am perceived by my peers Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good impression on other people The wines produced by this winery... Strongly Disagree 1 ...are less expensive than other wines produced in other regions ...are reasonably priced ...offer good value for the money ...are worth buying My visit... Strongly Disagree 1 ...was relaxing ...made me feel good ...was enjoyable ... was pleasant 98 Following questions are about your attitudes and feeling about the ### winery after your visit. Please answer the following set of questions. During your visit to the ### winery, how satisfied were you with the following attributes of the winery? Not at all Moderately Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Friendliness of staff Knowledge of staff Tasting room facility Quality of wine Overall experience For the winery you visited, to what extent are you likely to... To very little extent 1 2 To some extent 3 4 To very great extent 5 ...recommend to others ...revisit the winery ...repurchase the winery's wine Please rate your agreement with the following statements based on your visit to the winery region. Neither Agree Strongly nor Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 No other winery region can compare to this one I feel this winery region is part of me I go to this winery region because it is close by This winery region means a lot to me I wouldn't substitute another winery region for this one I am more satisfied visiting this winery region than any other Visiting this winery region says a lot about who I am I am very attached to this winery region 99 In addition to your winery experience, we are interested about your level of involvement with wines. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 4 Strongly Agree 5 I am knowledgeable about wine People come to me for advice about wine Much of my leisure time is devoted to winerelated activities I have invested a great deal in my interest in wine Wine represents a central life interest for me Strongly Disagree 1 I like to purchase wine that matches the occasion My interest in wine says a lot about who I am Many of my friends share my interest in wine Deciding which wine to buy is an important decision I like to gain the health benefits associated with drinking wine 100 Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5 For me, drinking wine is a particularly pleasurable experience I wish to learn more about wine I have a strong interest in wine My interest in wine makes me want to visit wine regions I find conversations about wine very enjoyable Understanding the complexities of wine production provides an exciting challenge for me We are also interested about your general wine purchase and consumption behavior. Please answer the following questions. How would you rate your knowledge of wines in general? Not knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Knowledgeable Very Knowledgeable How often do you consume wine at home? (Please check only one) Only on special occasions 1 or 2 times per month 1 or more times a week Almost everyday How often do you consume wine when eating out, when available? (Please check only one) Almost never Sometimes Often Almost every time 101 What percent of your overall wine consumption consists of the following types of wines? (Please ensure that the totals for the 6 categories equal 100%) Dry red wines % Dry white wines % Pink/ rose wines % Sweet red wines % Sweet white wines % Sparkling wines % Total % Lastly, please answer the following questions to help us further analyze and better understand our results. The information you provide will remain strictly confidential and you will not be identified with your answers. Are you? Male Female What year were you born? Where do you live? Zip/ Postal Code State Country (if not U.S.) What is your ethnicity or race? Caucasian Black, African American Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin American Indian Asian Indian Chinese Other Asian Other Prefer not to answer 102 What is your marital status? Single, never married Married or domestic partnership Separated Divorced Widowed What is your employment status? (Please select all that are appropriate) Employed full-time Employed part-time Self-employed Student Homemaker Unemployed Retired Other (Please specify) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Please select only one option) Elementary school Some high school High school Two year program/ technical school Some college College graduate/professional Post-graduate Other (Please specify) The median household income in the Great Lakes Region ranges between $50,000 - $70,000, what is your median annual household income? Less than $50,000 $50,000 – $70,000 More than $70,000 103 REFERENCES 104 REFERENCES Ahrholdt, D. C., Gudergan, S. P., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Enhancing service loyalty: The roles of delight, satisfaction, and service quality. Journal of Travel Research. doi:10.1177/0047287516649058 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. doi:10.1080/0957126042000300308 Alebaki, M., & Iakovidou, O. (2011). Market segmentation in wine tourism: A comparison of approaches. Tourismos, 6(1), 123-140. Alebaki, M., Menexes, G., & Koutsouris, A. (2015). Developing a multidimensional framework for wine tourist behavior: Evidence from Greece. Wine Economics and Policy, 4(2), 98109. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2015.11.002 Andrades, L., Dimanche, F., Prebensen, N., Chen, J., & Uysal, M. (2014). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist behaviour approach. Creating Experience Value in Tourism (pp. 95-112). Boston, MA: CABI. Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The involvement—commitment model: Theory and implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149-167. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(88)90039-2 Beery, T., & Jönsson, K. I. (2017). Outdoor recreation and place attachment: Exploring the potential of outdoor recreation within a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 17, 54-63. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.01.002 Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J.-P. (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality: Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52(1), 45-66. Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 251-258. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.007 105 Blackman, J., Saliba, A., & Schmidtke, L. (2010). Sweetness acceptance of novices, experienced consumers and winemakers in Hunter Valley Semillon wines. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 679-683. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.001 Brown, G., Havitz, M., & Getz, D. (2007). Relationship between wine involvement and winerelated travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(1), 31-46. doi:10.1300/J073v21n01_03 Brown, G., Smith, A., & Assaker, G. (2016). Revisiting the host city: An empirical examination of sport involvement, place attachment, event satisfaction and spectator intentions at the London Olympics. Tourism Management, 55, 160-172. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.010 Brown, L., & Hershey, C. (2012). Agritourism in Wisconsin from the consumer perspective. Center for Community & Economic Development. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/agtour/publications/Wisconsin_Agritourism_Survey_Rep ort_6-25-2012.pdf Brunner, T. A., & Siegrist, M. (2011). A consumer-oriented segmentation study in the Swiss wine market. British Food Journal, 113(3), 353-373. doi:10.1108/00070701111116437 Bruwer, J., Burrows, N., Chaumont, S., Li, E., & Saliba, A. (2013). Consumer involvement and associated behaviour in the UK high-end retail off-trade wine market. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 24(2), 145-165. doi:10.1080/09593969.2013.839464 Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2007). Wine-related lifestyle (WRL) market segmentation: Demographic and behavioural factors. Journal of Wine Research, 18(1), 19-34. doi:10.1080/09571260701526865 Bruwer, J., Li, E., & Reid, M. (2002). Segmentation of the Australian wine market using a winerelated lifestyle approach. Journal of Wine Research, 13(3), 217-242. doi:10.1080/0957126022000046510 Byrd, E. T., Canziani, B., Hsieh, Y.-C., Debbage, K., & Sonmez, S. (2016). Wine tourism: Motivating visitors through core and supplementary services. Tourism Management, 52, 19-29. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.009 106 Cardinale, S., Nguyen, B., & Melewar, T. (2016). Place-based brand experience, place attachment and loyalty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(3), 302-317. doi:10.1108/MIP-04-2014-0071 Carlsen, J., & Boksberger, P. (2015). Enhancing consumer value in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(1), 132-144. doi:10.1177/1096348012471379 Carmichael, B. (2005). Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in the Niagara region, Ontario, Canada. Tourism Geographies, 7(2), 185-204. doi:10.1080/14616680500072414 Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2000). Wine tourism-a thirst for knowledge? International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(3), 70-80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008715 Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management, 23(3), 311319. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00079-6 Charters, S., Fountain, J., & Fish, N. (2009). “You felt like lingering . . .”: Experiencing “real” service at the winery tasting room. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 122-134. doi:10.1177/0047287508326508 Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2007). The dimensions of wine quality. Food Quality and Preference, 18(7), 997-1007. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.003 Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2008). Why do people drink wine? A consumer-focused exploration. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14(3), 13-32. Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29-35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008 Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, M.-H. (2008). Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty of tv travel product shopping: Involvement as a moderator. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1166-1171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.019 Chen, P.-T., & Hu, H.-H. (2010). The effect of relational benefits on perceived value in relation to customer loyalty: An empirical study in the Australian coffee outlets industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 405-412. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.09.006 107 Chen, X., Goodman, S., Bruwer, J., & Cohen, J. (2016). Beyond better wine: The impact of experiential and monetary value on wine tourists’ loyalty intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(2), 172-192. doi:10.1080/10941665.2015.1029955 Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. L. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1983/05/the-five-stages-of-smallbusiness-growth Cliff, M., Bejaei, M., King, M., & McArthur, D. (2016). Influence of wine education on wine hedonic and confidence ratings by Millennial wine consumers of different ethnicities. Beverages, 2(4), 32. Dabestani, R., Shahin, A., Shirouyehzad, H., & Saljoughian, M. (2017). A comparative study of ordinary and fastidious customers’ priorities in service quality dimensions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(3-4), 331-350. doi:10.1080/14783363.2015.1082420 Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 426-441. doi:10.1002/casp.1004 Dodd, T. H., & Gustafson, A. W. (1997). Product, environmental, and service attributes that influence consumer attitudes and purchases at wineries. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 4(3), 41-59. doi:10.1300/J038v04n03_04 Dodd, T. H., Kolyesnikova, N., & Wilcox, J. B. (2010). A matter of taste: Consumer preferences of sweet and dry wines. Paper presented at the 5th International Academy of Wine Business Research Conference. Dodd, T. H., Laverie, D. A., Wilcox, J. F., & Duhan, D. F. (2005). Differential effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), 319. doi:10.1177/1096348004267518 Doran, S. (2015). The future of advertising for luxury brands: Part 2. Luxury Society by Digital Luxury Group. Retrieved from http://luxurysociety.com/en/articles/2015/10/the-future-ofadvertising-for-luxury-brands-part-2/ 108 Dowling, R. K. (1998). Three conferences in western Australia: Wine, geography of tourism & ecotourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 23(2), 78-80. doi:10.1080/02508281.1998.11014844 Famularo, B., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2010). Region of origin as choice factor: Wine knowledge and wine tourism involvement influence. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 22(4), 362-385. doi:10.1108/17511061011092410 Ferrarini, R., Carbognin, C., Casarotti, E. M., Nicolis, E., Nencini, A., & Meneghini, A. M. (2010). The emotional response to wine consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 720-725. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.004 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Gabbert, E. (Producer). (2015, 2017). The signaling theory of marketing: What your actions say about your business. Retrieved from http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/02/25/signaling-theory-of-marketing Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002 Geide, C., Harmon, L., & Baker, R. (2009). Northern Virginia wineries: Understanding visitor motivations for market segmentation. Paper presented at the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY. Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006). Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: A demand analysis. Tourism Management, 27(1), 146-158. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.08.002 Gill, D., Byslma, B., & Ouschan, R. (2007). Customer perceived value in a cellar door visit: The impact on behavioural intentions. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(4), 257-275. doi:10.1108/17511060710837418 Gómez, M. (2010). Increasing customer satisfaction improves tasting room sales. Appellation Cornell, 1-6. Retrieved from https://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/sites/grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/files/shared/d ocuments/Increasing-Customer-Satisfaction-Improves-Tasting-Room-Sales.pdf 109 Gómez, M., & Kelley, E. (2013). The tasting room experience and winery customer satisfaction, 1-31. Retrieved from http://publications.dyson.cornell.edu/outreach/extensionpdf/2013/Cornell-Dysoneb1301.pdf Gounaris, S. P., Tzempelikos, N. A., & Chatzipanagiotou, K. (2007). The relationships of customer-perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and behavioral intentions. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 6(1), 63-87. doi:10.1300/J366v06n01_05 Griffin, T., & Loersch, A. (2006). The determinants of quality experiences in an emerging wine region. In J. Carlsen & S. Charters (Eds.), Global wine tourism: Research, management and marketing (pp. 80-91). Cambridge, MA: CABI. Gross, M. J., & Brown, G. (2008). An empirical structural model of tourists and places: Progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1141-1151. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.009 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. doi:10.1108/IJWBR-07-2012-0023 Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 Hair Jr., J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins , L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128 Hallahan, K. (2000). Enhancing motivation, ability, and opportunity to process public relations messages. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 463-480. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S03638111(00)00059-X Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409-421. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006 Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.15 110 Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser Jr, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164-170. Hogreve, J., Iseke, A., Derfuss, K., & Eller, T. (in press). The service–profit chain: A metaanalytic test of a comprehensive theoretical framework. Journal of Marketing. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0395 Holecek, D., & McCole, D. (2014). Wine consumer market surveys: 15 Michigan tasting room visitor survey and 6 state random household member survey. Retrieved from http://northerngrapesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WineConsumerSurveys.pdf Holecek, D., & McCole, D. (2016). Upper Midwest winery tasting room visitor study. Viticulture, enology and marketing for cold-hardy grapes. Retrieved from http://northerngrapesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Tasting-room-visitor-studyYear-4.pdf Hollebeek, L. D., Jaeger, S. R., Brodie, R. J., & Balemi, A. (2007). The influence of involvement on purchase intention for new world wine. Food Quality and Preference, 18(8), 10331049. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.007 Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351-364. doi:10.1177/0047287509346859 Hwang, S.-N., Lee, C., & Chen, H.-J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan ’s national parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143-156. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.006 Johnson, T. (2003). An empirical confirmation of wine-related lifestyle segments in the Australian wine market. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 15(1), 5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008749 Kelley, K., Hyde, J., & Bruwer, J. (2015). U.S. wine consumer preferences for bottle characteristics, back label extrinsic cues and wine composition: A conjoint analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(4), 516-534. doi:10.1108/APJML-092014-0140 Kil, N., Holland, S. M., Stein, T. V., & Ko, Y. J. (2012). Place attachment as a mediator of the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 603-626. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.610508 111 Kim, S., Lee, Y.-K., & Lee, C.-K. (2016). The moderating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival quality and behavioral intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1-15. doi:10.1080/10941665.2016.1176060 Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2010). The relationships between food-related personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 216-226. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.015 Kim, Y. H., Kim, D. J., & Wachter, K. (2013). A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention. Decision Support Systems, 56, 361-370. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.002 Kuo, Y.-F., Wu, C.-M., & Deng, W.-J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile valueadded services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 887-896. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.003 Kyle, G., Absher, J., & Graefe, A. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 25(1), 33-50. doi:10.1080/01490400306552 Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2004). Enduring leisure involvement: The importance of personal relationships. Leisure Studies, 23(3), 243-266. doi:10.1080/0261436042000251996 Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the relationship between leisure activity and place attachment among hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(3), 249. Kyle, G. T., Kerstetter, D. L., & Guadagnolo, F. B. (2002). Market segmentation using participant involvement profiles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(1), 1-21. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41-53. doi:10.2307/3151549 Lee, C.-K., Yoon, Y.-S., & Lee, S.-K. (2007). Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tourism Management, 28(1), 204-214. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.017 112 Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754-767. doi:10.1177/0047287512437859 Lee, T. H., & Chang, Y. S. (2011). The influence of experiential marketing and activity involvement on the loyalty intentions of wine tourists in Taiwan. Leisure Studies, 31(1), 103-121. doi:10.1080/02614367.2011.568067 Lee, T. H., & Shen, Y. L. (2013). The influence of leisure involvement and place attachment on destination loyalty: Evidence from recreationists walking their dogs in urban parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 76-85. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.002 Line, N. D., Hanks, L., & Kim, W. G. (2015). An expanded servicescape framework as the driver of place attachment and word of mouth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. doi:10.1177/1096348015597035 Lockshin, L., & Spawton, T. (2001). Using involvement and brand equity to develop a wine tourism strategy. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 72-81. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb043371 Lockshin, L. S., Spawton, A. L., & Macintosh, G. (1997). Using product, brand and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(3), 171-183. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(96)00048-3 Lockshin, L. S., & Timothy, R. (1993). The effect of price and oak flavor on perceived wine quality. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 5(2/3), 13-25. doi:10.1108/eb008614 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. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.04.003 López-Mosquera, N., & Sánchez, M. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of received benefits and place attachment in willingness to pay and loyalty in suburban natural areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 27-35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.004 Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 1-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.010 113 Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123-146. doi:10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452 Macintosh, G., & Lockshin, L. S. (1997). Retail relationships and store loyalty: A multi-level perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(5), 487-497. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00030-X Mansfield, A. K. (2016). Yeast trials for improved wine quality in cold climate cultivars. Viticulture, enology and marketing for cold-hardy grapes. Retrieved from http://northerngrapesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeast-selection-trials-Year4.pdf Marlowe, B., Brown, E. A., & Zheng, T. (2016). Winery tasting-room employee training: Putting wine first in oregon. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(2), 89100. doi:10.1080/1528008X.2015.1034399 Martínez-Carrasco Martínez, L., Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá, M., Del Campo Gomis, F. J., & Martínez Poveda, Á. (2006). Influence of purchase place and consumption frequency over quality wine preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 17(5), 315-327. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.02.002 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. doi:10.1108/17511061011092401 Mathis, E. F., Kim, H., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., & Prebensen, N. K. (2016). The effect of cocreation experience on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 62-75. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.023 McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111-124. doi:10.2167/jost634.0 Meleddu, M., Paci, R., & Pulina, M. (2015). Repeated behaviour and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 50, 159-171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.032 Mitchell, R., & Hall, C. M. (2001). Lifestyle behaviours of New Zealand Winery Visitors: Wine club activities, wine cellars and place of purchase. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 82-93. doi:10.1108/eb008729 114 Mitchell, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Wine tourism research: The state of play. Tourism Review International, 9(4), 307-332. doi:10.3727/154427206776330535 Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). Cluster analysis: A concise guide to market research (pp. 237284): Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12541-6_9 Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/ tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153-163. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)001975 Nella, A., & Christou, E. (2014). Segmenting wine tourists on the basis of involvement with wine. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(7), 783-798. doi:10.1080/10548408.2014.889639 Niininen, O., & Riley, M. (2004). Towards the conceptualization of tourism destination loyalty. In G. Crouch, R. Perdue, H. Timmermans, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure. Cambridge, MA, USA: CABI Publishing. Nowak, L. I., & Newton, S. K. (2006). Using the tasting room experience to create loyal customers. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(3), 157-165. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09547540610704738 O'Neill, M., & Charters, S. (2000). Service quality at the cellar door: Implications for western Australia’s developing wine tourism industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 10(2), 112-122. doi:10.1108/09604520010318308 O'Neill, M., & Palmer, A. (2004). Wine Production and tourism. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 269-284. doi:10.1177/0010880404263075 O'Neill, M., Palmer, A., & Charters, S. (2002). Wine production as a service experience – The effects of service quality on wine sales. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(4), 342-362. doi:10.1108/08876040210433239 Oh, C.-O., & Ditton, R. B. (2006). Using recreation specialization to understand multi-attribute management preferences. Leisure Sciences, 28(4), 369-384. doi:10.1080/01490400600745886 115 Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(98)00047-4 Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119-132. doi:10.1177/0047287507304039 Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant and product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372-383. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/209223 Palma, D., Cornejo, C., Ortuzar, J., Rizzi, L., & Casaubon, G. (2014). Tell me why you like to drink wine: Drinking motivations as a basis for market segmentation Paper presented at the 8th AWBR International Conference. Pan, F. C., Su, S. J., & Chiang, C. C. (2008). Dual attractiveness of winery: Atmospheric cues on purchasing. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 20(2), 95-110. doi:10.1108/17511060810883731 Park, K. S., Reisinger, Y., & Kang, H. J. (2008). Visitors' motivation for attending the south beach wine and food festival, Mami beach, Florida. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 161-181. doi:10.1080/10548400802402883 Petrick, J. F. (2004). First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 29-38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504265509 Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 38-45. doi:10.1177/004728750204100106 Pikkemaat, B., Peters, M., Boksberger, P., & Secco, M. (2009). The staging of experiences in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2/3), 237-253. doi:10.1080/19368620802594110 Pine, I. I. B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105. 116 Pratt, M. A., & Sparks, B. (2014). Predicting wine tourism intention: Destination image and selfcongruity. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(4), 443-460. doi:10.1080/10548408.2014.883953 Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 342-356. doi:10.1177/0047287511410321 Prebensen, N. K., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2014). Creating experience value in tourism. Boston, MA: CAB International. Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research. doi:10.1177/0047287512461181 Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. S. (2014). Experience value: Antecedents and consequences. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 910-928. doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.770451 Prebensen, N. K., & Xie, J. (2017). Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists' consumption. Tourism Management, 60, 166-176. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.001 Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V. N., & Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: Case of mauritius. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175(0), 252-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1198 Ravenscroft, N., & van Westering, J. (2001). Wine tourism, culture and the everyday: A theoretical note. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 149-162. doi:10.1177/146735840100300206 Reisinger, Y. (2009). Chapter 10 - cultural influences on service. In Y. Reisinger (Ed.), International Tourism (pp. 233-242). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Roberts, L., & Sparks, B. (2006). Enhancing the wine tourism experience: The customers' viewpoint. In J. Carlsen & S. Charters (Eds.), Global wine tourism: Research, management & marketing (pp. 47-55). Wallingford, Oxfordshire, GBR: CABI Publishing. 117 Roy, R., & Rabbanee, F. K. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of self-congruity. European journal of marketing, 49(3/4), 444-466. doi:10.1108/EJM-12-2013-0739 Rundle‐Thiele, S. (2005). Exploring loyal qualities: Assessing survey-based loyalty measures. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 492-500. doi:10.1108/08876040510625990 Sánchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodríguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394-409. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.11.007 Schuweiler, A., & Gustafson, K. (2009). Minnesota Agri-tourism: Status and interest. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/57957/Schuweiler_Showcase2009_P oster.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Scott, N., Laws, E., & Boksberger, P. (2012). The marketing of hospitality and leisure experiences. In N. Scott, E. Laws, & P. Boksberger (Eds.), Marketing of tourism experience (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge. Shapiro, M., & Gómez, M. (2014). Customer satisfaction and sales performance in wine tasting rooms. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 26(1), 45-60. doi:10.1108/IJWBR-09-2012-0026 Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991a). Consumption values and market choices: Theory and applications. Cincinnati: South-Western Pub. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991b). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(159-170). doi:10.1016/01482963(91)90050-8 Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2012). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in crossnational contexts. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1417-1424. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.007 Shumaker, A., & Taylor, B. R. (1982). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: a model of attachment to place. In F. R. Nickolaus & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental Psychology (1 ed., pp. 219-256). New York: Praeger Publishers. 118 Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1180-1192. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.003 Spawton, T. (1991). Of wine and live asses: an introduction to the wine economy and state of wine marketing. European Journal of Wine Marketing, 25(3), 1-48. Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals and serious leisure. Montreal [Que.]: MQUP. Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Casual leisure: a conceptual statement. Leisure Studies, 16(1), 17-25. doi:10.1080/026143697375485 Stoddard, J. E., & Clopton, S. W. (2015). Exploring the differences between new and repeat visitors to North Carolina wineries: implications for winery marketing strategy development. Journal of Wine Research, 26(3), 225-240. doi:10.1080/09571264.2015.1057272 Su, H.-J., Cheng, K.-F., & Huang, H.-H. (2011). Empirical study of destination loyalty and its antecedent: the perspective of place attachment. The Service Industries Journal, 31(16), 2721-2739. doi:10.1080/02642069.2010.511188 Swait, J., & Sweeney, J. C. (2000). Perceived value and its impact on choice behavior in a retail setting. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(2), 77-88. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(99)00012-0 Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0 Tassiopoulos, D., Nuntsu, N., & Haydam, N. (2004). Wine tourists in South Africa: A demographic and psychographic study. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 51-63. doi:10.1080/0957126042000300326 Thach, E. C., & Olsen, J. (2006). The role of service quality in influencing brand attachments at winery visitor centers. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(3), 5977. doi:10.1300/J162v07n03_04 119 Thach, L. (2012). Time for wine? Identifying differences in wine-drinking occasions for male and female wine consumers. Journal of Wine Research, 23(2), 134-154. doi:10.1080/09571264.2012.676542 Thach, L., & Chang, K. (2016). Adventure, tradition, and semi-sweet wines highlighted in 2016 American wine consumer survey. Wine Business. Retrieved from https://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataid=177492 Thach, L., & Olsen, J. (2015). Profiling the high frequency wine consumer by price segmentation in the US market. Wine Economics and Policy, 4(1), 53-59. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2015.04.001 Tsai, C.-F. (2015). The relationships among destination image, perceived quality, emotional place attachment, tourist satisfaction, and post-visiting behavior intentions. Marketing Review (Xing Xiao Ping Lun), 12(4), 455-479. Tsai, C.-T. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 536-548. doi:10.1002/jtr.2070 Tsai, S.-p. (2012). Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international tourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 139-152. doi:10.1002/jtr.842 Tuck, B., & Gartner, W. (2014a). Economic contribution: Vinyards and wineries of the North. Retrieved from http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/economic-impactanalysis/reports/docs/2014-Economic-Contribution-Vineyards-Wineries-North.pdf Tuck, B., & Gartner, W. (2014b). Vineyards and wineries in Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/economic-impact-analysis/reports/docs/2014vineyards-wineries-Wisconsin.pdf Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2010). User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory of consumption values perspective. Information & Management, 47(1), 53-59. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.10.002 Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1156-1163. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012 120 Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141-1158. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.003 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Verdú Jover, A. J., Lloréns Montes, F. J., & Fuentes Fuentes, M. a. d. M. (2004). Measuring perceptions of quality in food products: the case of red wine. Food Quality and Preference, 15(5), 453-469. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.08.002 Villanueva, E. C., Castillo-Valero, J. S., & García-Cortijo, M. C. (2015). Who is drinking wine in the United States? The demographic and socio-economic profile of US wine consumers (1972-2012). International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 18(4), 39. doi:http://hdl.handle.net/10578/8969 Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 625-651. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20292 Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment_validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-840. Williams, J. (2012). The logical structure of the service-dominant logic of marketing. Marketing Theory, 12(4), 471-483. doi:10.1177/1470593112457745 Williams, P. (2001). The evolving images of wine tourism destinations. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(2), 3-10. doi:10.1080/02508281.2001.11081338 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. doi:10.1108/eb008727 Wine Vines Analytics. (2016). U.S. Winery Database. Retrieved 02.06. 2017 https://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=widc&widcDomain=wineries&w idcYYYYMM=201512 Wine Vines Analytics. (2017). U. S. Winery Database. Retrieved 2.6.2017 https://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=widc&widcDomain=wineries&w idcYYYYMM=201612 121 Wolf, H. L., Morrish, S. C., & Fountain, J. (2016). A conceptualization of the perceptions and motivators that drive luxury wine consumption. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 28(2), 120-133. doi:10.1108/ijwbr-09-2015-0038 Xu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of place attachment: A comparison of Chinese and Western urban tourists in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(2), 86-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.11.003 Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-56. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016 Yuan, J., Cai, L. A., Morrison, A. M., & Linton, S. (2005). Segmenting wine festival attendees: A factor-cluster approach. Tourism Review International, 8(4), 297-309. doi:10.3727/154427205774791500 Yuan, J., & Jang, S. (2008). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral intentions: Exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 279288. doi:10.1177/0047287507308322 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352. doi:10.2307/254378 Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. doi:10.2307/1251446 Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A metaanalysis. Tourism Management, 40(0), 213-223. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006 122