See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264129748

Tourism and Hospitality Research

Article in Tourism and Hospitality Research · November 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1467358413510017

CITATIONS READS

81 12,463

1 author:

Donna Quadri
Pennsylvania State University
16 PUBLICATIONS 1,000 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Donna Quadri on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Tourism and Hospitality Research
2013, Vol. 13(1) 47–62
Destination loyalty: Effects of wine ! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
tourists’ experiences, memories, and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358413510017

satisfaction on intentions thr.sagepub.com

Donna L Quadri-Felitti
New York University, USA

Ann Marie Fiore

Iowa State University, USA

Abstract
The present study analyzed survey data from 970 tourists to evaluate their Lake Erie wine region experience.
Using structural equation modeling, an adapted scale of the experience economy’s 4Es (i.e. educational,
esthetic, entertainment, and escapist experiences) proved reliable and valid for measuring rural wine tour-
ism. This study contributes new information to research examining the 4Es applied to tourism venues by
showing the 4Es’ impact on tourist response to loyalty for an entire destination. Structural modeling demon-
strated the dominance of the esthetic experience in predicting positive memories and destination loyalty in the
wine tourism context. Education played a significant but lesser role in creating memories and satisfaction but
not in destination loyalty. Although the esthetic experience’s preeminence was consistent with other findings,
these results contradict Pine and Gilmore’s assertion that simultaneous incorporation of the 4Es is
necessary.

Keywords
Destination loyalty, experience economy, wine tourism

Introduction
Growth in wine tourism and interest in this segment by
academics have accelerated in the last 20 years. In
2009, wine tourists spent US$2.1 billion in
California (California Wine Institute, 2011) and con-
tributed $75 m to Michigan’s economy 5 years earlier
(Wargenau and Che, 2006). According to the US
Department of Commerce, the number of bonded
wineries in the United States rose 81% totaling,
more than 6600 active wineries, in 10 years
(Hodgen, 2011). Nearly, 50,000 persons have been
estimated to be employed as a result of tourism asso-
ciated with wineries (MKF Research LLC, 2007).
While much has been published about Napa Valley,
CA—arguably one of the world’s most successful
wine tourism destinations (Colman, 2008; Peters,
1997)—smaller, lesser known areas from Idaho to
North Carolina have been researched as wine tourism
destinations, demonstrating the value of this tourism
niche (Evans, et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2004).
Determining tourists’ motivations has been central
in wine tourism literature (Carlsen, 2004; Mitchell
and Hall, 2006), while research assessing tourists’
evaluations have focused on the winery experience
(Carmichael, 2005; Fountain and Charters, 2010;
Mitchell, 2006). While research has explored numer-
ous approaches to evaluate tourists’ total wine tourism
experience including the experiential view (Bruwer
and Alant, 2009; Sparks, 2007), the experience econ-
omy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999, 2011) has recently
gained attention among wine tourism researchers
(Pikkemaat et al., 2009; Quadri-Felitti and Fiore,
2012); however, empirical testing of the 4Es (i.e. edu-
cational, esthetic, entertainment, and escapist
Corresponding author:
Donna L Quadri-Felitti, Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality,
Tourism, and Sports Management, New York University, 7 East 12th
Street, 529F, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Email: quadri@nyu.edu
48
experiences) in wine tourism has yet to be undertaken.
In fact, the empirical development of the 4Es’ appli-
cation in tourism is nascent at best (i.e. Hosany and
Witham, 2010; Oh et al., 2007).
The objective of this study is to inaugurate meas-
urement of the 4Es among tourists’ across their entire
destination experience—a wine tourism experience.
The research examined how these experiential elem-
ents influence post-consumption evaluations—the crit-
ical consumer assessment of satisfaction and loyalty.
Furthermore, the present study expands understand-
ing of the experience economy by examining how tour-
ists’ memories operate together with the 4Es and
satisfaction to influence their destination loyalty. An
improved understanding is useful for those investing
in and marketing the destination.
Literature review
In line with the managerial imperative to positively
influence consumer experiences, researchers have
made substantial efforts to discern what contributes
to tourists’ evaluations of destination experiences
(Huang and Hsu, 2009; Pizam and Mansfeld, 1999).
Studies have applied various consumer behavior
models to overall tourist motivations creating theoret-
ical frameworks both competing with and comple-
menting one another (Huang and Hsu, 2009; Pizam
and Mansfeld, 1999). Rational, information-
processing approaches, such as the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991), have been utilized to measure
wine tourist motivations and purchase intentions
(Sparks, 2007; Yuan and Jang, 2008). Lately, research-
ers have employed experiential–hedonic perspectives
to understand the complexity of the tourist’s experi-
ence (Bruwer and Alant, 2009; McIntosh and Siggs,
2005; Williams, 2006). Hedonic consumption refers
to pleasure or satisfaction derived from sensory pleas-
ure, positive feelings, and fun (i.e. intrinsic value) asso-
ciated with consumer experiences (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982; Williams, 2006). An experiential
view of wine tourism has been scant although promis-
ing (e.g. Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Galloway et al.,
2008; Getz and Carlsen, 2008; Pikkemaat et al.,
2009; Quadri-Felitti and Fiore, 2012), given the hedo-
nic nature of the wine tourism experience.
Pine and Gilmore’s (1999, 2011) experience econ-
omy paradigm, particularly the 4Es, has stood out
among applications of the hedonic–experiential view
of consumer behavior. It has been suggested as appro-
priate for understanding tourism products such as
hotels and restaurants (Gilmore and Pine, 2002), spe-
cial events (Pullman and Gross, 2003), and heritage
trails (Hayes and MacLeod, 2007). Furthermore,
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012) posited that the 4Es
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)
offered a relevant framework to examine the wine tour-
ism experience. The 4E model was first successfully
operationalized by Oh et al. (2007) within a bed and
breakfast setting, followed by application in the cruise
environment (Hosany and Witham, 2010).
The 4Es
Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999, 2011) conceptualized
the multi-dimensional nature of consumer experiences
and positioned the resulting 4Es (educational, escap-
ist, esthetic, and entertainment experiences) in quad-
rants formed by the intersection of two continua of
experience—consumer participation (active or pas-
sive) along the horizontal and consumer connection
(absorption or immersion) along the vertical. Active
participation is ‘‘where customers personally affect
the performance or event,’’ and passive participation
is ‘‘where customers do not directly affect or influence
the performance’’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999: 30).
Immersion is described as becoming physically or vir-
tually enveloped by the event, performance, or envir-
onment whereas absorption involves engaging the
consumer’s mind (Pine and Gilmore, 1999, 2011).
The 4Es and the model’s active–passive participation
continuum, in particular, align with Prahalad and
Ramaswamy’s (2004) co-creation of customer value.
The co-creation of experiential value by tourists and
suppliers in the experience economy is emphasized in
the educational and escapist elements of the model.
Furthermore, more than one of the 4Es may occur
during an offering, whereby the tourist moves between
passive and active involvement either consuming or co-
creating one or more of the 4Es throughout their tour-
ism experience.
Educational experiences, the active-absorption
quadrant, entail consumers enhancing their knowledge
and skills, such as engaging in guided wine tastings. In
the passive-absorption quadrant (entertainment
experience), consumers are engaged by performers,
such as during winery concerts. In the active-
immersion quadrant (escapist experience), consumers
feel as if they are participating in the creation of a dif-
ferent place or time such as visitors helping harvest
grapes. In the passive-immersion quadrant (esthetic
experience), consumers are captivated by sensorial
environments, such as being enchanted during a
scenic drive through vineyard-lined rural roads.
While there is evidence of the potential role of each
of the 4Es in wine tourism (Quadri-Felitti and Fiore,
2012), the present researchers have not found any
wine tourism research that has tested the 4Es concur-
rently, as suggested by Pine and Gilmore (1999,
2011), in shaping the positive consumption outcomes
of memories, satisfaction, and intention to return.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
The educational experience
Education has repeatedly been revealed as a motivation
in the wine tourism research literature (Charters and
Ali-Knight, 2000; Fountain and Charters, 2010; Getz
and Carlsen, 2008). Personal development was identi-
fied as a key attribute desired by wine tourists (Sparks,
2007). Galloway et al., (2008) found that sensation
seekers rated learning as an even greater wine tourism
inducement than did others.
The entertainment experience
Special events produced in wine destinations are
another inducement for wine tourists. Cultural attrac-
tions and events within wine destinations have been
identified collectively as a considerable draw for tourists
(Carmichael, 2005; Williams and Kelly, 2001) and may
augment tourists’ entertainment experience. The
noticeable growth in wine and food festivals (Hede,
2008) is central to the definition of wine tourism provid-
ing ‘‘elements of the spectacular’’ (Axelsen and Swan,
2010: 437) to entertain. Getz and Brown’s (2006)
depiction of wine tourism showed the winescape inter-
secting with culture as part of ‘‘lots to see and do,’’
‘‘unique accommodations and traditional wine vil-
lages,’’ and numerous ‘‘specialty shops’’ (p. 156). Pine
and Gilmore (1999, 2011) described the overlap of edu-
cation and entertainment as ‘‘edutainment’’ (pp. 31–
32), a term used to describe the informative, fun, and
social aspects of wine tourism (Getz and Carlsen, 2008).
The esthetic experience
Similar to entertainment, tourists are passive in
esthetic experiences, but immersed in the wine tour-
ism experience. In particular, the winescape—the cul-
tural, environmental, and human improvements of
the viticultural landscape—reflects the esthetic motiv-
ation for wine tourists (Alant and Bruwer, 2004;
Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Carmichael, 2005; Cohen
and Ben-Nun, 2009; Peters, 1997; Williams, 2001).
The beauty of the winescape, vineyard vistas, quaint
main streets, and rural architecture, which have been
the subjects of myriad picture books, illustrate well
Urry’s (1995) appeal of the rural and natural envir-
onments upon tourists gaze. Indeed the term, coun-
tryside aesthetic, coined by Harrison in 1991 (as
cited in Sharpley and Roberts, 2004) is vital to the
wine tourism experience (Griffin and Loersch, 2007;
Martin and Williams, 2003).
The escapist experience
In addition to research supporting the esthetic element
in rural wine tourism, there is evidence pointing
49
toward the escapist principle (Alant and Bruwer,
2004; Alonso et al., 2007; Getz and Brown, 2006).
It is the disparity of place that draws urbanites to the
rural tourism experience (Bruwer, 2003; Urry, 1995)
and signifies the escapist realm. While wine tourists
may gaze at a winescape resulting in an esthetic experi-
ence, they may also engage in various recreational
options typically available in the natural, rural setting
of wine destinations. Wine destinations provide
numerous activities in which the tourist may be
engrossed ranging from hot air ballooning and bicycle
tours to grape stomping and harvesting. These partici-
patory activities have been noted as reasons for visiting
wine destinations (Fountain and Charters, 2010;
Sparks, 2007). For a listing of wine tourism activities
categorized by the 4Es, see Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
(2012). The previous studies examining the 4Es in
different tourism settings (Oh et al., 2007; Hosany
and Witham, 2010) found each to be represented;
however, the 4Es were found to operate differently in
each tourism context.
The 4Es, memories, satisfaction, and
intention
Pine and Gilmore (1999, 2011) proposed that con-
sumption experiences incorporating the 4Es lead to
stronger memories and subsequent positive evalu-
ations (Gilmore and Pine, 2002). Literature supports
that the 4Es may contribute to positive memories. For
instance, memorable tourist experiences are crafted in
part from travel that fulfills hedonic needs while
enhancing travelers’ knowledge and positive memories
(Arnould and Price, 1993; Kim, 2010; Tung and
Ritchie, 2011). Memories are also facilitated by sou-
venir purchases (Wilkins, 2011), such as picture books
capturing the winescape’s esthetic (Quadri-Felitti and
Fiore, 2012) or wine itself (Charters and Pettigrew,
2005; Hashimoto and Telfer, 1999) purchased
during visits. Results of Oh et al.’s (2007) study indi-
cated that the 4Es were significantly correlated with
positive memorable experiences. Likewise, esthetics
and educational experiences were significantly asso-
ciated with positive memories (Hosany and Witham,
2010). This supports the following hypothesis:
H1a–d: The 4Es (perceived [a] educational, [b] esthetic,
[c] entertainment, [d] escapist experience) have a signifi-
cant positive effect on memories.
Customer satisfaction has been examined exten-
sively in tourism literature (Alegre and Cladera,
2009; Eusebio and Vieira, 2013; Mendes et al.,
2010). Pine and Gilmore (1999, 2011) asserted that
the 4Es lead to satisfaction; Oh et al. (2007)
50
discovered a significant relationship between esthetic
experience and satisfaction; Hosany and Witham
(2010) demonstrated that two of the 4Es, esthetics,
and entertainment, significantly contribute to satisfac-
tion. Getz and Carlsen (2008) suggested that escape-
seeking wine tourists need entertaining presentations
of educational activities for a positive experience. Well-
designed festivals have been shown to increase satis-
faction and positive consumer behavioral intentions
(Yuan and Jang, 2008). In an exploratory study of
wine tourism staging, travelers ranked satisfaction of
the 4Es in this order: esthetics, entertainment, educa-
tion, and escapism (Pikkemaat et al., 2009). This
lends support to the following hypothesis:
H2a–d: The 4Es (perceived [a] educational, [b] esthetic,
[c] entertainment, [d] escapist experience) have a signifi-
cant positive effect on satisfaction.
As the literature has demonstrated, the 4Es are
motivations for wine tourists. It follows that fulfilling
these expectations will lead to satisfaction and conse-
quently to intentions to revisit and to recommend the
destination. Intention is regarded as the motivation
necessary to engage in a particular behavior (Lam and
Hsu, 2004), and consumer intention is an important
predictor in forecasting sales and customer loyalty
(Luo and Homburg, 2007; March and Woodside,
2005). Typical traveler intentions are the intention to
return to and recommend a destination. Together these
intentions constitute the destination loyalty construct,
which has significant implications for a destination’s
success (Kozak et al., 2004). Research has customarily
considered that positive memorable tourism experi-
ences (MTEs) affect these intentions (Cronin and
Taylor, 1992; Woodside et al., 2004). Herein, the 4Es
are hypothesized to create MTEs and directly affect the
creation of loyalty as Pine and Gilmore (1999, 2011)
proposed. Oh et al. (2007) wrote ‘‘additional concep-
tual clarification needs to be done regarding the rela-
tionship of experience economy concepts to general
consumption evaluations’’ (p. 130), of which future
intention has been considered the ‘‘only immediate pre-
cursor of behavior’’ (Ajzen, 1991: 203) and best pre-
dictor of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Thus,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3a–d: The 4Es (perceived [a] educational, [b] esthetic,
[c] entertainment, [d] escapist experience) have a signifi-
cant positive effect on destination loyalty intention.
Fournier and Mick (1999) submitted that satisfac-
tion is enhanced by social interactions during and fol-
lowing consumption; as tourists recall their memories
with others satisfaction may be realized (Larsen, 2007).
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)
Curtin (2005) concluded that reflection, analysis, and
sharing of experiences synthesized and converted them
into treasured memories. In addition, there was a sig-
nificant path between positive memories and satisfac-
tion in the original 4E empirical study (Oh et al., 2007)
thereby supporting the following:
H4: Memories will have a significant positive effect on
satisfaction.
Previous studies have supported that tourist satis-
faction is a robust harbinger to recommending a des-
tination and to returning (Kozak, 2001; Yoon and
Uysal, 2005) and, in some instances, measuring des-
tination loyalty should not be undertaken without the
satisfaction construct (Kim, 2008). Satisfaction has
been identified as positively affecting intentions in
wine tourism (Carmichael, 2005; Getz and Brown,
2006) and that memorable tourist experiences posi-
tively influence future intentions (Chandralal and
Valenzuela, 2013; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Tung
and Ritchie, 2011; Woodside et al., 2004). Hence, fol-
lowing hypotheses are proposed:
H5: Memories have a significant positive effect on destin-
ation loyalty intention.
H6: Satisfaction has a significant positive effect on destin-
ation loyalty intention.
The present study inaugurated an empirical exam-
ination of the whole of an American wine tourism
experience using the 4Es, and it explored the relational
influence of the 4Es, memories, satisfaction, and des-
tination loyalty intention in this context, as conceptua-
lized in Figure 1.
Recent research suggests that satisfaction may play
a mediating role between the 4Es and the intention to
recommend component of loyalty (Hosany and
Witham, 2010), and that MTEs may mediate experi-
ential effects on loyalty (Kim, 2010). If memories, as
presently hypothesized, have a significant positive
effect on loyalty, and satisfaction affects tourists’ inten-
tions as previous literature proved, it follows logically
that satisfaction will mediate the direct effect of mem-
ories on wine tourists’ loyalty intention. Therefore,
these final hypotheses are postulated:
H7a–d: Memories mediate the effects of the 4Es (perceived
[a] educational, [b] esthetic, [c] entertainment, [d] escapist
experience) on satisfaction.
H8a–e: Satisfaction mediates the effect of the 4Es (per-
ceived [a] educational, [b] esthetic, [c] entertainment,
[d] escapist experience) on destination loyalty intention.
H9: Satisfaction mediates the effect of memories on destin-
ation loyalty intention.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
H3a-d
The 4Es: H1a-d
Education
Esthetics
Entertainment
Escapist
H2a-d
Figure 1. Hypothesized structural model.
Methods
Study site
Lake Erie Wine Country (the Trail) stretches south of
Buffalo, New York to northeast of Erie, Pennsylvania
spanning 40 miles along Lake Erie’s southern shore-
line. The Trail contains approximately 30,000 acres of
vineyards, over 840 grape farms (Cornell University,
n.d.), and more than 25 wineries. As one of North
America’s five Great Lakes forming a border between
the United States and Canada, the natural features of
Lake Erie create a unique micro-climate for grape
growing (Cornell University, n.d.). The Trail is one
of 22 New York and Pennsylvania state-designated
wine trails estimated to have generated over
US$376 m in 2008 and US$180 m in 2007 of tourism
related expenditures, respectively, for each state (MKF
Research LLC, 2009; Stonebridge Research, 2010).
See Figure 2 for a map of the Trail.
Despite these attributes, there is a scarcity of
research that examines this specific wine tourism des-
tination. Conversely, its nearest competitors—
Ontario’s wine region (Carmichael, 2005; Hashimoto
and Telfer, 1999, 2003) and New York’s Finger Lakes
(Adams, 2006; Telfer, 2000)—have been repeated
research subjects, putting the Trail at a competitive
disadvantage. Each of these destinations, however,
maintains distinctive climates, geographies, econo-
mies, and cultures in differing stages of development.
Therefore, the need for research is timely and useful
for tourism operators, investors, and marketers.
During the study period, members contributing to
the Trail’s marketing efforts included 25 separate
wineries and 50 additional businesses offering retail,
51
Destination Loyalty
Intention
H5
Memories
H6
H4
Satisfaction
recreation, cultural, and dining opportunities for vis-
itors; each business may incorporate some or all of the
4Es while the whole of the Trail experience may also
demonstrate strength in one or more of the elements.
Sampling
Employing a cross-sectional survey design, data were
collected from visitors via electronic questionnaires
using Qualtrics. Using the Trail and local visitor
bureau consumer databases, 9733 survey invitations
were emailed and 257 invitations were sent to email
addresses collected at three separate winery concerts.
These convenience sampling techniques were justifi-
able as the study’s population required individuals to
have visited the destination. As incentives, participants
were able to enter a drawing for gift certificates (valued
from US$15–200) donated by Trail businesses; soft-
ware disassociated the responses from entries.
Survey design
The 4Es were measured by adapting Oh et al.’s (2007)
validated 16-item scale, which was previously adapted
successfully by Hosany and Witham (2010). Likewise,
the 3-item scales measuring satisfaction and positive
memories were drawn from Oh et al. (2007) who con-
structed the scale to be generalizable across tourism
platforms. The 16 items were posed on a 7-point
Likert scale of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(7). (See Oh et al., 2007 for details of the four-phase
development of the original measurement scale.)
Additionally, the visitors’ destination loyalty items,
two each pertaining to intent to return and intent to
52 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)

recommend, were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with

anchors of 1 (very unlikely) and 7 (very likely). These
items were drawn from Chen and Tsai (2007), Hosany
and Witham (2010), and Sparks (2007). Three tour-
ism researchers reviewed the adapted instrument prior
to pilot testing it with 37 tourism graduate students.
Changes to item wording and question order were
made to enhance face validity. Data regarding demo-
graphics and trip characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Results
Of the 1065 surveys received, only those confirming a
visit were retained resulting in 970 useable surveys.
The response rate for all those contacted was 10.0%,
permitting a 95% confidence level (Creswell, 2008).
A majority of the participants were female (72.5%).
Previous wine tourism (Fraser et al., 2008) and email
survey studies (Knapton and Meyers, 2005) have
reported a trend in greater response rates for females,
particularly when incentives of the size used herein were
offered (Boulianne, 2013). In addition, women greatly
influence the holiday travel decision process (Mottiar
and Quinn, 2004) and are increasingly a greater per-
centage of US wine consumers and influence wine tour-
ism choices (Barber, 2009). Their involvement with
tourism and wine consumption decisions may help
explain the higher response rate by women.
Most had some form of college education (87.0%)
with a bachelor degree being the most frequent edu-
cational level (33.3%). The average age of the sample
was 40.8 years with a majority (58.5%) over 55. Two-
fifths of the sample reported a household income
between US$60,000 and $105,000. Over 75% were
in-state residents, defined by zip codes located in
either New York or Pennsylvania given the Trail
spans both states.
The largest group of respondents (46.0%) visited
Figure 2. Lake Erie Wine Country (the Trail) map.

within three months of completing the survey, with a

total of 84.5% having visited the Trail within the year.
The majority of visitors (56.2%) spent at least one
night in the region. The most frequent length of stay
was two nights (18.6%), followed by four or more
nights at 15.7% and a single overnight at 15.4%.
Trail tourists averaged 21 activities per trip, which
included visiting wineries, farms, and farm stands,
dining, participating in recreational activities, and fre-
quenting cultural and retail establishments (see
Table 2). The sample visited two wineries (M ¼ 1.9)
per visit with New York wineries garnering slightly
more visits (91.8% of sample) than those of
Pennsylvania (87.9% of sample). The large number
of activities and multiple winery visits indicate that
the study participants were primarily following the
Trail and not merely accidental tourists.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore 53

Table 1. Demographic and trip characteristics of the wine Table 2. Lake Erie Wine Country visitor activities by type.
tourists.
Visitor activities by type Frequency Percentage
Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage
Visit NY wineries 890 91.8
Gender (n ¼ 898) Visit PA wineries 853 87.9
Female 651 72.5 Dine in restaurant 881 90.8
Male 247 27.5 Visit farm stand 779 80.3
Age in years (n ¼ 876) Visit retail shops 777 80.1
18–29 (Millennial) 139 14.4 Attend festival or event 756 77.9
30–46 (Gen X) 497 51.6 Visit Lake Erie 741 76.4
47–65 (Boomer) 222 23.0 Visit public lands or parks 728 75.1
Over 66 (Silent) 106 11.1 Visit Chautauqua Institution 724 74.6
Education (n ¼ 884) (summer arts colony)
High school 115 13.0 Visit art galleries 720 74.2
Some college 173 19.6 Sports activities 715 73.7
Associate degree 125 14.1 Visit non-grape farm 702 72.4
Bachelor degree 294 33.3 Other activities 300 30.9
Masters degree 143 16.2
Doctoral degree (PhD, JD, MD) 34 3.8
Household income (n ¼ 780) between exogenous and endogenous variables using
Less than $30,000 42 5.4 Stata 12.0. The data were deemed to have a normal
$30,000–44,999 107 13.7
distribution as skewness and kurtosis values were
within Curren et al.’s (1996) and Muthen and
$45,000–59,999 105 13.4
Kaplan’s (1985) thresholds; therefore, full information
$60,000–74,999 115 14.7
maximum-likelihood estimation was employed on 715
$75,000–89,999 129 16.5 complete observations.
$90,000–104,999 142 18.2
$105,000–119,999 40 5.1
$120,000–134,999 27 3.5
CFA of the measurement model
$135,000–149,999 26 3.3 The measurement model fit was appraised with
More than $150,000 47 6.0 common goodness-of-fit statistics including 2. Due
In-state (n ¼ 745) to this statistic’s commonly known sensitivity to large
NY or PA residency 563 75.6 sample sizes, the appraisal was supplemented by com-
Other US state residency 182 24.4 parative fit index (CFI); Tucker–Lewis index (TLI),
Time of last visit (n ¼ 970)
also referred to as the non-normed fit index
(Schreiber et al., 2006); root mean-squared error of
Within last 3 months 446 45.98
approximation (RMSEA); and standardized root
Within last 6 months 142 14.64
mean-square residual (SRMR). Based on recom-
Within last 12 months 235 24.23 mended values (Hair et al., 2010), the results of the
Over a year ago 147 15.15 initial model’s fit indices showed an adequate fit: 2
No. of overnights (n ¼ 970) (278) ¼ 1600.60, p ¼ .00, 2/df ¼ 5.75, CFI ¼ .91,
None–daytrip 415 42.8 TLI ¼ .90, RMSEA ¼ .08, SRMR ¼ .06. To assess
One night 149 15.4 model fit improvement, modification indices
Two nights 180 18.6 (MIs > 3.84) for item elimination (Hair et al., 2010)
Three nights 74 7.6 were examined. Consistent with the findings of
Four or more nights 152 15.7 Hosany and Witham’s study (2010), the MIs sug-
gested elimination of two items to improve fit of the
measurement model; one regarding curiosity (educa-
tional) and one regarding harmony (esthetic). The
Data analysis and model techniques
improved model’s fit indices were: 2 (254) ¼ 714.25,
The two-step process for structural equation modeling p < .01; 2/df ¼ 2.81, CFI ¼ .97, TLI ¼ .96,
was employed using confirmatory factor analysis RMSEA ¼ .05, SRMR ¼ 0.04. All item loadings after
(CFA) as part of the measurement model and then a modification were found to be above .50 on one factor
structural model to test the hypothesized relationships and below .30 on the other factors. Reliability was
54 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)

established with Cronbach’s alpha values above .70
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) and composite reli-
ability .70 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). These indices
are published in Table 3.
Each construct’s average variance extracted (AVE)
was >.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), thus supporting
unidimensionality. Factor loadings were greater than
.59 and statistically significant (p < .01) supporting
convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
The squared multiple correlations (SMCs) for all 24
items averaged 77%, lending further support for con-
vergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988). Discriminant validity was supported by
confidence intervals for the constructs’ correlations not
including 1.0 (see Table 4). In the more rigorous test for
discriminant validity, the SMCs should be less than the

Table 3. Results of CFA measurement model.

Measurement items and descriptive statistics

Standardized Composite Variance Cronbach’s

Measurement itema Mean (SD) factor loading reliability extracted alpha

Education 0.88 0.71 0.88

My trip to LEWC made me more knowledgeable 5.40 (1.14) 0.73
I learned a lot 5.10 (1.13) 0.89
My trip to LEWC was a real learning experience 5.12 (1.13) 0.91
Visiting LEWC stimulated my curiosity to learn new things
Esthetics 0.77 0.54 0.71
The setting was pretty bland (reverse coded) 5.68 (1.00) 0.60
LEWC is very attractive 6.19 (1.24) 0.79
Being in LEWC was very pleasant 5.97 (0.95) 0.79
I felt a sense of harmony
Entertainment 0.91 0.71 0.89
I really enjoyed watching what others were doing 4.70 (1.26) 0.88
Activities of others were fun to watch 4.74 (1.30) 0.94
Watching others perform was captivating 4.68 (1.21) 0.85
Activities of others were amusing to watch 4.99 (1.29) 0.68
Escapist 0.84 0.58 0.85
Being in LEWC let me imagine being someone else 3.80 (1.39) 0.77
I completely escaped from reality 4.14 (1.43) 0.76
I felt I played a different character here 3.51 (1.48) 0.74
I felt like I was living in a different time or place 3.96 (1.61) 0.79
Memories 0.93 0.81 0.92
I have wonderful memories of this visit to LEWC 5.87 (1.00) 0.94
I won’t forget my experience visiting LEWC 5.82 (0.99) 0.80
I will remember many positive things about LEWC 5.96 (0.92) 0.95
Satisfaction 0.94 0.83 0.92
The overall experience of visiting LEWC makes me feel. . .
Very dissatisfied. . .Very satisfied 5.98 (0.86) 0.92
Very displeased. . .Very pleased 5.93 (0.85) 0.92
Terrible. . .Delighted 5.79 (0.90) 0.89
Loyalty 0.89 0.67 0.92
I will recommend LEWC to others 6.22 (0.79) 0.88
I will encourage others to visit LEWC 6.20 (0.80) 0.88
I am willing to visit LEWC 6.43 (0.82) 0.75
I will definitely come back to this destination 6.23 (0.94) 0.75
CFA: confirmatory factor analysis. Items in italics were removed from the final model.
a
N ¼ 715.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore 55

variables’ AVEs (Hair et al., 2010). All latent variable
pairs passed except for esthetics, which had SMCs with
memories and loyalty that slightly exceeded this thresh-
old. These pairs may be an artifact of the reverse coded
item measuring esthetics or, as discussed in results sec-
tion, an indication of the esthetic experience’s role in
the model.
Structural model testing
The second step investigated the hypothesized paths of
the structural model. Goodness-of-fit measures includ-
ing 2 (255) ¼ 715.00, p < .01, 2/df ¼ 2.80, CFI ¼ .98,
TLI ¼ .97, RMSEA ¼ .055, SRMR ¼ 0.04 supported a
good level of fit to the data (Hair et al., 2010). Table 5
presents the coefficients and standard errors.
Multivariate normal distribution tests (i.e. Doornik–
Hansen, Henze–Zirkler, Mardia kurtosis, Mardia
skewness) resulted in a rejection of a multivariate nor-
mality assumption (p ¼ 0.00). Therefore, post hoc tests
of the structural paths were conducted using the non-
parametric bootstrap estimation technique employing
2000 replications (Williams and MacKinnon, 2008),
consistent with current recommendations (Lei and
Lomax, 2005; Ory and Mokhtarian, 2010).
These results accompanying confidence intervals
showed little estimated bias (Table 5), permitting the
usual approach for interpretation of maximum-likeli-
hood estimation results (Lei and Lomax, 2005).
Only two of the 4Es, educational (H1a;  ¼ .15)
and esthetic experiences (H1b;  ¼ .75), had statistic-
ally significant influences on memories, with esthetic
experience having a much stronger association of the
two. Entertainment and escapist experiences were not
statistically significant. Thus, H1a and H1b were sup-
ported, whereas H1c and H1d were not. A similar pat-
tern of support was found for H2; educational
experience (H2a;  ¼ .17) had a weaker influence on
satisfaction with the consumer’s wine tourism experi-
ence than did esthetic experience (H2b;  ¼ .24).
Once again, entertainment and escapist were not stat-
istically significant at p < .05. Therefore, H2c and H2d
were not supported.
In terms of the effect of the 4Es on loyalty inten-
tions, only H3b (esthetics) was supported ( ¼ .47).
Hypotheses 3a and 3c were not supported because
the effects of education ( ¼ 12) and entertainment
( ¼ .11) on loyalty were statistically significant but
negative. These two results were inconsistent with the
hypotheses when interpreted in terms of direction of

Table 4. Correlations* and corresponding confidence intervals for latent construct pairs.

Latent construct pairs Correlation Lower bound CI (95%) Upper bound CI (95%)

Education Esthetics 0.57 0.51 0.64

Education Entertainment 0.39 0.33 0.46
Education Escapist 0.49 0.43 0.56
Education Memories 0.58 0.52 0.64
Education Satisfaction 0.59 0.54 0.65
Education Loyalty 0.49 0.42 0.56
Esthetics Entertainment 0.43 0.36 0.50
Esthetics Escapist 0.35 0.26 0.43
Esthetics Memories 0.83 0.81 0.89
Esthetics Satisfaction 0.73 0.68 0.78
Esthetics Loyalty 0.83 0.81 0.90
Entertainment Escapist 0.66 0.51 0.64
Entertainment Memories 0.41 0.33 0.46
Entertainment Satisfaction 0.38 0.43 0.56
Entertainment Loyalty 0.31 0.52 0.64
Escapist Memories 0.35 0.27 0.43
Escapist Satisfaction 0.38 0.31 0.46
Escapist Loyalty 0.29 0.20 0.37
Memories Satisfaction 0.76 0.72 0.80
Memories Loyalty 0.83 0.79 0.87
Satisfaction Loyalty 0.80 0.76 0.84
*All correlations are statistically significant at p < 0.01.
56 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)

Table 5. Standardized maximum likelihood and bootstrap results.

Maximum-likelihood estimation Bootstrap (2000 reps) Bootstrap 95% CI

 SE z-score  SE z-score N-LB N-UB

Memories
R2 ¼ .73
Education 0.15 0.04 3.38** 0.10 0.05 2.00** 0.00 0.18
Esthetics 0.75 0.04 19.95*** 0.74 0.04 17.81*** 0.66 .82
Entertainment 0.03 0.04 0.73 0.03 0.04 0.71 0.06 0.12
Escapist 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.07 0.08
Satisfaction
R2 ¼ .63
Memories 0.45 0.07 6.38*** 0.37 0.06 5.88*** 0.21 0.43
Education 0.17 0.04 4.31*** 0.20 0.06 3.42*** 0.06 0.24
Esthetics 0.24 0.07 3.19*** 0.30 0.08 3.70*** 0.16 0.49

Entertainment 0.02 0.04 0.61 0.03 0.04 0.62 0.09 0.05

Escapist 0.08 0.04 1.80 0.08 0.04 1.95 0.00 0.13
Loyalty
R2 ¼ .83
Memories 0.26 0.07 3.49** 0.18 0.08 2.36** 0.02 0.25
Satisfaction 0.36 0.05 7.27*** 0.39 0.07 5.69*** 0.22 0.45

Education 0.12 0.04 2.91*** 0.10 0.04 2.36** 0.12 0.01

Esthetics 0.47 0.07 6.44*** 0.52 0.09 5.95*** 0.32 0.68

Entertainment 0.11 0.04 2.86*** 0.11 0.04 2.79*** 0.15 0.02

Escapist 0.02 0.04 0.48 0.02 0.05 0.50 0.04 0.07

**p < .05, ***p < .01.

path coefficients. It should not be concluded, however,
that there is a negative direct effect, or the opposite
direction of that hypothesized is true, because the
equation controlling for the effect includes additional
variables affecting loyalty. The equation shows the
residual representing education, and entertainment is
small and negative relative to the significant correl-
ations of education and loyalty (.49) and entertain-
ment and loyalty (.31). The effect of escapist
experience on loyalty intentions (H3d;  ¼ .02) was
not statistically significant.
Positive memories ( ¼ .45) contributed to creating
a satisfying wine tourism experience, affirming H4. In
support of H5 and H6, respectively, memories
( ¼ .26) and satisfaction ( ¼ .36) were statistically
significant at p < .05 in predicting loyalty intention.
Mediating effects
Only four of the nine mediation hypotheses (H7a and
b, H8b, and H9) sufficiently met all three tests for
mediation (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The mediating
effect of memories on the relationships between edu-
cation or esthetics and satisfaction were examined, and
the mediating effect of satisfaction on the relationships
between esthetics or memories and destination loyalty
were tested (see Table 6).
Memories partially mediated the effect of educa-
tional experience on visitors’ wine tourism satisfaction,
which supports H7a, and partially mediated the effect
of esthetic experience on satisfaction, which supports
H7b. The effect ratio also known as the proportion of
the total mediated effect (Kelley and Preacher, 2012;
MacKinnon, 2008) was used to assess the relative
magnitude of the mediation. About 28% of educa-
tion’s effect on satisfaction was due to the mediating
effect of memories. However, memories may be inter-
preted as fully mediating the effect of esthetics on sat-
isfaction, because the effect ratio was above 50%
(MacKinnon, 2008).
Likewise, satisfaction partially mediated the effects
of both esthetic experience (H8b) and memories on
loyalty intention (H9). Forty percent of memories’
effect on loyalty was mediated by satisfaction, and
45% of esthetics’ effect on loyalty was mediated by
satisfaction, suggesting the predominance of esthetics
in creating memorable and satisfying wine tourism
experiences.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore 57

Table 6. Mediating effects of Memories on Satisfaction and Satisfaction on Loyalty Intention.

Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects

Variable  SE z  SE z  SE z

Mediator: Memories Outcome variable: Satisfaction

Education 0.13 0.03 4.27*** 0.05 0.02 2.90** 0.18 0.03 5.38***
Esthetics 0.26 0.08 3.14*** 0.36 0.06 5.71*** 0.62 0.06 10.63
Entertainment – – – – – – – – –
Escapism – – – – – – – – –
Mediator: Satisfaction Outcome variable: Loyalty intention
Education – – – – – – – – –
Esthetics 0.45 0.08 5.99*** 0.38 0.06 6.94*** 0.84 0.06 12.94***
Entertainment – – – – – – – – –
Escapism – – – – – – – – –
Memories 0.21 0.06 3.39*** 0.13 0.02 6.15*** 0.33 0.07 5.08***
*** p < .01, ** p < .05.

Discussion and implications
Summary
A growing body of wine tourism research has validated
the relevance of the experiential view (Ali-Knight and
Carlsen, 2003; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Galloway
et al., 2008; Getz and Carlsen, 2008), including the
experience economy (Pikkemaat et al., 2009; Quadri-
Felitti and Fiore, 2012), for understanding consumer
behavior. Drawing on Pine and Gilmore’s (1999,
2011) experience economy, the present study vali-
dated a 4E scale for wine tourism, then using the 4E
scale and data from 970 wine tourists, it illustrated the
important role these experiences play in the creation of
visitors’ memories, satisfaction, and destination loyalty
intentions of wine tourists. These findings provide
insight for the Trail’s stakeholders on what experiential
elements contribute to effective wine tourism experi-
ences. These findings may have implications for other
wine tourism regions; future research should empiric-
ally validate whether the pattern of results found here
are replicated.
Dimensions of wine tourists experiences
Oh et al.’s (2007) scale, adapted for measuring the 4Es
in a rural wine tourism setting, proved to be reliable
and valid through CFA. Similar to Hosany and
Witham’s (2010) adaptation of the same scale for
use in the cruise experience, there were several analo-
gous changes to the instrument. The educational con-
struct item related to stimulating curiosity was
dropped, and the esthetic experience construct item
related to feeling a sense of harmony was also dropped,
improving the measurement instrument overall.
Subsequently, this is the first time the measurement
instrument had been successfully adapted to capture
the aggregate experiential perception of a cumulative
tourism experience.
Role of the 4Es in wine tourist experience
The study identified the relationships between the 4Es
(Pine and Gilmore, 1999, 2011) and outcomes of
positive memories, satisfaction, and loyalty intentions.
Of the 4Es, esthetic experience had the greatest influ-
ence on establishing a memorable wine tourism experi-
ence, represented by a standardized path coefficient of
.74. Educational experience had a modest effect on
establishing these memories. The positive memories
variable was the most influential in shaping wine tour-
ists’ satisfaction, followed in order by educational and
esthetic experiences. Esthetics dominated the other
experiential dimensions, memories, and satisfaction
in predicting loyalty toward the destination. The dom-
inant role of esthetic experience in wine tourism is
consistent with other results (Hosany and Witham,
2010; Oh et al., 2007). In the rural bed and breakfast
experience study (Oh et al., 2007), the standardized
path coefficients between esthetic experience and
memory (.84) and between esthetic experience and
satisfaction (.89) were the two highest among the
four criterion variables. In the cruising study
(Hosany and Witham, 2010), the esthetic experience
was the largest predictor among the 4Es ( ¼ .36) for
intention to recommend, whereas in the present study
of wine tourism the esthetic experience appears to have
had a stronger effect ( ¼ .52) in predicting the loyalty
intention, a combination of intentions to recommend
and return.
58
Oh et al. (2007) did not measure loyalty or inten-
tion to recommend. For cruisers, entertainment was a
statistically significant predictor of satisfaction and
intention to recommend (Hosany and Witham,
2010), but not so for wine tourists. Escapism was
not significant for either travel consumer. Education,
however, behaved differently, having a statistically sig-
nificant positive effect on memories and satisfaction
for wine tourists, but a non-significant effect for crui-
sers (Hosany and Witham, 2010) on any outcome vari-
able. This supports Oh et al.’s (2007) notion that
consumers seek and expect different experiential attri-
butes in different tourism contexts based on the pri-
mary or secondary emphasis of destinations’
marketing efforts. The educational aspect of wine
tourism has been noted in previous research (Ali-
Knight and Charters, 2003; Sparks, 2007) as central
to the winery cellar room tasting ritual.
Esthetic experience appears to be a central attraction
of rural tourism; in fact, this experiential dimension was
stronger than satisfaction in determining wine destin-
ation loyalty, an unexpected result inviting both specu-
lation and further investigation as previous tourism
studies have pointed to satisfaction’s significant role in
generating the future intentions (e.g. Alegre and
Cladera, 2009; Chi and Qu, 2008; Yoon and Uysal,
2005). The salience of the esthetic experience shown
here aligns with past wine tourism studies (Alant and
Bruwer, 2004; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Carmichael,
2005; Cohen and Ben-Nun, 2009; Peters, 1997;
Williams, 2001). This perceived beauty of rural wine
regions may be the essential appeal of the experience.
Managerial implications
Individual tourism business operators within the wine
destination should focus on the sensorial elements of
their physical offering and emphasize these attributes
in digital marketing channels. Framing a view of adja-
cent vineyards from within a retail shop or enhancing
the entrance of a restaurant with an olfactory tour of a
sensory garden underscores the consumer’s most
valued experiential dimension. Given the strength of
the esthetic experience, it behooves wine tourism
stakeholders to preserve the rurality of the region’s
winescape and examine land-use development and
environmental conservation. Government regulations
that safeguard the rural esthetic may enhance the eco-
nomic value of wine tourism.
Educational experience is also a contributor to a
satisfying wine tourist’s visit and to generating positive
memories, albeit with less influence than the esthetic
experience. Although these findings suggest educa-
tional experience is not paramount, the learning com-
ponent in the wine destination should not be
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)
overlooked, as it is often an expectation of wine visitors
(Ali-Knight and Charters, 2003; Charters and Ali-
Knight, 2000; Fountain and Charters, 2010; Getz
and Carlsen, 2008). Unique educational opportunities
that offer visitors the opportunity to learn about wine
outside the winery cellar, perhaps in the vineyard or at
sunset on the lakeshore, underscores an ‘‘edusthetic’’
experience, or the blending of educational and esthetic
dimensions.
Whereas previous literature supports producing
entertainment, such as festivals and demonstrations,
within the wine destination, it may induce initial
visits by tourists who then return because of the
esthetic and educational experiences that predict cre-
ation of memories and satisfaction. Festivals and
events contribute to successful wine destination pos-
itioning through positive, dynamic imagery (Novelli,
2004). Escapism appears not to be relevant in gener-
ating positive evaluations in the domestic wine tourist’s
experience. The notion of escapism measured herein
as a transcendent, immersive experience may differ
from that measured in other wine tourism research
as a ‘‘getaway’’ from daily life. Alternatively, given
the respondents’ average length of stay estimated at
1.4 nights, conceivably they may not have had suffi-
cient time to become immersed in the destination and
experience the escapism dimension fully.
The esthetic dimension, once again, prevailed as the
strongest dimension. This necessitates tourism mar-
keters and providers pay keen attention to highlighting
this dimension in promotional messages and product
design. In particular, this study showed that the
esthetic of the winescape, encompassing the natural,
cultural, and social aspects of the wine tourism destin-
ation, should have particular resonance for marketers.
The strength of the other three dimensions, however,
differed across the three tourism contexts. Thus, it is
possible that tourist involvement in the core product
offering (e.g. wine, cruising) or motivational factors
such as sensation seeking, novelty, and relaxation
(Ali-Knight and Carlsen, 2003; Galloway et al.,
2008; Weaver et al., 2009) may affect the degree of
influence of education, escapist, and entertainment
in different tourism contexts. Marketing messages to
wine tourists, while emphasizing the esthetic experi-
ence, should not ignore the other three elements of
the experience economy, particularly education.
While special events remain fundamental in defining
wine tourism (Hall et al., 2000), marketers should
emphasize the educational and esthetic aspects of
event productions. Furthermore, as positive memories
proved to influence satisfaction and loyalty intentions
of wine tourists, tourism suppliers may wish to
enhance this factor. One means may be through the
use of memorabilia as suggested by Pine and Gilmore
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
(1999, 2011). Wines purchased for home consump-
tion or as gifts, as well as other souvenirs, may help
underscore positive memories as they are shared with
others (Hashimoto and Telfer, 1999) during the
recounting of a wine tourism visit (Curtin, 2005).
The results herein contributed ‘‘to knowledge gen-
eration and theoretical progress of the concept’’ (Oh
et al., 2007: 129). This research proved to reliably and
validly measure the 4Es in a different tourism context
and for the first time, for an entire tourism destination,
thereby advancing the empirical measurement of these
experiential constructs. Adding to the theoretical
development of the experience economy paradigm,
the present study demonstrated how positive mem-
ories are both created by the 4Es and influenced the
satisfaction of wine tourists and their subsequent
intention to be destination loyal. This expanded
understanding of the relationships within the experi-
ential evaluation of wine tourism, the substantive
effect of esthetics, and the lack of significance of escap-
ism and entertainment, all have repercussions for other
rural tourism consumption theories. In the process of
replicating the study in various tourism contexts, the
probable limitations of the theory may be revealed,
and the results herein suggest that the 4Es have
widely different effects on wine tourists’ evaluations
and, therefore, other relationships and factors need
be explored.
Limitations and future research
A limitation of the study was the use of the conveni-
ence sample drawn from the proprietary consumer
databases of regional marketing organizations. The
study design did focus on capturing consumers who
had visited the destination and therefore capable of
evaluating the specific wine tourism product. This
study found the Lake Erie wine tourist to be a rela-
tively affluent, educated, older American. The demo-
graphic profile (i.e. age, income, education level, and
domestic residency) of this wine tourist is similar to
that of tourists to other wine regions (Getz and
Carlsen, 2008; Mitchell and Hall, 2006;
Tassiopoulos et al., 2004). Generalization of the
results, however, should be approached with caution.
The sample was comprised of predominately women
and domestic visitors. Not known is the overall gender
composition of the database used for the sample, sub-
sequently, a bias cannot be confirmed. It would be
worthwhile to collect more responses from men and
international tourists to develop a more robust and
cross-cultural perspective on the experiential views of
wine tourists.
Pine and Gilmore conceptualized escapism as active
involvement in the creation of the experience.
59
Therefore, theoretical comparisons to other tourism
studies that conceptualized escapism as a departure
or relief from the daily routine (e.g. Fountain and
Charters, 2010; Sparks, 2007) should be undertaken
with caution. Likewise, assessing MTEs (Kim, 2010)
based on other observed variables such as novelty (Ali-
Knight and Charters, 2003; Chandralal and
Valenzuela 2013), involvement (Brown et al., 2006),
and local culture (Chandralal and Valenzuela 2013;
Kim 2010) may improve the understanding of the rela-
tionship of these constructs.
Further studies may adapt this proven 4E instru-
ment for use in tourism venues with foci such as
golf, mountain (e.g. skiing and climbing), or nature-
based tourism (e.g. rafting, birding, and fishing) and
should test the structural model in other wine tourism
destinations. As this study assessed the destination as a
whole, the contributions of individual tourism elem-
ents (e.g. lodging, dining, winery, and attractions) are
not known and could provide needed understanding
about their proportional contributions and the gestalt
of the destination.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Amrut Sadachar for his help in
preparing this manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
Not applicable.
Funding
This research was partially funded by a grant (CNE11-091)
from the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research &
Education unit of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
References
Adams MQ (2006) Nautical wine tourism: A strategic plan to create
a nautical wine trail in the Finger Lakes wine tourism region of
New York State. In: Carlsen J and Wallingford CS (eds) Global
Wine Tourism: Research, Management and Marketing. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International, pp. 225–241.
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–221.
Alant K and 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.
Alegre J and Cladera M (2009) Analyzing the effect of satisfaction
and previous visits on tourist intentions to return. European
Journal of Marketing 43(5/6): 670–685.
Ali-Knight J and Carlsen J (2003) An exploration of the use of
‘extraordinary’ experiences in wine tourism. In: Lockshin L
and Rungie C (eds) Proceedings of the International Colloquium
in Wine Marketing, Wine Marketing Group. Adelaide: University
of South Australia. Available at: http://academyofwinebusiness.
com/?page_id=465 (accessed 21 October 2013).
60
Ali-Knight J and Charters S (2003) Winery as educator: Do wineries
provide what the wine tourist needs? Australian and New Zealand
Wine Industry Journal 16(6): 79–86.
Alonso A, Fraser RA and Cohen DA (2007) Investigating differ-
ences between domestic and international winery visitors in
New Zealand. International Journal of Wine Business Research
19(2): 114–126.
Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.
Arnould E and Price L (1993) River magic: Extraordinary experi-
ence and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer
Research 20(1): 24–45.
Axelsen M and Swan T (2010) Designing festival experiences to
influence visitor perceptions: The case of a wine and food festi-
val. Journal of Travel Research 49(4): 436–450.
Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equa-
tion models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(10):
74–94.
Barber N (2009) Wine consumers information search: Gender dif-
ferences and implications for the hospitality industry. Tourism &
Hospitality Research 9(3): 250–269.
Baron R and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra-
tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.
Boulianne S (2013) Examining the gender effects of different incen-
tive amounts in a web survey. Field Methods 25(1): 91–104.
Brown GP, Havitz ME and Getz D (2006) Relationship between
wine involvement and wine-related travel. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 21(1): 31–46.
Bruwer J (2003) South African wine routes: Some perspectives on
the wine tourism industry’s structural dimensions and wine tour-
ism product. Tourism Management 24(4): 423–435.
Bruwer J and Alant K (2009) The hedonic nature of wine tourism
consumption: An experiential view. International Journal of Wine
Business Research 21(3): 235–248.
California Wine Institute (2011) California wine profile 2010.
Available at: http://www.wineinstitute. org/files/CA_EIR_Flyer_
2011_final.pdf (accessed 11 January 2013).
Carlsen J (2004) A review of global wine tourism research. Journal of
Wine Research 15(1): 5–13.
Carmichael B (2005) Understanding the wine tourism experience
for winery visitors in the Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada.
Tourism Geographies 7(2): 185–204.
Chandralal L and Valenzuela F-R (2013) Exploring memorable
tourism experiences: Antecedents and behavioural outcomes.
Journal of Economics, Business and Management 1(2): 177–181.
Charters S and Ali-Knight J (2000) Wine tourism—a thirst for
knowledge? International Journal of Wine Marketing 12(3):
70–81.
Charters S and Pettigrew S (2005) Is wine consumption an aesthetic
experience? Journal of Wine Research 16(2): 121–136.
Chen C-F and Tsai CD (2007) How destination image and evalu-
ative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management
28(4): 1115–1122.
Chi CG and Qu H (2008) Examining the structural relationships of
destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An
integrated approach. Tourism Management 29(4): 625–634.
Cohen E and Ben-Nun L (2009) The important dimensions of wine
tourism experience from potential visitors’ perception. Tourism
and Hospitality Research 9(1): 20–31.
Colman T (2008) Wine Politics: How Governments, Environmentalists,
Mobsters, and Critics Influence the Wines We Drink. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)
Cornell University (n.d.) Lake Erie Regional Grape Program at
CLEREL. Available at: http://lergp.cce.cornell.edu/ (accessed
15 January 2013).
Creswell JW (2008) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Cronin JJ and Taylor SA (1992) Measuring service quality: A
re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56(3): 55–68.
Curren PJ, West SG and Finch JF (1996) The robustness of test
statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory
factor analysis. Psychological Methods 1(1): 16–29.
Curtin S (2005) Nature, wild animals and tourism: An experiential
view. Journal of Ecotourism 4(1): 1–15.
Eusebio C and Vieira AL (2013) Destination attributes’ evaluation,
satisfaction and behavioural intentions: A structural modeling
approach. International Journal of Tourism Research 15(1): 66–80.
Evans M, Pollard C and Holder G (2008) Discover North Carolina
wines: A wine tourism visitor profile study. Final report,
Appalachian State University: Boone, NC, February.
Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
Fountain J and Charters S (2010) Generation Y as wine tourists:
Their expectations and experiences at the winery-cellar door.
In: Benckendorff P, Moscardo G and Pendergast D (eds)
Tourism and Generation Y. Wallingford, UK: CAB International,
pp. 47–57.
Fournier S and Mick DG (1999) Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal
of Marketing 63(4): 5–23.
Fraser RA, Alonso A and Cohen D (2008) Wine tourism experi-
ences in New Zealand: An exploration of male and female winery
visitors. Acta Turistica 20(1): 39–65.
Galloway G, Mitchell R, Getz D, et al. (2008) Sensation seeking and
the prediction of attitudes and behaviours of wine tourists.
Tourism Management 29(5): 950–966.
Getz D and Brown G (2006) Critical success factors for wine tour-
ism regions: A demand analysis. Tourism Management 27(1):
146–158.
Getz D and Carlsen J (2008) Wine tourism among generations X
and Y. Tourism 56(3): 257–270.
Gilmore JH and Pine II BJ II (2002) Differentiating hospitality
operations via experiences: Why selling services is not enough.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43(3):
87–96.
Griffin T and Loersch A (2007) The determinants of quality experi-
ences in an emerging wine region. In: Carlsen J and Wallingford
CS (eds) Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management and
Marketing. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 80–92.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education Inc.
Hall CM, Johnson G, Cambourne B, et al. (2000) Wine tourism: an
introduction. In: Hall CM, Longo AM, Mitchell R and Johnson
G (eds) Wine Tourism around the World: Development, Management
and Markets. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 1–23.
Hashimoto A and Telfer DJ (1999) Marketing ice wine to Japanese
tourists in Niagara: the case of Inniskillin Winery. International
Journal of Wine Marketing 11(2): 29–41.
Hashimoto A and Telfer DJ (2003) Positioning an emerging wine
route in the Niagara Region: Understanding the wine tourism
market and its implications for marketing. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 14(3): 61–76.
Quadri-Felitti and Fiore
Hayes D and MacLeod N (2007) Packaging places: Designing heri-
tage trails using an experience economy perspective to maximize
visitor engagement. Journal of Vacation Marketing 13(1): 45–58.
Hede A-M (2008) Food and wine festivals: Stakeholders, long-term
outcomes and strategies for success. In: Hall CM and Sharples L
(eds) Food and Wine Festivals and Events around the World:
Development, Management and Markets. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier, pp. 85–100.
Hodgen D (2011) U.S. Chamber of Commerce. U.S. wine industry –
2011. Available at: http://ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/wine2011.pdf
(accessed 13 March 2013).
Holbrook MB and Hirschman EC (1982) The experiential aspects
of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal
of Consumer Research 9(2): 132–140.
Hosany S and Witham M (2010) Dimensions of cruisers’ experi-
ences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of
Travel Research 49(3): 351–364.
Huang S and Hsu CHC (2009) Travel motivation: Linking theory to
practice. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research 3(4): 287–295.
Kelley K and Preacher KJ (2012) On effect size. Psychological
Methods 17(2): 137–152.
Kim J-H (2010) Development of a scale to measure memorable
tourism experiences. European Journal of Tourism Research 3(2):
123–126.
Kim K (2008) Analysis of structural equation model for the student
pleasure travel market: Motivation, involvement, satisfaction,
and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
24(4): 297–313.
Knapton K and Meyers S (2005) Demographics and online survey
response rates. Quirks Marketing Research Media. Available at:
http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2005/20050106.aspx (accessed
12 June 2013).
Kozak M (2001) Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations.
Annals of Tourism Research 28(3): 785–808.
Kozak M, Bigne E and Andreu L (2004) Satisfaction and destin-
ation loyalty: A comparison between non-repeat and repeat tour-
ists. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 5(1):
43–59.
Lam T and Hsu CHC (2004) Theory of planned behavior: Potential
travelers from China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research
28(4): 463–482.
Larsen S (2007) Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7(1): 7–18.
Lei M and Lomax RG (2005) The effect of varying degrees of non-
normality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 12(1): 1–27.
Luo X and Homburg C (2007) Neglected outcomes of customer
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 71(2): 133–149.
MacKinnon DP (2008) Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis.
New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
March R and Woodside AG (2005) Testing theory of planned versus
realized tourism behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4):
905–924.
Martin E and Williams P (2003) Directions in British Columbia
wine tourism policy. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 15(6): 317–323.
McIntosh AJ and Siggs A (2005) An exploration of the experiential
nature of boutique accommodations. Journal of Travel Research
44(1): 74–81.
Mendes JDC, de Valle PO, Guerreiro MM, et al. (2010) The tourist
experience: Exploring the relationship between tourist satisfac-
tion and destination loyalty. Tourism 58(2): 111–126.
Mitchell R (2006) Influences on post-visit wine purchase (and non-
purchase) by New Zealand winery visitors. In: Hall CM, Longo
61
AM, Mitchell R and Johnson G (eds) Wine Tourism around the
World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier, pp. 95–109.
Mitchell R and Hall CM (2006) Wine tourism research: The state of
play. Tourism Review International 9(4): 307–332.
MKF Research LLC (2007) The Impact of Wine, Grapes, and Grape
Production on the American Economy 2007: Family Businesses
Building Value. Helena, CA: MKF Research, LLC.
MKF Research LLC (2009) The Economic Impact of Pennsylvania
Wine and Grapes: Update 2007. Helena, CA: MKF Research,
LLC.
Mottiar Z and Quinn D (2004) Couple dynamics in household tour-
ism decision making: Women as the gatekeepers? Journal of
Vacation Marketing 10(2): 149–160.
Muthen B and Kaplan D (1985) A comparison of some methodolo-
gies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 38(2):
171–189.
Novelli M (2004) Wine tourism events: Apulia, Italy. In: Yeoman I,
Robertson M, Ali-Knight J, Drummond S and McMahon-
Beattie U (eds) Festival and events management—an international
arts and culture perspective. Oxford: Elsevier, Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp. 229–345.
Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric Theory. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oh H, Fiore AM and Jeoung M (2007) Measuring experience econ-
omy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research
46(2): 119–132.
Ory DT and Mokhtarian PL (2010) The impact of non-normality,
sample size and estimation technique on goodness-of-fit meas-
ures in structural equation modeling: Evidence from ten empir-
ical models of travel behavior. Quality & Quantity 44(3):
427–445.
Peters G (1997) American Winescapes: The Cultural Landscapes of
America’s Wine Country. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pikkemaat B, Peters M, Boksberger P, et al. (2009) The staging of
experiences in wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 18(2): 237–253.
Pine BJ II and Gilmore JH (1998) Welcome to the experience econ-
omy. Harvard Business Review 76(4): 97–105.
Pine BJ II and Gilmore JH (1999) The Experience Economy: Work is
Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Pine BJ II and Gilmore JH (2011) The Experience Economy: Work is
Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Pizam A and Mansfeld Y (1999) Consumer Behavior in Travel and
Tourism. Binghamton, NY: Hawthorn Press.
Pullman ME and Gross MA (2003) Welcome to your experience:
Where you can check out anytime you’d like, but you can never
leave. Journal of Business Management 9(3): 215–232.
Prahalad CK and Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences:
The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 18(3): 5–14.
Quadri-Felitti D and Fiore AM (2012) Experience economy con-
structs as a framework for understanding wine tourism. Journal
of Vacation Marketing 18(1): 3–15.
Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, et al. (2006) Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A
review. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6): 323–338.
Sharpley R and Roberts L (2004) Rural tourism—10 years on. The
International Journal of Tourism Research 6(3): 119–124.
Sparks B (2007) Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help
to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management
28(5): 1180–1192.
62
Stonebridge Research (2010) The economic impact of grapes, grape
juice and wine on the New York economy, 2008. Prepared for
the New York Grape and Wine Foundation. Napa: CA,
Stonebridge Research Group, LLC.
Tassiopoulos D, Nuntsu N and Haydam N (2004) Wine tourists in
South Africa: A demographic and psychographic study. Journal
of Wine Research 15(1): 51–63.
Taylor RG, Woodall S, Wandschneider P, et al. (2004) The demand
for wine tourism in Canyon County, Idaho. International Food &
Agribusiness Management Review 7(4): 58–75.
Telfer DJ (2000) The Northeast wine route: Wine tourism in
Ontario, Canada and New York State. In: Hall CM, Longo
AM, Mitchell R and Johnson G (eds) Wine Tourism around the
World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier, pp. 253–271.
Tung VWS and Richie JRB (2011) Exploring the essence of mem-
orable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 48(4):
1367–1386.
Urry J (1995) Consuming Places. London and New York: Routledge.
Wargenau A and Che D (2006) Wine tourism development and
marketing strategies in Southwest Michigan. International
Journal of Wine Marketing 18(1): 45–60.
Weaver PA, McCleary KW, Jiho H, et al. (2009) Identifying leisure
travel market segments based on preference for novelty. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Marketing 26(5/6): 568–584.
Wilkins H (2011) Souvenirs: What and why we buy. Journal of Travel
Research 50(3): 239–247.
Williams A (2006) Tourism and hospitality marketing: Fantasy, feel-
ing and fun. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 18(6): 482–495.
Williams PW (2001) Positioning wine tourism destinations: An
image analysis. International Journal of Wine Marketing 13(3):
42–58.
Williams PW and 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.
Williams J and MacKinnon DP (2008) Resampling and distribution
of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex
models. Structural Equation Modeling 15(1): 23–51.
Woodside AG, Caldwell M and Albers-Miller N (2004) Broadening
the study of tourism: Introduction to the special issue on the
consumer psychology of travel/tourism behavior. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 17(1): 1–7.
Yoon Y and Uysal M (2005) An examination of the effects of motiv-
ation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model.
Tourism Management 26(1): 45–56.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(1)
Yuan J and 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): 279–288.
Author Biographies
Donna Quadri-Felitti is a Clinical Associate Professor
of Hospitality and Tourism Management at New York
University, Preston Robert Tisch Center for
Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management in
New York City. Donna completed her Ph.D. at Iowa
State University in Hospitality Management. She was
named one of the Top 25 Extraordinary Minds in
Hospitality and Tourism Sales and Marketing by
Hospitality Sales and Marketing Association
International for the year 2012. Donna holds certifi-
cations as a Hospitality Educator from American
Hotel & Lodging Association, a Hospitality Digital
Marketer from Hospitality Sales and Marketing
Association International, and wine captain from the
Sommelier Society of America.
Ann Marie Fiore is a Professor, Associate Chair, and
Director of Graduate Education for the Department of
Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality
Management (AESHM) at Iowa State University
(ISU). Her research contributions in the area of con-
sumer behavior and marketing include the co-develop-
ment of a scale to measure experience economy
constructs for the hospitality industry. She serves on
the editorial review board for Psychology & Marketing,
as well as reviewer for journals related to marketing
(e.g., Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Journal of Interactive Marketing) and
hospitality management (e.g., International Journal of
Hospitality Management).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

View publication stats