2006 Elena Ignatov

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico]
On: 13 June 2012, At: 18:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Current Issues in Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20
Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

a
Elena Ignatov & Stephen Smith
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada
Available online: 22 Dec 2008
To cite this article: Elena Ignatov & Stephen Smith (2006): Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists, Current Issues in
Tourism, 9:3, 235-255
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/cit/229.0
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen
CIT 229

Elena Ignatov and Stephen Smith
Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada
Researchers in culinary tourism often implicitly treat visitors interested in culinary
products as a relatively homogeneous market. Using data obtained from the Canadian
Travel Activities and Motivations Study, three a priori segments are defined: visitors
who participate only in food-related activities, those who participate only in winerelated activities, and those who participate in both. The food segment was the largest
of the three, with nearly 25% of respondents fitting this category; wine was the smallest
segment with less than 4%. Wine and food accounted for about 7%. The food segment
had a higher proportion of females than the other segments, with lower average educational attainment and lower incomes. Wine-oriented visitors were more balanced
between male and female, had average ages and educational attainment, and higher
incomes. Those visitors involved in both sets of activities were predominantly male,
older, had the highest educational levels, and much higher incomes. Trip motivations
and activities also differed significantly among the three segments with the food and
wine segment showing the greatest diversity of motivations and activities. In other
words, there are distinct types of culinary tourists who seek distinct types of culinary
experiences. Different methods of communications, and different packaging and product development strategies need to be employed to reach each of the segments identified here.
Keywords: culinary tourism, food tourism, wine tourism, segmentation, Canada
Introduction
The pleasures of the palate have long been associated with travel. Merchants
have travelled for millennia looking for exotic and essential ingredients to bring
home for trade (Wolf, 2002). Tourists, too, have sought and still seek gastronomic
experiences. Food and drink have traditionally been part of the appeal of destinations as diverse as Singapore and Hong Kong, Provence and Tuscany, and Paris
and New Orleans. In response, an increasing number of destination marketing
organisations, including those serving destinations not traditionally known as
culinary hotbeds, have begun to look at culinary tourism as part of an overall
marketing strategy. For example, the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) has
observed that [a]n increasingly significant number of travelers are stating that
food is a key aspect of the travel experience and that they believe that experiencing a countrys food is essential to understanding its culture (Canadian Tourism
Commission, 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 local
communities and regions, the CTC (2002) has taken steps to develop cuisine as a
tourism product showcasing Canadas diverse cultures and communities. In its
related product development strategy, the CTC stated that culinary tourism has
1368-3500/06/03 0235-21 $20/0
2006 E. Ignatov & S. Smith

Vol. 9, No. 3, 2006
235
C:\edrive\cit\2005i\cit2005i.vp
Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:53:57
CIT 229

236
CIT 229
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 and
spending of visitors, and to draw visitors throughout the year. While virtually
every 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 tourists looks at food as fuel or as an integral part of the tourism experience can
determine whether purchasing and consuming food are acts of survival or
expressions of an appreciation for the cultural and geographical significance of a
regions cuisine and foodstuff. Thus, culinary tourism, properly understood, is
not simply one more niche product such as eco-tourism but a recognition of the
vital role that cuisine can play in the creation of a satisfying tourism experience as
well as its role in expressing a destinations cultural heritage.
The enthusiasm with which destination marketing organisations approach
culinary tourism, though, is not always founded on sound market research. The
identification and promotion of culinary tourism has sometimes been based on
anecdote, personalities, and unsubstantiated opinion. To obtain a more objective
understanding of current interests, activities, motivations and trends in North
America, a group of Canadian federal and provincial tourism organisations
cooperated in 1999 to undertake the Travel Activities and Motivations Survey
(TAMS). The study explored travel behaviours in the two years prior to the
survey and travel intentions in the next two years. It covered a variety of travel
experiences, preferences, activities, short trips and longer vacations, and general
impressions of Canada as a destination. One of the areas explicitly included in
TAMS was food and wine-related tourism.
Lang Research (2001) was commissioned by the TAMS partners to examine
the profiles of culinary tourists. Lang defined culinary tourism as consisting of
wine-related activities and restaurant dining, equating culinary tourism with
enjoying the good life. This analysis summarised demographic characteristics
of people interested in culinary tourism as well as the range of activities and
other trip preferences, treating those interested in culinary tourism as a homogeneous segment. The San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (1999)
commissioned a study by NFO Incorporated on Americans interested in culinary tourism a group they labelled foodies. The study emphasised the unexpectedly large size of this segment, the magnitude of spending by foodies, as
well as other characteristics such as their interest in trying new restaurants and a
high 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 for
restaurants 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 fairly
narrow product (consuming food and wine) and culinary tourists to be an undifferentiated market. However, as the Canadian Tourism Commission succinctly
puts it, [culinary tourism] goes well beyond the dining experience (CTC, 2002:
2). Culinary tourism is far deeper than just dining out, an appreciation of
gourmet foods and the enjoyment of the good life. It also goes well beyond the
enjoyment of wine. Just as culinary tourism is a diverse and complex set of expe-

CIT 229
237
riences and motivation, this study argues that culinary tourists are a diverse
market that cannot be treated as a single segment.
Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this study is to explore the diversity of culinary tourists in Canada. The research question to be answered in this project is: are there
significant differences among wine tourists, food tourists, and food and wine
tourists (the operational definitions of these terms is provided below) in terms of
demographics, psychographics, trip characteristics, and media habits. Before
examining the answer to this question, the paper looks at some general concepts
related to culinary tourism.
Concepts and definitions
Culinary tourism is an aspect of cultural tourism, and cuisine is an integral
part of the culture of communities and destinations. The roots of cuisine grow
deep into the soil of history. The choice and production of food ingredients,
their distribution, the means of preparing them for consumption, the styles of
consuming them, and the social contexts in which consumption occur are
recognised by scholars as part of a societys heritage (Bauer, 1996; Reynolds,
1994). Hall and Macionis (1998) explicitly identified food and wine as being
expressive of regional culture; Hegarty and OMahony (2001), too, have highlighted the cultural significance of differences in ingredients, the way food is
prepared and preserved, and how food is served and eaten. Richards (2002)
observed that the food people consume and the way they consume it expresses
their 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 that
food is culture.
Thus, combining travel with local products (e.g. eating a particular dish or
drinking a local wine) means partaking of the local culture. Getz (2000: 19)
describes the exploration of wine regions and villages as wine experience as an
exercise in individual cultural tourism. Such observations are, in effect, elaborations of one of Brillat-Savarins better-known aphorisms, written in 1825, [t]ell
me 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 and
tourism: cuisine tourism, gastronomic tourism, and culinary tourism. This paper
proposes 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-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 1985). The emphasis on cooking
alone is too narrow for the term to be useful when applied to the scope of activities that fall within the culinary constellation of ingredients, prepared foods,
beverages, food production, motivations, activities, institutional structures, and
tourism.
Gastronomy is a noun referring to the art, or science, of good eating
(Gillespie, 2001: 2). More generally, gastronomy is concerned with the enjoyment
of good food and beverages. It denotes appreciation of wine and other beverages

238
CIT 229
and how they pair with food; it is concerned with the total consumption of the
meal and often denotes an affluent or aesthetically superior lifestyle. For
example, Gillespie (2001: 5) notes that by truly recognizing and appreciating
good food and beverage . . . individuals can also consider themselves as having a
gastronomic approach to living. Thus, this term may be seen as broader than
cuisine 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 preparation but with an etymology from the Latin, culina (kitchen), denotes styles of
food preparation and consumption as well as the social context in which food is
acquired and prepared for sharing.
Culinary tourism has been described in the literature in various ways. The
Canadian Tourism Commission (2002) defines culinary tourism in terms of
myriad food and beverage-related activities developed for visitors and involving the cultural exploration of a regions dishes. According to Wolf (2002), culinary tourism exists within the context of agricultural tourism (farm holidays,
visiting farmers markets and fruit orchards, purchasing produce from road-side
stalls, rural agricultural festivals, and so on) and focuses specifically on the
search for, and enjoyment of, prepared food and drink. The Economic Planning
Group of Canada (2001) also emphasises the relationship between travel motivations and cuisine when they asserted that the opportunity for culinary experiences significantly impacts trip-related decisions either before or during the trip.
A proposed conceptual definition of culinary tourism for the purposes of this
paper begins with the World Tourism Organisations definition of tourism and
adds some additional concepts. The WTO defines tourism as the activities of
persons temporarily away from their usual environment for a period not exceeding one year and for which the primary purpose of travel is other than the pursuit
of remuneration from within the place visited (WTO, 1994). Foods, as used in the
following paragraph, is meant in a comprehensive sense, including beverages,
raw ingredients, as well as prepared meals. Regional foods refers to ingredients
grown or processed in a destination (which may be defined at a broad range of
scales, from local to national) in a way that expresses or represents something of
the regional character of those foods. With these definitional elements, culinary
tourism may be defined as tourism trips during which the purchase or consumption of
regional foods (including beverages), or the observation and study of food production
(from agriculture to cooking schools) represent a significant motivation or activity. Food
need not be the only or even the primary activity on a trip for it to be characterised
as culinary tourism. Rather, culinary tourism concerns the self-aware and
conscious interest in experiencing a destination through its foods. Thus, culinary
tourism is quite different from the simple consumption of food and drink during
a tourism experience. The term refers to the experience that regionally produced
food and drink can provide when they are used to tell a story or to convey some
aspect of the culture of the region being visited. Culinary tourism implies transference of knowledge or information about the people, culture, traditions and
identity of the place visited. It conveys something that is indigenous, perhaps
even 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
239
perspective of producers and destination marketing organisations the supply

side of tourism should also be considered in developing a fuller understanding
of culinary tourism, its structures, and its impacts. Thus, the phenomenon of culinary 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 other
organisations that support culinary tourism can be classified into the categories
shown in Table 1. Facilities refers to buildings and land uses that are associated
with food production or preparation as well as distribution services, ranging
from food processing operations to restaurants. A common element here is that
these buildings or structures are open to visitors wanting to learn about,
consume, or purchase culinary products. These include pick-your-own farm
operations. Land use may involve public access to land or it may occur in the
form of a landscape that can be readily viewed and appreciated by the touring
public. Designated routes through culinary landscapes are also a culinary facility.
Culinary tourists also are drawn by the opportunity to consume, such as
dining at restaurants or sampling wine and beer. There is overlap between these
activities and some of the facilities noted in the previous paragraph. The distinction is that facilities refer to the physical plant or landscape and the activities
draws attention to the opportunities for personal involvement by the culinary
tourist. The same distinction may be made with reference to touring through
agricultural or wine regions or food districts within cities. Activities include
educational opportunities such as attending cooking schools, participating in
formal wine tastings, and independent reading of books and magazines devoted
to food.
The events category includes consumer shows highlighting both food products (such as cheese, fresh produce, wine, fruit wine, cider and beer) and cooking
equipment. Food and wine festivals are also a major draw for culinary tourists
and often one of the most visible aspects of culinary tourism.
Finally, organisations include those who serve the interests of culinary tourists and help support the development of the culinary tourism market. These
include restaurant classification systems that affirm the regional source and
quality of foods served in participating restaurants, and quality assurance
systems for wine and, secondarily, for food. For example, Canadas Vintners
Quality Alliance certifies that designated wines have met rigid production and
quality standards and are vinified from Canadian grapes of a guaranteed
quality. Associations also contribute to the long-term growth of culinary
tourism. These include groups such as Cuisine Canada, an association of food
professionals devoted to the promotion and celebration of a Canadian food
culture, and Slow Food, an international organisation devoted to the protection
and promotion of traditional and indigenous cuisines, food ingredients, taste
education, bio-diversity of the food system, and hospitality and conviviality.
Wine routes
Food routes
Gourmet trails
Farms
Orchards
Vineyards
Urban restaurant districts
Routes
Food processing facilities

Wineries
Breweries
Farmers markets
Food stores
Food-related museums
Restaurants
Land uses
Facilities
Buildings/Structures
Cooking schools
Wine tasting/education
Visiting wineries
Observing chef competitions
Reading food, beverage
magazines and books
Education/Observation
Wine regions
Agricultural regions
City food districts
produce
Purchasing retail food and
beverages
Pick-your own operations
Touring
Dining at restaurants
Picnics utilising locally-grown
Activities
Consumption
Food festivals
Wine festivals
Harvest festivals
shows
Product launches
Festivals
Food and wine shows

Cooking equipment, kitchen
Events
Consumer shows
certification systems (e.g.
Michelin, Taste of Nova
Scotia)
Food/wine classification
systems (e.g. VQA)
Associations (e.g. Cuisine
Canada, Slow Food)
Restaurant classification/
Organisations
Table 1 General typology of culinary tourism resources

240

CIT 229
241
While discussions about conceptual definitions of culinary tourism introduce

important issues, an operational definition of tourism must be developed for the
purposes of statistical analysis. For this particular paper, the operational definition must be shaped by the content of the TAMS questionnaire. Fortunately,
TAMS includes a number of culinary related activities, including some of those
identified in the typology. For the purposes of this project, culinary tourism is
operationally defined as self-reported participation (incidence, not frequency) in
the 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 regions 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 tourists

As 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 essentially the same. This naive approach is even reflected in some concepts of the
phenomenon itself. For example, the International Culinary Tourism Associations website suggests that culinary tourism is something that virtually every
tourist does because virtually every tourist eats while travelling (International
Culinary Tourism Association, 2004). Even if this statement were true (and this
paper has proposed a more restrictive definition of culinary tourism), it should
imply that there are substantial differences among culinary tourists just as there
are substantial differences among the myriad types of tourists.
The body of literature on the profiling of culinary tourists is still limited, but
growing. Not all these studies, though, are based on empirical examinations of
differences among various culinary segments. For example, Fields (2002)
suggested that culinary tourists may be motivated by any of four different
desires: (1) physical drives, such as the desire to discover new tastes or to enjoy
the benefits of regional foods; (2) cultural drives, such as the desire to learn about
traditional food-ways; (3) inter-personal drives that use foods to create social
bonds; and (4) prestige drives, such as the desire to be able to brag about visiting a
trendy new restaurant. His approach, however, was conceptual and not
supported by empirical evidence.
Au and Law (2002) developed a choice model to predict spending by tourists
on food during visits to Hong Kong. Noting that traditional models do not
perform well as predictors of food expenditures, the authors developed a rough
choice model using socio-economic and other personal characteristics of visitors
to predict spending levels. Their approach shows some promise as a predictive

242
CIT 229
tool. However, they did not differentiate among different types of culinary tourists.
Dodd (1995) examined characteristics of wine tourists in the state of Texas. He
divided his respondents into three segments, based on the proximity of their
homes to the winery visited (within 30 miles, within Texas but further than 30
miles from the winery, and out-of-state). This segmentation was more for the
purpose of identifying potential differences among winery visitors based on
distance travelled rather than for marketing. He found that the overall demographic characteristics of visitors to Texas wineries was similar to that reported
for other US wineries, but the amount of money spent at the wineries tended to be
less than that in other states. Those living close to the winery were more likely to
have visiting the winery as a primary activity, whereas those further away were
more likely to report the visit was only one of numerous activities done during
the trip.
Williams and Dossa (2003) explored profiles of wine tourists in British Columbia, Canada and proposed two segments immersionists and generalists. The
generalists are drawn by scenery, a clean environment, the opportunity to interact with other people, and include visits to wineries as an activity. In contrast,
immersionists focus more on learning about the region, personal and social
discovery, and physical activity. The latter are younger, less formally educated,
and more likely to be employed and female. These two segments are not focused
on segments of wine tourists but are a more general segmentation of all visitors to
British Columbia.
Charters and Ali-Knight (2002), noting that the research on wine tourists
tended to be limited and relatively superficial, conducted a survey of a sample of
wine tourists to Western Australia to examine, in detail, attitudes and behaviours. They identified four segments based on knowledge of wine, attitudes
towards wine, and wine purchasing behaviours: (1) wine lovers, who are highly
involved in wine tourism; (2) connoisseurs, who are highly knowledgeable
about wines; (3) wine interested, who are informally educated about wine but
experientially knowledgeable; and (4) wine novices, who have limited experience 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 the
winery. Visitors to wineries located in the western part of the region were more
likely to cite dining at wineries to be important than visitors to wineries in the
east. Those in the west were more likely to be local, to come in larger groups, to be
connoisseurs, and do not value entertainment as highly as those in the east. International visitors were more common in the east. These differences, however,
were not translated into segments although the finding does have marketing
implications for Niagara wineries.
Cohen and Avieli (2004) provide the results of 10 years of anthropological
observation of tourists confronting unfamiliar foods while on vacation or attending conferences. They challenge the notion that food is a simple tourism attraction, suggesting that it can also function as an impediment to travel. They adopt
an earlier typology of tourists proposed by the senior author (Cohen, 1979) and
present a series of hypotheses regarding how different types of tourists will
approach unfamiliar food. The study provides a provocative phenomenological

CIT 229
243
approach to differences among tourists in the context of food, although the

results are qualitative rather than quantitative and thus of limited value to
tourism marketers.
As can be seen from these examples, the literature on culinary tourism market
segments is limited; the studies that have focused on profiles of culinary tourists
generally are limited to wine tourism. Studies that have examined culinary
tourism more broadly tend not to examine market profiles, but are either more
conceptual or phenomenological. Thus, there is a need for studies such as the one
described in this paper a quantitative examination of different market
segments in culinary tourism.
Methods
Source of data
TAMS was conducted in both Canada and the US between September 1999
and April 2000. The first stage involved telephone surveys with people over the
age of 18. The second stage involved an in-depth mail survey of individuals who
agreed to respond to a mail-back survey (TAMS User Guide, 2000). This study
uses data from the Canadian telephone and mail surveys.
The target population for the telephone survey was all persons 18 years or
older in each of the 10 Canadian provinces, excluding full-time residents of institutions and households without telephones (these excluded groups represent
less than 2% of the Canadian population). A total of 29,213 households were
contacted with 18,385 completing the telephone survey for a 63.1% response rate.
Of these, 5740 completed mail questionnaires were received generating an
overall response rate of 23.2%.
Definition of market segments
Three market segments were defined a priori: food tourists, wine tourists, and
food and wine tourists. The following steps were employed operationally to
define these three groups. First, it was observed that the 10 food-related activities
represented two relatively distinct sets: one related to food retail purchases, and
the other related to direct consumption or gourmet-type activities. The three
wine-related activities were not sub-divided. Thus, market segments were based
on three categories of culinary activities:
Group One: farmers fairs/markets; shop/browse gourmet foods in retail stores
or farms; pick-your-own farms/harvesting
Group Two: restaurant dining (regional or local cooking); restaurant dining
(internationally acclaimed restaurants); staying at a cooking school; staying at a
gourmet restaurant with accommodation on premises
Group Three: touring a regions wineries with a stay of one or more nights; going
to 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 past
two years preceding the survey, had participated in at least one activity from
Group One and one activity from Group Two, and had not engaged in any activi-

CIT 229
244
ties in Group Three. Wine tourists were those who had participated in at least one
activity in Group Three and did not qualify as food tourists. Food and wine tourists were those who met the criteria of both food and wine tourists.
Results
The 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 2
presents the number of respondents, both unweighted and weighted, for each of
the segments. Weighting was done using the person-trip weights calculated by
Statistics Canada (the agency responsible for data management and quality
control) to correct for sampling biases associated with age, gender, and region of
residence. The weighting generalises the sample to the Canadian population.
Table 2 Sample and segment size, unweighted and weighted data
Total survey responses
Segment sizes
Food
Wine
Food and wine
Unweighted
5740
Weighted
19,618,857
1553
245
446
4,787,083
755,133
1,301,377
Demographics
Table 3 summarises the demographic characteristics of food, wine, and food
and wine tourists. Females were more likely than males to be involved in food or
wine activities. Specifically, a strong majority (57.3%) of participants in
food-only activities were female; the same pattern can be observed for
wine-related activities (54.8%). However, there was a nearly equal distribution
among tourists engaging in food and wine activities with respect to sex.
Approximately two-thirds of both the food segment and the wine segment
were between the ages of 26 and 55. Fewer food and wine tourists belonged to this
cohort. 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 average
age of 46 years. More than the mean age, though, the three segments show differences among the various age cohorts. Food tourists, at 11.7%, were about twice as
likely as food and wine tourists (at 5.7%) to be in the 1825 age cohort. In contrast,
nearly twice the percentage of food and wine tourists (20.6%) belong to the 5565
cohort compared to 10.4% of the wine segment. The overall differences in the age
profiles 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 a
university education. However, nearly half (49.6%) of tourists engaging in both
food and wine were had a university education. Food enthusiasts were more likely
to 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

245
Table 3 Demographic profiles (%)
Sex
Females
Males
Age
1825
2635
3645
4655
5665
6675
75+
Education level
University
Elementary/Secondary
College/CEGEP
Trade/Vocational
Other
Income level
Less than 20,000s ($)
20,00039,999
40,00059,999
60,00079,999
80,000+
Dont know/Refused
Occupation
Employee
Self-employed
Working for family (no $)
Not working
Homemaker
Student
Retired
Unemployed
Total % of
weighted responses
Food
Wine
Food and
Wine
55.7
44.3
57.3
42.7
54.8
45.2
50.5
49.5
10.4
20.7
26.6
18.9
14.2
6.9
2.4
11.7
20.1
27.7
18.8
13.1
6.3
2.3
9.9
22.1
27.1
19.4
10.4
7.5
3.6
5.7
22.2
22.1
19.1
20.6
8.5
1.9
38.8
38.2
17.2
5.7
0.1
34.9
42.3
17.1
5.8
0.0
44.8
29.9
19.9
5.2
0.2
49.6
27.9
16.2
5.9
0.4
10.6
20.7
21.6
14.6
20.5
11.9
11.3
21.6
22.1
14.6
17.7
12.8
9.0
21.1
19.6
15.8
24.3
10.1
9.0
17.2
20.9
14.3
28.6
10.0
56.4
14.2
0.2
57.0
13.5
0.1
56.2
16.4
0.2
54.2
15.8
0.2
7.8
4.0
14.7
1.5
8.1
4.4
13.7
2.0
6.0
4.5
15.6
0.3
7.7
2.3
17.9
0.3
belong to the lowest income categories (10.6% earn under $20,000; 20.7% earn
between $20,000 and $39,999) than the two other segments. The food and wine
segment 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 of
the three segments were employed or self-employed. The food and wine
segment had a higher percentage of retired people than the other two segments
(17.9% versus 13.7% of food tourists, for example).
Psychographics
Trip Purpose
Table 4 summarises purposes of all trips taken by respondents in the two years
prior to the survey. All three segments were more likely to travel for pleasure
CIT 229

246
Table 4 Trip purposes (multiple responses possible)
Pleasure (including VFR)

Business
Personal
Education
To move
Total % of
weighted responses
92.6
25.9
12.0
0.5
0.1
Food
Wine
92.8
23.9
12.4
0.7
0.1
89.3
32.0
10.7
0.0
0.0
Food and
wine
93.5
29.7
11.3
0.0
0.0
Table 5 Trip motivations (multiple responses possible)
To rest, relax, recuperate

VFR
To spend time with family
To spend time with good friends
To see natural wonders/natural sites
To visit historic sites
To experience unspoiled nature
For intimacy + romance
To participate in a hobby or sport
To experience adventure and
excitement
To experience city life
To be someplace that feels familiar, safe
To experience different cultures or
ways of life
To experience the good life with fine
cuisine, good wine, being pampered
To escape winter weather
To visit a popular/trendy place
To visit casinos and gamble
To participate in a hands-on learning
For spiritual/religious experiences
Total % of
Food Wine Food and
weighted responses
wine
82.5
81.7 83.4
85.0
78.5
78.4 73.8
81.5
71.2
72.2 63.1
72.1
58.5
57.5 52.7
65.5
57.9
56.6 53.2
65.7
50.7
47.5 49.6
63.5
48.4
48.1 40.4
54.2
45.3
43.2 42.8
54.5
43.4
42.9 38.0
48.4
41.7
39.4 44.2
48.3
41.2
39.7
37.7
40.2
40.8
33.0
32.8
35.1
40.8
49.7
38.3
53.1
36.5
31.8
37.2
53.2
28.9
23.0
19.5
8.9
7.9
25.8
20.9
19.0
9.2
8.2
26.8
24.9
14.7
4.2
4.0
41.7
29.3
24.2
10.4
9.0
(which includes visiting friends and relatives) than other purposes. However,
more food, and food and wine enthusiasts travelled for pleasure than the wine
segment (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 and
wine segment almost uniformly reported higher responses for all past pleasure
trip 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 see
natural wonders/natural sites, to visit historic sites, to experience unspoiled

CIT 229
247
nature, and for intimacy and romance compared to those in either the food or
wine segments. Food and wine enthusiasts cited experiencing different cultures
and ways of life, and experiencing the good life with fine cuisine, good wine, and
being pampered as trip motivators significantly (0.01) more frequently than
either than either the wine or food segments. Being someplace that feels familiar/safe was a more important reason for travel by the food tourists (40.8%) than
for the wine (35.1%) tourists.
Home activities
Table 6 reports the results of the analysis for activities engaged in while not
travelling. The food and wine segment almost uniformly reported higher
Table 6 Home activities
Restaurants (not fast food)

Home/fitness club
Picnic/day-outing
Swimming in pools/natural
bodies of water
Gardening
Camping/hiking/backpacking
Music concerts
Live theatre
Biking
Museum
Zoo/botanical garden
Dancing
Art gallery/art show
Ice-skating
Professional sports events
Amusement/ theme parks
Golf
Fishing
Sailing/other boating
Canoeing/kayaking
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Team sports
Cross-country skiing
Racquet sports
Gambling at casinos
Ballet
Opera
Snowmobiling
B&B in own city/town
Hunting
Total % of
weighted responses
89.5
69.0
67.0
66.8
Food
Wine
88.2
68.5
67.3
67.0
92.0
66.1
58.6
57.5
Food and
wine
93.0
72.5
70.4
71.3
60.5
60.0
57.0
53.1
52.4
50.3
47.4
46.6
43.3
39.3
38.2
37.7
35.5
30.1
28.2
26.8
24.3
23.3
21.0
19.0
15.1
12.3
11.8
11.7
10.2
7.1
60.0
59.7
53.6
49.2
52.3
48.2
46.3
46.8
39.5
39.3
36.6
37.4
32.1
30.8
27.3
25.7
21.6
22.6
19.2
16.9
13.7
11.4
10.0
11.8
10.4
8.1
53.8
58.7
53.2
52.4
45.2
43.9
43.3
40.5
36.4
38.7
38.4
32.9
39.2
25.3
26.9
26.2
29.0
29.9
26.2
24.9
17.9
11.2
10.3
15.2
7.0
3.9
66.1
62.0
71.9
67.8
56.9
62.0
53.7
49.3
61.6
40.0
44.1
41.7
46.1
30.4
32.3
31.3
31.5
22.4
24.7
23.1
18.7
15.9
19.5
9.2
11.2
5.1

248
CIT 229
responses for all home activities. Food and wine enthusiasts were slightly more
likely than either wine or food tourists to dine in non-fast food restaurants while
at 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 in
the food and wine segment than either the food or wine segments also reported
going on a picnic/day-outing. A large majority of food and wine tourists also
engaged in swimming in pools/natural bodies of water while at home,
compared to food tourists or wine tourists. Further, more food and wine tourists
engaged in gardening while at home compared to the food and the wine
segments. The majority of food and wine tourists reported higher participation
in camping, hiking, or backpacking than either the food or the wine segments.
Many more food and wine tourists attended music concerts, a live theatre, a
museum, a zoo/botanical garden, and an art gallery/art show while at home
compared to both food tourists and wine tourists. Food and wine tourists were
also slightly more frequent participants in activities associated with biking than
were food or wine tourists.
Wine enthusiasts were significantly more likely to participate in team sports,
cross-country skiing, racquet sports, and snowmobiling. Food tourists reported
higher participation rates in hunting compared to the other two segments;
however, hunting was the least frequently cited activity for all three segments, at
well under 10%.
Trip activities
Table 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 activities
than either the food or the wine segments. Food and wine tourists were the most
likely 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 participation in swimming in lakes, sunbathing/sitting on a beach, and swimming in
oceans.
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 a
majority of wine tourists also engaged in this activity, the percentage was significantly lower. Members of the food and wine segment reported significantly
higher participation in shopping/browsing for clothing, shoes, and jewellery
than food or wine. Food and wine enthusiasts also rated significantly higher on
reading 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 than
either the food or the wine segments. Food and wine enthusiasts were also much
more likely to go to the movies, to visit local outdoor cafes, to visit general
history/heritage museums, natural wonders, a theatre, and art galleries on their
trips than the other two groups
Touring: Nearly three-quarters of food and wine tourists took day drives along
seacoasts or lakeshores, a much higher percentage than either of the other two
segments. Food and wine tourists are also significantly more likely to make overnight visits to small towns than the other segments. Curiously, the food and wine

CIT 229
249
Table 7 Trip activities
Total % of
Food Wine Food and
weighted responses
wine
Outdoor
Picnics in park settings
Swimming in lakes
Sunbathing/sitting on a beach
Swimming in oceans
Cultural
Restaurant dining (regional/local)
Shop/browse (clothing, shoes, jewellery)
Read for relaxation/personal interest
Shop/browse (book/music stores)
Shop/browse (local arts & crafts)
Movies
Farmers fairs/markets
Local outdoor cafes
Shop/browse (antiques)
General history/heritage museums
Shop/browse gourmet foods
Natural wonders
Theatre
Art galleries
Touring
Day coastal/lakeshore scenic drive
Wandering around small towns/villages
1+ nights
Wineries for day visits and tasting
Touring regions wineries with stay
1+ nights
62.3
57.0
54.2
38.6
62.2
56.9
54.0
35.0
47.4
49.2
45.0
36.9
71.5
62.1
60.4
53.1
94.8
75.6
74.6
73.4
65.4
62.1
60.8
53.2
50.1
44.7
43.6
41.3
38.2
35.6
98.0
76.8
75.1
75.7
65.6
63.2
68.6
51.2
50.9
44.1
44.8
37.0
35.8
33.4
68.8
60.7
62.3
49.4
44.2
40.3
7.0
35.6
24.8
30.8
3.2
38.8
26.3
23.9
98.2
79.9
79.6
78.9
76.6
70.3
63.3
70.5
61.9
55.1
62.7
58.5
54.1
50.7
59.7
57.8
57.1
55.2
51.9
54.4
73.7
69.1
24.8
0.0
79.2
84.2
16.4
0.0
51.6
56.5
segment was more likely than the wine segment to visit wineries for day visits
and tasting (84.2% versus 79.2%), and to do overnight tours in wine regions
(56.5% versus 51.6%).
Trip characteristics
TAMS 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. The
general patterns also hold for getaway trips, although the results are not shown
here due to space restrictions. Summer was the most popular season for all three
segments (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 tourists travelling in the spring was only marginally lower than the percentage travelling in the fall (46.5% versus 46.6%). The food and wine segment was more
likely than the other two segments to travel in any of the other seasons; in fact, a
majority (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, but
here, too, there are inter-segment differences. Over two-thirds of the food and
wine segment travelled with their spouses/partners, compared to about half for
each of the food and the wine segments; the difference is statistically significant.

CIT 229
250
Table 8 Vacation travel characteristics
Total % of
Food Wine Food and
weighted responses
wine
Travel season
Summer
Winter
Fall
Spring
Party composition
Spouse/partner (no children)
Immediate family (incl. children)
Immediate family, friends, relatives
With friends/business associates
Alone
Other
Accommodation
Hotels/resorts/country inns
Homes of friends & relatives
Motels
Fully serviced campgrounds/RV parks
Unserviced campgrounds/backcountry
Rented cottage
B&B
Campgrounds/RV parks (Elec. only)
Other
Own cottage
Fishing/hunting lodges
Sources of Information
Advice of friends/relatives
Past experience
A travel agent
Internet
Auto Club (CAA)
Travel information offices
Articles in newspapers/magazines
Advertisements in newspapers/magazines
Airline reservation system
Travel guide books
Travel information received in the mail
Other
TV programme
TV advertisements
Trade/travel/sportsmens shows
77.0
47.8
39.2
36.1
76.9
46.1
37.2
33.3
72.4
47.1
37.7
33.9
79.5
53.6
46.6
46.5
54.9
41.0
28.2
20.4
18.3
3.8
50.8
42.4
27.0
18.7
18.8
3.6
55.4
36.5
24.5
22.4
16.3
5.6
68.4
38.4
34.5
24.9
17.7
3.8
60.3
60.1
38.0
22.9
19.1
15.8
15.6
14.1
14.1
11.4
4.1
56.8
60.8
36.4
23.4
19.5
15.1
11.9
14.6
13.9
9.2
4.1
61.8
59.7
36.2
14.4
13.7
15.2
19.1
9.7
14.6
14.1
3.0
71.4
58.0
44.1
26.1
20.5
18.6
25.8
14.6
14.6
17.3
4.5
53.7
53.4
40.7
30.4
28.1
28.0
26.0
22.9
18.1
16.8
14.6
10.0
9.9
7.4
4.9
52.8
54.3
35.7
25.7
25.4
26.0
22.9
20.7
17.2
12.5
13.4
10.5
9.1
7.3
4.0
51.8
46.6
48.2
43.0
27.4
19.0
15.9
18.0
16.5
17.5
7.0
11.0
8.0
6.6
2.3
57.5
54.0
53.2
39.6
37.4
39.4
41.8
33.2
22.0
30.6
22.6
7.5
13.7
8.2
9.5
Food enthusiasts were more likely than food and wine, or wine tourists to take
trips with their immediate family (42.4% versus 36.5% and 38.4% respectively).
More than one-third of food and wine enthusiasts travelled with immediate
family, friends, and/or other relatives where only about one-fourth of the food
and the wine tourists did so.
Respondents used a variety of accommodations but all three segments were
most likely to stay at hotels/resorts/country inns or with friends/relatives. A
significantly higher portion of food and wine tourists stayed at hotel/resorts/

CIT 229
251
country inns than did the food or the wine segments; they were also more likely
to stay at motels than the food or the wine tourists.
The most frequently used information sources for all three segments were the
advice of friends/relatives or past experience. Food and wine tourists were more
likely to use the advice of friends/relatives to plan their vacation trips compared
to the food or the wine segments. Food as well as food and wine tourists were
more likely to cite past experience as a source of information than were the wine
tourists. 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 habits
Table 9 presents the use of print media. The three most popular media sources
were daily newspapers, the weekend editions of newspapers, and community
newspapers. About four out of five of the members of each segment tended to
read daily newspapers. Food and wine (82.4%), and wine tourists (82.1%) were
more likely than food tourists (76.3%) to read the weekend edition of a newspaper. Nearly three-quarters of the food segment read community newspapers
compared to either the food segment or the wine segment. Food and wine enthusiasts reported much higher readership with respect to the travel sections of newspapers (67.4% versus 54.4% for food tourists and 54.2% for wine tourists). The food
and wine segment is also much more likely to read the travel section of the the
daily edition of a newspaper than the food or the wine enthusiasts. Food and wine
tourists 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 Internet
as an information source. Wine tourists were the most likely (66.8%), followed by
the food segment (53.4%) and then the food and wine segment (58.1%). However,
Table 9 Print media consumption habits (% reading)
Daily newspaper
Weekend edition of newspaper
Community newspaper
Travel section of weekend edition
of newspaper
Travel section of daily newspaper
News magazines
Hobby magazines
Fashion/homemaking magazines
Travel magazines
Canadian or National Geographic
Other newspapers
Sports magazines
General interest magazines
Total % of
weighted
responses
79.3
78.1
71.8
56.2
49.8
48.9
45.1
42.4
37.1
36.2
34.8
22.5
22.3
Food and wine

Wine
Food
N = 4,787,083 N = 755,133 N = 1,301,377
(19.0%)
(11.0%)
(69.9%)
78.5
80.1
81.9
76.3
82.1
82.4
73.1
62.8
71.9
53.4
54.2
67.4
47.4
46.5
46.3
42.8
36.0
35.2
35.1
22.9
20.4
50.1
53.4
40.6
43.2
30.6
35.0
28.2
22.1
20.7
58.6
55.0
43.6
40.6
44.9
40.3
37.6
21.3
30.2

252
CIT 229
only a small fraction of each segment generally fewer than one in 10 was likely
to use the Internet to book trips.
Discussion
The results of this enquiry confirm that there are distinct segments within the
broader category of culinary tourists and that these differences have potential
marketing implications. While most research in culinary tourism focuses on
wine tourism, the findings of this study suggest there is a much larger market for
tourism related specifically to food. The food tourism segment is over six times
larger than the wine segment. Even the wine and food segment is over 70% larger
than the wine segment. So it is curious that the research community does not give
attention to the food component of culinary tourism at a level proportional to its
importance in the market. Thus, one of the first implications arising from this
study 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 three
segments include the following. Food tourists are more likely to be female, and
have lower education and lower income levels than wine tourists or those classified as food and wine tourists. Thus, marketers and tour operators wishing to
target the large food tourism segment should design products and campaigns
that appeal to this type of visitor. Food experiences should be positioned as
contributing to family bonding and as a way to strengthen friendships. The
emphasis should not be on luxury experiences, but on value and the social benefits that can be enjoyed by sharing food-related experiences with loved ones.
Wine tourists, in contrast, are less sensitive to price concerns. They will
respond better to advertisements and promotions that emphasise romance,
luxury, and the good life. Images of couples, without children, enjoying wine
tourism experiences will be more effective than linking winery visits to broad
touring packages with a variety of activities. An emphasis on learning and new
experiences will also appeal more to wine tourists than food tourists.
Food and wine tourists are more likely to be male, older, have higher levels of
educational attainment, and higher incomes. They report a wider range of trip
motivations and participation in more activities at home and on vacation than
either of the other two segments. Food and wine visitors are more involved in a
wide range of cultural, outdoor, and touring activities than the other segments.
Messages to this group should position wine and food experiences as part of an
active lifestyle, something associated with good times, enjoyment of oneself and
all that travel has to offer. Products and tours aimed at this segment should offer
more upscale experiences, customised, if possible, to the needs of specific tourists. This group is the most likely to travel with their spouse/partner only than
the other two segments. Associating wine and food with romance or adult
get-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 specific
to each segment can be a valuable tactic for reaching the markets. However, as
suggested above, the themes of such stories should be tailored to the different
groups. Food stories should emphasise family and friends, inexpensive activi-

CIT 229
253
ties, set in familiar locations. It is worth noting, though, that food tourists are
proportionately less likely than the other two segments to use newspapers (or
any other formal source) for information on travel. Word-of-mouth and repeat
visitation will be more effective in generating business from this segment.
Wine stories should contain product information, and can be linked to information about the wine region. While the pairing of wine and food is a popular
activity, there is a segment of wine tourists that is not interested in necessarily
pairing food with wine; rather they care about wine only. Thus, some wine
stories can be quite focused on that product. However, the food and wine
segment will be more interested in stories that link the two, and do so in a context
that 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 of
information for travel planning, including travel agents, auto clubs, travel information offices, various print media, and airline reservation systems (suggesting
a higher propensity to travel by air). They are less likely than the other two
groups, however, to use the Internet possibly a function of their relatively
higher age. When they do use the Internet, though, they are more likely to also
book trips on the Internet than the two other segments. Since the time of the
survey, the use of the Internet has risen dramatically in Canada. It is a particularly effective tool to reach wine tourists, and wineries interested in marketing to
this 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 the
upscale food and wine tourist. The development of mailing lists of customers
who have purchased food and wine experiences (such as a weekend get-away at
an 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 tool
to reach this group.
Future research
This analysis extends previous research on the profiles of culinary tourist by
exploring differences among three a priori segments. The segmentation approach
was limited by the structure and content of the TAMS database. Ideally, a survey
instrument specific to the needs of culinary tourism segmentation should be developed and applied.
The results do suggest further analyses that should be conducted. For
example, a very low proportion of the culinary segments participated in
hands-on learning participating in cooking or wine tasting schools. This may
indicate either a lack of awareness of such educational opportunities; a perception that the existing opportunities do not offer good value/experiences, of that
hands-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 in
Canada by foreign tourists and determine to what degree culinary enthusiasts
from other countries are similar to their Canadian counterparts. TAMS provides
information on US tourists, therefore the US data set could offer information

254
CIT 229
about this market. Such investigation will also reveal whether the perception of
Canadian cuisine is getting stronger on the international arena, something that is
seen as a weakness by the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC, 2002).
Finally, future studies should examine the ethnic/cultural background of the
Canadian culinary enthusiasts. This would prove useful in determining whether
there are linkages between cultural ethnicity and culinary lifestyle. For instance,
Europe is renowned for its food and wine traditions and culinary tourism is not
new in this part of the world. Consequently, Canadians having European backgrounds may be influenced by their roots to travel in search for culinary explorations.
Summary
This study has provided insights into the structure of the Canadian culinary
tourism market. For example, the study suggests that one group of culinary tourists is interested primarily in wine and not broader culinary experiences (nor, in
fact, in many other forms of recreation). Further, another segment is interested in
food rather than wine and that their interests cover both dining out as well as
exploring the agricultural roots of food such as visiting farmers markets. The
study also confirms a distinct food and wine segment that is interested in the
broader culinary experience. This latter group is characterised by having a broad
range of interests, as inferred from their activity patterns. This group also tends
to be older, better educated, and with higher incomes than other culinary tourists. Further, this group also appears to be more interested in a broad range of
activities, including cultural activities, outdoor activities, and touring activities.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed Dr Stephen L.J. Smith, University of
Waterloo, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Waterloo, Ontario,
N2L 3G1, Canada (slsmith@healthy.uwaterloo.ca).
References
Au, N. and Law, R. (2002) Categorical classification of tourism dining. Annals of Tourism
Research 29, 81933.
Barthes, R. (1979) Toward a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption. In R.
Forster and O. Ranum (eds) Food and Drink in History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Bauer, M. (1996) Cultural tourism in France. In G. Richards (ed.) Cultural Tourism in Europe
(pp. 14764). 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 Product
Development 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, 179201.
Cohen, E. and Avieli, N. (2004) Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of
Tourism Research 31, 75578.
Dodd, T.H. (1995) Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry.
International Journal of Wine Marketing 7 (1), 512.
Economic Planning Group of Canada (2001) Ontario Wine and Culinary Tourism Strategy.
Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation.

CIT 229
255
Fields, K. (2002) Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: Motivational factors. In A.
Hjalager and G. Richards (eds) Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 3650). 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: Butterworth
Heinemann.
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 Niagara
Region: Understanding the wine tourism market and its implications for marketing. In
C.M. Hall (ed.) Wine, Food, and Tourism Marketing (pp. 6176). London: Haworth Hospitality.
Hegarty, J.A. and OMahony, G.B. (2001) Gastronomy: A phenomenon of cultural expressionism and an aesthetic for living. Hospitality Management 20, 313.
Hjalager, A. and Corigliano, M.A. (2000) Food for tourists: Determinants of an image.
International Journal of Tourism Research 2, 28193.
International Culinary Tourism Association. (2004) Culinary tourism FAQ frequently
asked questions. On WWW at http://www.culinarytourism.org/faq.php. Accessed
22.11.04.
Lang Research (2001) Cuisine Tourism: Profiles. Toronto: Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership.
Pretty, G. (2004) Using regional food can boost sales and culinary pride! Canadas Foodservice
News (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 and
consumption. 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. On
WWW 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: Statistics Canada.
Williams, P. and Dossa, K. (2003) Non-resident wine tourist markets: Implications for
British Columbias emerging wine tourism industry. In C.M. Hall (ed.) Wine, Food, and
Tourism Marketing (pp. 134). London: Haworth Hospitality.
Wolf, E. (2002) Culinary Tourism: A Tasty Economic Proposition. On WWW at http://
www.culinarytourism.org. Accessed 16.10.02.

2006 Elena Ignatov

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2006 Elena Ignatov

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico]

On: 13 June 2012, At: 18:41

Current Issues in Tourism

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Elena Ignatov & Stephen Smith

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

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

2006 E. Ignatov & S. Smith

Color profile: Disabled

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Current Issues in Tourism

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Purpose of the Study

Color profile: Disabled

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Current Issues in Tourism

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

perspective of producers and destination marketing organisations the supply

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

a form of consumer behaviour;

Food processing facilities

Food and wine shows

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Table 1 General typology of culinary tourism resources

Color profile: Disabled

Current Issues in Tourism

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

While discussions about conceptual definitions of culinary tourism introduce

Visiting farmers fairs or markets.

Profiling culinary tourists

Color profile: Disabled

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Current Issues in Tourism

Color profile: Disabled

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

approach to differences among tourists in the context of food, although the

Color profile: Disabled

Current Issues in Tourism

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Table 3 Demographic profiles (%)

Color profile: Disabled

Current Issues in Tourism

Table 4 Trip purposes (multiple responses possible)

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012

Pleasure (including VFR)

Table 5 Trip motivations (multiple responses possible)

To rest, relax, recuperate

Color profile: Disabled

Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists

Downloaded by [Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Mxico] at 18:41 13 June 2012