Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 03 August 2014, At: 08:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Segmenting Canadian Culinary TouristsElena Ignatov a & Stephen Smith aa Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies , University of Waterloo , Waterloo,Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 22 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Elena Ignatov & Stephen Smith (2006) Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists, Current Issues inTourism, 9:3, 235-255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/cit/229.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/cit/229.0

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Elena Ignatov and Stephen SmithDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario, Canada

Researchers in culinary tourism often implicitly treat visitors interested in culinaryproducts as a relatively homogeneous market. Using data obtained from the CanadianTravel Activities and Motivations Study, three a priori segments are defined: visitorswho participate only in food-related activities, those who participate only in wine-related activities, and those who participate in both. The food segment was the largestof the three, with nearly 25% of respondents fitting this category; wine was the smallestsegment with less than 4%. Wine and food accounted for about 7%. The food segmenthad a higher proportion of females than the other segments, with lower average educa-tional attainment and lower incomes. Wine-oriented visitors were more balancedbetween male and female, had average ages and educational attainment, and higherincomes. Those visitors involved in both sets of activities were predominantly male,older, had the highest educational levels, and much higher incomes. Trip motivationsand activities also differed significantly among the three segments with the food andwine segment showing the greatest diversity of motivations and activities. In otherwords, there are distinct types of culinary tourists who seek distinct types of culinaryexperiences. Different methods of communications, and different packaging and prod-uct development strategies need to be employed to reach each of the segments identi-fied here.

Keywords: culinary tourism, food tourism, wine tourism, segmentation, Canada

IntroductionThe pleasures of the palate have long been associated with travel. Merchants

have travelled for millennia looking for exotic and essential ingredients to bringhome for trade (Wolf, 2002). Tourists, too, have sought and still seek gastronomicexperiences. Food and drink have traditionally been part of the appeal of destina-tions as diverse as Singapore and Hong Kong, Provence and Tuscany, and Parisand New Orleans. In response, an increasing number of destination marketingorganisations, including those serving destinations not traditionally known asculinary hotbeds, have begun to look at culinary tourism as part of an overallmarketing strategy. For example, the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) hasobserved that ‘[a]n increasingly significant number of travelers are stating thatfood is a key aspect of the travel experience and that they believe that experienc-ing a country’s food is essential to understanding its culture’ (Canadian TourismCommission, 2002: 5). Gastronomy plays a key role in cultural tourism because it‘has become a significant source of identity formation in post-modern society’(Richards, 2002: 3).

Recognising the growing interest and importance of culinary tourism to localcommunities and regions, the CTC (2002) has taken steps to develop cuisine as atourism product showcasing Canada’s diverse cultures and communities. In itsrelated product development strategy, the CTC stated that culinary tourism has

CIT 229

1368-3500/06/03 0235-21 $20/0 © 2006 E. Ignatov & S. SmithCurrent Issues in Tourism Vol. 9, No. 3, 2006

235

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

CIT 229C:\edrive\cit\2005i\cit2005i.vpThursday, August 24, 2006 10:53:57

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

the potential to offer great variety, quality and value as a tourism experience.Furthermore, culinary tourism has the potential to extend the length of stay andspending of visitors, and to draw visitors throughout the year. While virtuallyevery activity in which tourists may engage is optional, eating is not. However,the foods selected for dining, the style of dining – the choice of whether the tour-ists looks at food as fuel or as an integral part of the tourism experience – candetermine whether purchasing and consuming food are acts of survival orexpressions of an appreciation for the cultural and geographical significance of aregion’s cuisine and foodstuff. Thus, culinary tourism, properly understood, isnot simply one more niche product such as eco-tourism but a recognition of thevital role that cuisine can play in the creation of a satisfying tourism experience aswell as its role in expressing a destination’s cultural heritage.

The enthusiasm with which destination marketing organisations approachculinary tourism, though, is not always founded on sound market research. Theidentification and promotion of culinary tourism has sometimes been based onanecdote, personalities, and unsubstantiated opinion. To obtain a more objectiveunderstanding of current interests, activities, motivations and trends in NorthAmerica, a group of Canadian federal and provincial tourism organisationscooperated in 1999 to undertake the Travel Activities and Motivations Survey(TAMS). The study explored travel behaviours in the two years prior to thesurvey and travel intentions in the next two years. It covered a variety of travelexperiences, preferences, activities, short trips and longer vacations, and generalimpressions of Canada as a destination. One of the areas explicitly included inTAMS was food and wine-related tourism.

Lang Research (2001) was commissioned by the TAMS partners to examinethe profiles of culinary tourists. Lang defined culinary tourism as consisting ofwine-related activities and restaurant dining, equating culinary tourism with‘enjoying the good life’. This analysis summarised demographic characteristicsof people interested in culinary tourism as well as the range of activities andother trip preferences, treating those interested in culinary tourism as a homoge-neous segment. The San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (1999)commissioned a study by NFO Incorporated on Americans’ interested in culi-nary tourism – a group they labelled ‘foodies’. The study emphasised the unex-pectedly large size of this segment, the magnitude of spending by ‘foodies’, aswell as other characteristics such as their interest in trying new restaurants and ahigh level of tolerance for waiting to get a table at preferred restaurants. Again,the analysis treated culinary tourists as a relatively homogeneous segment.Pretty (2004) emphasised the potential of culinary tourism to increase sales forrestaurants by emphasising the distinctions in regional foods but, ironically,implying there are no distinctions among culinary tourists.

These three studies are but three examples of the tendency of marketers,market researchers and food writers to consider culinary tourism to be a fairlynarrow product (consuming food and wine) and culinary tourists to be an undif-ferentiated market. However, as the Canadian Tourism Commission succinctlyputs it, ‘[culinary tourism] goes well beyond the dining experience’ (CTC, 2002:2). Culinary tourism is far deeper than just dining out, an appreciation ofgourmet foods and the enjoyment of the good life. It also goes well beyond theenjoyment of wine. Just as culinary tourism is a diverse and complex set of expe-

236 Current Issues in Tourism

CIT 229

C:\edrive\cit\2005i\cit2005i.vpThursday, August 24, 2006 10:53:57


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

riences and motivation, this study argues that culinary tourists are a diversemarket that cannot be treated as a single segment.

Purpose of the StudyThe general purpose of this study is to explore the diversity of culinary tour-

ists in Canada. The research question to be answered in this project is: are theresignificant differences among ‘wine tourists’, ‘food tourists’, and ‘food and winetourists’ (the operational definitions of these terms is provided below) in terms ofdemographics, psychographics, trip characteristics, and media habits. Beforeexamining the answer to this question, the paper looks at some general conceptsrelated to culinary tourism.

Concepts and definitionsCulinary tourism is an aspect of cultural tourism, and cuisine is an integral

part of the culture of communities and destinations. The roots of cuisine growdeep into the soil of history. The choice and production of food ingredients,their distribution, the means of preparing them for consumption, the styles ofconsuming them, and the social contexts in which consumption occur arerecognised by scholars as part of a society’s heritage (Bauer, 1996; Reynolds,1994). Hall and Macionis (1998) explicitly identified food and wine as beingexpressive of regional culture; Hegarty and O’Mahony (2001), too, have high-lighted the cultural significance of differences in ingredients, the way food isprepared and preserved, and how food is served and eaten. Richards (2002)observed that the food people consume and the way they consume it expressestheir identities, that meals and eating traditions are culturally bound. Barthes(1979) considers the meal to be a cultural artefact because it permits a person to‘partake each day of the national past as well as present’ (Barthes, 1979: 170).Hjalager and Corigliano (2000) also argue that tourism is a cultural act and thatfood is culture.

Thus, combining travel with local products (e.g. eating a particular dish ordrinking a local wine) means partaking of the local culture. Getz (2000: 19)describes the exploration of wine regions and villages as wine experience as ‘anexercise in individual cultural tourism’. Such observations are, in effect, elabora-tions of one of Brillat-Savarin’s better-known aphorisms, written in 1825, ‘[t]ellme what you eat, and I will tell you what you are (Brillat-Savarin, 2000).

A variety of terms have been used to express the linkage between cuisine andtourism: cuisine tourism, gastronomic tourism, and culinary tourism. This paperproposes that the latter term, culinary tourism, is the most appropriate. ‘Cuisine’is a noun that denotes styles of food preparation – in effect, styles of cookery(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1985). The emphasis on cookingalone is too narrow for the term to be useful when applied to the scope of activi-ties that fall within the culinary constellation of ingredients, prepared foods,beverages, food production, motivations, activities, institutional structures, andtourism.

‘Gastronomy’ is a noun referring to ‘the art, or science, of good eating’(Gillespie, 2001: 2). More generally, gastronomy is concerned with the enjoymentof good food and beverages. It denotes appreciation of wine and other beverages

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists 237

CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

and how they pair with food; it is concerned with the total consumption of themeal and often denotes an affluent or aesthetically superior lifestyle. Forexample, Gillespie (2001: 5) notes that ‘by truly recognizing and appreciatinggood food and beverage . . . individuals can also consider themselves as having agastronomic approach to living’. Thus, this term may be seen as broader thancuisine and emphasizes consumption (its etymology is closely linked to that of‘gastric’ – a term pertaining to the stomach, as in gastric acid).

‘Culinary’, in contrast, is an adjective that refers not only to styles of food prep-aration but with an etymology from the Latin, culina (kitchen), denotes styles offood preparation and consumption as well as the social context in which food isacquired and prepared for sharing.

Culinary tourism has been described in the literature in various ways. TheCanadian Tourism Commission (2002) defines culinary tourism in terms ofmyriad food and beverage-related activities developed for visitors and involv-ing the cultural exploration of a region’s dishes. According to Wolf (2002), culi-nary tourism exists within the context of agricultural tourism (farm holidays,visiting farmers’ markets and fruit orchards, purchasing produce from road-sidestalls, rural agricultural festivals, and so on) and focuses specifically on thesearch for, and enjoyment of, prepared food and drink. The Economic PlanningGroup of Canada (2001) also emphasises the relationship between travel motiva-tions and cuisine when they asserted that the opportunity for culinary experi-ences significantly impacts trip-related decisions either before or during the trip.

A proposed conceptual definition of culinary tourism for the purposes of thispaper begins with the World Tourism Organisation’s definition of tourism andadds some additional concepts. The WTO defines tourism as the activities ofpersons temporarily away from their usual environment for a period not exceed-ing one year and for which the primary purpose of travel is other than the pursuitof remuneration from within the place visited (WTO, 1994). Foods, as used in thefollowing paragraph, is meant in a comprehensive sense, including beverages,raw ingredients, as well as prepared meals. ‘Regional foods’ refers to ingredientsgrown or processed in a destination (which may be defined at a broad range ofscales, from local to national) in a way that expresses or represents something ofthe regional character of those foods. With these definitional elements, culinarytourism may be defined as tourism trips during which the purchase or consumption ofregional foods (including beverages), or the observation and study of food production(from agriculture to cooking schools) represent a significant motivation or activity. Foodneed not be the only or even the primary activity on a trip for it to be characterisedas culinary tourism. Rather, culinary tourism concerns the self-aware andconscious interest in experiencing a destination through its foods. Thus, culinarytourism is quite different from the simple consumption of food and drink duringa tourism experience. The term refers to the experience that regionally producedfood and drink can provide when they are used to tell a story or to convey someaspect of the culture of the region being visited. Culinary tourism implies trans-ference of knowledge or information about the people, culture, traditions andidentity of the place visited. It conveys something that is indigenous, perhapseven unique, to a specific destination.

The above definitions of culinary tourism are consumer-focused definitions.However, as Getz (2000) points out in his discussion on wine tourism, the


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

perspective of producers and destination marketing organisations – the supplyside of tourism – should also be considered in developing a fuller understandingof culinary tourism, its structures, and its impacts. Thus, the phenomenon of culi-nary tourism is a complex one that simultaneously involves:

• a form of consumer behaviour;• a product development strategy by which destinations identify and

promote attractions and imagery associated with cuisine; and• a marketing strategy for local agricultural producers (including wineries)

to sell their products directly to consumers and also to educate them.

The supply-side of culinary tourism – facilities, activities, events, and otherorganisations that support culinary tourism – can be classified into the categoriesshown in Table 1. ‘Facilities’ refers to buildings and land uses that are associatedwith food production or preparation as well as distribution services, rangingfrom food processing operations to restaurants. A common element here is thatthese buildings or structures are open to visitors wanting to learn about,consume, or purchase culinary products. These include pick-your-own farmoperations. Land use may involve public access to land or it may occur in theform of a landscape that can be readily viewed and appreciated by the touringpublic. Designated routes through culinary landscapes are also a culinary facil-ity.

Culinary tourists also are drawn by the opportunity to consume, such asdining at restaurants or sampling wine and beer. There is overlap between theseactivities and some of the facilities noted in the previous paragraph. The distinc-tion is that facilities refer to the physical plant or landscape and the activitiesdraws attention to the opportunities for personal involvement by the culinarytourist. The same distinction may be made with reference to touring throughagricultural or wine regions or food districts within cities. Activities includeeducational opportunities such as attending cooking schools, participating informal wine tastings, and independent reading of books and magazines devotedto food.

The ‘events’ category includes consumer shows highlighting both food prod-ucts (such as cheese, fresh produce, wine, fruit wine, cider and beer) and cookingequipment. Food and wine festivals are also a major draw for culinary touristsand often one of the most visible aspects of culinary tourism.

Finally, ‘organisations’ include those who serve the interests of culinary tour-ists and help support the development of the culinary tourism market. Theseinclude restaurant classification systems that affirm the regional source andquality of foods served in participating restaurants, and quality assurancesystems for wine and, secondarily, for food. For example, Canada’s Vintners’Quality Alliance certifies that designated wines have met rigid production andquality standards and are vinified from Canadian grapes of a guaranteedquality. Associations also contribute to the long-term growth of culinarytourism. These include groups such as Cuisine Canada, an association of foodprofessionals devoted to the promotion and celebration of a Canadian foodculture, and Slow Food, an international organisation devoted to the protectionand promotion of traditional and indigenous cuisines, food ingredients, tasteeducation, bio-diversity of the food system, and hospitality and conviviality.


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

Tab

le 1

Gen

eral

typo

logy

of c

ulin

ary

tour

ism

res

ourc

es

Faci

liti

esA

ctiv

itie

sE

vent

sO

rgan

isat

ions

Bui

ldin

gs/

Stru

ctur

es

•Fo

od p

roce

ssin

g fa

cilit

ies

•W

iner

ies

•B

rew

erie

s•

Farm

ers’

mar

kets

•Fo

od s

tore

s•

Food

-rel

ated

mus

eum

s•

Res

taur

ants

Lan

d u

ses

•Fa

rms

•O

rcha

rds

•V

iney

ard

s•

Urb

anre

stau

rant

dist

rict

sR

oute

s

•W

ine

rout

es•

Food

rou

tes

•G

ourm

et tr

ails

Con

sum

ptio

n

•D

inin

g at

res

taur

ants

•Pi

cnic

s ut

ilisi

ng lo

cally

-gro

wn

prod

uce

•Pu

rcha

sing

ret

ail f

ood

and

beve

rage

s•

Pick

-you

r ow

n op

erat

ions

Tou

ring

•W

ine

regi

ons

•A

gric

ultu

ral r

egio

ns•

Cit

y fo

od d

istr

icts

Ed

ucat

ion/

Obs

erva

tion

•C

ooki

ng s

choo

ls•

Win

e ta

stin

g/ed

ucat

ion

•V

isit

ing

win

erie

s•

Obs

ervi

ng c

hef c

ompe

titi

ons

•R

ead

ing

food

, bev

erag

em

agaz

ines

and

boo

ks

Con

sum

er s

how

s

•Fo

od a

nd w

ine

show

s•

Coo

king

equ

ipm

ent,

kitc

hen

show

s•

Prod

uct l

aunc

hes

Fest

ival

s

•Fo

od fe

stiv

als

•W

ine

fest

ival

s•

Har

vest

fest

ival

s

•R

esta

uran

t cla

ssif

icat

ion/

cert

ific

atio

n sy

stem

s (e

.g.

Mic

helin

, Tas

te o

f Nov

aSc

otia

)•

Food

/w

ine

clas

sifi

cati

onsy

stem

s (e

.g. V

QA

)•

Ass

ocia

tion

s (e

.g. C

uisi

neC

anad

a, S

low

Foo

d)


C:\edrive\cit\2005i\cit2005i.vp

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:53:58

Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

While discussions about conceptual definitions of culinary tourism introduceimportant issues, an operational definition of tourism must be developed for thepurposes of statistical analysis. For this particular paper, the operational defini-tion must be shaped by the content of the TAMS questionnaire. Fortunately,TAMS includes a number of culinary related activities, including some of thoseidentified in the typology. For the purposes of this project, culinary tourism isoperationally defined as self-reported participation (incidence, not frequency) inthe following activities:

• Visiting farmers’ fairs or markets.• Visiting pick-your-own farms/participating in harvesting.• Shopping for gourmet foods in retail stores or farms.• Dining in restaurants with regional or local cooking.• Dining in internationally acclaimed restaurants.• Touring a region’s wineries where one stays one or more nights.• Going to wineries for day visits and tasting.• Staying at a cooking school.• Staying at a wine-tasting school.• Staying at a gourmet restaurant with accommodation on the premises.

Profiling culinary touristsAs suggested previously, there has been little research that has explored some

of the differences betweem various groups of culinary tourists. In other words,many authors appear to assume implicitly that all culinary tourists are essen-tially the same. This naive approach is even reflected in some concepts of thephenomenon itself. For example, the International Culinary Tourism Associa-tion’s website suggests that culinary tourism is something that virtually everytourist does because virtually every tourist eats while travelling (InternationalCulinary Tourism Association, 2004). Even if this statement were true (and thispaper has proposed a more restrictive definition of culinary tourism), it shouldimply that there are substantial differences among culinary tourists just as thereare substantial differences among the myriad types of tourists.

The body of literature on the profiling of culinary tourists is still limited, butgrowing. Not all these studies, though, are based on empirical examinations ofdifferences among various culinary segments. For example, Fields (2002)suggested that culinary tourists may be motivated by any of four differentdesires: (1) physical drives, such as the desire to discover new tastes or to enjoythe benefits of regional foods; (2) cultural drives, such as the desire to learn abouttraditional food-ways; (3) inter-personal drives that use foods to create socialbonds; and (4) prestige drives, such as the desire to be able to brag about visiting atrendy new restaurant. His approach, however, was conceptual and notsupported by empirical evidence.

Au and Law (2002) developed a choice model to predict spending by touristson food during visits to Hong Kong. Noting that traditional models do notperform well as predictors of food expenditures, the authors developed a ‘roughchoice’ model using socio-economic and other personal characteristics of visitorsto predict spending levels. Their approach shows some promise as a predictive


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

tool. However, they did not differentiate among different types of culinary tour-ists.

Dodd (1995) examined characteristics of wine tourists in the state of Texas. Hedivided his respondents into three segments, based on the proximity of theirhomes to the winery visited (within 30 miles, within Texas but further than 30miles from the winery, and out-of-state). This segmentation was more for thepurpose of identifying potential differences among winery visitors based ondistance travelled rather than for marketing. He found that the overall demo-graphic characteristics of visitors to Texas wineries was similar to that reportedfor other US wineries, but the amount of money spent at the wineries tended to beless than that in other states. Those living close to the winery were more likely tohave visiting the winery as a primary activity, whereas those further away weremore likely to report the visit was only one of numerous activities done duringthe trip.

Williams and Dossa (2003) explored profiles of wine tourists in British Colum-bia, Canada and proposed two segments – immersionists and generalists. Thegeneralists are drawn by scenery, a clean environment, the opportunity to inter-act with other people, and include visits to wineries as an activity. In contrast,immersionists focus more on learning about the region, personal and socialdiscovery, and physical activity. The latter are younger, less formally educated,and more likely to be employed and female. These two segments are not focusedon segments of wine tourists but are a more general segmentation of all visitors toBritish Columbia.

Charters and Ali-Knight (2002), noting that the research on wine touriststended to be limited and relatively superficial, conducted a survey of a sample ofwine tourists to Western Australia to examine, in detail, attitudes and behav-iours. They identified four segments based on knowledge of wine, attitudestowards wine, and wine purchasing behaviours: (1) wine lovers, who are highlyinvolved in wine tourism; (2) connoisseurs, who are highly knowledgeableabout wines; (3) wine interested, who are informally educated about wine butexperientially knowledgeable; and (4) wine novices, who have limited experi-ence but are actively seeking more knowledge.

Hashimoto and Telfer (2003), looking at a different wine regions in Canada –Niagara – noted that the profiles of winery visitors differed by location of thewinery. Visitors to wineries located in the western part of the region were morelikely to cite dining at wineries to be important than visitors to wineries in theeast. Those in the west were more likely to be local, to come in larger groups, to beconnoisseurs, and do not value entertainment as highly as those in the east. Inter-national visitors were more common in the east. These differences, however,were not translated into segments although the finding does have marketingimplications for Niagara wineries.

Cohen and Avieli (2004) provide the results of 10 years of anthropologicalobservation of tourists confronting unfamiliar foods while on vacation or attend-ing conferences. They challenge the notion that food is a simple tourism attrac-tion, suggesting that it can also function as an impediment to travel. They adoptan earlier typology of tourists proposed by the senior author (Cohen, 1979) andpresent a series of hypotheses regarding how different types of tourists willapproach unfamiliar food. The study provides a provocative phenomenological


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

approach to differences among tourists in the context of food, although theresults are qualitative rather than quantitative and thus of limited value totourism marketers.

As can be seen from these examples, the literature on culinary tourism marketsegments is limited; the studies that have focused on profiles of culinary touristsgenerally are limited to wine tourism. Studies that have examined culinarytourism more broadly tend not to examine market profiles, but are either moreconceptual or phenomenological. Thus, there is a need for studies such as the onedescribed in this paper – a quantitative examination of different marketsegments in culinary tourism.

Methods

Source of dataTAMS was conducted in both Canada and the US between September 1999

and April 2000. The first stage involved telephone surveys with people over theage of 18. The second stage involved an in-depth mail survey of individuals whoagreed to respond to a mail-back survey (TAMS User Guide, 2000). This studyuses data from the Canadian telephone and mail surveys.

The target population for the telephone survey was all persons 18 years orolder in each of the 10 Canadian provinces, excluding full-time residents of insti-tutions and households without telephones (these excluded groups representless than 2% of the Canadian population). A total of 29,213 households werecontacted with 18,385 completing the telephone survey for a 63.1% response rate.Of these, 5740 completed mail questionnaires were received generating anoverall response rate of 23.2%.

Definition of market segmentsThree market segments were defined a priori: food tourists, wine tourists, and

food and wine tourists. The following steps were employed operationally todefine these three groups. First, it was observed that the 10 food-related activitiesrepresented two relatively distinct sets: one related to food retail purchases, andthe other related to direct consumption or gourmet-type activities. The threewine-related activities were not sub-divided. Thus, market segments were basedon three categories of culinary activities:

Group One: farmers’ fairs/markets; shop/browse gourmet foods in retail storesor farms; pick-your-own farms/harvestingGroup Two: restaurant dining (regional or local cooking); restaurant dining(internationally acclaimed restaurants); staying at a cooking school; staying at agourmet restaurant with accommodation on premisesGroup Three: touring a region’s wineries with a stay of one or more nights; goingto wineries for day visits and tasting; staying at a wine tasting school

Food tourists were defined as those who had travelled in Canada in the pasttwo years preceding the survey, had participated in at least one activity fromGroup One and one activity from Group Two, and had not engaged in any activi-


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

ties in Group Three. Wine tourists were those who had participated in at least oneactivity in Group Three and did not qualify as food tourists. Food and wine tour-ists were those who met the criteria of both food and wine tourists.

ResultsThe results in this section are based on data weighted to correct for sampling

bias and to extrapolate the findings to the general Canadian population. Table 2presents the number of respondents, both unweighted and weighted, for each ofthe segments. Weighting was done using the person-trip weights calculated byStatistics Canada (the agency responsible for data management and qualitycontrol) to correct for sampling biases associated with age, gender, and region ofresidence. The weighting generalises the sample to the Canadian population.

DemographicsTable 3 summarises the demographic characteristics of food, wine, and food

and wine tourists. Females were more likely than males to be involved in food orwine activities. Specifically, a strong majority (57.3%) of participants infood-only activities were female; the same pattern can be observed forwine-related activities (54.8%). However, there was a nearly equal distributionamong tourists engaging in food and wine activities with respect to sex.

Approximately two-thirds of both the food segment and the wine segmentwere between the ages of 26 and 55. Fewer food and wine tourists belonged to thiscohort. The food segment and the wine segment had average ages of 43 and 44,respectively. The combined food and wine segment was older, with an averageage of 46 years. More than the mean age, though, the three segments show differ-ences among the various age cohorts. Food tourists, at 11.7%, were about twice aslikely as food and wine tourists (at 5.7%) to be in the 18–25 age cohort. In contrast,nearly twice the percentage of food and wine tourists (20.6%) belong to the 55–65cohort compared to 10.4% of the wine segment. The overall differences in the ageprofiles are statistically different at the 0.01 level of probability.

Wine tourists were significantly more likely to have a university education(44.8%) than food tourists (34.9%) although only a minority of both groups had auniversity education. However, nearly half (49.6%) of tourists engaging in bothfood and wine were had a university education. Food enthusiasts were more likelyto have elementary or secondary education compared to the other two segments.

All three segments tended to have average or above average incomes,although food tourists tended to be lower. Food tourists were the most likely to


CIT 229

Table 2 Sample and segment size, unweighted and weighted data

Unweighted WeightedTotal survey responses 5740 19,618,857Segment sizesFood 1553 4,787,083Wine 245 755,133Food and wine 446 1,301,377



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

belong to the lowest income categories (10.6% earn under $20,000; 20.7% earnbetween $20,000 and $39,999) than the two other segments. The food and winesegment had the highest percentage (28.6%) of all three groups with an income of$80,000 or more. These differences are also significant at the 0.01 level.

With respect to occupation status, about seven out of 10 members of each ofthe three segments were employed or self-employed. The food and winesegment had a higher percentage of retired people than the other two segments(17.9% versus 13.7% of food tourists, for example).

PsychographicsTrip Purpose

Table 4 summarises purposes of all trips taken by respondents in the two yearsprior to the survey. All three segments were more likely to travel for pleasure


CIT 229

Table 3 Demographic profiles (%)

Total % ofweighted responses

Food Wine Food andWine

SexFemalesMales

55.744.3

57.342.7

54.845.2

50.549.5

Age18–2526–3536–4546–5556–6566–7575+

10.420.726.618.914.26.92.4

11.720.127.718.813.16.32.3

9.922.127.119.410.47.53.6

5.722.222.119.120.68.51.9

Education levelUniversityElementary/SecondaryCollege/CEGEPTrade/VocationalOther

38.838.217.25.70.1

34.942.317.15.80.0

44.829.919.95.20.2

49.627.916.25.90.4

Income levelLess than 20,000s ($)20,000–39,99940,000–59,99960,000–79,99980,000+Don’t know/Refused

10.620.721.614.620.511.9

11.321.622.114.617.712.8

9.021.119.615.824.310.1

9.017.220.914.328.610.0

OccupationEmployeeSelf-employedWorking for family (no $)

56.414.20.2

57.013.50.1

56.216.40.2

54.215.80.2

Not workingHomemakerStudentRetiredUnemployed

7.84.0

14.71.5

8.14.4

13.72.0

6.04.5

15.60.3

7.72.3

17.90.3



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

(which includes visiting friends and relatives) than other purposes. However,more food, and food and wine enthusiasts travelled for pleasure than the winesegment (92.8% and 93.5%, respectively). Wine tourists were more likely (at 32.0%)to take business trips than the food (23.9%), and food and wine segments (29.7%).

Table 5 presents the motivations for trips taken for pleasure. The food andwine segment almost uniformly reported higher responses for all past pleasuretrip purposes. The food and wine enthusiasts were significantly (at the 0.01 level)more likely to travel for the purpose of spending time with good friends, to seenatural wonders/natural sites, to visit historic sites, to experience unspoiled


CIT 229

Table 4 Trip purposes (multiple responses possible)


Food Wine Food andwine

Pleasure (including VFR) 92.6 92.8 89.3 93.5Business 25.9 23.9 32.0 29.7Personal 12.0 12.4 10.7 11.3Education 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0To move 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Table 5 Trip motivations (multiple responses possible)



To rest, relax, recuperate 82.5 81.7 83.4 85.0VFR 78.5 78.4 73.8 81.5To spend time with family 71.2 72.2 63.1 72.1To spend time with good friends 58.5 57.5 52.7 65.5To see natural wonders/natural sites 57.9 56.6 53.2 65.7To visit historic sites 50.7 47.5 49.6 63.5To experience unspoiled nature 48.4 48.1 40.4 54.2For intimacy + romance 45.3 43.2 42.8 54.5To participate in a hobby or sport 43.4 42.9 38.0 48.4To experience adventure andexcitement

41.7 39.4 44.2 48.3

To experience city life 41.2 40.2 32.8 49.7To be someplace that feels familiar, safe 39.7 40.8 35.1 38.3To experience different cultures orways of life

37.7 33.0 40.8 53.1

To experience the good life with finecuisine, good wine, being pampered

36.5 31.8 37.2 53.2

To escape winter weather 28.9 25.8 26.8 41.7To visit a popular/trendy place 23.0 20.9 24.9 29.3To visit casinos and gamble 19.5 19.0 14.7 24.2To participate in a hands-on learning 8.9 9.2 4.2 10.4For spiritual/religious experiences 7.9 8.2 4.0 9.0



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

nature, and for intimacy and romance compared to those in either the food orwine segments. Food and wine enthusiasts cited experiencing different culturesand ways of life, and experiencing the good life with fine cuisine, good wine, andbeing pampered as trip motivators significantly (0.01) more frequently thaneither than either the wine or food segments. Being someplace that feels famil-iar/safe was a more important reason for travel by the food tourists (40.8%) thanfor the wine (35.1%) tourists.

Home activitiesTable 6 reports the results of the analysis for activities engaged in while not

travelling. The food and wine segment almost uniformly reported higher


CIT 229

Table 6 Home activities



Restaurants (not fast food) 89.5 88.2 92.0 93.0Home/fitness club 69.0 68.5 66.1 72.5Picnic/day-outing 67.0 67.3 58.6 70.4Swimming in pools/naturalbodies of water

66.8 67.0 57.5 71.3

Gardening 60.5 60.0 53.8 66.1Camping/hiking/backpacking 60.0 59.7 58.7 62.0Music concerts 57.0 53.6 53.2 71.9Live theatre 53.1 49.2 52.4 67.8Biking 52.4 52.3 45.2 56.9Museum 50.3 48.2 43.9 62.0Zoo/botanical garden 47.4 46.3 43.3 53.7Dancing 46.6 46.8 40.5 49.3Art gallery/art show 43.3 39.5 36.4 61.6Ice-skating 39.3 39.3 38.7 40.0Professional sports events 38.2 36.6 38.4 44.1Amusement/ theme parks 37.7 37.4 32.9 41.7Golf 35.5 32.1 39.2 46.1Fishing 30.1 30.8 25.3 30.4Sailing/other boating 28.2 27.3 26.9 32.3Canoeing/kayaking 26.8 25.7 26.2 31.3Downhill skiing/snowboarding 24.3 21.6 29.0 31.5Team sports 23.3 22.6 29.9 22.4Cross-country skiing 21.0 19.2 26.2 24.7Racquet sports 19.0 16.9 24.9 23.1Gambling at casinos 15.1 13.7 17.9 18.7Ballet 12.3 11.4 11.2 15.9Opera 11.8 10.0 10.3 19.5Snowmobiling 11.7 11.8 15.2 9.2B&B in own city/town 10.2 10.4 7.0 11.2Hunting 7.1 8.1 3.9 5.1



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

responses for all home activities. Food and wine enthusiasts were slightly morelikely than either wine or food tourists to dine in non-fast food restaurants whileat home. Significantly more of the food and wine segment exercised at home/fitness club than either the food segment or the wine segment. More tourists inthe food and wine segment than either the food or wine segments also reportedgoing on a picnic/day-outing. A large majority of food and wine tourists alsoengaged in swimming in pools/natural bodies of water while at home,compared to food tourists or wine tourists. Further, more food and wine touristsengaged in gardening while at home compared to the food and the winesegments. The majority of food and wine tourists reported higher participationin camping, hiking, or backpacking than either the food or the wine segments.Many more food and wine tourists attended music concerts, a live theatre, amuseum, a zoo/botanical garden, and an art gallery/art show while at homecompared to both food tourists and wine tourists. Food and wine tourists werealso slightly more frequent participants in activities associated with biking thanwere food or wine tourists.

Wine enthusiasts were significantly more likely to participate in team sports,cross-country skiing, racquet sports, and snowmobiling. Food tourists reportedhigher participation rates in hunting compared to the other two segments;however, hunting was the least frequently cited activity for all three segments, atwell under 10%.

Trip activitiesTable 7 provides the results of the trip activity analysis. Trip activities were

classified in three groups: outdoor, cultural, and touring activities.Outdoor: In general, food and wine tourists engage more in outdoor activitiesthan either the food or the wine segments. Food and wine tourists were the mostlikely of the three groups to have engaged in picnics in park settings (71.5%)while on their trips. The food and wine segment also reported higher participa-tion in swimming in lakes, sunbathing/sitting on a beach, and swimming inoceans.Cultural: Not surprisingly, virtually all food and wine (98.2%) as well as food(98.0%) tourists dined in restaurants offering regional/local cooking. While amajority of wine tourists also engaged in this activity, the percentage was signifi-cantly lower. Members of the food and wine segment reported significantlyhigher participation in shopping/browsing for clothing, shoes, and jewellerythan food or wine. Food and wine enthusiasts also rated significantly higher onreading for relaxation/personal interest, and shopping/browsing for books/music than the other two segments. More food and wine tourists shopped/browsed for local arts and crafts, antiques, and gourmet foods on their trip thaneither the food or the wine segments. Food and wine enthusiasts were also muchmore likely to go to the movies, to visit local outdoor cafes, to visit generalhistory/heritage museums, natural wonders, a theatre, and art galleries on theirtrips than the other two groupsTouring: Nearly three-quarters of food and wine tourists took day drives alongseacoasts or lakeshores, a much higher percentage than either of the other twosegments. Food and wine tourists are also significantly more likely to make over-night visits to small towns than the other segments. Curiously, the food and wine


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

segment was more likely than the wine segment to visit wineries for day visitsand tasting (84.2% versus 79.2%), and to do overnight tours in wine regions(56.5% versus 51.6%).

Trip characteristicsTAMS divides past trips into vacations (four nights or longer) and getaway

trips (three nights or shorter). Results for vacation trips are shown in Table 8. Thegeneral patterns also hold for getaway trips, although the results are not shownhere due to space restrictions. Summer was the most popular season for all threesegments (at over 70% for each group) with spring the least popular (around 33%for food, and for wine tourists). However, the percentage of food and wine tour-ists travelling in the spring was only marginally lower than the percentage trav-elling in the fall (46.5% versus 46.6%). The food and wine segment was morelikely than the other two segments to travel in any of the other seasons; in fact, amajority (53.6%) of food and wine tourists reported making a winter trip.

All three segments were likely to travel with spouses/partners as a couple, buthere, too, there are inter-segment differences. Over two-thirds of the food andwine segment travelled with their spouses/partners, compared to about half foreach of the food and the wine segments; the difference is statistically significant.


CIT 229

Table 7 Trip activities



OutdoorPicnics in park settingsSwimming in lakesSunbathing/sitting on a beachSwimming in oceans

62.357.054.238.6

62.256.954.035.0

47.449.245.036.9

71.562.160.453.1

CulturalRestaurant dining (regional/local)Shop/browse (clothing, shoes, jewellery)Read for relaxation/personal interestShop/browse (book/music stores)Shop/browse (local arts & crafts)MoviesFarmers’ fairs/marketsLocal outdoor cafesShop/browse (antiques)General history/heritage museumsShop/browse gourmet foodsNatural wondersTheatreArt galleries

94.875.674.673.465.462.160.853.250.144.743.641.338.235.6

98.076.875.175.765.663.268.651.250.944.144.837.035.833.4

68.860.762.349.444.240.37.0

35.624.830.83.2

38.826.323.9

98.279.979.678.976.670.363.370.561.955.162.758.554.150.7

TouringDay – coastal/lakeshore scenic driveWandering around small towns/villages

1+ nightsWineries for day visits and tastingTouring region’s wineries with stay

1+ nights

59.757.8

24.8

16.4

57.155.2

0.0

0.0

51.954.4

79.2

51.6

73.769.1

84.2

56.5



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

Food enthusiasts were more likely than food and wine, or wine tourists to taketrips with their immediate family (42.4% versus 36.5% and 38.4% respectively).More than one-third of food and wine enthusiasts travelled with immediatefamily, friends, and/or other relatives where only about one-fourth of the foodand the wine tourists did so.

Respondents used a variety of accommodations but all three segments weremost likely to stay at hotels/resorts/country inns or with friends/relatives. Asignificantly higher portion of food and wine tourists stayed at hotel/resorts/


CIT 229

Table 8 Vacation travel characteristics



Travel seasonSummerWinterFallSpring

77.047.839.236.1

76.946.137.233.3

72.447.137.733.9

79.553.646.646.5

Party compositionSpouse/partner (no children)Immediate family (incl. children)Immediate family, friends, relativesWith friends/business associatesAloneOther

54.941.028.220.418.33.8

50.842.427.018.718.83.6

55.436.524.522.416.35.6

68.438.434.524.917.73.8

AccommodationHotels/resorts/country innsHomes of friends & relativesMotelsFully serviced campgrounds/RV parksUnserviced campgrounds/backcountryRented cottageB & BCampgrounds/RV parks (Elec. only)OtherOwn cottageFishing/hunting lodges

60.360.138.022.919.115.815.614.114.111.44.1

56.860.836.423.419.515.111.914.613.99.24.1

61.859.736.214.413.715.219.19.714.614.13.0

71.458.044.126.120.518.625.814.614.617.34.5

Sources of InformationAdvice of friends/relativesPast experienceA travel agentInternetAuto Club (CAA)Travel information officesArticles in newspapers/magazinesAdvertisements in newspapers/magazinesAirline reservation systemTravel guide booksTravel information received in the mailOtherTV programmeTV advertisementsTrade/travel/sportsmen’s shows

53.753.440.730.428.128.026.022.918.116.814.610.09.97.44.9

52.854.335.725.725.426.022.920.717.212.513.410.59.17.34.0

51.846.648.243.027.419.015.918.016.517.57.0

11.08.06.62.3

57.554.053.239.637.439.441.833.222.030.622.67.5

13.78.29.5



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

country inns than did the food or the wine segments; they were also more likelyto stay at motels than the food or the wine tourists.

The most frequently used information sources for all three segments were theadvice of friends/relatives or past experience. Food and wine tourists were morelikely to use the advice of friends/relatives to plan their vacation trips comparedto the food or the wine segments. Food as well as food and wine tourists weremore likely to cite past experience as a source of information than were the winetourists. The food and wine tourists were more likely to use a travel agent (53.2%)as a source of information compared to those in the food or wine segments (35.7%and 48.2%).

Media consumption habitsTable 9 presents the use of print media. The three most popular media sources

were daily newspapers, the weekend editions of newspapers, and communitynewspapers. About four out of five of the members of each segment tended toread daily newspapers. Food and wine (82.4%), and wine tourists (82.1%) weremore likely than food tourists (76.3%) to read the weekend edition of a newspa-per. Nearly three-quarters of the food segment read community newspaperscompared to either the food segment or the wine segment. Food and wine enthusi-asts reported much higher readership with respect to the travel sections of news-papers (67.4% versus 54.4% for food tourists and 54.2% for wine tourists). The foodand wine segment is also much more likely to read the travel section of the thedaily edition of a newspaper than the food or the wine enthusiasts. Food and winetourists are more likely than the other two groups to read newsmagazine (55.0%versus 46.5% for food tourists and 53.4% for wine tourists).

With respect to Internet use, the majority of all three segments use the Internetas an information source. Wine tourists were the most likely (66.8%), followed bythe food segment (53.4%) and then the food and wine segment (58.1%). However,


CIT 229

Table 9 Print media consumption habits (% reading)

Total % ofweightedresponses

FoodN = 4,787,083

(69.9%)

WineN = 755,133

(11.0%)

Food and wineN = 1,301,377

(19.0%)Daily newspaper 79.3 78.5 80.1 81.9Weekend edition of newspaper 78.1 76.3 82.1 82.4Community newspaper 71.8 73.1 62.8 71.9Travel section of weekend editionof newspaper

56.2 53.4 54.2 67.4

Travel section of daily newspaper 49.8 47.4 50.1 58.6News magazines 48.9 46.5 53.4 55.0Hobby magazines 45.1 46.3 40.6 43.6Fashion/homemaking magazines 42.4 42.8 43.2 40.6Travel magazines 37.1 36.0 30.6 44.9Canadian or National Geographic 36.2 35.2 35.0 40.3Other newspapers 34.8 35.1 28.2 37.6Sports magazines 22.5 22.9 22.1 21.3General interest magazines 22.3 20.4 20.7 30.2



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

only a small fraction of each segment – generally fewer than one in 10 – was likelyto use the Internet to book trips.

DiscussionThe results of this enquiry confirm that there are distinct segments within the

broader category of culinary tourists and that these differences have potentialmarketing implications. While most research in culinary tourism focuses onwine tourism, the findings of this study suggest there is a much larger market fortourism related specifically to food. The food tourism segment is over six timeslarger than the wine segment. Even the wine and food segment is over 70% largerthan the wine segment. So it is curious that the research community does not giveattention to the food component of culinary tourism at a level proportional to itsimportance in the market. Thus, one of the first implications arising from thisstudy is that much more research is needed on food aspect of culinary tourism.

A few implications that can be drawn from the profiles developed for the threesegments include the following. Food tourists are more likely to be female, andhave lower education and lower income levels than wine tourists or those classi-fied as food and wine tourists. Thus, marketers and tour operators wishing totarget the large food tourism segment should design products and campaignsthat appeal to this type of visitor. Food experiences should be positioned ascontributing to family bonding and as a way to strengthen friendships. Theemphasis should not be on luxury experiences, but on value and the social bene-fits that can be enjoyed by sharing food-related experiences with loved ones.

Wine tourists, in contrast, are less sensitive to price concerns. They willrespond better to advertisements and promotions that emphasise romance,luxury, and the good life. Images of couples, without children, enjoying winetourism experiences will be more effective than linking winery visits to broadtouring packages with a variety of activities. An emphasis on learning and newexperiences will also appeal more to wine tourists than food tourists.

Food and wine tourists are more likely to be male, older, have higher levels ofeducational attainment, and higher incomes. They report a wider range of tripmotivations and participation in more activities at home and on vacation thaneither of the other two segments. Food and wine visitors are more involved in awide range of cultural, outdoor, and touring activities than the other segments.Messages to this group should position wine and food experiences as part of anactive lifestyle, something associated with good times, enjoyment of oneself andall that travel has to offer. Products and tours aimed at this segment should offermore upscale experiences, customised, if possible, to the needs of specific tour-ists. This group is the most likely to travel with their spouse/partner only thanthe other two segments. Associating wine and food with romance or adultget-aways will likely be effective. Links between culinary experiences and hotels,resorts, or country inns would be well received.

All segments can be effectively reached through newspaper stories and ads.Working with journalists to produce stories on products and experiences specificto each segment can be a valuable tactic for reaching the markets. However, assuggested above, the themes of such stories should be tailored to the differentgroups. Food stories should emphasise family and friends, inexpensive activi-


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

ties, set in familiar locations. It is worth noting, though, that food tourists areproportionately less likely than the other two segments to use newspapers (orany other formal source) for information on travel. Word-of-mouth and repeatvisitation will be more effective in generating business from this segment.

Wine stories should contain product information, and can be linked to infor-mation about the wine region. While the pairing of wine and food is a popularactivity, there is a segment of wine tourists that is not interested in necessarilypairing food with wine; rather they care about wine only. Thus, some winestories can be quite focused on that product. However, the food and winesegment will be more interested in stories that link the two, and do so in a contextthat emphasises adult travel, romance, luxury, and new experiences in attractive(and upscale) settings.

The food and wine segment typically reports higher usage of most sources ofinformation for travel planning, including travel agents, auto clubs, travel infor-mation offices, various print media, and airline reservation systems (suggestinga higher propensity to travel by air). They are less likely than the other twogroups, however, to use the Internet – possibly a function of their relativelyhigher age. When they do use the Internet, though, they are more likely to alsobook trips on the Internet than the two other segments. Since the time of thesurvey, the use of the Internet has risen dramatically in Canada. It is a particu-larly effective tool to reach wine tourists, and wineries interested in marketing tothis segment will find that their websites, plus the use of Internet direct mailings,will be effective. Having direct booking capabilities on the websites of inns,hotels, and resorts is important, especially for those facilities targeting theupscale food and wine tourist. The development of mailing lists of customerswho have purchased food and wine experiences (such as a weekend get-away atan in featuring gourmet food and wine) will also be effective with this segment.This group is also the most likely to attend travel and other consumer shows,providing food and wine tourism operators suppliers with another effective toolto reach this group.

Future researchThis analysis extends previous research on the profiles of culinary tourist by

exploring differences among three a priori segments. The segmentation approachwas limited by the structure and content of the TAMS database. Ideally, a surveyinstrument specific to the needs of culinary tourism segmentation should be devel-oped and applied.

The results do suggest further analyses that should be conducted. Forexample, a very low proportion of the culinary segments participated inhands-on learning – participating in cooking or wine tasting schools. This mayindicate either a lack of awareness of such educational opportunities; a percep-tion that the existing opportunities do not offer good value/experiences, of thathands-on learning is simply not important to the majority of culinary tourists.Further investigation would be useful.

Research is also needed to examine the demand for culinary tourism inCanada by foreign tourists and determine to what degree culinary enthusiastsfrom other countries are similar to their Canadian counterparts. TAMS providesinformation on US tourists, therefore the US data set could offer information


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

about this market. Such investigation will also reveal whether the perception ofCanadian cuisine is getting stronger on the international arena, something that isseen as a weakness by the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC, 2002).

Finally, future studies should examine the ethnic/cultural background of theCanadian culinary enthusiasts. This would prove useful in determining whetherthere are linkages between cultural ethnicity and culinary lifestyle. For instance,Europe is renowned for its food and wine traditions and culinary tourism is notnew in this part of the world. Consequently, Canadians having European back-grounds may be influenced by their roots to travel in search for culinary explora-tions.

SummaryThis study has provided insights into the structure of the Canadian culinary

tourism market. For example, the study suggests that one group of culinary tour-ists is interested primarily in wine and not broader culinary experiences (nor, infact, in many other forms of recreation). Further, another segment is interested infood rather than wine and that their interests cover both dining out as well asexploring the agricultural roots of food such as visiting farmers’ markets. Thestudy also confirms a distinct food and wine segment that is interested in thebroader culinary experience. This latter group is characterised by having a broadrange of interests, as inferred from their activity patterns. This group also tendsto be older, better educated, and with higher incomes than other culinary tour-ists. Further, this group also appears to be more interested in a broad range ofactivities, including cultural activities, outdoor activities, and touring activities.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed Dr Stephen L.J. Smith, University of

Waterloo, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Waterloo, Ontario,N2L 3G1, Canada ([email protected]).

ReferencesAu, N. and Law, R. (2002) Categorical classification of tourism dining. Annals of Tourism

Research 29, 819–33.Barthes, R. (1979) Toward a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption. In R.

Forster and O. Ranum (eds) Food and Drink in History. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Bauer, M. (1996) Cultural tourism in France. In G. Richards (ed.) Cultural Tourism in Europe(pp. 147–64). Oxford: CAB International.

Brillat-Savarin, J.A. (2000) The Physiology of Taste, or Meditations on Transcendental Gastronomy(trans. M.F.K. Fisher). New York: Counterpoint. (Original work published 1825).

Canadian Tourism Commission (2002) Acquiring a Taste for Cuisine Tourism: A ProductDevelopment Strategy. Ottawa: Author.

Charters, S. and Ali-Knight, J. (2002) Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management 23, 311–19.

Cohen, E. (1979) A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 13, 179–201.Cohen, E. and Avieli, N. (2004) Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of

Tourism Research 31, 755–78.Dodd, T.H. (1995) Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry.

International Journal of Wine Marketing 7 (1), 5–12.Economic Planning Group of Canada (2001) Ontario Wine and Culinary Tourism Strategy.

Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation.


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

Fields, K. (2002) Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: Motivational factors. In A.Hjalager and G. Richards (eds) Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 36–50). London: Routledge.

Getz, D. (2000) Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development, and Destinations. Elmsford,USA: Cognizant Communication.

Gillespie, C. (2001) European Gastronomy into the 21st Century. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.

Hall, C.M. and Macionis, N. (1998) Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In R.Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (pp. 197–224). Chichester: Wiley.

Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. (2003) Positioning an emerging wine route in the NiagaraRegion: Understanding the wine tourism market and its implications for marketing. InC.M. Hall (ed.) Wine, Food, and Tourism Marketing (pp. 61–76). London: Haworth Hospi-tality.

Hegarty, J.A. and O’Mahony, G.B. (2001) Gastronomy: A phenomenon of cultural expres-sionism and an aesthetic for living. Hospitality Management 20, 3–13.

Hjalager, A. and Corigliano, M.A. (2000) Food for tourists: Determinants of an image.International Journal of Tourism Research 2, 281–93.

International Culinary Tourism Association. (2004) Culinary tourism FAQ – frequentlyasked questions. On WWW at http://www.culinarytourism.org/faq.php. Accessed22.11.04.

Lang Research (2001) Cuisine Tourism: Profiles. Toronto: Ontario Tourism Marketing Part-nership.

Pretty, G. (2004) Using regional food can boost sales and culinary pride! Canada’s FoodserviceNews (April), 1 & 3.

Reynolds, P. (1994) Culinary heritage in the face of tourism. In C.P. Cooper and A.Lockwood (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation, and Hospitality Management (pp. 189–93). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Richards, G. (2002) Gastronomy: An essential ingredient in tourism production andconsumption. In A.M. Hjalager and G. Richards (eds) Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 3–20). London: Routledge.

San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (1999) SFCVB National Foodie Survey. OnWWW at http://www.atme.org/pubs/archives/77_252_1090.CFM. Accessed 16.10.02.

Statistics Canada (2000) Travel Activities and Motivation Survey: User Guide. Ottawa: Statis-tics Canada.

Williams, P. and Dossa, K. (2003) Non-resident wine tourist markets: Implications forBritish Columbia’s emerging wine tourism industry. In C.M. Hall (ed.) Wine, Food, andTourism Marketing (pp. 1–34). London: Haworth Hospitality.

Wolf, E. (2002) Culinary Tourism: A Tasty Economic Proposition. On WWW at http://www.culinarytourism.org. Accessed 16.10.02.


CIT 229



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:38

03

Aug

ust 2

014

Documents

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists